United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R06-89/052
September 1989
&EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
N
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
1. REPORT NO.
EPA/ROD/R06-89/052
3. Recipient* Acceaeton No.
4. Tine and Subtitle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
MOTCO, TX
Second Remedial Action - Final
5. Report Date
09/27/89
7. Author<»)
8. Performing Organization Rept No.
9. Pwforming Organization Nun* and Addre**
10. ProjacttTMk/WorkUnitNo.
11. Contnct(C) or GrantyG) No.
(C)
(0)
12. Sponsoring Organization Nam* and Addree*
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. Type of Report & Period Covered
800/000
14.
15. Supplementary Note*
16. Abelnct (Limit: 200 word*)
The 11-acre Motco site is in La Marque, Galveston County, Texas. The site is on the
Gulf Coastal Plain at edge of a coastal marsh system and is within the 100-year tidal
floodplain. Significant site features include seven unlined pits which have a total
surface area of 4.6 acres and contain surface water, organic liquids, and various
sludges, tars, and other solids. The pits were used by a styrene tar recycling business
which operated from 1959 to 1961, and by an industrial chemical waste disposal facility
rom 1961 to 1968. EPA conducted three emergency response actions between 1981 to 1983
to treat and discharge excess pit surface water collected in dikes that were constructed
by the Coast Guard in 1980. In 1984 an initial remedial measure (IRM) was conducted by
EPA and included removal and offsite disposal of wastes from nine above ground storage
tanks. The first operable unit for the site was issued in 1985 and dealt with source
control measures including excavation of the onsite waste pits, which contained 12
million gallons of contaminated water and organic liquids, down to the sludge/soil
interface plus one foot, and incineration of those wastes. This Record of Decision
represents the second and final operable unit, management of migration, for the site and
addresses the subsurface beneath the waste pits and offsite contamination of the ground
water, soil, and sediment. Ground water at the site is found in a Transmissive Zone and
the underlying Upper Chicot aquifer. The primary contaminants of concern affecting the
in 1
anH irrniinH wa1~o-r a-ro
i nr^l nrH nf
(fnnt- i nnoH nn novt-
17. Document Analyai* a. Descriptor*
Record of Decision - MOTCO, TX
Second Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: soil, sediment, gw
Key Contaminants: VOCs (benzene), other organics (PAHs), metals (arsenic, chromium,
lead)
b. ktontifiera/Open-Ended Term*
c. COSATI Held/Group
18. Availability Statement
19. Security Claee (Thie Report)
None
20. Security Claee (Thi* Page)
None
21. No. of Page*
112
22. Price
(See ANSI-Z39.18)
See ln»tructioni on Revent
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NT1S-35)
Department of Commerce
-------
DO NOT PRINT THESE INSTRUCTIONS AS A PAGE IN A REPORT
INSTRUCTIONS
Optional Form 272, Report Documentation Page Is based on Guidelines for Format and Production of Scientific and Technical Reports,
ANSI Z39.18-1974 available from American National Standards Institute, 1430 Broadway, New York, New York 10018. Each separately
bound reportfor example, each volume in a multlvolume setshall have its unique Report Oocumentation Page.
1. Report Number. Each individually bound report shall carry a unique alphanumeric designation assigned by the performing orga-
nization or provided by the sponsoring organization in accordance with American National Standard ANSI Z39.23-1974, Technical
Report Number (STRN). For registration of report code, contact N71S Report Number Clearinghouse, Springfield, VA 22161. Use
uppercase letters, Arabic numerals, slashes, and hyphens only, as in the following examples: FASEB/NS-75/87 and FAA/
RD-75/09.
2. Leave blank.
3. Recipient's Accession Number. Reserved for use by each report recipient.
4. Title and Subtitle. Title should indicate clearly and briefly the subject coverage of the report, subordinate subtitle to the main
title. When a report Is prepared in more than one volume, repeat the primary title, add volume number and include subtitle for
the specific volume.
5. Report Date. Each report shall carry a date Indicating at least month and year. Indicate the basis on which It was selected (e.g.,
date of Issue, date of approval, date of preparation, date published).
6. Sponsoring Agency Code. Leave blank.
7. Authors). Give name(s) in conventional order (e.g., John R. Doe, or J. Robert Doe). List author's affiliation if it differs from
the performing organization.
8. Performing organization Report Number. Insert If performing organlzaton wishes to assign this number.
9. Performing Organization Name and Mailing Address. Give name, street, city, state, and ZIP code. Ust no more than two levels of
an organizational hlerachy. Display the name of the organization exactly as it should appear in Government indexes such as
Government Reports Announcements & Index (GRA & I).
10. ProJact/Task/Work Unit Number. Use the project, task and work unit numbers under which the report was prepared.
11. Contract/Grant Number. Insert contract or grant number under which report was prepared.
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Mailing Address. Include ZIP code. Cite main sponsors.
13. Type of Report and Period Covered. State Interim, final, etc., and. If applicable, Inclusive dates.
14. Performing Organization Code. Leave blank.
15. Supplementary Notes. Enter Information not Included elsewhere but useful, such as: Prepared In cooperation with... Translation
of... Presented at conference of... To be published In... When a report Is revised, Include a statement whether the new
report supersedes or supplements the older report
16. Abstract Include a brief (200 words or less) factual summary of the most significant Information contained in the report. If the
report contains a significant bibliography or literature survey, mention It here.
17. Document Analysis, (a). Descriptors. Select from the Thesaurus of Engineering and Scientific Terms the proper authorized terms
that Identify the major concept of the research and are sufficiently specific and precise to be used as index entries for cataloging.
(b). Identifiers and Open-Ended Terms. Use Identifiers for project names, code names, equipment designators, etc. Use open-
ended terms written In descriptor form for those subjects for which no descriptor exists.
(c). COSATI Field/Group. Field and Group assignments are to be taken form the 1964 COSATI Subject Category List Since the
majority of documents are multidiscipllnary In nature, the primary Field/Group assignments) will be the specific discipline,
area of human endeavor, or type of physical object The applicatlon(s) will be cross-referenced with secondary Reid/Group
assignments that will follow the primary posting(s).
18. Distribution Statement Denote public reusability, for example "Release unlimited", or limitation for reasons other than
security. Cite any availability to the public, with address, order number and price, if known.
19. & 20. Security Classification. Enter U.S. Security Classification In accordance with U. S. Security Regulations (I.e., UNCLASSIFIED).
21. Number of pages. Insert the total number of pages, Including introductory pages, but excluding distribution list, if any.
22. Price. Enter price in paper copy (PC) and/or microfiche (MF) If known.
j* GPO l<583 0 - 381-526(8393) OPTIONAL FORM 272 BACK
(4-77)
-------
EPA/ROD/R06-89/052
MOTCO, TX
6. Abstract (Continued)
other organics including PAHs; and metals including arsenic, chromium, and lead
The selected remedial action for the site includes extraction and onsite treatment by
best available technology (BAT) of contaminated shallow and deep ground water; extraction
and incineration of approximately 1 to 2 million gallons of dense, non-aqueous phase
organic liquids; installation of a ground water gradient to impede further contaminant
migration from shallow to deep ground water; implementation of ground water compliance
monitoring of the shallow and deep ground water aquifers which would trigger more
aggressive removal operations if indicator compounds exceed one-half MCL or a 10-6 risk
level; excavation, consolidation and onsite containment and capping of approximately
140,000 cubic yards of contaminated surface soil and sediment to a maximum depth of four
feet; and implementation of deed restrictions and installation of additional fences
around the site. The estimated total present worth cost for the selected remedy is
$8,810,000, which includes an annual O&M cost of $453,000.
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
FOR
M3TCO SUPERFUND SITE
LA MARQUE, TEXAS
MANAGEMENT OF MIGRATION OPERABLE UNIT
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SEPTEMBER 1989
-------
DECLARATION! FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
M3TCO
La Marque, Texas
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for the
second operable unit, Management of Migration (MOM) portion of the MOTCO
Super fund site, in La Marque, Texas, chosen in accordance with the Compre-
hensive 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 practical, the National Oil and Hazardous
Substance Pollution Contingency Plan, 40 CFR Part 300, November 20, 1985.
This decision document explains the factual and legal basis for selecting
the remedy, and is based on the administrative record for this site. The
index found in Appendix A identifies the items which comprise the adminis-
trative record for the second operable unit.
The State of Texas (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. The letter describing the State's concurrence
with the^selected remedy is found in Appendix B.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this site,
if not addressed by implementing the response action selected in this
Record of Decision, may present an imminent and substantial endanger-
ment to public health, welfare, or the environment.
PFSCRIFTION OF THE RFWFTW
The MOM Operable Unit is the final of two operable units for the site.
The first operable unit at the site involved the remediation of the
wastes pits. The Record of Decision for the Source Control was issued
in March, 1985. The Source Control Operable Unit dealt with the
excavation of the existing onsite waste pits to the sludge/soil interface
plus one foot and incineration of those wastes. Incineration was chosen
as the Source Control remedy, which is currently under design and construc-
tion. This second operable unit addresses the subsurface beneath the
pits and offsite contamination of the ground water, subsurface soils,
surface soils and sediments.
-------
The major components of the selected remedy include:
1. Extraction and treatment of contaminated shallow and deep
ground water. The deep zone shall be treated to FCL's or approp-
riate levels to maintain 1 x 10~6 risk levels. (1 x 10~5
risk level is the potential for one person in a million to
develop cancer through exposure to contaminants.)
2. extraction, to the extent feasible, and incineration of dense,
non-aqueous phase organic liquids;
3. excavation, consolidation and onsite containment of contaminated
surface soils and sediments to a maximum depth of four feet.
Vertical and lateral extent of excavation shall be determined
by 1 x 10~6 risk levels.
4. installation of a ground water gradient control system to create
upward ground water gradients to impede further contaminant
migration from the shallow ground water to the deep ground water;
5. implementation of ground water compliance monitoring of the
shallow and deep ground water aquifers. In addition, the
monitoring of the clay layer between the shallow and deep
ground water aquifers shall be performed to detect any con-
taminants that may migrate to the deep aquifer. In the event
that contaminants are detected in the clay layer (one-half of
the 1VCL or appropriate health-based number), a more aggressive
extraction program shall be implemented in the shallow ground
water zone;
6. contaminated ground water that is extracted for treatment will
be treated by the best available technology (EftT) to the applicable,
or relevant and appropriate State or Federal discharge standard,
or sent to a permitted wastewater treatment plant; and
7. implementation of deed restrictions to prohibit land development
and installation of additional fencing around the site. To imple-
ment these controls, the potentially responsible parties (PRP's)
have purchased additional land adjacent to the site. At a mini-
mum, as a part of the annual monitoring and maintenance of the
site, there will be a verification that site conditions have not
chanaged and that there has been no land use or development that
may effect the remedial action. If any changes occur, the Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EFft) will evaluate the changes and take
appropriate action.
-------
EPA. has the enforcement authority to insure that no one interferes with the
remedial action, including land use and interference or damage to the final
cap and ground water monitoring. If site conditions change, the changes
will be evaluated and appropriate aciton taken.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment,
complies with Federal and State requirements that are legally applicable
or relevant and appropriate to the remedial action, and is cost-effective.
This remedy utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment (or
resource recovery) technologies to the maximum extent practical and
satisfies the statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment that
reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume as a principal element.
Because this remedy may result in hazardous substances remaining onsite
above health-based levels, a review will be conducted within five years
after commencement of the remedial action to ensure that the remedy
continues to provide adequate protection of human health and the
environment.
. /
Robert E. Layton Jr., P.E., Date
Regional Administrator
-------
M3ICO SUFERFUND SITE
IA IVftRQUE, TEXAS
MANAGEMENT OF MIGRATION
SUMV1ARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
SEPTEMBER, 1989
-------
MCTCO SUFERFUND SITE
IA MARQUE, TEXAS
MANAGEMENT OF MIGRATION
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
SEPTEMBER, 1989
-------
TAT3T.F. DF CONTENTS
PAGE
1. SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1
2. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 2
3. HIGHLIGHTS OF CCMyiUNITY PARTTCIPATiaN 4
4. SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT 5
5. SUXMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 6
5.1 Air 7
5.2 Surface Water and Ditch Sediments 7
5.3 Surface Soils 7
5.4 Subsurface Soils 8
5.5 Ground Water 10
5.6 Demography 12
6. SUM^RY OF SITE RISKS 13
6.1 Overview 13
6.2 Hazard Identification 13
6.3 Exposure Assessment 14
6.4 Exposure Analysis 18
6.5 Results of Human Dose Estimation 18
6.6 Risk Characterization 18
6.7 Environmental Assessment 21
6.8 Summary of Site Risks Declaration 22
-------
TART.F. OF Cdn'EM'S
mNTTTMTFT)
PAGE
7. DESCRIPTIONS OF ALTERNATIVES 22
7.1 No Action (Alternative A) 22
7.2 Institutional Controls (Alternative B) 22
7.3 Containment (Alternative C) 23
7.4 Ground Water Treatment & Surface Soil
Consolidation (Alternative D) 24
7.5 Ground Water Treatment & Surface Soil
Incineration (Alternative E) 25
7.6 Ground Water Treatment & Surface Soil
Bioremediation (Alternative F) 25
7.7 Summary of Conparative Analysis of
Alternatives 25
8. THE SELECTED REMEDY 26
8.1 Statutory Determinations 28
8.2 Protection of Human Health
and the Environment 28
8.3 Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements 28
8.4 Cost Effectiveness 28
8.5 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and
Alternative Treatment Technologies 29
8.6 Preference for Treatment as a
Principal Element 30
-------
LIST OF TABLES
TART.F. NT1MRKR TITT.F.
1. Final List of Indicator Chemicals
2. Summary of Affected Media for Unit Area of
Contamination
3. Summary of Non-Cancer Healtn Effects from Worst-
Case Exposures to Media
4. Summary of Total Cancer Risks from Worst-Case
Exposure to Media (Hypothetical Well
5 . Summary of Total Cancer Risks from Worst-Case
Exposure to Media (Hypothetical Well #2)
6. Overall Cost Summary For All Alternatives -.
7. Comparative Evaluation of Alternatives
8. Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements:
Air Pathways
9. Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements:
Surface Water
10. Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements:
Ground Water
11. Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements:
Soils
12 Management of Migration - To Be Considered Criteria,
Advisories, and Guidance
-------
T.TST F
FIGURE NUMBER TITLE
1. General Site Location Map
2. MOTCO Site Location Map
3. ' Geologic and Hydro logic Units
4. Site Plan Map
5. Property Survey Map (MOM Activity Area)
6. Map of Affected Soils and Sediments
7. Surface Water and Sediment Sarnple Map
8. Map of Affected Ground Water
9. Generalized Hydrogeologic Profile
10. MOTCO Site Sources, Pathways, and Receptors
11. Study Area For MOTCO Environmental Assessment
12.. MOTCO Site Subsurface Remediation Plan
-------
The MQTCO site, located about 2 miles southeast of the City of La Marque,
Galveston County, Texas, is situated on an 11.3 acre tract of land near
the junction of State Highway 3 and the Gulf Freeway (I-45/US-75). The
site is bounded on the east by State Highway 3, on the northwest by an
abandoned trailer park, and on the southwest by the right-of-way (R.O.W.)
for Houston Lighting and Power transmission lines (H.L.& P.
R.O.W.) (Figures 1 and 2).
The MGTCO site sits on the Gulf Coastal Plain at the edge of a coastal
marsh system, and area topography slopes gently toward the Gulf of Mexico.
At approximately +5 feet mean sea level (MSL) elevation, the site is well
within the 100-year tidal floodplain of +12 feet MSL and is subject to
inundation, seven waste pits are surrounded by an exterior dike
which collects precipitation. Site security is provided by a 6-foot
chain link fence, and site access is through locked gates.
In addition to site boundaries mentioned above, pertinent features in
the vicinity of the site include:
1. Water-filled borrow pits approximately 150 feet southwest
of the H.L. & P. right-of-way (R.O.W.) ;
2. Central Freight Lines (truck terminal) and Dispos-All
Company (currently vacant) yard approximately 500 feet
to the southeast;
3. Gulf Freeway (1-45ATS 75) approximately 1000 feet to the
west-southwest;
4. Omega Bay Subdivision approximately 1500 feet west-southwest;
5. Bayou Vista Subdivision approximately 1500 to 2000 feet south-
southwest; and
6. private residence approximately 2000 feet northwest.
Approximately 3000 people live within a 1-mile radius of the site, and
about 12,000 people live within a 3-mile radius.
The uppermost geologic unit beneath the site is the Beaumont Clay
Formation composed of 800 to 1000+ feet of interbedded clay, sand, and
silt deposits.
Predominant near-surface geologic units are two channel sand/silt deposits
at about 5-10 feet deep and 20-30 feet deep, and an additional bar finger
deposit at about 40-50 feet deep. These layers are separated by clayey
-------
Fiaure i
-------
BAYOU VISTA
SUBDIVISION
0
1
1000 2000
SCALE
HAMC
MOTCO SITE
MOTCO RESPONDENTS
SCACt
"40C
CMCCRfO »
f 4Tf.
04Tt..
SITE LOCATION MAP
Figure 2
-------
Aft
SYSTEM
Quaternary
Tertiary
SERIES
Bolocene
Pleistocene
Pliocene
FORMATION
Alluvium
Beaumont Clay
Lissie
Forma-
tion
Montgomery
Formation
Bentley
Formation
Willis Sand
Goliad Sand
i
HYDROLOGIC HYOROLOGIC
UNXT
Galveston (Guif coast Area)
County) |
Beaumont
Alta Loma
Sand
Heavily
pumped
layer
1
Upper
Chicot
Chicot
Aquifer
I «.
Lower
Chicot
Evangeline
Aquifer
\
er: Texas Water Commission, 1985
Report 289
-
MAMC
MOTCO SITE
'0*
MOTCO RESPONDENTS
f FILE « ^H
Wbodw»rd.Ctyd»Consultwits 9r GEOLOGIC AND secseSI
SCALE
NOTED
CXCCKIO T-^^A., o»re al9
-------
silts and silty clays, and the upper two sand/silt deposits apparently
intersect with the unlined pits.
Underlying the shallow transmissive zones mentioned above, are the Upper
Chicot units UC-1, UC-2, and UC-3. The exact depths and thicknesses of
these units vary across the site. However, the average depth for the Upper
Chicot 1 is generally -90 to -105 feet MSL, Upper Chicot 2 is -150 to -210
feet MSL, and Upper Chicot 3 is below -230 feet MSL.
The seven unlined pits onsite vary in depth from 15 to 20 feet and have a
total surface area of 4.6 acres. The pits contain several strata including
surface water; organic liquids; and various sludges, tars, and other
solids. Waste constituents include polymeric (primarily styrene) tars,
chlorinated hydrocarbons, spent catalysts, and other chemicals (Figure 4).
2. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
The MOTCO site was purchased by U.T. Alexander in 1959 for the purpose of
recycling styrene tars generated by local industry. In 1961, damage from
Hurricane Car la caused discontinuation of the recycling business. The
pits on the site were then used for disposal of industrial chemical wastes.
In 1963, Alexander transferred ownership of the site to Petro Processors,
Incorporated, a Texas corporation, of which U.T. Alexander was president.
In 1964, the site was permitted as a disposal facility by the State of
Texas and it continued to operate until 1968. In 1968, due to numerous
odor complaints, the City of La Marque, in which the site is located,
passed an ordinance prohibiting disposal of liquid wastes in surface
impoundments which effectively forced Petro Processors out of business.
In 1969, the Mainland Bank foreclosed on the site.
Through a series of subsequent owners who did not operate the site,
(including J.W. Yeatman and Associates and Wye Development Corporation),
it eventually became the property of T. Holman, J.R. McDonald, and
MOTCO, Inc., a Minnesota corporation. These owners unsuccessfully
attempted to recycle the wastes in the pits and then abandoned the
project. At some point in time during the recycling attempts, MOTCO
bought Holman's and McDonald's interest in the site. In 1976, the Texas
Department of Water Resources (TDWR), now known as the Texas Water Commission
(1WC), cancelled MOTCO's permit by means of an Administrative Order and
required a closure plan. Shortly thereafter, MGTCO filed for bankruptcy
and the trustee abandoned the site as a worthless asset. In 1977, MGTCO,
Inc. forfeited its right to do business in the State of Texas, but remained
an active corporation on the Minnesota Secretary of State's records.
Attempts to contact MOTCO, Inc., or its agents have been unsuccessful.
-------
z
£ |
35 ; §
Oi *
Figure 4
-------
From May to September 1980, the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), with reconmen-
dations and technical assistance from EPA and TDWR, used Clean Water Act
Section 311 funds to remove drums that had been stored in and around an
abandoned service station building, extend and raise the perimeter dikes,
and secure the site by erecting a 6-foot fence around the perimeter of
the site.
In February 1981, the Response Action Plan for the MOTCO Site was issued
by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). From 1981 to 1982, an Initial
Site Investigation (including Tankage Waste Inventory) and a Secondary
Site Investigation was completed. These efforts included characterization
of pit wastes; analysis of surface soils, sediments, and waters; and a
ground water monitoring program. Contamination of the shallow ground
water was confirmed, but the areal and vertical extent and degree of
contaminant migration were not determined.
The EPA has conducted three emergency response actions (September 1981;
March 1983; and September 1983) to treat and discharge excess pit surface
water collected in the extended and upgraded dikes constructed by the *
USCG in 1980. These actions were conducted following periods of heavy
rainfall and/or storm surges to reduce the potential for release of contam-
inants from dike overtopping.
In July, 1982, EPA Region 6 ranked the MOTCO site using the Mitre Model
for inclusion on the National Priority List of Superfund sites. A hazard
ranking of 62.5, the highest ranking of any site in Texas, was assigned.
In early 1983, EPA completed the Remedial Action Master Plan (RAMP) and a
Source-Control Feasibility Study. Based on a detailed assessment of
available data and information in the RAMP, specific additional data
requirements were identified, and a specialized sampling/analysis program
was conducted September to November, 1983.
In early 1984, an Initial Remedial Measure (IRM) was conducted by EPA.
This IRM included removal and off-site disposal of wastes in the nine
above-ground tanks, and demolition/ removal of those tanks. In accordance
with the National Contingency Plan (NCP), Section 300.68, the EPA determined
in late 1984 that off-site remedial actions would be necessary at the
site. To this end, an additional investigation was begun in the summer
of 1987.
In order to expedite the onsite waste pit remediation, the site was
divided into two operable units, Source Control and Management of Migration
(MCM). The Record of Decision for the Source Control Unit was issued on
-------
March 15, 1985, selecting incineration as the EFA's preferred remedial
alternative. A Consent Decree for the Source Control Unit was then negot-
iated and signed by 21 companies, the MOTCO Trust group, in early 1987 to
conduct the incineration remedy. The onsite incinerator is currently
being constructed at the MOTCO site.
In 1986, special notice letters were sent to the MQTCO respondents for
the off-site Remedial Invsetigation activities. The MOTCO Trust Group
entered into an Administrative Order on Consent in April of 1987 to conduct
the off-site and ground water investigation. The Supplemental Feasibility
Study Investigation (SFSI), Endangerment Assessement, and Feasibility
Study were submitted to EFA in early 1989.
3. HIGHLIGHTS OF (XJXMJNITY PARTICIPATION
As required by CERGEA section 113(K) (2) (B) (i-v), the Agency conducted a
number of public participation activities designed to provide citizens
with an opportunity to receive information about and comment on the
Supplemental Investigation and Feasibility Study for the MOTCO SuperfuncT
Site in La Marque, Texas.
An administrative record has been maintained at 10 locations, the addresses
of which can be found in the Administrative Record.
The Supplemental Investigation and Feasibility Study for the MOM Operable
Unit were released to the public in April 1989 and July 1989 respectively.
These two documents were made available to the public in the Administrative
Record and at the information repositories listed in the Responsiveness
Summary (Appendix C) of this document. A fact sheet that outlined the
results of the Supplemental Investigation and the status of both of the
site's operable units, was distributed to the public in April 1989. A
news release and a second fact sheet that provided details of the Feasibi-
lity Study and the remedial alternatives were released in July 1989.
A public comment period was held from August 7, 1989, until September 5,
1989, and a public meeting was conducted August 23, 1989. At this meeting,
officials from EPA described the remedial alternatives under consideration
to address the migration of contaminants off the MOTCO site, and answered
questions from members of the public about the site. A summary of the
Agency's responses to the comments received during the public comment
period and at the public meeting is included in the Responsiveness Summary,
which is a part of this Record of Decision (Appendix C).
-------
A local citizens group sent EPA a letter of intent requesting a Technical
Assistance Grant (TAG) on November 1, 1988. This MTTCO citizens group
has requested the application forms; However, to date, the group has not
been able to become formally organized.
A local citizen has requested that the TAG monies be spent on base-line
health studies. This request is outside of the scope of the TAG Federal
regulations that govern the expenditure of all TAG grants. The local
citizens have been encouraged to work with the local State, and county
health departments concerning base-line health studies.
This Record of Decision presents the selected remedy for the Management
of Migration operable unit of the MOTCO Superfund Site in La Marque,
Texas. The remedy has been chosen in accordance with CERGLA, as amended
by SARA, and to the extent possible by the National Contingency Plan.
The Administsrative Record is the basis for this decision.
4. SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT
>.
As with many Superfund sites, the environmental concerns at the MOTCO
Site are complex. As a result, the EPA organized the work into two
operable units (OU's). These OU's are:
OU 1: Source Control
OU 2: Management of Migration (MOM)
The EPA has previously selected a remedial action for the Source Control
Operable Unit and the ROD process was completed on March 15, 1985, when
the ROD for Source Control was signed. Source Control involved the remed-
iation of several waste pits that contain about 12 million gallons of
contaminated water and organic waste liquids. This remedy also includes
the excavation of the existing waste pits to the sludge/soil interface
plus one foot and incineration of those wastes. The design and construction
of the Source Control ROD remedy is now under way and primarily consists
of an onsite mobile incinerator and ancillary facilities. The completion
of the incinerator construction is expected by late 1989. After the
trial burn is conducted in November, 1989, incineration of the onsite
waste should begin, and is expected to take about three years to complete.
The Management of Migration Operable Unit addresses the wastes or contam-
inated environmental media that have migrated below the waste pits (waste
sources) and beyond the site boundaries in both the surface and subsurface
environmental media. Figure 5 illustrates the MOM activity areas, includ-
ing the trailer park. The potential for migration of contaminants that
were investigated in this operable unit include the following media:
-------
Figure 5
-------
1. Surface Soils
2. Surface Sediments
3. Surface Water
4. Nearby Biota
5. Subsurface Soils
6. Shallow Ground Water
7. Deep Ground Water
The management of contaminant migration within these environmental media
is the objective of the second operable unit RI/FS process. Any remedial
action that results from this RI/FS process is to provide two primary
functions. The functions of a management of migration (IVCM) remedial
action are as follows:
1. Isolate, remove, treat, and/or dispose of environmental media
contaminated by the waste source, in order to remove or reduce a
threat to the public health and environment; and
2. prevent further contamination of these environmental media.
5. SUMyg^RY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Previous investigations have shown that the seven pits identified earlier
in this document contain several strata, including surface water; organic
liquids; and various sludges, tars, and other solids. Waste constituents
include polymeric (primarily styrene) tars, chlorinated hydrocarbons,
spent catalysts, and other chemicals. After the Source Control remediation
has been completed, these waste sources will no longer exist on the site.
(See previous EEA PCD dated March 15, 1985, for Source Control site charac-
teristics. )
Concentrations of contaminants associated with waste sources will remain
in various environmental media after Source Control remediation. The
characterization of each affected or potentially affected medium is
discussed in the following sections. A complete list of chemicals detected
at the site during the 1YCM is available in the RI/FS documents.
-------
5.1. AIR
Previous investigations did not detect high levels of organics in the
ambient air. Potential sources of air emissions include the onsite pits
and, to a lesser degree, the residual soils. Routine monitoring data
collected during field operations did not exceed health and safety program
action levels for worker protection. Fugitive dust emissions were not
detected during field activities. Air monitoring is continuing as part
of the Source Control activities.
Air emissions are expected to be a concern during remediation of the waste
pits and will be controlled and monitored while this work is conducted.
After the Source Control remediation has eliminated these pits, air
emissions from residual site conditions are not expected to be a concern.
5o2 SURFACE WATER AND DITCH SEDIMENTS
The 1VCTCO site is in the Highland Bayou drainage basin. Galveston Bay is
approximately 2 miles from the site, and the Jones Bay/Trinity/San Jacint,o
estuary is about 1.5 miles to the south. Site drainage is towards the
south and east by way of drainage ditches. Some additional drainage
occurs through ditches located along the southwestern perimeter of the
site. Site drainage ultimately reaches Jones Bay via a drainage ditch.
This ditch contains headwaters which feed a 7.75 acre pond located behind
the Dispose-All facility. The site appears to be free from flooding by
river sources although the drainage gradient is low and water tends to
pond in low areas and drain away from the site slowly.
The surface waters adjacent to and downgradient from the M3TCO site do not
appear to be affected, with the exceptions of arsenic and copper in the
HL&P ditch directly west of the site. These compounds were slightly above
background levels for the area.
Sediments in the HL&P and highway right-of-way ditches contain detectable
levels of heavy metals (including arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper and
lead). The ditch sediments in the HL&P right-of-way west of the site
contain low concentrations of organic contaminants. Figure 6 delineates
the affected ditch sediments estimated for the ICM area, and Table 2 provides
indicator chemical concentrations in off-site sediments. A total volume
of approximately 2,300 cubic yards of affected ditch sediments was calculated
based on estimates of the ditch widths and assuming that between 6 and 12
inches of sediments are present (See Figures 6 and 7).
5.3 SURFACE SOILS
Affected onsite surface soils exist in the diked tank farm area and the
overflow area. These soils, along with miscellaneous debris and buried
metals, will be excavated and remediated as part of the Source Control
-------
Figure 6
-------
r-~
Ol
3
01
-------
activities. Other surface soils within the site will be capped with 3
feet of low permeability clay soil and graded to provide drainage.
Affected surface soils were identified in three areas beyond the M7TCO
site boundary:
1. Area just west of site boundary (approximately 13,000 square
feet);
2. area just south of site boundary (approximately 42,000 square
feet); and
3. area just north of the site boundary within the abandoned
trailer park (approximately 194,000 square feet).
Figure 6 delineates the affected surface soils in these areas.
The first two areas are each about 5 feet deep and together contain a
total of approximately 10,000 cubic yards. The third area, within the "*
abandoned trailer park, is discussed in the following paragraphs.
Both surface and subsurface soils in the abandoned trailer park to the
north of the MTTCO site are affected. A generalized area of affected
soils near the surface was delineated in the SFSI based upon chemical
measurements and visual observations from soil borings and test trenches.
Principal contaminants detected in these areas were chromium, copper,
lead, 1,1-dichloroethene, 1,2-dichlorethane, total 1,2-dichlorethene,
1,1,2-trichlorethane, benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, styrene, total
xylenes, bis(2-chloroethyl) ether, 2^nethyl naphthalene, phenanthrene,
fluoranthrene and pyrene. Visually affected trailer park soils have been
calculated to include about 30,000 cubic yards within 4 feet of the ground
surface.
5.4 SUBSURFACE SOUS
Affected subsurface soils (soils generally below a 4 foot depth) have
been identified:
1. At the base of the existing sludge pits and at various onsite
locations to a depth of 50 feet below grade; and
2. various locations off site within the transmissive zone,
including the abandoned trailer park.
-------
Approximately 30,000 cubic yards of subsoil within 3 feet beneath or ad-
jacent to the sludge pits are affected. The estimated depth of affected
soil was based on a review of data from sludge pit borings. In general,
volatile and total extractable organic compounds were in the range of 100
ppm to 3000 ppm within the 3 feet of soil. Affected pit subsoils will be
excavated to a depth of 1 foot below the sludge/soil interface and treated
along with the pit sludges during the Source Control remedial activities.
This excavation will account for approximately 10,000 cubic yards of
material. The data indicate that remaining subsoils (1-3 foot depths)
will have total volatile and total extractable organic compounds generally
between 10 and 350 ppm.
The leachability of the residual pit subsoils after Source Control remedi-
ation was evaluated with regards to their impacts on Transmissive Zone
ground water. Residuals from pit subsoils will represent a small fraction
of the total volume of residual materials remaining in the Transmissive
Zone. All residual contaminant levels (after sludge/soil interface
material removal) will be managed as a part of the ground water remediation
for the site.
In addition to the onsite contaminated subsurface soils, affected subsurface
soils were identified in areas south of the MOTCO site at depths of approx-
imately -25 to -30 feet MSL and -45 to -55 feet MSL and just east of the
site at depths -45 to -55 feet MSL. These locations correspond to the
sand/clay interface at the bottom of the Transmissive Zone units 2 and 3,
and may have resulted from the accumulation of chemical contaminants that
have migrated vertically until a relatively impermeable clay layer was
reached. These two areas correspond to the presence of dense non-aqueous
phase liquids (ENAPL's) in the Transmissive Zone ground water.
The principal chemical contaminants detected in the subsurface soils were
1,1-dichloroethane, 1,2-dichloroethane, 1,2-dichloroethene, 1,1,2-trichlor-
oethane, benzene, ethyl benzene, toluene, styrene, total xylene, bis(2-
chloroethyl)ether, bis(2-chloroisqprqpyl)ether, naphthalene, 2-methyl
naphthalene, and phenanthrene.
Analytical samples for onsite subsurface soils detected high levels (greater
than 500 ppm) of 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, Naphthalene, and 1,2-Dichloroethane.
Medium levels (greater than 10 ppm and less than 500 ppm) of 1,2-Dichloro-
ethene, Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Total Xylenes, 2-MethylnaphthaLLene,
Fluorene, Ffcenanthrene, Pyrene, Acenaphthylene, Acenaphthene, Anthracene,
and bis(2-Chloroethyl)Ether.
Concentrations of Barium, copper, lead, Arsenic, and Chromium detected in
the onsite subsurface samples were above background, but within the
range of average soil concentrations for these metals.
-------
10
Analytical sanples from the off-site subsurface areas detected high levels
of bis (2-Chloroethyl)Ether (700 mgAg) and 1,1,2-Trichloroethane (1200 ppm).
Medium levels of Naphthalene, bis(2Chloroisopropyl)Ether, 2-Methylnaphth-
alene, Phenanthrene, Benzene, 1,2-Dichloroethane, 1,1,2-Trichloroethane,
Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Styrene, Pyrene, and Total Xylenes were detected
in the off-site subsurface.
Affected subsurface soils are present under the surface soil zone in the
trailer park and were estimated to reach a maximum depth of between 19 and
21 feet below the ground surface. The estimated total of affected trailer
park soils (surface and subsurface) has been calculated to be 90,000 to
100,000 cubic yards.
The presence of free phase product (i.e., ENAPL's) was detected in seven
transmissive zone wells. The extent of free organic phase product is
localized offsite in two areas:
1. Area directly southwest of the site; and
2. area directly northwest of the site.
The extent of ENAPL's directly under the existing waste pits is unknown
at this time. The known volume of ENAPL's has been estimated to be 1 to
2 million gallons. (See Figure 8).
5.5 GROUND WATER
5.5.1 Hydroqeology
The hydrogeologic profile at the MOTCO site is divided into a Transmissive
Zone and Upper Chicot aquifer. The hydrogeologic elements of the Trans-
missive Zone (TZ) consist of of TZ-1 (approximately 0 to -5 feet MSL),
TZ-2 (approximately -18 to 28 feet MSL) and TZ-3 (approximately -35 to -
48 feet MSL). These units vary in thickness, depth and continuity across
the site. TZ-3 is the most homogeneous and areally extensive. TZ-2
appears to be the most permeable layer. All three zones appear to be
interconnected. Horizontal ground water flow in the Transmissive Zone is
generally in a south to southeast direction at a seepage velocity ranging
from 0.2 to 10 feet per year. There is some TZ flow in a northwesterly
direction from the site, as well. (Figure 9).
The Upper Chicot clays overlying the Upper Chicot Aquifer vary in thickness
from 20 to 48 feet accross the site. Laboratory permeability tests and
one field pumping test indicated that hydraulic conductivity of the clay-
-------
00
0)
i.
-------
WATER SEARING UNITS
QENERALIZEO STRATIGRAPHY
40
-SO
-«0
- 70
-O
-to
-too
-120
-I JO
ELEVATION
i i
8 S S
-iro
-1*0
-IfO
-2
TRANSMI3SIVE
ZONE
UPPER CHICOT
AQUfFER
UC-3
TZ-I l"!y_3±nl^'!d_ci*y ~1°°
Clay
TZ-2 Sllty Clay. Silty Sand. Silt int«rb«d»
CUy H"°
TZ-3 Silt. Sllty Sand. Sandy Clay lnt«rb«d»
-JO
Thick Interbeddcd Sllty Clay. Clay
- '0
-0
UC-i Sllty/Clayey Sand
₯ ^M
Clay
- 1*0 O
^>
4
ISO i
^
M
140
170
UC-2 lnterb«dded Sand. Clay, Silt
200
ZK3
-Z20
Clay
2SQ
Sllty Sand
-J50
MOTCO SITE
MOTCO RESPONDENTS
1C
MOTSO
«.oi
c-tc«eo
o»'l 5-//-S0
QENERALIZEO
HYOROQEOLOQIC
PROFILE
'1.1 *«
88C5853
>><;»(
Figure 9
-------
11
confining layer ranged from a high of 1X104 on/sec to a low of 8X108
on/sec. Based on an average porosity of 20% and the hydraulic conductiv-
ity, the estimated hydraulic gradient is 0.22 feet per year. This means
that it will take approximately four years for fluids to travel one foot
through the Upper Chicot Clay. Therefore, the Upper Chicot Clay provides
some degree of confinement between the Transmissive Zone and the Upper
Chicot Aquifer.
The Upper Chicot aquifer is subdivided into three water bearing units:
Upper Chicot 1 (UC-1) is generally between -90 to -105 feet MSL, Upper
Chicot 2 (UC-2) is generally between -150 to -210 feet MSL, and the Upper
Chicot 3 (UC-3) is below -230 feet MSL. The exact depth and thicknesses
of these units vary across the site.
The only identified potential point source that could have affect the UC-l,
UC-2, and UC-3 aquifers was an old abandoned deep process well (COW-l)
located on the MOTCO site near pit #1. This well was sampled during the
RI/FS field activities and has since been removed. A search for other
abandoned wells was performed and none found. ^
In addition to COW-l, there is a potential for vertical migration of
ground water contaminants through the underlying clays into the Chicot
ftguifer.
5.5.2 Ground Water Quality
Figure 8 shows the estimated delineation of affected ground water media
associated with the MOTCO site. The extent of the plume in the UC-3 was
estimated based on the projected migration of contaminants from well COW-l
from 1959 until the well was removed. The boundary of the plume shown
for the TZ is a line drawn through the wells closest to the site in which
no contaminants were detected.
Ground water contaminant plumes in the TZ have been identified in two
areas. One plume extends approximately 500 feet past the southeast site
boundary. The second plume extends about 300 feet beyond the northern
site boundary. The estimated total volume of affected TZ ground water is
about 30 to 40 million gallons. The primary contaminants detected include:
1,1-dicnlorethane, total 1,2-dichloroethane, 1,1,2-trichloroethane,
bis(2-chloroethyl)ether, naphthalene, benzene, tolluene, ethyl benzene,
total xylenes, styrene.
The primary compounds detected in the Transmissive Zone in high levels
was bis (2-Chloroethyl)Ether (960ppm) and medium levels (greater than 10
ppm and less than 500 ppm) of 1,2-Dichloroethane, Benzene, 1,1,2-Trichloro-
ethane, Vinyl Chloride, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Styrene, Xylene, bis(2-Chlor-
oisopropyl)Ether, Naphthalene, and 2-Methylnaphthalene.
-------
12
The estimated volume of the UC-3 plume was calculated to be about 6 to 10
million gallons based upon modeling and historic data. The primary compounds
detected at low levels (below 10 ppm) were Vinyl Chloride, 1,2-Dichloroethane,
l,1-Dichloroethene, and Benzene.
Table 1 presents the final list of indicator chemicals chosen for the
MJDCO site during the endangerment assessment process, and an estimate of
potential significant impacts to public health or the environment.
5.5.3 Ground Water Wells and Classification
The private wells in the site vicinity are either abandoned or used for
non-potable purposes. Reportedly, the former residents of the abandoned
trailer park northwest of the MOTCO site obtained water from the City of
La Marque. Both Central Freight and the Dispose-All facility, south
across Highway 3 from the site, have a water well on their property.
These wells are about 800 to 450 feet deep. The nearest subdivisions,
Bayou Vista and Onega Bay, obtain water from the Galveston County Water
District. The closest residential well, (2000 feet from the MOTCO site)
is screened in the Upper Chicot. The residence is now served by the La-
Marque municipal water system.
The Upper Chicot is considered to be a Class 2 aquifer due to its
potential use as a potable water supply, based on water quality and
sufficient yield to supply a drinking water well. Therefore, MCL's
or appropriate health-based numbers (10~6) will be the applicable
clean-up standards.
The TZ is considered to be a class III-A aquifer due to its high levels
of naturally occurring chlorides and total dissolved solids and the
potential to impact a. potable water source (Upper Chicot). Although it is
not currently being utilized as either a process water or potable water
source, the transmissive zone will need to be remediated to selected target
levels in order to insure protection of the Upper Chicot Aquifer.
5.6 DBXDGRAFHY AND LAND USE
Approximately 3000 people live within a 1-mile radius of the site, and
about 12,000 people live within a 3-mile radius. Pertinent residential
features in the vicinity of the site are the Onega Bay subdivision (1500
feet west-southwest), the village of Bayou Vista (1500 feet south-southwest),
and the Narvaez residence (2000 feet northwest).
Land use within the area is divided principally among industry, urban-
business, agriculture, and marsh-covered tracts with abundant wildlife.
-------
Table i
FINAL LIST OF INDICATOR CHEMICALS
Carcinogen
Environmental
Media of Concern
SW GU S
Metals
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium (VI & III)
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Volatiles
Benzene
Carbon Disulfide
l,2-D1chloroethane
l,l-D1shloroethylene
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Vinyl Chloride
Semi-Volatiles
bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Potential Impacts
(1)
x(2)
J(2)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
M
M
L
L
M
M
L
L
M
L
M
M
M
M
M
L
L
L
L
L
H
H
L
L
L
H
L
L
H
L
H
H
H
H
L
L
L
L
L
H
H
L
H
M
H
M
M
L
M
M
M
H
M
H
H
H
H
H
(1) Preliminary estimate of potential significant impacts
or environmental) based on media concentrations in
1988).
(2) Considered by EPA to be carcinogenic by
exposure only (IRIS 1988).
SW * Surface Water
GW = Groundwater
S »Soil
L = Low Level of Concern
M = Medium Level of Concern
H = High Level of Concern
X = Suspected Carcinogen
(public health
the SFSI (WCC
the Inhalation route of
WMG/FS/2431Tb2-2
-------
13
Railroads, highways, pipelines, and power transmission systems cross the
area. The nearby bay and estuary waters are used for comerciai and
sport fishing, recreation, transportation, and mineral production.
6. SUMVRRY OF SITE RISKS
6.1 OVERVIEW
The objective of the MDTCO Endangerment Assessment was to characterize
the site in relation to potential public health and environmental impacts
resulting from:
1. Migration of residual site contaminants after completion of
currently planned on-site source remediation; and
2. contaminants that have migrated off-site prior to source remedia-
tion.
In order to characterize the potential public health and environmental *-
impacts associated with the no-action alternative, three scenarios (i.e.,
current, future, and residential) were evaluated in the MDTCO Endangerment
Assessment Report (EA). For purposes of the EA, evaluation of health and
environmental risJcs under the above mentioned scenarios constitutes a
baseline health risk evaluation. The results from the exposure and risk
characterization for the baseline health risk assessment are provided in
Sections 6 and 7 of the MDTCO EA.
6.2 HAZARD IDEMTIFICMTCN
In order to focus on the chemicals of greatest concern to public health
and the environment, the EA selected and evaluated a list of 20 indicator
chemicals. The process for selection of these chemicals is found in chapters
4 and 5 of the MDTCO Endangerment Assessment. The final list of indicator
chemicals includes 20 chemicals that best represent the site in terms of
toxicity and media concentrations and to a lesser degree, extent, mobility
and prevalence. The carcinogens included on the list account for greater
than 99 percent of the total estimated cancer risk associated with human
exposure to soils and water affected by these chemicals.
The final indicator list also includes 10 noncarcinogens which best represent
the site in regard to potential noncancer adverse health effects. These
chemicals were chosen based on their overall ranking as noncarcinogens.
Samples collected as part of the SFSI from soils, ground water, ENAPL's,
surface water, sediments, and biota were analyzed in the laboratory for
-------
14
the Hazardous Substance List (HSL) metals, copper, HSL organics, (volatiles
and semi-volatiles), pesticides, and PCB's.
6.3 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
The purposes of the Exposure Assessment are to identify actual or pot-
ential exposure pathways, characterize the potentially exposed human
populations (including sensitive and/or environmental receptors), and
quantify the extent of exposure.
An exposure assessment is based on the general assumption that a chemical
must move from a source via an environmental pathway to a receptor to
cause an effect. In the M3TCO Endangerment Assessment potential receptors
(human and environmental) were determined based on land use and demographic
considerations as well as evaluation of appropriate pathways. Several
environmental pathways connecting sources and receptors were discussed,
including air, water (ground water and surface water), soil (sediment,
surface, and subsurface), and the food chain (biota). Three scenarios
were assumed for the pathway and exposure analysis: Current conditionsT
future conditions, and a residential scenario (worst case). Details of
exposure assessment are outlined in Chapter 6 of the Endangerment Assess-
ment Report.
6.3.1 Current Conditions
Air Pathway
The M3ICO 1VCM Endangerment Assessment was concerned with potential
for adverse effects on public health and the environment following
source removal and remediation. The major source of air emissions
from the site is currently the onsite pits and soils. These are
areas to be remediated, and the air pathway was addressed by the MDTCO
Source Control Operable Unit. Therefore, the potential for migration of
contaminants in the air from the MJICO site, after source removal, is
postulated to be low compared to existing conditions prior to site remedi-
ation. Emissions from other sources (e.g., the abandoned Trailer Park)
would also be expected to be relatively low. In order to assess the
potential for off-site migration of chemicals from off-site sources via
the air pathway, available air monitoring data were evaluated for the
existing conditions at the site (prior to remediation).
The compounds detected in air samples were primarily chlorinated hydro-
carbons and aromatics (e.g., benzene). Chlorinated hydrocarbons were
detected downwind of the pits and were assumed to be associated with the
pits. Significant levels of chlorinated hydrocarbons were not detected
-------
15
in the trailer park area upwind of the pits. There was no significant
increase in benzene detected in the air downwind as compared to upwind
samples. The results of the investigation suggest that volatile organics
may be emitted at the site from the open pits at detectable levels, but
not from the off-site sources.
In summary, the potential for exposure to volatile organic vapors and
particulates released from off-site sources in the air is assumed to be
relatively low compared to the other pathways. For particulates, high
soil moisture content, extensive vegetation, and the results of air sampling
suggest that fugitive dust emissions would not contribute appreciably to
these overall human exposures computed in the risk evaluation. Consequently,
off-site air emissions were not quantified in the MJTCO MCM Endangerment
Assessment.
Ground Water
Four Potential ground water pathways were identified for evaluation in the
MDTCO EA:
1. Migration of contaminants through Transmissive Zone horizontally
to nearby surface water.
2. Migration of contaminants vertically to the underlying Upper
Chicot. (Hypothetical Well #2)
3. Migration of contaminants from UC-3 horizontally to nearby
drinking water well. (Hypothetical Well #1)
4. Migration of contaminants from Transmissive Zone to process wells
downgradient from site.
With the possible exception of the Central Freight process well, which is
approximately 800 feet deep, there is no confirmed use of any wells
within 3000 feet of the MOTCO site. The Central Freight well is used
only for cleaning operations as the natural water quality is impaired
apparently due to high salinity. Nevertheless, it is possible that human
exposures to chemicals found in any of the Upper Chicot units may ulti-
mately occur from occupational or domestic uses of water from these wells.
Currently, the public water supply is from surface water sources such as
the Brazos River and Lake Houston. The Omega Bay and Bayou Vista communi-
ties receive water from the Galveston County Water District. Private
wells in the site vicinity are thought to be either abandoned or used for
non-potable purposes.
-------
16
Surface Water and Sediments
Chemicals may migrate in surface water during storm events or in natural
flow of streams and drainage channels. At the Motco Site, surface water
drains from the site into open ditches at the edge of the property.
Drainage ditches may then discharge to the marsh areas found nearby.
There is also the potential for chemicals migrating in the ground water
to affect surface water.
Surface Soils
Chemicals may migrate vertically and laterally through soil depending
on the physical and chemical properties of the soil and the chemical.
Most organic chemicals and metals are retarded by adsorption to soil
particles rendering them less mobile in soil. Thus, the ground water
quality could be impacted through compounds existing in overlying soils.
The main pathway for exposure, however, would be from ingestion of surface
soils. **
Food Chain
The coastal marshes and estuarine system bordering the MJICO Site serve
as spawning and nursery areas for many species of fish and shellfish.
The wetland areas also serve as wintering grounds for many species of
waterfowl such as ducks, geese, and cranes.
Surface water and sediments near the site may be affected by ground
water migration, surface water runoff, or air deposition of particles.
According to land use data, the ponds adjacent to the M3TCO site are not
typically visited. This is likely the result of the difficult access to
the site, the poor supply of fish (or other biota) in these ponds, and
the more appealing recreational areas found locally at points away from
the MjtfCO site.
6.3.2 FUTURE COSDITlClXfS - Residential Scenario
Ground Water:
The worst-case cumulative cancer risk to a hypothetical resident near
the site is 54,000 in a million (5.4E-02) for hypothetical well 1 (HW-l)
and 140,000 in a million (1.4E-01) for hypothetical well 2 (HW-2). The
major portion of the risk is primarily related to ingestion of ground
water, with total risks being approximately 3.5 times higher for HW-2
-------
17
than HW-l. For both wells, the majority of the risks from ground water
consumption is due to high doses and cancer potencies for vinyl chloride,
bis(2-chloroethyl)ether, and arsenic.
Hypothetical consumption of and dermal contact with water from Well HW-l
exhibited no margin of safety (i.e., the Hazard Index was approximately
1.0) for exposure to lead. This represents a potential for noncancer
health effects associated with exposure from HW-l.
Surface Water and Sediments
Total cancer risks for surface water exposures, 9.6 in a million,
and excess risks for sediment exposures, 0.3 and 44 (mean and maximum)
are appreciably lower than either potential exposure to ground water
or surface soils.
The calculated doses of chemicals in surface soils and sediments from
each route of exposure did not exceed their reference doses for noncancer
risks. ^
Surface Soils
Potential exposure to trailer park soils contributes appreciably to
the cumulative individual cancer risks associated with the M3TCO Site.
Under the worst-case (residential scenario) the cancer risks from
ingest ion of and dermal contact with surface soils by a hypothetical
resident are 21,000 in a million (2.1E-02) and 140 in a million
(1.4E-04) for maximum and mean concentrations, respectively.
Although calculated doses did not exceed corresponding reference doses
for any chemical in the trailer park soils, the hazard indices for
dermal contact with and ingestion of maximum concentrations of barium,
napthalene, or lead are close to their respective threshold levels for
noncancer effects.
Food Chain
According to the results of sampling and the cancer risk estimates,
the potential consumption of biota obtained from nearby surface waters
may result in risks of 47 and 120 in a million (4.7E-05 and 1.2E-04)
(mean and maximum). The only carcinogenic chemical detected in fish
was arsenic.
-------
s* = i = ~6S
i i £ f f f * ?
liinff
f Ijiii
1 Hi};
tilt
Mi!
i i : S
UM
1 -? t
is 5
~ ^
- 1 *
f ? f
E*
!
i
|
=
M > ttf't
5
X
-
J
91
i
S
=
S
'
t
S
i
j
Z
»
i
2
5
2
s
k
j
«
5
i
:: ii
= = st
t -
j
"i
i ; |:
it
sX
. . !
i
. . . . . j
1
:
' ]
'. j
j
1
...... ..
1
..
: :
m f j
I
1
S
a
s
at
i
2
i
s
5
-
g
6
s
K
J
i
s
«
s
s .
a
SMlM Sllll II
If 1.1.1.
! II IB
I
i
*
^
i
t
3 1
3
-
_ 1
* 1
*
f
a
f
M
.
*
a
S
*
e
* ...
r
«
I
«.« Vlxt
-------
19
result of site-related exposure to a carcinogen over a 70-year lifetime
under the specific exposure conditions at a site.
6.6.1 CURREM1 CONDITIONS;
Maximum concentrations of indicator chemicals detected in UC-3 are compared
in Table 19 to MCL's, AWQC, or a derived HEN for drinking water. Vinyl
chloride (340x), 1,1-dichloroethylene (13x), 1,2-dichloroethane (lOOx),
bis (2-chloroethyl) ether (167x), and benzene (7x) exceed screeing criteria.
Of the metals, only lead equaled its MZL and exceeded its proposed MCL
for drinking water.
Current maximum and mean concentrations of indicator chemicals in surface
water were compared to either Texas Water Commission or Federal marine
toxicity criteria. Only the maximum concentration for copper exceeds
its marine toxicity criterion.
Water quality for the two process water wells were compared to the ^
HBN's for process water. No chemical concentrations exceeded their re-
spective HEN's derived for process water use.
Biota sampling downgradient from the site was conducted to characterize
the potential for aquatic exposure to the indicator list. The results
were discussed earlier in this document under the Exposure Assessment
Section. Soil and sediment exposures are addressed under the residential
scenario, as well.
6.6.2 FUTURE CONDITIONS
In modeling chemical migration in UC-3 from OOW-1 to a hypothetical well
near the M3TCO site boundary (HW-1), maximum predicted concentrations in
this well, assuming no decay, would exceed drinking water screening criteria
for vinyl chloride (215x), 1,1-dichloroethylene ((7.4x), 1,2-dichloroethane
(62x), bis(2-chloroethyl)ether (lOx), and benzene (3.6x).
Predicted maximum concentrations for indicator chemicals in HW-2 (screened
across UC-l,UC-2, & UC-3, modeled from the transmissive zone) are compared
to drinking water screening criteria. Assuming no decay, criteria would
be exceeded for vinyl chloride (155x), 1,2-dichloroethane (1283x), 1,1-
dichloroethylene (3.6x), 1,1,2-trichloroethane (1647x), bis(2-chloroethyl)
ether <72,700x), and benzene (79x). The time to reach these criteria
would be about 500 years.
According to the model, no marine toxicity-derived criteria would be
exceeded as a result of lateral migration of contamination from the
Transmissive Zone to the Dispose-All pond.
-------
20
Ground water migration of indicator chemicals from the transmissive zone
to the two industrial wells was modeled to predict maximum concentrations
in these wells. According to the model results, the HBN's for occupational
exposures would not be exceeded in either of the industrial wells.
Soils and ditch sediments are discussed in the residential scenario in
this section.
6.6.3 RESTDFTJTIAL EXPOSURE SCENARIO
For this scenario, it was assumed that a hypothetical resident living at
the edge of the site obtained drinking water from HW-1 or HW-2, consumed
a predetermined quantity of soil, sediments, and biota per day, and had
dermal contact with water, soils, and ditch sediments. Figure 10 provides
an illustration of the MDTCO Site sources, pathways, and receptors used
in the model.
Cancer Risks;
~«.
The principal assumption for ground water pathway is that exposure may
occur through ingestion of drinking water or from dermal contact during
showering or bathing from either of the two hypothetical wells. Hie
estimate for total cancer risks from ingestion of ground water at HW-1
is 3.3E-02 and 1.2E-01 at HW-2. For dermal contact, the total cancer risks
at HW-1 is 7.0E-05, and 4.8E-04 at HW-2.
The excess individual cancer risks estimated for occasional dermal (recre-
ational) contact and ingestion of off-site sediments is 4.4E-05. Exposure
to trailer park soils may also occur through ingestion and dermal
contact. The estimate of total cancer risks from soils is 3.0E-03.
for ingestion and 1.8E-02 for dermal contact.
Surface water exposure cancer risks from dermal contact through bathing or
showering is 9.6E-06
The estimate for excess cancer risks from ingestion of biota is 1.2E-04,
based on based on biota chemical concentrations that are presented in
Chapter 6 of the MDTCO EA.
Nbncarcgr pffiiffi F.ffects;
To assess noncancer health effects, a comparison is made by dividing
the computed dose by the appropriate reference dose (i.e., RfD). The
resulting calculation is termed a "Hazard Index". Hazard Indices are
representative of the "margin of safety" that exists between a human
-------
18
6.4 EXPOSURE ANALYSIS
Potential human doses are estimated from the concentrations of indicator
contaminants measured or predicted to occur at the receptors defined
earlier in this document. The community may be exposed to environmental
pollutants through three primary routes: inhalation, ingestion, and
dermal contact. The significance of any of these exposures depends on
the current and future land uses in the area, the potential pathways of
exposure, and the inherent properties of the chemicals of concern.
Table 2 provides a summary of affected media across the exposure path-
ways at the MDTCO Site.
6.5 RF.snr.TR OF HUMAN DOSE ESTIftPflTON
Human daily intake values (doses) were calculated for each route of
exposure of concern for each chemical detected in a particular environmen-
tal medium and are presented in Appendix E of Volume 2 of the M3TCO Endan-
germent Assessment. These values were used in the risk characterization
to estimate potential adverse health effects associated with the resident-
ial exposure scenario. Doses were calculated based on the set of assump-
tions listed in the MOTTOO Endangerment Assessment document.
6.6 RISK CHARACTERIZATION
It is in the risk characterization that data specific to the site, indicator
chemicals, land use and population, and pathways and routes of exposure
are used to assess the risk to the actual and potential receptors. Three
separate exposure scenarios were defined for risk characterization:
current conditions, future conditions and the residential scenario.
Both current and future (predicted) conditions evaluated in the Exposure
Assessment for receptors at the MDTCO site are compared to regulatory
criteria or a derived Health-Based Number (HEN). For drinking water,
available Maximum Qantaminant Levels (MZL's) were used. If an fCL was
not avilable, the Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AW3C) for the protection
of human health was used. Regulatory criteria used for biotic receptors
were either Texas Water Commission suggested values, or Federal marine
(chronic) toxicity values. For process water, HBN's were derived for
OSHA or ACGIH occupational exposure limits.
Excess lifetime cancer risks are determined by multiplying the intake
level with the cancer potency factor. These risks are probabilities that
are generally expressed in scientific notation (e.g., 1x10-6). An excess
lifetime cancer risk of 1x10-6 indicates that, as a plausible upper bound,
an individual has a one in one million chance of developing cancer as a
-------
19
result of site-related exposure to a carcinogen over a 70-year lifetime
under the specific exposure conditions at a site.
6.6.1 CURRENT CONDITIONS:
Maximum concentrations of indicator chemicals detected in UC-3 are compared
in Table 19 to MX's, AWQC, or a derived HEN for drinking water, vinyl
chloride (340x), 1,1-dichloroethylene (13x), 1,2-dichloroethane (lOOx),
bis(2-chloroethyl)ether (I67x), and benzene (7x) exceed screeing criteria.
Of the metals, only lead equaled its MIL and exceeded its proposed MIL
for drinking water.
Current maximum and mean concentrations of indicator chemicals in surface
water were compared to either Texas Water Commission or Federal marine
toxicity criteria. Only the maximum concentration for copper exceeds
its marine toxicity criterion.
Water quality for the two process water wells were compared to the
HEN's for process water. Nb chemical concentrations exceeded their re- ^
spective HEN's derived for process water use.
Biota sampling downgradient from the site was conducted to characterize
the potential for aquatic exposure to the indicator list. The results
were discussed earlier in this document under the Exposure Assessment
Section. Soil and sediment exposures are addressed under the residential
scenario, as well.
6.6.2 FUTURE CCNDITICMS
In modeling chemical migration in UC-3 from OOW-1 to a hypothetical well
near the M3TCO site boundary (HW-1), maximum predicted concentrations in
this well, assuming no decay, would exceed drinking water screening criteria
for vinyl chloride (215x), 1,1-dichloroethylene (7.4x), 1,2-dichloroethane
(62x), bis (2-chloroethyl) ether (lOx), and benzene (3.6x).
Predicted maximum concentrations for indicator chemicals in HW-2 (screened
across UC-l,UC-2, & UC-3, modeled from the transmissive zone) are compared
to drinking water screening criteria. Assuming no decay, criteria would
be exceeded for vinyl chloride (155x), 1,2-dichloroethane (1283x), 1,1-
dichloroethylene (3.6x), 1,1,2-trichloroethane (1647x), bis(2-chloroethyl)
ether (72,700x), and benzene (79x). The time to reach these criteria
would be about 500 years.
According to the model, no marine toxicity-derived criteria would be
exceeded as a result of lateral migration of contamination from the
Transmissive Zone to the Dispose-All pond.
-------
20
Ground water migration of indicator chemicals from the transmissive zone
to the two industrial wells was modeled to predict maximum concentrations
in these wells. According to the model results, the HEN'S for occupational
exposures would not be exceeded in either of the industrial wells.
Soils and ditch sediments are discussed in the residential scenario in
this section.
For this scenario, it was assumed that a hypothetical resident living at
the edge of the site obtained drinking water from HW-1 or HW-2, consumed
a predetermined quantity of soil, sediments, and biota per day, and had
dermal contact with water, soils, and ditch sediments. Figure 10 provides
an illustration of the MDTCO Site sources, pathways, and receptors used
in the model.
Cancer Risks;
-«.
The principal assumption for ground water pathway is that exposure may
occur through ingestion of drinking water or from dermal contact during
showering or bathing from either of the two hypothetical wells. Ihe
estimate for total cancer risks from ingestion of ground water at HW-1
is 33,000 in a million (3.3E-02) and 120,000 in a million ( 1.2E-01) at
HW-2. For dermal contact, the total cancer risks at HW-1 is 70 in a
million (7.0E-05), and 480 in a million (4.8E-04) at HW-2.
Die excess individual cancer risks estimated for occasional dermal (recre-
ational) contact and ingestion of off-site sediments is 44 in a million
(4.4E-05). Exposure to trailer park soils may also occur through ingestion
and dermal contact. The estimate of total cancer risks from soils is
3,000 in a million ( 3.0E-03) for ingestion, and 18,000 in a million
(1.8E-02) for dermal contact.
Surface water exposure cancer risks from dermal contact through bathing or
showering is 96 in a million (9.6E-06).
Hie estimate for excess cancer risks from ingestion of biota is 120
million (1.2E-04), based on based on biota chemical concentrations that
are presented in Chapter 6 of the M7TCO EA.
Nbncancer Health Effects;
To assess noncancer health effects, a comparison is made by dividing
the computed dose by the appropriate reference dose (i.e., RfD). Ihe
resulting calculation is termed a "Hazard Index". Hazard Indices are
representative of the "margin of safety" that exists between a human
-------
ELEVATION (fMt) MSL
Protect No
86C56S3
MOTCO Respondents
Woodward-Clyde CofnutUnts
MOTCO SITE
SOURCES. PATHWAYS AND RECEPTORS
Figure
Figure
10
-------
21
dose andMthe toxicity potential of a chemical. A suntnary of Hazard
Indices sunned across media for each indicator chemical is provided
in Chapter 9 of the MDTCO MM Endangerment Assessment. Tables 3, 4
and 5 provide summaries of non-cancer health effects and total cancer
risks from worst case exposures for all media.
6.7 HWIBCMMEMIAL ASSESSMEM1
The purpose of the environmental assessment is to assess the potential
for biological resources to be affected by the indicator chemicals identi-
fied from the M3ICO site. The study area is located downgradient from
the M3TCO site and represents the area that could be potentially be affec-
ted if indicator chemicals migrate off site. This study area is bounded
by the MJTCO site to the north, the western end of West Bay to the area
between Snake Island and the Brazoria County-Harris County line on the
mainland side, the northern portion of Galveston Island adjacent to West
Bay and Galveston Bay to the south, and the Texas City channel to the
east. The study area included open bay water, shallow estuarine waters,
dredge-spoil islands, and natural islands, oyster reefs, marshes, bayous^
upland areas, and areas of rural urban development. A detailed discussion
can be found the M3TCO MM EA, chapter 8. J
"^
?
The M3TCO biota study was designed to document existing levels of the
indicator chemicals in selected biota occurring near the site. The same
species were collected and analyzed from each of the five sampling stations.
Chly two species were collected at all five stations in sufficient quantity
to be analyzed for the indicator chemicals: blue crabs and mullet. Both
species are found throughout the Galveston Bay system and exhibit daily
and seasonal migration movement patterns.
The pattern of concentrations found in the blue crab and striped mullet
did not show any relationship between upgradient and downgradient stations.
Therefore, these data appear to represent regional background values.
The cancentratians of organic chemicals found in tissues do not appear to
be significant. The more soluble organic chemicals generally do not
bioaccumulate. The common phthalates are cannon lab contaminants.
Three species of state-listed threatened or endangered species of birds
nest insifie study area (Least Tern, Reddish Egret, and White Faced Ibis)
and a ntijiijjgp of bird rookeries are found through the study area. However,
none of"iitnese nesting sites are near the M3TCO site.
In conclusion, it is unlikely that appreciable quantities of the chemicals
of concern have migrated off-site towards sensitive receptors in Galveston
-------
00
N N
tn
U> IV3 *-
I
VI
o re
o r*
3 re
o o
re r*
cr
5*
CJ
o
n
r*
O
hem
ca
f?
8
»
S
3 O -* C
re
re
o <-N t/»
o *^
re ti
1tr > .
8 ^
>- O»
OOOOOOO O
rv) jk u> o *" u> ro H*
** 00 A A «»J - Ov
S
O OOOOOOO
rsj iv> PO 4h uj w r\> u>
N- -*j ro
O
OOO
w vj tn
i oj 01
oo A
OOOOOOO O
^- u» »-* ui rs> rs» ^ ^*
C7I 5.V ^^ bU Ctf <
. VI IM IM 00 .
oo oo oo
« A
oiro ut
09 i **jk
2
0
rs»
oo
rvau»
en
o
A
I I I
OO O
i i i i i
OOOOO
o
re
n
0
re 0
n o
re
I
"J <
re
-o
o
t/»
-------
ASSUMPTHBB:
SUMMARY OF TOTA4. CANCER"RISKS FROM WORST-CASE EXPOSURE TO OFF-SITE SURFACE
SOILS, SPDIMENTS, AND WATER SOURCES
NO DECAY IN GROUNOWATER AND SURFACE WATER
DRINKING WATER WELL HW-11
MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS FOR SOILS AND SEDIMENTS
Groundwater Surface Water Off-Site Sediment
Route of No Decay ? No Decay . Maximum
Exposure Concentration'1 Concentration^ Concentration-3
Trailer Park Soil
Maximum
Concentration
Total
Ingestlon
Dermal
Total
3.3E-02
7.0E-05
3.3E-02
NA
9.6E-064
9..6E-06
2.9E-OS
1.5E-05
4.4E-05
3.0E-03
1.8E-02
2.1E-02
3.6E-02
1.8E-02
5.4E-02
1 Hypothetical drinking water well, screened in UC-3 with OOW-1 as the source.
2 When modeling results were not available for a given compound (e.g.., some metals), the
maximum currently detected concentration was used under the worst-case .exposure
conditions. %
%
^ Cancer risks are expressed as excess Individual cancer risks (see Section 7).f
«
4 Exposure to off-site surface water Includes dermal contact with and Inadvertent
Ingestlon of chemical constituents.
NA Not appropriate
WMG/EA/7000TbES-l
Table 4
-------
SUMMARY OF TOTAL CANCER RISKS FROM WORST-CASE EXPOSURE TO OFF-SITE SURFACE
SOILS, SEDIMENTS, AND WATER SOURCES
ASSUMPTIONS? 7)0 DECAY IN GROUNOWATER AND SURFACE WATER
- . DRINKING WATER WELL HW-21
MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS FOR SOILS AND SEDIMENTS
R'oute of
Exposure
Ingestion
Dermal
Total
Groundwater
NO Decay
Concentration
1.2E-01
4.8E-04
1.2E-01
Surface Water
. No Decay .
^Concentration*
NA
9.6E-064
9.6E-06
Off-Site Sediment
Maximum
Concentration
2.9E-05
1.5E-05
4.4E-05
Trailer Park Soil
Maximum
Concentration
3.0E-03
1.8E-02
2.1E-02
Total
1.2E-01
1.9E-02
1.4E-01
1 Hypothetical drinking water well, screened across UC-1, UC-2, and UC-3 with the
Transmissive Zone as the source.
2 When modeling results were not available for a given compound (e.g., some metals), the
maximum currently detected concentration was used under the worst-case ^xposure
conditions. . 5
. *
J Cancer risks are expressed as excess Individual cancer risks (see Section 7).|
'₯
4 Exposure to off-site surface water Includes dermal contact with and Inadvertent
Ingestion of chemical constituents.
NA Not appropriate
WMG/EA/7000TbES-2
-------
-------
i
P
o -*
c n
iv -a c u 01
01 OJ O M u
n 4v .- n c
b Oj ~t W 4V p* «
Ov=ono>njcd
4V4V4V..* O«b O.b*
n L. X 01 O
u --oioiOua1**
S« C 4V O « b
4V u -o as jc 01
OI^tV^B ' " ' ~
These waste analysis requirements involve administrate
requirements. However, tbey assure compliance with inc
performance standards. Minus their administrative aspp
regulations require waste analyses (1) before a trial bi
determine the heat value and viscosity of the affected i
the identity and concentration of constituents reasonabl
to be found in the affected material, and (2) during th<
of the incinerator, to verify that the waste feed is wit
and chemical composition limits necessary to achieving f
standards.
0)
£
rg
jS
tZ
vO
e
r»»
1 rvl
«7>
r-t
s
V
a
(M
1471 1
a
O Ob
Of -J-J b 0
C U O 4V *4V
-> ££ c
n n o-o
4v o, n OT u 4i
B « -^ a 4v
^ u-^
Requires an incinerator to be designed, constructed and i
ao that, when operating, the incinerator: (1) achieves .
destruction and removal efficiency of 99.992 for each pr:
organic hazardous constituent in the waste feed, (2) conl
emissions to not exceed the greater of 1.8 kg/hr or 1Z ol
the stack ga« entering pollution control equipment, and (
particulata emissions to not exceed .08 grains/dscf (corr
oxygen in the stack gaa). '
f
*>
a
b
1
IfJ
.M
V3
«
W
am
2^
o-e
+* >*o
U C^
£un ,
e 01
4V .^
01 "
»i UK
b Mv MB o
fl O b B
« 01 o
n « > d
ai ai <
Trial burn required to establish operating parameters neci
meet performance standards. During trial burn, any sourci
fugitive emissions must be identified, and temperatures (<
maximum and minimum), combustion gas velocity, and carbon
in the exhaust gas must be measured.
V)
ot
Sw
?
JO
IM
a
S
n
«n
,
.8!i
"ScS
»**.,« U
JO ftJ
Ji.-c
During start-up and shut-down, affected material must not
into the incinerator unless the incinerator is operating w
parameters (temperature, air feed rate, etc.) set as being
to meet performance standards.
n
£
g
O
4*
IS
13 ,
4J*
b *a
WIN
w
/J 1471 1
1
1
1
C
fl
£" ^
V3 4V
Ol
Of - 41 C
~ 4v » m
Fugitive emissions from the combustion zone must be control
(1) keeping the combustion zone totally sealed against fugi
emissions, or (2) maintaining a combustion zone pressure lo
atmospheric pressure, or (3) an alternate means of control
equivalent to maintaining combustion zone pressure lower th
1
^H
O
u
«d
g
u
3
e
^
i
i
,33
l/>
SS
4
** "^
" -a
WOI
3
k. un
-------
o
I
LU
1
0
i
u
IX
x:
^
0
I
Jt
(aj
fj
i
0
£
£
o
^ o;
T3 C k,
C ifl 0
13 w
01 OJ -
kl - C C
3 >. e o
*J *J N 8
fl -
ki U C >*
4) 0 O -«
H"* *j 3
01 > n o
4^ 33
- " -i °
e >f B x
o ao o 4J
4 U B
4J C O
VJ O 01 U
While incinerating affected materials, conbi
material feed rate, an indicator of combusti
carbon monoxide (at a point downs trean of i\
prior to release to the atmosphere) must be
n
£
iv
Sir?
X ^
ki r^
O
4J Q
U 01
IV T3
w* «1
O B
O
"^ x
41 4-1
o; x
**4 "O
B
o. o
0 U
4ri>
n ao
An automatic cut off system must be used to
materials into the incinerator when operatin
from operating parameters.
n
£ i
*4
o£
.M «er
*^ f*1 fl
a« 5
o >o n
*J rj o
3 i-i
< ur> u
t
01 . .
4J f 0)
9} 91 -M
* -
At closure, the owner or operator must removi
and hazardous waste residues (including, but
scrubber wastes, and scrubber sludges) from 1
s
1/1
ri
*
sO
(M
t«n
tn
B 4) 0) kt V ai
Oto M4-*-xE9)Ln
wa. « i c 3 4- -. »i
§OI3X4) 01 - - »ijO
x 3 .x ki a > ae
J5 > TS an C-xQO
91UOB.X UNOl4^-^4^
*4 3 L4 *^ ..^ B O O< w O
B91O. T*O 'VBBt
<« « > rf 9) « £ 0
3-x9)E»<«4l-xfl!4!4^
.xfg3ffl4JkiG.B-X4dn
x^wlB-xoiOIV'Q >i
0^ x-^'O. 4J-I9I
O, O >>-- J3 B"
New non-exeapt facilities which aay eait air
a construction permit or special permit. To
the owner or operator of the proposed facilit
measuring eamissions of significant air conta
demonstrate, among other things, that the fac
"best available control technology, with cons
technical practicability and economic reasona
eliminating the emissions from the facility."
requirements are not applicable to on-site rei
requirement of utilizing best available contrt
an ARAR for an incinerator or other treatment
during remediation.
3
.2
Q
e
m
*- (-
-X «
-.00-0
O 1 O -"fc
0. BOM
O «xr
kl 'X 1
X 4J B
< U -X (M
*.E|r
O 4W < l«
-, a .«
O O X
q wu 01 vo
4>4 M r« *x
3 B *-'-
v> u z m iw
3-
H o -o
kl O -4
"4 5 « ~c
ki d » 4J - c
'- B O T3 m B ifl
4 O -x 01 B 0)
x 9i of - ^
c *j >n u 41 o: <-
iqilflOIVlV^A
4V 01 4i c u. a
ki X 4J k) 41 * -~
4> 01 O 3 O.UOO
U « O JO O >
D Li
o ki or o 01 o
w is u T3 LI -a e
Note, however, that BACT would not be an ARAR
stripper emissions as TACB has granted a stand
steam, air and inert gas stripping systems whe
(except nitrogen. CG^, air, Oj and ftSO vapor)
5 Ibs/hour or b) the stripped gas and vapors a
combustion device meeting the Sib/hour standar
excess air, .5 second retention time. 1400° D
of other compounds aeet TACB standard exeoptioi
-------
-
ooaia
s
u
£
v w w _< e v
-U.-|8^.2-S
*; f ii u «
o!S«S"'£3* o
OHM *rf ** aj aj v»- ai
ssi^2«|^o|
o * SB g I 2 o- ^
^ ^ O ^ 4^ OJ O
ffSrg.y5gg
°'t;_»> os-oo
_«S5u^S5g
»4- i'S.2ft^Sw
!^°..e.5$h
B 01 -
nne
z
t
l
r
l
ounty is nonatta
n permit in an o
ich is a mjuftr_A
tons/year of vol
1)]. the owner o
cility will compl
) requirements.
nt systems or inc
a "major station
ARAR since the e
cantly alter ambi
Galves
constr
facili
to emi
T.A.C.
propos
rate" (
the tre
will no
lso no
ot si
b
O
a
o
£am
o
U .- vO
-«*-<
< o
3 un
b
O M
I"
-a1
SiS*
s,1-
.s^s
-------
-------
5
§
«o
m
-------
1 "5 w - .' 3 -S
5 * 5 i - : i c " ° « 5 - « ! a * = ~
£§!
i2
Si
O.I *~.
z;
K:
oo uiu
* b'°l
| Sife1
= £'£'
< <: ui
OJ - 01
4V "1 - 0)
1 - 0) m 3
| 0 -a
1 -0 U 3 0)
1 C 0 « U
1 O t^ VI 4V
t. 41 m 3
| ^ 4V ^H,
m a:
" * 3 t
§7
a 0)
Q) Jtf
tfl .
>i C
VI 3
_>. V) .
"a"" 4?
3. £?H I 01 c " ~ ! B- « -
-, £ £1 I fl m
if ! *S .*
= ' 0) ^- >, ao
< yj 1 0 « C
O i ^ T3 a-.*
^ .j i *** ai rt L*>
z *
*l z
- -* I
-S5 3
§°«/i i
*-S ft
£ * 3
"8
5T 2
t o
4f *U
* Ot
< ra
1 *
O o
i <
< «
U
Lc
b.
O
fe
u
£
U
o
<
3 M
^ Zj
«
o ^1
s 1
b M 3 C
3 3 V) .^
VI U
> Iv -O
0) . 0)
> 4V 4V U
" C m o
g o) » VM
41 U 01 "7
*v 3 4V o»
X lv m »)
41 > 3
O O Li O)
Z C Q,jJ
0
z
H
a "
M 01.
a * «
F **
^ ^- *
of ^
v^ jjj ^
_.-_**
d » a1-""
2 BOO iK f_i L^
- 211^,2
5 J u "*
2 3( G a
fc- "a as i
m U ,
*n n b.
0 13 .
O C (_)
u
41 4v o
r^ rft :Z
\ % -s
i ~£!3
| m -T o
J3 rv a,
4v m
T3
n
1 i M n
££*
0) -0
-* at
W N
*- 0) -i
ffl h, ^-t
* l/l 3
V]
a* «
4> 011.0
u«I*
fl 0
3^5
U - 01
I-H J<
VI V3 ^v
m -^ c
_ 1 =
5 " >>
5 0) a) 4v
QJ *« U .^
< me
c o n -^
n t. m
4J 01 95
4J Of 4V
.1552
i
^*
41
>
S
_J
O f*
2 «
v m
a
a 3
m <-4
OQ
] *> ^
1 " 30
I - Iff
i 1 1] ;
m - u,
3 U 0) c
a- o) 4v o
I MO) 2
! U W*J -H
1 T U o
i JB .« Z 0)
0 J= ^
! t/i - ^
« 31 .
4V m « 1 - ^ », L.
S'C*U
4-1 iv m i*
5 m M
* >* X -
^-"!
1 4) CO
U 4V -0 4V
1 U m 0. c
= -C 4)
O 4- . VI
1 "1 0) 0)
1 "1 C U
4J m c 0 1 c *-S Q<
0, 3 0 ! = - T3
o a" 4v
T) -oc
4) 3J
* ) J
*O 4-> (fl 4)
* 3-° M
n-'SS
« m js Z
X W n
0) 0)--o
^- "a ' c
01 -O-m
21*"
- 4v mi
_ 4i n L,I
C|v3 Ol*.
leg'9
c°J!v
m -a
41 0) 01
4-1 »1 > M
4?v3j3^
.i
U
41
4V
t m 4
<.2 *
b I*
U 01 0.0
0) 4v ^H IM m
4v --4 rn
U m _
So -2
0 ^ESiH
4V m 4V S
JJI H 0. -
u1 -o §
-.3*>,2
m u, 4j
L, U . _ .
4) 01 O -H vO
T) 4V m r-.
" 2 O 3 ^
- - .c T o-^
*J ^ 0)
a1- N J3
-i C
*" QJ ^H
Q ,_j _2 ^
" "^ .->
<4- S
>. mi
^ 5;
5 T3 C VI
C 0) Ol 4J
O -. .c c
<- Q, m
C ^ fl 4j
^ W X 3
m 01 0 .
4V O..U _
U VI o
! S.«Qa
I 0 « T3
10 U U QJ
T3 n- -0 4V
v< C VI
m vi 0) -4
T3 L, _
C 01
m 4v(_ 01
£3§f
£
M
a i
«
3
^
**^ ff\
U rM
C 4J
fa i*
3 <2
-. 1
« . 1
e -oa:
a. u . 1
m U. |
U -0
» c u i
X m
O 4V O '
t-Vl* 1
-------
^
c
in c
i »i
i- i
ishes reporting requirements for certain discha
:able quantities of hazardous substances. Cre., <^
« 4> 3
U Li en
O
Z
i
S *:
u ^o
z
b. T3
O MB
41 ifl
t u
2 B rl
W ifl
r w o
jj m c
o .0 -<
2 ^
Z 3
e waters around site are not utilized for publn
supply. Not an ARAR as surface waters not like]
ed for drinking water supply due to existing n.il
y-
U N *J
m u « .-4
**< 41 ~* -*
kl -U .-. l«
3 Ifl * 3
tfl > 3 Of
\
3
a
~4 tn in
W Tl-l
41 U 4)
33 (fl > ^
O 41 m
O fl
^ 11 L.
iJ V) . U
C -O *J
0) b H O.
B 41 * n
w ^ o J=
u u
^33.
0. <
41 M U
°JI<
en M B
n G 3«-
X P* X
* u rj in
H 0 X P-l
OJ
' a^ <
*- < C 4) *J
« -c JO -.
C -X -H
4J fl e o fl
41 - »- 3
i 4j t, a*
S 0 -0 !».
Z U
J-t U >
« 4) >*
4J -^ 'H *rf ^H
o 9) a* d m
-c v a c u
ID 3 3
.c n 4) ^
u *» b) *, fl C
j= a o
, x a. MM
: 3 D u c
= V) U 4) ^
>> L, jj U
-i u 3 i» n
O- 4) Q $ *
a- o) x
an in 01
n X «» rtj
o
1 '** U OC J-f
1 O -i 41 <
. > Od <
0 X.M _
in ja o w a.
: Coo.
0 C 3
n 41 o "i
" g ^ o
A n « u
-- M U iJ 3
jQ B Q) *iH Ifl
O -« *J -n
iJiS^'S
S
>,
b
«)
I
O
U
41
M
n -T
D-- «
41 41
0 > r-.
C qj r*i
i «"
o e
U 41
V 3U
ac 4J .
w ^
« ^
<3 01 f-
X 3
01 O 01
t-U !M
i °
1 2 =
3 - -
>-> >.
(fl .C *J
! cii;
^^ H
> C » «i
(^ (j
i fl
1 0 -H
! u nj u
1 ^ C U
*j n o)
B rtj 41 *rf
41 a M «
U U 1- S
Ifl Ifl
-1 b JS 41
*n o u u
Ifl « Ifl
n **-
U C -3 U
0 Ifl 3
--^ Lrf V)
O O 41
»J - jC U
B 4J J=
- - o *J
Li
V) 41 >***
41 tJ B O
** Ifl Ifl
n S B
Ifl -CO
S 41 -.
U -M w
* fl X 3
O >** *4
t. C i
41 3 0 0
» n -< a«
U -u
ifl **- O Of
J= 0 B 01
U 33
« « i ifl
"* 41 B U
oo
O Ui-»
01 o
JB JS C -
u 1
i t
fl Ifl Li Id
u .^ o O
.-1 u
.a .^ ** m
- < **J ^^ 4)
JS .H 41 n
o *j « 3
h U « (»
a. ifl .- o
n
41
>
n
iZ
c
o
4
*J
2
»4
X
a
u
a.
B-S
0 0 11
*j aj
i ^ L, JS X
i O O *rf 4j
prohibition of concentrations in surface water
iducing substances which impart unpalatable fl.iv
i including shellfish, or otherwise interfere wi
tie use of the water in the state. Not ARAR to i
er discharges to POTW.
W .* .U +J
1-1 Lt n
^
* r*
i o
3 <>
1 ~ =
h 01 JO
41 tj ~^
0 »
J 0
» r-~
41 0 S
ifl '3 un
"S., a 2 .
J? - 2"
ifl X 41 <
n -a 4i JB
get- - (-
X it n
Ol *J 4 41 _i
H vi m < ro
'j
|fl
3
L.
O
i ||
vi a.
a;
! u a
1 Ll 4->
1 01
; *J vi
i 3;
a w
I ~ is
i L, -d
o u
i c 2
J g -o
I *-
O Of
1 5
'J S
! « 41
! « W
i O 01
- j
^s
1 M qj
U u
5 -
!/5 -H
«
41
>
o
?
>.
4-1 f*
-0
0 f-l
X un
U
"5 <
in
"S
-------
73
c c u
VI - CO fl! OJ
5 u , ' --4 1/1 TI
ox u ex 71 aj »
_«; u 2
m j3 LI
01 - U
ecu
OJ°0-4j'fl ' '«iiu ^ °
' o *-" a-;5 -C C 01 <4* C v] O » I '£Ljej 2
ino-u *- o ij ~ c a; c
c 73 X in m
3 71 T
O U -
a.
o
01
aj >i in
0) in t u *'
n o S , - e
O) 4J .C
Li U
U 01 -4
c u .c
3 a.
er
m 01
4 3 60
1 O U
o in c ~ i«
-4 e o
u u pi
4 « K-
S 4J 3 X --4 O
44 7! <
a o
-C 01 O.
44- in
1^°
- 01
i 0173
-4 rt) U 01
> 3 4->
o -an
a- 01 c 4J
J2 *« in
2"c a
iff if
i
§
P
CK*
2
i
E*.
O
L
2 u">
^ q r-J
U O O
Z 11 *^i
£ 01
Li U
1 U
o» <
o 73
£ -H
£ ^ m
o -o a.
4^
4J O
x
"3 c 73
4J O 01
3 1 00
U 4^ U
1 3 *
at -4 u
J4 -O »l
*J 1 -O
§<«
-i n
4"* '^
« C U
§ v4 0
u
u^ 3
01 01
sen
a S
01 N
U 4J
tlrt B
>*4 -H OJ
Li m 4^
six
in 01
n
OJ
^^
«^
-_
o
^
^o
u uyi
X
O U
(-
0)
3
U -H
< m
01 U X
in c
x c
01 " 01
4 X
-4 C Of
u O
44 a.
3 U -S
a- x CE
c oi o
4-1 -4
in -«
X u
Li H O
OS-
^ ffl H
oi -a
WOC
ifl «* O
e u
.".S s
VI X O
O) O r-l 3
TJ 4J U-P
4J -4 O
..4 -H O
» l» 4J
U f-4
Li -4 fl T3
ai B u oi
4J O 'H OO
(fl Ll 4J L>
3 -B -H id
O 14 JS
0) u u
U 0) «l
(Q >U ^ -v^
*< o-o
s o oi n
trt B40 -1
e
4J r»
.- o
u n
X U71
e
u
u
B
Ofr-
J3 r-l
u n
OJ -4 01 *fl *- U :
w u £ o) in LI H !
oa. w -
- i i- s
X 3 01 w
O « 4J C 01 4J
4V B "44 01 Ll C
O ni 4-> ^3 01
01 U X w
0) Li OJ OJ X
Li - 01 £ 0)
> o -c o
-a - J - c ^
19 00 O IX
01 01 C 4-1 Li <
o LI -H oi ix
-H 01 a < n>
U U - OS S
01 Ll < O
14 4J 73 01 Z
Ck U C U
4-> C 4-1 U IM
O B a 3 01
T3 u o c en w
g-< re
a *J to tn 3
-4 o a* ^ ,
J3 C OJ U ' ^ "si
«4J rf4J4J -» 45
X w
OJ fi
t-
« 73
OJ -H 01
J= IS 4J
_3 w u i ,r
r < w : . a - - i
.O OJ 73 c < 4>
£ C O ' >
73 u .-
OJ
-C L. U
U ifl »
J= ^ C 7) C tfl
LJ « i . OJ . «
cnocn , u MC u
J3ULi 41- OC 71 ^ I- fi
01 .-. o
c oo in
oi B m
JI'SJS
0 C
01 ^1 3
> -4
q 4i 3
14 4J 01
01 Li
4^ LI m
4 O
Li ^ 01
U u
r-l O B
Nunerica
Conaissi
site. U
.u ^
c +
(U 1 1
3 C "w o"«
U 00 C -7 00 C 00
.C OJ CM -B r- -3 00
tn ** u ^ o i- ^
i ,
a 1 1
c - a
01 j 0
in 73 LI
£ o 5
01
u
X
o
hi
o
*44 *-*
u
rO
H SO
01 r~
** o
u
C_> Lffl
4 U
u
u
£
-------
Proiect No.
86C5653
MOTCO
Woodward-Ctyde Consultants
STUDY AREA FOR
MOTCO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
-------
22
Bay or Jones Bay. This conclusion is based on ground water modeling and
the results of the biota study.
6.8 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS DBCIARATIGN
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this site, if
not addressed by inplementing the response action selected in this Record
of Decision document, may present an imminent and substantial endangerment
to public health, welfare, or the environment.
7. DESCRIPTIONS OF ALTERNATIVES
The MOTCO Feasibility Study developed six alternatives to evaluate for
the Management of Migration Remedial Action. In addition to the alterna-
tives outlined below, EPA evaluated the cost to excavate and incinerate
material to a depth of 50 feet on the primary MOTCO site and the area
adjacent to it. It was determined that this alternative was not viable
for further consideration due to the following areas of concern: Risk in
excavating to 50 feet, longer than eight years to incinerate material,
water control at time of excavation was a major concern, perception by
the public that it would be a permanent facility, and the high cost to
implement (+ $400 Million dollars).
7.1 MD ACTION; Alternative A
In this alternative, no action would be taken to control the migration of
contaminants from the MOTCO site. The actual and potential site hazards
would not be reduced. This alternative is required under Superfund law
as a baseline for comparing other remedial alternatives.
7.2 INSTITUTIONAL CGMTROLS; Alternative B
This alternative would add additional institutional controls to those
controls already planned for the Source Control remedial action. The
major components of Alternative B are as follows:
1. Enact and record deed restrictions or notices legally prohibiting
all land development, recreational use, and ground water develop-
ment within the site boundaries.
2. Install new security fencing along the HL&P right-of-way west of
the MOTCO site and on the Highway right-of-way generally south
of the site. This would add about 2200 feet of fencing to the
fencing already planned during the Source Control remedial action.
-------
23
3. Implement a ground water compliance monitoring program by install-
ing six wells each in the Transmissive Zone aquifer, and the
Upper Chicot Aquifer Zones 1,2, and 3. Three monitoring wells
would also be installed in the clay unit above the UC-1 aquifer.
Upper Chicot clay to be protected to one half of MZLs, Upper
Chicot aquifer protected to MCL's.
4. Conduct quarterly monitoring and inspection of the components of
this remedial action.
7.3 (XRTCAPMEM1; Alternative C
1. Enact and record deed restrictions or notices legally prohibiting
all land development, recreational use, and ground water development
within the site boundaries.
2. Install new security fencing along the Highway right-of-way
generally south of the site. This would add about 800 feet of
fencing to the fencing already planned during the Source Control
remedial action.
3. Implement a ground water conpliance monitoring program by install-
ing wells in each of the Transmissive Zone aquifers, and in
the UC-1, UC-2, and UC-3 ?quifers. Monitoring wells would
also be installed in the clay unit above the UC-1 Aquifer.
4. Remove and treat contaminated ground water in the UC-3 Aquifer.
After pretreatment of this water by an onsite liquids treatment
plant the water could then be discharged to a POIW or treated to
discharge standards onsite. (MIL'S are cleanup standard for
Upper Chicot). Treat to HBN's in TZ.
5. Install a slurry cutoff wall to contain the dense organic liquids
(ENAPL's) and contaminated ground water in the Transmissive
Zones. The slurry wall would be about 50 feet deep and 2300
feet long.
6. Install wells in the Transmissive Zone to recover dense organic
liquids and contaminated ground water outside the slurry wall.
The Transmissive Zone ground water well would be used to control
further migration of contaminated ground water in the TZ. The
removed dense organic wastes (EMAPL's) and contaminated ground
water could then be either pretreated and sent to a POIW or
treated onsite to discharge standards. Treat to HEN's in Trans-
missive Zone Aquifer.
-------
24
7. Incinerate dense organic liquids removed from the Transmissive
Zone.
8. Excavate up to four feet of contaminated soils from the surface
areas TPH, TP2, SSI and SS2 and consolidate these excavated
soils at surface area TPl. The consolidated area would be capped
with 3 feet of clay and 1 foot of topsoil. The excavated areas
would be backfilled with clean material to original grade.
7.4 GROUND WATER TREATMENT & SURFACE SOIL COSfSOLIDATICU
Alternative D:
1. Enact and record deed restrictions or notices legally prohibiting
all land development, recreational use, and ground water developirent
within the site boundaries.
2. Install new security fencing along the Highway right-of-way
generally south of the site. This would add about 800 feet of
fencing to the fencing already planned during the Source Control
remedial action.
3. Implement a ground water compliance program with the instal-
lation of observation wells in the Transmissive Zone, wells each
in the Upper Chicot Zones UC-1, UC-2, and UC-3. Installation of
wells in the clay unit above the Upper Chicot Aquifer UC-l.
Should the chemical concentrations exceed one-half of the M3L or
appropriate health-based number, a more aggressive pump and
treat program shall be implemented in the shallow Transmissive
Zone.
4. Remove and treat contaminated ground water in the UC-3 with
ground water pumping wells. Recovered contaminated ground water
would be treated by the best available technology (B.A.T.) to the
applicable or relevant and appropriate State or Federal discharge
standard or sent to a permitted wastewater treatment plant.
5. Remove and treat contaminated ground water and dense organic
liquids from the Transmissive Zone using pumping wells and
injection wells (to assist dense organic liquid removal). These
contaminated liquids would be treated by an onsite liquids treat-
ment plant by B.A.T. or sent to a permitted waste water treatment
with the treated water either to a POIW or discharged.
facility. Remediation of TZ ground water to HBN's.
-------
25
Extraction, to extent feasible, and incineration of the dense
organic liquids removed from the Transmissive Zone.
Develop a Transmissive Zone ground water pumping system to
produce an upward gradient from the Upper Chicot Aquifer to the
Transmissive Zone Aquifer.
Excavation (to a maximum depth of four feet), consolidation, and
onsite containment of contaminated surface soils and sediments
from areas TFH, TP2, SSI, and SS2. Soils would be relocated to
the TPl area and capped with three feet of clay and one foot of
topsoil and seeded. The excavated areas would be bac)cfilled
with clean material to original grade.
7.5 GROUND WATER TREATMENT & SURFACE SOIL
Alternative E:
This alternative employs the same components as Alternative D except that
the surface soil excavated from TFH, TPl, TP2, SSI, and SS2 is incinerated
either by an onsite Source Control incinerator or by an onsite, mobile
hazardous waste incinerator.
7.6 GROUND WATER TREATJVEEJT & SURFACE SOIL BIOREMEDIATKU
Alternative F:
This alternative employs the same components as Alternative D except that
the surface soil excavated from TPH, TPl, TP2, SSI, and SS2 is bioremediated
by an onsite aerobic digestion.
7.7
VE ANALYSIS
The EPA's goal is to select a remedy that provides the "best balance" of
tradeoffs with respect to the following nine evaluation criteria:
Threshold
Criteria:
Primary Balancing
Criteria:
1. Overall protection of human health and the
environment; and
2. compliance with applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements.
3. Long-term effectiveness and permanence;
4. reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume
through treatment;
-------
26
5. short-term effectiveness;
6. implementability; arid
7. cost
Modifying Criteria: 8. State/support agency acceptance; and
9. community acceptance.
Table 6 provides an overall cost summary for all of the alternatives
evaluted in the MDTCO M34 Feasibility Study.
A summary of the comparative evaluation of the alternatives and the nine
criteria is presented in Table 7 in this section of the ROD.
Tables 8 through 12 outline the applicable or relevant and apropriate
State and Federal standards that were reviewed during the fCM RI/FS process.
8. THE SFT.ECTED RENFTTV
The remedial action alternative selected by the EPA is Alternative D,
Ground Water Treatment and Surface Soil Consolidation. The EPA believes
that this remedy will achieve the best balance of the nine criteria
discussed earlier in this document.
The major components of the selected remedy are as follows:
1. The M3TCO Trust have purchased property adjacent to the site to allow
control of contaminated offsite property;
2. implement deed restrictions or notices to prohibit land development
and use. At a minimum, as part of the annual monitoring and maint-
enance of the site, there will be a verification that site conditions
have not changed and that there has been no land use or development
that may effect the remedial action. If any changes occur, EPA will
evaluate the changes and take appropriate action;
3. install additional security fencing to enclose all M7TCO properties;
4. implement ground water compliance monitoring in the Upper Chicot clay
unit above the first Upper Chicot Aquifer Zone. Detection of the site's
indicator compounds either at one-half the MX or above a l x 10-6 risk
level will intiate more agressive ground water and dense organic liquid
(DNAPL's) removal operations. The exact number and location of these
monitoring points will be addressed during the design phase of the remedy.
-------
Table 6
OVERALL COST SUMMARY FOR ALL ALTERNATIVES***
Site-wide
Remedial
Alternative
3
C
0
El
E2
Capital
Costs
(5)
Present
Annual Uorth
Cost Cost
(5)
(5)
423,000 208,000 3,180,000
2,910,000 345,000 5,220,000
2,690,000 453,000 6,120,000
4,480,000 1,980,000* 8.960,000*
4,480,000 5,680,000** 15.300,000"
4,480,000 4,370,000 13.400,000
Total
Present
Wortfi
(S)
$ -0- $ 5,000 $ 77,000 S 77,000
3,600,000
8,130,000
8,810,000
13,400,000*
20,300,000**
17,900,000
* Alternative El, Utilizing Existing Source Control Incinerator
** Alternative E2, Utilizing Mobile Incinerator
*** All FS costs are based on a +50X to -30X accuracy range.
WG/FS/2431T5G-1
-------
0 - a
r-.
OJ
JO
ro
is
8
^ *
, ^__
^
1
^
f~"
~
*
o
S
1 AUERMI
W
*
I
5
*
I
^
I
5
i
I
5
g
X
M <
II
A.
_
« lE
= 2
; *
*i
i
si
X «
* 2:
S 2
5
I
i
g
w
|
3
i
§
8
S 2
" 4*
= 1 s 3 2 r
°i 1- 1 *
t* "5 "" *> *
2 ^ : » s ?
«»-*
"* ^ £
1 s^ a
- ? i »
s t li
i 1 * I
« » £ £
i Till
3
O w» *
3 O V> CE
f!|!l]!|l!il
1 f-i-|*--s^l
o t^ « C * t. -5 T o "e * !T
1 "s-s|
s s f -^ * "i *
f |- sf.|5 =
5'ss** *?.? s
5 ?-|r| jH
siiJlSl *J
« ^ irfi y. *-
» W < V ^
!^|ll^
lir!: I1.
iJlSli
i t
= f JS
8s «* *
«
* ^ <
T! k. «
Ifijj
5 t! ' »5
5 -ill
w*
S «
! I
^ £
?
£ ^ «
r j |
1 -*
§ 1
t9
7
fc
o. a
>
*! =
^
S - -
« 3 °
5 E ,22,"
|j-ss-?Ii!
g | * «"? 1" l« g
^-'IfiJ^S5-^
2S r »| 1 srfI5 !
iOi^
i ll :i
? i 1 § i
JflH
-^sjl-fsr
| _5 ^ = I J J g
'l^r ?rf*^
J~l 'i^'^^i
- Ill ?|ll|
Irlf ?ll*5
s >.
**-li
J|| = I-!
If |||I
Hili!
- r
8 | f |
* « i =
2*1
ll||
a v !^
r 8
*
11
?r
IJ
s * i~
1 ~ * *
o
c « ^ *"
^ -a
t| r I
^ ~* ~ "*
a.
"" ~
"° I I - i e
s z : £ T> .
i 3 ; f 1 ^ r
S 5 * S g - 3.
- - ' £ £ o 3
filrl^z;
O h.
*z °
lifitfffi
'ilfi \\*i
j^llfllll
'FgilJ-sli
s-l-Z^s rlf"
li'lll! ill
« «" ~ 3 5
^|fl| = -r^
Ii Illlili
t
ll?^
« :*^
ill!
i
O
v *
c *
- s
- 'S
- s.
1?
< i
.. 8
If
^ 2
O «
li
~
"^
o
i
^
|
0
§
I
-------
c
o
O)
'2
^
2
_
i
(K
«»
MIIVM.I1V .
W
g
I
K
a
*
i
£
4
^
*
I
*
(/»
t*j
AMVMJIW
S i
_
£ -
« a
2 E
§
S i
2 3
fcf a.
« *
zz
§
1 !KAII*m AS
1 raiNCiPAi nri
i
i
^
i
i
5
g
a
i
i«
II
a 5 ^ -. a
- » ^ -5 -
i r. IIJ ;J
,/ * j- . £ « i ,
III IN - :-
"*!i^,w"sJr 8* *"
r'-jSI'S ~ t
______
i. r§
: : i , - 1 ±
Mf ? i - 1 !".
o~S5*5^^S
jiHliiii
i : '
£ u*
- g - ,j
? r : * ?-
?5!iif
£ - S S S S
J5 i 3 i *
S it t 2
o
- * ** «^ *«M« C
fill ills l|*
11 liii iSil!
m
s
I
- r
V ~
5 r
« 3
Z -3
-
5,ii
J*!l
« 8 8 «
5 2 *» i 2
a|= |
j 5 S \ S
HI
i I
» c
I *
! !
i i
3
e
c
*
m «
^ =
± ^
^ "3 ~
&
o5
*"
: |;H
zf = l-- '
15 * ii" 8 r
Is! =l-j:
:r ' : g .
£ ~ S £ ± £ -
* 0 C » 0 9
|1 ^1-,^
s3i»i|S~^x*~
11 * _ *| 2 :?l
.if*.,, .i-; i^
|I|l]r||:5|ll]5
lisi-iiffiif^ni
'5
-------
^ -» o S - Z £
~ .2 ~ I '
^ - ; - s
IE
c
o
0)
JO
13
: * i s-
S -2.
**"
i
-
_
-
' AUCRIUIIVE
1
u
'
ss
vw
4
S
I
5
*
y
§
a
tn
s
I
1
% K
« i
" a.
i
t/i u
ll
i E
5J
i
w
^
Ol
s
g
5
i
g
*
8
S «
ii
55
3 O
i = !3d
~ o e
O *i
>- j» ^
0 z ^ r s
S 2: T i ^
^ ? ; £ !
i o i I ^
»«
r ^ », -3 i 5
w J» ** O ~
* 9 «v «i » i* <«
flflll"
5z S S I r s
1 = S a s
ll-fr!
S ; T = *
iafl*
rl 2 si-
llS^aia
1
1
"5
*^
j
jj
«
^;
-i
-v
5 ^ 2 5 ;
&. 4b »
5 3 5 * £
8"* 5 C ^S v* SL.
- - = " £
S - - = : 1
. ..»_
l!^=!ls
I * f J i f i
_j 5 * )C J » *«. .
'!l|l|l|
il«
1 »lf 1 S 8
^ 5 5 3 » ~
S> ^ "5 » *" *
?i?lllfi
J S Siii ll
M
£
1 .
|1
j I
1
8.
ii
- 2
i :
^j
= 1
J 5 £
S c -
1! 1
n <
a 5 ft*
s 5 - v S ^
5 1 1 3 5 : 5
* ^ - 0 e^-^-e
"X*c 3l*~ *"ttoS?
£.S-ov-"i
"f ST
m ** o ^v ^i
_ _ s: » »
S * So?::
- Z^2 *'
* *» ^ ^ ^
iiiit!
.-r^'z
| J||3S
r s = I~.|
^ T ^ t ^
^ ? T e i/i
S w ~ ** 8
- ias-- .
v ST * » <« «
; 5 - - a ss i
M ? 3 ? * ^ w
8
!|
J :
8
||
fc 2
i s
.!!
a -
II
,
-------
§ s
c
o
cu
*"
5
2
*
-
I
*
s
W
^
U
UI1WU1W .
y
1WH1W
*
I
Mri
5
tri
*
I
^
s
% £
» S
*:
; s
SIL at
a.
3 z
i -
E
_
s £
||
i
i
g
I
u»
1
5
I
§
5
||
§ ; s ' c " \
~* t t "' * i S .
« JC ? «C *O rf*
o > e
o * o
£ a. ° »» fc t^ ^
_ *«. 3 »
^ ^ t ». "2 j
H*!l i^
-''-' °
*? ««
* 2 <
C Jl « *- «
f ?vJ 3rs-:'H
-otlz " S § = ;
"^ox S ^.TE*" " I< ».T^
sT.^^r^S'SSr-s
j^ti 1 niiil!
1 1 c I e s I
3ifj^j 51^
-i?'s-J*5
°-S2'5'*Hs8
llrilfl?!
!||f|osl|J
2 « c - j {*~««*
«- r *J5*
HJllfi?^!^
^x = -««Is=rc*s'5|
jlfiiiji!!}}}!
||
s J
2 ^
0 m
**
8
3
||
r i
i '
8
i 1
t 5
§ *= - ' J ^
T. "**"
*5 *>3i 5f ?
M ^ ^ »* £ fe "*
J^3j£j5l
S * «i o . "e &
US^LI^'T**
<» *. ** 7 - o
"^ o'^»3i»^3'5
«i-«^j**..»,*
s s
j s * i 3
^ *= I £
*-**-»*
Illiii
i * j* : =
iJ=l!1
^Sifs,
£ . £ I 7 5 i
»3'oS i*~5
ss^l±-*Zsf
]!lf]|5l|
SjfJ«5S-|o*-
| ,.*_,,.
]i[|j|!||I|
SfclsSJsstljr
il\
fj!
i
I
J
I
^
|
^ *
i
jt
: r s _ r
; £ ^
fc^S*. »-«, ^
v* % CL c
s S s § *"i i" J
s^S-rl'r i r
"'""c'^ciri '
!!!-i-ilJ2sl
cwou^^^ > e Q. j.
c i- _ £
.. o
S 5 "e Z ^
= s |i j| .i si-
ll 1 si£sj«i:
lijij-iiJlt
Isl!s?i5s^s
j? Jiiff HI i
i r=i
= 2 £ J
IH-I
? * 7 S '
S X S ~ -
!? !ir
]f|£:
i «. i s
fcJ O W ^ ^
8 f
S S3
"f^
5 5 -5 s -
««.«;«
52-5 .2
15*"
J-s J s s
s s
s 5
S 5
|I|
jy
i
i
?
2
i
»
1
_
£
c *
" 3
5 «i
~ S
3 5
3
1 1
-------
5 1
O)
J2
*w «* C
^ Ot/*C-«to-
* » to 3 -a
3 M ^ -. ^ 8*
, V * to & ».
w-2^3i2l'3"
SrJ?5£ . 5 * 8 Z I
K^S^r^^-T^"
gjeaA^oo-^oo
1 *
"« « w
all f | -
^- ' » f ^
; K^-Z - - 3
H1=r"= s
l?53f!H
I±
SI? rl
f | iflli
I ; i c-J I
rfsl^ii
1? sir! H
^C to
^ i i-
111
If £
IM. * 5
i
5
F
i
£
i
"5
i*
E j
S
«5 *^
i-
o **<
to
Jl
5 « -« TI ' ^ 5
w TS w w O ^ '
o^w.Cfc"* ***e
Us j "^jj J^
n^- -
a rf" - *
Is'-siS 53 si
-5 S
=11
w "5 T
If! I
.-513
ilii
i
hi
* r t _
s 53 1 1
5 s - .1
is If?
*
|
s w-
2!
J"
1
^n
«^
2
»
rl
j| j
oil J
? 2 ~"
« 5 * ^ '
3s i 5 * I
5s-:."k_._;
^"sz-'^lol 11
g5STSt^*"
ll!:l!!i! ii
1
w
Ji 1
"ft "*
tf*
0 J ^
4 W*
lit! ^
^ ** * & <^*
7 m A da
« * ^ w w
5 2
j|
-o S
r»l ^
42^ 3
S
=
«
1 i
-
; I -
^T to to
j !p
« | * 5
a £ St.
-------
c
o
O)
k
t
"*
S
i
*
0
SB
s
3 3M1WJJ1V
3AUWI311V
^
*
i
*j
3
i
i S3M1W13I*
S
Si
£ S
« i
£ A
^i
X i
5 ^
s :
£
§
cn w
S af
£l
s x
si
CONIAIMNI
g
i
_
I
s
*
!
fUVAMON
UIICIIA
,/
t i
0
O
OK
at «
* "*
o
J* t
*Z JC
>
** S
9> r^
S ? S
u? 5 »
. S S S
1 £ 1 T 1
S ^ S » »
S-i « * 5
3 * i i "5 *
* is 1 s s
s
III,
1*1 1
i
S"
^*
i
i
i
1 -^
** ** T
I !l
1 5
"2
3
t.
"o
e
3I
?
J
g
;
1
s
J
i
\
i
£
J
fi
c t : s
E Z *2
s * a a
|r 5 2
* m m &
1
s
£
i
'o
1
i
"5 " S ? e -
-i*T,^5S
- c 5*, 5 ! fcJ, §
§^ iJ^ Zc?7§ * r-E"5*^ c
w . Co * w ^ -^ ^ -o * *
,r " 5. 1?- $
niijiiiliiii H
St»SS.-«'Ss""S~-«'5 8'w
?;jC=|e~£r%''> . ~ * -
^ ft. ^ w % w M * v ~ * * » ** *~
^ * f v » C 9 » * O ^ « ^ * ^w^
- i^«lffl*n^
IlinilJIisll
=*§«.- - sl
= 1 a - s ^1^ s £ **- iz
o * < o 4 «* ^ ^M**^^**'* c 3 ~ *~
J| w rf* * A ^ *^ O « O O * ^ 4 Wrf T
1
jil|
-------
-------
;§
L.
51-
o -a
* §
O 01 < =
»«"!«: -
a a
- ** * O B-OJS
I rt ^>M .0 9) - -
g.3
ooc
10 K« 01
C
>v
3
£<£
.23
a^
u
<9
Q.
K *J
"2 u
a i
i=33T
-u!2u
j .o S o
i
a
to 3
«i *i
o b
t£
o
*H « b,
SO!
w
= 3.
a ^
O vO
""-« '"
'° °r ddvPrs<
«efat'°". or
" -1"'' ""J»y-
fr
r
r'"'
raton
or welfare ay
nterfere w.'th
ion or prope
n healt
or as to
e, veget
U O « 5
J 01 Q. 9
!* O 2
> U C
0 <
u .
n t-
-------
8
O
u
v*. 41 01 t_)
> > .
^0. , ^
4J C 4J 4J
k. 0 3 3 (-
O. « i 41 i
O ifl « « ki fn
U - C C 3
O. 8 0 O O 0
41 U w JS w
01
£ 41 IP <") t 4J
4*1 .M U
> > J3
u O O O 3
TJ * en
*- U 41 41 OI n
X 0 c* M Ml*
fa. n ra no
ki kl kl 4^
O -*4 41 41 01 n
a o > > > k
* fl Ifl ^0)
B
B « -01
O 4J T) T> -CM
4 B 01 01 01
4J 41 rt 1-1
25 8- § fr S
*4 ki 10 « IB M
^ B 3 «1 «1 !>«
41 rl TJ
4- U IV 01 kl kl ktfl
c a oi oi --4 « - -4
q o B u re n i» <»
O u x 4J
-0 01 - M ki
-H B O O O 0)
0) '-4 *J (J
SIS Ti 1 TJ o
3 V -V -s, 4J
4-> M M M
o n « 3 3 3 oi
- § c g o o o 2
s* o-- o o e
^ klBOI^4 (S ^U
< M U
^ ^ kj i-l rl
4J ki 3 ^ ^« ^ D.u-1
41 ^ O "5 J3 0 Q.
01 3 »% 3 3 4J
f=^S 5 2 Sun
2
£
1
|
cs -o
X §
o
fe I
H JJ (N
g i ^
SS *
3 H
o .S-*
t)
O q 01 i-*
X A* iJ M
4^
>
B "O O
Ifl B 4^
B7 n
O B > 41
u. 5 c -
w_ o q _
55 o.
S U B.
41 «
O B >
-4 O O 4J
n .-. .-
« 4J TI
-4 IV 41 4J
kl M B
01 u n 41
B U w
CSOI 41 X
O U > 41
in B *
o o
. u |-
^ . a. >,
w 41 ^^
§> ae B
0)«M 0
o « «i
Specifically pertains to Galveston C
source must not exceed a net ground
property boundary minus upwind) of 0
30-minute period. Serves as an ARAR
the incineration remedial alternativi
M
1
h*
^^
4) N
> ^-H
Jg^
4 147)
f+l
n
Ul_>
O 4>* >
U C<
u oi
ol~
^§-4
wo.
i e i
1 u. a
x
« *
i£
= 3
o o
** v:
m i/l
i i
c S
i§
O -
(j i
-^ »N
a> u
5J
is
3 01
O u .
k B C
0-4 0
) -
*4 w
§52
« TJ
^5i
n B (U
n k
u
-4 4^ kl
kl 0 41
oi r 4J
a, -o
li°
^ M
C
*t »-
* ki U
41 01 3
in £ -a
£
JO
r%
ro
*M
. i
ufft
Iw
£ <
M
^»^-
kt
£S
-------
o
W
o
o
J3
^^
>
§
1
Li
r-. ,0 u~i
« . -sj O U")
"* C ""
Ut W "- «
«J 41 - . f^ (U ""
U"! C -O f** C iTi
Li m Lt fx , ps|
O "fl ' -! fl ^-« U">
> ji ~- ~.c *". C "**
> OT ^^ 1
r^ tfl » fc i (fl
Csl OJ -» m * -~ *
< c * r* c o
^ "O 00 PM ^ ,0
. Li <*1 L. -*
o fl ^-. fl ^ o
(U 1 4> ' 1 f-l "C SJ 41
o> fl w ^
0 4) « 0)
o J £ vi
* u Li I; O
- ~ £ 5 5
§r^ in 41 "
O 41 ^ O
Cyro Q (fl c
- a
a) *J 4) B u
fl t_> X *
> s 41 .e
< 41 U U
*J U S O <
C t- C " J5
JZ M L.-I : M
B 0 *J « fl
(fl OO U -« ** tfl
C -- ^ Q u C rsl
O 4J 4) ** ffl ^^
me -J oo^»
41 ' C O O *
3 e -2 8 », o ~°.
a o u 3 *j .- r~
41 a«*rf o i » mm
ki -M T9 m 3
"» C b 3 a*un
M u oi O' m
m u
- < e u u o
u a. m oi o
01 < U -O *J *< <
+j a. H m
- u -a 3 » m f-
U 41 00 U
m T> 3 u " ><
u 01 u u *j
- a -* 41 i) .H in
ai " u <-> n >< M
a i 01 i x 01
3 J3 L, B 41 0 (-
a. in ' .- B
41 m m in *** -^
in ei £ 0) o
4) ^* la OO b
.c c tj 3 e in 9--
f* 4) S T3 -rf *J u
n B (- oi > u u
4! 3 U »« 41 O
*< » u u o u «
C 00
- e
*J .H 4^ -H
a* m « m
41 U p- U
u -^ X ^
X U 41
« c -a
4t 4J 00
u B - -0
- in e
*« o 4) m
u o.-o
o n
n 41 £ u
oOu C
~* u. -< o
" m * N
Q A
o tn oi c
>, X x
o« m 41
& U 4f
m c m -a
o * -
.2« 3 a
U 3 01 -
41 <
iJ - O ~>
.^ TJ " O,
U 41
U i^ >» U
m » ~
01 -~ a. 41
4J 4J CL^^ M
3 - m e
u e no
^ -»4 m 41 *4
g u
i * Li 3 «
m o oi -a
U 4J 4j Q
.^ n .M »« o
t, 01 u .- u
41 C V i
fl 0 >
3 N U U O
2 -IM -*4 |M<
^ B 4^ ***
-H O l» 1
-^ m Ui 3 >
N a A a* a
^* wi u m -«
n
41 91
00 41
m oo
u m
41 U
> 41
fl >
m
u
3 X
o m
jC -9
1 1
4- e
rM 41
>
in ai
m «
a »)
oi m
.- -a
£2
q ««
4. a
LI m
m
41
m LI
M m
LI
01 4
«> -i-4
X Ll
L> 41
u *>
*rf
41 Ll
u U
3
u u
'd
Tt O
a M
u ^3
.prf y
Ll
41 r-i
(3) Nun
NuMrica
«M
m
u
U
!
e -o
m
O "
41
^ w
vw pa
-P
M
e 01
01 J3
a *>
a
m
u o
41
S-o
3
U U
a
Li *
O
u 41
m u
u m
TS »1
a u
X
i O
s-
O I*
.-4 O
6
U
*
£
u
en
< *
"O
«1
4)
nj
*
41
4-1
V)
Ifl
3
«j
g
41
X
41
O
M
5
M
1/1
^
tw ^
(U 1-^
4-j ^
** u
u
'- C
c
. u
fl -C
L. i;
Oj Li
fl nj
C X
o -«
C J=
2
jC
U V]
^ Q;
.e s
5 ^^
"8
U >
o
<** -a
41
VI 4)
^ X
-- 41
4) *j
*j O
3 c
^^
U tfl
^ ±
x a
o
VM ^i
O Lfc*
2 ^
^ (C
ffl C
Concentr
have bee
.
i 41
C £
B """
u -*-
4, O
K M
T)
d
^ f.
9
ST3
H
'fl *-
- ^
fl 3
aC ;.
0 -3
tj
- U
w 0
^
3 ^
ff *-
(13 ^
"0
4!
> >.
* ' '
S =
4( Q
O
41 -
- O
ffl J3
C
Lj -*
Li O
o a
~ a
u
u
4.' a
o
LT
\r ^J L,
-' O
>4 *-
coo
J^
-r LJ
wO -i
lh O J-
*- o
f.
f' « O
L. L,
X U 0
Q- Q
c j= -a
0 C
C ^ fl
LJ
O C (fl
*- fl U
.c «
~* *^ X
o o
-J 4i
' e
c a,1 *j
j_> » i/i
fl 1 L.
4i f -
D tU
C >
o tn *
^H fl -^
4) T3 1! ^
- JT ->
fl 3
V .^
3 C C^
I:;!
u m <-"^
U 3 "S
- > - e
jo 41 t a.
i
u
o
I
u
s
o
y
u ~
41 u
xu
o
e- <
-------
c cue
9 tt -I
0= 4V j? _:
4V B S I-
0! - 4 3 U
Q L, S E -
Li 01 01 E
O JS M u
< 4V rg D > 4) J3 O >»
-E -C 4V U1 4V
41 ** "iy J E
O E 41 3
L> J2 Oi a
41 O U S
E ~ T3 41 6 O
*3 .E 4] VI -^ (j
E U - 41 ai
3-4
41 (N
O ^- M
U B
O tfj 4) ~ -
-H < 13 4? m B
J= 03 - rl > 41
U J3 -4
-« - 4> ^0 5 V
O 41 U 4J -O «
C -0 41
r*j 41 : u 41
N 41 -O 41 -C
1 C -O 41 a 4J
41 --4 Li -^
u a u 41 « B
0 O T3 C rt
VM - -I - 0 J!
41 JZ VI U 4V
01 BU e -
0 O 41 S
<_) -O
4}
o aa
4J B
11 -
.£ 4V >»
§01 c 4i
0 " CD
c u >
o o f
T3 -< -f- 41 0
41 j: u r -a
to u e o
q .M 41 B O 4V
v3 ti i 1 O 4J
t- Ifl --4 4-1
J3 j3 4V -o 0
4V IS 4V It 41 4f
-C C
4V O
O U
4-1 O
a
41 «!
00 » -«
O 4^
-10 B
o in 41
o tj -o
0 -1 -
« tfl J3
01 U
01 -
5
u
u.
o
I
o
c
il
cu
u
>< Li
. O
c c
41 OJ
L.
U L.
3 0
O
OS
w C
O -H
C 4-1
aj r4
2; £
fl U
0)
n a.
0)
Note:
Toxicity limitations based upon LC50 vali
utilized by the Texas Water Coonission ir
activities.
1
a
' 5n
j **- .MI
1 "OS*
C V) 4»>
In *
i "^ a
CL 4-i
a. u
3 O a£
*" *** 5
u -a 5
V 4)
5 aiil
4V
i a
re Li
Basic uses such as navigation, agricultur
industrial water Bust be maintained and p
water in which these uses can be achieved
wastewater is discharged to POTW.
V)
01
>.
in
1 ~
* 2
^
01 r^
3-
^
O
U l»1
-«
"4* 1^1
ft
V
01 <9
^ B Jj J/l _»
| 0 -C 11 T
B u > U
, to * - 41
[ E I i U
O V] v3 4t
U 3 C J
4v 41 O. O o
m 4V - -J
Ll « ** 4V
4v >, o u -a
BO n> E
41 B *
u - O B (/I
E in - 0 >, L.
0 B 4V .« fl 01
O rq U 4V CD 4V
i 41 n «
fl O 4V U)
JS ^44 Li vi 41 q;
4-> o a.'- » vi
e 41
o ^ B
41 4> Li 10
c a. o ao c
-* VI «*4 3 O 4V
m LI u
4V 41 VI O 05 -U
B » OJ 41 Q4
.- v3 6 -0 - 8
3.-.-1 B 5
w« i« a.
41 41 Ot O
SB -o -o < B
JO 41 " O
33 O VJ
Mb. t
i i» j; o
3 0 TJ trl VZ
o 41 vi -^ n
VH 4V 4V '*«
n o a. 3 M
B 41 -1C
VI (J 41 41 --4
U O u v3 -O I
tu -a n 4v vi i
4V 01
n vi -o c -a
» 41 C fl 0
q oi > u Z
U 4 U *O 0)
01 Li X 3 3
4V 01 41 «-* ~* *
« 4V 0 -H X
>> 9 o a a ")
o d " .- Jj B
O
S
ft
H
X
flQ
VI -"
U ro
OJ
in i _d
(^ 1 ,£J
» U-^
f*
u ^ *
^-J^
vU f- O
n f"i
><-*
O M tffi
i -H Li t»
; 4^ o -c 3 *
2 "** ~ ^ *"
3 ^ IM ^
1 a- W j
i fl 4J *j ~~ K
1 ^-5 X "* "
4-» 3 T *- /)
1 i c +* i
1 -T: 5 3 4v
I *< 4) TJ =
4 E v> C X
B - Ifl - 4V
| &0 ifl X
M 4V V) -3 3;
VI B 41 C
- VI fl o
J? 3 = "-1
1 =8 ^
13 1 ^5
^ 0 ^ <
(J vb> t/l
C BJ fTJ 3 .w
- 3 4J W _Q
B « ~ 2
u
a- JZ afl
tn u ^ .
(fl -* 3 71
4J 0! fl (j
^ t- >> c -
es.i .^ .
41 B 33
4V »i M O O-f
Eva i _, ^o
* it 4v a.
a o> fl -o
^4 OJ U 41 E O
(Q VI IV
VI 41 41 "O
0) u 4V L. >» a>
30 E < oe
41 4V O. L,
«i 4v u a. in
00 01 4V n 3 j=
a M - 4v vi u
d B E VI
4V Ll O Ll -4
VI 01 41 U 41 -O
X 14V. 4V C 4V
X * B o n in
u-< - e * .-
n
41
>
M ^*-
3^
% ~-
01 -T
(4 '
4V r%
V50
ro
B UP
01
4V t
4V U
8*
01 f-
4->
e ^
^^
c
_^
' * ^
*^J "^
,
T IT i
SO C ^-,
4V- f
VI '
Ha; 3
»
The following are standards pertaining to 1
and Lower Galveston Bay (Segment 24J')); moi
these waters from site.
Dissolved Oxygen Mini mum 4.
pH Range 6.S - '1 0
Temperature MiKiaum 4
=i
T]
Li
4_)
u >.
w -
4J O -
C ^H ^,
B r- m
MO "W
X m c »
vi fi -n
1 '"^ . """
U .0
4-t (J X -*
rfl . ^ hv,
C < T5
afl C ^>
-" t OJ O
V) Q,f-l
tu ^< a.
a m < jr\
~
~
~
|
£
£
vU
C&.
-------
1
p
B
o
r
[a.
o
£
£
CaJ
^
5
i
Q
§
4-1
fl
.C
o
tn
V)
v
nj
2
C
fl
c
£
£
VI
2
a
£
V3
s 4-
3. C
a a; -e i
a» S o
VI i
C tfl 3 |
0) *
i/7 wi Q
O Ml S
-* 3
X S U
O O i
E
*« (fl VI
o
" *
(0 V) >
E I- O>
O 11 J
w ifl E
« X O JC
u o ^ vj
C - o£
0) (fl < ^*
u g ,
C n; < u
O ^ O JC
U V Ci_ tf)
c
0
M
iq
B
»*
S
Tl
C
o
U
c
fl
S
X
VI
>>
V)
C
O)
B
4|_l
TJ
a1
u
"M
O
c
o
3i
*j o
m jj
B
.-* «
ai L*
o w
3 J=
* u
U tf)
G--
'* -O
CO L*
41 O
.* (U
m -H
C vj
(U *«w
«* ***
^ O
fl
41
r~4 60
fl u
SU
V)
0) -
05 -Q
CJ
Ch
o
w
a.
tn
jjg
it** OS
oS
d *s
r^
Q -3 U
c « c c -a
fl 1) fl - C
71 u -C Wl 3
-D O 0 -O ^H 043
1_ C JD Lt (J B
(q fl C "«
O t/1 LJ -O « Lt
C - 0) B 01 O
nj 4J Ol fl J3 *J *>
4j *j fl j3 *j tn -* -*
B - Co
vuoutNi aj -o nj g
> oj 4-1 o i > >fl a.
-i CL, <+* ro «H *j
*j vi ^ tfl 41 V)
E>* BUaoaia;
*J U ffl -w £ x ifl
.0 w .c m j= *- -w fl a c
*4 to a % -^«^ o
^ fl -D -
*J S (U 0) T3 w J Q- C -LJ
B b^ai B iflfl
njnw .<- O U OJ ^
X * i- x w ««
ai tu ai at a at fl -<
W) -M JH 4) Ofl Ll Ll .e
ce * >» as .-^ o i » fl
< TD O *- C -^ -O 4^ Ui
B -H o at a*
B « a -* e«toa*B
muio-HM fl o *j o -^
L* fl X fl Ui B fc« Ok
tn 3 o-u « 3 qj Q. a)
fl 0 t3 U E fl O fl 0)
nVCUOl (0 OJ O Jal
tn u a n u -w T3
Ol *- -in 01 01 41 *- ^ b
> fi 3 n - > E 3 ^ 0
U-- cr o p- tri-4 o«*-» u
oiooi^B o> o at 3 O)
1.0 a, u, w - to CL t- -o u
01 W M
>S >J >I
V
IM O
fl-^
J3 M
4-> U U
u co a>
< .~ to ao
o c
i -a 2 '£
4^ c oi o n
fl fl 4^ -44 .^
3 *4 « W ^>4
3 >> » VI -O
c 1^ -a w fl
fl -H O < 4J
oi o e o a n n
P-I a. o uoiCuB
U .*4 4 01 O
»^ 4-> »-» -o a* <* -4
rt fl fl it n 4) c
a u
!«-
< T) -
X
B 01
* U B
H C
VI 3 O
fl 0 -4
in jj
in fl
(1J -4j 4J
? C'S
L..- B
oi o-->
ui a. i
n
01
>4
e
44
m
4J
, 1
TJ Li
u*l Of ^
IN fl 3
-H fl O«
a oi
U71 | B
Mw
BOO
fc. O fl 4J
ox fl e
U 01 C
SOI Li 01
Ht-0,
-i O
C -1 VI C *4
fl JO 01 - O
fl 00 B C
in u u
o --4 fl a 01
u -. .c u u
fl O4 U 01 fl
B fl * o! «
4-14-1 O
VI 3 B Li .4
O -»4 O *4
0.' fl ^4 fl
> VI 4- U
-4 4^ Lt V) -4
w o> oi TJ a
CM u 0 "
fl £
*4 O 4J
01 4-1 Oj TJ
J= M 9 OU
3 Li M *J
VI 3 4-1 VI fl
U B Ol BO
VI U Oj f »4
.5 ° I 2 §
fl Li U « O
*J 01 -*4 ^ Ll
C 4J 3 fl O.
O fl 9* 4i*
u X 01 vi <
01 u oi a.
4J U U
-^ in 4-1 . .
fl C u C
« x 5 ai
B an j:
UJ *4rt 4^ X
4-1 O fl 01
X O> tN «
01 01 U 4rf
M4J .-4
0 Ll B B
4J fl TJ O -<
J3 Ol -I -4
a u n «
< in fl o TJ
(2 ._ J3 oi 01
< TJ 1 Irt «
e oi so .0
" u ° ' i,oj
nog °,°^°
n u w o u
01 4J 01 3 d -4
» B 4VM jg-4
01 0 M- "3 01 Cb
V) CU O 0*4-1 fl
n
*"
VI
01
u
4
4j
u
§fl
-i
Irfl u
N a
"*
c
fl
in
.0
3
VI
V)
C
fl
E
O
U
^
4-1
B
01
4J
X
01
o
1
B
fl
n
fl
ft
u
01
tn
4^
C
01
>
Ol
VI O
0) 4-1 >
u
3 fl
O" Li
Ol U}
ce o
a. :
ul in '
U 01 i
3 u
U -4
U 4-1
O U
Li U 1
oi a. 1
X B
01 OJ
** a
VI 0* VI
n M
X fl B
B 01
u fl 3
° -
01 4J 4J
KO n in
u oi c
fl JO 0
J3 u
in o o
«4 -4
TJ S X
O O
01 * *^
U 4W
3 4J O
0 B
n cu 01
a vi
4V 01 fl
C *-4 41
3 1-3
0-.- L,
0>
J=
tfl
fl
i;
ul
fl
U
o
4_>
Lt
U
Ol
O
c
Li
3
U
J
o
. t tf)
* 3
OI -
o»0 O
u
fl Of
j: ^
U W
tf)
T3 0
V 0)
u B
Ll O
3 N
0
" 3
4V O
B 3
.- 00
O
O.4-I
B
0 0
Z u
0
Z
B
fl
01
W U
u O
o
01
M in
fl 01
3 M
Li
C fl
fl £
01 U M
1 01 O
Q
fl 4J O
Li U
01 01 4V
TJ L< U
01 .- 01
h. O M
-------
i>
00 JS
OS 0 -
B i
u. _c a.
u a.
c_j 41 n
O 4V
-T 00 O
C B
O C 01
4V -4 b
C B re
"-I b
41 V]
a 4v B
4V -0 *
V 4V
b b re
O O 4V
Oi*4 ..;
b B
O M - .
e'o'"?
* JS -O O
4v 41 a.
4V 41 4V
B B n «
41 OO
4V VI O
X 41 3 4J
41 J= B
01 0 41
4) -4 b 00
4V 2 O
o *v a. o
4V VI U VI
41 (S 41
b Ifl 4V
vi voua z
VI
4)
P
£
I*
b. f.
O »
e i
too
Z - Q
bj 4V »
£ n
CftJ 4V 4V
z -5 <2
£ 41
4v c at
1 E -
41 -> b.
O 3 41
(J -0 U
Z u cj 5
n
Wl 4V
a. o ii >,
r 41 3 M 4V 4V
oo *^ vi oojr £ * « >
3 -«-a*-o - 3 -4
j= re b "wl: re 5f ^ u re
10 Kl E O - re » rt
VJ > 4V -4 *rf E b 3 O
fi> 4V jQ b fl N fl X 4V OO
XJ= 0 O J! 3 JS
n -*v)>4vcr<--4 b .- O '
P.O4V J3 XI 01 O * U -
<4V -- OJ b J3 - 4V b
Ob= v14>O>*-i4)t9O4V
P VI VI U (9 B 4V
O4I3O O4IUn«9
«t.uaVO
00 °"'^4 ^0 "° --4 --4 §*»2 ^* ^-*
b B fl 4) b fi JS £ ^4 ^ b«
JS 414V 41 3qq^
«{- V)J| 4V 4V U 4V --J
O -O «v 4V > -o E 41
« 41ft. - lOO. 3 3 41 01 >
4VJQ9B3 41 Z i ^ b 00 b e
-4V f^ « 1 « O b 41
^9 VIOVIV1OO m<*vb
- 4V - Q. 41 - O. O.-O v3 b 41
JS -. 3 03 - (J HI >
O Xt- 41 O f- .*** n 4V 41
b VOv3 b O *- IN o - O e
41
«1
a
b
o
B U1
4v ro
B un
41
4> bl
b
4V U
41
b O
a. *
O
-_- >, £JJ
b 41 5
a. "
O.4V W
° «.§
.. 41 .
n b
~n jo o
o re
*4 b
B oo\
41
js -a in
O E O
re o
b
0 ><
ffl -f4
(J fl ^
a o
o o
a - .
-4 41 -_-
B m >.
" b b
re 01 3
4V > U
b re b
b-J -a o
o ~v B a.
"" "* 0
VI -~ 4V
4V O 1/1
'g (%j PH .2
.-4
-" -^ ^ 41
00
41 -J O b
sow . re
b 90 1 v3
re 8 u
U "4
vi -- in ^
V ^^ ^- 4V
01 JT3 01
4V V, re 4V
01 00 41 X
v> B-3 «
VI
r-t
a) rs
£ -4
00
b -*
3 41
U b
41 O
" B «
-C 0 41
IV u
b -a re
fl Q) ^
u a.
(ft
(J "* U
u u
o *- o
-W o *J
VI C vl
*4 -*
J= 9)B
o ***
B -0 0
3 re b
41
ja - 4j
4) fl
41 3 .-
4V 00
^i;<£
*
a 3
i-i 3^"
u -*»-> o oe
eu i- w o m
CO O *C P^ ' **
Z tfl C ^
O >v4 O <^ifc^t&*
< 2 -H « o a: cr:
3-2! a cu
*J 0)
m z a* -* ^ m
cu
VI
'fl
fl
TJ
fl
.^
o
o
0)
bl
1*
O
(J
IM
O
V)
J
1-
O
V)
0)
_
U
c
ai
^»
u
tn
-Q
.i
u
f4
0
1 t
u
0 4Vt
C O»
l» 4V O
O CTM"1
^*^^
u B
0 4V . .
re u a:
41 b VI b.
re 4>
JS « 3 U
U 41
ii-3
o
a
J;
4J
.
J
J2
£1
C
^**
o
i
V]
00
OS
"fl
c
u .
fl VI
Z 41
E-5
"u b
No land
propose
^
S[-
2 o3o
tfl ^^ .
2^-°
- f&Uff)
VI
u U OS
b to b.
O
4v r> u
VI
= -?
-------
a.
3-*-
HI 3
vi a* or
b I/I1 3
O Z3 i <
O.'
a oi .c > ^ -
B - -> C 4V B «1
If U 7 B Of tV
a. c c n M b
Of Of 4V O 4V ^ O
U M-v -4 01 ~~
o ^ 3 4* js c
09 rg 3 *9 41
--. B > oi
a m o b .c 3!
Of b U If E 4V Bl
4V U V) tfl -. Jl
b -a a B ^ x £i
o> a; 4V o *-" i
> * U G trt
- > B O^
O -i 01 - O i
a. --o - 4V (v .cias
BTJ a > a »J<
.4 o> 8 b in -.4*0,
.- -G 4V ti 3l <
01 « .c 4v M b ,
VB .M u « * -4 Ofl 6
0 3 » B 3 Ul fl
i O 0 W « C- El
v 4v 8 oi 8 oi mi «J
. . SOWS b.-| 0
^ >* b B -4 « . il B
C T3 O - :> w Ol
5 0 M b C - H
A vo -a ..4 oj i« qof
-i 01 b M Of M b
b O XV) 1 O
01 4 J= 01 3 <|14V
4V O 4V <*4 ffl J Of
Sb 3 --4 V) UC_» b
4V Ifl 4-4. ..4 U flCI Ot
B -o-e vauivs
k) O b r* F> Ul 4V
O U O "4 4V
uj a BM -
a oi M , oj ' "
33 m « c -a u a I
< 01 -> - S u-i 11 -* CO
ki 3 VI 19 * b GO
4V b O « "4 -C>
*4 4V v~4
£ .»4 tv *^ fM o
U " < vO » O>
-< i B
Z "4 o <47it =>
H WO
8-*4 O ^ ^O *3
to. O
T3
Of
*^
VI IV
4v a.
^ 8
B vS >.
O fl «
.C 01
Bl 01
u m u
If (V >
4V 4V IV
1 Of -*
b 0)
I Ol IV J3
N
- b 0
1 8 O 4V
4
C in -O
.« 01 01
8-4 4V
->m r**
u in
Of ^* 4V 4V
O. b b
Vt 14TI « l»
ana. a.
o
if ...
buaso:
01
aflto to. to.
6 . . .
* a u 00 "O
4v r b a; B
E rn fl < i«
-4 jc at] 4^
oe u < n
« IN n
^ M -rf B O
« -a 4-i n tyj -o 4v
b m
b OIS n u
on -no
l/H 41 C r*
o^-jq fl
Of 4V 4V B
ao 4V b 3
,4V
o u ra n n
** v> «i a > s
» v3 "O
4V S "O ^4: 4V B
« r-l i« 3
O Of b -I O. O
C jg OIM b
11 4V 4V b U
di 3 b oi v.
«
as
. ^ .
u_ .,«--.
6SS
Of
Navigable waters (see 33
if present, nationwide p
S«fi 33 C.F.R. § 330. 5(a)
£
VM
0
S
u rn
^» 1
O
« (N
Ll 4*J M
i g«
b b 4V
n m oi b
* 2°- S.
a a
? .2 .
K O OS
B
i in o to.
b . - .
01 O> 3 4V O
> & U
-4 oe n ot m
as -4 1-1 M ro
*4-l
0 VI
"&
G b
0 fl
" T3
4V B
u ^
3 4V
b VI
n u
Of -4
O "4V
If U
> U
< O.
0 «
B E
.- o
4V 4J
0 IV
B u
0
f* *H
f «
55
S"S
> 0
4V fl
14 4V
B E
b O
01 U
4V
_4 e
Surface water remedial a
wetlands. See discuss 101
for groundwater/soils.
s ":
1
no
S2
B 9^ '^
m . iv
Crt-H «
O 4V -v fM
01 O
b vt > rn
01 O
W3t<&
b O
O b un
B 11 <
01 O TJ
> » b OS M
4 4V O *
4V u to. O
3 Of B
U 4V u U Of
Of o of a.
X b X Q Q.
w a. cu -5 <
i
3
, <
i ^
! c
! ^
o
4V 01
IV
a
91 VI
B 01
U >
4 b
V) OJ
n in
n
Of
b E
3 -
3.2
ot a.
a
o e
4v a
4
>,»H
a G
oposed reae
o or within
ir floodplai
M *J ra
a of
B >
VI b
VI rn
« B O
"Zl**
O b UTi
B 01 <
O) - T3
> ifl bee x
.- -v O -
4v oi to. a
3-0 B
u o uu u
oi o oi a.
X -H X O O.
bl to. U 3 -f
-------
01
o
01
=
CM S
i tn
^ «j
w m
n) *
a x
(_} 01
V B
*> 'fl
ffl ~*
f O.
w
4^
J= B
- i
3 V
"a
= - «.2>
5 = ° S a
5 . S
a. H.
l =
*
M
91
»)
g.
O
Li
a.
«
1
I
-oo
* {ft
vO AJ
xO L.
lfl
unun
g .
B 0
Z
"32
SJ2
Requires
Hanageoe
:
s
-
« «
-i 2
.
b a
« S
01 m
J5 S i.
u
B«
v
a un
0
N .
u -o
(N
iv too
*> m
01 S .
a va
0 vO
b
n
41
< s
I- - . -«
O. U U 1-1
«l W VJ
B V) .
2 SSt?2t
-------
Ifl
V
<
1
as
UJ
§H-
<
9
*~ 3 3
0 - ff 2:
~s§ :
|g£ |
^ i
ft '
|S
LJ
<
i 1
5 H
? w
< b
i
t*«
i
i
I
5
e
i
«<
i §
30
1 «
2biJ
m
0 -0
x C
-< fl 4>
3 BIN 0
O. fl *«
.C > < 41
»J UF* OS
C«..S*&!!
-i-ass
41 -I -. n
fl Q M «»4
u* w fl B
- fl -H - «
41 O «3 fl
O, S tl -M
fl b - b b
o is a.
» m M e
41
V ! p-t fl
O Ol M fl -< 1
B 4J .-- 41
fl n b a b
* * < o> u
n 4j e » 41
M 3 b O b
-t a a. an
fl.- Q.
b M 41 fl 4) B
41 C -u b -
Tl < tl Tl fl .J
41 b »t B U
fc. TS n flrn X
n
M -
S S 3
id li b
a. 34)
VI 4J *
Z B £ B fl
5 w Et^B"i
t tg -o - ae
O 2 b l» Obi
ul fl O
a. vi 10 7
u .
a «*
41 PI
0 J= -T
VI
n 41 ten
Ifld
fl *1 U
B b a
0 fl*
°S 41
B +t V>
1
is not contributing a
king water supply. S
aaed at low levels.
j
0.0
41 - 1
*J b M
- -a *j
n
s|i
ae a a
a
a .- b
-S3
5
« «
w u
5 b
M 4>m
B »
b B fl
a - a.
-.,3 .
L, -o - as
fl b b .
T) fl O b.
S -Q
0 B 4IU
O fl **4
41 w fl 9
«
O fl
v *Q e
> u x.« ||
S" S^aTS
S.5'£?J
a.f? fl fl ^j ae o
a. fl b -o -
b> M O M 41
n1*- ah. a.
^?rflal
*Q 41 O-x
41 f b -<
S5-o'ad
C VI 4- U < EC
^ fl * CGU
o BO'S ja*j
U 41 Q.*' 41
41 3»- M > 2
b 0 0 B
fl b -. 11 *J
M 41 N U B
VI > M i B 01 00
- B B fl 1
J 01 fl «-< 01 -T
U b 4J-H u .
I TJ 3 Cb B O>
OM fl
Sfl VI « O Tl «
-< a u--< «
^ b o 3 ae
ft! S atS
41 b O
fl 41 w
41 J3 CbBX* -
d fl u Q a
a ** B b
fl a Ox-l fl O
J01 fl -O U
U - < 3
0 0 30. <
fl 4J O 1»I
^
"3 ^
JS i
1 15
*>«» a
a u » un
°^'S
Z ** 0C
l""cthi
ill?
*. sa
3
b in
01 ^l
fl a>
i -
3 J
b °
III
>
* 0 'b
i:«
" 41 w<
^ «s
. C L,
b ... 3
°1S
n id
Bi '"*
° * 3
ill
*3 - 3
u *»
c
5U
Ij.S-3
4W 4^ 11
S n
u o -2
g&'
ae ^-.
M *4
jjj 2
f J--
*° S
J M 41 ^.
5 "^
1 i|l
« 5"3a
a «*"-
t Sfe°
« il-s
S ||2
» ffl
« CC U M
^ u u
u t- « c
fl QUO
M I * U
-------
b n B
o a o
I O hi
b
01
Anb
Federal ien
Quality Criter
01
« 3
01 it
- O Oj
01
IV 4V
0) B n
b 01 C
v=8'
U M"*"*
-SSS
* g
4V V3
g BO
4V »
it B vO
oi r<
n
01 1471
01 b
BO >-.
O T> Tl
4V T3 4V
it e n
b it
U vs
82 .-
4 O -<
144 B 4V .«4
o 3 va
b J -.
4V 4V It U 01
B B>-l <
Sit a va oi
B » .M u
e o)
3>4v
4V -*4 O 4V t* 41 IV
<44 01 4V B 4) MB
!it-H IV b O it
va it o w b -e
oi n a -a » n a.--*
e
O
i, B-A
V ^
Sit m
JBIN-
« 4V .« 3 01 01
vi b o*i-« -a
I V»I4V 01 01 01
I « n b bb.
3-SJ
£!ii!^
4 -<
S4O 4V
b « a.
* a
(fl ^ 4t>VJ
o -v e
it - v) c
O »i 41 -
B -i . e
b -4 O
4V 4) 4V IV
41 4V C
S*4 41 O0
it b B
4V TJ 3 4V
IV ».-
n 3-i b
oi b a<4v
o 4v a. B
o g 3 o
B n u
« oi o
i8*e
4v x «
VB,«-
« n B oi
L b M - a.
I 01 B VI B.
) 4J - 3
it jv 01 n
3 b
333
O O. Q.-O M
VI SB
: VN o t -
va o J«
it be
o
-------
J
§
p
s
v ts
u «
10 II)
- S3
M~ g g
C j n «
? * ai
J; S o -0.2
O Q +*
"« e >,
V**9
oa .0
* uo £ g
» «o. S I
S > ° <
« " " "
f-o «< n i
a Bsf-fl
* ** -C j
'^ V)
1
*"
e
I ^
3 S
|g!
b M
ai nj
N 5 c
*!«
?J.2
'> T3 - .
S5.2S-
S«2J
>- - i
S"3*
I V) -P4
5JI*ft
* " u «
ir.szd i :-:s
o3E5-|*
S-Jijus
_ o jj a. ^
l8l«S*
8|Sli«
O U o -.
fl'-SJ
s^PI8
1§5|sJ
f - uSi^ i
Jr *^ ** ^ ^
3 *
aS*»!i
IlfS.!S
i
I
I :
3 ;
\
1 V
w <->-D
i«.2i
, "22
% -"
«~ -M b
*"* a S
^s§-
?"»-
.=«£
«^S5
..3.2
«-«£
5*50
5 ^ *
3 ^* O i
^
1 p
S*
f_.
£
I M
( *W ^
s*--«
S-r-ss
5
« h M
B^SS
«' a 8
^VS?
?^ll
«- B §
S * i ~
1
flif
-------
I
H
U
£
S
I
g
2
1 I
i i
t i
c
-1
,«.-*. U - ", -g -
4VB>om-,xS .
C ~ 2 ~ ~ 5 £ - *
li'as:"-
5^-«n»2
SJJSS-,-!
SS*"**°5C-1
g;i-b,||0<=
o.c«o4i47«Zn
s^;r^i
isjis*:*?
X KO 4, -MbU
" b w Z-0 Ob
0-3*2 g * * " °<=
2^5° «"-a B
"S".2«jj0a
|sss-B"n.s-'s
5 B-~ 3 .- m-o
^ 4V tl <* 4V 41 .
BBS'S-gS-SJ?
10 <« 3 4V B
«2g?--SJg
ni« HB_|-ge
-stj^'wlji j
J * 41 S 3 S w
>4VbJB4V,?S-4v;;
b B b lv a ..4 tj
«eo3gunOB3
^UtlS^-Ss'B
3
I
s
3
"
£
^
s
*-«
--
t.7
" 4
JB-1
!
41 4V
b » n
0 >,
o n
20-
2-3
"oS.
Jc.2
SB10
b OT3
*"° S '
e x'S
- l^S
ova ji-S
41 a c
3 ^ « 3
3 Q,m o
41 Q.
0 b b a
4V 41 4V .2
e 4v
41 ffl Id Ml
W S b V
9 X 41 0
S! 4v n
a -a a MV
3 a > b
lh 3
«3 «
0 H
Pertains only to surface
dispose hazardous waste;
surface impoundments; gr
not anticipated to utili
I
*§«
a -w
<« a
si
c^S
-?-&
H-^-
-4-,
fn o
» n
04 «4
^2.3
*- -c^
*- vn-2
1 ro
ttlf*^ 0S
3(2 -5- i I
OT~ MS"
»>
J
1 *
* QJ
0 «v .
SSJil
«5 -
SS0-
4V < 41
"2S
S.2S
4V 4V 4)
BON
SD«
liBS
£§ =
- ^2
SJ^
<*4 V3 4)
4V 4V
T3 H fl
« a.3.
3b'S
41-4
1 4V 4V
£3S
'Q.-O -
.§§
4V 0
5b
eeZ
4V
o« 2,
4V 41 B
J?is
§»I
34V
3fl
O 41
o b
i» b * I b n -5
1 b > ti i *- ^ -
:§ i i^i= =
I- I 1 if I!
2=° I M -I
** -^ M ° O "
* O jj *
u" |v3B .2 ** "T3
1 *: °= -* i -:!
I! 51 | If i 3-
3 ** Ol*«l ** 1 .W flj
* « m ^
55 . M> ^ i "«
iu"? o"3 u 2 ic*"
-5.2 ;§ Ml i -3l
Iss 1- 2 a"
^= B§ \ 11 n
2i-- 5s '- ^5
;fe& 21 -s/i 5?ti
S-a. I- 2S «2§
;2- -j S.SS i-g
:^ ;i s*s I -!!
= 3- -as "'2 1 -s-2
:is §^ f§-= §5s
HSi 3* 5J- 532
SiS '= "§72 ---§8
^ « ifl *j 3 gwu »q u e
*-s si 53s rs5
» o- a! * A-S g * Sw
u a ^-~ o B
w HI- m i« ^ jg
i'S'S i'S-
« 5 S2 ° K
. J i 1 p ^
1 ^ > 4^ 1
j!jn~ timJ £
i:s M"J U I5
&*r- 1 5s;5 1 «= is
-------
j
3t
O.
OS
§
i
. t
2
u
x
o
i
^p
jj
2
o
i
*** *j
rfl o
n c
o
Od ui
1.4
T3 C
O
o .- , .
e e*
n m ?
"s '
.- 41
b
41 1/3 a.
u cu as
fl O
Q»Z ^
01
41 b !*.
°r~
o e
-li"
- 41 bO
4J O
1 41 ""]
41 b
n
«~B.
3 U ix
O 41
0 --1-H
b .O fl
fl 3 n
N n o
fl a.
JB 41 «
« b a
OS U E
as 2 JS
a - o
fl n
*°°
£
~a
co
o
s
b
a.
OS
b.
U
s
1-
) I/!
B
" .5
J3 in
u 0)
3 u
n c
fl
§-l
*" VI
2 =
oo o
b
N
fl
B b
fl 0
te 4i
n ~*
b O
2iS
S8-!
9 0 41
O b
b 41 <->
an ae
b fl ao
41 b e
B ^ b
%
O '
Z 41 T>
u 41
^4 ft fl
e a.
O 4J +
fl U
S--
." B B
fl O? fl
w n
41 b O
a. 0,6
£
V)
a
-4 H
SS2
^J f^ O
** b V)
b 41
0. 0. C
fl 3
nJ-0 S
jo|
?H~
. .
O -
tN 41
" ~3
0 b
-3
^
J ON
r*l
M
OS
-c
n 4>
^t
n
b -
?l
U
O 41
0^-2
qW
o: S vo"
B U! .C
< < u
* >
ms *
« 41 U
> e». 01
« -*<4-
s
0
o
U V
oo
b O
Q.S
b un
bO!
5J
VI Q
09
b
e
a
.4
o
41
41
41
o
i
n
a
^
a
s
fi^
p^
LJ
"J
k!?
B ui b
41 0 0
b *J «fi U
41 fl B fl
** 41 .- 41
fl b GU b
* a. o
a 4i u us
o *" e o
b b fl
^Sag1
.. b-2'g
41 O " b
3 3 >«M
« *< fl ^
U »4 U B
E n x fl
- 411
a
0 - b -
41 03
b n >. *J
S C -O -
a fl o n
S*^ a
b OD--I
0 « 0
U >
tl U BM-I
Ol 41 fl -
> b U 0
« b - "
iJi^
« JB a
< o -a fl
fl b 41
« 41 b
1-^1
o o -
is-sfl|
2i»S
^
fl
*l
fl
a.
u
« O
U V)
I ^
(V
B
e b
J 1-2
3-2
o
b 0
r~\ uu
I
01
91
fl 4)
b as
3
*3 B
u O
b ->
O fl
z
"fl B
U O
rf
Q C
1.2
JS
u
b b
fl O
« 4)
3?
u M
41 -
w 41
J3 b
u O
b
41
u n
4 .*4
U !
0 41
.38.2
js a.
§^.S
fl fl w
JO 01
sJ«
.- » 1*.
V) > O
^
s
JP
u «S^§
XX 000
b uom
w » vD "
fl B fl
OB -
M liu aias
m >
O b W) h. h.
.2S = ovJ
u 41
fl b vOO vO
Z a. 5?ci
4)
n
fl
1
U
ao
O
O I
n
w ,
u
o
U !
hi ,
o !
i
c
o
w
jg
4)
a.
u
a
41
U
n
*
£
%
b
O
n o
x 41
u
? a-
KM 0
41 b U1 h.
fl 4)
U 41
^
-a
0
a,
"
Jo
~
9)
u
e
J
u
ofl
«£
§
fl !
Z 4)
B -5
J< 41
b b
ST,
e 41
C tn
fl O
o,
o
O b
£ a.
Si
fl
* °
S ? ^o
4 i^nt.ff'
uu oe
b V) b.
e
+> a u
*!
B-§
-------
I
p
o
o
k,
o
01
u
3
*j
U
3
Li
r
.
s
§3
s
UK
55
g*
* u ^
***
3.2
i Q.
Ol
*- O
X«4
c
j
HSHH
> e >,
W *P4 IV
U JJ ...
< CtJ
2S
Q.
0
* C
X «l
S. .
J >«
-------
ca
01 !
U
crc !
s
C
b
a i
.4 i
J 1
1
O
~
5^ 1
S 01
OS! 4J
a £
s **
§ «w
§1 §
UK
k
n
41
4
1
hri
o
4)
n
s.
o
2
§
2
5
x o
o « '
i --
1 tps
2 n1*11*1
e 4Jsvj
o " voe
i
01
M
3
^
01
41
13
j
e
u
41
n
4W
g
^
*
n
41
1
U
T9
41
n
s,
o
.i
M
3
I
41 r»
- CO
-H ve «>
a so b
'4 (47IO.
rl U«
3 gvjfcl
.SSoo
*rf n
2 vi -H in
b
41
U
U
'e
01
V
n
«j
01
«
^j
i
^J
^
«i
i
b
^g
41
tl
O
b
a.
s
u a
n
i
1-1
O^H sO
4
B t.0)i09
WO Qfi
32S
n
K
41 tl
B f-
0
t^J c
^H
It Bl
*fl 1
n -<
0 X
U 01
41 B
4-» t
4J CL
VI
j: c
n
23 ,
V 41
b B
O 0
ON
u
o"*
n -^
n -s
41 O
ii
QkD
n
"rt 3-
b it
a a.
a
n at
41 1
b «
4 M
9 it
era
s
2*
^
BO
b
M
is
o >
i (M
< VJ O
4p» (*t
« vO
OvO
U ^^ *4Tt
BS
ffl H
oi m >«
B U 41 41 ><
41 O 4W b b
I B 4 «J
v> 5u f
41 O u
H O 4J H
A B B in
-4 Otf 41
JJ B I £
U -«4 01 U
^3 W O
«£ 01
1 "O U 4J
4 B e i
'o " '" .2 «
3 JJ *J 3
a o a «j 4J
a B > u
C B
ao£ oi *
^ k o oi *j
b u a -
irf O 41 *vl b 0 01
O..U 41 -4 B
n 'u «! b
« 0-41-1 B 0
>4*4 - ti n B
9 4J 4 l« -«4
a"« o «
41 41 4< .^ ^ ^J
b « K 41 41
« n b B w) w
*4 b It U 41 41
I- 4J » 0 -O-O
5
^k
JS »^
u -»
b » 1
M
41 41
S - -
J-ii S
K--s
*3 S ? w 3
Ul -«4 -^ b »-4
4> b K
*> * iinOL < 4J 6 U C
> b (J <4-i ~ 4- U
01 01 * >»4 -H 3 u
ui/iaio -true ,
a. L. 01 «i <
-o o c * u o
o b -i 3 a =
4- * .a b « < 41 I
a ^ fl B b c
SB > B II 41 B6-->
nj b O b *4
- 4J O W X -O "
It VI *4 B V 0) C
M "I 3 -C «J J
a. b b u o n e
« OI 3 *J U 11
e »> B b n e u
o 4J - oi a: -3
^H -^ U 4J 4J 5 -^ f
t*4<~ l6ra3GEOIQi
4 '^ k ^
-------
S3
p
<
t/i °-
VI
< a
s
4T *
5
^
i "
ai
^>s
^ ^ 2
>»! .W
*- s
LU _ Z O
=38* p
S ^£ 5
|§ £ .
x* H
^ a
|s- 3
* <
?
5 **1
I
i
^
S
0
£
u.
o
is
£
bJ
U
1 H
^Q
1 g
° S
U 9
t- O
^3 b]
£ K
Li
a,
Li
41
! I
m
Li
4V
o
B
Ifl
n
o
01
ra
B
m
4V
B
e
u
R
OI
*-*
O
1
K
I
*»
*fl
a
R
O
in
i
^M
to.
NM
U
£
C/5
e
3
2
i
t?
g
u
1
f-*
,. vS
W "^ ^"*
« J= OJ >
4V U «
B n 41 S
SCE -D
3 '-1 -C
H CC ») U
TJ < B -rt
41 0 v=
in u U 3
a <«" 41 n
oi « CD oi
4V U «
SOI 0 Lj
a.f- o
;; R = *>
S " R
4V B 4V tj 4)
O E Li 41
U -. 41 -O .
£32 ss-
(^ c ai c
O U H3
^ U B 4)
C 9) *fl <"H
IV 0 4V-0 U
z 4
4) R 3 -J
- . 4V O
R R IV - R
oi n
4V J3 R * 4V
fl> U i-l Li IV
4V -4 01
o - o « «e
01 -D U * B
4V L, .rf
IV M O *
O l« * «« IM
B O Li
R ra 4i 4V
41 Li < R B
3 -O »< -IH <
O - i
< B 4V ^3
R - B Li 41
0) 41 O U
Li -a "O XM 01
-^ 4V OI -H
rf U 41 J3 S
a, o o» ifl o
R-H v5(- 0
CK]
31
4Xj
B
0
'^
2»
u
K
4)
E
0
v^vj
u
rtj
O
B
41
3
U
B
R
41
.**
4V
i
01
^^
n)
A)
e
I
OI
41
J3
n
R
£
1
^
2
ge
*
u.
G
S
t/3
§
^M
tJ
o
41 1 .,.
SO fl
R n u
4 41 -C O
u u i
» 41 B -1
va 4v R
c - si ^
rx « B 41
E O 4V
LCI M-M ra
1 4V »
Ifl -0
*>« 0 B
. . M M M
*» e o 3
-. fl _) 0 41
Li U ~*
3 MJ3
u -JD n
41 -H ~ R 4V
n r«. i«
R -J3 T3 nj
OI IN -T 41 »
-O vA R V=
> 41 ^
o un u O.
a. c -o LI
" R H 41
4V B T5 4V
B - Li 41 «
41 n i« Li »
4v LI -e n -a
X 4V B B
oi IB co 3
rt 4V O
2 41 f) 4V U
B 01 i«
CB O 4V O. B
< R R JJ *
cc LI n s
B ^0) a <
i in -H is
r» -* 4V 41 CJ
« fl <
R » a,.- «
01 V49 B * -"
» N O 4V U
Li U B 41
41 un c o a.
M ^-4 0 R
n
ra
Li
OI
O 41 ->
"" Li
1- -~ ifl
fl pH ^3
d I-H B
n i» 4V
n ai
4V . u
41 -4 41 -a
LI 3 R -a
- B -^ oi w
30 -C
C7* Li U 4V 41
4) *4 41 vi .
Ll 4V R >,
B 01 1 2 *
o * n - J=
4V 3 41 41 n!
O O* "W 4V o B
8n -> B 4V 41
41 OI 01 B R
PH U Ll O
Li 41 01 Li J3
OI Li Li 3 41 U
4V U R
SO 41 « R
4V R Li 01 01
0 0 Ort >
B "O v3 > 41 -4
3 B 4V Ll 4V
O O "^ ' CC f^
Li CX < 41 C
MR R CC 4V Li
0) 4V < 3 01
-* L. --4 4V 4V
m c c --4 '
Li T3 3 n 4V m
41 C _ R
01 T3 O O 1
004V 41 Z 0 -H
U 4V "O
R 41 <« ^i 41
41 4V f i t) 8
1 OI 3 IB 01
O 13 UN OI Li
Q, oi CO Li
BO U O> I l»i
>-i 4V : f-l n v9
^
_
R
01 1-1-^
KM'-'
U 41 10 M
OS
H«SI«
^^ 2 «a- "^
n \6 m
\fo rn
fc-in un
LI ui eu
i« m oi u
J.PO o^
3 un 41
VJ 14T>I (-
c
"S ><
JS «
41
Li U
J= "5
o n
o
U JZ
0 -H
2 *
" 4V
u c
u o
41 U
a,.-.
R >
B
E 41
O
- -a
4J E
u ns
-C -H
O 4V IN
B i
m
R oi un
41
^2 C J
^ *5 ^ ^
0 B EX
Li 3 U
Q,v= U
IV o 01
5 0 3
5 4V t5
U 01
B 41 b
* o '3
4v L, er
.g
41
4V
U
rt OI
rn Li 41
-OR
o *-y
r*. ^ R
Cs| -Of
in t/i S
m u 4v
0 B
OS unu-i oi
bl . a ai
t_> o «e
(J ..-H
< 4V B
S* v *5
H ^ 2t
-------
4-1
C
SO.'
4->
O 4J
E <« to
rg OJ
kri 4-1
r^ B 4-> rg
-» 01
-H 4-1 4-1 TJ
i-l B E OI
r« oi M
» * 4J .I
vO X
3 ^
(^ O O 3
U V?
T3 m a
U N 3
rtj ni K ^j
TJX < B
S~ES
>.[ 4--< rg O.
C u O 41
<\ E 41
eu rs e > M
i a o b B
3 O rg 10
B U 4J rg
O 41 B *
-4 T!
U 41 kl
'V B OI
-H 1 OIJS
rg rg .c 4j
Us > 4J O
S8..k,
01 41 i-l O
tXS ki »
»-4 4-1
B B i-i S
0) 01 01
TJ ki « a
r..2 vo a.
> SIM
o cr 3
ki 01 un o*
BL kt ii 41
B
1
p
*J
f_3 4"~*
i-i 01
3C kl
b. B
o o
w^
ba CJ
5 <-~
S H~
U i*"»
!? S ^^
§ Q.U-I
Oi
TJ
O
o.
^
E
U
^
X
41
O
4J
41
ki
__,
O
B
TJ
41
a.
a.
rg
y
kl
O
2 M
B B
OI O
M «*
ft
"o7
g
n
o
u
B
u e
. a.
,^
in
f*1 "^
rg
*» (^
in
ki
<« in
an
£ r*>
V) un
aj 4-i > rg r^
B oi **
S K »TJ
TJ K «C *fl ^9
0 < N
3-C 4J
B Oi B un
fQ ^3 > at
^ B > 01 b.
4-1 rg o ^^ O
4 U 01
fH B Q. kl C?
-.4 01 5
A > . -4-. u
.- L tn o
4J 01 ki B B
It V) V "O »1
fa OP < -
-. u c
rg rg o O
LI 01 4-1 B
ki B B E
. 3 e 4J«- o
B B U C 0 "*
o o 5 4j
« i Q fl OI rg
4>J u * 01 afl U
.- U rg 3
TJ TJ T) - ki TJ
C C i 3 O
O rg OI O*4J <-i
U X 01 B ki
4J k, O
ki B 41 ki JS
o y u 4J o B
VM i rg B v
B 0| U
B -4 B B T9 0
"C rg i B Ol >4i
kl 4J H -H B
T3 O U 4J OI
B U 41 B B B
rg 4^ o ki 3
4J - rg u 4)
B B B SB
0 Bs-4 kt
B « TJ ki 1 41
4) 4J OI rg 4J B
TJ U w TJ B -M
4 oi U B O rg
> a. oi o o *<
O B *< U B
u a «i oi e e
SU 4 rg B 4- u
B
41
-^
n
u
41
B
n
4J
. B
»j O
U
1-
f««
fo "^
K
>* r>4
in
b
m m
V) un
u
o eo
E 1
4-1 - O kl 1 1
E B - 0
41 TJ 4J VM .
9 ki rg 0.
E rg -o ki
" TJ 01 4J O 4J
rg B ki E rg
4J rg M gj >,
B 4-1 Ol B ^^ 41
o n -o a c u
U 0 - O C
Ol --4 rg rg
»i ki X 4J B TJ
k, 3 BTJ -rt
« B ^ O i 3
B ^ 0 ° *0 °
O U B B K
U ki <
41 -O U rg OAK
B B O TJ B <
It ** B -*4
OTJ 4J
a OTJ U-H *4
O O 41 41 O rg
- .- B B j: u
4-4-3 0
rg u 4J B
-4 rg » rg J< OK
"* "3 ^ C tS
4J » rg ** 4-
S- 4J -
4J U U
- u u «j o c
01 O > * O
- ki u Ol -
B kl S B 4J
4 U <2 .C < kl
B ^C flS 3
41 -06 TJ < TJ
TJ B < 01
O -D 4J 4J
-M 01 -rt o ki
^4- b > B O
4J O 4rf 1-4 U 4J
n
5
a
O IS
1- -
00
n "^
rg
^"3 c^
in
tJ *^
in
£*S
3
M un
!
o
B
B
0
^
U
ft)
(J
4
TJ
Ml
g
4J
u
M
a
.»4
TJ
TJ
41
N
-4
^J
4-1
3
O
O
B
B
t
1
** 5
n
a?
TJ B
a 4-
r» B
oo 1
.STJ
u^ §
t-S< «
^r
pH ^» 41
fl IB 0
> rg
P4 »
41
01 i-l
Jin
i a.
b in oi
n n 4-
an B
^si
i
^
V
V
tn . ^
E
> 1;
B §
ki o: i
o: k.
ifl W
3 '
VI VI
TJ O '
TJ U
«
31
rg
E
rg 0
|'S
B &0
01 E
K 4-
Ol rg
ki
O 41
4-> a.
0
2 B*
B'B
rg 41 "^
B r>
rg B rs
41
B TJ »
01 * vO
^l"1
oi u un
B
01
S-
TJ
E
rg
. . 4-1
U B
< -T Jj
1 1 4-1
I- rg
Ol
r*1 rg ^~
**
rsi TJ
9C in E
^ MB)
kl LT) ^
W fO
^g.n (N
^,
«E
-------
00
00
m
t
S
a
>4
<
2
E
c
a.
(/;
to-
O
1
J
5
:
i
p
5
u
£
b.
o
^^
B
i
s
5
i
o
X
o
01
4V
U
3
ki
V)
B
O
u
0)
-4
^-|
4
I4H
a
B
re
01
4V
-*4
3
o
41
B
.fcj
g
01
4V
2
o
4^
n
vt
19
9) 4
(U
2
01
(O
n
&
\o
M
0-4
U
<~
1-^
r-i^re
..
.W V)
BK
01 <
0)
u
e o
23
< re
re *»
»i S
re xi
n re
ai a.
n<
£
^
0
19
u
B
|
o
If
1
t/5
.
41
.tJ
f]
B
0
"S
N
~
.fcj
g
qj
,5
^^
P^
. v4
X
n
*4
3§
.1
"c
g
5
ee
u
re
a.
as
k.
u
kl
O 3
W
B
.. a)
41 4V
4V n
.- a.
n «
u
4V -H
re 4V
e
*> re
01 4V
n o
01 B
Q>^*
W
w ^?
^j
B B
n -
^
n
41 O)
flkfl U
re c
h re
O 4V
"i
"O R
§3
14 0
ee-a
k, U
01 re
O N
3 jj
ss
z
1
B
re
01
e «* re
OO r-i k.
4V
4V U, tO
U O)
re 4V -o
ex. cu S
aiu ki
oo
h. k,
i ^j Of
ST ^** *v
B
TJ
01
U
01
4V
01
o
3
o
- M
4V *V
m -
k, 0
B
U "
g§
U
01
CO -
O- re
u
O 01
B a.
e
n
re E
o
n -"
f^ 4V
.« re
O ki
n «a
u'g
o
05*0
B E
< 0)
a
a S
re ftd
4VB
i?S
S
O
>.?
3-.
re
un n
§.
as »
*
Db O
ua
3F ^^
CM OJ
3
O U
t q
OS **^
'w
U.
^J O*1
(M
0^ O^
psj
w^ 1
M
Ol
< -a
n 01
h.
4V
re -ff
1/1
r>
U -
41
ki re
V "4
**4
4V
ij B
4J <*4
4V ki r^
o ai
b 4V o
o, o tr-
O ^<
§vO
injs
u
> GB ft)
re >
n *e 4V
Ol 41 U
> h. 41
u *>
at i-i >«
«/i in 41
sS
a
o
4V
u ee
« M
4V
2§
a. m
U urn
£ aj
v» bu
8"
o ^
O i
VI
t.4
o
) *-
u
o
v*4 ai
i/j £
3 f-
< B
u
u 41
- n
u en
01 Ol
a- u
«i -a
o
B re
o
rt 41
U
o M cc
o <
>< 01 1
4V M
k, f
re 4v
*4 '
k. ~
-4 01 >>
n 4v re
jsll
4v' B re
3 Q.
e e
4V hi kl
ttfl 0)
41 4V
3 hi re
Q 0 *
*4 -O
e
41 3
Jn o
-C U
i
2
u
b.
u
a.
in
§
P
4^
o5
po
u->
I
TT
to
Lu
^
-------
c
o
li
in
e
0
c
kO
3
C
U
41
10
£
£
U
£
X
3
m
*j
O
4)
L.
10
which
> and guidance
4)
S
>
10
IO
u
4)
«
u
s
O
i/i
identi
4)
A
10
4-
Ol
c
o
o
41
0
0
01
3.
0
c
11
&
c
X
O
u
i
4)
£
4-
Jl
o
L-
C
m
a.
3
e
10
4)
y
Ol
c
'I
$
4)
o
in
4)
1.
3
o
4)
L.
a
«
4J
c
n
u
u
o
a
O
nfornat i
3
4)
m
3
4J
o
a
0
4>"
L.
3
3
41
£
c'
C
E
C.
O
U
u
c
D
Ol
T3
C
10
41
O
m
10
L.
11
L.
U
in
m
4)
U
o
-
c
4)
X
4)
41
O
41
O
4)
10
e
4)
a
i dere
m
O
u
2
3
^
in
-
i
c
3
41
10
t.
41
a
o
c
i
o
T3
O
U
c
o
Ol
0
Ol
c
10
41
u
wl
o
1C
o
10
In
4*
i
41
a
a
3
in
0
*-
e
at
ntemplates th<
0
u
co
2
^
in
3
3
10
1
O
£
ii
4)
(j
e
a
a
a
i
u
^
41
.«
^
C
41
u
D
o.
0)
c
1)
X
41
41
£
O
o
£
o
41
U
11
u
VI
41
a
c
i_
4)
^
a
<0
o
I
41
L
41
41
£
m
10
8
in
10
41
|
li
~
X
in
f
o
c
e
' process
o
3
m
>
^
oi
10
4)
41
£
3
0
01
0
u
fr
+-
O.
0
c
-li
C
o
41
C
41
L.
10
in
'i
41
41
£
41
U
C
10
o
Ol
o
a
m
41
0
in
a
~
2 s
£
< 4-
5 *
8 .
<-
c
D
1C
>
3
cr
UJ
L.
4)
fl
X
Ol
c
.*
c
i
O
m
10
£
vi
c
10
in
^
v
i
Z
U
i
£
UJ
«/)
"5
in
«
"
4)
U
e
O
i
o
«
s
in
m
Reference
RfOs. (See USEPA Health Advisories, Office of
s
o
41
>
I
i
u
A
I
i
Asses
> , Care i nogen
L
a
4-
o-
»
e
U)
|
Factors
>
u
«
^
-P
Care i noge
>
3
i
V.
PM
1
i
2
UJ
3
i
41
e
4)
^
£
*
0
u
u
4>
&
2
0
loroethy
£
S
L.
«-
4)
0
Document
c
X
u
c
10
V
o
41
£
'o
(N
O
u
u
41
o
c
3
i
L.
10
e
in
: pol lutants a
.i
o
e
O
U)
o
«
£
£
U
£
*
O
a
cr iter
£
'o
5
U
A
Q.
Ol
41
4-
10
L.
4-
I/)
§
O
41
O
£
L.
41
EPA GroundMat
4)
£
i
e
3
§
~
in
in
e
dwater C
Groun
^
Q
m
Gu i de 1 i ne
*.
^
co
m
3
Ol
3
Ol
41
4-
10
I/)
O
u
4)
O
CL
L_
4)
4-
iO
X
e
c
O
o
0.
UJ
4
1
3
=1
i«
a.
?
K1
J3
>-
^
C*.
i
v
?
*
§
-------
c
c
2
l/l
o
2
o
o
10
c
01
e
4)
O
o-
10
10
4)
3
&
U
4)
0
o.
O
4)
i/l
3
i/l
o
10
o
c
a
c
i/<
o
c
10
a
c
a
3 §
10
4)
O
I/)
4)
o
u
iO
o
c
10
a
c
4)
U
03
00
4)
>
a
c
|
c
L.
C
10
U)
10
N
a
a
a.
i/i
o
o
c
o
03
I/I
O
4) L.
u a.
'^
0 x
oi
5 *
a. *
L. bU
irt i/l 24)
4) < C
Z O
O 34)
1/1 * o 'O
. (j ._
> 4) Q 3
o *- 2 ts
< O <
L. C
>. a. i/> o
+- u
4) £1}
«> * o a
3 10 l/»
O »
o >
L. e a
41 3 <
<- o o
« i_ -
X O u. < i/i
< o o a <
Q. x u_ tu a.
ui
-*-
c
1
c
I
~
41
u
10
L.
3
1/1
_
w
i/i
IA
^
e
3
*-
|
ra
41
U
h-
o
c
«
^
?s
o
e
a
i/i
fi
>.
^
a
01
e
^
i
c
OI
i/i
J
IO
3
C
Z
41
u
c
IO
o
3
U
10
a.
i/i
ji
10
c
^
01
i/i
IO
X
~
s
01
O)
IO
a.
5
T
(N
-------
^
CO
OX
Jfc
_
3
«»
t
in
c
«3
t
4)
m
IB
X
3
Q
^
1.
10
N
iO
I
I.
O
10
3
C
a
Z
4)
U
e
o
3
U
m
i.
4)
L.
_
E
o!
in
=>
t.
0
.
w
1)
c
41
A
3
£
§
m
4)
c
3
3
U
f
"o
u
t)
t
1
E
e
X
+-
^
"
w
^.
C
1
C
3
O
a.
E
o
u
*
3
I/I
o
C
«3
_|
~
^
o
C
10
O
E
V
L.
41
e
^
Ol
c
o
in
41
C
*
3
O
g1
o
u
«
1
E
c
Z
^
^
£
(N
(N
CO
X
1/1
I
O
in
^
a_
LU
^^
03
~
4)
m
IB
X
13
41
«.
a
O
^
e
(0
-D
OJ
N
M
_
^
Wl
__
_
fl
U
1
£
U
0
IB
in
5
4)
0
41
o
3
fl
r^
co
8
i
8
X
l^\
05
~
a.
^
c
g
t_
|Q
41
L.
C
IB
4)
in
a
X
ui
3
Q
I.
IB
*
X
I/!
O
m
&
in
O
£
H
^
m
41
^
fN
O*
i
8
Y
X
s
^^
oo
o>
'^
^
IB
3
C
IB
X
4)
^3
41
U
O
i
w
£
U
10
41
41
-
m
IO
X
o
iS
~
01
c
M
X
Z
o
e
'^
10
L.
Z
4)
6
3
a!
4)
«
£
U
IB
4)
5
C
0
J
o
4)
41
*
0
in
X*
fM
10
a.
m
f
-------
8
88*
m «
e
41
10
£
<0
U
u
o
u
1
C
i
£
O
£
X
0
O
c
o
10
L.
C
(J
c
O
u
10
£
41
c
e
o
2
41
£
O
o
I/I
IO
o
4)
10
3
U
o
S1 ^
o °
- I
1 «
4> .
I- +-
a ji
»> i £
£
U
4)
^
<0
4)
l.
C
41
41
X
^
C
0
10
4)
L.
0
u
c
0
4)
10
CD
f.
'i
X
I.
10
o
§
u
41
u.
X
5
c
41
a
*
<"
41
41
10
W
o
10
u
i
o
ox i c
^
§
o
41
10
CD
4)
O)
IO
a.
a
0
(N
\
ISI
u.
"X
i c
-------
27
5. implement ground water compliance monitoring in the shallow Transrniss: ve
Zone Aquifer to the MDTCO property boundary. After treatment of this
contaminated ground water zone below the established Feasability Study
action levels (HBN's), compliance monitoring will begin. Should the levels -
of ground water contamination raise above the action levels, ground water
removal and treatment will begin again;
6. implement ground water compliance monitoring in the Transmissive Zone
Aquifer outside the property to monitor the movement of the existing
off site contaminant plume. Any movement in the plume will initiate more
agressive ground water removal and treatment;
7. remove and treat the contaminated ground water identified in the
Upper Chicot Aquifer Zone 3 to fCL's or appropriate concentrations
to maintain LxlO-6 risk levels;
8. remove, to the extent feasible, dense organic liquids from the Transmissive
Zone. Removed liquids will be incinerated either utilizing the existing
Source Control facility or appropriate offsite facility;
9. remove and treat Transmissive Zone Aquifer ground water to the establ-
ished Feasibility Study target levels (HBN's) and to prevent
any further lateral migration to surface waters or ground water.
10. implement a groundwater gradient gradient control system to provide
an upward gradient from the Upper Chicot Aquifer into the Transmissive
Zone Aquifer;
11. recovered contaminated ground water shall be treated by the best available
technology to the applicable, or relevant and appropriate State or Federal
standard, or sent to a permitted wastewater treatment plant; and
12. excavation of surface soils and sediments in areas TFH, TPl, TP2, SSI, and
SS2 to a maximum depth of four feet. Vertical and lateral extent of
excavation shall be determined by a 1 x 10~6 risk level. Excavated
material shall be placed in the TPl area and capped with three feet of
clay and one foot of top soil and seeded. The excavated areas shall be
back-filled with clean material to original grade. Affected ditches shall
be excavated until sampling shows background levels.
EFA has the enforcement authority to insure that no one interferes with the
remedial action including land use and interference or damage to the final
cap and ground water monitoring. If site conditions change, the changes will
be evaluated and appropriate action taken.
Figure 12 illustrates the various components of the selected remedy.
-------
Q.
Z
O
h-
LJ <
~Q
LU
O
o
a:
D
00
m
Z)
00
REMOVE AND
TREAT DNAPL'
MONITOR
UC CLA Y
MONITOR UC-1
ct
s
I
-------
28
8.1 STATUTORY DEIEFMEMATICNS
Under its legal authorities, ERA'S primary responsibility at Superfund
sites is to undertake remedial actions that achieve adequate protection
of human health and the environment. In addition, section 121 of CERCLA
establishes several other statutory requirements and preferences. These
specify that when complete, the selected remedial action for this site
must comply with applicable or relevant and appropriate environmental
standards established under Federal and State environmental laws unless a
statutory waiver is justified. The selected remedy also must be cost
effective and utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment tech-
nologies or resource recovery tehcnologies to the maximum extent practicable.
Finally, the statute includes a preference for remedies that employ treat-
ment that permanently and significantly reduce the volume, toxicity, or
mobility of hazardous wastes as their principal element. The following
section discusses how the selected remedy meets these statutory requirements.
8.2 PROr&jTICTJ OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRCNMEDTr
The selected remedy protects human health and the environment through
recovery and treatment of the contaminated ground water and the dense,
oily wastes in the shallow Transmissive Zone Aquifer; excavation, relo-
cation, consolidation and capping of the shallow surface soils~.
Estimates of total cancer risks from ingestion of ground water at well
HW-1 is 3.3E-02 (without treatment). Treatment of ground water in the
Upper Chicot Aquifer will be to MCL's or 1x10-6. Treatment of shallow
Transmissive Zone ground water will be to HBN's.
The risk posed by the shallow off site surface soils is 4.4E-5. Most of
the risk is attributable to arsenic (3.3E-5). By excavating the hotspots
of contaminated soils and capping them within the security fencing, the
risk will be below the 4.4E-5, which is already within the 1E-4 to IE-7
acceptable range. By capping the soils, the risks from exposure through
direct contact will be further reduced. There are no short-term threats
associated with the selected remedy that cannot be readily controlled.
In addition, no adverse crossmedia impacts are expected from the remedy.
8.3 COMPLIANCE WITH APPLJraRT.K nR RFT.TryANT AND APPROPRIATE
REQUIREMENTS
The selected remedy of ground water treatment and soil consolidation will
comply with all applicable or relevant and appropriate chemical-, action-,
and location-specific requirements (ARAR's). The MCTCO fO4 ARAR's are
presented in Tables 8 through 12.
-------
29
8.4 COST-Eb 'J; 'ECTIVENESS
The selected remedy is cost-effective because it has been determined to
provide overall effectiveness proportional to its costs, the net present
worth value being $8,811,000 dollars. The estimated costs of the selected
remedy are within an order of magnitude of (less than 5 times) the costs
associated with containment, yet the selected remedy assures a much higher
degree of certainty that the remedy will be effective in the longterm
due to the significant reduction of the toxicity and mobility of the
wastes achieved through removal and treatment of the ground water and
ENAFL's, and the capping of the soils to stabilize the metals. Incineration
of the surface soils would cost between 13 and 20 million dollars,
yet would only reduce the risk from 4.4E-5 to 3.3E-5.
8.5 UTILIZATIOM OF PERMANFTSTT SOLUTICiSfS AND ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGIES (OR RESOURCE RECOVERY TECHNOLOGIES ) TO THE
MAXIMUM EXTENT "
The EPA has determined that the selected remedy represents the maximum
extent to which permanent solutions and treatment technologies can be
utilized in a cost-effective manner for the final management of migration
operable unit_at the M3TCO site. Of those alternatives that are protective
of human health and the environment and comply with ARAR's, EPA has deter-
mined that this remedy provides the best balance of tradeoffs in terms of
long-term effectiveness and permanence, reduction in toxicity, mobility,
or volume achieved through treatment, short-term effectiveness, implement-
ability, cost, while also considering the statutory preference for teatment
as a principal element and considering State and community acceptance.
While the selected remedy does not offer as high a degree of longterm
effectiveness and permanence as the soils incineration alternatives, it
will significantly reduce the inherent hazards posed by the contaminated
soils through excavation of the notspots and capping and stabilizing the
metals in the soils. Since the remaining material will be capped, the
impact on human health and the environment will be minimal should the
site security system fail. Additionally, the incineration option would
also involve capping of the metal contaminated ash on site.
The selected remedy treats the principal threats posed by the ground
water and the dense, oily organic wastes in the Transmissive Zone.
The ground water treatment will be achieved within 5 years, while the ENAPL
removal and treatment could take up to 30 years to complete. The removal
and treatment of the dense organic liquids will reduce the threat of a
constant source of contamination for the ground water.
-------
30
In summary, the selected remedy achieves overall protection of human
health and the environment and complies with the applicable or relevant
and appropriate requirements, as well as providing the best balance
between long-term effectiveness, reduction of toxicity, mobility and
volume of waste, short-term effectiveness, implementability and cost.
Therefore, it is deemed the most appropriate solution for the contam-
inated ground water, onsite subsurface, off-site surface and subsurface
at the M7TCO Site.
FOR TBEKINENT AS A PRUJTIPAT,
By recovering and treating the contaminated ground water in a water
treatment facility and capping metal-contaminated soils, the selected
remedy addresses one of the principal threats posed by the site through
the use of treatment technologies. Therefore, the statutory preference
for remedies that employ treatment as a principal element is satisfied.
-------
APPENDIX A
MDTCO JVMIAGEMEM1 OF MIGRATION
AIKCNISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
//it
-------
APPENDIX B
M3ICO MANAGEMENT OF MIGRATION
STATE OF TEXAS CONCURRENCE
-------
TEXAS WATER COMMISSION
B. J. Wynne, III, Chairman
Paul Hopkins, Commissioner
John O. Houchins, Commissioner
Allen Beinke, Executive Director
Michael E. Field. Gere-.... Ct;,.:^
Brenda W. Foster. Chie: Clert-
September 22, 1989
Allyn M. Davis, Ph.D., Director
Hazardous Waste Management Division
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region VI
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733
Re: MOTCO Management of Migration
Draft Record of Decision
Dear Dr. Davis:
We have reviewed the proposed Record of Decision (ROD) for the
MOTCO site Management of Migration operable unit. We have no
objection to the selected remedy as described in the draft ROD of
September 1989. This selected remedy primarily consists of
extraction and treatment of shallow and deep ground water;
incineration of dense, non-aqueous phase liquids; and
consolidation and on-site containment of contaminated surface
soils and sediments.
Sincerely,
f\ Allen Beinke
Executive Director
P. O. Box 13087 Capitol Station 1700 North Congress Ave. Austin, Texas 78711-3087 Area Code 512/463-7830
-------
APPENDIX C
MOTCO MANAGEMENT OF MIGRAHCN
CCMVUNITy RELAUCNS RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
APPENDIX C
Motco Management of Migration
Comnunity Relations Responsiveness Summary
This Comnunity Relations Responsiveness Summary has been prepared to provide
written responses to comnents sutmitted regarding the proposed plan of action
for the Management of Migration (MOM) portion of the MQTCO hazardous waste
site. The summary is divided into three sections:
Section I: Background of Canmmity Involvement and Concerns.
This section provides a brief history of comnunity interest and
concerns raised during the remedial planning activities at the
Motco site.
Section II: Summary of Manor Comnents. The comnents (both oral
and written) are summarized and EPA's responses are provided.
Section III: Other Concerns. A brief summary and EPA's responses
and/or disposition of other concerns related to the Motco site are
provided. ^
I. Background of Comnunity Involvement
Individual interest or attention to the MOTCO site is emotionally charged and
organized. Several environmental groups have continually maintained a high
level of interest and involvement in the MOTCO site. Local press coverage of
the site has been extensive.
The majority of the comnunity relations activities and outreach program are
conducted by the Motco Trust Group with some EPA involvement. Frequent
mailings, comnunity leaders' meetings, site tours, and poster displays are
the major elements of the outreach program. The majority of the concerns
expressed over the years by the leaders and residents involve the
incineration or source control portion of the site.
II. Summary of Manor Comnents
The Proposed Plan fact sheets announcing the public comment period and public
meeting were distributed on July 28, 1989. The comnent period began on
August 7 and ended September 5, 1989. A public meeting was held on August 23
at the La Marque Volunteer Fire Department Hall. The purpose of the meeting
was to explain the results of the remedial investigation and to outline the
various alternatives presented in the feasibility study. Twenty-one people
registered at the meeting and eight people asked questions or made
statements. EPA also received three additional written comnents.
A brief summary of the comments follow, along with EPA's responses:
-------
Garment #1; There was insufficient notice of the meeting and conment period
to the general public.
EPA Response: EPA believes that there was sufficient notice. The proposed
plan fact sheet was individually mailed to 597 people. Additional copies
were on display at the public libraries in La Marque, Texas City, Galveston
and Houston; as well as the La Marque City Hall and the College of the Main-
land. The fact sheet was mailed to the following media: KHTV, KCOH, KRIV,
KILE, KTRK, KUHT, KPRC, KHOU, KGBC, DPI - Houston, Houston Post. Houston
Chroniclef Texas City Sun. La Marque Times, The Daily citizen. Pasadena
Citizen. Galveston Daily News, Dickinson News and the League City News.
Comment *2: I have asked for an onsite visit and was told that EPA would
have to grant permission.
EPA Response; Anyone entering the Motco contaminated area must comply with
OSHA Hazardous Waste Safety Training. Therefore, before EPA will allow
access to the site, you must present proof that the OSHA course has been
completed.
Comment #3: I thought that the final action to be taken at the site was
incineration of the wastes.
w
EPA Response; The MOTCO site was divided in 1986 into two operable units.
The first operable unit, Source Control, will deal with the incineration of
the wastes in the existing onsite lagoons. The second operable unit, Manage-
ment of Migration (MOM) will deal with the affected ground water, off-site
surface and subsurface contamination, and onsite affected subsurface. This
Record of Decision (ROD) has chosen the remedy for the second operable unit.
This ROD will be the final action taken at the MOTCO site.
Comment »4; Does the Endangerment Assessment (EA) include synergism, such as
swimming and eating the dirt? Also does it take into account other daily acti-
vities, such as smoking?
EPA Response; No, it does not take into account the additional risk from
cigarette smoking. However, the EA does look at additive effects and all
reasonable pathways for human exposure to the site contaminants.
Comment #5; Does EPA plan on doing any health screenings around the MOTCO
site?
EPA Response! No, the EPA feels that the Endangerment Assessment has adequat-
ely reviewed the risk associated with the MOTCO site and found no appreciable
increase in health risks associated with the site remediation. The Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) concurred with the decision.
However, citizens may petition ATSDR to conduct health assessments.
Comment *6; Does the MCM EA include risks from both Source Control and
MM?
-------
EPA Response; No, this Risk Assessment reviews data for the fCM operable unit
only.
The incinerator, to be used for Source Control activities, will have to operate
under very rigid operating criteria that are both regulatory and health based.
The incinerator will be monitored closely during the entire project.
Comment #7: Would the main difference between Alternatives F and D be on
bioremediation or incineration of subsurface soils?
EPA Response; Yes, alternatives E and F deal with the surface soil remediation.
In Alternative E, the surface soils would be incinerated. The surface soils
would be bio-remediated in Alternative F.
Alternatives E and F were not selected due to the nature of the primary
contaminant, metals. Alternatives E and F do not appreciably lower the
risks for the additional costs necessary to implement the remedies.
Comment #8; What is Mixed-Funding? Does the taxpayer pay the government's
share? Who determines the orphan share? Is MOM going Mixed Funding?
EPA Response; Mixed-Funding is a funding mechanism whereby the potentially
responsible parties (PRP's) and the EPA share the costs of the selected remedy.
This is only appropriate at sites where either a certain amount of the wastes
cannot be directly linked with the known PRP's (the so called orphan's share)
or when a known ERP is not willing to participate in the funding of the remedy.
The EPA can later sue the recalcitrant PRP, and attempt to recover their share
of the clean-up costs. At this time, it has not been determined whether the MOM
Operable Unit will have mixed-funding.
Comment *9; Is the information, such as the charts at the Public Meeting,
available in the repositories?
EPA Response; Yes, The charts displayed at the Public Meeting can be found
in the MOTOO MOM Remedial Investigation (RI), Endangerment Assessment (EA),
and Feasibility Study (FS). The Adninistrative Record for the MOTCO site is
maintained at:
College of the Mainland, 810 Palmer Highway, Texas City, Texas.
In addition, the RI, EA, and FS are at nine locations.
Comment »10; Was the MCM Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)
done by a. contractor for EPA or was it done by the contractor for the MOTCO
Trust Group?
EPA Response; It was done by contractors hired by the MOTCO Trust Group,
with EPA and their contractors overseeing all activities.
-------
4
Garment #11; Was there any data taken from the borrow pits?
EPA Response; Yes, based on water and sediment sanples collected from the
borrow pits as part of previous investigations in 1981 and 1984, it appears
that the borrow pits have not been affected from the MJPCO site. However,
the pits will be sampled again during the Remedial Design and Remedial Action
activities to be conducted at the site.
Comment #12; The EPA has stated that approximately 20 acres are affected at
the M7TCO site. Has this been checked by an independent source?
EPA Response; Yes, the RI/FS activities were conducted by the PRPs with EPA
as an independent reveiwer.
Comment #13; Is the potential health and environmental risk discussed in
the proposed plan before or after the soil has been remediated?
EPA Response: The potential risk discussed in the proposed plan is before
any remediation occurs.
Garment #14; Does Alternative D include the components of Alternative B?
EPA Response; Yes. *
Comment #15; Where are the site security fences located?
EPA Response; See attached figure.
Comment #16; Who is going to pay for the loss of much of the marsh?
EPA Response; The United States Department of the Interior (DOI) and and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) are the trustees for
natural resources in the nation.
DOI, with support from U.S. Fish and Wildlife, worked out a mitigation plan
with the MJDCO Trust Group to compensate for the twelve affected acres of the
original MJPCO site. Under their plan, the M3TCO Trust Group will replace
marshland habitat. There is currently a plan being worked out with the City
of La Marque, Texas, for the establishment of a public park and wild life
preserve to be established near the site. The MDTCO Trust Group will be
paying for the costs associated with the wildlife preserve.
CaitnenL #17; Are there cancer causing agents at MDTCO?
EPA Response; Yes, there are cancer causing agents at the MOTCO site. These
chemicals were detected during the RI/FS process and were evaluated for poten-
tial health risks in the EA report (Chapters 4 and 5).
Comment #18; Does the EPA expect volatilization during excavation for MM?
-------
Figure 5
-------
EPA Response; EPA shall be excavating only the top four feet of surface
soil. The top four feet contains very low levels of volatile organic compounds.
Therefore, EPA does not expect measurable emissions to be a problem during
excavation and. relocation. Air releases under Source Control were addressed
during Source Control activities.
Comment &fc9; Was any damage to biota due to storm events or periodic overflows,
such as Hurricane Alicia? Was there any assessment done on biota during Alicia? ,
EPA Response; A biota sampling workplan was reviewed and approved by NCftA
prior to implementation. Subsequent sampling and analysis of biota did not
appear to be affected, at the MDTCO site. Details from the sampling and
analysis results may be found in the EA, Chapters 8 and 9.
III. Other Concerns
Several other concerns were expressed regarding the M3ICO site but the
concerns were outside the scope of the public comment period. These concerns
are briefly summarized below:
Comment #1; Why is EPA hauling contaminated soil from the Geneva site and
incinerating soils at the M3KX) site? -*
^
-j*
EPA Response; In the Geneva Record of Decision (RCD) , EPA estimated the?
incineration costs to be $22 million and off-site land disposal to be $lt
million. Incinerating the KB contaminated soils at Geneva, at the time the
RCD was signed, did not appreciably increase the level of protection to human
health or the environment. Toe same amount of contaminated soils would have
been shipped off-site for both alternatives. Therefore, incineration was not
considered to be a cost effective remedy.
The MOTCO site remedy for the Source Control was selected after careful
review and screening of several alternatives. Incineration was selected
based, in part, on the characteristics of the wastes and the level of protect-
ion it affords for human health and the environment.
Comment #2: I have asked repeatedly that FRPs send out a plume model or the
diagram disclosed at the PRP public meeting.
EPA Response: The plume model of particulate fallout disclosed by the MOTCO
Trust Group, was not reviewed or approved by the EPA. It was a project
planned by, the Trust Group without any input from the Agency. Therefore, the
Agency. dcftH^ not have a diagram of the model on file and has not requested a
diagran^^p^use it did not approve the project for the plume model.
comment "VSi 'Does: International Technology (IT) have enough liability to cover any
potential claim that might arise? Say long term problems that could cost $380
million or more. Or is EPA going to handle this out of taxpayer's money?
-------
ERA Response: IT was selected as the contractor because they were the lowest
responsible, responsive bidder. By law a contract has to be competitively
bid and the low bidder given proper consideration. IT, however, along
with the-".other bidding companies was screened for technical experience and
f inancialr£apability to perform the work. Therefore IT was chosen because of
their low^bid and their capability to perform the work.
IT'S liability is its contractual agreement with the MDDOO Trust Group.
Therefore, the MDTCO Trust Group is responsible for making sure IT completes
the Source Control project. The Agency is responsible for overseeing the
M3TCO Source Control project to make sure that the work is conducted in
accordance with the court ordered Consent Decree.
Under the mixed funding agreement, the Agency has committed to pay 21% of the
Source Control Project not to exceed $9.324 million. The M3TCO Trust Group
is responsible for 79% (or more) of the project costs.
Comment #4: Is the EPA familiar with the problems associated with the
incinerator at the Marine Shale location in Louisiana?
EPA Response; Yes, Louisiana is one of the states under the jurisdiction of
EPA, Region 6 (Dallas).
>;
The MDTCO Incinerator operation will follow all of the federal laws and t
regulations appropriate under the Resource conservation and Recovery Acf|
(RCRA) and Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that govern the technical*
criteria for which this incineration can operate, (such as temperature,
automatic waste cut-offs, et cetera) with continuous monitoring.
Before any of the ash can be disposed of, it will have to be "delisted".
This means the ash will be monitored for seme 150 organic constituents and
metals, unless it passes the stringent low-level criteria, the ash will
have to be put through the incinerator again. Should it contain inorganics
(metals) above the delisting criteria, the ash will be stabilized before
it can be disposed of and capped onsite.
Comment t5: Why is the MOTGO site considered to be the number one Superfund
Site in Texas? Is it still considered to be tl?
EPA. Response: The MOTOO site was assessed in 1980 for possible inclusion on
the National Priorities List (NPL). This ranking package looked at types of
wastes,,pathways for, exposure, how many people impacted, ground water, etc.
's combined score of 62.5, it was placed on the NPL list in July
of 1982SJt. is the highest ranking site in Texas to date.
is the #1 Superfund Site being, incinerated in one of the
most heavily populated areas of Galveston County?
EPA Response; The Source Control operable unit underwent an RI/FS. It was
determined after careful review of all data generated, that incineration
would be the most efficient known technology to deal with the types of waste
at the Matco site.
Comment »7; How many chemicals are in M3KX) that there are no health
criteria for?
-------
EFA Response: There are a number of chemicals that the EFA has not currently
established health criteria for. However, EFA has developed health critieria
for chemicals that pose the greatest threat to human health and the environment
The risk, assessment process identified 99% of the risk posed by the site con-
taminants^ These identified compounds will be monitored during all remedial
activitiei.
Comment #8; Have you talked to the waste handlers that have hauled waste to A
the MDTCO site?
EFA Response: Yes, during the Agency's attempts to obtain information about
the parties responsible for placing the waste at the MDTCO site, several of *
the waste haulers were interviewed. The Agency has the testimony on record
in the Dallas office.
Comment #9; How will the components that have no health criteria be monitored
during incineration?
EFA Response; The incinerator will monitor for specific compounds of concern
(most difficult to burn) and total VDCs. The incinerator must meet air emission
requirements for the specific components and VDCs by combining specific emission
controls that monitor onsite and at perimeter locations. The EFA believes
that the remaining compounds will be sufficiently regulated. ~?
Comment #10; Why were thief samples not taken in the MDTCO pits? 4
'*
EFA Response: In response to the question about thief samples being performed
on the MDTCO waste pits, the Agency as well as the MDTCO Trust Group performed
adequate sampling on the waste pit contents. The resulting sampling data was
used to identify the many chemicals placed in the MDTCO waste pits. The
Agency does not believe that thief samples would have provided any more subs-
tantial data about the waste pits' contents.
Comment til; Is Source Control air monitoring being conducted? What is being
monitored? Is it continuous? Will it occur during Trial Burn? Will it
include stack monitoring? What are acceptable risk levels for incineration?
Will EFA use. 30-day accumulated air samples? Will heavy metals be monitored
during incineration?
EFA Response? During the incinerator construction activities air monitoring
for particulate emissions and volatile organics (VDCs) was initiated. The
air monitoring involves onsite sampling for VOCs in the work area and at the
site perimeter (fence line), and particulate sampling at the site perimeter.
The ncn&i$E{ng has been for VDCs such as vinyl chloride and benzene.
Ive monitoring program will be initiated during the Trial Burn
because the incinerator must meet very stringent RCRA and TSCA performance
standards for particulates (inorganics such as heavy metals) and VDCs. These
performance standards require the incinerator to demonstrate that it can destroy
a maximum of 99.9999% of the most toxic cxxrpounds. The heavy metals, however,
will not be totally destroyed because they are not completely volatilized
-------
8
during incineration. Hie incinerator must continuously meet the stringent
particulate (for inorganics such as lead) standard (< 180 milligrams per dry
standard cubic foot) or not operate. One particulate compounds that do not
completely volatilize must be in very low concentration (less than l ppm)
before being stabilized in the ash. Hie ash will be placed in the clay lined
pits and capped at mean sea level.
Comment #12; If the air monitors break down at MuTCO during incineration, will
the incinerator shut down? How long is the shut down period?
ERA. Response; If the continuous monitoring system for stack emissions malfunc-
tions, there will be an automatic shutdown of the incinerator. Ine incinerator
will remain in the shutdown mode until the problem is located and corrected.
Comment -t!3; How long will the turn around time be for air sampling results?
EPA Response; We are planning for a 24-hour turn around on the critical air
sampling data. Inis is the data associated with perimeter and onsite air
monitoring, and the sampling of the stack emissions.
Comment #14: What will happen during incineration when you hit a high pocket
of contamination such as mercury?
- »*
-5
EPA Response: The construction and operation of a waste feed preparation
building will greatly minimize a problem with high pockets of amtaminaiion.
Inside the building, waste feed analysis will be conducted on the wastes?
before incineration, to ensure that high concentrations of one type of waste
are not inadvertently fed into the incinerator.
Comment #15; Will EPA. use supplemental fuels during incineration?
EPA. Response; Yes, the MOTDO incinerator will use supplemental fuels; however,
to reduce operating costs suitable compounds found in the waste pits will be
separated and blended with the supplemental fuel. Uiis will be performed
until those compounds are depleted. By blending the compounds with the
supplemental fuels the chance of any health threatening toxics being emitted
to the atmosphere is greatly minimized. 3ne onsite and perimeter air monitor-
ing will detect for TOC emissions generated by this mode of operation.
#16; Why doesn't the EFA use biological testing to determine exposure
concentration from the site during incineration?
Regpqnsei Biological testing for the MJPCO site does not appear to be
feasible^-Tne Agency believes that incineration is proven technically and
does nodose a threat to human health and the environment. The air monitor-
ing provides a rapid and effective means of evaluating air quality during
remediation.
comment *17; What percentage of money for the clean up has been spent to
date, and on what?
-------
EPA Response: The M7TCO contractor, IT, has been paid approximately 33-t, of
the contract amount. These funds have all been payment for the'Source Control
construction activities.
Comment #18: What is going to happen to the lead during incineration at the
Motco site?
EPA. Response: Lead is an element and therefore will not be destroyed by
incineration. However, air monitoring will be used to ensure safe levels of
particulate (lead and other heavy metals) air emissions. Any remaining
concentrations of metals will be stabilized with the residual ash on site.
Comment #19: What is the ranking of the MJTCO site?
EPA Response; As of July 1989, the MDTCO site ranked 27th out of 1224 sites
on the National Priorities List (proposed or final).
Comment #20: Can the citizen grant funds be used to develop data for a health
registry? Are cancelled consultant fees considered as in-kind contributions?
EPA Response; The grant funds cannot be used to develop or create new data,
only interpret existing data. Consultant fees for approved/eligible grant
activities can be considered as in-kind services. In fact, any cost for
service or goods that is eligible for reimbursement is also eligible for in-
kind contributions.
Garment.. #21; Displays and models should be placed in the library to increase
public awareness.
EPA Response; The requested displays and models are not EPA property.
However, we have forwarded this request to the 1VDTCO Trust Group.
Garment #22; Can we replace existing signs at MDTCO stating it is an incine-
ration project with time tables for incineration?
EPA Response; EPA feels that the MDTCO site is adequately designated as a
hazardous waste site. The site perimeter fence displays several hazardous
waste warning signs. The existing sign provides phone numbers for personal
contact, should the public have specific questions concerning day-to-day site
activities, such as incineration time tables.
------- |