United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Off ice Of
The Administrator
(A-101F6)
171 R-92-005
ApriM992
EPA
Estimating VOC Emissions
From Superfund Sites In The
Houston-Galveston Texas Area
NNEMS Project #1302
""". Printed on Recycled
-------
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report was furnished to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency by the student identified on the cover page, under a National
Network for Environmental Management Studies fellowship.
The contents are essentially as received from the author. The
opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed are those of the author
and not necessarily those of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Mention, if any, of company, process, or product names is
not to be considered as an endorsement by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
-------
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 6
AIR, PESTICIDES, AND TOXICS
DIVISION
DALLAS, TEXAS 75202
National Network for Environmental Studies
Question #1302
Estimating VOC Emissions
from Superfund Sites
in the Houston-Galveston,
Texas, Area
NMENS Intern: Monica Pesek
AUGUST 1990
U S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5.Library (P1.-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
-------
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VI
AIR, PESTICIDES, AND TOXICS DIVISION
DALLAS, TEXAS 75202
NATIONAL NETWORK FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT STUDIES
QUESTION #1302
ESTIMATING VOC EMISSIONS
FROM SUPERFUND SITES
IN THE HOUSTON-GALVESTON, TEXAS AREA
REPORT
NNEMS INTERN
MONICA PESEK
AUGUST 1990
ADVISED BY:
THOMAS DIGGS
MARK HANSEN
BECKY C. WEBER
GREGG GUTHRIE
LUCINDA WATSON
-------
-------
ABSTRACT
The purpose of the National Network for Environmental Management
Studies (NNEMS) project question #1302 focused on estimating the
volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from Superfund sites in
the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria Consolidated Metropolitan
Statistical Area (CMSA) and the Beaumont-Port Arthur Metropolitan
Statistical Area (MSA). Research of available data in the"
Environmental Protection Agency Region VI files expanded over a
three month time period. The intention of the NNEMS project was
to estimate a tons per year VOC emission rate. All the data and
information presented in this paper on VOC emissions from
Superfund sites was obtained from publicly available sources.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
A special thanks is extended to the Air Programs Branch of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region VI for the constant
support that was given during the National Network for
Environmental Management Studies Summer Internship. The Remedial
Project Managers for the EPA Superfund Branch were also vital to
the completion of this project. A few persons deserve to be
individually recognized for their role in this project and they
are:
Thomas Diggs, Air Planning Section Chief
Mark Hansen
Becky Caldwell Weber
Ruben Casso
Gregg Guthrie
Lucinda Watson
11
-------
INTRODUCTION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
TABLE I 1
ASSUMPTIONS 5
PROCEDURES/METHODS 5
TABLE II 7
SUMMARY 16
TABLE III 19
CONCLUSION 20
RECOMMENDATIONS 20
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
ill
-------
-------
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the National Network for Environmental Management
Studies" (NNEMS) project question #1302 focused on estimating the
volatile organic"compound (VOC) emissions from Superfund sites in
the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria Consolidated Metropolitan
Statistical Area (CMSA) and the Beaumont-Port Arthur_Metropolitan
Statistical Area (MSA). Research of available data in the
Environmental Protection Agency Region VI files extended over a
three month time period. The intention of the NNEMS project was
to estimate a tons per year VOC emission rate based upon
activities at the sites for the years 1987 to 1990. All the data
and information presented in this paper on VOC emissions from
Suoerfund sites were obtained from publicly available sources.
An" understanding of the Clean Air Act and the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA) exposes the need for determining the VOC emissions from
Superfund sites. There is a recognizable void for information
available in this area of study.
The original Clean Air Act (CAA) was passed in 1970 with the
objective being to protect and enhance the quality of the
nation's air resources. Modifications to the Act have created
air pollution control programs such as the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS), National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) and New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) which achieve the objective by regulating
emissions into the air. Regulations may be implemented through
combined Federal, State and local programs. The National Ambient
Air Quality Standards are national limitations on ambient
concentrations intended to protect public health or welfare. A
timetable was establish by the Amendments of 1977 for the
standards of the following six criteria pollutants:
TABLE I. CRITERIA POLLUTANTS
' Criteria Pollutant Averaging Time Standard
Sulfur oxides Annual 0.03 ppm
24 Hour 0.14 ppm3
PM10 Annual 150 ug/m
24 Hour 50 ug/m
Carbon monoxide 8 Hour 9 ppm
1 Hour 35 ppm
Ozone 1 Hour 0.12 ppm
Nitrogen dioxide Annual 3.053 ppqjt
Lead Calendar Quarter 1.5 ug/m
-------
National Ambient Air Quality Standards are translated by States
into source-specific emission limitations through State
Implementation Plans (SIPs). The Clean Air Act requires each
state to adopt and submit to the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) for approval a SIP for implementing and enforcing NAAQS.
Upon EPA approval, the SIP becomes federally enforceable.
Requirements of the SIP are potential regulations affecting
Superfund sites.
Of the pollutants for which there are NAAQS, ozone has been one
the most difficult to control. in large part, this difficulty is
because ozone is not emitted directly from any particular class
of sources. Instead, it builds up in the ambient atmosphere from
a complex series of reactions involving VOCs and nitrogen oxides
in the presence of sunlight. Thus, the most common means of
controlling ozone is to reduce the volatile organic compounds
that serve as its precursor.
Under the Clean Air Act, areas are divided in attainment and
nonattainment with regard to the NAAQS. Attainment areas are
those regions of the country that are designated as being in
compliance with the NAAQS for criteria pollutants. Nonattainment
areas are those parts of the country where compliance has not
been attained for one or several criteria pollutants.
The ozone standard and control strategies to reduce ozone are
considered on a county-wide basis. In Texas, Harris County was
designated as a nonattainment area for ozone in 1978. As a
result of the Clean Air Act requirements for nonattainment areas,
the State of Texas developed a State Implementation Plan (SIP) to
delineate its means of controlling VOC emissions, and thus,
ozone. In 1987, ozone nonattainment areas were expanded to the
entire Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) since the precursors
to ozone that cause a violation in one county can be emitted from
industry and vehicles from an adjoining county. The Post-1987
SIP call consolidated several nonattainment areas to form the
Harris-Galveston-Brazoria CMSA which includes the following eight
counties: Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris,
Liberty, and Montgomery. The other nonattainment area looked at
in this report is the Beaumont-Port Arthur MSA which includes
Hardin, Jefferson, and Orange Counties. With the development nd
implementation of the SIP, emissions of VOCs have been reduced
dramatically in Harris County and on the Gulf Coast; however, the
ozone problem has remained about the same.
-------
The concept of "Superfund" is a result of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA). The objectives of CERCLA consist of:
1) setting priorities for cleaning up hazardous waste
si tes,
2) making responsible parties pay for the cleanups,
3) setting up a $1.6 billion hazardous waste trust
fund/Super fund for situations where responsible parties
could not be held accountable or emergencies, and
4) advancing scientific and technological capabilities
for hazardous waste management, treatment, and
disposal.
Superfund was to be financially supported by taxes on crude oil
and 42 different commercial chemicals. In 1986, Congress amended
CERCLA through the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA), which allocated $8.5 billion for Superfund during the
years 1986 to 1991. Tn addition, improvements to the program
were made in the areas of removal actions, remedial actions,
enforcement authority, state involvement, emergency planning,
research, development, training and citizen rights.
In that same time period, Congress also enact the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to regulate hazardous waste
disposal. The relationship between Superfund and RCRA is based
on the idea that Superfund was established to clean up mistakes
of the past and cope with emergencies while RCRA was established
to set guidelines for hazardous waste management and disposal for
the present and future. Thus, the intention was that RCRA
eventually would eliminate the need for a Superfund program.
Despite the intention, the need for new technology for addressing
contamination at Superfund sites continues. Technology for
cleaning up Superfund sites is moving away from the landfill or
surface impoundment alternative. Other disposal means considered
include destroying, immobilizing or separating waste. Waste
destruction technology eliminates a majority of the waste,
although the residues must still be disposed of properly.
Thermal treatment and neutralization are two alternatives for
waste destruction. Waste immobilization technology involves the
process of fixation or solidification of the waste. This is
beneficial for two reasons: 1) the waste is easier to handle, and
2) the waste is less likely to enter the surrounding environment.
Alternatives for waste separation technology are air stripping,
steam stripping, carbon adsorption, precipitation, soil washing
-------
and flushing. These processes involve either separating one
hazardous waste from another or separating hazardous waste from
non-hazardous material that has been contaminated. By using
separation, recycling becomes an alternative. Whatever the case,
action must be taken to identify what treatment will be
acceptable for managing the contaminated material. Implementing
treatment_technology can cause releases of VOCs from certain
sites, which can impact the ambient ozone concentrations in the
surrounding area.
Estimating the emissions of VOCs from certain Superfund sites is
the basis for this paper. The original scope of the NNEMS
question #1302 encompassed the estimation of VOC emissions from
Superfund sites in the Houston-Galveston area. Given that VOC
emissions are a precursor to ozone build-up and may have a wide-
ranging impact, the area researched for this paper expanded
beyond the Houston-Galveston area to encompass Superfund sites in
following counties also: Hardin, Liberty, Montgomery, Orange and
Waller Counties. The following Superfund sites are located in
this expanded area and were researched for relevance to the
project:
Bailey Waste Disposal (Orange Co.)
Brio Refining, Inc. (Harris Co.)
Crystal Chemical Co. (Harris Co.)
Dixie Oil Processors (Harris Co.)
French Limited (Harris Co.)
Geneva Industries (Harris Co.)
Harris/Farley Street (Harris Co/) - Delisted
Highlands Acid Pits (Harris Co.)
Industrial Transformers (Harris Co.)
Motco, Inc./Texas City Wye (Galveston Co.)
North Cavalcade Street (Harris Co.)
Petro-Chemical Systems, Inc./Turtle Bayou (Liberty Co.)
Rio Grande Oil Co. Refinery (Hardin Co.) - Proposed
Delisting
Sheridan Disposal Services (Waller Co.)
Sikes Disposal Pits (Harris Co.)
South Cavalcade Street (Harris Co.)
Tex-Tin Corporation (Galveston Co.)
Triangle Chemical Co. (Orange Co.)
United Creosoting Co. (Montgomery Co.)
Of the original nineteen sites, four were eliminated from this
study. Two of the sites were eliminated because they were either
removed or proposed for removal from the National Priority List
(NPL), a list of sites eligible for Superfund clean-up.
(Removing a site from the list is known as "del is ting*".")
Harris/Farley Street was delisted in May 1986, and Rio Grande Oil
Company Refinery was proposed for delisting in August 1990.
-------
Further consideration of these sites does not appear to be
warranted for this project. The other two sites eliminated from
consideration in this study were Crystal Chemical and Tex-Tin.
Neither Crystal Chemical Co. nor Tex-Tin Corporation have
pollutants which would cause VOC emissions; thus, they are not
within the parameters of this project.
Initial consideration was also given to investigating the
following Superfund sites in Louisiana: Bayou Bonfouca, Bayou
Sorrel, Cleve Reber, Combustion Inc., D.L. Mud, Dutchtown, Gulf
Coast Vacuum Service, Old Inger, PAB Oil & Chemical Service Inc.,
and Petro-Processors. But due to time limitations, the
investigation did not progress past the initial review.
ASSUMPTIONS
Due to the complex and unique nature of each of the Superfund
sites, some assumptions were made. First, all VOCs at a site
will not enter the air. Some VOCs will decompose in the soil,
volatilize and migrate into the groundwater, or adsorb onto and
remain on soil particle surfaces . Although emission rates can
be calculated, testing can establish a higher degree of
certainty. Thus, it is assumed that the soil concentrations may
reflect a higher level of contaminants than actually exists since
the volatilization of a chemical decreases with passage of time.
Second, environmental factors can have an effect. For example,
the higher the vapor pressure, the easier the volatilization of
the chemical that occurs. Surface temperature, amount and
direction of groundwater movement, and availability for bacterial
decomposition are some environmental factors that will affect
emission rates. With fluctuations of these factors, it is
assumed that emission rates would reflect the change. Third, the
physical/chemical properties of the substance are also factors to
consider in determining emission rates with a degree of accuracy.
Fourth, it is also assumed that the maximum rate of air emissions
will occur immediately after application or action of volatile
organic substances.
PROCEDURES/METHODS
The first phase of the project involved reading ozone
nonattainment and Superfund materials as well as other
publications related to the project focus. A literature search
and specific file searches were made for available materials
through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) library.
Information was gathered during the first phase of the project.
Efforts were also made to gain a better understanding of the
-------
Superfund process and its components. Gathering of data also
included a review of site specific EPA files and interviewing
persons involved with the Superfund process. During this part of
the project, contact was established with EPA Headquarters, other
Regions and Remedial Project Managers, as well as the Texas Air
Control Board and the Texas Water Commission.
Data generated as a result of the first phase included a waste
characterization for each site with attempts to obtain maximum
and minimum concentration levels. During the investigation of
files for the selected Superfund sites, an attempt was made to
isolate the various sources of VOC emissions. VOC sources are
categorized as mobile, area or point sources. An example of an
area source of emissions would be soil or surface water while an
example of a point source would be a piece of equipment like an
incinerator or air stripper. Once the sources of VOC emissions
are determined, it is necessary to recognize the type of
hazardous material at the site, the size of the site, the amount
of contamination and the proposed treatment options. Volume,
concentration and operation rate are additional factors required
to assess emission potential of the sites. (Please see Table II
on the following page.) Caution should be used in interpreting
this information because a portion of the evaluations are based
on preliminary data that may be outdated. Actual emissions
during Remedial Action (clean-up) are dependent upon baseline
conditions, treatment technology, temperature, concentrations,
duration of remedial activity and whether or not air emission
controls are used.
-------
TABLE IJ.. VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND EMISSION FROM SUPERFUND SITES IN TEXAS
TREATMENT
SITE
BAILEY WASTE
DISPOSAL
TXD980864649
(ACCEPTED
MUNICIPAL &
INDUSTRIAL
WASTE)
AMOUNT CONTAMINATED
SUBSTANCE
CONCENTRATION
ROD
OCT.
1987
BRIO
TXD980625453
ROD
MARCH
1988
STABILIZATION
SURFACE
IMPOUNDMENT
(CAPPING)
TREATMENT TO
OCCUR IN WASTE
CHANNEL
AQUEOUS -
PHASE
BIOLOGICAL
TREATMENT OR
INCINERATION
TOTAL AREA: 340 ACRES
VOLUME: 72,000 y WASTE
AREA: 10 ACRES FOR
DISPOSAL
WASTE CHANNEL HAS THICK-
NESS OF 5-5.5 FT AND A
MINIMUM VOLUME OF
44,000 y INDUSTRIAL
SOLIDS
POND A HAS 21,000
INDUSTRIAL ,
58 DRUMS - AREA 26 y
WASTE PITS - TAR-LIKE
WASTE
TABLE 3 ROD
(see p. B-l, this report)
TOTAL AREA:
BRIO NORTH
BRIO SOUTH
58.1 ACRES
48.8 ACRES
9.3 ACRES
TABLE 4 (ROD)(p. B-3)
VESSEL CONTENT: TABLE 3-36
(p. B-4 through B-6)
FINAL REPORT
TABLE 1-1
(see p. B-2, this
report)
CHEMICALS
VOLATILE ORGANIC
COMPOUNDS (VOCs)
POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC
HYDROCARBONS (PAHs)
CHLORINATED
HYDROCARBONS
PHTHALATE
PHENOL
(31 COMPOUNDS)
ROD TABLE 1-1
(see p. B-2, this
report)
WASTE PITS & STORAGE FOUND AT 100K mg/kg
VESSELS:
STYRENE TARS
VINYL CHLORIDE
CHLORINATED SOLVENT
RESIDUES
METALLIC CATALYST
FUEL OIL RESIDUES
SOIL & GROUNDWATER:
FLUORENE,
ANTHRACENE/
PHENANTHRENE,
PYRENE, STYRENE,
S, VINYL CHLORIDE
SHALLOW WATER:
VINYL CHLORIDE,
FLUORENE, STYRENE,
AND ETHYL BENZENE
GROUNDWATER
1,1,2 ROD AND
VINYL CHLORIDE
to 650 mg/1
TABLE 2-1
ENDANGERMENT
ASSESSMENT
(p. B-7 through B-10)
-------
TABLE II. (cont.)
SITE
CRYSTAL
CHEMICAL
TXD990707010
DELETE FROM
PROJECT
STUDY
DIXIE OIL
PROCESSORS
TXD089793046
TREATMENT
DEWATER SITE
FILL PONDS
WITH
CONTAMINATED
SOIL
TEMPORARILY
CAP
MOST OF PLANT
SITE WITH 6"
OF CLAY
ADD TOPSOIL
AND
SEED
LIMITED ACTION
AND
MONITORING
(NO ACTION
ALTERNATIVE)
OIL RECOVERY
OPERATION
ROD
MARCH 1988
DISMANTLE
REMOVE
AND
\
AMOUNT OF
CONTAMINATED SUBSTANCE
TOTAL AREA: 3.7 ACRES
VOLUME: 89,000 y ARSENIC
CONTAMINATED SOIL 3
WASTE PONDS - @ 16,500 y
(TOTAL SITE QUANTITY:
65,000 to ,
100,000 y )
CONTAMINATED
SITE ,
9 9,0000 y
MIGRATION: 35
AQUIFER
CONTAMINATION
<600 ppm
SOILS OFF-
FT SAND
1 FT/YEAR
TOTAL: 26.6 ACRES (19
STORAGE
& 7.6 ACRES FOR
PROCESSING)
VOLUME:
SOIL & SUBSOIL
CONTAMINATION
107,400 y '
(PIT)
VESSELS - 118,420 GALLONS
VESSEL SUMMARY TABLE 3-1
(see p. B-ll)
MEASURABLE
CHEMICALS
ARSENIC-BASED
PESTICIDES
CONCENTRATION
ARSENIC:
ON-SITE SUBSURFACE
4 FT <27,000 ppm
GROUNDWATER
35 FT SAND AQUIFER
<600ppm
SOIL & STORAGE
VESSELS
ETHYL
BENZENE
HEXACHLOROBENZENE
COPPER
NUMEROUS SAND
CHANNEL
ZONES:
1,1,2
TRICHLOROETHANE.
VINYL CHLORIDE...
TABLE 2-1 ENDANGER-
MENT ASSESSMENT
6.4 mg/kg
, . . .674 mg/kg
,72,860 mg/kg
650 mg/1
,650 mg/1
(see pp. B-7 through
B-10)
-------
TABLE II. (cont.)
SITE
FRENCH
LIMITED
TXD987980380
ABANDONED
WASTE PIT
FOR
INDUSTRIAL
WASTE, HEAVY
METALS,
PHENOLS,
PCBS, OIL,
GREASE,
ACIDS AND
SOLVENTS
ROD MAR. '88
GENEVA
INDUSTRIES
(FURHMANN
ENERGY CORP)
TXD98074853
ABANDONED
PETRO-
CHEMICAL
MFG. &
REPROCESSING
FACILITY
ROD SEPT '86
TREATMENT
STABILIZE
HAZARDOUS
WASTE IN-SITU;
BIOREMEDIATION
& TREATMENT OF
SURFACE WATER
PUMP & TREAT
GROUNDWATER
OFFSITE LAND-
FILL DISPOSAL
OF SOIL
GROUNDWATER:
PUMP & TREAT
USING CARBON
ADSORPTION
AMOUNT OF
CONTAMINATED SUBSTANCE
TOTAL SITE: 22.5 ACRES
ONE WASTE PIT -
7.5 ACRES SURFACE AREA
AVERAGE DEPTH 10.6 FT.
VOLUME: _
SOIL - 77,600 y
SLUDGES - -
PCBs 8,000 y
NON-PCBs 62,100 y
WATER - 26 MILLION GALS.
TOTAL SITE: 13.5 ACRES
VOLUME: PRE-1987
(EXCAVATE)
62,400 TONS (@ 45,000 y'
SOIL & DEBRIS >100 ppm
REMOVED FROM SITE
35,000,000 GALS.
GROUNDWATER
700 DRUMS
CHEMICALS
SLUDGES/SOILS AND
GROUNDWATER
BENZENE
CHLORINATED HYDRO-
CARBONS
NAPHTHALENE
POLYNUCLEAR HYDRO-
CARBONS
TOLUENE
XYLENE
VINYL CHLORIDE
CONCENTRATION
VOCs
SLUDGES 6%
GROUNDWATER 10 ppm
PHENOL
SLUDGES 1%
GROUNDWATER...10 ppm
PCB
SLUDGES 0-320 ppm
PCP
TABLE 7-5 OF ROD
LAGOON INFO
(see TABLE 1 and
p. B-12)
PCBs IN SOIL TO 12,200
SHALLOW GROUNDWATER 710
PNAs IN SOIL 165
SHALLOW GROUNDWATER 1500
ppm
ppb (PCBs)
ppm
ppb (PNA)
TCE IN SHALLOW
GROUNDWATER 420 ppb
DEEPGROUNDWATER 26-28 ppb
(TCE)
DRUMS
AREA
IN LANDFILL
-------
TABLE II. (cont.)
SITE
HIGHLANDS
ACID PITS
TXD980514996
ROD 1984
ROD JUNE '87
INDUSTRIAL
WASTE SLUDGE
TREATMENT
EXCAVATION OF
WASTE &
CONTAMINATED
SOIL (8 FT)
OFFSITE
DISPOSAL OF
EXCAVATED
MATERIAL
BACKFILL PIT,
GRADE, SEED &
FENCE AREA
AMOUNT OF
CONTAMINATED SUBSTANCE
TOTAL SITE: 6 ACRES
VOLUME: @ 19,000 y OR
25,000 TONS WASTE/SOIL
(EXCAVATED TO PERMITTED
FACILITY)
26, 273 GALS.
DECONTAMINATION WATER
INJECTED IN DEEP WELLS
CHEMICALS
CONCENTRATION
ORGANICS
TOLUENE
BENZENE
XYLENE
ABOVE MCL VALUES
GROUNDWATER
IN
Table 3 in ROD (See p. B-13)
INDUSTRIAL
TRANSFORMERS
SOL LYNN
TXD980873327
ABANDONED
TRANSFORMER
RECLAMATION
& CHEMICAL
SUPPLY
COMPANY
ROD (2)
MARCH 1988
INSTALL
MONITORING
WELLS
CHEMICAL
DECHLORINATION
(OF SOILS)
SOURCE CONTROL
RECOVERY WELLS
AIR STRIPPING
GROUNDWATER
PCBs: EXCAVATE
SOIL, TREAT BY
SOIL WASHING
WITH A SOLVENT
IN A CLOSED
SYSTEM;
BACKFILL
SOIL/GROUNDWATER
CONTAMINATION 0.75 ACRE
VOLUME: AREAL EXTENT OF
SOIL CONTAMINATION BY TCE
& PCB @ 2,400 y
DEPTH: 101 FEET,
@ 3.2 MIL. GALS. TCE CON-
TAMINATED WATER AT 30 FT
ZONE UNKNOWN AT 90 FT ZONE
(@ 12 MILLION GALS.)
TCE MIGRATED INTO 2 WATER
BEARING ZONES
POLYCHLORINATED
BIPHENOLS (PCB)
TRICHLOROETHANE
(TCE)
WATER BEARING SAND
PCBs IN SOIL &
SEDIMENT RANGING TO
357 ppm;
TCE IN SOIL & SEDIMENT
RANGING TO 600 ppm
(MAX)
TCE IN GROUNDWATER TO
DEPTH OF 101 FT; 0.009
ppm TO 600 ppm
TCE FROM 0.005 ppm
TO 790 ppm
-------
TABLE II. (cont.)
SITE TREATMENT
AMOUNT OF
CONTAMINATED SUBSTANCE
CHEMICALS
CONCENTRATION
MOTCO
TXD980629851
STYRENE TAR
RECYCLING/IN
DUSTRIAL
WASTE
DISPOSAL
FACILITY
ROD
MARCH 1985
SEPT. 1989
BIOLOGICAL
TREATMENT AND
INCINERATION
OF PIT WASTE
ONSITE
INCINERATION
OF ORGANIC
LIQUIDS &
SOILS/SLUDGES
(64,000 y )
ON-SITE
TOTAL AREA: 1.3 ACRES
7 UNLINED PITS -SURFACE
AREA 4.6 ACRES & 15-20 FT
DEEP
LAYERED VOLUME WASTE: ^
SLUDGES & TARS- 18,000 y
SOILS UNDER SLUDGE -
45,000 y
PIT WATER - 15 MILLION
GALS.
ORGANIC LIQUIDS - 7 MIL.
GALS.
VOLATILE ORGANICS -
SLUDGES, SOIL AND
GROUNDWATER 2%
PCB-SLUDGES 75 ppm
STYRENE TARS-SLUDGES 5%
BENZENE
CHLORINATED HYDRO-
CARBONS
VINYL CHLORIDE
ROD TABLES 1-2, 1-3,
1-4
(see p. B-15 THROUGH
B-19)
NORTH
CAVALCADE
TXD980873343
CREOSOTE &
PENTACHLORO-
PHENOL WOOD
PRESERVING
FACILITY
ROD JUNE '88
BIOLOGICAL
DEGRADATION IN
SOIL 23,000 y
EXTRACTION &
CARBON
ADSORPTION
TREATMENT OF
GROUNDWATER
(5.6 MIL.
GALS.) OFFSITE
INCINERATION
OF ALL
NONAQUEOUS
PHASE LIQUIDS
SEPARATED FROM
GROUNDWATER
ROD TABLE 1-1
(see p. B-14)
TOTAL AREA: 21 ACRES
10 ACRES (440,000 SQ.
FT.) FOR
WOOD PRESERVING
VOLUME: CONTAMINATED SOIL
- 22,300 y
GROUNDWATER - 5.6 MILL.
GALS.
2 PRINCIPAL SOURCES
1) SE SECTOR OF SITE
(CREOSOTING ACTIVITIES)
2) SW SECTOR (LAGOON)
PLUME OF CONCENTRATION 4
ACRES AT TIME OF ROD
(1988)
CREOSOTE (IN CERTAIN
AREAS, UPPER 35' ROD
SOIL AND
GROUNDWATER) CON-
TAMINATED WITH
BENZENE,
ETHYL BENZENE, PAHs,
TOLUENE, XYLENE
SPILL OF PCBs IN
WESTERN DRAINAGE
DITCH
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
TABLES 1& 2
(see pp. B-20, B-21)
-------
TABLE II. (cont.)
SITE
PETROCHEMI-
CAL SYSTEMS,
INC. (TURTLE
BAYOU)
TXD980873350
WASTE
DISPOSAL FOR
PETROCHEMI-
CAL SLUDGES
ROD (ROAD)
MARCH 1987
RIO GRANDE
OIL CO.
REFINERY
TXD980795736
TREATMENT
2 AREAS
1) ROAD
2) FACILITY
EXTRACT SOIL
ON AND AROUND
ROAD
SITE IN RI/FS
STAGE
TEMPORARY
ONSITE
LANDFILL FOR
SOIL FROM ROAD
PROPOSED
REMOVAL FROM
NPL
************
* LITTLE OR NO
* MAY FALL
* ************
\ AMOUNT CONTAMINATED
SUBSTANCE
TOTAL AREA: 296 ACRES
4-6 ACRES ARE LANDFILL;
SEVERAL DISPOSAL PITS IN
AREA
CONTAMINATED WASTE OILS
PURPORTEDLY USED AS DUST
CONTROL ALONG FRONTIER
PARK RD.
VOLUME: 5,918 y3 (ROAD
ONLY)
REMOVED MAR. 1987 & STORED
IN DOUBLE-LINED RCRA
STORAGE VAULT (1-5 FEET
EXCAVATED)
11 ACRES SOLID WASTE
TRENCHES & ONE ACRE
UNLINED DISPOSAL PIT
**************************
THREAT TO HUMAN HEALTH AND
UNDER JURISDICTION OF
**************************
CHEMICALS
ROAD 5,918 y3
LANDFILL
NAPHTHALENE
CHRYSENE
FLUORENE
SURFACE SOIL
XYLENES (TOTAL)
NAPHTHALENE
Li Jj f\ !../••••*•• •••*••••
GROUNDWATER 30 FT.
ZONE
NAPHTHALENE
STYRENE
BENZENE
CONCENTRATION
SOIL COMPOSITE
1100 ppm
. . .8 ppm
.200 ppm
39,000 ppm
.UP.TO...6,700 ppm
.UP.TO...5,000 ppm
13,000 ppm
... 660 ppm
. . .480 ppm
PHTHALATE ESTERS
PAHs
*******************
THE ENVIRONMENT.
SUPERFUND PETROLEUM
*******************
***********
*
EXCLUSION *
***********
-------
TABLE II. (cont.)
SITE TREATMENT
AMOUNT CONTAMINATED
SUBSTANCE
CHEMICALS
CONCENTRATION
SHERIDAN
DISPOSAL
SERVICES
TXD980795736
WASTE
DISPOSAL
FACILITY
ROD
DEC.
1988
SIKES
DISPOSAL PIT
TXD980513956
PETRO-
CHEMICAL
WASTE
DEPOSITORY
ROD:
SEPT. 1986
BIOTREATMENT
TO <50 ppm;
STABILIZE &
CAP
MAR. 1990
EROSION
CONTROL SYS-
TEM: JETTIES
ALONG RIVER-
BANK; EXCAVATE
WASTE WITH PCB
CONTENT <25
mg/kg
ONSITE
INCINERATION
OF SLUDGES &
SOILS (215,000
y ) YEARS
1992-1995
GROUNDWATER
IMPROVE
NATURALLY
RESIDUE ASH
USED AS
BACKFILL
TOTAL AREA: 110 ACRES
12-22 ACRE LAGOON
17 ACRE DIKE AROUND LAGOON
42 AC. EVAPORATION/
IRRIGATION 3
VOL.; EST. 44,000 y
SLUDGE & CONTAMINATED SOIL
PRIMARILY IN LAGOON ,
POND SLUDGE 33,000 y -
AFFECTED SOIL 10,000 y
EVAPORATION SLUDGE
1,000 y _
DIKE SOIL 3,000 y /
OIL 300 y
TOTAL AREA: 185 ACRES
1.4 ACRES FOR TANK LAKE
VOLUME: CONTAMINATION
79,300 y CONTAMINATED
SOILS -
2,300 y SEDIMENT
12.6 MILLION GALS. WATER
68,500 y WASTE
TABLE IN ROD
(see p. B-22)
SLUDGE CONTAINS..
(BENZENE, ETHYL
BENZENE, TOLUENE,
AND TCE)
SOIL & SLUDGES
BENZENE
TOLUENE
PCBS
5% VOCS
,TO..25,000 ppm
. . . .36,600 ppm
, 223 ppm
VOAs
SEDIMENT...,
GROUNDWATER,
ABNs
SEDIMENT...,
GROUNDWATER,
.28 - 66 ppm
.2 - 10,000 ppb
.18 - 570 ppm
.02 - 34,000 ppb
TABLE IN ROD; see
pp. B-23 AND B-24
-------
TABLE II. (cont.)
SITE TREATMENT
SOOTH
CAVALCADE
TXD980810386
ROD SEPT.'88
PREVIOUSLY A
WOOD
TREATING
FACILITY
TEX-TIN CORP
(ACTIVE
SMELTING)
TXD062113329
SOIL
REMEDIATION
SOIL WASHING &
IN SITU
FLUSHING (5-10
YRS.) -.
WASH 19,500 y
FLUSH 10,500
Y
GROUNDWATER
REMEDIATION:
PHYSICAL/
CHEMICAL
SEPARATION
FOLLOWED BY
FILTRATION &
ACTIVATED
CARBON ADSORP-
TION (30 YR)
DELETED FROM
NNEMS PROJECT
AMOUNT CONTAMINATED
SUBSTANCE
TOTAL AREA:
VOLUME:
SOIL 30,000
GROUNDWATER
66 ACRES
3
MIL. GALS
y"
50
TOTAL SITE: 128 ACRES
WASTE WATER AND
GROUNDWATER & RADIATION
AND PARTICULATE
CONTAMINATION
CHEMICALS
CREOSOTE WOOD
TREATING METAL SALTS
SOILS & GROUNDWATER
CONTAMINATED WITH
CREOSOTE-RELATED
COMPOUNDS
60' BELOW SURFACE AT
SOME POINTS, PAHs
IN GROUNDWATER
SHALLOW WATER TABLE
EXISTS AT 5'
CONCENTRATION
TABLE OF RISK
CALCULATIONS
(see pp,
B-27)
B-27 THROUGH
Sn, Cr, Cu, As, Ni,
Mn, Zn
-------
TABLE II. (cont.)
SITE
TRIANGLE
CHEMICAL
TXD055143705
CHEMICAL
MIXING &
BLENDING
FACILITY
ROD JUNE
1985
UNITED
CREOSOTING
TXD980745574
WOOD
PRESERVING
FACILITY
DEVELOPED
INTO
RESIDENTIAL
& LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL
FACILITIES
ROD
SEPT.
1989
TREATMENT
REMOVE
CONTENTS S.
CLEAN TANKS
OFFSITE DEEP
WELL INJECTION
& INCINERATION
OF WASTE;
MECHANICALLY
AERATE
CONTAMINATED
SOILS TO
RELEASE VOCs
TO ATMOSPHERE
UNDER
CONTROLLED
CONDITIONS
INTERIM
REMEDY, 1986
TEMPORARY CAP/
FUTURE
DISPOSAL
PERMANENT 1989
CRITICAL FLUID
EXTRACTION &
REBURIAL OF
CLEAN SOILS
ONSITE AND
OFFSITE
INCINERATION
OF LIQUID
ORGANIC
CONCENTRATE
AMOUNT CONTAMINATED
SUBSTANCE
TOTAL AREA: 2.3 ACRES
53,00 GALS. HAZARDOUS
LIQUID IN TANKS
3,200 y CONTAMINATED SOIL
TILLING AREA 40x20 FT. IN
LATERAL EXTENT
JAN. 1987 CONTAMINATED
TANK CLEANING WATER DEEP
WELL INJECTED OFFSITE @
5,823 GALS.
CHEMICALS
TANKS & SOIL:
BENZENE,
CHLOROBENZENE, ETHYL
BENZENE
CONCENTRATION
CLOSE-OUT REPORT
(see p. B-28)
TOTAL SITE: 100 ACRES PENTACHLOROPHENOL
VOLUME: ., SOIL l,100ppm
72,000 y CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER 50 ppb
SOIL
43,000,000 GALS. CREOSOTE COMPOUNDS
CONTAMINATED SOIL 15,000 ppm
GROUNDWATER GROUNDWATER 100 ppb
NOTE; 17,500 y3 SOIL PNAs
EXCAVATED FROM RESIDENTIAL SURFACE SOILS 15,000 ppm
AREA SUBSURFACE SOIL 3,500 ppm
(see pp. B-29 & B-30) GROUNDWATER UP.TO.2,440 ppm
OCTACHLORINATED
DIOXINS
SUBSURFACE SOILS
(201) 0.2 ppm
SURFACE SOILS 2.1 ppm
-------
SUMMARY
After researching files and interviewing persons familiar with
the Superfund sites involved within the project scope, it is
concluded from the information available that minimal VOCs are
being released from the Superfund sites located in the Post-1987
SIP Call Houston-Galveston nonattainment area. Other sources
contribute far more significant amounts of VOCs that in turn
affect the ozone levels. However, due to the persistent ozone
problem in the Hous ton-Galveston-Brazoria CMSA, all sources of
emissions (both major and minor) need to be quantified to
determine the universe of emissions.
The Superfund sites evolved as a result of improper disposal
practices. Industrial chemicals are a primary constituent of the
Superfund sites. Cleanup actions have to be tailored exactly to
the needs of each individual site. It is assumed that since VOCs
volatilize into the atmosphere and decrease in concentration over
a period of time, the sites have negligible emissions due to the
time factor involved. Calculations were done only for those
sites which demonstrated action between 1987 and 1990. Listed on
the following pages are the summaries for the Texas Superfund
sites within the Houston-Galveston Post-1987 SIP call
nonattainment area.
BAILEY WASTE DISPOSAL: This site accepted municipal and
industrial waste. The treatment alternative chosen for this site
addresses the environmental threat at the site by consolidating
and stabilizing the waste to prevent human contact and future
migration. A surface impoundment is also part of the Remedial
Action. The Remedial Design will be complete in 1992 with the
Remedial Action expected to take an additional 15 months.
BRIO REFINING; The process of dismantling this facility and
associated tanks for what was previously an oil refinery was
completed in December 1989. The decontamination of tanks
involves a three-step process. First, the tanks are rinsed using
an oil-penetrating detergent solution alone. Second, the tanks
are rinsed using water and an oil-penetrating detergent solution.
And finally, the tanks are rinsed with water alone. Each time
the washings are collected and properly managed. Although
emissions from the dismantling process can be calculated given
the necessary factors to plug into the equation, the amount of
VOCs released to the atmosphere are considered negligible.
Biotreatment and incineration demonstration studies are being
reviewed by EPA and once the Consent Decree is approved, the
Remedial Design will take 12 to 16 months to complete. In 1980,
a summary for Friendswood Refining Corporation estimated VOC
emissions to be 3.75 tons per year maximum. This estimate was
used in I for Brio.
16
-------
DIXIE OIL PROCESSORS; Used previously as an oil recovery
operation. Action entailed the dismantling of the process
facility and drums which were disposed of off-site in December
1989. This site is considered jointly with Brio Refining because
of their close proximity and similarity of previous refinery
activities. Thus, a proportionate estimate of VOC emissions from
this area was assumed. The amount of VOCs being released into
the atmosphere is estimated to be 1.72 tons per year (tpy).
FRENCH LIMITED; An abandoned waste pit. Implementation of the
treatment process includes in-situ biodegradation on 7.5 acres of
the site, treatment of surface water and ground water recovery
and treatment. The biodegradation process consists of aerating
the lagoon watar and sludge mixture. This is done by using a
series of air sparger pipes located in the lagoon. Compressed
air is supplied to the pipes by diesel-driven air compressors.
Supplemental mixing and agitation is required to break heavier
sludges and contaminated soil into small particles that can be
suspended in the lagoon water using a centrifugal pump and
hydraulic dredge. For the French Limited location,
concentrations of the sludges were averaged from Table 2-1 of the
final report dated September 26, 1988. It was determined from
the provided data that the average composition is 1.1% VOCs.
Public documents note that the French Limited Site consists of
77,600 cubic yards of contaminated sludges. An estimated 407
total tons of VOCs are released during cleanup activity. This
estimate does not reflect the assumption that 50% of the VOCs is
volatilize to the atmosphere while the remaining 50% is assumed
destroyed via biodegradation. Thus, it is estimated that
approximately 203 tpy will be released during the time period of
1990-1992.
GENEVA INDUSTRIES; The site is an abandoned petro-chemical
manufacturing and reprocessing facility. Prior to 1986,
approximately 62,400 tons of soil was excavated to an off-site
landfill. The Texas Water Commission will oversee the pumping
and treating of groundwater by using carbon adsorption which is
^expected to begin in 1991. The Close Out ribbon cutting occurred
August 7, 1990.
HIGHLANDS ACID PITS; Previously accepted industrial waste
sludge. 19,000 cubic yards of waste has been excavated and
transported to a permitted facility. All VOCs are assumed to
volatilize to the atmosphere during excavation. In 1987,
excavation activities released an estimated 12.6 tons of total
VOCs.
INDUSTRIAL TRANSFORMERS; An abandoned transformer reclamation
and chemical supply company. PCB and TCE contamination on-site.
Plans include the implementation of the dechlorination process to
treat the soils. Design work is expected to be complete late
1990 with construction taking one year after that. The
17
-------
implementation of the plan will take 7 months. The plans to oumo
and treat ground water using an air stripper are expected to be "
complete during the Spring 1991.
MOTCO: The site was previously used for waste disposal.
Treatment includes the use of an incinerator to destroy 64,000
cubic yards of contaminated organic liquids, soils and sludges
A^ trial burn is expected during the Fall 1990. VOC emissions for
tnis site are considered negligible since the remedial activity
occurs under an encapsulated domed facility. The contaminated
material is feed into an incinerator at a negative pressure.
Thus, any VOC emission would be pulled into a vacuum. Ground
water will be pumped and treated to remove contaminants.
NORTH CAVALCADE: An abandoned wood treating facility expected to
undergo biological treatment of soils and extraction and
treatment with carbon adsorption for the ground water. The Texas
Water Commission is preparing a design to be complete late Summer
.L j y i_ •
PETRO-CHEMICAL SYSTEMS; Previously a waste disposal for
petrochemical sludges. Excavation of road contamination removed
to on-site landfill. Due to the vapor pressure of the volatile
organics excavated from the road area, it is assumed that the
contaminants are solids at standard conditions and do not
volatilize. RI/FS to be complete in 1991 for remainder of the
site.
SHERIDAN DISPOSAL SERVICES; Previously used as a waste disposal
facility. Now expected to implement biotreatment for the soils
and sludges followed by stabilization and naturally attenuating
the groundwater. Waiting for Consent Decree.
SIKES DISPOSAL PITS; Used for chemical waste from petrochemical
companies. Treatment includes the incineration of an estimated
215,000 cubic yards of waste which is expected to begin early
1992 & be complete in 1995.
,SOUTH CAVALCADE; The site is now used by a trucking firm. It
was previously a wood treating facility. Treatment plans include
soil washing and in-situ soil flushing with groundwater to be
pumped to the surface and cleansed by carbon adsorption and
filtration. Pilot studies for the Design Phase are expected to
begin in the Summer 1991. Studies include a soil washing unit
and ground water pump test for the treatment system.
TRIANGLE CHEMICAL; Previously a chemical mixing and blending
facility. Mechanical aeration with soil tilling and testing was
done in 1987. The surface soil was excavated before a one foot
till depth was removed. Once the concentration decreased from
500 mg/kg to .05 mg/kg another layer was tilled with a rotary
tiller. This was accomplished in three passes each at a one foot
18
-------
depth. The
0.15 tons.
total VOC emission from the activity was estimated at
UNITED CREOSOTING: A wood preserving facility redeveloped into
residential and light industrial area. Once the contaminated
area is covered with temporary structures, it is proposed that
treatment occur within closed vessels to prevent human exposure
to contaminated soils, prevent air emissions and prevent
contamination of surface waters by isolating the waste.
Treatment includes a critical fluid extraction process, reburial
of treated soils and off-site incineration of organic concentrate
at a permitted facility. During the solvent extraction process,
organic contaminants are removed from the soil by solubilizing
the contaminants with a solvent fluid (liquified propane). The
process separates soil from the solvent and organic contaminants.
This results in decontaminated soil, water, and concentrated
organics as final products (Feasibility Study Amendments
Preferred Alternative Analysis September 1989). Solvent
extraction removes contaminants from the soil and concentrates
them in liquid form. The concentrated liquid can then be
incinerated for total destruction. This alternative reduces
mobility, volume, and toxicity of contaminated material. The
Remedial Design is expected to be complete in September 1990.
TABLE III. ESTIMATED VOC EMISSIONS FROM SUPERFUND SITES
SITE
BRIO REFINING, INC.
DIXIE OIL PROCESSORS
FRENCH LIMITED
HIGHLANDS ACID PITS
MOTCO, INC.
PETRO-CHEMICAL SYSTEMS,
INC.
TRIANGLE CHEMICAL CO.
ESTIMATED VOC EMISSIONS
3.75 TPY (1987-1990)
1.72 TPY (1987-1990)
203 TPY (1990)
12.6 TOTAL TONS (1987)
NEGLIGIBLE VOC EMISSIONS
NEGLIGIBLE VOC EMISSIONS
0.15 TOTAL TONS (1987)
19
-------
CONCLUSION
The estimated amount of VOC emissions from Superfund sites within
the scope of this project are determined to be 18.22 tons 1987,
decreasing to 5.47 tons per year for 1988 and 1989, with the
largest amount of estimated VOC emissions of 208.47 tons for
1990. Cleanup activity has occurred during the years which have
a larger number. Development of technology to treat, monitor and
estimate the degree of contamination of a Superfund site is
constantly improving as EPA learns more about the complexity and
uniqueness of each site. The experience and knowledge gained
from working with Superfund sites may allow the goal of RCRA to
be accomplished by avoiding the same mistakes twice.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The scope of this project was to consider the concentrations of
contaminants to estimate VOC emissions. It is my recommendation
that further studies make use of current sampling and monitoring
data. Back-calculating was rejected as an alternative for
determining VOC estimates for this project.
-------
REFERENCES
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Estimation of Air
Emissions from Abandoned Hazardous Waste Sites in the Southeast
Chicago Area. Contract NO. 68-02-4396. Work Assignment 12. May
1989.
Texas Water Commission. Texas Superfund Notebook a Briefing on
National Priority Sites in Texas. LP86-02. 3RD Edition. May
1989.
Eklund, B., D. Ranura, D. Orr, and J. Summerhays. Estimation of
VOC Emissions from Superfund Sites. EPA-90-161.6. For
presentation at the 83RD Annual Air & Waste Management
Association Meeting and Exhibition. Pittsburgh, PA. June 24-29,
1990.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Air/Superfund National
Technical Guidance Study Series. Interim Final. EPA 450/1-89-
001. July 1989.
Volume 1 - Application of Air Pathway Analyses for Superfund
Activi ties.
Volume 2 - Estimation of Baseline Air Emissions at Superfund
Sites
Volume 3 - Estimation of Air Emissions from Cleanup
Activities at Superfund Sites
Volume 4 - Procedures for Dispersion Modeling and Air
Monitoring for Superfund Air Pathway Analysis
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Hazardous Waste Treatment,
Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDF)- Air Emission Models.
EPA-450/3-87-026. December 1987.
'PEI Associates, Inc. Baseline Air Emission Sensitivities and Air
Priority Ranking of Superfund NPL Sites. EPA Draft Manual, May
1990.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Compilation of Air
Pollutant Emission Factors Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area
Sources. AP-42. Fourth Edition. September 1985.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Procedures for Conducting
Air Pathway Analysis for Superfund Activities Volume II -
Estimation of Baseline Air Emissions at Superfund Sites. Interim
Final. Revised: July 1990.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Harris County, Texas
Compliance Report. PN 3770-10. February 1988.
-------
Perry. Chilton. Kirkpatrick. Perry's Chemical Engineer's
Handbook. 4th Ed. 1963.
Marks. Mechanical Engineer's Handbook. 5th Ed. page 523.
-------
APPENDIX A
SUPPLEMENTAL DATA AND CALCULATIONS
-------
-------
Brio Refining, Inc. - The summary of emissions for Friendswood
Refinery Corporation is 3.75 tpy. Therefore:
58.1 acres —> 3.75 tpy.
Dixie Oil Processors - Since both Dixie and Brio performed
similar operations, a proportional emissions rate was assumed.
Therefore, a ratio of emissions to area was used to calculate
emissions for Dixie.
26.6 acres --> ? amount in tpy
58.1 = 3.75
26.6
X
X = 26.6(3.75) = 1.72 tpy
58.1
French Limited - An average VOC concentration was estimated by
using Table 2-1 of the Final Report dated September 26, 1988.
The average VOC content was determined to be 1.1 percent. Public
records note that 77,600 cubic yards of sludge are contaminated
and treated over a 3 year period. Finally a record of
communication states that 50% may be assumed destroyed by
biodegradation to yield the final estimate of 203 tpy.
Estimate:
0.011 X 77,600 cub.yds. X 2864#/cub.yds. X .5 = 611/tons/3 years
2000#/ton
= 203 tpy
A-l
-------
in 1980, a .u^aary of emissions for Friendsvood
Refining Corporation included:
N0x 1.3 tons/yr
S02 0.3 tons/yr
co 0.19 tons/yr
voc 3-75 tons/yr max.
Tsp value not stated
A- 2
-------
AP-42
Fourth Edition
September 1985
'0-
ASP* POLLUTANT
FACTORS
Volume S:
Stationary Point
And Ares Sources
U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
O^ice 0' Air And Radiation
Office 0' Air Quality Planning And Standards
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711
September 1985
i- 7
-------
Table 9.1-2. FUGITIVE EMISSION FACTORS FOR PETROLEUM REFINERIESa
(0.0)0 - 0.110)
"••>* (0.).' - I.
Open «Mc
rut.,..'
•«l»»t*'* 1
111
Ceopri-.tor
Pritcrit «r«ln«J
o.ouos (o.ooo;- o.oois)
o.ixis 10.oo; . u uio)
0.011 (0.007 . O.Oii)
O.;u (O.u« - O.i»)
0.00) (O.OOIk- O.OIf.)
0.0^ ({,.ul} . fl.17)
o.oooi* fo ooo:- o.oors)
o.ou.i (o.ou; - o.o:7)
o.:» (o.u . o.)7)
0.0*« • (O.OU - Oil)
fc-^ (g.:i - I..-)
l.*. of
"* "ton Hor I
«•.!». •on
jnd ail
0.11
I .'
co.»»
-------
APPENDIX C
DESIGN DETAILS
MECHANICAL AERATION FOR VOLATILE ORGANICS REMOVAL
Technical Background
Volatile organic compounds are solids or liquids which tend to
pass easily into the vapor state. Mechanical treatment, such as
air stripping, is proven technology for removal of volatile
organics from water. Air stripping technology is currently
being expanded into soil treatment through forced air injection
systems which remove volatile organics from subsurface soils.
Another innovative soil treatment method, mechanical aeration,
is a simple labor-intensive method to strip volatiles from soils
by exposing contaminated soils to the atmosphere. The technical
considerations reduce to the number of times required to till
the soils so that all particles have been exposed, and the
amount of time required to allow the organics to volatilize from
the exposed particles.
Volatilization of organics from water has been expressed as a
first-order decay with the decay constant-dependent on compound
vapor pressure, compound molecular weight, compound water solu-
bility, and atmospheric temperature. The theory can be extrapo-
lated to volatilization in solids by assuming that the volatiles
are associated with the water content of the soils formation.
If volatilization is Assumed to be a phenomena within the thin,
unit width, water bands found within soils, the mathematical
expressions for volatilization are:
where CQ . initial concentration of volatiles (mg/kg)
Ct • concentration at volatilization.time t (mg/kg)
--" K, • evaporative rate constant (min~ )
t » time (minutes) "-
j __
and ' i ' -
P_M (16.04) fK /18\ *
° TS -* \ K)
P_M (16.04) Pft /18\ * +
° TS J-° V, My/
• saturated vapor pressure
0 33 (**}
- ' ^M' -
0.33 /44\ *
\x)
(mm Hg)
where P
S » water solubility (mg/L)
M » molecular weight (gm)
T • temperature (°K)
A- 5
-------
The compounds identified at Triangle Chemical are short-chain
mainly non-halogenated, high vapor pressure organics whichTare
easily volatilized A summary of representative organics at the
ed^low- their Physic^/chemical propertied is present
COMPOUND
SATURATED
VAPOR PRESSURE
(mm Hg)
WATER
SOLUBILITY
(mg/L)
MOLECULAR
WEIGHT
(gin/mole)
Chlorobenzene
2-Methyl proponal
Ethylbenzene
Methyl Ethylketone
Representative Values
8.8
4.2
7.1
27
10
1,000
15,000
150
37
1,000
112.56
74.12
106.17
72.11
100
At
. assumed ambient temperature of 80°F
t - -10 In Ct (minutes)
Co
(3)
Required volatilization times, assuming a base level of contamin-
ation of 500 og/kg, follow from equation (3). contamin
^FINAL CLEAN-UP CRITERIA
TIME REQUIRED
(minutes)
5 mg/kg (99? removal)
0.5 mg/kg (r*.9% removal)
0.05 mg/kg (99.99% removal)
0.005 mg/kg (99.999% removal)
42
69
92
138
Theoretically, exposed contaminated soils will volatilize to
^3round levels (less than 0.1 mg/kg as per analytical labora-
tory detection limits) in a time span of 92 minutes
A- 5
-------
APPENDIX B
SUPPORTING INFORMATION FOR TABLE II
-------
-------
BAILEY WASTE DISPOSAL
TABLE 3
QUANTITIES Of HASTE, SLUOGE/TAR. HATER
AND CONTAMINATED* SOIL
Haste Disposal Area
Area Covered
Volume
Haste Type
yd
420,000 (gal.) Hater
1,900 (yd3) Tar,
sludge
Acres
1.
2.
3.
4.
Haste Channel: 44
20
1,240
1,580
East of Pond A: 21
2
12
188
945
Drum Disposal
Area
Haste PU: A-l 54
1
A-2 320
2
A- 3 300
2
,000
,000
,000
.000
,000
,200
,000
,000
,000
24
1
•)
c
4
1
i
i
j
t
4
1
\
2*
Few
,000
,700
,000
.500
.000
,500
35
(yd?)
ydj)
9*1.)
9*1.)
yd3)
yd3)
>dj)
(gal.)
(gal.j
(yd3)
(yd3)
(yd3)
(9*1)
(yd3)
(341.)
(yd3)
(g*;.)
(yd3)
(yd3)
Industrial Solids
Contaminated
Contaminated
Contaminated
Soil
water
water
23.500
4.85
Meachate)
(ground water)
Industrial solids
Municipal waste
Contaminated
Contaminated
Contaminated
Above ground
Below ground
Contaminated
soil
water
water
17.900
3.70
(leachate)
(ground water)
- solid
- solid
soil
waste 62
waste
0.01
Surface water
Sludge 5
Surface water
Sludge 5
Surface water
Sludge 5
Tar
1Contamination based on measured levels above background.
Calculated volumes of waste are expected to be accurate to approximately
±30 percent; larger variation 1s possible.
2 The volume of contaminated soil calculated 1s a minimum, since borings did not
fully penetrate to clean soils.
The volume of contaminated water (leachate) 1n the waste 1s a crude estimate based
on the calculated area of waste x average saturated depth of waste x porosity of
waste (assumed to be 0.3). 3
The volume of contaminated ground water 1n Unit A soils Is a crude minimum
estimate based on the volume of water considered to be 1n the zone surrounding
wastes plus an additional 30X because the contamination was not accurately
defined; this 1s considered to be at least 4-5 ft thick.
Volume of sludge, does not necessarily Indicate chemical contamination.
Sheet 1 of 1
B-l
-------
BAILEY WASTE DISPOSAL
TABLE 1-1
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS IN WASTE MATERIAL
SAMPLES FROM THE BAILEY DUMP
FOUND IN PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION
Maximum
..._,. . n „ Measured Concentration
Volatile Aromatic Organic Compounds (VOCs) (ppm)
Benzene 39
Chlorobenzene 0,02
1.2 dchlorobenzene 30
1,3 Dlchlorobenzene ' o.4
1,4 Dlchlorobenzene 4
Ethylbenzene 21
Toluene 7
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH)
Naphthalene 350
Acenaphthalene 60
Fluorene ., 20
Phenanthrene 250
Fluoranthene 90
Pyrene 100
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons
Chloroform 0.01
I,l-D1ch1oroethene 0.7
Hexachloroethane • 10
•Methylene chloride -. 0.1
Tetrachloroethene 26
trans l,2-D1chloroethene 28
Trlchloroethene 10
Vinyl chloride 4
H1trosam1nes
n-N1trosod1phenylamine 200
Phthalates
Dlethyl phthalate 160
d1-n-Butyl phthalate 50
d1-n-0ctyl phthalate 110
Phenols
Phenol 140
2-Chlorophenol 10
2,4-D1chlorophenol 40
2,4-D1methylphenol 30
2.4,6-Tr1chlorophenol 10
Pentachlorophenol 90
Source: Espey-Huston & Associates. Inc. (1982)
Sheet 1 of 1
B-2
-------
BRIO REFINING
TABLE 4
ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF AFFECTED MATERIALS AND SOILS
REQUIRING TREATMENT
AT THE BRIO REFINING SITE
Pit
Location
B
E
H/V
J
Q
R
Volume (cu.yd.)
6,319
7,870
15,020
11 ,636
16,889
5.022
Pit
Location
F
G
I
K
L
M
Total 62,756
Surface Contamination - 0 - 50,000 cu. yd.
Volume (cu.vd.)
3,918
3,759
10,415
4,478
3,176
2.333
24,320
Contaminated Liquids
Liquids in Tanks 104,225 gals.
Denser than water
non-aqueous phase liquid
Total
66 ,000 gals.
170,225 gals.
Drums
Generated during Remedial Investigation 1,674
Generated by Past Operators 34
Generated by Pilot Studies 12
Total 1,757
B-3
-------
BRIO REFINING
TABLE 3-36
INVENTORY OF BRIO SITE VESSELS
TANK NUMBER
333
332
303
B721
S-4
S-5
401
402
S-8
S-9
S-11
N-8
104
N-6 (100)
552
451
..-•651
551
LEVEL
1/2'
About 4"
Empty
Empty
Full
6" (Approx.)
4'
Empty
Less Than 4"
Empty
Empty
20? Full
Less than 21
18"
Empty
Empty
Empty
Empty
CONTENTS
Gas-Oil
Gas-Oil
Lots of Rust in Bottom
Water
Sytrene Tar (Solid)
H20 From API
Diesel
Diesel and Water
Fuel Tank (Gasoline)
Slop Oil
Slops
H20
Dry (Naptha)
Diesel
Dry (Naptha)
Diesel
VOLUME
1200 Gallons
550 Gallons
0
0
-
37,584 Gallons
0
195 Gallons
0
0
2,800 Gallons
7,300 Gallons
4,000 Gallons
0
0
0
0
B-4
-------
BRIO REFIMII1G
TANK NUMBER
501
231
232
502
S-6
206
207
208
201
302
S-1
S-2
S-3
Sample Slop Tank
V-101
V-133
601
LEVEL
Empty
Less Than 1J
Less Than ^%
Empty
20% (Approx. )
7' 5"
3.5"
IT
Boot is Full
Empty
85 %
Full
Styrene
Full
Unknown
Unknown
Empty
TABLE 3-36
(Continued)
CONTENTS
Clean - Rusty Bottom
Tar Type Mat'l on Floor
Tar Type Mat'l on Floor
Clean - Rust & Sand on
Floor
Loading Rack Spills
Caustic (Spent) * JP-4
Caustic and Water
Caustic
JP-4 and Water
Sytrene Bottoms
Sytrene Centrifuge
Bottoms
Styrene Centrifuge
Bottoms
Unknown
Crude Oil/Water
Unknown
Raffinate
VOLUME
0
100 Gallons
100 Gallons
0
7,100 Gallons
(EPA)
4,325 Gallons
1,992 Gallons
195 Gallons
40 Gallons
0
28,000 Gallons
31,800 (EPA)
3,569 (EPA)
60 Gallons
0
602
Empty
Raffinate
B-5
-------
BRIO REFINING
TABLE 3-36
(Continued)
TANK NUMBER LEVEL
BT15 15%
CONTENTS
Oily, Viscous
VOLUME
25,000
Green Tank
155
N-1
N-2
N-3
N-5
N-7
Empty
18"
1-2*
1-2*
1-2*
1-2*
1-2*
75*
Dry
Water with thin layer
of Crude Oil
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
1,125 Gallons
2,000 Gallons
Water from well (in use) N/A
TOTAL
200,035 Gallons
B-6
-------
BRIO REFINING
TABLE 2-1
SUMMARY OF ORGANIC AND INORGANIC COMPOUND
FOUND AT THE BRIO REFINING/DIXIE OIL PROCESSORS SITE
(Page 1 of 4)
DETECTED
CONSTITUENT
Acenapthylene
Antimony
Benzene
Benzo(A)Anthracene
Benzo(A)Pyrene
Benzo(B)Fluoranthene
Benzo(G,H,I)Perylene
Benzo(K)Fluoranthene
CHEMICAL
CLASS
Base/Neutral
Inorganic
Volatile
PNA
PNA
PNA
PNA
PNA
Bis(2-Chloroethyl)Ether Base/Neutral
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)
Phthalate
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Chromium*^
Base/Neutral
Volatile
Volatile
Volatile
Inorganic
MEDIA
Mud Gully Sediment
Surface Soil
Pit
MAX. OBSERVED
CONC. (PPM)
30
0.1
Pits
Numerous Sand Channel
Zone (NSCZ) Wells
Wastewater Treatment
System (WTTS)
Mud Gully Sediment
WWTS
Mud Gully Sediment
WWTS
Mud Gully Sediment
WTTS
WTTS
Mud Gully Sediment
Pits
NSCZ Wells
Runoff to Mud Gully
Fifty-Foot Sand Well
NSCZ Well
Surface Soil
NSCZ Well
NSCZ Wells
Pits
Surface Soil
NSCZ Wells
Fifty-Foot Sand Well
Runoff to Mud Gully
Pits
WWTS
Mud Gully Sediment
600
242
257
16
8
3
3
11
6
4
11
3,040
3,170
45
0.01
293
11
171
3650
1150
1.12
3,580
0.1
0.004
860
94
39
B-7
-------
BRIO REFINING
TABLE 2-1 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF ORGANIC AND INORGANIC COMPOUND
FOUND AT THE BRIO REFINING/DIXIE-OIL PROCESSORS SITE
(Page 2 of M
DETECTED
CONSTITUENTS
Chrysene
Copper
Di-n-Butyl Phthalate
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
r'~1,1-Dichloroethylene
1,2 Dichloroethylene
(Trans)
(Dichloromethane)
Methylene Chloride
CHEMICAL
CLASS
PNA
Inorganic
Dibenzo(A,H)Anthracene PNA
Base/Neutral
Base/Neutral
Base/Neutral
Base/Neutral
Volatile
Volatile
Volatile
Volatile
Volatile
MEDIA
WWTS
Mud Gully Sediment
Pits
WWTS
Mud Gully Sediment
Runoff to Mud Gully
NSCZ Wells
MAX. OBSERVED
CONC. (PPM)
85
171
98,900
1763
10,215
14
110 •
WWTS 5
Mud Gully Sediment 11
Runnoff to Mud Gully 10
NSCZ Wells 182
NSCZ Wells 742
NSCZ Wells 235
NSCZ Wells 3,380
Run-Off 0.001
Pits 245,000
Subsoils 515
NSCZ Wells 39,000
Runoff to Mud Gully 26
Fifty-Foot Sand Wells 0.6
NSCZ Wells 140
Fifty-Foot Sand Wells 0.2
Pits 1570
Surface Soil 25.9
Runoff to Mud Gully 0.02
NSCZ Wells 8,820
Pits 909
Subsoils 58
Surface Soils 55
NSCZ Wells 110
Runoff to Mud Gully 11
Fifty-Food Sand Wells 0.01
B-8
-------
BRIO REFINING
TABLE 2-1 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF ORGANIC AND INORGANIC COMPOUNDS
FOUND AT THE BRIO/DIXIE OIL PROCESSORS SITE
(Page 3 of 4)
DETECTED
CONSTITUENT
Ethylbenzene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachloroethane
Indeno(1,2,3-CD)
Pyrene
Lead
Napthalene
Nickel
Phenanthrene
Selenium
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
CHEMICAL
CLASS
Volatile
Base/Neutral
t
Base/Neutral
V
Volatile
Base/Neutral
Base /Neutral
PNA
Inorganic
Base/Neutral
Inorganic
Base/Neutral
Inorganic
Volatile
Volatile
MAX. OBSERVED
MEDIA CONC. (PPM)
Pits
NSCZ Wells
Surface Soil
Pits
NSCZ Wells
WWTS
Mud Gully Sediment
Surface Soil
NSCZ Wells
WWTS
Mud Gully Sediment
Pits
Surface Soil
Pit BB
Pit EE
NSCZ Wells
NSCZ Wells
WWTS
Mud Gully Sediment
Pits
NSCZ Wells
NSCZ Wells
WWTS
Pits
Surface Soil
Pits
Pits
NSCZ Wells
WWTS
Mud Gully Sediments
Surface Soil
Pits
NSCZ Wells
NSCZ Wells
Surface Soil
3370
4750
146
988
148
206
159
124
428
35
7.5
50.4
19.8
5.0
674
44
27
2
3
1,320
0.1
1850
27
110
61.5
179
6670
8880
25
3
1340
51
777
1,580
0.1
B-9
-------
BPxIO REFINING
TABLE 2-1 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF DETECTED ORGANIC AND INORGANIC COMPOUNDS
FOUND AT THE BRIO/DIXIE OIL PROCESSORS SITE
(Page 4 of 4)
DETECTED
CONSTITUENT
Toluene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Tr ichloroethane
CHEMICAL
CLASS
Volatile
Volatile
Volatile
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Volatile
Volatile
MEDIA
Surface Soil
NSCZ Wells
Pit3
NSCZ Well
MAX. OBSERVED
CONC. (PPM)
110
437
69.9
166
Pits 166,000
Sub Pits 918
NSCZ Wells 48,700
Runoff to Mud Gully 0.1
Surface Soil 6.4
Fifty-Foot Sand Well 0.6
Surface Soil 2.1
NSCZ Wells 2,760
Fifty-Foot Sand Well 0.03
Pits 22,700
NSCZ Wells 8,400
Fifty-Foot Sand Well 0.3
Surface Soil 6.8
Runoff to Mud Cully 0.1
B-10
-------
DIXIE OIL PROCESSORS
g
1/3 §
W PH
$
i j
I s
! s
1
•3
3
•H
•H r-i
O &&
•S
I!
o
S*f $14.44411544441 R^ftlf-i
sfHllffPllflP flfllft
M W
ooo
o o o
^r in CTI
CN
CO
W W M W
0000
O CO O CO
co i-» in CM
V_' • ' ^T> r-l ID r-f
W W 175 W S W
o o o o o
<•> «N O 0\ rH
CO C\ O in CO
o o o o
O O rH O
O O rH O
vo vo
o
CM
W
o
CO
o
CM
00
I
n
a
(0
SS
a
IS
3u
£
3
t^ in in vo
<»5 o o in
rH CO CO O
o o
•HCDCO'
in 01 o\
fc » ».
rH in [^ m r^ r^
C*> rH OJ rH CN (N
<•"> eo o in vo
en CN o CNI o
VO rH VO r-I 0
CO
CO
-------
Medium/Area
FRENCH LIMITED
TABLE 1
APPROXIMATE WASTE VOLUMES
FRENCH LIMITED SITE
Sludges/Sediments
(Cu. Yds.)
Main Waste Pit
South Slough
Totals
Contaminated Soils
(Cu. Yds.)
Main Waste Pit
(Subgrade 6 Dike)
West Area
South Slough Area
North Area
Totals
Contanuned Surface Water
(million gallons)
Main Waste Pit
South Slough
..-•Total
Waste Volumes
In Situ
Non-PCB]
59,800
2,300
62,100
73,000
2,000
2,300
300
77,600
1,900
1,900
26.0
1. Sludge/sediments in this colunn contain less than 50 pptn PCS.
2. Sludge/sediments in this column contain greater than 50 pan PCS.
Contaminated soils in this column greater than 50 pan PCB. Note:
While the quantity of sludge/sediments containing >50 pan PCS carTbe
estimated, it is not practical/possible to separate the PCS material
from the remaining sludge/sediments. Therefore, for the purpose of this
report, all of the sludge/sediments will be considered PCS
sludge/sedinents.
B-12
-------
15
The groundwater in the upper sand at the site is contaminated and
is discharging into the Grennel Slough, Clear Lake, and the sandpits.
However, given the dynamics of the surface water system, the presence
of the waste constituents in the surface water system were not detected
above what was determined to be background. The only exception to the
above is the sandpits northeast of the site, where elevated concentra-
tions of sulfate and total dissolved solids may be due to discharge of
contaminated groundwater. These elevated readings may also be caused
by surface runoff. However, hazardous constituents were not detected
in the sandpits.
The major contaminants present in the soil/waste and the groundwater at
Highlands Acid Pit are summarized in Table 3. Each contaminant is
presented with the range of concentrations, as well as an average
concentration, found during site investigative work. An estimated
weight of each soil/waste contaminants is also presented.
TABLE 3
SUMMARY OF SELECTED SITE CONTAMINANTS
Contaminant
Groundwater
Range* Average*
Soil/Waste
Range** *»«•
Lead
Manganese
Chromium
^-Beryllium
Benzene
Toluene
Xyl ene
* Units -
** Units -
<0.01 -
0.015 -
0.005 -
-
1 - 80
0.005 -
33.5 -
mg/1
mg/kg
0.82
39.4
0.772
.6
0.202
417
0.19
14.5
0.354
-
29.3
0.048
216
<0.5
0.5
0.5
6 -
<2.5
<2.5
-
- 185
- 112
- 1.2
24
- 822
- 21.2
49.2
15.7
0.7
11.0
454
13.5
23.6
1.2
0.4
0.02
0.3
11
0.3
0.6
*** Based on estimated 25,000 tons of contaminated soil/waste (19,000 yd3
of soil/waste with estimated density of 100 pcf).
-------
-------
HIGHLANDS ACID PITS
TABLE 3
SUMMARY OF SELECTED SITE CONTAMINANTS
Contaminant Groundwater
Range* Average*
Lead
Manganese
Chromium
Beryllium
Benzene
Toluene
Xyl ene
<0.01 -
0.015 -
0.005 -
-
1 - 80
0.005 -
33.5 -
0.82
39.4
0.772
.6
0.202
417
0.19
14.5
0.354
-
29.3
0.048
216
Soil /Waste
Range** Average**
<0.5
0.5
0.5
6
<2.5
<2.5
_
- 185
- 112
- 1.2
- 24
- 822
- 21.2
49.2
15.7
0.7
11.0
454
13.5
23.6
Tons***
1.2
0.4
0.02
0.3
11
0.3
0.6
* Units - mg/1
** Units - mg/kg
*** Based on estimated 25,000 tons of contaminated soil/waste (19,000
of soil/waste with estimated density of 100 pcf).
B-13
-------
Table 1-1. Onsite Waste Media Summary--MOTCO Site—Source Control
Media
Pit Surface Water
Organic Liquids
Pits 1-6
Pits 7, 7N
Sludges, Tars, and Solids
g., Pits 5 & diked area sludges
£ Pits 1-4, 6, 7, 7N
Contaminated Soils
Miscellaneous Debris
Buried Metals
Estimated Quantity
15 mil1 ion ga1.
5 million gal,
2 million gal.
2»100 cu.yd.
15,900 cu.yd.
45,000 cu.yd.
1,000 cu.yd.
500 cu.yd.
Brief Description
Acidic, contains metals and organics.
>50 ppm PCB, high fuel value.
<50 ppm PCB, medium fuel value.
Very low fuel' value,- high content of moisture
and iilorganics, with some organics.
Medium fuel value, varying moisture content,
high organics and metals.
Clayey and sandy/clay soils with oil/tar/
chlorinated organic and metals contamination,
Plastic extrusions, beads, flakes; concrete,
tires, empty drums.
Abandoned gas station area (storage tanks) and
other identified areas.
O
H
O
O
-------
HOTCO
PH, S.U.
Conductivity, umhos/cm
Y> PPt
TOC
Total Phenolics
Aluminum
Arsenic
Chromium
Copper
Cyanides
Iron
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Sodium
Calcium
Magnesium
Chloroform
J»1-dichloroethane
1,2-dichloroethane
1,1,2-trichloroethane
Vinyl Chloride
Methylene Chloride
Diphenyl acetamide
Bis- (2-chloroethyl)ether
2
2300
1.2
30
40
Trace
10
Trace
Trace
Trace
10
Trace
Trace
0.3
100
30
10
Present
Present
0
0
5
1
0,
0,
1.
4
4700
3.2
150
250
42
130
0.45
2.42
12,0
40
4.3
0.22
1.84
300
100
50
.065
.310
,400
,900
.430
350
100
0.112
B-15
-------
MOTCO
Table 1-3. Pit Waste Character
Parameter
Viscosity, cps
Heat Value, Btu/lb
Ash, wt %
Total Sulfur, wt \
Moisture, wt %
Flash Point, *F
Halogens, wt %
Molecular wt. (no. avg.)
Carbon, wt %
Hydrogen, wt %
Nitrogen, wt %
Phosphorus, wt %
Specific Gravity
pH, S.U.
Inorganics, mgAo Hazard
Aluminum
Antimony T,C
Arsenic T,C
Barium T,I
Boron T,I
Cadmium T,C,N
Calcium
Chromium T,C,N
Cobalt T,I
Copper C.M.I
Iron
Lead . T,C,TE
Lithium ,' R,TE
Magnesiujn
Mercury T,N,I
Molybdenum --
Nickel i,c (airborne)
Platinum I
Potassium
Silicon I (airborne)
Sodium
Strontium
- Selected Parameters
Organic Liquids
•^™— .»— «^
Minimum Maximum
20 4
4000 16
0.2
0.0
• 0.04
<60 (immediate)
0.50
270
30
- 6
0.05
0.0
1.0
1.0
2.0 5
ND
NT)
ND
• ND
ND
20
ND
ND
3-. 0
40
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
10
30 1
ND
,000
,200
10
6
>40
>180
18
340
83
10
2.3
2.3
1.15
4.0
,000
3.0
3.0
10.0
5.0
920
800
100
10
500
400
500
1.0
220
5.0
5.0
15.0
1.0
500
30
,350
10
Tars/Sludge
Maximum
40,000
12,000
>30
w w
>60
>180
2 0
A • W
N/A
30
N/A
N/A
<0.2
1.3
N/A
12,000
30
200
20
920
8,000
550
10
45,000
>6,000
46,000
55
2,000
— _
30
150
6.0
4,000
320
2,500
20
B-16
-------
MOTCO
Table 1-3 Cont'd. Pit Waste Character - Selected Parameters
Inorganics, mg/kg
(cont'd)
Tin
Titanium
Vanadium I,T
Zinc T,C
Zirconium T
Hazard
.._
--
(compounds)
(salts)
(compounds)
Organic
Minimum
ND
ND
ND
1.0
ND
*
Liquids
Maximum
20
50
5.0
30
3.0
Tars/Sludge
Maximum
600
200
22
750
35
NOTES:
1.
2.
Summary includes all available prior data.
wide variation between pits, and between strata in each pit;
some rounding was pe'rfonned.
KD - Not detected.
N/A - Not applicable.
- Not available.
Hazard: [33-35]
R
T
C
M
N
TE
I
Reactive
Toxic
Known or
Known or
JCnowr, or
Known or
Irritant
suspected carcinogen
suspected mutagen
suspected neoplastic
suspected teratogen
B-17
-------
riOTCO
Table 1-4. Pit Wastes - Primary Organic Constituents
Volatiles
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Chloroform
1 , 1-dichloroethane
1 , 2-dichloroethane
1,1, 2-trichloroethane
1,1, 1-trichloroethane
1,1,2, 2-tetrachloroethane
1 , 1-dichloroethylene
1 ,2-trans-dichloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Methylene Chloride
Toluene
Vinyl Chloride
1 , 2-dichlorcpropane
1 , 3-dichloropropylene
Tetrachloroethylene
2-Chloropropane
Methyl Ethenyl Benzene
Hexane
Xylene
Pesticide/PCE
PCB (Total)
Dieldrin
Extractables
Bis (2-chloroethyl ether) '
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl ether
Napthalene
Acenapthalene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo (a) anthracene
Pentachlorophenol
2-methyl napthalene
Biphenyl
Hazard
I,C,T
• *
C,'T
I,T,TE
• I,C,T,M,TE
I,T,C
* .I,T'C
I,T
I,T,C
I,T,C
I,T'C
I , T
T
I,T,C
-NHD
-NHD
-NHD
I,T
*
I,T,C,N
N,C
T,C
) T,C,M
I ,T
T
-NHD
T,C,N
C (impurities)
T,N
I ,C
C,N
T,N
T
I,N
Range (mq/kq)
ND-5 .440
*»±*' ^ f T "i \j
ND-400
• ' W T V W
ND-6 000
• ^4*' W f V W W
ND-800
ND-3,200
, 38-41,500
ND-6 1,000
ND-220
ND-4 , 000
ND-10, 000
ND-11,200
ND-400
ND-90
ND-3,200
ND-7,600
ND-300
ND-200
ND-900
ND-25,700
ND-16,000
ND-1,800
ND-3,000
ND-100
ND-17
ND-3,900
ND-500
ND-36,000
ND-6, 000
ND-4, 500
ND-7,200
ND-8,430
ND-1,300
ND-3,000
ND-3,000
ND-670
ND-4, 000
ND-5, 000
B-18
-------
MOTCO
Table l-« confd. Pit w.,te. . Prin,ary
Extr.ct.bUs .conr-d! a Range ,ma/ko,
Styrene , _
Methyl napthalene _ij£ ND-22,000
Phenyl napthalene .NHD
Propylene benzene .^D
Ethenylidene Bis benzene -NHD
n-Nitroso diphenylamine T,C,N
Notes: i. ND - Not Detected.
2. Hazard: [33-36]
-NHD - No Hazard Data
I - Irritant
T - Toxic
C - Known or suspected carcinogen
K - Known or suspected mutagen
N - Known or suspected neoplastic
it- - Known or suspected teratogen
B-19
-------
NORTH CAVALCADE
TABLE 1
SOIL CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS
Number of Detections (••
Above Below
feet
0
o
o
0
0
0
Contaminant
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Zinc
Benzene
Toleune
Xylenes
Pentachlorophenoi
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Ideno(1.2,3-cd)pyrene
Total PAHs
Total Carcinogenic PAHs
(1) 102 borings above 10 feet, 65 borings below 10 feet
units of parts per million (ppm)
(3) nd = jot detected above background concentration,
Background = the 95th percentile of borings in the
northern part of the site and off-site
beyond the extent of the contaminant plume.
(4)
na = not analyzed
i - interferences invalidate the data
16
7
19
18
12
13
12
7
4
0
0
2
3
4
1
4
27
7
0
18
19
3
14
16
14
13
14
10
9
8
8
7
2
Maximum Cone ent rat i on( 2)
Above
Ifi feet
nd(3>
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
na<4>
na
na
• (5 )
1 \ 3 1
na
4,503
38
na
na
2,060
na
830
na
95
112
201
na
34
88
5,563
407
Below
10. feet;
nd
nd
70
41
27
132
<1
1
2
«•>
nd
400
9,187
na
370
240
3,583
120
1,475
180
57
75
142
0.6
18
7
14,394
299
B-20
-------
NORTH CAVALCADE
TABLE 2
GROUNDWATER CONTAMINANT-CONCENTRATIONS
Con tain in ant
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Zinc
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Xylenes
Pentachlorophenol
Number of
Detections
1
0
0
0
0
0
4
2
3
3
0
Maximum
Concentration ^ ^ '
2-Methylnaphthalene 2
Dibenzofuran 3
Naphthalene 4
Acenaphthylene 4
Acenaphthene 6
Fluorene 4
Phenanthrene 3
Anthracene 3
Fluoranthene 3
Pyrene 4
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0
Benzo(a)anthracene 2
Chrysene 2
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 2
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 2
Benzo(a)pyrene 2
Idenod , 2 ,3-cd)pyrene 0
^Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0
Total PAHs
Total Carcinogenic PAHs
nd
nd
nd
nd
79
79
620
280
nd
14,000
8,900
39,000
460
18,000
14,000
32,000
5,000
16,000
7,300
nd
2,300
2,000
2,000
730
560
nd
nd
147,800
4,960
Federal and
State Standards(3
50
10
50
1000
50
5000
5
680
2000
440
220
0.03
(1>
18 total wells
units of micrograms per liter (ug/1)
lowest of final and proposed di inking water and ambient water
quality standards (10~D risk level), units of ug/1
nd =
not detected above background concentration,
Background = the 95th percentile of groundwater in the
northern part of the site and off-site
beyond the extent of the contaminant plume
B-21
-------
SIKES DISPOSAL PITS
Table 1 Approximate Waste Volumes at the Sikes Disposal Pits Site
July 1985
Medium/Area ( Volume
I. Wastes
2<600
c 43,300
Suspected 16t7on
Total 68,500 C.Y.
II. Contaminated Soils
Main Waste Pit ' ?1 ^00
Sludge Overflow Area 58*300
Total 79,300 C.Y
III. Contaminated Sediment
Tank Lake 2,000
Slough
Tota1 2,300 C.Y.
IV. Contaminated Surface Water
Main Waste Pit 4,700,000
Small Waste Pits • 417 0QO
Tank Lake 7.0711000
Slough ' 412,200
Total 12,600,000 Gal.
Note: Volume totals have been rounded to the nearest 100 cubic yards
and the nearest 1000 gallons. For complete volume calculations
• see Appendices M, N, 0, and P.
B-22
-------
SIKES DISPOSAL PITS
PARAMETER
Benzene
1,2-Dichloro-
ethane
1,2,-Trichloro-
ethane
Toluene
Ethyl benzene
Napthalene
Fluorene
Pyrene
Lead
TABLE 2
CONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS
SOILS
•—' » i—i
Concentration, PPB
320,000
1,000,000
500,000
93,000
100,000
1,200,000
290,000
590,000
370,000
SLUDGES AT THE SIKES
SLUDGES
Concentration, PPB
400,000
1,400,000
290,000
48,000
52,000
78.300.00U
1,600.000
3,300,000
4.150,000
B-23
-------
SIKES DISPOSAL PITS
Table 3 Summary of Maximum Contaminant Concentrations at Sikes
Disposal Pits and Human Health Criteria (All Units in
ug/1 or ppb)
Parameters
Human
Health
Criterion1
Highest Observed
Levels
Ground Surface
Wa t e r Water
Conventional Analysis
Phenols, Total
Metals
Beryl 1ium
Cadmium
Chromiun
Mercury
Nickel
Lead
Thai 1ium
GC/MS Volatiles
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
1,2-Dkhloroethane
T-l, 3-Dichloropropene
Ethylbenzene
1,12,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Toluene
Vinyl Chloride
GC/MS Base/Neutral
Acenaphthene
AcenaphViylene
Anthracene
Benzo(A)anthracene
Benzo(B)fluoranthene
Benzo(A)pyrene
Bis(2-ethy1hexyl)phtha1ate
Chrysene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
Di-N-butylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Naphthalene
Phenanthene
Pyrene
PCBs
3,500
•0.037
10
50
0.144
13.4
50
13
6.6
488
1.9
9.4
87
,400
1.7
6.0
23
14,300
20
1,
20. Ol
0.028
0.028
0.028
0.028
0.028
15,000
0.023
400
400
34,000
42
0.028
0.028
0.00079
15,000
15
770
44
0.4
18
46
93
10,000
390
290
2,200
9
1,700
5
390
44
4,300
400
23
68.0
190
6
6
6
5900
!3
9
3
2
91
2
6
5
2
2
3
3
2
37
2
2
290
190
-------
SOUTH CAVALCADE
TAILI 1
SOU COHCI»TIATIO»I(1 '
Mil.ii. Cancantratlan
Artanf e
Chra.U
C.pp.r
t—
Zinc
Acanaphthana
Anthraeana
•anzo(a)anthraeana
•anxa(a)pyrana
•anze(blk)f luarantdana
• ansad.h.f )pyrana
Dibanza(a,h)antkracana
Mucr.nth.n.
Muerana
ldana(1,2,5-c«)pyrana
2-Mathylnaphthalana
•aphthalana
•hananthrana
440
SaO
CarefnetanJe »Als
210
2*0
TT
Jlo
na
1>400
4a0
nd
«a
a;0
2,100
1,200
t.5a7
1,150
250
,ro
{40
r»0
1,»00
«40
210
j.820
230
»"0.000
•>$00-000
*20.000
000,000
unltt af
unites atkarwiaa noted
• a»td an risk eateulatiant for coMerefal aipotura
aqual to tkt rafaranea doaa ar 10** cancar riak
na • tiat analyzed; nd • itvt datactad
B-25
-------
SOUTH CAVALCADE
TAIL! 2
6IOUIDUATEI COMCEIITIATIOIS(1
Cer.t
nant
AraanU
Chreaiua
Ceppar
•tnstn*
Cthylb*nz«nc
Telytn*
Iyl«n«»
Actnaph thy I tnt
Aein*phth*n*
Anthracan*
tanze(a )anthracana
•tnzeCa )pyrant
• anie(-a>ik)f I uoranthana
• anze( t ,h. I )pyrana
Chryaana
0 < banzaC a , k )ant tir acana
rtuarantkana
Muorana
ldana( 1 , 2 ,3- ed )py rtn«
2-Hataylnaphthalana
•aphtkatana
Phanantbrana
•yrana
Tetal »Aia
Carcinaganic »Alit
fadaral
HazfMua tnd Stata
Cane
1
1
1
1
2.400
S50
500
1
1
2.400
i.too
1.300
7.100
4.900
1,900
21,950
SOO
tntratlen HiPdtrdl
iSO SO
.3*0 1.000
240 SO
,1*0 5.000
930 S
*70 410
,000 2,000
.100 440
410
.000
,000
.000
570
.200
100
.400
nd
,000
,000
nd
.000
.000
.000
,000
,000
.000 0.003
• AT
Monthly
0 1 aeharia
L i • 1 t i '
1.110
1.450
320
1.050
57
142
21
19
19
19
19
20
19
19
22
19
19
19
20
wnfts ef B)ieretraaj» par Mtar
* *
1
(4)
final and prapaiad primary and aaeandary drinking vatar
•tandarda aicapt far 10* rfak (aval far eare < naitn i e »Ai>
kaaad an arfanfc ehaaiieal. plaatfea, and ayntaatie ftbara
affluant fyidalinaa far pbya ica l/ckaa>( ca I traataant
nd • nat dataetad
•OTE: All PANa aieaad tht aalubility canatraint;
data then* praaanea af nan-aquaoua pbaaa Uquid
R-26
-------
SOUTH CAVALCADE
TAIlf 3
SUIFACE WATCI AID SEDIMUT CO!CE«TIATI 01S(1
Oralnafa Dratnata Aquatic
Olteh Ofteh Vatar
CpntaaHnant Hatar ladtnantt ttandirdi*
AratnU S* 50 3*0
Chraaiu* nd(3) 3*0 1.450
Capptr 17 |f 21
laad 30 540 139
Z 236
Carcinaianic »AMi nd 170
unanta. alerairaaia/l far «atar
} kaaad an Taiaa «atar quality atandarda far acuta taxieity,
• nd fadaral aaibiant erltarla far taaaa cantailnantt far
Mbicb tbara ara na atata atandarda
na • nat analysad; nd • net datactad
B-27
-------
TRIANGLE CHEMICAL COMPANY
TABLE 1-1
•
RESULTS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
SURFICIAL SOIL CONTAMINATION
TRIANGLE CHEMICAL SITE
COMPOUND DETECTED CONCENTRATION RANGE
Phenols <0.005 - 0.233
Priority Pollutant Base Neutrals
Di-n-Butyl Phthalate <10 - 23
Priority Pollutant
Chlorobenzene <0 1 - 0 62
1,2-trans Dichloroethylene C, Cg
-------
DO
I
POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC \
HYDROCARBON COMPOUNDS V
(PAHs)
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthalene
Anthracene
t Benzo(A)Anthracene
t Benzo(A)Pyrene
t Benzo(B)Fluoranthene
t Benzo(G,H,I)Perylene
t Benzo(K)Fluoranthene
t Chrysene
t Dibenzo(A,H)Anthracene
Dibenzofuran
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno(l,2,3-CD)Pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
T Carcinogenic Compounds
MAXIMUM
Former
Ponds
860 [5]
15[cp]
L. *•" r -I
280 [2]
180 [2]
3.6 [4]°
51[cp]
L r -J
No Detect
6.4 [3]
130 [2]
370[cp]
i_ f .j
930 [5]
980 [5]
1,100 [5]
19[cp]
1,200 [5]
7,400 [5]
1,600 [5]
• • _
CONCENTRATIONS (mg/kg)
Commercial
Area
300 [10]
240 [5]
29# [5]
6.3 [s]
5 [s]
27*|[s]
29* [s]
330 [5]
280 [5]
370 [5]
570 [10]
940 [5]
430 [5]
Residential
Area
2,600 [s]
8 or ^ ~\
.9[cp]
970 [s]
2,000#[s]
650 [s]
f\f- f\r "1
268[cpJ
84 [s]
l,700*J[s]
2,000#[s]
"TO A r T
724[cp]
15 [3]
700 [s]
No Detect
T ~i f r ~t
376[cp]
11 [3]°
970 [s]
2,800 [s]
•J - - - - - f- — —
The Only Detection for the area given.
I The concentration given represents the total of more than one rnnfam^nf , « -, L
compound represented by M is 3,4 Benzofluoranthene contaminant as flagged; the other
5!:?/!^!!?J!d.!!!.r!e!:,:s".re?re5e.nts surficial soils less than fi lnrhM ,
H
PI
n
po
rn
o
CO
o
H
o
o
on f h a n
-------
03
I
U)
O
T A B L E \
OTHER ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
OF CONCERN
Pentachlorophenol (mg/kg)
tClorinated Dioxins
Tetra-, total fl
•
Penta-, total
Hexa- , total
Hepta-, total
Octa- , total
tClorinated Furans
Tetra-, total
Penta-, total
Hexa- , total
Hepta-, total
Octa- , total
C 0 N T A M I
MAX
Former
Ponds
1,100 [5]
5.34 [4]°
2.1 [2]
2.8 [4]
48 [4]
240 [5]
No Detect
No Detect
5.1 [5]
37 [4]
33 [5]
t Carcinogenic Compounds: only the 2,3,7,8-disubstituted
flANTS IN SOI
IMUM CONCENTRATIONS (ug/kg)
Commercial
Area
710 [15]
No Detect
No Detect
4.1 [s]
180 [s]
520 [s]
No Detect
No Detect
6.6 [15]
41 [s]
37 [15,s]
isomers of dioxin and furan
L
Residential
Area
150 [s]
0.36 [s]
7.3 [s]
27 [3]
720 [s]
6,000 [s]
No Detect
No Detect
140 [s]
890 [s]
1,500 [s]
•
The Only Detection for the area given.
1 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin was analyzed for, but was not detected on the site.
[ ] Depth of Concentration Represented in feet; V represents surficial soils less than 6 inches in depth.
t—t
H
rn
o
n
x)
M
O
CO
o
H
O
O
-------
APPENDIX
MAPS
-------
-------
NNEMS PROJECT
SUPERFUND SITES
SITE: TEXAS
LOCATION
BAILEY WASTE DISPOSAL
BRIO REFINING, INC.
CRYSTAL CHEMICAL CO.*
DIXIE OIL PROCESSORS
FRENCH LIMITED
GENEVA INDUSTRIES
HARRIS /FARLEY STREET*
HIGHLANDS ACID PITS
INDUSTRIAL TRANSFORMERS/
SOL LYNN
MOTCO, INC./TEXAS CITY WYE
NORTH CAVALCADE STREET
PETRO-CHEMICAL SYSTEMS, INC.
RIO GRANDE OIL CO. REFINERY*
SHERIDAN DISPOSAL SERVICES
SIKES DISPOSAL PITS
SOUTH CAVALCADE STREET
TEX-TIN CORPORATION*
TRIANGLE CHEMICAL CO.
UNITED CREOSOTING CO.
BRIDGE CITY, ORANGE COUNTY, TEXAS
FRIENDSWOOD, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
HOUSTON, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
HOUSTON, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
HOUSTON, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
HIGHLANDS, HAPJRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
HOUSTON, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
LAMARQUE, GALVESTON COUNTY, TEXAS
HOUSTON, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
LIBERTY COUNTY, TEXAS
SOUR LAKE, HARDIN COUNTY, TEXAS
HEMPSTEAD, WALLER COUNTY, TEXAS
CROSBY, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
HOUSTON, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
TEXAS CITY, GALVESTON COUNTY,TEXAS
BRIDGE CITY, ORANGE COUNTY, TEXAS
CONROE, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, TEXAS
SITE; LOUISIANA
LOCATION
,.-BAYOU BONFOUCA*
BAYOU SORREL*
CLEVE REBER*
COMBUSTION*
D.L. MUD*
DUTCHTOWN*
GULF COAST VACUUM*
OLD INGER*
PAB OIL AND CHEMICAL
SERVICE, INC.*
PETRO PROCESSORS
OF LOUISIANA, INC.*
SLIDELL, ST.TAMMANY PARISH, LA
BAYOU SORREL, IBERVILLE PARISH, LA
SORRENTO, ASCENSION PARISH, LA
DENHAM SPRINGS,LIVINGSTON PARISH,LA
VERMILLION PARISH, LA
DUTCHTOWN, ASCENSION PARISH, LA
ABBEVILLE, VERMILLION PARISH, LA
DARROW, ASCENSION PARISH, LA
ABBEVILLE, VERMILLION PARISH, LA
SCOTLANDVILLE, EAST BATON ROUGE
PARISH, LA
*DELETED FROM FURTHER PROJECT STUDY
C-1
-------
_l'_;lilLJ_L
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VI
-------
INTRODUCTION-
Texas National Priority List (NPL) Site Map
a
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
':«—-• ... °"" .'«"--•Seepg 0.5'
1 Air Fcxc» Plan! •4/G«n«rm) Dynarmcj (Ttrrini Co.)
2 B*.i«> Watt* Oocoui (Orange Co )
Bo-Ecology (Diinj Co i
Bro Rclming. inc (MiriLi Co )
Crystal Crmmcai Co (i-ums Co )
Cryxui City Airport (Zjvaia Co.)
Oiu* Oil Pioctt$ort (Hami Co)
Ftmnctt L«T»I»O (Mams Co )
G»n»va Inoustrws (Hams Co )
Htmt (Fan«y Sum) (H«fT» C
Higniands Acd Piu (Ka/ns Co )
mousuiai Transtorrncrs (Harris Co )
Kopp»rs Co Inc.. (Boww Co )
Lon* SUr Amy Arrvnumuxi Plant (Boww Co )
Motco. Inc (T»««s City Wy«) (Garv«ston Co )
Nortn Cavaicao* Su«i (Hams Co )
Odessa Chromium I (Eoor Co )
Od«su Cnromium II (Ector Co)
P*SMS Crxmcal (Tananl Co )
P»iro-Crwmicai Syft»ms. me (Turn* Bayou) (UMny Co )
Re Grano* Oil Company R«linary (Karon Co )
San Jaanio Pits (Pig Road) (San Jaonto Co.HDclislaO)
Sncnoan Disposal Sovca (WaU«r Co.)
S*»s Disposal Pits (Harris Co.)
Soutn Cavaicaoa Su»«i (Hams Co )
26 Stawco, Inc (Hamson Co.)
27 TaunXana Wood Preserving (Bowi* Co )
28. Ta»-Tin Corporation (Galveston Co.)
29. Tnangla Cnar-iieal Co (Orange Co I
30 UniiM Citosoung Co (Monigomery Co )
C-3
-------
n
i
CONSOLIDATED METROPOLITAN
STATISTICAL AREA
(HARRIS-GALVESTON-BRAZORIA CMSA
AND BEAUMONT-PORT ARTHUR MSA)
*Sites within project scope
-------
INTRODUCTION-^
Houston Area NPL Site Map
024k IMito.
C-f,
-------
..^PASADENA- ,-
HOUSTON \"^
6 8
GRAPHIC SCALE
C-6
-------
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT Of THE INTERIOR
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
MAP
SCALE 1 24 000
0 1 MILE
100C 0 10CO 2000 3000 «000 ' WOO 600C 7000 FEET
1 KILOMETRE
ROAD CLASSIFICATION
Primary highway. *Light-duty road, hard or
hard surface _______ improved surface __=__*_=
Secondary highway,
hard surface ... Unimproved road .......
I Interstate Route < • U S Route O State Route
;-7
-------
BAILEY WASTE DISPOSAL-
Site Location Map
-------
BAILEY WASTE DISPOSAL-s
Site Detail Map
HIGHWAY 17
-X-
C-9
-------
BRIO REFINING, INC.-
Slte Location Map
Brio Refining
Dixie Oil Processor?
(North)
il Procesors
(South')
C-10
-------
BRIO REFINING, INC.
Site Detail Map
DIXIE OIL PROCESSORS (NORTH)
SITE BOUNDARY
BRIO REFINING, INC
SITE BOUNDARY
0 0
*t>IXIE OIL PROCESSORS
(SOUTH)
SITE BOUNDARY
SOOFT
SCALE
Oil
-------
DIXIE OIL PROCESSORS-
Site Location Map
Bripfiefiing,
X
' •
Dixie Oil Processors
t Prbc^ssofs
'
Y.S* rgp* y;
V. j^l? T: •' '"J-
C-12
-------
DIXIE OIL PROCESSORS-
Site Detail Map
BRIO REFINING, INC
SITE BOUNDARY
^JiXIE OIL PROCESSORS
(SOUTH)
SITE BOUNDARY
DIXIE OIL PROCESSORS (NORTH)
SITE BOUNDARY
SCALE
C-13
-------
FRENCH LIMITED-
Site Location Map
-------
FRENCH LIMITED-
Site Detail Map
\
C-15
-------
FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL
CO
•a
O
m
z
m
z
o
c
CO
m
-------
GENEVA INDUSTRIES-
Site Location Map
C-17
-------
HIGHLANDS ACID PITS-,
Site Location Map
-------
HIGHLANDS ACID PITS-
Site Detail Map
SCAtC
C-19
-------
INDUSTRIAL TRANSFORMERS-
Site Location Map
C-20
-------
INDUSTRIAL TRANSFORMERS-
Site Detail Map
INDUSTRIAL T«ANSfOKUE»S WELL
NOTE MAP SHOWN NOT TO SCALE
C-21
-------
MOTCO.INC.-.
Site Location Map
JONES
- -C-22
-------
MOTCO, INC.-
Site Detail Map
.^BLOCKED OFF
TO TRAFFIC
C-23
-------
NORTH CAVALCADE STREET-
Slte Location Map
C-24
-------
NORTH CAVALCADE STREET-
Site Detail Map
230 FT
C-25
-------
PETRO-CHEMICAL SYSTEMS, INC.
Site Location Map
Area
Systems, Inc.
P.. —•-r--»J»««.»Vi-*r-.i-^u /
i ^—^•*'\.
East Disposal Ar a
Area
I \A II
: \ :
a \ «
pi"-1—-?"—
jf
C-26
-------
PETRO-CHEMICAL SYSTEMS, INC.-
Site Detail Map
C-27
-------
SHERIDAN DISPOSAL SERVICE-
Slte Location Map
Sheridan Disposal
C-28
-------
SHERIDAN DISPOSAL SERVICE-
Site Detail Map
C-29
-------
SIKES DISPOSAL PITS-v
Site Location Map
i
Disposal Pits '
y'r
>}'
-------
SIKES DISPOSAL PITS-
Site Detail Map
500 FT
C-31
-------
SOUTH CAVALCADE STREET-
Site Location Map
C-32
-------
SOUTH CAVALCADE STREET-'
Site Detail Map
CONTAMINATED AREAS
CURRENTLY IDENTIFIED
IRAII.ROAO TRACKS ft «OAOS) \
C-33
-------
TRIANGLE CHEMICAL COMPANY-
Site Location Map
C-34
-------
TRIANGLE CHEMICAL COMPANY-
Site Detail Map
\
KAP SHOWN NOT TO SCALE
NOTE: SHADED AREA SUBJECT TO
FLOODING DURING IOO-YEAR
FLOOD
SITE BOUNDARY
(TRIANGLE CHEMICAL
PROPERTY BOUNDARY)
ESTIMATED
TOPOGRAPHIC
COMOURS
REDBIRO
CHEMICAL
PROPERTY
035
-------
UNITED CREOSOTING COMPANY-
Site Location Map
C-36
-------
UNITED CREOSOTING COMPANY-
Site Detail Map
SITE SOUNOAHTl"
-Pd-
200FT
SCALE
SUBSURFACE SOIL CONTAMINATION OF
FOMMEK WASTE PONDS
EXTENT OF SHALLOW UNCONFlNED
CKOUNDWATE* CONTAMINATION
EXTENT OF SHALLOW SEMI-CONFINED
CftOUNDWATEft CONTAMINATION
SUMFICIAL SOIL CONTAMINATION (ASPHALTlC
MATS1 ABOVE HUMAN HEALTH CAITEHlA
SUNFICIAL SOIL CONTAMINATION
BELOW HUMAN HEALTH CftlTENlA
C-37
------- |