United States Office of
Environmental Protection Emergency and
Agency Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R06-93/079
February 1993
SEPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
-------
REPORTDOCUMENTA~ON 11. REPORT NO. 2. 3. Reclplenr. Acc88810n No.
PAGE EPA/ROD/R06-93/079
4. Thle and Subtitle 5. Report Date
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION 02/01/93
popile, AR 6.
First Remedial Action - Final
7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Aepl. No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Addr8SS 10 Project TaskIWork Unit No.
11. Contract(C) or Grant(G) No.
(C)
(G)
12. Sponsoring Organization Heme and Add,... 13. Type of Report .. Period Coverad
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, s.w. 800/800
Washington, D.C. 20460 14.
15. Supplementary Notes
PB94-96420S
16. Abstract (Limit: 200 w0rd8)
The 41-acre popile site is an inactive wood preserving facility located in El Dorado,
Union County, Arkansas. Land use in the area is mixed rural, residential, and
commercial, with a woodland area bordering the site to the south. An estimated 25,000
people live within a mile of the site to the north. From 1947 to 1982, the site
operated as a wood treatment facility, using creosote, PCP, and petroleum distillates
in it-s processes. In 1976, popile began using three su~face pits as part of the waste
treatment process at the plant. In 1984, the State ordered that the three surface
impoundments be closed. In 1988, the State requested that EPA initiate a Federal
enforcement action against Popile because State inspections documented surface
contamination and the possibility of ground water contamination at the site due to
leakage from the unit. In 1988 and 1989, EPA conducted inspections and sampling that
revealed contaminated soil, sludge, and ground water onsite. In 1989, EPA initiated a
RCRA enforcement action against Popile for alleged violations relating to the closure
and post-closure requirements for the three surface impoundments. In 1990, EPA
conducted an emergency removal, which included grading and shaping the site surface for
erosion control; constructing a temporary impoundment area and a security fence;
placing steel culverts in the drainage area; placing topsoil and seed over the entire
(See Attached Page)
17. Document Analysis L Descriptors
Record of Decision - popile, AR
First Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: soil, sludge, gw
Key Contaminants: VOCs (benzene, toluene, xylenes), other organics (PAH.s, phenols)
b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
c. COSATI FleldlGroup
18. Availability Statement 19. Security Class (ThIs Report) 21. No.ofPa988
None 124
20. Security Class (ThIs Page) 22. PrIce
None
50272-101
(See ANSI-Z39.18)
SHlnstructJons on R..,-
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTlS-35)
-------
EPA/ROD/R06-93/079
Popile, AR
First Remedial Action - Final
Abstract (Continued)
site; and temporarily storing onsite 66,000 yd3 of contaminated soil, solidified with a
mixture of fly ash and rice hulls to enhance handling properties. Product and waste
handling practices from the wood preserving operations resulted in the direct
contamination to the surface and subsurface soil, sediment, ground water, and surface
water onsite. This ROD addresses a final remedy for the contaminated soil, sludge, and
ground water. The primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil, sludge, and ground
water are VOCs, including benzene, toluene, and xylenes; and other organics, including
PAHs and phenols.
The selected remedial action for this site includes excavating and treating approximately
165,000 yd3 of creosote- and PCP-contaminated soil and sludge onsite using a biological
land treatment unit; backfilling the excavated areas with the treated soil; regrading,
revegetating, and capping the lesser-contaminated soil; implementing engineering controls,
such as a slurry wall, to ensure that at least three feet of soil remains between the
bottom of the treatment zone and the seasonal high ground water table, and to contain
ground water, as necessary; monitoring the treatment zone and the unsaturated zone to
ensure that unacceptable levels of leachate do not migrate from the treatment unit:
extracting 750,000 gallons of shallow contaminated ground water and NAPLs using
interceptor trenches, subsurface drains, and/or pumping wells: treating the contaminated
ground water and NAPLs using sedimentation and oil/water separation processes to remove
soluble and insoluble matter from the ground water and NAPL streams, followed by in-situ
biological treatment for any remaining ground water and NAPLs contamination: incinerating
the oil residuals offsite: treating the residual water onsite using carbon adsorption and
disposing of it offsite; and providing for a contingent remedy for ground water extraction
and offsite treatment, if the selected remedy cannot meet the health-based remediation
goals at any or all of the monitoring points during implementation~ The estimated present
worth cost for this remedial action is $19,400,000, which includes an estimated annual O&M
cost of $178,000 for 10-20 years.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS:
Soil and ground water cleanup goals are based upon Federal standards. Chemical-specific
soil cleanup goals are based upon a risk of 10-6, and include benzo(a)pyrene 3 mg/kg and
PCP 5 mg/kg. Chemical-specific ground water cleanup goals are based upon SDWA MCLs, and
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
POPILE, INC. SITE
RECORD OF DECISION
FEBRUARY 1993
"
c
!:
-------
BOORD 01' DBO%8%08
oollOUR1UDlCB DOCUJID1TAT%OJJ
poa '1'D"
POP%LB 81JPBumm 8%'1'B
]lQ£ Ll.
8i~. a...4i.1 proj.G~ KaDaq.r
~~- .
8~8pb8D Gi1r.in, qbi8r
ALIBI 8.ction '.-8&
Georq8 A1ezu4.r, Jr.
ReqioD.1 COUD..1 '0
~<~ »-~:z.,
""" Allyn x. I).vi. .
...ardoU8 ...1:8 JIaD.q"8D~
-------
RBCOJU) 01' DBCISZOII
'fULB 01' COI1TBftS
POPILB SUPBUUI1D SIB
Bl Dora40, ArJt8D8a8
1DII 'fITLB PAGB 110.
I. SITE NAME, IDCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1
II. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 1
III. COMKUNITY PARTICIPATION 3
IV. SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT 5
V. SITE CHARACTERISTICS 6
VI. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 49
VII. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES 75
IIX. SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF. ALTERNATIVES 95
IX. SELECTED REMEDY 102
X. . STATUTORY DETERXINATIOHf:! 105
XI. oocuMEN'1'ATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES . 108
.
-------
1DK
FIGURE 1
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 5
FIGUU 6
J'IGURE 7
FIGURE 8
FIGURE 9
FIGURE 10
PIGURE 11
FIGURE 12
FIGURE 13
FIGURE 14
FIGURB 15
'FIGURE 16
FIGURB 17
TABLE ,OJ' CC:~"l'BB'1'S ( C'
.)
'l'X'1'LE-PXGtJD
SITE LOCATION MAP
POST REKOVAL SITE HAP
REGIONAL GEOLOGY HAP
REGIONAL GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION
SITE GEOIAJGIC MAP
LOCATION MAP
TD CROSS-SECTION
" '
SITE GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION X-X
SITE GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION Y-Y
PRE-REMOVAL SITE HAP
POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE MAP
TRENCH EXCAVATION LOCATIONS
CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS Dt SUBStJRJ'ACB
SOILS FROII BOREHOLES
CON'l'AMDfANT CONCENTRATIONS IN StJBSOR!'ACB
SOILS FROX KOHI'l'ORXNG ~.'~LIB
ES'fiKATBD ABRAL AND VERTICAL J5X'.a:&N'r OF
SOIL CONTAHDJATION ' '
StmFACB WATER AND SEDDIENT SAMPLE
LOCATIONS
"MONITOR. WILL AND PIBZOIIt'.L'BR LOCATIONS
BSTDfATBD AREAL EXTENT OF GROUND
WA'!ER CONTAMINATION
COST SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS,
11
PAGE NO.
2
4
7
8
9
12
13
14
16
22
26
27
28
39
,43
45
-------
lDII
TABLE 1
TABLE 2
TABLE 3
TABLE 4
TABLE 5
TABLE 6
TABLE 7
TABLE 8
TABLE 9
TABLE 10
TABLE 11.
TABLE 12
TABLE 13
TABLE 14
TULB 0.. COftBl1T8 (cont.)
TI:TLB-TABLBS
DEPTH TO CLAY LAYER IN DEEP BORINGS
COMPARISON OF QTM AND SAS ANALYTICAL
RESULTS
SUMMARY OF TRENCH EXCAVATIONS
QTM RESULTS FOR SOIL SAMPLES
0QTM RESULTS FOR SURFACE WATER SAMPLES.
QTM RESULTS FOR SEDIMENT SAMPLES
SCREENED INTERVALS FOR MONITORING WELLS
. QTM RESULTS FOR GROUND WATER SAMPLES
SUMMARY OF CHEJaCALS OF CONCERN
CANCER RISKS ESTIHATES-RESIDENTIAL
EXPOSURE
HAZARD INDEX ESTIXATES-RESIDENTIAL
EXPOSURE
CENTRAL TENDENCY TABLES
SUMMARY OF SOIL TREATMENT TECBNOIDGIES
SELECTED AT POST-SARA WOOD-TRJ!:ATING SITES
SUMMARY OF GROUND WATER TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGIES SELECTED AT. POST SARA WOOD-
TREATING SITES
111
PAGB NO.
11
18
23
30
40
41
44
46
54
56
59
63
77
-------
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
---
..
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
STATE ACCEPTANCE LETTER
.-
iv
-
_.
-
-------
DBCLARATiOH POR THE RECORD OP DBCiSiOH
. POPiLB, il1C. SXTB
BL DORADO, ARDI1SA8
statutory Preference for Treatment as a
Principal Eleaent is .et
SITE NAKE AND LOCATiON
popile., Inc.
El Dorado, Arkansas
STATEMENT OF BASiS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for
the.Popile, Inc. site in El Dorado, Arkansas, which.was chosen in
accordance .with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. S9~01 et
sea. and, to the extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous
substances Pollution contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR Part 300.
This decision is based upon the contents of the administrative
record file for the Popile, Inc. site.
The' united states Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
consulted the Arkansas Department of Pollution control and Ecology
(ADPC&E) on the selected remedy.
Both EPA and ADPC&E are in favor of a remedy that could provide a
permanent solution to the hazardous substances, pollutants and
contaminants at the Popile, Inc. site. After consultations, ADPC&E
and EPA concluded that although incineration (Alternative 5) could
most effectively destroy the hazardous substances, pollutants and
contaminants at the popile site, other remedial alternatives, in
conjunction with ground water extraction and treatment (Alternative
C), could provide a protective remedy. .
\
In a letter to EPA dated August 25, 1992, ADPC&E submitted comments
on the proposed plan for the popile site and suggested biological
treatment as a potential remedy for dealing with all the
. contaminated. material at the. site. Although EPA originally
eliminated biological treatment from the detailed analysis: of
alternatives, EPA reconsidered biological treatment in addition to
other treatment al.ternatives during an extension to the public
comment period. After review of all. public comments and
considering the relative success of the bioremediation technology
at similar wood trea~er sites, EPA has chosen biological treatment
(Alternative 6), in conjunction with ground. water extraction and
treatment (Alternative C), as the selected remedy. Additional
design data will be collected combined with site spec~fic
bioremediation treatability studies to verify that remediation
goals can be attained. If remediation goals cannot be attained, a
"no migration" waiver may be required, if appropriate.
(,
-------
ASSESSMENT OF THE SXTB.
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this
site, if not addressed by implementing the response action selected
in this Record of Decision (ROD), may present an imminent and
substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the
environment. .
DESCRXPTXON OF TBB SBLBCTED RBKBDY
This final remedy addresses remediation of the shallow ground water
and contaminated soils at the Popile, Inc. site. The principal
threats posed by the site will be eliminated or reduced through
treatment and engineering controls. .'
The major. components of the selected remedy include:
Ground water
o Extraction of shallow contaminated ground water and wood treating.
fluids via.interceptor trenches and/or p~ping wells;
o Treatment and discharge of the contaminated waters on site,
either to a surface water system or reinjection into the aquifer;
o In situ bioremediation of the deep subsurface soils via above
ground bioreactor, nutrients and/or oxygen enhancement system
and reinjection and/or infiltration galleries; and
o Offsite incineration of recovered wood treating fiuids/carrier
oils, such as non-aqueous phase liquids (NAPLS) and dense non-
aqueous phase liquids (DNAPLS), which have been det.ermined to k
a principal threat and continual source of ground water and
subsurface soil contamination.
Soils
o Excavation and onsite biological treatment of contaminated soils
and sludges in a land treatment unit;
o Grading of excavated/backfilled areas, followed by ~ vegetative
cover;
o Construction/repair o~ the security ~encei installat~on of
warning signs; and'"
o Conducting environmental monitoring to ensure the effectiveness
-------
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS.
The selected remedy is protective of human health arid the
environment, complies with Federal and state requirements that are
legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial
action and is cost effective. This remedy utilizes permanent
solution. and alternative treatment technologies to the maximum
extent practicable and satisfies the statutory preference' for
remedies that employ treatment that reduces toxicity, mobil i ty, or
volume as a princip~l element.
Because this remedy will resul t in hazardous substances being
treated onsite for an estimated fifteen to twenty years, the
required fiv~-year review of the remedial action will. be conducted.
. .
_i&-~
z..:!~fe._-----
J . Winkle.
A ting Regional Administrator
u.s. EPA - Region 6
-------
DBCISIOII SUJOmJtY
POPILB, IIIC. SIft
DCOR!) OP DBCISIOII
LOCATION ANDGBHBRAL DBSCRIPTIO.
u,e Popile, Inc., site is an inactive wood, preserving operation
th~t utilized creosote, pentachlorophenol (PCP), and petroleum
distillates in its processes. Those compounds constitutehaza-1='dous
substances as defined at CERCLA Section 101(14), 42 U.S.C.
~ 9601(14), and further defined at 40 CFR S 302.4. Product and
waste 'handling practices resulted in contamination by these
materials to surface and subsurface soils, ground water, surface
water, and sediments. The site is located on SouthWest Avenue,
apprClximately 1/4 mile south of the intersection of South West
Avenue and u.S. Highway 82 near El Dorado, Union County, Arkansas
(Figure 1). The property comprises about 41 ac ;~es, bordered on the
west by South West Avenue, the Ouachita Railroad on the east, and
Bayou de Loutre on the north. These three boundaries intersect on
the north end of the site. A forested highland area borders the
site' on the south. The site is approximately 3/4 mile south of the
El Dorado city limits, which has a population of approximately
25,000. The surrounding area is rural and residential/commerciai,
althou9h no homes are located along the site perimeter.
II. SITE ~ISTORY AND EKPORCBXBBT ACTIV7~IBS
El Dorado Creosote, Co.,
began using the site as
Dorado Pole and Piling
1958. St ,. ::-ting in 1976
the waste :reatment proc
the predecessor company of Popile, Inc.,
a wood treatment facility in 1947. E1
~any, Inc., purchas~d the property in
:ee surface pits 9 US;? : part ,-;f
at the plant. '
The primary contaminants found at the site include PCP and,creosote
compounds associated with wood treatment, which are compounds that
consti tute hazardous' substances as defined at CERCLA Section
101(14), 42 U.S.C. S 9601(14), and further defined at 40 CFR "
1302.4. Wood treatment operations stopped 'in July, 1982. In
September that year, Popile, Inc. was formed and purchased about
7.5 acres of the property, including the pits, and El Ark
Industries, ":nc., purchased the remaining 34 acres. In 1984,
Popile con~ idated the three pits into one unit, and El Dorado
Pole and Pil::.ng ceased to exist. Closure activities for the three
surface impoundments were administered by 'ADPCE in October 1984.
Following consolidation of the impoundments, inspections by ADPCE
documented surface contamination and the possibility of ground'
water contamination at the' site due to lc,kage from the unit. In
April 1988, ADPCE reque'sted EPA initiate a federal enforcement
action. against Popile pursuant to the Resource Conservation and
,/
-------
\J
t
r
I
!
I
r-.--.-_.J
1
I
I
I
I
r-'.-J
I
r-'~.
I
~
City of
EI Dorado
-'--'--.l
I
I
I
~
I
~
Worner
Brown.
Hospital
South West Ave.
SITE
Sewoge Disposal Ponds
LEGEND
-.--.-- City Umits
a
I
SC8I8
, ...
I.tojor Highways
2'-
I
Popile Inc.
El Dorado, Arkansas
Figure 1
Location Map
6/92
-------
Reco.:v~ry Act (RCRA), 42 T!.S.C. i 6901 et seg. :In 1988 and 1989, an
EPA.~ield Investiga.tion.4!'eam conducted inspections and sampling at
the--Popile site. The results of these investigations revealed
contaminated soils, sludges and ground water at the site. :In June
1989, EPA initiated a RCRA enforcement action against Popile, Inc.
and its operators, alleging violations relating to the closure and
post-closure requirements for the three surface impoundments. EPA
has recently settled, in principal, this enforcement matter with
popi1e, Inc.
In August, 1990, EPA determined that actual or threatened releases
of hazardous substances from the closure area owned by Popile and
the surrounding property that El Ark owned posed an imminent and.
substantial endangerment to the public health and environment.
Based on this determination, EPA conducted an emergency removal
action pursuant to Section 106 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. i 9606, after
Popi1e, Inc. and El Ark, Inc., declined to perform the action
. themselves. The removal action, conducted from September, 1990,
until August, 1991, included grading and shaping the site surface
for erosion control, construction of a temporary impoundment area, .
placing steel culverts in the drainage area, placing topsoil and
seed over the entire site and construction of a security fence
(Figure 2).. More than 66,000 cubic yards. of contaminated soil,
solidified with a mixture of fly ash and rice hulls to enhance
handling properties, were placed in the temporary holding cellon
the site. EPA proposed the site for inclusion on the National
Priori tie.s List (NPL) in February, 1992. The Remedial
Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS), which was conducted by
the Alternative Remedial Contracts Strategy (ARCS) contractor,
Camp, Dresser and Mckee Federal Programs, began in January, 1992
and was completed in July, 1992.
III. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATIOH
EPA has encouraged public involvement as activities have progressed
at the Popile site. "Open House" public meetings were conducted by
EPA to discuss field. investigations and resul~s on FebrUary 4, 1992
and July 14, 1992. These meetings were attended by 2 and 14
. people, . respectively. :In addition to formally scheduled meetings,
numerous informal briefings and community interViews were con~ucted
with pUblic officials and interested citizens. The public was
invited to comment on the Remedial Investigation, on the remedial
alternatives described in the Feasibility Study, on the Proposed
Plan and on the Administrative Record. The public comment period
began on July 27, 1992, and ended on September 28, 1992. During
the public comment period, written. and oral. comments submitted to
EPA were considered during the remedy selection process. Oral
comments were accepted at a public meetings on Auqust4, 1992 and
on September 17, 1992, which .were conducted at the Southside
Elementary School in El Dorado, Arkansas. Approximately 15 people
attended the August meeting and approximately. 30 people attended
the september meeting.
3
-------
o
CJ
LECEND
~()
'J
-'-'. SHORt UN(
- ORAlJlAG( 01101
- mEE UHE
- fENCE
N
.. 1
0
SCALE IN FEET
0 ns 470
D
POST-REMOVAL
SITE MAP
POPlLE INC.
EL DORADO. ARKANSAS
r
I'igure 2
-------
The September meeting and a subsequent 30-day extension of the
public comment period was in response to public and ADPCE comments
which requested EPA reconsider ~ther treatment alternatives,
including onsite incineration and biological treatment
alternatives, in l~eu of the preferred alternative of capping of
the soils. and extraction and treatment of the ground water
. initially presented in EPA's Proposed Plan for remediation of the
Popile site. No comments were received at the public meeting or
during the public comment period extension that opposed either the
onsite incineration or the biological treatment alternatives.
Comments centered around the comparative cost estimates in the
Feasibility Study and the public's desire. that EPA implement a
. . permanent and effective remedy.
EPA responded to all comments received during the public comment
period in a document called a Responsiveness Summary. The
Responsiveness Summary is attached to ~his Record of Decision,
which has been made available to the public in the information
repositories.
IV. SCOPE AND ROLB 01' '1'BB OPERABLB UBI'!'
The primary focus of the Popile, Inc., RIfFS was to evaluate
findings of previous investigations, to collect additional
information that will assist in characterizing current and future
risks, and to develop and evaluate long term and permanent remedial
action alternatives. The RIfFS was performed in accordance with
the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan (NCP) 40 CFR Part 300, and CERCLA section 104, 42 U.S.C.
~ 9604. This will be the final operable unit for this site.
The overall objectives of the RIfFS were:
o
To :::ollect informati
ex": :it and movement 01
so~. ", surface soils,
wa~ : at the site;
To provide information for estimating the volume of
contaminated s01ls and ground water at the site;"
on the types , ~ntrations
1taminants preser.. subsurfac...
face water, sediment:, and g:round
o
o
To provide information on site physical characteristics
and site contaminants for use in the Risk Assessment, the
Feasibility Study, and the Remedial Design;
To collect data for use in treatability studies duri~g
Feasibility.Study and the Remedial Design;
o
o
To collect data c. geotechnical properties for use in
designing and loca" :19 remediation structures during the
Remedial Design;
5
-------
o
To identify potentially applicable or relevant and
appropriate (ARARs) for response actions; and
To identify and evaluate remedial alternatives to
address human health and/or environmental risks.
o
Based on the evaluation of the wood treating process, findings of
previous investigations and the results of the RI field
investigation, the sources and the areas of environmental
contamination at thePopile site have been delineated.
The remedy outlined in this Record of Decision represents the final
remedial action at the site and will address the principal threats
to human heal th and the environment which are posed by the
contaminated soils, and ground water. '
v. SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Geology
The popile, Inc., site is located in the West Gulf Coastal Plain
Physiographic Province and ~he Ouachita River Drainage Basin.
Local surficial geology is characterized by the following three
geologic units: the Quaternary Alluvium, the Cockfield formation,
and, the Cook Mountain formation (Figure 3). A geologic cross-
section in the vicinity of the site is shown in Figure 4. The
location of this cross-section is shown on Figure 3.
The popile, Inc., site is located adjacent to and within the
alluvial valley of the Bayou De Loutre, a tributary of the Ouachita
River. The dominant surficial materials at the site are silty
clays of the Quaternary Alluvium (see Figure 5). These silty clays
vary from approximately two to 10 feet in thickness and generally
follow the surface contours. Beneath these surficial clays lie
interbedded, sands, sil ty sands, and clay lens~s, whose total
thickness beneath the ' site ranges from 25 to 50 feet.. In most
borings, except those drilled within. the waste cell, saturated
flowing sands were' encountered at 15 'to '20 feet below ground
surface. As drilling proceeded, hydrostatic pressure forced these
sands up as far as 10 to 15 feet inside of the auger, making it
difficult to obtain a representative sample. Once encountered,
these flowing sands often persisted for 30 to 40 feet.
Underlying the flowing sand layer was a greenish-black silty clay
layer which dips towards the southeast. Drilling conducted during
this investigation strongly suggests that this clay layer is
, .
-------
I
I.
I-.~
I
~
I
I
I.
~
I
r
'c
TCM
N
I
°l
I
I
I
oj
QAL
TC
City of
EI Dorodo
TC
Worner
Brown 0
Hospital
"".--.--.l"
. .--.--.-J
B3
South West Ave.
SITE
Sewage
Disposal
. Ponds
Bayou
de Loutre
QAL~ Quaternary Alluvium
TCM r : Tertiary Cook Mountain Formation
...-
TC 0 Tertiary Cockfield Formation
B1 .
. B3 Location of Regional Cross-section B - S'
Popile Inc. "
El Dorado, Arkansas
t1
I
Sc8I8
1 We
2 ....
Regional Geology
I'iqure 3
?
-------
S
81
82
83
S'
NGVD OF 1929
T su Sparta Sand
~~i;P~ti'"$~;;;t;;;'<;:'d;; :tZi;;tZ;@f@1¥i~tfi*W 't_;i~~;f
,300'
1800'
Tsl
Sparta Sand
600'
900'
'1200'
1500'
Ka
2100'
'012 3 4Miles
L-J I I I I
--r--IIIIIII
1 0, 1 2 3 4 5 6 Kilometers
c
VERTICAl EXAGERRATION X35
NGVD IS NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929
Popile Inc. .
El Dorado, Arkansas
Regional Geologic Cross-Section
Union County. Arkansas
From USGS WRl Report 84-4012
-,. 0
J'igure ..
-------
\D
,0
CJ
CJ
Qal
o
I
LECEND
..-.. . S~ lINE
DRAINAGE DITCH
- IRE£ lINE
- fDICE
""-7 . StW.lOW IIONTORING ww.s
"'-3. ~Tl:r'~ 'n~S J;~Nm ..TEftVAI.
at- t1 .. IIOR£HOI.[
001 QUATERNARY AllIMUIl
T C ~TIMY COCKf1[l.D. FORIIATION
f
o
SCALE IN FEET
235
470
SITE GEOLOGIC MAP AND
CROSS-SECTION LOCATIONS
POPIIE INC.
EL DORADO, ARKANSAS
I'iqure 5
DAn::
-------
continuous beneath the site. A total of ten boreholes and
monitoring wells were drilled to a depth of 35 feet or greater
during this investigation. In eight of these 10 borings, this
greenish-black clay layer was encountered at depths ranging from.
38.5 to 57 feet below ground surface. The other two borings (MW-9
and BH-4) were not sufficiently deep to reach the estimated top of
the clay layer. Lithologic information for these 10 deep borings
is summarized in Table 1, and the locations of these borings are
shown on Figure 5. The borehole logs are included in Appendix B of
the RIfFS documents. .
The estimated upper surface of this deep clay layer is shown on
Figures 6 and 7. The bottom of the clay layer was not encountered
at any of the 10 locations. At borehole 14, the clay was. found to
be at least 25 feet thick. It is likely that thif$ clay layer
represents the top. of the Cook Mountain Formation, a continuous bed
of clay and silty clay that is up to 150 feet thick (Figure 4).
The clay layer could also be a large clay lens within the Cockfield
formation. Regardless of its depositional oriqin, this layer would
provide an effective barrier to the downward movement of
contamination at the site. .
within the site boundaries, many areas have been disturbed during
industrial and subsequent remedial activities. The top 12 to 30
feet of much of the site has been disturbed, and much of the
northern part of the site has been covered with a one to three-foot
clay cap.
During subsurface trenching of the RI, stained soil exuding a
strong chemical odor was encountered extendinq north from the
closed impoundment area alonq the path of the historic drainage
ditch (refer to Figure 8). The stained area was lens-shaped in
cross-section, extending from a depth of three to eiqht feet near
the center, and was about 20 feet in width. Other large areas of
. subsurface contaminated soils revealed during trenching were the
clo$ed impoundment area, the area east of the railroad tracks, and
the old facility area. Near the central portion of the site are
two temporary disposal cells that were constructed durinq. the
Emerqency Removal Action of 1990-91 (see Figure 2). The larqer,
western-most cell contains contaminated soil and fill material that
was excavated from the old facility and site drainaqe areas during
the removal a~tion. The smaller cell contains debris, including
remnants of structures and process equipment, that was removed f.rom
. the facility area. Both cells are lined and capped with two to.
four feet of clay ~atwas imported from offsite. Figure 6 is a
north-to-south cross-section throuqh the larqe disposal cell, and
Figure 7 is a. west-to-east cross- section .throuqh the closed
impoundment area. The locations .of these cross-sections are shown
on Figure 5. . .
.!
~
10
-------
'1'a]:)le 1
DEP'IH TO CLAY LAYER IN DEEP BORINGS
BID 188.5 43 42.5 146
BH4 214 49 . NE NE
BHS 199 58 57 142
BHI0
BHll
BH14
192
197
188
59.5
54
69
.5
51
44
135.5
146
144
MW3 187 38.5 38.5 148.5
MW6 186 49 47 139
MW9 207 59 NE NB
MW14 185 53 48 137
NE = Not Encountered
MSL = Mean Sea Level
. BGS = Below Ground Surface
- ,
-::» .::.:
~~ :U.
..3 ot
3u:ria.
,ur""
~4....=
- ~ .
..""
~.,
-:;ou.-
,.1ua.
~ ':""1-:-
. ..I1.1l
"a1::! .
-------
8H-14
8H-4
8H-7
,,8H-9
8H-10
o
R
~
9
8
!!I
~
!3
~
6
1!20
210
200
J'JI Xl
...,
N
190 X tl
C£ - cur OR slnr cur I
ISM - 511." SAND ~
se - curl' SAND
sp - SAND. POORLr eRADKD ~
180 sr - SAND. r6L£ CRADID I
III. - SILT 51
V - tATIM TABU
TD - roTAL DlnH
170 VERTICAl. SCAlE I'. 10'
HORIZIltTAl SCAlt I' . I~
TD
, .
140 4n
DIEP cur
1:10
Popi\e Inc.
0' Dorado, ArkanS(l'S Site Geologic
IZO TD
-------
<=>
<=>
o
M
MW-6
ELEV 186'
I
<=>
<=>
\0
I \
i
i - 15 MW -. 7 BH -11
. V 200'ELEV ;' 93. 5ELEV 197'
I
o
~
o
I/')
""
210
y
. ,
200
180
p
1~0
TD
170
CL - CLAY OR SILTY CLAY
SP - SAND
SM - SILTY SAND
TD -. TOTAL DEPTH
160
k
r
yo
:"ATER TABLE
VERTIC.':"i.. SCALE l' = 10'
HORIZONTAL SCALE, l' = 150'
150
TD
DEEP. CUY
140
130.
Popile Inc.
El Doro.do, Arko.nso.s
Site Geologic
, 1
Cross - Section Y - Y
Figure 7
6/92
-------
o
CJ
o
LECEND
~<>
-------
Hydrogeology
The Quaternary Alluvium, which is present in most of the.stream
bottoms in Union County, is generally less than 25 feet thick. The
water table in the Alluvium is shallow, with groundwater movement
downslope and towards stream channels. Since the lower part of the
Alluvium is composed mostly of sands and gravelsiit can be assumed
that it is in hydraulic connection with the underlying Cockfield
formation in places where it is underlain by sandy or gravelly beds
of the Cockfield. The Alluvium is not used as .a major source of
potable water. .
The Cook Mountain Formation is not considered an aquifer in Union
County because of its very low permeabil.ity. It generally serves
as a confining unit between the overlying Cockfield Formation arid
the underlying Sparta Sand.
Groundwater within the underlying Sparta Sand is divided into two
distinct aquifers, the upper .Greensand Aquifer and the lower El.
Dorado Aquifer, by a continuous, confining clay layer approximately
in the middle of the Sparta Sand. The Sparta Sand aquifers are
confined above by the Cook Mountain and below by the Cane River
Formation. The El Dorado Aquifer is the basal freshwater unit in
Union County, and is the principal water source for most of the
communities and businesses within the county.
Contact with the Division of Engineering of the Arkansas Department
of Health indicated that there are no public water supply wells
within a l.S-mile radius of the site.
Hydrogeologic investigation during this RI was limited to the
Quaternary Alluvium and Cockfield Formations. The transition
between these two formations at the site was. difficult to
distinguish, due to problems in obtaining representative samples
caused by flowing. sands and. the high degree of subsurface
disturbance throughout most of the site. In addition, published
literature suggests widespread hydraulic communication 'between
these two formations (Broom ~ Al., 1984). . Thus, these two
unconsolidated formations are treated as a sinqle hydroqeoloqic
unit. . .
water levels were measured in 14 monitoring wells and' 12
piezometers to characterize the potentiometric surface at the site.
Figure 9 is a potentiometric map based on water level data for
wells and piezometers screened at 2.5-, 5~, or 10-foot intervals,
at depths from five to. 25 feet below ground surface. Groundwater
is generally deepe~.beneath the higher surface elev~tions on.the
west side of the site, and shallower approaching the bayou. Depths
to groundwater ranged from near ground surface at the northern
corner of the site, to 10 feet below ground surface near the west-
central edge of the ~ite. The general direction of groundwater
-------
N
~ t
0\
0
SCALK IN TEET
0 2» 470
-"
~<:>
'J
LECEND
..-.. SIIOII£ UN[
- DIWIIAG[ lIITat
- IRU UHf
- rOlCE
,., ---- GROUND WATa:R Q.£VAT1ON
MINE NG'IO (~
WHERt 1Hf'[RUI)
~ CROIHIWAIIR I\IIW IIIItCTDI
i.
a
POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE YAP
FOR SHAlLOW WEW
POPIIE INC.
EL DORADO, ARKANSAS
D
o
I'igure ,
-------
movement is downqradient towards the bayou, with a horizontal
gradient ranging from 0.08 ft/ft to 0.03 ft/ft.
At most boring locations, clays and silty clays predominate in the
upper five to 10 feet, underlain by sands and silty sands ranging
in thickness from 25 to 60 feet. Water levels in well clusters'
screened in these two zones indicate that the underlying sand layer
is under semi-confined conditions. Below the sands is a greenish-
bl,ack, low permeability silty clay layer, which appears to be
continuous beneath the site, acting as a barrier to the downward
movement of groundwater and contaminants into the underlying
formations. This clay layer appears to slope to the southeast, and
was encountered at eight locations across the site, ranging from 39
feet below ground surface at the north end to 57 feet below ground
at the southern end. The lower boundary of this clay was not
encountered during this investigation. At Borehole 14 (BH-14) at
the northwest edge of the site it was 1 'xnd to be at least 25 feet
thick (see Figures 6 and 7). '
The waste cells at the site are capped and lined with two to four
feet of clay, which acts as a partial hydraulic barrier to water
movement into the cells. No wells were completed in these cells.
However, 'based on borehole information, soils in these cells ra~ge
from very moist to slightly moist, indicating that there is some
leakage into the cells from infiltrating precipitation and adjacent
groundwater. No pump or slug tests were performed. However, based
on visual estimation of particle size of aquifer' materials and
observations of recharge during well development, hydraulic
conductivities are estimated to be on the order of 10'. em/see for
wells completed in sands, and 10.7 em/see for wells completed in
clays and silty clays.
RI Pield '-nveS1:iga1:ioD
The RI FieldInvestiga~ion utilized established sampling procedures
for soils and waters. Analytical methods employed were
conventional Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) methods as well as
the innovative Quick Turnaround Method (QTM) method. Table 2
indicates extremely' good' correlations between the CLP and QTM
sample results. The evaluation of subsurface materials included 60
exploratory trenches, 29 soil borings, and 26 ground.water wells
and piezome1:ers, in addition to surface soil and surface water
sampling. '
-------
Table 2
COMPARISON OF qrM AND BAS ANALYTICAL RESUCl'S
~
Q)
fiELD SAMPLE IUMlER: SSOI-Sl-ool 11104-55.001 IH09.55.004 MWOZ.5S-005
EPA SAMPLE IUIIEI: afOO99 Sf 2359 af0055 Sf 2504 Qf0120 Sf 2362 Qf0097 Sf 2556
DEPTH 0.0.5' 0.0.5' 0.5' 0-5' 20-24' 20-24' 15.20' 15-20
METHOD aTM SAS OTM SAS aTM . SAS aTM 5AS
\lOA ANALYTES (40/20) a Q Q 0 Q .Q a a
Q/lCg IIg/Kg - '- "II'g 118/Kg I-- 118/"8 118/18 - - "8/1Cg ",/KI !.-
DILUTION fACTOR 1.000 1.000 10.000 1.000
IENUNE . .U.I 0.14 U . UJ 0.20 U . UJ 1.43 U - UJ 0.20 U
CHLOIOIENZ£NE - UJ 0.11 U . Uol 0.20 U - UJ 1.77 U . U.I 0.20 U
ETHYL8EIIUNE . UJ 0.08 U 12.00 R 0.10 U 7.70 01 25.09 P . UJ. 0.10 U
TOLUENE . W 0.84 . Uol 0.10 U 7.70 01 18.08 P 4.40 J .0.10 U
XYlENES 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.50 U 84.00 . 102.25 P 0.00 0.30 U
PAH AllALYTES (J30/2O) afOO99 a Sf 2359DL Q af0055 Q Sf 2304 Q Of 0121 0 Sf 2362DL 0 Of 0097 Q SF 2336 Q
.III"g .IIIKg - ~ .,II/K8 ../K8 ~ - 118/18 111/11 I--- -- 118/1C8 1I1I/1C9 r--
DilUTION fACTOR 20.000 1.000 1000.000 . 1.000
IlAPH'HAUIiE - R 314.0 U) . UJ 18.0 U 2900.0 J 16600.0 DU - UJ 18.5 U
ACEIlAPHTHYLENE . . 314.0 U) . UJ 18.0 U 600.0 .. 16600.0 au - UJ 18.3 U
ACEIlAPHTIIENE . . 52.0 U) . Uol 3.0 U . 6000.0 01 2760.0 DU - UJ 3.0 U
flUORENE - . 52.0 U) . Uol 3.0 U 6300.0 .I 5850.0 D . UJ 3.0 U
PHEIIAIITHREIIE - . 21.0 U) . UJ 1.2 U 18000.0 01 1710.0 D 32.0 J 1.2 U
AIITHRACENE - . 21.0 U) . UJ 1.2 U 9900.0 .. "'0.0 D - UJ 1.2 U
FLUORANTIlENE . . 105.0 U) 50.0 J 6.0 U 26000.0 J 10300.0 D . UJ 6.1 U
PYREIIE . R 105.0 III 60.0 01 6.0 U 25ooo.D J 2580.0 au - UJ 6.1 U
IENZ(A)AIITHRACENE - R 31.4 UD . U.I 1.8 U 51SOO.0 J 1660.0 DU - UJ 1.8 U
eHRYSENE . - R 31.4 UD . U.I 1.8 U 6000.0 .. 1420.0 D - UJ 1.8 U
IENZO(I)/(K)fLUORAIITHENE . R 136.4 . UJ 1.8 16000.0 01 4040.0 . UJ 7.9
BEIIZO(A)PYRENE . R 52.0 UD . UJ 3.0 U 3100.0 . 2760.0 DU - UJ 3.0 U
IIIOEND(I,2,3-CD)PYREII£ - . 31.4 U) . U.I 1.8 U 1500.0 J 1660.0 DU . UJ 1.8 U
DIBENZ(A,H)AIITHRACENe - R 105.0 UD . Uol 6.0 U 330.0 J 5520.0 DU - Uol 6.1 U
IENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE - R 31.4 UD . UJ 1.8 U 1300.0 R 1660.0 DU . . UJ 1.8 U
I(A)P Equlvatence Cone. 0.0 I-- 15.6 f- 0.0 - 0.8 ~ 5820.0 - 418.2 I--- 0.0 I--- 0.8 ~
-------
'l'a))le 2
(Continued)
COMPARISON OF QTM AND SAS ANALYTICAL RESUcrs
....
\D
fiELD SAMPLE MUNIER: IUJ4-GII-ocn SV02-IW-001 SUOz.so.ocn
EPA SAMPLE NUMlEI: IF0134 SF 2368 aFooa5 If 2327 1'0081 SF 2321
OEPTH 5.15' IIA
METHOD aIM SAS aIM SAS eIITH SAS
\lOA AllALYlES (40/20) ell 1 1 Q 1 1
HlL "elL ~ - "e/L "e/L - I- fle/lC, ;.,/lCe -
OILUTlCIII FACIOR 1.000 1.000 1.000
BEIlZEIiE .. UJ 0.13 U - UJ 0.13 U . UJ 0.20 U
CHLOROIEIIZEIIE - UJ 0.16 U - UJ 0.16 U . UJ 0.20 U
ETHYLIEIlZEIiE - UJ 0.08 U - UJ 0.08 U . UJ 0.10 U
IGLUEIIE . UJ 0.10 U - UJ 0.30 . UJ 0.10 U
XYLEIIEI 0.00 0.27 U 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.40 U
PAN AllALYTES (330/20) If0135 a Sf 23611DL Q If 0085 Q Sf 2327 Q Ifooa1 Q Sf 23210L Q
"elL I"/L ~ - ,.e/L ,,/L - - .8/IC, I',/K, I--
OILutlON fACTOR 10.000 1.000 400.000
IIAPHTHALEIIE . UJ 4.500 DU . UJ 0.450 U 3300.0 R 38100.0 0
ACENAPHTHYLENE 20.000 R 4.500 ou . UJ 0.450 U 98.0 R 7910.0 ou
ACEIlAPHIHENE 7~900 J 0.750 ou . UJ 0.075 U 4300.0 R 24300.0 0
FLUORENE . UJ 2.200 0 - UJ 0.075 U 13000.0 R 80300.0 0
PHENANTHREIIE . UJ 1.900 D . UJ 0.030 U 70000.0 R 5150.0 D
ANTHRACEIIE . UJ 1.900 D . UJ 0.030 U 5100.0 R 5150.0 D
fLUORANTHEIiE . UJ 4.170 D - UJ 0.150 u. 50000.0 R znoo.o 0
PYRENE . UJ 18.300 0 - UJ 0.150 U 34000.0 R 9580.0 D
8EIZCA)AN~HRACENE . UJ 2.950 D . UJ 0.045 U 11000.0 R 646D.0 D
CHIYSENE . UJ 1.500 D . UJ 0.045 U 9000.0 R 4500.0. D
BENZOCI)/CK)fLUORANTHENE . UJ 4.450 - UJ 0.195 6600.0 R 4790.0
BENZOCA)PYIENE . IIJ 1.040 0 . UJ 0.075 U 2900.0 R 2550.0 0
IIIIEIIO(t.:?, " ,<,,,;'Y~ENE . UJI .. - UJ 0.045 U noo.o I 197.0 DU
DilEN? : "IE . UJ' . UJ 0.150 U 620.0 R 2660.0 DU
lENZO" .' , ' ~. .:i,nENE . R 5.985 f=t - UJ 0.045 U 730.0 I 797.0 DU
8eA)p Equtv.lence Cone. 0.000 0.000 ~ 0.020 ~ 5480.0 f-- 3720.0 ~
Tot.1 PAH. 27.900 47.050 0.000 ~ 0.195 I-- 0211748.0 I-- 20a0a0.0 ~
.1.
, I
-------
. Table 2
(Continued)
COMPARISON OF QTM AND SAS ANALYTICAL REStrurS
N
o
fiELD SAMPlE IURIE.: MW03.II-0Q2 NY05.II-003 1IW07.15-003 ""0-55-00'
EPA.UII'lE.",I: Qf0124 If 2367Dl QfOO70 SF 2315 Qf0091. Sf UJ3Dl af0052 Sf Z301Dl
DEPTH 31.5-39' 38.5-39.5 20-25' 20.25" 10-15' 10.15' 0-5' 5-10'
METHOD aT" SAS QIM SAS QTM SAS aTM SAS
~ MALYTES (40/20) Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
.I/Ke I'8/KII - f- I'8/KII ,"/K" I-- - IIII/ICI /li/ICI' i-- - .1/"" /lII/1C8 -
DILUTICII FACTOR 5.000 1.000 10.000 10.000
IEItZENE - UJ 0.81 U . UJ 0_20 U - UJ 0.20 DU - UJ 0.20 U
CHlOlCllEIIZENE - UJ 0.99 U - UJ 0.20 U - UJ 0.20 DU - UJ 0.20 U
ETHYlBENZEIIE - UJ 0.49 U - UJ 0.10 U 70.00 J. ZS.40 D 77.00 J 89.90 D
TOLUEIIE - UJ 1.46 D - UJ 1.00 28.00 J 12.70 D . UJ 0.10 U
XYlEILES 0.00 1.62 D 0.00 0.30 U 162.00 79.00 0 3.60 139.00 0
PAH MALYI!S CJ30/20) Qf0125 CI If 2367 CI Qfoo70 Q If 2315 CI Of 0091 0 Sf Z333Dl a af0052 a Sf ZS010L Q
"I/KII .8/KI - - IIIIKII .II/ICI - - .II/KII ,.II/KII - - "II/KI . .8/KII -
OllUTICli fACTOR . 1.000 1.000 400.000 200.000
NAPHTHALENE - UJ 18.7 U . UJ 23.2 63000.0 J 12200.0 0 - UJ 3480.0 DU
ACEIlAPHTHYlEIiE - UJ 18.7 U . UJ 55.9 8700.0 J n40.0 DU - UJ 3480.0 DU
ACEIIAPHTHEIIE . UJ 5.5 - UJ 8.1 5500.0 J 47500.0 D 37.0 J 579.0 DU
flUOREIiE . UJ 12.3 . UJ 18.7 76000.0 J 166000.0 D 41.0 J 579.0 DU
PHEWTHRENE - UJ 1.2 U 110.0 J 2.2 3600.0 J 75100.0 D 170.0 J ZS2.0 DU
ANTHRACEIIE - UJ 1.2 U . UJ 2.2 220000.0 J 75100.0 D 48.0 J ZS~.O DU
flUORAllTHEIiE - UJ 9.6 - UJ 10.9 100000.0 J 60400.0 D 270.0 J 1160.0 DU
PYIEIIE . UJ 6.2 U . UJ 6.2 U 73000.0 J 16800.0 D 240.0 J 1160.0 DU
BENZCA)ANTHRACEIIE - UJ 1.9 U . UJ 1.9 U 16000.0 I 17300.0 0 . UJ 348.0 DU
CHIYSEIIE . . UJ 1.9 U . UJ 1.9 U 15000.0 . 10800.0 0 - UJ 348.0 DU
BEIIZOCI)/CK)flUDRAITHENE . UJ 8.1 . UJ 8.1 11000.0 J 8090.0 120.0 J 1508.0
8EIIZO(~)PYIEIIE . UJ 3.1 U . UJ 3.1 U 4700.0 J 4430.0 D - UJ 579.0 DU
IIIDEIIO(1,2,3-CD)PYAEILE - UJ 1.9 U . UJ 1.9 U 2000.0 J n4.0 DU . UJ 348.0 DU
DIBEIIZ(A,H)ANTHlACENE - UJ. 6.2 U . UJ 6.2 U 1000.0 J 2410.0 DU - UJ 1160.0 DU
IEIlZO(G,.;I)PERYlEII~ .- UJ 1.9 U . UJ 1.9 U 1300.0 J n4.0 DU - UJ 348.0 DU
I(A)' Equlva'ence Cone. 0.0 I-- 0.8 - 0.0 - 0.8 I-- 8750.0 i-- 7077.0 - 12.0' I-- 150.8 I--
-------
.>
...
Subsurface Soils Inv..tigat~db
-
-
Trenching
Shallow trenching was used to help determine the extent and
magnitude of shallow subsurface contamination. Trenches consisted
of linear excavations, two to three fee~_wi~... tifteen to twenty
feet in length, and 12 to 14 feet deep. -Tranc~AA were spaced at
in~ervals of twenty to forty feet along a line. Trench locations
a-:.:he site are shown in Figure 10.
Trenches were dug using a backhoe operated from_~e surface. The
maximum depth of the trenches was approximate..l¥ 14 feet,. as
determined by the. reach of the backhoe bucket. ~~ trenches were
examined for contamination and described by a soil scientist.
Lengths and depths of individual 1;renches, as w~ll as a brief
summary of field observat;~n~j are presented in Table 3.
-:;;; I
.;; . '2 :
Soil ~orings
Subsurface soil samples, collected during the drilling of boreholes
and monitoring wells, were used to characterize the nature and
extent of subsurface contamination, as well as the geology of the
site. . Drilling activities were conducted using a truck-mounted
Mobile B-57 drill rig and 41iz-inch I.D. hollow:-stem augers.
Lithologic logs for all boreholes and monitoring wells are included
in Appendix B of the RIfFS Report.
Borehole locations, subsurface soil sampling intervals, and
concentrations of selected contaminants for borehole soil samples
are shown in Figure 11. Monitoring well locations, soil samplin~
intervals, and contaminant concentrations for moni torinq--well soil
samples are shown in Figure 12. "'" . . . ~
. .
The estimated areal and vertical extent of soil cont~ination at
the Popile, Inc. site is shown in. Figure 13 . !.Phis f~gure
identifies six contamination source areas .at the 8i~~- In this
figure, "contamination" 'means either a concentration in soil of PCP
exceeding 5,000 parts per billion (ppb), a benzo(a)pyrene (B(a)P)
equivalent concentration exceeding 110 ppp, or both. These
compounds :::onstitute hazardous substance::~ ~s defined at CERCIA
Section 101(14), 42 U.S.C. ~ 9601(14), a:. :,lrther defined at. 40
CFR S 302.4. The areal extent and depth.~ contamination shown
were estimated based ~n the results of sub~, .3ce soil sampling, as
well as observations during trenching. Subsurface soil sampling at
the Popile, Inc. site indicates heavily contaminated areas in the
. old impoundment area (Area 4), and ,the old facility area (Areas 2
and 3). Areas 2, 3,' c... 4 are the primary areas that have. been
determined to be major'.1rces and conti~': .al threats of ground
wat,,::::, cOr1tamination.and ..:. undergo excavl::.ion and treatment.
f
21
-------
w
w
~()
Q
o
o
CJ
o
LEGEND
-- . SHOll[ UNE
-.- DRAlIIAG( DlTDt
- tREE UIC
- FEJ«:E
,II-S TR£HCH
o
i
SCALE IN .TEET
2)5
470
TRENCH LOCATIONS
POPIIE INC. SAS
EL DORADO. ARKAN
I'iqure 10
-------
\.,.....11...
u. ~
'lable 3
w
w
POPILB SITB. EL DORADO, ARKANSAS
Contamioation Observed in Trenc:bes
Pebruary 13 - .17, 1992
Transed Excavation Location of BicaVlliOD Depth of Location of Contaminalion COmments
No. No. Excavation
I' (BGL)
I I - 3' !tom fence 011 east end of cransect 10' None observed
2 - 30' from fenal on east end of &r8DICCt 12' No visual, but petrol. odor Sample I-I water oozing from 12'
3 - 70' from fcnal 08 east cDd of trused IS' No odor or sheen Water oozinS from 12'
IJ I
2 0 - 10' from dilCb 011 west side 12' None observed i UJ Possible some oil on waler after 24 hrs
0 - 20' from ditch OD west side 10' None observed j UJ
1 - 10' (rom eaSt eod of traDHCt 12' DistiDd petrol odor '" duk siaillins on walls fr nPJ.. 2 DOL Sample '2-1 (from 8' DOL); Sample 112-2 (from 12' DOL)
- '15' from easl eDd 12' Same u above I~~
2 - 10' from easl end 10' None observed
3 - 60' from west end 10' Odor, lut nothiaa visual
4 . - 12~' from west ead 7' NOIIC observed j'I..'",
~1JU\'
3 1 from 0.35' from cui end oflrlDlcct 12' Tainted between 2' '" 12' 8G1.. strona odor, conL less evident Sample 3-1b
lit .. 35' from east end 14 hrs oily wiler
-------
Table 3 (Continued)
J
~
POPILE SITE. EL DORADO, ARKANSAS
ConlamiD&lion Observed in Trcnches
February 13.. 1'7, 1992
Trmscct Excavation Location of &cavaUoo Depth of Location of Contaminl1ion ComlllClltS
No. No. ExcavatioD
(DOL)
6 1 NCJrth CDd 01 trUISm II' From 7-11' wnled, oily waler - 3.S' BOL (14 hr) Oray soil had 16 ppm
2 - 6S' from oCJrth cnd 12' 7-11' ,oily wiler - S' DOL (24 hr) Brown oily oou Cit 7'
3 - 110' from north cnd 11' Lowcr pari 01 cxcavation has dk 11m sucllks, BOL - 4.S' BrOWD oily ooze @ 9' .
4 - 160' from DCXtb cnd S' Lower pari 01 excavauon has woled soil, BOL - S.S' Waler at S' has shc~n
S - _SO' from north cod S' Uocenain
7 1 Soulhleast CDd 9' Oily waIeJ - 4' SOL 14 hra afler exC8vatinS
1 - ]0' soulbleast end S' Wiler .\ighlly op8que - 4.S' 14 hrs after excavating
3 - 80' southleast CIId 6' Wiler s\ighlly opaquc - S.O' 14 hr. after cxcavating
4 - 100' soulh/cul cod 10' Die. oily sWaio, from - 4' BOL, waler Cit 9', bill. oily Much contamination
5 - 130' soulhlcut cod 11' Bro, oily \iquid seeping (it 10', water (it 8' Much contamination
6 - 15' south of trUlSec:1 (see msp) 12' Ok. oily swoioS between 1 "8'
7 See map 14'(7) No obvious coDlamioation (some dk staining between 6-7') Opaque waler
8 See msp 15'(7) SluDio, evideot from I' 10 4', dk bm waler -- Some oil prescnl
9 See map 13' Suoog odor 01 petroleum 24 ppm
-------
Table 3 (Continued)
POPD..E Sim. EL DORADO, ARKANSAS
CoDlalllillltioD Observed iD TreDches
February 13 - 17, 1992
I - -
Transect ExcavatioD ~o. 01 BuaYllioa Depth of Loc8IioD of CoDlamillllioD Co_DII
No. No. ExcavatioD
(BOL)
..
13 I - 78' 1011111 of fCDce a: 75' from PI1 9.S' No obvious C:ODlamiDWOD
2 - 60'. loulh of Ibo CCII'IICI of fcDCC line 8.S' Slight llaiDioa bc&WCCD 1.2'
.~~~.. ...,.
14 I - 25' cast ~f fclIU 8.25' No obvious c:oDlamiDatioD
".-.
IS I - SS' 1011111 of PI1 9' No obvious c:oDlamiDatioD, water has DO shCCD
- _u.".-
II.)
-------
N
0\
~ "
()
~
"
,
,/
o
-"
-.
-
CJQ
o
-.
lTlIIIIJI
- aa -
.. .. c .
a," ---
u:r;UD
-- Sta!t UN!
- CIIWIWO£ DIfQI
- 1RIE IH
- fUtCI
_J. ~~-.E:
_n. IIOIIDI8.£
....
IMIFM:I: ~-.a:
. ,-
NIt 1OW.~-.c~
IWI' 80CZD (0) mmc I!IIUIVHIIICI
ftP I'DIUICIUIIDPIt
1UIII 1U1W:MI
-------
I:
N
...,J
~<::)
~
o
CJ
o
o
UJ\
II
IIJ
.'oJ
1I .. ~
IJ
LECIND
.-.. SHOIt£ UNE
- . DRAIWif DllCIt
- 1RfE UN[
- FO+:t:
""-7.. SHNJ.OW IIONTORIHG W£U.S
..,,-~ ... O£O. &IOHITORIHC W£u.s I~[(N£O INT£RYAl
CRrA1tII 1IWI U f[[J IItS,
'Z-) I) PtDOIIQ[II
. 10001
,"" TOflL POl'rIIUCt£AR AROMATIC IMIIIOCNIBOHS
1I/e)P IlOl[0 (0) J'YRl!IE [QUHAUHC£
- POIIAQILOROI'tIDIOL
TCOII TETFACHLORODIIIEHZOOIOXIH EOUHAlEIICE
1M HOT NIAl'YIED
NOIt: AU. IMUIS ""E .. ppe
N
i
SCALe IN FEET
0 .1 U. .70
Ii
I. .'.
CONTAUINANT CONCENTRATIONS IN
SliBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLES
fROIl MONITORING WEu.s
POPII£ INC.
EL DORADO. ARKANSAS
'I'igure 12
...'"
-------
).
~
.
\
')
)
.
o
CJ
UCEND
~<)
''0
- -' UOC
- ~GII'OI
-. tIIU UMJ
- DI$IINI f1IICC
lOlL [$r""01 OU'nt Of' COIoIr-'[O SOL
~ . ~ SUllf"AC& -.S
EI NlI:A ..eRE VECEWIIoC covtll
IIIU. " PUoCtD
~ N
CO t
.0
saw.(
~ SCALE IN FEIlT
0 235 470
o
ESTIMATED AREAL AND VERTICAL
EXTENT OF SOIL CONTAMINATION
POPILE INC.
EL DORADO. ARKANSAS
I'iqure 13
-------
Although area 6 c~. ~ins heavily contaminated materials, they are
contained within a clay-lined disposal cell and have undergone
solidification processes during the EPA removal action. If left
uncontrolled, the disposal cell area would also become a source of
ground water contamination due to gradual water infiltration within
the' cell area. Areas of lesser subsurface contamination are in the
vicinity of the former drainage ditch north of the old impoundment
area (Area 1), and the area northeast of the old impoundment and
east of the. railroad tracks (Area 5). Area 6 and the areas of
lesser contamination are the areas which will be capped to prevent
erosion and surface runoff to Bayou de Loutre as well as prevent
the infiltration of precipitation which could also contribute to
ground water contamination.
Based on soil sampling and trenching observations,. the areas south
and west. of the temporary soil disposal cell and the area west of
the old drainage ditch and north of the old facil- '-area are areas
of minimal subsurface soil contamin~tion. The ;uth end of the
site is represented by Boreholes 6 and 8, Monito.. _ng Wells 11 and
12" and observations of trenches 12, 13, and 15, which showed
little visual evidence of subsurface contamination.
Soil samples. collected in Monitoring Wells .8 and 9 showed little
evidence of subsurface contamination west of the temporary soil
disposal cell. Samples from boreholes 1, 2 and 14, as well as
trench observations for trenches 1-3, 2-3. and 2-4, and 3-5 and 3-6
showed evidence of minimal subsurface contamination in the area
west of the drainage ditch and north of the old facility.
Surface Soil Investigation
During the 1990-1991 removal action, much of the site was covered
with a o~e to two foot layer of clean soil. For this reason, only
three surface soil samples were collected during this
investigation. All three samples were collected from a =pth of 0
to 6 inches. The locations and concentrations of selected
contaminants for these samples are shown iQ Figure 11, and the
analytical results are presented in Table 4.
Surface water an4 Se4i..nts
The objective of the surface water and sediment investigation was
to determine whether sediment, runoff, and/or groundwater emanating
from the site is degrading the quality of water and stream sediment
in the Bayou de Loutre. Another objective was to characterize
other areas of probable contaminated surface.water and sediment at
the site, including minor drainages and areas of standing water.
A total of five surface water/sediment sampling locations, shown -in
Figure 14, were selected at the site. One .surface water and one
sediment sample was collected at each location. The analytical
results for surface water and sediment samples are contained in
Tables 5 and 6, respectively. .
-------
w
o
fiELD SAMPLE lUMBER: 5501-SL-Oen 5S0Z-SL-001 150]-SL-001 IH01.S5-001 lII01-S5-ooZ IH01-55-oo3 IHOZ-ss-oen IH02-55.00Z IH02-55-00] IH02-15-004
EPA SAMPLE lUMBER: QFOO99 . Qf0101 Qf0102 . Qf0065 QfOO66' OF0067 OF0150 OF015Z Qf0154 Of 0156
DEPTH 0-0.5' 0-0.5' 0-0.5' ]-5' 9-11' 18.20' 0-4' 4-9' 19-24' 24-29'
VOA ANALTTES (40) 0 Q Q 0 0 a. Q Q a a
118/1C8 - - - 1&8/1C8 - - - IIII/K!! - - - IIII/ICII III/ICII IIII/ICII - - IIII/ICI - --- 118/ICI 118/ICI - - - III/ICI - ~
VIIIYL CHLOIIIDE . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UI - Uol - UI - Uol - Uol - Uol
1,1-DICHLOIIOETHEIIE - Uol . Uol - Uol - Uol . Uol - Uol - Uol - Uol - U.I - U.I
TRANS-1,Z-DICHLOIIOETHENE . Uol - Uol - Uol - Uol - Uol - Uol - Uol . Uol - Uol - Uol
1,1-DICHLOROETHAIIE - Uol . Uol . Uol . Uol . Uol - Uol - Uol - Uol . Uol - Uol
CIS-1,2-DICHLOROEtHEIIE - Uol - Uol . Uol - Uol . Uol - Uol . Uol - Uol - UJ - UJ
CHLOROfORM - UJ - UJ - Uol . Uol . UJ - Uol - .UJ - Uol - UJ - UJ
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE - UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ - Uol . Uol - UJ .- U.I - UJ
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE . UJ - UJ . UJ - Uol - UJ - UJ . Uol - Uol - Uol - Uol
BEIIZENE . UJ - Uol . UJ . Uol . Uol . UJ . Uol - Uol - Uol - Uol
1,Z-DICHLOROETHANE - UJ - Uol . Uol - Uol - Uol - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ
TRICHLOIIOETHEIIE - Uol - UJ - UJ . UJ . Uol - UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ
BROMODI CHLOROMETHAIIE - UI - UI - Uol - UI . Uol - Uol - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ
TOLUENE - Uol . Uol . Uol . Uol . Uol - UI 8.70 01 - u,i . Uol - Uol
TETRACHLOIIOETHENE . Uol - UI - UJ . UI - UJ - Uol - Uol - Uol - Uol . Uol
CHLOR08ENIENE . Uol . UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ - u.i - UJ - UJ - UJ
1,1,Z,Z-TETRACHLOROETHANE - .UJ - Uol - UJ - UJ. - UJ . UJ - UJ - UI . UJ - UJ
ETHYLBENZENE - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ 11.00 J - UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
BROMOFOIIM - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ - UI - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
N,P-IIYlENE . Uol - Uol - UoI' - UJ - Uol - UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
O-IIYLENE - Uol . Uol . UJ . Uol - UI - Uol - UI - UJ - UJ - UJ
PAH ANAL'TES (330) QF0099 Q af0101 a af0102 a QF0065RE a QFOO66 a afOO6~ CI af0151 CI af0153 a Clf0155 0 Of 0157 CI
118/1C8 - - - II~/KII - - - 118/KII - - I- III/KII - - - lllItell - - I- IIII/Kg - - - 118/K8 - - - 118/K8 - - ~ IIII/K8 - - - IIII/KII - I-
NAPHTHALENE R R R Uol UJ UJ R - R - R - R
ACE NAPHTHYl ENE - R - R - R . UJ - UJ - UJ - R - R - R - R
ACENAPHTHENE - R . R - R . Uol . Uol - Uol - R - R - R - R
. fLUORENE - R - R - R . UJ - UJ - UJ - R - R - R - R
PHENANTHRENE - R - R 840.00 . . UI 130.00 J 120.00 J - R 57.00 R - R - R
ANTHRACENE . R . . 550.00 . . UJ - UJ - UI . . - . - . - .
fLUORANTHENE - R - . zooo.oo . - UJ - UJ - UJ . I - R - R . R
PYIIENE - R . . 3900.00 R - UJ - UI - Uol - R - R - It - It
BEIIZ(A)ANTHRACENE - I . . 4800.00 R . UJ - Uol - UJ - It - II - II - II
CHRYSEIIE - I - . 6800.00 . - Uol - Uol - Uol - II - II - R - R
BEIIZOCI)/elC)FLUORANTHEIIE - R - . . 4000.00 . - Uol - Uol - Uol - R - . - . - .
BEIIZOeA)PTRENE - I . . 3600.00 . - Uol - Uol - Uol - . - . - . - .
IIIDENOC1,Z,3-CD)PTREIIE - R. - . 1000.00 . 58.00 01 - Uol . UJ - . - R - . - .
DIIENZeA,H)AIITHRACENE . . . . 580.00 . - UJ - Uol - Uol - R - R - R - R
BENZO(G,H,I)PEIYLEIIE . R . . 220.00 . 69.00 01 - Uol - UJ - It - R - II - R
I(A)P Equlv.tene. Cone. 0 - 0 - 5228 - 6 - 0 ,...- 0 - 0 - 0 ,- 0 - 0 f-
Tot.t PAHa 0 - 0 - Z8090 - 1Z7 - 130 - 120 -. 0 - 57 - 0 - 0 f-
PHENOL ANALYTES '(1700) QFOO99 Q Qf0101 1 aF0102 Q IF0065 1 QFOO66 1 aF0067 Q aF0150. 1 aF0152. a Clf0154 a Qf0156 Q
IIIIKII - - - III/KII - - - IIII/KI - - I- 118/1C1 - - - 118/1C1I - - - 1I1I1C8 - - - H/K8 - - - 118/K8 - - I- 118/K8 - - - 118/K8 - I--
PHEIIOL UJ Uol 910.00 01 II Uol Uol UJ Uol UJ UJ
2-CHLOIIOPHEIIOL 1100.00 J 1400.00 J - UJ - UJ 1300.00 01 1100.00 01 580.00 01 370.00 01 370.00 J 330.00 J
O-CRESOL - UJ - Uol . Uol - Uol - Uol - UJ - UJ - UJ - Uol - UJ
NIP-CRESOL 290.00 J - UJ - UJ 100.00 J 290.00 J 370.00 UJ - Uol 200.00 J 250.00 I - Uol
2-NITROPHENOL - UJ . UJ . UJ - Uol - UI - UJ . UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ
2,4.DIMETHTLPHEIIOL . UJ. . UJ - UJ . UJ - Uol . Uol - ~J - Uol . UJ - UJ
2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL . UJ - IiJ - UJ - UJ - UJ . Uol 340.00 J - UJ - Uol - UJ
4-CHLORO-]-METHYLPHEII0l . UJ . UJ . UJ - Uol - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ
2,4,5/6-TRICHLOROPHENOL 520.00 J 580.00 J . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ
2,4-DIIIITROPHEIIOL . UJ . UJ . UJ - R - II . It - U.I - U.I - UJ - UJ
4-IIITROPHEIiOL . UJ . UJ . UJ - Uol - Uol . UJ . Uol - UJ - UJ - UJ
2,3,4,6-TETRACHLOROPHEIi0l - UJ . UJ 180.00 J . Uol 670.00 J 570.00 01 1200.00 J 1400.00 J 1100.00 J 840.00 J
4,6-DINITRO-2-METHYLPHEIi0l . UJ . UI - UJ - UJ - U.I . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
PENTACHLOROPHENOL . UJ . UJ 400.00 J . UJ 200.00 J 260.00 UJ 250.00 J - UJ - UJ . UJ
-------
w
~
FIELD 5AMPLE lUMBER: IH03-55-001 8H3-55-002 IH03-55-003 IH03-11-OO5 IH03-15-006 IH04-55-oo1 IH04-55-oo2 IH04-55-oo3 IH04-55-004 IH04-55-005
EPA 5AMPL~ lUMBER: QF0138 QF0140 QF0142 QF01'" OF0148 . OF0055 0'0057 0'0051 OF0059 0'0060
DEPTH 0-4' 4-9' 9-14' 19-24' 39-44' 0-5' 5-10' 15-20' 20-25' 45-50'
. VOA ANALn£S (40) Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q Q Q
p8IK8 P8/lCg - ~ I- PII/KII. - f-- I- PII/Ka I-- - tllI/Ka - f.- t- PII/K8 - ~ ~ PII/ICII - :-- f- "II/KII - f--- - PII/Ka - f-- - "a/KII - -
VlliYL CHLORIDE . UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ
1,1'DICHLOROETHENE - UJ . UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE . UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ
1,1'0ICHLOROETHANE - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
CIS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
CHLOROfOllN - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE - UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ UJ - UJ ~ UJ - UJ
CARlON TETRACHLORIDE - UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
IEIIZENE - UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ
1,Z-DICHLOROETHANE - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
TRICHLOROETHENE - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ ~ UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ
IROMDDICHLOROKETHAIIE - UJ - UJ - UJ - Uol - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
TOLUEIIE - Uol 13.00 J - UJ - Uol - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ 6.60 J 6.00 J
TETRACHLOROETHENE - UJ . UJ - UJ - Uol - Uol - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ .. UJ
CHLOROIEIIZENE - UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ - Uol - UJ - UJ - UJ - Uol - UJ
'i'.Z,2-TETRACHLOROETHAIIE - UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ - Uol - UJ
ETHYLIENZENE - UJ 64.00 J - UJ . UJ . UJ 12.00 R . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
IROfIOfOlUt -. UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ UJ
".'-XYLENE - UJ R.oo J - Uol - Uol - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ UJ
O'XYlENE . UJ 60.00 'J . UJ - Uol - UJ - j. ~ - UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ
"
PAH ANAL"E5 (330) 0'0139 0 0'0141 0 0,0143 Q 0'0147 Q Q,0149 0 Q,0055 00571E Q Q,005ME Q Q,0059RE 0 Mf\(!MRE Q
IIg/KI - --'- IIII/lCg - - i- IIg/KI - - -'IIg/K, - ~ - IIg/Kg - - I- IIII/K, .-. . 118/KI - - f- 118/KI II,/KII - f-- .\1 - -
NAPHTHALENE - R 9500.00 R - R . R - R - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
ACENAPHTHYLENE 53.00 R 100.00 R - R - R . R - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
ACENAPHTHENE 460.00 . 17000.00 R - R - R - I . UJ - UJ - Uol - UJ - UJ
flUORENE 510.00 R 25000.00 R 51.00 I - I - R . UJ - UJ - UJ - Uol - UJ
PHENANTHRENE 2100.00 I 54000.00 I 350.00 R 66.00 . 86.00 . - UJ 94.00 J - Uol - UJ - UJ
AIITHRACENE 310.00 . 16000.00 . .66.00 R - R - I . UJ 45.00 J - UJ - UJ - UJ
FlUORAN'HENE 1900.00 I 48000.00 I 250.00 I - R 82.00 I 50.00 J 100.00 01 . UJ - UJ . UJ
PYIENE 1500.00 I 48000.00 . 140.00 R 30.00 R 84.00 R 60.00 J 86.00 J . UJ - UJ . UJ
IENZ(A)ANTHRACENE 360.00 I 15000_00 . . 27.00 R . R 87.00 I . UJ - Uol - UJ - UJ . UJ
eHRYSEIiE 120.00 R 15000.00 I - I . R 100.00 I - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
BEIIZO(I)/(IC)'LUORANTHENE 580.00 I 15~.00 R ' 820.00 R . R 310.00 R - UJ . Uol - UJ - UJ - UJ
IENZO(A)"IENE . . - . - R - I - I - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ
INDEII0(1,2,3-CO)PYREIIE - . 2400.00 . - R - I - . - UJ . UJ . ~J I! - UJ - UJ
DIIENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENe - . 590.00 R - R - 1 - . . UJ - UJ - - UJ - UJ
8ENZO(G,H.I)PERYLENE - I 1900.00 I - R - 1 - 1 - UJ - IIJ - . UJ . UJ
I(A)' Equivalence Cone. 91 - 5980 ~ 85 - 0 - 41 I-- 0 f-- ..- 0 -- 0 - 0 -
Total 'AHI 8093 - 267490 1-- 1710 :-- 96 - 749 - 110 f-- .- 0 - 0 - 0 -
.. ... -
PHENOL ANALYTES (1700) 0'0138 0 0'0140 \". " ~ 0'0146 0 0'0148 0 0'0055 0 0'0057. Q O'OOS. Q Q,0059 0 (lfilO6O Q
IIa/Kg - f-- - IIallCg - -'. jliI/K(I . .- Jl8/K8 III/K, - - - II,/KI - - - III/K8 - - - 118/KI - - - II,/KII - - - Jla/KI - -
PHENOL 160.00 J 170.0 J . UJ 110.00 J UJ Z.70 J 1 R 1 1
Z-eHLOROPHENOL 640.00 J 380.0 J 630.00 J 330.00 UJ 540.00 J 36.00 J - UJ - UJ 1500.00 .. - U"
O-CIESOL - UJ 290.0 J - UJ - UJ - Uol 6.40 R . UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ
NIP-CRESOL 360.00 J 850_0 J 160.00 J 260.00 01 180.00 J 3.40 J - UJ - UJ . UJ - W
Z'lnIOPHEIIOl. . UJ - UJ . UJ - Uol - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
Z,4-DIMETHYL'HENOL - UJ. 910_0 J . UJ - Uol . UJ 18.00 . . UJ .' UJ - UJ . U.I
Z,4-DICHLoROPHENOL - UJ 790.0 UJ . UJ . UJ . U" . UJ 680.00 . J . UJ . UJ 190.00 J
4-CHLOIO-~-~'HYLPHENOL - UJ 1400_0 J . UJ . UJ . Uol 13.00 J . UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ
2,4,5/6-TRICHLOIOPHENOL - UJ J70.0 J . UJ 100.00 .J 110.00 J . . 280.00 J . U" ]l0.00 .. 460.00 J
l,4.DINITROPHENOL - UJ 3'00.0 J . UJ - Uol - UJ - 1 . I . 1 . . . R
4-NnIlOPHENOL - UJ 2100.0 J . UJ - Uol - UJ - I - UJ . UJ . Uol - UJ
2,3,4,6-TETRACHLOROPHENOL 1900.00 R 8900.0 J 990.00 'J 2Z00.oo J 1400.00 J 54.00 J '. UJ . UJ . Uol . UJ
4,6-0INITRO-Z-METHYLPHEIIOL - UJ 3200_0 01 . UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ . p~ . UJ . Uol - UJ
PENTACHLOROPHENOL 860.00 J ZOOOOO.O J . UJ . UJ . UJ n.oo I . : 0 UJ . UJ . UJ
i
'r~THr.-1
-------
fiELD SAMPLE NUMBER: IH05'55.001 IH05'S5'OOZ IH05-55'003 IH05'15'004 lH06'S5-oo1 IH06-55,002 IH06-55-004 IH06'''-OO5 IH07-55,001 IH07-15-002
EPA SAMPLE NUMBER: Qf03Z0 If03ZZ IF0324 QF0326 QFOO44 OFOo46 IIf0047 QFOO48 QF0103 OF0105
DEPTH 0-5' 10,15' 25-30' 35-40' 0'5' 10.15' 15.20' 25.30' 0-5' 5-10'
VOA ANALYTE5 (40) Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q ~ Q
118/K8 - - r- 118/1C8 - - - 1&8/1C8 - I- - 1&8/1C8 ~ - - 118/KI - - - 118/1C8 - - 118/1C8 - - - 1&./1C8 - - I- 118/1C8'" - r- 118/1(8 - '--
VIIIYL CHLORIDE . UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ . UJ UJ UJ UJ . UJ
1,1'DICHLOROETHENE - UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ
TRANS.1.2.DICHLOROETHENE . UJ . UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ . UJ
1,1.DICHLOROETMAI! . UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ
CIS.1,Z.0ICHLOROETHEIiE . UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ . iii
CHLOROFORII - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ
1,1.1.TRICHLOROETHAIE . UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ - \ UJ . UJ . UJ ,. UJ . UJ
caRBON TETRACHLORIDE . UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ. - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ
BEIiZEME - UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ
1,Z-DICHlOROETHAIIE . UI . UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ
TRICHLOROETHENE - UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ
BROMODICHlOROMETHAIIE . UI . UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ
TOlUENE . UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ . UJ 9.60 01
TETRACHLOROETHEIIE - UI . UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ
CHLOROBEIIZENE - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ
1,1,Z,Z-TETRACHLOROETHANE - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ
ETHYLIENZENE - UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ 19.00 01
BIIOMOfORM - UJ . UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ
N,P-XYLENE . UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ 12.00 01
O.XYLEIIE . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ . UI - W . UJ 15.00 01
PAH ANAL YTES (330) QF03Z1 Q QF03ZJ Q QF0325 Q QF0327 Q OFOB« 0 OFOO46 0 QF0047 Q OFOO48 0 OF0104 Q Qf0106 Q
118/1(8 - - - 11"1(. - - - 118/1(8 - - - 1I./K8 - - - 118/1(8 - - r- 1&8/1(9 - - - 118/1(8 - - r- 1111/1(11 IIII/ICIl - r-- I- ,I./ICII - -
NAPHTHALENE - UJ 460.00 01 . UJ - UJ - UJ - UI . UI - UI 1900.0 01 27000.0. 01
ACENAPHTHYLENE . UI 90.00 I . UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ . UI . UI 70.0 UJ 4300.0 J
ACENAPHTHENE 42.00 01 1900.00 01 - UJ - UJ - .UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ 7300.0 01 14000.0 '01
. FLUORENE 41.00 01 4000.00 01 - UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ 9900.0 01 41200.0 01
PHENANTHRENE 130.00 01 13000.00 J - UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ - UI 31100.0 I 104000.0 01
ANTHRACENE 59.00 J 28000.00 01 - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ 5700.0 I 330.0 I
FLUORANTHENE 190.00 J 9000.00 J . UJ - UJ 65.00 J . UJ - UJ . UI 26000.0 J 58000.0 I
PYRENE 180.00 I 7200.00 J - UJ . UJ 90.00 J - UJ - UJ - UJ Z1OO.0 I 58000.0 J
BEIIZ(A)ANTHRACENE 30.00 UI 1500.00 I - UJ - UJ 85.00 I - UJ . UJ - UJ 330.0 01 330.0 01
CHRYSENE 36.00 01 1600.00 I . UJ - UJ 72.00 01 . UJ - UJ . UJ 4200.0 01 33900.0 01
IENZO(I)/(I()FLUORANTHENE - UJ 720.00 01 - UJ . UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ 9600.0 01 330.0 01
BENZO(A)PYREIIE - UJ 440.00 01 " . UJ - UJ - 01 - UJ - UJ - UJ 1050.0 01 11600.0 J
IMDENO(1,2,3-CO)PYRENE .", - UJ Z10.oo 01 - UJ - UJ 37.00 01 - UJ . UJ . UJ 500.0 01 3700.0 01
OIIENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ 330.0 01 1000.0 01
BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLEIE - UJ 160.00 01 - UJ . UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ 300.0 UI Z8OO.0 01
I(A)P Equlv.lence Cone. 3 - 699 - 0 I- 0 - 13 - 0 - 0 - 0 '-- 2465 - 13375 I....-
Tot.t PAHI 708 - 68280 - 0 - 0 - 549 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 100380 - 380490 '--
PHENOL ANALYTES (1700) IIf0320 0 OF0322 0 OF0324 .0 OF0326 0 QFOO441E 0 OFOO46RE 0 OF0047 0 Qf0048 0 Of 0103 0 QF0105 0
1I8I1C8 - - - ",/K8 - - - 11811(11 - - - I18/Kt - - - 118/1C1 - - - IIII/K8 - - - 1I8I1C1 - - >- IIII/KIl - - I- IIIIIKIl - - - 118118 - '--
PHENOL 100.00 01 150.00 01 780.00 01 830.00 01 UJ 79.00 01 UJ 1.80 01 750.0 01 860.00 01
2-CMLOROPHENOl - UI . UI - UJ - UJ 680.00 01 1100.00 01 1.80 01 37.00 01 - UJ - UJ
O-CRESOL - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ .. UJ - UJ
H/P.CIESOI. 370.00 01 440.00 01 430.00 01 300.00 01 25.00 01 200.00 01 . UJ 7.90 01 310.0 01 270.00 01
Z'NITROPHENOI. - UJ ..' UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ . UJ .
Z.4.DIMETHYLPHENOL 150.00 J 150.00 01 - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ 31.00 1 20.00 R . UJ - UJ
2.4.DICHlOROPHENOL Z1.0.oo 01 . UJ 350.00 01 - UJ - UJ . UJ 9.60 1 . UJ 310.0 01 850.00 01
4.CMlORO-S.METHYLPHENOL - UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ 20.00 01 . UJ 2500.00 J
2.4.5/6'TRICHlOROPHENOl - UJ - UJ - UJ 680.00 01 . UJ - UJ 4.10 1 . R . UJ . UJ
2.4'0INITROPHENDL - UJ - UI - UJ - 01 - UJ . UJ . .R - 1 . UJ 1400.00 J
4-NITROPHENOl . UJ . UJ - UJ - 01 - UJ - UJ . R - R . UJ 850.00 01
2,3,4,6'TETRACHLOROPHENOI. 110.00 01 1400.00 01 1400.00 01 710.00 J 250.00 01 ZJO.OO 01 63.00 R 49.00 J - UJ - UJ
4,6'DINITRO.Z.KETHYLPHENOL . UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ 1200.00 01
PENTACHLOROPHENOL - UJ 5500.00 01 - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ 89.00 R 73.00 1 5600.0 R 31000.00 01
w
w
-------
w
w
fiELD SAMPLE NUMBER: IH07-55-003 IH07-55-004 IH07.55-005 8H08-II-001 IH08.55.oo2 IH08.55.00] 8H08-51-004 IH08-55.005 IH09-55-001 IH09-Ss-002
EPA SAMPLE' NUMBER: Of 0107 Of 0109 Of 01 11 Of 0038 Qf0040' Qf0041 8f0042 Qf0043 oro!!4 OF0116
DEPTH 10-15' 15-20' 20-21.5 0.5' 5-10' 15-20' 20-25' ]5-40' ~-s' 9- 11.'
. VOA ANALTTES (40) Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q. 0
1I1I/1C8 - - - IIII/K8 - f-- I- 118/1C8.- i- I- 118/1C1 "11/1(8 - f-- IIII/ICII - i- f- IIII/K8 - - I- IIII/K8 - ~ '- IIO/KO": I- t- IIO/ICO - -
VIIIYL CHLORIDE UJ - UJ UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ
1.1-DICHLOROETHENE . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ
TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE . UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ . UJ
1,1.DICHlOROETHAIiE - UJ . UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ
CI5-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE - UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ . UJ
CHLOROFORM - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ . UJ. - UJ . UJ
1.1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE - UJ' . UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ' - UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ
BENZENE - UJ . UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ
1,2-DICHlOROETKANE " UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
TRICHLOROETHENE - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ
BROMOOICHLOROMETHANE - UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ
TOLUENE 8.00 J 6.00 J 4.00 J . UJ . UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ 20.00 J 11.00 J
TETRACHLOROETHENE - UJ . UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ
CHLOR08ENZENE . UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ . H' - UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ
'.1.2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE . UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ . . UJ . UJ - UJ UJ
ETHYLBENlENE 2i40 J 19.00 J 18.00 J . UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ '70.00 J 431;.01) J
IROMOfORM 1 UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ
M,P.XYLENE 2'.90 J 2'.00 J 32.00 J . UJ . UJ - U. UJ - UJ 47.00 J '20.00 J
.XYlENE . ( 8.40 J '8.00 J 52.00 J . UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ 570.00 J 62.00 J
PAH ANALYTES (330)!/1 Qf0108 Q OF0110 Q QF0112 Q QFoo38 Q QF0040 Q QF0041 Q QF0042 Q QF0043 Q Qf0115 Q Qf0111 Q
IIIIIK, - f-- IIIIIK, - - f- IIIIIICII - - -110/1(1 - I- ~ lillI(, - f-- ~ III/I(I - - f- III/ICII - - I- 1I,/1C8 - ~ ~ 11111(11 - - f- IIB/1(9 - -
NAPHTHALENE 12600.00 J 36700.00 J 37000.00 J . UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ 31000.0 J 1,]000.0 J
ACENAPHTHYLENE 360.00 J 9400.00 J 9300.00 J . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ 4700.0 J 23000.0 J
ACENAPHTHENE Z860Q.00 J 30400.00 J 30900.00 J . UJ . 'UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ 48000.0 J 48000.0 J
FlUOREIiE 34300.00 J 38500.00 J ]8300.00 J . UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ 47000.0 J 41000.0 J
PHENANTHRENE 40300.00 J ]'800.00 UJ 21100.00 J 87.00 J . UJ . IJ.I . UJ - UJ 110000.0 J 3800.0 R
AIITHRACENE . UJ 330.00 J 330.00 J 28.00 J . UJ . . UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ 100000.0. J
FlUORANTHENE 63300.00 J 55800.00 J 56'00.00 J 120.00 J . UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ 83000.0 J nooo.o J
PTRENE 63100.00 J 5'700.00 J 57000.00 J 620.00 J .' UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ 1100.0 J 5400.0 J
BEIIZ(A)ANTHRACENE 330.00 J 27700.00 J 26500.00 J 220.00 J . UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ 42000.0 J 3700.0 R
CHRY5ENE 34800.00 J 24800.00 J 25900.00 J '90.00 J . UJ. - UJ - UJ . UJ 41000.0 J 41000.0 J
BENZOCB)f(IC)fLOOf<,w I oIf: HE 15900.00 J 13000.00 J '2800.00 J 200.00 J . UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ '00000.0 J 3900.0 R
BENZO(A)PYREIIE mQO.oo J 8500.00 J 8700.00 J 68.00 J . UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ '5000.0 R 13000.0 R
INDEIIOC',2,3-CO)PTRENE 4100.00 J 4000.00. J 4300.00 J. . 41.00 J . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ 1400.0 J 1700.0 J
DIBENZCA,H)AIITHRACENE 4100.00 J 940.00 J 1300.00 . J. . UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ 2400.0 J 3000.0 J
BEIIZOCG,H,I)PERTLENE 3600.00 J 2500.110 J 2300.00 J ]9.00 J . UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ 4900.0 J 5100.0 J
8CA)P Equlv.lence Cone. 18781 - 14158 f-- 14619 - 116 f-- 0 i- 0 f-- 0 f-- 0 ~ ]2750 - 17940 -
Tot.' PAHI 3'7690 ,...-. ]36070 f-- 337830 - 2215 I- 0 f-- 0 ,...-. 0 - 0 I- 543500 - 413600 -
PHENOL ANAlYTES (1700) Qf0107 0 QfO'09 Q QF0111 Q QFOO38RE Q QFOO4ORE Q QF0041RE 0 QFOO42RE. Q QFOO43RE Q QF0114 Q QF0116 Q
1I1I/1C8 - - I- 118/1(8 III/K8 - f-- I- 111111(11 IIII/KI - - I- 1I1II1C8 1I1II1C8 - I- 1I1I/1C8 - ~ .8/1(1 - I- I- .,/1(, - I--
PHENOL 240.00 J 390.0 J '80.00 J 890.00 . 80.00 . 56.00 J 65.00 J n.oo . 900.00 . 210.0 .
2-CHLOROPHENOL - UJ . UJ . UJ 99.00 J 170.00 , 170.00 J 1300.00 J 610.00 J . . 580.0 .
O-CRESOL . . UJ 320.0 J 360-00 J - UJ . UJ 11.00 . . UJ . UJ 100.00 R 290.0 R
K/P-CRESOL 960.00 J 1400.0 J 1100.00 J 180.00 J 200.00 , 140.00 , 170.00 J 160.\. ; J 360.00 R 1200.0 R
2-IIITROPHENOL - UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ . . . .
2,4.DIMETHYLPHENOL 230.00 J' . UJ . UJ 270.00 . 230.00 J 70.00 J 1200.00 R . UJ 600.00 . 530.0 R
2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL . UJ - IIJ 1200.00 J . UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ . . . .
4-CHLORO-]-METHYLPHENOL 1100.00 J . .'J 15000.00 J 58.00 R . UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ . 5400.00 . 3400.0 R
2,4,5/6.'RICHLOROPHEIIOL - UJ 1600.0 J 2500.00 J 360.00 . 500.00 . . UJ . UJ . UJ 260.00 R 820.0 .
2.4-DIIiITROPHENOL 920.00 J - UJ 23000.00 J . UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ . UJ 2300.00 . 4600.0 .
4-NITROPHENOl 520.00 J - UJ 11000.00 J . UJ . UJ . . UJ - UJ . UJ 1400.00 . 2100.0 .
2,3.4,6-TETRACHlOROPHENOl . UJ - UJ 10000.00 J 880.00 J 780.00 J 510.00 J 630.00 J ]70.00 J 3400.00 . '6000.0 R
4,6-DINITRO-2-KETHYLPHENOL 970.00 J - UJ 5700.00 J . UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ 2200.00 . 'I '700.00 R
PENTACHLOROPHENOL 14000.00 J - UJ . UJ 180.00 J 330.00 J '80.00 R 190.00 R . UJ 49000.00 !\,.. , ";.0 R
...L. ..
-------
w
,.
fiELD SAMPLE NUMBE.: IH09-55-004 IH11-5$-001 IH11-$5-oo2 IH11-$$-OO6 IH14-$5-0(11 IH15-S5-0(n IH15-55-oo2 IH15-$5-003 1MJ1-55-001 1N01-55-oo2
EPA SAMPLE NUMlER: OF0120 Of 0]]0 QFO]]2 OF0340 OF0362 OF0342 OF0344 OF0346 QF0094 QFOO95
DEPTH 20-Z4' 'O~5' 10-15' 30.34' 44-48' 0-5' 5-10' 10-15' 0-5' 5-10'
VOA ANALYIE5 (40) 0 0 0 Q 0 Q Q Q Q 0
'1l/KIL - I-- ~ .8/"8 - --- ~ '8/KII- - IIII/KIL - - I- 'II/ICIL - f-- I- 118/1C1I. - - - IIII/KII - - ~ I'II/ICII - I-- - 118/1C1I - I-- I- 118/1C1I - I--
VUITL CHUIiIDE - UJ - UJ - UJ UJ UJ UJ VJ UJ VJ VJ
1.1-DICHLOIOETHEME - UJ - UJ - UJ - VJ - UJ - UJ - VJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
tRANS-1.Z-DICHLOIOEtHEME - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ
1,1'DICHLOROETKAHE - UJ . - VJ . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ
CIS-1.2-DICHLOROEIHENE - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ . UJ
CHlOlOFORM . UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
1,1.1-tRICHLOROETHANE - UJ - UJ - UJ - VJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - VJ - UJ
.
CAl80II TEtRACHLORIDE - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
.EIlZEIiE .- UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ . UJ
1.2'DICHlCllOETHANE - UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
IRICHLCllOEIHENE . UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ - VJ ~ VJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
BROMODICHlOlOMEtHANE - UJ . '. UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
TOlUEIIE 1.70 .I . UJ 21.00 .I 41.00 .I - UJ - UJ - UJ - VJ - UJ - UJ
IETRACHLCllOETHENE '. - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ
CHLCllOIEIiZENE - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
1.1.2.Z'TETRACHlOlOEtHANE - UJ - R - . - R . UJ . R - R - R - UJ . UJ
ETHYlIEIlZENE . 1.70 01 . UJ 45.00 J . VJ . UJ 5.20 J 6.40 J - UJ - UJ . uj
1A000FORM . UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ - VJ - UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ
...P.XYlEILE 12.00 .I . UJ 66.00 J - VJ - VJ 9.30 J 13.00 .I 35.00 .I 60.00 J - UJ
O-XYlEILE n.oo 01 - UJ 81.00 .I - UJ - UJ 7.60 J 19.00 J 64.00 R . UJ - UJ
PAH ANAL YTES (]30) Of 0121 Q OFon1 Q 0'0333 0 OF0341 Q OF0362 Q OF0343 0 OF0345 0 OF0341 0 OF0094 0 QFOO95 0
I'II/KIL - I-- I18/KII - - I- I'I/ICII - - - I'II/ICII - i-- I- I18/K8 - i-- IIII/KII - - - IIII/ICII - >-- I'II/ICII .II/ICII - - IIII/KII- :-
NAPHtHALENE Z9OO.oo 01 45000.0 01 46000.0 01 480.00 .I - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ 1500.00 J 320.00 J
ACEIIAPHIHYLENE 600.00 .I 2700.0 .I 1600.0 J - VJ - VJ - UJ - UJ - UJ 350.00 J 190.00 J
ACEIIAPHTHENE 6000.00 .I 58000.0 01 58000.0 J 660.00 .I - UJ 380.00 .I 280.00 .I 390.00 J 4600.00 01 210.00 .I
fLUORENE 6300.00 .I 75000.0 R 87000.0 . 930.00 1 - UJ 610.00 I 420.00 R 310.00 R 7000.00 .I 520.00 .I
PHEIlAIiTHREILE 18000.00 .I 220000.0 :1 140000.0 R 1500.00 R 29.00 .I 790.00 . 560.00 . 470.00 I 24000.00 .I 890.00 01
ANTHRACENE 9900.00 .I - I - . 970.00 I - UJ 520.00 I 380.00 R 290.00 I 11000.00 .I 1400.00 .I
FlUORAIIT"ENE 26000.00 01 88000.0 I 88000.0 J 280.00 .I - UJ 110.00 J 74.00 .I 64.00 J 18000.00 J 650.00 J
PYREIIE : 25000.00 01 59000.0 J 60000.0 J 200.00 .I - UJ 65.00 .I - UJ 200.00 J 13000.00 J 420.00 J
IENZ(A)ANTHRACEIIE . 5800.00 .I 41000.0 J 41000.0 J 65.00 01 - UJ - UJ: - UJ - UJ 2500.00 J - UJ
CHIYSEIIE 6000.00 J 33000.0 J 33000.0 01 120.00 J - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ 2500.00 01 . UJ
IENZOCI)/(IC)'LUORAIITHEIIE 16000.00 J 17000.0 1 17000.0 J 84.00 J - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ aoo.oo J - UJ
IEIIZO(A)PlREliE 3100.00 I 14000.0 R 14000.0 J 180_00 I - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ 750.00 J - UJ
IIIDEIO(1.Z.3-CD)PYIEILE 1500.00 .I 8300.0 J 8000.~ J 390.00 J - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ 220.00 1 - UJ
DJBEIIZ(A.H)AIITHRACENE 330.00 J - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ 78.00 1 - UJ
BEIIZO(G,H,I)PEIYLEIIE 1300.00 R 3300.0 01 3000.0 01 190.00 J - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ 260.00 1 82.00 I
I(A)P Equivalence cone, 5820 f-- 20960 ---- 20930 - 235 - 0 i-- 0 - 0 - 0 ~ 1355 I-- 0 l-
. Total PAHI 128730 - 664300 - 596600 - 6049 - 29 f-- 2475 ~ 1714 - 1784 I-- 88058 f-- 468Z I-
PHENOl ANAlYTE$ (1100) Of 0120 Q Qfo]30 Q OF0332 Q OF0340 0 OF0362 Q QF0342 Q OF0344 0 QF0346 Q OF00941E Q OFOO95IE Q
I'll/Kg - i-- I- 1'1111:11 - - :- IIII/ICII - - I'8/KII - - I- ,,8/1C8 - I-- ~ "'/"11 - - - II,/ICII - - ~ 118/1C, - I-- ..,/K, - - ,.. ..,/KII - -
PHENOl 220.00 1 - UJ 79.00 J - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ 110.00 . 420.00 R
Z-CHLCIIOPH,EI(Ol 68Q.00 1 130.00 01 1300.00 J 69.00 01 1300.00 .I 810.00 01 1100.00 .I 1000.00 .I 200.00 J 100.00 J
O-CIESOl ~ R . OJ 2100.00 J - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ
NIP-CRESOL 210.00 1 190.00' .. 6700.00 J 190.00 .I - UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ 160.00 .I 40.00 .I
2-IIIIIOPHEII0I. 1100.00 1 - UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ - VJ 67.00 .I . UJ
2,4.DIMETHYL'HENOL - I 250.00 .I 3800.00 J ao.oo J 310.00 .. 250.00 .I 320.00 J 220.00 .I 130.00 .. 36.00 J
2,'-DICHLOROPHENOL ' 77.00 I. - UJ 8300.00 J - UJ 200.00 01 - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ
4-CHlORO-3-METHYlPHEIIOL 260.00 1 . UJ 80.00 J . UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ . 38.00 01 11.00 01
2,4.5/6-fRICHLOROPHEIIOL 310.00 . . VJ 450.00 J - UJ . UJ - UJ UJ - UJ 180.00 R ' 270.00 R
2,4oDINITROPHENOL 970.00 1 . . 3600.00 R - I - R . . - 1 . R 51.00 .I 98.00 ..
4-IIITROPHEHOL ]60.00 R . UJ 3200.00 J - UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ 25.00 R 11.00 R
2,3,4,6-fEIRACHlOROPHENOL 6600.00 R 720.00 .I 3800_00 J 500.00 .I 500.00 R 200.00 01 580.00 R 950.00 01 52.00 J 130.00 01
4,6-DINITRO-2-METHYLPHENOL 150.00 . '- R 1300.00 I - I 1100.00 J - R . R - 1 56.00 1 61.00 I
PENTACHLOROPHENOl 92000.00 R 980.00 .. 20000.00 J 89.00 J 2300.00 1 1800.00 J 230.00 J 510.00 J 490.00 1 110.00 R
TAm ,F 4.
OlM RESULTS FOR SOIL SAMPLES (Continued)
-------
fiELD Ull'LE 1U8E1: 1IIOZ-1I-001 IUIZ-SS-OO] fIIO]-SS-001 Il103-11-002 1UI4-IS-OOI III04-SS-002 tIW05-SS-001 MWOS-SS-002 MWOS-ss-OOJ HW6-SS-001
EPA IAII'LE ..... 1'0096 1.0097 1'0122 IF0124 1'0061 l'OO6J 1'0068 8'0069 1'0070 Ifoon
DE"" 5'10' '5-20' 28.5-33.5 38.5-39 0-5' 5-10' 10-,5' 15-20' 20-25' 25-30'
VOA AllAinEs (40) 1 Q 1 8 8 1 1 1 1 1
II8IK8 - i-- - 118/1C8 - - - 118/1C8 1I8I1C8 - i--: I- ""/K" ""/1C8 - - I- IIIIIK8 "g/Kg - f-- I- "g/lCg - !- - 118111:" - I--
Vlln CIILORIDE - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ -' UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ
1,1-DICHLOROEIHEIE - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ. - UJ - UJ - UJ
11A11.1,Z-DICMLOIDEIKEME - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UI - UI - UJ - UJ - liJ
',I-DICILOIOEIHAME - UJ .- UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ - UI
CII-',Z.DICKLOIDEIIE1E - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ . UI
ClUIIOfOlM - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ . UJ - UI
1,1.1-11IC11LOR0E11A1E - UJ - W . UJ . UJ . UJ - UI - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ
eMlCII TEtIAClLORIDE - W - UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ
IElZEIIE . W - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ UJ . UJ
',Z-DICKLOROETKAIE - w - w - UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ
TIICIL"',.IE . UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ -. UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ -. UJ
IICIID ICIILOICIIETIIAIIE - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ - UI - UJ - UJ - UI
TOWEIE - UJ 4_40 J 11.00 J - UJ - UJ 190.00 I - UI - UJ - UI - UI
TETIACKLOROETRENE . W - UJ - UJ - UJ - UI - UJ -.. UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ
CIILOROIEIUIE - UJ - W . UJ . W - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
,,1,Z,Z-TETIACKLOROETHAME . UJ - UJ - UI . UJ .- UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ. - UJ - UJ
E11ILlEIUIE . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ 11.00 J - UJ - UJ
IIiCIIOfOlM - UJ - W ..' f>' UJ - UJ . - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UI - UJ
",P'XYLENE - UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ . UI - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ
O'XYLENE - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ - UI - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ 46.00 R
PAIl AllALYTES (»0) 1'0096 Q 1'0097 1 1'0123 1 If0125 1 1,00611E 1 Q'OO63RE 1 1'0068 1 Q'0069 1 Q'0010 1 a,oon Q
,1"'" - - - '8/"t - - - ,g/Kg I1I1Kg - - i- 1181'" - - - IJ8/K8 - - - 1111/"8 - - - ""'Kt IIIIKI - I-- - /&I/KII - -
NAPHTHALENE - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
ACENAPK111YLENE - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
ACENAPH1KEIIE - UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ
fLUOREIIE - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ 86.00 01
PREIAIT"RENE ' 36.00 J 52.00 II . UJ - UJ 61.00 J 14.00 J '20.00 J 110.00 J 110.00 J 160.00 I
AlTKlACEIE ,/11.. - UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ 40.00 J 98.00 J. . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
fLUORAITHEIIE - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ 410.00 01 32.00 J - UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ
"IEIE - UJ _. UJ .. UJ - UJ 1500.00 01 160.00 J - UJ - UJ - UJ ' - uj
IEIIZ(A)AlTHRACENE - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ 1500.00 J 270.00 01 - UJ . UJ - UJ I' - UJ
tHlYSEIE - UI - UJ - UJ - UJ 1100.00 J 290.00 01 _. UJ - UJ - UI - UJ.
IEIZOCI)/CK)'LUORAN1RENE - UJ - .~,~-,\. , OJ - UJ 2400.00 01 830.00 01 - UI - UJ - UI - UJ
~/'~'~.
IElZO(A)"IENE - UI - ,...;} , ~~ - UJ 510.00 01 240.00 J - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
11DE1O(1,2,3-CD)PYIlENE - UJ - , //'/ '.~ - UJ 360.00 J 450.00 01 - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ
DIIEIZ(A,I)AN1HIACEIE - UJ - ./ .. '. UJ - UJ 120.00 J 32.00 J - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
IEIZOCG,I,I)PEIYLflE 450.00 I - UJ - UJ - UI ' 230_00 J 400.00 J - UI - UJ - UJ - UJ
I(A)P Equlvalenca Cane- ° - 0 --- ° - 0 I-- 1047 f-- 430 I-- 0 I-- ° - 0 - 0 I--
Total PAH. 486 - 32 - 0 - 0 ~ 8037 I- 2816 I- 120 - 110 --- 110 - 246 -
,IIEIIOL MALnES (1700) Q'OO96RE Q Q'OO97IE 8 1'0122 Q 8f0124 1 Q'0061 1 Q'OO6J 1 1'0068 Q 1'0069 1 1'0070 1 I,oon 1
,.till - - - ,.1I1t. - ,.-- - 11111. - - - IIIIIKI - - - II8IK8 ,8IK8 II8IKII HlKII - - - "8/1Cg - - - IIIIIKII;"' -
PHEIIOl 40.00 I 360.00 I . UJ 110.00 J - 1 - R - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
2-CHLOROPHlIIOL - UJ 130-00 J 1200.00 J 1300.00 J 2200_00 J - UJ IZoo.oo J 1300.00 J 1500.00 J 1800.00 J
O-CIEIOL - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
N"-CRESOl. 140.00 01 41.00' J 220_00 J 300.00 J - UJ 230.00 J - UJ 520_00 01 - UJ 340.00 J
2-11 TlOPKEIIOL - UI - UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
2,4-DIME1HYLPHEMOL - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ - UI
2,4-DICKLOIOPIEIDL - UI - UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ 300.00 J - UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ
4-CHLORO.J-MET"'LPHEIDL . UI - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UI
2,~,5/'-11ICHLOIOPIEIDL . . 53_Do . - UJ - UJ . UJ - UI - UJ -, .UJ . UJ - UJ
2,4-DINltIOPH£NDL . UI - UJ - I . . . I . 1 .. 1 - I . 1 . 1
4-lnIOPHEIOl . 1 - I - UJ - UJ . OJ - UI - UJ - W - UJ . UJ
2,J,4,6-1E1aaCHLOROPHENOL - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ 2000_00 I 1300.00 01 100.00 J 160_00 . - UJ 21!,'00 01
4,6-D.I.1.0-2-ME1MYLPKENOL . I - I . UJ - UJ . UJ . UI - UJ - UJ '- UJ UJ
PENTACHLOROPHENOL - I - I . UJ - UJ - UJ 130.00 J - UJ - UJ - UJ - UI
w
UI
TAR' P 4
-------
w
0'1
fiELD SAMPLE IUMBEI: IM)6-Ss-002 1M)6-55-00J Il107-55-001 1IW07-SS-00J 1IW07-S$-004 fIW(I8-ss-001 1II08-5S -002 MUQ8-SS-00J 1N09-5S-001 IMJ9-Ss-002
EPA SAMPL~ NUMBEI: afoo73 . OFoo74 Of 0089 Of 0091 Of 0092 Of 0029 Of 0030 IIf0031 IIfooJZ afoon
DEPT" ]5-40' 45-50' 0-5' 10-15' 16' 0-5' 5.'10' 10-15' ]0' 40'
VOA ANAL'TES (40) a a a a a a Q a a a
JlII/KIl - - - JlII/KIl - r- - IIII/Kil IIII/Kil - i- 1I1I/lCg ,Ig/ICII - f-- I- IIg/1(1I - f-- I- IIII/lCg 1I1I/1C1l - - - 1111/1(11 - ---
vlin CHLORIDE - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ . 'UJ - UJ - UJ
1.1-DICHLOROETHENE - U.I - U.I - U.I - UJ . UJ '. UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ, . IIJ
TRANS-1.2.DICHLOROETHENE - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - U.I - UJ . UJ
1.1-DICHLOROETHANE - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
CIS-1.2-DICHLOROETHENE - UJ . U.I - UJ, - U.I - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ '
CHLOROfORM - UJ - UJ - U.I - UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ
" " 1-TRICHLQROETHANE . U.I - U.I - UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ r UJ - UJ
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE . UI - U.I - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ ~ UJ
8ENZENE - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ . UI - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
1.2-DICHLOROETHANE - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - U.I - U.I - UJ - UJ
TRICHLOROETHEIIE - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ
TOlUENE - UJ - UJ - UJ 28.00 01 7.80 .I . UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
TETIACHLOROET"ENE - U.I - U.I - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ - U.I - U.I - UJ - UJ
CHLOROBENZENE - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
1,1.2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ . UI - UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ
ETHYLBENZENE - UJ - UJ . UJ 70-00 .I 11.00 .I - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
BRCJI)fOllM - UJ - UJ - UJ. - UJ . UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ,
M,P.XYLENE - UJ . UJ . UJ 94.00 J 22.00 .I 0 UJ - UJ 0 UJ 0 UJ - UJ
O.XYLENE . - UJ - UJ - UJ 68.00 J ]80.00 J - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
PAH ANALYTES (]]O) afoo73 a af0074 a OF0089 Q QF0091 Q QF0092 II OF0029 Q af0030 a Gfoo]1 G aF00321E a aF0033RE 0
III/Kg - - - IIII/ICII - - I- IIII/ICII - - ~ '1I/lCg - - '- 1I1I/lCg - i- I- JlII/lCg - - - III/ICII - r- ... 1l1I/1C1l - i- - IIII/lCg - i- f- 1111/1(11 - i-
NAPHTHALENE - UJ - UJ . UJ 63000.0 J 130000- 0 .I -' UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
ACENAPHTHYLENE - UJ - UJ - UJ 8700.0 .. 8100.0 .I - UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ - U.I
ACENAPHTHENE - UJ - UJ . UJ 5500.0 .. 120000.0 I . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ
fLUOItENE - UJ - UJ - UJ 76000.0 .. 130000.0 I . UJ . UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ
PHENANTHRENE ' 160.00 J 140.00 .I . UJ 3600.0 .. - U.I - U.I' - UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ
ANTHRACENE . UJ - UJ . UJ 220000.0 .. 360000.0 R - UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ
fLUOItAIITHENE - UJ . UJ - UJ 100000.0 .. - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ . uJ
PYIENE . UJ - UJ . UJ 73000.0 .. - UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ
IENZ(A)ANTHRACENE - UJ - UJ . UJ 16000.0 . 29000.0 I - UI . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
CHUSENE . UJ - UJ - UJ 15000.0 . 24000.0 R 2357.00 J - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
BEIIZOel)/(I()FLUORANTHENE - - UJ - UJ . UJ 11000.0 .I 16000.0 .. - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ
BENZOeA)"RENE - UJ - UJ - UJ 4700.0 J 7600.0 R - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ
IIIDENoe1,2.3-CO)PYRENE - UJ - UJ - UJ 2000.0 J 2400.0 . - UJ . UJ - UJ ,. UJ - UJ
DI8ENZ(A.H)AIITHIAceNE - UJ . UI - UJ 1000.0 .I 1100.0 . - UJ - UJ - UI - UJ - U.I
8ENZO(G,H.I)PERYLENE . UJ - UJ - UI 1300.0 J 1500.0 I - UJ . UI - UJ - UJ - U.I
leA)p Equivalence Cone. 0 i- 0 f- 0 f- 8750 f-- 13680 - 24 f-- 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 i-
Tota' PAHI 160 i- 140 - 0 f-- 600800 I-- 829700 - 2357 f-- 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 i-
PHENOL ANALYTES (1700) afoo73 G Gf0074 a GFOO89RE Q GF00911E II GF0092RE Q OFoo29 0 Of 0030 Q Of 0031 0 GfOO3Z Q Of 003] 0
111111(11 - - - 1111/1(11 - - I- 1I1I/1C1l - - ~ III/ICI - - '- IIII/lCg - ~ f- 111111(11 - - - 1II/1C1l - I- ~ III/I(II - 1-- ... III/I(I - - I- 1111/1(11 - c--
PHEMOl - UJ - UJ '700.00 R 44.00 R 480.00 R - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
2-CHLOROPHENOl 1500.00 J 1500.00 J 170.00 J - UJ 92.00 01 - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
O-CRESOL - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ 98.00 J - U.I 150.00 .I - UJ - UJ - UJ
M/P.CRESOl 450.00 UJ 530.00 .I 150.00 J . UJ 310.00 .. . UJ 100.00 J - UJ - UJ . UJ
2-NITROPHEMOl - U.I - UJ 85.00 ..1 . UJ 41.00 .I . U.I '. 1,11 . U.I - UJ - UJ
2,4.DIMETNYLPHEIIOL - UJ - UJ 82.00 J . UJ 140.00 .a 520.00 R 2300.00 " 630.00 It 0.05 R 0.]] .
2,4-DICHLoROPHEIIOl - UJ 270.00 J - UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ
4.CHLORO.3.KETHYLPHEMOL - UJ . UJ 33.00 .I 110.00 J 220.00 '.1 . U.I - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
2,4,5/6.TRICHLOROPHENOl . U.I - UJ 210.00 R '1.00 . 110.00 I - U.I - 1,1.1 - UJ - UJ '0 UJ
2,4-0.NITROPHENOl . It - II - UJ 140.00 R . UJ . UJ - U.I . UJ - UJ - UJ
4-NITROPHENOl . UJ - Uol 44.00 It 63.00 . 120.00 . . UJ - UJ - Uol - UJ . UJ
2,3,4,6-TETRACHLOROPHENOl - UI 390.00 .I . UJ 67.00 .I 390.00 " 60.00 .. 200.00 .. - UJ 1200.00 J 1400.00 .
4,6-DIIIITRO-Z.METHYL'HEHOL . UJ - UJ . R 41.00 R 140.00 . . u" 200.00 It - UJ - UJ - 1,1.1
PENTACHLOROPHENOl - UJ ~o.oo .I 77.00 . no. GO . 8100.00 . 100.00 .. - U.I . UJ 1200.00 1 1400.00 R
-------
w
....,.
.IELD SAMPLE IUKlEII III09-SS-00] l1li10-1'-001 l1li10-11-002 )1110-1S-003 "'11-"-001 "'''-11-002 "'11-11-003 .."Z-II-oo, ""Z-II-ooZ 1111Z-II.OO3
EPA SAMPL~ IUMBEII Q.OO34 .FOO5Z .F0051 .FOO54 .F0035 .FOO16 .F0011 .F0049 .F0050 .F0051
DEPTH 50' 0-5' 5-10' 10-t5' 5' 10' 15' 0-5' 5-10' 10-15'
VOA AIIAUTES (40) . .. Q . Q 8. T. Q Q Q
8I1IK, -- - ~ '1/K8 - I- - ,,'K, - ~ ... 8II/q Nlq- I-- ~ ",it, - - ~ 818, -.- - ,tilt, - - - fltllt, - f- - "/ltl - -
vllin CHU.~' UJ UJ UJ ' - OJ - OJ - UJ . OJ UJ UJ - U.I
1.1-DICHLOR ~IE - U.I - U.I - UJ' - OJ - UJ - OJ - UJ - OJ - UJ - U.I
. 'IAIII-1.2-DICliLOROETHEIIE . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ
1.1.DICHLOROETHAMf - UJ - UJ - UJ - OJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
CII-1,Z-DICHLOIOETKEII~ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ _ : UJ - UJ - UJ
CHLOROFORM . U.I - U.I - UJ - UJ. - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
1.1,1-TIICHLOROETHAIE - U.I - UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ -. UJ - UJ - UJ
CAlIOI TETRACHLORIDE . OJ - UJ - UJ - OJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ ~ UJ - UJ
IEIIZ£IIE - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - uj - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
1,Z-DICHLOROETHAIIE - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
TlICHLOIOETIlEIIE . - UJ - UJ - l( " - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
.ICID I CHLORCllETIIAIIE - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
TOlUENE - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ 53.00 01 - UJ
TETIACHLOROETHENE . UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ - U.I - OJ - UJ - UJ
CHLOIOIEIIZ£NE - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
';1,Z,Z-TETRACHLOROETHAIE' - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ
ETHYLIEHZENE - UJ 71.00 01 - UJ 100-00 01 - UJ - UJ 8.10 01 - UJ . UJ - UJ
IItOfl)fORM - UJ . UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ
.,P.XYLEIIE - UJ 3.60 I - UJ 15.00 I - UJ . UJ UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
O-XYLENE - U.I - UJ . UJ 44.00 01 - UJ - UJ UJ . UJ - UJ - \JJ
PAH ANAL'TES (330) Q.DD34IE . .FOO5Z . ..OOS1 . .FOO54 . .,00351E . .FDD36RE . .FOO37IE . .F0049 . .'0050 . .'0051 .
'lIlt, - - flIIK8 8IIIK, - - - ,tlltl - - - Nlltl - - - 1II/It, - - -IItIq- - - 1II/1t1 - - ~ ,tlK' - - -- flIIK, - -
NAPHTHALENE . UJ - UJ 960.00 01 - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ 56.00 01 . UJ - U.I
ACEIIAPHTKYLENE . UJ . U.I 610.00 .I - UJ . UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ - U.I - UJ
ACEIlAPHTHENE - UJ 31.00 01 130.00 01 . UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ 62.00 01 - UJ - UJ
"FLUORENE . UJ 41.00 01 900.00 01 - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ 470.00 J - UJ - UJ
'KEWTHRENE - U.I 170.00 01 2000.00 01 - UJ . UJ - UJ. - UJ 980.00 J 22.00 .I - UJ
AlITHIA CEliE - UJ 48.00 01 2300.00 01 . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ Z6OO.oo J - ....... - UJ
fLUOIAIITHENE - UJ 270.00 J 2000.00 01 . UJ 51.00 01 - UJ . UJ 180.00 01 - UJ 1.50 01
PYIEIIE - UJ 240.00 01 2000.00 J - UJ 59.00 01 - UJ - UJ 180.00 J - UJ 61.00 .I'
.EIZ(A)AIITHRACENE - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ 82.00 .I - UJ - UJ 230.00 01 - UJ - UJ
CHI'SEIIE . UJ - UJ 570.00 J . UJ 66.00 01 - UJ - UJ 280.00 01 . UJ - UJ
IEIiIOCI)/(IC)FLUOIAIITHEIiE - UJ 120.00 J 170.00 01 . UJ 120,00 .I - UJ - UJ 360.00 J - UJ - UJ
8EIIO(A)"REI£ . - UJ - UJ 180.00 01 . OJ . UJ . UJ - UJ 110.00 .01 - UJ - UJ
IIDEIOC1,2,3-CO)P'IEIIE . - UJ - UJ - ,UJ - UJ 90.00 01 - UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
DIIEII(A,H)AIITHRACEIE - UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ
8EIIOC8,H.I)PEIYLEIIE - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ
ICA)P Equlv.'ence Cone. 0 - 12 - 203 - 0 - 50 ~ 0 - 0 - 1R r-- 0 - 0 -
1018' ,AHI 0 - 926 - 12420 - 0 - 468 -. 0 _. 0 - 5508 - 2Z - 6S -
..
,1IE1IOl AllALYTES (1100) .'0034 Q 1'0052 . QfOOS3 Q QfOO54 Q .,003' 8 .'0016 . Q.0037 Q .'0049 Q .'0050 . .'0051 Q
"'It I - - - JlIIKI - f- - I&tlll., ~ - 1&8IKI "'II - 1-- ... "'KI - ~ - ,.,/It, ,.8/11 III/KI - ~ ~ ,."ltg - -
PHEIIOl UJ 2_00 J UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ 32.00 I 2.60 01 2.20 01
Z-CHLOROPHENOl - UJ 38.00 J n.oo 01 31.00 01 - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ 41.00 J 16.00 01
O-CiESOl - UJ - UJ 4.80 I - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ
",'.ClESOl - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ 0.10 J - UJ - UJ 2.60 . 4.10 01 - UJ
Z-IIITIlOPHEIIOL - UJ - I" . UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
2,4-DIHETHYLPHEIIOL 0.10 .I 11.00 ..00 . ZO.oo . 6.10 I 0.03 It i' '.)9 . 340.00 I 21.00 I 16.00 I
2.4-DICHLOROPHEIIOL - UJ - UJ' '" UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ. UJ - . OJ - UJ - UJ
4-CHLORO-J-HETH'LPHEIIOL - UJ 10.00 J 2.70 01 8.60 . - UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ 10.00 J 10.00 01
2,4,5/6.T.ICHLOIOPHEIOl - UJ - . 1.80 I - . - UJ - UJ - UJ . . - . .- .
2,4'DIIITROPHEHOL - UJ - . 32.00 I - I - UJ . UJ - UJ - I - I - .
4.IIITIlOPHEIiOL - UJ - . 11.00 . - . . OJ - UJ - UJ . . - II - I
2.J,4,6-TEIRACHLOROPHEIOL 41O~00 01 '5.00 J 11.00 .. '0.00 . 1200.00 01 670.00 01 t5oo.oo J 44.00 I 51.00 J 53.00 J
4.6-DIIITRO-2-HETI'LlHEIIOL - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - au - UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ
PEITACHLOROPHENOl 490.00 01 51.00 . 42.00 J 69.00 . 1400.00 . 630.00 . 1400.00 . 62.00 J 16.00 . 78.00 .
TARLE 4-
-------
\.oJ
0)
fiELD $AMPLE lUMBER: . ",,13.S$-OOI ",,13.S5-oo3 ",,13-$$-004
EPA SAMPLE lUMBER: Of 0126 Gf0130 Of 0132
DEPTH 0.5' 5.10' 10-15'
VOA ANALYTE$ (40) 0 0 Q
1&11/"11 - 1- "" 118/"11 - 1-- .- IIII/ICII
VIIIYL CHLORIDE . pJ - UJ . UJ
1,1.DICHLOROETHENE . UJ . UJ . UJ
TRANS.1,Z.DICHLOROETHEIE . UJ . UJ . UJ
1,1.DICHLOROETKAlE. - UJ - UJ - UJ
CIS-1,Z-DICHLOROETHENE . UJ - UJ - UJ
CHLOROfORM - UJ - UJ - UJ
1, 1, 1-TRICHLOROETKAlE - UJ - UJ - UJ
CARBON TETRAcHLORIDE - UJ - UJ - UJ
BElltElE - UJ ~ UJ - UJ
1,Z-DICHLOROETHAIE - UJ - UJ' - UJ
TRICHLOROETHEIIE - UJ - UJ - UJ
BROIIDDICHLOROMETKAlE - UJ - UJ - UJ
TOLUEIIE - . UJ - UJ - UJ
TETIACHLOROETHEIIE - UJ - UJ - UJ
CHLOR08EIlZEIE - UJ - UJ - UJ
1.,1,Z,Z-TETRACHLOROETKAlE - UJ - UJ - UJ
ETHYl8ENZEliE - UJ - UJ - UJ
BROMOFORM - UJ - UJ - UJ
",P-XYlEIIE - UJ - UJ - UJ
O-XYLEIIE . - UJ - UJ - UJ
PAH ANALYTES (330) Of 0121 0 Of 0131 0 0'0133 0
.../1(11 - r-- I- III/ltill - - I- III/It.
NAPHTHALENE 31.00 J UJ - UJ
ACENAPHTHYLENE - UJ - UJ - UJ
ACENAPHTHENE - UJ . UJ . UJ
FLUORENE - UJ - UJ - UJ
PHEMAIITHIEIIE 260.00 J . UJ . UJ
ANTHRACENE 210.00 J - UJ . UJ
FLUORAIITHEIIE 330.00 J . UJ - UJ
PYIEIIE 970.00 J . UJ - UJ
BENZ(A)ANTHRACENE 2700.00 J - UJ - UJ
CHRYSEIIE 1400.00 J - UJ . UJ
BENIO(B) / (It) fLUOIAIITHEIiE. 4100.00 J 1600.00 I - UJ
IENZO(A)PYIENE noo.OO J 250.00 . - UJ
IIIDEIIO(1,Z,3-CO)PYRENE 1500.00 J - UJ Z50.oo I
DIBEMZ(A,H)AMTHRACEIE 300.00 J - UJ - UJ
IENZO(G,H,I JPEIYLEIE 1"'00.00 J 180.00 J - UJ
I(A)P Equlvatence cone. Z244 I-- 410 - 25 i--
TotaL PAH' 14301 I- 2030 f- 250 I--
PHENOL ANALYTES (1700) QF01Z6 0 oF0130 a aFOUZ a
1181"1 III/It. - - I- III/I(II
PHENOL - UJ 96.00 J' 56.00 J -
Z-CHLOROPHENOL - UJ 1300.00 J - UJ
O.CRESOL - UJ - UJ - UJ
"/P-CIESOL 200.00 J 330.00 J 180.00 J
2-IIITIOPHENOL - UJ - UJ - UJ
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOl - R' - UJ - I
2,4-DICHLOROPHENOl . UJ - UJ - UJ
4-CHLORO-3-METHYLPHENOl - UJ - UJ - UJ
2,4,5/6-TIICNLOROPHENOL - UJ . UJ - UJ
2,4-DINITROPHENOL 1,1,0.00 R . It - I
4-NIIROPHENOL - UJ - UJ - UJ
2,3,4,6-TETIACNLOROPHENOL 160.00 J - UJ 160.00 J
4,6-DINITRO-Z.IlETHYLPHENOL 43.00 R . UJ - R
PENTACHLOROPHENOL 170.00 J . UJ 280.00 J
-------
W
\0
~<:>
'J
.0 .
CJO
D
\
,
LECEND
-- 5HCiRE UN[
. --- ORAIJIAC[ Mat
- 1ft££ UN[
- f£HCE
. SURFACE WATER AND 5EDINEHT LOCATIOH
.: d ';1
. . 1:.. n
t. '0'
:J '0
PI '(1 .
~liH I
'. ,tf ill .
,', ~, .
SCALE IN FEET
D
2»
.70
SURFACE WATER SAMPLE A~
SEDlUENT SAMPLE LOCATIOk
POPIIE INC.
EL DORADO. ARKANSAS
I'igure 14
-------
fiELD SAMPLE NUMBER: $\I01-SW-001 SW02-SW-001 $\I03-SW-001 5\I04-SW-001 SWOS-sv-001
EPA SAMPLE NUMBER: Qfooa4 QfOO8S . Of 0081 Qf0016 Qfoo77'
DEPtH
. VOA AIlALYtES (20) Q Q Q Q a
III/L IIII/L IIII/L. IIII/L 118fL
VIIIYL CHLORIDE - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
;.1-DICHLOR0E1HEIIE - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
tRAN.-1.2-DICHLOROETHEIiE . - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ . UJ
1.1-DltHLOROETHAME - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ
CIS.1.Z-DICHLOROETHEME - UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ
CHLOROfORM - UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ
1.1.1-tRICHLOROEtHAME . UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
&ARBOII tETRACHLORIDE - UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ
IEIIZEIiE - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ
1.Z-0ICHLOROETHAME . - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ
TRltHLOROETHENE - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ
BROHODltHLOROMETHANE - UJ - UJ . .UJ - UJ - UJ
TOlUENE - UJ - OJ . UJ . UJ - UJ
tETRAtHLOROETHENE - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ
CHLOR08EIIZENE - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
. 1,1,2,2-TE1RACtlLOROETHANE - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
ETHYLBEIlZEIIE . - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
8ROMOfORM ~ UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ
",P-XYLENE - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ
9-XYLENE - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ
PAH ANALYTES (20) QfOO84 Q Qf0085 Q Qf0081 a ofoo16 a Of 0077 Q
,,/L ,,/L ,,/L JIlL ".l/l
NAPHTHALENE - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ
ACEIlAPHttlYLENE - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
ACENAPHTHENE - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
fLUORENE . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
PHENANTHRENE - UJ - UJ - UJ 2.00 J - UJ
ANtHRACENE - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
fLUORAJITHENE - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ 3.00' J
PYRENE - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
BENZCA)ANTHRACENE - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
CHRYSEME . UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
IEMZOCI)/CK)fLUORANTHENE - UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
IENZOeA)PYRENE . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ 17.00 J
IMDENOC1.Z,3-CD)PYREME - UJ . UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ
DIIENZeA.H)AlltHRAtEIiE . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
IENZOCG,H,I)PER'LEIIE - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
ICA)P Equivalence cone. 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 17 ~
Total PAH, 0 - 0 - 0 ~ Z - ZO -
PHENOl ANALYTES (50) QfOO84RE Q QfOO85RE Q QfooaTlE a af0016 a Of 0077 a
JIIIL IIIIIL JIIIL J8fl JilL
PHENOL - UJ - UJ .. UJ - R 5_00 R
2-CHLOROPHENOl - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
O-CRESOl - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
N,,-CRESOl - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
2-I1I1ROPHENOL - UJ - UJ. ' UJ - UJ - UJ
2.4-DI"ETHYL~HENOL - UJ" UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
2.4-DICHLOROPHENOl . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
4-CHLORO-3-METHYLPHEMOl . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
Z,4,5/6-'.ICHLOROPHENOl . UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
Z,~.OINltROPHENOL - UJ . UJ . UJ - R - R
4-NITROPHENOL . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ 11.00 II
Z,3,4.6-TETRACHLOROPHENOL .. UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ
4.6-DINITaO-Z.METHYLPHENOL . UJ . UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ
PENTACHLOROPHENOL - UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ 44.00 J
....
o
-------
~
~
-.
FIELD SAMPLE IUMIEI: SW01-SO-001 SWOZ-SO-OO1 1W3-SO-OO1- SU04-SO-0Cn awos-SO-OO1 AI-SO-GO.
EPA INIPLE 1UllE1: OFOO8O OF0081 OFOO83 OFoo71 OFoo79 OFOR8
DEPTII
VM ANALYTES (40) 0 a a Q Q a
118/1C8 - - - 1I,/1C8 - j-:- III/ICII - i-- I- III/IC, - - - .8IIC, III/1C8
- Vlln CHLORIDE - U.I - U.I - UI - UJ - UJ - UJ
1,1-DICHLOROETHEIE - U.I - UJ ~ U.I - UJ - u.a - u.a
TIAII-1,2-DICIILOIOETHENE - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
1,1-DICHLOIOET~ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
CIS-1.Z-DICHLOIOETIEIE . UJ - W . UJ . UJ -- UJ . UJ
CHLOIOFOIM . UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ
1,1,1'TIICHLOIOETHAIE - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ
CARIOII TETRACHLORIDE . UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ
IEIIIEIE - UJ - UJ . UJ - UJ . UJ . UJ
1,Z-DICHLDROETHAIE . U.I - UJ . UJ . W - UJ . UJ
TIICHLOROETHEIE - U.I - U.I - UJ - UJ . U.I - u.a
llOMDDI CHLOROMETHAIE . U.I - UJ - UJ - u.a - u.a - u.a
TOLUENE - u.a - UJ . U.I - UJ - u.a 30.00 J
TETRACHlOROETHENE . u.a - u.a - UJ . u.a - u.a - UJ
CHLOIOIEIl£lE - u.a - UJ . UJ - UJ - U.I - u.a
1,1,Z,Z-TETRACHLOROETHANE - UJ - U.I - U.I . W - W . u.a
ETHYLIEItZENE - UJ - U.I . u.a - UJ - W . UJ
'.CJlDFOIM - UJ - U.I . U.I - UJ - UJ - UJ
M.P-XYLEItE - UJ - U.I - UJ - U.I - UJ - UJ
a-XYLENE - UJ - UI - UJ - UJ - UJ - UJ
PAN ANAL YTES (330) 0'0080 0 OF0081 a OFOO83 a 0'0071 Q OFoo79 a 0'0329 0
118/1C8 - !- HlIC,- i-- I- ".,ICII - I- I- ",/IC, ""IC, ,I.,1C8
NAPHTHALENE - . 3500.00 I I I - UJ - UJ
ACEIAPHTHYLENE - I ' 98.00 I - I - I - UJ - UJ
ACENAPHIHEItE - I 4300.00 I - I 58.00 I - UJ - UJ
FLUORENE - I 13000.00 I . I 99.00 I - U.I - UJ
PHENAIITHIENE . I 70000.00 I - I 470.00 I 150.00 J - UJ
AliTHIA CEliE - . 5'00.00 I - I 59.00 I - UI 46.00 .I
FlUDRANTHENE - .50000.00 . - I 390.00 I 90.00 .I 220.00 I
"IE IE - I 54000.00 . - I 300.00 I - UJ 420.00 J
IEIZCA)ANTNRACENE - I 11000.00 I . I - I - UJ - UJ
CHIYIEIE - I 9000.00 I - . . . . UJ 240.00 J
IEIZOCI)/CIC)'LUDRAITHEIIE - I 6600.00 . - I . . 1100.00 J 110.00 .I
IEIZOCA)"IENE - I 2900.00 I - . - I 1300.00 .I 150.00 J
IIDENOC1,ZS"CD)PY.EIE- - I 1100.00 . - I - I 5200.00 I - UJ
DIIEIZ(A,H ANTHIACEIIE - . 620.00 I . I . I . U.I - UJ
'EIZaCG.H,I)PEIYlEIE - . 730.00 I . I - I 190.00 .I . UJ
ICA)P Equlv8lence cone. 0 ~ S480 t-- 0 I- 0 - 1930 - 163 -
Totel PAH. 0 I- 211748 I-- 0 f-- 1376 r-- 8030 - 1186 -
-- - -. f--
PHENOl ANAlYTES (1700) QFOO8O - 0 0'0081 Q OFOOU Q 0'0071 Q OFoo79 Q OFOJa a
118/ICI - I- ~ 1I8IICI - - ,.. JIIKII IIIIIC, - r-- t- II.,ICII - - I- II.,ICI --- '
PHEIOL - UJ 55.00 .I 87.00 J 160.00 I 140.00 .I 190.00 I
Z-CHlOROPHENOl - UJ 830.00 I 870.00 I 1000.00 .I 1700.00 .I - UI
a-CIESOL - UJ - U.I - UJ - UJ - UI - UJ
M/P-CIEIOL Z10.oo J 240.00 I 61.00 .I 280.00 J 1400.00 I 110.00 .a
2-lnm-HENOL . UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ - UI - UJ
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL 140.00 J - UJ - UJ - u.a - U.I - UJ
2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL - UJ . UJ - u.a 210.00 I ZOO.OO UJ - UJ
4-CHlOlO.'-METHYLPHENOL - uJ 100.00 I . UJ . UJ - UJ - u.a
2.4,5/6'TIICHLOROPHENOL - UJ 210.00 . - UJ 940.00 I - W - UJ
2,4'DIIIIIOPHEIiOL - . 7900.00 R - 1 - . . I - UJ
4.IIITIUP"ENOL - UJ 550.00 . - UJ - UJ - W . UJ
2,3,4,6-TETRACHLOROPHENOL 3000.00 J 400.00 .I - u.a - UJ 580.00 W - 2400.00 .I
4,6'011ITIo-Z-METHYLPHENOl - UJ 1100.00 I - UJ . UJ . U.I . UJ I I
PENTACHLOROPHENOL 2300.00 .1 27000.00 -R . UJ 280.00 . 300.00 UJ 170-00 J
Table'
-------
Ground water
A total of 17 groundwater samples were collected from 14 monitoring
wells and three piezometers (PZ-2, PZ-8, and PZ-9) during this
investigation. The locations of the monitoring wells and'"
piezometers are shown in Figure 15. Screened intervals for the
monitoring wells are" given in Table 7.
Observations during groundwater sampling and analytical results for
groundwater samples indicate an area of light non-aqueous ~hase
liquids (LNAPL) or wood treating fluids and heavily contaminated
groundwater in the vicinity of the old impoundment area." A plume
of dissolved contaminants in groundwater extends downgradient from"
this presumed source area towards the Bayou de Loutre at. the
extreme northern and northeastern bou~daries of the site.
Analytical results for groundwater samples from the northern and
"eastern perimeter of the site indicate that contaminant
concentrations decrease significantly with increasing distance from
the i~poundment area. Another area of dissolved contaminants in
groundwater is present in the vicinity of the soil disposal cell.
Figure" 16 shows the estimated areal extent of groundwater
contamination at the site. The free-phase product (wood treating
fluids, which are hazardous substances as defined at CERCLA section
101(14), 42 U.S.C. S 9601(14), and furtberdefined at 40 CFR
~ 302.4.) zone is estimated to extend vertically 10 to 20 feet
below the water table, and is probably underlain by a zone of
dissolved contamination extending to the clay layer at 45 feet
below ground surface. This clay layer is believed to be the top of
the "Cook Mountain Formation, a 150 foot thick clay/silty clay layer
that would serve as an effective barrier to downward movement of
contaminants.
Two monitoring wells, MW-3 and MW-6, were screened" immediately
above the top of the "deep clay layer at the site. No evidence of
dense non-aqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs) was observed in these
wells. However, neither of these wells is l~cated in the area of
greatest groundwater contamination. It is possible that there may
be DNAPLs at the top of the deep clay layer at" the old impoundment
area, but there are currently no wells at this location that are
screened at an interval permitting investigation of this
possibility. Additional information will be obtained during the
installatipn of "recovery wells to ensure proper well location"and
screened intervals. .
The dissolved contaminant plume at" the remainder of the site is
estimated to extend from' the water table to "the top of the clay
layer at 40 to 60 feet beneath the ground surface. The" analytical
results for ground water samples are presented in Table 8. "
The highest levels of groundwater contamination at the Popile site
were found in the vicinity of the old impoundment area and the
-------
~
w
\\<:>
~
,..-
/"
," //
//
/'
.-.
./,- \
o
Q
D
D
r
LECEND
--' SHORJ: UN[
-- IWIIIAGE DITCH
- 1R£E UHE
- Ft:NCE
""-7 . SHAUOW IIONTOIIIHC W£U.S
....-~ . D£EP IIOHITORIHC "f:lLS I~[£H(D "I£RVAL
CREATER TIWI 28 fEET BCSI
,.Z-~ A PUOIIET£R
i
SCALE IN FEET
o
2»
470
MONITORING WEU. AND
PIEZOMETER LOCATIONS
POPILE INC.
EL DORADO, ARKANSAS
Fig...r.. 15
-------
Table 7
SCREENED INTERVALS FOR MONITORING WELLS
-
MWl
5-10
MW2
14-24
MW3
28.S-38.S
MW4
5-15
MWS
.MW6
14-24
39-49
MW7
5-15
MW8
9-14
MW9
41-51
7-17
MWlO
MWll
9-14
MW12
7-17
MW13
4-14
MW14
43-53
-------
..
UI
\)Q
'J
\~ ,../'
/
I
I
o
CJ
CJ
o
)
. LECEND
---- SHOR[ UN(
- DR.OIIIA« DflOt
- IR££ UIIE
- £JCI$1MI RHC[
"-7. SlWJ.OW MDNTIJIIIHG WfUS -
..-3. ~Tr~ DSJ:s5tf££N£D INK/lVAl
I'Z-36 . Pt£ZDllmR
~ tSTINATi:O AR£Al [XToo OF m((-,,~.S[
ball CONTMIIWIT PlUIlE ON c:ROUIIDWAT...
m [STIllAT[O AR£Al OOOlT OF OISSOI.VEO
t:LI CONT_T I'LUII£ II CRQUNOWA1£R
~ CROUNOWAIER n.ow - OIRECTION
N
t
SCAtE IN FEET
0 235 470
ESTIMATED AREAL EXTENT OF
GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION
POPIW FIC.
EL DORADO. Aiil(A~S~~
J'iqure l'
""If:
-------
~
0\
fiELD SAMPlE NUMBEI: Il101.6\1.001 1IIOZ-6\l-001 1M13-6\l-001 IMI4-GW.001 IUI5-Ql-ocn Il106- GW-001 lII07-li.,.OCI1
EPA SAMPl" IIUIIEI: Qf0334 Qf0312 Of 0158 Qf0134 Qf0160 If 0316 QF0352
!;IEPTH 5-10' 14-24' 28.5-38.5' 5-15' 14-24' 39-49' 5-15'
VOA ANAlYTES (20) 0 Q Q Q 0 0 Q
'e/l lIe/l 118/L --: 'e/L 118IL 'e/L lI8Il
VIIIYl CHLORIDE - UJ - UJ - UJ U.I . U.I - UJ - U.I
1,1-DICHlOROETHEIiE - U.I . U.I - U.I - UJ - U.I - UJ -. U.I
. TRAMS.1,Z-DICHLOIOETHENE - U.I - U.I - U.I - U.I - U.I - UJ - UJ
1,I-DICHLOROETHAII£ - UJ - U.I - U.I - U.I - U.I - UJ - U.I
CIS-1,2-DICHLOROETHEIIE - UJ - UJ - UJ. . UJ - UJ - U.I - U.I
CHLOROfORM - UJ - U.I - UJ - UJ - U.I - U.I - UJ
1,1,1.TRICHLqROETHAIIE - U.I - U.I - U.I - U.I . UJ - U.I - UJ
CAI80II TETRACHLORIDE - U.I - U.I - U.I . UJ - UJ - U.I . U.I
IEllZEIIE - U.I - U.I - U.I - U.I . U.I 2.90 .I 81.00 ..
1,Z-DICHLOROETHAIIE - U" - U.I - U.I - UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ
'1ICHlOROETHEIiE - UJ - U.I . UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ - U.I
BROIIDI CHLOROMETHAIIE - U.I - U.I - U.I - UJ - U.I . U" - U"
'OLUEIIE - UJ - U.I . U.I . UJ . U" - UJ 130.00 ..
'ETRACHLOROETHEIIE - UJ - UJ - U.I - U" - U" . UJ - U.I
CHLOIOIEIlZEIIE - U.I . UJ . U.I . U.I - U" - UJ. - U.I
1;1,2,Z-TETIACHlOROETHAIIE 20.00 .1 - U" - U.I - UJ - UJ - UJ . UJ
ETHYL.EIlIEIiE - U.I - UJ . UJ . UJ .. U.I - UJ 100.00 .I
BROMOFORM - U.I - UJ - Uol . U.I - Uol - U" . Uol
",P-XYLEIIE 200.00 01 - U.I - Uol . UJ - Uol - UJ 180.00 01
O-XYLEIIE 17.00 R - UJ . Uol . UJ - U.I - UJ 100.00 01
PAN AIIAL'TES (ZO) Qf0335 Q Qf0313. Q Qf0159 Q QfOU5 8 QF0161 Q 8f0317 Q Qf0353 Q
"e/L 'e/L IIVL ,,8IL III/L ..aIL "aIL
IlAPH'IfALENE . U.I - UJ . UJ . UJ - . UJ . UJ 3400.00 .I
ACEIW'H'HYLEME . UJ . UJ . UJ 20.00 R - U.I - U" 27O.DD .I
ACEIIAPHTNENE 16.00 01 5.00 .I - UJ 7.90 01 - U" - u" 2800.00 R
fLUORENE 16.00 R - UJ . U.I . Uol - Uol . UJ 2500.00 .
PHEHAIITHIENE 23.00 I - UJ - UJ . UJ - U.I - U.I .4800.00 I
ANTHRACEIIE 15.00 R - U.I - U.I - UJ - U.I - UJ - U.I
fLUORAII'HENE . . UJ - U.I - UJ . UJ - U.I - UJ 3700-00 R
PTRENE 9.20 .I Z.50 01 - Uol - U.I - UJ - UJ JOOO.oo .
8EIIZeA)AIITHRACENE . UJ - U.I . UJ . Uol - U.I - UJ 1500.00 I
CHIYSEIIE - U.I - U.I . U" - U" - UJ - UJ 1200.00 01
IEIIZO(I)/(K)FlUORAllTHEII£ - U.I - Uol - UJ - U.I - UJ - UJ 480.00 .
IEIIIO(A)"IEIE - UJ - UJ - Uol - U.I - U.l - U.I 410.00 I
IIDEIO(1,Z,J.CO)PYIEIIE - U.I . U.I . Uol - U.I - UJ - U.I 160.00 01
DIIEIIZeA,H)AIITKRAClIE - UJ - U.I - U.I - Uol - U.I - UJ 62.00 01
BEIIIO(G,N,I)PERYLEIiE - U.I - U.I - Uol - Uol . U.I - UJ 87.00 01
leA)p Equ'V.'encl Cone. 0 I-- 0 I-- 0 I-- D I-- 0 >-- 0 I-- 698 -
Tot., PAKI 79 I-- 8 I-- 0 I-- 28 I-- 0 --- 0 I-- 24369 -
PHENOL ANAL'T!S (50) Q,0n4 0 Q'OS12 0 Of 0158 Q 0'0134 Q Of 0160 Q Of 0316 Q QFOS5Z Q
,.VL I18/L JVL J8IL JIlL Jell Jg/L
PHENOL . UJ . Uol ~ Uol . UJ - U.I - U.I 770 ..
Z-CHLOROPHENOL . U.I - UJ . UJ . W - UJ - UJ 500 .
O-CRESOL . UJ - UJ - Uol - Uol - UJ . UJ 1000 .
N/P.CRESOL - UJ - Uol . Uol - Uol - UJ . UJ 1100 1
2-IIITIIOPHEIIOl - UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ . Uol 2000 1
Z,4-DIMETH'LPHEIIOL - U.I. - U.I - Uol - UJ - UJ - UJ 500 .
2,4-DICHLoROPHEIIOl . U.I. 6.80 01 . UJ - UJ - UJ - U.I 52000 .
4-CHLORO-3-METH'lPHEIIOl - U.I - UJ - U.I - U.I - YJ - U.I 42000 .
2,4,5/6-tIlICHLOROPHEIIOL - U.I - U.I . Uol - Uol - UJ - UJ 76000 .
2,4-DINITIOPHENOl . R . . - 1 - UJ - II - U.I 500 .
4-NITIIOPHENOL 4_00 01 . UJ . Uol - UJ - UJ - UJ 1200000 .
2,3,4.6-TETRACHLOROPHENOL 5.00 01 . UJ . UJ . UJ - UJ - UJ ZZOODOO .
4,6-011lITRO-Z-METHYLPHEIIOL 5.00 01 . UJ . 1 . Uol - Uol - UJ 1100000 I
PENTACHLOROPHENOL 8.00 01 - UJ 7.70 01 . UJ - Uol . UJ 460000 ..
.... , .,. n
-------
fiELD SAMPLE NUMlER:
EPA SAMPLE NUMBER:
DEPTH
VOA ANALYTES (20)
VIIIYL CHLORIDE
1,I-DICHLOROETHENE
TIIAIIS-I,Z-DICHLOROETHEIIE
1,I-DICHLOROETIANE
CIS-I,Z-DICHLORDfTHfIE
tHLOROfOlUl
""1-'RICHLOROETHANE
W80II TETRACHLORIDE
BEIlZEIiE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
TIIICHlOlOETHEIiE
BROMODICHLOROMETHAIIE
TOLUEIIE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
CHLOROBEIIZEIIE
1,I,Z,Z-TETRACHLOROETHAN~
ETHUIEIIZENE
iROfIOfOR"
",P-XYLENE
O-XYLENE
PAN ANALYTES C2O)
~
-.J
NAPH'HALENE
ACENAPNTNYlENE
ACEIlAPNTHENE
fLUOIIENE
PHENANTHRENE
AIITHRACENE
fLUOItANTHENE
PYRENE
8ENZ(A)ANTHRACENE
CHIIYSENE
BENZOCI)/(K)FLUORANJHENE
BENZOCA)PYIIENE
INDENO(1,2,3-CD)PYIIEIIE ... .1'. . :
DIIEIIZ(A,H)ANTHRACEIIE
BENZOCG,H,I)PERYlEIiE
I(A)P Equlv8tence Cone.
Toce. PAHI
Uol -
Uol -
. t 2~_.00 U~ :
UJ -
UJ .
UJ -
9.00 01 .
UJ .
UJ .
UJ -
UJ -
II"" I .
UJ .
UJ .
0-
]J -
PHENOL ANALYTES (50)
PHENOl
Z-CHLOROPHENOL
O-CRESOl
N/P-tIIESOL
2.N ITROPHENOL
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENDL
2,4-DICNlOlDPHENOL
4.CHlORO.].METHYlPHEIDL
2,4.5/6.TRICMlOROPHEIIOl
2.4.DINITIlOPHENOl
4-NITROPHENDl
2,3.4,6.TETRACNlOROPHENOL
4.6-DINITRO-Z-METNYlPHENOl
PENTACHLOROPHENOl
tIW08-GW-ool
GfOI62
'-14'
III/L
Of 0163
,.IIL
QfOI62
".Il
lIII09- GV- 001
GfOI64
41-51'
o
",/L
.
J,lJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
Uol
Uol
Uol
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
Uol
UJ
UJ
.
-
.
-
-
-
.
.
-
-
.
-
.
.
-
-
.
.-
o QfOl65
I18fL
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
o QfOI64
,I./L
.
Uol
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
Uol .
Uol
II
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
-
Table 8
MUI0-CU-OOI . MWII.GU.OOI
0'0166 a,OI68
7.11' '.14'
-
-
.
.
-
-
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
-
-
UJ
UJ
Uol
Uol
Uol
UJ
UJ
Uol
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
0-
0-
-
-
.
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
2.20
-
7.10
~
UJ
Uol
Uol
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
Uol
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
II./L
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
o
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
Uol
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
Uol
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
o 0'0309
",/L
",/L
.
-
-
.
-
-
.
-
.
-
.
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
.
.
UJ
Uol
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
0-
0---
11112-GW-001
af03t4
7-tT'
o
UJ
UJ
Vol
UJ
Vol
UJ
Uol
UJ
UJ
UJ
Vol
Vol
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
o af0315
,I./L
o 0,0314
,.,/l
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
R
Uol
Vol
Uol
Uol
",/L
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
.
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
W
UJ
0---
o ---
11113-"'-001
Of 0338
4- 14'
o
UJ
UJ
Vol
UJ
UJ
UJ
Uol .
Vol
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
",/L
20.00
.
-
- .
-
-
.
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
UJ
UJ
01
R
R
II
UJ
8.90 01
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
0- I
11 ~)
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
o
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ'
UJ
R
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
o Q,0311
IIIIL
Q of 0]10
,../L .
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
U..
UJ
R
U..
01
oI
oI
MWt4."'.OOI
0'0310 .
4]-53;
P02-TR-001
0'0354
12.5-15"
o
",/L
",/L
o 0'0161
,.,/L
-
UJ .
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
o --
G I--
-
.
-
-
.
.
-
-
-
.
.
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
o Of 0339
",/L
14.00
14.00
20.00
14.00
Q of 0338
,.,/L
UJ
U..
UJ
Uol
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
II
U..
UJ
UJ
UJ
'13.00
3.00
5.00
-
UJ -
UJ -
UJ -
UJ -
UJ -
UJ -
UJ -
UJ -
UJ -
UJ .
UJ -
UJ .
UJ 1700.00
UJ -
UJ -
UJ -
UJ 59.00
UJ -
UJ 420.00
UJ 150.00
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
Q 0'0166 t~; Q'OI~
,1./1. ---.:...
-------
facility area, as shown by the analytical results for groundwater
samples from Monitoring Well 7 and Piezometer 8. It is on this area
that the extraction and treatment remedy will focus for the
recovery of the pooled wood treating fluids, which have been
determined to be a primary source of continual ground water
contamination. '
Remedial Investigation Results
The results of the Remedial Investigation showed contaminants'
in t~ree major areas of concern at the site:
1) slightly contaminated surface soils (0-6");
2) moderately contaminated subsurface soils extending 15 to 20 feet
below the surface (including the temporary holding cell);
3) highly contaminated wood treating fluids pooled in the
subsurface that are a source of continual ground
contamination; and -
water
4) a moderately contaminated dissolved phase contaminant plume.
Contaminated sludges and soils, were identified in the old
impoundment and old wood treating facilities area as well as the
temporary containment cell created during the removal action
(Figure 13). The contaminants found were primarily organic
chemicals related to the wood treating process. Polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons (PARs) and phenols were the most commonly
found contaminants which were identified in the soil, sludge and
sediment samples taken during ,the investigation. Some of the PAH
compounds have been, identified as potentially cancer causing
(carcinogens). These carcinogenic PAR compounds have been equated
to benzo(a)pyrene, refereed to as B(a)P, the most potent of the
PAHs, by multiplying the concentration of the compound by a
correlation factor, Le., chrysene concentrations are multiplied by
0.01 to give a B(a)P equivalent. The above-described contaminants
are compounds that constitute hazardous substances as defined at
CERCLA Section 101(14), 42 U.S.C. S 9601(14), and further defined
at 40 CFR i 302.4.
Benzo(a)pyrene equivalents and pentachlorophenol, the major
contaminants of' concern, were found in the temporary holding cell
material as high as 32,700 parts per billion and 280,000 parts per
billion, respectively. The total volume of contaminated soil is
approximately 165,000 cubic yards. ' ' ,
The ground water in' the, uppermost water bearIng zone, consisting' of
alluvial deposits, was found to contain contaminants similar to
those found in the soils and sludges on site. Ground water from
the alluvial deposits is not used in the vicinity of the site.
Beneath 'the alluvial deposits is a clay layer that appears to be
-------
continuous across the site, based on the field investigation. This
clay layer, in addition to the upward gradient or artesian effects
of the lower groUnd water, c.':":?ears to be acting to prevent the
downward movement of contami..ants to the lower drinking water
zones. Shallow' -ound water sample (less than 28 feet deep)
analyses from the i.d facility and old :t-,?oundment area indicated
698 ppb benzo(a)pyrene equivalent and 460,000 ppb of PCP versus 30
ppb benzo(a)pyrene equivalent and 7.7 ppb PCP in the deeper wells
(28 to 53 feet deep).
As shown in Figure 16, the smaller circular plume contains
approximately 750,000 gallons of pooled creosote, PCP, and carrier
fluids. comparison of the soils data (280,000.ppb PCP) versus the
pooled liquids (460,000 ppb PCP) indicates significantly higher
levels of contamination exist in the much more mobile liquids than
in the soils. The larger plume indicates the extent of dissolved
ground water contamination and contains . approximately 84 milli -j
gallons. ~hese above-listed compounds constitute hazardc
substances as defined at CERCLA Section 101(14), 42 U.S.C.
~ 9601(14), and further defined at 40 CFR i 302..4.
VI. SUKHARY OF SITB RISES
Risk Overview and Bzposure Assessaent
A risk assessment is a procedure that uses a combination of facts
and assumptions to estimate the potential for adverse effects c
human health from exposure to contaminants found at a site. Risk"
are determined by comparing actual chemical concentrations at a
site versus chemica! exposure limits known to have an adverse
impact on human health. carcinogenic risks are expressed in terms
of the chance of developing cancer over a given period of exposure.
Toxicity - assessments of non-carcinogenic risks are based on
comparing site contaminant concentrations to reference
concentrations known to have an adverse non-cancerous impact.
Conservative assumptions are used in calculating risks that weigh
in favor of protecting human health. .
The national incidence of-risk, or probability, that an individual
may develop some form of cancer from everyday sources, over a
70-year life span, is estimated at a probability of three-in-ten.
Activities such as too much exposure to the sun, occupational
exposures, or dietary or smoking habits contribute to this high
risk. This three-in~ten probability is considered the "natural
incidence" of cancer in the Uni.ted states. To protect human
health, the EPA has set the range from one in ten-thousand to one
in one-million excess- cancer incidents as the remedial goal for
Superfund sites. - A risk of one in one-million means that one
person out of one-million people could develop cancer as a result
of a lifetime exposure to the site. This risk is above and beyond
the "natural incidence" of three in ten. This range may also be
expressed as 1xlO.4 to lX10-.e. .
-------
The level of concern for non-carcinogenic contaminants is
determined by calculating a hazard index. The hazard index
reflects the degree that chemical contaminants might cause
poisoning, burns, irritations, and/or other health problems. If
the hazard index exceeds one (1), there may be concern for
potential ~on-cancer effects from an extended exposure to the site'
contaminants. '
The risk assessment process evaluated the current site risk, also
called the baseline risk, posed to human health by the, site if. left
alone. The calculation of risk was based on using the values as
established in EPA' s Supplemental Guidance on Standard' Default
Exposure Factors of, the Human Health Evaluation Manual. The risks
for the sediments, soils and ground water were calculated based on
three separate scenarios: A lifetime exposure for a future
residential population living on the site for 30 years, on
individuals visiting the site on a casual basis (trespassing) or
wading in Bayou de Loutre, and on an industrial basis. Because the
site could be developed for residential use, this Record of
Decision's risk assessment is based on the residential land use
scenario which is the most conservative assumption. The
discussions that follow will only present data concerning a
lifetime' exposure, 'and the other ,exposure information for ,an
industrial land use and trespassing scenarios is available in the
Administrative Record.
To~icity Assessment
The obj ecti ve of the toxici ty assessment is to weigh available
evidence regarding the potential for particular contaminants to
cause adverse effects in exposed individuals. Also, the toxicity
assessment provides, where possible, an estimate of the
relationship between the extent of exposure to a contaminant and
the increased likelihood and or severity of ~dverse effects. The
types of toxicity infoX1Dation considered in this assessment include
the reference dose (RfD) used to evaluate non-carcinogenic effects
and the slope facto~ to evaluate carcinogenic potential.
RfDs have been developed by EPA for indicating the potential for
adverse health effects from exposure to contaminants of concern
exhibi ting non-carcinogenic effects. RfDs, which are expressed in
uni ts of mg/kg-day, are estimates of acceptable lifetime daily
exposure levels for humans, including sensitive individuals.
Estimated intakes of contaminants of concern from environmental
media (~., the amount of a contaminated drinking water) can be
compared to the RfD. RfDs are derived from human epidemiological
studies or animal studies to which uncertainty factors have been
applied' (~., to account for the use of animal data to predict
effects on humans and to 'prot'ect sensitive sub-populations) to
ensure that it is unlikely to underestimate the potential for
adverse non-carcinogenic effects to occur. The purpose of the RfD
is to provide a benchmark against which the sum of the other doses
-------
(w., those projected from human exposure to various environmenta2
conditions) might be compared. Doses that are siqnificantly higher
than the RfD may indicate that an inadequate margin of safety could
exist for exposure to that substance and that an adverse health
eff~ct might occur. No RfD or slope factors are available for the
dermal route of exposure. In some cases, however, non-carcinogenic
or carcinogenic risks associated with dermal exposure can be
evaluated using an oral RfD or an oral slope factor.--Sxposures via
the dermal route generally are calculated andexpres~ as absorbed
doses. These absorbed doses are compared: to an oral 1:9xici ty value
that is also expressed as an absorbed dose. Toxicity' information
used in the toxicity assessment for the Site was obtai~ed from
EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). If values were
not available from IRIS, the Health Effects Assessment Summary
Tables (HEAST) were consulted. The toxicity factors ~sed in this
evaluation for non~carcinogenic effects and carcinogenic effects
are summariz~d in the tables outlined in the following pages.
For chemicals that'exhibit non-carcinogenic health effects, it is
assumed that organisms have repair and detoxification capabilities
that must be exceeded by some critical concentration (threshold)
before the health is adversely affected. For example, an organ can
have a large number of cells performing the same or similar
functions. To lose organ function, a siqnificant number of those
cells must be depleted or impacted. This threshold view holds that
exposure to some amount of a contaminant is tolerated without an
appreciable risk of adverse effects.
For chemicals that exhibit carcinogenic effects, most authorities
recognize that one or more molecular events can evoke changes in a
single cell or a small number of cells that can lead to tumor
formation. This is the non-threshold theory of carcinogenesis
which purports that any level of exposure to a carcinogen can
result in some finite possibility of generating the disease.
EPA's Carcinogenic Risk Assessment Verification Endeavor (CRAVE)
has ,developed slope factors (id., dose-response values) for
estimating excess lifetime cancer risks associated with various
levels of lifetime exposure to potential human carcinogens. The
carcinogenic slope factors can be used to estimate the lifetime
excess cancer risk associated with exposure to a potential
carcinogen. 'Risks estimated using slope factors are considered
unlikely to underestimate actual risks, but they may overestimate
actual risks. Excess lifetime cancer risks are generally
expressed in scientific notation and are probabilities., An excess
lifetime cancer risk of 1 x 10.6 (one in one million), for example,
represents the probability that one additional, individual ina
population of one' million 'will develop cancer as a result of
exposure to a carcinogenic chemic~l over a 70-year lifetime under
specific exPosure conditions. Slope factors (SFs) have been
developed for estimating excess lifetime cancer risks associated
with exposure to potentially carcinogenic contaminants of concern.
51
..
- ,
-------
Sfs, which are expressed in units of (mg/kg.day)"' , are multiplied
by the estimated intake of a potential carcinogen, in mg/kg-day, to
provide an upper-bound estimate of the excess lifetime cancer risk
associated with exposure at that intake level. The term "upper
bound" reflects the conservative estimate of the risks calculated
from the ~F. Use of this approach makes underestimation of the
actual cancer risk highly unlikely. Slope factors. are derived from
the results of human epidemiological studies or chronic animal
bioassays to which animal-to-human extrapolation and uncertainty
factors have been applied (~., to account for the use of animal
data to predict effects on humans).
There are varying degrees of confidence in the weight of evidence.
for carcinogenicity of a given chemical. The EPA system involves
characterizing the overall weight of evidence for' a chemical's
carcinogenicity based on the availability of animal, human, and
other supportive data. The weight-of-evidence clasf;;ification is an
. attempt to determine the likelihood that the agent is a human
carcinogen, and thus, qualitatively affects the estimation of
potential' health risks. Three major factors are considered in
characterizing the overall weight of evidence for carcinogenicity:
(1) the quality of evidence from human studies; (2) the quality of
evidence from animal studies, which are combined into a
characterization of the overall. weight-of-evidence for human
carcinogenicity, and (3); other supportive information which is
assessed. to determine whether the overall weight-of-evidence
should be modified. EPA uses the weight-of-evidence classification
system to categorize carcinogenicity of contamination as one of the
following five groups:
Group A - Human Carcinogen: This category indicates that
there is sufficient evidence from epidemiological studies to
support a causal association between an agent and cancer.
Group B - Probable Human Carcinogen: This category generally
indicates that there is at least limited evidence from epidem-
iological studies of carcinogenicity to. humans (Group B1) or
that, in the absence of adequate data on humans, there is
sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals (Group B2).
Group C - Possible Human Carcinogen: This category indicates
that there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in animals
in th~ absence of data on humans. .'
I.t
Group D - Not.Classified: This category indicates that the
evidence for carcin~enicity in animals is inadequate.
Group E - No Evidence of Carcinogenicity to Humans: This.
category indicates that there is no evidence for
carcinogenicity in at least two adequate animal tests in
different species, or in both epidemiological and animal
studies. .
-------
Ba~line Risk Asse....nt
TL., aseline risk assessment was divided into two parts: The human
heal th evaluation and the ecological evaluation. The baseline risk
assessment was based on reasonable maximum exposure. The human
health eva~uation considered potentially contaminated media such as
surface soils, gro~d water, surface water, and sediments.
Contaminant migration via an air pathway was evaluated in the risk
assessment. Air monitoring from previous actions and throughout
the remedial investigation activities showed no significant
breathing hazards to the nearby populations or terrestrial
wildlife. Table 9 presents a summary of all compounds analyzed"and
a range of the constituents found in each media.
Based on the results of previous field sampling and historical site
activities, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PARs), expressed as
, benzo (a) pyrene equiv: lents, and pentachlorop; ;nol (PCP) , ~'''"':re
,t tatively identified as the major contaminan-:. " of cc :ern p~ Jr
t- the RI field sampling. In addition to these contam.;.,~ants, -.(1e
volatile compounds associated with the use of petroleum as a
carrier fluid were identified as potential contaminants of concern.
These volatile compounds are benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and
xylenes (BTEX), which also constitute haz,ardous substances as
defined at CERCLA Section 101(14), 42 U.S.C. S 9601(14), and
further defined at 40 CFR S 302.4. As shown in the following
analyses, these assumptions were verified by the RI.
The RI results have shown dioxin/furan analyses yield less than 1
ug/kg 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) equivalents
in surface soils and significantly lower values in the $ediments
and' subsurface. EPA and the Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registr' (ATSDR) have determined that levels of 2,3,7,8
TCDD between to 10 ug/kg do not represent a significant
residential rislrovided they are covered with at least 12 inches
of clean soil. ,.le EPA has determined that the dioxins/furans will
be addressed through the remediation of contaminants of concern,
B(a)P, BTEX and PCP. For purposes of the risk discussion,
dioxins/furans,are presented in the Tables but are not detailed in
the discussions. '
Human Health Risks
A summary of site risks from contaminants at the Popile site is
presented in Tables 10 and 11. The risks shown in these tables
were calculated based on assumptions designed to overestimate
potential risks. The human health risk from potential exposure to
ground water is based on the conservative assumption that exposure
would occur at the site. Such exposure is Unlikely to occur since
no domestic wells currently exist on the site, however, it is
assumed that future use could occur.
-------
Table 9
suMMARY OF CHEMICALS OF POiENTIAL CONCERN FOR THE POPILE, INC. SITE
SURFACE GROUND SURFACE
SOILS WATER WATER SEDIMENTS
° VOAANALY'TES (pgIkg) (IJgIL) (pgIl) (pglkg)
.V!NV1. ()I.CRItE
o1,1.Q1CK,CRCEnENE
o1RANS-1,2-D1CHLOROETHENE
.1,1.QtCtt..OROE'T1WE
oQS.1.2.Q1CK.~OET1-\ENE
.CHLOROFORM
o1,1,1-TR\(H.OROETHANE
oCARBON TE'TRACHl0RlCE
oBENzENE . .. 0-81 .'
o1,2.QtCK:.oRcEnWE
° TRlQoILOROETHENE
~BROMODICtt..CRQMETHANE
. TOL.LJeE .0-84 0 -130 0-0.3
:~
.1.1.2.2- TE1RAQI.OROETHANE 0-20
~ 0 -100
oM,P-XVl.ENE 0-200
.o.XYLEtE 0 -100
.XYlEIES 0-0.31 0.0.8
.1,2~
.1,3-C1~
.1.~
. PAH ANALYTES (pgIIco) (JJgIL) (JIgIL) ~
oNAPHTHALENE - 0-3400 0-3300
.~ 0-270 0-7970
oACENAPtm£NE 0-2800 0 - 24300
.F1.LJQREJE 0-2!500 0 - 80300
.pHEJWI'RiRElE 0.840 0.4800 0 - 70000
.ANT1A\CENE 0-350 0-15 0 - 5150
.Fi.uoRNf1HEtE 0.2000 0.3700 0 - 50000
.PYR9IE 0.3800 0-3000 0 - 34000
.~ 0-4800 O. 1500 0,;,'11000
.QfttSENE 0-6800 0 - 1200 0-9000
oBENZ~ 0-<1000 0-480 0-6600
08~' 0-3800 0 - 410 0-2900
.INDENO(1~ o. 1000 0 - 160 .' 0-1100
oQt~ 0-580 0-82 0-2S80
.BENZC(~ 0-220 0-87 0-797
° PtENCLANALYTES (pgIkg) (pg/L) (pg/L) (pgIkg)
.ptENQL 0-910 0-770 0-87
.2.cK.0RCPtEN0L 0 - 1400 0-500 0-870
~ o. 1000
oM/P.cRESOL 0 -290 0 - 1100 ffT-24O.
o2-NrrRa'HENOL 0-2000
.2,~ 0-500 0 - 140
o2,4-DlQLOROPHENCIL 0 - 52000
04.cK.~ 0 - 42000 0 . 100
o2,4,se.mCHl,Cfla'HENOL 0-580 o. 76000 0-270
o2,4-DNTRQPHENOL 0-500 0-7900
.~. 0 - 1200000 0-550
.2,3.4.8-1"ETRAQiLOROPHENOL 0 - 180 0 - 2200000 0-3000
04,~NI1RO-2-ME1HYlPHENOL 0 - 1100000 0-1100
.PENTAQt..ORCPHENOL 0-400 0 - 4fIOOOO 0 - 27000
-------
Ta))le , cont'4
SURFACE GROUND SURFACE
SOILS WATER WATER SEDIMENTS
METALS (mgIkg) (lJg4.) {lJgtL} (lIQJkg)
.ALUMNJM 2840 8410 190 2900
.ANTJMON'( 9.6 98
.ARSENIC - 85 18
.BARIUM 28.5 - 271 620 54 251
.BERVLLI\JM 0.58 4 3 0.75
-cADMIUM 0 - 0.78 4 1.3
.CALCIUM 266 30700 91.40 910
.CHROMIUM 0-5.1 14 7 6.7
.COBALT 54 9 6
.COPPER 3.9 40 9 7.7
.IRON 3850 8350 960 12200
oLEAIJ 10.9 - 18.3 52 14.8
-MAGNESIUM 161 9920 2480 328
-MANGANESE 23.6 61 103 285
oNICKEL 6.8 40 12 4.3
.POTASSIUM 171 5560 1510 258
.SELENIUM
.SILVER 0 - 0.78 10
.SCX)IUM 139 23300 93300 650
.THALL.JUM 15 146 93 38.1
.VANADIUM 13.8 41 9.2
.ZlNC 21.4 56 28 13.3
.MOLYBDENUM 9.4
.pHOSPHORUS 58.1 161 90 103
.STRC»ITI\N . 8 230 261 21.9
DIOXINS (mgIkv) ()Ig4.) (pgIkQ)
.23~TaX)
.~TCDF
.,2378-PeQ)F
.,2378-P8CXJD
.23478-PeaJF
.123478-HxCDF
.123878-Hxa]F
.123478-HxaJD
.1238'78-HxCDO
.123789-HxCCD
.234878-HxaF
. .123788-HxaIF
.,~
.,~ 0.4833
.'234~ ...
oOCDO . . 8.8245 3.0
oOCDF 0.5352
-------
",
TGle'10
CANCER RISK ESTIMATES FOR FUTURE LAND USB
RESIDENTIAL Lfiie:flMB BXPOSURE
POPILE. INC. .
O.IZ B3
0.011 B1
5.19 B2
15 x 10' B2
NA
NA
NA
BPA (1992) Food 3.0 It 10"
BPA(1992) Food 1.0 x 10" ,
SPA (1991) PoodIWat 8.1 x 10"
.ct
I:iPA (1991) Food 1.4 It 10-4
PcotadIJorophcGol is X 104 No
UI 2,4,5/6- TridIJorophcDOl 9.1 X 104 No
0\
B(a)P equivakols 1.4 I. 10" No
1.3.7,8- TCDD equivlleo... 9 x 10'" No
NA
1.4 It 10'"
:'::,;'i~;:,;:. :~:~.~~:;:ii:";~{jdli~1:1;l;i;~~~~.{~;1~KJ;;;':.:.~'::,.:.:,::' .;' ;).::': : ~. .::":':. '..... .... .
Food
Food
1.1 I. 10'7
2.2 X 10"
2.4,5/6 Tric:lllocopbeDDl
B(a)P equivaleo.lI
1.s 1 JaIl
1.3 X 10'\1
No
No
0.011
6.1
81
81
NA
NA
BPA (1992)
BPA (1992)
Food
PoocUWat
1.1 :It 10'P
1.4 110.10
-------
'rab18 10
(Continued)
LANCER RISK ES'1uv.tATES FOR FUTURE LAND USE.
RESIDENTIAL LI¥HTIME EXPOSURE
POPILB, INC.
Beozeoe
1.2 :It 10" No
1.0 I 10'" No
1.2 X 10.J No
0.12.
'.79
81
82
NA
NA
L
.t'
Food 1.4 x 10's .
FoodIWat 5.8 :It 10~
u
Water 35 x 10-5
U1
...,
PcDt8«:blolopboool
B(a)P equivalents
SPA (1992)
0.029
leukemia
EPA (1992)
:. .'. .."
:'.::.(','( ':::;...:..::...~/.L ~ /\. .:;
5.8 X 10'2
',::: .",: ~.' .: ,:. :
-------
.
'rable 10 (Continued)
.
CANCER RISK ESTIMATES FOR FUTURE LAND USE
RBSIDBNTIAL Ll¥b"TIMB EXPOSURE
PpPILB, INC.
':..: ".:, ~l~: "..~.;;. ':" . ,::', ..::.:.:~
.~, 'i'fr.-[otiil::>Js
.,: ~t~iw~\\"~k
.:, '~;.i)d::..t:.. \.'
.. o::."....:.~~py,~ ',":
" ..:.}:";,'..'~:,":"
5.8 X 10.2
U1
Q)
? ~.
,I
,.J I
n "
~( t
<: f/I
-------
Table 11
FUTURE LAND tJSE
RESIDENTIAL (LJFBTIME)
CHRONIC HAZARD INDEX ESTIMATES
POPR.E. INC.
2-Cblorophenol 2.0 x 10" No O.ODS low aqwduc&ioD BPA. 1992 water 1.000 4.0 x 10"
mlp-ctesol 4.1 :II. 104 No 0.05 medium weiaht 105', BPA. 1992 food 1.000 8.2 x 10" .
I
UI I18wotoxicity
\0
Peotacbloropheaol 1.3 :II. 10-' No 0.03 medium liver, kidney BPA,1992 food 100 7.7 :It 10~
Phenol 1.3 :It 10" No 0.6 low Rduccd fetal body BPA.I992 gavago 100 1.2:11. 10"
weight
2.3.4.6- 1.5 :It 10-4 No 0.03 medium liver EP A. 1992 gavago 1.000 8.3 :II. 10"
Telracblotopbenol
2.4.5 8;2:1t lQ-4 No 0.1 Jow liver. kidney BPA.I992 food 1,000 8.2 x 10"
TricbloropbeDol
Aceaaphlheno 7.1 x lQ-4 No 0.06. low liver BPA. 1991 '1.8'0 3.000. 1.2 x IO~
AothnceDe 1.6 x 104 No D.3 low BPA. 1991 lavige 3,000 5.3 It 104
fluotIDlhoDO 4.2 :It 104 No 0.04 low DCUIOpalby,1ivcr BPA. 1992 aavI,o . 3.000 1.1 It 10"
Pyrena 1;7 x 10'" No 0.03 low BPA, 1992 livage 3.000 9.0 It 10-4
7.2 x 10'"
-------
"~l. 11 (Continued)
FUTURE LAND USE
RESIDBNTIAL (LII4HI1ME)
CHRONIC HAZARD INDBX ESTIMATES
POPR.B. INC.
z.chlom~CAol . 3.2]1. lQ4 Ta 0.01;15 low apmdUGlioa SPA, 1992 water 1,000 6.4 1 10-1
0\ mIp-c:mol 6.6 ]I. lQ4 Yel 0.05 medium weipt 1011. BPA,I992 food 1,000 1.3 :It 10~ ,
o acurolOlicity ,
PentacbloropbeDol 3.7 110' Ya 0.03 medium liver. kidDoy BPA.I991 food 100 1.2 X 100)
Pbcaol 2.1 ]I. 10'" Yea 0.6 low reduced fetal body BPA.I992 savasc 100 35 x 100'
weight
2,3,4,6- 4.1 ]I. 10'" Ta 0.03 medium liver BPA.I992 savago 1,000 1.4 x 10-4
TolnlCblorophaool
1.3 ]l 10" Yes 0.1 low livv. kidaoy BPA,I991 food 1,000 1.3 ]l 10'"
2,4-Dicb1oropbeDol 6.2:1t lcrt No 0.003 immuao ay8UID BPA, 1991 100 2.11 100'
PeDI8ChIoropbeool '7.3 ]l .crt No 0.03 .Dedium liver. kidDe, BPA. 1992 food 100 2.4 X 100)
2.3,4.6- U 1 lQ4 No 0.03 medium liver BPA. 1992 SavlSo 1,000 4.0 1 10')
TetncbIoropbeaol
AceDapblhcao '2.2110" No 0.06 low liver BPA,I991 Slv.se 3.000 3.7 110.2
-------
Table 11
(Continued)
FUTURE LAND USE
RESIDBNTIAL (LIFETIME)
CHRONIC HAZARD INDEX ESTIMATES
POPB..B, INC.
Pyreao 1.7 X 10" No 0.03 low kidDoy BPA,1992 gavase 3,000 5.1 :It 10.2
BthylbeDzcDo 9.1 :It Ut' No 0.1 low Uvcc,Jdclnoy SPA, 1992 lavage 1,000 9.1 X 10.2
I
Toluene 1.2 x: 10.a No 0.2 low BPA. 1991 1,000 6.0 X 10.2
0\
.... m,p-XyleDe 1.8 X laa No 2 medium BPA, 1992 gavage 100 9.0 X 10.1
o-Xyteue 9.1xlet3 No :1 modium BPA,I992 savage 100 4.6 x 10"
.:P~~*,!'Yi~fl~.:~~~:r~: ;~\~ ,~,t~k:~:~;:,:.t.;-:.;: ~. ;~.:~:. i;,: d... 8.3
:~~p.~'~~;~f.~~~~~i~i~~~~9P.,:~~;Y~PQff:4~i'.~~~PW~..~!~fi~{~~~i~~;>\\::~:~~~:;:~j~::~, '~'.: ,;' :~"'~:;~ ..:~:~...: ';:,~;~";.': ::";:~~' .:.r;.~.. ::>. ~:., . .: <'.:' ' :'. .'~ '. '.'
EthylbeDzcDe 55 xlQ" No 0.285 low liver, kidDey BPA,l992 aavaso 1,000 1.9 x 10"
Tolueoc 7.1110" No 0.571 low CNS BPA, 1992 1,000 1.2 x 10"
,:I,p-Xylene 1.1 :It 10" . No 0.2 mecf.um hyperactivity BPA,I992 gavaso 100 S.S:It 10"
o-Xylcoo 5.S 110" No 0.1 medium byperactivity BPA,lm lavago 100 2.8 y, 1"\
1.1 X 104
8.3
-------
As shown, the principal risks to human health are not associated
with surface soils or sediments. However, risks are attributed to
contaminated ground water. CUrrently, carcinogenic (cancer
causing) or non-carcinogenic threats to human health via exposure
to ground water through ingestion is above EPA's acceptable risk
range. For the aquifer, the upper-bound estimate of carcinogenic
health risks associated with potential lifetime exposure was
reported as 5. 8xlO'2, which greatly exceeds the lower bound of EPA' s
target risk range and represents a significant carcinogenic health
risk. The non-cancer health risks were reported as high as 8..3 for
potential exposure to ground water. The risk in this aquifer is
driven primarily by the individual PAR compounds. .
uncertainties Associated with aisk Calculations
Risk assessment is a scientific activity subject to uncertainty.
In addition to the uncertainty and the use of. conservative
assumptions .to calculate slope factors and RfDs, the analysis of
environmental conditions is difficult and inexact. The Popile risk
assessment is subj ect to uncertainty from a variety of sources
. including: .
- sampling and analysis:
- toxicological data:
- exposure estimation:
-. fate and transport estimation: and
- risk characterization.
These uncertainties in the Popile baseline risk assessment are a
function of risk assessments in general and a function of the
uncertainties specific to the popile site in particular. Although
all risk assessments contain a certain amount of uncertainty, an
attempt to reduce the uncertainty in the Popile baseline risk
assessment was made whenever possible. .
Central Tendency
Based on a February 26, 1992, memorandum from EPA Deputy
Administrator F. Henry Habicht, EPA is required to evaluate both
"reasonable maximum exposure" (RME) and "central tendency" in the
risk assessment at Superfund sites. The exposure assumptions
associated with the RME have been used to estimate the baseline
risks and ultimately the remedial action goals at the sites. .The
"central tendency" scenario represents the risk from more of an
"average" exposure,. compared to a "reasonable maximum" exposure.
A comparison of the differences in risk assUmptions between the RME
and central tendency is shown in Table .12. .
-------
Co.:- ':act Rates rCR)
Water Ingestion Rates
Children(l - 6 yrs).
Adults
Workers.
Soil Ingestion Rates
Children (1 - 6 yrs)
Adults
Workers
Fish Ingestion Rates
Adults
Air Inhalation Rates
Children (1 - 6 yrs)
Adults
Dermal EXDosure
Adherence factor (AF)
Absorption factor (ABS)
Total Surface A~ea (SA)
Children
Adults
Bodv Weiahts raw)
Children (1 - 6 yrs)
Adult
Workers
TABLE 12
Average or
Central Tendency
Reasonable
Maximum EXCosu,re
0'.7 Ljday
1. 4 Ljday
1 Ljday
2 Ljday
0.7
1 Ljday
200 mgjC;'lY
. '"'" :-
100 mg/~
50 mgjday
200 mgjday
100 mgjday
50 mgjday
6.5 gjday
54 gjday
5 cu. mjday
20 cu.mjday
5 cu.~jday (50%)
20 CU.JD/day (50%)
0.2 mg/cm2
1 mgjcm2
Chemical-specific
Chemical-specific
7,200 cm2/event
7,200 cm2/event
20,000 cm2/event
20,000 cm2/event
16 kg 16 kg. (50%)
70 kg 70 kg (50%)
70 kg 70 kg (50%)
-------
Exposure Duration (ED)
Residentiat
Industrial
Excosure Freauency (EF)
Residential
Industrial
Averaaina Time (AT)
carcinogenic effects.
TABLE 12 CONT'D
Ayeraae or
Central Tendenqy
9 years
9 years
350 days/year
. 250 days/year
Non-carcinogenic effects ED
70 years
Reasonable
Maximum ExiJosure
30 years
25 years
350 days/year
250 days/year.
70 years
ED
C.
References For Central Tendency Excosure Parameters
Basis/Reference
Concentration Term (C)
Site-specific value
Contact Rates (CR)
Water Ingestion Rates
Children (1 - 6 yrs)
Adults
.Workers
Soil Ingestion Rates
Children (1 - 6 yrs)
Adults
Workers
Fish Ingestion Rates
Adults
Central Tendencv
95% UCL
0.7 L/day
1.4 L/day
0.7
200 mg/day
100 mg/day
50 mg/day
6.5.g/day
64
US EPA, 1992a
US EPA, 1989a
US EPA, 1989b
50% Adults
Ingestion Rate
US EPA, 1989c
US EPA, 1989c
US EPA, 1991
-------
Air Inhalation Rates
Children (1 - 6 yrs)
Adults
Dermal EXDosure
Adherence factor (AF)
Absorption f~ctor (ABS)
. .
Total Surf~9~.Area (SA)
~"...:a
Children
(1- 6 yrs)
Adults
Bodv Weiahts (aW)
Children (1 - 6 yrs)
Adult
Workers
EXDosure Duration (ED).
Residential
Industrial
EXDosure Freauencv (EF)
Residential
Industrial
Ave;.3.aina Time (AT)
Carcino
~.c effects
Non-car{.
.:Jgenic ~ffi
TABLE 12 CONT' D
Central Tendencv
5 cu. m/day
20 cu.m/day
0.2 mq/cm2
. Chemical-specific
7,200 cm2/event
20,000 cm2/event
16 kg
70 kg
70 kg
9 years
9 years
, .
350 days/year
250 days/year
70 years
ED
65
Basis/Reference
US EPA, 1989a
US EPA, 1989a;
US EPA, 1989b
US EPA, 1992b
. US EPA, 1989a;
US EPA, 1989b
US EPA, 1992b
US EPA, 1989b
US EPA, 1989b;
US EPA, 1991
US EPA, 1991
US EPA, 1989b
-'to residential
US EPA, 1991
US. EPA,. 1991
US EPA, 19
-------
TABLE 12 CONT' D
D.
References For Reasonable Maximum Exposure Parameters
Reasonable Maximum
Basis/Reference
Concentration Term (C)
Site-specific value
Contact Rates (CR)
Water Ingestion Rates
Children (1. - 6 yrs)
Adults
Workers
Soil Ingestion Rates
Children (1 - 6 yrs)
Adults
Workers.
Fish Ingestion Rates
Adults
Air Inhalation Rates
Children (1 - 6 yrs)
Adults
Adults
95% UCL
US EPA, 1992a
1 L/day
2 L/day
US EPA, 1989a
US EPA, 1989b;
US EPA, 1991 .
US EPA, 1991
1 L/day
200 mg/day Average. value,
US EPA, 1989c
100 mg/day Average value,
US EPA, 1989c
50 mg/day Average value,
US'EPA, 1991
54 q/day
US EPA, 1991
5 cu. m/day
20 cu.m/d~y
US EPA, 1989a
30 cu.m/day
Average value,
US EPA, 1989a;
US EPA, 1989b
upper' bound # ,
US EPA, 1989a;
US EPA, 1989b
-------
Dermal Exoosure
Adherence factor (AF)
Absorption. factor (ABS)
Total Surface Area (SA)
Children
(1 - 6 yrs)
Adults
Bodv Weiqhts (BW)
Children (1 - 6 yrs)
Adult
Workers
Exoosure Duration (ED)
Residential
Industrial
Exoosure Frequencv (EF)
Residential
Industrial
Averaqinq Time (AT)
carcinogenic effects
Non-carcinogenic effects ED
TABLE 12 CONT' D
Reasonable Maximum
1 mg/ c:m2
Chemical-specific
7,200 c:m2/event
20,000 c:m2/event
16 kg
70 kg
70 kg
30 years
25 years
350 days/year
250 days/year
70 years
67
Basis/Reference
US EPA, 1992b
Average value,
US EPA, 1989a;
US EPA, 1989b
Average value,
pS EPA, 1992b
Average value,
US EPA, 1989b
Average value,
US EPA, 1989b;
US EPA, 1991
Average value,
US EPA, 1991
US EPA, i989b:
US EPA 1991
US EPA 1991
Average value,
US EPA, 1991
Average value,
US. EPA, 1991 .
US EPA, 198~
-------
TABLE 12 CONT'D
E.
References
US EPA.
1989a.
Exposure Factors Handbook.
EPA/600/8-89/043.
US EPA. 1989b. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I,
Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A). EPA/540/1-89/002.
. US .EPA. 1989c. Interim Final Guidance for Soil Inqestion Rates. .
OSWER Directive 9850.4. .
US EPA. 1991. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I,
.Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance, Standard
Default Exposure Factors. OSWER Directive 9285.6-03.
US EPA. 1992a. Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Calculat1nq the
Concentration Term. Publication 9285.7-081.
US EPA: 1992b. Dermal Exposure Assessment:
Applications. EPA/600/8-91/011B..
Principles and
-------
Ecological: Jmpacts
..
!.lS
';""::!-'
Knowledge of site ecology is based oB si~e 'reconnais~est8nd a
compilation of existing ecologica~e(. informatlon. S~eyiJ'lwere
conducted of terrestrial vegetation and wildlife, aquatic and
wetland habitats, and aquatic life. The ecological risk assessment
was conducted in accordance with the Risk Assessment Guidance for
Superfund: Volume II, Environmental Evaluation Manual (EPA, .
1989b), and. Ecological Assessment of Hazardous Waste Sites:
Field and Laboratory Reference (EPA, 1989c). .
Risks to the following media were evaluated i~ part of that risk
assessment:
A
. terrestrial vegetation;
terrestrial wildlife;
aqu2tic life; and
wetlands. .
-.
-;$
Ecological Field Surveys
Below are ecoiogical descriptions of the Popile site based on
actual field surveys and a review of existing data. This
information was used in the ecological risk assessment for
evaluating the current site conditions and calculating potential
ecological effects from the site contaminants.
Surface Waters
A small drainage ditch along the northwest boundary of the site
discharges into Bayou de Loutre at the northern corner of the site.
There are a number of small first order, unnamed. streams which
enter the Bayou de Loutre upstream of the site. Downstream of the
site and the El Dorado sewage treatment ponds, the Bayou de Loutre
enters a marsh/swamp area. Additionally, there are a number of
perennial and ephemeral streams which enter the Bayou de Loutre
downstream of the site. The Bayou de Loutre flows southeast
approximately 2 miles, where it enters and flows through a wetland
area. The Bayou continues 35 miles until it b~comes a tributary to
the Ouachita River, 10 miles north of Monroe, Louisiana.
Wetlands
During the RI/FS, only one potential wetland area was noted on the
Popile site. The.wetland was located along the East Camden and
Highland Railroad tracks in the southeastern corner of the site.
It appeared to. be created by excavation activities. The wetland
was dominated by rus~es (Juncu~ 'spp.) and green algae.
Forested Areas
. ...c:i.L
:. ':~'f
j~uC- .
::~ !:ec.
There
are a numbei-2 ~f
forestedaWas on site and immediately
-------
adj acent to the site. A large forested area exists along the
southern border of the site. Another area is located in the
western section of the site along South West Road. Other areas
dominated by mature trees include the southern side of the railroad
tracks in the southeastern corner of-the site and along the Bayou
de Loutre..
The forested areas are dominated by a loblolly pine and oak cover
which is common throughout the southeastern United States.
Overstory trees include loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), short leaf
pine (Pinus echinata), post oak (Quercus stellata), water oak
(Quercus nigra), and southern red oak (Quercus falcata). Sweet gum
(Liquidambar styraciflua) and red maple (Acer rubrum) dominate the
understory. -
Disturbed Areas
EPA conducted an emergency removal- action from September, 1990
through August, 1991 to stabilize the site. The action included
grading and shaping the site su+face for erosion control,
construction of a temporary impoundment area, placing culverts in
the -drainage area, placing topsoil and seed over the entire site
and the construction of a fence. The temporary impoundment area
contains more than 66,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil. -
As a result of the removal action, much of the si~e surface has
been disturbed. Vegetation in these disturbed - areas include
common species such as Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), hogwort
(Croton captitatus), southern dewberry (Rubus trivialis), Bahia
grass (Paspalum notatum), blue sedge grass, and desmodiums.
Threatened and Bndangered Specie.
The U.S. Fish and wildlife Service reported .that the- following
endangered species reside in Union County: Red' coc)Caded woodpecker
and the bald eagle. The red cockaded woodpecker has been- reported
to occur 15 miles west of El Dorado, Arkansas, and has not been
reported near the popile site. The bald eagle is reported to
overwinter on the Ouachita River and also has not been reported
near the popile site. -
Correspondence with the Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission
indicates that there are no records of any federal or state
endangered or threatened species within the vicinity of the Popile
site.
Terrestrial wil4lire
There are a number of different - habitat types found on~site.
wildlife habitats in the-region correspond closely with major plant
communities. The first is the loblolly-slash pine forest cover
type common throughout the southeastern united States. Mixed in
-------
with loblolly are a number of hardwood species such as post oak,
white oak, southern red oak, river oak, sweet gum, and red maple.
The latter two tend to be dominant in the understory rather than in
the cover.
The di versi ty f flora in the forested areas on- and off-si te
provide for a significant food source and therefore would be
considered important wildlife habitat, particularly for game
species. Much of the forage, nuts, and fruits upon which deer,
rabbi ts, and squirrels are highly dependent occur in these for~sted
areas. Furbearers and predators utilize these areas as hunting
grounds for many small prey including lizards, mice, and.rabbits.
Species which commonly occur in this area would include white
tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), eastern cottontail rabbit,
gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), red fox, sharp-shinned hawk,
barred owl, and great horned owl. Additional species of mammals,
birds, reptiles, and amphibians would be expected to occur in these
areas. .
The edge between forested areas and field and ;rassland areas is
also of considerable importance to wildlife ...pecies due to the
diversity of nesting sites, cover, and the forage and prey species
available in this transitional area. These areas are of particular
importance' to species such as the red-tailed hawk, eastern
cottontail rabbi t and rodents. Reptiles that are dependent on
small rodents, birds, and bird eggs for food would be expected in
this area.
In addition to upland forested areas, there are forested areas
associated with the Bayou de Loutre which support a wide array of
wildlife due to the availability of aquatic flora and fauna as food
sources. These areas are also important breeding areas for birds,
reptiles, and amphibians. These areas are also important to such
species as the cotton mouse, gray fox, white-tailed deer, and
northern gray treefroq. Other species which may also occur in this
habitat include swamp rabbit, beaver, wood duck, and a large number
of other avian species. .
Aquatic Life
Aquatic habitats are. important not only for fish and other aquatic
fauna but also for many species of. terrestrial wildlife because of
feeding, nesting, and water resources they provide. Amphibians 'and
reptiles are dependent on these habitats as staging areas for
reproduction. Some. local species, such as the beaver, nutria, and
Mississippi mud turtle are entirely dependent on aquatic habitats.
Other common inhabitants' would include bullfroq, mallard, wood
duck, great blue h~ron, and great egret. .
In addition to the terres ~ial species that are either associated
or dependent on aquatic habitats, the aquatic fauna themselves form
an important part of the overall ecology of any area. A study done
-------
by FTN Associates in 1991 for the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission
found that a number of species of fish and aquatic invertebrates
inhabit the Bayou de Loutre.
QUantitativ8 Bcological Risk Ass8s"8n~
As presented in the Administrative Record and briefly summarized
below, quantitative ecological risk assessment also indicates that
the site poses an environmental threat. .As documented in the
toxicity tests, the sediments represent a significant threat. to
fish , as represented by fathead minnows and risk calculations show
a potential threat to aquatic life as represented by algae,. fathead
minnows and bluegill. Ecological risk calculations show that site-
related contaminants have potential adverse effects on small
mammals .suc:h as deer mice from PCP, PABs and dioxins. For
instance; reported ecological hazard quotients for. small mammals
are as high as 3,980 for PAR exposure, 800 for dioxin exposure, and
2.2 for PCp' exposure. Ecological hazard quotients based on low
observable adverse effect levels that exceed 1 indicate potential
signif~cant ecological risks. For a more detailed explanation of
. the assumptions and equations, refer to the Ecological Risk
Assessment in the Administrative Record.
EPA also evaluated the ecological risks associated with the current
si te condi tions. The sediments and surface water in Bayou de
Loutre were evaluated with bioassays to determine the effects on
fish and other marine biota. The data from the bioassays indicated
that no significant effects were observed from exposure to
sediments or the ambient water collected at the Popile site, based
on mortality and reproduction of exposed organisms. These data
indicate that the surface waters and sediments in Bayou de Loutre
are not being affected as a result of the site contaminants.
Based upon results of the aforementioned analyses, the Popile site
does. not present a significant risk to the environment under
current conditions. However, a review of the effects of si te
contaminant levels on wildlife native to this area of Arkansas
indicates a potential effect from surface materials to wildlife.
Ecological Risk Ass.s...nt Conclusions
The ecological risk assessment. conducted for the popile site was
based on a literature review because there were no site-speci'fic
tissue residue levels to be integrated into the risk assessment.
Soil, sediment and 'surface or ground water c9ntaminant levels were
integrated through a number of calculations to approximate the
residue or toxicity levels in the se~ected indicator species.
Based upon the literature review and risk calculations, thepopile
site presents an unacceptable ecological risk if left uncontrolled.
The chemical residues in surface water, sediments, and soils have
the pot.ential for eliminating any populations of the indicator
-------
organisms residing on the site for any significant amount of time.
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous s\:.)stances from tt.:..
site, if not addressed by implementing the response action selected
in ,this ROD, may present an imminent and substantial endangerment
to public health, welfare, or the environment. .
Reme4iatiQD Goal.
The contaminated shallow ground water was determined to represent
the most significant long term threat at the site. This arises out
of the potential exposure of the public to the site contaminants
and because of the~potential threat of migration of contaminants to
deeper drinking water zones or seepage into the Bayou de Loutre. .
The deeper ground water zones are used for drinking water purposes.
The remedial objective for shallow ground water is to prevent the
exposure of potential receptors':," onsite contamir tion in amounts
, above human' heal t.J1~based standa...~s and to restore ground water
quality through the process of pumping, treating and natural
attenuation.
The contaminated soils and ground water were determined to pos~
potential threats at the site because of the potential for direct
contact and potential impacts on deeper drinking water zones
through infiltration. One of the most important considerations of
these subsurface materials is the presence of NAPLs (wood treating
fluids) that will provide a continual source of contaminants to the
ground water if left untreated.
The selection of appropriate remedia~ion leve~s is based primarily
on an evaluation of the potential health effects caused by human
exposure to the contaminants, assuming that the future land use
will be ~esidential. The reasoning behind designating the future
land use as possibly residential is that the site could be
developed as a residential area. Therefore, EPA takes a
conservative approach and calculates risk so that all potential
scenarios are tak..~ioto considerati,..
, PAHs (primarily expressed as B(a) P equivalents), phenols (primarily
PCP), and dioxins were found to be .the primary contaminants of
concern at the Popile site based on risk assessment. In addition,
these compounds constitute hazardous substances as defined at
CERCLA Section 101(14), 42 U.S.C. i 9601(14), and further defined
at 40 CFR I 302.4. '
EPA and the Aqency for, Toxic Substances and, Disease Registry
(ATSDR) have determined that levels of 2,3,7,8 ~CDD between 1 to 10
~g/kg do not represent a significant residential risk provided they
are covered with at ~~ast 12 inches of clean soil. Furthermore,
ATSDR and EPAhave ~~lished that levels of 1 ~g/kg or less of
- 3,7~8 TCDD is an ao.peptable leve ., surface soils. Therefore,
~ed;~tion g, ~l for surf~ce soils do not involve treatment of
,
-------
dioxins is to ensure that the material is covered with at least 12
inches of clean cover. For treatment alternatives of dioxins, the
established remedial goal is 1 ~g/kg or less of 2,3,7,8 TCDD~ The
RI results have shown dioxin/furan analyses with less than 1 ug/kg
2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalents in surface soils.
EPA Region 6, has established an acceptable risk value of 3 mg/kg
for PAHs expressed as B(a)P equivalents, and PCP concentrations
less than 5 mg/kg for. soils within 2 feet of the surface. . This
value represents a level approaching a 1x10's risk rang~. for
carcinogenic PAHs and 1x10.e for PCP, and the 2 feet is believed to
represent the maximum distance below the immediate surface. to which
. surface materials are typically disturbed. Below 2 feet the soils
are determined to represent a ground water threat and will be
addressed as detailed below.
The goal for remediation of the ground water is to reduce the B(a)P
equivalents below 0.2 ~g/l, which is the proposed maximum
contaminant level (MCL) for PAHs. This goal for the MCL is only a
proposed level and is not scheduled for adoption into 40 CFR Part
141 until January 1994. However, for this ROD, EPA Region 6 has
determined that this level will be the goal for remediation of the
ground water.. .
Risk summary
Based on the results of the field sampling, polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons (PABs) and pentachlorophenol (PCP) were identified as
the major contaminants of concern for the risk assessment. In the
basel ine risk assessment, risks were estimated for hypothetical on-
site residents being exposed to the contaminated materials,
assuming that no remedial action were taken at the site. Excess
cancer and non-cancer risks were estimated for direct contact,
ingestion, and inhalation of the contaminated material. The excess
cancer risk from contaminated soils to future on-site residents may
be.as high as 8.1 in 1,000,000,.and the non-cancer risk (Hazard
Index) of 8.3.. .
The results of the. baseline risk assessment indicate that the risks
associated with the Popilesite are pr!marilyassociatedwith the
potential risks from the ingestion of ground water and may be as
high as 5.8 in 100, which exceeds the' target risk range for
remedial actions at Superfund sites. The results also indicate
that non-cancer risks are greater than the EPA target of a Hazard
Index equal to or l~ss than 1.0. .
-------
VII. SUMMARY 01' ALTBRDTIVBS
Identification of Appropriate Technologie.
The analyses for remedial alternatives for the Popile site used
data generated from previously selected CERCLA remedial actions at
other wood treating sites to identify a set of technologies
appropriate for further screening, development, and detailed
analysis. This analysis included evaluation of RODs prepared .after
the passage of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA) of 1986. The evaluation was restricted to post-SARA RODs to
reflect' SARA's statutory preference for reduction in toxicity,
. mobility, or volume through treatment. Additional consideration.
was given to innovative treatment technologies to ensure an
adequate evaluation of technologies.
Wood treatL sites are known to be of th~ee broad types , depending
on the chemi als used: 1) creosote; 2) pentachloroPhenol (PCP) ~:'or
3); metal compounds such as chromated copper arsenate (CCAi,
a~oniacal copper' arsenate (ACA), or ammoniacal copper-zinc-
arsenate (ACZA). At the Popile site, both creosote and PCP were
used; and, therefore, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PARs) and
phenols (mainly PCP) are the primary contaminants of concern 'in
addition to the BTEX from petroleum used as a carrier fluid. The
use of metal compounds has not been documented at the site. Even
though the contaminants of concern have been limited to PCP, PARs
and BTEX, after attempting to review historical records and
operations, it has been determined that the materials at the site
do not represent a listed hazardous waste pursuant to the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. i 6901 ~~., and
specified at 40 CPR Part 261, for the reasons described below.
The EPA has not been able to identify specific sources or specific
processes that allow adequate determination for listing of this
material due to post-gene~ation commingling of the wood treating
process wastes with soils and debris. Therefore, the material is
not a listed waste pursuant to 40 CFR Part 26.1. However, the Land
Disposal Requirements (LDR) related to waste code U-951 for spills
. of creosote is considered to be' a relevant and appropriate
requirement for the organic wood treating wastes at the site. .
because any remediation activity involving treatment will include
. soils contaminated with creosote wastes. Such consideration
. includes the PABs and pcp when establishing treatment standards.
As specified in 40 CFR S 268.43, the treatment standards for U~051
nonwastewater (soils/sludges) are:
Naphthalene
Pentachlorophenol
Pyrene .
Toluene
Xylenes
Lead
1,500
7,400
1,500
1,500
- 28,('')0
- 33, . 0
",g/kg
",g/kg
",g/kg
",g/kg
",g/kg
",g/kg
-------
These levels are supplemental to the goals" as established in the
remediation goals section of the Summary of site Risks portion of
this ROD. Although the PCP treatment standard stated above is
7,400 ~g/kg, the risk-based value of 5,000 ~g/kg, as presented in
the Cleanup Levels section of this document (Section IX), will be
established as a remediation goal for any soils/sludges treatment
alternative. In addition, .the remediation goal of 3,000 ~g/kg for
B(a) p" equivalents will also be established as a goal for all
treatment alternatives of the soils/sludges. "
Tables" 13 and 14 represent the technologies that constituted all or
Dart of the selected remedy at NPL sites that contained wood
treating contaminants in soil and ground water. Also included is
the number of sites where the selected remedy faced technological.
problems." These comparisons were based on 38 post-SARA RODs and 2
removal actions. Subsequent evaluations of these analyses by EPA
have shown that out of these 40 sites, 22 had site contaminants
" related to metal process treatment of the timber. It is believed
that in those RODs, the presence of metals had a significant impact
on the selected remedy and, therefore, the tables have been
re-evaluated for those sites not containing metals.
Of the remai~ing 18 sites where metal wood treating processes were.
not used, 9 RODs selected bioremediation for treatment of
soil/sludges, 7 selected incineration of soil/sludges, 1 involved
strictly ground water cleanup, and 1 recommended the capping of
harbor sediments. Of the RODs that selected bioremediation or
incineration, several of the processes called for soil washinq
prior to treatment and 1 called for critical fluid extraction prior
to. treatment. Based on this analysis, consideration for treatment
alternatives was given to processes involving phase separation
(~, soil washing, critical fluid extraction, low temperature
desorptio~, etc.) prior to any contaminant destruction.
80i1 &DeS 81ueSge
Table 13 shows an initial screening of potential technologies for
remediating contaminated sludges and soils at" the Popile site. For
the reasons discussed below, low temperature thermal desorption,
"soil flushing, soil washing, or sOlvent/critical fluid extraction
have been rejected as effective means of separating the organic
phased contaminants from the soil matrix. "
. Low temperature thermal desorption was eliminated because of
concerns that it may only be partially successful (demonstrated
removal efficien~ies of only 65%) at separating the contaminants.
It is possible that due to the range of size in subsurface
materials (clay to "gravel) that low temperature desorption would
not separate a significant portion of PCP and creosote " from the
soils. Soil flushing was found not to be appropriate for this site
primarily due to the lack of homogeneity of subsurface materials
(soils range from clay to gravel). "
-------
Ta))le 13
SUMMARY OF SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES SELECTED
AT POST-SARA WOOD-TREATING S11ES
'I"LrJ1~~';~ ~i&~~~i ~.III;
:;;:~:::::;.r::'::::::1:;~~~~~;[:~:';:.r:;:::::::..:::
Bioremediation I 9 4
Dechlorination 1 0
Low Temperature Thermal Desorption ' 0
RCRA Cap/Landfill .0 0
Soil Flushing 4 3
,.. oil Washing 8 0
;
StabiIizationlSolidificalioolFixation 8 1
Solvent/Critical Fluid Extraction 1 0
Thermal Destruction 7 0
-
a Based on RODs
b Based on discussions with RPM
-------
soil flushing would not be effective because its success relies on
flushing (removal) of contaminants from soil surfaces. The
subsurface areas at this site are highly heterogeneous. Soil.
flushing would result in flushing of only the sand and gravel
lenses where encountered. However, the other layers (silts and
clays) would likely not be flushed at all due to the lesser
porosity of those layers. . In addition, since the subsurface .is
heterogeneous there.would be no quarantee that lenses of gravels or
sands would be encountered during installation of the
extraction/injection system involved with soil flushing.
Both soil washing and solvent/critical fluid extraction involve
contact of the contaminants on the soil particles with a solvent
fluid. The subsurface areas at Popile contain a large range of
particle sizes, and soil washing is more effective on large-grained
soils than on silts and clays. Because the contaminated soil at
.Popile consists large~y of silts and clays, soil washing is not
considered to be viable due to the likelihood that a large volume
of contaminants would remain adhered to the clays and silts.
Solvent/critical fluid extraction was eliminated from consideration
due to concerns about the Ph of the soil and the heterogeneity of
the subsurface materials. Effective fluid extraction requires a
narrow range of Ph in a soil matrix. The range of pHs in the
contaminated soils at popile is relatively broad, requiring Ph
adjustment prior to solvent treatment. Because of that fact, in
addition to the heteroqeneity of the soil matrix, solvent/critical
fluid extraction is considered to be impracticable.
Dechlorination is considered inappropriate for this site due to the
presence of PAHs, which are not chlorinated compounds. As such,
PAHs are not susceptible to this treatment technology. Although
the process of dechlorination is appropriate for PCP, which is a
chlorinated compound, the majority of the contaminants "driving the
risk at the Popile site are. carcinogenic. PABs. Therefore,
dechlorination would not address the principal threats to .human
health or the environment at the site. .
In summary; based on initial screening, the only alternatives
considered appropriate for the contaminated sludges and soils at
this site were the treatment of the material through
. bioremediation, stabilization, thermal destruction, or capping the
wastes. These four alternatives were evaluated in greater detail
with the results, as discussed, presented below.
Demonstrated difficulties associated with bioloqically. treating
soils with wood treating chemicals (particularly. carcinogenic PAHS,
such as benzo[a]pyrene), have been reported.. out of the nine sites
where bioremediation was the selected remedy, problems associated
with the presence. of dioxins, which are not affected by biological
activities, were reported at two sites. For those sites, that
selected remedy is currently being re-evaluated. At another wood
-------
treating si te fo:- ich biological treatment was selected as a
remedy, heavy r resulted in ~ontinuously saturated soil
conditions. This ..ration reduced'-;he biological gro~'""::-h rat" as of
the bacteria and th -. - greatly increased the treatment ti:we req-..1ired
for the achievement of cleanup goals. Cleanup goals could not be
achieved at one other site because bioremediation was not able to
reduce the concentrations to established health-based action levels
(bioremediation is generally effective but has difficulty achieving
levels for PARs in the 1,000 - 10,000 ~g/kg range).
The use of bio-reactors, which are vessels in which contaminated
media for accelerated and controlled biotreatment are placed, has
been considered fo.r this project. However, most bio-reactor
systems are capable of only handling ;everal cubi yards per day.
Given the large volume of wastes the PopLL site and the
questionable availability of large vc ~e reactors, ~is method of
treatment could extend for several dejes. -
The May :2991 EPA docUment entitled "On-site Treatment of Creosote
and Pentachlorophenol Sludges and Contaminated Soil" reveals that
the PCP and carcinogenic PAH compounds such as B(a}P have half-
lifes that exceed 100 days and may be as high as 450 days. In some
cases no transformation of the compounds at all occurred during the
time frame of the experiments reported in that document. These
results indicate that the overall effectiveness of biodegradation
of the carcinogenic:compounds may be questionable.
EPA's evaluation of a Superfund Site in Libby, Montana, where
bioremediation was selected as a remedy, appears in the May 1992
"Symposium on Bioremediation of Hazardous Wastes." That article
describes an estimated period of 8 to 10 years for the
bioremediation of 45,000 cubic yards of creosote- and PCP-
contaminated soils in a 2-acre- land tre< '~ent unit at the Montana
site. The site's bioremediation system ~or PCP and PABs had been-
in operation for a year at the time of the evaluation and,
therefore, the success of the operation is unknown. However, the
information from the Libby site is still useful for evaluating
alternative remedies for the Popile site. Based on the assumptions
presented for the Montana- site, and assuming the same rate of
treatment as at the Libby site would occur, - and that excessive
rainfall will not saturate the unit, it would take 15 to 20 years
to remediate the Popile site.
Al though bioremediat!on was origina11y- eliminated from the detailed
. analysis of alternatives for the ~e-mentionedreasons, the
ADPC&E requeste~ the option be reconsidered. EPA:- Reqion 6
contacted the - U . S . EPA' Robert S. Kerr Environmen1:a1z Research
Laboratory in Ada, Qklahoma regardinq the potential effectiveness
of bioremediation at'the Popile site.~n qeneral, the Kerr lab
confirmed the potential problems assoc~~d with bioremediation of
wood treating wastes at also indie -teq,~at 50 to 60% contaminant
reductio~s of the si-: 30ils. and sl\i.'-~s could- be enough to control
-------
future threats of ground water contamination, especially if the
bioremediation process is combined with an aggressive ground water
recovery/control remedial component. Considering this information
and given the relatively low concentrations of contaminants found
at the site, bioremediation has. the potential for providing
treatment of contaminated soils and sludges to levels that are..
protective'. A second public meeting to offer reconsideration of
all treatment alternatives, including on~site incineration and
bi9remediation, was conducted on September 17, 1992. At this
meeting, no comments were received opposing any of the treatment
alternatives presented. Based on the ADPC&E and public comments
and the technical input from the Kerr laboratory, EPA has included
bioremediation for both the soils via land treatment and for the
residual soils/vadose zone via in-situ bioremediation for detailed
evaluation as documented in this Record of Decision.
HAPLS and contaminated Ground Water
Table 14 provides an outline of the processes that have been
utilized to remediate contaminated. ground water and associated
NAPLs from other wood treating sites. Many of the processes listed
in this table have been eliminated from consideration for the
popile site for the reasons that follow below based upon ~n
evaluation of information specific to the popilesite. .
Activated alumina adsorption, electrochemical reduction,
flocculation, high-pressure filtration, and ion exchange can be
eliminated because of the lack 'of metals in the contaminated ground
water at popile. These treatment processes are only effective on
metal (inorganic) wastes, which are not present at the Popile site.
Air flotation and air stripping can be removed from consideration
because of the lack of emulsified NAPLs and low concentrations of
volatiles at the popile site. Air stripping is not appropriate
because the concentration of volatiles at the"Popi~e site are not
present in significant concentrations, and as such this process is
not necessary. Air flotation is not appropriate because the NAPLs
at popile are found' in separate layers (~, floating or sinking
products) in the contaminated aquifer and are not homogeneously
mixed within the ground water. For this reason, air flotation is
not a viable alternative.
Hot water flushing would not be effective due to the heterogeneity
of subsurface materials at the popile site. The injection of hot
water into the subsurface would not be uniformly spread throughout
the aquifer. While hot water can penetrate more porous soil layers
such as sands and gravels, it cannot penetrate the less porous soi1 .
layers .such as clays and silts. . This would leave significant"
concentrations of contaminants in' the subsurface soils where the
hot water is unable to penetrate. Additionally, this technology
has not proven to be successful at other woOd treating sites having
heterogeneous soils.
-------
'1'&])1. 14
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES SELEcrED
AT POST-SARA WOOD-TREATING SITES
~/~1:~;I.II~;';,~i ~.~',;~ ~~~;'~I_;;;&:
Activated Alumina Adsorption 1 0
Activated Carbon Adsorption 13 0
. Air Flotation 1 0
. Air Stripping 1 0
Bioremediati~n~-(:Ex situ - 6 0
-
Bioremediation~' In situ 3 0 - ~
Electrochemical Reduction 2 . 0
FiltratioolHigh Pressure Filtration 2 0
. FlocculationlPrecipitation 6 0
Hot-Water Flushing 1 1
Ion Exchange 1 0
... Oi1JWater Separation 9 0
Slurry WalVSheet Pile Barrier 3 0
... Ultraviolet/Oxidation 3 0
. ~e technologies are typically implemented in conjunction with another treatment technology.
.. 8~~d on RODs, "'- .
b BaSed on discussions with RPMs-
'--
. -
;r.
-------
ultraviolet/oxidation was eliminated from the list on Table 14.
Both ultraviolet/oxidation and activated carbon treatment equally
effectively perform a similar remedial function in ground water
treatment - the removal of organic compounds as a polishing step in
the treatment process. However, lower operational and maintenance
costs associated with the use of activated carbon make
ultraviolet/oxidat~on treatment prohibitively expensive. Although
ultraviolet/oxidation is an effective means of treatment for the
wastes at the Popile site, the same level of achievement of
contaminant filtration can be achieved with'activated.carbon.at a
significantly reduced cost.
Therefore, the alternatives potentially appropriate for the Popile
site ground water and NAPLs are activated carbon adsorption,
bioremediation (both ex-situ and in-situ), oil/water' separation,
and slurry wall/sheet pile barrier. A fuller discussion of these
altenatives will appear infra. Naturally, the treatment processes
noted above' involve an extraction procedure which 1s detailed in
the following sections.
. Development of Alternatives
The technologi.es appropriate for the popile site have been combined
into remedial alternatives as required by the NCP. The range of
alternatives includes treatment that reduces the toxicity,
mobility, or volume of the contaminants as a principal element and
reduces the need for long-term management. An . evaluation was also
done of options that vary in the degree of treatment employed and
the amount of residual and untreated waste that must be managed.
In accordance with the NCP, the range of alternatives also includes
no action and alternatives which protect human health and the
environment with little or no treatment of the wastes, such as
institutional controls and containment.
The information gained during the remedial investigation was used
to .develop several alternatives in the FS to address problems
identified at the site. As part of the FS, remedial action goals
were set as described above. These goals were used to determine
the areas of the site which require remediation. The descriptions
of remedial alternatives presented in this ROD 'address surface and
subsurface contamination associated with the old facility and old
impoundments. on the site, as well. as the contaminated soils and
sludges in the temporary cell created during the removal action,
which totals approximately 165,000 cubic yards.
contaminated liquids (wood treating fluids) and ground water
re~ediation and/or controls via ge~eric collection/treatment
technologies is included as an integral part of this ROD. The
discussion of remedial alternatives add:i:'essi~g contaminated liquids
and ground water follows the presentation .0£ soil contamination
remedial alternatives. The ground water treatment remedy assumes
an operational period of at least 10 years for costing purposes
-------
only. Actual time of operation will be dependent on the attainment
of remediation goals or maximum technologically achievable levels
that will be determined based on monitoring of the ground water
over time.
The costs .presented.below are approximate (within a -30% to +50%
range) and were. developed for comparison of the various
alternatives. The Operation and Maintenance costs are based on a
30 year duration. However, this timeframe may be re-evaluated
based on future site conditions. These remedial alternative cost
estimates will be refined in the Remedial Design.
Contaminated Soils R..edial Alternative.
The following alternatives to addres~ soil contamination at the
site were evaluated:
Alternativeo.l - .0 Action
Capital Cost: Not Applicable
Annual Operation and Maintenance: Not Applicable
Present Worth: Not Applicable
. Implementation Time: Not Applicable
Under the "No Action" alternative for the contaminated soils,
sludges, and sediments at the Popile site, no activities to address
the risks identified at the site would be implemented. However,
ground water monitoring would continue. Inclusion of this
alternative is required by the Superfund law and is the baseline
used for evaluating other alternatives. The long term risks would
be above EPA' s lower target range of 1XI0.4 for carcinogens. There
would alse be a chance that the contaminated surface soils would
increase.i:~ size due to rainfall saturation or uncontrolled access
wherein individuals may spread contamination to otherwise
uncontaminated soils. .
Alternative 2 - I1
itutional Contro:
Capital Cost: $58,000
Annual Operation and Maintenance:
Present Worth: $94,000
Implementation Time: 12 months
Institutional controls are those measures which notify the public
of and/or restrict the public from potential exposures to
contamination at a site. This alternative. would involve minor
construction activities and the placement of institutional controls
to limit access to contaminated areas of the site. Included in the
alternative is the construction of fences and posting of warning
signs around the contaminated areas, the placement of deed notices
on the property, ana perpetual maintenance. of the property by
ADPC&E. . . .
$1,200
-------
contaminated material at the site would not be addressed by this
alternative. The risks would be somewhat lower than those" in a
residential scenario as discussed in the Summary of Risks.
However, there would remain a potential that trespassers would
break through the fence and come into contact with contaminated
surface materials. In addition, the chances of someone installing
a ground water well" at the site would be reduced by maintenance
activities, such as site visits preformed by ADPC&E. However, the
contaminated ground water plume would remain uncontrolled and .could
migrate both vertically and horizontally. The site would be re-
evaluated as required by the Superfund law every five .years to
" ensure that the action taken remains protective of the human health
or welfare or the environment. Annual sampling would be conducted
of the surface materials as deemed appropriate. The 12 month
implementation period is based on improving the existing fence and
the placement of the deed notices.
Alternative 3 - RCBA-co.pliant capping
"Capital Cost: $8.2 million
Annual operation and Maintenance:
Present Worth: $8.9 million
Implementation Time: 2-3 years
$23,000
This alternative would involve the excavation (to approximately 15
feet in depth) of contaminated soil in contact with the ground
water and its placement in an extension of the existing disposal
cell. A low permeability vegetative cover would be placed over
areas of surficial contamination and the excavated/backfilled
areas.
Construction of a RCRA cap over the entire disposal cell would
consist of a mUlti-layered impermeable clay/membrane layer in
compliance with Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U. s. C. S. 6901 n~. The purpose of the
cap would to be to prevent the chances of direct contact wi th
contaminated materials and to reduce the "volume of water which
would contact cQntaminated soils' through infiltration. The
contaminated materials are not treated in" this alternative.
Therefore, the only remaining risk would be that of the ground
water contamination. " "
Since contaminated soil would still remain in contact with ground
water, this altern.tive is protective only in conjunction with
ground water treatment/containment. The 'subsurface soils would
remain a sourCe for ground water contamination. This alternative
would involve possible air emissions associated with excavation and
solidi~ication of consolidated" material. However, these can be
adequately controlled during construction to ensure protection of
surrounding residents. The excavated areas.would be backfilled
with clean materials, upon which will be placed topsoil that will
-------
be seeded.
Alternative 4 - BzcavatioD, 8tabilisatioD and OD.ite Disposal
Capital Cost: $21 millior.
Annu~l Operation and Maincenance: $21,000
Present Worth: $21.5 million
'Implementation Time: 3-4 years
. , ~ncn d.l.: .r""..lC
This alternative consiat~1Df 't~atin9 appro~!iate~ 165,000 'cubic
yards of contaminated' s1:udge,. sed~ment, 'afta senl on-site by
stabilization and covering the treated material with a low
permeability, RCRA-compliant cap (as discussed SUDra).,
Contaminated materials from the old proCess area and old
. impoundment area would be excavated, and consolidated with the,
temporary cell material' onsi te. Clean. soi~'t: would be used to
replace the materia.i~.xcavated. Stabilizatidft~f the waste would
'reduce the potentia.1 for harmful levels of can€aminants to leach
into the area ground water. Construction 0; ~ multi-layered ~ap
over the treated material would further red~ this risk, as w~ll
as prevent persons on-site from coming in di oct contact with the
treated waste.
",,...,
,::! ;:c~~
-. -...
Stabilization is a process involving. the addition of chemical
stabilizing agents to contaminated soil in order to reduce the
mobili ty of the hazardous consti tuents' contained in the soil
matrix. . Mobility is reduced through the chemical bindinq of
hazardous chemicals into a stable form with low permeability and
reduced leachate generation potential. The actual mechanism of
bindinq, which depends on the stabilization process type, can be
categorized by the primary fixation agent used. These can include
cement-based, pozzolanic- or silicate-based, thermoplastic-based,
or organic polymer-based agents and materials.- TeChniqu.es .may
overlap because additives, s~ as silicates, are frequent1.y u~ed
in 0 conjunction witli' the fixa:&:1on agent to l:oittrol rate or to
enhance properties of the solid product. .
Stabilization can be accomplished in both in-situ and ex-.situ
methods dependinq on specific site ~haracteristics.o Due to the
high ground water table at the Popile site, in-situ stabilization
would not be readily implementable. Therefore, ex-situ
stabilization W~8 retained for detailed analysis. The equipment
used for ex-situ soil stabilization is similar to that used for
cement mixinq and handlinq. It includes a feed system, mixing
vessels and a curing area. Numerous firms offer on-site chemical
stabilization services and provide expertise in selecting critical
parameters, which include the selection of stabilizing agents and
other additives, the'waste-to-additive ratio~ and proper mixing and
curing conditions. . . . 0
The removal of contaminated soil/sludqe caI...Je accomplished by
excavation with conventional equipment such as backhoes, bulldozers
-------
or dredges. Excavation of saturated material (below the water
table), could require the use of dragline, backhoe or clamshell
equipment and the dewatering of the subsurface soils or a
combination of such equipment/methods. Dewatering activities, if
they require the discharge of treated ground water, must. be in
complianc~ with the standards set out by the Clean Water Act, 33
U.S.C. ~ 1251 ~ sea. In addition, pursuant to CERCLA Section
121 (e') (1)., 42 U.S.C. ~9621(e) (1), if the discharge activities
occur entirely on-site, no State, federal, or local permits are
required for the discharge, although all substantive requirements
as described above would be met. Excavated areas will also require
restoration activities such as backfilling, regrading, and planting
a vegetative cover. Uncontaminated soils from an on-site borrow.
area or from an off-site location may be used as backfill.
containment and treatment of water produced during excavation may
be required. '.
Stabilization has been proven to be effective on inorganic wastes.
However, orqanicwastes have not been effectively treated in a
consistent manner. A treatability study has been conducted to.
determine the effectiveness of stabilization on organic wastes from
the Popile site. The results from this study have shown some
effectiveness, but fell short of regulatory. goals (~, less than
a 40t reduction in leachability was achieved versus a preliminary
goal of 90t). Based on this study, the potential would remain for
the soils to leach c~ntaminants to the ground water. The leachate
concentrations would be above the proposed MCL of 0.2 ",g/l, as
previousiy discussed under the Remediation Goals section of this
Record of Decision. Therefore, the ground water would remain as a
risk to human health. However, the direct contact threat of the
solidified mass would be minimized by the placement of the
vegetative cap.
Al~erDa~iv. 5 - Bzcava~ioD, OD-.i~. IDciD.ra~ioD
Capital Cost: $113 million
Annual Operation and Maintenance:
Present Worth: $113.4 million
Implementation Time: 3-4 years
$13,.500
This al ternati ve would involve the excavation of contaminated
soils, screening the large particles/rocks from the soil, and on-
site thermal' destruction in a transportable incinerat'or.
Excavation could be conducted as noted for Alternative 4.. A
variety of incinerators are commercially available and are capable
of attaining the temperatures necessary to . destroy the organic
compounds found in the soil. Incineration trQtability studies as
presented in the administrative record were conducte~ to further
evaluate the feasibility of this alternative:and the tests proved
the option to be quite successful. The ash from the incineration
has proven to be below the previously established remediation goals
and will' not pose a human health threat. Since this option calls
-------
for excavation and treatment of the sour: of ground water
contamination, a majority of the ground":lter will also be
remediated during the course of dewatering for excavation of
subsurface materials. In those areas where the ground water plume
is already outside the limits of contaminated soils, the plume will
be remediated by the associated ground water al ternatl ve and
natural attenuation.
RCRA technical requirements for incinerators found at 40 CFR S 264,
Subpart 0, and at 40 CFR S 270, would apply for on-site
incineration of contaminated soils. Those technical requirements
include operating, monitoring, maintaining and inspecting
procedures for the incinerator. The on-sit.e facility would be
operated to meet the technical regulatory standards for incinerator
performance set by the state and federal governments that relate to
air emissions, scrubber liquid treatment and discharqe, and the
disposal of incinerator ash, all of which would be established
during trial burn stages. The concentrations of metals at the site
are insignificant and are not considered to represent an air
emissions concern. Ash meeting remediation goals, as previously
noted, from the incineration will be used to backfill the excavated
areas on-site and then will be covered with a vegetative cap to
minimize . erosion of the material. In addition, pursuant to CERCLA
Section 121(e) (1),42 U.S.C. S 9621(e) (1), because the incineration
activities would occur entirely on-site, no State, federal, or
local permits are required, although all substantive requirements
as described above would be met. .
The feasibility of transporting contaminated materials from the
site to an off-site incinerator was also evaluated as part of this
alternative. The decision to use this approach is usually based on
the cost-effectiveness as compared to the construction of an on-
site incinerator. Discussions with vendors indicated the disposal
costs at an off-site facility would be on th~ order of $0.65 per
pound or approximately $2,000 per cubic yard. . Therefore, disposal
at an off-site incinerator, not including excavation and
transportation cost~, would cost over $390 million for the 165,000
cubic yards. This. is approximately three times that associated
with on site incineration.
Alternative' - 1Z0avatioa, On-site lioloqio&l Treatment
Capitol Cost: $11.5 million
Annual Operation an4Maintenance: $25,000
Present Worth: $11.9 million
Implementation Time: 15 to 20 years
This alternative involves the.. excav.. \n and treating of
apprc. . iinately 165,000 cubic yards of cont::he \ted soils and sludges
in ~ on-site biological land treatintc unit. Indigenous
micro,- --ganisms would break down the contr.-a~.loc ltS of concern to less
harmful and less mobile constituents. Tt. ~ntaminated materials
-------
would be excavated and applied in shallow lifts to a prepared bed
land treatment unit, periodically mixed and aerated to enhance the
biological degradation process, and routinely sampled to verify and .
monitor the biological activity. Additional lifts would be applied
based on degradation rates of the previous lift until all waste
materials have been treated to acceptable and/or maximum
technologically achievable.levels.
The land treatment unit would be designed in accordance with the
RCRA technical requirements at 40 CFR 264 Subpart M. These
regulations require three specific criteria be met: 1) studies must
show that the waste is biodegradable in a land treatment
. environment; 2) at least three feet of unsaturated zone must exist
between the bottom of the treatment zone and .the seasonal high
water table and, and 3);. monitoring ot the unsaturated zone must
occur to ensure. that the waste is adequately degraded in th.e
treatment. zone and that unacceptable levels of. leachate are not
.miqrating downward. .
Studies conducted at wood treating sites with wastes similar to.
those at the Popile site have shown to be effective in varying
degrees. In addition, consultations with the EPA Robert S. Kerr
Environmental Research Laboratory indicate. that considering the
relatively low concentrations of contaminants at the Popile site,
biodegradation of SO to 60% should be effective in reducing risks
to wi thin the 10.4 to 10.8 acceptable risk ranqe and in mitiqatinq
the potential threats to ground water. On-site degradation studies
will be done in the remedial design phase to define the dimensions
of the treatment zone and project the total degradation rates.
The land treatment area should be sited such that the requirement
to ensure at least 3 feet between the bottom of the treatment zone
and the seasonal high ground water table can easily be maintained
through engineering controls. The monitoring of both the treatment
zone and unsaturated zone would ensure that unacceptable levels of
leachate do not migrate from the treatment unit. Although not as
effective as the incineration alternative, this alternative,
combined with an active ground water recovery/control remedy, is
anticipated to. be protective of the public health~ welfare, and
environment and meets the statutory preference for treatment. . This
alternative is more effective than the stabilization/solidification
or capping alternatives because actual degradation of the
contaminants ocCurs. .
Although bioremediation was originally eliminated from the detailed
analysis of alternatives, this alternative, as requested by ADPC&E,
was reconsidered and. presented for public comment at a public
meeting on september 17, 1992 and the public comment .period was
extended until September 28, 1992. As discussed in the "Community
Participation" section of this document, no comments were received
opposing biological treatment.
-------
C08~ seD8i~ivi~y &Da1y.i.
Figure 17 presented: below is based on three different levels of
cleanup. The various volumes relate to gross contamination in the
old impoundment area and old facility area (45,000 cubic yards),
all contaminated soils, less the 66,000 cubic yards contained in
the disposal cell 9reated durinq the removal action (130,000
cubic yards) and all contaminated soils, includinq the disposal
cell (196,000 cubic yards). These volumes include a 15% increase
for the excavation of the necessary side slopes. These options
provide a cost sensitivity analysis for the range of potential
volumes of contaminated subsurface materials.
This analysis is important insofar as it demonstrates that even as
waste volumes increase, the cost of each alternative remains the
same relative to one another, i.e., incineration remains the most
expensive, bio reactor the next, etc.. Based on this'analysis, .even
if waste volumessnould increase beyond anticipated amounts, the
relative cost-effectiveness of the selected alternative should not
chang~.
COD~..iDate4 Liquid. and Ground water ....dia1 Al~erDa~ive8
In addition to the soils remedial alternatives previously
discussed, contaminated liquids and qround water
remediation/control alternatives were also evaluated and are
presented below as an inteqral part of this Record of Decision.
The contaminated liquids (wood treating fluids) underlyinq the old
impoundment and old facility areas have been identified as a
principal contamination threat at the popile si te. The costs
presented are approximate (within a -30% to +50% range) and were
developed for comparison of the various alternatives.. These costs
will be refined in the Remedial Desiqn.
A1~erDa~ive A - 80 ActioD
capital Cost: $ 0
Annual Operation and Maintenance:
Present Worth: $330,000
Implementation/Time: Not Applicable
- .'
$11',000 ....
The No Action alternative does not include remedial action but
represents baseline conditions for comparison with other
alternatives. The pool of creosote and oils would remain as a
source of contaminant miqration. ~onitorinq would be conducted
periodically to assess the risks .:associated with ::ontaminated
ground water. . The long. term risks would be abOVE: EPA's lower
target range of 1xlO'. .for carcinogens and above a hazard quotient
greater than 1 for non-carcinogens. There would also be a chance
that -the contaminated ground water p. . 'me would increase in size,
creatinq a larqer area of contaminat. ~. in the future.
-------
COST SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
.. . (IIILUONS)
120
110
100
90
80
70
\0 60
o
50
40
30
20
10
.0
IN piNBaA1 ION/
./ 7
113.4
./ ,/
~ ,/
/' /'
.. /'
/
./ /7 BIO RB ~CT~ ~
/' ----- .-
~
~
34.4 / ~
~
7' .. _IVRI 7. 1:"5-
~ 16.4 .TABILI2 AT"lnw -
t Q t .~
""'"
6.9 8.7 LAND T tBATMB YTll.9 .
6.5 - R( RA CAP 8.9.
o
20
45
40
13.
60 80 100 120 140
VOLUME (THOUSANDS Or. CUBIC YARDS)
196
200
160
180
-------
Alternative B - I~'
tutiona
Control.
Capital Cost. .3, 000
Annual Opera, -on and Maintenance:
Present WOr:.:'l; $330,000
Implementation Time: 12 months
This alternative will include the placement of deed notices to
inform future land' .mers of subsurface ground water contamin~tion
and to notify individuals on the property that no' water ~ells
should be placed in the contaminated plume. In addition, .per~odic
inspections would be conducted to ensure that this is the case. As
in Alternative A, the liquid creosote and oils would remain as a
source material for future contamination and the risks from placing
a water well would be above 1x10.4 for c: .:inogens and above a
hazard quotient of 1 for non-carcinogens. :he chances of someone
installinqa gro\,lnd water well at the site would possibly be
reduced due to site visits by representatives of ADPC&E. However,
the contaminated ground water p~~e would remain uncontrolled and
co.uld .migrate both vertically ~~rizontally. The . site would be
re-evaluatea a~ required by the...$J::1perfund law every five years to
ensure that the action taken remaIns protective of the human health
or welfare or the environment. Annual sampling would be conducted
of the surface materials as deemed appropriate.
$11,000
. .-;;,QQ~ :;,;, '''..e
Alternative C - Bztraction, Tre.~~nt an~.Di.charv.
Capital Cost: $1.2 million
Annual Operation and Maintenance: $153,000
Present Worth: $5.8 million
Implementation Time: At least 10 years
This alternative 'olves extraction and treatment of pooled
product (NAPLs) a~. contaminated ground ter. The primary
. objective is to capture as much pooled produ .nd contamination as
possible while creating a hydraulic contair~ . barrier to prevent
migration of contaminants into Bayou de ......jutre and to impede
en: 'rgement of the ground water plUme. A cOmbination;of ground
wat...;r cOllection/extraction options could be. used at the site,
incl uding extraction/pumping wells, interceptor trenches, and
, subsurface drains. Ground water would be treated to surface
discharge levels established by the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C.
S 1251 ~ USLa., and discharged to Bayou de Loutre. Alternatively,
ground water would be treated to Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs)
established by the Safe Drinking Water Act; 42 U.S.C. i 300f ~
seq., and reinjected into .the ground water to enhance recovery of
the pooled liquid contamination. . .
. .
Pumping wells/hydraulic barriers can'~%4~ed at ~site i~ several
d~~~erent,m~,nn-:rs to r~duce th! ~igrat~I1l&t. contaWaa~ts fro: the
sJ.t~. '~7~'prJ.mary ~cbJ. of ~ alt~ve wogWd J.nvolve: the
-------
removal of .NAPLs and contaminated ground water for treatment,
followed by reinjection into the aquifer, or discharge to a surface
water system. The goal would be to remove the contaminated pooled
product and contaminated ground water in the upper aquifer down to
approximately 50 feet. Interceptor trenches and subsurface drains
can be used to intercept NAPLs and/or contaminated ground water and
transport it to the treatment area. Since trenches and drains
essentially func.tion as a line of. extraction wells, they ciim
perform many of the same functions as wells~ The decision to use
trenches and drains or wells is generally based upon 'site
hydrogeology, the depth of the water table, and cost-effectiveness,
which is dependent. on the site conditions. current analysis of
geologic and hydrogeologic conditions indicates that a combination
of trenches and/or extraction wells will be the most effective
ground water collection method. .
The extraction of contaminated ground water and NAPLS would include
a detailed analysis of the influence of the Bayou de Loutre on
extraction processes. If the bayou is found to significantly
effect the pumping of contaminated material by acting as a recharge
. source of water to the aquifer, then a slurry wall may be
necessary. By. acting as a barrier to prevent infiltration of
surface water into the ground water the addition of a slurry wall
would reduce the costs asso.ciated with pumping and treatment of the
additiQnal water. The details for a slurry wall are addressed in
Alternative D, containment. However, it should be understood that
the need for a slurry wall would be different than as shown in
Alternative D because in this alternative the slurry wall would
only act as a barrier to prevent infiltration of surface water from
Bayou de Loutre. For Alternative C, only a partial slurry wall
along the bayou would be utilized. The decision for the
installation of a slurry wall will be made during. the Remedial
Design phase of the project if this alternative is selected.
Treatment of con~inated ground water and NAPLs can be
accomplished by sedimentation and oil/water separation processes to
remove soluble and insoluble matter from ground water and NAPL
streams. Sedimentation is a purely physical process which uses
gravity to settle suspended .particles from solution. Sedimentation
may be required to remove the small amount of silt-sized particles
that sometimes are removed during pumping operations. Oil/water
separation is a process which separates free and/or emulsified oils
from water.. Once separated, the oils from this process would. be
transported off-site. in accordance with RCRA hazardous waste
transportation requirements found at 40 CFR Part 263 and
incinerated off-site at a RCRA hazardous waste facility deemed
acceptable pursuant to the Superfund Off-Site. Policy promulgated
pursuant to CERCLA.Se~tion121(~)(3), 42 U.S.C. S 9621(d)(3).
Following sedimentation and oil/water separation, the water can be
filtered by a sand filter and run through an activated carbon
treatment unit. Activated carbon adsorption is a technology proven
-------
effective for the treatment of waters containing adsorbable
organics compounds~ Once the activated carbon filters have been
used to capacity, they would be transported off-site in accordance
with RCRA hazardous Wi8te transportation requirements found at 4~
CFR Part 263 and disposed of at a RCRA hazardous waste facility
deemed acceptable pursuant to the Superfund Off-Site Policy
promulgated pursuant to CERCLA Section l2l(d)(3), 42 U.S.C.
i 962~(d)(3). .
The equipment and technology required to implement this alternative
are readily available. Following on-site treatment, ground water
can be ei ther directly discharged to a surface water area or
reinjected on site. Surface water discharge of treated ground
water would involve discharge to the Bayou de Loutre.Discharge .
limitations for this option would be established under applicable
federal and state regulations concerning the Clean Water Act,.33
U.S.C. i 1251 ~~. Recharge of treated ground ~er back into
. the strata underlying a'site is an acc~ptable disposal .techni~.
Potential advantages tonis disposal technique include the abi~Lty
to. use i~ to control off-site migration of. contaminants and
possibly provide some washing of impacted soils.
Several biological treatment technologies are available for
treating impacted ground water. Equipment commonly used for
treatment of organics/wastewater include aeration tanks, activated
sludge, fixed bed bioreactors, and fluidized bed bioreactors.
However, of relevant concern regarding wOoQ treating chemicals is
the presence of contaminants (such as some PABs) which are not
effectively biodegraded except under a very long retention time.
Because of the demonstrated effectiveness of granular activated
carbon treatment of organics, biological treatment of contaminated
ground water was not initially retained as a cost component for the
detailed .analysis. .
Because in-situ biological treatment was reconsidered and presented
as a potential ground water and/or vadose zone treatment component
during the public comment period, at the request of ADPC&E, an
additive cost estimate was developed. The added component of in-
situ biological treatment, which includes injection wells, .feed
.system and associated O&M costs, is an additional $950,000 to be
added to the above costs. In-situ bioremediation may be effective
in reducing NAPLcontaminants .which may not be recoverable via
conventional ground water recovery techniques. .
The goal of this ground watRL alternative is to remove as much of
the source of shallow ground wat~r contaminants as possible.
However, without complete removal ~nd destruction of the
contaminants from the subsurface soils there will always be the
potential for contamination remaining in the ground water, even if
all NAPU1:were removed by pumping. The goal for remediation of the
ground water is to reduce the B(a)p equivalents below a
concentration of 0.2 pg/l, which is the proposed maximum
-------
contaminant level (MCL) for PABs, and benzene below a concentration
of 5 I-'g/l, which is the MCL for this compound. The MCL for PAHs is
only a proposed level and is not scheduled for adoption into 40 CFR
Part 141 until January, 1994. Based on information obtained during
the remedial investigation and the analysis of other ground water
remedial ~lternatives employed at other wood treating Superfund
sites, this remedial alternative may not achieve this low goal.
The ability to achieve cleanup goals cannot be determined until the
extraction and monitoring system has been implemented.
Alternative D - contaiua8nt
Capital Cost: $1.4 million
Annual operation and Maintenance:
Present Worth: $3.9~ million
Implementation Time: 3-4 years
$85,000. .
This alternative .provides a containment option for site ground
water control. contamination would still remain at the site.
However, contaminarit;migration would be controlled by building a
barrier (slurry wall) to the underlying clay aquaclude
(approximately. 55 feet deep) around the contaminated liquids (wood
treating fluids) underlying the site. The containment option for
ground water would only be selected with the RCRA capping option
for soils since the entire area to be included within the
containment area would need to be capped. Therefore, the extent of
ground water contamination to be addressed would also be considered
during the implementation of the RCRA capping alternative for soil.
Placement of the slurry wall would attempt to encompass as much of
the dense liquids and grossly contaminated subsurface soils of the
old impoundment and process areas as possible. In addition, this
alternative would include some ground water pumping and treatment
in order to maintain an inward flow gradient. The NAPLs and
contaminated ground water would be treated as presented in
Alternative C. However, this gradient pumping and treatment would
not treat liquid contaminants to the extent proposed in Alternative
C. ., . .
Isolation technolOgies that have potential for use at the site. to
control contaminant lIiqration include grout curtains, sheet piling,
. and slurry trench/walls. An important consideration for any of the
ground water isolation options is the depth to bedrock or aquatard.
CUrrent evaluation of site conditions indicate that an acceptable
aquatard may be present within limits of conventional.equipment for
implem~ntation of this alternative above or in combination with
ground water. extraction. and treatment alternatives. Of these
options, a slurry wall was selected for costing purposes. Grout
curtains are generaily more costly and have higher permeabilities
than slurry walls, and are seldom used for containing ground water
flow in unconsolidated materials. Sheetpi:J,.ing was eliminated
because of uncertainties with wall integrity over extended periods
-------
of time and potential damage? or d~fle :ion of. ~he piles by rocks
during installation.
Slurry trench/walls use the concept of lateral encapsulation (or
vertical barriers) to provide a relatively impermeable barrier
around imp-acted soil. or ground water to divert ground water flow
around the. impacted a:reas and/or prevent impacted ground water from
migrating. Slurry . tr~ .o~h/walls are constructed in a vertical
trench that is excavate<- nder =. slurry. ThE :durry performs in a
. similar way to drilling fluid in that it hydraulically shores the
trench to prevent collapse while forming a cake on the trench wall
to reduce fluid losses to the subsurface soil. The most common
. types of slurry walls include soil-bentonite and cement-bentonite.
3)
4)
5)
.6)
. 7)
Although a slurry wall was included as a cost component of this
alternative, additional recovery wells in lieu of the slurry wall~
as requested by ADPC&E, could be included for an additional
$750,000 incremental cost, to be added to the cost of this
alternative presented above.
XII. SmDlARY OP COKPARA'1'IVB ABLYSIS OP AL'l'BRD'1'IVBS
EPA uses nine criteria to evaluate. the . merits of Superftind
remedies. The first two assessments that are directly related to
statutory determinations are:
1)
2)
OVerall protection of human health and the environment and
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements (ARARS) of other Federal and State environmental
statutes.
If a remedial alternative does not meet the first two criteria. it
L~ not carried over for fur' oar analysis. : it meets the f :'st
two criteria, it is then rev.. -:wed against fividditional meas~res
which are identified as balancing criteria:
Long-term effectiveness and permanence; .
Reduction of contaminant toxicity, mobility, or volume' through
treatment; .
Short-term effectiveness;
ImplementabilitY7 and,
cost, includ~ng capital and operation and maintenance cost.
The final two criteria are modifying criteria and are evaluated
following the public comment period on the RI/FS Report and the
Proposed Plan: . .. .'
0'
,.
State Acceptance and
Community Accept.ance
--
~ ':'e.'
-------
1.
overall protection of BuaaD .ealth and. the Bnvironaent
OVerall protection of human health and the environment addresses
whether each alternative provides adequate protection of human
health and the environment and describes how risks posed through
each exposure pathway are eliminated, reduced, or controlled,
through treatment,.' engineering controls, anci/or institutional
controls.. .
All of the alternatives, with the exception of the ."No Action" and
."Institutional Control" alternatives, would provide adequate
protection of human health and the environment by eliminating,
reducing, or controlling risks through treatment or engineering
controls. .
The a1 ternati ve that provides the 'greatest degree of overall
protection to human health and the environment is Alternative 5,
. Excavation and On-Site Incineration. This alternative would
completely destroy the contaminants and eliminate direct contact
threats and the source of contaminated ground water. (Note that.
. partial destruction options would leave contaminated liquids in the
subsurface that would have to be addressed.) After implementation.
of this alt~rnative; I. the risks. to the public from direct contact
would meet the remediation goals as established in the section on
Summary of Risks. The areas of ground water contamination outside
the limits ot excavation would be addressed through a ground water
alternative and natural attenuation, as previously outlined in the
description of Alternative 5. Therefore, the ground water risks
would be substantially reduced.
The only other alternative evaluated which offers a level of
protection similar to incineration is Alternative 6, Excavation,
On-site 8iolO9ical Treatment. This alternative employs treatment
of the contaminated soils via biodegradation in a land treatment
unit following excavation and. therefore would also eliminate a
major source of continual ground water contamination. As described
above, a ground water alternative would be associated with this
source control measure. .
. Of those alternatives other than excavation and incineration and
excavation and biological treatment, Alternative C, Extraction and
Treatment, provides the greatest protection of human health,
welfare, or the environment when combined with any other
soil/sludge alternative. This results from the active measures
that would be taken. to treat the primary threats from creosote and
PCP liquids and. contaminated ground water. . Contaminated pooled
product and ground water would be extracted. and treated to the
maximum extent practicable. Contaminated groUnd water and pooled
product would be extracted and treated to Federal and State surface
and drinking water discharge standards' as established in 40 CFR
Part 414. The extraction process would minimize the migration of
contaminated ground water off-site. Oils (NAPLs) recovered from
96
-------
the treatment process would be incinerated off-site at a RCRA
hazardous waste facility deemed acceptable under the Superfund Off-
Site Policy promulgated pursuant to CERCLA Section 121(d) (3), 42
D.S.C. f 9621(d)(3). .'
The stabilization alternative, Alternative 4, was initially
expected to provide overall protection above the levels provided by
the capping a1 ternati ve, Al ternati ve 3 . However , treatability
st~dies have shown stabilization technology to be questionable due
to the oily nature of the waste materials, as presented in the
discussion of this alternative; The potential.:of stabilized soils
to leach organic contaminants to the ground ~er would remain,
although the ability of those contaminants to. leach would be less
. than currently exists. The technology would not sUfficiently
stabilize the contaminated material to be c- -:sidered a permanent
remedy and, therefore, would require NAPL anc Jro~~ter actions-
such as Alternatives C or D. -"~ -:'
.::.tv
RCRA Compliant Capping (Alternative 3) provides ---protection by
actively employing measures to isolate contaminants from human
contact and the environment. This alternative is also compatible
with options C and D for the contaminated liquids alternatives.
The cap will reduce the infiltration of surface water and will have
to be maintained on an indefinite basis. capping and containment
or active treatment do nothing to treat the subsurface soils that
act as a source of ground water contamination. ~erefore, this
remedy does not provide as much. protection to human health or the
environment as discussed on the previous alternatives.
:.~ "
-~
Containment, Alternative D, would provide moderate human health and
environmental protection in - conjuftCtion with the:-:cappinq
alternative for soil remediation. Contaminated ground watar would
be contained by a slurry wall and minimal pump and treat operations
would be conducted indefinitely. However, thi~ al ternati ve is not
expected to provide as ;much overall protection to human health and.'
the environment as that of Alternative C, Extraction and Treatment,
because the remaining.contamination has .the potential 1;0 migrate
through the containment wall.
The No Action and the Institutional Control alternatives for'both
liquids and soils do not provide overall protection to human
heal th, welfare, or the environment. As documented in the RI,
contamination would continue to contaminate ground water, and' as
such remains an environmental threat. The soils in Area 5 contain
surface contamination that is above ~~alth-based goals and,
therefore, warrant action. The institutio..al controls .alternative,
Alternative B, would not prevent the migration of contaminated ,-
materials, but would only provide minimal controls against
trespassing and future develotJment in -~~:"a area. The potential
would remain for contamii1ants ':) spreac. --+:1') the ground water and
to disperse surface contamina~:n durins )od or rainfall events.
-------
In summary, the no action and institutional controls alternatives
for both contaminated liquids and soils do not protect hUman
health, welfare, or 'the environment. These alternatives are not,
considered appropriate for this site and as such are not discussed
further for the other eight criteria.
2. Compli"anoe.i th ApplioGle or aelevant and Appropriate
, Requir..8nt8 (AltARS)
Compliance with ARARs addresses whether a remedy will meet ail the
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements of other
Federal and state environmental statutes or provides a basis for
, invoking a waiver. Identified ARARs for this project include,
provisions of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. S 1251 gt ~., the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. S 6901 ~ ~.,
the Safe Drinking Water Act, 33 U.S.C. S 300f ~ ~., the Clean
Air Act, 42 U.S~C. S 7401 ~ ~., and OSHA requirements for
worker safety, 29 CFR i 1910.120. All"ARARs can be met for all
alternatives and a detailed discussion of ARARs for the selected
remedy is presented in following sections. '
3.
,Long Term Bffeotiv8ne.. and Permanence
, ,
Long term effectiveness and perman~ncerefers to expected residual
risk and the ability of a remedy to maintain reliable protection of
human health and the' environment over time, once cleanup levels
have been met. This criterion includes the consideration of
residual risk and the adequacy and reliability of controls.
The alternative remedies for the soils/sludges decrease in
effectiveness as one reviews the options ranging from incineration
to biological treatment to stabilization to capping. The
incineration alternative provides long term effectiveness by
destroying the organic contaminants. However, anYthing less than
full treatment of the wastes results in a potential ground water
threat remaining. '
The biological treatment alternative provides long ,term
effectiveness by reducing contaminated soils to acceptable levels
and mitigating a potential source of ground water contamina~ion.
Although the stabilization alternative may involve some chemical
, fixation of the contaminants, the fixation of wastes with high
concentrations of organic compounds, such as those found at Popile,
have not been demoJ)strated to be effective as documented' by
treatability studies and as experienced at other wood treating
Superfund sites.
, '
The mUlti-layer clay cap would address the moderately contaminated
surface and subsurface soils, but the soils would, remain as a
potential source of ground water contamination. Thus, mUlti-layer
capping is only effective as long as a continuous ground water
control mechanism is in place and the cap is maintained.
-------
, .
The extraction and treatment alternative for contaminated liquids
(Alternative C) would employ proven technologies for extraction and
treatment of contaminated ground water. However, the contaminated
liquids and ground water pump and treatment - system is not
technologically capable of completely removing subsurface
contamination, and so some residual contamination will remain.
Contaminants would be removed to the maximum extent practicable,
resulting in the permanent treatment of the extracted contaminants
and the minimization of the potential migration of contaminants to
drinking, water zones below the contaminated a'quifer. As descI:ibed
previously under the discussion of this alternative, an optional
in-situ bioremediation component could assist in reducing the long
term threats associated with the vadose zone soils and
unrecoverable NAPLs. Alternative D, containment, is believed to be
less, effective than active treatment because contaml'1ants might
eventually migrate through the barrier into the ground water.
4.
aeduction o~ Toz~city, Mobility, or Volume through Treatment
Reduction of toxicity, mobil i ty, or volume through treatment refers
,to the anticipated performance of the treatment technologies a
remedy may employ.
The incineration alternative (Alternative 5) would reduce the
toxicity, mObility, and volume of excavated contaminated material
through the permanent destruction of the organics. Treatability
tests have shown the ash would be below the, remediation goals
established in the Summary of Site Risks section of this ROD.
Although not as effective as incineration, the biological treatment
alternative (Alternative 6) would reduce the toxicity and mobility
of the excavated contaminated material by reducing contaminants
(approximately 50-60') through biodegradation to acceptable levels
which would no longer provide a source of ground water
contamination.
The, stabilization alternative (Alternative 4) reduces the mobility
somewhat (~., approximately 40' as determined by leachability
tests), although the potential remains for future leaching of
oontaminants into the ground water. For surface and subsurface
soils the capping alternative (Alternative 3) does not involve any
treatment. '
" ,
Under the extraction and treatment alternative (Alternative C) the
contaminated liquids and ground water would be extracted and
treated. The contaminated oils from this process would be
ultimately destroyed at an acceptable off-site'RCRA hazardous waste
facil i ty , thereby significantly reducing toxicity, mobility and
volume. The ground water containment alternative (Alternative D)
would reduce mobility of the contaminants ,through containment.
However, this reduction is not through, treatment. In addi tion,
toxicity and volume would not be reduced for Alternative D.
-------
5.
Short T.r.a Bff.ctiven...
Short term effectiveness refers to the period of time needed to
complete the remedy and address any adverse impacts on human health
and the environment that may be posed during the construction and
implementation of the remedy until cleanup levels are achieved.
Alternatives 3 and 4, RCRA Compliant Capping and Stabilization,
could be constructed wi thin 4 years. However, as discussed
previously, these al ternati ves would have to be conducted in
conjunction with ground water alternatives C or D, active treatment
or containment, which could involve continuous operation and
maintenance (O&M) for 30 years or more.. The incineration option
could be completed within 4 years of implementation. Due to the
time required for biodegradation processes to be effective, the
biological treatment alternative is estimated to take 15-20 years.
Precautions would be taken in all alternatives involving site
activities to eliminate any risk to the public and site workers.
During the implementation of any ground water, source treatment, or
capping alternative, there would be potential short term risks to
site workers during consolidation and treatment of the contaminated
materiaL. Some increase in air emissions may occur as a result. of
excavation during any of the soil/sludqe alternatives or during the
land treatment operations associated with the biological treatment
alternative. However, enqineerinq controls and air monitorinq will
reduce the potential for any adverse impacts durinq implementation
of the remedy. A contingency plan would be developed to address
any potential air emissions detected during remedial activities.
6.
Implementability
Implementability addresses the ease with which a potential remedy
can be put in place. Factors such as availabil.ity.of materials and
services are considered. .
All alternatives h~ve been considere~. implementable, and the
materials and services needed for all proposed alternatives are
readily available. The construction of a multi-layered clay cap
over the contaminated material would be easily implemented.
Increased difficulty would result from implementing the
incineration, biological treatment and stabilization alternatives
as compared with capping, although all four alternatives can. be
implemented. The excavation, dewatering and incineration process
would require more specialized equipment than that for capping and
biological treatment. However, this equipment is readily available
in the construction ,industry. Ground water alternatives are also.
easily. implemented, although the. .construction of a slurry wall.
would be.more difficult .than that of a pump and treatment system.
-------
7.
C08~
The costs are presented in the previous pages and range from
$8.9 million for a capping alternative to $113.4 million for an
incineration alternative. Various options on the volume of
contaminated materials to be treated could be developed. However,
anything less than full. excavation still requires the removal of
NAPLs in the subsUrface areas to prevent continued contaminant
migration. The cost for active liquid treatment ($5.8 million) is
somewhat more than that of the containment option ($3.9 mill1on)~
However, the advantage of the active liquid treatment option is
that it provides actual treatment and reduction of the human health
and environmental risks.
8.
state Acceptance
Under the Superfund law, EPA is required t.o ensure that States have
a meaningful and continuing role in remedy selection and execution.
While States are not required to formally concur with EPA-selected
remedies, for Fund-financed acti::--,s they must contribute 10 percent
of the remedy's construction C.:S and formally concur with the
deletion of sites from the Natic:....... Priorities List upon completion
of the remediation process. For these reasons, EPA has attempted
to keep State staff informed regarding the progress of studies and
is requesting the views of the State of Arkansas regarding cleanup
options before selection of a re~s:dy in the ROD. The commitment of
matching State funds is required ~efore actual on-site construction
activities begin. The expenditure of Superfund monies for actual
remedy construction cannot occur prior to such commi tment of
matching State funds.
The ADPC&E has provided a preference for biological treatment,
Alternative 6, in a letter dated December 22, 1992.' ADPC&E also
agreed that the extraction and treatment alternative, Alternative
C, is necessary for addressing the ground water contamination.
9.
Community Acceptance
EPA recognizes th~t the communi ty in which a Superfund si te . is
located is the .principal beneficiary of all remedial actions
undertaken. EPA also recognizes that it is its responsibility to
. inform interested citizens of the nature of Superfund environmental
problems and solutions and to learn from the community what its
desires are regarding these sites.
During the public meeting of September 17, 1992, over 40
indi viduals from the. local area responded. to EPA' s proposed
alternatives .to remediate the site. The number of people at this
meeting was significantly g.reater than the August 4, 1992', meeting
that was attended only by' 14 individuals. Based on the comments
from bot!" '~eetings, 5'- appears that tt... . Qcal com;: .mity favors any
alternat. ~ which err ~ys trea:::ment C -he contc.inants. During
-------
the September 17,
opposition to the'
al ternati ves . Two
remedy other than
meeting.
1992 meetings no individuals indicated any
on-si te incineration or biological treatment
commenters indicated a desire for a treatment
on-site incineration' at the Auqust 4, 1992
SUIIIJIlary
In summary, based on the aforementioned criteria, EPA believes that
biological treatment, in combination with. the extraction. and
treatment groundwater alternative, provides a cost effective means
to address the contamination at this site. The selection of the
biological treatment alternative provides an effective treatment
methodology for the hazardous substances found at the Popile site.
Biological treatment effects a significant and permanent reduction
of toxicity, mobility, and volume of contaminants at the site at a
significantly lower cost than on-site incineration. The
effectiveness associated with on-site incineration is not
considered commensurate with the increase in cost considering the
exist~ng contaminant concentrations and ultimate remedial goals.
IX. TUB SBLBC'lBD RBJIBDY
Based upon consideration of the requirements of CERCLA, the
detailed analysis of alternatives using the nine criteria, and
public 'comments, both EPA and the state of Arkansas have determined
that a combination of Alternatives 6 (Excavation, Onsite Biological
Treatment) and Alternative C (Extraction and Treatment) is the most
appropriate remedy for the Popile site near El Dorado, Arkansas.
Approximately 165,000 cubic yards of creosote- and
pentachlorophenol-contaminated soils will be excavated from the
facility area, old impoundment. area and the disposal cell created
during the removal action. It is the material in these areas that
have been determined, based on information gathered in the RI, to
be . the maj or source and continual threat of ground water
contamination. This material includes the NAPL contaminants which
will also be collected and treated. The organic contaminants will
be biologically treated to acceptable and/or maximum
technologically achievable levels to prevent' future threats of
ground water contamination. The treated soils will then be
returned to the excavated areas.. The lesser contaminated soils anc:i
disposal areas will be regraded, revegetated, and capped. in
accordance' with Federal and State requirements. The lesser
contaminated soils. will also undergo in-situ biological treatment
as described below. The estimated' cost for this component of the
remedy is $11.9. million. .
Ground water will be' collected via interceptor trenches and/or
extraction wells. Water will be treated using an oil/water
separator and biolOgical treatment and/or .carbon adsorption.
Treated. water will be discharged to Bayou de Loutre. Oi15
-------
recovered will be incinerated in an off-site incinerator. The
estimated ccst for. this component of the remedy is $5.8 milli."n.
The added component of in-situ bioloqical treatment (injec'; 0;:
wells, fee~system, associated O&M costs) is an additional $950,JOC
to be addtK'r to the above costs. ::rn-si tu bioremediation may be
effective in reducing NAPL contaminants which may not be
recoverable via conventional ground water recovery techniques.
Cleanup Levels
Soils
As previously stated, contaminated soils do not in and of
themselves present a direct contact risk outside EPAs' acceptable"
risk range. However, the leaching of contaminants does present a
major source and continual threat of ground water contamination.
The source areas, which include the pooled wood treating fl'd:::is,
will be removed and incinerated off-site to eliminatE. the pote.-.tial
"major source of gro~~d water contamination. Preliminary
remediation goals repres=nting a 10.8 risk were established in the
"feasibility study at 3 ppm benzo(a)pyrene equivalents and 5 ppm
PCP, which are the primary contaminants of concern. The maximum
concentrations detected in the old impoundment area and old
facility area were 21 ppm and 200 ppm" for D(a) P and PCP,
respectively, with concentrations typically dropping by orders of
magnitude below 15 feet in depth, and it appears that the
preliminary remediation goals are attainable.
Based on" the correlation of analytical results with depth,
preliminary volume estimates have been determined. With the
ana~ytical information gathered from the soil boring investigation,
cut lines can be established based on the point of demarcation for
contaminant concentrations dropping to levels wbdch indicate that
native materials have been encountered, with the final depth of
excavation being a field jUdgment pending confirmatory sampling.
Soil concentrations exceeding the remediation goals below the
depths of excavation will be addressed via the in-situ
bioremediation component of the ground" water remediation
alternative. . . "
Ground Water
The goal of the ground water remedial action is to control
migration of shallow ground ~4'ater contaminants so as to reduce
and/or eliminate the potenti " threat of contamination impacting
deeper drinkinqwater aquifers and, if technologically achievable, .
restore the shallow ground water to a potential future beneficial
use. A remediation goal of 0.2 parts per b-illion (ppb) for
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) compounds expressed as
benzo(a)~yrene, will be utilized for the shallow ground water.
. However, based. on information obtained during. the remedial
investigation and the analysis of all remedial alternatives, this
-------
goal may not be technologically achievable.
Ground water contamination may be especially persistent in the
immediate vicinity of the contaminants' source, where
concentrations are relatively high. The ability to achieve cleanup
goals at all points throughout the area of attainment, or plume,
cannot be determined. until the extraction system has been
implemented, or modified as necessary based on engineering design
changes and plume response monitored over time.
If the selected remedy cannot meet the health-based remediation
goals at any or all of the monitoring points during implem~ntation,
contingency measures and goals as discussed below may replace the
selected remedy and goals. Such contingency measures may .also
include ground water extraction and off-site treatment. These
measures are sti11 considered to be protective of human health and
the environment, and are technically.. practicable under the
corresponding circumstances. .
The selected remedy will include ground water extraction for the
estimated period of at least ten years, during which time the
system's performance will be carefully monitored on a regular basis.
and adjusted as warranted by the performance data collected during
operation. The operating system may include:
a}
discontinuing operation of extraction wells in the area where
cleanup goals have been attained:
alternating pumping at wells to eliminate stagnation points;
and
b)
pulse pumping to allow aquifer equilibration and encourage
adsorbed contaminants to partition into ground .water.
If, subsequent to the implementation of the selected remedy,
hy~rogeoloqical and chemical evidence establishes that it will be
technically impracticable to attain that. remedy's remediation goals
for the site, EPA will implement a contingency plan. . At a minimum,
.and as a necessary condition.for invoking the contingency plan, it
must be demonstrated that contaminant levels have ceased to decline
over time and are remaining constant at some statistically
significant l~vel above remediation goals, in a discrete portion of
the area of attainment, as verified by multiple monitoring wells.
c)
Where such a contingency situation arises, ground water extraction
and treatment would typically continue as necessary to achieve mass
reduction and remediation .goals throughout the rest of the area
attainment. . . .
. .
If it is determined, on the basis of the preceding criteria and the
system performance. data, that certain portions of the aquifer
cannot be restored to their.beneficial use,. all of the following
-------
..
measures involving longterm management may occur, for an indefinite
period of time, as a modification of the existing system:
a)
low level pumping will be implemented as a long-term
gradient control, or containment, measure;
chemical-specific ARARs will be waived for the cleanup of
those portions of the aquifer based on the technical
impracticability of achieving further contaminant reduction:
and/or "
b)
institutional controls will be implemented to restrict access
to those port~ons of the aquifer which remain above health-
based goals, should this aquifer be proposed for use as a
drinking water source.
The decisions to invoke any or all of these measures may be made
during periodic reviews of the remedial action. EPA will issue an
Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) to inform the. public
of the details of these actions if they occur. .
c)
x.
STATUTORY DB'l'BJUaDTIOBS
Under CERCLA Section 121, 42 U.S.C. !i 9621, EPA must select
remedies that are protective of human health and the environment,
comply with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
(ARARs), (unless a statutory waiver is justified), are
cost-effective, and utilize permanent solutions and alternative
treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the
maximum extent practicable. In addition, CERCLA includes a
preference for remedies that employ treatment that permanently and
significantly reduce the volume, toxicity,' or mobility of hazardous
wastes as their principal element. The following sections discuss
how the selected remedy meets these statutory requirements.
Protection of Jl1D1Um Health ADd the Bnv1roDl88nt
The selected remedy protects human health and the environment
through biological treatment of the" heavily contaminated creosote
and pentachlorophenol sludges and soils. Biological treatment of
the sludges and heavily contaminated soils will eliminate a major
. s.ource. and continual threat of ground water contamination. . The
current cancer risk associated with these soils is 8.1X10", while
the ground water cancer risk is 5. 8X10-2. By excavating the
contaminated sludges~ .and heavily contaminated soils and by treating
them in a land. treatment unit, .the source of ground water
contamination will be' significantly reduced to lie within EPA' s
acceptable risk range of 10.4 to 10.' . There are no .short term
threats associated with the selected remedy that cannot be readily
controlled. In addition, no adverse cross-media impacts are
expected from the: '~medy . .
-------
Comp1ianc8 with App1icab18 or Re18vant and Appropriat8 Requirements
(1UWUI) .
The selected remedy of excavation and biological treatment will
comply with all applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
(ARARs). ~e ARARsare presented below: .
u
Chemical-specific ARARs:
Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCts)
(40 CFR Part 141)
Clean Water Act Federal Water Quality Criteria (FWQC)
(40CFR Part 414)
. Location-Specific ARARs:
Clean Water Act Section 404 (Wetland Protection).
Action-Specific ARARs:
. .
40 CFR Part 264 Standards for OWners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, storage,. and Disposal Facilities.
In particular subparts B,C,D,G,I,J,K,L,M,O,AA, and BB may
be re1evant and appropriate during construction operations.
OSHA 1910.120 Occupational Safety and Health Requlations
Clean Water Act for NPDES Discharqes - 40 CFR Part 122
and.40 CFR Part 414 for discharges of orqanic chemicals.
Other criteria, Advisories, or Guidance To Be Considered for This
Remedial Action (TBCs):
EPA and the State will incorporate a non-promulgated local
deed notice
E. O. 11.990, Protection of Wetlands, which requires. that
Federal agencies conduct an evaluation to assess the impacts
of an action on wetlands
Proposed MCL of 0.2~q/l for PABa expressed as B(a)P
(this is the current limit to be proposed ..for 40 CFR Part 141)
MCL of 5 ~g/l for benzene - 40 CFR Part. '141
Clean Air Act National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAPS) - 40 CFR Part 61
-------
Clean Air Act National Ambient Air Quality standards (NAAQS) -
40 CPR Part 50
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Land Disposal
Restrictions - 40 CFR Part 268 for U-051 wastes
cost Effectivenes8
EPA believes this remedy will eliminate the risks to human health
at an estimated cost of $11.9 million for the biological treatment
of the contaminated soils and $7.5 million for the qround water
remedy ($19.4 million total). Therefore,. the selected remedy
provides an overall effectiveness proportionate to its costs, such
that it represents a reasonable value for the money that will be
spent. The selected remedy assures a much l~' ~her deqree of
certainty that the remedy will be effective i ,:he lonq term
because of the siqnificant reduction of the toxit:y and mobility
of the wastes achieved throuqh the biological treatment of the
soils and the qround water treatment. components.
utilizatioD of Permanent solutions an4 Alternative Treatment
TechDoloqie. (or ae.ource Recovery Technologie.) To.the
Maximum Extent Practicable .
EPA and the state of Arkansas have determined that the selected
remedy represents the maximum extent to which permanent solutions
and treatment technologies can be utilized in a cost effective
manner of the final remec". at the Popile site. Of those
alternatives that are p! active ~f human healtt and the
environment and that comply with ARARa, EPA and the 'ate have
determined that the selected remedy provides the best __._~lance of
trade-offs in terms of lonq term effectiveness and permanence,
reduction in toxicity, mobility, or volum~ achieved throuqh
treatment, short term effectiveness, implemeritability, and.
cost, while also considerinq the statutory preference for treatment
as a principal element and considerinq state and community
acceptance. . ..
The selected remedy trea:ts the principal threats posed by the
sludges, soi1s and ground water through aChieving. significant
creosote and pentachlorophenol reductions. This remedy provides
the most effective treatment of the alternatives considered, .and
will cost less than off-site disposal. The selection of treatment
of the contaminated sludqes and soils is consistent with proqram
expectations that indicate that hiqhly toxic and mobile wastes are
a priority for treatment and whose elimination is often necessary"
to ensure the lonq term effective~ess of a remedy.
-------
Preference for Trea~8D~ a. a Principa1 .l..en~
By treating the contaminated ground water on-site and by treating.
the contaminated sludges and heavily contaminated soils by
biological treatment, the selected remedy addresses the principal
threats posed by the site through the. use of treatment
technologies. By utilizing treatment as a significant portion of
the remedy, the statutory preference for remedies that employ
treatment as a principal element is satisfied. .
XI.
DOCtJllD1'.rATIOII OJ' 8IGBII'ICUI'!' CKABGBS
v
. The Proposed Plan was released for public comments on July, 28,
1~92. The Proposed Plan identified Alternatives. 3, R~ Compliant
Capping and C, Extraction and Treatment of Contaminated Ground
Water and Liquids. (wood treating fluids) as the proposed remedy for
the Popil.e site. On August 4, 1992, EPA ~eld a public meeting with
. transcripts taken and subsequently added to the Administrative
Record. -The public meeting was attended by representatives from
ADPCE. On August 17, 1992, EPA received a written request for an
extension to the comment period and the need for an additional
meeting. The' public "comment period was subsequently extended for.
an additional 30 days and a second public meeting was held' on
September 17, 1992.
Based on preliminary discussions between EPA and the state of
Arkansas, EPA had issued a recommendation in the July 29 proposed
plan for capping surface wastes and pumping and treatment of
contaminated ground water and subsurface oils. Subsequent
evaluations within EPA and discussions with the State and the
community (based on the August 4, 1992, public meeting) have shown
that bioloqical treatment of the wastes may be more effective in
meeting goals to remediate the site.
Due to this reassessment of preferred remedial alternatives, EPA
issued a public notice in the .local El Dorado newspaper, which
published articles in early September 1992 about the possible use
of onsite incineration and biological treatment. During the public
meeting of September 17, 1992, over 40 individuals from the El
Dorado area respond~~ to EPA's proposed alternatives to reme4~ate
the site. The number of people at this meeting was significantly
. greater than the previous one that was attended only by 14
individual.. Based on the comments from both meetings, it appears
that the local community favors any treatment alternative.
During the public comment period, comments were received from both
the' community and State officials which were in favor of the
permanence of the treatment al ternati ves. presented. No comments
were received at the September 17, 1992, opposing either onsite
incineration or bioloqical treatment. Only 2 commenters opposed
onsite incineration at the August .4, 1992, public meeting.
Therefore, EPA and the State have selected Alternative 6,
108
-------
excavation and biological treatment of contaminated soils, in
combination with Alternative C, extraction and treatment of
contaminated liquids and qround water, as the remedy for addressinq
contaminated sludqes and soils at the Popile site. A response to
the comments received durinq the comment period is included in the
Responsiveness Summary that is part of this ROD. This decision
document presents the selected remedial action that was chosen in
accordance with the CERCLA, the administrative record, and to the
extent practicable, the National Continqency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR
Part 300. . .
-------
APPENDIX C
-------
STATE OJ' ARKANSAS
DEPAR.TMENT OF' POLLUTION CONTR.OL AND ECOLOGY
8001 NATIONAL DRIVE, P.O. BOX 8913
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72219-8913
PHONE: (SOl) 562-7"""
FAX: (501) 561-4632
,.
December 22, 1992
Mr. B. J. Wynne, Regional Administrator
u.s. EPA, Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue, suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202~2733 '
>()
RE:.
STATB'S CONCURRENCB ON TIlE RECOlU) O~ DECISION
POPILE SUPERFUND SITE
BLDORADO, AR
Dear, Mr. Wynne:
This letter indicates ADPC&E's concurrence with the conceptional
Record of Decision (ROD) for the popile Superfund site as modified
by minor changes in wording in the first three pages of the ROD.
Attached are copies of the revised three pages. Additional minor
changes are needed on the remaininq text of the ROD in order for it
to become consistent with the openinq three pages.
The development of this ROD is the result of both our staff's
providing extensive effort to reach a consensus. We appreciate the
willinqness of Region 6 to carefully consider the states position
in this matter. ' '
Sincerely,
j(~~IJt~
'Randall Mathis, Director
RM:cw
cmwyaU.22
cc:
Wilson Tolefree, Deputy Director
Mike 'Bates, Chief, HWD
Devon Hobby, Manaqer, superfund Branch, HWD .
Clark McWilliams, Engineer Supervisor, Superfund
Mike Arjmandi, Engineer, superfund Branch, HWD
Brian Wakelynt Geologist, Groundwater Branch, HWD
paul Sieminski,. EPA Project Manager '
Branch, HWD
".10 'Hm.~ ]!c;V',\ snoCt;VZ':H
. (" .C" .. _I .. '. I" ,~ --r:
Lc. .c. ~:9 '1- i~~l ,.;
~ is !;Cj[~j 3:) ~/~ 3
: ; -.J .~ i -: ""'j :1 ':. ,
-------
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
POPILE, INC. SITE
EL DORADO, AlUtANSAS
statutory preference for Treatment as a
principal Element is Ket
"
site Name and Location
\)
popile, Inc.
El Dorado, Arkansas
STATEKBHT 01' BASIS A!1D PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for
the Popile, 'Inc. site in El Dorado, Arkansas, which was chosen in
accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the
, superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) 42
U.S.C. S9601 ~ sea. and, to the extent practicable, the National
oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution contingency Plan (NCP).
This decision is based upon the contents of the administrative
record file for the popile, Inc. site.
The United states Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
consulted the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology
(ADPC&E) on the selected remedy.
Both EPA and ADPC&E are in favor of a remedy that could provide a
permanen~ solution to the contaminants at the popiie, Inc. site.
After consultation. with ADPC&E, EPA recognized 'that although
incineration (Alternative 5) could most effectively destroy the
soil contaminants at the popile site, it leaves contaminated deep
soil and some contaminated surficial soil in place. Contaminated
deep subsurface soil and surficial contamination, combined with the
associated surface and ground water, will act as a source and
, . contaminate any new backf:llled material. Thus, 1;he effectiveness of
the incineration remedy is reduced.
In a letter to EPA dated August 25, 1992, ADPC&E submitted comments
on the Proposed Plan for the popile site and suggested biOlogical
treatment as a potential remedy for dealing with all the
contaminated material at the site. Although EPA originally
eliminated biological treatment from the detailed analysis of
alternatiyes, EPA reconsidered biological treatment in addition to
other treatment alternatives during an extension to the, public
comment period. After review of all public comments and considering
the relative success of the bioremediation technology at similar
wood 'treater sites, EPA' has chosen biological treatment
(Alternative 6), in conjunction with ground water extraction and
treatment (Alternative C), as the selected remedy. Additional
-------
bioremediation treatability studies to verify that remediation
goals can ~e attained. If remediation goals cannot be attained, a
"no migration" waiver may be required.
ASSESSMENT OP THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this
site, if not addressed by implementing the response action selected
in this Record of Decision (ROD), could present an imminent and
substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the
environment.
,.
DBSCRXPTION OP THE SELECTED REHEDY
This final remedy addresses remediation of the shallow ground water
and contaminated soils at the popile, .Inc. site.. The principal
threats posed by the site will be eliminated or reduced through
treatment and engineering controls.
The major components of the selected remedy include:
Ground wate;r
o
Extraction of shallow contaminated ground water and wood
treating fluids via interceptor trenches and/or pumpinq wells;
Treatment and discharqe of ~he contaminated waters on site,
either to a surface water system or reinjection into the
aquifer;
o
o
In situ bioremediation of the deep subsurface soils via above
qround bioreactor, nutrients and/ or oxyg ."'. enhancement system
and reinjection and/or infiltration gal. :ies; and
Offsite incineration of recovered wood ~reating fluids/carrier
oils, such as non aqueous phase liquids (NAPLS) and dense non
aqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs), which have been determined to
be a principal threa.t and continual source of qround water and
subsurface soil contamination. .
o
SOILS
o
Excavation and on site biological treatment of contaminated
soils and sludges in a land treatment unit;
Gradinq of excavated/backfilled areas., f....llowed by vegetative
cover; ..
o
o
construction/repair of the security fence, installation of
warning signs; and
o
conducting environmental monitoring
effectiveness of the remedy.
the
to
-------
STATUTORY DBTBRMXBATIOH
v
The. selected remedy is protective of human heal th and the
environment,. complies with Federal and state requirements that are
legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial
action and is cost effective. This remedy utilizes permanent
solutions and alternative technoloqies to the maximum e~ent
practicable and satisfies the statutory preference for remedies
that employ treatment that reduces toxicity, mo})ility, or volume as
a principal element.
Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances being
treated onsite for an estimated fifteen to twenty years, the
required five-year review of the remedial action will be conducted.
\)
------------------
------------------------
Date
B.J. Wynne
Regional Administrator
------- |