1 6232.; • ' • f f c • nA I R M O N T UOMMUNITY llAISON PANEL

B i! Fairmont Coke Works Site'•?" ••y ""ijj ->•..->

MEETING MINUTESFairmont Community Liaison PanelJanuary 6,2000

Attendees: Amy Casto, Michael Cummings,Tom Grabb (attending for Mark Thompson),

- Georgeann Grewe, Karen Gribben, Bruce McDaniel,Barbara Metcalfe, Kevin McClung,Ronnie Vangilder (attending for Chief Wimer),Norma Watson, Marcella Yaremchuk.

ExxonMobilRepresentatives: Art Chin, John Hannig.

Agency Representatives: Melissa Pennington, Hilary Thornton, Rich Kuhn,U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA);Tom Bass, West Virginia Division of EnvironmentalProtection (WVDEP).

Contractor: Frank Markert, IT Corporation.

Guests: Griff Fowler; Jackie Marhefka, Fairmont Times-WestVirginian; Wayne Stutler; Doug Taylor.

Facilitator: Roberta Fowlkes, Ann Green Communications, Inc.

Minutes: Dan T. Londeree, Ann Green Communications, Inc.

The regular meeting of the Fairmont Community Liaison Panel (FCLP) wascalled to order at 5:30 p.m. by Roberta Fowlkes, facilitator. Roberta introduced AmyCasto, a new member of the panel. Roberta said Amy is replacing Tammy Currey fromCongressman Mollohan's office. She said Tammy accepted a job in Charleston. Robertaalso introduced Ronnie Vangilder of the Fairmont Fire Department. She said ChiefWimer retired and Ronnie will represent the department until a new chief is named.Roberta welcomed all guests and asked them to introduce themselves.

USEPA Exxon ARt*00325 WVDEP

Meeting MinutesFairmont CLPJanuary 6, 2000Page 2

Roberta asked John Hannig to deliver his news regarding the Exxon-Mobilmerger before continuing with the scheduled agenda. John said that, since the November1999 panel meeting, the Exxon-Mobil merger has been completed. He said the name ofthe company is now ExxonMobil.

Roberta reviewed the agenda; and there were no additions. The minutes of theNovember meeting were approved as distributed.

Presentation: EE/CA Report for Waste Management Area

Melissa Pennington gave a presentation regarding the EngineeringEvaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) Report for the Waste Management Area. [Melissa'sslides are included with these minutes. A map used by Melissa is also included.] Melissareviewed how and why the site has been divided into two areas: the Waste ManagementArea and the Process Area. She said many of the wastes produced in the Process Areawere disposed of in the Waste Management Area. She said the decision was made to dealwith the Waste Management Area first because more is known about this area of the site.

Melissa said the EE/CA is the investigation and evaluation done for non-timecritical removal actions. She said these actions allow for quicker cleanups than thetypical Superfund remedial actions used at many other sites. She reviewed the course ofaction after the Waste Management Area and the Process Area are complete, whichincludes reinstating the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) order which hasbeen suspended during the EE/CA phase. She said this order already has been negotiatedwith ExxonMobil. She said the RI/FS is the typical investigation that is done atSuperfund sites. She said the RI/FS will address groundwater and any other items whichmay be discovered during the course of the work.

Melissa reviewed the different parts of the Waste Management Area. She saidthese include the sludge impoundment (referred to in the EE/CA report as the existingsludge and breeze storage impoundment), north landfill, south landfill and breezewashout area. Melissa identified each area on the map as follows:

4A- north landfill4B- south landfill5* low-lying area above the north landfill6- existing oxidation pond7- sludge impoundment

8A- at one time thought to be separate from south landfill, but is actuallypart of it

SB- one of the two oxidation ponds that existed before EPA removalactions; it is no longer present

DTL/Ol-U-OQ/096ARl»00326

Meeting MinutesFairmont CLPJanuary 6, 2000Page 3

Melissa said the exact boundaries of the landfills are now known, and thematerials that are in the landfills are known as well. She said the materials in the landfillsare consistent with the operations at the Fairmont Coke Works site, including coal andcoke. She said there also is construction debris, such as clay, steel, pipes, wood chips andrailroad ties. She said these landfills were used to dispose of waste from the productionareas as well as 'other miscellaneous items that were no longer needed. She said it is alsonow known that the sludge impoundment contains coal and coke, ash-like material, glass,metal, gravel and clay. She said no buried drums were found onsite.

Melissa said the contaminants present onsite also are known. She reviewed thesecontaminants and the levels at which they were found. She said her slides show themaximum contaminant level for each chemical. This means the substance was found atthat maximum level in at least one location. She said this does not mean the contaminantwas found at that level at each location.

She said it has been learned that contamination is at higher levels in thesubsurface than it is on the surface. She said this is a positive because there is lesspotential for direct exposure to contaminated material. She said there also is lessopportunity for contaminants in the soil to migrate offsite. She said for the most part, thesubsurface contamination is not traveling into the groundwater. She said the types ofcontamination found are not very mobile, and the levels detected in the groundwater arenot as high as expected.

Melissa explained why a specific risk assessment has not been done for-the WasteManagement Area. She said although this area is not a risk to the surroundingcommunity, it is already known that it could be a risk for someone working onsite in thefuture. She said a risk assessment is typically done to document there is a risk thatrequires action. She said ExxonMobil has already committed to taking action in this area,negating the need for the assessment.

Melissa said EPA, WVDEP and ExxonMobil have used EPA's presumptiveremedies to decide what needs to be done with the Waste Management Area. [A handoutregarding presumptive remedies is included with these minutes for those not present.]She said relying on these remedies does not mean no investigations are done, it justmeans the investigations are done in a more streamlined manner. She said usingpresumptive remedies is a method that calls on EPA's Superfund experience. She saidthis allows for speeding up the selection of a cleanup action, because the choice isnarrowed to alternatives that have been proven to work at similar sites.

Melissa presented the contaminants of concern that are above screening levels.[This information is included in the slides, which are attached to these minutes.] Melissaasked Art Chin to explain which screening levels were used. Art explained EPA Region

k . ni created generic industrial exposure levels. He said this was done by determining the

DTL/OM1-00/096

ARi»00327

Meeting MinutesFainnont CLPJanuary 6,2000Page 4

average time an industrial worker could be exposed to contaminants onsite if the site wasagain active as an industrial site. He said it does not take into account exposure throughdrinking the groundwater, because the source of drinking water for the site would notcome from under the site. He said EPA has taken the industrial exposure and the toxicityof each contaminant to create a level for each contaminant onsite. He said this screeninglevel is designed to be a very conservative benchmark. In addition for non-carcinogens,this level is further divided by a factor of ten for additional conservatism.

Melissa said she brought lexicological profiles for arsenic, benzene and thepolynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), so panel members could read about thecharacteristics of these contaminants. She said they are available for anyone to take, andshe can have more copies made if needed. Art said PAHs were first found when a linkwas made between chimney sweeps in England and a certain type of cancer. He saidthese substances are found in soot, and it is expected they would be found on this site dueto the burning of coal.

Melissa presented what action will be taken to clean up the oxidation pond. Shesaid this action will be taken before the rest of the Waste Management Area is dealt with.She said the pond was used for water treatment by Sharon Steel and has not beenmaintained since the plant was shut down in 1979. Melissa said the main problem withthe pond is that the water has a very low pH, meaning it is acidic. She said the water inthe oxidation pond is trickling out the back of the pond into an unnamed tributary. Shesaid this is not an immediate contamination problem because of the small amount ofwater leaving the pond, but it needs to be taken care of soon. Melissa said ExxonMobil isstill working on the details, but the preliminary plan is to have a concrete chamber builtbetween the back of the pond and the unnamed tributary. She said the pH of the water inthe oxidation pond will be adjusted to bring the water back to a more neutral state. Shesaid following this adjustment, the water will be drained out of the pond through theconcrete chamber. She said this will not be a sudden massive flow of water, but ratherwill be a controlled flow, and the concrete chamber will contain a mechanism to samplethe water as it flows through.

Melissa said after the pond is drained, the remaining material will be tested forcontaminants. She said if there is contamination, the material will be removed; if there isno contamination, the soil will be left as is and the pond will be engineered to prevent itfrom filling up again. In response to a question, Art said the results from the analysis ofthe existing water in the pond should be returned within a week. He said the workregarding the pond could be completed one month after receiving the results. He said theengineering of the pond will be looked at more closely when investigating the surfacewater management of the site.

DTUOl-l 1-00/096 ^ ^ARl»00328

Meeting Minutes ' ''-;,.•*'"*" ••Fairmont CLPJanuary 6,2000Page 5

Melissa presented the three alternatives being evaluated to deal with the WasteManagement Area. They'are as follows:

1. Consolidation and cappingInvolves excavation of materials from the north landfill, breeze washoutarea and sludge impoundment and movement of that material to the southlandfill. Also involves capping of the south landfill and groundwatermonitoring and cap maintenance program.

2. Excavation of materials and offslte disposalInvolves excavation of materials from the north and south landfills, breezewashout area and sludge impoundment and transportation of materials to aproper offsite disposal facility.

3. Recycling and cappingInvolves excavation of materials from the north landfill, breeze washoutarea and sludge impoundment and analysis for possible recycling ofmaterials. Also involves movement of materials not recycled to the southlandfill. Also involves capping of the south landfill and groundwatermonitoring and cap maintenance program.

Melissa reviewed how each alternative will be evaluated against three criteria: 1)risk reduction, 2) feasibility and 3) cost. She said all reduce risk and all are easilyimplemented, and the biggest difference between these three alternatives is cost. She saidalthough none of the alternatives offer a low cost, numbers one and three are significantlyless than number two. She said ExxonMobil will be committing a substantial amount ofmoney to the future stages of the project, regardless of which alternative is chosen. Shesaid the company already has shown its commitment in the work done to date. She saidEPA and WVDEP have evaluated whether a high-cost alternative will give results worththat higher cost. She said in this case, alternative number three provides just as much riskreduction as the other alternatives for a more reasonable cost than alternative number two.

In response to a question, Melissa said ExxonMobil and FT are currentlyanalyzing the feasibility of excavating the south landfill to remove recyclable material ifalternative three is chosen. Frank Markert said the material that potentially could berecycled is the coal and coke. He said this material may have an energy value.

Melissa said the next step regarding EE/CA is to have a complete report approvedby EPA and submitted to the repository.' In response to a question, Melissa said she willcheck into posting the EE/CA report on the EPA website during the public commentperiod. She said after the public comment period is closed, EPA will evaluate comments.She said EPA will document the comments and responses. She said EPA will then issuean action memorandum that identifies the selected action. Following this, ExxonMobil

DTL/Ol-ll-OQ/096

ARU00329

Meeting MinutesFairmont CLPJanuary 6,2000Page 6

would submit a work plan to be reviewed and approved by EPA. She said the goal is tobegin work during the 2000 construction season.

Melissa said work is continuing on the work plan for the Process Area EE/CA.She said this plan includes the cleanup alternatives for this area, as well as the humanhealth and ecological risk assessments for the entire site. She said as soon as the workplan is complete, ExxonMobil can begin work on the EE/CA report for the Process Area.She said the process then follows the same steps as for the Waste Management Area.

In response to a question, Melissa said the groundwater monitoring work done forthe Waste Management Area will work consistently with long-term monitoring for theentire site. She said the long-term monitoring initially will include quarterly sampling ofgroundwater monitoring wells. In response to a question, Melissa said EPA guidancedescribes "long-term" as 30 years. She said the goal is to eventually reduce the frequencyof sampling, depending on what is found. She said the 30-year timeframe is used for costestimation, but in reality the sampling will be done in perpetuity. In response to aquestion, Melissa said ExxonMobil will be responsible for monitoring regardless of whopurchases the property in the future.

Unfinished Business

Protect Update

John Hannig reviewed the project update handout. [A copy is attached for thosenot present.] He said fence repairs and sub-basement closure are complete. He reviewedthe oxidation pond closure and referenced Melissa* s explanation of that activity.

John reviewed plans for the EE/CA reports and referenced Melissa's presentationregarding future steps involved in the process. He said the site redevelopment targetmarketing plan is undergoing broker selection. John also noted an item entitled"Purchase of Remaining Landfill Parcel," and said he is happy to report ExxonMobil haspurchased four additional acres of property adjacent to the site, including a two-acreparcel, which is pan of the north landfill. He said the property was owned by a localfamily and was needed to move forward with plans for the Waste Management Area.

Communication Update

Norma Watson said she has been asked about yellow posts, which are a recentaddition to the site. Frank Markert said they are monitoring wells. Bruce McDanicl saidhe received results from drinking water sampling done in response to communityconcerns. He said no contamination was found in any samples taken, which is what he

DTL/Ol-U-OQ/096flRU00330

Meeting Minutes •*.'-•'••••••.-*Fairmont CLPJanuary 6,2000Page?

expected to find. He said this should show that drinking water jn the area is not beingimpacted by the site.

John reviewed a letter he has drafted for eventual mailing to approximately 600residents living near the site. He said the purpose of the letter is to let residents knowwhat has been happening on the site and to keep them informed about future work. Hesaid the letter has undergone revisions after feedback from the panel in November. Hesaid he has added the names of panel members at the end of the letter and he asked forfinal feedback from panel members by Thursday, January 13. A suggestion was made touse thicker paper and John agreed.

Karen Gribben said she wrote an article regarding the site and the panel for theWest Virginia League of Women Voters newsletter. She said she hopes to get the articleinto the national newsletter.

New Business

Project XL Teleconference

Melissa said EPA headquarters has hired a contractor to do an evaluation of allProject XL sites. She said the contractor is doing quarterly reports on the progress of thesites, and has asked if one or two panel members would volunteer to be involved in ateleconference regarding the site. Melissa said agency and company representatives willbe involved in the teleconference and will be answering questions regarding the projectShe said the purpose of having panel representatives is to receive community feedbackabout the site. Melissa said all that is asked of panel volunteers is to answer generalquestions regarding how well they believe the process is working.

Michael Cummings volunteered to be involved, and the panel suggested NickFantasia also be involved. Roberta said Nick will be contacted. Melissa said she willwork with the volunteers to schedule a time and date for the teleconference. She saidanyone else interested in being involved should call Roberta at 1-800-784-4343.

Next Meeting

After a discussion, it was agreed the next meeting will be Thursday, February 10.The EE/CA report will be mailed to panel members before this meeting to allowmembers to review the document. Panel members agreed they would be ready withcomments regarding the report at the February meeting.

DTL/Ol-ll-OQ/096ARUO-0331

Meeting MinutesFairmont CLPJanuary 6,2000Page 8

The February agenda will include a presentation of the Waste Management AreaEE/CA report, panel feedback regarding the report, a project update and a communicationupdate.

There was ho further business, and the meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m.

Next Meeting: Thursday, February 10,2000Circle W Building5 p.m. - Refreshments5:30 p.m. • Meeting

DTL/Ol-U-OQ/096 . _ ._ - -ARl*00332

ftRl*00333

.. ,. „ . SITE STRATEGYMelissa PenmngtonEPA Project Manager • EE/CA Phase I - Waste Management Area

FAIRMONT COKE WORKS . EE/CA Pha^n-Process Area

PHASE I EE/CA CLEANUP• Remainder of site,

RI/FS• Groundwater

EE/CA INVESTIGATION WASTE MANAGEMENT AREA

Field work conducted between Sept 98 andFebruary 99... Sludge Impoundmenti Samples taken:• SoU• Surface water• Sediment Breeze Washout Arta• Seeps• Groundwater

North and SouthLandfills

Oxidation Pond

WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED ABOUTTHE WASTE MANAGEMENT AREA?• Boundaries of the landfills• What is in the landfills• What is in the sludge impoundment• What contaminants are present

WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED ABOUT THEWASTE MANAGEMENT AREA? (continued)

• Contaminants present mostly in thesubsurface

• Contamination not moving• Acknowledgment of risk

ARI*0033U

WHAT ARE THE OBJECTIVES OFPRESUMPTIVE REMEDIES?

i Use the past experience of the Superfundprogram

: Streamline site investigationsi Speed up selection of cleanup actionsi Reduce the cost and tune required to cleanup similar type sites

CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN:VOCs

• Benzene• Detected at 12,000 mg/kj• Screening level 200 mg/kg • Screening levd 7.8 mg/kg

• Benzo(a)pyrene• Detected at 2.100 mg/kg• Screening level 0.78 mg/kg

• Benzo(a)pyrene• Detected at 2,100 mg/kg• Screening level 0.78 mg/kg

CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN:PAHs (continued)

Benzo(a)fluoranthene• Detected at 590 mg/kf• Screening level 71 mg/kg

Carbazole• Detected at 1.500 mi/kg• Screening level 290 mg/kg

i Chrysene• Detected at 2300 mg/kg• Screening level 780 mg/kg

CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN:METALS

Arsenic• Detected at 43.6 mg/kg• Screening level 3.8 mg/kg

Iron ,• Detected at 102,000 mg/kg• Screening level 61420 mg/kg

CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN:PAHs

Benzo(a)anthracene• Detected at 2,700 mg/kg

CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN:____ PAHs (continued)____Dibenzo(a>h)anthracene• Detected a 22 mg/kg• Screenini level 0.7S m|/k|

Dibenzofuran• Detected at 3,000 mg/k|• Screening level 818 mi/k|

Ideno( 1 £,3«!)pyrene• Detected it STOmg/kf• Screening level 74 mg/kg

CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN:PAHs(continued) . ;

2-Methylnapthalene

Saeenlnilevel410m« - Benzo(a)pyrene . Dibenzofuran

Napthalene• Detected at 15,000 mg/kg• Screening level 4£88 mg/kg

• Detected at 3.200 mg/kg9 "

BenzoGOfluonmthene • Ideno(I,2t3-cd)pyrcne

Benzo(a)anthracene • Dibenzo(Ui)anthracene

• Benzo(k)fluoranthene • 2-Methylnapthalene• Carbazole ; • Napthytene• Chrysene

CARCINOGENS

• Former permitted treatment system• Has not been properly maintained• Very low pH

yy • Benzo(a)Pvrene • ideno(l A3-«npvrene "Needs to * «Mressed immediatelyBenzo(b)Huoranthene ' ^ directed Exxon to «•"» MtionBenzoGOfluoranthene

Arsenic • CarbazoleBenzene • ChryseneBenzo(a)anthracene • Dibenzo(ath)anthradneBenzo(a)pyrene • ldeno(1 3 d)pyrene

OXIDATION POND

WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN TOTHE OXIDATION POND?

• Build a concrete flow-through chamber• Adjust the pH in the pond• Break dam * drain pond• Engineer the pond• Remove the sludge that remains

REMAINING AREAS TO BEADDRESSED

ARl*00336

DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

1. Consolidation and capping oflandfills

2. Excavation and offsito -Costdisposal ' •

3. Consolidation and landfillcapping with recycling

EVALUATONOFCOST PROPOSED CUJANUP PLAN:

• Alternative 1mlow cost• Alternative 3 » medium cost• Alternative 2 » very high cost

WHATHAPPENSNEXT7 WHAT HAPPENS NEXT7

Exxon completes the EE/CA Reporti EPA/WVDEP approve the EE/CA Reporti Public comment on proposed removalaction

i EPA issues action memorandum

EE/CA EVALUATION CRITERIA

EffectivenessImplementability

Alternative #3Excavation of wastes/contaminated soil

i Recycling of usable waste materiali Placement of waste in South Landfilli Verification sampling/backfill excavationsi Capping of the South Landfilli Long-term monitoring

(continued)m Exxon prepares work plant and cap design• EPA/WVDEP approves work plan and capdesign

• Exxon implements Phase I EE/CA cleanup

(\RU00337

MEANWHILE...

• Exxon, WVDEP and EPA are working onthe work plan for the Phase n EE/CA

• Work plan includes Human Health andEcological Risk Assessments •

• EPA/WVDEP approve this work plan• Exxon prepares Phase n EE/CA Report

ftRl*00338

United States Office of Directive No. 9378.0-11FSEnvironmental Protection Solid Waste and EPA 640-F-97-019Agency Emergency Response PB97-963303

October 1997

SEPA A Citizen's Guideto UnderstandingPresumptive Remedies

Office of Emergency and Remedial Response5202Q

Gleaning up abandoned hazardous waste sites has been the charge of EPA's Superfund program since 1980.Over the past 17 years, Superfund has gained considerable experience on hazardous waste cleanupapproaches and technologies. As we gained experience, we found that certain sites have similar

characteristics that we could use to our advantage to improve the cleanup process. The "presumptive remedy"initiative is one of the results. Essentially, we said: "Here's a site similar in all key ways to many other sites we'vecleaned up. Wouldn't it make sense to use that cleanup approach here, too?"

Presumptive remedies benefit both Superfund and you—the community members affected by a Superfund site. .Keep reading to find the answers to questions you may have about presumptive remedies, how they work, andwhy we use mem.

t are presumptive remedies? will fully protect your health and your community'senvironment

"7As Superfund worked through hundreds of cleanups, we'discovered similarities. Certain types of sites, like wood One of the most important advantages is that, the soonertreater sites, have similar chemical contaminants. Other your community knows the remedy, the sooner you cansites, like municipal landfills, share similar charac- plan for how you may want to use the site once it's cleanedteristics. At similar sites, standard remedies (called up. We can work with your local land planning group to"presumptive") can be applied. Presumptive remedies are help determine how the community would like to use thebased on historical patterns of remedy selection and our cleaned up site. Finally, some sites that have usedscientific and engineering evaluation of how well cleanup presumptive remedies have shown significant time and costtechnologies perform. EPA now expects presumptive savings. The more time and money we save at a site, meremedies to be considered at all applicable sites. And they more resources we have available to clean up other sites.should—those applicable sites make up more than 60% ofsites on the National Priorities List! d *x

/X-fWhat are the different types of presumptive remedies?• use presumptive remedies? ->*

- Presumptive remedies have been developed for four kinds- Presumptive remedies have helped us streamline the 4 Jof sites: municipal landfills, volatile organic chemicals

leanup process. This approach has ted to many (VOCs) in soils, wood treater sites, and contaminatedadvantages, for you and for Superfund. When we first ground water. Presumptive remedies can be grouped by theinvestigate a site, we try to decide whether it is a type of cleanup plan: containment, treatment, and responsecandidate for a presumptive remedy. If it is, then we can strategy. "Containment" holds the waste and prevents thenarrow down the cleanup choices. This could save us a tot spread of contaminants. "Treatment" uses a singleof time in site investigation and data collection efforts. technology or group of technologies to get rid of theMore importantly, it means that we spend less time in < contaminants. A "response strategy" is a long-termyour community, so there are fewer disruptions. And, approach with several steps and options to decide amongsince the presumptive remedies have been successfully treatment and containment options for different sections of

, implemented at other sites, you can be confident that it a rite.

RRU00339

t is the presumptive remedy for municipal W * is the presumptire remedy for a site withlandfills? ^ contaminated ground water? .

The presumptive remedy ifor municipal landfills is TVVe use a response strategy to address sites withcontainment, which can include some or all of the iJ7 icontaminated ground water. This means we take a phasedfollowing components, as appropriate, on a site-specific approach to characterize and clean the site. Informationbasis: landfill cap, to minimize infiltration of rain water from each sequence of steps, or phase, helps us tothrough the buried waste and to ground water below; improve future investigations or actions. Basically, thisleachate collection and treatment; source area ground presumptive remedy helps us with the process of selectingwater control to contain plume; landfill gas collection a remedy rather than choosing a particular remedy.and/or treatment; and institutional controls to ensure that - |the integrity of the landfill cap is preserved. L Couldn't this "cookie cutter" approach overlook

special problems at my site?t is the presumptive remedy for a site with VOCs

In the soils? _7!f °* Presumptive remedies are meant to improve the£/ Jremedy selection process, not undermine it Our site

We have three prcsttroptrv* remedy technologies to treat investigation professionals use their expertise to» site with soils contaminated with VOCs. The preferred examine every site carefully. EPA is committed to theremedy is 50tf vapor earacfum. With this method, we best and the safest cleanup for every community. Andcan leave the soil in place and remove contaminants with Superfund understands your community's need to find aa process that forces air through the soil The other unique solution to your unique problems. You can restchoices are thermal desorption and incineration. Both of assured that when a full-length investigation of thethese technologies require us to excavate the soil and remedy alternatives is considered necessary, we willtreat it with a process using heat Once the soil is treated. doitcleaned, and tested, we can return it to the site. •""

l&afkan the community ask EPA to consider othert Is the presumptive remedy for a wood treater " cleanup alternatives?

"7% Your voice will be heard! Communities are full partners * _The presumptive remedy for a wood treater site depends gy $& the remedy selection process. If residents request it, xn the types of contaminants located at the site. If the we will consider investigating other cleanup approaches . jcontaminants are organic, we use bioremediation, even if a presumptive remedy exists, or give you a fullthermal desorption* or incineration. If they are inorganic, explanation of why the presumptive remedy waswe use immobilization. Bioremediation is a natural selected. We will assess each suggested alternative on itsprocess that uses microorganisms, such as bacteria, own merits, and may proceed with further studies.fungi, or yeast, that "eat" harmful contaminants andtransform them into nonhazardous products. Thermal Presumptive remedies still add value even if we includedesorption and incineration are the same technologies other approaches. Presumptive remedies provide adescribed above to treat VOCs in soils. Immobilization baseline for protecting human health and thedoes not treat the contaminants, but rather prevents them environment; if we consider other specific cleanupfrom spreading. This process mixes the hazardous alternatives, they add additional layers of protection.substances with chemicals and cement-like materials tobind mem and makes mem immobile and inactive. For more information about each presumptive

remedy, see the box tided "For Further Reading."

t ^ iifSS ^ Mf m ^ f ^ ^ i m m^ documeoa-a -awi ft i ^ fe.%'4&t ^ ^ ' *: 3 ..' -/SSi wsf'TC»e«»

o_LU

o0) O3 OO) CNJ

03 0)o n ° Li-es LJ 0

fl)G)O -a "O O '

CMto

uCO3c(0

o•n

a

eCL

S *\ *>* •E-> f~ * •__ vJ* ««i-g-S Ei 6=5 - g-sS*- - o g Z c o £O O TS 3 O To O 0) O00 42 (00 ™£L Q O

Ssi-iu _—' «CO

CO

£ I < e3 < Z- T3« "S c c cO 8 <D CO |Q

O) COS e

« 1 II I iS D) -c E ) o| 35 I2 "I -S IO C 0> 3E UJ £ Qu

flRl*003l*l