Feasibility Study Report
Prepared for:Shell Oil Products US20945 S. Wilmington AvenueCarson, CA 90810Feasibility Study ReportFormer Kast PropertyCarson, CaliforniaPrepared by:2100 Main Street, Suite 150Huntington Beach, CA 92648Telephone: (714) 465-1238Fax (714) 969-0800www.geosyntec.comProject Number: SB0484-03-03March 10, 2014
FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORTFormer Kast PropertyCarson, CaliforniaPrepared for:Shell Oil Products USPrepared by:Geosyntec Consultants, Inc.Mark Grivetti, P.G., CHGPrincipal HydrogeologistMark Schultheis, P.E.PrincipalCERTIFICATIONSB0484\Kast FS Report.docx3/7/2014
FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORTFORMER KAST PROPERTYCARSON, CALIFORNIAI am the Project Manager for Equilon Enterprises LLC doing business as Shell OilProducts US for this project. I am informed and believe that the matters stated in theFeasibility Study Report dated March 10, 2014 are true, and on that ground I declare,under penalty of perjury in accordance with Water Code section 13267, that thestatements contained therein are true and correct.Doug WeimerProject ManagerShell Oil Products USMarch 10, 2014SB0484\Kast FS Report.docx3/7/2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS1.INTRODUCTION . 11.11.21.32.SITE BACKGROUND INFORMATION . 42.12.22.32.43.Site History . 4Regulatory Involvement . 5Site Setting, Geology and Hydrogeology . 6Constituents of Concern . 7CLEANUP OBJECTIVES AND GOALS . 93.13.23.34.Regulatory Basis . 1Feasibility Study Report Objectives . 2Feasibility Study Organization . 2Remedial Action Objectives . 9Site-Specific Cleanup Goals . 103.2.1 Soil . 103.2.2 Soil Vapor . 113.2.3 Soil Leaching to Groundwater . 123.2.4 Cumulative Risk and Potential Leaching to GroundwaterAnalysis using SSCGs . 12Properties Requiring Remediation. 13IDENTIFICATION AND SCREENING OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES . 144.14.24.3Introduction . 14Identification of Remedial Technologies . 144.2.1 Technologies that Interrupt the Human Health ExposurePathway . 144.2.2 Technologies that Remove COC Mass and Interrupt theHuman Health Exposure Pathway . 18Screening of Remedial Technologies . 214.3.1 Sub-Slab Vapor Intrusion Mitigation . 214.3.2 Capping Portions of the Site . 214.3.3 Removal of All Site Features . 224.3.4 Institutional Controls. 224.3.5 Excavation. 244.3.6 Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) . 264.3.7 Bioventing . 27SB0484\Kast FS Report.docxi3/7/2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)Page4.45.4.3.8 In-Situ Chemical Oxidation (ISCO) . 274.3.9 Light Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid (LNAPL) Removal. 284.3.10 Groundwater Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) . 284.3.11 Supplemental Groundwater Remediation . 29Retained Remedial Technologies . 29REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFICATION AND SCREENING. 315.15.25.3Identification of Preliminary Alternatives . 31Depth of Excavation Considerations . 31Technologies Common to Each Alternative . 325.3.1 Institutional Controls. 335.3.2 Sub-slab Vapor Intrusion Mitigation . 335.3.3 SVE/Bioventing . 335.3.4 LNAPL Removal . 355.3.5 Groundwater MNA . 355.3.6 Supplemental Groundwater Remediation . 355.4 Assembly of Preliminary Remedial Alternatives . 365.4.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative . 365.4.2 Alternative 2 – Entire Site Excavation of Impacted Soils . 365.4.3 Alternative 3 – Entire Site Excavation of Impacted Soils to10 Feet . 375.4.4 Alternative 4 – Excavation beneath Landscape andHardscape . 385.4.5 Alternative 5 – Excavation beneath Landscape . 435.4.6 Alternative 6 – Cap Site . 445.4.7 Alternative 7 – Cap Exposed Soils . 455.5 Screening of Preliminary Remedial Alternatives . 455.5.1 Alternative 1 . 465.5.2 Screening of Alternative 2 . 475.5.3 Screening of Alternative 3 . 485.5.4 Screening of Alternative 4A . 495.5.5 Screening of Alternative 4B . 505.5.6 Screening of Alternative 4C . 515.5.7 Screening of Alternative 4D . 535.5.8 Screening of Alternative 5A . 545.5.9 Screening of Alternative 5B . 555.5.10 Screening of Alternative 5C . 56SB0484\Kast FS Report.docxii3/7/2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)Page5.66.DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES . 626.16.26.37.General. 62Detailed Evaluation Criteria . 62Retained Remedial Alternatives – Detailed Evaluation . 656.3.1 General . 656.3.2 Detailed Evaluation of Remedial Alternative 1 . 656.3.3 Detailed Evaluation of Alternative 4B . 666.3.4 Detailed Evaluation of Alternative 4C . 726.3.5 Detailed Evaluation of Alternative 4D. 766.3.6 Detailed Evaluation of Alternative 5B . 806.3.7 Detailed Evaluation of Alternative 5C . 836.3.8 Detailed Evaluation of Alternative 5D. 866.3.9 Detailed Evaluation of Alternative 7 . 89COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES . 937.17.27.37.47.57.67.77.87.97.107.117.128.5.5.11 Screening of Alternative 5D. 575.5.12 Screening of Alternative 6 . 585.5.13 Screening of Alternative 7 . 60Retained Alternatives . 60Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment . 93Compliance with ARARs . 94Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence . 94Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume through Treatment . 94Short-term Effectiveness . 95Implementability. 96Estimated Cost . 97Consistency with Resolution 92-49 . 97Social Considerations . 98Sustainability . 98State Acceptance. 99Community Acceptance . 99PREFERRED REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE . 100SB0484\Kast FS Report.docxiii3/7/2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)LIST OF TABLESTable 2-1:Summary of Constituents of ConcernTable 3-1:Site-Specific Cleanup Goals for SoilTable 3-2:Site-Specific Cleanup Goals for Soil VaporTable 3-3:Property Addresses for Consideration in Remedial PlanningTable 4-1:Screening of Remedial TechnologiesTable 5-1:Issues Associated with Various Excavation DepthsTable 5-2:Preliminary Remedial AlternativesTable 5-3:Screening of Remedial AlternativesTable 5-4:Final Remedial AlternativesTable 6-1:Federal ARARsTable 6-2:State and Local ARARsTable 6-3:Preliminary Cost Estimate for Alternative 4BTable 6-4:Preliminary Cost Estimate for Alternative 4CTable 6-5:Preliminary Cost Estimate for Alternative 4DTable 6-6:Preliminary Cost Estimate for Alternative 5BTable 6-7:Preliminary Cost Estimate for Alternative 5CTable 6-8:Preliminary Cost Estimate for Alternative 5DTable 6-9:Preliminary Cost Estimate for Alternative 7Table 6-10:Detailed Evaluation of Remedial AlternativesTable 7-1:Comparative Evaluation of Remedial AlternativesSB0484\Kast FS Report.docxiv3/7/2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)LIST OF FIGURESFigure 2-1:Site Location MapFigure 2-2:Site Vicinity MapFigure 3-1:Properties Exceeding Human Health and/or Leaching to GroundwaterCriteria, 5 Feet Below Ground SurfaceFigure 3-2:Properties Exceeding Human Health and/or Leaching to GroundwaterCriteria, 5 Feet and 10 Feet Below Ground SurfaceFigure 3-3:Properties Exceeding Human Health Criteria for Sub-Slab Soil Vapor toIndoor AirFigure 5-1:Alternative 2 ElementsFigure 5-2:Alternative 3 ElementsFigure 5-3:Alternative 4 ElementsFigure 5-4:Alternative 5 ElementsFigure 5-5:Alternative 6 ElementsFigure 5-6:Alternative 7 ElementsSB0484\Kast FS Report.docxv3/7/2014
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND le or Relevant and Appropriate RequirementsBelow ground surfaceBarclay Hollander CorporationBenzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xyleneState of California – Division of Occupational Safety and HealthCalifornia Water Services CompanyCleanup and Abatement OrderCity of CarsonCalifornia Code of RegulationsComprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and LiabilityActCalifornia Environmental Quality ActCode of Federal RegulationsCentimetersCarbon dioxideConstituents of ConcernCalifornia Water CodeCubic yardDecibelDole Food Company, Inc.Department of Toxic Substances ControlEngineering ControlsEnvironmental, Health and SafetyFederal Emergency Management AgencyFeasibility StudyFoot or feetGramsGranular activated carbonGeosyntec Consultants, Inc.Human Health Risk AssessmentHazard IndexHazard QuotientHealth and Safety CodeHealth and Safety PlanInterim Remedial Action PlanIn-situ chemical oxidationLiterSB0484\Kast FS Report.docxvi3/7/2014
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS O&MOSHAPAHsPCEPPEppmPSIPSIGPVCRAOsRAPRegional scfmSCMShellSiteSOPUSSPSSDLos AngelesLos Angeles County Department of Public WorksPoundLight Non-Aqueous Phase LiquidMeterMaximum Contaminant LevelMilligrams per kilogramMonitored natural attenuationMean sea levelNon-aqueous phase liquidNational Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency PlanNotification levelOperation and maintenanceOccupational Safety and Health AdministrationPolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbonsTetrachloroethenePersonnel protection equipmentParts per millionPounds per square inchPound-force per square inch gaugePolyvinyl chlorideRemedial action objectivesRemedial Action PlanLos Angeles Regional Water Quality Control BoardWalkways, driveways, patios, hardscape associated with landscapingRisk IndexRemedial Investigation and Feasibility StudyRadius of influenceRadius of vacuum influenceLos Angeles Regional Water Quality Control BoardSouth Coast Air Quality Management DistrictStandard cubic feet per minuteSite Conceptual ModelShell Oil Products United StatesFormer Kast Property, Carson, CaliforniaShell Oil Products United StatesSodium persulfateSub-slab depressurizationSB0484\Kast FS Report.docxvii3/7/2014
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (Continued)SVESVOCsTCETPHURSUSEPAVOCsVIWork Planµg/kgµg/Lµg/m3%Soil vapor extractionSemi-volatile organic compoundsTrichloroetheneTotal petroleum hydrocarbonsURS CorporationUnited States Environmental Protection AgencyVolatile organic compoundsVapor IntrusionPilot Test Work PlanMicrograms per kilogramMicrograms per literMicrograms per cubic meterPercentSB0484\Kast FS Report.docxviii3/7/2014
EXECUTIVE SUMMARYGeosyntec Consultants, Inc. (Geosyntec), with support from URS Corporation (URS),prepared this Feasibility Study Report (FS Report) for the former Kast Property (Site) inCarson, California on behalf of Equilon Enterprises LLC, doing business as Shell OilProducts US (Shell or SOPUS). This FS Report is being submitted concurrently withtwo related and separate documents for the Site: Human Health Risk Assessment(HHRA) [Geosyntec, 2014] and Remedial Action Plan (RAP) [URS and Geosyntec,2014].Shell submitted a Revised Site-Specific Cleanup Goal Report (Revised SSCG Report)on October 21, 2013 [Geosyntec, 2013b] in response to a RWQCB directive datedAugust 21, 2013. In the Revised SSCG Report, Shell conducted a Screening FS whichincluded a general evaluation of various alternatives for remediation of the Site. In aletter from RWQCB dated January 23, 2014, RWQCB provided comments anddirectives to Shell [LARWQCB, 2014]. The comments directed Shell to prepare a RAPcontaining remedial alternatives, and that would be consistent with the followingdirective:“Consistent with State Water Board Resolution 92-49, the RAP shallevaluate the alternatives with respect to effectiveness, feasibility, andcost and propose a remedy or remedies that have a substantial likelihoodto achieve compliance, within a reasonable time frame, with the cleanupgoals and objectives.”This FS Report, submitted concurrently with the RAP, fulfills this requirement withrespect to evaluation of alternatives for remediation of the former Kast Property. ThisFS Report also meets the requirements set forth in CAO No. R4-2011-0046 issued toShell by RWQCB on March 11, 2011. This FS replaces and updates the Screening FSincluded in the Revised SSCG Report, and contains a detailed evaluation of remedialalternatives as requested by the RWQCB [LARWQCB, 2014]. This FS Report followsthe general form set forth in the Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations andFeasibility Studies Under CERCLA (RI/FS Guidance) [USEPA, 1988].The FS Report addresses remediation for constituents of concern (COCs) found to bepresent at the Site. Based on the results of the HHRA, the primary Site COCs includethe petroleum hydrocarbons TPH-diesel and TPH-motor oil, and VOCs such as benzeneand naphthalene related to petroleum hydrocarbon impacts (Table 2-1).SB0484\Kast FS Report.docxES-13/7/2014
In the HHRA, remedial action objectives (RAOs), which are specific to a medium (i.e.,soil, soil vapor, or groundwater), and which contain numerical target risk levels for theSite COCs, are developed. RAOs also consider identified receptors at the Site andregulatory requirements. The following RAOs are proposed for the Site based on theabove Site-specific considerations: Prevent human exposures to concentrations of COCs in soil, soil vapor, andindoor air such that total (i.e., cumulative) lifetime incremental carcinogenicrisks are within the NCP risk range of 1 10-6 to 1 10-4 and noncancer hazardindices are less than 1 or concentrations are below background, whichever ishigher. Potential human exposures include onsite residents and constructionand utility maintenance workers. For onsite residents, the lower end of theNCP risk range (i.e., 1 10-6) and a noncancer hazard index less than 1 havebeen used. Prevent fire/explosion risks in indoor air and/or enclosed spaces (e.g., utilityvaults) due to the accumulation of methane generated from the anaerobicbiodegradation of petroleum hydrocarbons in soils. Eliminate methane in thesubsurface to the extent technologically and economically feasible. Remove or treat LNAPL to the extent technologically and economicallyfeasible, and where a significant reduction in current and future risk togroundwater will result. Reduce COCs in groundwater to the extent technologically and economicallyfeasible to achieve, at a minimum, the water quality objectives in the BasinPlan to protect the designated beneficial uses, including municipal supply.A further consideration is to maintain residential land use of the Site and avoiddisplacing residents from their homes or physically dividing the established Carouselcommunity.Following development of RAOs, the FS Report includes identification and screeningof a range of technologies, each of which can address a specific Site issue andcontribute to meeting a RAO. Screening of technologies is followed in the FS Reportby the identification, screening and detailed evaluation of a range of remedialalternatives for the Site.Technologies in the FS Report are identified in two categories:
Table 6-5: Preliminary Cost Estimate for Alternative 4D . Table 6-6: Preliminary Cost Estimate for Alternative 5B . Table 6-7: Preliminary Cost Estimate for Alternative 5C . Table 6-8: Preliminary Cost Estimate for Alternative 5D . Table 6-9: Preliminary Cost Estimate for Alternative 7 . Table 6-10:
Study. The purpose of the Feasibility Study Proposal is to define the scope and cost of the Feasibility Study. Note: To be eligible for a Feasibility Study Incentive, the Feasibility Study Application and Proposal must be approved by Efficiency Nova Scotia before the study is initiated. 3.0 Alternate Feasibility Studies
the Windward Islands, Republic of Pacifica. This document is the resulting Feasibility Study Report. This Feasibility Study Report will form the basis of a later proposal to Biodiversity International to fund the full eradication project. The purpose of the Feasibility Study is to assess the feasibility of eradicating the Pacific rat from the
Our reference: 083702890 A - Date: 2 November 2018 FEASIBILITY STUDY REFERENCE SYSTEM ERTMS 3 of 152 CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 9 1.1 EU Context of Feasibility Study 9 1.2 Digitalisation of the Rail Sector 9 1.3 Objectives of Feasibility Study 11 1.4 Focus of Feasibility Study 11 1.5 Report Structure 12 2 SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 13
In 2006, a 300 MW solar PV plant, generator interconnection feasibility study was conducted. The purpose of this Feasibility Study (FS) is to evaluate the feasibility of the proposed interconnection to the New Mexico (NM) transmission system. In 2007, a feasibility study of PV for the city of Easthampton, MA was conducted.
CanmetENERGY helps the planners and decision makers to assess the feasibility of renewable energy projects at the pre-feasibility and feasibility stages. This study is an application of RETScreen to assess the feasibility of alternative formulations for Niksar HEPP, a small hydropower project which is under construction in Turkey.
The feasibility study (or the analysis of alternatives1) is used to justify a project. It compares the various implementation alternatives based on their economic, technical and operational feasibility [2]. The steps of creating a feasibility study are [2]: 1. Determine implementation alternatives. 2. Assess the economic feasibility for each .
The feasibility process is a 3 stage process: 1. Feasibility is arranged and the relevant documents are circulated. 2. After the feasibility is completed another email is circulated with the feasibility notes and action points to be completed. 3. Email circulated stating if the study is feasible and a date by which
072275 Report Biogas Feasibility Study Mali page 3 This pre-feasibility study researched the technical potential to introduce biogas in the southern Mali region of Sikasso. This executive summary presents the results of this study. Technical feasibility: Climatically, Sikasso is a suitable region to introduce biogas: the average temperature
