e Collection
  jrce Center
:s
A 19107
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROO/R07-8a/011
June 1988
                 Superfund
                 Record  of Decision
                  Big  River Sand, KS
                                      U,S, Environmental Protection Agency
                                      Region HI Information Resource
                                      Center (3PM52)
                                      841 Chestnut Street    '     .•„>;
                                      Philadelphia, PA  19107  ,L,H%|

-------
 J0272-1QI
  REPORT DOCUMENTATION
         PAGE
                      1. REPORT NO.
                              EPA/ROD/R08-88/022
3. Recipients Accession No.
 4. Till* and Subtitle
  SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
  Big River Sand,  KS
    rst Remedial  Action - Final
                                                                     5. Repo
fckrst  R
Pfuthorfs)
                                                                        8. Performing Organization Rept. No.
 9. Performing Organization Nam* and Address
                                                                     10. Project/Tasfc/Work Unit No.
                                                                        11. Contract(C) or Grant(G) No.
                                                                        to

                                                                        (G)
 12. Sponsoring Organization Nam* and Addrass
 U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency
 401 M Street,  S.W.
 Washington, D.C.   20460
                                                                     13. Typa of Report & Period Covered

                                                                         800/000
                                                                        14.
 15. Supplementary Notes
 1C Abstract (Limit 200 words)
     The Big  River Sand (BRS)  site is located  one-half mile west of the Arkansas River and
  adjacent to the Wichita Valley Center Floodway,  in Sedwick  County, Kansas.   The site'
  consists of approximately  123  acres, half  of which has been extensively mined for sand
  and gravel.   Sand and gravel mining is still: active on the  property.  During the early
  1970s, approximately 2,000 drums of paint-related waste were disposed of  on the eastern
   Igrtion of  the  site, adjacent  to a five-acre sand quarry lake.  In 1978,  80 acres of the
     e containing the drum storage area were sold to BRS.  In 1982, as a condition of the
    les agreement, the drums were moved to an  unsold portion  of the site.   Nearly 200
  drum's were  transferred before  the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE)
  halted the  action because the  area was not permitted to store or dispose  of the waste.
  KDHE conducted  the initial site inspection in August 1982 and identified  damaged,
  corroded, and leaking drums.   Waste solvents and paint sludges from several drums
  contained metals and VOCs.   Waste solvents from the barrels were determined to be
  hazardous due to their ignitability.  Mr.  Eisenring, a PRP, was ordered by  KDHE in
  September 1982  to conduct  a  removal and site cleanup.  These occurred between 1982 and
  1984.  KDHE sampling detected  arsenic, lead, and selenium  in drinking water wells, and
  VOCs, including toluene, in  onsite soils and in monitoring  wells.
  (See Attached Sheet)
 17. Document Analysis a. Descriptors
  Record of Decision
  Big River Sand,  KS
  First Remedial  Action - Final
  Contaminated  Media:  gw,  soil
                              (arsenic, lead,  selenium), VOCs
                                                              toluene)
   c. COSATI Reid/Group
     inability Statement
                                                        19. Security Class (This Report)
                                                              None
                                                        20. Security Class (This Page)
                                                              None
                                                                               21. No. of Pages
                                                                                     60
                                                                                  22. Price
(See ANSI-Z39.18)
                                        See Instructions on Reverie
                                                                              OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
                                                                               (Formerly NTIS-35)
                                                                               Department of Commerce

-------
EEA/ROD/R08-88/022
    River Sand, KS
      Remedial Action - Final
16.  ABSTRACT (continued)
   It has been determined that the site does not pose a significant threat to  public
health, welfare, and the environment.   Therefore,  no further  action has  been selected  as
the preferred alternative.   The estimated future cost,  if sampling  is  conducted  in  year
five, is $5,800.

-------
         RECORD OF DECISION



             DECLARATION



     Big River Sand Company Site



           Wichita, Kansas
            Prepared By:



U.S. Environmental Protection Agency



             Region VII



         Kansas City, Kansas



              June 1988

-------
                       RECORD OF DECISION
                 REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION


SITE NAME AND LOCATION

     Big River Sand Company Site
     Wichita, Kansas

STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE

     This decision document presents the selected remedial action
for the Big River Sand Company site in Wichita, Kansas, developed
in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986, 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 which comprise the
administrative record upon which the selection of the remedial
action is based.

     The State of Kansas concurs on the selected remedy.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY

     The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in
consultation with the State of Kansas, has determined that the
Big River Sand Company site does not pose a significant threat to
public health and welfare and the environment and, therefore,
taking additional remedial measures is not appropriate.  This
determination is based on:  1) Sampling and site cleanup
activities conducted by the State between 1982 and 1985; 2)
Remedial Investigation activities conducted by EPA in 1986 and
1987; 3) Health consultation provided by the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry; and 4)  Monitoring conducted by
EPA in March 1988.  The "No Further Action" alternative is the
selected remedy for the Big River Sand Company site.  Further-
more, it is recommended to initiate procedures to delete the site
from the National Priorities List.

DECLARATION

     The selected remedy is protective of human health and the
environment, attains Federal and State requirements that are
applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial action and
is cost-effective.  Section 121 of CERCLA identifies a statutory
preference for treatment.  The selected remedy does not include
treatment since contamination at the site does not pose a
significant threat to public health and the environment.

-------
     Because this remedy will result in a hazardous substance
remaining onsite, a review wall be conducted within five years to
ensure that the remedy continues"to provide adequate protection
of human health and the environment.
                              Morrs
                              Regional Administrator
                              Date

-------
         RECORD OF DECISION



          DECISION SUMMARY






Big River Sand Company Superfund Site



           Wichita, Kansas
            Prepared By:



U.S. Environmental Protection Agency



             Region VII



         Kansas City, Kansas



              June 1988

-------
                        TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section                                           Page

1.0  INTRODUCTION                                        1

2.0  SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION                 2

3.0  SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES             6
     3.1 Summary of Pre-RI Activities
     3.2 Summary of RI Activities
     3.3 Summary of Post RI Activities

4.0  COMMUNITY RELATIONS                                12

5.0  SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION                  13

6.0  SITE CHARACTERISTICS                               14
     6.1 Shallow Soil
     6.2 Subsurface Soil
     6.3 Ground Water
     6.4 Mobility and Toxicity
     6.5 Potential Pathways of Migration and Exposures

7.0  SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS                              17

8.0  DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES               19

9.0  SELECTED REMEDY .                                   20

10.0 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS                           21
     10.1 Protective of Human Health and the Environment
     10.2 Attainment of Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
          Requirements (ARARs)
     10.3 Cost-Effectiveness
     10.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative
          Treatment  (or Resource Recovery) Technologies to the
          Maximum Extent Practicable
     10.5 Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element

TABLES                           '                       26

ATTACHMENTS
  State Letter of Concurrence
  Administrative Record Index

-------
1.0  INTRODUCTION

     During the early 1970's, approximately 2,000 drums of paint-
related wastes were disposed of at the Big River Sand Company
site.  Between 1982 and 1984, the property owner conducted a
cleanup ordered by the Kansas Department of Health and
Environment (KDHE).

     The Big River Sand Company site was proposed for the
National Priorities List (NPL). in October IS34 and in May 1986
was placed on the NPL.  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) initiated a Remedial Investigation (RI) in 1985 to
determine the presence and extent of contamination remaining in
soils, sediments, surface water and ground water and to determine
the need for further remedial response actions to protect the
public health and welfare and the environment.

     Based on the site cleanup activities performed by the
property owner, the RI conducted by EPA, a Health Consultation
provided by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR)  and monitoring conducted in March 1988, the EPA has
determined that the site does not pose a significant threat to
public health and welfare and the environment.  The EPA, in
consultation with the State of Kansas, has therefore selected the
"No Further Action" alternative as the final remedy for the site.

     This Decision Summary provides a brief description of .the
site and an overview of the site-specific factors and analysis
conducted which led to the remedy selection.

-------
2.0  SITE NAME. LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

     The Big River Sand Company site is located in the south half
of Section 2, Township 27 South, Range 1 West, in Sedgwick
County, Kansas.  The site is just northwest of the city limits of
Wichita (Figure 2-1).  The site is east of Hoover Road and north
of 21st Street, approximately 1/2 mile west of the Arkansas River
and adjacent to the Wichita Valley Center Floodway (Figure 2-2).

     The site consists of approximately 123 acres, half of which
has been extensively mined for sand and gravel.  The site
includes two property owners:  Mr. Vic Eisenring and the Big
River Sand Company.  Mr. Eisenring, former owner of the entire
site, currently owns the eastern portion of the site and the Big
River Sand Company owns the western portion (Figure 2-3).  Sand
and gravel mining is still active on both properties.  Located on the
south portion of the site is the Big River Sand Company office
and the Eisenring office and residence.

     Land use adjacent .to the site is a mixture c  agricultural
and residential.  Approximately 25 residences are located west of
the site and two residences a-  to the south.  Land use to the
north is predominantly agricultural.  Adjacent to the site on the
east is the floodway and the Arkansas River.

     The site is located within the Arkansas Valley,  which is
characterized by extreme flatness and poorly developed surface
drainage of the Arkansas River floodplain.  Unconsolidated silt,
sar.:.  and gravel deposits form an extensive ground water aquifer
parallel to the Arkansas River Valley.  At the site,  the  '
unconsolidated deposits are approximately 48 feet thick.
The depth to ground water ranges from 7 to 14 feet below the
ground surface.  The regional and site ground water flow is in a
southeasterly direction towards the Arkansas Rive .   The velocity
of ground water flow in the alluvial aquifer is very rapid,
estimated to be about 1.9 to 3.4 feet per day.

     The aquifer lies above the Wellington Formation, which
consists of low-permeability shales with little potential for
vertical flow through the shale unit.  The Wellington Formation
is not used as a water supply in the site vicinity because it
produces water lower in quality and quantity than the overlying
unconsolidated deposits.

  There are approximately 30 domestic and/or Ijv^stock water
wells within one-half mile of the site, three of which are on the
site.  The alluvial aquifer is the primary source of water for
residences west of the Arkansas River and floodway.   The City of
Wichita supplies water for residences east of the river and
floodway.

     A large volume of ground water recharge occurs in the site
vicinity by infiltration of precipitation, which is estimated at
approximately 20 percent of the total precipitation.   Normal
annual precipitation is about 30 inches.

-------
SEDGWICX COUNTY
                         SEDGWICX  COUNTY
         NOT TO.SCALE
                                                SITE LOCATION MAP
                                         Figure 2-1

-------
            .•H;;Mt\l
       ifbt,   *|0;>\ '
  	:=;=	>/rxcri—i-l.j^" ~-t
    -~  /'^>\  S    i
     •r-7 „  \ •  ^y

     ••) 0 '1 V
    Sr^        °
    1  -1          t.«...-
    i  w          0 r  -
                                w _
                                        .^ ~
                                        VJ U
                                                 '-?•''' T7/;^' c"
 ?=7"  f •? ^Ttf//
 i  :  •  .    '' ,•-.' ;
 1  •-•! W.ll .'•/   ..- .....

<-j  •:>;   .;/>/
                                                  MI;/';*
            STff££T»   :|    - -—'	'^'-'  ' ,.,/Y

 ,     ,          .".~^^!7^
_\   f\^|  	'	"'"'|  :   . '• /  / / /
 '•:- u^l           A -!   / &\-r/ //
   *->! LwiCHITA_«llP_ 302:    / > / f /X/
        0      II    •' -"2 / /  x'/'X-'
              ol      •3rt/w{--<
              .\     ^-7,x /v*

              VW  wy fc*i-

              a-: l^x^KS

              ^^-(wfex^
                 ",:  V^^trit^K:^
                 '" .i'-.M^":^.^:^
                                    .cy//
                                           /

                  7-" i°
••  ' ;  -• '-P^   /  •  ,  ^'^ ^
/  I |  ;<;^a^  ''COUNTY1 :co.V/^

  -i I  -—,-0    ir  -> ^ i    ^^
  • L;K  .v, ?is
  ; /••'-; s" '.ijrx.-.
                       k£Ji>^"
                       1 \ i ^ ';  :;':;"
                      >^ 
                                                       U
                                                in a
                                                      i  1  i-
EXPLANATION


    EXTENT OF THE BIG RIVER SAND


    COMPANY SUPERFUND SITE
                                              2000
                                                       4000
                 SCALE IN FEET
 NOTE 1.  Contour Interval Is 5 leet.
       2  Modified from U.S. Geological Survey.

          196 1. photore Ised 1982.
                TOPOGRAPHIC MA? OF THE

                BIG RIVER SAND COMPA.'. •'


                 SUPERFUND SITE VICINITY




             Figure 2-2

-------
                                             AGRICULTURAL AREA
  mm®
  f_-"vVS >,->\i v'Cv
            BIG RIVER
          SAND COMPANY
            SAND PIT
                           C^£^^••'K^•"?'!;i^
                                            EISENRING
                                           SAND
     AGRICULTURAL, RESIDENTIAL AND MATERIAL
                 STORAGE AREA
EXPLANATION
        BIG RIVER SAND COMPANY PROPERTY
       VIC E1SENRING PROPERTY
     — APPROXIMATE SITE BOUNDARY (FENCED)

 O I  E

   Pit boundaries are based on aerial photography
   from May  1986.
                                                 SCALE IN FEET
       SITE MAP FOR THE
   BIG RIVER SAND COMPANY
       SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 2-3

-------
3.0  SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES

3.1 Summary of Pre-RI Activities

     During the early 1970's, approximately 2,000 drums of paint-
related wastes were disposed of on the Eisenring property,
adjacent to a five-acre sand quarry lake.  In 1978, Mr. Eisenring
sold about 80 acres of his property which included the quarry
lake and drum storage area, to the Big River Sand Company.  As
part of the sales agreement, Mr. Eisenring began to transfer the
drums to his adjacent property in 1982.  Nearly 200 barrels were
transferred before the KDHE halted the action because Mr.
Eisenring did not have a permit to store or dispose of the waste.

     The KDHE conducted an initial site inspection in August 1982
and identified damaged, corroded and leaking drums.  The KDHE
sampled waste solvents and paint sludges from several drums and
detected metals '(including arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead and
selenium) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs, including
toluene, ethylbenzene and trichloroethylene).   Waste solvents
from the barrels were determined to be hazardous waste due to the
characteristic of ignitability.  Paint sludges failed the EP
Toxicity test for chromium.

     In September 1982, KDHE issued an order to Mr. Eisenring to
conduct a removal and site cleanup.  From 1982 to 1984, the State
provided oversight on the removal and site cleanup activities
performed by Mr. Eisenring.  Approximately 40 cubic yards of
hazardous paint sludge was disposed of at the USPCI hazardous
waste landfill in Oklahoma.  About 10,000 gallons of solvent were
recycled by Pratt and Lambert in Andover, Kansas.  Non-hazardous
material was disposed of at the Wichita Brooks Landfill.

     Between 1982 and 1985, KDHE sampled soils, the quarry lake
and residential drinking water wells.  The State also installed
and sampled onsite monitoring wells.  Arsenic, lead and selenium
were detected in drinking water wells at concentrations greater
than Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) established by the Safe
Drinking Water Act.  Concentrations of several metals detected in
the onsite monitoring wells also exceeded MCLs.  VOCs, including
toluene, were detected in onsite soils and in monitoring wells.

     The site was proposed for the NPL in October 1984 and in May
1986 was placed on the NPL.

3.2  Summary of RI Activities

     A remedial investigation was conducted by EPA to determine
the presence and extent of contamination remaining in soils, sediments,
surface water and ground water and to determine the need for
further remedial response actions to protect public health and
welfare and the environment.  Additional objectives of the
investigation were to define the geology and hydrogeology of the
site, determine the direction and rate of ground water flow,
identify potential migration pathways and receptors, and to

-------
identify general response actions and potential remedial
technologies for the site.

     The RI field activities were performed in 1986 and 1987 and
consisted of two phases.  The first phase included an initial
site visit, a soil-gas survey, ambient air sampling and shallow-
soil sampling.  The second phase consisted of surface water and
sediment sampling, subsurface soil sampling and ground water
sampling of both onsite and nearby residential drinking water
wells.  Seven onsite monitoring wells were also installed and
sampled during the second phase (Figure 3-1).

     Both phases of the RI field activities focused on three
areas:  the former 2,000-dnun disposal area at the northern end
of the Big River Sand Company property; the former 200-drum
disposal area on the eastern side of the Eisenring property; and
the previous location pf four solvent storage tanks used during
the removal effort in the southeastern portion of the Eisenring
property (Figure 3-2).

     The initial site visit conducted in May 1986 confirmed that
ongoing sand mining operations had removed most of the former
2,000-drum disposal area at the northern end of the Big River
Sand Company property.  The former 200-drum disposal area on the
Eisenring property was in a natural vegetative state that
included tall grass, scrub vegetation and small trees.  Neither
disposal area had signs of stressed vegetation or evidence of
remaining drums.  The site visit and information obtained from
the Kansas Biological Survey did not identify any environmentally
sensitive areas or threatened and endangered species in the
vicinity.

     The soil-gas survey, ambient air sampling and surficial soil
sampling were conducted in February 1987.   Forty-five vadose zone
soil-gas samples were obtained during the soil-gas survey to
determine the presence of volatile organic compound contamination
in surficial soils and ground water.  The sample results indicated
significant volatile organic contamination was not present.

     Ambient air samples for particulate matter were collected at
13 locations onsite and portable air monitoring equipment was
used to test for organic vapors.  The air sampling results
indicated no health hazards were present.

     Shallow-soil samples were collected at 12 locations and
analyzed for metals, volatiles,  semivolatiles and pesticides.
The only significant contamination identified was f:>~ metals.
Several soil samples had metal concentrations above the
background sample (upgradient from any drum disposal areas).
However, comparison of the concentrations to typical median
values throughout the United States indicates onsite shallow
soils are similar to median soil concentrations in the country.

     The second phase of field activities was conducted in April
 nd May 1987 and included the installation and sampling of seven

-------
EXPLANATION

 •     VADOSE ZONE  SOIL-GAS

 •     PIT SEDIMENT  AND PIT WATER

 ®     GROUNDWATER AND SUBSURFACE SOIL

(g)     PRIVATE WELL

 A      AMBIENT  AIR

 o      SHALLOW SOIL

 	APPROXIMATE SITE BOUNDARY
    SCALE IN FEET
    SAMPLING LOCATION MAP
        .FOR ALL MEDIA

Fioure 3-1

-------
                2000 BARREL
                    AREA
                                                               200 BARREL AREA
                                                            SOLVENT
                                                           TANK AREA
EXPLANATION
                                                             500
                                                                        1000
       APPROXIMATE FORMER LOCATIONS OF
       BARRELS -•. 0 TANKS BASED ON
       DECEME = r: -.533 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH
       INTERPF. "..T; OH
 	EXTENT  OP  SAND PITS IN  DECEMBER 1933

 	 EXTENT  OF  SAND PITS IN  MAY 1986

 	APPROXIMATE SITE  BOUNDARY (FENCED)
                                                        SCALE IN FEET
      FORMER  LOCATIONS OF
      PIT BOUNDARIES  AND
 WASTE-CONTAINING BARRELS
          ' AND TANKS	

Frqure 3-2

-------
                               10


onsite monitoring wells, subsurface soil sampling, surface water
and sediment sampling, and sampling of both onsite and offsite
residential drinking water wells.

     During installation of the onsite monitoring wells, 10
composite soil samples for the depth intervals 0 to 6 feet, 9 to
11 feet and 14 to 16 feet were collected and analyzed for metals
and volatile organic compounds.  As was the case for the shallow
soil samples, the subsurface soil samples had metal
concentrations above the background sample.  Again, comparison of
the concentrations to soils throughout the country indicates the
subsurface soil samples are well within a typical range for
metals.

     Ground water samples were collected from the seven onsite
monitoring wells and analyzed for total and dissolved metals and
volatile organic compounds.  Total and dissolved uetals were
detected in the ground water samples.  Only one monitoring well,
however, had a metal concentration which exceeded a primary
drinking water standard established by the Safe Drinking Water
Act.  Selenium was detected at a concentration of 62 micrograms
per liter (ug/1) in well E101S, exceeding the MCL of 10 ug/1.
Selenium was not detected in any of the other monitoring wells.

     Ground water samples were also collected from three
residential drinking water wells.  Two of the wells were located
on the southern portion of the site and one well was  northwest
of the site.  The samples were analyzed for total and dissolved
metals and volatile organic compounds.  No significant
contamination was detected.

     Five surface water samples and five sediment samples were
taken from the quarry lake on the Big River Sand Company
property.  The samples were analyzed for total and dissolved
metals and volatile organic compounds.  No significant
contamination was detected.

     The geology and hydrogeology of the site was better defined
by the installation of the monitoring wells.  Geologic logs and
water level measurements for the wells indicate that the shallow
aquifer consists of a relatively homogeneous sandy material with
rapid ground water flow (1.9 to 3.4 feet per day) in a
southeasterly direction.  The depth to ground water ranged from 7
to 14 feet below the ground surface.

     In summary, the remedial investigation found metals in soil
and ground water above background levels, but not outside the
range of- metals that may be found naturally occurring in soil and
ground water.  Selenium was detected at a concentration of 62
ug/1 in well E101S, exceeding the MCL of 10 ug/1.  Selenium was
not detected in any other monitoring wells or in any of the
private wells sampled.  Table 3-1 provides a summary of media
sampled and analyses performed.  Tables 3-2 through 3-6 provide a
summary of the highest contaminant concentrations detected before
and during the RI.

-------
                               11
     At the request of EPA, the ATSDR provided a Health
Consultation for the site in November 1987.  The ATSDR concluded,
based on the Rl data and information, that the site does not
currently appear to present a significant health threat.  The
ATSDR attributed this conclusion to the previous site mitigation
activities, natural site flushing of contamination from the soils
and rapid ground water transport.

     During the initial phase of the RI, preliminary remedial
alternatives were developed.  General remedial response actions
were identified for each suspected contaminated media at the site
and potential remedial technologies were selected.  A Feasibility
Study to develop and evaluate in detail the remedial alternatives
was not conducted, however, because the RI Report and ATSDR
Health Consultation concluded that previous cleanup actions
effectively eliminated any threats to the public health and
welfare and the environment.

3.3  Summary of Post-RI Activities

     The ATSDR Health Consultation also recommended that private
wells downgradient of the site and monitoring wells onsite be
sampled periodically for potential site-related contaminants to
assure the protection of human health.

     In response to ATSDR1s recommendation, EPA sampled during Marcj
1988 two residential drinking water wells onsite and three .
monitoring wells.   Selenium was again detected in monitoring
well E101S at a concentration of 56 ug/1.

     The ATSDR reviewed the final RI Report and the March
sampling data and again concluded that the site does not
currently appear to present a significant health threat and
recommended monitoring to assure protection of human health.

-------
                               12
4.0  COMMUNITY RELATIONS

     Community interest in the site was quite high during 1982
and 1983.  The local newspaper, The Wichita Eagle-Beacon.
presented several articles regarding the removal and site cleanup,

     Community concern lessened after the removal was completed
in 1984.  No citizen inquiries were made to local, State or
Federal officials.  During development of EPA's Community
Relations Plan for the RI, interviews were conducted with
officials and residents of the Wichita area in October 1985.
Several residents living near the site indicated that they were
not concerned about the site and had no complaints regarding
their drinking water wells.   Onsite remedial investigation
activities conducted in 1986 and 1987 also did not generate any
citizen inquiries.

     Section 117(a) of CERCLA provides that a notice and brief
analysis of the Proposed Plan must be published, and that the
Proposed Plan be made available to the public.  For the Big
River Sand Company site, a notice and brief analysis of the
Proposed Plan was published on May 31, 1988, in the The Wichita
Eagle-Beacon.  The public notice provided a brief overview of the
site and identified the lead agency (EPA) and the support agency
(KDHE).   The notice informed the public of its role in the
decision-making process and provided information on the public
comment period, the location of the information repositories and
methods by which .the public could submit oral and written
comments.  The notice also presented the preferred alternative
and requested public comments on the alternative.

     To provide the community with a reasonable opportunity to
submit written and oral comments on the Proposed Plan and the RI
Report,  the EPA and KDHE established a public comment period fron
May 31 through June 20, 1988.  The EPA and KDHE also invited
requests for a public meeting in the community to present the
Proposed Plan and RI report, answer questions and receive
comments.

     The Proposed Plan, RI report and Administrative Record file
were made available for public review at the Sedgwick County
Public Library, Main Branch, 223 S. Main Street, Wichita, Kansas,
and at the EPA Region VII Library in Kansas City, Kansas.

     At the beginning of the public comment period, EPA met with
officials from several local government agencies.  The officials
were provided copies of the Proposed Plan and an overview of site
issues.

     No comments were received by EPA or the State on the
Proposed Plan, the preferred alternative or the Administrative
Record file during the public comment period.

-------
                               13
5.0  SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION

     The EPA, in consultation with the State, has determined that
the Big River Sand Company site does not pose a significant
threat to public health and welfare and the environment.  The
EPA, therefore, has selected the "No Further Action" alternative
as the final remedy for the site.

     Because this final remedy will result in a hazardous
substance remaining onsite, a review as required by CERCLA will
be conducted within five years to ensure that the final remedy
continues to provide adequate protection of human health and the
environment.  This review will include an onsite sampling event.
Ground water samples will be obtained from the upgradient
monitoring well, monitoring well E101S and Eisenring's office and
residence drinking water wells.  The samples will be analyzed for
metals and the data evaluated to ensure that the final remedy
continues to provide adequate protection of human health and the
environment.

-------
                               14
         CHARACTERISTICS
     Analysis of the RI data indicates that the primary type of
contamination is metals and is largely confined to soils and
ground water.

6.1 Shallow Soil

     Summarized in Table 6-1 are the analytical results for
shallow-soil samples collected from 12 locations.  The sample
from location SS-2 was used as a background sample for comparing
sample results because it is upgradient of the sit- and in an
area not formerly used to store wastes.  This background sample
consistently had the lowest metal concentrations.

     A statistical analysis of the analytical data for total
metal concentrations is presented in Table 6-2.  The data have
been normalized by dividing the sample concentration by the
background sample concentration.  The sample value is then
presented as a ratio of the background value, setting the
background value at one.  The relative magnitude of the
concentrations compared to background are more easily evaluated
in this manner.  Some of the differences1between normalized
concentrations can be attributed to natural soil composition
variability, which can be different for each compound.  A large
variation in only one compound value has a significant effect on
the mean value.

     In summary, the shallow soil samples were elevated for some
metal concentrations relative to the upgradient sample.  The
elevated concentrations are anticipated to be due to paint waste
spillage at the site.  However, comparison of these
concentrations to typical median values for soils throughout the
United States indicates onsite shallow soils are similar to
median soil concentrations across the country.

6.2 Subsurface Soil

     Table 6-3 is a summary of the analytical results for metals
detected in the 11 split-spoon soil samples analyzed from the
seven boreholes on the site.  The composited sample (0 to 6-foot
depth) from borehole B101S was used as a background sample for
comparing the sample results because it is upgradient of the site
and in an area not formerly used to store wastes.  This
background sample consistently had the lowest metal
concentrations.

     The concentrations for the 0 to 6-foot composited interval
were normalized as described in Section 6.1 to the background
sample concentration (Table 6-4).

-------
      In summary, the metal concentrations decrease with depth.
 This is apparently due to the adsorption of the metals onto the
 soil during vertical migration toward the ground water.  In
 comparison to soils throughout the United States, the split-spoon
 soil samples are well within a typical range for metal compounds.

 6.3 Ground Water

      Tables 6-5 through 6-8 are summaries of the analytical
 results for total and dissolved metal concentrations in ground
 water.   The sample from monitoring well B101S was used as a
 background sample for comparing the sample results because it is
 upgradient of the site and in an area not formerly used to store
 wastes.  The concentrations at this background location were the
 lowest  of all the monitoring well samples; however,  the
 concentrations in the private well samples were generally lower
.than the concentrations in monitoring wells.

      The ground water sample concentrations were normalized to
 the background sample concentration (Table 6-9)  as previously
 described. The greatest variability occurred for selenium,  zinc
 and magnesium.  Metal concentrations did not vary significantly
 for each sample location;  most of the variation may be attributed
 to natural variability in  ground water composition.

      In summary, only one  monitoring well, E101S, had a metal
 concentration which exceeded a primary drinking water standard.
 Selenium was detected at a concentration of 62 ug/1,  exceeding
 the MCL of 10 ug/1.   Selenium was not detected in any of the
 other monitoring wells or  drinking water wells.   A U.S.
 Geological Survey report on ground water supplies in Kansas found
 thirteen percent of wells  sampled exceeded the MCL for
 selenium.   The survey statistics were based on sampling 766 wells
 between 1976 and 1981.

 6.4 Mobility and Toxicity

      Selenium and the other metals detected should be relatively
 immobile under the pH conditions present in the ground water at
 the site.   The detection of higher metal concentrations in  the
 shallow soil relative to the deeper soil samples indicates  the
 metals  are being attenuated during infiltration and  percolation
 toward  the ground water.

      There is no evidence  that selenium is carcinogenic in
 humans.   Selenium has been tested by the oral route  in
 experimental animals,  but  the available data  are insufficient to
 allow unequivocal evaluation of its carcinogenic potential.
 However,  recent reports suggest that selenium is not
 carcinogenic.   Several  studies have shown that selenium may
 actually reduce the  incidence of tumors under certain conditions.
 Mutagenicity,  teratogenicity and reproductive effects have  not.
 been adequately tested.

-------
                               16
     Selenium is an essential element in animals and probably in
humans.  However, exposure to amounts only slightly above the
required levels can produce acute and chronic toxic effects.
Acute toxicities of selenium compounds vary greatly, while the
chronic effects of most forms are similar.  Exposure may be of
oral, inhalation or dermal routes; and effects in humans and
experimental animals are similar.  Acute effects include
degeneration of liver, kidneys and myocardia, hemmorrhages in the
digestive tract and brain damage.  Eye, nose and throat
irritation may also occur with inhalation exposure.  Chronic
toxicity in humans appears to occur only in areas where foods
containing excessive concentrations of selenium are ingested.
Signs of chronic intoxication include depression, nervousness,
dermatitis, gastrointestinal disturbances, dental caries and
discoloration, lassitude and partial loss of hair and nails.

6.5 Potential Pathways of Migration and Exposure

     The RI identified ground water as the primary pathway of
migration and consumption of drinking water from onsite wells as
the principal route of exposure.  Other potential routes of
exposure include inhalation, ingestion and dermal contact with
contaminated soils.

     Due to the poorly developed surface drainage of the Arkansas
River floodplains, there are no surface water drainages leaving
the site; therefore, surface water is not considered a migration
pathway.

-------
                               17
7.0  SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS

     A summary of the carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risk
estimates associated with the two major exposure scenarios is
provided in Table 7-1.  The measured concentrations of a few
inorganic constituents were indicative of a potential for adverse
health effects associated with consumption of ground water, but
it is unclear if the presence of these constituents is related to
previous site activity.

     The risks posed'to onsite workers by exposure to
contaminated soils fall below the level of concern for non-
carcinogenic effects, and are well within the range of acceptable
risks for excess cancer'risk.  Populations farther downwind of
the site might be exposed to airborne particulates, but the risk
presented by this exposure would be negligible based on the RI
ambient air sampling data.

     Consumption of ground water may present some potential for
adverse health effects.  Local background water quality is poor;
the water contains concentrations of sodium that are well in
excess of the recommended level of 20 milligrams per liter (mg/1)
for individuals on a sodium-restricted diet.

     Lifetime consumption of drinking water from Vic Eisenring's
domestic well may result in a moderately increased cancer risk
due to the presence of arsenic.  The cumulative effect of exposure
to concentrations of copper and lead may also present a health
hazard to children and adults.  The concentrations of both lead
and arsenic are below their respective MCLs, indicating that use
of an alternative drinking water supply would not result in an
appreciable reduction of risk.  The concentration of copper is
below the ambient water quality criteria of 1.0 mg/1,  which is
not health based; rather, it is based on taste and odor criteria.
Although copper,  arsenic and lead were not detected in the
background well,  B101S, the concentrations of arsenic and copper
measured in the Eisenring well are within the normal range of
these inorganics found naturally occurring in ground water.

     Health effects associated with consumption of drinking water
from well E101S were also evaluated as this well is downgradient
of the former drum storage area and can be considered
representative of a worst-case scenario.  Water fr^m this well
contained the highest concentration of selenium observed, 62
ug/1,  which exceeded the MCL of 10 ug/1. Daily ingestion of this
water could present a potential health hazard to a small child.

     The risk assessment from the RI summarized above is
consistent with the findings of the ATSDR Health Consultation
which concluded that the site does not currently appear to
 resent a significant health threat.

-------
     Samples of surface water from the Big River Sand Company
sand pit did not contain detectable concentrations of any
organics.  The concentrations of inorganics found were consistent
with those observed in natural waters.  These results indicate
that current site conditions do not present a threat to aquatic
species that may be present in the sand pits.

     The Kansas Biological Survey did not identify any
environmentally sensitive areas or threatened and endangered
species in the immediate vicinity.

-------
8.0  DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES.

     The EPA and KDHE presented the Proposed Plan to the
community on May 31, 1988.  The Proposed Plan identified the No-
action alternative as the preferred alternative for the Big River
Sand Company site remedy.  There have been no significant changes
made to the selected alternative since it was originally
presented in the Proposed Plan.

-------
                               20
9.0  THE SELECTED REMEDY

     The "No Further Action" alternative has been selected as the
final remedy for the Big River Sand Company site.  The EPA, in
consultation with the State, determined that the site does not
pose a significant threat to public health and welfare and the
environment; therefore, taking additional remedial measures is
not appropriate.  This determination is primarily based on:  l)
Sampling and site cleanup activities conducted by the State
between 1982 and 1985; 2) Remedial Investigation activities
conducted by EPA in 1986 and 1987; 3) Health Consultation
provided by the ATSDR; and 4) Monitoring conducted by EPA in
March 1988.  It is also recommended that procedures to delete the
site from the NPL be initiated.

     As will be discussed in detail in Section 10 of this
document, 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.
Because this remedy will result in a hazardous substance
remaining onsite, a review will be conducted as required by
CERCLA 121(c) within five years to ensure that the remedy
continues to provide adequate protection of human health and the
environment.

     The final remedy does not include monitoring as recommended
by ATSDR in their Health Consultation.  Monitoring is generally
recommended as a precautionary measure to ensure protection of
public health.  The EPA and State do not believe monitoring is
necessary as a precautionary measure for this site given the
site-specific conditions which are present.  Ground water
sampling has demonstrated that no MCLs are being exceeded in
onsite or offsite drinking water wells.  No MCLs are being
exceeded in any of the onsite monitoring wells with the exception
of well E101S at the eastern edge of the site.  Ground water flow
is rapid and to the southeast.  No drinking water wells are
located downgradient of well E101S due to the presence of the
Wichita Valley Center Floodway located adjacent to the site's
eastern boundary.  In addition, sampling conducted in May 1987
and March 1988 has demonstrated that there has been no migration
of selenium from the area of well E101S.  In both sampling events,
selenium was not detected in monitoring wells immediately to the
south or in onsite drinking water wells to the southwest.

-------
                               21
 10.0 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS

     Based on all the available information, the selected remedy
 satisfies the remedy selection requirements under CERCLA, as
 amended by SARA, and the National Contingency Plan.  The remedy
 provides protection of public health and the environment,
 achieves all applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
 and is cost-effective.  The statutory requirement for utilization
 of permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to
 the maximum extent practicable and the statutory preference for
 treatment as a principal element were both determined to be
 impracticable because the site does not present a significant
 threat to public health and the environment and, therefore,
 treatment technologies are not necessary.

 10.1 Protective of Human Health and the Environment

     Both the RI risk assessment and ATSDR's Health Consultation
 concluded that the site does not currently pose a significant
 threat to human health or the environment.  The remedial
 investigation detected metals in soil and ground water above
 background levels, but not outside the range that may be found
 naturally occurring in soil and ground water.

     Ground water sampling has demonstrated that no MCLs, are
 being exceeded in onsite or offsite drinking water wells.  No
 MCLs are being exceeded in any of the onsite monitoring wells
 with the exception of well E101S at the eastern edge of the site.
 Ground water flow is rapid and to the southeast (Figure 10-1).
 No drinking water wells are located downgradient of well E101S
 due to the presence of the Wichita Valley Center Floodway located
 adjacent to the site's eastern boundary (Figure 10-2).   In
 addition, sampling conducted in May 1987 and March 1988 has
 demonstrated that there has been no migration of selenium from
 the area of well E101S.  In both sampling events,  selenium was
 not detected in monitoring wells immediately to the south or in
 onsite drinking water wells to the southwest.

 10.2 Attainment of Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
     Requirements (ARARs)

     Section 121(d)  of CERCLA, as amended by SARA,  requires that
 remedial actions comply with applicable or relevant and
 appropriate requirements or standards (ARARs) under Federal and
 State environmental laws.

     The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)  has been identified as a
 relevant and appropriate requirement.  The SDWA established
primary drinking water standards,  MCLs,  which protect human
health from the potential  adverse effects of drinking water
 contaminants.  MCLs are generally relevant and appropriate where
ground water is or may be  used for drinking water.   However, MCLs
may net be appropriate for site-specific circumstances where a

-------
                                                                                     1312-
D101S
3)1314.43,
             SURFACE ELEVATION
                                                                                   EXPLANATION


                                                                                   <^0101S  MONITORING WELL  LOCATION. NUMBER. AND GROUNDWATER
                                                                                    1314.43  ELEVATION
                                                                                             ESTIMATED GROUNDWATER LEVEL  CONTOUR ON 1-FOOT INTERVALS


                                                                                             ESTIMATED DIRECTION  OF GROUNDWATER FLOW
                                                                                      NOTES

                                                                                      1.  TNI*  contour m«p !• b***d on Interpolation b
-------
EXPLANATION
QS101    MONITORING WELL LOCATION AND NUMBER

    @8     APPROXIMATE  LOCATION OF  CITY MONITORING
          WELL AND  WELL NUMBER

— 131=— GROUNOWATER LEVEL CONTOUR ON
          1-FOOT INTERVALS
0
ESTIMATED DIRECTION  OF
GROUNDWATER FLOW
                                                                   1000
SCALE IN  FEET
                                                                                :ooo
NOTES 1  This contour  map Is based on interpolation
             between widely spaced  monitoring wells
             and  only  at the monitoring well  location
             Is the elevation actually  known.
          :. V/ater level contours  based on
             May 13,  1987, measurements.
          3. V/ater level elevations  are In  feet above
             National  Geodetic  Vertical  Datum.
          «. Modified  from U.S. Geological Survey
             1061, ph-otor evls e "  '982.
                                                   GROUNDV/ATER  ELEVATION
                                                       CONTOUR  MAP FOR
                                                       SITE AND  VICINITY
                                               Figure  1.0-2

-------
                              . 24
well would never be placed and ground water would therefore never
be consumed; for example, a small strip of land between the toe
of a landfill and a river.  Site-specific factors need to be
considered in determining whether a requirement is relevant and
appropriate.

     Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) are also established
by the SDWA.  MCLGs are strictly health-based, whereas MCLs take
into consideration cost or feasibility.

     For the Big River Sand Company site, MCLs are relevant and
appropriate at onsite and offsite drinking water wells.  MCLs are
also relevant and appropriate for the aquifer located to the
north, west and south of the site where the ground water may be
used as a source of drinking water in the future.  Both the RI
ground water sampling conducted in May 1987 and ground water
monitoring conducted in March 1988 demonstrated that no MCLs. are
being exceeded in onsite or offsite drinking water wells.

     The MCLs are not relevant and appropriate, however, for well
E101S where the MCL for selenium was exceeded.  This deter-
mination is based on:  1) The character and circumstances of
the exceedance compared to what the MCL requirement was intended
to address; 2)  The physical characteristics of the site and
contamination;  and 3) The threat to human health and the
environment posed by the exceedance.

     As previously discussed, MCLs are relevant and appropriate
where the ground water is or may be used for drinking water.
There are no drinking water wells in the immediate vicinity of
E101S.  Ground water flow is rapid and to the southeast.  No
private wells are located downgradient of E101S, nor will wells
be placed downgradient since the Wichita Valley Center Floodway
is located immediately to the east/southeast of the site.

     The physical characteristics of the site and contamination
also makie the MCL inappropriate.  As stated above, the ground
water flow is to the southeast, opposite from wells used for
drinking water.  The large volume of ground water recharge at the
site from infiltration of precipitation (estimated at 20 percent)
through predominantly sandy soils, with rapid ground water flow,
enhances the natural flushing.  Monitoring conducted in March
1988 demonstrated natural attenuation;  the concentration of
selenium in well E101S decreased from 62 ug/1 in May 1987 to 56
ug/1 in March 1988.

     Finally, there are no receptors of .contamination from or
downgradient of well E101S and, therefore, no present or future
threat to human health and the environment exists.

     Also in November 1985, the EPA proposed under the SDWA a
MCLG for selenium of 45 ug/1, well above the current MCL of 10
ug/1.

-------
                               25
10.3 Cost-effectiveness •

     There are no costs directly related to the selected remedy.
Because the selected remedy will result in a hazardous substance
remaining onsite above health-based levels, a review will be
conducted as required by CERCLA 121(c), within five years to
ensure that the remedy continues to provide adequate protection
of human health and the environment.

     The five-year review will include a sampling event.  It is
estimated (Table 10-1) that the current cost to obtain and
analyze ground water samples from five wells onsite (three
monitoring wells and two drinking water wells) is approximately
$3,600.  The future cost for sampling, if conducted in year five,
is $5,800.

     The "No Further Action" remedy,  including costs associated
with the five-year review requirement, is cost-effective.

10.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment
    for Resource Recovery) Technologies to the Maximum Extent
    Practicable

     The selected remedy does not satisfy the statutory
preference for alternative treatment technologies because they
were determined to be impracticable.   Since contamination of the
site does not pose a significant threat to public health and the
environment,  alternative treatment technologies are not
necessary.

10.5 Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element

     The selected remedy does not satisfy the statutory
preference for treatment because treatment was found to be
impracticable.  The concentrations of contaminants detected in
soil and ground water do not pose a significant threat to public
health and the environment; therefore, no treatment is necessary.

-------
                                       26 .


                                   Table 3-1

                  TABLE OF MEDIA SAMPLED  AND TYPES OF ANALYSES

                     BIG RIVES SAND COMPANY SUPERFUND SITE
    Media Sampled
                               Number of
                               Sampling
                               Locations
                   Analyses Performed
Ambient air

Shallow soil
Split-spooned soil
Pit-bottom sediment
Vadose zone soil-gas
Grousdvater  and  Surface Water
   Shallow monitoring wells
   Deep monitoring  wells
   Private wells
   Pit water
10

12
                                   45
 4
 3
 3
 5
Particulate matter

Total metals
Volatile organic compounds
Base/neutral organic compounds
Acid eztractable .organic compounds
Pesticides/PCBs
Library search compounds

Total metals
Volatile organic compounds
Library search compounds

Tota? metals
Vol;.. ..lie organic compounds
Library search compounds

Chloroform
Methylene chloride
1,1,1-Trichloroethane. (TCA)
Trichloroethene  (TCE)
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
Total hydrocarbons

Total metals
Dissolved metals
Volatile organic compounds
Library search compounds

-------
                                                       Table  3-2

                                    COMPARISON OF WATER QUALITY STANDARDS TO TOTAL MBTAL
                                      COMPOUND CONCENTRATIONS FOR GROUNDWATER SAMPLES

                                           DIG RIVER SAND COMPANY SUPERFUND SITE
RI Data
MCL/KAL
Concentration
Compound (mg/L)
Arsenic (PP)
Barium
Cadmium (PP)
Calcium
Chromium (PP)
Copper (PP)
Iron
Lead (PP)
Magnesium
Manganese
Potassium
Selenium (PP)
Silver
Sodium
Zinc (PP)
0.050
1.000
0.010
H/A
0.050
1.000
0.300
0.050
H/A
0.050
H/A
0.010
0.050
H/A
5.000
Background
Concentration
(mg/L)
<0.010
0.550
<0.005
81.0
0.018
<0.025
4.20
0.005
7.70
0.20
2.60
<0.005
<0.010
120.0
<0.020
Highest
Concentration
(mg/L)
0.015
0.55
<0.005
210.0
0.034
<0.025
19.0
0.010
24.0
0.560
4.30
0.062*
<0.010
190.0
0.066
Highest
Concentration
Sample Location
B102S
B101S
t
B102S
B102D
--
E102S
E101D/E102S
E101S
E102S
B102D
E101S
—
B102D
E102S
Pre-RI Data
Highest
Concentration
(mg/L)
0.101
14.0
0.016
126.5
0.58
0.98
428
1.2
23.85
16
25 '
0.023
0.03
186.9
2.2
Highest
Concentration
Sample Location
200-barrel area
Solvent tank area
200-barrel area
Private wall
2,000-barrel area
2,000-barrel area
2,000-barrel area
2,000-barrel area
Private* well
2,000-barrel are
2,000-barrel area
2,000-barrel area
2,000-barrel area
2,000-barrel area
2,000-barrel area
(PP) = Priority Pollutant.
*    = Compounds exceeding Federal Maximum Contaminant Lovel (MCL).
N/A  = Not Available.                                     ...
Notes: 1.   Table includes only compounds above the detection limits.
       2.   Background  sample concentrations from Monitoring Well B101S.
       3.   Groundwater monitoring woll  numbers  have a  "ir  or  "K"  prefix,  followed  by  a number  and an  "S"  (shallow
           well) or "D" (duep well).

-------




28
TJ 3-3


HIGHEST ORGANIC COMPOUND CONCENTRATIONS
FOR GROUNDWATEU AND SURFACE WATER SAMPLES

Compound
Volatile Organics
Bromodichloromethane (PP)
Methylene chloride (PP)
Acetone
Dibromochloromethane (PP)
Bromoform (PP)
Trichlorome thane
1.1 "ichloroethylene (PP)
(Ofl-illf)
1.1-Dichloroethane (PP)
(off-site)
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane (PP)
(off-site)
o, p-Xylenes
Base/Neutral ExtracJ:ftble3
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalete (PP)
Rul.yl benzyl phthalate (PP)
BIG RIVER
RI
Highest
Concentrat ion
(mg/L)

0.007
0.011
0.019
<0.005
<0.005
N/A
<0.005
N/A
<0.005
<0.005(a)
(PP) N/A
N/A
N/A
SAND COMPANY SUPERFUND SITE
Data
Highest Highest
Concentration Concentration
Sample Location (mg/L)

Drill tank water 0.0096
Bailer blank 0.122
Laboratory blank N/A
0.0064
0.0011
0.0126
0.0035
0.0028
0.0344
0.0041
0.0571
0.0693
0.0315

Pre-RI Data
Highest
Concentration
Sample Location

City of Wichita Water Supply
200-barrel area
—
City of Wichita Water Supply
City of Wichita Water Supply
City of Wichita Water Supply
Wright Livestock Well
1
Wright Livestock Well
Wright Livestock Well
2,000-barrel area
2,000-barrel area
2,000-barrel area
Solvent tank area
N/A = Not Analyzed.
(PP) = Priority Pollutant.
(a) = Total Xvlenes.
\'
the detection limit for the RI data.


-------
                                    Table 3-4

                          COMPARISON OF BACKGROUND AND
                        HIGHEST TOTAL-METAL CONCENTRATIONS
                             FOR SHALLOW SOIL SAMPLES

                      BIG RIVER SAND COMPANY "SUPERFUND'SITE
Compound
Aluminum
Barium
Calcium
Chromium (PP)
Copper (PP)
Iron
Lead (PP)
Magnesium
Manganese
Potassium
Tin
Zinc (PP)
(??) = Priori
* = Actual
Range of Background Highest Measured
Concentration Concentration Highest Co-ce^-a*4 o-
(mg/kg) (mg/kg) Sample Location"
2,000
29.0* -
680*
<5.40 -
<14.0
4,100
2.90 -
520*
35.'0
330*
<22.0
5.30* -
ty Pollutant
concentrati
2,900
43.0*
940*
<5.50

4,600
3.30
740*
54.0
490*

9.30* •

.on, but less
10,000
170
23,000
12.0
28.0
14,000
20.0
4,100
270
1,800
26.0
110

than CLP c
SS-11
, SS-11
SS-11
SS-5
SS-4
SS-11
SS-9
SS-11
SS-11
SS-11
SS-4
SS-5
"
:ontract recuired detection
Notes:  1. Samples are  a  composite by  loca-tion  of  the  0-  to  1-foot  denth.
        2. Background  concentrations  are from  the two  sarioles  collected  at
           location SS-2.
        3. Shallow soil samples  are  labeled with "SS"  suffix.
        4. Inorganic  analysis  was   not  performed  for  KDHE  investigation  scil
           samples.

-------
                                           30
                                   Table  3-5
                         COMPARISON OF BACKGROUND AND
                       HIGHEST TOTAL-METAL-CONCENTRATIONS
                FOR SPLIT-SPOONED SOIL AND PIT SEDIMENT SAMPLES

                     BIG RIVER SAND COMPANY -SWERFUND SITE
Background Highest
Concentration Concentration
Compound (mg/kg) (mg/kg)
Aluminum
Barium
Calcium
Chromium (PP)
Iron
Lead (PP)
Magne s ium
Manganese
Mercury (PP)
Tin
Zinc (PP)
590
18*
420*
<5.1
2,000
<2.60
300*
64.0
<0.1
<20
5.0*
8,300
190
20,000
11.0
15,000
12.0
4,800
430
0.53
48.0
49.0
Highest Highest
Concentration Concentration
Sample Location Depth Interval (ft)
E101D
E101D
E101D
E101D
E101D
PPff3
E101D
E101D
PPS3
E102S
E101D
0-6
0-6
0-6
0-6
0-6
23.5-24.5
0-6
0-6
23.5-24.5
9-11
0-6
(PP) = Priority Pollutant
* = Actua.
1 concentration
, but less
than CLP contract ri
squired detection
Notes:
        limits.
1. Table includes only compounds above the detection limits.
2. Background  sample  concentrations  from  monitoring  well  B101S.  a
   composite of the 0- to 6-foot depth interval.
3. SanS  pit  sample numbers  have the  prefix "PP"; groundwater monitor
   well  sDlit-spooned  soil  sample locations have  a  "B" or  "I" prefix,
   •FO-MOUO^  by a number  and an "S" (shallow well)  or "D"  (deeo well)
           Inorganic  analysis  was  not  performed for  KDHE investigation  soil
           samples.

-------
                                                             31


                                                      Table 3-6
                                        HIGHEST ORGANIC COMPOUND CONCENTRATIONS
                            FOR SHALLOW SOIL,  SPLIT-SPOONED* SOIL,  AND PIT SEDIMENT SAMPLES

                                         BIG RIVER SAND COMPANY SUPERFUND SITE
Compound
Volatile and Semi-Volatile Qrg anics
Vinyl acetate
Carbon disulfide
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (PP)
Acetone
Toluene (PP)
Ethylbenzene (PP)
m-Xylene
o,p-Xylene
Trichloroethylene (PP)
Benzene (PP)
Butyl benzyl phthalate (PP)
PesUcides/PCBs
Aroclor-1260 (PP)
RI
Highest
Concentration
(ug/kg)

14.0
15.0
2,200
82.0
<6.00
<6.00
l!:«u>'
<6.00
<6.00
<410

290
Data Pre-RI Data
Highest Highest
Concentration Concentration
Sample Location (ug/kg)

PP «4 N/A
SS-2 N/A
SS-5 <372
SS-11 N/A
118,000
55,000
359,000
441,000
30
17
850

SS-8 N/A
Highest
Concentration
Sample Location

--
—
--
--
200-barrel area
200-barrel area
200-barrel area
200-barrel area
200-barrel area
200-barrel area
200-barrel area

--
(PP) = Priority Pollutant.
(a)  = Total xylenes.
H/A  = Hot Analyzed.
*    = No organlcs were detected in the split-spooned soil samples during the RI.
Hotes: 1.  Table includes only compounds above the detection limits.
       2.  Sand pit samples havo the prefix "PP"; shallow soil snmples "SS".
       3.  Split-spooned soil sample concentrations wore less than other soil
sample concentrations.

-------
                                                  32
                               TABLE OF TOTM, METAL CONCENTRATIONS IN
                                        SHALLOW SOU. SAMPLES

                               niG RIVER SAND COMPANY SUPERFUND SITE
Concentrations (mg/kg)
Sample Number
Compound
Aluminum
Barium
Calcium
Chromium (PP)
Copper (PP)
Iron
Lead (PP)
Magnesium
Manganese
Potassium
Tin
Zinc (PP)
SS-1
7,500
94.0*
2,500*
0.00
<16.0
10,000
9.9
2,400*
200
1,600*
<25.0
30.0
SS-2
2,900
43.0*
940*
<5.50
<14.0
4,600
3.30
740*
54.0
490*
<22.0
9.30*
SS-2
Duplicate
2,000
29.0*
680*

-------
                                              Table 6-1 (Cont.)
                               TA11LE OF TOTAL MFTAL CONCENTRATIONS IN
                                        SHALLOW SOIL SAMPLES

                               DIG RIVER SAND COMPANY SUPERFUND SITE
Concentrations (mg/kg)
Sample Number
Compound
Aluminum
Barium
Calcium
Chromium (PP)
Copper
Iron
Lead (PP)
Magnesium
Manganese
Potassium
Tin
Zinc (PP)
SS-7
4,600
70.0*
1,700*
<6.00
<15.0
6,600
5. BO
1,200*
140
BIO*
<24.0
16.0
SS-8
1,900
29.0*
760*
<5.50
<14.0
3,600
6.60
550*
71.0
390*
<22.0
8.90*
SS-9
4,600
56.0*
1,200*
10.0
<14.0
6,700
20.0
1,100*
150
1,000
<23.0
19
SS-10
8,800
82.0*
1,900*
6.40
<15.0
10,000
6.40
2,000*
65.0
1,500*
<26.0
24.0
SS-11
10,000
170
23,000
9.00
<15.0
14,000
9.60
4,100
270
1,800*
<32.0
40
SS-12
8,300
110*
13,000
6.30
<15.0
11,000
6.90
2,700* 1
180 '
1,500*
<27.0
31
*      Actual concentration, but less than CLP contract required detection limits.

(PP) = Priority Pollutant

Notes: 1. Samples are a composite oC the 0- to 1-foot depth by location.
       2. SS-2 is the background sample location.

-------
                      COMPARISON OF NORMALIZED SHALLOW SOIL SAMPLE CONCENTRATIONS



                                 BIG RIVER SAND COMPANY SUPERFUND SITE
Normal ize
San
Compound
Aluminum
Barium
Calcium
Chromium (PP)
Copper (PP)
Iron
Lead (PP)
Magnesium
Manganese
Potassium
Tin
Zinc (PP)
Sum:
Mean:
PP = Priority
SS-1
3.06
2.61
3.09
1.47
1.14
2.30
3.19
3.81
4.49
3.90
1.14
4.11
34.31
2.86
pollutant.
Notes: (1) Background sample
SS-2
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
12.00
1.00

SS-3
3.27
4.17
18.52
1.27
1.07
2.76
2.23
5.24
4.49
1.85
1.05
4.52
50.42
4.20

concentration Is
SS-4 SS-5
4.04 l.in
2.27 1.83
2.72 0.95
1.58 2.20
2.00 1.00
2.76 1.06
2.19 5.81
3.49 1.02
2.92 1.53
4.15 1.12
1.18 1.00
4.11 15.07
33.86 33.77
2.82 2.81

l:he average of
SS-6
1.59
1 .44
1.36
1.10
1.07
1.56
1.13
1.44
1.66
1.29
1.09
1.22
15.97
1.33

id Concer
ip.le Numl
SS-7
1.80
1.94
2.10
1.10
1.07
1.56
1.87
1.90
3.15
1.98
1.09
2.19
21.84
1.82

itration
>er
SS-8
0.78
0.81
0.94
1.01
1.00
0.83
2.13
0.87
1.60
0.95
1.00
1.22
13.12
1.09

two samples collected at

SS-9
1.88
1.56
1.48
1.83
1.00
1.54
6.45
1.75
3.37
2.44
1.05
2.60
26.95
2.25

SS-2.

SS-10
3.59
2.28
2.35
1.17
1.07
2.30
2.06
3.17
1.46
3.66
1.18
3.29
27.59
2.30



SS-11
4.08
4.72
28.40
1.65
1.07
3.22
3.00
6.51
6.07
4.39
1,45
5.48
70.04
5.84



SS-12
3.39
3.06
16.05
1.16
1.07
2.53
2.23
4.29
4.04
3.66
1.23
4.25
46.94
3.91


(2)  Sample is a composite of the 0- to 1-foot depth

-------
Table 6-3
TABLE OF TOTAL METAL CONCENTRATIONS IN
SPLIT-SPOONED SOIL SAMPLES
BIG RIVER SAND COMPANY SUPERFUND SITE
Concentration (mg/kg)
Sample Number and Samo!0 D»Dth
Compound
Aluminum
Barium
Calcium
Chromium (PP)
Iron 2
Lead (PP)
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury (PP)
Tin
Zinc '(??)
* = Actual
limits
B101S B102D
0-6 0-6
feet feet
590 6', 100
18.0* 100*
420* 3,300
<5.1 6.80
,000 9,300
<2.60 8.70
300* 2,100*
64.0 290
<0.1 <0.12
<20 <23.0
5.0* 24.0
B102D
Duplicate
0-6 feet
4,800 4
91.0*
3,100 17
6.6
7,900 8
7.6
1,500* 2
250
<0.12
<23.0
•20.0
B102D
9-11
feet
,200
110*
,000 1
6.80
,800 2
6.6
,200*
150
<0.12
< 24 . 0
25.0
concentration, but les; than CLP contract
B102D
14-16
feet
570
15.0*
,100*
<6.00
,100
3.3
350*
44.0
<0.12
<24.0
6.80*
. :quirec
E101D
0-6
feet
8,30C
190
20,000
11.0
15,000
6.1
4,800
430
<0.13
<25.0
49.0
detection
(P?) = Priority Pollutant.
Note: B101S
is the background
sample location.




-------
                                             36
                                     Table  6-3  (Cont.)
                     TABLE OF TOTAL METAL CONCENTRATIONS IN
                           SPLIT-SPOONED SOIL SAMPLES

                     BIG RIVE3 SAND COMPANY SUPERFUND SITE
Concentration (mg/kg)
Sample Number and Sample Deoth
Compound
Aluminum
Barium
Calcium
Chromium (PP)
Iron
Lead (PP)
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury (PP)
Tin
Zinc (PP)
E101D
9-11
feet
6,900
88.0*
3,200
6.60
10,000
11.0
2,300*
86.0
<0.12
<23.0
26.0
E101D
14-16
feet
460
8.60*
540*
<5.50
880
2.90
330*
13.0
<0.11
<22.0
5.20*
E102S
0-6
feet
6,700
130
17,000
7.90
11,000
8.70
2,700*
270
<0.12
<23.0
32.0
E102S
9-11
feet
880
27.0*
1,900*
3.20*
- 3,200
5.50
420*
54.0
<0.11
48.0
8.80*
E102S
14-16
feet
2,200
70.0*
8,200
5.30*
5,400
4.60
1,200*
84.0
<0.14
< 27 . 0
17.0
*    =  Actual  concentration,  but  less  than CLP  contract  required detection
        limits.

(PP) =  Prioirty Pollutant.

Note:   Table includes only samples and compounds  measured above the detection
        lirr.it.

-------
                                                lahle  6-4

                     COMPARISON OF NORMALIZED SPLIT-SPOONED SOIL CONCENTRATIONS

                               DIG RIVER SAND COMPANY SUPERFUND SITE
Normalized Concentration
Sample Number
Compound
Aluminum
Barium
Calcium
Chromium (PP)
Iron
Lead (PP)
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury (PP)
Tin
Zinc (PP)
Sum:
Mean:
(PP) = Priorit, pollutant.
(<) Symbol used to. denote
niois
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
11.0
1.00

compound was
B102D
10.34
5.56
7. 86
1.33
4.65
3.35
7.00
4.53
<1.20
<1.15
4.80
<51.77
<4.71

reported at actual
E101D
14.07
10.56
47.62
2.16
7.50
2.35
16.00
6.72
<1.30
<1.25
9.80
<119.33
<10.85

concentration of
E102S
11.36
7.22
40.48
1.55
5.50
3.35
9.00
4.22
<1.20
<1.16
6.40
<91.43
<8.31

minimum detection
Notes:  (1) BlOls was used ns the background sample.
        (2) Sample is a composite of the 0 to 6-foot depth.

-------
3R
Whle 6-5
TAHLE OF TOTAL METAL CONCENTRATIONS IN
GROUNDWATER SAMPLES FROM MONITORING WELLS
DIG RIVER SAND COMPANY SUPERFUND SITE
Concentration (ug/L)
Sample Number
Compound
Arsenic (PP)
Barium
Calcium
Chromium (PP)
Iron
Lead (PP)
Magnesium
Manganese
Potassium
Selenium (PP)
Sodium
Zinc (PP)
B101S
<10
550
81,000
16
4,200
<5.0
7,700
200
2,600*
<5.0
120.000
<20.0
B102S
15
330
210,000
31
7,400
<5.0
22,000
210
3,300*
<5.0
80,000
<42
Q102D
<10
220
89,000
34
6.300
<5.0
16,000.
160
4,300*
<5.0
190,000
<34
E101S
<10
110*
130,000
24
5,700
5.0
24,000
140
3,100*
61
74,000
<31
E101S
(Dupl icate)
<10
110*
130,000
24
5,900
5.0
24,000
140
3,100*
62
73,000
<32
E101D
<10
110*
120,000
25
7,000
10
20,000
no
4,100*
<5.0
110,000
<54
E102S
<10
440
97,000
30
19,000
10
14,000
290 |
4,000* i
<5.0
41,000
66
E102D
<10 .
110*
77,000
27
4,500
<5.0
13,000
46
4,000*
<5.C
160,000
<36
* =    Actual concentration,  but less than CLP contract required detection limits.



(PP) = Priority Pollutant.

-------
                                                                 39
                                                            Table 6-6
                                         TABLE OF DISSOr.VED METAI, CONCENTRATIONS IN
                                         GROUNDWATER SAMPLES FROM MONITORING WELLS

                                           BIG RIVER SAND COMPANY SUPERFUND SITE
Concentration (ug/L)
Sample Number
Compound
Arsenic (PP)
Larium
Calcium
Chromium (PP)
Iron
Lead (PP)
Magnesium
Manganese
Selenium (PP)
Sodium
Tin
Zinc (PP)
B101S
<10.0
550
79,000
14
6,000
<5.0
7,900
290
<5.0
110,000
<40.0
<25
B102S
14
330
210,000
27
4,400
<5.0
21,000
160
<5.0
82,000
<400
<30
B102D
<10
110*
91,000
14
3,100
<5.0
15,000
130
<5.0
190,000
<400
<47
E101S
<10
220
120,000
15
220.
5.0
23,000
45
61
73,000
<400
<32
E101S
(Duplicate)
<10
110*
130,000
26
3,400
<5.0
24,000
96
57
73,000
<400
<52
E101D
<10
110*
120,000
15
2,700
<5.0
19,000
140
<5.0
110,000
<400
<54
E102S
<10
330
97,000
28
14,000
7.0
14,000
230
<5.0i '
38,000
<40
71
E102D
<10
110*
77,000
24
3,200
<5.0
13,000
<33.0
<5.0
150,000
<40
<48
* =     Actual concentration, but less than CLP contract required detection limits.

(PP) =  Priority Pollutant.

-------


' 40
Table 6-7


TABLE OF TOTAL METAL CONCENTRATIONS IN
PRIVATE WELL GROUOTWATER SAMPLES
BIG RIVER SAND COMPANY "5IJPERFUND SITE
Compound
Barium
Calcium
.Chromium (PP)
Magnesium
Manganese
Sodium

PWII
220
76,000
<10
8,500
<15
150,000
Concentration (ug/L)
Sample Number
PW#2 PW#3
<200 110*
71,000 84,000
<10 11
10,000 10,000
560 <15
160,000 190, OC:
* =    Actual  concentration,  but  less than  CLP contract  required  detection
       limits.
(PP) = Priority Pollutant.

-------
                                           41
                                      Table 6-8
                    OF DISSOLVED 'METAL CONCENTRATIONS DETECTED IN
                    ut uxao          GROUNDWATER SAMPLES
                     BIG RIVER SAND COMPANY SUPERFUND SITE
Compound

Barium
Calcium
Magnesium
Manganese
Sodium
'
PW#1
__ — ——— — — — ^—
330
76,000
8,600
<15
150,000
Concentration (ug/L)
Sample Number
PW#2
<200
73,000
10,000
560
160,000

PW#3
220
86,000
10,000
<15
190,000
     Actual   concentration,   but  less   than  CLP  contract  required  detection
     limits.

-------
                      Table
COMPARISON OF NORMALIZED GROUHDWATER SAMPLE CO"
          BIG RIVER RAND COMPANY SUPERFUND SITE
.NATIONS
Normalized Concentration :
Sample Number
Compound
Arsenic (PP)
Barium
Calcium
Chromium (PP)
Iron
Lead (PP)
Magnesium
Manganese
Potassium
Selenium (PP)

Sodium
Zinc (PP)
Sum:
Mean:
(PP) = Priority
B101S
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00
12.0 •
1.00
pollutant.
(<) Symbol used to denote
Notes: 1. Background sample
2. Table
B102S
1.50
0.60
2.59
1.72
1.76
<1.00
2.86
1.05
1.27
<1.00

0.67
<2.10
(18,12
,1.51

compound
H102D
<1.00
0.40
1.10
1.89
1.50
<1.00
2.08
0.80
1.65
<1.00

1.58
<1.70
<15.70
,1.31

E101S
<1.00
0.20
1.60
1.33
1.36
1.00
3.12
0.70
1.19
12.20

0.62
<1.55
<25.87
<2.16

was reported at actual
concentration from
is for normalized total metal c
E101D
<1.00
0.20
1.48
1.39
1.67
2.00
2.60
0.85
1.58
<1.00

0.92
<2.70
<17.39
<1.45

E102S
<1.00
0.80
1.20
1.67
4.52
2.00
1.82
1.45
1.54
<1.00

0.34
3.30
<20.64
<1.72

concentration and
E102D
<1.00
<0.20
0.95
1.50
1.07
<1.00
1.69
0.23
1.54
<1.00

1.33
<1.80
<13.31
. <1.11

was below the
PWJII
1.00
0.40
0.94
0.56
0.02
1.00
1.10
0.07
1.65
1.00

1.25
1.05
10.05
0.75

detection
PW02
1.00
0.36
0.88
0.56
0.02
1.00
1.30
2.80
1.42
1.00
1
l!33
1.00
12.67
0.97

limits.
PW03
1.00
0.2
1.04
0.61
0.02
1.0
1.3
0.07
1.04
1.0

1.58
2.55
11.42
0.87


monitoring well B101S.
:oncentrations
.






-------
                                                         Table  7-1
                        SUMMARY OF PRESENT AMD POTENTIAL llin-IAII AIID ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE SCENARIOS
                                                 AND THEIR RESULTING RISKS

                                               RIVER SAlin COMPANY SDPERFUIID SITE
Exposure
  Typo
 Transport/
  Exposure
   Media
             Primary
Receptor     Exposure
 Point       Route(s)
                                    Scenario
                                                Results and Conclusions
Present
Exposure
Contaminated
  soi Is
             Groundwater
             Surface water
On-slte
  worker
                              Downwind
                                residents
                 Eisenring
                   family
                 On-slte
                   ponds
Inhalation
Ingcstlon
Dermal
  contact

Inhalation
              Ingestlon
              Impacts on
                aquatic
                ecology
                          Exposure to constituents
                            detected in soil material
                            while working on-slto.
                          Inhalation of volatilized
                            or particulato-bound
                            contami nnnts.

                          Consumption of drinking
                            water from existing
                            well.
              Concentrations of contam-
                inants measured In pond
                water and sediment
                qualitatively assessed.
Total Hazard Index 0.1834.
Incremental total_,carclnogenlc
  risk 9.53 x 10~7.
Delow acceptable risk levels.

Should be negligible based on
  on-site estimated exposure
  levels.

Total Hazard Index-Adult  1.3068.
Total Hazard Index-Child  4.5803.
Incremental total carcinogenic
  risk 8.57 x 10~5.
Potential health hazard exists,
  but concentrations of all
  constituents below their
  respective MCLs/KALs.

Concentrations of contaminants
  found are consistent with natural
  waters; no anticipated  adverse
  environmental impacts.
Potential
Future
Exposure
Groundwater
Assume new
  domestic
  well
  on-sitc
Ingestion   ,  Consumption of drinking
                water from existing
                monitoring well E101S.
                                                        Total Hazard Index-Adult 0.8354.
                                                        Total Hazard Index-Child 2.9240.
                                                        llo  Increased Incremental carcin-
                                                          ogenic risk.
                                                        Potential health hazard exists,
                                                          but concentrations of all
                                                          constituents below their
                                                          respective MCLs/KALs.
 Background
 Exposures
Groundwater
Assume new
  domestic
  well
  on-s ite
Ingcstlon     Consumption of drinking
                water from existing
                monitoring well DIOlS.
                                                        Total Hazard  Index-Adult  0.3889.
                                                        Total Hazard  Index-Child  1.3611.
                                                        Mo  increased  incremental  carcin-
                                                          ogenic  risk.
                                                        Potential health hazard exists,
                                                          but concentrations of all
                                                          constituents below their
                                                          respective MCLs/KALs.

-------
                               44
                           Table 10-1

              Ground Water Sampling Cost Estimates
A.  Current cost for sample collection            $2,150
    (includes labor, travel, lodging and
    subsistence for two people)
B.  Current cost for routine water analysis       $1,450
    (five samples,  total metals)
C.   Total present cost                            $3,600
D.   Future cost if .sampling conducted in          $5,800
    year five (maximum cost, interest rate
    at ten percent)

-------
                              STATE OF KANSAS
                       DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
                                  Forties Field
                               Toiiekci. Kun.ia.1 66fi20-0l)0l
                                Phone (913) 206-1500
Mike Hayden, Giicernur
   Stanley C. Grant, Ph.D., Secretary
Gary K. Hulett. Ph.D., Under Secretary
    June 24,  1988
   Mr.  Robert Morby
   U.  S.  EPA — Region  VII
   726  Minnesota Avenue
   Kansas City, Kansas   66101

   Dear Mr.  Morby,

   The   Department  has  reviewed  the  Remedial  Investigation  (RI),
   Feasibility Study (FS) and the Proposed Plan  (PP) for the Big River
   Sand Company Site,  Wichita, Kansas.   The Department  concurs with
   the  U. S. Environmental  Protection Agency's determination this site
   does not  pose  a  threat to  public  health and  welfare or  to the
   environment.  We  agree additional  remedial   measures  at this site
   are  not appropriate and the no-further-action  alternative is the
   preferred selected  remedy  at this site.

   The  Department recommends the U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
   initiate the appropriate procedures to delete.the  Big River Sand
   Company from the  National  Priorities List.

   Sincerely,      ^x
              -   -
    James A.  Power, Jr.,  P..E.
    Director            '   /'
    Division of Environment

    JAP:cas

-------
  BIG RIVER SAND & GRAVEL COMPANY
           SUPERFUND SITE
          WICHITA, KANSAS

     ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
                    /UL-c^-^V-
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 'AGENCY
 CONTRACT  NO.  68-01-7351   (TES  IV)
      WORK  ASSIGNMENT  NO.  570
              JUNE  1988

-------
         RECORD OF DECISION




       RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
     BIG RIVER SAND COMPANY SITE




           WICHITA, KANSAS
            Prepared By:



U.S. Environmental Protection Agency



             Region VII



         Kansas City, Kansas



              June 1988

-------
     The Responsiveness Summary provides EPA and State
decision makers with information on major issues raised by the
public regarding the site and the remedial alternatives
developed.  It also documents how public comments were taken into
account in the decision-making process.

     As required by CERCLA, a notice and brief analysis of the
Proposed Plan were published on May 31, 1988, in The Wichita
Eagle-Beacon.  The public notice provided a brief overview of the
site and identified the lead agency (EPA) and the support agency
(KDHE).   The notice informed the public of its role in the
decision-making process and provided information on the public
comment period, the location of the information repositories and
methods by which the public could submit oral and written
comments.  The notice also presented the preferred alternative
and requested public comments on the alternative.

     To provide the community with a reasonable opportunity to
submit written and oral comments on the Proposed Plan and the RI
report,  the EPA and KDHE established a public comment period from
May 31 through June 20, 1988.  The EPA and KDHE also invited
requests for a public meeting in the community to present the
Proposed Plan and RI report, answer questions and receive
comments.

     The Proposed Plan, RI report and Administrative Record file
were made available for public review at the Sedgwick County
Public Library, Main Branch, 223 S. Main Street, Wichita, Kansas,
and at the EPA Region VII Library in Kansas City, Kansas.

     No comments were received by EPA or the State on the
Proposed Plan, the preferred alternative or the Administrative
Record file during the public comment period.

-------