Record of Decision Kerr-Mcgee Chemical Corp Columbus Superfund Site Operable Unit 3 Columbus Lowndes County Mississippi EPA Id: MSD990866329


RECORD OF DECISION

KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP -

COLUMBUS

SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT 3

COLUMBUS, LOWNDES COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI
EPA ID: MSD990866329

Prepared By:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4
Superfund Division
Atlanta, Georgia

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RECORD OF DECISION

Table of Contents

PART 1: DECLARATION	1

1.0 Site Name and Location	1

2.0 Statement of Basis and Purpose	1

3.0 Assessment of Site	1

4.0 Description of Selected Remedy	2

5.0 Statutory Determinations	3

6.0 Data Certification Checklist	4

7.0 Authorizing Signature	4

PART 2: THE DECISION SUMMARY	5

1.0 Site Name, Location and Brief Description	5

2.0 Site History and Enforcement Activities	5

2.1	History of Site Activities	5

2.2	History of Investigations and Cleanup Actions	6

2.3	History of Enforcement Activities	8

3.0 Community Participation	8

4.0 Scope and Role of the Operable Unit or Response Action	9

5.0 Site Characteristics	10

5.1	Conceptual Site Model	10

5.2	Overview of the Site	10

5.3	Sampling Strategy	12

5.4	Known or Suspected Sources of Contamination	12

5.5	Nature and Extent of OU3 Contamination	13

5.6	Location and Potential Routes of Migration	16

5.7	Groundwater Contamination	17

6.0 Current and Potential Future Uses	18

6.1 Groundwater Uses	19

7.0 Summary of Site Risks	19

7.1	Human Health Risk Assessment	19

7.2	Ecological Risk Assessment	22

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

7.3 Basis for Action	22

8.0 Remedial Action Objectives	22

8.1 Cleanup Levels	23

9.0 Description of Alternatives	26

9.1	Common Elements and Distinguishing Features of Each Alternative	27

9.2	Expected Outcomes of Each Alternative	28

10.0 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives	33

10.1	Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment	34

10.2	Compliance with ARARs	35

10.3	Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence	35

10.4	Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility and Volume	35

10.5	Short-Term Effectiveness	36

10.6	Implementability	36

10.7	Cost	37

10.8	State Acceptance	38

10.9	Community Acceptance	38

11.0 Principal Threat Wastes	38

12.0 Selected Remedy	39

12.1	Summary of the Rationale for the Selected Remedy	39

12.2	Detailed Description of the Selected Remedy	40

12.3	Cost Estimate for the Selected Remedy	43

12.4	Estimated Outcomes of Selected Remedy	43

12.5	Socio-Economic and Community Revitalization Impacts	44

13.0 Statutory Determinations	44

13.1	Protection of Human Health and the Environment	44

13.2	Five-Year Review Requirements	48

14.0 Documentation of Significant Changes from Preferred Alternative of Proposed Plan
	48

15.0 References	48

PART 3: RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY	54

1.0 Stakeholder Issues and Lead Agency Responses	54

ii

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

TABLES

Table 1. OU3 Surface Soils (0-2 feet bgs) 14

Table 2. OU3 Sub-Surface Soils (2-8 feet bgs) 15

Table 3. Risk Levels and Hazard Indexes for OU3 (Southern Former Main Plant Area) Soils (from

OU3 and OU5 FS Report) 21

Table 4. OU3 Cleanup Levels 24

Table 5. OU3 Soil Cover Cleanup Levels 25

Table 6. Summary of Estimated Costs for Remedial Alternatives 1, 3, 4, 5, 9 and 10 37

Table 7. Estimated Costs for the Selected Remedy 43

FIGURES

Figure 1. Site Operable Units 60

Figure 2. Updated OU4 Boundary 61

Figure 3. Site Geology 62

Figure 4. OU3 Features 63

Figure 5. Estimated Extent of Primary Source Area 64

Figure 6. Estimated Extent of Secondary Source Area 65

Figure 7. Groundwater Conditions 66

Figure 8. Existing Groundwater and DNAPL Recovery System 67

Figure 9. OU3 Sample Locations 68

Figure 10. Visibly Impacted Soils 69

Figure 11. Conceptual Site Model 70

Figure 12. Alternative 3: Downgradient Barrier Wall, Phytoremediation, and Engineered Soil

Cover 71

Figure 13. Alternative 4: Barrier Wall Isolation of Source Areas, Phytoremediation, and

Engineered Soil Cover 72

Figure 14. Alternative 5: In Situ Stabilization of Source Areas and Engineered Soil Cover 73

Figure 15. Alternative 9: Removal of Surface Soils and Source Area Soils 74

Figure 16. Alternative 10: RCRA Cap over Source Areas and Engineered Soil Cover 75

APPENDICES

State of Mississippi Concurrence A-l

Public Meeting Transcript and Comments B-l

ARARs Tables C-l

iii

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AR

Administrative Record

ARAR

applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement

CFR

Code of Federal Regulations

COC

Contaminant of Concern

COPC

Contaminant of Potential Concern

CSM

conceptual site model

DNAPL

Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid

ECA

Environmental Cost Account

EPA

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

FS

Feasibility Study

HSWA

Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments

IRIS

Integrated Risk Information System

ISS

In-situ Stabilization

KMCC

Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation

mg/kg

Milligram per Kilogram

NCP

National Contingency Plan

O&M

Operation and Maintenance

OU

Operable Unit

PAHs

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons

PRP

Potentially Responsible Party

PCP

Pentachlorophenol

RCRA

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

Rl

Remedial Investigation

ROD

Record of Decision

SWMU

Solid Waste Management Units

TBC

To-Be Considered

iv

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

PART 1: DECLARATION

1.0 Site Name and Location

Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus Superfund Site

2300 14th Avenue North in Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi

Superfund Site Identification Number MSD990866329

2.0 Statement of Basis and Purpose

This decision document presents the selected remedy for Operable Unit 3 (OU3) of the Kerr-
McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus Superfund Site (Site) in Columbus, Mississippi. Based on
comments on the combined Proposed Plan for OU3 (Southern Former Main Plant Area) and
OU5 (Northern Former Main Plant Area), EPA reevaluated the scope of this decision, and this
ROD will address only OU3 and will not address OU5. OU3 includes contaminated soil, wood
treating chemicals present as dense, nonaqueous-phase liquid (DNAPL), and contaminated
groundwater in the Southern Former Main Plant Area and the adjacent "3.7-acre parcel"

(Figure 4). The selected OU3 remedy was chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Action of 1980 (CERCLA), 42 United
States Code (USC) § 9601 et seq., as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), and to the extent practicable, the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
Part 300 et seq., as amended. This decision is based on the administrative record (AR) file for
the Site.

The EPA is the lead agency for site activities. Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality is
the support agency. In accordance with 40 CFR Part 300.430(f)(2), the Mississippi Department
of Environmental Quality has provided input during the remedial investigation (Rl) and
feasibility study (FS). The Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality concurs with the
selected remedy.

3.0 Assessment of Site

The response action selected in this Record of Decision (ROD) is necessary to protect public
health or welfare or the environment from actual or threated releases of hazardous substances
into the environment. The hazardous substances in OU3 include the following contaminants of
concern (COCs) associated with the releases of wastes from historical wood preserving
operations including but not limited to creosote, pentachlorophenol (PCP), benzo[o]pyrene,
naphthalene, dioxins, and furans.

1

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

4.0 Description of Selected Remedy

The selected OU3 remedy includes the following major components to address contaminated
soil, wood treating chemicals present as dense, nonaqueous-phase liquid (DNAPL), and
contaminated groundwater in the Southern Former Main Plant Area and to address soil
contamination and DNAPL in the aquifer in the adjacent "3.7-acre parcel" (Figure 4):

•	Barrier Wall Isolation of Source Areas

•	Phytoremediation to maintain groundwater levels with temporary groundwater
extraction and treatment within barrier wall

•	Engineered Soil Cover

•	Institutional Controls

The combined OU3 and OU5 Proposed Plan issued in October 2023 for this ROD included an
interim remedy for OU5. During the public comment period for the OU3 and OU5 Proposed
Plan, the EPA received a request to select and implement an alternative for OU5 that was not
considered in the proposed plan (i.e., excavate and remove contaminated soil that exceed the
construction worker scenario). After careful consideration, the EPA has determined that the
requested remedy change is one that public could not have been reasonably anticipated based
on information in the original Proposed Plan [see NCP at 40 CFR 300.430(f)(3)(ii)(B)]. As a
result, the EPA will address OU5 separately in a future ROD. This ROD presents the selected
remedy for OU3.

The EPA's Site strategy has been to address immediate cleanup needs by reducing exposure
pathways to nearby residents with removal or remedial actions and to use an operable unit
strategy to work from the simplest to the most complex challenges at the site. This OU3
cleanup decision follows actions to address exposure in residential yards (OU2) and the
soil-only contamination in OU1. After the OU3 cleanup, most of the acreage impacted by the
Site will be addressed and suitable for compatible reuse. The overall cleanup strategy for OU3 is
to control the source of groundwater contamination (namely DNAPL below the water table)
through containment and to prevent human exposure to contaminated surface and subsurface
soils. The source control components of the OU3 remedy will support the eventual restoration
of groundwater outside the containment area to its beneficial use as a potential source of
drinking water, which will be the subject of a future cleanup decision. Institutional controls are
in place that serve to limit Site use and exposure. The Multistate Trust's ownership pursuant to
the Settlement Agreement serves as an "enforcement tool with institutional control
components" which limits the use of the property and requires EPA and State approval prior to
a property transfer. This remedy specifies institutional controls to ensure continued protection
of the remedial components and of human health. Prior to the sale or transfer of Multistate
Trust property, additional institutional controls will be implemented, the details of which will be
selected in a future decision document issued by the EPA.

The EPA considers the remaining mobile DNAPL and residual DNAPL located in the "OU3
primary source area" and the "OU3 secondary source area" to pose a principal threat since
some of the COCs present such as PCP, dioxins/furans are highly toxic and could present a

2

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

significant risk to human health in the event of exposure and DNAPL serves as an on-going
source of COCs into groundwater. The EPA considers the OU3 contaminated surface and
subsurface soils outside of the source areas to pose a relatively low-level threat.

Since 1991, more than 46,000 gallons of DNAPL and more than 92.6 million gallons of
groundwater were removed from the aquifer by the groundwater extraction system that was
constructed for RCRA corrective action purposes under a Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) permit issued in 1995 and conveys
treated wastewater to an National Permit Discharge Permitted System (NPDES) publicly owned
treatment works (POTW), namely the Columbus Light & Water sanitary sewer system for
secondary treatment at the wastewater treatment plant. The Multistate Trust sought
termination of the HSWA permit from EPA in 2019. The EPA approved the termination because
the facility was placed on the NPL in 2011. The Multistate Trust operates the groundwater
extraction system under the oversight of EPA's Superfund Program. The State issued water
pollution control permit number MSP090021 to the Multistate Trust that allows the treated
wastewater to be sent to the POTW (the permit was previously held by Tronox LLC and the Kerr
McGee Chemical Corporation).

The operation of the extraction system constituted treatment to permanently and significantly
reduce the volume and mobility of DNAPL at the Site. This selected remedy complements the
previous removal, treatment, and disposal of DNAPL because the reduction in volume and
mobility makes source control measures easier to implement. The extraction system will
continue to be operated and discharges managed by the POTW under the water pollution
control permit until the barrier wall and engineered soil cover are functioning as intended, after
which, supplemental groundwater pumping and treatment and discharge to the POTW (if
needed) to maintain water levels would be part of the remedial action.

While the selected remedy does not include treatment of remaining principal threats as a major
component, the Feasibility Study evaluated a range of alternatives, including alternatives that
rely on treatment to address remaining principal threats, alternatives that combine treatment
and engineering controls, and alternatives that rely mostly on engineering controls. This
selected containment approach was selected as the best balance of trade offs with
implementability, long-term effectiveness and short-term effectiveness as the most
decisive factors.

5.0 Statutory Determinations

The selected remedy meets the requirements for remedial actions set forth in CERCLA §121 and
to the extent practicable, the NCP. The selected remedy is protective of human health and the
environment, complies with federal and state environmental requirements that are applicable
or relevant and appropriate to the remedial action (unless justified by a waiver), is cost
effective, and utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies (or resource
recovery technologies) to the maximum extent practicable. The selected remedy partially
satisfies the statutory preference for treatment as a principal element of the remedy, to the
extent practicable (i.e., reduces the toxicity, mobility or volume of hazardous substances,

3

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

pollutants or contaminants as a principal element through treatment) with limited treatment of
contaminated shallow groundwater within the containment area.

Because hazardous substances will remain at the Site above levels that allow for unlimited use
and unrestricted exposure, the EPA will review the remedial action no less than every five
years, per CERCLA Section 121(c) and the NCP at 40 CFR 300.430(f)(4)(ii) until the levels of COCs
allow for unrestricted use of soil and groundwater with unlimited exposure to these media. If
results of the five-year reviews reveal that remedy integrity is compromised and protection of
human health and the environment is insufficient, then additional remedial actions will be
evaluated by the EPA and MDEQ.

6.0 Data Certification Checklist

The following information is included in the Decision Summary section of this ROD. The Site's
administrative record (AR) file (https://semspub.epa.gov/src/collection/04/AR67483) provides
more information.

•	Contaminants of concern (COCs) and their respective concentrations (Section 5).

•	Baseline risk represented by the COCs (Section 7).

•	COC cleanup levels and the basis for these levels (Section 8).

•	How source materials constituting principal threats are addressed (Section 11).

•	Current and reasonably anticipated future land use assumptions and current and
potential future beneficial uses of groundwater used in the baseline risk assessment and
ROD (Section 6).

•	Potential land and groundwater use that will be available at the site as a result of the
selected remedy (Section 6).

•	Estimated capital, annual operation and maintenance (O&M), and total present worth
costs, discount rate and the number of years over which the remedy cost estimates are
projected (Section 10).

•	Key factor(s) that led to selecting the remedy (Section 12).

7.0 Authorizing Signature

CAROLINE	Digitally signed by CAROLINE

FREEMAN

FREEMAN	Date: 2024.09.30 22:52:59 -04'00'

Caroline Y. Freeman, Director

Superfund & Emergency Management Division

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4

4

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

PART 2: THE DECISION SUMMARY

1.0 Site Name, Location and Brief Description

The Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus Superfund Site (Site) is in Columbus, Mississippi.
The Site's Superfund Site Identification Number is MSD990866329. The EPA is the lead agency
for site activities and Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality is the support agency.
This remedial action will be funded in part by the Multistate Environmental Response Trust
(Multistate Trust), using funds from the potentially responsible party (PRP) and will be funded
in part by EPA from the federal Superfund trust fund (fund-lead).

The Site covers about 90 acres and is generally bounded by U.S. Highway 82 to the north, Moss
Street and a railroad right of way to the east, Tuffy Lane to the south, and 21st Street North and
22nd Street North to the west (Figure 1). The Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation (KMCC) wood-
treating facility was shut down in 2003, and most former structures on the property were
demolished or dismantled. Two structures are still present on the Former Main Plant Area: the
former office building (currently referred to as the "Community Resource Building") located in
the northwest corner; and the groundwater treatment building, located in the center. Other
features remaining at the former KMCC facility include the closed former surface
impoundments (one of which was regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act of 1980, as amended or RCRA); several concrete pads and foundations; groundwater
monitoring wells; abandoned utility lines; and the wells, trenches, and conveyance
infrastructure of the groundwater extraction and DNAPL recovery system (Figure 8). A fence
restricts access to the Site. The fence encloses the former KMCC facility property. The former
KMCC facility property is owned by the Multistate Trust.

2.0 Site History and Enforcement Activities

2.1 History of Site Activities

The T.J. Moss Tie Company built the wood-treating facility and operated it until 1963.
Construction of the facility began in August 1928 and finished in February 1929. KMCC acquired
the property in 1963 and continued wood-treating operations until the facility closed in 2003.
Manufactured products included railroad wooden cross ties, switch ties and preserved timbers.
Preservatives used in the operation included creosote, creosote coal tar solutions and
pentachlorophenol (PCP).

During wood-treating operations, untreated lumber was received and sorted at the facility. It
was later seasoned, either by natural air drying, which required the wood to be stacked in a
drying yard for up to 12 months, or by artificial seasoning using the Boulton process. Wood
allowed to dry naturally was stored in the Northern Former Main Plant Area's (OU5) green tie
storage areas and in the Pine Yard (OU1). The Boulton drying process involved subjecting green
lumber to heated creosote under a vacuum, which boiled the sap water out of the wood. After
seasoning, the wood was then pressure-treated in a cylinder, or retort, in the Southern Former
Main Plant Area (OU3). The pressure-treating process involved filling a cylinder with a treating

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

solution (e.g., creosote or PCP) and applying pressure to force the treating solution into the
wood. Treated wood was taken out of the retort chamber by rail for drying. Prior to
construction of a concrete drip track in 1988, excess preservative was allowed to drip onto bare
soil before the treated wood was moved to other locations at the former KMCC facility for
storage prior to shipment off site. The concrete drip track was constructed in 1988 to capture
the excess wood treating chemicals.

Historically, the primary wood-treating process operations, primary treated wood storage
areas, drip tracks, and surface impoundments were all located within OU3. The Northern
Former Main Plant Area, to be addressed as part of OU5, was used for wood storage and
operations not directly associated with the wood-treating process.

The historical wood treating processes in OU3 used RCRA listed hazardous wastes F032
(pentachlorophenol-based) and F034 (creosote-based) as specified in 40 CFR § 261.31. In
addition, the former surface impoundments [Aeration Impoundment (SWMU 28) and
Sedimentation Impoundment (SWMU 29) which have been closed under RCRA] located in the
western portion of the Former Main Plant Area contained RCRA listed waste K001 which was
released into the subsurface and are suspected sources of groundwater contamination.

In 2003, the volume of wood storage was reduced significantly. By 2004, no wood storage or
manufacturing activities were on site, as indicated by aerial photographs. Structures were
visible on site through at least 2007. All above-grade structures, other than the current office
and operation and maintenance buildings, appeared to have been demolished by 2010.

2.2 History of Investigations and Cleanup Actions

Multiple remedial and removal actions at the Site have been completed since 1986. The
following investigations and cleanups occurred at the Site prior to 2020:

• 1986: Surface Impoundment Closure - surface impoundments, identified as "Aeration
Impoundment" and "Sedimentation Impoundment" - were operated under Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Interim Status Standards until closure finished in
1986. The bottom sediment sludge associated with the impoundments was a K001
RCRA-listed hazardous waste.

• 1990 to Present: A groundwater extraction and treatment and DNAPL recovery system
operates at the Former Main Plant Area that was constructed for RCRA corrective action
purposes under a HSWA permit issued in 1995 and conveys treated wastewater to a
POTW, namely the Columbus Light & Water sanitary sewer system for secondary
treatment at the wastewater treatment plant under water pollution control permit
number MSP090021.

• 2005: Ditch Sediment Removal - interim measures removed sediment impacted by
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in the ditch system along the eastern
site boundary.

• 2006 to 2007: Ditch Sediment Removal - impacted soil was found during a municipal
drainage improvement project that began at Propst Park, about 2,200 feet southeast of
the Site, at the eastern end of 7th Avenue North.

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

• 2010 to 2011: Hunt School Removal Action - removal evaluations and actions were
conducted by Tetra Tech on behalf of the EPA from October 2010 to May 2011. Removal
actions were conducted to address PAHs at Hunt Intermediate School, at a residential
property and at Maranatha Faith Center.

• The EPA finalized the Site's listing on the Superfund National Priorities List in September
2011. All operations and maintenance (O&M) activities, compliance monitoring, and
inspections of the closed surface impoundments and the groundwater extraction and
treatment system are now subject to applicable CERCLA requirements.

• 2014 to 2015:14th Avenue Ditch Improvement Project - the Multistate Trust performed
the excavation necessary to construct the new 14th Avenue North ditch and provide a
clean work area for the City of Columbus to construct a new concrete-lined drainageway.

• 2016: Residential Yard Removal - soil was removed from the backyard of a residential
property on 17th Avenue North where benzo(a)pyrene concentrations exceeded
regional residential removal management levels.

• 2016: 7th Avenue North Storm Drainage Ditch Removal Action - this removal action to
address PAH-contaminated ditch sediments and soils was implemented along the north
side of 7th Avenue North, between the Maranatha Faith Center and North 28th Street.

• 2018 to 2022: The OU1 remedial action to make a portion of the Pine Yard available for
community-supported redevelopment in as timely a manner as possible was completed
in 2021.

• The EPA issued the ROD for OU1 in May 2019, selecting a soil excavation and
institutional controls remedy, and approved the OU1 remedial action completion report
and addendum in April 2022.

• In 2019, the Multistate Trust sought termination from EPA of the HSWA permit. The EPA
approved the termination because the facility was placed on the NPL in 2011. The
Multistate Trust operates the groundwater extraction system under the oversight of
EPA's Superfund Program. The State issued water pollution control permit number
MSP090021 to the Multistate Trust that allows the treated wastewater to be sent to
the POTW (the permit was previously held by Tronox LLC and the Kerr McGee
Chemical Corporation).

• 2020 to 2021: Stormwater Ditch Removal Action - this removal action to address PAH-
contaminated ditch sediments in the Southeastern Ditch was implemented between
Moss Street and Waterworks Street. The EPA issued the Time Critical Removal Action
Memorandum in December 2019 and approved the removal action completion report
in 2022.

• 2020 to present: The EPA issued the ROD for OU2 in September 2020. The OU2 remedial
action is substantially complete and addressed privately-and State-owned residential
and commercial properties in the vicinity of the former KMCC facility with surface soils
(up to 2 feet below ground surface (ft bgs)) that exceeded cleanup levels for dioxins
and furans.

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

2.3 History of Enforcement Activities

• KMCC submitted a RCRA Part A permit application in 1981 that notified the EPA of the
presence of solid waste management units (SWMUs), including two hazardous waste
surface impoundments containing RCRA-listed hazardous waste (K001).

• In 1989, KMCC entered into a Consent Order with the Mississippi Commission on
Environmental Quality that required completion of a groundwater assessment and
submittal of an addendum to the previously submitted RCRA Part B permit application.

• A State of Mississippi Hazardous Waste Management Permit (permit HW-90-329-01)
was issued to KMCC in September 1990. The permit identified 15 SWMUs and areas of
concern that required a RCRA facility investigation. The permit expired in September
2000. The permit was renewed effective June 2001, for a term of 10 years. The permit
expired again in May 2011 and was not reissued.

• The EPA issued the hazardous and solid waste amendments part of the RCRA permit to
KMCC in August 1995. The HSWA part required that the facility investigate releases of
hazardous waste or hazardous constituents and take appropriate corrective action for
such releases. The HSWA part of the permit expired in August 2005. KMCC submitted a
letter to the EPA in April 2005 requesting renewal of the HSWA part of the RCRA permit.
In June 2019, the EPA approved a request to terminate the permit as a Class 1
modification given the active and long-term oversight of the investigation and
associated cleanup by the Superfund Program.

• Permit HW-90-329-01 transferred to Tronox in 2005 and then to Greenfield
Environmental Multistate Trust, LLC, not individually but solely in its representative
capacity as Trustee of the Multistate Environmental Response Trust, in February 2011.
As noted previously, this permit expired in May 2011 and was not reissued.

• The Multistate Environmental Response Trust operates under the Tronox Consent
Decree and Environmental Settlement Agreement (Settlement Agreement) and the
Multistate Environmental Response Trust Agreement (Multistate Trust Agreement. The
Settlement Agreement requires the Trust to seek EPA and State approval for work plans
and budget ceilings for environmental actions at the Site. Environmental actions include
the investigation and cleanup under CERCLA as well as operations, maintenance, and
regulatory compliance for the Groundwater Recovery and Treatment System, Water
Pollution Control Permit, Groundwater Monitoring, and managing the closed hazardous
waste surface impoundment.

3.0 Community Participation

The EPA approved the OU3 and OU5 Feasibility Study Report ("OU3 and OU5 FS Report" or "FS
Report") in May 2023 and provided the FS Report to the community group's technical advisor
on October 17, 2023. The EPA emailed the Proposed Plan to the public and the technical
advisor on October 17, 2023. The EPA updated the public on the Sitewide Rl Reports, the OU3
and OU5 FS Report, and other Superfund actions through community notification flyers,
presentations and updates in accordance with the EPA's Community Involvement Plan for the
Site, available at: https://semspub.epa.gov/work/04/11114976.pdf.The EPA has also updated

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

the Site's profile page to provide information to the community (www.epa.gov/superfund/kerr-
mcgee-chemical-columbus). The Administrative Record was published on October 5, 2023 at
https://semspub.epa.gov/src/collection/04/AR67483. The EPA published a public notice in the
Columbus Dispatch on October 19, 2023.

The EPA held a 60-day public comment period from October 16, 2023 through
December 18, 2023. The EPA held a public meeting on October 26, 2023, to present the
Proposed Plan for OU3 and OU5 and answer questions from meeting attendees. The initial
30-day public comment period on the Proposed Plan was held from October 16, 2023, to
November 16, 2023 and the EPA received a request to extend the comment period for an
additional 30 days. In response to the request from the public, the EPA extended the comment
period to December 18, 2023. Comments received by the EPA during the public comment period
are summarized and addressed in the Responsiveness Summary, which is a part of this ROD.

During the public comment period for the OU3 and OU5 Proposed Plan, the EPA received a
request to select and implement an alternative for OU5 that was not considered in the
proposed plan (i.e., excavate and remove contaminated soil that exceed the construction
worker scenario). After careful consideration, the EPA has determined that the requested
remedy change is one that public could not have been reasonably anticipated based on
information in the original Proposed Plan [see NCP at 40 CFR § 300.430(f)(3)(ii)(B)]. Based on
public comments on the Proposed Plan, the EPA reevaluated the sitewide approach and has
removed OU5 from this ROD.

4.0 Scope and Role of the Operable Unit or Response Action

Due to its size and complexity, the EPA divided the Site into OUs. This ROD addresses OU3.

•	OU1: Pine Yard unsaturated contaminated soils. The OU1 cleanup was conducted
pursuant to the Site's 2019 OU1 ROD. The remedial action was substantially completed
in 2022, with the exception of the contamination underneath an access road that leads
to OU4. The EPA has decided to address this area as a part of OU4 cleanup.

•	OU2: Residential/commercial properties with site-related contamination above cleanup
levels. The remedial action is ongoing pursuant to the Site's 2020 ROD.

•	OU3: Soil, DNAPL, and groundwater at the Southern Former Main Plant Area and a
3.7-acre parcel that contains soil contamination and DNAPL in the aquifer. OU3 is the
subject of this ROD (Figure 4).

•	OU4: The area of the Pine Yard where deeper contamination is present and where the
access road through OU1 is present (Figure 2).

•	OU5: Soil at the Northern Former Main Plant Area, outside of the process area, which
does not contain DNAPL contamination.

•	OU6: Groundwater contamination and the restoration of groundwater to beneficial use
(including vapor intrusion from groundwater).

•	OU7: Wetlands in the northeast portion of the Pine Yard.

The EPA's site strategy has been to address immediate cleanup needs by reducing exposure
pathways to nearby residents with removal or remedial actions and to use an operable unit

9

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

strategy to work from the simplest to the most complex challenges at the site. The OU3
remedial action comes after other response actions to address exposure in residential yards
(OU2) and addressing the soil-only contamination in OU1. After the OU3 cleanup, most of the
acreage impacted by the Site will be addressed and suitable for compatible reuse. The overall
cleanup strategy for OU3 is to control the source of groundwater contamination (DNAPL below
the water table) and to prevent human exposure to contaminated soils. Source control will
support the eventual restoration of groundwater to its beneficial use as a potential source of
drinking water, which will be the subject of a future OU6 cleanup decision.

The OU3 cleanup strategy supports the overall Site enforcement strategy and will likely be one
of the final actions taken by the Multistate Trust before the remainder of the Site becomes
"fund-lead", with investigation and cleanup of OU4, OU5, OU6, and OU7 performed using
government funds.

5.0 Site Characteristics

5.1 Conceptual Site Model

A conceptual site model (CSM) is a three-dimensional picture of site conditions that illustrates
contaminant sources, release mechanisms, exposure pathways, migration routes and potential
human and ecological receptors. The CSM documents current and potential future site
conditions and is supported by maps, cross sections and site diagrams that illustrate what is
known about human and environmental exposure through contaminant release and migration
to potential receptors.

The FS Report includes diagrams that summarize how contamination moves from sources to
environmental media and to potential human receptors and ecological receptors. Figure 11
illustrates a conceptual site exposure model summarizing the potential exposure pathways to
soils for receptors in OU3.

5.2 Overview of the Site

The former KMCC facility is about 90 acres (Figure 1). There are no known sites of
archaeological or historical importance on the Former Main Plant Area, the 3.7-Acre Parcel, or
the Pine Yard. The Site is underlain by two Class MB primary water-bearing units, the alluvial
aquifer and the Eutaw Formation (Figure 3). The shallowest water-bearing unit is the alluvial
aquifer, with depth to groundwater typically between about 3 feet and 8 feet below ground
surface in wells in OU3.

The groundwater flow direction in the alluvial aquifer is southeasterly. Pumping of recovery
trenches in the Southern Former Main Plant Area (OU3) locally affects groundwater flow
direction in the alluvial aquifer, as discussed below.

The alluvial aquifer is underlain by the Upper Eutaw Formation, which consists primarily of fine
silty sand that is less permeable than the alluvial aquifer. A lower relative hydraulic conductivity
of the Upper Eutaw Formation limits vertical migration of site contaminants (DNAPL and

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

dissolved-phase contaminants) from the alluvial aquifer to the Upper Eutaw Formation. The
groundwater flow direction of the Upper Eutaw Formation is to the southeast.

Potable water is supplied by Columbus Light & Water via four public water supply wells. The
wells are located about 200 feet to 750 feet east of the Pine Yard. These wells are completed
within the Coker Formation, more than 800 feet below ground surface. Site-related
groundwater contamination is limited to the shallow aquifer. KMCC facility operations did not
affect the water supply wells.

A groundwater and DNAPL recovery system is present in the Southern Former Main Plant Area
(OU3) (Figures 4 and 8) which was constructed to contain the dissolved plume for RCRA
corrective action purposes under a HSWA permit issued in 1995 and conveys treated
wastewater to the POTW, namely the Columbus Light & Water sanitary sewer system for
secondary treatment at the wastewater treatment plant under water pollution control permit
number MSP090021.

The Multistate Trust sought termination from the EPA of the HSWA permit in 2019. The EPA
approved the termination because the facility was placed on the NPL in 2011. The Multistate
Trust operates the groundwater extraction system under the oversight of the EPA's Superfund
Program. A water pollution control permit number MSP090021, which was previously held by
Tronox LLC and the Kerr McGee Chemical Corporation has been issued to the Multistate Trust
that allows the treated wastewater to be sent to the POTW. The recovery system, installed by
KMCC and operated now by the Multistate Trust involves:

• Removal of groundwater via level-activated pumps installed in recovery wells and in
sumps connected to recovery trenches.

• Treatment of groundwater through physical separation of DNAPL.

• Discharge of the separated groundwater stream to the Columbus Light & Water sanitary
sewer system for secondary treatment at the wastewater treatment plant.

• Storage and disposal of recovered DNAPL.

The recovery system, as originally constructed in 1990, included 12 recovery wells (RW1-RW7
and RW9-RW13) and three recovery trenches (Trench la, Trench lb and Trench 2).
Groundwater and DNAPL is pumped to a pipeline that conveys the stream to the groundwater
treatment building. Treated groundwater is then discharged to the sanitary sewer system,
pursuant to Mississippi water pollution control permit number MSP090021. The separated
DNAPL is stored in a tank before being taken to an off-site facility for disposal.

The full recovery system (i.e., all 12 wells and three recovery trenches and sumps) operated
until 2003, when it was modified to include pumping from 10 of the recovery wells. Based on a
system evaluation, the recovery system operation was further modified to pumping from wells
RW11 and RW12 to provide hydraulic control at the southeast end of the former KMCC facility
and pumping of Trenches la and lb via sumps MH1 and MH2 to provide DNAPL recovery and
hydraulic control in the vicinity of the former process area where the largest DNAPL impacts
are located.

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

The system was temporarily shut down in June and July 2020 due to leaks and the poor
condition of aging conveyance piping. In order to prevent future leaks, an interim, above-
ground conveyance system was constructed that conveys extracted groundwater from MH1
and MH2 (Trenches la and lb) to the groundwater treatment building. Extraction from wells
RW-11 and RW-12 was discontinued at this time in accordance with the approved work plan.
The groundwater extraction system was reactivated in August 2021. Through October 2022,
pumping from sumps MH1 and MH2 produced about 23 gallons per minute (compared to an
estimated 36 gallons per minute when all 12 recovery wells were in use).

From December 2003 to August 2009, available records from KMCC suggest the system
extracted 92.6 million gallons of groundwater and recovered 19,000 gallons of DNAPL. From
October 2018 to October 2019, the system generated 2,500 gallons of DNAPL per 11.8 million
gallons of water. These data indicate a very low DNAPL recovery efficiency - 0.0002 gallon of
DNAPL per gallon of groundwater.

5.3 Sampling Strategy

Multiple investigations have been conducted at the Site dating back to the 1988 RCRA facility
investigation. Sampling related to OU3 includes TarGOST and soil borings, surface soil (0-2 feet
bgs), subsurface soil (2-8 feet bgs) and groundwater. The Phase II Rl Report presents a
comprehensive evaluation of the data collected up until 2017 to characterize environmental
conditions at the former KMCC facility. Additional supplemental soil data were collected in OU3
in 2019.

5.4 Known or Suspected Sources of Contamination

The historical operations and waste management activities that were potential sources of
contamination to media in OU3 are labelled in Figure 4 and include:

• The wood-treating-related processes in the Southern Former Main Plant Area (OU3)
that included, but were not limited to, retorts, sumps, drip collection tanks, work tanks
and a drip track/pad.

• The tank farm in the Southern Former Main Plant Area (OU3) that included storage
tanks, sap tank, vapor tank and sump, and sumps associated with chemical unloading.

• The creosote recovery and wastewater treatment systems, including the primary and
secondary oil-water separators.

• The two surface impoundments, Aeration Impoundment (SWMU 28) and Sedimentation
Impoundment (SWMU 29), which have been closed under RCRA in the western part of
the Former Main Plant Area (OU3).

• Based on anecdotal reports from former plant employees, a fire prior to the shutdown
in KMCC operations, reportedly destroyed a building in the Former Main Plant Area
known to have stored PCP. Smoke and debris from the fire may have contributed to a
release of dioxins and furans to the air.

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

5.5 Nature and Extent of OU3 Contamination

5.5.1 Soils

Consistent with the location of former operations at the Site, visible evidence of creosote-
related impacts was recorded during a 2017 trenching investigation across much of the
Southern Former Main Plant Area (OU3). The creosote-related impacts and stained soils in OU3
were observed where wood-treating operations, drip tracks, and treatment solution storage
tanks were located. Creosote was observed in unsaturated soil typically as dried, asphalt-like
materials (Figure 10). Debris (e.g., treated wood timbers) is frequently present at shallow
depths. Soil samples were collected from OU3 during sampling investigations performed by
KMCC and the Multistate Trust between August 1996 and April 2019 (Table 2-1 of the FS). The
data show a distribution of COCs in the Former Main Plant Area that is consistent with the
observations from the 2017 trenching study.

As shown in Figure 9, sample results show that COCs are present in surface soils in multiple
locations within OU3 at concentrations that exceed the screening levels for
industrial/commercial worker exposures. The exceedances of the PAH industrial/commercial
screening levels occur sporadically in surface soils across much of OU3. COC concentrations in
subsurface soil samples (2-8 ft bgs) exceed the screening levels. Although the subsurface soil
data set is more limited than the surface soil data set, the available data indicate that the
exceedances are more isolated in subsurface soils than in surface soils.

5.5.2 DNAPL

Rl soil boring and TarGOST investigations in 2017 found DNAPL and related contamination (e.g.,
stained soils, isolated observations of residualized DNAPL) below the groundwater table
beneath much of OU3. Two general DNAPL source areas were identified in OU3 based on the
observed distribution of DNAPL-related impacts - the primary source area and the secondary
source area:

• Primary Source Area (Figure 5): The majority of the DNAPL-related impacts are on the
southwest side of OU3 in the alluvial aquifer beneath the former process area and the
3.7-acre parcel. DNAPL-related impacts are most frequently observed beneath the
former process area and occur discontinuously across the full thickness of the alluvial
aquifer. The groundwater extraction system wells and trenches are in the primary
source area. At present, there is no evidence of a significant contiguous pool of DNAPL.
The 3.7-acre parcel was not used for site operations, and there is no evidence of DNAPL-
related impacts in overlying soils. DNAPL-related impacts beneath the 3.7-acre parcel
are observed primarily at depth in the alluvium aquifer. As a result, the DNAPL-related
impacts at depth in the 3.7-acre parcel are likely the result of historical southerly
migration of DNAPL at depth from the former process area. Collectively, discontinuous
DNAPL-related impacts were observed across an estimated 269,400 cubic yards of soil in
the primary source area.

• Secondary Source Area (Figure 6): DNAPL-related contamination was also observed in
soil and TarGOST borings east of the former process area and the primary source area.

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

These DNAPL-related impacts are more limited than the impacts observed in the
primary source area, occurring as isolated pockets of stained soils and residualized
DNAPL. The secondary source area spans an estimated area of 5.5 acres and
encompasses a total volume of 221,800 cubic yards of alluvial soils.

5.5.3 Groundwater

Groundwater contamination in OU3 is present mostly in the immediate vicinity of the
subsurface DNAPL impacts. Figure 7 shows the groundwater plume levels in the shallow alluvial
aquifer. The influence of the groundwater recovery system both in removing DNAPL source
material and extracting groundwater is responsible for the current distribution of
contamination in the aquifer. The mobility of COCs in groundwater is also limited due to the
chemical characteristics of the COCs (e.g., low solubility, high partitioning coefficients). The
potential exposure of humans through vapor intrusion will be addressed in this decision
document. Longer term, the goal of restoring groundwater to beneficial use under OU3 will be
addressed by a future decision document for OU6 (groundwater).

5.5.4 Contaminants of Concern

The contaminants of concern (COCs) are characterized by low solubility and a strong affinity for
organic matter in soils. As a result, the COCs strongly associate with the solid phase (i.e., soils,
sediments, suspended particulates in surface water) and have very limited potential for
transport in water. The COCs are nonvolatile under typical environmental conditions, with the
exception of naphthalene, which has low to moderate volatility. Many of the COCs are subject
to degradation via abiotic and biotic (e.g., microbial) processes; however, the rate of
degradation is often slow. Tables 1 and 2 include OU3 sampling results.

Table 1. OU3 Surface Soils (0-2 feet bgs)

Analyte

Number of
Samples

Median
(mg/kg)

Minimum
(mg/kg)

Maximum
(mg/kg)

Arsenic

6.5

1.8

269

Benzo[o]anthracene

2.63

0.0043

1360

Benzo[o]pyrene

2.335

0.0055

510

Benzo[b]fluoranthene

5.315

0.007

753

Dibenzota^Janthracene

0.585

0.0082

39.4

Naphthalene

0.363

0.0006

1440

Carbazole

0.3

0.033

3870

Pentachlorophenol

1.35

0.047

750

Dibenzofuran

0.21

0.026

1490

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision

	September 2024

Analyte

Number of
Samples

Median
(mg/kg)

Minimum
(mg/kg)

Maximum
(mg/kg)

TEQdf

24

0.000389

0.0000279

0.0044

Notes

TEQdf = toxicity equivalent concentrations of dioxins and furans

Table 2. OU3 Sub-Surface Soils (2-8 feet bgs)

Analyte

Number of
Samples

Median
(mg/kg)

Minimum
(mg/kg)

Maximum
(mg/kg)

Arsenic

2

44.85

28.5

61.2

Benzo[o]anthracene

30

8.15

0.0043

1420

Benzo[o]pyrene

30

3.7

0.0055

685

Benzo[b]fluoranthene

30

7.145

0.007

1100

Dibenzota^Janthracene

30

0.8155

0.0082

95

Naphthalene

30

23.5

0.00889

3030

Carbazole

2

18.7

10.4

27

Pentachlorophenol

25

1.92

0.048

780

Dibenzofuran

2

46.05

42.1

50

TEQdf

2

0.000344

0.0003

0.00039

Notes

TEQdf = toxicity equivalent concentrations of dioxins and furans

5.5.5	Amount of Waste to be Addressed

Although the DNAPL and DNAPL-related impacts are discontinuous and do not constitute a
contiguous DNAPL pool, they represent a source of COCs to groundwater across an estimated
area of 12.2 acres and span a volume of 490,000 cubic yards of soils.

5.5.6	Concentrations of COCs

Section 7.1 describes contaminant concentrations.

5.5.7	RCRA Hazardous Waste and Affected Media

The historical wood treating related processes in OU3 resulted in the releases of RCRA listed
hazardous waste F032 (pentachlorophenol-based) and F034 (creosote-based) as specified in

15

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

40 CFR § 261.31 Hazardous wastes from non-specific sources that includes
"wastewaters...process residuals, preservative drippage, and spent formulations from wood
preserving processes." These listed wastes do not include RCRA listed waste K001 bottom
sediment sludge from the treatment of wastewater from wood preserving processes that use
creosote and/or pentachlorophenol. DNAPL and highly contaminated soil removed from the
ground with elevated concentrations of PCP would likely exhibit the toxicity characteristic if PCP
concentrations exceed the specified regulatory level (based on the TCLP) and thus deemed
toxicity characteristic waste (D037) under 40 CFR § 261.24 Toxicity characteristic. Such DNAPL
and highly contaminated soil in the former production areas as may also be deemed as F034
and/or F032 depending on the presence of regulated RCRA hazardous constituents. Soil
contaminated with these RCRA constituents would be viewed as containing RCRA wastes
F032/F034 unless determined by the EPA to "no longer contain" per its policy. In addition, the
former surface impoundments [Aeration Impoundment (SWMU 28) and Sedimentation
Impoundment (SWMU 29) which have been closed under RCRA] located in the western portion
of the Former Main Plant Area contained RCRA listed waste K001 which was released into the
subsurface and are suspected sources of groundwater contamination.

If soils or other waste is to be disposed off-site, it would be characterized to determine whether
constitutes RCRA hazardous waste (contains RCRA Listed hazardous waste or is considered
RCRA toxicity characteristic waste) and managed in accordance with identified ARARs.

5.6 Location and Potential Routes of Migration

5.6.1	Lateral and Vertical Extent of Contamination

Evidence of DNAPL-related impacts has been documented within the shallow alluvial aquifer
beneath the primary source area. The DNAPL-related impacts are discontinuous, and data
obtained to date provide no evidence of a significant contiguous pool of DNAPL. DNAPL impacts
observed within the secondary source area are more limited than those in the primary source
area, occurring as isolated pockets (or "stringers") of DNAPL-related contamination scattered
both laterally and vertically within the shallow alluvial aquifer.

5.6.2	Potentially Affected Populations

The risk assessment evaluated several receptor groups that may use the OU3 property
currently or in the future, including:

•	Trespasser (teenager, adult) - current and future.

•	Indoor workers - future.

•	Construction, excavation, or maintenance worker (adult) - future.

•	Hypothetical resident (child, adult) - future.

No ecological receptors have been identified.

16

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

5.7 Groundwater Contamination

5.7.1 Affected Aquifers

The Site is underlain by two Class MB primary water-bearing units, the alluvial aquifer and the
Eutaw Formation (Figure 3). The shallowest water-bearing unit is the alluvial aquifer, with
depth to groundwater typically between about 3 feet and 8 feet below ground surface in wells
in OU3. Both aquifers are considered EPA Class MB per EPA's 1986 guidance Guidelines for
Ground-Water Classification under the EPA Ground-Water Protection Strategy.

Naphthalene groundwater concentrations in the alluvial aquifer exceed vapor intrusion
screening levels by several orders of magnitude, indicating a potential inhalation risk to a future
resident or indoor worker through the vapor intrusion pathway.

5.7.2 Affected Groundwater

5.7.3 Surface Contamination Interconnections

Particulate-bound COCs can be mobilized from the soil surface through wind or water erosion:
rainfall and stormwater flow can erode surface soils and transport associated COCs to ditches
that drain from the Site, and high winds can mobilize COCs in dust associated with surface soils.
The flat topography of the Site limits the potential for runoff volumes and velocities sufficient
to erode surface soils. Further, much of the Site surface soil is hard packed as a result of
decades of industrial activity, which further limits the potential for water or wind erosion. As a
result, the potential for COC transport from soils in the Former Main Plant Area via these
mechanisms is low.

COCs in the unsaturated zone soils can be mobilized to groundwater as a result of dissolution
into and downward transport with infiltrating rainwater. Although COC concentrations in
surface soils exceed soil screening levels protective of groundwater drinking water quality, the
Site data indicate that soil leaching is not a significant source of COCs to groundwater compared
to the contribution of residual DNAPL contamination.

5.7.4 Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids

The discontinuous nature of observed DNAPL-related impacts at the Site indicates that much of
the DNAPL is in a state of residual saturation and is no longer migrating. This conclusion is
consistent with the understanding that the majority of the DNAPL is likely related to creosote

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

releases that took place over several decades and the fact that Site operations ended
18 years ago.

5.7.5 Groundwater Model and Assumptions

The FS Report presents the groundwater modeling performed to support the Feasibility Study
and the analysis of hydraulic control by phytoremediation under Remedial Alternatives 3 and 4.
A numerical flow model was developed as screening-level tool based on the conceptual site
model and available Site investigation data. As a screening-level tool, simplifying assumptions
include: each layer is considered homogeneous with respect to aquifer properties, and has a
uniform saturated thickness of 14 ft for the alluvial aquifer and 75 ft for the Upper Eutaw.

6.0 Current and Potential Future Uses

The current and reasonably anticipated future land uses of the Site form the basis for the
exposure assumptions that are used for the risk assessment. They are considered in the
development of remedial objectives and remedial alternatives, and in the selection of the
appropriate remedial action.

The former KMCC facility property is currently owned by the Multistate Trust. Nearby land use
is mixed and includes industrial, commercial, and residential land uses.

Two structures are still present on the Former Main Plant Area: the former office building
(currently referred to as the "Community Resource Building") located in the northwest corner;
and the groundwater treatment building, located in the center. Other features remaining at the
former KMCC facility include the closed former surface impoundments; several concrete pads
and foundations; groundwater monitoring wells; abandoned utility lines; and the wells,
trenches, and conveyance infrastructure of the DNAPL recovery system. The Pine Yard has no
structures present. Public access to the Former Main Plant Area, the 3.7-Acre Parcel, and the
Pine Yard is restricted by fencing that encloses the entirety of each portion of the former
KMCC facility.

The current zoning for the Former Main Plant Area (OU3) is primarily light industrial (1-2) and
heavy industrial (1-3), with the exceptions of a 3.7-acre parcel that is primarily zoned general
agricultural (A-l) and an approximately 30- to 150-ft-wide strip on the western Site boundary
that is zoned single family residential (R-l).

Determining future land use includes input from stakeholders like the community and the
property owner, the Multistate Trust. One of the Multistate Trust's responsibilities is to
ultimately sell or transfer the Site to an entity that can assume long-term responsibility for the
Site and implement reuses that are protective of and beneficial to the community. As a result,
there is some uncertainty about the future land use of OU3 and the rest of the Trust's property.
For the purposes of estimating risks in OU3, the EPA used the reasonably anticipated future
land use of industrial or commercial. Based on community input on land uses, the EPA
anticipates that in the future, the community may support recreational land uses such as
walking trails in OU3. Industrial or commercial workers spend more time on a site than

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

someone using a walking trail, so the EPA expects that the industrial/commercial land use
assumption will also be protective for people using walking trails.

6.1 Groundwater Uses

Groundwater use in OU3 is currently restricted while the Site is owned by the Multistate Trust
by the Settlement Agreement, which serves as an "enforcement tool with institutional
control components".

7.0 Summary of Site Risks

Risk assessments were conducted to determine the current and future effects of contaminants
on human health and the environment. The results of the risk assessment provide the basis for
taking action and identify contaminants and exposure pathways that need to be addressed by
the remedial action.

The Multistate Trust conducted risk assessments to evaluate the potential human health and
ecological risks from exposure to chemicals detected at OU3. The August 2018 Human Health
Risk Assessment (2018 HHRA) evaluated current exposure to trespassers and potential
exposure to residents, indoor workers, outdoor workers, and construction workers. The 2018
HHRA considered all soil data collected at the Site through 2017. Additional soils data were
collected in 2019 to refine the 2018 HHRA. The OU3 and OU5 FS Report presents the 2019
results and incorporates them with the results of the 2018 HHRA.

7.1 Human Health Risk Assessment

The human health risk assessment estimates what risks the Site poses if no action were taken.
It provides the basis for taking action and identifies the contaminants and exposure pathways
that need to be addressed by the remedial action.

The human health risk assessment uses a four-step process to assess site-related human
health risks.

• Hazard Identification uses the analytical data collected to identify the contaminants of
potential concern (COPCs) at the Site for each medium.

• Exposure Assessment estimates the magnitude of actual and/or human exposures, the
frequency and duration of the exposures, and the pathways by which humans are
potentially exposed.

• Toxicity Assessment determines the types of adverse health effects associated with
chemical exposures, and the relationship between magnitude of exposures (dose) and
severity of adverse health effect (response).

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

• Risk Characterization summarizes and combines outputs of the exposure and toxicity
assessments to provide a quantitative assessment of site-related risks.

7.1.1 Hazard Identification

The HHRA considered soil and groundwater data collected during the Rl and supplemental
sampling in 2019.

OU3 surface and subsurface soil contaminants include arsenic, benzo(a)anthracene,
benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, naphthalene, carbazole, pentachlorophenol,
dibenzofuran, and dioxins. Groundwater contamination in OU3 exceeds MCLs.

7.1.2 Exposure Assessment

The 2018 HHRA evaluated exposures to surface (0 feet to 2 feet below ground surface) and
subsurface soils (2 feet to 8 feet below ground surface) separately to inform site management
decisions for soils from these two depth intervals more clearly.

The HHRA evaluated exposure to trespassers under current conditions, and potential exposures
of residents, indoor workers, outdoor workers, and construction workers to soils and
groundwater under future use conditions.

7.1.3 Toxicity Assessment

The toxicity assessment summarizes the health effects that may be associated with exposure to
the COPCs selected for the risk assessment and identifies doses that may be associated with
those effects. It involves evaluating the potential for a constituent to cause an increase in the
incidence of adverse effects in exposed individuals and quantitatively characterizing the
chemical dose and the incidence of adverse health effects in the exposed receptor. The
potential toxicological effects induced by a given dose of a chemical are classified as either non-
cancer effects or cancer effects. Toxicity values typically employed to carcinogenic hazards
include reference doses for oral and dermal exposures and reference concentrations for
inhalation exposures; oral and dermal cancer slope factors and inhalation unit risks are typically
toxicity values were used to calculate potential effects for these two types of effects. Following
EPA guidance, an age-dependent adjustment factor was applied when evaluating early-life
exposures to mutagenic chemicals. Toxicity criteria were selected according to EPA's standard
hierarchy and are presented in Appendix D of the 2018 HHRA.

7.1.4 Risk Characterization

The EPA considers two types of risk: cancer risk and noncancer risk. The likelihood of any kind
of cancer resulting from a Superfund site is generally expressed as an upper bound probability,
for example, a "1 in 10,000 chance". In other words, for every 10,000 people that could be
exposed, one extra cancer may occur because of exposure to site contaminants. An extra
cancer case means that one more person could get cancer than would normally be expected to
from all other causes. For noncancer health effects, the EPA calculates a "hazard index". The
key concept is that a "threshold level" (measured as a hazard index of less than 1) exists below
which noncancer health effects are no longer predicted. A CERCLA response action is generally

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

warranted when cancer risk is greater than 1 x 10"4 or when noncancer health effects are
greater than a hazard index of 1.

The OU3 and OU5 FS Report summarizes the results from the 2018 HHRA, updated with data
from 2019 sampling. The contaminants posing unacceptable risks for outdoor workers in
surface soil are arsenic, dioxins and furans (expressed as toxicity equivalent concentrations of
dioxins and furans TEQdf), carcinogenic PAHs, pentachlorophenol, carbazole, and dibenzofuran.
There are unacceptable risks for construction workers from exposure to OU3 subsurface soils
contaminated with arsenic, benzo[a]pyrene, naphthalene, pentachlorophenol, dibenzofuran,
and TEQdf. Table 3-2 from the OU3 and OU5 FS Report presents the exposure point
concentrations used in the 2018 HHRA and the new data collected in 2019. The maximum
concentrations detected in 2019 were: arsenic, 269 mg/kg; TEQdf, 2,270 ng/kg or 0.00227
mg/kg; benzo[a]pyrene, 120 mg/kg; and pentachlorophenol, 41.7 mg/kg. The OU3 and OU5 FS
Report concludes that in OU3, there are unacceptable risks for residents, outdoor workers, and
construction workers from exposure to OU3 surface soils contaminated with the OU3 COCs
(arsenic, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, naphthalene, carbazole,
pentachlorophenol, dibenzofuran, and dioxin). Risk levels and hazard indexes are
summarized below.

Table 3. Risk Levels and Hazard Indexes for OU3 (Southern Former Main Plant Area) Soils

(from OU3 and OU5 FS Report)

Receptor

Excess
Lifetime

Cancer Risk

Resident 2x10*

Outdoor Worker 2x1£H
Indoor Worker

Construction Worker (Surface) 3x" 0"-

Construction Worker (Subsurface) 4x10 5
Trespas

Noncancer
Jjl_

50
4

10
1

Note: For the resident, the noncancer Hi for the chief, which is higher
than that for the adult, is shown.

The HHRA also evaluated the potential future resident or worker exposure to groundwater
based on ingestion of and dermal contact with tap water and inhalation of volatiles from tap
water. The HHRA concluded that exposure to COCs in groundwater via these pathways would
result in an unacceptable risk. Numerous COCs were identified for groundwater in the HHRA,
with naphthalene identified as the primary COC based on contribution to cumulative risk.
Naphthalene concentrations more than 30,000 |ag/L are present in OU3, exceeding EPA's tap
water regional screening level (0.12 |ag/L) beneath the primary source area and much of the
secondary source area. Pentachlorophenol concentrations more than 3 mg/L in OU3 exceed the

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

federal Safe Drinking Water Act Primary Drinking Water Standards Maximum Contaminant
Level (MCL) of 1 mg/L.

The HHRA used EPA's VISL Calculator to evaluate risks to indoor workers based on the vapor
intrusion pathway. The HHRA estimated a noncancer HI of 2 for indoor workers, mostly due to
potential exposure to naphthalene.

7.2 Ecological Risk Assessment

The 2020 sitewide baseline ecological risk assessment identified no ecological habitat within
the Former Main Plant Area.

7.3 Basis for Action

The response action selected in this ROD is necessary to protect the public health or welfare or
the environment from actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances into the
environment. The hazardous substances in OU3 include the following contaminants of concern
(COCs) associated with the releases of wastes from historical wood preserving operations
including but not limited to creosote, pentachlorophenol (PCP), benzo[o]pyrene, naphthalene,
dioxins, and furans.

8.0 Remedial Action Objectives

RAOs are specific goals to protect human health and the environment. They address
contaminated media, exposure pathways and are based on available information and
standards, such as applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs), to-be-
considered (TBC) guidance, and site-specific, risk-based levels.

The FS identified four RAOs to address OU3 and OU5. After reevaluating the sitewide approach,
EPA has removed OU5 from this ROD. Therefore, RAO 1 from the FS and Proposed Plan which
was specific to OU5 has been removed.

This ROD identifies the following three RAOs for the OU3 remedial action:

• RAO 1: Prevent exposure of outdoor and construction workers via inhalation, incidental
ingestion and/or dermal adsorption to COCs in OU3 surface and subsurface soils above
cleanup levels.

• RAO 2: Prevent the migration of COCs from OU3 surface soils through stormwater
runoff or wind dispersion of fugitive dust.

• RAO 3: Prevent COCs in OU3 source areas (containing DNAPL and residual
contamination) from migrating to the groundwater outside of OU3 source areas.

This RAO will be achieved by maintaining (on average) a lower elevation water
table inside the OU3 source area than outside.

• RAO 4: Prevent exposure of future building occupants to indoor air vapors via vapor
intrusion (from groundwater or soil gas) containing Site COCs at concentrations that
exceed EPA's acceptable risk range of 1 x 10"4 and 1 x 10"6 or have a non-carcinogenic
risk greater than an HI of 1.

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

Groundwater restoration is not an objective for this OU3 remedy, but this source control
remedial action will improve groundwater quality outside of OU3 and will contribute to the
eventual restoration of groundwater contaminated by the Site, which will be the subject of a
future remedy.

8.1 Cleanup Levels

The anticipated future land use for OU3 is industrial/commercial or other uses consistent with
cleanup levels based on industrial/commercial exposure assumptions. Because industrial or
commercial workers spend more time on a site than someone using a walking trail, the EPA
expects that the industrial/commercial cleanup levels will also be protective for people using
walking trails. Cleanup levels for OU3 surface soils are listed in Table 4. The EPA is selecting
cleanup levels for commercial/industrial exposure to surface soil, construction worker exposure
to subsurface soils, and a cleanup level for surface soil used as fill dirt or cover soil. The cleanup
levels in Table 4 are to be used to determine the extent or "cut lines" of actions in OU3. The
cleanup levels in Table 5 are to be used in determining appropriate back fill or cover soil - these
lower concentrations are based on a cancer risk level of 1 x 10"6 for carcinogenic PAHs and will
result in a lower residual risk level post-remediation for the anticipated future land uses.

• The cleanup levels for TEQdf are based on an HI of 1, which corresponds to cancer risk
level of approximately 1 x 10~5, which is within EPA's range of acceptable cancer risk. For
commercial/industrial exposure to surface soil, the TEQdf cleanup level is 0.00072 mg/kg.
At this Site, there is also a site-specific cleanup level for construction worker exposure to
subsurface soils of 0.00023 mg/kg that was developed based on a target non-cancer risk
at an HI of 1.

• The cleanup level for arsenic is 30 mg/kg and corresponds to a cancer risk level of

1 x 10"5. The site-specific background for arsenic is 8 mg/kg. A cleanup level for arsenic
based on a 10~6 cancer risk level would be 3 mg/kg, which is below background
concentrations. Consistent with EPA guidance, Role of Background in the CERCLA
Cleanup Program, cleanup levels generally should not be set at values below natural or
anthropogenic background.

• The cleanup levels for carcinogenic PAHs and pentachlorophenol are based on
site-specific risk-based calculations using the exposure pathways for outdoor and
construction workers. Consistent with the cleanup levels selected in OU1, a cancer risk
level of 1 x 10"5 was used to calculate the Table 4 cleanup levels for carcinogenic PAHs to
be used in determining the extent of actions or "cut lines".

• Soil used as fill dirt or cover soil placed at the surface must meet the more stringent
cover soil cleanup levels in (Table 5) which are based on a cancer risk level of 1 x 10"6 for
carcinogenic PAHs, an HI of 1 for TEQdf to protect future construction workers, and a
cancer risk level of 1 x 105 for arsenic due to background concentrations.

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

Table 4. OU3 Cleanup Levels

OU3 Cleanup Levels1

Surl

Face Soil

Subsurface Soil

Soil COC

Value
(mg/kg)

Basis

Value
(mg/kg)

Basis

Arsenic2

ELCR = 1 x 10"5

1-11=1 Construction worker

Benzotajanthracene1

210

ELCR = 1 x 10"5

Benzotajpyrene1

ELCR = 1 x 10"5

1-11=1 Construction worker

Benzotfojfluoranthene1

210

ELCR = 1 x 10"5

Naphthalene1

170

ELCR = 1 x 10"5

540

1-11=1 Construction worker

Carbazole3

960

see note

Pentachlorophenol1

ELCR = 1 x 10"5

200

1-11=1 Construction worker

Dibenzofuran

1,000

1-11=1 Outdoor
worker

250

1-11=1 Construction worker

TEQdf 4

0.00072

EPA policy

0.00023

Site Specific 1-11=1
Construction worker

Notes:

ELCR = excess lifetime cancer risk HI = hazard index

mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram

TEQdf = toxicity equivalent concentrations of dioxins and furans

The cleanup levels for carcinogenic PAHs and PCP are site-specific risk-based calculations using the
exposure pathways and for outdoor and construction workers. Consistent with the cleanup levels selected
in OU1, a cancer risk level of 1 x 10"5 was used to calculate the cleanup levels for carcinogenic PAHs.

The site-specific background for arsenic is 8 mg/kg. A cleanup level for arsenic based on a 10"6 cancer risk
level would be 3 mg/kg, which is below background concentrations. Consistent with EPA guidance, Role of
Background in the CERCLA Cleanup Program, cleanup levels generally should not be set at values below

natural or anthropogenic background.

Carbazole has not been classified by the EPA for carcinogenicity and there is no cancer slope factor for
carbazole in the EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). The evaluation of carbazole as a potential
carcinogen in the risk assessment was developed using a Tier 3 toxicity value, and as such is uncertain, and
not typically considered in cleanup level development. The development of the cleanup level for carbazole

at this site errs on the side of caution for the protection of human health.

The cleanup levels for TEQdf are based on an HI of 1, which corresponds to cancer risk level of
approximately 1 x 10"5, which is within EPA's range of acceptable cancer risk. For commercial/industrial
exposure to surface soil, the TEQdf cleanup level is 0.00072 mg/kg. At this Site, there is also a site-specific
cleanup level for construction worker exposure to subsurface soils of 0.00023 mg/kg that was developed

based on a target non-cancer risk at an HI of 1.

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

Table 5. OU3 Soil Cover Cleanup Levels

OU3 Soil Cover Cleanup Levels



Soil Cover

Soil COC

Value (mg/kg)

Basis

Arsenic1

30

ELCR = 1 x 10"5

Benzo[o]anthracene2

21

ELCR = 1 x 10"6

Benzo[o]pyrene2

2.1

ELCR = 1 x 10 s

Benzo[fo]fluoranthene2

21

ELCR = 1 x 10"6

Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene2

2.1

ELCR = 1 x 10 s

Naphthalene2

17

ELCR = 1 x 10"6

Pentachlorophenol2

4

ELCR = 1 x 10 s

Dibenzofuran

250

Hl=l Construction worker

TEQdf3

0.00023

Site Specific H 1=1 Construction worker

Notes:





ELCR = excess lifetime cancer risk HI = hazard index



mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram



TEQdf = toxicity equivalent concentrations of dioxins and furans

1. The cover soil cleanup levels are based on a cancer risk level of 1 x 10"5 for arsenic due to
background concentrations.

2. The cover soil cleanup levels are based on a cancer risk level of 1 x 10 s for carcinogenic PAHs and
Pentachlorophenol.

3. The cleanup levels for TEQdf are based on an HI of 1, which corresponds to cancer risk level of
approximately 1 x 10~5, which is within EPA's range of acceptable cancer risk. For
commercial/industrial exposure to surface soil, the TEQdf cleanup level is 0.00072 mg/kg. At this
Site, there is also a site-specific cleanup level for construction worker exposure to subsurface soils of
0.00023 mg/kg that was developed based on a target non-cancer risk at an HI of 1.

25

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

9.0 Description of Alternatives

Section 121(b)(1) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9621(b)(1) mandates that remedial actions must be
protective of human health and the environment, cost-effective, comply with ARARs, and utilize
permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies and resource recovery alternatives
to the maximum extent practicable. Section 121(b)(1) of CERCLA also establishes a preference
for remedial actions that employ treatment as a principal element to reduce permanently and
significantly the volume, toxicity, or mobility of the hazardous substances, pollutants, and
contaminants at a site. Section 121(d)(2) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9621(d) further specifies that a
remedial action must attain a level or standard of control of the hazardous substances,
pollutants, and contaminants that at least attains ARARs under federal and state laws, unless a
waiver can be justified pursuant to Section 121(d)(4) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9621(d)(4).

The FS Report details how possible response actions and technologies were identified,
screened, and assembled into the remedial action alternatives. The first step screened
remediation technologies based on technical implementability. For OU3, nine remediation
technologies were identified:

•	DNAPL Recovery

•	Engineered Soil Cover

•	RCRACap

•	Vertical Barrier Wall

•	Phytoremediation

•	In Situ Treatment

•	Removal and Disposal

•	Institutional Controls

•	Monitoring

The OU3 and OU5 FS Report then combined and grouped the remediation technologies into 10
remedial alternatives, including the "No Action" alternative (Alternative 1). These alternatives
provide a range of options for achieving the RAOs and complying with ARARs. Remedial
Alternatives included:

•	Alternative 1: No Action

•	Alternative 2: DNAPL Recovery and Engineered Soil Cover

•	Alternative 3: Downgradient Barrier Wall, Phytoremediation, and Engineered Soil Cover

•	Alternative 4: Barrier Wall Isolation of Source Areas, Phytoremediation, and
Engineered Soil Cover

•	Alternative 5: In Situ Stabilization of Source Areas and Engineered Soil Cover

•	Alternative 6: In Situ Stabilization of Former Drip Track Soils, Removal and Disposal of
Surface Soils and Source Area Soils

•	Alternative 7: Bio-oxidation of Source Areas and Engineered Soil Cover

•	Alternative 8: Steam Enhanced Extraction of Source Areas and Engineered Soil Cover

•	Alternative 9: Removal of Surface Soils and Source Area Soils

•	Alternative 10: RCRA Cap over Source Areas and Engineered Soil Cover.

26

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

OU3 Remedial Action Alternatives

Of the 10 remedial alternatives, the FS Report retained six remedial alternatives for detailed
evaluation for OU3. This ROD summarizes the detailed evaluation of remedial alternatives from
the FS Report and maintains their numbering to correspond with the FS Report. OU3 Remedial
Alternatives retained for detailed evaluation included:

• Alternative 1: No Action

• Alternative 3: Downgradient Barrier Wall, Phytoremediation, and Engineered Soil Cover

• Alternative 4: Barrier Wall Isolation of Source Areas, Phytoremediation, and
Engineered Soil Cover

• Alternative 5: In Situ Stabilization of Source Areas and Engineered Soil Cover

• Alternative 9: Removal of Surface Soils and Source Area Soils

• Alternative 10: RCRA Cap over Source Areas and Engineered Soil Cover.

Terminology used to describe and differentiate the alternatives are described further below:

• Capital costs are those expenditures that are required to construct a remedial alternative.

• Operational & maintenance (O&M) costs are those post-construction costs necessary to
ensure or verify the continued effectiveness of a remedial alternative. They are
estimated on an annual basis.

• Indirect costs are the project and construction management costs necessary for the
management of the remedial action as well as costs associated with institutional controls.

• Present value represents the amount of money which, if invested in the current year,
would be sufficient to cover all the costs over time associated with a project, calculated
using a discount rate of 7% and a 30-year time interval.

• Construction timeframe is the time required to construct and implement the
alternative. It does not include the time required to design the remedy, negotiate
performance of the remedy with the PRPs, or procure contracts for design

and construction.

9.1 Common Elements and Distinguishing Features of Each Alternative

Institutional controls are common elements of the active remedial alternatives. Institutional
controls are administrative measures that, when enforced, protect human health by preventing
exposure to contamination. Institutional controls for each alternative include:

• A combination of deed restrictions, zoning restrictions and/or restrictive covenants, to:

• Limit future land use in OU3 to industrial or commercial and certain recreational uses
that would protect human health and protect the engineering components of the
remedy. Institutional controls would restrict uses such as schools, daycares, and
playgrounds where risk is estimated using residential exposure assumptions, unless
MDEQ and the EPA approve a proposal that makes a specific use protective.

• Prevent groundwater use for human consumption in OU3 while the groundwater
investigation continues. The future remedy for OU6 will address contaminated
groundwater and will address the expectation to restore groundwater to beneficial use.

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

• Require a vapor intrusion assessment and/or vapor mitigation for new building
construction, or existing building renovation, expansion or change in use in OU3. The
future remedy for OU6 (groundwater) will address the vapor intrusion pathway outside
of OU3.

• A Soil Management Plan to protect engineering components of the remedy and to
prevent exposure of construction and/or remediation workers to COCs above cleanup
levels. The soil management plan will provide protocols to prevent unacceptable
exposure of workers during future soil disturbing activities. These protocols may
include: using worker personal protective equipment; planning for soil disturbing
activities; screening soil in the field; criteria for handling, reusing, disposing or moving
soil; and procedures for how to manage unexpected environmental conditions.

The Feasibility Study and Proposed Plan evaluate a range of alternatives that primarily differ by
how they would address unacceptable risks and source areas in OU3. Alternative 5 relies on
treatment to address remaining principal threats. Alternatives 3 and 4 combine engineering
controls with some treatment until phytoremediation controls water levels (continued
groundwater extraction and DNAPL removal using the existing system operated by the
Multistate Trust as part of the CERCLA cleanup, which conveys wastewater to the local POTW
under water pollution control permit number MSP090021). Alternative 9 and 10 relies mostly
on engineering controls. Further distinguishing features between the alternative are
discussed below.

9.2 Expected Outcomes of Each Alternative
Alternative 1: No Further Action

Evaluation of the No Action alternative is required under the NCP as a baseline against which all
other alternatives are compared. Under this alternative, no remedial actions would take place.

Alternative 3: Downgradient Barrier Wall, Phytoremediation and Engineered Soil Cover
(Figure 12)

Downgradient Vertical Barrier Wall: Alternative 3 includes a 3,500-foot-long vertical barrier wall
downgradient of the primary and secondary source areas to contain the DNAPL source. For the
purposes of the FS, a bentonite slurry wall was assumed. The final type of barrier wall will be
determined during the remedial design if the selected remedial alternative includes a barrier
wall. The barrier wall would be keyed into the underlying, lower-permeability Eutaw Formation
to minimize/prevent DNAPL and groundwater migration under the wall. Soils are not expected
to be disposed off-site as a result of the wall installation, but if they were, they would be
characterized to determine whether constitutes RCRA hazardous waste (contains RCRA Listed
hazardous waste or is considered RCRA toxicity characteristic waste) and managed in
accordance with identified ARARs.

Phytoremediation: To address potential groundwater flow issues caused by the barrier wall,
Alternative 3 includes planting of appropriate tree species along the inside of the vertical
barrier wall. The trees would prevent mounding of groundwater behind the barrier wall and
create an inward hydraulic gradient to prevent impacted groundwater from flowing around or

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

beneath the barrier wall. In addition, phytoremediation would provide limited treatment for
dissolved COCs in shallow groundwater through rhizodegradation (the breakdown of
contaminants in the soil through microbial activity in the soil around plant roots [the
rhizosphere]) and would enhance the effectiveness of this alternative in controlling
COC migration.

Engineered Soil Cover: Alternative 3 includes placement of a clean soil cover to address RAOs 2
and 3 by 1) eliminating exposure to OU3 soils with COC concentrations above the OU3 cleanup
levels and 2) preventing the migration of COCs from contaminated surface soils through
stormwater runoff or wind dispersion of fugitive dust. The soil cover would consist of a
minimum 1 foot of imported clean fill material, with additional thickness if/as necessary in
portions of OU3 to provide the final surface grades needed to reduce infiltration of rainwater,
including use of fine-grained soils, surface contouring to facilitate surface runoff, and planting
of vegetation to support evapotranspiration. The soil cover would have the added benefit of
reducing local recharge of the shallow alluvial aquifer.

Institutional controls are detailed above but would include: 1) a combination of deed
restrictions, zoning restrictions and/or restrictive covenants to limit future land use and (while
the groundwater investigation continues) prevent groundwater use and require a vapor
intrusion assessment and/or vapor mitigation for new or renovated buildings; and 2) a Soil
Management Plan to protect engineering components of the remedy and to prevent exposure
of construction and/or remediation workers to COCs above cleanup levels.

Monitoring: Routine monitoring of groundwater quality would be conducted to evaluate the
remedy performance with respect to hydraulic control of the groundwater plume, and to
monitor the soil cover integrity and the health of the trees. Maintenance of the soil cover
would occur as required, and the trees may require replacement on a periodic basis. Typical
lifespan for hybrid poplar trees is around 50 years, and monitoring costs would include
replacement of all trees over the course of 40 years.

The estimated timeframe for construction completion is six-to-seven months. It is estimated
that the trees will take about five years to reach maturity. To prevent mounding of
groundwater within the areas enclosed by the barrier wall as the trees grow to maturity and
outside of the growing system, the groundwater extraction and treatment system will be
operated as needed. Long-term the remedy will require maintaining the appropriate level of
groundwater inside the barrier wall. Table 6 presents Alternative 3's estimated costs.

Alternative 4: Barrier Wall Isolation of Source Areas, Phytoremediation and Engineered Soil
Cover (Figure 13)

Barrier Wall Isolation of Source Areas: Alternative 4 would include installation of a 4,550-foot-
long vertical barrier wall surrounding the primary and secondary source areas. The barrier wall,
in combination with the soil cover, would isolate the source areas and prevent DNAPL migration
from these areas as well as address direct contact with contaminated surface soils. The barrier
wall would be keyed into the underlying, lower-permeability Eutaw Formation to minimize the
potential for DNAPL and groundwater to migrate under the wall. Soils are not expected to be

29

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

disposed off-site as a result of the wall installation, but if they were, they would be
characterized to determine whether constitutes RCRA hazardous waste (contains RCRA Listed
hazardous waste or is considered RCRA toxicity characteristic waste) and managed in
accordance with identified ARARs.

Phytoremediation: To address potential groundwater flow issues caused by the barrier wall,
Alternative 4 includes using plants to maintain a lower groundwater level inside the barrier
wall. The phytoremediation pilot study discussed in the FS included poplar, willow, pecan, and
peach trees, but other types of trees and plants may be used during remedial action. The trees
would prevent mounding of groundwater behind the barrier wall and create an inward
hydraulic gradient to prevent impacted groundwater from flowing through or beneath the
barrier wall. In addition, phytoremediation would provide limited treatment for dissolved COCs
in shallow groundwater through rhizodegradation and contaminant uptake and would enhance
the effectiveness of this alternative in controlling groundwater COC migration.

Engineered Soil Cover: Alternative 4 includes placement of a clean soil cover to address RAOs 2
and 3 by: 1) eliminating exposure to OU3 soils with COC concentrations above the OU3 cleanup
levels and; 2) preventing the migration of COCs from contaminated surface soils through
stormwater runoff or wind dispersion of fugitive dust. The soil cover would be designed to
manage infiltration of rainwater, including use of fine-grained soils, surface contouring to
facilitate surface runoff, and planting of vegetation to support evapotranspiration. The soil
cover would have the added benefit of reducing local recharge of the shallow alluvial aquifer.
The footprint of the soil cover would include, at a minimum, the entirety of the primary and
secondary source areas to manage infiltration to the area enclosed by the vertical barrier wall.

Institutional controls are detailed above but would include: 1) a combination of deed
restrictions, zoning restrictions and/or restrictive covenants to limit future land use and (while
the groundwater investigation continues) prevent groundwater use and require a vapor
intrusion assessment and/or vapor mitigation for new or renovated buildings; and 2) a Soil
Management Plan to protect engineering components of the remedy and to prevent exposure
of construction and/or remediation workers to COCs above cleanup levels.

Monitoring: Routine monitoring of groundwater quality would be conducted to evaluate the
remedy performance with respect to hydraulic control of the groundwater plume, and to
monitor the soil cover integrity and the health of the trees. Maintenance of the soil cover
would occur as required, and the trees may require replacement on a periodic basis. Typical
lifespan for hybrid poplar trees is around 50 years, and monitoring costs would include
replacement of all trees over the course of 40 years.

The estimated timeframe for construction completion is six-to-seven months. It is estimated
that the trees will take about five years to reach maturity. To prevent mounding of
groundwater within the areas enclosed by the barrier wall as the trees grow to maturity and
outside of the growing system, the groundwater extraction and treatment system will be
operated as needed. Long-term the remedy will require maintaining the appropriate level of
groundwater inside the barrier wall. Table 6 presents Alternative 4's estimated costs.

30

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

Alternative 5: In-situ Stabilization of Source Areas and Engineered Soil Cover (Figure 14)

In-situ Stabilization (ISS) of Source Areas: Alternative 5 includes ISS treatment to bind the
contamination in place within the primary and secondary source areas. ISS would create a solid
monolith and/or induce a chemical reaction that limits the potential for contamination to be
released to groundwater. ISS treatment would involve mixing reagents (e.g., cement and water)
and injecting the reagents into the soil through drilled holes and using cranes with large mixers
or augers to mix the binding agent throughout the soils in the primary and secondary source
areas to the base of the shallow aquifer (i.e., to approximately 25 ft bgs).

Engineered Soil Cover: Alternative 5 includes placement of a clean soil cover across all of OU3
to address RAOs 2 and 3 by 1) eliminating exposure to OU3 soils with COC concentrations above
the OU3 cleanup levels and 2) preventing the migration of COCs from contaminated surface
soils through stormwater runoff or wind dispersion of fugitive dust. The soil cover would have
the added benefit of reducing local recharge of the shallow alluvial aquifer because it would
be lower in permeability than native soils and graded to encourage runoff to less
contaminated areas.

Institutional controls are detailed above but would include: 1. A combination of deed
restrictions, zoning restrictions and/or restrictive covenants to limit future land use and (while
the groundwater investigation continues) prevent groundwater use and require a vapor
intrusion assessment and/or vapor mitigation for new or renovated buildings; and 2. A Soil
Management Plan to protect engineering components of the remedy and to prevent exposure
of construction and/or remediation workers to COCs above cleanup levels.

Monitoring: Routine monitoring of the cover integrity and maintenance would be completed as
required. In addition, groundwater monitoring would be required to evaluate whether the
remedy has been effective at treating sufficient source mass to facilitate restoration
of groundwater.

The estimated timeframe for construction completion is 13 to 15 months. The estimated costs
for this alternative far exceed the funds originally provided in the environmental cost account
(ECA) for the Site. Alternative 5 cannot be implemented with remaining funds in the ECA and
would require funding from an alternative funding source. As a result, the overall timeframe for
implementation of Alternative 5 is uncertain and would depend on the availability of sufficient
funds. Table 6 presents Alternative 5's estimated costs.

Alternative 9: Removal of Surface Soils and Source Area Soils (Figure 15)

Excavation: Alternative 9 includes excavation and disposal of OU3 surface soils exceeding
cleanup levels and surface and subsurface soils in the primary and secondary source areas. All
concrete and asphalt pads would be removed prior to excavation. Contaminated soils (including
DNAPL) to the base of the shallow alluvial aquifer (~25 ft bgs) within the primary and secondary
source areas would be excavated. A groundwater extraction and treatment system would be
constructed to dewater the excavation below the groundwater table. In addition, surface soils
(0-2 ft bgs) outside of the primary and secondary source areas that exceed cleanup levels
would be excavated. This area is assumed to exclude the surface impoundments, which were

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

previously remediated and covered and are not considered to require additional remediation; it
would also exclude the area of the Community Resource Building, where soils are covered by
the building and parking lot.

Disposal: It is estimated that 35,500 CY of the soils excavated from the area of the former drip
track and 20-ft buffer, will be designated as an F032/F034 listed hazardous waste and will
require treatment to meet RCRA land disposal restriction treatment standards and then
disposal at an EPA-approved, RCRA Subtitle C landfill. It is estimated that 520,000 CY of the soils
will be non-hazardous and would require disposal at an EPA-approved, RCRA Subtitle D landfill.

Backfill: Backfill would include placement and final grading of 555,400 CY of imported backfill
material suitable for industrial/commercial land use. The alternative includes possible
stockpiling and beneficial reuse of OU2 soils as backfill provided the soil meets criteria that the
EPA will establish, and the soil is not considered to contain RCRA hazardous waste.

Monitoring: Groundwater monitoring would be required to evaluate whether excavation has
been effective at removing sufficient source mass to facilitate restoration of groundwater. No
other long-term O&M or post-remedy monitoring would be required.

The estimated timeframe for construction completion is 20 to 25 months. The estimated cost
for this alternative far exceeds the funds originally provided in the ECA, and it cannot be
implemented with the remaining funds. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 9 would
require funding from an alternative funding source (e.g., EPA's Superfund program remedial
action budget). The overall timeframe for implementation of Alternative 9 is uncertain and will
depend on the availability of funds. Table 6 presents Alternative 9's estimated costs.

Alternative 10: RCRA Cap Over Source Areas and Engineered Soil Cover (Figure 16)

RCRA Cap: Alternative 10 would involve placement, monitoring, and maintenance of a RCRA
Subtitle C, multilayer cap (or equivalent) over the primary and secondary source areas. The
RCRA cap would isolate any soils in this area that exceed the OU3 cleanup levels and would
effectively eliminate infiltration of rainwater to DNAPL and soils in the primary and secondary
source areas to prevent leaching of COCs into the groundwater.

Engineered Soil Cover: Alternative 10 includes placement of a clean soil cover outside of the
RCRA cap to address RAOs 2 and 3 by 1) eliminating exposure to OU3 soils with COC
concentrations above the OU3 cleanup levels and 2) preventing the migration of COCs from
contaminated surface soils through stormwater runoff or wind dispersion of fugitive dust. The
soil cover would be designed to manage infiltration of rainwater, including use of fine-grained

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

soils and surface contouring to facilitate surface runoff. The soil cover would have the added
benefit of reducing local recharge of the shallow alluvial aquifer.

Monitoring: Routine monitoring of groundwater quality would be conducted to evaluate the
remedy performance.

The estimated timeframe for construction completion is six to nine months. Table 6 presents
Alternative 10's estimated costs.

10.0 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives

In selecting a remedy, EPA considered the factors set out in Section 121 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C.§
9621, by conducting a detailed analysis of the viable remedial response measures pursuant to
the NCP, 40 CFR §300.430(e)(9), and OSWER Directive 9355.3-01. The detailed analysis
consisted of an assessment of each of the individual response measures per remedy
component against each of nine evaluation criteria and a comparative analysis focusing on the
relative performance of each response measure against the criteria. This section of the ROD
describes the relative performance of each alternative against the nine criteria, noting how
each compare to the other options under consideration.

The remedial alternatives summarized in this ROD have been evaluated against the nine
decision criteria set forth in the NCP, 40 CFR 300.430(e)(9)(iii). These nine criteria are organized
into three categories: threshold criteria, primary balancing criteria and modifying criteria.
Threshold criteria must be satisfied in order for an alternative to be eligible for selection.
Primary balancing criteria are used to weigh major trade-offs among alternatives. Modifying
criteria are taken into account after public comments have been received.

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

The NCP criteria are:

Threshold Criteria

1)	Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment addresses whether or not an
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.

2)	Compliance with ARARs considers whether or not an alternative will meet all identified
federal or more stringent state environmental laws/regulations or whether there is justification
for waiving a requirement under CERCLA section 121(d)(4).

Primary Balancing Criteria

3)	Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility and Volume through Treatment indicates the EPA's
preference for alternatives that include treatment processes to lower or eliminate the
hazardous nature of material, its ability to move in the environment, and the amount left
after treatment.

4)	Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence considers the long-term effectiveness and
permanence of maintaining the protection of human health and the environment after
implementing each alternative.

5)	Short-Term Effectiveness considers the effect of each remedial alternative on the protection
of human health and the environment during the construction and implementation phase.

6)	Implementability considers the technical and administrative feasibility of implementing each
alternative and the availability of the services and materials required during implementation.

7)	Cost considers construction costs as well as long-term O&M costs of each alternative by
considering whether costlier alternatives provide additional public health benefits for the
increased cost.

Modifying Criteria

8)	State Acceptance considers whether the state agrees with, disagrees with, or has no
comment on the EPA's preferred alternative.

9)	Community Acceptance considers the concerns or support the public may offer regarding
each alternative.

The EPA uses the nine criteria to evaluate the remedial alternatives individually and against
each other to select a remedy. This section of the ROD profiles the relative performance of each
alternative against the nine criteria, noting how it compares to the other options under
consideration.

10.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment

Alternative 1 (No Further Action) would not be protective of human health and the
environment. It would not achieve RAOs and all estimated risks to human health and the

34

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

environment would continue. Because Alternative 1 does not meet this threshold criterion, it
will not be assessed further in the comparative analysis.

For OU3, alternatives 3, 4, 5, 9, and 10 would satisfy the RAOs. Alternatives 3, 4, 5, 9 and 10
would protect human health and the environment and achieve RAOs 1 and 2 using removal,
treatment, containment and/or institutional controls. These alternatives would prevent
migration of DNAPL and COCs in groundwater through mass reduction, treatment and/or
containment, satisfying RAO 4. RAO 3 will be achieved by standard construction best practices
and per action-specific ARARs.

10.2 Compliance with ARARs

Per CERCLA Section 121(d)(2), remedial actions undertaken at any Superfund site must meet all
identified applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements under federal and state
environmental laws/regulations or provide a justification for invoking a waiver of those
requirements pursuant to CERCLA Section 121(d)(4).

Because Alternative 1 does not meet this threshold criterion, it will not be assessed further in
the comparative analysis. Alternatives 3, 4, 5, 9 and 10 would comply with ARARs.

BALANCING CRITERIA

The next five criteria, criteria 3 through 7, are known as "primary balancing criteria." These
criteria are factors by which tradeoffs between response measures are assessed so that the
best options will be chosen, given site-specific data and conditions.

10.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence

Alternatives 4, 5 and 9 rate excellent with respect to the criterion of long-term effectiveness
and permanence; Alternative 3 rates good; and Alternative 10 has a poor rating due to the
continued flow of groundwater through DNAPL sources. All alternatives would provide an
effective long-term remedy to prevent unacceptable risk to future site workers due to exposure
to OU3 soils. Thus, the maintenance of engineered controls and implementation of
institutional controls would be required to maintain long-term effectiveness and permanence
of these remedies.

10.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility and Volume

All alternatives follow the removal of 46,000 gallons of DNAPL, which is a principal threat, from
the Site by the extraction system. These alternatives address the residual source material and
the remaining principal threats through varying levels of treatment.

Alternative 5 would reduce the toxicity and mobility of DNAPL contamination through ISS
treatment in the primary and secondary source areas. However, ISS treatment would result in
an increase in the volume of contaminated media. Alternative 5 was assigned an excellent rating.

Alternatives 3 and 4 would result in some treatment of COCs in soils and groundwater through
phytoremediation, rhizodegradation and contaminant uptake. However, the amount of
treatment is not clear, and the reduction in COC mass would likely be low relative to the

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

remaining OU3 DNAPL and residual source material. As a result, Alternatives 3 and 4 were
assigned a poor rating.

Alternatives 9 and 10 do not involve treatment of impacted soils or DNAPL. Thus, they were
assigned a very poor rating with respect to this criterion.

10.5 Short-Term Effectiveness

The short-term effectiveness balancing criterion considers short-term risks to the community
and site workers and the potential for negative environmental impacts during the
implementation of the remedial alternative. Short-term effectiveness also considers the time
required for the remedy to achieve protection of human health and the environment.

Alternatives 3, 4, and 10 can be readily implemented using conventional construction
techniques and involve the use of well-established, minimally invasive technologies that require
a low level of heavy machinery and truck traffic relative to Alternative 5 and Alternative 9.
Alternatives 3, 4 and 10 have little potential for negative impacts on the environment, can be
constructed in about 1 year, and rate excellent in terms of short-term effectiveness.

Alternatives 5 rates fair and 9 rates very poor with respect to the short-term effectiveness
criteria. These alternatives would require a longer timeframe to construct than Alternatives 3, 4
and 10, and would involve considerably more use of heavy machinery. Further, completion of
the remedy will require more time because the costs of Alternative 5 and Alternative 9
significantly exceed the amount of the remaining funding provided in the ECA for the Site. As a
result, Alternative 5 and Alternative 9 would take longer to achieve RAOs.

10.6 Implementability

Alternatives 3, 4 and 10 can be readily implemented and were assigned an excellent rating.
These alternatives involve the use of readily available and highly reliable technologies and
equipment and would not require a high degree of specialized expertise. Further, existing site
infrastructure does not pose a significant hindrance to implementation of either of
these alternatives.

Alternative 9 would be highly challenging to implement due to the large volume and depth of
excavation. Excavation in DNAPL source areas would require shoring and groundwater
dewatering, and extracted groundwater would require extensive treatment prior to discharge.
Based on these considerations, Alternative 9 was assigned a poor rating with respect to the
implementability criterion.

Alternative 5 involves extensive ISS treatment. Although ISS treatment is well established in the
environmental industry, it is not commonplace in the general construction industry and would
require specialized equipment and expertise that are unlikely to be readily available in the area.
Furthermore, there are challenges implementing ISS treatment at the Site given the large
volume and area of soils in the primary and secondary source areas. Based on these
considerations, Alternative 5 was assigned a fair rating with respect to the
implementability criterion.

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

10.7 Cost

Table 6 provides a cost-estimate summary for remedial alternatives.

Table 6. Summary of Estimated Costs for Remedial Alternatives 1, 3, 4, 5, 9 and 10





Alternative 3

Alternative 4





Downgradient Barrier Wall,

Barrier Wall Isolation of Source



Alternative 1

Phytoremediation, and

Areas, Phytoremediation, and

Estimated Costs

No Action

Engineered Soil Cover

Engineered Soil Cover

Direct Capital

$0

$11,429,000

$10,907,000

Indirect Capital

$0

$2,500,000

$2,388,000

Periodic Costs

$90,000

$1,520,040

$739,200

Total NPV Costs

$32,000

$14,550,000

$13,593,000





Alternative 5







In Situ Stabilization of

Alternative 9

Alternative 10



Source Areas and

Removal of Surface Soils

RCRA Cap over Source Areas

Estimated Costs

Engineered Soil Cover

and Source Area Soils

and Engineered Soil Cover

Direct Capital

$72,902,000

$226,262,000

$15,869,000

Indirect Capital

$15,711,000

$48,653,000

$3,455,000

Periodic Costs

$375,000

$135,000

$450,000

Total NPV Costs

$88,760,000

$274,964,000

$19,502,000

Below is an Alternatives Comparison Summary. The EPA considers the substantially higher costs
associated with Alternatives 5, and 9 to be disproportionate to the benefits provided over
Alternatives 3 and 4. Further, although Alternative 10 has a similar estimated cost to
Alternatives 3 and 4, it would be considerably less effective at controlling the DNAPL source and
preventing migration of COCs with groundwater. Therefore, Alternatives 3 and 4 were assigned
higher overall ranking in comparison to the other alternatives. Because Alternative 4 rates
higher with respect to long-term effectiveness and has a lower estimated cost than Alternative 3,
Alternative 4 was assigned an excellent overall rating and Alternative 3 was assigned a good
overall rating.

37

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

LEGEND

EVALUATION CRITERIA

•j

9 txcollont
9 Good
3 Fair
(5 Poor
O Very Poor

Thre

(A
4>
c

?
l

Compliance with
ARARs a

Long-Term
Effectiveness

Short-Term
Effectiveness

Reduction of Toxicity,
Mobility, or Volume ^
through Treatment s

:mu

$
c

Ol
CL
£

Estimated Cost
(millions)

Alternative 1 No Action

$0.03

Alternative 3 Downgradiert Barrier Wall, Phytoremediation, and Engineered
Soil Cover

•

$14.6

Altermtive 4 Banier Wall Isolation of Source Areas, Phytoremediation, and
Engineered Sal Cover

•

$13.6

Alternative 5 In Situ Stabilization of Source Areas and Engineered Soil Cover

•

$88.8

Alternative 9 Removal of Surface Soils and Source Area Soils

•

$275

Alternative 10 RCRA Cap Over Source Areas and Engineered Soil Cover

•

$19.5

Figure 7-1. Summary of the Detailed Comparative Analysis of
Prepared for: f/SJk t Greenfield Environmental Multistate Trust LLC Remedial Alternatives

l\v7j Trustee of the Muttistate Environmental Response Trust ,, ,, _ , _ _ . . _ , .

r Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp. - Columbus Superfund Site

Columbus. Mississippi

Prepared by: ™ ^ OU, «*«

MODIFYING CRITERIA-The final two evaluation criteria, criteria 8 and 9, are "modifying
criteria" because new information or comments from the state or the community on the
Proposed Plan may modify the preferred response measure or cause another response
measure to be considered.

10.8 State Acceptance

This criterion indicates whether based on its review of the RI/FS reports and the Proposed Plan,
the state supports, opposes, and/or has identified any reservations with the selected response
measure. The State of Mississippi confirmed their acceptance of the preferred alternative in a
June 28, 2024 concurrence letter included in Appendix A.

10.9 Community Acceptance

This criterion summarizes the public's general response to the response measures described in
the Proposed Plan and the RI/FS reports. This assessment includes determining which of the
response measures the community supports, opposes, and/or has reservations about. The
public comments received during the comment period, were generally supportive of the
preferred alternative. The selected remedy was adjusted in response to community input. Refer
to the Responsiveness Summary for detailed responses to community comments.

11.0 Principal Threat Wastes

The NCP establishes an expectation that the EPA will use treatment to address the principal
threats posed by a site wherever practicable (NCP Section 300.430(a)(l)(iii)(A)), to use
engineering controls for waste that poses a relatively low long-term threat (NCP Section

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

300.430(a)(l)(iii)(B)), and in appropriate site situations, treatment of the principal threats will
be combined with engineering controls (such as containment) and institutional controls, as
appropriate, for treatment residuals and untreated waste (NCP Section 300.430(a)(l)(iii)(C)).
The "principal threat" concept is applied to the characterization of "source materials" at a
Superfund site. Principal threats for which treatment is most likely to be appropriate include
liquids, areas contaminated with high concentrations of toxic compounds and highly mobile
materials. Containment remedies may be considered for principal threat waste that is relatively
immobile and where containment has been demonstrated to be successful in isolating the
principal threat waste and preventing releases of COCs into media. Source material is material
that includes or contains hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants that act as a
reservoir for migration of contamination to groundwater, surface water, or air, or acts as a
source for direct exposure. Under the EPA's 1991 guidance, "A Guide to Principal Threat and
Low-Level Threat Wastes," DNAPL floating on or under groundwater is generally considered to
constitute a principal threat.

The EPA considers the remaining mobile DNAPL and residual DNAPL in the OU3 primary source
area and the OU3 secondary source area to pose a principal threat. The DNAPL in the OU3
primary source area and the OU3 secondary source is a continuing source of groundwater
contamination and is highly toxic should human exposure occur. The EPA considers the OU3
contaminated soils outside of the source areas to pose a relatively low-level threat.

At this Site, more than 46,000 gallons of DNAPL and more than 92.6 million gallons of
groundwater were removed from the aquifer by the groundwater extraction system since 1991.
The operation of the extraction system constituted treatment to permanently and significantly
reduce the volume and mobility of DNAPL at the Site. The extraction system will continue to be
operated (as part of the overall CERCLA cleanup with wastewater discharges to the local POTW
under the water pollution control permit) until the barrier wall and engineered soil cover are
functioning as intended, after which supplemental water pumping and treatment to maintain
water levels would be conducted as part of the OU3 remedial action. The selected remedy
compliments the previous removal of DNAPL because the reduction in volume and mobility
makes source control easier to implement. While the selected remedy does not include
treatment of remaining principal threats as a major component, the Feasibility Study did
evaluate a range of alternatives, including alternatives that rely on treatment to address
remaining principal threats, alternatives that combine treatment and engineering controls, and
alternatives that rely mostly on engineering controls. This selected containment approach was
selected as the best balance of trade offs with implementability, long-term effectiveness and
short-term effectiveness as the most decisive factors.

12.0	Selected Remedy

12.1	Summary of the Rationale for the Selected Remedy

Alternative 4, "Barrier Wall Isolation of Source Areas, Phytoremediation and Engineered Soil
Cover" is EPA's selected remedy (Figure 14).

39

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

The RAOs for Alternative 4 are:

•	RAO 1: Prevent exposure of outdoor and construction workers via inhalation, incidental
ingestion and/or dermal adsorption to COCs in OU3 surface and subsurface soils above
cleanup levels.

•	RAO 2: Prevent the migration of COCs from OU3 surface soils through stormwater
runoff or wind dispersion of fugitive dust.

•	RAO 3: Prevent COCs in OU3 source areas (containing DNAPL and residual
contamination) from migrating to the groundwater outside of OU3 source areas.

This RAO will be achieved by maintaining (on average) a lower elevation water
table inside the OU3 source area than outside.

•	RAO 4: Prevent exposure of future building occupants to indoor air vapors via vapor
intrusion (from groundwater or soil gas) containing Site COCs at concentrations that
exceed EPA's acceptable risk range of 1 x 10"4 and 1 x 10"6 or have a non-carcinogenic
risk greater than an HI of 1.

Alternative 4 will contain source materials and isolate them from the environment. The EPA
expects some level of treatment in shallow groundwater to occur through rhizodegradation and
contaminant uptake by the trees or other plants, but the amount of treatment is not clear and
was not a deciding factor in selecting this Alternative. The most decisive considerations were
implementability, long-term effectiveness and short-term effectiveness.

The EPA believes the selected remedy meets the threshold criteria and provides the best
balance of tradeoffs among the other alternatives with respect to the balancing and modifying
criteria. The EPA expects the selected remedy to satisfy the following statutory requirements of
CERCLA 121(b): (1) be protective of human health and the environment; (2) comply with ARARs
(or justify a waiver); (3) be cost-effective; (4) utilize permanent solutions and alternative
treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable;
and (5) satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as a principal element to the
extent practicable.

The EPA expects that the selected remedy will protect the health of future users, transition the
ongoing groundwater extraction source control to the proposed barrier wall and
phytoremediation source control, and will enable community-support reuse.

12.2 Detailed Description of the Selected Remedy

The selected remedy for OU3 (Alternative 4) consists of the following remedial components:

•	Barrier Wall Isolation of Source Areas: Installation of an approximately 4,550-foot-long
vertical barrier wall surrounding the primary and secondary source areas. The barrier
wall, in combination with the soil cover, would isolate the source areas and prevent
DNAPL and COC migration from these areas as well as address direct contact with
contaminated surface soils. The barrier wall would be keyed into the underlying, lower-

40

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

permeability Eutaw Formation to minimize the potential for DNAPL and groundwater to
migrate under the wall. The construction of the barrier wall may include grading and
backfilling on-site soils, provided the post-construction surface soil exposed at the site
meets all cleanup levels. Soils are not expected to be disposed off-site as a result of the
wall installation, but if they were, they would be characterized to determine whether
constitutes RCRA hazardous waste (contains RCRA Listed hazardous waste or is
considered RCRA toxicity characteristic waste) and managed in accordance with
identified ARARs.

•	Phytoremediation: To achieve the remedial action objectives, Alternative 4 uses plants
to maintain a lower groundwater level inside the barrier wall than outside. The
phytoremediation pilot study discussed in the FS included poplar, willow, pecan, and
peach trees, but other types of trees and plants may be used during remedial action.
The trees would create an inward hydraulic gradient that prevents impacted
groundwater from flowing through or beneath the barrier wall. In addition,
phytoremediation would provide limited treatment for dissolved COCs in shallow
groundwater through rhizodegradation and contaminant uptake and would enhance the
effectiveness of this alternative in controlling groundwater COC migration outside of the
OU3 source areas.

•	Intermittent Groundwater Extraction and Treatment: The purpose of the existing
groundwater extraction system under the HSWA permit was to prevent off-site
migration of creosote product and to contain dissolved groundwater contamination on
site. The existing system is operated by the Trust with EPA oversight per the Settlement
Agreement as part of the overall CERCLA cleanup with wastewater discharges to the
local POTW under the water pollution control permit issued to the Trust. Once the
barrier wall and engineered soil cover are functioning as intended, the existing system
will not be needed to hydraulicly contain the groundwater and groundwater levels will
be managed to maintain (on average) a lower elevation water table inside the barrier
wall than outside. The EPA anticipates that supplemental groundwater extraction,
treatment, and discharge to the POTW may be needed until the phytoremediation
components are able to maintain water levels or during cooler months. Supplemental
groundwater extraction and treatment may utilize parts of the current extraction
system but would be conducted as part of the OU3 remedial action and expected to
achieve ARARs.

•	Engineered Soil Cover: Placement of a clean soil cover to address RAOs 1 and 2 by

1) eliminating exposure to OU3 soils with COC concentrations above the OU3 cleanup
levels and 2) preventing the migration of COCs from contaminated surface soils through
stormwater runoff or wind dispersion of fugitive dust. The soil cover will be designed to
manage infiltration of rainwater, including use of fine-grained soils, surface contouring
to facilitate surface runoff, and planting of vegetation to support evapotranspiration.
The soil cover would have the added benefit of reducing local recharge of the shallow
alluvial aquifer. The footprint of the soil cover would include, at a minimum, the entirety
of the primary and secondary OU3 source areas to manage infiltration to the area
enclosed by the vertical barrier wall.

41

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

•	Soil Cover may be installed outside of the OU3 source areas to eliminate exposure to
soil exceeding the surface soil cleanup levels. Remedial design soil sampling will be
conducted to identify areas outside of the OU3 source areas requiring soil cover.

•	Institutional controls: Institutional controls are in place that serve to limit Site use and
exposure while the Site is owned by the Multistate Trust. The Trust's ownership
pursuant to the Settlement Agreement serves as an "enforcement tool with institutional
control components" which limits the use of the property and requires EPA and State
approval prior to a property transfer. Prior to the sale or transfer of Multistate Trust
property, additional institutional controls will be implemented, the details of which will
be selected in a future decision document issued by the EPA. This remedy specifies the
following institutional controls to ensure continued protection of the remedial
components and of human health:

o Institutional controls (such as deed restrictions, zoning restrictions or restrictive
covenants), would be implemented to protect the engineering components of
the OU3 remedy, including but not limited to the trees, barrier wall, and
soil cover.

o Institutional controls would be implemented to limit future land use in OU3 to
industrial or commercial land use and walking trails to protect human health and
to restrict land uses such as schools, daycares, and playgrounds where risk is
estimated using residential exposure assumptions (unless MDEQand the EPA
determine in writing that a specific proposed use is protective of human health
and the environment),
o An institutional control consisting of a Soil Management Plan for OU3 would be
established to require worker personal protective equipment and other
protocols to prevent unacceptable exposure of future construction or O&M
workers to COCs at concentrations that exceed the OU3 cleanup levels in soils
during future construction or O&M activities,
o Institutional controls to establish requirements for vapor intrusion
assessment/management in areas where groundwater and/or soil COC
concentrations exceed vapor intrusion screening levels.

•	Monitoring: Routine monitoring of groundwater quality would be conducted to evaluate
the remedy performance with respect to hydraulic control of the groundwater plume,
and to monitor the soil cover integrity and the health of the trees. Maintenance of the
soil cover would occur as required, and the trees may require replacement on a periodic
basis. Typical lifespan for hybrid poplar trees is around 50 years.

RAO 1 will be achieved by placing a soil cover over OU3 surface soils that exceed the surface
and subsurface soil cleanup levels and by placing land use restrictions to prevent uses that are
not protective of human health.

RAO 2 will be achieved by following construction related ARARs.

RAO 3 will be achieved by installing a low-permeability barrier wall around the OU3 source
areas, placing a soil cover over the barrier wall, and operating a phytoremediation area to
maintain a lower elevation water table inside the barrier wall. It is estimated that the trees will

42

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

take about five years to reach maturity. To prevent mounding of groundwater within the areas
enclosed by the barrier wall, the existing groundwater extraction and treatment system will
continue to be operated until the trees grow enough that the barrier wall and
phytoremediation source control remedial components attain RAO 3. Long-term, achieving
RAO 3 requires maintaining an average inward hydraulic gradient as determined by measuring
groundwater levels inside and outside the barrier wall.

RAO 4 is achieved by the existing institutional control while the Trust owns the property. Before
the Trust sells or transfers OU3 to a future landowner or owners, additional institutional
controls that will run with the land, such as a restrictive covenant, will be to require mitigation
of unacceptable risks due to the vapor intrusion pathway.

12.3 Cost Estimate for the Selected Remedy

Table 7 includes the cost breakdown for the selected remedy. The full cost estimate can be
found in the FS. The information in the cost estimate summary table is based on the best
available information regarding the anticipated scope of the remedial alternative. Changes in
the cost elements are likely to occur as a result of new information and data collected during
the remedial design. Major changes will be documented in a memorandum in the AR file, an
ESD or ROD amendment. This is an order-of-magnitude engineering cost estimate that is
expected to be within +50 to -30 percent of the actual project cost.

Table 7. Estimated Costs for the Selected Remedy

Estimated Costs for Selected Alternative 4

Direct capital

$10,907,000

Indirect Capital

$2,388,000

Periodic costs

$739,200

Total Costs (+50 to -30%)

$13,593,000

12.4 Estimated Outcomes of Selected Remedy

12.4.1 Available Land Use

After completion of the selected remedy, surface soil in OU3 will attain cleanup levels that
allow commercial and industrial use. Under EPA default exposure parameters, industrial or
commercial workers spend more time on a site than someone using a walking trail, so the EPA
expects that the industrial/commercial land use assumption will also be protective for people
using walking trails. Residential land use will be prohibited. Commercial uses where risk is
estimated using residential exposure assumptions, such as schools, daycares, and playgrounds,
will not be allowed, unless MDEQ and the EPA determine in writing that a specific proposed use
is protective of human health and the environment. The trees that are part of the
phytoremediation effort will provide habitat.

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

12.4.2 Final Cleanup Levels

Table 4 lists the final cleanup levels for OU3.

12.5 Socio-Economic and Community Revitalization Impacts

Based on the Site's current redevelopment plan, input from the community, and input from
local government, the EPA has determined that industrial/commercial land use and recreational
uses such as walking trails are the reasonably anticipated future uses for OU3.

Upon completion of remedial actions, the Multistate Trust intends to make the Pine Yard and
Former Main Plant Area available for community-supported redevelopment. Community
outreach activities, market studies, and evaluations of Site conditions are being considered in
the development of conceptual redevelopment.

13.0	Statutory Determinations

Under CERCLA Section 121 and the NCP, the lead agency must select remedies that are
protective of human health and the environment, comply with ARARs (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
and a bias against off-site disposal of untreated wastes. The following sections discuss how the
selected remedy meets these statutory requirements.

13.1	Protection of Human Health and the Environment

The selected remedy, Alternative 4, will protect human health and the environment by
preventing exposures to contaminated soils and source areas by placing a soil cover where
needed and through implementation of a soil management plan. The remedy will prevent the
migration of contamination from soil and source areas by installing a barrier wall, soil cover and
phytoremediation area. The remedy will ensure future potential outdoor construction workers
will not be exposed to contamination above selected cleanup levels. The selected remedy will
reduce the cancer risks to less than 1 x 10~5 and will reduce non-cancer risks to less than a
Hazard Index of 1.0. The residual risk will be at the lower end of the EPA's target cancer risk
range of 10"4 to 10"6. Institutional controls will protect remedial components and prevent
unacceptable uses of the property. Short-term exposures during remedy implementation can
be readily controlled by standard remediation health and safety best practices. The selected
remedy will not result in any long-term cross media impacts since contaminated soil and
subsurface DNAPL are contained with a barrier wall and engineered soil cover.

13.1.1 Compliance with ARARs

Section 121(d)(2) of CERCLA, as amended, specifies, in part, that remedial actions for cleanup of
hazardous substances must comply with requirements and standards under federal or more
stringent state environmental laws and regulations that are ARARs to the hazardous substances
or particular circumstances at a site unless such ARARs are waived under CERCLA section

44

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

121(d)(4). See also 40 CFR § 300.430(f)(l)(ii)(B). ARARs include only federal and state
environmental or facility siting laws/regulations and do not include occupational safety or
worker protection requirements. The 40 CFR § 300.150 requires compliance with Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards; therefore, the CERCLA requirement for
compliance with or wavier of ARARs does not apply to OSHA standards.

Under CERCLA Section 121(e)(1), federal, state, or local permits are not required for the part of
any removal or remedial action conducted entirely on-site as defined in 40 CFR § 300.5. See
also 40 CFR §§ 300.400(e)(1) & (2). Also, CERCLA actions must only comply with the
"substantive requirements," not the administrative requirements of a regulation.

Administrative requirements include permit applications, reporting, record keeping, and
consultation with administrative bodies. Although consultation with state and federal agencies
responsible for issuing permits is not required, it is recommended for determining compliance
with certain requirements such as those typically identified as location-specific ARARs.

Applicable requirements, as defined in 40 CFR § 300.5, "means those cleanup standards,
standards of control, and other substantive requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated
under federal environmental or state environmental or facility siting laws that specifically
address a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant, remedial action, location, or other
circumstance at a CERCLA site. Only those state standards that are identified by the state in a
timely manner and that are more stringent than federal requirements may be applicable."
Relevant and appropriate requirements, as defined in 40 CFR § 300.5, "means those cleanup
standards, standards of control, and other substantive requirements, criteria, or limitations
promulgated under federal environmental or state environmental or facility siting laws that,
while not 'applicable' to a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant, remedial action,
location, or other circumstance at a CERCLA site, address problems or situations sufficiently
similar to those encountered at a CERCLA site that their use is well suited to the particular site.
Only those state standards that are identified by the state in a timely manner and that are more
stringent than federal requirements may be relevant and appropriate."

In addition to ARARs, the lead and support agencies may identify other measures to be
considered for a particular release. "The TBC category consists of advisories, criteria, or
guidance that were developed by the EPA, other federal agencies, or states that may be useful
in developing CERCLA remedies." See 40 CFR § 300.400(g)(3).

Chemical-specific ARARs

Chemical-specific ARARs usually are either health- or risk-based numerical values or
methodologies that establish the acceptable amount or concentration of a chemical that may
remain in or be discharged to the environment. There are no chemical-specific ARARs for OU3
contaminated surface soil.

Action-specific ARARs

Action-specific ARARs usually are restrictions on the conduct of certain activities due to waste
type or the operation of certain technologies at a particular site for addressing contaminated
media. Action-specific ARARs include requirements for characterization, temporary staging, and

45

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

disposal of contaminated sediment/soil as well as requirements for control of fugitive dust and
stormwater runoff during land disturbing activities including excavation. In particular the RCRA
regulations that include requirements for characterization, management and disposal of any
contaminated soil that is removed from the ground and is considered a RCRA hazardous waste
are identified as action-specific ARARs for this remedy.

Location-specific ARARs

Location-specific ARARs generally restrict certain activities or limit concentrations of hazardous
substances solely because of geographical or land use concerns. Requirements addressing
wetlands, historic places, floodplains, or sensitive ecosystems and habitats are potential
location-specific ARARs.

The selected remedy will comply with all federal and any more stringent state ARARs identified
for the Site. A detailed list of ARARs/To Be Considered requirements for the selected remedy is
in Appendix C of this ROD.

13.1.2 Cost Effectiveness

The EPA has determined that the selected remedy is cost effective and represents a reasonable
value for the funds to be spent. In making this determination, the following definition was used:
"A remedy shall be cost-effective if its costs are proportional to its overall effectiveness"
(NCP, CFR 300.430(f)(l)(ii)(D)). This was accomplished by evaluating the "overall effectiveness"
of those alternatives that satisfied the threshold criteria (i.e., were both protective of human
health and the environment and ARAR-compliant). Overall effectiveness was evaluated by
assessing three of the five balancing criteria in combination (long-term effectiveness and
permanence, reduction in toxicity, mobility and volume through treatment, and short-term
effectiveness). The selected remedy is effective at protecting human health in both the long-
term and short-term and will contain source areas. Overall effectiveness was then compared to
costs to determine cost effectiveness. The selected remedy is less costly than other alternatives
that provide less overall effectiveness in the long-term and short term. For example,
Alternatives 5 and 9 are less effective in the short-term but cost more. Alternatives 3 and 10 are
less protective in the long term but cost more. The relationship of the overall effectiveness of
the selected remedy was determined to be proportional to its costs. Therefore, it represents a
reasonable value for the money to be spent.

13.1.3 Use of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies to the
Maximum Extent Practicable

The EPA has determined that the selected remedy (Alternative 4) represents the best balance
of trade offs with regard to implementability, long-term effectiveness, and short-term
effectiveness and it represents the maximum extent to which permanence and treatment can
be practicably used at this site. The selected remedy compliments the removal of 46,000
gallons of DNAPL since 1991 because the reduction in volume and mobility of DNAPL makes
source control easier to implement. The selected remedy combines containment and an inward
hydraulic gradient to achieve long-term protectiveness and permanence. Initially, the inward
hydraulic gradient will be provided by the existing groundwater extraction and treatment

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

system which will operate until the trees grow enough to maintain the desired water levels and
will provide treatment during that time. The amount of treatment provided by phytoremediation
through rhizodegradation and contaminant uptake is not clear and was not a deciding factor in
selecting the remedy. While treatment of COCs through phytoremediation would satisfy the
NCP's expectation to use alternative treatment technologies, the EPA has not quantified the
potential for treatment because it was not a deciding factor in the selecting the remedy.

The Feasibility Study evaluated a range of alternatives, including alternatives that rely on
treatment to address remaining principal threats, alternatives that combine treatment and
engineering controls, and alternatives that rely mostly on engineering controls. Section 10
provides the comparative analysis of the alternatives. The selected remedy provides the highest
level of long-term effectiveness and permanence, short-term effectiveness, implementability,
and cost effectiveness. In terms of the reduction of toxicity, mobility and volume, all
alternatives follow the removal of 46,000 gallons of DNAPL, which is a principal threat, from the
Site by the existing extraction system. The selected remedy will result in some treatment of
COCs in soils and groundwater through phytoremediation, rhizodegradation and contaminant
uptake. However, the amount of treatment is not clear, and the reduction in COC mass would
likely be low relative to the remaining OU3 DNAPL and residual source material. As a result, the
selected remedy is less favorable than Alternative 5, which would use in-situ stabilization and
solidification. The selected remedy is better than Alternatives 9 and 10, which do not involve
treatment at all. The selected remedy will require the maintenance of the containment
engineered controls and institutional controls to protect the remedy and limit land use to
ensure long-term effectiveness and permanence.

13.1.4 Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element

CERCLA Section 121(b) and NCP at 40 CFR 300.430(f)(5)(ii)(F) specify that remedial actions,
which permanently and significantly reduce the toxicity, mobility or volume of the hazardous
substances, pollutants, and contaminants as a principal element, are to be preferred over
remedial actions not involving such treatment. The EPA considers the remaining mobile DNAPL
and residual DNAPL in the OU3 primary source area and the OU3 secondary source area to pose
a principal threat. The DNAPL in the OU3 primary source area and the OU3 secondary source is
a continuing source of groundwater contamination and is highly toxic should human exposure
occur. The EPA considers the OU3 contaminated soils outside of the source areas to pose a
relatively low-level threat. Some level of treatment of contaminated groundwater within the
barrier wall from the phytoremediation component is expected through rhizodegradation and
contaminant uptake, but the amount of treatment is not clear and was not a deciding factor in
selecting this remedy. The DNAPL is being contained within the barrier wall and is not being
treated to reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume. The operation of the extraction system to
remove, treat, and dispose more than 46,000 gallons of DNAPL constituted treatment that
permanently and significantly reduced the volume and mobility of DNAPL. This selected remedy
follows and compliments the removal of DNAPL. While the selected remedy does not include
treatment of remaining principal threats as a major component, the Feasibility Study did
evaluate a range of alternatives, including alternatives that rely on treatment to address
remaining principal threats, alternatives that combine treatment and engineering controls, and

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

alternatives that rely mostly on engineering controls. This selected containment approach was
selected as the best balance of trade offs with implementability, long-term effectiveness and
short-term effectiveness as the most decisive factors, contamination.

13.2 Five-Year Review Requirements

Because hazardous substances will remain at the Site above levels that allow for unlimited use
and unrestricted exposure, the EPA will review the remedial action no less than every five
years, per CERCLA Section 121(c) and the NCP at 40 CFR 300.430(f)(4)(ii) until the levels of COCs
allow for unrestricted use of soil and groundwater with unlimited exposure to these media. If
results of the five-year reviews reveal that remedy integrity is compromised and protection of
human health and the environment is insufficient, then additional remedial actions will be
evaluated by the EPA and MDEQ

14.0 Documentation of Significant Changes from Preferred Alternative
of Proposed Plan

Pursuant to CERCLA Section 117(b) and NCP §300.430(f)(3)(ii), the ROD must document any
significant changes made to the Preferred Alternative discussed in the Proposed Plan. EPA
reviewed all written and verbal comments submitted during the public comment period. During
the public comment period for the OU3 and OU5 Proposed Plan, the EPA received a request to
select and implement an alternative for OU5 that was not considered in the proposed plan (to
excavate and remove contaminated soil that exceed the construction worker scenario). After
careful consideration, the EPA determined that the requested change to the OU5 remedy was
one that public could not have been reasonably anticipated based on information in the original
Proposed Plan. As a result, the EPA did not select a remedy for OU5 in this ROD and will address
OU5 separately in a later ROD.

This ROD selects four RAOs for OU3 that differ from the four proposed RAOs in the Proposed
Plan. One RAO that which was specific to OU5, was removed. One RAO was revised to exclude
OU5. No cleanup levels or remedial actions are selected for OU5. An RAO was added to protect
future building occupants from indoor air vapors via vapor intrusion that could present an
unacceptable risk of exposure.

There are no other significant changes to the remedy, as originally identified in the
Proposed Plan.

15.0 References

The Administrative Record is available at https://semspub.epa.gov/src/collection/04/AR67483.
The table below in electronic versions of this document contains hyperlinks to the files in the
Administrative Record.

48

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

Date	Document Title

10/05/2023 1 ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INTRODUCTION. MSD990866329. KERR-MCGEE I



CHEMICAL CORP - COLUMBUS (OPERABLE UNITS #3 AND #5) NPL SITE,

	II111II, l It 11^ II	, 1 Jill 'I ^ 	UllJIh II, ill SSI S1* III 1 II i * .,0, 8(

10/01/2023

"PROPOSED PLAN, KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP. - OTLUIVIBUS SIJPERFUND
HI 11 II	, 1 Jill 'I ^ 	11| Jl 1 \ 	III ill, ill I IS, Ml SSI SSI IP IP II," USER op, 7.37 MB)

09/26/2023

"KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP - COLUMBUS SUPERFUND SITE. OPERABLE

unii n,« "i'« "Hii-nrui' mi uiui Miui.rn ¦¦ uhii • 	,577.26kb)

06/20/2023

EMAIL FROM BEN IBENTIKOWSIKI, USEPATO ADDRESSEES. SUBJECT: NOTES ON

11II 	II,ill,ill Nil 1,1 HI ¦ "IIJIHl I'll III ii ! > 1 II, 1. 2.93 MB)

05/01/2023

"FEASIBIUTY STUDY REPORT - OPERABLE UNIT 3 AND OPERABLE UNITS. KEFIR-

ll,l' ¦ ill I ¦ 1 III II, ill' ' II 	II ,1 	II1 "II, ill U* ^ I "I I II ,1 I ill Jill ¦ HI 11 uO 14TIH AVENUE

1 Jl- 'II, 1 HI 	II1 "II, ill 1^ II	/INDIES COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI" INTEGRAL. (3«»«

184.57 MB)

04/13/2023

EMAIL FROM JAMES [aNDmIyER. USGSTO ADDRESSEES. SUBJECT: IKE:

III III IIJIJI Ml |	IIUII,ill I iv 11 \l\ |. '1,1 11,11 II HI Mil' 'IN 1 III' '1 HUH ll'T 1,1 111 \

DISCUS!

04/10/2023

EMAIL FROM BEN BENTKOWSKI, USERATO ADDRESSEES. SUBJECT: NOTES ON

nil 	1,11,11 INI 1,1 HI ¦ 'IIJIHl I'll II1 II 1 > 1 ll,|. 5.54 MB)

03/15/2023

EMAIL FROM AUSTIN HOFMEISTER. G-ETG TO ADDRESSEES. SUBJECT:

MULTIISTATE TRUST: COLUMBUS. MS - FINAL 14TH AVENUE DITCH SAMPLING

MEMORANDUM ATTACHED. (7:42 AM) (32 pp. 2.02 MB)

02/22/2023

EMAIL FROM CHARS! KING. USEPA TO ADDRESSEES. SUBJECT: FW:

<\N. NOVIEM IB IE R/D ECE M IB IE R

IINVC'II' 1 "* i i HI,l' H-.o, 200.74 KB)

02/22/2023

EMAIL FROM CHARLES KING. U5IEPA TO ADDRESSEES. SUBJECT: FW:

MULT II STAT IE TRUST - COLUMBUS & MERIDIAN. NOVEMBER/DECEMBER

IINVf

02/02/2023

EMAIL FROM BEN BENTKOWSKI. USERATO CHARLES KING. USEPA. SUBJECT: RE:

DELIVERABLE: MULTIISi Ml illJU^ I 	IIH i II, i It « -U ' « -M". I'll, Ml 1 II ^

•p, 377.05 KB)

12/27/2022

EMAIL FROM ARMED IRAS BERRY. MIDEOTO ADDRESSEES. SUBJECT: RE:

II,lHiII 1 IN r 11 1II JlM II ¦ 'II, 'II II,' ¦ Ml ' 1JHI	1 Jl1*ULTATIC'IJl 1 Jl' ¦ 1II' 1 	II1 >1,ill US.

II,IN i 1 l 1 II, 1' i 0! KB)

12/21/2022

EMAIL FROM CYNTHIA BROOKS. G-ETG TO ADDRESSEES. SUBJECT: IVlOlSlSTOTE

III, U^ 1 1,1' 'U| H II « 'II, Ml Til,' ¦ Ml ' 1 Jl II	II Jl ^ HIII 1 Mil' 'IN IN' 'III' 1 	IIUII,III

II,IN i^i 00 AM) (2 pp. 152.28 KB)

12/08/2022

EMAIL FROM CHARLES KING. USEPA TO ADDRESSEES. SUBJECT: FW:

III , 11 II ,IN Ml | II ,1 Ml11111II, 11 Jl M HI •• HI, ill II Jl 1 "II 'ill,	JIIN'iHl M"IN I \[ Ml, II ,1 IIYMRT

49

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

Date	Document Title



614.44 KB)

11/10/2022

EMAIL FROM CHARLES KING, USEPA TO ADDRESSEES. SUBJECT: RE: REPORT

DEI II ILMlllll II, 111II IIM 'III HUM 	II11II, 11 11 "* II 'II >'111 II NAIL QU3/0111 >

II I Hill III II Hi HI IK LI I • 'LI i ! I II, l" H "O, 156.06 KB)

11/10/2022

EMAIL FROM CHARLES KING. USEPA TO BEN BENTKOWSKI. USEPA. SUBJECT:

II \ III .III UNI Ml II II, 111II I L I Mil ILM I 	IIH i II, i II M in I- 'LI Lull II ¦IIATIC 'IIJ

I L- 'HI' I ¦ HI' II IIIIJ i '• I II, l' | 252.04 KB)

08/24/2022

EMAIL FROM CHARLES KING. USEPA TO ADDRESSEES. SUBJECT: FW: KM

	IIHiII,11 M ¦ 'M 'IIJlII ¦ Ml III UNI 'III U II,10IDIIIFIICATIIC®INS 3 24 2022.DQCX.

3, 124.87 KB)

08/24/2022

EMAIL FROM THEO VON WALLMENICH, G-ETG TO ADDRESSEES. SUBJECT:

II, ll 11II IL I Ml I LI,v I 	II11II, ll I M I | VE IE II Li I I ' II, ill ¦ I	II ,11 'III J III' 'III ¦ ILL.

3, 294.28 KB)

08/16/2022

EMAIL FROM BEN BENTKOWSKI. USERATO CHARLES KING. USEPA. SUBJECT: A

BIT LATE IN THE DAY BUT HERE IT IIS. (4:32 PM) (3 pp. 422.17 KB)

08/15/2022

EMAIIL FROM CHARLES KING. USEPA TO ADDRESSEES. SUBJECT: FW: EPA

LI' 'HI M I HI M Ml Jl Ml III II, NAT II ll I HI I 	INI I IIINL U 1, ¦ I ¦ ¦ ll II, I HI

I II ,11, ll ' II Mi ' II Jill ¦ ^ ll	II Jill ¦ ' II Mi ^ ¦ 'I "ll ,¦ ll ' II ,1 ' Ml ll III Jl' LUDED IN THE FS FOR OU3

II Jl II ¦ 1 * I llll Ill LL L1CGI ll 	II111II, ll ll 111 "* II, llL ML HI UNI u i«« 11,1-{,«».p. 357.36

KB)

08/08/2022

EMAIL FROM CHARLES KING. USEPA TO SCOTT MILLER. USEPA. SUBJECT: FWD:

IINirV' MUL1L I MI I Ll iv I 	LULllll U* ^ MLllLII II J-. LUUII U II ¦ 'II, llll II' Ml >1, llll II,

^ ' II Jill ¦ ll F> 'INI Lll I ill, llll llll Jl' i Lll,' 'I ll II, I ii 	LULllll U^ 1,L u *•!. I II, II ¦ i 5 5 1 ;\W!

08/03/2022

EMAIL FROM JAMES LANDMEYER, USGS TO CHARS! KING. USEPA. SUBJECT:
Lll IISED DRAFT USGS MOIIJIII I''LIIIJI'i IILll 	III "II, llll H ^ II, L t". u HI, ll ¦! KM

19.77 MB)

08/03/2022

"DRAFT REPORT - INSTALLATION AND MONITORING DATA REPORT FOR 2021.

RR-MCGEE

¦ HI Llll' Ml 	LI ¦ 'II, Mil' 'INI HI I ll 	LULllll U* II, L "" {UK

07/22/2022

EMAIL FROM DAVID BUXBAUM. USERATO ADDRESSEES. SUBJECT: RE:

\ Mill Ml llll II hi Ml llll J llll IIJIIl I II ll \ II' ' ii "* I' ¦ Lll h 'II ll ¦ 'UIM ' IIJHI11II ll'JI' .III MS

RELATED YOU THE FS FOR OUS 3 & 5 (FORMER MAIN PLANT) AT THE KERR-

pp, 208.38 KB)

07/18/2022

EMAIL FROM CHARLES KING. USEPA TO THEO VON WAlImENIOM, G-ETG.

Mil HI' I Lll IIIJIII' ¦ II, ill i|| I L I'll 11,111^ I 	U ill, llll U^ n -n Lll' M ^ \ II, ll IL IIIING

IMMI,	 II III nil," II "II Lll Lll II11 ^ II, ill II INI'1 INI INI 1 1 U,|. 1 >r

KB)

50

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

Date	Document Title

06/28/2022



MB)

06/23/2022

MEMORANDUM FROM CHARlls KING, USERATO SITE FILE. SUBJECT:

DETERMINATION 1 HI 1 	IIJI l.ilN 1 ll« "INI \ 11 lilN 1 lil 1-Ml lll,vll LI \ ^

¦ 11S IE ID BY LISTED HAZARDOl ^ \ HI to <.99

06/22/2022

EMAIL FROM BEN BENTKOWSKL USERATO CHARLES KING. USEPA. sOlBJECT: RE:

II 'II > II 1 1,1 M >1,1 II' "II, ii' '1 'I, II ,1 III \ Uv-;»v m i I'll, Ml 1 1,11 "1,1 i HMI,i'|kW

pp, 16.8 MB)

06/08/2022

EMAIL FROM BEN BENTKOWSKL USERATO CHARLis KING. OslPA. SUBJECT:

"IIJII ll,l"ll,ll III' 1 INI- Ml I'll 1 ' III ii 1 • 1 1 II, l' | ] ' 6 KB)

05/07/2022

PIRESENOTION - CONSIDERATION OF CON'miNMENT STRUCTURE COVERS. (6

pp, 583.1 KB)

04/20/2022

EMAIIIL FROM CHARLES KING. USERATO ADDRESSES. SUBJECT: ERA'S APPROVAL

OF DECEMBER S'

MARCH 30. 2022 SIGNED AFFIDAVIT ACCEPTING WORK. (3:49 PMI (2 pp.

12 KB)

05/06/2021

EMAIL FROM CHARLis KING. USERATO HEATHER NEWTON. USEPA. SUBJECT: 1

MANAG1 II,ill IIJII ¦ 'II IIJI ILlll II 'II M'llON WASTE UNDER IRCIRA 1933 HIGHLIGHTED

CK2.PDF.DC		 i 1 II, l -! n < >p. 520.84 KB)

02/08/2021

EMAIL FROM CHARLES KING. USEPA TO ADDRESSEES. SUBJECT: KERR-MCGEE

	iiniii,11 u^ \ 1,11 ill ini ii i ii,< ¦ \i ¦ -ii Li hi ii- ii iiji, \i \ I- ¦ mi Mnn.oviED

22.44 KB)

02/08/2021

EMAIL FROM CHARLES KING. USEPA TO CHArEoTTE WHITLEY. OslPA. SUBJECT:

FW: KERR-MCGEE COLUMBUS - WRITTEN APPROVAL OF REVISED ERRATA TO

mi mitii,' ¦ i ii - ii, ' \i ii - -ii,' -u i in ii,i' i ir i. «>. -

09/29/2020

"RECORD OF DECISION. KERR-MCGEE CoCuMBUS SUPERFUND SITE, OPERABLJE

HiIIJII1 	II11II,11 11 "* 1	, IIJII Jh 	UlJIh ILlhHhHini " I'MEIFA. (71 pp. 4.,

05/06/2019

"RECORD OF DECISION. KERR-MCGEE CoCuMBUS OPERABLE UINIT 1

JSIIFPII," USEPA. (142

17 MB)

09/09/2018

EMAIL FROM ILAURI GORTON. GREENFIELD ENVIIRONMENTAIL TRUST GROUR

IIIIJI' i'i 11 I'm 1	 IIIMIJIIh II ||l>» UHll ' mi HI' 1 IIJI III 	II, ill, ill INI h "IIJI

11 III lllh 1II Jill ¦ II Jl ¦ ISION ON BACKI III II ^ ¦ 'III III Jl II ,11 ^ III Jl II Jl 1II Ml Ml ,11 ¦ Jl ¦ 'I " I \l

nil II.I IIJI, 1,11' ¦ ill I 	II uil,lll U^ II, illSSIISSIIPPII SITE. 17: - I II l ¦ -x 1

08/09/2018

"FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY" REPORT OPERABLE UNIT 1. KERR-MCGEE

CHEMICAL CORP. - COLUMBUS SUPERFUND SITE. COLUMBUS. LOWNDES

	1 "II Jl hi II, lh ^ IISSIIFPII," IINTIEGII, Ml 	IIM M 1 III Jl-. Ill Jl' i 1 MB)

51

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

Date	Document Title

08/07/2018



^ 11111 III' 1 LI 	II111II,lIt U^ ¦ "Hi 111,11 ¦ "LI II III II MP! II,' ¦ II ^ '• 1,1" i 1

189.51 KB)

07/16/2018

EMAIL FROM THOMAS WALLACE, MDEOTO ADDRESSEES. SUBJECT: RE:

MULTIISTATE TRUST COLUMBUS: TRANSMITTAL OIF OUl IRAWP + APPENDICES.

(1:03 PM) (2 dd. 179.67 KB)

07/16/2018

LISTED WASTED DETERMINATION OPTIONS FOR HEADQUARTERS, fl DD. 104.77

KB)

06/26/2018

EMAIL FROM CHARLES IKING. USEPATO LAURII GORTON. GREENFELD

ENVIRONMENTAL MULT II STAT IE TRUST, LLC. SUBJECT: EPA'S COMMENTS ON THE

II.IILL MC"illll IIJl IIHI II ¦ IIJI i 1 '• 1 II,l¦ pp, 184.

05/14/2018

EMAIL FROM THOMAS WaEaCE, MDEO TO ADDRESSEES. SUBJECT: KERR
1,1' ¦ ill I 	IIHiII,lIt U^ HIHIII, ' 	LIMEINIh i1. I It II,lb { 1 * 'OA hk>)

05/11/2018

EMAIL FROM LAURII GORTON, GREENFIELD ENVIRONMENTAL MULTIISTATE

III.U^ 1 IIII' 1	 It IIAJRILES KING, USIEIPA, SUBJECT: MULTISTATE TRUST

	IIH i II, l It U^ v "11,11 III J' i II 'II, Ml 1 II ¦ 'II, It It 1 LI III \ It II,' 'POSED APPRO, ¦ HI 1' ¦

HI \ Ml,II	U^ \ Mill I'll HI- ill! Mil' 'III i1' 1 HI, lb 1. .<

05/11/2018

PROPOSED REMEDIATION WASTE DESIGNATION APPROACH FOR KERR-MCGEE

¦ HI Lull' Ml 	Lit mi I 11,11 H i IIJII ¦ Hill 	II11II, l It U^ MS, GREEN IF II IE LID

EN VII IRQ

ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONHl III.U^ 1 i 1 ^ KB)

03/21/2018

"PHASE II REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT fREVISIED DRAFT). APPiNDIX II,

KERR-M

MISSISSIPPI " I LI III' ON CONSULTAI11 ^ III 1' lit LI I ¦ 'II 1II i ^ ^ k.D. 100.97

MB)

03/21/2018

"PHASE III REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT (REVISED DRAFT). APPENDIX II,

KERR-M

MISSISSIPPI " I II, 1 It II' ON CONSULTAI Jl h III J' II It Ml, 1 ¦ 'II 1II (3000 dd. 84.3

MB)

03/21/2018

"PHASE III REMEDIAL INvlsTIGMION REPORT (REVISED DRAFT), APPENDIX 1,

KERR-M

MISSISSIPPI." IE \IRTHCON COIIMM 11| 1 NTS, INC. [PART 3 OF 41. (2501 dd. 24.63



03/21/2018

"PHASE II REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT (REVISED DRAFT). APPENDIX II,

KERR-M

MISSISSIPPI 1 Mlii" ON CONSULl'AI 11 ^ INI" If Kl 1 11 "1 f| ^ *v^5 pp, 16S.6

MB)

52

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

Date	Document Title

1 ¦ III II, ill' Ml 	LI 	Ill ill, ill U^ 	Ill ill, ill U^ II	, IIJI ^ 	UlNlh II, ill1* "* IISSII IP IPII

I Ml,III	INI	NSUiroillh III * '23 d U , 1 ^ ^

03/12/2018

LETTER FROM IRA IN IDA ILIL CIH A IF IF II IN S, USEPA TO CYNTHIA BROOKS, GREENFIELD

ENVIRONMENTAL MULT II STAT IE TRUST. SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR FUNDS FROM

II, ill "II 1 h 1 \l 1 1 IIJ III,« "II Jll, ill IIJ1 Ml II ,1 ^ I'ONSIE TRUST COLUMBUS COSTS

'	UNI f us ih |,03 KB)

11/20/2017

EMAIL FROM NARDIINA TURNER, USERATO ADDRESSEES. SUBJECT: FW: KERR-

II, IK'1 ill 1 ¦.¦III IIII1II'i \l II'. "INI III"! 1 ¦ i « i i ll,|.|- .r, 112.83 KB)

07/25/2017

"SUPERFUND "TASK FORCE RECOMMENDAI1IONS," USEPA. (33 pp, 1.84 MB)

06/01/2011

SITE MAP - SAMPLING LOCATIONS SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND

lUhuih mijii ¦ ii, mi,iin in- , i.i mii h i> 22 ^1 !\nn

03/28/1991

COMPENDIUM OF CIERtIA RESPONSE SELECTION GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS

INDEX. A IP IP IE IN ['II 1 ¦ 'II 11 III 	II, II 1 II Jll 'IH ill, l ¦ 'II CER' II II ,1 ^ 1 ¦ >NSE SELECTION

¦lUIII' IIJCE DOCUMENTS USERS MANUAII 1,1 USED MARCH 1991. (28 dp, ' !\lh>

08/29/1988

REFERENCE NO.: 13 - LETTER FROM GAYLE KLINE, AX KEARNEY! INC. TO

II,	,1 INI \ HUH II FIELD, USE! ' lH| HI' 1 IIIIJIIIl 1,11,1 1,1 ' 1,1 1 ¦ '1,1 t * 1 -0.4.24 MB)

Undated

WASTE STREAM REVIEW CHECKLIST - KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORIP -

	IIUII,ill U^ t ;r, 0 Mrrt

Undated

HIGHLIGHTS FROM 1933 REA REPORT - KERR-MCGEE COLUMbGs,

MISSISSIPPI, (2 dd. 90.42 KB)

Undated

Undated i| 1II, III" INHI ¦ III,	 1

53

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

PART 3: RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY

EPA published the notice of availability of the Proposed Plan and Administrative Record in the
Columbus Dispatch on October 19, 2023, and released the Proposed Plan to the public by
posting the publicly accessible link on the EPA's web page or other means.

From October 16, 2023 through December 18, 2023, the EPA held a 60-day public comment
period, which included a 30 day extension, to accept public comments on the alternatives
presented in the Feasibility Study and Proposed Plan, and on any other documents previously
released to the public. On Thursday, October 26, 2023, the EPA held a public meeting to
describe the EPA's Proposed Plan and to accept any oral or written comments. The meeting was
held at the Genesis Dream Center 1820 North 23rd Street, Columbus, Mississippi.

The EPA summarized the comments received and prepared the following responses.

1.0 Stakeholder Issues and Lead Agency Responses

Comment #1

A commenter indicated that the EPA acknowledges that "specific site reuse plans in Operable
Unit 5 may not pose an unacceptable risk [to construction workers], depending on the location
and nature of construction activities [,]" but proposes an "interim remedy" that is likely to
ultimately delay community-supported, protective reuse. Nor have stakeholders suggested that
institutional controls to protect future construction workers would be considered unfavorably.

EPA Response # 1

During the public comment period, the EPA received comments from the local government and
the Community Action Group (CAG) requesting that the selected remedy be modified to remove
contaminated soil in areas of OU5 that that would currently be unsafe for construction and
outdoor ground workers, in addition to the other standards associated with expected continual
indoor and outdoor uses.

Comment #2

A commenter indicated that the EPA can substantially reduce this uncertainty in Operable Unit 5
by issuing a final remedy that requires institutional controls to prevent unacceptable exposure
of future construction workers.

EPA Response #2

According to EPA guidance, an FS with only one alternative other than no action requires the
EPA to issue an interim remedy. After careful consideration of all comments received during the
comment period, the EPA has decided to remove OU5 from this decision document. Within the
next year, the EPA plans to issue a proposed plan for Operable Unit 5 that contains several
alternatives, including the one requested by a group of commenters during this public
comment period, that consists of the removal and disposal of soils that exceed the proposed
industrial worker and construction worker cleanup goals.

54

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

Comment #3

The Multistate Trust requested that the EPA to issue a Record of Decision (ROD) that includes a
final remedy finding that commercial land is the reasonably anticipated future land use for OU5
at this time, rather than when a potential future buyer is identified.

EPA Response #3

Since the FS Report eliminated all OU5 remedial alternatives except for the no action
alternative and institutional controls in the form of a soil management plan, the EPA was
required to propose the remaining alternative as an interim remedy until the uncertainty in the
OU5 risk assessment is resolved. However, during the OU3 and OU5 Proposed Plan public
comment period the EPA received several comments from groups and local officials requesting
that contaminated soils that exceed the construction and commercial worker risks scenarios in
OU5 be removed from the site. After careful consideration of all comments received during the
comment period, the EPA has decided to remove OU5 from this decision document. Within the
next year, the EPA plans to issue a proposed plan for OU 5 that contains an alternative,
requested by a group of commenters during this public comment period, that includes the
removal and disposal of soils that exceed the proposed industrial worker and construction
worker cleanup goals.

Comment #4

At the Public Meeting a concerned resident asked how many acres in OU1 are available for
reuse and redevelopment? At the meeting, representatives from the EPA and the Multistate
Trust indicated that approximately 10 to 15 aces would be available for redevelopment but
committed to reviewing the data and providing a better estimate in the responsiveness summary.

EPA Response #4

Approximately 11 acres are currently available for sale, donation, and/or redevelopment in the
Pine Yard. This area was excavated as part of the Operable Unit 1 (OU1) remediation at the Site
and is available for commercial or light industrial purposes, including for recreation uses.

Comment #5

An attorney, on behalf of the several hundred claimants expressed a deep disappointment in
the lack of actual redevelopment work being done at and around this site. The commenter
indicated that it seems like the Proposed Plan focused is strictly on remediation (which is
necessary but lacks much credibility and seems to take advantage of the credulity of the
masses) and there is no mention any longer of a plan to reimagine this space for the good of
this community.

EPA Response #5

Although representatives from the EPA and the Trust may have responded to questions at
public regarding the estimated acres of land available for reuse, the purpose of the Proposed
Plan was to present the EPA's preferred remedy for remediating OU3 and OU5 at the Site.
Redevelopment and reuse options will be developed on a local level with some input from state

55

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

and federal regulators to ensure that all activities comply with appropriate laws, requirements,
and policies.

Comment #6

The city and community have a plan to redevelop the area with a mixed-use theme to include
commercial use and usable green space that will require maintenance by ground keepers. The
master plan for the site includes potential development options for the site that could not be
supported by the current proposed remedies. The proposed remedy for OU3, which contains
and does not remove the contamination, is not sufficient to support future use plans for the site
or the safety of the citizens.

EPA Response #6

It has been determined that the cost to remove and dispose of the contamination from the
primary and secondary principal threat areas, similar to Alternative #9 in the OU3 OU5
Proposed Plan, would greatly exceed the remaining funds available to the Multistate Trust for
investigation and cleanup at the site. Additionally, Alternative #9 is approximately 20 times
more expensive than the preferred alternative. Containment rather than treatment is the
preferred alternative for this principal threat waste because of the large volume of soil
(approximately 490,000 cubic yards) and the discontinuous nature of the remaining DNAPL
contamination to be addressed. In addition, it has been determined that containment remedies
have been successful in isolating the principal threat waste and preventing releases of COCs
into media. The preferred alternative meets the EPA's expectation for addressing principal
threat waste. As a result, it would be necessary to design and construct the containment barrier
around the primary and secondary source areas within OU3. The appropriate institutional
controls would be issued to ensure that the remedy remains protective of human health and
the environment. While the surface that covers the containment wall is expected to contain
institutional controls that prohibit the construction of certain types of buildings, excavation of
soil, or any actions that create unacceptable risk scenarios, it is anticipated that portions of that
same area could be designed to safely accommodate mixed-used options as well as greenspace
areas, park benches, picnic tables, walking trails and/or pedestrian pathways.

Comment #7

The fact that the OU3 remedy does not remove contamination in the areas where
redevelopment is probable would GREATLY impact the ability of the city to redevelop the area in
any useful manner adding insult to the injury left by past actors.

EPA Response #7

Although the entire OU3 former facility property may not be available for unrestricted
redevelopment/reuse, it is anticipated that up to approximately half of the former main facility
land surface of the combined OU3 and OU5 would be available for redevelopment, for a wide
range of mixed used theme options. Although the surface area within the containment system
on OU3 will require institutional controls that may prohibit certain construction activities, it is

56

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

anticipated that considerations for greenspace with pedestrian traffic would be incorporated
during the remedial design.

Comment #8

A commenter expressed concerns regarding the sustainability of the "engineered soil cover"
due to erosion or deuteriation.

EPA Response #8

As a part of the remedial design, a significant emphasis would be placed on evaluating a variety
of surfaces to identify options that will meet the performance criteria in categories including
erosion resistance, sustainable and longevity. Additionally, a maintenance program to assure
that the cover would continue to be protective of people and the integrity of the remedy would
also be incorporated.

Comment #9

Phytoremediation, which is a natural remedy, would be insufficient without a well-maintained
engineered back- up. Should something happen to the trees, which is of concern given the
current climate conditions, it would be equivalent to shutting down a remediation system.

EPA Response #9

Phytoremediation, as presented in this remedy is intended to be part of the hydraulic control
system for the groundwater within the containment structure. Although it is possible that
concentrations of contaminants of concern in the groundwater may be reduced during the
hydraulic containment process, the trees are not intended to be considered a groundwater
treatment. Groundwater will be sampled and analyzed to see if some treatment occurs and to
document the effectiveness of the hydraulic containment process.

If the trees over the containment area do not survive, then a physical water removal system will
be implemented. It is anticipated that a physical water removal system would be a part of the
startup to control the internal groundwater level and then that system would be discontinued
and/or mothballed once the trees mature. It is not a part of the remedial process that does not
have an irreversible option, as if the soils were solidified and that was not performed properly.

Comment #10

The CAG would like the site to be "Ready for commercial use" following the remediation. Some
additional items requested include: i) A combination of a barrier wall around the source areas
coupled with some level of excavation to further reduce the risk of exposure for contract
workers and outdoor workers following remediation; ii) A more stable top barrier than the soil
barrier proposed; and iii) A well-maintained pumping system must be in place until the trees are
both mature and proven effective.

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

EPA Response #10

i): The selected remedy, Alternative 4, will protect human health and the environment
by preventing exposures to contaminated soils and source areas through
implementation of a soil management plan and placing a soil cover where needed. The
remedy will also prevent the migration of contamination from soil and source areas by
installing a barrier wall, soil cover and phytoremediation area. The remedy will ensure
potential construction workers and recreational users will not be exposed to
contamination above selected cleanup levels. Institutional controls will prevent
unacceptable uses of the property.

ii) The soil cover over the containment system would be designed to meet the criteria
for erosion resistance, sustainable longevity and a maintenance program to assure the
cover would continue to be protective of people and the integrity of the remedy .In
addition, because waste would be left in place, the EPA is required to conduct a review
of the remedy at a minimum of once every five years, to ensure that the remedy
continues to function as intended and to determine if the remedy remains protective of
human health and the environment.

iii) It is anticipated that a key component of the phytoremediation portion remedial
design will include the requirement of a well-maintained pumping system to remain in
place until the trees are both mature and are proven effective. It is estimated that the
trees will take about five years to reach maturity. To prevent mounding of groundwater
within the areas enclosed by the barrier wall as the trees grow to maturity and outside
of the growing season, the groundwater extraction and treatment system will be
operated as needed. Long-term, the remedy will require maintaining the appropriate
level of groundwater inside the barrier wall. In addition, it is anticipated that a
groundwater monitoring network and appropriate extraction and/or irrigation
techniques and procedures will be designed and installed to ensure that the water levels
inside of the containment system don't get too high or too low.

Comment #11

The in-situ Stabilization be used in the primary source area to further reduce the movement of
the DNAPL. Currently, while the percentages of DNAPL being extracted from the wells over the
year is low, the absolute amount of DNAPL is still close to seven gallons per day.

EPA Response #11

In-situ stabilization was considered and evaluated during the feasibility study. In-situ
stabilization is approximately 6.5 times more expensive than the preferred alternative, which is
protective and meets all federal and state requirements. In addition, it has been determined
that containment remedies have been successful in isolating the principal threat waste and
preventing releases of COCs into media.

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

FIGURES

59

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

Figure 1. Site Operable Units

I	IOU-1

I	IOU-2

^¦OU-3
OU-4
I lQU-5

I	1 OU-7

[/"//I Wetlands

Drainage Ditch Remediated under 2019 TCAM
- Drainage Ditch

Multistate Trust Owned Property

Note: OU-6 is anticipated to address groundwater beneath
the Site.

Aerial Source: ESRI DigitalGlobe (2016)

Figure 1-2.

Operable Units 1-7 and Drainage Ditch Remedial
Action Area

Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp. - Columbus Superfund Site
Columbus, Mississippi
Feasibility Study, OU-3 and OU-5
February 2023

60

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

Figure 1. Updated OU4 Boundary

14th Ave North

Prepared by: illtWdj

Greenfield Environmental Multistate Trust LLC	Figure 1.

Trustee of the Multistate Environmental Response Trust	OU-4

Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp. - Columbus Superfund Site
Columbus, Mississippi
July 2023

61

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Coiumbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

Figure 2. Site Geology

N

53

Pineyard

LuxapalRa Creak

Typical depth of nearest
water supply wells -
well slrciwn is conceptual
and the exact location Is
not projected onto the
cross-section line.

Horizontal Scale In Feet
" PS 300 600 900 1200
0 Too 200 300 400
Vertical Scale in Feet
Vertical Exaggeration X 3

Eutaw
Formation

McShan
Formation

Coker
Formation

Prepared for:	\ Greenfield Environmental Multistate Trust LLC

Trustee of the Multistate Environmental Response Trust

Prepared by: integral

limtwri

Figure 2-3.

Site Geology

Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp. - Columbus Superfund Site
Columbus, Mississippi
Feasibility Study, OU-3 and OU-5
February 2023

62

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Coiumbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

Figure 3. OU3 Features

Former Green
Tie Storage

Former
Surface impoundments

OU-5 Northern Former Main Plant Area

Groundwater Treatmenl
System Building

Former Green Tie

Community
Resource
Building

Former Diesel,
Gas. & L.P. ASTa

Former Blac* Tie

OU-3 Southern Formef Main-Plant Area

Former Black
Tte Storage

Former
Drip Trac*/Pad

Former
Production
Area

Former
Waste
Water
Pond

[Holding TanK.-j

Cooling
Tower

3.7-Acre Parcel]

HflU-3 Bcu-iaary
^^Jou-5 Bconsary

¦ 1 =scn3tEd Forme? Dip Track Bandafy

* * with 2d BiTer

| Midtistaie Ttist Owned Propery

Creosote Recovery/
[ Wastewater Treatment

Note:

The tocaflons
-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Coiumbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

Figure 5. Estimated Extent of Primary Source Area

Figure 3-2a

Estimated Extent of Soiree Area

Keft-McGee Chemical Corp. - Colunbus Superfund Site

Coiumbus. Mississippi

Feasibility Study, OU-3 and OU-5

May 2023

Notes:

DNAPL source areas were estimated based on observations from soil barings ijpresence.'absence of creosote,
staning'sbeen, and odori.TarGQST readings, and DNAPL thickness measured in monitoring wells. A semi-c^alitatjve
score was assignee to different data sets to support a hokstic understand?^ of the potential extent of DNAPL and
DNAPL-related contamination below the groundwater tabfce. A numeric impact of >2t s consoered to be
representative c" DNAPL or res idealized DNftPL. The maximum numeric impact score be*ow the water table is shewn
for each location.

DNAPL = dense, nonaqueoiis-chase liqud
OU-3 = Operable Unit 3
OU-5 = Operable Unit 5

Groundwour Unit

n •AJIuvmp ~ Eutan

Nunieri^al ln*p*c*

I so D «1Q | £30

~ ~ <15 ¦

~ <3 D <20

~ i $ • - 25

1 i

NNW

Nw**«i FPA
ttoundani

SSE

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Coiumbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

Figure 6. Estimated Extent of Secondary Source Area

Bourida^

BwoS&ry

Ri-iUU'Lu

Build***.

Prepared

Figure 3-2b.

Estimated Extent of Source Area

Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp. - Columbus Superfund Site

Columbus Mississippi

Feastality Study. OU-3 and OU-5

May 2023

0 9-3S
~ 2t ¦ ®

Notes:

DNAPL source areas were estimated based on observations from soil borings (presenc^'absence of creosote
stainirv^'sheen, and odor}Jaff<30ST readngs, and DMAPL thickness measured ii mcrjtonng wells. A sem-quai tative
score was assigned to afferent data sets to supcort a holistic uncerstarxang of the potential extent of DNAF1_ and
DNAPL-reiatea ccrtaminatcn bekw the groundwater table. A numeric impact of >21 is considered to be
representative of DNAPL or resdualzec DNAPL The maxm^an numeric impact score below the waiter table is snowi
for each location.

DNAPL = denser noraquecus-phase liquid
OU-3 = Cperacle LAnit 3
OU-5 = Operafcle Unit 5

Steal* 1.2.KM
<,«>rtK3l ¦•B9gRTM«n 13*
at 2KHI

Number Impact

¦ «oa*iQoCl«$C]< id ~ * IS ~ * ya ¦ <»¦*%¦

Cumuliliwhir Unil

n n ejmw

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp

- Coiumbus, Lowrides County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

Figure 7. Groundwater Conditions

Kapfittialaos Concentration (pgfL)

*10

10-100

too-1000

>iooo

Primary Source Area

Seconday Source Area

Groindwater Pctenacostrfc surface fit
MSL}|Dec2D19)

Hferrea PoserComeinc Suiace ill MSL)

Gnojuwater Flo* arecion

BQU-3 BointQry
OU-5 Bctnaary
I 1 Mutfis:ate met Owned Property

«orial Soits# WAH S l*flT»-ain kragvr IZIt*

Figure 3-7.

Dis&ioutlon oT NapntJiaiene V\ Shallow Ajltwiurn Groundwater
Kerr-WcGee Chemical Corp. - Cotomous Supertund SIS
COlUTD JS, M &SISE ppl
Feasibility Study. QU-3 ana OU-5
May 2023

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Coiumbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

Figure 8. Existing Groundwater and DNAPL Recovery System

1 f PP:

9 Operating Recovery Well

Q Non-operating Recovery Well

¦ Operating Sump

~ Non-operating Sump

Operating Trench

Non-operating Trench
OU-3 Boundary
^3oU-5 Boundary

| | Multistats Trust Owned Property

i\cfial Sojr:o: MAR S Higr R ocoUtion l~e gory ;2014

? , , 8|° , , ' f

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp

- Coiumbus, Lowrides County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

Figure 9. OU3 Sample Locations

Surface Soil Sampling (0-2 ft bgs)

Groundwater Sampling

OU-5 Northern Former Main Plant Area

OU-3 Southern Former Main Plant Area

TARGOST and Soil Boring Sampling

A A:y-t

OU-5 Northern Former Main Plant Area

OU-3 Southern Former Main Plant Area

¦ Surface Soil Sample Location (0-2 ft bgs)

Ttal Mu tistate Trust LLC ^ Subsurface Soil Sample Location (2-8 ft bgsi

its Envimnmeitfll RespolseT' jst

Groundwater Sample Location by Aquifer Type

_ _ . __ ® Alluvium

DRAFT

'J Eutaw

A TARGOST or Soil Boring Location
OU-3 Boundary
OU-S Boundary
I I Multistate Trust Owned Properly

Figure 2-1.

OU-3 and OU-5 Sample Locations

Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp. - Columbus Superfund Site

Columbus, Mississippi

Feasibility Study, OU-3 and OU-5

October 2021

Subsurface Soil Sampling (2 - 8 ft bgs)

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp

- Coiumbus, Lowrides County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

Figure 10. Visibly Impacted Soils

DRAFT

Figure 3-3.

Visibly-Impacted Soils Observed in Near Surface Soils
during Trenching

Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp. - Columbus Superfund Site
Columbus, Mississippi
Feasibility Study OU-3 and OU-5
October 2021

® Creosote Visually Observed
# Creosote Not Visually Observed
Drainage Ditch
OU-3 Boundary
OU-5 Boundary
~ Mu Hi state Trust Owned Property

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp

- Coiumbus, Lowrides County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

Figure 11. Conceptual Site Model

Evidence of Creosote impacts

Possible DNAPL'

Residualized

Creosote

-50

Creosote

Stained Soils

Naphthalene

Concentration
Contour in jjgil

Jf- Water Taole

Alluvial
| Aquifer

Eutaw
Formation

• Low
Permeability
Material

Potential Transport M&tfsanisiris

Erosion and Transport by Wind/Water
Q) } Dissolution and transport with infilrating Ran Vtoier
^ ^ Historic Creosote Miyatton
(J) —~ Dissolved Transport with Groundwater
(s) ^ Vblatilrzation (Naphjhalene)

Prepared for:

Prepared by:

Greenfield Environmental Multistate Trust LLC
Trustee of the Multistate Environmental Response Trust

Figure 3-1.

Conceptual Site Model Illustrating COC Sources and Transport
Mechanisms

Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp. - Columbus Superfund Site
Columbus, Mississippi
Feasibility Study, OU-3 and OU-5
Mav 2023

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Coiumbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

Figure 12. Alternative 3: Downgradient Barrier Wall, Phytoremediation, and Engineered Soil Cover

Downgradient Vertical Barrier Wall
Trees

Engineered Soil Cover

Primary Source

Secondary Source

Former Surface Impoundments

Estimated Former Drip Track
Boundary with 20' Buffer

| OU-3 Boundary
|OU-5 Boundary
] Multistage Trust Owned Property
Aerial Sarce: MARIS High Sesamcn Imagery (20141'

Greenfield Environmental Multistats Trust LLC
Prepared for: Trustee of the Multi-state Environmental Response Trust

Prepared by:

Figure 6-3,

Conceptual Layout for Remedial Alternative 3
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp. - Columbus Superfund Site
Columbus, Mississippi
Feasibility Study, OU-3 and OU-5
May 2023

Community Resource
Building/ Parking Lot

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Coiumbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

Figure IB. Alternative 4: Barrier Wail Isolation of Source Areas, Phytoremediation, and Engineered Soil Cover

Prepared for:

Prepared by:

Greenfield Environmental Multistate Trust LLC
Trustee of the Multistate Environmental Response Trust

Figure 6-5,

Conceptual Layout for Remedial Alternative 4
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp. - Columbus Superfund Site
Columbus, Mississippi
Feasibility Study, OU-3 and OU-5
May 2023

Community Resource
Building/ Parking Lot

Trees

Vertical Isolation Barrier Wall

Engineered Soil Cover

Pri mary So urce Area

Secondary Source Area

Former Surface Impoundments

Estimated Former Drip Track
Boundary with 20* Buffer

OU-3 Boundary

OU-5 Boundary

Multistate Trust Owned Property
Asrtai Source: UWIS High ResoUikn irragsy (2014;.

10Q 2DD 503

_i I i l i I A

Feet A

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Coiumbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

Figure 14. Alternative 5: In Situ Stabilization of Source Areas and Engineered Soil Cover

Prepared for:

Greenfield Environmental Multlstate Trust LLC
Trustee of the Multistate Environmental Response Trust

Prepared by:

Figure 6-7.

Conceptual Layout for Remedial Alternative 5
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp. - Columbus Superfund Site
Columbus, Mississippi
Feasibility Study, OU-3 and OU-5
May 2023

In Situ Soil Stabilization
Engineered Soil Cover
Former Surface Impoundments
Primary Source Area
Secondary Source Area

Estimated Former Drip Track
Boundary with 20' Buffer
OU-3 Boundary
OU-5 Boundary

Multistats Trust Owned Property

Aerial Ckxtfce: MARIS High Resc^iilcri Imagery (2014}

0 1DD 2K3 303

1 I I I I I I A

FKt A

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Coiumbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

Figure 15. Alternative 9: Removal of Surface Soils and Source Area Soils

Figure 6-11.

Conceptual Layout for Remedial Alternative 9
Kerr-McGee Chemicai Corp. - Columbus Superfund Site
Columbus, Mississippi
Feasibility Study, OU-3 and OU-5
May 2023

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Coiumbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

Figure 16. Alternative 10: RCRA Cap over Source Areas and Engineered Soil Cover

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

APPENDIX A

State of Mississippi Concurrence

A-l

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

jUtste nf Mississippi

Tate reeves

Governor

MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
CHRIS WELLS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

June 28, 2024

Charles King

Remedial Project Manager
Region 4 Superfund Division
Atlanta, GA

Re: KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP - COLUMBUS, MS

SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNITS 3 RECORD OF DECISION [DRAFT]

Dated: June 2024

Columbus, MS (Lowndes County)

Dear Mr, King:

The Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality {MDEQ} has reviewed the above referenced
document prepared by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The review of this document has
generated no comments. MDEQ supports and accepts the preferred alternative plan.

If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at 601-961-5388 or arasberry@mdeq,ms.gov.

Sincerely,

Armed Rasberry

GARD - CERCLA Branch Chief

OFFICE OF POLLUTION CONTROL
POST OFFICE BOX 2261 • JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI 39225-2261 ¦ TEL: (601) 961-5171 • FAX: (601) 354-6612 • www.mdeq.ms.gov
Faeeboote (gmdoq.ms « Twitter: @MDEQ ¦ Instagram: @MDEQ
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER

A-2

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

APPENDIX B

Public Meeting Transcript and Comments

B-l

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp

- Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.
Public Meeting on 10/26/2823

6:18 BEFORE THE UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

RE:

PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP, -
COLUMBUS SUPERFOND SITE, OPERABLE UNIT 3 (OU3)
AND OPERABLE UNIT 5 (OU5)IN COLUMBUS, MISSISSIPPI

PUBLIC MEETING

•k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k'k-kicif-k'k-k-k-kir-kinifin-k-kie-k-k-k-kic^-k-kic'k'k-kie-k

Meeting had at Genesis Dream Center,
1820 North 23rd Street,
Columbus, Mississippi,
on Thursday, October1 26, 2 023,
beginning at approximately 6:18 p.m.

CATHY M. WHITE, CCR
(present via Zoom videoconference)
Certified Court Reporter #1309
Notary Public
cathywhitecsr@gmail.com
Post Office Box 5658
Brandon, Mississippi 39047

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-2

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp

- Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.
Public Meeting on 10/26/2023

Page 2

INDEX

Introduction . .

Presentation , .

Q & A

Certificate of Court Reporter

3
9
32
73

www.huseby.coni Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-3

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Page 3

1 MS. SPENCER-HARDY: We're going to go ahead

2 and get started tonight. My name is L'Tonya

3 Spencer-Hardy and I am the acting Superfund chief for

4 community engagement. I am also the community

5 involvement coordinator. And Rosemarie Nelson over

6 here is also an EPA community involvement coordinator.

7 And I want to welcome you guys tonight to our

8 Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation Superfund site meeting

9 for Operable Units 3 and 5. Thank you for taking the

10 time to come out to be here with us tonight.

11 So the purpose of tonight's meeting is to

12 talk about the remedial process and the alternative

13 that EPA is proposing for cleanup for 0U3 and 0U5.

14 The public comment period started October 16th. It

15 will last through November 16th.

16 On tonight, your comments will be recorded.
1? We do have a transcriptionist on the Zoom line who

18 will be recording this whole meeting, and whatever

19 comments and questions are asked tonight will go into

20 the record of decision after the questions are

21 answered. So just know that this is just another

22 opportunity to provide comments,

23 So this is our agenda for tonight. I'm going

24 to go ahead and move into the introductions. On

25 tonight, I've introduced myself. I'm with EPA.

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-4

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Page 4

1 Rosemarie is with EPA. We have Eric Spalvins, who is

2 another remedial project manager for a Kerr-McGee site

3 in Navassa, North Carolina. We have Ben Bentkowski

4 who's with the EPA, and, of course, Charles King,

5 who's the remedial project manager. And we also have

6 members of the Multistate Trust. We have Claire

7 Woods, le have Theo.

8 Theo, do you want to say your last name?

9 Because I'll mess it up.

10 MR. VON WALLMENICH: It's Von Wallmenich.

11 MS. SPENCER-HARDY: Von Wallmenich.

12 MR. VON WALLMENICH: I can't understand why

13 you'd mess that up.

14 MS. SPENCER-HARDY: I know. After all these

15 years, I should have it by now. I apologize.

16 But that is Theo. And we also have members
1? of the Mississippi DEQ, Armed Rasberry and

18 What's your first name?

19 MS. LINDSEY: Taneial.

20 MS. SPENCER-HARDY: Taneial? Okay.

21 And do we have any other -- oh, we have Mayor

22 Gaskin present.

23 And do we have any other Federal officials?

24 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We've got Councilman

25 Beard.

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-5

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Page 5

1 MS. SPENCER-HARDY: Councilman Beard. Okay.

2 Any other councilmen here, city council? Okay. And

3 we also want --

4 Pastor Leach, are there any other members of

5 the CAG present on tonight?

6 Would you like to introduce yourself? No?

7 Okay.

8 Well, we have members of the community action

9 group who works with us in keeping us informed about

10 environmental issues in the community. So we're happy

11 to have you all here tonight, as well.

12 And also, please note that we have media

13 here. We have WCBI TV and - -

14 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The "Dispatch."

15 MS. SPENCER-HARDY: The "Dispatch."

16 Did I miss anybody? Okay.

1? So we have a few house rules. First of all,

18 because this meeting is being recorded and we have do

19 a transcriptionist, we're going to ask that you hold

20 your questions until we get to the question-and-answer

21 portion. And if you're anything like me and you

22 forget things pretty quickly, we have some index cards

23 on the table where you can write your questions down

24 as Charles goes through the presentation. And also,

25 sometimes if you have a question, your question may be

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-6

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Page 6

1 answered during the rest of the presentation. So if

2 you would just hold your questions to the end of the

3 presentation, we'd appreciate it, for the

4 transcriptionist and the recording.

5 Also, if you have a question or a statement

6 that you would like to go on record, Rosemarie is

7 going to have the mic, and if you would, please state

8 your name and then state your question so that the

9 transcriptionist can take note of it in the

10 transcription.

11 Also, for the people that are on the Zoom

12 call, if you want to come off Zoom and ask your

13 question, please press star 6 during the

14 question-and-answer period, and also would you please

15 state your name and your question.

16 And I think that is it. Anything I've missed

1? for house rules?

18 (Indiscernible background speaking.)

19 MS. SPENCER-HARDY: And please note, if

20 anybody has a question about the presentation, we will

21 make this recording available on the website once the

22 meeting is concluded. So it will be put on the

23 website for those people who are not available to get

24 on tonight.

25 So Pastor Leach, if you will come and lead us

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-7

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Page 7

1 in prayer, please,

2 PASTOR LEACH: Let us pray. Father, we thank

3 you for allowing us to come out tonight. We thank

4 you, God, for the many years that many people have put

5 into getting to this point to where we're deciding

6 what we're going to do to remediate this issue that

7 we've seen in this community for a long time.

8 I pray, God, that as we go through this

9 evening and many to come, that you will give us the

10 strength, the unity, and the constancy of purpose

11 that's necessary to take this thing to an acceptable

12 conclusion.

13 God, we pray that, as we go through all of

14 this stuff, that we keep our children and our

15 children's children in mind as we decide what we're

16 going to do with these neighborhoods, and these EPA
1? issues, and all of those things that tend to plague

18 our disadvantaged community.

19 God, I pray that you will turn all of our

20 hearts toward those that can't necessarily fight or

21 speak for themselves, that we will work for them, or

22 that we would make acceptable solutions for them, or

23 that we would move things forward for them so that

24 their children, as well as ours, can be safe.

25 We ask this in your son Jesus' name. Amen.

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-8

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 PageS

1 MS. SPENCER-HARDY: So the first thing we're

2 going to do is (audio distortion) talk about the

3 process. This is a short version of the Superfund

4 remedial process and, just so you know, every operable

5 unit that we have will have to go through the same

6 process. And so this is probably the third proposed

7 plan meeting we've had. And so this third proposed

8 plan meeting is for Operable Unit 3 and 5, as I

9 mentioned before, and it has to go through the same

10 process.

11 And at this point, we are here at the

12 proposed plan process. And so we started out through

13 all of this in the beginning and then, again, each

14 operable unit has to go through a remedial

15 investigation and feasibility study process to get to

16 this proposed plan.

1? So tonight, we will be talking about the

18 alternative that is being proposed and, after that is

19 done, after the 30-day comment period of is over, we

20 will move it to the record of decision, which is

21 called a ROD, and then at that point, the

22 responsiveness summary will take into account all of

23 the comments and questions that we get during the

24 30-day comment period. And so this is where we are

25 for Operable Units 3 and 5.

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-9

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp

- Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.
Public Meeting on 10/26/2823

Page 9

And Charles is going to talk to you about the

2 details on how we got to this remedy proposed plan.

MR. KING: Thank you, Tonya.

How's everybody doing this evening? I'm

5 going to see if I can work this technology. And if I

6 turn my back to you, I'm not trying to turn from you,

7 I'm trying to look at the -- I might hold this in my

8 hand, see if we can navigate this.

10 Kerr-McGee site, of course. It's a 90-acre site in

11 Columbus, and it's basically split by 14th Avenue. It

12 was a wood treatment chemical manufacturing plant

13 placed on the national priorities list by EPA in 2011

14 for contamination in the soil, groundwater, and

15 sediment, and the contaminants of concern were related

16 to creosote production, and the site is currently
1? owned by the Multistate Trust.

18 This is a photo while the facility was in

19 operation, just to give you - - I mean, the people that

20 may be old enough to remember during that time, you

21 can remember these photos, but for some, this is - -

22 this may be new. But this shows a lot of activity on

23 the former main plant, and this is the the part

24 (indiscernible due to unmuted Zoom participant).

25 As Tonya mentioned, she talked about

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

Okay. We're here to talk about the

B-10

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Page 10

1 operable units, and operable units are just the way

2 that EPA breaks the site up into pieces so that we can

3 manage them. At this site, we have seven operable

4 units. Operable Unit Number 1 is the pine yard area.

5 Operable Unit 2 was some residential

6 properties that was off the main facility property.

7 Operable Unit 3 is this darker area here.

8 Operable Unit 4 is this area, and that

9 includes that (indiscernible.) There was an access

10 road that was initially part of Operable Unit 1, but

11 we're going to deal with that as we -- well, it was an

12 access road that led to Operable Unit 4, and we

13 decided that it was just best to deal with it all.

14 There was nothing that (indiscernible due to unmuted

15 Zoom participant.) So that area was (indiscernible)

16 as well.

1? Operable Unit 5 is the other part of the main

18 facility, the part that's closest to 14th Avenue and

19 the pine yard.

20 Operable Unit 6 is the groundwater underneath

21 the whole property.

22 Operable Unit Number 7 is going to address

23 the wetlands area.

24 But what we've come to discuss tonight is

25 Operable Units 3 and 5.

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-ll

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Page 11

1 (Indiscernible due to unmuted Zoom

2 participant) contamination in Operable Unit 5, kind of

3 where it came from. It came from basically the

4 process areas, the tank farm and creosote recovery and

5 that was a -- there is a surface impoundment that was

6 actually addressed under the State law that we

7 commonly call RCARA, but it stands for Resource

8 Conservation and Recovery Act, but that was regulated

9 under the (indiscernible due to unmuted Zoom

10 participant) within the facility finding,

11 What we get from this slide is, there was a

12 large number of samples that we collected in order to

13 come up with the alternative that we're going to bring

14 to you tonight. TarGOST soil borings in Operable Unit

15 3, there were almost 250 TarGOST borings. And TarGOST

16 is, it's where you drill and your core down and

1? there's a special piece of equipment that actually

18 looks for creosote-type problems, because we knew that

19 this was a creosote site. We looked for it and, guess

20 what, we found it in a lot of areas.

21 Surface soil samples in Operable unit Number

22 3, we took almost 100 -- well, we took over 90,

23 because we may have even done more than the 93, but we

24 collected some samples since this document was printed

25 or since those numbers were generated. So over 93

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-12

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Page 12

1 samples of surface soil. And what we call surface

2 soil was zero to two-foot depth from ground surface.

3 Subsurface soil, we call it, from two to

4 eight feet below ground surface, we took over 40 of

5 those.

6 Groundwater samples, we collected over 450

7 groundwater samples at Operable Unit 3.

8 Over in OU5, we took the same type of

9 samples. We took 59, 57, 43, and 73 of those

10 respective samples in 0U5, and all -- 0U3 and 0U5

11 together are the main facility. So this is -- these

12 are additional samples not included in what I just

13 showed you. These were samples to just determine

14 visibly whether they could find contamination.

15 The Multistats Trust, under the direction and

16 oversight of EPA and the State, actually did some

17 trenching, and basically it was straight lines all the

18 way across the facility. And I don't know how well

19 you can see the difference in the color, but -- hold

20 on.

21 These lines here are -- that used to be

22 green. I think that -- what's that showing; green or

23 yellow? Okay. That color is basically saying that

24 there was no visible contamination there.

25 On this side, where you see the oranges,

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-13

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Page 13

1 there was actually visible contamination shown. And

2 that's consistent with what we thought we would see

3 because the part where we're seeing the oranges are

4 the part where more of the production stuff was.

5 Thi S IS just another example. I wanted you

6 to see diagrams that are in the big report that we

7 call a feasibility study report. Either that's

8 feasibility or remedial investigation. But it's one

9 of the reports that we looked and showed the number of

10 samples that we've taken are at the locations.

11 So these four areas still show the same kind

12 of -- they kind of represent the chart that I showed.

13 Some of them are surface, zero to two; some are

14 subsurface, two to eight; some are groundwater, and

15 then some are the TarGOST. The TarGOST down in the

16 bottom right there are the ones that you drill down

1? and they look specifically for creosote. And we spent

18 a lot of energy and effort looking for creosote-type

19 products.

20 The NCP, or the National Contingency Plan,

21 which is the law that we have to follow, the law that

22 we operate under, expects that EPA will use treatment

23 to address principal threats posed by sites whenever

24 practicable, that means, whenever possible, whenever

25 it makes sense, and to use engineering controls for

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-14

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Page 14

1 wastes that pose a relatively low long-term threat.

2 EPA considers there's a DNAPL, a dense

3 nonaqueous phase liquid, which is a primary source,

4 and then a residual one that we call a secondary

5 source. We consider those principal threats, and I'll

6 show you on a figure coming shortly. And EPA

7 considers the sort of outside those source areas as

8 relatively low-level threat areas, and I'll show you

9 why in just a second.

10 This is a figure that came out of one of our

11 investigation documents that basically shows -- you

12 see, this is a darker colored orange and this is maybe

13 a lighter, but this is what we determined was a

14 principal source and a secondary source, and that

15 figure was drawn based on sample results. So it's a

16 lot that went into that figure.

1? This up here is a reading from a TarGOST scan

18 and basically it's -- I think it goes along this line.

19 All of these indicators help to determine where

20 creosote is identified. And the -- I won't say

21 experts -- the geologists, they're -- they have

22 contractors that specialize in remediation help to

23 determine where the contamination is.

24 This figure here is showing a naphthalene,

25 which is a groundwater plume, but it almost has a

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-15

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Page 15

1 similar shape to the other plume that we said was a

2 principal source. If you remember, it -- well, it has

3 a really similar shape, pretty similar. As a matter

4 of fact, I'll roll it back so you can look at that

5 one. It has some similarities. It's not exactly, but

6 there are some similarities. Okay.

7 So when we evaluate the risk and offer an

8 agreed risk for the future residents, there were

9 unacceptable risks to future residents, outdoor

10 workers, indoor workers, construction workers, and

11 trespassers via ingestion, dermal contact, and

12 inhalation.

13 So any time EPA -- any time the EPA is

14 evaluating risk, unacceptable risk, to any kind of

15 contamination, you have to have what our risk

16 assessors call a completed pathway. In order to

1? complete a pathway, you've got to make sure that the

18 contamination gets to you and it gets to a person by

19 three ways: Inhalation, when you smell it; ingestion,

20 you eat it accidently or on purpose; and dermal

21 contact, meaning through your skin.

22 So we're going to talk -- and I took the time

23 to say that because we're going to talk about risk

24 exposure and the thing that's going to be important to

25 note, any time that -- the only way risk gets to you

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-16

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Page 16

1 is by three ways from contamination: Inhalation,

2 ingestion, dermal contact, which is through the skin.

3 Got it? Smell it, taste it, get it on your skin.

4 Okay. What you want to get from this slide,

5 we talked about the unacceptable risk. We talked

6 about -- I mentioned that a little bit. The ones in

7 gray are areas where they're unacceptable risks.

8 These are soil, skin -- 0U3 soils, and it's from the

9 FS report, from the feasibility study report. We

10 looked at two risks in there. We looked at lifetime

11 cancer risk, excess lifetime cancer risk, and

12 noncancer risk.

13 For this scenario, for the OD3 soils, for the

14 soils back in the process area, resident exceeds

15 it's an unacceptable number. Outdoor workers is an

16 unacceptable number. For surface soils and subsurface
1? soils, the construction worker has unacceptables.

18 Anything in the cancer line that's above one is going

19 to be unacceptable number. Anything above one times

20 10 to the minus 4 here will be an unacceptable number.

21 Okay. The same thing that we just talked

22 about, the hazardous indexes, this is for the 0U5

23 soils. 0U5, remember, that's the one that was not in

24 the process area. So in general, you would think it

25 would probably be less contaminated because there was

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-17

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Page 17

1 not as much activity going on.

2 In OU5, the excess lifetime cancer risk was

3 exceeded for resident. That means you can't live on

4 it. You can't live on 0U5. The noncancer was

5 exceeded for a resident. The only other thing that

6 was exceeded for 0U5 soil was a construction worker,

7 and I said anything above three, so -- I mean, excuse

8 me, above of one. So in this case, in the 0U5 soils,

9 right now, with nothing to do, you can't live on it

10 and, if you're going to do some kind of construction,

11 you've got to make some special provisions.

12 Now that we've talked about the risks to the

13 soils in 0U3 and 0U5, it's EPA's current judgment that

14 the preferred alternative that we submitted in the

15 plan or one of the other active measures considered in

16 the proposed plan is necessary to protect human health
1? and the environment from actual or threatened release

18 of hazardous waste.

19 Remedial action objectives: Remedial action

20 objectives are what EPA has to develop. When you find

21 there's an unacceptable risk, you have to figure out

22 what you've got to do to mitigate or to overcome that

23 risk, or to make sure that that risk is not a --

24 there's not any harm.

25 So in this case, the remedial action
www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-18

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Page 18

1 objective or RAO number 1 is to reduce or eliminate

2 exposure of potential future construction workers to

3 the 0U5 surface soils. Now, remember when we said

4 that OU5, the only threat -- I mean, you couldn't live

5 on it and it was construction worker. So, therefore,

6 the RAO for OU5 is going to make sure that a

7 construction worker --so that we -- to eliminate that

8 risk for the construction worker. And you remember

9 the three ways that you get that risk: Inhalation,

10 dermal contact, ingestion. Okay.

11 So RAO number 2, we're going to reduce or

12 eliminate the exposure to potential future industrial,

13 commercial, or construction workers to OU3 soils, and

14 it's going to be the same way, by preventing the

15 inhalation, ingestion, dermal contact.

16 RAO number 3 is to prevent or minimize the

1? migration of COCs, or the contaminants of concern, the

18 ones that were unacceptable at that, quote,

19 unacceptable risk, from contaminated surface soils

20 through stormwater runoff or windblown dust. We want

21 to make sure that that doesn't happen.

22 And RAO number 4 is to minimize the migration

23 of COCs, or contaminates of concern, that have

24 unacceptable risks from the source material through

25 either removal, treatment and/or containment to

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-19

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Page 19

1 improve the groundwater quality outside of OU3 and OU5

2 over time.

3 We thought it was important to note that

4 groundwater restoration is not in the objective of

5 this remedy. However, the proposed remedy will -- it

6 is expected to improve, and it will. And I believe it

7 will. We believe it will. All the technical people,

8 based on the information we have now, we believe it

9 will improve the groundwater quality and will

10 eventually help to improve the groundwater

11 restoration, or it may shorten the water restoration

12 time. But we will have a groundwater ROD. There will

13 be another proposed plan that will deal with

14 groundwater. Basically, we're not trying to --

15 groundwater restoration is not the objective of this

16 remedy, but what we're doing will help it, even though
1? that's not the primary objective.

18 Okay. This big table, what it is is it's

19 proposed cleanup levels for each of the contaminants

20 of concern in OU3. These were risk-based numbers.

21 The risk assessor generated those, and these are

22 numbers that the soil will have to be cleaned up to.

23 These are proposed cleanup soil -- these are

24 proposed soil cover levels. So any soil that we bring

25 in or that's brought in by the trucks that EPA and the

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-20

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Page 20

1 State have provided oversight of, you can't just get

2 it outside of somebody's back yard. There is testing

3 that goes on to ensure that the soil meets or exceeds

4 those conditions.

5 In the cleanup levels for -- proposed cleanup

6 levels for 0U5, and there was only one contaminant of

7 concern in QU5, and that's benzo(a)pyrene.

8 So now that we've talked about what the

9 proposed cleanup levels are, so let me give a quick

10 review. The first thing we did with all those samples

11 and stuff that I showed you, we were trying to do what

12 EPA calls determine nature and extent of possible

13 contamination. What that means in the short run is to

14 find what's there, where is it, how much of it is it,

15 and is it poisonous or is it toxic, does it cause a

16 harm. After you find out what's there, you determine
1? whether it causes harm. If it does cause harm, then

18 that's what we call an unacceptable risk.

19 Once we determine that there's an

20 unacceptable risk, then we do remedial action. Our

21 objective is to try to eliminate or minimize those

22 risks. And then we have to come up with alternatives,

23 what's the best way to now eliminate the risk that we

24 sampled and found out was not safe.

25 Now, as we generate the alternatives, the EPA

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-21

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Page 21

1 Superfund program has a set of guidelines that we have

2 to use, and that's called the nine criteria. That's

3 what this is up here. The nine criteria is -- and you

4 guys probably can't read it there, but the nine

5 criteria is broken up into three major sections.

6 The first section is called the threshold

7 criteria. The threshold criteria consists of overall

8 protection of human health and the environment, and

9 compliance with ARARs. What that really means is that

10 we can't carry a remedy through full evaluation if we

11 know that it's not protective. The other thing that

12 that remedy has to also do is it has to meet -- I said

13 ARARs. ARARs are applicable or relevant and

14 appropriate requirements. And what that means in

15 simple terms is it must meet all Federal, State -- all

16 appropriate Federal, State, and local laws and

1? ordinances. So whatever we carry through, it has to

18 meet those two.

19 Then we have what's called the balancing

20 criteria. The balancing criteria includes long-term

21 effectiveness, reduction of toxicity, mobility, and

22 volume, short-term effectiveness, Implementability,

23 and cost.

24 Long-term effectiveness is how good is it

25 going to work, is it going last. Reduction of

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-22

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Page 22

1 toxicity, mobility, or volume means can you make it

2 less toxic, can you make it less poisonous. Mobility,

3 can you contain it, can you -- if it was spreading,

4 could you contain it. Reduction of volume means that

5 could you take it and make the problem smaller.

6 Everybody with me? Okay.

7 Short-term effectiveness: Short-term

8 effectiveness is, while you try to construct the --

9 while the project is being built, constructed, is it

10 going to be difficult to do, is it going to be

11 dangerous, are there going to be some dangers to the

12 community while you're building it up.

13 Wait a minute. Is that what I'm doing? Yes.

14 Yes.

15 Yeah, how much time and is it going to cause

16 any problems with the folks around, workers and/or
1? residents.

18 Implementability: Can you do it? I mean,

19 sometimes there's something that you think is good and

20 it's just something that maybe it's not proven, don't

21 want to take a risk of trying to do something that's

22 not been implemented or there's not a good chance that

23 it can work.

24 Cost; Cost is just that we evaluate all the

25 alternatives based on how much they cost.

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-23

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Page 23

1 Now, modifying criteria; Modifying criteria

2 is State support agency acceptance. We've worked with

3 MDEQ throughout the process and we expect to continue

4 to work with them, but that -- and then the other one

5 is community acceptance.

6 Community acceptance is why we're here

7 tonight. Community acceptance is EPA, the lead

8 agency, with support from the State agency, has

9 evaluated the situation, proposes a remedy, but we

10 want to get your input. We want to make sure that

11 there's nothing that we've forgotten or something that

12 we've not considered maybe as fully as we should have.

13 This is where you get a chance to give us input. We

14 will, at the end of the presentation, we'll take

15 questions at the meeting, but as Tonya indicated and

16 should be on your mail-out, if you still have it or if
1? you looked at it, the comment period lasts from August

18 16th to November 16th.

19 What did I say? October 16th to November

20 16th. I apologize. Thank you. That's why I -- I've

21 got the best folks on my team in the world. Don't let

22 nobody tell you different.

23 But so that's why we're here tonight. We

24 want to get your input on what we're proposing.

25 So I told you that we have to evaluate

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-24

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Page 24

1 alternatives, but what I wanted you to see here was in

2 the original feasibility study. The feasibility study

3 report is, after we found out there is a problem, we

4 need to do something, then the feasibility study is

5 where the alternatives are developed, things that can

6 be done to address the problem.

7 In this case, there were nine alternatives

8 that were identified: DNAPL recovery, vertical

9 barrier wall, removal and disposal, engineered soil

10 cover, phytoremediation, institutional controls, RCRA

11 cap, in situ treatment, and monitoring. And the one

12 that -- so I have nine up there, but under our circle

13 of law, we have to also consider no action. We have

14 to always consider no action.

15 So of those 10 alternatives -- you know,

16 there were nine, nine plus the one for no action.
1? There were 10 alternatives that we were looking at,

18 but only six of those were carried through through a

19 full evaluation. And I know the numbers -- my mama

20 was a teacher in math in Mississippi, and if I counted

21 the way those numbers look like now, one, three, four,

22 five, nine, and ten, I might have to -- I might get

23 punished for that. But I do want you to know we do

24 know how to count to 10.

25 The four alternatives that were -- that
www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-25

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Page 25

1 didn't get evaluated all the way through, we just kept

2 or original numbers of the alternatives in the FS, so

3 that's why the numbers are not sequential from 1 to

4 10.

5 The ones that did get carried through were no

6 action. Alternative number 3 is downgrading it,

7 barrier wall, phyto remediation, and engineered soil

8 cover.

9 Alternative 4 is the barrier wall, isolation

10 of source areas, phyt oremedi at ion, and engineered soil

11 cover,

12 Alternative 5 is in situ stabilization of

13 source areas and engineered soil cover.

14 Alternative 9 is removal of surface soils and

15 source area soils.

16 Ten is RCRA cap cover, source areas and
1? engineered soil cover.

18 Those were the six that were carried through

19 for a full evaluation. And that was the evaluation

20 for U03.

21 In the FS report for OU5, all of the

22 alternatives were eliminated except for the no action

23 and institutional controls in the form of a soil

24 management plan. And, because of that, the EPA

25 proposes as an interim --we propose this as an

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-26

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Page 26

1 interim remedy until the uncertainty of OU5 risk

2 assessment is resolved. Once it's resolved, EPA will

3 evaluate the data, collect additional data, if

4 necessary, and update the risk assessment, and then

5 we'll issue another proposed plan to address the

6 interim.

7 And when I said we don't have enough

8 information, I want to make sure that you guys

9 understand what the soil management plan is. I think

10 I told you that, in 0U5, there was only one

11 contaminant. That was benzo(a)pyrene. It was at low

12 levels. It's in an area we call a relatively low-risk

13 area.

14 Depending on what the reuse scenario is,

15 let's say it's going to be a parking lot, maybe

16 nothing will need to be done. You know, I mean, you
1? would pave over it and there wouldn't be any threat.

18 But if there was going to be something that may

19 require digging, or footings, or something like that,

20 there may be some additional things that need to be

21 done.

22 Once EPA - - we work very closely with the

23 CAG, the mayor, and the local stakeholders here. Once

24 a decision is made on what would be done, whether

25 that's with local state funds, or if somebody bought

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-27

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Page 27

1 it, or whatever the situation was, once a decision is

2 made what will be done, then that could impact whether

3 any remediation is needed.

4 But right now, the only unacceptable risk is

5 if you were living on the 0U5 part or if you were a

6 construction worker digging through that dirt. So

7 right now, there's no unacceptable risk unless you

8 were living there or you are a construction worker.

9 I can hear myself answering a question. And the risk

10 that is there to a construction worker, oftentimes it

11 can be eliminated by just protective clothing, meaning

12 boots, hard hats, making sure that there's no contact

13 on the skin, those type of adjustments.

14 Summary of alternatives: I know this figure

15 is really, really busy. I want you to -- I'm going to

16 try to guide you through two things you've got to get.
1? If you guys can see the circles through here, the more

18 the circle -- so the clean circle is very poor, that's

19 poor. Fair is half. Good looks like it's

20 three-quarters of a pie. And the completely filled

21 one is excellent. So that's the circles.

22 These categories up here are the nine

23 criteria that we just talked about. Well, not nine.

24 There are seven of them that we just talked about.

25 And along this line are the alternatives. What I want

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-28

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Page 28

1 you to get from this figure is, when you look at the

2 circles, the two that's -- have the most completely

3 filled circles are these two here, unless I'm seeing

4 wrong, these two. This one is three-quarters full.

5 This one is completely full.

6 This is alternative 4, which is -- but it's

7 based on the evaluation of all the criteria, which

8 leads us to the EPA's preferred alternative is

9 alternative 4, which is the barrier wall, isolation of

10 source areas, phytoremediation, engineered soil cover,

11 ICs, or institutional controls, meaning it could be

12 deed and land use restrictions to make sure that, you

13 know, there was no digging where ~- there doesn't need

14 to be any digging, there would be monitoring and,

15 because in this case, this alternative would leave

16 material inside this -- inside this slurry wall, this
1? wall and cap area.

18 It's a requirement by EPA that any time waste

19 is left on-site, EPA has to come back at least once

20 every five years. It's called a five-year review, and

21 it's a mandatory -- it's a statutory requirement. And

22 what happens during that five-year review inspection,

23 EPA and the representative from -- well, a

24 representative of EPA and the State would come out,

25 they look at the site with contractors, they do an

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-29

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Page 29

1 evaluation, and the things you're looking for is, is

2 the remedy still performing as it was intending, are

3 there any changes in what we know about the signs of

4 the chemicals that we're dealing with,

5 If there's a change in the, let's say,

6 something that maybe we thought was less toxic and we

7 found out later that it's more toxic, then we would do

8 an evaluation to see are those cleanup levels that we

9 set at this time on this lot, are they still

10 protecting, you know. And if they were not

11 protecting, then EPA would be mandated to come out and

12 do something and make sure that it's protected. And

13 as long as there's waste left on-site and that --

14 whatever waste that's on-site, it's a mandatory

15 requirement to come back and ensure that it remains

16 protected at least once every five years.

1? The rest of the selected remedies that

18 achieve the threshold criteria, is protective of human

19 health and the environment, complies with any laws,

20 the State and local laws and ordinances that are

21 applicable, it's the best trade-off of the balancing

22 criteria, it's cost effective, and it provides a

23 permanent solution to the maximum extent practicable,

24 and it has concurrence or support from our EPA

25 headquarters, MDEQ, as well as the Multistate Trust.

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-30

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Page 30

1 As I indicated earlier, this public comment

2 period runs from October 16th to November 16th, You

3 can e-mail comments to me, king.charlesl@epa.gov. And

4 if you have the fact sheet of the mail-out, it is on

5 that, so you don't have to write it down, if you've

6 got the fact sheet or mail-out. If you want to write

7 comments, U.S. EPA R4, SEMD-RSS, 61 Forsyth Street,

8 NW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. There's also a website

9 and it's in the fact sheet, too. I'm not going to

10 read all of the dashes and slashes. And there's an

11 information repository at the Columbus-Lowndes Public

12 Library at 314 North 7th Street.

13 One of the things that, over the years -- and

14 I've been working with the project for more than 10

15 years. We have taken what we call a TEAM approach,

16 you know, together everyone accomplishes more. I

17 won't go through all of this, but on the together

18 part, I think it's been -- I think it's reasonable to

19 at least talk about the "Together" part. We worked

20 collaboratively with State of Mississippi, City of

21 Columbus, the Trust, the CAG, Columbus Light and

22 Water, the local stakeholders, and we've got some

23 things that I think are pretty special. I mean, a

24 couple them that I could just mention right off the

25 bat (indiscernible), but you probably can't even read

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-31

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Page 31

1 them, may not be able to read that.

2 But the 14th Avenue Ditch, if you've been

3 living here for some time, the 14th Avenue Ditch was

4 one of the first things that we did. It was a

5 collaborative effort with City of Columbus, EPA,

6 State, Columbus Light and Water, and we took what was

7 an area that was contaminated, City needed a turning

8 lane, and we put resources together and put staff

9 together, and we found a way to find some common

10 ground to try to deal with issues that helped

11 everybody, you know. And on this site, I'm proud to

12 say, not only did the 14th, then we turned around and

13 did the 7th, the 7th Avenue, and then we did the

14 connection between Moss Street, and Moss Street is

15 between 14th and 7th. So we've got some collaborative

16 projects and we've got some good stuff coming in the

17 future, too.

18 But I just wanted to at least let you guys

19 know that, you know, EPA is here. We're not going

20 anywhere. The Trust is here. The Trust has been

21 working very, very hard. I think we've got a good

22 collaboration going on. And I just wanted to make

23 sure you guys really understood that we really mean

24 TEAM when we say it, together everyone accomplishes

25 more.

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-32

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp

- Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.
Public Meeting on 10/26/2823

Page 32

Questions?

MS. SPENCER-HARDY: Just as a reminder as we

3 go into the questions, for those people who are on

4 Zoom, please press pound six to come off of the Zoom

5 audio if you have questions. And also for everyone,

6 if you have a question, please state your name and

7 then your question for the transcriptionist, to make

8 sure she gets it for the record.

9 And also as a reminder for the folks on Zoom

10 as well as the people in the room, we will not be

11 taking questions about the tort suit tonight. If you

12 have questions about that, we do have a flier that has

13 been developed. There's some out on the table. If

14 someone wants that information, you can get that

15 information, as well, from the community center about

16 the tort claim. And also for those of you who know
1? Reverend Samuels, you can also contact him, as well.

18 So just a reminder, we are not answering questions

19 about the tort suit. That is a separate issue and

20 but we do have information available and a sign-up

21 sheet for those people who want more information about

22 that,

23 Questions?

24 MR. BARLETTO: I do have one question.

25 PASTOR LEACH: Darren Leach, Memphis Town

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-33

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Page 33

1 Community Action Group,

2 Charles, I want you to tell me the statement

3 you made about under what conditions that no

4 remediation would be required.

5 MR. KING: Well, in -- what are you talking

6 about? In - -

7 PASTOR LEACH: You made a statement that,

8 under certain conditions, no remediation will be

9 required on parking lot or - -

10 MR. KING: I think you're talking about for

11 Operable Unit 5. So let me -- I did say that. I want

12 to make sure I did the full -- so OU5 currently has --

13 we're currently proposing a soil maintenance plan. I

14 mean a soil management plan. I'm sorry. And the

15 management of the soils is going to determined based

16 on the activity that's going to be done on it. So I
1? did say that there's -- there could be a scenario like

18 if they're going to make a parking lot, you know,

19 maybe the construction workers might need to make sure

20 that they don't get the dust and things like that on

21 them, but if it was a parking lot in OU5, then that

22 would only just be an additional barrier. And so I'm

23 saying that it wouldn't be any -- that could be the

24 kind of scenario that no remediation would be

25 required.

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-34

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp

- Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.
Public Meeting on 10/26/2823

Page 34

PASTOR LEACH: I realize that, you know, no

2 single technology can remediate an entire facility

3 site, but what are your pretreatment and your

4 post-treatment methods for addressing --

MR. KING: That's going to be determined

6 during the design.

PASTOR LEACH: I've accused you guys of doing

8 the cleanup on the cheap, and it looks like my

9 suspicions are founded because there are several ways,

10 methods, to do cleanup. Okay? But you guys seem to

11 come to the conclusion that this is the way to do it.

12 So if you think that this does not work, what are the

13 alternatives?

14 MR. KING: If the cleanup does not work, as I

15 told you, any time waste is left on-site, EPA has to

16 come back and evaluate. The EPA would have to make
1? sure that whatever remedy is in place would be

18 protective of human health and environment.

19 PASTOR LEACH: It bothers me that, a few

20 years ago, we discussed the pumping situation

21 MR. KING: The what situation?

22 PASTOR LEACH: The pumps that had been

23 installed down there, and the money run out. So we

24 have not gotten assurances that the groundwater will

25 be pumped for eternity, because I believe the last

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-35

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Page 35

1 time you talked about it was seven years ago, and

2 there was a specific amount of money that was

3 designated by MDEQ to run the pumps.

4 And, furthermore, will the Corps of Engineers

5 get involved in any of the activity now? Because in

6 my research, I found that the Corps has participated

7 in the past on other sites in Region 4 and in other

8 regions.

9 MR. KING: You asked a lot of stuff. I'm

10 trying to unpack it. I'm not trying to dodge your

11 question. I want to make sure I -- so the first thing

12 you asked me was the pumps. The pumps that are there

13 for groundwater, we monitor the groundwater wells. We

14 have to make sure that either the pumps are working up

15 to standards. One of the reasons that the

16 phytoremediation is being proposed is that the trees
1? will help to control the groundwater migration

18 probably better than the pumps because

19 PASTOR LEACH: (indiscernible) my own.

20 MR. KING: Okay. So you remember when these

21 things, a couple of months ago, Dr. Lindmire --he was

22 supposed to be on the call tonight, four or five

23 questions. But phytoremediation, which means you use

24 trees to help clean up the site, the trees help get

25 the groundwater, and we have a pilot study that's been

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-36

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Page 36

1 going on -- we're looking at more than two years,

2 almost three years now, and we've got a lot of data

3 that suggests that, even during the heavy periods of

4 rain here over the last couple of years, the trees

5 were able to reduce the groundwater table by almost

6 two feet. So what you've got, imagine a tree gets

7 almost each tree being a pump. So the trees are going

8 to actually, in the long run, pump more than what the

9 pumps are going to do.

10 There are some times during the wintertimes

11 when trees are more dormant that the pumps may be

12 required, and we'll make sure that the trees are -- I

13 mean, that the pumps are available. We'll make sure

14 that there is some coordination to make sure that the

15 water levels stay at a level that's going to make sure

16 that human health and environment are protected.

1? And you asked about the Corps of Engineers.

18 Corps of Engineers, I don't know about other projects.

19 I have used the Corps of Engineers. As a matter of

20 fact, Eric is using the Corps of Engineers on one of

21 his projects over in Navassa. I have used the Corps

22 of Engineers for different things on projects before,

23 They get tasked by us just like any other contractor.

24 So you asked if they were going to be on it. I don't

25 know at this time.

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-37

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp

- Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Page 37

1 PASTOR LEACH: Well, they were on the project

2 in Pensacola.

3 MR. KING: Yeah.

4 PASTOR LEACH: Where you put in stronger

5 pumps and they maintained the pumps.

6 MR. KING: Do you know who's the project

7 manager for that project you're talking about? That

8 guy right there

9 PASTOR LEACH: (Indiscernible.)

10 MR. KING: He's the man.

11 PASTOR LEACH: Okay. I've got a bunch of

12 questions.

13 (Indiscernible background speaking.)

14 MS. SPENCER-HARDY: We've got to call on the

15 Zoom call.

16 PASTOR LEACH: Okay. I'm sorry.
1? MR. KING: What you got?

18 MS. WOODS: Vincent Barletto, if you could

19 unmute yourself and ask your question, and we'll

20 repeat it in case it's not audible.

21 MR. BARLETTO: Yeah. Thank you so much. I'm

22 not in - -

23 MS. WOODS: One moment.

24 MR. BARLETTO: Can you hear me?

25 MS. WOODS: Yes. Go ahead.

B-38

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Page 38

1 MR. BARLETTO: Can you go back one slide, or

2 maybe it's two, where you showed the half a dozen

3 remediation options and the half circles and the cost?

4 Yeah, that one there.

5 So, and then, I think on the following slide,

6 you said, okay, hey, let's look at really -- I think

7 it was alternative number 4, was what kind of had the

8 best options. And my question is -- and can you go to

9 that next slide that kind of outlines that

10 alternative? There you go.

11 So the final remediation, you just touched on

12 it. Unfortunately, it kind of triggered another

13 question in my brain, but, you know, what if it

14 instead of trees -- I'll kind of break this up, my

15 question up, into two parts maybe. So instead of the

16 trees, which we know suck up a lot of water, like you
1? say, what would grasses do? Do you have any

18 comparison? Would that also count as

19 phytoremediat ion?

20 MR. KING: Yes, sir. Grass would also count

21 as phytoremediation. And at this time, we're -- we're

22 at the proposal stage for the remedy. If, in fact,

23 this goes through like we think it should, grasses

24 could be acceptable phytoremediation. There could be

25 some kind of combination of grasses and trees.

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-39

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp

- Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.
Public Meeting on 10/26/2823

Page 39

MR. BARLETTO: And the reason -- and thank

2 you for that. And this is part of a -

MR. KING: My colleague here has a good bit

4 of background in that, too.

MR. SPALVINS: I've done a little bit of work

6 with phytoremediation. I can just address that. One

7 of the chief advantages of the trees is that the root

8 systems are installed very deep in the ground. And so

9 Ben was out here when they did that and so was

10 Charles.

11 How deep did they drill those holes that they

12 put those

13 MR. BENTKOWSKI: Well, they put the whole --

14 MR. SPALVINS: Well, I'll let you -- and I'll

15 just add that grasses have a shorter root system.

16 They're also seasonal. So one of the things that

1? they've evaluated was different types of trees so that

18 you have trees doing the work over a longer growing

19 season. And right now, EPA is not proposing a

20 specific kind of tree or a specific number of trees.

21 That's something that can be adjusted as needed as we

22 go along.

23 MR. BARLETTO: Right. And that was kind of

24 my question to you.

25 MR. BENTKOWSKI: They used a Ditch Witch and
www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-40

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Page 40

1 they planted these little twigs that were a couple of

2 feet long.

3 MR. KING: Hold on.

4 MR. BENTKOWSKI: Okay. I can actually hear

5 myself. Okay.

6 So when they planted the trees, they used a

7 Ditch Witch, and they made these linear trenches, and

8 these little twigs that were about two feet long,

9 stuck that into the ground. They put some soil, some

10 better quality of soil down in there, and stuck these

11 in there. And now, two years later, some of the trees

12 are 20 feet tall. And like Eric said, the root

13 systems go down much deeper than if you're using

14 grasses.

15 I did some - - I looked into some of the

16 grasses and they have their benefits for shallower

1? soil, but in this case, we're going to try to use the

18 trees that draw up the water, control the groundwater

19 migration.

20 But within the containment area, we're going

21 to use them as an alternative of running the pumps all

22 the time within the containment area. It's a lower

23 cost, more natural way of doing things. And we have

24 to keep in mind the water budget and how effective the

25 trees are. There's lots we've done in the remedial

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-41

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Page 41

1 design. But I do think that, in the end, that will be

2 effective at keeping the water levels low within the

3 containment area and working on controlling the

4 off-site migration of the dissolved phase groundwater,

5 which will be the subject of another operable unit

6 decision.

7 MR. BARLETTO: And that makes a lot of - -

8 MR. KING: Well, one of the things that I've

9 learned from Dr. Landmeier in dealing with the trees

10 and you may -- you all may know this, but it was

11 interesting and almost shocking to me. What he told

12 me is that, when you look at a tree, especially the

13 ones that we've got out there, but many trees, he said

14 that, oftentimes, as high as the tree is up, the root

15 system goes that far down, and I just -- I had no

16 idea. So that's just something to think about. When
1? you've got a tree that's 20 feet up, you think that

18 root system or approximate root system could be as far

19 as 20 feet down. So that's going to help in pumping

20 the water.

21 MS. WOODS: There's a follow-up from the same

22 person.

23 Vincent, did you have a follow-up question?

24 MR. BARLETTO: Yeah. So my first part of

25 that question was for the phytoremediation, and I

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-42

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Page 42

1 appreciate that and, of course, it makes sense that

2 we're, you know, proposing the trees to go deeper and,

3 of course, they pull more water. But we've got to - -

4 you know, if we can -- if there's a design opportunity

5 that we can come across and say, hey, you know, we've

6 got a solution that can also suck up a lot of water

7 without it being trees, then, you know, maybe that's

8 something the EPA can consider.

9 But my further question is with this barrier

10 wall and the engineered soil cover. I mean, the good

11 thing here is that, yes, there's a good solution, but

12 the problem is that is expensive, incredibly

13 expensive. So is the EPA proposing that, if

14 alternative number 4 is the preferred option, which I

15 would agree with, then does that mean that all of the

16 remediation exercises would need to be executed for
1? that consideration, or could we design parts and

18 pieces such that it would still satisfy -- in other

19 words, as an example, could we forego the barrier

20 wall, use a significant phytoremediation plan, and

21 then use engineered soil cover where we would need it?

22 MR. KING: Vincent?

23 MR. BARLBTTO: Yes.

24 MR. KING: Vincent, you sound like a

25 contractor. Am I correct?

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-43

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp

- Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.
Public Meeting on 10/26/2823

Page 43

MR. BARLETTO: I'm an engineer, so you're

2 close.

MS. WOODS: Sorry. He can't really -- you

4 have to tell us when you want to talk to him.

MR. KING: He's not a contractor?

MS. WOODS: He said he's an engineer.

MR. KING: But what you're asking, though,

8 Vincent, it's in the design stage. We talk about

9 phytoremediation. We're not opposed to getting any

10 ideas that are going to be the best idea. So if

11 you've got something that you should need to propose,

12 that's why we have the public comment period. Submit

13 it. It will be evaluated, just like any other comment

14 that's received.

15 Yes?

16 MR. BENTKOWSKI: Plus I'd like to add that
1? the trees really only work on contamination that's

18 dissolved in the groundwater, and that's the land in

19 the blue on this one poster over here. The trees will

20 not clean up the DNAPL that's down there stuck between

21 the sand grains. It just won't. Dr. Landmeier has

22 got a 400-page book about phytoremediation and you can

23 get deep, deep into it if you need to, but the trees

24 just won't work on the creosote itself.

25 MR. KING: Can you talk about the role of a

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-44

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Page 44

1 barrier wall, alternative 6?

2 MR. BENTKOWSKI: And so the barrier wall will

3 actually go all the way around where the creosote is,

4 the residual creosote is. Charles talked about all

5 those tarGOST borings. Those were actually -- you

6 know, it specifically identifies where the creosote

7 is. We use it at all of our creosote sites all across

8 the region, and you can really tell where it is and

9 where it isn't. And that's how we determine the shape

10 of the barrier wall, to go around where the residual

11 creosote is.

12 And, you know, I was one of the people that

13 read through the feasibility study and there are

14 things that were three times more expensive. And so

15 since this is the Trust money, some of our money, some

16 of the money that's going to be borne by the State of
1? Mississippi eventually, it's our objective to find the

18 most cost-effective remedy that is also effective at

19 controlling the risk. So that's the whole point of

20 the feasibility study, is to work through that and

21 understand it.

22 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Can you describe what

23 the barrier wall is made out of and what it changes?

24 MR. BENTKOWSKI; Right. So the question was

25 about the construction of the barrier wall. I'm

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-45

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Page 45

1 working on a project up in Paducah. There, they're

2 using sheet piling.

3 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: What state?

4 MR. BENTKOWSKI: Paducah, Kentucky. It's a

5 big place. They've got a barrier wall that's going to

6 be miles long, and the part is right up next to the

7 Ohio River is going to use sheet piling because the

8 ground needs -- you can't really dig a trench to put

9 this other kind of wall in that close to the river.

10 But here, we'll probably use -- dig a trench with a

11 big track hoe and mix a bentonite, which is a type of

12 clay, and cement slurry to go in this trench. And it

13 has such a low permeability that the water doesn't go

14 through it. In fact, that's why we're putting the

15 pump and the trees inside of the barrier wall, so that

16 the groundwater comes towards the center.

1? There's a great fact sheet that's out there

18 on the table that shows a good a cartoon about how

19 that -- how we want to keep the water level lower, and

20 that material is just -- well, I actually have some

21 clay. Let me reach into my bag of tricks here. I

22 have a piece of clay, and it's this fine-grain

23 material and, it has a very low permeability, and it

24 keeps the contamination on the inside of the

25 containment wall. And that's -- you know, they make

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-46

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp

- Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Page 46

1 these -- the powders and mix it with the concrete and

2 the bentonite. Engineers design these things to have

3 a very low permeability, and then you put them in

4 place and control the groundwater. They have an

5 inward gradient, and that's how you keep the

6 contamination in place.

7 Yes, ma'am. For me or for Charles?

8 MS. MILLER: My name is Velvet Miller, and

9 I'm relatively new to the community, but I have a

10 couple of questions to help me put things in context.

11 First, how deep is the trench? How far down

12 does that go? Does it go down as far as you found the

13 creosote?

14 MR. BENTKGWSKI: Yes, ma'am.

15 MS. MILLER: How deep is it?

16 MR. BENTKGWSKI: All right. So it's about
1? 40 --

18 MS. SPENCER-HARDY: Have her say her name.

19 MR. BENTKGWSKI: She did.

20 MS. SPENCER-HARDY: Oh, I'm sorry.

21 MS. MILLER: I can. I'll say it again.

22 Velvet Miller.

23 So how deep does it go?

24 MR. BENTKGWSKI: About 40 or 50 feet deep.

25 MS. MILLER: Okay.

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-47

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Page 47

1 MR. BENTKOWSKI: And we use those soil

2 borings and the TarGOSTs to get through the surficial

3 aquifer down to a zone called the Eutaw, and all the

4 creosote is above the Eutaw.

5 MS. MILLER: Okay.

6 MR. BENTKOWSKI: So we have a very good

7 understanding of the vertical extent of the

8 contamination.

9 MS. MILLER: Okay. That's why you call it a

10 vertical?

11 MR. BENTKOWSKI: Yes, ma'am.

12 MS. MILLER: Okay. Thank you.

13 Now, Charles, if you can just help to put

14 things in context. And bear with me. I know you've

15 done this before. Tell me, how many total acres need

16 remediation?

1? MR. KING: That was one I don't know by

18 memory, but the -- so I'm going to tell you this. The

19 OU3, OU5, that total size is about 40, around 40, 44

20 acres. And if you just split that, I would say

21 probably closer to 30 acres or more that would need

22 remediation, and then you've got some that have the

23 soil maintenance -- a soil management plan. So right

24 now, we know it's going to probably be at least 25 to

25 30 that will be

www.husfby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-48

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp

- Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.
Public Meeting on 10/26/2823

Page 48

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Do you know what the

2 number of acres is?

MR. KING: Someone said 18 to 20 that's in

4 OU3 part. 0U5 is 18? So the other part is 18

MS. WOODS: A little over 20.

MR. KING: So it's about 45. So it's like 26

7 and 18, something like that.

MS. MILLER: And am I'm correct? What I

9 learned previously is that there are 20 acres that are
10 being remediated; is that correct?

12 the pine yard, which -- so we had a number, I think

13 about -- I think I said at the meeting uptown, it was

14 like 15-ish, and I think that's number is still

15 accurate, but they made us -- they said that the 15 is

16 not a straight square. If you're trying to get a

1? straight block -- what did we say that number was? I

18 don't want to misquote it.

19 MS. WOODS: So there was a remediation at the

20 pine yard that was, I think, around 16 acres, but

21 that's different than the acres that are available for

22 reuse because there's the acreage that was remediated,

23 and then there's areas on the pine yard that don't

24 have contamination that don't need to be remediated.

25 So it's actually -- and then there's areas of the pine

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

MR. KING: Over on the other side, over in

B-49

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Page 49

1 yard that we're still studying. So we're still

2 working to come up with a final plot for the area that

3 is available for reuse, and those specific acreage

4 will be coming out soon. But it's in that range of 10

5 to 15 that's going to be ready now.

6 MS. MILLER: I guess what I'm trying to - -

7 thank you. And I'm trying to get a sense of the

8 context of how much work has been done, how much needs

9 to be done of the operable units, how many more are

10 there, the timeline. This has been going on for a

11 long time, and I'm just trying to see what's the end

12 of -- what's the timeline that you feel the project

13 will be ready for whatever kind of use is decided?

14 MR. KING: Well, I think it will be some uses

15 that will be ready relatively soon, within the next

16 year. The 0U1 will be ready, parts of 0U1, that 10 to
1? 15 acres that we talked about, that's going to be

18 ready to be used relatively soon, within -- we're

19 going to probably try to delist it within a year. But

20 we'll go through the process. I think there's some

21 interesting --a portion of that from the local

22 stakeholders.

23 OU3 and 5, 0U5 is the one where we're talking

24 about that's going to require the slurry wall. We're

25 talking about at least two, two-and-a-half years

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-50

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Page 50

1 before you do design, construction. OU5, depending on

2 what the soil management plan is and the intended use,

3 that could be something that could be done within a

4 couple of years.

5 The groundwater and the wetlands area, I

6 don't even feel comfortable saying a date just because

7 we've got (indiscernible) and all kind of things. But

8 I think within the next two to three years, there

9 should be at least 25 or so acres that should be
10 ready. That's my best guess at this time.

11 PASTOR LEACH; So the only -- one of the

12 major concerns that I have is, when you talk about --

13 (Indiscernible.)

14 PASTOR LEACH: Darren Leach. I forgot that

15 there's somebody here that doesn't know me.

16 So, yeah. So when you talked about 0U5 and

1? you said that what we were going to do was just do

18 some maintenance, and then when I looked in the actual

19 proposal, it talked about another thing, controls was

20 it, some

21 MR, KING: Institutional controls?

22 PASTOR LEACH: Institutional controls.

23 MR. KING: Yes.

24 PASTOR LEACH: Which would do stuff like

25 maybe limit the usage of the facility. How do we

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-51

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Page 51

1 get -- how do we plan for redevelopment if we do that

2 combination? How could we -- what do we do to --

3 MR. KING: So one of the institutional

4 controls would be --

5 Eric, if I'm saying something

6 (indiscernible.)

7 One of the things for institutional controls,

8 I'll give you an example of what one might be. It

9 would be to prohibit drinking -- I mean, using

10 putting a private well there. Well, you guys are on

11 municipal water. It's highly unlikely that that would

12 happen. But one institutional control would be that

13 you don't want to do that. There*d also be one where

14 you can't live on it, I mean, because we already saw

15 that those numbers were not acceptable. I want to let

16 Eric give a little -- because Eric has just come off
1? detail with headquarters, and he and I (indiscernible)

18 back on a lot of our projects, and this is right up

19 his alley.

20 MR. SPALVINS: Thank you.

21 So when I started helping Charles with this

22 proposed plan and looking at the risk assessment, we

23 were focused on what exactly are we trying to propose

24 for 0U5. And one of the things that makes it

25 creates a lot of uncertainty is the location of the

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-52

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Page 52

1 soil in OU5 that poses an unacceptable risk and the

2 way that the risk assessment handled that,

3 So there was more than 50 samples taken in

4 OU5. Of those samples, less than 20 of them had a

5 concentration that posed this unacceptable risk, and

6 those 20 samples are kind of spread all out on OU5.

7 And so there's a back - - and we don11 know what kind

8 of development or what kind of, you know, construction

9 might be needed there until there's a property owner

10 and until there's a development plan for that.

11 But rather than put a restriction on all of

12 OU5, and rather than try to say you've got to clean up

13 all this dirt in OU5, where we don't know exactly

14 where the construction is going to be, we decided that

15 we'd do what we call interim matching, which just

16 means we're going to come back later in the final

1? action. And the interim action would be, if somebody

18 is ready to use this piece of land, but, you know, we

19 want to make sure that they do some sampling and make

20 sure that their construction workers are not going to

21 be put at risk.

22 Now, EPA, and the State, and the Trust, you

23 know, will be a part of that conversation when that

24 happens. And what I would expect would happen is

25 that, as this conversation goes more to specific

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-53

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Page 53

1 redevelopment opportunities, that, you know, that's

2 when you sit down with the planner and what are you

3 going to put here, what are you going to put there.

4 Okay. If you put that in this location, you're not

5 going to need to do anything, because that's 18 acres.

6 Well, the construction worker's not going to spend,

7 you know, 270 days, or whatever the estimate is based

8 on the risk assessment, they're not going to spend

9 that in those 20 locations that are contaminated for a

10 whole year.

11 So we need to figure out, like, if you want

12 to build something over here and you're going to go

13 down five feet, that's an area that's clean, there's

14 not going to be any restrictions. But if you're going

15 to go over on this part, where we know there's some

16 soil contamination, then we might want to go ahead and

17 excavate that soil and haul it out so that you don't

18 have to have that (audio distortion.) I don't know if

19 that's answering the question or not.

20 PASTOR LEACH: The only thing that still

21 remains problematic for me is, that if I wanted to do

22 the redevelopment, the first thing you'd have to do is

23 find somebody that's attracted, that's attracted to

24 the property. And if I know that there are problems

25 and that I was going to have to jump through all these

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-54

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Page 54

1 hoops to potentially do the work, that may scare off

2 some of our future developers.

3 So I would suggest that maybe we go ahead and

4 assume that the use on 0U5 is going to be industrial,

5 light industrial, commercial industrial, and that we

6 clean the site to that standard so that, when we get

7 ready to court new developers, that property will

8 already be ready.

9 MR. SPALVINS: Right.

10 PASTOR LEACH: If that makes sense.

11 MR. SPALVINS; Oh, yeah, it makes sense.

12 Absolutely. I think that the position that the EPA

13 was in with the risk assessment and the feasibility

14 study that we had, when we started to have this

15 conversation with headquarters, headquarters asked us

16 to take another look at the way we were proposing 0U5.
1? And so that's

18 PASTOR LEACH: The reason I'm not over

19 concerned is because you did suggest this as an

20 interim.

21 MR. SPALVINS: Interim, yeah.

22 PASTOR LEACH: So that means you know, like

23 we know, that something may need some --

24 MR. SPALVINS: There's more work to be done.

25 PASTOR LEACH: Exactly. Now, the reason I

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-55

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Page 55

1 think that it would be good to put it in this proposed

2 plan is because times are aplenty. So if we wanted to

3 get something to deal with legacy pollution, there is

4 probably -- this is probably one of the better times

5 to go get additional funding to deal with legacy

6 pollution. I don't know if times will be as aplenty

7 to two to three to four years from now. So if we can

8 get that into this proposed plan, then we can all go

9 out and start looking for the funding to deal with

10 legacy pollution.

11 And, of course, according to Justice40,

12 that's one of the target investment areas. So that's

13 why I'm thinking it would help us to go get the

14 funding we need, to work with you to get the funding

15 we need, or if we go can ahead and get it in this

16 proposed plan.

1? MR. SPALVINS: Yeah. I think -- let me just

18 say one more thing about -- let me grab one of these

19 maps here. Let me use this one. So the areas where

20 the soil's contaminated are kind of on the southern

21 part of OU5, and there's not a lot of sample density

22 over here. And when they wrote the risk assessment,

23 they assumed that this entire area would be one

24 exposure unit, is what we call it.

25 And now, that may -- there may not be

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-56

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Page 56

1 somebody who wants an 18-acre piece of property for a

2 redevelopment. If they want something smaller, then

3 we would look at that in, you know, a smaller piece at

4 a time. And I think that it will be kind of a

5 strategy decision for Charles and his team to figure

6 out, okay, we need to make some more detailed

7 decisions on this and what's the best way to do that,

8 and what do we need technically so we can make those

9 decisions. But that -- just to talk a little bit more
10 about it, it's really just a handful of places here.

11 PASTOR LEACH; Actually, that part is

12 encouraging, if it's only a handful of areas.

13 MR. SPALVINS: Yeah.

14 PASTOR LEACH: That's saying something.

15 MR. SPALVINS: It's very promising.

16 PASTOR LEACH; Yeah.

1? MR. SPALVINS: Yeah, very promising.

18 PASTOR LEACH; All right.

19 MR. KING: While we're waiting on the next

20 person, the thing I was going to add to that is,

21 that's the reason we put it in there as an interim,

22 because we knew that there's some opportunity to do

23 things and we did not want to just put a full deed

24 restriction that would limit use that we can get some

25 opportunity to address it.

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-57

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Page 57

1 MS. SPENCER-HARDY: Are there any more

2 questions from folks on Zoom?

3 I'm sorry. All right.

4 MR. McLAUGHLIN: Grant McLaughlin. The

5 question is, how much does this proposed plan, like,

6 the cost of this project, and what is the scope of it?

7 How much of 0U3 would be contained in those barrier

8 walls and that cap, and (indiscernible.)

9 MR. KING: So there's not going to be a

10 barrier wall in OU5. The barrier wall is in OU3.

11 (Indiscernible.5 Let me -- I want to make sure I say

12 it right. Alternative 4 is 13.6 million. So that's

13 the estimated cost of it.

14 And think I -- I think I need to say, the

15 cost for -- that we generally required in a

16 feasibility study, according to our circle of law,

1? it's not an engineer's -- like, it's not a contracting

18 cost. What the rules require it to be plus or minus,

19 I think it's 50 percent. That's the way the law is.

20 But we believe 13.6 is a good number. It's the best

21 number we have right now.

22 MR. McLAUGHLIN: Yeah. And just the scope of

23 the containment area, you know, are we going to have

24 -- like, is it going to completely encircle it?

25 MR. KING: It's going to completely circle

www.husfby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-58

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp

- Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Page 58

1 that's the estimated layout, right.

2 MR. McLAUGHLIN: And how many acres is that

3 and how long would the wall be?

4 MR. KING: I want to say in the plan, I think

5 it said the wall -- was it about approximately 4500?

6 MR. SPALVINS: 4550 with the --

7 MR. KING: Okay. I left 50 feet off. But,

8 yeah, it's about 4500, in fact, 4550 in the fact

9 sheet. And the acres - - what did we say that acres

10 was?

11 MS. WOODS: Twenty --

12 MR. KING: Eighteen-ish?

13 MS. WOODS: Eighteen, so we have five. So 45

14 minus 18, 20, 20 and some change.

15 MS. SPENCER-HARDY: A little over 20 acres.

16 MR. KING: It's a little over 20 acres, is
1? the estimate.

18 MR. McLAUGHLIN: That's how much would be

19 encircled?

20 MR. KING: Yes. Getting the information from

21 my trusted sources.

22 PASTOR LEACH: I've got a follow-up question.

23 MR. KING: What's that?

24 PASTOR LEACH: I've got one follow-up

25 question. So, also with the soil barrier that we put,

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-59

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Page 59

1 how deep is that? I think I know the answer. Is that

2 12 inches?

3 MR. KING: I think it's a minimum of 12

4 inches. (Indiscernible.) There are some areas

5 because the ground is not necessarily even, there's

6 going to be some areas that will be greater than 12

7 where we've got dips, but I think it's a minimum of 12

8 inches.

9 PASTOR LEACH; How, when I looked -- when I

10 looked at the remediation that we did 0U2

11 MR. KING: Uh-huh.

12 PASTOR LEACH: -- and where we did some work

13 at different pumps.

14 MR. KING: Yes, sir.

15 PASTOR LEACH: The depth that we dug out was

16 two feet.

1? MR. KING: Yes, sir.

18 PASTOR LEACH: Is that correct?

19 MR. KING: Yes, sir.

20 PASTOR LEACH: Is there a reason why you

21 chose two feet there?

22 MR. KING: Usually, we dug -- usually what

23 we'll do is we usually take two samples. We

24 sometimes I take at 06 and then one that's deeper than

25 that, and we do what we call archiving. We'll analyze

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-60

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Page 60

1 the top sample and, if it's above the unacceptable

2 levels, then we'll analyze a sample and there may be

3 some cases where some were two feet. I have done

4 yards where they were one foot. I don't know -- I

5 can't remember the actual indications here, but there

6 are some. In residences, there are times that,

7 especially if the person says, I have a garden or I

8 want a garden, they do things like that to make sure

9 that that's clean, so --

10 PASTOR LEACH: That was

11 MR. KING: Yes, sir.

12 PASTOR LEACH: --my specific concern. My

13 specific concern was --

14 MR. KING: Yes, sir.

15 PASTOR LEACH: -- if we did plant grass or we

16 did plant anything, anything that would go down and

1? then bring things up, which is possible, like when you

18 put a garden

19 MR. KING: Yes, sir.

20 PASTOR LEACH: -- in, goes down in the soil

21 and then what you eat, you have access to, even though

22 you didn't, never touched the soil two feet deep, once

23 you plant it, it brings it up for you. So I want to

24 make sure that what we do

25 MR. KING: I gotcha.

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-61

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Page 61

1 PASTOR LEACH: --we continue to limit that.

2 I just thought 12 inches is a little shallow to that

3 end, especially when you think about some other things

4 that was even talked about in the proposed plan, like

5 runoff, soil runoff over time. So I --

6 MR. KING: So let me -- I didn't mean to cut

7 you of f.

8 PASTOR LEACH; No, no. I'm done. You

9 understand the gist of the question.

10 MR. KING; Yes, sir.

11 PASTOR LEACH; I just want to make sure it's

12 safe for the --

13 MR. KING: Yes, sir. And we want to make

14 sure it's safe, too. So we said a minimum of 12

15 inches. So there's going to be some areas where you

16 got some lower areas that will be a total of more than
1? 12, but remember, because we're covering various

18 various inspection and maintenance, so we've got to

19 ensure that that stays in place. If there are some

20 obvious areas of runoff or things like that, we have

21 to make sure that it be addressed.

22 One thing I was going to mention, I really

23 wish Dr. Landmeier was here because the thing that

24 he's talked about is the trees that we plant over

25 there. We planted some pecan and some peach and

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-62

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Page 62

1 things like that. I'm not sure how -- I know they

2 have not grown as fast as the poplar trees, but

3 Dr. Landmeier has indicated several times that you can

4 eat the pecans and things like that and it doesn't

5 come up in the fruit. I specifically asked about

6 that. They were analyzed. I will -- I will, that

7 will be -- that's a fair question and, when we get our

8 response, we'll make sure that we work with the

9 experts.

10 And I'm not saying that everything is like

11 that, but he was talking about the trees and the pecan

12 and things like that. But that was one of the reasons

13 that we were doing the pilot. As those fruit come up,

14 I would anticipate us analyzing and things like that.

15 Did I answer your question, sir? If I

16 didn't, I still

17 PASTOR LEACH: You did talk about the trees.

18 MR. KING: Okay.

19 PASTOR LEACH: I still think 12 inches is a

20 little shallow.

21 MR. KING: Okay. Thank you for that comment.

22 You can put it in -- yes, sir. Yes, sir.

23 MR. SPALVINS: So the 12 inches for the cap

24 is to limit and so we can manage the rainwater that

25 infiltrates inside the containment wall. So that's a

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-63

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Page 63

1 little bit -- that's kind of the design. Like, we'll

2 design that soil cap so that it -- we manage how much

3 water goes inside the -- inside the wall so that it

4 doesn't exceed what the trees can pump out.

5 And so in a yard, the two feet is to provide

6 a surface soil and, you know, even down to two feet,

7 that it's clean for the resident to be able to use

8 however they want. So it's kind of got a different

9 purpose. Like that GPN soil has a slightly different

10 purpose than the one-foot cap, but the key, I think,

11 for the long-term protectiveness is the inspections

12 and things like that.

13 And often when we do a soil cap, we put a

14 layer underneath it so that we know when we're through

15 the soil cap or that the --or the soil cap is

16 surveyed so that we've maintained the elevation. Now,
1? with lidar, it's fairly easy to get an idea of what

18 the elevations are at (indiscernible).

19 MR. BENTKOWSKI: Eric was talking about the

20 lidar. It's just -- it's amazingly high resolution

21 data. They actually have them mounted on drones.

22 He's used that down at his site in Navassa, and you

23 can get just amazing detail. We actually found the

24 places where the fiddler crabs were digging holes in

25 the marshland with the lidar. It's that high of

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-64

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Page 64

1 degree of resolution,

2 And from a science perspective, that's what

3 you want. You want perhaps not the most precise,

4 absolutely, absolute best. You kind of have to

5 balance it to the -- what you want to do for you

6 project. But lidar has become so commercially

7 available that people are doing that instead of going

8 out and doing traditional, you know, staff and

9 transits for surveying.

10 MR. KING; Any more questions?

11 PASTOR LEACH; One of the methods that you've

12 used to remedy this pollution has been -- that you

13 spoke of was containment, and another method was

14 encapsulation, where this slurry is pumped into the

15 contained area and totally -- and when it hardens, it

16 contains the whole deal, and that's supposed to
1? eliminate even having to pump; is that correct?

18 MR. KING: No. The pump is needed to make

19 sure that -- so it will stop the materials from moving

20 from within the contained area. The cap, the covering

21 for it, is designed to try to minimize how much water

22 is still -- imagine the containment system almost like

23 a bathtub. And in a normal bathtub, you've got the

24 drain that won't let the tub overflow.

25 In this system, you can't have a hole -- I

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-65

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Page 65

1 mean, you don't need to have a hole in the bottom

2 because that would be a problem. (Audio distortion)

3 maybe that answers your question, but what we do is

4 we - - that cap is down to minimize the water that

5 comes to the top, and it also -- we use the trees to

6 minimize the tub overflowing, as we speak, or minimize

7 the containment wall from overflowing.

8 MS. SPENCER-HARDY: Does Mr. Wilburn have

9 another question outside of -- oh, the Mayor has a

10 question.

11 MAYOR GASKIN; Keith Gaskin. You mentioned

12 earlier -- and I tried to write it down and I can't

13 find it. This was a question that came up at one of

14 the prior meetings. When you said y'all would come

15 back arid do retesting in five years, did you --

16 MR. KING: So, yes, sir. What that is is any
1? time -- any time that there's waste left on any EPA

18 site, in any Superfund site, not just this site, any

19 time that there's waste left in place, under the

20 Superfund or the circle of law, we are required to

21 come back at least once every five years to ensure

22 that the remedy remains contained.

23 MAYOR GASKIN: And that's in perpetuity?

24 MR. KING: Yes, sir.

25 MAYOR GASKIN: Okay.

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-66

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Page 66

1 MR. KING: (Indiscernible), yeah. And we're

2 looking for is it still functioning as it -- if it

3 wasn't -- let's say -- so here would be an example for

4 the containment wall and cap. If we were to come back

5 and the cover had deep breaks in it and -- so we'd

6 have a concern that it's not keeping the water out.

7 So that would be a reason to do something about it.

8 If there was something --we have margin wells on the

9 outside of the system. If for some reason we start to

10 see different monitoring data, we get large

11 concentrations of something that we knew was in the

12 wall and that hadn't been showing up on the wells and

13 now it starts showing up, then we do some

14 investigation to figure out what happened, is there a

15 break in the wall, is something going on.

16 So EPA, with support of the State, because

1? it's Federal and State, would come out and we would do

18 inspections at least once every five years. You can

19 do it more than that, but you ensure it's protected.

20 MR. SPALVINS: Make sure you say we write a

21 report every five years, but an O&M, but, you know,

22 (indiscernible.)

23 MR. KING: Yeah. O&M could be more often

24 than that.

25 MR. SPALVINS: So what I was saying was that,
www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-67

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Page 67

1 for every Superfund site that has long-term

2 maintenance, we write what we call an operations and

3 maintenance plan. And that differs for every site,

4 but it's typically -- well, I've got my wood treater

5 in Pensacola, we have a containment cell that we built

6 there. It's a half million cubic yards, about 18

7 acres, and it's got a bunch -- it's basically a

8 landfill. It's got clean soil on top of it.

9 The State is doing the O&M on that site.

10 They have to go out have to go and monitor it, I

11 think, every quarter, because we've reduced the

12 frequency because it's stable. They have to -- they

13 gave some leaching collection sumps they have to

14 empty, and they have to maintain the rest of ut, and

15 they have a contractor that does that. And if there's

16 a big storm, they go out and check on it. And then
1? the State will send us an annual report that they're

18 getting, reports that their contractor sends to the

19 lab. And then every five years, we're required to do

20 a five-year review and report.

21 So we're not only checking on it every five

22 years. It will be something negotiated with the good

23 folks of the State and they will be responsible for

24 carrying out that operations and maintenance.

25 MAYOR GASKIN: So once those testing occurs,

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-68

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Page 68

1 then how do you get that information back to the

2 community?

3 MR. KING: So, like (indiscernible) says, at

4 a minimum of every five years. So if something were

5 to come up based on other inspections, we would do

6 something sooner, but there is a five-year report that

7 is a public document that gets issued, I mean, that

8 gets released every five years, and with technology

9 now, it would probably go up on our website.

10 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Public notice.

11 MR. KING: Yeah, public notice. Public

12 notice will state a five-year review is coming.

13 MS. SPENCER-HARDY: So every time we have a

14 five-year review, we have to do a public notice that

15 announces that we're going to do five-year review for

16 a specific site and, if needed, we will come back and
1? have a meeting. If we have an active community that

18 has questions, we will come back out and have a

19 meeting in conjunction with anybody that can answer

20 questions about it, so ...

21 MAYOR GASKIN: Thank you.

22 MS. SPENCER-HARDY: Any other questions? Any

23 questions on Zoom?

24 PASTOR LEACH: I have one more, and it's a

25 follow-up to that one. Is there another trigger for

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-69

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Page 69

1 monitoring? For instance, is it just on a set

2 frequency, or can there be -- can we say, hey, can

3 somebody come up and take a look at this?

4 MR. KING: If there's an incident or if

5 you've got a legitimate - - I mean, if you say, hey,

6 something's wrong, you smell something or see

7 something, yeah, we - - yeah.

8 MR. McLAUGHLIN: I do want to ask about, you

9 guys said this doesn't address the groundwater

10 remediation or the wetlands area. What's going on

11 with that? What are the -- what are the next steps

12 for that part of this project? I've heard a lot of

13 concern around that.

14 MR. KING: It's in the part -- I mean,

15 it's -- we're in the process of evaluating. We are

16 trying to deal with the most -- the biggest risks as
1? quick as we can, you know. With the groundwater, one

18 thing that there's some -- that gives us some level of

19 comfort is -- and I'll let Ben add if I -- if he wants

20 to add some more to it. But the municipal water that

21 people drink from their tap water is, like, 600 feet,

22 6-, 700 feet down. So it's not -- the tap water that

23 you're drinking is not impacted by groundwater from

24 this site. So that -- while I'm not trying to

25 minimize the concern, it's not -- it's less of a

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-70

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Page 70

1 potential health risk. So that's why it's done -- it

2 will be done later,

3 MR. BENTKOWSKI: Also, the containment will

4 contain the source of the contamination that's flowing

5 away from the source area. But it's really just in

6 the shallow aquifer. The production wells for the

7 City are 600 to 750 feet down. What we're doing is

8 we're addressing the thing that causes the most risk

9 for the long term and - - by containing the source.

10 And the stuff that's -- you know, the

11 naphthalene is actually easier to clean up, and the

12 rest of the benzo(a)pyrenes and those other things

13 that are in the creosote.

14 So it's a matter of, you know, sort of

15 prioritizing things with the risk to the environment

16 and to the public, and that's why we're doing the

17 source control first.

18 MR. KING; Ben, I've got one thing I want you

19 to elaborate a little bit on. You said that the

20 contamination is flowing away, and I just wanted you

21 to - - I don't want them to think it's flowing like a

22 river.

23 MR. BENTKOWSKI; Mo, no, it's not. And for

24 here, we can actually look at this diagram. This is

25 the naphthalene concentrations.

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-71

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp

- Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.
Public Meeting on 10/26/2823

Page 71

Thank you, Vanna.

This naphthalene is the most soluble

3 component of creosote. It was the - - if the

4 groundwater was moving, the naphthalene would go the

5 farthest, and as you can see, it's really pretty much

6 still on the site. But what we're going to do is

7 we're going to lock up the source of this

8 contamination first, and then we'll address the

9 dissolved phase. Okay. You know, one thing

10 (indiscernible.) I don't know --

11 MR. KING: (Audio distortion) came over here,

12 I had to put him to work changing it. No free rides.

13 MS. SPENCER-HARDY: Any other questions from

14 Zoom?

15 MR. BENTKOWSKI: Glad to do it.

16 MS. SPENCER-HARDY: No? Any other questions
1? from the audience here tonight?

18 If not, I want to take the opportunity to say

19 thank you to Pastor Leach for allowing us to use his

20 facility. Thank you for Chanelle, for all of your

21 expertise, and also for Claire, y'all working

22 together. We had a good team tonight trying to use

23 electronics. So we want to appreciate everybody that

24 had a part in this in putting this together,

25 especially for the folks on Zoom.

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-72

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp

- Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Page 72

Don't forget that the comment period does not

end until November 16th. So if you were unable to

attend by Zoom or in this meeting, you can e-mail

Charles at king.charlesltiepa.gov, and you can also

e-mail to the address that's in the fact sheet. And I

appreciate you guys participating tonight and, for

those people on Zoom, we appreciate you. Thank you

for joining us and, until next time. We appreciate

everybody for your participation.

So at this point, this ends the proposed plan

meeting portion. For our transcriptionist, Cathy,

we're done.

(Whereupon the meeting was concluded at

8:00 p.m., the same day.)

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-73

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp

- Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

EE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Pub lie Meeting on 10/26/2023 Pa gp 73

1 CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER

2 I, Catherine M. White, CSR, and Notary Public

3 in and for the County of Rankin, State of Mississippi,

4 hereby certify that the foregoing pages, and including

5 this page, contain a true and correct transcript of

6 the proceedings, as taken by me at the time and place

7 heretofore stated, and later reduced to typewritten

8 form by computer-aided transcription under my

9 supervision and to the best of my skill and ability.

10 I further certify that I am not in the employ

11 of or related to any counsel or party in this matter,

12 and have no interest, monetary or otherwise, in the

13 final outcome of the proceedings.

14 Witness my signature and seal this the 22nd

15 day of November, 2023. yj ^ t

is /mim ^

17 CATHERINE M. WHITE, CSR No. 1309

18 My Commission Expires:

February 1, 2 02 6

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-74

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Index: 06..absolute

06 59:24

1 10:4,10

18:1 25:3

10 16:20
24:15,17,
24 25:4
30:14
49:4,16

100 11:22

12 5 9:2,3,
6,7 61:2,
14, 17
62:19,23

13.6 57:12,
20

14th 9:11
10:18

31:2,3,12,
15

15 48:15
49:5,17

15-lsh 48:14

16 48:20

16th 3:14,
15 23:18,
19,20 30:2
72:2

8 48

53:5 58:14

67:6
18-acre 56:1

2 10:5
18:11

20 40:12
41:17,19
48:3,5,9
52:4,6
53:9

58:14,15,
16

2011 9:13

25 47:24
50 : 9

250 11:15

26 48:6
270 53:7

3 3:98:8,
25 10:7,25
11:15,22
12:7 18:16
25:6

30 47:21,25

30-day 8:19,
24

30303 30:8
314 30:12

4 10:8,12
16:20

18:22 25:9
28:6,9
35:7 38:7
42:14

57 :12

40 12:4
46:17,24
47:19

400-page
43 :22

43 12:9

44 47:19

45 48:6

58 : 13

450 12:6
4500 58:5,8
4550 58:6,8

5 3:98:8,
25 10:17,
25 11:2

25:12
33:11
49:23

50 46:24
52:3 57:19
58:7

57 12:9

59 12 : 9

6 6 :13

10:20 44:1

6- 69:22

600 69:21
70:7

61 30:7

7 10:22

700 69:22

73 12:9

750 70:7

7th 30:12
31:13,15

8:00 72:14

9 25:14
90 11:22
90-acre 9:10
93 11:23,25

absolute
64 :4

www.huseby.com

Huseby Global Litigation

800-333-2082

B-75

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp

- Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Index: absolutely,,approximate

absolutely

54:12 64:4

acceptable

7;11,22

38:24

51:15

acceptance

23:2,5,6,

access 10:9,

12 60:21

accidently

15:20

accomplishes

30:16
31:24

account 8 :22

accurate

48:15

accused 34:7

achieve

29:18

acreage

48:22 49:3

acres 47:15,
20, 21
48:2,9,20,
21 49:17
50:9 53:5
58:2,9,15,
16 67:7

Act 11:8

acting 3 : 3
action 5 : 8

17:19,25
20 :20
24:13,14,
16 25:6,22
33:1 52:17

active 17:15
68 :17

activity

9:22 17:1
33:16 35:5

actual 17:17

50:18 60:5

add 39:15
43:16
56:20
69:19,20

additional

12 :12
26 :3,20

33:22 55:5

address

10:22

13:23 24:6
26:5 39:6
56:25 69:9
71:8 72:5

addressed
11:6 61:21

addressing

34:4 70:8

adjusted

39:21

adjustments

27:13

advantages

39:7

agency

agenda

agree

agreed

23 :2,

3 : 23

42:15
15 :8
3:1,24

ahead

37:25
53:16 54
55:15

alley

51:19
7:3

allowing

71:19

alternative

3:12 8:18
11:13

17:14

25:6,9,12,
14 28:6,8,
9,15 38:7,
10 40:21
42:14 44:1
57:12

alternatives

20:22,25

22:25

24:1,5,7,

15,17,25

25:2,22

27:14,25

34 :13

amazing
63 :23

amazingly
63 :20

Amen 7:25

amount 3 5:2

analyze

59:25 60:2

analyzed

62:6

analyzing

62: 14

and/or 18:25
22 : 16

announces

68:15

annual 67:17

answering

27:9 32:18
53 : 19

answers

65 : 3

anticipate

62:14

aplenty

55:2,6

apologize
4:15 23:20

applicable

21: 13
29:21

approach

30 :15

approximate

41: 18

www.huseby.com

Huseby Global Litigation

800-333-2082

B-76

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp

- Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/20Mex: approximaU>ly..benzo(a)pyri'ne

approximately

58:5

aquifer 4 7:3

70:6

ARARS 21:9,
13

archiving

59:25

area

7,i
16

26
28

41
50
55
57
64
69

10 :4,

5,15,23
:14,24
: 15

:12,13

:17 31:7

: 20,22
: 3 49:2
; 5 53:13
: 2 3
; 23

; 15,20

; 10 70:5

areas 11:4,
20 13:11
14:7,8
16:7

25:10,13,

16 28:10

48:23,25

55:12,19

56:12

59:4,6

61:15,16,

Armed 4:17

assessment

26:2,4

51:22 52:2
53:8 54:13
55:22

assessor

19:21

assessors

15 :16

assume 54:4

assumed

55:23

assurances

34:24

Atlanta 30:8

attend 7 2:3

attracted
53 :23

audible

37:20

audience

71:17

audio 8 :2

32:5 53:18
65:2 71:11

August 23:17

Avenue 9:11
10 :18
31:2,3,13

back 9 : 6

15:4 16:14
20:2 28:19

29:15

34:16 38:1

51:18

52:7,16

65:15,21

66:4 68:1,

16,18

background

6:18 37:13
39:4

bag 4 5:21

balance 64:5

balancing

21:19,20
29:21

Barletto

32:24
37:18,21,
24 38:1
39:1,23
41:7,24
42:23 43:1

barrier 24:9
25:7,9
28:9 33:22
42:9,19
44:1,2,10,
23,25
45:5,15
57:7,10
58:25

based 14:15
19:8 22:25
28:7 33:15
53:7 68:5

basically

9:11 11:3
12:17,23
14:11,18
19:14 67:7

bat 30:25

bathtub

64:23

bear 47:14

Beard 4:25
5:1

beginning
8 :13

Ben 4 : 3
39:9 69:19
70 : 18

benefits

40:16

Bentkowski

4:3 39:13,
25 40:4
43:16
44:2,24
45:4

46:14,16,

19,24

47:1,6,11

63:19

70:3,23

71: 15

bentonite

45:11 46:2

benzo(a)pyrene

20:7 26:11

www.huseby.com

Huseby Global Litigation

800-333-2082

B-77

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp

- Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Index: benzo(a)pyrenes..chiIdren

benzo(a)
pyrenes

70:12

big 13:6
19:18
45:5,11
67 :16

biggest
69:16

bit 16:6
39:3,5
56:9 63:1
70:19

block 48:17

blue 43:19

book 43:22

boots 27 : 12

borings

11:14,15
44:5 47:2

borne 44:16

bothers

34:19

bottom 13:16
65:1

bought 26:25

brain 38:13

break 3 8:14
66:15

breaks 10:2
66:5

bring 11:13

19:24
60 ;17

brings 60:23

broken 21:5

brought

19:25

budget 40:24
build 53:12

building

22 :12

built 22:9
67:5

bunch 3 7:11
67 : 7

busy 27:15

CAG 5 : 5

26 :23

30 :21

call 6:12
11:7 12:1,

3 13:7
14:4 15:16
20:18
26:12
30 :15
35 :22
37:14,15
47:9 52:15
55 :24

59:25 67:2
called 8:21

21:2,6,19
28:20 47:3

calls 20:12

cancer
16:11,18
17 :2

cap 24:11
25:16

28:17 57:8
62:23
63:2,10,
13,15

64:20 65:4
66:4

cards 5:22

Carolina 4 : 3

carried

24:18
25:5,18

carry 21:10,
17

carrying

67:24

cartoon

45:18

case 17:8,

25 24:7
28:15
37 :20
40:17

cases 60:3

categories

27 :22

Cathy 72:11
cell 6 7:5
cement 45:12

center 3 2:15

45:16

chance 22:22
23 : 13

Chanelle

71:20

change 2 9:5

58:14

changing

71: 12

Charles 4 :4
5:24 9:1

33:2 39:10
44:4 46:7
47: 13

51:21 56:5
72 :4

chart 13:12

cheap 34:8

check 6 7:16

checking

67:21

chemical 3 : 8

9:12

chemicals

29:4

chief 3 : 3

39:7

children

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-78

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp

- Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Index: children's..concluded

7:14,15,24

children"s

7 : 15

chose 5 9:21

circle 24:12

27:18
57:18,25
6 5:20

circles

27:17,21

28:2,3

38:3

city 5 : 2

30:20

31:5,7

70:7

claim 32:16

Claire 4 : 6
71:21

clay 45:12,
21,22

clean 27:18
35:24
43:20
52:12

53:13 54:6
60:9 63:7
67:8 70:11

cleaned

19:22

cleanup 3 :13

19:19,23
20:5,9
29:8 34:8,

10,14

close 43 : 2

45 : 9

closely
26 :22

closer 47:21

closest

10 :18

clothing

27:11

COCS 18:17,
23

collaboration
31:22

collaborative

31:5,15

collaborative!

y 30:20

colleague

39:3

collect 26:3

collected

11:12,24
12:6

collection

67:13

color 12:19,

colored

14 :12

Columbus

9 :11 30:21

31:5,6

Columbus-
lowndes

30:11

combination

38:25 51:2

comfort

69:19

comfortable

50 : 6

comment 3 :14

8:19,24
23:17 30:1
43:12,13
62:21 72:1

comments

3:16,19,22
8:23 30:3,
?

commercial
18:13 54:5

commercially

64:6

common 31:9

commonly

11:7

community

3:4,6 5:8,
10 7:7,18
22:12
23:5,6,7
32:15 33:1
46:9 68:2,
17

comparison

38:18

complete

15:17

completed

15:16

completely

27:20

28:2,5

57:24,25

compliance

21: 9

complies
29:19

component

71:3

concentration

52:5

concentrations

66 : 11
70:25

concern 9:15
18:17,23
19:20 20:7
60:12,13
66:6

69:13,25

concerned

54:19

concerns
50:12

concluded

6:22 72:13

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-79

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp

- Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Index; conclusion-cost

conclusion

7:12 34:11

concrete

46:1

concurrence

29:24

conditions

20:4 33:3,
8

conjunction

68:19

connection

31:14

Conservation

11:8

consideration

42:17

considered

17:15
23 :12

considers

14:2,7

consistent
13:2

consists

21:7

constancy

7 : 10

construct

22:8

constructed

22:9

construction

15 :10

16 :17
17:6,10

18:2,5,7,
8,13 27:6,
8,10 33:19
44:25 50:1
52:8,14,20
53:6

contact

15:11,21
16:2

18:10,15
27 :12
32:17

contained

57:7

64:15,20
65:22

containment

18 :25
40:20,22
41:3 45:25
57 :23
62:25
64:13,22
65 :7 66 :4
67:5 70:3

contaminant

20:6 26:11

contaminants

9:15 18:17
19:19

contaminated

16:25

18:19 31:7
53:9 55:20

contaminates

18:23

contamination

9:14 11:2
12:14,24
13:1 14:23
15:15,18
16:1 20:13
43 :17

45:24 46:6
47:8 48:24
53 :16
70:4,20
71:8

context

46:10

47:14 49:8

Contingency
13 :20

continue

23:3 61:1

contracting

57:17

contractor

36:23

42:25 43:5
67:15,18

contractors

14:22
28:25

control

35:17

40:18 46:4

51: 12
70:17

controlling

41:3 44:19

controls
13 :25

24 : 10
25:23
28:11
50:19,21,
22 51:4,7

conversation

52:23,25
54:15

coordination

36 : 14

coordinator

3:5,6

core 11:16

Corporation
3 :8

Corps 3 5:4,6
36:17,18,
19,20,21

correct

42:25
48:8,10
59:18
64:17

cost 21:23

22:24,25
29:22 38:3
40 :23
57:6,13,

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-80

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp

- Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Index: cost-effective., determine

15,18

cost-effective

44:18

council 5 : 2

Councilman

4:24 5:1

councilman

5:2

count 24:24
38:18,20

counted

24:20

couple 30:24
35:21 36:4

40:1 46:10
50:4

court 54:7

cover 19:24
24:10
25:8,11,
13,16,17
28:10
42:10,21
€6:5

covering

61:17
64:20

crabs 63:24

creates

51:25

creosote

9:16 11:4,
19 13:17

14:20
43 :24

44:3,4,6,
7,11 46:13
47:4 70:13
71:3

creosote-type

11:18
13 :18

criteria
21:2,3,5,
7,20 23 : 1
27:23 28:7
29:18,22

cubic 67:6

current

17 :13

cut 61:6

dangerous

22:11

dangers
22:11

darker 10:7
14:12

Darren 32:25
50 :14

dashes 3 0:10

data 26:3
36:2 63 ;21
66:10

date 50:6

day 72:14

days 53 :7

deal 10:11,
13 19:13
31:10
55:3,5,9

64 :16
69:16

dealing 2 9:4

41: 9

decide 7 :15

decided

10:13
49:13
52:14

deciding 7 : 5

decision
3:20 8:20
26:24 27:1
41:6 56:5

decisions

56:7,9

deed 28:12
56:23

deep 3 9:8,
11 43:23
46:11,15,
23,24 59:1
60:22 66:5

deeper 40 :13

42:2 59:24

degree 64:1
delist 49:19

dense 14:2

density

55:21

depending

26:14 50:1

depth 12:2
59:15

DEQ 4 :17

dermal

15:11,20
16:2

18:10,15

describe

44:22

design 34:6
41:1 42:4,
17 43:8

46:2 50:1
63:1,2

designated

35:3

designed

64:21

detail 51:17
63 :23

detailed

56:6

details 9 : 2

determine

12:13
14:19,23
20:12,16,

19 44:9

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-81

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp

- Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Index: determined..ends

determined

discuss

13 :16

Eighteen

14:13

10:24

39:11

58:13

33:15 34:5

discussed

drink 69:21

Eighteen-ish

develop

34 ;20

drinking

58:12

17:20

Dispatch

51:9 69:23

elaborate

developed

5:14,15

drones 63:21

70:19

24:5 32:13

disposal

due 9:24

electronics

developers

24:9

10:14

71:23

54:2,7

dissolved

11:1,9

elevation

development

41:4 43:18

dug 5 9:15,

63 : 16

52:8,10

71:9

elevations

diagram

distortion

dust 18:20

63 :18

70:24

8:2 53:18

33 :20

eliminate

diagrams

65:2 71:11

18:1,7,12

13 :6

Ditch 31:2,3

20:21,23

difference

39:25 40:7

e-mail 3 0:3

64 :17

12:19

DNAPL 14 : 2

72:3,5

eliminated

differs 67:3

24:8 43:20

25 : 22

document

earlier 3 0:1

27:11

difficult

65:12

22:10

11:24 68:7

empty 6 7:14

easier 70:11

dig 45:8,10

documents

encapsulation

14:11

easy 63:17

64:14

digging

eat 15:20

26:19 27:6

dodge 3 5:10

encircle

28:13,14

60:21 62:4

57 : 24

dormant

6 3 : 24

36:11

effective

encircled

dips 5 9:7

29:22

58 : 19

downgrading

40:24 41:2
44:18

direction

25:6

encouraging

12:15

dozen 3 8:2

56:12

effectiveness

end 6 :2

dirt 27:6

drain 64:24

21:21,22,

52:13

23:14 41:1

draw 40:18

24 22:7,8

49:11 61:3

disadvantaged

drawn 14 :15

effort 13:18

72:2

7 : 18

31:5

drill 11:16

ends 72:10

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-82

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Index: energy..facility

energy 13 :18

engagement

3 :4

engineer

43:1,6

engineer's

57:17

engineered

24:9 25:7,
10,13,17
28:10
42:10,21

engineering

13:25

Engineers

35:4

36:17,18,

19,20,22

46:2

ensure 2 0:3

29:15
61:19
65:21
66:19

entire 34:2
55:23

environment

17:17 21:8

29:19

34:18

36:16

70:15

environmental

5 :10

EPA 3:6,13,
25 4:1,4
7:16 9:13
10:2 12:16
13:22
14:2,6
15:13
17 :20
19:25
20:12,25
23:7 25:24
26:2,22
28:18,19,
23,24
29:11,24
30:7 31:5,
19 34:15,
16 39:19
42:8,13
52:22
54 :12
65:17
66:16

EPA1 a 17:13
28:8

equipment
11:17

Eric 4 :1
36 :20
40 :12

51:5,16
63:19

estimate

53:7 58:17

estimated

57:13 58:1

eternity

34:25

excess 16:11
17:2

Eutaw 4 7:3,4 excuse 17:7

evaluate

15:7 22:24
23 :25 26:3
34 :16

evaluated

23:9 25 :1
39:17
43 :13

evaluating

15:14
69:15

evaluation

21:10
24:19

25:19 28:7
2 9:1,8

evening 7 ; 9

9:4

eventually

19:10
44:17

excavate

53 :17

exceed 63:4
exceeded

exceeds

16:14 20:3

excellent

27:21

executed

42:16

exercises

42:16

expect 23:3
52:24

expected

19: 6

expects
13 :22

expensive

42:12,13
44:14

expertise

71:21

experts

14:21 62:9

exposure

15:24

18:2,12

55:24

extent 2 0:12
29:23 47:7

facility

9:18 10:6,
18 11:10

12:11,18
34:2 50:25

www.huseby.com

Huseby Global Litigation

800-333-2082

B-83

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Index: fact.generally

71:20

fact 15:4
30:4,6,9
36:20
38:22
45:14,17
58:8 72:5

fair 27:19
62:7

fairly 63:17

farm 11:4

farthest
71:5

fast 62:2

Father 7 :2

feasibility

8:15 13:7,

8 16:9

24:2,4

44:13,20

54:13

57:16

Federal 4 :23

21:15,16
66:17

feel 49:12
50:6

feet 12 :4
36:6 40:2,
8 , 12

41:17,19
46:24

53:13 58:7
59:16,21

60:3,22

63:5,6
69:21,22
70 :7

fiddler

63 :24

fight 7:20

figure 14:6,
10,15,16,
24 17:21
27:14 28:1
53:11 56:5
66:14

filled 27:20
28:3

final 38:11
49:2 52:16

find 12:14
17 :20

20:14,16
31:9 44:17
53 :23

65:13

finding
11:10

fine-grain

45:22

five-year

28:20,22
67:20
68:6,12,
14,15

flier 32:12

flowing

70:4,20,21

focused

51:23

folks 22:16
23:21 32:9
57:2 67:23
71:25

follow 13:21

follow-up

41:21,23
58:22,24
68:25

foot 60:4

footings

26:19

forego 42:19

forget 5:22

72 :1

forgot 50 :14

forgotten

23 :11

form 25:23

Forsyth 3 0:7

forward 7:23

found 11:20
20:24 24:3
29:7 31:9
35:6 46:12
63 :23

founded 34:9

free 71:12

frequency

67:12 69:2

fruit 62:5,
13

FS 16:9
25:2,21

full 21:10
24:19
25:19
28:4,5
33 : 12
56 :23

fully 23:12

functioning

66:2

funding

55:5,9,14

funds 2 6:25

future 15:8,
9 18:2,12
31:17 54:2

garden 6 0:7,
8,18

Gaskin 4 : 22

65:11,23,
25 67:25
68:21

gave 67 :13

general

16:24

generally

57 : 15

www.huseby.com

Huseby Global Litigation

800-333-2082

B-84

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp

- Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Index: generate..hold

generate

20:25

generated

11:25
19:21

geologists

14:21

Georgia 3 0:8

gist 61:9

give 7 : 9
9:19 20:9
23:13
51:8,16

Glad 71:15

God 7:4,8,
13,19

good 21:24
22:19,22
27:19
31:16,21
39:3

42:10,11
45:18 47:6
55:1 57:20
67:22
71:22

gotcha 60:25

GPN 63:9

grab 5 5:18

gradient

46:5

grains 43:21
Grant 57:4

grass 38:20
60 :15

grasses

38:17,23,
25 39:15
40:14,16

gray 16:7

great 4 5:17

greater 5 9:6

green 12:22

ground 12:2,
4 31:10
39:8 40:9
45:8 59:5

groundwater

9:14 10:20
12:6,7
13 :14

14:25
19:1,4,9,
10,12,14,
15 34:24
35:13,17,
25 36:5
40:18 41:4
43:18

45:16 46:4
50:5 69:9,
17,23 71:4

group 5 : 9

33:1

growing

39:18

grown 62:2

guess 11:19

49:6 50:10

guide 27:16

guidelines

21:1

guy 3 7:8

guys 3 : 7

21:4 26:8

27:17

31:18,23

34:7,10

51:10 69:9

72:6

half 27:19
38:2,3
67:6

hand 9 : 8

handful

56:10,12

handled 52:2

happen 18:21
51:12
52:24

happened

66:14

happy 5:10

hard 27:12
31:21

hardens

64:15

harm 17:24
20:16,17

hats 27:12

haul 53:17

hazardous
16:22
17:18

headquarters

29:25
51: 17

54 : 15

health 17:16

21:8 29:19
34 : 18

36:16 70:1

hear 27:9
37:24 40:4

heard 6 9:12

hearts 7:20

heavy 36:3

helped 31:10

helping

51:21

hey 38:6
42:5 69:2,

high 41:14

63 =20,25

highly 51:11
hoe 45:11

hold 5:19

6:2 9:7

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-85

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Index; hole..introduced

12:19 40:3

hoi® 64:25
65:1

holes 39:11
63:24

hoops 54:1

house 5:17
6:17

How1s 9:4

human 17:16
21:8 29:18
34:18
36:16

ICS 28:11

idea 41:16
43 :10

63:17

ideas 43:10

identified

14:20 24:8

identifies

44:6

imagine 3 6:6

64:22

impact 27:2

impacted

69:23

Implementabili

ty 21:22
22:18

implemented

22:22

important

15:24 19:3

impoundment

11:5

Improve

19:1,6,9,

inches 5 9:2,
4,8 61:2,

15 62:19,
23

incident

69:4

included

12:12

includes

10:9 21:20

incredibly

42:12

index 5:22

indexes

16 :22

indications

60:5

indicators

14 :19

indiscernible

6:18 9:24
10:9,14,15
11:1,9
30 :25

35:19
37:9,13
50:7,13
51:6,17
5 7:8,11
59:4 63:18
66:1,22
68:3 71:10

indoor 15:10

industrial
18:12
54:4,5

infiltrates

62:25

information

19:8 26:8
30 :11
32:14,15,
20,21

58:20 68:1
informed 5 : 9

ingestion

15:11,19
16:2

18:10,15

inhalation

15:12,19
16:1 18:9,
15

initially

10:10

input 23:10,
13,24

inside 28:16

45:15,24
62:25 63:3

inspection

28:22
61:18

inspections

63 :11

66:18 68:5

installed

34:23 39:8

instance

69:1

institutional
24 : 10
25:23
28:11
50:21,22
51:3,7,12

intended

50:2

intending

29:2

interesting

41:11
49:21

interim

25:25
26:1,6
52:15,17
54:20,21
56:21

introduce

5:6

introduced

www.huseby.com

Huseby Global Litigation

800-333-2082

B-86

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp

- Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Index: introductions-Leach

3:25

introductions

3 :24

investigation

8:15 13:8

14:11

66:14

investment

55:12

involved

35:5

involvement

3:5,6

isolation

25:9 28:9

issue 7 : 6

26:5 32:19

issued 68:7

issues 5 :10

7:17 31:10

Jesus' 7:25
joining 72:8

judgment

17 :13

jump 53:25

Justice40

55:11

keeping 5 : 9
www.huseby.com

41:2 66:6
Keith 65:11

Kentucky

45 :4

Kerr-mcgee

3:8 4:2

9 : 10

key 63:10

kind 11:2

13:11,12
15:14
17:10
33 :24
38:7,9,12,
14,25
39:20,23
45:9 49:13
50:7 52:6,
7,8 55:20
56:4 63:1,
8 64 :4

King 4 :4

9:3 33:5,

10 34:5,
14,21
35:9,20
37:3,6,10,
17 38:20
39:3 40:3
41:8

42:22,24

43:5,7,25

47:17

48:3,6,11

49:14

50:21,23

51:3 56:19

57:9,25

58:4,7,12,

16,20,23

59:3,11,

14,17,19,

22 60:11,

14,19,25

61:6,10,13

62:18,21

64:10,18

65:16,24

66:1,23

68:3,11

69:4,14

70:18

71:11

king.charles1@

epa.gov 72:4

king.charlesl®

epa.gov.

30:3

knew 11:18

56:22
66:11

L1 TONYA 3 : 2

lab 67:19

land 28:12
43 :18

52:18

landfill

67:8

Landmeier

41:9 43:21
61:23 62:3

lane 31:8

large 11:12

66:10

lasts 23:17

law 11:6
13:21

24:13
57 : 16,19
65:20

laws 21:16
29:19,20

layer 6 3:14

layout 5 8:1

Leach 5 :4

6:25 7:2
32:25 33:7
34:1,7,19,
22 35:19
37:1,4,9,
11, 16
50:11,14,

22.24
53 : 20
54:10,18,

22.25
56:11,14,
16,18
58:22,24
59:9,12,
15,18,20
60:10,12,
15,20
61:1,8,11

Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-87

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp

- Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Index: leaching..make

62:17,19
64:11
68:24
71:19

leaching

67 :13

lead. 6:25
23:7

leads 28:8

learned 41:9
48:9

leave 28:15

led 10:12

left 28:19
29:13

34:15 58:7
65:17,19

legacy 55:3,
5,10

legitimate

69:5

level 36:15
45:19
69:18

levels

19:19,24
20:5,6,9
26:12 29:8
36:15 41:2
60:2

Library

30:12

lidar 63:17,

20,25 64:6

lifetime

16:10,11
17 :2

light 30:21
31:6 54 : 5

lighter

14:13

limit 50:25
56:24 61:1
62 : 24

Lindmire

35:21

LINDSEY 4:19

linear 40:7

lines 12:17,
21

liquid 14 : 3

list 9:13

live 17:3,
4,9 18:4
51:14

living 27:5,
8 31:3

local 21:16
26:23,25
29:20
30 :22
49:21

location

51:25 53:4

locations

13:10 53:9

lock 71:7

long 7 : 7

29:13 36:8
40:2,8
45:6 49:11
58:3 70:9

long-term
14:1

21:20,24
63:11 67:1

longer 39:18

looked 11:19
13:9 16:10
23 :17
40 :15
50 :18
59:9,10

lot 9:22
11:20
13 :18

14:16

26:15 29:9
33:9,18,21
35:9 36:2
38:16 41:7
42:6

51:18,25

55:21

69:12

lots 40:25

low 14 :1
26:11 41:2
45:13,23
46:3

low-level

14 : 8

low-risk
26:12

lower 40:22

45:19
61: 16

made 26:24
27:2 33:3,
7 40 :7
44:23
48 : 15

mail-out

23 : 16
30:4,6

main 9 :23

10:6,17
12:11

maintain

67:14

maintained

37:5 63:16

maintenance

33:13
47:23
50 : 18
61: 18
67:2,3,24

ma j or 21:5
50:12

make 6:21
7:22 15:17
17:11,23

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-88

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Index: makes..minimize

18:6,21
22:1,2,5
23:10 26:8
28:12
29:12

31:22 32:7

33:12,18,

19 34:16

35:11,14

36:12,13,

14,15

45:25

52:19

56:6,8

57:11

60:8,24

61:11,13,

21 62:8

64:18

66:20

makes 13:25
41:7 42:1
51:24
54:10,11

making 2 7:12

mama 24:19

man 3 7:10

manage 10:3
62:24 63:2

management

25:24 26:9
33:14,15
47:23 50:2

manager 4:2,

5 37:7

mandated

29:11

mandatory
28 :21

29:14

manufacturing

9 :12

maps 55:19
margin 6 6:8

marshland

63:25

matching

52:15

material

18:24
28:16
45:20,23

materials

64:19

math, 24:20

matter 15:3
36:19
70:14

maximum

29:23

mayor 4:21
26:23

65:9,11,
23,25
67 :25
68:21

Mclaughlin

57:4,22

58:2,18
69:8

MDEQ 23:3
29:25 35:3

meaning

15:21
27 :11
28:11

means 13:24
17:3 20:13
21:9,14
22:1,4
35:23
52 :16
54:22

measures

17:15

media 5:12

meet 21:12,
18

meet all

21:15

meeting 3:8,
11,18 5:18

6 : 22 8:7,8
23 :15
48 :13
68:17,19
72:3,11,13

meetings

65 :14

meets 20:3

members 4:6,
16 5:4,8

memory 4 7:18

Memphis

32:25

mention
30:24
61:22

mentioned

8:9 9:25
16:6 65:11

mess 4:9,13

method 64:13

methods

34:4,10
64:11

mic 6 : 7

migration

18:17,22
35:17

40:19 41:4

miles 4 5:6

Miller 46:8,
15,21,22,
25 47:5,9,
12 48:8
49:6

million

57:12 67:6

mind 7 :15
40:24

minimize

18:16,22

20:21

64:21

www.huseby.com

Huseby Global Litigation

800-333-2082

B-89

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp

- Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Index: minimum..offer

65:4,8
69:25

minimum

59:3,7
61:14 68:4

minus 16:20
57 :18
58:14

minute 22:13

misquote

48:18

missed 6 :16

Mississippi

4:17 24:20

30:20

44:17

mitigate

17:22

mix 45:11
46:1

mobility

21:21
22:1,2

modifying

23:1

moment 3 7:23

money 34:23
35:2

44:15,16

monitor

35:13
67:10

monitoring

24:11
28:14

66:10 69:1

months 3 5:21

Moss 31:14

mounted
63 :21

move 3:24
7:23 8:20

moving 64:19
71:4

Multistate

4:6 9:17
12 : 15
29:25

municipal

51:11
69:20

naphthalene

14:24

70:11,25

71:2,4

national

9:13 13:20

natural

40:23

nature 2 0:12

Navassa 4 : 3
36:21
63 :22

navigate 9:8

NCP 13:20

necessarily

7:20 59:5

needed 27:3
31:7 39:21
52:9 64:18
68 :16

negotiated

67:22

neighborhoods

7:16

Nelson 3 : 5

nonaqueous

14:3

noncancer

16:12 17:4

normal 64:23

North 4 : 3

30:12

note 5 :12

6:9,19
15:25 19:3

notice

68:10,11,
12 , 14

November
3 :15

23 :18,19
30:2 72:2

number 10:4,
22 11:12,

21 13:9
16:15,16,

19,20
18:1,11,
16,22 25:6
38:7 39:20
42 : 14
48:2,12,
14,17
57:20,21

numbers

11:25

19:20,22

24:19,21

25:2,3

51:15

NW 30:8

O&m 66:21,
23 67:9

objective

18:1 19:4,
15,17

20:21
4 4 : 17

objectives

17:19,20

obvious

61:20

occurs 67:25

October 3 : 14

23:19 30:2

off-site
41:4

offer 15:7

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-90

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp

- Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Index: officials..Pastor

officials

option 42:14

33 :12,21

10:10,17,

4 :23

options

47 :19 48:

18 13:3,4

oftentimes

38:3,8

49:23

27 : 5

27:10
41:14

50:1,16

30:18,19

orange 14:12

51:24

39:2 41:24

oranges

52:1,4,6,

45:6 48:4

Ohio 45:7

12:25 13:3

12,13

52:23

on-site

order 11:12

54:4,16

53 : 15

28:19

15:16

55:21

29:13,14

57:10

56:11

34:15

ordinances

outdoor 15

69:12,14

21:17

16:15

71:24

one-foot

29:20

63:10

original

outlines

participant

9 : 24 10:15

operable 3 : 9

24:2 25:2

38:9

11:2,10

8:4,8,14,

overcome

17 :22

25 10:1,3,

OU1 49:16

participated

4,5,7,8,

OU2 59:10

35:6

10,12,17,
2 0,22,25

OU3 3 :13
12:10

overflow

64 :24

participat ing
72 : 6

11:2,14,21

16:8,13

overflowing

12:7 33:11

65:6,7

participation

17 :13

72: 9

41:5 49:9

18:13

oversight

parts 3 8:15

operate

19:1,20

12:16 20:

13 : 22

47:19 48:4

owned 9 :17

42 : 17
49:16

operation

9: 19

49:23
57:7,10

owner 52:9

past 3 5:7

operations

OU5 3 :13

Pastor 5 :4

67:2,24

12:8,10

6:25 7 : 2

16:22,23

p.m. 72:14

32:25 33:7

opportunities

17:2,4,6,

34:1,7,19,

53:1

8,13 18:3,

Paducah

22 35:19

opportunity

4,6 19:1

45:1,4

3 7:1,4,9,

3 : 22 42 :4

20:6,7

parking

11, 16

56:22,25

25:21

26 :15

50:11,14,

71:18

26:1,10

33:9,18,21

22,24

opposed 43:9

27:5

part 9:23

53 :20

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-91

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp

- Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Index: pathway.,position

54:10,18,

22,25

56:11,14,

16,18

58 :22,24

59:9,12,

15,18,20

60:10,12,

15,20

61:1,8,11

62:17,19

64:11

68:24

71:19

pathway

15:16,17

pave 26:17

peach 61:25

pecan 61:25
62:11

pecans 62:4

Pensacola

37:2 67:5

people 6:11,

23 7:4
9:19 19:7
32:3,10,21
44:12 64:7
69:21 72:7

percent

57:19

performing

29:2

period 3 :14

6:14 8:19,
24 23:17
30:2 43:12
72:1

periods 3 6:3

permanent

29:23

permeability

45:13,23
46:3

perpetuity
65 :23

person 15:18
41:22

56:20 60:7

perspective
64:2

phase 14 : 3
41:4 71:9

photo 9:18

photos 9:21

phyto 25:7

phytoremediatl
on 24:10
25:10
28:10
35:16,23
38:19,21,
2 4 39:6
41:25
42:20
43:9,22

pie 27:20

piece 11:17
45:22
52:18
56:1,3

pieces 10:2
42 :18

piling 45:2,

pilot 35:25

62 :13

pine 10:4,

19 48:12,
20,23,25

place 34:17
45:5 46:4,
6 61:19
65:19

places 56 :10

63 :24

plague 7 : 17

plan 8:7,8,
12,16 9:2
13 :20
17:15,16
19:13
25 :24
26:5,9
33:13,14
42:20

47:23 50:2
51:1,22
52:10
55:2,8,16
57 : 5 58:4
61:4 67:3

72 : 10
planner 53:2

plant 9:12,

23 60:15,

16,23

61:24

planted

40:1,6

61:25

plot 49:2

plume 14:25

15 : 1

point 7 : 5

8 :11,21
44 : 19
72:10

poisonous
20 : 15 22:2

pollution

55:3,6,10
64:12

poor 27:18,

poplar 62:2

portion 5:21
49:21
72:11

pose 14 :1

posed 13:23
52:5

poses 52:1

position
54:12

www.huseby.com

Huseby Global Litigation

800-333-2082

B-92

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp

- Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Index; post -t r e at m en t.. pr ot ect iv e

post-treatment

34:4

poster 43:19

potential

18:2,12
70:1

potentially

54:1

pound 32:4

powders 4 6:1

practicable
13:24
29:23

pray 7:2,8,
13,19

prayer 7 :1

precise 64:3

preferred

17:14 28:8
42:14

present 4 : 22

5 : 5

presentation
5:24 6:1,

3,20 23:14

press 6 :13

32:4

pretreatment

34:3

pretty 5:22
15:3 30:23
71:5

prevent
18 :16

preventing

18:14

previously

48 : 9

primary 14:3
19:17

principal

13:23
14:5,14
15 :2

printed

11:24

prior 65:14

priorities

9 : 13

prioritizing

70:15

private

51:10

problem 22:5
24:3,6
42:12 65:2

problematic

53 :21

problems
11:18

22:16
53:24

process 3 :12

8:3,4,6,
10,12,15

11:4 propose

16:14,24 25:25

23:3 49:20 43:11

69:15 51:23

production

9:16 13:4
70:6

products

13 :19

program 21:1

prohibit

51: 9

project 4:2,
5 22:9
30:14
37:1,6,7
45:1 49:12
57:6 64:6
69:12

projects

31:16
36:18,21,
22 51:18

promising

56:15,17

properties

10 : 6

property

10:6,21
52:9 53:24
54:7 56:1

proposal

38:22
50:19

proposed

8:6,7,12,

16,18 9:2

17:16

19:5,13,

19,23,24

20:5,9

26:5 35:16

51:22

55:1,8,16

57:5 61:4

72:10

proposes

23:9 25:25

proposing

3:13 23:24
33 : 13

39:19

42:2,13

54:16

protect

17:16

protected

29:12,16
36 : 16
66:19

protecting

29:10,11

protection

21:8

protective

www.huseby.com

Huseby Global Litigation

800-333-2082

B-93

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp

- Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Index; protect! veness..reason able

21:11

27:11
29:18
34 :18

protsctivenegg

63:11

proud 31:11

proven 22:20

provide 3:22
63:5

provided

20:1

provisions

17:11

public 3 : 14

30:1,11
43 :12
68:7,10,
11,14
70:16

pull 42:3

pump 3 6:7,8
45:15 63:4
64:17,18

pumped 34:25
64:14

pumping

34:20
41:19

pumps 34:22
3 5:3,12,
14, 18

36:9,11,13
37:5 40:21

59:13

punished

24:23

purpose 3:11
7:10 15:20
63:9,10

put 6:22
7:4 31:8
37:4

39:12,13

40:9 45:8

46:3,10

47:13

52:11,21

53:3,4

55 :1

56:21,23
58 :25

60 :18
62:22
63:13
71:12

putting

45 :14
51:10
71:24

quality
19:1,9
40 :10

quarter

67 : 11

question

5:25 6:5,

8,13,15,20
27:9 32:6,
7,24 35:11
37 :19

38:8,13,15
39:24
41:23,25
42:9 44:24
53;19 57:5
58:22,25
61;9 62:7,
15 65:3,9,
10,13

question-and-
answer 5:20
6:14

questions

3:19,20
5:20,23
6:2 8:23
23 :15
32:1,3,5,
11,12,18,
23 35 :23
37:12

46:10 57:2

64:10

68:18,20,

22,23

71:13,16

quick 20:9
69:17

quickly 5 : 22

quote 18 :18

R4 30:7
rain 3 6:4

rainwater

62:24

range 4 9:4

RAO 18:1,6,
11,16,22

Rasberry

4 :17

RCARA 11 : 7

RCRA 24:10

25:16

reach 4 5:21
read 21:4

30:10,25
31:1 44:13

reading

14:17

ready 4 9:5,
13,15,16,
18 50:10
52:18
54:7,8

realize 34:1

reason 3 9:1

54:18,25
56:21
59:20
66:7,9

reasonable

www.huseby.com

Huseby Global Litigation

800-333-2082

B-94

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp

- Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Index: reason*..resolved

30:18

reasons
35:15

62:12

received

43 :14

record 3:20

6:6 8:20
32:8

recorded

3:16 5:18

recording

3:18 6:4,

recovery

11:4,8
24:8

redevelopment
51:1 53:1,

22 56:2

reduce 18:1,

11 36:5

reduced

67:11

reduction

21:21,25
22:4

region 3 5:7

44 : 8

regions 3 5:8

regulated
11:8

related 9 : 15

release

17:17

released

68 : 8

relevant

21:13

remains

29:15
53 :21
65:22

remedial

3:12 4:2,5
8:4,14
13 :8

17 :19,25
20:20

40:25

remediate

7:6 34:2

remediated

48:10,22,
24

remediation

14:22 25:7
27:3 33:4,
8,24 38:3,
11 42:16
47:16,22
48:19
59:10

69 :10

remedies

29:17

remedy 9 : 2

19:5,16

21:10,12

23:9 26 :1

29:2 34:17

38:22

44:18

64:12

65:22

remember

9:20,21
15:2 16:23
18:3,8
35:20 60:5
61:17

reminder

32:2,9,18

removal

18:25 24:9
25:14

repeat 3 7:20

report 13:6,
7 16:9
24:3 25:21
66:21
67:17,20
68:6

reports 13 : 9

67:18

repository

30:11

represent
13 :12

representative

28:23,24

require

26 : 19
49:24
57 : 18

required
33 :4,9,25
36 : 12

57:15
65 : 20
67:19

requirement

28:18,21
29:15

requirements

21:14

research

35:6

residences

60 : 6

resident

16:14
17:3 , 5

63 : 7

residential

10:5

residents

15:8,9
22:17

residual

14:4 44:4,
10

resolution

63:20 64:1

resolved

26:2

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-95

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp

- Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting oil 10/26/2823 Index: Resource..sediment

Resource
11:7

resources

31:8

respective

12:10

response

62:8

responsible

67:23

responsiveness
8 :22

rest 6 :1

29:17
67:14
70:12

restoration

restriction

52:11
56:24

restrictions

28:12
53:14

results

14:15

retesting

65:15

reuse 26:14
48:22 49:3

Reverend

32:17

review 20:10

28:20,22

67 :20
68:12,14,

rides 71:12

risk 15:7,
8,14,15,
23,25

16:5,11,12

17:2,21,23

18:8,9,19

19:21

20:18,20,

23 22:21

26:1,4

27:4,7,9

44:19

51:22

52:1,2,5,

21 53:8

54:13

55:22

70:1,8,15

risk-based

19:20

risks 15:9
16:7,10

17 :12

18 :24

20:22
69:16

river 45:7,9

70:22

road 10:10,

ROD 8:21
19:12

role 43:25

roll 15:4

room 3 2:10

root 3 9:7,
15 40:12
41:14,18

Rosemarie

3:5 4:1
6:6

rules 5 :17

6:17 57:18

run 20:13
34:23 35:3
36:8

running

40:21

runoff 18:20
61:5,20

runs 3 0:2

safe 7:24

20:24
61:12,14

sample 14:15
55 :21

60:1,2

sampled

20:24

samples

11:12,21,
24 12:1,6,
7, 9,10,12,
13 13:10
20:10
52:3,4,6
59:23

sampling

52:19

Samuels

32:17

sand 43:21

satisfy

42:18

scan 14:17
scare 54:1

scenario

16:13
26:14
33:17,24

science 64:2

scope 5 7:6,
22

season 3 9:19

seasonal

39:16

secondary
14:4,14

section 21:6

sections

21: 5

sediment

9:15

www.huseby.com

Huseby Global Litigation

800-333-2082

B-96

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Index: selected,.soils

selected

29:17

SEMD-RSS

30:7

send 67:17

sends 67:18

sense 13:25
42:1 49:7
54:10,11

separate

32:19

sequential
25:3

set 21:1

29:9 69:1

shallow 61:2
62:20 70:6

shallower

40:16

shape 15:1,3
44:9

sheet 3 0:4,
6,9 32:21
45:2,7,17
58:9 72:5

shocking

41:11

short 8 : 3

20:13

short-term

21:22 22:7

shorten

19:11

shorter

39:15

shortly 14 : 6

show 13:11
14:6,8

showed 12:13
13:9,12
20:11 38:2

showing

12:22
14:24
66:12,13

shown 13:1

shows 9:22
14:11

45:18

side 12:25
48 :11

sign-up

32:20

significant

42:20

signs 29:3

similar

15:1,3

similarities
15:5,6

simple 21:15

single 34:2

sir 3 8:20
59:14,17,
19 60:11,
14,19

61:10,13
62:15,22
65:16,24

sit 53:2

site 3 : 8
4:2 9:10,
16 10:2,3
11:19
28:25

31:11 34:3
35:24 54:6
63 :22
65:18
67:1,3,9
68:16

69:24 71:6

sites 13:23
35:7 44:7

situ 24:11
25 :12

situation

23:9 27:1
34:20,21

size 47:19

skin 15:21
16:2,3, 8
27:13

slashes

30:10

slide 11:11
16:4 38:1,
5,9

slightly

63 : 9

slurry 28:16
45:12
49:24
64 :14

smaller 22:5
56:2,3

smell 15:19
16:3 69:6

soil 9:14
11:14,21
12:1,2,3
16:8 17:6
19:22,23,
24 20:3
24:9 25:7,
10,13,17,
23 26:9
28:10
33:13,14
40:9,10,17
42:10,21
47:1,23
50:2 52:1
53:16,17
58:25
60:20,22
61:5 63:2,
6,9,13,15
67:8

soil's 5 5:20

soils 16:8,
13,14,16,
17,23
17:8,13
18:3,13,19
25:14,15

www.huseby.com

Huseby Global Litigation

800-333-2082

B-97

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp

- Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Index: solub!e..straight

33:15
soluble 71:2

solution

29:23
42:6,11

solutions
7 : 22

somebody's

20:2

something's

63:6

son 7:25
sooner 68:6

sort 14 : 7

70:14

sound 42:24

source 14:3,
5,7,14
15:2 18:24
25:10,13,
15,16
28:10
70:4,5,9,
17 71:7

sources

58:21

southern

55:20

Spalvins 4 : 1

39:5,14
51:20

54:9,11,
21,24

55:17
56:13,15,
17 58:6
62 :23
66:20,25

speak: 7:21
65 :6

SPEAKER 4:24
5:14 44:22
45:3 48:1
68:10

speaking

6:18 37:13

special

11:17
17:11
30:23

specialize

14 :22

specific

35:2 39:20
49:3 52:25
60:12,13

68:16

specifically

13:17 44:6
62 : 5

Spencer-hardy

3:1,3

4:11,14,20
5:1,15

6:19 8:1
32:2 37:14
46:18,20
57:1 58:15

65:8

68:13,22
71:13,16

spend 53:6,8

spent 13:17

split 9 :11

47:20

spoke 64:13
spread 52:6

spreading

22:3

square 48:16

stabilization

25 :12

stable 67 :12

staff 31:8
64 :8

stage 38:22
43 :8

stakeholders

26:23
30:22
49:22

standard

54:6

standards

35:15

stands 11:7

star 6 :13

start 55:9
66: 9

started 3:2,

14 8:12
51:21
54:14

starts 6 6:13

state 6:7,8,

15 11:6
12:16 20:1
21:15,16
23:2,8
26:25
28:24
29:20

30:20 31:6
32:6 44:16
45:3 52:22
66:16,17
67:9,17,23
68:12

statement

6:5 33:2,7

statutory

28:21

stay 3 6:15
stays 61:19
steps 69:11
stop 64:19
storm 6 7:16

stonnwater

18:20

straight

12 : 17
48:16,17

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-98

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp

- Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Index: strategy..ten

strategy

56:5

Street 3 0:7,
12 31:14

strength

7 : 10

stronger

37:4

stuck 40:9,

10 43:20

study 8:15
13:7 16:9
24:2,4
35:25
44:13,20
54:14
57:16

studying

49:1

stuff 7 :14

13:4 20:11
31:16 35:9
50:24
70:10

subject 41:5

Submit 43:12

submitted

17:14

subsurface

12:3 13:14
16:16

suck 3 8:16
42:6

suggest

54:3,19

suggests

36:3

suit 32:11,

summary 8:22
27:14

sumps 67:13

Superfund

3:3,8 8:3
21:1

65:18,20
67:1

support

23:2,8

29:24

66:16

supposed
35 :22
64 :16

surface

11:5,21
12:1,2,4
13 :13
16 :16
18:3,19
25:14 63:6

surficial

47:2

surveyed

63 :16

surveying

64 : 9

suspicions

34 : 9

system 39:15
41:15,18
64:22,25
66 : 9

systems 3 9:8

40:13

table 5 : 23

19:18

32:13 36:5
45:18

taking 3 : 9
32:11

talk 3:12
8:2 9:1,9
15:22,23
30:19
43 :4,8,25
50:12 56:9
62:17

talked 9:25
16:5,21
17:12 20:8
27:23,24
35:1 44:4
49:17
50:16,19
61:4,24

talking 8:17
33:5,10

37 : 7

49:23,25

62:11
63 : 19

tall 40:12

Taneial

4:19,20

tank 11:4

tap 6 9:21,

target 55:12

targost

11:14,15
13 : 15

14:17 44:5

Targosts

47:2

tasked 3 6:23
taste 16:3

teacher

24:20

team 23:21
30 : 15

31:24 56:5
71:22

technical

19: 7

technically

56:8

technology

9:5 34:2
68:8

ten 24:22
25:16

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-99

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp

- Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Index: tend..treatment

tend 7:17

term 70:9

terms 21:15

testing 20:2
67:25

Theo 4:7,8,

There'd
51:13

thing 7:11
8:1 15:24
16:21 17:5
20:10
21:11
35:11
42:11
50:19
53:20,22
55:13
56:20
61:22,23
69:18
70:8,18
71:9

things 5:22
7:17,23
24:5 26:20
27:16 29:1
30:13,23
31:4 33:20
35:21
36:22
39:16

40:23 41:8
44:14
46:2,10

47:14 50:7
51:7,24
56:23
60:8,17
61:3,20
62:1,4,12,
14 63:12
70:12,15

thinking

55:13

thought 13:2
19:3 29:6
61:2

threat 14:1,
8 18:4
26:17

threatened

17 :17

threats

13:23 14:5

three-quarters

27:20 28:4

threshold

21:6,7
29:18

time 3:10
7:7 9:20
15:13,22,
25 19:2,12
22:15

28:18 29:9
31:3 34:15

35:1 36:25

38:21

40:22

49:11
50:10 56:4
61:5

65:17,19
68:13 72:8

timeline

49:10,12

times 16:19
36:10
44:14
5 5:2,4,6
60:6 62:3

told 23:25
26:10
34:15
41:11

tonight 3:2,
7,10,16,
19,23,25
5:5,11
6:24 7:3
8:17 10:24
11:14
23:7,23
32:11
35:22
71:17,22
72:6

tonight's
3 :11

Tonya 9:3,25
23 :15

top 60:1
65:5 67:8

tort 32:11,

16,19

total 4 7:15,
19 61:16

totally

64:15

touched

38:11
60:22

Town 32:25

toxic 2 0:15
22:2 29:6,

toxicity

21:21 22:1

track 4 5:11

trade-off

29:21

traditional

64:8

transcription

6 : 10

transcription!
st 3:17
5:19 6:4,9
32:7 72:11

transits

64:9

treater 67:4

treatment

9:12 13:22
18 : 25
24 : 11

www.huseby.com

Huseby Global Litigation

800-333-2082

B-100

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp

- Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Index; tree..visible

tree 3 6:6,7
39:20
41:12,14,

trees 35:16,

24 36:4,7,
11,12
38:14,16,

25 39:7,
17,18,20
40:6,11,
18,25
41:9,13
42:2,7
43:17,19,
23 45:15
61:24

62:2,11,17
63:4 65:5

trench 4 5:8,
10,12
46:11

trenches

40:7

trenching

12:17

trespassers

15:11

tricks 45:21

trigger

6 8:25

triggered

38:12

trucks 19:25

Trust 4 : 6

9:17 12:15

29:25

30:21

31:20

44:15

52:22

trusted

58:21

tub 64 : 24
65:6

turn 7:19
9:6

turned 31:12
turning 31:7
TV 5:13
Twenty 5 8:11
twigs 4 0:1,8

two-and-a-half

49:25

two-foot
12 :2

type 12:8
27:13
45:11

types 3 9:17

typically

67 :4

U.S. 30:7
Uh-huh 59:11

unable 72:2

unacceptable

15:9,14
16:5,7,15,
16,19,20
17:21
18:18,19,
24 20:18,
20 27:4,7
52:1,5
60:1

unacceptables

16:17

uncertainty

26:1 51:25

underneath
10:20
63 :14

understand

4:12 26:9
44:21 61:9

understanding

47 : 7

understood

31:23

UNIDENTIFIED

4:24 5:14
44:22 45:3
48:1 68:10

unit 8:5,8,
14 10:4,5,

7,8,10,12,
17,20,22
11:2,14,21
12:7 33:11

41:5 55:24

units 3:9
8:25 10:1,
4,25 49:9

unity 7 :10

unmute 3 7:19

ununited 9 : 24

10:14
11:1,9

unpack 3 5:10

U03 25:20

update 26:4

uptown 4 8:13

usage 50:25

ut 67:14

Vanna 71:1

Velvet 46:8,
22

version 8 : 3

vertical

24:8 47:7,
10

Vincent

37:18
41:23
42:22,24
43 : 8

visible

12:24 13:1

www.huseby.com Huseby Global Litigation 800-333-2082

B-101

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Index; visiblv..years

visibly

12:14

volume 21:22
22:1,4

Von 4:10,
11,12

Wait 22:13

waiting

56:19

wall 24:9

25:7,9

28:9,16,17

42:10,20

44:1,2,10,

23,25

45:5,9,15,
25 49:24
57:10
58:3,5
62:25 63:3
65:7 66:4,
12,15

Wallmenich

4:10,11,12

walls 57:8

wanted 13:5
24:1

31:18,22

53:21 55:2
70:20

waste 17:18
28:18

29:13,14
34:15
65:17,19

wastes 14 :1

water 19:11
30:22 31:6
36 :15
38 :16
40:18,24
41:2,20
42:3,6
45:13,19
51:11 63:3
64:21 65:4
66 :6

69:20,21,
22

ways 15:19
16:1 18:9
34 : 9

WCBI 5:13

website
6:21,23

30:8 68:9

wells 35:13
66:8,12
70 : 6

wetlands

10:23 50:5
69:10

Wilburn 65:8

windblown

18 :20

wintertimes

36:10

Witch 39:25

40:7

wood 9 :12
67:4

Woods 4 : 7
37:18,23,
25 41:21
43:3,6
48:5,19
58:11,13

words 42:19

work 7:21
9:5 21:25
22:23 23:4
26:22
34:12,14
39:5,18
43:17,24
44:20 49:8
54:1,24
55:14

59:12 62:8
71:12

worked 23:2
30 :19

worker 16:17
17:6 18:5,
7,8 27:6,
8,10

worker'a
53 :6

workers

15:10

16:15

18:2,13
22:16
33:19
52:20

working

30 : 14
31:21

35:14 41:3
45:1 49:2
71:21

works 5 : 9

world 23:21

writ* 5:23

30:5,6
65 : 12

66:20 67:2

wrong 2 8:4

69 : 6

wrote 55:22

y1 all 6 5:14
71:21

yard 10:4,
19 20:2
48:12,20,
23 49:1
63 : 5

yards 60:4
67:6

year 4 9:16,
19 53:10

years 4:15

7:4 28:20

www.huseby.com

Huseby Global Litigation

800-333-2082

B-102

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

RE: PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.

Public Meeting on 10/26/2823 Index: yellow..Zoom

30
34
36
40

50
55

13,15
20 35:
1,2,4
11
25
4,8
7

15,21
18,21
67:19,22
68:4,8

yellow 12:23

zone 47:3

Zoom 3:17
6:11,12
9:24 10:15
11:1,9
32:4,9
37:15 57:2
68:23
71:14,25
72:3,7

www.huseby.com

Huseby Global Litigation

800-333-2082

B-103

-------
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp

- Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi OU3

Record of Decision
September 2024

APPENDIX C

ARARs Tables

C-l

-------
Table 1. LOCATION-SPECIFIC ARARs and TBCs
Kerr McGee Superfund Site OU-3 ROD- Columbus, Mississippi

LOCATION-SPECIFIC ARARs and TBC

LOCATION

REQUIREMENT

PREREQUISITE

CITATION

Presence of
Floodplains
designated as such
on a map1

Shall take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize the
impact of floods on human safety, health and welfare, and to
restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by
floodplains.

Federal actions that involve potential impacts
to, or take place within, floodplains - TBC

NOTE: Federal agencies required to comply
with E.O. 11988 requirements.

Executive Order 11988
Section 1. Floodplain
Management

Shall consider alternatives to avoid, to the extent possible, adverse
effects and incompatible development in the floodplain. Design or
modify its action in order to minimize potential harm to or within
the floodplain

Executive Order 11988

Section 2.(a)(2) Floodplain
Management

Where possible, an agency shall use natural systems, ecosystem
processes, and nature-based approaches when developing
alternatives for consideration.

Executive Order 13690
Section 2 (c)

Presence of
floodplain
designated as such
on a map

The Agency shall design or modify its actions so as to minimize2
harm to or within the floodplain.

Federal actions affecting or affected by
Floodplain as defined in 44 CFR § 9.4 -
relevant and appropriate

44 CFR § 9.11(b)(1)
Mitigation

The Agency shall restore and preserve natural and beneficial
floodplain values.

44 CFR § 9.11(b)(3)
Mitigation

The Agency shall minimize:

• Potential harm to lives and the investment at risk from base flood,
or in the case of critical actions3 from the 500-year flood;

• Potential adverse impacts that action may have on floodplain
values.

44 CFR § 9.11(c)(1) and (3)
Minimization provisions

1 Under 44 CFR § 9.7 Determination of proposed action's location, Paragraph (c) Floodplain determination. One should consult the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), the
Flood Boundary Floodway Map (FBFM) and the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) to determine if the Agency proposed action is within the base floodplain.

2 Minimize means to reduce to smallest amount or degree possible. See 44 CFR § 9.4 Definitions.

3 See 44 CFR § 9.4 Definitions, Critical action. Critical actions include, but are not limited to, those which create or extend the useful life of structures or facilities such as those
that produce, use or store highly volatile, flammable, explosive, toxic or water-reactive materials.

C-2

-------
Table 1. LOCATION-SPECIFIC ARARs and TBCs
Kerr McGee Superfund Site OU-3 ROD- Columbus, Mississippi

LOCATION-SPECIFIC ARARs and TBC

LOCATION

REQUIREMENT

PREREQUISITE

CITATION

Presence of any
migratory bird, as
defined by 50 CFR §
10.13

It shall be unlawful at any time, by any means or in any manner, to
pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take4, capture, or kill,
possess, offer for sale, sell, offer to barter, barter, offer to purchase,
purchase, deliver for shipment, ship, export, import, cause to be
shipped, exported, or imported, deliver for transportation,
transport or cause to be transported, carry or cause to be carried,
or receive for shipment, transportation, carriage, or export, any
migratory bird, any part, nest, or eggs of any such bird.

Actions that have, or are likely to have, a
measurable negative effect on migratory bird
populations -Applicable

16 U.S.C. § 703(a)

Taking, killing, or possessing
migratory birds unlawful

Migratory Bird Treaty Act5

No person may take, possess, import, export, transport, sell,
purchase, barter, or offer for sale, purchase, or barter, any
migratory bird, or the parts, nests, or eggs of such bird except as
may be permitted under the terms of a valid permit issued pursuant
to the provisions of this part and part 13 of this chapter, or as
permitted by regulations in this part, or part 20 of this subchapter
(the hunting regulations), or part 92 of subchapter G of this chapter
(the Alaska subsistence harvest regulations). Birds taken or
possessed under this part in "included areas" of Alaska as defined in
§ 92.5(a) are subject to this part and not to part 92 of subchapter G
of this chapter.

50 CFR 21.10

General Permit Requirements

ARAR = Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement

CFR = Code of Federal Regulations

CWA = Clean Water Act

TBC = To Be Considered

U.S.C. = United States Code

4 Under 50 CFR 10.12 Definitions, the term "take" means to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,
capture, or collect.

5 Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act of 2004 - (Sec. 102) Amends the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) to clarify that the MBTA's prohibition on taking, killing, or possessing
migratory birds applies only to native migratory bird species whose occurrence in the United States results from natural biological or ecological conditions.

C-3

-------
Table 2. ACTION SPECIFIC ARARs and TBCs
Kerr McGee Superfund Site OU-3 ROD - Columbus, Mississippi

ACTION

REQUIREMENTS

PREREQUISITE

CITATION

Construction Standards - All Land Disturbing Activities (e.g., excavation, backfilling and grading)

Activities causing storm
water runoff (e.g.,
clearing, grading,
excavation)

Implement good construction management techniques in
accordance with the substantive requirements for
permits issued pursuant to 40 CFR § 122.26(c) - storm
water discharges associated with industrial activity or
under a General Permit.

Dewatering or storm water
discharges associated with
construction activity disturbing one
or more acres as defined in 40 CFR
122.26(b)(15) -Applicable

40 CFR Part § 122.26(c)(1)

Shall provide a narrative description of:

(A) The location (including a map) and the nature of

the construction activity;

(B) The total area of the site and the area of the site

that is expected to undergo excavation;

stormwater discharges during construction,
including a brief description of applicable State
and local erosion and sediment control
requirements;

(D) Proposed measures to control pollutants in storm
water discharges that will occur after
construction operations have been completed,
including a brief description of applicable State or
local erosion and sediment control requirements;

(E) Estimate of the runoff coefficient of the site and

the increase in impervious area after the
construction is completed, the nature of fill
material and existing data describing the soil or
the quality of the discharge; and

(F) The name of the receiving water.

40 CFR Part § 122.26(c)(l)(ii)

NOTE: Above information should be provided in
Remedial Design or Remedial Action Work Plan issued
or approved by EPA.

C-4

-------
Table 2. ACTION SPECIFIC ARARs and TBCs
Kerr McGee Superfund Site OU-3 ROD - Columbus, Mississippi

ACTION

REQUIREMENTS

PREREQUISITE

CITATION

Activities causing storm
water runoff (e.g.,
clearing, grading,
excavation) cont.

You must design, install, and maintain stormwater
controls required in Parts 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 to minimize the
discharge of pollutants in stormwater from construction
activities.

Must develop a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) consistent with the requirements in Part 7 in the
EPA 2022 Construction General Permit.

NOTE: Under CERCLA § 121(e)(1) permits are not
required for on-site response actions. However,
compliance with the substantive requirements in the
EPA 2107 Construction General Permit (determined to
be TBC) is recommended to ensure management of
stormwater in order to prevent erosion or
unauthorized discharges.

Dewatering or storm water
discharges associated with
construction activity disturbing one
or more acres as defined in 40 CFR
122.26(b)(15) - TBC

2022 EPA NPDES General Permit
for Discharges from
Construction Activities

2022 CGP Permit (eoa.gov)

Activities causing
fugitive dust emissions

Shall not cause, allow, or permit the emission of particles,
or any contaminants in sufficient amounts or of such
duration from any process as to be injurious to humans,
animals, plants, or property, or to create a condition of air
pollution.

Fugitive emissions from
construction operations, grading, or
the clearing of land - Applicable

MDEQ Regulation APC-S-1,
Section 3, Paragraph 3

C-5

-------
Table 2. ACTION SPECIFIC ARARs and TBCs
Kerr McGee Superfund Site OU-3 ROD - Columbus, Mississippi

ACTION

REQUIREMENTS

PREREQUISITE

CITATION

Waste Generation, Characterization - Primary Waste (e.g., contaminated soil and DNAPL)
and Secondary Waste (e.g., wastewaters, contaminated equipment and treatment residuals)1

Characterization of solid
waste (all primary and
secondary wastes) and
listed hazardous waste
determination

Must make an accurate determination as to whether that
waste is a hazardous waste in order to ensure wastes are
properly managed according to applicable RCRA
regulations. A hazardous waste determination is made
using the following steps:

(a) Must be made at the point of waste generation,
before any dilution, mixing, or other alteration of
the waste occurs, and at any time in the course
of its management that it has, or may have,
changed its properties as a result of exposure to
the environment or other factors that may
change the properties of the waste such that the
RCRA classification of the waste may change.

(b) Must determine whether the waste is excluded
from regulation under 40 CFR § 261.4.

(c) Must use the knowledge of the waste to
determine whether waste meets any of the
listing descriptions under subpart D of 40 CFR
Part 261. Acceptable knowledge that may be
used in making an accurate determination as to
whether the waste is listed may include waste
origin, composition, the process producing the
waste, feedstock, and other reliable and relevant
information.

Generation of solid waste as
defined in 40 CFR §261.2-
Applicable

40 CFR § 262.11(a), (b) and (c)

Determination of
characteristic hazardous
waste

The person then must also determine whether the waste
exhibits one or more hazardous characteristics as
identified in subpart C of 40 CFR part 261 by following the
procedures in paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this section, or a
combination of both.

Generation of solid waste which is
not excluded under 40 CFR §
261.4(a) - Applicable

40 CFR § 262.11(d)

C-6

-------
Table 2. ACTION SPECIFIC ARARs and TBCs
Kerr McGee Superfund Site OU-3 ROD - Columbus, Mississippi

ACTION

REQUIREMENTS

PREREQUISITE

CITATION

Determination of
characteristic hazardous
waste through
knowledge

The person must apply knowledge of the hazard
characteristic of the waste in light of the materials or the
processes used to generate the waste. Acceptable
knowledge may include process knowledge (e.g.,
information about chemical feedstocks and other inputs
to the production process); knowledge of products, by-
products, and intermediates produced by the
manufacturing process; chemical or physical
characterization of wastes; information on the chemical
and physical properties of the chemicals used or
produced by the process or otherwise contained in the
waste; testing that illustrates the properties of the waste;
or other reliable and relevant information about the
properties of the waste or its constituents.

A test other than a test method set forth in subpart C of
40 CFR part 261, or an equivalent test method approved
by the Administrator under 40 CFR 260.21, may be used
as part of a person's knowledge to determine whether a
solid waste exhibits a characteristic of hazardous waste.
However, such tests do not, by themselves, provide
definitive results. Persons testing their waste must obtain
a representative sample of the waste for the testing, as
defined at 40 CFR 260.10.

40 CFR § 262.11(d)(1)

1 The State of Mississippi incorporates by reference the federal regulations governing hazardous waste generation, characterization, segregation, and storage.
See MDEQ Regulations HW-1 (Sept. 29, 2008). Accordingly, only the federal regulations are cited in this table.

C-7

-------
Table 2. ACTION SPECIFIC ARARs and TBCs
Kerr McGee Superfund Site OU-3 ROD - Columbus, Mississippi

ACTION

REQUIREMENTS

PREREQUISITE

CITATION

Determination of
characteristic hazardous
waste through testing

When available knowledge is inadequate to make an
accurate determination, the person must test the waste
according to the applicable methods set forth in subpart C
of 40 CFR part 261 or according to an equivalent method
approved by the Administrator under 40 CFR § 260.21; or
and in accordance with the following:

(i) Persons testing their waste must obtain a
representative sample of the waste for the testing,
as defined at 40 CFR § 260.10.

(ii) Where a test method is specified in subpart C of 40
CFR part 261, the results of the regulatory test,
when properly performed, are definitive for
determining the regulatory status of the waste.

Generation of solid waste which is
not excluded under 40 CFR §
261.4(a) - Applicable

40 CFR § 262.11(d)(2)

Must refer to 40 CFR Parts §§ 261, 262, 264, 265, 266,
268, and 273 for possible exclusions or restrictions
pertaining to management of the specific waste.

Generation of solid waste that is
determined to be hazardous -
Applicable

40 CFR § 262.11(e)

Identifying hazardous
waste numbers for small
and large quantity
generators

Must identify all applicable EPA hazardous waste
numbers (EPA hazardous waste codes) in subparts C and
D of part 261 of this chapter. Prior to shipping the waste
off site, the generator also must mark its containers with
all applicable EPA hazardous waste numbers (EPA
hazardous waste codes) according to § 262.32.

40 CFR § 262.11(g)

General Waste Analysis

Must obtain a detailed chemical and physical analysis on
a representative sample of the waste(s), which at a
minimum contains all the information that must be
known to treat, store, or dispose of the waste in
accordance with pertinent sections of 40 CFR §§ 264 and
268.

Generation of RCRA hazardous
waste or nonhazardous wastes if
applicable under § 264.113(d) for
storage, treatment or disposal -
Applicable

40 CFR § 264.13(a)(1)

C-8

-------
Table 2. ACTION SPECIFIC ARARs and TBCs
Kerr McGee Superfund Site OU-3 ROD - Columbus, Mississippi

ACTION

REQUIREMENTS

PREREQUISITE

CITATION

Determinations for
management of
hazardous waste

Must determine each EPA Hazardous Waste Number
(waste code) applicable to the waste in order to
determine the applicable treatment standards under
subpart D of this part. This determination may be made
concurrently with the hazardous waste determination
required in § 262.11 of this chapter. For purposes of part
268, the waste will carry the waste code for any
applicable listed waste (40 CFR part 261, subpart D). In
addition, where the waste exhibits a characteristic, the
waste will carry one or more of the characteristic waste
codes (40 CFR part 261, subpart C), except when the
treatment standard for the listed waste operates in lieu of
the treatment standard for the characteristic waste, as
specified in paragraph (b) of this section.

Generation of hazardous waste for
storage, treatment, or disposal -
Applicable

40 CFR § 268.9(a)

Must determine the underlying hazardous constituents
[as defined in 40 CFR § 268.2(i)] in the characteristic
waste.

Generation of RCRA characteristic
hazardous waste (and is not D001
non-wastewaters treated by
CMBST, RORGS, or POLYM of
Section 268.42 Table 1) for storage,
treatment or disposal - Applicable

40 CFR § 268.9(a)

C-9

-------
Table 2. ACTION SPECIFIC ARARs and TBCs
Kerr McGee Superfund Site OU-3 ROD - Columbus, Mississippi

ACTION

REQUIREMENTS

PREREQUISITE

CITATION

Determinations for land
disposal of hazardous
waste

Must determine if the waste has to be treated before it
can be land disposed. This is done by determining if the
hazardous waste meets the treatment standards in
§268.40, 268.45, or §268.49. This determination can be
made concurrently with the hazardous waste
determination required in §262.11 of this chapter, in
either of two ways: testing the waste or using knowledge
of the waste. If the generator tests the waste, testing
would normally determine the total concentration of
hazardous constituents, or the concentration of
hazardous constituents in an extract of the waste
obtained using test method 1311 in 'Test Methods of
Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods," EPA
Publication SW-846, (incorporated by reference, see
§260.11 of this chapter), depending on whether the
treatment standard for the waste is expressed as a total
concentration or concentration of hazardous constituent
in the waste's extract. (Alternatively, the generator must
send the waste to a RCRA-permitted hazardous waste
treatment facility, where the waste treatment facility
must comply with the requirements of §264.13 of this
chapter and paragraph (b) of this section.).

Generation of hazardous waste for
storage, treatment, or disposal -
Applicable

40 CFR § 268.7(a)

Must comply with the special requirements of 40 CFR §
268.9 in addition to any applicable requirements in 40
CFR § 268.7.

Generation of waste or soil that
displays a hazardous characteristic
of ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity,
or toxicity for storage, treatment or
disposal - Applicable

40 CFR § 268.7(a)(1)

Characterization of
remediation wastes

Obtain a detailed chemical and physical analysis of a
representative sample of the hazardous remediation
wastes to be managed at the site. At a minimum, the
analysis must contain all of the information which must
be known to treat, store or dispose of the waste
according to this part and part 268 of this chapter and
must be kept up to date.

Management of remediation
wastes at facility that does not have
a RCRA permit-Applicable

40 CFR § 264. l(j)(2)

C-10

-------
Table 2. ACTION SPECIFIC ARARs and TBCs
Kerr McGee Superfund Site OU-3 ROD - Columbus, Mississippi

ACTION

REQUIREMENTS

PREREQUISITE

CITATION

Waste Storage in Containers - Primary Wastes (e.g., excavated contaminated soil and DNAPL)
and Secondary Wastes (e.g., wastewaters, contaminated equipment and treatment residuals)2

Temporary on-site
storage of hazardous
waste in containers

A small quantity generator may accumulate hazardous
waste on site without a permit or interim status, and
without complying with the requirements of parts 124,
264 through 267, and 270 of this chapter, or the
notification requirements of section 3010 of RCRA,
provided that all the substantive conditions for
exemption listed in this section are met.

Accumulation of RCRA hazardous
waste on-site as defined in 40 CFR §
260.10 - Applicable

40 CFR § 262.16(a)

Condition of containers

If a container holding hazardous waste is not in good
condition, or if it begins to leak, the small quantity
generator must immediately transfer the hazardous
waste from this container to a container that is in good
condition, or immediately manage the waste in some
other way that complies with the conditions for
exemption of this section.

40 CFR § 262.16(b)(2)(i)

Compatibility of waste
with container

Must use a container made of or lined with materials that
will not react with, and are otherwise compatible with,
the hazardous waste to be accumulated, so that the
ability of the container to contain the waste is not
impaired.

40 CFR § 262.16(b)(2)(ii)

Management of
containers

(A) A container holding hazardous waste must always be
closed during accumulation, except when it is necessary
to add or remove waste.

(B) A container holding hazardous waste must not be
opened, handled, or accumulated in a manner that may
rupture the container or cause it to leak.

40 CFR § 262.16(b)(2)(iii)

2 The State of Mississippi incorporates by reference the federal regulations governing waste generation, characterization, segregation, and storage. See MDEQ
Regulations HW-1 (Sept. 29, 2008). Accordingly, only the federal regulations are cited in this table.

C-ll

-------
Table 2. ACTION SPECIFIC ARARs and TBCs
Kerr McGee Superfund Site OU-3 ROD - Columbus, Mississippi

ACTION

REQUIREMENTS

PREREQUISITE

CITATION

Special conditions for
accumulation of
incompatible wastes

(A) Incompatible wastes, or incompatible wastes and
materials, (see appendix V of part 265 for examples) must
not be placed in the same container, unless § 265.17(b) of
this chapter is complied with.

(B) Hazardous waste must not be placed in an unwashed
container that previously held an incompatible waste or
material (see appendix V of part 265 for examples), unless
§ 265.17(b) of this chapter is complied with.

(C) A container accumulating hazardous waste that is
incompatible with any waste or other materials
accumulated or stored nearby in other containers, piles,
open tanks, or surface impoundments must be separated
from the other materials or protected from them by
means of a dike, berm, wall, or other device.

Accumulation of incompatible
wastes, or incompatible wastes and
materials on site - Applicable

40 CFR § 262.16(b)(2)(v)

Labeling and marking of
containers

A small quantity generator must mark or label its
containers with the following:

(A) The words "Hazardous Waste";

(B) An indication of the hazards of the contents
(examples include, but are not limited to, the
applicable hazardous waste characteristic(s) (i.e.,
ignitable, corrosive, reactive, toxic); hazard
communication consistent with the Department of
Transportation requirements at 49 CFR part 172
subpart E (labeling) or subpart F (placarding); a hazard
statement or pictogram consistent with the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration Hazard
Communication Standard at 29 CFR § 1910.1200; or a
chemical hazard label consistent with the National
Fire Protection Association code 704); and

Accumulation of RCRA hazardous
waste on site as defined in 40 CFR
§260.10 - Applicable

40 CFR § 262.16(b)(6)(i)

C-12

-------
Table 2. ACTION SPECIFIC ARARs and TBCs
Kerr McGee Superfund Site OU-3 ROD - Columbus, Mississippi

ACTION

REQUIREMENTS

PREREQUISITE

CITATION

Condition of container

If a container holding hazardous waste is not in good
condition, or if it begins to leak, the owner or operator
must transfer the hazardous waste from this container to
a container that is in good condition, or manage the
waste in some other way that complies with the
requirements of this part.

Storage of RCRA hazardous waste in
containers - Applicable

40 CFR § 265.171

Compatibility of waste
with container

Must use a container made with lined materials
compatible with waste to be stored so that the ability of
the container is not impaired.

40 CFR § 265.172

Containers must always be closed during storage, except
when necessary to add or remove waste.

Container must not be opened, handled, or stored in a
manner which may rupture the container or cause it to
leak.

40 CFR § 265.173(a) and (b)

Storage of hazardous
waste in a container
area

Area must have a containment system designed and
operated in accordance with 40 CFR § 264.175(b)

Storage of RCRA hazardous waste in
containers with/ree liquids -
Applicable

40 CFR § 264.175(a)

Area must be sloped or otherwise designed and operated
to drain liquid from precipitation, or
Containers must be elevated or otherwise protected from
contact with accumulated liquid

Storage of RCRA hazardous waste in
containers that do not contain free
liquids (other than F021, F022,
F023, F026 and F027) - Applicable

40 CFR § 264.175(c)(1) and (2)

C-13

-------
Table 2. ACTION SPECIFIC ARARs and TBCs
Kerr McGee Superfund Site OU-3 ROD - Columbus, Mississippi

ACTION

REQUIREMENTS

PREREQUISITE

CITATION

Closure performance
standard for RCRA
container storage unit

Must close the facility (e.g., container storage unit) in a
manner that:

• minimizes the need for further maintenance;

• controls, minimizes or eliminates to the extent
necessary to protect human health and the
environment, post-closure escape of hazardous
waste, hazardous constituents, leachate,
contaminated run-off, or hazardous waste
decomposition products to the ground or surface
waters or the atmosphere; and

• complies with the closure requirements of
subpart, but not limited to, the requirements of
40 CFR § 264.178 for containers.

Storage of RCRA hazardous waste in
containers - Applicable

40 CFR §264.111

Closure of RCRA
container storage unit

At closure, all hazardous waste and hazardous waste
residues must be removed from the containment system.
Remaining containers, liners, bases, and soils containing
or contaminated with hazardous waste and hazardous
waste residues must be decontaminated or removed.
[Comment: At closure, as throughout the operating
period, unless the owner or operator can demonstrate
in accordance with 40 CFR § 261.3(d) of this chapter
that the solid waste removed from the containment
system is not a hazardous waste, the owner or
operator becomes a generator of hazardous waste
and must manage it in accordance with all applicable
requirements of parts 262 through 266 of this
chapter].

Storage of RCRA hazardous waste in
containers in a unit with a
containment system - Applicable

40 CFR §264.178

Storage of remediation waste (e.g., excavated contaminated soil) in a Staging Pile

C-14

-------
Table 2. ACTION SPECIFIC ARARs and TBCs
Kerr McGee Superfund Site OU-3 ROD - Columbus, Mississippi

ACTION

REQUIREMENTS

PREREQUISITE

CITATION

Temporary on-site
storage of remediation
waste in staging piles
(e.g., excavated soils,
debris)

Must be located within the contiguous property under
the control of the owner/operator where the wastes are
to be managed in the staging pile originated.

Staging piles must be designated by the Director3
according to the requirements in this section.

NOTE: Designation of a staging pile will be part of the
CERCLA decision document (e.g., Record of Decision)
issued by EPA.

Accumulation of non-flowing
hazardous remediation waste (or
remediation waste otherwise
subject to land disposal restrictions)
as defined in 40 CFR § 260.10 -
Applicable

40 CFR § 264.554(a)

For the purposes of this section, storage includes mixing,
sizing, blending, or other similar physical operations as
long as they are intended to prepare the wastes for
subsequent management or treatment.

40 CFR § 264.554(a)(1)

Temporary on-site
storage of remediation
waste in staging piles
(e.g., excavated soils,
debris) con't

Staging piles may be used to store hazardous remediation
waste (or remediation waste otherwise subject to land
disposal restrictions) based on approved standards and
design criteria designated for that staging pile.

NOTE: Design and standards of the staging pile must
be included in CERCLA ROD issued by EPA or Remedial
Design document approved by EPA.

Accumulation of non-flowing
hazardous remediation waste (or
remediation waste otherwise
subject to land disposal restrictions)
as defined in 40 CFR § 260.10 -
Applicable

40 CFR § 264.554(b)

3 For purpose of on-site CERCLA response action, the designation of a staging pile and the design and standards of the staging pile are made by EPA R4 Superfund
Division Director and other delegated EPA R4 officials.

C-15

-------
Table 2. ACTION SPECIFIC ARARs and TBCs
Kerr McGee Superfund Site OU-3 ROD - Columbus, Mississippi

ACTION

REQUIREMENTS

PREREQUISITE

CITATION

Performance criteria for
staging pile

The Director must establish the standards and design
criteria for the staging pile in the permit, closure plan, or
order.

(1) The standards and design criteria must comply with
the following:

• The staging pile must facilitate a reliable, effective
and protective remedy;

• The staging pile must be designed to prevent or
minimize releases of hazardous wastes and
constituents into the environment, and minimize
or adequately control cross-media transfer as
necessary to protect human health and the
environment (for example, through the use of
liners, covers, runoff/run-on controls, as
appropriate).

NOTE: Design and standards of the staging pile must
be included in CERCLA ROD issued by EPA or Remedial
Design document approved by EPA.

Storage of remediation waste in a
staging pile - Applicable

40 CFR § 264.554(d)(l)(i) and (ii)

Operational limits of a
RCRA staging pile

The staging pile must not operate for more than two
years, except when the Director grants an operating term
extension under 40 CFR § 264.554(i).

Must measure the 2-year limit (or other operating term
specified) from first time remediation waste placed in
staging pile.

Must maintain a record of the date when you first placed
remediation waste into the staging pile for the life of the
permit, closure plan, or order, or for three years,
whichever is longer.

NOTE: Since the storage time limit is considered a
substantive requirement, recordation of date when
waste first placed in the staging pile is necessary to
demonstrate compliance with time limit.

Storage of remediation waste in a
staging pile - Applicable

40 CFR § 264.554(d)(l)(iii)

C-16

-------
Table 2. ACTION SPECIFIC ARARs and TBCs
Kerr McGee Superfund Site OU-3 ROD - Columbus, Mississippi

ACTION

REQUIREMENTS

PREREQUISITE

CITATION

The Director may allow a staging pile to operate for up to
two years after the hazardous waste is first placed into
the pile. Must not use staging pile longer than the length
of time designated by the Director in the permit, closure
plan, or order ("operating term"), except as provided in
paragraph (i) of this section.

NOTE: Additional time limits for storage will be
justified and documented in an ESD or ROD
Amendment issued by EPA.

40 CFR§ 264.554(h)

The Director may grant one operating term extension of
up to 180 days beyond the operating term limit contained
in the permit, closure plan, or order. To justify to the
Director the need for the extension, you must provide
sufficient and accurate information to enable the Director
to determine that continued use of the staging plie:

(i) Will not pose a threat to human health and the
environment; and

(ii) Is necessary to ensure timely and efficient
implementation of the remedial actions at the
facility.

40 CFR § 264.554(h)(i)(l)

Design criteria for
staging pile

In setting standards and design criteria, must consider the
following factors:

• length of time pile will be in operation;

• volumes of waste intended to store in pile;

• physical and chemical characteristics of waste to
be stored in unit;

• potential for releases from the unit
hydrogeological and other relevant
environmental conditions at the facility that may
influence the migration of any potential releases;
and

• potential for human and environmental exposure
to potential releases from the unit.

Storage of remediation waste in a
staging pile - Applicable

40 CFR § 264.554(d)(2)(i)-(vi)

C-17

-------
Table 2. ACTION SPECIFIC ARARs and TBCs
Kerr McGee Superfund Site OU-3 ROD - Columbus, Mississippi

ACTION

REQUIREMENTS

PREREQUISITE

CITATION

Waste Limitations

Must not place ignitable or reactive remediation waste in
a staging pile unless the remediation waste has been
treated, rendered, or mixed before placed in the staging
pile so that:

• the remediation waste no longer meets the
definition of ignitable or reactive under 40 CFR §
261.21 or 40 CFR § 261.23; and

• you have complied with 40 CFR §264.17(b); or

Must manage the remediation waste to protect it from
exposure to any material or condition that may cause it to
ignite or react.

Storage of "ignitable" or "reactive"
remediation waste in staging pile -
Applicable

40 CFR § 264.554(e)

40 CFR § 264.554(e)(l)(i)
40 CFR § 264.554(e)(l)(ii)

40 CFR § 264.554(e)(2)

Must not place incompatible remediation wastes in the
same staging pile unless you have complied with 40 CFR §
264.17(b).

Storage of "incompatible"
remediation waste (as defined in 40
CFR 260.10) in staging pile -
Applicable

40 CFR § 264.554(f)(1)

Must separate the incompatible waste of materials, or
protect them from one another using a dike, berm, wall,
or other device.

Staging pile of remediation waste
stored nearby to incompatible
wastes or materials in containers,
other piles, open tanks or land
disposal units-Applicable

40 CFR § 264.554(f)(2)

Must not pile remediation waste on same base where
incompatible wastes or materials were previously piled
unless the base has been sufficiently decontaminated in
compliance with 40 CFR § 264.17(b).

40 CFR § 264.554(f)(3)

C-18

-------
Table 2. ACTION SPECIFIC ARARs and TBCs
Kerr McGee Superfund Site OU-3 ROD - Columbus, Mississippi

ACTION

REQUIREMENTS

PREREQUISITE

CITATION

Closure of staging pile of
remediation waste

Within 180 days after the operating term of the staging
pile expires, you must close a staging pile located in a
previously contaminated area of the site by removing or
decontaminating all:

• Remediation waste;

• Contaminated containment system components;
and

• Structures and equipment contaminated with
waste and leachate.

Storage of remediation waste in
staging pile in previously
contaminated area - Applicable

40 CFR § 264.554(j)(l)(i)-(iii)

Must decontaminate contaminated sub-soils in a manner
that EPA determines will protect human health and the
environment.

40 CFR § 264.554(j)(2)

Must be closed within 180 days after the operating term
according to 40 CFR §§ 264.258(a) and 264.111 or
265.258(a) and § 265.111.

Storage of remediation waste in
staging pile in uncontaminated area
-Applicable

40 CFR § 264.554(k)

Air emissions from RCRA
waste storage units

The requirements of RCRA Subpart CC -Air Emission
Standards for Tanks, Surface Impoundments, and
Containers do not apply to a waste management unit that
is solely used for on-site treatment or storage of
hazardous waste that is placed in the unit as result of
implementing remedial activities required under RCRA §
3004(u) and (v), or § 3008(h), or CERCLA authorities.

Air pollutant emissions with volatile
organics from a hazardous waste
tank, surface impoundment, or
container - Relevant and
Appropriate

40 CFR § 264.1080(a)(5)

C-19

-------
Table 2. ACTION SPECIFIC ARARs and TBCs
Kerr McGee Superfund Site OU-3 ROD - Columbus, Mississippi

ACTION

REQUIREMENTS

PREREQUISITE

CITATION

Waste Treatment and Disposal - Primary waste (e.g., contaminated soil and DNAPL)
and Secondary Waste (e.g., wastewaters, contaminated equipment and treatment residuals)4

Treatment and Disposal
of RCRA hazardous
waste (e.g., DNAPL) in
an off-site land-based
unit

May be land disposed if it meets the requirements in the
table 'Treatment Standards for Hazardous Waste" at 40
CFR § 268.40 before land disposal.

Land disposal, as defined in 40 CFR
§ 268.2, of restricted RCRA waste -
Applicable

40 CFR § 268.40(a)

All underlying hazardous constituents [as defined in 40
CFR § 268.2(i)] must meet the Universal Treatment
Standards, found in 40 CFR § 268.48 Table UTS prior to
land disposal.

Land disposal of restricted RCRA
characteristic wastes (D001-D043)
that are not managed in a
wastewater treatment system that
is regulated under the CWA, that is
CWA equivalent, or that is injected
into a Class 1 nonhazardous
injection well - Applicable

40 CFR § 268.40(e)

To determine whether a hazardous waste identified in
this section exceeds the applicable treatment standards
of 40 CFR § 268.40, the initial generator must test a
sample of the waste extract or the entire waste,
depending on whether the treatment standards are
expressed as concentration in the waste extract or waste,
or the generator may use knowledge of the waste.

Land disposal of RCRA toxicity
characteristic wastes (D004 -D011)
that are newly identified (i.e.,
wastes, soil, or debris identified by
the TCLP but not the Extraction
Procedure) - Applicable

40 CFR § 268.34(f)

If the waste contains constituents (including UHCs in the
characteristic wastes) in excess of the applicable UTS
levels in 40 CFR § 268.48, the waste is prohibited from
land disposal, and all requirements of part 268 are
applicable, except as otherwise specified.

4 The State of Mississippi incorporates by reference the federal regulations governing land disposal restrictions. See MDEQ Regulations HW-1 (Sept. 29, 2008).
Accordingly, only the federal regulations are cited in this table.

C-20

-------
Table 2. ACTION SPECIFIC ARARs and TBCs
Kerr McGee Superfund Site OU-3 ROD - Columbus, Mississippi

ACTION

REQUIREMENTS

PREREQUISITE

CITATION

Disposal of RCRA-
hazardous waste soil in
a land-based unit

Must be treated according to the alternative treatment
standards of 40 CFR § 268.49(c) or according to the UTSs
specified in 40 CFR § 268.48 applicable to the listed
and/or characteristic waste contaminating the soil prior
to land disposal.

Land disposal, as defined in 40 CFR
268.2, of restricted hazardous soils
-Applicable

40 CFR § 268.49(b)

Treatment of RCRA
hazardous waste soil

Prior to land disposal, all "constituents subject to
treatment" as defined in 40 CFR § 268.49(d) must be
treated as follows:

• For non-metals (except carbon disulfide,
cyclohexanone, and methanol), treatment must
achieve a 90 percent reduction in total
constituent concentrations, except as provided in
40 CFR § 268.49(c)(1)(C)

• For metals and carbon disulfide, cyclohexanone,
and methanol, treatment must achieve a 90
percent reduction in total constituent
concentrations as measured in leachate from the
treated media (tested according to TCLP) or 90
percent reduction in total constituent
concentrations (when a metal removal
technology is used), except as provided in 40 CFR
§ 268.49(c)(1)(C)

• When treatment of any constituent subject to
treatment to a 90 percent reduction standard
would result in a concentration less than 10 times
the Universal Treatment Standard for that
constituent, treatment to achieve constituent
concentrations less than 10 times the universal
treatment standard is not required. Universal
Treatment Standards are identified in 40 CFR §
268.48 Table UTS.

Treatment of restricted hazardous
waste soils - Applicable

40 CFR § 268.49(c)(l)(A)-(C)

C-21

-------
Table 2. ACTION SPECIFIC ARARs and TBCs
Kerr McGee Superfund Site OU-3 ROD - Columbus, Mississippi

ACTION

REQUIREMENTS

PREREQUISITE

CITATION

In addition to the treatment requirement required by
paragraph (c)(1) of this section, prior to land disposal,
soils must be treated to eliminate these characteristics.

Soils that exhibit the characteristic
of ignitability, corrosivity or
reactivity intended for land disposal
-Applicable

40 CFR § 268.49(c)(2)

Provides methods on how to demonstrate compliance
with the alternative treatment standards for
contaminated soils that will be land disposed.

On-site treatment of restricted
hazardous waste soils following
alternative soil treatment of 40 CFR
§ 268.49(c)-TBC

Guidance on Demonstrating
Compliance with the LDR
Alternative Soil Treatment
Standards [EPA 530-R-02 -
003, July 2002]

Constituents subject to
treatment

When applying the soil treatment standards in paragraph
(c) of this section, constituents subject to treatment are
any constituents listed in § 268.48 Table UTS-Universal
Treatment Standards that are reasonably expected to be
present in any given volume of contaminated soil, except
fluoride, selenium, sulfides, vanadium, zinc, and that are
present at concentrations greater than 10 times the
universal treatment standard. PCBs are not constituents
subject to treatment in any given volume of soil that
exhibits the toxicity characteristic solely because of
presence of metals.

40 CFR § 268.49(d)

Disposal of RCRA
characteristic
wastewaters in a CWA
wastewater treatment
unit

Are not prohibited, if the wastes are managed in a
treatment system which subsequently discharges to
waters of the U.S. pursuant to a permit issued under 402
the CWA (i.e., NPDES permitted), unless the wastes are
subject to a specified method of treatment other than
DEACT in 40 CFR §268.40,or are D003 reactive cyanide.
NOTE: For purposes of this exclusion, a CERCLA on-site
wastewater treatment unit that meets all of the identified
CWA ARARs for point source discharges from such a
system, is considered a wastewater treatment system
that is NPDES permitted.

Land disposal of RCRA restricted
hazardous wastewaters that
hazardous only because they
exhibit a characteristic and are not
otherwise prohibited under 40 CFR
§268 - Applicable

40 CFR § 268.l(c)(4)(i)

C-22

-------
Table 2. ACTION SPECIFIC ARARs and TBCs
Kerr McGee Superfund Site OU-3 ROD - Columbus, Mississippi

ACTION

REQUIREMENTS

PREREQUISITE

CITATION

Disposal of RCRA
characteristic
wastewaters in a POTW

Are not prohibited, if wastes are treated for purposes of
the pretreatment requirements of Section 307 of the
CWA, unless the wastes are subject to a specified method
of treatment other than DEACT in 40 CFR § 268.40 or are
D003 reactive cyanide.

Land disposal of hazardous
wastewaters that are hazardous
only because they exhibit a
characteristic and are not
otherwise prohibited under 40 CFR
§ 268 - Applicable

40 CFR § 268.l(c)(4)(ii)

Disposal of RCRA
hazardous waste debris
in a land-based unit
(i.e., landfill)

Must be treated prior to land disposal as provided in 40
CFR § 268.45(a)(l)-(5) unless EPA determines under 40
CFR § 261.3(f)(2) that the debris no longer contaminated
with hazardous waste or the debris is treated to the
waste -specific treatment standard provided in 40 CFR §
268.40 for the waste contaminating the debris.

Land disposal, as defined in 40 CFR
§ 268.2, of restricted RCRA
hazardous debris - Applicable

40 CFR § 268.45(a)

Operation of a Groundwater Pump and Treatment System - Control of Air Emissions

Treatment of hazardous
waste in Miscellaneous
Unit with air emissions

Unit must be located, designed, constructed, operated
and maintained, and closed in a manner that will ensure
protection of human health and the environment.

Permits for miscellaneous units are to contain such terms
and provisions as necessary to protect human health and
the environment, including, but not limited to, as
appropriate, design and operating requirements,
detection and monitoring requirements, and
requirements for responses to releases of hazardous
waste or hazardous constituents from the unit.

NOTE: On-site CERCLA response action not required
to obtain permit. Terms and conditions, design and
operating requirements will be specified in a CERCLA
document including but not limited to one of the
following; Remedial Design, Remedial Action Work
Plan.

Treatment of RCRA hazardous
waste in miscellaneous units,
except as provided in 40 CFR 264.1
- Relevant and Appropriate

40 CFR §264.601

Environmental Performance
Standards

C-23

-------
Table 2. ACTION SPECIFIC ARARs and TBCs
Kerr McGee Superfund Site OU-3 ROD - Columbus, Mississippi

ACTION

REQUIREMENTS

PREREQUISITE

CITATION

Treatment of hazardous
waste in Miscellaneous
Unit with air emissions

Protection of human health and the environment
includes, but is not limited to:

Prevention of any release that may have adverse effects
on human health or the environment due to migration of
waste constituents in the air, considering:

(1) The volume and physical and chemical

characteristics of the waste in the unit, including
its potential for the emission and dispersal of
gases, aerosols and particulates;

(2) The effectiveness and reliability of systems and

structures to reduce or prevent emissions of
hazardous constituents to the air;

(3) The operating characteristics of the unit;

(4) The atmospheric, meteorologic, and topographic

characteristics of the unit and the surrounding
area;

(5) The existing quality of the air, including other

sources of contamination and their cumulative
impact on the air;

(6) The potential for health risks caused by human

exposure to waste constituents; and

(7) The potential for damage to domestic animals,

wildlife, crops, vegetation, and physical structures
caused by exposure to waste constituents.

Treatment of RCRA hazardous
waste in miscellaneous units,
except as provided in 40 CFR 264.1
- Relevant and Appropriate

40 CFR § 264.601(c)(l)-(7)

Monitoring of
Miscellaneous Unit

Monitoring, testing, analytical data, inspections,
response, and reporting procedures and frequencies must
ensure compliance with §§ 264.601, 264.15, 264.33,
264.75, 264.76, 264.77, and 264.101 as well as meet anv
additional requirements needed to protect human health
and the environment as specified in the permit.

Treatment of RCRA hazardous
waste in miscellaneous units,
except as provided in 40 CFR 264.1
- Relevant and Appropriate

40 CFR § 264.602

C-24

-------
Table 2. ACTION SPECIFIC ARARs and TBCs
Kerr McGee Superfund Site OU-3 ROD - Columbus, Mississippi

ACTION

REQUIREMENTS

PREREQUISITE

CITATION

Air Emissions from a
RCRA treatment unit

The requirements of RCRA Subpart AA-Air Emission
Standards for Process Vents do not apply to process vents
that would otherwise be subject to this subpart when
equipped with emission controls and operated in
accordance with an applicable Clean Air Act regulation
codified under 40 CFR part 60, part 61 or part 63.

Process vents associated with air or
steam stripping operations that
manage hazardous wastes with
organic concentrations of at least
10 ppmw - Relevant and
Appropriate

40 CFR § 264.1030(e)

The requirements of RCRA Subpart CC - Air Emission
Standards for Tanks, Surface Impoundments, and
Containers do not apply to a waste management unit that
is solely used for on-site treatment or storage of
hazardous waste that is placed in the unit as result of
implementing remedial activities required under RCRA
3004(u) and (v), or 3008(h), or CERCLA authorities.

Air pollutant emissions with volatile
organics from a hazardous waste
tank, surface impoundment, or
container - Relevant and
Appropriate

40 CFR § 264.1080(a)(5)

Remediation of soil
and/or groundwater
contaminated with
HAPs such as VOCs

This subpart applies to each new, reconstructed, or
existing affected source for your Site Remediation as
designated by paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this
section.

(1) Process vents. The affected source is the entire
group of process vents associated with the in-situ
and ex-situ remediation processes used at your
site to remove, destroy, degrade, transform, or
immobilize hazardous substances in the
remediation material subject to remediation.
Examples of such in-situ remediation processes
include, but are not limited to, soil vapor
extraction and bioremediation processes.
Examples of such ex-situ remediation processes
include but are not limited to, thermal
desorption, bioremediation, and air stripping
processes.

Each new, reconstructed, or
existing affected source for your
Site Remediation - Relevant and
Appropriate

40 CFR § 63.7882(a)(1)

C-25

-------
Table 2. ACTION SPECIFIC ARARs and TBCs
Kerr McGee Superfund Site OU-3 ROD - Columbus, Mississippi

ACTION

REQUIREMENTS

PREREQUISITE

CITATION

Remediation of soil
and/or groundwater
contaminated with
HAPs such as VOCs

This subpart applies to each new, reconstructed, or
existing affected source for your Site Remediation as
designated by paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this
section.

(2) Remediation material management units.

Remediation material management unit means a
tank, surface impoundment, container, oil-water
separator, organic-water separator, or transfer
svstem, as defined in § 63.7957, and is used at
your site to manage remediation material. The
affected source is the entire group of remediation
material management units used for the site
remediations at your site. For the purpose of this
subpart, a tank or container that is also equipped
with a vent that serves as a process vent, as
defined in § 63.7957, is not a remediation
material management unit, but instead this unit is
considered to be a process vent affected source
under paragraph (a)(1) of this section.

Each new, reconstructed, or
existing affected source for your
Site Remediation - Relevant and
Appropriate

40 CFR§ 63.7882(a)(2)

(3) Equipment leaks. The affected source is the entire
group of equipment components (pumps, valves,
etc.) used to manage remediation materials and
meeting both of the conditions specified in
paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section. If
either of these conditions do not apply to an
equipment component, then that component is
not part of the affected source for equipment
leaks.

40 CFR§ 63.7882(a)(3)

(4) Pressure relief devices. The affected source is any
pressure relief device in remediation material
service, as defined in § 63.7957. Pressure relief
devices meeting the specifications of paragraph
(a)(3) of this section are also part of an
equipment leaks affected source.

40 CFR§ 63.7882(a)(4)

C-26

-------
Table 2. ACTION SPECIFIC ARARs and TBCs
Kerr McGee Superfund Site OU-3 ROD - Columbus, Mississippi

ACTION

REQUIREMENTS

PREREQUISITE

CITATION

Designation of affected
source at CERCLA site

Notwithstanding paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section:

Each affected source for your site is considered an
existing source if your site remediation commenced
construction or reconstruction under the authority of the
CERCLA as a remedial action or a non-time-critical
removal action on or before May 13, 2016.

Each new, reconstructed, or
existing affected source for your
Site Remediation - Relevant and
Appropriate

40 CFR § 63.7882(d)(1)

(3) Each affected source for your site is considered a new
source if your site remediation commenced construction
or reconstruction under the authority of CERCLA as a
remedial action or a non-time-critical removal action after
May 13, 2016.

40 CFR § 63.7882(d)(3)

Remediation of soil
and/or groundwater
contaminated with
HAPs such as VOCs

You must control HAP emissions from each new and
existing process vent subiect to 40 CFR § 63.7885(b)(1)
according to emissions limitations and work practice
standards in this section that apply to your affected
process vents.

Each new and existing process vent
as defined in § 63.7957s subject to
§ 63.7885(b)(1) - Relevant and
Appropriate

40 CFR § 63.7890(a)

Emission limitations and work
practice standards for process
vents

5 Process vent means any open-ended pipe, stack, duct, or other opening intended to allow the passage of gases, vapors, or fumes to the atmosphere and this
passage is caused by mechanical means (such as compressors, vacuum-producing systems or fans) or by process-related means (such as volatilization produced by
heating). For the purposes of this subpart, a process vent is neither a pressure relief device (as defined in this section) nor a stack, duct or other opening used to
exhaust combustion products from a boiler, furnace, heater, incinerator, or other combustion device. [40 CFR § 63.7957]

C-27

-------
Table 2. ACTION SPECIFIC ARARs and TBCs
Kerr McGee Superfund Site OU-3 ROD - Columbus, Mississippi

ACTION

REQUIREMENTS

PREREQUISITE

CITATION

Remediation of soil
and/or groundwater
contaminated with
HAPs such as VOCs

For your affected process vents, you must meet one of
the facility-wide emission limit options specified in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section. If you have
multiple affected process vent streams, you may comply
with this paragraph using a combination of controlled and
uncontrolled process vent streams that achieve the
facility-wide emission limit that applies to you.

(1) Reduce from all affected process vents the total
emissions of the HAP listed in Table 1 of this subpart
to a level less than 1.4 kilograms per hour (kg/hr) and
2.8 Mg/yr (3.0 pounds per hour (Ib/hr) and 3.1 tpy); or

(2) Reduce from all affected process vents the
emissions of total organic compounds (TOC) (minus
methane and ethane) to a level below 1.4 kg/hr and
2.8 Mg/yr (3.0 Ib/hr and 3.1 tpy); or

(3) Reduce from all affected process vents the total
emissions of the HAP listed in Table 1 of this subpart
by 95 percent by weight or more; or

(4) Reduce from all affected process vents the
emissions of TOC (minus methane and ethane) by 95
percent by weight or more.

Each new and existing process vent
as defined in § 63.7957s subject to
§ 63.7885(b)(1) - Relevant and
Appropriate

40 CFR § 63.7890(b)

Emission limitations and work
practice standards for process
vents

6 Process vent means any open-ended pipe, stack, duct, or other opening intended to allow the passage of gases, vapors, or fumes to the atmosphere and this
passage is caused by mechanical means (such as compressors, vacuum-producing systems or fans) or by process-related means (such as volatilization produced by
heating). For the purposes of this subpart, a process vent is neither a pressure relief device (as defined in this section) nor a stack, duct or other opening used to
exhaust combustion products from a boiler, furnace, heater, incinerator, or other combustion device. [40 CFR § 63.7957]

C-28

-------
Table 2. ACTION SPECIFIC ARARs and TBCs
Kerr McGee Superfund Site OU-3 ROD - Columbus, Mississippi

ACTION

REQUIREMENTS

PREREQUISITE

CITATION

Remediation of soil
and/or groundwater
contaminated with
HAPs such as VOCs

For each affected process vent, except as exempted
under paragraph (c) of this section, you must meet one of
the options in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this
section.

(1) You control HAP emissions from the affected
process vents according to the standards specified in
§§ 63.7890 through 63.7893.

(2) You determine for the remediation material
treated or managed by the process vented through
the affected process vents that the average total
volatile organic hazardous air pollutant (VOHAP)
concentration, as defined in § 63.7957, of this
material is less than 10 parts per million by weight
(ppmw). Determination of the VOHAP concentration is
made using the procedures specified in § 63.7943.

(3) If the process vent is also subject to another
subpart under 40 CFR part 61 or 40 CFR part 63, you
control emissions of the HAP listed in Table 1 of this
subpart from the affected process vent in compliance
with the standards specified in the applicable subpart.
This provision does not apply to any exemption of the
affected source from the emissions limitations and
work practice standards allowed by the other
applicable subpart.

Each new, reconstructed, or
existing process vents that comprise
the affected source designated
under 40 CFR § 63.78827 - Relevant
and Appropriate

40 CFR § 63.7885(b)

General Standards for Affected
Process Vents

7 Process vents. The affected source is the entire group of process vents associated with the in-situ and ex-situ remediation processes used at your site to remove,
destroy, degrade, transform, or immobilize hazardous substances in the remediation material subject to remediation. Examples of such in-situ remediation
processes include, but are not limited to, soil vapor extraction and bioremediation processes. Examples of such ex-situ remediation processes include but are not
limited to, thermal desorption, bioremediation, and air stripping processes.

C-29

-------
Table 2. ACTION SPECIFIC ARARs and TBCs
Kerr McGee Superfund Site OU-3 ROD - Columbus, Mississippi

ACTION

REQUIREMENTS

PREREQUISITE

CITATION

Conditions for process
vent exemption from
emission standards

A process vent that meets the exemption requirements in
paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section is exempted from
the requirements in paragraph (b) of this section.
(1) The process vent stream exiting the process vent
meets the conditions in either paragraph (c)(l)(i) or (ii) of
this section.

(i) The process vent stream flow rate is less than 0.005
cubic meters per minute (m3/min) at standard
conditions (as defined in 40 CFR § 63.2): or

(ii) The process vent stream flow rate is less than 6.0
m3/min at standard conditions (as defined in 40 CFR §
63.2) and the total concentration of HAP listed in
Table 1 of this subpart is less than 20 parts per million
by volume (ppmv).

Each new and existing process vent
as defined in 40 CFR § 63.7957 -
Relevant and Appropriate

40 CFR § 63.7885(c)(1)

Process Vent Flow Rate
Exemption

Conditions for process
vent exemption from
emission standards
con't

You must demonstrate that the process vent stream
meets the applicable exemption conditions in paragraph
(c)(1) of this section using the procedures specified in 40
CFR § 63.694(m). You must prepare and maintain
documentation at your facility to support your
determination of the process vent stream flow rate. You
must perform a new determination of the process vent
stream flow rate and total HAP concentration, as
applicable to the exemption conditions for your process
vent, whenever changes to operation of the unit on which
the process vent is used could cause the process vent
stream conditions to exceed the maximum limits of the
exemption.

NOTE: Documentation that process vent meets
exemption conditions will be provided in a CERCLA
document such as a Remedial Design Report.

Each new and existing process vent
as defined in § 63.7957 - Relevant
and Appropriate

40 CFR § 63.7885(c)(2)

Exemption Verification and
Documentation

C-30

-------
Table 2. ACTION SPECIFIC ARARs and TBCs
Kerr McGee Superfund Site OU-3 ROD - Columbus, Mississippi

ACTION

REQUIREMENTS

PREREQUISITE

CITATION

Standards for closed
vent systems and
control devices used in
treatment of VOC
contaminated soil
and/or groundwater

For each closed vent system and control device you use to
comply with the requirements above, you must meet the
operating limit requirements and work practice standards
in § 63.7925(d) through (j) that apply to the closed vent
system and control device.

NOTE: EPA approval to use alternate work practices
under paragraph (j) in 40 CFR § 63.7925 will be
obtained in a CERCLA document.

Closed vent system8 and control
devices9 as defined in 40 CFR §
63.7957 that are used to comply
with § 63.7890(b) - Relevant and
Appropriate

40 CFR § 63.7890(c)

8 Closed vent system means a system that is not open to the atmosphere and is composed of hard-piping, ductwork, connections, and, if necessary, fans, blowers,
or other flow-inducing device that conveys gas or vapor from an emissions point to a control device. [40 CFR § 63.7957]

9 Control device means equipment used recovering, removing, oxidizing, or destroying organic vapors. Examples of such equipment include but are not limited to
carbon adsorbers, condensers, vapor incinerators, flares, boilers, and process heaters. [40 CFR § 63.7957] Control devices include regenerable carbon adsorption
system, non-regenerable carbon adsorption system, condenser, thermal incinerator, catalytic incinerator, and boiler or process heater.

C-31

-------
Table 2. ACTION SPECIFIC ARARs and TBCs
Kerr McGee Superfund Site OU-3 ROD - Columbus, Mississippi

ACTION

REQUIREMENTS

PREREQUISITE

CITATION

Emission limitations for
process vents used in
treatment of VOC
contaminated soil
and/or groundwater

You must demonstrate initial compliance with the
emissions limitations and work practice standards in £
63.7890(b) applicable to vour affected process vents bv
meeting the requirements in paragraphs (b) through (d)
of this section.

Process vents as defined in 40 CFR §
63.7957 used in site remediation of
media (e.g., soil and groundwater)
that could emit hazardous air
pollutants (HAPs) listed in Table 1
of Subpart GGGGG of Part 63 and
vent stream flow exceeds the rate
in 40 CFR § 63.7885(c)(1)-
Relevant and Appropriate

40 CFR § 63.7891(a)

Initial compliance
demonstration with emission
limitations and work practices

Monitoring of closed
vent systems and
control devices used in
treatment of VOC
contaminated
groundwater

For each closed vent system and control device you use to
complv with § 63.7890(b), vou must monitor and inspect
the closed vent system and control device according to
the requirements in 40 CFR § 63.7927 that applv to vou.
NOTE: Monitoring program will be developed as part
of the CERCLA process and included in an appropriate
CERCLA document.

Closed vent system and control
devices as defined in 40 CFR §
63.7957 that are used to comply
with § 63.7890(b) - Relevant and
Appropriate

40 CFR § 63.7892
Inspection and Monitoring

Continuous emission
compliance

You must demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emissions limitations and work practice standards in 40
CFR § 63.7890 applicable to vour affected process vents
by meeting the requirements in paragraphs (b) through
(d) of this section.

You must maintain emission levels from all of your
affected process vents to meet the facility wide emission
limits in 40 CFR § 63.7890(b) that applv to vou, as
specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section.

40 CFR § 63.7893(a) and (b)

Demonstration of continuous
compliance with emission
limitations and work practices

For each closed vent system and control device you use to
complv with 40 CFR § 63.7890(b), vou have met each
requirement for demonstrating continuous compliance
with the emission limitations and work practice standards
for a closed vent system and control device in 40 CFR £
63.7928.

Closed vent system and control
devices as defined in 40 CFR §
63.7957 that are used to comply
with § 63.7890(b) - Relevant and
Appropriate

40 CFR § 63.7893(c)

C-32

-------
Table 2. ACTION SPECIFIC ARARs and TBCs
Kerr McGee Superfund Site OU-3 ROD - Columbus, Mississippi

ACTION

REQUIREMENTS

PREREQUISITE

CITATION

Standards for closed
vent systems and
control devices used in
treatment of VOC
contaminated soil
and/or groundwater

For each closed-vent system and control device you use
to coitidIv with requirements in §§ 63.7890 through
63.7922, as applicable to vour affected sources, vou must
meet the emissions limitations and work practice
standards in this section.

Closed vent system and control
devices as defined in 40 CFR §
63.7957 that are used to comply
with § 63.7890(b) - Relevant and
Appropriate

40 CFR § 63.7925(a)

Emission limitations and work
practice standards for closed
vent systems and control devices

You must comply with paragraph (b)(2) of this section,
and paragraph (b)(1) of this section does not apply.

Initial startup date for closed vent
system was after September 3,
2019 - Relevant and Appropriate

40 CFR § 63.7925(b)

You must comply with paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this
section until January 7, 2021, and after that date, you
must comply with paragraph (b)(2) of this section, and
paragraph (b)(1) of this section does not apply.

Initial startup date for closed vent
system was on or before September
3, 2019 - Relevant and
Appropriate

40 CFR § 63.7925(b)

For each closed vent system, you must meet the work
practice standards in 40 CFR § 63.693(c) Standards:
Closed-vent systems and control devices.

Closed vent system and control
devices as defined in 40 CFR §
63.7957 that are used to comply
with § 63.7890(b) - Relevant and
Appropriate

40 CFR § 63.7925(c)

Standards for closed
vent systems and
control devices used in
treatment of VOC
contaminated soil
and/or groundwater
con't

The vent stream required to be controlled shall be
conveyed to the control device by either of the following
closed-vent systems:

(i) A closed-vent system that is designed to operate
with no detectable organic emissions using the
procedure specified in § 63.694(k) of this subpart: or

(ii) A closed-vent system that is designed to operate at
a pressure below atmospheric pressure. The system
shall be equipped with at least one pressure gauge or
other pressure measurement device that can be read
from a readily accessible location to verify that
negative pressure is being maintained in the closed-
vent system when the control device is operating.

Closed vent system and control
devices as defined in 40 CFR §
63.7957 that are used to comply
with § 63.7890(b) - Relevant and
Appropriate

40 CFR § 63.693(c)

Standards: Closed-vent systems
and control devices.

C-33

-------
Table 2. ACTION SPECIFIC ARARs and TBCs
Kerr McGee Superfund Site OU-3 ROD - Columbus, Mississippi

ACTION

REQUIREMENTS

PREREQUISITE

CITATION

Standards for control
devices used in
treatment of VOC
contaminated soil
and/or groundwater

You must control HAP emissions to meet either of the
emissions limits in paragraphs (d)(1) or (2) of this section
except as provided for in paragraph (f) of this section.

(1) Reduce emissions of total HAP listed in Table 1 of
this subpart orTOC (minus methane and ethane)
from each control device by 95 percent by weight; or

(2) Limit the concentration of total HAP listed in
Table 1 of this subpart orTOC (minus methane and
ethane) from each combustion control device (a
thermal incinerator, catalytic incinerator, boiler, or
process heater) to 20 ppmv or less on a dry basis
corrected to 3 percent oxygen.

For each control device10 other than
a flare or a control device used to
comply with the facility-wide
process vent emission limits in 40
CFR § 63.7890(b) - Relevant and
Appropriate

40 CFR § 63.7925(d)

Emission limitations for control
devices

For each control device other than a flare, you must meet
each operating limit in paragraphs (g)(1) through (6) of
this section that applies to your control device.

40 CFR § 63.7925(g)

If you use a carbon adsorption system as your control,
you must meet each work practice standard in
paragraphs (h)(1) through (3) of this section that applies
to your control device.

40 CFR § 63.7925(h)

Demonstration of initial
compliance with
emission limitations and
work practice standards

You must demonstrate initial compliance with the
emissions limitations and work practice standards in this
subpart applicable to your closed vent system and control
device by meeting the requirements in paragraphs (b)
through (h) of this section that apply to your closed vent
system and control device.

Closed vent system and control
devices as defined in 40 CFR §
63.7957 that are used to comply
with § 63.7890(b) - Relevant and
Appropriate

40 CFR § 63.7926(a)

10 Control devices include regenerable carbon adsorption system, non-regenerable carbon adsorption system, condenser, thermal incinerator, catalytic
incinerator, and boiler or process heater.

C-34

-------
Table 2. ACTION SPECIFIC ARARs and TBCs
Kerr McGee Superfund Site OU-3 ROD - Columbus, Mississippi

ACTION

REQUIREMENTS

PREREQUISITE

CITATION

Demonstration of initial
compliance with
emission limitations and
work practice standards
for carbon adsorption
systems

You must demonstrate initial compliance with the spent
carbon replacement and disposal work practice standards
for carbon adsorption svstems in § 63.7925(h) if vou have
submitted as part of your notification of compliance
status, specified in § 63.7950, a signed statement that
you will comply with each work practice standard that
applies to your carbon adsorption system.

NOTE: Submission of notification of compliance status
may be included as part of a monitoring program as part
of the CERCLA remedy.

Closed vent system and control
devices as defined in 40 CFR §
63.7957 that are used to comply
with § 63.7890(b) - Relevant and
Appropriate

40 CFR § 63.7926(e)

Monitoring of closed
vent systems and
control devices used in
treatment of VOC
contaminated soil
and/or groundwater

Must monitor and inspect the closed vent system and
control device according to the requirements in 40 CFR §
63.7927 that apply to the affected source.

Note: Monitoring program will be developed as part of
the CERCLA process and results included in an
appropriate CERCLA document.

Closed vent system and control
devices as defined in 40 CFR §
63.7957 that are used to comply
with § 63.7890(b) - Relevant and
Appropriate.

40 CFR § 63.7892

Discharge of Wastewater from Groundwater Treatment Unit or from Dewatering to POTW

Treatment system O&M

Properly operate and maintain all facilities and systems of
treatment and control (and related appurtenances) that
are installed or used to achieve compliance with the
effluent standards. Proper O&M also includes adequate
laboratory controls and appropriate quality assurance
procedures.

Discharge of pollutants to surface
waters of the state - Applicable

Discharge of pollutants to POTW -
Relevant and Appropriate

40 CFR § 122.41(e)

Discharge into POTW
General prohibitions

A User may not introduce into a POTW any pollutant(s)
which cause Pass Through or Interference.

These general prohibitions and the specific prohibitions in
paragraph (b) of this section apply to each User
introducing pollutants into a POTW whether or not the
User is subject to other National Pretreatment Standards
or any national, State, or local Pretreatment
Requirements.

Indirect discharge of pollutants into
POTW from Industrial User as
defined 40 CFR §403.3 - Applicable

40 CFR §403.5 (a)(1)

National pretreatment
standards:

Prohibited discharges

C-35

-------
Table 2. ACTION SPECIFIC ARARs and TBCs
Kerr McGee Superfund Site OU-3 ROD - Columbus, Mississippi

ACTION

REQUIREMENTS

PREREQUISITE

CITATION

Discharge into a POTW
Specific prohibitions

In addition, the following pollutants shall not be

introduced into a POTW:

(1) Pollutants which create a fire or explosion hazard in
the POTW, including, but not limited to, waste
streams with a closed cup flashpoint of less than 140
degrees Fahrenheit or 60 degrees Centigrade using
the test methods specified in 40 CFR §261.21;

(2) Pollutants which will cause corrosive structural
damage to the POTW, but in no case Discharges with
pH lower than 5.0, unless the works is specifically
designed to accommodate such Discharges;

(3) Solid or viscous pollutants in amounts which will
cause obstruction to the flow in the POTW resulting
in Interference;

(4) Any pollutant, including oxygen demanding
pollutants (BOD, etc.) released in a Discharge at a
flow rate and/or pollutant concentration which will
cause Interference with the POTW;

(5) Heat in amounts which will inhibit biological activity
in the POTW resulting in Interference, but in no case
heat in such quantities that the temperature at the
POTW Treatment Plant exceeds 40 °C (104 °F) unless
the Approval Authority, upon request of the POTW,
approves alternate temperature limits;

(6) Petroleum oil, nonbiodegradable cutting oil, or
products of mineral oil origin in amounts that will
cause interference or pass through;

(7) Pollutants which result in the presence of toxic gases,
vapors, or fumes within the POTW in a quantity that
may cause acute worker health and safety problems;

(8) Any trucked or hauled pollutants, except at discharge
points designated by the POTW.

Indirect discharge of pollutants into
POTW from Industrial User as
defined 40 CFR §403.3 - Applicable

40 CFR §403.5 (b)(l)-(8)

C-36

-------
Table 2. ACTION SPECIFIC ARARs and TBCs
Kerr McGee Superfund Site OU-3 ROD - Columbus, Mississippi

ACTION

REQUIREMENTS

PREREQUISITE

CITATION

Discharge into POTW
Con't

(d) Local limits. Where specific prohibitions or limits on
pollutants or pollutant parameters are developed by a
POTW in accordance with 40 CFR § 403.5 (c), such limits
shall be deemed Pretreatment Standards for the
purposes of section 307(d) of the CWA.

Indirect discharge of pollutants into
POTW from Industrial User as
defined 40 CFR §403.3 - Applicable

40 CFR §403.5 (d)

Transport and
conveyance of collected
RCRA wastewater to
WWTU located on the
facility

Any dedicated tank systems, conveyance systems, and
ancillary equipment used to treat, store or convey
wastewater to an on-site NPDES-permitted wastewater
treatment unit (WWTU) are exempt from the
requirements of RCRA Subtitle C standards.

On-site wastewater treatment unit
[as defined in 40 CFR 260.10]
subject to regulation under §402 or
§307(b) of the CWA (i.e., NPDES
permitted) that manages hazardous
wastewaters - Applicable

40 CFR § 264.1(g)(6)

General duty to mitigate
for discharge of WWTU

Take all reasonable steps to minimize or prevent any
discharge or sludge use or disposal in violation of effluent
standards which has a reasonable likelihood of adversely
affecting human health or the environment.

Discharge of pollutants to surface
waters - Applicable
Discharge of pollutants to POTW -
Relevant and Appropriate

40 CFR § 122.41(d)

Properly operate and maintain all facilities and systems of
treatment and control (and related appurtenances) which
are installed or used to achieve compliance with the
effluent standards. Proper operation and maintenance
also includes adequate laboratory controls and
appropriate quality assurance procedures.

Discharge of pollutants to surface
waters - Applicable
Discharge of pollutants to POTW -
Relevant and Appropriate

Monitoring
requirements for
discharges from WWTU

In addition to §122.48 and to assure compliance with
effluent limitations, one must monitor, as provided in
subsections (i) thru (iv) of §122.44(i)(l).

NOTE: Monitoring parameters, including frequency of
sampling, will be developed as part of the CERCLA
process and included in a Remedial Design, Remedial
Action Work Plan, or other appropriate CERCLA
document.

Discharge of pollutants to surface
waters - Applicable

Discharge of pollutants to POTW -
Relevant and Appropriate

40 CFR §122.44(i)(l)

C-37

-------
Table 2. ACTION SPECIFIC ARARs and TBCs
Kerr McGee Superfund Site OU-3 ROD - Columbus, Mississippi

ACTION

REQUIREMENTS

PREREQUISITE

CITATION

Groundwater Monitoring and Extraction Wells - Installation, Operation, and Abandonment

Construction of
monitoring

Shall follow the construction standards set forth in MDEQ
Regulation LW-3, Chap. XI(A)(l)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (h),
(j), (1), (m), (n), as appropriate.

Installation of wells and boreholes
that penetrate water bearing strata
or are greater than twenty-five (25)
feet in depth including monitoring
wells, observation wells,
contaminant recovery wells,
underground discharge wells, and
closed-loop system holes, and pilot
boreholes - Relevant and
Appropriate

MDEQ Regulation LW-3, Chap.
XI(A)(1),

DESIGN CRITERIA AND
CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS

Decommissioning of
abandoned monitoring
well and boreholes

Shall follow decommission procedures related to grouting
and casing in accordance with substantive requirements
set forth in MDEQ Regulation LW-3, Chap. XIII(F)(l)-(6), as
appropriate.

Decommissioning of wells and
boreholes that penetrate water
bearing strata or are greater than
twenty-five (25) feet in depth
including monitoring wells,
observation wells, contaminant
recovery wells, underground
discharge wells, and closed-loop
system holes, and pilot boreholes-
Relevant and Appropriate

MDEQ Regulation LW-3, Chap.
XI 11(F), Decommissioning
procedures

Decommissioning of
abandoned monitoring
well and boreholes

Geotechnical boreholes shall be plugged within 30 days
after abandonment or cessation of use. All other holes
shall be plugged within 180 days after abandonment or
cessation of use.

MDEQ Regulation LW-3, Chap.
XII 1(D)

C-38

-------
Table 2. ACTION SPECIFIC ARARs and TBCs
Kerr McGee Superfund Site OU-3 ROD - Columbus, Mississippi

ACTION

REQUIREMENTS

PREREQUISITE

CITATION

Transportation of Waste

Transportation of
hazardous waste on-site

The generator manifesting requirements of 40 CFR §§
262.20-262.32(b) do not apply. Generator or transporter
must comply with the requirements set forth in 40 CFR §§
263.30 and 263.31 in the event of a discharge of
hazardous waste on a private or public right-of-way.

Transportation of hazardous wastes
on a public or private right-of-way
within or along the border of
contiguous property under the
control of the same person, even if
such contiguous property is divided
by a public or private right-of-way -
Applicable

40 CFR § 262.20(f)

Transportation of
hazardous waste off-site

Must comply with the generator requirements of 40 CFR
§§ 262.20-262.23 for manifesting, § 262.30 for packaging,
§ 262.31 for labeling, § 262.32 for marking, § 262.33 for
placarding, §§ 262.40 and 262.41(a) for record keeping
requirements, and § 262.12 to obtain EPA ID number.

Preparation and initiation of
shipment of RCRA hazardous waste
off-site - Applicable

40 CFR § 262.10(h)

Must comply with the requirements of 40 CFR §§ 263.11-
263.31.

A transporter who meets all applicable requirements of
49 CFR §§ 171-179 and the requirements of 40 CFR §§
263.11 and 263.31 will be deemed in compliance with 40
CFR §263.

Transportation of hazardous waste
within the United States requiring a
manifest - Applicable

40 CFR § 263.10(a)

Transportation of waste
samples

Are not subject to any requirements of 40 CFR Parts 261
through 268 or 270 when:

• the sample is being transported to a laboratory for
the purpose of testing; or

• the sample is being transported back to the
sample collector after testing.

Samples of solid waste or a sample
of water, soil for purpose of
conducting testing to determine its
characteristics or composition -
Applicable

40 CFR § 261.4(d)(1)
40 CFR § 261.4(d)(l)((i)
40 CFR § 261.4(d)(l)(ii)

C-39

-------
Table 2. ACTION SPECIFIC ARARs and TBCs
Kerr McGee Superfund Site OU-3 ROD - Columbus, Mississippi

ACTION

REQUIREMENTS

PREREQUISITE

CITATION

In order to qualify for the exemption in paragraphs
(d)(l)(i) and (ii), a sample collector shipping samples to a
laboratory must:

• Comply with U.S. DOT, U.S. Postal Service, or any
other applicable shipping requirements.

• Assure that the information provided in (1) thru (5) of
this section accompanies the sample.

• Package the sample so that it does not leak, spill, or
vaporize from its packaging.

40 CFR § 261.4(d)(2)(i)
40 CFR § 261.4(d)(2)(i)(A)
40 CFR § 261.4(d)(2)(i)(B)

Transportation of
hazardous materials

Shall be subject to and must comply with all applicable
provisions of the HMTA and HMR at 49 CFR §§ 171-180
related to marking, labeling, placarding, packaging,
emergency response, etc.

Any person who, under contract
with a department or agency of the
federal government, transports "in
commerce," or causes to be
transported or shipped, a
hazardous material - Applicable

49 CFR § 171.1(c)

ARAR = applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement

ESD = Explanation of Significant Differences

CFR = Code of Federal Regulations

CWA = Clean Water Act of 1972

DEACT = deactivation

DOT = U.S. Department of Transportation

EPA= U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

HAP = hazardous air pollutant

HMR = Hazardous Materials Regulations

HMTA = Hazardous Materials Transportation Act

MDEQ = Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality

MSWLF = Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Facility

MS Rule = MDEQ Administrative Rules and Regulations

NPDES = National Pollution Discharge Elimination System

POTW = publicly owned treatment works

RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976

TBC = to be considered

TOC = total organic content

UTS = Universal Treatment Standard

C-40

-------
Table 2. ACTION SPECIFIC ARARs and TBCs
Kerr McGee Superfund Site OU-3 ROD - Columbus, Mississippi

VOC = volatile organic compound

VOHAP = volatile organic hazardous air pollutant

C-41

-------