EPA/ROD/R10-94/080
November 1994
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Commencement Bay South Tacoma
Channel Superfund Site, WA,
-------
APPENDIX C
STATE CONCURRENCE LETTER
-------
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
p.o. 80. 47600 . Olympia, Washint:fon 98504-7600 . (206) 407-6000 . TOO Only (Hearing Impaired) (206) 407-6006
September 27, 1994
Mr. Chuck Clarke
Regional Administrator
U.S. EPA, Region 10
1200 sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Dear Mr. Clarke:
. ..
The Washington state Department of Ecology (Ecology) has reviewed
the Record of Decision for the South Tacoma Field (STF) Superfund
site. We concur with the selected remedy. The remedy utilizes an
appropriate combination of treatment, containment, and
institutional controls for the contaminated soil throughout the STF
site, and treatment of contaminated groundwater at the pioneer
Builders Supply portion of the site. This satisfies Ecology's
expectation for the use of permanent solutions to the maximum
extent practicable.
Ecology has identified Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) as a
potential contaminant of concern at pioneer Builders Supply. We
recognize that hazardous substances as defined in the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA),
do not include petroleum, and thus CERCLA exempts cleanup of .
petroleum contamination. However, the Environmental Protection
Agency has agreed to monitor for TPH, and to notify Ecology when
groundwater restoration is complete for all other contaminants of
concern. Ecology may then pursue further action to address
potential TPH contamination under the Model Toxics Control Act, if
appropriate. with this condition, the selected remedy provides
measures that will fulfill the requirements of Washington law and
regulation for the site. .
According to agreeme~tsrecently reached between the EPA Superfund
Branch and Ecology, Ecology will no longer take an active support
role in STF site activities. In addition to the notification
mentioned above, Ecology expects to be notified and briefed by EPA
staff when delisting of the site from the National Priorities List
is proposed. It has been a pleasure to work on the STF site with
EPA'S dedicated staff.
sra:~ #:.
Carol Krae
Acting Pro r~
Toxics Cleanup Program
CBK:MA:ln
cc:
Debbie Yamamoto, EPA
Timothy L. Nord, Ecology
Marian Abbett, Ecology
Martha Maggi, Ecology
......
-------
~ST.4~~
fAT,
~~~h~
\.~~
"'+ ~o
'""t PRO'tt-V
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle. Washington 98101
RECORD OF DECISION
COMMENCEMENT BAY SOUTH TACOMA CHANNEL
SOUTH TACOMA FIELD OPERABLE UNIT
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10
SEPTEMBER 1994
-------
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
Site Name and Location
Commencement Bay South Tacoma Channel Superfund Site
.South Tacoma Field Operable Unit
Tacoma, Washington
Statement of Basis and Purpose
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for the South Tacoma Field (STF)
operable unit of the Commencement Bay South Tacoma Channel Superfund site located in Tacoma.
Washington, which was chosen In accordance with Comprehensive Environmental Response.
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), and to the extent practicable. the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This decision is based on the administrative record
for this site. The State of Washington concurs with the selected remedy.
Assessment of the Site
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this site, if not addressed by
implementing the response action selected in this Record of Decision (ROD). may present an
imminent and substantial endangerment to public health. welfare. or the environment.
Description of the Selected Remedy
EPA divided the Commencement Bay south Tacoma Channel into three operable units (OUs) in
order to facilitate the investigation, analysis and cleanup of this very large site. These operable
units are:
City of Tacoma We1l12A (includes Time On)
Tacoma Landfill
South Tacoma Field
The remedy described in this ROD addresses the South Tacoma Field OU and involves the cleanup
of contaminated soil and ground water at the site. The major components of the selected remedy
are highlighted below.
-------
STF Soil
The South Tacoma Field site was dMded into three cleanup areas to aid in the development of
cleanup alternatives. These areas are:
.
South Tacoma Field (STF) soD
.
Pioneer Builders Supply (subsurface soil and ground water)
.
Tacoma City Ught Dry Wells
The actions described below wUl address the threats posed by conditions in each of these three
areas.
.
Excavate and solidify contaminated soil (except for PCB contaminated soD) that exceeds
hot spot concentration thresholds. Treated soU shall be placed back on site under a soil
or asphalt cap.
.
SoD contaminated with PCBs above 50 ppm was found In only one location at Pioneer
BuDders Supply. If additional sampling at this location confirms PCB concentrations above
50 ppm, then these soils shall be excavated and either incinerated at an approved, off-site
Incinerator or disposed off-site at a permitted hazardous waste disposal facility.
.
Excavate. consolidate on-site and contain(cap) soils which exceed capping levels (Model
Toxics Control Act (MTCA) Industrial Method A). The required excavation of soil would be
limited to a maximum of one foot. If, after excavating a foot of soil, an area is still
contaminated above MTCA industrial soil cleanup levels, the area wUI be capped. The
Potentially Responsible Parties may continue excavating until contaminants in soil are below
industrial cleanup levels, and thus avoid the requirement to cap in that area. Contaminated
soils shall be capped with either soil or asphalt.
.
Implement Institutional controls (e.g., deed restrictions, access restrictions, fencing), to
prohibit activities that may lead to exposure to contaminants and to protect capped areas.
Conduct ground water monitoring, Including monitoring of ~he petroleum hYdrocarbon
contamination found at the Amsted property. This is required to ensure that ground water
levels stay below federal drinking water or MTCA based clea'nup standards. MonitorinQ. of
the storm water run-on, runoff, surface Water, and sediment in the wetland/drainage
channel is also required. The monitoring program shall be reviewed every fIVe years to
determine whether additional actions are required or whether the monitoring program
should be modified or discontinued.
.
Pioneer Builders Supply
.
. Implement air sparging and in situ vapor extraction in the vicinity of Pioneer Builders Supply
to cleanup contaminated subsurface soil and ground water to achieve cleanup levels.
.
Implement institutional controls In the form of restrictions on ground water use to non-
drinking water purposes in the vicinity of Pioneer Builders Supply. This restriction shall
continue until ground water cleanup levels are achieved throughout the contaminant plume
and MTCA cumulative risk requirement of risks no greater than 1 in 100,000 and a Hazard
Index no greater than 1 are also achieved.
-------
.
Conduct ground water monitoring as part of the cleanup remedy for this portion of the site.
The monitoring program shall be reviewed every ijve years to determine whether additional
actions are required or whether the monitoring program could be modified or discontinued.
Tacoma City Ught Dry Wells
.
Excavate contaminated soD with PCB concentrations above 50 ppm or endrin
concentrations above 0.13 ppm and transport the soil off-site for incineration.
.
. Excavate and transport to an off-site. permitted hazardous waste disposal facility all soil with
PCB, PAH and other chemical concentrations above the MTCA Method B residential
cleanup levels.
Statutory Determinations
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment. complies with federal and
state requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remediql action, and
is cost-effective. This remedy utnizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies
to the maximum extent practicable for this site. This remedy includes a treatment component for
son (and ground water at Pioneer Bunders Supply) and satisfies the statutory preference for
remedies that employ treatment as a principal element.
Because the remedy may result in hazardous substances remaining on-site above health-based
levels, a review wDi be conclucted every fIVe years after commencement of remedial action to
ensure that the remedy continues to provide adequate protection of human health and the
environment. .
~ e&JL
q /1-0, I c;
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 SITE DESCRIPTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '. . . . . . . . . . ., 1
2.0 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1
2.1 HISTORICAL LAND USE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1
2.2 CURRENT LAND USE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2
2.3 HISTORY OF EPA ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3
3.0 HIGHUGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3
4.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNITS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4
5.0 SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., 5
5.1
5.2
5.3
SOIL CONDITIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5
GROUND WATER AND SURFACE WATER CONDITIONS. . ..... . . ..... . ... . .. 5
NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6
6.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS............................... ...., .. . . ... . . .. .. .. 10
6.1 IDENTIFICATION OF CHEMICALS OF CONCERN. ......... . . ., . ... . .. .. .. 10
6.2 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12
6.3 TOXICITY ASSESSMENT............................. ., ...... . ., . .. 13
6.4 RISK CHARACTERIZATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13
6.5 UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17
6.6 STREAMUNED RISK ASSESSMENT FOR THE AMSTED' PROPERTY. . . . . . . . . .. 18
6.7 ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.8 CLEANUP GOALS...... ............... ..... .. . .. .... .. . .. . . . . . . . .. 18
7.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES................. .., ..... . .... . . .. ... . . . ., . .. 20
7.1 STF SOIL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20
7.2 PIONEER BUILDERS SUPPLY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24
7.3 TACOMA CITY UGHT DRY WELLS .....................................26
8.0 SUMMARY OF THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 26
8.1 OVERALL PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT,. . . . ~ . .. 27
8.2 COMPUANCE WITH APPUCABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE
REQUIREMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., 28
LONG-TERM EFFECTIVENESS AND PERMANENCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., 28
REDUCTION OF TOXICITY, MOBILITY, AND VOLUME THROUGH TREATMENT. .. 29
SHORT-TERM EFFECTIVENESS........................ ...... . . .. . . ., 30
IMPLEMENTABIUTY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31
COST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 32
STATE ACCEPTANCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 32
COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE....................................... .. 32
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.6
8.7
8.8
8.9
9.0 THE SELECTED REMEDY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33
9.1 STF SOIL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33
9.2 PIONEER BUILDERS SUPPLY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 38
9.3 TACOMA CITY UGHT DRY WELLS .................................. . . . 39
9.4 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF THE SELECTED REMEDY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 40
-------
10.0 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 40
10.1 OVERALL PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT. ....,.. 41
10.2 COMPUANCE WITH APPUCABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE
REOUIREMENTS ................................................. 41
10.3 COST EFFECTIVENESS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 44
10.4 UTIUZATION OF PERMANENT SOLUTION AND RESOURCE RECOVERY
TECHNOLOGIES TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
10.5 PREFERENCE FOR TREATMENT AS A PRINCIPAL ELEMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
10.6 CONCLUSIONS. .......................................... ... .....45
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
11.1 . CLEANUP LEVELS FOR THE STF SITE SOIL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
11.2 PCBs IN STF SOIL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
11.0
-------
UST OF TABLES
Follows
Page
5-1
Chemical Concentration Ranges for Surface
and Subsurface SoD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5-2
Chemical Concentration Ranges in Ground Water ,
at Pioneer BuDders Supply. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5-3
*Chemicals of Concem In Groundwater at Amsted
Property. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9
5-4
*Chemicals Exceeding Acute Fresh Water Quality
Criteria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5-5
*Chemicals Consistently Detected In On-Site
Sediment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8-1
Estimated Costs for STF Remedial Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
9-1
*Hot Spot Concentration Threshold For STF Soil. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
9-2
*SoD Capping Levels For South Tacoma Field. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
9-3
*MTCA Method B Residential SoD Cleanup Levels
For South Tacoma Field. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
9-4
*Cleanup Levels For Pioneer BuDders Supply. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
9-5
*Method B Cleanup Levels for Tacoma City Ught
Dry Wells. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '. . . . . . . . 40
*Indicates table falls on page cited
-------
UST OF FIGURES
1-1
Follows
Page
Site Location Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2-1
Major Historical Uses of The STF Site. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Water Level Contour Map of Upper Aquifer, 4/11/91 ...............................5
5-1
5-2
Water Level Contour Map of Upper Aquifer, 10/17/912 ............................. 5
5-3
Boundaries of Jurisdictional Wetlands and Locations
of Storm Water Discharges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5-4
Property Unit Designations and Remediation Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'. . . . . . . 6
5-5
Lead Distribution in Surface Soil. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6-1
Distribution of Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk and
Non Cancer at the Dismantling Yard
(Industrial Exposure) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6-2
Distribution of Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk and
Non Cancer Hazard at the Railyard (Industrial Exposure) ........................... 15
6-3
Distribution of Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk.and
Non Cancer Hazard at Amsted (Industrial Exposure) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'. . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6-4
Distribution of Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk and
Non Cancer Hazard at Airport (Industrial Exposure) .............................. 16
6-5
Distribution of Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk and
Non Cancer Hazard at the Swamp (Industrial Exposure) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6-6
Distribution of Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk and
Non Cancer Hazard at the TIP (Industrial Exposure) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Approximate Location of Caps. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7-1
8-1
Lead Concentration vs Cost of Lead Treated. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
8-2
Lead Concentration vs SoD Volume. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
8-3
Lead Concentration vs Cost ................................................ 32
APPENDICES
Appendix A Responsiveness Summary
Appendix B Administrative Record Index
Appendix C State Concurrence Letter
-------
AOC
ARAR
BNR
CB/STC
CDI
CERCLA
CFR
COC
CPAH
CRP
EPA
FS
HEAST
HHRAR
HI
HQ
IRIS
LDRs
MCL
MCLG
Mg/Kg
MTCA
NCP
NPDES
NPL
O&M
OSHA
OSWER
au
PBS
PCBs
PPM
PRP
PSAPCA
RBSL
RCRA
RCW
RfD
RI
RI/FS
ROD
SARA
SF
STF
TCLP
TIP
TPH
TSCA
Ug/L
UST
WAC
UST OF ACRONYMS USED IN THIS DOCUMENT
Area of Contamination
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
Burfington Northern Railroad
Commencement Bay/South Tacoma Channel
Chronic DaDy Intake
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(Superfund)
Code of Federal Regulations
Chemical of Concem
Carcinogenic Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Community Relations Plan
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Feasibility Study
Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables
Human Health Risk Assessment Report
Hazard Index
Hazard Quotient
Integrated Risk Information System
land Disposal Restrictions
Maximum Contaminant Level
Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
MUligrams/KJlograms (parts per million)
Model Toxles Control Act
Natio.naI Contingency Plan
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
National Priorities Ust
Operation and Maintenance
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Operable Unit
Pioneer Builders Supply
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
Parts per Million
Potentially Responsible Party .
Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency
Risk Based Screening Level
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Revised Code of Washington
Reference Dose
Remedial Investigation
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
Record of Decision
Superfund Amendments and ReauthorIZation Act
Slope Factor.
South Tacoma Field
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
Tacoma Industrial Properties Management, Inc.
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Toxic Substances Control Act
Micrograms/liter (parts per billion)
Underground Storage Tank
Washington Administrative Code
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
Commencement Bay/South Tacoma Channel Superfund Site
South Tacoma Faeld Operable Unit
Tacoma, Washington
1.0 SITE DESCRIPT10N
The South Tacoma Field (STF) Superfund site is an operable unit (OU) of the larger Commencement Bay
South Tacoma Channel Superfund (CB-STC) site. The CB-STC Superfund site was listed on the interim
priority list by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1981 as part ofthe overall Commencement
Bay Superfund site. In 1983. EPA divided the Commencement Bay sites into two sites.. Commencement
Bay Nearshore/Tideflats and CB-STC and listed these two sites separately on the first National Priorities Ust
(NPL). .
..
The STF Superfund site is a 260-acre parcel of land located in the southwestem part of the City of Tacoma.
Washington (Figure 1-1). The site is located In a lowland area. which Is as much as 150 feet lower than the
surrounding uplands. The site is mostly open fields of grass with a few industrial and commercial facilities.
The site also includes a former swamp and lake bed that has been filled in and covered with grass. A small
wetland is also located in the area. Two' City of Tacoma storm sewer outfalls discharge storm water onto
the north end of the site. The storm water is conveyed across the westem portion of the site in an open
channel. The City of Tacoma operates several water supply wells within one half mile of the site that are
used to augment the City's drinking water supply during peak (summer) demand periods.
2.0 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
2.1
HISTORICAL LAND USE
The STF site has been used for a variety of industrial and commercial purposes for over 100 years.
Locations where various activities have occurred at the site are shown in Figure 2-1. Areas where significant
historical activities occurred are briefly discussed in the following paragraphs. .
The South Tacoma Car Shops area operated as a railroad manufacturing and repair facility from 1892 until
1974. The area was used for manufacturing. repair. and maintenance of railroad equipment. Rail cars were
also cleaned and dismantled in this area. Foundry facilities operated on-site from 1890 through 1980. An
iron foundry produced iron wheels until 1957. A brass foundry produced journal bearings composed
-------
COIWIWF/VC;"'EIWENT
8AY
IV
i
!
~
I
t
SITE
;-5
56Th'S/:
SOUTH
TACOMA
~~PATO
U iAKE
;;H4t118EP.S CIf'.
:...
~
~.
c~
~
"':
WAC/CHOP
::AKE
o
L4KE 0
!. OC//SE
STEll4COOff
LAKE
ffASMNCTON
r-S
, .
Kennedy / Jenks Consultants
l
o
~
SOUT"" ,ACOMA FiE:..u
TACOMA. WA
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN MILES
-------
20C 400
'.l"..'':'
so.o..£.... f'[r:
r--
I ~J8f~ $1
I -....z,..,
i
!
I
I
i
J
i
i
/
I
I
i
I
I
I
i
i
vol
~i
I
i
I
!
rOR..tR
SOuT...
TACO..,.
S.MlP
~~;r
il
~.
2.
03=4 m
I 6. I
.~,--;7
.':,,",\ ./ ,.' ,
..--, (!.' /A'1 //
191, ./'/ ,,/
\' J /~/ ;~/
- /' ,/'
/ /'
/ "
v/~
Ct
Ct'
~
i
"
ulWU]II.t !
o t CD
1
01
6J U'9!
8n !
1\ \ i
211 24 t
~. SHOPS II ~\l
U be}
jb:) i~D 28~ ~
~ P9 u+
13,\ ni
U 0 ~~t:
3~ n .
JC IJe' .i
nro J6Cj i o. 1
U o~ I 39 3. t'
.1, L-.:!..--J
r
I +
+
I :
, .
r7~ Ii
I iUl.: !"o"~.
"J4~ !
I --.
U : I4Ti
I~
)~
- .'~
~ I
C::'N I
"HED.
4:!,
;;;
t
t
T
f.1 ~ 1
~so & t
'00 1
S4 ~2. t
(1j
S !leT... S"!, '
~
i!
II:
J~TIot ST
TAC()t.t.&
CrTY UCMT
(
I
!
i
I
I
I
~'<
~
~
(/ .
I J
I t
~
. i
I
!
"'.
21
~I
~
-,
i
I
,
i
I
i
I
I
,
~I'
;
;I
o
:!
"'I
i
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
i
I
LEGEND
STF -NPL SIT( BOUNDAR'
,. TCL 'ARD AR(A
2. GANTRY CRAN( AREA
3. FUEL TANK
4 SHED
5. LANTERN SHED
6 STOREHOUSE. BEL THOUS(
ROlliNG MILL. SlORAGE BLOG
7. FUEL CELLAR
8. BURN pn
9 TRASH DUMP
'0. STORAG~ YARD
, 1. RUBBISH TRACK CORRIDOR
12. CONCRETE CASTING PLANT
13. SANOBLAS1 SHED
, 4. BLACKSMITH SHOP
15. CONCRETE FLOOR
, 6. LANDING STRIP
17. TRASH BURNING AREA .
18. TRASH PlY (PA'NT SHOP)
'9. CAR CASTINGS PLATFORM
20. PAINT SHOP
21. CAR SHOP
:2. AIRPORT BLOG
23. MADISON STREET
24. OPEN SHED
25. DRY KILN
26. WASTE SOAK'NG VAT
27. UST (OIL)
28. PAINT SHOP
29. PAINT HOUSE
30. FREIGHT REPAIR SHED
31. FINISHED LUMBER SHED
32. WHEEL SHOP
33. GENERATOR HOUS(
34. UST (OIL)
35. PUMPS
36. DIP TANK
37. DROP PlY
38. WOODWORKING SHOP
39. COACH S~OP
40. BOILER HOUS(
41. OIL TANKS
42. PAINT SHOP
43. BRASS
44. MACHINE SHOP
45. SOLVENT SHED
4&, BOILER, TIN TANK, AND
COPPER SHOP
.. i, SOUTI"I MAC.HIN~ SHO~
48. TRA$~ BuRNEP
49. BLACKSMITH SHOP
50. IRON & SlEEL STORAGE
51. TURNTAeLE
52. COK( & COAL
53. FORMER IRON FOUNDRy
54. RAILCAR CLEANOllT AREA
55. BURIED DRuMS (R(MOVED)
~6. FORMER BRASS FOUNDR" SITE
BASr '-lAP R£J'r'RF""C.~
WALKER. ASSOC, 10"22-86
SURrAtt DEBRIS S,t.t.tPUNC PI"NoO
rtBRUAItr 198'
"OR sms A HIL.L [NCIN~. THC
RCTEC RE"CCIATION TEC...NCLOCIES, tHC
SOUTIo4 tACOau. SWAt.lP
;1
!i
=1
Kennedy I Jenks Consultants
SOUTH TACOMA FI~l.D
TACOMA, WA
FIGURE 2-1 MAJOR HISTORICAL
-------
were performed at the South Tacoma Airport from 1936 to 1973. A lake was located beyond the south end
of the former runway and, in the late 1940s, was used by seaplanes.
A variety of filling activities occurred during the history of the site. Foundry, construction, and domestic
wastes reportedly were disposed of as fill material In the Former Swamp/Lakebed area. In the 1930s and
194Os, portions of the site reportedly were used as unauthorized dumping areas for household and
commercial wastes.
2.2
CURRENT LAND USE
Much of the STF site is currently undeveloped and is. covered with grasses. blackberry bushes, shrubs, and
a few trees. Concrete rubble, old foundations, and trash are apparent in some areas. A portion of the STF
site is used for light Industrial and commercial operations. Some businesses have operated from facilities
previously used In association with the former foundries. and raUyard, whUe other manufacturers have
constructed new facUlties. The site Is zoned M-2, heavy industrial and Is designated In Tacoma's South
Tacoma Neighborhood Plan as an Important part of the city's future Industrial expansion area (City of
Tacoma 1985). The Industrial activities currently taking place at the site are presented In the following
paragraphs. It is anticipated that future land use will remain industrial.
Tacoma Public UtUlties (Tacoma City Ught) provides electrical service and drinking water to Tacoma
residents and businesses and has operated from the northernmost end of the STF site since 1953 (Figure
2-1). Tacoma Public UtUlties uses its facility for maintenance and repair of equipment, as a storage and
distribution center for electrical and water supply system components, and as an administration center. The
Tacoma City Ught property is covered with asphalt pavement and buildings. Storm water runoff from the
Tacoma City Ught property drains to modified dry wells that have soD bottoms and Inter-connecting piping
leading to the City of Tacoma's storm drainage system.
Tacoma Industrial Properties (TIP) Management, Inc., owns property In the south-central portion of the STF
site, where an Iron foundry was formerty located. TIP uses the area for a variety of industrial purposes. Two
businesses operate on TIP property: KML Corporation and Savage Industries. KML Corporation has
operated In the former Iron foundry buDding since 1986. KML laminates films onto particle board for the
construction of cabinets and interior partitions. Savage Industries has used a former wood pattems and
vaults buUding since the earty 1970s to manufacture wooden picture frames.
Facilities recently constructed on STF site property Include the General Plastics and Pioneer Builders Supply
complexes. General Plastics buUt a manufacturing plant In 1981 on a portion of the former Car Shops area.
General Plastics manufactures high-density rigid and flexible polyurethane foams and high-density rigid
polyisocyanurate foams for the aviation, construction, marine, nuclear, architectural, and sports equipment
industries. .
Pioneer BuDders Supply purchased land In the southeast portion of the STF site for a warehouse and office
building that were constructed In 1988. Pioneer Builders Supply operates a distribution center for asphalt
and cedar roofing materials.
Pioneer Builders Supply used two underground storage tanks (USTs) for approximately five years to store
gasoline and diesel fuel. Pioneer Builders Supply excavated the tanks In December 1991 and determined
that the surrounding soD was contaminated with petroleum products. In addition, three USTs were
discovered In the northeast comer of the Pioneer Builders Supply property in earty 1990 and were excavated
and disposed of In June 1990.
The City of Tacoma zoning maps designate most of the STF site as a "Heavy Industrial District." A narrow
strip of land along the western edge of the site is zoned R-3-T, Resldential-Commercial Transitional District.
The site has been designated primarily for Industrial use since at least the earty 1950s. The majority of
properties adjacent to the site are currently used or designated for industrial purposes. The area east of
the site (between South 38th Street and South 56th Street) is a combination of Heavy Industrial. Ught
-------
Industrial, and Commercial districts. The area immediately south of the site is a combination of Heavy
Industrial and Ught Industrial districts.
The area west of the site Is zoned for mixed uses. The southem section of the westem border of the site
is zoned Heavy Industrial. The central section of the western border contains Two-FamUy Dwelling, Medical
Center Transitional, and Commercial districts. The northern portion of the western border consists primarily
of a small Ught Industrial district and a Residential/Commercial Transitional district. Despite its title, the
latter district is designed primarily for office and institutional land uses according to the City of Tacoma.
Many properties west of the site are separated from the industrial uses of the site by a natural buffer area
along Tyler Street. That buffer consists of a bluff, steep slopes, a paved road, and vegetated areas along
the westem boundary of the site. The area north of the site consists of Ught Industrial and
Residential/Commercial Transitional districts. Again, the latter district Is designed for office and institutional
uses. .
2.3
HISTORY OF EPA ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
In 1987 EPA and Burlington Northem Railroad (BNR) signed an Administrative Order on Consent (Consent
Order) under which BNR agreed to investigate the portion of the site owned by BNA. Soil sampling
indicated that the property (about 200 acres) did not pose an immediate threat to public health or the
environment. BNR then submitted a work plan for conducting a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
(RI/FS) on its property.
EPA reviewed BNR's work plan and decided that the site should be addressed as a whole in order to insure
all contamination problems are comprehensively remediated. EPA completed a search for additional
potentially responsible parties. (PRPs) , including land owners, businesses who may have operated at the site,
and other businesses and individuals who brought hazardous wastes to the site. In 1989, EPA notified eight
PRPs of their potential liabUity for the contamination at the site and requested their participation in
conducting the RI/FS. These PRPs Include: BNR, Glacier Park Company, Amsted Industries, Pioneer
Builders Supply, Tacoma Public UtUities (City of Tacoma), TIP Management, Inc., Atlas Foundry, and General
Plastics. .
Also in 1989, EPA signed a Consent Order with Amsted Industries for demolishing the former brass foundry
on their portion of the site because the building was contaminated with high levels of lead. Amsted
completed the demolition work In 1990, and all of the debris was taken to a hazardous waste landfill.
In October 1990, EPA signed a Consent Order with a group of PRPs to conduct an RI/FS at the site.
Initially, four PRPs signed the Order: BNR, Glacier Park Company (which has since sold back its portiQn
. of the site to BNR), City of TacomajTacorna Public Utilities, and Pioneer Builders Supply. Subsequently,
two additional PRPs signed the Consent Order: Amsted Industries and Tacoma Industrial Properties (TIP).
Both of these PRPs own property at the site. Two other PRPs declined to participate in the RI/FS: General
Plastics and Atlas Foundry. The results of the RI (Kennedy Jenks Consultants, 1993), along with the Human
Health Risk Assessment (EPA 1993) were made pUblic in July 1993. The FS was completed in 1994
(Kennedy Jenks Consultants, AprU 1994).
In 1991, during the course of the RI, the PRPs discovered petroleum hydrocarbon contamination in the
subsurface soil and floating on the ground water on property owned by Amsted Industries. EPA and Amsted
signed a Consent Order under which Amsted agreed to investigate the extent of contamination and to
investigate potential cleanup actions. These studies were completed by Amsted in 1993.
3.0 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
EP A developed a Community Relations Plan (CRP) for the Commencement Bay Nearshore TlCleflats and CB-
STC sites. The CRP was designed to promote public awareness of EPA activities and the investigations and
-------
to promote pUblic involvement in the decision-making process. The CRP summarizes the concems of local
citizens, interests groups, industries, and local govemment representatives. In 1991, EPA interviewed
members of the community to gain a better understanding of citizen concems about this site and to ensure
that EPA's planned community relation activities met the community's needs. EPA supplemented the
Tacoma Area CRP to reflect these needs and Identified a variety of activities to inform and involve the public
in the South Tacoma Field RifFS activities leading up to this ROD.
EPA sent out numerous fact sheets during the course of the RifFS process in an effort to keep the public
informed about the progress and results of the investigation. The RI was released to the public in July 1993.
EPA released the FS and Proposed Plan for cleanup in June 1994. The Proposed Plan, which Identified
EPA's preferred cleanup altemative, was mailed to each address contained on the South Tacoma Field
mailing list. All of the documents mentioned above, as well as previous reports from eartier investigations,
were made available to the public in the Administrative Record located at the locations listed below:
Tacoma Public Ubrary
Main Ubrary, Northwest Room
1102 Broadway
Tacoma, Washington 98402
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10
Park Place Building
1200 Sixth Avenue, 7th Aoor Records Center
Seattle, Washington 98101
EPA published a notice of the availability of these documents in the Tacoma News Tribune on June 12,
1994. EPA met with the Tacoma Environmental Commission on June 27,1994, to discuss EPA's Proposed
Plan for cleanup and to answer any questions from commissioners or the public. The public comment period
on the Proposed Plan was held from June 15 through July 15, 1994. EPA held a public meeting on June
28, 1994, which was attended by about ten members of the public. At this meeting, representatives from
EPA and the PRP's consultant gave presentations on, and then answered questions about the proposed
cleanup and the remedial alternatives under consideration. The Responsiveness Summary, which is
Appendix A of this ROD, contains EPA's responses to the written and oral comments that were received
during the comment period. This decision Is based. on the Administrative Record for this site, which is
included as Appendix B of this ROD.
,
,
4.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNITS
In 1983, the CB-STC site was divided into three OUs: the City of Tacoma We1l12A (OU 1), Tacoma Landfill
(OU 2). and STF (OU 3) in order to facDitate the investigation, analysis, and cleanup of this very large site.
These three OUs are geographically separated, and the actions taken on the STF OU will not have an
appreciable effect on environmental conditions at the other OUs. EPA has already selected remedies for
the Tacorna Well 12A OU in a ROD dated May 3,1985, and the Tacoma City Landfill OU in a ROD dated
March 31, 1988. The selected remedies have been implemented at each site. These sites were addressed
first in the process because of the potential or actual ground water contamination that was a threat to
human health. .
The third OU, the STF site, Is the subject of this ROD. The ROD addresses soD and ground water
contamination at the STF site. Potential ingestion of surface soD or ingestion of ground water pose the
principal risk to human health because EPA's acceptable risk range Is exceeded in some site soD, and
concentrations in ground water are consistently greater than maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) near
Pioneer BuDders Supply. The purpose of this response is to prevent current or future exposure to
-------
contaminated soil and ground water. Remedial actions at the STF OU will be the final response actions
under CERCLA to be implemented at the three OUs that make up the Commencement Bay/South Tacoma
Channel site.
5.0 SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
This section describes the sources of contamination. the nature and distribution of contaminants at the site.
and potential contaminant migration pathways. Detailed Information on the site characteristics and the nature
and extent of contamination can be found in the RI, Volumes 1-6.
5.1
SOIL CONDITIONS
The majority of the site Is covered by a thin layer O.e., six Inches or less In thickness) of organic topson
undertain by comparatively organic-free unconsolidated sediment. These Undertying materials are of both
natural and anthropogenic origin.
Due to the historical Industrialization of the site and subsequent demolition of most pre-existing structures
on the STF site, most of the near surface soil at the site has been disturbed. Despite the grading that has
occurred over much of the site. natural processes have resulted In the formation of a thin topsoil in these
areas. Fill materials have been mixed with natural soil. Based on the appearance of the overlying topsoil
alone, fill areas are generally indistinguishable from other areas underlain by naturally deposited sediments.
The topsoil or loam in areas that are underlain by undisturbed soil is typically less than six inches thick and
consists of black to brown sand with some sOt and organic matter.
Most of the soil has been disturbed and. at least in part. Is composed of fill materials. Fill materials generally
ranged from one to three feet in thickness: however, some areas of the site contain fill materials up to 1S
feet thick. These areas Include portions of the Amsted property and portions of the Former
Swamp/Lakebed. Fdl materials in the southem end of the BNR Railyard are generally about six feet thick
but reach a thickness of about eight feet in some areas. The westem and northern portions of the TIP
property also have areas where fdl reaches thicknesses of up to eight feet.
5.2
GROUND WATER AND SURFACE WATER CONCmONS
In general, the regional ground water system in the uppermost unconfined aquifer (upper aquifer) is
characterized by recharge in the Fircrest/Tacoma upland with shallow ground water flow east to the
Puyallup River Valley and west to Puget Sound. The STF site Is located within the Clover/Chambers Creek
surface water drainage basin (Figure 1-1). Based on avaUable data. the STF site lies within a ground water
recharge area. Information gathered during the RI indicates that precipitation and surface water from the
open channel in the westem portion of the site does not typically flow off-site as surface water, except
during major rainfall events. Instead. surface water dissipates by evaporation, transpiration, and infiltration
downward through soil and sediment to recharge the upper aquifer.
The upper aquifer at the STF site occurs within the Calves Sand unit. The top of the upper aquifer was
encountered at depths ranging from near ground surface In the Former Swamp/Lakebed area to
approximately 3S feet below ground surface in the southeastem portion of the site. The depth to the upper
aquifer varies seasonally. by as much as ten feet. over much of the site. These seasonal variations In depth
to the upper aquifer are dependent on climatic conditions and pumping of the City of Tacoma drinking water
production wells located just east of the site.
Based on available potentiometric surface data for the upper aquifer. a natural ground water divide is located
in the vicinity of the South Tacoma Channel. This divide shifts to the west toward or in the vicinity of the
Tacoma Landfill when the City of Tacoma production wells are pumping (Black and Veatch 1987) and the
direction of ground water flow is toward the City of Tacoma wells. Figures 5-1 and 5-2 show the variation
-------
T~-12A
+
T..-,,,,,,
+
..
5T""-2A
2246.
n.
-$-
T
6A
N
~
$
,
...
,"",-raT
.!mES;
I CONTOUR UNtS 'CRt PI.OTTtII USlNC '"
TRIi'NCIJ1.AR IRR£CULAR N[nI()RK PROCRAu
(pc.TIPII 'II. 2.20). MODIFIED AS NECESSAA'Y.
:2 CBS-SA 'US $uBwtRCEC IN SURFACE:
."'T!P CURINe 1'HIS MONITORINC MHT
J oIIIJ. LOCAnaNS lIRE ~TE
c. ALl CONTOURS ME INFtYlRED.
~~;;dA+
T'-'V. +-
...
LEGEND
WQNITORINC ~ LOCATON _TM .AT[$! LE'vt1.
EL!\'AnON IN f'tr." 48CVE M(}.N Su. 1.!Vt.:.
(CfT'o" Of T~ ICVt) 29 YtRn" DATUM)
TACOMA LNmnu. uPCRAOI[NT
~I.OCATIQtilS.
TACOMA PuBuC UTIUTJES PftOOUCf\ON
lIEU. LDCAI1QNS,
-223.0 - =:: ~rtR~ :;:"L!\n.
(
E$IIIAIED H'IOIIAUUC - DlRECIION.
KeMeCly/Jellka COnaultanta
SOUTf; TACOMA F!E:t.D
TACOMA, WA
'FIGURE 5.1 WATER LEYn CONTOUR
-------
in ground water flow direction when the City of Tacoma production wells typically are not in use (Figure 5-1),
and after pumping has occurred for most of the summer months (FIgure 5-2). The presence of this divide
in the vicinity of the South Tacoma Channel Is likely due In part to the absence of the poorly transmissive
glacial till unit that typically overlies the Colvos Sand In the region. The more highly transmissive Calvos
Sand is exposed In the South Tacoma Channel and should promote more rapid infiltration of precipitation
and surface water Into the upper aquifer at the site.
During times when the City of Tacoma was not pumping (AprD and early May 1991), water level data
indicated the formation of a potentiometric "mound" in the upper aquifer In the southern portion of the site
(Figure 5-1). A recharge mound was centered in the vicinity of the Amsted property during the AprD 1991
ground water level monitoring event.
Figure 5-3 presents surface water hydrologic features for the STF site. Although no perennial creeks,
streams, or rivers flow through the STF site, a surface water (storm water) drainage channel Is located below
the bluff along the western portion of the site. The primary source of surface water entering this drainage
channel Is storm water runoff from residential and Industrial areas that discharge from two storm drain
outlets (Le., northern and southern outfalls) along the northwest boundary of the site (Figure 5-3). The storm
drain system Is owned and operated by the City of Tacoma. .
The on-site drainage channel crosses east through the south end of the STF site and feeds into a storm
drain culvert. Water is not usually present in the southern portion of the channel except in response to
heavy rains. The channel continues off-site for 500 feet along Madison Street to approximately 150 feet
north of South 56th Street, at which point the open channel enters a 72-inch storm drain. According to the
RI (Kennedy Jenks Consultants, Volume 5) an estimated 100 mOlion gallons of storm water enter the site,
and only about 15 mOlion gallons leave the site. Surface water from the STF site, combined with other
sources of surface water, discharges from the trunk storm drain to the Aett Creek storm basin approximately
1.4 miles south of the site. Approximately three miles farther' down-stream, Aett Creek discharges into
Chamber Creek, which leads to Chambers Bay on Puget Sound.
A perennial wetland and a possible remnant of the South Tacoma Swamp are located along the on-site
drainage channel. The wetland and swamp remnant are primarDy supported by storm water runoff from the
surface channel. These areas contain standing water through most of the year and support perennial
wetland and riparian woodland ecosystems.
5.3
NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION
During the Remedial Investigation (AI) of the STF site, surface and subsurface soil, ground water, sediment
and surface water Oncluding storm water) were sampled and analyzed for metal (inorganic) and organic
chemicals. In all, over 1,000 soil, ground water, storm water, surface water, and sediment samples were
collected and analyzed as part of the RI. This section summarizes the results of the RI report for the STF
site.
As part of the remedial investigation, the STF site was divided into seven areas for sampling purposes. Soil,
ground water, and surface water were sampled extensively to determine the nature and extent of
contamination. These seven sampling areas (shown in Figure 5-4) include:
.
.
Amsted Property
BNR Dismantling Yard
BNR Railyard
Oncludes Pioneer Builders Supply area)
Tacoma Industrial Properties
Former Swamp/Lakebed Area
Former Airport Area
Tacoma City Ught
.
.
.
.
.
-------
J
/
/
/
/
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
, GRASSLAND
I
! ,
, I'
/ .I II
(( (' , II
! I I ~A$SL~I
.._~ II
! i ' J i
i i : J
I I "
If! ~i
I:/~! !;
'I" :~I i I
.....-- '~~' I:
., '~1 , I r; I'
~}....~ ; . ..MWI wOODl.MC8 . I I;
~\, .w II Ii
--, / ilL,' : i
: I ~ I: rE t I
/ t' /,/' 11 I' \, \, \ r-~III!
I ! \ i ! -: i I
I / : : I!! \ I : '
11 i" --..' I! ii\ I : U L
I I I ~ I i~r: I r
i : i I ii \ ili
,I I c:;. \ \ \ \ i~i
II ~~.. \ i, I~I
\\ Y"1 j:\ \ \ ~I
,'7 ;, \ \ I'
\ I :.~.! \1\ \:'
\ I I I : :' )
\ f' ~I Iii I \\\ \ I
\ i ~ 'I i I I
j , .~. k---L-----l-LlJ l
"1 ,
,
,
I
.J
; i
I,
! I
i i
, i
i i
i;
I
! !
~
c:
;;
o
z
~
z
~
N
~
$
,
""",. ....
i
i
I~
lif
I
, ~
J&nm
RI~ARIAN wooow
-------
5.3.1
Soil
Surface soil, and to a lesser extent subsurface soil, In these areas are contaminated with high levels of lead,
arsenic, copper, and zinc, particularly at the Amsted property and the Burlington Northern Railyard and
Dismantling Yard. The metals occur In an Irregular pattern that Is probably related to specific historical
activities. Figure 5-5 shows the distribution of the lead concentrations over the site. This figure Dlustrates
the irregular distribution with the highest concentrations of lead predominately located on the Amsted
Property and the BNR Dismantling Yard and Rallyard. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were also detected in some. surface and subsurface soil samples.
Concentrations of arsenic, beryllium, and cadmium are also elevated, but to a lesser degree than copper,
lead, and zinc. Antimony, barium, chromium, cobalt, iron, manganese, mercury, and nickel displayed the
least elevation over background concentrations in these areas. Metal concentrations in surface soil samples
from the Former Swamp/Lakebed area are elevated, but to a lesser degree than those from the other areas.
PAHs were also detected in surface 5011 throughout the site at relatively low to moderate concentrations.
Elevated PAH concentrations were detected in some areas where elevated concentrations of metals
occurred (Le., the Amsted property, BNR Dismantling Yard, BNR RaRyard, and Former Swamp/Lakebed.
Elevated concentrations of PAHs, PCBs, and several other organic chemicals were detected In subsurface
soil sampled at and underlying the bottoms of some of the dry wells at the Tacoma City Ught property.
Elevated concentrations of most chemicals were limited to an area within a few feet vertically and
horizontally around the bottoms of the dry wells.
At Pioneer Builders Supply, elevated concentrations of 1,2,4-trlchlorobenzene, PCBs, and petroleum
hydrocarbons were detected in subsurface soli samples in the unsaturated zone beneath and immediately
surrounding the location where three USTs were removed. The petroleum hydrocarbons detected were
toluene, xylenes, and ethyl. benzene, which are constituents of gasoline.
Table 5-1 presents the concentration ranges, mean concentrations for chemicals in soil at the STF portion
of the site, in the Tacoma City Ught dry wells and the surface soli at Pioneer Builders Supply. Due to the
large volume of soil data collected, only Chemicals of Concern (COC)s, as identified in the Human Health
Risk Assessment, are included in these tables. A complete list of chemicals, concentrations, and distribution
in the soil can be found in Volumes 1 and 2 of the RI.
5.3.2
Ground Water
Ground water samples from 26 on and off-site monitoring wells were collected during the ground water
investigation portion of the RI (RI, Volume 4), which included four quarterly sampling events. These 26 wells,
and other nearby, off-site monitoring wells also used In the ground water investigation, are shown in Figures
5-1 and 5-2. The RI ground water analytical results do not indicate the presence of a site-wide contaminant
plume in ground water, but four localized areas of the site were identified where appreciable variat!ons In
shallow ground water chemical quality occurred:
.
The first area Is the Pioneer Builders Supply property where the concentrations of ethyl
benzene, 1, 1.2-trichloroethane, and benzene were detected at concentrations above the
current or proposed federal maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). These chemicals and
a number of other hydrocarbon compounds detected in ground water at this location may
be attributed to a release(s) from the former USTs that were removed from this area.
.
The seconcJ and third areas include contiguous portions of the Airport and Former
Swamp/Lakebed areas, and the former raDcar clean out area in the south end of the BNR
RaDyard. Concentrations of a few Inorganic constituents in these areas occasionally
exceeded MCLs and secondary drinking water standards (for iron and manganese).
-------
I
I
i
I
I
II
I~
I!
I
I
i FOIM8I SWAMI'I
i LAUIID ~IIEA
j,
II
II
I
!
AllPORT AREA
- RAILYAIIO
I
,
I;
i !ACOMA
I~
I
!
~
.~ 'III
J~~
s ~TW STR[[T
: :
iJ~r~ ~
!' 2 ~
II<: ~
C'! 1.-.J ~
N
~
$
I
II
i I
'I
! I
I,
~!
~
II
I! I I
J II
i I r
; ,;
III
III
II
Ul
r
ri
~I
\<1
;:
si
II
I!
I
I
I
I
L
I
I~
o
o
LEGEND
I
,
PIONEER BUILDERS SUPPlY - SUBSURFAC~ .,1
T ACOIAA CITY llCHT
OTHER AREAS OF THE SIT SITE I
,
REMEDIATION AREAS
PROPERTY OWNERSHIP
PIONEER BUILDERS SUPPLY - PIONEER BUILDERS SUPPLY CO.
TACOIAA CITY UCHT - TACOIAA PUBUC LiTIUTIES
BNR DISIAANTUNO YARD ~
BNR RAIL YARD .
AIRPORT AREA BURllNOTON NORTHER~ RAJlROAD
FORMER $WAIAP IlAKE8ED AREA
AMSTEC PROPEInY - AMSTED INDUSTRIES. INC.
TACOIAA INDUSTRIAl PROPERTIES:.. TIP IAANAOEIAENT. INC.
CENERAI. PlASTICS - CENERAL PlASTICS IAANUFACTURING CO
PIONEER BUILDERS SUPPLY
>UBSURF ACE REWEDIA TlON AREA
D/' .~ 0
.--o._f[ sc..&.I .. "tr
KeMedv I Jenks Consu/tanta
SOUTH T ':'COMA FIE:.D
TACOMA, WA
FIGURE 5-4 PROPERTY UNIT DESIGNATIONS
-------
000 1000
SCALI: IN F!£1
, I I
. i
I i I LEGEND
. , . , I I
I ! i L.:J LOCATION NOT SAMPLED I
i ' I i OR DATA NOT AVAILABLE I
. i . ! I
I I U 0 TO <20e mg/kg
i I
I 0 200 TO <610 mg/kg I
I
'. . !
" " , ~ 610 TO <1.600 mg/kg I
I . i . I I I
I I i ~ 1.600 TO <2.700 mg/kg I
. ! . I i
i
; . : . I ! . :.700 TO < 10,00C mg/kg I
I I
i . ! I
. ~ ~ 0.000 mg/kg
i - I
I I
,
)
,/
//
N
t
KeMedv I Jenks Consultants
SOUTH TACOMA FIELD
TACOMA, WA
RGURE 5'5 LEAD DISTRlBunON IN
-------
fl.-IV.
-+
i
//'
;/
/:~~;.
NIIW-6A
~ --Q21S'0 ~
,./ 21'.77 -....-
'\/ ~..,..~~
I // / /
I \ ._.~ "., /
)1 ~:' /q:~~,:
- .' "~7.,~(./ -.
; .//" /" ~ ...../' ~/ 4A
TL-I3>....... ( !! ;' :.1 ,/ II '\'
--F I I , I ~ ! ' I:
! I - I ! . I
II. \ \ I C I ! ! i
\, \ \ I! I Ii
1\ . \ \\ !z![!i
! \ \ \ " C! I !
I '. . .\ \ ,:::! I
I \ C9S-6A \ \.~., --r7 ii!
I ~12.e.' \ ,/'\ \ \ \ \ \: \
'''(. ),/ .. . '. , \ \, ,
I N",W-'A . - ., \ \ \\\\i '\
I 2'286 /+ \ \" ., . .\ \:'" CBS-7A
". ./ \ , ... \\ h<~ 209."
I '" /' ~~i;~A'.>,. \,\>~!:,;...~
"" -, '.: ','"
I '~-'/X"'" "r "",,<.\ '>.
I "..> ' .
I '.. ',/;O ", ;
~ / " """ 'I
'!.. / ~~.J -.... \
-+ . -,: C!!';-I2A.5 , --.
. ~".OC ~ -,
.TL-23> . .---1
I NW"-,1.&. 214.0' II
I 214.04 -
~2150' \
NMW-2.1- ~2~60 -l
215.53 1~7'~" c'--:
CBs-eA 1:- ""'50+. "". "-t' CBS-"A
216.25 1"" 2165€ / . / 217.93
I . -: CBS-u. / .
I ,",w-.'". / + 217.1 ~/ .Ii
J ~~/..-" / \
1/ /. - 7\'.~-- "'J '
I, /+ 2~6~A . 7'&C -:~w-'". \
. I / //_. 21e." +....1
). i 'I .,~/ \
C9S-5O I ~ I ...L C95-' OA
CBS-9A 21B.39 -+~4 ; -""-21B.7e
216.97 SIM-" SIII-'". !
. 2le.e k-- -+ 219.52 \
5TII-3> STII-2A
218.50 218.63
TI.-14A
4--
-$-
11A
-$-
6A
N
~
,
"""..""
NOT"S
I. COr.'TO!flI: LINES -CI'£ PlCTTtO VSI~C .
T~ ~CULAR N('T'8IOIho PROC.AAW
(pcTVol v. :.20.. WODlF1ED .\S NECESs.urr
: CBS-7A -AS [IRV OuRINC 1'H:S wQNrroltlNC
['V[N':' THE ELtvaTOh or THE wE;.~ BOnO"
....s USED -.s TW£ -aT'[R ~ (",('VATlO'"
.~ 4L1 lOCATIONS ARt ~I""T[
4. AU. CONT~ ARE INF'ERREO
LEGEND
~~:;,U''''
MONITOR"''' WtLl LOCAnoN WIT" ....Try:..£\lt:. !
E.LE\'aTlO~ IN rtr. A8O'F. wtaN SEJ. L..C'\ItL !
(CITY or TACOMA NCW 29 VERTICAi.. OATUW)
,
i
i T"-:-12A'"
i
I
I-'''~-
TACQI6t, I.JHOF'IL1. IJPCItAD€NT
WELL I.OCAfOH~.
"v
TAC()W. Pu8U: UTUnES 'Roovcm..
WELl. LOCATONS.
~OX*"TE: -alUl lM'- £l£VanON
C~TOUR IN FUT A8CM wENI S~ LML
rsnllAltD MVDRAWC CI!AOItN, ORrcrION.
Kennedy I Jenka Colllllltanta
! SOUTH TACOMA FIELD
I TACOMA, WA
\. FIGURE 5-2 WATER LEVR CONTOUR MAP
OF UPPER AQUIFER, 17 OCTOBER 1"1
-------
TABLE 5-1
CHEMICAL CONCENTRATION RANGES AND MEAN CONCENTRATIONS
FOR SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE SOIL AT STF AREAS
AND TACOMA CITY LIGHT DRY WELLS
STF Site Areas (mg/kg) (b,c,d) Tacoma City Light Dry Wells (mg/kg) (c,d)
Chemicals (8) Range Mean Dlstrlbutlon(e) Range Mean Dlstrlbutlon(e)
Inoraanlcs
AlumInum 1,350-178,000 14,100 NP jf) NA (9) NA
AntImony 1.2-1,150 14.7 NP 1.2-15.6 4.0 NP
Arsenic 0.12-696 12.4 IN 1.1-133 9.8 NP
Bervlllum 0.090-14.4 0.53 IN n NA NA
Cadmium 0.075-29.9 0.96 IN 0.11-2.4 0.31 NP
ChromIum (Iolal) 2.9-896 50.3 NP 12.4-2,300 100 NP
Copper 5.8-163,000 1,160 NP -- NA NA
lead 1.1-118,000 179 IN 1.0-838 41.1 NP
Manganese 22.7-27,000 866 NP -- NA NA
Mercury 0.0036-5.3 0.22 NP 0.0018-0.40 0.058 NP
Vanadium 0.34-529 46.8 NP -- NA NA
-------
- ~ - -
- - - -
- - - ~ --
TABLE 5-1 (Continued)
CHEMICAL CONCENTRATION RANGES, AND MEAN CONCENTRATIONS
FOR SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE SOIL AT STF AREAS
AND TACOMA CITY LIGHT DRY WELLS
STF Site Areas (mg/kg) (b,c,d) Tacoma City Light Dry Wells (mg/kg) (c,d)
Chemicals (a) Range Mean Distribution (e) Range Mean Dlstrlbutlon(e)
Orcanlcs
Aldrin -- NA NP 0.0042-9.5 0.28 NP
Carbazole -- NA NP 0.11-120 3.6 NP
Carclnocenlc PAHs (total) 0.0040-42.4 0.33 LN 0.040-141 4.5 NP
1,3' .Dlchlorobenzene .. NA NP 0.18-28.0 1.0 NP
1,4' -Dichlorobenzene n NA NP 0.020-28.0 1.1 NP
3-3' .Dlchlorobenzldine 0.043-9.7 0.68 NP 0.18-28.0 1.5 NP
PCBs (total) 0.17-56.0 8.6 NP 0.10-840 5.8 LN
PentachloroDhenol NA NP 0.24-150 4.7 NP
Phenanthrene -- NA NP 0.0050-150 4.0 NP
(a) Reference: ICF (1993).
(b) STF areas Include BNA Dismantling Yard, BNR Railyard (Including surface soil at Pioneer Builders Supply), Amsted property, Former Swamp/Lake bed,
Airport, and TIP. The STF Human Health Risk Assessment Report (ICF 1993) did not Identify chemicals of concern In subsurface soli based on exposure
via Ingestion for Pioneer Builders Supply.
(c) Concentrations from Kennedy/Jenks Consultants (1993b,c).
(d) Undetected analytes may be Included as one-half of the detection limit for the minimum concentration.
(e) LN Indicates a lognormal sample distribution; geometric mean Is reported. NP Indicates a non parametric sample distribution; arlthmetrlc mean Is reported.
(f) "n" = Not a chemical of concern.
-------
.
The fourth area includes the Amsted property where a relatively small volume of nearty
immiscible. heavy fuel oil was encountered floating on the surface of the water table. The
hydrocarbon contamination in this area was Investigated under a separate Consent Order
with EPA Region 10.
Table 5-2 lists COCs for ground water in the STF area and Pioneer BuDders Supply. Table 5-3 lists
chemicals found in the ground water related to the petroleum product found at the Amsted Property. A
complete listing of chemicals found In ground water at the site can be found In Volume 4 of the RI, and in
the Subsurface Investigation, Former Griffin Wheel Brass Foundry Final Report, Amsted Industries (Kennedy /
Jenks Consultants 1992).
During the Feasibility Study, additional soil and ground water data were collected to confirm that leaching
of inorganic chemicals does not pose a threat to ground water. The additional data included results from:
.
Collecting two rounds (November 1993 and February 1994) of ground water $8mples from
four new monitoring wells Installed where lead concentrations were elevated In subsurface
son.
.
Performing a column leaching test on soil from the BNR Dismantling Yard and the Amsted
Property and using the data to model the mobnlty of lead in STF site soU.
Lead was chosen as the indicator chemical for these tests due to the high volume (and concentration) of
lead contaminated soli at the site.
The ground water wells were screened (over a five-foot Interval) at the top of the water table to determine
the concentration of lead in ground water immediately below the unsaturated zone. Detected concentrations
of lead in ground water samples at the top of the aquifer were comparable to the concentrations found in
the ground water during the RI, at wells which were screened over a greater interval (10-20 feet) and at
deeper portions of the aquifer.
The purpose of the column leaching test was to look at the potential migration of lead from contaminated
soil, through a cleaner layer of undertying soil, Into the ground water. The .data were used in the model
SESOIL and VLEACH to assess the long term potential for ground water impacts resulting from the presence
of lead at the site.
The modelling results provided evidence that lead is leached slowly from the contaminated soil and then is
quickly adsorbed with a relatively short vertical distance in the undertying soil. Modelling of soil from both
the BNR Dismantling Yard and the Amsted Property data indicated that after 99 years, the average predicted
chemical migration front depth would be less than half an inch in the lower soil zone. After 500 years. the
chemical migration front depth Is predicted to be less than two feet below the upper soil zone. The
information collected during these investigations confirmed previous RI data that lead migration In the soil
does not pose a threat to ground water quality at the STF site.
5.3.3
Surface Water and Sediment
This portion of the RI characterized the types and concentration of chemicals detected in surface water and
sediment samples collected from the wetland/drainage channel area (Figure 5-3). The major source of
contamination in on-site surface water and sediment is surface water run-on from two storm drain outfalls
that drain nearby areas of the city. The detected concentrations are characteristic of urban runoff. Inorganic
chemicals detected in storm water run-on samples were generally detected at higher concentrations than
those detected in monthly (base flow) run-on samples with the exception of major cations (calcium,
magnesium, potassium, and sodium). These major cations were detected at higher concentrations in the
monthly surface water run-on samples. The metals in on-site surface water samples were generally detected
at higher concentrations in the vicinity of and directly downstream from the storm water outfalls than in the
samples collected throughout the remainder of the downstream channel. EPA acute fresh water quality
-------
-- -. -
--- ---
- - - -
- - -
- -- -
TABLE 5-2
CHEMICAL CONCENTRATION RANGES AND MEAN CONCENTRATIONS
FOR GROUNDWATER ATSTF AREAS AND PIONEER BUILDERS SUPPLY.
STF Site Areas (,lglL (b,c,d) Pioneer Builders Supply (,lg/L) (c,d)
Chemical (8) Range Mean Dlstributlon(e) Range Mean Dlstrlbutlon(e)
Inorganlcs
Aluminum (f) 8.0-5,940 50.2 LN _Jf) NA (g) NA
Antimony 5.5-50.7 14.6 NP -- NA NA
Arsenic 0.50-50.9 2.1 LN 6.2-13.8 10.1 LN
Boron 8.7-1,940 183 LN 447-613 501 LN
Cobalt 1.5-218 5.4 NP -- NA NA
Copper 0.5-19.7 2.3 NP -- NA NA
ManQanese 0.50-4,160 24.4 LN 3,410-5,200 4,547 LN
Nickel 3.4-1,950 33.3 NP -- NA NA
Selenium 0.50-26.8 1.7 NP -- NA NA
Sliver 1.5-10.6 2.5 NP -- NA NA
Vanadium 1.7-30.5 4.3 NP -- NA NA .
Zinc 1.0-726 19.8 NP .. NA NA
Oraanlcs
Benzene -- NA NA 86.0-480 240 LN
-------
TABLE 5-2 (Continued)
CHEMICAL CONCENTRATION RANGES AND MEAN CONCENTRATIONS
FOR GROUNDWATER AT STF AREAS AND PIONEER BUILDERS SUPPLY
STF She Areas (,tg/L) (b,c,d) Pioneer Builders Supply (,tg/L) (c,d)
Chemical (8) Range Mean Distribution (e) Range Mean Dlstrlbutlon(e)
Oraanlcs (continued)
Chloroform 1.0-20.0 5.0 NP n NA NA
2 4-DlmethylpHenol -- NA NA 5.0-61.0 17.5 LN
Ethvlbenzene -- NA NA 150-1,000 482 LN
Hexanone -- NA NA 5.0-50.0 23.6 LN
2-Methylnaphthalene -- NA NA 15.0-47.0 28.5 LN
Nachthalene -- NA NA 30.0-190 84.3 LN
T etrachloroethene 3.0-5.0 4.9 NP -- NA NA
Toluene -- NA NA 51.0-770 253 LN
1,1,2- Trichloroethane -- NA NA 5.0-51.0 23.8 LN
Trlchloroethene 1.0-6.0 4.8 NP n NA NA
Xylenes (totaQ -- NA NA 141-2,300 783 LN
i Reference: ICF (1993).
b STF areas Include BNR Dismantling Yard, BNR Rallyard, Amsted property, Former Swamp/Lakebed, Airport, and TIP.
c Concentrations from Kennedy/Jenks Consultants (1993b,c).
Undetected .analytes may be Included as one-half of the detection limit for the mInimum concentration.
e LN Indicates a lognormal sample distribution; geometric mean Is reported. NP Indicates a nonparametrlc sample distribution; arlthmetrlc mean Is reported.
f) "--" = Not a chemical of concern.
-------
criteria were exceeded in surface water samples collected during the investigation for the chemical shown
in Table 5-4. .
Table 5-3
Chemicals of Concern In Ground Water
at the Amsted Property
CHEMICAL MAXIMUM CONCENTRATION DETECTED
IN GROUNDWATER ug/L
Acenapthene 1.0J
Carbazole 0.6J
Auoranthene 4.3
Auorene 2.0J
2-Methytnaphthalene 5.0J
Naphthalene 3.0J
Phenathrene 2.9
Pyrena 4.0
J is a laboratory qualifier that indicates estimated value
Table 5-4
Chemicals Exceeding Acute Fresh Water Quality Criteria
I Chemical I Maximum Concentration ug/L !
Aluminum 80.900
Cadmium 18.3
Copper 2.980
Lead 219
Silver 10.8
Zinc 3,160
Run-off from the site was generally of better quality than run-on. and the quantity of runoff was significantly
less than the estimated run-on. Detaned information on the quality of storm water run-on and run-off can
be found in Volume 5 of the RI.
-------
Elevated concentrations of several chemicals were consistently detected in on-site sediment, as listed in
Table 5-5. .
Table 5-5
Chemicals Consistently Detected In On-slte Sediment
Chemical Maximum Concentration mg/kg
Arsenic 93.8
Cadmium 18.0
Chromium (total) 614.0
Copper 884.0
Lead 2050.0
Mercury 1.6
Zinc 2460.0
Carcinogenic PAH 200.0
Detailed information on the chemicals found in sediments, Including concentration ranges and distribution
in the wetlands/drainage channel can be found in Volume 5 of the RI.
6.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
The Human Health Risk Assessment Report (HHRAR) for the STF site was prepared to address the human
health risks from site contamination (EPA 1993). The HHRAR evaluated risks due to contamination in
surface soil, ground water, surface water, and sediment at the site. The HHRAR Is an evaluation of the risks
that potentially exist If no remedial action were undertaken on the site. The results of the HHRAR are also
used to decide whether remedial action is appropriate and which exposure pathways require remediation.
This section of the ROD reports the results of the baseline risk assessment conducted for this site. which
was completed according to EPA Region 10 risk assessment guidelines.
The STF HHRAR covers six areas within the STF site: Dismantling Yard. Railyard, Amsted property, Airport,
Swamp, and the TIP.
The STF HHRAR and the summary of site risks presented In this ROD (Sections 6.1 through 6.5) are
composed of fIVe sections: identification of chemicals of concern (COC), exposure assessment, toxicity
assessment, and risk characterization, which Is an Integration and summary of the Information gathered and
analyzed in the preceding sections. and an analysis of the uncertainty In developing a HHRAR. A summary
of the ecological HHRAR findings is presented In Section 6.6.
6.1
IDENTIFICATION OF CHEMICALS OF CONCERN
COC were Identified for surface and subsurface soD based on Incidental ingestion and on the potential for
infiltration to ground water, and for ground water, surface water, and sediments, and air. The methods used
to identify COC for each environmental medium of concern are discussed in detail in the HHRAR. The COC
identified in the HHRAR at the site are as follows:
-------
6.1.1
Surface and Subsurface Soil
For the identification of cac in surface and subsurface soD, the maximum concentration of a chemical in
the soil was compared to the risk-based screening level (RBSL) for that chemical. RBSLs were calculated
based on guidance published In the EPA Recion 10 SucDlemental Risk Assessment Guidance for Sucerfund
(August 16, 1991). The RBSL for chemicals observed In soD is equivalent to the concentration of a given
chemical that yields an excess lifetime cancer risk of 1 x 10.7 or a noncancer hazard quotient of 0.1,
whichever Is less, when exposure occurs by the Ingestion route. According to EPA guidance, other potential
routes of e~sure, e.~., Inhalation or dermal contact, are accounted for by reducing the basis of the RBSL
from 1 x 10 to 1 x 10. . An RBSL could not be calculated for lead; therefore, the soB cleanup level for lead
of 500 mg/kg (residential) or 1,000 mg/kg Qndustrial) was used as the screening level (aSWER Directive
9355.4-02).
The list of cac Identified by comparison to RBSLs was further refined by consideration of the frequency of
detection, and for metals, a comparison of background concentrations. .Chemlcals that exceeded their
RBSLs in no more than three samples from a sampling area were eliminated as cac for that area. For
background comparisons, a chemical whose maximum measured concentration exceeded the maximum
background concentration for that chemical no more than once was eliminated as a chemical of concern.
A complete list of the surface and subsurface son cac retained for consideration In the risk assessment can
be found in the HHRAR (EPA 1993). The most significant of these chemicals from a human health
perspective are listed for each sampling area below:
.
Dismantling Yard - arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, PAHs, and PCBs;
.
Rallyard - arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, PAHs, and PCBs;
.
Amsted Property - arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, and mercury;
.
Airport - arsenic, cadmium; chromium, lead, mercury, and PAHs;
.
Swamp - arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, and PAHs; and
.
TIP - PAHs.
6.1.2
Ground Water
For the identification of cac in ground water, the maximum concentration measured for a given chemical
for each well for each quarter was compared to an RBSL If a chemical exceeded its RBSL for a given well
for a given quarter, that chemical was retained for further consideration.
RBSLs for ground water were calculated based on guidance published in the EPA Recion 10 Succlemental
Risk Assessment Guidance for Sucerfund (August 16,1991). The RBSL for a chemical observed In ground
water is equivalent to the concentration of a given chemical that yields an excess lifetime cancer risk of 1
x 1006 or a noncancer hazard quotient of 0.1, whichever Is less. The RBSL calculation for ground water
includes the ingestion and Inhalation routes of exposure. An RBSL could not be calculated for lead in
ground water; therefore, the lead MCL (15Ilg/L) was used as the screening level.
The list of chemicals of potential concem identified by comparison to RBSLs was further refined by
comparison to background concentrations measured in four background wells. Chemicals with maximum
measured concentrations that exceeded their background concentration for any quarter were retained as
cae for the well In which they were observed.
-------
A complete list of the ground water COC retained for consideration in the risk assessment are presented
in the HHRAR (EPA 1993). The most significant of these chemicals from a human health perspective are
arsenic. manganese. benzene, chloroform, and tetrachloroethylene.
6.1.3
Surface Water and Sediments
For the identification of COC In surface water, the RBSL exposure frequency and water Ingestion rate
assumptions were modified to account for a recreational receptor. The exposure frequency was assumed
to be 78 days per year (1.5 times per week) and the water Ingestion rate was assumed to be 0.2 liters per
day. The net change In the RBSL compared to a residential drinking water Ingestion RBSL was 45 times
higher for carcinogens and 4.5 times higher for noncarclnogens. The RBSL basis was 1 x 10~ for excess
lifetime cancer risk and 0.1 for noncancer hazard. Based on a comparison of the maximum concentration
of a given chemical measured in the surface water to the RBSL for that chemical, arsenic. beryllium, and
the carcinogenic PAHs were Identified as COCo
For the identification of COC In sediments, a recreational RBSL was also developed. This exposure scenario
was based on an exposure frequency of 78 days per year and a sediment Ingestion rate of 200 mg per day
of exposure. The RBSL basis was the same as that for soil ingestion, i.e., 1 x 10.7 for excess lifetime cancer
risk and 0.1 for noncancer hazard. Based on a comparison of the maximum concentration of a given
chemical measured in sediment to the sediment RBSL for that chemical, arsenic, beryllium, and the
carcinogenic PAHs were Identified as COCo
6.1.4
Air
An air dispersion screening analysis was conducted to identify COC that might be present in airborne dust
generated from the STF site. The dispersion modeling indicated that arsenic was the only coe that might
exceed the RBSL for the Inhalation pathway. Because the exceedance was less than . one order of
magnitude. EPA determined that the Inhalation pathway was not of concern at the STF site and need not
be considered further in the risk assessment.
6.2
EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
The objective of the exposure assessment is to estimate the type and magnitude of exposures to the
chemicals of potential concern that are present at or migrating from a site.
The degree of risk associated with the contamination at the STF site for a given individual is dependent upon
the degree to which that individual is exposed. which Is influenced primarily by the types and duration of
activities conducted on the property. At the present time, portions of the site are used for industrial
purposes. Nonetheless. trespassers (adults and children) have been observed visiting the property to fly
model airplanes and to engage in other recreational activities. In the future, the site might continue to be
used for industrial purposes or be developed for recreational or residential purposes. The evaluations
presented in the risk assessment. therefore, were conducted considering three primary site uses: industrial,
residential. and recreational.
Exposure scenarios for workers on-site, residents, and recreationalists were developed for exposure to
contaminants by several routes. For workers at the site, the routes evaluated were exposures to chemicals
resulting from Ingestion of soil, skin contact with soil, and Ingestion of ground water used as drinking water.
For on-site residents the routes evaluated were ingestion of son. skin contact with son, ingestion of ground
water used for drinking water. and inhalation of components volatilized from ground water during showering.
For recreationalists at the site. the routes evaluated were exposure to contaminants resulting from Ingestion
of son, skin contact with son. and Ingestion of surface water and sediments during play. The portion of the
site containing surface water and sediments is considered wetlands, and as such. residential or industrial
use of that area Is thought to be unlikely.
-------
6.2.1
Quantifying Exposures
Estimates of chemical intake by the potential receptors identified for the STF site involved the development
of simplifying assumptions. EPA's standard default exposure assumptions were used in the STF exposure
assessment for quantifying exposure by soil ingestion, dermal contact. and drinking water ingestion (HHRAR
Section 3.0). For surface water and sediment exposures, site-specific Information and best professional
judgment were Incorporated to develop a realistic evaluation of exposure for the STF site (HHRAR Section
3.2.3). The exposure assumptions used in the STF risk assessment to evaluate exposures of potential future
residents, workers, and recreationaJists are presented in detail in the HHRAR. These assumptions were
incorporated. along with chemical concentration data, into equations used to estimate the chronic daily
intake (CDI) of the COCo The exposure point concentrations used to estimate the CDI for soil ingestion and
dermal contact with soil were the maximum concentration of a given chemical detected in a given grid
sample; a CDI was, therefore, calculated for each son sample collected (HHRAR Appendix F). For ground
water ingestion and Inhalation, the maximum concentration detected in a given well at any time was used
to calculate the CDI; a CDI was, therefore, calculated for each well (HHRAR Appendix F).
6.3
TOXICITY ASSESSMENT
The purpose of the toxicity assessment of a human health risk assessment is to weigh available evidence
regarding the potential for particular contaminants to cause adverse effects In exposed individuals and to
provide, where possible, an estimate of the relationship between the extent of exposure to a contaminant
and the increased likelihood and/or severity of adverse effects.
EPA has performed the toxicity assessment step for many chemicals and publishes the resulting toxicity
values on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) or in the .Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables
(HEAST) which have undergone extensive peer review. These toxicity values are slope factors (SFs) for the
evaluation of carcinogenicity, and reference doses (RIDs), for the evaluation of noncancerous effects. SFs
and RIDs are described in more detail below. IRIS and HEAST are the sources of the SFs and RfDs used
in risk assessment.
SFs have been developed for estimating excess lifetime cancer risks associated with exposure to potentially
carcinogenic contaminant(s) of concern. SFs, which are expressed in units of (mg/kg-day)", to provide an
upper-bound estimate of the excess lifetime cancer risk associated with exposure at a given intake level.
The term "upper bound" reflects the conservative estimate of the risks calculated from the SF. Use of this
approach makes underestimation of the actual cancer risk highly unlikely. SFs are derived from the results
of human epidemiological studies or chronic animal bioassays to which animal-to-human extrapolation and
uncertainly factors have been applied (e.g., to account for the use of animal data to predict effects on
humans).
RIDs have been developed by EPA for Indicating the potential for adverse health effects from exposure to
contaminant(s) of concem exhibiting noncarcinogenic effects. RfDs, which are expressed in units of mg/kg-
per day, are estimates of lifetime dany exposure levels for humans, including sensitive Individuals. Estimated
intakes of contaminant(s) of concern from environmental media (e.g., the amount of a contaminant(s) of
concern Ingested from contaminated drinking water) can be compared to the RID. RfDs are derived from
human epidemiological studies or animal studies to which uncertainty factors have been applied (e.g., to
account for the use of animal data to predict effects on humans).
6.4
RISK CHARACTERIZATION
The risk characterization involves the integration of the exposure assessment and the toxicity assessment
into quantitative and qualitative expressions of risk. To characterize potential noncancerous effects,
comparisons are made between projected Intakes of substances and toxicity values; to characterize potential
carcinogenic effects, probabnlties that an Individual will develop cancer over a lifetime of exposure are
estimated from the CDI and the toxicity values presented in the toxicity assessment section.
-------
For carcinogens, risks are estimated as the Incremental probability of an Individual developing cancer over.
a lifetime as a result of exposure to the carcinogen. These risks are probabilities that are generally
expressed In scientific notation (e.g.. 1 x 10-6). An excess lifetime cancer risk of 1 x 10-6 Indicates that, as
a reasonable maximum estimate. an Individual has a 1 In 1.000.000 chance of developing cancer as a result
of site-related exposure to a carcinogen over a 7o-year lifetime under the specific exposure conditions at
a site.
The potential for noncarcinogenic effects Is evaluated by comparing an exposure level over a specified time
period (e.g., lifetime) with a reference dose derived for a simUar exposure period. The ratio of exposure to
toxicity is called a hazard quotient (HO). By adding the HOs for all contaminant(s) of concem that affects
the same target organ (e.g.. liver) within a medium or across all media to which a given population may
reasonably be exposed, the Hazard Index (HI) can be generated.
This risk characterization seCtion summarizes the major findings of the detailed risk evaluation presented
in the HHRAR (Section 5.0). For soli. the results are presented by area as follows: Dismantling Yard.
Railyard. Amsted. Airport. Swamp. and TIP. 'For ground water. the results are presented for each of the
ground water monitoring wells on the site. taking Into account the concentrations c~rrently found In the
wells. as well as the concentrations that could occur If the soD contaminants were to leach to ground water.
Sediment and surface water Ingestion in the wetlands were considered under the recreational scenario only.
(Residential or Industrial development of the wetlands was not considered likely.) For all media. results are
discussed for workers. residents. and recreationalists.
Because of the large volume of data and the division of the site Into six areas of evaluation. a modified
approach to the risk characterization was used In the HHRAR. For the risk characterization of soU, excess
lifetime cancer risk estimates and noncancer hazard quotients were calculated for each sample collected.
Each sample represents a grid location. This approach generated a distribution of cancer risks and hazard
quotients for a given area. For example, in the Dismantling Yard the cancer risk distribution under a
residential scenario was as follows:
.
0.4% of the samples collected had concentrations of carcinogenic chemicals that yielded
excess lifetime cancer risks of 2:. 1 x 10.3; ,
49% of the samples were in the range of 1 X 1 O~ to < 1 x 10.3;
'.
.
.
50% of the samples were in the range of 1 x 10.5 to <1 x 10~; and
And the remaining 0.4% of the samples yielded cancer risks from 1 x 10-6 to < 1 x 10.5. .
.
Since the high end of the NCP acceptable risk range for cancer risk Is 1 x 10~, the residential scenario
distribution for the Dismantling Yard indicates that nearty 50% of this area exceeds this benchmark. Similar
distributions for noncancer HOs were also developed.
For the evaluation of the ground water ingestion and Inhalation pathways. excess lifetime cancer risks and
noncancer HOs were calculated for each monitoring well to create distributions similar to those developed
for soli exposure pathways.
Toxicity values. SFs or RfDs. are not available on IRIS or HEAST for lead; therefore, the excess lifetime
cancer risk and the noncancer hazard due to the presence of lead at STF cannot be quantified. EPA has
published lead cleanup standards for use at residential and industrial sites (OSWER Directive 9355.4.(2).
The residential cleanup level is 500 mg lead/kg soU; and for industrial sites, 1000 mg lead/kg soli. These
cleanup levels were used for the evaluation of son lead concentrations at STF.
The excess lifetime cancer risks and noncancer HOs developed for worker exposures at the six areas
covered in the HHRAR are presented by area In the following sections. The risk characterization for the
residential and recreational exposure scenarios are discussed briefly. As would be expected. cancer risk
-------
and noncancer hazard under the industrial scenario is generally slightly less than that for the residential
scenario, and slightly greater than that for the recreational scenario.
In the following discussion, excess lifetime cancer risk and noncancer hazard associated with surface soD
ingestion are discussed first because this pathway yields the greatest risk or hazard. The ingestion of
subsurface soU or dermal contact with soil exposure pathways are discussed where cancer risk exceeds 1
x 1 O~ or a noncancer HO of one. A discussion of cancer risk and noncancer hazard associated with ground
water ingestion or Inhalation follows the soil discussion. The cancer risks associated with Ingestion of
surface water were less than 1 X 10-6 and the noncancer hazard Is less than one; therefore. the risks
associated with this pathway wDl not be discussed further. Ingestion of sediments did not yield a
recreational scenario cancer risk greater than 1 X 10~ nor a HO greater than one; therefore. the potential
health effects associated with this pathway Will not be discussed further.
An excess lifetime cancer risk range of 10-4 to 10-6 (1 in 10,000 to 11n 1,000,000) is the NCP acceptable risk
range. Noncancer health effects are expressed as a Hazard Index (HI). His less than one generally are
believed not to be associated with adverse health effects.
6.4.1
Dismantling Yard
For surface son Ingestion under the Industrial scenario, more than 99% of the soil samples collected in the
Dismantling Yard yielded excess lifetime cancer risks less than 1 x 10~. The presence of arsenic was the
primary contributor to cancer risk (Figure 6-1). PCBs, carcinogenic PAHs, and beryllium also contribute to
the cancer risk. SimDarly, more than 99% of the soD samples yielded noncancer HOs less than 1; and the
hazard was largely a result of the presence of arsenic (Figure 6-1). Cancer risk and noncancer hazard
estimates for dermal contact with soli and for Ingestion of subsurface soU were less than for surface soli.
Lead concentrations exceed the 1,000 mg/kg industrial soD cleanup level in 42% of the soil samples
collected which roughly represents 42% of the Dismantling Yard area. Lead concentrations exceed 500
mg/kg in 63% of the soli samples. .
For surface soil Ingestion under the residential scenario, 49% of the soli samples collected in the Dismantling
Yard yielded an excess lifetime cancer risk of 1 x 10~. Approximately 50% of the soil samples yielded
cancer risks In the range of 1 X 10.5. The presence of arsenic was the primary contributor to cancer risk.
PCBs, carcinogenic PAHs, and beryllium also contribute to the cancer risk. Under an adult residential
exposure scenario, noncancer hazard quotients exceeded 1 In 13% of the soU samples and under a child
residential scenario; noncancer hazard quotients exceeded 1 In 83% of the soil samples. The noncancer
hazard for both adult and child scenarios was largely a result of the presence of arsenic.
Lead concentrations exceed the 500 mg/kg residential soD cleanup level In 63% of the soli samples collected
which roughly represents 63% of the Dismantling Yard area.
6.4.2
Railyard
More than 99% of the surface soli sampling grid locations In the RaDyard yielded excess lifetime cancer risks
less than 1 X 10~ (Figure 6-2). The cancer risks were largely due to arsenic with minor contributions from
PCBs and PAHs. Noncancer HOs were less than one for all but two sampling locations (of approximately
165 locations). The presence of arsenic was the basis for most of the noncancer hazard.
Lead concentrations exceed 1,000 mg/kg at 46 sampling locations (approximately 28% of the RaDyard area)
and exceed 500 mg/kg at 75 sampling locations (approximately 46%).
Approximately 32% of the surface soD sampling grid locations In the Rallyard yielded excess lifetime cancer
risks of 1 x 1 O~ or less (HHRAR Section 5.2.2). The remaining 68% of the sampling loCations were at or less
than 1 x 10.5. The cancer risks were largely due to arsenic with minor contributions from PCBs and PAHs.
-------
"
0-
0,
rn
c
.S?
16
u
o
...J
C)
.5
15.
E
t'D
CJ)
-
o
'E
Q)
~
Q)
Cl..
100
80
60
40
20
o
E.7 10 E-6
Figure 6-1.
Distribution of Excess Lifetime
Cancer Risk and Non Cancer
Hazard at the Dismantling Yard
(Industrial Exposure)
i1~~~j$~tt~
:::~:::::::::::::::::
~t1~t1~~i~~~~~
I
~~~mm~~~:
~~~~~~~~~~~j~~
E-6 to E.5
E-5 to E-4
E-410 E-3
HQ<1
1 < HQ < 3
Cancer Risk
-------
Figure 6-2.
Distribution of Excess Lifetime
Cancer Risk and Noncancer Hazard
at the Railyard (Industrial Exposure)
100
(f.I
c:
.2
16 80
u
0
....I
C1
.5 60
a.
E
co
en 40
'0
c:
OJ 20
f::?
-. OJ
a.
0 E.7 to E.o E.o to E.5
E.5 to E-4 E-4 to E.3
Cancer Risk
."
/~
HQ< 1
Hazard Quotient
-------
Noncancer hazard quotients under the adult residential scenario were 1 or more at 11 % of the sampling
locations. The presence of arsenic was the basis for most of the noncancer hazard.
6.4.3
Amsted Property
Excess lifetime cancer risk for the surface soU ingestion pathway did not exceed 1 x 10" nor a HO of one
at any sampling location on the Amsted property (Figure 6-3).
Lead concentrations exceed 1000 mg/kg at 20 sampling locations, representing approximately 47 % of the
Amsted property. .
Under the residential exposure scenario, excess lifetime cancer risk for the surface soD ingestion pathway
was equal to or less than 1 x 10" at 30% of the sampling grid locations (which represents approximately
30% of the site), ~ 1 X 10.5 at 66% of the site, and ~ 1 x 10~ at 5% of the site (HHRAR Section 5.2.3).
Under an adult residential scenario, the noncancer hazard Index exceeded one at 34% of the sites, and for
the child scenario, 70%. The noncancer hazard is largely due to arsenic and copper with some contribution
by antimony and zinc.
6.4.4
Airport
Arsenic and, to a lesser extent, PAHs account for the excess lifetime cancer risk associated with the surface
soil samples collected from the Airport area. No sampling locations exceeded a cancer risk of 1 x 10", only
one sampling location yielded a cancer risk between1 x 10.5 and 1 x 10" (Figure 6-4). The remainder of
the site was less than 1 x 10.5. No sampling location yielded a noncancer HO greater than one.
Lead concentrations exceeded 1.000 mg/kg at two sampling locations which represents only 4% of the
Airport area.
Arsenic and, to a lesser extent, PAHs account for the excess lifetime cancer risk associated with the
residential exposure scenario at the Airport area. All sampling locations yielded excess lifetime cancer risks
in the range of 1 x 10" or less. No sampling location yielded a noncancer hazard quotient greater than one
under the adult residential exposure scenario and only two locations exceeded one under the child scenario.
Lead concentrations exceeded 500 mg/kg at five sampling locations representing 12% of the Airport area.
6.4.5
Swamp
Arsenic and, to a lesser extent, PAHs account for the excess lifetime cancer risk associated with the surface
soil samples collected from the Swamp area. No soil sample yielded a cancer risk greater than 1 x 10",
and 83% of the samples yielded cancer risks between 1 x 10~ and 1 x 10.5 (Figure 6-5). No sampling
location yielded a noncancer HO greater than one.
No lead concentrations at the Swamp exceeded 1,000 mg/kg.
Under the residential scenario, 5% of the son sampling locations yielded excess lifetime cancer risks ~ 1
x 10", 79% were~ 1 x 10.5. and 83% were~ 1 x 10~. No sampling location yielded a noncancer hazard
quotient greater than one under the adult residential exposure scenario, and only two locations (3%)
exceeded a hazard quotient of one under the chnd scenario.
No lead concentrations at the Swamp exceeded 500 mg/kg.
6.4.6
TIP
The presence of PAHs accounts for all ofthe excess lifetime cancer risk at the TIP area. The excess lifetime
cancer risk did not exceed 1 x 10" at any sampling location and 67% of sampling locations yielded cancer
-------
In
c:
.52
tij
tJ
o
...J
0>
.S:
Q.
E
ca
en
"-
o
'E
Q)
tJ
~
100
80
60
40
20
o
E-7 10 E-6
Figure 6-3.
Distribution of Excess Lifetime
Cancer Risk and Noncancer Hazard
at the Amsted (Industrial Exposure)
Cancer Risk
E-6 to E.S
E-S to E-4
.~
o
HO<1
1 < HO < 3
Hazard Quotient
-------
1'""\
'"
(/)
c:
.!:2
16
(.)
o
...I
OJ
.E
C.
E
ro
en
-
o
-
c:
Q.)
~
Q.)
a..
o
100
40
20
80
60
o
;.:.;.;.;.:.:.;.:.:.:.:.
E-7 10 E~
Figure 6-4.
Distribution of Excess Lifetime
Cancer Risk and Noncancer Hazard
at the Airport (Industrial Exposure)
E~ 10 E-5
E-510 E-4
HQ< 1
Cancer Risk
-------
In
c:
.2
m
(.J
o
-oJ
OJ
.~
C.
E
cc
(f)
-
o
1:
Q)
(.J
~
Q)
a..
100
80
60
40
20
o
~I~~~~]r~~~
E-7 to E-6
~
Figure 6-5.
Distribution of Excess Lifetime
Cancer Risk and Noncancer Hazard
at the Swamp (Industrial Exposure)
~
;.:.;.;.;.:.;.;.;.;.:.:.;
:~~~~~~::::::-(:~:
E-6 to E-5
E-5 to E-4
HQ<1
Cancer Risk
Hazard Quotient
-------
risks,less than 1 x 10-5 (Figure 6-6). Because only PAHs contribute to the health risks associated with the
TIP area, no noncancer HQ calculations were conducted.
No lead concentrations at the TIP exceeded 1,000 mgjkg.
Under the residential exposure scenario, the excess lifetime cancer risk was ~ 1 x 1 O~ at 33% of the soil
sampling locations, ~ 1 x 10.5 at 17%, ~ 1 x 10-6 at 33%, and ~ 1 x 10-7 at 17% of the sampling locations.
Because only PAHs contribute to the health risks associated with the TIP area, no noncancer hazard
quotient calculations were conducted for the residential scenario.
No lead concentrations at the TIP exceeded the residential standard of 500 mgjkg.
6.4.7
Ground Water Exposure Pathways
Twenty-two monitoring wells were evaluated for the assessment of ground water, contamination. Under an
industrial exposure scenario, workers would be exposed to chemicals in ground water If they were to drink
the water. Of these wells, only four represent an excess lifetime cancer risk to workers of 1 x 1 O~. Ingestion
of arsenic, and to a lesser extent, beryllium account for the cancer risk associated with ingestion of ground
water. The noncancer HQ at fIVe wells exceeded one. Arsenic, manganese, naphthalene, and nickel
account for most of the noncancer hazard. '
Under a residential scenario, the contaminants measured in one well yield an excess lifetime cancer risk of
1 x 10-3. The remaining wells yield a residential scenario cancer risk of 1 x 10~ or less.
6.5
UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS
Some degree of uncertainty is associated with each of the risk estimates calculated in the HHRAR.
Uncertainties arise at each of the steps of the risk assessment including the environmental sampling,
selection of COC, exposure assessment, toxicity assessment, and risk characterization. Uncertainties
associated with the environmental sampling and the selection of COC depend on the ~egree to which
samples taken represent the chemical concentrations actually on the site and the degree to which the
chemicals posing the greatest risks to human health have been property identified. In this assessment, the
environmental sampling was conducted to identify relatively small hot spots of contamination; and the COC
were selected using screening levels that were in most cases ten-fold lower than the concentrations required
for the protection of public health under residential exposure conditions. Therefore, the environmental
sampling and selection of COC are expected to overestimate the number of actual COCo
Uncertainties related to the receptor populations chosen for evaluation and their assumed extent of exposure
are also found in a risk assessment. In this assessment, three different populations with different levels of
exposure were considered; and for each population conservative assumptions (often the 95 percentile
exposure level values) regarding the extent of exposure were made. Use of these reasonable maximum
exposure assumptions is likely to overestimate the risks by an order of magnitude or less for most exposure
scenarios, although skin contact risks estimated with reasonable maximum exposure assumptions could be
two to three orders of magnitude higher than skin contact risks using average assumptions. Use of
maximum chemical concentrations as exposure point concentrations for ground water, surface water, and
sediments could 81so overestimate the risks.
There are also uncertainties associated with the toxicity parameters used in the risk characterization. When
data are lacking, the toxicity criteria generally incorporate conservative assumptions and are, therefore, likely
to overestimate risk. In some cases in this assessment, toxicity criteria were unavailable for some COC,
such as lead. Therefore, a quantitative estimation of risk was not conducted for certain chemicals; and the
risks presented in this assessment could be underestimated as a result.
-------
~
Figure 6-6.
Distribution of Excess Lifetime
Cancer Risk and Noncancer Hazard
at the TIP (Industrial Exposure)
100
tI)
c:
.Q
C6 80
0
0
...J
C) 60
.~
1S.
E
a:I
en 40
-
0
c:
Q) 20
e
Q).
c..
0
-------
In general, because conservative assumptions are made at many different steps and are compounded in
the risk estimate, the values calculated in this report are likely to overestimate rather than underestimate the
true risk associated with the site.
The risks discussed above do not include exposure to lead. EPA is currently revising Its toxicity guidelines
for lead. High concentrations of lead well above Washington Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) cleanup
levels and EPA guidance levels occur in surface and subsurface soD at the site. Lead can cause nervous
system damage and other health effects. Reducing exposure to these high lead concentrations is a major
el.ement of the proposed cleanup action.
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this 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. Therefore, EPA has determined that cleanup actions are necessary.
6.6
STREAMUNED RISK ASSESSMENT FOR THE AMSTED PROPERTY
EPA prepared a streamlined risk assessment for the petroleum contamination at the Amsted property. The
risk assessment assessed the potential exposure to drinking ground water contaminated with petroleum.
related chemicals. Potential COCs included benzene, ethyl benzene. xylenes. acenapthene, carbazole. and
chrysene. Risks associated with drinking this ground water are less than 1 in 1.000,000 for both potential
future residents and on-site workers. Federal drinking water standards are not exceeded; contamination is
below MTCA cleanup levels; and risks are less than 1 in 1,000,000. EPA has determined, therefore, that the
contamination does not pose an unacceptable risk; and that cleanup action under CERCLA is not necessary
for the these chemicals on the Amsted Property. .
6.7
ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT
EPA prepared the Ecological Risk Assessment (EPA 1993) of the site to evaluate the likelihood that adverse
ecological effects may occur or are occurring as a result of exposure to one or more stressors (e.g.,
chemicals, physical stressors such as filling). A conceptual model describing the ecosystem at risk was
formulated. The likelihood of contact between stressors and the ecosystem at .risk, as well as the effects
of these stressors was then discussed. A risk characterization was presented, Integrating the exposure and
effects analysis and discussing uncertainties and ecological significance.
The Ecological Risk Assessment focused on the wetland and drainage channel along the westem portion
of the site as the ecosystem of most significance. The former Swamp/Lakebed area was also given a high
priority for consideration. This area was formerty a lake and wetland area that has .been filled in with foundry
waste and other fill material and is now a grassland and wetland area. The other grassland areas were not
given as high a priority, as It was considered presently comparable to a vacant lot that could be developed
in the future.
The results of the Ecological Risk Assessment indicated that the potential chemical impacts from on site
contaminants on the plant species of the grassland area are small. It is unlikely that cleanup of the elevated
levels of metals in the grasslands would improve the quality of plant or animal life in this area. EPA has also
determined that the levels of contaminants in the water and sediment in the wetland/drainage channel area
are not unusual for urban wetlands with similar water quality problems. The wetland area is serving a
beneficial use as a filter for urban storm water runoff coming from off the site. The low-quality wetland area
could become more productive and provide a more diverse habitat for a variety of organisms if the quality
of storm water entering the site were improved.
6.8
CLEANUP GOALS
The cleanup goals identified by EPA and listed below are based upon the results of the RI/FS, the risk
assessment, and a number of other risk management considerations, including the scope, impact on
workers and the commurilty of remedial actions, as well as state and community acceptance of the remedy,
-------
and costs. EPA'~ overall cleanup goal is to protect human health and the environment. As part of this goal,
EPA must meet requirements of certain state and federal laws and regulations.
6.8.1
STF Soli
The primary soD cleanup standards for this site are the numerical standards contained in the State of
Washington Model Toxies Control Act (MTCA) and Its Implementing regulations. The Feasibility Study
identified cleanup goals for this site based on a residential exposure scenario, even though this site
historically has been used for industrial purposes. This approach was necessary in order to meet MTCA
requirements that were in effect at the time the Feasibility Study was being written. In June 1994,
amendments to MTCA became effective which allowed broader use of industrial cleanup levels at industrial
sites, if the entire site is zoned for industrial purposes. At that time. EPA made the determination. based on
the information presented In the RI/FS, that the STF site was zoned entirely for industrial uses and was
eligible for the use of industrial cleanup standards pursuant to MTCA. The Proposed Plan, dated June 15,
1994, proposed that the site cleanup levels be based on protection of industrial workers. These cleanup
levels would be used for determining areas of the site that must be capped. Those areas of contaminated
soil with chemical concentrations between MTCA residential and industrial cleanup levels would be restricted
to industrial use only.
Subsequent to the comment period on the Proposed Plan, new information came to the attention of EPA
indicating that a narrow, 100-foot strip of the site (about 18 acres). along the westem boundary, is zoned
R-3-T. Residential-COmmercial Transitional District. Based on this new information, EPA has determined that
MTCA residential cleanup levels apply to this site since portions of this site are zoned for
residential/commercial uses. These cleanup levels are presented in Table 9-3 of this ROO. These levels
are to be attained down to a depth of 15 feet, which is protective for direct contact with soD. Those areas
of the site with contaminated soli between the residential and industrial cleanup levels are restricted to
Industrial uses only. Other institutional controls, as discussed In Section 9.1.3. wUl also be used to prevent
exposure to chemicals above residential cleanup levels. Additional cleanup to residential cleanup levels will
be required if the property uses change to residential in the future.
Only a limited number of contaminants are present in the soD above levels which pose a threat to on-site
workers. The carcinogens of concem include PAHs, PCBs. and arsenic. Lead is also a contaminant of
concem and poses a threat to workers. MTCA industrial A cleanup levels will be used for protection of
industrial workers. These industrial cleanup levels are listed in Table 9-2 and wUl be used to determine
locations at which consolidation and containment (capping) must occur. Soil with contamination above
these levels must be capped. Both the MTCA residential and industrial cleanup levels are protective within
the requirements of the NCP.
6.8.2
Pioneer Builders Supply Subsurface Soil and Ground Water
At Pioneer BuDders Supply, the objective of the subsurface soD cleanup goals Is to prevent further ground
water contamination. The ground water contamination Is the result of leaking underground gasoline storage
tanks. The tanks have been removed, but contaminated soD and ground water remain. The cleanup levels
for the subsurface soD at Pioneer BuDders Supply are shown in Table 94. These levels are to be attained
throughout the affected subsurface soil.
T ota! Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) have been identified by the Washington State Department of Ecology
(Ecology) as a potential contaminant of concem at Pioneer Builders Supply. The remedial investigation
analyzed for the indMdual constituents of TPH (e.g., benzene, toluene, etc.) but did not quantify the overall
TPH. The risk assessment for the site Identified chemicals of concem based on the indMdual components
of TPH as well, since risk-based concentrations are avaUabie for some of the TPH constituents, but not for
total TPH. WhDe TPH is listed as a chemical of concem in Table 9-3, compliance with cleanup goals at the
site will be bas~ on the cleanup of the individual components of TPH. Any action regarding exceedances
of the MTCA TPH standard WIll be taken by Ecology at Its discretion.
-------
EPA and Ecology have determined that the federal drinking water standards called MCLs are relevant and
appropriate to the cleanup of the ground water at South Tacoma Field. Where MCLs (and non-zero MCLGs,
as appropriate) are not available, MTCA ground water cleanup levels, based on protection of drinking water,
are used.
Ground water cleanup goals have been established for the Pioneer Builders Supply site where consistent
exceedances of MCLS have occurred. The objective of the ground water cleanup goals Is to reduce total
cancer risk from all carcinogens to no greater than 1 In 100,000 (10's) and a HI that will not exceed 1.
The cleanup levels for ground water are shown in Table 9-3. The cleanup levels shall be met throughout
the affected aquifer. If cleanup to federal drinking water standards Is achieved, and the groundwater still
does not achieve the MTCA cumulative risk requirement of risks no greater than 1 in 100,000 and Hazard
Index no greater than 1, then groundwater use will be restricted to ncin-drinking water purposes.
As discussed above, TPH is listed In cleanup goals for ground water since It Is a contaminant of concern
for Ecology. Compliance with ground water cleanup goals under CERCLA. however, wRl be based on
cleanup of the individual constituents of TPH.
There is no consistent pattem of ground water contamination above drinking water standards at the
remainder of the site. EPA will evaluate the need for any additional ground water treatment (at areas other
than Pioneer Builders Supply) as part of the selected he remedy.
6.8.3
Tacoma City Ught Dry Wells
Although cleanup to MTCA Method A or B residential levels is not required at the South Tacoma Field site,
the PRPs have proposed to implement these more stringent requirements by excavating and transporting
off-site for disposal all soli with concentrations of PCBs and other contaminants above these cleanup levels.
Soil with PCB concentrations above 50 mg/kg and endrin above 0.13 mg/kg will be excavated and
transported off-site for incineration. .
7.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
The results of the sampling Investigations were used to combine the original seven sampling areas discussed
above into three remediation (cleanup) areas based on the similarity of contaminants. The STF Feasibility
Study (FS) report discussed a range of cleanup alternatives, including the "no further action" alternative, for
the following three areas:
.
.
South Tacoma Field (STF) soil
Pioneer Builders Supply (subsurface soil and ground water)
Tacoma City Ught Dry Wells (soil)
.
The FS report described the alternatives for each of the areas based on effectiveness, implementability, cost,
and other factors. Several alternatives were eliminated from further consideration in the FS report because
of technical deficiencies and are not described here.
7.1
STF SOIL
This area includes the following sampling areas:
.
.
Amsted Property
Burlington Northern Dismantling Yard
Burtington Northern Railyard
.
-------
.
(includes surface soil in Pioneer Builders Supply area)
Tacoma Industrial Properties
Former SwampjLakebed Area
Former Airport Area
.
.
Five soil cleanup altematives made It through to final evaluation for soil contamination at the STF site and
are described below. These alternatives addressed the soD contamination found principally at Amsted, the
Dismantling Yard and the Rallyard. where the highest concentrations of soD contamination were found. With
the exception of arsenic, the other COCs In soil (e.g., PAHs and PCBs) are. for the most part, mixed with
lead contaminated soil. Thus, cleanup of the lead contaminated soil wUl address most of the other
contaminants (with the exception of arsenic) in the soD.
The FS estimated that the cost of treating or removing all lead contaminated soil above the 250 parts per
million (mgjkg) residential cleanup level would be about $1.4 bUlion (4,796,000 cubic yards of soD including
a 10% contingency and commingling with other chemicals of concem). The cost of treating or removing
all lead-contaminated soli above the 1,000 parts per million (ppm) industrial cleanup level would be about
$190 million (about 654,000 cubic yards of soli using the same assumptions). Because of this extreme cost
in relation to the assessed risks, the FS evaluated the cost of treating only the most highly contaminated
soD, called hot spots. A range of arsenic and lead concentrations in soil was considered in the FS to .
provide a basis for balancing the potential benefits of a remedy with the cost of that remedy. (The
concentration ranges for these hot spots are called "aggressive action levels" in the FS.) The purpose of
the evaluation was to determine at what point the volume (and cost) of soil being treated increases
significantly. but the concentration of the contaminant being treated is not significantly lower.
The FS evaluated a range of possible cleanup levels for the lead hot spots that range from 4,500 to 30.000
ppm. In addition, the FS evaluated the cost of cleanup of two hot spot arsenic concentrations. 200 and 570
ppm. Soli volumes associated with these concentrations range from 138,000 cubic yards to 7,800 cubic'
yards, respectively. .
Cleanup of surface water or sediments in the wetlands area was not addressed In these on-site alternatives
because the major contributor of chemical contamination comes from off-site storm water discharge through
two City of Tacoma outfalls. The Proposed Plan described activities in the wetlands and drainage channel
areas as "no action" other than monitoring. However, remedial activities at the STF site will Include
institutional controls (such as deed restrictions) and access restrictions (such as fences or other barriers)
for those areas. Therefore, these actions should be more accurately expressed as components of the
selected remedy rather than as "no action." Institutional controls and access restrictions for the site were
clearly set out In the FS and in the Proposed Plan and were discussed at the public meeting. EPA has
corrected the language in the ROD to more accurately designate the activities of implementing Institutional
controls and access restrictions as remedial' activities for the wetland and surface water drainage channel
in the westem section of the site. This corrected designation has little or no impact on the overall scope.
performance, or cost of the preferred alternative presented in the Proposed Plan. EPA's cleanup approach
to the contamination in the surface water and sediments in the westem portion of the site is further
described in the Selected Remedy (Section 9.0).
7.1.1
Common Elements to STF Soil Alternatives
All the alternatives considered for the STF soD include ground water monitoring program (cost of monitoring
factored for a period of 30 years). The ground water monitoring program would be reviewed every fIVe
years to determine whether additional remedial actions are required or whether the monitoring program
could be modified or discontinued.
Alternatives STF-2 through STF-6 Include institutional controls for all the areas where contaminated soil
would be lelt in place. Institutional controls could Include: deed restrictions, special requirements for
excavation on the property, educational programs, and signs and fences..
-------
7.1.2
Alternative STF-1: No Further Action
EPA is required by law to evaluate the "No Action" alternative. which provides a baseline for comparison
against other alternatives. Under this alternative. there are no physical remediation activities: and the site
would be left in Its present condition. No decline in metals contamination is expected with this alternative.
No Institutional controls would be Implemented under this alternative. and no remedial actions would be
taken to treat areas of contamination. Because no remedial activities would be Implemented. there would
be no reduction in the current potential risks from exposure to contaminated soU; I.e., risks would be
essentially the same as those identified In the baseline risk assessment. This alternative Includes ground
water monitoring.
Estimated Capital Costs: None
Estimated Operation and Maintenance Costs (O&M):
Estimated Total Costs: $371,000
Estimated Time to Implement: 10 months
$371,000
7.1.3
Alternative STF-2: Institutional Controls
Alternative STF-2 consists of institutional, engineering and safety controls to protect site workers from
exposure to contaminated soil. The contaminated son would not be treated or contained and potential
exposure routes would remain. This alternative would provide some degree of protection for workers
through the use of various controls. Workers potentially exposed to uncovered contaminated soil In
activities that involve significant soil contact would be Instructed to wear personal protective equipment.
Facility operators would be Instructed to conduct air monitoring to determine If dust control measures were
necessary to protect workers during daily work activities. When ne~essary, dust suppression could be
implemented by spraying the site with water or covering the areas with tarps. If dust suppression is not
effective or practical, the workers would be Instructed to wear respirators.
T~ining and informational meetings would be held with employees and property owners to inform them of
site hazards. Safety meetings would be held with employees instructing them on precautions to be taken
to avoid Ingestion when working on the site.
Controls would also be necessary for construction work on the site. If contaminated, soil piles would need
to be provided with run-on and runoff controls such as tarps, curbing and liquid absorbing booms.
Contaminated soil from construction excavations would be taken to a permitted off-site facUity for treatment,
storage. or disposal in accordance with applicable regulations. Signs would be located around the site to
wam about underground contamination and potential hazards incurred by excavation in those areas.
Notices would be posted within buildings to inform employees of hazards.
Institutional controls. including deed restrictions. would also be imposed. Deed restrictions would prohibit
land uses other than industrial. would warn future property owners of the contamination on their property
and would specify that contaminated soil excavated in the future must be properly handled and disposed
of in accordance with state and federal regulations.
Estimated Capital Costs: $10.000
Estimated O&M Costs: $450.000
Estimated Total Costs: $460.000
Estimated Time to Implement: 10 months
7.1.4
Alternative STF-3: Containment (Capping)
Alternative STF-3 consists of capping soil which exceeds the cleanup levels identified in Table 9-2. The
intent of this action would be to prevent dermal contact and ingestion of the contaminated soil by personnel
working on site. This alternative has two options: capping in place or consolidating contaminated soil into
-------
three smaller areas and capping (see Figure"7-1). About 45 acres of contaminated soil would be capped
if no consolidation occurred. Approximately 32 acres would be capped under the consolidation and capping
option.
Two types of caps (asphalt and soil) are proposed in this altemative which would allow for future industrial
development of this portion of the site. The soU cap would consist of a minimum of six inches of gravel
topped by a minimum of six Inches of top soU and vegetation. The asphalt cap would consist of a minimum
of six inches of crushed rock topped by a minimum of three inches of asphalt. The asphalt and soil caps,
once in place, wRl protect against exposure to contaminated soU.
Some areas of the site, particularly the former Swamp/Lakebed area, have contamination above the
industrial cleanup levels in the subsurface soil but are covered with a relatively uncontaminated layer of soil.
These areas are considered capped and are not Included in the acreage mentioned above. Verification
sampling would be required to confirm that at least one foot of soU with chemical concentrations below
cleanup standards Is in place above the contaminated soD. This alternative also Includes engineering, safety.
and institutional controls as described In Alternative STF-2. The cap would be inspected twice annually and
repaired as necessary to ensure cap integrity.
Capping:
Estimated Capital Costs: $6,566.000
Estimated O&M Costs: $1,970.000 (for 30 years)
Estlrnated Total Costs: $8,536.000
Estimated Time to Implement: 20 Months
Consolidation and Capping:
Estimated Capital Costs: $8.564,000
Estimated O&M Costs: $1,564.000
Estimated Total Costs: $10.138.000
Estimated Time to Implement: 20 Months
".
7.1.5
Alternative STF-4: Off-site Disposal of Hot Spots with On-site Containment (Capping)
Alternative STF-4 consists of excavating hot spots of soU contamination and then disposing of the soil off-site
at a permitted hazardous waste disposal facUlty. The Intent of this action would be to prevent dermal
contact and Ingestion. of the contaminated soU by personnel working on-site. The FS considers a range of
lead and arsenic hot spot concentrations that would be excavated. Estimated hot spot soU volumes range
from 7.800 cubic yards to 138.000 cubic yards depending on the hot spot concentration thresholds. PCB
and PAH contaminated soU would also be excavated and disposed off-site. Excavated soU would be treated
as necessary, prior to disposal off-site at a permitted facUlty. Son designated as hazardous under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) or dangerous waste under the Washington State
Dangerous Waste Regulations would be solidified and disposed at a permitted hazardous waste landfill. Soil
not designated as hazardous or dangerous waste under state regulations would be disposed of at a
permitted solid waste facility. This alternative also includes capping. or consolidating and capping,
contaminated soU above the soU cleanup levels. but below the hot spot levels. The types of caps would be
the same as described in Alternative STF-3. Cap inspection and repair. as described In Alternative STF-3.
would also be required. Institutional controls as described in Alternative STF-2 would apply to capped areas.
A range of costs and cleanup duration is listed below which covers the range In hot spot concentrations that
were considered for off-site disposal and the cost of consolidating soU. For reference purposes. lower costs
reflect off-site disposal of soil with only the highest concentrations of lead and arsenic (and other
contaminants of concern) and on-site capping without consolidation for soil with lower levels of
contamination. .
-------
,
i
! " II
: I
! ; : I
I II ! I
I
I II II
I
I ;!
i I
" ;!
AIrPORt ARIA II i I
I:
, ; ,:
II 2' 11
" ~;
~i
" ,",'
)! I I~
Ii 1111 RAlYAIIO
! Ii
I I
I
I I'
,I
I " j
i """' II
0 . \ I ,' !
: 1 I: "
.' , .. n " 1 i
! E i I ~ i I
I Ii ..
.. I i: j !
~ I
, , :. ! i :
, , ~ ~ !; !
I i > ~ -
..
;; , ;
! 5 = I!I
; :. :;
i I " .'
, ; ~:
i \ I~I
\ \ "
il
, i i:j
\ \ Ii
' ,
\\ i i
I I
.. \ ,
\ \ \
\\ I
I
AMSTED !
\ \ PIIOPlRrY
\ , ! l
.Jl
....,
I.
i
I
N
i
,
- In a
I
I
I
APPROXIMATE AREA FOR I
POTENTIAL CONSOLiDAEC) SOIL I
LEGEND
Kennedy / Jenks Consultants
SOUTH iACOrA?, FIELD
TACOMA, W?,
FIGURE 7-1 APPROXIMATE LOCATION
-------
Estimated Capital Costs: $9.324.000 - $58.976.000
Estimated O&M Costs: $893.000 - $1.909.000
Estimated Total Costs: $11.2 - $59.9 million
Estimated Time to Implement: 12 Months to 5 years
7.1.6
Alternative STF-6: On-site Aboveground Solidification of Hot Spots, Off-Site Incineration, and
Containment (Capping)
Alternative STF-6 consists of aboveground. on-site solidification for soil hot spots; off.site incineration of PCB
contaminated soil. If required; and on-site capping of lower concentrations of contaminated soil.
Solidification refers to adding cement or other binding agents to the soil to bind contaminants. The
contaminants are less likely to leach or to pose an ingestion risk after solidification. Solidified soil would be
capped on-site after treatment.
Soil solidification would be conducted In a temporary treatment area set up at the site. Contaminated soD
would be excavated from hot spot areas and transported to the treatment area for stabilization. Stabil~tion
would entail screening the soD to remove oversize material and debris. adding Portland cement or other
binding agents and water. The materials would be mixed. returned to the original excavation and allowed
to set. Confirmational sampling of the solidified soil would be required to ensure that treated soil meets
treatment criteria (e.g., land disposal requirements).
PCBs above 50 ppm were found in only one location at Pioneer Builders Supply. This alternative includes
incineration of soD with PCB concentrations above 50 ppm If additional sampling at this location confirms
PCB concentrations above 50 ppm.
Consolidation and capping of soD with contaminant concentrations between the cleanup levels and the hot
spot levels is also included under this alternative as described in Alternative STF-4. A range of costs and
cleanup times is listed below which covers the range in hot spot concentrations that were considered for'
treatment and the cost of consolidating soil.
A range of costs and cleanup duration is listed below which covers the range in hot spot concentrations that
were considered for treatment and the cost of consolidating soil. For reference purposes. lower costs reflect
. treating only the highest concentrations of lead and arsenic (and other contaminants of concern) in
contaminated soil and on-site capping without consolidation for soil with lower levels of contamination.
Estimated Capital Costs: $8.953.000 - $42.041.000
Estimated O&M Costs: $1.615.000 - $12.861.000
Estimated Total Costs: $11 . $44.5 mDlion
Estimated Time to Implement: 20 months to 5 years
7.2
PIONEER BUILDERS SUPPLY
Four cleanup altematives for ground water contamination in the vicinity of Pioneer Builders Supply made
it through the FS evaluation process and are described below.
7.2.1
Alternative PBS-1: No Further Action
Under the .No Action. alternative. the ground water and soD would be left in Its present condition to partially
recover with time through natural processes such as chemical and biological breakdown of organic
contaminants. No institutional controls would be implemented. and no remedial action would be taken to
remove existing sources of contamination or to mitigate the potential for exposure to contamination.
The No Action alternative would Include groundwater monitoring (monitoring costs factored for a 3D-year
period) in wells near Pioneer Builders Supply. A review of the monitoring data would be conducted at 5-year
-------
intervals to evaluate whether remedial actions are required and to evaluate whether the monitoring program
could be modified or discontinued.
Estimated Capit~1 Costs: None
Estimated O&M Costs: $491,000
Estimated Total Costs (present worth): $491,000
Estimated Time to Implement: 4 months
7.2.2
Alternative PBS-2: In-Place Containment (Capping)
Alternative PBS-2 consists of placing an asphalt cap over the former UST location to limit surface water
infiltration and to reduce the potential for exposure to contaminated subsurface soD. The asphalt cap would
be approximately 50 feet long by 25 feet wide and would be a minimum of three Inches thick. The asphalt
cap would adjoin the existing pavement to provide a continuous cover. Migration of the contaminated
ground water plume would not be addressed by this alternative. As with Alternative PBS-1, soD and ground
water in this area would partially recover with time through natural biological and chemical processes. This
alternative would include Institutional controls (e.g., deed restrictions, requirements for handling and disposal
of excavated soD, prohibiting drDling of drinking water wells in the vicinity of the contaminated ground water
plume and educational programs) for this portion of the site and ground water monitoring.
Estimated Capital Costs: $8,000
Estimated O&M Costs: $606,000
Estimated Total Costs: $614,000
Estimated Time to Complete: 6 months
7.2.3
Alternative PBS-4: Aboveground Vapor Extraction and Ground Water extraction and Treatment
Alternative PBS-4 consists of excavating approximately 2,600 cubic yards of contaminated soil and treating
it on-site using vapor extraction. Excavating and treating the soil would eliminate the source of ongoing
ground water contamination. Vapor extraction removes volatile chemicals from the soil by applying a
vacuum to the soil using a blower and perforated pipes. The vapors would then be treated using a catalytic
converter to bum the organic compounds or activated carbon to adsorb the contaminants.
Ground water would be extracted and treated using air stripping or carbon adsorption techniques. Treated
ground water would be discharged to the sanitary sewer, on-site storm sewer, or reintroduced on-site
through injection wells oran infiltration basin. The specific disposition of treated water would be determined
during remedial design. The number of extraction wells would be determined based on the results of furtl:ler
exploratory drilling, which would be a component of remedial design. Ground water pumping rates would
be established to provide hydraulic control of the contaminant plume. Compliance monitoring of the effluent
would be required to verify that discharge standards are achieved. Air stripper emissions would meet Puget
Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA) air emission standards. This altemative would not include long
term institutional controls or ground water monitoring once remedial actions achieved cleanup levels.
Estimated Capital Costs: $633,000
Estimated O&M Costs: $1,333,000
Estimated Total Costs: $1,966,000
Estimated Time to Complete: 5 years (minimum ground water pumping time)
7.2.4
Alternative PBS-6: In Situ Vapor Extraction and Air Sparging
Alternative PBSoS consists of installing vapor extraction wells and air injection (air sparging) wells to treat
contaminated soil and ground water. The number, position and extraction rates of the wells would be
determined during remedial design. Vapor extraction and air sparging wells typically are used together as
an integrated treatment system. Compressed air, which is injected into the aquifer, traps volatile
contaminants as the air rises towards the surface. The contaminated vapor from soil and ground water
-------
would be drawn to the surface by applying a vacuum to the vapor extraction wells. Vapor would be treated
using a catalytic converter or activated carbon to meet air emission standards. Soil and ground water would
be treated until cleanup levels for the respective media were met Because this alternative does not
hydraulically control the contaminated ground water plume, perimeter ground water monitoring would be
required to verify that air sparging does not spread the plume. This alternative would not Include institutional
controls or ground water monitoring once remedial actions achieved cleanup levels and risk based goals.
Estimated Capital Costs: $456,000
Estimated O&M Costs: $807,000
Estimated Total Costs: $1,263,000
Estimated Time to Complete: 2 years
7.3
TACOMA CITY UGHT DRY WELLS (SOIL)
The "no action alternative" was considered for those portions of the site where contamination was most
extensive and there was greatest risk to human health. Only one option for cleanup of PCBs and other
contaminants is considered for the Tacoma City Ught dry wells because the volume of contaminated soil
is small. Although cleanup to MTCA Method A or B residential levels is not required, the property owner
has proposed to excavate and transport off-site all soD above MTCA Method B cleanup levels.
Approximately 25 cubic yards of soU with PCB concentrations above 50 ppm or endrin concentrations above
0.13 ppm would require off-site Incineration to comply with federal regulations (e.g., Toxic Substances
Control Act and Land Ban Restrictions). After incineration, the soil residue would be transported to a TSCA
compliant facility for disposal.
Remaining soil with PCB and PAH concentrations above MTCA Method B residential cleanup levels would
be excavated and transported to an off.site, permitted facUity for disposal. This soU would not require
incinerations if the PCB concentrations are less than 50 ppm and the endrin concentrations are less than
0.13 ppm. The estimated volume of soD to be disposed at a hazardous waste facility is about 95 cubic
yards.
By cleaning up to these levels, no institutional controls, ground water monitoring, and operating or
maintenance activities and their associated costs are anticipated for this alternative.
Estimated Capital Costs: $179,000
Estimated Operations Costs: None
Estimated Total Costs (present worth): $179,000
Estimated Time to Complete: 10 months
8.0 SUMMARY OF THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
This section discusses the comparison of alternatives with respect to the nine National Contingency Plan
(NCP) requirements. The NCP requires that each remedial alternative analyzed in detail in the Feasibility
Study be evaluated according to specific criteria. The purpose of this evaluation is to promote consistent
identification of the relative advantages and disadvantages of each alternative in order to guide selection of
remedies offering the most effective and efficient means of achieving site cleanup goals. There are nine
criteria by which feasible remedial alternatives are evalUated. All nine criteria are important; but they are
weighed differently In the decision-making process depending on whether they describe a required level of
performance (threshold criteria), provide for consideration of technical or socioeconomic merits (primary
balancing criteria), or involve the evaluation of non-EPA reviewers that may influence an EPA decision
(modifying criteria).
The remedial alternatives were first evaluated by comparison with the threshold criteria: overall protection
of human health and the environment and compliance with ARARs. The threshold criteria must be fully
-------
satisfied by candidate alternatives before the alternatives can be given further consideration in remedy
selection. For those alternatives satisfying the threshold criteria. five primary balancing criteria are used to
evaluate other aspects of the potential remedies. The five primary balancing criteria are: long-term
effectiveness and permanence; ,eduction of toxicity, mobUlty, or volume through treatment; short-term .
effectiveness; ImplementabUIty; and cost. No single alternative will necessarily receive the highest evaluation
for every balancing criterion. This primary criteria balancing phase of the comparative analysis is useful in
refining the relative merits of candidate alternatives for cleanup. The two modifying criteria, state and
community acceptance, are used in the final analysis of remedial alternatives and are generally considered
in altering an otherwise viable altemative rather than deciding between very different alternatives.
8.1
OVERALL PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT
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, and/or
Institutional controls.
8.1.1
STF Soil
All the alternatives. except STF-1, the no-action alternative. provide protection of human health and the
environment by eliminating. reducing. or controlling risk of exposure to soil contaminants through treatment,
engineering controls. and/or institutional controls. Since the no-action alternative does not eliminate, reduce
or control any of the exposure pathways. it is. therefore, not protective of human health or the environment
and will not be considered further in this analysis as an option for the STF soil.
Alternative STF-4 would provide the highest level of overall protection because soil contaminated above hot
spot concentrations would be excavated and disposed of at an off-site hazardous waste facility. This action
would eliminate the posslbUIty of contact with this soil as well as eliminate the threat of on-site contaminant
leaching. Remaining soil with lower levels of contamination would be capped on-site. Alternative STF-6
would provide the next highest level of overall protection because hot spot soil would be treated (solidified)
and left on-site and remaining contaminated soD would be capped on-site. Alternative STF-3 is less
protective because there would not be any soil treatment, but contaminated soD would be contained on-site.
Exposure to high concentrations of contamination, especially lead, would be possible If the cap was
breached and those individuals exposed to the soil were not adequately protected.
Of the alternatives remaining for further consideration, Alternative STF-2 provides the least overall protection
because It solely relies on institutional controls to prevent direct contact with contaminated soil.
8.1.2
Pioneer Builders Supply
All of the alternatives, except PBS-1. the no-action alternative. are protective of hurnan health and the
environment. Since the no-action alternative does not meet this threshold criteria, It will not be considered
further in this analysis.
Alternative PBS-6 provides the highest level of overall protection because the short-term risk of exposure
to contaminated soil and ground water is eliminated using in place treatment, which limits the potential for
exposure during remedial actions. Alternative PBS-4 is considered to be slightly less protective because
treatment would be conducted at the surface. Alternative PBS-2 would be protective by reducing the
potential for direct contact or contaminant leaching by installing a cap. Institutional controls would prevent
installation of drinking water wells at the site but would not prevent contaminant migration.
-------
8.1.3
Tacoma City Ught Dry Wells
The single remedial alternative conSidered for this area would be protective of human health and the
environment by incinerating some of the PCB and other contamination and off-site disposal of the remaining
contaminated soD.
8.2
COMPUANCE WITH APPUCABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
Compliance with ARARs addresses whether a remedy wUl meet all of the applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements of federal. state, and local environmental statutes or provides a basis for invoking
a waiver from complying with these requirements.
CERCLA requires that remedial actions satisfy all identified ARARs. An "applicable" requirement directly and
fully addresses the situation at the site. It would legally apply to the response action If that action were
undertaken independently from any CERCLA authority. A "relevant and appropriate" requirement is one that
is designed to apply to problems which are sufficiently similar to the problem being addressed at the site.
that its use is well suited to the particular site. .
8.2.1
STF Soil
Alternatives STF-3, STF-4. and STF~ would attain their respective federal. state and local ARARs through
treatment. containment. or both. Alternative STF-2 does not meet chemical-specific ARARs because it does
not include any action to treat or contain soD contamination.
8.2.2
Pioneer Builders Supply
Alternatives PBS-4 and PBS~ comply with federal and state standards because contaminated ground water
would be treated to reduce contaminant levels to MCLs or to MTCA cleanup levels for those chemicals
without MCLs. These alternatives would also require institutional controls to restrict ground water use to
non-drinking water purposes If treatment does not achieve risk-based goals. Alternatives PBS-4 and PBS~
would also comply with state cleanup standards for soD. In Alternative PBS-4. any water discharge
standards and air standards would also be met. Any action regarding exceectances of the MTCA TPH
standard WIll be taken by Ecology at Its discretion.
The capping and institutional controls provided in PBS-2 do not provide any direct action to reduce the
concentration of contaminants of concern down to MCLs or MTCA cleanup levels for ground water or state
cleanup standards for soD. Institutional controls would restrict the use of ground water to non-drinking water
uses and prevent exposure to ground water contamination.
8.2.3
Tacoma City Ught Dry Wells
This alternative would meet federal and state standards for soD through excavation of the soil and off-site
treatment and disposal. This alternative would meet hazardous or dangerous waste generator disposal
requirements and transportation regulations.
8.3
LONG-TERM EFFECTIVENESS AND PERMANENCE
Long-term effectiveness and permanence refers 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.
-------
8.3.1
STF Soil
Alternative STF4 ranks highest for long-term effectiveness and permanence. It involves removing the soil
with the highest concentrations of contaminants and disposing of them at an off-site hazardous waste facility.
Remaining contaminated soil would be consolidated and capped. Off-site disposal of contaminants would
reduce risks at the site since the highest concentration of contaminants would no longer be on site. Any
potential future exposure would be to lower levels of contamination, and exposure would only occur If the
cap was breached and unprotected workers (or trespassers) were exposed. Institutional controls would be
required to minimize the residual risk.
Alternative STF-6. with consolidation and capping, ranks next because It requires treatment (solidification)
of the highest concentrations of contaminants. This solidified soil would be placed on-site. Both treated
soil and untreated soil that exceed cleanup levels would be covered with a cap. Contaminants in the
solidified soil would be less likely to leach into the ground water or pose a risk through ingestion, should
the cap be breached.
Alternative STF-3 ranks lower because It relies solely on capping and institutional controls to prevent
exposure to contaminants. This alternative is effective only as long as the cap is property rnaintained and
institutional controls are enforced.
Alternative STF-2' does not permanently remove health and environmental risk and ranks lowest in terms of
long-term effectiveness and permanence.
8.3.2
Pioneer Builders Supply
Alternatives PBS4 and PBS-6 rank the highest for long-term effectiveness and permanence because they
include treatment to reduce the concentration of chemicals in subsurface soil and ground water. Ground
water monitoring would be required after cleanup to contirm the effectiveness of the remedy.
Alternative PBS-2 ranks lower because the actions (capping and institutional controls) do not include
treatment to permanently reduce the sources of contamination. Long-term management (e.g., inspection
and repair) of the cap system would be
necessary. Capping and institutional controls. however, would control exposure to soil and ground water
contamination.
8.3.3
Tacoma City Ught Dry Wells
The preferred alternative would include removal of all soil having chemical concentrations above MTCA
Method A or B cleanup levels. The residual risk would be reduced permanently to below MTCA residential
soil cleanup levels. Long-term institutional controls, ground water monitoring, and future remedial actions
would not be required.
8.4
REDUCTION OF TOXICITY, MOBILITY, AND VOLUME THROUGH TREATMENT
Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment refers to the anticipated performance of the
treatment technologies in reducing the toxicity, mobility, or volume of the contaminated media.
8.4.1
STF Soil
Alternative STF-6 ranks the highest because It uses treatment (solidification) to reduce the toxicity or mobility
of hot spots of contaminated soil. However, solidification would Increase the volume of soil to be capped
by about 10 percent. Alternative STF4 could also involve treatment If It is necessary for disposal at an off-
-------
site permitted hazardous waste facility. Alternatives STF-3 and STF-2 do not include treatment of
contaminated soil.
8.4.2
Pioneer Builders Supply
Alternatives PBS-4 and PBS.o provide the greatest reduction In toxicity, mobUlty, and volume of
contaminants in the ground water through treatment of contaminated soD and ground water. For PBS-4,
carbon adsorption reduces the contamination in ground water and soil. Spent carbon would be thermally
regenerated at a permitted facUlty, resulting in virtual destruction of the chemicals of concem. Air stripping
would transfer contaminants from ground water to air, but the catalytic converter would break down these
contaminants. For PBS.o, air sparging transfers contaminants from ground water to vapor, which would then
be collected, along with vapor from contaminated soU, and treated by carbon adsorption or catalytic
converter. Alternative PBS-2 has no treatment component and would not reduce the toxicity or volume of
contaminants other than through natural biodegradation.
8.4.3
Tacoma City Ught Dry Wells
The alternative includes off-site incineration of soil containing PCBs above 50 ppm or endrin above 0.13 ppm
and achieves reduction in toxicity, mobUlty, and volume through treatment.
8.5
SHORT-TERM EFFECTIVENESS
Short-term effectiveness refers to the period of time needed to complete the remedy and 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.
8.5.1
STF Soli
Short-term risks would be minimal for Alternative STF-2 (Institutional Controls) since no physical work is
required (other than fencing and posting wamlng signs). There would be no risk to the community or
workers from physical hazards due to heavy equipment. transportation accidents, or proximity to
excavations. STF-2 would take about six months to complete.
Alternative STF-3 ranks next and includes consolidation and capping of soD or in-place capping. Capping
would pose limited short-term risks from heavy equipment movement and dust from excavation activities.
Short-term risks involved with consolidation and capping are greater compared to in-place capping, since
large quantities of soD would be excavated and consolidated in three capped areas. STF-3 would take about
16 to 20 months to complete.
Alternatives STF-6 and STF-4 have the greatest short-term risks because they include excavation and
handling of large volumes of contaminated soD. More dust. noise. and truck traffic are expected with these
alternatives depending on the volumes of soD being excavated. AlternatiVes STF-4 and STF.o would take
from about one to five years to complete, depending ~n the volume of soD removed and/or treated.
Short-term impacts from noise and dust could be controlled through protective equipment for workers and
dust control measures. Truck routes could be established to minimize truck traffic problems In the
community.
8.5.2
Pioneer Builders Supply
Alternative PBS-2 has the least significant short-term impacts because the capping is not extensive and
would take a short time to construct. The need for continued ground water monitoring would be evaluated
after five years.
-------
Alternative PBS-6, In-situ vapor extraction with air sparging ranks next because It does not include
excavation of contaminated son or extraction of contaminated ground water and thus would limit direct
exposure of workers to contaminants. Installation of wells and operation Of the treatment systems would
not significantly affect workers or the community. The estimated completion time is about two years.
Alternative PBS-4 potentially could have the most significant shon-term Impacts because It Involves
excavation and treatment of son, and ground water extraction, treatment and discharge. Alternative PBS-4
Is estimated to take one year to meet soil cleanup levels, and about fIVe years or longer to meet ground
water cleanup levels.
8.5.3
Tacoma City Ught Dry Wells
Since the volume of soU being excavated and handled Is small, this alternative would provide low shon term
risk to workers and the environment. Workers could control their exposure by using protective clothing and
respirators Of required). Equipment would be washed to prevent tracking of chemicals off-site. The
estimated time for cleanup for this action Is six to ten months.
8.6
IMPLEMENTABIUTY
ImplementabUity addresses the technical and administrative feasibility of the alternative and the availabUity
of services and materials required to Implement the alternative.
8.6.1
STF Soli
All alternatives are technically and administratively feasible, and the required goods and services are readily
available. Alternative STF-2 Is the easiest cleanup alternative to Implement, requiring only institutional
controls. Alternative STF-3 ranks next since It includes only capping or consolidation and capping of
contaminated soil. .
Alternatives STF-4 and STF 6 require removal and/or treatment of contaminated soil, with volumes ranging
from 7.800 to 138,000 cubic yards. Treatment or off-site disposal of small volumes of soil are easier to
implement because they Involve handling less soil and would take less time to complete.
8.6.2
Pioneer Builders Supply
All alternatives are technically and administratively feasible and the required goods and services are readily
available. Alternative PBS-2 Is the easiest to implement. since an asphalt cap would be easy to construct.
Restrictions on property and ground water use could be readily implemented.
Alternative PBS-6 would be the next easiest alternative to implement and includes in-situ vapor extraction,
a common technology for removing volatile organic chemicals from son. The air sparging component of
this alternative is an innovative technology which is being used more commonly now to cleanup
contamination at underground storage tank (UST) sites similar to this one. A pOot study and testing of the
system during Installation to determine the exact configuration, spacing, and optimum operating conditions
would be required. Despite being innovative, the technical aspects and components of the system are not
complicated and can be readily designed, constructed and operated. Additional characterization of the
contaminant plume, Including Installation of additional monitoring wells, modelling, and a pilot study would
also be required. .
Alternative PBS-4 uses readDy avaDabie technology. It would require installation of additional monitoring
wells. Modelling and field testing would be required to define the maximum extent of the plume and to
adequately size the treatment system. This alternative, however, ranks lowest in implementability because
It includes the most complex technical components, Including excavation of soil, aboveground treatment
of son. and ground water extraction. treatment and discharge. Maintenance would be required for the
-------
equipment. Discharge of the treated water could be readUy accomplished; however, authorization to
discharge to the City of Tacoma's sanitary sewer or an NPDES permit for discharge to surface water or a
state waste discharge permit for discharge to the ground would be required.
8.6.3
Tacoma City Ught Dry Wells
The alternative is technically and administratively feasible and the required goods and services are readUy
available. Equipment, facilities, and methods that would be used are common to construdlon and cleanup
activities. Off-site Incinerators and disposal facilities are available.
8.7
COST
The total cost of the alternatives developed during the FS is summarized in Table 8.1. These costs are
estimated for purposes of comparison and are considered to be accurate to within -30% to + 50%. Costs
are described using the present worth methodology with a discount rate equal to five percent. Cost
estimates include dired and Indired capital costs, as well as annual operations and maintenance costs.
Further details on the cost estimates for altematives can be found In Appendix F of the FS. .
A cost sensitivity analysis was presented in the Feasibility Study which looked at the impad of varying the
STF soil hot spot concentrations on the cost of treatment. Since the greatest volume of contaminated soil
is associated with lead contamination, the sensitivity analysis focused on the cost of lead treatment. This
analysis showed that the cost effediveness of treatment increased uniformly untO 18,000 ppm lead (Figure
8-1). The unit treatment cost Qn dollars/pound) Increases significantly as the hot spot concentration is
reduced below 18,000 ppm. This is because the volume of material to be treated rose significantly as lead
concentrations decreased.
Figures 8-2 and 8-3 show the Increase In costs to treat 18.000 ppm lead compared with the benefits derives
(mass or volume treated). These volumes are for lead only. These values are higher when all chemicals of
concern are considered. The cost of treating lead Increases from $5,037.000 at 18,000 ppm lead to
$12,400,000 at 16.000 ppm lead. This is an Increase In cost of about 140 percent for a small decrease (11
percent) in the lead concentration to be treated. This analysis played an important part in determining the
cost effediveness of treatment and the seledion of the final remedy for STF soil.
8.8
STATE ACCEPTANCE
Ecology has been Involved with the development and review of the RI/FS. the Proposed Plan, and the ROD
for the cleanup of the South Tacoma Field Superfund site. The ROD describes Ecology's understanding
of the current situation and the current risks to human health and the environment. Ecology has Identified
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) as a potential contaminant of concern at Pioneer BuDders Supply.
CERCLA requires cleanup of hazardous substances that threaten human health or the environment. The
definition of hazardous substances In CERCLA excludes petroleum and petroleum products, which Is what
TPH measures. However. Individual constituents of petroleum (e.g., benzene. toluene) that have migrated
Into environmental media, such as ground water or soil, are hazardous substances that can be addressed
under CERCLA. Therefore, whUe this cleanup adion addresses certain individual constituents of TPH, any
additional adlon regarding exceedance of the MTCA TPH standard will be taken by Ecology at Its discretion.
With this caveat. the state approves this ROD and believes It provides measures that will fulfill the
requirements of Washington law and regulation for the site.
8.9
COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE
EPA has carefully considered all comments submitted during the public comment period and has taken them
Into account during the seledlon of the remedy for the STF site. Members of the public were concerned
about the rationale for using Industrial cleanup levels at the site, and EPA's proposed seledlon of on-site
treatment of hot spots of contamination as opposed to removal and off-site disposal. The PRP Site Group
commented that Alternative 3. Containment (capping) of contaminated soD. with no consolidation or
-------
TABLE 8-1 ESTIMATED COSTS
IAiternative I Capital Costs I 0&11 I Total I
STF Soil
STF-2 Institutional Controls $10,000 $450,000 $460,000
STF-3 Cap only $6.6 Million $2.0 Million $8.6 Million
STF-3 Consolidate and cap $8.6 Million $1.6 Million $10.2 Million
STF-4 Off-site Disposal of $9.3 - 57.4 Million $1.4 - 1.9 Million $11.2 - 58.8 Million
hot spots, cap
STF-4 Off-site disposal of $11.7 - 59 Million $893,000 - 1 Million $12.8 - 59.9 Million
hot spots, consolidate
and cap
STF-6 On-site treatment of $9 - 39.8 Million $2.0 - 2.9 Milliion $11.9 - 42.7 Million
hot spots, cap
STF-6 On-site treatment of $11-42 Million $1.6-2.4 Million $12.6-44.4 Million'
hot spots, consolidate
and cap
Pioneer Builders Supply
PBS-2 Cap $8,000 $606,000 $614,000
PBS-4 Excavate and treat $633,000 $1.33 Million $2.0 Million
soil, pump treat and
discharge ground water
PBS-6 Air sparging and in- $456,000 $807,000 $1,263,000
ground vapor extraction
City Ught Dry Wells $179,000 $0 $179,000
The Selected Remedy
STF-6 On-site treatment of hot
spots (18,000 ppm treatment
threshold for lead), PBS-6,
-------
Figure 8-1 Cost of Lead Treated
vs. Lead Concentration
8 -, \
7 -'....-..................................................
..........~.... n."" ....-.-.-........... .-.-......"'.......-......... ....... .....u_...."..
.... ................... -,............", ........ ,.m..."..",........................
I
I
""'....-.-..... . j
I.
-
~
c:
;:,
&. 6 '''''''-'''''''''''''''''''''' .. ......
-
~
. ""'M'..,..... .. '-'M'.'_._....... ""-'-'_0... .. .. ...,.,.........-. ....,.",.-...... ...... .. .. .
m._n...............,..-.-.-.... "....n '.'-'.'M...'..... ""-,_0.",,, .....n..., ..'....... n....,,_.-.-...-.-...,.,..,. ""M'.'.". .m.
~
Q)
IV
~ 5 I""''''''''
.... !
~ '
~ I
- I
~4r
i
3 +..
!
I
I
2 ~
o
~
........_............... ......~..........
~,
\ i
[[[~........'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ']
~. I
--~
""""'n...................................-..........
'1
'''''M'_''........................
-------
200 .
I
I
I
),:
I \
I \
. \
I \
I .
150 .J........... .. .... ''''........, ....~................. .... ''''''''''''''''
-
"C
>-
Ben :
-"C i
CD i I
g ~ 100 +......... ...... ''''''''''''''''''
~~ i
15 !
en 50 J:_---- -- -- -- -- -------- ----
!
i
I
I
O I
I
o
Figure 8-2 Soil Volume vs. Lead
Concentration
... "'...,w....-..."..., __n"_'."n.. ""-'-'_'M"..".... --.-......... mo. '_U"-'.""""""--'-'-'."'''''"",-,.,-,-, "-"M"......_..-.-..,.........-.....-..............-...
................................."............................... ............ . ......... [[['"''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
X
-------
.4
Figure 8-3 Cost of Remediation
VS. Lead Concentration
$4Ol
!
i
I
$30 1....,...",
!
I
'" '"'_""M"'" ... "'-""_'RO."". ...'M'"'-''''-''''-''''' ....-..... ,- ...,...,",-.-.-.-.....
-
fn
c:: ,
o I
:: I
~ $20 t,..,..,.., ".. ..".....,..''''
- I
fn I
o 1
<..> I
$10 J....,............ ........... .......
I
.. ....-........... ........,...... -.-..', ....-.-.........
.._--_....._~..__.
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
so
.....'M._..'M'""'''''''W'-'-''''''
...."..,"",-.... ."n.._......''',,'
..
I I
I I
L........
i
I I
i I
I I
i
.'
,......" t......
I i
"""-""'.'-'"'''''''''-'..''''-'-'''
I
~.._,....
I
i
I
i
I
t.....,
30,000
20,000
18.000
16,000
14,000 12,000 10,000 9,000 8,000
Lead Concentration (mglkg)
! D SOlidification. Capping
,
..,""...-.-...-. ....,........".......,..."
~
7,000
6,000
5,000
I
i
I
.1
I
I
I
1
I
1
i
..I
i
I
i
I
I
.\
1
i
i
I :
!
-------
treatment, is a more cost effective remedy and is as protective as EPA's preferred alternative. EPA
responses to comments received during the public comment period are included in the attached
Responsiveness Summary (Appendix A).
9.0 THE SELECTED REMEDY
EPA's selected remedy, as modified by public comments, combines elements from several alternatives
described above. The selected remedy meets the requirements of the two mandatory threshold criteria,
protection of human health and the environment, and compliance with ARARs. EPA and the Washington
Department of Ecology believe the following actions provide overall protection of human health and the
environment whOe providing the best balance of benefits and trade-offs for the South Tacoma Field site.
The selected remedy uses a combination of treatment, containment. and Institutional controls to achieve
optimum compliance with the five balancing criteria: long-term effectiveness, short-term effectiveness.
implementabillty, reduction In toxicity, mobility and volume through treatment, and cost. EPA befieves that
treatment of hot spots of contaminated soil meets the statutory preference for treatment as a principal
element of the remedy. Treatment of soil hot spots with engineering controls is a more permanent solution
than containment (capping) alone. Long term effectiveness and permanence, reduction in toxicity mobility
and volume through treatment. and cost effectiveness are the three balancing criteria that had the most
influence on selection of the remedy.
9.1
STF SOIL
9.1.1
Treatment of Soli Hot Spots
The selected remedy for STF soD hot spots (except for PCB contaminated soil) is to excavate and treat on-
site, using solidification. an estimated 22,000 cubic yards of soil. The concentration at which treatment must
occur for hot spots of contaminants of concern are listed below in Table 9-1.
Table 9-1
Hot Spot Concentration Threshold for STF Soil
Medium Hot Spot Concentration Threshold
Soil Arsenic 570 mgjkgO
Lead 18,000 mgjkgb
Carcinogenic 50 mgjkgC
PAHs (Total)
PCBs (Total) 50 mgjkgd
Copper 45.000 mgjkge
a
b
Set at the 1 x1 0'" risk level using MTCA exposure assumptions
Set at 18,000 ppm based on the cost sensitivity analysis in the FS. This level was chosen because
the cost effectiveness of treatment decreases at levels below 18,000 mg/kg
Set at 2.5 times the MTCA industrial Method A concentration
TSCA requirement
Based on leaching to ground water
C
d
e
-------
The PRPs shall excavate hot spots of contaminated soil, solidify the soil by adding Portland cement or other
binding agents and water, spread on-site in 6- to 12-inch lifts, and then cap the treated soil with a soil or
asphalt cap as described below. The PRPs shall conduct soil treatment in an area that has been graded
to manage surface water run-on and runoff. The PRPs shall cover temporary soil stockpiles to prevent
contamination of runoff. The PRPs shall test coupons of treated soil to determine compliance with the Land
Disposal Restrictions as discussed in 40 C.F.R. Part 268. .
The PRPs shall conduct air monitoring during all excavation, treatment, and earth-moving activities to verify
that standards for airbome contaminant emissions are not exceeded in the work area or at the property
boundary of the site.
Soil contaminated with PCBs above 50 ppm was found in only one location at Pioneer Builders Supply (one
sample at 56 ppm). If additional sampling at this location confirms PCB concentrations above 50 ppm, then
the PRPs shall excavate this soD for either incineration off-site at an approved incinerator, or disposal at a
permitted chemical waste landfill.
9.1.2
Containment (Capping) of Contaminated Soli
The PRPs shall excavate, consolidate, and c;ap,ln three general locations (as shown in Figure 7-1), STF soil
with contamination above the levels listed in Table 9-2, and below the hot spot concentrations (Table 9-1).
Chemicals listed in Table 9-2 are those which most affect the nature and extent of the cleanup action. Any
other contaminants in soil which exceed Method A industrial cleanup levels shall also be excavated,
consolidated, and contained as described below.
Table 9-2
Soil Capping Levels for .South Tacoma Field
Medium Capping Levels
Soil Arsenic 200 mgjkg8
Lead 1000 mgjk!t
Carcinogenic 20 mgjk!t
P AHs (T otaJ)
PCBs (T otaJ) 10 mgjkg8
8
MTCA industrial method A soil cleanup level
Excavation of soil is not required beyond a depth of one fool If, after excavation of one foot of soil, an area
is still contaminated above the soD cleanup levels in Table 9-2. (based on sampling conducted by the PRPs),
the PRPs shall cap this area. At their discretion, the PRPs could choose to continue excavating below a
depth of one foot untO contaminants in soil are below cleanup levels or until the MTCA fifteen foot point of
compliance is met. If cleanup levels are achieved, capping would not be required in that location.
The areas which shall be excavated, consolidated and capped shall be determined using the data and
sampling grids developed during the RI. The decision to excavate a sampling grid may be modified If
additional samples collected in that grid indicate that chemicals in the soil are below the capping levels
-------
identified in Table 9-2. If the PRPs want to use a statistical approach to determine areas needing excavation.
consolidation, and capping, then statistical averaging of data shall be conducted on additional the data
collected during RDjRA from the locations within the existing grid system. The PRPs shall submit the
statistical approach to EPA for review and approval. .
Two types of caps. asphalt and soD. are allowed. The soD cap shall consist of a minimum of six Inches of
bank run gravel topped by a minimum of six inches of top soD and vegetation. Before placing the soil cap
the area shall be cleared; and If required to control erosion, the subgrade shall be graded to Improve
drainage. The asphalt cap shall consist of a minimum of three inches of asphalt over1aying a minimum of
six inches of crushed rock. A storm drain system shall be designed in accordance with state and local
standards for areas where asphalt caps are constructed. The asphalt and son caps. once in place, shall
protect against exposure to contaminated soil. To the maximum extent practicable, the PRPs shall place
the asphalt cap in those areas Where the highest concentrations of untreated contamination Is located to
further ensure that soli in these areas wUl be less likely to be disturbed during future development of the site.
The PRPs shall periodically Inspect all capped areas and conduct repairs as necessary to ensure the
integrity of the cap.
If It is the PRP property owners' intent to develop portions of the site. including some of the capped areas,
as an industrial park, future development must be designed and constructed to maintain the integrity of the
capped areas. The PRPs shall submit a site development plan during Remedial Design identifying the
locations where asphalt and soD caps would be used and discussing how future land development will be
. compatible with and maintain the integrity of the capped areas.
In some areas of the site. particular1y the grassland portion of the former SwampjLakebed area. subsurface
soil containing contaminants above the cleanup levels listed in Table 9-2 is covered with relatively
uncontaminated soD. These areas are not Included In the acreage to be capped as discussed above.
Verification sampling-shall be conducted during remedial design in these areas to confirm that at least one
foot of soil, functionally equivalent to the emplaced soD caps, is In place above the contaminated soD. If less
than one foot of soli is found to be present in these areas, or If the existing surface soD characteristics are
insufficient to provide protection against contact, then the PRPs shall place a soil cap or asphalt cap in these
areas, as described In the previous paragraph.
9.1.3 Institutional Controls
Since the primary cleanup actions to be taken at the site are designed to protect industrial workers and are
not designed to be protective of residential or recreational uses. the PRPs shall implement institutional
controls as part of this portion of the selected remedy to protect against these uses. Institutional controls
shall include, but are not limited to: deed restrictions. physical restrictions (e.g., fencing, barriers). waming
signs, safety measures. and educational programs. .
The PRP property owners shall place deed restrictions on all properties Where soli contamination exceeds
the MTCA residential cleanup levels as shown in Table 9-3. The deed restrictions shall be subject to EPA
review and approval and shall state that, as long as soil contamination exceeds the MTCA residential
cleanup levels, land use for these areas is restricted to industrial purposes as defined by the Washington
Model Toxics Control Act (RCW 70.D.020). as amended. and consistent with the city zoning code. The deed
restriction shall also include information on the levels and location of contamination found on the
property(ies). and Whether any action (e.g., treatment or capping) was taken on the property. It shall also
discuss measures that must be taken that minimize soil disturbances during site development, routine
maintenance or repair activities and that are fully protective of workers; for the proper disposal of soil, and
to maintain the integrity of the selected remedy, as applicable. The PRPs shall notify EPA and Ecology of
any future development activities which result in changes to the current industrial use of the site so that
additional cleanup measures can be identified and implemented as appropriate.
-------
During implementation of the remedy, safety measures shall include air monitoring to ensure that the dust
control measures are sufficient to protect on-site and nearby workers and the community. At a minimum,
dust suppression techniques shall be used during excavation activities such that a "no visible dust" standard
is achieved. Other safety measures shall Include covering of any stockpiled materials, lining and covering
truck beds when transporting contaminated materials, removing soD from truck wheels before travel on
public roads, and the Implementation of a transportation plan to establish local truck rOUtes to minimize
noise and disruption to the community.
Safety and health measures for remediation workers shall be detaned in a site health and safety plan
submitted during RD/RA
Educational programs and safety procedures shall be developed for future "(post-cleanup) excavations so
that contact with contaminated soil is minimized, and so that such son Is appropriately disposed. These
programs and safety procedures shall address significant site development projects as well as routine utilities
installation and maintenance projects.
Educational programs and materials shall be implemented and distributed to inform the community (e.g.,
nearby residents and current and future on-site workers) aboUt the hazards remaining at the site. The
educational information distribUted to the community shall explain that the cleanup remedy is designed to
protect industrial workers, discuss the remaining chemical and physical hazards at the site, and discourage
trespassing.
Fencing and other barriers shall be used to restrict access to the site in areas where industrial cleanup levels
are exceeded, and to prevent unauthorized (e.g., recreationalist/trespasser) access to and use of the soil-
capped areas. Existing fences or natural (vegetative) barriers shall be incorporated into the design. Warning
signs shall also be posted at the site to discourage trespassing. The configuration and locations of the
fencing, barriers and warning signs shall be submitted during Remedial Design and shall be consistent with
the site development plan discussed in Section 9.1.2, above.
9.1.4
Ground Water Monitoring
Ground water monitoring, Including monitoring of the petroleum hydrocarbon contamination found at the
Amsted property, shall be conducted as part of the cleanup remedy for this portion of the site. EPA has
determined that. whne some contaminants have occasionally exceeded drinking water standards at various
monitoring wells, there Is no defined plume of contamination (other than that found at Pioneer BuDders
Supply) that wanants further cleanup action. However. the PRPs shall monitor the ground water for changes
to the current low levels of contamination in the ground water that may result from cleanup activities, oft-site
discharges (from the City of Tacoma's two storm water oUtfalls) , fUture site activities, or from leaving
untreated hazardous substances In place to ensure that ground water levels stay below federal drinking
water s~ndards (Maximum Contaminant Levels) or health based standards. EPA will use the monitoring
data to determine trends In ground water quality. EPA wDl review the monitoring program every fIVe years
to determine whether additional actions are required or whether the monitoring program should be modified
or discontinued.
-------
Table 9-3
MTCA Method B Residential Soil Cleanup Levels for South Tacoma Faeld
Medium Oeanup Level
Aluminum 80,000 mg/kgD
Antimony 32 mg/kg
Arsenic 20 mg/kgb
Beryllium 0.23 mg/kg
Copper 2,960 mg/kg
Lead 250 mg/kgb
Soil Manganese 11,200 mg/kg
Zinc 24,000 mg/kg
Aldrin 0.059 mg/kg
Carcinogenic
PAHs (Total) 1 mg/kgb
3.3-Dichlorobenzidirie 2.2 mg/kg
PCBs (Total) 1 mg/kgb
Pentachlorophenol 8.3 mg/kg
b
Source: PA, April 8, 1993, letter from EPA to Bur1ington Northern Railroad
Method A residential cleanup level
8
9.1.5
Monitoring In the Wetlands/Drainage Channel
EPA concurs with the conclusion of the RI that the major source of the surface water and sediment
contamination found in the wetland and drainage channel results from storm water discharging on-site from
two City of Tacoma outfalls. Data from storm water run-on. run-off, surface water and sediment sampling
Indicate that contamination In the water Is settling out In the soil and sediments In this area. The long
drainage channel serves as a holding basin with water flowing off-site only after major storm events. The
settling of contaminants out of the water Into the sediments and soil of the wetland/drainage channel is a
benefit since. generally, water quality leaving the site (and ultimately discharging to Flett Creek) is of better
quality than the water entering the site. The wetlands/drainage channel area is providing a beneficial use
by filtering the storm water contamination coming from off-site. Concentrations of lead and PAHs in
sediments in portions of the wetlands/drainage channel exceed the MTCA industrial cleanup levels, and
there is some affect on ground water quality (e.g., low pH In a nearby monitoring well) which may be caused
by the storm water flowing onto the site. EPA has determined that the storm water impacts on surface
water; sediments and ground water do not represent an Imminent and substantial endangerment to pUbic
health, welfare. or the environment. EPA does, however, intend to address the storm water discharge and
potential future Impacts from this discharge through other EPA or state programs.
The PRPs shall monitor storm water run-on, run-off, on-site surface water and sediment for changes to the
current low levels of contamination that may result from storm water discharge to the site. The data will be
-------
used to monitor ~rends in sediment and water quality in the wetlands/drainage channel and to determine
whether continued discharge of storm water will have a negative effect on ground water quality beneath the
site. EPA will review the monitoring program every fIVe years to determine whether additional actions (e.g..
cleanup of storm water, sediment, ground water) are required (under Superfund or other EPA programs)
or whether the monitoring program should be modified or discontinued.
Cost Estimate (+50 to -30 percent) for the Selected Remedy for STF Soli
Estimated Capital Costs: $14,136.000
Estimated O&M Costs: $1,688.000
Estimated Total Costs: $15.824,000
Estimated Time to Complete: 20 months
9.2
PIONEER BUILDERS SUPPLY
9.2. 1
Treatment of Soli and Ground Water
The selected remedy for soU and ground water contamination associated with the former USTs at Pioneer
Builders is Alternative PBS~. air sparging and in situ vapor extraction. The PRPs shall implement this
remedy by installing air Injection wells screened In the ground water and vapor extraction wells screened
in the unsaturated zone. Extracted vapors shall be treated using a catalytic convertor or activated carbon
to reduce the emission of contaminants In accordance with PSAPCA requirements. The vapor treatment
method shall be specified In remedial design. The PRPs shall treat contaminated soil and ground water to
levels at or below those described in Table 9-4.
Table 9-4
Cleanup Levels for Pioneer Builders Supply
Medium Cleanup Levels
Subsurface SoD Benzene 0.5 mg/kg'
Toluene 40 mg/kg'
Ethylbenzene 20 mg/kg'
Xylenes 20 mg/kg'
TPH 100-200 mg/kg8.b
Ground water 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 5 ug/Lc
Naphthalene 32 ug/L d
Benzene 5 ug/Lc
Toluene 1000 ug/Lc
Ethylbenzene 700 ug/Lc
Xylene 10.000 ug/Lb
TPH 1000 ug/L Lb
a
MTCA Industrial Method A
-------
b
Enforcement of this standard will be taken by Ecology at Its discretion.
Cleanup level set at federal drinking water standard. If cleanup to these federal drinking water
standards is achieved and the ground water stDl does not achieve the MTCA cumulative risk
requirement of risks no greater than 1 in 100,000 or a Hazard Index no greater than 1, then ground
water use will be restricted to non-drlnking water purposes.
MTCA Method B .
d
Insufficient environmental data are currently avaDable to define the extent of soD and ground water
contamination at Pioneer BuDders Supply. The PRPs shall collect additional data during remedial design
to fill the data gaps. The PRPs shall Install ground water monitoring wells to determine the size of and to
monitor the contaminant plume. The number and location of additional ground water monitoring wells shall
be approved by EPA during Remedial Design. The PRPs shall use this information to conduct a pDot study
and testing of the extraction/treatment system during Remedial Design to determine the exact configuration,
spacing. and optimum operating conditions of the system. The pilot system shall be designed and
constructed such that It can be incorporated into the final extraction/treatment system. If the contaminated
ground water plume is determined to be expanding or migrating in spite of remedial action discussed above,
then additional actions (system expansion or hydraulic control) shall be required.
The PRPs shall implement institutional controls, In the form of restrictions on ground water use (to non-
drinking water purposes) In the vicinity of Pioneer BuDders Supply as part of the selected remedy. The
restricted use area shall be defined during RD using data collected by the PRPs as part of the pilot study,
Including data from new and existing ground water monitoring wells. This restriction shall continue until
ground water cleanup levels are achieved throughout the contaminant plume and MTCA cumulative risk
requirement of risks no greater than 1 In 100,000 and a Hazard Index no greater than 1 are achieved.
The PRPs shall also conduct compliance monitoring to determine the effectiveness of the remedy in cleaning
up the contamination in the soil and ground water to determine that compliance with cleanup levels has
been achieved and the operation extraction/treatment system can be discontinued~ As part of this
monitoring program, the PRPs shall monitor for TPH, in addition to other chemicals of concem.
Enforcement of the TPH standard. however, will be taken by Ecology at the department's discretion. The
TPH cleanup level will not be used by EPA to determine when compliance with cleanup levels has been
achieved and the extraction/treatment system can be shut down. EPA wDl notify Ecology when the cleanup
levels (in Table 9-3) have been achieved prior to discontinuing treatment. EPA wDl review the ground water
monitoring program every fIVe years to determine whether additional actions are required or whether the
monitoring program should be modified or discontinued.
Cost Estimate for the Selected Remedy for Pioneer Builders Supply
Estimated Capital Costs: $456.000
Estimated O&M Costs: $807,000
Estimated Total Costs: $1,263.000
Estimated Time to Complete: 2 years
9.3
TACOMA CITY UGHT DRY WELLS (SOIL)
The PRPs shall excavate contaminated soD In the dry wells with PCB concentrations above 50 ppm or endrin
concentrations above 0.13 ppm and transport the soil off-site for incineration. The volume of contaminated
soil that would be incinerated is approximately 25 cubic yards.
The PRPs shall excavate soD in the dry wells with PCB, PAH, and other chemical concentrations above the
MTCA Method B residential cleanup levels and transport these soil to an off-site. permitted hazardous waste
landfill for disposal. Oeanup Levels are shown in Table 9-5. The estimated volume of soD to be disposed at
an off-site permitted facDity is about 95 cubic yards.
-------
Table 9-5
Method B Cleanup Levels for Tacoma City Ught Dry Wells
I Medium I Cleanup Levels I
Soil Aldrin 0.059 mg/kg
Carbazole 50.0 mg/kg
Carcinogenic PAHs (Total) 1.0 mg/kg
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 42 mg/kg
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine 2.2 mg/kg
PCBs (Total) 1.0 mg/kg
Pentachlorophenol 8.3 mg/kg
The PRPs shall conduct confirmational sampling to determine that compliance with MTCA Method B
residential cleanup levels has been achieved. The PRPs shall backfill the dry wells with clean soli and install
catch basins. Once cleanup levels have been achieved, no Institutional controls, ground water monitoring,
operation and maintenance activities, or other long-term actions will be required for this area.
Estimated Cost for the Selected Remedy It the Tacoma City Ught Dry Wells
Estimated Capital Costs: $179,000
Estimated O&M Costs: none
Estimated Total Costs: $179,000
Estimated Time to Complete: 10 months
9.4
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
The total estimated cost of the selected remedy including remedial actions for the STF soil, soil and ground
water at Pioneer Builders Supply, and the Tacoma City Ught dry wells is shown below. These costs are
estimated and are considered to be accurate to within -30% to + 50%. Costs are described using the
present worth methodology with a discount rate equal to fIVe percent. The cost estimate includes direct and .
indirect capital costs, as well as annual operations and maintenance costs.
Estimated Capital Costs: $14,800,000
Estimated O&M Costs: $2,500.000
Estimated Total Costs: $17,300,000
10.0 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
EPA's primary responsibility under CERCLA is to ensure that remedial actions are undertaken which protect
human health, welfare, and the environment. In addition, Section 121 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. ~9621,
establishes cleanup standards which require that the selected remedial action complies with all ARARs
established under federal and state environmental law, unless such requirements are waived by EPA in
accordance with established criteria. The selected remedy must also be cost-effective and must utilize
permanent solutions, altemative treatment technologies, or resource recovery technologies to the maximum
-------
extent practicable. CERCLA regulations Include a preference for remedies that employ treatment that
permanently and significantly reduces the volume. toxicItY. or mobUity of hazardous waste. The following
sections discuss how the selected remedy for the site meets these CERCLA requirements.
10.1
OVERALL PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT
Long-term protection of human health is obtained by excavation and treatment of soU hot spots (STF soU).
incineration of some PCB and pesticide contaminated soU and off-site disposal of contaminated soU above
MTCA Method B levels(City Ught). by capping soU contaminated above MTCA Industrial soU cleanup levels
treatment of soil and ground water (at Pioneer Builders Supply) and through the use of Institutional controls
to restrict access to and use of contaminated soli and ground water. These actions wUl eliminate. reduce.
or control exposure to contaminants and will reduce contaminant toxicity and mobUity.
Implementation of the cleanup remedy will achieve protection of human health through compliance with
OSHA requirements, the use of personal protective equipment, and other safety measures and engineering
controls. Short term risks to the community during Implementation of the remedy will be minimized through
dust control and other protective measures. Protection of the environment wUl be obtained during
remediation by covering stockpUes and using berms and ditches around excavations and other .best
management practices. to control contaminated runoff. In addition, the environment will be protected from
air pollution through compliance with the promulgated substantive requirements of the Puget Sound Air
Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA).
Long-term maintenance will be required for the selected remedy. The cap has moderate permanence and
requires periodic maintenance. Site-wide water monitoring will be required after remediation. Five-year
reviews of the site wide ground water, storm water. surface water. and sediment quality trends will be
conducted to determine If additional source control or ground water treatment actions are required or If the
ground water monitoring program should be modified or discontinued.
..
10.2
COMPUANCE WITH.ARARS
The selected remedy will meet all ARARs that have been identified. The ARARs that have been identified
for the STF site Include the following:
10.2.1 Chemical-Specific ARARs
Chemical-specific requirements are usually health-based or risk-based numerical values or methodologies
that establish the acceptable amount or concentration of a chemical In the ambient environment.
1.
Safe Drinking Water Act MCLs and non-zero MCLGs, 40 C.F.R. 141; State Board of Health,
Public Water Supplies (RCW 43.20; WAC 248-54).
These requirements govern public water supply systems. set MCLs for various parameters. and set
minimum water quality monitoring requirements. These requirements are applicable for off-site
drinking water supplies and for on-site and off-site ground water. The City of Tacoma' uses the
upper aquifer as a source of drinking water and has nearby production wells. The selected remedy
will comply with these regulations and ground water monitoring wUl be used to verify that chemical
concentrations in ground water are below MCLs and non-zero MCLGs throughout the affected
portions of the aquifer.
-------
2.
Washington State Model Toxies Control Act (RCW 70.1050; WAC 173-340).
MTCA soil cleanup levels for protection of human health in a residential setting and for protection
of ground water from contaminants leaching from soli are applicable and will be met through
ex~vation and treatment of hot spots, capping areas exceeding Industrial cleanup levels, and
institutional controls (e.g., restrictions on site use to industrial purposes and access restrictions).
MTCA ground water cleanup levels. based on federal and state standards and MTCA method Bare
applicable and will be met throughout the affected aquifer through treatment and Institutional
controls.
10.2.2 Location-Specific ARARs
Location-specific requirements are restrictions based on the concentration of hazardous substances or the
conduct of activities in specific locations. These may restrict or preclude certain remedial actions or may
apply only to certain portions of the site.
1.
executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, and Executive Order 11990, Protection of
Wetlands, May 24, 1977 Incorporated In 40 C.F.R. Part 6, Appendix A; Federal Clean Water Act, .
Section 404, 42 U.S.C. 11344; City of Tacoma Shoreline Master Program, Chapter 13.10 of
Title 13 of the Tacoma City Code.
These requirements regulate actions that occur in wetlands and flood plains and may be applicable
to actions that may adversely affect wetlands and flood plains. Remedial activities do not Include
flood plain development and will not reduce the base flood water storage ability of the floodplain.
Remedial activities in the drainage channel at the site will involve institutional controls and access
restrictions and are not expected to adversely impact the wetland and surface water drainage
channel In the westem section of the site.
10.2.3 Action-Specific ARARs
Action-Specific ARARs are technology-based or activity-based controls or restrictions on activities related
to management of hazardous wastes. These requirements are triggered by the particular remedial activities
selected to cleanup the site.
1.
CAA (42 U.S.C. H 7401 .!1 ,!!g.) National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality
Standards, 40 C.F.R. Part 50; CAA National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants,
40 C.F.R. Part 60. Washington State Clean Air Act (RCW 70.94; WAC 173-400-460); Puget
. Sound Air Pollution Control Authority (PSAPCA) Regulations I and III.
Clean Air Act regulations are applicable for on-site air emissions from ground water treatment
systems and for control of dust particles emitted Into the air during remediation activities. Remedial
actions that would result In air emissions wDI be designed to meet federal and state air quality
standards. PSAPCA requirements are applicable. Remedial actions that could involve releases of
contaminants to air wDi be performed In compliance with substantive requirements of a PSAPCA
permit. .
2.
Solid Waste Disposal Act, also known as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,
Subchapter III, (42 U.S.C. 116921-6939; 40 C.F.R. Parts 261, 264, and 268). Washington State
Dangerous Waste Regulations (WAC 173-303).
RCRA and the Washington State Dangerous Waste regulations Impose a number of requirements
on remediation Involving the dispoSal and/or placement of waste and contains a number of
provisions which may apply at the site. RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) place specific
-------
restrictions on certain RCRA hazardous wastes prior to their placement in a land disposal unit.
Under CERCLA, placement occurs when wastes are moved from one "area of contamination. (AOC)
to another. Therefore, wastes left in place or consolidated within one AOC are not subject to the
regulations. For purposes of this ROD. the STF site soil area has been identified as one AOC.
LDRs, therefore, are not applicable for containment of soil within the site. EPA has determined that
RCRA LDRs are applicable to hot spot site soils that are RCRA characteristic waste and are treated
on-site. Treated soil wDl be tested to determine compliance with the Land Disposal Restrictions as
discussed in 40 C.F.R. Part 268. .
Certain requirements in the RCRA closure standards are relevant and appropriate. These
requirements will be met by conducting a hybrid-landfill closure at the site which Includes a cap to
address the direct contact threat. cap maintenance. and ground water monitoring. This approach
is being used because residual contamination poses a direct contact threat but does not pose a
ground water threat.
State Dangerous Waste regulations may be applicable for soil contaminated with PCBs in the
concentration range of 1-50 mgjkg and for soil containing inorganlcs which fail the TCLP test and
are considered RCRA characteristic waste.
3.
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA 15 U.S.C. H2601-2671; 40 C.F.R. Part 761.60); WAC 173-
303-170 through 202).
These regulations require that soDs with PCBs at concentrations exceeding 50 mgjkg be destroyed
by incineration or be disposed in a chemical waste landfill and are applicable for PCB contaminated
soils that are disposed off-site. The PCB contaminated soil at this site will be handled in
accordance with these regulations.
4.
Transportation of Hazardous Materials, 49 C.F.R. 171-177; RCW 46.48 (WAC 446-50).
These regulations are applicable for hazardous or dangerous waste disposed off-site. The selected
remedy will comply with these federal and state regulations.
5.
Washington State Minimum Standards for the Construction and Maintenance of Wells (RCW
18.104, WAC 173-160).
Standards for construction, testing, and abandonment of water and resource protection wells. are
applicable and wDl be met during the remediation and monitoring.
6.
Washington State Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (70.95 RCW, WAC 173-351).
These regulations are applicable for appropriate off-site disposal of solid waste.
10.2.4 Policy, Guidance and Regulations To-Be-Considered
Additional policies, guidance and other laws and regulations to be considered for source control
and remedial actions include. but are not necessarUy limited to the TSCA PCB Spill Cleanup
Policy, 40 C.F.R. 5761.120. EPA Guidance on Selecting Remedies at Superfund sites with PCB
Contamination (OSWER Directive No. 9355.4-(1). EPA Area of Contamination Policy
(Preamble to the NCP (Federal Register Volume 55, No. 46, March 8, 1990, pages 8759-8760;
Ecology Toxics Cleanup Program Area of Contamination Polley (September 6, 1991).
Washington State Department of Ecology Toxics Cleanup Program Guidance for Remediation
of Releases from Underground Storage Tanks.
-------
The TSCA PCB Spill Cleanup Policy provides gUidance on recommended cleanup levels under
certain scenarios. The Superfund PCB guidance recommends cleanup criteria for remediation and
specifies long-term management controls for PCB-contaminated media.
The EPA Area of Contamination Policy, in the NCP Preamble, provides guidance regarding how
material designated as hazardous waste can be consolidated and contained within an area of
contamination without triggering the RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions. The Ecology Area of
Contamination Policy addresses how material designated as dangerous waste can be consolidated,
contained or treated within an area of contiguous contamination without triggering the state
Dangerous Waste regulations.
Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA 29 U.S.C. 5651). Washington Industrial Safety and
Health Act (WAC 296-62). The Implementing regulations under OSHA. 20 C.F.R. Parts 1910 and
1926 and the state health and safety regulations are not ARARs. However, these regulations are
of general applicability to response actions regardless of ARARs analysis.
10.3
COST EFFECTIVENESS
EPA has determined that the combination of remedial activities identified as the selected remedy will reduce
or eliminate the risks to human health and the environment in a cost-effective manner. Because treatment
is focused on those areas of the site that have the highest contaminant concentrations and which pose the
greatest risk to the environment and human health, costs will be minimized. The contaminants in these
areas also have the greatest potential for migration in the environment. Areas of the site containing lower
levels of contaminants would be capped, which Is protective but less costly than treatment technologies,
and appropriate given the lower site risks. The selected remedy would treat approximately 55 percent of
the total contaminant mass, but treat only 10 percent of the contaminated soil volume, providing a balance
between cost and reduction in toxicity and volume.
10.4
UTlUZATION OF PERMANENT SOLUTIONS AND RESOURCE RECOVERY TECHNOLOGIES TO
THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE .
-.
EPA has determined that the selected remedy represents the maximum extent to which permanent solutions
and treatment technologies can be utilized in a cost effective manner for remediation of soil and ground
water at the STF site. Of those alternatives that are adequately protective of hurnan health and the
environment and comply with ARARs, EPA has determined that the selected remedy provides the best
balance in terms of long-term effectiveness and permanence, reduction of toxicity, mobility and volume
achieved through treatment, short-term effectiveness, implementability and cost, while also considering the
statutory preference for treatment as a principle element and considering state and community acceptance.
Treatment of the soil hot spots and treatment of organic contamination in soil and ground water at Pioneer
Builders Supply provides long-term effectiveness and permanence and provides a significant reduction of
toxicity, mobility and volume while minimizing short-term risks. Containment of less contaminated areas in
the STF portion of the site also reduces mobility and provides long-term effectiveness. while minimizing
implementation difficulties and costs associated with removal of large and inaccessible quantities of soil.
EPA has determined that the selected remedy wDi provide protectiveness in a more cost-effective manner
than alternatives that treat all contaminated soD and all contaminated ground water but cause significant
short-term risks to workers, at disproportionate costs or than lower cost alternatives that consist of little or
no treatment, are easily and quickly implementable, but provide little reduction in toxicity, mobility or volume
of the contamination.
-------
10.5
PREFERENCE FOR TREATMENT AS A PRINCIPAL ELEMENT
The selected remedy treats a significant portion of the site's soil contamination through the use of
solidification. Ground water and soil contamination at Pioneers Builder's Supply wUl be treated using air
sparging and In situ vapor extraction. Soil in the Tacoma City Ught Dry wells contaminated with PCB
concentrations at 50 parts per million wDl be Incinerated. The selected remedy meets the statutory
preference for using treatment as a principal element by using these technologies In significant roles in
cleanup of the site.
10.6 CONCLUSIONS
The selected remedy achieves the best balance among the nine evaluation criteria. The selected remedy
utilizes permanent solutions and treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable while providing
the best balance among the other evaluation criteria. The selected remedy achieves the best balance of
tradeoffs with the respect to the primary balancing criteria of long-term effectiveness and permanence;
reduction in toxicity, mobility, and volume through treatment; short-term effectiveness: Implementability; and
cost. Additional considerations Included the statutory preference for treatment as a principal element and
acceptability to the State and the potentially affected community.
11.0 DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
Based on new information that came to EPA's attention subsequent to issuance of the Proposed Plan, EPA
identified MTCA residential cleanup levels as applicable to the site. In addition, In response to a comment
made by the PRP Site Group during the public comment period, EPA re-evaluated the actions for the PCB'
contaminated soil and Included in the selected remedy the additional element of disposal in accordance with
TSCA. These changes are logical outgrowths of the information available to the public in the Proposed Plan
and the RI/FS reports. Additional public notice or public comment was determined not to be necessary
because, based on the information available, the public could have reasonably anticipated the changes
described. The following sections discuss in more detail the changes that have been incorporated in the
selected remedy.
11.1
CLEANUP LEVELS FOR THE STF SITE SOIL
Based on information in the RI/FS, the PropOSed Plan stated that the entire STF site was zoned for industrial
uses. EPA and Ecology determined that this made the site eligible to use MTCA industrial cleanup levels
as the cleanup levels for the site [pursuant to a recent revision to MTCA, Senate Bill 6123, Subsection 2(13)
amendment to MTCA at RCW 70.105D.020(13)]. As a result, the soD cleanup goals presented in the
Proposed Plan were selected primarily for protection of industrial workers.
Subsequent to the comment period on the Proposed Plan, new information came to the attention of EPA
indicating that a narrow strip of land at the site, along the westem boundary, is zoned R-3-T, Residential-
Commercial Transitional District. Based on this new Information, EPA has determined that MTCA residential
cleanup levels do apply to this site since portions of the site are zoned for residential/commercial uses.
The determination that MTCA residential cleanup levels are applicable does not significantly affect the
cleanup action at the site. The Proposed Plan provided that appropriate Institutional controls and deed
restrictions be implemented site-wide for ensuring that the entire site was used only for industrial purposes
(inclusive of that narrow portion of land) and for protecting against potential exposure to contamination
above residential cleanup levels, should the zoning of the site change In the future. The applicability of the
MTCA residential cleanup levels does not affect the capping or treatment requirements Identified in the
Proposed Plan and In this ROD, since these actions are to be Implemented at those areas of the site that
are zoned for industrial uses. Both the Proposed Plan and the selected remedy In the ROD also require
additional cleanup to residential cleanup levels should the property uses change to residential development
in the future. '
-------
11.2
PCBs IN STF SOIL
EP A identified incineration of soil contaminated with PCBs at concentrations at or exceeding 50 mg/kg in
the STF soil portion of the preferred alternative. During the public comment period, the PRPs commented
that the maximum concentration of PCBs detected In one son sample was 56 ppm. The PRPs suggested
that this son could be soiidified and retumed to the site. The PRPs also stated that since EPA's preferred
alternative proposed solidification and containment for soD contaminated with PCBs at 50 ppm, then
solidification of PCB contaminated soil that only slightly exceeds the treatment threshold concentration
would more than adequately protect hurnan health and the environment. TSCA allows either Incineration or
disposal in a chemical waste landfill for soil contaminated with PCBs at 50 parts per million and above.
TSCA regulations provide for approval of alternative technologies if they are demonstrated to be equivalent
to incineration in ability to destroy PCBs. The solidification/stabilization treatment method selected for STF
soil would not achieve the same remedial results as incineration. However, Alternative STF4 in the FS
analyzed the option of off.site disposal of PCBs. The selected remedy Includes this component of the STF4
alternative, providing that PCBs in STF soil may be either Incinerated or disposed off-site In an approved
chemical waste landfill.
-------
APPENDIX A
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
Section 1
Introduction
A.
Overview
The purpose of this responsiveness summary is to summarize and respond to public comments
submitted on the Proposed Plan for the,cleanup of the South Tacoma Field (STF) Superfund Site. The
public comment period for the Proposed Plan was held from June 15, 1994 to July 15,1994. This
responsiveness summary meets the requirements of Section 117 of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) as amended by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA).
In the Proposed Plan, issued June 15, 1994, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) described
alternatives considered for the cleanup of soil and ground water at the STF site. These alternatives were
based on information collected during a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RIfFS) conducted
at the site. The purpose of an RifFS is to conduct a thorough study of the site and to assess potential
alternatives to clean up the site. The RifFS and Proposed Plan were available at the Tacoma Public
Ubrary, and copies of the Proposed Plan were maDed to a list of local citizens developed as part of the
Community Relations Plan. A copy of the RifFS was also made available for reference at the location of
the public meeting to take comments on the Proposed Plan.
EPA held a public meeting on June 28, 1994 at the Tacoma City Ught Auditorium in Tacoma to present
the results of the RifFS and to outline EPA's proposed cleanup plan. About ten people attended the
meeting, including some of the Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) at the site. Questions that were
asked and answered at the public meeting are recorded in the meeting transcript which is available in
the Administrative Record for the site at the Tacoma Public Ubrary. Some of those questions are
included in this document.
No oral comments were presented at the public meeting and only two people asked questions. Six
comment letters were received during the comment period. Members of the community were concerned
about the apparent inconsistencies In cleanup standards and remedies at two sites in Tacoma. The
PRPs stated that Alternative 3, Containment (capping) of contaminated soils, with no consolidation or
treatment, is a more cost effective remedy and is as protective as EPA's preferred alternative.
B.
Scope 0' Response to Comments
The primary purpose of this Responsiveness Summary is to address specific comments on the
-------
Section 2
Community Involvement
A.
Background
The South Tacoma Field Superfund site is a 260-acre parcel of land located in the southwestem part of
the City of Tacoma, Washington. The site is located in a lowland area, which is as much as 150 feet
lower than the surrounding uplands. The site is mostly open fields of grass with a few Industrial and
commercial facilities. The site also includes a former swamp and lake bed which has been filled in and
covered with grass. A small wetland, fed by storm water drainage, Is also located in this area. Along the
western boundary of the site is channel for storm water entering the site from two City of Tacoma storm
sewers.
During the past 100 years, portions of the site have been used for a variety of industrial and waste
disposal activities. Past Industrial activities include the manufacture and repair of railroad cars; the
operation of a brass and Iron wheel foundry; the operation and maintenance of an airfield, aircraft
refueling depot, and aircraft repair facility; and operation of the City of Tacoma's electric and drinking
water utility. Large parts of the former swamp/lakebed area were used to dump industrial and
construction materials, Including foundry slag and sand from off-site foundries.
Surface soil, and to a lesser extent subsurface soil, in these areas are contaminated to varying degrees
with lead, arsenic, copper, and zinc, particulariy at the Amsted property and the Buriington Northern
Railyard and Dismantling Yard. The metals occur in an irregular pattern that appear to be related to
specific historical activities. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and polychlorinated biphenyl
(PCBs) were also detected in some surface and subsurface soil samples.
Pioneer Builders Supply Is located in the southeastern portion of the site. Groundwater and subsurface
soil are contaminated In a location where underground storage tanks were removed from the property.
Soil samples contained gasoline constituents, such as toluene, xylenes, ethyl benzene, and benzene; and
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene; and PCBs. Groundwater samples contained benzene, ethyl benzene, and 1,1,2-
trichloroethane. This contamination appears to be localized around the former underground storage
tanks.
The Tacoma City Ught owns property at the northern end of the site and the property has been paved
since 1953. Ten dry wells located on this property were used to drain storm water. Most of these wells
have been sealed. Soil samples collected in the dry wells contained elevated concentrations of PAHs, .
PCBs. and endrin (a pesticide). The data suggest that the contamination is limited to an area within a
few feet of each dry well.
The City of Tacoma zoning maps designate most of the STF site as a "Heavy Industrial District." The site
has been designated for industrial use since at least the eariy 1950s. A narrow strip of the site along the
western boundary 15 zoned R-3-T, Residential-Commercial{Transltlonai. The majority of properties
adjacent to the site are currently used or designated for industrial purposes. The area east of the site
(between South 38th Street and South 56th Street) Is a combination of Heavy Industrial, Ught Industrial,
and Commercial districts. The area immediately south of the site is a combination of Heavy Industrial
and Ught Industrial districts.
The area west of the site is zoned for mixed uses. The southern section of the western border of the
site is zoned Heavy Industrial. The central section of the western border contains TwcrFamUy Dwelling,
Medical Center Transitional, and Commercial districts. The northern portion of the western border
-------
consists primarily of a smallUght Industrial district and a Residential/Commercial Transitional district.
Despite its title, the latter district is designed primarily for office and institutional land uses according to
the City of Tacoma. Many properties west of the site are separated from the industrial uses of the site
by a natural buffer area along Tyler Street. That buffer consists of a bluff, steep slopes, a paved road,
and vegetated areas along this western boundary of the site.
The area north of the site consists of Ught Industrial and Residential/Commercial Transitional districts.
The latter district is designed for office and institutional uses.
B. Community Concerns
EPA developed a Community Relations Plan (CRP) for the Commencement Bay NearshorejTidefiats and
Commencement Bay South Tacoma Channel sites. The CRP was designed to promote public
awareness of EPA activities and the investigations and to promote public involvement in the decision-
making process. The CRP summarizes the concerns of local citizens, Interests groups, Industries, and
local government representatives. In 1991, EPA Interviewed members of the community to gain a better
understanding of citizen concerns about this site, and to ensure that EPA's planned community relation
activities met the community;s needs. EPA supplemented the Tacoma Area CRP to reflect these needs
and identified a variety of activities to inform and involve the pUblic in the South Tacoma Field RI/FS
activities leading up to this ROD. Following is a list of those community concerns and a brief description
of EPA's responses to them:
Section 3
Response to Comments Received During the Public Comment Period
This section summarizes and responds to comments received from the public during the public
comment period on EPA's Proposed Plan. Comments and responses in this section are arranged by
topic. Those which applied to more than one topic were responded to under the heading considered
the most appropriate. Paraphrasing was used to Incorporate related concerns expressed in more than
one comment. Every attempt has been made to respond to concerns raised during the comment
period.
Comments below are grouped in the following categories:
. 1 to 10
. 11 to 12
. 13 to 14
. 15 to 19
. 20
. 21 to 23
Preferred Alternative
Risk Assessment
Cleanup Levels and Remedial Actions
Wetlands
Future Land Use
Miscellaneous
Preferred Alternative
1.
COMMENT: One commenter wondered why EPA had proposed the Option 6 (capping and
solidification) rather than Option 4 (off-site disposal) for South Tacoma Field soil?
RESPONSE: EPA's goal for a Superfund remedial action is to attempt to solve the
contamination problem at the site, If practicable, rather than merely transfer the contamination
-------
problem to another location. EPA, generally, prefers on-site remedies to those that involve off-
site disposal with only a minor treatment component. The inorganic soil contamination in the
STF soil (where the primary health threat is direct contact and ingestion) is particularly
manageable using solidification and capping. Off-site disposal of the STF soil would have
required an enormous earthmoving project. which would increase the risk of human exposure
during excavation and transportation relative to the selected remedy. For these reasons, EPA
determined that STF-6 (solidification on-site, with consolidation and capping), would be more
appropriate than off-site disposal, STF-4.
2.
COMMENT: The PRP Site Group commented that alternative STF-3, containment (capping)
should be the preferred altemative for soils at the site. The PRP commenters thought that STF-3
would reduce risks to the same extent as the preferred alternative, that STF-3 could be quickly
implemented, that the long-term effectiveness of STF-3 would be comparable to that of the
preferred alternative, and that STF-3 would best meet the cost-effective criteria of the National
Contingency Plan (NCP).
RESPONSE: .EPA considered all of NCP criteria before making the determination that STF-6 is
the preferred alternative. STF-6, the preferred alternative, includes treatment of highly
contaminated soils (hot spots) which provides greater protection to public health and has better
long-term effectiveness than STF-3, as It does not rely solely on maintenance of the cap over the
long-term to ensure reduced risks. Cost-effectiveness is only one of the nine criteria (which also
include protectiveness of human health and the environment) used to determine the final
cleanup remedy. EPA has determined that STF-6 provides the best balance among those
criteria. CERCLA expresses a statutory preference for treatment as an element of the remedy.
STF-6, the preferred alternative meets this statutory preference. STF-3 does not.
3.
COMMENT: The PRP Site Group commented that, If EPA determines that permanent and
aggressive treatment is necessary for site soDs, STF-6 is the appropriate remedy. The PRPs also
expressed the belief that EPA used an appropriate mode of analysis for selecting cleanup levels.
4.
RESPONSE: EPA acknowledges the comment.
COMMENT: The PRP Site Group commented that the preferred alternative, STF-6, would
include the off-site Incineration of approximately 117 cubic yards of soil containing PCBs in the
Burlington Northern dismantling yard. Information in the RI/FS indicates that the maximum
concentration'of PCBs is 56 mg/kg detected in only one sample, which only slightly exceeds the
hot spot treatment level of 50 mg/kg. The PRP Site Group suggested, in Its comments, that
since containment is proposed for PCB contaminated soD below 50 mg/kg, and this soil is only
. slightly above this level, then the soil could also be solidified and capped on-site. The PRPs
believe that this approach would adequately protect human health and the environment.
RESPONSE: The commenters appear to be referencing the PCB contamination at the
Pioneer Builders Suppiy Property, which is located in the Burtington Northem Railyard, not the
Dismantling Yard. EPA's Proposed Pian would require re-sampling of this location to confirm that
sons contain PCBs at or above 50 mg/kg. If re-sampling confirms concentrations above this
level, then the Proposed Plan would require the excavation of the PCB contaminated soil and
transportation off-site for incineration.
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires that soD contaminated with PCB
concentrations of 50 mg/kg or greater must either be incinerated or disposed in a permitted
-------
~
chemical waste landfill. TSCA PCB regulations provide for approval of altemative technologies if
such technologies are demonstrated to be equivalent to incineration in ability to destroy PCBs.
The solidification/stabilization treatment method selected for PCB contaminated STF soils would
not achieve the same remedial results as incineration. Therefore, solidification of PCBs at or
above 50 mg/kg is not acceptable to EPA However, the selected remedy In the ROD does
include the option of off-site incineration or disposal. The selected remedy provides that PCBs
in STF soDs may either be incinerated off-site or disposed in an off-site chemical waste landfill.
5.
COMMENT: A commenter from the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA)
strongly recommended that an Order of Approval to Construct be obtained from PSAPCA for
any activities or control equipment that might create contaminated air emissions at the site.
RESPONSE: The selected remedy in the ROD identifies PSAPCA regulations as an applicable
requirement for the soil vapor extraction and earthmoving components of the selected remedy.
CERCLA Section 121 (e), 42 U.S.C. ~9621(e) specifically exempts any response action conducted
entirely on-site from having to obtain a Federal, State or local permit, where the action is carried
out in compliance with Section 121,42 U.S.C. ~9621. In general, on-site actions need only
comply with the substantive aspects of ARARs, not the corresponding administrative
requirements. Although permit applications and other administrative reviews and procedures are
not considered ARARs, EPA expects that the parties Implementing the selected remedy will
consult with PSAPCA during remedial design and remedial actions to ensure that the substantive
requirements of PSAPCA's regulations are met
6.
COMMENT: The PRP Site Group proposed in its comments that decisions regarding the
specific areas (If any) for consolidation and capping of soil exceeding the cleanup standards
should be deferred until the remedial design. The PRP Site Group expressed the belief that.
consolidation and capping are not justified because these offer no additional environmental
benefit compared with in-place capping. The PRP Site Group believed that the cost of
consolidation and capping would be approximately 20 percent higher than in-place capping and
such coSt would be disproportionate to the benefit obtained.
RESPONSE: EPA agrees with the commenters that the appropriateness of specific caps for
specific areas will necessarily be influenced by long term property development plans for the
site. The ROD states that a site development plan shall be used during remedial design to
identify appropriate cap types depending on future land use. EPA has selected consolidation
and capping of soil above the industrial cleanup levels and below the hot spot action levels in
the ROD. Consolidation was selected In order to reduce the area requiring long term cap
maintenance.
Benefits of the remedial action must be viewed over the long-term. EPA recognizes that
immediately after placement, consolidation and capping offers little additional benefit compared
with in-place capping. However, caps are subject to degradation after several years, which
would re-lntroduce the potential for exposure to contaminated soD. Over time, the caps will
need to be Inspected and repaired to minimize the possibility of exposure. If the caps were
constructed in a patchwork pattem, as dictated by the current distribution of surface
contamination, the caps would be relatively more difficult to monitor and maintain and there
would be greater likelihood for the integrity of the caps to be breached over the long-term.
These are some of the reasons why EPA has determined that it would be more protective to
require consolidation of contaminated surface soil into three discrete areas for capping.
-------
..
7.
COMMENT: One commenter wondered whether It would be possible for 10 or 20 acres of
the site to be separated from the rest of the site and cleaned up on an accelerated schedule?
RESPONSE: If remedial actions at 10 to 20 acres of the site were undertaken prior to
initiating remedial actions at the remainder of the site. this would unnecessarily complicate the
effective management of the remedial action. The selected remedy involves consolidation and
capping, which means that soil wDl be moved around on site. During this process, the
excavation areas, roads, and consolidation areas must all be accessible during remedial action.
Because the exact location for each of these areas wm be detennined during remedial design,
and may be modified as remedial actions progress, It would not be practical or efficient at this
time to separate out several acres of the site prior to designing and implementing the cleanup at
the entire site.
8.
COMMENT: The PRP Site Group expressed the belief that there was no need for long tenn
monitoring because there is no threat of contamination to groundwater. The PRP Site Group
appears to base Its belief on that fact that there Is no site-wide contaminant plume in
groundwater and, with the exception of organic contamination at Pioneer Builders Supply and
viscous and apparently immiscible free product at Amsted, low levels of groundwater
contamination have been found on-site.
RESPONSE: EPA has detennlned that adequate Information exists In the RI/FS to indicate that
a threat of contamination to groundwater does exist. EPA considered several factors in reaching
a decision to require long tenn groundwater monitoring. Among those factors considered was
the fact that the selected remedy would leave on-site untreated soli that contains contaminants.
EPA has detennined that the potential exists for these contaminants to leach from the soil to the
groundwater. Considering the proximity of public water supply wells to the site, EPA has
detennined that public health can best be protected by requiring long tenn groundwater
monitoring in these circumstances so that there can be timely detection of contamination if such
migration of contamination does occur.
9.
COMMENT: The PRP Site Group commented that a decision to Install fencing should be
deferred until the remedial design phase in order to allow flexlbnity for future site development.
The commenters also noted that existing fencing In some areas had been vandalized and
breached. The commenters expressed the belief that fencing was not feasible for a large site
such as the STF site and that public education and appropriate site management were
preferable methods for deterring access to the site.
RESPONSE: EPA recognizes that the existing site fence has been periodically breached and
that It provides an Imperfect barrier to site entry. However, fencing does significantly reduce
foot and vehicle access to the site. The object of installing fencing and other barriers is to
reduce the likelihood that trespassers or nearby residents will disturb the soil and/or caps on-
site, thereby endangering themselves or others. EPA agrees that a combination of appropriate
site management and public education (as discussed in the ROD) in conjunction with existing
fencing, new fencing, and physical barriers (such as jersey barriers and natural vegetative
barriers) would be effe~ive to restrict site access. It is appropriate to develop the details of
such barriers during remedial design.
10.
COMMENT: The PRP Site Group commented that EPA should allow statistical analysis to be
used to detennine areas for consolidation or capping. The commenters discussed the scientific
soundness of statistical analysis and expressed the belief that It should be considered because a
-------
small number of discrete sample results would not be representative of actual conditions and
would result in unnecessary remediation of large areas that are below capping levels.
RESPONSE: EPA recognizes that statistical methods to guide the remedial actions may be
appropriate under certain circumstances. For exampte, EPA might consider a statistical
approach for areas the size of the RI sampling grids. EPA would not consider such an
approach appropriate for areas the size of the six site areas (such as the Dismantling Yard and
Airport).
If a contaminant concentration in a RI sampling grid were close to the levels at which
consolidation and capping must occur, such a relationship might Indicate the appropriateness of
conducting additional sampling and a statistical evaluation of the new data to determine whether
remedial action is required for that sampling grid. EPA, however, will not consider statistical
averaging of existing RI data as an appropriate approach for establishing whether remedial
action Is required for groups of RI sampling grids. This Is because EPA's approach to the Risk
Assessment assumes human activities that could potentially lead to exposure to contaminants
are likely to occur in areas approximately the size of the RI sampling grids. Averaging groups of
grids could lead to leaving a grid untreated, where existing data indicates the presence of
unacceptably high levels of contamination are present in that grid. EPA's framework for an
acceptable statistical method will be defined in the Statement of Work for RD/RA.
Risk Assessment
11.
COMMENT: The PRP Site Group commented that the Human Health Risk Assessment for the.
site indicated that site risks under an Industrial scenario do not pose significant threat to human
health and those areas where a threat does occur are limited to a few hot spot locations.
RESPONSE: EPA agrees with the commenters that site risks for some of the contaminants may
not pose a significant risk. However, the risks identified by the commenters do not include risks
of exposure to lead. Lead Is a major contaminant of concern at the site. The quantity of soil
contaminated with lead above the 1000 parts per mOl ion MTCA industrial cleanup level Is
significant (estimated to be about 654,000 cubic yards) and is distributed over a much larger
area than the limited hot spot locations discussed under the industrial scenario in the Human
Health Risk Assessment. Thus, lead has a significant Impact on the extent of the cleanup that
will be required at the site. in contaminated areas, the chemicals of concern used in the Risk
Assessment to developed site risks. are mostly mixed In with the lead. Therefore, capping and
treatment requirements to reduce exposure to lead contamination WIll also reduce the risks from
exposure to the other contaminants that are mixed with lead.
12.
COMMENT: The Tacoma Environmental Commission commented that failure to consider
different species of arsenic could result In an Improper risk analysis.
RESPONSE: In its risk analysis, EPA has taken Into consideration the different species of
arsenic. EPA used total arsenic concentrations in soD as a surrogate for the concentrations of
As+3 and As+5, the common arsenic species. EPA's general approach to risk assessment, the
cancer slope factor and oral reference dose for total arsenic were used. These conservative
values lead to conservative risk numbers. This conservative approach was used to ensure that
risks to human health from potential exposure to arsenic would not be under-estimated and that
cleanup decisions would be protective of human health.
-------
Cleanup Levels and Remedial Actions
13.
COMMENT: The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) commented that,
based on the information provided In the proposed plan, the soD and ground water cleanup
levels proposed for the site are protective of public hea~h. ATSDR commented that the
industrial cleanup levels for soil are appropriate as long as the future use of the site remains
industrial and institutional controls and a monitoring program are used as prudent measures to
ensure that future exposure to contaminants does not occur. ATSDR also commented that the
cleanup to MTCA residential soil cleanup levels for the Tacoma City Ught Dry Wells Is also
protective of public health and that unrestricted use of this site Is appropriate given the
conservative cleanup levels.
RESPONSE: EPA acknowledges the comment.
14.
COMMENT: The City of Tacoma Environmental Commission commented on apparent
Inconsistencies in the cleanup levels and solutions proposed for the South Tacoma Field site, an
industrial area, and those selected for the Thea Foss Waterway, also an Industrial site. Among
the differences noted by the commenter were: 1000 parts per million cleanup level for lead in
soils at South Tacoma Field versus 250 parts per million at the Thea Foss uplands area; a three-
foot thick clean cap for soD containment at Thea Foss Waterway versus a one-foot thick soil cap
at South Tacoma Field. The commenter expressed concern that politics and economic
considerations appear to be eclipsing good science as a basis for decision making.
RESPONSE: EPA shares the commenter's concem for consistent application of cleanup levels
for similar sites and for similar land uses. In this case, apparent inconsistencies in the
application of cleanup standards are due to factors that are unique to each site.
Cleanup levels for lead at the two sites are related to the projected uses of the land. At the
South Tacoma Field site, the land has been used for industrial purposes for the past 100 years.
Based on information presented In the RifFS. EPA had determined that the entire site was zoned
heavy Industrial, and thus was eligible to use Industrial cleanup levels, as provided under recent
to MTCA. Subsequent to issuance of the Proposed Plan, Information came to EPA's attention
Indicating that a narrow strip of the site (18 acres out of 260) along the westem boundary has
been zoned R-3-T, Residential-Transitional-Commercial. However, future land use of the rest of
the site is projected to be industrial. Although the City of Tacoma's long term land use plan
Indicates that this R-3-T zoned area is Intended as a buffer area and would not include
residential uses, EPA has determined that the site does not meet the eligibility requirements as
outlined in the recent MTCA amendments.
Considering the new Information, EPA has now determined that the cleanup levels for
this site should be MTCA residential cleanup levels. This change is included in the ROD,
but does not alter significantly the overall cleanup for the site. This is because EPA's
preferred alternative identified in the Proposed Plan included using institutional controls
(e.g., deed restriction prohibiting residential uses unless further cleanup action is taken)
to prevent exposure to chemicals which exceed residential cleanup levels.
At the Thea Foss uplands site (part of the Commencement Bay - Nearshore Tideflats site), the
City of Tacoma has projected use of some properties in this area for residential purposes.
-------
Based on projected residential use of some of these properties, the State Department of Ecology
has set the cleanup levels for this area at the MTCA residential cleanup level for lead of 250
parts per million for lead. Because persons In residential areas would necessarily have longer
periods of exposure than persons In Industrial settings, cleanup levels for residential areas are
necessarDy more stringent than cleanup levels for Industrial areas.
The differences In soll-contalnment measures at the two sites are related to the locations of the
caps (one cap located on land, one cap under water) and to the different receptor objects of
protection. The Thea Foss cap Is under water. The capped area is designed to eliminate
, exposure'to chemicals fO,r organisms living in the waterway. A thick cap Is necessary in this
area since the waterway is subject to dredging and to the erosion action caused by tidal action.
The South Tacoma Field cap Is on land and such dredging and erosion is not likely to OCCl!r at
the STF site. At STF, the proposed cap would use either soli or asphalt as appropriate to a
specific area. Soli Is planned for those areas which would be used for future development.
Asphalt Is planned for those areas designated for roads and parking lots (in conjunction with
future development plans). The STF cap is designed to prevent human contact with
contaminated soil and WIll be contoured and vegetated as necessary to protect against erosion.
At the STF site, other access and land use restrictions, in conjunction with regular Inspections
and repairs, should prevent the cap from deteriorating.
,Economic considerations O.e., cost) Is only one of nine NCP criteria that EPA uses when
evaluating various cleanup alternatives for a site. The selected cleanup remedy must first be
protective and comply with federal and state regulations. After these criteria Is met then cost
may be considered. EPA has determined that the one-foot thickness of the South Tacoma cap
In conjunction with treatment and Institutional controls, will protect against human exposure to
contaminated son over the long term and complies with regulations. As discussed above. each
cap (that at STF and at Thea Foss) Is appropriate to site-specific conditions.
Wetlands
15.
COMMENT: The PRP Site Group commented that the existing wetlands on the site were
created and contaminated by the run-on from the storm water system operated by the City of
Tacoma. The PRP Site Group articulated the expectation that vigorous source control measures
would be required by EPA and by the state and that all costs associated with those measures
should be the responsibDity of the City of Tacoma.
RESPONSE: The on-site wetland was not created by storm water as the commenters suggest.
The RI Indicated that most of the historical wetlands In this area were degraded and destroyed
due to long-term filling activities and other land alterations. The remnant wetland and the
drainage channel now are maintained primanly by the storm water discharging onto the site.
EPA wDl work closely with the Washington State Department of Ecology to determine: whether
future source control or other actions are necessary in the wetland/drainage channel portion of
the site: the appropriate regulatory program under which the actions would be carried out, and
the liabDity of PRPs for these actions.
16.
COMMENT: The City of Tacoma Public Works Department (City) commented that potential
CERCLA requirements would be duplicative of Its Clean Water Act (CWA) , National Pollution
Discharge (NPDES), permit requirements.
-------
RESPONSE: EPA appreciates the City's concern to avoid duplicative environmental
requirements. EPA's Superfund program works closely with other federal environmental
programs such as the federal Clean Water Act (ONA) and the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) and with the Washington State Department of Ecology to coordinate
environmental requirements and to avoid redundancy. EPA and Ecology will be working closely
together over the next few months to design Superfund and Clean Water Act monitoring
activities (and other requirements as necessary) that complement each other and avoid
duplicative requirements.
The data collected as part of the selected remedy will be used to determine if the cleanup
actions at the site are having an adverse impact the environment, and wDi be used to determine
whether Mure actions are needed to cleanup the contamination In the wetland/drainage channel
and the storm water discharge to the site.
17.
COMMENT: The City also commented on several aspects of the storm water, surface water
and sediment sampling conducted during the RI. The City expressed concern that methods
used to calculate storm water flow rates and mass loadings of contaminants from storm water
discharges to the site may have resulted in Inaccurate contaminant loading results.
RESPONSE: The RI noted that the storm water flow rates and mass loadings were estimates
and also noted that the methods used could over estimate actual flows and loadings.
Monitoring data collected as part of the remedial action can be used to verify the accuracy of
these estimates.
18.
COMMENT: The City commented that there Is no Indication as to whether contaminants
reported for surface water (In the RI) were total, dissolved or suspended.
RESPONSE: EPA agrees with the commenter that this portion of the RI may not be sufficiently
clear. The water quality data reported in the RI, Volume 5, Surface Water Investigation Report
did not clearty indicate whether samples were analyzed for were total, dissolved or suspended
concentrations. The final Sampling and Analysis Plan for the site required analysis for only total
concentrations of metals In water samples. EPA agrees that this information should have been
made clear in this portion of the RI.
19.
COMMENT: The City commented that the Feasibility Study does not specify what long term
monitoring of surface run-on, run-off, and sediments will be required although the proposed plan
indicated it will be required.
RESPONSE: Specifics of the monitoring program will be further determined during the RD/RA
phase. EPA has determined that monitoring Is necessary to assess the need for future cleanup
action and to determine how best to mitigate potential adverse effects of potential cleanup
actions. The FeasibRity Study did not specify cleanup alternatives for the wetland/drainage
channel since the primary source of contamination Is from the off-site discharge from the two
storm water outfalls. EPA determined that evaluating the need for anyon-site remedial action
which addresses contamination currently in the wetland/drainage channel would not be
appropriate at this time since continued discharge from the outfalls would result in
recontamination. First, the off-site discharge would need to be addressed.
General response actions which could be implemented to cleanup the on-site contamination
(e.g., dredging, capping) could potentially result in destruction of or further degradation of the
wetland. Cleanup options for the storm water and surface water (e.g., redirecting flows, creation
-------
of a settling basin) could adversely affect the recharge of the aquifer, aquifer flow directions, and
the pumping activities at the City of Tacoma production wells and at the Tacoma landfill ground
water cleanup wells, as well as potentially destroy the current wetland.
Data collected during the RI indicates that. although the surface water and sediments are
contaminated and the wetland is of low quality, the wetland continues to provide a beneficial
use. Storm water recharges the aquifer and is fdtered by the wetlands/drainage channel prior to
leaving the site via surface water runoff and infiltration to the ground water. The water that
leaves the site after this filtering process is generally cleaner than the water that enters the site
(except during major storm events). The wetlands/drainage channel also provides habitat for
small animals and water fowl. These factors will be taken into account during the RD /RA phase
to determine the specifics of the monitoring program.
Future Land Use
20.
COMMENT: The PRP Site Group expressed support for EPA's recognition that the STF site is
zoned industrial and that cleanup decisions at the site should be based on likely future uses. The
PRP Site Group also stated that any restrictions limiting the site to industrial uses should be
broadly defined based on existing zoning codes.
RESPONSE: This site has historically been an industrial use area and, based on the information
in the RI/FS, the Proposed Plan stated that the entire site was zoned for industrial use.
However, information that has come to EPA's attention subsequent to the issuance of the
Proposed Plan shows that there is a narrow strip of land along the western boundary of the
property that is zoned R-3-T, Residential-COmmercial Transitional District. Based on this new
information. EPA has determined that MTCA residential cleanup levels apply to this site since
portions of the site are zoned for residential/commercial uses. This change to residential
cleanup levels does not significantly affect the cleanup action at the site. The Proposed Plan
included using institutional controls as the preferred action for protecting against potential
exposure to contamination above residential cleanup levels should the zoning of the site change
in the future. The Proposed Plan and the selected remedy in the ROD requires appropriate
institutional controls to ensure that no residential uses will be allowed unless further cleanup to
residential levels is undertaken.
Miscellaneous
21.
COMMENT: The PRP Site Group commented that there is sufficient information gathered to
make an appropriate cleanup decision.
RESPONSE:
EPA acknowledges the comment.
22.
COMMENT: One commenter suggested that EPA In the future test for Vanadium and
Chromium contamination if It has not already been done.
RESPONSE: During the investigation of the site, EPA required testing for these two chemicals
. in soil and ground water. The concentrations of these metals in site soD did not exceed MTCA
method B residential cleanup levels. Concentrations of these chemicals in ground water also did
not exceed federal drinking water standards or MTCA method B cleanup levels. As a result.
these two chemicals were not a factor in determining the nature and extent of the cleanup of the
site.
-------
~
23.
COMMENT: The City raised several liability issues including Its belief that the storm water
drainage system discharging to the wetlands/drainage channel is a federally permitted release
under a Clean Water Act NPDES permit; that the pUblic at large Is the cause of the alleged
release from the storm sewers; and that the City as a govemmental entity was subject to certain
CERCLA exemptions for involuntary acquisition.
RESPONSE: EPA recognizes the City's Interest In trying to achieve final determination of Its
cleanup liability under CERCLA. However, such liability issues are not appropriately addressed
In the Responsiveness Summary in the Record of Decision. liability Issues under CERCLA are
addressed in a different forum and may ultimately be determined judicially. The public comment
period on the Proposed Plan is designed to receive comments regarding EPA's preferred
altemative in order that those comments rT1f!y be considered In the choice of the selected
remedy before EPA issues its Record of Decision. LiabUIty Issues are not addressed in this
Responsiveness Summary but may be raised in the appropriate forum (such as negotiations on
a consent decree) outside of the context of remedy selection.
-------
~
APPENDIX B
-------
O. 0
1. 0
2. 0
3. 0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R (TSWAR)
INDEX/TABLE OF CONTENTS
September 29, 1994
1. 1
SITE IDENTIFICATION
1. 2
1. 3
1. 4
1. 5
1. 6
Correspondence
Background
Notification/Site Discovery/CERCLIS
Preliminary Assessment Report
site Inspection/Investigation Report
Sampling and Analysis Data
1. 7 So. Tacoma Swamp 1990 REMOVAL
Administrative Record Index
1. 8 So. Tacoma Swamp 1992 AMSTED REMOVAL
Administrative Record Index
BNR REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY
PHASE I
2. 1 Correspondence [Reserved)
2. 2 Work Plan
2. 3 Sampling and Analysis Plant QAQC Plan
2. 4 Sampling and Analysis Data/Report
2. 5 RI/RA/FS Reports
2. 6 Other Reports
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY. STUDY
PHASE II
3. 1 RI Correspondence
3. 2
3. 3
3. 4
3. 5
3. 6
3. 7
Work Plans/Comments
3. 2. 1
Groundwater/Well Water Data
Oversight Work Plan for RI/FS
Inspection/Investigation Reports
Sampling and Analysis
Plans/QAPp/wetlands SAP/Revisions/Addendums
3. 5. 1 Comments
site Safety and Health Plan
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL AIR (TSWAR)
2
3. 8
September 29, 1994
Geophysical Survey Plan
3. 8. 1
Comments
3. 9
Sampling and Analysis Data
3. 9. 1
EPA oversight Sampling Data
3. 9. 2
PRP Sampling Data Results
3. 9. 2. 1 Phase I Soil
Investigation Report (Data Appendix)
3. 9. 2. 2 Phase Ir Soil
Investigation Report (Data Appendix)
3. 9. 2. 3 Groundwater
Investigation Report (Data Appendix)
3. 9. 2. 4 Surface Water and
Sediment Investigation Report (Data
3. 9~ 3 Data Validation of PRP Data
3. 9. 4
Chain of Custody Forms
City of Tacoma Well Data
3. 9. 5
3.10 Remedial Investigation Reports
3.10. 1
RI Comments
3.10. 2
Volume I - RI Summary Report
3.10. 2. 1
Preliminary Summary of
Previous Investigations
site Background Summary
3.10. 2. 2
3.10. 3 Volume 2 - Phase I ,Soil .
Investigation Report (Appendix SS)
3.10. 4 Volume 3 - Phase II Soil
Investigation Reports (Appendix SB)
3.10. 5 Volume 4 - Groundwater
Investigation Report (Appendix GW)
3.10. 6 Vol. 5 - Surface Water and
Sediment Investigation Rpt. (App. SW)
3.10. 7 Vol. 6 - Wetland
Delin..Dispersion Model...Soil Gas Rpts.
Risk Assessment
3.11
3. 11. 1
Human Health
3.11. 2
Ecological Risk Assessment and Comments
3.11. 2. 1
Background Report on Arenaria Paludicola
3.12
-------
4. 0
6. 0
7. 0
8. 0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R (TSWAR)
3
3.13
3.14
3.12. 1
3.12. 2
3.12. 3
3.12.4.
3.12. 5
3 . 12. 6
3 . 12. 7
3.12. 8
3.12. 9
September 29, 1994
Correspondence
Feasibility Study Comments
Feasibility Study Interim Deliverables
Draft Feasbility Study Reports
Treatability Study -
Feasibility Study Addendum
Interim Final Feasibility Study Reports
Final Feasibility Study Report
Groundwater Study -
Feasibility Study Addendum
Cost Benefit Analyses
State ARAR Determination/MTCA Cleanup Levels
3 . 14. 1
Other Technical Reports
:J . 14. 2
3.14. 3
3 . 14. 4
3 . 14. 5
Clover/Chambers Creek
Geohydroiogic study For TPCHD
Expedited site
Characterization of Tacoma Public utilities
st. Vincent De Paul, Lige
Dickson. Co. Inspection Investigation
X-Ray Fluorescence Survey ESAT
RECORD OF DECISION (ROD)
Asbestos Assessment Survey
4. 1. Record of Decision
6. 1
STATE COORDINATION
6. 2
ENFORCEMENT
ARARs
Correspondence
7. 1
7. 2
Correspondence
Administrative Orders
7. 3 Notice Letters, Requests for
Information, and Responses
NATURAL RESOURCE TRUSTEES
8. 1
-------
9. 0
10. 0
11. 0
12. 0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R (TSWAR)
4
September 29, 1994
9. 1
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS/INQUIRIES
Correspondence
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
10. 1
10. 2
10. 3
10. 4
10. 5
10. 6
correspondence
Community Relations Plan
Fact Sheets/Press Releases
CONFIDENTIAL
Proposed Plan
Transcript/Comments on the Proposed Plan
TECHNICAL SOURCES AND GUIDANCES
EPA Guidance
11. 1
11. 2
Technical Sources
H~LTH ASSESSMENTS
Correspondence
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
HEADING:
1. o~
SITE IDENTIFICATION
SUB-HEAD:
1. 1.
Correspondence
1. 1.
- 0000001
07/07/81 PAGES: 1
Jim Jacoby/Washington Dept. of Ecology (DOE)
Steve Meyers/Burlington Northern Railroad (BNRR)
Letter expressing DOE's concern over dum~ing on BNRR's
property
DATE:
AUTHOR:
ADDRESSEE:
DESCRIPTION:
1. 1.
. - 0000002
DATE: 08/14/81 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Jim JacobY/State of Washington Dept. of Ecology
ADDRESSEE: William Dickson/Lige Dickson Co
DESCRIPTIOM: Letter requesting Lige Dickson Co. to obtain a
from Tacoma Pierce County Health Dept. (TPCHD)
permit for dumping
1.1.
- 0000003
DATE: 08/14/81 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Jim JacobY/State of Washington Dept. of Ecology
ADDRESSEE: Ed Menotti/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Letter requesting Mr. Menotti to obtain a permit for dumping from
TPCHD
1.1.
- 0000004 .
DATE: 08/18/81 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Jim JacobY/Stat~ of
ADDRESSEE: Steve Heyer/BNRR
DESCRIPTION: Letter documenting
3
Washington Dept. of Ecology
the meeting on July 23, 1981 at TCPHD
..
1. 1.
- 0000005 .
DATE: 08/19/81 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: William Dickson/Lige Dickson Co.
ADDRESSEE: Jim Jacoby/State of Washington Dept. of Ecology
DESCRIPTION: Letter in response to Jacoby's 8/14/81 letter
1.1.
- 0000006
DATE: 04/20/82 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Mike Alushin/EPA
ADDRESSEE: William N. Hedeman/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Action Memo for Site Investigation
2
of S. Tacoma Swamp
SUB-HEAD:
1. 2.
Background
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
CTSWAR) COMM. B~Y - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
- 0000001
DATE: 09/01/80 PAGES: 30
. AUTHOR: Earth Consultants/Unknown
ADDRESSEE: General Plastics Mfg./Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Geotechnical Engineering Study,
Washington
1. 2.
General Plastics Facility, Tacoma,
1. 2.
- 0000002
DATE: 02/01/81 PAGES:
AUTHOR: DOE/Unknown
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Commencement Bay, Tacoma, Duwamish
Problems and Control Summary
5
River, Seattle, contamination
1. 2.
- 0000003
DATE: 01/01/82 PAGES: 23
AUTHOR: Doug Pierce, Steve Rogers/TCPHD
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: South Tacoma Industrial Waste Survey.
1. 2.
- 0000004
DATE: 09/01/82 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Unknown/Unknown
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: South Tacoma Swamp
Northern Property
3
Investigation - Sampling Sites on Burlington
1. 2.
- 0000005
DATE: 04/01/86 PAGES: 86
AUTHOR: Doug Pierce, Robert Seamons, Russelll
ADDRESSEE: George Whitner/Tacoma Light Division
DESCRIPTION: Investigation/Characterization of the
Railyard Parcel: Final Report
Axelrod/TPCHD
Former Burlington Northern
1. 2.
- 0000006
DATE: 01/01/87 PAGES: 140
AUTHOR: Kennedy, Jenks, Chilton/Unknown
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Remedial Investigation/Risk Assessment/Feasibility Study: Former
Brass Foundry Area, South Tacoma Swamp, Tacoma, Washington V.1
Draft Report
1. 2.
- 0000007
DATE: 01/01/87 PAGES: 363
AUTHOR: Kennedy, Jenks, Chilton/Unknown
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Remedial Investigation/Risk Assessment/Feasibility Study: Former
Brass Foundry Area, South Tacoma Swamp, Tacoma, Washington
2 Draft Report
v.
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
1. 2.
- 0000008
01/01/88 PAGES: 99
Kennedy, Jenks, Chilton/Unknown
TIP Management Inc./Unknown
Site Investigation: Surface Waste
Removal Report
DATE:
AUTHOR:
ADDRESSEE:
DESCRIPTION:
SUB-HEAD:
1. 3.
Notification/Site Discovery/CERCLIS
1. 3.
- 0000001
DATE: 06/17/86 PAGES:
AUTHOR: EPA/Unknown
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: CERCLIS Maintenance Forms
15
SUB-HEAD:
1. 4.
Preliminary Assessment Report
1. 4.
. - 0000001
DATE: 06/01/83 PAGES: 93
AUTHOR: Remedial Technologies Inc./Unknown
ADDRESSEE: EPA/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Preliminary Site Investigation, So. Tacoma Swamp, Tacoma,
Washington
SUB-HEAD:
1. 5.
Site Inspection/Investigation Report
1. 5.
- 0000001
DATE: 07/23/81 PAGES:
AUTHOR:. Jim Jacoby/State
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Inspection Report
2
of Washington Dept. of Ecology
1. 5.
- 0000002
DATE: 06/07/82 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Will Abercrombie/State
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Inspection Report
of Washington Dept. of Ecology
1. 5.
- 0000003
DATE:08/05/8?, PAGES: 6
AUTHOR: Will Abercrombie/State
ADDRESSEE: .Unknown/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Inspection Report
of Washington Dept.. of Ecology
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
. -'" .
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
- 00'00004
DATE: 06/13/86 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Mike Gallagher/State of
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Inspection Report
1. 5.
Washington Dept. of Ecology
1. 5.
- 0000005
. DATE: 08/05/86 PAGES: 3
AUTHOR: William Carberry/Ecology & Environment, Inc.
ADDRESSEE: John Osborn/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Atlas Foundry Dump Site Trip Report
1. 5.
-.0000006
DATE: 08/06/86 PAGES: 4
AUTHOR: William Carberry/Ecology &
ADDRESSEE: John Osborn/EPA
DESCRIPTION: So. Tacoma Swamp: 56th and
Environment, Inc.
Proctor Streets Site Trip Report
1. 5.
- 0000007
DATE: 08/06/86 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Debbie Flood/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Potential Hazardous
56th and S. Proctor
2
Waste Site Site Identification
St.
Tacoma Swamp,
1. 5.
..
- 0000008
DATE: 08/06/86 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Qebbie Flood/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Potential Hazardous
13 Acre Parcel
2
Waste Site Site Identification
. Tacoma Swamp:
SUB-HEAD:
1. 6.
Sampling and Analysis Data
1. 6.
- 0000001
DATE: 08/30/85 PAGES:
AUTHOR: E & E/Unknown
ADDRESSEE: John Osborn/EPA
DESCRIPTION: QA Data Case #'s 4S6S(Organics), 2421J(SAS Inorganics),
SAS2421J(Organics), 6421(HSL Organics) 8/30/85-9/30/86
94
1. 6.
- 0000002
DATE: 11/04/86 PAGES: 6
AUTHOR: Nathan Graves/Kennedy, Jenks, Chilton
ADDRESSEE: Tom Anderson/Tacoma Industrial Properties
DESCRIPTION: Results of Chemical Analysis of Building Debris
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
- 0000004
DATE: 05/11/87 PAGES: 48
AUTHOR: Barbara J. Trejo, Mackey Smith/Applied Geotechnology, .Inc.
ADDRESSEE: pioneer Builders Supply/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Soil sampling and Chemical Testing, 5401 Burlington Way, Lots
3, Tacoma, Washington
1. 6.
2 and
- 0000003
DATE: 04/21/90 PAGES: 338
AUTHOR: Theresa Brandabur/Unknown
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Record of Transmittal: s. Tacoma
of 8et of QC data transmitted to
Rennedy, Jenks - data relates to
dismantling yard
1. 6.
Field QC Data sent 4/21/90 - Copy
Brandabur from Nathan Graves of
work done by TPCHD at BNR
SUB-HEAD:
1. 7.
So. Tacoma Swamp 1990 REMOVAL Administrative Record
- 0000001
DATE: 07/26/90 PAGES:
AUTHOR: EPA/Unknown
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Administrative Record Index for the
Superfund Site, Tacoma, Washington
1. 7.
6
South Tacoma Field 1990 Removal
SUB-HEAD:
1. 8.
So. Tacoma Swamp 1992 AMSTED REMOVAL Administrative
- 1021703
DATE: 06/16/94 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Unknown/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Administrative Record Index for the South Tacoma
Removal Superfund Site, Tacoma, Washington
1. 8.
11.
Field AMSTED
- 1033040
DATE: 09/29/94 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Unknown/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Table of Contents and Removal Administrative
Tacoma Field Superfund Site AMSTED Property-
1. 8.
17
Record Index for South
Updated as of 9/29/94
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
HEADING:
2. o.
BNR REMEDIAL INVESTIG~TION/FEASIBILITY STUDY
Correspondence [Reserved)
PHASE I
SUB-HEAD:
2. 1.
2. 1.
- 1021435
09/14/87 PAGES: 5
Deborah J. Yamamoto/EPA
Norm Allworth/Remediation
Letter: Transmits EPA and
required of the work plan
Study
Technologies, Inc..
Tetra Tech comments concerning revisions
for a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
DATE:
AUTHOR:
ADDRESSEE:
DESCRIPTION:
SUB-HEAD:
2. 2.
Work Plan
2. 2.
- 0000001
DATE: 11/01/87 PAGES: 100
AUTHOR: Remediation Technologies/Unknown
ADDRESSEE: Glacier Park Co./Unknown
DESCRIPTION: RI/FS Workplan for the Glacier Park
Tacoma, Washington V.1
Company Site - S. Tacoma Swamp,
2. 2.
- 0000002
DATE: 11/01/87 PAGES: 238 .
AUTHOR: Remediation Technologies/Unknown
ADDRESSEE: Glacier Park Co./Unknown
DESCRIPTION: RI/FS Workplan for the Glacier Park
Tacoma, Washington V.2 .
Company Site - S. Tacoma Swamp,
SUB-HEAD:
2. 3.
Sampling and Analysis Plan/ QAQC Plan
2. 3.
- 0000903
DATE: 07/02/86 PAGES:
AUTHOR: E & E/Unknown
ADDRESSEE: EPA/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Quality Assurance
5
Project Plan
- 0000001
DATE: 03/03/87 PAGES: 81
AUTHOR: Remediation Technologies/Unknown
ADDRESSEE: Burlington Northern Railroad/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Waste Sampling Plan for Surface Debris Mapping at
Northern Railroad site in S. Tacoma, Washing~on
2. 3.
the Burlington
- 0000002
DATE: 03/03/87 PAGES: 82
AUTHOR: Remediation Technologies/unknown
ADDRESSEE: Burlington Northern Railroad/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan
RI/FS Tacoma, .Washington
2. 3.
for the So. Tacoma Swamp
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
paqe
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
SUB-HEAD:
2. 4.
Sampling and Analysis Data/Report
2. 4.
- 0000002
/ / PAGES:
Unknown/Unknown
Unknown/Unknown
Miscellaneous sampling Data
Chain of custody forms)
51
DATE:
AUTHOR:
ADDRESSEE:
DESCRIPTION:
from 7/27/86 through 2/4/88 (includes
- 0000001
DATE: 08/23/85 PAGES: 143
AUTHOR: E & E/Unknown
ADDRESSEE: John Osborn/EPA
DESCRIPTION: QA of Case 4565(Inorganics), 4565(Organics), 2421J(SAS
2421J(Organics), 6241(HSL Organics), 6770(Inorganics),
6983(Inorganics), 6983 (Organics) 8/23/85-5/1/87
2. 4.
Inorganics),
SUB-HEAD:
2. 5.
RI/RA/FS Reports
- 0000001
DATE: 05/01/87 PAGES: 277
AUTHOR: Remediation Technologies/Unknown
ADDRESSEE: Burlington Northern Railroad/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Phase I Report Remedial Investigation
Superfunp Site .
2. 5.
of the S. Tacoma Swamp
SUB-HEAD:
2. 6..
Other Reports
-. 0000002
DATE: 08/06/86 PAGES: 4
AUTHOR: William Carberry/Ecology &
ADDRESSEE: John Osborn/EPA
DESCRIPTION: So. Tacoma Swamp: 56th and
2. 6.
Environment, Inc.
Proctor Streets Trip Report
- 0000001
DATE: 04/01/87 PAGES: 28
AUTHOR: Remediation Technologies/Jack W. Berryman
ADDRESSEE: BNRR/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Site History Burlington Northern Railroad
2. 6.
So. Tacoma Swamp Site
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
HEADING:
3. 0."
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY
PHASE II
SUB-HEAD:
3. 1.
RI Correspondence
3. 1.
- 1021647
05/03/90 PAGES: 5
Ross A. Macfarlane/Preston Thorgrimson Shidler Gates' Ellis
Christine Psyk/EPA
Comments on Draft Site Background Summary
DATE:
AUTHOR:
ADDRESSEE:
DESCRIPTION:
3. 1.
- 1021648
DATE: 05/07/90 PAGES: 12
AUTHOR: Nathan A. Graves/Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton
ADDRESSEE: Ross Macfarlane/Preston Thorgrimson Shidler Gates
DESCRIPTION: Comments regarding the Site Background Summary
, Ellis
3. 1.
- 1021646
DATE: 05/10/90 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Glynis A. Carrosino/Washington
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Comments on the Site Background
Dept. of Ecology
Summary
J. 1.
- 1021650
DATE: 05/10/90 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine.Psyk/EPA
, ADDRESSEE: Stan Peterson/ICF Kaiser Engineers
DESCRIPTION: Comments on Draft Site Background Summary
11
. -' 1021078
DATE: 10/26/90 PAGES: 28
AUTHOR: Nathan A. Graves/Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter re: qualifications and resumes of project personnel
J. 1.
J. 1.
- 0000001
DATE: 02/12/91 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: John Hildenbrand/Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department (TPCHD)
ADDRESSEE: Jim Davis/Pioneer Builders Supply
DESCRIPTION: Letter re: Underground Storage Tank Removal - June of 1990
J. 1.
- 0000002
DATE: 02/19/91 PAGES: , 1
AUTHOR: Glynda J. Steiner/Kennedy, Jenks, Chilton
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA '
DESCRIPTION: Transmittal letter for Draft Wetlands Investigation Field sampling
and Analysis Plan Amendment
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
3. 1.
- 0000003
DATE: 02/20/91 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Glynda Steiner/Kennedy, Jenks, Chilton
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Transmittal letter of Final Geophysical Survey Plan
3. 1.
- 0000004
DATE: 03/01/91 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Glynda Steiner/Kennedy, Jenks, Chilton
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter transmitting revised pages, sample
the Final Field Sampling Analysis Plan
labels, and Addendum to
3. 1.
- 0000005
DATE: 03/21/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Glynda steiner/Kennedy, Jenks, Chilton
DESCRIPTION: Letter noting approval of Final Wetlands Investigation Field
Sampling and Analysis Plan Amendment, enclosing a rationale for
existing wetlands sampling grid size
3
3. 1.
- 0000006
DATE: 03/21/91 PAGES: . 1
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Bill Harri~/State of Washington Dept. of Ecology
DESCRIPTION: Letter transmitting copies of final Wetlands Investigation Field
sampling and Analysis Plan Amendment, noting that wetlands sample
grid rationale is being included in the Administrative Record
3. 1.
- 0000007
DATE: 04/05/91 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Glynda Steiner/Kennedy, Jenks, Chilton
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter transmitting revised copies of SOPs for final QAPP
- 0000008
DATE: 04/05/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Glynda Steiner/Kennedy, Jenks, Chilton
DESCRIPTION: Letter noting that all revisions and changes
QAPP are acceptable and sampling can proceed
3. 1.
1
to revised SOP's and
as planned
3. 1.
- 0000009
DATE: 04/08/91 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Glynda Steiner/Kennedy, Jenks, Chilton
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter confirming EPA's approval of specific sampling methods and
to provide additional details related to those methods
.09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
3. 1.
- 0000010
DATE: 04/11/91 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Glynda Steiner/Kennedy, Jenks, Chilton
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter confirming laboratory audit schedule for
Technologies and Water Management Laboratories
Analytical
3. 1.
- 0000011
DATE: 04/11/91 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Glynda Steiner/Kennedy, Jenks, Chilton
ADDRESSEE: William Hein/McChord Air Force Base
DESCRIPTION: Letter requesting McChord to supply applicable meteorological data
that EPA can use in air modeling and risk assessment for the S.
Tacoma Field Site for study performed under Consent Order
3. 1.
- 0000012
DATE: 04/18/91 PAGES: 3
. AUTHOR: Susan Roth, Glynda Steiner/Kennedy, Jenks, Chilton
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter re: Groundwater Investigation - Substitution
Wells
of Background
3. 1.
- 1021434
DATE: 06/05/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Glenn Bruck/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Memo: Transmits "Groundwater Well Installation/Development
Deliverable" concerning eleven new monitoring wells - less
attachments
2
Interim
3. 1.
- 1021079
DATE: 09/06/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Glynda J. Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton
DESCRIPTION: Letter in response to 8/19 correspondence concerning update to
project schedule, comments on reports, and draft outline for data
appendices
3
3. 1.
- 1021268
DATE: 11/29/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Addressees/
DESCRIPTION: Memorandum re: Transmittal of Phase
schedule for upcoming deliverables;
team
4
I Soils Data; review of
set date to meet with proje~t
09/30/94
u. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
10
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
- 1021267
DATE: 03/02/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Peter Brooks/Dept. of Ecology
DESCRIPTION: Cover letter for copies of reports, also
adequately responded to comments sent
3. 1.
1
noting PRPs have
3. 1.
- 1021266
DATE: 03/19/92 PAGES: 16
AUTHOR: Glynda J. Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter re: Submittal of Qualifications for TRC Environmental
Consultants
3. 1.
- 1021265
DATE: 04/07/92 PAGES: 3
AUTHOR: Glynda J. Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter re: Outstanding Deliverables and
Due Dates
3. 1.
- 1021081
DATE: 07/07/92 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Glynda J. Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA "
DESCRIPTION: Letter re:.Additional Clarification on Installation
Monitoring Wells at Tacoma City Light Property
of New
3. 1.
- 1021246
DATE: 07/09/92 PAGES: 5 "
AUTHOR: Glynda J. Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Cover letter and attached Monthly Progress Report for June 1992
3. 1.
- 1021264
DATE: 07/30/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Addressees/
DESCRIPTION: Memo re: revised schedule of deliverables, meetings for August
3
3. 1.
- 1021247
DATE: 08/11/92 PAGES:. 4
AUTHOR: Glynda J. Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Christine psyk/EPA"
DESCRIPTION: Cover lette~ and attached Monthly Proqress Report
for JUly 1992
"( 09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
11
-------
(TSWAR) COKM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
-1021263
DATE: 09/02/92 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Peter RUbenstein/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Kerry Burnham/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Memo re: PTI's Future Contracting Request
the S. Tacoma Field Superfund site
3. 1.
- Amsted Industries and
- 1021248
DATE: 10/12/92 PAGES: 3
AUTHOR: Glynda J. Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Cover letter and attached Monthly Progress Report for September
1992
3. 1.
- 1021261
DATE: 11/06/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Beth Feeley/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Stan Peterson/ICF Technology
DESCRIPTION: Cover letter for two copies of
3. 1.
1
revised Feasibility St~dy schedule
- 1021262
DATE: 11/06/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Beth Feeley/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Glynda J. Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton
DESCRIPTION: Letter r,e: revised Feasibility Study Report
3. 1.
1.
Schedule
- 1021082
DATE:. 04/08/93 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Beth Feeley/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Michael A. DUCharme/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
DESCRIPTION: Letter providing EPA's approval for Vol. 1-6 of
Investiqation Report.
3. 1.
1
the Remedial
SUB-HEAD:
3. 2.
Work Plans/Comments
- 0000003
DATE: 05/10/90 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Stan Peterson/ICF Kaiser Engineers
DESCRIPTION: Comments on changes in site Backqround
before incorporation into work plan
3. 2.
11
Summary that must be made
- 0000004
DATE: 05/17/90 PAGES:
AUTHOR: christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Stan Peterson/ICF Kaiser
DESCRIPTION: Additional comments on RI/FS
3. 2.
3
wor~plan
09/30/94
u. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
- 0000005
DATE: 07/20/90 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Brad D. Harp/Tacoma-Pierce
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Comments on RI/FS
3. 2.
county Health Department
- 0000006
DATE: 07/25/90 PAGES:. 3
AUTHOR: Bert Bowen/State of Washington Dept. of Ecology
ADDRESSEE: Bill Harris/State of Washington Dept. of Ecology
DESCRIPTION: Comments on Draft Work Plan for RI/FS
3. 2.
- 0000007
DATE: 07/26/90 PAGES: 5
AUTHOR: Glynis A. Carrosino/State of washington Dept. of Ecology
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Comments on Draft RI/FS Workplan
3. 2.
- 0000011
DATE: 07/26/90 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Lew Consiglieri/NOAA
DESCRIPTION: Comments on Draft RI/FS
3. 2.
2
Workplan
- 0000008
DATE: 07/27/90 PAGES: 3
AUTHOR: John Hildebrand/Tacoma-Pierce County Health Dept.
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTIQN:" Comments on Draft RI/FS Workplan
3. 2.
- 0000009
DATE: 07/29/90 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Earle V. Krivenac/ICF Kaiser Engineering
DESCRIPTION: Comments on Draft RI/FS Workplan
3. 2.
1
- 0000010
DATE: 08/01/90 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Comments on Draft RI/FS
3. 2.
35
Workplan
,
.
09/30/94
u. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
.~.. .... . _.. ...- .. -.. -. .
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
- 0000013
DATE: 08/21/90 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Nathan A. Graves/Kennedy, Jenks, Chilton
DESCRIPTION: Letter re: clarification of issues on Draft
3. 2.
5
RI/FS Workplan
3. 2.
- 0000001
DATE: 09/01/90 PAGES: 100 -
AUTHOR: ICF Technology, Inc./Unknown
ADDRESSEE: EPA/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Workplan for the So.
Tacoma Field Superfund Site: Final
3. 2.
- 0000002
DATE: 09/01/90 PAGES: 246
AUTHOR: ICF Technology, Inc./Unknown
ADDRESSEE: EPA/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Remedial Investigation and Feasibility
Tacoma, Washington Final Work Plan
Study
S. Tacoma Field
3. 2.
- 1021072
DATE: 09/01/90 PAGES: 150
AUTHOR: Stan R. Peterson/ICF Technology, Inc.
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Report:.Final Work Plan; Remedial Investigation
Study, South Tacoma Field, Tacoma, Washington -
and Feasibility
Revision 1
- 0000014
DATE: 09/10/90 PAGES: 3
AUTHOR: Nathan A. Graves/Kennedy, Jenks, Chilton-
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter regarding technical issues involved in
3. 2.
Draft RI/FS Workplan
3. 2.
- 0000015
DATE: 09/17/90 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Nathan Graves/Kennedy, Jenks,
DESCRIPTION: Letter re: RI/FS Workplan
3
Chilton
3. 2.
- 1021260 -
DATE: 09/17/90 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Nathan Graves/Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton
DESCRIPTION: Cover letter re: post-negotiations final
feasibility study work plan
3
remedial investigation and
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
- 0000016
DATE: 09/24/90 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Nathan Graves/Kennedy, Jenks, Chilton
DESCRIPTION: Letter addressing EPA agreements with the
efficiencies can be incorporated into the
3. 2.
2
PRPs concerning where
RI/FS Workplan
3. 2.
- 0000017
DATE: 09/26/90 PAGES: 3
AUTHOR: Nathan Graves/Kennedy, Jenks, Chilton
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Comments re: Revised RI/FS Workplan
3. 2.
- 0000018
DATE: 10/01/90 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Nathan Graves/Kennedy, Jenks, Chilton
DESCRIPTION: Clarifications discussed in 9/28/90 phone
3
conversation
3. 2.
- 0000020
DATE: 01/15/91 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Marshall Lee and Bill
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter re: S. Tacoma
Ryan/EPA
Field Air Investigation
3. 2.
- 0000019
DATE: 01/28/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE; Mark W. stromberg/Burlington Northern Railroad
DESCRIPTION: MOdifications to RI/FS Work Plan - Air
9
3. 2.
- 0000012
DATE: 02/05/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: File/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Clarification of Comments
3
on the Draft RI/FS Workplan
SUB-HEAD:
3. 2. 1.
Groundwater/Well Water Data
3. 2. 1.
. DATE:
AUTHOR:
ADDRESSEE:
DESCRIPTION:
0000004
/ / PAGES:
Unknown/Unknown
Unknown/Unknown
Graph showing Depth
1
to Groundwater at CBS Wells
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
3. 2. 1. - 0000001
DATE: 11/09/89 PAGES: 7
AUTHOR: G. S. Karavitis/Tacoma Public Utilities,
ADDRESSEE: Charles E. Findley/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Cover letter and accompanying test well material
3. 2. 1. - 0000002
DATE: 01/25/90 PAGES:
AUTHOR: John R. Kane/SAlC
ADDRESSEE: Randall W. Rose/Black & Veatch
DESCRIPTION: Cover letter and accompanying water'level
2 '
measurements
3. 2. 1. - 0000003
DATE: 02/27/90 PAGES: 11
AUTHOR: Jac Davies/Washington State Dept. of
ADDRESSEE: Tim Larson/Tacoma Public Utilities
DESCRIPTION: Cover letter and enclosed results of
.
Health
VPC analyses
SUB-HEAD:
3. 3.
Oversight Work Plan for RI/FS
3. 3.
- 0000001
DATE: 03/01/91 PAGES: 74,
AUTHOR: ICF Technology, Inc./Unknown
ADDRESSEE: US EPA Region X/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: oversight Workplan for the South Tacoma Field Remedial
Investigation and Feasibility Study (Revision 1)
SUB-HEAD:
3. 4.
Inspection/Investigation Reports
~
3. 4.
- 0000001
DATE: 10/26/89 PAGES: 43
AUTHOR: Clayton R. Patmont, Matthew G. Dalton/Hart Crowser & Associates,
ADDRESSEE: Russel Post/Tacoma Public Utilities
DESCRIPTION: Expedited Site Characterization: Tacoma Public Utilitie~
3. 4.
- 0000002
DATE: 04/01/90 PAGES:
AUTHOR: E & E/Unknown
ADDRESSEE: John Osborn/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Screening site Inspection
Tacoma, Washington
32
Report for Lige & Wm. B. Dickson Co.
- 0000003
DATE: 04/01/90 PAGES:
AUTHOR: E , E/Unknown
ADDRESSEE: John OSborn/EPA
DESCRIPTION: screening site Inspection Report for st.
Corner Area, Tacoma, Washington
3. 4.
43
Vincent de Paul/Southwest
09/30/94
U. S. Environment~l Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
16
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
SUB-HEAD:
3. 5.
Sampling and Analysis Plans/QAPP/Wetlands
3. 5.
- 0000004
/ / PAGES: 233
Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton/Unknown
EPA/Unknown
Quality Assurance Project Plan: Appendix F : Final Report
DATE:
AUTHOR:
ADDRESSEE:
DESCRIPTION:
3. 5.
- 1021259
DATE: / / PAGES: 42
AUTHOR: Unknown/Envirometrics, Inc.
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: South Tacoma Field Superfund Site Review of Meteorological Data
3. 5.
- 1021652
DATE: 02/22/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Glynda steiner/Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton
DESCRIPTION: Comments on Final Field Sampling and
Quality Assurance project,Plan
3
Analysis Plan and Final
3. 5.
- 0000001
DATE: 03/01/91 PAGES: 195
AUTHOR: KennedY/J~nks/Chilton/Unknown
ADDRESSEE: EPA/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Field Sampling and Analysis'Plan
3. 5.
-'0000002
03/01/91 PAGES: 220
Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton/Unknown
EPA/Unknown
Quality Assurance Project Plan
DATE:
AUTHOR:
ADDRESSEE:
DESCRIPTION:
3. 5.
- 0000003
DATE: 03/01/91 PAGES: 145
AUTHOR: Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton/Unknown
ADDRESSEE: EPA/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Quality Assurance Project Plan
Appendices E
3. 5.
- 1021085
DATE: 03/01/91 PAGES: 14
AUTHOR: Unknown/Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/South Tacoma Field Site Group
DESCRIPTION: Quality Assurance Project Plan South Tacoma Field Superfund Site
Remedial Investigation..and Feasibility Study Final Revisions
Issued as Page Prints 3/1/91
09/30/94
U~ S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD ~EDIAL A/R INDEX
- 0000005
DATE: 03/19/91 PAGES: 82
AUTHOR: Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton/Unknown
ADDRESSEE: EPA/Unknown '
DESCRIPTION: Wetlands Investigation Field Sampling and Analysi~ Plan Amendment:
Final Report
3. 5.
3. 5.
- 1021653
DATE: 03/20/91 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Glynda J. Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Transmittal letter for page prints for Final Quality Assurance
Project Plan and Additional Materials for QAPjP Appendix F
3. 5.
- 1021086
DATE: 04/23/91 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Julie R. Miller/Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter re: revised schedule for laboratory
audit of ATI-San Diego
3. 5.
- 1021087
DATE: 05/06/91 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Glynda J. Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter presenting the procedures for collecting
wells on the Tacoma City'Light property
samples from dry
3. 5.
- 1021088
DATE:, OS/20/91 ' PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Mark W. Stromberg/Burlington Northern Railroad
DESCRIPTION: Letter re: modification of the air investigation
RI/F~ workplan for South Tacoma Field
4
section of the
3. 5.
- 1021069
DATE: 06/07/91 PAGES: 31
AUTHOR: Unknown/Envirometrics, Inc.
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/South Tacoma Field $ite
DESCRIPTION: Report: Air Investigation Plan
Group
3. 5.
- 1021090
DATE: 08/02/91 PAGES: . 4
AUTHOR: Glynda Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter re: Schedule modification for soil investigation, approval
of Silver Valley Laboratories, request for approval' of modification
of CLP digestion method, and request for assistance in obtaining a
solid laboratory control sample .
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
- 102.1091
DATE: 08/05/91 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Glynda J. steiner/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Transmittal letter for Final Blackberry Investigation Field
sampling and Analysis Plan
3. 5.
- 1021074
DATE: 08/07/91 PAGES: 66
AUTHOR: Unknown/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/South Tacoma Field site Group
DESCRIPTION: Report: Soil Gas Sampling and Analysis
3. 5.
Plan Amendment
3. 5.
- 1021092
DATE: 08/07/91 PAGES: 1 .
AUTHOR: Glynda Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Transmittal letter for Final
Amendment
Consultants
Soil Gas Sampling and Analysis Plan
3. 5.
- 1021093
DATE: 08/08/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Glynda J. .Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
DESCRIPTION: Letter approving Final Blackberry Field Sampling
Amendment
1
and Analysis Plan
- '1021094
DATE: 08/09/91 PAGES: 58
AUTHOR: Kevin Booth/Silver Valley Laboratories
ADDRESSEE: Julie R. Miller/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
DESCRIPTION: Cover letter and enclosed SOP for Hexavalent
3. 5.
Chromium
- 1021096
DATE: 08/13/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Glynda J. Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks
DESCRIPTION: Letter approving the Final Soil
Amendment .
3. 5.
1
Consultants
Gas Sampling and Analysis Plan
- 1021098
DATE: 08/23/~1 PAGES: . 9
AUTHOR: Glynda J. Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Christine psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter transmitting. Silver Valley Laboratories SOP 27 for
preparation of blackberry samples
3. 5.
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
-. ... ......- ..
. . .'. ... . . ~
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
- ~021083
DATE: 08/28/91 .PAGES: 9
AUTHOR: Unknown/Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/South Tacoma Field Site Group
DESCRIPTION: Field Sampling and Analysis Plan South Tacoma Field
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study Final
Issued as Page Prints 3/1/91 and 8/28/91
3. 5.
Superfund Site
Revisions
- 1021099
DATE: 08/28/91 PAGES: 4
AUTHOR: Glynda J. steiner/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Christine PsykfEPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter submitting copies of revisions to the Final South Tacoma
Field Sampling and Analysis Plan and Summary Modifications to the
Final FSAP
3. 5.
- 1021073
DATE: 09/05/91 PAGES: 29
AUTHOR: Unknown/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/South Tacoma Field site Group
DESCRIPTION: Report: Blackberry Investigation Field
Amendment
3. 5.
Sampling and Analysis Plan
- 1021084
DATE: 09/05/9L PAGES: 34
AUTHOR: unknown/Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/South 'Tacoma Field Site Group
DESCRIPTION: Quality Assurance Project Plan South Tacoma Field Superfund Site
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study Final Revisions
. Issued as Page Prints 3/1/91, 3/20/91 and 9/5/91 .
3. 5.
- 1021100
DATE: 09/05/91 PAGES: 4.
AUTHOR: Glynda J. Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA '. .
DESCRIPTION: Letter submitting revisions to the Final South Tacoma Field Quali~y
Assurance project Plan and Summary of Modifications to the Final
QAPjP
3. 5.
- 1021258
DATE: 01/09/92 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Julie R. Miller/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Christine psyk/E~A
DESCRIPTION: Letter informing of additional analytical .parameters that will be
performed on the sediment samples collected during the third event
ot surface water/sediment sampling
3. 5.
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
- 1021071
DATE: 02/24/92 PAGES: 135
AUTHOR: Unknown/KennedY/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/South Tacoma Field Site Group
DESCRIPTION: Report: Phase II Soil Investigation Field
Plan Amendment
3. 5.
Sampling and Analysis
3. 5.
- 1021257
DATE: 02/24/92 PAGES: 4
AUTHOR: Glynda J. Steiner/KennedY/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Transmittal letter of Final Phase II Soil Investigation Field
Sampling and Analysis Plan Amendment
'3. 5.
- 1021254
DATE: 03/18/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: South Tacoma Field File/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Memorandum re: Modifications
1
to the Work Plan
3. 5.
- 1021075
DATE: 05/11/92 PAGES: 60
AUTHOR: Unknown/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/South Tacoma Field Site Group
DESCRIPTION: Report: Confirmational Sampling and Analysis
Geophysical Targets
Plan for Subsurface
3. 5.
- 1021101
DAT~: '06/09/92 PAGES: 10
AUTHOR: Glynda J. Steiner/KennedY/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA ,
DESCRIPTION: Letter re: Addendum to the Final Confirmation Sampling and Analysis
Plan for Subsurface Geophysical Targets
3. 5.
- 1021102
DATE: 06/09/92 PAGES: 12
AUTHOR: Glynda J. Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter and transmittal of ATI's Standard Operating Procedure for
Low Level Method 8080
3. 5.
- 1021253
DATE: 06/15/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Raleigh Farlow/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Memo re: ATI's Low
1
Level PCBs SOP
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
21
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
- 1021252
DATE: 07/02/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Thor Cutler/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Memo re: On-Site (6/30/92)
3. 5.
2
review of test pit activities
3. 5.
- 1021250
DATE: 11/22/93 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Glenn Bruck/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: One Page QAPjP Addendum Form
2
(WPO memo attached)'
3. 5.
- 1021251
DATE: 11/22/93 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Glenn Bruck/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: One Page QAPjP Addendum
1
Form
3. 5.
- 1021249
DATE: 02/22/94 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Donald Matheny/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Debbie Yamamoto/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Sample Analysis and Quality
the Tacoma Fields Superfund
16
Assurance Project Plan for Oversight of
Site
SUB-HEAD:
3. 5. 1.
Coinments
3. 5. 1. ~ 0000001
DATE: 01/14/91 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Glynda J. Steiner/Kennedy, Jenks, Chilton
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Cover letter for S. Tacoma Field Draft Field Sampling and Analysis
Plan, and Draft Quality Assurance Project Plan for the STF
Superfund Site
3. 5. 1. - 0000002
DATE: 01/25/91 PAGES: 5
. AUTHOR: William W. Harris/State of Washington Dept. of Ecology
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Comments on K/J/C's Field Sampling and Analysis Plan and
Assurance Project Plan for the S. Tacoma F~eld Superfund
Quality
Site
3. 5. 1. - 1021656
DATE: 01/25/91 PAGES: 5
AUTHOR: William W. Harris/Washington Dept. of Ecology
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Comments on Field Sampling and Analysis Plan and
Project Plan
Quality Assurance
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
3. 5. 1. - 0000003
DATE: 01/28/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Glynda J. Steiner/Kennedy, Jenks, Chilton
DESCRIPTION: Transmittal of EPA comments on the Draft Field
" Analysis Plan, Draft Quality Assurance Project
Health and Safety Plan
16
Sampling and
Plan, and the Final
3. 5. 1.
DATE:
AUTHOR:
ADDRESSEE:
DESCRIPTION:
- 1021658
01/28/91 PAGES:
Christine Psyk/EPA
Mark W. Stromberg/Burlington Northern
Letter re: Modifications to the RI/FS
9
Railroad
Work Plan - Air
"3. 5. 1. - 1021659
DATE: 01/28/91 PAGES:
"AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Glynda J. Steiner/KennedY/Jenks/Chilton
DESCRIPTION: Transmittal of EPA comments on the Draft Field
Analysis Plan, and the Draft Quality Assurance
Final Health and Safety Plan
16
sampling and
Project Plan and the
3. s. 1. - 1021657
DATE: 01/31/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Unknown.
DESCRIPTION: Addendum to Comments on the Draft Sampling and Analysis
(comments erroneously omitted from the EPA submittal of
K/J/C as transmitted in correspondence of 1/28/91)
1
Plan
comments to
3. 5. 1. - 0000004
DATE: 02/05/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: File/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Clarification of comments on Draft Sampling and Analysis Plan
2
3. 5. 1~ - 1021654
DATE: 02/05/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: South Tacoma Field File/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Memo re: Clarification of Comments
Plan
2
on Draft Sampling and Analysis
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
3. 5. 1. - 0000005
DATE: 02/19/91 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Glynda J. stei~er/Kennedy,Jenks, Chilton
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Transmittal letter of Final Quality Assurance
Project Plan
3. 5. 1. - 0000006
DATE: 02/28/91 PAGES: 4
AUTHOR: William W. Harris/State of Washington Dept. of Ecology
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Comments on S. Tacoma Field Wetlands Invesuigatioh Field Sampling
and Analysis Plan Amendment
3. 5. 1. - 0000007
DATE: 03/01/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Glynda Steiner/KJC
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Transmittal letter of revisions and
re: Final Quality Assurance Project
2
addressing of specific comments
Plan
3. 5. 1. - 0000013
DATE: 03/03/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Robert Melton/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Review of Oversight
1
QAPjP for S. Tacoma Field
3. 5. 1. - 1021655
DATE: 03/04/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Glynda Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton
DESCRIPTION: Letter stating that overall the Draft Wetlands Investigation Field
Sampling and Analysis Plan Amendment is responsive to the
Administrative Order on Consent but some changes need to be made
before EPA can approve (comments attached)
5
3. 5. 1. - 0000014
DATE: 03/07/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Robert Melton/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Review of March 1,
1
1991 Revisions to QAPjP for S. Tacoma Field
3. 5. 1. - 0000008 .
DATE: 03/08/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Glynda Steiner/KJC
DESCRIPTION: Letter noting that revisions pages for Final Field Sampling and
Analysis Plan, Final Quality Assurance Project Plan, and Final
Geophysical Plan are adequate, and correcting KJC's understanding
re: purchase of software to process data
1
09/30/94
u. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
3. 5. 1.
DATE:
AUTHOR:
ADDRESSEE:
DESCRIPTION:
- 0000009
03/14/91 PAGES: 3
Stan R. Peterson/ICF Technology, Inc.
Christine Psyk/EPA
Cover letter and attached Rationale for
Size
Wetlands Sampling-Grid
3. 5. 1. - 0000010
DATE: 03/19/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Glynda Steiner/KJC
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Clarification of Status of Quality
Management of Samples Collected at
3
Assurance Project Plan and
S. Tacoma Field
3. 5. 1. - 0000011
DATE: 03/20/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Glynda Steiner/KJC
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Transmittal of Page
and Appendices
2
Prints for Final Quality Assurance Project Plan
3. 5. 1. - 0000012
DATE: 03/21/91 .PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: File/EPA .
DESCRIPTION: EPA Comments on Draft Wetlands Investigation Field Sampling and
Analysis Amendment: Clarification of why certain Washington Dept.
of Ecology comments were excluded
1
3. 5. 1. - 0000015
DATE: 04/05/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Donald Matheny/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Review of Revisions
1
to QAPjP for S. Tacoma Field
3. 5. 1. - 1021103
DATE: 05/06/91 .PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Glynda J. Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks Chilton
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter presenting procedures for collecting
on the Tacoma City Light property
samples fro. dry wells
09/30/94
U. s. Environmental Protection Agency, Region. 10
Page
-------
4
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
3. 5. 1. - 1021089
DATE: 06/17/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE:' Glynda Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
DESCRIPTION: EPA concurs with revisions suqqested by Kennedy/Jenks
8
3. 5. 1. - 1021104
DATE: 08/02/91 PAGES: 4
AUTHOR: Glynda J. Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA '
DESCRIPTION: Letter documentinq verbal approval by EPA of phone 'conversations on
7/29/91 for requests to modify the schedule for the Soil
Investiqation
3. 5. 1. - 1021105
DATE: 08/13/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Glynda J. Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks
DESCRIPTION: Letter approvinq Final Soil Gas
Amendment
1
Consultants
samplinq and Analysis Plan
3. 5. 1. - 1021106 ,
DATE: 08/15/91 PAGES: 3
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA ,
ADDRESSEE: Glynda J. .Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
DESCRIPTION:' Cover letter for memorandum from Donald Matheny, EPA Chemist
addressinq the use of solid laboratory control samples
3. 5. 1. ,- '1021107
DATE: 10/03/91 PAGES: 17
AUTHOR: Glynda J. Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter summarizinq the proposed approach to hydraulic testinq at
the site
3. 5. 1. - 1021108
DATE: 10/15/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Glynda J. Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
DESCRIPTION: EPA comments on revised draft Wetland Delineation and
Plan Species Survey
2
Endanqered
3. 5. 1. - 1021109
DATE: 10/30/91 PAGES: 3
AUTHOR: Glenn Bruck/EPA '
ADDRESSEE: Glynda J. Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
DESCRIPTION: EPA's review of Kennedy/Jenks proposal to eliminate
, tests at the site
the aquifer
09/30/94
u. S. Environmental Protection Aqency, Reqion 10
paqe
-------
(TSWAR) COMH. BAY - S. TACOMA 'FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
3. 5. 1. - 1021110
DATE: 11/18/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Glynda J. Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks Chilton
DESCRIPTION: Letter stating the Addendum to the Wetland Delineation and
Endangered Plant Species Survey is acceptable
1
3. 5. 1. - 1021111
DATE: 01/JO/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Glynda J. Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks Consultant
DESCRIPTION: Letter providing screening levels to be used in
air modeling
2
the next phase of
3. 5. 1. - 1021256
DATE: 02/27/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Laura Castrilli/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Memo reviewing 2/21/92
2
Modification to Oversight Work Plan
J. 5. 1. - 1021113
DATE: 03/03/92 PAGES: 9
AUTHOR: Glynda Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSE~: Christine ~syk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter re: approach to revised aquifer testing
..
J. 5. 1. - 1021255
DATE:',03/17/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Glynda Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
DESCRIPTION: Letter following up matters regarding the
site
4
investigations at the
3. 5. 1. - 1021417
DATE: 06/03/92 PAGES: 3
AUTHOR: Susan R. Roth/Kennedy/Jenks Consult~nts
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter documenting details of 5/28/92 conference call
installation of new monitoring wells at Tacoma PUblic
regarding
Utilities
3. 5. 1. - 1021112
DATE: 06/11/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Glynda J. Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
DESCRIPTION: Response to Kennedy/Jenks correspondence on
monitoring wells
. 3
6/3/92 re: new
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMH. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REKEDIAL A/R INDEX
3. 5. 1. - 1021114
DATE: 06/~S/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Glynda Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
DESCRIPTION: Letter stating that ATI's low-level PCB method
at stated detection level
1
appears sufficient
SUB-HEAD:
3. 6.
Site Safety and Health Plan
3. 6.
- 0000001
DATE: 01/14/91 PAGES: 71
AUTHOR: Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton/Unknown
ADDRESSEE: South Tacoma Field Site Group/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Site Safety and Health Plan South Tacoma
: Final
Field Superfund Site RI/FS
3. 6.
- 0000002
DATE: 02/11/91 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Glynda Steiner/Kennedy, Jenks, Chilton
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter noting revision of pages of Final Site Safety and Health
Plan to incorporate EPA's comments
SUB-HEAD:
3. 7.
Data and Document Management Plan
3. 7.
- 0000002
DATE: 11/14/90 PAGES~ 10
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA .
ADDRESSEE: Nathan Graves/Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton (KJC)
DESCRIPTION: Letter providing additional information requested
on 10/31/90 re: data management. .
by KJC at meeting
3. 7.
- 0000001
DATE: 01/25/91 PAGES: 113
AUTHOR: Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton/Unknown
ADDRESSEE: South Tacoma Field Site Group/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Document and .Data Management Plan, South
Site, RI/FS, Final Report
Tacoma Field Superfund
SUB-HEAD:
3. 8.
Geophysical Survey Plan
3. 8.
- 0000001
DATE: 03/06/91 PAGES: 63
AUTHOR: Engineering Hydraulic~,
ADDRESSEE: South Tacoma Field Site
DESCRIPTION: Geophysical Survey Plan
Inc./KJC
Group/Unknown
: Final Report
.09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMH. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
- 1021238
DATE: 03/06/91 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Glynda Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks Chilton
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter transmitting page prints for the
Plan.
3. 8.
final Geophysical Survey
3. 8.
- 1021243
DATE: 03/11/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Glynda J. Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
DESCRIPTION: Comments on Geophysical Survey Report, Confirmational
Anal~sis Plan for Subsurface Geophysical Targets
10
Sampling and
3. 8.
- 1021239
DATE: 06/09/92 PAGES: 10
AUTHOR: Glynda J. steiner/Kennedy/Jenks Consultant
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA .
DESCRIPTION: Letter providing additional clarification on
specific activities during the investigation
geophysical targets
performance of
of subsurface
SUB-HEAD:
3. 8. 1.
Comments
3. 8. 1. - 0000001
DATE: 02/01/91 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: William W. Harris,/State of Washington Dept. of Ecology
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Comments on Draft Geophysical Survey Plan for the S. Tacoma Field
.Site .
3. 8. 1. - 1021660
DATE: 02/05/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Glynda Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton
DESCRIPTION: Cover letter and attached comments re:
Plan
6
Draft Geophysical Survey
3. 8. 1. - 0000002
DATE: 02/13/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: South Tacoma Field Administrative Record/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Record of Communication re: Dept. of Ecology Comments
Geophysical Survey Plan (attached ICF letter 2/6/91)
3
on PRPs Draft
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 .
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COKM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REKEDIAL.A/R INDEX
3. 8. 1. - 1Q21662
DATE: 02/28/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Glynda Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton
DESCRIPTION: Letter re:' Geophysical Survey Plan Modifications
3
3. 8. 1. - 1021663
DATE: 02/28/91 PAGES: 19
AUTHOR: Ty C. SChreiner/Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter ~e: Geophysical Survey Plan Modifications
3. 8. 1. - 1021420 .
DATE: 07/12/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Mark W. Stromberg/Burlington
DESCRIPTION: Letter re: EPA concerns over
7
Northern Railroad
Phase I Geophysical Survey rationale
3.8.1. .-1021419
DATE: 07/18/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDR~SSEE: Mark W. Stromberg/Burlington Northern Railroad
DESCRIPTION: Letter re: EPA concerns about Phase II geophysical
2
surveys
3. 8. 1. - 1021415
DATE: 08/23/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Glynda J. Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks
DESCRIPTION: Letter stating concurrence with
re: Geophysical Survey
1
Consultants
approach outlined in 8/16/91 letter
..
3. 8. 1. - 1021244
DATE: '03/02/92 PAGES: 3
. AUTHOR: Peter C. Brooks/Dept. of Ecology
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: DOE's comments on the Confirmational
Subsurface Geophysical Targets
Sampling and Analysis Plan for
3. 8. 1. - 1021242
DATE: 04/10/92 PAGES: 19
AUTHOR: Glynda J. Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Responses to EPA Comments on Draft Confirmation Sampling and
Analysis Plan for Subsurface Geophysical Targets
09/30/94
u. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR)COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
3. 8. 1. - 1021418
DATE: OS/29/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Mark w. Stromberq/Burlinqton Northern Railroad
DESCRIPTION: EPA Comments on Confirmational Samplinq and Analysis
Subsurface Geophysical Tarqets
2
Plan for
3. 8. 1. - 1021241
DATE: 06/16/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Joan C. Shirley/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Shawn Carter/Preston Thorqrimson Shidley
DESCRIPTION: Follow up letter to telephone conference
Subsurface Geophysical Tarqets
2
Gates and .Ellis
on 6/12 reqardinq
SUB-HEAD:
J. 9. 1.
EPA Oversiqht Samplinq Data
3. 9. 1. - 1021115
DATE: 08/01/90 PAGES: 15
AUTHOR: Dennis Robinson/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Data Validation for South
No. MJG291
Tacoma Swamp Site, Case No. 14324, SDG
3. 9. 1. - 1021240
DATE: 05/17/91 .PAGES: 14
AUTHOR: John Alexander/ESAT
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Metal Analysis for South Tacoma Field
91124640-91124646 (7 Soil Samples)
Soil Samples
3. 9. 1. - 1021237
DATE: OS/23/91 PAGES: 15
AUTHOR: John Alexander/ESAT
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Metal Analysis for South Tacoma Field
91144567-91144572 (6 Soil Samples)
Soil Samples
3. 9. 1. - 1021236
DATE: 07/10/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Clark Carlson/ESAT
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Metal Analysis for South Tacoma Field Soil Samples
91174565-91174568 (4 Soil Samples) and 91174570-91174572
samples) .
19
(3 water
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Aqency, Reqion 10
paqe
-------
. ." ~ . . '.,
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL AIR INDEX
3. 9. 1. - 1021235
DATE: 07/11/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Clark carlsonlESAT
ADDRESSEE: Christine psyk/EPA"
DESCRIPTION: Metal Analysis for South Tacoma Field
91194550-91194557 (7 Soil Samples)
16
Soil Samples
3. 9. 1. - 1021234
DATE: 07/12/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Clark Carlson/ESAT
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Metal Analysis for South Tacoma Field Soil
91224565-91224565 (10 Soil Samples)
22
samples'
3. 9. 1. - 1021233
DATE: 07/16/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Clark carlson/ESAT
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Metal Analysis for South Tacoma Field
91204483-91204486 (4 Soil Samples)
13
Soil samples
3. 9. 1. - 1021232
DATE: 07/18/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: M.K. Parker/ESAT
ADDRESSEE: Christine, Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Metal Analysis for South Tacoma field Soil
91254550-91254556 (7 Soil Samples)
67
Samples
3. 9. 1. -" 1021116
DATE: 07/23/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Laura castrillilEPA
ADDRESSEE: Susan Mccarthy/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter requesting resolicitation
SAS
1
of the Hexavalent Chromium in soil
3. 9. 1. - 1021117
DATE: 07/24/91 PAGES: 51
AUTHOR: Sripriya Carli/ICF Technology
ADDRESSEE: stan PetersonlICF Kaiser Engineers
DESCRIPTION: Report of Data Validation for Case
Samples for cyanide Analysis
16743, SDG IMJG870, 2 soil
3. 9. 1. - 1021231 "
DATE: 08/08/91 PAGES: 12
AUTHOR: clark Carlson/ESAT"
ADDRESSEE: Christine psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Metal Analysis for South Tacoma Pield Soil
91264595-91264598 (4 Soil Samples~
Samples
09/30/94
u. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
3. 9. 1. - 1021230
DATE: 08/15/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Donald Matheny/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Review of Data Validation
Kaiser Engineers)
1
Reports for South Tacoma Fields (ICF
3. 9. 1. - 1021229
DATE: 08/23/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Phil Davis/EPA
. ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Quality Assurance data review
South Tacoma Field samples
9
of cyanide analysis performed on
3. 9. 1. - 1021227
DATE: 09/05/91 PAGES: 14
AUTHOR: Sripriya Chari/ICF Technology
ADDRESSEE: Stan Peterson/ICF Kaiser Engineers
DESCRIPTION: Report of Data Validation for Case SAS 61453/Part
. Samples for Hexavalent Chromium Analysis
C, 10 Soil
3. 9. 1. - 1021228
DATE; 09/05/91 PAGES: 9
AUTHOR: Lisa Hanuaiak/ICF Technology
ADDRESSEE: Stan Peterson/ICF Kaiser Engineers
DESCRIPTION: Report of Data Validation for SAS 6297-3, 2 Soil Samples for
Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxin and Dibenzofuran Analyses
3. 9. 1. - 1021118
DATE: 10/21/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Donald Matheny/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Data Validation for
65643-02-01, Metals
14
South Tacoma Fields, SAS No: 65643-02; SDG No:
Data
3. 9. 1. - 1021226
DATE: 11/20/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Phil Davis/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Christine psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Quality assurance data review
South Tacoma Field Samples
4
of cyanide analysis performed on
~
09/30/94
u. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMM . BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
3. 9. 1. - 1021120
DATE: 11/25/91 PAGES:
. AUTHOR: J. Blazevich/EPA
ADDRESSEE:.Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Report of Data Va1idation of BNA's for the South
Project, Samples 91454610, 91454611 and 91454612
13
Tacoma Field
3. 9. 1. - 1021119
DATE: 11/29/91 PAGES: 9
AUTHOR: Linda Kempe-Karsonovich/ESAT
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Data Review of S. Tacoma Field
Water Samples for PARs
3. 9. 1. - 1021225
DATE: 12/02/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Donald Matheny/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Review of Data Validation
Kaiser Engineers, ARCS
1
Reports for South Tacoma Fields, ICF
3. 9. 1. - 1021224
DATE: 12/06/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Unknown/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Unknown .
DESCRIPTION: Qualifier and Remark Codes for Manchester. Environmental
Generated Data - Analysis results attached
12
Laboratory
3. 9. 1. - 1021223
DATE: .01/22/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Donald Matheny/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Review of Data Validation Report for South Tacoma Fields Soil
Sampling Phase I (12/10/91) and Second Quarter Groundwater Sampling
(10/7/91) EcoChem, Inc.
2
3. 9. 1. - 1021121
DATE: 01/24/92 PAGES: 60
AUTHOR: Stan R. Peterson/ICF Technology, Inc.
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA .
DESCRIPTION: Cover letter and enclosed response regarding
packaqe for Case 116276, SDG JG698 submitted
data validation
11/4/91
3. 9. 1. - 1021222
DATE: 02/03/92 PAGES: . 4
AUTHOR: Stephanie Harris/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Memorandum re: sample no.
t
92054615, microbioloqy sample
~
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
3. 9. 1. - 1021220
DATE:" 02/05/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Stan R. Peterson/ICF Technology, Inc.
DESCRIPTION: Letter statinq that EPA will conduct all
oversiqht sample data
1
further validation of
3. 9. 1. - 1021122
DATE: 02/12/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Phil Davis/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Quality assurance data review
12 "
of cyanide analysis
3. 9. 1. - 1021221
DATE: 02/12/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Unknown/Unknown
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Ranqe of Concentrations Detected for the Chemicals of
Tacoma Field Site (mq/kq) - surface soils only"
1
Concern at S.
3. 9. 1. - 1021219
DATE: 03/17/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Phil Davis/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Quali~y Assurance data
7
review of cyanide samples
3. 9. 1. - 1021211
DATE: 03/31/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Clark Carlson/ESAT
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: TCLP Metals Analysis for
8
s. Tacoma Field Sample 92104556 (1 soil)
3. 9. 1. - 1021123
DATE: 04/15/92 PAGES: 28
AUTHOR: Dolores E. MontqomerY/ESAT
ADDRESSEE: Gerald Muth/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Data Review of S. Tacoma Field
Samples for PAHs
3. 9. 1. - 1021124
DATE: 04/21/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Clark Carlson/ESAT
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Metals Analysis for
14
South Tacoma Field Samples
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Aqency, Reqion 10
paqe
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDI~ A/R INDEX
3. 9. 1. - 1021125
DATE: 05/01/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Clark Carlson/ESAT
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Metals Analysis for S.
soils)
11
Tacoma Field Samples 92114580-92114582(3
3. 9. 1. - 1021126
DATE: 05/04/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Donald Matheny/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Data Validation for South Tacoma Fields,
MJJ439 and MJJ464, Cyanide Analysis
34
Case No. 17957, SDG No.'s
3. 9. 1. - 1021127
DATE: 05/08/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Donald Matheny/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Data Validation for South Tacoma Fields, Case No. 17877, SDG
No.JJKOOl , Volatile, SemiVolatile and Pesticide/PCB Analysis
58
3. 9. 1. - 1021128
DATE: 05/13/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Clark Carlson/ESAT
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Metals Analysis for S.
soils)
31
Tacoma Field Samples 92134390-92134410 '(21
3. 9. 1. - 1021129
DATE: OS/22/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Donald Matheny/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Data Validation for S. Tacoma Fields, Case No. 17957, SDG No.
JJ294, Volatile, Semi-Volatile and Pesticide/PCB Analyses
64
3. 9. 1. - 1021218
DATE: 12/21/92 PAGES: 36
AUTHOR: John Frerich/ICF Technology
ADDRESSEE: Beth Feeley/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Cover letter and enclosed comparison of
, the PRPs Analytical Results
EPA Analyical Results with
3. 9. 1. - 1021217
DATE: 11/29/93 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Laura castrilli/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: FASP Request/Tracking Form
1
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
3. 9. 1. - 1Q17SS2
DATE: 01/03/94 PAGES: 5
AUTHOR: Michael G. Bray/ICF Technology Inc.
ADDRESSEE: Debbie Yamamoto/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Memo: Quality assurance review of ten soil
lead in support of the STF Superfund site;
sample no. 93483125 thru 93483134
samples analyzed for
'project code TEC-032;
3. 9. 1. - 1021641
DATE: 03/30/94 PAGES: 16
AUTHOR: Isabel Chamberlain/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Debbie Yamamoto/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Cover letter stating that Self Evaluation Report prepared by the
ESAT contractor was conducted in accordance with Functional,
Guidelines and that data qualifiers are appropriate and attached
data package
SUB-HEAD:
3. 9. 2. 1
Phase I Soil Investigation Report (Data Appendix)
3. 9. 2. 1 - 1021215
DATE: 03/21/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Unknown/Unknown
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: South Tacoma Field
5
Split Samples Collected
3. 9. 2. 1 - 1021214
DATE: 11/27/91 PAGES:' 2
AUTHOR: Glynda J.' Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION:, Letter stating anticipated date
Investigation Report and'acting
reports
Consultants
of receipt of Phase I Soil
as transmittal letter for other
3. 9. 2. 1 - 1021431
DATE: 11/27/91 PAGES: 400
AUTHOR: Unknown/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/South Tacoma Field Site Group
DESCRIPTION: Report: Phase I Soil Investigation Report
- Data Appendix
3. 9. 2. 1 - 1021213
DATE: 03/19/92 PAGES: 3
AUTHOR: Glynda J. Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks ~onsultants
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter transmitting 3 data disks for Chemicals of Concern in
surface soil
09/30/94
U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
3.9.2.1 - 10~1212
DATE: 03/25/92 PAGES: 45
AUTHOR: Glynda J. steiner/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter transmitting database printouts for chemicals of concern in
surface soil
3. 9. 2. 1 - 1021210
DATE: 04/16/92 PAGES: 28
AUTHOR: Glynda Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Cover letter and revised database printouts for chemicals of
concern in surface soil
SUB-HEAD:
3. 9. 2. 2
Phase II Soi1 Investigation Report (Data Appendix)
3. 9. 2. 2 - 1021209
DATE: 07/13/92 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Thomas C. Morin/Kennedy/Jenks
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Cover letter for submittal of
Appendix
Consultants
Phase II Soil Investigation Data
3. 9. 2. 2 - 1021433
DATE: 07/13/92 PAGES: 300
AUTHOR: Unknown/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/South Tacoma Field Site Group
DESCRIPTION: Report: Phase II Soil Investigation Report -
Data Appendix
SUB-HEAD:
3. 9. 2. 3
Groundwater Investigation Report (Data Appendix)
3. 9. 2. 3 -
DATE:
AUTHOR:
ADDRESSEE:
DESCRIPTION:
1021208
. / / PAGES:
Unknown/Unknown
Unknown/Unknown
Groundwater Sampling Data
3
Analysis Table
3. 9. 2. 3 - 1021207
DATE: 10/06/89 PAGES: 7.
AUTHOR:.Janette Y. Black/B&V Science and Technology Corp.
ADDRESSEE: Debbie Yamamoto/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Cover letter and attached water table contour maps
data
and water level
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMH. BAY - S. TACOMA' FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
3. 9. 2. 3 - 1021206
DATE: 08/07/91 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Susan J. Roth/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION:, Transmittal letter for copies of Groundwater
No.1
Interim Deliverable
3. 9. 2. 3 - 1021205
DATE: 10/22/91 PAGES: 3
AUTHOR: Glynda Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Christine psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Transmittal letter of Preliminary Groundwater Data Printouts.
3. 9. 2. 3 - 1021708
DATE: 12/05/91 PAGES: 293
AUTHOR: Unknown/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/South Tacoma Field Site Group
DESCRIPTION: Phase I Groundwater Investigation Report
: Data Appendix
3. 9. 2. 3 - 1021204
DATE: 04/14/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Glenn Bruck/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Memo re: Contour Plots
1991
26
of Groundwater Chemistry at STF for April,
'.
3. 9. 2. 3 - 1021203
DATE: 09/18/92 PAGES: 60 .
AUTHOR: Ty C. Schreiner/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA ' '
DESCRIPTION: Letter re: Analytical Results for Groundwater Samples
City Light Property and Contents of Underground Tank
for Tacoma
SUB-HEAD:
3. 9. 2. 4
Surface Water and Sediment Investigation Report (Data
3. 9. 2. 4 -
DATE:
AUTHOR:
ADDRESSEE:
DESCRIPTION:
1021202
/ / PAGES:
Unknown/Unknown
Unknown/Unknown
Surface Water Sampling
3
Data Analysis Table
3. 9. 2. 4 - 1021201
DATE: 06/28/91 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Dana B. Grant/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Christine psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Transmittal letter for 8 copies of Wetlands Interim Deliverable No.
1
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMH. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
3. 9. 2. 4 - 1021432
DATE: 05/iS/92 PAGES: 400
AUTHOR: Unknown/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/South Tacoma Field Site Group
DESCRIPTION: Report: Surface Water and Sediment Investigation
Appendix
Report - Data
SUB-HEAD:
3. 9. 3.
Data Validation of PRP Data
3. 9. 3. - 1021131
DATE: 07/25/91 PAGES: 8
AUTHOR: Robert G. Melton/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: QA Review of EcoChem,
Field
Inc. Data Validation Reports for South Tacoma
3. 9. 3. - 1021132
DATE: 07/26/91 PAGES: 7
AUTHOR: Robert G. Melton/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: QA Review of EcoChem,
Data, 1st Quarter
Inc. Data Validation Reports of Groundwater
3. 9. 3. - 1021133
DATE: 07/29/91 ~AGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Glynda Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
DESCRIPTION: Comment letter.re: Wetlands Investigation Surface Water and
Sediment, Interim Deliverable NO.1, Groundwater Investigation,
. Interim Deliverable No.1 (1st Quarter)
17
3. 9. 3. - 1021134
DATE: 09/05/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Donald Matheny/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Response to comments on
Fields, EcoChem, Inc.,
1
data validation reports for South Tacoma.
August 14, 1991
3. 9. 3. - 1021200
DATE: 01/22/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Donald Matheny/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Review of Data Validation Report for South Tacoma Fields Soil
Sampling Phase I (12/10/91) and Second Quarter Groundwater Sampling
(10f7/91) .
2
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
...-.. ... ..-
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMED.IAL A/R INDEX
3. 9. 3. - 1021135
DATE: 01/24/92 PAGES:
~UTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Glynda Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
DESCRIPTION: Review of February 21, 1992, MOdification to Oversiqht Work Plan
for the South Tacoma Field Remedial Investiqation and Feasibility
Study (ICF, March, 1991)
2
3. 9. 3. - 1021199
DATE: 01/24/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Glynda Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
DESCRIPTION: Letter re: Review of Data Validation Reports
Groundwater (rounds 1 and 2) .
2
for Surface Soils and
3. 9. 3. - 1021198
DATE: 02/27/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Laura Castrilli/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Raleiqh Farlow/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Review of 2/21/92 Modification
2
to Oversiqht Work Plan
3. 9. 3. - 1021136
DATE: 04/01/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Donald Matheny/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Raleiqh Far~ow/EPA .
DESCRIPTION: Review of Data Validation Report, South Tacoma
Groundwater Samplinq, EcoChem, Inc., 2/17/92
1
Field Third Quarter
3. 9. 3. - 1021197
DATE: '04/21/92 PAGES: 4
AUTHOR: Glynda Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
PESCRIPTION: Responses to Comments on the Data Validation Reports for Phase I
Soil Data and Phase I Groundwater Data
SUB-HEAD:
3. 9. 4.
Chain of Custody Forms
3. 9. 4.
DATE:
AUTHOR:
ADDRESSEE:
DESCRIPTION:
- 1021138
/ / PAGES: 109
Christine Psyk/EPA
Unknown/Unknown
Field Sample Data and Chain of CUstody Sheets. (1991-1994)
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection.Aqency, Reqion 1~
paqe
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
3. 9. 4. - 1.021196
DATE: 03/08/92 PAGES: 3 .
AUTHOR: John P. Frerich/ICF Technology, Inc.
ADDRESSEE: Laura Castrilli/EPA
DESCRIPTION; Cover letter discussing error in attached
chain of custody form
SUB-HEAD:
3. 9. 5.
City of Tacoma Well Data
3. 9. S. - 1021194
DATE: 12/21/90 PAGES: 54
AUTHOR: Unknown/Carr/Associates Inc.
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Test Well 89.7 Completion and Testing Rport
Utilities Water Division
Tacoma Public
3. 9. S. - 1021139
DATE: 07/19/93 PAGES: 166
AUTHOR: C.R. Myrick/Tacoma Public
ADDRESSEE: Debbie Yamamoto/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Cover letter and attached
. and readily available VOC
Utilities
summary of inorganic water quality data,
data
3. 9. 5. - 1021193
DATE: 08/05/93 PAGES: 14
AUTHOR: C.R. Myrick/Tacoma Public
ADDRESSEE: Debbie Yamamoto/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Cover letter and attached
forms dating back to 1958
Utilities
13 "Summary of Water Quality Analysis"
SUB-HEAD:
3.10.
Remedial Investigation Reports
3.10.
- 1021284
DATE: 04/15/92 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Glynda Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks Consultant
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Cover letter for Draft outline for Remedial Investigation Report.
SUB-HEAD:
3.10. .1.
RI Comments
3.10. 1. - 1021192
DATE: . / / PAGES:
AUTHOR: Glenn Bruck/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Memorandum re: Comments
2
on Phase I Groundwater Investigation
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
42 .
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
3.10. 1. - 1021666
DATE: 04/30/90 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Martha Anamosa/Glacier
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Comments on Draft Site
Park Company
Background summary"
3.10. 1. - 1021140
DATE: 01/08/91 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Mike RUby/Envirometrics, Inc
ADDRESSEE: Glynda Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks
DESCRIPTION: Memorandum re: Response to Comments by EPA on Draft Air
Investigation Preliminary Dispersion Modeling Report (11/25/91
Letter from Christine Psyk)
3.10. 1. - 1021661
DATE: 02/25/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Glynda steiner/Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton
DESCRIPTION: Cover letter and attached technical concerns
Survey Plan Final Report
4
on the Geophysical
3.10. 1. - 1021669
DATE: 08/19/91 PAGES: 30
AUTHOR: Glynda J. Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Christine,Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Responses to EPA Comments regarding Groundwater Interim Deliverable
No.1 and Surface water and Sediment Interim Deliverable No.1, etc.
3.10. 1. "-"1021141
DATE: 09/06/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Glynda steiner/Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton
DESCRIPTION: Letter re: update to project schedule, responses to EPA comments on
the groundwater, surface water and sediment interim deliverables
and data validation reports, and the draft outline for data
appendices
3
3.10. 1. - 1021670
DATE: 10/15/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Glynda J. steiner/Kennedy/Jenks
DESCRIPTION: Comments on Wetland Delineation
2
Consultants
and Endangered Plan species Survey
09/30/94
u. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
43
-------
.~.,~--_.-
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
3.10. 1. - 1021668
DATE: 10/23/91 PAGES: 4
AUTHOR: Peter C. Brooks/Washington Dept. of Ecology
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Comments on Preliminary Dispersion Modeling Report
3.10. 1. - 1021142
DATE: 11/25/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Glynda J. steiner/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
DESCRIPTION: Letter re: EPA review of Air Investigation,
Modeling Draft Report
4
Preliminary Dispersion
3.10. 1. - 1021667
DATE: 11/26/91 PAGES: 3 .
AUTHOR: John Hildenbrand/Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Cover letter and attached comments on the Soil Gas Survey Report
3.10. 1. .- 1021143
DATE: 12/11/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Glynda J. Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks
DESCRIPTION: Letter re: general and specific
2
Consultants
comments on the Soil Gas Survey
3.10. 1. - 1021144
DATE: 01/09/92 PAGES: 3
AUTHOR: Glynda Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Cover letter and attached responses to EPA's three specific
questions on technical aspects of the Draft Air Investigation
Preliminary Dispersion Modeling Report
3.10. 1. - 1021189
DATE: 01/27/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Glynda Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
DESCRIPTION: Letter stating that Blackberry Investigation
as submitted
1
Report is acceptable
3.10. 1. - 1021190 .
DATE: 01/27/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Addressees/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Cover letter for attached Phase I Groundwater
Report, requesting comments by 2/21/92
2
Investigation Draft
09/30/94
u. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
.. - -. _w',
CTSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
3.10. 1. - 1021188
DATE: 02/04/92 PAGES: 2.
AUTHOR: John Hildebrand/Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Cover letter and attached comments on the Draft Phase I Soil
Investigation Report and Phase II Soil Investigation Field Sampling
and Analysis Plan
3.10. 1. - 1021187
DATE: 02/07/92 PAGES: 3
AUTHOR: Peter C. Brooks/Washington
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Cover letter and attached
Investigation Report
Dept. of Ecology
comments regarding the Phase I Soil
3.10. 1. - 1021186
DATE: 02/10/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Glynda Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
DESCRIPTION: EPA Comments on the Phase I Soil Investigation
Phase II Soil Investigation Field Sampling and
Amendment, Draft
11
Draft Report and the
Analysis Plan
3.10. 1. - 1021185
DATE: 02/21/92 .PAGES: 4
AUTHOR: Peter C. Brooks/Washington
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Cover letter and attached
Investigation Report
Dept. of Ecology
comments on the Phase I Groundwater
3.10. 1. - 1021145
DATE: 02/27/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Glynda Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
DESCRIPTION: Letter re: EPA's and DOE's comments on the
Investigation Report
7
Phase I Groundwater
3.10. 1. - 1021184
DATE: 02/27/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Glenn Bruck/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Additional comment to
message)
1
include with groundwater comments CLAN
09/30/94
u. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region.10
Page
45
-------
..- ~'.' R. -... ~... h
¥. ._'. --. ..
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R. INDEX
3.10. 1. - 1021181
DATE: 03/02/92 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Peter C. Brooks/WaShington Dept. of Ecology
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Cover letter and. attached comments on the Geophysical
Survey Report
3.10. 1. - 1021183
DATE: 03/02/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Glynda J. Steiner/KennedY/Jenks Consultants
DESCRIPTION: Letter re: one additional comment on the qroundwat~r
1
investigation
3.10. 1. - 1021180
DATE: 03/09/92 PAGES: . 3
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Peter C. Brooks/Washington Dept.
DESCRIPTION: Letter re: DOE's comments on the
of Ecology
Geophysic~ Survey Report
3.10. 1. - 1021178
DATE: 03/12/92 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Robert L. Stamnes/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA .
DESCRIPTION: Memorandum re: Review of the
Characterization Report"
~outh Tacoma Field "Supplemental Soil
3.10. 1. - 1021179
DATE: 03/16/92 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Stan R. Peterson/ICF Technology, Inc.
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter regarding review of report prepared
Analyses of Partical Size Fractions"
by PRPs on the "Chemical
3.10. 1. - 1021413
DATE: 03/19/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Bill Ryan/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: LAN message stating no
of Part. Size Fracs."
1
comments on report entitled "Chem. Analysis
3.10. 1. - 1021414
DATE: 03/19/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Donald Matheny/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Review of Draft Supplemental Soil Characterization
Analyses of Partical Size Fraction (2/27/92)
1
Report, Chemical
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
-. . - - - .-- - ., - .. - -.. .
.... ,'... . ...
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
3.10. 1. - 1Q21412
DATE: 03/20/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Glynda Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
DESCRIPTION: Cover letter and attached EPA comments on the
Characterization Report, Chemical Analyses of
Fractions
3
Supplemental Soil
Partical Size
3.10. 1. - 1021411
DATE: 03/23/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Anne DUffy/Washington Dept. of Public Health
DESCRIPTION: Letter re: Phase I Soil Investigation Report
7
3.10. 1. - 1021410
DATE: 04/10/92 PAGES: 9
AUTHOR: Susan J. Roth/Kennedy/Jenks
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Responds to comments
Investigation Report
Consultants
from EPA on draft Phase I Groundwater
3.10. 1. - 1021409
DATE: 04/21/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Glenn Bruck/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Memo: Comments on issues on South Tacoma Field "Responses to
Comments on Draft Phase I Ground Water Investigation Report"
2
3.10. 1. .- 1021408
DATE: 04/23/92 PAGES: 10
AUTHOR: Michael DuCharme/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Responds to comments on the draft Supplemental 50il
Characterization Report
3.10. 1. - 1021146
DATE: 04/24/92 PAGES: 9
AUTHOR: Glynda J. Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Proposed air modeling approach for risk
inhalation route
assessment
3.10. 1. - 1021407
DATE: 05/04/92 PAGES: 4
AUTHOR: Michael A. DUCharme/Kennedy/Jenks
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Responds to EPA comments
Investigatien Report
Consultants
on draft Phase I 50il
09/30/94
u. 5. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
3.10. 1. - 1021147
DATE: '06/04/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Peter Brooks/Washington State Department of Ecology
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits report titled: South Tacoma Field
Dispersion MOdel Screening Analysis - less enclosure
1
- Draft
3.10. 1. - 1021405
DATE: 06/16/92 PAGES: 4
AUTHOR: Peter C. Brooks/Washington State Department of Ecology
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Comments on the Surface Water and Sediment Investigation
Report
I
3.10. 1. - 1021404
DATE: 06/22/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Glynda J. Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits EPA's comments on draft Surface
Sediment Investigation Report
9
Water and
3.10. 1. - 1021148
DATE: 06/24/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Bill Ryanf.EPA
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Maao: Comments on draft
1
Dispersion Model Screening Analysis Report
3.10. 1. .-1021149
DATE: 06/25/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Glynda J.. Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
DESCRIPTION: Letter: EPA comments on draft Dispersion Modeling
Analysis Report
1
Screening
3.10. 1. - 1033033
DATE: 07/17/92 PAGES: 3
AUTHOR: Susan Roth/Kennedy/Jenks
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Responses to EPA Comments
Investigation Report
Consultants
on Draft Phase I Groundwater
3.10. 1. - 1021403
DATE: 08/11/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Donald Matheny /EPA
ADDRESSEE: Christin'e Psyk/EPA .
DESCRIPTION: Maao: Comments on review of Kennedy/Jenks
Investigation Report of July 13, 1992
1
Phase II Soil
09/30/94
u. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWA,R) COMH. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
3.10. 1. - 10'21402
DATE: 08/25/92 PAGES: 6
AUTHOR: Dana B. De Leon/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Responds to EPA comments on the Draft Surface Water and
Sediment Investigation Report
3.10. 1. - 1021401
DATE: 10/15/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Beth Feeley/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Glenn Bruck/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Memo: Transmits draft Remedial Investigation
briefly the contents of the 6 volumes
4
Report and describes
3.10. 1. - 1021400
DATE: 12/07/92 PAGES: 8
AUTHOR: Peter C. Brooks/Washington
ADDRESSEE: Beth Feeley/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits comments
Report .
State Department of Ecology
on the draft Remedial Investigation
3.10. 1. - 1021399
DATE: 12/13/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Beth Feeley/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Michael A. DUCharme/Kennedy/Jenks
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits comments of EPA
the Remedial Investigation Report
43
Consultants
and WDOE on Volumes 1 thru 6 of
3.10. 1. - 1021398
DATE: 02/01/93. PAGES: 13
AUTHOR: John E. Norris/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Beth Feeley/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Responds to EPA's comments of December
draft Remedial Investigation Report (Volumes 1
13, 1992 on the
thru 6)
3.10. 1.. - 1021397
DATE: 04/01/93 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Chris A. Poindexter/Washington State Department of Ecology
ADDRESSEE: Beth Feeley/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Comments on the Remedial Investigation Repor~
3.10. 1. - 1021395
DATE: 04/08/93 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Beth Feeley/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Michael A. DuCharme/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits EPA approval for Volumes 1 thru
Investigation Report
1
6 of the Remedial
09/30/94
u. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
49
-------
i
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
3.10. 1. - 1021394
DATE: 07/30/93 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Deborah J. Yamamoto/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Chris A. Poindexter/Washinqton State Department of
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits water quality data from the City
water supply wells an~ fraa the Green River - less
Ecology
of Tacoma's
enclosures
SUB-HEAD:
3.10. 2.
Volume I - RI Summary Report
3.10. 2. - 1021441
DATE: 02/01/93 PAGES: 342
AUTHOR: Unknown/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/South Tacoma Field site Group
DESCRIPTION: Final Report: South Tacoma Field Remedial
(Volume 1 of 6) .
Investigation Report
SUB-HEAD:
3.10. 3.
Volume 2 - Phase I Soil Investigation Report (Appendix
3.10. 3. - 1021593
DATE: 02/27/92 PAGES: 34
AUTHOR: Unknown/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/South Tacoma Field Site Group
DESCRIPTION: Supplemental Soil Characterization Report:
Particle Size Fractions: Draft
Chemical Analyses of
3.10. 3.
DATE:
AUTHOR:
ADDRESSEE:
DESCRIPTION:
- 1021440
08/24/92 PAGES: 310
~nknown/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
Unknown/South Tacoma Field Site Group
Final Report: Remedial Investigation Report;
Soil Investigation Report (Volume 2 of 6)
Appendix SS -Phase I
3.10. 3. - 1017553
DATE: 08/10/93 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Michael A. DuCharme/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Deborah Yamamoto/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits final report on additional soil sampling at
Tacoma Industrial Properties - less enclosures
3.10. 3. -1021438
DATE: 08/10/93 PAGES: 13
AUTHOR: Unknown/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: unknown/South Tacoma Field Site Group
DESCRIPTION: Final Report: Additional Soil Sampling
properties
at Tacoma Industrial
SUB-HEAD:
3.10. 4.
Volume 3 - Phase II Soil Investigation Reports
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
3.10. 4. - 10~1288
DATE: 08/24/92 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Glynda Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits draft Phase II Soil Investigation Report,
. Groundwater Investigation Report, and draft Hydraulic
Characterization Report - less enclosures
final
3.10. 4. - 1021442
DATE: 02/01/93 PAGES: 554
AUTHOR: Unknown/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/South Tacoma Field Site Group
DESCRIPTION: Final Report: Remedial Investigation Report;
Soils Investigation Report
Appendix SB, Phase II
SUB-HEAD:
3.10. 5.
Volume 4 - Groundwater Investigation Report (Appendix
3.10. 5. - 1021443
DATE: 08/24/92 PAGES: 680
AUTHOR: Unknown/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/South.Tacoma Field Site Group
DESCRIPTION: Final Report: Remedial Investigation Report; Appendix GW - Phase I
Groundwater Investigation Report and Appendix HC - Hydraulic
Characterization Investigation Report (Volume 4 of 6)
..
3.10. 5. - 1021287
DATE: 01/29/93 PAGES:' 1
AUTHOR: Michael A. DUCharme/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Beth Feeley/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits copies of replacement pages for the
Remedial Investigation Appendix GW - less enclosures
Final
SUB-HEAD:
3.10. 6.
Vol. 5 - Surface Water and Sediment Investigation Rpt.
3.10. 6. - 1021289
DATE: 01/28/92 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR:, Michael A. DUCharme/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits corrected page for the EPA-accepted Blackberry.
Investigation Report - less enclosures
3.10. 6. - 1021444
DATE: 08/24/92 PAGES: 516
AUTHOR: Unknown/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/South Tacoma Field Site Group
DESCRIPTION: Remedial Investigation Report Appendices
Volume 5 of6
SUB-HEAD:
3.10. 7.
Vol. 6 - Wetland Delin..Dispersion Model...Soil Gas
!
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
3.10. 7. - 1021445
DATE: 10/29/91 PAGES: 530
AUTHOR: Unknown/LSA Associates, Inc.
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/South Tacoma Field Site Group
DESCRIPTION: Remedial Investigation Report Appendices
are blueprints) .
Volume 6 of 6 (13 pages
3.10. 7. - 1021671
DATE: 10/29/91 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Glynda J. Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Transmittal letter for 8 copies of the Final Wetland Delineation
and Endangered Plant Species Survey Report revised as of 10/15/91
.~
3.10. 7. - 1021673
DATE: 11/18/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Glynda J. Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
DESCRIPTION: Letter requesting addendum to the final Wetland
Endangered Plan Species Survey
1
Delineation and
3.10. 7. - 1021672
. DATE: 11/20/91 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Glynda J. Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Christine. Psyk/EPA .
DESCRIPTION: Cover letter for final copy of EPA approved Addendum .for the Final
Wetland Delineation and Endangered Plant Species Survey Report
3.10. 7. . - 1022469
DATE: 11/20/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Unknown/
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/
DESCRIPTION: Addendum to the South Tacoma Field Superfund Site Wetland
Delineation and Endangered Plant Species Survey (attachment to
document 3.10.7-1021672) .
1
3.10. 7. ~1033034
DATE: 04/02/92 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Charles E. Sweeney/EHI
ADDRESSEE: Ty Schreiner/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
DESCRIPTION: kesponse to.EPA Comments on the South Tacom~
Survey Report .
Field Geophysical
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
- - -.- .. - .
. ........ -
. - n.... .
(TSWAR) COKM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
3.10. 7. - 1033032
DATE: 05/11/92 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Ty C. Schreiner/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Transmittal letter for Final Geophysical Survey
Report
3.10. 7. - 1021070
DATE: 06/01/92 PAGES: 56
AUTHOR: Unknown/TRC Environmental Consultants" Inc.
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc.
DESCRIPTION: Draft Report: Dispersion Model Screening Analysis,
Investigation
'STF Remedial
3.10. 7. - 1021290
DATE: 10/15/92 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Glynda J. Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits replacement of Appendix DM
RI Report Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
enclosures
(Volume 6 of 6) of the
Study - less
3.10. 7. - 1021437
DATE: 04f01/93 PAGES: 56
AUTHOR: Unknown/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Squth Tacoma Field Site Group
DESCRIPTION: Draft Report: Subsurface Geophysical Target
to the STF Remedial Investigation Report
Investigation; Addendum
3.10. 7. - '1021588
DATE: 04/06/93 PAGES: 96
AUTHOR: Unknown/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Burlington Northern Railroad
DESCRIPTION: Underground Storage Tank Removal Report
3.10. 7. - 1021587
DATE: 04/12/93 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Ty C. Schreiner/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants,
ADDRESSEE: Underground Storage Tank Program/Washington,Dept. of Ecology
DESCRIPTION: Cover letter for two copies of Burlington Way Tank Removal Report
3.10. 7. - 1022470
DATE: 04/19/93 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: John Frerich/ICF Technology
ADDRESSEE: Beth Feeley/EPA
DESCRIPTION: ICF'comments on the first quarterly
report'
SUB-HEAD:
3.11.
Risk Assessment
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COHM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
- 1021436 .
DATE: 04/01/93 PAGES: 454
, AUTHOR: Unknown/ICF Technology Incorporated
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Final Report: Human Health Risk Assessment -.Appendices A thru F-
Revision 0
3.11.
,.
l.
3.11.
- 1021628
DATE: 04/01/93 PAGES: 198
AUTHOR: Unknown/ICF Technology, Inc.
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Final Human Health Risk Assessment Report, South Tacoma Field Site
Tacoma Washington
SUB-HEAD:
3.11. 1.
Human Health
3.11. 1. - 1021392
DATE: 1 1 PAGES: 3
AUTHOR: Unknown/state of Washington Department of Ecoloqy
ADDRESSEE: Unknown 1
DESCRIPTION: General and specific comments on the Human Health
Report.
Risk Assessment
3.11. 1. - 1021393
DATE: 1 1
AUTHOR: Unknownl
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/
DESCRIPTION: Draft for Discussion: General approach for evaluating potential
impacts to groundwater as a result of leaching from soil
. PAGES:
3
..
3.11. 1. - 1021391
DATE: 12/19/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Stan R. Peterson/ICF Technology Incorporated
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Discusses results of December 16 meeting
Technical Team
4
of the STF
3.11. 1. ~ 1021150
DATE: 01/21/92 PAGES: 11
AUTHOR: Anne Duffy/Washington State Department of Health
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Discusses soil contaminants of potential health concern
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
54
-------
CTSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
3.11. 1. - 102~389
DATE: 01/24/92 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Christine psyk/EPA .
ADDRESSEE: Marge Norman/ICF Technology, Inc.
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Discusses criteria used to
the human health risk assessment
select chemicals of concern for
3.11. 1. - - 1021390
DATE: 01/24/92 PAGES: 5
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Glynda J. Steiner/KennedY/Jenks Consultants
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Discusses identification of chemicals
surface soils
of concern for
3.11. 1. - 1021388
DATE: 01/27/92 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Glynda J. Steiner/KennedY/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits lead concentration distribution
the STF Risk Assessment - less enclosures
maps for use in
3.11. 1. - 1021387
DATE: 02/06/92 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Marjorie Norman/ICF Technology Incorporated
ADDRESSEE: Christine P.syk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits draft of description of steps necessary for
placing the STF data in a format suitable for conducting the risk
assessment - less attachment
3.11. 1. - 1021386
DATE: 02/10/92 PAGES: 4
AUTHOR: Marjorie Norman/ICF Technology Incorporated
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits table comparing chemicals of concern selected by
ICF to those selected by WDOH
3.11. 1. - 1021384
DATE: 03/04/92 PAGES: 47
AUTHOR: Marjorie Norman/ICF Technology
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Summarizes the pro~ess
in surface s~ils and air'
Incorporated
used to select chemicals of concern
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
. ........ ..-.
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
3.11. 1. - 1021385
DATE: 03/04/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Pat Cirone/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Memo: Outlines approach for evaluating the groundwater in the Risk
Assessment
2
3.11. 1. - 1021383
DATE: 03/18/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: B. Feeley/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Memo: Requests inquiry into restrictions concerning installing a
drinking water well
1
3.11. 1. - 1021382
DATE: 03/23/92 PAGES: 20
AUTHOR: Stan R. Peterson/ICF Technology Incorporated
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Identifies domestic wells within one mile of STF site
3.11. 1. - 1021381
DATE: 03/24/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Beth Feeley/EPA'
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Memo: Summarizes rest~ictions
2
applying to installation of wells
3.11. 1. - 1021151
DATE: 04/01/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Glenn Bruck/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Memo: Transmits recommendations concerning
"Upc;Jradient" and "Background" wells in the
Investigation Report
42
the proposed
Phase I Groundwater
3.11. 1. - 1021380
DATE: 04/07/92 PAGES: 9 .
AUTHOR: Kathryn E. Kelly/Environmental Toxicology 'Internatioal, Inc.
ADDRESSEE: Mark Stromberg/Burlington Northern Railroad
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Discusses alternative approaches to the risk assessment for
the STF site
3.11. 1. - 1021379
DATE: 04/09/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Pat' Cirone/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Memo: Transmits packet of documents for review - less attachments
7
"
09/30/94
U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
. Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMH. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
3.11. 1. - 1021378
DATE: 05/01/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Beth Feeley/EPA
ADDRESSEE:" Marge Norman/ICF Technology Inc.
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Discusses past, present, and possible
use in the vicinity of the STF Superfund site
34
future groundwater
3.11. 1. - 1021406
DATE: 05/06/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Anne Duffy/Washington State Department of Health
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits description of criteria used for selecting
. chemicals of concern in groundwater - less enclosure
1
3.11. 1. - 1021377
DATE: 07/02/92 PAGES: 3
AUTHOR: Marjorie G. Norman/ICF Technology Incorporated
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits toxicity profile for benzene
3.11. 1. - 1021376
DATE: 07/20/92 PAGES: 5
AUTHOR: Marjorie G. Norman/ICF Technology Incorporated
ADDRESSEE: Glynda J. Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Tr~nsmits magnetic disks containing risk calculations for
six geographic locations - less enclosures
3.11. 1~ - 1021375
DATE:, 08/10/92 PAGES: 5
AUTHOR: Stan R. Peterson/ICF Kaiser Engineers
ADDRESSEE: Pat Cirone/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits assessment of chemicals in the
could possibly impact the underlying groundwater
wetlands that
3.11. 1. - 1021374
DATE: 09/01/92 PAGES: 14
AUTHOR: Mark W. stromberg/Burlington Northern Railroad
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits PRP comments on Risk Assessment Approach
3.11. "1. - 1021427
DATE: 09/26/92 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Marjorie G. Norman/ICF Technology Incorporated"
ADDRESSEE: Glynda J. Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Requests preparation of subsurface soil risk
enclosures
map - less
09/30/94
u. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
3.11. 1. - 1021426
DATE: 1~/14/92 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Marjorie G. Norman/ICF Technology Incorporated
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits draft Human Health Risk Assessment - less
enclosures
3.11. 1. - 1017554
DATE: 10/26/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Beth Feeley/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Peter C. Brooks/Washington State Dept. of Ecology'
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits draft copies of the Huma~ Health and
Risk Assessments - less enclosures
1
Ecological
3.11. 1. - 1021373
DATE: 10/26/92 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Beth Feeley/EPA .. .
ADDRESSEE: Mark W. stromberg/Burlington Northern Railroad
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits draft Human Health and Ecological Risk
Assessments - less enclosures
3.11. 1. - 1021518
DATE: 10/28/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Beth Feeley/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Ric Robin$on/ATSDR
DESCRIPTION: Memo: Transmits draft
attachments
1
Human Health Risk Assessment - less
3.11. 1. . -.1021152
DATE: 10/30/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Carol Sweeney/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Memo: Transmits current version of "Cheat
health risk-based concentrations for soil
14
Sheets" showing human
and water
3.11. 1. - 1021371
DATE: 12/07/92 PAGES: 55
AUTHOR: Nathan A. Graves/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Beth Feeley/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits comments on "Human Health Risk
"Ecological Evaluation" prepared by.ENSR an~ Mr.
Assessment" and
Gregory L. Glass
3.11. 1. - 1021370
DATE: 12/09/92 PAGES: 4
AUTHOR: Peter C. Brooks/Washington State Department of Ecology
ADDRESSEE: Beth Feeley/EPA
DESCRIPTION~ Letter: Transmits comments on the Human Health Risk Assessment
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
3.11. 1. - 1021372
DATE: 01/i4/93 PAGES: 10
AUTHOR: Anne Duffy/Washington State Department of Health
ADDRESSEE: Beth Feeley/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits comments regarding the draft Human H~alth Risk
Assessment Report
3.11. 1. - 1021368
DATE: 04/09/93 PAGES: 3
AUTHOR: John Frerich/ICF Technology Incorporated
ADDRESSEE: Beth Feeley/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits final issue paper addressing the general/policy
concerns raised by reviewers of the Human 'Health Risk Assessment
3.11. 1. - 1021285
DATE: 05/07/93 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: John Frerich/ICF Technology Incorporated
ADDRESSEE: Michael A. Ducharme/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits Final Human Health Risk Assessment
.Wo~k Assignment 59-04-0L10 - less enclosures
Report; EPA
3.11. 1. - 1021369
DATE: 05/07/93 PAGES: 1 . .
AUTHOR: John Frerich/ICF Technology Incorporated
ADDRESSEE: Michael A. ,Ducharme/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits final Human Health Risk Assessment
for the STF
SUB-HEAD:
3.11. 2.
Ecological Risk Assessment and Comments
3.11. 2. - 1021367
DATE: 10/28/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Beth Feeley/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Charles Polityka/U. S.
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Requests DOl's
Risk Assessment - less
1
Dept. of Interior
review and comment on the draft Ecological
enclosure
3.11. 2. - 1021366
DATE: 11/02/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Beth 'Feeley/EPA
ADDRESSEE: John Emlen/U. S. Fish & Wildlife
DESCRIPTION: I.etter: Transmits requested copy
less enclosure
1
Service
of Ecological Risk Assessment -
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL.A/R INDEX
3.11. 2. - 1021364
DATE: 12/03/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Bruce Duncan/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Beth Feeley/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Memo: Transmits
4
comments on Ecological Risk Assessment
3.11. 2. - 1017555
DATE: 12/07/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Unknown/
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/
DESCRIPTION: Report: Review comments on the "Ecological
Tacoma Field, Tacoma, Washington"
54
Evaluation of the South
3.11. 2. - 1021365
DATE: 12/09/92 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Peter C. Brooks/Washington State Department of Ecology
ADDRESSEE: Beth Feeley/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits comments on Ecological Evaluation - less
enclosure
3.11. 2. - 1017556
DATE: 04/01/93 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Unknown/EPA"
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/
DESCRIPTION: Report: Ecological
Washington
69
Evaluation of the South Tacoma Field, Tacoma,
SUB-HEAD:
3.11. 2. 1
Background Report on Arenaria Paludicola
3.11. 2. 1 - 1021637
DATE: 12/13/90 PAGES: 8
AUTHOR: David A. Hanson/ICF Technology, Inc.
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Cover letter and draft of background report
of Arenaria Paludicola at the STF site
concerning the presence
3.11. 2. 1 - 1021636
DATE: 12/26/90 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Duane Karna/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Memo stating that scope
reasonable.
1
of referenced document appears to be
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
. ..... . ... .""
(TSWAR) COHM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
3.11. 2. 1 - 1021634
DATE: 03/04/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Mark Sprenger/EPA'
DESCRIPTION: Letter seeking advice
Field Superfund site
3
on ecological risk assessment at South Tacoma
SUB-HEAD:
3.12. 1.
Correspondence
3.12. 1. - 1017561
DATE: / / PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Mike DUCharme/Rennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Deb Yamamoto/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Telefax: Volumes for all chemicals of concern
3.12. ,1. - 1021578
DATE: 07/29/92 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Mark Stromberg/Burlington Northern Railroad
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Transmittal letter for first three sections of the Interim Draft
Feasibility Study, also noting concerns that PRP Group has with EPA
requiring submission of this report and others at this time
3.12. 1. - 1021585
DATE: 07/31/92 PAGES: 6 '
AUTHOR: Michael A. DUCharme/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Transmittal letter for Draft Treatability Study Report
Technologies Evaluation and Remedial Action Objectives
the Feasibility Study Report
and Draft
Sections of
3.12. 1. - 1021363
DATE: 08/03/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Beth' Feeley/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Memo: Transmits interim feasibility study reports for review - less
attachments
2
3.12. 1. - 1021583
DATE: 08/19/92 PAGES: 3
AUTHOR: Unknown/Rennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: South Tacoma Field Feasibility Study Meeting Agenda
09/30/94
U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
.. - - .'-.
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
3.12. 1. - 1021362
DATE: 08/25/92 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Glynda Steiner/Rennedy/Jenks
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Documents outstanding
Consultants
issues from August 19 meeting
3.12. 1. - 1021361
DATE: 08/31/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Mark W. Stromberg/Burlington
DESCRIPTION: Letter: FOllow-up to meeting
approaches to site cleanup
4
Northern Railroad.
of Auqust 19 discusses conceptua~
3.12. 1. - 1021425 .
DATE: 09/16/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Beth Feeley/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Glynda J. Steiner/Rennedy/Jenks Consultants
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Disagrees with monthly progress report
2
for August 1992
3.12. 1. - 1021360
DATE: 09/30/92 PAGES: 13 .
AUTHOR: Stan R. Peterson/ICF.Technology Incorporated
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA .
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits examples of statistical analysis
of data samples
3.12. 1. - 1021359
DATE: 10/14/92 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: ~hristine Psyk/EPA .
ADDRESSEE: Mark W. Stromberg/Burlington Northern Railroad
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Discusses upcoming meeting concerning preparation of
feasibility study deliverables
3.12. 1. - 1021358
DATE: 12/04/92 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Glynda J. Steiner/Rennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Beth Feeley/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Informs EPA of change in project managers
3.12. 1. - 1021429
DATE: 12/18/92 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Michael A. DuCharme/Rennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Beth Feeley/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits. draft Feasibility Study of Technical Memoranda
Nos. 1 and 2 - less enclosures
09/30/94
u. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
62 '
-------
(TSWAR) COMMa BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL AIR INDEX
3.12. 1. - 1017557
DATE: 12/21/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Beth Feeley/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Peter C. Brooks/Washington State Dept. of Ecology
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Requests WDOE review of FS technical memo
1
1 & 2
3.12. 1. - 1021428
DATE: 12/22/92 ~AGES: 2
AUTHOR: Beth Feeley/EPA .
ADDRESSEE: Mark W. Stromberg/Burlington Northern Railroad
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Discusses revisions of the Feasibility
Stud~ schedule
3.12. 1. - 1021357
DATE: 01/26/93 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Mark W. Stromberg/Burlington Northern Railroad
ADDRESSEE: Beth Feeley/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Discusses STF site schedule and concerns on effect of
delays in decision making progress
3.12. 1. ~ 1021356
DATE: 03/12/93 PAGES: '5
AUTHOR: Michael A. DUCharme/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Beth Feeley/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Accepts EPA recommendations to halt work on the STF
Feasibility, Study Report
..
3.12. 1. - 1017562
DATE: 03/29/93 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Beth Feeley/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Michael A. DUCharme/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Discusses resolution of difficult issues
establishing action levels for the cleanup
2
related to
3.12. 1. - 1017559
DATE: 05/10/93 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Unknown/
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/
DESCRIPTION: Tables: Estimates
2
of volumes of contaminated soil
3.12. 1. - 1021354
DATE: 05/10/93 PAGES: 7
AUTHOR: Michael A. DUCharme/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Deborah Yamamoto/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Identifies outstanding issues that will delay completion of
the Feasibility Study Report
09/30/94
U. s. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
63
-------
. .... --- _.,-. ...
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
3.12. 1. - 1021355
DATE: 05-110/93 PAGES: 6
AUTHOR: Nathan Graves/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Deb Yamamoto/EPA .
DESCRIPTION: Fax: Transmits considerations in justifying order
differences to establish aggressive threshold
of magnitude
3.12. 1. - 1021353
DATE: 05/13/93 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Deborah Yamamoto/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Mark W. Stromberg/Burlinqton Northern
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Summarizes discussions of May
Railroad
6 Feasibility Study meeting
3.12. 1. - 1021352
DATE: 05/18/93 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Deborah J. Yamamoto/EPA .
ADDRESSEE: John Frerich/ICF Technology Incorporated
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Requests technical support
3.12. 1. . - 1017560
DATE: OS/2i/93 PAGES: 8
AUTHOR: John Frerich/ICF Technology Incorporated.
ADDRESSEE: Deborah Yamamoto/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits capping cost estimates
3.12.1. - 1021350
DATE: 06/07/93 PAGES: 10
AUTHOR: Deborah Yamamoto/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Mark W. Stromberg/Burlington Northern Railroad
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits tables containing cleanup/action
development of feasibility study
levels used in
3.12. 1. - 1021348
DATE: 07/30/93 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Deborah J. Yamamoto/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Chris A. Poindexter/Washington State Department of
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits water quality data from the City
water supply and the Green River - less enclosures
Ecology
of Tacoma's
3.12. 1. - 1021347
DATE: 08/02/93 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Theresa M. Wood/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: L. W. Shatz/General Plastics
DESCRIPTION: Letter of Transmittal: Transmits STF RI reports
less enclosures
volumes 2 and 3 -
09/30/94
u. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
3.12. 1. - 1021422
DATE: 08/12/93 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Deborah J. Yamamoto/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Chris A. Poindexter/Washington State Department
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits additional inorqanics data on
water supply - less enclosures
of Ecoloqy
the City of Tacoma
3.12. 1. - 1017558
DATE: OS/25/94 PAGES: . 3
AUTHOR: Michael A. DUCharme/Kennedy/Jenks
ADDRESSEE: Deborah Yamamoto/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Presents the remedial time
Consultants
frames for Alternative STF-6
3.12. 1. - 1022471
DATE: 07/27"/94 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Deborah Yamamoto/EPA
ADDRESSEE: James Coker/City of Tacoma
DESCRIPTION: Letter regarding zoning information on the South Tacoma Field
Superfund site and attached map showing general property boundaries
of the site
3.12. 1. - 1021977
DATE: 08/11/94 PAGES: 6
AUTHOR: Richard C. Guglomo/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Deborah Yamamoto/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Cover letter and attached Record of Survey Drawings
3.12. 1. - 1022472
DATE: 08/24/94 PAGES: 17
AUTHOR: James Coker/City of Tacoma
ADDRESSEE: Deborah Yamamoto/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Response to an EPA inquiry. regarding zoning and attached zoning
maps - a permitted use pamphlet and a copy of the South Tacoma
Neighborhood Plan pertaining to the zoning boundaries between the
'R-3-T' amd 'M-2' zoning districts is attached
3.12. 1. - 1022473
DATE: 09/16/94 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Unknown/
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/
DESCRIPTION: South Tacoma Field Alternative 6A (Case VIIA) Offsite
and Aboveground Solidification/Consolidation' and
Containment/Institutional Controls
1
:tncineration
SUB-HEAD:
3 . 12. 2.
Feasibility Study Comments
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Aqency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COKM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
3.12. 2. - 1021579
DATE: 08/21/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Ali D. Abbasi/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Paul A. Boys/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Memo re: Review of the Feasibility
Reports, South Tacoma Field
2
Study and the Treatability Study
3.12. 2., - 1021582
DATE: 08/25/92 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Stan R" Peterson/ICF Technology Inc.
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA '
DESCRIPTION: Cover letter and attached comments regarding the Feasibility and
Treatability Study Reports
3.12. 2.
DATE:
AUTHOR:
ADDRESSEE:
DESCRIPTION:
- 1021581
08/26/92 PAGES: 3
Peter C. Brooks/Washington Dept. df Ecology
Christine Psyk/EPA
Cover letter and attached comments on the Treatability
and the Feasibility Study Report (Sections 1, 2, , 3)
Study Report
3.12. 2. - 1021580
DATE: 08/27/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Donald Matheny/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Memo re: Review RI/FS Treatability Study Report, South Tacoma
Superfund Site, Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, July 31, 1992
1
Field
~
3.12. 2. ~ 1021342 '
DATE: 09/01/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Glynda Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Responds to proposal to use a 95'
the mean chemical concentrations for each
8
upper confidence limit of
sampling unit
3.12. 2. - 1022479
DATE: 09/14/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Beth Feeley/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Mark stromberg/Burlington Northern Railroad
DESCRIPTION: Follow up letter to a ~ispute resolution meeting
attachments 'related to practicability analysis
43
held 09/10/92 with
3.12. 2. - 1021340
DATE: 01/08/93 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Beth Feeley/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Mark W. Stromberg/Burlington Northern Railroad
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Discusses unacceptability of Feasibility
Memoranda 1 and 2 . '
3
Study Technical
09/30/94
u. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL AIR INDEX
3.12. 2. - 1021154
DATE: 04/05/93 PAGES: 5
AUTHOR: Chris A. Poindexter/Washinqton State Department of Ecoloqy
ADDRESSEE: Beth Feeley/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: WDOE comments on STF Feasibility Study
3.12. 2. - 1021339
DATE: 04/08/93 PAGES:. 18
AUTHOR: Beth Feeley/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Michael A. DUCharme/KennedY/Jenks
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits EPA comments on
Memoranda 1 and 2 and Section 5.0
Consultants.
Feasibility Study Technical
3.12. 2. - 1022475
DATE: 04/12/93 PAGES: 3
AUTHOR: Michael DUCharme/Kennedy/Jenks
ADDRESSEE: Beth Feeley/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter reqardinq resolution of threshold concentrations for
Feasibility Study
3.12. 2. - 1021421
DATE: 12/13/93 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Marian Abbett/Washinqton
ADDRESSEE: Deb Yamamoto/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Fax: Transmits suqqested
State Department of Ecoloqy
wordinq
3.12. 2. - 1021338
DATE: 12/17/93 PAGES: 21
AUTHOR: Deborah J. Yamamoto/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Michael DUCharme/Kennedy/Jenks
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits EPA comments
Consultants
on the draft Feasibility Study
3.12. 2. - 1021337
DATE: 01/06/94 PAGES: 3
AUTHOR: Unknown/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants.
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Fax: Transmits summary table of comments/questions/concerns
3.12. 2. - 1021336
DATE: 03/21/94 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Robert L. StamneS/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Deborah J. Yamamoto/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Memo: Focused review of
Pioneer Builders Supply
the qroundwater cleanup alternative for the
portion of the Tacoma field site
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Aqency, Reqion 10
paqe
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
3.12. 2. - 1021335
DATE: 03/j1/94 PAGES: 18
AUTHOR: Deborah J. Yamamoto/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Michael A. DUCharme/Kennedy/Jenks
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits comments of EPA
Feasibility Study
Consultants
and WDOE on interim final
3.12. 2. - 1021640
DATE: 05/13/94 PAGES:. 5
AUTHOR: Colin Wagoner/ICF Technology
ADDRESSEE: Deborah Yamamoto/EPA
DESCRIPTION: ICF review of Final Feasibility
Study report for South Tacoma Field
3.12. 2. - 1021677
DATE: 06/13/94 PAGES: 4
AUTHOR: Deborah J. Yamamoto/EPA .
ADDRESSEE: Mark W. Stromberg/Burlington
DESCRIPTION: Letter approving the FS
Northern Railroad
3.12. 2. ~ 1021678
DATE: 06/13/94 PAGES: 4
AUTHOR: Deborah J. Yamamoto/EPA .
ADDRESSEE: Marian Abbett/Washington Dept. of Ecology
DESCRIPTION: Letter stating that overall EPA and DOE comments on the final FS
were addressed, several DOE comments were not addressed and EPA
will respond to DOE on these comments, comments attached
3.12. 2. - ~022474
DATE:. 06/24/94 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Marian Abbett/Department of Ecology .
ADDRESSEE: Debbie Yamamoto/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter regarding Department of Ecology's review of the
Feasibility Study and Technical.Memorandums 1 and 2
Final
SUB-HEAD:
3.12. 3.
Feasibility Study Interim Deliverables
3.12. 3. - 1021590
DATE: 07/31/92 PAGES: 127
AUTHOR: Unknown/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/South Tacoma Field Site Group
DESCRIPTION: Feasibility Study (Sections 1.0, 2.0,
and .3.Q) Draft
3.12. 3. - 1021334
DATE: 01/29/93 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Michael A. DUCharme/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Beth Feeley/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits draft Feasibility Study section 5.0 - less
enclosures
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMH. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
3.12. 3. - 1021589
, DATE: 01/29/93 PAGES: 144
AUTHOR: Unknown/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/South Tacoma Field Site Group
DESCRIPTION: Feasibility study Report: section 5.0
of Remedial Alternatives: Draft
Description ~nd Screening
SUB-HEAD:
3.12. 4.
Draft Feasbility Study Reports
3.12. 4. - 1021600
DATE: 10/29/93 PAGES: 333
AUTHOR: Unknown/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/South Tacoma Field Site Group
DESCRIPTION: Feasibility Study Report: Draft
SUB-HEAD:
3.12. 5.
Treatability Study - Feasibility Study Addendum
3.12. 5. - 1021592
DATE: 07/31/92 PAGES: 34
AUTHOR:' Unknown/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/South Tacoma Field Site Group
DESCRIPTION: Treatability Study Report: Draft
3.12. 5~ - 1021424
DATE: 01/24/93 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Michael A. DUCharme/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Beth Feeley/EPA ,
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Discusses additional data collection
, solidification and particle size separation
for Feasibility Study;
3.12. 5. - 1021595
DATE: 02/16/93 PAGES: 36
AUTHOR: Unknown/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/South Tacoma Field Site Group
DESCRIPTION: Work Plan for Additional Data Collection
FS Addendum: Final
3.12. 5. - 1021341
DATE: 03/16/93 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Beth Feeley/EPA ,
ADDRESSEE: Michael A. DuCharme/Kennedy/Jenks
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Discusses additional data
1
Consultants
collection 'for Feasibility Study
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
3.12. 5. - 1Q21286
DATE: 03/30/93 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Michael A. DUCharme/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Beth Feeley/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits Treatability Study work plan - less enclosures
3.12. 5. - 1021594
DATE: 08/11/93 PAGES: 22
AUTHOR: Thomas C. Morin/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Mark W. Stromberq/Burlinqton Northern Railroad
DESCRIPTION: Letter summarizinq findinqs of recent additional data collection
performed in support of South Tacoma Field Feasibility Study
3.12. 5. - 1017563
DATE: 10/19/93 PAGES: 4
AUTHOR: Deborah J. Yamamoto/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Mark W. Stromberq/Burlinqton
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Discusses additional
Northern Railroad
data collection
3.12. 5. - 1021323
DATE: 10/19/93 PAGES: 4
AUTHOR: Deborah J. Yamamoto/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Mark W. Stromberq/Burlinqton Northern Railroad
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits EPA's comments on the Feasibility
additional data collection work plan
Study
3.12. 5. - 1021332
DATE: 12/02/93 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Michael A. DUCharme/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Deborah Yamamoto/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Responds to EPA's comments on the Feasibility Study
Addendum, Additional Data C~llection (Addendum) of October 19, 1993
3.12. 5. - 1021439
DATE: 02/15/94 PAGES: 123
AUTHOR: Unknown/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants.
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/South Tacoma Field Site Group
DESCRIPTION: Report: Additional Data Collection, FS
Solidification Results .
Addendum, Soil Washinq and
3.12. 5. - 1021331
DATE: 02/28/94 PAGES: . 1
AUTHOR: Deborah J. Yamamoto/EPA
ADDRESSEE: John P. Frerich/ICF Technoloqy Inc.
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits report entitled "Additional Data
Addendum, Soil Washinq and Solidification Results"
Collection, FS
- less enclosure
09/30/94
u. S. Environmental Protection Aqency, Reqion 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
SUB-HEAD:
3.12. 6.
Interim Final Feasibility Study Reports
3.12. 6. - 1021599
DATE: 02/28/94 PAGES: 448
AUTHOR: Unknown/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/South Tacoma Field Site Group
DESCRIPTION: Feasibility Study Report: Interim Final
Report
SUB-HEAD:
3.12. 7.
Final Feasibility Study Report
3.12. 7. - 1021601
'DATE: 04/28/94 PAGES: 492
AUTHOR: Unknown/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/South Tacoma Field Site Group
DESCRIPTION: Feasibility Study Report: Final
SUB-HEAD:
3 . 12 .8 .
Groundwater Study - Feasibility Study Addendum
3.12. 8. - 1021312
DATE,: / /
AUTHOR: Unknown/
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/
DESCRIPTION: Excerpt from
Installation
PAGES:
6
manual: Exhibit 8.5-2; Pressure-Vacuum Lysimeter
3.12. 8.
DATE:
AUTHOR:
ADDRESSEE:
DESCRIPTION:
- 1021330
07/26/93 PAGES: 2
Mark W. Stromberg/Burlington Northern Railroad
Deborah Yamamoto/EPA
Letter: Discusses need for lysimeter testing for
water
lead to ground
3.12. 8. - 1021329
DATE: 08/04/93 PAGES: 6
AUTHOR: Mike DUCharme/Kennedy/Jenks
ADDRESSEE: Deborah YamamotO/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Fax: Discusses reservations
, lysimeters
Consultants
about ,capabilities and reliability of
3.12. 8. - 1021155
DATE: 08/05/93 PAGES: 5
AUTHOR: Deborah J. Yamamoto/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Mark W. Stromberg/Burlington Northern Railroad
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Responds to PRP Group's opposition to £PA's
lysimeter testing
proposed
09/30/94
u. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
3.12. 8. - 1021328
DATE: 08/18/93 PAGES: 4
AUTHOR: Deborah J. Yamamoto/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Chris A. poindexter/Washington State
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Discusses need for consensus
collection of additional data
Department of Ecology
from agencies regarding
3.12. 8. - 1021327
DATE: 08/25/93 PAGES: 3
AUTHOR: Chris A. Poindexter/Washington State Department of Ecology
ADDRESSEE: Debbie Yamamoto/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Discusses recommendations for additional data needs
3.12. 8. - 1021345
DATE: 09/10/93 PAGES: 11
AUTHOR: Ross A. Macfarlane/Preston Thorgrimson Shidler Gates & Ellis
ADDRESSEE: Deborah Yamamoto/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Responds to issues raised by WDOE concerning collection of
additional data before remedial decisions can be made
3.12. 8. - 1021326
DATE: 09/30/93 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Charles San Juan/Washington State Department of
ADDRESSEE: Marian/washington State Department of Ecology
DESCRIPTION: Memo: Addresses items in toxics cleanup program
. author was added by site manager]
Ecology
[Last name of
3.12. 8. ~ 1021325
DATE: 10/04/93 PAGES: 97
AUTHOR: Deborah J. Yamamoto/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Mark w. stromberg/Burlington Northern Railroad
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits decision on type and quantity
which must be collected - less enclosures
of additional data
3.12. 8. - 1021324
DATE: 10/14/93 PAGES: 3
AUTHOR: Michael A. DuCharme/Kennedy/Jenks
ADDRESSEE: Deborah Yamamoto/EPA .
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Discusses preparation and
for additional data collection
Consultants
proposed schedule of work plan
3.12. 8. - 1021343
DATE: 10/19/93 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Deborah J. Yamamoto/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Chris poindexter/Washington State Department of Ecology
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Responds to request for three weeks. to review the
for additional data collection
work plan
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
3.12. 8. - 1021077
DATE: 10/25/93 PAGES: 100
AUTHOR: Unknown/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/South Tacoma Field site Group
DESCRIPTION: Draft Report: Technical Work Plan for Additional
the STF Site in Support of the Feasibility Study
Data Collection at
3.12. 8. - 1021156
DATE: 10/25/93 PAGES:. 3.
AUTHOR: Deborah J. Yamamoto/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Mark W. Stromberg/Burlington Northern Railroad
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Outlines additional work the PRP Group has
conduct
agreed to
3.12. 8. - 1021322
DATE: 10/26/93 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Chris A. Poindexter/Washington State Department. of Ecology
ADDRESSEE: Debbie Yamamoto/EPA .
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Discusses delay in assembling response to concerns in the
work plan
3.12. 8.
DATE:
AUTHOR:
ADDRESSEE:
DESCRIPTION:
- 1021320
10/28/93 PAGES:
Donald Matheny/EPA
Debbie Yamamoto/EPA
Memo: Comments on review
collection
1
of technical work plan for additional data
3.12. 8. - 1021321
DATE: 10/28/93 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Deborah J. Yamamoto/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Michael A. DuCharme/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Comments on technical concerns associated
two wells in one bore hole
with installing
3.12. 8. - 1021318
DATE: 11/05/93 PAGES: 4 .
AUTHOR: Chris A. Poindexter/Washington State Department of Ecology
ADDRESSEE: Debbie Yamamoto/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Comments on the supplemental work plan
3.12. 8. . - 1021319
DATE: 11/05/93 PAGES: 4
AUTHOR: Deborah J. Yamamoto/EPA .
ADDRESSEE: Michael A. DuCharme/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
DESCRIPTION: tetter: Transmits EPA's supplemental comments
plan for additional data collection
on the technical work
(
~; 09/30/94
~
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
73
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
3.12. 8. - 1021317
DATE: 11/22/93 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Don Matheny/EPA
ADDRESSEE: D. Yamamoto/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Memo: Discusses
1
setting up column conditions for the leach test
3.12. 8. - 1021316
DATE: 12/15/93 PAGES: 4
AUTHOR: Michael A. DUCharme/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Deborah Yamamoto/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Discusses selection of surface soil samples for additional
analysis based on analytical results
3.12. 8. - 1021315
DATE: 01/05/94 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Susan J. Roth/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Deborah Yamamoto/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Discusses preliminary results of
surface soil
column leaching tests of
3.12. 8. - 1021314
DATE: 01/06/94 PAGES: 5' .
AUTHOR: Michael A. DUCharme/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Deborah Yamamoto/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits results of groundwater samples
November 1993
collected in
3.12. 8. -,1021313
DATE: 01/18/94 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Glenn Bruck/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Deborah Yamamoto/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Memo: Discusses reasoning
1
for not drilling a new set of wells
3.12. 8. - 1021596
DATE: 01/31/94 PAGES: 89
AUTHOR: Unknown/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/South Tacoma Field Site Group
DESCRIPTION: Technical Memorandum 11 for Additional Data Collection
Site in Support of the Feasibility Study: Draft
at the STF
3.12. 8. - 1021157
DATE: 02/18/94 PAGES: . 1
AUTHOR: Deborah J. Yamamoto/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Michael DuCharme/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Informs PRP Group of decision to not
additional ground water monitoring wells
install four
09/30/94
u. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
741
-------
CTSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIE~ REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
3.12. 8. - 1021158
DATE: 02/23/94 PAGES: 5
AUTHOR: Deborah J. Yamamoto/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Michael DuCharme/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Comments on Technical Memorandum #1 for
collection in support of the Feasibility Study
additional data.
3.12. 8. - 1021076
DATE: 04/15/94 PAGES:. 147
AUTHOR: Unknown/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/South Tacoma Field Site Group
DESCRIPTION: Draft R~port: Technical Memorandum #2
Collection at the STF Site in Support
for Additional Data
of the Feasibility StUdY
3.12. 8. - 1017564
DATE: 05/10/94 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Donald Matheny/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Debbie Yamamoto/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Memo: Discusses review
2
of technical memorandum #2
3 . 12. 8.
DATE:
AUTHOR:
ADDRESSEE:
DESCRIPTION:
- 1017565
06/01/94 PAGES: 48
Susan J. Roth/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
Deborah Yamamoto/EPA
Letter: Tr.ansmits results of second round
of groundwater monitoring
3.12. 8. - 1022476
DATE: 06/01/94 PAGES: 48
AUTHOR: Susan Roth/Kennedy/Jenks
ADDRESSEE: Deborah Yamamoto/EPA .
DESCRIPTION: Letter presenting the results of groundwater monitoring in
constructed wells at the South Tacoma Field site
recently
3.12. 8. - 1021674
DATE: 06/08/94 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Glenn Bruck/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Deborah Yamamoto/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Review of Tech. Memo. NO.2, Additional data
site in support of the feasibility study
1
collection at the STF
SUB-HEAD:
3. 12. 9.
Cost Benefit Analyses'
3.12. 9. - 1021216
DATE: / / PAGES: 13
AUTHOR: Nick Hanley/University of Stirling, Scotland
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/
DESCRIPTION: Book: Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Environment
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
75
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
3.12. 9. - 102~311
DATE: OS/28/92 PAGES: 3
AUTHOR: Beth C. Doan/Landau Associates, Inc.
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/
DESCRIPTION: Paper: Developing Cost-Effective Cleanup Solutions Under MTCA
3.12. 9. - 1021310
DATE: 07/01/93 PAGES: 6
AUTHOR: C. A. Poindexter/Washington State Department of Ecology
ADDRESSEE: Debbie Yamamoto/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Fax: Transmits background material - charts and diagrams
3.12. 9. - 1017567
DATE: 09/09/93 PAGES: 3
AUTHOR: Lynn Coleman/Washington State Dept of Ecology
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Washington State Dept of Ecology
DESCRIPTION: Memo: Draft outline concerning guidance for determination of
"substantial and disproportionate"
3.12. 9. - 1021309
DATE: 10/01/93 PAGES: 13
AUTHOR: Michael A. DuCharme/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Deborah Yamamoto/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter of Transmittal: Transmits Technical Memorandum dated
September ~9, 1993
3.12. 9. - 1021305
DATE: 11/18/93 PAGES: 29
AUTHOR: . Deborah J. Yamamoto/EPA
ADDRESSEE: John Frerich/ICF Technology, Inc.
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits cost/benefit analyses of other
comparison with the cost/benefit analysis of STF
projects for
3.12. 9. - 1021304
DATE: 11/19/93 PAGES: 15
AUTHOR: Deborah J. Yamamoto/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Elliot Rosenberg/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Memo: Transmits cost/benefit analyses of other projects for
comparison with the cost/benefit analysis of STF
3.12. 9. - 1021308
DATE: 12/16/93 PAGES:
AUTHOR: John Frerich/ICF
ADDRESSEE: Joan shirley/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Discusses
analysis
5
Technology Incorporated
comparison of approaches for cost-benefit
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
. '. ~-, ---- .... -_. _.
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
3.12. 9. - 1021642
DATE: 03/16/94 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Eliot Rosenberg/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Joan Shirley/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Memo re: Review and
Superfund Sites
4
Comparison of Cost/Benefit 'Analyses Used at
3.12. 9. - 1021649
DATE: 06/06/94 PAGES:. 1
AUTHOR: Deborah J. Yamamoto/EPA
ADDRESSEE: File/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Correction to Rosenberg Memo.dated 3/17/94
SUB-HEAD:
3.13.
State ARAR Determination/MTCA Cleanup Levels
3.13.
- 1021430
DATE: / / PAGES:
AUTHOR: Unknown/washington
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/
DESCRIPTION: Ecology Quarterly
2
State Department of Ecology
Progress Report
3.13.
- 1021629
DATE: 08/20/91 PAGES:. 7'
AUTHOR: Thomas Eaton/Washington Dept. of Ecology
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/U~nown
DESCRIPTION: Interprogram POlicy: Area of Contamination
legible signature)
(Eaton is first
3.13.
..
- 1021159
DATE: 05/12/92 PAGES: 12
AUTHOR: Peter C. Bro~ks/Washington
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA .
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Discusses Cleanup
State Department of Ecology
Scenario
3.13.. - 1021303
DATE: OS/21/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Mark W. Stromberg/Burlington Northern Railroad
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Discusses Cleanup Scenario - less enclosure
1
3.13.
- 1021302
DATE: 06/09/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine psyk/EPA'
ADDRESSEE: Glynda J. Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Discusses preliminary. identification
ARARS - less enclosure
1
of Washington State
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COHN. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
- 1021301
DATE: 08/04/92 PAGES: 3
AUTHOR: Peter C. Brooks/Washington State Department of Ecology
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Discusses review of preliminary remediation goals and
submits PRG tables
3.13.
3.13.
- 1021300
DATE: 08/18/92 PAGES: 9
AUTHoR: Peter C. Brooks/Washington State Department of Ecology
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits additional comments on MTCA cleanup levels
3.13.
- 1021299
DATE: 08/25/92 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Glynda Steiner/KennedY/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Documents several outstanding issues
meeting
raised at August 19
3.13.
- 1021298
DATE: 09/16/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Beth Feeley/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Glynda J. Steiner/KennedY/Jenks Consultants
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Disagrees with statement in August 1992
concerning preparation of required deliverables
2
progress report
3.13.
- 1021630 .
DATE: .02/19/93 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Tom Eaton/Washington Dept. of "Ecology
ADDRESSEE: All Hazardous Waste Staff/Washington Dept.
DESCRIPTION: Memo re: Contained-in Policy
of Ecology
3 . 13'.
- 1021632
DATE: 03/10/93 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Lynn Coleman/Washington Dept. of Ecology
ADDRESSEE: TCP/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Memo re: Cleanup Standards vs. Selection of Remedy (addressed to
TCP/EPA staff)
3.13.
- 1021297
DATE: 03/15/93 PAGES: 4
AUTHOR: Carol Kraege/Washington State Department of Ecology
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Washington State Department of. Ecology
DESCRIPTION: Implementation Memo No. 1:. Guidance on the Use of MCLs
Levels.
as Cleanup
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
- 1021296
DATE: 04/01/93 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Chris A. Poindexter/washington State Department of Ecology
ADDRESSEE: Beth Feeley/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Discusses leachability data and cleanup standards
3.13.
3.13.
- 1021295
DATE: 05/14/93 PAGES: 8
AUTHOR: Chris A. Poindexter/washington State.Department of Ecol~
ADDRESSEE: Debbie Yamamoto/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Discusses WDOE concerns on volume estimates, leachability,
data preservation, schedule, feasibility study
3.13.
- 1021633
DATE: 05/14/93 PAGES: 6
AUTHOR: Lynn Coleman/Washington Dept. of Ecology
ADDRESSEE: NWRO Staff/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Memo re: Cleanup Standards versus Selection
of Remedy
3.13.
- 1017571
DATE: 05/19/93 PAGES:
AUTHOR: D. Yamamoto/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/
DESCRIPTION: Draft letter: Proposes alternative to ranges of cleanup levels
11
3.13.
- 1021294
DATE: 06/09/93 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Chris A. Poindexter/washington State Department of Ecology
ADDRESSEE: Debbie Yamamoto/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Discusses cleanup ranges to be utilized in completing the
feasibility study
3.13.
- 1021631
DATE: 09/13/93 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Carol Kraege/Washington Dept. of Ecology
ADDRESSEE: Tod Gold/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Response to Gold's letter asking for Ecology's opinion on statutory
restrictions and ARARs
3.13.
- 1021293
DATE: 09/29/93 PAGES: 15
AUTHOR: Cestjon MCFarland/Preston Thorgrimson Shidler Gates & Ellis
ADDRESSEE: Deborah J. Yamamoto/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits memo concerning limitations on the use of MTCA
regulatory provisions as ARARs
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, R~gion 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
- 1017569
DATE: 01/24/94 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Carol Fleskes/Washington
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Washington State
DESCRIPTION: Memo: Discusses Method B
3.13.
State Dept of Ecology
Dept of Ecology
regarding TPH cleanup levels
3.13.
- 1017570
DATE: 03/30/94 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Unknownl
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/
DESCRIPTION: Handwritten note: Discusses manganese issues
1
3.13.
- 1017568
DATE: 05/01/94 PAGES: 3
AUTHOR: Unknown/Washington State Dept of Ecology
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/
DESCRIPTION: Newsletter: FOCUS - Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (TPH) Cleanup
SUB-HEAD:
3.14. 1.
Clover/Chambers Creek Geohydrologic Study For TPCHD
3.14. 1. - 1021160
DATE: 07/01/85 PAGES: 343 .
AUTHOR: Unknown/Remediation Technologies Inc.
ADDRESSEE: R. M. Nicola/Ta.coma-Pierce County Health Department
DESCRIPTION: Final Report: Clover/Chambers Geohydrologic Study
SUB-HEAD:
3.14. 2.
Expedited Site Characterization of Tacoma Public
3.14. 2. .- .1021161
DATE: 10/26/89 PAGES: 43
AUTHOR: Clayton R. Patmont/Hart Crowser, Inc.
ADDRESSEE: Russell Post/Tacoma Public Utilities
DESCRIPTION: Report: Expedited site characterization study of
Utilities property located within the boundaries
Tacoma Swamp Superfund site .
Tacoma Public
of the South
SUB-HEAD:
3.14. 3.
St. Vincent De Paul, Lige Dickson Co. Inspection
3.14. 3. - 1021272
DATE: 1 / PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Robert Kiehl/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits results of
37
property inspection
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
3.14. 3. - 1021275
DATE: /../ PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Robert Kiehl/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Reports results
1
of property inspection - less enclosure
3.14. 3. - 1021273
DATE: 01/08/90 PAGES: 31
AUTHOR: Gerald Lee/Ecology, Environment, Inc.
ADDRESSEE: Unknow~/EPA .
DESCRIPTION: Report: Screening Site Inspection .Report, Lige & Wm: B. Dickson
Company, Tacoma, Washington
3.14. 3. - 1021279
DATE: 03/14/90 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: K. C./Ecology & Environment, Inc.
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/
DESCRIPTION: Diagram of blocks 7, 8 & 9, southwest corner property boundaries,
Tacoma, Washington
3.14. 3~ - 1021280
DATE: 03/19/90 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: K. C./Ecology & Environment, Inc.
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/
DESCRIPTION: Map overlay, of southwest corner area, Tacoma, Washington
3.14. 3. - 1021274
DATE: 03/23/90 PAGES: 34
AUTHOR: Unknown/Ecology & Environment, Inc.
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/EPA .
DESCRIPTION: Report: Screening Site Inspection Report for Lige & Wm. B. Dickson
Company, Tacoma, Washington
3.14. 3. - 1021282
DATE: 03/23/90 PAGES: 1
. AUTHOR: Lazar Gorelik/Ecology & Environment, Inc.
ADDRESSEE: John Osborn/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Memo: Transmits St. Vincent de Paul/Southwest
Inspection Report - less enclosures
Corner Area Site
3.14. 3. - 1021283
DATE: 03/23/90 PAGES: 7
AUTHOR: Lazar Gorelik/Ecology & Environment, Inc.
ADDRESSEE: John Osborn/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Memo: Transmits photographs of and recommends no further remedial
action at St. Vincent de Paul/Southwest Corner area of South Tacoma
Swamp site
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
3.14. 3. . - 1021270
DATE: 04/01/90 PAGES: 36
AUTHOR: Unknown/Ecology & Environment, Inc.
ADDRESSEE: J. E. Osborn/EPA .
DESCRIPTION: Report: Screening site Inspection Report, st. Vincent De
Paul/southwest Corner Are~, Tacoma, Washington
3.14. 3. - 1021271
DATE: 04/01/90 PAGES: 33
AUTHOR: Unknown/Ecology & Environment, Inc.
ADDRESSEE: J. E. Osborn/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Report: Screening Site Inspection Report, St. Vincent De
Paul/Southwest Corner Area, Tacoma, Washington
3.14. 3. - 1021276
DATE: 04/05/90 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Lazar Gorelik/Ecology & Environment, Inc.
ADDRESSEE: John Osborn/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Memo: Site inspection recommendations, Lige & Wm. B. Dickson
Company, Tacoma, Washington
3.14. 3. - 1021277
DATE: 04/05/90 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Lazar Gorelik/Ecology & En~ironment, Inc.
ADDRESSEE: John Osborn/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Memo: Investigation-derived wastes, Lige & Wm. B. Dickson Company,
Tacoma, Washington not generated
3.14. 3. -.1021278
DATE: 04/05/90 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Lazar Gorelik/Ecology & Environment, Inc.
ADDRESSEE: David Bennett/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Memo: Preliminary EPA HRS Score for Lige & Wm. B. Dickson Company,
Tacoma, Washington not required
3.14. 3. - 1021281
DATE: 04/05/90 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Lazar Gorelik/Ecology
ADDRESSEE: John Osborn/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Memo: Transmits final
Paul/Southwest Corner
& Environment, Inc.
site inspection report, St. Vincent de
Area, Tacoma, Washinq~on - less enclosures
3.14. 3.
DATE:
AUTHOR:
ADDRESSEE:
DESCRIPTION:
- 1021269
OS/27/93 PAGES: 2
Ross A. Macfarlane/Preston Thorgrimson Shidler Gates & Ellis
William Dickson/Wm. Dickson Company .
Letter: Discusses encroachment on Burlington Northern Railroad
property .
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
,
SUB-HEAD:
3.14.. 4.
X-Ray Fluorescence Survey ESAT
3.14. 4. - 1021586
DATE: 02/01/91 PAGES: 279
AUTHOR: Unknown/CH2MHill
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/City of Tacoma
DESCRIPTION: Draft Executive Summary :
Feasibility Study
South Tacoma Field Aquifer Recharge
SUB-HEAD:
3.14. 5.
Asbestos Assessment Survey
3.14. 5. - 1021591
DATE: 01/07/93 PAGES: 28
AUTHOR: unknowniPrezant Associates, Inc.
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Asbestos Assessment Survey Tacoma
Industrial Properties
3.14. 5. - 1021291
DATE: 01/19/93 PAGES: 4
AUTHOR: Thomas R. Anderson/TIP Management, Inc.
ADDRESSEE: Beth Feeley/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Notification of planned partial
building demolition
09/30/94
u. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
HEADING:
SUB-HEAD:
4. 1.
DATE:
AUTHOR:
ADDRESSEE:
DESCRIPTION:
09/30/94
4. O.
RECORD OF DECISION (ROD)
(TSWAR) COMM; BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL AIR INDEX
4. 1.
Record of Decision
- 1022483
09/29/94 PAGES: 234
Unknown/EPA
Unknown/
Record of Decision for Commencement Bay
Tacoma Field Operable Unit
South Tacoma Channel, South
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
~
-------
" "
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL AIR INDEX
HEADING:
6. O.
STATE COORDINATION
SUB-HEAD:
6. 1.
Correspondence
6.. 1.
- 0000001
12/28/87 PAGES: 2
Philip G. Millam/EPA
John Littler/State of
Letter clarifying EPA
Washington Dept. of Ecology
and DOE roles re: soil testing
DATE:
AUTHOR:
ADDRESSEE:
DESCRIPTION:
6. 1.
- 0000002
DATE: 08/10/89 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Glynis A. Carrosino/State
DESCRIPTION: Letter notifying DOE that
will be negotiating with,
1
of Washington Dept. of Ecology
EPA sent Special Notice Letters to, and
PRP's .
6. 1.
- 0000005
DATE: 09/10/90 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Bert D. Bowen/State of Washington Dept. of Ecology
ADDRESSEE: Russell Post/City of Tacoma
DESCRIPTION: Letter stating that City of Tacoma's proposal to cap
contaminated dry well is acceptable under conditions
the PCB
listed
6. 1.
- 0000003
DATE: 10/03/90 PAGES: 2"
AUTHOR: William W. Harris/State of Washington Dept. of Ecology
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter stating DOE's position on test pits and soil disposal
handling
6. 1.
- 0000006
DATE: 10/10/90 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Bill Harris/state of Washington Dept. of Ecology
DESCRIPTION: Letter re: Admin. Order on Consent RI/FS, implementation
1
6. 1.
- 0000004
DATE: 10/16/90 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: William W. Harris/State of Washington Dept. of Ecology
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA .
DESCRIPTION: Letter commenting on draft fact sheet
09/30/94
u. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
- 1021481
DATE: 10/17/90 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Bill Harris/Washington Department of Ecology
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits Administrative Order on Consent
Investigation/Feasibility Study
too
,",
6. 1.
46
for Remedial
6. 1.
- 0000007
DATE: 04/09/91 PAGES: 4
AUTHOR: William W. Harris/State of Washington Dept. of Ecology
ADDRESSEE: Ty C. SChreiner/Kennedy, Jenks, Chilton .
DESCRIPTION: Temporary Modification of Water Quality criteria for S. Tacoma
Field - cover letter and attached order for temporary modification
6. 1.
- 1021162
DATE: 05/31/91 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Eric K. Chapman/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: William W. Harris/Washington state Department of Ecoloqy
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Notification that groundwater from installation of
monitoring wells was discharged into a storm drain
6. "1.
- 1021480
DATE: 07/23/91 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: William W. Harris/State of Washington Dept. of Ecology
ADDRESSEE: Christine.Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Designates Peter C. Brooks as Toxics Cleanup Program's
project manager
" -" 1021482 .
DATE: 12/23/91 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA "
ADDRESSEE: Peter Brooks/Washington Department of Ecology
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits data validation reports for
" Groundwater - less enclosure
6. 1.
Phase I Soils and
6. 1.
- 1021484
DATE: 04/09/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Peter Brooks/Washington Department
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Requests State to identify
potential cleanup measures
2
of Ecology
ARARs or TBCs in evaluating
- 1021485
DATE: 05/12/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Peter Brooks/Washinqton Department of Ecology
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits fourth quarter groundwater data -
6. 1.
1
less enclosures
09/30/94
u. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
- 1021486
DATE: 05/15/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Peter Brooks/Washington
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits final
6. 1.
1
Department of Ecology
geophysical survey report - less enclosures
6. 1.
- 1021483
DATE: OS/21/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Mark W. Stromberg/Burlington
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Discusses Washington
- less enclosure
1
Northern Railroad
Department of Ecology Cleanup Scenario
6. 1.
- 1021487
DATE: 07/01/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Unknown/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Report: Pages 3 & 4 of
Multi-Site Cooperative
2
the July - September 1992 quarterly report
Agreement
6. 1.
- 1021488
DATE: 01/27/93 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Peter C. Brooks/State of Washington Department of Ecology
ADDRESSEE: Beth Feeley/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Designates "Brad Ewy as Toxics Cleanup Program's project
manager
6. 1.
- 1021489
DATE: 03/05/93 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Brad J. Ewy/State
ADDRESSEE: Beth Feeley/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Designates
project manager
1
of Washington Department of Ecology
Chris Poindexter as Toxies Cleanup Program's
6. 1.
- 1021490
DATE: 12/06/93 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Chris A~ Poindexter/State
ADDRESSEE: Debbie Yamamoto/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Designates Marian
project manager
of Washington Department of Ecology
Abbett as Toxics Cleanup Program's
6. 1.
- 1021491
DATE: 02/25/94 PAGES: "1
AUTHOR: Deborah J. Yamamoto/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Marian Abbett/Washington State Department
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits draft proposed plan for
less attachment
of Ecology
the STF Superfund Site -
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COHK. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REKEDIAL.A/R INDEX
- 1021492
DATE: 04/05/94 PAGES: 46
AUTHOR: Carol Kraege/Washington State Department of Ecology
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Washington State Department of Ecology
DESCRIPTION: Memo: Discusses amendments to MTCA with copies of the
6. 1.
three bills
6. 1.
- 1033036
DATE: 09/27/94 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Carol Kraege/Washington Dept. of Ecology
ADDRESSEE: Chuck Clarke/EPA .
DESCRIPTION: Letter stating that DOE concurs with the
reviewed in the Record of Decision
selected remedy as
SUB-HEAD:
6. 2.
ARARs
6. 2.
- 0000001
DATE: 09/29/89 PAGES: 9
AUTHOR: Glynis A. Carrosino/State
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Identification of ARARs -
of Washington Dept. of Ecology
DRAFT
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMH. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
HEADING:
7. O.
ENFORCEMENT
SUB-HEAD:
7. 1.
Correspondence
7.. 1.
- 0000001
11/25/86 PAGES:
Sharon Gwatkin/EPA
Charles K. Douthwaite/Eisenhower, Carlson...
Letter summarizing phone conversation re: TIP
1
DATE:
AUTHOR:
ADDRESSEE:
DESCRIPTION:
Management
7.. 1.
- 0000002
DATE: 11/26/86 PAGES: 7
AUTHOR: Michael R. Thorp, Charles K. Douthwaite/Eisenhower, Carlson...
ADDRESSEE: James R. Moore, Charles E. FindleyJEPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter stating Eisenhower's client's desire to be allowed to
conduct the RI/FS without signing a 106 order
7. 1.
- 0000003
DATE: 12/02/86 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Charles K. Douthwaite/Eisenhower, Carlson...
ADDRESSEE: Sharon Gwatkin/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter re: clarification of Eisenhower's position
7. 1.
- 0000004
DATE: 12/17/86 pAGES:
AUTHOR: Sharon Gwatkin/EPA
ADDRESSEE: R. W. Eubanks/BNRR
DESCRIPTION: Cover letter for final version of Administrative Order on
stating requirements pursuant to 104(a)(1) of CERCLA, and
conclusion that requirements have been met
2
Consent,
EPA's
7. 1.
- 0000005
DATE: 01/05/87 PAGES: 6
AUTHOR: Charles K. Douthwaite/Eisenhower, Carlson...
ADDRESSEE: Sharon Gwatkin, Patricia Storm/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Follow up letter to 12/19/86 meeting and informing EPA that TIP
Management is reviewing its options given EPA's position
7. 1.
- 0000006
DATE: 02/09/87 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Sharon Gwatkin/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Charles K. Douthwaite/Eisenhower, Carlson
DESCRIPTION: Response to 1/5/87 letter stating EPA's position
oversight of PRP's conducting of site management
3
re: federal
activities
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
-. ..--..-.---
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
- 00,00007
DATE: 08/05/88 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Joseph P. Jackowski/MCGavrick, Graves...
ADDRESSEE: Andy Boyd/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter confirming understanding made at 8/4/88 meeting
7. 1.
7. 1.
- 0000008
DATE: 10/11/89 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Charles E. Findley/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Robie G. Russell/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Concurrence for extension of
negotiation deadline'
7. 1.
- 0000009
DATE: 10/16/89 PAGES:
AUTHOR: PRP's/Unknown
ADDRESSEE: EPA/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Letters sent to each (8) PRP re: 30 day extension of moratorium for
negotiations at South Tacoma Field
8
7. 1.
- 0000010
DATE: 11/30/89 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Charles E. Findley/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Edward J. Brosius/Amsted Industries
DESCRIPTION: Letter stating EPA's acceptance of PRP's
proposal".
RI/FS as "good faith
7. 1.
- 0000011
DATE: 12/15/89 PAGES: 8
AUTHOR: Ross A. MacFarlane/Preston, Thorgrimson
ADDRESSEE: Robie Russell, Charles E. Findley/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letters written to both Russell and Findley re: stating
position and requesting a meeting to discuss settlement
the policy level
ofPRP's
matters at
7. 1.
- 0000012
DATE: 01/09/90 PAGES: 3
AUTHOR: Charles E. Findley/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Ross A. MacFarlane/Preston,
DESCRIPTION: Response to 12/15/89 letter
proceed with development of
. meeting
Thorgrimson
stating EPA's belief that it is best to
the work plans without additional
7. 1.
- 0000013
DATE: 03/27/90 PAGES: 17
AUTHOR: G. S. Karavitis/Tacoma PUblic Utilities
ADDRESSEE:'Andrew Boyd/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Cover letter and list of documents recently discovered which may
fall within the scope of information request sent previously
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
. Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
7. 1.
- 0000014
DATE: 04/12/90 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Andrew Boyd/EPA
ADDRESSEE: G. S. Karavitis/Tacoma PUblic Utility
DESCRIPTION: Letter requesting documents from list
1
sent 3/27/90
7. 1.
- 1021493
DATE: 08/31/90 PAGES: 3
AUTHOR: Joseph P. Jackowski/McGavick Graves Beale & MCNerthney
ADDRESSEE: Andrew J. Boyd/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Discusses breakdown of talks between Burlington Northern
Railroad and General Plastics - less enclosure
7. 1.
- 0000015
DATE: 09/20/90 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Andrew J. Boyd/EPA
ADDRESSEE: G. S. Karavitis/Ross Macfarlane, Preston Thorgrimson/Robert
DESCRIPTION: Letter re: PRP signing of the "RI/FS Consent Order
2
Rowan,
7. 1.
- 0000016
DATE: 10/22/90 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Mark W. Stromberg/Burlington Northern Railroad
DESCRIPTION: Letter re~ rescheduling of 10/31/90 meeting with EPA
1
7. 1.
- 0000017
DATE: 01/31/91 PAGES: 3
AUTHOR: William E. Greenwood/Unknown
ADDRESSEE: Philip Millam/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter re: Burlington Northerns
Administrative Order on Consent
Railroad Company's Concerns with
7. 1.
- 1021494
DATE: 02/05/91 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Shawn M. Carter/Preston
ADDRESSEE: Andy Boyd/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Designates Mark
Thorgrimson Shidler Gates & Ellis
Stromberg as project.manager
7. 1.
- 1021495
DATE: 07/18/91 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Marcia Newlands/Heller Ehrman White, McAuliffe
ADDRESSEE: Andrew J. Boyd/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits .amendment to Administrative Order on Consent -
less enclosures
09/30/94
u. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
- 1021164
DATE: 08/01/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Andrew J. Boyd/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Marcia Newlands/Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits conformed copy of the amendment to the
Administrative Order on Consent, adding Tacoma Industrial'
Properties as a party
7. 1.
4
7. 1..
- 1021165
DATE: 09/13/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Andrew J. Boyd/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Shawn M. Carter/Preston
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits fully
Administrative Order on
21
Thorgrimson Shidler Gates & Ellis
executed copy of the amendments to the
Consent
7. 1.
- 1021607
DATE: 10/21/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Andrew Boyd/EPA
ADDRESSEE: William F. Joyce/Gorden Murphy Wallace
DESCRIPTION: Letter acknowledging 10/9/91 letter informing EPA of Amsted's
intent to demolish structure on portion of S. Tacoma Field Site,
and stating that Amsted must conduct the demolition in accordance
with federal, state and local requirements
2
7. 1.
- 1021496 .
DATE: 01/06/92 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Martha Anamosa/Glacier Park Company .
ADDRESSEE: Mark w. Stromberg/Burlington Northern Railroad Company
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Discusses BNRR assumption of obligations of Glacier
, Company .
Park
..
7. 1.
- 1017572
DATE: 03/05/92 PAGES: 35
AUTHOR: Philip G. Millam/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Edward J. Brosius/Amsted
DESCRIPTION: Amended Order On Consent
Industries, Inc.
7. 1.
- 1021497
DATE: 05/15/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Joan C. Shirley/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Ross A. Macfarlane/Preston Thorgrimson Shidler Gates & Ellis
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Discusses proposed Administrative Order on Consent for
removal of buried .tanks - less enclosure .
3
09/30/94
u. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
-------
(TSWAR) 'COMH. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
- 1021498
DATE: OS/26/92 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Ross A. Macfarlane/Preston
ADDRESSEE: Joan C. shirley/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Discusses proposed
removal of buried tanks
7. 1.
Thorgrimson Shidler Gates & Ellis
Administrative Order on Consent for
- 1021500
DATE: 09/02/92 PAGES: 108
AUTHOR: Ross A. Macfarlane/Preston Thorgrimson Shidler Gates & Ellis
ADDRESSEE: Joan C. shirley/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits request for dispute resolution regarding EPA's
decision to apply resi~ential risk standards
7. 1.
7. 1.
- 1021502
DATE: 09/14/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Beth Feeley/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Mark W. stromberg/Burlington
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Discusses results of
4
Northern Railroad
dispute resolution meeting
7. 1.
- 1021166
DATE: 09/21/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Beth Feeley/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Mark W. Stromberg/Burlington Northern Railroad
DESCRIPTIOH: Letter: Notification that letter dated September
forwarded to legal representitives from each PRP
2
14, 1992 will be
- 1021503
DATE:. 09/25/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Unknown/Unknown
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Legal Document: withdrawal of Respondents' Request for Dispute
Resolution [Signed by legal counsel for Amsted, BNR, City of
Tacoma, PBS, TIP and USEPA)
7. 1.
2
- 1021167
DATE: 10/09/92 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Christine Pysk/EPA ,
ADDRESSEE: Mark W. stromberg/Burlington Northern
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Notifies PRP of change in EPA
7. 1.
Railroad
Project Manager
- 1022478
DATE: 03/26/93 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Mark Stromberg/Burlington Northern Railroad
.ADDRESSEE: Beth'Feeley/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Formal request for accounting of oversight cost for, federal fiscal
years 1990-1992
7. 1.
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COHM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
- 1021168
DATE: 04/26/93 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Beth Feeley/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Mark W. Stromberg/Burlington Northern
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Notifies PRP of change in EPA
7. 1.
2
Railroad
Project Manager
7. 1.
- 1021504
DATE: 09/21/93 PAGES: 3
AUTHOR: Gregory A. Jocoby/McGavick Graves
ADDRESSEE: Deborah Yamamoto/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Discusses legal status of General Plastics Manufacturing
Co.
SUB-HEAD:
7. 2.
Administrative Orders
7. 2.
- 0000001
DATE: 01/22/87 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Unknown/Unknown
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Administrative Order on
RI/FS signed by BNR and
49
Consent
EPA
#1086-08-08-106 for
conduct of
7. 2.
- 0000002
DATE: 10/15/90 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Unknown/Unknown
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Unknown .
DESCRIPTION: Administrative Order on Consent for Conduct of RI/FS and
terminating AOC 1086-08-08-106 except Section XI, XIV, XV,
.signed byEPA, PBS, TPL, BNRR and Glacier Park Co.
47
XVIII
7. 2.
- 1021505
DATE: 07/18/91 PAGES: 27
AUTHOR: Thomas R. Anderson/TIP Management, Inc.
ADDRESSEE:' Unknown/EPA .
DESCRIPTION: Legal Document: Addition of Tacoma Industrial Properties as a
Respondent to the AOC on Consent for the RI/FS
(1090-09-03-104/122)
SUB-HEAD:
7. 3.
Notice Letters, Requests for Information, and Response&
7. 3.
- 1021610
DATE: 03/08/87 PAGES: 6
AUTHOR: Charles E. Findley/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Letter addressed.to Dear Sir or Madam, containing formal
notification that the addressed's company is a PRP for the site,
and containing a brief report of the status at the site, and
requesting information to aid in site investigations
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
7. 3.
- 1017583
DATE: 04/04/89 PAGES: 23
AUTHOR: Henry T. Schatz/General Plastics Manufacturing Company
ADDRESSEE: Judi SchwarZ/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Response to EPA letter of MArch 8, 1989
7. 3.
- 1017574
DATE: 04/05/89 PAGES: 6
AUTHOR: Charles E. Findley/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/ ,
DESCRIPTION: General Letter: Transmits formal notification of PRP's - less
. enclosures
7. 3.
- 1017591
DATE: 04/06/89 PAGES: 112
AUTHOR: Thomas R. Anderson/TIP Management, Inc.
ADDRESSEE: Judi Schwarz/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Responds to EPA letter of March 8, 1989
7. 3.
- 1017586
DATE: 04/07/89 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Mike E. Brandeberry/Glacier
ADDRESSEE: Charles E. Findley/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Clarifies corporate
Park Co.
Park Company
affiliation between BNRR and Glacier
7. 3.
- 1017588
DATE: 04/07/89 PAGES: 33
AUTHOR: Unknown/Pioneer Builders Supply Co.
ADDRESSEE:' Unknown/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Response to EPA questionaire
7. 3.
- 1021605
DATE: 04/10/89 PAGES: 6
AUTHOR: Edward J. Brosius/Amsted Industries
ADDRESSEE: Judi Schwarz/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Reply to EPA's 3/8/89 information request
7. 3.
- 1017596
DATE: 04/19/89 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Robert L. Beale/McGavick Graves Beale & MCNerthney
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Responds to EPA letter of March 7, 1989 to W. D. Whinery,
Inc.
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COHN. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
7. 3.
- 1017575
DATE: 04/28/89 PAGES: 7
AUTHOR: Jeff Stoflet/Atlas Foundry & Machine Co. .
ADDRESSEE: Judi Schwarz/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Response to EPA letter of March 7, 1989
- 1017578
DATE: 04/28/89 PAGES:. 5
AUTHOR: G. S. Karavitis/Tacoma Public Utilities
ADDRESSEE: Charles E. Findley/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter:' Responds to EPA letter of March
7. 3.
10, 1989
7. 3.
- 1017597.
DATE: 04/28/89 PAGES: 5
AUTHOR: Robert L. Beale/McGavick Graves Beale & McNerthney
ADDRESSEE: Andrew Boyd/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits documents concerning dates of operation of W. D.
Whinery, Inc. .
7. 3.
- 1017585
DATE: 05/01/89 PAGES: 14
AUTHOR: Martha Anamosa/Glacier Park Company
ADDRESSEE: Charles E. Findley/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Response to EPA letter of April
24, 1989
7. 3.
- 1017579
DATE: 05/03/89 PAGES: 3
AUTHOR: G. S. Karavitis/Tacoma Public Utilities
ADDRESSEE: Charles E. Findley/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Supplement to TPU response of April
of March 10, 1989
28, 1989 to EPA letter
7. 3.
- 1017590
DATE: OS/26/89 PAGES: 7
AUTHOR: Thomas R. Anderson/TIP Management, Inc.
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA .
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits additional information
requested by EPA
7. 3.
- 1017582
DATE: 07/07/89 PAGES: 3
AUTHOR: Charles E. Findley/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Allen Hoerner/Pioneer Builders
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Formal notification of
Supply
PRP status - less enclosures
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
- 1017576
DATE: 08/04/89 PAGES: 7
AUTHOR: Charles E. Findley/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Arthur Zaegel/Burlington Northern
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits notification of
less enclosure
7. 3.
Ra ilroad
formal negotiations with EPA -
7. 3.
- 1017577
DATE: 08/04/89 PAGES: 6
AUTHOR: Charles E. Findley/EPA
ADDRESSEE: E. E. Coates/Tacoma PUblic Utilities
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits notification of formal
less enclosure
negotiations with EPA -
7. 3.
- 1017581
DATE: 08/04/89 PAGES: 6
AUTHOR: Charles E. Findley/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Henry T. SchatZ/General Plastics
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits notification of
less enclosure
formal negotiations with EPA -
7. 3.
- 1017584
DATE: 08/04/89 PAGES: 6
AUTHOR: Charles E. FindleY/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Martha Anamosa/Glacier Park Company
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits notification of formal
less enclosure.
negotiations ~ith EPA -
7. J.
, -' 1017587
DATE: 08/04/89 PAGES: 6
AUTHOR: Charles E. Findley/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Allen Hoerner/Pioneer Builders
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits notification
less enclosure
Supply
of formal negotiations with EPA -
7. 3.
- 1017589
DATE: 08/04/89 PAGES: 6
AUTHOR: Charles E. Findley/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Thomas R. Anderson/TIP Mariagement, Inc.
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits notification of formal
less enclosure
negotiations with EPA -
7. 3.
- 1021606
DATE: 08/04/89 PAGES: 6
AUTHOR: Charles E. FindleY/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Edward J. Brosius/Amsted Industries
DESCRIPTION: Letter notifying of 60-90 day period ot formal negotiations with
EPA, containing formal demand for reimbursement of costs, and
providing general and site specific information to assist in
09/30/94
U. s. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
negotiations
7. 3.
- 1021643
DATE: 08/04/89 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Cindy Colgate/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Notification Letter Response Form for special notice letters sent
8/4/89 (attached are first page of all letters sent, complete
letter with attachments) .
20
7. 3.
- 1021506
DATE: 10/26/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Carol Rushin/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Fred A. Thompson/City of Tacoma .
DESCRIPTION: Letter providing notice of PRP status and
request (date estimated, received by City
12
104(e) information
on 10/29/92)
7. 3.
- 1021577
DATE: 12/03/92 PAGES: 3J8
AUTHOR: William L. Pugh/City of Tacoma
ADDRESSEE: Carol Rushin/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Cover letter and attached response
received by city on 10/28/92 .
to EPA's information request
09/30/94
u. s. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY ~ S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
HEADING:
8. o.
NATURAL RESOURCE TRUSTEES
SUB-HEAD:
8. 1.
correspondence
8. 1.
- 0000001
04/07/81 PAGES: 4
Howard S. Harris/NOAA
Unknown/Unknown
Cover letter and summary
ecosystem of Puget Sound
report re: toxic chemicals in marine
since 1979
DATE:
AUTHOR:
ADDRESSEE:
DESCRIPTION:
8. 1.
- 0000002
DATE: 03/13/84 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Bruce Blanchard/U.S. Dept. of Interior (DOl)
ADDRESSEE: Gene Lucero/EPA .
DESCRIPTION: Letter re: Preliminary Natural Resource Survey, stating DOl has
trust responsibility toward tribal rights and resources, urging.EPA
to consult regional officials of Fish and Wildlife Service, and
Bureau of Indian Affairs
8. 1.
- 0000003
DATE: 05/09/89 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA .
ADDRESSEE: Washington Dept. of Natural Resources/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Request for search to determine the existence of
threatened .species, etc... .
endangered or
8. 1.
- 0000004
DATE: 05/09/89 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Washington Natural Heritage Program/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Request for search to determine the existence
threatened species, etc...
1
of endangered or
8. 1.
- 0000009
DATE: 05/09/89 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Lew Consiglieri/NOAA
ADDRESSEE: Christine PSYk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Information on anadromous
fish use of Flett and Leach Creek
8. 1.
- 0000010
DATE: 05/15/89 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Nancy Sprague/Washington State Dept. of Natural Resources
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA .
DESCRIPTION: Letter stating that currently, the Dept. of Natural Resources has
no records for rare plants, high quality native plant communities,
etc, in the area of S. Tacoma Field
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
- 0000005
DATE: 08/08/89 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Preston Sleeger, Jr./DOI
DESCRIPTION: Letter notifying that EPA will be negotiating with
and inviting DOl to participate in negotiations
8. 1.
2
8 PRPs for RI/FS
8. 1.
- 0000006
DATE: 09/21/89 PAGES: 3
AUTHOR: Office of Environmental Project Review, DOl/Unknown
ADDRESSEE: Regional Project Officer, EPA/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Work Plan for Preliminary Natural Resource Survey
8. 1.
- 0000007
DATE: 12/11/89 PAGES: 4
AUTHOR: Jonathan P. Deason/DOl
ADDRESSEE: Charles E. Findley/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Preliminary Natural Resource
Survey
8. 1.
- 0000008
DATE: 02/22/90 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Charles S. Polityka/DOI
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter acknowledging Psyk's letter inviting
RI/FS negotiations at S. Tacoma Swamp
DOl to participate in
8. 1.
- 1021507
DATE: 08/27/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Charles Polityka/DOI
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Advises of stage in
2
Superfund process
8. 1.
- 1021508
DATE: 12/04/91 PAGES:
, AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Charles Polityka/DOI
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Discusses wetland
survey
2
delineation and endangered plant species
8. 1.
- 1021509
DATE: 01/13/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Charles Polityka/DOI
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits draft
enclosure '
1
Phase I S011 Investigation Report - less
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
- 1021510
DATE: 01/28/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Charles Polityka/DOI
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits Phase
enclosure
8. 1.
2
I Groundwater Investigation Repor.t - less
8. 1.
- 1021511
DATE: 01/30/92 PAGES: 3
AUTHOR: Charles S. Polityka/DOI
ADDRESSEE: Ron Eggers/BIA
DESCRIPTION: Memo: Informs BIA, FWS & GS of availability of
Groundwater Investigation Reports
Phase I Soil and
8. 1.
- 1021512
DATE: OS/20/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Charles Polityka/DOI
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits draft
enclosure
1
surface water and sediment report - less
8. 1.
- 1021513
DATE: 06/11/92 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: David C. Frederick/DOl
ADDRESSEE: Christine ~syk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Discusses FWS review
report
of draft surface water and sediment
8. 1.
..
- 1021514
DATE: 06/17/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Chris Mebane/NoAA
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Memo: Comments on surface
4
water and sediment report
8. 1.
- 1021515
DATE: 07/08/92 PAGES:.
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Jeff Krausmann/DOI
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits data
enclosure
1
collected in Flett and Leach Creeks - less
8. 1.
- 1021516
DATE: 08/11/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Charles Polityka/DOI
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Updates DOI on
2
status of RI/FS
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COHM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
- 1021517
DATE: 08/14/92 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Charles S. Polityka/DOI
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/BIA
DESCRIPTION: Memo: Notifies BIA of £PA's development of a draft remedial
investigation report
8. 1.
8. 1.
- 1017599
DATE: 10/28/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Beth Feeley/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Charles Polityka/DOI
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Requests DOI review
Assessment - less enclosure
1
and comment of draft Ecological Risk
8. 1.
- 1021519
DATE: 10/28/92 PAGES:
. AUTHOR: Beth Feeley/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Christopher Mebane/NOAA
DESCRIPTION: Memo: Requests review of the
attachments
1
Ecological Risk Assessment - less
8. 1.
- 1017598
DATE: 11/16/92 PAGES: 3
AUTHOR: David C. Frederick/DOI
ADDRESSEE: Beth Feeley/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits FWS review of draft RI and draft ERA
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
HEADING:
9. O.
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS/INQUIRIES
SUB-HEAD:
9. 1.
Correspondence
9. 1.
- 0000004
/ / PAGES:
Ralph Bauer/EPA
Norm Dicks/Congressman
Letter informing of status
2
DATE:
AUTHOR:
ADDRESSEE:
DESCRIPTION:
at S. Tacoma Swamp
9. 1.
- 0000001
DATE: 03/22/81 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Ruth Carson/Tahoma Audubon
ADDRESSEE: Senator Henry M. Jackson/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Letter agreeing that there should be a coordinating agency
responsible for toxic chemical problems in Commencement Bay,
stating that Tahoma Audobon believes more funding should be given
to existing agencies, not to creating a new agency
9. 1.
- 0000002
DATE: 06/13/86 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Norm Dicks/Member of Congress
ADDRESSEE: Ralph R. Bauer/Congress of the United States
DESCRIPTION: Letter requesting EPA Region 10 to investigate site
Proctor in Tacoma for possible toxic contamination
at 56th and
9. 1.
- 0000003
DATE: 07/18/86 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Andrea Beatty Riniker/Dept. of Ecology
ADDRESSEE: Norm Dicks/Member of Congress
DESCRIPTION: Letter in response to Dick's concern about
contamination in Tacoma
hazardous waste
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
. Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL. A/R INDEX
HEADING: 10. O.
SUB-HEAD: 10. 1.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Correspondence
10. 1.
- 0000001
12/30/85 PAGES:
Phil Wong/EPA
Unknown/Unknown
Letter informing of past
in S. Tacoma to maintain
2
DATE:
AUTHOR:
ADDRESSEE:
DESCRIPTION:
and future soil and groundwater monitoring
drinking water resources
10. 1.
- 1021520
DATE: 05/09/91 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Michelle Pirzadeh/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Memo to File: Bulk mailing of fact sheet - less attachment
10. 1.
- 1021521
DATE: 05/10/91 PAGES: 3
AUTHOR: Michelle Pirzadeh/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Henry Schatz/General Plastics
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits fact sheet -
less enclosure
10. 1.
- 1021522
DATE: 07/11/91 ,PAGES:
AUTHOR: Beth Feelay/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Jeanne Duvall/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Invitation to
11
comment on activities of STF Superfund Site
10. 1.
- 1021169
DATE: 08/13/91 PAGES: 8
AUTHOR: Michelle Pirzadeh/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Jane Hedges/Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits Community Relations Strategy and tentative
schedule for South Tacoma Field Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study .
10. 1.
- 1021523
DATE: 12/06/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Ken Merry/Tacoma Water Division
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits groundwater data
2
- less enclosure
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10'
paqe
-------
(TSWAR) CORM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
- 1021525
DATE: 03/16/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Kevin Oates/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Ross A. Macfarlane/Preston Thorgrimson Shidler Gates & Ellis
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Discusses development and preparation of fact sheet
10. 1.
3
10. 1.
- 1021524
DATE: 06/15/92 PAGES: 3
AUTHOR: Glynda J. Steiner/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Cindy Colgate/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Transmits comments on draft fact sheet
10. 1.
- 1021526
DATE: 07/29/93 'PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Michelle Pirzadeh/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Gary Reese/Tacoma PUblic Library ,
DESCRIPTION:, Letter: Transmits Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
human health and ecological risk assessments for inclusion
repository - less enclosures
and
in the
SUB-HEAD: 10. 2.
Community Relations Plan
10. 2.
- 0000001
/ / PAGES:' 11
EPA/Unknown.
Unknown/Unknown
CommunitY'Relations Plan
Commencement Bay, Tacoma, Washington
DATE:
AUTHOR:
ADDRESSEE:
DESCRIPTION:
10. 2.
- 1021527
DATE: 09/01/89 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Unknown/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/
DESCRIPTION: Report: Community Relations
Bay-Nearshore/Tideflats and
Superfund Sites
52
Plan for Commencement
Commencement Bay-South Tacoma Channel
10. 2.
- 1021170
DATE: 06/01/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Unknown/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/
DESCRIPTION: Outline: RI/FS Community Relations 'Strategy and Tentative Schedule
2
SUB-HEAD: 10. 3.
Fact Sheets/Press Releases
09/30/94
U.'S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
- 0000001
DATE: 02/01/87 PAGES:
AUTHOR: EPA/Unknown
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Unknown"
DESCRIPTION: Superfund Project
- 0000002
DATE: 02/01/90 PAGES:
AUTHOR: EPA/Unknown
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Fact Sheet: Commencement Bay Nearshore
Channel Superfund sites Updates
10. 3.
10. 3.
- 1021533
DATE: 03/13/89 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Unknown/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/ "
DESCRIPTION: Fact Sheet: South
10. 3.
- 1021538
DATE: 04/01/89 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Unknown/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/
DESCRIPTION: Fact Sheet: Update
Superfund Sites
10. 3.
"10. 3.
- 0000006 "
DATE: 02/05/90 PAGES:
AUTHOR: "EPA/Unknown
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Superfund Project
10. 3.
2
Update
Tacoma Swamp
2
Tacoma Swamp Superfund Site
8
on Commencement Bay and South Tacoma Channel
6
Tideflats and South Tacoma
13
Update: South Tacoma Field
Tacoma, Washington
- 1021528
DATE: 02/05/90 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Unknown/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/
DESCRIPTION: Fact Sheet: Superfund Project Update
10. 3.
- 0000003
DATE: 08/01/90 PAGES:
AUTHOR: EPA/Unknown
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Fact Sheets: Update
Washington
2
6
of Hazardous Waste Cleanup Projects
Tacoma,
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
106
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
10. J.
- 0000004
DATE: 10/19/90 PAGES:
AUTHOR: EPA/Unknown
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Fact Sheet: S. Tacoma
2
Field Superfund Site
Tacoma, Washington
10. 3.
- 0000005
DATE: 02/13/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: EPA/Unknown
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/UnknQwn
DESCRIPTION: Fact Sheet: Update
Washington
9
of Hazardous Waste Cleanup Proje~ts
Tacoma,
10. 3.
- 1021529
DATE: 05/10/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Unknown/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/
DESCRIPTION: Fact Sheet: South Tacoma Field Superfund Site
4
10. 3.
- 1021530
DATE: 02/14/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Unknown/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/
DESCRIPTION: Fact Sheet: South Tacoma Field Superfund Site
4
10. 3.
- 1021531
DATE: 03/01/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Unknown/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/
DESCRIPTION: Fact Sheet: Update on Hazardous Waste Cleanup Projects
12
10. 3.
- 1021532
DATE: 06/18/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Unknown/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/
DESCRIPTION: Fact Sheet: South Tacoma Field Superfund Site
4
10. 3.
- 1021536
DATE: 05/11/93 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Sanoi Doughton/The.News Tribune
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/
DESCRIPTION: News Article: EPA wants say in protecting aquifer under Pierce
County
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
- 1021535
DATE: 06/01/93 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Unknown/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/
DESCRIPTION: Fact Sheet: Update on Hazardous Waste Cleanup projects
10. 3.
8
10. 3.
- 1021539
DATE: 01/01/94 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Unknown/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/
DESCRIPTION: Fact Sheet: Page 4 only of information on South Tacoma Field
1
10. 3.
- 1021537
DATE: 01/24/94 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Unknown/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/
DESCRIPTION: Fact Sheet: Update on Hazardous Waste Cleanup Projects
7
SUB-HEAD: 10. 5.
Proposed Plan
10. 5.
- 1021675
DATE: 06/13/94 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Unknown/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: The Proposed Plan for Cleanup
Commencement Bay South Tacoma
20
: South Tacoma Field Superfund Site
Channel Tacoma, Washington
10. 5.
- 1021679
DATE: 06/15/94 PAGES: 21
AUTHOR: Deborah J.' Yamamoto/EPA
ADDRESSEE: To the Reader/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Errata notice and attached
errors
Proposed Plan incorporating corrected
SUB-HEAD: 10. 6.
Transcript/Comments on the Proposed Plan
10. 6.
- 1033020
DATE: 06/27/94 PAGES: 6
AUTHOR: Dick Bartells/Tacoma Environmental Commission
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Unknown .
DESCRIPTION: Meeting Minutes of the regular meeting of the Tacoma Environmental
Commission discussing South Tacoma Field Superfund site
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R .INDEX
10. 6.
- 1033030
DATE: 06/28/94 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Unknown/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Corrections to the
June 28, 1994
1
Transcript, South Tacoma Field Public Meeting on
10. 6.
- 1033031
DATE: 06/28/94 PAGES: 45
AUTHOR: Gerald D. Koh~er/Bayside Reporters
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Proceedings: Public Meeting, South
Tacoma Field Superfund Site
10. 6.
- 1033028
DATE: 07/07/94 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Margaret L. Corbin/puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency
ADDRESSEE: Deborah Yamamoto/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Comments on the Proposed Plan
10. 6~
- 1033027
DATE: 07/13/94 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: John D. stetson/City of Tacoma
ADDRESSEE: Deborah J. Yamamoto/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter requesting two week extension
to the public comment period
10. 6.
- 1033021 .
DATE: 07/14/94 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: William F. Joyce/Ogden, Murphy, Wallace
ADDRESSEE: Deborah J. Yamamoto/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Comments on the Proposed Plan for South
Tacoma Field
.10. 6.
- 1033023
DATE: 07/14/94 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Dick Bartells/City of Tacoma
ADDRESSEE: Deborah J. Yamamoto/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Comments on the Proposed Plan
for South Tacoma Field
10. 6.
- 1033022
DATE: 07/15/94 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: John D. Stetson/City of Tacoma
ADDRESSEE: Deborah J. Yamamoto/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Comments on the Proposed Plan for
South Tacoma Field
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
- 1033025
DATE: 07/15/94 PAGES: 8
AUTHOR: Ross A. Macfarlane/Preston, Gates and Ellis
ADDRESSEE: Deborah J. Yamamoto/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Comments on the Proposed Plan
10. 6.
10. 6.
- 1033029
DATE: 07/15/94 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Gregory D. Thomas/Agency
ADDRESSEE: Debbie Yamamoto/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Comments on the Proposed
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Plan
10. 6.
- 1033026
DATE: 07/25/94 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Randy Smith/EPA
ADDRESSEE:'Grechen SChmidt/EPA
DESCRIPTION: WPO memo stating that Tacoma's Dept.
extension of time to submit comments
1
of Public Works will not need
on the Proposed Plan
09/30/94
u. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL AIR INDEX
HEADING: 11. 0..
TECHNICAL SOURCES AND GUIDANCES
SUB-HEAD: 11. 1.
EPA Guidance
11. 1.
- 1021559
I I PAGES:
Unknown/EPA
Unknown I
Record of Decision Checklist for Final Groundwater Actions
8
DATE:
AUTHOR:
ADDRESSEE:
DESCRIPTION:
- 1021540
DATE: 07/01/89 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Unknown/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Unknown I
DESCRIPTION: superfund LDR Guide #5: Determining when land
are applicable to CERCLA response actions
11. 1.
4
disposal restrictions
- 1033035
DATE: 09/01/89 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Henry L. Longest
ADDRESSEE: Directors, Waste
DESCRIPTION: Interim Guidance
superfund sites,
11. 1.
3
II/EPA .
Management Divisions/EPA
on Establishing Soil Lead Cleanup
OSWER Directive #9355.4-02
Levels at
11. 1.
- 1021541
DATE: 10/01/89 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Unknown/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Unknown I
DESCRIPTION: RCRA ARARs: Focus on closure requirements
6
11. '1.
- 1021543
DATE: 11/01/89 PAGES:
AUTHOR: unknown/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Unknown I
DESCRIPTION: Fact Sheet: The
remedial action
4
Feasibility Study -
alternatives
Development and screening of
11. 1.
- 1021542
DATE: 11/30/89 PAGES: 22
AUTHOR: Henry L. Longest/EPA
ADDRESSEE: sylvia Lowrance/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Memo: Transmits analysis
of treatability data for soil and debris
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
- 1021544
DATE: 04/01/90 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Unknown/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/
DESCRIPTION: Fact Sheet: A guide to selecting Superfund remedial actions
11. 1.
6
11. 1.
- 1021545
DATE: 05/01/90 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Unknown/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/
DESCRIPTION: Fact Sheet: ARARs Q's
characteristics rule
3
& A's - compliance with the toxicity
11. 1.
- 1021546
DATE: 08/01/90 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Unknown/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/
DESCRIPTION: Fact Sheet: A guide on remedial actions at Superfund sites with PCB
. contamination
6
11.1.
- 1022477
DATE: 08/01/90 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Unknown/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Unknown I .
DESCRIPTION: Guidance on Remedial
. Contamination
86
Actions for Superfund Sites with PCB
11. 1.
- 1021547
DATE: 09/01/90 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Unknown/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Report: Research
163
& Development Technical support Document on Lead
11. 1.
- 1021548
DATE: 09/01/90 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Unknown/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/
DESCRIPTION: Superfund LDR Guide 16A (2nd Edition): Obtain;ng
treatability variance for remedial actions
5
a soil and debris
11. 1.
- 1021549
DATE: 10/10/90 PAGES: 9'
AUTHOR: Henry L. Longest/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Memo: Suggested ROD language for various ground water remediation
options'
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
.. . - -- ...
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
- 1021171
DATE: 04/01/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Unknown/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/
DESCRIPTION: EPA Bulletin: Superfund
Lead-Contaminated Soils
11. 1.
10
Engineering Issue; Treatment of
11. 1.
- 1021551
DATE: 07/11/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: David Smith/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Request for input to revise the
Treatability Studies Under CERCLA"
2
"Guide for conducting
11. 1.
- 1021552
DATE: 02/01/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Unknown/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/
DESCRIPTION: Fact Sheet: Presumptive remedies - policy and procedures
7
11. 1.
- 0003245
DATE: 02/13/92 PAGES: 153
, AUTHOR: Jerry Clifford/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Memo: Revi~w of the "Guidance on Preparing Superfund Decision
Documents"
11. 1.
'.
- 1021553
DATE: OS/27/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: 'Don R. Clay/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Memo: Update on
Superfund sites
14
considerations in ground-water remediation at
and RCRA facilities
11. 1.
- 1021554
DATE: 05/01/93 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Unknown/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/
DESCRIPTION: Engineering Bulletin: Solidification/Stabilization of Organics and
Inorganics
13
- 1021555
DATE: 07/13/93 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Peter Feldman/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/ EPA .
DESCRIPTION: Memo: Background information for review of
Technical Impracticability of Ground-Water
11. 1.
. 4 .
"Evaluation of the
Restoration"
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY,- S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL AIR INDEX
- 1021556
DATE: 10/01/93 PAGES:
AUTHOR: B. Davila/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/ ,
DESCRIPTION: Report: Engineering Issue - Technology alternatives
remediation of PCB-contaminated soil and sediment
11. 1.
25
for the
11. 1.
- 1021557
DATE: 10/04/93 PAGES: 34
AUTHOR: Richard J. Guimond/USPHS
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Memo: Transmittal of OSWER Directive 9234.2-25 "Guidance for
Evaluating the Technical Impracticability of Ground-Water
Restoration"
11 . 1.
- 1021558
DATE: 12/01/93 PAGES:
, AUTHOR: Unknown/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/
DESCRIPTION: Engineering Forum Issue:
' contaminated unsaturated
26
Considerations in deciding to treat
soils in situ
11. 1.
- 1033037
DATE: 09/27/94 PAGES: 4
AUTHOR: Deborah Ya~amoto/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Checklist of EPA'Guidances
used for Administrative Records
SUB-HEAD: 11,. 2.
Technical Sources
11. 2.
, - 1021564
DATE: / / PAGES:
AUTHOR: Unknown/HHS
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/
DESCRIPTION: Phamphlet: Toxicological profile for lead
9
11. 2.
- 1021565
DATE:' / / PAGES:'
AUTHOR: Unknown/ATSDR
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/
DESCRIPTION: Discusses the current ,position
in surface soils
1
ATSDR has taken with respect to lead
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY'- S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
- 00,00001
DATE: 06/01/90 PAGES: 9
AUTHOR: Dean Neptune/Euqene P. Brantly/Michael J. Messner/Daniel I. Michael
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Makinq in Superfund: A Data Quality Objectives Case Study
(excerpt from HHC Journal, May/June 1990)
11. 2.
- 1021560
DATE: 04/29/91
AUTHOR: Robert S.
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/
DESCRIPTION: Abstracts
11. 2.
PAGES: 14
Kerr/Environmental Research Library
from symposium on 50il ventinq
11. 2.
- 1021562
DATE: 07/01/92 PAGES: 15
AUTHOR: Unknown/Ecoloqy and Environment, Inc.
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/
DESCRIPTION: Report: Final Remedial Investiqation Report
Enterprises, Fairbanks, Alaska - Volume I
for Alaskan Battery
11. 2.
- 1021561
DATE: 09/01/92 PAGES: 8 ,
AUTHOR: Andy Davis/PTI Environmental Services
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Environmental Science & Technoloqy Maqazine
DESCRIPTION: Article: B~oavailability of arsenic and lead in soils
Butte, Montana minin~ district
from the
11. 2.
- 1021563
DATE: 04/19/93 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Unknown/
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/ ,
DESCRIPTION: Appendix F of unknown document:
in qroundwater and soil for the
16
Backqround chemical concentrations
ASARCO smelter site
1
, .
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Aqency, Reqion 10
paqe
-------
(TSWAR) COHM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
HEADING: 12. O.
HEALTH ASSESSMENTS
SUB-HEAD: 12. 1.
correspondence
12. 1.
- 1021191
12/27/91 PAGES: 8
Anne Duffy/washington State Dept. of Health
Christine Psyk/EPA
Cover letter and enclosed brief overview on the groundwater
contamination associated with the site and contaminants of health
concern .
DATE:
AUTHOR:
ADDRESSEE:
DESCRIPTION:
- 1021172
DATE: 02/06/92 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Gregory D. Thomas/HHS
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Memo: Discusses Blackberry
12. 1.
Investigation Report
- 1021173
DATE: 03/23/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Anne DUffy/washington
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Discusses the
12. 1.
7
State Department of Health
Phase I Soil Investigation Report
- 1021174 .
DATE: 06/24/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine PsyklEPA
ADDRESSEE: Mark w. Stromberg/Burlington Northern
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Discusses security at the STF
12. 1.
2
Railroad
Superfund Site
- 1021175
DATE: 06/25/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Greg Thomas/HHS
DESCRIPTION: Memo: Requests opinion on potential pUblic health concerns
associated with contaminant levels at STF Superfund site
12. 1.
2
- 1021566
DATE: 07/07/92 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Robert H. Rowan/The Dolack Hansler Firm
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Discusses security at the STF site.
12. 1.
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection , Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
'1
(TSWAR) COMM. B~Y - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
- 1021567
DATE: 07/07/92 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Mark W. Stromberg/Bur1"ington Northern Railroad
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Discusses security at the STF site
12. 1.
12. 1.
- 1021570
DATE: 07/08/92 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: William F. Joyce/ogden Murphy Wallace
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Discusses security at the STF site'
12. 1.
- 1021571
DATE: 07/13/92 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: G. S. Karavitis/City of Tacoma
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Discusses security at the
STF site
12. 1.
- 1021177
DATE: 08/05/92 PAGES: 12
AUTHOR: Anne Duffy/Washington State Department of Health
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Discusses site security in response to surface soil
contamination
12. 1.
- 1021568
DATE: 08/05/92. PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE:. Mark W. Stromberg/Burlington Northern
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Discusses security at the STF
2
Railroad
site
12. 1.
- 1021569
DATE: 08/07/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Anne Duffy/Washington State Department of Health
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Discusses security at the STF site
1
12. 1.
- 1021573
DATE: 08/26/92 PAGES: 4
AUTHOR: Anne Duffy/Washington State Department of Health
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Discusses security at the STF site
09/30/94
u. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
- 102"1176
DATE: 08/27/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Mark .W. Stromberq/Burlinqton Northern
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Discusses site security.
12. 1.
2
Railroad
12.1.
- 1021574
DATE: 12/29/92 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Nathan A. Graves/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Beth Feeley/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter: Discusses security ~t the STF site
09/30/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Aqency, Reqion 10
paqe
-------
0.0
1.0
S. TACOMA FIELD - AMSTED PROPERTY REMOVAL
ADMINISTRATIVE 'RECORD
TABLE OF CONTENTS
September 26, 1994
INDEX/TABLE OF CONTENTS
SITE IDENTIFICATION
Section 1.0 of the South Tacoma Field Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study Administrative
Record is incorporated by reference into this Removal
Administrative Record. A listing of these documents is
attached at the end of the index for this Amsted Property
Removal Administrative Record.
2.0
AMSTED PROPERTY REMOVAL
2.1
correspondence
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
2.2
Action Memorandum
2.3
Work Plan
2.4
Sampling Data
2.4.1
EPA Oversight Sampling Data
2~5
Well Closure Report
Subsurface Investigation Report
2.6
2.7
Streamlined Risk Assessment
EPA OVERSIGHT
3.1
Work Plan/QAPP/Oversight Report
ENFORCEMENT
4.1
correspondence
4.2
Administrative Order on Consent
STATE COORDINATION
5.1
Correspondence
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
6.1
Fact Sheets
AR
1.8
'USEPA SF
\111111111
-------
(TSWAH) COHM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD AHSTED REMOVAL A/R INDEX
HEADING:
2. o.
AMSTED REMOVAL RESPONSE
;UB-HEAD:
2. 1.
Correspondence
2. 1.
- 0000001 .
03/04/91 PAGES: 1
Glynda Steiner/Kennedy, Jenks, Chilton
Christine Psyk/EPA
Letter notifying of several feet of petroleum product observed
during an inspection of the site
DATE:
AUTHOR:
ADDRESSEE:
>ESCRIPTION:
2. 1.
- 0000002
04/22/91 PAGES: 4
Owen G. Loshbough, Nathan A. Graves/Kennedy, Jenks, Chilton
Christine Psyk/EPA
Letter describing additional work proposed by Amsted Industries to
assess potential environmental concerns regarding the condition of
groundwater monitoring wells at the Amsted property
DATE:
AUTHOR:
ADDRESSEE:
IESCRIPTION:
2. 1.
- 1033010
DATE: 08/23/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Tom Todd/Washington Dept. of Ecology
IESCRIPTION: Cover letter requesting DOE's.review
"Preliminar~ Fuel Investigation"
1
of report entitled,
2. 1.
- 0000003
DATE: 08/28/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Edward Brosius/Amsted Industries
'ESCRIPTION: Letter formally outlining the EPA's position on the
Closure and P!eliminary Fuel Investigation Report
.3
July 1991, Well
2. 1.
- 1033011
DATE: 10/29/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Beth Feeley/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Chris Field/EPA
ESCRIPTION: Letter requesting
work necessary to
1
review of Work Plan which outlines additional
remove hydrocarbon product from well
2. 1.
- 0000004
DATE: 11/20/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Edward Brosius/Amsted .Industries
ESCRIPTION: Letter and attached comments on the
and Monitorinq Work Plan
7
OCtober 1991, Well Installation
9/29/94
u. S. Environmental Protection Aqency, Reqion 10.
Page
-------
(TSWAM) COHM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD AMSTED REMOVAL A/R INDEX
- 0000005
DATE: 01/10/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: OWen Loshbough/Kennedy, Jenks, Chiltdn
)ES~PTION: Letter re: sampling from MW-2 at the Amsted
2. 1.
2
properties
- 0000006
DATE: 01/16/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine PsyklEPA
ADDRESSEE: Edward BrosiuslAmsted Industries
)ESCRIPTION: Letter providing comments on December 1991, Well Installation and
Monitoring Work Plan for the Amsted property removal
2. 1.
.3
- 0000007
DATE: 03/03/92 PAGES:
'AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Owen G. Loshbough/Kennedy, Jenks, Chilton
)ESCRIPTION: Letter re: proposal for chemical analyses
2. 1.
1
of soils
- 1033015
DATE: 03/05/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Beth Feeley/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Peter BrookslWashington Dept. of Ecology
)ESCRIPTION: Cover letter for final work plan for the
. monitoring wells on the Amsted Property,
Administrative ord~r on Consent
2. 1.
1
installation of additional
and a copy of the Amended
- 1033009
DATE: 04/07/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Owen Loshbough/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
)ESCRIPTION: Cover letter for validated results of petroleum
2. 1.
1
products in MW-2
- 1033008
DATE: 04/16/92 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Owen G. Loshbough/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Lorie Morgan/Washington Dept. of Ecology
)ESCRIPTION: Letter requesting variance from compliance with WAC
173-160-150(2) (a)
2. 1.
- 1033014
DATE: 09/03/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Beth Feeley/EPA
ADDRESSEE: OWen Loshbough/Kenned.Y/J~s Consultants
DESCRIPTION: Memo summarizing major issues'discussed. during 9/3/92 meeting,
including information received in follow-up conversation with EPA"
QA/O,C personnel
2. 1.
2
09/29/94.
u. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(T5WAM) COKH. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD AMSTED REMOVAL' A/R INDEX
- 1033013
DATE: 02/10/93 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Julie A. Reid/Kennedy/Jenks
ADDRESSEE: Beth Feeley/EPA
)ESCRIPTION: Letter informing EPA
performing the'first
to the vork plan are
2. 1.
Consultants
that Kennedy/Jenks personnel vill be
quarter groundvater monitoring, modifications
included
2. 1.
- 1033012
DATE: 02/26/93 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Nathan A. Graves/Kennedy/Jenkks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Loren HCPhillips/EPA
)ESCRIPTION: Letter informing EPA that resampling of the groundwater monitoring
veIls will be conducted on 3/2/93
2. 1.
- 1033017
DATE: 05/12/93 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: JUlie A. Reid/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Loren HCPhillips/EPA
)ESCRIPTION: Letter informing EPA that Kennedy/Jenks personnel will be
performing second quarter groundwater monitoring on 5/20 and 5/21
2. 1.
- 1033018
DATE: 05/19/93 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Julie A. Reid/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Loren HcPhillips/EPA
JESCRIPTION: Letter informing EPA that Kennedy/Jenks has
qu~rter groundwater monitoring for 5/27 and
rescheduled second
5/28 .
2. 1.
- 1033019
DATE: 12/29/93 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Julie A. Reid/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Loren HCPhillips/EPA
'ESCRIPTION: Letter informing EPA that Kennedy/Jenks vill
fourth quarter groundwater monitoring on 1/6
be performing the
and 1/7
2. ].
- 1021680
DATE: 03/08/94 PAGES: 3
AUTHOR: John Frerich/ICF Kaiser
ADDRESSEE: DebOrah Yamamoto/EPA
'ESCRIPTION: Fax cover sheet regarding
for Amsted Property.
reviev of '4th quarter sampling results
9/29/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10'
Page
-------
(TSWAM) COHH. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD AMSTED REMOVAL A/R INDEX
- 1021681
DATE: 03/10/94 PAGES: 7
AUTHOR:" Michael A. DuCharme/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Deborah J. Yamamoto/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter recommending preferred final remedial action for petroleum
hydrocarbons detected in soil and groundwater at the former Griffin
Wheel Brass Foundry
2. 1.
;UB-HEAD:
2. 2.
Action Memorandum
2. 2.
- 0000001
DATE: 05/09/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Phil Millam/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Charles E. Findley/EPA
JESCRIPTION: Approval of CERCLA Administrative Order on Consent for a Removal
Action by the Amsted Industries, Inc., on Amsted property at the
South Tacoma Field Superfund Site, Tacoma, Washington
5
;VB-HEAD:
2. J.
Work Plan
2. J.
- 0000001
DATE: 02/01/92 PAGES: 188
. AUTHOR: Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton/Unknown
ADDRESSEE: Amsted Industries/Unknown . "
JESCRIPTION: Well Installation and Monitoring Work Plan:
Brass Foundry, Tacoma, Washington
Former Criffin Wheel
2. J.
- 1033016
DATE: 02/24/92 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: 'Owen Loshbough/Kennedy/Jenks
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
)ESCRIPTION: Cover letter for three copies
Installation and Monitoring
Consultants
of Final Work Plan for Well
2. J.
-' 1021683
DATE: 09/22/92 PAGES: 25
AUTHOR: Owen C. Loshbough/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Beth Feeley/EPA
>ESCRIPTION: Monitoring Well Criteria (one blueprint included)
2. J.
- 1021682
DATE: 09/23/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Beth Feeley/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Glenn Bruck/EPA
JESCIUPTION: Letter requesting
Kennedy/Jenks has
.~
review of adequacy of the monitoring plan. that
proposed (see document 2.3 1021683)
)9/29/94
u. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10"
Page
-------
. (TSWAH) COHM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD AMSTED REMOVAL AIR INDEX
- 1022000
DATE: 01/15/93 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Beth Feeley/EPA .
ADDRESSEE: Nathan Graves/KennedY/Jenks Consultants
)ESCRIPTION: Letter providing approval for 1/12/93 proposal
install Well-Wizard dedicated pumps
2. 3.
1
to pUrchase and
2. 3.
- 1021690
DATE: 01/22/93 PAGES: 64
AUTHOR: Nathan A. Graves/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Beth FeeleY/EPA
-ESCRIPTION: Work Plan: Groundwater Monitoring Program Former Griffin Wheel
Brass Foundry Tacoma, Washington DRAFT
2. 3.
- 1021689
DATE: 01/25/93 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Loren HCPhillips/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Nathan Graves/KennedY/Jenks Consultants
ESCRIPTION: Letter granting EPA interim approval of
Groundwater Monitoring Program
the Final Work Plan for the
2. 3.
- 1021701
DATE: 01/29/93 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Donald Mathe~Y/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Loren MCPhillips/EPA
ESCRIPTION: Memo re: Rev~ew of-Draft-Work Plan for Groundwater Monitoring
Program, Former Griffin Wheel Brass Foundary, Tacoma, WA,
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants 1-22-93 .
1
2. 3.
- 1021700
DATE: 02/01/93 PAGES:
AUTHOR: -Glenn Bruck/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Loren HCPhillips/EPA
ESCRIPTION: Memo re: Review of Draft Work Plan
Monitoring Program, former Griffin
Tacoma, WA-
2
(1-22-93) for Groundwater
Wheel Brass Foundry, (Amstead)
2. 3.
- 1021699
DATE: 02/02/93 PAGES: 3
AUTHOR: John Frerich/ICF Technology Inc.
ADDRESSEE: Loren MCPhillips/EPA
ESCRIPTION: Fax cover sheet and a~tached comments on Draft Groundwater
Monitoring Program
'/29/94
u. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAH) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD AHSTED REMOVAL A/RINDEX
Ii 2. 3. . - 1021684
}.~ DATE: 02/~6/93 P~GES:" 65 "
AUTHOR: Ju11e A. Re1d/KennedyiJenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Beth Feeley/EPA ""
)ESCRIPTION: Work Plan Groundwater Monitoring Program
Brass Foundry Tacoma, Washington FINAL
Former Griffin Wheel
(includes 1 blueprint)
2." 3.
- 1021696
DATE: 02/25/93 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Loren MCPhillips/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Nathan Graves/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
>ESCRIPTION: Letter granting EPA approval of the Final Work Plan for the
Groundwater Monitoring Program at the Amsted Property
;UB"-HEAD:
2. 4.
Sampling Data
2. 4.
- 1033001
DATE: 03/02/92 PAGES: 35
AUTHOR: Owen G. Loshbough/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
JESCRIPTION: Transmittal of Analytical Results for Petroleum Product in
and Proposed Soil Analysis Parameters
MW-2
2. 4.
- 1033002
DATE: 10/28/92 PAGES: 3
AUTHOR: Owen Loshbough/K~nnedY/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Beth Feeley/EPA
)ESCRIPTION: Transmittal of Preliminary Laboratory Data
NMW-13
Water Sample from Well
2. 4.
- 1021685
DATE: 04/05/93 PAGES: 45
AUTHOR: Julie A. Reid/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Loren HcPhillips/EPA
JESCRIPTION: First Quarter Groundwater Monitoring Report
2. 4.
- 1021686
DATE: 07/01/93 PAGES: 28
AUTHOR: Julie A. Reid/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Deborah Yamamoto/EPA
)ESCRIPTION: Second Quarter Groundwater Monitorinq Report"
2. 4.
- 1021687
DATE: 10/26/93 ,PAGES: 27
AUTHOR: Julie A. Reid/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Deborah YaJllamoto/EPA
)ESCRIPTION: Third Quarter Groundwater Monitoring Report
)9/29/94
u. S. Environme~tal Protection Agency I Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAH) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD AHSTED REMOVAL A/R INDEX
- 1021688
DATE: 02/10/94 PAGES: 29
AUTHOR: JUlie A. Reid/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Deborah Yamamoto/EPA .
DESCRZPTION: Fourth Quarter Groundwater Monitoring Report
2. 4.
SUB-HEAD:
2. 4. 1.
EPA Oversight Sampling Data
2. 4. 1. - 1021999
DATE: 02/14/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Joe BlazeviCh/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
~ESCRIPTION: Memo re: Report of Data
VOA analysis of samples
10
Validation for South Tacoma Field - Amsted,
92034595 and 92034596
2. 4. 1. - 1021998
DATE: 02/24/92 PAGES: 15
AUTHOR: Linda K. KarsonoviCh/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
)ESCRIPTION: Data Review of South Tacoma 'Field
Samples for PAHs
2. 4. 1. - 1021997
DATE: 03/03/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: J. BlazeviCh/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
)ESCRIPTION: Report of Data Validation
Project, Sample 92034595
6
of BNA's for the South Tacoma Field
2. 4. 1. .... 1021982
DATE: 03/05/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: John Frerich/ICF
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Unknown
JESCRIPTION: Field Oversight
29
Checklist
2. 4. 1. - 1021996
DATE: 03/06/92 PAGES: 23
AUTHOR: Paul Swift/ICF Technology, Inc.
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
ESCRIPTION: Metals Analysis for South Tacoma Field Samples 92034595-92054619 (6
waters, 3 soils, 1 oil)
2. 4. 1. - 1021995
DATE: 03/10/92 PAGES: 20
AUTHOR: Linda K. Karsonovich/ICF Technology, Inc.
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
>ESCRIPTION: Data Review of South Tacoma Field Samples
for Pesticides/PCBs
)9/29/94
u. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAt-I) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD AHSTED REMOVAL A/R INDEX
2. 4. 1. - 1021994
DATE: 05/07/92 PAGES: 11
AUTHOR: Owen G. Loshbough/Xennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: .Christine Psyk/EPA
)£SCRIPTION: Cover letter and enclosed copy of the WTPH-418.1 for Heavy
Petroleum Oils in Water and WTPH-418.1 for Heavy Petroleum Oils in
Soil Matrix, and copies of control limits for these tests from.
Analytical Technologies, Inc. .
2. 4. 1. - 102]993
DATE: 05/12/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: J. Blazevich/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
)£SCRIPTION: Report of Data Validation of TPH for the South Tacoma Field
Project, Amsted Site, Samples 92194550, 921994551, 92194552 and
92194553
10
2. 4. 1. - 1021992
DATE: OS/21/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Donald Matheny/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
>ESCRIPTION: Data Validation for South Tacoma Fields -
SDG No. JK008, Volatile and Semi-Volatile
33
AMSTED, Case No. 17888,
Analyses
2. 4. 1. - 1021991
DATE: 06/05/92 PAGES: ,12
AUTHOR: John Alexander/ICF Technology, Inc.
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
)ESCRIPTION: Metals Analysis for South Tacoma Field - Amsted Water Samples
92194550-92194553
2. 4. 1. - 1021990
DATE: 06/11/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Donald Matheny/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
>ESCRIPTION: Data Validation for AMSTED,
Analysis
11
Case No. 19029, SDe No. MJJ700, Cyanide
2. 4. 1. - 1021989 .
DATE: 06/18/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: J. Blazevich/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
>£SCRIPTION: Report of Data Validation of BNA's for the South Tacoma Field
Project, Samples 9219455~, 92194551, 92194552 and 92194553
12
J9/29/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
8
- . ..--- ..
-------
(TSWAM) COHH. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD AHSTED REMOVAL A/R INDEX
2. 4. 1. - 1021988
DATE: 06/22/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Donald MathenY/EPA
ADDREssEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPT:ION: Data Validation for AMSTED, Case No. 19029, SOG No.
Volatiles, Pesticides and PCB Analyses . .
41.
JX017,
2. 4. 1. - 1021987
DATE: 07/01/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Donald Matheny/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
~ESCRIPTION: Data Validation for AMSTED,
Analyses
11
SAS No. 7223J, SOG No. 92194550, PAH
2. 4. 1. - 1021984
DATE: 09/18/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Christi Foster/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
)ESCRIPTION: Notice of Improper
1
Sample Submittal
2. 4. 1. - 1021983
DATE: 09/25/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Catherin York/ICF
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
JESCRIPTION: Notice of Improper
1
Sample Submittal
2. 4. 1. - 1021986
DATE: 10/05/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: J~ Blaze~ich/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
'ESCRIPTION: Report of Data Validation
Samples 92382001
8
of BNA's for the Amsted Project, W~ter
2. 4. 1. - 1021981
DATE: 10/06/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: J. Blazevich/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
ESCRIPTION: Report of Data Validation of TPH for the
Project, Amsted Site, Samples 92382001
6
South Tacoma Field
2. 4. 1. - 1021980
DATE: 10/29/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Joe Blazevich/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
£SCRIPTION: Report of Data Validation for STF AJIIsted Investigation, VOA
Analysis of Samples 92382000 and 92382001 '
17
~/29/94
.
u. S. Environmental Protection.Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAM) COMM. BAY - S. TACOKA FIELD AHSTED REMOVAL A/R INDEX
2. 4. 1. - 1021985
DATE: 11/12/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Donald Hatheny/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Beth Feeley/EPA
)ESCRIPTION: Comparison of Preliminary Split Sampling Data for
Property, Welll NMW-13, Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
10
ANSTED Industries
;UB-HEAD:
2. 5.
Well Closure Report
2. 5.
- 1033004
08/28/91 PAGES:
Christine Psyk/EPA
Edward Brosius/Amsted Industries
Letter formally outlining the EPA's position on the
Closure and preliminary Fuel Investigation Report
3
DATE:
AUTHOR:
ADDRESSEE:
)ESCRIPTION:
July 1992, Well
2. 5.
- 0000001
DATE: 07/01/92 . PAGES: 43
AUTHOR: Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton/Unknown
ADDRESSEE: Amsted Industries/Unknown
JESCRIPTION: Well Closure and Preliminary Fuel Investigation: Final
Former Griffin Wheel Brass Foundry, Tacoma, washington
Report:
;UB-HEAD:
2. 6.
Subsurface Investigation Report
2. 6.
- 1021691
07/01/92 PAGES: 226
Unknown/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
Unknown/Amsted Industries
Free-Phase Petroleum Product Investigation:
Final Report
DATE:
AUTHOR:
ADDRESSEE:
JESCRIPTION:
- 1033005
DATE: 07/21/92 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Owen G. Loshbough/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
JESCRIPTION: Cover letter for 6 copies of the Free-Phase Petrolum Product
Investigation Report
2. 6.
- 1021698
DATE: 08/21/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Beth Feeley/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Edward Brosious/Amsted Industries
JESCRIPTION: Comments on the July 1992, Final Report,
Product Investigation
2. 6.
6
Free-Phase Petroleum
09/29{94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAM) COKM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD AHSTED REMOVAL A/R INDEX
- 1021692
DATE: 12/01/92 PAGES: 312
AUTHOR: Unknown/Kennedy/Jenks,Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Amsted Industries
)ESCRIPTION:" Subsurface Investigation Former Griffin
Report .
2. 6.
Wheel Brass Foundry: Final
2. 6.
- 1021697
DATE: 12/21/92 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: O~en G. Loshbough/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Beth Feeley/EPA
>ESCRIPTION: Transmittal letter for Subsurface Investigation
Report
2. 6.
- 1021693
01/11/93 PAGES: 3
John Frerich/ICF Technology
Beth Fee1ey/EPA
Cover letter and attached comments
Former Griffin Wheel Brass Foundry
on the Subsurface Investigation
Final Report
DATE:
AUTHOR:
ADDRESSEE:
JESCRIPTION:
2. 6.
- 1033007
DATE: 03/10/94 PAGES: 7
AUTHOR: Michael A. DUCharme/Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
ADDRESSEE: Deborah Yamamoto/EPA
'ESCRIPTION: Letter recommending a preferred final remedial action for petroleum
hydrocarbons detected in soil and groundwater
2. 6.
- 1021694
05/18/94 PAGES: 2
John P. Frerich/ICF Technology, Inc.
Deborah Yamamoto/EPA
Letter re: Recommended Action for Heavy
Property,
Fuel Action at Amsted
DATE:
AUTHOR:
ADDRESSEE:
.ESCRIPTION:
2. 6.
- 1033006
DATE: 05/18/94 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: John Frerich/ICF Technology, Inc.
ADDRESSEE: Deborah Yamamoto/EPA
ESCRIPTION: Letter re: Recommended Action for Heavy Fueld Oil at Amsted
Property ,
VB-HEAD:
2. 7.
Streamlined Risk Assessment
9/29/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAH) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD AMSTED REMOVAL AIR INDEX.
- 1021695
DATE: PS/01/93 PAGES: 60
AUTHOR: Unknown/ICF Technology, Inc.
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Final Streamlined Risk Assessment for the Amsted Property
Washington Revision 0
2. 7.
Tacoma,
2. 7.
- 1033003
DATE: 05/07/93 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: John Frerich/ICF Technology, Inc.
ADDRESSEE: Beth Feeley/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Cover letter for 7 copies of the Final Streamlined Risk Assessment
for the Amsted Property Site
09/29/94
u. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region l~
pa~e
-------
(TSWAH) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD AHSTED REMOVAL A/R INDEX
HEADING:
SUB-HEAD:
3. 0.-
EPA OVERSIGHT
3. 1.
Work Plan/QAPP/Oversight Report
3. 1.
- 0000003
01/13/92 PAGES: 10
ICF Technology, Inc./Unknown
Christine psyk/EPA
Quality Assurance Plan for the
Amsted Property Removal
South TAcoma Field Superfund Site
DATE:
AUTHOR:
ADDRESSEE:
-'ESCRIPTION:
- 0000001
DATE: 02/01/92 PAGES: 20
AUTHOR: ICF Technology, Inc./Unknown
ADDRESSEE: EPA/Unknown
JESCRIPTION: Final Oversight Work Plan for the Amsted Property Investigation and
Removal Action
3. 1.
- 0000002
DATE: 03/23/92 PAGES: 9
AUTHOR: John P. Frerich/ICF Technology, Inc.
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
)ESCRIPTION: Letter report updating EPA on oversight
Properties
3. 1.
activities at the Amsted
9/29/94
u. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAM) COMMa BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD AMSTED REMOVAL A/R INDEX
HEADING:
4. 0."'.
ENFORCEMENT
;UB-HEAD :
4. 1.
Correspondence
4. '1.
- 0000001
05/09/91 PAGES:
Philip Millam/EPA
william F. Joyce, Ogden, Murphy
Cover letter for Administrative
1
DATE:
AUTHOR:
ADDRESSEE:
)ESCRIPTION:
and Wallace/Edward J. Brosius,
Order on Consent for Amsted removal
4. 1.
- 0000002
DATE: 04/20/92 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Jeanne A. Pascal/EPA
ADDRESSEE: File/Unknown
)ESCRIPTION: Memorandum to the file noting that
be supplemented from time to time
the Administrative Record will
me-HEAD:
4. 2.
Administrative Orders
4. 2.
- 0000001
DATE: 0~/16/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Philip Millam/EPA
ADDRESSEE: William F. Joyce/Ogden Murphy Wallace
)ESCRIPTION: Cover letter and attached Order on Consent for Necessary Response
Action pursuant to 42 use 9606, South Tacoma Field Former Brass
Foundry
38
4. 2.
- 0000002
DATE: 03/05/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Philip Millam/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Edward Brosius/Amsted Industries
)ESCRIPTION: Cover letter and attached fully executed
36
Amended Order on Consent
09/29/94
u. S. Eltvironmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
14
-------
(TSWAH) COHM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD AHSTED REMOVAL A/R INDEX
HEADING:
SUB-HEAD:
5. O.
STATE COORDINATION
5. 1.
Correspondence
5. 1.
- 0000001 .
DATE: 08/08/91 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Peter C. Brooks/Washington State Dept. of Ecology (DOE)
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Letter re: comments on the Well Closure and Preliminary Field
Investigation at the Amsted Property
5. 1.
- 0000002
DATE: 08/23/91 PAGES:
AUTHOR: C~istine Psyk/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Tom Todd/State of Washington Dept. of Ecology
)ESCRIPTION: Letter re: Well Closure and Preliminary Field
Amsted Property
1
Investigation at th~
5. 1.
- 0000003
DATE: 11/14/91 PAGES: 6
AUTHOR: 'Peter C. Brooks/State of Washington Dept. of Ecology
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA .
>ESCRIPTION: Comments on Well Installation and Monitoring Draft Work Plan for
the Former Griffin Wheel Brass Foundry, Tacoma, WA
5. 1.
- 0000004
DATE: 03/05/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Beth Feeley/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Peter Brooks/State of Washington Dept. of Ecology
>ESCRIPTION:' Cover letter for the final work plan for the installation of
additional monitoring wells on the Amsted Property .
1
9/29/94
U. S~ Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAH) COHM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD AMSTED REMOVAL A/R INDEX
HEADING:
6. o.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
iUD-HEAD:
6. L .
Fact Sheets
6. L
- 0000001
05/10/91 PAGES:
EPA/Unknown
Unknown/Unknown
Fact Sheet: South
4
DATE:
AUTHOR:
ADDRESSEE:
)ESCRIPTION: .
Tacoma Field Superfund Site,
Tacoma, Washington
6. 1.
- 0000002
DATE: 02/14/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: EPA/Unknown
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Unknown
J£SCRIPTION: Fact Sheet: South
J
Tacoma Field Superfun~t.Site,
Tacoma, Washington
6. 1.
- 0000003
DATE: 03/01/92 PAGES:
AUTHOR: EPA/Unknown
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Unknown
)ESCRIPTION: Update on Hazardous Waste
11
Cleanup Projects,
Tacoma, Washington
09/29/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
. ..- . _... .
(TSWAR) COKH. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
HEADING:
1. 0'" .
SITE IDENTIFICATION
SUB-HEAD:
1.1.
Correspondence
1. 1.
- 0000001
07/07/81 PAGES: 1
Jim Jacoby/Washington Dept. ~f Ecology (DOE)
Steve Meyers/Burlington Northern Railroad (BNRR)
Letter expressing DOE's concern over dumping on BNRR's
property
DATE:
AUTHOR:
ADDRESSEE:
DESCRIPTION:
- 0000002
DATE: 08/14/81 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: Jim Jacoby/state of Washington Dept. of Ecoloqy
ADDRESSEE: William Dickson/Lige Dickson Co
DESCRIPTION: Letter requesting Lige Dickson Co. to obtain a
from Tacoma Pierce County Health Dept. (TPCHD)
1. 1.
permit for dumping
- 0000003
DATE: 08/14/81 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Jim Jacoby/State of Washington Dept. of Ecology
ADDRESSEE: Ed Menotti/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Letter requesting Mr. Menotti to obtain a permit for dumping from
TPCHD . .
1. 1.
- 0000004
DATE: 08/18/81 PAGES:.
AUTHOR: Jim Jacoby/State of
ADDRESSEE: Steve Meyer/BNRR
. DESCRIPTION: Letter documenting
1. 1.
3
Washington Dept. of Ecology.
the meeting on July 23, 1981 at TCPHD
- 0000005
DATE: 08/19/81 PAGES: 1
AUTHOR: William Dickson/Lige Dickson Co.
ADDRESSEE: Jim Jacoby/State of Washington Dept. of Ecology
DESCRIPTION: Letter in response to Jacoby's 8/14/81 letter
1. 1.
1. 1. . - 0000006
DATE: 04/20/82 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Mike Alushin/EPA
ADDRESSEE: William N. Hedeman/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Action Memo for Site Investigation
2
of S. Tacoma Swamp
SUB-HEAD:
1. 2.
Background
09/29/94
U. s. Environmental Protection Agency, Region ~O
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
- 0000001
DATE: 09/01/80 PAGES: 30
AUTHOR: Earth Consultants/Unknown
ADDRESSEE: General Plastics Mfg./Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Geotechnical Engineering Study,
Washington
1. 2.
General Plastics Facility, Tacoma I
1. 2.' - 0000002
DATE: 02/01/81 PAGES:
AUTHOR: DOE/Unknown
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: C08mencement Bay, Tacoma, Duwamish
Problems and Control Summary
5
River, Seattle, Contamination
1. 2.
- 0000003
DATE: 01/01/82 PAGES: 23
AUTHOR: Doug Pierce, Steve Rogers/TCPHD
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: South Tacoma Industrial Waste Survey
1. 2.
- 0000004
DATE: 09/01/82 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Unknown/Unknown
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: South Tacoma Swamp
Northern Property
3
Investigation - sampling Sites on Burlington
1. 2.
- 0000005
DATE: 04/01/86 PAGES: 86
AUTHOR: Doug Pierce, Robert Seamons, Russelll
ADDRESSEE: George Whitner/Tacoma Light Division
DESCRIPTION: Investigation/Characterization of the
Railyard Parcel: Final Report
Axelrod/TPCHD
Former Burlington Northern
1. 2.
- 0000006
DATE: 01/01/87 PAGES: 140
AUTHOR: Kennedy, Jenks, Chilton/Unknown
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Remedial Investigation/Risk Assessment/Feasibility Study: Former
Brass Foundry Area, South Tacoma Swamp, Tacoma, Washington V.l
Draft Report
1. 2.
- 0000007
DATE: 01/01/87 PAGES: 363
AUTHOR: Kennedy, Jenks, Chilton/Unknown
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Remedial Investigation/Risk Assessment/Feasibility Study: Former
Brass Foundry Area, South Tacoma Swamp, Tacoma, Washington
2 Draft Report
V.
09/29/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 19
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
1. 2.
.' DATE:
AUTHOR:
ADDRESSEE:
DESCRIPTION:
- 0000008
01/01/88 PAGES: 99
Kennedy, Jenks, Chilton/Unknown
TIP Management Inc./Unknown
Site Investigation: Surface Waste
Removal Report
SUB-HEAD:
1. 3.
Notification/site Discovery/CERCLIS
1. 3.
- 0000001
DATE: 06/17/86 PAGES:
AUTHOR: EPA/Unknown
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: CERCLIS Maintenance Forms
15
SUB-HEAD:
1. 4.
Preliminary Assessment Report
1. 4.
- 0000001
DATE: '06/01/83 PAGES: 93
AUTHOR: Remedial Technologies Inc./Unknown
ADDRESSEE: EPA/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Preliminary Site Investigation, So. Tacoma Swamp, Tacoma,
. Washington
SUB-HEAD:
1. 5.
Site .Inspection/Investigation Report
1. 5.
- 0000001
DATE: 07/23/81 PAGES:
AUTHOR: 'Jim Jacoby/State
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Inspection Report
2
of Washington Dept. of Ecology
1. S.
- 0000002
DATE: 06/07/82 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Will Abercrombie/State
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Inspection Report
of Washington Dept. of Ecology
1. 5.
- 0000003
DATE: 08/05/82 PAGES: 6
AUTHOR: Will Abercrombie/State
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Inspection Report
of Washington Dept. of Ecology
09/29/94
u. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
-------
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
- 0000004
DATE: 06/13/86 PAGES: 2
AUTHOR: Mike Gallagher/State of
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Inspection Report
1. 5.
Washington Dept. of Ecology
1. 5.
- 0000005
DATE: 08/05/86 PAGES: 3
AUTHOR: William Carberry/Ecology & Environment, Inc.
ADDRESSEE: John Osborn/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Atlas Foundry Dump Site Trip Report
1. 5.
- 0000006
DATE: 08/06/86 PAGES: 4
AUTHOR: William Carberry/Ecology &
ADDRESSEE: John Osborn/EPA
DESCRIPTION: So. Tacoma Swamp: 56th and
Environment, Inc.
Proctor Streets Site Trip Report
1. 5.
- 0000007
DATE: 08/06/86 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Debbie Flood/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Potential Hazardous
56th and S. Proctor
2
Waste Site Site Identification
St.
Tacoma Swamp,
1. 5.
- 0000008
DATE: 08/06/86 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Debbie Flood/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Potential Hazardous
13 Acre Parcel
2
Waste Site Site Identification
Tacoma. Swamp:
SUB-HEAD:
1. 6.
Sampling and Analysis Data
1. 6.
- 0000001
DATE: 08/30/85 PAGES:
AUTHOR: E & E/Unknown
ADDRESSEE: John Osborn/EPA .
DESCRIPTION: QA Data Case I's 4565(Organics), 2421J(SAS Ino~ganics),
SA~2421J(Organics), 6421(HSL Organics) 8/30/85-9/30/86
94
1. 6.
- 0000002
DATE: 11/04/86 PAGES: 6.
AUTHOR: Nathan Graves/Kennedy, Jenks, Chilton
ADDRESSEE: Tom Anderson/Tacoma Industrial Properties
DESCRIPTION: .Results of Chemical Analysis of Building Debris
09/29/94
U. S. Environmental Protection' Agency, Region 10
Page
. .. _.-.. -..-" -
-------
- . ---..-. ..-
.-. ... . .
(TSWAR) COMM. BAY - S. TACOMA FIELD REMEDIAL A/R INDEX
- 0001>004
DATE: 05/11/87 PAGES: 48
AUTHOR: Barbara J. Trejo, Mackey Smith/Applied Geotechnology, Inc.
ADDRESSEE: Pioneer Builders supply/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Soil Sampling and Chemical Testing, 5401 Burlington Way, Lots
3, Tacoma, Washington
1. 6.
2 and
- 0000003
DATE: 04/21/90 PAGES: 338
AUTHOR: Theresa-Brandabur/Unknown
ADDRESSEE: Christine Psyk/EPA
DESCRIPTION: Record of Transmittal: S. Tacoma
of set of QC data transmitted to
Kennedy, Jenks - data relates to
dismantling yard
1. 6.
Field QC Data sent 4/21/90 - Copy
Brandabur from Nathan Graves of
work done by TPCHD at BNR
SUB-HEAD:
1. 7.
So. .Tacoma Swamp 1990 REMOVAL Administrative Record
1. 7.
- 0000001
DATE: 07/26/90 PAGES:
AUTHOR: EPA/Unknown
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Administrative Record Index for-the
Superfund Site, Tacoma, Washington
6
South Tacoma Field 1990 Removal
SUB-HEAD:
1. 8.
So. Tacoma Swamp 1992 AMSTED REMOVAL Administrative
- 1021703
DATE: 06/16/94 PAGES:
AUTHOR:'Unknown/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Unknown.
DESCRIPTION: Administrative Record Index for the South Tacoma
Removal Superfund Site, Tacoma, Washington
1. 8.
11
Field AMSTED
- 1033040
DATE: 09/29/94 PAGES:
AUTHOR: Unknown/EPA
ADDRESSEE: Unknown/Unknown
DESCRIPTION: Table of Contents and Removal Administrative
Tacoma Field Superfund Site ~STED Property-
1. 8.
17
Record Index for South
Updated as of 9/29/94
09/29/94
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Page
5
. .------. -. . .
I
------- |