PB97-963134
EPA/541/R-97/121
January 1998
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision Amendment:
South Cavalcade Street Site
Houston, TX
6/27/1997
-------
AMENDED
RECORD OF DECISION
NO. 1
^eo sr4 v
^
-------
SOUTH CAVALCADE STREET
SUPERFUND SITE
CONCURRENCE FOR
AMENDED RECORD OF DECISION NO. 1
Glenn Celerier, P.E.
Project Manager
Jon Weisberg
Site Attorney
Gus Chavarria
Chief, Project Mgmt Section
Mark Peycke /
Chief, Litigation Enf.
Branch
gill Honker, P.E.
Chief, AR/OK/TX Branch
Myron O. Knudson, P.E.
Director, Superfund Division
-------
DECLARATION
FOR
THE AMENDED RECORD OF DECISION NO. 1
SITE NAME AND LOCATION.
South Cavalcade Street Site
2001 Collingsworth Street
Houston, TX
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE. This decision document presents an amendment to
the selected remedial action for the South Cavalcade Street She which was chosen in accordance with
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA),
as a nended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) (42 U.S. Code,
Section 9601, et seq.), and, to the extent practicable, the National Contingency Plan (NCP) (40 CFR
Part 300). This decision is based on the Administrative Record for this site. The State of Texas
concurs with this amended remedy.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE. Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this
site, if not addressed by implementing the response action selected in this Amended Record of
Decision, present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare or the
environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE REMEDY. This amendment fundamentally changes the Record of
Decision (ROD) executed by the Regional Administrator on September 26, 1988. This amended
remedy will seal and contain soils contaminated with greater than 700 ppm carcinogenic polyaromatic
hydrocarbons (cPAH) beneath a six inch thick reinforced concrete cap.
STATUTORY DETERMINATION. The selected remedy is protective of human health and the
environment, complies with Federal and State requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and
appropriate to the remedial action, and is cost-effective. This remedy utilizes a permanent solution
and alternative treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable. The questionable success
of soil washing, the previously selected remedy, and the comparable risk off-site preclude selecting
a remedy which treats the contaminants of concern. Since contamination at the site prese *s only
low level threats, and treatment of the contaminated soil at the she was not found to be practicable,
this remedy does not satisfy the statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment as a principal
element. However, as described in the folio ving Amended Record of Decision a reinforced concrete
cap will sever the exposure pathway and thus protect human health and the environment.
Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining onsrte above health-based levels,
a review will be conducted within five years after commencement of remedial action to ensure that
the remedy continues to provide adequate protection of public health, welfare, and the environment.
6-27-
-------
SOUTH CAVALCADE STREET SUPERFUND SITE
AMENDED RECORD OF DECISION
NO.l
INTRODUCTION '. ; I
Site Name and Location I
Lead and Support Agencies I
Administrative Record I
Explanation of Difference '.... I
Summary of the Circumstances Requiring an Amendment ; 4
REASONS FOR AMENDING THE ROD , 4
Soil Remedy Selected in the ROD 4
Summary of Rationale for Changing Remedy Selected in the ROD 4
DESCRIPTION OF THE NEW ALTERNATIVE 6
MAJOR ARAR'S 7
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES ."...... '•
APPENDIX A - CORRESPONDENCE
APPENDIX B - CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF CONCRETE CAP SOUTH CAVALCADE SUPERFUND SITE
APPENDIX C - ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER ON CONSENT, DOCKET NUMBER CERCLA 6-08-92
APPENDIX D RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
APPENDIX E - LAND OWNER COMMENTS
-------
I. INTRODUCTION. In 1988. EPA issued a Record o: Decision iROD) for the South Ovalcade Street Superfund Site
which selected soil flushing and soil washing as the remedies to remediate wood treating wastes in the soil. However, us
discussed below, following a soil washing pilot study, it became apparent to EPA that the selected remedy would not achieve
the remedial action 'oals established in the ROD. Consequently. EPA decided to propose u change :o the remedy at the site
dirough this ROD amendment to cover the contamination with a concrete cap.
i. Site Name and Location. The South Cavalcade Street site was once '.he site of a former coal tar distillation and
creosote wood preserving facility The contaminants of concern in on-site soils are seven carcinogenic compounds' released
from the creosote wood preservative prior to 1962. when wood treating operations ceased The site is located in urban northeast
Houston, Texas about one mile southwest of the intersection of Interstate Loop 610 and U.S. Route 59 < figure I &. 2). The
boundaries of the 66 acre site are Cavalcade Street to die north. Collingswonh Street to the south, and the Houston Belt and
Terminal (HB&T) lines to the east and west. The site is generally flat and is drained by two storm water drainage ditches
flanking the east and west sides. These ditches discharge into Hunting Bayou, a Houston Ship Channel tributary.
The site is presently used by three commercial freight truck companies: Trucking Properties. Nations Way Transport
Service, and Palletized Trucking. These companies erected terminal, office and maintenance buildings on the northern and
southern pans of the site. The centrj pan of the site remains vegetated and vacant. Surrounding the site are commercial.
industrial and some residential properties. The nearest residential area is directly to the west and across the HB&T railroad
traces; however, (here are no residential properties jdjaccm to a site boundary. EPA anticipates the site will continue to be used
as commercial freight truck terminals for the foreseeable future.
b. Lead and Support Agencies. EPA is the lead agency overseeing she remediation under the terms of a Consent
Decree executed by Beazer East. Inc. ("BET), and entered yy the VS. District Court for the Southern District of Texas on
March 14.1991 (Civil Action No. H-90-2406). Under the Consent Decree terms. BEI is responsible for remediating the site
in accordance with the remedy selected by EPA, as reflected by the ROD executed by EPA on September 16.1988. A copy
of the ROD is included in the Administrative Record as explained in the paragraph below. The. Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission (TNRCQ provides EPA remedial action support on the site.
c. Administrative Record. This ROD amendment wiD become pan of the Administrative Record file in
accordance with the National Contingency Plan (NCP). 40 CFR }300.825(aK2). The Administrative Record contains
documents such as the "Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study* (RI/FS) and ROD. that form the basis for selecting the
remedial action. In arlrlirion rinnimm^ alTytM-H K> "f fff»T«< in tfrit ^ffnltr^ ttrrrwrt nf rWitinn am inrr»pn"t«-rf into
the Administrative Record by reference. The Administrative Record is located ac
U. S. Environmental Protecbor. Agency Houston Central Library
Region 6 SOOMcKrane?
1443 Ross Avenue Houston. TX 77002
Dallas. TX -5302-2733 (713)236-1313
(214)665-6444
The Administrative Record is available to die public at EPA Region 6 on Mondays through Fridays from 8 a.m. to 4
p.m. or the Houston Central Library on Mondays through Fridays from 9 a.m. *o 9 p.m. except legal holidays.
d. Explanation of Difference- In lieu of using the soil washing and soil flushing remedies originally selected in
Ac ROD, the remedy described in this amendment is to seal areas where surface contamination exceeds the ROD established
soil cleanup goal - 700 ppm total carcinogenic polyaromabc hydrocarbons (cPAH): - with a reinforced concrete cover. The
ROD established 700 ppm as die soil cleanup goal to "._ prevent against an excess lifetime increased cancer risk of S x 10*
for likely on-site exposure to soil"1 Site risk is further discussed in this amendment under the title "Summary of Rationale
lor Changing the Remedy Selected in the ROD." This amodmenl affects only the soil remedial action whereas on site
fToandwaUr remedial action remains unchanged.
1 The carcinogenic compounds are benzo(a)artthracene. benzo(a)pyrene. benzo(b)fluoramhene. benzo(k)fluoranthene.
chrysene. o%enzo(a.h)antnracene and ideno(1.2.3-cd)pyrene.
* •Record of Decision,' South Cavalcade Street Site.* USEPA. September 16.1988. p. 15. (See Administrative Record)
»ROD. p. 3SL • .
-------
Houston
intercontinental
Airport
SOUTH
CAVALCADE
SITE VICINITY MAP
FILE NO. 85-317
FIGURE 1
-------
Industrial Property
• ::""^^4fef'•'"'' v5 !ndustrial pr°Perty :!
' -v-"^i ' '~~ ~^5'§B»»_ -. • i . i !
Trucking Properties
// '/ ' • . • • • • „.-*•.
^---- ';-";:;.'.'.. ^-^-^
./,;,i;1; '• ...,,^^^\ .
7V-r" T^^'T^^n - Industrial
U. O 1' ',[fi!?^|k)^r Resideniial P^ KLUJ |V!S^Q S^W
11 •'_••'>TJ ILL-! • /'•'• u $\$-\") ( ^ -..I-
i]^Luj]v^0S^p;>yvi f:" 'ilWi^ 1
M'telfeM
HTRffl r^TrT^ri f-^^H!~n -i1 !|''"'
^,WHJ ,, .J^n|>.t.* hiiii 1(1.iiin)R,/.,. ,V' fw-.•'
•;;* l^n hKmiAwvM
\:\l
-z. v
FIGURE 2
-------
SOUTH CAVALCADE SUPESRJND SITE.
AMENDED ROD Ma t
MAY 16. 1996. Page 4
Since capping contamination changes the remedial approach originally established in the ROD. EPA considers this
a "fundamental" change and must amend the ROD in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response.
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). Section I I7(c>. 42 U.S.C. 5 96I7(c). and the 1990 National Contingency Plan
(NCP) at 40 CFR § 300.435(cX2X»). However, as explained in the following paragraphs. EPA believes this change will
continue to protect human health within the acceptable risk range defined in the N'CP at 40CFR § 300.430
-------
SOUTH CAVALCADE SUPERFUNO SITE,
AMENDED ROD NO. 1
MAY 16. 1996. Page 5 .
•v
contain the wastes at the site. EPA considered the May 25, 1995. Land Use in The CERCH Remedy Selection Proces
(OSWER Directive 9355.7-04). As described in the NCP. 40CFR § 300.430.1 a)< 1 MiiiXA). EPA prefers permanent solution
to reduce the toxiciry. mobility, or volume of the wastes and the treatment of all principal threats. However, in 1 991 . three yea/-
after the ROD was signed, EPA published guidance defining "principal threat."10 In accordance with that guidance. EPA doe:
sot consider the contamination on site to be a principle threat since the base line risk assessment did not identify any health ri«J
from any of the soil contaminants on site greater than 1 in 1000 ( 1 x 10 V Therefore, since the waste on site is not considers
* principal threat the NCP 40 CFR § 300.430.(aXIXi"XB) now allows EPA to use "... engineering controls, such a-
Containment, for waste that poses a relatively long term threat "i: EPA believes a concrete cover will provide reliable protection
As a result of BEI's proposal. EPA re-evaluated the reasonably anticipated land use and the potential exposur.
pathways (see Table 1 ) for the designated land use from the original Record of Decision. Using the aforementioned land us«.
directive EPA developed future land use assumptions with information such as population growth patterns, accessability to tfv
site, institutional controls in place and site location." This evaluation lead EPA to conclude that the current land use. freight
truck terminals, will continue to be the land use for the foreseeable future and will remain nothing other than industrial use
because of population growth patterns, accessability to the site, msuruaonal controls and its location. This is a change from
EPA's original land use assumptions.
At the time that the site was under
investigation, inadvertent ingestion, dust inhalation, and
direct contact by utility or construction workers were
likely exposure assumptions. However, as a result of an
Administrative Order on Consent, entered in 1992, each
landowner has placed a deed notice on file to alert
future landowners that contamination remains on site.14
The order also prevents landowners from drilling
water wells on site; requires landowners to preserve,
protect, repair and maintain existing concrete
foundations and paved areas: and provides notice mat
residential use of the site is inappropriate.
Consequently, this pathway is no longer realistic
because future owners are forewarned and can take
measures to protect utility or construcdon workers from
inadveneir ingestion, dust inhalation and direct contact
with contaminants on the site.
"
EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
• Inadvertent ingestion, dust inhalation, and
direct contact with surficiai soils by utility or
construction workers;
• Inadvertent ingestion and direct contact with
drainage ditch sediments by trespassing
children; and
• . Inadvertent ingestion and direct contact with
surface soils by future residents if the site
were ever developed.
• Inadvertent ingestion and direct contact with
surface soils by on-site commercial
occupants
Table 1 Four Exposure Pathways Assumptions.
Although inadvertent ingestion and direct
contact with drainage itch sediments by trespassing
Children was considerec a potential exposure according
to the remedial investigation studies, this exposure had a maximum noncarcinogenic hazard index of less than 0.01 and a
maximum excess lifetime cancer risk of 1 x 10"*. The risk estimate for this exposure pathway is within the acceptable range
defined in the NCP. 40 CFR § 300.430
-------
SOl'TH CAVALCADE SUPERFUND SITE.
AMENDED HOD NO. 1
MAY 16.1996. Page*
bi addition, since the site is a potential brownfield'7 bordered by two railroads, above ground petroleum product storage
tanks, warehouses and other light industries, future residential development is unlikely. Therefore, inadvertent ingestion and
direct contact with surface soils by future residents is also unlikely. Furthermore, as previously mentioned, the notice recorded
pursuant to the AOC states that residential land use is inappropriate. Therefore, this pathway does not present an unacceptable
risk to hur^ar health and the environment
The Iburth exposure pathway, 'inadvertent ihgestion and direct contact with rurfacr >oils by on-site commercial
occupants"" is the most realistic and probable exposure pathway. However, this pathway cart be severed with a concrete cap
covering all known contaminated areas, effectively severing the contaminant exposure pathway for on-siur commercial
occupants. Consequently. EPA believes that a concrete cap will be protective of human health and the environment, and as long
as the cap remains in place the risk will remain less than 1 x 10"* because there will not be an exposure pathway.
EPA does not anticipate population growth within die area because this area of Houston is "built out** indicating thai
population growth has mostly peaked. Access from two major freeways. IH 610. and U.S. 59 make the site ideal for continued
trucking terminal operations. Furthermore, an administrative order on consent provides an institutional control to discourage
residential land use.
Lastly, the site's location within an existing industrial corridor, bordered by railroad tracks and next door to a fuel
distributor as well as a meat rendering plant, most likely will ensure the site will remain industrial. Consequently. EPA
concluded that unrestricted site use is not probable and since there is no principal mreat on site, EPA no longer believes
treatment is appropriate because it can not cost effectively achieve EPA's remediation goals. Therefore. EPA has amended the
ROD for this site because it believes die BEI arguments for covering the contaminated areas with a concrete cap have merit.1*
To summarize the reasons for amending the ROD. the soil washing pilot study did not conclude that soil washing would
provide overall protection of human health and the environment because the pilot test demonstrated that forty percent of the
soil volume could not be washed to meet die remedial goal Instead. BEI proposed permanently covering contaminated areas
with a concrete cap. EPA evaluated the land use and concluded (hat given the current and most reasonably anticipated land
use, the concrete cap could adequately protect human health and die environment by severing exposure pathways.
3. DESCRIPTION OF THE NEW ALTERNATIVE. The concrete cap described in this Amended ROD will seal and
contain contaminated soils beneath at least six inches of sted reinforced concrete designed to withstand the current and
anticipated freight truck traffic,
a. Design Parameters. To ensure die cap will withstand track traffic EPA will ensure the cap is designed in
accordance with die design practice specified by Amereart Concrete Institute Code 330. "Guide for Design and Construction
. of Concrete Parking Lots." The cap will be designed to provide positive drainage to eliminate standing rainwater and win cover
all presently known contaminated surface soils. Site drawings showing the areas requiring cover are included as Appendix B.
In addition, when the cover is completed a survey plat will be prepared showing the exact location and dimensions of each
contaminated area with respect to premanendy surveyed benchmarks. The plat must be prepared by and certified by a
professional land surveyor. The plat will become part of the institutional control used to alert subsequent owners that
contamination is left on site.
• Although the concrete cap will not treat contaminated soil it will provide a barrier preventing on site commercial
occupants from inadvertently ingesting, inhaling or directly contacting contaminated soik.
b. Closure and Post Closure Care. As pan of die remedy closure and post closure care will be provided. Closure
and post closure care includes the 40 CFR §264.119(bXIMiii) requirement cited in Table 3 and those requirements in die
following paragraphs.
" A brownfield is an abandoned, idled or under-used industrial and commercial facility where expansion or redevelopment
is complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination.
1g ROD. p. 14.
• >
* BEI letter. SepX£§. 1995 and EPA letter. Oct 5. 1996 (See Appendix JQ
-------
SOUTH CAVALCADE SUPERFUND SITE.
AMENDED ROD NO. 1.
MAY 16.1996. Page 7
i. Groundwaier Monitoring System. In accordance
with the original Record of Decision, if the monitoring system indicates
that contaminants left in place are leaching from the soils now under
existing structures EPA will have to determine if further remediation is
necessary.^ Consequently, the current groundwater remedial action must
consider the effects of leaving this soil contamination in place and ensure
it does not adversely affect the selected groundu-ater remedy.
n. Post Closure Plan. After the contaminated soils
are covered a post closure plan that describes the maintenance activities*
that will be carried on after the contaminated soils are covered will be
prepared and executed.
4. MAJOR ARAR'S. CERCLA, Section 121(dX2) requires
temediai actions to at (cast attain ARAR's. 42 U.S.C § 9621(dX2).
Applicable requirements are those cleanup standards, standards of control
and other substantive environmental protection requirements, criteria, or
limitations promulgated under Federal or State law that specifically
address a hazardous substance at a Superfund site. Relevant and
appropriate requirements are standards, which while not 'applicable" at a
CERCLA site, address problems or situations sufficiently similar to those
encountered at the site that their use is warranted. EPA recognizes the
tfiree ARAR categories defined in Table 1 While EPA does not believe
(here are any requirements applicable to the remedy outlined in this
1 Chemical Specific. Those requirements
which establish the acceptable amount or
concentration of a chemical that may be
found in. or discharged to the ambient
environment
Location Specific. Those requirements
which restrict the concentration of
hazardous substances or the conduct of
activities solely because o< the site's
location, Le. Hoodptain. wetlands, historic
places and sensitive habitats.
Action Specific Those technology or
activity based requirements on actions
taken with respect to hazardous wastes.
These requirements indicate how a
selected remedial action must be achieved.
Table 2. ARAR Categories.
40 CFR, Part 264 - Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment,
Storage, and Disposal Facilities
• Subpart G - Closure and Post Closure. §264.119(b)(1)(i).
• Subpart N - Landfills. §26OlO(a)(1), §264.310(a)(2). §264.310(a)(3). §264.310(a)(4). §264.310(b)(1). and
§264.310(b)(5).
Table 3. Relevant and Appropriate Requirements.
Amended ROD. the requirements in Table 3 are relevant and appropriate.
5. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES. To properly consider a ROD amendment EPA has traditionally evaluated
(he originally selected remedy and the amended remedy by comparing them against the nine criteria identified in Table 4 to
ensure that the amended remedy reflects the scope, purpose and a long term comprehensive response for the MIC after
discovering significant new information to support an amendment.-'' In addition, in the case of this Amended ROD. EPA also
considered the presumptive remedies described in "Presumptive Remedies for Soils. Sediments, and Sludges at Wood Treater
Sites." EPA/5407R-95/I2*.
a. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment. The concrete cap will adequately protect human
health and (he environment by severing the most realistic and probable exposure pathway: inadvertent ingestion ant! direct
contact with surface soils by on-site commercial occupants. Consequently, as long as the land use remains similar to the present
use and the concrete cap remains in place, the amended remedy will be protective, cost effective and efficient. Since the soil
washing pilot test study did not conclude that soil washing would provide overall protection of human health .md the
environment as described above, capping provides greater overall protection than the remedy selected in the ROD.
" HOD . p. 20.
** WCP. 40 C-=R §300.430(f). -Selection of Remedy."
-------
SOUTH CAVALCADE SUPSSFUNO SITE.
AMENDED ROD NO. 1
MAY 16. 1996. Page •
b. Compliance With Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements. It is possible to construct a concrete
cap which will meet the requirements of the ARAR's identified above which require the remedy to minimize the need for further
maintenance and control post-closure escape of hazardous waste, hazardous constituents, leachate. contaminated run-off, or
hazardous waste decomposition products to the ground or surface waters or to the atmosphere.' The previous remedy, soil
washing, would not meet the ARAR's.
c. Long-Term
Effectiveness and Permanence. Since
the origmally selected remedy could
Human HeaKh ^ ^ Environment
not treat the soils to meet the remedial _ _
goaJ. it failed to demonstrate the long * C^P^e With Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
Lohg-Tetn Effectiveness and Performance
Reduction of Toxicrty, Mobility or Volume Through Treatment
Short-Term Effectiveness
Imptementab-Cty
Cost
State Acceptance
Community Acceptance
term effectiveness anticipated in the
1988 ROD. However, a concrete cap
.can be designed to provide adequate
long term protection. Concrete's
performance is well documented and
with minimal maintenance EPA
expects that a concrete cap can provide
a durable barrier protecting the
environment indefinitely with minimal
long term operation and maintenance Table 4. The Nine Critsria.
requirements.
d. Reduction of Toxicitv. Mobility or Volume Through Treatment. While EPA recognizes this criteria applies
only to treatment, a concrete cap will reduce toxkiry by severing the most likely potential exposure pathway. In addition, since
water is the only medium most likely to mobilize the contaminant, a concrete cap will greatly reduce die amount of water
contacting the contaminant. Although the remedy does not provide soil treatment, since EPA believes mat the current land use.
freight truck terminals, will continue to be the land use for the foreseeable future, treatment provides no apparent additional
benefit.
e. Short-Term Effectiveness. When compared to the originally selected remedy, the amended remedy will provide
equal or better short-term effectiveness. With either remedy there is. albeit small, a probability that remedial action workers
could receive a harmful exposure from fugitive dust generated during construction. However, this potential threat will be
minimized by implementing appropriate worker health and safety procedures. Constructing die originally selected remedy was.
expected to take up to five years, whereas constructing a concrete cap is expected to take less than one year.
f. hnplementdbilitv. In comparison to the originally 'ttected remedy, die concrete cap is impiementable whereas
soil washing was not impiementable. Although the feasibility i-t-jdy indicated soil washing was impiementable, the full scale
pilot test demonstrated that soil washing could not consistently and efficiently meet remediation goals. The amended remedy
is impiementable since it is easy to construct with readily available skills and materials, and is reliable and is easy to maintain.
g. Cost. When comparing present worth costs constructing a concrete cap will cost approximately S697.000
whereas the soil washing is currently estimated to cost in excess of S6.800.000. There will be no operation costs associated
with the concrete cap. Since the cap will serve as truck terminal pavement the fact that die cap covers contaminated soil will
not add to the pavement maintenance normally required for terminal operations. Therefore operation and maintenance are not
considered in the cost of this concrete cap.
The originally selected remedy did little to control clean up cost. As demonstrated during the soil washing pilot project.
successful treatment was uncertain because die final volume and disposal of remaining contaminated soil could not be estimated
with any acceptable certainty. Uncertainty increases the financial risk for contractors bidding the remedial work, and srcjter
financial risks will increase the bid price. By eliminating the uncertainly of treatment success, the financial risk is reduced and
costs are kept under control
h. State Acceptance. The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) reviewed this
amendment. The TNRCC concurred with this ammendment in a February 21, 1997 letter to EPA. This letter is included in
the Administrative Record.
* 4D CFR. Part 264 - Standards for Owners ana Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal
Facilities: Subpart G - Closure and Post Closure, § 264.111 (a) & (a)
-------
SOUTH CAVALCADE SUPERFUND SITE.
AMENDED ROD NO. 1
MAY 16.1996. Pag* 9
i. Community Acceptance. The Amended Proposed Plan was released for public comment on February 10, 1997
and EPA conducted a public meeting on February 21, 1997. Appendix O attached to this Amended ROD is EPA's response
to the comments EPA received during the comment period. None of the comments required EPA to make any significant
changes to the proposed plan. The community has been satisfied with the work to date and the current landowners have
accepted the proposed remedy (See Appendix A. letter dated October 20, 1995 and January 8, 1996 and Appendix E).
Furthermore, the site is a potential "brownfield." Therefore EPA believes a concrete cap covering contaminated areas will
reduce the originally estimated five year3 cleanup duration to less than one year. This would allow property owners to quickly.
expand current terminal operations thus increasing the local tax base and stimulating job growth while providing a protective
remedy. Consequently, a cap will encourage economic development by returning the property to its full potential.
23 ROD, p. 2*.
-------
APPENDIX A - CORRESPONDENCE
-------
September 2, 1992
Shannon Cralf
Beazer East, Inc.
436 Seventh Avenue
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
RE: South Cavalcade Site
Dear Shannon:
Reference the August 1992 "Soil Delineation Report• Keystone
gnvironmental Resources Inc. transmitted to our office on August >«
1992. He vill approve this report if Beazer East Inc. (BEI) sake*
the report revisions described in the following paragraphs. Rather
than producing another report binder ve vill accept these revisions
as an addendum to be filed with the report. Please ensure each
item in the addendum states the page and paragraph requiring a
change. Please provide our office with the addendum no later than
September 23, 1999.
RBPORT REvxsxom
Reference page 3-4 and 3-S, "Borthveatera Area." The report does
not describe the "concern." Request you revise the report to
describe the 'concern* by stating aerial photographs scow a pond in
the northwest quadrant fro* about 1957 to 1969. However, aerial
photographs after 1969 no longer show the pond. EPA requested BEI
to cospare the pond's location to soil sampling locations 6-38, G-
39, G-40 and G-41. EPA wanted to ensure that if the pond had ever
been used as a waste pit that the soil samples were in f*ct
collected from the former pond site thus confirming the prasenc* »
absence of soil contamination. Hots the paragraph * could lead a
reader to believe the aerial photographs show staining, and thafc
was not the case.
Refereaoe figure 3-1, "Southeaster* Arse Soil Samplimg Locations.*
The drawing legend does not define the crosshatched areas. Pleas*
revise the legend to define the crosshatched areas.
Refereaoe page 4-2, the first paragraph. EPA did not request BEX
to conduct additional sampling of "clean* soils. EPA and BEX
disagreed upon the number of samples used to define a soil as
clean. EPA never agreed the samples were previously characterized1
as "clean" as the paragraph implies) this was BEI's
characterization. EPA does not believe these soils were properly
characterized *s either "clean" or dirty. Per our agreement witft
BEI, BEI will conduct further testing. Revise the report to first
describe the disagreement between EPA and BEI and then describe the
agreement EPA and BEI reached to resolve the disagreement.
Reference page 4-2. The report does not describe the location of
the soils in question. Revise the report to state that EPA and BBI
disagreed with the interpretation of soil test results that
indicated a clean 0-2' soil layer overlying soil in which
-------
contamination exceeded the remedial action level because EPA and
BEI could not agree upon why the contamination was not present in
the 0-2' layer but present in underlying layers.
Reference page 4-3. He do not believe the report clearly states
that sample average and field standard deviation for each pile vill
determine the required remedial action for. each pile. Please
revise the report to state that BEI vill average the 7 cPAH
concentrations from each soil pile. If the average cPAH
concentration is below the remedial action level and if the field
standard deviation is equal to or lews than the standard deviation
originally used to determine the number of samples collected, BBI
vill consider the average soil pile concentration is belov the
remedial action level. However, if the average of the 7 cPAH
concentrations from each pile is above the remedial action level
and the field standard deviation is equal to or less than that
originally used to calculate the number of sample collected, BEI
vill consider the average soil pile concentration above the
remedial action level and BEI vill wash the entire soil pile. In
either case if field standard deviation is greater than that
originally used to calculate tne number of samples required, BEI
vill recalculate the number of samples using the field standard
deviation. BEI vill continue sampling until a field sample
standard deviation correlates with the number of samples collected.
Once no additional samples are required, BEI can assume the sample
average is the average soil pile concentration and use the average
to determine if the pile requires r*oedlal action.
If you have any questions pleas call me at (214) 655-8523.
Sincerely,
Glenn Celerier, P. E.,
Project Manager
cc: Mr. Mark McDonnell, Flour Daniel Inc.
Mr. Steve Chong, Texas Hater Commission
-------
September 25, 1992
MM. Shannon Craig
Project Coordinator
Beazer Bast, Inc.
436 Seventh Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
RE: South Cavalcade Superfund Site, Cooperative Agreement
Schedule
Dear Shannon:
Reference Bearer letter dated September 22, 1992. We accept the
Beazer Bast "Soil Delineation Report" addendum you submitted on
September 22, 1992.
Sincerely,
Glenn Celerier, P.E.
Project Coordinator
cc: Nark McDonnell, Flour Daniel, Inc.
Steve Chong, Texas Water Commission
-------
SEP 07 1995
Steve Radel
Beajer Kast, Inc..
436 Seventh Avenus>
Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1822
Dear Mr. Radel:
Ibis letter is in response to Beazer'a August 18, 1995,
latter and the August 28, 1995, meeting between KPA and Beazer.
As discussed in the August 8, 1995, KPA letter to Beazer, the
consent decree executed by Beazer on or about June 11, 199O,
gives SPA the authority to pursue further investigation to ensure
that human health is protected from an actual release of a
hazardous substance (CD p. 2). Current aite conditions give EPA
reason to believe that there may be additional contamination
deeper than shown in the August 1992 soil delineation study.
However, if there is little chance that humans will actually be>
exposed to contaminated soils deeper than two feet below th*
ground surface, EPA is willing to reconsider the risk those)
deeper contaminated soils pose to human health.
Although EPA la willing to reconsider the risk posed by
potentially contaminated soils deeper than two feet, in ih«
Consent Decree, Appendix I, Statement of Work, EPA represented to
the public and current landowners that contaminated sell would be
remediated to a maximum depth of eix feet; therefore, the EPA
muat notify the public that it may not continue remedial action
below two feet. Consequently, EPA intends to notify the public
of its decision to cease excavation at two *eet rather than at
aix.
EPA will consider public comments when it determin«a if
there are unforeseen risks to human health from any contamination
deeper than two feet. If, after reviewing any public comments,
EPA determines that there is minimal risk to human health posed
by contamination two feat deep, EPA will instruct Beazer to
commence excavation.
-------
Lastly, since EPA is considering changes to the remedial
action it agrees to suspend the current construction schedule
until it determines if there is any need to further pursue
investigating soil contamination below two feet.
If you have any questions please call me at (214) 665-8523.
Sincerely,
Glenn Celerier, P.E.
Project Manager
cc: Trey Collins, TNRCC
Mark McDonnell, Pluor Daniel, Inc.
Mike King, Palletized Trucking
Robert Starnenber^, Trucking Properties
Calvin Reeves, Baptist Foundation of Texas
Ursula Lennox (6SF-LL)
-------
BEA2ER EAST. INC.. Mo ic\. ENTH VvENLE. PI^^URGH. PA 15219
September 29,1995 VIA AIRBORNE EXPRESS
Mr. Glenn Celerier, P.E
EPA Project Coordinator (6SF-AT)
Supeifund Programs Branch
US Environmental rrotection Agency, Region VI
Allied Bank Tower @ Fountain Place
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Re Contemplated Soil Remedial Action Revision
South Cavalcade CERCLA Site
Houston, Texas
Dear Glenn:
This letter has been prepared in response to the United State's Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) letter of September 7, 1995 regarding EPA's contemplated revision to the
soil remedy at the South Cavalcade CERCLA Site (Site) located in Houston, Texas.
Specifically, EPA, stales in the subject letter that "if there is little chance that humans will
actually be exposed to contaminated soils deeper than two feet below the ground surface,
EPA is willing to reconsider the risk those deeper contaminated soils pose to human
health." Further, EPA "intends to notify the public of its decision to cease excavation at two
feet Bather than at Six" in order to inform the public of changes in the soil remedy and allow
public comment If EPA determines after a review of public comments "that there is
minimal risk to human health posed by contamination two feet deep, EPA will instruct
Beazer to commence excavation."
Beazer agrees with the EPA that soils at or near the ground surface represent the greatest
potential exposure pathway to on-site commercial workers. Therefore, EPA's above
referenced recommendation will mitigate the potential risk of exposure to these surface
soils. However, Beazer believes that an alternate approach will effectively mitigate this
potential risk of exposure as well or better than EPA's recommended alternative This
approach consists of a concrete cover over the identified areas of concern. The concrete cap
will in fact be more protective than EPA's alternative because a permanent, impermeable
barrier will be constructed in the designated areas of concern. This approach is also
consistent with EPA's determination that the existing pavement and buildings effectively
mitigate potential exposure to soils beneath these barriers. The following constitutes a
-------
Page 2
Mr. Glenn Cderier
September 27, 1995
summary of the primary issues which support Beazer's recommendation to install a
concrete cover in the designated areas of concern.
Beazer believes that surface soils, defined in the ROD as the "upper six inches of soil"
constitute the primary risk to human health, not a'l soils within the two foot depth as stated
in LPA's September 1,1995 letter. The Final Puouc Health and Environmental Assessment
("Risk Assessment", August 1968) identified the primary soil exposure pathways for the
Site as dermal contact and inadvertent ingestion for on-site commercial occupants and
utility workers (see below). It is unlikely that on-sifc commercial occupants win ever be
exposed to COCs below six inches in depth via the principal exposure pathways of direct
contact with soils and ingestion. On-site commercial activities include primarily
tractor/trailer rig storage, loading and unloading. Therefore, on-site occupants would not
be exposed to soils below six inches in depth during normal day-to-day activities. Only
invasive activities at the Site related to the installation of structures and supporting
underground utilities would potentially expose on-site construction workers to impacted
soils below six inches in depth. Accordingly, Beazer believes that the primary risks to on-
site commercial occupants and construction workers is limited to the upper six inches of
soil. Excavating an additional eighteen inches to the two foot level provides no additional
reduction in risk yet adds significant increase ii cost
The principal exposure pathways and human receptors were identified in the Risk
Assessment and summarized in the ROD. The mitigation of human health risks via the
identified exposure pathways for EPA's contemplated soil remedial alternative and
Beazer's proposed concrete capping remedy is summarized below. For each exposure
pathway, Beazer's proposed alternative, concrete capping, is equally or more protective
than EPA's contemplated alternative
• Inadvertent ingestion and direct contact with surface soils by on-site commercial
occupants. The risks associated with impacted rirface sods to on-site commercial
occupants is primarily related to contact with airborne dust or with surface soils
impacted with potentially carcinogenic potynudear aromatic hydrocarbons (pcPAHs)
and ingestion of these constituents. EPA's proposed remedy eliminates direct contact
with soil to a depth of two feet However, the Risk Assessment did not foresee any risk
via this exposure pathway for soils deeper than six inches. Beazer's proposed concrete
cap remedy removes any risk associated with this exposure pathway by providing a
physical barrier to human contact
• Inadvertent ingestion and direct contact with drainage ditch sediments by
trespassing children. The primary transport mechanism for migration of soils
impacted with pcPAHs is sediment in stonnwater runoff. Through excavation and
treatment of soil to'two fleet EPA's contemplated alternative remedy would eliminate
the migration of any impacted surface soils in stonnwater sediments. However, soils
below six inches in depth are not susceptible to stonnwater runoff. Beazer's proposed
-------
Page 3
Mr. Gienn Cderier
September 27, 1995
concrete cap eliminates storm wa^er contact with surface soils thus eliminating the
transport mechanism and associated risks for this exposure pathway.
• Inadvertent ingestion, dost inhalation, and direct contact with smfitial soils by
utility or construction workers. The Risk Assessment addresses risks associated with
future construction worker invasive activities such as new construction and associated
utility installation which may expose workers to surfkial soils impacted with pcPAHs.
By providing a robust barrier which must be broken prior to any invasive work,
Beazer's proposed concrete cap remedy is more protective of human health via this
exposure pathway than EPA's proposed two foot excavation remedy. Both proposed
remedies also rely on using institutional controls, as referenced in the HOD and
recommended in EPA's Land Use Directive (OSWER Directive No. 9355.7-04; Land Use
in the CERCLA Remedy Selection Process), to control these risks.
The ROD already provides for institutional controls to minimize the potential exposure
to Site construction workers. EPA requires that "site owners add a notice to their deeds
expressing that hazardous substances are located under concrete and buildings. EPA
will require this to notify any potential purchaser of the Site about this contamination"
(Page A-7 of the ROD). This notice can be modified to include areas of the Site that
Beazer proposes to cap. The ROD and the Consent Decree further require that
landowners provide notification to EPA of any proposed development in any area
containing impacted soil Further, access agreements are in-place between Beazer and
all the Site landowners, and this agreement requires landowners to notify Beazer of any
development at the Site which may involve invasive activities in impacted areas of the
Site;
» Inadvertent ingestion and direct contact with surface soils by future residents if the
site is ever developed. As stated in the Land Use Directive, EPA expects that the vast
majority of Superfund sites will continue to be used as industrial sites. Future
residential use at the South Cavalcade Site is highly unlikely. All three parcels of land at
the Site are being used for trucking operations and it is expected that this type of land
use will continue In fact NW Nations Way Transport Service, Inc. recently purchased
the Site's northern tract from the Baptist Foundation of Texas with plans to expand the
trucking terminal. Additionally, industrial sites surround nearly the entire 64-acre
South Cavalcade Site, and active railroad tracks border both the east and west
boundaries, making it extremely unlikely a tract of land such as this will ever be
developed for residential use Deed restrictions can be obtained from the land owners
which win allow only future indusbial/commerdal utilization of the Site. Both
Beazer's proposed capping and EPA's proposed two foot excavation soil remedies
properly assume continued commercial/ industrial use of the Site, acknowledging the
insignificantly small risk associated with this exposure pathway.
» Ingestion of groundwater if contamination continues to migrate or if water supply
wells are ever installed on-site. Beazer has shown in extensive testing and analysis of
-------
Page 4
Mr. CHenn Celerier
September 27. 1995
soil leaching potential that the COCs in the Site soils do not leach, To support the
absence of risk to groundwater presented by leaving impacted soils in-place, over 250
soil samples have been collected and analyzed using TCLP to determine any leaching
potential for soils impacted with pcPAHs. None of the more than 250 samples analyzed
have shown leaching potential Thus, diere exists no risk of impact to groundwater
associated with leaving any impacted soil in-place at the Site. The Site constituents
simply do not leach from soil and this risk exposure pathway is a non-issue for
impacted soil
Further, the Site and surrounding areas are provided city water and water supply wells
are not required or Jesirabie.
Beazer's proposed concrete cap remedy provides even further assurance that this
exposure pathway is a non-issue for impacted soil at the site by providing an
* impermeable barrier to rainfall infiltration. By removing the transport mechanism, the
concrete cap eliminates all arguable risks, if any, that could be associated with this
exposure pathway.
Beazer's proposed concrete cap would provide many benefits beyond those provided by
EPA's proposed two foot excavation remedy. They include consistency with the ROD-
seJected soil remedy for existing paved areas of the Site, reduction of the time frame for
implementation of the soil remedy, elimination of potential exposure to construction
workers during implementation of the soil remedy, and allowance of minimum disruption
to ongoing trucking operations while more promptly providing hppgfiriaj land use to the
community in full compliance with EPA's Land Use Directive Each of these additional
benefits are discussed below.
• Establish 9 consistent soil remedy throughout the Site. In the ROD, approximately
60% of potentially impacted soils were noted to be present beneath existing concrete
and buildings in the southeast portion of the Site based on data collected during the RL
Per the ROD, these areas do not require remediation because the risks of dermal contact
or inadvertent ingestion are mitigated by the barrier (the buildings anu paving)
between occupants and the impacted soiL Likewise, placing Beazer's proposed concrete
cap over the remaining impacted areas provides the same mitigation of risk to on-site
Qimtnate potential expocnrc to construction woocen """"g sou remedy
implementation. The EPA's proposed revision to this remedy win require excavation,
handling, hauling and processing of impacted soils; storm water run-on and runoff
control and treatment and residual materials handling and disposal, m addition,
residual materials may require off-site disposal at an approved TSD facility, and there
are additional risks of human exposure during loading, transportation, off-loading,
disposal and decontamination activities.
-------
PageS
Mr. CHenn Cdeher
September 27, 1995
Beazer's proposed cap will practically eliminate these risks. Nearly all areas of the
proposed cap will be designed for installation at or above the existing exposed ground
surface, therefore, invasive activities will ve limited. Dust control measures will be
implemented to ensure a minimal amount of worker exposure during construction of
the concrete cap.
• Reduce the time frame for soil remedy complet' ~m and provide beneficul land use
for the community. The cap remedy is consistent with the ROD and EPA's Land Use
Directive in p.uviding a preference for continued beneficial use of the property.
Implementation of the current remedy and EPA's revision of this remedy will require a
one to two acre Site area for the construction and operation of the EPA approved
bioremediation cells. Bioremediation of impacted Site soils pursuant to EPA's proposed
two foot excavation remedy may take up to five years to complete. During this time
frame, the one to two acre bioremediation cell area will be unusable. Capping of the
impacted soil areas pursuant to Beazer's proposed remedy will require only months to
complete thereby greatly reducing remedial operations related exposure risk and
promptly placing the Site back into a productive and beneficial commerciai/industrial
use.
Beazer's proposed concrete cap has the additional benefit of providing a structure
which enhances the use of the Site for trucking operations. EPA's Land Use Directive
considers land use in making remedy selections under CERCLA and can be applied to
remedy modifications as well. EPA acknowledges in this guidance the importance of
continued land use in remedy selection. As stated on Page 1 of the Land Use Directive,
"EPA acknowledges the importance of lanJ use in determining cleanup levels and
remedies... and expects that the vast majority of sites with current
industrial/commercial uses (70% of all Sup°rfund sites) will continue to be used as
commercial or industrial sites...". Beazer's proposed concrete cap remedy provides
beneficial continued commercial/industrial utilization of the Site to the maximum
extent possible while minimizing risks to human health and the environment
In conclusion, Beazer supports EPA in its effort to effectively mitigate risks at the Site and to
minimize the time frame required for soil remediation. While EPA's proposed two foot
excavation soil remedy effectively addresses all contemplated risks to Site occupants and
construction workers, Beazer's proposed capping remedy provides equal or improved risk
reduction and the additional benefits associated with a more prompt efficient and
consistent remedy as described above. The ROD already acknowledges the equal to or
unproved risk reduction provided by concrete capping through its allowance for leaving
impacted soils in-place at the Site under existing concrete and buildings. Further, legally
binding documentation in the form of deed restrictions, as referenced in the ROD, access
agreements, the ROD, and the Consent Decree require that land owners provide
notification to EPA and Beazer of any invasive activities that may conceivably disrupt the
integrity of such a cap. Finally, Beazer has already implemented an extensive groundwater
remediation and monitoring program at the Site and will closely monitor the progress of
-------
Page 6
Mr Glenn Cdericr
September 27. 1995
groundwater remediation at the Site to ensun» that the remaining exposure pathway, if any,
is controlled.
Beazer agrees with EPA that revisions such as those discussed herein will require public
notification and comment Beazer is confident that afl community cunnans can be
addressed promptly and adequately and will provide EPA with any support required. We
look forward to EPA's positive response to Beazer's proposed concrete cap.
Sincerely,
Michael Slenska,PJL
Project Manager
cc R. Lucas-Beazer (w/o Attachment)
S.Radd-Beazer
M. White - Baker & Botts
Office of Regional Counsel EPA - Region VI
Chief - Texas Construction Section, EPA - Region VI
T. Colons - South Cavalcade Supernmd Site Coordinator (TNRCQ
M. McDonnd - Fluor Daniel
R Hidanan-Turner & Associates
J. Zubrow - KEY Environmental, me
M. Brudunan - Dames & Moore, N.C
T. Hopper - Dames & Moore, Houston
-------
OCT 05 1995
Mike Slenska
Beazer East, Inc.
436 Seventh Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1822
RE: Contemplated Soil Remedial Action Revision, South Cavalcade
Superfund Site, Beazer Ltr dated September 29, 1995
Dear Mr. Slenska:
We reviewed the referenced letter in which Bedzer proposes capping
"areas of concern" with concrete and believe the proposal has merit
However, before we can consider this proposal further we would like
additional information. Consequently, we request Beazer provide the
following information:
- Define the "area of concern" referenced in Beazer's letter
- Provide a conceptual cap design (plan and cross section
dimensions, location, general specifications, and construction
quality assurance)
- Provide an economic analysis comparing cap and
bioremediation cost
• Provide a design and construction schedule
- Provide a general description of the maintenance required to
maintain the cap's integrity
- Provide assurance that the land owners do not object to a cap
in lieu of bioremediation
-------
After we review the information Beazer provides we will determine if
Beazer's proposal to change the remedy is appropriate. If you have any
questions please call me at (214) 665-8523.
Sincerely,
Glenn Celerier, P.E.
Project Manager
-------
BEAZER EAST. INC.. 436 SEVENTH AVENUE. PITTSBURGH. PA 15219
October 20, 1995
Nations Way Transpon Service, Inc.
5601 Holly Street
Commerce City, Colorado 80022
Attn: Mr. Monte Hutchiiison
Senior Vice President
Transportation and Maintenance
RE Concurrence with Site Capping
South Cavalcade CERCLA Site
Houston, Texas
Dear Monte
This letter is a follow-up to our telephone conversation during the last week of September, 1995,
in which we discussed the possibility of placing a concrete cover over the impacted soil areas of
the South Cavalcade CERCLA Site (Site) As we discussed, this concrete cover would be in lieu
of bioremediation for the impacted Site soils. This letter is intended to confirm in writing your
verbal concurrence with the proposed concrete cover as a modified soil remedial action.
On Sept. 29, 1995 Beazer East, Inc. (Beazer) submitted a letter to the United States
Environmental Pr•••>. Action Agency (EPA) which sets forth the risk analysis and rationale in
support of concrete capping as the most cost effective and preferred alternative soil remedy for
the Site That letter is attached for your review. In response to Beazer's submittai, the EPA
requested that we provide additional information concerning the proposed concrete cap. EPA's
Oct. 5, 1995 request ietter is also attached for your review. Included in the EPA letter U a
request that Beazer "Provide assurance that the land owners do not object to a cap in lieu of
bioremediation."
There are two impacted soil zones located on the grassy area just south of the maintenance shop
on Nations Way Transport Service, Inc. (Nations Way) property which cover a total area of
approximately 1,750-square feet. As we discussed, this is a relatively small area and Beazer
believes that the most appropriate remedial action may be to excavate and dispose of this material
ai an oIT-sue disposal facility However, this remedial option for the soils on your property has
not been finalized. In the event that alternate plans are necessary, Beazer will develop plans and
specifications to place a concrete cover over the impacted soil areas at an elevation above the
existing grades
Beazer is preparing a conceptual design submittai to provide the EPA with the requested
additional information, and in that submittai Beazer will propose excavation and off-site disposal
-------
for the impacted soils on your property. However, should the EPA require the concrete cover to
be placed over all impacted soil areas, the conceptual design will be revised to include sketches of
the concrete cover arrangement consistent with the configuration described above. Additionally,
it is Beazer's hope to include the above referenced assurance of landowner concurrence with the
conceptual design submittal.
Beazer believes that the signed Access Agreement alread" in existence between Beazer and Nations
Way provides any requisite authorization needed for Beazer to implement the Record of Decision
(ROD) selected remedy, whether amended or modified to provide for alternative remedial action such
as conciete capping. Nevertheless, as a courtesy to Nations Way, and in order for Beazer to provide
to EPA the above noted assurance, and to ensure that open communications are maintained between
Beazer and Nations Way, Beazer is forwarding this request for written confirmation of our previous
discussions. To confirm your pi .or verbal concurrence »ith using an alternative soil remediation plan,
including excavation and off-site disposal or a concrete concrete cover, in lieu of bioremediation please
sign on the space provided below and return the original to my attention using the enclosed self-
addressed overnight envelope, retaining a copy for your files. A copy of this sighed letter will be
included in our conceptual concrete coyer design suunrittai to the EPA, Should Beazer receive EPA
approval to proceed with a detailed design of the concrete cover, or excavation and "ff-site
disposal of the impacted soils on your property. Beazer will work with Nations Way to
accommodate any reasonable comments or concerns regarding the design.
If you should have any questions or require additional information please contact me at (412) 227-
2174.
Sincerely,
Michael Slenska, P.E.
Project Manager
Mr Monte HutchJKSon , Date
Senior Vice President
Transportation and Maintenance
Attachments
cc: Steve Radd
Bob Lucas
Troy Hopper. Dames & Moore
-------
BEAZER E^ST. INC.. 4}6 SEVENTH AVENUE. PITTSBURGH. PA 15219
October 20, 1995
Trucking Properties, Inc.
Wedge International Tower
1415 Louisiana, Suite 3000
Houston, Texas 77002
Ann: Mr. Robert E. Stemenberg
President
RE Concurrence with Site Capping
South Cavalcade CERCLA Site
Houston, Texas
Dear Bob:
This letter is a follow-up to our Sept. 21, 1995 meeting in which we discussed the
possibility of placing a concrete cover over the impacted soil areas of the South Cavalcade
CERCLA Site (Site) As we discussed, this concrete cover would be in lieu of
bioremediation for tha impacted Site soils. This letter is intended to confirm in writing
your concurrence with the proposed concrete cover as a modified soil remedial action as
you verbally expressed during the above referenced meetings.
Following our Sept. 21, 1995 meeting, Beazer East, Inc. (Beazer) submitted a letter to the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which sets forth the risk analysis
and rationale in support of concrete capping as the most cost effective and preferred
alternative soil remedy for the Site. That letter, dated Sept. 29, 1995, is attached for your
review. In response to Beazer's submtttal, the EPA requested that we provide additional
information concerning the proposed concrete cap. EPA's Oct. 5, 1995 request letter is
also attached for your review. Included in the EPA letter is a request that Beazer
"Provide assurance that the land owners do not object to a cap in lieu of bioremediation."
For the impacted soil areas located on Trucking Properties, Inc. (TPI) property the
concrete cap would cover approximately sixty percent of the small grassy area located just
south of the warehouse. We anticipate that the concrete cover would be placed above the
existing grades in this area, and would include a small ramp making the cover accessible
for personal vehicle parking.
-------
Beazer is preparing a conceptual design submitul to provide the EPA with the requested
additional information. This conceptual design will include sketches of the concrete cover
arrangement consistent with the configuration described above Additionally, it is
Beazer's hope to include the above referenced assurance of landowner concurrence with
the conceptual design submittal.
Beazer bdieves that the signed Access Agreement already in existence between Beazer and
TPI provides any requisite authorization needed for Beazer to implement the ROD selected
remedy, whether amended or modified to provide for an alternative remedial action such as
concrete capping. Nevertheless, as a courtesy to TPI, and in order for Beazer to provide to
EPA the above noted assurance, and to ensure tliat open communications are maintained
between Beazer and TPI. Beazer is forwarding this request for written confirmation of ~ur
previous discussions. TV. confirm your prior verbal concurrence with using a concrete cover ir
lieu of bioremediation please sign on the space provided below and return the original to my
attention using the enclosed self-addressed overnight envelope, retaining a copy for your files.
A copy of this signed lettsr will be included in our conceptual concrete cover design submittal
to the EPA. Should Beazer receive EPA approval to proceed with a detailed design of the
concrete cover, Beazer will work with TPI to accommodate any reasonable comments or
concerns regarding the design.
If you should have an)' questions or require additional information please contact me at (412)
227-2174.
Sincerely,
Michael Slenska. P.E. *
Project Manager
Approved by.
Mr Robert E Steraenberg O Due
President - Trucking Properties, Inc.
cc: Steve Radd
Bob Lucas
Troy Hopper, Dames & Moore
-------
PALLETIZED TRUCKING, INC.
2001 Collingsworth
Houston, Texas
Janutry 8, 1996
Mr. Glenn Celerier, P.E.
Superfund Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1445 Ross Ave.
Dallas, TX 75202
Re: South Cavalcade CERCLA Site, Houston, Texas
Property Owner Consent to Concrete Capping Proposal
Dear Mr. Celerier:
Beazer East, Inc. has provided us with a cooy of the final conceptual design report for
its proposal of concrete capping as the remedy for contamination located on our property at the
South Cavalcade CERCLA site in Houston, Texas. Beazer East, Inc. has asked us to give you
our written consent to the concept of concrete capping. Our concerns about the proposal can
be grouped generally into two types of issues, one of which is whether the proposal protects
human health and the environment, and the other of which is how the new cap will affect the
use and enjoyment of our property long term.
Based on my telephone conversations with you previously, we understand thai the
Environmental Protection Agency will appi ve the concrete capping proposal as a remedy for
this CET.CLA site oniy if you conclude tLtt this remedy will protect human health and the
environment as long as the contamination remains on this property. Therefore, we are deferring
to the Agency with regards to these health and environmental considerations.
Beazer has given us certain assurances that it will address our other concerns about the
concrete capping proposal, relating to the impact of the new concrete cap on a permanent basis
as it affects our existing improvements and the operations on our property, by incorporating our
reasonable comments and modifications into the final design, plans and specifications for the
concrete cap, and by accommodating us on various issues relating generally to the construction
process. In reliance upon those assurances, we are giving you this letter as evidence of our
consent to the concept of concrete capping as a remedy for the contamination existing on this
property.
-------
Mr. Glen Celerier
January 8, 1996
Page 2
If you have any questions or require any additional information, please do not hesitate
to contact me at (713) 225-3303.
Very truly yours,
PALLETIZED TRUCKING, INC.
Name: Michael Ret King
Title: Vice President
0774173.02
01960t/1147
-------
APPENDIX A
COST ESTIMATES
-------
DMDM ft Moor*. Inc.
Job No. 18804403-188
BMOT South Cavalcade Site
Concnta Part* Cost Estimate
By- MF/BDB Data: 11/1MS
PAVWO QUANTITIES
1
2
3
4
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1
4
* *"
SOUTHEAST
Diniuaah 4 Ramooa SiatcM Concrete 1' tfcfc
HatJSutcMConcraat
Otapoaal of SurtoW Concrata aa NorvHaz
RaawVayiUdi
1~1">'* upt*^M
BacfcBJ WkD StDcfcpaa and Impertad Matarial
Obtain Back* tomoflata^l-l/rLanaatona)
PM nfrM> A«*A
roomMaa t
Grada
81 Conoato vMi 94 RaWoToamaflhi
Conor^aVM rtattort*
SOUTHEAST AREA SUBTOTAL •
tOUTHMgST
Mu'rvMwIlaaktfWtTniauarlJitf t^lAm
AIM At Hazardous Uatartal
B~*ma~«u+**
tMI
CY
LOADS
TONS
EA
CY
CY
CY
CY
SY
SY
SY
CY
SY
LOADS
TCMIQ
lUfKI
CY
CT
344
44
874
2
791
384
229
a,04B
7*»
7.711
39
1.751
.
4K4
131
115
1 1C
119
UnMCr-*
$154.49
$700.00
$88.00
$800.00
$3.50
$428
$5.50
9120
$3.11
*,1J9
$2&38
$12453
$125
tTfaO AA
$3.50
*42B
$53.145
$30 JOB
$75.184
$1.800
$512
$2.789
- $1.551
$1260
••218
$3275
$12,575
$203.425
$4.797
$399^48
$2,189
ftSMQ
f%J A4A
S24.91S
$403
$490
-------
t & Moor*, tne.
Pwhiy Coot Esuiute
it/lias
PAVWO QUANTITIES
Unft
T<*ol$
PIMM Am
wMiftftoMbR
SY
SY
SY
1.7
804
1.751
1.71
$1.20
$3.11
$2^00
$46.191
NORTHEAST
1
2
3
cfcfl(O(Bjte Select H)
CY
CY
136
$3.50
$6.86
$476
NORTHEAST AREA SUBTOTAL
12.117
1
2
3
OndoAiM
SY
SY
SY
27S
$120
$1J»
271
$334
$470
1
2
3
4
ObMn Ponnftfar Cly PortAvj Lot
AfArao*
COTkuctonOmnigM
1
1
45
LS
WOO 00
$750.00
$2.000.00
<4JOOO
$500
$33.750
$2.000
-------
>4Uoora.lnc.
^^^^W V^^B% ^^^^^^^^^^^V^v^ H^V
By: HF/BOB 0*»: 11/1VM
PAVWOQUAMTTTIES
PROJECT SUBTOTAL:
UMICMt
ToMS
LS
LS
SUBTOTAL
S19.SOO.OO
$7.900.00
S19.SOO
$7.300
TOTAL COST:
-------
Danws A Moore, fee.
Job No. 1M04403-1M
BMUT Sooth Cavifcao* Site
NorttMnt BioC^ls Cost Ecttnute
By: BOB OMK 10/24/1*
BtOCELL QUANTITIES
UnftCort
•aOPLOTCONCTMJCnON
1 |OMr«dOn*AfM-hcfa*||f
2
3 |BfmCon«uc8an-2fMtN0thnpatodCtay
4 iSwd-rmHmumbOTMttHOPElMr
5 iHDPELJnv 30ml .
• lirPwiOnMl («3M'dMwtw)
7
•
• ltat9«cMM«MMPrap»rafen (85%)
10 impMMSolAiMndnMnb(pin»b«k.urw)
rDabm(12%)
11
12
13
14
15
It
17
II
It
20
21
22
TiwHportBMoA of OkpoMd NQIV^IB
OArk (3%)
HOPE
1-Wr PVC WMv LkM HMdttwrfbvidi
rAfrM*Pt»w8Jittcfc
r Lrtml 'A* Air OlKtarg* HOPE P^M
SY
8Y
CY
CY
SF
CY
SY
CY
CY
CY
TONS
LOADS
TONS
LOADS
CY
LF
EA
LF
LF
EA
LF
LF
5.556
3.556
572
•14
49.388
1.229
3.733
3.582
3.045
3.045
750
38
191
10
7450
3,520
44
25
3^00
42
420
$0.42
S10J4
$0.70
$3127
$327
$5.50
$17.38
$15.00
$86DO
$700JO
$165 JO
$700jOO
$4.10
$0.70
$2040
$•.081
$4^19
$34.572
$38.433
$12^07
$19.701
$52*07
$45.675
W.474
$37J50
$31.445
$31^85
$%484
$880
$OJO
$35 JO
$150
$0.30
$1,880
$M70
tuoso
moot
-------
OamMAMow*,lnc.
l^^^^B v^A^v $^^^W^^^^^^W^^ w^^^ff
By. BOB Date 10/24/Sft
I I CM IA
NTTTES
Unft Cart
Total $
23
24
27
28
29
30
31
33
34
35
36
37
3/r
1/T CaapwTl*tag(kMMrlM) FELD ROUTED
MK. FlHtoo*. BaH. Cauplnp.
Pipe Stand Generate 3000 p*OI
-------
14 Moon, toe.
o^^^^B ^^R9t I^P^H^^P^^Kpv^ V^^^P
By: BOB D«tr 10/24/M
WOCSJ. QUANTTHES
-------
^^V^V V^^Bv BB^B^^^P^BV^B^ IB^Bx
lot 39 Km Hypflnfl UMT
of AboM Oraund BJonl Ptohg
HOCGL1 OeCOMMnSIONmO SUBTOTAL
$10.00000
I790M
CJOOJO
OCNCKM. CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL
PKOJKT SUBTOTAL:
TOTAL COST:
*****! VMMM 7210 CY M« two
*orcortr»eto««!lnptoe*.
BtMd on 3805 CY h phot
m to praMrt d^r wfa* wtti n • 5 in and 1 • 7%
-------
APPENDIX B - CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF CONCRETE CAP
SOUTH CAVALCADE SUPERFUND SITE
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
On September 29, 1995, Beazer East, Inc. (Beazer) submitted a letter to the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which describes the risk analysis and rationale in
support of concrete capping as the most cost effective and preferred alternative soil remedy for
the South Cavalcade CERCLA Site (Site) located in Iloustcn, Texas. On October J, 1995, in
response to Beazer 's submittal, the EPA requested that Beazer provide additional information
concerning the proposed concrete cover.
This Conceptual Design Report presents the requested additional information and includes: a
general description of the proposed concrete cover configuration including preliminary drawings
and specifications, a discussion of the additional tasks required to complete the proposed
concrete cover detailed design, an economic evaluation comparing the proposed concrete cover
to washing of the Site soils, documentation of property owner concurrence with using a concrete
cap in lieu of ROD selected soil remedies, and a preliminary schedule for the design and
construction of the proposed concrete cover.
2.0 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
Beazer has developed a conceptual design configuration for each of the four main soil
remediation areas of the Site. These four main areas, as shown on Figure 1 , are the Southeast,
Southwest, and Northeast Areas and the Groundwater Treatment Plant Area of the Site as
described in the Soil Remedial Design - 100% Design Submittal, Dames & Moore, December,
1994. Several specific design criteria were used to develop the proposed concrete cover
conceptual designs for each of the four soil remediation areas. These design criteria are
presented below:
• Cover the Impacted Zones - As determined by the recently completed soil
Confinnational Sampling Program, the impacted soil zones have been delineated and
confirmed for each of the four main areas. The proposed concrete cover should, at
a minitpupt cover at least these impacted zones.
Provide a Useable Concrete Cover - The concrete cover should be designed to allow
use of the covered areas which is consistent with the current property operations.
-------
Impacted Soil Excavation - The design should minimiyg the amount of
impacted soil requiring excavation during construction of the concrete cover. Any
cut and fill required for construction of the concrete cap should achieve a balance
such that excavated impacted material can be placed as fill over other impacted zones
thereby limiting the need for off-site disposal of impacted material.
• Provide Adequate Drainage - The surface contours of the concrete cover rhould
provide for positive drainage of the cover, and wherever possible remain consistent
with the existing drain^e patterns of the Silt.
The following discussion presents the concrete cover conceptual design for each of the four Site
areas described above.
2.1 SOUTHEAST AREA
The Southeast Area is a narrow strip of land located on the east side of Palletized Trucking, inc.
(Palletized) property. There are six impacted soil zones in this area which cover a total area of
approximately 35,500 square feet.
The existing surface of the Southeast Area consists of an assortment of materials, but is
predominantly covered with crushed concrete. Material excavated during Coafirmational
Si,.,.pling Plan (CSP) activities was backfilled with no nechanral compaction and presently
exists in a loose state, while material not disturbed by CSP activities remains in a well
compacted state.
The Southeast Area is relatively flat with slightly higher elevations located approximately in the
middle of this narrow area. This high point divides the Southeast Area into northern and
southern drainage areas. Both areas have a general easterly slope; therefore, runoff from these
areas flows to the HB&T Railway ditch located to the east of the Site. In addition to its own
surface runoff, the northern drainage area includes surface runoff from the easterly sloping
existing concrete located to the west of this area.
-------
..,
IHI VU Ml « MHMMV
n.1 fVM. OC1>UB MICH KIMMI
-------
2.1.1 Concrete Cover Configuration
The concrete cap for the Southeast Area will cover the majority of the narrow strip of land on
the east side of Palletized property, which will provide a suitable tarmac for truck use. The
general layout for the concrete cover is shown in Figure 2. Additional details for the Southeast
Area concrete cover are shown in Figures 3 and 4. The following text describes bow the
concrete cover configuration shown in Figures 2, 3, and 4 satisfies the design criteria described
above in Section 2.0.
• v
- To provide Palletized with a continuous pavement for operations the concrete cap
will be constructed over both impacted and nonimpacted zones.
• Provide a Useable Concrete Cover
- The slope of the concrete tarmac will be minimal to enable trailers to be parked.
- Abrupt changes in grades will be avoided. Grade transitions will be achieved by
utilizing ramps as shown in Figure 5.
- The concrete cap will be wide enough along the entire length to accommodate
Palletized's trailer sizes of 40 and 48 feet lengths.
%
Soil Excavation
- Cross-Section A as shown in Figur* 3 is a typical cut section. Impacted
excavation from this area will be placed as fill material over other imparted
zones. Cross-Section A is typical of approximately 20 percent of the Southeast
Area.
• Cross-Section- B as shown in Figure 3 is a typical fill section. Excavation of
impacted or nonimpacted material is expected not to be required in the fill
sections. Cross-Section B is typical of approximately 80 percent of the Southeast
Area.
• Cross-Section C as shown in Figure 3 is cut through all the Southeast impartrrl
zones. Inspection of mis cross-section reveals the volume of fill within die
zones is greater than the expected volume of imrMr'*'5 excavation.
-------
- Earthwork quantities associated with the presented cross-sections are as follows:
Fill Required Over Impacted Zones 510 cubic yards
Cut Required Over Impacted Zones 93 cubic yards
Balance 417 cubic yards of fill
Fill Required Over Nonimpacted Zones 680 cubic yards
Cut required Over Nonimpacted Zones 170 cubic yards
Balance 510 cubic yards of fill
The reported quantities are approximate and are subject to slight modifications
during final design.
• The existing soil stockpiles located onsite will be used as fill material. These
stockpiles have been tested following the methods contained in the EPA approved
Stockpile Sampling Plan, included a:, pan of Appendix A-l of the Remedial
Action Work Plan. Test results have demonstrated that these soil stockpiles do
not contain potentially carcinogenic polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (pcPAHs)
above the Record of Decision (ROD) goal of 700 ppm.
- The impacted soil excavated in the Northeast Area will be used as fill over the
impacted zones of the Southeast Area.
Provide Adequate Drainage
- In the northern drainage area runoff from the existing westerly concrete pavement
will be intercepted at the constructed ramp and directed to the north end of the
cap or to a drainage swale formed into the cap -s shown on Figure ? and Cross-
section C of Figure 3.
- In the northern drainage area the concrete cap will have a cross drainage slope
to the east which will flow into a swale formed into the cap as shown on Cross-
section A and B of Figure 3. The runoff from the northern end of die cap will
be directed to an unpaved area in die northeast corner of Palletized and ultimately
routed to the existing HB&T Railway ditch.
- In the southern drainage area the concrete cap will have a cross drainage slope
to the east which will flow into a swale formed into the cap as shown on Cross-
section A and B of Figure 3. The runoff from die southern end of die cap will
-------
me* «»cn* »«
COKRTII OVOi IOM» IOW
HJfflilMI cowm «MI iwtoiwo
nnimci
PUI Ml
pa a CCNCHH c
wwwi omcm
-------
5t
CO
40
46
£*-
"
bb
54
49
48
r
•A ...>
MCA
lull
UhU
1*
CHOM-MCT10M
HOKJ. I'. Iff
««Mt [
,'.•'
UOCM
55
U 53
i f.2
I5
3 50
49
48
HAIUWl
JM_I ^
-------
be directed to an existing catch basin located approximately 220 feet south of the
cap in the southeast corner of Palletized.
2.1.2 Concrete
Due to the nature of properly designed and constructed concn.c pavements iMintemneg for the
proposed cap will be limited. By designing properly spaced expansion joints in the concrete cap
cracking of the cap will be controlled at the joints. Expected minimi^ joint spacing is 1 J to
25 feet. The expansion joints will be designed to be liquid tight to minimiM- infiltration of storm
water.
2.2 SOUTHWEST AREA
The Southwest Area is a relatively square piece of land located at the south entrance of Trucking
Properties. Inc. (TPI) property. There are two impacted soil zones in this area which cover a
total area of approximately 8,300 square feet.
The existing surface of ihe Southwest Area consists of grass. Material excavated during
Confinnational Sampling Plan (CSP) activities was backfilled with no mechanical compaction
and presently exists in a loose state, while material not disturbed by CSP activities remains in
a well compacted state.
The Southwest Area is relatively flat with a slight crown ii. the noddle on a north and south axis.
Drainag- in this area is to the east and west away from the slight crown described above.
2.2.1 Concrete Cover Configuration
The concrete cap for the Southwest Area will cover approximately 60 percent of the square piece
of land located at the south entrance of TPI property. The concrete cap will (unction as suitable
space for future employee parking. The general layout of the concrete cap is shown in Figure
6. Additional details for the Southwest Area concrete cover are shown in Figure 7. The
following text describes how the concrete cover configuration shown in Figures 6 and 7 satisfies
the design criteria described above in Section 2.0.
-------
DRAWN BY; HSI DATE; 10/25/95(cHECKED BY; BOB DATE. 10/^5/95
APPROVED BY: TEH DATE: 10/27/951 REVISIONS: A
RLE NO: 18804-JOJ-186
I STEEL REINFORCEMENT
1 SIZE & SPACING TO BE
DETERMINED IN FINAL DESIGN
CONCRETE PAVEMENT
THICKNESS TO BE
DETERMINED IN FINAL
DESIGN, 6" MINIMUM
VARIES
COMPACTED
FILL AS REQUIRED
EXISTING
SUBGRADE
TYPICAL CONCRETE DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE 4
CONCEPTUAL CAPPMQ DESIGN
rYPICAL CONCRETE DETAJL
FOR
BEAZER EAST. INC.
SOUTH CAVALCADE SI If
HOUSTON, TEXAS
MOOHK
-------
DHAWN BY: HSI DATE: tO/Z5/9s[ CHECKED BY: BOB DATE: 10/25/95 | APPROVED BY: TEH DATE: 10/27/gS
HEWSIONS: A
RLE NO; 16804-303-166
EXISTING
CONCRETE
PROPOSED
CONCRETE CAP
RAMP LENGTH
NOT TO SCALE
LENGTH OF RAMP TO
PROVIDE SUFFICIENT
CLEARANCE FOR FUEL
TANK MOUNTED ON TRACTOR
FIGURE 6
CONCEPTUAL CAPPNQ DE8IQN
SOUTHEAST RAMP CLEARANCE
FOR
BEAZER EAST. INC
SOUTH CAVALCADE SITE
HOUSTON. TEXAS
OHE
-------
CCMCIdlt OMU KMW1CII0 IOH
cm or CUK«I n
M1CTKM
-------
55
b-t
§53
• 52
§5,
§50
49
48
55
54
| 53
« 52
J51
I 50
49
48
J»
C-210E
-------
The reported quantities are approximate and are subject to slight modifications
during final design.
- The existing soil stockpiles located onsite will be used as fill material. These
stockpiles have been tested following the methods contained in the EPA approved
Stockpile s««*pi«tig Plan, included as put of Appendix A-l of the Remedial
Action Work Plan. Test results have demonstrated that these soil stockpiles do
not contain potentially carcinogenic polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (pcPAHs)
above the ROD goal of 700 ppm.
• To promote drainage away from the cap in the Southwest Area the cap will be
constructed at a slightly higher grade but at a slope similar to the existing grade.
A crown will be formed near the middle of the area and the cap will be sloped
towards the existing curb whereupon surface runoff will discharge to the existing
paved areas surrounding the Southwest Area.
2.2.2 Concrete Cover Maintenance
Maintenance for the concrete cap in the Southwest Area will be similar to mat described for the
Southeast Area. ,
2.3 NORTHEAST AREA
The Northeast Area is a relatively s^we piece of land located north of the maintmince shop
on die eastern side of Nations Way Transport Service, Inc. (Nations Way) property. There are
two iapacaed soil zones in this area which cover a total of approximately 1.845 square feet.
These two imuarinl zones result in an in-place volume of approximately 140 cubic yards.
Due 10 Nation Way's expiesaed interest to expand their trucking optrariom. and the relatively
mt". impf***' •»*• ^H moTh!*** tiril "^"Bft in «hf Nimfr^i* ATT*.
appropriate remedial action for this area is to excavate this material and backfill the excavation
with dean fill. The in place volume of 140 cubic yards of excavated nnpacted material from
die Northeast Area would be used asfill over nnpaoed zoo« in the Southeast Areas. This will
allow for final remediation of this area without introducing a small cimi'rtt cover which may
evenmaDy need to be incorporated into a larger paved area.
-------
2.4 GROUNDWATER TREATMENT PLANT AREA
The undefined impacted area located on the north and east side of the GWTP. as shown on
Figure 1. will be capped consistent with the type of concrete cover proposed for the Southeast
and Southwest areas. During implementation of ihe detailed design the extent of this area win
be defined, in part, using existing analytical soil data which was previously collected.
3.0 DETAILED DESIGN
3.1 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
As described in Section 2.0 above there are four design constraints to be addressed as part of
the final design. These design constraints are: cover the impacted zones, provide a useable
concrete cover, minimize impacted soil excavation, and provide adequate drainage. Issues whkh
must be resolved to complete the final design include:
• Obtain approval from the EPA of this Conceptual Design Report.
• Confirm the proposed ramps in the Southeast and Southwest are suitable for use with
the expected vehicles.
• Assess the existing moisture content and density characteristics of the subgrade
materials m both the mipMtpfl and mrnimpacml zones without performing ait
extensive mm rove gcocfchmcal uivf uigttioa.
• Develop methods to density the by-place materials sufficientry to support me intended
dead and live loads with minimal disturbance of die subgndet
•
• Develop pavement design parameter! such at a California Bearing Ratio (CBR) or
> modulus of subgrade reaction (k) for the supporting subgrade.
Determine the thickness, maintaining a minimum tmcknen of six "y*1^*! and)
rete cap.
-------
TRUCKING PROPERTIES, INC.
March 11,1997
Ms. Olivia Rodriguez Balandran ~ 3
Community Relations Coordinator :v =o
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6 if p
1445 Row Avenue (6SF-P) :,:
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733 ^
co
<-*-J ••
>
RE: Proposed ROD Amendment
South Cavalcad
Houston, Texas
South Cavalcade CERCLA Site =c
Dear Ms. Balandran:
Trucking Properties, Inc. is writing with regard to the Unllsd Statn Environmental Protection
Agency's proposed Record of Decision (ROD) Amendment to allow concrete capping as the soil
remedy for the South Cavalcade Supsrhind site.
Trucking Properties currently owns a signffcant parcel of this stts and, as you are aware, we
signed a Conssnt Order wMh the USEPA In 1992. For tr*osst»ev«r»J veers we rtave been attempting
toss* this property for corrtkMied trucking operations. Over the past two yesrs these efforts have
* ^^^—.^^^^ ^MA A^^ ^A^b^t^A A |— , , ^•i»a^ *• - * ^b^^^k^ ^b^k^k^^^A^^A^|^ ^l^^k^U^^ ^A A^^ 4^»^^
ossn nsjnpsrsB oy ins reaoay appareni mcompievi nmsaMj sxuun cmMuucuon acmnuss anneowm
of our property. Therefore, we are excited to eee the USEPAi
concretscapi
>199t
^k^h^^ ^^^^SA ^^^^^^^^^^^ A^^M B^^^A^b ^k d^^^^k^^ ^^^^^L^bft^^A^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^h^^^^^
cap ww provKie us wsn • new employee panung area,
Ws took forward to the USCPA*s final approval of tns ROD
RJWpr
-------
'iC
Repyto:
March 3, 1997
Ms. Olivu Rodriguez Balandiin
Community Relations Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6
1445 Ron Avenue (6SF-P)
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733
Re: Proposed ROD Amendment
South Cavalcade CERCLA Site
HoostOB, Texas
DearMa-Balandran:
\
NW NafconsWay Transport Service, Inc. is writing in support of the Umted States EnvironmenuJ
Protectioo Agency's proposed Record of Decision (ROD) Amendment to allow concrete capping
as the sofl remedy tor the South Cavalcade Superfimd she.
NatsooaWay recently purchased the northern portion of till ate. Smoo that purchase- we have
beeo faploring several fiicifity ^•iiff'if" alteniatiwa. Several of thaw expanssosi attemativci
would include additional tarmac areas ovtdyk« the mv«^ed sol arnvOfl our property. The
removal of this soi torn our property at proposed la Better's January/1996^ffjo g»»»l P««gn
our
»*-- • - ---••• -•- - ,, a * ,
nflawDa^HaW UDflZB IBB DRlDHRv •
^^V^V^^BPV^^^^VH^V ^W^^B^WF W^F I^^^FSJP^iW^v ^p
USEPA's
-,*V .' '• ' - ,
.» .^»>«. .-..-,- ,. . .f
-. *•:.
^ ^
oc::
C
-------
REX KING. PRESIDENT PHONE: I713> 225-3303
PALLETIZED TRUCKING INC. * •• "2 £ ^
20O1 COLUNGSWORTH STREET Pi
P. O. BOX 8744 ' "
HOUSTON. TEXAS 77249
— OJ
O —I
March?, 1997 § 5
2 53
- -* \r\
C3 C»3 .—-~
Ms. Olivia Rodriguez Balandran •& •• C/
7> Cn
Community Relations Coordinator -s. &
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6 ^
1445 Ross Avenue (6SF-P)
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733
RE: Proposed ROD Amendment
South Cavalcade CERCLA Site
Houston Tx
Dear Ms. Balandran:
Palletized Trucking, Inc. is writing to provide die United States Environmental Protection
Agency wim comments on the proposed Record of Decision (ROD) Amendm^ which would
allow die use of concrete capping as a soil remedy at die South Cavalcade Superfund site.
As yon are aware, we are a property-owner at this site, and have even signed a Consent Order
with die USEPA regarding this site. We are very pleased to see the USEPA finally move
forward with allowing Beazer to place a concrete cap as die final remedy for impacted soils at
this site. It has been nearly two years since Beazer started full scale remediation activities,
which required us to vacate a signifkant portion of our traikrosildng area. Vacating mat area
for such a long period of time has hindered our opcntionsi effickncy and costs us a significant
sum of money. The delay has also prevented us from proceeding wsth our tire shop
in an area of the proposed concrete cap.
By approving die proposed ROD A
^^f^m ^^^r^F*^^^ * ^^•^•B ^^^"^ ^p^-^r^f^r-^r^r-^^ ^™^^-^^ ^ ^^^^WH • • ^^^^^^v^^^v ^^^^^^» ^^a^w^r »» ^^^^MV ^^f-^r^^^^^f^ • ^ ^f^ • • •-^^^^ »w ^*v^^ ^1^1^^^
couuvte cap mstaQation, die USEPA will be taking a putkly^ step toward returning this
umpeily lo ki fnO buiinc is potential. Additionally, the now ioiM'iete cap win provide us with
an improved working suiface versus the crushed concrete JUihit! fuiiuuly used along the
i aide of our property. We have agreed with Dcaaer to accept maponrihiHty Jor the
! of out new concrete surface^ which is cuusistcul whh our own. Consent'Older
utm on
-------
Page 2
March 7, 1997
We look forward to the USEPA's approval of the ROD Amendment so that design and
construction of the concrete cap can proceed as rapidly as possible.
Mr. Michael Rex King
Vice President - Sales and Service
cc: Michael Skate, Beazer
ode/eh
-------
APPENDIX B
.SOIL WASHING COST ESTIMATE
-------
OvnM4Moara. me.
Jet No. 1M04403412
•MM* tautt CMka* Mi
M WMNng •*> mdnmkcn of AnMiMti Co« EMnuM
By: BtWB DM*: Dtcwnbv 1998
HJOJCV MMII.TS TOWCV
UTOM/CV
-------
Dames & Moore, Inc.
Job No. 18804-303-012
Beazer South Cavalcade Site
Soil Washing: Product Residual Stream Summary
By: BH/MB Date: November 1995
Feed
+6" Debris
-6-. +2.5" Debris
v
-2.5". +0.5" Aggregate
•0.5". +10 Mesh Aggregate
Floatation Tailings
Floatation Froth
Wash Water
6300
315
130
820
570
3650
820 dry. 1640 wet
NA
Feed
Residual
Residual
Residual
Residual
Washed
Residual
Residual
-------
APPENDIX C - ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER ON CONSENT,
DOCKET NUMBER CERCLA 6-08-92
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 6 ~ __
DALLAS, TEXAS 2 tg
C.; •>»
IN THE MATTER OF
REX JONG and MARILYN LEE XZM6,
PALLETISED TRUCKING, INC.,
BAPTIST FOUNDATION OF TEXAS,
MERCHANTS FAST MOTOR LIMES, INC.,
and TRUCKING PROPERTIES, IMC. ,
RESPONDENTS
CO
SOOTH CAVALCADE STREET SUPERFUND ) DOCKET NUMBER
SITE ) CERCLA 6-08-92
HOUSTON, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS )
) ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER
Proceeding Under the Authority of ) ON CONSENT
Section 122(g)(4) of the )
Comprehensive Environmental )
Response, Compensation, and ) »
Liability Act of 1980, as Amended, )
42 U.S.C. f 9622(g)(4) )
I.
1. This Administrative Order on Consent ("Consent Order") ia
issued "nd entered into pursuant to the authority veated in the
President of the United States by Section 122 (g) (4) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Reaponae, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980, aa. amended by the Superfund Amendmanta and
Reauthorisation Act of 1986 (-CBRCLA"), Pub. L. No. 99-499, 42
U.S.C. 9622(g)(4), to reach settlements in actions under Section
106 or 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9606 or 9607(a) in matters
involving 6* •ini^i* parties. The authority vested in the
President has been delegated to the Administrator of EPA by
Executive Order 12580, 52 FR 2923 (Jan. 29, 1987) and further
delegated to the Regional Administrators of the EPA by EPA
Delegation No. 14-14-B (Sept. 13, 1987).
a. This Consent Order is issued to and entered into by
Trucking Properties, Inc. (successor by change of corporate name to
Merchants, Inc.), a corporation organised under the laws of the
State of Delaware) Merchants Faat Motor Lines, Inc. ("Merchante
Fast"), a corporation organised under the lavs of the State of
Delaware) Baptist Foundation of Texas, a non-profit corporation
organised under the Texas Non-Prof it Corporation Act) and Mr. Rex
King, Mrs. Marilyn Lee King, and Palletised Trucking, Inc., a
ition organized under the lava of the State of Texas ("Respondents11).
-------
3. The purposes of this Consent Order are to expedite
payment into the Hazardous Substance Response Trust Fund pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. f 9609 (b) (2) of all of the response costs Incurred by
the government in remediation of the South Cavalcade Street
Super-fund Site ("Site") which have not already been recovered,
preserve the government's right of access to the Site, provide
notice to the public of the resolution of environmental matters at
th« Site, and recite the rights and responsibilities of the Parties
hereto. The Parties agree to undertake all actions, required by the.
terms and conditions of this Consent Order. The Respondents
consent to and will not contest the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's ("BPA") jurisdiction to issue this Consent Order and to
implement or enforce its t«
ZZ. PKMMlTlOMBi
4. Unless otherwise expressly provided herein, terms used in
this Consent Order which are defined in CERCIA or in regulations
promulgated under CERCIA shall have the meaning assigned to them in
the statute or its implementing regulations. Whenever terms listed
below are used in this Consent Order or in the documents attached
to this Consent Order or incorporated by reference into this
Consent Order or in schedules and deadlines established and
approved pursuant to this Consent Ordex, the following definitions
ipply:
A. "CERCIA" shall mean the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42
U.S.C. if 96O1 et seq. r as amended lay the Superfun*
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, Pu*.. L. Ho.
99-499, 100 Stat. 1613 (1986}.
B. "Consent Decree" shall mean the agreement between Beazev
East, Inc. and the United States of Anerica (Civil Action-
No. H-90-2406) which was entered in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas on
March 14, 1991, for the conduct of the Remedial Action
described in the South Cavalcade Street site Record of
Decision (ROD), Statement of Work (SOW), and other plans
submitted pursuant to the requirements of the Consent
Decree.
C. "Consent Order" shall mean this document and all
attachments hereto and any further submittal(s) required
pursuant to this Consent Order. Such further
aubmittal (s) shall be incorporated into and become a part
of this Consent Order upon final written approval by EPA
of such submittal(s).
D. "Day" shall mean calendar day unless expressly stated to
be a business day. "Business day" shall mean a day other
than a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday. In
-------
computing any period of time under this Consent Order,
where the last day would fall on a Saturday, Sunday, or
Federal holiday, the period shall run until the end of
the next business day.
X. "SPA" •hall Man the United States Environmental
Protection Agency.
F. "Rational Contingency Plan" or "HCP- shall Bean th«
Rational Contingency Plan promulgated pursuant to S 105
of CXRCLA, 42 U.S.C. f *6G5, codified at 40 C.F.R. Part
300, including any amendments thereto.
6. •Paragraph1* shall mean a portion of this Consent Order
identified by an arable numeral.
H. "RCRA" shall mean the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act, 42 U.S.C, SS 6901 fit fififl*
I. "Record of Decision* or "ROD* shall mean the document
signed by the EPA Region 6 Regional Administrator on
September 26, 1988, vhich describes the Remedial Action
to be conducted at the South Cavalcade Superfund Site.
J. "Respondents* shall mean Rex Xing and Marilyn Lee, Kin?,
Palletized Trucking, Inc., Baptist Foundation of Texas,
Merchants Fast Motor Lines, Inc., and Trucking
Properties, Inc.
K. "Response Costs" shall mean all administrative,
enforcement, investigative, remedial, and removal costs-,
direct or indirect, incurred pursuant to CERCLA, 43
U.S.C. S 9601 e*. secy.
L. "Section" shall mean a portion of this Consent Order
identified by a Roman numeral and including one or more
paragraphs'.
M. "Site* shall mean the South Cavalcade Street Superfund
Site encompassing approximately sixty-six (66) acres
located in northeast Houston, Texas approximately one
mile southwest of the intersection of Interstate Loop 610
and U.S. Route 59. The Site boundaries are Cavalcade
Street to the north, Collingsvorth Street to the south,
and the Missouri and Pacific Railroad lines to the east
and west. The legal description of the site is provided
in Appendix B of the Consent Decree between EPA and
Beazer East, Inc.
N. "State" shall mean the State of Texas.
-------
O. "Statement of Work* or "SOW" shall mean Appendix C of the
Consent Decree between £PA and Beazer East, Inc.
P. "TWC" shall aean the Texas Water commission*.
Q. "Underyiuuiid Storage Tank" or "UST" shall be used as that
Is defined In 40 C.F.R. J 280.12-.
R. "United States" shall mean the United States of America.
5. national Luafcar and Creosot*ng Coapany acquired legal;
title to the Site in 1910 and constructed and operated a wood1
treating and coal tar distillation facility. National Lumber and
Creosoting Company vas acquired in 1938 by the Wood Preserving
Corporation, a subsidiary of Kbppers Coapany. In 194O, the Wood)
Preserving Corporation became- a part of K9ppers> Company. In 1944V
Koppers Coapany vas incorporated and became Xoppers Company, Inc.
and continued the use of the Site as a wood preserving and coal tar
distillation facility until 1962.
»
<• In 1962, the Koppers Company, Inc. ceased operati~~ the
wood preserving and coal tar distillation facility, dismantled the
facility, and sold the Site to Merchants Fast. Merchants Fast then.
'sold the Site to Gene Whitehead later in 1962. Mr. Wai teheed
subdivided the Site and sold 24.525 acres of the Site to Merchants
Past on January 1, 1965, and another 8.565 acres of the Site to
Merchants Fast on March 25, 1965. Mr. Whitehead sold another 22.9
acres of the Sita to Transcon Lines ("Transcon") in 1969. Transect*
subsequently sold this 22.5 acre tract of land to the Baptist
Foundation of Texas in 1970. Mr. Whitehead also sold 10.346 acres)
of the Site to Collingsvorth Properties, Inc. ("Collingsvortb)
Properties") in 1973. Collingsvcrth Properties subsequently soldi
this 10.346 acre tract of land to Rex King and wife, Marilyn Lee
Xing in 1977. Merchants Past sold 33.1O4 acres of the Site to
Merchants, Inc. (the predecessor by corporate name change to
Trucking Properties, Inc.) on August 8, 1979'.
7. The Site is presently owned by Trucking Properties, Inc. ,
Baptist Foundation of Texas, and Rex King and wife, Marilyn Lee
Xing. The southeastern portion of the Site is currently used by a
commercial trucking company known as Palletized Trucking, Inc.,
which operates a terminal for trucking operations. The
southwestern portion of the Site is a vacant trucking tarainal
facility wiiich was formerly ovned and operated by Merchants ?ast
Motor Lines, Inc. The northern portion of the Site is used by
Northwest Transport Service, Inc. and contains a terminal for
trucking operations. The central portion of the Sita is not
currently used.
-------
8. Hazardous substances within the definition of CKRCLA
Section 101(14), 42 U.S.C. f 9601(14), have been or are threatened
to be released into the environment at or from the Site. A
description of the specific contaminants detected at the sits is
provided in the Record of Decision.
9. As a result of the release or threatened release of
hazardous substances ^TVto ***^ environment, SPA
response action at the site under Section 104 of CERCIA, 42 U.8.C.
9604, and where necessary, will undertake response action in the
future.
•
10. 2PA -proposed the Site to be added to the National
Priorities List (V-?L-) in October 1984, and the Site was formally
added to the MPL on June 10, 1986.
11. The Koppers Company, Inc. began the Remedial
Investigation and Feasibility Study ("RI/FS") in November of 1985.
The Remedial Investigation included investigations into
contamination in soils, ground water, surface water and sediments,
and air. The Feasibility Study ("PS") evaluated several methods
for remediating the Site, including containment and treatment
technologies. The RI/FS was completed in August 1988 with the
publishing of the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Stud;
Reports.
12. The FS evaluated several methods for reaediating the Site
and included a Public Health and Environmental Assessment ("PHBA")
of the Site. Aft«*r public comment on the proposed remediation, the
Record of Decision (ROD) was completed and signed on September 26,
1988. The remedial action selected by EPA in the ROD included a
combination of soil washing and in situ soil flushing for
remediating contaminated soils and physical/chemical reparation
followed by filtration and activated carbon adsorption for
remediating contaminated
-------
of this Consent Order involves only a minor portion of the response
costs at the Site, and that, (b) with respect to tha Respondent*,
the conditions aec forth in CZRCLA 122(g)(l)(Aj are met.
1*. Respondents represent, and for the purposes of this
Consent Order EPA affirms and finds, that (a) Respondents*
involvement: with the Site is limited to purchasing all or a portion
of the Site and operation or leasing for the operation of a
>«»-.art'anc^T at ^*^ site*
and (o) the toxic or other hazardous affects of the substance*
contributed by the Respondents to the Site, if any, are minimal
comparison to other haxaxtious substances at tha facility.
IV.
Based upon the Statements of Fact set forth above and on tha
administrative record for this Site, EPA has determined that:
I
17. The Site as described in Section III of this Consent
Order is a "facility* as that term is defined in Section 101(9) of
CERCLA, 42 U.S.C 9601(9}.
I
19. Respondents are •persons" as that tern is defined in
Section 101(21) of CZRCIA, 42 U.S.C. 9601(21}.
1*. Respondents are "owners'* of a facility within the meaning
of Section 107 (a) (1) of CZRCIA, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a) (1), and are>
•potentially responsible parties" within tha meaning of Section
122(g)(l) of CERCIA, 42 U.S.C. 9622(g)(l).
20. The past, present, or future migration of hazardous
substances from the Site constitutes an actual or threatened
•release" as that term is defined in Section 101(22) of CZRCLA, 42
U.S.C. 9601(22).
21. Prompt settlement vith tha Respondents is practicable and
in tha public interest within tha meaning of Section I22(g)(l) of
CZRCIA, 42 U.S.C. 9622(g)(l).
I
22. This Consent Order involves at aoat only a minor portion
of the response costs incurred and to be incurred ac tha Site
pursuant to Section 122(g)(l) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. »622(g)(l).
23. Respondents are eligible for a de pinititq settlement
pursuant to section 122(g)(l)(A) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C.
9622(g)(l)(A).
-------
v. OJDJB
14. Based upon the administrative record for this site and
tha Statement of Tacts and Determinations set forth above, and in
consideration of the promises and covenants set forth herein, it is
hereby AGREED TO AMD ORDERED:
TZ.
28. Respondents hereby grant to EPA, its employees,
representatives, contractors, agents, and all other
performing response actions under EPA's oversight, a right of
access to the site for the purposes of monitoring the terms of this
Consent Order and performing response actions at the Site. Nothing
herein shall limit EPA's right of access under applicable law.
2«. Within 60 days of the effective date of this Consent
Order, Respondents shall file in the land records of Harris County
a notice, approved by EPA, to subsequent purchasers of tha land,
that hasardous substances were disposed of and will continue to
remain in both the soils and ground water at the Site. This notice
shall indicate that the development of the Site /or residential use
is inappropriate due to the continuing presence of hasardous
substances at the site. This notice shall alao include a copy of
this Consent Order and the Consent Decree between EPA and Beaser
Bast, inc. In addition, within 10 days of filing of such notice.
Respondents shall provide documentation to EPA verifying that they
have filed the required notice pursuant to this paragraph.
27. Nothing in this Consent Order shall in any manner
restrict or limit tjia nature or scope of icsponse actions which may
be taken by EPA i>\ fulfilling its responsibilities under federal
law. Respondents recognise that the implementation of response
actions at the Site may interfere with the use of their property.
EPA, its employees, representatives, contractors, agents, and all
other persons performing response actions under BPA's oversight
shall use their best efforts not to unreasonably interfere with the
operations of the Respondents or their tenants by any such entry
and actions, and will use their best efforts to give the
Respondents reasonable notice prior to such entry. Respondents
agree to cooperate with BPA in the implementation of response
actions at the Site and further agree not to interfere with such
response actions.
VXX. 09LSAJUI
21. Nothing in this Consant Order shall be construed to
relieve Respondents of their duty to exercise due care with respect
to hasardous substances at the Site or their duty to comply with
all applicable laws and regulations. Such due care shall include,
but not be limited to (a) preventing the installation of water
wells on the site except for the purpose of conducting
-------
investigation, remediation, or other activities authorized by SPA,
(b) preservation, protection, repair, and maintenance of concrete
foundations, parking areas, and other paved areas currently
existing *ry8 WH*^r which hazardous substances main, and (c)
compliance vith applicable laws and regulations applicable to the
installation, Maintenance, operation, or closure of existing
tanks ("UST") or the Site. Respondent* shall
provide notice to EPA concurrent with any required notice to the
Texas Water Commission ("THC") prior to closure of any O8T on the
Site. EPA will provide notice of and SB opportunity to cure any
violation of subparegraph 28 (b) provided that such violation Is not
caused by the Respondents. This opportunity -to cure shall not
exceed 10 days, y*** stipulated penalties shall start
-------
32. Za addition to the penalties listed in paragraph 31 and
any other madia* or sanction* available to EPA, a civil penalty
of up to $25,000 par day May be assessed againat a Respondent for
aach fallure or refoaal by auch Respondent to comply with any term
or condition of thia consent Order pursuant to Section 122(1) of
CSRCXA, 42 O.8.C. 9622(1).
33. Stipulated and civil penalties shall be paid by certified
or cashier's check within 30 days of receipt of a demand letter for
payment or within 30 days of final dispute resolution, whichever
later.
34. Docket Wo. CSRCLA 6-08-92 should be clearly typed on the
check to ensure proper credit. •
3«. Bach check for stipulated or civil penalties shall be
made payable to the Hazardous Substance Superfund and sent to»
Regional Hearing Cleric (6C>
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 6
P.O. Box 360582* ,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15251
Respondents shall simultaneously send a copy of the check
and a transmittal letter which includes a brief description of the
violation to those representatives of SPA designated in section
xvz.
X.
36. The parties sht;.L use their best efforts to resolve all
disputes or differences of opinion informally. If, however, the
parties are unable to reeolve such matters informally, then the
position advanced by EPA shall be considered binding unless the
Respondents invoke the dispute resolution provisions of this
Section.
37. If Respondents disagree with BPA's assessment of
stipulated penalties pursuant to Section XX of this Consent Order,
respondents shall notify SPA in writing of their objections and the
basis therefore within 7 calendar days of receipt of SPA'S demand
for payment. Said notice shall set forth the specific points of
the dispute end state the basis for the Respondents* position.
Within 10 days of SPA's receipt of ouch written notice, EPA shall
provide to Respondents its decision on the pending dispute.
38. SPA's decision pursuant to paragraph 37 shall be binding
upon all parties to this Consent Order, unless Respondents, within
7 days, notify EPA in writing of their continued objections and
request the Hazardous Waste Management Division Director for Region
6 to convene an informal conference for the purpose of discussing
-------
10
Respondents' objections and the reasons for EPA's determination.
The Hazardous Waste Management Division Director shall issue a
written decision within 10 days from the date of the informal
conference.
at. Except as set forth below, in any dispute, Respondents
shall have the burden of showing that ZPA's position, including
without limitation any interpretation of the terms and conditions
ow this Consent Order and of applicable federal and state law and
regulations, was arbitrary and capricious or otherwise not in
accordance with law.
46. The existence of a dispute as defined herein, and ZPA's
consideration of sucJa matters as placed into dispute shall not
excuse, toll, or suspend any compliance obligation or deadline)
required pursuant to this Consent Order. During the pendency of
the dispute resolution process, stipulated penalties with respect
to the disputed issue shall accrue, but payment of stipulated
penalties shall be stayed pending resolution of the dispute.
Stipulated penalties shall be calculated for each day of non-
compliance with this Consent order beginning with the first day of
non-compliance and including the period during; which the Dispute
Resolution procedures were on-going. If, however, the dispute is
ultimately resolved in Respondents' favor, no stipulated penalties
shall be due.
41. Notwithstanding any other provisions of the Consent
Order, no action or decision by EPA, Including without limitation,
decisions of the Regional Administrator of Region 6 (or his
designee), pursuant to this Consent Order shall constitute final
agency action giving rise to any rights to judicial review prior to
BPA's initiation of judicial action *:o compel Respondents'
compliance with the mandates of this Cons ant Order.
42. Unless otherwise specifically set forth herein, the
failure to provide exprescly for dispute r»*olution in any section
of this Consent Order is not intended and shall not bar Respondents
from invoking this Section as to any dispute arising under this
Consent Order. However, no dispute resolution decisions issued
pursuant to this Section shall be subject to this dispute
resolution section.
43. The Respondents certify that to the best of their
knowledge and belief they have provided to the United States all
Information currently in their possession and in the possession of
their agents, officers, directors, employees, or contractors which
relates in any way to the ownership, operation, generation,
treatment, transportation, or disposal of hazardous substances at
or in connection with the site.
-------
11
44. Subject to the reservation of rights in Section XIII of
this Consent Order, upon payment of the amounts specified in
Paragraph 29, Section VIII, of this Consent Order, EPA covenants
not to mom or take any othar civil or administrative action against
tha Respondents for any and all civil liability pursuant, to
auctions 106 or 107(a) of OERCLA, 42 U.8.C. 9606 or 9607(a), or
Baotioa 7003 of ths Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as
amended, 42 U.8.C. 6973, vith ragard to tha Site.
41. In eonsidaration of BPA's oovanant not to sua in
Paragraph 44, Saotion XXX, of this Consent ordar, tha Respondents
agree not to assart any claim* or caosas of action against ths
United States or its contractors or its employees or tha Basardous
Suhstanoa Suparfund arising out of axpansss incurrad or payaants
made pursuant to this Consant Ordar, or to saak any othar costs,
damages, or attorney'e faas from tha United States or its
contractors or employeea arising- out of rasponsa activities at tha
Sita.
4«. Nothing in thia Consant Order is intended to be nor shall
it be construed as a release or covenant not to sua any
Respondent (s) for any claia or causa of action, administrative or
judicial, at law or in equity, which the United States, Including
SPA, may have against any such Respondent(s) for:
(a) Any liability a» a result of failure to comply with this
consent Order;
(b) Any liability a* a result of failure to Bake the payments
required by Paragraph 29, section VIII, of this Consent Order;
(o) Any liability as a result of any future failure to
exercise due care with respect to hazardous substances at tha Site}'
(a) Any liability resulting from any future exacerbation by
Respondents of tha release or threat of release of hasardous
substances from) tha Site*
(e) Any and all criminal liability) or
(f) Any matters not expressly Included in the covenant not to
sue set forth in this consent Order.
47. Nothing in this Consant Ordar constitutes a covenant not
to sua er to take action or otherwise limits tha ability of tha
United states, including EPA, to aeek or obtain further relief from
tha Respondents, and tha covenant not to sua in Paragraph 44,
Section XXX, of this Consent Order may be modified or declared to
-------
12
b« null and void at the discretion of EPA, if information
materially different from that specified in Section III is
discovered which indicates that Respondents fail to Met any of the
criteria specified in section 122(g)(l)(A) of CKRCIA.
4s. Except ae othenriee expressly provided in Paragraph 44,
Section XII, of this consent Order, nothing in this Consent Order
is intended as a release or covenant not to sue for any claim or
cause of action, administrative or judicial, civil or criminal,
past or future, in lav or in equity, which the United states,
including KPA, may have against any person, firm, corporation or
other entity not a signatory to this Consent Order.
4t. IPA and Respondent* agree that the actions undertaken by
the Respondents in accordance with this Consent Order do not
constitute an admission of any liability by the Respondents. The
Respondents do not admit and retain the right to controvert in any
subsequent proceedings, other than proceedings to implement or
enforce this Consent Order, the validity of the Statement of Pacts
or Determinations contained in this Consent Order.
SO. Subject to the reservation or rights in section XI.*., of
this Consent Order, EPA agrees that by entering into and upon
carrying out the terms of this Consent Order, Respondents vill have
resolved their liability to the United States for those matters set
forth in the covenant not to sue, Paragraph 44, Section XZI, as
provided by section 122(g)(l) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9622 (g) (5), and
shall have satisfied their liability for those matters within the
meaning of section 107 (*) of CERCLA, 4* U.S.C. 9607 (a) and are
entitled to contribution protection under OBRCLA Section 113 (f) (2) ,
42 U.S.C. 9613(f) (2).
Si* Ibis Consent Order shall apply to and be binding upon &nd
inures to the benefit of the Respondents and their officers,
directors, shareholders, employees, agents, affiliates, successors
(including, but not limited to successors-in-title), heirs, and
assigns. Ibe signatories represent that they are fully authorised
to enter into the terms and conditions of this Consent Order and to
legally bind the Respondents. Notwithstanding the foregoing,
merchants Fast does not currently own or operate any portion of the
Site, and, as a result. Merchants Past has no current duties or
obligations under Paragraphs 25, 26, 27, 28, 52, and 53 of this
Consent Order, and Merchants Past shall have no liability based
solely on the failure of any other Respondent to fulfill its duties
and obligations under such Paragraphs.
51. in the event that Respondents transfer title or
possession of the Site, they shall notify the SPA at least 30 days
-------
13
prior to any such transfer and shall continue to be bound by all of
the terms and condition* of this Consent Order unless EPA agrees
otherwise and modifies this Consent Order accordingly.
19. In the event that Respondent* transfer title or
ion of the site, they shall provide any such transferee with
a copy of this Consent Order together with a written notice stating
that such transferee (a) is subject ta all of the requirements of
the Consent Order including, without limitation, the requirement to
provide DA continuing accees to the property for the purposes of
monitoring its environmental status, taking remedial action,
implementing or enforcing the terms of this Consent Order, or
otherwise discharging KFA's regulatory responsibilities, and (b) is
required to exercise continuing due care, as described in Section
VIZ, in avoiding future releases from the Site. In addition, in no
event shall the conveyance of any interest in property that
includes, or is a portion of, the Site release or otherwise affect
the liability of the Respondents to comply with this consent order.
54. All notices required to be given pursuant to this Consent
Order shall be in writing, unleas otherwise expressly authorised.
Notices or submissions required by this consent Order shall b*>
deemed timely if deposited with the United States Postal Service or
an equivalent delivery service on or before the due date. Response
times under this Consent Order shall run from the date of receipt,
unless otherwise specified. Documents, notices, and other
correspondence to be submitted pursuant to this consent Order shall
be sent by certified sail, return receipt requested, express mail
service, or some equivalent delivery service providing proof of
delivery to the following addresses or to ich other addresses as
the Parties hereafter may designate in wricing:
As to the Knvlronmantal Protection Agency
Hark rite
Remedial Project Manager (6H-SC)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1445 Ross Ave.
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733
Fax: (214) 655-6460
Marvin Beaton
Assistant Regional Counsel (6C-VT)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1445 Ross Ave.
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733
Pax: (214) 655-2182
-------
14
Aa to Raapondanta
Calvin Raavaa
Vica Praaidant and Ganaral Counsel
Baptist Foundation of Taxaa
2001 Bryan, Suita 1500
Dallas, Taxaa 75201-3082
Fax: (214) 978-3395
Gary Armstrong
Praaldant
Marnhanta Faat Motor Linaa, Inc.
1733 Baat Highway 80
Abilana, Taxaa 79601
Fax: (915) 674-4608
Rax King
Pallatiiad Trucking, Inc.
2001 Collingoworth
Houaton, Taxaa 77249
Fax: (713) 225-0110
Robart Starnanbarg
Praaidant
Trucking Propartiaa, Inc.
2929 Allan Parkway, suit* 21OO
Houaton, Taxaa 77019
Faxt (713) 520-1041
Km tio iAa Stat«
Louia Rogers
South Cavalcada Suparfund Sita Coordinator
Suparfund and Kaargancy Raaponaa Saction
Taxaa Watar Cosmlasion
1700 North Congraaa
Austin, I'axaa 78711-3087
Fax: (512) 463-8408
xni.
SS. Thia Conaant Ordar ahall ba aubjact to a thirty-day
public coaaant pariod pursuant to Saction 122(i) of CERCLA, 42
U.S.C. 9622(1). In accordanca with Saction 122(i) (3) of CXRCLA, 42
D.3.C. 9622(1) (3), BPA say withdraw or aodlfy conaant to thia
Conaant Ordar if ccsaanta racaivad diacloaa facta or considarationa
which indicata that thia Conaant Ordar ia inappropriata, Ispropar,
or inadaquata.
-------
15
S«. Tha Attorney Ganaral or hia daalgnaa has iaauad prior
written approval of tha Mttl«aant aabodiad in this Conaant Ordar
in accordance with Saetion 122 (g) (4) of CXRCZA.
S7. The affaetiva data of thia Ooaaant Ordar ahall ba tha
data upon which BPA iaauaa writtan notica to tha ttaapondanta that
tha public coataant pariod puraoant to Paragraph 55, Saction ZVII,
of thia Conaant Ordar haa cloaad and that covajanta raoalYad, if
any, do not raquira aodificatlon of or EPA withdrawal from tuia
Conaant Ordar.
-------
1C
ADKXNXSTSXTXVZ ORDER ON CONSENT
SOUTH CAVALCADE STREET SUPERFUND SITE
NO. CERCLA 6-08-92
REX KZK and HARILYH UK* EZM6
(for t-haa»«Vra« and Cor
PALL
BAPTIST FOUNDATION OP TEXAS
By
Mr. Calvin Raavaa
Vlca Praaidant and
Ganaral Counaal
0at«:
•
Data:
Data; / -
ANTS PAST MOTOR LINES, INC.
PROPERTIES, INC.
Data: -
:. Robert Starnanbaxg
Praaidant
^ Data:__///vM.
\O ' ;
f. J.
'Ragional Adalnlatrator
Ragion
-------
APPENDIX D
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
ROD Amendment No. 1
Appendix 0
Responsiveness Summary
Pagal
Responsiveness Summary
South Cavalcade Street Superfund Site
ROD Amendment No. 1
This Responsiveness Summary has been prepared to provide written responses to comments submitted
regard;-ig the Proposed Plan of Action for the South Cavalcade Superfund Site in Houston. Texas.
EPA received public comment for the South Cavalcade Site Proposed Plan during a 30 day comment
period from February 9 through March 12,1997. During that period, EPA received comments from each
land owner and Beazer East Each land owner and Beazer East supported the proposed amendment in
writing. The landowners' comments are included with this amendment as Appencix E and do not require
a response. Beazer East's comments and EPA's response are provided below. In addition, on February
20, 1997, EPA held a meeting at which the public was allowed to comment on this proposed plan. A
public notice announcing the public comment period and public meeting was printed in the Houston
Chronicle on February 9,1997. No comments opposing the plan were received from the general public
during the comment period.
Beazer East Inc. Comments
1. General Comments
a. Soil Washing
Comment: The 1993 Soil Washing Pilot Study conclusively demonstrated that soil washing *ould
not successfully reduce constituent concentrations to meet the remedial goals in forty percent
(40%) of the impacted soil. Consequently, the Pilot Study indicated that soil washing would be
neither protective of human health nor cost-effective. Beazer recommends that the Proposed ROD
Amendment be revised to more clearly reflect this point Specific suggestions are set forth in the
Specific Comments section below.
EPA Response: EPA considered the comment and agrees that the soil washing pilot test failed to
conclude that soil washing could successfully remediate contaminated soils on site and made
changes to paragraph 1 .e, and 4.a. to "more clearly reflect this point" However, since soil
washing cost effectiveness was not the principal criteria for deciding to amend the ROD, EPA
does not believe a revision is necessary to "more clearly reflect" the reasons for this amendment
EPA believes it adequately addressed the impact cost-effectiveness had on the decision to amend
the remedy in Section 5(g) of the ROD Amendment
-------
ROD Amendment No. 1
Appendix 0
Responsiveness Summary
Page 2
b. Applicable and Relevant and Appropriate Standards ("ARARs")
Comment: The proposed revised remedial alternative is a cap consisting of at least 6 inches of
steel reinforced concrete. Beazer concurs with EPA's conclusion that there are no federal or state
requirements which are applicable to the proposed cap. However, the draft Proposed Amended
ROD states that certain requirements contained in 40 CFR Part 264, Standards for Owners and
Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities, are "relevant and
appropriate." The Proposed Amended ROD states that "relevant and appropriate" standards are
those which address situations or problems sufficiently similar to those encountered at the site that
their use is warranted. Beazer does not believe that the hazardous waste regulations listed as
"relevant and appropriate" address situations or problems sufficiently similar to those at this site,
given the proposed revised remedy, such that their use is warranted. Basically, although a concrete
cap has been proposed for the amended remedy, the remedy is not analogous to those employed to
accomplish closure of hazardous waste landfills.
Each of the regulations cited relates to the closure, post-closure and/or post-closure maintenance of
a hazardous waste disposal facility. Generally speaking, these regulations assume that the media
surrounding the disposal facility has not been impacted and include measures to prevent and
monitor the potential for such an impact In addition, these regulations include technical
construction standards which have not been proposed or evaluated for this site. For example, one
of the requirements of 40 CFR §264.310(b), which is one of the sections referenced as "relevant
and appropriate," is that the owner/operator continue to operate the leachate collection and
removal system until leachate is no longer collected. Clearly, such a requirement is not "relevant
and appropriate" with respect to the Proposed Amended ROD. Moreover, reference to the cited
sections of the RCRA standards on closure of hazardous waste landfills as "relevant and
appropriate," is not only incorrect, it may prove confusing to other parties in terms of the
requirements to be contained in the Amended ROD.
In sum, Beazer believes that the listed sections of 40 CFR Part 264 are not relevant and
appropriate standards to the proposed amended soils remedy of this site. Therefore, Beazer
requests that the Proposed Amended ROD be revise*? by deletion of the reference to these
regulations as "relevant and appropriate", and that a sentence be included that EPA has concluded
that there are no federal or state standards that are "relevant and appropriate" to the proposed
amended soils remedy.
EPA Response: EPA considered the comment and agreed that the relevant and appropriate
standards proposed required clarification. However, EPA believes specific landfill requirements
are relevant and appropriate because landfilling and capping the contaminated Superfund soils in
place (the remedy described in this Amended ROD) are sufficiently similar. They are similar
because in either case untreated contamination essentially remains below the surface. EPA must
clearly assure the public it is adequately mitigating exposures to this contamination and it believes
there are existing RCRA ARAR's that can provide such assurance. Having established there is
just cause to list some ARAR's, EPA agrees that it should list only very specific ARAR's which
describe specific performance as well as closure and post closure and care requirements.
Consequently, to clarify which requirements are relevant and appropriate, EPA removed ARAR
-------
ROD Amendment No. 1
Appendix 0
Responsiveness Summary
Page 3
citations that referenced RCRA requirements which were beyond the scope of this remedial action.
However, there were specific requirements in those removed ARAR's which are relevent and
appropriate. Those requirements are groundwater monitoring as well as closure and post closure
care actions. Therefore, in lieu of citing specific ARAR's EPA added specific groundwater
monitoring and post closure requirements to the "Description of the New Alternative" text found
in the Amended ROD.
c. Consistency with the 1988 ROD
Comment: In the 1988 ROD, EPA concluded that those affected soils on the site that were
covered by existing concrete did not pose an unacceptable risk to human health and the
environment. Thus, the selection of steel reinforced concrete to cap the currently uncapped areas
of the site where affected soils contain constituents of concerns at levels in excess of the remedial
goals, is consistent with the approach of the 1988 ROD. Beazer believes that it may be
appropriate to highlight this point further in the Proposed Amended ROD.
EPA Response: EPA agrees the current ROD does not require excavating soil beneath existing
structures and pavements at this time. However, the ROD states that if monitoring shows
contaminants are leaching from beneath existing structures EPA may require additional remedial
action (see ROD p. 32). Therefore EPA has not concluded that soils on the site covered by
existing concrete will never threaten human health or the environment Therefore in response to
this comment EPA did not believe any changes to the proposed plan were required.
d. Remedial Approach
Comment: Beazer would like to clarify that the aifected soil on site is not a hazardous waste
unless it is actively managed. Moreover, much ot the soil would not qualify as a listed hazardous
waste and does not exhibit a characteristic of a hazardous waste and, thus, would not be a
hazardous waste, even if actively managed. Therefore, Beazer believes that it is more appropriate
to refer to a "remedial approach" rather than a "hazardous waste i.^anagement approach" in the
Proposed Amended ROD.
EPA Response: In response to actively managing affected soil, a waste is not defined by how it is
"actively managed." In any event EPA agrees it is appropriate to modify references to "hazardous
waste management approaches" to remedial approach.
2. Specific Comments
a. Page 3, paragraph l.d.
Comment: Beazer believes that, for purposes of the Proposed Amended ROD, it is more accurate
to state:
-------
ROD Amendment No. 1
Appendix D
Responsiveness Summary
Page 4
In lieu of using the soil washing and soil flushing remedies originally selected in the
1988 ROD, EPA proposes that the areas where surface contamination exceeds the
1988 ROD established soil cleanup goals - 700 ppm total carcinogenic polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons (cPAH)2 - be sealed with a reinforced concrete cover
EPA Response: EPA agreed with Beazer's comment and made the suggested change.
b. Page 4, paragraph 1 .d, second subpangraph.
Comment: Beazer recommends that this subparagraph be revised to state "Since capping
contamination changes the remedial approach originally established in the ROD..."
EPA Response: EPA agreed with Beazer's comment and made the suggested change.
c. Page 4, paragraph I.e. second subparagraph
Comment: Beazer recommends that this subparagraph be revised to state:
In 1993, during the remedial design phase BEI conducted a soil washing pilot study.
The study's results conclusively demonstrated that forty percent (40%) of the soil
volume could not be washed to meet the remedial goals contained in the ROD.
Consequently, soil washing: (1) could not provide the level of protection required by
the ROD; (2) failed to demonstrate short or long term effectiveness; (3) would not
reduce toxicity, mobility or volume of COCs for forty percent of the volume; (4) is
not implementable; and (5) is not cost-effective. Thereafter, BEI repeated its belief
that any contamination beneath the surface does not pose a realistic health risk.
Beazer requested that EPA reconsider the risk calculations, revising them to take into
account reasonably foreseeable exposure pathways given the current and anticipated
industrial site use.
EPA Response: EPA reviewed Beazer's comment and, although it did not use the suggested
revision, it agreed to rewrite the paragraph to clarify the point that the test did not provide
sufficient information to conclude full scale soil washing operations would provide any benefit
d. Page 5, paragraph 2.b., lines 6-9.
Comment: Beazer recommends revising these lines to state:
design effort BEI conducted a soil washing pilot study; however, the study
conclusively demonstrated that forty (40%) percent of the soil volume could not be
washed to meet the remedial goal.
-------
ROD Amendment No. 1
Appendix D
Responsiveness Summary
Pages
EPA Response: See response to comment 2(c), referencing Page 4, paragraph I.e. second
subparagraph.
e. Page 5, paragraph 2.b., Line 21.
Comment: Insert a new sentence and revise the last sentence:
When preparing the 1988 ROD, EPA determined that existing concrete and structures
provided sufficient protection against reasonably foreseeable exposure to soils affected
by COCs at levels in excess of remedial goals. Similarly, based upon the revised EPA
principal threat guidance, EPA believes BETs proposed concrete cover over
previously uncapped areas affected by the same COCs at similar levels will provide
reliable and sufficient containment and protection against reasonably foreseeable
exposure pathways, and provide greater overall protection to human health and the
environment than the 1988 ROD remedy
EPA Response: See response to comment 2(c), Consistency with the 1988 ROD, above.
f. Page 6, Exposure Pathway, Table 1.
Comment: We could not locate a reference to Table 1 in the text. In addition, we found Table I
potentially to be confusing because it appears to include exposure pathways which are no longer
viewed by EPA as "realistic". Therefore, Beazer recommends that Table 1 be deleted.
Alternatively, if it is not deleted, it should be labeled as "Four Exposure Pathway Assumptions
Considered in Original RI/FS" and a corresponding textual reference thereto should be inserted.
EPA Response: EPA included the reference to Table 1 in the second full paragraph of section 2(b),
"Reasons for Amending the ROD." The purpose of Table 1 was to provide the potential pathways
designated in the ROD.
g. Page 6, second paragraph, last sentence.
Comment: Beazer recommends that the last sentence be revised to state: "Therefore, this pathway
does not present an unacceptable risk to human health and the environment
EPA Response: EPA agreed with the suggested revision and included the revision in the
amendment
h. Page 6, third paragraph.
-------
ROD Amendment No. 1
Appendix 0
Responsiveness Summary
Page 6
Comment: Since this is the first reference to "brownfield" you may wish to move the footnote
from page 9 to this page.
i
EPA Response: EPA agreed with Beazer's suggestion and moved the footnote to the first reference
to brownfields.
Page 6, fifth paragraph
Comment: Beazer recommends that the last sentence be revised to state, "Furthermore, the deed
restrictions imposed as a result of the administrative orders on consent with the property owners
provide institutional controls to inhibit residential land use."
i
EPA Response: EPA considered the comment but decided not to modify the proposed plan since
the Administrative Order on Consent states residential land use is "inappropriate."
i. Page 7, first paragraph
Comment:
Beazer recommends that the first sentence be revised to state, "To summarize the reasons for
amending the 1988 ROD, the soil washing pilot study conclusively demonstrated that soil
washing was not cost-effective and would not achieve the remediation goals set forth in the
1988 ROD."
Beazer recommends that the last sentence be revised to state "EPA evaluated the land use and
concluded that, given the current and most reasonably anticipated future land use, the concrete
cap adequately would protect human health and the environment by severing exposure
pathways, just as the pre-existing concrete and structures were deemed to do in the 1988
ROD."
EPA Response: See EPA Response to comment on 2(c), referencing Page 4, paragraph 1 .e,
second subparagraph above.
-------
ROD Amendment No. 1
Appendix 0
Responsiveness Summary
Page?
j. Page 7, paragraph 3
Comment: As Beazer has previously discussed, it does not believe that the RCRA regulations
listed in Table 3 are "relevant and appropriate" with respect to the proposed concrete cap.
Therefore, Beazer requests that the last sentence be revised to state "EPA does not believe that
there are any ARARs with respect to the proposed amended capping remedy." In addition, Table
3 should be deleted.
EPA Response: See EPA Response to comment "Applicable and Relevant and Appropriate
Standards ("ARARs")"
k. Page 8, paragraph 4.a
Comment: Beazer believes that the list of potential exposure pathways may be confusing to the
reader since the previous discussions indicated that: (1) the administrative order requirements
imposed upon the property owners has eliminated the first category; (2) the second pathway
category was determined not to pose an unacceptable risk; and (3) EPA has concluded that
residential use is not a reasonably foreseeable future use of the property. Therefore, the only
exposure pathway which remains is "inadvertent ingestion and direct contact with surface soils by
on-site commercial occupants." Thus, it would be clearer to eliminate the first three exposure
pathways included in the list or eliminate the list entirely.
EPA Response: EPA considered the comment and agreed that the proposal could be clarified.
The proposal was clarified by refering to only the most probable pathway identified in the
"Summary of Rational for Changing the Remedy Selected In the ROD." See paragraph 5.a. in the
Amende j ROD.
Comment: In addition, Beazer believes that it would be helpful to amend the sentence following
the list of exposure pathways to state "Consequently, as long as the laud use remains similar to the
present use, which is the only reasonably foreseeable use of the property for the many reasons
discussed above, and the concrete cap...."
EPA Response: EPA considered the comment but did not believe changing the proposed plan was
warranted.
1. Page 8, paragraph 4.b
Comment: As discussed above, Beazer does not believe that the regulations listed on page 7 are
ARARs. Thus, Beazer requests that this paragraph be revised to state:
-------
ROD Amendment No. 1
Appendix 0
Responsiveness Summary
Pages
The previous remedy, soil washing, will not meet the ARAR's. While there are no
ARAR's with respect to the soils remedy set forth in the Proposed Amended ROD, the
concrete cap will be designed so as to minimize the need for further maintenance.
EPA Response: See EPA Response to comment l(b), "Applicable and Relevant and Appropriate
Standards ("ARARs")."
m. Page 9, paragraph 4.d
Comment: Beazer recommends that this section be revised to include an explanation that the pilot
study did not conclusively demonstrate that the soil washing remedy would not adequately reduce
toxicity, mobility or volume for forty percent (40%) of the affected soil.
EPAResponse: EPA considered the response but concluded revising the proposed plan was not
necessary.
n. Page 9, paragraph 4.g, second subparagraph
Comment: Beazer requests that the first, second and third sentences be revised to state:
As demonstrated by the soil washing pilot project, forty (40%) percent of the
affected soils could not be remediated to the remedial goals through use of the soil
washing remedy selected in the 1988 ROD. This would increase the financial risk
for bidders because the final volume of soil which could be treated and the
volume whid- vould have to be disposed is uncertain. Such uncertainty will
increase the bid cost of the soil washing remedy. Elimination of the uncertainty
improves cost control.
EPAResponse: EPA considered the response but concluded revising the proposed plan was
not necessary.
-------
APPENDIX E - LAND OWNER COMMENTS
-------
*RE7C KD*G. PRESIDENT PHONE: <713> 225-3303
m
PALLETIZED TRUCKING INC. - j 6 ^
2001 COLJJNGSWORTH STREET O }
P. O. Box 8744 "
HOUSTON. TEXAS 77249 Z £, 0 2_
-o
~ sO
March?, 1997 S 5 ^
E 30 V-N
3-t v /
£ o rn
?: -o 2.
5 s rn
Ms. Olivia Rodriguez BaJaiidran § c*« ^
Community Relations Coordinator * <=°
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6 "*•
1445 Ross Avenue (6SF-P>
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733
RE: Proposed ROD Amendment
Sooth Cavalcade CERCLA Site
Houston Tx
Dear Ms. Balandras
Palletized Trucking, Inc. is writing to provide the United States Environmental Protection
Agency with comments on the proposed Record of Decision (ROD) Amendment which woul(f
allow the use of concrete capping as a soil remedy at the South Cavalcade Superrand site.
As you are aware, we are a property-owner at this site, and have even signed a Consent Order
with the USEPA regarding this site. We are very pleased to see the USEPA .oially move
forward with allowing Beazer to place a concrete cap as the final remedy for impacted soils a!
this site. It has been nearly two years since Beazer started full scale remediation activities',
which required n« tnvarafc a tignifiranf portion of am trailer parting area Vacating that area
for such a long period, of time has hindered our operational efficiency and costs us a significant
sum of money. The delay has also prevented us from proceeding with our tire shop
improvement project, which would be located in an area of the proposed concrete cafk.
By approving the proposed ROD Amendment and allowing Beazer to proceed with the
rete cap installation, the USEPA will be taking a positive step toward returning this
property to its full business potential. Additionally, the new concrete cap will provide us with
an improved working surface versus the crushed concrete surface formerly used along the
eastern side of our property. We have agreed with Beazer to accept responsibility for the
maintenance of this new concrete surface, which is consistent with our own Consent Order
requirements to properly maintain the existing concrete areas on our property.
-------
Page 2
March 7. 1997
We look forward to the USEPA's approval of the ROD Amendment so that design and
construction of the concrete cap can proceed as rapidly as possible.
Mr. Michael Rex King
Vice President - Sales and Service
cc: Michael Slenska, Beazer
mk/ch
-------
C; •
TRUCKING PROPERTIES, INC. 7 3. to
March 11.199T
i 3
Ms. OHvta Rodriguez Batendran > § HI
Community Relation* Coordinator £~ __ Q
U A Environmental Protection Agency. Region 6 - ~ jTJ
M4S Roes Avenue (1SF-P) 5: -& ~~
DaOaa. Texas 7S202-273J —a '^
E3 co ' •'
z co '--^
RE: Proposed ROD Amendment o °^
South Cavalcade CERCLA Site x
Houston. fexas>
Dear «te. Batendran:
Trucking Properties, inc. ia writing with regard to the United States Environmental Protection
Agency** proposed Record of Decision (ROD) Amendment to allow concrete capping as the soi
remedy tar tfie South Cavalcade Superfund sKa
Trucking Properdee currently own* a significant parcel of this sits and. as you are aware, w*
signed a Coneent Order wNh the USEPA in 1992. For the past several years ws have been attempting
to set thai property rbr continued trucking operations. Over the past two years these efforts hav*
been hsmpsred by the readily apparent incomplete remedial a<£on construction actMb^ at tne front
of our property. Therefore, we are excited to see the USEPA moving forward with allowing Beazst
i cap as the final impacted soil remedy*
mtFA's approval of the proposed ROD Amendment wM certainly aid our property dhpostfo*
I the sale of tMe property to a new trucking entity will provide the best opportunity for B
I to *• rrui nunt business potentte1 This facility which previously employed ov*r 50
tot been operated tine* 1991. Expeditious completion of the concrete cap remedy
r of ftjatadty to place H back In service and replace those sorely needed job*
> proposed In Beazefs January, 1996 (^>nceptuaJ Design, the new concrete
cap wfl provM* tie «Mi a new employee parking area. This improvement will also assist In our
We look forward to fee USEPA's final approval of the ROD Amendment so that Bsszsr ca»
rta ttis sol remedy for the site, which wU aOow us to more easily proceed with the disposition
Sincerely,
lJ.Reess
Vice President
Tleneka,
-------
'«.. •-.-..
Replyto: 37%.
March 3, 1997
Ms. QKuif R^vfrign
Community Relations Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue (6SF-P)
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733
Re: Proposed ROD Amendment
South Cavalcade CERCLA Site
Houston, Texas)
Dear Ms. Balandriac
NW NationsWsy Transport Service, Inc. is writing in support of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency's proposed Record of Decision (ROD) Amendment to allow concrete capping
as the soil remedy for the South Cavalcade Supcrfund sit*
NadonsWay recently purchased the northern portion of tLLi site. Since that purchase we hav*
been exploring several facility expansion alternatives. Several of these expansion alternatives
would "K^wte aAfitjftnai tarmac areas overlying the "iy^r*<^f soil area on our property. The
removal of this soil from our property as proposed in Beazer*s January. 1996 Conceptual Design
would provide the dearest path for any of our potential facility expansion projects, and allow us
to completely irtifo* the property's trucking terminal potential ft is our understanding that the
USEPA's approval of the proposed ROD Amendment will iDow this soil removal to happen in a
timely manner, therefore we support the proposed ROD Amendment
Branch Manager
^*
cc: Michael Slenska, Beazer
NATtONSWAY TRANSPORT SERVICE, INC.
- - - --,-., -,0r» oci 1. CC v rin-v ton '
------- |