NCD991278953_19920814_National Starch & Chemical Corp._FRBCERCLA SPD_Draft Identification and Screening of Technologies and Process Options for OU-3-OCR

I
• rn· INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY I CORPORATION
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
II
m
II
11
DRAFT IDENTIFICATION and
SCREENING of TECHNOLOGIES and
PROCESS OPTIONS for OPERABLE UNIT 3
Supplement to the Draft Remedial Investigation Report
for Operable Unit 3
NATIONAL STARCH AND CHEMICAL COMPANY SITE
Cedar Springs Road
Salisbury, North Carolina
Submitted by:
IT CORPORATION
312 Directors Drive
Knoxville, Tennessee
Project No. 408668
August 1992
------------------------------RESPONSIVE TO THE NEEDS OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
I
I
I
I
I
n
0
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET. N.E.
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30365
4WD-NSRB
Bruce Nicholson
North Carolina Department of Health, Environment
and Natural Resources
401 Oberlin Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605
Re: National Starch & Chemical Company NPL Site
Operable Unit 3 -Northeast Tributary
Draft Screening Technologies Report
Dear Mr. Nicholson:
AUG 2 ~· j(192 I
~lECfEij~~Jl))
AUG 2 0 1992
SUPERRINDSECHON
r'
A copy of the draft Screening Technologies Report for the Northeast
Tributary, (Operable Unit 3) is enclosed for your review. Comments
should be submitted to my attention no later than September 10,
1992. Please contact me immediately if you cannot make this
deadline.
I can be contacted at 404/347-7791 or facsimile number 404/347-
1695. Please call me if you have any questions or suggestions
regarding the site.
Sincerely,
(»dt£~4~U7-
Barbara H. Benoy
Remedial Project Manager
Waste Management Division
Enclosures
cc: Curt Fehn, NCS
Rick Leahy, ORC
Mike Kelly, NC-DHENR
NSJ.81992.tech,nc
Printed on Recycled Paper
.I
\
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
rn INTERNATIONAL
TECHNOLOGY
CORPORATION
August 14, 1992
Ms. Barbara Benoy
Remedial Project Manager
Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
IT Project No. 408668.60
Draft Identification and Screening of Technologies
and Process Options for Operable Unit 3
National Starch and Chemical Company
Salisbury. North Carolina
Dear Barbara:
On behalf of National Starch and Chemical Company, IT Corporation is submitting the
initial screening report, under seperate cover from the Draft RI report.
If you have any questions or require additional information, please call me at
[phone].
Sincerely,
~(~ UJr/~1af
Michael N. Sturdevant, P.E.
Project Manager
MS:ltd
Attachments
cc: Hank Graulich, NSCC
Alex Samson, NSCC
Ray Paradowski, NSCC
Regional Office
312 Directors Drive• Knoxville. Tennessee 37923 • 615-690-3211
IT Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of International Technology Corporation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DRAFT IDENTIFICATION and
SCREENING of TECHNOLOGIES and
PROCESS OPTIONS for OPERABLE UNIT 3
Supplement to the Draft Remedial Investigation Report
for Operable Unit 3
Submitted to:
NATIONAL STARCH AND CHEMICAL COMPANY 1iTE
Cedar Springs Road
Salisbury, North Carolif
Subm~ by:
f'2iT CORPORATION r '312 Directors Drive
D Knoxville, Tennessee
Project No. 408668
NOTICE
The r,port ""1nnJJld ,.,,..,.IJh co•labi1 bifonnalio• draJ u Jl'OJIMIIUJ ID rr Corporo,io• (17). Thu bifonnalio• u made awulabl, ID
:,au 1old, for 11,e purpou of naluatiag llie report. Thu bifonnalio• lhall IUJI be dudo1ed ID a:, p,r,o• oullide of th, 1/qff
re6po•ribhlefor lhe naluaJio•. No bifonnalltl• eo•lablalliettlll rhall 1w d,q,limwt, IUU, ordudo~ed bi whoh or UI part olhr tJuu,
ID nallUIU the report. Th,,-, lhall be •o dudonu,of .. , /Jifonnalio• (11:d111/aJI -4/or Jl,uu,dal)ID an:, third part:, wlJhouJ the prior
wrlae• conmll of rr.
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
1·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. 0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
2.0 Screening of Technologies and Process Options
for Sediments ........................................... 2-1
2.1 No Action .......................................... 2-1
2.2 Institutional Actions .................................... 2-1
2.3 Control/Containment .................................... 2-2
2.4 Removal ........................................... 2-2
2.5 Treatment .......................................... 2-3
2.6 On-Site Disposal ...................................... 2-4
2. 7 Off-Site Disposal ...................................... 2-4
2.8 Summary of Technology Screening for Sediments .................. 2-4
3.0 ~~1al~~o1c~~~~~n~l~~~ ~~~~s~ ~t~~n~ ~~r-S~i~~~t~ .. _ ._ ._ ._ ._ ._ ·i .. _ ._ ._ ._ ._ ·_t;
3. 2 Institutional Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2
3.3 Control/Contai_nment ..... _. ........... r-:-................ 3-2
3.3.1 D1vers1on and Collection Systems .... ·r ................. 3-2
3. 3. 2 Channel Relocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3
3 .4 Removal ............... f" ......................... 3-4
3.4.1 Mech3;I1ical Excavation . . . . ........................ 3-4
3.4.2 Dredging . . . . . . . . . . . .......................... 3-5
3.5 Treatment .... -~ .................................. 3-6
3.5.1 Stabilizatio xation .............................. 3-6
3.5.2 Stabilizatio /Macroencapsulation ....................... 3-6
3 .5. 3 Thermal Treatment/Thermal Desorption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7
3_6 j~PJ1~:;s~ T~~~~e~~~~~ -~I~ _I~~i~e~ti~~ .. _ ._ ._ ._ ._ ._ ._ ._ ._ ._ ._ ._ ._ ._ ._ ._ t:
3.7 Of~ Disposal ...................................... 3-9
3.8 Summary of Selection of Process Options ....................... 3-9
4.0 Initial Screening of Technologies and Process Options for Surface Water ...... 4-1
4.1 No Action .......................................... 4-1
4. 2 Institutional Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2
4.3 Control/Containment .................................... 4-2
4.4 .. Removal .......................................... .4-2
4.5 Treatment .......................... , ............... .4-2
4. 6 Discharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-4
4.7 Summary of Technology Screening for Surface Water ............... 4-4
5.0 Evaluation of Process Options for Surface Water ..................... 5-1
5.1 No Action .......................................... 5-1
5.2 Institutional Actions .................................... 5-2
I
.I
I
I.
I
••
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
5.2.1 Surface Water and Groundwater Monitoring ................ 5-2
5.2.2 Deed Restrictions ................................. 5-2
5.3 Control/Containment .................................... 5-3
5. 3 .1 Groundwater Capture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3
5.3.2 Channel Relocation ................................ 5-4
5.4 Removal Technologies .................................. 5-5
5.4.1 Removal/Capture Systems ........................... 5-5
5.5 Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6
5.5.1 Physical/Air Stripping .............................. 5-6
5.5.2 Physicochemical/Carbon Adsorption ..................... 5-7
5 .5 .3 Physicochemical/Ultraviolet Radiation/Oxidation .............. 5-9
5.6 Discharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-9
5.6.1 Discharge Treated Surface Water to River via Outfall ......... 5-10
5.6.2 D~sch~ge Untreated Surface Water to River via Outfall,.,('. ..... 5-10
5.6.3 InJect10n Wells ......................... ·I· ...... 5-11
Summary of Selection of Process Options ...................... 5-11 5.7
List of Tables r Follows
Page
2-1 National Starch Operable Unit 3 -/\
Environmental Media Initial Screening #Technologies
2-2
and Process Options for p:,theast Tributary Sediments ................ 2-1
National Starch Operabl~nit 3 -
Environmental Media Technologies and Process Options
3-1
Retain~ Further Evaluation -Sediments ....................... 2-5
Nationall{tarch Operable Unit 3 -
Environmental Media Detailed Evaluation of Process
Options for Sediments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
4-1 National Starch Operable Unit 3 -
Environmental Media Initial Screening of Technologies and
Process Options for Surface Water (Northeast Tributary) ............... 4-1
4-2 National Starch Operable Unit 3 -
Environmental Media Technologies and Process Options Retained
for Further Evaluation -Surface Water .......................... 4-4
5-1 National Starch Operable Unit 3 -
Environmental Media Detailed Evaluation of Process Options for
Surface Water .......................................... 5-1
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1. 0 Introduction
This report includes identification and screening of remedial technologies and process options
considered potentially applicable for remediation of Operable Unit 3 (OU3). The screening
and evaluation of technologies and process options for sediments are discussed in Chapters
2.0 and 3.0, respectively. The screening and evaluation of technologies and process options
for surface water are described in Chapters 4.0 and 5.0, respectively. This report is a
supplement to the August 1992 "Draft Remedial Investigation Report, National Starch and
Chemical Company Site."
D
KN/WPXXX.txt/08-14-92/DO 1-1
I
1:
I
I
I.
I
I
I
:1
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.0 Screening of Technologies and Process Options
for Sediments
The sediment medium consists of the surface sediment found in the Northeast Tributary.
The general response actions that are identified and screened include:
• No action
• Institutional action
• Control/containment
• Removal
• Treatment
• On-site disposal
• Off-site disposal.
Summaries of process options applicable to sediments are presented in Tablli, and are
discussed in the following sections.
2.1 No Action r
The National Contingency Plan (NCP) requirerrat the no-action response be carried through
the selection process to the detailed analysis ~ernatives in the Feasibility Study (FS) and
is, therefore, included in this ~o ment. The no-action response will be further evaluated
during the FS as a baseline fo parison with other remedial action alternatives developed
for the sediments. The no-ac on response is, therefore, applicable to the sediments.
The no-action ~onse does not provide additional remediation, monitoring, or security
activities at the site to further minimize risk to public health or the environment.
2.2 Institutional Actions
This general response action includes access/use restrictions related to the contaminated
sediments. The access/use restriction response includes fencing and will minimize access to
and use of the areas of concern. The implementation of this response will result in no
changes to the existing site environment. Fencing is an applicable technology for sediments
particularly during implementation of other remedial technologies.
KN/WPXXX.txt/08-14-92/DO 2-1
--------TABLE 2-1
NATIONAL STARCH
OPERABLE UNIT 3 -ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIA
-- -
INITIAL SCREENING OF TECHNOLOGIES AND PROCESS OPTIONS FOR NORTHEAST TRIBUTARY SEDIMENTS
General Response
Action
No Action
Institutional Actions
Control/ Containment
Removal
Treatment
Remedial
Technology
None
Access/use
restrictions
Surface water/storm
water control
Process Option
icable
Fence site
>()
Diversion/collection
Channel relocation
Description
May include environmental
monitoring, but excludes actions
that would reduce the potential for
exposure
Erect perimeter fence to restrict
access around affected areas
Construct drainage dikes, berms,
channels, terraces, benches,
chutes, seepage basins, and
~ ditches to control runon/runoff, Y erosion and infiltration
Relocate surface water courses to
expose clean sediments and allow
the uncovering of contaminated
sediments
Screening Comments
NCP requires the no action
alternative to be carried through
detailed analysis in FS
Potentially applicable in
localized areas of soil and
sediment contamination
Potentially applicable as a
support technology
Potentially applicable as a
support technology
Extraction of source Mechanical excavation R~ediments for subsequent Potentially applicable
treatm'enl-or disposal by
Dredging
Biological In situ bioremediation
excavation using conventional
construction equipment
Mechanical or hydraulic
excavation o:
0
s
3
e
1
~,ents for
subsequent t nt or disposal
Oxygen and nutrients are injected
into the contaminated sediments
to enhance biological degradation
of organic contaminants
Potentially applicable
Not applicable due to the
presence of chlorinated
aliphatics for which this
technology is unproven. This
technology also requires
specific conditions that are
difficult to implement in the
field.
-----------... --- -- - -
TABLE 2-1 (Continued)
NATIONAL STARCH
OPERABLE UNIT 3 -ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIA
INITIAL SCREENING OF TECHNOLOGIES AND PROCESS OPTIONS FOR NORTHEAST TRIBUTARY SEDIMENTS
General Response
Action
Treatment (Cont.)
Remedial
Technology
Biological (Cont.)
Physical
Physicochemical
Solidification/
stabilization
Process Option
Soil vapor extraction
Radio frequency heating
Sediment washing
(chemical extraction)
Fixation
Description
Sediments are aerated using air
injection wells to promote
microbial biodegradation of
organics and to strip volatile
organics
Organic contaminants are removed
from sediment by applying
negative pressure
In situ radio frequency heating to
volatilize organics from
ccJntllim(lated sediment.
Applic\ble for organics.
Contaminants are extracted from
sediments using a liquid extraction
agent such as water, acids,
solvents, or chel)~g agents
Cement, quicklime, or other
grouting materials are mixed with
the sediments to immobilize
contaminants and reduce
infiltration
Screening Comments
Not applicable due to the
presence of chlorinated
aliphatics for which this
technology is unproven. This
technology also requires
specific conditions that are
difficult to implement in the
field.
Applicable for volatile organics.
Effectiveness is determined by
contaminant volatilities and
sediment permeabilities.
Shallow sediment depth is not
amenable to soil vapor
extraction.
Only potentially applicable as a
support technology to enhance
soil vapor extraction, which is
not suitable for OU3.
Not applicable because only
removes soluble contaminants;
OU3 contaminants have low
solubility. Process also is not
very effective on fine materials
such as sediments.
Potentially applicable
--------------TABLE 2-1 (Continued)
NATIONAL STARCH
OPERABLE UNIT 3 -ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIA
-- - - -
INITIAL SCREENING OF TECHNOLOGIES AND PROCESS OPTIONS FOR NORTHEAST TRIBUTARY SEDIMENTS
General Response
Action
Treatment (Cont.)
On-Site Disposal
Off-Site Disposal
Remedial
Technology
Solidification/
stabilization (Cont.I
Thermal treatment
Landfill
Landfill
Process Option
M capsulation
Thermal de~n
Description
Contaminated sediments are
mixed with a plastic matrix of
asphalt, bitumen, paraffin, or
polyethylene and heated to form a
stable solid
A process used to remove volatile
organic contaminants from
sediment by increasing
temperature (desorption) and then
subsequently oxidized/
decomposed.
Mobile incinerator Ir .... Transportable rotary kiln
kiln) ---y incinerator to destroy wastes by
Landfill
Landfill
on-site combustion
Disposal of sediments in an
approved on-site landfill
Di~of sediments in an
appro~ed'-off-site landfill
Screening Comments
Potentially applicable
Potentially applicable
Potentially applicable
Potentially applicable
Potentially applicable
0
D
D
I
I
I
I ,.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.3 Control/Containment
The control/containment response is applicable for sediments. The major control/
containment remedial technology evaluated for this media is surface water/ storm water
control systems to minimize contaminated sediment transport/migration.
Surface water/storm water control can be used to minimize the migration of contaminated
sediments in surface waters by reducing the erosion and off-site transport. This technology
includes the use of diversion and collection systems for waters that are passed over the
sediment and a channel relocation that would uncover the contaminated sediments and expose
the surface waters to clean materials within the new channel bottom. Diversion and
collection of the surface water would allow the water to be diverted to a collection area by
using a lagoon or an earthen or concrete dam. Any entrained contaminated sediments would
settle out of the water in this area. This option would not uncover contami,JH(ed sediments
and would not expose the surface water to clean materials. In addition, any iolloidal
particl~ of oom,mi,ratol scdim~t in ilie ~re, wo,ld ool :t'"' of ilic ~"" wilht>.t
water treatment. Channel relocation is a viable alternative use the sediments can be
easily removed and/or treated after the channel has been rel ted. Construction of physical
structures such as sediment traps could also b~ effective augmentation. These
technologies will be carried further in the evaJr611on of process options and will be included,
as necessary, during the detail~valuation of alternatives.
2.4 Removal r
Complete or ~ removal of contaminated sediment will reduce migration of contaminants
toward potenlie!/eceptors. This may be accomplished using either mechanical excavation
equipment if the sediments are not in contact with surface waters, or dredging equipment if
sediments are in contact with surface waters.
Mechanical excavation involves the use of common construction equipment, such as a
backhoe or bulldozer, to remove the sediments. These methods are potentially viable for
sediments not in contact with surface waters (i.e., after channel diversion.) Mechanical
excavation will be retained for further consideration.
Dredging of material from stream beds is a common technique for sediments in contact with
surface waters. The process is generally applicable for the removal of large volumes of
sediments. If used in combination with a diversion and collection system, potentially
KN/WPXXX.txt/08-14-92/DO 2-2
I
I entrained sediments would also be collected for subsequent removal. Dredging will be
retained for further consideration.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2. 5 Treatment
The treatment options include biological, physical, physicochemical, solidification/
stabilization, and thermal measures. These options reduce the volume, toxicity, or mobility
of a contaminant by altering its physical or chemical properties. The contaminants of
concern found in sediments are all volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
Biological treatment is applicable for degrading organic contaminants such as those found in
the sediments at this site. However, for chlorinated aliphatics (i.e., 1,2-dichloroethane), this
technology is unproven for sediment and requires specific conditions that are difficult to
implement in the field. Biological treatment was not retained for further ef tion.
Physical treatment is applicable when the properties of the corminant compounds make
them amenable to separation, replacement, or volatilization. e following physical
treatment technologies would be applicable for sediments:
• Vapor extraction /\
• Radio frequency heating. r
Vapor extraction is applicable~volatile organics. However, the shallow depth of the
sediments is not conducive to efficient vapor extraction; therefore, vapor extraction will not
be retained fo(fu}rher evaluation. Radio frequency heating would be applicable as a support
technology foUhancing soil vapor extraction, but will not be further evaluated at this time.
The physicochemical treatment process of soil washing was also evaluated for the treatment
of sediments. Soil washing involves the extraction of organic compounds from sediments by
leaching. Soil washing is normally not viable for removal of compounds from very fine
materials, such as sediments. It is therefore not retained for further evaluation for
sediments.
Solidification/stabilization involves techniques to seal the contaminated sediments in a solid,
stable mass that reduces the mobility of the contaminants in the environment, Some of these
techniques physically surround the contaminant particles with a solidifying agent fixation.
KNIWPXXX. txt/08-14-92/DO 2-3
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Other techniques chemically contain the contaminants by reaction (macroencapsulation) with
a solidifier. Solidification/stabilization techniques that could be used at the site include:
• Fixation
• Macroencapsulation.
The fixation and macroencapsulation solidification technologies are retained. for further
consideration.
Thermal treatment is a process in which molecular bonding of organic compounds is altered
through thermal decomposition and oxidation. The end products of this process typically
include carbon dioxide, elemental carbon, ionized halogen, phosphorus, sulfur, and other
inorganics, depending upon the original composition of the waste material. ~ following
process options were evaluated for thermal treatment of sediments: · I
• Thermal desorption
• Rotary kiln incineration. r
Both of these thermal treatment technologies h been retained for further consideration.
2. 6 On-Site Disposal
Disposal technologies include (Slitsical measures (other than in situ) that will provide a
permanent engineered environ~e~t to restrict contaminant migration and thus minimize
potential impa&.:t n a receptor. For this screening process, it was assumed Resource
Conservation d ecovery Act (RCRA) Land Disposal Restriction (LDR) constraints do not
apply, and the efore, an on-site landfill has been defined as the engineered facility designed
to meet established federal and state regulations. On-site disposal of contaminated sediments
is considered applicable and has been retained for further consideration.
2. 7 Off-Site Disposal
Off-site disposal technologies are practiced at existing facilities that are approved by the
appropriate federal and state regulatory agencies, such as the U :S. EPA. For this screening
process, it was assumed that LDR constraints do not apply, and therefore, an off-site landfill
has been defined as an engineered disposal area that meets the applicable regulations. Off-
site disposal of contaminated sediments will be retained for further consideration.
KN/WPXXX. txt/08-14-92/DO 2-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.8 Summary of Technology Screening for Sediments
Table 2-2 presents the technologies and related process options that have been retained for
further evaluation and for subsequent development of remedial action alternatives for
sediments. The no-action response has also been retained and will be considered as a
remedi;u action alternative during the FS process.
D
KN/WPXXX. txV0S-14-92/DO 2-5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 2-2
NATIONAL STARCH
OPERABLE UNIT 3 -ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIA
TECHNOLOGIES AND PROCESS OPTIONS RETAINED
FOR FURTHER EVALUATION -SEDIMENTS
General Response
Action
No action
Institutional actions
Control/Containment
Removal
Treatment
D
On-site disposal
Off-site disposal
Remedial Technology
No action
Access/use restrictions
Surface water/storm water
control
Extraction
S~fication/stabilization
Thermal
Engineered disposal facility
Engineered disposal facility
Process Option
No action ~
Fence site I
~iversion/collection
rChannel relocation
Mechanical excavation
Dredging
Fixation (Cement
based/pozzolanic based)
Macroencapsulation
Thermal desorption
Mobile incinerator (rotary
kiln)
Landfill
Landfill
I
I
I
I
I
•·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.0 Evaluation of Technology Process Options for Sediments
The technologies and process options remaining after the initial screening for the sediment
medium were evaluated based on the following criteria:
• Effectiveness in reducing contaminant levels in the media, attaining potential
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) or other health-
based levels, and protecting human health and the environment
• Implementability with respect to technical and administrative feasibility of the
technologies and process options and the availability of needed technologies and
services
• Cost of certain technologies and process options that are significantly more
cost-effective than others that achieve the same level of contamrt reduction.
The representative process option(s) that is selected for each technology type will be retained
for incorporation into the FS. Specific remedial action obj~s (RAOs) and ARARs will
be defined in the FS. The results of this preliminary evalua{on are summarized in Table 3-1
and are discussed below.
3. 1 No Action
The no~action response is app!Qle to the sediments as required during the subsequent FS
by the NCP. The no-action ripo~se will be further evaluated during the FS as a baseline
for comparisonr other remedial action alternatives developed for the sediments.
The no-action alternative is evaluated below:
• Effectiveness 0ow): The effectiveness of this alternative for protecting human
health and the environment is defined as ineffective and unacceptable. The
mobility, toxicity or volume of the contaminated sediments will not be reduced
under this alternative.
• Implementability (none): This response action does not involve the
implementation of technologies or services.
• Capital Cost (none): There is no cost associated with this alternative because no
action is taken.
KN/WPXXX.txt/08-14-92/DO 3-1
--- -------- - -
TABLE 3-1
NATIONAL STARCH OPERABLE UNIT 3 • ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIA
DETAILED EVALUATION OF PROCESS OPTIONS FOR SEDIMENTS
General Response
Actions
No Actionc
Institutional Actions
Remedial Technology Process Option
None Not applicable
Access/use Fence site areasc
restrictions
Control/Containment Surface water/storm
water control
Diversion/collectionc
See footnotes at end of table.
Effectiveness Implementability
low; will not protect None
human health and the
environment or remove
cont~
Low; ec es public High; commonly
health objectives by available technology
preventing access;
dependent on
maintenance; does not
achieve environmental
objectives beca~
contaminants are left ·n
place: potential for ,
uptake by plant roots
Low/moderate; will not High; commonly
protect human health available technology
and the environment;
potential uptake by plant -\ roots
-- - -
l!!!!J !!!!
Cost8
Capital O&Mb
None None
Low/moderate; Low; requirements
includes ere minimal once
fencing and installed
labor;
dependent on
extent of area
fenced
Moderate; Low/moderate;
includes requirements are
equipment, minimal once
materials. and installed
labor; and is
dependent on
the anticipated
flows and
volumes
- -- --
General Response
Actions
Control/Containment
(Cont.I
Removal
Remedial Technology
Surface water/storm
water control (Cont.)
Extraction of source
See footnotes at end of table.
--- - ---
TABLE 3-1 CContlnuedl
NATIONAL STARCH OPERABLE UNIT 3 -ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIA
DETAILED EVALUATION OF PROCESS OPTIONS FOR SEDIMENTS
Process Option Effectiveness Implementability
Channel relocationc Moderate; will not High; commonly
protect human health available technology
and environment:
pota~~ke by plant
roots; e · e in
eliminati g potential
entrainment of
contaminated sediment
Mechanical excavationc High; requires
- -
Capital
Low/moderate;
includes
materials,
equipment
rental,and
labor; end is
dependent on
the extent of
contouring
required to
redirect flow
Moderate; High; effective in\\
achieving remedial action commonly available and include
Oredgingc
objectives
Moderatehligh;
effectively removes
contaminated sediments;
achieves the objectives
for protecting human
health and the
environment; additional
control/contaminated
technologies needed;
potential for worker
exposure
reliable technology;
may require
construction permit
High; commonly
availab,\chnology
equipment
rental and labor
Moderate;
includes
equipment
rental and labor
-
Cost8
O&Mb
Low; negligible·
once installed
Low; limited to
fuel end
maintenance of
equipment
Low; costs
negligible to low;
includes fuel and
maintenance of
equipment;
dependent on
sediment
management
--- ---- --- - - --
General Response
Actions
Treatment
TABLE 3-1 (Continuedl
NATIONAL STARCH OPERABLE UNIT 3 -ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIA
DETAILED EVALUATION OF PROCESS OPTIONS FOR SEDIMENTS
Remedial Technology Process Option
Stabilization Fixation (Pozzolanic
based/cement based)
Mecroencapsulation
Thermal treatment Thermal desorptionc
Effectiveness
Moderate; effective et
immobilizing wastes,
thus eliminating
--,.....,,,ethways;
le hing and
Low: not applicable for
organic wastes
High; effective in~
achieving remedial ac~o~
objectives; potential for
worker exposure
Implementability
High; uses commonly
available technology
High; requires special
equipment and highly
train~d operators
Moderate/high; fairly
implementable; mobile
treatment units not
common, but available;
possible air pollution
control devices may be
needed
See footnotes at end of table.
Capital
Moderate;
equipment,
reagents, and
labor
High;
equipment and
specialized
containers
High; includes
equipment
rental, fuel,
electrical
usage,
materials. labor
and residual
handling and
disposal
-
Cost8
Moderate;
equipment rental,
electrical usage,
residual handling
and disposal
High; electrical
usage
None
--- - ---- - ---- --
TABLE 3-1 (Continued)
NATIONAL STARCH OPERABLE UNIT 3 -ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIA
DETAILED EVALUATION OF PROCESS OPTIONS FOR SEDIMENTS
General Response
Actions
Treatment (Cont.)
Disposal
Remedial Technology
Thermal treatment
(Cont.I
Landfill
Process Option
Rotary kilnc
Off-site disposalc
a Relative to other process options in the same technology type.
bo&M -operation and maintenance cost.
Effectiveness
High; eliminates the
organic contaminant;
eliminates direct
expo~eceptors
and pat o other
environ ntal media;
potential for worker
exposure
Moderate; effect~
reliable
High; effective and
reliable
Implementability
High; commonly
available technology;
requires specialists to
operate and maintain
Moderate; uses
conventional
technology; skilled
workers are readily
available; adequate land
available; possible LOR
constraints
Hi~., conventional
te~h~~~; vulnerable
to dictates from
commercial facility and
possible LOR
constraints
Capital
High; includes
equipment
rental, fuel,
electrical
usage. water
usage
materials,
labor, end
residual
handling and
disposal
High; building e
facility
Moderate;
transport end
disposal
-I!!!!!!
Cost8
None
High; monitoring,
maintenance, and
security
None
cselected as representative process option for incorporation into alternative development based on its ratings in effectiveness, implementability, a.nd cost.
D
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• Qperating and Maintenance {O&M) Cost (none): This response action does not
utilize a technology or process option, therefore, there is no O&M cost. The
no-action response is retained for further evaluation as a baseline for
comparison with other remedial alternatives.
3.2 Institutional Actions
The remedial technology retained under this general response action is access/use
restrictions. Under this technology type, the only access/use restriction process option
considered potentially viable for sediments is fencing.
This option, as applied fo sediments, may be used as a temporary measure to restrict access
during implementation of the selected remedial action.
The following paragraphs summarize the evaluation of this process option: 1
• Effectiveness (low): This option achieves som!e of the public health objectives
by preventing human access to these areas. R · ctions to these areas,
however, require maintenance of the fence. F cing does not"meet ,
environmental objectives because the contamin ed material is left in place.
Fencing also does not restrict th~suspension of materials in runoff to surface
waters. Additionally, the potent" r uptake of contaminants via roots/plants
still exists.
• Im lementabilit h : Fencing is a readily available technical solution. The
laminated areas can be easily implemented.
• Cost low/moderate : The capital costs necessary for fencing include
rials and labor and are dependent on the extent of the areas to be enclosed.
• O&M Cost flow): Once installed, maintenance requirements are minimal.
A fence does not achieve the remedial objectives by itself; however, it may be considered as
a supplementary option in conjunction with other remedial solutions and is retained as an
institutional measure.
3.3 Control/Containment
The remedial technology retained under this general response action is surface water/ storm
water control. The specific process options retained within this technology group includes
diversion and collection systems and channel relocation.
KN/WPXXX.txt/08-14-92/DO 3-2
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3. 3. 1 Diversion and Collection Systems
Diversion and collection of the surface water was retained as a possible control and
containment option. Under this technology, the surface water would be diverted to a
collection area after passing through the channel containing the contaminated sediment. The
collection area (i.e., a lagoon or a pond created by an earthen or concrete dam) would be
used as a settling area for any entrained sediment in the water.
The discussion of the effectiveness, implementability, and cost of this option is presented in
the following paragraphs:
• Effectiveness {low/moderate): This option would not achieve protection of
human health and the environment. It would not restrict human~ess to this
area (unless fencing was used.) Diversion and collection woul ot meet
environmental objectives (unless combined with other remedial a tions such as
removal) because the contaminated material is left in place. Colloidal particles
of contaminated sediment would not be removrm the surface water (unless
treatment was used.) In addition, the potential uptake of contaminants via
roots of plants still exists.
• Implementability (high}: DiversiJ:\nd collection of surface water containing
entrained sediment is a readily a~ble technical solution and could be
relatively easily i~mented using land adjacent to the tributary. Approval of
diverting waters re State of North Carolina would have to be obtained.
• Capital Cost (moderate): The capital costs associated with building a diversion
llection system include equipment, materials, and labor and are dependent
site because the system will be based on the anticipated flows and related
es to be collected.
• O&M Cost {low/moderate): Once installed, maintenance requirements are
minimal except when settled sediment, if any, must be removed from the
system.
While this option does not achieve the remedial objectives by itself, it is retained for possible
integration with other technologies.
3.3.2 Channel Relocation
Channel relocation of the surface water was retained as a possible control and containment
option. This option would divert the surface waters to a new man-made channel to eliminate
KN/WPXXX.txt/08-14-92/DO 3-3
D
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
contact between the surface water and the sediment. This action subsequently eliminates
resuspension of the sediment in the surface water. This option also uncovers the
contaminated sediments.
The discussion of the effectiveness, implementability, and cost of this option is presented in
the following bullets:
• Effectiveness (moderate): This option would not achieve protection of human
health and the environment. It would not restrict human access to this area
(unless fencing was used.) Channel relocation would not meet environmental
objectives (unless combined with other remedial actions such as removal)
because the contaminated sediments are left in place. The potential for uptake
of contaminants by roots of plants still exists; however, the potential
entrainment of contaminated sediment in the surface water would be practical! y
eliminated if relocation and runoff diversion to the new channe~re properly
designed. I
• Implementability (high): Channel relocation inc~· n. g runoff diversion is a
readily available technical solution that could b sily implemented using land
adjacent to the tributary. Approval for relocati g the channel of the waters of
the State of North Carolina would/\ave to be obtained.
• Ca.pita! Cost (low/moderate): T~pital costs for channel relocation would
include materials~uipment rental, and labor. These costs are dependent on
the extent of the ired contouring of the area to redirect runoff to the new
channel and the tu length and cross sectional area of this new channel. • V Cost Qow): The O&M costs are negligible for this system once installed.
This option by itself does not achieve the remedial objectives but is retained for possible
integration with other technologies.
3.4 Removal
The removal response is applicable for sediment. The remedial technologies for removal
remaining from the initial screening for sediments are mechanical excavation and dredging.
3.4.1 Mechanical Excavation
Removal by excavation can be accomplished with conventional heavy construction equipment
and is applicable to the site conditions. Backhoes, gradalls, and loaders are most appropriate
KN/WPXXX. txt/08-14-92/DO 3-4
u
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
for the removal of dry stream sediments. This technology would be most applicable when
used in conjunction with a control/containment process such as channel diversion.
An evaluation of this process option is presented in the following bullets:
• Effectiveness (high): Mechanical excavation effectively removes contaminated
sediments and achieves the objectives for protecting public health and the
environment. There is a potential for exposure to workers during the removal
process.
• Implementability (high): The equipment necessary for the removal of site
sediments is conventional and readily available. The site conditions are also
conducive for easy implementation.
• Capital Cost (moderate): The capital costs for sediment excav~ would
include equipment rental and labor. The cost per unit basis is .. rderate.
• O&M Cost (low): The O&M costs are negligible to low and would include fuel
and maintenance of equipment. r
Excavation of sediments is deemed highly ef£~ive and implementable, and is retained for
incorporation into the site remedial alternative en used in conjunction with an appropriate
control/containment process.
3.4.2 Dredging r
Removal by d~ing can be accomplished with conventional dredging equipment and is
applicable to tCJ1te conditions. Dredging would be quite simple due to the shallow depth of
the tributary.
An evaluation of this process option is presented in the following bullets:
• Effectiveness <moderate/high): Dredging effectively removes contaminated
sediments and achieves the objectives for protecting public health and the
environment (assuming proper management of the sediment after being
removed.) A sediment settling area (control/containment technologies) would be
needed downstream from the dredging in order to settle out entrained sediment
in the water. Colloidal particles of contaminated sediment would not settle out
of this water. There is a potential for worker exposure during the removal .
process.
KN/WPXXX. txt/08-14-92/DO 3-5
D
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• Implementability (high): The equipment necessary for the removal of site
sediments is conventional and readily available. The site conditions are also
conducive for easy implementation.
• Capital Cost (moderate): The capital costs for sediment dredging would include
equipment rental and labor. The cost per unit basis is moderate.
• O&M Cost Qow): The O&M costs are negligible to low and would include fuel
and maintenance of equipment. Costs could increase to moderate depending on
the sediment management required after dredging.
Dredging of sediments is deemed highly effective and implementable, and is retained for
incorporation into the site remedial alternatives.
3. 5 Treatment ~
The technologies remaining from the initial screening for the response action bf treatment
include solidification/stabilization and thermal treatment techFes.
3.5. 1 Stabilization/Fixation
This process technology reduces the mobility p\ontaminants by binding them into a solid
mass that resists leaching. This particular pr~ combines the contaminated sediments with
a stabilizing mixture. · r .
The evaluation of this process option is presented in the following paragraphs:
• tiveness moderate : On a commercial basis, pozzolanic-based methods,
( . . , lime or cement-based) have been effective in immobilizing various types
of wastes, including limited examples of organic-contaminated media. This
solidification process would be effective in eliminating direct exposures to
receptors and also in eliminating the sediments as a pathway to other
environmental media. However, long-term stability and leachability are
unknown and it creates a solidified mass of larger volume.
• Implementability (high): The equipment necessary for this process is similar to
that used for cement mixing and handling. It includes a feed system, mixing
vessels, and a curing area. Bench-scale treatability testing may be necessary to
determine the selection and proportion of proper additives.
• Capital Cost (moderate): Capital costs include equipment, reagents, and labor
expenses.
KN/WPXXX.txt/08-14-92/DO 3-6
D
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• O&M Cost (moderate): O&M costs include equipment rental, electrical usage
and residual handling and disposal.
While pozzolanic-based stabilization may work initially, its long-term effectiveness is not
known because the process may trap the organics but does not eliminate them. In addition,
the organic contaminants could actually impede the process effectiveness. This process
option is therefore eliminated from incorporation into the remedial alternatives.
3. 5. 2 Stabilization/Macroencapsulation
This in situ process option involves mixing the contaminated sediments with a plastic
monomer and a catalyst (such as heat or chemical catalyst) to encapsulate the contaminants in
a stable, solid plastic matrix.
• Effectiveness (low): This method is most applicable and eff,.r4efor heavy
metal contaminants, not organic contaminants. Relative to c;-;eht solidification,
the increase in volume and rate of leaching is significantly less.
• Implementability (high): Specialized equipmen~ operators are readily
available for this process.
• Capital Cost (high): High equip~• costs are associated with this process
option. Also, the treated materifugenerally require special containers for
transportation an~posal due to the plasticity of the solidified matrix. This
significantly incrr~ costs.
• O&M Cost hi h : Energy requirements for this process are high.
Based on the erall evaluation and the availability of more proven methods, this option is
not retained for incorporation into the remedial alternatives.
3. 5. 3 Thermal Treatment/Thermal Desorption
This treatment separates the organic compounds from the sediment through desorption and
then thermally decomposes and oxidizes the gasified organic compounds.
The evaluation of this process option is presented in the following bullets:
• Effectiveness (high): This option is very effective because it eliminates the
organic contaminant from the sediment through desorption of the organic
compound and through subsequent decomposition and oxidation through thermal
KN/WPXXX. txt/08-14-92/DO 3-7
a
0
0
D
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
treatment. This treatment would eliminate direct exposures to receptors and
also eliminate the sediments as a pathway to other environmental media. There
is a potential for worker exposure during the treatment process.
• Implementability (moderate/high): This technology is fairly implementable.
Bench-scale treatability testing may be necessary to determine the appropriate
process conditions. Mobile treatment units for field use are not common, but
are available. Air pollution control (APC) devices may need to be added to the
system to meet regulatory air emission requirements.
• Capital Cost (high): Capital costs include equipment rental, fuel, electrical
usage, materials, labor, and residual handling and disposal. Additional costs for
required sediment removal are discussed in earlier sections.
• O&M Cost (none): There are no O&M costs associated with this process
option. ,-{
This option is retained due to its high level of effectiveness and moderately h&h
implementability rating.
3.5.4 Thermal Treatment/Rotary Kiln Incineration r
This treatment directly decomposes and oxidiz{s\he organic compounds in the contaminated
sediment using thermal destruction. The sedi~ is fed into the system, is thermally
treated, and is automatically rred from the system after treatment.
The evaluation of this process option is presented in the following bullets:
• £ tivenes hi h : This option is very effective because it eliminates the
o ganic contaminant in the sediment through direct thermal treatment. This
treatment would eliminate direct exposures to receptors and eliminate the
sediments as a pathway to other environmental media. There is a potential for
worker exposure during the treatment process. Possibly, treatment residues
other that the treated sediment from APC devices include fine particles and
wastewater.
• Implementability (high): The equipment necessary for this process is readily
available in mobile treatment units and has been proven implementable in the
field in the past. There is also adequate accessible space for equipment and the
necessary sediment handling logistics. These systems require specialists to
operate and maintain the system. All .regulatory requirements would need to be
met and could affect implementability.
KN/WPXXX.txt/08-14-92/DO 3-8
0
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• Capital Costs (high}: Capital costs include equipment rental, fuel, electrical
usage, water usage, materials, labor, and residual handling and disposal.
Additional costs for required sediment removal are discussed in earlier sections.
• O&M Costs (none}: There are no O&M costs for this process option.
Due to its high level of effectiveness and implementability, this process option is retained.
3. 6 On-Site Disposal
The general technology retained for this response action is landfilling. As a process option,
on-site landfilling is applicable for sediments. A landfill is defined as an engineered facility
for disposal of excavated untreated sediments.
The effectiveness, implementability, and cost of this process option are disf below:
• Effectiveness (moderate}: This process is effective in isolating contaminated
sediments, thereby meeting the public health ani:vironmental objectives. An
on-site disposal facility would be a permanent s tion for disposal of
contaminated materials. The effectiveness is de endent on the continued
maintenance and permanence of to/\facility.
• Implementability (moderate}: T~sign and construction of landfills are
widely practiced aologies. Equipment and skilled workers are readily
available. There adequate amount of land available for citing the landfill
at the facility. H wever, the U.S. EPA retains approval authority through the
Record of Decision (ROD) process of the siting of a disposal facility within the
p;;y boundaries. Agency approval is questionable and potential LOR
i p ts are uncertain. On-property siting conditions and land limitations should
n pose problems.
• Capital Cost <high): The cost of building this facility will be high.
• O&M Cost (high}: On-site disposal will require monitoring, maintenance, and
security measures for the life of the facility.
Due to availability of land on the facility, permanent on-site disposal is retained for
incorporation into the remedial action alternatives.
3. 7 Off-Site Disposal
KN/WPXXX. txt/08-14-92/DO 3-9
0
0
u
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Off-site disposal in an approved landfill was retained as the applicable process option for this
general response action. Contaminated sediments can be transported for permanent disposal
to a commercial waste disposal site. Waste acceptance criteria for this facility shall be
assumed to be consistent with the requirements for the on-site disposal facility. Waste
transport may be provided by truck or railroad.
The evaluation of this process option follows:
• Effectiveness (high): Effective at meeting public health and long-term
environmental objectives at the site. Exposure scenarios possible during
removal and transport.
• Implementability <high): Removal and packaging is straightforward; however,
safety issues are important. This option is vulnerable to dictat~m
commercial facility and possible LDR constraints. I
• Capital Cost (moderate): Transport (via truck) to the disposal site and disposal
costs are moderate. G
• O&M Cost (none): No O&M costs are associat6! with this option. Removal
costs were discussed in previous 5/).ions.
Due to its ratings for effectiveness, implement:i:1:ty, and cost, off-site disposal is retained
for incorporation into the remf action alternatives.
3. 8 Summai?Y. f Selection of Process Options
Based on the al ations presented, representative process options were selected to simplify
the subsequent evelopment and evaluation of alternatives without limiting flexibility during
design. This summary indicates which actions are viable and selected for inclusion into the
development of alternatives for the subsequent FS. The representative process options
selected provide a basis for preliminary design; however, the specific process actually used
to implement the design may not be selected until the remedial design phase. Some of the
process options that are not being carried to the next phase at this time could still be
reconsidered during the design phase as long as the satisfaction of evaluation criteria is
maintained at an equivalent level.
Selection of Process Options for Sediment
KN/WPXXX.txt/08-14-92/DO 3-10
0
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• The no-action response has been retained for the sediments as required by
the NCP for the subsequent FS.
• Fencing is considered viable as an institutional action in remediation of
contaminated sediments.
• The control/containment options are possible support options for remediation.
• Mechanical excavation and dredging were selected as the representative removal
options for the sediments. If the Northeast Tributary was rerouted or
temporarily diverted, standard excavation techniques could be used. If not,
dredging could be used.
• . Both sediment thermal treatment options remain viable as a result of the process
evaluation. These process options will be incorporated and considered in the
development and initial screening of alternatives. As appropri~hese process
options will be further evaluated during the detailed screening u 1 alternatives.
• On-site and off-site engineered disposal facilities have been retained for
incorporation into remedial alternatives. r
Each of the selected options for sediment remj\ation will be used in the development and
initial screening of potential remedial action ratives for OU3 during the FS process.
D
KN/WPXXX.txt/08-14-92/DO 3-11
D
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4. 0 Initial Screening of Technologies and Process Options
for Surface Water
The surface water medium consists of the water flowing in the Northeast Tributary. The
general response actions that are applicable to the medium include
• No action
• Institutional actions
• Control/containment
• Removal
• Treatment
• Discharge.
Summaries of the technologies and process options are presented in Table 41
As summarized in the draft RI for OU3, the surface water contains volatile organic
contaminants. The most widespread contaminant is 1,2°dich~ethane. Several other
volatile organic compounds were detected in several samplesr Based upon findings of the
OU3 RI, the source of the volatile organics o~~ed in these samples is contaminated
groundwater that discharges into the Northeasrbutary.
Based on this information, an~ purposes of this initial screening, treatment technologies
and process options proposed f;r fue surface water will be evaluated for their effectiveness in
treating volatil~anic contaminants. The actual volume of surface water to be treated is
not known at t~me. This refinement will be analyzed during the detailed analysis of
alternatives. .
The evaluation process of combining technologies applicable to both surface water and
sediment will be completed in the subsequent FS.
4. 1 No Action
The no-action response was retained for consideration during the development and analysis of
alternatives as required for the subsequent FS by the NCP. The no-action response does not
provide additional remediation, monitoring, or security activities at the site to further
minimize risk to public health or the environment. · ·The no-action response will be further
KN/WPXXX. txt/08-14-92/DO 4-1
---liil - - - - - --- - -!!!!!!!!!I I!!!!!!! !!!!!I == ==
General Response
Action
No action
Institutional actions
Remedial
Technology
None
Monitoring
Use/access
restrictions
Control/Containment Eliminate surface
water /groundwater
contact
Removal Surface water
capture system
TABLE 4-1
NATIONAL ST ARCH
OPERABLE UNIT 3 -ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIA
INITIAL SCREENING OF TECHNOLOGIES
AND PROCESS OPTIONS FOR SURFACE WATERS
(NORTHEAST TRIBUTARY)
Description
Not applicable No action is taken
~ Surface water and Ongoing surface water and
groundwater groundwater monitoring via
monitoring sampling existing wells and/or
installation and sampling of new
wel~
Deed restrictions Deeds )a?property and water
rights within contaminated areas
would include restrictions on
future development and domestic
surface water and groundwater
Contaminated
groundwater
capture
use ~
Capture contamin;te)i
groundwater prior to discharge to
surface water
Screening Comments
NCP requires the no-action
alternative to be carried
through detailed analysis on
the subsequent FS
Potentially applicable
Potentially applicable
Potentially applicable
Channel relocation Redirect the Northeast Tributary Potentially applicable
to a different engineered~h nel
to prevent the recharge
contaminated groundwater to t e
surface waters
Dam An earthen or concrete dam(s) Potentially applicable
would be installed with pumping
systems in order to intercept and
collect contaminated surface
water
-· lliii --- - -- - -
- - --~ !!!!!!!
General Response
Action
Treatment
Remedial
Technology
Biological
Physical
Physicochemical
TABLE 4-1 (Continued)
NATIONAL STARCH
OPERABLE UNIT 3 -ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIA
INITIAL SCREENING OF TECHNOLOGIES
AND PROCESS OPTIONS FOR SURFACE WATERS
(NORTHEAST TRIBUTARY)
Aerobic/anaerobic
bioremediation
Description
Degradation of organics using
microorganisms
Screening Comments
Not applicable
Belt filter press ~ewater sludge by forced flow
A!Y"ough a cloth filter media
Not applicable unless needed
as a support treatment process
(sludge dewatering) only
Sedimentation/
clarification
Equalization
Air stripping
Coagulation/
Polymerization
Adsorption (carbon
medial
Remove suspended solids via Not applicable unless needed
gravity settling as a support treatment process
Use~arge capacity tank to Not applicable unless needed
elimin e ctuations in flow rate as a support treatment process
and/or ontaminant
concentrations before further
processing
Passing large volumes of air
through VOC Cbi\'¥;nated water
in a packed column 13{ through
diffused aeration to promote
transfer of voes to air for
subsequent processing
Chemical additives/chelators are
used to promote polymer~
or coagulation of contam~
molecules which are
subsequently removed by
filtration or settling.
Adsorption of low concentration
contaminants onto a substrate
media.
Potentially applicable. Exhaust
air may need subsequent treat-
Not applicable unless needed
as a support treatment process
Potentially applicable to
organics
!!!!!!I ==
m= Ell
General Response
Action
Treatment (Cont.)
Discharge
- ----------~ !!!!!!I
Remedial
Technology
Physicochemical
(Cont.I
Discharge to
surface water
Pumping wells
TABLE 4-1 (Continued)
NATIONAL STARCH
OPERABLE UNIT 3 -ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIA
INITIAL SCREENING OF TECHNOLOGIES
AND PROCESS OPTIONS FOR SURFACE WATERS
(NORTHEAST TRIBUTARY)
Precipitation/
flocculation
Description
Use chemical additives to reduce
the aqueous solubility of
contaminants. A fleecing agent
~ added to promote rapid
~ling.
Ultraviolet (UV)
radiation/oxidation
Discharge to river
via new pipeline
(treated surface
water and
groundwater)
Discharge to river
via new pipeline
(untreated
groundwater)
Injection
Uses UV radiation to promote
oxidation of organic
contaminants. Ozone and/or
hyd~eroxide is used as the
oxidiz,vent.
Discharge treated water to a
nearby river via pipeline
Discharge unt~ater to a
nearby river via pipeline
Reinject water to aquiferet~~~
being remediated under
Screening Comments
Not applicable unless needed
as a support treatment process
Potentially applicable;
however, presence of turbidity
greatly reduces effectiveness
of this option.
Potentially applicable
Potentially applicable
Potentially applicable
==
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
evaluated as a baseline for comparison with other remedial action alternatives developed for
this operable unit during the feasibility study.
4.2 Institutional A1:tions
The institutional actions screened for the surface water medium include both monitoring and
access restrictions. Monitoring includes periodic sampling of the surface waters and the
underlying groundwab!r through the use of existing wells or the installation of new wells.
Use/access restrictions include deed restrictions, which are retained for further evaluation as
a supplemental action.
4. 3 Control/Containment
The control/containment measures screened for the surface water medium include primarily
physical measures that modify contaminant migration and minimize irnpacts,s(potential
receptors. The control/containment technologies evaluated include capture rn~thods and
alteration and redirection of the natural drainage system.
Capture of the contaminated groundwater, with possible rein£::on into the aquifer as
described in subsequent sections, is retained fo~rther consideration as a viable technology
for preventing contaminated groundwater froif-dThcharging to surface waters. Another
control/containment technolog~tentially applicable to the surface waters is to redirect the
Northeast Tributary to a diffe engineered channel to prevent the recharge of contaminated
groundwater to the sudace wa ers.
4.4 RemovO
The technology screened for surface water removal is capture systems. The type of capture
system retained for further evaluation is earthen or concrete darns with pumping systems.
This would be applicable for interception and collection of the contaminated surface water.
4. 5 Treatment
The treatment response action includes biological, physical, physicochernical, and chemical
processes that reduce the volume, toxicity, or mobility of a contaminant. The most prevalent
constituent in the surface water is 1,2-dicholorethane. The emphasis of this screening is on
technologies that effectively remove this and other volatile organic contaminants that are
found at the site.
KN/WPXXX.txt/08-14-92/DO 4-2
D
m
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The potentially applicable process options retained for further evaluation for organic
contaminants removal include air stripping, carbon adsorption, and ultraviolet (UV)
oxidation.
Aerobic or anaerobic biological treatment is applicable for degrading organic contaminants
such as those found in the surface waters in the Northeast Tributary. For chlorinated
aliphatics, however, this technology has not been consistently proven for situations similar to
the Northeast Tributary. This technology also requires specific conditions that are difficult to
implement and maintain in the field. Biological treatment was not retained for further
evaluation.
Physical treatment is applicable when the properties of the contaminant compounds are
conducive to allow separation, replacement, or volatilization. Air stripping4'the option
retained. Other physical treatment options such as a belt filter press are not .jpplicable for
this contaminated surface water unless a significant amount otntaminated sediments was
entrained in the water and required subsequent treatment aft ettling out as a sludge. Other
support technologies that may be needed but will not be disc ssed in detail beyond this
section are sedimentation/clarification and eqption.
Air stripping is applicable for~ s. Large volumes of air are passed through voe-
contaminated water in a pack lumn or through diffused aeration to promote transfer of
voes to air for subsequent p essing if needed.
The only two b/sicochemical options retained are carbon adsorption and UV oxidation.
The adsorption option involves the adsorption of low concentration contaminants onto a
substrate media, in this case voes and granular activated carbon, respectively.
The UV oxidation involves using UV radiation to promote oxidation of organic contaminants.
Ozone and/or hydrogen peroxide is used as the oxidizing agent.
Again, other physicochemical treatment options such as precipitation/flocculation and
coagulation/polymerization are not applicable for this contaminated surface water unless a
significant amount of contaminated sediments was entrained in the water and required
subsequent treatment. These other support technologies will not be discussed in detail
beyond this point.
KN/WPXXX.txt/08-14-92/DO 4-3
D
E
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8
I
I
I
Additionally, if a specific treatment option is selected, it may be combined with the remedial
action for OUl (groundwater), which involves metals removal, physical treatment, and
chemical biological treatment processes.
Thus, several treatment processes were found to be potentially applicable for pretreatment
and/or posttreatment supporting technologies. These supporting process technologies are not
carried through the evaluation process and the assembly of alternatives. They may, however,
be included during the detailed analysis of alternatives as necessary components for the
complete conceptualization, costing, and evaluation of a treatment system.
4. 6 Discharge
Discharge refers to the release of treated or untreated surface water to either another surface
water body via a permitted outfall or to the subsurface environment via weu,(njection. The
option for discharge of treated or untreated water to a nearby river via an oufall has been
retained for further consideration. Well injection into the cLinated aquifer that is being
remediated under OUl has also been retained for further co,reration.
4. 7 Summary of Technology Screening ff\_ Surface Water ·
The previous sections provided a discussion cf1nl:-rationale for eliminating technologies and
process options for remediatiof! the Northeast Tributary surface water. The technologies
and related process options th ve been retained for further evaluation and subsequent
development of remedial actio alternatives are presented in Table 4-2. The no-action
response has ~een retained as required in the FS by the NCP and will be considered
throughout thi~ process.
KN/WPXXX.txt/08-14-92/DO 4-4
n
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 4-2
NATIONAL STARCH
OPERABLE UNIT 3 -ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIA
TECHNOLOGIES AND PROCESS OPTIONS RETAINED
FOR FURTHER EVALUATION -SURFACE WATER
General Response Remedial Technology Process Options
Action
No action None Not Applicable
Institutional Actions Monitoring Surface water and
Groundwater Monitoring
Use/Access Restrictions Deed 1riction
Control/Containment Eliminate Surface r Contaminated
Water/Groundwater Groundwater Capture
Contact
Channel ~cation Redirect Northeast
Tributary
Removal ~rface Water Capture Dam
Treatment Physical Air Stripping
D Physicochemical Carbon Adsorption
UV Oxidation
Discharge Discharge to Surface Pipeline to River (treated
Water and untreated)
Pumping Wells Injection/To be
remediated under OU1
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5. 0 Evaluation of Process Options for Surface Water
The technologies and process options remaining after the initial screening for the surface
water medium were evaluated based on the following screening criteria:
• Effectiveness in reducing contaminant levels in the media, attaining ARARs or
other health-based levels, and protecting human health and the environment
• Implementability with respect to technical and administrative feasibility of the
technologies and process options and the availability of needed technologies and
services
• Cost of certain technologies and process options that are signif~y more
cost-effective than others that achieve the same level of contam1,ant reduction.
The representative process option(s) that is selected for each ~nology type will be retained
for incorporation into the remedial action alternatives. The rsults of this evaluation are
summarized in Table 5-1 and are discussed below.
5. 1 No Action ~
The no-action response provid~ technology of remediation, monitoring, or restriction for
surface water at the site. ThefvMuation of no-action response is summarized below:
liveness low : No-action response will not achieve any of the remedial
a ti objectives by itself within an acceptable time frame. This response action
d s not reduce risk to human health or the environment.
• Implementability {low}: This response action does not involve the
implementation of technologies and services. However, this response action is
not acceptable to local/public government agencies.
• Capital Cost (none): This response action does not utilize any technologies or
process options. Therefore, there is no capital cost for this response action.
• O&M Cost (none): This response action does not utilize any technologies or
process options. Therefore, there is no O&M cost for this response action.
The NCP, however, requires the no-action response to be carried through the detailed
analysis of alternatives. The no-action response will be utilized as a baseline for comparison
KN/WPXXX.txt/08-14-92/DO 5-1
---
General Response
Actions
No actionc
Institutional actions
Control/Containment
-
Remedial
Technology
None
Monitoring
Access/use
restrictions
Eliminate surface
water/groundwate
r contact
See footnotes at end of table.
------
TABLE 5-1
OPER=IT 3 -ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIA
DETA E EVALUATION OF PROCESS
0 I S FOR SURFACE WATER
Process Option
Not applicable
Surface water and
groundwater monitoringc
Deed restrictionsc
Contaminated
groundwater capturec
Effectiveness
Low; will not ach ve
remedial action o ctives
Low; will not achieve
remedial action objectives
by itself
Moderate; achieve the
public health objectives;
does not achieve
environmental objectives
Moderate; effective in
achieving public health
objectives; effective in
achieving environmental
protection objectives in
combination with OU1
remediation or other
treatment
Implementability
Low; not acceptable to
local/public government
agencies
High; technically
straightforward to
implement; alone may be
unacceptable to
~atOrv agencies
M~d~te; simple for
areas that fall within the
site but difficult for areas
outside of the site
Moderate; implementable
if properly desi ned; may
have agency co em
related to untreat
groundwater
--- -
. Cost8
Capital
None
Low; additional wells
and public notice
Low; legal fees only
Moderate; moderate
volume of groundwater
expected; wells,
pumps, and pipelines
are somewhat
expensive
None
low; includes
maintenance, sampling,
analysis, etc.
None
Moderate; maintenance
is of wells, valves and
instrumentation;
monitoring of
groundwater levels;
electricity cost
-
--
General Response
Actions
Control/Containment
(Cont.I
Removal
-
Remedial
Technology
Eliminate surface
water/groundwate
r contact !Cont.)
Capture systems
See footnotes at end of table.
..
Process Option
Channel Relocationc
-- - ---
TABLE 5-1 (Continued)
NATIONAL STARCH
OPER~IT 3 -ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIA
DET~ EVALUATION OF PROCESS
OPTIONS FOR SURFACE WATER
Effectiveness
Moderate; proven
technology; may
ineffective in achieving
public health and
environmental protection
objectives due to
Implementability
Moderate; agency appro-
vals may be difficult;
long-term integrity is a
concern; possible
interference with habitat
and vegetation
uncertainty as to whether
groundwater is the only ~
source of contamination of , \
the surface water; long-
term integrity of concrete
liner is a concern; possible
support option
Low/moderate; will not
achieve protection of
human health and the
environment; will not
restrict human access to
area; possible support
option
High; installation and
construction are common
practice; land av ·1able;
may need approv to
divert waters
--
Capital
Moderate; site
preparation, material,
and labor
Moderate; equipment,
materials, labor;
dependent on
anticipated flows and
volumes
- --
Cost8
Low/Moderate; regular
Inspection and repair
are needed
Low/moderate; minimal
maintenance; sludge
removal if any
sediment settles out of
water
-
---
General Response
Actions
Treatment
Discharge
-
Remedial
Technology
Physical
Physicochemical
Discharge to
surface water
See footnotes at end of table.
--- - - - -
Process Option
Air strippingc
Carbon adsorptionc
UV radiation/oxidationc
Discharge of treated
TABLE 5-1 {Continuedl
NATIONAL STARCH
OPER~IT 3 -ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIA
DET~ EVALUATION OF PROCESS
OPTIONS FOR SURFACE WATER
Effectiveness
High; effective fo r val
of VOCs from dil e
aqueous waste stream
Implementability
High; commonly utilized
technology; skilled
workers not required; air
permit required
High; well established High; commonly utilized
treatment and effective in technology; generation of
treating organics; may be ~uals; skilled worker
used with other treatment t quired; residual
process: potential risk of di po I permit needed or
worker exposure may be sent for
Moderate; effective as a
destruction process for
organics; also used as
polishing and disinfection
processes. Not effective in
turbid conditions
regeneration
High; materials and equip·
ment available; skilled
workers required; residual
disposaln~
water to river via pipelinec
High; effective in achieving
public health and environ-
mental objectives
Moderate; easy to
implement; NPDES permit
modifications required
-----
Cost8
Capital
Moderate; standard
equipment and practice
Moderate; equipment
and material
High; patented
equipment is required
Low; minor
construction
Moderate; standard
practice; costs include
energy and off-gas
cleaning
Moderate; management
of cartridges, spent
media, and spent resid·
uals
High; energy cost is
high
Low; minimal
maintenance, sampling
and analysis
-
- --
General Response
Actions
Discharge
(Continued)
Discharge
I Continued)
-
Remedial
Technology
Discharge to
surface water
(Continued I
Pumping wells
liliii
Process Option
--- --
TABLE 5-1 (Continued)
.NATIONAL STARCH
OPER~IT 3 -ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIA
DET~ EVALUATION OF PROCESS
OPTIONS FOR SURFACE WATER
-
Effectiveness Implementability
Discharge of untreated
water to river via pipeline
Moderate; effecti
achieving public
environmental objectives
needs to be evaluated
Low; easy to implement;
NPOES permit
modifications required;
may be unacceptable to
the public and regulatory
agencies
Injection wells !treated or
untreated waterlc
Moderate/high; public ~; common tech·
health and environmental I y; equipment and
risks are minimal; additional m te Is are readily
regional hydrogeology available; permit required
information needed; would
be treated as part of OU1
remediation
aRelative to other process options in the same technology type.
bOperation and maintenance cost.
cProcess options retained for incorporation into alternative develqpment based on ratings of effectiveness, implementability, and cost.
See footnotes at end of table.
--
Capital
Low; minor
construction
Low; materials and
labor
---
Cost8
Low; minimal
maintenance, sampling,
and analysis
Moderate; pumping and
regular maintenance;
electrical usages,
sampling and analysis
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
with other remedial action alternatives developed for the surface water medium "during the FS
process. Therefore, the no-action response is retained for further evaluation.
5.2 Institutional Actions
The remedial technologies retained for this response action include monitoring and use/access
restrictions. The process options pertaining to these technology groups are surface water and
underlying groundwater monitoring and deed restrictions.
5. 2. 1 Surface Water and Groundwater Monitoring
Surface water and groundwater monitoring, sampling, and analysis of selected points and
wells are used to assess the concentration levels and movement of the contaminants of
concern. The evaluation of surface water and groundwater monitoring is summarized below:
• Effectiveness Oow): Monitoring will not meet any of the rem~ action
objectives by itself. The potential impact on human health an:it: environment
during the construction and implementation phasrf this option is negligible.
The only additional potential exposure to the c minants is to sampling and
analytical personnel.
• Implementability (high): A large fo\mber of monitoring wells and
sample points currently exist at ~ear the site. Also, additional
wells can be installed quickly anti equipment and services are readily
available. This I0ss option may not, however, be acceptable to the
regulatory agencrs without additional remedial response.
C st low : This item includes the cost for additional monitoring wells
d reparation of a public notice.
• O&M Cost (low): Major cost items include well maintenance and sampling and
analysis.
Surface water and groundwater monitoring will be appropriate as either compliance
monitoring or corrective action monitoring. It is, therefore, retained for incorporation into
the remedial action alternatives.
5.2.2 Deed Restrictions
This option involves restricting the use of water and/or land during and after remediation by
recording in property deeds. Deed restrictions are particularly valuable for public health
KN/WPXXX.txt/08-14-92/DO 5-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
n
I
I
I
I
protection during the implementation period for engineering options. The effectiveness,
implementability, and cost of this option are discussed below:
• Effectiveness (moderate): Use of this option should be effective in achieving
human health objectives, but would not reduce contaminant concentrations in the
environment.
• Implementability (moderate): Prohibiting use of surface water, groundwater,
and land outside of the site may be hindered by legal issues.
• Capital Cost Qow): Costs include attorney fees.
• O&M Cost (none}: No O&M costs are associated with this action.
Although this action alone does not achieve the environmental objectives, it~plicable if
used in conjunction with active engineering options and is retained as an instirtional
measure.
5. 3 Control/Containment r
The technologies retained from the initial screening for this response action include capture
of the groundwater and alteration and redirec~of the natural drainage system.
5.3.1 Groundwater Captu,r{)
This option includes extractimfof'-contaminated groundwater by pumping to prevent the
contaminants present in groundwater from reaching the surface waters. Section 3.0 of the
draft RI for o6i"ltates that groundwater does discharge into the Northeast Tributary. By
using techniqub{f actively modifying and managing the groundwate~ system underneath the
surface water, the contaminants can be directed away from the tributary. The effectiveness,
implementability, and cost of this option are discussed below:
• Effectiveness (moderate): The use of this process option is effective in
achieving public health objectives by diverting the contaminants in the
groundwater away from the surface water and is effective in achieving the
environmental objectives. The concentration in the surface waters would be
reduced as long as the groundwater is the major source of contaminants in the
surface water. The process of controlling a groundwater gradient with pumping
is proven and has been effectively used for hydraulic isolation. Diverting the
groundwater will require either its treatment or disposal.
KN/WPXXX. txt/08-14-92/DO 5-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• Implementability (moderate): With proper design, this capture system for the
groundwater recharging the Northeast Tributary should be implementable but
will require more detailed information concerning hydrologic characteristics of
the groundwater and surface water. Subsequent technologies for treatment or
disposal of the water following capture are readily available and are addressed
in subsequent sections.
• Capital Cost (moderate): The well yields from the aquifer require potentially
moderate to large volumes of grounwater to be extracted in order to impact
groundwater movement. The number of wells required, pumps, and transfer
piping factors contributing to the capital cost.
• O&M Cost (moderate): The primary O&M cost items include electricity for the
pumps; maintenance of the wells, valves, and instrumentation; and monitoring
of groundwater levels.
Technical considerations such as the potentially steep groundwater gradient4 moderately
high transmissivities may make the implementation of this option difficult. However, a more
detailed characterization of the aquifer is needed. At this ti~this option is considered a
viable technology and is retained for incorporation into othe(remedial alternatives.
5. 3. 2 Channel Relocation P..
This remedial technology provides for paved channels as a process option which would
reduce infiltration from the aqGG2r to the surface waterways. This action reduces
groundwater recharge to the srrf~e water. The lining may consist of traditional materials
emplaced by sr,ard construction methods, including:
• cb/crete
• Gunite (sprayed-on cement mortar)
• Asphalt.
Each of these materials, within specific design limitations, provides a durable, low
permeability, and nonerodible surface. In this case, concrete was chosen as the
representative process option for paving the Northeast Tributary.
This technology is specifically useful for limiting the effects of recharge from groundwater
and has been used to isolate contaminated bottom sediments in large stream channels. The
construction techniques of this technology are simple and environmentally safe. Installation
costs are considered moderate. The application of a concrete channel may not be acceptable
KN/WPXXX. txt/08-14-92/DO 5-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
since it destroys all vegetation and aquatic habitats in the tributary. The evaluation of this
process option is discussed below:
• Effectiveness (moderate}: Due to the uncertainty as to whether the groundwater
is the only source of contamination of the surface water, the ability of this
technology to meet the remedial action objectives is limited. The lining will
have no significant effect on regional groundwater flow patterns. The long-term
integrity of a concrete liner is a concern. In addition, removal of the actual
source of contaminants flowing into the tributary would be more effective than
paving the bottom of the stream. Channel paving, however, is a proven
technology.
• Implementability (moderate}: Permitting requirements for waterway
modification might be required. Additionally, interactions with agencies might
be required due to possible interference with habitat and vegetation along the
Northeast Tributary. ~
• Capital Cost (moderate}: Although concrete is moderately priced and relatively
easy to install, several other associated labor-inrn. ve procedures such as site
clearing, grubbing, and preparation of the cree ttom for installation add
significant expense to the capital costs. · ·
• O&M Cost Qow/moderate}: Co~r/!t,.,.te channels crack, are subject to scouring
damage from flood flows, and w~ regular inspection and repair.
This process option may be vi"' as a contaminant pathway control method. Paving the
tributary is retained for further co~sideration and incorporation into other remedial action
alternatives. D
5.4 Removal Technologies
The surface water removal technology selected for detailed evaluation is capture systems.
5.4. 1 Removal/Capture Systems
Capture systems would use earthen or concrete dams with pumping systems. This would be
applicable for interception and collection of the contaminated surface water. The type of
material used for constructing the dam would be based on the specific design limitations.
Both materials would provide a durable system. However, the concrete may provide a lower
permeability and nonerodible surface than the earthen dam material. This determination
would ultimately be made during the design phase if this option was selected during the
subsequent FS process.
KN/WPXXX. txt/08-14-92/DO 5-5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The following paragraphs summarize the evaluation of this process option:
• Effectiveness (low/moderate): This option would not achieve protection of
human health and the environment. It would not restrict human access to this
area (unless fencing was used.) Removal would not meet environmental
objectives (unless combined with other remedial actions such as treatment)
because the dissolved contaminated material remains in the water. Colloidal
particles of contaminated sediment would not be removed from the surface
water (unless treatment was used.).
• Implementability (high): Surface water removal technology (a dam) is a readily
available technical solution and could be relatively easily implemented using
land adjacent to the tributary. Approval of diverting waters our[ State of
North Carolina would have to be obtained. I
• Capital Cost (moderate): The capital costs assoi:Ced with building a removal
system (a dam) include equipment, materials, Jct~~bor and are dependent on
site characteristics because the syf'r'-will be based on the anticipated flows and
related volumes to be collected. r
""'""'~"""c..u"-"'Lf!:!~e"'ra.!illte<J.: Once installed, maintenance requirements are
en settled sediment, if any, must be removed from the so.
Due to the potential for incorporation with other remedial action technologies, this removal
system is retained as a viable technology for further consideration and incorporation into the
various remedial alternatives.
5. 5 Treatment
The treatment technologies retained from the initial screening (Section 4.0) for this response
action include physical and physicochemical treatments. Specific process options retained
include air stripping, UV radiation/oxidation, and carbon adsorption.
KN/WPXXX.txt/08-14-92/DO 5-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5.5.1 Physical/Air Stripping
Air stripping uses packed column cross-flow tower, coke tray aeration, and diffused air
basins to treat volatile organics in aqueous phase. Air stripping is a mass transfer process in
which volatile contaminants in water are transferred to gas. Air stripping is frequently
accomplished in a packed tower equipped with an air blower. The packed tower works on
the principle of countercurrent flow. The water stream flows down through the packing
while the air flows upward, and is exhausted through the top. Volatile, soluble components
have an affinity for the gas phase and tend to leave the aqueous stream for the gas phase. In
the cross-flow tower, water flows down through the packing as in the countercurrent packed
column; however, the air is pulled across the water flow path by a fan. The coke tray
aerator is a simple, low-maintenance process requiring no blower. The water being treated is
allowed to trickle through several layers of trays. This produces a large surface area for gas
transfer. Diffused aeration stripping and induced draft stripping use aeratio~sins similar
to standard wastewater treatment aeration basins. Water flows through the bJsin from top to
bottom or from one side to another with the air dispersed thr~h diffusers at the bottom of
the basin. The air-to-water ratio ranges from 10: 1 to 300: 1 r volume.
Generally, chemical compounds with Henry's~ constants of greater than 0.003 can be
effectively removed by air stripping. The f~eam must be low in suspended solids and
may require pH adjustment of ~ogen sulfide, phenol, ammonia, and other organic acids or
bases to reduce solubility and L.~~ve transfer to the gas phase. Stripping is often only
partially effective and must be followed by another process such as carbon adsorption.
Combined use f'1)ir stripping and activated carbon can be an effective way of removing
contaminants ~ groundwater. The air stripper removes the more volatile compounds not
removed by activated carbon and reduces the organic load on the carbon, thus reducing the
frequency (and expense) of carbon regeneration.
This process option is evaluated below:
• Effectiveness (high): The process is considered only applicable to dilute
aqueous waste streams containing volatile organics. This process may require
the use of activated carbon, catalytic oxidizer, or fume incinerator to eliminate
or reduce the volatilized organic compounds in off-gas prior to its discharge.
This technology has been proven effective and would be expected to achieve
protection of human health and the environment.
KN/WPXXX. txt/08-14-92/DO 5-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• Implementability (high): Application of an air-stripping system with appropriate
packing medium and off-gas collection is commercially available. Skilled
workers are not required. An air emission permit is required.
• Capital Cost (moderate): The capital cost of air stripping is moderate because
the process requires no sophisticated equipment and uses well-established
principles.
• O&M Cost (moderate): Maintenance of aeration towers and pumps is standard
practice. Energy costs are a major component of the O&M cost. Air phase
pollution control units need to be replaced periodically.
Effectiveness and implementability of this process option are high since volatile organics are
present in diluted concentrations. The process is retained as a viable option.
5. 5.2 Physicochemical/Carbon Adsorption 1
Carbon adsorption is a physicochemical process that involves the removal of organics from
liquid waste by adsorption onto a treatment medium, activat6arbon. The medium
selectively adsorbs hazardous constituents by a surface attracµc>n phenomenon in which
organic molecules are attracted to the internal ~es of the carbon granules.
Adsorption depends on the strength of the mol::cu;ar attraction between adsorbent and
adsorbate, molecular weight, t~ and characteristic of adsorbent, electrokinetic charge, pH,
and surface area. r "
Once the micr~e surfaces are saturated with organics, the medium is "spent" and must
either be replaced with virgin medium or removed, thermally regenerated, and replaced.
The time to reach "breakthrough" or exhaustion is the single most critical operating
parameter. Medium longevity balanced against influent concentration governs operating
economics.
Most hazardous waste treatment applications involve the use of adsorption units which
contain granular activated carbon (GAC) and operate in a downflow series mode. The
downflow fixed bed series mode has been found to be generally most cost-effective and
produces the lowest effluent concentrations relative to other adsorber configurations (e.g.,
downflow in parallel, moving bed, upflow-expanded). The units may be connected in
parallel to provide increased hydraulic capacity.
KN/WPXXX.txt/08-14-92/DO 5-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
An evaluation of the effectiveness, implementability, and cost for this process option is
presented below:
• Effectiveness {high): Adsorption has been used effectively for the removal of
organics. The efficiency of contaminant capture during the adsorption process
is dependent on water chemistry and type of adsorption material. Other
treatment processes may be used in conjunction with adsorption in order to
improve the quality of final effluent. There is potential risk to human health
from spent adsorption material, handling, and disposal. Adsorption is a
conventionally proven and well-established process.
• Implementability {high): Materials and equipment are readily
available. The process requires removing packaging and disposing
spent adsorption material at regular intervals. Workers using this
water treatment process do not need to be skilled in water treatment,
but must be familiar with handling and disposal of hazardous ~-
A permit for disposal of residuals is needed if disposed off site. I A .
permit is not required if sent for regeneration.
• Capital Cost {moderate): Capital costs for this ~cess are moderate. Major
cost items include cartridges and equipment. r
• O&M Cost (moderate): Operatinf'iosts include spent adsorbent material
removal and disposal. r
The adsorption process option a viable technology for the removal of organic contaminants
and is retained for further conri~~tion.
5. 5. 3 PhysiQhemical/Ultraviolet Radiation/Oxidation·
The ultraviolet (UV) radiation/oxidation process uses UV irradiation, sometimes enhanced by
ozone (03) and hydrogen peroxide (H20:,), to destroy or detoxify hazardous compounds in
aqueous solution. The process oxidizes organic compounds that are toxic or refractory
(resistant to biological oxidation) in concentrations of parts per million (ppm) or parts per
billion (ppb). Adsorption of energy in the UV spectrum results in a molecule's elevation to a
higher energy state, thus increasing the ease of bond cleavage and subsequent oxidation of
the molecule. The inability of UV light to penetrate and destroy pollutants in turbid or
opaque solutions is a limitation of this approach.
This process is evaluated below:
KN IWPXXX. txt/08-14-92/DO 5-9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• Effectiveness (moderate): The UV radiation/oxidation process destroys toxic
organic compounds, especially chlorinated hydrocarbons, in water. It also
serves as a disinfection process capable of destroying disease germs and other
harmful microorganisms. However, due to the potentially highly turbid
condition of the water in the tributary, this technology's effectiveness could be
greatly diminished.
• Implementability (high): Materials and equipment are readily available for the
process; however, specific design and construction for this application may be
needed. Skilled workers are required. Residuals are possible from this process
which may be disposed on site or off site depending on disposal facility
availability.
• Capital Cost (high): This process requires high capital cost, partly because the
patented equipment is needed.
• O&M Cost (high): Due to high energy operation costs, O&M~s are
expected to be high. ~r·
Though the UV radiation/oxidation process could have a lo.,r:::;;ectiveness rating in turbid
water' at this time, it is considered a viable option. nrH'
5. 6 Discharge
The technologies retained froE initial screening for this response action include discharge
to surface water or pumping . The specific process options relating to these remedial
technologies are discharge of eated or untreated groundwater to a nearby river via the a
pipeline and rt;rtion through wells.
5.6.1 Discharge Treated Surface Water to River via Outfall
This process option consists of transporting treated surface water via pipeline for discharge to
a nearby river.
The effectiveness, implementability, and cost of this option are discussed below:
• Effectiveness (high}: Discharge of treated effluent to a nearby river meets the
remedial action objectives, protecting human health and the environment.
• Implementability (moderate): This discharge option is easy to implement.
Associated construction, materials, and equipment are well-established. This
option will require modification of the existing NPDES permit to add this
KN/WPXXX.txt/08-14-92/DO 5-10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
outfall. Discharge of treated effluent is likely to be acceptable to the public and
other agencies.
• Capital Cost Qow): Construction costs for the pipeline includes materials and
labor.
• O&M Cost Qow): Minimal maintenance, sampling, and analysis would be
required.
Discharge of treated effluent to a nearby river via the pipeline is a viable process option and
is retained.
5. 6. 2 Discharge Untreated Surface Water to River via Outfall
This process option consists of discharging untreated surface water via a pi~e into a
nearby river (or tributary such as Grouts Creek) through an NPDES-perminl outfall.
The evaluation of this option is discussed in the following pf1raphs:
• Effectiveness (moderate): The public health anh en~ironmental risks associated
with discharge of untreated surfa~water to a nearby river will be evaluated in
the FS risk assessment. The ef~ t eness of discharging untreated surface
water into this river is reduced e to the increased loading of organics into the
river.
• Im lementabili : The discharge option can be readily implemented.
This option would likely require modification of the NPDES permit. The
~ment and skilled workers needed are readily available. Agency and public
~sition to the discharge of untreated surface water is expected to be high.
• Capital Cost Oow): Capital costs for the pipeline include standard construction
materials and labor.
• O&M Cost Qow): Minimal maintenance, sampling, and analysis would be
required.
Discharge of untreated effluent to a nearby river through a pipeline has an uncertain
effectiveness and a questionable implementability. Therefore, this process option is
eliminated from further consideration.
KN/WPXXX.txt/08-14-92/DO 5-11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5. 6. 3 Injection Wells
Injection wells can be used to reinject treated or untreated surface water or groundwater into
the aquifer that is being treated under OUl. Installation and construction requirements for
the injection well are well established and are similar to installing extraction wells. Many
well-points may be needed to achieve 100 percent injection. The pumping force of the
injection well may cause silting and hydraulic mounding around the well. Low hydraulic
conductivities within the recharge area will decrease the allowable capacity in the injection
wells and a combination of groundwater discharge technologies may be required.
The evaluation of this process option is presented below:
• Effectiveness (moderate/high): The public health and environmental risks
associated with untreated water or reinfecting treated water in ~qu · er are
minimal. Further understanding of the regional hydrogeology · needed
adequate to evaluate the impact of injection well stresses on the roundwater
flow regime. Untreated water injected would be treated as part of the OUl
remediation. C
• Implementability (high}: Well injection is a cOJhmon and proven technology.
The materials necessary for this or{on are readily available. Permitting is
required. r
• Capital Cost Oow:a): osts include material and labor needed for installation of
an injection well em. An injection well sys_tem is most likely less expensive
than the new dis ar e outfall construction.
• Cost moderate : Injection wells require regular borehole and pump
enance. Electric usage, sampling, and analytical costs are also a factor.
Reinjection of treated effluent into the aquifer would be easy to implement. It is retained for
incorporation into the remedial action alternatives.
5. 7 Summary of Selection of Process Options
Based on the evaluations presented, representative process options were selected to simplify
the subsequent development and evaluation of alternatives without limiting flexibility during
design. This summary indicates which actions are viable and selected for inclusion into the
development of alternatives for the FS. The representative process options selected provide a
basis for preliminary design; however, the specific process actually used to implement the
design may not be selected until the remedial design phase. Some of the process options that
KN/WPXXX.txt/08-14-92/DO 5-12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
are not being carried to the next phase at this time could still be reconsidered during the
design phase as long as the satisfaction of evaluation criteria is maintained at an equivalent
level.
Selection of Process Qptions for Surface Water
• No action has been retained for incorporation into remedial action alternatives as
required in the subsequent FS by the NCP.
• Surface water and groundwater monitoring and deed restrictions are both viable
as institutional actions for surface water. Monitoring may be appropriate as
either compliance monitoring or corrective action monitoring. Since monitoring
will be required under any alternative, it is included in the alternative
development at this stage. Deed restrictions will be included as appropriate in
the detailed description of alternatives. .,,,...-
• Two options were retained as representative of control/containmJnt actions,
since each of these processes provide a potential~edial solution by
eliminating contact of contaminants with uncon · nated surface water and
runoff. The extraction and capture of contamin ted groundwater is retained for
incorporation into remedial alternatives. The pavement of channels that
contribute potential contaminant vfJ¥ediment entrainment or recharge to the
tributary was also retained for alFtive development.
•. The removal of sr.:P:e water via a dam with a collection system at its base was
retained for potef aJ\incorporation with possible treatment options.
• Tewater treatment options were found to be potentially applicable for
c n inant removal as a result of the process option evaluations. These
i de air stripping, adsorption, and UV radiation/oxidation. The treatment
options selected as representative processes for contaminant removal from
surface water are treatment of organic compounds. In addition, potential needed
support technologies may be needed, and any treatment considered may be
incorporated into the existing water treatment at the site.
• The two representative discharge actions selected for incorporation into remedial
alternatives are the use of a pipeline for discharge to a nearby river and
reinjection of treated water into the aquifer.
KN/WPXXX.txt/08-14-92/DO 5-13