United •States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROO/R06-87/024
September 1987
Superfund
Record of Decision:
Sand Springs PetroChem, OK
-------
c~
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
'Pltasl 'tad /ful'UCTIO"S 0" /itt 'tv,", IHfOfr co",,,lrw111
1. "I'O"T 1\10. 1.2. 13 ""ECI"",..r S ACCESS,o....o
~PA/ROD/R06-87/024
.. TIT",! AI\IO 5"'ITIT",! 5 ""1"Ol'lT OATI
~UPERFUND RECORD OF DECIS lG:~ September 29, 1987
~and Springs Petroche~ical Complex, OK e. "1""-0""1\01''''0 O""OAN,z..rION COOl
lFirst Remedial Action
1. AuTMOI'I.51 .. "'I'I-O""I\oIING O""OA""ZA1'ION "'1"0""1''''0
~. ,,""IO"I\oIIHO Ol'lGA""ZA1'IO'" 1\1 A 1\01 I .....0 "OOl'l'SS 10. "I'IOGI'IAI\oIII..II\oII"'T "0
11 CO... l' III ACT 10"-" N T "'0
12. S'OHSOI'IIHG AGa...cy "'''1\011 ""'0 AOOlll15S 13. 1'Y"t! 0- ""'''01'11' ""'0 "11'1100 CO\lE"'EO
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Final ROD Report
401 M Street, S.W. 1.. 5'OHSO"''''G AOI...cy COOl
Washington, D.C. 20460 800/00
II. 5""''''!I\oIIHTA''Y NOT!' .
". "UTI'IAC;T -
The Sand Springs Petrochemical Complex is a 235-acre site in Sand Springs, Oklahoma
on the northern bank of the Arkansas River. The site includes acid sludge pits, a
surface impoundment, spray ponds, solvent and waste lagoons, surficial sludge
contamination, solvent and waste oil lagoons and contaminated sediments. From the
turn of the 20th century through the 1940s the site operated as a refinery bu t has
since been developed into an industrial area, which now consists of an abandoned
solvent and waste oil recycler, an active transformer salvage/recycler, active
chemical manufacturers and various other industries. The total known waste volume is
approximately 130,000 yd3. Sulfuric acid sludge' exists in unlined sludge pits and
heavy metal and organic wastes are contained in the lagoons, pits and spray ponds.
Whi Ie both soil and ground water are contaminated, this first operable unit source
control ROD addresses surface liquids, sludges and heavily contaminated soils. The
primary contaminants of concern are organic pollutants: bis'(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
and toluene and inorganic compounds: lead, zinc, chromium and barium.
The selected remedial action for this site is onsite thermal destruction of
wastes. The estimated capital cost of this remedial action is approximately
$66,500,000 with annual O&M of $15,000. During the ROD's comment period, ARCO .
Petroleum Products Company, one of the potentially responsible parties (PRPs),
(See Attached Sheet) .
11. 1(1'" .0"01 ANO OOCU"IHT ANAI.V'IS
a. OIlC"I"O". b.'OIHT'-I'IIIIS/O'IH 1...010 TI"'" C. COSATI Fleld/GICNp
Record of Decision
Sand Springs Petrochemical Complex, OK
First Remedial Action
Contaminated Media: soil, sw, sludge
Key contaminants: VOCs, organics, chromium,
heavy metals, toluene
.
'I. OISTIIIIIUTIOI\I 5TATlI\oIIHT ". 5ICU"I1'Y cur.sa I T111~ R'~or" 21 NO. 0- "AO~5
None 90
~O. 5'C"''''' 1'Y CI.ASS I "'11' ~G'" 2~ """'ct!
( - "T~_~
I'. ,- 1nO-1 (I... _-171
-------
- EPA/ROD/R06-87/024
Sand Springs Petrochemical Complex, OK
First Remedial Action
16.
ABSTRACT (continued)
formally proposed a privately-financed remedy for the site, which is similar to an
alternative evaluated by EPA. This remedy has a lower initial cost than EPA's thermal
destruction alternative and is supported by State, local agencies and residents. The
PRP will institute the remedy and has agreed to take further corrective action if EPA
deems that the remedy has not been effective. Components of ARCO's proposed remedy
include: excavation and offsite thermal destruction of sludges; solidification and/or
stabilization of all remaining sludges with containment of the resulting matrix in an
onsite hazardous waste RCRA cell; and implementation of chemical and physical
treatability studies. The estimated capital cost for this remedial action is
-------
~
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
SAND SPRINGS PETROCHEMICAL COMPLEX
SAND SPRINGS, TULSA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA
SEPTEMBER 1987
-------
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Sands Springs Petrochemical Complex, Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
Control Operable Unit.
Source
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
u
This decision document represents the selected remedial action for this
site developed in accordance with Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) as amended by the
Superfund Amendments dnd Reauthori za.t i on Act of 1986 (SARA), and to the
extent practicable, the National Contingency Plan (40 CFR Part 300).
The. State of Oklahoma concurs with the on-site solidification and/or
stabilization and off-site thermal destruction of chlorinated, . ]nic
contaminants described in this Record of Decision. The State does not
concur with the on-site incineration concept proposed by EPA at the
s tart of the pub 1 i c comment peri od. (Letter attached) .
STATEMENT OF BASIS
----
This decision is based upon the administrative record for the Sand
Springs Petrochemical Complex Superfund Site [index attached]. The
attached index identifies the items which comprise the administrative
record upon which the selection of a reinedial action is based.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
The Record of Decision addresses the Source Control Operable Unit, '
which includes all surface liquids, sludges, and heavily CJntal:1inated
soils (within EPA's removal criteria), but does not include minimally
contaminated soi.l or groundwater. These aspects of the site \'/i 11 be
addressed in anoth~r Record of Decision at a later date.
After reviewing all available information, it is EPA's judgement that
on-site thermal destruction pf wastes (Alternative 2 in the attached
"Sunvnary of Remedial Alternative Selection") .appears to meet more
statutory selection criteria than the other remedies evaluated but
has serious implementation problems. A description of this remedy and
an explanation of how it meets statutory requirements in conparison to
the other remedies is contained in the attached "Summary of Remedial
Alternative'Selection."
During the public comment period, the ARCO Petroleum Products Company,
a division of Atlantic Rithfield Company (A~CO), one of the potentially
responsible ~arties for this site, Inade written and verbal proposdls
~or a privately fi~anced re:1edy for the site. The ~ost effective of
the ARCO propOSdls ~rJvides far:
-------
1) The excavation and o!f-site thermal destruction of sludges, at least
to the sludge/soil interface from the portion of the site identified
as the North and South Gl~n Wynn Lagoons.
2) Solidification and/or stabilization of all remaining sludges and
contai~ment of the resulting matrix in a hazardous waste (RGRA) cell
to be :onstructed on-site. This cell (or cells) is to meet the
minimum technological requirements of subtitle G of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act. -
3) As part of the remedial design ARGO will demonstrate that the
solidification technology will meet EPA approved criteria. This
criteria will include both chemical and physical testing requirements.
Should the soli~ification technology fail these criteria; thermal
destruction will be the remedy for the above mentioned operable
unit.
4) No liability release for the site or from future maintenance and
monitoring.
5) Repair or restoration of the RGRA cell to ensure no migration from
the unit or destruction or treatment of all or a portion of its
contents, as EPA deems appropriate; should monitoring show that the
solidification and/or stabilization remedy fails.
This proposal is very similar to the solidification alternative evaluated
in the Feasibility Study for this site and in the attached "Summary of
Remedial Alternative Selection" (Alternative 3).
ARGO's proposed remedy appears to be technically feasible and able to
meet applicable, or relevant and appropriate State and Federal require-
ments. Both the EPA and ARGO remedies are considered "alternative
technologies." ARGO's proposal would greatly reduce the mObility of
wastes, but unlike on-site thermal destruction, the toxicity of wastes
would not be reduced and the volume of wastes would be iocreased.
The ARGO proposal has a lower initial cost than thermal-destruction and
is supported by State and local agencies and residents.
The lack of demonstrated permanence of solidfied wastes is a concern
of the EPA. Unlike thermal destruction, which would eliminate organic
contaminants from future concern, the capability of solidification
or stabilization- techniques to permanently bind high organic wastes~
such as those found at Sand Springs, has not been demonstrated in the
pilot studies conducted on-site. Even though the stabilization/solidi-
fication technology has not been conclusively demonstrated for high
organic wastes, EPA consider~ AR~O's proposal as a promising innovative
technology. ARGO has assured EPA that if the remedy fails, ARGO will
-------
All factors taken into consideration, EPA concl~des that the ARCO
proposal would provide for the protection of public he~lth and the
environment comparable to the thermal destruction remedy if the effect-
iveness of this concept is adequately assured or if ARCO undertakes
the corrective action~ de~med appropriate by EPA should the remedy fail.
DECLARA TI ON
The above described remedy is protective of human health and the environmentt
attains' Federal and State requirements that are applicable or relevant
and approp~iate, and is cost-effective compared to equally environmentally
protective alternatives. This remedy satisfies the preference for
treatment that reduces -toxi city, mobil ity, or vo 1 ume as a pri nci pa 1
element. Finally, it is determined that this remedy. utilizes permanent
solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the maximum extent
practicable.
.'
Date
.0,/29/87
~,-I i.
Robert E. Layton Jr , P.E.
-------
Sand ,Springs Petrochemical Complex (Source Control Operable Unit)
Record of, Decision Concurrences
The Sand Springs Petrochemical Complex Record of Decision has been
reviewed and I concur:
~
\n~~
~ViS' Director .-
Hazardous Waste Management Division
/.
" ..,-;-".
rl d, Chief
Superfund Program Branch'
Hazardous Waste Manag. nt Divi~ion
~i({Z-
'ste n A. --: i re:n, Chief
ALONM Remedial Section
Superfund Program Branch
Hazardous Waste Management
\:: /".) ,,-
--..... ,. /.,. .'
',.' k /.,j~1 /7 '--,
~ j I ~ CA/,{_:7u.{j;': .
~J Bannie J. DeVos, Chief -
State Programs Section
Superfund Program Branch
Hazardous Waste Management Division
Division
!I e-vrJ ~
Bennett Stokes, Chief
Solid Waste and Emergency
Response Branch
-------
-=-
*:":'-'.'!~_.7_~ .-
.- ~......~
!:.:.- .- ..::ow.. -
-_.. -.
~._._-
~~.
-",-...,," ..
.----.- -..-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. SITE LOCATION AND DECRIPTION
-
--
Site History...:......................................
GeOlOgy...............................................
Remedial Investigation Results......................~.
Potential Impacts of Site on Human
Health and the Environment ..........................
--II. ENFORCEMENT
~...-
Background
.................. ..........................
Pilot Stu~ies .........................................
III. COMMUNITY RELATIONS HISTORY
.. .. .... .. .. .. .. . . .. . . . . .. .. .
IV. ALTERNATIVE$ EVALUATION
Evaluation Criteria ...................................
Description of Alternatives ...........................
Evaluation of Alternatives ............................
Operation and Maintenance .............................
Future Actions ........................................
V. APPENDICES
A. Tables 1-6
B. Agency for Toxi c. Substances and Di sease Regi stry
Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Evaluation
C. Community Relations Responsiveness Summary
D. Administrative Record Index
E. State Concurrence Letter
(ATSDR)/
PAGE
1
4 [)
5
6
7
7
8
9
12
13
18
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
~
The Sand Springs Superfund site is located in Sand Springs. Oklahoma.
The site- is the former location of the Sinclair Refinery which operated
from the turn of the- century through the 1940's. After the refinery
was shut down. most of the property was conveyed to the Sand Springs
Home. In 1968, Sinclair merged with Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO)
and the remaining 38 acres retained by Sinclair were a'bsorbed i~ the
merger. The portion of the complex identified in the Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study as the Glen Wynn site operated as a,
solvent recycling facility during the late 1960's and early 1970's.
The total known waste volume is approximately 130,000 cubic yards.
Unlined sludge pits on the site contain several thousand cubic yards
of sulfuric acid sludge. In addition to these wastes, the lagoons. .
pits, and spray ponds on the ,site contain various heavy metals and
organics. .
The remedial alternatives evaluated focus on controlling or destroying'
the source of the contamination. The Main Site Operable Unit will
address the remainder of the site. primarily the groundwater'
contamination. .
,
-------
Summary of Remedial Alternative Selection
Sou~ce Control Operable Unit for
Sand Springs Pettochemical Complex
Tulsa County, Oklahoma
September 1987
I. SITE LOCATION AND' DESCRIPTION
The Sand Springs Petrochemical Complex Superfund site is located
in Sand Springs, Oklahoma. As shown in figure 1 the site is
located on the northern bank of the Arkansas River, Unmediately
west of Tulsa, Oklahoma. The site encompasses appro~imately 235
acres and is the former location of a refinery. As shown in figure
2, the site includes unlined acid sludge pits, a surface impoundment,
surficial sludge contamination, solvent and waste oil lagoons and
contaminated sediments. Figure 2 also shows several subsurface
sludge pits and spray ponds which were discovered subsequent to
the publication of the Source Control Operable Unit Remedial
Investigation and Feasibility Study. These areas will also be
addressed in this operable uni t. Total knoWn waste volurre is
approximately 130,000 .cubic yards.. The site is situated in a
sandy alluvial deposit with a thickness ranging from 26 to 52
feet. This deposit is underlain by approximately 100 feet of
shale. Pits and lagoons have contaminated shallow groundwater.
Site History
The site operated as a refinery from the turn of the century
through the 1940 IS. The property has since been developed as an
industrial area and consists of an abandoned solvent and waste oil
recycler, ah active transformer salvage/recycler, active chemical
manufacturers and various other industries.
The Sinclair Refinery acid sludge pits resulted from refinery
operations which occurred between 1910 and 1949. Refinery operations
were shutdown in 1949. By October 1953, Sinclair had conveyed'-
most of the refinery property to the Sand Springs Home, with 38
acres still retained by Sinclair. In 1969, Sinclair merged with
the Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) and the 38 acre tract of
land was absorbed in the merger. In December 1986 the Cheml ink
Division of ARCO, which occupies this property, was sold to
Pony Industries.
Several thousand cub~c yards of sulfuric acid sludge, with a pH
ranging from 1.5 to 2.5 and containing heavy metals and organics,
exist in the unlined sludge pits. The sludge deposits on the
river side of the levee are of similar composition as the acid
sludge pits north of the levee.
-------
~~
CJ
I
200(:
.1000
--..
Scale. ~ ee I
FIGURE
1
o
LOCATI ON M A"P OF THE
SAND SPRINGS
PETROCHEMICAL COMPLEX
\
\
-------
. 800
CJ
..-. .
'SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT
f>.AKM.aSf>.S
J:
'V ~
m
~ 'V"
:DO
o 0 "1t
'V0...
mII
::urnm
~s::
(Docn
, ,~~
m,Z
COO
Zocn
=is:: 'V
'1) ~
, Z
ml:}
><(1)
RIVER ACID
SLUDGE PITS
ROUND RIVER P,IT
"TI
c;')
C
:D
m
fIJ
o 400
~ -',
SCALE IN HE l' '
N
I
-------
4
The surface impoundment, located between the large and small ~cid sludge
pits, drained surface water to the Arkansas River prior to contruction
of the levee. An analysis of the surface impoundment liquid by the U.S.
Environmental Protection .Agency (EPA) in 1980 indicated a pH of 2.1 and
the presence of chrysene, anthracene, phenanthrene, pyrene, benzene,
1,1-difluorotetrachloroethanej toluene, phenol, nitrobenzene, and
.fluoronaphalene.
'-'
An area designated in the studies as the "Glen Wynn" portioi1 of the
site was a solvent recycling facility which operated during the late
1960's and early 1970's. During the periOd of operation hazardous
substances were stored or disposed of in drums, tanks, unlined pits and
lagoons or buried on-site. These substances include various volatile
and non-volatile organics, chlorinated solvents, and sludges containing
heavy metals. Waste pits have contaminated local groundwater and caused
migration of surface contaminants. Samples from the north and south
Glen Wynn lagoons were collected in 1982. Samples from the south lagoon
showed significant contamination by chlorinated volatiles, benzene,
toluene, and numerous long-chain aliphatic hydrocarbons indicative of
oils. Lead and zinc levels were also high. Samples from the north
lagoon showed the sa~e types of contaminants as the south lagoon..
However, sediments from the north lagoon have shown higher levels of
volatile organics and metals. .
In September 1983 the site was proposed for inclusion on the National
Priorities List. Promulgation of the site was in June 1986. In June
1984, the Oklahoma State Department of Health (QSDH) entered into a
Cooperative Agreement with EPA to conduct the Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study (RI/FS) at- the site. Utilizing funds from this
cooperative agreement, the OSDH contracted with John Mathes and Associates.
to perform the sampling, analysis, and technical asse5sments of the
sHe.
In an effort to address the obvious contamination in an expeditious
manner, a source control operable unit was established to focus on the
waste in the pits, ponds, and lagoons. This Record of Decision deals
with those sources of contamination. By placing a portion of the full
feasibility study on an expedited schedule the major sources of ~ontam-
ination can be considered without waiting for completion of the full
FS. The remainder of the site, primarily the groundwater will be
addressed in the full or "Main Site" FS. The Remedial Investigation
report on Sludge and Surface Impoundment Sampling and the Source Control
Operab 1 e Unit Feas i bil i ty Study are dated Apri 1 1987. . .
Geology
The Sand Spri~gs Petroche~ical Complex is focated in the alluvial
floodplain of the Arkansas River. The alluvial material consists
-------
5
permeability of 82-300 gallons per day per square foot. The depth of
the alluvial sands on the site ranges from 26 to 52 feet with the
thinner deposits occurring near the river. The groundwater flow
velocity in the alluvial materials is estimated to be in the range of
243 to 764 feet per year.
Underlying the floodplain alluvium is the Coffeyville formation. This
formation is composed of shales, thin ripply bedded sandstones, and
siltstones approximately 335 feet in thickness. From a regional
perspective, 70 percent of the formation is composed of shales. Included
in the upper half of the formation is a thick (20 - 50 feet) layer of
sandstone termed Layton Sandstone. This sandstone is readily identi-
fied in the rocky bluffs on the south side of the Arkansas River opposite
the site. Since the site is topographically lower than the sandstone
outcrops, this indicates that the upper portion of the Coffeyville.
formation, including the Layton sandstone, has been eroded away in the
area of the Sand Springs Petrochemical Complex. The lower portion of
the Coffeyville is reported to be shale with thin tongues of saQdstone.
~
,j
Remedial Investigation Results
Eleven distinct waste disposal locations were sampled on the Sand Springs
Petrochemical, Complex site. At these locations, numerous. discrete
interval and composite samples were collected for chemical analysis.
These locations (Figure 2) are referred to a~:
Surface
Subsurface
o the small acid sludge pit
o the' large acid sludge pit
o the river acid sludge pit
o the South Glen Wynn lagoon
o the North Glen Wynn lagoon
o the Chemlink waste pits
o the surface impoundnent
o the round river pit
o the levee pit
o the spray ponds
o the Con-Rad sludge
The Source Contrui Operable Unit Feasibility Study considered the sludges
and liquids. in seven identified surface pits, ponds and lagoons. Four
subsurface areas consisting of petroleum sludges and acidic sludges
were discovered during the Phase II boring and drilling activities. Soil
and groundwater data from beneath these identified areas indicate they
are sources or potential sources of groundwater contamination. For this
reason volume calculations for these areas were included by addendum to
the volume estimates in the Feasibility Study. Additional analytical
data may be developed during the design phase to further define these
wastes. The additional subsurface areas of sludges represent approximately
a 23 percent increase in volume. A cost sensitivity analysis had already
been developed based on a 25 percent increase in volume. Because the
additionally identified subsurface volume (23 percent increase) so
closely approximates the cost sensitivity'analyses (25 percent increase)
no additional cost estimates have been calculated. The costs sensitivity
-------
6
Tables 1 and 2 show the compounds with the highest concentrations as a
result of samples collected from the eleven disposal locations. Lead
had the highest concentration (3,775 mg!kg) of all the inorganic compounds
found in the solid samples, while tetrachloroethene had the highest
concentration (19,000 mg!kg) of all the organic compounds. In-the
liquid samples, chromium had the highest cOncentration (10,460 mg/l) of
the inorganic compounds found and Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate had the
highest- concentra1;ion (11 mg/l) of the organic compounds. The most
frequently detected organic priority pollutant compounds detected in
solid samples were chrysene and total xylene. Bis (2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate and toluene were the most frequently detected organic priority
pollutant compounds in the liquid samples. The inorganic compounds
most frequently detected in liquid and solid samples were lead, zinc,
chrcrnium and barium.
A more detailed description of the analytical results can be found in
the Sand. Springs Petrochemical Complex Remedial Investigation Report~
. Potential Impacts of the Site on Human Health and the Environment
Based on the information gathered in studies of the site, EPA has
concluded that the site poses four major risks to human health and the
environment. These are:
1. Direct contact - many of the organic compounds (benzene, tetrachloro-
ethylene, and others) found on the site have been determined to be
carcinogenics. Absorption through the skin or other routes of
inadvertant ingestion therefore pose potential health risks. In
addition, the wastes and surface waters were found to be highly acidIc.
2. Air emissions - consisting of acid fumes and volatile organic
compounds also pose potential health threats. An extreme example of
acute medical i~pact is evident in an acciden~ that occured in 1980~
During excavation for sanitary sewer liTIprovements on the west side
of the large acid sludge pit, sludge from the pit was uncovered and
a number of people required medical attention from breathing fumes
(probably sulphuric acid). During the remedial investigation, low
levels of trichloroethylene and sulphuric oxides were detected in
the ambient air.
3. Surface waters - are polluted by the runoff from the site,
especially during heavy rains. There are 550,000 gallons of
cont&~inated liquids contained in the surface impoundment and
165,000 gallons of liquid in the Glen Wynn lagoons.
4. Groundwater - is being contaminated directly by the Glen Wynn
lagoons and, indirectly by runoff from the main site. Relatively
clean sanGs were found beneath the main waste deposits above
underlying groundwater, indicating that direct contamination by ~~e
-------
7
of runoff water (in heavy rains the site is submerged). do,
carry contaminants off the main waste deposits to mix with
from the other waste deposits. This eventually sinks into
water fran standing pools of water in_)ow places on-site.
hO\ooever,
contarninants
the ground-
It should be noted ~at the study of Sand Springs groundwater is being
carried out separately. . EPA has dete~ined hO\ooever, that remedying the
identified sources of cont~~ination will not conflict with the ultimate
remedy for the si te.
II
. ENFORCEMENT
Background
"
Approximately 300 Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) have been
identified at the site. Special notice may be provided to the PRPs
to conduct the Remedial Design and Action.
To date, two PRPs have taken action at the site; ARCO and the Sand
Springs Home. The Sand Springs Home, perfo~ed a removal action in
1984 under the te~s of a Unilateral Administrative Order. ARCO
conducted pilot studies under an Administrative Order.
Pilot Studies
During the summer of 1987, AROO conducted treatability studies on the
acid sludge wastes under an Administrative Order on Consent. The
results of these studies were submitted to EPA on July 15, 1987, in
the "Interim Report - Acid Sludge Treatabi li ty Evaluations". This
document was placed in the repositories of information for review by
the public. The three treatment processes evaluated are thermal
treatment, stabilization, and solidification. A. final version of the .
report was submitted on September 1, 1987.
The thermal treatment processes studied were infrared, rotary kiln,
fluidized bed, and circulating fluidized bed. The actual pilot tests
were conducted using an infrared incinerator, but the. results of these
tests should be representative of the other processes. High temperature
incineration was used to destroy the acid sludges and scrub ~~e combustion
gases. Indicator organic compounds, known as principal organic'hazardous
constituents (POHC's), were measured to dete~ine if the incinerator
could attain a destruction and removal efficiency of 99.99% for organics.
This destruction and removal efficiency is required by RCRA for most
hazardous wastes. The results obtained from the pilot test verified
that the thermal treatment unit could attain the 99.99% criteria.
Stabilization was evaluated as a potential remedy for the acid sludges.
This technology uses a stabilizing agent, such as lime, to reduce the
"mobility of the contaminants and increase the bearing capacity of the
mass containing the QOnta~inants. The toxicity characteristics leaching
-------
8
The analytica~ results show that without further tr,eatment free liquid
contaminant concentrations were not reduced to meet RCRA land ban
restrictions. The unconfined compressive strength of the stabilized
material was determined by the EPA-Cincinnati laboratory to be 1.8
pounds per square inch (psi), which does not meet the recomnended
disposal criteria r~iring a compressive strength of 150 psi.
The pilot study of solidification involved mixing a cementing agent with
the waste to produce a brick-like material. This process is also used
to reduce the mobility of the contaminants and increase the bearing
capacity of the mass containing the contaminants. Although this process
meets the RCRA land ban requirements, leaching tests conducted by EPAs
Cincinnati laboratory show that the solidified material leaches contam-
inants, although leaching may diminish over time. Leaching of contami-
nants, and incomplete encapsulation raises questions about the long
term effectiveness and permanence of the process. Visual examination
of the solidified waste shows small globules of waste which are not
fully encapsulated.
III. COMMUNITY RELATIONS HISTORY
On July 24, 1984, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued
a news release announcing that funds had been awarded to the Oklahoma .
State, Deparb~nt of Health (OSDH) to conduct the RI/FS at the Sand
Springs site.
The completion of the studies was announced to the public via news
releases issued by the OSDH on July 9, 1987, and by EPA on July 15, 1987.
The August 4, 1987, public meeting to discuss the proposed r~~edy for
the site was also announced. EPA prepared a fact sheet describing
alternative cleanup plans and the EPA preferred alternative which was
sent to the interested and affected public on July 29, 1987. The fact
sheet gave a brief site history, described the remedy selection process
and alternatives and gave details about the public comment period and
meeting.
The public meeting was held in Sand Springs on August 4, 1987. The
meeting was changed from'the original public library location to the .
City Council Chambers so that the large crowd of interested peop~e
could be accomnodated. About 180 people attended the meeting which
began at 7:00 pm and ended at midnight.
During the meeting, requests were made for EPA to extend the public
ccmnent period. That request was granted by the presiding official
-and the COmment period was extended until September 1, 1987. A news
release was issued by the EPA on ~ugust 7 announcing the extension.
In addition to the Agency media list, the news release was mailed to all
persons known to have an interest in the,site.
Community concerns centered on potential air pollution from thermal
-------
9
EPA would g~arantee that, "if thermal destruction were selected, the
device would be removed after cleanup was completed. Further details
concerning Community Relations are contained in Appendix C.--
IV. ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
Evaluation Criteria
Section 121(a)(b) and (d) of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act contains nine factors which EPA must consider in selecting a remedy
for a Superfund site. These are summarized below:
1. Consistency with Other Environmental Laws (ARARs)
,;
In determining appropriate remedial actions at Superfund,
sites, consideratio~ must be given to the requirements of other
Federal and State environmental laws, in addition to CERCLA as
amended by SARA. Primary consideration is given to attaining
applicable or relevant and appropriate FederaT and State public
health and environmental regulations and standards. Not all
Federal and State environmental laws and regulations are appli-
cable to each Superfund response action. The compliance of
each remedial alternative with all applicable or relevant and
appropriate environmental laws is shown in Table 3.
2. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility or Volume
The degree to which alternatives employ treatment that reduces
toxicity, mobility, or volume must"also be assessed. Relevant
factors are:
o The treatment processes the remedies employ and materials
they will treat;
o The amount of hazardous materials that will be destroyed
or treated;
o the degree of expected reduction in toxicity, mobility"
or volume;
o The degree to which the treatment is irreversible;
o The residuals that will remain following treatment,
considering the persistence, toxicity, mobility, and
propensity for bioaccumulation of such hazardous substances
. and their constituents.
3. Short-term Effectiveness
The short-term effectiveness of alternatives must be assessed;
-------
10
o Magnitude of reduction of existing risks;
o Short-term r~s~s that might be posed to the community, workers,
or the environment during implementation of an alternative
inc~uding potential threats to human health and the environment
associat~ with excavation, transportation, and redisposal or
containment;'
o Time until full protection is achieved.
4. Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternatives are assessed for the long-term effectiveness and
permanence they afford along with the degree of certainity that
the remedy will prove successful. Factors considered are:
o Magnitude of residual risks in terms of amounts and concen-
trations of waste remaining following ~~'~n~~t 'on of a
remedial action, considering the persistence, toxicity, mobility,
and propensity to bioaccurnulate of such hazardous substances
and their constituents;
o Type and degree of long-term management required, including
monitoring and operation and maintenance;
o Potential for exposure of human and environmental receptors
to remaining waste considering the potential threat to human
health and the environment associated with excavation,
transportation, redisposal, or containment;
o Long-term reliability of the engineering and institutional
controls, including uncertainties associated with land disposal
of untreated wastes and residuals;
o Potential need for replacement of the remedy.
5. Implementability
The ease o~ difficulty of implementing the alternatives are
assessed by considering the fOllowing types of factors:
o Degree of difficulty associated with constructing the technology;
o Expec,ted operational reliability of the technologies;
o Need to coordinate with and obtain necessary approvals and
permits (e.g., NPDES, Dredge and Fill Permits ,for off-site
actions) from other offices and agencies;
-------
11
.0 Available capacity and location of ,needed treab~nt, storage,
and disposal services.
6. Cost
-
The ~s of costs that should be assessed include. the
fOllowing:,.
o Capital cost;
o Operation and maintenance costs;
o Net present value of capital and 0 & M costs;
"
o Potential future remedial action costs.
7. Community Acceptance
This assessment should look at:
o Components of the alternatives that the community supports;
o Features of the alternatives about which the community 'has
reservations;
8. State Acceptance
Q Elements of the alternatives which the community strongly oPPOses.
Evaluation factors include assessme~ts of:
o Components of the alternatives the State supports;.
o Features of the alternatives about which the State has
reservations;
o Elements of the alternatives under consideration that the
State strongly opposes.
9. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
FOllowing the analysis of the remedial options against
individual evaluation criteria, the alternatives are assessed
from the standpoint of whether they provide adequate protection
of human health and the environment considering the multiple
cri teria.
EPA is also directed by SAR.A to give preference to remedial
actions that utilize treat~nt to remove cont~TIinants from the
envirorunent. Off-site transport and disposal without treatment
is the least preferred option where practicable treatment tech-
-------
12
Description of Alternatives
In conformance with the National Contingency Plan, initial remedial
approaches were screened to dete~ine which might be appropriate for
this si te. (See the Feasibi li ty Study for details of this evaluation)".
Fran these possible remedies, six alternatives were chosen for roore
detailed evaluation and comparison with the remedy select~on criteria
outlined above. Each is sunmarized below:
ALTERNATIVE 1, NO ACTION - This remedy consists primarily of
restricting public access to the contaminated areas and roonitoring
the site. The areas would be secured using fencing and warning
signs. Site roonitoring will involve air .~nitoring and an
established warning system for evacuation of the nearby public in
case contamination is detected above any applicable standards.
Groundwater and be~ conditions will be roonitored periodically.
The estimated cost to implernent the "No Action" alternative 'is
$525, ~'H3.
All five of the remaining alternatives require excavation of the
contaminated materials. If any waste remains on-site, a landfill
constructed in compliance with HeRA requirements will be used to reduce
groundwater infiltration and the chances of any contaminants migrating
off-site. In addition the site will be, roonitored for at least 30 years.
Each remedial action alternative also includes removal and treatment of
the liquids in the surface impoundments, the north and south Glen Wynn
lagoons and collected storTnWater. Surface impoundment liquids and
liquids from the north and south Glen Wynn lagoons will be pumped
treated, and discharged.
The specified treatment unit will be capable of removing the metal and
organic contaminants fran the liquids to result in concentrations that
ccmply with Federal and/or State standards for direct discharge to the
Arkansas River. Stormwater will be collected within the individual
areas as they are being rernediated. It is assumed that the collected
stormwater will have similar or lower concentrations of hazardous
substances as the surface impoundment liquids and will be treated in
the same manner.
ALTERNATIVE 2, ON-SITE THERMM. DESTRUCTION - Involves removing
and transporting the hazardous material to an on-site thermal
treatment unit. ~terials handling will likely include hauling
the hazardous waste to the thermal destruction unit, possibly
adding chernicals to neutralize the low pH sludges, mixing the
waste and chernicals to make thern as homogeneous as possible, .
and reducing the solid materials to a suitable size for thermal
destruction. Stack gases will be scrubbed and treated prior'to
atmospheric release. The residual ash will be tested, solidified,
and landfilled to comply with RCRA requirements, if necessary.
-------
13
ALTERNATIVE 3 SOLIDIFICATION AND ON-SITE LANDFILL - In general,
solidification technologies involve uniforrnQy combining the
hazardous material witn oementitious materials, such as Portland- -
cement or fly ash and-letting the mixture harden. This remedy
involves neutralizing and excavating the hazardous material and
placing it ~n an on-site blending unit for mixing with the
sOlidification agent. The solidified mixture would be disposed of
in an on-site RCRA specification landfill. Prior to landfilling,
relevant tests would be performed to confirm the effectiveness of
the SOlidification technOlogy. Implementation of this alternative
may produce a total volume increase of 50 to 200 percent that of
the original volume. A fence would be installed to restrict site
access and groundwater monitoring would be performed for at least
a 30 year period fOllowing closure. The cost of this alternative
is estimated to be $38 million.
a
ALTERNATIVE 4, ON-SITE SOLVENT EXTRACrION - This remedy entails
the excavation and neutralization of the hazardous sludges,
treatment in an on-site facility, and proper disposal of the
three by-products (oil, water, and solids). Solvent extraction
treatment includes sizing and pretreating the material prior to
extracting the oil with a solvent. Each waste stream of oil,
water, and solids will require sampling and analysis to determine
the appropriate method of disposal. This alternative would require
pilot studies prior to development of performance specifications
to determine the degree which products may be contaminated and how
to treat the oil, water, and solids product streams, if necessary.
The estimated cost of this remedy is $272 uUllion.
ALTERNATIVE 5, OFF-SITE THERMAL DESTRUcrION - This remedy would
involve removal and transport of hazardous material to an off-site
thermal destruction unit in compliance with the Superfund off-site
policy. The description of the off-site thermal destruction
technology is similar to alternative 2. The estimated cost of
the remedy is $429 million. Transportation cost is the primary
reason for the cost differential betWeen alternative 2 and
alternative 5.
ALTERNATIVE 6, OFF-SITE SOLVENT EXTRACTION - This ranedy is similar
to alternative 4, although it requires transporting the material
off-site to a treatment facility in compliance with the Superfund
off-site policy. The estimated cost of the off-site solvent extraction
alternative is $294 million.
Evaluation or Alternatives
The degree that the six remedial alternatives meet the nine selection
criteria is contained in Table 4. The following values were assigned
to compare remedi,al selection cri teria:
++
Alternative would 3reatl~ eXceed a selection criterion when
-------
14
+ Alternative would exceed a criterion in comparison to other
alternatives.
o
Alternative can be designed to meet the selectio~ criterion.
Special efforts w4ll .be necessary in the design of the remedy
to meet the selection criterion.
In comparison to other remedies, these alternatives would present
most difficulty in achieving a selection criterion.
"
The rationale for the ratings assigned in this table is as follows:
1. Complies with ARARS (i .e. meets or exceeds Applicable, or Relevant
and Appropriate Federal and State Requirements).
a. No Action was assigned a "--" because it would violate RCRA
corrective action requirements requiring remediation of a hazardous
waste site and does not comply with the National Contingency Plan
provisions to respond to a threat of release.
b. On-site Thermal Destruction was rated "+" based on the growing
body of knowledge the agency has about the ability of this process
to meet environmental standards and the highly incinerable
characteristics of waste at the site. In addition, an on-site
pilot test of a thermal destruction unit showed that 99.99%
destruction of organics (a RCRA requirement) was achievable
after fuel to air ratios were adjusted. All other standards (and
water quality standards) should be met as well.
.....,
c. On-site 501 idification and Landfi 11 was rated "_" for both the
solidification and stabilization processes evaluated broadly in
the Feasibility Study and in more detail in the field pilot
studies. The waste at this site contains 50% organic compounds
raising doubts about the ability of stabilized or solidified
waste to meet RCRA requirements in the long term. The ~tabilization
pilot tests showed that stabilized waste may require a support
st"l/cture* to support a RCRA cap due to low compressive strengths
(1.8 psi). It is recommended that landfilled solids attain. 150
psi if a cap is installed without a support structure. Liquids
'(up to 40% by volume) separated from stabilized material would.
'require further treatment* before disposal to meet RCRA requirements.
The solidified waste contained visible chunks of .waste from pea
.~o fist size and had a wide variation in compressive strengths
(from 180 to 650 psi). Tests to determine the long term ability
of the solidifying matrix to contain the waste were not conclusive
due to the lack of a reliable test methodology., A modified leaching
test (see ORO report) on pilot study samples did sho~ obvious
degradation of the solidifying matrix following analyses for
tO~9l organic content.
-------
15
Finally, available pilot project data indirectly points to the
potential for Significant air emissions from both the solidificatjon
and stabilization processes. Analysis of solidified or stabilized
waste shows that the quantity of low volatile compounds remained
unchanged in treated samples. Compounds with higher vOlatility
however, nearly ~isappeared. Tulsa Coun~ is designated ~ EPA
as nonattainment for ozone; the posSibility of significant additions
of hYdrocarbon compOunds must be considered.
"
The net assessment is that solidification or stabilization processes
present difficult problems with respect to meeting ARARs.
d. Other A Herna t i ves were a Il rated "0" because all i nvo I ved
treatment processes that can be designed to meet ARARs.
~
2. Reduces;
Toxicity, MObility, and Volume
a. No Action was rated "-" because it does nothing to reduce
any of these parameters.
b. On-site Thermal Oestruction was rated "+" in each category because
this process would eliminate organic compounds that constitute
50% of the waste.
c. SOlidification/Stabilization was rated differently for each of
the pa rameters.
i.
MObilit.l - was rated "+" because pilot studies suggest this
remedy reduces mObility. It was not rated "++" because of
the posSibility for leaching exists eVen though the contaminants
will be fixed to a solidifying agent.
ii. Toxicitr - was rated "-" because none of the metals or
organic compounds were removed from the waste except
the elimination of Possible air emissions.
i i i. Vo 1 ume - wa s rated" --" becau se of pil ot data showi ng a
vo 1 umet ri c i nc rea se of 50% to 200% for thes e remed i a),
techniques.
d. Other Remedies - were all rated "+" because each invol.ves removal
of the organic components of the waste.
3. Short-term Effectiveness
With the exception of the No Action remedy all alternatives Were rated.
at least "-" because of the potential for release of acid fumes or
other noxious gases during waste excavation. This problem can probably
be avoided by the use of foams, cautious work practices, or temporary
-------
. 16
Off-site remedies were all rated lIull because. in addition to the
excavation problems. transportation of the waste off-site poses
additional environmental risks. No action was also. rated lIull
because of the risk the site presents. as demonstrated by the water'
company worker inj~ries.
4. Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
The highest ratings; 11++11 were given to the thermal destruction
options since they entailed the destruction of organics and solidifi-
cation of any toxic ash. Solidified ash should be extremely stable
in the environment because the organic compounds will have been
eliminated. Lower ratings of 11+11 were given to the solvent extraction
options beca~se slight inefficiences in the water-ail-solids separation
p races s wi 11 resu 1 tin somewhat lid i rt i erll end products than the
thermal destruction techniques. The solidification alternative was
given a "_II due to the general lack of proven effectiveness. pilot
study data. and doubts about the long term stability. The no action
alt~rnative was rated "ull because of the risks involved with leaving
the untreated waste on-site.
5. ~mplementability
All alternatives that entailed the excavation of the' waste were
rated at least "_" due to expected difficulties in materials handling.
These problems became apparent during the pilot studies and will
require attention during the design phase. The processes that would
treat the waste on-site are judged to each .have the same degree of
implementability. Solidification and stabilization would likely
require waste to be more finely pulverized than many thermal
destruction techniques and require staging and curing areas with
associated leachate collection and treatement systems. On the other
hand. thermal destruction systems would require exhaust gas capture.
pollutant removal. and treatment systems that would not be required
by the. solidification/stabilization techniques. Off-site remedies
receive9 an additional "_" due to the added transportation problems.
6. Cost
Estimated costs for each remedial action alternative are summarized
in Table 5. Inc,luded. in this table are total capital and implementation
costs. annual operation and maintenance costs. total present worth.
and replacement costs. Replacement costs were included to evaluate
the costs involved in'--remediation if the alternative were to fail.
The potential for failure was determined to be greatest for the on-site
solidification remedy. since the potential for contaminants leaching
from the solidified material exists. Replacement cost is estimated to
be $100 million. assuming on-site thermal destruction is the replacement
-------
17
The no action remedy has the lowest present worth of the alternatives,
but has an annual operating and maintenance cost of OVer $25,000.
This expense is due to groundwater monitoring, air monitoring, and site
inspections. .
The projected cost foran-Site thermal destruction is $67 million,
which is Over $350 million less than off-site thermal destruction. The
primary reason for this difference is the higher cost that vendors
charge at permitted off-site facilities. These cost can be attributed
to off-site permitting requirements and the liabilities incurred by the
operators.
The on-site solidification alternative was estimated to cost $38 million.
The largest portion of this cost can be attributed to construction and
implementation expenses.
Transportation costs are the primary reason for the difference in the
cost between on-site and off-site solvent extraction. Although on-site
solvent extraction is less expensive than off-site solvent extraction,
the on-site version also requires annual operation and maintenance
which is not required for off-site treatment.
7. Community Acceptance
At the pUblic meeting on August 4, 1987, the residents' comments centered
on the on-site thermal destruction and the solidification alternatives.
There was general agreement favoring some form of remedial action for
the site.
The community was concerned that the site would be used in the future
to destroy hazardous Waste from other sites, that the thermal destruction
option would add to eXisting air pollution and that the local economy
might Suffer from the presence of a hazardous waste incinerator. Some
residents favored destruction of the waste, however. Because of the
aforementioned concerns, the on-site thermal destruction option was rated
as less acCeptable to the community than sOlidification/stabilization.
On-site thermal destruction received a rating of "-", while the
sol idification remedy received a rating of "+", A rating of "0" was
given to the pther remedial alternatives due to a lack Of Comment about
these options.
".
8. 'State AccePtance
Th~Oklahoma State Department of Health cited concerns similar to those
voiced by residents. Likewise, the on-site thermal destruction remedy
received a rating of "-", the solidification remedy received a rating
of "+", and all other remedies were rated "0".
9. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
On-site and off-site thermal destruction received the highest rating of
-------
18
material. The thermal treatment unit will be designed to ~ee~ RCRA
standards. It is possible that noxious gases will be given off by
excavation activity. but a contingency plan will be developed to address
this proble~. That level of destruction required by RCRA. 99.99~ of the
organic conta~ina~ion. should be destroyed. Solidification of the fly
ash that mi ght conta in meta 1 s. has been shown to be very stab 1 e in the
environment.
On-site solidification was given a lower rating of "+". This rating is
largely due to the fact that the Source of the contamination will not be
destroyed and the potential for leaching of contaminants exists.
On-site and off-site solvent extraction were given a rating oJ "0".
Solvent extraction would separate the oil. water and solid phases but
may requirp ~~rther treatment of each waste strea~ to meet RCRA disposal
criteria. ine contaminants will not be destroyed and the potential for
future exposure exists.
The risk involved with leaving untreated waste on-site is the
:principal reason that the no action alternative received a rating
. of "__".
'Operation and Maintenance (O&M)
The need for future operation and maintenance will be minimized since
the source of the conta~ination will be removed. Site operation and
maintenance will include a monitoring well sampling and analysis
progra~. Additional site maintenance will entail the inspection of
surface vegetation. periOdic repai~ of the peri~eter fenCing. and
inspection of the on-site RCRA landfill. The State of Oklahoma w,ill be
responsible for the cost of O&M for a period of at least 30 years after
the completion of the remedial action.
Future Actions
No future actions are anticipated for the Source Control Operable Unit.
Future groundwater remediation will be addressed in the Main Site
Operable Unit. The proposed remedial action is considered permanent.
If. however. significant. unforeseen. off-site migration or contamination
Occurs as a result of the site. appropriate remedial measures will be
taken.
Approve Remedial Action (sign ROD)
Remedial Action Schedule
'.
September 1987
Complete Enforcement Negotiations
Obligate Funds (Start Remedial Design)
for State or US Army Corps of Engineers
to Conduct Remedial Design (assuming
the PRPs do not take over)
January 1988
January 1988
Complete Design
March 1989
March 1989
Obligate Funds to Start Remedipl
Act ton
Complete Remediation
-------
APPENDIX A
-------
: .; = :.::. J
r.IGr.::S: CC~?OUr;J CCt;CEr;TjU.T~ONS FOR SO:"ID S':'.~?L::S'
Small acid
sludge pit
Large acic
sludge pit
River acid
sludge pit
South Glen
Wynn laqoon
North Glen
Wynn lagoon
Chemlink
waste pits
Surface
impoundment
.
a
r..:ghest
ConcerHra:ior;
- I n o'r 9 a :11 c
Compounds
(mg/kg)
Lead*
Barium
Zinc.
Lead*
Barium
Chromium*
Zinc*
Lead*
Ch rom i u m *
Leac*
Zinc*
Barium
Leac*
Zinc*
Copper*
Barium
Lead*
Zinc*
Zinc*
Leac*
Ba r i u m
31 7 .5
66.5
38.9
617 .5
239.1
235.6
235.9
192.8
151.1
2,022
1,845
760.5
3,775
3,422
2,745
164 .8
27.4
23. 7
3,504
2,077
1,Z46
Highesta
Concentration
Organic
Compounds
(mg/kg)
Benzoic acid
Chrysene*
Total Xylene
Ch rysene*.
Benzo(a)pyrene.
Benzoic acid
Chrysene.
Total Xylene
Phenanthrene*
1,700
240
81
480
390
2'4 °
57.0
24.0
18.0b
Tetrachloroethene* 19,000
Trichloroethane* 3,400
Total Xylene 5,400
Tqluene*
Tetrachloroethane*
Total Xylene
Total Xylene
4-methyl-2-pentanone
2-methylnaphthalene
2-methylnaphthalene*
p-chloro-m-cresol*
b i s -' ( 2 - e thy 1 hex y 1 )
phthalate*
Priority Pollutant Compound
Tentatively identified compounds
(e.g., hycrocarbons)
An estimated value
b
"
were not included
3,500
3,000
2,300
380
350
130
300
260
-------
HIGEES:
CO.~?:::~;;)
H:ghest Conce~~rat:on
Inorganlc Compo~nds
. (mg/l)
South Glen
Wynn lagoon
Zinc*.
Barium
Lead*
627
596
593
North Glen
Wynn la; '0:-:
Chromium*
Zinc*
Lead*
10,460
5,873
2,692
Surface
lmpoundment
Zinc*
Lead*
Barium
742
366
189
7A5LE: 2
COt;:E~J:?';'.T :OtJS
fOR LIQlJ:~
SA~?~::5
E:ghesta Concentratlon
Organlc Compounds
(mg/l)
B1S(2-ethylhexYl)Phthalate* 11.0
trans 1,2-dichloroethene* 1.20
Toluene* 0.620
Toluene*
Bls(2-ethyhexylJphthalate*
trans 1,2-dichloroethene*
0.490
0.330
0.280
Chrysene*
benzo(a)pyrene*
'b:s(2-ethYhexYl) phthalate*
0.040
0.0076
0.0049
. a
* Priority Pollutant Compound
Tentatively
hydrocarbons)
identlfled
(e. 9 ,
compounds
not
lncluded
-------
TABLE.3
TABLE or REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS
WHICH MAY BE APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATf
ON-SITE ON -S ITE ON -S IrE OFF -SITE OFF -SITE
NO THER~1AL SOLIDIFICATION SOL VENT THERMAL SOL VENT
LAW OR REGULATION ANALYSIS ACTION DESTRUCTION & LANDF I LU NG EXTRACT ION DESTRUCTION EXTRACT-ION
Federal
Resource Con~ervation Violations X X(l)
and Recovery' Act like 1 y
(RCRA)
Compliance
demonstrated X X (I) X X X
or feasible
DOT Hazardous Not X X X X
Materials Transport Applicable
Rules
Compliance X X
demonstrated
or feasible
Clean Air Act (CAA) Applicable X X X X X X
and National
Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS)
Toxic Substances Not X X X X X X
Control Act (TSCA) Appl icable
National Pollutant Not ..x X
Discharge Applicable
Elimination System X
(NPDES) Applicable X X X
Requirements ./
(1) Pilotstudies indicate viplati.on~ likely with on-site solidification. however additional pilot studies
-------
TABLE 3 (continued)
'ON -S I TE ON -S ITE ON-SITE OFF -S ITE OFF -SITE
NO THERMAL SOLID IF ICA TION SOLVENT THERMAL SOLVENT
LAW OR REGULATION ANALYSIS ACTION DESTRUCTION . & LANDF I LLI NG EXTRACTION DESTRUCTION EXTRACTION
Clean Water Act Violations X
likely
Comp 1 i ance
demonstrated X X X X X
or feasible
. ,
Executive Orders Applicable X X X X
(EO) for Flood
p 1 a ins ( 11 988 ) Not App 1 i cab 1 e X X
Fish and Wildlife App 1 i cab 1 e X X X X X X
Coordination Act
(FWCA)
State
Oklahoma Solid Waste Not X
Regulations App 1 i cab 1 e
j
Comp 1 i ance X X X X X
<;1emonstrated
6r feasible
I
Oklahoma Clean Air Violations X
Act likely
Comp 1 i anCQ X X X X X
demonstrated
-------
TABLE 3 (continued)
ON-SI TE ON -S ITE ON -S lTE OFF -SITE OFF -S I TE
NO THERMAL SOLID IF ICATION SOLVENT THERMAL SOLVENT
LAW OR REGULATION ANALYSIS ACTION DESTRUCTION & LANDFILLING E XTRAC T ION DESTRUCTION EXTRACTION
Oklahoma Hazardous Not X X X X
Waste Regulations . Applicable
.Comp 1 i ance X X
demonstrated
I or feasible
/
Oklahoma Water Violations X
Quality Standards likely
Compliance X X X X X
demonstrated
or feasible
Local
Loca 1 Permits Not X X X X X X
Applicable
-------
TABLE 4
COMPARISON OR REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
SAND SPRINGS PETROCHEMICAL COMPLEX
SUPERFUND SITE.
COMPLIES SHORT LONG IMPLEMENT - COST COMMUNITY STATE OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES WITH REDUCES TERM TERM AB ILITY $ MIl InN ACCEPT. ACC( PT . PROTECT
ARARS t()B. TOX. VOL. EFFECT EFFECT INIT. REPL. OF HH&E
1. NO. ACT ION - - - - - - - - - + + 1 0 0 0 - -
2. ON-SITE
THERMAL
DESTRUCT ION + + + + - + + - 67 0 - - + +
.
3. ON-SITE
SOL I D IF ICA T ION - + - - - - - - 38 100 + + +
& LANDf I LL I NG
4. ON-SITE SOLVEN 0 + + + - + - 272 0 ~ 0 0 0
EXTRACTION
5. OFF-SITE THERMAL
DESTRUCT ION 0 + + + - - + + - - 429 0 0 0 + +
6. OFF -SITE
SOLVENT 0 + + . + - - + - - 294 0 0 0 0
EXTRACTION
-------
TABLE 5
COST SUHHARY OF REr1EDIAL ALTERNATIVES
ALT. 1 AL T. 2 ALT. 3 AL T. 4 ALT. 5
ON-SITE ON-SITE ON -S lTE OFF-SITE
NO THERMAL SOLID IF ICATlUN SOL VENT THERMAL
ACTION DESTRUCT ION & LANDF I LLl NG EXTRACT ION DESTRUCT 10
Total Capital & 283,420 66.480,684 37,453,050 272,210.188 428,441,0
Implementation
Cost ($)
Annua 1 o&r~ 25,683 . 15,000 15,000 15,000
'Cost ($)
Total Present 525,534 66,722,799 37,594,454 272,351,591 428,582,4
Worth ($)
Replacement 0 0 100.000,000 0
Cost ($) .
-------
TABLE 6
Anticipated Excavations
Location
Small Acid Pit
Large Aci d Pit
Rive r Ac i d Pit
South Glen ~"ynn Lag90n
North Glen Wynn Lagoon
Chemlink Waste Pits
Round R~ ,or Pit
. Levee Pi t
. East Spray Pond
West Spray Pond
Con-Rad Sludge
Surface Impoundment Sediments
Contaminated
Interval
o to 6' - 9'
o to 6' - 9'
0' to 8' - 10'
0' to 5' - 7'
o to 2' - 3'
o I to I' - 2'
0' to 16' - 18'
3' 10'
4' - 8'
2' - 8'
o I to 7' - 8'
0' to I' - 2'
Contaminated Liquids
South Glen Wynn Lagoon
North Glen Wynn Lagoon
Surface Impoundment
TOTAL
TOTAL
Estimated
Volume
14 , 489 .
46 , 77 5
37,995
1,133"
648
627
2,844
4,537
1,589
3,756
8,889
2,055
125,337 cu. yds;
76,300
89,000
545,987
-------
-------
..- ''''''~
(4-
.::~
DEPARP1ENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
Publ,c Health Service
Agency for Tox,c Substances
and Disease Registry
Atlanta GA 30333
~~:~..I'~I~..""_: :1.: ~J! ~
, .
. ,,-,;-, -; ,- f r. ~-, ,--.'
- ~ . _. - 4'
- .
1 : ~-- c
r~ ;~~. I.~ .
': Co I , 1 '...:. t-
F .:: .~~ ~ ,~ '.. ::. l
,~ :: ~~ ..- c.. ~-: ,? r; t .:t 1 v '.?
;.~ '?::J J ,::,,-.;:..!.
I~,."., }. ,= -:: .;. C.oI-
Ho::: ~-l t r,
f.. e ~;:. e,r, ~-=
" ~ :: ;::,r, ;::[::-1: :
..' I
'-' :
r- '
~ ::'''.'-',.!.'
~ 1 ':., rl:' r, ~ ::., 1
,.-.' f.: ~;-. ~ d '.t ~ ~
r: ..- c: . ~ tz.: "':;:
~! -; rOo: .: 'J ~."t
"';:. c' JlI
-''..:':': i. 1 C'o
,,:...M -:-,.:'
-I-,e r-d-:e'J':' ....,.f- T-',:, ~'-- ,=,_,t'~:;_-E~";,"--~.:--~..~r'1.j [\1:.:'2:.:'=~ F~:E';l=.t,.-:. ,'~~i~.L'~.\ """::".: be€;,n
:::(;'-',=:'r:+_~.d L" tl.,::. i:.:r-: .."....-,..:.r.,ril.;:,-,t::-l ;:..~ ,~,t~~"C.tl'::,r.' f-1';1'~r,c" .'EF:":11 tc. r';:,ilel"..,1 ~r1d e...~~ll_I.]t-;:
.r.e ":~"H~dl::,l II't 'i:'=tJ.q=';.J.:r;'~~'::::lt.:.lllt.,. S;:'_~d/.?,nd End,:,.r,.~~:t-'T,c'r,l f':I~S.':.:'S::IT!';:'~t~- ~~,'r_~
.~.::.i: 1'1;',:'; ,:..:-~.a;-.:..'=i:,-;-.1 f,.-(.,: i:re: ...:.:.r-I'.~ '=~.)o'.lraLr;:s :";I_tp£.:orrun~ '3ii:e lCd=~.led lrl S_:,,'-,d
. r,I r- 1 ,- I :1~: ", - ::1 ~
. '_, t' " ';:'1 I -i- l .' t t-,.:.
:jr-I:.l ..,.(: ~'.c..,.!: tt.:
I ..:.' ,.,.:
1 ':.
I ,_:.: a 1 ~ .oJ:' r':~
-1-1-, ,_:~,,::
d C"~ '_'.lTIc'n t '=
t 0::0 P ,- e, .: 1 oj C' C" t~:
\oJ1 t:-,
-.
C C1r;-,{:"'r-
t"1:. ~ ,=.-.: ~ .t! ';': ( I 1:
f CI"-
d', 1 ~
::: 1 t ''::'.
=; ~ (:'.:
,.:..r,
,':':'1_' r-
I~ (,,;.1 C:la"
-------
-------
Sand Springs (Petrochemical Complex)
Sand Springs. Oklahoma
Responsiveness Summary
This Community Relations responsiveness summary is divided into
two sections:
Section
I :
Background on Community Involvement and Concerns. This
section provides a brief history of community interest and
concern raised during the remedial planning activities at
the Sand Springs Superfund site.
Sect i on I I :
Summary of Major Comments Received during the Public
Comment Period and the EPA Responses to the Comments.
Both written and spok~n comments are categorized by
topics. EPA responses to these relevant major topics are
also presented.
I. Background on Community Involvement
The Sand Springi Petrochemical Complex Superfund site lies three
miles west of Tulsa along the Arkansas river, in the city of Sand
Springs. Oklahoma. The site is in an industrial complex with no
residential neighborhoods nearby. There is one family living
within the site boundaries.
During the August 1984 on-site assessment conducted by the OSDH,
every business and industry occupying the site was contacted along
with the resident family. Many people expressed concern about acid
pits from the old on-site refinery. Concern was expressed about an
incident where construction activities exposed part of one pit and
the released fumes caused a factory to be evacuated. Several
people required medical attention. The family living on site
expressed concern about the poor quality of groundwater. They had
drilled two wells, neither of which could be used because of the
poor water quality.
On the afternoon of August 4. 1987, officials 'of the EPA met with
Sand Springs city officials to brief them about the results of the
studies on the site and discern EPA's preferred remedy. Among
those in attendance were Mayor George Hooper, city Manager
Lay Calhoun, Chamber of Commerce representative Jim Dougherty,
County Commissioner John Selph and some fifteen other Qffici'als.
During the meeting a great deal of concern was expressed that if
EPA finally selected on-site incineration as the remedy, cocsiderable
economic hardship could be suffered by the city. It is believed
that incineration going on in Sand Springs would discourage new
business from locating in the city. Further fears were expressed
that once an incinerator was on-site, it could be used to incinerate
hazardous mater; a 1 s from other sources. The 1 eadershi p was adament
that the people of Sand Springs would not want that outcome. .-
That evening at 7:00 p.m.. the public meeting was scheduled to
begin at the Page Memorial Library. . So many people arrived that
the Mayor and City Manager offered the City Council Chambers. The
presentors and audience went-across the street to the city offices
-------
II. Summary of Major Comments Received duri'ng the Public Comment
Period and the EPA Responses to the Comments.
1. Comment: There is not a good estimate of the amount of contaminated
soils on-site.
Response: EPA disagrees. Sufficient information has been gathered
to formulate a decision on basic clean up concept. Additional
information will be gathered during design studies, to the extent
it is need, to accurately fix construction specifications.
2. Comment: EPA failed to provide sufficient time to reivew and
evaluate the impact on the plan by the community and by potentially
responsible parties (PRPs)~
Response: A two week pUblic notice and three week public comment
period was provided. As a twenty one day public comment period 1S
requir.ed by the National Contingency Plan. In addition, a two
week extension to the pUblic comment period, for a total of seven
weeks, was provided. In addition, separate notices were .sent to
the PRPs to alert them to the impending decision though not
required by the statute or regulations. Design plans will not
commence until PRP's have been given time to indicate whether
they wish to take over the project. Most of the questions
raised by the public' relate to design issues and will be the
topic of the future public meetings as the design plans progress.
3. Comment: Little or no consideration has been given to the horrendous
cost imposed on private industry that is obviously passed on to
the consumer.. .
Response: EPA disagrees with this conclusion; cost effectiveoess
. is a major consideration in selecting a remedy~ The Comprehensive
Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) as
amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of
1986 (SARA) and the National Contingency Plan of 1985 (NCP) requires
consideration of cost from the standpoint of eliminating higher
costs alternatives when comparing alternatives which are equally
protective of public health and the environment.
4. Comment: EPA has failed to give adequate consideration to the
potential environmental and health risks that would be imposed by
the thermal destruction process.
Response: EPA disagre~s with this conclusion. Much more information
is available regarding the reduction and control of emissions
from thermal treatment processes. Furthermore, standards for
emissions have been set and can be met with the thermal treatment
process. Volatile organic releases, reactive processes and
controllability of emissions from the stabilization and solidi-
-------
2
r:;
w.
Comment: EPA has failed to give adequate consideration to the potential
economic and social impact on the community which would be imposed by the
thermal .destruction process.
Respon.se: Concerns o-f the local community have been incorporated into this
Record of Decision and will be addressed in more detail in the design of
the remedy. The thermal destruction system has been defined as a temporary
operation that will be removed from the site. The design will ensure that
the operation of this system will be environmentally sound and unobtrusive.
Wastes from other sites will not be treated at Sand Springs. FinallYt by
eliminating the exposed hazardous wastet EPA believes that the community
will benefit socially and economically as well.
6.
Comment: "Solidification would more effectively deal with the problem of
a majority of the waste and would protect public health and environment
without airt water and hazardous ash generated by incineration at a
drastically lower cost."
Response: While a hazardous waste landfill of solidified waste would protect
public health in the short termt the long term stability of this material
is not proven.
7.
Comment: What guarantee is there to the citizens of Sand Springs that the
site will not be used as a commercial incinerator for wastes from other
sites in the future?
8.
Response: The EPA proposal stated that the thermal destruction unit would be
us~d only during remedial activities at the Sand Springs site and would be
dismantled and removed from the site following those activities.
Comment: Citizens need a written guarant~e that the thermal destruction unit
will operate 99.99 percent efficiently all the time.
Response: If employedt states that the thermal destruction unit will be
required to meet the 99.99 percent combustion standards of RCRA in addition
to all State and Federal emissions standards.
9.
Comment: Solidification meets the requirements of SARA for treatment which
permanently and significantly reduces the volumet toxicitYt or mObility of
the hazardous substances.
Response: EPA disagrees with much of these claims. Based on the technical
information obtained during the pilot studiest solidification increasest
rather than reducest volume; toxicity remai.ns essentially the same; andt
the mobility of organic contaminants is unknown over the long term. A more
detailed discussion of these findings is provided in the body of the Record
-------
Q
3
10.
Comment: Why does EPA not have to go through the permit process as would
private industry?
Respons~~ CERCLA as amended by SARA
through the administrative process
activity, however, EPA is required
environmental laws. .
exempts EPAre~edial action from going
of acquiring a permit for on-site
to Ineet standards of State and Federal
11.
Comment: Tu 1 sa City -County Department of Hea 1 th has not been adequatel y
involved in the Sands Springs project.
12.
Response: The Tulsa City-County Department of .Health entered into an
Interagency Agreement with the Oklahoma State Department of Health (OSDH)
and received funding fron the OSOH-EPA cooperative agreement to conduct
sa,npling at the site. ~he Sands Springs site activities were a ,"State-
lead" project and coordination should be initiated at the City/County
Health ~epartment level by the State.
Comment: Can a local govern~ent or agency be a party to an EPA consent
decr-e-e with a potentially responsible party (PRP) to insure that an on-site
~her:nal destruction unit \'lQuld not be used to treat waste fro:n other sites?
~esponse:_, Yes, section 113(i) of CERCLA, (42 U.S.C. ~9613(i) provides the
right of intervention to any person who has an interest relating to the
subject of a court action which may be impaired or impeded by judicial
disposition of that action. Thus, if a local government or agency can -
show the court that it has an interest in the action and that the local
govern~ent's interest will be impaired if. the government is not allowei
to be a party to the action, that government Inay intervene as a party.
If it chooses to do so, the inte~venor will share all the rights and
responsibilities and costs borne by other parties.
13.
Comment: If on-site thermal destruction is selected, how long will the
-----
process take?
Response: The feasibi 1 ity study estimated 3.5-4 years to conduct tn,=
rel:Jedial design, procure1nent of contractur and on-site t12r:nal
destruction of the wastes. '
14.
Comment: "Incineration is not favored at the Sand Springs site :)ecause
Tulsa County already has existing air pollution problems. Another'
SOIJrce of air pollution which Inight cause Tulsa County to exce-=d
a::lbiel1t air quality standards is flot \'Ianted."
Respons~:. The existing :najor source of particulate :natters, Sheffield
Steel, is scheduled to caine into compl iance in the next year. TIle
incinerator e:nissions would have an insignificant impact on ,air quality.
15.
Comment:. Solidificati.1n should get ::Jore cons'ider3tion before a decision
-------
20.
4
Response: Solidification was considered in detail during the Feasibility
Study and actual pi iot studies. Adequate information is available on
which to base a decision.
16.
Comment:
"How dangerous is the acid sludge to workers in the area?"
Response: Acid sludge at the Sand Springs site currently poses a direct
contact threat due to the highly acidic characteristic of the waste
(this means skin burns can result from touching the material). There
have also been reports of respiratory tract irritations requiring
hospital treatment of workers in and around the acid sludge material
due to the release of sulfuric acid gases. The potential also exists
for workers to come in contact with acidic surface runoff waters. A
health and safety plan will be developed prior to the initiation of
on-site activities.
17.
Comment: Did EPA make its final decision on selecting a remedy for
Sand Springs prior to the public meeting?' .
Response: No. CERCLA requires EPA to indicate a preference to allow the
pUblic an opportunity to focus their comments. A final decision on
selecting a remedy is not made until after the public comment period,
then all comments. are reviewed and considered and the Record of Decision
is signed.
18.
Comment: Solidification technologies are only experimental and have not
been proven.
Response: Solidification technologies can be effective on low organic
wastes and heavy metals. High organic waste such as the acid sludge at
the Sand Springs site creates difficulties .in producing a non-leachable
product, as shown in the pilot studies.' .
19.
Comment: "What interaction will there be between the currently on-going
groundwater study and those recommendations for clean-up compared to
what EPA is recommending to do with the acid sludge pits."
Response; The NCP requires operable units t~ be consistent with overall
remedies. Information from the groundwater study is currently being
utilized. The feasibility study for the groundwater is scheduled for
completion in early 1988, which coincides with the beginning of the
design phase for the Source Control remedy. Coordination for treatment
options and implementation logistics will be addressed at that time.
Comment:
No samples were taken outside the actual sludge pits.
Response: Phase I of the remedial investigation addresses the known major
sourceS of contamination and samples were taken from these areas primarily
to characterize and quantify these known sources. Phase II sampling was
conducted over the entire 235 acre site and this information is being
utjlized, as evidenced_in the inclusion of the additional subsurface
-------
Q
26.
5
21.
Comment: How many times has thermal destruction been used and what has
been the outco~e when it was used?
Response: Thermal destruction has been shown to be effective in destroying
organic pollutants in literally thousands of applications. EPA is convinced
that. with adequate pollution control engineering. thermal destruction
can be effective at the Sand Springs site.
22.
Comment: Why is there such a great difference in cost between on and
off-site incineration?
Response: Transportation is a portion of the cost difference. Tbe cost
for .incineration both on and off-site as well as all other alternatives
are based on actual vendor quotes and historical information.
23.
Comment: What is the basis for naming the four eastern sludge pits
identified in the fact sheet as the Chern Link Waste Pits. :an the name.
be changed?
Response: These pits were named the Chern Link Pits for ease of identifi-
cation because they are within the Chern Link facility boundary. Their.
names may be changed in th~ design phase of this project..
24.
Comment: Incineration of the Sand Springs sludges will result in a volume
reduction of only 40-50%.
Response: Pilot studies were conducted using one particular t~ermal
destruction technology which required the addition of neutralizers prior
to 'processing. Other technologies could require considerably less or no
neutralization. Laboratory incineration tests on 19 sa~ples indicate
an. average volume reduction of approximately 85%. Even 40% or 50% reduc-
tion in vol'ume is considered "significant".
25.
Comments: The Federal guidelines which OSDH had to follow to produce the
the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RIfFS) reports are
faulty and do not allow the freedo~ to gather detailed engineering data
needed to build a design. Not enough engineering data is available to
make a treatment selection at this time.
Response: EPA disagrees with this viewpoint. The RIfFS met the statutory
and regulatory. require~ents. Detailed engineering information, necessary
for the design stage. is not needed to select a remedial concept.
Comment: The .risk of air emissions and runoff conta~ination have not been
addressed.
Response: EPA disagrees. These routes of exposure hav~ been fully
addressed in the Feas i bi ti ty Study and surrrnari zed in the body 'of the
-------
29.
30.
31.
32.
6
27.
Comment: How are you going to protect the grou~dwat~r from further con-
tamination while excavating for the removal options.
Response: Details of protection of the groundwater during excavation will
be addressed in the upcoming design phase.
28.
Comment: The Feasibility Study does not give the solvent extraction
alternative credit for 200,000 barrels of oil that could be recovered
by solvent extraction.
Response: The Feasibility Study viewed the oil being extracted from the
hazardous waste as also being hazardous under RCRA. This would render it
a non-salable product and therefore requiring additional treatment.
Comment: Treated material produced during the stabilization/solidification
pilot. studies passed the Toxicity Characteristic ~eaching Procedure (TrlP)
te' ~ and therefore these processes should be con3idered effective.
Response: The TClP test was only one of many analytical and physical tests
performed and considered during the remedy selection process. Although
some sa~ples met existing leaching standards for .landfillable materials
under'RCRA. other samples did show evidence of leaching contaminants.
leaching of contaminants was also seen in other dllalytical extraction
techniques conducted by the EPA Cincinnati laboratory. leaching of contami-
nants, even at low levels, indicates questionable long term effectfvn~ss '
and permanence of these stabilization/ solidification techniques. Also
there is concern that the TClP test may not detect all potential contami-
nants due to the filtering mechanism of the test and the oily nature of
the waste.
Comment: Do PRPs have to implement the Record of Decision or can new
concepts and ideas for study be reviewed?
Response: After the Record of Decision is signed for a c0rceptual remedy
a treatment process within those technologies ~hould be 'Implemented either
by the PRP or EPA. The details of implementation of the remedy are addressed
in the design phase. .
Comment: How can people who have received notification letters of being a
PRP find out additional information regarding their position.
Response:
Branch.
Contact FOIA requestor Branc~ Chief, EPA Region 6 Enforcement
Comment: "Why are separate entities on one geographic location bound into
one Superfund site creating PRPs that should have a small. responsibi'lity
and a small site, into a PRP with a larg~r responsibility and a large
site?" .
Response: The Superfun~ site boundaries wer~-delineated based on the
-------
o
33.
-'.~--
7
33.
Comment: Are the cost estimates in the Feasibility Study actual contractor
costs to do the work or are they site costs plus State and EPA oversight
cos ts .
Response: Cost est.imates in the Feasibility Study are esthlates within a
range of -30% to +50% of the costs to implement the remedies and do not
include State or EPA oversight costs. These cost figures are only valid
for ~omparison of the alternatives studied. they do not represent actual
bids.
34.
Comment: The final remedy that EPA selects should recognize the different
types of waste present at the Sand Springs site.
Response: EPA agrees.
consideration.
The variability in wastes has been taken into
35. 'Comment: It would be feasible to solidify the acid sludges on the site
in one year which is not achievable by thermaT destr~:ti,
Respons_~:- The Feasibiltity Study indicates all remedies could be imple-
r.1ented in approxililately 3-4 years. Actual impler.1entation ti:1e for
solidification and thermal destruction is comparable, ho~ever, it is
variable depending on the al:l0unt of eqJipr.1ent.. number of treatment units
etc., which is utilized.
36.
Comment: Where did the testing criteria for the solidification pilot
s tJ di es cOlne from?
Response: The EPA Cincinnati laboratory supplied the document "Test
Methods for Solidified Waste Characterization" which was incorporated
into the workplan of. the EPA. Administrative Order with ARCO.
37.
Comment:. An adequate health risk 'assessment of the existing healtl1 risks
at the site and determination of the health risks of the rel;]edial altern-
atives has not been conducted.
Response: At sites where source control remedial l:leasures are evaluated.
as for the.Sand Springs site. a qualitative assesslnent of the potential
pUblic health threats in the absence of remedial action is ~eneral1y
conducted. This was accomplished in the Sand Springs Source Control
Operable Uni.t Endangerment AssesSillent under the Cooperative Agree'nent
with OSDH. Quantitative health risk assesSlnents are not required for
alternative selection or design of source control remedies.
Comment: The Source Control Operable Unit Feasibility Study does not
satis-fy the r~ational Contingency Plan because it is based on inadequate
data and on evaluations which have not adequately addressed the require-
l:1ents of the r~ational Contingency Plan, the Superfund.Amendlilents ~nd
Reauthorization Act, or the EPA Guidance on .Feasibility Studies under
-------
8
Response: Adequate data has been gathered and the evaluations have b~1
conducted to satisfy those necessary guidance documents and statutory
requirements on which to base a.decision for a source control remedy,
111 .
~.
.- 39.
-=
Comment: The selection of a source control remedy for the Glen Wynn
lagoons is unnecessary since removal of the majority of waste at this
facility has already been completed.
1:>.- .-
_?_-.. Response: Only the drurrvned and containerized waste have been removed fro:n
the Gl en Wynn faci 1 i ty. No wastes ha ve been rer:loved froln the Gl en \Jynn
lagoons.
"-..'
- .,.,ft.---
40.
Comment~ In accordance with a consent order, ARCO developed for EPA site
performance data specific to the effectiveness of three relnedial alternatives
(i.e. thermal destruction, stabilization and sOlidification) for the acid
sludge .at t.he Sand Springs Petrochemica"l Complex. Use of this data gives
the agency a basis for selecting a remedial alternative for the acid
sludge ponds consistant. with a permanent remedy for the site, as
preferred under SARA.
.=.,..
Response: EPA agrees.
remedy selected.
The pilot studies had a ~ajor influence on the
41.
Comment: Human health ~nd.the environment can be protected as well as
the sfudied alternatives by much simpler remedies. why not just add
additional fencing around the site and increase security or cover the
wastes.'/ith a sir:Jple earthen cap?
Response~ Increased se~urity at the site may reduce the chance for direct
human contact with the wastes but it would do nothing to solve the surface
and groundwater pollution that is taking place. Installation of a simple
.cap is not practical because of the instability of the tarry sludges;
.on warm day~ the weight of the cap would cause sludges to ooze out froln
under or ~hrough the cap. Both of these approaches fall far short of
Ineeting the minimuril requirements of the :ERCLA.
42. Comment: Why not use an oil extraction thermal process to treat the waste?
The sale of the thousands of barrels of oil derived would offset expenses
and bring the total cost down to $24 million,
Respon~~: The oil extraction thermal process is similar to the solven-t
extraction process, except that it uses heat instead of solvents to
separate the oil , \'/ater, and solids. Unfortunately, RCRA .regulations state
that any constituent derived from a hazardous waste must be treated as
.hazardous until proven otherwise. The overall cost of this alternative
would be mach greater than $24 ~illion since the oil could not he sold and
the rernaining hazardOJs constitue"ts vlould require further treatrTlent prior
-------
9
43. Comment: How much residual ash will be created by thermal destruction and
where will it be disposed?
Response: Thermal destruction would be used' to treat approximately 125,000
.cubic yards of was-te.. EPA studies indicate that thermal destruction will
attain.an 85 percent reduction in volume, while ARCO's studies, using a
neutralizing material before thermal treatment, indicate a 40 to 50 percent
reduction in volume. If the neutralizing material is not required to treat
the waste, an estimated 18,750 cubic yards of residual ash will remain
after thermal destruction. The residual ash would be solidified, if
necessary, and landfilled on-site.
What types of air quality problems.does solidification pose?
44. Comment:
Response: Pilot studies have shown that some volatile compounds a~e driven
off during excava~i9n and mixing of the waste with th~ solidifying agent.
Mass emission rates have not been quantified.
. 45.
Comment: Has the solidification remedy been sufficiently tested over the
range of the waste?
. Response: Solidification pilot studies were only conducted on the surficial
acid sludge waste. Additional waste characterization and pretreatment
studies will need to be performed on the subsurface petroleum"wastes.
46. Comment: lilt seems surprising that after five years of preliminary study
when no information was available on the site, a hurried ROD must be
. prepared."
Response: A hurried ROD has not been prepared. The alternative evaluation
process has been ongoing since the initial stages of the Remedial Investi-
gation/Feasibility Study. The Record of Decision is merely a summarization
and culmination of these studies. .
-------
APPEND I X D
-------
ADMIIfISTRATlVE RECORD
Job. No. SS-1977
Document Date
Document Type
Or igina tor
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
Number of Pages
Document Number Sequence
6/22/77
Inspection Report
Rob SiDDDs
Oklahoma Water Resources
Board
Investigation of Complaint
.2
. 1
Job No. SS-1980
Document Date
Document Type
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient .
Recipient - Aff~liation'
Description
Number of Pages
Document Number Sequence
6/12/80
Potential Hazardous Waste Site Inspection.Rpt!
Gary McDonald
OSDH
For Hazardous Waste. Log File
Oil Bottom Sludge Pit Improvement
9
2
Document Date
Document Type
Originator
~riginator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affil~ation
Descr iption
Number of Pages
Document Number Sequence
6/13/80
Interoffice Correspondence
Tom Drake
Oklahoma Air Quality Service
Initial Investigation ot Spill
1
3
Document Date
r~'.",'.L.~.Ii. Type
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
Number of Pages
Dooument Number Sequence
6/18/80
F,' ter.tial Hazardous Waste Sit:;) Inspectiol. r.~.:..
Gary McDonald
OSDH
For Hazardous Waste Log File
Oil Bottom Sludge Pit Impoundment
9
4
Document Da te
Document Type
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description. .
Number of Pages
)ocument Number Se,quence
8/1/80
CODDDunication/Record
Larry. Wr ight.
USEPA (6AE6H)
Hike Wright
Tulsa County Health
Accident at SS Pit
1 '
5 .
Dept.
_.~'._-
-------
Job. No. SS-1981
Document Da te
Document Type
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
Number of Pages
Doc~ent Number Sequence
Document Date
Document Type
Originator
Or igina tor - Affllia tion . .
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
Num.ber of Pages
Document Number Sequence
Document Da te
Document Type
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
Number of Pages
Document Number Sequence
Document Da te
Document Type
Orig1na~or
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
Number of Pages
Document Number Sequence
Job No. S5-1981
Document Date
Document Type
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipie~t - Affiliation
Description
Number of. Pages
Document Number Sequence
_.~~ - .-
"-'--'.'
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
1 /9/81
RCRA Compliance Inspection Rpt. Facilities
Checklist
Industrial Waste Division
OSDH
Industrial Solid Waste Division
OSDH
Monthly Rpt. w/shipping manifests
11
6
2/2/81
Monthly Report Controlled Industrial Waste
Receiving Site
Glenn Wynn .
Site Owner/Operator
Industrial and Solid Waste Divisio~
OSDH
Monthly Report with Shipping Manifests
11
7
2/19/81
Letter
Diana Dutton
USEPA (6AE)
Glenn Wynn
-------
Initial Inspection of Site
7
8
2/25/81
Communication
Jim Turner
USEPA (6AELG)
Richard Holmes
.Attorney
Phone call concerning Glenn Wynn
1
9
2/27/81
Controlled Industrial Waste Shipping Manifest
Glenn E. Wynn
Vacuum & Pressure Tank Truck Svcs., Ino.
Industrial Waste Division
OSDH
Hazardous Waste Manife~ts for Month
11
10
-------
--- -_..
ADMIJlISTRATIVE RECORD
. -'.- .--..
Job No. SS-1981
Document Date
Document Type
Or igina tor
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
Number of Pages
Document Number Sequence
2/27/81
Plan
Glenn E. Wynn
Vacuum & Pressure Tank Truck Svcs., Inc.
Ind. & Solid Waste Div., OSDH
Controlled Ind. Waste Disposal Plan
8
11
Document Da te
Document Type
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
Number of Pages
Document Number Sequence
3/6/81
Order/Tulsa City-County Health Dept.
Ray Bishop, ~.P.S.
Tulsa City-County Health Dept.
Fred Whitaker
Resource Recovery & Refining Corp.
Order to Cease Operation of Facility
1
12
Document Date
Document Type
Or 191na tor
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description .
Number of Pages
Document Number Sequence
5/27/81
Supplemental Laboratory Report
William D. Langley
Chief Laboratory Svcs. Section, 65A-HL
William. J. Librizzi
Dir. Surveillance & Analysis Div. 65A
Supplement to 3/19/81 Preliminary Data Report
4
13
Do~ument Date
Document T,rpe
Originator
Originator - ~ffiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
Number of Pages
Document Number Sequence
6/29/81
Magazine Article
Chemical Business, Page 7
Article on Solvent Recovery Business & Process
2
14
-'~~ - -
-------
ADMIBISTRATIYE RBCORD
J~b. No. SS-1981
Document Date
Document Type
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
10/2/81
Controlled Industrial Waste Shipping Manifest
Bob Ossery
Vacuum Pressure Tank Truck Services
Industrial & Sand Waste Division
OSDH
Waste Shipping Manifests & Monthly Receiving
Site Reports
2
15
Number of Pages
Document. Number Sequenc~
Document Date
Document Type
Originator,
Originator - ,Affiliation
Rec~pient
Recipient -.Affiliation
Description
10/22/81
RCRA Inspection Site Identification "
Kenneth 'C. Burns, Senior Environmental
OSDH
Specialist
Compliance Inspection Rpt. of Resource Recovery
& Refining Corp.
Number of Pages
Document Number Sequence
7
16
Document Date
Document Type
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
. Number of Pages
Document Number Sequence
10/22/81
RCRA Compliance Inspection
Industrial Waste Division
OSDH
RCRA File'
Report
Facility Standards Checklist'
13
17
Document Date
Document Type
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
Number of Pages
Document Number Sequence
. 10/22/81
RCRA Inspection
Kenneth C. Burns,
DH
RCRA File
Sr. Environmental Specialist
Site Identification & Inspection Information
1
18
-".-._-
-------
Job No.. SS-~ 981
Document Date
Document Type
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
Number of Pages
Document Number Sequence
Document Date
Document Type
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient .
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
Number of Pages
Document Number Sequence
Document Date
Document Type
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliatio~
Description
Number of Pages
Document Number Sequence
Job No. 1982
Document Date
Document Type
Originator
Originator
Recipient
Recipient ..
Description
- Affiliation
Affiliation
Number of, Pages
Document Number Sequence
-. ...-..-.
lDKINI.STR1TlVE RECORD
10/23/81
Industrial
Industrial
OSDH
RCRA File
Waste Receiving Site Monthly Rpt.
& Solid Waste Division
Monthly Rpt. of Delivered Waste for September, 1981
1
19
11/16/81 .
. Lease
S. Neal Johnson
Sandsprings Home
Sam Farmer
Recyclon Corporation
Lease for PurP9se of Conducting Re-Refining &
Trea.tment of Solvents, Crude & Lube Oils
6
20
12/18/81
Spill Prevention Contro~& Countermeasure Plan
Dennis'l. Kelley
O'lelley Engineers
Ilenn Wynn
Vacuum Pressure Tank'Truck'Services, Inc.
Plan to Prevent and Contain Oil Spills
9
21
2/4/82
Industrial Waste Receiving Site Monthly Rpt. &
Shipping Manifests
Bo b Ussery
Siteowner/Operator
Industrial & Solid Waste Division
OSDH
Waste Shipping Manifests & Monthly Receiving
Si te Reports
9
22
-'~~.- -
/
. .-. ~.. .. - .
. . -- --.----
-------
"~VTWT~'!'t) ""'T'"" 1U~~mt)"
Job No. SS-1982
Number of Pages
Document Number Sequence
2/26/82
Data Reports w/Cover Letters
Peters, Chief
Hazardous Waste Section (IES-SH)
Nott, Chief
Enforcement Section
-------
Job No. SS-1982
Document Da te
Document Type
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient .
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
Number of Pages
Document Number Sequence
Document Da te
Document Type
cri dnator .
Qr..1ginator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
Number of Pages
Document Numher Sequence
Document Date
Document Type
Originat.or
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
. Recipient - Affiliation
Description
Number of Page~
Document Number Sequence
Document Date
Dooumpnt Type
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipiept
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
Number of Pages
Document Number Sequence
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
8/27/82
Peti Hon
State of Oklahoma
District Court Tulsa County
State of Oklahoma
Pet. for a TRO Prohibiting Recyclon from
Receiving at Site
. 9
27
8/27/82
Affidavit
Rod Huffman
Inspector
District Court Tulsa County
State of Oklahoma
Deposition of Unchanged Conditions at Site
after Several Visits wlRemedial Orders.
3
28
8/27/82
Memorandum
William W. Iordon, Jr., Enforcement Officer
OSDH
Hark S. Coleman
-Deputy Commissioner for Environmental Health Svcs.
Memo tells of "Recyclon" Cleanup after hearing
of Potential Lawsuit and Lists Alternatives
1
29
8/27/82
Correspondenoe
Joan K. Leavitt, H.D., Commissioner of Health
OSDH .
Hon. David Moss, District Attorney
Tulsa County Courthouse
Request for Prosecutorial Procedures to facil-
itate compliance at Site.
1
30
-------
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
.j 0 U j\ I,) .
.:1';>-1 'JOt:.
Document Date
Document Type
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient.
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
9/1/82
Memorandum
Rod Huffman
OSDH
Files
Number of Pages
Document Number Sequence
Follow-Up Inspection on
tions persisted.
1
31
8/20/82 showed viola-
Document Date
Document Type
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
R~cipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Ddscription
9/9/82
Memorandum &
Rod Huffman
OSDH
Files
Water Analysis Report
Number of Pages
Document Number Sequence
Samples
Soil
5
32
Taken @ Recyclon 9/1/02 ot Barrels &
Document Date
Dooument Type
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
Number of Pages
Docume~t Number Sequence
9/30/82
Memorandum
Rod Huffman
OSDH
Files
Unohanged Condition ot Site as of 9/24/82
1
33
Job. No. SS-1983
DocUJ'lent Date
Document Type
::-iginator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
Number of Pages
Document Number Sequence
2/1/83
Industrial Waste Receiving ~ite Monthly Rpts.
Bob Ussery
Site Owner/Operator
Industrial & Solid Waste Division
OSDH
Monthly Reports or Delivered Waste (January 1983)
5
34
'}~
_..,~-
-----
-------
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
Job. No. SS..1983
Document Date
Document Type
Originator.
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
4/10/83
Petition
State of Oklahoma
(OSDH)
Number ot Pages
Document Number Sequence
District Court Tulsa County
State of Oklahoma'
Request for TRO & Permanent
iting Operation.
5
35
Inlunction Prohib-
. Document Date
Dooument Type
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
6/8/83
Correspondence
Joan K. Leavitt, J.D., Commissioner of Health
OSDH
Hon. David Mesa, District Attorney
Tulsa County Courthouse
Request for Prosecutorial Proceedings unde~ 63
O.S. 198). .
Number of Pages
Document Number Sequence
1
36
Document Date
Document Type
Originator
Orlglna~or - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
Number of Pages
Document Number Se~uence
6/8/83
QA Summar y
Cynthia Pachunas
OSDH
Oklahoma State Agency
Summary Sheet - NPL
2
Document Da:'c
Document Type .
37
7/5/83
Industrial Waste Receiving Site Monthly Rpts.
(June-Dec. 1983)
Bo b Ussery
Site Owner/Operator
Industrial and Solid Waste Division
OSDH
Monthly Reports ot Delivered Waste
8
38
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
Number of Pages
Document Number Sequence
./
/],,6
-------
ADHIRISTRATIVE RECORD
Document Da'i.e
Document Type
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
8/11/83
Peti tion
State of Oklahoma (OSDH)
Number of Pages
Document Number Sequence
District Court Tulsa County
State of Oklahoma
Prayer for Ci v11 Penalty Assessment for Des-.
cribed Violations
7
39
Document Date
Document Type
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient'
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
1/25/84
Route Slip
Ken Burns
OSDH
Jeff 1111ey
EPA-6
File listings of
Springs material
13
40
likely to be found Sand
Number of Pages
Document Number Sequence
Document Date
Document Type
2/2/84
Industrial Waste Receiving Site Monthly R~ports
(Jan-Apr11 '84)
Bob Ussery
Site Owner/Operator
Industrial and Solid Waste Division
OSD
Monthly receiving site reports
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
Numbe.r of Pages
Document Number Sequence
41
Document Date
Document Type
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
3/1/84
Action MeIllO
Dick Whittington, P.E.
Regional Administrator (6A)
Lee H. Thomas, .Assistant Administrator
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Basis' for. decision to spend superfund
immediate removal aotion
4
42
IDOney for
Number of Pages
Dooument Number Sequence
Documen t Date
Docwitent Type
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
3/2/84
Administrative Order
Dick Whittington, P.E.
USEPA
Rodney Wilson,. Claire Wilson, Bill Creel,
Dennis Bergstrom, David Nieman, Fred Whittier.
Wynn Site Operating Corporations
Orders various actions to be taken by site 9perator
13
43
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
Number of Pages
Document Number Sequence
I
IV
.-.--. --
-
- -._...
-------
Docunent Da te
Docunent Type
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
Nl.JI1ber of Pages
Docunent Nl.Inber Sequence
Doc\.ltlent Da te
Pocl.JDent Ty pe
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
NlItIber of Pages
Docl.JDent Nl.Inbe.r Sequence
Docunent Da te
Docunent Type
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
- Recipient
Recipient ~ Affiliation
Description
Nl.Inber of Pages
Doc\.JDent Nl.Inber Sequence
Doc\.JDent Date
Doc\.JDent Type
Originator.
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
NLmber of Pages
Docunent NlIJ1ber Seq uence
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
3/13/84
Administrative Order
Dick Whittington
U.S.E.P.A. .
Samuel C. Farmer, Peggy Farmer, Jeffrey B. Nooleen
Recyclon Corporation, Wynn Site
Order directs action to protect public health and
the environment
. 12
44
5/9/84
Notice of Public Meeting'
.OSDH
General Public
SlJIII13ry of work to be performed at site
12
45
5/31/84 .
Community Relations Plan
OSDH
Interested Parties
Plan to keep interested parties
progression site
11
46
informed of
5/31/84
Site history and location
U.S.E.P.A.
Interested Parties
Site history and summary of inspections and lab analy~
. 47
/'
~ ~
-------
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
Docllnent Date'
DocllDent Ty pe
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
, 5/31/84
F 11 e S 1..II'Il1B ry
U.S.E.P.A.
Interested Parties
NlInber of Pages
Doct..ment NlInber Sequence
Fil e sumlary
1980-May 31,
4
48
of inspections and analysis (June 13,
1984 )
Doc\.lnent Date
Doc\.lnent Type
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
6/22/84
Correspondence
William C. Anderson
Doerner, Stuart, Saunder, Daniel & Anderson
All parties listed as "generators"
Wynn Site Operation
Demand on "generators" to reimburse the home for
Phase I Cleanup
5
49
NlIJIber of Pages
, Docunent NlInber Seq uence
Doc\.lnent Date
Doc\.lnent Ty pe
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient'
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
7/1/84 .
Health 'and Safety Plan for
Waste Management Service
DSDH
Interested Partie~
S.S.P.C.C. RI
Nl.IDber of Pages
Docunent Nl.II'1ber Sequence
To protect health of public n~ar the site and
provide information concerning health of
persoMel working on site during RI period
31
50
I' '3
. /,
-------
. Docunent Da te.
Docunent Type
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
Number of Pages .
Document Number Sequence
DocllDent 'Date
Docl.Inent Ty pe
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
NlIDber of Pages
Doc\.lDent Number Sequence
Docllnent Da te
Docunent Ty pe
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
~scription
NlIn,ber of Pages
DocLment Number Sequence
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
March 1, 1985
Work Plan Summary
Oklahana State Dept. of Health
Public
Summary of technical work plan - Sand Springs
5
51
3/1/85
Information Sheet
Oklahcma State Dept. of Health
Public
Emergency
Springs
2
52 '
responder information sheet - Sand
3/19/85
Cover letter, response plan
Dennis Kelley - President
O'Kelley Engineers, Inc.
Kenneth Burns .
Oklahana State Heal th Dept.
Cover letter, response plan
Sand Springs)
42
53
(4 acre Wynn's site -
I . ~
-------
ADMINISTJUTIVE RECORD
Docl.lnent Date
Docl.ll1ent Type
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
N~ber of Pages
DocLment Nl.II'1ber Sequence
3/19/85
Report
Dennis Kelly & Sami Halaeb
O'Kelley Engineers
USEPA
Site Evaluation Report
34
54
DocLment.Dat;e
Docl.ll'1ent Type
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
1/2/86
Sampling Plan
Oklahana State Deparbnent of Health
Affiliation
Oklahana State Dept. of Health
N1..II1ber of Pages
. Docl.II1ent N1..II1ber Sequence
Surface
Springs
7
55
runoff water sampling plan for Sand
DocLment Date
Docl.II1ent Ty pe
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recip1er.: - .~fillation
Description
Nl.II'1ber of Pages
DocLment Nl.II'1ber Sequence
3/11/86
Record of Communication
Dave McCartney
EPA Region VI
Dennis Hrebec
Oklahana Stat£: Depl. of Health
Possible Phase II activities - Sand Springs
12
56
'/ /' ~
-------
'.
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
Docl.lnent Date
Docl.lnent" Ty pe
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
N"Lmber of Pages
Docl.IDent NLmber Sequence
5/28/86
Record of communication to file
Dave McCartney
EPA - Region VI
Dennis Hrebec, Hal Cantwell
Oklahana State Dept. of Heal th
Sand Springs R1/FS;QAlQC check of lab data
1 .
57
Docllnent Da te
Doc\..lnent Ty pe
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
De;5cription
NlITIber of Pages
Doc\.rnent NlITIber Sequence
6/5/86
Request Letter
Dennis Hrebec, Environmental Consultant
Oklahana State Dept. of Health
Bill Anderson
Requests permission to conduct activities at Sand Spri
1
58
Docl.IDent Date
Docl.lDent Type
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
8/11/86
Ct. Petition, certificate
District Ct. of Tulsa Co. - State of Okla.
Ntmber of Pages
Doc\..lnent NLinber Sequence
O~ahana State Dept. of Health
Suit brought against Sand Springs
of Oklahana
5
59
parties by State
Docllnent Da te
DoClIDent Ty pe
Originator
Originator"- Affiliation
Recipient .
Recipient - Affiliation'
Description
Nunber of Pages
Docllnent NlITIber Sequence
8/29/86
Letter
Chris. ~anberg
ARCO "
Regional Administrator (VI)
USEPA
Maintenance of Dyke
1
60
,
~ I' I
-------
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
DocllDent Da te .
DocllDent Type
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
NlIDber of P.ages .
Docl.IDent Nl.ITlber Sequence
9/2186
Sampling Plan
Oklahana State Dept. of Heal th
Oklahana State Dept. of Health
Organic screening sampling plan-Sand Springs
3
61
Docl.Inent Date
DoclIIJent Ty pe
Originator
Originator. - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
Nl.ITlber of Pages
DoclIDent Nlinber Seq uence
9/10/86
Memo
David McCartney.
USEPA (6~SA)
Addressees
USEPA
Progress & Planning
2
62
DoclInent Date
Docl.IDent Type
Originator .
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
Nl.ITlber of Pages
Vv I.IDent Nl.ITlber Sequence
9/30/86
Sampling Plan
Oklahana State Dept. of Oklahana
Oklahana State Dept. of Oklahana
Sludge sampling plan - Sand Springs
7
63
DoclIDent Da te
DocJ,.ment Type
Originator
Originator - Af.f1liation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
Nunber of Pages
DoclJDent Nl.ITlber Sequence
1 1/1 5/86
Sampling Plan
Oklahana State. Dept. of Oklahana
Oklahana State Dept. of Oklahana
Surface impoundments sampling plan - Sand Springs
20
64
1
-------
'.
~
Doclll1ent Da te
Docl.l11ent Ty pe
. Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient'
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
NlIlIber of Pages
Docl.l11ent NlIlIber Sequence
Docunent Date
Doc\.llJent Ty pe
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation'
Description
NlII1ber of Pages
Doclll1ent Nl.I11ber Sequence
Docl.l11ent Date
Docl.ment Type
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient.
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
NlJJ1ber of Pages
Do~l.ment !~l.I11ber Sequence
Docl.ment Da te
Docl.ment Ty pe
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
NlIlIber of Pages
Docl.l11ent Nl.I11ber Sequence
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
11/20/86
Cover letter, sample analysis
Lisa Lyhane - Environmental Engineer
Oklahana State Dept. of Health
Mark Kroenig, P. E.
John Mathes & Assoc.
Surface run-off/drainage sediment sample analysis
11
65
12/1/86
Sampling Plan
Okla. State Dept. of' Health
Okla. State> Dept. of Health
Sediments Sampling Plan
6
66
1/16/8'7
Cover Letter with Data Attachments
Lisa Lyhane, Environmental Engineer
Solid Waste Division, OSOH
Mark H. Kroenig, P.E.
John Mathes & Associates, Inc.
Sample Analysis for Metals, Organics and
Inorganics (sample numbers 88-111)
6
67
2/11/87
Order. .
Larry Gutterridge
ARCO
J CIneS Turner
USEPA (6G-H)
Consent Order
22
68
I
~'
. . ._--
-. .. ...----..
-------
'.
DocLlJ1ent Date
DocLlJ1ent Ty pe
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient -. Affiliation
Description
NLIJ1ber of Pages
DocLlJ1ent NLIT1ber Sequence
. Docl.Inent Da te
DoclZDent Ty pe
Originator
Originator - Affiliation.
Recipient
Rec'1pient - Affiliation
Description
NLIJ1ber of Pages
. DocLlT1ent NLIT1ber Sequence
DocLlJ1ent Date
Doc1.l'Dent Ty pe
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
Nu.~ter of Pages
Docl.Inent NLIT1ber Sequence
Docl.Inent Da te
Doc1.l'Dent Ty pe
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
Nunber of Pages
Docl.Inent NLIT1ber Sequence
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
4/10/87
AddendLlT1 to the Endangerment Assessment
John Mathes & Associates
Waste Management Service
OSDH
.Toxicant profiles, Exhibits A-5
150
59
4/14/87
Route SliP.
. Denni s Hrebec'
OSDH
Julie Bozich
USEPA (6H-EC)
Map of Site Boundaries
2
70
5/1/87
Feasibility Study Report
John Mathes & Associates, Inc.
Waste Management Service
OSDH
Feasibility Study Report for Operable Unit of SS
Site
144
71 .
5/4/87 .
Remedial Investigation Report
John Mathes & Associates
Waste Management Service
OSDH
Sludge and Surface Impoundment sampling
126 .
72
-------
Doc\..lT1ent Date
'Docunent Type
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient.
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
Nl.II'1ber of Pages
Docll'Dent NLIT1ber- Sequence
DocllDent Date
Doci..lnent .Ty pe
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Reci~ient -. Affiliation
Description
Nl.II'1ber of Pages
DocLl1'1ent N\..IT1ber Seq uence
Doc\..lT1ent Date
DocllDent Ty pe
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
. Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
Nl.II'1ber of Pages
Docl.l'Dent N\..IT1ber Sequence
Docll'Dent Da te
DoC\.lJ1ent Ty pe
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
, Nunber of Pages
Docll'Dent NLI'!1ber Sequence
'.
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
5/4/87
Remedial Investigation Report,
Analytical Data, VolLlT1e I
John Mathes & Associates, Inc.
Appendix E,
Waste Management Service
OSDH
Sludge and Surface Impoundment Sampling
281
73
5/4/87
Remedial Investigation Report,
Analytical Data, Voltme II
John Mathes & Associates
Appendix E,
Waste Management Service
OSDH
Sludge and Surface Impoundment Sampling
273
74
5/5/87
Quality Assurance Procedures
Special Materials Division
Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc.
Waste Management Service
OSDH
Quality Assurance Procedures for the Analytical
Laboratory
156
75
5/6/87
Orde,r
James Turner
USEPA (6G-H),
Larry Gutterridge
ARCO .
Administrative Order
Burn Study
23
76
(Final Revision) ARCO Test
,
(,
-------
'.
Docl.lnent Da te
Docl.lnent Ty pe
Originator -
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient -Affiliation
Description
Number of-Pages -
Document Nl.Inber Sequence
Docunent Da te
Docllnent Ty pe
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
Nl.Inber of Pages
DocllDent Nl.Inber Sequence
DocllDent Da te
Docunent - Type
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
Number of Pages
Docunent Nl.Inber Sequence
Docunent Da te
Docll1lent Ty pe
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient .
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
NlII1ber of Pages
Doc1..lDent NlII1ber Sequence
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
5/7/87
Endangerment Assessment
John Mathes & Associates, Inc.
Waste Management Services
OSDH
Endangerment Assessment for
Site
145
77
the Operable Unit at
5/7 /~
Work Plan
R. Walter Simmons
ARCO
Robert Layton, Jr.
USEPA - (6A)
Work Plan for Solidification
12
78
5/7/87
Brochure
R. Wal ter Sinmons
ARCO
Robert Layton
USEPA (6A) -
Solidification Brochure
8
79
5/8/~
Plan
Larry Gutterridge
ARCO
J CInes Turner
USEPA. (6C-H) .
Final Portion of Workplan
8
80
I'
-------
Docl.ltlent Da te
Doc\.lJ1ent Ty pe
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
N\.IJ1ber of Pages
DoclAIlent NLIIlber Seq uence
Doc\.JDent Date
DocLlllent Ty pe
Originator
Originator - Affiliatio~
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description.
NLIIlber of Pages
Doc\.II1ent NUTlber Sequence
Doc\.lJ1ent Da te
Docl.IDent Ty pe
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
. Descri~.-
N\.IJ1ber of Pages
Docl.IDent NLIIlber Sequence
Doc\.lJ1ent Da te
Docl.IDent Type
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
N\.IJ1ber of Pages
Docl.lnent N\.IJ1ber Sequence
-.
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
5/13/87
Cover Letter with Data Analysis
Dale C. Markley, Senior Hydrogeolist
John Mathes & Associates, Inc.
Lisa Lyhane
OSDH
Remaining Analysis for Dioxin and Furans run at
'the 0.1 PPB detection limits. (First Data sent
4/10/87)
3
81
5/15/87
Letter
Robert Hanneschlager
USEPA (6H-E)
Roseann Stevenson
ARCO
Comments on Workplan
3
82
5/15/87
Communication Record
Steve Lemons
USEPA (6E-Q)
Paul Sieminski
USEPA (6H-SA)
Review SS Workplan
8
83
-
... .
5/18/87
Order
J ames Turner
USEPA' (6G-H)
Robert Layton
USEPA (6A)
Administrative Order
23
84
, \
-------
Docunent Da te
Docunent Ty pe
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
R~cipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
Nunber of Pages
Docunent Nunber Sequence
Docunent Da te
Docunent Ty pe
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
NlIIlber of Pages
Docl.l'Dent NLII1ber Sequence
Docl.IDent Date
Docunent Ty pe
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
. Recipient - Affiliation
Description
Nunbero of Pages
Docunent NlITIber Sequence
DoclIDent Da te
Doctment Type
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliati~n
Description
Nunber of Pages
Docunent Nunber Sequence
'.
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
5/Zl /~
News Releas.e
Joan K. Leavitt,
OSDH
M.D. .
Announcement that'R.I.
available.
2
85
Report is completed and
6/29/~
Letter
Robert Hannesschlager
USEPA .(6H-E)
Roseann Stevenson
ARCO
Response to June 2, '87 letter
1
86
7 /15/~
News Release
Karen L. Brown
OSDH
Announcement of 8/4/~
cleanup operations
2
87
public meeting ,explaining
7/30/~
Report
Kev.in Jackson'
Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.
June Bozich
EPA Region 6
Summary of Compliance monitoring activities
12 .
88
I
/'
-------
'.
AattINISl'RATIVE RECORDS INDEX ADDENOOM
Job Narre:
~ Springs PetrO-Chemical Complex
OKD980748446
,Job Numbe r :
"
Document Date
Document ~
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipien~ - Affiliation
Description
Nlm1ber of Pages
Document Number
Urrlated
Evaluation
Research Triangle Institute & U.S. E.P.A.
U.S. E.P.A. Region V1
REvaluation of TCLP...R
1
Document Date
Document ~
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
Number of Pages
Document Numbe r
Urrlated
Answer s to not ice
ChemLink.Petroleum
U.S. E.P.A. (6) Sand Springs file
'Response to U.5. E.P.A. notice,
1
Doc4Ifent Date
Document ~
Originator
Originator - ~filiation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
Number of Pages
Document Number
Urrlated
Test' rretroos
U.S. E.P.A. (6) Sand Springs file
U.s. E.P.A. (6) Sand Springs file
Test rretroos/solidified waste character
91
. .
Document Date
Docl.lIJ}ent ~
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
Number qf Pages
. Document Number
06/86
Handbk .
M. In. OJllinane, Jr., et al
USM:Wate rway s Expe r :iJrent Sta.
U.S. E.P.A. Region VI
Handbk. Stabilization/Solidification
-------
'.
AIX-tINISI'RATIVE REOORDS INIEX ADDENIXJM
Job Nalre:
Sand Springs Petro-Chemical Complex
OKD980748446
Job Number:
DocLment Date
DocLment 'IYPe
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient .
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
Number of Pages
DocLment Number
09/86
Manual
u.s. E.P.A.
(6) Sand Springs file
. u.S. E.P.A. (6-) Sand Springs file
Test Methods for Evaluating ~olid Waste
59
DocLment Date
DocLment 'IYPe
Originator .
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
Number of Pages
Document Number
09/22/86
Cover letter/closure report.
David McCarthey
Mary Ellen McLeary, Bill.Taylor, et al
Closure report - wynn Tank
28
DocLment Date
DocLment 'IYPe
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
Number of Pages
Docurtent Number
10/15/86
Cover letter/repOrt
In. Mathes & Assoc., Ioc.
Paul Sieminski
u.S. E.P.A. (6) Sand Springs file
RI report 2 - surface impoundment
17
tech. nem:>
Document Date
Document 'IYPe
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient.
Recipient - Affiliation
Description'
Number of Pages
Doc.ument Number
1987
Research article
Hazardous Waste & Hazardous Materials
u.S. E.P.A. Region VI
Effect of three organic compounds
-------
ArMINISTRATIVE ~CORDS INDEX ADDENOOM
Job Nane:
Sand Springs Petro-Chemical Canplex
OKD980748446
Job Nlm1be r :
Docurrent Date
Docurrent TyJ;:e
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - bffiliation
Description
Nlm1ber of Pages
Document Number
04/1987
Plan
ARm Petroleum Prod. Co.
u.s. E.P.A. (6) Sand Springs file
Work plan - Pilot Thenran Treatnent
165
Document Date
Docurrent TyJ;:e
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
Number of Pages
DocLUrent NLmIbe r
04/30/87
Follow-up letter
Carlton C. Wiles/Chief
u.s. E.P.A.
Wal t Sintrons
AROO Petroleum Products Co.
Sample tests and ana~yses
2
Document Date
Docurren t TyJ;:e
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Jescription
t-Unber of Pages
Docurrent Numt:e r
04/30/87
Letter
Carleton Wiles - Office of R & D
u.s. E.P.A. washington
. Walt Sintrons
AROO Petroleum Products Co.
Follbwup to phone convf'rsation O. /29/87
2
Document Date
Document TyJ;:e
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
NLmIter of Pages
Docurren t NLmIbe r
05/07/87
Plan
AROO Petroleum Prod. Co.
u.s. E.P.A.(6) Sand Springs file
Work Plan - Waste Solidi~ication/Stabil.
-------
'.
ArMINISI'RATIVE ~CORDS IN!EX ADDENI:XJM
Job Name:
Sand Springs Petr:o-Chemical Canplex
OKD980748446
Job Number:
Doc\.IItent Date
Doc\.IIte n t 'I'yI:e
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
~r of Pages
Doc\.IItent Numbe r
05/11/87
Letter
Wal ter SiIrmons, Mgr.
U.S. E.P.A.. '
Carleton Wiles
U.S. E.P.A. - HWERL
AROO's .solidification testing
1 .
Docun'ent Date
Doc\.IItent ~
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
NlJrrV.:)er of Pages
Doc\.IIten t Nl.Irnbe r
05/11/87
Letter.
R. walter SiIrmons, Mgr. Environ. Protect.
ARCO Petroleum Products Co.
,Carleton Wiles (HWERL)
U.S. E.P.A. (Cincinnati, OH) .
Solidification portion - Work Plan
1
Doc\.IItent Date
Doc\.IItent ~
Originator.
Originator - Affiliation
~~cipient .
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
NuI'rDer of Pages
Document NunDer
OS/21/87
Me roo r and urn
Paul Sieminski ,(fI'ID)
U.S. E.P.A. Region VI
Ed Barth, Environ. Engr.
U.S. E.P.A. (Cincinnati, QH)
Review - Solidification/Stabilizatipn Work Plan
2
Docurrent Date
Document. Type
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description'
. N.mDer of Pages
Doc\.IIten t . Nurnbe r
OS/21/87
Memor and urn
Ed Barth, Environmental Engineer
U.S. E.P.A. - Remedial Action Staff
Paul Sieminski
U.S. E.P.A. - Hazardous Waste Mgtment. Div.
Review of Work Plan
-------
AL'MINISl'RATIVE REa:>RDS INDEX ADDENtUM
Job NaIre:
Sand Springs Petro-Chemical Canplex
OKD980748446
Job Number:
~..
"""-"""
~_.-
:..,.. -'
-
~urrent Date
ooeuirent Type .
Originator
_,_.~Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
- . NuIrber of Pages.
Docl..IIren t Numbe r
09/25/84
Memo/plan
Ronnie Roroo - QA
u.s. E.P.A. (6)
Paul Sieminski, Project Officer
u.S. E.P.A. (6) 6~SS
Revised ONOC Plan Pages
21
-------
Job ~:
'.
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS INDEX ADDENIX1M
Job Number:
Sand Springs Petro-Chemical Canplex
OKD980748446
Decurrent Date
Decurrent Type
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
DescriptioJ1
Number of Pages
Decurrent Nurnbe r
Decurrent Date
Decurrent Type
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description.
Number of Pages
Decurrent Nurnbe r
Decurrent Date
Decurrent Type
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
Number of Pages
Decurrent Number
Decurrent Date
Decurrent Type
Originator
Originator - Affiliatio~
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
Numbe r of Pages
Decurrent Number
06/02/87
Letter
R. ~lter Sinrnons, Mgr.
ARCO Petroleum Products Co.
Robert E. Hanneschlager
U.S. E.P.A. (6) Sand Springs file
Updated Work Plan - Incineratiqn/Solidif.
3
I'.
06/29/87
Cover letter/sample analyses for wells
Lisa Lyhane - Environmental Engineer
U.S. E.P.A. SUperFund Progr~Solid Waste Div.
. Paul Sieminski
U.S. E.P.A. Region VI
Sample analysis for Phase II monitor wells
43 .
6/30/87
Memor andum
Ragan Broyles, Chief
U.S. E.P.A. Region VI (6T-AS)
Steve Gilrein, Chief
U.S. E.P.A. Region VI (6H-SA)
So~idification Process Air Monitoring
2
06/30/87
Meroor and urn
Ragan Broyles, Chief
U.S. E.P.A. - State Programs Section
Steve Gilrein, Chief
U.S. E.P.A. - ALONM Rerredial Section
Air rronitoring rrethods
-------
Job Narte:
ArMINIsrRATIVE ~CORDS INDEX ADDENwM
Sand Springs Petro-Chemical Canplex
OKD980748446
Job Number:
Q
Docurrent Date
Docurrent 'l'yfe
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
Number of Pages'
Document Number
Document Date
Docurrent 'IYPe
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
'Recipient - Affiliation
Description
Number of Pages
Docurrent Numbe r
Document Date
Docurre nt 'lYf:e
Originator'
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
Number of Pages
Document Numbe r
Decurrent Date
Decurrent Type
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
Number of Pages
Docurrent NLm\ber
07/08/87
Research article
. Paul Marsden, et al
5-aJBED
u.s. E.P.A. Region VI
"Modification of the TCLP..."
8
07/15/87'
Interim report
ARCO Petroleum Products COmpany
u.s. E.P.A. (6) Sand Springs file
Acid Sludge Treatability Evaluations
486
08/04/87
Letter
Jerry Cleveland - Assistant Director
Tulsa City - County Health Department
Carl Edlund, Chief
u.s. E.P.A. (6) SUperfund Programs
Supports solidification
1
08/04/87
Letter/attachment
Reeves D. Ingold
Crestwood Distributors, Inc.
Dennis Hrebec
Oklahoma State Department of Health
Summary of treatment of samples
-------
AIX-t.INISI'RATIVE ~mRDS INDEX ADDENOOM
Job Nane:
Sand Springs Petro-Chemical Complex
OKD980748446
Job Number:
Docurrent Date
Docurrent 'l'ype
Originator.
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description .
Number of Pages
Docwrent Nlm1ber
08/04/87
Public Meeting Transcript
Ann Hart - Certified Shorthand Reporter
u.S. E.P.A. (6) Sand Springs file
.,
Transcript
-------
AaoUNIS'l'RATIVE ~OORDS INIEX ADDENOOM
Job NaIre:
. Job Number:
Sand Springs Petro-Chemical Canplex
OKD980748446.
".
DoclUTV:!nt Date
DoclUTV:!nt Type
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
Number of Pages
Decurrent Nurnt:e r
08/06/87
. Letter'
Russell Harbaugh, Jr. - Attorney
Law office - Conner & Winters
Carl Edlurrl, C1ief
u.s. E.P.A. (6) Superfund Programs
Carrrents Re: roo .
1
DoclUTV:!nt Date
Docurrent Type
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
N..Jmbe r of Pages
Decurrent Numbe r
08/07/87
Letter
R. J. Morris - Sr. Staff Engineer
ChemLink Petroleum
Carl Edlund, Clief
U.S. E.P.A. (6) SUperfund Programs
Ccmrents Re: roo
-------
. Job Name:
ArtttINISI'RATIVE remRDS INttx ADDENOOM
Job NLm\be r :
Sand Springs Petro-Chemical Canplex
0f
-------
ADMINIm'RATIVE ~CORDS INIEX ADDENOOM
Job Name:
Sand Springs Petro-~cal Canplex
OKD980748446
Job Number:
~
Doctment Date
Doctment 'IYPe
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
Number of Pages
Docmrent Number
08/13/87 ,
Cover letter/report
Lisa Lyhane, Envirorurental Engineer
U~S. E.P.A. SUperfund program
Paul Sieminski
U.S. E.P.A.
Cover letterlDraft RI report
114 pages,
Docmrent Date
Doc~nt Type
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
Number 'of Pages
Doctment Number
08/14/87
Letter
M. F. Reece - Assistant Director
Tulsa City'- County Health Department
Car~ Edlurrl, Chief
U.S. E.P.A. (6) SuperFund Programs
Carrrents Re: RJD
. 2
Docmrent Date
Docmrent Type -
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
Number of Pages
Doctment NUITtJe r
08/14/87
Letter
Chas. Scott - Acting Field Supervisor
U.S. Department of Interior - Fish/Wildlife Serv.
Car 1 Edlurrl, Chief
U.S. E.P.A. (6) SuperFunds Program
. Preliminary ccmrents Re~ completed studies
2
Doctment Date
Doctment 'IYPe
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
DescriPtion
Number of Pages
Docmrent Number
08/18/87
Letter
Steven P. Case - Attorney
Law firm - McGrath, North, et al
Julie Bozich - Compliance sec.
E.P.A. (6FrEC)
Ccmrents Re: FS report - operable unit
-------
AtMINIsrRATIVE ~CORDS !NIEX ADDENOOM
Job Name:
Sand Springs Petro-Chemical Canplex
OKD980748446
Jc::>b Numbe r :
Dcx:lDnent Date
Dcx:lDnent 'l"jpe
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description .
Number of Pages
Dcx:lDnent Numbe r
08/18/87
Letter
Joel Burcat - Attorney
Law firm - Rhoads & Sinon
Carl Edlund, Chief
u.s. E.P.A. (6) SuperFund Programs
Public comrent Re: RI/FS
2
Dcx:lDnent Date
Dcx:lDne n t 'l"jpe
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
~r of Pages
Dcx:lDnent NUmber
08/18/87
Letter
L. R. Doss
Citizen - Sand Springs, Oklahoma
Carl Edlund, Chief
U.S. E.P.A. (6) SUperfund Programs
Corrrrents Re: cleanup
1
Dcx:ummt Date
Dcx:lDne nt 'l"jpe
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient ~ Affiliation
Description
Nlm\ber of Pages
Dcx:lDnent Number
08121/87
Lab results
Edwin Barth - Environmental Engineer
U.S. E.P.A. (Washington, D. C.)
Paul Sieminski - RPM
u.S. E.P.A. Region VI
Pilot work
8
. .
Dcx:urrent Date
Dcx:lDnent Type
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description.
~r of Pages
Dcx:urrent Numbe r
08/21/87
Merrorandum
Edwin F. Barth, Environmental Engineer
U.S. E.P.A. - Remedial Action staff
Paul Sieminski, RPM - Region VI
u.S. E.P.A.
Summary of solidified materials tests
-------
ArMINISI'RATIVE ~OJRDS INIEX ADDENOOM
Job Narre:
Sand Springs Petro-Chemical Ca11plex
QlID980748446
Job Number:
.>
Document Date
Document Type
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
Nlm1f:er of Pages
Document NLm1ber
08/24/87
Memorandum/attachments
Allyn M. Davis, Director
U.S. E.P.A. Region VI (6H)
Walter Kovalick, Deputy Director
U.S. E.P.A. washington (WH-548)
Follow-up to ROD Briefing
5
"
Document Date
Document Type
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient .
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
N..lmber of Pages
Document Number
08/24/87
MeIOOr andum
Allyn Davis, Director
U.S. E.P.A. HWMGTD
Walter Kovalick, Deputy Director
U.S. E.P.A.
Record of DeCision (ROD) briefing
5
Decurrent Date
Decurrent Type
Originator
Originator - Aff.iliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description'
N..lmber of Pages
Document NlmIbe r
08/25/87
Letter
. George Hooper, Kayor
City of Sand Springs
Robert Layton, Jr. - Regional Ad.
U.S. E.P.A. Region VI
Res{X)nse to ROD
3
Document Date
Docurrent Type
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
Numbe r of Pages
Document Number
08/27/87
Letter/enclosures
R. Fenton Rood, Director
Oklahoma State Department of
Carl Edlund, Chief
Superfund Programs Branch
Comments Re: remedy
9 .
-------
ADotINISI'RATIVE ~OORDS !NIEX ADDENOOM
Job Name:
Sand Springs Petre>-Chemical Canplex
OKD980748446
Job Number:
Docl..ment Date
Docl..ment Type
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
Number of Pages
Docl..ment NLm1ber
08/2 7/87
Letter .
Stanley Reigel - Attorney
Law firm - Morrison, Hecker, et al .
Julie Bozich
u.s. E.P.A. (6) Compliance Section
Response to 07/15/87 u.s. E.P.A. letter
3
'.!
Docl..ment Date
Docl..ment Type
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
Number of Pages
Docl..men t NLm1be r
08/27/87
Letter
M. Louise McFall - Corp. Counsel
Scrivner, Inc.
Carl Edlund, O1ief
p.S. E.P.A. (6) Superfund Programs
Consideration of all remedies
1
Docl..ment Date
Document Type
Originator -
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
Num~ r of Pages
Dc-~ _lent NLm1ber
08/28/87
Letter
Tirrothy L. Olsen
Savage, O'Donnell, Scott, et al
Julie L. Bozich
u.S. E.P.A. Region VI
Public c:x:mrent by Advance Chemical
4
Dist., Inc.
Document Date
Document ~
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient.
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
Number of Pages
. Docl..ment Numbe r
08/31/87
Letter
Vincent A. Mietlicki - Attorney
DeSoto, Inc.
Carl Edlund, O1ief
U.S. E.P.A. (6) SUperFund Program
Corrrrents Re: RI/FS
-------
ADoUNISI'RATIVE RECDRDS INIEX ADDENWM
Job Nalre:
Sand Springs Petro-Chemical Canplex
OKD980748446
- Job Number:
!:>
Decurrent Date
Decurrent Type
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description .
N..unbe r of Pages
Decurrent Numbe r
08/31/87
Letter
Matthew G. Livingood - Attorney
Law fi~ - Hall, Estill, Hardwick,
Carl Edlund, CUef
U.S. E.P.A. (6) Superfund Program
Canrrents Re: RI/FS
9
et al
Decurrent Date
Decurrent Type
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
Number of Pages
Decurre nt NLm1te r
08/31/87
Report.
MOO Petroleum Products Canpany
Contractor
U.S. E.P.A. Region VI
Review of operable unit 75
33 .
Decurrent Date
Decurrent Type
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Re~ipient
Recipi~nt - Affiliation
Description
r-.:umber of Pages
Decurrent Number.
08/31/87
Letter
Linda Gill Taylor - Attorney
Law fi~ - Gage & Tucker
Carl Edlund, CUef
U.S. E.P.A. Region VI &1perFund
Ccmrent Re: selection - response act.ion
3
Decurrent Date
Decurrent Type
. Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description.
Number of Pages
Decurrent Numbe r
08/31/87
Letter/attachment
Sherry D. Blum .
Terra Resoorce Managenent, Inc.
Dennis Rebeck/Fenton Rood
Report addendum
-------
AIXotINISTRATIVE REOORDS IN!EX ADDENOOM
Job NaJre :
Sand Springs Petro-Chemical Canplex
Job 'Number:
OKD980748446
Doc1..llTent Date
Doc1..llTent Type
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
Numt:e r of Pages
Doc1..llTe nt Numbe r
08/31/87
Letter
Michael D. Graves
Hall, Estill, Hardwick,
Carl Edlund
u.s. E.P.A. Region VI
Coi'rIrents upon the RI/FS
9
et al
DocLUnent Date
DocLUnent Type
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient .
. Recipient - Affiliation
Description
Nlm1ber of Pages
DocLUnent Number
08/31/87
Report
Rivkin, Radler, et al/Mittelhauser, Inc.
Law firm/consultants
Carl Edlurd, C1ief
u.s. E
-------
~INISl'RATlVE REOORDS INIEX ADDENOOM
Job Name:
Sand Springs Petro-Chemical Canplex
OKD980748446
Job Number:
)
Document Date
Document 'I'yJ;e
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
Number of Pages
Document Number
08/31/87
Letter
In. Selph - Co. Carmissioner
Board of Co. Commissioners
Carl Edlurd, Chief
u.s. E.P.A. (6) SUperfund Programs
Response to ROD
2 '
"
Document Date
Document 'I'yJ;e
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
~scription
Number of Pages
Document Numte r
08/31/87
Report (Final)
ARCO Petroleum Products Canpany
u.s. E.P.A. - Region VI
Acid Sludge Treatability Evaluations
678
. Document Date
Document '!Ype
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliati9n
Description
Number of Pages
Document Number
09/01/87'
Letter
Joe A. Williams, President
Sand Spr ings Hare
Julie Bozich
u.s. E.P.A. (6) Compliance Section
Response to Bozich letter (07/15/87)
4
Document Date
Document 'I'yJ;e
Originator
Originator - Aff~liation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
Number of Pages
Document Numbe r
09/01/87
Letter
Roseann C. Stevenson - Manager
ARCO Petroleum Product Company
Allyn M. Davis, Director
. U.S. E.P.A. (6) Sand Springs file
Proposal t0t:erform RD/RA
-------
AIJUNIsrRATlVE ~CORDS INDEX ADDENOOM
Job Narre:
Sand Springs Petro-Chemical Canplex
OKD980748446
Job Number:
Doctment Date
Doctment 'IYPe
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
Number of Pages
. Docurcent Number
09/01/87
Letter
Thomas A. Waite - Counsel
Boeing Co. - Office General Coonsel
Carl Edlund, Chief
u.s. E.P.A. Region VI SUperFund Program
RIfFS - first operable unit
2
,/
Docurcent DatP.
Docurcent '!Ype
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description .
Number of Pages
Docurcent Number
09/01/87
Letter
Mark p. Edie - Staff Attorney
Ford Co. - Office of General Counsel
Carl Edlund, C1ief
U.S. E.P.A. (6) Superfund Program
Public COfTIrent period Re: RIfFS
2
Doctment Date
Document '!Ype
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
~ipient - Affiliation
Description
N.Jmber of Pages
Document Number
09/01/87
Letter
R. Fenton Rood, Director
State of Oklahoma Health Departrrent
Carl Edlund, Chief (6&-S)
u.S. E.P.A. (6) SUperfund Program
Public cornrents Re: rerredy
2
Doctment Date
Doctment '!Ype .
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient.
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
Number of Pages
Doctment Numbe r
09/01/87
Letter/attachment
Lisa Seglin/David Stringham
Waste Management North. Arrerica, Inc.
Carl Edlund, C1,{ef .
U.S. E.P.A. (6) SUperfund Programs
Cararents Re: RI/FS
-------
ADotINISI'RATIVE REa:>RDS INDEX ADDENIXJM
Job Number:
Sand Springs Petro-ChemJcal Complex
ORD980748446 -
, Job NaIre:
L'
DocLment Date.
DocLment Type
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
Numbe.r of Pages
DocLment Numbe r
09/01/87
. Letter
Mark D. Edie - Staff Attorney
Office of General Counsel - Ford Co.
Car 1 Edlund, Chief
U.S. E.P.A. (6) SUperfund Programs
Public comment period - RI/FS
2 .
DocLment Date
Doc\JIY'ent Type
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
D:!scription
Nurnbe r of Pages
- Document Number
09/03/87
Letter
D. H. smith
Allyn M. Davis - Director
U.S. E.P.A. (6) Sand Springs
Pro{X)sal to perform RDIRA
3
DocLment Date
DocLment 'lYFe
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description
Numbe r of Paqes
Doc\JIY'ent ~r
09/05/87
Letter
Lonnie N. Bobo
Citizen - Edmond, Oklahoma
Carl Edlund, Chief
u.S. E.P.A. Region VI- SuperFund
Ccmrent~ -Re: p..1blic rreeting
2
DocLment Date
Doc\JIY'ent Type
Originator
Originator - Affiliation
'Recipient
Recipient - Affiliation
Description'
Number of Pages
Doc \JIY'ent Numbe r
09/10/87
Letter . .
Jerry Lasker - Executive Director
Indian Nations Council of Goverments
Robert Layton - Regional Admin.
U.S. E.P.A. Region VI
Ccmrents Re: roD
-------
-------
-
IW EC3U>".L OPPOIi'T'..JNnY E MPtOYE R
/~:.
'-.:"~~~.;:.
!J~.~~~~~ iIJ J:)~::.::..,,:,..:.-:.
..,.. :) ...... J; ... <:. 0,.; ..
~. ,.!It-~~~~~-'~
~ -=.:."=' I'.~: ~::-..-
- ':'" L...:;. 1)0'
I~. -,-, aI~ 'I ,-,- '.
,~"<~:> ~ - ... '=~C:;. /'
\.~~ =:.. <::<:~:::. ..<:.~J:;'
,~--....
Jo8n K. Le~ " M.D.
Comml: .,oner
OKLAHOMA STATE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
Io¥d at Mu'r"
..I
------- |