United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R05-88/077
September 1988
SEPA
Superfund
Record of Decision
NL/Taracorp/Golden Auto, MN
-------
J0773-1QI
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
1. REPORT NO.
EPA/ROD/R05-88/077
3. Recipient's Accession No.
4'S\yP*E*RlF5K/DtltlRECORD OF DECISION
NL/Taracorp/Golden Auto Parts, MN
. Second Remedial Action - Final
5. Re
7. Author(s)
8. Performing Organization Rept. No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
11. Contract(C) or Grant(G) No.
(0
(G)
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. Type of Report & Period Covered
800/000
14.
15. Supplementary Notes
16. Abstract (Limit: 200 words)
The NL/Taracorp/Golden Auto Parts site is located in St. Louis Park, Hennepin County,
Minnesota. A secondary lead smelting facility operated onsite from 1940 until 1982.
Land use adjacent to the site is light industry. There are residential areas within
0.25 mile of the site to the north, east, and west. Aquifers beneath the site serve as
primary sources of drinking water in the area, supplying 90 percent of all ground water
used in the region. The site was originally owned by NL Industries, Inc., but was later
divided and each portion sold to a succession of owners. One of these owners, Taracorp,
owned and operated the lead smelting facility from August 1979 until February 1981.
Secondary lead smelting operations recovered lead from lead plates, battery fragments,
and lead containers. The industrial operations and onsite waste disposal activities
resulted in elevated lead levels in air and onsite soil. Under a Consent Order, NL
conducted onsite investigations and cleanup activities between 1985 and 1988 including
soil remediation, capping the site with asphalt, and establishing a long-term ground
water monitoring program. As part of the Consent Order, NL was also required to
investigate and, if necessary, clean up soil near the site possibly contaminated by
windblown contaminants. This remedial action addresses the possibility of offsite soil
contamination. Investigations indicate that offsite soil does not contain elevated
(See Attached Sheet)
17. Document Analysis a. Descriptor*
Record of Decision
NL/Taracorp/Golden Auto Parts,
Second Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: none
Key Contaminants: none
b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
MN
c. COSATI Held/Group
IS. Availability Statement
19. Security Class (This Report)
None
20. Secun
» (This Page)
21. No. of Pages
25
22. Price
(See ANSI-Z39.18)
See Instructions on Reverse
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS-35)
Department of Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R05-88/077 ,]
NL/Taracorp/Golden Auto Parts, MN '.
Second Remedial Action - Final /
16. ABSTRACT (continued) '
/
levels of lead attributable to the site. There are no contaminants of concern
attributable to the site affecting the offsite soil.
The selected remedial action for this site is a no action remedy. The one residential
yard that exceeds state and ATSDR guidance levels for soil lead is not clearly
attributable to the site, but will be addressed through a cooperative cleanup by NL
Industries. There is no capital cost or O&M associated with this remedial action.
-------
RECORD' OF DEXUSJON
DBCLARRJEON
Site Name and Location
NL/Taracorp/Golden Auto Parts site
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
of P^-sis and
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for the off-site
soils portion of the NL/Taracorp/Golden Auto Parts (the Site) , in St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, developed in accordance with CERCIA, as amended by SARA, and,
to the extent practicable, the National Contingency Plan. This decision is
based on the administrative record for this Site. The attached index
identifies the items that comprise the administrative record upon which the
selection of the remedial action is based. The Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency's decision is based in accordance with the Minnesota statute 115B.
The State of Minnesota and U.S. EPA. independently concur and adopt the
selected remedy.
Description of the Selected Remedy
Based on the administrative record, U.S. EPA and the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA) each have decided that no further action is necessary
for the off-site soils near the NL, Site.
This action is the final remedial action for the off-site soils portion of the
Site. The on-site soils and ground water portions of the Site have been
addressed by a Consent Order for Remedial Investigation/ Feasibility Study and
remedial activities signed by NL industries , the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (U.S. EPA.) and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
in 1985. The Consent Order covered three areas of the Site:
1. On-site soils investigation, stabilization, and cleanup;
2. Ground water investigation and ^long-term .ground water monitoring ;. and
3. An off-site soils remedial invest igation,, and if necessary, a
feasibility study for remedial action.
The on-site investigation, stabilization, and cleanup- activities
completed with capping of the Site in June, 1988. Based on the ground water
investigation, a 30-year long-tena ground water monitoring program, was
established in November, 1987. This Record of Decision documents the U.S.
EPA's decision and the MPCA-'s decision for the off-site soils portion of the
Site.
-------
-2-
Declaration by IT.S.. EE71
The- selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment, attains
Federal and State requirements that are applicable or relevant and appropriate
for this remedial action, and is cost-effective. This remedy utilizes
permanent solutions and alternative or resource recovery technologies to the
maximum extent practicable for the off-site soils portion of the NL Site.
The statutory preference for treatment is not applicable to this no action
remedy. Neither treatment nor any other type of remedy is necessary for the
off-site soils in order to protect human health and the environment.
Valdas V. Adamkus L/ Date
H Regional Administrator
U.S. EPA, Region V
-------
-3-
Declaration by HPCA •
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment, attains
Federal and State requirements that are applicable or relevant and appropriate
for this remedial action, and is cost-effective. This remedy utilizes
permanent solutions and alternative or resource recovery technologies to the
maximum extent practicable for the off-site soils portion of the NL Site.
The statutory preference for treatment is not applicable to this no action
remedy. Neither treatment nor any other type of remedy is necessary for the
off-site soils in order to protect human health and the environment.
Gerald L. %WiMet
Commissioner
Minnesota Pollution
September 23, 1988
Date
Control Agency
-------
,'i -4-
/
;
RUJCHD OF DECISKJSI SUMMOT
l
I
I. Site Name, Location, and Description
Hie NL/Taracorp/Golden Auto Parts Site was the location of a secondary
lead smelter from 1940 to 1982. As shown in Figure 1, the Site is
located in Hennepin County, Minnesota, in the City of St. Louis Park.
•Die Site consists of contiguous properties, one portion which was
formerly owned by ML Industries and Taracorp, Inc. at 3645 Hampshire
Avenue" South and the other portion which is owned by Morris and Harry
Golden at 7003 West Lake Street. The Goldens now own both of these
properties. Figure 2 presents the location of the properties
constituting the Site.
Originally owned by NL Industries, Inc., the lead smelting facility
was sold to Taracorp in August 1979. Taracorp ceased operation of
the smelter in February 1981. NL sold the Golden area to Republic
Enterprises, Inc. in 1962, who in turn sold this four and one-half
acre parcel to Morris and Harry Golden. As previously mentioned,-
the Goldens now also own the Taracorp area of the site. The Goldens
leased the Golden area to Golden Auto Parts Co., Inc.,.who operated an
automobile wrecking and used automobile parts concern from 1964 to
January 1983. Quality Auto Body, Inc. currently leases the Golden area
from the Goldens. They are engaged in an automobile wrecking and used
automobile parts business on the Golden area.
The land use adjacent to the Site is light industry. Residential areas
are within 1/4 mile of the Site on the north, east, and western sides.
The prominent wind direction is from west-northwest towards east-
southeast. Minnehaha Creek is about one-half mile to the south and the
Mississippi River is approximately six miles northwest of the Site.
The Site is not in a floodplain.
Soils in the area consist of fine sands to course gravel, separated by
glacial till. The depth of the surface drift varies from about 30 to
100 feet and is underlain by five bedrock aquifers. The uppermost
aquifer (the Platteville) is located at about 90 to 100 feet, with the
St. Peter aquifer located just below (about 100 to 200 feet). The St.
Peter formation is underlain by the Prairie du Chien-Jordan group (380
feet), the Ironton-<3alesville aquifer (700 feet) and the Mt. Simon-
Hinkley aquifer (1,000 feet). The Prairie du Chien-Jordan and the Mt.
Simon-Hinkley aquifers are the primary sources of drinking water in the
area, supplying 90% of all ground water used in the region.
II. Site History and Ervforcement Activities
A secondary lead smelter was operated at the site location from 1940
until 1982. The secondary lead smelting operations recovered lead from
lead plates, battery fragments, and lead containers. A blast furnace
was used until 1960, when it was replaced with a reverberatory smelting
furnace.
-------
'
FIGURE 1
FFXi wJ ^1 •<&3^
^uuLfirH v^^*«/5vr:
IT IN IHffi [-^ i^L'f:
I 4^ii |!~'ri pf J^r-p.---1"-.
NL/TARACORP/GOLDEN AUTO PARTS SITE ..
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
LOCATION MAP
SCALE' l"= 24,000'
SOURCE^ USGS 7.5 MINUTE SERIES TOPOGRAPHIC MAP HOPKINS
AND MINNEAPOLIS SOUTH QUADRANGLES.
-------
FIGURE 2
POWER
SUB-
STATION
GOLDEN
AUTO PARTS
RKING \\ FIELD \
LOT \\ ^^^
NL/TARACORP/GOLDEN AUTO- PARTS
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
SITE MAP
NOTE: EASE FIGURE FROM ARNESCN, 1981
APPRQX. SCALE: l" = 150*
GC-2KILN&GERE
£.NG;N£=.=S.INC
-------
-5-
Industrial operations and on-site waste disposal activities conducted
from 1940 until 1982 resulted in elevated lead levels in air and on-
site soils and were suspected of causing elevated lead levels in on-
si/te ground water and off-site soils. The Site was placed on the
National Priorities List of Superfund sites in September 1983. The
MPCA issued a Request For Response Action to ML, Taracorp, and Golden
Auto Parts in January 1984. In 1985, NL voluntarily entered into an
Administrative Order and Response Order by Consent (Consent Order) with
the MPCA and U.S. EPA, in accordance with the Minnesota Environmental
Response and Liability Act (MERLA) and the Federal Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The
Consent Order called for the design and implementation of the following
activities:
1. On-site soils investigation, stabilization, and cleanup;
2. On-site ground water investigation and long-term ground water
monitoring program; and
3. An off-site soil remedial investigation, and if necessary, a
feasibility study to evaluate remedial alternatives.
NL conducted these activities with oversight by MPCA and U.S. EPA.
The on-site investigation and cleanup activities were conducted between
1985 and 1988. Except for ongoing and future long-term operation,
maintenance, and monitoring, NL completed the final onsite remedial
activity, capping the Site with asphalt, in June 1988. NL investigated
the ground water quality beneath the Site for site-related
contaminants. Significant levels of such contaminants were not
detected. In November 1987, MPCA, U.S. EPA and NL agreed to a 30-year
long-term ground water monitoring program to ensure the ground water
quality on-site remains acceptable. NL is required by the Consent
Order to take action if, in the future, site-related contaminants are
detected in the ground water in excess of prescribed levels set forth
in the Consent Order. The on-site activities and long-term ground
water monitoring program are not a subject of this Record of Decision.
As part of the Consent Order, NL was. also required to investigate the
surface soils near the Site, and if necessary, prepare a Response
Action Plan to conduct Response Actions for contaminated surface soils.
The Consent Order prescribed that NL would conduct a phased
investigation. The first phase involved soil sampling in the nearest
prominent down wind residential area defined as Zone I (see Figure 3)
and included sampling along nearby highways and in public property
areas. If soil lead levels were greater than 750 parts per million
(ppm) for any residence on the outer (east) edge of Zone I, NL would be
required to conduct Phase 2 of the soil sampling in Zone II (see Figure
3). In addition, NL would be required to conduct a Feasibility Study
to examine cleanup options if the Zone I and/or Zone II soils were
equal to or greater than 750 ppm and clearly attributable to the
-------
FIGURE 3
OFF-SITE SOILS INVESTIGATION AREA
Zone I Investigation Area - Exhibit B (Section V)
Ub] Zone II Investigation Areas- Exhibit B (Section V)
Tier 1
© Tier 2
© Tier 3
Approximate Site Location
-------
-6-
secondary lead smelter. NL completed the Phase I off-site soils
investigation in 1987.
III. Ccnmmity Relations History
A newspaper notice was published on or before September 1, 1988
notifying potentially affected persons and. the public of U.S. EPA's
preferred alternative for the off-site soils with a brief analysis of
the Proposed Plan for no action. A. reasonable opportunity to conment
and provide information regarding the Proposed Plan was established
from September 1 through September 21, 1988.
A public meeting was held on September 8, 1988 in St. Louis Park in
accordance with Section 117(a)(2) of CERCLA.
A response to each of the significant comments, criticisms, and new-
data submitted in written or oral presentations is presented in the
Responsiveness Summary portion of this ROD. This RCD contains a
statement of the basis and purpose of the selected, action.
IV. Scope and Role of Remedial Action.
The scope of the problem addressed by this remedial action is the off-
site soils portion of the Site. The investigation of off-site soils
was conducted to determine if they represented a potential principal
threat at the Site. However, sampling data indicates that the Site has
not caused elevated soil lead levels in the Zone I area. This ROD
formalizes the U.S. EPA's decision and the MPCA's decision to take no
further action for the off-site soils.
Under the terms of the existing Consent Order, NL is required to
provide long-term maintenance of the on-site cap and conduct long-term
ground water monitoring. These two aspects of the Site are not a part
of this ROD'.
V. Summary of Site Characteristics
A. Off-site Soil Sampling
Ninety soil samples were collected from,' Zone I front and back
yards. The results are presented in Figure 4. Only one sample
exceeded the target level of 750 ppm, and the remainder of the data
do not show the deposition gradient expected if the Site was a
major source of lead in Zone I soils. More importantly, lead
levels in Zone I soils are not clearly attributable to the Site
because soil lead concentrations in Zone I are comparable to those
found outside the influence of the Site as described in Part B
(below). The one yard sample which exceeded the 750 ppn target
level is not located on the outer edge (east edge) of Zone I,
-------
Soil lead levels in concentrations of parts per million
FIGURE i
260
t
220
253
2*96
«?05
196
\
...
CU "V
•^•"^
V
r
179
529
• F
294
91
90
1091
126
159
65
148
212
37? 337
316
282
413"236[
' X
XA
\
266 •'•<
724 '3
«
Tf^'
•i
480*1
' '
%|
136
•
157.
•204
r
t
100
, i 228
181 '
•J •
14q 212
206!l05'l48l225 155
l05
• i • •
169
178
*Yard resampled by KPCA, 430 ppra is correct value
**Values for 3850 Brunswick not shown, F=184 and B=155
-------
-7-
which, in accordance with the Consent Order, is a prerequisite to
conducting a Phase 2 investigation. The following table is a
summary of the NL off-site soil sampling results:
Concentration, mg/kg
Detection (dry weight)
Location Frequency Range Average
Zone I 90/90 <13 - 1016 246
Public properties 7/7 29 - 251 132
Oak Hill Park 8/8 19 - 68 43
(background)
B. MPCA Soil Lead Study
MPCA conducted a statewide soil lead study in 1986 and 1987. The
Minneapolis metropolitan area was a major focus of the soil lead
study. MPCA collected hundreds of soil samples from residential
areas in Minneapolis. The following table summarizes the results
of the State's soil lead sampling in the Minneapolis area:
# OF SAMPLES SAMPLE TYPE MEDIAN MEAN
28 . Garden 264 535
119, Back Yard 223 275
199 Foundation 689 1393
131 Front Yard 185 225
51 Open 35 87
139 Play Area 33 85
170 Street Side 165 235
61 Side Yard 247 350
Based on a review of the NL Zone I soil lead.results and its own
state soil lead study results, MPCA asserts that the Zone I lead
levels are comparable to soil lead levels in areas of Minneapolis
not affected by the NL Site.
VI. Summary of Site Risks
A. U.S. EPA Endangerment Assessment
As part of its off-site Soils Report, NL characterized what it
believes to be the public health and environmental impacts of the
soil lead levels found in the off-site areas (see B.I. below).
Based on the Zone I sampling results, NL recommended to MPCA and
-------
-8-
U.S. EPA. that no additional sampling or cleanup activities is
necessary for the off-site soils.
Before accepting NL's recommendation, U.S..EPA developed its
own risk assessment for the off-site soils in Zone I. U.S. EPA.
conducted its own risk assessment (called an Endangerment
Assessment), because a risk assessment methodology for estimating
public health impacts of contamination was developed after the
NL Consent Order was signed, and therefore, the most recent
methodology was not employed by NL. U.S. EPA conducted the NL Off-
site Soil Endangerment Assessment in accordance with the Superfund
Public Hffii,th Evaluation Manual. October 1986.
The following is a suntnary of the results of U.S. EPA's
Endangerment Assessment:
0 Lead is the chemical of concern
0 The exposure assessment focused on children under six years of
age and pregnant women. Ingestion of soil is likely to be the
significant exposure route. Dermal contact and inhalation of
soil are possible exposure routes. Exposure rates via soil
ingestion, inhalation, and dermal contact were estimated for
children under six and pregnant women for the average Zone I soil
lead level and the worst case (maximum) Zone I soil level. The
Endangerment Assessment explains the assumptions used to estimate
exposure.
0 Toxicity evaluation - Lead is a heavy metal that produces a
number of adverse health affects in humans. The primary health
concern centers around chronic low-level exposure. This is
because lead is strongly retained in humans and lead toxicity is
cumulative. One of the most characteristic effects of chronic
lead exposure is hypochromic, microcytic anemia, stemming from
lead-induced inhibition of hemebiosynthesis and a decrease in
erythrocyte life-span. Another characteristic of chronic lead
exposure is impairment of the nervous system. Many studies have
shown that animals and humans are most sensitive to this effect
during the time of nervous system development. Thus, the fetus,
infants and young children are particularly vulnerable. Symptoms
of nervous system damage range from subtle decreases in
intelligence and neurological tests to frank encephalopathy.
Recent studies show a correlation between blood pressure and the
level of lead in blood, which may increase the risk of stroke or
heart attack. There is only limited evidence that lead causes
cancer in humans and. the non-cancerous effects on the nervous
system and on hematopoiesis.are usually considered to be the most
important and sensitive endpoints of lead toxicity. ConsiderabL
uncertainty exists as to what degree of lead exposure, if any,
can be considered safe. Subtle signs of lead-induced effects
-------
-9-
begin to be apparent at around 10 micrograms lead/deciliter of
blood (ug/dL) or even lower, with effects becoming clearer by 40
mg/dL and reaching clinical significance by 80 to 100 mg/dL. Of
special concern is the claim by several researchers that some of
the effects of lead do not have a threshold value.
0 Risk characterization - The estimated exposure level for children
under six and pregnant women is considered safe for the Zone I
average soil concentration and for pregnant women in the worst
case (maximum level). A public health threat may exist for
children under six for the worst case (maximum) Zone I soil lead
level.
0 Although the worst case (maximum) soil lead value is not in and
of itself clearly attributable to the Site, MPCA has arranged to
address the elevated lead levBi in the one back yard, through a
cooperative cleanup effort outside of the scope of the Consent
Order by NL Industries.
B. Other Risk Information
1. Off-site Soils Report
NL concluded in its Off-site Soils Report that the average Zone
I soil lead level does not present a public health threat if
ingested. NL concluded that the maximum soil lead, level (1,016
ppm) also does not present a public health threat, if ingested.
NL based its opinion on comparing calculated blood level
increases due to ingesting certain amounts of soil containing
certain amounts of lead. The methodology is based on a study
by Stark et. al. (1982). NL also pointed out that ingestion
of, and therefore exposure to, the lead in the Zone I soils is
not likely to occur since the soils are covered by an
established vegetative cover.
2. Minnesota Interim Soil Lead Standard
• The Minnesota Interim Soil Lead standard of 1000 ppm was
exceeded in only one back yard. Based on the data collected,
the elevated lead level in this yard is not clearly
attributable to the Site.
3. ATSCR Soil Lead Guideline
ATSDR reviewed the NL off-site soils data and concluded that
because the levels did not exceed the 500-1000 ppm ATSDR soil
lead guideline (except in one case not clearly attributable to
the site), the Zone I soil lead levels do not present an
imminent public health threat.
-------
-10-
VII. Description of Alternatives and Comparative Analysis
Based on the sarnpling results and the U.S. EPA Endangerment Assessment,
action of any type is not necessary for the off-site soils near the NL
Site, Therefore, alternatives were not developed, evaluated or
compared. Nb action for the off-site soils was the only remedial
alternative examined.
VIII. Selected Remedy
Based on:
1. Sampling results which do not indicate a clear pattern of aerial
deposition of lead from the Site;
2. Extensive MPCA soil lead data indicating Zone I soil lead levels
are comparable to those in areas of Minneapolis not affected by the
Site;
3. Hie fact that only one back yard not clearly attributable to the
Site exceeded the State of Minnesota interim soil lead standard and
the ATSER soil lead guidance; and
4. U.S. EPA's Endangerment Assessment which showed the average Zone I
soil lead level does not present a public health threat,
U.S. EPA and MPCA each have determined that no further action for the
off-site soils is protective of human health and the environment,
attains ARARs, and is cost effective.
DC. Statutory Determinations
A. Protection of Human Health and the Environment: Based on the
results of the U.S. EPA Endangerment Assessment, no action for the
off-site soils is protective of human health and the environment.
B. Attainment of ARARs: Nb action attains the State ARAR of 1000 ppn
for soil lead. In addition, the ATSDR guidance level of 500-1000
ppm (to be considered) is also attained. The one yard which
exceeds these levels is not clearly attributable to the site.
However, MPCA has arranged to address this elevated lead level
through a cooperative cleanup by NL Industries.
C. Cost-effectiveness: The no action remedy is cost effective.
D. Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment
Technologies or Resource Recovery to the Maximum Extent
Practicable: Based on the available information in the
administrative record, the no action remedy was determined to be
the best solution for the Site. The no action remedy represents
-------
-li-
the maximum extent to which permanent solutions can be practicably
utilized for the off-site soils near the Site.
E. Preference for Treatment as Principal Element: Hie statutory
preference for treatment is not applicable to this no action
remedy-. Neither treatment nor any other type of remedy is
necessary for off-site soils in order to protect human health and
the environment.
-------
-12-
RE5PONSIVEHESS SUMMARY
U. S~. EPA and MPCA. did not receive any written public Garments on the NL
Off-site Soils Proposed Plan. The Agencies did, however, respond to
several concerns raised by the home owner with the one yard with soil lead
levels greater than 1000 ppn at the public meeting held on September 8,
1988. Those concerns and responses are sunrnarized below:
Coiirnent: i
The home owner raised several concerns about the effects the elevated soil;
lead level in their yard may have on their or their childrens health, and ;
what would be done about their problem. They were especially concerned '.
because it has been a long time since they learned of the problem, in their
back yard.
Response:
i
1 i
The Agencies responded that' they understood the home owner's concern, and /
therefore, had taken several steps to address the elevated lead levels in
their yard. The hone owner was informed of the elevated lead level in
their back yard when the results were available. They were also advised of
the precautions they should take to limit potential exposure to the lead.
Such precautions included making sure their children did not play in the
area, keeping their house free of dust, and making sure their children
washed their hands before eating. Mark Schmitt from MPCA. confirmed that
parental supervision of children and awareness of the problems with lead
may be the most important and effective ways to prevent lead exposure.
The Agencies and NL Industries also confirmed that the home owner's back
yard would be- addressed by NL Industries. NL agreed to bring in two inches
of clean soil and resod the back yard.
Conment;
The home owner asked why it had taken so long to address their soil lead
problem in particular, and the off-site soils in general, when the Order
had been signed in 1985.
Response:
The Agencies explained that although the Order was signed, in 1985, the
results of the off-site soil sampling were not available until 1987. At
the time the results were available the home owner was informed of the
elevated lead level in their back yard and advised of precautions they
should take.
-------
-13-
The Agencies explained that the U. S. EFA Endangerment Assessment could not
be conducted until after the results were available. The Agencies stated
that although they recognize the process is slow, the time line for the
project was not out of line with other Superfund projects.
Public Meeting Transcript
The transcript of the public meeting is in the Administrative Record for
the site and contains the complete presentation by the Agencies and
subsequent discussions between the Agencies and community members.
-------
•409 l»r,.
6c703/ie
fro
Linguist 4
concerning
p fy
to
Resoonse
3/18/8c l
< N_
I/' i N i;: fw 11 v£ Pi i>M' I ND£'
^ Insustnes
RECIPIENT
R. Sheran-ftttorrey Corre5or>'-i
L'c < "-T , '',
s.vo.vr/
re=D-M'irr tr '<".
Taracorp= j/cu'/Sc1 l
Detail c-f avert i :-.':?
actions noress-ary t:
site
provicsc cv v?ri-:>'.>-
t 83/06/30 Letter from NL to
MPCfl concern ing
sJap
t fii/09/lc SEPCO's -"isK'is TFH
of
15
1 85/C6/15
B/08/23
j g'--.-'jr,OH3:9,-
for
action;
of
Revisions to rjDs'jrf^rp
•structure investigation
of
by EFfl
-.-fii.tM Site ^eSK.r,;e Ll,i]t
Con very -
Sneran, Hesserayf*a
ent:
were, weosewr? »she
ran
Day-UK ft
venrnjii
NL, Taraporo,bolren Cwresponaence
fluto
torresporwence
Con^spondence
-------
PNlJta
CoKcenif on
Oewolition
•??[''?''*? Jf' StHT'j 11 !v!i vt
til Site
V.'ri !ri?!
C- :-M| c -Or i>'-«
Ot'-Sltf
soi is RIwP
tnlv :.r-:-or?r? r=r-C'''r. f't'ift•>-'<;.
=w co^wents or-
lx I f.-i i-'-vy:.
NcQC-t 13'. 1 :N vfi I'M.-'
! S//05/18
(iar£5'V9n* on off -site
soil s
ar-o grjcir.c ceia.
H.ilMliH9vit o* t?5" L
Of :5'..V), Elicit M
Of IjrCEf-HPDr'Ovai
Letter fro" *•;$ to
Letter niicvrririQ ^ac'.'i?
Yarn's Pi arm ing L0''i'iiir5ion
Meeting of &/!:'9
corr.ersation roitv-o-
Wai Iner-ftf'iC
StLouis P". City
Council
Corresponoence
Ccrresponoerce
Correspondence
torresconasnce
(.vrresponoence
-------
• i'i ••
M'(.HEAFft*E W'iEi WHE
6'.'.'10 '.''!
fllLE'
term p'^
monitoring or oar
V'a»°JC'i.l5 CP0>T??rii:
reg-irpp-.c fJl's r
for ? sc-ecjai c
•)!.
linnesota
e 8/MO/07
V 67/11/17
6'//ll/cO
0?VP'iO ?CtIVlTl
Sts on Jonn- »
; 6''31/03 Confirmation of
1 eS/Oi/cS
1 68/09/17
1 66/06/1?
h'P5pori?r to rBO'je?t fo>-
inr'o>'m?t ion re:tfe
osi't witi ele.?teo
feercvei*. = to existinp
OfitD an: tne siqn-offs
approving of tn? anrri?-
irerits
Notice of int?nt to
coriovct trie first I-.VJH
of the lone te>'™ g-'O'.'ii
r inonironnc
PJan
Transmittai of Sfi-Hniv.i?! Paiot'-y, Harr fr.c.i peering
Report
Off-site Soils /'act Sieet Utef'fi
AfSDP Review of n Off-site D.Jordan-Izagyirre. flFSDR
Soils ['ata oiv tfl
Air f'ri»ision *EVJPW cf i. 'jioif-, u5t''H
NL Of''-sit« Soils
Lorresponrs'ire
and
•i?io'.•••., Parr rnpinrering T.Gioia, L!;£CIH Corresponoence
USE^ft ano Mf'Cfl Corresporidence
Comunity neuters Fact Sheet
tiioia,
rile
-------
P?g? NT.
'.il/i.'1/fi'.'1
FJCHE/FfWiE Pfl'iES DrtTE MILE
RECIPIEHf
DOCUMENT TrPE
(")/'»/W
fit her
Cijt'i ;r notice '.«• :s*:<
Petition tjofor? tn?
rS-lM to oeclt"'? '.'=95
of teal estate H/9«nioit
( 1 h i rd Miiiendec1 Cosiol a i r.'. i
fifl(«iriist.r?tiv9 Oroer ar.c
Response Ossr e> '.orient
i.Xi/iX'i/00
NOW? ScJ??r?
£Cfj 5°P(.'5 O'.'Oil" COM'l!Snt
trid?no9rn:ei'it ft5r9rr''i?t'it
00/00/00 Reoort of :
"Children's Exposure to
Swelter ^Srociat?;! L9rC,
M6 OO/W/Ov
'X'/w/OO
eat 5 for period
of 5/'//S5 to 3/i/fl/
Alternate rontn recorts
for (>/ 10/65 to iO/»c/4/
Correct 9f 1 •»•?!? I ?r'C
c of off-=ite 'lOiis
report
1W MlV'X'/'Xi
*0 76/04/00
10
o' wori' fcr
Inorganic Hnal
Marry
"Prevent t ng Lesfl Poisoning
in YotiriQ Cnilflren"
6ceci'ic?tioris for -oil
sairolir.p i- Qi-O'J^r w^tpr
wonitonric Kplls t'or
fararorc site
••-liri'M L-i-wjnjty Pel at )•:"•'=
for Disesse Contf'ol
Iriaystnes
ere
fit. dnalvtir?! LaD-En;eco
Center for I'isease Control-fit! ant a
??!-', Inc. 'or lar?ccrp
Plejoings/Qrflers
PJeaainps/Oraers
Press Rele?se
Reports/Studies
Reports/Studies
?np iiiEPft Reports/Studies
M ano l%^fi Rep-jrts/Studies
Reports/Studies
Reports/Studies
Reports/Studies
Report s/St'jdies
-------
NO. 5
iES OHf£
TITLE
N isiRMiI v'f. Pel u«t'
ni Industries
KE'JIPIENT
DOCUMENT TYPE
1.J Bc/07/i.'c'
fii/07/ 1 4
(.?.
Ib
fic'/Ofr/It
8c'/lO/cb
Kecnn?DeI-Soii
Co.
c'l 6.v<.'tf'£-s
c'J
flo
B4/W/I.I9
S'i/08/00
'?ro subsurface
invest5catr:-n for
M»i pen A'.ito ' 'art • -) t •?
f'nase J wssesswent
Program
Site Insrection
Pnase II Sit? Inverti-
Parts iite ituc;.'
"Stt'Oy of Le?o i-'oi lution
in Granite Lity.facison.
and Venice, il."
field SnmDhna ano Chewical tecnnf.oel-rc-il Exploration Lo.
ttnaiysis-boioen rtuto Parts
Rl/FS btateii'Sitt of Work SifCior-H?st.Rtty.fren.of IL
Draft GW-fiow nrjoel of US I'ept. of Interior
tne frairie du Lnien
Jordan Hquifer
11 85/0£/t6 flgenda it erf control sn?ot WCH-tite Response section
J65
V/ 8j/0'«/00
6S 65/06/00
44 fl5/0b/c'c'
list 65/07/00
30 P''/0//Oc'
1^. 8j/OV/30
Proqr?ni for respofi
jeasures
Pvogram for atove
resp-jnse measures
flrea Evaluation Pe
Response n»a5'jr=r
S'josurf?'.? struct
sanphng
Off-Site -voils Pe
Investigation
Sios'.irface struct
invest i nation
Montnly Reports of
Lane aw Eq»ip-
rat en a is Co of
ner-OH «?terials
Reports/busies
ihrrvig-fi^o Reports/ studies
Reports/Studies
Golden rtyto Parts Reports/Studies
Reports/Studies
b'jlden fluto Parts Recorts/St
tronner-HL
Reprrts/Studies
Reports/Studies
Reports/Studies
Reports/Studies
Reports/ Studies
Reports/Studies
NL Industries Reports/Studies
and USEWi Reports/Studies
NL Industrie? Reports/St . .
ntlfl and UStf'fl Reports/Studies
-------
Pan? NO.
Ol/Oi/fiO
•" i ;s h'f Ct'f-'l1 IM'f'.
Irvjij5tri9r
OOCUflENT TYPE
7i
c' 86/04/17
Cc-rit.-:'l ll
: on
t>6
fcl
86/07/00 : Quality fl=5'.'rar;ce
•: Project Plan
86/07/01 ',W/('i.' for PDOve
response measure
PpjjCT't fvr KW,
67/01/JO
jCtt'Ct Control tj*'.
i
67/OJ/lt ' Prttlerisw ifp-r-rt to
flow
St.Lo
transwittal letter
J60
Ifcfc
C'H ra
[i-,r,ertv-'.'L
c't
67/04/00 .Pnape 1 hemeoiai /rivesti-
gation Report— 'jff-Site
Soil? Remecial Investipa-
tion
87/06/00 Soil Le?d Peoort to tie WtH and WW
rtinnesota State Lepislature
87/06/05 Letter re:V'.".»"?ry •:•(
lead coricen!r?tion= for
off-site soil sa-Tpips
67/11/05 flontnly Pe?-:-rt for
OctoDer,r^7
67/1 c'/OS Montnly reprrt for
Novemcer, I'iQl
68/01/06 Ponthly Rsport for
Decemoer, l1^/
86/03/00 Sewi-fl'in'.ial Recort
Juiy-be:. l^S/
PS/05/Oc' Supbleirerit to Soil Le?o
Keport to the ^jrir:9=:.?a
Snoinesnnp
G:-uld-USEPP
'CO ?no L'rtP
?r,o ^--C
Dohertv-NL
ano US
ano
Ropc-rts/Stodies
Reports/Studies
Pecorts/Studies
Reports/Studies
Report s/Stuoies
Reports/Studies
Reports/Studies
Reports/Studies
Reports/Studies
Reports/Studies
Reports/Studies
WCfl ano Uttf-ft Reports/Studies
NL Industries Reports/Studies
Reports/Studies
-------
OJ/Vl/60
WGtS DrtfE
Tint.
L9gislstur9 (June B'/1
6
t
66/OS/j.)
68/03/01
'I'lO/W'"1
Fin?) Lira ft ML
Assessment
Off-site Propoi
Su'iisiarv of leai
't PfcLWD
NL Industries
AU'H'jR '
Jrcots Engineer ing frrouo
RECIPIENT
DOCUMENT TYPE
Reports/Stuci'es
Reports/Studies
Sampling/Data
arsenic.suJfateJPH
1 8'/Ob/0?
i>'y of t'tiase 1
off-site soils sampling
activity
nW Off-site soil sanclirrg
results
I'ofierty-NL Sampling/Data
Sanpling/Data
-------
ADDITIONS TO NL INDUSTRIES RECORD
Post Public Comment Period
September 23, 1988
Date
Title
9/8/88 Public Meeting
Transcript
8/29/88 Press Release
8/29/83 Newspaper
Notice
9/8/88 Responsiveness
Summary
Author
McCauley &
Associates
MPCA
U.S. EPA
Recipient
U.S. EPA
MPCA
N/A
St. Louis
Sailor
Document Type
Transcript
Press Release
Newspaper
Notice
U.S. EPA
Public
Insert in ROD
------- |