PB99-963106
EPA541-R99-032
1999
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision Amendment:
United Creosoting Company
Conroe, TX
10/14/1998
-------
-------
UNITED CREOSOTING COMPANY
SUPERFUND SITE
RECORD OF DECISION
AMENDMENT NO. 1
September 1998
-------
-------
DECLARATION
FOR THE UNITED CREOSOTING COMPANY
SUPERFUND SITE
RECORD OF DECISION
AMENDMENT NO. 1
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
United Creosoting Company, Conroe, Montgomery County, TX
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents an amendment to the previously selected remedial action for the
United Creosoting Company Superfund Site. The new remedy was chosen in accordance with the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as
amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) (42 U.S.
Code, Section 9601, et seq.), and, to the extent practicable, the National Contingency Plan (NCP)
(40 CFR Part 300). This decision is based on the Administrative Record for this site.
The State of Texas does not object to the selected remedy.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this site, if not addressed by
implementing the response action selected in this amendment, may present an imminent and
substantial endangerment to public health or welfare or the environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE REMEDY
This amendment changes the method of contaminated soil remediation described in the Record of
Decision (ROD) executed by the Regional Administrator on September 29, 1989. The selected
soil remedy is changed from on-site remediation by Critical Fluid Extraction to off-site treatment,
if required, and disposal. Monitoring the natural attenuation of the shallow ground water is still
required. This amended remedy does not alter the Target Soil Action Levels for either the
residential soils or the industrial soils contained in the 1989 ROD. This amended remedy does not
alter the Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements listed in the 1989 ROD.
-------
STATUTORY DETERMINATION
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment. It complies with Federal
and State requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial
action, and is cost-effective. This remedy utilizes a permanent solution and alternative treatment
technologies to the maximum extent practicable. The community's objection to Critical Fluid
Extraction or any other on-site treatment system and the closeness of the contamination to
occupied residences precludes selecting another remedy which could treat on-site the
contaminants of concern. Thus, the selected remedy does not satisfy the statutory preference for
on-site treatment for principal threat wastes. However, only small, isolated areas of principal
threat wastes exist at this site. Excavation and disposal off-site of the contaminated soil and the
placement of clean backfill in the excavations will sever the exposure pathway, and thus protect
human health and the environment. Because this remedy will allow for unrestricted use of the
residential area for residential use and the unrestricted use of the industrial area for industrial use
and does not alter the extent of excavation of contaminated soil required by the 1989 ROD, a
five-year review will not be required for this remedial action.
DATA CERTIFICATION CHECKLIST
The following information is included in the Amendment:
cleanup levels established for the Chemicals of Concern;
current and future land use assumptions;
land use that will be available at the site as a result of the selected remedy;
estimated capital and Operation and Maintenance costs and the duration of the
implementation of the remedy; and,
decisive factors that lead to selecting the remedy.
The following information is included in the two previous Records of Decision and other
documents in the Administrative Record file:
Chemicals of Concern and their respective concentrations;
baseline risk represented by the Chemicals of Concern;
basis for the cleanup levels; and,
current and future ground water uses.
Greg&p Cooke Date
Regional Administrator (6RA)
-------
UNITED CREOSOTEVG COMPANY
SUPERFUND SITE
RECORD OF DECISION
AMENDMENT NO. 1
Summary 1
Introduction ,. 1
Site Description and Background , 2
Map of Site Location 3
Basis for This Document 4
Description of the New Remedy 6
Classification of Contaminated Soil 6
Evaluation of the Original Remedy and the New Remedy , 7
Statutory Determinations 10
Public Participation Compliance 10
Documentation of No Significant Change 11
APPENDIX A - REPOSITORIES 12
APPENDIX B-STATE/SUPPORT AGENCY ACCEPTANCE 13
APPENDIX C - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY 15
-------
-------
UNITED CREOSOTING COMPANY SUPERFUND SITE
CONROE, TEXAS
AMENDMENT TO THE RECORD OF DECISION
September 1998
Summary
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has prepared an Amendment (Amendment) to
the 1989 Record of Decision (ROD) for the remedial action to be taken on the industrial area and
the residential area of the United Creosoting Company Superfund Site (Site) in Conroe, Texas.
This Amendment:
modifies the method of remediation of soil from on-site Critical Fluid Extraction treatment
to excavation, removal off-site for any treatment required by the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA), and disposal in a permitted, secure hazardous waste disposal
facility;
uses soil successfully treated previously, soil removed from the residential area that is
below the Industrial Target Action Levels, and other clean soil as backfill for the
excavations in the industrial area;
uses only soil below the Residential Action Levels as backfill for the excavations in the
residential area;
addresses the statements and expressed wishes regarding remediation activities from both
residents and city government officials of Conroe; and,
completes the new remedial action within twelve months and at an estimated cost of eight
to twelve million dollars.
Introduction
This Amendment presents the change to the remedy for the United Creosoting Company
Superfund Site located in Conroe, Montgomery County, Texas.
The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) is the lead agency for
implementing the remedial action at this Site.
-------
The EPA is issuing this Amendment as part of its public participation responsibilities as required
by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA),
Section 117 and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR), Section 300.435(c)(2)(ii). The purposes of the Amendment are the
following:
to identify the preferred alternative and explain the rationale for preference;
to describe other remedial options considered; and,
to serve as a companion to the Site Investigation/Feasibility Study (SI/FS) Report and
Administrative Record File.
This Amendment was developed from data collected during the Site Investigation (SI); the
Feasibility Study (FS); the 1986 ROD, signed on September 30, 1986; and the 1989 ROD, signed
on September 29, 1989. The Amendment also is based on data collected by supplemental
investigations conducted from December 1995 to December 19, 1997, during remedial activities.
The 1989 ROD, signed by the EPA Region 6 Regional Administrator on September 29, 1989,
specified that Critical Fluid Extraction - an innovative technology - be used on-site to treat the soil
contaminated above the Industrial Action Levels. During the implementation of the innovative
technology, the performance rate of the technology could not meet the contract requirements. In
February 1998, after the Contractor had treated contaminated soil for ten months, the TNRCC
terminated the contract. This action required the EPA to select another remedy for this Site.
This Amendment replaces portions of the 1989 ROD and refers to applicable information that can
be found in greater detail in documents contained in the Administrative Record file for the United
Creosoting Company Superfund Site. Additionally, this Amendment will become part of the
Administrative Record file as required by the NCP300.825(a)(2). The Administrative Record is
available at the information repositories listed in Appendix A.
Site Description and Background
The United Creosoting Company operated a wood preserving facility from 1946 to 1972 on the
Site located in Conroe, Texas. The map oh Page 3 shows the location of the Site. The EPA
proposed the Site for listing on the National Priorities List in 1983, based on the hazards posed by
the creosote contaminated soil.
1986 ROD Remedy
The remedy the EPA selected in 1986 required the following major activities:
purchase of seven properties located above and adjacent to the former creosote ponds
(later an eighth property was purchased) and relocation of the residents;
ground water attenuation through natural processes of dilution and adsorption; periodic
ground water monitoring; and,
periodic evaluation of off-site disposal facilities availability and alternative technologies.
-------
UNITED CREOSOTING Co.
Montgomery County
Conroe, Texas
NPL Site Coordinates
Same Steptan vte E«rt tton+tefc. f>H*Kt Mm
D*M, I* 3O AFT* 1897
1. N 29» 56' 14.62*
2. N 29* 58' 25.29*
3. N 29* 58' 32.58*
4. N 29* 58' 09.86*
5. N 29" 54' 54.00*
ft. N 29* 54' 26.35*
7. N 23* 54' 18.39*
W 95* 09' 06.41*
W 95* 08' 00.89*
W 96* 07' 24.07*
W 95« 07' 04.07*
W 95* 08* 42.56*
W 95" 06' 39.61*
W 95" 07' 15.00*
LACTJOMC camrtfci » «m» g*tmr*l Inm BW«ai& uring »U
Ctnun TKJBVUn* ! bw* n*pi
3 IffUM WfeA UffOUnOMTQ UMftMl CfVOSOtinQ Cft NPL
-------
In April 1992, the TNRCC awarded a contract for the remediation of the residential area. The
required remedial activities for 38 residential properties and five vacant lots are now complete.
One owner refused remediation (the property later was sold and the new owners have requested
remediation) and six of the residential properties purchased by the Federal government are not
remediated. These seven residential properties will be remediated during the implementation of
this ROD amendment. No other residential properties require remedial action.
1989 ROD Remedy
The remedy the EPA selected in 1989 required the following major activities:
sampling the residential area, excavation of soils above ROD established Residential
Action Levels, relocation of the excavated soil to the industrial area, backfilling of the
excavations with clean dirt, and landscaping the disturbed area;
excavation of soil in the industrial area contaminated above the 1989 ROD established
Industrial Action Levels, treatment of the excavated soil on-site by the Critical Fluid
Extraction process, and backfilling the treated soil in the industrial area; and,
disposal of the organic extract from the Critical Fluid Extraction process by off-site
incineration.
In 1995, the TNRCC awarded a contract for the remediation of the contaminated soil in the
industrial area based on the Critical Fluid Extraction process. During the implementation of the
Critical Fluid Extraction treatment process, the Critical Fluid Extraction Contractor successfully
remediated at a rate of only about 30 tons per day versus the contracted rate of about 225 tons
per day.
Basis for This Document
Reason for Issuing Amended Proposed Plan
Based on ten months of operation of the on-site Critical Fluid Extraction system, the State
determined that the performance rate of the system could not satisfy the contract requirements.
At a January 13, 1998, public meeting, the State presented the residents with several options
including continuing with the existing process, capping the wastes, and off-site disposal. The
residents expressed anger with the remedial activity odors and noise and requested the remaining
contaminated soil be taken off the Site. In February 1998, the TNRCC terminated its contract
with this Contractor. To continue with the remedy would have added significant time to the
project.
The primary reason for issuing the Amended Proposed Plan was to identify and describe the
rationale for the modification to the remedy at this Site. Included in the Amended Proposed Plan
was a comparison of the new remedy versus the remedy specified in the 1989 ROD. Because of
strong community opinion against any on-site remediation, the EPA gave preference to the off-
site remedy. Because of the reduced volume of contaminated soil at the site, off-site disposal is
less costly than estimated in the earlier RODs.
-------
The following major portions of the 1989 ROD's remedy remain unchanged:
the established site risks and remediation goals;
the established Target Soil Action Levels;
the description of the alternative remedies;
the Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) for ground
water; and,
the method of remediating the contaminated soil in the residential area.
Site characterization and evaluation of the alternative remedies are updated in this amendment.
After discussions with Conroe city officials, the EPA is satisfied that the current and reasonably
anticipated land use remains the same - the residential area is expected to remain residential and
the industrial area is expected to remain industrial.
All contaminated soil that was treated on-site by the Critical Fluid Extraction process was
remediated to below the Industrial Target Soil Action Levels. This treated soil now is located in
the industrial area and additional treatment is not required. The remaining contaminated soil in
the residential area will, as specified in the 1989 ROD, be excavated and transferred to the
industrial area. This amendment alters only the location and type of treatment of soil in the
industrial area that is contaminated above the Industrial Action Levels.
The Amendment uses information that can be found in greater detail in documents contained in
the SI Report, the FS Report, and the Administrative Record for the United Creosoting Company
Site. The development and evaluation of the remedial alternative are based on data presented in
the original Site Investigation, Feasibility Study Report, the 1986 ROD, and the 1989 ROD,
modified to benefit from the reduced quantity of contaminated soil still requiring treatment. Since
this amendment alters only the method of remediation, no additional institutional controls are
required. This Amendment will become part of the Administrative Record as required by the
NCP.
Performance Standards
The Performance Standards specified in the 1986 and 1989 RODs remain unchanged. These
standards include remediation goals, clean up levels, remedial action objectives, standards of
control, and other substantive requirements (e.g., Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements - ARARS), criteria, and limitations set forth in the 1989 ROD, and the Amendment
to the ROD.
The Target Action Levels are listed in Table 4 of the 1989 ROD. They are repeated here for
completeness. Abbreviations and descriptions are explained in Section VI. SUMMARY OF SITE
RISKS AND REMEDIATION GOALS in the 1989 ROD:
Residential Soils Target Action Levels
1 ppb total 2,3,7,8-TCDD Equivalents
330 ppb total BAP Equivalents
150 ppm total Pentachlorophenol
2,000 ppm total non-carcinogenic PAHs
Industrial Soils Target Action Leveb
20 ppb total 2,3,7,8-TCDD Equivalents
40 ppm total BAP Equivalents
150 ppm total Pentachlorophenol
2,000 ppm total non-carcinogenic PAHs
-------
As in the earlier RODs, remediation of the shallow aquifer ground water remains natural
attenuation. Therefore, excavation of contaminated soil continues to be, as in the previous
remedy, to a depth approximately equal to the upper surface of the shallow ground water.
Description of the New Remedy
The remedies selected in the 1986 and 1989 RODs included a component to treat contaminated
soil that poses a threat or potential threat to human health and the environment. The new remedy
continues any treatment required by RCRA of contaminated soil that poses a threat or potential
threat to human health and the environment. The new remedy pertains to the remaining
contaminated soil in both the residential and industrial areas, and specifies soil excavation and
replacement. Only soil below the Residential Action Levels will be used to backfill the resulting
excavations in the residential area. Soil that has been successfully treated by Critical Fluid
Extraction, soil removed from the residential area that is below the Industrial Target Action
Levels, and other clean soil will be used to backfill the resulting excavations in the industrial area.
The specific modification to Alternative 6 described in the 1989 ROD is that the remaining
contaminated soil will be excavated and transported to a permitted, secure hazardous waste
disposal facility. The F032 wastes and F034 wastes that are identified as the principal soil
contaminants at the site are allowed to be disposed at a permitted landfill. RCRA treatment
requirements will be satisfied prior to land disposal.
In addition, other benefits of the amended new plan are as follows:
remedy implementation should be about eight months from contractor mobilization; and,
this remedial action should cost from eight to twelve million dollars in net present worth
dollars to remediate the remaining estimated 22,000 tons of contaminated soil.
Maintenance and monitoring of the Site, as specified in the 1989 ROD, would be necessary for
the following year to insure effectiveness of the remedy. Since contaminants will be removed to
below risk-based levels, 5-year reviews of the soil remedy would not be required.
Classification of Contaminated Soil
The EPA uses the Hazardous Waste Listing of materials to determine the requirements for the
disposal of waste contaminated with hazardous materials. When the EPA prepared the 1986
ROD and the 1989 ROD, 40 CFR 261.31 did not have a listing for any creosote material. In
40 CFR 261.32, K001 is listed as the Industry and EPA Hazardous Waste Listing related to wood
preservation wastes. That Listing was described as bottoms sediment sludge from the treatment
of waste waters from wood preserving processes that use creosote and/or Pentachlorophenol. In
40 CFR 261.33, U051 is listed as the Hazardous Waste Listing for creosote. This paragraph
applied to off-specification, discarded, or residues from commercial creosote products.
The July 1, 1991 versions of 40 CFR 261.32 and 261.33 continued to list K001 and U051
respectively. However, the July 1, 1991 versions of 40 CFR 261.31 listed for the first time F032
and F034 for creosote. The description of the F032 hazardous waste follows: Wastewaters,
process residues, preservative drippage, and spent formulations from wood preserving processes
-------
generated at plants that currently use or have used chlorophenolic formulations. This listing does
not include K001 bottom sediment sludge from the treatment of wastewater. The description of
the F034 hazardous waste is the same as that for F032, except that it applies to industrial plants
using creosoting formulations.
The July 1, 1997 versions of 40 CFR 261.31 continue to list F032 and F034; the July 1, 1997
versions of 40 CFR 261.32 and 261.33 continue to listKOOl and U051 respectively. The location
of the contaminated soil and concentrations of contaminants do support the rationale that the soil
was contaminated with waste as described for F032 and F034 and not K001. Therefore, for
purposes of transportation and disposal of contaminated soil and debris, the K001 listing is
deleted and FO32 and F034 listings are added. Both F032 and F034 listings are specified because
the soil is contaminated with chlorophenolic formulations and creosote formulations.
Evaluation of the Original Remedy and the New Remedy
The EPA uses nine criteria, or standards, to evaluate alternatives for a hazardous waste site. The
following is a comparison of the new remedy and the remedy selected in the 1989 ROD with
respect to the nine criteria.
Based on the information currently available and reviewed, the EPA believes the new remedy
provides the best balance among the other alternatives with respect to these evaluation criteria.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
This criterion addresses the way in which a potential remedy would reduce, eliminate, or control
the risks posed by the site to human health and the environment. The method used to achieve an
adequate level of protection may be through engineering controls, treatment techniques, or other
controls such as restrictions on the future use of the site. The total elimination of the risk is often
impossible to achieve; however, any remedy must minimize risk to assure that human health and
the environment would be protected.
Both the 1989 remedy and new remedy provide equal and adequate protection of human health
and the environment by eliminating and preventing risk of exposure, the 1989 remedy through on-
site treatment of the contaminants at the Site and the new remedy through removal of the
contaminants from the Site.
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
Compliance with the Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) assures that
a selected remedy will meet all the related Federal, State, and local requirements per Section
121(d) of CERCLA. The requirements may specify maximum concentrations of contaminants
that can remain at the site; design or performance requirements for treatment technologies; and,
restrictions that may limit potential remedial activities at a site because of its location.
All ARARs contained in the 1989 ROD remain unchanged other than the use of the current
40 CFR 261 and 40 CFR 268 regarding the classification of contaminated soil. Both remedies
satisfy the ARARs requirements.
-------
Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
This criterion refers to expected residual risk and the ability of a potential remedy to reliably
protect human health and the environment over time, after the cleanup levels have been met.
Both remedies achieve long-term effectiveness and permanence by ultimately removing the
contaminants of concern from the Site. The initial remedy used on-site extraction to remove the
contaminants from the soil. The new remedy accomplishes the same ends by removing the soil
contaminated above the Target Action Levels from the Site to a licensed landfill for disposal.
This latter remedial method comports with RCRA requirements for soil contaminated with the
listed F032 and F034 wastes and with the ROD ARARS.
Reduction in Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through Treatment
This criterion refers to the anticipated performance of the treatment technologies for the remedy.
Factors considered include the nature of the treatment process; the amount of hazardous material
destroyed by the treatment process; how effectively the process reduces the toxicity, mobility, or
volume of waste through treatment; and, the type and quantity of contamination that will remain
after treatment.
The 1989 remedy specified that the Critical Fluid Extraction process extract containing the
contaminants be incinerated off-site at a permitted facility. The new remedy merely requires that
the contaminated soil be removed to a permitted landfill for disposal. Although removal is the
only RCRA requirement currently necessary for the identified wastes on the site, should other soil
contaminants be discovered that do require treatment under RCRA requirements, this treatment
will be specifically pursued in addition to the new remedy. The 1989 remedy would specifically
reduce toxicity, mobility or volume of contaminants at the Site, while the other will reduce
mobility by depositing the contaminated soil into a permitted, secured landfill.
Short-term Effectiveness
This criterion addresses the time factor during implementation of the remedy. A potential remedy
is evaluated for the time needed to implement and complete the remedy and any adverse impact
on human health and the environment during the construction and implementation of the remedy
until cleanup levels are achieved.
Only the new remedy satisfies the short-term effectiveness requirement. Because many
contractors can bid and implement the new remedy, a new contractor can be in the field in a few
weeks after a contract award and complete the remedy within an estimated eight months. To
continue with the previous contractor or locate a competent contractor to implement the old
remedy is estimated to take at least another two years.
In addition, the new remedy would require fewer engineering controls to minimize short-term
risks to workers and the public than did the old process. The new process does not present as
much of a risk in transporting because, although a larger volume, the contaminants are diluted in
the soil but were concentrated in the extract transported off-site in the old remedy.
-------
Implementability
Implementability addresses the ease with which a potential remedy can be put in place. Factors
such as availability of material and services are considered.
The new remedy is readily implementable. Numerous vendors can accomplish this remedial action
and have the facilities that can receive the contaminated soil. The Critical Fluid Extraction
process was a sole source procurement and required the design, fabrication and erection of new
equipment.
Cost
Costs include capital costs required for design and construction, operation and maintenance costs
as present worth costs. Present worth cost is the total cost of an alternative over time in terms of
today's dollar value. Costs are considered and compared to the benefit that will result from
implementing the remedy.
Until the TNRCC completes its negotiations with the contractors, the final costs of the failed
remedy are not available.
Because of the availability of competent vendors able to implement the new remedy, the EPA
estimates the new remedy to cost eight to twelve million dollars, less than the estimated eighteen
million to twenty million dollars to complete the original remedy. Both of these costs would
increase proportionally if the TNRCC and the selected contractor determine that significant
additional soil contaminated below the Target Action Levels must be excavated and removed to
obtain access to the contaminated soil, or if the volume of contamination is larger than indicated
by the existing field data. During the preparation of the bid package, the TNRCC is collecting
additional field data to more accurately determine the volume of contaminated soil to be removed.
Total Operation and Maintenance costs should not exceed two hundred thousand dollars for
either remedy.
State Agency Acceptance
State Acceptance indicates whether, based on its review of documents in the Administrative
Record and the Amended Proposed Plan, the State concurs with, opposes, or has no comment on
the preferred alternative.
The EPA Region 6 provided the TNRCC an opportunity to review the Amended Proposed Plan.
The TNRCC response is in Appendix B.
Community Acceptance
The EPA recognizes that the community in which a Superfund site is located is the principal
beneficiary of all remedial actions taken. The EPA also recognizes that it is responsible for
informing interested citizens of the nature of Superfund environmental problems and solutions,
and to learn from the community what it desires regarding these sites.
-------
The modified remedy is consistent with the unanimous opinion expressed by residents attending
the public meeting in Conroe conducted by the TNRCC in January 1998. Additionally the EPA
conducted a Public Meeting on June 29. All comments received at the public meeting are
addressed in the Responsiveness Summary in Appendix C.
Statutory Determinations
Under CERCLA Section 121, the EPA must select remedies that are protective of human health
and the environment, comply with all applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements, are cost
effective, and utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies or resource
recovery technologies to the maximum extent possible. In addition, CERCLA includes a
preference for remedies that employ treatment that permanently and significantly reduce volume
toxicity, or mobility of hazardous wastes as a principal element. The following sections document
how the selected remedy meets these statutory requirements.
The selected remedy, excavation and disposal in a permitted, secure hazardous waste disposal
facility will eliminate the potential of direct contact or ingestion of contaminated soil. The remedy
will also reduce the source of contaminants entering the ground water.
The selected remedy inclusive of the Classification of Contaminated SniI section of this
Amendment satisfies all of the ARARs contained in the 1989 ROD.
The EPA believes the selected remedy is cost effective for mitigating the direct contact, ingestion,
and continued ground water contamination from the site contaminants. Section 300.430(f)(n)(D)
of the National Contingency Plan requires the EPA to determine cost-effectiveness by evaluating
the cost of an alternative relative to its overall effectiveness. Effectiveness is defined by three of
the five balancing criteria: long-term effectiveness, short-term effectiveness, and reduction of
toxicity, mobility, or volume of the wastes through treatment. The overall effectiveness is then
compared to the cost to ensure that the selected remedy is cost-effective.
The EPA estimates the cost of the selected remedy to be eight to twelve million dollars based on
the estimated 22,000 tons of soil contaminated above the Target Action Levels. As explained in
the Svaluaam of the Original Remedy and the New Remedy section of this Amendment, this cost
could increase if contaminated soil volumes are greater. Any changes in the volume would alter
the costs of either remedy proportionally. The EPA believes the selected remedy is the more cost
effective of the two remedies and is the only remedy acceptable to the community.
Public Participation Compliance
On June 19, 1998, the EPA issued a notice of the Amended Proposed Plan and established the
Public Comment Period to be from June 19 to July 20. The EPA conducted a Public Meeting on
June 29. All comments received during the thirty-day public comment period and at the public
meeting are addressed in the Responsiveness Summary in Appendix C.
10
-------
Documentation of No Significant Change
The EPA reviewed all comments on the proposed remedy obtained during the public comment
period and determined that no changes to the remedy selection, as it was originally identified in
the Amendment to the Proposed Plan, were necessary.
11
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
UNITED CREOSOTING COMPANY
SUPERFUND SITE
LOCATIONS OF
REPOSITORIES
Montgomery County Library
104 Interstate 45 North
Conroe, Texas 77301
(409)539-7814
Hours of Operation: Monday through Thursday 9:00 a.m. - 9:00 p.m.
Friday and Saturday 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
U.S. EPA, Region 6
Library, 12th Floor (6MD-II)
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733
(214) 665-6424 or 665-6427, (214) 665-2146 (FAX)
Hours of Operation: Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
12100 Park 35 Circle
Room 190, Building D
Austin, Texas 78753
(512) 239-2920
Hours of Operation: Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
12
-------
-------
APPENDIX B
UNITED CREOSOTING COMPANY
SUPERFUND SITE
STATE/SUPPORT AGENCY ACCEPTANCE
13
-------
-------
Barry R. McBee, Chairman
R, B. "Ralph" Marquez, Commissioner
John M. Baker, Commissioner
Jeffrey A. Saitas, Executive Director
TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Protecting Texas by Reducing and Preventing Pollution
September 9,1998
VIA OVERNIGHT MAIL
Mr. Gregg A. Cooke, Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Re: United Creosoting Company Federal Superfund Site
Operable Unit Three
Record of Decision Amendment No. 1
Dear Mr. Cooke:
The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) has reviewed the August 27,
1998 Draft Record of Decision Amendment No. 1 for the United Creosoting Company Superfund
Site - Operable Unit Three. The TNRCC does not object to the provisions of the proposed
amendment.
Sincerely,
ive Director
14
P.O. Box 13087 Austin, Texas 78711-3087 512/239-1000 Internet address: www.tnrccjlate.tx.us
-------
The pages were misnumbered in the production of this document. Page 15 does not exist.
The document is complete and in order.
-------
APPENDIX C
UNITED CREOSOTEVG COMPANY
SUPERFUND SITE
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
1. The city of Conroe is concerned about storm water runoff from the site. The city
contends that all storm water runoff has the potential to come in direct contact with the pollutants
of concern. Therefore, we request the EPA and the TNRCC obtain an Individual Industrial
Construction Stormwater Permit.
Response: Neither the EPA nor the TNRCC will apply for this permit. In 42 U.S.C.
§ 9621, Subsection 121(e)(l), it is stated that no permits are required for remedial action
conducted entirely onsite. The excavation and removal activities on-site are protected by this
statement. However, the disposal of the contaminated soil offsite must comply with Federal,
State, and local permits. For the concern about storm water runoff, the State will require that its
contractor comply with the substantive but not the administrative requirements of the Storm
Water General Permit for Construction Activities, published in the Federal Register, Volume 63,
No. 128 on July 6, 1998.
2. Why is the EPA working on the United Creosoting site, the Conroe Creosote plant was
started long before United was?
Response: The Conroe Creosote plant is currently being addressed through the TNRCC
enforcement process.
;
3. I was made ill by the odors from this site during the remediation. I want to be relocated
during any other work at the site.
Response: The NCP § 300.415(e) allows for relocation to protect human health or
welfare. The EPA would consult with the Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry and
the Texas Department of Health to decide if temporary relocation is appropriate. If, as the result
of this consultation, EPA determines that relocation is appropriate, you will be relocated.
4. Is the EPA committed to the removal of the contaminated soil from the site?
Response: Yes, the EPA supports the excavation and removal of the contaminated soil
for disposal at a secured, permitted landfill required by this Amendment.
5. I understand that the EPA has reclassified the waste from K to F, what's the difference?
Response: Both listings are considered hazardous. K001 identifies the sludge from a
creosote waste water treatment system. F032 and F034 identify wastes resulting from creosote
spills, drippings, and disposals. The F description describes the source of the contaminants at this
site. The F listings did not exist when the previous Records of Decision were prepared.
16
-------
6. Why wait until August to issue this Amendment?
Response: Regulations require the EPA to provide the public at least 30 days to comment
on the proposed remedy and require the EPA to prepare and issue responses to all comments.
The time required to accomplish these actions necessarily delays the issuance of the actual
Amendment until August or September. The TNRCC will be meeting with the residents monthly
and the EPA will inform the residents as to the progress of issuing the Amendment.
7. Will additional sampling be conducted at the site?
Response: Yes, more data will improve the estimation of the contaminated soil to be
removed. The TNRCC will collect these data before requesting bids for the Site remediation.
8. Will the EPA change the remedy if additional contamination is found?
Response: No. Based on the results of recent sampling activities by TNRCC, the EPA
has determined, the EPA expects the proposed remedy is appropriate.
9. Because of the change in the estimated quantity of contaminated soil, from 114,000 to
down to 23,000 to 25,000 tons, a higher level of comfort in the community is required with the
future test results.
Response: The TNRCC has, prior to requesting bids, conducted sufficiently sampling of
the site to determine the actual remaining extent and volume of contaminated soil.
10. Why has the quantity of contaminated soil decreased from 114,000 to 23,000 tons?
Response: Fortunately, much of the contaminated residential soil, although contaminated
above acceptable residential levels, was contaminated below acceptable industrial levels.
Treatment of this soil is not required for its use as backfill in excavations where highly
contaminated soil is removed from the industrial area for disposal ofFsite. Also, less industrial
area contaminated soil is being found than previously predicted. Because of this occurrence, the
TNRCC is conducting extensive sampling activities to more accurately determine the extent of
contamination in the industrial area and residential areas yet to be remediated.
11. How much testing for dioxins and furans was done in the residential area and what were
the detection limits?
Response: More than 200 dioxins and furans analyses were made of residential soil for the
preparation of the Site Investigation Report dated December 1985. Ninety analyses were made
for the final confirmation sampling at the completion of the residential properties remediation.
During recent sampling of the residential area, the detection limits for all isomers of dioxins and
furans ranged from 0.2 parts per trillion up to 0.9 parts per trillion. The detection limits satisfy
the ability to report the detection of 0.01 parts per billion of total 2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalents.
12. In the industrial area, what is the area that is used for composite samples?
Response: The State's sampling plan requires the compositing of five samples from an
area not to exceed 2,500 square feet.
17
-------
13. Is there any investigation that is ongoing into the innovative process and particularly the
criteria for screening innovative processes?
Response: The EPA's Technology Innovation Office and Office of Inspector General have
been notified about problems encountered at this site. Follow-up is up to each of those groups.
14. Will the contractors that had prior contracts at this site be allowed to be considered for
contracting in the future at this site in spite of violations that occurred with regard to storm water
runoff and issues associated with odors?
Response: Yes, as long as neither is the subject of suspension nor debarment by the
Federal or State government. Please also see the response to #1.
15. What is the basis for debarring?
Response: A person or organization may be debarred if there has been a conviction of, or
civil judgement for, specific offenses, including fraud, embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery,
making false claims, and violation of Federal or State antitrust statutes. Please refer to the Code
of Federal Regulations 40 CFR, Part 32, Subpart C - Debarment (32.300 to 32.335) for complete
information.
16. Has there been any investigation of the taking or occupation of private property associated
with the work performed so far at this site?
Response: No.
17. Has there been any consideration of compensation for health-related problems, specifically
nausea associated with the odors at the site during the previous remediation?
Response: No. The odors, from the failed process, are not expected to occur during the
new remedy because excavation will occur inside specially designed building. As explained in
Response #3, the NCP § 300.415(e) allows for relocation to protect human health or welfare.
The EPA would consult with the Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry and the Texas
Department of Health to decide if temporary relocation is appropriate if nauseous odors do occur
during the remediation.
18. Will there be an opportunity for residents to express their desires relating to site working
hours?
Response: Yes, the TNRCC has requested comments regarding working hours and work
days.
19. Is there a contaminated ground water plume at this site?
Response: Yes, one of the purposes of remediating this site is to remove the source of
contaminants that might feed this plume and, thus, reduce its threat. The State will continue to
monitor the quality of the ground water to determine the progress of natural attenuation of this
shallow ground water plume. No contaminants have been detected in the lower ground water
aquifer.
18
-------
20. Why has it taken so long to remediate this site?
Response: Remediation of the residential area except for the areas purchased by the
Federal government and one lot whose owner refused remediation was completed several years
ago. The contaminated soil in the residential area was removed to eliminate threats to human
health there. Previously, the EPA had no suitable remedy for the industrial portion of this site
because of the very close proximity of the residential properties. The cap on the industrial area
provides protection to workers there until a final remedy is completed.
21. The EPA's clean up standards for the industrial area are not as severe as those for the
adjoining residential properties. I'm concerned that the residual contaminants from the industrial
area will migrate and pollute the adjoining residential properties.
Response: Surface contaminants can be transported by surface water from the industrial
area to the residential area. After the remedy is completed however, both the surface of the
residential area and the industrial areas that are remediated will have 6 inches of clean, imported
top soil in place. Beneath the top soil, the direction of mobile contaminant migration is mostly
downward - carried by rain water. Contaminant migration in the shallow aquifer (about twenty-
three feet below the surface) follows the movement of the water in the aquifer. To provide
additional protection against contaminants migrating to the residential properties, the backfill
placed to a depth of five feet in the industrial area immediately adjoining the residential area will
satisfy the Residential Soils Target Action Levels specified in this Amendment.
22. Will the trucks contain the excavated contaminated soil pass through the subdivision?
Response: No. The trucks leaving the site will leave only by the Clark Center exit onto
Cartwright Street. The TNRCC will discuss with the city the route for the trucks to take through
Conroe.
23. What are the health risks for the residents as this contaminated soil is being excavated and
removed?
Response: Health risks could be caused by contaminated air borne dust or contaminated
water. Consequently, all excavations of contaminated soil, except for one area requiring a
shallow excavation, will be under cover to prevent the possible spread of contaminated soil. The
cover will also prevent rain water from contacting the contaminated soil. Trucks transporting
contaminated soil will be covered. The shallow area will be excavated quickly and dust control
systems and air monitoring will be in place. Whenever excavation activities are occurring,
perimeter air monitors will be in operation near the residential boundary.
24. Will there be odors?
Response: Odors are difficult to control. Because the site work will not involve the
process that created the odors previously experienced at this site, we do not expect a repeat of the
previous situation. Soil treated by the previous process is stored in the treatment building and will
be used as backfill in the industrial area excavations. This soil will be transported from the
treatment building by covered trucks into the covered buildings for disposal. No significant odors
should be present. If additional controls are required, the TNRCC will institute them.
19
-------
25. I would like for there to be no work done on the weekends and holidays.
Response: Comment is noted. The TNRCC will provide the residents an opportunity to
put such comments in writing.
26. Does the EPA plan to sample any of the residential areas where there was surface water
runoff from the industrial area?
Response: The TNRCC and the city recently sampled one residential lot that received
surface water runoff. The levels of all detected site contaminants were below the limits set for the
residential area. Additional sampling is not planned but could occur if there is justification.
27. Because of storm water run off, odors, and dust problems with the previous remedy, what
precautions will be taken during this remedy to prevent the problems?
Response: The plans for storm water abatement are discussed in the response to Question
#1. The plans for odor control are discussed in the response to Question #24. The plans for dust
control are discussed in the response to Question #23. Also, the TNRCC will have a person at
the site assigned to be available to the residents to receive and address any problems that occur.
28. Do you have any idea where this contaminated soil is going?
Response: Although the specific receiving facility is not known at this time, it will be a
permitted facility that satisfies the CERCLA off-site rule. The specific receiving facility will be
selected through the bidding and contracting process and must satisfy all of the RCRA and State
regulations.
29. I saw the big pile of toxic waste that was collected spread under the waste treatment
building. I saw strange, blue, slimy water that came from the buildings. Who is going to police
what goes on during the next remediation?
Response: As explained in the response to Question 10, much of the contaminated soil
from the residential area is suitable for use in the industrial area and was used as backfill under the
foundation of the Treatment Building. Neither the TNRCC nor its Engineer could verify that the
strange, blue, slimy water seen in the creek came from the buildings. In any case, the buildings
will not contain any treatment equipment. Also, please see the response to Question #1.
30. Is it safe to raise and to eat vegetables raised in the residential back yards?
Response: Yes, the Residential Soils Target Action Levels satisfy the health risk criteria
explained in the previous RODs when applied to eating vegetables grown in a resident's yard.
20
-------
-------
CONCURRENCE FOR
UNITED CREOSOTING COMPANY
SUPERFUND SITE
RECORD OF DECISION
AMENDMENT NO. 1
^arl Hendrick
Project Manager
i Chavarria
Chief, Project Mgt Section
,J2
Joseph E. Compton in
Site Attorney
Chief, Litigation Enf Branch
Williafn Honker, P. E.
Chief, AR/OK/TX Branch
yron O Knubson, P. E.
Director, Superfund Division
Lawrence E. Starfield
Regional Counsel
Davia W. uray
Director, Office of External Affairs
-------
-------
T!
tf>o>.<2
Q.
__,
± 0
V. 0
Q) O
O.J5
Reproduced by NTIS
National Technical Information Service
Springfield, VA 22161
77i/s report was printed specifically for your order
from nearly 3 million titles available in our collection.
For economy and efficiency, NTIS does not maintain stock of its vast
collection of technical reports. Rather, most documents are printed for
each order. Documents that are not in electronic format are reproduced
from master archival copies and are the best possible reproductions
available. If you have any questions concerning this document or any
order you have placed with NTIS, please call our Customer Service
Department at (703) 605-6050.
About NTIS
NTIS collects scientific, technical, engineering, and business related
information then organizes, maintains, and disseminates that
information in a variety of formats from microfiche to online services.
The NTIS collection of nearly 3 million titles includes reports describing
research conducted or sponsored by federal agencies and their
contractors; statistical and business information; U.S. military
publications; multimedia/training products; computer software and
electronic databases developed by federal agencies; training tools; and
technical reports prepared by research organizations worldwide.
Approximately 100,000 new titles are added and indexed into the NTIS
collection annually.
For more information about NTIS products and services, call NTIS
at 1-800-553-NTIS (6847) or (703) 605-6000 and request the free
NTIS Products Catalog, PR-827LPG, or visit the NTIS Web site
http://www.ntis.gov.
NTIS
Your indispensable resource for government-sponsored
informationU.S. and worldwide
-------
------- |