United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R04-88/042
September 1988
Superfund
Record of Decision
Perdido Ground Water, AL
-------
50277-10!
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
I.-REPORT NO.
EPA/ROD/R04-88/042
3. Recipient's Accession No.
4. Titlt and Subtitle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Perdido Groundwater .Contamination, AL
First Remedial Action - Final
5. Report Oat*
09/30/88
t. Authors)
8. Performing Organization Rent. No.
9. Performing Organization Neme and Address
10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
11. Contract(C) or Grant(G) No.
(C)
(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.
IS. Supplementary Notes
18. Abstract (Limit: 200 words)
The Perdido Groundwater contamination site is located in the Town of Perdido,
Baldwin County, Alabama. Site contamination occurred as a result of a 1965 train
derailment on the Louisville and Nashville Railroad (now CSX Transportation, Inc.).
Chemicals (particulary benzene) from derailed tank cars spilled into drainage
ditches, infiltrating the underlying aquifer. The area of ground water
contamination covers approximately 15 acres and is centered downgradient about
300 yards from the derailment site. The Alabama Department of Public Health,
Division of Public Water Supply (ADPWS) first documented reports of taste and odor
problems in resident's water wells in 1981. Further studies showed benzene
contamination in 6 of 27 wells, which led to supplying bottled water to 250 affected
residents. In February 1983 EPA provided immediate removal funding to construct a
water supply line to connect to a nearby town. CSXT voluntarily provided funds for
and installed the water system in July 1983. The primary contaminant of concern
affecting the ground water is benzene.
(See Attached Sheet)
17. Document Analysis .a. Descriptors
Record of Decision
Perdido Groundwater Contamination, AL
First Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: gw
Key Contaminants: benzene
b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
c. COSATI Field/Group
8. Availability Statement
19. Security Class (This Report)
None
20. Security Class (This Page)
None
21. No. of Pages
56
22. Price
(See ANSI-Z39.18)
See Instructions on Reverse
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS-35)
Department of Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R04-88/042
Perdido Groundwater Contamination, AL
First Remedial Action - Final
16. ABSTRACT (continued)
The selected remedial action for this site includes: ground water pump and
treatment using air stripping or activated carbon adsorption with reinjection of
treated water back into the aquifer, and air monitoring during operations; and
ground water monitoring to measure success of the cleanup. The estimated capital
cost for this remedial action is $169,000 with estimated annual O&M cost of $103,000.
-------
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
SITE
Perdido Groundwater Contamination Site
Perdido, Alabama
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
This decision document represents the selected remedial action for this
site developed in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), and to the
extent practicable, the National Contingency Plan (40 CFR Part 300).
STATEMENT OF BASIS
This decision is based on the Administrative Record which encompasses
those documents describing the site-specific conditions and the analysis
of the cost effectiveness of the remedial alternatives for the Perdido
site. The attached index (Appendix A) identifies the items which comprise
the administrative record upon which the selection of the remedial action
is based.
The State of Alabama has been consulted and concurs on the selected
remedy.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
The groundwater at the Perdido site is contaminated with Benzene.
Ccnsultations with the Alabama Department of Environmental Management have
been conducted to determine the cleanup levels and the preferred remedial
alternative.
The selected remedy for the groundwater contamination consists of:
- recovery of the contaminated groundwater by means of a recovery well
field;
- treatment of the recovered contaminated groundwater based on the
cleanup levels established for Benzene and;
- reinjection of the treated groundwater back into the aquifer.
Operation and maintenance activities required to ensure the continued
effectiveness of the remedy include:
- periodic monitoring of the pump and treat system to ensure continued
effectiveness in attaining cleanup standards;
- periodic groundwater monitoring to ensure that long term performance
goals have been achieved.
-------
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment,
•attains Federal and State requirements that are applicable or relevant and
appropriate, and is cost-effective. This remedy satisfies the preference
for treatment that reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume as a principle
element. Finally, it is determined that this remedy utilizes permanent
solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the maximum extent
practicable.
GREEK C. TIDWELL, REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR DATE
-------
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
PERDIDO GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION SITE
PERDIDO, BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA
Prepared By:
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
/ "*
Region IV
Atlanta, Georgia
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction l
1.1 Site Location and Description l
1.2 Site History 1
2.0 Enforcement Analysis. 3
2.1 Enforcement History 3
3.0 Current Site Status 4
3.1 Hydrogeologic Characteristics 4
3.2 Site Contamination 4
3.2.1 Groundwater .5
3.2.2 Surface Water 7
3.2.3 Soil .7
3.2.4 Atmosphere 7
3.3 Summary of Site Risks 7
3.3.1 Exposure Assessment 8
3.3.2 Toxicity Assessment 8
3.3.3 Environmental Assessment 8
4.0 Clean-up Criteria 8
5.0 Alternative Evaluation. . . .' : 8
5.1 Alternatives ' 9
6.0 Recommended Alternative 10
6.1 Description of Recommended Remedy 10
6.2 Operation and Maintenance 10
6.3 Cost of Recommended Alternative 10
6.4 Preliminary Schedule of Activities 10
6.5 Future Action 11
6.6 Consistency With Other Environmental Laws 11
7.0 community Relations 12
Appendix A - Responsiveness Summary
Appendix B - State Concurrence Memo
-------
juj.60 of. figures
Figure 1-1
Figure 1-2 -
Figure 3-1
Figure 3-2
Figure 3-3 -
Figure 3-4
Figure 3-5
Figure 3-6
Figure 3-7
Figure 3-8
Figure 3-9
Figure 3-10 -
Figure 3-11 -
Figure 3-12 -
Table 3-1 -
Table 3-2 -
Table 3-3 -
Table 5-1 -
Site Location
Derailment Location
Topography and Drainage
Stratigraphic Cross Section A-A
Stratigraphic Cross Section B-B
Groundwater Flow
Estimated Plume of Contamination
Domestic Water Well Location and Benzene
Analysis History
Monitoring Well Locations
Domestic Water Wells Sampled by ERT
Well Location Map December 1987
Perdido Groundwater Contamination Area
Phase I Source Characterization
Boring Locations
Phase 2 Source Characterization
Boring Locations.
List of Tables
Domestic Well Water Samples Taken in 1982-1983
Domestic Well Water Analysis 1985-1986
Monitoring Well Water Results March and
April 1986
ARAR Requirement Provisions
-------
Enforcement
Record of Decision
Summary of Remedial Alternative Selection
Perdido Groundwater Contamination Site
Perdido
Baldwin County, Alabama
1.0 Introduction
The Perdido site was proposed for inclusion on the National Priorities
List (NPL) on December 1, 1982 and ranks 655. Placement of the Perdido
site on the NPL became final on September 1, 1983. The Perdido site has
been the subject of a Remedial Investigation (Rl) and Feasibility Study
(FS) performed by the responsible party, CSX Transportation, Inc., under
an Administrative Order by Consent, dated October 11, 1985. The RI
report, which examines air, soil, surface water and groundwater
contamination at the site, was completed on May 1988. The FS, which
develops and examines alternatives for remediation of the site, was issued
in draft form to the public in May 1988.
This Record of Decision has been prepared to summarize the remedial
alternative selection process and to present the selected remedial
alternative.
1.1 Site Location and Description
The Perdido Groundwater Contamination Site is located in the town of
Perdido, Baldwin County, Alabama near the intersection of State Roads 47
and 61 (figure 1-1). The site consists of groundwater contamination
originating from a 1965 train derailment by the Louisville and Nashville
Railroad (now CSX Transportation, Inc.) which occurred approximately 200
yards east of the intersection of State Roads 47 and 61. Chemicals from
the derailed tanks were spilled into the drainage ditches along State Road
61. As a result of the spill, the chemical Benzene penetrated through the
soil and entered the groundwater aquifer used by area residents for their
domestic well water.
The total area investigated during the remedial investigation covers an
area of approximately 125 acres. The area .of groundwater contamination
covers approximately 15 acres and is centered downgradient about 300 yards
from the derailment site.
1.2 Site History
A train derailment occurred on May 17, 1965 in which 21 cars of the 122
cars in the train derailed. The rail cars left the track near the
intersection of county Highway 61 and Railroad Street, along the eastern
portion of a curve in the track (figure 1-2). Approximately 75% of the
Benzene contents of the ruptured car was spilled. On the morning of
May 19, 1965 the derailed cars were accidentally ignited by a cutting
torch. The fire consumed the remaining Benzene.
-1-
-------
ALABAMA
BALDWIN co
ESCAMSU CO.
SITE LOCATION-
FIGURE 1-1
1-A
-------
DERAILMENT LOCATION
FIGURE 1-2
1-B
-
-------
•^---•.,wfc—b-.s-.^^-i.-c^j. it.i^'i-iuj".s4i JL:^JJ.- u;.tc.c '.jr.it! A..aDama .Department of Public
Health, Division of Public Water Supply (ADPWS) first documented reports
of taste and odor problems in Perdido residents' domestic water supply
wells. Two wells were sampled in February 1982 that showed Benzene
contamination. In August and September 1982, the Alabama Department of
Solid and Hazardous Waste (ADSHW) sampled 27 additional wells and found 6
of these contaminated with Benzene. As a result of the Benzene
contaminated wells, the Baldwin County Health Officer recommended that
residents within a one mile radius of the derailment stop drinking or
bathing with their well water. This affected approximately 250 residents
in the area and over 300 students attending the junior high school. The
National Guard provided two water tanks at the post office and the
affected residents carried water home in plastic jugs.
In September 1982, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) tested the urinary
phenol levels of 30 residents whose wells were being tested for Benzene.
None of the residents tested showed an elevated level of urinary phenol,
so none could be shown to have had Benzene exposure at the time of the
testing. Most of the people tested for urinary phenols had stopped
drinking their well water long before the urine sampling.
Following the determination of the contaminated wells, the ADSHW requested
support from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) to
determine the extent of the groundwater contamination. During October
1982, ADSHW and the U.S. EPA conducted groundwater sampling of 49 domestic
water wells. A total of nine wells were determined to be contaminated in
the Perdido area. As a result of the findings of contaminated groundwater
in Perdido, the U.S. EPA proposed on December l, 1982 that the site be
placed on the National Priorities List (NPL) under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA)
otherwise known as Superfund. Placement of the Perdido site on the NPL
became final on September 1, 1983.
In early 1983, state and county officials requested that EPA provide
Perdido with funding assistance under Superfund so that an alternate
supply of drinking water could be provided to the community. Immediate
removal funding was provided by EPA in February 1983 in order to construct
a water line that would extend six miles from the nearby town of Atmore,
Alabama and connect to the approximately 150 Perdido homes within a one
mile radius of the derailment site. At the suggestion of EPA Region IV,
Seaboard System Railroad (now CSXT) voluntarily provided funds for and
installed the Perdido water system. The water line and hookup was
completed July 1983.
As a result of the determination of Benzene contamination in the Perdido
groundwater, several studies were initiated to define the extent of
contamination.
Geophysical surveys were performed by the U.S. EPA's Field Investigation
Team (FIT) contractors in 1982 and 1983. FIT also developed the Remedial
Action Master Plan (RAMP) in September 1983. CSX Transportation, Inc.
contractor, P.E. LA Moreaux (PELA), conducted a field investigation in
late 1983.
-2-
-------
on October n, 1985, CSXT executed an Administrative Order on Consent
(Docket No. 86-02-C) with the EPA to conduct a Remedial Investigation and
Feasibility Study (RI/FS) on the site. The RI was begun in 1986 and
completed in November 1987. In March of 1987 EPA's Groundwater Technology
Unit and the Environmental Response Group conducted a solute transport
model and a soil vapor survey respectively. Based on review of the data
EPA requested additional monitoring wells to be installed further
downgradient. The supplemental report was completed in May 1988. The RI
confirmed the presence of Benzene in the groundwater. The FS was
submitted to EPA in May 1988 and recommends groundwater extraction and
treatment as the preferred remedial alternative for the site.
The objectives of the site investigation were to determine:
* The human health and environmental receptors at risk;
* The routes of exposure;
* The concentrations and area! extent of contaminants, and the
environmental fate and transport;
* Hydrogeological factors; and
* The extent to which the substances have migrated or are expected
to migrate from the area of their original location and whether
future migration may pose a threat to public health, or the
environment.
2.0 Enforcement Analysis
2.1 Enforcement History
/ -
In late 1982 after domestic water wen sampling by EPA and ADSHW showed
the presence of Benzene contamination in 9 wells, Alabama state and county
officials requested that EPA provide Perdido with funding assistance under
Superfund so that an alternate drinking water supply could be provided to
the community. Immediate removal funding was provided by EPA in February
1983 in order to construct a water line that would connect to the nearby
town of Atmore, Alabama. At the suggestion of EPA Region IV, seaboard
System Railroad (now CSXT) voluntarily provided funds for and installed
the Perdido water system. The water line and hookup was completed in July
1983.
On October 11, 1985, CSXT executed an Administrative Order on Consent
(Docket N0.86-02-C) with the EPA to conduct The RI/FS for the site. The
RI was completed in November 1987 and the FS in May 1988.
CSXT has participated in the community relations program by presenting the
results of the RI/FS and the preferred alternative during the public
meeting held in Bay Minette, Alabama on July 14, 1988. An exemption to
Special Notice Letter for Remedial Action was issued to CSXT on July 1,
1988.
-3-
-------
3.1 Hydrogeologic Characteristics
The town of Perdido, Alabama lies within the Southern Pine Hill subsection
of the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province. The Southern Pine Hills
define an elevated, southward-sloping, dissected plain developed on
Miocene age estuarine-deltaic deposits. These deposits have resulted in
relatively subdued topography characterized by low, rounded hills and low
relief. Surface elevations in the Perdido area range from about 190 to
280 feet above mean sea level.
Figure 3-1 shows a topographic map of the Perdido area. The most
important surface water drainage divide occurs immediately east of
Highways 47 and 61 and trends generally north-south. East of this divide,
surface water drainage is predominantly east and intercepts the Perdido
River approximately 1 mile to the east. West of this divide, surface
water drainage has a predominant westward component of movement and
intercepts Bushy Creek which flows into Dyas Creek which is a tributary of
the Perdido River.
Two units characterize the geology underlying the Perdido site. The
undifferentiated Miocene outcrops at lower elevations and provides water
to most of the wells in the area. The Citronelle Formation outcrops at
higher elevations south of Perdido. Both units consist of clay, silt,
sand, and gravel in a wide range of combinations and exhibit complex
interfingering, lenses, and lateral facies changes which make correlation
on a small scale difficult. The cross-sect ions are shown on figures 3-2
and 3-3.
In the Perdido area, the Miocene aquifer acts as an unconfined,
semi-confined, and confined aquifer depending on the presence or absence
of the overlying Citronelle Formation. Water level readings from domestic
and monitoring wells during the PELA and ERT studies w-ere used to
construct groundwater flow maps which indicate a southwesterly direction
of flow (figure 3-4). The average groundwater flow rate is approximately
0.23 ft. per day.
The groundwater from the Miocene aquifer is the only source of portable
water for approximately 12.5 miles southwest to the town of Bay Minette.
3.2 Site Contamination
Benzene in chemical-grade form, spilled as a result of a 1965 train
derailment, is the only contaminant of concern at the Perdido site.
Another chemical which spilled as a result of the derailment,
Hexamethylene Diamine, was never detected in any groundwater sample.
The result of the RI lead to the following conclusions:
* Leaching of contaminants from surface and subsurface soils to the
groundwater is no longer occurring or is insignificant;
* Volatilization of Benzene from contaminated surface soil is no
longer occuring;
-4-
-------
(FEET ABOVE MSL)
MAJOR
DRAINAGE
ROUTES
-------
OW-IO
140 •
too
14*
-
ow-a
PW-1
tCOINO
i«»0 AMP SKIT SAND
»»«0» CIA» AND Cl»ttl 1ANO
ClAI ANO IN.tr Cl«»
O««»fL AND f AMD* OUAVfL
IM
•CAlf (fffII
VEKIICAl flAOOfNAIION: • «
SEE FIGURE 3-7 FOR CROSS SECTION PLAN VIEW
Stratigraphic Cross Section A-A
Figure 3-2
A-B
-------
B
I
9
t«t
ft*
tH
lt«
IM
OW-«
OW-1S
OW-4
B'
100
.
O
I
,=
KOIWO
•«MO »ND SM.TY tANO
•ANOO ClAT AND CtAVCT «AMO
CLAt AWO •«. IT CtAT
OIIAVCL ADO 1AMOT OKAVft
SEE FIGURE 3-7 FOR CROSS SECTION PLAN VIEW
• IX IM
«CAH tltl II
VfBIICAl ClAOCfNAIlOW: •«
Stratlgraphlc Cross Section B-
Figure J-3
-------
I
o
o
§
OP O
c s:
n >
n> n
u>
1000
99C5
SCALE IN FEET
2000
t-1
o
OW-24
192.10
OW-22 I
191.39 \
°OW-20
192.30
LEGEND
POTENItOMETRIC
SURFACE CONIOURS
(FT.. MSLI
FLOW DIRECTION
-------
LU 6uridt-c >....... is not a concern, but future
contaminated groundwater discharge to surface water is a concern;
* Subsurface migration of the contaminated groundwater plume to
domestic water well users is the principal human health concern.
3.2.1 Groundwater Assessment
The Miocene aquifer at the Perdido site is a surficial aquifer in the area
of the train derailment where the spin occurred. This allowed the
Benzene to easily penetrate through the zone of aeration to the water
table thereby contaminating the groundwater. Once within the groundwater
aquifer the Benzene plume migrated downgradient in a southwesterly
direction (figure 3-5). At this location the Miocene aquifer is in a
semi-confined condition due to the presence of overlying younger sediments
of the Citronelle Formation.
In a attempt to define the extent of the Benzene contaminated groundwater
plume, the EPA's FIT performed geophysical surveys in 1982 and 1983. The
results of these geophysical resistivity surveys were inconclusive
probably as a result of the complexly inter layered sand and clay
stratigraphy which did not allow for consistent background readings needed
to distinguish between areas contaminated with Benzene and uncontaminated
areas.
The 1982-1983 PELA study also investigated the Benzene contaminated
groundwater at the site. PELA summarized all the Benzene analyses
performed on domestic well water samples taken in 1982-1983. These
results are present in table 3-1. Nine wells showed contamination from
Benzene. Of the nine wells originally contaminated only four wells
remained contaminated in later tests. The locations and Benzene
concentrations of the nine wells are shown in figure 3-6.
/
PELA installed eight wells during their investigation, TW-1 through TW-5,
LO-1 and LO-2, and PW-1. The location of most of these wells are shown on
figure 3-7. TW-2 and TW-3 are just off the map to the southwest. PW-l
was installed for a pump test to determine aquifer characteristics. The
other wells were installed to determine the lithology and geometry of the
aquifer. Readings from these wells and the domestic wells were used to
map the water level surface. It was then determined that the direction of
groundwater movement was to the southwest. Chemical analyses of the
groundwater from the monitoring wells failed to detect any Benzene
contamination. Chemical analyses of groundwater taken from the pump test
wen, PW-l, showed Benzene concentrations of 111 ppm decreasing to 38.25
ppm after 270 minutes of pumping.
In the 1986 RI performed by ERT for CSXT sixteen additional wens were
instaned, monitoring wens, OW-1 through OW-10 and OW-15, and observation
wens, OW-11 through OW-14 and OW-17. The observation wells were
instaned for another pump test on the PW-l wens. The location of the
wens are on figure 3-7. Well OW-16, which was used as an observation
well, was a previously existing well.
-5-
-------
I
Ptrdldo
Junior High
School
1000
APPROX. SCALE IN FEET
2000
5-A
LETTERS REPRESENT PRIVATE
WELLS SHOWN ON FIGURE 3-6
ESTIMATED PLUME OF CONTAMINATION
Figure 3-5
-
-------
TABLE 3-1
(SUMnary of benxene analyses for mtei collected by P.B. I-aMoreaux and Associates,
State of Alabama, EPA, and UN Railroad. All samples collected by PEIA unless otherwise
Indicated by footnote.)
Page 1 of 6
HRIJ.
NMWIV'OMNRR
1/lmis
Centanne
2/fmiis
Cent nnne
3/Juanita
Daniels
4/Jensie
Wilson
5/Essolene
Morne
6/Velader
Jack ran
7/l«atha
Brown
9/Harqaret
Bryars
10/Pred
Centanne
1 I/Church of
God
DATE OF OOUJXTICW:
1982 1983
Q8/04 00/18 09/13 09/29-30 01/03 01/04 01/Ob 01/06 01/18 01/19 01/20 04/11 04/12 04/13 04/14
ttNZftfc CONCENTRATION (prm) WH7.FJJK OnUCWTRATICN (ppi)
- - - Ml** - ^ N) - - - - - - Ml - -
-Ml*-- - M)--- - M> - - .- -
_-_- -M1----M1----
- - - M)** - M)--- Ml - - - - -
_-_- -ID------M1--
- »••• - Ml - - Ml - -----
Packer
11/Rnlly
Packer
14/Nartha
Dunn
16/ClifforH
I la 11
»•••
M)
»)
-------
TABLE 3-1
Page 2 of 6
mTC (f onj£CTlCN:
1982 1983
WELL
OH/04 08/18 09/13 09/29-30 01/03 01/04 01/OS 01/06 01/18 01/19 01/20 04/11 04/12 04/13 04/14
pfettM obNcnfreAncN Tppn) marxr. (rwcwruATioN (ppnj
17/Clifford
Hal 1
IB/Prter
Schultz ..-- - 65 70-51 - -
19/F. WMkley MB*
(Post Ofc.) 0.1* - MB** - --M1---M1-
20/F. Meek ley ID*
(Methodist Church) - - Ml** - - .- Ml - - - Ml -
21/Effle
HcCoy -HI*-- - - Ml - - - -Ml
22/Roll
Itartcly - - - Ml*** - - M) - - - -Ml
23/11. I.. 0.022*
liryars - - Ml** - --M1--M1--
24/11. I..
Rryars ___- __MI-----
26/nalsy
Henderson - MB* -- --------
27/.lerry 0.209*
Hiqqins 0.347*
- - Ml** - ---Ml- - Ml-
28/David 4.8*
Hosley 5.005* - 5.22** - _ - - 5 - - 5 -
29/Johnnle
German - Ml*** - - - nd- - - fv
in/Ml Ilie
Itaner - - - M)*** - --M1- Ml--
-------
TABLE 3-1
Page 3 of 6
OF ODUJCTION:
HEM,
32/noard of
IVUiTAt ion
33/William
Wiii ten
34/Mrs. Ernest
Mwkley
35/Mason
l>owc
3fi/netty
Minehow
37/l-oona Raner
3R/Mer*>
liunh
39/tUn~y
40/Wrs. Ernest
41 /Clara
Molfe
42/Earl
Johnson
43/Harie
Slay
44/Vickle
Cox
4S/noard of
frlucat ion
1982
1983.
08/04 08/18 09/13 09/29-30
ICNTmni
01/03 01/04 01/05 01/06 01/18 01/19 01/20 04/11 04/12 04/13 04/14
iff OGNcnrnumoN (prn)
to*
- »>•••
_-
»>•••
!•>•
IB-* _
m
in
108/5*
41.020" 60***
in
i.49*
9.947**
5***
0.034***
»
»
-------
TABLE 3-1
Page 4 of 6
WO.I.
1902
19R3
00/04 00/18 09/13 09/29-30
maBft tt*__*MTICN
DATE CF OOUfCTION:
01/03 01/04 01/05 01/06 01/10 01/19 01/20 04/11 04/12 04/13 04/14
RENE mJCOmWTICJN (pp»j
Wliile
47/F/l
Jonnson
48/lkiqo
Itnqcre
49/FHa n.
Thoinwon
50/Connle
Harbarow
51/Vance Turner
(old house)
52/Ruqene
Weaver
51/Internatlonal
Paper
55/Allle
Parker
56/Ororge
White
57/nuford
Ikvlley
nryarc
59/1-pon
ColetniW
»••*
4.570*
4.601*
-------
TABLE 3-1 r
64/Vanre
Ttirner
6VOiarlefi
Ficklinq
6fi/.losorihlne
IVacock
67/nporgia
Alhaiiqh
6B/imsa
Stewart .
69/tertha
Rimnns
70/.loel
Dowrwy
71/Vanre
Turner
72/Fort««Kt
Hnekley
71/G. T.
Mnokley
74/Crrald
*--«Uas '
19R2
1981
08/04 08/18 09/13 09/29-30
mraMk cncmrRATiorr
01/03 01/04 01/05 01/06 01/18 01/19 01/20 04/11 04/12 04/13 04/14
ITOZENi; OONCDfTRATiaT
10
»•••
ID
5-F
-------
TABLE 3-1 (GCNnNUED)
Page 6 of 6
DATE OF OnXFTTIGN:
WF.I4,
75/J. K.
Annnnn
76/nr.idley
77/Krra
TXirner
7n/.lohn T.
Foster
79/t. F.
fciincr
BO/I.I I lian
Oirry
81/P. H.
F.I 1 icon
(store)
1982
1983
OI/Q4 08/11 09/13 09/29-30 01/03 01/04 01/05 01/06 01/18 01/19 01/20 04/11 04/12 04/13 04/14
WJJZRJK GONCENTRATIUN (ppn) :
M>
W)
HD
ND
ND
H)
ND
Ml - Nnne Detected
* Sanpled by MKN
by Ull Railroad
by KPA
5-G
-------
UNDERGROUND
STORAGE TANKS
AREA
DERAILMENT
AREA
Ptrdldo
Junior High
School
•**». Mfttvnt
Codt Ovntr Cone. (PPB)
A r. Wttkly o.l
MO
NO
MO
• r. tchvit* «s
TO
SI
C M.L. Sryar* 0.022
MB
MO
0 J. vtffias 0.209
0.147
MO
MD
MO
t 0. No*l*y 5. 005
4.1
5.22
5.0
5.0
r C. MolJe 198.5
141.020
(0.0
111.0
(.493
e«t«
01/04/02
09/11/02
01/05/13
01/20/03
01/05/01
01/06/03
Of/11/02
01/05/01
01/19/03
09/13/12
Of /I 1/0 2
Of/11/02
01/05/01
Ol/lf/00
00/04/02
00/10/02
09/13/02
01/06/03
01/20/03
09/13/02
09/n/e:
09/30/02
11/19/03
01/16
Mtll ••nttnt
Cod« Oon«f Cone. (»M)
. 0 C. Johnson |.«f
t.9«7
5.0
MO
• M. Slay 0.014
MO
1 lnt»rn«tlon«l 4.001
'•M* 4.570
oioof
Not*: NO »Mono>_Do)ttet»d
DOMESTIC WATER WELL
AND BENZENE ANALYSIS
Figure 3-6
put
09/13/12
09/13/02
09/30/02
01/20/01
09/10/12
01/20/02
00/10/12
09/11/02
09/13/02
01/06
*
LOCATION
HIE^^^'
-------
IW- MIIIS IHMAIIIO •• mi IHOIIr (M-M •
«ti I iCIrlMHi II MAS »M (IISUMO Wf U
iiiconrcmaiioiMiu iHf ml mn fitllM
10 **. IN - writs
MONITOR WKLL LOCATIONS
Figure 3-7
5-1
-------
••uuj.'"jj.i% "LUG KJ.. Tne "location of these
wells are shown in figure 3-8. Results from the domestic well water
samples are given in table 3-2. Of the 13 wells tested only two showed
Benzene contamination, the Clara Wolfe property well had 6493 ppb Benzene
and the International Paper Company well had 9 ppb and 10 ppb from a split
sample. Both of these wells tested positive for Benzene in previous
testing, although at higher levels. The other domestic water wells that
showed Benzene contamination in 1982-1983 were not able to be sampled
because of various obstructions in the wells. The wells have been out of
use since the availability of the public water supply.
From March 1, 1986 through April 15, 1986 ERT sampled 10 of the monitoring
wells that they installed plus the 8 wells that PELA had previously
installed (figure 3-7). Results of the groundwater sample analyses are
given in table 3-3. Of the 18 wells tested, only the PW-1 well had
Benzene contamination with 28.03 ppm. This well sampled positive for
Baizaie in the previous PELA study. Two of the wells, OW-15 and TW-5, are
directly downgradient of the spill site and did not detect Benzene
contamination. This indicates a lack of any continued source
contamination from the soils in the spill area.
The EPA Groundwater Technology Unit constructed a solute transport
groundwater model from the available data and predicted the extent of the
groundwater plume in the Perdido area, This model also predicts that the
Benzene plume will migrate past the Perdido public water supply in 75
years at concentrations dangerous to human health.
Based on this model and the soil vapor survey performed by the EPA's
Environmental Response Team, eight more wells were installed further
downgradient and sampled in December 1987/January 1988 (figure 3-9).
Results from the sample analysis indicated below detection limit for the
33 selected parameters.
In March, 1988 EPA requested, that the Environmental Services Division
(ESD) sample specific wells in the Perdido groundwater contamination area
for volatile organic contaminants (specifically Benzene) to confirm
analytical data obtained from past studies.
Ten groundwater samples were collected. Several of the domestic wells
were requested to be sampled during this investigation. When ESD arrived
on site they found the pumps had been removed from the domestic wells and
many were not capped. Various obstructions in the wells prevented the
entry of pumps and bailers in all but one of the abandoned domestic wells
(Ramer well). One well had been completely removed (PELA 53 International
Paper). The domestic wells that could not be sampled are listed below and
all well locations are depicted on figure 3.10.
PELA f!8 (PETER SCHULTZ)
PELA #27 (JERRY WIGGINS)
PELA #19 (POST OFFICE)
PELA #43 (MARIE SLAY)
PELA #28 (DAVID MOSELY)
PELA #53 (INTNL. PAPER)
PELA #42 (EARL JOHNSON)
-6-
-------
EGEND
A DOMESTIC
WATER WELL
SAMPLED BY ERT
AREA OF TRAIN
DERAILMENT
AOW-14
A'DW-7
DW-9
-------
TABLE 3-2
HFU. wax* ANALYSIS RESULTS SUMMARY
PERDIDO OWLNDHAWTHI ooNramwriCN SITR
(SAMPLES COLLECTED IN DflCEffiBXt 19fr> AM) JANUARY 1986)
1 of
Boring Number 1 DM-1
Of-2
DW-2
IW-4
Sample Number — t
Repotted In '•• '-t
CNH-
001-
01
Detection
Limit
DMW-
002-
1A
Detection
Limit
DMH-
0«2-
1R
Detection
Limit
DMM-
0(14-
01
Detection
Limit
DMH-
OlM-
02
Ippb)
Detection
Limit
IV Acrolein
2V Acrylonitrile
3V Ronzene
4V nis(chloromethyl)ether
5V Rromoform
6V Caitan Tetrachlorlde
7V Chlorohrnzene
flv Ch lororiibromonethane
9V Cttloroethane
10V 2-Chloroethylvinyl Ether
11V Chloroform
12V Dichlorobromamethane
13V Dichlorodifluoromethane
14V 1,1-Dichloroethane
15V 1,2-Dichtoroethane
16V 1,1-Dichloroethylene
17V 1,2-nichlornpropane
IftV 1,2-nichloropropylene
19V EtnyIbenzene
20V Methyl Bromide
21V Mnt.hyl Chloride
22V Mptnylene Chloride
21V 1,1,2.2-Tetrachloroethane
24V Tetrachioroethylene
25V Toluene
26V 1,2-trans-Dichloroethylene
2/V 1.1,1-Trlchloroethane
2RV 1,I,2-TrIchloroethane
29V Tr ichloioethylene
30V Trichlorofluoromrthane
31V Vinyl Chloride
32V Xylrnes
33V IKo-Octane
BDL
BDL
6493
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
96
BDL
BDL
BDI.
HDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
HDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
HDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
100
100
1
5
S
3
1
5
5
S
5
S
5
5
3
5
5
5
1
5
S
S
5
3
1
5
5
5
1
5
1
5
5
HM.
HM.
9
HM.
BDI.
HM,
HDL
HM.
HM.
HM,
9
HDL
BDL
MM,
HM.
HM,
HM.
RHL
HM.
HIL
HM,
HDL
IM,
BDL
HTL
HM,
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
HH,
HM.
BDL
100
100
10
5
5
3
1
S
5
5
5 ^
S
5
5
3 f
5
5
5
1
5
S
S
S
3
1
5 ,
5
1
$
1
5
S
HM,
IIM.
10
Hit.
HM.
IIM.
IIM.
IIM.
ItM.
HM.
IIM.
IIM.
MM.
MM.
HM,
IIM.
IIM.
IIM.
HM,
ITM,
ITM.
BDI.
HM.
ITM,
HM,
IIM.
HM.
HDL
1
MM,
HM.
ITM.
MM.
100
100
1
5
5
3
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
5
5
5
1
5
5
5
S
3
1
5
5
S
1
S
1
5
5
BDL
BDL
IIM.
HM,
MM.
HM,
MM,
MM,
MM.
MM,
HIL
MM.
IIM.
MM.
HDL
ITM.
MM.
HDL
HDL
HDL
BDL
MM.
MM.
MIL
HM,
HDL
MM,
MM,
HM.
MM.
HM.
HM.
MX.
100
10U
1
5
5
3
1
5
5
5
5
S
5
S
3
S
5
5
1
5
S
5
S
3
1
5
5
S
1
5
1
5
S
BDL
BDL
HDL
MM,
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
HDL
BDL
HDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
HDL
HDL
HDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
HDL
HDL
BDL
HDL
BDL
BDL
100
100
1
S
S
3
1
5
5
5
5
5
S
5
3
S
5
5
1
5
5
5
5
3
1
5
5
5
1
5
1
5
5
• RPA Hethod 624 - Referencct
Method for Organic Chemical Analysis of Mm id pal and Industrial Kastewater.
EPA-600/4-02-O57. July 1982.
r*>tes: HDL - nelow Detection Limits
6-B
-------
TABLE 3-2 IContinued)
Page 2 of S
Boring tutor —t CW-5
tw-c
DH-6
DW-7
IV
2V
3V
4V
*>v
6V
7V
BV
9V
10V
IIV
12V
13V
14V
15V
16V
IIV
1BV
19V
20V
21V
22V
23V
24V
2SV
26V
27V
2HV
29V
30V
31V
3?V
31V
Sample Mmfcer — i
Reported In g
Acroleln
Acrylonitrlle
ncnzrnc
nis(rhloromcthyl)ether
nromnform
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroclibromamtthane
Chloroethane
2-Chioroet.hylvinyl Ether
Chloroform
0 i ch lorobromamethane
Dichlorodi f luoromethane
, 1 -Dich lorocthane
,2-Dichloroethane
, 1 -Dichloroethy lene
,2-Dichloropropane
, 2-Dich loropropy Jene
Ethylbenzene
Methyl Bromide
Methyl Chloride
Mrthylene Chloride
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroettiane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1 ,2-trara-Oichloroethylene
1 . 1 . 1 -Tr 1 Chloroethane
1 . 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Tr Ichloroethylene
Tr ichlorof luoromethane
Vinyl Chloride
Xylenes
1 no-Octane
005-
01
»
me
me
me
me
mi.
me
me
me
me
me
me
me
me
me
me
me
me
me
me
me
me
roe
me
me
me
me
me
me
roe
me
me
24
me
Detection
Limit
100
100
1
5
5
3
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
5
5
S
1
5
5
S
5
3
1
5
5
5
1
5
1
5
5
6
7S*F
me
mi.
mi.
roe
mi.
me
roe
me
roe
in.
me
TO,
in.
roe
mi.
roi.
me
me
me
roe
roe
mi.
TO.
mi.
me
TO.
me
me
me
me
me
me
roe
DP ted
_l.i.m
100
100
1
5
5
3
1
5
5
5
5
5
^5
5
3
5
5
5
1
5
S
5
5
3
1
5
5
,5
1
5
1
5
5
«**-
006-
02
(pphj
mi.
n*i.
in.
m.
roi.
me
roe
roi.
in.
in.
mi.
mi.
in.
in.
in.
in.
me
roe
roe
roi.
in.
in.
in.
in.
roi.
in.
roe
in.
in.
mi.
mi.
roe
roe
Detection
Limit
100
100
1
5
5
3
1
S
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
S
5
5
1
5
5
5
5
3
1
5
5
5
1
5
1
5
5
iM*-
7
-------
TABLE 3-2 ICbntinued)
Boring Water
m-e
OM-9
IV
2V
3V
4V
W
6V
7V
8V
9V
10V
IIV
12V
13V
14V
ISV
16V
17V
1HV
19V
20V
21V
22V
23V
24V
2SV
26V
2/V
28V
29V
30V
31V
12V
31V
Sample Mater — t
Reported In 1
Acrolein
Acrylonitrlle
rtenione
niE(chloromethyl)ether
nromoform
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Ch 1 orod i bromnmethane
Chloroethane
2-Chloroothylvinyl Ether
Chloroform
Dich lorohromamethane
Dichlorodif luoromethane
, 1-Dichloroethane
,2-nichloroethane
. 1 -nich loroethy lene
,2-Dichloropropane
,2-Dichloropropylene
Ethylbenzme
Methyl Bromide
Methyl Chloride
Metnylene Chloride
1,1,2.2-Tetrachloroethane
Tet rachloroethylene
Toluene
1 ,2-trans-Dichloroethylene
I , 1 , 1 -Tr ichloroethane
1 , 1 ,2-Tc Ichloroethane
Trichloroethylene ,
Tr ichlorof luoromethane
Vinyl Chloride
Xylenes
1 no-Octane
VUH-
008-
02
I"*)
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
BDL
DDL
BDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BHL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
UN.
BDL
BDL
Detection
_Limit_
100
100
1
S
5
3
1
5
5
S
5
S
5
5
3
5
5
5
1
S
S
5
5
3
1
S
5
5
1
5
1
5
5
DMM-
9
TSE]
Dm.
BDL
BDL
BDL
DDL
DDL
IDI.
IDI.
IIN.
IIN.
IDI.
Dm.
Dm.
Dm.
UN,
DDI.
DHL
IIN.
UN.
BDL
BDL
DDL
DDI.
IDL
DDL
BDL
BDL
DDL
DDL
DDI.
BDL
HN.
DDL
Detection
Limit
100
100
1
5
5
3
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
5
5
5
1
5
5
5
3
1
5
5
5
1
5
1
S
5
DW-9
Lab Mo
8S- Detection
3697-112 Limit
100
100
1
5
5
3
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
5
5
S
1
5
5
5
5
3
1
5
5
5
1
5
I
S
5
DDI.
IDI.
IDI,
Dm.
IIN.
Dm.
IIN.
DIN.
DDL
IIN.
IIN.
IDI.
Dm.
DDL
BIN.
'IDI.
DDI.
IDI.
m.
IIN.
Dm.
Dm.
DIN.
IDI.
DIN.
DIN.
DIN.
BDI.
IDI.
Dm.
DIN.
DIN.
DDI.
DtMO
DHW-
010-
01
Dm.
DDL
Dm.
DDI.
DDI.
IIN.
BDL
Dm.
UN.
IIN.
IIN.
DIN.
IDL
DIN.
DIN.
DDI.
NIL
Dm.
BIN.
DDL
nm.
DDL
DIN.
Dm.
DDL
BDL
IIN.
IDL
DDL
DDL
DDI.
DIN.
HN.
Detection
Limit
100
100
1
S
S
3
1
S
5
5
S
5
5
5
3
S
S
5
1
S
S
5
S
3
1
5
5
S
1
5
1
5
5
Page 3
OW-10
DMt-
010-
02
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
Dm.
DDL
DDL
BDL
BDL
UN.
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
DDL
DDL
DDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
DDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
Of 5
Detection
Limit
100
loo
1
S
5
3
1
5
S
5
5
5
5
5
3
5
5
S
1
5
5
5
S
3
1
5
5
5
1
S
1
5
5
6-D
-------
TABLE 3-2 (Continued)
Page 4 of 5
Boring Mater —t W-ll
Snple Mater
In-
nw-
011-
01A
DW*-
Detectlon Oil-
01B
nt-ii
PHkf-
Detection 011-
_ti"«lt_ 02
- (rob)
m-n
Detection 011-
eimlt 03
CM*-
Detectlon 011-
LlMt 04
Detection
Ll»tt
IV Acroletn
2V Acrylonltrlle
3V Benzene
4V Ris(chloroMethyl)«ther
5V Rromofor*
6V Carbon Tetrachlorlde
7V Chlorobenzene
BV ChlorodlbroManethane
9V Chloroethane
inv 2-Chloroethylvinyl Ether
11V Chloroform
12V DIchlorobroMxethane
liv Dlchlorodlfluoromethane
14V 1,1-Dichloroetnane
15V 1.2-Dlchloroethane
16V 1,1-Dichloroethylene
17V 1,2-Dichloropropane
18V 1,2-Dtchloropropylene
19V Etnylbenzene
20V Methyl Bromide
21V Methyl Chloride
22V Hetnylene Chloride
23V 1.1.2,2-T*tr•chloroethane
24V Ttetrachioroethylene
25V Toluene
26V l,2-tr*w-Oichloroethylene
2/V 1,1,1-Trlchloroethane
2BV 1,1,2-Trichloroethane
29V Trlchloroetnylene
30V TrlchlorofluoroMethane
31V Vinyl Chloride
32V Xylenea
33V iBo-Octane
HDL
roe
roe
roe
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
HDL
BDL
me
roe
roe
BDL
BDL
BDL
roe
roe
roe
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
100
100
1
5
5
3
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
5
S
S
1
5
5
5
5
3
1
5
5
5
1
5
1
S
5
HDL
me
roe
roe
me
mi.
roe
mi.
roe
me
me
me v
nx.
mi.
roe
HDL
roe
roe
HDL
me
nx
me
me
HDL
HDL
HDL
BDL ,
roe
roe
roe
roe
roe
roe
100
100
i
5
5
3
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
5
5
5
1
5
5
5
5
3
1
5
5
S
1
5
1
5
5
roe
me
me
mi.
me
me
me
me
me
rot.
me
mi.
me
me
me
me
mi.
II X.
roe
me
me
mi.
roe
roe
me
roe
me
me
me
me
roe
me
nx.
100
100
i
5
5
3
1
S
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
5
5
5
1
5
5
5
5
3
1
5
S
5
1
S
1
5
5
roe
HDL
me
roe
me
nx.
roe
roe
me
roe
me
me
nx.
me
me
roe
roe
me
roe
HDL
me
roe
roe
roe
roe
nx.
nx
nx
nx
nx
nx
nx
nx
10U
100
1
S
s
3
i
5
s
5
5
5
5
5
3
5
5
5
1
S
S
S
S
3
1
5
5
S
1
5
1
S
5
nx.
roe
roe
roe
nx
nx
roe
roe
roe
nx.
roe
roe
roe
roe
roe
roe
roe
roe
roe
nx
roe
roe
nx
nx
nx
nx
nx
roe
roe
nx
roe
roe
roe
lou
lou
i
5
5
3
1
5
5
5
S
5
5
S
3
5
5
5
1
5
S
5
5
3
1
5
5
5
1
5
1
5
5
6-E
-------
TABLE 3-2 (Continued)
Page 5 of
Boring Nnfcer —t DW-12
n#-!2
DW-13
DJM4
Sample Mater — i
teportwllll 1
IV Acrolein
2V Acrylonitrile
3V Benzene
4V BislchloromethyDether
5V Rromoform
6V Carbon Tetrachlorlde
7v iniorooenzene
BV Chlorodlbromomethane
9V Chioroethane
10V 2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether
llv Chloroform
12V Dichlorobromomethane
13V Dichlorodlfluoromethane
14V ,1-Dichloroethane
15V ,2-Dichloroethane
]6V ,1-Dichloroethylene
17V ,2-Dichloroptopane
18V ,2-Dichloropropylene
19V Etnylbenzene
20V Methyl Bromide
21V Methyl Chloride
22V Methyl ene Chloride
23V 1,1.2,2-Tetrachloroetnane
24V Tetrachloroethylene
25V Toluene
26V 1,2-trana-Dichloroethylene
27V 1,1,1-Trlchloroethane
28V 1,1,2-Trlchloroethane
29V Trichloroethylene
30V Trichlorofluoromethane
31V Vinyl Chloride
32V Xylenea
33V Iso-Octane
DMf-
012-
01
TS^)
nx.
nx.
nx.
HX.
nx.
nx.
Bra
HX.
HX,
HX.
HX.
nx.
nx.
HX.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
HX.
HX.
nx.
nx.
HX.
nx.
HX
HX,
HX.
HX.
HX.
2
HX.
HX.
HX.
nx.
Detection
Limit
100
100
1
S
S
3
S
S
S
5
5
5
5
3
S
5
5
1
S
S
5
S
3
1
S
5
5
1
S
1
5
S
DMf-
012-
02
OT
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
HX.
rex.
IWj
HX.
nx.
nx.
9
HX,
nx.
rex.
nx.
nx.
nx.
rex.
nx.
nx.
nx.
HX.
nx.
HX,
nx
nx
nx
nx
2
nx
nx
HX
HX
Detection
Limit
100
100
1
5
S
3
S
5
5
5
v. 5
5
5
3
5
5
5
1
5
5
5
S
3
1
5
5
5
1
5
1
5
5
DHW-
013-
01
liffT
nx
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx
nx.
tim
11 Hi
nx
nx.
nx.
nx
nx
nx.
nx.
nx
nx
nx
nx
nx
nx
nx
nx
nx.
nx
nx
nx
nx.
rex
nx
nx
nx.
nx
nx.
Detection
Limit
100
100
1
5
5
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
5
5
5
1
5
5
5
5
3
1
5
5
5
1
5
1
5
5
DHW-
014-
01
HX
nx
nx
nx
nx
nx
nx
nx
nx
nx
HX
nx
nx
HX
nx
nx
nx.
nx
nx
nx
nx
HX
nx
nx
HX
nx
HX
HX
HX
nx
nx
nx
nx
Detection
Limit
100
10U
1
S
5
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
5
5
S
1
5
5
5
5
3
1
5
5
5
1
5
1
5
5
Lab No.
86- t
195-7
IB*)
rex.
IIX.
nx.
IIX
rax
IIX
HX.
rex.
rex
nx.
rex.
IIX
rex.
rex.
II X
rex
rex.
rax.
nx
nx.
IIX.
nx.
IIX
rex
nx.
nx
rex.
rex
rex
IIX
rex
rex.
rex
6-F
-------
TABLE 3-3
MONITOR WELL WTO* ANALYSIS RESULTS SUMMARY
PERDIDO aajNDMATER CONTAMINATION SITE
(SAMPLES OOLLnCTfD CURING MARCH AND APRIL 19B6)
Boring Mater —: Of-2
OH-2
CW-3
PA- . PA- PA-
t OMf- Detection ONtf- . Detection OHW- Detection
002-01 Llsit 002-02 Limit 003-01 Unit
-^
OM-4
PA-
CM*- Detection
004-01 Lieut
(pph)
Page 1 of 6
Of-5
PA-
OMf-
(n*»
Detection
Liut
IV
2V
3V
4V
5V
6V
7V
8V
9V
inv
nv
12V
nv
14V
15V
16V
17V
lev
19V
20V
21V
22V
23V
24V
2SV
26V
27V
2RV
.29V
30V
31V
32V
31V
Acroleln
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
BiK(chloromethyl)ether
Rromofon*
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chiorobenzene
DiloroclibromoMethane
Clijoroethane
2-Chloroethylvlnyl Ether
Chlorofom
DichlorobromoMPthane
Dictuorodi f luoronethane
, 1-Oichloroethane,
,2-Dichloroethane
,1-Dichloroethylene
,2-Dichloropropane
,2-Dichloropropylene
Ethylbenzene
Methyl Bromide
Methyl Chloride
Methylene Chloride
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroetnylene
Toluene
1,2-trana-Dlchloroethylene
1,1,1-Trichloroetbane
1,1,2-Tr ichioroethane
Tr ichloroethylene
TrIchlorofluorowethane
Vinyl Chloride
Xylenes
Iso-Octane
BDL
BDL
RDL
BDL
HX,
BDL
HDL
HX.
HX.
nx.
BDL
BDL
HX.
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
100
100
1
5
5
3
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
5
5
5
1
5
5
S
5
3
1
5
5
S
1
5
1
5
5
HDL
HX.
HDL
HX.
nx.
HDL
HX,
nx,
nx.
nx
RDL
nx.
nx.
HDL
nx.
nx,
BDL
HDL
nx
nx.
HX.
HX.
HX,
HDL
RDL
HDL
HX,
HX.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
100
100
1
5
5
3
1
5
5
5
5
5 v
5
5
3
5
S
5
1
5
S
5
5
3
1
S
5 v
S
1
5
1
5
5
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
HDL
HX,
HX.
nx.
nx.
HX,
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
HDL
HX,
HX,
HX,
HX
HX
HX
HX
HX
nx
nx
HX
100
100
1
5
5
3
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
3
5
5
5
1
S
S
5
5
3
1
5
5
5
1
5
1
5
5
mi.
nx.
nx.
nx.
HX.
HX
HX,
nx.
nx.
nx,
HX,
nx.
HX,
HX
nx
HX
nx.
nx
HX
nx
nx
HX,
nx
nx
HX
HX
nx
HX
nx
nx.
HX
nx
nx.
100
100
1
S
5
3
1
5
5
5
S
5
5
5
3
5
S
S
1
5
5
5
S
3
1
S
S
S
1
5
1
S
5
HX
HX.
nx
nx
nx.
HX
HX
nx.
HX.
HX
nx
HX
HX
HX
HX
HX
HX
HX
HX
HX
HX
HDL
HX
HX
HX
HX
HX
HX
HX
HX
HX
HX
HX
100
100
1
5
5
3
1
5
S
5
5
5
5
5
3
5
5
5
1
5
5
5
5
3
1
5
5
5
1
5
1
5
5
6-C
-------
TABLE 3-3 (Continued)
Page 2 of 6
Boring Mater —t
•
IV
2V
3V
4V
5V
6V
7V
av
9V
10V
11V
12V
13V
14V
15V
16V
11V
IflV
19V
20V
21V
22V
23V
24V
25V
26V
27V
28V
29V
30V
31V
32V
33V
Sample Mater — i
Reported In — — i
Acroleln
Acrylonitrile
Penzene
nis (chloromethyl)ether
nromnform
Carbon Tetrachlortde
Chlororwnzpne
ChlorodlbromoMethane
Chloroethane
2-Chioroethylvlnyl Ether
Chloroform
Dlchlorobromomethane
Dichlorodlfluoromethane
1 , 1-Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dlchloroethane
1 , 1-Dlchloroethylene
1 ,2-Oichloropropane
1 ,2-Dichloropropylene
Etnylbenzene
Methyl Bromide
Methyl Chloride
Methylene Chloride
1.1,2.2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1 ,2-tranfl-Otchloroethylene
1.1,1-Trlchloroethute
1 .1 ,2-Trlchloroethane
Trlchloroethylene
Tr Ichlorof luoronethane
Vinyl Chloride
Xylenes
Iso-Octane
OHH-
flflK-
VWI
w
HX.
HX,
HX.
nx.
HX.
HX,
HX.
HX.
nx.
HX,
HX.
HX.
HX.
HX.
nx.
HX.
HX.
HX.
HX.
HX.
HX.
HX.
nx.
HX.
HX.
HX.
HX.
HX.
HX.
HX.
HX.
HX.
HX.
Detection
Unit
100
100
1
5
S
3
1
S
5
5
S
S
S
5
3
5
5
5
1
S
5
5
5
3
1
S
5
5
1
5
1
S
S
OH-6
PA-
OHW-
00602
Qh€
OH-7
Detection
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx,
nx,
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx,
nx.
nx,
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
HX.
nx.
HX.
HX.
nx.
nx.
nx.
100
loo
1
5
5
3
1
5
5
5
S
5
S
3
5
S
5
1
S
5
S
S
3
1
S
5
1
5
1
S
S
PA-
OMt-
006-03
(n^>)
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nu.
nx.
HM,
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
HX.
Detection
Limit
100
100
1
5
5
3
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
5
5
5
1
5
5
5
5
3
1
5
5
S
1
5
1
5
5
PA-
OHW-
007-01
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
HX.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
Detection
Limit
100
100
1
5
S
3
1
5
S
5
S
5
5
5
3
5
S
S
1
S
5
5
S
3
1
S
5
S
1
S
1
S
5
0*-7
PA-
OHM- Detection
007-02 Lliut
100
100
1
5
S
3
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
5
5
5
1
5
5
5
5
3
1
5
5
5
1
5
1
5
5
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx,
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx,
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx,
nx.
nx.
nx.
HX.
HX.
nx.
HX.
nx.
nx.
HX.
6-11
-------
TABLE 3-3 (Continued)
Page 3 of 6
Boring Mater —t Of-8
Snple Mater
Reported In —
m-
CM*- Detection
008-01 Linit
r
1W-1
Pa-
ll**- Detection
001-01 Limit
IV AcrolHn
2V Acrylonltrile
JV Hmzen*
4V nir.(chloroMethyl)ether
5V nromnfor*
6V Carbon Trtrachlorlde
7v Chlorobenzene
8V ChlornttibronoMethane
9V ChJoronthane
10V 2-Chloroethylvinyl Ether
IIV Chloroform
12V Dichlorobrojonethane
IIV nichlorodifluoroMethane
14V l.l-Dichloroethwe
15V I,2-Dichloroethane
16V 1,1-Dichloroethylene
I/V 1,2-Dichloropropane
IBV 1,2-Oichloropropylene
19V tthylbenzene
20V tt>thyl DtcMlde
21V Methyl Chloride
22V Hethylene Chloride
21V 1,1,2,2-lfetrachloroetnane
24V Tetrachloroethylene
2SV Tnluene
26V 1,2-trans-Dichloroethylene
27V 1.1,1-Trlchloroethane
2RV 1,1,2-Trichloroethane
29V Trichloroethylene
30V TrichlorofluorcMethane
31V Vinyl Chloride
32V xylenes
33V Iso-Octane
HX
nx
HX
HX
HX
nx.
nx
nx.
HX
nx
nx
HX
HX
HX
HX
HX
HX
HX
nx ,
nx
HX
nx
HX
nx
HX
HX
HX
nx
nx
nx
nx
nx
HX
100
100
1
S
5
3
1
5
5
S
5
S
5
S
3
S
S
S
1
S
5
5
5
3
1
S
5
S
1
S
1
S
5
nx
nx
nx.
nx
nx
nx
nx
nx.
nx.
nx
nx
nx
nx
nx
8
nx
nx.
nx
nx
HX
nx
nx
nx
nx
nx
nx
nx
nx
nx
nx
nx
nx
nx
100
100
i
5
5
3
1
5
5
5
S
5
5
S
3
5
S
5
1
S
5
5
5
3
1
S
5
51
1
5
. 1
5
5
nx.
IM.
nx
nx
IM.
nx
nx.
IM.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx
IM.
nx.
nx
nx
nx.
UN.
nx
nx.
nx
nx
nx
nx.
nx
nx.
nx.
IM.
nx
nx
IM.
IM.
nx
mo
ion
i
5
5
3
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
5
S
5
1
5
S
5
5
3
1
5
5
5
1
5
1
5
5
nx
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx
IM.
nx.
IM,
nx
nx
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
IM.
nx.
nx
nx
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx
nx
nx
nx
nx.
nx
nx.
nx.
IM.
nx.
nx
100
100
i
5
5
3
1
5
5
S
5
5
S
S
3
S
S
S
1
5
S
S
S
3
1
S
5
5
1
S
1
5
5
nx
nx
nx
nx.
nx.
nx
nx.
nx
nx.
nx
nx.
nx.
nx
HX
nx
nx
nx
nx
nx
nx
nx
nx.
nx.
nx
nx
nx
nx
nx
nx
nx
nx
nx
nx
100
100
l
5
5
3
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
5
5
5
1
5
5
5
S
3
1
5
5
5
1
5
1
5
5
6-1
-------
TABLE 3-3 (Continued)
Page 4 of 6
Boring Number —i TW-1
Sample Number
Reported In —
-i TW»- Detection
001-02 Limit
-t
•nt-2
PA-
1W- Detection
002-01 Limit
1W-2
PA-
1W- Detection
002-02 Limit
1W-3
PA-
TOW- Detection
OUJ-01 Limit
IV Acrolein
2V Acrylonitrlle
3V Benzene
4V nis(chloramettiyl)ether
5V nromoform
6V Carbon Tetrachloride
7v Chloronenzene
8V Chioroflibromomethane
9V Chiorocthane
10V 2-Oiloroethylvinyl Ether
11V Chloroform
12V Dichlorobromomethane
13V Dichlorodlfluoromethane
14V 1,1-Dichloroethane
15V 1,2-Dichloroethane
16V 1.1-Olchloroethylene
17V 1,2-Oichloropropane
1BV 1,2-nictiloropropylene
19V Etnylbenzene
20V Methyl Bromide
21V Methyl Chloride
22V Hethylene Chloride
23V 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
24V Tetrachloroethylene
25V Toluene
26V 1.2-t rana-Olchloroethylene
27V 1.1,1-Trichloroethane
2BV 1,1,2-TrIchloroethane
29V Trlchloroethylene
30V Trichlorofluoromethane
31V Vinyl Chloride
32V Xylenea
33V Iso-Octane
GDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
GDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
HX
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
100
100
1
S
S
3
1
5
5
5
5
5
S
S
3
5
5
5
1
5
S
5
S
3
1
5
S
5
1
S
1
5
5
BDL
BDL
nx.
nx.
nx
nx.
nx
nx
nx.
nx
BDL
nx
nx.
nx.
nx
nx
nx
BDL
BDL
BDL
nx
BDL
BDL
BDL
25
BDL
nx.
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BX
BDL
100
100
1
5
5
3
1
5
5
5
5
^. 5
5
5
3
5
5
S
1
5
5
5
S
3
1
5
5
' 5
1
S
1
5
5
BDL
nx
nx.
nx
nx.
nx
mi.
6
nx
nx.
15
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx
nx
nx.
nx
nx.
nx.
nx
nx
nx
nx
nx
nx
nx
nx
nx
nx
nx
nx.
100
100
i
5
5
3
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
5
5
5
1
5
5
5
5
3
1
5
5
5
1
5
1
5
5
Bra.
nx
nx
nx
nx
nx
nx.
nx
nx.
nx
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx
nx
nx
nx
nx
nx.
nx
nx
nx
nx
nx
2
BDL
BDL
nx
nx
nx
BDL
nx
nx
100
100
i
s
5
3
1
S
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
5
5
5
1
5
S
S
S
3
1
5
5
S
1
5
1
5
5
6-J
-------
TABLE 3-3 (Continued)
Boring Water —t 1W-4
Sample Number —
Reported In ——
1W-5
LO-1
LO-2
IV Acroletn
2V Acrylonttrlle
3V Benzene
4V BiB(chloro*etnyl)ether
5V Bromofom
6V Carbon Tetrachloride
7V Chlorobenzene
6V ChlorodibroKMethane
9V Chloroethane
10V 2-Ct>Joroethyl vinyl ether
11V Chiorofom
12V DlchlorobromoMthane
13V Dichlorodlfluoromethane
14V 1,1 -Dichloroethane
1SV 1.2-Oichloroethane
16V 1,1-oichloroethylene
17V 1,2-DJchloroprcpane
18V 1,2-Dichloropropylene
19V Ethylbenzene
20V Hethyl Bromide
21V Hethyl Chloride
22V Hethylene Chloride
23V 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
24V Tetrachloroethylene
25V Itoluene
26V 1,2-t rara-Oichloroethylene
27V 1.1.1-Trlchloroetham
28V 1.1,2-Tr ichloroethane
29V Trichioroethylene
30V Tr Ichlorof luoromethane
31V Vinyl Chloride
32V Xylenes
33V leo-Octane
Detection
004-01 Limit
100
100
1
5
5
3
1
5
5
5
5
5
S
S
3
S
S
5
I
5
5
5
5
3
1
5
S
5
1
S
1
S
5
BDL
DDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDt
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
12
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
1*-
TVM-
005-01
TR*)
am.
BUL
BOL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDI.
Detection
Limit
100
100
1
5
5
3
1
5
5
S
5
S
v 5
5
3
S
5
5
1
S
5
5
5
3
1
5
5
, 5
1
5
1
5
S
m-
Ltt*-
001-01
In*)
BDI.
BDL
BDI.
BDI.
BDL
BDI.
BDI.
BDI.
BDL
BDI.
BDI.
nx.
nx,
BDI.
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDI.
nx.
BDL
BDI,
nx.
BDL
BDL
HX,
BDL
nx.
BDL
BDL
BDI.
nx.
HX.
BDL
Detection
Limit
100
10U
1
5
5
3
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
5
5
5
1
5
5
5
S
3
1
5
5
5
1
5
1
5
5
Fft-
!«*-
002-01
-------
TABLE 3-3(Contlnued)
Page 6 of 6
Baring Water —t
Sample Mater —i
Reported In 1
IV AcrolMn
2V Arrylonitrlle
3V Penzpne
4V nin(ctiloroncthyl)ether
SV nromoform
6V Carbon Tetrftchlorlde
7V Chlornbenzene
RV ChlororlihravoMthane
9V Chloroethane
10V 2-Chloroethylvlnyl Ether
11V Chloroform
I?V DichlorohromQMethane
11V Olchloro.ilflooromethane
14V 1,1-Oichloroethane
15V 1,2-DichlorOethane
16V 1,1-Dlchloroethylene
17V 1.2-Dlchloropropane
inv 1.2-Dlchloropropylene
19V Ethylbenzene
20V Methyl Bromide
21V Methyl Chloride
22V Methylene Chloride
23V 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
24V Tetrachloroethylene
2SV Toluene
26V 1.2-trana-Oichloraetnylene
2JV 1,1,1-Trlchloroethane
28V 1,1,2-Trlchloroethane
29V Trlchloroethylene
30V Trlchlorofluoromethane
31V Vinyl Chloride
37V Xylenefl
3JV Ino-Octane
W-l
HV-
FWf- Detection
001-01 Limit
m-i
nx.
nx.
2B030
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
mi.
mi.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
mt
TO.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
nx.
BDL
BDL
BDL
HX,
BDL
nx.
BDL
nx.
nx.
100
100
1
5
5
3
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
5
5
5
1
5
S
5
5
3
1
S
S
5
1
5
1
S
5
Detection
001-02 Limit
100
100
1
5
S
3
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
5
5
S
1
5
5
5
5
3
1
5
5
S
1
5
1
5
5
in.
mi,
in.
nra.
mi.
UN.
nu.
HH,
m.
mi.
n».
mi.
mi.
mi.
nu.
nm.
mi.
mi.
mi.
mi.
mi.
nu,
mt
3
mi.
m.
nu.
mi.
mi.
rax.
mi.
IDL
6-L
-------
PERDIDO
OW-19 ^
Jli"'-M
WELL LOCATION MAP
DECEMBER 1987
FIGURE 3-9
"> .i J X '"
6-M
-------
Wells shown encircled
were found contaminated
with bonzene
/ (Pott
PEl>|53
(Intnl. Popet)
» writs SAUPIED
ffi wins 1101
A SIJKFACi WAU'R S
PELA|42
(Karl Jolmsun) ®
400
rw-i
OW-74
I
ow- •/•>
...JL.
FIGURE 3-10
PF.KDIDO GROUNOWATER CONTAMINATION ARFA
I^ERDIDO, tDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA
KtCUIII IV
IIIAI. SIHVICfS 111 VIS
WAS IE SEL1KJN
-------
:.o~ JDe contaminated
with Benzene, OW-17(24000 ug/1), OW-1K7900 ug/1) and PW-K450 J ug/i).
These wells are located in the area of the suspected Benzene plume. There
were no other contaminants attributable to the 1965 train derailment
detected in any of the other wells sampled.
3.2.2 Surface Water Assessment
Currently the surface water bodies in the Perdido area are not affected by
the Benzene contaminated groundwater plume. A surface water discharge
area 1.5 to 2.2 miles to the southwest would eventually be affected if the
plume is allowed to migrate undisturbed.
3.2.3 Soil Assessment
The area of the train derailment and the drainage ditches along Highway 61
were investigated for soil contamination from the Benzene spill. In late
1982 and 1983 PELA conducted a contamination investigation for CSXT. The
source characterization phase of the study was performed to identify the
area and vertical extent of Benzene contaminated soil. Of 20 soil test
holes analyzed, 12 had measurable amounts of Benzene and 4 had trace
amounts detected. The highest concentration found in the test holes was
20 ppm.
The 1986 RI conducted by ERT, also performed a source characterization
study to identify the extent of Benzene contamination. A total of 45
shallow soil borings were taken by hand auger to a depth 'of 5 feet or
refusal (figure 3-11). Only one boring (DB42) showed Benzene
contamination with 1.2 ppm. This boring also contained 4.2 ppm
1,2-Dichloroethane which is not related to the spill. The source of the
Benzene from this one isolated sample, that also contained an unrelated
contaminant, cannot be definitely attributed to the train spill.
/
In addition to the 45 shallow soil borings, 19 deep soil borings were
taken to investigate for Benzene contaminated soils down to the water
table (figure 3-12). These borings ranged in depth from 17 to 122 feet.
Analyses for volatile organic compounds (VOC) from these deep borings
failed to detect the presence of Benzene or other VOCs. As a result of
the source characterization studies for Benzene contaminated soils, it has
been concluded that Benzene is no longer present in the soils or is at
very low concentration and is not considered to be a significant source
contributor.
3.2.4 Atmosphere Assessment
Benzene remaining from the 1965 spill has entered the groundwater and/or
tightly bounded to the soil at low concentrations. Benzene does not
currently impact ambient air quality at the Perdido site.
3.3 Summary of Site Risks
The chemical of concern identified for this site is benzene. The risks to
human health and the environment from exposure to benzene at this site is
summarized below.
-7-
-------
PHASE I SOURCE CIIARACTERIXAT1
BORING LOCATIONS
Figure 3-1 I
7-A
-------
l II \V-V, I
'' **
NOTI: 58 I. SB U »MI) Sn IS NO! Dfllllf O (X'f
IO LACK OF PROPt HI < OWNER P€«k«iMOri
PHRASE 2
SOURCE CHARACTERIZATION
BORING LOCATIONS
Figure 3-1-2
7-B
-------
An assessment of current and potential routes of exposure at the Perdido
site has identified several exposure pathways. The potential exposure
pathways for humans is ingestion of contaminated groundwater. Additional
pathways that were investigated were ingestion and dermal contact with
surface waters for humans, and ingestion of surface water by cattle.
These additional pathways were deleted from further consideration due to
the facts that the benzene spill occurred over 20 years ago, that benzene
is a highly volatile substance and will volatilize quickly, and that
benzene has only been detected in the groundwater.
CERCLA directs the Agency to consider current and potential exposure
scenarios in determining the risks from exposure to the sites. In
addition, a goal of the Superfund program is to restore groundwater to its
beneficial use whenever possible. Given the statutory and programmatic
goals, the Agency is considering the risks from potential future use of
the groundwater.
3.3.2 Toxicity Assessment
Benzene is a known human carcinogen. The EPA Cancer Assessment Group has
estimated that the excess lifetime cancer risk from exposure to benzene at
6.6 ppb is 10(-5). The Superfund protective risk range is 1CK-4) to
10(-7), with a point of departure of 10(-6). The protective Maximum
Contaminant Level (MCL) for benzene is set at 5 ppb.
3.3.3 Environmental Assessment
The United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
has identified a threatened species, the eastern indigo snake, in Baldwin
County. The contaminated groundwater at this site will not pose a threat
the survival of this species.
4.0 Cleanup Criteria
The cleanup goal for benzene in groundwater has been established at 5 ppb,
the MCL for this substance. Based on the risk assessment conducted for
this site (described in section 3.3 above), this cleanup level has been
determined to be protective of human health and the environment at this
site.
5.0 Alternative Evaluation
The purpose of the remedial action at the Perdido site is to mitigate and
minimize contamination in the groundwater, and to reduce potential risks
to human health and the environment. The following cleanup objectives
were determined based on regulatory requirements and level of
contamination found at the site:
* To protect the human health and the environment from exposure to
contaminated groundwater through direct contact and;
* To restore contaminated groundwater to levels protective of human
health and the environment.
-8-
-------
line contaminated groundwater at the
Perdido site based on applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
(ARARs) of federal and state statutes or other guidelines (table 5-1).
An initial screening of possible technologies was performed to identify
those which best meet the criteria of Section 300.68 of the National
Contingency Plan (NCP).
Each of the remaining alternatives for groundwater were evaluated based
upon cost, technical feasibility, institutional requirements and degree of
protection of public health and the environment.
5.1 Alternatives
Alternative 1: No Action
This alternative would allow for natural attenuation and biodegradation of
the Benzene contamination plume. Long term groundwater monitoring would
be provided for twenty years to monitor unsafe levels of Benzene
approaching domestic water wells. Cost for utilizing monitoring wells was
estimated at $4,000 per year. The natural attenuation of the Benzene
plume is not protective of public health and the environment based on the
following:
* the Benzene plume will reach the public water supply in 75 years;
* domestic well water within the one mile radius is being used for
agricultural and recreational purposes;
* discharge into a surface water body would exceed the ambient
water quality criteria.
Alternative 2: Groundwater/extraction on-site treatment
This alternative involves the installation of approximately three
groundwater extraction wells screened in the Benzene contamination plume.
The contaminated water would be pumped to the surface and piped to a
treatment facility utilizing either air stripping in packed tower(s) or
liquid phase extraction using granular activated carbon adsorption. If air
stripping technology is utilized, benzene air emissions (anticipated to be
insignificant), would be eliminated by carbon absorption. Regardless of
which treatment technology is utilized, treated groundwater would be
reinjected back into the aquifer. Groundwater would be treated until
cleanup levels were attained. Groundwater monitoring would occur for an
additional five years to insure cleanup levels were maintained.
Alternative 3: Groundwater withdrawal off-site treatment
This alternative would be performed by using submerged pumps in withdrawal
wells to move contaminated groundwater to surface storage. The
contaminated water would then be transported to an approved off-site
treatment system.
-9-
-------
TABLE 5-1
ARAR REQUIREMENT PROVISIONS
RCRA PART 264
^^^^•^••••^^•^•^^^^^•^^^^^B^^MOT ,
o Subpart T - Groundwater Protection
Requires that levels of hazardous constituents in the upper
aquifer at site boundary meet limits set by EPA as:
1) Background,
2) Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL), or
. 3) An Alternate Concentration Limit (ACL) posing no
present or future hazard to human health or the
*
environment.
Note: This feasibility study is based on achieving EPA MCL
criteria for benzene in groundwater (5.0 ppb).
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS; 29 CFR 1910
/
Applicable for worker safety during construction and
operation of Alternatives 1 and 2.
9-A
-------
is. u Kecommendec. Alternative
6.1 Description of Recommended Remedy
The reconunended alternative for remediation of groundwater at the Perdido
site is groundwater extraction with onsite treatment (Alternative 2).
Approximately three groundwater extraction wells screened in the
contamination plume will be installed. The contaminated water will be
pumped to the surface and piped to a treatment facility utilizing either
air stripping in packed tower(s) or liquid phase using granular activated
carbon adsorption. This process is reported to be the best available
technology (BAT) for Benzene removal from water under Section 1412 of the
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
Air stripping is a mass transfer separation technique for removal of
volatile organic compounds from water. In using the packed tower concept,
water enters at the top of the tower and flows downward through the
packing, while the airstream flow upward picks up the volatile compounds
and exits .at the top of the tower, passing through granular activated
carbon before release to the atmosphere. The water is collected at the
bottom, tested for compliance with the MCL and pumped back into the
aquifer.
It is estimated that cleanup of the aquifer will take 5 to 7 years, with
three wells pumping at a combined rate of 10 gallons/minute.
6.2 Operation and Maintenance
Groundwater monitoring would occur for an additional five years to ensure
cleanup levels were maintained.
Air monitoring during treatment would be necessary to ensure that no
threat to the human health or the environment is created by air emissions.
6.3 Cost of Recommended Alternative
The estimated capitol costs are $169,000. Yearly operations and
maintenance costs are $99,000 and yearly groundwater monitoring costs are
$4,000.
6.4 Preliminary Schedule of Activities
Issue Record of Decision to Public Repository 9/88
Completion of Enforcement Negotiations 10/88
Start Remedial Design 11/88
Complete Remedial Design 3/89
Start Remedial Action 4/89
Construction Phase 4/89-9/89
-10-
-------
6.5 L- L'TUkL ACTION
Additional groundwater and aquifer studies will be performed during the
engineering design to define the contamination plume and aquifer
characteristics for the purpose of groundwater recovery, treatment, and
disposal.
6.6 CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
In selecting remedial alternatives, primary consideration must be granted
under the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 to remedies
that achieve applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs)
for protection of public health and the environment. For the Perdido
site, such Federal laws include:
- National Environmental Protection Act
- Toxic Substances and Control Act
- Department of Transportation Hazardous Material Transportation Act
- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
- Clean Air Act
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Clean Water Act
The requirements of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) have
been met by conducting the functionally equivalent remedial investigation
and feasibility study. Additionally, the results of these studies have
been presented to the public at a public meeting, and the public was given
the opportunity to comment on the results of the studies and the proposed
plan for remedial action.
The Toxic Substances and Control Act (TSCA) requirements do not apply to
any of the remedial alternatives under consideration for the Perdido
site. The contaminant found at the Perdido site is not regulated under
TSCA, and therefore, there are no ARARs to be considered under this
regulation.
For Alternative 2 that includes transportation of spent activated carbon,
the Department of Transportation (DOT) Hazardous Material Transportation
Act requires that the proper labeling and safety requirements be followed.
Spent activated carbon will also have to be disposed according to the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations.
Since there will be no air emissions, the Clean Air Act (CAA) does not
apply to the site.
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs) established under the
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) set the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for
Benzene at 5 ppb.
Ambient Water Quality Criteria under the Clean Water Act (CWA) for Benzene
is 5.3 ppm. This would apply if a no action alternative was implemented
and contaminated groundwater discharged to surface waters.
-11-
-------
is planned for
the remediation of the groundwater at the Perdido site.
7.0 COMMUNITY RELATIONS
Citizens concerns were originally high early in the project until the
public water supply system was installed in July, 1983. Since then, there
has been little citizen interest with the site.
A community relations plan was prepared by EPA in 1985. This plan
includes a community relations history, a summary of issues and concerns,
community relations objectives,community relations techniques, and a
listing of interested parties.
An information repository was established in 1985 in the town of Bay
Minette, Alabama, the county seat of Baldwin County. All required site
information and documents were deposited in the repository.
In November 1985 a public meeting was held to discuss the implementation
of the RI/FS.
In June 1988, a fact sheet concerning the Perdido site was prepared and
distributed to interested citizens, area residents, local press, public
officials and the PRP. The fact sheet summarized the site history,
current site status, and future plans of the site, as well as announced a
public meeting to present the results of the FS. EPA, state, and county
contacts were identified. The fact sheet was mailed two weeks prior to
the meeting. Also at this time, public notices and press releases were
issued to the appropriate media as announcements for the meeting.
The public meeting to discuss the results of the RI/FS and the preferred
alternative was held at the Bay Minette City Hall on July 14, 1988.
Approximately 30 people attended the meeting mostly interested citizens,
but also a representative of the media and an insurance company
representative. Only one question was raised and that, by the insurance
company representative. The public meeting marked the beginning of a
formal 3 week public comment period (7/14/88-8/4/88), during which time
the public was encouraged to submit written comments to EPA concerning the
RI/FS and the preferred alternative.
-12-
-------
Responsiveness Summary
Perdido Ground Water Contamination Site
Perdido, Baldwin County, Alabama
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION • PAGE
INTRODUCTION
1.0 BACKGROUND 1
A. SITE STATUS 1
B. COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES 2
2.0 SUMMARY OF PRESENTATIONS 3
3.0 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS 4
-------
Responsiveness Summary
Perdido Ground Water Contamination Site
July 14, 1988"
Introduction
In accordance with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) Community Relations policy and guidance, the EPA
Region IV office held a public meeting July 18, followed by a
21-day public comment period. The purpose of the meeting was to
obtain comments on the Feasibility Study (FS} for the Perdido
Ground Water Contamination Superfund site and on the preferred
alternative for the remediation of the contamination problem at
the site. The meeting took place from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. at
the Bay Minette City Hall in Baldwin County, Alabama.
Approximately 30 people attended. A public notice announcing
the meeting and the public comment period was published in The
Baldwin Times July 10, 1988. The report of the FS will be
placed in the site information repository located in Bay Minette
Public Library, for public review.
1.0 BACKGROUND
A. Site Status
The Perdido Ground Water Contamination site is located in
the Town of Perdido, Baldwin County, Alabama. The site consists
of approximately two square miles surrounding the location where
a 1965 train derailment occurred that spilled chemicals into
drainage ditches along State Road 61. As a result of the spill,
pure chemical Benzene penetrated the soil and ground water used
by arsa residents for their water supply.
i
In the early 1980s, the State initiated a sampling program
in response to local complaints about petroleum odor in the
water. The Alabama Department of Solid Waste and Hazardous
Waste enlisted EPA's assistance, following a preliminary
assessment and site inspection. Based on the findings of the
preliminary assessment and site inspection, The EPA
-------
recommended the site for inclusion on the National
Priorities List (NPL), the list of hazardous waste sites
eligible for cleanup.under the Superfund Program. The
site was added in 1983.
In October 1985, CSX Transportation Company
(previously the Louisville and Nashville Railroad, which
operated the train that derailed) signed an Administrative
Order on Consent with the EPA to conduct a remedial
investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) at the site. An
RI/FS is a two-phase study wherein a site is characterized
by investigating toxicity, volume, and form of hazardous
substances at and surrounding the site and appropriate
technologies are evaluated for cleanup. The Perdido RI,
completed in November 1987, detected the presence of
benzene in two wells; however, no soil contamination was
detected. Based on findings in. the RI, contractors began
an FS to identify possible alternatives. The FS for the
Perdido site evaluated remedial alternatives ranging from
no action to pumping and treating the ground water, and
narrowed the alternatives down to two in the final FS
report. One alternative is no action, which EPA always
considers and uses for a baseline to which it compares
other alternatives. No action is not preferred for the
Perdido site because the plume of benzene contamination
traveling underground that emanated from the location of
the train derailment will eventually migrate to areas
where residents still depend on their domestic wells for
drinking water. The second alternative, EPA's preferred
alternative, is a ground water withdrawal and treatment
method.
EPA described the alternatives in a site information
fact sheet it distributed to the public
and presented the information at the public meeting.
Throughout the 21-day comment period, from July 14, 1988
through August 4, 1988 the Agency received, considered,
and responded to public comments on the RI/FS and the
preferred alternative. Once the comments have been
evaluated and addressed, EPA will make its final decision
on the remedy and will sign the Record of Decision (ROD).
The ROD presents the choice of remedy and the process and
rationale for reaching that choice. Once the ROD is
signed, the remedial action (RA), which is the
implementation of the chosen cleanup technology, will be
initiated.
3. Community Relations
In accordance with its public outreach
responsibilities under the Superfund Program, EPA
- 2 -
-------
initiated several community relations activities at the
Perdido site. These activities included:
Establishment of a site information repository
at the Bay Minette Public Library. The
repository contains site documents and provides
a place where interested persons can review
reports and other site information.
Distribution of a site fact sheet to the site
community. The fact sheet explains the most
current activities at the site/ site status, and
future activities.
Presentation of a public meeting that provided
the public with an opportunity to hear a report
on FS findings and EPA's preferred remedial
alternative, and to ask questions regarding
EPA's actions. The meeting was held at the Bay
Minette City Hall auditorium on July 14, 1983.
Provision of a 21-day public comment period on
the RI/FS and proposed plan. This comment
period ran from July 14, 1933 through August 4,
1988.
Additional public involvement activities will .be
implemented as cleanup activity at the site gets under way,
2.0 SUMMARY OF PRESENTATIONS
Mr. Larry Meyer, EPA's Remedial Project Manager,
(recently succeeded by Gena Townsend) opened'the -.eeung
with a brief summary of the site history and a brief
account of Superfund program and process, including the
results of the recently completed RI/FS.
Mr. Michael Henderson, EPA's Community Relations
Coordinator, gave a brief overview of the community
relations program. Mr. Henderson explained that the
21-day comment period on the RI/FS and EPA's preferred
alternative is designed to provide community members with
an opportunity to ask questions and register concerns
pertaining to the site.
Mr. Koyt Clark, the project manager whose firm was
hired by CSX to conduct the RI/FS, explained the findings
-------
of the RI/FS and the preferred alternative. Mr. Clark
stated that the pump and treat method has been chosen as
the preferred cleanup method because it is a permanent
remedy for the site, it is protective to human health and
the environment, and it is cost effective. He explained
the technology, saying that the- contractor will install
three wells to pump ground water up from underground. The
water will then be treated using a method called air
stripping (a treatment process in which a current of air
passes through contaminated water in a tower system to
decontaminate water). This treatment removes benzene from
the water and recaptures the benzene vapor in canisters.
Dr. Michael Allred, an Environmental Toxicologist
with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR), presented information on the health aspects
associated with the Perdido Ground Water Contamination
site. Dr. Allred discussed the results of the past health
study conducted in Perdido, which tested individuals who
live in the vicinity of the site. He explained that, to
date, there is no evidence of adverse health effects on
residents in the vicinity of the site.
3.0 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS
Only one question was'asked by a meeting attendee.
This participant referred to a draft copy of the FS report
which recommended the no action alternative. The
questioner wanted to know how EPA moved frpm the no action
alternative to the expenditure of an estimated.$169,000
for implementing the- pump and treat technology. EPA's
Project Manager, Mr. Larry Meyer, responded by stating
that EPA had not released, therefore, had not accepted the
draft report to which the speaker referred. He explained,
that the RI/FS contractor initially recommended the no
action alternative; however, negotiations between EPA,
CSXT, and the contractor resulced in the recommendation of
the pump and treat alternative.
No other questions were raised and the project
manager indicated that should questions or concerns arise,
residents could contact EPA by letter or telephone. He
stated that a message could be left on the Superfund
hotline (800-241-1754) and the appropriate person would
return the call as soon as possible.
-------
.eigh Pegue*. Director
1751 Federel Drive
Montgomery. AL
36130
206/271-7700
EIV1
ALABAMA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT '^V V<
Guy Huni
Governor
September 21, 1988
Field Officer
Unit 806. Building 8
225 Oxmoor Circle
Birmingham, AL
36209
206/942-6168
P.O. Box 953
Decttur. AL
36602
206/363-1713
2204 Perimeter Road
Mobile. AL
36616
206/479-2336
Gena D. Townsend
Site Project Manager
U..S. EPA, Region IV
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Dear Gena:
We have reviewed the draft copy of the Perdido
Groundwater Contamination site record of decision. We
concur in the proposed remedial action at the Perdido
site.
As I pointed out to you during a phone
conversation, the last sample from PW-1 showed a
concentration of .45 ppm of Benzene. Enclosed you will
find a eranh showine the c.han»<» in RPH^PHP
conversation, tne last
concentration of .45 ppm w
find a graph showing the
concentration with Time for PW-1.
the change in Benzene
Sinoerely,
/(Joseph E. Downey
Special Projects
JED/daf
Enclosure
CC: Steve Buser
------- |