$EPA
              United States
              Environmental Protection
              Agency
                 Office of
                 Emergency and
                 Remedial Response
Superfund
Record of Decision;

Brio Refining, TX
EPA/ROO/R06-88/031
March 1988
                                                  ENVIRONMENTAL
                                                    PROTECTION
                                                     AGENCY
                                                  DALLAS, TEXAS

                                                    LIBRARY

-------
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
       PAGE
                         1. REPORT NO.
                                  EPA/ROD/R06-88/031
                                                                          3. Recipient's Accession No.
  4. Title and SuMitli
       KRFUND RECORD OF DECISION

   	i
                                                                          5. Rei
          Refining, TX
           Remedial Action  - Final
  7. Authors)
                                                                        8. Performing Organization Rept. No.
\y
CK
  9. Performing Organization Nam* and Address
                                                                        10. Project/Task/Worfc Unit No.


                                                                        11. ContracKC) or Grant(G) No.

                                                                        (C)

                                                                        (G)
  12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
   401 M Street,  S.W.
   Washington,  D.C.   20460
                                                                          13. Type of Report A Period Covered

                                                                              800/000
                                                                        14.
  IS. Supplementary Notes
V
 !«. Abstract (Limit: 200 words)
      The 58-acre  Brio Refining  site is located in Harris  County, Texas,  approximately
   20 miles southeast of Houston.   The site  is broken  into two parcels,  49-acre Brio North
   and 9-acre  Brio South, separated by Drive Farm Road.  The site is bprdered by Mud Gully,
   a flood control ditch that  drains into Clear Creek, Dixie Oil Processors NPL site,
     iendswood oil field and the Southbend residential subdivision.  Between 1957  and "
        the site  refined crude oil and styrene tars to produce toluene,  ethylbenzene,
            solvents, naphthalene, diesel fuel and kerosene.  Various  owners of the  site
   stored styrene  tars in 24 open pits.  Other waste products and sludges were stored in
   aboveground tanks.  Site investigation indicate that  between 500,000-700,000 yd3  of
   onsite soil have measurable contamination,  and that high levels of  VOCs exist in  ground
   water underlying the site.  Primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil  and
   ground water are VOCs including 1,1-dichloroethane, 1,1,2-trichloroethane, and  methylene
   cnloride;  and  base/neutral  organic compounds including  phenanthrene and fluoranthene.

      The selected remedial action for the Brio Refining site includes:   excavation  and
   incineration or biological  treatment of all onsite  soils, sludges,  and liquids  found to
   be above action levels defined in the Endangerment  Assessment, with backfilling of all
   (See Attached Sheet)
 17. Document Analysis a. Descriptors
   Record of Decision
   Brio Refining,  TX
   First Remedial  Action - Final
   Contaminated Media:- gw, sludge, soil
   Key Contaminants: organics,  VOCs (DCA,  TCE)
   b. Tdentlfiers/Open-Endod Terms
        Tl Field/Group
          Statement
                                                         19. Security Class (This Report)
                                                               None
                                                        20. Security, Class (This Page)
                                                               None
                                                                                    21. No. of Pages
                                                                                  22. Price
(See ANSI-Z39.18)
                                        See Instructions on Reverse
                                                                                   OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
                                                                                   (Formerly NTIS-3S)
                                                                                   Department of Commerce

-------
     Refining, TX
First Remedial Action - Final

'16.  ABSTRACT (continued)


treated material passing the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP).   If the
Brio Site Task Force (PRPs) can successfully demonstrate the effectiveness of
aqueous-phase biological treatment it will be considered, otherwise, incineration will
be selected; excavation and treatment of all visual onsite seeps; excavation and removal
of all offsite soils contaminated above background levels; further investigation of Pit
G to locate sludge or contaminated soil underlying the existing onsite wastewater
treatment impoundment; consolidation and disposal of all inert debris and rubble with
ultimate disposition to be determined during remedial design; disposition of Mud Gully,
the flood control ditch, to be determined during remedial design; inplace stabilization
of wastes existing in the wastewater treatment impoundments, backfilling with dike
materials, capping, regrading and vegetating to improve runoff, and installation of a
package wastewater treatment system or route wastewater to a POTW; removal and offsite
disposal of tank contents, and decontamination, dismantling and selling or offsite
disposal of tanks; dismantling of all onsite process equipment; monitoring ambient air;
control of air emission from the treatment processes; venting waste enclosures to an
emission control device; treatment of ground water in the Numerous Sand Channel Zone to
a level to be determined in design; natural attenuation of the Fifty-Foot Sand Aquifer
with monitoring to ensure effectiveness; regrading and vegetating areas outside
    ivation boundaries; construction of a stormwater transmission system draining to Mud
    Ly; and imposition of deed restrictions as necessary.  The estimated present worth
cost of this remedial action is $23,308,000-^23,333,000 for biological treatment or
$22,458,000-^26,598,000 for incineration based on 62,900 yd3 of treatable material.

-------
   BRIO REFINING
RECORD OF DECISION
  MARCH 31, 1988

-------
322
UNITED  STATES  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  AGENCY

                     REGION VI

            ALLIED BANK TOWER AT FOUNTAIN PLACE

                  1445 ROSS AVENUE

                  DALLAS. TEXAS 75202
                DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD Q£ DECISION


   SITE N£M£ AND LOCATION

   Brio Refining site,  Harris County,  Texas


   STATEMENT Q£ PURPOSE

   This decision document outlines the selected remedial  action for
   the Brio Refining site 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) , and to the extent
   practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substance  Pollution
   Contingency Plan, 40 CFR Part 300,  November 20,  1985.

   The State of Texa*S (through the Texas Water Commission) has been
   provided an opportunity to comment  on the technology and degree
   of  treatment proposed by the Record of Decision and  has no
   objection to the selected remedy (See Appendix G).

             QF_ BASIS
   This  decision is based on the administrative record for the Brio
   Refining site (See Appendix F).   The attached index identifies
   the items which comprise the administrative record.

   DESCRIPTION QF_ THE RRMRPY

   Upon  review of the information contained in the administrative
   record,  it is EPA's judgment that on-site incineration of wastes
   appears  to best serve both statutory and selection criteria in
   relation to the other solutions evaluated.   A detailed
   description of this remedy and an explanation of how it meets
   statutory requirements is contained in the attached "Summary of
   Remedial Alternative Selection."

   The Brio Site Task Force (a group of potentially responsible
   parties)  proposes the use of on-site aqueous-phase biological
   treatment.   The lack of the demonstrated performance of this
   technique on the wastes of concern at the Brio Refining site,
   while of concern to EPA, may not prevent favorable consideration
   if  the Brio Site Task Force can demonstrate that aqueous-phase

-------
biological treatment can provide the same level  of  treatment
deemed necessary to protect human health and the environment

This action would include:

Affected materials and soils -  Shall be treated using either
incineration or biological  treatment.  This media shall be
defined as all contaminated sludges and liquids  and waste
material found to exist above the action levels  defined in  the
Endangerment Assessment (EA).  This will include those affected
materials and soils existing in pits B, J, H/V,  E,  Q,  and R
(as defined in the EA).  Additionally, the Remedial Investigation
identified sludges and liquids in pits F, G, I,  K,  L,  and M;
therefore, these sludges and liquids (and any others found  during
remedial action) must also  be excavated and treated.  The
definition of the boundary  between the sludge/soil  interface will
be determined prior to remedial action.

Excavations shall be conducted in enclosures, material
transported to the treatment unit(s), and *:ae treated material
backfilled in the pits if it successfully passes the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure.

Surface contamination -  Attachments 8 and 9 of  the Remedial
Investigation Report shall  be examined and the site re-evaluated
prior to remedial action, to identify those areas where surf
seeps are visually apparent.  These areas will be scraped or
excavated to remove the source of contamination and to prevent
future migration of this material.  This source of contamination
will then be consolidated and treated with the affected materials
and soils.

Off-site soil Contamination -  Any off-site soil contamination
found during the remedial investigation, or during the remedial
action, shall be removed to background levels.  This may require
that special detection limits be used for sampling efforts at the
site boundaries during the remedial action.  This activity will
have to be further defined in the remedial design.

Pit fi -  Further investigation into this pit area to  locate
sludges or liquids may have to be done at the completion of the
remedial action due to the location of this pit beneath the
wastewater treatment surface impoundment.  This activity will be
further defined in the remedial design.

Debris and rubble -  There is much inert debris and rubble
remaining on the site from past operations.  This material may be
consolidated and the ultimate disposition of the material
determined during the remedial design.
Mud Gullv -  Contaminants observed in this flood control
and the "bottle neck1* that exists as it passes the Brio site
been a noted concern of the EPA as well as local residents  and

-------
 the  Harris  County  Flood Control District.  It is apparent that
 these  problems  will have to be corrected as part of any remedy
 that is  instituted at the site.  Initial thoughts would suggest a
 low-maintenance approach to resolving this problem where some
 type of  performance standard would be set in cooperation with the
 Harris County Flood Control District.  Such actions shall be
 further  defined in the remedial design.

 Wastewater  treatment system -  In-place stabilization of wastes
 existing in the impoundments, backfill impoundments with dike
 materials and other uncontaminated materials (if necessary), cap
 and  cover,  grade to promote runoff and minimize infiltration,
 install  a package  wastewater treatment plant or route wastewater
 to a POTW.  Portions of the existing wastewater treatment system
 may  be used during remedial action, but will be decommissioned
 once the remedial  action is completed.

 Storage  tanks and.  drums -  Remove tank contents, decontaminate
 tanks, dismantle tanks; sell dismantled tanks or transport the
 tanks to an EPA approved off-site disposal facility; transport
 the  tank contents  and drums to an EPA approved off-site disposal
 facility.   If any  tanks are used during remedial activities, they
 will be  dismantled upon completion.

 Process  equipment  -  The entire process facility will be
 dismantled.  If any portion of the existing facility is used during
 remedial activities, the structure will be dismantled upon
 completion of remedial action.

 Monitoring and  control of migration pathways -  Ambient air
 sampling on a semi-annual basis; control air emissions from
 treatment processes; excavate in enclosures and vent the
 enclosure to an emission control device; eliminate or control
 rainfall on construction areas; sample and monitor Mud Gully
 sediments; treat the groundwater in the Numerous Sand Channel
 Zone to  a level to be determined in the remedial design  (but to
 achieve  treatment  of the Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids  (DNAPLs)
 to the satisfaction of EPA) monitor the groundwater for a
 timeframe to be determined in the remedial design; allow natural
 attenuation (no treatment) of the Fifty-Foot Sand aquifer and
 monitor  the groundwater in the aquifer to ensure that it  is
 naturally cleaning itself.  Monitoring activities will be
 utilized to determine the effectiveness of the actions to be
 implemented and shall be detailed in the operation and
maintenance plan of the remedial design.  This same data will be
 evaluated during the Agency's 5-year review, in accordance with
 SARA Section 121(c), to determine if any corrective action  is
necessary.

 Site management plan -  Areas outside the boundaries of
 excavation will be regraded and vegetated to promote drainage and
minimize infiltration.  A stormwater transmission system draining
 to Mud Gully will  be constructed in an east/west direction  across

-------
 the north and south parcels.  All regrading will be covered
 6  inches of topsoil, if necessary, to promote vegetative gr
 To the maximum extent practicable, the aesthetics of the site
 (upon completion of the remedy) shall be enhanced by utilizing
 creative design and landscaping techniques with input from local •
 residents.

 Site control -  This remedial action is based on permanent site
 control, imposition of necessary deed notices and restrictions
 (if possible), and restriction of access to the site by use of a
 fence or similar barrier.

 USE QE BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT ]Jg LIEU QF_ INCINERATION

 All factors considered, EPA has determined that the Brio Site
 Task Force's proposal utilizing biotreatment has the potential to
 provide for the protection of human health and the environment
 comparable to the on-site incineration remedy.  The Task Force
 (or settling party) must agree to undertake any corrective action
 deemed appropriate by EPA in the event of remedy failure, if
 biotreatment is used.  Pass/fail criteria for use of
 biotreatment, rather than incineration, will be developed prior
 to the start of remedial action.  If biotreatment cannot meet the
 pass/fail criteria, then on-site incineration will be
 implemented.

DECLARATION

The remedy described above is protective of human health and the
 environment, attains Federal and State requirements applicable or
 relevant and appropriate and is cost-effective compared to
 equally protective alternatives.  This remedy satisfies the
preference for treatment that reduces toxicity, mobility or
volume as a principal element.  Finally, it is determined that
this solution utilizes permanent solutions and alternative
technologies to the maximum extent practicable.
           In
     /Date1'                     /  j   Robert E. Layton Jr., P.E.
                                          Regional Administrator

-------
BRIO REFINING
Record of Decision concurrences
The Brio Refining Record of Decision has been reviewed and I
concur:
Allyn M. Davis, Director
Hazardous Waste Management (6H)
                  At-J
  b^rt'E. "Hannesschlarger, P.E., Chief
 uoerfund Enforcement Branch (6H-E)
Harry D'.u Wright,
Superfund Enforcement Section (6H-EE)
Bennett Stokes, Chief
Office of Regional Counsel  (60C)

-------
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION




           BRIO REFINING SITE



     SOUTHEAST HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS




             MARCH 31, 1988

-------
                       TABLE QE CONTENTS

  I.  SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION                        Page

      1.1  Site History 	     1
      1.2  Geology 	     4
      1.3  Hydrogeology 	     6
      1.4  Remedial Investigation Results 	     8
      1.5  Pilot Studies 	    11
      1.6  Potential Impacts of Site on Human Health ....    13
           and Environment

 II.  ENFORCEMENT 	    14

III.  COMMUNITY RELATIONS HISTORY 	    14

 IV.  ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION

      4.1  Evaluation Criteria 	    16
      4.2  Descriptions of Alternatives 	    19
      4.3  Evaluation of Alternatives 	    21
      4.4  Operation and Maintenance 	    25

  V.  SELECTED REMEDY 	    26

 VI.  APPENDICES

      A.   Tables 1-5
      B.   Vessel Inventory
      C.   Site ARARs Evaluation
      D.   Site Plan
      E.   Community Relations Responsiveness Summary
      F.   Administrative Record
      G.   State Response to Record of Decision
      H.   Process Facility Dismantling Cost Estimates

-------
                       LIST QE TABLES
    NO.
1        Highest Compound Concentrations For Pit Soil
         and Subsoil Samples

2        Organic Compound Concentrations in the Numerous
         Sand Channel Zone

3        Comparison of Remedial Alternatives

4        Estimated Amount of Waste Requiring Treatment
         on the Brio Superfund Site
                              ii

-------
                         LIST QF FIGURES
FIGURE NO.           TITLE
   1       Site Location Map
   2       Site Location Map
   3       Generalized Stratigraphic Column
   4       Site Lithologic Units
   5       Wastewater System
   6       Schematic of Water Flow Through
           Wastewater System
                                111

-------
 1.0  SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

 The Brio Refining site is located approximately 20 miles
 southeast of Houston, Texas, in Harris County (Figure 1).   The
 site occupies approximately 58.1 acres.  Portions of the site
 occur both north and south of Dixie Farm Road and are designated
 as Brio North and Brio South.  Brio North occupies 48.8 acres and
 Brio South covers 9.3 acres.

Mud Gully, a flood control ditch and local tributary of Clear
 Creek, runs along the western boundary of the Brio site.  The
Dixie Oil Processors site borders Brio South to the southwest.
The Southbend Subdivision borders the Brio property to the
northwest and Beamer Road borders to the northeast.  The
Friendswood Oil Field borders the remaining areas (Figure 2).

 1.1  SITE HISTORY

Past ownership and operations as obtained from the Brio
Refining/Dixie Oil Processors Feasibility Report and Summary
Report prepared for the Brio Site Task Force by IT Corporation
are summarized below:
     0 1957-1969
     O 1969 -1972
     O 1972-1975
Hard Lowe Co. operations included regeneration
of copper catalysts, recovery of ethylbenzene
from styrene tars and recovery of chemicals
from vinyl chloride bottoms.  The company
changed names in 1959 to Hard Lowe Chemical
Company and again in 1963 to Lowe Chemical Co.
In 1963 operations included reclamation of
chemicals/petrochemicals from phenol heavy
ends, chlorinated hydrocarbons, cresylic acid
and ethylene glycol.

Chemical Pollution Control Corp. took over
operations and the name of the facility was
changed to Phoenix Chemical Company.
Production of ethylbenzene, toluene, aromatic
solvents and styrene pitch occurred.  Archem
Corporation leased Brio North from Phoenix to
produce cresylic acid, sodium sulfide and
sodium cresyllite.  They also stored spent
caustic on site.  Phoenix assumed operations
of Archem in 1971.

Phoenix Chemical Corporation lost control of
the site and its operations in 1972.  The
facility was purchased and operated by the
Lowe Chemical Company.

-------
                     VICINITY MAP
           LOCATP*
NOTE  INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE
     IT CORPORATION FEASIBILITY STUDY
  BRJOREfNERY
RECORD Of DEC6ON
                                               SITE LOCATION MAP
                                        PROJECT NO.
                                        TC3621-23
       DATE
     2-18-8S
FIGURE NO,
   1

-------
NOTE. INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE
    IT CORPORATION FEASIBILITY STUDY
                                        8RJO REFINERY
                                      RECORD OF DECSCN
SfTE LOCATION MAP
                                PROJECT MO.
                                TC3621-23
     DATE
    2 18 «8
FIGURE NO
   2
Tfc

-------
      o  1975-1978    In  1975, JOC Oil Aromatics, Inc. controlled
                    the site and production included toluene,
                    ethylbenzene, cumene, aromatic oil and fuel
                    oil.

      o  1978         Friendswood Processing Inc. , a wholly owned
                    subsidiary of the Brio Petroleum Corporation,
                    purchased the facility and converted it to a
                    crude oil topping unit for jet fuel
                    production.

      o  1978-1981    Facility changed names to Friendswood Refining
                    Inc. and onsite production of diesel fuel,
                    residual oil, naphtha, kerosene and fuel gas
                    occurred.

      o  1981-1982    The facility changed names to Brio Refining,
                    Inc. and operations changed to the production
                    of jet fuel.  Operations closed in 1982 after
                    Brio Refining filed for bankruptcy.

Between 1957 and 1960, Hard Lowe Chemical Co. constructed several
pits  to support the styrene tar processing operations.  The
majority of the pits were built from 1964 through 1970.  Due to
the lack of processing capacity, styrene tars were stored in four
large impoundments  on Brio North.

The first pit closure activities were conducted in 1969 and 1970
with  some pit materials left in place.  Closures were reportedly
accomplished by removing the stored material from the pit and
backfilling with a mixture of soil, calcined clay and pit
residue.  Soil cover was then placed over the stabilized pit
material.   Approximately seven additional pits were closed from
1972  through 1975 while under the ownership of the Lowe Chemical
Company.

JOC Oil Aromatics,  Inc. (JOC) stored styrene tars in open pits on
the site from 1975  to 1978.  Four of the open pits were closed  in
1976  and 1977.  One new pit was constructed by JOC.

The final pit closure occurred in 1979-80 by Friendswood Refining
Inc.  Operations closed down in December 1982 (with the
declaration of bankruptcy by Brio Refining, Inc.) and the Brio
site has remained inactive.

1.2  SITE GEOLOGY

The Brio site is located within the Pleistocene Deltaic Plain of
the Brazos River, known as the Alameda Delta.  The site is
underlain with Pleistocene and Pliocene deposits to a depth of
approximately 2400.0 feet as shown on Figure  3.  The aquifers
used to supply water for domestic, industrial and agricultural
purposes are the Lower Chicot and Evangeline, which are confined

-------
SYSTCH
0
u
A
T
£
A
N
A
R
Y

T
£
R
T
1
A
R
Y
semes
p
L
E
i
S
T
o
c
E
N
E

P
L
1
0
C
N
£
M
1
0
C
E
N
E
UWlT
3£€
      IT CORPORATION SUMMARY REPORT
                                              BROREHNERY
                                            RECORDOFDECGCN
                                     QENCRALZED STRAT1GRAPHC OOUJW
PROJECT NO.
TC3621 23
 DATE

2 11 II
FGUFtNO,

  3

-------
 aquifers  isolated  from surface recharge.  The groundwater flow in
 the Lower Chicot and the Evangeline is to the southeast.

 The Friendswood Oil Field borders the site and is an extensively
 explored oil and gas field.  The Oligocene Age Brio Formation of
 the Texas Gulf Coast Region is the oil producing zone with wells
 from 4000.0 to 7000.0 feet deep.

 The site specific  geology that was under investigation during the
 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) was the Beaumont
 Formation as shown in Figure 4.  The results from the Feasibility
 Study and Summary  Report are given in the following paragraphs.

 The Beaumont Formation is separated into five major units (Figure
 4).  The Upper Clay Unit is composed of clay and silty clay.  The
 unit is continuous across the site and ranges in depth from 14.0
 to 32.0 feet.  The Numerous Sand Channels Zone (NSCZ) is the next
 unit and is comprised of interbedded sands, sandy silts, silty
 sands, clayey silts and silty clays.  The thickness of the NSCZ
 varies across the  site from less than 10 feet to over 20 feet.
 The NSCZ is the upper water bearing unit with well yields less
 than 10 gpm.  The  Middle Clay Unit is next and is composed of
 silty clay/clayey  silt.  The thickness ranges-from 8.0 to 20.0
 feet.  The Middle  Clay separates the NSCZ from the lower aquifer
 and forms a confining layer over the lower unit.  The Fifty-Foot
 Sand is the fourth unit and occurs between 52.0 and 61.5 feet
 below ground surface.  The thickness varies from 35.0 to 45.0
 feet.  The Fifty-Foot Sand Unit has a reasonably high well yield.
 The fifth and last unit is the Lower Clay Unit, a silty clay
 approximately 100.0 to 120.0 feet thick.  The unit extends to  at
 least 200.0 feet below ground surface.

 A salt dome fault  is located in the western part of the Brio
 site.  According to Dr. Carl Norman of the University of Houston,
 the ground movement north of the fault has been downward in
 relation to the ground south of the fault.  The fault could cause
 a slight reduction in lateral groundwater flow for various units
 across the fault.  At this time, there is no evidence to support
 a vertical hydraulic connection between the units along the
 fault.

 1.3  SITE HYDROGEOLOGY

The NSCZ and the Fifty-Foot Sand are the two water bearing units
 investigated at the Brio site.  The NSCZ potentiometric surface
 indicates that the groundwater flow is towards Mud Gully and  will
either run parallel to the gully or discharge into the gully.
The groundwater flow volumes range from 6.6 to  102.0 gallons  per
year per square foot of cross-sectional area.  The velocity of
the groundwater ranged from 2.9 to 68.0 feet per year.

The potentiometric surface of the Fifty-Foot Sand showed a
hydraulic gradient of 0.0001 in the south-southeast  direction.

-------
LlTHOST«A*iaaA»*iC
UN,'*
8£*wMOs*
*0«MATlOS
L'SS'E
FC»MA"ON-
c
c
c
f
EjsCE
M£V8£B
OBEa.iN
W£M9t«

SiTE UT«0»OGC UNITS
U^^E° C.AV UNIT
N^MC":-'* SAS: CHANNELS ZONE

-------
 Flow  would  be  towards  the Gulf Coast.  Lateral groundwater flow
 volumes  range  from  1.2  to 12.0 gallons per year per sq. ft.  of
 cross  sectional  area.   The average groundwater velocities were
 3.9 to 58.0  feet per year.

 The Middle  Clay  Unit has an upward hydraulic gradient thereby
 minimizing  the potential for groundwater movement between the
 NSCZ  and the Fifty-Foot Sand over most of the site.

 1.4  REMEDIAL AND SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION RESULTS

 Five different types of wastes were sampled at the Brio Superfund
 Site.  Those included sewage sludge, wastewater treatment system
 sludge and  liquid, above ground storage tank sludge and liquid,
 closed impoundment  (pit) soils, and groundwater as described in
 the following paragraphs.

 At some time when the Brio refinery was active, processed sewage
 sludge was brought in for odor control.  T-?re are numerous piles
 of sludge on the northwest section of the ." te.  After testing,
 this material was found not to be RCRA hazardous by
 characteristic, but could be intermingled with hazardous
 substances, pollutants or contaminants inherent to the site.

 The wastewater treatment plant for the Brio site has been tested
 and the discharge was found to be within the limits of its old
 NPDES permit.  Testing was also done on the sludge and water in
 the impoundments and sumps, and the results indicated that these
 wastes are also not RCRA hazardous by characteristic, but are
 considered hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants.

 Various sludges and liquids are stored in vessels and tanks on
 the site (reference Appendix B).  All but six tanks are within
 earthen or concrete berms.  The six uncontained tanks would drain
 into the wastewater treatment plants impoundments  (Figures 5 and
 6 ).  There are 1,757 drums on the site, most of which were
 generated during the Remedial and Supplemental Remedial
 Investigations.

The major sources of possible contamination are the closed
 impoundments (pits) on the site and the contamination these pits
have caused to the shallowest aquifer.

There are approximately 200,000 cubic yards of contaminated pit
and subsurface soils on the site, associated with  24 different
pits.   But, the site investigations indicated that there  is
between 500,000 and 700,000 cubic yards of soils with measureable
amounts of contamination.  The pits are identified as A through
X.  Numerous discrete interval and composite samples were
collected from each pit and the subsoil around each pit.  Table  1
shows the compounds with the highest concentrations detected  in
the pit and subsurface soil samples.   1,2-dichloroethane  had  the
highest concentration  (245,000 mg/kg) of any of the volatile
                           8

-------

-------
                       •EVAPORATION
DISCHARGE
  MUD
  GULLY
          UT*LL
               SLUDGE
               RECYCLE
     CLARIFIER
         » ------- 1
                  00
                  rzi-

                  2?5
                  o£*
X
                      < -
 GRAVITY
DISCHARGE
   TO
MUD GULLY
  {EVAPORATION
  t
                                              TANK FARM
                                    OILY WATER
                                   ~1 RECYCLE
                                       HA P |
                                     SEPARATOR
                                                            RUNOFF
                                                      RUNOFF
                                             RUNOFF

                                         WASTEWATER
                                                              PROCESS
                                                                UNIT
           NOT IN OPERATION
                                               RESOURCE ENGINEERING
                                                 INVWOMKNTAl. CONSULTANTS
                                                        •TOM. «t«*f
                                                   FIGURE
                                         SCHEMATIC OF WATER FLOW
                                              BRIO REFINING SITE
                                              FRIENDiWOOD, TEXAS
ONAWM |T
•H
1 OATC.
11-10-16
|mo«C
TNO.. 351-

-------
 organics  detected  in  the pit soils, while phenanthrene had the
 highest concentration (6,670 mg/kg) of any of the base neutral
 organics  found  in  the pit soils.  In the subsoils around the pits
 l,1,2-trichloroethane had the highest concentration (918 mg/kg)
 of any of the volatile organics found and fluoranthene had the
 highest concentration (29.5 mg/kg) of the base neutral organics
 detected.

 Over twenty wells  were installed in the shallowest aquifer (known
 as the NSCZ) to test  it for contamination, and five more were
 drilled into the next  aquifer (known as the Fifty-Foot Sand
 aquifer).  Table 2 shows the highest concentrations of
 contaminants detected  in the groundwater samples from the
 site.  The analyses of these samples indicates that the pits are
 sources or potential  sources of groundwater contamination.

 In ground water samples from the NSCZ bis-(2-chloroethyl) ether
 had the highest concentration (38 mg/1) of the base neutral
 organic compounds detected while 1,2-dich:.;;roethane had the
 highest concentration  (3,580 mg/1) of volatile organics found.
 The highest concentration of contaminants in the Fifty-Foot Sand
 were limited to volatile organics including 1,1,2-trichloroethane
 (0.02 mg/l), 1,2-dichloroethane (0.055 mg/1) and methylene
 chloride  (0.018 mg/1).

 The most frequently detected volatile organic compounds in the
 pit and subsoil samples were methylene chloride and 1,1,2-
 trichloroethane.  Fluoranthene and phenanthrene were the most
 frequently detected base neutral organic compounds, found in pit
 and subsoil compounds.  The most frequently detected compound  in
 the groundwater samples was methylene chloride.

 1.5  PILOT STUDIES

While generally available information will give an indication  as
 to the potential applicability of a given remedial technology,
performance of actual  field tests using site-specific materials
under site-specific conditions is often the best method for
determining the appropriateness of a remedial technology.  For
this reason, treatability studies were performed at the Brio
site.  The studies were undertaken to obtain an in-depth analysis
of the applicability of two remedial technologies (1) infrared
 incineration; and  (2)  solid and aqueous phase biological
treatment.

The incineration testing was performed by Shirco Infrared
Systems.   In this treatability study, a pilot-scale size portable
unit was mobilized on  the Brio site.  Soil and material samples
 from pits B, I, J and  M were incinerated utilizing the  infrared
process.   The objectives of the test program were:

     o  To determine  the incinerator ash chemical composition;
                           11

-------
     o  to demonstrate that the incinerator feed system
        provide a continuous, blended feed which could be
        to the furnace in a uniform manner;

     o  to demonstrate that the incineration system can  meet  the
        RCRA requirement of 99.99% destruction efficiency
        removal; and

     o  to provide design information and economic  data  required
        to evaluate the feasibility of incinerating certain
        Brio site pit wastes.

The results of the studies indicated that these objectives  were
accomplished and the results are summarized below:

Incinerator Ash

All compounds detected in the feed were reduced substantially in
concentration.

Incinerator Feed System

The material processed from each pit required-preparation prior
to being place in the feed conveyer hopper.  Some materials
required delumping and screening.. These results indicated that
some type of materials handling techniques would have to be
utilized during remedial action to improve the manageability
the waste.

Destruction Efficiency

Emissions sampling found that the destruction and removal
efficiency of the system was greater than 99.9997% for each of
the test conditions (differing residence times).

Design Data and Economics

The analysis concluded that using the currently available  size
mobile system 45,000 tons per year could be processed at an
estimated cost of $143 per ton.  Using the largest mobile  system
that may be built, at the time of the study, a total o.f 67,000
tons per year could be processed at a cost of $119 per ton.  The
accuracy of the cost estimate is ± 25 percent.  This estimate did
not include feed excavation, preparation,  interest and taxes.

A preliminary assessment of remedial technologies  indicated  that
biodegradation might be a suitable technology for destroying a
portion of the organic constituents present in the soil at the
Brio site.  In early 1987, a solid-phase biodegradation pilot
study was initiated at the Brio site.  Pit 0 was selected  as
pit which could best test this  hypothesis.

Ecova Corporation conducted an evaluation  of  the amenability of
                           12

-------
the organic constituents in Pit 0 to solid-phase biodegradation.
As part of this evaluation, Ecova defined the types of organic
constituents present in Pit 0 soil; defined the level of
microbial activity; demonstrated destruction of organics at a
bench-scale level; demonstrated destruction of organics using an
on-site pilot-scale application; and evaluated potential full-
scale systems capable of removing or destroying organic compounds
in contaminated material.

The results of these studies are summarized as follows:

     o  A solid-phase treatment process can be used for removing
        or destroying the contaminants detected in Pit 0;

     o  the process removes organic compounds by air stripping
        and destroys semi-volatile organic compounds by
        biodegradation;

     o  although such a facility would be effective in reducing
        concentrations of volatile and semi-volatile organic
        compounds, the time required to treat affected materials
        and soils by a solid-phase treatment process might be
        unacceptably long; and

     o  an aqueous-phase biodegradation process would increase
        the rate of removal of organic compounds.

This last point is in the process of being verified by the Brio
Site Task Force.  This group of PRPs have been conducting their
own aqueous-phase biodegradation studies during late 1987/early
1988, not only to confirm the above referenced findings, but to
support their own recommendation for remedial action (as
discussed in Section V, under "Selected Remedy").

1.6  POTENTIAL IMPACTS Q£ TJifi SIZE QH HUMAN HEALTH AND
     ENVIRONMENT

The assessment of risk posed by the Brio Refining site was
evaluated in the Brio Refining/Dixie Oil Processors Endangerment
Assessment.   This assessment examined the amount, concentration,
properties,  and environmental fate and transport of chemical
found at the site; the populations and environments potentially
at risk; exposure pathways; and potential exposure events.

EPA has concluded that the site potentially poses four major
risks to human health and the environment.  These risks  would
result from:

     o  Ingestion of contaminated soils on the site;

     o  direct contact with contaminated soils on site;

     o  inhalation of contaminated dust from  the site;
                           13

-------
     o  ingestion of contaminated shallow groundwater  from
        the site; and

     o  air emissions of organic fumes from the  site
        (resulting from soil disturbance activities).

Many of the chemicals found on the site are carcinogens  (1,1,2
trichloroethane and methylene chloride) or toxic to the  central
nervous system, liver, or respiratory system (toluene  and
chlorobenzene).

The populations identified as being potentially  at risk  are
several subdivisions, including Southbend, a junior college,
an elementary school, and a hospital.   Each is located within
one-half mile of the site.  The 1985 population  residing within
one mile is estimated at 5,751.  Approximately 71,000  people
reside within a four-mile radius.

Using a trespass exposure scenario, which "ssumed that the  site
would remain a secured industrial facility, target  removal  and
treatment levels for selected chemicals were developed.   These
target levels were based on a 10   increased cancer  risk for
carcinogens and on an acceptable chronic daily intake  for non-
carcinogens.  The endangerment assessment also examined  an
unrestricted access exposure scenario which indicated  that
greater volumes of affected materials and soil would have to  b
treated should exposure to the site increase.

II.  ENFORCEMENT
9
Approximately 100 potential responsible parties (PRPs) have been
identified.  To this group, 74, 104(e) information requests were
sent, with 28 follow-up letters.  EPA received 49 responses (many
of the companies identified are no longer in business).  The
Agency also sent 28 Notice Letters to these parties.

EPA will continue its enforcement activities and send Special
Notice Letters to PRPs prior to the initiation of the remedial
design.  Should the PRPs decline to conduct future remedial
activities, EPA will provide funding for such activities, but
will retain its right to seek cost recovery for all EPA-funded
response actions from the above referenced PRPs.

III.  COMMUNITY RELATIONS

The Brio Refining site was proposed for the National Priorities
List in October 1984.  Funds were approved in the Spring of 1985
for EPA to conduct a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study
at the Brio site.  Prior to the initiation of the studies a
of companies, identified through the Agency's enforcement
as PRPs, formed the Brio Site Task Force in an effort to work
with EPA in assessing the nature and extent of the  contamination
                           14

-------
 at  the  site.

 On  May  16,  1985, EPA announced that the terms of an
 Administrative Order (signed in June 1985) had been agreed upon
 with the Task Force enabling them to undertake the investigations
 and studies necessary to determine the solution to the
 contamination problems at the Brio site.  Included in the
 Administrative Order was the stipulation that, with EPA
 oversight, the Task Force would initiate and implement a
 comprehensive community relations program for interested
 citizens.  EPA representatives would also participate in the
 community relations effort.

 The Task Force held its first community leaders meeting on May
 16, 1985, in order to discuss the Administrative Order and
 present a timeframe for the site investigation.  A community
 meeting was held by the Task Force on July 2, 1985, to announce
 the initiation of water-quality sampling and odor abatement
 programs.  The results of the water tests were announced at a
 community meeting on September 26, 1985.

 Field activities were completed in November 1985.  Upon
 completion of the first phase of the site investigation (and
 review of the information by EPA), the Task Force held a
 community meeting on April 30, 1986, to share the results of
 their initial efforts.   On September 4, 1986, a community meeting
 was held to discuss any issues or concerns the local residents
 may have regarding the site studies.  Status reports were also
 provided through newsletters.

 On February 2, 1987, the Task Force held a community meeting on
 various treatment techniques that may be employed during remedial
 actions at a typical Superfund site.  A community leaders meeting
 was held on April 2, 1987, to provide an update on site
 activities.   A meeting to discuss the preliminary results of the
 Endangerment Assessment was held with the community leaders on
 June 18, 1987.

 On January 21, 1988, EPA announced through a press release that
 studies were completed on the Brio site.  The announcement also
 advised the public  that EPA would be accepting comments on the
 proposed remedy for the site from February 1 to March 1, 1988,
 and that the Agency would hold a public meeting on February 9,
 1988.   An EPA prepared fact sheet describing various alternatives
 evaluated was mailed to interested citizens.  EPA held a
community leaders meeting on January 25, 1988, to brief the
members of the group on the solutions proposed for the site.  On
 the following night, January 26, 1988, the Brio Site Task Force
 held a community meeting to discuss the overall results of the
 site investigations, the findings of the Endangerment Assessment.
An EPA representative announced the scheduled public meeting to
 discuss remedial alternatives.  EPA's public meeting was held on
 February 9,  1988, at the Weber Elementary School.  Approximately
                           15

-------
350 people attended the meeting.   The community expressed greaj
concern that remedial action would address only partial
remediation of the site.  A summary of the public response t
solutions proposed by EPA at this meeting, can be found  in the
Responsiveness Summary (See Appendix E).   On February 22, EPA met/
with the Friendswood City Council to discuss the proposed
alternative solutions that the Agency had outlined in its public
meeting on February 9.

Again, it should be noted that EPA was an active participant  in
all of the community or community leaders meetings discussed
above.  These activities were carried-out in cooperation with the
Brio Site Task Force in accordance with the terms outlined in the
above mentioned Brio Refining/Dixie Oil Processors Administrative
Order on Consent.

IV.  ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION

4.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA

Section I21(a), (b), and (d) of the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA) contains nine factors which EPA must
consider in selecting a remedy for a Superfund site.   These items
are summarized below:

     1.  Consistency with Other Environmental Laws             ^^

        In determining appropriate remedial actions at Superfund
        sites, consideration must be given to the requirements of
        other Federal and State environmental laws, in addition
        to CERCLA as amended by SARA.  Primary consideration is
        given to attaining applicable or relevant and appropriate
        Federal and State public health and environmental laws
        and regulations and standards.  Not all Federal and state
        environmental laws and regulations are applicable to each
        Superfund response action.  The compliance of each
        remedial alternative with all applicable or relevant and
        appropriate environmental laws is discussed in
        Appendix C.

     2.  Reduction of Toxicitv. Mobility or Volume

        The degree to which alternatives employ treatment that
        reduces toxicity, mobility or volume must be assessed.
        Relevant factors include:

        o  The treatment processes the proposed solutions
           employed and materials they treat;

        o  the amount of contaminated materials that will
           be destroyed or treated;

        o  the degree of expected reduction in toxicity,
                           16

-------
      mobility, or volume;

   o  the degree to which the treatment is irreversible;  and

   o  the residuals that will remain following treatment,
      considering the persistence,  toxicity,  mobility,  and
      propensity for bio-accumulation of such hazardous
      substances and their constituents.

3. Short-term Effectiveness

   The short-term effectiveness of  an alternative must  be
   assessed considering the following:

   o  Magnitude of reduction of existing risks;  and

   o  short-term risks that might be posed to the community,
      workers, or the environment during the  implementation
      of an alternative including potential threats  to  human
      health or the environment associated with excavation,
      transportation, and redisposal or containment.

4. Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence

   Alternatives are assessed for the long-term effectiveness
   and permanence they afford along with the  degree  of
   certainty that the remedy will prove successful.   Factors
   considered are:

   o  Magnitude of residual risks in terms of amounts and
      concentrations of wastes remaining following
      implementation of a remedial  action, considering  the
      persistence,  toxicity, mobility,  and propensity for
      bio-accumulation of such hazardous substances  and
      their constituents;

   o  type and degree of long-term  management required,
      including monitoring and operation and  maintenance;

   o  potential for exposure of human and environmental
      receptors to remaining waste  considering the  potential
      threat to human health and the environment associated
      with excavation, transportation, redisposal,  or
      containment;

   o  long-term reliability of the  engineering and
      institutional controls, including uncertainties
      associated with the land disposal of untreated wastes
      and residuals; and

   o  potential need for replacement of the remedy.
                      17

-------
5. Implementabi1 i ty
   The ease or difficulty of implementing the alternatives
   are assessed by considering the following factors:
   o  Degree of difficulty associated with constructing
      the solution;
   o  expected operational reliability of the treatment
      technology;
   o  need to coordinate with and obtain necessary approvals
      and permits (or meet the intent of any permit in the
      case of Superfund actions);
   o  availability of necessary equipment and specialists;
      and
   o  available capacity and location of needed treatment,
      storage, and disposal services.
6. Costs
   The types of costs that should be assessed include the
   following:
   o  Capital costs;
                                              •
   o  operation and maintenance costs;
   o  net present value of capital and operation and
      maintenance cost; and
   o  potential future remedial action costs.
7. Cpmnuinity Acceptance
   This assessment should evaluate:
   o  Components of remedial alternatives that the community
      supports;
   o  features of the alternatives about which the community
      has reservations; and
   o  elements of the alternatives which the community
      strongly opposes.
8. state Acceptance (through the Texas Water Commission)
   Evaluation includes assessment of:
                      18

-------
        o  Components of remedial alternatives that the State
           supports ;

        o  features of the alternatives about which the State has
           reservations; and

        o  elements of the alternatives which the State strongly
           opposes.

     9. Overall Protection of Human. Health and the Environment

        Following the analysis of the remedial options against
        individual evaluation criteria, the alternatives are
        assessed from the standpoint of whether they provide
        adequate protection of human health and the environment.

        EPA is also directed by Superfund law (SARA) to give
        preference to solutions that utilize treatment to remove
        contaminants from the environment.  Offsite transport and
        disposal without treatment is the least preferred option
        where practicable treatment technologies are available.

4.2 DESCRIPTION 0_f_ ALTERNATIVES             .  -

In conformance with the National Contingency Plan (NCP), initial
remedial approaches were screened to determine which might be
appropriate for this site (see the Brio Refining/Dixie Oil
Processors Feasibility study for details of this evaluation).
From these possible remedies, four were chosen for more detailed
evaluation and comparison with the remedy selection criteria
outlined above.  Two other alternatives, No Action and Offsite
Disposal were also evaluated to comply with the requirements of
the NCP.  Each remedy is summarized below,  common elements of
all the plans include:

     o    Implementing the Site Management Plan.  Areas of the
          site which are not treated by one of the four remedies
          would be regraded and revegetated to promote rainwater
          drainage into Mud Gully and to minimize infiltration.

     o    Monitoring the 15 existing wells on the site.  There
          are ten in the shallowest aquifer (the NSCZ) and five
          in the next deeper aquifer (the Fifty-Foot Sand).

     o    Monitoring Mud Gully in three locations for any
          increased contaminated runoff.

     o    All the sludge in the wastewater treatment plant will
          be stabilized in place and the  impoundments will then
          be backfilled.

     o    All tank contents will be removed and properly disposed,
                           19

-------
          There will be semi-annual air monitoring of the sit
     o    There are two lenses of DNALP (Denser than Water Non-
          Aqueous Phase Liquid) trapped on the top of the
          Middle Clay Unit.  The lenses are beneath pits J and
          0.  This liquid would be collected by two well nests
          and disposed.

     o    Site control through the use of the existing site
          security fence and the imposition of deed notices and
          restrictions (if necessary).

The cost estimates provided below for each alternative do not
include the cost of dismantling the existing process facility.
The cost of this effort has been estimated to be $500,000 as
illustrated in Appendix H.

Alternative jj_  No Action  All of the items summarized above as
common elements to all alternatives would .-  included in this
remedy.  The approximate cost of this action is $3,266,000.

Alternative jjjLi  Cap and Cover  This remedy consists of three main
phases.  First all on-site liquids and flowable organics will be
stabilized in place.   Any work which might release VOC fumes will
be done inside portable buildings connected to a fume
incinerator/scrubber.  Next the pits would be closed by
constructing compacted clay caps over them.  These caps would
have a venting system to trap any volatile organic compound  (VOC)
fumes released later by the unstabilized materials (such as
untreated contaminated soils) in the pits.  The vents will be
connected to carbon canisters to control any VOC emissions,  if
necessary.  The estimated cost of this alternative is
$13,333,000 (plus $500,000 for dismantling the process facility).

Alternative 3*  Vault  This remedy would place all affected
materials in an on-site vault.  Affected materials would-be  drum
contents, surface and subsurface soil contaminated at or above
action levels, and any liquids and flowable solids.  Any liquids
or flowable solids will be stabilized first, and then put  in the
vault.  Any work which might release VOC fumes would be done in
portable building, and the fumes collected and incinerated.
After the vault was filled it would be capped and covered.   As in
the Cap and cover alternative, a venting system for VOC  fumes
would be installed.  Tank liquids and drums with liquids would be
disposed of off site.  All tanks but one would be dismantled and
buried in the vault along with all drums of solids.  One tank
would be used to equalize the flow to a package wastewater
treatment plant.  This plant would treat the vault's  leachate.
The estimated cost of this alternative is  $20,723,000  (plus
$500,000 for dismantling the process  facility).

Alternative 4;  Biological Treatment  This  remedy would use
either a solid phase or aqueous phase biological system to treat
                           20

-------
-1- -' '- -
   .
 all affected materials and soils.  After treatment, the solid
 residues from either process would be sufficiently decontaminated
 for use as direct backfill of the areas from which they were
 removed (cover soil and vegetative growth also placed in these
 areas).  All excavation would be enclosed in a portable structure
 which would vent to a fume incinerator/scrubber system*  The
 estimated cost of this alternative is $22,808,000 (aqueous phase)
 and $22,833,000 (solid phase - plus $800,000 for dismantling the
 process facility).

 *.itL«rn*^y« JLL  Qn«-sifc« incineration  the only difference between
 this remedy and Alternative 3 is that the  affected- materials
 would be incinerated.  The decontaminated ash would be used to
 backfill the excavations.  These areas would then be covered with
 top soil and vegetation.  The estimated cost of this alternative
 is $21,958,005 to $26,098,000 (depending on the type of
 incinerator used - plus $500,000 for dismantling the process
 facility).

 Alternately* $j.  Qff-ait« Piapaaal  This solution would include
 excavation inside portable buildings connected to a fume
 incinerator/scrubber.  The -pits would then be backfilled with
 clean soil.  The excavated material would be placed in trucks,
 specially equipped for hauling hasardous substances, and
 transported to SA off-site disposal facility.  The estimated cost
 of this alternative is $84,283,000 (plus $500,000 for dismantling
 the process facility).

                 QL
 The degree to which the remedial alternatives meet the nine
 selection criteria is contained in Table 3.'  The following values
 were assigned to compare remedy selection criteria:

        ++   Alternative would oreativ exceed a selection criterion
             when compared to other alternatives.

        +    Alternative would exceed a criterion in comparison
             to other alternatives.

        0    Alternative can be designed to meet the selection
             criterion.

             Special efforts will be necessary in the design of
             the remedy to meet the selection criterion.

             In comparison to the other remedies, these
             alternatives would present most difficulty in
             achieving a selection criterion.

 The rational* for the ratings assigned in this table is as follows;

        1.   compiles vith &BAJ& (i.e. meets or exceeds


                            21

-------
     Applicable, or Relevant and Appropriate Federal
     State Requirements).

     No Action is assigned a "—" because  it violates the
     intent of SARA Section 121  regarding  the selection of
     a remedy that is protective of  human  health and the
     environment.

     All other alternatives are  rated  "0"  since they all
     can be designed to meet any ARARs as  discussed in
     Appendix C.

2.    Reduces;   Toxicity. Mobility, and Volume

     No Action and Off-site Disposal are rated  "—"
     because they do not reduce  any  of these parameters.

     Cap and Cover was rated differently for each of these
     parameters.

          o    Toxicity was rated "-"  since none of the
               organic contamination would be removed  from
               the site except  for possible air emissions.

          o    Mobility was rated "0"  since the plan could
               be designed to meet the selection
          o    Volume was rated "-"  since the addition of
               stabilizing agents would increase the
               amount of material.

     Vault was rated differently for each of these parameters

          o    Toxicity was rated "-" since none of the
               organic contamination would be removed from
               the site.

          o    Mobility was rated "+" since the leachate
               from the vault would  be contained and
               treated before discharge.

          o    Volume was rated "-"  since the addition of
               stabilizing agents would increase the
               amount of material.

     Biological Treatment and Incineration were both rated
     "++" since both remedies would  remove organic
     components in the waste materials thus reducing all
     parameters.

     Short-Term Effectiveness

     Off-site Disposal is rated H-M  because the
                    22

-------
     transportation of waste poses additional
     environmental risks.

     No Action is rated "0", but only in the short-term
     (less than one year) as long as site access is
     restricted and direct contact with site contaminants
     is prevented.

     All other alternatives were rated "0" since any
     excavation or stabilization would be done in portable
     buildings.  These buildings would vent to a fume
     incinerator, thus minimizing any VOC fume releases
     during the clean up.

4.   Long-Term Effectiveness and. Permanence

     No Action was rated "—" because of the potential
     human health  and environmental risks involved  in
     leaving untreated wastes at a site where long-term
     site control can not be insured.

     The rating of "+" were given to Biological Treatment
     and Incineration since these remedies would entail
     the destruction of most of the'organic contamination
     on the site.  The Vault remedy was rated "0" and Cap
     and Cover was rated "-" since they would involve more
     long term monitoring and maintenance.

     Off-site Disposal rated "-" due to the potential
     threat involved in the long-term transport of wastes
     from the site and the problems associated with
     redisposal of the wastes.

5.   Implementabi lity                            '

     The Cap and Cover and Vault remedies were
     rated "+" since these remedies could be easily
     implemented.  Biological Treatment was rated "0"
     since it is more complex but is still easy to
     construct and implement.  Incineration was rated "-"
     since it is the most complex alternative which
     requires a significant amount of testing prior to
     start-up.  Off-site Disposal received a rating of "-"
     due to potential transportation problems.

6.   Cost

     Estimated costs for each remedial action alternative
     are summarized in Table 5.  Included in this table
     are total capital and present worth costs.  Operation
     and maintenance costs were factored into each  line
     item.  Replacement costs have been evaluated as the
     cost involved in remediation should the alternative
                    23

-------
     fail.  With the exception of No Action,  the  potential
     for failure was determined to be greatest  with  t
     Cap and Cover solution, since there would  remain
     potential for contaminants to leach from stabilized
     wastes without some direct means of capturing the
     leachate (as used in the Vault).

     The Vault alternative would rank second  to Cap  and
     Cover with regard for the probability of failure
     because these structures have been known to  leak
     (over the long-term) even with the leachate
     collection devices they provide.   Biological
     Treatment and Incineration would have the  lowest
     probability of failure because they would  be treating
     certain amounts of contaminated materials  to levels
     that should not cause future problems if used as
     backfill for the site.  However,  to differing
     degrees, all solutions will leave contaminated  soils
     on site property, therefore, a'l solutions will
     include a cost for an estimated cost for corrective
     action should the remedy fail.  In this  case, we  will
     assume that incineration will be the replacement
     treatment and that $21 million will be the cost of
     replacement.

     The No Action alternative has the lowest present
     worth cost of the various alternatives followed by
     Cap and Cover, Vault, Biological Treatment,
     Incineration and Off-site Disposal (in increasing
     order of cost).  The line items accounting for the
     greatest cost were treatment of affected materials
     and soils, air emission controls and monitoring,
     groundwater treatment and monitoring, and  the  site
     management plan.  Transportation costs are the
     primary reason for the vast difference in  cost
     between any of the on-site remedies and Off-site
     Disposal.

7.   Community Acceptance

     Comments from local residents received at  the public
     meeting on February 9, 1988, and during the public
     comment period have one central theme, there is
     general agreement among local residents that all
     measurable amounts of affected soils found on the
     site should be treated.  EPA has proposed to treat
     only affected materials and soils that would pose a
     health threat.  Thus, some measurable amounts of
     contaminants will remain on site, however, deed
     restrictions will be  imposed and site access will be
     controlled.  Another major concern of the public is
     the potential adverse impact that this  Super fund
     will have on their property values and  on the
                    24

-------
      economic development of the area.

      Community members have also expressed concern over
      the need to widen Mud Gully (a flood control ditch
      located on the western boundary of the site) to
      prevent a "bottle neck" in the ditch.  Additionally,
      they would like to see the tanks and process
      equipment dismantled as part of any remedy.

      Off-site Disposal was the only solution which the
      public appeared to favor, but they wanted all
      measurable amounts of contaminants excavated and
      disposed offsite.  Therefore, all alternatives in
      this Record of Decision were rated "-" due to the
      lack of support from the community.

      To address the concerns mentioned above, EPA will
      request that any settling party (as part of the
      selected remedy) investigate creative design and
      landscaping ideas, in cooperation with the local
      residents, that might reduce any adverse economic
      impact the site might have on the area and enhance
      the aesthetics of the site.  Additionally, any remedy
     will have to address the problem associated with Mud
     Gully to the satisfaction of the local Flood Control
     District and include dismantling the above ground
      storage tanks and process equipment.  For further
     detail refer to Section V, entitled "Selected
     Remedy."  Further discussion concerning EPA's
      response to public comments can be found in Appendix
     E, "Community Relations Responsiveness Summary."

8.   State Acceptance

     The State (through the Texas Water commission) has
     been provided an opportunity to comment on the Record
     of Decision.   They have indicated that they have no
     objection to the proposed remedy (See Appendix G).

     Therefore, on-site incineration and on-site
     biological treatment have been rated "+" while all
     other alternatives were rated H0".

9.  Overall Protection o_f Human Health and the Environment

     No Action receives a rating of "—" because it does
     not provide adequate protection from the potential
     risks involved with leaving untreated wastes onsite.
     Off-site Disposal is rated "-" because the solution
     does not utilize treatment and the problem  is. merely
     transferred from one location to another.
     Furthermore,  there is potential for exposure or
     release during transportation, and most importantly
                    25

-------
            it is the least preferred alternative where
            practicable treatment technologies are available.

            The Vault and Cap and Cover rated "+" because  they
            utilize treatment (stabilization) and do provide
            overall protection of human health and the
            environment.  Biological Treatment and Incineration
            both rated "++" because they provide the best  means
            of treatment (i.e.,  destruction of organics) and  they
            do provide overall protection of human health  and the
            environment.

4.4  OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

The need for future operation and maintenance will be minimized
since the primary sources of contamination will be removed
through treatment.   Site operation and maintenance will include a
monitoring program for sampling groundwater wells, ambient air,
and Mud Gully sediments.  This sampling program will monitor  the
effectiveness of the selected remedy and provide the data
necessary to trigger future corrective action, if necessary.
Additional site maintenance would include, but not necessarily be
limited to, inspections of surface vegetation,- ensuring proper
drainage, proper operation of any actions such as groundwater
treatment which may extend beyond the time required for the
source control remedy,.and periodic fence (or barrier) repair.
The details of this activity will be defined in the Operation
Maintenance Plan of the remedial design.

V.  SELECTED REMEDY

Based on the information provided in the administrative record
and the results of the evaluation of alternatives (Section 4.3),
the final remedy has been selected.

It is EPA's judgment that on-site incineration of affected
materials and soils best serves both statutory and selection
criteria in relation to the other solutions evaluated in this
document.  However, the Brio Site Task Force proposes the use of
aqueous-phase biological treatment.  The lack of the demonstrated
performance of this technique on the affected materials and soils
at the Brio Refining site, while of concern to EPA, may not
prevent favorable consideration if the Brio Task Force can
demonstrate that aqueous-phase biological treatment can provide
the same level of treatment deemed necessary to protect public
health and the environment.

EPA has determined that if adequate demonstration is provided
prior to remedial action, the Brio Site Task Force's proposal has
the potential to provide protection of human health and the
environment comparable to the on-site incineration remedy.
this determination has been made with the understanding that
the remedy (aqueous-phase biological treatment)  should fail  the
                           26

-------
 Task  Force  (or  settling party) would have to undertake any
 corrective  action deemed appropriate by EPA.  Pass/fail criteria
 for use  of  biotreatment rather than incineration will be
 developed prior  to the start of remedial action.  If biotreatment
 cannot meet the  pass/fail criteria, then on-site incineration
 win  be  implemented.

 The final remedy is summarized as follows:

 Affected materials and soils -  Shall be treated using either
 incineration or  biological treatment.  This media shall be
 defined as  all contaminated sludges and liquids and waste
 material found to exist a±>ove the action levels defined in the
 Endangerment Assessment (EA).  This will include those affected
 materials and soils existing in pits B, J, H/V, E, Q, and R
 (as defined in the EA).   Additionally, the Remedial Investigation
 identified  sludges and liquids in pits F, G, I, K, L, and M;
 therefore,  these sludges and liquids (and any others found during
 remedial action) must also be excavated an , treated.  The
 definition  of the boundary between the sluoje/soil interface will
 be determined prior to remedial action.

 Excavations shall be conducted in enclosures, material
 transported to the treatment unit(s), and the treated material
 backfilled  in the pits if it successfully passes the Toxicity
 Characteristic Leaching Procedure.

 Surface contamination -  Attachments 8 and 9 of the Remedial
 Investigation Report shall be examined and the site re-evaluated
 prior to remedial action, to identify those areas where surface
 seeps are visually apparent.  These areas will be scraped or
 excavated to remove the source of contamination and to prevent
 future migration of this material.  This source of contamination
 will then be consolidated and treated with the affected materials
 and soils.

 Off-site soil contamination -  Any off-site soil contamination
 found during the remedial investigation, or during the remedial
 action, shall be removed to background levels.  This may require
 that special detection limits be used for sampling efforts at the
 site boundaries during the remedial action.  This activity will
 have to be  further defined in the remedial design.

 Pit fi -  Further investigation into this pit area to locate
 sludges or  liquids may have to be done at the completion of the
 remedial action due to the location of this pit beneath the
wastewater treatment surface impoundment.  This activity will be
 further defined  in the remedial design.

Debris and  rubble -  There is much inert debris and  rubble
 remaining on the site from past operations.  This material may be
consolidated and the ultimate disposition of the material
determined during the remedial design.
                           27

-------
                                                             h^s
          -  Contaminants observed in this flood  control  ditcl
and the "bottle neck" that exists as it passes  the  Brio site
been a noted concern of the EPA as well as local  residents  and
the Harris County Flood Control District.   It  is  apparent that
these problems will have to be corrected as part  of any remedy
that is instituted at the site.  Initial thoughts would suggest  a
low-maintenance approach to resolving this problem  where  some
type of performance standard would be set  in cooperation  with the
Harris County Flood Control District.   Such actions shall be
further defined in the remedial design.

Wastewater treatment system -  In-place stabilization of  wastes
existing in the impoundments, backfill impoundments with  dike
materials and other uncontaminated materials (if  necessary), cap
and cover, grade to promote runoff and minimize infiltration,
install a package wastewater treatment plant or route wastewater
to a POTW.  Portions of the existing wastewater treatment system
may be used during remedial action, but will be decommissioned
once the remedial action is completed.

Storage tanks and drums -  Remove tank contents,  decontaminate
tanks, dismantle tanks; sell dismantled tanks  or transport  the
tanks to an EPA approved off-site disposal facility; transport
the tank contents and drums to an EPA approved off-site  disposal
facility.   If any tanks are used during remedial activities,  t
will be dismantled upon completion.
                                                              b^^
Process equipment -  The entire process facility will be
dismantled.  If any portion of the existing facility is used during
remedial activities, the structure will be dismantled upon
completion of  remedial action.

Monitoring and control of migration pathways -  Ambient air
sampling on a  semi-annual basis; control air emissions from
treatment processes; excavate in enclosures and vent the
•enclosure to an emission control device; eliminate or control
rainfall on construction areas; sample and monitor Mud Gully
sediments; treat the groundwater in the Numerous Sand Channel
Zone to a level to be determined in the remedial design  (but to
achieve treatment of the Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids  (DNAFLs)
to the satisfaction of EPA) monitor the groundwater for a
timeframe to be determined in the remedial design; allow  natural
attenuation (no treatment) of the Fifty-Foot Sand aquifer and
monitor the groundwater in the aquifer to ensure that it  is
naturally cleaning itself.  Monitoring activities will be
utilized to determine the effectiveness of the actions to be
implemented and shall be detailed in  the operation and
maintenance plan of the remedial design.  This same data  will  be
evaluated during the Agency's 5-year  review, in accordance with
SARA Section I2l(c), to determine if  any corrective action  is
necessary.
                            28

-------
Site management plan -  Areas outside the boundaries of
excavation will be regraded and vegetated to promote drainage and
minimize infiltration.  A stormwater transmission system draining
to Mud Gully will be constructed in an east/west direction across
the north and south parcels.  All regrading will be covered with'
6 inches of topsoil, if necessary, to promote vegetative growth.
To the maximum extent practicable, the aesthetics of the site
(upon completion of the remedy) shall be enhanced by utilizing
creative design and landscaping techniques with input from local
residents.

Site control -  This remedial action is based on permanent site
control, imposition of necessary deed notices and restrictions
(if possible), and restriction of access to the site by use of a
fence or similar barrier.
                           29

-------
APPENDIX A

-------
                              TABLE 1

HIGHEST COMPOUND CONCENTRATIONS FOR PIT SOIL AND SUBSOIL SAMPLES

                     Highest  Concentration  of
                    Volatile  Organic Compounds
                             (mg/kg)


  Pit     Compound                 Pit  Soil             Subsoil

   A      Vinyl  Chloride             0.074               ND

   B      1,2  Dichloroethane         245,000             515

   C      Methylene Chloride         0.037               0.050
   D      1,2  Dichloroethane         0.0245              ND
   E      1,1,2  Trichloroethane      12,500              36.1
   F      1,1,2  Trichloroethane      728                 0.50

   G      Methylene Chloride         0.50              '  0.01
  'H      1,2  Dichloroethane         32,000              ND
                                                     •
   I       1,1,2  Trichloroethane      3,980               ND
   J      1,2  Dichloroethane         179,000             159

   K      Ethylbenzene              328                 ND
   L      Methylene Chloride         392                 ND
   M      1,2  Dichloroethane         121                 9.97
   N      1,1,2  Trichloroethane      23                 .1.19
   O      Ethylbenzene              340                 ND
   P      1,1,2  Trichloroethane      0.934               91.0
   Q      1,1,2  Trichloroethane      65,700              472

   R      Ethylbenzene              588                 21.1
   S      None  Detected

   T      Methylene Chloride         0.19                ND

   U      Methylene Chloride         0.054               ND
   V      Methylene Chloride         1000               ND
   X      None  Detected

-------
                             TABLE 1 (Cont.)

HIGHEST COMPOUND CONCENTRATIONS FOR PIT SOIL AND SUBSOIL SAMPLES

                     Highest Concentrations of
                  Base Neutral Organic Compounds
                             (mg/kg)


   Pit      Compound          Pit  Soil         Subsoil

    A       Fluoranthene        0.074          16.1

    B       Bis (2 chloroethyl)   3,040           ND
            ether
    C       None Detected
    D       None Detected
    E       Phenanthrene       838             "ND"
    F       Phenanthrene      .411             ND

    G       Phenanthrene       91.5            ND
    H       Pyrene             762             ND
    I        Phenanthrene       6,670           ND
    J       Phenanthrene       2,910           ND

    K       Phenanthrene       740             ND
    L       Phenanthrene       120             ND
    M       Phenanthrene       62.6            ND
    N       Phenanthrene       111             ND
    0       Phenanthrene       29              ND
    P       Anthracene         86.5            NO
    Q       Bis (2 chloroethyl)  1,810           ND
            ether
    R       Phenanthrene       758            ND
    S       None Detected

    T       None Detected

    U       Phenanthrene       2.18            ND
    V       None Detected
    X       None Detected

-------
                             TABLE 2
           ORGANIC COMPOUND CONCENTRATIONS IN THE NSCZ
        Well
       BMW1A
       BMW2A
       BMW3A
       BMW4A
       BMW6A
       BMW7A
       BMW8A
       BMW9A
      BMW 10A
      BMW 11A
      BMW 12A
      BMW13A
      BMW 14A
    .  BMW 15A
      BMW 16A
      BMW17A
      BMW 18A
      BMW 26A
      BMW 27A
      BMW 28A
      BMW 30A
      BMW31A

BMW - Brio Monitoring Well

A » Well monitors the NSCZ aquifer.

• » Only Methylene Chloride detected.

Concentration is the sum of
the concentrations of:      Vinyl  Chloride
                         Dichloroethane
                         Trichloroethane
                         Methylene Chloride
                         Bis (2 chloroethyl) ether
Concentration (mg/h
     ND
     ND
    2.41
    3.21
    664
    4165
    4.89
    13.2
    .51
    1.25
     .02
    829
     ND
    5.99
    .02'
     73
    1756
    .02*
     .04
    38.4
    1.83
    37.2

-------
      I  O
      II   II   H

 a  n  in  r
 •*   o  'o   ••*
 ti  3  »D   **
 -*i  a  n   ID
 **   Qf  M   ^
 0   T  8)   "*
 C   IB  •-  *
 H-  a       ft
 ft      m   •-
<   rt-  -f,  <
     C  -»i  ID
         C
 3   o  T   n

 3   3"  I/I   3
 ID   1C
 ID   T  J
 It    I!

 D  D

 rt-  ft
 to   5



 ft   ft


 10   1C

 (0  -a
 x   •;
 n   ID
 K)   i
 10   ft
 n   «-
?  >-  »-  a

    (!   r  in
ft  ••   n   >-
T  3      c
ID  *   3   3
    ^  f5   *B
n  *-   n   a
".  <   ID
*•  !D   IT   ft
ft  tfi   ip   n
ID  ••    b
         ID
         rt
n   T
T   x
y   n
ft   ID
ID   ID
TO.

O/
     0
X   ",
T   •-
(^   rt"
3   ID
     ^|

n   ^
n   i
i
ID  *•   0
",  Bl   T
<  rt  f-
«  ID   »
    •5   •
I  "
0  ft
C
I-" ft
a o

J 3
»  «
<  D
1C  ft
    D
    •^
     i


    0)
D  3
a
    n
ft  ,-
0  3
    0
0  ft

7  Q
•  a

    ct-
ft  0

tv  n
*  cV
•5  T
3  (B
ft  T
ft
M.  9,

ID  ft
                      j


                      ft
                      **

                      <
                      *»
                      f
                      J^
OK F-yilF
DISPOSAL
O
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
0>
*
=•
1
- c
2 2
- CD
m -j
33 -T
r
H
O
z
0
4-
•f
+
_0
*
1
ro
ro
i
ro
IP
i
•
b. 	
i -f T O
m c i
r r «
-: C «
m « rn
z n
H D
o
•f
•f
*
0
*
o
ro
i
•f

<
.___
H
O
1
+
1
o
o
•f
nj
•
o
-, -
r r
< T:
iT
^1 TN
^ •iw'
O
o
1
o
1
o
c
•f
w
1
o
*
7
D
n
-j
z
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
o
1
1
*
u
1
o
I
1
T>
— ^
z
D
— ^
m
in
COMPLIES
WITH
fiRARB
H
0
X
3 O
0 C
BI n
m
g
SHORT-
TERM
EFFECT
m H r
*n ^ o
TI in z
rn 3 o
n i
H
IMPLE-
MENT-
OBILITY
-v i- n
• r o
^ r to
M -»
0 .
COMMUM-
ITY
flCCEPT
TJ in
n H
n D
JTJ -4
o m
o -o o
^ 3D ^
o n
a» "\ D
mnr
                                                                                                                                        n
                                                                                                                                        o
                                                                                                                                        in
                                                                                                                                        o
                                                                                                                                        z
                                                                                                                                        O  TJ

                                                                                                                                        X  XI
                                                                                                                                        m  rn
                                                                                                                                        TI  3
                                                                                                                                        M  rn
                                                                                                                                        z  o
                                                                                                                                        1-4  I— «
                                                                                                                                        z  r
                                                                                                                                        o  r

                                                                                                                                        en  D
                                                                                                                                        «  r
                                                                                                                                        H  H
                                                                                                                                        m  m
                                                                                                                                             TO

                                                                                                                                             D
                                                                                                                                             H
                                                                                                                                             1-4

                                                                                                                                             m
                                                                                                                                             en
                                                                                                                                    D
                                                                                                                                    •r
                                                                                                                                    r
                                                                                                                                    m

                                                                                                                                    -UJ

-------
                              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.vd.)
    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                      A2

                                    Total    1,757

-------
id
                              f
                              U.
                              &
        o     o
        -     o
        r*.     co
        0)
o      in
o      «
N      *
        oj
o
N
OJ
OJ
n
co
                                                                                    0)
»
•*•!
I
03
«•.•
U)
O
                              a
d
cr
UJ

IH
U
                                      con
                                      w  a) r-
o      m
P      o
                                                                    OJ
        04
        n
        co
                                                      0)
                                                        o
                       •4  IjQ
                       OJ  OJ
                   *
                *  *
                *  *
                *  *
               o o
                                                                                                           N  ~
                                                                                                           ~  OJ
in
                              a
        n  o  o
        n  a)  in
        «  r«)  n
                       o
                       N
                                      o     o
                                      N     O
                                      CO     CO
                                      OJ
                               cr
                               ui

                               o
                               u
                               2'
                               5i
        Si
        U)
        OJ
                                                                     N?
                                                                     N

                                                                     OJ
        (U
        n
        9
                                                                                    UJ
                                                                                                   OJ OJ)
                                   *
                               *  *
                               o  o
                               (ft  o
                               rv  co
                               cn  cr>
                        o     in
                        O     CT»
                        [S.     ,£

                               OJ
                                       o
                                       N
                                       OJ
                        OJ
                        r*l
                        co
                                       o
                                       CO
                                       r*
                                       U)
                «     oj
                in     4
                               in
                               r*
                        OJ
                        n
                        co
                m
                CO
                               U|
                                              V
                                              *4

                                              f«)
                               OJ
                                               y
                                               o
                                               03
                                       *-      S
                                        *      II
5.
01
4*
(I
£

•o
£
«

«
^H
•«
0
CO

T3
01
4>
(J
01
H.
14-
CX
10
X
CO

4*
£
Ol
s
4>
IB
01
i.
K

L
01
4>
>B
2
Ol
4>
01
t
3

01
S
3
i.
Q

T)
£
«

m
.X
£
«
H

01
01
Oi
r
fe
0
JJ
cn
                                                              b.
                                                              0
                                                              Hi
                                                              L
                                                              Ol
                                                                     £
                                                                     Ol
                                       TJ
                                       01
                                       cn
                                       o

                                       •g

                                       i
                                               u
                                               CO
                                               i.
                                               fll
                                               i.
                                               3

                                               0
                                               s.
                                              G
                                                      TJ


                                                        o
                                                  OJ f)  .<
                                                  UD      n
                                                      >•  M
                                                  ••  £  in
                                                      o  it
                                                  Oi -« a
                                                  U  Z'   u
                                                 > G  CJ
                                                          s.
                                                          Ol
                                                          £ 4>
                                                          4*  £
                                                          '6  Ol
                                                          Ol  £
                                                          i- 4>
                                                          I-  
-------
APPENDIX B

-------
                CO   00 X
                               cc
                              .
                            CC X


                            CO X
                                              co

                                              TT
                                              rv
                                     CO

                                     *r
                                     fM

                                     r-
H   8
I
n
 §
I-H
 %
                                 o

                                 rv
1
u.   JJ
                               oS,
                               •H
                               4J  »
                               WE   U O

                               s?r'H
                                                oo     o
                                                in     o
                                                m     CM
               5
      -t  .    #> o   a
        in    o r> m O
ID •<-) •<-! 0)   in  rH » N
CO •£ 3 C« OJ CO    ^4   m
                                                        O
                                                        O
                                                           ...
                                                           avo\
O O O vO
CO   C^ (N
^   0^ f^
 S' in   o o in n

 "*•£   rH   in rH
 P a   «
««
•5^
&fl
                   §o in
                   O rH
                 rH O n

                 (N CO
                   in
                     '3
                 II i

               X X
                 8^- in ^
                 o m o
                rH rH p-t (M
                               n
                           i-   o
                    I
                           X   X
                  8
                           VO CO O O O
                           O VO
                           n rH
                                              V
                                              in
                                                          o o o
                           O   n     CO ^ O O O o     IT)     OOO
                     O O O O CO
                     rH rH in n SO
                     N CM CO 00 DO
                                         O O
                                                    3

                                                    i

                                            8   e   £
                                            g  5   *
                                            rH  *J   0

                                                 §
                                     rfrl 2 J O
                                                    Si
                                                  &
                                                                  in
                                                 OQQ
                                                    &
                                                      •H


                                                      1
                                                         *J&
                                                   l||
                      K^KM  x     x     xx     & Q< n
                      ^SrS^r^.  *>     »>     r^«    -H ff 5}
                                                   fa& V

                                           o N     1! n

                      P» CD rH M I"! CM     M     «O| H   U /»
                      BSnSon     n     ooin   JjH
                      (NfMMOirtn     M     *•**   ^^



                     —	'RESOURCE ENGINEERING

-------
rg
o
          OOOOOOOOOO
                      CM
        tn   oooooooocn
       i«l               CO
                            O M r>i PM cj '.
                              * v v v -
                              v v v v v
                                     O  VD
                                     r>  vo
                                     r^  01
                                      *   ^
                                     
ifiirt»iD»-i(Min r,
         
-------
V
n
   ti
                                              in  in m m
                                              00  CO CO CO
        
                                                          :<

-------
APPENDIX C

-------
 1.7   REGULATORY  COMPLIANCE

 1.7.1   General Background
 Section  121(d)  of  CERCLA,  as  amended  by  the  Superfund   Amendments  and
 Reauthorization  Act  of  1986  (SARA),  describes  the  types of standards that  a
 remedial  action  is  required to  meet.   Those  standards must be  met by any
 remedial action  proposed by  this Feasibility Study for the Brio site.  Section
 121(d)  mandates  that the remedial action selected must be protective of public
 health  and the environment and the types of control  in place and  the levels  of
 the  hazardous  substances,  pollutants, or contaminants at the  site must  meet
 those  standards,  requirements,  criteria,   or  limitations under  any Federal
 environmental  law,  or any  more  stringent   state  standard,  that  are  "legally
 applicable"  or  "relevant and  appropriate".   To  obtain  compliance with  this
 general standard,  and  in recognition of the USEPA "  July 9,  1987 memorandum
 "Interim Guidance  on Compliance with Applicable and  Relevant  and  Appropriate—'
 Requirements", all  remedial  action  plans  were evaluated  to  determine  what
 standard and appropriate technologies would be adequately protective of public
 health and the environment.

 The universe of environmental standards and controls was  reviewed to determine
 which of them  had  a bearing on  remedial action  at  the site,  Table 1-8.   The
 results  of  that  evaluation are  summarized  in Table   1-9  which specifies
 controls and standards deemed appropriate during remediation on the basis of a
 best engineering judgement evaluation.

 At the completion of remediation the only standards that  Bust  be complied with
are those that describe the  level at which  a hazardous substance, pollutant or
 contaminant should be found  in the environment or those standards that specify
a  means  of  controlling  releases  of  hazardous   substances,  pollutants  or
 contaminants.

For  those  standards  that  describe  a  level  or  type  of  control,   these
requirements need  only be net  if they are "legally  applicable" or "relevant
and  appropriate".   These  terms  are not defined  in the  amended CERCLA.   The
EPA's  Interim  Guidance  defines "applicable  requirements" as  "those cleanup
standards,    standards   of   control,  and   other   substantive  environmental
                                     U-11

-------
                                   TABLE H-8

          STANDARDS, REQUIREMENTS,  CRITERIA,  OR  LIMITATIONS EVALUATED
                            FOR ARARs DETERMINATION
             Safe Drinking Water Act
             Clean Water Act
             Solid Waste Disposal Act
             Occupational Safety and Health Act
             Hazardous Materials Transportation Act
             National Historic Preservation Act
             Archeological and Historical Preservation Act
             Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act
             Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
             Endangered Species Act
             Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
             Wilderness Act
             Scenic River Act
             Coastal Zone Management Act
             Texas Clean Air Act
             Texas Solid Waste Disposal Act
             Texas Water Code
BRO/FS-FN-S4TrO6)
BRO/FS-FN-S*4Tr(l6)

-------
                                   TABLE  4-9

                       STANDAflDS AND CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
                        UTILIZED DURING REMEDIATION AS
                         SPECIFIED  BY BEST  ENGINEERING
                      JUDGEMENT TO PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH
                              AND THE ENVIRONMENT
A.    AIR EMISSIONS

      1.   Excavation/stabilization performed in enclosure  and  air  emissions
           collected and routed to fume incinerator with scrubber (all
           remedial options).

      2.   Any stockpiles of feedstock for treatment (biological  or
           incineration) maintained in enclosure with air emissions collected
           and routed to scrubber equipped fume incinerator.

      3.   Biological treatment (solid or aqueous) performed  in an  enclosure
           with air emissions collected and routed to a scrubber equipped fume
           incinerator.

      4.   Incinerator equipped with high-temperature" secondary combustion
           chamber and wet scrubber designed to meet particulate, HC1 and
           destruction removal efficiency limitations specified in  MO CFR Part
           264, Subpart 0.

B.    SURFACE AND CROUNDWATER

      1.   Process water and potentially contaminated stormwater  collected
           and routed to a package activated sludge treatment system equipped
           with carbon polishing and discharged to Mud Gully  or routed to a
           POTW for treatment (all remedial options).

      2.   Discharge from package treatment system consistent with NPDES
           permit limitations, and 40 CFR Part 125.

      3.   Any groundwater subject to treatment would be treated in the
           package treatment system prior to discharge.
BRO/FS-FN-S4Tr(12)
    1  Since excavation/stabilization,  stockpiling  and any treatment will take
      place in  enclosures such that potentially contaminated storowater would
      not be generated,  the only areas subject to stomwater collection would
      be the transfer areas between pit excavation and stockpile and  stockpile
      and treatment.

-------
                                  TABLE 4-9
                                  [Continued)
C.    AFFECTED SOIL AND MATERIAL
      1.   Compliance with substantive portions  of 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart J,
           relating to tanks (aqueous biological  treatment), including:

           a.  40 CFR § 264.191  (shell strength)
           b.  40 CFR $ 264.192  (prevent overfilling)

      2.   Compliance with substantive portions  of 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart L,
           relating to covered storage piles  (all remedial options),
           including:

           a.  40 CFR 5 264.250(c) (covered waste pile)

      3.   Compliance with substantive portions  of "0 CFR Part 264, Subpart M,
           relating to land treatment (solid  phase :.odegradation),  including:

           a.  40 CFR § 264.273  (maximize degradation)
           b.  40 CFR § 264.278  (unsaturated  zone monitoring)
D.    GENERAL
      1.   OSHA Health and Safety Regulations as provided for in 20 CFR Part
           1910, Subpart H.
BRO/FS-FN-S4Tr(13)

-------
protection requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated under Federal or
State   law   that  specifically   address   a   hazardous   substance  pollutant,
contaminant,  remedial  action,  location  or  other  circumstance  at a  CERCLA
site."   The  guidance also  notes that  to be  "applicable"  implies that  the
remedial action  or circumstance  satisfy all  the  Jurisdictional  prerequisites
of a requirement.

The Interim Guidance defines "relevant and appropriate"  requirements as  "those
cleanup standards,  standards of  control,  and other  substantive  environmental
protection  requirements,  criteria, or  limitations  promulgated under Federal
and  State  law  that,  while  not  'applicable'  to  a   hazardous  substance,
pollutant,  contaminant, remedial  action, location, or other  circumstance  at a
CERCLA  site,  address  problems or  situations  sufficiently  similar to  those
encountered at the CEPCLA site that their use is well suited  to the particular
site."

Section  121  also provides  that  on-site remedies are  not required  to  obtain
Federal, State, or local permits.   This permit exemption covers Federal, State
or potentially  responsible  party  response actions  being taken on  site under
the authority  of  CERCLA Sections  104,  106 or  122.   Therefore,  these remedies
must comply with  the  substantive  requirements which specify a  level or means
of  control,  but  do  not  need  to comply  with  administrative  and  procedural
requirements associated  with the  permitting process.   "On-site"  includes the
areal extent of  contamination  and all  suitable areas in reasonable proximity
to the contamination necessary for implementation of the response action.

ARARs must  be determined  on  a  site  specific  basis.    Therefore,  with  this
general understanding of the  requirements of  $  121(d), the following is an
assessment  by  environmental media  of  compliance  of  the  proposed remedial
actions  with  the  standards  found   to be   either  "legally  applicable"  or
"relevant and appropriate".

4.7.2  Air Emissions
Based  on  a   review   of  all   potentially  applicable  air  emission-related
regulations  and  standards,  the  only  "legally  applicable or  relevant and
appropriate requirement" for air  emissions at the completion of remediation la

-------
 specified  in  Section  4.01  of the Texas Clean Air Act, which provides that "no
 person  may  cause,  suffer,  allow or permit the emission of air contaminants or
 the  performance  of any activity which causes or contributes to,  or which will
 cause  or contribute  to,  a condition of  air pollution".   "Air  pollution"  is
 defined "as the  presence  in the atmosphere of one or more air contaminants or
 a  combination thereof, in  such concentration and of such duration  as  are of
 may  tend  to  be  injurious  to  or  to adversely  affect  human health  or  the
 environment,  animal life,  vegetation  or property,  or  as  to interfere with the
 normal  use and enjoyment of animal life, vegetation, or property."

 To assure compliance  with  this  standard,  each of the  proposed remedial  action
 plans  contains  provisions  for  semiannual ambient  monitoring to  verify  that
 site conditions  existing  at the completion of  remediation are not causing or
 contributing  to a condition of  air pollution.  All of the remedial actions are
 designed  to  insure .that  emissions  are  in  compliance this  ARAR.   Specif ic^_>*
measures  to  control  air  emissions during remediation- have  been incorporated
 into each remedial action plan  and are outlined in Table 4-9.
                              •
 4.7.3   Surface and Ground Water

 4.7.3.1  Discharges to Surface  Water
 Mud Cully runs through the  site and will  be impacted from both point and non-
 point  sources of  water discharges  from  the  site.    The  point  sources  will
                                                                      /
 consist  of water  generated  by remedial  activities  as well  as  storm  water
 flows.   At  the   completion of  remediation, there  will   be  no  point  source
discharge.

However, at the  completion  of remediation Hud Cully may be impacted by a non-
point  source  discharge,  namely ground water  flow from the  NSCZ.  The only
standards that could  be  "legally  applicable or relevant  and  appropriate" to
discharges  from  the  NSCZ  would be  state' water quality standards or  federal
water quality criteria.

State  water  quality   standards are  the   legally  enforceable counterpart to
federal water quality criteria.   In  Texas,  the state water quality standards
are set forth in Chapters  319  and 333,  of the rules and regulations  of the
                                     4-43

-------
Texas  Water  Conr.ission.   Those  standards  establish  certain  numerical  criteria
which  are  legally applicable  to  Mud  Gully.   All  remedial  action  plans satisfy
the  requirements  of 31 TAG §§3^9.21 -  29,  333.17  - .19 for the discharge  of
water  from the NSC2 to Mud Gully.

While  these  requirements are ARARs, those  portions of the state's standards
and  the federal water quality criteria that relate  to use  of surface waters  as
a source of  drinking water  (because  the surface  water  directly supplies  water
to a public  drinking water supply system or recharges an aquifer  used  for that
purpose) are not applicable  or  relevant and  appropriate,  because Hud  Gully
does not supply water to a potable water supply system nor does  it  recharge  an
aquifer used for that purpose.

4.7.3.2  Ground Water
The  EPA's  ground  water  protection  strategy  is  based on  the  "differential-—'
protection"  of ground water  (i.e., ground water  protection  as  it relates to a
specific classification of an aquifer).   Under the  strategy ground waters are
classified as follows:
                    «

          •  Class  I - ground waters that are highly vulnerable and
             either an irreplaceable source of drinking water  or
             ecologically vital;
          •  Class  II - ground water currently used or potentially
             available for drinking water or other  beneficial  use;
             and
          •  Class III - ground waters are not a potential source of
             drinking water and of limited beneficial use.
For  Class  I  and  Class  II  ground  waters  MCLs established  under The  Safe
Drinking  Water  Act  would be applicable for  ground  water which qualifies as a
public water  system or  a  community  water system.  MCLs aay  also be relevant
and  appropriate to  ground  water  that would  not  currently  qualify as  such
systems but  could  potential so  qualify  in the  future.   Similarly, where the
State  has established drinking  water standards  are  more stringent  than the
Federal MCL, these may be applicable or relevant and appropriate.

-------
There  are two  water-bearing  zones underlying  the  site which appear  to  have
been  impacted by on-site  activities.   The uppermost  zone  is the NSCZ.   The
next zone, which is  separated  from the NSCZ by an aquitard referred  to as the
Middle  Clay  Unit,  is the  Fifty-Foot Sand.  As  discussed  in  this  FS,  the  NSCZ
is neither an existing nor potential drinking water supply because of the  poor
yield  of  that   zone  and  therefore is  a  Class  III  aquifer under  the  EPA
Groundwater  Protection Strategy.   As such  MCLs  are  neither applicable nor are
they relevant and  appropriate  to the NSCZ.   As outlined  above, however,  NSCZ
ground  water quality  will be  maintained  such that  its  discharge  does  not
represent a  threat to aquatic life  in Mud Gully.

While  the Fifty-Foot  Sand  might  be  a  "potential"  drinking  water  source,
demograpnic  data,  land  use,  and  projected water supply plans  for  the  area
clearly indicate that this aquifer  is not likely to be used  for drinking water
supply purposes.

Even if  it  is used as a drinking water supply  it is  not  likely to serve  as a
public water system  or  even a community water  system.  Therefore, MCLs would
not* be  legally   applicable  to  the  Fifty-Foot sand.   However, because  of its
status as a  potential drinking water source these standards  may be considered
                                                              •
relevant.  Given that any  potential use  is unlikely  in  the  near  future, and
indeed  may   never  occur,  immediate application  of  MCL  is   not  appropriate.
Instead,  it  is  more  appropriate  to monitor  this  zone  and  let  natural
attenuation,   which  will  eventually allow  any  affected  ground  water  in the
Fifty-Foot Sand to  achieve MCL  levels,  take its course  since there  is not
current  or  projected   threat  of  exposure.    Furthermore,  any  subsequent
application  of  MCLs  would  apply  to concentrations at the  point of use and not
at the source.

U.7.U  Affected  Material and Soils
The primary  standards  of criteria  that  could be  legally  applicable  to the
storage,  treatment  or   disposal  of affected  material  and  soils are  those
developed under the  authority of RCRA.   RCRA  requirements  would be "legally
applicable"  to  "hazardous  waste"  which includes:  (1) wastes  which exhibit one
of four  characteristics (ignitability, reactivity,  corrosivity,  or toxicity)
or  (2)  are  listed  in   the  RCRA  regulations  as  hazardous  waste or  (3) are

-------
                                  TABLE U-10

                            BRIO/DOP APPLICABLE OR
                     RELEVANT AND  APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
  1.-   Section M.01 of Texas Clean Air Act (applicable).

  2.   Sections 329.U1-.U9, 333.17-.19 of Chapter  31  of Texas  Administrative
       Code Relating to State Water Quality Standards as  applied  to Mud Gully
       (applicable).

  3.   Federal Water Quality Criteria for Fresh Water Aquatic  Life Protection
       as applied to Mud Gully (relevant and appropriate).

  4.   Safe Drinking Water Act Primary and Secondary  Maximum Contaminant
       Levels (MCLs) as applied to Fifty-Foot Sand (relevant and  appropriate).

  5.   RCRA requirements contained in MO CFR, Part 264, consisting of the
       following (by remedial action plan) (relevant  and  appropriate).

       a.  Car and Cover  (40 CFR Part 264, Subpart N}

           (1)  Eliminate Free Liquids.

           (2)  Stabilize to a bearing capacity sufficient  to  support final
                cover.

           (3)  Cover designed to:

                (a)  provide long term minimization of migration of liquids
                     through closed area;

                (b)  function with minimum maintenance;

                (c)  promote drainage and minimize erosion;

                (d)  accommodate settling and subsidence  so that cover
                     integrity maintained; and

                (e)  have a permeability less than or equal to permeability of
                     my bottom liner system or natural subsoil.

           (4)  Post-Closure Designed to:

                (a)  maintain integrity and effectiveness of cover;

                (b)  maintain groundwater monitoring system;

BRO/FS-FN-S4Tr(1H)

-------
                                TABLE 4-10
                                (Continued)
              (c)  prevent run-on and run-off from eroding or otherwise
                   damaging final cover;  and

              (d)  prevent disturbance of cover.

     b.  Vault  (40 CFR Part 264, Subpart N)

         (1)  Constructed with two liners and a  leachate collection system.

         (2)  Lower liner at least 3 feet thick  constructed of recompacted
              clay with a permeability of no  more than  1 x 10"' cm/a.

         (3)  Maintain a run-on control system to prevent flow into active
              portion of landfill.

         (U)  Maintain a run-off control system  tc -allect and control water
              volume from active portions resulting  from a 24-hour,  100  year
              storm.

         (5)  Manage wind dispersal of particulates.

         (6)  Stabilize materials sufficiently such  that no  free  liquids are
              placed into vault.

         (7)  Cap construction consistent with 5a, above.

         (8)  Post-closure consistent with 5a, above.

6.   RCRA requirements contained in 40 CFR Parts 262 and 263 to  the  extent
     that a remedial alternative involves off-site transportation of
     materials (applicable).  Additionally, 49 CFR Parts  107,  174-177
     relating to Hazardous Materials Transportation  would  be applicable.

7.   RCRA requirements contained in 40 CFR Part  264, Subpart B,  related to
     general facility standards  (applicable), consisting of:

     a.  40 CFR $ 264.14 (site security).

     b.  40 CFR $ 264.17 (incompatible waste).

8.   RCRA requirements contained  in 40 CFR Part 265, Subpart G (relevant and
     appropriate), consisting of:

     a.  40 CFR $ 264.114  (equipment decontamination).

     b.  40 CFR $ 264.117  (monitoring).

9.   Executive Order  11988  - Flood  Plain Management

-------
 Additionally,  all remedial action  plans  that involve the off  site transport
 for  disposal would  be  managed in a  manner  consistent  with UO CFR Part 262,
 including  disposal at a  RCRA  approved  facility.

 JJ.7.5   Land  Ban  Requirements
 Waste  banned pursuant  to  the  Hazardous  and  Solid  Waste Amendments of 1984
 (HSWA)  cannot be placed  in or on the land unless they have been first treated
 to levels  achieving  by  best demonstrated  available  technology  (BOAT) for each
 hazardous  constituent  in the  waste.   "Placement" triggers the land disposal
 requirements  and  this   only  occurs  when disposal  occurs.    Therefore,  for
 placement  to occur,  hazardous  waste must be picked-up and moved  across  the
 boundary of  RCRA "unit  area  of contamination".   Applying this definition  to
 the Brio/DOP sites,  it  is clear that "placement" does not occur when waste is
 consolidated  within  an   area  of  contamination,  capped  in  place  (including
 grading prior to capping) or  treated in-situ.

 Therefore,   since  the   Brio/DOP   sites   are  each   considered   an  "area  of
 contamination",  for  the  reasons  discussed  above, "placement" does not occur
 during  any of the  proposed  remedial  actions.   Therefore, the land disposal
 requirement  is   not  "applicable"   nor   is  it  considered   "relevant  and
 appropriate".

 J4.8  SUMMARY OF  DETAILED  ANALYSIS

 M.8.1   Introduction
 At  this stage,  remedial  investigations  and  endangeroent assessment  of the
 Brio/DOP site  have  been completed.    Utilizing  data developed in  the  RI and
SRI, the EA  concluded  that existing conditions at the Brio/DOP site do not in
and  of  themselves   represent unacceptable  risks to  public  health and  the
environment.   The  EA  further concluded  that exposure  scenarios reflecting
reasonably  anticipated  future  changes to   site  conditions  can  be developed
which, were  they to  occur,  would result in unacceptable risks to human health
and the  environment.  The  identified areas  containing  Materials that exceed
the cleanup  levels developed  in the EA include materials and soils  in Pits B,
E, J,  Q and H/V.   The  exposures  of concern  include long tern inhalation of
volatilized  compound from  these  areas or direct ingestion of these affected
soils and materials.

-------
To remediate  these  affected  areas,  four surviving remedial action plans  were

refined  in  the beginning of this chapter  (Section  4.3).   Each plan was  t

evaluated   in   relation   to   its   technical   feasibility   (Section  4.4),

effectiveness  in achieving health and environmental goals  (Section 4.5),  cost

(Section 4.6)  and  regulatory compliance (Section 4.7).   The purpose of  this

section is to summarize the results  of these earlier analyses.


4.8.2  Cap and Cover
             Technical Evaluation - Stabilization followed  by  cap
             and cover is a feasible and commonly practiced remedial
             approach.  It is applicable, practical  and proven.
             Some long term monitoring and maintenance of cap
             conditions would be required.

             Public Health Environmental Evaluation  - Stabilization,
             cap and cover and venting will isolate  affected soils
             from human contact.  Cap and cover in combination with
             the site management plan will minimize  the potential
             for migration via infiltration or runoff.  Cap and
             cover in combination with long term venting system will
             eliminate potential air emissions.

             Regulatory Compliance - Cap and cover complies with all
             legally applicable or relevant and appropriate federal
             and state standards, requirements, criteria or
             limitations.

             Cost -.Total cost of cap and cover is $13,481,000.  Net
             present cost of cap and cover is $11,700,000.  Cap and
             cover is the most cost effective remedial action plan.
                                     4-48

-------
      Vault
         •  Technical Evaluation - The vault is a  feasible  and
            readily constructable remedial approach.   Equipment
            manpower and materials for vault construction are
            readily available.   Some uncertainty regarding  the
            effectiveness of stabilization remains.   Some long-term
            maintenance would be required.

         •  Public Health/Environmental Evaluation -Stabilization
            and vaulting of affected soils and  materials will
            isolate the materials from direct human contact.  Vault
            construction in combination with the site management
            plan will minimize  the potential for migration  via
            infiltration or runoff.   The secure cap and cover
            installed on the vault will eliminate  potential air
            emissions.

         •  Regulatory  Compliance -  Stabilization  and vaulting of
            affected soils and  materials complies  with all  legally
            applicable  or relevant and appropriate federal  and
            stare standards, requirements, criteria or limitations.

         •  Cost - Total vault  costs are $20,871,000. Net  present
            costs of the vault  are $17,300,000.
.8.4  Biological Treatment
            Technical Evaluation - Biological  destruction of
            organic compounds is applicable,  practical,  and
            proven.  Field testing on site specific materials has
            yielded further positive results  for degradation of
            PNAs and removal of volatiles. Basic process
            configurations- (solid or aqueous  phase) are  easily
            constructable and implementable.

            Public Health/Environmental Evaluation - Biological
            treatment of affected soils and Materials will
            significantly reduce constituent  concentrations for
            both PNAs and volatiles.  This destructive technology
            will result in the production of  soils that  can be
            backfilled to the pit areas with  no need for further
            treatment effectively eliminating the ingestion and
            runoff issues.  Cap and cover on  other site  areas will
            further isolate materials from potential contact or
            transport.

            Regulatory Compliance - Biological treatment compiles
            with all legally applicable or relevant and appropriate
            federal and state standards, requirements, criteria or
            limitations.  Further substantial reductions in

-------
             mobility, toxicity and volume of affected  soils  and
             materials are achieved.

             Cost - Total costs for biological  treatment  are
             $22,956,000 (aqueous phase)  and $22,981,000  (solid
             phase).  Net present costs are $19,920,000 (aqueous
             phase) and $19,930,000 (solid phase).
4.8.5  Incineration
          •  Technical Evaluation - Destruction of organic  compounds
             through incineration is applicable and a  proven
             technology for remediation of affected soils and
             materials.  Field testing of high temperature
             incineration on site specific soils indicated
             successful destruction of organic constituents.
             Mobile/transportable incinerators are available  from
             various vendors.  Application of incineration, however,
             will be more complex than other alternatives.

          •  Public Health/Environmental Evaluation -  Incineration
             will eliminate potential public health/environmental
             impacts by elimination of organic compounds in affected
             soils and materials.  Air emissions would be  controlled
             with conventional scrubber technology. Constituent
             destruction eliminates future concerns regarding
             ingestion, inhalation and off site transport.  Cap and
             cover on other site areas will further isolate
             materials on site from potential contact  or transport.

          •  Regulatory Compliance - Incineration complies with all
             legally applicable or relevant and appropriate federal
             and state standards, requirements, criteria or
             limitations.  Further, substantial reductions in
             mobility, toxicity and volume of affected soils  and
             materials are achieved.

          •  Cost - Total costs for incineration are $22,271,000
             (Rotary Kiln) and $22,131.000 (Infrared).  Net present
             costs are $21,780,000 (Rotary Kiln) and $17,540,000
             (Infrared).
M.S. 6  Comparative Evaluation
All  remedial  action  plans are  technically  imp lenient able  and  construe table.
Both aqueous  phase  and solid phase biological  treatment  systems will be acre
complex to  implement than  the  containment options (cap  and  cover and vault)
because of  the  fact that  complete nodular units  are  not available.
                                     U-50

-------
the process  itself  is not complex.  All technologies are field-proven although
certainty concerning performance is variable.

All  remedial  action  plans  achieve  compliance  with  the specified  remedial
objectives.  The containment options isolate affected materials and soils from
human  contact.   While  subject  to  prior  stabilization, affected soils  and
materials  remain  on site in  the cap and  cover  and vault alternatives.   The
treatment alternatives (biological and incineration) reduce  or destroy organic
constituents down to trace levels to the extent that future  concerns regarding
inhalation,  ingestion or off site transport are eliminated.

All remedial  action plans achieve  compliance  will  all  legally applicable or
relevant and  appropriate federal and state  standards,  requirements,  criteria
or limitations.   Both  treatment options  achieve an additional reduction in
mobility, toxicity and volume of affected soils and  materials.

Cap and  cover  is  the most cost  effective  containment options.   The treatment
option  costs  are   essentially   equivalent  given  the  accuracy of the  cost
estimation.

Table 4-11 summarizes this comparison of alternatives.
BRO/FS-R3-S4

                                      4-51

-------
APPENDIX D

-------

-------
APPENDIX E

-------
                       BRIO REFINING SITE
                 SOUTHEAST HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
                     RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY

This community relations responsiveness summary is divided into
two sections:

SECTION  I: BACKGROUND OJJ COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT Aiffi CONCERN
            This section provides a brief history of community
            interest and concern raised during the planning
            activities at the Brio Refining Superfund site.

Section II: SUMMARY QF MAJOR COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING T_H£ PUBLIC
            COMMENT PERIOD AND THE EPA'S RESPONSE IP THE COMMENTS

            Both written and oral comments are presented.  EPA's
            responses to these relevant topi"~ are also
            presented.

I.  BACKGROUND QN COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

The Brio Refining site was proposed for the. National Priorities
List in October 1984.  Funds were approved in the Spring of 1985
for EPA to conduct a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study
at the Brio site.  Prior to the initiation of the studies a group
of companies,  identified through the Agency's enforcement efforts
as potentially responsible parties (PRPs), formed the Brio Site
Task Force in an effort to work with EPA in assessing the nature
and extent of the contamination at the site.

On May 16, 1985, EPA announced that the terms of an
Administrative Order (signed in June 1985) had been agreed upon
with the Task Force enabling them to undertake the investigations
and studies necessary to determine the solution to the
contamination problems at the Brio site.  Included in the '
Administrative Order was the stipulation that, with EPA
oversight, the Task Force would initiate and implement a
comprehensive community relations program for interested
citizens.  EPA representatives would also participate in and
conduct oversight on the community relations effort.

The Task Force held its first community leaders meeting on May
16, 1985, in order to discuss the Administrative Order and
present a timeframe for the site investigation.  A community
meeting was held by the Task Force on July 2, 1985, to announce
the initiation of water-quality sampling and odor abatement
programs.  The results of the water tests were announced at a
community meeting on September 26, 1985.

Field activities were completed in November 1985.  Upon
completion of the first phase of the site investigation  (and
review of the information by EPA) , the Task Force held a

-------
community meeting on April 30, 1986, to share the results of
their initial efforts.  On September 4, 1986, a community meetin
was held to discuss any issues or concerns the local residents
may have regarding the site studies.  Status reports were also
provided through newsletters.

On February 2, 1987, the Task Force held a community meeting on
various treatment techniques that may be employed during remedial
actions at a typical Superfund site.  A community leaders meeting
was held on April 2, 1987, to provide an update on site
activities.  A meeting to discuss the preliminary results of the
Endangerment Assessment was held with the community leaders on
June 18, 1987.

On January 21, 1988, EPA announced through a press release that
studies were completed on the Brio site.  The announcement also
advised the public  that EPA would be accepting comments on the
proposed remedy for the site from February 1 to March 1, 1988,
and that the Agency would hold a public meeting on February 9,
1988.   An EPA prepared fact sheet describing various alternatives
evaluated was mailed to interested citizens.  EPA held a
community leaders meeting on January 25, 1988, to brief the
members of the group on the solutions proposed for the site.  On
the following night, January 26, 1988, the Brio Site Task Force
held a community meeting to discuss the overall results of the
site investigations, the findings of the Endangerment Assessment.
An .EPA representative attended and announced the scheduled publ
meeting to discuss remedial alternatives.  EPA's public meeting
was held on February 9, 1988, at the Weber Elementary School.
Approximately 350 people attended the meeting.  The* community
voiced great concern that the remedial action would not be
complete.   A summary of the public response to the solutions
proposed by EPA at this meeting, can be found in the
Responsiveness Summary (Appendix E).  On February 22, EPA met
with the Friendswood city Council to discuss the proposed
alternative solutions that the Agency had outlined in its public
meeting on February 9.

Again, It should be noted that EPA was an active participant  in
all of the community or community leaders meetings discussed
above and provided oversight on a comprehensive program.  These
activities were carried-out in cooperation with the Brio Site
Task Force in accordance with the terms outlined in the above
mentioned Brio Refining/Dixie Oil Processors Administrative Order
on Consent.

II.  SUMMARY Q_F_ PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC
     COMMENT PERIOD AND AGENCY RESPONSES

The public comment period on the Feasibility Study for  the Brio
Refining Superfund site opened on February  1, 1988 and  closed on
March 1, 1988.  A public meeting was held February 9, 1988, at
the Weber Elementary School with approximately 350 people  in

-------
attendance.  The EPA received many comments regarding all aspects
of the Superfund actions taken at this site.  This Responsiveness
Summary is written to summarize the publics response to EPA's
proposal for remediation at the Brio Refining and Dixie Oil
Processors sites.  Therefore, the Agency has focused its
attention on summarizing and responding only comments concerning
the Brio Refining and Dixie Oil Processors Feasibility Study and
the remedial alternatives being evaluated.  This summary is
provided below:

Comment 1

EPA misrepresented what was meant by "cleanup" of the site (i.e.,
partial versus complete treatment).

EPA Response to Comment 1

The EPA agrees that, in general, the term "cleanup" is misused in
certain situations.   However, the Agency's representatives for
this particular site have been very careful as to not mislead the
local residents during the many public meetings that have been
held throughout the past few years.   Experience has shown us that
very few sites are ever returned to a naturally "clean" state;
therefore, we are very careful about the message that we
communicate to the public.  It is our opinion that this
misconception is a result of the publics own belief that an
eventual remedial action would mean treating all measurable
amounts of contaminated materials and soils enabling the site to
be used for commercial or recreational purposes.

Comment 2

The proposed remedy does not provide maximum health protection to
nearby residences, schools, and hospitals.

EPA' Response to Comment 2.

It is EPA's opinion that the proposed remedy provides what EPA
considers to be adequate protection of human health and the
environment.  This message is discussed in great detail in the
Brio Refining and Dixie Oil Processors Endangerment Assessment.
This document provided EPA with the information necessary to make
this determination.   Additionally, the calculations made in the
assessment are very conservative thus providing the Agency with
added certainty for protection of public health.

EPA has proposed to excavate and treat all affected materials and
soils that have a potential for creating an unacceptable risk to
human health or the environment.  Once this activity is
completed, site controls will be enforced to restrict access to
the site thus reducing the probability of exposure to any low
level contaminants that may remain upon completion of
remediation.

-------
Comment 1

The deed restrictions and restricted access associated with the
proposed remedy win promote a negative perception of the
community and win adversely affect property values.

EPA Response to Comment 1

EPA in conducting its environmental mandate, must balance a large
number of factors before determining the best approach to
addressing problems at Superfund sites.  The Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act (SARA) specifies that EPA shall
"... select a remedial action that is protective of human health
and the environment ..."  The statute also states that EPA shall
"... select appropriate remedial actions determined to be
necessary to be carried out ...  which provide for cost-effective
response."  These laws are developed by our c vernmental leaders
and EPA must use them as a guide in conductir.*  its business.

EPA believes that the proposed plan of action at the Brio and
Dixie Oil Processors (OOP) sites comply to the maximum extent
practicable, with the provisions of SARA.  The first priority of
the Agency is the protection of human health and the environment
and the proposed solutions serve this purpose very well.  An
increased degree of treatment at either site would result in very,
little added protection relative to the incremental increase in
cost that would result.  Furthermore, the appearance of the sites
upon completion of the remedial action is a consideration of the
final Record of Decision.   Appearance will also be a factor in
all discussions on conducting and funding of remedial actions by
potentially responsible parties.  It is believed that the parties
will be interested in investigating, in concert with local
homeowners, various creative landscaping ideas that will result
in an acceptable solution.

Implementing solutions which account for local property values
and economic development is outside the jurisdiction of EPA.
Local residents have the State courts available to them to
resolve these issues or they can request that their State
government intervene on their behalf.  State governments have the
opportunity to request for and pay the additional costs
attributed to meeting any such standard they may deem necessary.
This would include a request for treating all measurable
quantities of waste at a Superfund site.  Additionally, the State
would then become a signatory to the Consent Decree and actively
participate in negotiations, the remedial design, and remedial
action.

Comment A

Bioremediation should be evaluated further  as a potential
at the site.

-------
EPA Response £o Comment 4.

It is EPA's judgment that on-site incineration of wastes would
best serve both statutory and selection criteria in relation to
the other solutions evaluated.  On the other hand, the Brio
Site Task Force has proposed the use of on-site aqueous-phase
biological treatment.   The EPA had some concerns over the lack
of demonstrated performance of this technique on the wastes at
the site.  However, this win not prevent EPA from favorably
considering the proposal of the Task Force if they can
demonstrate that biological treatment can provide the same
level of treatment deemed necessary by the Agency.  Pass/fail
criteria for use of biological treatment rather than
incineration will be developed prior to the start of remedial
action.   If biological treatment cannot meet the pass/fail
criteria, then on-site incineration will be implemented.
Comment 5.

On-site incineration is not a practical alternative given the
lengthiness of its treatment.

EPA Response to Comment i

The'six alternatives evaluated in the Brio Refining and Dixie Oil
Processors Feasibility Study and there associated remedial action
(actual construction) time requirements arc as follows:
No Action
Cap & Cover
Vault
Incineration
Biotreatment
Offsite Disposal
- +30
2
3
- 3-4
- 3.3
4
years
years
years
years
years
years
All of these plans assume that 62,000 cubic yards of contaminated
soils will be treated and site controls are implemented.  As you can
see there is not a great deal of difference in the length of
actual construction time involved in any of the alternatives with
the exception of No Action which would involve sampling 'and
monitoring for an indefinite time.

Comment &

Complete incineration of waste would allow productive use of the
land  — athletic fields or other similar use after it  is
completed.

EPA Response to Comment £.

See EPA's response to comments tl and t3.

-------
Comment 7.

Given the current restricted access of the site,  the Mud Gully
must be widened to allow the flood control system in the South
Belt area to work properly.

EPA Response ££ Comment
The EPA shares the same concern as the commenters  with regard to
Mud Gully.  This problem is addressed in the Record of Decision
for both the Brio Refining and Dixie Oil Processors sites.   As
part of any solution, some type of low maintenance approach to
resolving the problem, in cooperation with the Harris  County
Flood Control District, will be implemented.

Comment £

There is great concern about the lack of plans to  dismantle and
remove all storage facilities.

EPA Response to Comment

Based on the public response to this situation, as part of any
remedy, all storage tanks, surface vessels, drums, and process
equipment will be dismantled and either sold ( after proper
decontamination) or disposed according to EPA regulations.

Comment 2.

The ash from the incinerator is going to be harmful to our
health.

EPA Response to Comment 9_                                 /

If. incineration is used for treatment of affected materials and
soils all of the ash resulting from the thermal treatment
operations will have to pass specific tests before it would be
allowed to be placed back into the ground.  These tests will
provide EPA with the confidence that this material will not
result in a future problem.  Additionally, this material will
remain onsite and site access will be restricted.

Additionally, our incineration tests showed us that we could
achieve a 99.997% reduction in contaminants.  These results
suggest that minimal amounts of contamination, if any, will
remain after treatment.

Comment 10

Identify the methods of control for odors  in the  incineration
process.

-------
EPA Response to Comment 10

The most  likely cause of odors during the remedial action would
result from volatile contaminants being released during
excavation activities.  As outlined in the Brio Refining and
Dixie Oil Processors Feasibility Study, all excavations (during
the construction of the solution) will be performed in portable
enclosures.  The enclosures will trap the volatile compounds.
The air in the enclosures will then be treated to remove these
compounds.  This practice should reduce, to the maximum extent
practicable, any odors resulting from soil disturbance
activities.

Comment li

Describe the regulations and standards that will be in place
after the cleanup is completed that will ensure the protection of
the publics health and safety.

EPA Response to Comment 1.1

This remedial action is based on permanent site controls.  This
will include the imposition of deed notices and restrictions to
ensure that the site is never used in such a way as to increase
exposure to contaminants that will remain on site and a security
fence or similar barrier will be maintained to prevent trespass
and potential exposure to contaminants left onsite.

In addition to these activities, the ambient air, groundwater and
Mud Gully sediments will be sampled and monitored to provide
information for evaluation of the effectiveness of the solution.
This program will be conducted indefinitely or until such time
that EPA feels that such efforts are no longer necessary.  Also
any remedial action where EPA leaves contaminants at the site
(upon completion of the remedy), the Agency must review such
actions no less than five years after the initiation of such
remedial action to assure that human health and the environment
are being protected.

Comment 12

In screening the remedial alternatives, the offsite disposal
option was quickly dismissed in the Feasibility Study.  This
conclusion is not reached in a logical and well documented
manner.

EPA Response to Comment 12

The Superfund law, specifically SARA Section 121  (b) state that
"... offsite transport and disposal of hazardous substances or
contaminated materials without such treatment should be the least
favored alternative remedial action where practicable treatment
technologies are available ... shall conduct an assessment of

-------
permanent solutions and alternative technologies ...  that, in
whole or in part, will result in a permanent and significant
decrease in toxicity, mobility, or volume of hazardous substances
dismissal of.Offsite Disposal as a viable alternative.

Comment 1J

It was suggested that the estimates in the Feasibility Study for
waste volumes of the on-site pits were ball-park figures;  heavily
contaminated areas could have been missed by soil borings; the
shallow groundwater contamination was not well defined; and the
cost analysis lacked sufficient support.

EPA^ Response to. Comment jj

The EPA feels that the field work conducted as part of the
Remedial Investigation and Supplemental Investigation was  more
than sufficient to characterize the magnitude and extent of
contamination.   This effort will be further refined during the
actual remedial action where all contaminated sludges and liquids
will be excavated and treated.  The Feasibility Study identified
pits B, J, Q, R, H/V, and E as needing remediation based on the
findings of the Endangerment Assessment.   As part of the Record
of Decision pits F, G, I, K, L, and M will require examination
during remedial action for removal of all sludges and liquids.
Additionally, all surface contamination (in the form of tars)
will be scraped and consolidated for treatment.  Regarding the
comment on cost estimates, the Feasibility Study contained
sufficient information to evaluate each conceptual design.

Comment 14

Some comments were received concerning the question of off-site
contamination which originated from the Brio Refining site.

EPA Response to Comment J.4

This information has been turned over to EPA's Site Assessment
section for further investigation.  Those individuals who have
commented in this fashion will be contacted by this group
following their evaluation of the matter.

Comment 15

Explain what pits will be excavated.

EPA Response to Commejit J,5

See EPA's response to Comment f!3.

-------
APPENDIX F

-------

-------
APPENDIX G

-------
                     TEXAS WATER COMMISSION
P»ul Hopfcini, Chairman                  fV 7^ &9          J ° Hti>dl G«n«ral Counse!
John O. Houchins, Commu$T>r
-------
APPENDIX H

-------
RIMCO DISMANTLING                                     1331 Lomar, Suite U59
                                                                Houston, Texas  77010
                                                                    713/739-0388
       August 2, 1985
      Brio Task-Force
      0. £. Gonjchinietz
      c/o Monsanto Company
      P.O. Box 711
      Alvin, Texas  77511

      Gentlemen:

      The following costs are for  the cleaning and dismantling of the Brio Refinery Inc. site 05
      requested by Mr. Donald E. Ganschinietz:
                                              •                             -

          I_A.  $90,000.00   Flushing and Steam Cleaning Ref^ery Area

         1B.  $220,000,00  Dismantle Refinery Area.
              •         7.J-
         2A.  $40,000.00   Flushing and Steam Cleaning Dixie Chemical Area.

         2B.  $60,000*00   Dismantle Dixie Chemical Area.

         •3.   $50,000.00  Dismantle Site Building.

         4.   $38,000.00   All Other Equipment On Site.

         5.   $150,000.00  Remove All Concrete.

         6.   Revenue Sharing Plan     70% for Contractor
         N                            30% for Brio Task Force

         7.   Decontamination Work:   Cost Plus
                                        10% Overhead
                                        20% Profit               '

      Thank you for the opportunity to estimate this work.
                                        •

      Very truly yours,
      J. R. Brown

      JRB:oh

-------