### RESPONSE ACTION CONTRACT FOR REMEDIAL, ENFORCEMENT OVERSIGHT, AND

NONTIME-CRITICAL REMOVAL ACTIVITIES

IN REGION 6

FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT FOR OPERABLE UNIT 1

MANY DIVERSIFIED INTERESTS SUPERFUND SITE HOUSTON, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

EPA ID NO. TXD008083404

Prepared For:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6

1445 Ross Avenue Dallas, Texas 75202-2733

Work Assignment No. : 107-RICO-06CN EPA Region : 6 Date Prepared : January 5, 2004

Contract No. : 68-W6-0037 Prepared by : Tetra Tech EM Inc. Tetra Tech Project Manager : Luis Vega Telephone No. : (214) 740-2007 EPA Work Assignment Manager : Gary Miller/Rafael Casanova Telephone No. : (214) 665-8318/(214) 665-7437

### CONTENTS

Section Page

ABBRE VIATIONS AND ACRONYM S

.................................................................................................... v i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

.............................................................................................................. ...... ES-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

................................................................................................................... ........ 1

1.1 PURPOSE

........................................................................................................................ ... 1

1.2 SITE BACKGROUND

....................................................................................................... 2

1.2.1 Site Location and Description

................................................................................ 2

1.2.2 Site History

............................................................................................................ 5

1.2.3 Previous Inve stigations

.......................................................................................... 8

1.2.3

. 1 Soils

.................................................................................................... 8

1.2.3

. 2 Ground Water

..................................................................................... 8

1.2.3

. 3 Waste Material

................................................................................... 9

1.3 SITE CHARACTERISTICS

............................................................................................... 9

1.3.1 Site Clim ate

......................................................................................................... 10

1.3.2 Site Geology

........................................................................................................ 10

1.3.2

. 1 Native Materials

............................................................................... 10

1.3.2

. 2 Foundr y Sands

.................................................................................. 11

1.3.3 Site Hy dr oge ology

............................................................................................... 11

1.4 NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION

....................................................... 12

1.4.1 Distribution of Waste Materials

........................................................................... 14

1.4.1

. 1 ACM

................................................................................................. 14

1.4.1

. 2 Bag House Materials

........................................................................ 14

1.4.1

. 3 Waste Sam p les

................................................................................. 15

1.4.1

. 4 Cataly st Material

.............................................................................. 15

1.4.1

. 5 Foundr y Sands

.................................................................................. 15

1.4.1

. 6 Petroleu m Hydrocarbons in Soils and Gr ound Water

...................... 15

1.4.2 Distribution of Contam inants in Surface Water and Sedi m e nt

............................ 16

1.4.3 Distribution of Contam inants in Soil

................................................................... 18

1.4.4 Distribution of Contam inants in Ground Water

................................................... 18

1.5 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS

.......................................................................................... 21

1.5.1 Hu m a n Health Risk Assessment Results

............................................................. 21

1.5.2 Ecological Risk Assessment Results

................................................................... 22

2.0 REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES AND ARARS

.................................................................. 23

2.1 REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES

............................................................................. 23

2.2 CONTAMINANTS OF P O TENTIAL CONCE R N

......................................................... 23

2.2.1 Hu m a n Health Contam inants of Potenti a l Concern

............................................. 24

2.2.2 Ecological Contam inants of Potential C oncern

................................................... 24

i

### CONTENTS (Continued)

Section Page

2.3 APPLICABL E OR RELE VANT AND APPROPRI ATE REQUIREMENTS

................ 24

2.3.1 Overview of ARARs

............................................................................................ 24

2.3.2 Chem ical-specific ARARs

................................................................................... 26

2.3.2

. 1 Chem ical-specific ARARs for Ground Water

.................................. 26

2.3.2

. 2 Chem ical-specific ARARs for Soil

.................................................. 26

2.3.3 Location-specific ARARs

.................................................................................... 27

2.3.4 Action-specific ARARs

....................................................................................... 27

2.3.4

. 1 Institutional Controls

........................................................................ 28

2.3.4

. 2 NAPL Mitigation.............................................................................. 28

2.3.4

. 3 Managem e nt of Rem e diation Wastes

............................................... 32

2.3.4

. 4 On-site Treatment of Cont am inated Soil

.......................................... 34

2.3.4

. 5 Tem porary St orage of Recovered NAPL

......................................... 34

2.3.4

. 6 Ground Water Monitori ng in Support of MNA Remed y

................. 35

2.3.4

. 7 Control of Ai r Em issions

.................................................................. 35

2.3.5 To Be Considered

................................................................................................ 35

2.4 GENERAL RESPONSE ACTIONS

................................................................................. 36

3.0 IDENTIFICATION OF T E CHNOL OGIES

.................................................................................. 37

3.1 TECHNOL OGY 1 – SOIL WASHING/ LEACHING

...................................................... 38

3.2 TECHNOL OGY 2 – SOLIDIFICATI ON/STABILIZ A TION

......................................... 38

3.3 TECHNOL OGY 3 – CONTAINMENT

........................................................................... 39

3.4 TECHNOL OGY 4 – ON-SITE DISPOS A L

..................................................................... 40

3.5 TECHNOL OGY 5 – OFF-SITE DISPOSAL

................................................................... 40

3.6 TECHNOL OGY 6 – INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS

.................................................... 40

3.7 TECHNOL OGY 7 – MONITORED NATURAL ATT E NUATI O N

............................... 41

3.8 SCREENING OF TECHNOLOGIES

............................................................................... 42

4.0 COMPARAT IVE ANAL YSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

................................................................. 45

4.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA

............................................................................................. 45

4.1.1 Threshold Cri t eria

................................................................................................ 53

4.1.2 Prim ary Balancing Criteria

.................................................................................. 53

4.1.3 Modif y ing Cr iteria

............................................................................................... 54

4.2 INDIVI DUAL ANALYSI S OF ALTERNATIVES

......................................................... 55

4.2.1 Alternative 1 – No Action

.................................................................................... 55

4.2.1

. 1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment

............. 56

4.2.1

. 2 Co m p liance with ARARs

................................................................. 56

4.2.1

. 3 Long-term Ef fectiveness and Perm an ence

....................................... 56

4.2.1

. 4 Reduction in Toxicit y , Mobilit y , and Volume Through Treat m e nt

. 5 7

4.2.1

. 5 Short-term Effectiveness

.................................................................. 57

4.2.1

. 6 Im plementabilit y

.............................................................................. 57

ii

### CONTENTS (Continued)

Section Page

4.2.1

. 7 Cost

.................................................................................................. 57

4.2.2 Alternative 2 – Solidificati on/Stabiliza tion with On-si t e Disposal; Ground Water

via MNA with ICs................................................................................................ 57

4.2.2

. 1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment

............. 59

4.2.2

. 2 Co m p liance with ARARs

................................................................. 59

4.2.2

. 3 Long-term Ef fectiveness and Perm an ence

....................................... 59

4.2.2

. 4 Reduction in Toxicit y , Mobilit y , and Volume Through Treat m e nt

. 5 9

4.2.2

. 5 Short-term Effectiveness

.................................................................. 59

4.2.2

. 6 Im plementabilit y

.............................................................................. 60

4.2.2

. 7 Cost

.................................................................................................. 60

4.2.3 Alternative 3 – Solidificati on/Stabiliza tion and Off-site Disposal; Ground Water

via MNA with ICs................................................................................................ 60

4.2.3

. 1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment

............. 61

4.2.3

. 2 Co m p liance with ARARs

................................................................. 61

4.2.3

. 3 Long-term Ef fectiveness and Perm an ence

....................................... 62

4.2.3

. 4 Reduction in Toxicit y , Mobilit y , and Volume Through Treat m e nt

. 6 2

4.2.3

. 5 Short-term Effectiveness

.................................................................. 62

4.2.3

. 6 Im plementabilit y

.............................................................................. 62

4.2.3

. 7 Cost

.................................................................................................. 63

4.2.4 Alternative 4 – Containm ent with ICs

................................................................. 63

4.2.4

. 1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment

............. 64

4.2.4

. 2 Co m p liance with ARARs

................................................................. 64

4.2.4

. 3 Long-term Ef fectiveness and Perm an ence

....................................... 64

4.2.4

. 4 Reduction in Toxicit y , Mobilit y , and Volume Through Treat m e nt

. 6 5

4.2.4

. 5 Short-term Effectiveness

.................................................................. 65

4.2.4

. 6 Im plementabilit y

.............................................................................. 65

4.2.4

. 7 Cost

.................................................................................................. 65

4.2.5 Site Preparation Activities – Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

.......................................... 65

4.2.6 Alternative 5 – Solidification/Stabilizati on and Off-site Disposal of Soils in Unpaved Areas; Ground Water via MNA with ICs

............................................. 68

4.2.6

. 1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment

............. 71

4.2.6

. 2 Co m p liance with ARARs

................................................................. 71

4.2.6

. 3 Long-term Ef fectiveness and Perm an ence

....................................... 71

4.2.6

. 4 Reduction in Toxicit y , Mobilit y , and Volume Through Treat m e nt

. 7 2

4.2.6

. 5 Short-term Effectiveness

.................................................................. 72

4.2.6

. 6 Im plementabilit y

.............................................................................. 72

4.2.6

. 7 Cost

.................................................................................................. 72

5.0 COMPARIS ON OF REM E DI AL ALT E RNATIVES

................................................................... 73

5.1 OVERALL P R OTECTION OF HUM AN HEALTH AND THE E NVIRONME N T

...... 73

iii

### CONTENTS (Continued)

Section Page

5.2 COMPLIANCE WITH ARARS

....................................................................................... 73

5.3 LONG-TERM EFFECTIVENESS AND PERMANENCE

............................................. 73

5.4 REDUCTI O N IN TOXI C I TY, MOBIL I TY, AND V O LUME TH ROUG H

TREATMENT

.................................................................................................................. 82

5.5 SHORT-TERM EFFECTIVENESS

................................................................................. 82

5.6 IMPLEMENTABILITY

................................................................................................... 82

5.7 COST

........................................................................................................................... ..... 83

5.8 SUMMARY

...................................................................................................................... 83

6.0 REFERENCES

..................................................................................................................... ......... 85

Appendix

A FATE AND TRANSPO R T MODELIN G

B COST ESTIMATE DET A ILS

iv

### TABL ES

Table Page

1 ACTIVIT Y -SPECIFIC ARARS

.................................................................................................... 29

2 EVALUATI ON OF REM E DIATION TECHNOL OGIES

........................................................... 43

3 SUMMARY OF ARARS

............................................................................................................. . 46

4 COMPARIS ON OF REM E DIAL ALT E RNATIVES AND REME DIAL ACTI ON

OBJECTIVE S

..................................................................................................................... ........... 74

5 COMPARIS ON OF REM E DI AL ALT E RNATIVES

................................................................... 77

6 COST SUM M ARY FOR REMEDIAL ALTERNAT IVES

......................................................... 84

FIGURES

Figure Page

1 SITE LOCATION

................................................................................................................ ............ 3

2 SITE LAYOUT

.................................................................................................................. .............. 4

3 APPROXIM A TE LOCAT I ON OF BOX CULVE R T

..................................................................... 6

4 APPROXIM A TE LOCAT I ON OF B O X CULVE R T DISCHARGE INTO BUFFALO

BAYOU

.......................................................................................................................... ................. 7

5 POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE MAP

........................................................................................ 13

6 LEAD CONCENTRATIONS IN SOIL EQUAL T O OR GRE A TER THAN 500 MG/KG,

0.0 - 1.5 FEE T

................................................................................................................. ............... 19

7 PAHS IN GROUND WAT E R AT OR ABOVE SCRE ENING LEVELS

.................................... 20

8 SITE PREPARATION, ALTERNATIVES 2, 3, A ND 4

.............................................................. 66

9 SITE PREPARATION, ALTERNATIVE 5

.................................................................................. 69

v

### ABBR EVI A TIONS AN D ACR ONYM S

1,1-DCA 1,1-Dichloroe t hane

μ g /kg Microgram per kilogram μg/L Microgram per liter

ACM Asbestos-con taining m a terial

AOC Area of contamination

ARAR Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirem e nt bgs Below ground surface

BTAG Biological Technical Advisor y Group

Can-Am Can-Am Resource Group

CERCLA Co m p rehensive Enviro nmental Respon se, Co m p ensat ion, and Liability Act

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

COPC Contam inant of potential c oncern
CRA Conestoga-Rovers Associa t es Service s DO Dissolved ox ygen
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agenc y
ERAGS Ecological Risk Asse ss me nt Guidance for Superfund

ESI Enercon Services, Inc.

ESL Effects Screening Level

f/cc Fiber/cubic centimeter

FR Federal Register FS Feasibility study

FSP Field sam p ling plan

ft/m in Foot per m i nute

ft 2 

### Square foot

gpm Gallon per m i nute

GRA General response action

HASP Health and sa fety plan

HHRA Hu m a n healt h risk assess ment

HI Haza rd index HQ Hazard quoti e nt

IC Institutional c ontrol

HRS Haza rd Ranking Sy stem

LDR Land Disposal Restrictions

LNAPL Light nonaqueous-phase liquid

MCL Maxi m u m co ntam inant limit

MCLG Maxi m u m co ntam inant level goal

MDI Many Diversified Interests

m g /kg Milligram per kilogram

m g /L Milligram per liter

MNA Monitored natural attenuation

MSSL Medium -specific Screening Level

MTR Minim u m technolo g y req u i r em ent

NA Not applicable

NAPL Nonaqueous-phase liquid

NCP National Oil and Hazardous Subs tances Pollution Contingenc y Pla n ORP Oxidation-reduction poten tial

vi

### ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYM S (Continued)

OU Operable unit

PAH Pol y c y clic aromatic hy dr o carbon

PCB Pol y chlori nated biphen y l

RA Re medial acti on
RAC Response Action Contract

RAO Re medial acti on objective

RCRA Resource Co nservation and Recovery A c t

RI Remedial investigation

ROD Record of De cision

SARA Superfund A m end m ents and Reauthori zation Act of 1986

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act

SJF San Jacinto Foundr y
SLERA Screening-level ecological risk assessment

SVOC Sem i volatile organic com p ound

SWBZ Shallow water-bearing zone

TAC Texas Ad m i n i strative Code

TBC To be consid ered
TCEQ Texas Co mmission on En v i ronm ental Qualit y
TCLP Toxicity Characteristi c Lea c hing Procedure
TERA TERA, Inc.

TESCO Texas Electri c Steel Casting Com p any
Tetra Tech Tetra Tech E M Inc.

TNRCC Texas Natura l Resources C onservation Commission

TSCA Toxic Substa nces Control Act

TXDOT Texas Depart ment of Transportation

USDA U.S. Depart ment of Agriculture UST Underground storage tank

UTS Universal Tre a t m ent Standards

XRF X-ray fluores cence yd 3 

### Cubic y a rd

vii

### EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents the feasibility st udy (FS) for Operable Unit 1 (OU 1) soils and ground water at the

Many Diversi f ied Interests (MDI) Superfund site located in Housto n, Texas, and has been prepared in

accordance with the National Oil and Hazardous Subs tances Pollution Conti ngency Plan (NCP) and the

U.S. Enviro n m ental Protection Agenc y ( EPA) “Guida nce for Cond ucting Remedial Investigations and

Feasibility St udies under t h e CERCLA [ C o m pr ehensive Environmental Response, Co m p ensat ion, and

Liabilit y Act] ” (EPA 1988)

.

The purpose of the FS is to evaluate remedial altern atives for a c ontam inated s ite through a sy stematic

approach that includes: (1) developin g r e m e dial action objectives (RAO); (2) identify i ng gen e ral

response acti ons (GRA); (3) screening the GRAs; (4) com b ining these technologies into rem e dies; and

(5) evaluating these re medies. These re medies w e re evaluated bas e d on the following seven of EPA’ s

nine criteria: (1) overall pr otection of h u m an health a nd the environment; (2) com p lian ce wit h Applicable

or Relevant and Appro p riate Requirem e nts (ARAR) ; (3) long- term effectiveness; (4) reductio n in

toxicit y , m obilit y , and vol ume through treat ment; (5) s hort-term ef fectiveness; ( 6 ) im plement a bilit y ; and

(7) cost.

During the re medial invest igation (RI), lead was det e c t ed at concentrations greate r than or equa l to its

residential scr eening level in surface soils at OU 1 (T etra Tech 2003b). The RI de tailed the vol ume of

soils at the site with lead concentrations equal to or greater than the EPA Region 6 Human Health

Medium -specific Screening Level (MSSL; EPA 2003) for lead in r esidential soil of 400 m illigram s per

kilogram (m g / kg). T h is F S has been prepared using a cleanup level of 500 m g /kg that is con s istent with

the cleanup level used in the recent off-si t e rem oval actions. The t o t a l esti m ated volum e of surf ace soil

containing le ad at concentrations equal to or greater than 500 m g /kg is approxim a tely 1 4 ,00 0 cubic y a rds

(yd 3 

### ). Given that the soils at the site are clay e y in nature, an expan s ion factor of 1.43 has been used to

evaluate the volum e of soil to be treated or disposed of. This translates to a treat ment or disposal volum e

of approxim a tely 20,0 00 y d 3



### .

Ground water in the shallo w water-bearing zone (SW B Z) at the site has been shown to be im pacted by

low levels of organic and i norga nic cont am ination. Benzene was the onl y volati l e organic com pound

detected above its Maxim u m Contam inant Level (MCL) of 5 m i cro g ram s per liter ( μ g/L) within OU 1.

Benzene w as detected at a concentration of 5.1 μ g/L in m onitoring well MW-13; no other exceedance s

were detected . Sem i volatile organic com pounds (SVOC) in the fo rm of pol y c yclic aro m atic

h y drocarbo ns (PAH) were detected at co ncentrati ons above applicab le scree ning l e vels in m onitoring

ES-1

### wells MW-03, MW-07, M W -09, MW-1 3, and MW-1 6. Benzo(a)py rene was the only SVOC detected at a

concentration above its M C L of 0.2 μ g/ L. Lead was detected in ground water at concentrations above its

MCL of 15 μ g/L in m onito ring wells MW-06 (19

. 4 μ g/L) and MW -13 (11 5 μ g/ L).

In addition to soil and gr ound wate r contam ination, waste material s, includi ng spent cataly s ts from

previous oper a tions, asbestos-containi ng material (ACM), and large piles of const r uction debris also

re m a in on site. These m a t e rials ar e also addressed in this FS.

The RAOs fo r OU 1 are:

• Rem ove the ACM that has been stockpiled on site and left in the e x isting buildi ng.

• Reduce the risk posed to re sidential receptors b y lead concentrations in the soil a bove the clean

up g o al for th e site (500 mg/kg).

• Re m ove soil visibly conta m inated with waste oil-ra n g e petroleum h y drocarbo ns in the vicini t y of

MW-3 that is acting as a potential contin uing so urce of groun d water contam ination.

• Re m ove soil visibly conta m inated with waste oil-ra n g e petroleum h y drocarbo ns in the vicini t y of

MW-11 that has the potent i al to act as a source of gro und water contam ination.

• Remediate ground water in the northwest corn er of th e site and remove the free product

associat ed wi th the underground st orage tank (UST).

• Mitigate the threat posed by exposure to groun d water throughout t h e rest of the site.

Based on the general response action review, four a lternatives (as well as No Acti on as required by t h e

National Contingenc y Plan ) were evaluated. The y are:

Alternative 1 – No Action

Alternative 2 – Soil Stabilization/Soli difica tion with On -site Disposal; Ground Wat e r via

Monitored N a tural Attenuation (MNA) with Instituti onal Controls (IC)

Alternative 3 – Soil Stabilization/Soli dificati on with Off-site Disposal; Ground Wa ter via MNA

with ICs

Alternative 4 – Soil Contain m ent; Ground Water via MNA with ICs

Alternative 5 – Soil Stabilization/Soli dification of Cont am inated Soils in Unpaved Areas with Off-site Disposal; Ground Water via MNA with ICs

ES-2 Each of the remedies proposed include the re m oval an d disposal of ACM site wi de, as well as the

re m oval and disposal of an existing UST and associat e d light nonaqueous-phase liquids (LNAPL) in the

SWBZ near the northwest corner of the site. Soils with LNAPL in the northeast corner of the site near

MW-3 will also be rem oved. For Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, waste m a terials (nonhazardous foundr y sand

### and cataly s ts) that overla y contam inated soils will al so be rem oved from the site. Because Alt e rnative 5

does not incl ude the remediation of lead-contam in at ed soils beneath concrete a t the site, any

nonhazardous waste materi als overlay ing concrete ar e not being rem oved under this scenario. The cost

esti m ates prepared as part of this FS (A ppendix B) do not assum e that all nonhazardous debris will be

rem oved from the site.

All four of t h e remedies ev aluated will meet the RAOs set for the MDI site. Alternatives 2, 3, and 5

include solidification and stabilization of the waste, which will result in a reduc tion in the leachability of

the lead-contam inated soil s. Alternative 4 does not r e duce the leachabilit y of t h e soils and will require the

construction of a low permeability cell to contain the w astes. The leachability of contam inat ed soils left

on site beneath concrete in Alte rnative 5 will not be re duced; however, the presence of concret e will

inhibit the inf iltration of surface water in to these so ils. For all alternatives, the selected ground water

rem e dy is natural attenuation foll owing the re m oval of the contam i n ant source.

Each of the remedies will r e quire the implem entation of ICs to m iti gate exposure to receptors. The ICs

will likely take the form of deed notices that will identify the SWBZ as not being of drinking water

qualit y

. F o r Alternative 5, the IC (deed notice) will al so state that, in the event that the concrete overlying

contam inated soils is rem o ved, the underly i ng cont aminated soils will also require remediation.

Engineering c ontrols in the form of a soil cover (Alte rnative 2) or e ngineered cap (Alternative 4) will also

be necessary to ensure that exposure to t h e contam in ated soils does not occur. A dditional engi neering

controls in t h e form of fencing and/or si gns m a y also be required depending upon the ultim ate

redevelopment plan.

Appendix B provides a de tailed cost breakdown for each of these alternatives, and includes construction

costs and long-ter m m a int e nance costs. The appropria te remedy for the site can be readily im plem ented

with any one of these alter n atives for similar cost s de pending upon the needs of the developer.

ES-3

### 1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the feasibility study (FS) for Operable Unit 1 (OU 1) at the Many Diversified

Interests (MDI) Superfund site located in Houston, Te xas. Tetra Tech EM Inc. ( T etra Tech) prepared this

FS report for the U.S. Envi ronm ental Protection Agen cy (EPA) R e gion 6 as par t of Work As signment No.

107-RICO-06 C N under Response Action Contract (RAC) No. 68-W6-003 7.

This FS repor t was prepared in accordance with the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution

Contingenc y Plan (NCP) and the EPA “ G uidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility

Studies under the CERCLA [Co m prehensive Environmental Response, Co m p ensation, and Li abilit y

Act] ” (EPA 1 988).

OU 1 consists of on-site soils, waste materials, and ground water, while OU 2 consists of off- site

residential ar eas. This report addresses OU 1 only ; the re medial investigation (RI), FS, and hum an health

risk assessment (HHRA) reports for OU 2 are currently in pr ogress and will be subm itted under separate

cover. For the purposes of this report, “on-site” re fer s to the area wi thin the fenced boundaries of the

former Texas Electric Casting Com p any (TESCO) foundr y site.

The RI identified elevated lead concentrations in surface soils (to a depth of 1.5 feet) as the pr i m ary

contam inant of potential c oncern (COPC) at the MD I site. Other COPCs inclu d e pol y c y c lic aro m atic

hy drocarbons (PAH) in soil and ground water, as well as light nonaqueous-phase liquids (LN A PL) in

water and wa ste oil in soils . At the sa m e time, asb esto s -containing materi al (AC M ) was also i d entified in

an existing b u ildin g and a num ber of debris piles on s ite . The purp o se of this FS report is to d e velop and

perform a co m p arative an aly s is of alternative re m e di al actions (R A) to address inorganic and organic

constituents at the site such that it m a y be developed f o r residential use.

1.1 PURPOSE

The Com p reh e nsive Environmental Resp onse, Com p ensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) RI /FS process

is an iterative process that (1) characteriz es threat s to human health and the environm ent posed by

hazardous substances rel e ased at a site, and (2) evalua t es potential rem e dial alt e r n atives to m i t i gate those

threats. The NCP state s that appropriate re m e diati on is defined as a cost-effectiv e re medial alt e rnative

that effectivel y m itigates and m i ni m i zes threats to and provides adequate pr otection of public health,

welfar e, and the environm e n t. Remedial alternatives e v aluated in this FS report va ry in cost and level of

protection afforded to human health. The FS process of developing and evalua ting remedial a lternatives

consists of the following st eps:

1

### • Develop re medial action objectives (RA O ) that specif y contam inan ts and media of concern,

volum e of ea ch affected medium , and re medi ation goals. RAO s ar e developed based on Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirem e nts (ARAR) , H H RA re sults (Tetra Tech 2003d), and s c reening-level ecological risk asse ssmen t (SLERA) results (Tetra T ech 2003c).

• Develop general response a c tions (GRA) that can be taken for each mediu m to sa tisfy RAOs.

Consider cont ain m ent, treatment, rem oval, or ot her actions singl y or in com b ination in developing GRAs.

• Identif y and s c reen technologies for each GRA to eliminate techn o logies that t echnically cannot be implem ented or are not cost-effective.

• Identif y and s c reen process options for e ach technology.

• Asse mble ret a ined process options into alternatives a nd screen the alternatives.

• Conduct a det a iled analy s is of the remaining alte rnatives based on the criteria identified in t h e NCP at Title 40, Code of F e deral Re gulations (CFR) Part 300.430(e )(9).

The purpose of this FS is t o identif y re medial altern a tives that are appropriate for the MDI site, and screen

the alternatives based on of the fo llowing criteria: (1) overall protection of hum a n health and the

environm ent; (2) com p liance with ARARs; (3) long- ter m effectiveness; (4) reduction in t oxicit y ,

m obility , and volum e through treatm e nt; (5) short-ter m effectiveness; (6) im plementability , a nd (7) cost.

1.2 SITE BACKGROUND

The following sections provide site background info rmation, including site location and description,

ownership, hi story, and pre v ious in vestigations.

1.2.1 Site Location and Descri ption

The MDI site, located at 3617 Baer Street in Hous ton

, Harris County, Texas, is an abandoned foundr y

facility located approxim at ely 2 m iles east of dow ntown Houston a nd approxim ately 1 bl ock south of

Interstate Hig h way 10 (Figure 1). This portion of Houston is referenced as “Fift h Ward” (TERA, Inc.

[ TERA] 1994 ; Texas Natural Resource Conservati on Co mm ission [ T NRCC] 1996a). The M D I propert y

occupies approxim a tely 3 6 acres in an area of m i xe d industrial and residential land use. The MDI

propert y is bounded by Hare Street to the north; Na tional Vinegar Co m p any and Press Street t o the east;

the former Texas & New Orleans Ra ilroad right- o f-way be y o nd the easement to the south; and Bringhurst

Street to the west. Tracks of the form er Texas and New Orleans Railroad previo usly paralleled the

southern edge of the site. F i gure 2 shows the current layout of the M D I site as well as all investigative

sa m p le s colle cted during the RI.

2

### Structures currently on site include concrete f oundatio ns from several dem o lished foundr y b u il dings,

several partially dem o lished buil d ings, a large m e lt tran sformer, sev eral concrete structures formerly used

as vats, as well as an undergroun d storag e tank (UST) that was apparently used to store waste o il. The

foundr y bui ldings were dem o lish e d in 1995 under or der of a U.S. ba nkruptc y c ourt (TNRCC 1996a).

Other current significant site features in clude two on- site ponded a r eas (the north and sout h ponds), the

former Can- Am Resource Group (Can-Am ) dru m st orage areas, concrete and asphalt paved areas

(including for m er streets an d roadway s ), and a landfill. Other rem n ants at the site include num erous piles

of dem o lition debris consisting m a inly of brick, wood, refractory br ick, and m i scellaneous debris. A 10-

foot by 12-f o ot concrete box culvert is buried in t h e former Ingraham Gully and replaces the natural

surface drain a ge previously provided by the gully (F igure 3). A Review of City of Houston plans

indicates that the box cul v ert em pties into Buffalo Bayou (Fi gure 4 )

.

1.2.2 Site History

The site was originall y t h e Houston Bri c k Work s bri c ky ard (TNR CC 1996a). Blue-clay fou nd alon g

the former Ingraha m Gully, which crossed the cente r of the site, was excavat ed and used for the

manufacturing of bricks. I n 19 26, TES CO began operations as a metal casting foundr y. The TESCO

foundr y initia lly occupied t h e former Ho uston Bric k Works facility. The fo undry expanded operations

north of Baer Street and south of Gillespie duri ng W o rld War II. A second foundr y facilit y was built on

the eastern portion of t h e site during t h e l a tter half of 1970.

During the mid-1980s, the southern por ti on of t h e s ite was leased to Can-Am (T NRCC 1996a). Can-Am

conducted a spent cataly s t recy cling operation usi ng a n experimental process. Can-Am report e dly

obtained bet w een 2,000 a nd 4, 000 dru m s of spent cataly s t from chem ical plants and refineries along the

Houston Ship Channel. By 1988, Can-Am ce ased operations and the drums of spent cataly s t were

abandoned o n site.

In 1990, MDI bought the site while TESCO was s till a tenant. TESCO ceased operations in Februar y

1991, and MDI foreclosed on the proper t y. MDI reop ened as the San Jacinto Foundr y (SJF) on March 1,

1991 . SJF co ntinued operations unti l ab out June 1

, 1 992. MDI filed for Chapter 7 Bankruptc y in the

U.S. Bankrup tcy Co urt for the Southern District of Te xas, Houston District on May 2 0 , 1 992

. The on-site

facilities were dem o lished as a salvage o p eration unde r order of the U.S. district bankruptc y court

between March 1995 and J a nuary 1996 ( T NRCC 1996a).

5

### 1.2.3 Previous Investigations

Previous on-s ite inform atio n regarding t h e nature and extent of contam ination at the site is extrem ely

lim it ed. The following discusses the a s s ess ment of soils, ground w a ter, and wast e m a te rial tha t was

conducted at the site.

1.2.3

. 1 Soils

Very lim ited sam p ling of soils was perf ormed by TNRCC (now Texas Co mmi ssion on Environm ental

Quality [ T CEQ] ) as part of its screening site in spection (TNRCC 1996a; 1996b). Nine soil sam pl es (SC1 through SC -9) were collected and analy zed for m e t a ls in the field with a Spectrace® 9000 field X-ray

fluorescence (XRF) analy zer. The r esults are su mmar i zed as follows:

• Arsenic w as detected in a soil sa m p le c o llect ed near the former melt transfor m e r in the northwest corner of the site at 2,34 0 m illigram s per kilogram (m g/k g ).

• Lead was det ected in sa m p les collected f r om the north and south po nds at 535 an d 1,8 40

m g /kg, respe c tively

.

• Chrom i u m was detected in a sa m p le fro m the south p ond at a conc entration of 4 26 m g /kg.

• Moly bdenum was detect ed in all of the sa m p l es at concentrations ranging from 28,70 0 to 70,5 00 m g /kg

.

Seven additional soil sam p les were collected and submitte d to a fixed laborator y for chem ical analy s is for

sem i volatile organic com p ounds (SVOC). P y rene was det ected in sam p les collected near one of the plant

buildings at 550 m i crogra m s per kilogra m (μg/kg); these buildings have since been de m o lished. Dieldrin

was dete cted in a sa m p le c o llected near the former melt transfor m e r at an esti m a t ed concentration of

26 μ g /kg. No other organic contam inatio n was noted.

1.2.3.2 Ground Water

TERA installed four m onitoring wells at the site as part of a site assessment (TERA 1994). T w o of the

wells (B-1 an d B-2) were located north of Hare Stre et, while the remaining two wells (B-3 an d B-4) were

located near the southern b oundar y of th e site along th e form er course of Ingraham Gully

. Th e locations

of these wells cannot be det e r m ined fro m historical repor ts and coul d not be located in the field during RI

activities. Whereas off-sit e wells B-1 and B-2 contained toluene, e t hy l benzene, and total xylenes in the

microgram per liter (μg/L) range, wells B-3 and B- 4 contained what was thought to be diesel as free

product and strong hy droca r bon odors. Oil and grease c oncentrati ons in these t w o tem porary wells wer e

569 and 842 milligram s per liter ( m g/L), respectively

. B ecause only four wells were installed at locations

8

### separated by m o re than 1⁄4 mile, no conclusions rega rding widespr ead ground water contam in ation could

be made.

An internal TNRCC e-mail (TNRCC 1998) indicates that TNRCC installed and sam p led 12 wells.

Because no well logs are available and these wells could not be located in the field during RI a c tivities, it

is assu med that these wer e te m porary wells. Four of the wells wer e reportedly installed on the west side

of the form er Ingraham Gully, with tol u ene and be nzene being the onl y organic detects above sam p le

quantitation limits. To the east of the former Ingrah am Gully , toluene, xy len es, methy l napthalene, and

naphthalene were detected at c oncentrations above quantitation limits . TNRCC concluded tha t the site

was not im pacted b y widespread groun d water contamination.

1.2.3

. 3 Waste Material

When the facilit y was abandoned, m o re that 4,000 dr ums remained on site. In 1999, Conestoga-Rovers

Associat es Services (CRA) performed a drum rem o v a l action (CRA 1999). Work assessing the waste

materi al was focused on de ter m ining whether the m a t e ri als in the drums wer e hazardous or nonhazardous.

The drum s were stockpiled in the foll owing three m a in grou pin g s:

• North drum storage area n o rthwest of th e form er foundr y slab

• South drum storage area so uthwest of th e form er foundr y slab

• Former found ry slab ( 1 ,11 8 drum s) (former EPA drum-staging area)

The drum s lo cated in the north and south drum storage areas consisted prim arily of cataly s t pe llets used in

the s m elting process. The cataly s t mater i als containe d high concentrations of m e t a ls, including nickel,

lead, copper and chrom i u m . The drum s located in the EPA staging area included the sam e cataly s t

materi als, as well as fla m mable liquids and solids, c a ustic liquids, high pH soli ds, and Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) K171 a nd K 172 listed wastes (CRA 1999). An ad dit i onal

investigation conducted b y Tetra Tech (2003a) revealed that catalyst m a terial remaining on si te (primarily

as scattered debris piles resulting fr om the deteriora tion of dr um s) after co m p letion of t h e removal action

was nonhazar dous.

1.3 SITE C H AR ACTE R ISTI CS

The following sections pertain to the characte r istics o f the MDI site onl y

. A co m p lete discussion of the

geologic and h y dro g eologi cal setting is provided in t h e MDI RI for OU 1 (Tetra Tech 2003 b).

9

### 1.3.1 Site Clim ate

The site’s proxim ity to Galveston Bay a nd the Gulf of Mexico affe cts the cli m at e area, re sulting in m ild

weather conditions and an average daily te m p erature of 70 °F. The average dail y low tem p er ature is 43.6

°F during t h e m onth of January

. The av erage daily hi gh tem p erature is 92.8 °F o ccurring generally durin g

August. The average total annual precipitation for Harris Count y is 46 inches, wi th recorded annual

extrem es of 92.6 inches in 1900 and 1 7

. 7 inches in 1 9 17 (U.S. Dep a rtm e nt of Agriculture [ U SDA] 1976).

The mean an nual lake evaporation f o r t h e area is app r oxim a tely 1 8 inches (Bo m ar 1983).

Two principal wind regim e s are pres ent in the Texas Coastal Zone: southeasterly winds from March

through Nove m b er, and int e rm ittent northerly wi nds f r om Decem b e r through Febr uar y . Prevailing winds

in Harris Count y are from t h e south-sout heast. The highest average wind speeds generally occ u r during

April. The strongest seaso nal winds in t h e area ar e produced by winter polar air masses arriving from

the north, pro ducing win d speeds of 20 t o 40 m iles per hour over a time period of 12 to 36 ho urs

(Bo m ar 1983 ).

The m o st sev ere weather occurring in H a rris Count y i s produced b y hurricanes and tornadoes

. Onl y 2 0

miles fro m th e Gulf of Mexico, the Harris Count y ar ea has an estimated one in eight chance of being

affect ed by direct landfall of a hurricane in any give n year; historical ly, the area is struck by a tornado

approxim a tely every other y ear (Bom ar 1983).

1.3.2 Site Geology

For the pur pose of this inve stigation, subsurf ace conditions were only evaluated to a depth of

approxim a tel y 28 feet below ground sur f ace (bgs), or 2 feet below the base of the first water-b earing

zone. Soils encountered are typically fin e grained in n a ture, consisting prim arily of low plasticity clay s

and silt y fine sands. In addition to the na tive soils, fo undr y sands that were used to fill in I ngra h am Gully

underlie the center of the site to depths i n excess of 20 feet bgs. General descrip tions of the s o ils

encountered are described below.

1.3.2

. 1 Native Materials

The site is underlain by a sequence of alternating cl ays and sands that reflect deposition i n a near-shore

or estuarine environm ent. In general, the clay s contain a significant silt fraction, and exhibit l o w

plasticity . Sa nds are fine to m e diu m grained, with var y i ng am ounts of silt. Thes e sands are p oorl y

graded, in ter m s of grain size distributio n, and are sug g estive of deposition i n sl ow m oving water.

Although m a ny portions of the site are underlain wi t h 2 to 3 feet of fill materials (typically f o undr y

10

### sands although on occasion clay ) a gener a lized stratig r a phic colum n (represented in feet) would be as

follows:

0-12 Dark Gray Clay (First Clay): with trace silt; exhi bits low plasticity and is medium stiff to stiff, m o ist

12-16 Light Gray to Yellowish Brown Silt to Silty S a nd (First Sand): fine-grained , poorl y graded, loose to m e diu m de nse, m o ist

16-22 Light Gray Clay (Second Clay): vari es between low and high pl asticity , and i s typically

mediu m stiff to stiff, m o ist

22-26 Reddish Bro w n to Brown Sand (Shall ow Water-Bearing Z o ne): fine to m e d i um grained, trace silt, poorl y graded, loose to m e diu m dense, saturated . This is the f i rst water bearing unit b e neath the site.

26- ? Gray Clay (Basal Clay): low plasticity, stiff, m o ist

. Geoprobe® borin gs and wells did

not com p letel y penetrate this unit. Con sequently , its total thickness has not been

determ ined.

1.3.2.2 Foundry Sands

The central portion of the s ite is underlain by between 5 and 20 feet of foundr y sands that were placed

around t h e bo x culvert that lines the former Ingraham Gully, as well as other naturally occurring drainage

channels that cross the site. In general, t h e material s are classified as silty sands, with the silt and cla y

fraction ranging between 9 and 49 percent, and are fin e -grained, po orl y graded, a nd lo ose.

1.3.3 Site Hydrogeology

Ground water flow at the MDI site is controlled b y t h e interaction between the north pon d, t h e foundr y

sands, and the native soils. For the purpose of this report, the shallow water-bea ring zone (SWBZ) is

defined as the water table aquifer that oc curs in bot h t h e native mat e rials and wit h in the foundry sand fill

materi als. The SWBZ occ u rs within native soils in the east ern and western thirds of the site. The static

water surface of the SWBZ is typicall y encountered at 16 to 18 feet bgs (within t h e second clay). The

transm issive portion of the SWBZ is encountered be t w een 22 and 26 feet bgs (below the seco nd cla y ) and

consists of silty sand to poorly gr aded fine sand. The native sands ar e breached in the center of the site

where Ingraha m Gully transected the sit e . Ingraham Gully has been lined with the 12-foot-wide by 10-

foot-long concrete box culvert described prev iousl y and backfilled with foundr y sands.

The saturated foundr y sands are the first unit encoun tered under the central portion of the site. These

foundr y sands were used as backfill in I ngraham Gully and in general are dark gray to black, f i ne to

11

### mediu m -grained, poorl y graded, and contain little or no silt or cla y fraction. Ground water within the

foundr y sand s is ty p i cally encountered at dept hs rangi ng between 1 6 and 1 8 feet bgs.

Detailed lithologic log g ing and stratigraphic analy s is h as revealed that at so m e locations, the fo undr y

sands are in c ontact with the trans m is sive native sa nds that co m p rise the SWBZ and there is no separation

between these units. The r e lationship be tween the foundr y sands an d native sand s is shown on cross

sections A-A’ through F-F’ (see Figures 4 through 10 in the RI report for OU 1 [Tetra Tech 2003b] ).

Ground water in the SWBZ flows towards Ingraham Gu ll y from bot h the west and east sides of the site

(Figure 5), and then exits t h e site to the north.

Near the MDI site, the regional gro und water flow gr adient in SW BZs is to the south, foll owi ng ol d

drainage paths to Buffalo Bay ou; howe v er, grou nd w a te r flow in the SWBZ on site has been confirmed to

flow off site to the north. Becaus e of this, Tetra Tech investigated other factors that may have contributed

to this localized reversal in flow direction, incl uding off-site pum pi ng or dewater i ng s y stems associated

with construction activities along Interst a te Highway 10. No such artificial factors were iden tified. It

appears that the flow to the north m a y be a locali zed re sponse to the cross-cutting contact of the native

sands and fou ndr y sands, a s well as the additi onal gr o und water inf l ux from the north pon d.

1.4 NATU R E A ND EX TEN T OF C O NT AMINA T I O N

During the RI , the following field activit ies were performed:

• Collection of shallow soil sam p les at 169 grid location s

• Advancem ent and sam p ling of 7 2 Geopr obe® soil bor ings

• Co m p letion o f 35 Geoprob e® soil borin gs as te m porary m onitorin g wells and collection of ground water sa m p le s fro m these locations

• Advancem ent and sam p ling of 5 6 ju dg mental soil borings to t h e t op of t h e first water-bearin g

zone

• Installation and sam pling of 24 permanent m onitoring wells

• Perfor m anc e of single-well pum p tests at five locations and slug tests at six locations

• Collection of eight sediment sa m p les and one surface water s a m p le

• Collection of 10 waste samples from pits or tanks, 6 sa m p les of foun dr y sands, an d 5 sam ples of bag h ouse materials

12

### The location of these sa m p les is shown on Figure 2. These data co llected during the RI for OU 1 are the

basis for the following discussion of the nature and ex tent of conta m ination.

1.4.1 Distribution of Waste Materials

Waste materials evaluated at the site included ACM, b a g house m a terials, waste oil, pit co nten ts, foundr y

sands, and refinery and pe troche m i cal c a t a ly sts. Each of these m a te rials is descri b ed below.

1.4.1

. 1 ACM

In their asbestos survey conducted in N ovem b er 2001, Tetra Tech’ s subcontract or, Enercon Sevices, Inc.

(ESI), conclu ded that all except 2 of t h e 24 sam ples collected within the existing buildi ng j u st south of

Nance Street contained ACM (ESI 2003) . These sa m p les enco m p assed an area of m o r e than 85,000

square feet (ft 2 

### ).

Since the faci lity structures have already been de m o lis hed, areas ne ar for m er stru ctures and debris piles

that include insulators have been sa m p l e d for AC M. Eleven additional sa m p les were colle cte d from

debris piles containin g suspected ACM (ESI 2003); anal y t ical results indicated that some of the debris

piles contain non-friable ACM. These additional debris piles consisted prim arily of construction debris

including bric k, concrete, and wood. Figure 2 shows the location of these debris piles.

1.4.1

. 2 Bag House Materials

Five sa m p les of bag house waste were c o llected fro m the locations shown on Figure 2. These sa m p le s

were analy z ed for total m e tals as well as for m e t a ls using the To xicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure

(TCLP). By asse ssing the ratios of the total metals in the bag hous e m a te rials, it may be possible to

determ ine wh ether m e tal concentrations measured in soils are attributable to emissions from old fo undr y

stacks or another source. This assessment will be in cluded in the RI report for O U 2. The TC LP metals

analy ses were used to asses s whether these materials would be cons idered hazar dous waste for disposal

purposes.

Lead in bag house sa m p le 1 was detecte d at an estim ated concentration of 24, 00 0 m g /kg. Thi s

concentration was on the hi gher end of t h e range est i m ated for the site-specific air dispersion model

developed for the site. Lead and chrom i um in the TC LP sa m p le co llected fro m t h is location were

detected at co ncentrations of 36. 1 and 1. 4 m g /L, r espe c tively

. The mea s ured concentrations ar e high

enough such t h at these m a t e rials ar e considered hazar dous waste under RCRA ( 40 CFR Part 261.24), and

would require treatm e nt prior to disp osal. Bag hou se sa m p le 5 also failed the TCLP for cadm i um , with a

14

### detected concentration of 7.1 m g /L. The total vol um e of bag house filter m a teri al s is approximately 15

cubic y a rds (yd 3 

### ).

1.4.1.3 Waste Samp les

Ten waste s a m p l es (2 solids and 8 liquids) were co ll ected during the RI. Three liquid waste sa m p les

(WS-01, WS-02, and WS-03) collected from wast ewat er in on-site p its contained pol y c hlori n ated

biphen y ls (P CB) at concentrations rang ing from 1.2 t o 3.7 μ g/L. Waste s a m p le WS-01 also contained

1,1-dichl o roethane (1,1-D CA) at a concentration of 3

. 8 μ g/L, and esti m ated conc entrations of

ethy lbenzene and xy lenes of 1.2 and 5.0 μ g/L, respecti v ely. Chrom i um in this sa m p l e was me asured at a

concentration of 102 m g /L; this waste str e am w ill have to be m a nag e d as hazardo us waste.

1.4.1

. 4 Catalyst Mat erial

During a site walkthrough with EPA (conducted as part of the ori g i n al scoping o f the RI), suspected

cataly s t materials were identified in the s outhwest corner of the facilit y

. Tetra Tech collected sam p les of

the cataly s t material as well as m a t e rials t h at were later described as inert support media; these materi als

were analy z ed to assess whether or not they were ha zardous. None of the sam pl es exceeded any of t h e

TCLP regulator y threshol ds; accordingly, the five sam pl es collect ed were char acterized as nonhazardous

(Tetra Tech 2003a).

1.4.1.5 Foundry Sands

Twelve sa mp les of the foundry sands w e re collect ed and analy zed for waste cha r acteriz ation purposes.

Specifically

, Tetra Tech w as interest ed in determ ini ng whether these m a te rials w ould need to be managed

as hazardous waste in the event that the materi als wer e excavated and we re scheduled to be di sposed of

off site. TCLP metals anal y s is indicated that the foundr y sands are nonhazardous and, if excavated, could

be managed a s solid waste. Foun dry sands present in the subsurface below lead hot spots m a y require

additional testing to ensure that these m a terials ar e also nonhazardous.

1.4.1.6 Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soils and Ground Water

Whereas the primary conta m inants at the site consist of metals in s o ils, waste oil in soils is also present.

Petroleu m hydrocarbons as a nonaqueous-phase liquid (NAPL) wer e found i n the MW-3 soil boring i n

the northeast corner of the site and the MW-11 soil bor ing in the southwest corner of the site. At the

MW-3 location, this NAP L is acting as a continuin g source of gro und water contam ination. At the MW11 location, t h e NAPL is a potential sou r ce, although groun d water has y e t to be i m p acted.

15

### In MW-20, L NAPL was detected floati ng on ground wate r. This is thought to be associ ated with the

deterioration of the existing UST in the northwest corner of the site.

1.4.2 Distribution of Contaminants in Surface Water an d Sediment

Surface wat e r on the site is confined to the south po nd. One surface water s a m p le was colle cted and used

to asses s risks to ecological receptors that are posed by the site. Surface w a ter C O PCs w e re s e lected for

the MDI SLERA by screening against surface water ecological screening toxicity values for dir ect

contact, along with a consi d eration of bi oaccu m u latio n potential (T etra Tech 2003c).

The following SLERA COPCs (based on the m a xi m u m de t ected o n -site concentration, and the m o st

conservative [lowe s t ] co mm unity -level ecological scr eening benchmarks) w e re i d entified based on the

following rati onale:

• The only m a xi m u m detect e d concentration that m e t or exceeded an ecological benchmark

was mangane se. Maxi m u m total and dissolved concentrations of manganese e x ceeded the TCEQ ecological bench m ark (Tetra Tech 20 03c).

• Although m a xim u m dissolved concentrations were below ecological benchm arks (chronic

surface water qualit y standards) for surface water, five m e tal s (cad miu m , copper, lead, nickel, and selenium) were retained in a second screen ing step as tentative ecological COPCs to

evaluate bioaccu m u lation and the indire ct expos ures via the food chain. Thus, a separate screening of the maxim u m detected surface water concentrations was conducted f o r protection of piscivorous wildlife (i.e., mammals and birds who eat fish) using t h e lowest no

observed adverse eff ect le vel for piscivores, as detailed in Section 4.1 of the SL ERA (Tetra Tech 2003c). Based on thi s assessment, onl y one chemical (seleni u m ) exceeded the “no

effect ”-based benchmark protective of a ma mma li an a nd avian piscivore. However, the

maxi m u m sel enium concen tration did not exceed th e lowest observed adverse ef fect level of

seleniu m , protective of both piscivorous ma mmal s an d birds. Therefore, the m a xim u m seleniu m level detected in the south p o n d does not warrant any furt her investigation.

The SLERA (Tetra Tech 2003c) established that a ll contam inants except manganese were belo w

screening levels. No ecological risk due to the sout h pond surface water is indicated because of the lack

of habitat afforded at the MDI site and its i m m i nent propert y trans f er and redevelopment for residential

reuse. No further investigation or assess ment of the south pond surface w a ter is necess ary

.

Eight sedim ent sam p les were collected from the north and sout h p onds, as sho w n on Fig u re 2. Sam p les

SD-1 throug h SD-4 were collected from the north p o n d , while sam p les SD-5 through SD-8 we re collected

from the sout h pond. These sa m p le s we re used to ass ess risks to ec ological rece ptors that are posed by

the site. A com p l e te discussion of these results and im plications may be found in the SLER A (Tetra Tech

2003c).

16

### The “sedi m en t” sa m p le s co llected fro m t h e north pond (a m o ist depression that does not afford

standing-water habitat for true aquatic receptors su ch as sedi m ent invertebrates, fish, or piscivorous

anim als) were essentially s o il sam p les. A terrest rial evaluation was conducted fo r this area an d the

upland soil area; both are discussed in the SLERA.

The south pond (although a m a n m ade borrow pit) was conservatively screened in the SLERA for

protection of sedi m ent-dwelling organis m s, although actual presen ce of a benthic co mm unity is

h y pot hetical, given the sub s trate (foundry sand and ru bbl e). However, given t h e apparently p e rennial

cover of water in this sm all 0.05-acre po ol, the screen was conducted for the bent hos, as per EPA and

TCEQ Ecological Risk Assessment Gui d ance for Superfund (ERAGS) (Tetra T ech 2003c). The

following SLERA COPC s (based on the maxi m u m det ected on-site concentration, and the m o s t

conservative [lowe s t ] co mm unity -level ecological scr eening benchmarks) w e re i d entified based on the

following rati onale:

• Although bel o w screening levels, m e rcury was re tained as an ecological COPC due to its

sedi m ent bioaccu m u lation potential. In a ddition, although there was no ecologi cal

benchmark a v ailable, sele n ium wa s als o retained as a COPC for the sa me rea s on.

• Cad m iu m , co pper, lead, nickel, and zinc were ret a ine d as ecological COPCs as they were above screening levels as well as being potential th re ats to the on-s ite food chain due to t h eir

bioaccu m u lat i ve nature.

• The maxi m a of four PAHs (benzo(a)anthracen e, benz o(a)py rene, chry sene, and py rene), phenanthrene

, and five m e t a ls (anti m ony, ar senic, chr o m i u m , manganese, and sil v er) also

exceeded eco logical screen ing levels and were ret a ine d as COPCs.

The majority of the contaminants detecte d at MDI wer e not selected as ecological COPCs for s outh pond

sedi m ents, based on the rationale presented in th e SLE RA (Tetra Tech 2003c). None of the

afore m entioned bioaccum u lative inorganics identified in the sedime n t of the south pond had re adily

available wil d life screenin g values prot ective of food -chain exposures; therefore, the bioaccum u l a tive

south p ond i n organics identified in the S LERA as ecological COPCs could requ ire potential further

assessment. However, this assessment was not perfor m ed at the SLERA stage, given the findings of the

SLERA (Tetra Tech 2003c ). For this re ason, and in c onsultation w ith the Biological Technical Advisor y

Group (BTAG), no deskto p food-chain m odeling or e xposure poi nt concentration calculations were

co m p leted at the SLERA stage. If, on t h e other hand, the south pond will rem a in or be retained in its

current state, risk managers should co nsider wh ether further evaluation of so uth p ond sedim ent is

warranted.

17

### 1.4.3 Distribution of Contam inants in Soil

Lead was det ected at concentrations above its screen i ng level in s u rface soils at OU 1. The RI detailed

the volum e of soils at the site with lead concentra tions equal to or g r eater than the EPA Region 6 Hum a n

Health Medium-specific Screening Level (MSSL; EP A 2003) f o r l ead in residential soil of 400 m g /kg.

This FS has b een prepared using a cleanup level of 50 0 m g /kg that is consistent with the cleanup level

used in the recent off-site rem oval actio ns. Figure 6 presents the distribution of lead in surface soil at OU

1 with a concentration equal to or greater than 50 0 m g /kg. The total esti m at ed volum e of surf ace soil

containing le ad at concentrations equal to or great er than 500 m g /kg is nearly 14 ,000 cu bic y a rds (yd 3 

### ).

Given that the soils at the site are cl ay ey in nature, a n expansion f actor of 1.3 h as been used to evaluate

the volum e of soil to be tre a ted or dispos ed of. This tr anslates to a treatment or d i sposal volu m e of

approxim a tely 20, 000 y d 3



### .

1.4.4 Distribution of Contaminants in Ground Water

Ground water at the site has been shown to be im pacted b y low lev e ls of organic and inor gani c

conta m ination, and m a y be su mmarized as follows:

• Benzene was the onl y volat ile organic com pound detected above its MCL of 5 μ g/L within

OU 1. Benzene was detected at a concentration of 5. 1 μ g/L in m onitoring well MW-13; no

other exceeda n ces wer e det ected.

• SVOCs in the form of PAHs were detected in concent r ations above applicable screening

levels in m o n itoring wells MW-03, MW-07, MW-0 9

, MW-13, and MW-16. Ben z o(a)py rene was the only SVOC detected at a concentration abo v e its MCL of 0.2 μ g/L. Benzo(a)p y rene was detected in wells MW-03, MW-0 7, MW-16 at co ncentrations of 0.6 19, 0.0 84, and 0.0 6 3

μ g/L, respectively. The PA Hs that exceeded EPA Region 6 MSS L s were 3,3-dichorobenzene and atrazine (MW-13); acetophenone (MW-09 and MW-13); benzo(a)anthracene (MW-03 and MW-07); and benzo(b)fluoranthene, dibenzo( a,h)anthracene, dibenzofuran, naphthalene, and pentachlo rophenol (MW-03) (Figur e 7).

• Lead was detected in grou nd water at concentrations above its M C L of 15 μ g/ L in m onitoring wells MW-06 (19.4 μ g/L) and MW-13 (1 15 μ g/L).

• Arsenic w as detected in 23 of 24 m onitori ng wells at concentrations ranging fr om 1.1 μ g/L (MW-17) to 29.4 μ g/L (M W-04). Whil e all detected c oncentrations were above the EPA Region 6 MS SL of 0. 045 μ g/L, onl y fo ur wells (MW-03 [ 20 μ g/L] , MW-04 [ 29. 4 μ g/L]

, MW-15 [ 16.6 μ g/L] , and MW-16 [ 16.2 μ g/L] ) had arsenic concentr ations above the MCL of

10 μ g/L. The arsenic appears to be potentially emanating from an off-site source to the east. Consequentl y , arsenic will not be addres sed in the FS.

• Mol y bden u m was detected in 23 of 2 4 we lls at concentrations ranging from 1.7 to 13,9 00 μ g/L. Althoug h the r e is no MCL established for m o ly bden u m , the maximum

concentration detected is more than an orde r of m a gnitude greater than the EPA Region 6 MSSL for tap water (180 μ g/L).

18

### 5 4 2

5 6 2

1 3 4 0 2 1 6 0

1 4 0 0 2 5 6 0 1 6 8 0

2 1 2 0

5 1 4 5 1 4 5 6 5

5 8 8

5 1 4

5 3 4 8 4 8

5 3 2 6 5 7

7 4 4

9 7 0 5 9 3

6 3 8 5 7 6 3 7 0 8

2 3 4 8 5 0 6 8 2 8 9 9

1 6 4 9 2 2 6 8

1 2 8 9

1 2 0 9 2 9 6 9

1 1

- 2 4

- 0 3 O : \ M D I \ O n S i t e \ P r o j e c t s \ g r t t h a n 5 0 0 p b

_ 0

- 1

. 5

. m x d H P B L 

### L e g e n d

L e a d C o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n S o i l

e q u a l t o o r g r e a t e r t h a n 5 0 0 m g / k g

S i t e B o u n d a r y R a i l r o a d

S u b d i v i s i o n B o u n d a r y S t r e e t F e n c e

M a i n C o n t o u r I n t e r v a l ( 1 f o o t s e p a r a t e s i n t e r v a l s )

I n t e r m e d i a r y C o n t o u r I n t e r v a l

P a v e d A r e a

B u i l d i n g

0 1 5 0 3 0 0 7 5

F e e t

M D I S U P E R F U N D S I T E

H O U S T O N

, T E X A S

B Y :

T e t r a T e c h E M I n c

. P R E P A R E D F O R : F I G U R E 6

L E A D C O N C E N T R A T I O N S I N S O I L E Q U A L

T O O R G R E A T E R T H A N 5 0 0 m g / k g
0

. 0

- 1

. 5 F E E T 

### D e b r i s A r e a

* L e a d c o n c e n t r a t i o n s p o s t e d

a r e i n m g / k g N o t e s : G r i d S a m p l i n g L o c a t i o n

J u d g m e n t a l S a m p l i n g L o c a t i o n2 8

3 5

3 0 2 5 0

2 0 4 5

5 0 4 0 2 8

2 0 4 0

3 5 4 0 4 5

4 0 4 0

2 8 4 0

4 0

2 5 4 0

2 0 4 0

4 0 4 0 4 0

4 5 4 0

4 5

4 0

4 0 4 0

4 5

4 0 4 0 4 0

4 0 3 5

4 0

4 0 4 0 4 5

4 5 4 5

4 5

3 5 4 5

4 0

3 5 4 0 4 0

4 5

2 5 4 0 4 0

4 0 3 5 4 0

3 0 4 0

3 0

4 5

4 0 4 0

4 0 4 5

4 0 4 0

4 0 4 0

4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0

4 0

4 5

4 0 4 0 4 0

4 5 4 0 4 0

4 5 4 0

3 5 4 0

2 0

2

0 2 0

2 0 4 5 4 5

F I G U R E 7

P A H S I N G R O U N D W A T E R

A T O R A B O V E S C R E E N I N G L E V E L S M D I S U P E R F U N D S I T E

H O U S T O N

, T E X A S

1 1

- 2 5

- 0 3 B : \ M D I \ m w

_ t w

_ m a p s \ F i g u r e 7 p a h

_ r e s u l t s F S

. m x d h p b l 0 1 5 0 7 5

F e e t B E N Z O ( a ) A N T H R A C E N E 2

B E N Z O ( a ) P Y R E N E 0

. 6 1 9

B E N Z O ( b ) F L U O R A N T H E N E 0

. 8 8 5

D I B E N Z O ( a

, h ) A N T H R A C E N E 0

. 1 0 2

D I B E N Z O F U R A N 7 4

N A P H T H A L E N E 1 2 0

P E N T A C H L O R O P H E N O L 0

. 7 3 L J

M

W

- 0 3 N o t e s : 2 6 2 7 2 8 2 8 2 7 2 6 2 5 2 4 2 3 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 3

2 4

N A N C E S T R E E T

B R I N G H U R S T S T R E E T B A E R S T R E E T H A R E S T R E E T

G I L L E S P I E
S T R E E T

C L I N E S T R E E T P R E S S S T R E E T

4

. D o e s n o t i n c l u d e b i s ( 2

- e t h y l h e x y l )

p h t h a l a t e

, a c o m m o n l a b o r a t o r y

c o n t a m i n a n t

5

. B e n z o ( a ) p y r e n e e x c e e d e d F e d e r a l

M a x i m u m C o n t a m i n a n t L e v e l ( M C L ) ;

a l l o t h e r c o m p o u n d s l i s t e d i n e x c e s s o f

E P A R e g i o n 6 T a p W a t e r S t a n d a r d s 1

. R e s u l t s a r e p o s t e d i n μ g / L

2

. N O N E = N o P A H s d e t e c t e d a t

c o n c e n t r a t i o n s a b o v e t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e

s c r e e n i n g l e v e l s

3

. Q u a l i f i e r s :

J = E s t i m a t e d v a l u e

L = R e p o r t e d c o n c e n t r a t i o n i s b e l o w c o n t r a c t

- r e q u i r e d
d e t e c t i o n l i m i t N O N E M W

- 1 2 N O N E M W

- 2 4

N O N E M W

- 2 4 D

N O N E M W

- 2 3

N O N E M W

- 1 6 D

B E N Z O ( a ) P Y R E N E 0

. 0 8 4

D I B E N Z O ( a

, h ) A N T H R A C E N E 0

. 0 2 M

W

- 0 7

A C E T

O P H E N O N E 2

. 1 M

W

- 0 9 3

, 3

- D I C H L O R O B E N Z I D I N E 6 9

A C E T

O P H E N O N E 1

. 7

A T R A Z I N E 0

. 4 8 M

W

- 1 3

B E N Z O ( a ) P Y R E N E 0

. 0 6 3 3

M

W

- 1 6 N O N E M W

- 2 0
N O N E M W

- 0 1 N O N E M W

- 2 1

N O N E M W

- 1 8

N O N E M W

- 0 5

N O N E M W

- 1 1

N O N E M W

- 2 2

N O N E M W

- 1 0

N O N E M W

- 1 0 D N O N E M W

- 1 4

N O N E M W

- 1 9

N O N E M W

- 1 7 N O N E M W

- 0 2

N O N E M W

- 0 4

N O N E M W

- 1 5

N O N E M W

- 0 6

N O N E M W

- 0 8 C o n c e n t r a t i o n e x c e e d s E P A

R e g i o n 6 t a p w a t e r s t a n d a r d

C o n c e n t r a t i o n e x c e e d s F e d e r a l M C L

B Y :

T e t r a T e c h E M I n c

. 

### L e g e n d

S i t e B o u n d a r y R a i l r o a d M o n i t o r i n g W e l l L o c a t i o n

S u b d i v i s i o n B o u n d a r y S t r e e t F e n c e

M a i n C o n t o u r I n t e r v a l ( 1 f o o t s e p a r a t e s i n t e r v a l s )

I n t e r m e d i a r y C o n t o u r I n t e r v a l

P R E P A R E D F O R : M W

- 1 3

M W

- 0 7

M W

- 0 9 A p p r o x i m a t e E x t e n t o f

F o u n d r y S a n d s

### • Petroleu m hydrocarbons as NAPL were identif ied in g r ound water m onitoring well MW-20 with a thickness of approxi m a tely 0.5 inch. It has been esti m ated t h at a NAPL plume m a y be

as m u ch as 1 40 feet long and 30 feet wide. The NAPL has also been addressed in Section

1.4.1

. 5

1.5 SUMMARY OF SITE R I SKS

Risks posed to bot h hum an and ecologic a l receptors we re addressed in the HHRA (Tetra Tech 2003d) and

the SLERA (Tetra Tech 2003c) reports for OU 1, resp ectively

. These potential risks are su mmarized in

the following sections.

1.5.1 Human Health Risk Ass e ssment Re sults

As described in the HHRA (Tetra Tech 2003d), can cer risks and noncancer hazard indices (HI) wer e

within target levels (i.e., cancer risks below 10 -4 

### and a noncancer HI less than or equal to 1) for the current

trespasser/visitor and a fut u re reside ntial adult and f u t

u re industrial worker. The noncancer HIs for the

future child r esident exceeded the target HI threshold of 1. E xposu r e to elevated concentrations of iron

across the sit e resulted in HIs greater th an 1 for a future child resident. An HI of 1.8 was esti m ated for the

future child resident based on exposu re to soil in the northwest corner of the site. Iron (with a hazard

quotient [HQ] of 1.3) contributed the m a jority of the HI associ ated with the northwest corner of the site.

An HI of 3.8 was esti m a t e d for the fut u r e child resi dent based on e xposure to soil across the r e m a inder of

the site. Iron was again the major contributor t o the H I for the futur e child resident with an H Q of 1.9.

As detailed in the HHRA for OU 1 (Tetra Tech 2003d ), while iron concentrations at several lo cations

across the sit e exceeded the EPA Region 6 MSSL res i dential soil value for iron ( 23,000 m g /kg), the

esti m ated iron intake from on-site soil was below the c oncentration determ ined to be m i nimally toxic.

With regards to the potenti a l on-site future resident child, excluding ir on, all o t her HQs and target organ

HIs were below the threshold of 1.

Inhalation of volatile chemicals in indoor air via th e subsurface m i gration pathw a y was evaluated for the

future residents and future i ndustrial wor k er. Fo r the a dult receptors, all cancer ri sks and nonc ancer

hazards wer e within or below target levels. For th e future child re ceptor, is opropy lbenzene contributed to

an HI of 2.4. Isoprop y l ben zene was only detected in 4 of 2 7 gro u n d water sam p les; the m a xim u m

detected conc entration was used to determine the ri sk and hazard es timates. The maxi m u m concentration

may not be a reasonable ap proxim a tion of exposure concentrations and the noncancer hazard may be

overestim ated. Isopro p y l b enzene is not believed to be related to past foundr y operations or cataly s t

storage activities at the site

.

The shallow water-be a ring zone is not a source of potable water. R esidents near the site receiv e potable

21

### water fro m th e City of Houston public water suppl y

. Cancer risks and noncancer hazards for the future

residents and industrial wor k ers were esti m ated in the HHRA assu ming ground water is used for dom estic

purposes. Cancer risks and noncancer hazards exce eded target levels (i.e., cancer risks of 10 -4 

### a nd

noncancer HI less than or equal to 1); however, fu ture use of ground water in the SWBZ is not

anticipated.

1.5.2 Ecological Risk Asse ss me nt Results

During ecological conceptual site m odel devel opm en t in the SLER A (Tetra Tech 2003c), it w as

forecast ed that the m o st potentially significant ecologi cal concern at this site is the transportation of

bioaccu m u lat i ve potential COPCs to Buffalo Bay o u a nd the subsequent uptake of those contaminants

through the f ood chain. However, the RI found th at t h ese and other ecological exposure pathway s are

incom p lete d u e to (1) a lack of on-site habitat, b ecaus e the site is presently characterized by disturbed

ground, and because future site rede velopment (including preparation of parklands, if any ) will require

further disturbance and surface prepar ation that will eli m inate any terrestrial habi tat; (2) a lack of off-site

migration of subsurface co nta m ination (i.e., ground w a ter) toward a r eas with habitat; and (3) imminent

residential redevelopm ent plans. Thus, it is appare nt that the site poses little eco logical risk and the

ecological risk asses s m ent process may be concluded. If it is determined that the future land use (i.e.,

imm i nent human redevelo pment) is not i m ple m ented in a tim ely fashion, a further ecological risk

asse ss ment may be necess a r y for the COPCs identified in the SLERA.

22

### 2.0 REMED I AL ACTI O N OBJECTI V ES AND A RAR S

The following subsections discuss the RAOs, COP C s , ARARs, an d GRAs for MDI OU 1.

2.1 REMED I AL ACTI O N OBJECTI V ES

In this section, RAOs are developed for the MDI s ite. RAOs identify site-specific COPCs, me dia of

concern, pote n tial exposur e pathway s , and remediation goals, whic h are derived from the risk assessment

findings and the evaluation of potential ARAR s. A s u mmary of the risk asse ss ment findings was

presented in Section 1.5. The RAOs fo r OU 1 are:

• Rem ove the ACM that has been stockpiled on site and left in the e x isting buildi ng.

• Reduce the risk posed to re sidential receptors b y lead concentrations in the soil a bove the cleanup goal for the site (500 m g /kg).

• Re m ove soil visibly conta m inated with waste oil-ra n g e petroleum h y drocarbo ns in the vicini t y of

MW-3 that is acting as a potential contin uing so urce of groun d water contam ination.

• Re m ove soil visibly conta m inated with wast e oil-ran g e petroleum h y drocarbo ns in the

vicinit y of M W -11 that ha s the potential to act as a source of grou nd water contam ination.

• Remediate ground water in the northwest corner of th e site to MCLs, and rem ove the free product associated with the UST.

• Mitigate the threat posed by exposure to groun d water throughout t h e rest of the site.

The cleanup goal for lead i n soils at the site has b een set at 500 m g /kg, which is protective of hum an

health based on Integrated Exposure Upt a ke Biokine tic (IEUBK) modeling of actual data collected fro m

other EPA Region 6 Superf und lead sites, namely Tar Creek Superfund Site (EP A 1997b) and Delatte

Metals Superfund Site (EP A 2000c). W ith the exception of t h e No Action Alternative, all soils with lead

concentrations equal to or greater than 500 m g /kg will be excavated from their current locations and

addressed via one of the active rem e dies outlined herein.

2.2 CON T AMI NANTS OF POTE NTIA L CON C ER N

COPCs were identified based on the findings of the H H RA and SLERA perfor m ed by Tetra Tech in

conjunction with the RI for OU 1. The COPCs for th e MDI site w e re detect ed in OU 1 soil, s e di m e nt,

waste mat e ria l s, surface w a ter, and ground water.

23

### 2.2.1 Human Health Contaminants of Potential Concern

Based on the results of the HHRA (T etra Tech 2003d) , the prim ary inorganic COPC for OU 1 soils was

lead. In addit i on, carcinog enic pol y c y c l i c aro m a tic h ydrocarbons ( P AH)–prim arily benzo(a)p y rene–were

the prim ary organic COPCs for OU 1 ground water. The potential use of grou nd water in the SWBZ

resulted in estim ated cancer risks that were greater th an the up per b ound of the ta rget risk rang e.

2.2.2 Ecological Contaminants of Potential Concern

The SLERA did not identi fy ecological COPCs (Tetra Tech 2003c ). This was due in larger part to Tetra

Tech’s under s tanding that the site is expected to be redeveloped residentiall y in t h e very near future.

Because of this, terrestrial habitat will not exist once developm ent is co m p leted.

2.3 APPLIC AB LE OR REL E VAN T AN D APPR OP RIAT E RE QUI R EME N TS

CERCLA, as am ended by t h e Superfund Am end m ents and Reautho r ization Act of 1986 (SARA), and its

im plem enting regulation, t h e NCP at 40 CFR Part 300, require that CERCLA R A s achieve A R ARs

established under federal and state environm ental laws and regulations that addr ess wastes, pollutants,

conta m inants, RAs, location, or other circu m stanc es at a CERCLA s ite. CERCL A also provides six

ARAR waivers that m a y b e invoked un der specific circ u m stances. In additi on t o ARARs, EPA and the

states may , as appropriate, identify other advisories, cr iteria, or guidance to be considered (TBC) for a

particular rele ase.

2.3.1 Overview of ARAR s

According to Section 300. 5 of the NCP, “applicab le requirements” means those cleanup standards,

standards of control, an d ot her substantiv e requirem e nt s, criteria, or lim itations prom ulgated under federal

environm ental or state environm ental or facility siting laws that specifi cally addr ess a hazardous

substance, pollutant, conta m inant, RA, location, or ot her circu m stance found at a CERCLA site.

According to EPA’s ARAR guidance “CERCLA Co m p lia n ce with Other Laws Manual,” in order for a

requirem e nt to be applicab le it m u st (1) be substa ntiv e as opposed to adm i nistrative, (2) be pr om ulgated

through a federal rulemaking procedure or for state standards it m u st be of general applicability and

legally enforceable, and (3) its jurisdictional prerequis ites m u st be sa tisfied by the circu m st ance s at the

CERCLA sit e

.

24

### Section 300. 5 of the NCP d e fines “relevant and appr op riate requirements” to mean those cleanup

standards, standards of con t rol, and othe r substan tive require m e nts, criteria, or limitations prom ulgated

under federal environm ental or state environm ental or facility siting laws that, while not “applicable” to a

hazardous substance, pollutant, contam i n ant, RA, lo cation, or othe r circu m st ance found at a CERCLA

site, address problem s suff iciently sim ilar to those en countered at the CERCLA site that their use is well

suited to the particular site.

Identification of ARARs is a site-specific determ in ation and i nvol v es a two-part analy s is: first, a

determ ination of whether a given require ment is applicab le; then, if it is not appli cable, a determination of

whether it is relevant and appropriate . A require m e nt is dee m ed ap plicable if the specific ter m s of the law

or regulation directly address the che m i c al of con cern, RA, or site location. If the jurisdictional

prerequisites of the law or regulation are not m e t, a legal requirement m a y nonet h eless be relevant and

appropriate if the site’ s circumstance s ar e sufficiently si m ilar to circ umstance s in which the law otherwise

applies and it is well-suited to the conditi ons of the site

.

An evaluation of the relevance and appropriateness of a require m e n t is site specif i c, and m u st be based on

best professional judgm ent. A requirem e nt m a y be rele vant, but not appropriate, for the specific site. In

40 CFR Part 300.400(g)( 2 )

, the NCP lists factors to cons ider in evaluating relevance and appropriateness.

Only requirements that are determ ined to be bot h rel e va nt and app r opriate m u st be followed. Portions of

a requirem e nt may be relevant and appro p riate even if a requirem e nt in its entiret y is not (EPA 1988). A

requirem e nt m u st be substantive in orde r to c onstitute an ARAR fo r activities co nducted on site.

Procedural or adm i nistr a tive require m e nt s su ch as permits and reporting are not ARARs.

The prelim in ary iden tification of ARARs involves co nsid ering a n u m b er of site-specific factors, includin g

potential RAs, com pounds at the site, phy sical characteris tics of the site, and site location. A r e quirem e nt

is applicable if it specificall y addresses o r regulat es the hazardous substance, poll u tant, contaminant,

action being taken, or other circu m stanc e s at the s ite. To asses s whether a partic ular require ment would

be legally applicable, it is necess ary to evaluate spec ific jurisdictional prerequisites of the statute or

regulation. A ll pertinent jurisdictional pr erequisites must be met for the requirement to be appl icable.

Jurisdictional prerequisites include:

• Who, as specified by the re gulation, is subject to its authority.

• The t y pes of substances an d activities listed as falling under the aut horit y of the r e gulation.

• The time peri od for which the regulation is in effect.

• The t y pes of activities the regulation requires, lim it s, or prohi bits.

25

### • If jurisdictional requirem e n t s are met, the requirem e nt is applicable. If not, the next step is to consider whether the requir e m e nt is relevant and appr opriate (EPA 1988).

ARAR s identified for RAs are based on the che m ic als present, the location of the site, and pos sible RAs

for the site. The following sections present the che m ical-, location-, and action-specific st ate and federal

ARAR s that may be pertinent to the MD I site. These ARAR s are d i scussed agai n in Section 3 as they

relate to speci fic potential RAs.

2.3.2 Chemi c al-sp ecific A RAR s

The releas es at the MDI site have i m pact ed both th e so il and gro und water media as confirm e d during the

RI. Che m ical -specific fede ral ARA R s a nd TBCs fo r the potential contam inants a t the MDI site are

identified bel o w for ground water and soil, respectiv ely

. ARARs have not been developed fo r sedim ent

and surface water. While the SLERA (Tetra Tech 2003c) identified potential im pacts to ecological

receptors over time, it was agreed that because the pr ope rty is scheduled to be redeveloped for residential

use, the ecological habitat would no longer exist.

2.3.2.1 Chemi c al-sp ecific A RAR s for Ground Water

The identification of ground water AR A R s and TBCs is based on the assu m p tion that ground water has a

beneficial use.

National Pri m ary Drinki ng Water Standards . These st andards establish acc e p table levels for drinking

water. MCLs, non-zero m a xim u m contaminant level goa ls (MCLG), and action levels (40 C F R Part 141)

under the Saf e Drinking W a ter Act (SDWA) are releva nt and appr opriate requirem e nts for ground water

used for drin king, or gro u nd water that may be a futu re source for potable water

. If a che m ic al has both

an MCL and a non-zero MCLG, the m o re stringent nu m b er is used. Other organi c co m pounds may be

present in the ground water at the site, and the lowe r of the MCL or non-zero MCLG would be the ARAR

for an y ot her organic com p ounds detected in gr oun d water.

2.3.2.2 Chemi c al-sp ecific A RAR s for Soil

Few federal standards have been prom ulgated for cont am inants in soil. Most screening and cl eanup

standards for soil are developed using EPA’ s ri sk assess ment and preli m inary re m e diation goals

processe s.

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) . TSCA and it s im plementing regulatio n s found at 4 0 CFR Part

761 m i ght be relevant and a ppropriate to the cleanup o f PCB-contaminated wastewater at the MDI site as

26

### described in Section 1.4.1.3. 40 CFR Part 761.50(a )(3) prohi bits t h e discharge of water containing PCBs

to a treat m e nt works or to navigable wate rs unless th e PCB concentration is less than 3 ug/L, unless the

discharge is in accordance with a PCB discharge li m i t included in a per m it issue d under Section 307(b) of

the Clean Water Act.

2.3.3 Location-specific AR ARs

Location-specific ARARs restricts th e concentration of hazardous substances or the conduct of activities

due to characteristics of the site or its immedi ate en vironm ent. For exa m ple, location of the site or

proposed RA in a flood plain, wetlands, historic place, or sensitive ecosy stem may trigger loca tionspecific A R A R s. Any RA that would affect these sp e c ial locations m u st co m p ly with the associated

regulations.

• Ground Water Restoration. The State of Texas Rules, Ground Wat e r Protection Act (Texas Water Code, Chapter 26, S ubchapter J, 4 01 thr oug h 4 06), is a location-specific ARAR. It is applicable, because the site’ s underl y i ng ground water is affect ed. This rule requi res ground water to be restored, if feasible.

• Construction Perm its. Pr oper perm its for construction in ri ghts-of- way will be r e quired, and the city , county, or Texas Depart ment of Transportation (TXDOT) may require roadway crossing agree m ents.

• Floodp lain or Wetland Env i ronm ents. 40 CFR Part 6 Appendix set s forth EPA p o licy for

carry ing out t h e provisio n s of Executive Orde rs 11988 (Flood plain Managem e nt) and 11 990 (Protection of Wetlands) and are potential locati on-specific AR ARs. The site is not located

within a floo dplain and t h ere are no wetlands near the site that would be im pact ed by cleanup

actions at the site.

• The Endange red Species A c t, the National Historic Pr eservation Ac t, and the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act also are p o tential ARA R s that were considered. The MDI site

is not located in an area aff ected by these acts.

2.3.4 Action-speci fic ARA Rs

Action-specif i c ARARs ar e technology

- or activit y

- b ased requirements or li m i tations for RAs. These

requirem e nts are triggered b y the particu l ar remedi al activities conducted at the site and suggest how a

select ed remedial alternative should be a c hieved . These action-specific requirements do not in

the m selve s deter m ine the r e m e dial alt e r n ative; rather , the y indicate how a select ed alternative m u st be

conducted. A c tion-specific ARARs have been identifi e d for the foll owing actions that may be i n cluded in

the rem e dial alternatives for the site.

Table 1 summariz es the A R ARs pert aining to the m a i n el e m ents of each of the re m e dial alt e r n atives (soil

washing, solidification and stabilization, containm ent, and m onitored natural attenuation [ M NA] )

.

27

### Several of the re m e dial alt e rnatives have several of these ele m ents i n comm on, including excavation and

waste disposa l requirements. Where these ele m ents a r e co mm on to several alter n atives, they are listed in

the table once.

The technolo g ies being co nsidered for contam inat ed groun d water (excluding N A PLs) are no action and

MNA, which have no associated action-specific AR A R s.

2.3.4.1 Institutional Controls

There are no Federal ARARs for ICs. The NCP allows the use of ICs to supplement engineering contr o ls

as appropriate for short- and lo ng- term site m a nagement to preven t or lim it exposure to site-related

contam ination (NCP Section 3 00.4 30 [ a ] [ 1 ] [iii] [ D] ). ICs m a y be required in order to prevent future use

of contam inated groun d water or exposur e to contam in ated soils, depending up on the rem e dy selected.

State regulations that are potential action-specific AR ARs regardin g ICs are codified in Title 30, Texas

Ad m i nistrative Code (TAC) Part 350.111 (f). These regul ations pr ovide authorit y for the TCE Q to have a

“deed notice” placed as an IC.

2.3.4

. 2 NAPL Mitig a tion

LNAPL is present in m onitoring well MW-20 and has been identified in m obile and residual phases at grid

locations P-1 0 and D-5, an d soil bori ngs MW-3 and MW-11. It a ppears that the LNAPL is primarily dies el

and waste oil range petroleum hy drocarb ons. There are federal and state regulations for the re m oval of free

product released fro m US Ts, codified at 40 CFR Part 280.64 and 30 TAC 334.79, respectively. Wastes

from the UST may fall under the Petroleum Exclusion under CERCLA. Because of this state regulations

are applicable, while the federal regulations un der 40 CF R Part 280 are considere d relevant and appropriate.

The following regulations are potential action-specifi c ARA R s:

• 40 CFR Part 280.12 – defi nes free product as a regulated substance present as a NAPL (for

exam ple, liquid not dissolv ed in water).

• 40 CFR Part 280. 64 – requ ires rem oval of free produ ct to the m a xim u m extent practicable.

• 40 CFR Part 280. 64(a) – r e quires that the rem oval of free product be conducted in a manner

that m i ni m i ze s the spread of contam inati on in t o previ ousl y u n conta m inated zones by using techniques appropriate to t h e h y dr ogeologic conditions at the site.

• 40 CFR Part 280. 64(b) – r e quires the use of abatem ent of free pro duct m i gratio n as a minim u m objective for the design of the free product rem oval sy stem

.

28TABLE 1ACTIVITY-SPECIFIC ARARSMDI SUPERFUND SITE,HOUSTON, TEXASOPERABLEUNIT 1TechnologyElementRegulationApplicableRelevantandAppropriateTBCAsbestos RemovalAsbestos Removaland Disposal40 CFR 61 Subpart M designates National Emission Standardsfor asbestos as defined as a hazardous air pollutant.X30 TAC 111.145– Controlof Air Pollution FromVisibleEmissions And Particulate MatterXAir Emissions30 TAC 106.533– Permit-by-Rule forAir Emissions DuringRemedial ActivitiesXSoil ExcavationErosion ControlTPDES Construction General Permit, Permit No. TXR150000X40 CFR Part 280– Technical Standards and Corrective Actionfor Owners and Operators of Underground Storage TanksX30 TAC 334.85 discusses requirements for the management ofwastesfromUST releases.XUST/NAPL RemovalUST/NAPLRemoval30 TAC 334.55 discusses permanent removal formservice ofabandoned USTs.XStaging40 CFR 264.554– StagingPilesXSoil WashingTemporaryUnits40 CFR 264.553– TemporaryUnitsXWaste ManagementOn-site Managementof Hazardous andNonhazardousWaste40 CFR Part 262– Standards Applicable to Generators ofHazardous WasteX40 CFR Part 300.440– Procedures for planningandimplementing off-site response actionsX40 CFR Part 261– Identification and Listing of HazardousWasteXNonhazardous WasteDisposalOff-site Disposal30 TAC 330– MunicipalSolid WasteX29TABLE 1 (Continued)ACTIVITY-SPECIFIC ARARSMDI SUPERFUND SITE,HOUSTON, TEXASOPERABLEUNIT 1TechnologyElementRegulationApplicableRelevantandAppropriateTBC40 CFR Part 261– Identification and Listing of HazardousWasteX40 CFR Part 268– Land Disposal RestrictionsX40 CFR Part 300.440– Procedures for Planning andImplementing Off-site Response ActionsX40 CFR Part 761–Disposal of PCBsX30 TAC 335.61 through 335.70– Standards Applicable toGenerators ofHazardousWasteXHazardous WasteDisposalOff-site Disposal30 TAC 335.431– Land Disposal RestrictionsX49 CFR Parts 171 and 172– Hazardous Material Table, SpecialProvisions, Hazardous Materials Communication, EmergencyResponse Information andTraining RequirementsXHazardous WasteDisposalHazardous MaterialTransportation30 TAC 350.36 – Relocation of Soils ContainingChemicals ofConcern forReuse PurposesXStaging40 CFR Part 264.554– Staging PilesXSolidification andStabilizationTemporaryUnits40 CFR Part 264.553– TemporaryUnitsX40 CFR Part 141–National PrimaryDrinkingWater StandardsX40 CFR Part 300.440– Procedures for Planning andImplementing Off-site Response ActionsXEPA Region 6 Human Health Medium-specific ScreeningLevelsXMonitored NaturalAttenuationGround WaterMonitoring30 TAC 350.33(f) – Institutional ControlsX30TABLE 1 (Continued)ACTIVITY-SPECIFIC ARARSMDI SUPERFUND SITE,HOUSTON, TEXASOPERABLEUNIT 1Notes:ARARApplicableorRelevantandAppropriateRequirementRCRAResource ConservationandRecoveryActTACTexas AdministrativeCodeTBCTobeconsideredCFRCodeofFederalRegulationsTPDESTexasPollutant Discharge EliminationSystemEPAU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgencyUSTUnderground storage tank31

### The Texas UST regulation s contained in 30 TAC 33 4 ( d) are ess entially identical to the federal regulations

contained in 40 CFR Part 280. 64. Addi tional regul ati ons set forth i n 30 TAC 350.33(f)(4)(E)( i-iv)

require the achieve m e nt of performance criteria for N A PLs and are potential state ARA R s.

2.3.4

. 3 Managem e nt of Rem e dia t ion Wastes

The following regulations are potential action-speci fic ARARs reg a rding m a nag e m e nt of remediation

waste s

.

Soil Excavat ion

Soil cuttings/waste and water generated in the course of excavating soils, installing sheet piling, and

installing m onitoring wells are subject to the hazar dous wast e deter m ination require m ents to deter m ine

whether such wastes would be classified as hazar dous (30 TAC 335.504). Soil e x cavation activities will

occur within a discrete boundar y identifi e d as the area of contam ination (AOC). As long as th e m a terial

rem a ins insid e the AOC, it is not newl y generated a nd will not be s ubject to hazardous waste generator,

treatment, or other waste management requirem e nts. Shoul d the material be moved ou tside the AOC, the

substantive requirements for managi ng hazardous waste (including land di sposal restrictions) would be

applicable.

Off-site Disp osal

The regulatio ns im plementing the land d i sposal restri c tions (LDR), including applicable LDR t r eat ment

standards at 30 TAC 335.431 are also ARARs for the off-s ite disposal of hazard ous waste. Standards for

waste charact erization and standards for generators of hazardous waste with respect to reporting and

manifesting when transporting hazardous waste may be found in 30 TA C 335.61 through 335.70.

• The MDI site contains a large volum e of nonhazar dous debris and de m o lition wast es that will be

rem oved and disposed of off site prior to redevelopment. Th e nonhazardous waste will need to

be classifi ed and disposed of in accordance with the applicable regulations at 30 TAC 330.

• Off-site disposal of CERCLA wast e (including i nvestigation-derived waste/purge water) will

need to com p ly with EPA’s Off-site Rule (40 CFR Part 300. 440) a nd with all current federal and state regulations for transport of waste to the receiving facility

.

• The regulatio ns under the Hazardous Material s Transportation La w (49 U.S. Code §§ 510 1- 5127) govern the transport of hazardous materi al s. 49 CFR Parts 171-172 are applicable to the off-site transport of wastes fro m the MDI site. 30 TAC 350.36 codifies additional requirem e nts pertaining to the relocation of so ils conta i ning chem ic als of concer n for reuse purposes and may be a pote n tial state acti on-specific A R AR.

• 40 CFR Part 61, Su bpart M regulates the identifica tion, han d ling

, and disposal of ACM and is applicable to the off-site disposal of the ACM wastes from the MDI site.

32

### • Wastew ater i n pits at the MDI site contains PCBs. TSCA and its im plementing regulations

found at 40 C F R Part 761 might be appl icable to the disposal of P CB-contam in ated

waste w ate r at the MDI site. Under TSCA, water cont aining m o re t h an 3 μ g/L of PCBs m a y not be disp osed of in a p u b licly -owned t r eatme nt works. 40 CFR Part 761.6 0 p r ovides for th e disposal of P CB-containing liqui ds dep e nding on the concentration of PCBs in the liquid.

Soil Washin g and S o il St abiliz ation/Solidification

The hazardous wast e regulations for cor r ective action are relevant and appropria te to the on-si te treat ment

of contam inat ed soil. Pote ntial federal action-specifi c ARAR s for on-site treat ment of contaminated soils

are contained in 40 CFR Part 264.554, which allows relief fro m L D Rs for tem p orary storage (less than 2

y ears) of remediation waste on contig uo us propert y

. Phy s ical operations such as m i xing, sieving,

blending, etc. that are intended to prepare wast es for subsequent m a nagem e nt or treatment are allowed to

occur in staging piles, regardless of whether it technically m eets the RCRA definition of treatment.

Under 40 CF R Part 264.5 5 4 , the foll owing regulatio n s are potential action-specific ARARs:

• 40 CFR Part 264. 554(d)( 1 ) – requires the standards and design crit eria to facilitate a reliable, effective, and protective remedy ; prevent or m i ni m i ze releases of hazardous wastes and

hazardous constituents int o the environment; and m i nim i ze or adequately contr o l cross- m e di a transfer as ne cess ary to protect human health and the environm ent. It also requires that the

re m e dy not operate for m o re than 2 y ears excep t when granted an operating ter m extension.

• 40 CFR Part 264. 554(d)( 2 ) – requires consideration of the following factors when setting standards and design criteria: length of t i m e th e pile will be in ope ration, vol umes of wastes planned for storage in the pile, phy s ical and chem ic al c h aracteristi cs of the wastes to be stored in the unit, potential for release s fro m the unit, hydrogeological and other relevant

environm ental conditions at the facility t h at may influence the m i gration of any potential releases, and potential for hum an and environm ental exposure to p o tential releases fro m the

unit.

• 40 CFR Part 264.554(g)

– placing hazardous remedi ation wastes into a staging pile does not constitute land disposal of hazardous wastes or create a unit that is s ubject to the mini m u m technological requirem e nts of RCRA 3004(o).

• 40 CFR Part 264. 554(h)

– allows a staging pile t o ope rate for up to 2 y ears.

• 40 CFR Part 264. 554(i)

– allows a 180-day ex tension of the 2- y ear operating ter m

.

• 40 CFR Part 264. 554(j) – r e quires closure of the staging pile withi n 180 da y s after operating

term by rem o ving or decon t am inating all re m e diation waste, conta m inated contain m ent

sy stem co m p onents, structures and equipment c ontaminated with waste and leachate, and any

contam inated subsoils.

• State air pollution reg u lations un der 30 TAC 106.53 3 may be appli cable to potential air

e m is sions from the tr eat me nt of soil. These per m it-by-rule regulations address potential air

em issions dur ing rem e diation activities and establish allowable e m is sions for specific

contam inants.

33

### Backfilling at Site with Treated Soil

Successful treat m ent of the hazardous soils will cons ist of addressing the LDR treat m e nt standards and

eli m ination of the hazardous toxicit y characteristic. Having achieved bot h, the materi al will no longer be

subject to RCRA hazardous wast e requirem e nts during sub sequent management of the treated soils either

on or off site. In the event that the treated soil is re tur n ed to the site , it will be m a naged in a m a nner that

precludes direct contact by receptors. This may be acco m p lished by using a soil cover, or poss i bly by

burial under roadway s . IC s such as deed notices as described in 30 TAC 350.111(f) will also be required



### . Depending upon t h e ultimate disposition of the waste, e ngineering controls such as fencing and signs m a y

also be neces sary

.

Tem p orary Storage of N A PL

Potential action-specific A R ARs for the te m porary st orage of recovered NAPL are contained in 40 CFR

Part 280. Be cause it has n o t been determined that the NAPL meet s the definition of a RCRA hazardous

waste, these regulations m a y not be appli cable until a final determ ination is m a d e . However, using the

relevant and appropriate criteria listed in 40 CFR Part 300.400(g)( 2 )

, it has been deter m ined that these

regulations are relevant and appropr iate. Potential state action-spec ific ARAR s a r e codified in 30 TAC

334.85, whic h discusses requirements for the ma nagement of wast es fro m UST releases.

2.3.4

. 4 On-site Trea tm ent of Co ntam inated Soil

Potential federal action-specific ARARs for on-site tr eat m e nt of conta m inated soi l s are contained in 40

CFR Part 264.554, which allows relief fr om LDRs for tem porary st orage (less than 2 y ears) of

rem e diation waste on contiguous proper t y. Ph y s ical operations su ch as m i xing, sizing, blend i ng, etc. that

are intended to prepare wastes for subsequent m a nageme nt or treat ment are allo wed to occur in staging

piles, regardless of whether it technically m e ets the R CRA definition of treatm e nt . The regulations found

in 40 CFR Pa rt 264.554 as described previousl y also a ppl y

.

2.3.4.5 Temporary Storage of R ecovered N A P L

Potential action-specific A R ARs for the te m porary st orage of recovered NAPL are contained in 40 CFR

Part 280. Be cause it has n o t been determined that the NAPL meet s the definition of a RCRA hazardous

waste, these regulations m a y not be appli cable until a final determ ination is m a d e . However, using the

relevant and appropriate criteria listed in 40 CFR Part 300.400(g)( 2 )

, it has been deter m ined that these

regulations are relevant and appropr iate. Potential state action-spec ific ARAR s a r e codified in 30 TAC

334.85, whic h discusses requirements for the ma nagement of wast es fro m UST releases.

34

### 2.3.4.6 Ground Water Monitoring in Support of MNA Remedy

• RCRA ground water m onitoring requirements found i n 40 CFR Par t 264 m a y be relevant and appropriate for the MNA rem e dy if hazardous constit uents in ground water are si m ilar or

identical to RCRA waste.

2.3.4

. 7 Control of Air Em issions

The following regulations are potential action-specifi c ARARs reg a rding treatment and contr o l of air

em issions related primaril y to asbestos RAs:

• 30 TAC 111.145 regulates air polluti on from visible sources and particulate m a tt er.

• Occupational Safety and H ealth Ad m i nistra tion regul ation 29 CFR Part 1910 .10 01 requiri ng worker protection m e asures for engineeri ng cont r o ls, worker training, labeling

, bagging of waste, and respiratory prot ection with a pe rm issible exposure level of 0.2 fiber/cubic

centim e ter (f/cc). 29 CFR Part 1926. 58 requires worker protection measures for all

construction work involvi ng asbestos, incl uding demolition and renovations and requires respiratory pr otection with a perm issible exposure level of 0. 2 f/cc.

• U.S. Department of Transp ortation regul ation 49 CFR Parts 171 an d 17 2 regulat es the transportation of asbestos-c ontaining waste m a teri al an d requires wa ste contain m e n t and shipping doc umentation.

• The Texas Asbestos Health Protection Act codified in Chapter 1954 of the Texas Occupations Code requires specific regula tions relating to asbestos abate m ent.

• TCEQ has est ablished Effects Screening Leve ls (ESL) for asbestos with a short-term exposure level of 0. 03 m i crogram per cu bic meter.

2.3.5 To Be Considered

In addition to ARARs, the pream b le to the NCP pr ovi des agency advisories, criteria, or other “TBC

guidance in helping to determ ine what is protective at a site or how to carry out c e rtain actions or

requirem e nts” (55 Federal Register 8666 , 874 5, dated March 9, 199 0). The pream ble to the NCP states,

however, that provisio n s in the TBC categor y “shoul d not be require d as cleanup standards because they

are, by definition, generally neither promulgated nor e n forceable, s o the y do not have the sa me status

under CERCLA as do ARARs.”

EPA Region 6 MSSLs (EPA 2003) f o r t a p water are TBCs for those co m pounds detected that do not have

prom ulgated federal standards for grou n d water. The mediu m -specific levels have been developed at the

10 -6 

### risk level

. This corresponds t o the point of de pa rture level for establishing prelim inary r e m e diation

goals.

35

### The Texas Risk Reduction Program Rule (30 TAC 35 0) is also a TBC. The HH RA wa s used to evaluate

the risks posed b y site COPCs and m a y also be used to establish appropriate cleanup levels for

contam inants in soil (Tetra Tech 2003d)

.

2.4 GEN E RA L RESPONSE ACTI O NS

GRAs are me dium -spe cific actions capa b le of achieving the RAOs. GRAs for remediation at

conventional Superfund sit es may inclu d e actions such as treatment, containm en t, separation, extraction,

disposal, collection, ICs, or a co m b ination of th ese and other general actions. EPA presu m p tive re m e dy

guidance establishes treatment and/or co ntainment of conta m inated media as the GRA for m e t a ls-in-soils

sites (EPA 1999). Treatment can be combined with ot her appropria te general act ions to accomplish the

RAOs. To acco m p lish the RAO for ground water, th e m i gration of the contam inants may be m onitored to

assess off-site m i gration or natural attenuation. Conse quently , GR As may include treat m e nt,

containment, reduction/separation, dispo sal, extractio n, m onitoring , and ICs.

36

### 3.0 IDEN TIFI C A TI ON OF TEC HN OL OG IES

EPA developed presu m p tive re m e die s based on info rmation acquired from evalu a ting and remediating

certain cat egories of sites with sim ilar contam in ants to accel erate cleanups at Superfund sites.

“Presu m p tive re m e die s are preferred tech nologies or re sponse actions for sites wit h sim i l a r

characteristics” (EPA 1999 ). EPA has developed pr esum p tive remedies for metals-in-soils sites and

presu m p tive response strateg y and ex sit u

treatm e nt t echnolo g ies for contam inated groun d water. The use

of presum p tive remedies is expected to expedite th e remedy selection process by li m iting the available

alternatives c onsidered for the FS. The presu m p tiv e re m e die s adva nce the FS process directly to the

detailed analysis of alternatives (EPA 1999).

The presu m p tive re m e dies for sites wher e m e tal s -in-s o ils sites are principal thre ats are

reclamation/recovery or imm obilization. The presu m p tive rem e dy f o r low-level threat wastes found at

metal s -in-soils sites is cont ain m ent. In keepi ng with E P A’s goal of resource conservation, EP A’s

preferred treatm ent technolog y for m e tals-in-soil sites is reclamatio n/recovery (E PA 1999). As requested

by EPA, excavation and di sposal will also be consid ered. The presum p tive remedies for treating ground

water contaminated with metals include chem ic al precipitation, i on exchange/adsorption

, and

electrochemical m e thods (EPA 1999).

Potential technologies have been develop e d for treatment , containment, or disp osal of contam inated soil

and for recov e ry /treatment or m onitoring of contam inated grou nd w a ter. The NCP requires developm ent

of a range of alternatives t h at address principal threat s posed by the site, but that vary in the degree of

treat ment employ ed and the quantities and characteristics of untreated wastes that m u st be managed. The

technologies t o be evaluated are:

• Technology 1 – Soil Washi ng/Leaching

• Technology 2 – Soli dification/Stabilization

• Technolog y 3 – Containm ent

• Technolog y 4 – On-site Disposal

• Technology 5 – Off-site Disposal

• Technolog y 6 – ICs

• Technolog y 7 – MNA

37

### Although ICs have been listed as a techn o log y that sh ould be evaluated on its ow n m e rit, successful

i m plem entati on of several of the remedies detailed in later sections will re quire incorporation and

im plem entation of ICs.

3.1 TEC HN OL OG Y 1 – SOIL WAS H IN G/LE ACH I N G

Soil washing is an ex situ rem e diation technolog y that uses phy s ical separation and aqueous-ba sed

separation to reduce contaminant concentrations. Soil washing do es not detoxif y or significa ntl y alter the

contam inant. The technolo g y transfers the cont am inant from the soil into t h e washing flui d or

concentrates t h e contam inant into a sm al ler m a ss for subsequent treat m e nt (EPA 1999). The process

involves (1) e x cavation of t h e contam inated soil, (2) m echanical screening to rem ove oversized materials,

(3) separation processes to generate coar se-and fine-gra ined fractions, (4) treat m e nt of those fractions

(soil washing), and (5) m a nagem e nt of the generate d residuals. It is a separation and vol um e reduction

process that is used typically in conjunct i on with othe r technologie s (EPA 1999)

.

Soils equal to or greater than acti on levels will be excavated and stoc kpiled for tr eat ment. Contam inants

tend to bind c h em ically and phy s icall y t o clay and silt particles. The silt and clay, in tur n , tend to attach

phy s ically to sand and gravel. Clay and silt particl es and surficial contam inants are first separated from

the sand and gravel through an abrasive scouring and scrubbing action in a step t h at uses wash water. The

soil is then separated fro m the spent was h ing flui d, w h ich carries s o me of the conta m inants. The

recovered soil consists of a clean, coarse fraction ( sand and gravel) and a contaminated fine fraction (silt

and clay ). After succe ssful testing, the washed soil is returned to the site. The bulk of the conta m inants

are contained in the aqueous phase and in the cont aminated fines. These materi als would undergo

stabilization/solidification, and be dispos ed of off site. Becaus e of the fine-grained nature of the

sedim ents at the MDI site, this technolog y would not b e cost-effective. Consequ e ntly, it is n o t being

retained for further analy s is.

3.2 TECHNOLOGY 2 – SOLIDI F I CAT I ON/ST A BILIZ A TION

This technology entails excavating and i mmobiliz ing the contam in ants present in the surface and

subsurface so ils. Solidific ation/stabilization technol og y will be used to process the contam i n ated soil.

The stabilizat ion pr ocess is beneficial and will achieve the desired eli m ination of the hazardous toxicit y

characteristic by elim inating or ot herwise significan tly m itigating the m obility of the lead within the

excavated soi l s. Typical stabilization reagents are ce ment kiln dust, proprietar y agents, cem e nt, fl y ash,

blast furnace slag, and bitumen. The rea g ents ar e sele c ted based on soil characte r istics and the metal

contam inants present. Once the on-site contam inated soils are m i xed with the stabilization reagents, the

soils will be disposed of on site or off si te, w ith the location dictated by redevelopment plans.

38

### Soils equal to or greater than acti on levels will be excavated and stoc kpiled for tr eat ment. The soils will

be staged in t h e northwest corner of the site, wher e th e contractor will perform soil stabilization. T h e

waste soil will be stabilized such that resultant m e t a ls concentrations are below T C LP requirements set in

40 CFR Part 261. 24 and L D R requirements set forth in 40 CFR Pa rt 268. 34(e)(1 ).

3.3 TEC HN OL OGY 3 – CONTAI NMEN T

This technolo g y consists of containm ent of metals -in-soils wastes along with vertical or horizo n tal

barriers. These remedial technologies can provide sust ained isolation of contam i n ants and can prevent

m obilization of soluble com pounds over long periods of tim e. They also reduce surface water infiltration,

control o dor and gas em issions, pro v ide a stable surface over wastes, lim it direct contact, and i m prove

aesthetic s. Containm ent may also restrict the futu re us es of the site. ICs are gener a lly used in

conjunction with containment to further li m it the potential for unintended access to the was t e m a teri als

(EPA 1999).

Horizontal barriers or caps mini m i ze the infiltration of water through the contam i n ated media as well as

exposure to potential receptors. Vertical barriers m i ni mize the m o v e m e nt of contam inated ground water

off site or limit the flow of uncontam inated groun d wa ter on site. Common vertical barriers include slurr y

walls in exca vated trenches, grout curtains formed by injecting grout into soil bor ings, and she e t pile

walls. For the MDI site, sheet piling is appropriate, g i ven the shallow depth to t h e top of the aquitard

beneath the SWBZ (less th an 30 feet bgs ).

The high gro und water table and transmissive nature of sediments, especially near the north p ond wou l d

require a pressure relief sy stem (ground water extracti on s y stem ) to be installed if vertical barriers are

installed to pr event m ounding of t h e shallow groun d w a ter.

An on-site cell would need to be constructed over low-perm eability na tive soils, and not t h e foundr y sand

fill material s. For planning purposes, it has been assu med that the cell will extend to 3 feet bgs, and be

co m p leted approxim a tely 3 feet above ground surface. It is anticipated that a cell with such ve rtical

dimensions will cover a footprint of appr oxim a tely 300 feet by 300 feet. Depending upon t h e ultim ate

redevelopme n t plan, possible locations include the so uthwest corner of the site and along the eastern

fence line west of the National Vinegar facility . Im plem entation of this technol ogy will also require the

im plem entation of ICs in o r der to be pro t ective.

Much of the c ontam inated s o il at the site is overlain b y 12 to 18 i n ch es of concrete. This concrete acts as

an effective barrier to infiltration. Given the low so lubilit y of the concrete, the soils beneath the concrete

do n o t pose a significant risk as long as t h e concrete is not dist urbed

. In the event that contam inated soils

39

### are left in place beneath the concrete, an IC woul d be required to ensure that these soils re main

undisturbed, and that any r e m oval of the concre te wo uld trigger additional cleanup requirem e nts.

3.4 TEC HN OL OG Y 4 – ON-SITE DISP OSAL

Soils will be t r eated in acco rdance to alternative tr eat ment standards as described i n 40 CFR Par t 268.49

(c)(1)(C). Treated soils may be left on site in th e event that conta m inant levels no longer constitute a

characteristically hazardous wast e as def i ned in 40 CFR Part 261.24 and m e et the LDRs set in 40 CFR

Part 268.34(e)(1). Because the soils w ill retain their original total lead concentrations, the treated soils

m

u st be returned to the site in a m a nner t h at will m itig ate direct exposure to residential receptors. This

may include placement under roadway s or in an area underlain wit h low-permeabilit y soils, a nd then

covered with a clean fill soil cover. Exc a vated areas on site will be backfilled with clean fill that has been

brought on sit e fro m an off-site source. Ground water m onitoring will be performed with this alternative

to m onitor the m i gration of contam inati on in t h e gr ound water. Implem entation of this technology will

also require the im plementation of ICs i n order to be protective.

3.5 TEC HN OL OG Y 5 – OFF-SITE DIS P OSAL

Soils will be treated in acco rdance with alternative treat m ent standar d s as described in 40 CFR Part

268.49 (c)(1) ( C), with resultant con centrations below levels that would result in c l assification as a

hazardous waste for toxicity established in 40 CFR Pa rt 261.24. Si nce soils at MDI were only hazardous

per toxicit y a nd will be tre a ted below the TCLP lim it for definition as a hazardous waste, they may be

disposed of i n a Subtitle D landfill. Pri o r to disposal a t a Subtitle D landfill, the s o ils will be sam pl ed and

analy zed to e n sure that hazardous constit uents are not present at concentrations above their respective

Universal Tre a t m ent Standards (UTS), as listed in 40 CFR Part 268 .48.

Excavated ar eas on site wi ll be backfilled with clean fill that has been brought on site fro m an off-site

source. Ground water m onitoring will be perform ed with this alternative to m onitor the m i gration of

contam ination in the ground water. Im plem en tation of this technol ogy will also require the

im plem entation of ICs in o r der to be pro t ective.

3.6 TECHNOLOGY 6 – IN STITUT ION A L CONTR O LS

ICs are non-engineered instruments such as ad m i nist rative and/or le gal controls t h at m i nim i ze the

potential for hum an exposure to contamination by li miting land or resource use. The y are meant to

supplement engineering controls and m a y be a n ecessary com ponent of the com p leted rem e d y (EPA

2000b). ICs may be requir e d to m itigate the risk asso ciated with exposure to gr ound water and treated

40

### soils, if left o n site. Of th e four t y pes o f ICs (governmental controls, proprie tary controls, en forcem ent

and perm it to ols with IC com ponents, and inf o rm a tio nal devices), inform ational devices are most likel y

appropriate for the site. An exam ple of an inform a tio nal device is a deed notice. As defined in 30 TAC

350. 4(a)(22) a deed notice is:

An instrum e n t filed in the r eal property r ecord s of the count y where the affected propert y is located that is intended to provide to owne rs, prospective bu y e rs, an d others notic e and

inform ation regarding, but which does not, by it self, restrict use of the affected property

.

The State of Texas would be responsibl e for the im plem entation and enforcement of ICs (EP A 2000b)

and has the authorit y to do so under 30 TAC 350.33( f). In additi on to deed noti ces, engineeri ng contr o ls

such as soil covers, fencing, and signs, may also be required to eli m inate or m i nim i ze the potential for

direct exposure to contam inants.

3.7 TEC HN OL OGY 7 – MONI TORED NATU RAL ATTE NUA T I ON

Natural atten u ation is defi ned in the NC P as “biodegr adation, dispe r sion, dilu tio n, and adsorp tion” of

contam inants in ground wat e r. Natural at tenuati on diff ers fro m the “No Action” Alternative because

natural attenuation has a monitoring com ponent and is expected to atta in cleanup levels in a reasonable

timeframe. Natural attenuation m a y be an appropriate rem e dial approach for porti ons of the co ntam inant

plum e when co m b ined with other rem e d i al m e a s ures n eeded to control and/or re mediate sourc e area s.

Per m anence m onitoring should be perf ormed with na tural attenuation to assure natural attenuation is

occurring, an d ICs should be im plemented with natur a l attenuation to ensure that contam inated grou nd

water is not used before protective concentrations are achieved (EPA 1999).

In order to as sess the viabi lit y of MNA as a remedial technology at the MDI site, lim it ed ground water

m odeling was performed using existing d a ta fro m the RI (Appendix A). The screening-level model

BIOSCREE N Version 1.4 ( EPA 1997a) was used to a ssess the m i g r ation of the PAHs, benzo(a)py rene,

and dibenzo( a,h)anthracene fro m the MDI s ite via the ground water pathway

.

The BIOSCR EEN si m u lati on results that show concentrations of b e nzo(a)py ren e and

dibenzo(a,h)anthracene continue to pose a risk for ve ry short distances bey ond the source are a after both

30 y ears and 100 y ears. T h e concentrations of these COPCs decrease sharpl y with distance from the

source areas, which is consistent with the current distribution of these constituents within the SWBZ

(note, no PAHs have been detected in d o wngrad ient m onitoring well MW-02). This suggests that the

PAHs present at MW-03 are primarily sorbed ont o th e porous m e dia with onl y li mited partitioning of the

contam inants into gr ound water occurri ng at the site.

41

### Based on field data, both hydrological and chem ic al, and reasonable esti m ates of variables of fate and

transport of b e nzo(a)py ren e and dibenzo ( a,h)anthrace ne in the SWBZ, a threat of contam inati on m u ch

beyond the so urce area is not likel y t o oc cur. The action of m onitor i ng the shallo w aquifer for

benzo(a)py re ne and dibenz o(a,h)anthracene that c ould originate from the PA H source re mai n ing in the

shallow soil o r the SWBZ, with no ot her action on the solute plum e, should be su fficiently prot ective of

the ground w a ter resource outside the source area at MW-03 and off site. Im plem entation of this

technology will also require the im plementa tion of IC s in order to be protective.

3.8 SCREE N IN G OF TE CHNOL O GIES

The previousl y listed technologies were screen ed in te rm s of general effectiveness, im plem entabilit y and

relative cost based on site conditions. T h is screeni ng is su mmarized in Table 2. Of the technologies

screen ed, onl y soil washing was deemed inappr opriate for the MDI site. Use of this technolo g y results in

washing of the coarse fr act ion of the sedi m ents, with cont a m inants confined to the finer grained m a t e rials.

Unfortunately, at the MDI site, with the exception of lo calized san dy fill m a teri als, the surface deposits at

MDI are pri m arily fi ne grained, consisting of silts a nd clay s. Because of this, the technology is likel y to

be ineffective.

42TABLE 2EVALUATION OFREMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIESMDI SUPERFUND SITE,HOUSTON, TEXASOPERABLEUNIT 1GeneralResponseAction1RemedialTechnologyTypeProcess OptionMediaAddressedEffectivenessImplementabilityCostScreeningStatusPhysicalSeparationSoil WashingSoilMaynotbe abletoachieveRAOs using this technology;hasanunknownremovalefficiency; reduces toxicity ofthe waste.Not technically feasible; soilscontain more than 60percentfines;equipmentandresourcesreadily availableHighRejectedTreatmentSolidification/Stabilization(Immobilization)Solidification/StabilizationSoilAble toachieve RAOsusingthis technology; reduceswastemobility; minimizesshort-termimpacts; affords long-termprotection.Simpletechnologywithhighthroughput; equipment andresources readilyavailableModeratetoHighRetainedOn-site DisposalSoilreturnedtosite and placed ineither acontainment cellwithlowpermeability coverorbeneatharoadwaytomitigateexposure.SoilAble toachieve RAOs inconjunction withtreatment;treatmentwill result in removalofRCRA hazardous wastecharacteristic; treated soil maybeusedasfill material onsite.Simpletechnologywithhighthroughput; equipment andresources readilyavailableModerateRetainedDisposalOff-site DisposalRCRA Subtitle DLandfillSoilAble toachieve RAOs inconjunction withtreatment;reduces thevolume ofwaste;minimizes residualrisk; affordslong-termprotection.Simpletechnologywithhighthroughput; equipment andresources readilyavailableModeratetoHighRetained43TABLE 2 (Continued)EVALUATION OFREMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIESMDI SUPERFUND SITE,HOUSTON, TEXASOPERABLEUNIT 1GeneralResponseAction1RemedialTechnologyTypeProcess OptionMediaAddressedEffectivenessImplementabilityCostScreeningStatusContainmentPhysicalContainment/CappingSoil/Clay Cap/Concrete3Soil andGroundWaterAble toachieve RAOsusingthistechnologyinconjunctionwith treatment; reduceswastemobility; minimizesshort-termimpacts; affords long-termprotection.Simple technology;implementationtime isrelativelyshort;equipmentand resourcesreadily availableLow toModerateRetainedMonitoredNaturalAttenuationGroundWaterMonitoringGroundWaterMonitoringGroundWaterProvides a measureofnaturaldegradationprocesses; does notmeet RAOswithoutimplementationofinstitutionalcontrols.Simpletechnologyrequiringroutineground water samplingfor standardchemical analytesLowRetainedInstitutionalControlsNot Applicable2Deed NoticeSoil andGroundWaterProvides a measureof short andlong-termprotection;restrictssite access; provideswarning.Simpletechnology;rapidimplementation;equipmentand resourcesreadily availableLow toModerateRetainedNotes:1Several ofthegeneral response actionslistedin column1must becombined inorderforaparticularremedytomeet remedialactionobjectives. Containment, on-sitedisposal, andmonitorednatural attenuationwill all requirethe implementationofinstitutional controls inthe formofdeednotices toensure that exposure togroundwateror contaminatedsoil is minimized.2An institutional control isnota remedial technology.It isused inconjunctionwith aremedial technology to minimize exposureto acontaminated media.3In the event that contaminated soils beneath concrete are left inplace(Alternative5), theexisting concrete will serve asa cap and can meetRAOs.RAO RemedialactionobjectiveRCRAResource ConservationandRecoveryAct44

### 4.0 C O MPAR ATI V E A N A LY SI S O F ALTER NA TIVES

Alternatives were developed to address the RAOs wit h in an acceptable ti m e fra me. These al ternatives

were for m ulated so that the resulting site will be useful for residential purposes. As well, the r a nge

includes alternatives that, to the m a xim u m extent feasible, m i nim i ze th e need for long-term managem e nt.

The No Action Alternative has been retai n ed as a basel ine for com p a r ison, as required by the N C P.

Technologies identified in the presum p tive rem e dy gu id ance were d e tailed in Section 3. The r e m a ining

soil and gro u nd water technologies (alo ng with No A c ti on as required b y the N C P) have been com b ined

in the foll owing remedial alternatives:

Alternative 1 – No Action

Alternative 2 – Soil Stabilization/Soli dification with On -site Disposal; Ground Wat e r via MNA with ICs

Alternative 3 – Soil Stabilization/Soli dification with Off-site Disposal; Ground Wa ter via MNA with ICs

Alternative 4 – Soil Contain m ent; Ground Water via MNA with ICs

Alternative 5- Solidification/Stabilization and O ff-site Disposal of Soils in Unpaved Areas; Gr ound

Water via MNA with ICs

Each of these alternatives i s detailed in the followi ng sections. Costs associat ed with im ple m e n ting each

of these alter n atives have been developed and included as Appendix B of this FS report. One of the ke y

elements in preparing the FS report is evaluating how each of the alternatives will co m p ly with ARARs.

This evaluation has been summari zed in Table 3.

4.1 EVAL UAT I O N C R ITE R IA

This section presents the criteria used to evaluate the potentiall y applicable rem e dial technologies and

su mmarizes those technolo g ies that satisfied the criteria. NCP and SARA provid e basic criteria for

screening technologies. T h ese criteri a are effectiveness, i m plementabilit y , and c o st. Using the elements

of the effectiveness criteri on, each technology is ev aluated and com p ared am on g sim i l a r tech nologies.

Alternatives that provi de significantl y le ss effectiv eness than other m o re prom ising technol ogi es are

eli m inated.

45TABLE 3SUMMARY OFARARSMDI SUPERFUND SITE,HOUSTON, TEXASOPERABLEUNIT 1ALTERNATIVE12345ARARNoActionSolidification/Stabilization withOn-site Disposal;Ground WaterviaMNA with InstitutionalControlsSolidification/Stabilization withOff-siteDisposal;Ground WaterviaMNA with InstitutionalControlsContainment withInstitutional ControlsSolidification/Stabilization andOff-siteDisposalofSoilsinUnpavedAreas;GroundWaterviaMNA with InstitutionalControlsChemical-Specific ARARsfor SoilsLead:30TAC350.– TexasRiskReductionRule(TBC)--Residual leadconcentrationsinsoilsoutside of disposalareatobebelow500mg/kgResidual leadconcentrationsinsoils tobe below 500 mg/kgSoils to bestabilizedtominimize migrationResidual leadconcentrationsinsoilstobebelow500mg/kg inexcavatedareas.NAPL/PAHs: 30TAC334SubchapterDdiscussesrequirements for correctiveaction andthemanagementofwastesfromUSTreleases30TAC334.55discussespermanentremovalformservice ofabandoned USTs(Non-CERCLA)--NAPL tobe removedfromsiteduringexcavation;UST on sitewas notproperlyabandoned,and mustberemoved.NAPL removed fromsiteduringexcavation;UST onsite wasnotproperlyabandoned,andmustbe removed.NAPL tobe removed fromsiteduringexcavation;UST onsite wasnotproperlyabandoned,andmustbe removed.NAPL tobe removed fromsiteduringexcavation;USTonsitewasnotproperly abandoned, andmust beremoved.Chemical-Specific ARARsfor GroundWater40CFR Part141 – NationalPrimary DrinkingWaterStandards for PAHs(Relevant and Appropriate)--PAHs below MCLs;water qualitymeasuredat former waste locationand downgradienttoassess MNA.PAHs below MCLs;water qualitymeasuredat former waste locationand downgradienttoassess MNA.PAHs below MCLs;waterquality measuredatformerwaste locationanddowngradienttoassessMNA.PAHs below MCLs;water qualitymeasured at former waste locationand downgradienttoassess MNA.46TABLE 3 (Continued)SUMMARY OFARARSMDI SUPERFUND SITE,HOUSTON, TEXASOPERABLEUNIT 1ALTERNATIVE12345ARARLocation-Specific ARARs40CFRPart6– FloodplainorWetlandEnvironments(Applicable)--NA at MDI site; site isnotwithinfloodplainorwetlands.NA at MDI site; site isnotwithinfloodplainorwetlands.NA at MDI site; site is notwithinfloodplainorwetlands.NA at MDI site; site is notwithinfloodplainorwetlands.EndangeredSpeciesAct(Applicable)--NAat MDI site; noendangeredspeciespresentNAat MDI site; noendangeredspeciespresentNAat MDI site; noendangeredspeciespresentNAatMDI site;noendangeredspecies present.National HistoricPreservationAct(Applicable)--NAat MDI site; nohistoricstructurespresentNAat MDI site; nohistoricstructurespresentNAat MDI site; nohistoricstructures presentNAatMDI site;nohistoricstructurespresent.Archaeological andHistoricPreservationAct(Applicable)--NAat MDI site; noarcheological orhistoricrelics identifiedNAat MDI site; noarcheological orhistoricrelics identifiedNAat MDI site; noarcheological orhistoricrelics identifiedNA at MDI site; no archeological orhistoric relicsidentified.Activity-Specific ARARs40CFR Part61,Subpart M,designates NationalEmission Standardsforasbestos and establishesprocedures for asbestosemission controlduringdemolitionand renovationactivities.(Applicable)--Will meet via properemission controls, suchas wettingandleak-tightwrapping, asappropriate, duringremoval activities.Will meet via properemission controls, suchas wettingandleak-tightwrapping, asappropriate,duringremovalactivities.Will meet via properemission controls, suchaswettingandleak-tightwrapping, asappropriate,duringremovalactivities.Will meet via proper emissioncontrols, suchas wettingandleaktightwrapping,as appropriate, duringremoval activities.NoActionSolidification/Stabilization withOn-site Disposal;Ground WaterviaMNA with InstitutionalControlsSolidification/Stabilization withOff-siteDisposal;Ground WaterviaMNA with InstitutionalControlsContainment withInstitutional ControlsSolidification/Stabilization andOff-siteDisposalofSoilsinUnpavedAreas;GroundWaterviaMNA with InstitutionalControls47TABLE 3 (Continued)SUMMARY OFARARSMDI SUPERFUND SITE,HOUSTON, TEXASOPERABLEUNIT 1ALTERNATIVE12345ARARActivity-Specific ARARs(Continued)40CFR Part261 –Identification and Listing ofHazardousWaste--Wastes for on-sitedisposaltobetestedusing TCLPprior todisposalWastes for off-sitedisposaltobetestedusing TCLPprior todisposalNAWastesforoff-site disposal tobetestedusing TCLP prior to disposal.40CFR Part262 –Standards ApplicabletoGenerators of HazardousWaste(Applicable)--NARCRA standardsfor theidentification andmanifesting ofhazardouswastes to befollowed, ifrequired.NARCRA standardsfor the identificationandmanifestingofhazardouswastestobefollowed, if required.40CFR Part264.554–StagingPiles(Relevant and Appropriate)--Stagingpiles willbedelineated, managed,and closedinaccordancewiththe substantiverequirements.Stagingpiles willbedelineated, managed,andclosed in accordancewiththe substantiverequirements.NAStagingpiles willbedelineated,managed,andclosedinaccordancewiththe substantiverequirements.40CFR Part268 – LandDisposalRestrictions(See each alternativeforARAR determination)--Relevantandappropriatefor the testingofstabilized wastes tobedisposedofonsite.Applicable for off-sitedisposalofwastes tobetestedviaTCLP prior todisposal; disposal at apermittedlandfill.NAApplicablefor off-sitedisposalofwastes to betestedvia TCLPprior todisposal;disposalata permittedlandfill.40CFR Part280,30TAC334.SubtitlesC andD--This cleanupwilladdressUSTwastes inaccordance withFederaland State requirements.This cleanupwilladdressUSTwastes inaccordance withFederaland State requirements.This cleanupwill addressUST wastesin accordancewithFederal and Staterequirements.This cleanupwill addressUSTwastes in accordancewith Federaland State requirements.NoActionSolidification/Stabilization withOn-site Disposal;Ground WaterviaMNA with InstitutionalControlsSolidification/Stabilization withOff-siteDisposal;Ground WaterviaMNA with InstitutionalControlsContainment withInstitutional ControlsSolidification/Stabilization andOff-siteDisposalofSoilsinUnpavedAreas;GroundWaterviaMNA with InstitutionalControls48TABLE 3 (Continued)SUMMARY OFARARSMDI SUPERFUND SITE,HOUSTON, TEXASOPERABLEUNIT 1ALTERNATIVE12345ARARActivity-Specific ARARs(Continued)40CFR Part300 Section400 – ProceduresforPlanningandImplementingOff-site ResponseActions(Applicable)--CERCLAwastes will bedisposedofoffsiteatfacilities incompliancewithoff-site ruleprovisions.CERCLAwastes will bedisposedofoffsiteatfacilities incompliancewithoff-site ruleprovisions.CERCLAwastes will bedisposedofoffsiteatfacilities incompliancewithoff-site ruleprovisions.CERCLAwastes will bedisposedofoff site at facilities incompliancewithoff-site ruleprovisions.40CFR Part761.60–DisposalRequirements–PCBs(Applicable)--Wastewater containingPCBstobe disposedofat a permittedfacility.Wastewater containingPCBstobe disposedofat a permittedfacility.Wastewater containingPCBstobedisposedofata permittedfacility.Wastewater containing PCBsto bedisposedofata permittedfacility.49CFR Parts171 and172–USDOTRegulationsforTransport of HazardousMaterials(Applicable)--Hazardousmaterials tobetransportedoff sitewill belabeledandplacarded according tothe regulations;contractors toprovideproper documentation.Hazardousmaterials tobetransportedoff sitewill belabeledandplacarded according tothe regulations;contractors toprovideproper documentation.Hazardousmaterials tobetransported off site will belabeled andplacardedaccording totheregulations;contractors toprovide properdocumentation.Hazardousmaterials tobe transportedoff sitewill belabeled andplacardedaccording tothe regulations;contractorstoprovide properdocumentation.30TAC111.145–Visibleand Particulate EmissionStandards(Applicable)--Will meet visibleemission standard usingfugitive dust controls,suchaswetting,andwillconfirmcompliance viaair monitoringduringexcavation activities.Will meet visibleemission standard usingfugitive dust controls,suchaswetting,andwillconfirmcompliance viaair monitoringduringexcavation activities.Will meet visible emissionstandard usingfugitivedustcontrols, such aswetting,andwill confirmcompliance viaairmonitoringduringexcavation activities.Will meet visible emissionstandardusingfugitivedustcontrols, such aswetting,andwill confirmcompliancevia air monitoringduringexcavationactivities.NoActionSolidification/Stabilization withOn-site Disposal;Ground WaterviaMNA with InstitutionalControlsSolidification/Stabilization withOff-siteDisposal;Ground WaterviaMNA with InstitutionalControlsContainment withInstitutional ControlsSolidification/Stabilization andOff-siteDisposalofSoilsinUnpavedAreas;GroundWaterviaMNA with InstitutionalControls49TABLE 3 (Continued)SUMMARY OFARARSMDI SUPERFUND SITE,HOUSTON, TEXASOPERABLEUNIT 1ALTERNATIVE12345ARARActivity-Specific ARARs(Continued)30TAC 106.533– PermitbyRulefor AirEmissionsduringRemedial Activities(Applicable)--Will employfugitivedustcontrolsandmeetapplicablestandardsforspecific contaminants, asappropriate; compliancewill beconfirmedvia airmonitoringduringexcavation activities.Will employfugitivedustcontrolsandmeetapplicablestandardsforspecific contaminants, asappropriate; compliancewill beconfirmedvia airmonitoringduringexcavation activities.Will employfugitive dustcontrolsand meetapplicablestandardsforspecific contaminants, asappropriate; compliancewill beconfirmedvia airmonitoringduringexcavation activities.Will employfugitive dust controlsand meet applicable standardsforspecific contaminants, as appropriate;compliance will beconfirmedvia airmonitoringduring excavationactivities.TPDES ConstructionGeneral Permit, Permit No.TXR150000(Applicable)--Substantiveprovisionswill bemet throughimplementation ofconstruction runoffcontrols.Substantiveprovisionswill bemet throughimplementation ofconstruction runoffcontrols.Substantiveprovisionswill bemet throughimplementation ofconstruction runoffcontrols.Substantive provisionswill be metthroughimplementationofconstruction runoffcontrols.30TAC 335R,WasteClassification –Establishesprocedures for testingandclassifying wastefordisposal(Applicable)--Wastes tobedisposedofoff sitewill betestedandclassified foroff-sitedisposalaccordingtoState requirements.Wastes tobedisposedofoff sitewill betestedandclassified foroff-sitedisposalaccordingtoState requirements.Wastes tobedisposedofoff sitewill betestedandclassified foroff-sitedisposal according to Staterequirements.Wastes to bedisposed ofoff site willbe tested and classified foroff-sitedisposal according to Staterequirements.30TAC 335.61through70– StandardsforGeneratorsof HazardousWaste(Applicable)--Will meet as detailedinRCRA 40CFR.Will meet as detailedinRCRA 40CFR.NAWill meet as detailedinRCRA40CFR.NoActionSolidification/Stabilization withOn-site Disposal;Ground WaterviaMNA with InstitutionalControlsSolidification/Stabilization withOff-siteDisposal;Ground WaterviaMNA with InstitutionalControlsContainment withInstitutional ControlsSolidification/Stabilization andOff-siteDisposalofSoilsinUnpavedAreas;GroundWaterviaMNA with InstitutionalControls50TABLE 3 (Continued)SUMMARY OFARARSMDI SUPERFUND SITE,HOUSTON, TEXASOPERABLEUNIT 1ALTERNATIVE12345ARARActivity-Specific ARARs(Continued)30TAC 335.431–Industrial SolidWaste andMunicipalHazardousWaste,SubchapterO,LandDisposalRestrictions(Applicable)--Will meet as detailedinRCRA 40CFR.Will meet as detailedinRCRA 40CFR.Will meet as detailedinRCRA 40CFR.Will meet as detailedinRCRA40CFR.30TAC350.36–Relocationof SoilsContainingChemicals ofConcernforReusePurposes(TBC)--Wastes tobedisposedofonsite will betestedandclassified fordisposalaccording toStaterequirements.NANANANoActionSolidification/Stabilization withOn-site Disposal;Ground WaterviaMNA with InstitutionalControlsSolidification/Stabilization withOff-siteDisposal;Ground WaterviaMNA with InstitutionalControlsContainment withInstitutional ControlsSolidification/Stabilization andOff-siteDisposalofSoilsinUnpavedAreas;GroundWaterviaMNA with InstitutionalControls51TABLE 3 (Continued)SUMMARY OFARARSMDI SUPERFUND SITE,HOUSTON, TEXASOPERABLEUNIT 1Notes:ARARApplicableorRelevantandAppropriateRequirementCERCLAComprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability ActCFRCodeofFederalRegulationsMCLMaximum ContaminantLimitMDIManyDiversifiedInterestsmg/kgMilligramperkilogramMNAMonitored natural attenuationNANotapplicableNAPLNonaqueous-phaseliquidPAHPolycyclicaromatichydrocarbonPCBPolychlorinatedbiphenylRCRAResource ConservationandRecoveryActTACTexasAdministrativeCodeTBCTobeconsideredTCLPToxicity Characteristic Leaching ProcedureTPDESTexasPollutant Discharge EliminationSystemUSDOTU.S.Department ofTransportationUSTUnderground storage tank52

### According to the statutor y r e quirem e nts that guide the evaluation of re m e dial alt e r n atives in an FS, a RA

m

u st achieve the following objectives:

• Protect hum an health and t h e environm ent

• Attain ARARs or define criteria for invo king a waiver

• Be cost effe ct ive

• Use per m ane n t solutions to the m a xi m u m extent prac ticable.

EPA has esta b lished nine e v aluation criteria to a ddress these statut ory requirements for CERCLA. The

criteria c a n be clas sified into the categories of threshold criteria, primary balancing criteria, and

m odify ing criteria. Section 5 evaluates e ach potentia l RA alternativ e. The evaluation is based on seven

of the nine cri t eria. Modif y ing criteria (state or suppor t agency acceptance and community acceptance)

will be evaluated after the public comment period on the FS and pr oposed plan a nd pri o r to t h e

finalization of the Record of Decision (ROD). The evaluation crit eria categories and nine ev aluation

criteria ar e presented below. (Note: only eight ar e li sted because state or support agency acceptance and

co mm unity a cceptance are discussed together.)

4.1.1 Threshold C r iteria

These threshold criteria are require m e nts that each alte rn ative m u st achieve to be eligible for selection as

a per m anent r e m e dy :

• Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment – The overall pro t ection of

hum an health and the environm ent is eva l ua ted for each alternative on the basis of the

alternative’s abilit y to reduce the risk of exposure to contam inants from potential exposure pathway s thr ough engineering or ICs. Each alternative also is examined to determ ine

whether it cre a tes unacc eptable short-term ri sks to human health.

• Compliance with ARA Rs
– This criterion evaluates each alternati v e’ s com p lia nce with location-specific, che m ic al -specific, and acti on-specif i c ARAR s. It also evaluate s the potential for a waiver. These A R AR s were identifie d and screene d for relevance to the site in

Section 2.1. Table 3 summariz es the A R ARs that have been evaluated for this F S , and briefl y states how the ARAR will be com p lied with.

4.1.2 Prim ary Balancing Criteria

These pri m ar y balancing c r iteria are f a ctors that ident i fy ke y tradeoffs am ong alternatives:

• Long-term E ffectivene ss and Permanence – Long- ter m eff ectiveness and permanence are evaluated for each alternati v e on the basis of the m a gn itude of residual risk and the adequacy

and reliabilit y of controls u sed to manage remaining waste after response objectives have

53

### been achieved. Alternatives that offer l ong-term eff e ctiveness and per m anence halt, or

otherwise m i tigate, any pot ential for off- site c onta m in ant transport and m i ni m i ze the need for future engine ering controls

.

• Short-term Effectiveness – The evaluation of alternatives for short-ter m effe c tiveness takes

into account protection of rem e dial workers, m e m b ers of the comm unity , and t h e environm ent during im plementation of the RA and th e tim e required to achieve cleanup goals. In this FS, schedule esti m at e durations are based on pr ojected availability of m a teri als

and labor and may have to be updated at the tim e of remediation. Estim a ted durations are

also are based on good weather, the ability to create and receive adequate and authorized access, and the availability of required utilities. All time esti m a t es assu me that the select ed

rem e dial design, inclu d in g construction drawings , has been approv ed and that al l negotiations

with contractors have been concluded.

• Reduction of Mobility, T oxicity, or V o lume through Treatmen t – The statutory preference is to select a RA that em ploy s treatm e nt t o reduce the m obility , toxi city

, or volume

of hazardous substances. The degree to which alternatives em ploy recy cling or t r eat ment is

asse ssed, incl uding how tre a t m ent is use d to a ddress the principal threats posed by the site.

• Implementa bility – Each alternative is evaluated w ith respect to the technical a nd

ad m i nistrative feasibility of im plementi ng th e alternatives as well as the availab ility of

necess ary equipment and services. This criterion includes such items as the abil ity to obtain services, capacities, equipment, and specialists necessary to construct com ponents of the alternative; the ability to operate and m o n itor the per m anence and effectiveness of the technologies; and the abilit y to obtain ne cessary approvals from oth e r agencies.

• Cost – Accur acy of present worth costs is +50/- 30 pe rcent, in accordance with EPA guidance (EPA 1988; 2 000). Detailed cost estim ates are derived from current inform ation, including vendor q uote s , convention a l cost-estimating g u ides (R.S. Means Com p any , Inc. [ M eans] 2002a; 2002b), and costs associated wit h sim i l a r projects. The act ual cost of the project will depend on labor and m a terial co sts, site conditions, com p etitiv e market conditions, the final project scope, and the im plem entation schedul e at the time the remedial activities are

initiated. In e s ti m a ting the present worth cost , a discount rate of 7 percent is used, and

inflation is ta ken to be 3 percent. Prese nt wo rth costs for these ite ms ar e based on 30 y ears of operation, the maxi m u m ti me period allowed by EPA guidance. Pr esented costs are rounded to two signifi cant figures.

4.1.3 Modifying C r iteria

This m odify i ng criteria must be consid ered during r e m e dy selection:

• State or Support Agency Accep ta nce and Commu nity Accepta nce –The preferred

alternative should be accep table to state and s upport agencies. Also, the concerns of the

co mm unity s hould be cons idered when selecting a remedy . T h e evaluation of t h ese two
criteria will b e based on comment s on the FS report and the pr opos ed plan received duri ng the public comment period and will be addr essed in the Responsiveness Su mmar y of the

ROD.

54

### 4.2 INDI VID U A L ANAL YSI S OF ALTE RNAT IVES

A total of five alternatives have been retained:

Alternative 1 – No Action

Alternative 2 – Soil Stabilization/Soli dification with On -site Disposal; Ground Wat e r via MNA with ICs

Alternative 3 – Soil Stabilization/Soli dification with Off-site Disposal; Ground Wa ter via MNA with ICs

Alternative 4 – Soil Contain m ent; Ground Water via MNA with ICs

Alternative 5 – Solidification/Stabilization and Off-s ite Disposal of Soils in Unpaved Areas; Gr ound

Water via MNA with ICs

Each of these alternatives i s detailed in the follo wing sections. Alternatives 2 through 5 all require

significant site preparation. For Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, the site preparation activities are ident i cal;

consequently , site preparati on activities for all three of these alternat ives are pres e n ted in Section 4.2.5 to

avoid redun d a ncy

. Alterna tive 5 require s very differe nt site preparation activities; consequently, site

preparation activities for this alternativ e are discuss e d in Section 4.2.6.

4.2.1 Alternative 1 – No Action

The No Action Alternative, which is required by the NCP (NCP 3 00.430 [e ][6 ]), is the baseline

alternative against which the effectiven ess of all othe r rem e dial alt e rnatives are judged. Under the No

Action Alternative, no RAs will be c onducted at the MDI site. No fu rther attempts will be made, beyond

those already i m ple m ented, to control access to the si t e or other conta m inated are as. Uncontrolled

surface water runoff will c ontinue t o flow fro m the site . Principal threat wast es will continue to be a

source for ground water and surface water contam ination. No atte m p t s will be made to m onitor or contr o l

groun d water contam inant migration fro m the MDI site.

55

### 4.2.1

. 1 Overall Protection of Hum a n Health and the Envi ronm ent

The No Action Alternative will not be pr otective of human health under current-use scenarios. The

HHRA for OU 1 (Section 1.5.1; Tetra Tech 2003d) d e term ined that contam inated soil, sedim ent, and

ground water pose both current and future risks to off-site residents. RAs that address surface

contam ination at the site are not a com p onent of t h e No Action Alternative. Therefore, the N o Action

Alternative will not be protective of current or future receptors.

Alternative 1 will not be pr otective of the environm en t. Condit i ons leading to existing soil, sediment, and

ground water contam ination will not be addressed under this alternative.

4.2.1.2 Compliance with ARA Rs

This alternative will not com p ly with the ARAR s for the MDI site described in Section 2.1.

4.2.1.3 Long-term E ffectivene ss and Permanence

The magnitud e of risks at the MDI site is likely to re main the same under the No Action Alternative.

Under this alternative, the site will be subjected to adverse environmental cond itions without t h e benefit

of contam ina n t treat m e nt, immobilizatio n, containm e n t, or disposal. Continued or increased migration of

contam inated ground water can result in deterioration of off-site ground water quality if waste materials

acting as a co ntinuing source of gr ound water conta m ination are not addressed. Continued surface- water

runoff will further contribute to off-site soil, sedim ent, and surface- water contamination.

Under the No Action Alternative, ground water fro m the site will migrate predominately to t h e northnorthwest. Surface wat e r will continue to leave the site along natur a l and im pr oved drainage pathway s

.

Hu m a n consum ption of gro und water contam inated by the m a terials on site may be possible, althoug h

unlikel y , give n the depth of the upperm ost Class 1 aquifer of approxi m ately 500 feet.

Because contam inated soil and ground water will rema in at the si te, a review of the effectiveness and

protectiveness of the No Action Alternative every 5 years over a 30-y ear period will be required by

SARA.

56

### 4.2.1.4 Reduction in Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume Through Treatment

The No Action Alternative does not incl ude a treatm e nt com ponent. Any reducti on in m obilit y, toxicit y ,

or vol um e of contam inated media will occur th rough natural processes such as biodegradation,

adsorption, at tenuation, an d diluti on.

4.2.1.5 Short-term Effectiven ess

I m ple m entation of the No Action Alternative at the MDI site presen ts short-ter m risks to nearby residents,

primarily fro m inhalation of airborne p a rticulates. P o tential risks to hum an health under a residential

land-use scen ario were eva l uated in Section 1.5.1. The No Action Alternative c a n be im ple m ented

i m m e diat ely

. Becaus e no RAs ar e included, no schedule of com p le tion is included.

4.2.1.6 Implementa bility

The No Action Alternative can be readily im plemente d and will not hinder the im plem entation of RAs in

the future. N o equipm ent or services ar e required for the No Action Alternative.

4.2.1

. 7 Cost

The total cost for the No Action Alternative is $100 ,0 00. T h e total cost includes no capital costs.

Operating costs are based o n a review of site cond itions every 5 y ear s over a 30- year period. No other

operation and maintenance costs will be included.

4.2.2 Alternative 2 – Solidificat ion/Stabiliz ation with On-site Disposa l ; Ground Water via

MNA with I C s

Under this alternative, soils above action levels are excavated and tr eated on site throug h stabili zation

techniques. Under EPA’s AOC policy (first articulat ed in the final NCP rule, March 8, 199 0 Federal

Register), dis c rete ar eas of generally dispersed cont amination can be considered a “RCR A unit” (usually

a landfill). Because an AOC is considered a “RCR A land-based unit,” contam inated soils may be

consolidated and/or treated within the A O C without tr iggering RC RA LDRs or RCRA minim u m

technology requirements (MTR). The soils will be treated with amend m ent su ch that the lead

concentrations as measured with TCLP will be below th e 5.0 m g /L hazardous waste toxicity c h aracteristi c

and below the alternative LDR requirement of 40 C F R Part 268 ( i .e., a 90-percent reduction in initial

concentration and a final concentration less than the LDR require ment of 5 m g /L). Once this is

acco m p lished

, the soil will be left on site.

57

### While the stabilization process will resu lt in the so ils having a low e r leachabilit y, and thus render it

nonhazardous , it will not lower the total lead concentrati ons. Because of this, the s o il will be pla ced in

areas such that residential exposure doe s not occur. The ultim at e disposition m a y be i n a containment cell

that is underl ain by low-pe rm eability soi l s and overlain by a 2-f oot soil cover, or possibl y as use as road

base under asphalt whereby access is also m itigated. In the event t h at these soils are placed u nder a soil

cover, the soil cover will need to be evaluate d and m a intained on a regular, scheduled basis.

The m i ni mal ground water contam ination on site will be rem e diat ed with MNA following source

rem oval. Finally , ICs will be im plement e d to ensure that ground w a ter fro m the SWBZ beneath the site is

not used as a source of drin king water.

Although the lead in soils is the primary driver of ri sk at the MDI site, debris and waste material left on

site will have to be addressed. Because of the m a gnitude of the site preparation activities, they are

discussed sep arately in Section 4.2.5 of this FS report. After site preparation has been co m p leted, soils

with lead concentrations equal to or greater than 500 m g /kg will be excavated and transported to the

staging area. The base of the excavation will be verifi ed through the use of a field XRF detect or. Figure

6 shows the location of soils to be excavated. Figure 8 shows the l o cation of co ncrete and debris piles to

be rem oved.

As soils are b e ing excavated, solidificati on/stabili zation will be per f ormed. Depending upon t h e final

contractor sel ected, stabilization will be acco m p lishe d through the use of either a pug m ill or earthm oving equipment. Lead concentrations in the am en d e d soils will be verified vi a sam p ling and anal y s is

for TCLP metal concentrations. Soils w ill be stockpi l e d until sam p l e results are returned conf irm i ng that

lead concentrations are below regulatory standards. The successfully treated soil will then be placed on

site in a m a nner to preclude residential exposure. Th i s m a y include placement under roadways, or in an

area that is underlain by low-perm eability soils, and t h en covered with clean fill materials.

MNA effecti v eness will be evaluated via ground water m onitoring. A replacement well for existing well

MW-3 will be installed along with two new cro ss-grad ient wells, one upgradient well, and one

downgradient well (five wells total). MW-3 will be re m oved when the contam in ated soils are excavated.

A replacemen t well will be required to collect baselin e water quality data fro m the former source region

as part of the MNA evaluat i on.

Ground water sam p les will be collected from the five new wells an d existing well MW-2 and analy zed on

an annual basis for PAHs, anions and cations, and gen e ral chem istry param e ters. Field m e asu rem e nts

will be made of oxi dation/r e duction potential (ORP), dissolved oxygen (DO), tem p erature, sp ecific

conductance, and pH. On a quarterly basis, sam p le s will be collected from MW-2, the new downgradient

58

### well and the MW-3 replacem e nt well. Sam p les w ill be analy zed f o r the com pounds and wat e r qualit y

param e t e rs previousl y listed. At the same ti m e , wat e r levels will be measured in all existing m onitoring

wells a c ross s ite on a quarterly basis.

4.2.2

. 1 Overall Protection of Hum a n Health and the Envi ronm ent

Alternative 2 provides both short-te rm and long-term protection by i m m obilizing contam inants in a fixed

mass; consequentl y , it will reduce the potential for furt her contam ination of t h e groun d water. Alternative

2 will also reduce potentia l risks associated with inhalation, derm al contact, and ingestion of

contam inated soil. While c ontam inated soil is processed, measures will be required to protect site

workers and nearby reside nts from exposure to c ontaminated m a terials and fugit i ve em issions.

Im plementation of a gr ound water m onitoring progra m w ill m onitor the long-term e ffect of the rem e dial

activities.

4.2.2.2 Compliance with ARA Rs

The solidification/stabilization and on-site landfilling processes wil l be designed and operated to com p ly

with all federal and state ARARs concer ning hazar dous waste treat m ent facilities and air em issions.

Table 3 summarizes the ARARs for all four alterna tives being evaluated, and shows how the y will be

co m p lied with.

4.2.2.3 Long-term E ffectivene ss and Permanence

If properl y i m pl emented, treat ment by solidifica tion/ stabilization will effectivel y imm obilize soil

contam inants. The stabilized soils will be backf illed on site. Cont inued gr ound water m onitoring will

assess the long-ter m effecti v eness. Because this RA alternative effectively re duces the m obility of the

contam inants, it reduces risks associat ed with further contam ination of the subsurf ace and ground water.

Consequentl y , it pro v ides l ong-term protection of futu re site users and nearb y residents.

4.2.2.4 Reduction in Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume Through Treatment

Alternative 2 will significantl y reduce the m obility of the contam in ants by chem i cally bi nding and

stabilizing them . This alternative does not redu ce the volum e or toxicit y of contam inants.

I m plementation of this remedy will increase the volume of contam in ated soil.

4.2.2.5 Short-term Effectiven ess

Because solidification/stabilization is a full-scale tech nol ogy, it addresses site co ntam inants in a relatively

short period of time. This alternative will pose short- term risks to site worker s involved in handling and

59

### processing the conta m inate d soil. Potential risks to workers include der m al cont act and inhalation, as

well as risks associat ed wi th the u se of heavy equipment. These on-site risks will be m itigated by

im plem enting a project-specific health and safety plan (HASP) to minim i ze exposure as well as by

perform ing re medial tasks f o llowing best manage ment practices. N earby residents also m i ght be at risk

due to inhalation of f ugiti ve em issions. Th ese risks will be m itigated through dus t suppression

techniques.

4.2.2.6 Implementa bility

This is a full-scale t echnology ; it has been used succe ssfully at other Superfund sites to treat si m ilar metal

conta m inants in soil. Im plementation requires relativel y sim p le proc ess equip m en t that is easy to

construct and operate. Operation of the solidif ication/stabilization process equipment will req u ire

engineering measures to control air em issions, fug iti ve dust, run o f f , erosion, an d sedimentation.

4.2.2

. 7 Cost

The cost to fully im plement Alternative 2 is about $4.8 m illion. Of these costs, ab out $2.2 m illion are

fixed costs as sociated with site preparati on tasks that are detailed in Section 4. 2. 5.

4.2.3 Alternative 3 – Solidificat ion/Stabiliz ation and Off-site Disposal ; Ground Water via

MNA with I C s

Under this alternative, soils above action levels are excavated and tr eated on site throug h stabili zation

techniques. The soils will be treated wi th amend m en t such that the lead concentrations as m e asured with

TCLP will be below the 5.0 m g /L concentration that would classify it as a hazar dous waste. At that

concentration, it would like w ise be below the altern ative treatm e nt standard LDR requirem e n t of 7. 5

m g /L. Once t h is is acco m p lished, the soil will be di sposed of at a Subtitle D landfill. The m i nimal

ground water contam ination on site w ill be rem e diat ed with MNA following source rem oval. Finall y , ICs

will be im plemented to ensure that ground water from the SWBZ beneath the site is not used as a source

of drink i ng w a ter.

Prior to treatment of soil, t h e contractor will perform t h e site preparation activities listed in Section 4.2.5.

After site preparation has been co m p leted, soils with lead concentrations equal to or greater than 500

m g /kg will be excavated and transported to the stagin g area. Figure 6 shows the l o cation of soi l s to be

excavated. The base of the excavation will be ve rified using a field XRF detector . After the

subcontractor has verified that the base of the contam i n ated zone has been rem oved, the excavations will

be backfilled with clean i m ported fill.

60

### As soils are b e ing excavated, soil stabili zation will be performed. Depending u pon t h e final contractor

select ed, stabilization will be acco m p lished through t h e use of either a pug m ill or earth- m oving

equipm ent. Lead concentrations in t h e amended soils will be verified via sam p li ng and anal y s is for TCLP

metal concent r ations. Soils will be stockpiled until sam pl e results are returned confirm i ng that lead

concentrations are below re gulatory standards. The su ccess fully treated soil wil l then be shipped off site

for disposal at a Subtitle D landfill.

MNA effecti v eness will be evaluated via ground water m onitoring. A replacement well for existing well

MW-3 will be installed along with two new cro ss-grad ient wells, one upgradient well, and one

downgradient well (five wells total). MW-3 will be re m oved when the contam in ated soils are excavated.

A replacemen t well will be required to collect baselin e water quality data fro m the former source region

as part of the MNA evaluat i on.

Ground water sam p les will be collected from the five new wells an d existing well MW-2 and analy zed on

an annual basis for PAHs, anions and cations, and gen e ral chem istry param e ters. Field m e asu rem e nts

will be made of ORP, DO, tem p erature, specific conduc tance, and pH. On a qua rterly basis, sam p les will

be collected from MW-2, the new downgradient well, and the MW- 3 replacement well. Sam p les will be

analy zed for t h e com pounds and water qualit y parameters previously listed. At t h e same tim e , water

levels will be measured in all existing m onitori ng wells across the sit e on a quarterly basis.

4.2.3

. 1 Overall Protection of Hum a n Health and the Envi ronm ent

Alternative 3 will provide both short-te rm and long-te rm protection of futu re use r s of the site and nearby

residents by e lim inating exposure to the contam inants in the surface and subsurface soils. Consequently,

it will reduce the potential f o r further contam ination of the ground w a ter. It will also reduce potential

risks associ ated with inhalation, derm al contact, and i ngestion of c ontam inated s o il. While conta m inated

soil is processed, m e asures will be requi red to protect site workers and nearby residents from exposure to

contam inated materials an d fugiti ve emissions. A ground water monitoring pr ogram will be im plemented

to m onitor th e long-term effect of the remedial activities.

4.2.3.2 Compliance with ARA Rs

The solidification/stabilization and off-site landfilling processes wil l be designed and operated to com p ly

with all federal and state ARARs concer ning hazar dous waste treat m ent facilities and air em issions.

Table 3 summarizes the ARARs for all four alterna tives being evaluated, and shows how the y will be

co m p lied with.

61

### 4.2.3.3 Long-term E ffectivene ss and Permanence

The contam in ated soils will be permanently rem ove d f r om the sit e by off-site landfilling. Clean fill

materi al will be used to ba ckfill the excavation. Because this remedial alternati v e rem oves t h e

conta m inants from the sit e , it eli m inates r i sks associ at e d with direct contact with, or m i gration of,

contam inants. Consequentl y , it pr ovides long-term prot ection of fut u re site users and nearb y residents.

4.2.3.4 Reduction in Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume Through Treatment

Stabilization and solidification will reduce the toxicity of the waste material s to levels acceptable for

landfilling. While this treat m e nt will reduce the m o b ilit y , risks are reduced b ecause the m a terials are

rem oved from the site.

4.2.3.5 Short-term Effectiven ess

Excavation and off-site landfilling of s o ils will address site contaminants in a relatively short period of

time. This alternative invol ves potential short-term risks that result from handling contam inated soils

while excavat ing and loading soils. The short-term ri sks include der m al contact with contam i n ated soils,

inhalation of vapors and dust, and dangers as sociat ed with operating m a t e rial-ha ndling and processing

equipm ent an d loading activities. These on-site risks will be m itigated by im plementing a project-specifi c

HASP to m i nim i ze exposure as well as b y perform ing rem e dial tasks following best m a nagement

practices. Ot her risks involve those associated with the increased truck traffic. These will be mitigated

throug h the d e velopment and im plementation of a site tra ffic plan. Nearby residents also m i ght be at risk

due to inhalation of f ugiti ve em issions. These risk s will be m itigated through air m onitoring and dust

suppression t echniques.

4.2.3.6 Implementa bility

Alternative 3 is a full-scale technology, and num e rous vendors offer excavation equipm ent,

transportation, and landfill capacity near this site. Th i s alternative has been u sed extensively a t many

other Superfund sites to succes sfully dispose of soil c ontaining similar m e tal s co nta m inants. Standard

verification sam p ling proc edures will be in place to m onitor the effectiveness o f this alternative.

Authorizations to im plement this alternative incl ude standard regul atory com p liance requirements and

vendor auth or izations. No formal perm its are requi red to im plement this rem e dy

. Im plementation of

engineering measures to control air em issions, fugiti ve dust, run o f f , erosion, an d sedimentation m a y be

required duri ng site excavation and r estoration activit ies. Consideration shoul d be given to in creased

truck traffic and the increased potential for acci dents a nd accelerat e d wear of local roads.

62

### This rem e dy would be im plem ented easily at the MD I site. Workers would requi re m i nim a l training, and

equipm ent would be readily available. Im plementati on would requi r e m a ny trips to the landfill . This

increase in tr uck traffic could heighten chances of ac cidents and acceler ate w e a r of local roads.

4.2.3

. 7 Cost

The costs to full y im plem ent Alternative 3 is about $6.0 m illion. Of these costs, about $2.2 m illion are

fixed costs as sociated with site preparati on tasks that are detailed in Section 4. 2. 5. Costs for Alternative 3

exceed the costs for Alternative 2 by $1.4 m illion. Th ese refl ect the additional costs of off-site disposal as

opposed t o leaving the treated materials on site.

4.2.4 Alternative 4 – Containm ent with ICs

Under this alternative, on-site waste mat e rials w ould be consolidat ed in a single AOC and cap ped in

place. Under EPA’ s AOC polic y (first articulated in th e final NCP rule, March 8, 1990 Federal Register),

discrete areas of generall y dispersed contam ination ca n be consider ed a “RCRA unit” (usuall y a landfill).

Becaus e an A O C is considered a “RC R A land-based unit,” contaminated soils may be consolidated

and/or treated within the A O C without tr iggering RC RA LDRs or RCRA MTRs.

Prior to cons olidation acti v ities, the contractor will pe rform the sit e preparation activities listed in Section

4.2.5. After these site prep aration tasks have b een com p l e ted, the soils consolida tion area will be

prepared b y excavating it t o a depth of approxim a tely 2 feet. Soils with lead concentrations equal to or

greater than 500 m g /kg will be excavated and transpor ted to the consolidation ar ea. Figure 6 shows the

location of soils to be excavated. The base of the ex cavation will be verified using a field XRF detector.

After the subcontractor has verified that the base of the contam ina t ed zone has been re m ove d, the

excavations will be backfilled with clean im ported fill.

The excavated soils will be placed in the consolidatio n area with approxim a te dimensions of 300 feet by

300 feet in 1-foot lifts and co m p acted. Following co ns olidation of all waste materials, the consolidation

pile will be covered with a clay cap. The cap thic kness will be deter m ined during the rem e di al design,

and m a y include a topsoil co m ponent, depending upon the ultim ate plan for site developm ent. Cap

maintenance requirem e nts will also be addressed in the remedial design docum entation. Engineering

controls in t h e for m of fencing and signs will be placed around t h e cell. MTRs do not appl y t o the

disposal area. Furtherm ore, given t h at lead is highl y i mmobile, sheet piling will not be require d.

I m ple m entation of an AO C as the re me dy does not require the installation of a leachate colle ction s y ste m

. However, ground water m o nitoring w ill be performed at four new m on itoring wells (1 upgradient and 3

downgradient of the consol idation area).

63

### MNA effecti v eness will be evaluated via ground water m onitoring. A replacement well for existing well

MW-3 will be installed along with two new cro ss-grad ient wells, one upgradient well, and one

downgradient well (five wells total). MW-3 will be re m oved when the contam in ated soils are excavated.

A replacemen t well will be required to collect baselin e water quality data fro m the former source region

as part of the MNA evaluat i on.

Ground water sam p les will be collected from the five new wells an d existing well MW-2 and analy zed on

an annual basis for PAHs, anions and cations, and gen e ral chem istry param e ters. Field m e asu rem e nts

will be made of ORP, DO, tem p erature, specific conduc tance, and pH. On a qua rterly basis, sam p les will

be collected from MW-2, the new downgradient well, and the MW- 3 replacement well. Sam p les will be

analy zed for t h e com pounds previousl y l i sted. At th e same ti m e , water levels wi ll be measured in all

existing m onitoring wells across the site on a quarterl y basis. Finally, ICs will be im plemented to ensure

that grou nd w a ter fro m the SWBZ beneath the site is n o t used as a source of drin king water.

4.2.4

. 1 Overall Protection of Hum a n Health and the Envi ronm ent

Alternative 4 will provide both short-te rm and long-te rm protection of futu re use r s of the site and nearby

residents by e lim inating exposure to the contam inants in the surface and subsurface soils. Consequently,

it will reduce the potential f o r further contam ination of the ground w a ter. It will also reduce potential

risks associ ated with inhalation, derm al contact, and i ngestion of c ontam inated s o il. While conta m inated

soil is processed, m e asures will be requi red to protect site workers and nearby residents from exposure to

conta m inated material s an d fugitive e m issions. Im plem entation of a groun d water m onitoring program

will m onitor t h e long-term effect of the rem e dial activities.

4.2.4.2 Compliance with ARA Rs

The excavati on and consolidation pr ocesses will be designed and operated to com p ly with all federal and

state ARARs concerning hazardous waste treat ment f acilities and air em issions. Table 3 summarizes the

ARARs for all four alternatives being evaluate d, and shows how the y will be complied with.

4.2.4.3 Long-term E ffectivene ss and Permanence

If properly im pl emented, consolid ation and containment will significantly decrease the potential of the

contam inants leaching into ground water. Construc tion of a clay cap will m itigat e the potential exposure

to hum an receptors. Conti nue d ground water m onitoring will assess the long-ter m effectiveness.

64

### 4.2.4.4 Reduction in Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume Through Treatment

This alternative does not re duce the volu m e or toxicity of contam inants. Lead in general is not a m obile

contam inant. By capping these soils, the possibility of contam inatin g ground water with leach ate is

mitigated.

4.2.4.5 Short-term Effectiven ess

Excavation and consolidation of soils w ill address site contam inants in a relatively short period of tim e.

This alternative invol ves potential short- term risks that result from handling cont am inated soils during

excavation and consolidation activities. The short-term ri sks include der m al co ntact with conta m inated

soils, inhalation of vapors and dus t, and dangers assoc i ated with operating materi al-handling a nd

processing equipm ent and loading activities. These on-site risks wil l be m itigated by im plem en ting a

project-specific HASP to minim i ze exposure as well as by performing rem e dial tasks following best

management practices. Nearby residents also m i ght be at risk due to inhalation of fugitive em i ssions.

These risks will be m itigated through air m onitoring and dust suppr ession techniques.

4.2.4.6 Implementa bility

This is a full-scale t echnology ; it has been used succe ssfully at other Superfund sites to treat si m ilar metal

conta m inants in soil. Im plementation requires relativel y sim p le proc ess equip m en t that is easy to

construct and operate. Operation of the earth-m oving equipm ent will require engineering m e asures to

control air emissions, fugitive dust, runoff, erosion, a nd sedim entat i on.

4.2.4

. 7 Cost

The cost to fully im plement Alternative 4 is about $4.2 m illion. Of these costs, $2.2 m illion are fixed

costs as sociat ed with site preparation tas k s that are performed regar d less of the remedial altern ative

select ed. These costs ar e detailed in Sec tion 4.2.5.

4.2.5 Site Prepara t ion Activities – Alternatives 2, 3, a nd 4

Site preparation activities will require a significant level of effort given the am o unt of waste materi al and

debris left on site. These activities will be performed regardless of rem e dial alt e rnative select ed. Site

preparation activities assoc i ated with Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 include the following (Figure 8):

• Clearing and grubbi ng of tr ees and vege tation on site will be performed.

65

### • Runoff contr o ls will be installed.

• Te m porary field offices wi ll be installed.

• Wallboard and m a stic containing ACM i n the existing buildi ng will be rem oved from the

buildi ng and stockpiled.

• The existing buildi ng m a y be dem o lished, dependi ng upon redevelopm ent plans.

• Approxim a tely 4,4 00 yd 3 

### o f ACM debris and 85, 000 ft 2 

### of wallboar d and m asti c will be disposed of a ppropriatel y

.

• Nonhazardous cataly s t will be rem oved from th e sit e and disposed of appropriately.

• The existing PCB-contam i n ated melt transformer in the northwest corner of the site will be

rem oved.

• Nonhazardous wast e piles in areas to be rem e diat ed will be m oved to a staging area for future disposal.

• Approxim a tely 6,1 00 yd 3 

### of debris overly i ng soils to be addressed will be dispos ed of at a

Subtitle D landfill.

• Approxim a tely 7,5 00 yd 3 

### of concrete and aspha lt overly i ng soils to be addressed will be

rem oved and stockpiled.

• Approxim a tel y 3,400 gallons of wastewater c ontaining PCBs will be pum ped and disposed of

off site.

• Approxim a tely 5,6 00 gallo ns of waste oil in th e abo v egroun d vat w est of the nort h po nd (RI

sa m p le locati on WS-6) will be sa m p led, characte r ized, and disposed of appropriately

.

• The m onitoring wells in the areas to be rem e diated (MW-3, MW-11 MW-14, M W -15, MW-20, and MW-22) will be plugged and abandoned.

• Approxim a tely 1,8 50 yd 3 

### of soil with NAPL in the vi cinit y of MW-03 and MW- 11 will be

excavated an d disposed of at a Subtitle D la ndfill that can accept soils contam in ated with petroleum hydrocarbons. At the MW-3 location, clean overbur den will be excavated to a depth of 15 fe et bgs and stockpiled on sit e . C ontam inated soil from 15 to 25 feet bgs will be

rem oved. At the MW-11 l o cation, clean overburden will be excavated to a dept h of 5 feet bgs. Contaminated soil from 5 to 15 feet bgs will be r e m oved.

• The UST in t h e northwest corner of the site will be pum ped and rem ove d, with approxim a tel y 4,00 0 gallons of petroleum-containing li quids to be rem oved fro m the site.

The costs to perfor m these t asks is approximately $2.2 m illion and are presented in greater detail in

Appendix B of this report.

67

### 4.2.6 Alternative 5 – Solidificat ion/Stabiliz ation and Off-site Disposal of Soils in U npaved Areas;

Ground Water via MNA with ICs

Under this alternative, no action woul d be taken on shallow soils that ar e overlain b y t h e concrete pad in

the southwest corner of the site. Active rem e diation w ill onl y occur in those portions of the s ite that are

identified on Figure 9.

Soils above action levels that are not beneath c oncrete are excavated a nd treated on site thr o ugh

stabilization techniques. The soils will be treated wi t h amend m ent such that th e lead concentrations as

measured wit h TCLP will be below the 5.0 m g /L concentration that would classify it as a hazardous

waste. Likewise, the concentrations wou l d be belo w the alternative treat m e nt st a ndard LDR requirement

of 7.5 m g /L. Once this is acco m p lished, the soil will be disposed of at a Subtitle D landfill. Ground

water contamination on sit e will be remediated with MNA following source rem oval. Final l y, ICs will be

im plem ented to ensure that groun d water from the SW BZ beneath the site is not used as a source of

drinkin g water.

Prior to cons olidation acti v ities, the contractor will perform the following site pr eparation activities:

• Clear and grub trees and vegetation on site.

• Install runoff controls.

• Install te m porary field offices.

• Rem ove wallboard and m a stic containing ACM from the existing building and st ockpile it.

• Dem o lish the existing b u il ding, dependi ng u pon rede velopm ent plans.

• Properl y disp ose of approx im ately 4,4 0 0 y d 3 

### of ACM debris and 85 ,000 ft 2 

### of wallboard and

masti c

.

• Rem ove and properl y dispose of nonhazardous catalyst.

• Rem ove the existing PCB-contam inated melt transf or mer in the northwest corne r of the site.

68

### • Rem ove and stockpile app r oxim a tely 6 0 0 yd 3 

### of concr e te and asphalt overl y i n g s o ils with

NAPL.

• Pum p and dispose of off-site approxim a t e ly 3, 400 gallons of wastewater contain i ng PCBs.

• Deconta m ina t e the pits that housed the PCB-c ontaining wastewater and pro p erly dispose of

the decontamination water.

• Plug and aba ndon the m onitoring wells i n the areas to be rem e diat ed (MW-3, MW-11, and MW-20).

• Excavate approxim a tely 1, 850 yd 3 

### of so il with NAPL in the vicini t y of MW-3 a nd MW-11 and dispose of it at a Subtit le D landfill that can accept soils contaminated with petroleu m hy drocarbons. At the MW-3 location, e x cavate clean overburden t o a depth of 1 5 feet bgs, stockpile it o n site, and rem ove contaminat ed soil fro m 15 to 25 feet bgs. At the MW-11 location, excavate clean overburden to a depth of 5 feet bgs and remove contam in ated soil

from 5 to 15 f eet bgs.

• Sa m p le, char acteriz e, and properly dispose of a pprox im ately 5,6 0 0 gallons of w aste oil in the abovegrou nd vat west of the north p ond (RI sam p le lo cation WS-6).

• Pum p approxim a tely 4,0 0 0 gallons of petroleu m

- containing liq uids and rem ove the UST in

the northwest corner of the site.

Soils with lead concentrations equal to or greater than 500 m g /kg that are not beneath concrete will be

excavated an d transported to the treatme nt area. Figu re 9 shows the location of soils to be excavated.

The base of the excavation will be verified using a field XRF detector. After the subcontractor has

verified that the base of the contam inat ed zone has been rem oved, the excavations will be backfilled with

clean im ported fill. As soil s are being excavated , soil stabilization will be performed. Depending upon

the final cont ractor selected, stabilization will be accom p lish e d through t h e use of either a pug mill or

earth-m oving equipm ent. Lead concentrations in th e am ended soils will be verified via sam p l i ng and

analy s is for T C LP m e tal co ncentrations. Soils w ill be stockpiled until sam p le results are returned

confirm i ng that lead concentrations are below regul atory standards. The su ccessfully treated soil will

then be shipped off site for disposal at a Subtitle D landfill.

Lead-contam i n ated soils that are overlai n by concrete will be left in place. As part of this remedy , an IC

in the form of a deed notice will be prepared for th e site. The deed notice will identify the contam inated

soils and indicate that, in the event that the concrete pavem e nt is r e m oved, these soils will need to be

re m e diat ed.

MNA effecti v eness will be evaluated via ground water m onitoring. A replacement well for existing well

MW-3 will be installed along with two new cro ss-grad ient wells, one upgradient well, and one

70

### downgradient well (five wells total). MW-3 will be re m oved when the contam in ated soils are excavated.

A replacemen t well will be required to collect baselin e water quality data fro m the former source region

as part of the MNA evaluat i on.

Ground water sam p les will be collected from the five new wells an d existing well MW-2 and analy zed on

an annual basis for PAHs, anions and cations, and gen e ral chem istry param e ters. Field m e asu rem e nts

will be made of ORP, DO, tem p erature, specific conduc tance, and pH. On a qua rterly basis, sam p les will

be collected from MW-2, the new downgradient well, and the MW- 3 replacement well. Sam p les will be

analy zed for t h e com pounds previousl y l i sted. At th e same ti m e , water levels wi ll be measured in all

existing m onitoring wells across the site on a quarterl y basis. Finally, ICs will be im plemented to ensure

that grou nd w a ter fro m the SWBZ beneath the site is n o t used as a source of drin king water.

4.2.6

. 1 Overall Protection of Hum a n Health and the Envi ronm ent

Alternative 5 will provide both short-te rm and long-te rm protection of futu re use r s of the site and nearby

residents by e lim inating exposure to the contam inants in the surface and subsurface soils. Consequently,

it will reduce the potential f o r further contam ination of the ground w a ter. It will also reduce potential

risks associ ated with inhalation, derm al contact, and i ngestion of c ontam inated s o il. While conta m inated

soil is processed, m e asures will be requi red to protect site workers and nearby residents from exposure to

conta m inated material s an d fugitive e m issions. Im plem entation of a groun d water m onitoring program

will m onitor t h e long-term effect of the rem e dial activities.

4.2.6.2 Compliance with ARA Rs

The excavati on and consolidation pr ocesses will be designed and operated to com p ly with all federal and

state ARARs concerning hazardous waste treat ment f acilities and air em issions. Table 3 summarizes the

ARARs for all alternatives being evaluat e d, and show s how the y will be com p lied with.

4.2.6.3 Long-term E ffectivene ss and Permanence

The contam in ated soils in unpaved areas will be per m anently rem oved from the si te by off-site

landfilling. Clean fill m a t e rial will be used to backf ill the excavation. Because th is rem e dial alternative

re m oves the c ontam inants f r om the sit e , it eli m inat es ri sks associ ate d with direct contact with, or

migration of, contam inants. Consequentl y , it pr ovid es long-term protection of fut u re site users and

nearby reside nts. This remedy will require ICs in the form of deed notices to ensure that ground water

from the SW BZ beneath the site is not used as a source of drinking water, and that, in the event that the

71

### concrete pavement overly i ng contam inat ed soils is rem oved, these soils will be rem e diat ed and achieve

RAOs.

4.2.6.4 Reduction in Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume Through Treatment

This alternative does not re duce the volu m e or toxicity of contam inants. Lead in general is not a m obile

contam inant. By capping these soils, the possibility of contam inatin g ground water with leach ate is

mitigated.

4.2.6.5 Short-term Effectiven ess

Excavation and consolidation of soils w ill address site contam inants in a relatively short period of tim e.

This alternative invol ves potential short- term risks that result from handling cont am inated soils during

excavation and consolidation activities. The short-term ri sks include der m al co ntact with conta m inated

soils, inhalation of vapors and dus t, and dangers assoc i ated with operating materi al-handling a nd

processing equipm ent and loading activities. These on-site risks wil l be m itigated by im plem en ting a

project-specific HASP to minim i ze exposure as well as by performing rem e dial tasks following best

management practices. Nearby residents also m i ght be at risk due to inhalation of fugitive em i ssions.

These risks will be m itigated through air m onitoring and dust suppr ession techniques.

4.2.6.6 Implementa bility

This is a full-scale t echnology ; it has been used succe ssfully at other Superfund sites to treat si m ilar metal

conta m inants in soil. Im plementation requires relativel y sim p le proc ess equip m en t that is easy to

construct and operate. Operation of the earth-m oving equipm ent will require engineering m e asures to

control air emissions, fugitive dust, runoff, erosion, a nd sedim entat i on.

4.2.6

. 7 Cost

The cost to fully im plement Alternative 5 is about $3.3 m illion. Of these costs, $1.5 m illion are costs

associat ed wi th site preparation tasks that are perfor m ed regardle ss of the re m e dial alternative sele c ted.

72

### 5.0 COMPARIS ON OF RE MEDIAL ALTERNAT IVES

Based on the initial screeni ng of technologies and evalua tion of alte rnatives, five rem e dial alt e r n atives

have been taken through the FS. Table 4 summari zes how each alte rnative com p l i es with the RAOs.

Table 5 summariz es how these alternati v es co m p ly w ith the evaluation criteria.

5.1 OVE RAL L PROT ECTI ON OF HU MAN HEAL TH AN D T H E ENVI RONMENT

Alternative 1 (No Action) is not protecti v e of the e nvi ronm ent. Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 are all

protective of the environm ent. Whereas Alternatives 2, 3, an d 4 tre a t all contam inated media with a

single rem e di al technology, Alternative 5 com b ines an active technology in t h e unpaved areas with a

containment technolog y for the contam in ated soils lo cated beneath concrete. Alternatives 2, 3, and 5–

solidification/ stabilization with on-site (Alternative 2) and off-site (Alternatives 3 and 5) disposal–will

provide both short-term an d lon g -term p r otection of f u ture users of the site and nearby residents by

stabilizing the wast es and reducing its ability to leach contam inants. Following the solidification/

stabilization process, the treated soils ar e no long er hazardous. MNA will ensu re that ground water

contam ination has not m i grated off site. Altern atives 4 and 5 (Co n t a in m e nt and MNA) are also

protective. Although the w astes have not been “treat ed” by consoli d ating and ca pping, the ris k associated

with receptor contact with the contam inated surface so ils will be m itigated, and the potential for surface

water to infiltrate through a nd contam inated ground w a ter is m i nim i zed. MNA will be used similarly to

Alternatives 2 and 3.

5.2 COMPL I AN CE WIT H A RARS

Alternative 1 does not compl y with ARARs. The remaining alternatives will com p ly with al l ARARs

thoug h the us e of standard engineering and waste m a n a gem e nt tech niques as well as through t h e

i m ple m entati on of a site-specific HASP

.

5.3 LONG-TERM EFFECTIVENESS AND PERM ANENCE

73 Alternative 1 does not pr ov ide long-term effectiven ess and perm anence. Alternatives 2 and 3 p r ovide

long-term eff ectiveness and permanence through th e s t abilization pr ocess, which will render the soil

nonhazardous . In the case of Alternative 3 (solidifica tion/stabilization with off-si t e disposal) long-term

per m anence i s guaranteed by the rem oval of all contaminated m a t e rials fro m the site. If prope rly

i m plem ented, consolidation and c ontainment will significantly decrease the potential of leaching from the

contam inants into gr ound water. Construction of a cl ay cap (Alternative 4) will mitigate the potential

exposure to human recepto rs. For Alternative 5, lo ng-ter m eff ectiv eness and per m anence i s provided i n

the unpaved a r eas through t h e stabilization process, which will render the soil nonhazardous.TABLE 4COMPARISON OFREMEDIAL ALTERNATIVESWITHREMEDIALACTION OBJECTIVESMDI SUPERFUND SITE, HOUSTON, TEXASOPERABLEUNIT 1AlternativeRemove ACMReduce Risk toResidential Receptors byLead Concentrations inSoil Greater thanCleanup LevelRemove FreeProduct inSoils in Vicinityof MW-3Remove FreeProduct inSoils in VicinityofMW-11RemediateGroundWater inNorthwestCorner ofSite andRemoveFreeProductAssociatedwithUSTMitigate ThreatPosedbyGround WaterContamination toRemainderof Site1No ActionThe ACM would not beremoved.Therisk from leadinsoilwould not bereduced.The free product wouldnot be removedand thepotential continuing sourceof ground watercontamination wouldremain.The free product wouldnot be removedand thepotential continuing sourceof ground watercontamination wouldremain.The UST wouldnot beremoved andthe groundwater contaminationwould not beaddressed.The threatfrom thegroundwater wouldnotbeidentifiedshouldnaturalattenuation proveineffective.2SoilExcavationandSolidification/Stabilization withOn-site Disposal;Ground Watervia MNA andInstitutionalControlsThe existingon-sitebuilding will bedemolished andwallboardandmasticwith ACM willbestockpiled;ACM debris,wallboard, and masticwill bedisposedofappropriately.The riskwillbereducedbyexcavating soil withleadconcentrationsequalto or greaterthan 500mg/kg, treating the soil bysolidification/stabilization,and thenconsolidatingitinan on-siteareathat willmitigate direct exposure toreceptors; thismay includeplacement underfutureroads or inconsolidationareas;engineering andinstitutionalcontrols willbe implementedto preventexposure tothe treatedsoil.Contaminated soil inthevicinityofMW-3 will beexcavatedanddisposed ofoff site.Contaminated soil inthevicinityofMW-11 will beexcavatedanddisposed ofoff site.The UST willberemoved.Soil containingLNAPLwill beexcavatedanddisposed of offsite; longtermmonitoringwillverifythatMNA iseffective.Ground watercontamination onsitewillbe mitigatedfollowingsource removal;long-termmonitoringwill verifythatMNA is effective.74TABLE 4COMPARISON OFREMEDIAL ALTERNATIVESWITHREMEDIALACTION OBJECTIVESMDI SUPERFUND SITE, HOUSTON, TEXASOPERABLEUNIT 1AlternativeRemove ACMReduce Risk toResidential Receptors byLead Concentrations inSoil Greater thanCleanup LevelRemove FreeProduct inSoils in Vicinityof MW-3Remove FreeProduct inSoils in VicinityofMW-11RemediateGroundWater inNorthwestCorner ofSite andRemoveFreeProductAssociatedwithUSTMitigate ThreatPosedbyGround WaterContamination toRemainderof Site3SoilExcavationandSolidification/Stabilization withOff-siteDisposal; GroundWater via MNAand InstitutionalControlsThe existingon-sitebuilding will bedemolished andwallboardandmasticwith ACM willbestockpiled;ACM debris,wallboard, and masticwill bedisposedofappropriately.Therisk from soil will bereducedbyremoving soilwith leadconcentrationsequaltoor greater than500 mg/kg,treating thesoil bysolidification/stabilization,and thendisposing of it off site.Contaminated soil inthevicinityofMW-3 will beexcavatedanddisposed ofoff site.Contaminated soil inthevicinityofMW-11 will beexcavatedanddisposed ofoff site.The UST willberemoved.Soil containingLNAPLwill beexcavatedanddisposed of offsite; longtermmonitoringwillverifythatMNA iseffective.Ground watercontamination onsitewillbe mitigatedfollowingsource removal;long-termmonitoringwill verifythatMNA is effective.4ContainmentviaCapping withInstitutionalControlsThe existingon-sitebuilding will bedemolished andwallboardandmasticwith ACM willbestockpiled;ACM debris,wallboard, and masticwill bedisposedofappropriately.The riskwillbereducedbyremoving soilwithleadconcentrations equalto orgreater than500mg/kg,consolidatingthe soilinanon-siteareaunderlain bylow-permeabilitynativesoils to minimizerisksassociated withleaching toground water,and thencappingthe soilto preventexposure; engineering andinstitutionalcontrols willbe implementedto preventexposure tothe soil.Contaminated soil inthevicinityofMW-3 will beexcavatedanddisposed ofoff site.Contaminated soil inthevicinityofMW-11 will beexcavatedanddisposed ofoff site.The UST willberemoved.Soil containingLNAPLwill beexcavatedanddisposed of offsite; longtermmonitoringwillverifythatMNA iseffective.Ground watercontamination onsitewillbe mitigatedfollowingsource removal;long-termmonitoringwill verifythatMNA is effective; fournew monitoringwells willbe installedaround theconsolidation area toensure thatitdoesnotserve asasourceofcontamination.75TABLE 4COMPARISON OFREMEDIAL ALTERNATIVESWITHREMEDIALACTION OBJECTIVESMDI SUPERFUND SITE, HOUSTON, TEXASOPERABLEUNIT 1AlternativeRemove ACMReduce Risk toResidential Receptors byLead Concentrations inSoil Greater thanCleanup LevelRemove FreeProduct inSoils in Vicinityof MW-3Remove FreeProduct inSoils in VicinityofMW-11RemediateGroundWater inNorthwestCorner ofSite andRemoveFreeProductAssociatedwithUSTMitigate ThreatPosedbyGround WaterContamination toRemainderof Site5Solidification/Stabilization andOff-site Disposalof Soils inUnpaved Areas;Ground Watervia MNA withInstitutionalControlsThe existingon-sitebuilding will bedemolished andwallboardandmasticwith ACM willbestockpiled;ACM debris,wallboard, and masticwill bedisposedofappropriately.Therisk from soil will bereducedbyremoving soilin unpavedareas withleadconcentrations equalto orgreater than500mg/kg,treating thesoil bysolidification/stabilization,and thendisposing of it off site.Therisk to residentialreceptorsof soilsunderneath concreteismitigatedbythepresenceof the concrete.In theeventtheconcreteisremoved,thesesoils willalso require remediation.Contaminated soil inthevicinityofMW-3 will beexcavatedanddisposed ofoff site.Contaminated soil inthevicinityofMW-11 will beexcavatedanddisposed ofoff site.The UST willberemoved.Soil containingLNAPLwill beexcavatedanddisposed of offsite; longtermmonitoringwillverifythatMNA iseffective.Ground watercontamination onsitewillbe mitigatedfollowingsource removal;long-termmonitoringwill verifythatMNA is effective.Notes:ACMAsbestos-containingmaterialLNAPLLightnonaqueous-phaseliquidmg/kgMilligramperkilogramMNAMonitored natural attenuationUSTUnderground storage tank76TABLE 5COMPARISON OFREMEDIAL ALTERNATIVESMDI SUPERFUND SITE,HOUSTON, TEXASOPERABLEUNIT 1AlternativeOverall ProtectionofHuman Healthand theEnvironmentCompliance withARARsLong-termEffectivenessandPermanenceReduction in Toxicity,Mobility and VolumeShort-term EffectivenessImplementabilityCost1No ActionNAThis alternativewould notcomplywith ARARs.NANANANA$100K2SoilExcavationandSolidification/Stabilizationwith On-siteDisposal;Ground Watervia MNA andInstitutionalControlsAlternative 2 provides bothshort-term andlong-termprotection byimmobilizingcontaminantsina stabilizedmatrix.Itwillreducethepotential for furthercontamination ofthe groundwater.Itwillalsoreducepotentialrisksassociatedwith inhalation,dermalcontact, andingestion ofcontaminatedsoil.Whilecontaminatedsoil isprocessed, measures will berequiredtoprotect siteworkers andnearbyresidents fromexposure tocontaminatedmaterialsandfugitiveemissions.Implementationof a groundwater monitoringprogramwill monitorthelong-termeffectivenessoftheremedialactivities.This alternativewould complywithall ARARs thathave beendeveloped fortheMDI site.Solidification/stabilization willeffectivelyimmobilize soilcontaminants.Thestabilizedsoilswillbe backfilledonsite. Ground watermonitoring willassess thelong-termeffectiveness.Becausethisalternativeeffectivelyreducesthemobilityof thecontaminants, itreduces risksassociated withfurthercontamination ofthe subsurfaceandground water.Consequently, itprovides long-termprotection offuturesite usersandnearbyresidents.This alternativesignificantlyreducesthemobility ofthecontaminantsbychemicallybindingandencapsulatingthem.This alternativedoes notreduce the volume ortoxicityofcontaminants.Implementationofthisremedymay increasethevolume ofcontaminatedsoil.Alternative2addresses sitecontaminants ina relativelyshort periodoftime, andwillposeshort-termrisks to siteworkers involved in handlingand processing thecontaminatedsoil.Potentialrisks to workersincludedermal contact,inhalation,and risks associatedwithheavyequipment.On-siterisks will bemitigatedbyimplementing a projectspecific HASPto minimizeexposure aswell as byusingbest managementpractices.Nearbyresidentsalso mightbe at risk due toinhalationoffugitiveemissions. Riskswill bemitigatedthroughairmonitoring anddustsuppression techniques.This technologyhasbeen usedsuccessfullyatotherSuperfund sitestotreat similarmetalcontaminantsinsoil.Implementationrequires relativelysimpleprocessequipmentthatiseasyto construct andoperate. Operation ofthe solidification/stabilization processequipment willrequire engineeringmeasurestocontrolair emissions,fugitivedust, runoff,erosion,and sedimentation$4.8M77TABLE 5 (Continued)COMPARISON OFREMEDIAL ALTERNATIVESMDI SUPERFUND SITE,HOUSTON, TEXASOPERABLEUNIT 1AlternativeOverall ProtectionofHuman Healthand theEnvironmentCompliance withARARsLong-termEffectivenessandPermanenceReduction in Toxicity,Mobility and VolumeShort-term EffectivenessImplementabilityCost3SoilExcavationandSolidification/Stabilizationwith Off-siteDisposal;Ground Watervia MNA andInstitutionalControlsAlternative 3 will provideboth short-termand longterm protectionof futureusers of the siteand nearbyresidents byeliminatingexposure tothecontaminantsinthe surfaceand subsurface soils.Itwillreduce the potential forfurthercontaminationof theground water.It will alsoreduce potentialrisksassociated withinhalation,dermal contact,andingestionofcontaminatedsoil.Whilecontaminatedsoil isprocessed,measureswill berequiredto protectsite workersandnearbyresidents fromexposure tocontaminatedmaterialsandfugitiveemissions.Implementationof a groundwater monitoringprogramwill monitorthelong-termeffectivenessoftheremedialactivities.This alternativewould complywithall ARARs thathave beendeveloped fortheMDI site.The contaminatedsoils willbepermanentlyremoved from thesite byoff-sitelandfilling.Cleanfillmaterialwillbeused to backfilltheexcavations.Becausethisremedialalternativeremoves thecontaminantsfromthe site,iteliminates risksassociated withdirectcontactwith,or migrationof,contaminants.Consequently, itprovides long-termprotection offuturesite usersandnearbyresidents.Stabilization andsolidification willreducethe toxicityofthewastematerials tolevelsacceptableforlandfilling.While thistreatment willreducethemobility,risks are alsoeliminated because thematerials are removedfrom thesite.Excavationandoff-sitelandfillingwilladdress sitecontaminants ina relativelyshort periodoftime.Thisalternative involves potentialshort-termrisksthatresultfrom handlingcontaminatedsoils whileexcavatingandloadingsoils.The short-termrisksinclude dermal contactwith contaminated soils,inhalationof vapors and dust,and dangersassociated withoperating material-handlingand processing equipmentand loadingactivities.Onsite risks willbemitigatedbyimplementing a projectspecific HASPto minimizeexposure aswell as byperforming remedial tasksfollowing best managementpractices.Otherrisksinvolve thoseassociated withthe increased trucktraffic.These willbe mitigatedthrough the development andimplementationof a sitetraffic plan.Nearbyresidentsalso might be atriskdue to inhalationoffugitiveemissions.Theserisks will bemitigatedthrough air monitoringanddust suppression techniques.Alternative3 hasbeen usedextensivelyat manyotherSuperfund sites,andwould beimplemented easily attheMDI site.Implementationofengineering measuresto controlairemissions, fugitivedust, runoff,erosion,and sedimentationwill berequiredduring siteexcavationand restorationactivities.Workerswould requireminimal training, andequipment would bereadilyavailable.Implementationwould requiremanytrips tothelandfill.This increase intrucktraffic couldheightenchancesofaccidentsand acceleratewearof local roads.$6.0M78TABLE 5 (Continued)COMPARISON OFREMEDIAL ALTERNATIVESMDI SUPERFUND SITE,HOUSTON, TEXASOPERABLEUNIT 1AlternativeOverall ProtectionofHuman Healthand theEnvironmentCompliance withARARsLong-termEffectivenessandPermanenceReduction in Toxicity,Mobility and VolumeShort-term EffectivenessImplementabilityCost4ContainmentviaCapping withInstitutionalControlsAlternative 4 will provideboth short-termand longterm protectionof futureusers of the siteand nearbyresidents bymitigatingexposure tothecontaminantsinthe surfaceand subsurface soils.Itwillreduce the potential forfurthercontaminationof theground water.It will alsoreduce potentialrisksassociated withinhalation,dermal contact,andingestionofcontaminatedsoil.Whilecontaminatedsoil isprocessed,measureswill berequiredto protectsite workersandnearbyresidents fromexposure tocontaminatedmaterialsandfugitiveemissions.Implementationof a groundwater monitoringprogramwill monitorthelong-termeffectivenessoftheremedialactivities.This alternativewould complywithall ARARs thathave beendeveloped fortheMDI site.Consolidationandcontainment willsignificantlydecreasethepotential ofleaching from thecontaminants intoground water.Constructionofaclaycapwillmitigatethepotential exposureto human receptors.Continuedgroundwater monitoringwill assessthe longtermeffectiveness.Consequently, itprovides long-termprotection offuturesite usersandnearbyresidents.Littleor noreductionintoxicityorcontaminantmass other thannaturalattenuation mechanisms;mobility ofcontaminantsgreatlyreducedbycontainment barriers.Constructionactivitydisturbance and riskwouldbeminimal compared to allactiveremediesother thannoaction; implementationof theremedywould becompletein several months followedby2years ofmonitoringtoverifycompatibilitywithground waterchemistry.This technologyhasbeen usedsuccessfullyatotherSuperfund sitestoisolatesimilarmetalcontaminantsinsoil.Implementationrequires relativelysimpleprocessequipment.Operationoftheearth-movingequipment willrequire engineeringmeasurestocontrolair emissions,fugitivedust, runoff,erosion,and sedimentation.$4.2 M79TABLE 5 (Continued)COMPARISON OFREMEDIAL ALTERNATIVESMDI SUPERFUND SITE,HOUSTON, TEXASOPERABLEUNIT 1AlternativeOverall ProtectionofHuman Healthand theEnvironmentCompliance withARARsLong-termEffectivenessandPermanenceReduction in Toxicity,Mobility and VolumeShort-term EffectivenessImplementabilityCost5Solidification/Stabilization andOff-site Disposalof Soils inUnpaved Areas;Ground Watervia MNA withInstitutionalControlsAlternative 5 will provideboth short-termand longterm protectionof futureusers of the siteand nearbyresidents byeliminatingexposure tothecontaminantsinthe surfaceand subsurface soils.Itwillreduce the potential forfurthercontaminationof theground water.It will alsoreduce potentialrisksassociated withinhalation,dermal contact,andingestionofcontaminatedsoil.Whilecontaminatedsoil isprocessed,measureswill berequiredto protectsite workersandnearbyresidents fromexposure tocontaminatedmaterialsandfugitiveemissions.Implementationof a groundwater monitoringprogramwill monitorthelong-termeffectivenessoftheremedialactivities.This alternativewould complywithall ARARs thathave beendeveloped fortheMDI site.Contaminated soilsin unpavedareaswill bepermanentlyremoved from thesite byoff-sitelandfilling.Cleanfillmaterialwillbeused to backfilltheexcavations.Becausethisremedialalternativeremoves thecontaminantsfromthe site,iteliminates risksassociated withdirectcontactwith,or migrationof,contaminants.Consequently, itprovides long-termprotection offuturesite usersandnearbyresidents.The long-termeffectiveness inpaved areasismaintainedprovided thattheconcrete is notdisturbed.Theconcrete provides abarriertohumanexposure andtheconcretewillinhibitIn unpavedareas,stabilization andsolidification willreducethe toxicityofthewastematerials tolevelsacceptableforlandfilling.While thistreatment willreducethemobility,risks are alsoeliminated because thematerials are removedfrom thesite.Excavationandoff-sitelandfillingwilladdress sitecontaminants ina relativelyshort periodoftime.Thisalternative involves potentialshort-termrisksthatresultfrom handlingcontaminatedsoils whileexcavatingandloadingsoils.The short-termrisksinclude dermal contactwith contaminated soils,inhalationof vapors and dust,and dangersassociated withoperating material-handlingand processing equipmentand loadingactivities.Onsite risks willbemitigatedbyimplementing a projectspecific HASPto minimizeexposure aswell as byperforming remedial tasksfollowing best managementpractices.Otherrisksinvolve thoseassociated withthe increased trucktraffic.These willbe mitigatedthrough the development andimplementationof a sitetraffic plan.Nearbyresidentsalso might be atriskdue to inhalationoffugitiveemissions.Theserisks will bemitigatedthrough air monitoringanddust suppression techniques.Alternative5 wouldbe implementedeasilyatthe MDI site.Implementationofengineering measuresto controlairemissions, fugitivedust, runoff,erosion,and sedimentationwill berequiredduring siteexcavationand restorationactivities.Workerswould requireminimal training, andequipment would bereadilyavailable.Implementationwould requiremanytrips tothelandfill.This increase intrucktraffic couldheightenchancesofaccidentsand acceleratewearof local roads.$3.3 M80TABLE 5 (Continued)COMPARISON OFREMEDIAL ALTERNATIVESMDI SUPERFUND SITE,HOUSTON, TEXASOPERABLEUNIT 1AlternativeOverall ProtectionofHuman Healthand theEnvironmentCompliance withARARsLong-termEffectivenessandPermanenceReduction in Toxicity,Mobility and VolumeShort-term EffectivenessImplementabilityCost5Solidification/Stabilization andOff-site Disposalof Soils inUnpaved Areas;Ground Watervia MNA withInstitutionalControls(Continued)infiltrationofground water.Intheeventthattheconcreteisdisturbed, thesesoils willalsorequire cleanup.Notes:ARARApplicable orRelevantand Appropriate RequirementHASPHealthandsafetyplanNA NotapplicableMDIManyDiversified InterestsMNA Monitorednaturalattenuation81

### Contam inated soils left beneath c oncrete will have a low potential fo r leaching to ground water providing

the concrete rem a ins in place. Continue d ground wa t e r m onitoring for Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 will

assess the long-ter m effecti v eness of the select ed remedy

. Consequently, these alte rnatives provide longterm protection of f u ture site users and nearby reside nts.

5.4 REDU CTI O N IN T O X I CITY, M O B I LI T Y , AND VOLUME THROUGH TREATME N T

Alternative 1 does not reduce the toxicity, m obility, or volum e of the waste mat e rials other than m i nor

decreases in concentrations associat ed with MNA in ground water, although this will not be monitored.

Alternatives 2 and 3 bot h r e duce the toxicity and m obilit y of t h e contam inants, although the te chnologies

e m ploy ed will increase the volum e of wa ste to be mana ged. Alternative 4 does not reduce the toxicity or

volum e of conta m inants. Lead in general is not a m o bile contam in ant. By capping these soils, the

possibility of contam inati ng ground water with leach ate is m itigat ed. Alternative 5 will reduce the

toxicit y and m obility of t h e contam inants in unpaved areas, although the technol ogies em ployed will

increase the v o lum e of waste to be m a naged. The toxi city and vol ume of w ast e underneath the concrete

is not reduced using Alter n ative 5, although the concrete will m i t i gate the infil t ration of surf ace water and

the associated leaching to ground water. PAH concen t r ations in ground water may decrease as a result of

MNA.

5.5 SHORT-TERM EFFECTIVENESS

Alternative 1 does not provide shor t-term effe ctivene ss. Risks to nearby residents associat ed with

inhalation of fugitive em issions will remain. Alternativ es 2, 3, 4, and 5 will address site con t am inants in

a relatively short period of time. These alternatives i nvolve potent i al short-ter m risks that result from

handling cont am inated soils during exca vation and co ns olidation ac tivities. The short-term risks include

der m al conta c t with contaminated soils, inhalation of vapors and d u st, and dan g e rs associated with

operating m a t e rial-handling and pro cessing equipm en t and loading activiti es. These on-site risks will be

mitigated by i m plementing a project-specific HA SP to minim i ze exposure as well as by performing

re m e dial ta sks following best m a nag e ment practices. Nearby residents also m i ght be at risk due to

inhalation of fugitive em issions. These risks will be mitigated through air m o n itoring and dust

suppression t echniques.

5.6 IMPLEME N TAB I LIT Y

Alternative 1 is easily im pl em ented, and does not require any actions other than 5-y ear reviews. All four

alternatives w ith RAs are e asily im ple m ented. Each of these is a full-scale tech nol ogy, and has been used

successfully a t other Superf und sites to tr eat si m i l a r metal contam in ants in soil. I m pl ementation requires

82

### relatively simple process e quipm ent that is easy to co nstruct and operate. Oper ation of the e a rth- m oving

equipm ent will require engineering m e asures to contro l air em issions, fugitive dust, runoff, erosion, and

sedi m entatio n.

Although Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 are all easily im p l em ented, Alt e rnative 4 may be the m o st difficult

from a public acceptanc e perspective. I n this instanc e , the site wil l be required to be designated as an

AOC in the ROD. Consequentl y , although this does not pose any a dditional risks, there is a possibilit y

that public perception m a y make redevel opm ent m o re difficult. Alternative 5 would be the easiest to

im plem ent, althoug h it m a y be m o re challengi ng fr om a site redevelopm ent persp ective.

5.7 COST

Costs associ a t ed with each of the remedial altern atives are su mmari zed in Table 6 and detailed in

Appendix B. Alternative 3 is the m o st expensive, foll owed b y Alternatives 2, 4, 5, and 1

. Alt e rnative 1

has very m i nimal costs in t h at no RAs will be perform ed. Costs for Alternatives 2 and 3 differ as a result

of the disposa l option being e m ploy ed. Alternativ e 5 costs are the l o west of the full-scale RA s because

contam inated soil is being left on site beneath the concrete.

5.8 SUMMARY

A total of five remedial alt e rnatives were full y ev aluated during the FS. The No Action Alternative was

evaluated as r e quired by the NCP. Alter n atives 2, 3, 4, and 5 would all meet R A Os set for the site and

co m p ly with ARARs.

83

### 84 TABLE 6

COST SUMMARY FOR REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES MDI SUPERFUND SITE, HOUSTON, TEXAS

OPERABLE UNIT 1

Alternative Fixed Costs 1 

### Remedy Costs 2 

### O&M 3 

### Total

(1)

No Action None None $100,000 $100,000

(2)

Solidification/Stabilization with On-site Disposal and

MNA $2,200,000 $2,300,000 $300,000 $4,800,000

(3)

Solidification/Stabilization with Off-site Disposal and

MNA $2,200,000 $3,500,000 $300,000 $6,000,000

(4)

Containment with MNA $2,200,000 $1,800,000 $300,000 $4,300,000

(5)

Solidification/Stabilization of Soils in Unpaved Areas with Off-site Disposal and

MNA $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $300,000 $3,300,000

Notes:

1 Fixed costs include site preparation, demolition, mobilization/demobilization, and LNAPL removal costs

associated with Alterna tives 2, 3, 4, and 5. 2 Remedy costs include those costs to address lead co ntamination in soils as well as capital costs for a ground water monitoring network. 3 O&M costs including ground water monitoring for MNA and five-year reviews.

MNA Monitored natural attenuation LNAPL Light nonaqueous-phase liquid O&M Operation and maintenance

### 6.0 REFERENCES

Bo m a r, Geor ge W. 1983. “Texas We ather.” University of Texas Press. Austin, TX.

Conestoga-Rovers Associates Services. 1999 . “Dru m Rem oval Action Final Rep o rt Man y Div e rsified Interests Site, Houston Texas.” Prepared for the U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency , Regi on 6, Dallas, Texas. Referen ce ID 25986- 16. Decem b er.

Do m e nico, P.A. 1987. “An Analytical Model for Multidim ensional Transport of Decay ing Contam inant Species.” Jo urnal of Hydr ology . Vol u me 91. Pages 49-58

.

Enercon Services, Inc. 2003. “Asbestos Surve y Re por t Many Diversified Interest s Site, 3617 Baer Street Houston, Tex as.” February 28.

R.S. Means C o m p any , Inc. (Means). 2002a. Environmental Remediation Cost Data–Unit Pr ice,
ECHOS–Environmental Co st Handling Options an d Soluti ons . 8t h Annual Edi tion. Kin g sto n , MA.

Means. 2002 b. Heavy Construction Co st Data . 16 th 

### Annual Editi on. Kin g ston , MA.

TERA, Inc. 1994 . “Repo r t of Certain Site Investig ation, 3 617 Baer St.” Prepared For Param ount
International Steel, Inc.

Tetra Tech. 2003a. “Technical Mem o randum –Evalua tion of S u spected Cataly st Materials, Many Diversified Interests Supe rfund Site.” Januar y 31

.

Tetra Tech. 2003 b. “Remedial Investigation Report For Operable Unit 1, Man y Diversified Interests Superfund S i t e .” Novem b er 28.

Tetra Tech. 2003c. “Screening-level E c ological Ri sk Assessment for Operable Unit 1, Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study, Many Divers ified Interests Superfund Site.” Novem b er 28.

Tetra Tech. 2003 d. “Hu m an Health Risk Assessment for Operable Un it 1, Remedial Investigation and Feasibility St udy

, Many Diversified Inte rests Superfund Site.” Decem b er 1.

Texas Natural Resource Conservation C o mmission (TNRCC). 1996a. “Screening Site Inspe c tion Report, Volume I of III, MDI Site, Hous ton, Texas T XD008083404.” TNRCC Region 12– Region Super f und Staff. J u l y

.

TNRCC. 1996b. Many D i versified Interests, Inc. No tification of t h e Potential of Imm i nent Danger to

the General P ublic from Hazardous Substances Found During t h e SSI Site Visit Conducted at this

Site. Fax Transm ittal fro m Stennie Meadours, Poll uti on Cleanup D i vision, Em ergency Response and Assessment Section, TNRCC, to Charlie Gazda and Regan Broy les, EPA Region 6,

Em ergency Response Bran ch. Februar y 12.

TNRCC. 1998. E-m a il from Johnny K e nnedy to RT PMainhub.I n t e rent Regardi ng Installation of 12

Te m porary Monitoring Wells at the MDI Site. May 8.

U.S. Department of Agricu lture. 19 76. Soil Surve y o f Harris County, Texas. August.

85

### U.S. Enviro n m ental Protection Agenc y ( EPA). 1988

. “Guidance for Cond uctin g Rem e dial Investigations and Feasibility Studies U nder CERCLA.” EPA/540/G-89/004. Office of

Em ergency and Remedial Response. Washington, D. C. October.

EPA. 199 7a. “BIOSCREEN Natural Attenuation D ecision Supp or t S y stem Version 1.4

. ” EP A 600-R97-87.

EPA. 199 7b. “Record of Decision, Residential Ar eas , Operable U n it 2, Tar Creek Superfund Site, Ottawa County, Oklahom a.” EPA Region 6. Au gust.

EPA. 1998. “Management of Rem e diat ion Waste U nder RCRA.” EPA 530-F-98-026. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER). Washington, D.C. O c tober.

EPA. 199 9. “Presu m p tive Rem e dy for Metals-in-Soil Sites.” EPA 540-F-9 8 -05 4 . OSWER. Washington, D.C. Septem b e r.

EPA. 2000a. “A Guide to Developing and Documen ting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study.”

EPA 540-R-0 0 -002. OSWER. Washing t on, D.C. (In conjunction with the U.S. Arm y Corps of Engineers, Omaha, NE). J u ly

.

EPA. 2000b. “Institutiona l Controls : A Site Manager’s Guide to I d en tify i ng, E v aluating and Selecting

Institutional Controls at S uperfund and RCRA Co rrective Action Cleanups.” EPA 540-F-00-005. OSWER. Washington, D. C. Septem b e r.

EPA. 200 0c. “Record of Decision, Delatte Meta ls Superfund Si te, Poncha toula / Tangipahoa Parish, Louisiana.” EPA Region 6. Septem ber.

EPA. 200 3. “EPA Region 6 Hum a n Health Medium -Sp ecific Scre ening Levels.” Dec e m ber. Available

on the Interne t at http://www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6pd/rc ra_c/pd-n/screen.htm

86

### APPEND IX A

FATE A ND TRANSP O R T MODE LI NG

(19 Pages)

### APPEND IX A

FATE AN D TRANSP O R T MODE LI NG

The screenin g-level m odel BIOSCREEN Version 1.4 (U.S. Envir onm ental Pro t ection Agency [ EPA}

1997) was us ed to assess t h e m i gration of the pol y c yclic aro m ati c hy drocarbons (PAH) benzo(a)py rene

and dibenzo( a,h)anthracene fro m the Many Diversif i e d Interests ( M DI) Superfund site via t h e ground

water pathway in support of a m onitored natural a ttenuation of ground water element in the feasibility

study (FS) re port. The following sections present a brief description of the BIOSCREEN m o d e l,

assu m p tions applied to the individual site m odels, a si m p lified conc eptual m odel of the MDI site, and

si m u lation results for the BIOSCREE N m odeling.

A1. MODE L DE SCRIPT ION

BIOSCREE N is a scre e ning m odel that si m u lates r e mediation b y n a tural attenuation of dissol v ed

h y drocarbo ns in gro und water. The software, progra mmed in the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet

environm ent and based on the Domenico anal y tical solute transpor t m odel (Do m enico 1987) , has the

abilit y to simulate one-dimensional advection, thr ee-di m e nsional dispersion, linear adsorption, and

biotransformation by both aerobic and anaerobic reac ti ons. Dissolved solvent degradation is assu med to

follow a sequential, first-order decay process in ter m s of viable alternative re m e di ation strategies or

throug h an in stantaneous reaction. BIOSCREEN Versi on 1.4 allo ws for rate co nstant estim ation thr oug h

calibration of the m odel to site-specifi c field data or from literature values.

At MDI, appreciable PA H concentrations were det ect ed at the source location (MW-03) though not in the

nearby downgradient wells (MW-02 and MW-24). As su ch, cali b ration of decay rates was not possible.

Furtherm ore, reasonable published half-lives or decay constants for the degradation of benzo(a)py rene

and dibenzo(a,h)anthracene were not identified. B ecause of this, a conservative approach was taken for

this m odeling project by apply i ng no degradation of conta m inants w ithin the dissolved-phase plume or

source area th rough out t h e sim u lation periods. Mo dele d PAH concentrations were allowed to decrease as

a result of dil u tion or sorpt i on o n to sedi m ents. Pred ictive sim u lations were conducted to estimate future

plum e behavior after both 30 y ears and 100 y ears usi ng a com b ination of site-sp ecific data obtained as

part of the M D I remedial investigation ( R I) for Op erable Unit (OU) 1 (Tetra Tech 20 03b) an d published

che m ic al properties for benzo(a)py rene and dibenzo(a,h)anthracene.

A-1

### A2. MODE L AS SUMPTI ON S

The followin g prim ary assum ptions were applie d to t h e BIOSCRE EN m odeling for the MDI site:

1. The groun d water plu m e length is estimated to be approxim a t e ly ha lf the distance between the

source at MW-03 and M W -02, the ne arest downgradie nt well. As stated previousl y , none of the

PAHs w e re p r esent at dete ctable concen trations in this downgradient well. The plum e is assu med

to be 15 0 feet long (Fi gure A-1).

2. Retardation factors for benzo(a)py rene a nd di benzo(a,h)anthracen e of 46782 and 28189.6, respectively

, were applied.

3. Observation wells selected for the m odel sim u lations are located along t h e centerline of flow

from the sour ce.

4. Contam inant concentrations at wells M W -03 and MW-02 using water quality data fro m the MDI RI represent t h e true plum e concentration at those points.

5. Aquifer poros ity is lim ited to intergranul ar pores. Fractures have not been report e d in the shall o w water-be a ring zone (SWBZ), and fracture flow is not considered to be representa tive of site

conditions.

6. The principal direction of f l ow is northw est near m onitoring well M W -03 and t h e h y draulic gradient in th e area is 0.0067 foo t/foot.

7. The fraction of organic carbon (f

oc 

### ) of 0. 002 for a gro und water sam ple collected from MW-03

was used.

8. A ground water flow velocity of appr oxi mate ly 236 fe et per y ear (ft /y r) is assu m e d to be representativ e of the site and is based on the ge om etr i c m ean hy dr aulic conduct i vit y for the native

sands of the SWBZ the ob served hydraulic gr adient between MW-03 and MW- 02, and the

average meas ured effective porosity of 0.2 (20 percent).

9. A m a xi m u m concentration of dibenzo(a,h)anth racene of 0.000102 milligram s per liter ( m g/L) is used as the source concentration in water (observed concentration at MW-03).

10. A m a xim u m concentration of benzo(a)p y re ne of 0.0 0 0619 m g /L is used as the source concentration in water (observed concentration at MW-03).

11. No degradation of PAHs o ccurs during t h e sim u lation period.

A3. LOC A L C O NCEPT UAL MODEL

A conceptual site m odel (CSM) was developed for the entire MDI site as part of the RI for OU 1 (Tetra

Tech 2003b)

. The CSM details conditions whereby ground water flow in the S W BZ is controlled by the

interaction between the north po nd, t h e foundr y sands

, and the nativ e sedim ents. The SWBZ occurs

A-20 4 0 4 0

4 0

4 0 4 0

4 0

4 5 4 5

4 0 4 0

4 0 4 0

4 0 4 0

4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0

4 0

4 0

4 5 4 0

4 0 P 1 0 B E N Z O ( a ) A N T H R A C E N E 2

B E N Z O ( a ) P Y R E N E 0

. 6 1 9

M W

- 0 3

2 3

2 4

P R E S S S T R E E T P o t e n t i o m e t r i c S u r f a c e L e g e n d

S i t e B o u n d a r y R a i l r o a d M o n i t o r i n g W e l l L o c a t i o n

S u b d i v i s i o n B o u n d a r y S t r e e t F e n c e

M a i n C o n t o u r I n t e r v a l ( 1 f o o t s e p a r a t e s i n t e r v a l s )

I n t e r m e d i a r y C o n t o u r I n t e r v a l A p p r o x i m a t e E x t e n t o f

F o u n d r y S a n d s

F I G U R E A

- 1

F A T E A N D T R A N S P O R T

M O D E L I N G M D I S U P E R F U N D S I T E

H O U S T O N

, T E X A S

B Y :

T e t r a T e c h E M I n c

. P R E P A R E D F O R :

N o t e :

1

. R e s u l t s a r e p o s t e d i n μ g / L

0 1 0 0 5 0

F e e t A r e a M o d e l e d10.22.03b:\mdi\onsite\projects\FigureA-1modelarea.mxdhpbl B E N Z O ( a ) P Y R E N E < 0

. 0 2

D I B E N Z O ( a ) A N T H R A C E N E < 0

. 0 2 M W

- 0 2 G e o p r o b e L o c a t i o n

### within native sedi m ents in the eastern an d western thir ds of the site. The static wa ter surface of the

SWBZ is typi cally encou n t e red 16 to 1 8 feet bgs. The transm issive portion of the SWBZ is encountered

between 22 and 2 6 feet bg s and consis ts of silt y sand to po orl y gra d ed fine sand. The native sands are

breached in the center of the site where Ingraham Gu lly transected the site. Ingraha m Gully has been

lined with the 12-foot-wide by 10-foot-l ong concrete box culvert de scribed previousl y and backfilled with

foundr y sand s

.

Contam ination of the SWB Z is for the most part ver y l o calized, with sporadic de tection of org a nic and

inorganic contam inants associated with the fill mate ri als that were placed within the Ingraham Gully

backfill. Site conditions near MW-3 are so m e what different. Here the backfill materials within the

former Ingraham Gully do not extend to the top of the SWBZ. Further m ore, whereas the backf ill

materi als ac r o ss the site ar e typically fine sands, at the MW-03 loc a tion these materials are much finer

grained. Add itionall y , whi l e m o st other releases appe ar to be related to sporadic releases withi n the

sands, at the MW-03 and nearby ran d o m grid boring location P-1 0 , a significant vol um e of waste oil was

disposed of in the sediments resu lting in the presence of free product that has act ed as a continuing source

of grou nd water contam ination.

A4. MODE L SI MULAT I ON RESUL T S

Individual BIOSCREEN m odel si mula tions were r un for benzo(a ) py rene and dibenzo(a,h)anthracene

using the l o cal CSM and assu m p tions described above. A summary of the input param e t e rs ap plied to t h e

individual model runs are presented in Table A-1. The results are su mmarized below for the individual

m odel s developed for the MDI site FS. The si m u la tion results for benzo(a)py re ne are present e d first

followed by a summary of the dibenzo(a,h)anthracen e si m u lation results. The associated m odel output

files and asso ciated concen tration plots for benzo(a) pyrene and dibe nzo(a,h)anthracene ar e pre sented in

Attach ments 1 and 2, respectively

.

Ben z o(a)pyrene Simulati on Results

As previously described, both 30- y ear and 100- y ear si m u lations were conducted to evaluate the fate and

transport of b e nzo(a)py ren e at the MDI site. A groun d water seepage velocit y of 235. 7 ft/ y r w as

calculated using the geom etric m ean of hydraulic cond uctivit y estimates fro m the MDI RI aquifer tests in

the SWBZ (native sand) (Tetra Tech 2003b), a hydr aul i c gradient measured in 2003 between MW-03 and

MW-02 (0. 0 0 67 foo t per fo ot [ f t/ft] ), and an effective porosit y valu e of 0.20 . A r e tardation coefficient of

46,7 82 was calculated for benzo(a)py re ne using f

oc 

### c ontent (0. 2 pe rcent), total p o rosit y (0. 39) , and bu lk

A-4

### TABLE A-1

PARAME T E RS USED I N BIOS CRE EN MODEL SIMULA TI ONS

MDI SUPER F UND SIT E

, HOUS T ON, TEX AS

OPERABLE UNIT 1

Par a meter Value Value Source Com ment

Po re Velo city 2 3 7

. 5 feet/ year Calcu l ated Usi n g R I a qui f e r t e st dat a (R I Report), m easured gradie nt,
and effective porosity

Lo ngi t u di nal D i spersi vi t y 15 feet 1/ 1 0 of m odel pl um e l e ngt h See C a l c Al ph a x

(Al pha y / Al p h a x ) 0. 1 Ty pi cal val u e - -

(Al pha z/ Al p h a x ) 0 No ve rt i cal di s p ersi on Sou r ce assu m e d to fu lly
penet r ate the SWBZ

B e nzo ( a) py re n e R e t a rdat i o n Coefficient 4 6 ,782 Used field f

oc , ρ b , n dat a , a n d

K

oc v a l u es from th e literatu re S W B Z nat i v e s a nd ( f

r o m Tabl e 25 o f R I R e po rt )

Dibe nzo(a,h)a n thracene

Retard ation Coefficien t 2 8 ,189 .6 Used field f

oc , ρ b , n dat a , a n d

K

oc v a l u es from th e literatu re S W B Z nat i v e s a nd ( f

r o m Tabl e 25 o f R I R e po rt )

B e nzo ( a) py re n e

Decay Rate 0/year Ass u m e d no decay

- -

Dibe nzo(a,h)a n thracene Dec a y Rate 0/year Ass u m e d no decay

- -

Sim u l a t i on Pe r i ods 30 y ears a n d

10 0 y e a r s - - - -

M odel e d Area W i dt h 25 feet

- - - -

M odele d Area Len g th 50 feet

- - - -

Ben z o( a)p y r e ne Sour ce Co n c en tration 0. 61 9 microgram /

liter Obse r v ed 2 0 0 3 dat a C once n t r at i o n at M W

- 03

Dibe nzo(a,h)a n thracene Source

Co n c en tration 0. 10 2 microgram /

liter Obse r v ed 2 0 0 3 dat a C once n t r at i o n at M W

- 03

Notes:

f

oc Fract i o n of o r g a ni c car b on

FS Feasib ility stu dy

K

oc Octano l-carbon p a rtitio n co efficien t

n To tal po ro sity

ρ b Bu lk d e n s ity

R I R e m e di al i nve st i g at i on (re fer e nces R I R e por t fo r Op er ab le Un it 1 [ T etr a Tech 20 03b ])

SW BZ Shallow water-beari n g zone



### A-5

### density (1.66 kilogram s per liter [ kg/L ] ) data obt ained from geotech nical sam p les collected from the

SWBZ durin g the MDI RI. The indi vid u al input para meters applied to the be nzo(a)p y rene model are

presented in Table A-1.

The 30- y ear m odel simulation results fo r benzo(a)p y r e ne are pres e n ted in Attachment 1A. The esti m at ed

extent of benzo(a)py rene a bove detectable levels (i.e., 0.02 m i crogram per liter [ : g/L] ) is approxim a tely 5

feet downgradient of the s ource. The 1 00- y ear m odel sim u lation results for benzo(a)py rene a r e

su mmarized i n Attach m e nt 1B. These results also s how very lim ite d transport of benzo(a)py rene from

the source at MW-03. T h e estimated extent of benz o(a)p y rene above detectable levels after 100 y ears is

approxim a tely 10 feet dow ngradient of t h e source.

Diben z o(a,h)anthracene Simulation Results

Both 30- y ear and 100- y ear si m u lations were al so c onducted for di benzo(a,h)anthracene at the MDI site.

The ground water s eepag e velocity applied in the be nzo(a)py rene si m u lations was al so used in these

si m u lations. A retardation coefficient of 28,189. 6 was calculated for dibenzo(a,h)anthracene using f

oc 

### content (0.2 percent), total porosit y ( 0 .39), and bulk d e nsity ( 1 .66 k g /L) data obt ained from geotechnical

sam p les collected fro m the SWBZ durin g the MDI RI. The indi vid u al input parameters applied to the

dibenzo(a,h)anthracene m o del are presen ted in Table A-1.

The 30-y ear m odel si mula tion results for dibenzo(a, h)anthracene a r e su mmariz e d in Attachment 2A.

After 30 y ears, the esti m at ed extent of dibenzo( a,h)anthracene above detectable l e vels (i.e., 0.02 : g/L) is

approxim a tely 5 feet down g radient of th e sour ce. The 100- y ear model sim u lation results for

dibenzo(a,h)anthracene are summari zed in Attach m e n t 2B. After 100 y ears, the esti m ated extent of

benzo(a)py re ne above detectable levels is approxim a tely 10 feet do wngradient of the source.

A5. SUMMARY AND C O N C L USI O NS

The BIOSCR EEN si m u lati on results show detectab le concentrations of benzo(a)p y rene and

dibenzo(a,h)anthracene for very short dis t ances bey o nd the source area after both 30 y ears and 100 y ears.

The concentrations of these conta m inants of poten tial concern (CO P C) decrea se sharply with distance

from the sour ce areas, whi c h is consistent with the current distribution of these constituents within the

SWBZ (note, no PAHs have been detected in down g r a dient m onitoring well MW-02). This suggests that

the PAHs pre sent at MW-03 are primaril y sorbed onto the poro u s media with onl y lim ited partitionin g of

the COPCs into gro und wat e r occurring at the site. Th i s is supported b y the high d i stribution co efficients

A-6

### associat ed wi th benzo(a)pyrene (10,991)and dibenzo( a,h)anthracene (6,623). The li m ited transport of

benzo(a)py re ne and dibenz o(a,h)anthracene si m u lated in the m odels is related to the high retardation

coefficients o f these co m p ounds (46,782 and 28,189.6, respectively )

.

Based on field data, both hydrological and chem ic al, and reasonable esti m ates of variables of fate and

transport of b e nzo(a)py ren e and dibenzo ( a,h)anthrace ne in the SWBZ, a threat of contam inati on m u ch

beyond the so urce area is not likel y t o oc cur. The ac tion of m onitor i ng the SWB Z for benzo(a)p y rene and

dibenzo(a,h)anthracene that could originate fro m th e PAH source r e m a ining in the shallow soil or the

SWBZ with n o other action on the sol u te plum e shoul d be sufficiently protective of the gro und water

resource outside the source area at MW-0 3 and off site.

In order to better constrain the uncertainties as sociat ed with the indi vidual m odels, it is reco mmended that

additional water qualit y dat a be collected at the MDI site. Additiona l benzo(a)p y r e ne and

dibenzo(a,h)anthracene concentration data is ess ential to constraining the concentration trends of these

two com pounds within the SWBZ. Addi tional water le vel m onitoring will also help better define ground

water flow directions and rates. As additional data are collected ove r tim e , the models should be updated

to reflect current data and t h e predicted sim u lations refined. Altho u gh there are currentl y lim itations and

uncertainty with the indivi dual m odels, they are considered useful in un derstanding the site an d

evaluating monitored natural atte nuation as a re medial alternative.

A-7

### ATTA CHM E NT 1A

30-YEAR M O DE L SIM U LAT I ON FOR BE N Z O ( A)PYR E NE

(Two Pages)BIOSCREEN Natural Attenuation Decision Support SystemMDI SiteData Input Instructions:Air Force Center for Environmental ExcellenceVersion 1.4Benzo(a)pyrene1151. Enter value directly....orRun Name2. Calculate byfillingingrey1. HYDROGEOLOGY 5. GENERAL0.02cells below. (To restoreSeepage Velocity*Vs235.7(ft/yr)Modeled Area Length* 50(ft)formulas, hit button below).orModeled Area Width* 25(ft)Variable*Data used directly in model.Hydraulic ConductivityK6.8E-03(cm/sec)Simulation Time* 30(yr)20Value calculated by model.Hydraulic Gradienti0.0067(ft/ft)(Don't enter any data).Porosityn0.2(-)6. SOURCE DATASource Thickness in Sat.Zone* 4.5(ft)2. DISPERSIONSource Zones:Longitudinal Dispersivity*alpha x15.0(ft)Width* (ft) Conc. (mg/L)*Transverse Dispersivity*alpha y1.5(ft)10 0.000151Vertical Dispersivity*alpha z0.0(ft)10 0.00031or50 0.000619Estimated Plume LengthLp150(ft)10 0.0003110 0.000153. ADSORPTION Source Halflife (see Help):Retardation Factor*R46782.0(-)>1000 >1000(yr) View of Plume Looking DownorInst. React. 1st OrderSoil Bulk Densityrho1.66(kg/l)Soluble Mass100000(Kg)Observed Centerline Concentrations at Monitoring WellsPartition CoefficientKoc5495409(L/kg)In Source NAPL, SoilIf No Data Leave Blank or Enter "0"FractionOrganicCarbonfoc2.0E-3(-)7. FIELD DATA FOR COMPARISONConcentration (mg/L)0.0006190 0.00002004. BIODEGRADATIONDist. from Source (ft)0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 501st Order Decay Coeff*lambda0.0E+0(per yr)or8. CHOOSE TYPE OF OUTPUT TO SEE:Solute Half-Lifet-half(year)or Instantaneous Reaction ModelDelta Oxygen*DO0(mg/L)Delta Nitrate*NO30(mg/L)Observed Ferrous Iron*Fe2+0(mg/L)Delta Sulfate*SO40(mg/L)Observed Methane*CH40(mg/L)Vertical Plane Source: Look at Plume Cross-Sectionand Input Concentrations & Widthsfor Zones 1,2,and 3View OutputPaste Example DatasetView OutputRestore Formulas for Vs,Dispersivities, R, lambda, otherRUNCENTERLINERUN ARRAYHelpRecalculate ThisSheetLWorororor12345ororDISSOLVED HYDROCARBON CONCENTRATION ALONG PLUME CENTERLINE (mg/L at Z=0)Distance from Source (ft)TYPE OF MODEL0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50No Degradation0.0006190 0.0000071 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.00000001st Order Decay0.0006190 0.0000071 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000Inst. Reaction0.0006190 0.0000071 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000Field Data from Site0.0006190 0.0000200Time:30 YearsNext TimestepPrev TimestepReplayAnimationRecalculate ThisSheetBenzo(a)pyrene @ 30yrs0.00000000.00010000.00020000.00030000.00040000.00050000.00060000.00070000 10 20 30 40 50 60Distance From Source (ft)

Concentration (mg/L)1st Order DecayInstantaneous ReactionNo DegradationField Data from SiteReturn toInput

### ATTA CHM E NT 1B

100-YEAR MODEL SIMULATION FOR BENZ O(A)PYRENE

(Two Pages)BIOSCREEN Natural Attenuation Decision Support SystemMDI SiteData Input Instructions:Air Force Center for Environmental ExcellenceVersion 1.4Benzo(a)pyrene1151. Enter value directly....orRun Name2. Calculate byfillingingrey1. HYDROGEOLOGY 5. GENERAL0.02cells below. (To restoreSeepage Velocity*Vs235.7(ft/yr)Modeled Area Length* 50(ft)formulas, hit button below).orModeled Area Width* 25(ft)Variable*Data used directly in model.Hydraulic ConductivityK6.8E-03(cm/sec)Simulation Time* 100(yr)20Value calculated by model.Hydraulic Gradienti0.0067(ft/ft)(Don't enter any data).Porosityn0.2(-)6. SOURCE DATASource Thickness in Sat.Zone* 4.5(ft)2. DISPERSIONSource Zones:Longitudinal Dispersivity*alpha x15.0(ft)Width* (ft) Conc. (mg/L)*Transverse Dispersivity*alpha y1.5(ft)10 0.000151Vertical Dispersivity*alpha z0.0(ft)10 0.00031or50 0.000619Estimated Plume LengthLp150(ft)10 0.0003110 0.000153. ADSORPTION Source Halflife (see Help):Retardation Factor*R46782.0(-)>1000 >1000(yr) View of Plume Looking DownorInst. React. 1st OrderSoil Bulk Densityrho1.66(kg/l)Soluble Mass100000(Kg)Observed Centerline Concentrations at Monitoring WellsPartition CoefficientKoc5495409(L/kg)In Source NAPL, SoilIf No Data Leave Blank or Enter "0"FractionOrganicCarbonfoc2.0E-3(-)7. FIELD DATA FOR COMPARISONConcentration (mg/L)0.0006190 0.00002004. BIODEGRADATIONDist. from Source (ft)0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 501st Order Decay Coeff*lambda0.0E+0(per yr)or8. CHOOSE TYPE OF OUTPUT TO SEE:Solute Half-Lifet-half(year)or Instantaneous Reaction ModelDelta Oxygen*DO0(mg/L)Delta Nitrate*NO30(mg/L)Observed Ferrous Iron*Fe2+0(mg/L)Delta Sulfate*SO40(mg/L)Observed Methane*CH40(mg/L)Vertical Plane Source: Look at Plume Cross-Sectionand Input Concentrations & Widthsfor Zones 1,2,and 3View OutputPaste Example DatasetView OutputRestore Formulas for Vs,Dispersivities, R, lambda, otherRUNCENTERLINERUN ARRAYHelpRecalculate ThisSheetLWorororor12345ororDISSOLVED HYDROCARBON CONCENTRATION ALONG PLUME CENTERLINE (mg/L at Z=0)Distance from Source (ft)TYPE OF MODEL0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50No Degradation0.0006190 0.0000766 0.0000045 0.0000001 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.00000001st Order Decay0.0006190 0.0000766 0.0000045 0.0000001 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000Inst. Reaction0.0006190 0.0000766 0.0000045 0.0000001 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000Field Data from Site0.0006190 0.0000200Time:100 YearsNext TimestepPrev TimestepCalculateAnimationRecalculate ThisSheetBenzo(a)pyrene @ 100yrs0.00000000.00010000.00020000.00030000.00040000.00050000.00060000.00070000 10 20 30 40 50 60Distance From Source (ft)

Concentration (mg/L)1st Order DecayInstantaneous ReactionNo DegradationField Data from SiteReturn toInput

### ATTA CHM E NT 2A

30-YEAR M O DE L SIM U LAT I ON FOR DI BEN ZO(A, H )A N T HR ACE N E

(Two Pages)BIOSCREEN Natural Attenuation Decision Support SystemMDI SiteData Input Instructions:Air Force Center for Environmental ExcellenceVersion 1.4Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene1151. Enter value directly....orRun Name2. Calculate byfillingingrey1. HYDROGEOLOGY 5. GENERAL0.02cells below. (To restoreSeepage Velocity*Vs235.7(ft/yr)Modeled Area Length* 50(ft)formulas, hit button below).orModeled Area Width* 25(ft)Variable*Data used directly in model.Hydraulic ConductivityK6.8E-03(cm/sec)Simulation Time* 30(yr)20Value calculated by model.Hydraulic Gradienti0.0067(ft/ft)(Don't enter any data).Porosityn0.2(-)6. SOURCE DATASource Thickness in Sat.Zone* 4.5(ft)2. DISPERSIONSource Zones:Longitudinal Dispersivity*alpha x15.0(ft)Width* (ft) Conc. (mg/L)*Transverse Dispersivity*alpha y1.5(ft)10 0.0000251Vertical Dispersivity*alpha z0.0(ft)10 0.00005or50 0.000102Estimated Plume LengthLp150(ft)10 0.0000510 0.0000253. ADSORPTION Source Halflife (see Help):Retardation Factor*R28189.6(-)>1000 >1000(yr) View of Plume Looking DownorInst. React. 1st OrderSoil Bulk Densityrho1.66(kg/l)Soluble Mass100000(Kg)Observed Centerline Concentrations at Monitoring WellsPartition CoefficientKoc3311311(L/kg)In Source NAPL, SoilIf No Data Leave Blank or Enter "0"FractionOrganicCarbonfoc2.0E-3(-)7. FIELD DATA FOR COMPARISONConcentration (mg/L)0.0001020 0.00002004. BIODEGRADATIONDist. from Source (ft)0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 501st Order Decay Coeff*lambda0.0E+0(per yr)or8. CHOOSE TYPE OF OUTPUT TO SEE:Solute Half-Lifet-half(year)or Instantaneous Reaction ModelDelta Oxygen*DO0(mg/L)Delta Nitrate*NO30(mg/L)Observed Ferrous Iron*Fe2+0(mg/L)Delta Sulfate*SO40(mg/L)Observed Methane*CH40(mg/L)Vertical Plane Source: Look at Plume Cross-Sectionand Input Concentrations & Widthsfor Zones 1,2,and 3View OutputPaste Example DatasetView OutputRestore Formulas for Vs,Dispersivities, R, lambda, otherRUNCENTERLINERUN ARRAYHelpRecalculate ThisSheetLWorororor12345ororDISSOLVED HYDROCARBON CONCENTRATION ALONG PLUME CENTERLINE (mg/L at Z=0)Distance from Source (ft)TYPE OF MODEL0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50No Degradation0.0001020 0.0000043 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.00000001st Order Decay0.0001020 0.0000043 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000Inst. Reaction0.0001020 0.0000043 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000Field Data from Site0.0001020 0.0000200Time:30 YearsNext TimestepPrev TimestepReplayAnimationRecalculate ThisSheetDibenzo(a,h)anthracene @ 30yrs0.00000000.00002000.00004000.00006000.00008000.00010000.00012000 10 20 30 40 50 60Distance From Source (ft)

Concentration (mg/L)1st Order DecayInstantaneous ReactionNo DegradationField Data from SiteReturn toInput

### ATTA CHM E NT 2B

100-YEAR MODEL SIMULATION FO R DIBENZ O(A,H)ANTHRACENE

(Two Pages)BIOSCREEN Natural Attenuation Decision Support SystemMDI SiteData Input Instructions:Air Force Center for Environmental ExcellenceVersion 1.4Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene1151. Enter value directly....orRun Name2. Calculate byfillingingrey1. HYDROGEOLOGY 5. GENERAL0.02cells below. (To restoreSeepage Velocity*Vs235.7(ft/yr)Modeled Area Length* 50(ft)formulas, hit button below).orModeled Area Width* 25(ft)Variable*Data used directly in model.Hydraulic ConductivityK6.8E-03(cm/sec)Simulation Time* 100(yr)20Value calculated by model.Hydraulic Gradienti0.0067(ft/ft)(Don't enter any data).Porosityn0.2(-)6. SOURCE DATASource Thickness in Sat.Zone* 4.5(ft)2. DISPERSIONSource Zones:Longitudinal Dispersivity*alpha x15.0(ft)Width* (ft) Conc. (mg/L)*Transverse Dispersivity*alpha y1.5(ft)10 0.0000251Vertical Dispersivity*alpha z0.0(ft)10 0.00005or50 0.000102Estimated Plume LengthLp150(ft)10 0.0000510 0.0000253. ADSORPTION Source Halflife (see Help):Retardation Factor*R28189.6(-)>1000 >1000(yr) View of Plume Looking DownorInst. React. 1st OrderSoil Bulk Densityrho1.66(kg/l)Soluble Mass100000(Kg)Observed Centerline Concentrations at Monitoring WellsPartition CoefficientKoc3311311(L/kg)In Source NAPL, SoilIf No Data Leave Blank or Enter "0"FractionOrganicCarbonfoc2.0E-3(-)7. FIELD DATA FOR COMPARISONConcentration (mg/L)0.0001020 0.00002004. BIODEGRADATIONDist. from Source (ft)0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 501st Order Decay Coeff*lambda0.0E+0(per yr)or8. CHOOSE TYPE OF OUTPUT TO SEE:Solute Half-Lifet-half(year)or Instantaneous Reaction ModelDelta Oxygen*DO0(mg/L)Delta Nitrate*NO30(mg/L)Observed Ferrous Iron*Fe2+0(mg/L)Delta Sulfate*SO40(mg/L)Observed Methane*CH40(mg/L)Vertical Plane Source: Look at Plume Cross-Sectionand Input Concentrations & Widthsfor Zones 1,2,and 3View OutputPaste Example DatasetView OutputRestore Formulas for Vs,Dispersivities, R, lambda, otherRUNCENTERLINERUN ARRAYHelpRecalculate ThisSheetLWorororor12345ororDISSOLVED HYDROCARBON CONCENTRATION ALONG PLUME CENTERLINE (mg/L at Z=0)Distance from Source (ft)TYPE OF MODEL0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50No Degradation0.0001020 0.0000207 0.0000034 0.0000002 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.00000001st Order Decay0.0001020 0.0000207 0.0000034 0.0000002 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000Inst. Reaction0.0001020 0.0000207 0.0000034 0.0000002 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000Field Data from Site0.0001020 0.0000200Time:100 YearsNext TimestepPrev TimestepReplayAnimationRecalculate ThisSheetDibenzo(a,h)anthracene @ 100yrs0.00000000.00002000.00004000.00006000.00008000.00010000.00012000 10 20 30 40 50 60Distance From Source (ft)

Concentration (mg/L)1st Order DecayInstantaneous ReactionNo DegradationField Data from SiteReturn toInput

### APPENDIX B

COST ES TIMATE DE T A ILS

(31 Pages)Target Media Capital Cost ($)Lifetime O&MCost ($)Post-remediationMonitoring Cost($) Total Cost ($)Remediation TimeFrame (months)Post-remediationMonitoring (years)Soil $4,369,135 $40,947 $0 $4,410,082 6 0Deep Soil/Ground Water Contamination $118,161 $0 $263,933 $382,094 1 30$4,487,296 $40,947 $263,933 $4,792,177 7 30Note:O&M Operation and maintenanceComponentExcavation and Off-site Disposal with MNAExcavation and Solidification/StabilizationMonitored Natural Attenuation (MNA)ALTERNATIVE 2SOLIDIFICATION/STABILIZATION WITH ON-SITE DISPOSAL AND MNATOTAL REMEDIAL COST SUMMARYMDI SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT 1Page 1ALTERNATIVE 2

MDI SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT 1
HOUSTON, TEXAS

Alternative 2 - Solidification/Stabilization with On-site Disposal and Monitored Natural Attenuation

Construction

time: 6 months

Operation

time: 0.0 years

Post

Remediation Monitoring 0.0 years

Quantity Quantity Labor Labor Equipment Equipment Material Material Opinion

Amount Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Total Cost

REMEDIAL ACTION (RA) TOTAL CAPITAL COST $4,369,135

Construction Activities $3,386,926

Site Work $185,344 $207,867 $2,550,470 $2,943,682

Temporary Facilities $0 $0 $258,645 $258,645 1 lump sum $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $11,465 $11,465 $11,465 1 lump sum $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $2,399 $2,399 $2,399
1 lump sum $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $8,011 $8,011 $8,011

6 per month $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $21,418 $128,509 $128,509

1 lump sum $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $32,553 $32,553 $32,553

6 per month $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $10,618 $63,708 $63,708

6 ea $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $2,000.00 $12,000 $12,000

$143,163 $166,522 $1,411,041 $1,720,727
$6 $10 $8,039 $8,054

2-cy loader (ECHOS 17 02 0415) 30 cy $0.20 $6 $0.32 $10 $0.00 $0 $16

Hazardous debris disposal (estimate from vendor) 30 cy $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $108.10 $3,243 $3,243
Hazardous debris transportation (20 cy per load)(estimate from vendor) 2 loads $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $2,398 $4,796 $4,796

$44,528 $34,840 $99,093 $178,460 2-cy Loader (nonhazardous debris load only) (ECHOS 17 0 2 0415) 6,500 cy $0.20 $1,300 $0.32 $2,080 $0.00 $0 $3,380

Nonhazardous debris disposal (estimate from vendor) 6,500 cy $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $6.62 $43,030 $43,030
Nonhazardous debris transportation (20 cy per load)(estimate from vendor) 325 loads $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $172.50 $56,063 $56,063
Clearing and grubbing; medium brush with average grub and so m trees; clearing (ECHOS 17 01 0106) 36 acres $275 $9,885 $417 $15,012 $0.00 $0 $24,897

Machine-load spoils; 2-mile haul to dump (ECHOS 02110 2000) 36 acres $926 $33,343 $493 $17,748 $0.00 $0 $51,091 ACM Removal and Disposal $0 $0 $249,165 $249,165

ACM oversight contractor (estimate from vendor) 1 ea $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $19,165 $19,165 $19,165

ACM removal and disposal (estimate from contractor) 1 ea $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $230,000 $230,000 $230,000

$0 $0 $7,970 $7,970

Hazardous water removal (WS-1)(estimate from vendor) 3 hours $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $80.50 $242 $242

Hazardous water disposal (WS-1)(estimate from vendor) 400 gal $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $0.86 $345 $345

Petroleum water removal (WS-6 and UST)(estimate from vendor) 6 hours $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $80.50 $483 $483

Petroleum water disposal (WS-6 and UST)(estimate from vendor) 10,000 gal $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $0.35 $3,450 $3,450

Other water removal (WS-2, 3, 5, 7, and 8)(estimate from vendor) 12 hours $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $80.50 $966 $966

Other water disposal (WS-2, 3, 5, 7, and 8)(estimate from vendor) 12,000 gal $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $0.21 $2,484 $2,484 Building Demolition and Disposal $12,394 $9,863 $139,018 $161,275
Multi-level, masonry, nonexplosive building demolition (ECHOS 17 02 0103) 178,000 cf $0.06 $10,680 $0.04 $7,120 $0.00 $0 $17,800

2-cy Loader (load only, 30% expansion) (ECHOS 17 02 0415) 8,570 cy $0.20 $1,714 $0.32 $2,743 $0.00 $0 $4,457
Building debris transportation (18 cy per load)(estimate from vendor) 477 loads $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $172.50 $82,283 $82,283
Building debris disposal (nonhazardous debris)(estimate from vendor) 8,570 cy $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $6.62 $56,736 $56,736 Concrete Demolition and Disposal $1,950 $3,120 $522,459 $527,529

Concrete demolition (recent EPA Region 6 RA) 7,500 cy $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $38.64 $289,800 $289,800

2-cy Loader (load only, 30% expansion)(ECHOS 17 02 0415) 9,750 cy $0.20 $1,950 $0.32 $3,120 $0.00 $0 $5,070
Concrete transportation (20 tons per load, 2 tons per cy)(estimat e from vendor) 975 loads $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $172.50 $168,188 $168,188

Concrete disposal (estimate from vendor) 9,750 cy $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $6.61 $64,472 $64,472

$4 $6 $1,676 $1,686

Solidification/stabilization (recent EPA Region 6 RA) 30 ton $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $14.28 $428 $428

2-cy Loader (load only, 30% expansion)(ECHOS 17 02 0415) 20 cy $0.20 $4 $0.32 $6 $0.00 $0 $10

Transportation (estimate from vendor) 2 loads $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $172.50 $345 $345

Disposal (Class I) 20 cy $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $46.29 $903 $903 Project sign (recent EPA Region 6 RA)

Support facilities (office trailers, storage trailers, utilities, outdoor lighting, meteorological station)(recent EPA Region 6 RA)

Security (24 hours per day, 7 days per week)(recent EPA Region 6 RA) Install and maintain storm water control measures (recent EPA Region 6 RA) LOCATION: MEDIA: TECHNOLOGY

MDI Excavation and Solidification/Stabilization Soil

Nonhazardous Debris Removal and Disposal Decontamination pad (recent EPA Region 6 RA) Install temporary electrical service (recent EPA Region 6 RA)

Plug and abandon existing monitoring wells (24 feet deep)(based on previous work in EPA Region 6)

Bag House Material Disposal Demolition and Debris Removal Hazardous Debris Removal and Disposal

Water Removal and Disposal

Excavation and On-site Disposal Page 1 of 4ALTERNATIVE 2

MDI SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT 1
HOUSTON, TEXAS

Alternative 2 - Solidification/Stabilization with On-site Disposal and Monitored Natural Attenuation

Construction

time: 6 months

Operation

time: 0.0 years

Post

Remediation Monitoring 0.0 years

Quantity Quantity Labor Labor Equipment Equipment Material Material Opinion

Amount Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Total Cost LOCATION: MEDIA: TECHNOLOGY

MDI Excavation and Solidification/Stabilization Soil

UST Removal $1,932 $3,569 $9,852 $15,353

Remove steel/fiberglass UST: 2,001 - 5,000 gallon capacity (ECHOS 33 10 9505) 1 ea $910 $910 $3,285 $3,285 $0.00 $0 $4,195
Excavation and stockpiling of contaminated soil (recent EPA Region 6 RA) 90 cy $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $18.08 $1,627 $1,627

2-cy Loader (load only, 43% expansion)(ECHOS 17 02 0415) 129 cy $0.20 $26 $0.32 $41 $0.00 $0 $67

UST soil transportation (18 cy per load)(estimate from vendor) 8 loads $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $172.50 $1,380 $1,380

Soil disposal (Class 1)(estimate from vendor) 129 cy $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $46.29 $5,957 $5,957

Clean soil borrow, common earth (39% compaction) (M 02315 200 4060) 125 cy 0.49 $61 0.39 $49 $7.10 $888 $998
Fill, spread dumped material, by dozer, no compaction (M 02315

505 0010 ) 125 cy 0.47 $59 $1.14 $143 $0.00 $0 $201

Compaction, sheepfoot wobbly wheel, 12-inch lift, 4 passes (M 02315 300 5720) 125 cy 0.18 $23 $0.41 $51 $0.00 $0 $74
Compaction testing, 1 nuclear per 5000 sf per 9-inch compacted lift (ASTM 2922 M 01450 500 4735) 16 ea 53.36 $854 $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $854 LNAPL Impacted Soil Removal $82,349 $115,115 $356,477 $553,941 Steel sheeting; install, pull, and salvage; to 40 feet (MW- 3 Area)(ECHOS 17 03 0904) 8400 sf 3.67 $30,828 $4.93 $41,412 $3.39 $28,510 $100,750 Steel sheeting; install, pull, and salvage; to 25 feet (MW-11 an d MW-20 Areas)(ECHOS 17 03 0903) 14160 sf 3.14 $44,462 $4.21 $59,614 $2.74 $38,829 $142,905
Excavation and stockpiling of overburden soil (recent EPA Region 6 RA) 3,465 cy $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $18.08 $62,647 $62,647
Excavation and stockpiling of contaminated soil (recent EPA Region 6 RA) 2,100 cy $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $18.08 $37,968 $37,968

2-cy Loader (load only, 43% expansion)(ECHOS 17 02 0415) 3,003 cy $0.20 $601 $0.32 $961 $0.00 $0 $1,562

Contaminated soil transportation (18 cy per load)(estimate from vendor) 167 loads $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $172.50 $28,808 $28,808

Soil disposal (Class 1)(estimate from vendor) 3,003 cy $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $46.29 $139,001 $139,001

Clean soil borrow, common earth (39% compaction) (M 02315 200 4060) 2919 cy 0.49 $1,430 0.39 $1,138 $7.10 $20,715 $23,283
Fill, spread dumped material, by dozer, no compaction (M 02315

505 0010 ) 7735 cy 0.47 $3,636 $1.14 $8,818 $0.00 $0 $12,454

Compaction, sheepfoot wobbly wheel, 12-inch lift, 4 passes (M 02315 300 5720) 7735 cy 0.18 $1,392 $0.41 $3,171 $0.00 $0 $4,564
Compaction testing, 1 nuclear per 5000 sf per 9-inch compacted lift (ASTM 2922 M 01450 500 4735) 0 ea 53.36 $0 $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 PCB Transformer Disposal $0 $0 $17,293 $17,293 Transportation (separate trips for fluid and transformer)(estimate from vendor) 2 ea $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $2,990 $5,980 $5,980

Incineration of PCB-contaminated oil (estimate from vendor) 16,395 lb $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $0.69 $11,313 $11,313

Excavation and Treatment $0 $0 $601,460 $601,460

13,600 cy $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $18.08 $245,888 $245,888

20,400 ton $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $14.28 $291,312 $291,312

4,500 ton $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $14.28 $64,260 $64,260

Backfill and Compaction $42,181 $41,345 $279,324 $362,851
18,904 cy $0.49 $9,263 $0.31 $5,860 $7.09 $134,029 $149,153

18,904 cy $0.79 $14,934 $1.26 $23,819 $0.00 $0 $38,753

18,904 cy $0.18 $3,391 $0.32 $5,971 $0.00 $0 $9,362

55 ea $53.35 $2,934 $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $2,934

16,600 cy $0.49 $8,134 $0.31 $5,146 $7.09 $117,694 $130,974

1,280 ft $1.84 $2,355 $0.00 $0 $20.86 $26,701 $29,056

1,280 ft $0.81 $1,037 $0.38 $486 $0.24 $307 $1,830

1 ea $133.10 $133 $62.11 $62 $592.88 $593 $788

Sampling and Analysis $0 $0 $135,342 $135,342

Treated Soil Sampling TCLP (RCRA metals)(recent EPA Region 6 RA) 50 ea $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $322.00 $16,100 $16,100

Total lead (recent EPA Region 6 RA) 97 ea $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $95.45 $9,259 $9,259 Clean soil borrow, common earth (M 02315 200 4060) Backfill, spread fill, from stockpile w/ front-end loader (M 02315 505 0170)
Compaction, sheepfoot wobbly wheel, 12-inch lift, 4 passes (M 02315 300 5720)

Compaction testing, nuclear method (ASTM D2922); 1 per 5,000 sf per 9-inch loose lift (M 01450 500 4735)

6' Galvanized Chain-link Fence (ECHOS 18 04 0107)

Galvanized Barbed Wire, 3-Strand (ECHOS 0.19 04 0111)

6' Swing Gate, 12' Double (ECHOS 18 04 0117) Excavation and stockpiling of lead contaminated soil (recent EPA Region 6 RA)

Unclassified fill, 6-inch lifts, on-site; includes spreading and compaction (ECHOS 17 03 0422) Solidification/stabilization (recent EPA Region 6 RA)

Solidification/stabilization of off-property soil (recent EPA Region 6 RA)

Excavation Confirmation Sampling (1 per 2,500 sf plus 10% QA/QC)

Excavation and On-site Disposal Page 2 of 4ALTERNATIVE 2

MDI SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT 1
HOUSTON, TEXAS

Alternative 2 - Solidification/Stabilization with On-site Disposal and Monitored Natural Attenuation

Construction

time: 6 months

Operation

time: 0.0 years

Post

Remediation Monitoring 0.0 years

Quantity Quantity Labor Labor Equipment Equipment Material Material Opinion

Amount Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Total Cost LOCATION: MEDIA: TECHNOLOGY

MDI Excavation and Solidification/Stabilization Soil

XRF Sampling (field sampling for lead) XRF rental (recent EPA Region 6 RA) 6 month $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4,418.30 $26,510 $26,510

1 ea $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,640 $1,640 $1,640
Air Monitoring

6 month $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $5,359.00 $32,154 $32,154

720 ea $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $69.00 $49,680 $49,680

Mobilization and Demobilization $307,902

10% $307,902

System Contingency $338,693

10% of Total Construction Activities $338,693

Professional/Technical Services $643,516

8% $270,954

5% $169,346

6% $203,216

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) O&M COST (per 5 year review interval) $17,167

Monitoring, Sampling, Testing, and Analysis 1 lump sum $0 $0 $0 $0

Post-Remediation Site Monitoring Geoprobe 0 lump sum $10,000 $0 $5,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Field Work Labor 0 lump sum $15,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

0 lump sum $15,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

System O&M $0 $0 $0 $0

1 ea $14,000 $14,000 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $14,000

$3,167

LIFETIME O&M (Net Present Value) $40,947

Years of Operation 30

Discount Factor 7%

TOTAL COST (CAPITAL COST + LIFETIME O&M)

Assumptions:

1 2002 RS Means values increased to account for inflation 2.25%

2 Working condition is Safety Level: D (Labor productivity: 75% ; Equipment productivity: 95% )

3 Soil profile sampling will be conducted at the frequency of: 1 sample for every: 500 cy of contaminated soil plus 10% QA/QC

4 Cost index for zip code 770 88% (not applicable for costs derived from vendor quotes).

5 Costs are loaded with an overhead and profit factor: 15%

6 No net present value calculation is presented for alternative with an estimated remediation timeframe that is less than 1 year.

7 No dewatering costs included.

8 Treated soil and compaction volumes include 3,000 cy from off-property excavations currently stockpiled on property.

9 Debris volume only includes removal of debris overlying areas to be excavated.

10 Concrete volume only includes demolition and disposal of concrete over areas to be excavated. 5 year review (Previous Region 6 work assignments)

$4,410,082 of Total Costs of Site Work and Sampling & Analysis

Remedial Design (Percentage of capital costs)(Exhibit 5-8 from EPA 2000)

Data Analysis/Analytical

Cap and fence maintenance (10% of installed cost per 5 XRF supplies (cups, mylar, oven, bowls)(recent EPA Region 6 RA)

Equipment rental (low-flow air samplers, calibrator, dust monitor, calibration gas, and sound meter)(recent EPA Region 6 RA)

Air sample analysis (lead and total particulates; 4 samples per day)(recent EPA Region 6 RA)

Project Management (Percentage of capital costs)(Exhibit 5-8 from EPA 2000)

Construction Management (Percentage of capital costs)(Exhibit 5-8 from EPA 2000)

Excavation and On-site Disposal Page 3 of 4ALTERNATIVE 2

MDI SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT 1
HOUSTON, TEXAS

Alternative 2 - Solidification/Stabilization with On-site Disposal and Monitored Natural Attenuation

Construction

time: 6 months

Operation

time: 0.0 years

Post

Remediation Monitoring 0.0 years

Quantity Quantity Labor Labor Equipment Equipment Material Material Opinion

Amount Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Total Cost LOCATION: MEDIA: TECHNOLOGY

MDI Excavation and Solidification/Stabilization Soil

Estimated Volume of Excavation:

Total

Estimated total volume of contaminated soil : 13,600 0 0 13,600 cf
Average soil swelling factor: 43%
Average soil density: 1.5 tons/cy In-place Loose

13,600 19,448 cy 20,400 tons

39%

18,904

Notes:
ACM Asbestos-containing material ASTM American Society of Testing and Materials

cf Cubic foot cy Cubic yard ECHOS Environmental Cost Handling Options and Solutions (RS Means 2002a) EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency gal Gallon

lb Pound LNAPL Light nonaqueous-phase liquid MW Monitoring well PCB Polychlorinated biphenyl QA/QC Quality assurance/quality control RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act sf Square feet TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure UST Underground storage tank WS Waste sample XRF X-ray fluoresence

References:

1) RS Means. 2002b. Heavy Construction Cost Data. 16th Annual Edition. 2) RS Means. 2002a. Environmental Remediation Cost Data, Unit Price. 8th Annual Edition 3) EPA. 2000. A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study. Estimated total volume of replacement soil Replacement soil compaction factor Estimated total volume of excavated soil :

Excavation and On-site Disposal Page 4 of 4ALTERNATIVE 2

MDI SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT 1 HOUSTON, TEXAS

Alternative 2 - Solidification/Stabilization and On-site Disposal and Monitored Natural Attenuation

Construction

TIme: 1 months

Operation

TIme: 30.0
years

Post

Remediation Monitoring 30.0 years

Quantity Quantity Labor Labor Equipment Equipment Material Material Opinion

Amount Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Total Cost

REMEDIAL ACTION TOTAL CAPITAL COST $118,161

Initial Site Characterization $75,502

6 ea $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $3,450 $20,700 $20,700

48 well $286 $13,733 $142.39 $6,835 $15.08 $724 $21,292

48 ea

48 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $233.80 $11,222 $11,222 48 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $51.73 $2,483 $2,483 48 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $71.18 $3,416 $3,416 Ferrous iron (ECHOS 33 02 1678) 48 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $96.42 $4,628 $4,628 Dissolved manganese (ECHOS 33 02 1644) 48 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $71.18 $3,416 $3,416 Nitrate (ECHOS 33 02 1661) 48 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $36.70 $1,762 $1,762 Sulfate (ECHOS 33 02 1667) 48 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $19.40 $931 $931 Dissolved oxygen (ECHOS 33 02 1663) 48 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $28.76 $1,381 $1,381

1 lump sum $4,271 $4,271 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,271

Contingency $7,550

10% of total construction activities $7,550

Professional/Technical Services $35,109

20% $15,100

10% $7,550

15% $12,458

MNA Monitoring (Annually) $21,269

Monitoring, Sampling, Testing, and Analysis 12 months $3,433 $1,709 $7,330 $12,472

8 well $286 $2,289 $142.39 $1,139 $15.08 $121 $3,549

4 well $286 $1,144 $142.39 $570 $15.08 $60 $1,774

12 ea

12 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $228.65 $2,744 $2,744 12 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $50.59 $607 $607 12 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $69.61 $835 $835 Ferrous iron (ECHOS 33 02 1678) 12 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $94.30 $1,132 $1,132 Dissolved manganese (ECHOS 33 02 1644) 12 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $69.61 $835 $835 Nitrate (ECHOS 33 02 1661) 12 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $35.89 $431 $431 Sulfate (ECHOS 33 02 1667) 12 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $18.98 $228 $228 Dissolved oxygen (ECHOS 33 02 1663) 12 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $28.13 $338 $338

Contingency $1,247

10% $1,247

Professional/Technical Services 12 months $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $7,550 Sample wells (4 wells sampled annually)(RS Means 33 02 0401, 33 02 0402; Total Safety)

Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (3510C)(ECHOS 33 02 2134) Ground water fate and transport modeling (ECHOS 33 02 0419)

Remedial Design (Percentage of capital costs)(Exhibit 5-8 from EPA 2000)

Project Management (Percentage of capital costs)(Exhibit 5-8 from EPA 2000)

Construction Management (Percentage of capital costs)(Exhibit 5-8 from EPA 2000)

Sample wells (2 wells sampled quarterly)(RS Means 33 02 0401, 33 02 0402; Total Safety)

Lab analysis

of Total Monitoring, Sampling, Testing, and Analysis Lead (ECHOS 33 02 2143) Iron (ECHOS 33 02 1644) MEDIA:

MDI Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) TECHNOLOGY LOCATION:

Deep Soil/Ground

Water Contamination

Iron (ECHOS 33 02 1644) Sample wells (6 wells sampled quarterly for 2 years)(RS Means 33 02 0401, 33 02 0402; Total Safety)
Lab analysis Installation, completion, and development of additional monitor wells to 18 feet bgs (recent RAC work in Region 6)

Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (3510C)(ECHOS 33 02 2134) Lead (ECHOS 33 02 2143)

Monitored Natural Attenuation Page 1 of 2ALTERNATIVE 2

MDI SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT 1 HOUSTON, TEXAS

Alternative 2 - Solidification/Stabilization and On-site Disposal and Monitored Natural Attenuation

Construction

TIme: 1 months

Operation

TIme: 30.0
years

Post

Remediation Monitoring 30.0 years

Quantity Quantity Labor Labor Equipment Equipment Material Material Opinion

Amount Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Total Cost MEDIA:

MDI Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) TECHNOLOGY LOCATION:

Deep Soil/Ground

Water Contamination

10% $7,550

LIFETIME MONITORING COST (Present Value) $263,933

Years of Operation 30

Discount Factor 7.0%

TOTAL COST (CAPITAL COST + LIFETIME OPERATING COST)

Assumptions:

1 2002 RS Means values increased to account for inflation 2.25%

2 Working condition is Safety Level: D (Labor productivity: 75% ; Equipment productivity: 95% )

3 Cost index for zip code 770 88% (not applicable for costs derived from vendor quotes).

4 Costs are loaded with an overhead and profit factor: 15%

5 No net present value calculation is presented for alternative with an estimated remediation timeframe that is less than 1 year.

Notes:
bgs Below ground surface ECHOS Environmental Cost Handling Options and Solutions (RS Means 2002a) EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency RAC Response Action Contract

References:

1) RS Means. 2002b. Heavy Construction Cost Data. 16th Annual Edition. 2) RS Means. 2002a. Environmental Remediation Cost Data, Unit Price. 8th Annual Edition 3) EPA. 2000. A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study. $382,094 Project Management (Percentage of capital costs)(Exhibit 5-8 from EPA 2000)

Monitored Natural Attenuation Page 2 of 2

### APPENDIX B-1

ALTE RNA T I VE 2–SOLI D IFIC ATI O N/STABI L I Z A T I O N W I TH ON-SI T E DISPOS A L;

GR OUN D WATE R VI A MNA WI TH ICS

(Seven Pages)Target Media Capital Cost ($)Lifetime O&MCost ($)Post-remediationMonitoring Cost($) Total Cost ($)Remediation TimeFrame (months)Post-remediationMonitoring (years)Soil $5,425,699 $0 $0 $5,425,699 6 0Deep Soil/Ground Water Contamination $118,161 $0 $298,679 $416,840 1 30$5,543,860 $0 $298,679 $5,842,539 7 30Note:O&M Operation and maintenanceComponentExcavation and Off-site Disposal with MNAExcavation, Solidification/Stabilization, and Off-siteDisposalMonitored Natural Attenuation (MNA)ALTERNATIVE 3EXCAVATION AND OFF-SITE DISPOSAL WITH MNATOTAL REMEDIAL COST SUMMARYMDI SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT 1Page 1ALTERNATIVE 3

MDI SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT 1
HOUSTON, TEXAS

Alternative 3 - Solidification/Stabilization and Off-site Disposal

Construction

time: 6 months

Operation

time: 0.0 years

Post

Remediation
Monitoring 0.0 years

Quantity Quantity Labor Labor Equipment Equipment Material Material

Amount Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Total Cost

REMEDIAL ACTION (RA) TOTAL CAPITAL COST $5,425,699

Construction Activitie s $4,553,32 5

Site Work $173,685 $202,173 $2,405,175 $2,781,033
Temporary Facilities $0 $0 $258,645 $258,645

1 lump sum $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $11,465 $11,465 $11,465 1 lump sum $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $2,399 $2,399 $2,399
1 lump sum $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $8,011 $8,011 $8,011

6 per month $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $21,418 $128,509 $128,509

1 lump sum $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $32,553 $32,553 $32,553

6 per month $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $10,618 $63,708 $63,708

6 ea $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $2,000.00 $12,000 $12,000

$173,685 $202,173 $2,146,531 $2,522,389
$6 $10 $8,039 $8,054

2-cy Loader (ECHOS 17 02 0415) 30 cy $0.20 $6 $0.32 $10 $0.00 $0 $16

Hazardous debris disposal (estimate from vendor) 30 cy $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $108.10 $3,243 $3,243
Hazardous debris transportation (20 cy per load)(estimate from vendor) 2 loads $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $2,398 $4,796 $4,796

$44,528 $34,840 $99,093 $178,460 2-cy Loader (nonhazardous debris load only)(ECHOS 17 02 0415) 6,500 cy $0.20 $1,300 $0.32 $2,080 $0.00 $0 $3,380

Nonhazardous debris disposal (estimate from vendor) 6,500 cy $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $6.62 $43,030 $43,030
Nonhazardous debris transportation (20 cy per load)(estimate from vendor) 325 loads $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $172.50 $56,063 $56,063
Clearing and grubbing; medium brush with average grub and some trees, clearing (ECHOS 17 01 0106) 36 acres $275 $9,885 $417 $15,012 $0.00 $0 $24,897
Machine-load spoils; 2-mile haul to dump (ECHOS 02110 2000) 36 acres $926 $33,343 $493 $17,748 $0.00 $0 $51,091 ACM Removal and Disposal $0 $0 $249,165 $249,165

ACM oversight contractor (estimate from vendor) 1 ea $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $19,165 $19,165 $19,165

ACM removal and disposal (estimate from contractor) 1 ea $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $230,000 $230,000 $230,000

$0 $0 $7,970 $7,970

Hazardous water removal (WS-1)(estimate from vendor) 3 hours $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $80.50 $242 $242 Hazardous water disposal (WS-1)(estimate from vendor) 400 gal $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $0.86 $345 $345 Petroleum water removal (WS-6 and UST)(estimate from vendor) 6 hours $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $80.50 $483 $483 Petroleum water disposal (WS-6 and UST)(estimate from vendor) 10,000 gal $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $0.35 $3,450 $3,450 Other water removal (WS-2, 3, 5, 7, and 8)(estimate from vendor) 12 hours $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $80.50 $966 $966 Other water disposal (WS-2, 3, 5, 7, and 8)(estimate from vendor) 12,000 gal $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $0.21 $2,484 $2,484 Building Demolition and Disposal $12,394 $9,863 $139,018 $161,275
Multi-level, masonry, nonexplosive building demolition (ECHOS 17 02 0103) 178,000 cf $0.06 $10,680 $0.04 $7,120 $0.00 $0 $17,800
2-cy Loader (load only, 30% expansion)(ECHOS 17 02 0415) 8,570 cy $0.20 $1,714 $0.32 $2,743 $0.00 $0 $4,457
Building debris transportation (18 cy per load)(estimate from vendor) 477 loads $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $172.50 $82,283 $82,283
Building debris disposal (nonhazardous debris)(estimate from vendor) 8,570 cy $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $6.62 $56,736 $56,736 Concrete Demolition and Disposal $1,950 $3,120 $522,459 $527,529

Concrete demolition (recent EPA Region 6 RA) 7,500 cy $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $38.64 $289,800 $289,800
2-cy Loader (load only, 30% expansion)(ECHOS 17 02 0415) 9,750 cy $0.20 $1,950 $0.32 $3,120 $0.00 $0 $5,070
Concrete transportation (20 tons per load, 2 tons per cy)(estimate from vendor) 975 loads $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $172.50 $168,188 $168,188

Concrete disposal (estimate from vendor) 9,750 cy $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $6.61 $64,472 $64,472

$4 $6 $1,676 $1,686 Project sign (recent EPA Region 6 RA)

Support facilities (Office trailers, storage trailers, utilities, outdoor lighting, meteorological station)(recent EPA Region 6 RA)

Security (24 hours per day, 7 days per week)(recent EPA Region 6 RA) Install and maintain storm water control measures (recent EPA Region 6 RA)

Hazardous Debris Removal and Disposal LOCATION: MEDIA: TECHNOLOGY

MDI Excavation, Solidification/Stabilization, and Off-site Disposal Soil

Nonhazardous Debris Removal and Disposal Decontamination pad (recent EPA Region 6 RA) Install temporary electrical service (recent EPA Region 6 RA)

Plug and abandon existing monitoring wells (24 feet deep)(based on previous work in EPA Region 6)

Bag House Material Disposal Demolition and Debris Removal

Water Removal and Disposal

Excavation and Off-site Disposal Page 1 of 4ALTERNATIVE 3

MDI SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT 1
HOUSTON, TEXAS

Alternative 3 - Solidification/Stabilization and Off-site Disposal

Construction

time: 6 months

Operation

time: 0.0 years

Post

Remediation
Monitoring 0.0 years

Quantity Quantity Labor Labor Equipment Equipment Material Material

Amount Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Total Cost LOCATION: MEDIA: TECHNOLOGY

MDI Excavation, Solidification/Stabilization, and Off-site Disposal Soil

Solidification/stabilization (recent EPA Region 6 RA) 30 ton $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $14.28 $428 $428
2-cy Loader (load only, 30% expansion)(ECHOS 17 02 0415) 20 cy $0.20 $4 $0.32 $6 $0.00 $0 $10

Transportation (estimate from vendor) 2 loads $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $172.50 $345 $345

Disposal (Class I) 20 cy $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $46.29 $903 $903

UST Removal $1,932 $3,569 $9,852 $15,353

Remove steel/fiberglass UST: 2,001 - 5,000 gallon capacity (ECHOS 33 10 9505) 1 ea $910 $910 $3,285 $3,285 $0.00 $0 $4,195
Excavation and stockpiling of contaminated soil (recent EPA Region 6 RA) 90 cy $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $18.08 $1,627 $1,627
2-cy Loader (load only, 43% expansion)(ECHOS 17 02 0415) 129 cy $0.20 $26 $0.32 $41 $0.00 $0 $67

UST soil transportation (18 cy per load)(estimate from vendor) 8 loads $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $172.50 $1,380 $1,380

Soil disposal (Class 1)(estimate from vendor) 129 cy $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $46.29 $5,957 $5,957

Clean soil borrow, common earth (39% compaction)(M 02315 200 4060) 125 cy 0.49 $61 0.39 $49 $7.10 $888 $998
Fill, spread dumped material, by dozer, no compaction ( M 02315 505 0010 ) 125 cy 0.47 $59 $1.14 $143 $0.00 $0 $201

Compaction, sheepfoot wobbly wheel, 12-inch lift, 4 passes (M 02315 300 5720) 125 cy 0.18 $23 $0.41 $51 $0.00 $0 $74
Compaction testing, 1 nuclear per 5000 sf per 9-inch compacted lift (ASTM 2922 M 01450 500 4735) 16 ea 53.36 $854 $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $854 LNAPL Impacted Soil Removal $82,349 $115,115 $356,477 $553,941 Steel sheeting; install, pull, and salvage; to 40 feet (MW-3 Area)(ECHOS 17 03 0904) 8400 sf 3.67 $30,828 $4.93 $41,412 $3.39 $28,510 $100,750 Steel sheeting; install, pull, and salvage; to 25 feet (MW-11 and MW-20 Areas)(ECHOS 17 03 0903) 14160 sf 3.14 $44,462 $4.21 $59,614 $2.74 $38,829 $142,905
Excavation and stockpiling of overburden soil (recent EPA Region 6 RA) 3,465 cy $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $18.08 $62,647 $62,647
Excavation and stockpiling of contaminated soil (recent EPA Region 6 RA) 2,100 cy $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $18.08 $37,968 $37,968
2-cy Loader (load only, 43% expansion)(ECHOS 17 02 0415) 3,003 cy $0.20 $601 $0.32 $961 $0.00 $0 $1,562

Contaminated soil transportation (18 cy per load)(estimate from vendor) 167 loads $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $172.50 $28,808 $28,808

Soil disposal (Class 1)(estimate from vendor) 3,003 cy $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $46.29 $139,001 $139,001

Clean soil borrow, common earth (39% compaction)(M 02315 200 4060) 2919 cy 0.49 $1,430 0.39 $1,138 $7.10 $20,715 $23,283
Fill; spread dumped material, by dozer; no compaction ( M 02315 505 0010 ) 7735 cy 0.47 $3,636 $1.14 $8,818 $0.00 $0 $12,454

Compaction, sheepfoot wobbly wheel, 12-inch lift, 4 passes (M 02315 300 5720) 7735 cy 0.18 $1,392 $0.41 $3,171 $0.00 $0 $4,564
Compaction testing, 1 nuclear per 5000 sf per 9-inch compacted lift (ASTM 2922 M 01450 500 4735) 0 ea 53.36 $0 $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 PCB Transformer Disposal $0 $0 $17,293 $17,293 Transportation (separate trips for fluid and transformer)(estimate from vendor) 2 ea $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $2,990 $5,980 $5,980

Incineration of PCB-contaminated oil (estimate from vendor) 16,395 lb $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $0.69 $11,313 $11,313

Excavation and Treatment $0 $0 $601,460 $601,460

13,600 cy $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $18.08 $245,888 $245,888

20,400 ton $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $14.28 $291,312 $291,312

4,500 ton $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $14.28 $64,260 $64,260 Backfill and Compaction $30,522 $35,651 $134,029 $200,202
18,904 cy $0.49 $9,263 $0.31 $5,860 $7.09 $134,029 $149,153

18,904 cy $0.79 $14,934 $1.26 $23,819 $0.00 $0 $38,753

18,904 cy $0.18 $3,391 $0.32 $5,971 $0.00 $0 $9,362

55 ea $53.35 $2,934 $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $2,934 Solidification/stabilization (recent EPA Region 6 RA)

Backfill, spread fill, from stockpile w/ front-end loader (M 02315 505 0170) Excavation and stockpiling of lead-contaminated soil (recent EPA Region 6 RA)

Compaction testing, nuclear method (ASTM D2922); 1 per 5,000 sf per 9-inch loose lift (M 01450 500 4735) Clean soil borrow, common earth (M 02315 200 4060)

Compaction, sheepfoot wobbly wheel, 12-inch lift, 4 passes (M 02315 300 5720) Solidification/stabilization of off-property soil (recent EPA Region 6 RA)

Excavation and Off-site Disposal Page 2 of 4ALTERNATIVE 3

MDI SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT 1
HOUSTON, TEXAS

Alternative 3 - Solidification/Stabilization and Off-site Disposal

Construction

time: 6 months

Operation

time: 0.0 years

Post

Remediation
Monitoring 0.0 years

Quantity Quantity Labor Labor Equipment Equipment Material Material

Amount Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Total Cost LOCATION: MEDIA: TECHNOLOGY

MDI Excavation, Solidification/Stabilization, and Off-site Disposal Soil

Off-site Disposal $11,632 $7,359 $1,326,321 $1,345,312 Soil Disposal (On-property Soil) $9,530 $6,029 $1,086,625 $1,102,183

19,448 cy $0.49 $9,530 $0.31 $6,029 $0.00 $0 $15,558

1,080 loads $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $172.50 $186,377 $186,377
19,448 cy $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $46.29 $900,248 $900,248 Soil Disposal (Off-property Soil) $2,102 $1,330 $239,697 $243,129

4,290 cy $0.49 $2,102 $0.31 $1,330 $0.00 $0 $3,432

238 loads $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $172.50 $41,113 $41,113
4,290 cy $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $46.29 $198,584 $198,584

Sampling and Analysis $0 $0 $135,342 $135,342
Profile Analysis for Soil Disposal TCLP (RCRA metals)(recent EPA Region 6 RA) 50 ea $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $322.00 $16,100 $16,100

Total lead (recent EPA Region 6 RA) 97 ea $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $95.45 $9,259 $9,259 XRF Sampling (field sampling for lead) XRF rental (recent EPA Region 6 RA) 6 month $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4,418.30 $26,510 $26,510

1 ea $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,640 $1,640 $1,640 Air Monitoring

6 month $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $5,359.00 $32,154 $32,154

720 ea $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $69.00 $49,680 $49,680

Mobilization and Demobilization $291,638

10% $291,638

System Contingency $455,332

10% of Total Construction Activities $455,332

Professional/Technical Services $609,522

8% $256,641

5% $160,401

6% $192,481

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) ANNUAL O&M COST $0

Monitoring, Sampling, Testing, and Analysis 1 lump sum $0 $0 $0 $0

Post Remediation Site Monitoring Geoprobe 0 lump sum $10,000 $0 $5,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Field Work Labor 0 lump sum $15,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

0 lump sum $15,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

System O&M $0 $0 $0 $0

LIFETIME O&M (Net Present Value) $0

Years of Operation 0

Discount Factor 7%

TOTAL COST (CAPITAL COST + LIFETIME O&M)

Assumptions: Loading common earth, front-end loader, wheel mtd, 1.5 cy (M 02315 200 4060)

Treated soil transportation (BFI Landfill, 18 cy per load)

Soil disposal (Class I)

$5,425,699 of Total Costs of Site Work and Sampling & Analysis

Remedial Design (Percentage of capital costs excluding offsite disposal)(Exhibit 5-8 from EPA 2000)

Data Analysis/Analytical (TPH, BTEX) Treated soil transportation (BFI Landfill, 18 cy per load) Loading common earth, front-end loader, wheel mtd, 1.5 cy (M 02315 200 4060)

Soil disposal (Class I)

Excavation Confirmation Sampling (1 per 2,500 sf plus 10% QA/QC)

XRF supplies (cups, mylar, oven, bowls)(recent EPA Region 6 RA)

Equipment rental (low-flow air samplers, calibrator, dust monitor, calibration gas, and sound meter)(recent EPA Region 6 RA)
Air sample analysis (lead and total particulates; 4 samples per day)(recent EPA Region 6 RA)

Project Management (Percentage of capital costs excluding off-site disposal)(Exhibit 5-8 from EPA 2000)

Construction Management (Percentage of capital costs excluding off-site disposal)(Exhibit 5-8 from EPA 2000)

Excavation and Off-site Disposal Page 3 of 4ALTERNATIVE 3

MDI SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT 1
HOUSTON, TEXAS

Alternative 3 - Solidification/Stabilization and Off-site Disposal

Construction

time: 6 months

Operation

time: 0.0 years

Post

Remediation
Monitoring 0.0 years

Quantity Quantity Labor Labor Equipment Equipment Material Material

Amount Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Total Cost LOCATION: MEDIA: TECHNOLOGY

MDI Excavation, Solidification/Stabilization, and Off-site Disposal Soil

1 2002 RS Means values increased to account for inflation 2.25%

2 Working condition is Safety Level: D (Labor productivity: 75% ; Equipment productivity: 95% )

3 Soil profile sampling will be conducted at the frequency of: 1 sample for every: 500 cy of contaminated soil plus 10% QA/QC

4 Cost index for zip code 770 88% (not applicable for costs derived from vendor quotes).

5 Costs are loaded with an overhead and profit factor: 15%

6 No net present value calculation is presented for alternative with an estimated remediation timeframe that is less than 1 year.

7 No dewatering costs included.

8 Treated soil and disposal volumes include 3,000 cy from off-property excavations currently stockpiled on property.

9 Debris volume only includes removal of debris overlying areas to be excavated.

10 Concrete volume only includes demolition of concrete overlying areas to be excavated.

Estimated Volume of Excavation:

Total

Estimated total volume of contaminated soil : 13,600 0 0 13,600 cf
Average soil swelling factor: 43%
Average soil density: 1.5 tons/cy In-place Loose

13,600 19,448 cy 20,400 tons

39%

18,904

Notes:

A CM A sbestos-containing material

A STM A merican Society of Testing and Materials

BTE X Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes

cf Cubic foot cy Cubic yard ECHOS Environmental Cost Handling Options and Solutions (RS Means 2002a)

EP A U.S. Environmental Protection Agency gal Gallon

lb Pound

LNAP L Light nonaqueous-phase liquid MW Monitoring well PCB Polychlorinated biphenyl QA/QC Quality assurance/quality control RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act sf Square feet TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure TPH Total petroleum hydrocarbons

US T Underground storage tank WS Waste sample XRF X-ray fluoresence

References:

1) RS Means. 2002b. Heavy Construction Cost Data. 16th Annual Edition. 2) RS Means. 2002a. Environmental Remediation Cost Data, Unit Price. 8th Annual Edition 3) EPA. 2000. A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study. Estimated total volume of replacement soil Replacement soil compaction factor Estimated total volume of excavated soil :

Excavation and Off-site Disposal Page 4 of 4ALTERNATIVE 3

MDI SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT 1 HOUSTON, TEXAS

Alternative 3 - Solidification/Stabilization and Off-site Disposal and Monitored Natural Attenuation

Construction

TIme: 1 months

Operation

TIme: 30.0
years

Post

Remediation Monitoring 30.0 years

Quantity Quantity Labor Labor Equipment Equipment Material Material

Amount Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Total Cost

REMEDIAL ACTION TOTAL CAPITAL COST $118,161

Initial Site Characterization $75,502

6 ea $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $3,450 $20,700 $20,700

48 well $286 $13,733 $142.39 $6,835 $15.08 $724 $21,292

48 ea

48 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $233.80 $11,222 $11,222 48 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $51.73 $2,483 $2,483 48 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $71.18 $3,416 $3,416 Ferrous iron (ECHOS 33 02 1678) 48 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $96.42 $4,628 $4,628 Dissolved manganese (ECHOS 33 02 1644) 48 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $71.18 $3,416 $3,416 Nitrate (ECHOS 33 02 1661) 48 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $36.70 $1,762 $1,762 Sulfate (ECHOS 33 02 1667) 48 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $19.40 $931 $931 Dissolved oxygen (ECHOS 33 02 1663) 48 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $28.76 $1,381 $1,381

1 lump sum $4,271 $4,271 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,271

Contingency $7,550

10% of total construction activities $7,550

Professional/Technical Services $35,109

20% $15,100

10% $7,550

15% $12,458

MNA Monitoring (Annually) $24,069 Iron (ECHOS 33 02 1644) Sample wells (6 wells sampled quarterly for 2 years)(RS Means 33 02 0401, 33 02 0402; Total Safety)
Lab analysis Installation, completion, and development of additional monitor wells to 18 feet bgs (Recent RAC work in Region 6)

Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (3510C)(ECHOS 33 02 2134) Lead (ECHOS 33 02 2143) MEDIA:

MDI Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) TECHNOLOGY LOCATION:

Deep Soil/Ground

Water Contamination

Ground water fate and transport modeling (ECHOS 33 02 0419)

Remedial Design (Percentage of capital costs)(Exhibit 5-8 from EPA 2000)

Project Management (Percentage of capital costs)(Exhibit 5-8 from EPA 2000)

Construction Management (Percentage of capital costs)(Exhibit 5-8 from EPA 2000)

Monitored Natural Attenuation Page 1 of 2ALTERNATIVE 3

MDI SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT 1 HOUSTON, TEXAS

Alternative 3 - Solidification/Stabilization and Off-site Disposal and Monitored Natural Attenuation

Construction

TIme: 1 months

Operation

TIme: 30.0
years

Post

Remediation Monitoring 30.0 years

Quantity Quantity Labor Labor Equipment Equipment Material Material

Amount Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Total Cost MEDIA:

MDI Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) TECHNOLOGY LOCATION:

Deep Soil/Ground

Water Contamination

Monitoring, Sampling, Testing, and Analysis 12 months $3,433 $1,709 $7,330 $12,472

8 well $286 $2,289 $142.39 $1,139 $15.08 $121 $3,549

4 well $286 $1,144 $142.39 $570 $15.08 $60 $1,774

12 ea

12 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $228.65 $2,744 $2,744 12 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $50.59 $607 $607 12 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $69.61 $835 $835 Ferrous iron (ECHOS 33 02 1678) 12 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $94.30 $1,132 $1,132 Dissolved manganese (ECHOS 33 02 1644) 12 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $69.61 $835 $835 Nitrate (ECHOS 33 02 1661) 12 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $35.89 $431 $431 Sulfate (ECHOS 33 02 1667) 12 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $18.98 $228 $228 Dissolved oxygen (ECHOS 33 02 1663) 12 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $28.13 $338 $338

Contingency $1,247

10% $1,247

Professional/Technical Services 12 months $2,800 $0 $0 $10,350

10% $7,550

0.2 per year 14000 $2,800 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $2,800

LIFETIME MONITORING COST (Present Value) $298,679

Years of Operation 30

Discount Factor 7.0%

TOTAL COST (CAPITAL COST + LIFETIME OPERATING COST)

Assumptions:

1 2002 RS Means values increased to account for inflation 2.25%

2 Working condition is Safety Level: D (Labor productivity: 75% ; Equipment productivity: 95% )

3 Cost index for zip code 770 88% (not applicable for costs derived from vendor quotes).

4 Costs are loaded with an overhead and profit factor: 15%

5 No net present value calculation is presented for alternative with an estimated remediation timeframe that is less than 1 year.

Notes:
bgs Below ground surface ECHOS Environmental Cost Handling Options and Solutions (RS Means 2002a) EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency RAC Response Action Contract

References:

1) RS Means. 2002b. Heavy Construction Cost Data. 16th Annual Edition. 2) RS Means. 2002a. Environmental Remediation Cost Data, Unit Price. 8th Annual Edition 3) EPA. 2000. A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study. $416,840 of Total Monitoring, Sampling, Testing, and Analysis

Project Management (Percentage of capital costs)(Exhibit 5-8 from EPA 2000) Lead (ECHOS 33 02 2143) Iron (ECHOS 33 02 1644)

5 year review (Previous Region 6 work;1/5 of cost included annually) Sample wells (4 wells sampled annually)(RS Means 33 02 0401, 33 02 0402; Total Safety)

Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (3510C)(ECHOS 33 02 2134) Sample wells (2 wells sampled quarterly)(RS Means 33 02 0401, 33 02 0402; Total Safety)

Lab analysis

Monitored Natural Attenuation Page 2 of 2

### APPENDIX B-2

ALTE RNA T I VE 3–SOLI D IFIC ATI O N/STABI L I Z A T I O N A ND OFF-SI TE DISP OS AL;

GR OUN D WATE R VI A MNA WI TH ICS

(Seven Pages)Target Media Capital Cost ($)Lifetime O&MCost ($)Post-remediationMonitoring Cost($) Total Cost ($)Remediation TimeFrame (months)Post-remediationMonitoring (years)Soil $5,425,699 $0 $0 $5,425,699 6 0Deep Soil/Ground Water Contamination $118,161 $0 $298,679 $416,840 1 30$5,543,860 $0 $298,679 $5,842,539 7 30Note:O&M Operation and maintenanceComponentExcavation and Off-site Disposal with MNAExcavation, Solidification/Stabilization, and Off-siteDisposalMonitored Natural Attenuation (MNA)ALTERNATIVE 3EXCAVATION AND OFF-SITE DISPOSAL WITH MNATOTAL REMEDIAL COST SUMMARYMDI SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT 1Page 1ALTERNATIVE 3

MDI SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT 1
HOUSTON, TEXAS

Alternative 3 - Solidification/Stabilization and Off-site Disposal

Construction

time: 6 months

Operation

time: 0.0 years

Post

Remediation
Monitoring 0.0 years

Quantity Quantity Labor Labor Equipment Equipment Material Material

Amount Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Total Cost

REMEDIAL ACTION (RA) TOTAL CAPITAL COST $5,425,699

Construction Activitie s $4,553,32 5

Site Work $173,685 $202,173 $2,405,175 $2,781,033
Temporary Facilities $0 $0 $258,645 $258,645

1 lump sum $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $11,465 $11,465 $11,465 1 lump sum $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $2,399 $2,399 $2,399
1 lump sum $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $8,011 $8,011 $8,011

6 per month $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $21,418 $128,509 $128,509

1 lump sum $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $32,553 $32,553 $32,553

6 per month $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $10,618 $63,708 $63,708

6 ea $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $2,000.00 $12,000 $12,000

$173,685 $202,173 $2,146,531 $2,522,389
$6 $10 $8,039 $8,054

2-cy Loader (ECHOS 17 02 0415) 30 cy $0.20 $6 $0.32 $10 $0.00 $0 $16

Hazardous debris disposal (estimate from vendor) 30 cy $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $108.10 $3,243 $3,243
Hazardous debris transportation (20 cy per load)(estimate from vendor) 2 loads $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $2,398 $4,796 $4,796

$44,528 $34,840 $99,093 $178,460 2-cy Loader (nonhazardous debris load only)(ECHOS 17 02 0415) 6,500 cy $0.20 $1,300 $0.32 $2,080 $0.00 $0 $3,380

Nonhazardous debris disposal (estimate from vendor) 6,500 cy $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $6.62 $43,030 $43,030
Nonhazardous debris transportation (20 cy per load)(estimate from vendor) 325 loads $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $172.50 $56,063 $56,063
Clearing and grubbing; medium brush with average grub and some trees, clearing (ECHOS 17 01 0106) 36 acres $275 $9,885 $417 $15,012 $0.00 $0 $24,897
Machine-load spoils; 2-mile haul to dump (ECHOS 02110 2000) 36 acres $926 $33,343 $493 $17,748 $0.00 $0 $51,091 ACM Removal and Disposal $0 $0 $249,165 $249,165

ACM oversight contractor (estimate from vendor) 1 ea $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $19,165 $19,165 $19,165

ACM removal and disposal (estimate from contractor) 1 ea $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $230,000 $230,000 $230,000

$0 $0 $7,970 $7,970

Hazardous water removal (WS-1)(estimate from vendor) 3 hours $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $80.50 $242 $242 Hazardous water disposal (WS-1)(estimate from vendor) 400 gal $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $0.86 $345 $345 Petroleum water removal (WS-6 and UST)(estimate from vendor) 6 hours $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $80.50 $483 $483 Petroleum water disposal (WS-6 and UST)(estimate from vendor) 10,000 gal $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $0.35 $3,450 $3,450 Other water removal (WS-2, 3, 5, 7, and 8)(estimate from vendor) 12 hours $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $80.50 $966 $966 Other water disposal (WS-2, 3, 5, 7, and 8)(estimate from vendor) 12,000 gal $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $0.21 $2,484 $2,484 Building Demolition and Disposal $12,394 $9,863 $139,018 $161,275
Multi-level, masonry, nonexplosive building demolition (ECHOS 17 02 0103) 178,000 cf $0.06 $10,680 $0.04 $7,120 $0.00 $0 $17,800
2-cy Loader (load only, 30% expansion)(ECHOS 17 02 0415) 8,570 cy $0.20 $1,714 $0.32 $2,743 $0.00 $0 $4,457
Building debris transportation (18 cy per load)(estimate from vendor) 477 loads $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $172.50 $82,283 $82,283
Building debris disposal (nonhazardous debris)(estimate from vendor) 8,570 cy $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $6.62 $56,736 $56,736 Concrete Demolition and Disposal $1,950 $3,120 $522,459 $527,529

Concrete demolition (recent EPA Region 6 RA) 7,500 cy $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $38.64 $289,800 $289,800
2-cy Loader (load only, 30% expansion)(ECHOS 17 02 0415) 9,750 cy $0.20 $1,950 $0.32 $3,120 $0.00 $0 $5,070
Concrete transportation (20 tons per load, 2 tons per cy)(estimate from vendor) 975 loads $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $172.50 $168,188 $168,188

Concrete disposal (estimate from vendor) 9,750 cy $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $6.61 $64,472 $64,472

$4 $6 $1,676 $1,686 Project sign (recent EPA Region 6 RA)

Support facilities (Office trailers, storage trailers, utilities, outdoor lighting, meteorological station)(recent EPA Region 6 RA)

Security (24 hours per day, 7 days per week)(recent EPA Region 6 RA) Install and maintain storm water control measures (recent EPA Region 6 RA)

Hazardous Debris Removal and Disposal LOCATION: MEDIA: TECHNOLOGY

MDI Excavation, Solidification/Stabilization, and Off-site Disposal Soil

Nonhazardous Debris Removal and Disposal Decontamination pad (recent EPA Region 6 RA) Install temporary electrical service (recent EPA Region 6 RA)

Plug and abandon existing monitoring wells (24 feet deep)(based on previous work in EPA Region 6)

Bag House Material Disposal Demolition and Debris Removal

Water Removal and Disposal

Excavation and Off-site Disposal Page 1 of 4ALTERNATIVE 3

MDI SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT 1
HOUSTON, TEXAS

Alternative 3 - Solidification/Stabilization and Off-site Disposal

Construction

time: 6 months

Operation

time: 0.0 years

Post

Remediation
Monitoring 0.0 years

Quantity Quantity Labor Labor Equipment Equipment Material Material

Amount Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Total Cost LOCATION: MEDIA: TECHNOLOGY

MDI Excavation, Solidification/Stabilization, and Off-site Disposal Soil

Solidification/stabilization (recent EPA Region 6 RA) 30 ton $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $14.28 $428 $428
2-cy Loader (load only, 30% expansion)(ECHOS 17 02 0415) 20 cy $0.20 $4 $0.32 $6 $0.00 $0 $10

Transportation (estimate from vendor) 2 loads $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $172.50 $345 $345

Disposal (Class I) 20 cy $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $46.29 $903 $903

UST Removal $1,932 $3,569 $9,852 $15,353

Remove steel/fiberglass UST: 2,001 - 5,000 gallon capacity (ECHOS 33 10 9505) 1 ea $910 $910 $3,285 $3,285 $0.00 $0 $4,195
Excavation and stockpiling of contaminated soil (recent EPA Region 6 RA) 90 cy $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $18.08 $1,627 $1,627
2-cy Loader (load only, 43% expansion)(ECHOS 17 02 0415) 129 cy $0.20 $26 $0.32 $41 $0.00 $0 $67

UST soil transportation (18 cy per load)(estimate from vendor) 8 loads $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $172.50 $1,380 $1,380

Soil disposal (Class 1)(estimate from vendor) 129 cy $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $46.29 $5,957 $5,957

Clean soil borrow, common earth (39% compaction)(M 02315 200 4060) 125 cy 0.49 $61 0.39 $49 $7.10 $888 $998
Fill, spread dumped material, by dozer, no compaction ( M 02315 505 0010 ) 125 cy 0.47 $59 $1.14 $143 $0.00 $0 $201

Compaction, sheepfoot wobbly wheel, 12-inch lift, 4 passes (M 02315 300 5720) 125 cy 0.18 $23 $0.41 $51 $0.00 $0 $74
Compaction testing, 1 nuclear per 5000 sf per 9-inch compacted lift (ASTM 2922 M 01450 500 4735) 16 ea 53.36 $854 $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $854 LNAPL Impacted Soil Removal $82,349 $115,115 $356,477 $553,941 Steel sheeting; install, pull, and salvage; to 40 feet (MW-3 Area)(ECHOS 17 03 0904) 8400 sf 3.67 $30,828 $4.93 $41,412 $3.39 $28,510 $100,750 Steel sheeting; install, pull, and salvage; to 25 feet (MW-11 and MW-20 Areas)(ECHOS 17 03 0903) 14160 sf 3.14 $44,462 $4.21 $59,614 $2.74 $38,829 $142,905
Excavation and stockpiling of overburden soil (recent EPA Region 6 RA) 3,465 cy $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $18.08 $62,647 $62,647
Excavation and stockpiling of contaminated soil (recent EPA Region 6 RA) 2,100 cy $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $18.08 $37,968 $37,968
2-cy Loader (load only, 43% expansion)(ECHOS 17 02 0415) 3,003 cy $0.20 $601 $0.32 $961 $0.00 $0 $1,562

Contaminated soil transportation (18 cy per load)(estimate from vendor) 167 loads $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $172.50 $28,808 $28,808

Soil disposal (Class 1)(estimate from vendor) 3,003 cy $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $46.29 $139,001 $139,001

Clean soil borrow, common earth (39% compaction)(M 02315 200 4060) 2919 cy 0.49 $1,430 0.39 $1,138 $7.10 $20,715 $23,283
Fill; spread dumped material, by dozer; no compaction ( M 02315 505 0010 ) 7735 cy 0.47 $3,636 $1.14 $8,818 $0.00 $0 $12,454

Compaction, sheepfoot wobbly wheel, 12-inch lift, 4 passes (M 02315 300 5720) 7735 cy 0.18 $1,392 $0.41 $3,171 $0.00 $0 $4,564
Compaction testing, 1 nuclear per 5000 sf per 9-inch compacted lift (ASTM 2922 M 01450 500 4735) 0 ea 53.36 $0 $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 PCB Transformer Disposal $0 $0 $17,293 $17,293 Transportation (separate trips for fluid and transformer)(estimate from vendor) 2 ea $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $2,990 $5,980 $5,980

Incineration of PCB-contaminated oil (estimate from vendor) 16,395 lb $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $0.69 $11,313 $11,313

Excavation and Treatment $0 $0 $601,460 $601,460

13,600 cy $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $18.08 $245,888 $245,888

20,400 ton $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $14.28 $291,312 $291,312

4,500 ton $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $14.28 $64,260 $64,260 Backfill and Compaction $30,522 $35,651 $134,029 $200,202
18,904 cy $0.49 $9,263 $0.31 $5,860 $7.09 $134,029 $149,153

18,904 cy $0.79 $14,934 $1.26 $23,819 $0.00 $0 $38,753

18,904 cy $0.18 $3,391 $0.32 $5,971 $0.00 $0 $9,362

55 ea $53.35 $2,934 $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $2,934 Solidification/stabilization (recent EPA Region 6 RA)

Backfill, spread fill, from stockpile w/ front-end loader (M 02315 505 0170) Excavation and stockpiling of lead-contaminated soil (recent EPA Region 6 RA)

Compaction testing, nuclear method (ASTM D2922); 1 per 5,000 sf per 9-inch loose lift (M 01450 500 4735) Clean soil borrow, common earth (M 02315 200 4060)

Compaction, sheepfoot wobbly wheel, 12-inch lift, 4 passes (M 02315 300 5720) Solidification/stabilization of off-property soil (recent EPA Region 6 RA)

Excavation and Off-site Disposal Page 2 of 4ALTERNATIVE 3

MDI SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT 1
HOUSTON, TEXAS

Alternative 3 - Solidification/Stabilization and Off-site Disposal

Construction

time: 6 months

Operation

time: 0.0 years

Post

Remediation
Monitoring 0.0 years

Quantity Quantity Labor Labor Equipment Equipment Material Material

Amount Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Total Cost LOCATION: MEDIA: TECHNOLOGY

MDI Excavation, Solidification/Stabilization, and Off-site Disposal Soil

Off-site Disposal $11,632 $7,359 $1,326,321 $1,345,312 Soil Disposal (On-property Soil) $9,530 $6,029 $1,086,625 $1,102,183

19,448 cy $0.49 $9,530 $0.31 $6,029 $0.00 $0 $15,558

1,080 loads $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $172.50 $186,377 $186,377
19,448 cy $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $46.29 $900,248 $900,248 Soil Disposal (Off-property Soil) $2,102 $1,330 $239,697 $243,129

4,290 cy $0.49 $2,102 $0.31 $1,330 $0.00 $0 $3,432

238 loads $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $172.50 $41,113 $41,113
4,290 cy $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $46.29 $198,584 $198,584

Sampling and Analysis $0 $0 $135,342 $135,342
Profile Analysis for Soil Disposal TCLP (RCRA metals)(recent EPA Region 6 RA) 50 ea $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $322.00 $16,100 $16,100

Total lead (recent EPA Region 6 RA) 97 ea $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $95.45 $9,259 $9,259 XRF Sampling (field sampling for lead) XRF rental (recent EPA Region 6 RA) 6 month $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4,418.30 $26,510 $26,510

1 ea $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,640 $1,640 $1,640 Air Monitoring

6 month $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $5,359.00 $32,154 $32,154

720 ea $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $69.00 $49,680 $49,680

Mobilization and Demobilization $291,638

10% $291,638

System Contingency $455,332

10% of Total Construction Activities $455,332

Professional/Technical Services $609,522

8% $256,641

5% $160,401

6% $192,481

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) ANNUAL O&M COST $0

Monitoring, Sampling, Testing, and Analysis 1 lump sum $0 $0 $0 $0

Post Remediation Site Monitoring Geoprobe 0 lump sum $10,000 $0 $5,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Field Work Labor 0 lump sum $15,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

0 lump sum $15,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

System O&M $0 $0 $0 $0

LIFETIME O&M (Net Present Value) $0

Years of Operation 0

Discount Factor 7%

TOTAL COST (CAPITAL COST + LIFETIME O&M)

Assumptions: Loading common earth, front-end loader, wheel mtd, 1.5 cy (M 02315 200 4060)

Treated soil transportation (BFI Landfill, 18 cy per load)

Soil disposal (Class I)

$5,425,699 of Total Costs of Site Work and Sampling & Analysis

Remedial Design (Percentage of capital costs excluding offsite disposal)(Exhibit 5-8 from EPA 2000)

Data Analysis/Analytical (TPH, BTEX) Treated soil transportation (BFI Landfill, 18 cy per load) Loading common earth, front-end loader, wheel mtd, 1.5 cy (M 02315 200 4060)

Soil disposal (Class I)

Excavation Confirmation Sampling (1 per 2,500 sf plus 10% QA/QC)

XRF supplies (cups, mylar, oven, bowls)(recent EPA Region 6 RA)

Equipment rental (low-flow air samplers, calibrator, dust monitor, calibration gas, and sound meter)(recent EPA Region 6 RA)
Air sample analysis (lead and total particulates; 4 samples per day)(recent EPA Region 6 RA)

Project Management (Percentage of capital costs excluding off-site disposal)(Exhibit 5-8 from EPA 2000)

Construction Management (Percentage of capital costs excluding off-site disposal)(Exhibit 5-8 from EPA 2000)

Excavation and Off-site Disposal Page 3 of 4ALTERNATIVE 3

MDI SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT 1
HOUSTON, TEXAS

Alternative 3 - Solidification/Stabilization and Off-site Disposal

Construction

time: 6 months

Operation

time: 0.0 years

Post

Remediation
Monitoring 0.0 years

Quantity Quantity Labor Labor Equipment Equipment Material Material

Amount Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Total Cost LOCATION: MEDIA: TECHNOLOGY

MDI Excavation, Solidification/Stabilization, and Off-site Disposal Soil

1 2002 RS Means values increased to account for inflation 2.25%

2 Working condition is Safety Level: D (Labor productivity: 75% ; Equipment productivity: 95% )

3 Soil profile sampling will be conducted at the frequency of: 1 sample for every: 500 cy of contaminated soil plus 10% QA/QC

4 Cost index for zip code 770 88% (not applicable for costs derived from vendor quotes).

5 Costs are loaded with an overhead and profit factor: 15%

6 No net present value calculation is presented for alternative with an estimated remediation timeframe that is less than 1 year.

7 No dewatering costs included.

8 Treated soil and disposal volumes include 3,000 cy from off-property excavations currently stockpiled on property.

9 Debris volume only includes removal of debris overlying areas to be excavated.

10 Concrete volume only includes demolition of concrete overlying areas to be excavated.

Estimated Volume of Excavation:

Total

Estimated total volume of contaminated soil : 13,600 0 0 13,600 cf
Average soil swelling factor: 43%
Average soil density: 1.5 tons/cy In-place Loose

13,600 19,448 cy 20,400 tons

39%

18,904

Notes:

A CM A sbestos-containing material

A STM A merican Society of Testing and Materials

BTE X Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes

cf Cubic foot cy Cubic yard ECHOS Environmental Cost Handling Options and Solutions (RS Means 2002a)

EP A U.S. Environmental Protection Agency gal Gallon

lb Pound

LNAP L Light nonaqueous-phase liquid MW Monitoring well PCB Polychlorinated biphenyl QA/QC Quality assurance/quality control RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act sf Square feet TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure TPH Total petroleum hydrocarbons

US T Underground storage tank WS Waste sample XRF X-ray fluoresence

References:

1) RS Means. 2002b. Heavy Construction Cost Data. 16th Annual Edition. 2) RS Means. 2002a. Environmental Remediation Cost Data, Unit Price. 8th Annual Edition 3) EPA. 2000. A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study. Estimated total volume of replacement soil Replacement soil compaction factor Estimated total volume of excavated soil :

Excavation and Off-site Disposal Page 4 of 4ALTERNATIVE 3

MDI SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT 1 HOUSTON, TEXAS

Alternative 3 - Solidification/Stabilization and Off-site Disposal and Monitored Natural Attenuation

Construction

TIme: 1 months

Operation

TIme: 30.0
years

Post

Remediation Monitoring 30.0 years

Quantity Quantity Labor Labor Equipment Equipment Material Material

Amount Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Total Cost

REMEDIAL ACTION TOTAL CAPITAL COST $118,161

Initial Site Characterization $75,502

6 ea $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $3,450 $20,700 $20,700

48 well $286 $13,733 $142.39 $6,835 $15.08 $724 $21,292

48 ea

48 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $233.80 $11,222 $11,222 48 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $51.73 $2,483 $2,483 48 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $71.18 $3,416 $3,416 Ferrous iron (ECHOS 33 02 1678) 48 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $96.42 $4,628 $4,628 Dissolved manganese (ECHOS 33 02 1644) 48 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $71.18 $3,416 $3,416 Nitrate (ECHOS 33 02 1661) 48 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $36.70 $1,762 $1,762 Sulfate (ECHOS 33 02 1667) 48 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $19.40 $931 $931 Dissolved oxygen (ECHOS 33 02 1663) 48 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $28.76 $1,381 $1,381

1 lump sum $4,271 $4,271 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,271

Contingency $7,550

10% of total construction activities $7,550

Professional/Technical Services $35,109

20% $15,100

10% $7,550

15% $12,458

MNA Monitoring (Annually) $24,069 Iron (ECHOS 33 02 1644) Sample wells (6 wells sampled quarterly for 2 years)(RS Means 33 02 0401, 33 02 0402; Total Safety)
Lab analysis Installation, completion, and development of additional monitor wells to 18 feet bgs (Recent RAC work in Region 6)

Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (3510C)(ECHOS 33 02 2134) Lead (ECHOS 33 02 2143) MEDIA:

MDI Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) TECHNOLOGY LOCATION:

Deep Soil/Ground

Water Contamination

Ground water fate and transport modeling (ECHOS 33 02 0419)

Remedial Design (Percentage of capital costs)(Exhibit 5-8 from EPA 2000)

Project Management (Percentage of capital costs)(Exhibit 5-8 from EPA 2000)

Construction Management (Percentage of capital costs)(Exhibit 5-8 from EPA 2000)

Monitored Natural Attenuation Page 1 of 2ALTERNATIVE 3

MDI SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT 1 HOUSTON, TEXAS

Alternative 3 - Solidification/Stabilization and Off-site Disposal and Monitored Natural Attenuation

Construction

TIme: 1 months

Operation

TIme: 30.0
years

Post

Remediation Monitoring 30.0 years

Quantity Quantity Labor Labor Equipment Equipment Material Material

Amount Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Total Cost MEDIA:

MDI Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) TECHNOLOGY LOCATION:

Deep Soil/Ground

Water Contamination

Monitoring, Sampling, Testing, and Analysis 12 months $3,433 $1,709 $7,330 $12,472

8 well $286 $2,289 $142.39 $1,139 $15.08 $121 $3,549

4 well $286 $1,144 $142.39 $570 $15.08 $60 $1,774

12 ea

12 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $228.65 $2,744 $2,744 12 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $50.59 $607 $607 12 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $69.61 $835 $835 Ferrous iron (ECHOS 33 02 1678) 12 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $94.30 $1,132 $1,132 Dissolved manganese (ECHOS 33 02 1644) 12 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $69.61 $835 $835 Nitrate (ECHOS 33 02 1661) 12 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $35.89 $431 $431 Sulfate (ECHOS 33 02 1667) 12 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $18.98 $228 $228 Dissolved oxygen (ECHOS 33 02 1663) 12 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $28.13 $338 $338

Contingency $1,247

10% $1,247

Professional/Technical Services 12 months $2,800 $0 $0 $10,350

10% $7,550

0.2 per year 14000 $2,800 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $2,800

LIFETIME MONITORING COST (Present Value) $298,679

Years of Operation 30

Discount Factor 7.0%

TOTAL COST (CAPITAL COST + LIFETIME OPERATING COST)

Assumptions:

1 2002 RS Means values increased to account for inflation 2.25%

2 Working condition is Safety Level: D (Labor productivity: 75% ; Equipment productivity: 95% )

3 Cost index for zip code 770 88% (not applicable for costs derived from vendor quotes).

4 Costs are loaded with an overhead and profit factor: 15%

5 No net present value calculation is presented for alternative with an estimated remediation timeframe that is less than 1 year.

Notes:
bgs Below ground surface ECHOS Environmental Cost Handling Options and Solutions (RS Means 2002a) EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency RAC Response Action Contract

References:

1) RS Means. 2002b. Heavy Construction Cost Data. 16th Annual Edition. 2) RS Means. 2002a. Environmental Remediation Cost Data, Unit Price. 8th Annual Edition 3) EPA. 2000. A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study. $416,840 of Total Monitoring, Sampling, Testing, and Analysis

Project Management (Percentage of capital costs)(Exhibit 5-8 from EPA 2000) Lead (ECHOS 33 02 2143) Iron (ECHOS 33 02 1644)

5 year review (Previous Region 6 work;1/5 of cost included annually) Sample wells (4 wells sampled annually)(RS Means 33 02 0401, 33 02 0402; Total Safety)

Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (3510C)(ECHOS 33 02 2134) Sample wells (2 wells sampled quarterly)(RS Means 33 02 0401, 33 02 0402; Total Safety)

Lab analysis

Monitored Natural Attenuation Page 2 of 2

### APPENDIX B-3

ALTE RNA T I VE 4–CON TAINM E NT VIA CAPP I NG WI TH I C S

(Seven Pages)Target Media Capital Cost ($)Lifetime O&MCost ($)Post-remediationMonitoring Cost($) Total Cost ($)Remediation TimeFrame (months)Post-remediationMonitoring (years)Soil $3,825,922 $77,397 $0 $3,903,319 6 30Deep Soil/Ground Water Contamination $118,161 $0 $263,933 $382,094 1 30$3,944,083 $77,397 $263,933 $4,285,413 7 30Note:O&M Operation and maintenanceComponentExcavation and Off-site Disposal with MNAExcavation, Consolidation, and CappingMonitored Natural Attenuation (MNA)ALTERNATIVE 4CONTAINMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLSTOTAL REMEDIAL COST SUMMARYMDI SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT 1Page 1ALTERNATIVE 4

MDI SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT 1
HOUSTON, TEXAS

Alternative 4 - Containment and Institutional Controls and Monitored Natural Attenuation

Construction

time: 6 months

Operation

time: 30.0 years

Post

Remediation Monitoring 0.0 years

Quantity Quantity Labor Labor Equipment Equipment Material Material Opinion

Amount Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Total Cost

REMEDIAL ACTION (RA) TOTAL CAPITAL COST $3,825,922

Construction Activities $2,965,831

Site Work $214,689 $219,867 $2,153,252 $2,587,808

Temporary Facilities $0 $0 $246,645 $258,645

1 lump sum $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $11,465 $11,465 $11,465 1 lump sum $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $2,399 $2,399 $2,399
1 lump sum $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $8,011 $8,011 $8,011

6 per month $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $21,418 $128,509 $128,509

1 lump sum $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $32,553 $32,553 $32,553

6 per month $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $10,618 $63,708 $63,708

6 ea $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $2,000.00 $12,000 $12,000

$143,163 $166,522 $1,411,041 $1,720,727
$6 $10 $8,039 $8,054

2-cy Loader (ECHOS 17 02 0415) 30 cy $0.20 $6 $0.32 $10 $0.00 $0 $16

Hazardous debris disposal (estimate from vendor) 30 cy $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $108.10 $3,243 $3,243
Hazardous debris transportation (20 cy per load)(estimate from vendor) 2 loads $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $2,398 $4,796 $4,796

$44,528 $34,840 $99,093 $178,460 2-cy Loader (nonhazardous debris load only)(ECHOS 17 02 0415) 6,500 cy $0.20 $1,300 $0.32 $2,080 $0.00 $0 $3,380

Nonhazardous debris disposal (estimate from vendor) 6,500 cy $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $6.62 $43,030 $43,030
Nonhazardous debris transportation (20 cy per load)(estimate from vendor) 325 loads $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $172.50 $56,063 $56,063

Clearing and grubbing; medium brush with average grub and some trees; clearing (ECHOS 17 01 0106) 36 acres $275 $9,885 $417 $15,012 $0.00 $0 $24,897
Machine-load spoils; 2-mile haul to dump (ECHOS 02110 2000) 36 acres $926 $33,343 $493 $17,748 $0.00 $0 $51,091 ACM Removal and Disposal $0 $0 $249,165 $249,165

ACM oversight contractor (estimate from vendor) 1 ea $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $19,165 $19,165 $19,165

ACM removal and disposal (estimate from contractor) 1 ea $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $230,000 $230,000 $230,000

$0 $0 $7,970 $7,970 Hazardous water removal (WS-1)(estimate from vendor) 3 hours $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $80.50 $242 $242 Hazardous water disposal (WS-1)(estimate from vendor) 400 gal $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $0.86 $345 $345 Petroleum water removal (WS-6 and UST)(estimat e from vendor) 6 hours $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $80.50 $483 $483 Petroleum water disposal (WS-6 and UST)(estimat e from vendor) 10,000 gal $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $0.35 $3,450 $3,450 Other water removal (WS-2, 3, 5, 7, and 8)(estimat e from vendor) 12 hours $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $80.50 $966 $966 Other water disposal (WS-2, 3, 5, 7, and 8)(estimate from vendor) 12,000 gal $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $0.21 $2,484 $2,484 Building Demolition and Disposal $12,394 $9,863 $139,018 $161,275
Multi-level, masonry, nonexplosive building demolition (ECHOS 17 02 0103) 178,000 cf $0.06 $10,680 $0.04 $7,120 $0.00 $0 $17,800
2-cy Loader (load only, 30% expansion)(ECHOS 17 02 0415) 8,570 cy $0.20 $1,714 $0.32 $2,743 $0.00 $0 $4,457
Building debris transportation (18 cy per load)(estimate from vendor) 477 loads $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $172.50 $82,283 $82,283
Building debris disposal (nonhazardous debris)(estimate from vendor) 8,570 cy $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $6.62 $56,736 $56,736 Nonhazardous Debris Removal and Decontamination pad (recent EPA Region 6 RA) Install temporary electrical service (recent EPA Region 6 RA) Project sign (recent EPA Region 6 RA)

Support facilities (office trailers, storage trailers, utilities, outdoor lighting, meteorological station)(recent EPA Regio n 6 RA)

Security (24 hours per day, 7 days per week)(recent EPA Region 6 RA) Install and maintain storm water control measures (recent EPA Region 6 RA) LOCATION: MEDIA: TECHNOLOGY

MDI Excavation, Consolidation, and Capping Soil

Plug and abandon existing monitoring wells (24 feet deep)(based on previous work in EPA Region 6)

Demolition and Debris Removal Hazardous Debris Removal and Disposal

Water Removal and Disposal

Excavation and On-site Containment Page 1 of 4ALTERNATIVE 4

MDI SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT 1
HOUSTON, TEXAS

Alternative 4 - Containment and Institutional Controls and Monitored Natural Attenuation

Construction

time: 6 months

Operation

time: 30.0 years

Post

Remediation Monitoring 0.0 years

Quantity Quantity Labor Labor Equipment Equipment Material Material Opinion

Amount Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Total Cost LOCATION: MEDIA: TECHNOLOGY

MDI Excavation, Consolidation, and Capping Soil

Concrete Demolition and Disposal $1,950 $3,120 $522,459 $527,529

Concrete demolition (recent EPA Region 6 RA) 7,500 cy $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $38.64 $289,800 $289,800
2-cy Loader (load only, 30% expansion)(ECHOS 17 02 0415) 9,750 cy $0.20 $1,950 $0.32 $3,120 $0.00 $0 $5,070
Concrete transportation (20 tons per load, 2 tons per cy)(estimate from vendor) 975 loads $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $172.50 $168,188 $168,188

Concrete disposal (estimate from vendor) 9,750 cy $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $6.61 $64,472 $64,472

$4 $6 $1,676 $1,686

Solidification/stabilization (recent EPA Region 6 RA) 30 ton $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $14.28 $428 $428
2-cy Loader (load only, 30% expansion)(ECHOS 17 02 0415) 20 cy $0.20 $4 $0.32 $6 $0.00 $0 $10

Transportation (estimate from vendor) 2 loads $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $172.50 $345 $345

Disposal (Class I) 20 cy $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $46.29 $903 $903
UST Removal $1,932 $3,569 $9,852 $15,353

Remove steel/fiberglass UST: 2,001 - 5,000 gallon capacity (ECHOS 33 10 9505) 1 ea $910 $910 $3,285 $3,285 $0.00 $0 $4,195
Excavation and stockpiling of contaminated soil (recent EPA Region 6 RA) 90 cy $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $18.08 $1,627 $1,627
2-cy Loader (load only, 43% expansion)(ECHOS 17 02 0415) 129 cy $0.20 $26 $0.32 $41 $0.00 $0 $67

UST soil transportation (18 cy per load)(estimate from vendor) 8 loads $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $172.50 $1,380 $1,380

Soil disposal (Class 1)(estimate from vendor) 129 cy $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $46.29 $5,957 $5,957

Clean soil borrow, common earth (39% compaction) (M 02315 200 4060) 125 cy 0.49 $61 0.39 $49 $7.10 $888 $998
Fill, spread dumped material, by dozer, no compaction ( M 02315 505 0010 ) 125 cy 0.47 $59 $1.14 $143 $0.00 $0 $201

Compaction, sheepfoot wobbly wheel, 12-inch lift, 4 passes (M 02315 300 5720) 125 cy 0.18 $23 $0.41 $51 $0.00 $0 $74

Compaction testing, 1 nuclear per 5000 sf per 9-inch compacted lift (ASTM 2922)(M 01450 500 4735) 16 ea 53.36 $854 $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $854 LNAPL Impacted Soil Removal $82,349 $115,115 $356,477 $553,941 Steel sheeting; install, pull, and salvage; to 40 fe e (MW-3 Area)(ECHOS 17 03 0904) 8400 sf 3.67 $30,828 $4.93 $41,412 $3.39 $28,510 $100,750

Steel sheeting; install, pull, and salvage: to 25 feet (MW-11 and MW-20 Areas)(ECHOS 17 03 0903) 14160 sf 3.14 $44,462 $4.21 $59,614 $2.74 $38,829 $142,905
Excavation and stockpiling of overburden soil (recent EPA Region 6 RA) 3,465 cy $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $18.08 $62,647 $62,647
Excavation and stockpiling of contaminated soil (recent EPA Region 6 RA) 2,100 cy $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $18.08 $37,968 $37,968
2-cy Loader (load only, 43% expansion)(ECHOS 17 02 0415) 3,003 cy $0.20 $601 $0.32 $961 $0.00 $0 $1,562

Contaminated soil transportation (18 cy per load)(estimate from vendor) 167 loads $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $172.50 $28,808 $28,808

Soil disposal (Class 1)(estimate from vendor) 3,003 cy $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $46.29 $139,001 $139,001

Clean soil borrow, common earth (39% compaction) (M 02315 200 4060) 2919 cy 0.49 $1,430 0.39 $1,138 $7.10 $20,715 $23,283
Fill, spread dumped material, by dozer, no compaction ( M 02315 505 0010 ) 7735 cy 0.47 $3,636 $1.14 $8,818 $0.00 $0 $12,454

Compaction, sheepfoot wobbly wheel, 12-inch lift, 4 passes (M 02315 300 5720) 7735 cy 0.18 $1,392 $0.41 $3,171 $0.00 $0 $4,564

Compaction testing, 1 nuclear per 5000 sf per 9-inch compacted lift (ASTM 2922)(M 01450 500 4735) 0 ea 53.36 $0 $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 PCB Transformer Disposal $0 $0 $17,293 $17,293 Transportation (separate trips for fluid and transformer)(estimate from vendor) 2 ea $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $2,990 $5,980 $5,980

Incineration of PCB-contaminated oil (estimate from vendor) 16,395 lb $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $0.69 $11,313 $11,313

Consolidation Area Preparation $0 $0 $245,888 $162,667

6,667 cy $7.32 $48,800 $4.88 $32,533 $10.13 $67,533 $148,867

4 ea $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $3,450 $13,800 $13,800 Bag House Material Disposal

Excavating, bulldozer, 75 HP, 300-foot haul, clay (M 02315 410)
monitoring wells to 18 feet bgs (recent RAC work in EPA Region 6)

Excavation and On-site Containment Page 2 of 4ALTERNATIVE 4

MDI SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT 1
HOUSTON, TEXAS

Alternative 4 - Containment and Institutional Controls and Monitored Natural Attenuation

Construction

time: 6 months

Operation

time: 30.0 years

Post

Remediation Monitoring 0.0 years

Quantity Quantity Labor Labor Equipment Equipment Material Material Opinion

Amount Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Total Cost LOCATION: MEDIA: TECHNOLOGY

MDI Excavation, Consolidation, and Capping Soil

Excavation $0 $0 $245,888 $245,888

13,600 cy $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $18.08 $245,888 $245,888

Backfill and Compaction $22,726 $20,811 $156,345 $199,882

16,600 cy $0.49 $8,134 $0.31 $5,146 $7.09 $117,694 $130,974

1,667 cy $6.64 $11,067 $9.07 $15,117 $6.63 $11,050 $37,233

1,280 ft $1.84 $2,355 $0.00 $0 $20.86 $26,701 $29,056

1,280 ft $0.81 $1,037 $0.38 $486 $0.24 $307 $1,830

1 ea $133.10 $133 $62.11 $62 $592.88 $593 $788

Sampling and Analysis $0 $0 $119,242 $119,242

Total lead (recent EPA Region 6 RA) 97 ea $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $95.45 $9,259 $9,259 XRF Sampling (field sampling for lead) XRF rental (recent EPA Region 6 RA) 6 month $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4,418.30 $26,510 $26,510

1 ea $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,640 $1,640 $1,640
Air Monitoring

6 month $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $5,359.00 $32,154 $32,154

720 ea $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $69.00 $49,680 $49,680

Mobilization and Demobilization 1 lump sum $0 $0 $0 $258,781

10% $258,781

System Contingency $296,583

10% of Total Construction Activities $296,583

Professional/Technical Services $563,508

8% $237,266

5% $148,292

6% $177,950

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) ANNUAL O&M COST (Includes 1/5 of System O&M per year) $6,237

Monitoring, Sampling, Testing, and Analysis 1 lump sum $1,144 $570 $345 $2,059

Post-remediation Site Monitoring

4 well $286 $1,144 $142.39 $570 $15.08 $60 $1,774

4 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $71.18 $285 $285

System O&M $14,000 $0 $0 $20,891

1 ea $14,000 $14,000 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $14,000

$6,891 Cap and fence maintenance (10% of installed 6' Galvanized Chain-link Fence (ECHOS 18 04 0107)

5 year review (Previous Region 6 work Sample Wells (4 wells sampled annually)(RS Means 33 02 0401, 33 02 0402; Total Safety)

Data Analysis/Analytical, Lead (ECHOS 33 02 2143) of Total Costs of Site Work and Sampling & Analysis

Remedial Design (Percentage of capital costs)(Exhibit 5-8 from EPA 2000) Excavation and stockpiling of lead-contaminated soil (recent EPA Region 6 RA)

Unclassified fill, 6-inch lifts, on-site; includes spreading and compaction (ECHOS 17 03 0422)

Capping of contaminated area/waste pile, clay, 10E-7, 6- inch lifts, off-site, 2 inches thick (ECHOS 33 08 0507)

Excavation confirmation sampling (1 per 2,500 sf plus 10% QA/QC)

XRF supplies (cups, mylar, oven, bowls)(recent EPA Region 6 RA)

Equipment rental (low-flow air samplers, calibrator, dust monitor, calibration gas, and sound meter)(recent EPA Region 6 RA)

Air sample analysis (lead and total particulates, 4 samples per day)(recent EPA Region 6 RA)

Project Management (Percentage of capital costs)(Exhibit 5-8 from EPA 2000)

Construction Management (Percentage of capital costs)(Exhibit 5-8 from EPA 2000) 6' Swing Gate, 12' Double (ECHOS 18 04 0117) Galvanized Barbed Wire, 3-Strand (ECHOS 0.19 04 0111)

Excavation and On-site Containment Page 3 of 4ALTERNATIVE 4

MDI SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT 1
HOUSTON, TEXAS

Alternative 4 - Containment and Institutional Controls and Monitored Natural Attenuation

Construction

time: 6 months

Operation

time: 30.0 years

Post

Remediation Monitoring 0.0 years

Quantity Quantity Labor Labor Equipment Equipment Material Material Opinion

Amount Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Total Cost LOCATION: MEDIA: TECHNOLOGY

MDI Excavation, Consolidation, and Capping Soil

LIFETIME O&M (Net Present Value) $77,397

Years of Operation 30

Discount Factor 7%

TOTAL COST (CAPITAL COST + LIFETIME O&M)

Assumptions:

1 2002 RS Means values increased to account for inflation 2.25%

2 Working condition is Safety Level: D (Labor productivity: 75% ; Equipment productivity: 95% )

3 Soil profile sampling will be conducted at the frequency of: 1 sample for every: 500 cy of contaminated soil plus 10% QA/QC

4 Cost index for zip code 770 88% (not applicable for costs derived from vendor quotes).

5 Costs are loaded with an overhead and profit factor: 15%

6 No net present value calculation is presented for alternative with an estimated remediation timeframe that is less than 1 year.

7 No dewatering costs included.

8 Treated soil and compaction volumes include 3,000 cy from off-property excavations currently stockpiled on property.

9 Debris volume only includes removal of debris overlying areas to be excavated.

10 Concrete volume only includes demolition and disposal of concrete over areas to be excavated.

Estimated Volume of Excavation:

Total

Estimated total volume of contaminated soil : 13,600 0 0 13,600 cf
Average soil swelling factor: 43%
Average soil density: 1.5 tons/cy In-place Loose

13,600 19,448 cy 20,400 tons

39%

18,904

Notes:
ACM Asbestos-containing material ASTM American Society of Testing and Materials bgs Below ground surface

cf Cubic foot cy Cubic yard ECHOS Environmental Cost Handling Options and Solutions (RS Means 2002a) EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency gal Gallon HP Horsepower

lb Pound LNAPL Light nonaqueous-phase liquid MW Monitoring well PCB Polychlorinated biphenyl QA/QC Quality assurance/quality control RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act sf Square feet TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure UST Underground storage tank WS Waste sample XRF X-ray fluoresence

References:

1) RS Means. 2002b. Heavy Construction Cost Data. 16th Annual Edition. 2) RS Means. 2002a. Environmental Remediation Cost Data, Unit Price. 8th Annual Edition 3) EPA. 2000. A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study. $3,903,319

Estimated total volume of replacement soil Replacement soil compaction factor Estimated total volume of excavated soil :

Excavation and On-site Containment Page 4 of 4ALTERNATIVE 4

MDI SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT 1
HOUSTON, TEXAS

Alternative 4 - Containment and Institutional Controls and Monitored Natural Attenuation

Construction

TIme: 1 months

Operation

TIme: 30.0 years

Post

Remediation Monitoring 30.0 years

Quantity Quantity Labor Labor Equipment Equipment Material Material Opinion

Amount Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Total Cost

REMEDIAL ACTION TOTAL CAPITAL COST $118,161

Initial Site Characterization $75,502

6 ea $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $3,450 $20,700 $20,700

48 well $286 $13,733 $142.39 $6,835 $15.08 $724 $21,292

48 ea

48 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $233.80 $11,222 $11,222 48 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $51.73 $2,483 $2,483 48 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $71.18 $3,416 $3,416 Ferrous iron (ECHOS 33 02 1678) 48 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $96.42 $4,628 $4,628 Dissolved manganese (ECHOS 33 02 1644) 48 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $71.18 $3,416 $3,416 Nitrate (ECHOS 33 02 1661) 48 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $36.70 $1,762 $1,762 Sulfate (ECHOS 33 02 1667) 48 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $19.40 $931 $931 Dissolved oxygen (ECHOS 33 02 1663) 48 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $28.76 $1,381 $1,381

1 lump sum $4,271 $4,271 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,271

Contingency $7,550
10% of total construction activities $7,550

Professional/Technical Services $35,109

20% $15,100

10% $7,550

15% $12,458

MNA Monitoring (Annually) $21,269

Monitoring, Sampling, Testing, and Analysis 12 months $3,433 $1,709 $7,330 $12,472

8 well $286 $2,289 $142.39 $1,139 $15.08 $121 $3,549

4 well $286 $1,144 $142.39 $570 $15.08 $60 $1,774

12 ea

12 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $228.65 $2,744 $2,744 12 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $50.59 $607 $607 12 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $69.61 $835 $835 Ferrous iron (ECHOS 33 02 1678) 12 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $94.30 $1,132 $1,132 Dissolved manganese (ECHOS 33 02 1644) 12 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $69.61 $835 $835 Nitrate (ECHOS 33 02 1661) 12 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $35.89 $431 $431 Sulfate (ECHOS 33 02 1667) 12 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $18.98 $228 $228 Dissolved oxygen (ECHOS 33 02 1663) 12 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $28.13 $338 $338

Contingency $1,247

10% $1,247

Professional/Technical Services 12 months $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $7,550

10% $7,550 Sample wells (2 wells sampled quarterly)(RS Means 33 02 0401, 33 02 0402; Total Safety)

Lab analysis Ground water fate and transport modeling (ECHOS 33 02 0419)

Remedial Design (Percentage of capital costs)(Exhibit 5-8 from EPA 2000)

Project Management (Percentage of capital costs)(Exhibit 5-8 from EPA 2000)

Construction Management (Percentage of capital costs)(Exhibit 5-8 from EPA 2000)

of Total Monitoring, Sampling, Testing, and Analysis

Project Management (Percentage of capital costs)(Exhibit 5-8 from EPA 2000) Sample wells (4 wells sampled annually)(RS Means 33 02 0401, 33 02 0402; Total Safety)

Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (3510C)(ECHOS 33 02 2134) Lead (ECHOS 33 02 2143) Iron (ECHOS 33 02 1644) MEDIA:

MDI Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) TECHNOLOGY LOCATION:

Deep Soil/Ground

Water Contamination

Iron (ECHOS 33 02 1644) Sample wells (6 wells sampled quarterly for 2 years)(RS Means 33 02 0401, 33 02 0402; Total Safety) Lab analysis Installation, completion, and development of additional monitoring wells to 18 feet bgs (recent RAC work in EPA Region 6)

P o l ynuc l ear aroma ti c h y d rocar b ons (3510C)(ECHOS 33 02 2134) Lead (ECHOS 33 02 2143)

Monitored Natural Attenuation Page 1 of 2ALTERNATIVE 4

MDI SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT 1
HOUSTON, TEXAS

Alternative 4 - Containment and Institutional Controls and Monitored Natural Attenuation

Construction

TIme: 1 months

Operation

TIme: 30.0 years

Post

Remediation Monitoring 30.0 years

Quantity Quantity Labor Labor Equipment Equipment Material Material Opinion

Amount Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Total Cost MEDIA:

MDI Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) TECHNOLOGY LOCATION:

Deep Soil/Ground

Water Contamination

LIFETIME MONITORING COST (Present Value) $263,933

Years of Operation 30

Discount Factor 7.0%

TOTAL COST (CAPITAL COST + LIFETIME OPERATING COST)

Assumptions:

1 2002 RS Means values increased to account for inflation 2.25%

2 Working condition is Safety Level: D (Labor productivity: 75% ; Equipment productivity: 95% )

3 Cost index for zip code 770 88% (not applicable for costs derived from vendor quotes).

4 Costs are loaded with an overhead and profit factor: 15%

5 No net present value calculation is presented for alternative with an estimated remediation timeframe that is less than 1 year.

Notes:
bgs Below ground surface ECHOS Environmental Cost Handling Options and Solutions (RS Means 2002a) EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency RAC Response Action Contract

References:

1) RS Means. 2002b. Heavy Construction Cost Data. 16th Annual Edition. 2) RS Means. 2002a. Environmental Remediation Cost Data, Unit Price. 8th Annual Edition 3) EPA. 2000. A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study. $382,094

Monitored Natural Attenuation Page 2 of 2

### APPENDIX B-4

ALTE RNA T I VE 5–SOLI D IFIC ATI O N/STABI L I Z A T I O N A ND OFF-SI TE DISP OS AL OF

SOILS I N U N PAVE D A R EAS; GROUND W A TE R VIA MN A WITH ICS

(Seven Pages)Target Media Capital Cost ($)Lifetime O&MCost ($)Post-remediationMonitoring Cost($) Total Cost ($)Remediation TimeFrame (months)Post-remediationMonitoring (years)Soil $2,903,330 $0 $0 $2,903,330 4 0Deep Soil/Ground Water Contamination $118,161 $0 $298,679 $416,840 1 30$3,021,491 $0 $298,679 $3,320,170 5 30Note:O&M Operation and maintenanceALTERNATIVE 5EXCAVATION OF UNCAPPED SOIL AND OFF-SITE DISPOSAL WITH MNATOTAL REMEDIAL COST SUMMARYMDI SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT 1ComponentExcavation and Off-site Disposal with MNAExcavation of Uncapped Soil,Solidification/Stabilization, and Off-site DisposalMonitored Natural Attenuation (MNA)Page 1ALTERNATIVE 5

MDI SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT 1
HOUSTON, TEXAS

Alternative 5 - Solidification/Stabilization of Uncapped Soil and Off-site Disposal with Monitored Natural Attenuation

Construction

time: 4 months

Operation

time: 0.0 years

Post

Remediation
Monitoring 0.0 years

Quantity Quantity Labor Labor Equipment Equipment Material Material

Amount Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Total Cost

REMEDIAL ACTION (RA) TOTAL CAPITAL COST $2,903,330

Construction Activitie s $2,220,028

Site Work $150,072 $169,310 $1,210,852 $1,530,233
Temporary Facilities $0 $0 $190,572 $190,572

1 lump sum $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $11,465 $11,465 $11,465 1 lump sum $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $2,399 $2,399 $2,399
1 lump sum $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $8,011 $8,011 $8,011

4 per month $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $21,418 $85,673 $85,673

1 lump sum $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $32,553 $32,553 $32,553

4 per month $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $10,618 $42,472 $42,472

4 ea $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $2,000.00 $8,000 $8,000

$142,064 $162,742 $832,632 $1,137,438
$6 $10 $8,039 $8,054

2-cy Loader (ECHOS 17 02 0415) 30 cy $0.20 $6 $0.32 $10 $0.00 $0 $16

Hazardous debris disposal (estimate from vendor) 30 cy $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $108.10 $3,243 $3,243
Hazardous debris transportation (20 cy per load)(estimate from vendor) 2 loads $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $2,398 $4,796 $4,796

$43,228 $32,760 $0 $75,988 Clearing and grubbing; medium brush with average grub and some trees, clearing (ECHOS 17 01 0106) 36 acres $275 $9,885 $417 $15,012 $0.00 $0 $24,897
Machine-load spoils; 2-mile haul to dump (ECHOS 02110 2000) 36 acres $926 $33,343 $493 $17,748 $0.00 $0 $51,091 ACM Removal and Disposal $0 $0 $249,165 $249,165

ACM oversight contractor (estimate from vendor) 1 ea $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $19,165 $19,165 $19,165

ACM removal and disposal (estimate from contractor) 1 ea $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $230,000 $230,000 $230,000

$1,995 $1,171 $9,315 $12,480

Hazardous water removal (WS-1)(estimate from vendor) 3 hours $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $80.50 $242 $242 Hazardous water disposal (WS-1)(estimate from vendor) 400 gal $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $0.86 $345 $345 Petroleum water removal (WS-6 and UST)(estimate from vendor) 6 hours $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $80.50 $483 $483 Petroleum water disposal (WS-6 and UST)(estimate from vendor) 10,000 gal $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $0.35 $3,450 $3,450 Other water removal (WS-2, 3, 5, 7, and 8)(estimate from vendor) 12 hours $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $80.50 $966 $966 Other water disposal (WS-2, 3, 5, 7, and 8)(estimate from vendor) 12,000 gal $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $0.21 $2,484 $2,484 Decontamination of pits by high pressure wash (WS-1, WS-2, and WS-3; ECHOS 33 17 0805) 1,084 sf $1.84 $1,995 $1.08 $1,171 $0.00 $0 $3,165Decontamination water removal (WS-1, WS-2, and WS3)(estimate from vendor) 6 hours $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $80.50 $483 $483Decontamination water disposal (WS-1, WS-2, & WS3)(estimate from vendor) 1,000 gal $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $0.86 $863 $863

$12,394 $9,863 $139,018 $161,275
Multi-level, masonry, nonexplosive building demolition (ECHOS 17 02 0103) 178,000 cf $0.06 $10,680 $0.04 $7,120 $0.00 $0 $17,800
2-cy Loader (load only, 30% expansion)(ECHOS 17 02 0415) 8,570 cy $0.20 $1,714 $0.32 $2,743 $0.00 $0 $4,457
Building debris transportation (18 cy per load)(estimate from vendor) 477 loads $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $172.50 $82,283 $82,283
Building debris disposal (nonhazardous debris)(estimate from vendor) 8,570 cy $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $6.62 $56,736 $56,736 Plug and abandon existing monitoring wells (24 feet deep)(based on previous work in EPA Region 6)

Demolition, Debris & LNAPL Removal LOCATION: MEDIA: TECHNOLOGY

MDI Excavation of Uncapped Soil, Solidification/Stabilization, and Off-site Disposal Soil

Nonhazardous Debris Removal and Disposal Decontamination pad (recent EPA Region 6 RA) Install temporary electrical service (recent EPA Region 6 RA)

Hazardous Debris Removal and Disposal Project sign (recent EPA Region 6 RA)

Support facilities (Office trailers, storage trailers, utilities, outdoor lighting, meteorological station)(recent EPA Region 6 RA)

Security (24 hours per day, 7 days per week)(recent EPA Region 6 RA) Install and maintain storm water control measures (recent EPA Region 6 RA)

Water Removal, Disposal, and Pit

Decontamination

Building Demolition and Disposal (Not including ACM)

Excavation and Off-site Disposal of Uncapped Soil Page 1 of 4ALTERNATIVE 5

MDI SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT 1
HOUSTON, TEXAS

Alternative 5 - Solidification/Stabilization of Uncapped Soil and Off-site Disposal with Monitored Natural Attenuation

Construction

time: 4 months

Operation

time: 0.0 years

Post

Remediation
Monitoring 0.0 years

Quantity Quantity Labor Labor Equipment Equipment Material Material

Amount Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Total Cost LOCATION: MEDIA: TECHNOLOGY

MDI Excavation of Uncapped Soil, Solidification/Stabilization, and Off-site Disposal Soil

Concrete Demolition and Disposal $156 $250 $41,797 $42,202

Concrete demolition (recent EPA Region 6 RA) 600 cy $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $38.64 $23,184 $23,184
2-cy Loader (load only, 30% expansion)(ECHOS 17 02 0415) 780 cy $0.20 $156 $0.32 $250 $0.00 $0 $406
Concrete transportation (20 tons per load, 2 tons per cy)(estimate from vendor) 78 loads $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $172.50 $13,455 $13,455

Concrete disposal (estimate from vendor) 780 cy $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $6.61 $5,158 $5,158

$4 $6 $1,676 $1,686

Solidification/stabilization (recent EPA Region 6 RA) 30 ton $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $14.28 $428 $428
2-cy Loader (load only, 30% expansion)(ECHOS 17 02 0415) 20 cy $0.20 $4 $0.32 $6 $0.00 $0 $10

Transportation (estimate from vendor) 2 loads $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $172.50 $345 $345

Disposal (Class I) 20 cy $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $46.29 $903 $903

UST Removal $1,932 $3,569 $9,852 $15,353

Remove steel/fiberglass UST: 2,001 - 5,000 gallon capacity (ECHOS 33 10 9505) 1 ea $910 $910 $3,285 $3,285 $0.00 $0 $4,195
Excavation and stockpiling of contaminated soil (recent EPA Region 6 RA) 90 cy $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $18.08 $1,627 $1,627
2-cy Loader (load only, 43% expansion)(ECHOS 17 02 0415) 129 cy $0.20 $26 $0.32 $41 $0.00 $0 $67

UST soil transportation (18 cy per load)(estimate from vendor) 8 loads $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $172.50 $1,380 $1,380

Soil disposal (Class 1)(estimate from vendor) 129 cy $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $46.29 $5,957 $5,957

Clean soil borrow, common earth (39% compaction)(M 02315 200 4060) 125 cy 0.49 $61 0.39 $49 $7.10 $888 $998
Fill, spread dumped material, by dozer, no compaction ( M 02315 505 0010 ) 125 cy 0.47 $59 $1.14 $143 $0.00 $0 $201

Compaction, sheepfoot wobbly wheel, 12-inch lift, 4 passes (M 02315 300 5720) 125 cy 0.18 $23 $0.41 $51 $0.00 $0 $74
Compaction testing, 1 nuclear per 5000 sf per 9-inch compacted lift (ASTM 2922 M 01450 500 4735) 16 ea 53.36 $854 $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $854 LNAPL Impacted Soil Removal $82,349 $115,115 $356,477 $553,941 Steel sheeting; install, pull, and salvage; to 40 feet (MW-3 Area)(ECHOS 17 03 0904) 8400 sf 3.67 $30,828 $4.93 $41,412 $3.39 $28,510 $100,750 Steel sheeting; install, pull, and salvage; to 25 feet (MW-11 and MW-20 Areas)(ECHOS 17 03 0903) 14160 sf 3.14 $44,462 $4.21 $59,614 $2.74 $38,829 $142,905
Excavation and stockpiling of overburden soil (recent EPA Region 6 RA) 3,465 cy $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $18.08 $62,647 $62,647
Excavation and stockpiling of contaminated soil (recent EPA Region 6 RA) 2,100 cy $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $18.08 $37,968 $37,968
2-cy Loader (load only, 43% expansion)(ECHOS 17 02 0415) 3,003 cy $0.20 $601 $0.32 $961 $0.00 $0 $1,562

Contaminated soil transportation (18 cy per load)(estimate from vendor) 167 loads $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $172.50 $28,808 $28,808

Soil disposal (Class 1)(estimate from vendor) 3,003 cy $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $46.29 $139,001 $139,001

Clean soil borrow, common earth (39% compaction)(M 02315 200 4060) 2919 cy 0.49 $1,430 0.39 $1,138 $7.10 $20,715 $23,283
Fill; spread dumped material, by dozer; no compaction ( M 02315 505 0010 ) 7735 cy 0.47 $3,636 $1.14 $8,818 $0.00 $0 $12,454

Compaction, sheepfoot wobbly wheel, 12-inch lift, 4 passes (M 02315 300 5720) 7735 cy 0.18 $1,392 $0.41 $3,171 $0.00 $0 $4,564
Compaction testing, 1 nuclear per 5000 sf per 9-inch compacted lift (ASTM 2922 M 01450 500 4735) 0 ea 53.36 $0 $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 PCB Transformer Disposal $0 $0 $17,293 $17,293 Transportation (separate trips for fluid and transformer)(estimate from vendor) 2 ea $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $2,990 $5,980 $5,980

Incineration of PCB-contaminated oil (estimate from vendor) 16,395 lb $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $0.69 $11,313 $11,313

Excavation and Treatment $0 $0 $163,010 $163,010

2,500 cy $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $18.08 $45,200 $45,200

3,750 ton $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $14.28 $53,550 $53,550

4,500 ton $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $14.28 $64,260 $64,260 Bag House Material Disposal

Excavation and stockpiling of lead-contaminated soil (recent EPA Region 6 RA)
Solidification/stabilization (recent EPA Region 6 RA)
Solidification/stabilization of off-property soil (recent EPA Region 6 RA)

Excavation and Off-site Disposal of Uncapped Soil Page 2 of 4ALTERNATIVE 5

MDI SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT 1
HOUSTON, TEXAS

Alternative 5 - Solidification/Stabilization of Uncapped Soil and Off-site Disposal with Monitored Natural Attenuation

Construction

time: 4 months

Operation

time: 0.0 years

Post

Remediation
Monitoring 0.0 years

Quantity Quantity Labor Labor Equipment Equipment Material Material

Amount Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Total Cost LOCATION: MEDIA: TECHNOLOGY

MDI Excavation of Uncapped Soil, Solidification/Stabilization, and Off-site Disposal Soil

Backfill and Compaction $8,008 $6,568 $24,638 $39,213
3,475 cy $0.49 $1,703 $0.31 $1,077 $7.09 $24,638 $27,418

3,475 cy $0.79 $2,745 $1.26 $4,379 $0.00 $0 $7,124

3,475 cy $0.18 $626 $0.32 $1,112 $0.00 $0 $1,738

55 ea $53.35 $2,934 $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $2,934

Off-site Disposal $3,854 $2,438 $439,511 $445,803
Soil Disposal (On-property Soil) $1,752 $1,108 $199,814 $202,674

3,575 cy $0.49 $1,752 $0.31 $1,108 $0.00 $0 $2,860

199 loads $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $172.50 $34,328 $34,328
3,575 cy $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $46.29 $165,487 $165,487 Soil Disposal (Off-property Soil) $2,102 $1,330 $239,697 $243,129

4,290 cy $0.49 $2,102 $0.31 $1,330 $0.00 $0 $3,432

238 loads $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $172.50 $41,113 $41,113
4,290 cy $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $46.29 $198,584 $198,584

Sampling and Analysis $0 $0 $90,969 $90,969

Profile Analysis for Soil Disposal TCLP (RCRA metals)(recent EPA Region 6 RA) 15 ea $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $322.00 $4,830 $4,830

Total lead (recent EPA Region 6 RA) 97 ea $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $95.45 $9,259 $9,259 XRF Sampling (field sampling for lead) XRF rental (recent EPA Region 6 RA) 4 month $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4,418 $17,673 $17,673

1 ea $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,640 $1,640 $1,640 Air Monitoring

4 month $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $5,359.00 $21,436 $21,436

480 ea $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $69.00 $33,120 $33,120

12 ea $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $250.92 $3,011 $3,011

Mobilization and Demobilization 1 lump sum $153,023

10% $153,023

System Contingency $222,003

10% of Total Construction Activities $222,003

Professional/Technical Services $461,299

12% $212,907

6% $106,454

8% $141,938

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) ANNUAL O&M COST $0

Monitoring, Sampling, Testing, and Analysis 1 lump sum $0 $0 $0 $0

Post Remediation Site Monitoring Geoprobe 0 lump sum $10,000 $0 $5,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Field Work Labor 0 lump sum $15,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

0 lump sum $15,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

System O&M $0 $0 $0 $0 Excavation Confirmation Sampling (1 per 2,500 sf plus 10% QA/QC)

XRF supplies (cups, mylar, oven, bowls)(recent EPA Region 6 RA)

Equipment rental (low-flow air samplers, calibrator, dust monitor, calibration gas, and sound meter)(recent EPA Region 6 RA)
Air sample analysis (lead and total particulates; 4 samples per day)(recent EPA Region 6 RA)

Project Management (Percentage of capital costs excluding off-site disposal)(Exhibit 5-8 from EPA 2000) Treated soil transportation (BFI Landfill, 18 cy per load) Loading common earth, front-end loader, wheel mtd, 1.5 cy (M 02315 200 4060) Compaction testing, nuclear method (ASTM D2922); 1 per 5,000 sf per 9-inch loose lift (M 01450 500 4735) Clean soil borrow, common earth (M 02315 200 4060)

Compaction, sheepfoot wobbly wheel, 12-inch lift, 4 passes (M 02315 300 5720)

Pit Wall Sampling after Decontamination (1 sample per 10
square meters, for PCB in WS-1, WS-2, & WS-3; ECHOS 33 02 Soil disposal (Class I)

of Total Costs of Site Work and Sampling & Analysis

Remedial Design (Percentage of capital costs excluding offsite disposal)(Exhibit 5-8 from EPA 2000)

Data Analysis/Analytical (TPH, BTEX) Loading common earth, front-end loader, wheel mtd, 1.5 cy (M 02315 200 4060)

Treated soil transportation (BFI Landfill, 18 cy per load)

Soil disposal (Class I)

Construction Management (Percentage of capital costs excluding off-site disposal)(Exhibit 5-8 from EPA 2000) Backfill, spread fill, from stockpile w/ front-end loader (M 02315 505 0170)

Excavation and Off-site Disposal of Uncapped Soil Page 3 of 4ALTERNATIVE 5

MDI SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT 1
HOUSTON, TEXAS

Alternative 5 - Solidification/Stabilization of Uncapped Soil and Off-site Disposal with Monitored Natural Attenuation

Construction

time: 4 months

Operation

time: 0.0 years

Post

Remediation
Monitoring 0.0 years

Quantity Quantity Labor Labor Equipment Equipment Material Material

Amount Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Total Cost LOCATION: MEDIA: TECHNOLOGY

MDI Excavation of Uncapped Soil, Solidification/Stabilization, and Off-site Disposal Soil

LIFETIME O&M (Net Present Value) $0

Years of Operation 0

Discount Factor 7%

TOTAL COST (CAPITAL COST + LIFETIME O&M)

Assumptions:

1 2002 RS Means values increased to account for inflation 2.25%

2 Working condition is Safety Level: D (Labor productivity: 75% ; Equipment productivity: 95% )

3 Soil profile sampling will be conducted at the frequency of: 1 sample for every: 500 cy of contaminated soil plus 10% QA/QC

4 Cost index for zip code 770 88% (not applicable for costs derived from vendor quotes).

5 Costs are loaded with an overhead and profit factor: 15%

6 No net present value calculation is presented for alternative with an estimated remediation timeframe that is less than 1 year.

7 No dewatering costs included.

8 Treated soil and disposal volumes include 3,000 cy from off-property excavations currently stockpiled on property.

9 Debris volume only includes removal of debris overlying areas to be excavated.

10 Concrete volume only includes demolition of concrete overlying areas to be excavated.

Estimated Volume of Excavation:

Total

Estimated total volume of contaminated soil : 2,500 0 0 2,500 cf
Average soil swelling factor: 43%
Average soil density: 1.5 tons/cy In-place Loose

2,500 3,575 cy 3,750 tons

39%

3,475

Notes:

A CM A sbestos-containing material

A STM A merican Society of Testing and Materials

BTE X Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes

cf Cubic foot cy Cubic yard ECHOS Environmental Cost Handling Options and Solutions (RS Means 2002a)

EP A U.S. Environmental Protection Agency gal Gallon

lb Pound

LNAP L Light nonaqueous-phase liquid MW Monitoring well PCB Polychlorinated biphenyl QA/QC Quality assurance/quality control RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act sf Square feet TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure TPH Total petroleum hydrocarbons

US T Underground storage tank WS Waste sample XRF X-ray fluoresence

References:

1) RS Means. 2002b. Heavy Construction Cost Data. 16th Annual Edition. 2) RS Means. 2002a. Environmental Remediation Cost Data, Unit Price. 8th Annual Edition 3) EPA. 2000. A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study. Replacement soil compaction factor Estimated total volume of excavated soil :

Estimated total volume of replacement soil $2,903,330

Excavation and Off-site Disposal of Uncapped Soil Page 4 of 4ALTERNATIVE 5

MDI SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT 1 HOUSTON, TEXAS

Alternative 5 - Solidification/Stabilization of Uncapped Soil and Off-site Disposal with Monitored Natural Attenuation

Construction

TIme: 1 months

Operation

TIme: 30.0
years

Post

Remediation Monitoring 30.0 years

Quantity Quantity Labor Labor Equipment Equipment Material Material

Amount Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Total Cost

REMEDIAL ACTION TOTAL CAPITAL COST $118,161

Initial Site Characterization $75,502

6 ea $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $3,450 $20,700 $20,700

48 well $286 $13,733 $142.39 $6,835 $15.08 $724 $21,292

48 ea

48 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $233.80 $11,222 $11,222 48 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $51.73 $2,483 $2,483 48 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $71.18 $3,416 $3,416 Ferrous iron (ECHOS 33 02 1678) 48 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $96.42 $4,628 $4,628 Dissolved manganese (ECHOS 33 02 1644) 48 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $71.18 $3,416 $3,416 Nitrate (ECHOS 33 02 1661) 48 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $36.70 $1,762 $1,762 Sulfate (ECHOS 33 02 1667) 48 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $19.40 $931 $931 Dissolved oxygen (ECHOS 33 02 1663) 48 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $28.76 $1,381 $1,381

1 lump sum $4,271 $4,271 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,271

Contingency $7,550

10% of total construction activities $7,550

Professional/Technical Services $35,109

20% $15,100

10% $7,550

15% $12,458

MNA Monitoring (Annually) $24,069 Ground water fate and transport modeling (ECHOS 33 02 0419)

Remedial Design (Percentage of capital costs)(Exhibit 5-8 from EPA 2000)

Project Management (Percentage of capital costs)(Exhibit 5-8 from EPA 2000)

Construction Management (Percentage of capital costs)(Exhibit 5-8 from EPA 2000) MEDIA:

MDI Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) TECHNOLOGY LOCATION:

Deep Soil/Ground

Water Contamination

Iron (ECHOS 33 02 1644) Sample wells (6 wells sampled quarterly for 2 years)(RS Means 33 02 0401, 33 02 0402; Total Safety)
Lab analysis Installation, completion, and development of additional monitor wells to 18 feet bgs (Recent RAC work in Region 6)

Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (3510C)(ECHOS 33 02 2134) Lead (ECHOS 33 02 2143)

Monitored Natural Attenuation Page 1 of 2ALTERNATIVE 5

MDI SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT 1 HOUSTON, TEXAS

Alternative 5 - Solidification/Stabilization of Uncapped Soil and Off-site Disposal with Monitored Natural Attenuation

Construction

TIme: 1 months

Operation

TIme: 30.0
years

Post

Remediation Monitoring 30.0 years

Quantity Quantity Labor Labor Equipment Equipment Material Material

Amount Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Total Cost MEDIA:

MDI Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) TECHNOLOGY LOCATION:

Deep Soil/Ground

Water Contamination

Monitoring, Sampling, Testing, and Analysis 12 months $3,433 $1,709 $7,330 $12,472

8 well $286 $2,289 $142.39 $1,139 $15.08 $121 $3,549

4 well $286 $1,144 $142.39 $570 $15.08 $60 $1,774

12 ea

12 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $228.65 $2,744 $2,744 12 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $50.59 $607 $607 12 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $69.61 $835 $835 Ferrous iron (ECHOS 33 02 1678) 12 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $94.30 $1,132 $1,132 Dissolved manganese (ECHOS 33 02 1644) 12 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $69.61 $835 $835 Nitrate (ECHOS 33 02 1661) 12 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $35.89 $431 $431 Sulfate (ECHOS 33 02 1667) 12 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $18.98 $228 $228 Dissolved oxygen (ECHOS 33 02 1663) 12 sample $0 $0 $0 $0 $28.13 $338 $338

Contingency $1,247

10% $1,247

Professional/Technical Services 12 months $2,800 $0 $0 $10,350

10% $7,550

0.2 per year 14000 $2,800 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $2,800

LIFETIME MONITORING COST (Present Value) $298,679

Years of Operation 30

Discount Factor 7.0%

TOTAL COST (CAPITAL COST + LIFETIME OPERATING COST)

Assumptions:

1 2002 RS Means values increased to account for inflation 2.25%

2 Working condition is Safety Level: D (Labor productivity: 75% ; Equipment productivity: 95% )

3 Cost index for zip code 770 88% (not applicable for costs derived from vendor quotes).

4 Costs are loaded with an overhead and profit factor: 15%

5 No net present value calculation is presented for alternative with an estimated remediation timeframe that is less than 1 year.

Notes:
bgs Below ground surface ECHOS Environmental Cost Handling Options and Solutions (RS Means 2002a) EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency RAC Response Action Contract

References:

1) RS Means. 2002b. Heavy Construction Cost Data. 16th Annual Edition. 2) RS Means. 2002a. Environmental Remediation Cost Data, Unit Price. 8th Annual Edition 3) EPA. 2000. A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study. Sample wells (4 wells sampled annually)(RS Means 33 02 0401, 33 02 0402; Total Safety)

Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (3510C)(ECHOS 33 02 2134) Sample wells (2 wells sampled quarterly)(RS Means 33 02 0401, 33 02 0402; Total Safety)

Lab analysis

$416,840 of Total Monitoring, Sampling, Testing, and Analysis

Project Management (Percentage of capital costs)(Exhibit 5-8 from EPA 2000) Lead (ECHOS 33 02 2143) Iron (ECHOS 33 02 1644)

5 year review (Previous Region 6 work;1/5 of cost included annually)

Monitored Natural Attenuation Page 2 of 2