After a site is listed on the National Priorities List (commonly referred to as "Superfund"), the EPA performs a remedial investigation (RI) to gather data needed to determine the nature and extent of contamination at a site and support technical and cost analyses of alternatives. After the RI has commenced, EPA conducts the feasibility study (FS), which considers different technologies for cleaning up the site and presents several possible alternatives. The FS uses data collected in the RI to generate and evaluate various remedial alternatives for the site. Together, these studies usually are referred to as the RI/FS. Sometimes these documents are combined under one cover called the remedial investigation-feasibility study of the site, but more often they are separate documents. In the case of OU1 and OU3 at the Riverfront Site, the RI and the FS are separate documents.
Results of the Human-Health Risk Assessment found that exposure to contaminated water emerging from seeps on the north side of OU3 pose unacceptable excess non-carcinogenic human-health risks. These risks, however, were determined to be minimal. The FS for OU3 presents remedial alternatives to address this contamination and mitigate these risks. The FS for Operable unit OU3 was done by Black & Veatch Special Projects Corporation. While preparing the FS, Black & Veatch evaluated or "screened", a large number of possible remedial technologies that could address the contamination at OU3. Because the human-health risks arise only from potential exposure to contaminated water emerging from seeps at OU3, many of the possible remedial technologies were excluded during the screening process. After carefully reviewing the remaining technologies, Black & Veatch developed three possible solutions for the contamination at OU3. These solutions are referred to as remedial alternatives. The remedial alternatives combine technologies to address the contaminated seeps at OU3.
The goals in developing the preliminary remedial alternatives are to provide both a range of cleanup options and sufficient detail to adequately compare alternatives. These alternatives were compared against criteria required under federal law, and include: protection of human health and the environment; compliance with applicable, relevant, and appropriate requirements; long-term effectiveness and permanence; reduction in toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment; short-term effectiveness; implementability; and costs.
The remedial alternatives range from “no action” (required to be considered by federal law) to institutional controls with continued monitoring. The "no action" alternative serves as a baseline against which other technologies can be compared. The FS document has a summary of the remedial alternatives for OU3 and the text of the document discusses each alternative in detail.
The following is a listing of the remedial alternatives presented in the FS for OU3. The alternatives list shows the ground-water alternative first, a "/" then the soil alternative. Except #1, all of the alternatives involve some sort of public education and institutional controls.
1- No action. The site remains in its present condition. This alternative is a baseline alternative against which the effectiveness of the other alternatives can be compared and is required by federal regulation. Reviews of the Site would be completed every 5 years.
2-Institutional Controls. Institutional controls would be used to address potential health risks associated with both the contaminated groundwater and soils. Institutional controls would consist of deed and zoning restrictions, permits, and public education.
3-Institutional Controls and monitoring. Installation and periodic sampling of new and existing wells would be used to monitor changes in contaminant levels in ground water. Surface water and groundwater seeps would also be sampled. Institutional controls and public education would be used to minimize contact with contaminated ground water and soils.
Black & Veatch Special Projects Corporation, 2003, Feasibility Study Report, Riverfront Superfund Site, New Haven Missouri: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region VII, contract 68-W5-004, Kansas City, Kansas.
Return to the OU1-OU3 RI homepage
Return to the Riverfront Site homepage
U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey
Maintainer: John Schumacher and Rita Choate, Webmaster
Updated: September 3, 2003
Privacy Statement || Disclaimer || FOIA || Accessibility