FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
DOEPKE-HOLLIDAY SUPERFUND SITE
SHAWNEE, JOHNSON COUNTY, KANSAS
December 2015
Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
Lenexa, Kansas
Prepared by
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City District
under
Superfund Generic Interagency Agreement No. DW96957990
Approved by:
Mary P. Peterson, Director Date
Superfund Division
-------
DOEPKE-HOLLIDAY SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
Table of Contents
List of Abbreviations, Acronyms and Definitions iv
Five-Year Review Summary Form vi
Executive Summary ES-1
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Site Chronology 2
3.0 Background 3
3.1 Physical Characteristics 3
3.1.1 Site Geology 3
3.1.2 Site Hydrogeology 4
3.1.3 Ecological Setting 8
3.2 Land and Resource Use 9
3.3 History of Contamination 9
3.4 Initial Response 10
3.5 Basis for Response Action 11
4.0 Remedial Actions 12
4.1 Remedial Action Objectives 12
4.2 Remedy Selection 12
4.3 Remedy Implementation 13
4.3.1 Monitoring Well and Seep Sampling and Gauging 14
4.3.2 System Operations/Operation and Maintenance 15
5.0 Progress Since Last Five-Year Review 16
6.0 Five-Year Review Process 17
6.1 Administrative Components 17
6.2 Community Involvement 17
6.3 Document Review 17
6.4 Data Review 17
6.4.1 Standards Review 17
6.4.2 Groundwater Monitoring Data Review 18
6.4.3 Seep Analytical Data 22
6.4.4 Data Summary 22
6.5 Site Inspection 23
6.6 Interviews 24
7.0 Technical Assessment 25
7.1 Question A 25
7.1.1 Remedial Action Performance 25
7.1.2 System Operations and Maintenance 26
7.1.3 Opportunities for Optimization 26
7.1.4 Early Indicators of Potential Issues 26
7.1.5 Implementation of Institutional Controls and Other Measures 27
7.2 Question B 27
7.2.1 Changes in Standards and To-Be-Considered Criteria 27
7.2.2 Changes in Exposure Pathways 27
7.2.3 Changes in Toxicity and Other Contaminant Characteristics 28
i
-------
DOEPKE-HOLLIDAY SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
7.2.4 Changes in Risk Assessment Methods 28
7.3 Question C 30
7.3.1 Ecological Risks 30
7.3.2 Natural Disaster Impacts 31
7.3.3 Any Other Information That Could Call Into Question the Protectiveness of the
Remedy 31
7.4 Technical Assessment Summary 31
8.0 Issues 32
9.0 Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions 33
10.0 Protectiveness Statements 34
11.0 Next Review 35
ii
-------
DOEPKE-HOLLIDAY SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
Appendices
Appendix 1 - Tables (on CD)
Table 1: Chronology of Site Events
Table 2: Summary of Seep Flow Rates and Percentage of Total Seep Flow Rates
Table 3: Long-Term Monitoring Plan
Table 4: ARARs and TBCs for Chemicals Detected from 2010 to 2013
Table 5: 2010 to 2013 Analytical Data Summary Overburden Monitoring Wells
Table 6: 2010 to 2013 Analytical Data Summary Plattsburg Formation Monitoring Wells
Table 7: 2010 to 2013 Analytical Data Summary Farley Member Monitoring Wells
Table 8: 2010 to 2013 Analytical Data Summary Groundwater Seeps
Table 9: Summary of Landfill Inspections Since Third Five-Year Review
Table 10: Changes in Standard Default Exposure Factors
Table 11: Changes in Oral Non-Cancer Total Intake Factors
Table 12: Changes in Dermal Non-Cancer Total Intake Factors
Table 13: Changes in Oral Cancer Total Intake Factors
Table 14: Changes in Dermal Cancer Total Intake Factors
Table 15: Summary of Groundwater Elevations
Appendix 2 - Figures (on CD)
Figure 1: Site Location Map
Figure 2: Site Map
Figure 3: Zoning Map
Figure 4: Land Use Map
Figure 5: Geologic Map
Figure 6: Typical Stratigraphic Column
Figure 7: Geologic Cross-Section OW-12A to OPL-1
Figure 8: Top of Rock Contour Map
Figure 9: Groundwater Contours, Overburden Unit, April 22,2013
Figure 10: Groundwater Contours, Plattsburg Formation, April 23, 2013
Figure 11: Groundwater Contours, Farley Member, January 1992
Appendix 3 - List of Documents Reviewed (on CD)
Appendix 4 - Site Inspection Checklist (on CD)
Appendix 5 - Site Inspection Photographs (on CD)
Appendix 6 - Deed Restriction/Restrictive Covenant (on CD)
Appendix 7 - Interview Form (on CD)
Appendix 8 - Public Notice (on CD)
iii
-------
DOEPKE-HOLLIDAY SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
List of Abbreviations, Acronyms and Definitions
AOC
Administrative Order on Consent
ARAR
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement
BEHP
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
BTEX
benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene
CD
Consent Decree
CERCLA
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
cfs
cubic feet per second
CRA
Conestoga-Rovers & Associates
DII
Deffenbaugh Industries, Inc.
DL
detection limit
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FS
Feasibility Study
FYR
Five-Year Review
gpm
gallons per minute
HRS
Hazard Ranking System
1-435
Interstate Highway 435
IC
Institutional Controls
IGMP
Interim Groundwater Monitoring Program
JCDHE
Johnson County Department of Health and Environment
JCWD
Johnson County Water District No. 1
KDHE
Kansas Department of Health and Environment
LTM
Long-Term Monitoring
LTMP
Long-Term Monitoring Plan
Hg/L
micrograms per liter
MCL
Maximum Contaminant Level
MW
monitoring well
NCP
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
NPL
National Priorities List
O&M
operation and maintenance
OSWER
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
OU
Operable Unit
PAH
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
PCB
polychlorinated biphenyl
PDI
Pre-Design Investigation
PRP
potentially responsible party
PZ
piezometer
RA
Remedial Action
iv
-------
DOEPKE-HOLLIDAY SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
RAOs
Remedial Action Objectives
RAGS
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund
RI
Remedial Investigation
RL
reporting limit
RI/FS
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
ROD
Record of Decision
RSK
Risk-Based Standard for Kansas
SDEF
standard default exposure factor
SVOC
semivolatile organic compound
TAL
Target Analyte List
TBC
to be considered
TSS
total suspended solids
UAO
Unilateral Administrative Order
USACE
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
VOC
volatile organic compound
V
-------
DOEPKE-HOLLIDAY SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
Five-Year Review Summary Form
Lead agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 7
Author name (Federal or State Project Manager): Laura Price, Remedial Project Manager
Author affiliation: EPA Region 7
Review period: 01/08/2015-11/25/2015
Date of site inspection: 04/01/2015
Type of review: Statutory
Review number: 4
Triggering action date: 12/14/2010
Due date (five years after triggering action date): 12/14/2015
vi
-------
DOEPKE-HOLLIDAY SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
Issues/Recommendations
No issues were identified during the FYR that would affect the protectiveness of
the remedy.
Sitewide Protectiveness Statement
Protectiveness Determination:
Protective
Protectiveness Statement:
The remedy at the Doepke-Holliday Site is protective of human health and the environment.
vii
-------
DOEPKE-HOLLIDAY SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
This page intentionally left blank
-------
DOEPKE-HOLLIDAY SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
Executive Summary
The Fourth Five-Year Review Report has been completed for the Doepke-Holliday Superfund
Site (Site) in Shawnee, Johnson County, Kansas.
The Site includes a former municipal and industrial waste landfill on the upland area of an
approximately 80-acre parcel of land on the southern bluffs of the Kansas River. The Site
currently is owned by Deffenbaugh Industries, Inc. (DII) (recently acquired by Waste
Management). A DII bulk fuel facility and a Customer Convenience Center for refuse drop-off
have been constructed onsite, but off the landfill cap.
Active landfilling operations were performed on portions of the Site during the period of January
1952 to September 1970. The Site property was operated as a residential trash disposal service
from January 1952 until 1962. Industrial wastes reportedly were disposed of at the Site,
including, but not limited to, fiberglass wastes, paint sludges, spent solvents, metal tailings,
soaps, and pesticides. In addition, sludges consisting primarily of petroleum refinery wastes
were dewatered in a surface impoundment constructed within the southern portion of the Site. In
1966, the Site reportedly received 374 cardboard drums containing emulsifiers, solvents, acids,
bases, insecticides, and some unidentified drums resulting from a fire at a chemical plant in
Kansas City, Kansas. The Site was closed as of November 30,1970. After closure of the
landfill, the Site was used in 1977 for disposal of waste rock materials from the construction of
Interstate Highway 435 (1-435). In May 1995, a portion of the Site was used to store stockpiles
of various aggregate materials and used as the access route to Shawnee Rock Company and the
DII operations to the west and south of the Site.
The Site was added to the National Priorities List (NPL) on September 8,1983. The Site remedy
specified in the Record of Decision was to cap the wastes in place with an impermeable cap, then
monitor groundwater and groundwater seeps to assure that contaminants were not migrating.
The remedy at the Doepke-Holliday Site is protective of human health and the environment. The
impermeable multilayer cap has been installed, is in good condition, and is functioning as
designed. Access controls are in place and deed restrictions consistent with the requirements of
the 1996 Consent Decree have been imposed on the property.
ES-1
-------
DOEPKE-HOLLIDAY SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
1.0 Introduction
The purpose of the five-year review (FYR) is to evaluate the performance of the remedy and
determine if it is protective of human health and the environment. Furthermore, the FYR
assesses whether the remedy will continue to be protective in the future. It determines whether
the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives (RAOs),
used at the time of the remediation are still valid and whether any other information has come to
light that would call into question the protectiveness of the remedy. The FYR report identifies
issues found during the review, if any, and recommendations to address them.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has prepared this FYR pursuant to the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Section
121(c) and the National Contingency Plan. CERCLA § 121(c), as amended, states:
If the President selects a remedial action that results in any hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site, the President shall review such remedial
action no less often than each five years after the initiation of such remedial action to assure
that human health and the environment are being protected by the remedial action being
implemented. In addition, if upon such review it is the judgment of the President that action
is appropriate at such site in accordance with section [104] or [106], the President shall
take or require such action. The President shall report to the Congress a list of facilities for
which such review is required, the results of all such reviews, and any actions taken as a
result of such reviews.
The EPA interpreted this requirement further in the National Contingency Plan; 40 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) § 300.430(f)(4)(ii) states:
If a remedial action is selected that results in hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants remaining at the site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure, the lead agency shall review such action no less often than every five years after
the initiation of the selected remedial action.
The EPA, Region 7 has conducted a FYR of the remedial actions (RA) implemented at the
Doepke-Holliday Superfund Site (Site) in Johnson County, Kansas (Appendix 2, Figure 1).
This review was conducted from September 2014 through October 2015. This report documents
the results of the review.
This is the fourth FYR for the Site. The triggering action for this review is the signature date of
the previous FYR report, December 14, 2010. The FYR is required because hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at the Site above levels that allow for unlimited
use and unrestricted exposure. The site is addressed under one operable unit (OU), which is the
subject of this document.
1
-------
DOEPKE-HOLLIDAY SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
2.0 Site Chronology
A chronology of significant Site events or milestones is included in Appendix 1, Table 1.
2
-------
DOEPKE-HOLLIDAY SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
3.0 Background
3.1 Physical Characteristics
The Doepke-Holliday Site is situated in the northwest quarter of Section 6, Township 12 South,
Range 24 East of the sixth principal meridian in Johnson County, Kansas. The coordinates for a
point near the center of the Site are 39° 02' 19" North and 94° 47' 43" West. The Site is
approximately 500 feet south of the Kansas River adjacent to the intersection of Interstate
Highway 435 (1-435) and Holliday Drive (Appendix 2, Figure 2). The Site is bounded to the
north by Holliday Drive, to the east by 1-435, to the south by the former Overland Park Landfill,
and to the west by the Deffenbaugh Industries, Inc. (DII) landfill. The Site is approximately
2,700 feet upstream of the alluvial well field and Kansas River water intake for the Johnson
County Water District No. 1 (JCWD), which supplies drinking water for approximately 200,000
persons. The Site includes a former municipal and industrial waste landfill that has been capped,
located on the upland area of an approximately 80-acre parcel of land on the southern bluffs of
the Kansas River.
3.1.1 Site Geology
The Site is located on an upland area on the southern bluffs of the Kansas River Valley.
Locally, topography is strongly controlled by deeply eroded limestone and shale bedrock of the
Upper Pennsylvanian. The erosion has resulted in the formation of a series of plateaus separated
by steep erosional ravines trending north toward the Kansas River. One such northerly trending
ravine is present across the central portion of the Site and was filled with municipal waste as well
as rock material from the construction of 1-435.
The Site is situated on a highly eroded bluff of fiat-lying bedrock units which do not show
significant folding or faulting. Appendix 2, Figure 5 is a bedrock geologic map developed for
the Site depicting outcrops interpreted from geologic data assembled during the Pre-Design
Investigation (PDI). Appendix 2, Figure 6 provides a typical bedrock stratigraphic column for
the Site developed during the PDI.
The original soil types at the Site consist of the Sogn-Vinland complex and the Vinland-Rock
complex soil groups. These soil types both have a moderate permeability and a low water
capacity. Organic matter content for these soils is moderate. This overburden forms the
uppermost unit at the Site which is underlain by the Vilas Shale Formation, the Plattsburg
Limestone Formation, Bonner Springs Shale Formation, the Farley Limestone and Shale, and the
Island Creek Shale Members of the Wyandotte Formation. At some locations, the Vilas Shale
and the Plattsburg Limestone have been completely eroded away. Appendix 2, Figure 7
provides a cross-section of the Site.
The upper portion of the Plattsburg Formation, especially the first five feet, contains horizontal
fractures. The upper Farley Limestone contains thin, widely-spaced fractures parallel to
bedding. The lower Farley Limestone also contains thin horizontal fractures. A structural
contour map (Appendix 2, Figure 8) of the top of the bedrock surface was developed during the
3
-------
DOEPKE-HOLLIDAY SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
Remedial Investigation (RI) based on borings and trenches excavated at the Site. Measurement
of the dip of the beds in the Plattsburg Limestone and Farley Shale and limestone from local
outcrops indicate that the beds dip gently to the southeast.
3.1.2 Site Hydrogeology
A conceptual hydrogeologic model was developed for the first FYR from data collected during
the RI and PDI. The model describes groundwater flow in the three identified hydrostratigraphic
units beneath the Site: overburden; Plattsburg Limestone; and Farley Limestone.
The hydrogeologic model indicated that groundwater flow beneath the Site is not uniform and is
dependent on the amount of fracturing in each unit, the connectivity of the fractures and joints,
the dip of the strata, and the amount of local precipitation (i.e., recharge). Based on past
analytical data, there appears to be hydraulic communication between the overburden water-
bearing zone and the underlying Plattsburg and Farley water-bearing units. The connectivity of
these units and the groundwater seeps is not fully understood but is likely fracture, joint, and
bedding-plane dependent. The Island Creek Shale and the intermediate shale unit within the
Farley Member are thought to act as confining units, isolating the contamination in the water-
bearing zone in the overburden, from the underlying units, except along the bluffs and ravines
where the Island Creek Shale and the Farley Shale Member aquitards have been eroded to
expose the underlying limestone units.
A monitoring well network was installed to determine hydrogeology of the area and to
track/monitor contamination levels across the Site. Appendix 2, Figure 2 shows the locations of
the monitoring wells at the Site. Well gauging data from wells screened in all three of the
affected formations (overburden, Plattsburg Limestone, and Farley Limestone) indicate that
water levels in most monitoring wells are erratic and vary seasonally. However, these
fluctuations are not necessarily correlated with rainfall events but could be due to slow
percolation/flow through the zones.
3.1.2.1 Overburden
Since the Site sits on a bluff of deeply eroded limestone, overburden groundwater flow is
somewhat radial, with the center of the groundwater high occurring at the topographic high in the
proximity of the southern boundary of the Site. The relatively steep topographic relief toward
the north, across the former ravine, is the controlling factor for overburden groundwater flow
towards the Kansas River (Appendix 2, Figure 9). However, recharge is limited across most of
the Site due to the engineered cap. Precipitation across the Site is now directed either north
following the surface contour to the base of the former ravine, south towards the Overland Park
property, or along the edges of the cap. Recharge areas are limited to the area south of the haul
road located parallel to the southern Site boundary which is directed south, and all along the edge
of the cap where the gravel layer in the cap discharges the water from the cap. In these areas,
infiltration and recharge is dependent on topography. The lack of recharge areas due to the cap
has likely resulted in the decline in flow rates at several of the seeps (Appendix 1, Table 2).
4
-------
DOEPKE-HOLLIDAY SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
3.1.2.2 Plattsburg Formation
The Plattsburg Formation is present across most of the Site except the northern portion.
Hydraulic monitoring is conducted at monitoring wells (MW) MW-5, MW-6, MW-7, located
onsite, and piezometers (PZ) PZ-1, and PZ-2 which are located south of the Site on the adjacent
Overland Park Landfill. The groundwater contour map indicates a radial groundwater flow .
pattern centered in the vicinity of MW-5 (Appendix 2, Figure 10). The radial flow is consistent
with previous annual groundwater sampling events. Water levels in the Plattsburg Formation
have likely reached equilibrium conditions since construction of the impermeable cap and
fluctuations in water levels are in response to climatic conditions.
Recharge to the Plattsburg Formation occurs by infiltration through fractures in the overlying
Vilas Shale and directly from the overburden where the Vilas Shale is absent. Water that
previously infiltrated across the Site now runs off the top of the cap and infiltrates the
overburden unit downslope of the waste deposits. The Plattsburg Formation/Bonner Springs
Shale contact provides a more impermeable base upon which recharge accumulates, especially in
the vicinity of the southern Site boundary.
The water-bearing zone in the Plattsburg Formation is considered to be perched and not potable.
The top of the Plattsburg Formation slopes to the north underlying the Site until it outcrops along
Holliday Drive. Along these outcrops, groundwater seeps are present.
3.1.2.3 Farley Member
The Farley member underlies the Bonner Springs Shale. Structural contours of the base of the
Farley Member indicate it dips to the southeast at approximately 15°. There are two distinct
limestone units, upper and lower, which are separated by a shale layer, in the Farley Member at
the Site. Onsite groundwater monitoring wells OW-lOaR and OW-1 la (Appendix 2, Figure 11)
are installed in the lower limestone unit, and monitoring wells OPL-2 and OPL-5 are installed in
the upper unit. The Farley Member monitoring wells (OPL-2, OPL-5, OW-1 la, and OW-lOaR)
are located along the southern and eastern boundaries of the impermeable cap. The geologic
units overlying the Farley Member have been eroded along the former ravine, such that the
extent of the site waste disposal and burn area directly overlies the Farley Member. The areal
extent of the contact between the Farley Member and the waste appears to be limited to the area
at the head of the former ravine and directly west. It is conceivable that groundwater recharge
coming from the northwest of the cap flowing southeast, might come into contact with waste
deposits.
The groundwater flow direction in the upper and lower Farley Limestone is thought to be to the
southeast, consistent with the dip of the beds. Perched groundwater present in the Farley
Member is primarily derived from infiltration of surface water where the Farley Member is
exposed or lies beneath a relatively thin cover. Therefore, the limited quantity of groundwater
beneath the Site is derived from exposed areas located north of the impermeable cap and from
outcrops located northwest and northeast of the impermeable cap. Recharge to the outcrops is
5
-------
DOEPKE-HOLLIDAY SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
limited by the steepness of the bedrock face. Where outcrops are not present, recharge through
the overlying bedrock would be significantly limited by relatively impermeable shale beds
primarily controlled by the distribution of bedding planes, joints, and fractures.
The Island Creek Shale acts as the primary confining unit at the Site. Groundwater infiltration
will accumulate within the lower portion of the limestone unit and migrate down dip.
Groundwater will flow laterally, down dip along the contact with the confining unit until another
fracture zone is encountered. Consequently, lateral groundwater flow may discharge at
downgradient outcrop zones or at bedrock outcrops as seeps (described below). This model
suggests that the occurrence of groundwater in the Farley Member is not uniform but is
dependent upon geologic structure, fracture distribution, and continuity of the underlying
aquitard.
3.1.2.4 Argentine Member
The Argentine Limestone is a member of the Wyandotte Formation, underlying the Farley and
Island Creek Members of the same formation. The Argentine Limestone member consists of
three units: an upper limestone that is massive and cherty with occasional thin shale partings, 5
to 11 feet of soft shale, and a lower limestone that is dense and crystalline with numerous shale
partings. Fractures and joints widened by solution activity are common in the Argentine
Limestone. Underlying the Argentine Limestone is the Lane Formation. In the site vicinity, the
Lane Formation consists of 42 to 45 feet of shale and may include small sandstone lenses.
Groundwater in limestone bedrock tends to be sporadically present, concentrated in fractured
zones and above less permeable shale layers. Groundwater flow is controlled by the location and
orientation of zones of high hydraulic conductivity. Zones of high hydraulic conductivity are
typically developed as secondary permeability along fracture zones, bedding planes, or
weathered or solution enhanced surfaces. The direction of flow is controlled by the orientation
of fractures and the dip of the underlying shale beds. The Argentine Member is fairly flat, with
strikes and dips ranging from N25°W, 3°SW east of the site to N60°E, 3.5°SE north of the site.
The Argentine Limestone beds have been measured to dip slightly southeast to southwest
(toward the Overland Park landfill site).
No on-site wells are screened solely in the Argentine Limestone, but monitoring well OW-13
was screened across the transition between the bottom of the Overburden and the top of the
underlying Argentine Limestone. Monitoring well OW-13 was positioned along the center of the
former ravine that drained the central portion of the site to the north. Due to insufficient
groundwater at this well it was removed from the groundwater monitoring program and
subsequently abandoned in 2007. Two attempts were made to drill a bedrock well screened in
the Argentine Member: OPL-1 and OPL-4 at the former Overland Park Landfill located adjacent
to the Doepke Landfill. At monitoring well OPL-4, no water was encountered to a depth of 82
feet below ground surface, and therefore a well was not installed. Monitoring well OPL-1 was
installed approximately 600 feet south of the site, to a depth of 68.44 feet below top of casing. In
October 1990, the water level was 57.57 feet below top of casing but thereafter was dry. The
well was subsequently removed from the groundwater monitoring program. All other Overland
6
-------
DOEPKE-HOLL1DAY SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
Park landfill wells screened in the Lane Shale and underlying Quivira Limestone had less than 2
feet of water and required more than 24 hours to recover, indicating low hydraulic conductivity.
In addition to these data indicating the small flow contribution of the Argentine Limestone, an
early assessment of the Argentine Limestone groundwater impact notes that the site is located on
a topographic high, isolated from the regional hydrogeology. Specifically, the Plattsburg
Formation and the Farley and upper Argentine Limestone unit outcrop along a 360 degree face
about the local area indicating that groundwater flow to be radially outward. This pattern has not
been demonstrated in historical gauging of the underlying Farley Member, where limited
gauging locations indicate groundwater flows southeast. Vertical groundwater migration into the
Argentine Limestone is limited by overlying shale beds and the site cap. Where the Argentine
Limestone outcrops, the topography is sufficiently steep to limit infiltration and recharge.
Groundwater flow in the Argentine Limestone is expected to follow the orientation of fractures
and the dip of the beds. The areal extent of the contact between the Argentine Limestone and the
waste is limited to the bedrock-overburden interface in the former ravine on the north side of the
site. In the former ravine area, water percolating through the overburden would likely flow
along the bedrock surface toward overburden monitoring wells MW-9a and OW-14 and Seep 1.
Infiltration recharging the Argentine Limestone is expected to be highly restricted, with limited
or no contact with the capped waste.
3.1.2.5 Groundwater Seeps
Seven groundwater seeps, Seeps 1, 2,4, 5, 6, 8, and 9, were monitored at the Site during this
FYR period, except when there was inadequate seep flow at the time of sampling. Flow has
never been adequate for sampling at Seep 7, and Seeps 3 and 10 and thus they were dropped
from the Long-Term Monitoring Plan (LTMP) in April 2003 due to the consistent absence of
flow during monitoring events. It should be noted that Seep 3 was buried sometime between
September 1998 and April 1999. A summary of seep flow rates and percentage of total seep
flow rates from April 1999 to April 2013 are presented in Appendix 1, Table 2.
Groundwater seeps at the Site are observed to take one of three forms:
1. Seeps derived from flow at the interface where a more permeable fractured bed meets
a relatively impermeable and/or unfractured bed;
2. Seeps that emerge from relatively highly-fractured bedrock present along nearly
vertical slopes;
3. Seeps emerging from permeable overburden deposits near the base of relatively steep
slopes.
The first type of seep is typified by the seeps along Holliday Drive west of the Site entrance
(Seeps 4, 5, and 6). These seeps tend to emerge from the base of fractured formations and spread
out along the top of massive limestone and shale beds rather than emerging from one fixed,
identifiable point. The flow in these seeps tends to be low and may spread out over a broad area.
Water that comprises these seeps would be derived largely from infiltration into exposed bedrock
units located in the northwestern portion of the Site. Since the recharge area is relatively small,
7
-------
DOEPKE-HOLLIDAY SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
the flow rates in these seeps are similarly expected to be minimal, influenced primarily by short-
term precipitation events. Site-related chemicals would largely be expected to be absent because
the water that comprises these seeps does not contact the waste deposits. Seep 4 is thought to
originate from the contact with the Lane Shale.
The second type of seep is typified by Seep 2, located along the steep rock cut along 1-435. At
this location, perched water in highly-fractured Farley Limestone beds tends to emerge at a
relatively fixed point at a relatively higher and more constant flow rate over time. It likely
includes direct infiltration of water in exposed bedrock units to the northwest (up dip of the seep)
and water from infiltration around the edge of the cap. Seep 9 also emerges from a nearly
vertical limestone face above the Lane Shale at the north end of the Site near the Site entrance.
Seep 8 is near the base of the ravine area northeast of the cap and may also be of this second
form of seep, though the source is less discernible due to soil/sediment in the base of the ravine.
The final type of seep is typified by Seep 1. Seep 1 generally has a relatively high flow rate
(compared with other Site seeps) that is highly variable (measured from 0.07 gallons per minute
(gpm) to 5.28 gpm during the period of 1995 to 2013). Seep 1 emerges from overburden
deposits at the base of a steep slope near the Site entrance where water levels in the overburden
intersect the face of a steep slope. As with overburden unit groundwater, the water in Seep 1 is
derived primarily from infiltration of water into the overburden unit downslope of the cap. The
flow at Seep 1 usually exceeds the flow from all other seeps.
3.1.3 Ecological Setting
The Site is located in a relatively open, hilly area containing minor rock outcroppings, along the
southern bank of the Kansas River. The Site itself does not support an abundance of vegetation
due to being covered with gravel or grass. Surrounding lands are wooded hills and valleys with
many level hilltops being used as pastureland. The adjacent areas reflect the vegetative
boundary transitioning from moist bottomlands to mesic uplands, resulting in a varied ecological
community.
Three dominant vegetative communities are located at and adjacent to the Site, but all have been
altered by human activities. These three communities are: riparian wetlands/floodplains; tall
grass prairie; and Ozarkian uplands. Riparian wetland vegetation is evident along the Kansas
River, approximately 500 feet to the north of the Site, and in the surrounding tributaries. The
distribution of these three vegetative types across the Site and adjacent areas is determined by the
variation in slope, aspect, soil type, moisture availability, previous grazing practices, and other
specific land uses.
Vegetation in the vicinity of the Site may provide habitat to a variety of wildlife species.
Mammals that may occur in the Site area include the following: opossums (Didelphis
virginiana)\ Eastern cottontails (Sylvilagus floridanus)\ Eastern gray squirrels (Sciurus
carolinensis); Eastern fox squirrels (Sciurus niger); coyotes (Catiis latrans); raccoons (Procyon
lotor); skunks (.Mephitis mephitis); and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). A large
8
-------
DOEPKE-HOLLIDAY SUPERFUND SITE
; FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
variety of birds may also be found in the area, and migratory water fowl use portions of the
Kansas River in the spring and fall.
State and federal databases were reviewed to determine if there are any threatened and
endangered species that might occur near the Site. There are 13 animal species and three plant
species on the federal list for Kansas. According to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service,
the federally-endangered pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) occurs in the lower Kansas
River and Missouri River. The Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) is a federally-
threatened medium-sized bat which may live in the area of the Site; it is unlikely this species
lives at the Site as no critical habitat for this species is present. Mead's milkweed (Asclepias
meadii) is a federally-threatened plant found in native prairie, but was reported as doubtfiil to be
found at the Site. There was no federally-designated critical habitat occurring in the project area
~ (USFWS, 2015). The Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks lists 14 state-listed threatened or
endangered species in Johnson County, seven of which have designated critical habitats. Two
are migratory birds, and five are fish. The designated critical habitats are a corridor along the
main stem of the Kansas River for the least tern (Sterna antillarum) and piping plover
(Charadrius melodus)', and the Kansas River for the flathead chub (Platygobio gracilis), shoal
chub (Macrhybopsis hyostoma), plains minnow (Hybognathus placitus), silver chub
(Macrhybopsis meeki), and sturgeon chub (Macrhybopsis gelida) (KDWP, 2015).
3.2 Land and Resource Use
The Site property is currently used as the access route to the DII operations to the west and south
of the Site. Prior to the 2010 FYR, DII also installed a bulk fuel storage area along the access
route on the extreme southeast edge of the Site, and a Customer Convenience Center located at
the northeast base of the Site. All of these are located off the capped area. There are no
residences on the Site. Groundwater at the Site is not potable and there are no drinking water
wells located at the Site. The Kansas Geological Survey Water Well Completion Records
Database was reviewed in May 2015; no domestic wells are located within 1.0 mile of the
approximate center of the Site. The nearest domestic well is located approximately 1.2 miles
west-northwest of the edge of the Site boundary and adjacent to the Kansas River.
The city of Shawnee, Zoning Map, which depicts the land use for the Site and surrounding area,
is included in Appendix 2, Figure 3. According to the city of Shawnee, Land Use Guide, the
future land use for the Site is zoned for warehouse and/or industrial use as shown in Appendix 2,
Figure 4.
A deed with restrictions on future development was recorded with the Johnson County Register
of Deeds on June 19,1996.
3.3 History of Contamination
The Site property was operated as a residential trash disposal service from January 1952 until
1962. The trash was disposed in the horseshoe-shaped ravine area of the Site. Also during the
1950s and 1960s, a predecessor to the city of Overland Park operated a commercial landfill
9
-------
DOEPKE-HOLLIDAY SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
immediately south of the Site and on a large part of the eastern lobe of the current Site. This
landfill received residential, commercial, and industrial waste.
In 1963, the Site was used as a commercial and industrial landfill. Industrial wastes reportedly
were disposed at the Site, including but not limited to fiberglass wastes, paint sludges, spent
solvents, metal tailings, soaps, and pesticides.
In 1966, the Site reportedly received 374 cardboard drums containing emulsifiers, solvents,
acids, bases, insecticides, and unknown drums resulting from a fire at a chemical plant in Kansas
City, Kansas. Until an open air burning ban in the late 1960s, wastes disposed at the Site were
burned and the resultant ash was placed in the horseshoe-shaped ravine. After open-air burning
of wastes was banned, solid wastes were placed directly into the ravine for disposal. Sludges,
primarily petroleum refinery wastes, were dewatered in a surface impoundment which was
constructed within the southern portion of the Site. Landfilling operations at the Site ceased in
September 1970, and the Site was closed. As part of this closure, a final cover was emplaced.
This initial landfill closure was approved by the state of Kansas on November 30,1970.
In 1977, rock material from the construction of 1-435 was disposed at the Site. Disposal of the
rock debris commenced at the base of the ravine and eventually covered some of the waste
disposal area, including portions of the surface impoundments. In 1978, a rock crushing facility
operated at the Site to provide crushed rock for construction of 1-435.
The EPA discovered the site in 1979 and a preliminary assessment was conducted in 198*1. On
July 30,1982, the EPA completed a Hazard Ranking System (HRS) evaluation of the Site and
reported an aggregate HRS score of 47.5. Subsequently, the Site was added to the NPL on
September 8,1983. The potentially responsible parties (PRPs) conducted a Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) at the Site from 1987 through 1989 and the EPA issued
the Record of Decision (ROD) in September 1989.
Contaminants of concern associated with the Site include volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),
metals, pesticides, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The ROD has the complete list of
contaminants initially present at the Site. In 1999, based on seven years of groundwater data,
pesticides and PCBs were removed from the sampling program due to very low or no detections
of these contaminants.
3.4 Initial Response
The Site history is discussed in detail in Section 3.3. Appendix 1, Table 1 provides a summary
of the Site events in chronological order from when it was discovered. Cleanup activities were
not performed at the Site prior to the 1989 ROD.
10
-------
DOEPKE-HOLLIDAY SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
3.5 Basis for Response Action
The following conclusions regarding the Site hazards were made based on the data presented in
the Public Health Evaluation Assessment included in the 1989 RI Report (DII, 1989a):
• Contaminants of concern associated with the Site are VOCs, SVOCs, PAHs, PCBs,
pesticides, and metals.
• Contaminants are not migrating offsite in large enough concentrations to impact water
quality in the Kansas River. Most measured concentrations of chemicals in groundwater
seeps and offsite drainage are below federal Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs),
Kansas Surface Water Quality Standards and Kansas Domestic Water Supply Criteria.
These data minimize the human health concern regarding the ingestion of these
discharges from the Kansas River or the JCWD surface-water intake. Site discharge
mixing with the Kansas River would lower concentrations many thousands of times
below the already low concentrations detected.
• The summation of non-carcinogenic hazard indices is less than one for each exposure
scenario studied (workers exposed to surface soil via inhalation of contaminated dust and
child trespassers exposed to surface soil by inhalation, ingestion, and dermal contact.
Therefore, the indicator chemicals do not represent a human health concern when only
non-carcinogenic effects are considered.
•
• Analysis of the potential future Site use scenario indicates that the Site may, if no cleanup
action was performed, present significant carcinogenic risk to a full-time worker engaged
in construction activities over a long period of time.
The environmental assessment conducted during the RI concluded that the sanitary landfill and
industrial complex with controlled access and sufficient activity limited the potential for
utilization of the Site as a terrestrial ecosystem. The chemicals present in seep water were not in
excess of the EPA's Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the protection of aquatic life.
Compounds detected in groundwater seeps have a relatively low bioconcentration factor and
therefore low concentrations were not expected to magnify in the food chain. With the exception
of Seep 1, seep water traverses some distance through soil before discharging into surface water.
Water from some seeps infiltrates into soil before ever reaching the concrete structures that lead
to the river, thus enabling further degradation, dilution, and for some compounds, volatilization.
Chemicals in water from seeps that do reach the surface water are diluted to below quantification
limits. The environmental assessment acknowledged that if offsite migration were to increase in
the future, then the conclusions would need to be reevaluated.
11
-------
DOEPKE-HOLLIDAY SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
4.0 Remedial Actions
4.1 Remedial Action Objectives
The ROD for the Site was signed on September 24,1989. The ROD identified the following
RAOs:
1. Reduce or eliminate the threat of direct contact, ingestion, or inhalation of particulates
containing benzene, xylenes, PCBs, 1,1-dichloroethylene, alpha-hexachlorocyclohexane,
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, benzo(a)pyrene, lead, chromium, and other contaminants
contained in soil and solids buried at the Site. Also, reduce the potential for inhalation of
volatilized organics such as benzene, 1,1-dichloroethylene, and xylenes.
2. Prevent future contamination of groundwater migrating through contaminated soils and
buried wastes to seeps, alluvium wells, and the Kansas River with resultant leaching of
contaminants, such as the compounds of PCBs, benzene, xylenes, alpha-
hexachlorocyclohexane, 1,1-dichloroethylene, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, benzo(a)pyrene,
lead, chromium, and other contaminants.
3. Reduce or eliminate the potential for transport of onsite contaminants to offsite areas by
water or airborne transport mechanisms.
4. Prevent the potential for offsite exposure to unacceptable levels of groundwater and
soil/waste contaminants.
4.2 Remedy Selection
These RAOs were to be accomplished by full or partial removal of wastes from the Site, full or
partial treatment of the wastes, and/or full or partial containment of wastes.
The major components of the selected remedy set forth in the ROD included the following:
• Removal and offsite treatment of contaminated liquids currently ponded underground in
the former surface impoundment area;
• Construction of an impermeable multilayer cap over the majority of the waste disposal
area;
• Collection and offsite treatment, as necessary, of significant groundwater seepage;
• Extended groundwater monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of the remedy;
• Deed and access restrictions; and
• If necessary, the response action will be modified to include the groundwater controls,
such as construction of a clay cutoff wall, and extraction and offsite treatment of
collected groundwater.
The ROD stated that successful removal of the liquid currently ponded underground in the
former surface impoundment area was dependent on the assumption that this was a discrete
12
-------
DOEPKE-HOLLIDAY SUPERFUND SUE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
source situated in a relatively impermeable sedimentary formation that could be removed
through pumping or other conventional dewatering techniques. If it were discovered that these
liquids are in free communication with the shallow groundwater, the advisability of this action
would be reevaluated.
In 1996, a Consent Decree (CD) was entered into with potentially responsible parties regarding
implementation of the RA. The CD made two changes from the RAs selected in the ROD. The
two changes, documented in the January 31,1996 Explanation of Significant Differences, are as
follows:
• The CD does not require removal and treatment of liquids ponded underground in the
former surface impoundment area. The primary reason the ROD called for the removal
and treatment of ponded underground liquids was to provide a structurally sound base for
installation of the impermeable multilayer cap. Based on the PDI, which was completed
after the ROD was signed, it was concluded that any liquids remaining in this area would
not adversely affect the structural stability of the cap.
• The ROD required collection and offsite treatment of seepage water if certain specified
water quality levels were exceeded in significant seeps. Seep monitoring conducted after
the ROD was signed has shown only occasional exceedances of the regulatory criteria
and the frequency and level of the exceedances indicate that collection and offsite
treatment of the seep water was not necessary.
4.3 Remedy Implementation
The primary component of the selected Site remedy was an impermeable multi-layered cap
emplaced over the 38-acre waste disposal area to prevent percolation and subsequent migration
of contaminants. Construction of the cap commenced in May 1995. The landfill surface was first
pre-graded. The pre-graded surface was topped with 6 inches of bedding material, followed by a
60-mil high density polyethylene liner, then a synthetic drainage net. The drainage layer was
topped with 18 inches of common fill. The landfill surface was finished with a six-inch layer of
topsoil and seeded with annual forbs to provide erosion control. Where riprap was required, the
riprap drainage swale system was constructed of two layers of 60-mil textured high density
polyethylene liner separated by a geotextile fabric, overlain by a second geotextile fabric, which
in turn was overlain by 18 inches of riprap. Gas vents were installed in the capped areas of the
Site. Each gas vent was constructed of 4-inch diameter schedule 40 steel pipe fitted with an
inverted elbow. The landfill cap construction was completed on July 16,1996.
A deed with restrictions consistent with the requirements of the CD was recorded with the
Johnson County Register of Deeds on June 19,1996. Access to the Site is controlled by fencing
and 24-hour security provided by DII personnel who operate the Johnson County Landfill.
The PRPs are required to conduct long term monitoring (LTM) of groundwater monitoring wells
and several groundwater seeps to monitor the effectiveness of the cap. Initially, an Interim
Groundwater Monitoring Program (IGMP) was implemented from 1995 through 1998. The EPA
13
-------
DOEPKE-HOLLIDAY SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
approved the LTM Plan (LTMP) on April 14,1999. Routine sampling was conducted under this
initial LTMP until a revision in July of 2002. Components of the LTMP are summarized in the
following subsection.
4.3.1 Monitoring Well and Seep Sampling and Gauging
The Site has been routinely monitored since 1995. Groundwater is collected from monitoring
wells using a bailer. A minimum of three well volumes are purged from each monitoring well or
the well is bailed dry prior to sample collection. The seeps are sampled by placing bottles
directly below the seep freely collecting the groundwater. In July 2002, the EPA approved a
revised LTMP that specified sampling and gauging be conducted on an annual basis. The
revised LTMP also removed wells and analyses from sampling due to low or no concentrations
of contaminants. The plan is currently being implemented by the PRPs. The monitoring
requirements included in the July 2002 LTMP are as follows:
Overburden:
Hydraulic monitoring will be conducted at monitoring wells OW-13, OW-14, and MW-9a to
evaluate water levels. Chemical monitoring samples will be collected from monitoring wells
OW-13, OW-14, and MW-9a and analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, and metals. OW-13 was
abandoned in June 2007 after several years of being dry. Now only two wells are being
monitored.
Plattsburg Formation:
Hydraulic monitoring will be conducted at monitoring wells MW-5, MW-6, MW-7 and PZ-1 and
PZ-2 to evaluate water levels. Chemical monitoring samples will be collected from monitoring
wells MW-5 and MW-7 and analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, and metals.
Farley Member:
Hydraulic monitoring will be conducted from monitoring wells OW-lOa, OW-1 la, OPL-2, and
OPL-5 to evaluate water levels. Chemical monitoring samples will be collected from monitoring
wells OW-lOa and OW-1 la and analyzed for VOCs. Also, chemical monitoring samples will be
collected from monitoring wells OPL-2 and OPL-5 and analyzed for VOCs and metals. OW-lOa
was abandoned in September 2006 and replaced with OW-lOaR installed in June 2007.
Groundwater Seeps:
Flow rates will be measured at groundwater Seeps 1, 2,4, 5,6, 8, and 9. An unfiltered sample
will be collected from Seep 1 and analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, metals, and total suspended
solids (TSS). Also, unfiltered samples shall be obtained from Seeps 2, 8, and 9 and analyzed for
VOCs, metals, and TSS.
The requirements of the current revised LTMP are summarized in Appendix 1, Table 3.
14
-------
DOEPKE-HOLLIDAY SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
4.3.2 System Operations/Operation and Maintenance
Routine inspections of the landfill cap are conducted by DII to evaluate its physical condition
and the presence, if any, of erosion or other problems that could compromise the integrity of the
cap. Inspections are conducted in accordance with the Operation and Maintenance Plan (O&M),
Impermeable Cap, Doepke-Holliday Superfund Site, prepared by Conestoga-Rovers &
Associates (CRA) in February 1997 (CRA, 1997a). The O&M plan specifically addresses
inspection and maintenance of the following main components of the impermeable cap system:
• Vegetated topsoil system C
• Riprap drainage swale
• Paved access road
• Features that penetrate the cap (monitoring wells, gas vents, a radio tower guy wire, and
power poles)
O&M activities include scheduled inspections and maintenance activities, unscheduled
maintenance activities (as necessary), and record keeping. The O&M plan called for inspections
to be initially conducted on a monthly basis for a year after construction of the cap was
completed, then quarterly until it could be determined that no erosion occurred to the extent that
the synthetic drainage net had been exposed. At such time, cap inspection would be reduced to a
semi-annual frequency (twice per year). Findings of the inspections are recorded on a Site
Inspection Log; any RAs required are performed immediately and are recorded on a Site
Maintenance Log. The Site Inspection Log and Site Maintenance Log are submitted to the EPA
along with a summary report in the form of an O&M report within one month of completing the
inspection.
The O&M plan also specifies the following routine maintenance activities be performed:
• Cutting of the vegetative cover of the impermeable cap
• Lubrication or replacement of locks on the monitoring wells
• Refinishing of gas vents, monitoring well casings, and protective posts
The vegetative cover is maintained by fertilizing, mowing, reseeding, and re-mulching as
necessary to maintain the integrity of the topsoil. The O&M plan also calls for routine nutrient
testing of the topsoil cover to determine optimal fertilizer application rates necessary to maintain
a sufficient vegetative cover.
15
-------
DOEPKE-HOLLIDAY SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR RF.VIEW REPORT
5.0 Progress Since Last Five-Year Review
The protectiveness statement of the third FYR report (EPA, 2010) was as folloiws:
"The remedy at Doepke-Holliday Site is protective of human health and the environment.
The impermeable multilayer cap has been installed, is in good condition, and is functioning as
designed. Access controls are in place and Deed Restrictions consistent with the requirements of
the Consent Decree have been imposed on the property. EPA, KDHE, and JCED will continue to
monitor the Site through regular Site inspections, by providing oversight of the PRP's O&M
activities and by evaluating the monitoring data submitted by the PRPs in the Annual LTM
reports. The remedy will continue to remain protective in the long term as long as sufficient
vegetative cover is maintained and issues such as erosion and drainage problems are promptly
addressed and Site inspection, O&M, and monitoring continue."
No major issues were identified in the 2010 FYR report. An early indicator of potential issues
was identified during the 2010 FYR site visit regarding vegetation within the crushed stone
located at the terminus of the synthetic drainage net. This concern was corrected in September
2013 through limited use of an herbicide.
16
-------
DOEPKE-HOLLIDAY SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
6.0 Five-Year Review Process
6.1 Administrative Components
The FYR was conducted by Laura Price, the EPA Region 7 Remedial Project Manager (RPM)
for the Site. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (US ACE) Kansas City District provided support
to the EPA in performing this FYR. The US ACE project team included Kenneth Kamp, Krista
McGowan, Phil Rosewicz and Greg Hattan.
The administrative components of the FYR process included the following:
• Community involvement
• Document review
• Data review
• Site inspection
• Interviews
6.2 Community Involvement
The public was informed at the onset of the FYR process by placing a notice in the Shawnee
Dispatch newspaper on November 26, 2014. Upon completion of this FYR, the EPA will
distribute an updated fact sheet, notifying the public of the location of the FYR report and
summarizing the findings of the review process. The completed FYR report will be available at:
http://semspub.epa.gov/src/collection/07/SC32526
or
EPA Region 7 Records Center
11201 Renner Boulevard
Lenexa, KS 66219
6.3 Document Review
Site-related documents and relevant information were reviewed as part of this FYR, including
annual LTM and inspection reports, and monitoring data for the Site. A list of Site-related
documents which were reviewed in total or in part during the preparation of this FYR report is
contained in Appendix 3.
6.4 Data Review
6.4.1 Standards Review
Chemical-Specific Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARAR) and To-Be-
Considered (TBC) criteria listed in the ROD are as follows: the federal Water Quality Criteria;
17
-------
DOEPKE-HOLLIDAY SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
Kansas Water Quality Standards; Kansas Action Levels; and Alternative Kansas Action Levels.
The ROD stated that, "The most stringent of these guidelines, for a particular contaminant will
be applied to groundwater seeps to determine compliance."
Action-Specific standards were determined to be relevant and appropriate to the types of wastes
being managed and the circumstances of the release. Closure of the area complied with
appropriate portions of the RCRA regulations affecting landfill closure. Specifically, the site was
capped with a final cover designed and constructed to provide long-term minimization of the
migration of liquids through the capped area, and to maintain its', integrity over time while
functioning with minimum maintenance (40 CFR 264.111, 264.228,264.258, and 264.310). In
addition, the cap was designed and constructed to promote drainage and minimize erosion of the
cover. Consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 264.117, long-term operation and
maintenance (O&M) was to be conducted to monitor the ground water around the landfill, and to
ensure the integrity of the cap.
Groundwater monitoring wells and seeps at the Site have been routinely monitored since 1995.
In July 2002, the EPA approved a revised LTMP that required annual monitoring of VOCs,
SVOCs, and select inorganic compounds. This fourth FYR reviewed ARARs and TBCs as they
relate to the VOCs, SVOCs, and inorganic compounds detected in groundwater or seeps during
the past five years. Appendix 1, Table 4 presents chemical-specific criteria for the following
ARARs/TBCs:
• Federal MCLs (which have been adopted by Kansas statute) (EPA, 2015);
• Tier 2 Risk-based Standards for Kansas (RSK) (residential scenario) (KDHE, 2014);
• EPA Acute and Chronic Criteria for Freshwater Aquatic Life Protection;
• KDHE Acute and Chronic Standards for Aquatic Life Protection (KDHE, 2012);
• KDHE Surface Water Standards for Domestic Water Use (KDHE, 2012).
The most recent values from the ARARs and TBCs have been compared to the monitoring data
from the past five years in the sections below. No changes to the chemical-specific ARARs or
TBCs have occurred which impact the protectiveness of the remedy.
6.4.2 Groundwater Monitoring Data Review
Groundwater and seep water monitoring were used to assess the effectiveness of the remedy in
preventing the migration of contaminants. Annual monitoring is conducted by the PRP's
contractor, CRA, in accordance with the LTMP (Appendix 1, Table 3).
Recent groundwater and seep monitoring data (2010 - 2013) were consolidated from the annual
reports provided by CRA and included in this report as Tables 5 through 8 (Appendix 1). Table
5 is a summary of results from wells screened in the overburden; Table 6 is a summary of results
from wells screened in the Plattsburg Formation; Table 7 is a summary of results from wells
screened in the Farley Formation; and Table 8 is a summary of results from seeps.
18
-------
DOEPKE-HOLLIDAY SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
The following analytical data observations were made during the FYR:
• The annual reports include transcribed tables of data, however the laboratory data
packages are not included as attachments to the report.
• Analytes not detected are referenced to a reporting limit (RL) rather than to a detection
limit (DL). If the RL is higher than the screening or action criteria, this gives the false
impression that criteria have been exceeded. Analyte detections should be referenced to
the DL, not the RL.
• For some samples, the entire set of results were reported from high sample dilutions at
the laboratory. Analytes should be reported at the lowest dilution at which they can be
quantified. Only those analytes which exceeded the linear calibration should be reported
at dilution.
6.4.2.1 Overburden Well Analytical Data
Annual monitoring currently includes wells MW-9a and OW-14. Groundwater samples
collected from overburden monitoring wells are analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, and selected
metals. Data from the period of this FYR are listed in Appendix 1, Table 5.
At MW-9a, various metals, two VOCs (2-butanone and acetone), and one SVOC (naphthalene)
were detected at low concentrations (Appendix 1, Table 5). Most detections were J-coded by
the laboratory as estimated. The analytical results for bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate could not be
evaluated due to the reporting limits exceeding the MCL values. Concentrations for all other
detected analytes were less than their respective MCLs.
At OW-14, various metals, two VOCs (acetone and carbon disulfide), and two SVOCs (bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate and di-n-octylphthalate) were detected (Appendix 1, Table 5). Except for
arsenic, concentrations of all detected analytes were less than their respective MCLs. Arsenic
concentrations ranged from 8.9 micrograms per liter (ng/L) to 16 J ng/L, which is within the
historical range of arsenic concentrations at OW-14. Arsenic exceeded the MCL of 10 |xg/L
during 2010,2011, and 2013.
Several data and data reporting observations were made during the FYR:
\
• Arsenic results were anomalous in 2011 - it was not detected in the unfiltered sample,
but was detected in the filtered sample. It is unclear if this is an error associated with
the sample collection, laboratory testing, reporting, or are reflective of the site
groundwater conditions.
• The reporting level for arsenic listed in the annual report for 2011 appears as though it
may be elevated, but the cause for this is not known. The annual report does not include
a description or discussion of issues related to metals.
19
-------
DOEPKE-HOLLIDAY SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
• Arsenic was not detected and referenced to the RL in 2011 which gives the appearance
of a criteria exceedance where none likely exists. The RL for arsenic is only slightly
greater than the MCL of 10 jig/L. The DL would be less than the MCL. Analytes which
are not detected should be referenced to the DL, not the RL. A laboratory reports values
between the detection level and the reporting level with a "J" flag, indicating that the
analyte was detected, but the concentration is estimated.
• As with arsenic, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (BEHP) was referenced to the RL for all
years in which it was not detected. An RL of 10 |*g/L for BEHP is typical, but the DL is
lower. The detection of 1.2 J jig/L in 2012 indicates that had BEHP been detected at
values less than the MCL of 6 |ig/L, it would have been reported by the laboratory.
6.4.2.2 Plattsburg Formation Well Analytical Data
Five monitoring wells at the Site are completed in the Plattsburg Formation: MW-5, MW-6,
MW-7, PZ-1, and PZ-2. Groundwater samples collected from MW-5 and MW-7 were analyzed
for VOCs, SVOCs, and selected metals on an annual basis. Data from this FYR period are listed
in Appendix 1, Table 6. Samples from MW-6, PZ-1, and PZ- 2 were not collected during the
period of this FYR.
At MW-5, various metals, VOCs, and SVOCs were detected (Appendix 1, Table 6). Except for
arsenic, barium, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes, concentrations of all detected analytes were less
than their respective MCLs. Arsenic concentrations ranged from 3.9 J ng/L to 19 |ig/L, and
exceeded the MCL of 10 (ig/L during 2013. Barium concentrations ranged from 1450 |ig/L to
2,200 ng/L, and exceeded the MCL of 2,000 (xg/L during 2012. Ethylbenzene concentrations
ranged from 1500 |ig/L to 7,800 |ig/L, and exceeded the MCL of 700 jxg/L during 2010-2013. A
statistical trend analysis has not been performed, however a visual evaluation of the data shows a
slight declining trend from the high of 7,800 (ig/L in 2010 to the most recent 3,000 ng/L in 2013.
Total xylene concentrations ranged from 4,800 |xg/L to 22,000 |ig/L, and exceeded the MCL of
10,000 |*g/L during 2010 and 2011. The trend is similar to ethylbenzene with a high of 22,000
|ig/L in 2010 to 9,000 |ig/L in 2013. Analytical results could not be properly evaluated for 1,2-
dichloroethene, 1,2-dichloropropane, benzene, chlorobenzene, methylene chloride,
tetrachloroethene, trichloroethene, vinyl chloride, and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate due to the
reporting limits exceeding their respective MCL values. For MW-5, VOC data, except 2012, and
SVOC data for all years have apparently been reported from an elevated dilution. These RLs
(and corresponding DLs) are too high for MCL exceedances to be evaluated. Analytes should be
reported at the lowest dilution at which they can be quantified. All analytes which are not
detected should be referenced to the DL, not the RL.
At MW-7, free product has been present since 1991 consisting of various metals, VOCs, and
SVOCs (Appendix 1, Table 6). Except for arsenic, barium, benzene, and chlorobenzene,
concentrations of all detected analytes were less than MCLs. Arsenic was detected at a
concentration of 25 J (ig/L during 2013, which exceeded the MCL of 10 ng/L. This was the only
time arsenic exceeded the MCL during this review period. Barium concentrations ranged from
20
-------
DOEPKE-HOLLIDAY SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
1,950 (ig/L in 2010, to 15,000 |xg/L in 2013, and exceeded the MCL of 2,000 |ig/L during 2011-
2013. Benzene concentrations ranged from a high of 200 |xg/L in 2010 to 61 (xg/Ljn 2013.
Although the MCL of 5 |ig/L was exceeded during 2010-2013, the concentration in 2013 was the
lowest recorded since analysis began in 1999. Chlorobenzene concentrations ranged from 110
|a,g/L to 140 fig/L, and exceeded the MCL of 100 |a.g/L during 2010,2011,2012, and 2013. These
fluctuations in concentrations in both MW-5 and MW-7 could be attributed to seasonal
variations. Analytical results could not be properly evaluated for methylene chloride,
tetrachloroethene, trichloroethene vinyl chloride, 1,2-dichlorobenzene, and bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate due to the reporting limits exceeding their respective MCL values.
For MW-7 the annual reports indicated the laboratory was instructed to analyze an aliquot of the
aqueous portion, but that the samples likely contained some free product and were not
representative of groundwater conditions. For MW-7, VOC and SVOC data for all years have
been reported from samples diluted at the laboratory. The VOC dilutions appear to be moderate,
and MCL exceedances of most VOC analytes would be reported with a "J" flag. However, the
SVOC data are from extremely high dilutions, and should not be used as they may not be
representative of the groundwater conditions. The annual reports do not describe the sampling
method, but it is possible that a different method may produce more representative samples.
6.4.2.3 Farley Formation Well Analytical Data
Two monitoring wells (OPL-2 and OPL-5) and two observation wells (OW-lOaR and OW-1 la)
are completed in the Farley Formation at the Site. Groundwater samples collected from OPL-2
and OPL-5 were analyzed for VOCs and selected metals on an annual basis. Groundwater
samples collected from OW-lOaR and OW-1 la were analyzed for VOCs on an annual basis.
Data from the period of this FYR are listed in Appendix 1, Table 7.
At OPL-2, various metals and VOCs were detected (Appendix 1, Table 7). Except for 1,2-
dichloroethane, concentrations of all detected analytes were less than MCLs. 1,2-dichloroethane
concentrations ranged from 3.8 (xg/L to 13 fig/L, and exceeded the MCL of 5 |ig/L during 2011
and 2013.
I •
At OPL-5, various metals and VOCs were detected (Appendix 1, Table 7). Except for 1,2-
dichloroethane, concentrations of all detected analytes were less than MCLs. 1,2-dichloroethane
concentrations ranged from 1.8 ng/L to 17 |ig/L, and exceeded the MCL of 5 ng/L during 2012
and 2013.
J
At OW-1 OaR, no VOCs were detected during the period of this FYR.
At OW-1 la, two VOCs (2-butanone and acetone) were detected at low concentrations
(Appendix 1, Table 7). 2-butanone was detected at a concentration of 9 J (ig/L during 2011 and
acetone was detected at a concentration of 1.5 J jig/L during 2012. There is no MCL for 2-
butanone or acetone.
21
-------
DOEPKE-HOLLIDAY SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
6.4.3 Seep Analytical Data
During the period of this FYR, water samples were collected from three groundwater seeps
(Seeps 1,2, and 9) due to low flows at the remaining groundwater seeps. Water samples were
analyzed for VOCs, selected metals, and TSS on an annual basis. Data are listed in Appendix 1,
Table 8.
At Seep 1, only various metals were detected (Appendix 1, Table 8). Except for cadmium,
concentrations of all detected analytes were less than the most stringent screening criteria.
Cadmium concentrations ranged from 1.4 J ng/L to 3.1 J |ig/L. These values exceeded the EPA
chronic standard for aquatic life (0.25 ng/L) in 2010-2013, and the EPA acute standard (2 jag/L)
in 2011-2013.
At Seep 2, various metals and one VOC (2-butanone) were detected (Appendix 1, Table 8).
Except for cadmium and lead, concentrations of all detected analytes were less than the most
stringent screening criteria. During 2011, cadmium was detected at a concentration of 0.25 J
(ig/L, which is equal to the EPA chronic standard for aquatic life (0.25 (ig/L) and lead was
detected at a concentration of 2.8 J |ig/L, which exceeded the EPA chronic standard for aquatic
life (2.5 jxg/L).
At Seep 9, only various metals were detected (Appendix 1, Table 8). Except for cadmium and
lead, concentrations of all detected analytes were less than the most stringent screening criteria.
Cadmium concentrations ranged from 1.0 J ng/L to 1.9 J ng/L, which exceeded the EPA chronic
standard for aquatic life (0.25 ng/L) in 2010-2013. Lead was detected at a concentration of 3.1
Hg/L in 2011, which exceeded the EPA chronic standard for aquatic life (2.5 |ig/L).
TSS concentrations for all seeps ranged from below detection levels to 35 milligrams per liter
(Appendix 1, Table 8). There are no standards established for TSS.
At Seep 2, cadmium was not detected and was referenced to the RL rather than DL. Analytes
not detected should be referenced to the DL, not the RL. The laboratory reports values between
the detection level and the reporting level with a "J" flag, indicating that the analyte was
detected, but the concentration is estimated.
6.4.4 Data Summary
Overburden wells:
• Low concentrations of various metals, VOCs, and SVOCs were detected in overburden
wells MW-9a and OW-14. All concentrations were less than their respective screening
criteria except arsenic in MW-14, which exceeded the MCL of 10 |ig/L during 2010 and
2013.
Plattsburg Formation wells:
• Various metals, VOCs, and SVOCs were detected in Plattsburg Formation wells. All
concentrations were less than their respective screening criteria except arsenic, barium,
22
-------
DOEPKE-HOLLIDAY SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
benzene, chlorobenzene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes. Arsenic exceeded the MCL of
10 |xg/L in MW-5 and MW-7 during 2013. Barium exceeded the MCL of 2,000 (j.g/L in
MW-5 during 2012, and in MW-7 during 2011-2013. At MW-5, ethylbenzene exceeded
the MCL of 700 ng/L during 2010-2013. Total xylenes exceeded the MCL of 10,000
|ig/L during 2010 and 2011. At MW-7, benzene and chlorobenzene exceeded their
respective MCLs of 5 (Xg/L 100 |ig/L during 2010-2013.
Farley Formation wells:
• Various metals and VOCs were detected in Farley Formation wells. All concentrations
were less than their respective screening criteria except 1,2-dichloroethane, which
exceeded the MCL of 5 jig/L in OPL-2 in 2013 and OPL-5 in 2012 and 2013.
Seeps:
• Various metals were detected in Seeps 1,2, and 9. All concentrations were less than
criteria except cadmium in all three seeps and lead in Seeps 2 and 9. Cadmium exceeded
both the EPA chronic (0.25 |j,g/L) and acute (2 |xg/L) standards for aquatic life in Seep 1,
and the EPA chronic standard in Seeps 2 and 9. Lead exceeded the EPA chronic standard
for aquatic life (2.5 |ig/L) in Seeps 2 and 9 in 2011 .Various metals were detected in
Seeps 1, 2, and 9. All concentrations were less than criteria except cadmium in all three
seeps and lead in Seeps 2 and 9. Cadmium exceeded both the EPA chronic (0.25 fxg/L)
and acute (2 |ig/L) standards for aquatic life in Seep 1, and the EPA chronic standard in
Seeps 2 and 9. Lead exceeded the EPA chronic standard for aquatic life (2.5 (ig/L) in
Seeps 2 and 9 in 2011.
6.5 Site Inspection
A Site Inspection was conducted April 1, 2015. The purpose of the Site Inspection was to
visually confirm and document the current condition of the remedy, the Site, and the surrounding
area, and to identify any changes that could negatively affect the protectiveness of the remedy.
The Site Inspection team included Laura Price, Ann Jacobs, and Jessica Kidwell, EPA; Gregory
Hattan, Phil Rosewicz, and Kenneth Kamp, USACE; Darryl Morgan, KDHE; Craig Wood,
JCDHE; Jay Churchill, CRA; and Mick Cossairt, DII. The Site Inspection included an
evaluation of the vegetative cover, gravel drainage areas, drainage channels, access road, and
perimeter fencing and security. The DII bulk fuel facility along the access road was also
observed. The findings of the inspections are summarized below.
The Site Inspection Checklist is included in Appendix 4. The EPA and KDHE noted that the
landfill cover was in good condition. Occasional small (1 to 2 inches in diameter) rodent
burrows were noted at various locations across the cover. However, none of the burrows
appeared to have potential to compromise the integrity of the multi-layer cap. The cap was in
good condition, and was functioning as intended. Site conditions were documented with
photographs, which are included as Appendix 5. Only two minor potential issues were
identified. One issue identified is the difficulty in establishing vegetation in an area at the
southwest corner of the Site on the south side of the Jersey barrier along the access road near the
23
-------
DOEPKE-HOLLIDAY SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
cap boundary. The other issue identified was the potential ponding and a small area where
vegetation had been smothered were observed along the Jersey barrier to the southwest of the
fuel facility upstream from a small drainage culvert.
Institutional controls (IC) at the Site consist of a deed restriction. In support of the deed
restriction, DII has security booths, fences, gates, and signs that serve to deny public access to
the land. There is only one main entrance at the property and it is manned by security personnel
24-hours per day and access requires authorization and identification. The deed restriction filed
with the Register of Deeds for Johnson County on June 19,1996, does not allow land uses or
development that could impact the integrity of the Impermeable Multi-layer Cap, or disturb
drainage. Deed restrictions prevent excavation, boring, digging of drainage ditches, change of
vegetation, removal of security booths, fences, gates or signs, and removal or disturbance of
environmental monitoring stations. To ensure land use restrictions continue to be enforceable, the
EPA will encourage KDHE to enter into an Environmental Use Control and Long Term Care
Agreement with DII.
6.6 Interviews
Interviews were conducted on April 1,2015, with representatives of EPA, KDHE, JCDHE, DII,
and CRA during the Site Inspection for this FYR. All persons interviewed indicated they were
well informed about the Site and had no issues to report. No additional problems have been
identified by any of the parties interviewed. The Site Inspection interviews can be found in
Appendix 7 and in the Site Inspection Checklist in Appendix 4.
24
-------
DOEPKE-HOLLIDAY SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
7.0 Technical Assessment
The FYR must determine whether the remedy at a site is protective of human health and the
environment. EPA guidance presents three questions used to provide a framework for
organizing and evaluating data and information and to ensure all relevant issues are considered
when determining the protectiveness of a remedy. These questions are assessed for the Site in
the following paragraphs. For consistency with FYR guidance, each question is summarily
answered yes or no. Supporting information is provided in the previous sections and referenced
documents with additional analysis provided, as needed. Section 7.4 presents a summary of the
technical assessment.
7.1 Question A
Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?
7.1.1 Remedial Action Performance
A review of the documents, analytical data, ARARs, ICs, and the results of the Site Inspection
indicate that the remedy is functioning as intended by the ROD. The RAOs specified in the
ROD were to reduce or eliminate exposure and prevent future offsite exposure to unacceptable
levels of groundwater or soil/waste contaminants. This was accomplished by constructing an
impermeable multi-layered cap over the 38-acre waste disposal area to prevent percolation and
subsequent migration of contaminants. The RAOs are still valid and the monitoring program
indicates that the remedy is effective in meeting these objectives.
As previously noted, the Argentine Limestone formation and its groundwater are located on a
topographic high, isolated from the regional hydrogeology with minimal groundwater flow
* contribution. The Plattsburg, Farley, and upper Argentine formation units outcrop along a 360
degree face about the local area with recharge of groundwater in the area primarily occurring
through precipitation. The groundwater at the site discharges to seeps located at the base of the
site located at least 500 feet from the Kansas River and they are not in direct communication
with the Kansas River.
Contaminant levels detected at most monitoring wells are similar to levels in the Third FYR and
the results from the most recent sampling event (April 2013) are still below the peak
concentrations detected in past sampling events. Analytical results of groundwater and
groundwater seep samples collected over the course of the last five years, as part of the LTM
program, indicate a few metals and VOCs exceeded MCL values in monitoring wells located
within the boundaries of the capped former waste disposal area. However, only lead and
chromium have been detected above the chronic freshwater quality standards at the seeps and
none of the contaminants in the seeps were above MCL values. It appears that the VOC
contaminants seen on-site do not seem to be migrating to the groundwater seeps. In addition to
minimal contaminants at the seeps, the seep flow has decreased, demonstrating that the cap has
25
-------
DOEPKE-HOLLIDAY SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
effectively reduced recharge to the contaminated material thus limiting the potential for human
health exposure. Monitoring of the groundwater and groundwater seeps should continue to
monitor the effectiveness of the cap.
7.1.2 System Operations and Maintenance
The vegetative cover is well established. The rip-rapped channel is effective at controlling
erosion on the primary surface drainage path within the capped area. O&M procedures have
been effective in identifying problems and maintaining the cap integrity. It is evident from the
Site Inspection Logs that a persistent effort has been maintained to ensure sufficient vegetative
cover on the cap, control the growth of weeds and saplings across the cap including the riprap
drainage swales, and prevent sediment buildup in drainage areas. The O&M activities are
designed to identify and mitigate problems before the integrity of the cap is compromised.
Maintenance and routine upkeep (mowing, fertilizing, etc.) have been effective in maintaining
the cap in good condition. The most recent inspection of the cap for this report was conducted
by CRA on April 1,2015. Appendix 1, Table 9 summarizes the findings of the O&M
inspections of the Doepke-Holliday Site since the third FYR and how identified problems were
mitigated.
The PRPs have been diligent in their O&M activities and these should continue to ensure the
long-term integrity of the remedy.
7.1.3 Opportunities for Optimization
The 1993 Final Design recommended that the O&M Plan be reviewed to incorporate revisions
approximately once every five years. No opportunities for optimization were identified during
this FYR.
7.1.4 Early Indicators of Potential Issues
The vegetative cover and impermeable cap appeared to be in good condition during the Site
Inspection. Only two minor potential issues were identified. It is difficult to establish vegetation
in an area at the southwest corner of the Site on the south side of the Jersey barrier along the
access road near the cap boundary because of the proximity to the access road. There is no
evidence of erosion at this location and CRA noted the area is examined during inspections to
ensure the cover integrity is adequate. Also, potential ponding and a small area where vegetation
had been smothered were observed along the Jersey barrier to the southwest of the fuel facility
upstream from a small drainage culvert. Excessive erosion around the drainage inlet was not
noted and CRA stated flow in the pipe is unobstructed. The area receives winter runoff from the
haul road and vegetation could establish itself at this location during the growing season. If
conditions in these two areas do not worsen in subsequent semi-annual O&M inspections, no
corrective action is required.
No issues were identified that would indicate the protectiveness of the remedy may be at risk in
the future.
26
-------
DOEPKE-HOLLIDAY SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
7.1.5 Implementation of Institutional Controls and Other Measures
The ICs consist of deed restrictions which were put in place in June 1996 (Appendix 6). The
deed restrictions limit the use of the real estate in any manner which may affect the integrity of
the impermeable multilayer cap or implementation of the IGMP, the LTMP, or O&M
requirements, (Appendix 1, Table 3 and Table 9). To ensure land use restrictions continue to be
enforceable, the EPA will encourage KDHE to enter into an Environmental Use Control and Long
Term Care Agreement with DII.
An access route surrounds the Site on three sides. This is the access route to the active landfill
cells at the Johnson County Landfill adjacent to the Site, and therefore, has a manned 24-hour
checkpoint, fencing, and routine patrols by DII personnel limiting access.
7.2 Question B
Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives
(RAOs) used at the time of the remedy selection still valid?
Although exposure factors and toxicity data have changed since the ROD, these changes have
not caused changes to risk estimates that would call the protectiveness of the remedy into
question.
7.2.1 Changes in Standards and To-Be-Considered Criteria
• Have there been changes to standards identified as ARARs in the ROD that call into question
the protectiveness of the remedy?
There are no changes in standards or TBCs that call into question the protectiveness of the
remedy. ARARs and TBCs are listed in Appendix 1, Table 4. Cleanup levels were not
developed in the ROD because the water onsite is perched water, not part of an aquifer, and not
used for drinking water.
7.2.2 Changes in Exposure Pathways
• Has land use or expected land use on or near the site changed (e.g., industrial to residential,
commercial to residential)?
Land use at the Site and surrounding area remains the same, and no changes are expected that
would affect the protectiveness of the remedy.
The city of Shawnee Zoning Map (Appendix 2, Figure 3) shows the Site and land to the west
and southwest of the Site as industrial. The city of Shawnee Land Use Guide (Appendix 2,
Figure 4) indicates future use goals for these areas will remain industrial/warehouse. Land to
the north of the Site, across Holliday Drive, is zoned agricultural and planned for park/open
27
-------
DOEPKE-HOLLIDAY SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
space. Land to the northeast of the Site is zoned agricultural and planned for office/service.
Land east of 1-435 is zoned agricultural and planned for mixed density residential. Groundwater
does not migrate offsite to the east; it emerges on the west side of 1-435 in low flowing seeps that
primarily contain water from precipitation events. Thus, the change in goals from agricultural to
residential for land to the east will not affect the protectiveness of the remedy.
In addition to the City's zoning and planning regulations, the deed restriction (Appendix 6), does
not allow land uses or development that could impact the integrity of the cap or disturb drainage.
• Have any human health or ecological routes of exposure or receptors changed or been newly
identified (e.g., dermal contact where none previously existed, new populations or species
identified on site or near the site) that could affect the protectiveness of the remedy?
There are no changed or newly-identified human health or ecological exposure routes or
receptors that could affect the protectiveness of the remedy.
• Are there newly identified contaminants or contaminant sources?
There are no newly identified contaminants or sources at the Site.
• Are there unanticipated toxic byproducts of the remedy not previously addressed by the
decision documents (e.g., byproducts not evaluated at the time of remedy selection)?
No unanticipated toxic byproducts of the remedy have been identified at the Site.
• Have physical site conditions (e.g., changes in anticipated direction or rate of groundwater
flow) or the understanding of these conditions changed in a way that could affect the
protectiveness of the remedy?
No changes to physical site conditions have occurred which could affect the protectiveness of the
remedy.
7.2.3 Changes in Toxicity and Other Contaminant Characteristics
• Have toxicity factors for contaminants of concern at the site changed in a way that could
affect the protectiveness of the remedy?
No. While there have been changes to chemical toxicity values, none call into question the
protectiveness of the remedy.
28
-------
DOEPKE-HOLLIDAY SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
• Have other contaminant characteristics changed in a way that could affect protectiveness of
the remedy?
No. There are no changes to contaminant characteristics that could affect the protectiveness of
the remedy.
7.2.4 Changes in Risk Assessment Methods
• Have standardized risk assessment methodologies changed in a way that could affect the
protectiveness of the remedy?
Risk assessment methodologies have changed since the human health evaluation was conducted
for the 1989 RI, but the changes do not affect the protectiveness of the remedy.
The evaluation of human health risk in the RI report was completed using the Superfund Public
Health Evaluation Manual, which was subsequently replaced by the EPA's Risk Assessment
Guidance for Superfund (RAGS) Part A - Human Health Evaluation Manual. Additional EPA
Superfund risk assessment guidance which has been released since the 1989 ROD includes:
• EPA RAGS Part E (supplemental dermal risk assessment guidance);
• EPA RAGS Part F (supplemental inhalation risk assessment guidance);
• The revised EPA toxicity value hierarchy guidance;
• The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) Cancer Assessment
Handbook (applicable if one or more contaminants found at the Site cause cancer via a
mutagenic mode of action);
• EPA's Guidelines for ecological risk assessment.
In May 2014, OSWER Directive 9200.1-120 (EPA, 2014) updated a number of previously-
published standard default exposure factors (SDEFs) (EPA, 1989,1991, 2004). SDEFs are used
to calculate the doses of chemicals received by people exposed to contaminated media, and
include:
• How much soil or water a person may consume in a day;
• How many days per year a person might be exposed to a site;
• How many years a person might be exposed to a site;
• Body weight of person exposed; and
• How much skin might be exposed.
The SDEFs involved in calculating doses from groundwater and the calculations for the overall
percentage changes in intake caused by the changed SDEFs are presented in Appendix 1, Tables
10 -14.
29
-------
DOEPKE-HOLLIDAY SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
The percentage changes associated with the changes in SDEFs are summarized as follows:
Effect
Receptor
Exposure Route
Percent change
Non-cancer
Child
Oral
-22%
Dermal
-47.8%
Adult
Oral
+9.4%
Dermal
+24.4%
Cancer
Combined Child/Adult
Oral
-13.7%
Dermal
-18.2%
Children usually have a higher potential for non-cancer health effects because their intakes are
higher relative to body weight. The decreases in dose for children via both the oral and dermal
exposure routes will have the effect of lowering the estimates of the likelihood of adverse non-
cancer health effects. The decreases in oral and dermal doses for cancer using the combined
child/adult lifetime exposure scenario will also result in decreased estimates of cancer risks.
These decreases in risk estimates will not call the protectiveness of the remedy into question.
With respect to the adult non-cancer exposure, adults generally show adverse health effects at
higher levels of contamination than children. These increases would be significant only in cases
where children were already expected to have potential health effects. Thus, the increases in
dose for adults also do not call the protectiveness of the remedy into question.
7.3 Question C
Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the
remedy?
No, there is no additional information the calls into question the protectiveness of the remedy.
7.3.1 Ecological Risks
An ecological assessment was completed in the RI, and no adverse impacts were identified for
terrestrial or aquatic ecosystems based on Site conditions at that time. It was acknowledged that
if offsite migration of contaminants increased, the conclusions would need to be re-evaluated.
Installation of the impermeable multilayer cap eliminated the potential for exposure to
contaminated soil at the Site. Groundwater, which is primarily infiltrated rain water, emerges in
low-flowing seeps to the north and east or it moves in the direction of the adjacent landfill to the
south, where it continues to be monitored.
Although cadmium has been detected consistently above the chronic ambient water-quality
criteria in Seep 1, and there is a potential for seep water to reach the Kansas River approximately
500 feet to the north, seep water has a very low flow volume and does not flow directly into the
Kansas River.
Seep water is diluted by mixing with rain and runoff near the Site, and significant mixing occurs
when it reaches the volume of water at the confluence of Mill Creek and the Kansas River.
30
-------
DOEPKE-HOLLIDAY SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
Runoff from the east and west sides of the Holliday Drive entrance ramp to South 1-435 flows
north and under the ramp to the west, mixing with runoff in the area of Seep 1. Also, some
runoff from the north side of the entrance island flows west and under the ramp to mix with Seep
1 water. Mixing at the stream confluence can be conservatively estimated based on flow rates.
The lowest annual seven-day minimum flow rate for Mill Creek from 2010 to 2013 is 1.3 cubic
feet per second (cfs), recorded at the nearest gauging station (Johnson Drive, two miles upstream
of the Site). For Seep 1, the highest historical flow rate is 5.28 gpm, or 0.0118 cfs (1999), while
the highest flow rate during 2010 to 2013 is 1.98 gpm, or 0.0044 cfs. The combination of lowest
flow rate for Mill Creek and highest flow rate for'Seep 1 is a conservative (protective) estimate
and results in a dilution factor of 110 to 296.
Since offsite migration has not increased, the potential for ecological receptors to become
exposed to contamination from the Site remains low.
7.3.2 Natural Disaster Impacts
No known natural disasters have occurred that would affect the protectiveness of the remedy.
7.3.3 Any Other Information That Could Call Into Question the Protectiveness of the
Remedy
No other information has been identified that could call into question the protectiveness of the
remedy.
7.4 Technical Assessment Summary
The RA at the Site is operating as designed. The ROD called for a combination of an
impermeable multilayer cap emplaced over the waste disposal area and ICs consisting of a Deed
Restriction which limit any activity that could affect the integrity of the cap. Additionally, the
Site has a manned 24-hour checkpoint, fencing, and routine patrols by DII personnel limiting
access. Groundwater and seep water analyses continue at the Site to monitor the effectiveness of
the remedy.
Since the last FYR there have been no changes in exposure assumptions, exposure pathways, or
toxicity data which impact the protectiveness of the remedy. Although there have been changes
to the risk assessment methodologies, none of the changes affect the overall effectiveness of the
remedy. There have not been any changes to the land use, or adjacent land use that would
impact the protectiveness of the remedy.
31
-------
DOEPKE-HOLLIDAY SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
8.0 Issues
No issues which affect the current or future protectiveness of the remedy have been identified in
this FYR.
32
-------
DOEPKE-HOLLIDAY SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
9.0 Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions
No issues were identified in Section 8.0 which affect the current or future protectiveness of the
remedies; however, several items were identified as recommendations or for follow-up actions.
As noted in Sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2, past studies indicate that the site is on a topographic high
isolated from regional hydrogeology; specifically, the Plattsburg Formation and the Farley and
upper Argentine Limestone unit outcrop along a 360 degree face about the local area (B&V,
1990). This limited isolation does not alleviate a responsibility to demonstrate the extent to
which contamination is migrating vertically among water-bearing units, migrating offsite to the
south, or discharging to potential receptors at the surface. Future data deliverables should be
presented in the context of a conceptual site model that draws from historical, offsite, and new
data as necessary to present a more complete picture of the groundwater flow directions, vertical
and horizontal gradients, and discharge points (e.g., seeps) associated with each water-bearing
unit.
As noted in Section 4.1.2.4 and Table 2, the seep monitoring points are critical to evaluating
whether contaminated groundwater is discharging to the land surface and to surface water and
sediment. Annual reports should include photographic documentation of seep integrity and flow,
and the bluffs north and east of the landfill should be assessed for any new seeps that might have
developed.
As noted in Section 5.3.1, groundwater is currently collected from monitoring wells using a
bailer. Current best practice is to use low-flow or passive sampling to collect representative
groundwater samples; bailers have been shown to increase turbidity (EPA, 2002; ITRC, 2007)
and, as indicated in Section 7.4.2, mix free.product with groundwater. A low-flow or passive
sampling technique is recommended.
As noted in Section 6.4.2, free product has been detected in well MW-7. Annual reports do not
indicate the likely origin, composition, or thickness of the free product. To the extent that this
information is available or can be determined, it should be included in future annual reports.
Additionally, free product at well MW-7 should be addressed.
As noted in Section 6.5 and 7.1.5, to ensure land use restrictions continue to be enforceable, the
EPA will encourage KDHE to enter into an Environmental Use Control and Long Term Care
Agreement with DII.
33
-------
DOEPKE-HOLLIDAY SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
10.0 Protectiveness Statements
The remedy at the Doepke-Holliday Superfund Site is protective of human health and the
environment.
34
-------
DOEPKE-HOLLIDAY SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
11.0 Next Review
The next FYR for the Site will be conducted within five years of the EPA's signed approval of
this FYR.
35
-------
APPENDICES
-------
APPENDIX 1
TABLES
-------
Table 1: Chronology of Site Events
Event
Date
EPA discovered Site
Nov. 01, 1979
EPA completed a Preliminary Assessment
Dec. 01, 1981
Hazard Ranking System (HRS) package prepared by EPA (score 42.5)
July 30, 1982
Proposal to National Priorities List
Dec. 30, 1982
Site Inspection (SI) completed
Feb. 01, 1983
Site placed on NPL
Sept. 8, 1983
Federal enforcement began an NPL Responsible Parties Search
June 20, 1985
EPA proceeded with Remedial Investigation (Rl) and Feasibility Study (FS)
June 29, 1985
EPA initiated community involvement activities
July 19, 1985
NPL Responsible Parties search concluded and Potential Responsible Parties
(PRPs) identified
April 15, 1986
Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) was issued
Dec. 15 1987
Information Repository Established
Aug. 19, 1988
AOC amended
Nov. 10, 1988
Remedial Investigation (Rl) Report completed
August 1989
Health/Risk Assessment completed by PRPs
Aug. 4, 1989
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility (RI/FS) Study activities completed
Sept. 21, 1989
Record of Decision (ROD)
Sept. 21, 1989
Removal Assessment completed
Aug. 23, 1990
Consent Decree completed
Sept. 14, 1990
PRPs organized the Holliday Remediation Task Force (HRTF) and entered into
AOC for Remedial Design
Oct. 24, 1990
Second Removal Action Assessment is completed
Oct. 10, 1990
HTRF conducted Pre-Design Investigation to facilitate remedial action
January 1992
Interim Groundwater Monitoring Program (IGMP) is implemented
March 1995
First cleanup action initiated at the Site by the PRPs
March 6, 1995
The impermeable multilayer cap was constructed
May 15 to July 16,
1996
Soil Boring program implemented
July 1995
EPA prepared the Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) report
Jan. 31, 1996
ESD Public Notice published in Johnson County Sun, Journal Herald, Kansas City
Kansan
March 8, 1996
EPA and HTRF executed a CD and associated Scope of Work (SOW) for
completion of the Remedial Action
May 24, 1996
Site construction activities were completed
Sept. 29, 1997
EPA, Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE), Johnson County
Environmental Department (JCED), and Johnson County Water District No. 1
(JCWD) received the Basis for Long-Term Monitoring Plan (LTMP) from CRA
June 1998
EPA approved the LTMP with modifications to the analytical parameters and
reduced sampling frequency
April 14, 1999
tn
The PRPs completed the 4 Removal Assessment. EPA discontinued community
involvement activities
Sept. 29, 1999
Conestoga Rovers and Associates (CRA) submitted Annual Summary Report No. 1
for the LTMP
January 2000
First FYR completed by EPA
Sept. 27, 2000
4th Annual Summary Report LTMP submitted by CRA
Aug. 2, 2002
-------
5 th Annual Summary Report LTMP submitted by CRA
July 25, 2003
6 th Annual Summary Report LTMP submitted by CRA
July 24, 2004
7 th Annual Summary Report LTMP submitted by CRA
July 21, 2005
Second FYR completed by HGL for EPA
Sept. 27, 2005
th
8 Annual Summary Report LTMP submitted by CRA
Sept 18, 2006
Monitoring well OW-1 OaR was installed as a replacement for well identified in the
Second Annual Summary Report
June 2007
th
9 Annual Summary Report LTMP submitted by CRA
Aug. 31 2007
th
10 Annual Summary Report LTMP submitted by CRA
July 25, 2008
th
11 Annual Summary Report LTMP submitted by CRA
July 2009
Third FYR completed by USACE for EPA
December 2010
th
12 Annual Summary Report LTMP submitted by CRA
July 29, 2010
th
13 Annual Summary Report LTMP submitted by CRA
July 27, 2011
th
14 Annual Summary Report LTMP submitted by CRA
July 25, 2012
th
15 Annual Summary Report LTMP submitted by CRA
July 2013
Removal of vegetation along crushed rock identified during the Third FYR through
limited use of herbicide recommended by the Johnson County/K-State Research
Extension
September 2013
-------
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF SEEP FLOW RATES AND PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL SEEP FLOW RATES
APRIL 1999 THROUGH APRIL 2013
DOEPKE HOLLIDAY SUPERFUND SITE
JOHNSON COUNTY, KANSAS
ID
Apr-99
Oct-99
Apr-00
Sep-00
Apr-01
Sep-01
May-02
Apr-03
Apr-04
Apr-05
May-06
Apr-07
Apr-08
Apr-09
Apr-10
Apr-11
Apr-12
Apr-13
Seep
Flow Rates torn)
1
5.28
0.07
0.21
0.66
2.26
0.72
1.05
0.16
0.56
0.19
0.075
0.66
1.33
1.98
1.98
1.33
N/F
0.58
2
0.32
0.13
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.42
0.71
<0.02 a
0.11
N/F
N/F
<0.02 a
0.025
0.13
0.03
0.05
N/F
0.15
3
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/M
N/M
N/M
N/M
N/M
N/M
N/M
N/M
N/M
N/M
N/M
4
N/F
N/F
N/F
N/F
N/F
N/F
N/F
N/F
<0.02 a
<0.02 a
N/F
HC
N/F
S/R
<0.02 a
<0.02 a
N/F
<0.02 a
5
0.22
<0.04
<0.04
N/F
0.14
N/F
<0.02 a
N/F
<0.02 a
<0.02 a
N/F
HC
<0.02 a
S/R
<0.02 a
<0.02 a
N/F
<0.02 a
6
0.32
N/F
<0.04
N/F
0.16
N/F
<0.02 a
N/F
<0.02 a
<0.02 a
N/F
HC
<0.02 a
S/R
<0.02 a
<0.02 a
N/F
<0.02 a
8
N/A
<0.04
0.042
N/F
0.07
0.09
<0.02 a
0.07
0.21
0.04
0.03
S/R
0.2
S/R
S/R
S/R
N/F
S/R
9
0.21
0.05
0.32
0.09
0.25
0.21
0.99
0.32
0.44
0.08
0.05
<0.02 a
0.32
0.79
0.32
0.16
N/F
0.28
10
0.21
<0.04
<0.04
N/F
0.02
N/F
<0.02 a
N/M
N/M
N/M
N/M
N/M
N/M
N/M
N/M
N/M
N/M
N/M
11
0.06
N/F
N/F
N/F
N/F
N/F
N/F
N/M
N/M
N/M
N/M
N/M
N/M
N/M
N/M
N/M
N/M
N/M
Total Flow 6.62
0.25
0.782
0.96
3.11
1.44
2.72
0.55
1.32
0.31
0.155
0.66
1.875
2.90
2.33
1.54
0.00
1.01
Percentage of Total Flow Rate (gym)
1 80 28 27 69 73 50 39 29 42 61 49 100 71 68 85 86.5 - 57.4
2 5 52 27 22 7 29 26 - 8 ______ 1 5 1 3 - 14.9
5 3 ______ 5
6 5 ______ 5
8 5 - 2 6 13 16 13 19 - 11
9 3 20 41 9 8 15 35 58 33 26 32 - 17 27 14 10.5 - 27.7
10 3 - - - 1
Notes:
N/ A Not available or unable to measure flow.
N/ F No flow observed during monitoring event.
N/ M Not measured; seep no longer in LTMP
a Observed flow was too low to measure. Flow rate was less than the
lower limit of resolution of 0.02 gpm.
HC Seep flow rate not measured due to construction along Holliday Drive.
S/R Seep flow rate not measured due to surface water runoff during the monitoring event.
-------
Table 3
Long-Term Monitoring Plan
Doepke-Holliday Site, Fourth Five-Year Review
Monitoring Location
Task (Routine Annual Event)
Routine Annual Monitoring Analytes
Re-evaluation Event Analytes
Overburden
MW-9a
Measure water levels, collect groundwater samples
TCL-VOCs, TCL-SVOCs, selected TAL metals3
TCL-VOCs, TCL-SVOCs, selected TAL metals3
OW-131
Abandoned
Abandoned
Abandoned
OW-14
Measure water levels, collect groundwater samples
TCL-VOCs, TCL-SVOCs, selected TAL metals3
TCL-VOCs, TCL-SVOCs, selected TAL metals3
Piattsburg Formation
MW-5
Measure water levels, collect groundwater samples
TCL-VOCs, TCL-SVOCs, selected TAL metals3
TCL-VOCs, TCL-SVOCs, selected TAL metals3
MW-6
Measure water levels
NR
TCL-VOCs, TCL-SVOCs, selected TAL metals3
MW-7
Measure water levels, collect groundwater samples
TCL-VOCs, TCL-SVOCs, selected TAL metals3
TCL-VOCs, TCL-SVOCs, selected TAL metals3
PZ-1
Measure water levels
NR
TCL-VOCs, TCL-SVOCs, selected TAL metals3
PZ-2
Measure water levels
NR
TCL-VOCs, TCL-SVOCs, selected TAL metals3
Farley Member
OW-10aR2
Measure water levels, collect groundwater samples
TCL-VOCs
TCL-VOCs, TCL-SVOCs, selected TAL metals3
OW-11a
Measure water levels, collect groundwater samples
TCL-VOCs
TCL-VOCs, TCL-SVOCs, selected TAL metals3
OPL-2
Measure water levels, collect groundwater samples
TCL-VOCs, selected TAL metals3
TCL-VOCs, TCL-SVOCs, selected TAL metals3
OPL-5
Measure water levels, collect groundwater samples
TCL-VOCs, selected TAL metals3
TCL-VOCs, TCL-SVOCs, selected TAL metals3
Groundwater Seeps
Seep 1
Mon
tor flow rate, collect water samples
TCL-VOCs, TCL-SVOCs, selected TAL metals3, TSS
TCL-VOCs, TCL-SVOCs, selected TAL metals3, TSS
Seep 2
Mon
tor flow rate, collect water samples
TCL-VOCs, selected TAL metals3, TSS
TCL-VOCs, TCL-SVOCs, selected TAL metals3, TSS
Seep 4
Mon
tor flow rate
NR
NR
Seep 5
Mon
tor flow rate
NR
NR
Seep 6
Mon
tor flow rate
NR
NR
Seep 8
Mon
tor flow rate, collect water samples
TCL-VOCs, selected TAL metals3, TSS
TCL-VOCs, TCL-SVOCs, selected TAL metals3, TSS
Seep 9
Mon
tor flow rate, collect water samples
TCL-VOCs, selected TAL metals3, TSS
TCL-VOCs, TCL-SVOCs, selected TAL metals3, TSS
Notes:
NR - none required.
TCL-VOCs - Target Compound List volatile organic compounds. If the detection limits are elevated due to high concentrationsof non-chlorinated VOCs, during the subsequent sampling round the sample will be
analyzed at the lowest technically feasible dilution to ensure that chlorinated VOCs are not being masked.
TCL-SVOCs - Target Compound List semivolatile organic compounds - includes analyses for base/neutral/acid extractable compounds.
TSS - Total suspended solids.
1 - OW-13 was abandoned in June 2007.
2 - OW-10aR was installed in June 2007 as a replacement well for OW-10a, which was abandoned in September 2006.
3 - Selected Target Analyte List (TAL) metals include As, Ba, Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Ni, Pb, and Zn. Groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells are analyzed for both filtered and unfiltered metals.
Water samples collected from groundwater seeps are analyzed for unfiltered metals only.
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table 4
ARARs and TBCs for Chemicals Detected from 2010 to 2013
Doepke-Holliday Site, Fourth Five-Year Review
Chemicals detected, 2010-
2013
units
Groundwater
Most
stringent
ARAR/TBC
EPA MCL
(Jan. 2015)
KDHE RSK
(Mar. 2014)
Surface
water Most
stringent
ARAR/TBC
EPA
KDHE (2012)
Freshwater aquatic
Aquatic life
Domestic
water use
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Metals
Arsenic
ijg/L
10
10
10
10
340
150
340
150
10
Barium
ijg/L
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
--
--
--
--
2,000
Cadmium
ijg/L
5
5
5
0.25
2
0.25
a
a
5
Chromium (total)
ijg/L
100
100
100
100
--
~
--
40
100
Copper
ijg/L
1,300
1,300
1,300
1,000
**
**
**
**
1,000
Lead
ijg/L
15
15
15
2.5
65
2.5
a
a
15
Mercury
ijg/L
2
2
2
0.77
1.4
0.77
1.4
0.77
2
Nickel
ijg/L
312
--
312
52
470
52
a
a
610
Zinc
ijg/L
4,670
--
4,670
120
120
120
a
a
5,000
Volatile organic compounds
1,1-Dichloroethane
ijg/L
25
--
25
--
--
--
--
--
--
1,2-Dichloroethane
ijg/L
0.38
5
5
0.38
~
~
18,000
2,000
0.38
1,2-Dichloroethene (total)*
ijg/L
70
70
70
70
~
--
11,600
--
70
2-Butanone
ijg/L
4,920
--
4,920
--
--
~
--
~
--
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)
ijg/L
1,020
--
1,020
--
~
~
~
~
--
Acetone
ijg/L
11,500
--
11,500
--
~
~
~
~
--
Benzene
ijg/L
5
5
5
1.2b
~
~
5300
~
1.2b
Carbon disulfide
ijg/L
716
--
716
--
~
--
~
--
~
Chlorobenzene
ijg/L
100
100
100
50
--
~
250
50
100
Ethylbenzene
ijg/L
700
700
700
700
~
~
32,000
~
700
Tetrachloroethene
ijg/L
5
5
5
o
00
O"
~
~
5,280
840
O
00
D"
Toluene
ijg/L
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
~
~
17,500
~
1,000
Trichloroethene
ijg/L
5
5
5
2.7b
~
--
45,000
21,900
2.7b
Vinyl chloride
ijg/L
2
2
2
2
--
~
--
--
2
Xylenes
ijg/L
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
~
~
--
~
10,000
Semivolatile organic compounds
3 & 4-Methylphenol*
ijg/L
744
"
744
"
~
~
~
~
~
2,4-Dimethylphenol
ijg/L
292
"
292
380
~
~
1300
530
380
2-Methylnaphthalene
ijg/L
16.7
"
16.7
--
~
--
~
--
--
Acenaphthene
ijg/L
253
"
253
520
--
~
1700
520
670
Acenaphthylene
ijg/L
--
"
--
--
~
~
--
~
~
Anthracene
ijg/L
1,150
"
1,150
9,600b
~
~
~
~
9,600b
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
ijg/L
6
6
6
1.8b
~
~
400
360
1.8b
Chrysene
ijg/L
0.0038
~
22.3
0.0038
~
--
~
--
0.0038
Dibenzofuran
ijg/L
4.13
~
4.13
--
--
~
--
~
--
Diethyl phthalate
ijg/L
12,200
--
12,200
17,000
~
~
~
~
17,000
Di-n-octylphthalate
ijg/L
18.4
~
18.4
~
~
~
~
~
~
Fluoranthene
ijg/L
255
~
255
300
~
~
3,980
~
300
Fluorene
ijg/L
162
~
162
1,300b
~
--
~
--
1,300b
Naphthalene
ijg/L
1.11
~
1.11
620
--
~
2,300
620
~
Phenanthrene
ijg/L
--
--
--
6.3
~
~
30
6.3
~
Pyrene
ijg/L
202
~
202
960b
~
~
--
~
960b
Notes:
- not available
* For 1,2-dichloroethene (total), criterion for cis- isomer is shown; for 3 & 4-methylnaphthalene, criterion for 3-methylnaphthalene is shown.
** The Biotic Ligand Model (BLM) as in the "Aquatic Life Ambient Freshwater Quality Criteria-Copper 2007 Revision (EPA-822-R-07-001, February 2007)", which is adopted
by reference.
a KDHE Surface Water Quality Standards (2012) Table 1 b provides equations to calculate site-specific criteria based on hardness, subject to KDHE approval. EPA criteria
that are hardness-dependent are calculated based on 100 mg/L CaC03.
b US EPA has promulgated this criterion for Kansas under the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, part 131.36. KDHE has not adopted the criterion into the Kansas
Surface Water Quality Standards. Nevertheless, the criterion is still applicable to Kansas.
ARAR = Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement
EPA = Environmental Protection Agency
KDHE = Kansas Department of Health and Environment
MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level
RSK = Risk-based Standard for Kansas
TBC = To Be Considered
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table 5
2010 to 2013 Analytical Data Summary
Overburden Monitoring Wells
Sample Location:
MW-9a
MW-9a
MW-9a
MW-9a QC
MW-9a
OW-14
OW-14
OW-14
OW-14
Sample ID:
GW-042810-JH-009
GW-042711-JH-08
GW-042512-JH-006
GW-042512-JH-007
GW-042413-JH-007
GW-042810-JH-010
GW-047810-JH-09
GW-042512-JH-008
GW-042413-JH-008
Sample Date:
4/28/10
4/27/11
4/25/12
4/25/12
4/24/13
4/28/10
4/27/11
4/25/12
4/24/13
Parameter
Units
MCL
Metals
Arsenic
mq/l
10
3.3 J
2.9 U
3.2 U
3.2 U
3.2 U
12.9
11?a* u
8.9 J
16
J
Arsenic (filtered)
mq/l
10
1.2 U
2.9 U
3.2 U
3.2 U
3.2 U
9.0
J
14A J
4.7 J
11
J
Barium
mq/l
2000
527
97.4 J
80 J
72 J
48 J
54.3
J
59.9 J
87 J
86
J
Barium (filtered)
mq/l
2000
140 J
97.4 J
83 J
80 J
46 J
50.2
J
93 J
54 J
62
J
Cadmium
mq/l
5
1.0 J
1.1 J
0.66 U
0.66 U
0.66 U
1.2
J
0.73 J
1.2 J
2.1
J
Cadmium (filtered)
mq/l
5
0.95 J
1.3 J
0.66 U
0.66 U
0.66 U
0.24
U
1.6 J
0.66 U
0.66
U
Chromium
mq/l
100
14.9
0.55 U
2.2 U
2.2 U
2.7 J
0.86
J
0.55 U
2.2 U
4.0
J
Chromium, total (filtered)
mq/l
100
4.0 J
0.55 U
3.9 J
2.5 J
2.9 J
0.44
J
0.55 U
2.2 U
2.3
J
Copper
mq/l
1300"
47.3
5.9 J
4.5 U
4.5 U
9.0 U
2.4
U
1.4 U
4.5 U
9.0
U
Copper (filtered)
mq/l
1300"
7.4 J
3.7 J
4.5 U
4.5 U
9.0 U
0.43
U
2.8 J
4.5 U
9.0
U
Lead
mq/l
15
5.0
1.9 U
1.9 U
1.9 U
1.9 U
0.95
U
2.2 J
1.9 U
1.9
U
Lead (filtered)
mq/l
15
0.95 U
1.9 U
1.9 U
1.9 U
1.9 U
0.95
U
2.2 J
1.9 U
1.9
U
Mercury
pg/L
2
0.022 J
0.11 J
0.12 U
0.12 U
0.12 U
0.016 J
0.082 U
0.12 U
0.12
UJ
Mercury (filtered)
Mg/L
2
0.015 U
0.082 U
0.12 U
0.12 U
0.12 U
0.016 J
0.082 U
0.12 U
0.12
UJ
Nickel
mq/l
-
24 J
8.2 J
4.7 J
5.8 J
7.2 J
6.7 J
5.9 J
3.9 J
15
Nickel (filtered)
mq/l
-
14.1 J
10.5 J
10 J
8.9 J
9.0 J
6.3 J
5.8 J
3.2 U
7.3
Zinc
mq/l
-
35.2
4.8 J
5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
19.7 J
11.5 J
13.0 J
12
U
Zinc (filtered)
mq/l
-
9.6 U
6.6 J
7.5 J
6.7 J
5.0 U
13.0 J
22.0
5.0 U
5.0
U
Volatile oraanic compounds (detected since 1999)
1,1 -Dichloroethane
mq/l
-
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0
U
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0
U
2-Butanone (methyl ethyl ketone)
mq/l
-
10 U
0.74 J
0.68 J
0.57 J
10 U
10
U
10 U
10 U
10
U
Acetone
mq/l
-
1.5 J
10 U
3.9 J
3.7 J
10 U
1.9
J
10 U
10 U
56
J
Carbon disulfide
mq/l
-
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0
U
1.0 U
1.0 U
0.19
J
Chloroethane
mq/l
-
1.0 UJ
1.0 UJ
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0 UJ
1.0
U
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0
U
Toluene
mq/l
1000
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0
U
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0
U
Semivolatile oraanic compounds (detected since 1999)
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
mq/l
6
10* U
10* U
9.5* U
9.5* U
10* U
10*
U
10* U
1.2 J
9.8*
U
Diethyl phthalate
mq/l
-
10 U
10 U
9.5 U
9.5 U
10 U
10
U
10 U
10 U
9.8
U
Di-n-octylphthalate
mq/l
-
10 U
10 U
9.5 U
9.5 U
10 U
10
U
0.91 J
10 U
9.8
U
Naphthalene
mq/l
-
0.46 J
10 U
9.5 U
9.5 U
10 U
10
U
10 U
10 U
9.8
U
Notes:
yellow shading:
J
R
U
UJ
value exceeds MCL
estimated
rejected
not detected at indicated limit. Limits provided are Reporting Limits, not Detection Limits. Values greater than the DL but less than the RL are reported woth a "J";
an RL greater than the MCL is not necessarily evidence of MCL exceedance. However, results should reference the DL, not the RL
not detected, estimated limit
data discrepancy. Analyte detection is questionable. Analyte was not detected in unfiltered sample, but was setected in filtered sample. Unfiltered sample should have higher results.
Metals in groundwater are related to turbidity. Field data sheets with turbidity measurements were not providded in the annual reports.
Value is a reporting level, not a detection level. Results greater than DL but less than RL are reported with a "J" flag. Does not necessarily indicate MCL exceedance.
individual parameter not analyzed or water quality criterion not available
treatment-based action level
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table 6
2010 to 2013 Analytical Data Summary
Plattsburg Formation Monitoring Wells
Doepke-Holliday Site, Fourth Five-Year Review
Sample Location:
MW-5
MW-5
MW-5
MW-5
MW-5
QC
MW-7
MW-7
MW-7
MW-7
Sample ID:
GW-042810-JH-005
GW-042711-JH-04
GW-042412-JH-001
GW-042413-JH-004
GW-042413-JH-005
GW-042810-JH-007
GW-042711-JH-07
GW-042512-JH-009
GW-042413-JH-011
Sample Date:
4/28/10
4/27/11
4/24/12
4/24/13
4/24/13
4/28/10
4/27/11
4/25/12
4/24/13
Parameter
Units
MCL
Metals
Arsenic
mq/l
10
5.4
J
6.8
U
4.4
J
16
16
1.2
U
4.7
U
3.2
U
25
J
Arsenic (filtered)
mq/l
10
7.5
J
7.3 J
3.9
J
19
17
1.2
U
-
-
-
Barium
mq/l
2000
1450
1900 J
2200
1700
1800
1950
5360
2000
15000
Barium (filtered)
mq/l
2000
1650
1760 J
2200
1900
1800
1830
-
-
-
Cadmium
mq/l
5
0.24
U
0.58 J
0.66
U
0.66
U
0.66
U
3.4
0.25
U
0.66
U
3.3
U
Cadmium (filtered)
mq/l
5
0.24
U
0.67 J
0.66
U
0.66
U
0.66
U
0.24
U
-
-
-
Chromium
mq/l
100
1.0
J
0.55
U
2.2
U
2.2
U
2.2
U
0.68
J
0.55
U
2.2
U
11
U
Chromium, total (filtered)
mq/l
100
0.92
J
0.55
U
2.2
U
2.2
U
2.2
U
0.31
U
-
-
-
Copper
mq/l
1300"
1.1
U
1.4
U
4.5
U
4.5
U
4.5
U
4.4
J
4.1
J
4.5
U
23
U
Copper (filtered)
mq/l
1300"
0.98
J
1.4
U
4.5
U
4.5
U
4.5
U
0.45
J
-
-
-
Lead
mq/l
15
0.95
U
1.9
U
1.9
U
1.9
U
1.9
U
1.1
J
4.7
1.9
U
9.5
U
Lead (filtered)
mq/l
15
0.95
U
1.9
U
1.9
U
1.9
U
1.9
U
0.95
U
-
-
-
Mercury
mq/l
2
0.015
U
0.082
U
0.12
U
0.12
UJ
0.12
U
0.015
U
0.082
U
0.12
U
0.12
U
Mercury (filtered)
mq/l
2
0.015
U
0.082
U
0.12
U
0.12
U
0.12
U
0.015
U
-
-
-
Nickel
mq/l
-
1.6
U
1.6
J
3.2
U
3.9
J
4.5
J
1.8
U
2.5
J
3.2
U
10
J
Nickel (filtered)
mq/l
-
1.2
U
1.5
J
3.2
U
5.3
J
4.9
J
2.4
U
-
-
-
Zinc
mq/l
-
8.4
J
2.0
J
13
J
5.0
U
5.0
u
5.5
U
3.3
J
5.0
U
37
U
Zinc (filtered)
mq/l
-
4.0
U
2.9
J
5.0
U
5.0
U
5.0
u
1.5
U
-
-
-
Volatile oraanic compounds (detected since 1999)
1,1-Dichloroethane
mq/l
-
330
U
200
U
1.0
U
130
U
130
u
10
U
6.7
U
7.1
U
4.0
U
1,2-Dichloroethene (total)
mq/l
70M
330-
U
200-
U
0.51
J
130-
U
130-
u
10
U
6.7
U
14
U
4.0
U
1,2-Dichloropropane
mq/l
5
330-
U
200-
U
1.0
U
130-
U
130-
u
10*
U
6.7*
U
7.1*
U
4.0
U
2-Butanone (methyl ethyl ketone)
mq/l
-
3300
U
2000
U
2.8
J
1300
U
1300
u
100
U
67
U
71
U
3.7
J
2-Hexanone
mq/l
-
3300
U
2000
U
10
UJ
1300
U
1300
u
100
U
67
U
71
U
40
U
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)
mq/l
-
3300
U
2000
U
5.8
J
1300
U
1300
u
100
U
67
U
71
U
40
U
Acetone
mq/l
-
3300
U
2000
U
8.9
J
1300
U
1300
u
22
J
67
U
71
UJ
40
U
Benzene
mq/l
5
330-
U
200-
U
1.6
ISO-
U
ISO-
u
200
180
200
61
Carbon disulfide
mq/l
-
330
U
200
U
0.39
J
ISO
U
ISO
u
10
U
6.7
U
7.1
U
4.0
U
Chlorobenzene
mq/l
100
330-
U
200-
U
1.0
u
ISO-
U
130-
u
140
140
110
140
Chloroethane
mq/l
-
330
U
200
U
1.0
UJ
ISO
UJ
130
UJ
10
u
4.7
J
71
UJ
2.4
J
Chloromethane (methyl chloride)
mq/l
-
330
U
200
U
1.0
u
130
U
130
u
10
u
6.7
U
7.1
U
4.0
U
Ethylbenzene
mq/l
700
7800
4200
1500
J
3000
3000
10
u
6.7
U
7.1
u
4.0
U
Methylene chloride
mq/l
5
330-
U
200-
u
1.0
u
170-
U
190-
u
10*
u
6.7*
U
7.1*
u
4.0
U
Tetrachloroethene
mq/l
5
330-
U
200-
u
1.0
u
130-
U
130-
u
10*
u
6.7*
U
7.1*
u
4.0
U
Toluene
mq/l
1000
330
U
200
u
18
33
J
37
J
10
u
6.7
U
7.1
u
4.0
u
Trichloroethene
mq/l
5
330-
U
200-
u
0.27
J
130-
u
130-
u
10*
u
6.7*
U
7.1*
u
4.0
u
Vinyl chloride
mq/l
2
330-
u
200-
u
1.0
u
130-
u
130-
u
10*
u
6.7*
U
7.1*
u
4.0
u
Xylene (total)
mq/l
10000
22000
13000
4800
J
9300
9200
3.6
J
6.7
u
14
u
1.3
J
Semivolatile oraanic compounds (detected since 1999)
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
mq/l
600
67
u
50
u
48
u
43
u
--
1500™
u
2500™
u
12000™
u
12000AA
u
2,4-Dimethylphenol
mq/l
-
38
J
50
u
19
J
28
J
-
1500
u
2500
u
12000
u
12000
u
2-Methylnaphthalene
mq/l
-
3.0
J
2.3
J
1.8
J
1.6
J
-
1500
u
670
J
2-Methylphenol
mq/l
-
67
u
50
u
48
u
43
u
-
1500
u
2500
u
12000
u
12000
u
4-Chloroaniline
mq/l
-
67
u
50
u
48
u
43
u
-
1500
u
2500
u
12000
u
12000
u
3 &4-Methylphenol[3]
mq/l
-
67
u
50
UJ
48
u
4.6
J
-
1500
u
2500
UJ
12000
u
12000
u
Acenaphthene
mq/l
-
67
u
50
u
48
u
43
u
-
830
J
11000
7300
J
6700
J
Page 1 of 2
-------
Table 6
2010 to 2013 Analytical Data Summary
Plattsburg Formation Monitoring Wells
Doepke-Holliday Site, Fourth Five-Year Review
Sample Location:
MW-5
MW-5
MW-5
MW-5
MW-5 QC
MW-7
MW-7
MW-7
MW-7
Sample ID:
GW-042810-JH-005
GW-042711-JH-04
GW-042412-JH-001
GW-042413-JH-004
GW-042413-JH-005
GW-042810-JH-007
GW-042711-JH-07
GW-042512-JH-009
GW-042413-JH-011
Sample Date:
4/28/10
4/27/11
4/24/12
4/24/13
4/24/13
4/28/10
4/27/11
4/25/12
4/24/13
Parameter
Units
MCL
Acenaphthylene
mq/l
-
4.6 J
2.1 J
2.6 J
43 U
-
1500 U
2500 U
12000 U
980 J
Anthracene
mq/l
-
67 U
50 U
48 U
43 U
-
1500 U
2500 U
12000 U
1900 J
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
mq/l
6
67- U
50- U
48- U
43- U
-
1500*A U
2500AA U
12000*A U
12000*A U
Carbazole
mq/l
-
67 U
50 U
48 U
43 U
-
1500 U
2500 U
12000 U
12000 U
Chrysene
mq/l
-
67 U
50 U
48 U
43 U
-
1500 U
2500 U
230 J
12000 U
Dibenzofuran
mq/l
-
67 U
50 U
48 U
43 U
-
1500 U
4500
9300 J
9300 J
Diethyl phthalate
mq/l
-
67 U
50 U
48 U
4.7 J
-
1500 U
2500 U
12000 U
12000 U
Di-n-butylphthalate
mq/l
-
67 U
50 U
48 U
43 U
-
1500 U
2500 U
12000 U
12000 U
Fluoranthene
mq/l
-
67 U
50 U
48 U
43 U
-
1500 U
2500 U
330 J
260 J
Fluorene
mq/l
-
67 U
50 U
48 U
43 U
-
960 J
13000
8300 J
8400 J
Isophorone
mq/l
-
67 U
50 U
48 U
43 U
-
1500 U
2500 U
12000 U
12000 U
Naphthalene
mq/l
-
160
85
47 J
69
-
1500 U
2500 U
12000 U
12000 U
Phenanthrene
mq/l
-
67 U
50 U
48 U
43 U
-
2800
38000
25000
26000
Phenol
mq/l
-
67 U
50 U
48 U
43 U
-
1500 U
2500 U
12000 U
12000 U
Pyrene
mq/l
-
67 U
50 U
48 U
43 U
-
77 J
1200 J
830 J
850 J
Notes:
yellow shading: value exceeds MCL
J estimated
R rejected
U not detected at indicated limit. Limits provided are Reporting Limits, not Detection Limits. Values greater than the DL but less than the RL are reported woth a "J";
However, results should reference the DL, not the RL
U J not detected, estimated limit
NA chemical group not analyzed
~ Reporting level is elevated, possibly due to analysis at dilution. Only analytes that exceeded the linear calibration range should be reported at dilution. Other analytes should be reported at the lowest attainable dilution.
MCL exceedance cannot be evaluated due to elevated reporting limit
AA Sample contained free product. Aqueous portion of sample was analyzed, but samples not representative of groundwater. MCL exceedance cannot be evaluated due to elevated reporting limit.
* Value is a reporting level, not a detection level. Results greater than DL but less than RL are reported with a "J" flag. Does not necessarily indicate MCL exceedance.
- individual parameter not analyzed or water quality criterion not available
** treatment-based action level
[1 ] MCL for total trihalomethanes = 80 |jg/L
[2] MCL for c/s-1,2-DCE is lower than trans-1,2-DCE, and was used
[3] 3-Methylphenol and 4-Methylphenol cannot be differentiated by the analytical method. Commencing in 2012 the laboratory changed its reporting convention from "4-Methylphenol" to "3 & 4-Methylphenol"
Page 2 of 2
-------
Table 7
2010 to 2013 Analytical Data Summary
Farley Member Monitoring Wells
Doepke-Holliday Site, Third Five-Year Review
Sample Location:
OPL-2
OPL-2 QC
OPL-2
OPL-2
QC
OPL-2
OPL-2
OPL-5
OPL-5
OPL-5
Sample ID:
GW-042810-JH-002
GW-042810-JH-003
GW-042611-JH-01
GW-042611-JH-02
GW-042412-JH-005
GW-042313-JH-002
GW-042810-JH-001
GW-042611-JH-03
GW-042412-JH-004
Sample Date:
4/27/10
4/27/10
4/26/11
4/26/11
4/24/12
4/23/13
4/27/10
4/26/11
4/24/12
Parameter
Units
MCL
Metals
Arsenic
mq/l
10
2.1 J
3.3 J
3.5
U
4.3
U
3.4 J
6.1
J
5.9 J
4.3 U
4.8
J
Arsenic (filtered)
mq/l
10
1.8 J
2.4 J
4.8
J
4.4
J
3.2 U
4.1
J
2.8 J
2.9 U
3.2
U
Barium
mq/l
2000
97.2 J
116 J
81.7
J
82.6
J
90 J
95
J
116 J
102 J
160
J
Barium (filtered)
mq/l
2000
72.2 J
71.7 J
66.8
J
67.6
J
69 J
63
J
65.8 J
73.1 J
75
J
Cadmium
mq/l
5
2.4 U
2.4 U
0.35
J
0.29
J
0.66 U
0.66
U
2.4 U
0.51 J
0.66
U
Cadmium (filtered)
mq/l
5
2.4 U
2.4 U
0.25
U
0.50
J
0.66 U
0.66
U
2.4 U
0.30 J
0.66
U
Chromium
mq/l
100
1.1 J
0.90 J
0.55
U
0.55
u
2.2 U
2.2
U
4.5 J
0.97 J
5.9
J
Chromium, total (filtered)
mq/l
100
0.47 J
0.71 J
0.55
U
0.55
u
2.2 U
2.2
U
0.31 U
0.55 U
2.2
U
Copper
mq/l
1300**
3.0 J
3.8 J
2.6
J
1.9
J
4.5 U
6.9
J
19.5 J
6.3 J
12
J
Copper (filtered)
mq/l
1300**
1.1 J
1.0 J
1.4
U
1.4
u
4.5 U
4.5
U
5.4 J
1.7 J
4.5
U
Lead
mq/l
15
0.95 U
0.95 U
3.4
2.9
J
1.9 U
1.9
U
3.0 J
4.8
5.2
J
Lead (filtered)
mq/l
15
0.95 U
0.95 U
1.9
U
1.9
u
1.9 U
1.9
U
0.95 U
2.0 J
1.9
U
Mercury
mq/l
2
0.015 U
0.015 U
0.082
U
0.082
u
0.12 U
0.12
U
0.051
0.082 U
0.12
U
Mercury (filtered)
mq/l
2
0.015 U
0.015 U
-
-
-
0.12
U
0.015 U
-
-
Nickel
mq/l
-
7.0 J
7.2 J
6.2
J
5.8
J
7.3 J
7.2
J
8.4 J
5.8 J
7.5
J
Nickel (filtered)
mq/l
-
6.6 J
6.5 J
4.7
J
4.9
J
7.0 J
5.3
J
3.7 U
4.2 J
3.2
U
Zinc
mq/l
-
13.8 J
15.1 J
5.3
J
5.7
J
6.4 J
11
U
16.6 J
5.7 J
19
J
Zinc (filtered)
mq/l
-
3.4 U
14 U
2.7
J
2.8
J
5.0 U
5.0
U
4.5 U
4.0 J
5.0
U
Volatile oraanic compounds (detected since 1999)
1,1-Dichloroethane
mq/l
-
0.83 J
0.83 J
0.78
J
0.72
J
0.68 J
0.84
J
1.0 U
0.22 J
0.39
J
1,1-Dichloroethene
mq/l
7
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0
U
1.0
u
1.0 U
1.0
U
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0
U
1,2-Dichloroethane
mq/l
5
3.9
4.0
9.5
9.4
3.8
13
1.8
2.5
17
1,2-Dichloroethene (total)
mq/l
70M
2.0
2.1
2.1
2.0
1.7 J
1.5
0.35 J
0.51 J
2.3
2-Butanone (methyl ethyl ketone)
mq/l
-
10 U
10 U
10
U
10
u
10 U
10
U
10 U
10 U
10
U
Acetone
mq/l
-
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0
U
1.0
u
1.0 U
1.0
U
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0
U
Benzene
mq/l
5
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0
U
1.0
u
1.0 U
1.0
U
1.0 U
1.0 U
4.0
J
Bromodichloromethane
mq/l
[1]
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0
U
1.0
u
1.0 U
1.0
U
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0
U
Carbon disulfide
mq/l
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0
U
1.0
u
1.0 U
1.7
J
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0
U
Chlorobenzene
mq/l
100
0.43 J
0.41 J
0.40
J
0.38
J
0.33 J
0.28
J
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0
U
Chloroethane
mq/l
-
1.0 UJ
1.0 UJ
1.0
U
1.0
u
1.0 U
1.0
UJ
1.0 UJ
1.0 U
1.0
U
Chloroform (trichloromethane)
mq/l
[1]
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0
U
1.0
u
1.0 U
1.0
u
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0
U
Chloromethane (methyl chloride)
mq/l
-
1.0 UJ
1.0 UJ
1.0
U
1.0
u
1.0 U
1.0
u
1.0 UJ
1.0 U
1.0
U
Dibromochloromethane
mq/l
[1]
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0
U
1.0
u
1.0 U
1.0
u
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0
U
Methylene chloride
mq/l
5
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0
u
1.0
u
1.0 U
1.0
u
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0
U
Tetrachloroethene
mq/l
5
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0
u
1.0
u
1.0 U
0.44
J
1.0 u
0.48 J
1.6
Toluene
mq/l
1000
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0
u
1.0
u
1.0 U
1.0
u
1.0 u
1.0 U
1.0
u
Trichloroethene
mq/l
5
0.57 J
0.61 J
0.91
J
0.94
J
0.57 J
1.9
0.30 J
0.50 J
3.3
Vinyl chloride
mq/l
2
0.94 J
0.92 J
0.77
J
0.81
J
0.44 J
0.85
J
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.2
xylene (total)
mq/l
10000
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0
u
1.0
u
1.0 U
2.0
u
1.0 u
1.0 U
2.0
u
Page 1 of 4
-------
Table 7
2010 to 2013 Analytical Data Summary
Farley Member Monitoring Wells
Doepke-Holliday Site, Third Five-Year Review
Sample Location:
OPL-2
OPL-2 QC
OPL-2
OPL-2 QC
OPL-2
OPL-2
OPL-5
OPL-5
OPL-5
Sample ID:
GW-042810-JH-002
GW-042810-JH-003
GW-042611-JH-01
GW-042611-JH-02
GW-042412-JH-005
GW-042313-JH-002
GW-042810-JH-001
GW-042611-JH-03
GW-042412-JH-004
Sample Date:
4/27/10
4/27/10
4/26/11
4/26/11
4/24/12
4/23/13
4/27/10
4/26/11
4/24/12
Parameter
Units
MCL
Semivolatile oraanic compounds (detected since 1999)
Diethyl phthalate
mq/l
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
mq/l
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Phenol
mq/l
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
yellow shading: value exceeds MCL
J estimated
R rejected
U not detected at indicated limit. Limits provided are Reporting Limits, not Detection Limits. Values greater than the DL but less than the RL are reported woth a "J";
However, results should reference the DL, not the RL
U J not detected, estimated limit
- individual parameter not analyzed or water quality criterion not available
** treatment-based action level
[1] MCL for total trihalomethanes = 80 |jg/L
[2] MCL for c/'s-1,2-DCE is lower than trans-1,2-DCE, and was used
Page 2 of 4
-------
Table 7
2010 to 2013 Analytical Data Summary
Farley Member Monitoring Wells
Doepke-Holliday Site, Third Five-Year Review
Sample Location:
OPL-5
OW-10aR
OW-10aR
OW-10aR
OW-10aR
OW-11a
OW-11a
OW-11a
OW-11a
Sample ID:
GW-042313-JH-001
GW-042810-JH-004
GW-042711-JH-06
GW-042412-JH-003
GW-042313-JH-003
GW-042810-JH-006
GW-042711-JH-05
GW-042412-JH-002
GW-042413-JH-006
Sample Date:
4/23/13
4/28/10
4/27/11
4/24/12
4/23/13
4/28/10
4/27/11
4/24/12
4/24/13
Parameter
Units
Metals
Arsenic
mq/l
7.0
J
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Arsenic (filtered)
mq/l
3.2
U
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Barium
mq/l
140
J
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Barium (filtered)
mq/l
66
J
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Cadmium
mq/l
0.66
U
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Cadmium (filtered)
mq/l
0.66
U
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Chromium
mq/l
8.3
J
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Chromium, total (filtered)
mq/l
2.2
U
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Copper
mq/l
20.0
J
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Copper (filtered)
mq/l
4.5
U
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Lead
mq/l
8.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Lead (filtered)
mq/l
1.9
U
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Mercury
mq/l
0.19
J
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Mercury (filtered)
mq/l
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Nickel
mq/l
12.0
J
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Nickel (filtered)
mq/l
6.0
J
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Zinc
mq/l
48
U
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Zinc (filtered)
mq/l
5.0
U
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Volatile oraanic compounds (detected sii
1,1-Dichloroethane
mq/l
1.0
U
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 U
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 U
1,1-Dichloroethene
mq/l
1.0
U
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1,2-Dichloroethane
mq/l
9.2
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1,2-Dichloroethene (total)
mq/l
0.49
J
1.0 u
1.0 u
2.0 U
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
2.0 U
1.0 u
2-Butanone (methyl ethyl ketone)
mq/l
10
U
10 u
10 u
10 U
10 u
10 u
9.0 J
10 U
10 u
Acetone
mq/l
1.0
U
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.5 J
1.0 u
Benzene
mq/l
1.0
U
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 U
1.0 u
Bromodichloromethane
mq/l
1.0
U
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 U
1.0 u
Carbon disulfide
mq/l
1.0
U
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 U
1.0 u
Chlorobenzene
mq/l
1.0
U
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 U
1.0 u
Chloroethane
mq/l
1.0
UJ
1.0 UJ
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 UJ
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 UJ
1.0 UJ
Chloroform (trichloromethane)
mq/l
1.0
u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
Chloromethane (methyl chloride)
mq/l
1.0
u
1.0 UJ
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
Dibromochloromethane
mq/l
1.0
u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
Methylene chloride
mq/l
1.0
u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
Tetrachloroethene
mq/l
0.66
J
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
Toluene
mq/l
1.0
u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
Trichloroethene
mq/l
0.73
J
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
Vinyl chloride
mq/l
1.0
u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0 u
xylene (total)
mq/l
2.0
u
1.0 u
1.0 u
2.0 U
2.0 U
1.0 u
1.0 u
2.0 U
2.0 U
Page 3 of 4
-------
Table 7
2010 to 2013 Analytical Data Summary
Farley Member Monitoring Wells
Doepke-Holliday Site, Third Five-Year Review
Sample Location:
OPL-5
OW-10aR
OW-10aR
OW-10aR
OW-10aR
OW-11a
OW-11a
OW-11a
OW-11a
Sample ID:
GW-042313-JH-001
GW-042810-JH-004
GW-042711-JH-06
GW-042412-JH-003
GW-042313-JH-003
GW-042810-JH-006
GW-042711-JH-05
GW-042412-JH-002
GW-042413-JH-006
Sample Date:
4/23/13
4/28/10
4/27/11
4/24/12
4/23/13
4/28/10
4/27/11
4/24/12
4/24/13
Parameter
Units
Semivolatile oraanic compounds (detect*
Diethyl phthalate
mq/l
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
mq/l
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Phenol
mq/l
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
yellow shading: value exceeds MCL
J estimated
R rejected
U not detected at indicated limit. Limits provided are Reporting Limits, not Detection Limits. Values greater than the DL but less than the RL are reported woth a "J";
However, results should reference the DL, not the RL
U J not detected, estimated limit
- individual parameter not analyzed or water quality criterion not available
** treatment-based action level
[1] MCL for total trihalomethanes = 80 |jg/L
[2] MCLforc/s-1,2-DCE is lower than trans-1,2-DCE, and was used
Page 4 of 4
-------
Table 8
2010 to 2013 Analytical Data Summary
Groundwater Seeps
Sample Location:
Seep 1
Seep 1
QC
Seep 1
Seep 1
QC
Seep 1
Seep 1
QC
Seep 2
Seep 2
Sample ID:
GW-042810-JH-011
GW-042810-JH-012
GW-042711-JH-11
GW-042711-JH-12
GW-042413-JH-009
GW-042413-JH-010
GW-042810-JH-013
GW-042711-JH-13
Sample Date:
4/28/10
4/28/10
4/27/11
4/27/11
4/24/13
4/24/13
4/28/10
4/27/11
EPA freshwater
Kansas SWQC
Parameter
Units
acute
chronic
acute
chronic
Metals
Arsenic
mq/l
340
150
340
150
1.2
U
1.2
U
2.9
U
2.9
U
3.2
U
3.2
U
1.2 U
2.9
U
Barium
mq/l
-
-
-
-
29.2
J
29.4
J
29.3
J
29.2
J
33
J
32
84.9 J
58.2
J
Cadmium
mq/l
2
0.25
19.4
1.4
1.4
J
1.4
J
2.3
J
2.4
J
3.0
J
3.1
J
0.24 U
0.25
J
Chromium
mq/l
-
-
-
40
0.31
U
0.31
U
0.55
U
0.55
U
2.2
U
2.2
U
3.5 J
0.55
U
Copper
mq/l
**
**
108.2
59.6
3.4
J
3.7
J
4.0
J
3.6
J
4.5
U
4.5
U
4.6 J
1.4
U
Lead
mq/l
65
2.5
1293.4
50.4
0.95
U
0.95
U
1.9
U
1.9
U
1.9
U
1.9
U
0.95 U
2.8
J
Mercury
mq/l
1.4
0.77
1.4
0.77
0.015
U
0.015
U
0.095
J
0.082
U
0.12
U
0.12
U
0.015 U
0.082
U
Nickel
mq/l
470
52
2942.3
327.1
8.3
J
8.4
J
8.0
J
7.7
J
10
J
11
J
5.6 J
1.5
J
Zinc
mq/l
120
120
753.5
753.5
39.2
40
44.6
45.6
48
U
45
U
12.2
1.5
J
Volatile oraanic compounds (detected since 1999)
1,1 -Dichloroethane
mq/l
-
-
-
-
1.0
U
1.0
U
1.0
U
1.0
U
1.0
U
1.0
U
1.0 U
1.0
U
1,1 -Dichloroethene
mq/l
-
-
11,600
-
1.0
U
1.0
U
1.0
U
1.0
U
1.0
U
1.0
U
1.0 U
1.0
U
1,2-Dichloroethane
mq/l
-
-
18,000
2,000
1.0
U
1.0
U
1.0
U
1.0
U
1.0
U
1.0
U
1.0 U
1.0
U
1,2-Dichloroethene (total)^
mq/l
-
-
11,600
-
1.0
U
1.0
U
1.0
U
1.0
U
1.0
U
1.0
U
1.0 U
1.0
U
2-Butanone (methyl ethyl ketone)
mq/l
-
-
-
-
10
U
10
U
10
U
10
U
10
U
10
U
10 U
0.61
J
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK
mq/l
-
-
-
-
10
U
10
U
10
U
10
U
10
U
10
U
10 U
10
U
Benzene
mq/l
-
-
5,300
-
1.0
U
1.0
U
1.0
U
1.0
U
1.0
U
1.0
U
1.0 U
1.0
u
Carbon disulfide
mq/l
-
-
-
-
1.0
U
1.0
U
1.0
U
1.0
U
1.0
U
1.0
U
1.0 U
1.0
u
Chlorobenzene
mq/l
-
-
250
50
1.0
U
1.0
U
1.0
U
1.0
U
1.0
U
1.0
U
1.0 U
1.0
u
Chloroethane
mq/l
-
-
-
-
1.0
UJ
1.0
UJ
1.0
U
1.0
U
1.0
U
1.0
UJ
1.0 UJ
1.0
u
Methylene chloride
mq/l
-
-
11,000
-
1.0
U
1.0
U
1.0
u
1.0
U
1.0
U
1.0
U
1.0 U
1.0
u
Trichloroethene
mq/l
-
-
45,000
21,900
1.0
U
1.0
u
1.0
u
1.0
u
1.0
u
1.0
U
1.0 U
1.0
u
Vinyl chloride
mq/l
-
-
-
-
1.0
U
1.0
u
1.0
u
1.0
u
1.0
u
1.0
u
1.0 u
1.0
u
Semivolatile oraanic compounds
detected since 1999
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
mq/l
-
-
400
360
0.89
J
10
u
10
u
10
u
9.8
u
9.6
u
-
-
Total suspended solids (TSS)
mg/L
-
-
-
-
21
J
13
J
4.0
u
4.0
u
4.0
4.0
u
49
5.0
Notes
yellow shading
J
R
U
UJ
exceeds criteria
estimated
rejected
not detected at indicated limit
not detected, estimated limit
QC quality control replicate sample
Value is a reporting level, not a detection level. Results greater than DL but less than RL are reported with a "J" flag. Does not necessarily indicate criteria exceedance.
criterion not available or parameter not analyzed
Kansas SWQC is for c/'s -1,2-DCE + trans -1,2-DCE
Page 1 of 2
-------
Table 8
2010 to 2013 Analytical Data Summary
Groundwater Seeps
Sample Location:
Seep 2
Seep 9
Seep 9
Seep 9
Sample ID:
GW-042413-JH-013
GW-042810-JH-014
GW-042711-JH-10
GW-042413-JH-012
Sample Date:
4/24/13
4/28/10
4/27/11
4/24/13
EPA freshwater
Kansas SWQC
Parameter
Units
acute
chronic
acute
chronic
Metals
Arsenic
mq/l
340
150
340
150
3.2 U
1.2 U
2.9
U
3.5 J
Barium
mq/l
-
-
-
-
66 J
43.7 J
42.8
J
35 J
Cadmium
mq/l
2
0.25
19.4
1.4
0.66* U
1.0 J
1.9
J
1.4 J
Chromium
mq/l
-
-
-
40
2.4 J
4.0 J
1.1
J
2.2 J
Copper
mq/l
**
**
108.2
59.6
4.5 U
2.9 J
2.4
4.5 U
Lead
mq/l
65
2.5
1293.4
50.4
1.9 U
0.95 U
3.1
1.9 U
Mercury
mq/l
1.4
0.77
1.4
0.77
0.12 U
0.023 J
0.082
U
0.12 U
Nickel
mq/l
470
52
2942.3
327.1
CO
7.6 J
7.5
J
CO
Zinc
mq/l
120
120
753.5
753.5
19 U
23.1
29.4
20 U
Volatile oraanic compounds (detected since 1999)
1,1 -Dichioroethane
mq/l
-
-
-
-
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0
U
1.0 U
1,1 -Dichioroethene
mq/l
-
-
11,600
-
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0
U
1.0 U
1,2-Dichloroethane
mq/l
-
-
18,000
2,000
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0
U
1.0 u
1,2-Dichloroethene (total)^
mq/l
-
-
11,600
-
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0
U
1.0 u
2-Butanone (methyl ethyl ketone)
mq/l
-
-
-
-
10 u
10 U
10
U
10 u
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK
mq/l
-
-
-
-
10 u
10 U
10
U
10 u
Benzene
mq/l
-
-
5,300
-
1.0 u
1.0 U
1.0
U
1.0 u
Carbon disulfide
mq/l
-
-
-
-
1.0 u
1.0 U
1.0
u
1.0 u
Chlorobenzene
mq/l
-
-
250
50
1.0 u
1.0 U
1.0
u
1.0 u
Chloroethane
mq/l
-
-
-
-
1.0 UJ
1.0 UJ
1.0
u
1.0 UJ
Methylene chloride
mq/l
-
-
11,000
-
1.0 u
1.0 U
1.0
u
1.0 u
Trichloroethene
mq/l
-
-
45,000
21,900
1.0 u
1.0 U
1.0
u
1.0 u
Vinyl chloride
mq/l
-
-
-
-
1.0 u
1.0 u
1.0
u
1.0 u
Semivolatile oraanic compounds
detected since 1999
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
mq/l
-
-
400
360
-
-
-
-
Total suspended solids (TSS)
mg/L
-
-
-
-
35
26
4.0
21
Page 2 of 2
-------
Table 9
Summary of Landfill Inspections Since Third Five-Year Review
Doepke-Holliday Site, Fourth Five-Year Review
Dale of
Inspect ion
Inspection
Nil in her
Finding
Action
Minor erosion South of access road
Added stone
4/27/2010
39
Areas of stressed/bare vegetation
noted
Raked and reseeded
Bushes in riprap swale
Bushes removed
9/21/2010
40
None
4/26/2011
41
Abandonment of MW-8 with
prior EPA approval noted for
construction of container storage
area
None
9/30/2011
42
Third Five-Year Review noted
concern of vegetation in
perimeter toe of cap.
Herbicide application
planned for summer
2012.
4/24/2012
43
None
9/25/2012
44
Recommended repainting at
wells
None
4/23/2013
45
Recommended repainting at
wells
Repainted at gas vents
and wells
9/26/2013
46
Third Five-Year Review noted
concern of vegetation in
perimeter toe of cap.
Limited herbicide
application conducted
9/6/13
4/23/2014
47
Inspection noted previous
limited herbicide application
was generally effective.
None
9/23/2014
48
None
Tree saplings in crushed stone at
perimeter
Saplings removed
4/1/2015
49
Sediment at a road barrier was
diverting surface water runoff
from the road around a riprap
apron
The sediment was
raked and re-worked
to direct runoff across
the riprap apron.
Sediment originating on the
paved access road has migrated
into the roadside riprap swale.
This may impede surface water
flow in the riprap swale.
Being evaluated
-------
Table 10 Changes in Standard Default Exposure Factors
Exposure Factor
Old Value
New Value*
Units
Definition
IRc
1
0.78
L/day
Daily water ingestion rate, child
IRa
2
2.5
L/day
Daily water ingestion rate, adult
SAC
6600
6378
2
cm
Exposed skin area for showering, child
SAa
18000
20900
2
cm
Exposed skin area for showering, adult
ETC
1
0.54
hr
Showering exposure time, child
ETa
0.58
0.71
hr
Showering exposure time, adult
EF
350
350
days/yr
Exposure frequency
EDC
6
6
yr
Exposure duration, child
EDa
24
20
yr
Exposure duration, adult
BWC
15
15
kg
Bodyweight, child
BWa
70
80
kg
Bodyweight, adult
* = per OSWER Directive 9200.1-120, Feb. 2014
L/day = liters per day
cm2= square centimeter
hr = hour
days/yr = days per year
yr = year
kg = kilogram
-------
Table 11 Changes in Oral Non-Cancer Total Intake Factors
TIF = IR*EF*ED/(BW*ATnc)
Exposure Factor
Old Value
New Value* Units % Change
Definition
Child
IRc
1
0.78
L/day
-22
Daily water ingestion rate, child
EF
350
350
days/yr
Exposure frequency
o
Q
LU
6
6
yr
Exposure duration, child
BWC
15
15
kg
Bodyweight, child
AT
^ 1 c-nc
2190
2190
days
Averaging time, 365 days/yr*EDc
TIF c_nc
6.39E-02
4.99E-02
-22
total intake factor, child
Adult
IRa
2
2.5
L/day
Daily water ingestion rate, adult
EF
350
350
days/yr
Exposure frequency
EDa
24
20
yr
Exposure duration, adult
BWa
70
80
kg
Bodyweight, adult
AT
" 1 a-nc
8760
7300
days
Averaging time, 365 days/yr*EDa
TIF a_nc
2.74E-02
3.00E-02
9.4
total intake factor, adult
*= perOSWER Directive 9200.1-120, Feb. 2014
L/day = liters per day yr = year
days/yr = days per year kg = kilogram
-------
Table 12 Changes in Dermal Non-Cancer Total Intake Factors
TIFnc = SA*ET*EF*ED/(BW*ATnc)
Exposure Factor Old Value New Value*
Units % Change Definition
Child
SAC
6600
6378
cm2
-3.4
Exposed surface area, child
o
I—
LU
1
0.54
hr
-46.0
Exposure time in shower, child
EF
350
350
days/yr
Exposure frequency
m
D
o
6
6
yr
Exposure duration, child
BWC
15
15
kg
Bodyweight, child
AT
^ 1 c-nc
2190
2190
days
Averaging time, 365 days/yr*EDc
TIF c_nc
4.22E+02
2.20E+02
-47.8
total intake factor, child
Adult
SAa
18000
20900
cm2
16.1
Exposed surface area,adult
CO
1—
LU
0.58
0.71
hr
22.4
Exposure time in shower, adult
EF
350
350
days/yr
Exposure frequency
CO
Q
LU
24
20
yr
-16.7
Exposure duration, adult
BWa
70
80
kg
14.3
Bodyweight, adult
AT
^ 1 a-nc
8760
7300
days
-16.7
Averaging time, 365 days/yr*EDc
TIF a_nc
1.43E+02
1.78E+02
24.4
total intake factor, adult
* = per OSWER Directive 9200.1-120, Feb. 2014
cm2 = square centimeter yr = year
hr=hour kg = kilogram
days/yr = days per year
-------
Table 13 Changes in Oral Cancer Total Intake Factors
TIFc/a.c = (IRC*EDC/BWC+ IRa*EDa/BWa)*EF/ATc/a.c
Exposure Factor
Old Value
New Value*
Units
% Change
Definition
IRc
1
0.78
L/day
-22
Daily water ingestion rate, child
EDC
6
6
yr
Exposure duration, child
BWC
15
15
kg
Bodyweight, child
lRa
2
2.5
L/day
25
Daily water ingestion rate, adult
EDa
24
20
yr
-16.7
Exposure duration, adult
BWa
70
80
kg
14.3
Bodyweight, adult
EF
350
350
days/yr
Exposure frequency
ATc/a.c
25550
25550
days
Averaging time, 365 days/yr*LT
TIF c/a.c
1.49E-02
1.28E-02
-13.7
total intake factor
* = per OSWER Directive 9200.1-120, Feb. 2014
L/day = liters per day
yr = year
kg = kilogram
days/yr = days per year
LT = lifetime = 70 yr
-------
Table 14 Changes in Dermal Cancer Total Intake Factors
TIFc/a_c = (SAC*ETC*EDC/BWC+ SAa*ET a*EDa/B Wa)*EF/AT c/a_c
Exposure Factor
Old Value
New Value*
Units
% Change
Definition
SAC
6600
6378
2
cm
-3.4
Exposed surface area, child
ETC
1
0.54
hr
-46.0
Exposure time in shower, child
EDC
6
6
yr
Exposure duration, child
BWC
15
15
kg
Bodyweight, child
SAa
18000
20900
cm2
16.1
Exposed surface area, adult
ETa
0.58
0.71
hr
22.4
Exposure time in shower, adult
EDa
24
20
yr
-16.7
Exposure duration, adult
BWa
70
80
kg
14.3
Bodyweight, adult
EF
350
350
days/yr
Exposure frequency
ATc/a.c
25550
25550
days
Averaging time, 365 days/yr*LT
TIF c/a.c
8.52E+01
6.97E+01
-18.2
total intake factor
*= perOSWER Directive 9200.1-120, Feb. 2014
cm2 = square centimeter kg = kilogram
hr=hour days/yr = days per year
yr = year LT = lifetime = 70 yr
-------
Page 1 of 3
TABLE 15
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS
OCTOBER 1991 THROUGH APRIL 2015
DOEPKE-HOLLIDAY SUPERFUND SITE
JOHNSON COUNTY, KANSAS
Well ID
Oct-91
Jan-92
Aug-92
Dec-92
Mar-93
Jun-93
Sep-93
Dec-93
Mar-94
Jun-94
Sep-94
Dec-94
Mar-95
Jul-95
Sep-95
Overburden Unit
MW-9/9a
817.84
815.93
816.47
814.87
815.22
814.54
816.08
815.43
815.51
815.77
815.77
814.90
815.75
815.12
817.43
OW-13
868.41
868.81
868.92
869.89
869.89
869.91
870.70
869.89
869.85
869.74
869.74
868.32
868.72
869.63
868.90
OW-14
788.35
788.87
788.63
789.61
789.26
788.54
788.91
788.89
788.71
788.55
788.55
788.58
788.64
788.03
789.16
Plattsburg Formation
MW-5
944.34
946.97
946.42
952.03
949.43
951.81
953.87
949.19
948.96
946.14
944.61
945.27
948.37
947.66
945.25
MW-6
940.13
941.13
939.69
944.85
944.06
945.39
946.52
942.99
942.87
941.46
940.40
940.92
941.15
941.78
940.45
MW-7
932.92
933.46
933.48
934.67
935.95
936.84
935.54
934.66
934.75
934.18
933.06
939.70 (FP)
933.25 (FP)
933.98 (FP)
935.37 (FP)
PZ-1
-
940.31
940.30
945.24
944.03
945.92
949.32
943.44
942.81
941.03
941.80
942.43
942.01
941.34
941.37
PZ-2
-
939.37
936.99
940.92
940.88
941.64
942.13
940.82
940.67
938.92
938.20
939.41
939.61
938.73
938.58
Farley Member
OW-lOa/OW-lOaR
890.00
890.57
894.56
890.55
891.36
892.57
891.77
891.69
891.41
891.84
890.96
890.57
891.26
891.05
891.61
OW-lla
888.20
888.20
892.43
888.29
888.93
889.11
889.56
889.42
889.41
889.74
888.99
888.48
889.03
888.81
888.57
OPL-2
-
-
-
-
-
-
912.74
911.84
911.98
910.33
908.35
908.74
909.61
908.87
908.94
OPL-5
—
—
—
—
—
—
912.85
911.99
912.14
910.42
908.42
908.83
909.69
908.98
908.97
Dec-95
817.28
867.62
788.66
944.02
939.97
933.64 (FP)
940.05
938.20
891.39
889.03
908.01
907.96
Notes:
1 Groundwater elevations are listed in feet above mean sea level (ft AMSL).
2 (FP) - Indicates that free product was found in the well. The elevation identified is the top of surface of liquid.
3 (WB) - Indicates that no water was present in the well. The elevation identified is for the well bottom.
4 Monitoring well OW-lOaR was installed in June 2007, as a replacement for well OW-lOa abandoned in September 2006.
5 The April 2007 groundwater elevation in monitoring well OW-lOaR was measured on July 1, 2007.
6 Groundwater elevations at wells MW-7 and OW-lla from March 1996 through April 2006 were revised in 2007
based on re-surveyed top of casing elevations at wells MW-7 and OW-lla concurrent with survey of new well OW-lOaR on August 20, 2007.
CRA 003796(55)
-------
Page 2 of 3
TABLE 15
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS
OCTOBER 1991 THROUGH APRIL 2015
DOEPKE-HOLLIDAY SUPERFUND SITE
JOHNSON COUNTY, KANSAS
Well ID
Overburden Unit
MW-9/9a
OW-13
OW-14
Plattsburg Formation
Mar-96
817.13
868.12
788.60
Jun-96
817.15
869.13
788.98
Sep-96
817.19
868.64
789.12
Dec-96
817.35
868.83
788.73
Mar-97
817.15
868.76
789.00
Jun-97
817.15
868.96
789.12
Sep-97
817.21
868.46
788.68
Dec-97
817.36
868.98
788.68
Mar-98
817.4
869.56
789.04
Jun-98
817.33
869.5
789.04
Sep-98
817.47
869.59
789.14
Apr-99
817.22
869.75
790.65
Oct-99
817.3
868.58
788.79
Apr-00
817.15
Sep-00
817.34
867.54 (WB) 867.54 (WB)
788.29 789.99
MW-5
943.63
949.28
947.39
947.80
948.19
947.41
944.16
949.03
950.7
947.41
948.45
950.3
944.43
945.07
943.56
MW-6
939.34
941.73
940.32
941.54
941.90
940.51
939.20
940.44
942.58
941.02
942.12
943.13
939.81
940.12
939.84
MW-7
936.87 (FP)
940.27 (FP)
938.66 (FP)
933.05 (FP)
933.46
933.36
933.03 (FP)
933.33
935.47
931.34 (WB)
933.22
934.19
932.25
932.60
932.73
PZ-1
940.05
946.45
941.54
943.48
943.87
942.58
940.44
942.69
946.22
944.51
945.24
948.74
940.36
940.93
940.02
PZ-2
937.69
940.97
938.32
940.28
940.50
939.04
937.44
938.22
940.86
939.37
939.93
942.34
937.91
938.55
937.54
ley Member
OW-lOa/OW-lOaR
891.72
891.17
891.93
891.72
891.58
891.44
891.90
891.32
891.84
891.67
891.98
894.53
893.75
893.14
892.68
OW-lla
890.69
889.04
889.46
889.56
889.35
889.13
890.07
889.05
889.07
889.19
889.02
894.75
896.1
893.99
892.11
OPL-2
907.36
910.39
909.20
911.55
911.64
909.89
907.55
907.83
910.76
909.67
910.38
912.62
907.78
908.99
907.34
OPL-5
907.31
909.58
909.27
911.62
911.74
909.97
907.52
907.83
910.78
909.66
910.35
912.66
907.72
905.20
907.21
Notes:
1 Groundwater elevations are listed in feet above mean sea level (ft AMSL).
2 (FP) - Indicates that free product was found in the well. The elevation identified is the top of surface of liquid.
3 (WB) - Indicates that no water was present in the well. The elevation identified is for the well bottom.
4 Monitoring well OW-lOaR was installed in June 2007, as a replacement for well OW-lOa abandoned in September 2006.
5 The April 2007 groundwater elevation in monitoring well OW-lOaR was measured on July 1, 2007.
6 Groundwater elevations at wells MW-7 and OW-lla from March 1996 through April 2006 were revised in 2007
based on re-surveyed top of casing elevations at wells MW-7 and OW-lla concurrent with survey of new well OW-lOaR on August 20, 2007.
CRA 003796(55)
-------
Page 3 of 3
TABLE 15
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS
OCTOBER 1991 THROUGH APRIL 2015
DOEPKE-HOLLIDAY SUPERFUND SITE
JOHNSON COUNTY, KANSAS
Well ID Apr-01 Sep-01 May-02 April-03 April-04 April-05 May-06 April-07 April-08 April-09 April-10 April-11 April-12 April-13 April-14
Overburden Unit
MW-9/9a 817.17 817.07 817.18 817.18 817.20 817.23 816.75 817.32 817.16 817.16 817.31 817.25 817.31 817.39 817.33
OW-13 867.54 (WB) 867.54 (WB) 867.54 (WB) 867.54 (WB) 867.54 (WB) 867.54 (WB) 867.65 (WB) 867.65 (WB) Abandoned Abandoned Abandoned Abandoned Abandoned Abandoned Abandoned
OW-14 792.25 792.15 789.67 789.06 789.73 788.08 788.74 789.56 789.20 789.29 789.16 788.22 787.46 788.71 788.01
Plattsburg Formation
MW-5
948.99
947.82
949.53
944.64
946.76
945.90
946.03
947.69
949.79
950.63
950.9
947.03
945.03
948.51
946.73
MW-6
942.98
940.43
941.17
938.56
941.63
941.05
940.82
941.78
942.45
942.62
942.26
940.95
940.62
940.49
939.46
MW-7
934.11
933.38
933.33
932.63
932.32 (FP)
933.09 (FP)
933.65 (FP)
934.02 (FP)
934.19 (FP)
934.53 (FP)
934.62 (FP)
932.57 (FP)
933.54 (FP)
933.25 (FP)
932.93 (FP)
PZ-1
946.32
942.51
947.38
942.39
941.83
941.63
941.44
943.76
946.91
950.69
947.82
943.50
940.77
943.51
941.68
PZ-2
940.89
938.27
940.97
937.51
938.74
938.72
938.04
939.15
940.75
943.05
940.97
939.21
937.84
938.77
937.72
ley Member
OW-lOa/OW-lOaR
893.26
892.59
893.97
903.29
917.10
927.74
932.48
890.23
890.06
889.95
889.95
889.93
889.88
889.76
889.69
OW-lla
893.62
891.41
891.74
893.33
892.89
892.92
891.08
890.91
891.88
892.04
892.25
891.95
890.91
890.36
890.40
OPL-2
911.96
908.29
910.59
906.67
908.62
908.52
908.27
910.30
911.33
912.16
911.56
908.59
908.54
908.53
907.51
OPL-5
911.98
908.25
910.59
906.69
908.58
908.54
908.19
910.33
911.31
912.16
911.58
908.74
908.42
908.47
907.45
Notes:
1 Groundwater elevations are listed in feet above mean sea level (ft AMSL).
2 (FP) - Indicates that free product was found in the well. The elevation identified is the top of surface of liquid.
3 (WB) - Indicates that no water was present in the well. The elevation identified is for the well bottom.
4 Monitoring well OW-lOaR was installed in June 2007, as a replacement for well OW-lOa abandoned in September 2006.
5 The April 2007 groundwater elevation in monitoring well OW-lOaR was measured on July 1, 2007.
6 Groundwater elevations at wells MW-7 and OW-lla from March 1996 through April 2006 were revised in 2007
based on re-surveyed top of casing elevations at wells MW-7 and OW-lla concurrent with survey of new well OW-lOaR on August 20, 2007.
CRA 003796(55)
-------
APPENDIX 2
Figures
-------
Third Five Year Review—Doepke-HoIIiday Site, Johnson County, Kansas
X: IEPA009\Doepke-Holliday\TO_06\Maps \
Second_Five_Year_Review\Site_topo.mxd
Source: USGS; Edwardsville Quad, 1982
08/10/05 TH
Legend
Doepke-Holliday
Property Boundary
Third Five Year Review
Doepke-Holliday Site, Johnson County, Kansas
Figure 1
Site Location Map
U.S. Em'ironmental Protection Agency
-------
Third Five Year Review
Doepke-Holliday Site, Johnson Count}', Kansas
' Vi*
Figure 2
Site Map
' 'i
m
m
EPA WELL
V\o\W
ki\v
Mi
_ ¦ - < |
mm
.A10 QW-14
'
1
im
Mi
25$
¦ -
I% ' • •
*
/
~ • ae*" «
". *v .
' V^M\
V
. i
m
- if! V '
V®
LV
Ss:
"v
BP Api
CH MW-8b
OW-13 O
(abandoned)
'¦ —
v>'!r:
'a
O
in
IV
»A.
v.:
1
li ormer
Pfii^Klilfl&rw&SiH rtWfim ¦' i ii i
roftJMBK iJil;A ??vq
Sfv(
°PW
o
V" '"I
>¦*' >
•i ,
n-iji it .'fc
• '
/V
. VmMmf ¦' "» '»m ,v
£pt
.i- -
5' ¦ •
Legend
Doepke-Holliday Property Boundary
Limit of Cap
Groundwater Seep
Monitoring Well
LTMP Overburden Unit Monitoring Well
LTMP Farley Member Monitoring Well
LTMP Plattsburg Formation
Monitoring Well
N
250 500
1000
Feet
X: \EPA009\Doepke-Holliday\TO_06\Maps\
Second_Five_Year_Review \Site_Sampling. mxd
Source: Image; State of Kansas, 2002 Data; CRA, 2005
08/10/05 TH
-------
Fourth Five-Year Review
Doepke-Holliday Superfund Site
City of Shawnee
Zoning Map
September 17, 2013
Click here for links to Zoning Regulations
Select 1. CHAPTERS and TITLE 17 Zoning
0 0.25 0.5
1 Miles
I City limits
ZONING DISTRICTS
AG (Agricultural District)
| CH (Commercial Highway)
CN (Commercial Neighborhood)
| DU (Duplex Residential)
I PD (Planned Development)
PI (Planned Industrial)
PMR (Planned Mix Residential)
| PO (Professional Office)
| POC (Planned Office Commercial) |
PSF (Planned Single Family)
R1 (Single Family Residential)
RE (Residential Estates)
AR = Age Restricted
RGA (Residential Garden Apartments)
RMD (Residential Multiple Dwellings)
RS (Residential Suburban)
| SMPCHO (SM Pkwy Commercial Hwy Overlay District)
TSQ (Townsquare District)
-------
Fourth Five-Year Review
Doepke-Holliday Superfund Site
KANSAS
Figure 4
City of Shawnee
Land Use Guide
September 17, 2013
Adopted by the City Council November 23, 2009
The LAND USE GUIDE is not aZONING MAP;
rather it is the graphic representation of the
land use goals and policies of the City as
identified in the text of the Comprehensive Plan
W
Commercial
High Density Residential
Library
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Mixed Density Residential
Mixed Use/Destination
//// Office/Commercial
Office/Service
Parks/Open Space
| Public/Quasi-Public
Public/Quasi-Public (School)
Rural Residential
Warehouse/I ndustrial
] Floodplain
¦ Planned Open Space
-------
LEGEND
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
EXISTING FENCE
•MW-5
MONITORING WELL
AND IDENTIFIER
CONTACT, DASHED WHERE APPROXIMATED
OR INFERRED
LIMIT OF CAP
BEDROCK KEY
ViLAS FORMATION
PLATTSBURG FORMATION
BONNER SPRINGS FORMATION
FARLEY MEMBER
ISLAND CREEK MEMBER
Pv
Pp
Pb
Pwf
Pwi
Pwa = ARGENTINE MEMBER
PI = LANE SHALE AND OLDER
FORMATIONS
Figure 5
GEOLOGIC MAP
DOEPKE-HOLLIDAY SUPERFUND SITE
Johnson County, Kansas
03796-33(046)GN-WA001 JUN 24/2009
-------
Figure 6
TYPICAL STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN
DOEPKE-HOLLIDAY SUPERFUND SITE
Johnson County, Kansas
03796-33(046)GN-WA002 JUN 24/2009
-------
-J
CO
5
£
W
970
960
950
920
z
o.
p 910
>
m
rf 900
«i)0
.HfSfeH
•a
-!
ft)
HORIZONTAL SCALE:
1 INCH = 200 FEET
CRA
3796(7) ~ AUG ZO 92 - ftEV. Q - (C)
OW-1IA
OPL-2
Figure 2.6.3
GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION 0W-12A TO OPL-t
DOEPKE - HOLLIDAY SUPERFUND SITE
Johnson County, Kansas
-------
-------
MW-9a • LTMP MONITORING WELL LOCATION
1 SEEP LOCATION
GROUNDWATER CONTOUR
1) LOCATIONS OF SEEP Nos. 1,3 AND 9
ARE BASED ON FIELD SURVEY. ALL
OTHER SEEP LOCATIONS ARE ESTIMATED.
2) MONITORING WELLS OPL-1, OPL-3,
AND EPA WELL ARE NOT INCLUDED
IN THE LTMP.
3) OW-13 WAS ABANDONED IN JUNE 2007.
4) OW-1QaR WAS INSTALLED IN JUNE 2007
AS REPLACEMENT FOR OW-10a
ABANDONED IN SEPTEMBER 2006.
OPL-1
Figure 9
GROUNDWATER CONTOURS
OVERBURDEN UNIT, APRIL 22, 2013
DOEPKE-HOLLIDAY SUPERFUND SITE
Johnson County, Kansas
03796-33(053)GN-WAD04 JUN 13/2013
-------
.OPL-1
03796-33(053)GN-WA005 JUN 13/2013
"CH
200 400ft
LEGEND
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
LIMIT OF CAP
LTMP MONITORING WELL LOCATION
LTMP SEEP LOCATION
GROUNDWATER CONTOUR
1) LOCATIONS OF SEEP Nos. 1, 3 AND 9
ARE BASED ON HELD SURVEY. ALL
OTHER SEEP LOCATIONS ARE ESTIMATED.
2) MONITORING WELLS OPL-1, OPL-3,
AND EPA WELL ARE NOT INCLUDED
IN THE LTMP.
3) OW-13 WAS ABANDONED IN JUNE 2007.
4) OW-10aR WAS INSTALLED IN JUNE 2007
AS REPLACEMENT FOR OW-10a
ABANDONED IN SEPTEMBER 2006.
5) (FP) - INDICATES THAT FREE PRODUCT WAS
FOUND IN THE WELL. THE ELEVATION
IDENTIFIED IS FOR THE FREE PRODUCT
SURFACE.
Figure 10
GROUNDWATER CONTOURS
PLATTSBURG FORMATION, APRIL 22, 2013
DOEPKE-HOLLIDAY SUPERFUND SITE
Johnson County, Kansas
-------
LEGEND
OW- 11A
(888.28)
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
EXISTING FENCE
MONITORING WELL LOCATION,
IDENTIFIER AND GROUNDWATER
ELEVATION (FT., AMSL)
DIRECTION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW
NOTE: CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 1 FOOT.
Figure 11
CRA
GROUNDWATER CONTOUR MAP
LOWER FARLEY MEMBER - JANUARY 1992
DOEPKE - HOLLIDAY SUPERFUND SITE
Johnson County, Kansas
3796(7) - FEB. 6, 92-REV. 0 - (C)
-------
APPENDIX 3
List of Documents Reviewed
-------
List of Documents Reviewed
Conestoga-Rovers & Associates (CRA, 2010). Annual Summary Report no. 12, Long-term
Monitoring Plan, Doepke-Holliday Superfund Site, Johnson County, Kansas: Chicago,
Illinois, CRA, 93p.
CRA, 2011. Annual Summary Report no. 13, Long-term Monitoring Plan, Doepke-Holliday
Superfund Site, Johnson County, Kansas: Chicago, Illinois, CRA, 87p.
CRA, 2012. Annual Summary Report no. 14, Long-term Monitoring Plan, Doepke-Holliday
Superfund Site, Johnson County, Kansas: Chicago, Illinois, CRA, 97p.
CRA, 2013. Annual Summary Report no. 15, Long-term Monitoring Plan, Doepke-Holliday
Superfund Site, Johnson County, Kansas: Chicago, Illinois, CRA, 86p.
Deffenbaugh Industries, Inc. (DII, 1989a). Remedial Investigation Report, Doepke-Holliday
Site: Shawnee, Kansas, DII, var. pg.
DII, 1989b. Feasibility Study Report, Doepke-Holliday Site: Shawnee, Kansas, DII, var. pg.
Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE, 2012). Kansas surface water quality
standards, tables of numeric criteria: Topeka, KS, KDHE Bureau of Water, 3 lp.
KDHE, 2014. Risk-Based Standards for Kansas, RSK Manual - 5th Version: Topeka, KS,
KDHE Bureau of Environmental Remediation, 47p.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, 1989). EPA Superfund Record of Decision, Doepke
Disposal (Holliday) EPA ID: KSD980632301, OU 01, Shawnee Mission, KS 09/21/1989:
EPA/ /ROD/R07-89/032, 38p.
EPA, 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I, Human Health Evaluation
Manual (Part A), Interim Final: Washington, DC, Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response, EPA/540/1-89/002, var. pg.
EPA, 1991. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume 1, Human Health Evaluation
Manual Supplemental Guidance, Standard Default Exposure Factors, Interim Final:
Washington, DC, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, OSWER Directive
9285.6-03, 28p.
EPA, 1996. Consent Decree, The United States of America, plaintiff, vs. Waste Disposal, Inc.,
et al., defendants, Civil Action no. 96-2124JWL: EPA, Superfund Records 40066087, 265p.
EPA, 2004. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume 1, Human Health Evaluation
Manual, (Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment), Final:
Washington, DC, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, OSWER Directive
9285.7-02EP, var. pg.
-------
EPA, 2014. Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance, Update of Standard
Default Exposure Factors: Washington, DC, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, OSWER Directive 9200.1-120, var. pg.
EPA-Region 9, 2015. Regional screening levels, screening levels for chemical contaminants,
RSL tables, at URL http://www.epa.gov/region09/waste/sfund/prg/index.html.
Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks and Tourism (KDWP, 2015). Threatened and
Endangered Wildlife within Johnson County. Available on the Web at
http://www.kdwpt.state.ks.us
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers - Kansas City District (USACE, 2010). Third Five-Year Review
Report, Doepke-Holliday Superfund Site, Johnson County, Kansas: Kansas City, MO,
USACE-KCD, 146p.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS, 2015). Endangered and Threatened Species. Database
search for project area. http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/gettingStarted/index
-------
APPENDIX 4
Site Inspection Checklist
-------
Site Inspection Checklist
I. SITE INFORMATION
Site name: Doepke-Holliday
Date of inspection: April 1, 2015
Location and Region: Shawnee, Kansas
EPA ID:
Agency, office, or company leading the five-year
review: U.S. EPA Region 7
Weather/temperature: Partly Cloudy, low 60's
Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply)
Landfill cover/containment
Access controls
Institutional controls
~ Groundwater pump and treatment
~ Surface water collection and treatment
~ Other:
~ Monitored natural attenuation
~ Groundwater containment
~ Vertical barrier walls
Attachments: ~ Inspection team roster attached
~ Site map attached
II. INTERVIEWS (Check all that apply)
1. O&M site manager Jav Churchill CRA Project Manager
Name Title
Interviewed Kl at site ~ at office ~ by phone Phone no.
Problems, suggestions; ^ Report attached
April 1. 2015
Date
2. Owner Representative Mick Cossairt
Name
Interviewed at site ~ at office ~ by phone Phone no.
Problems, suggestions; |EI Report attached
DII Project Manager
Title
April 1.2015
Date
Five-year Review Report -1
-------
3. Local regulatory authorities and response agencies (i.e., State and Tribal offices, emergency response
office, police department, office of public health or environmental health, zoning office, recorder of
deeds, or other city and county offices, etc.) Fill in all that apply.
Agency: EPA
Contact Laura Price RPM April 1.2015
Name Title Date
Problems; suggestions; ^ Report attached
Agency: KDHE
Contact Darrvl Morgan Project Manager April 1.2015
Name Title Date
Problems; suggestions; £3 Report attached
Agency: JCDHE
Contact Craig Wood Project Manager April 1.2015
Name Title Date
Problems; suggestions; ^ Report attached
4. Other interviews (optional) ^ Report attached.
Also included during the interviews conducted during the site inspection were Jessica Kidwell and Ann Jacobs
with the EPA.
Five-year Review Report - 2
-------
III. ON-SITE DOCUMENTS & RECORDS VERIFIED (Check all that apply)
1.
O&M Documents
^ O&M manual ^ Readily available ~ Up to date ~ N/A
^ As-built drawings ^ Readily available ~ Up to date ~ N/A
^ Maintenance logs ^ Readily available ~ Up to date ~ N/A
Remarks
2.
Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan ~ Readily available ~ Up to date
~ Contingency plan/emergency response plan ~ Readily available ~ Up to date
Remarks
N/A
N/A
3.
O&M and OSHA Training Records ~ Readily available ~ Up to date
Remarks OSHA records were not reviewed durine the site inspection.
El N/A
4.
Permits and Service Agreements
~ Air discharge permit ~ Readily available ~ Up to date
~ Effluent discharge ~ Readily available ~ Up to date
~ Waste disposal, POTW ~ Readily available ~ Up to date
~ Other permits ~ Readily available ~ Up to date
Remarks Permits were not reviewed durine the site inspection.
^ N/A
^ N/A
^ N/A
N/A
5.
Gas Generation Records ~ Readily available ~ Up to date £3 N/A
Remarks
6.
Settlement Monument Records ~ Readily available ~ Up to date
Remarks
|E| N/A
7.
Groundwater Monitoring Records £3 Readily available £3 Up to date
Remarks
~ N/A
8.
Leachate Extraction Records ^ Readily available ~ Up to date
Remarks Information on sccds is provided in annual LTM reports.
~ N/A
9.
Discharge Compliance Records
~ Air ~ Readily available ~ Up to date ^ N/A
~ Water (effluent) ~ Readily available ~ Up to date ^ N/A
Remarks
10.
Daily Access/Security Logs ~ Readily available ~ Up to date ^ N/A
Remarks Site maintains 24-hour security due to other portions of the property still operating as
permitted landfills. Site security loss were not reviewed durine the site inspection. No unauthorized
entry was reported by the on-site representatives.
Five-year Review Report - 3
-------
IV. O&M COSTS
1. O&M Organization
~ State in-house ~ Contractor for State
PRP in-house £3 Contractor for PRP
~ Federal Facility in-house ~ Contractor for Federal Facility
~ Other
2. O&M Cost Records
~ Readily available ~ Up to date
~ Funding mechanism/agreement in place
Original O&M cost estimate ~ Breakdown attached
Total annual cost by year for review period if available
From
To
~ Breakdown attached
From
Date
To
Date
Total cost
~ Breakdown attached
From
Date
To
Date
Total cost
~ Breakdown attached
From
Date
To
Date
Total cost
~ Breakdown attached
From
Date
To
Date
Total cost
~ Breakdown attached
Date
Date
Total cost
3. Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs During Review Period
Describe costs and reasons: O&M Costs were not reviewed during the site inspection. Since
implementation of the landfill cap. O&M costs have not been identified as an issue in the semi-annual
O&M reports.
V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS |£| Applicable ~ N/A
A. Fencing
1. Fencing damaged ~ Location shown on site map £3 Gates secured ~ N/A
Remarks Entry gates and security guard shacks were in good condition and fully
functional.
B. Other Access Restrictions
1. Signs and other security measures ~ Location shown on site map ~ N/A
Remarks
Five-year Review Report - 4
-------
c.
Institutional Controls (ICs)
1.
Implementation and enforcement
Site conditions imply ICs not properly implemented ~ Yes ^ No
Site conditions imply ICs not being fully enforced ~ Yes ^ No
~ N/A
~ N/A
Tydc of monitoring (e.e.. self-reoortine. drive b\ ) self-reoortine and regulator inspections
Frequency
Responsible party /agency
Contact
Name Title Date
Phone no.
Reporting is up-to-date ^ Yes ~ No
Reports are verified by the lead agency ^ Yes ~ No
~ N/A
~ N/A
Specific requirements in deed or decision documents have been met ^ Yes ~ No
Violations have been reported ~ Yes ~ No
Other problems or suggestions: ~ Report attached
~ N/A
|E| N/A
2.
Adequacy £3 ICs are adequate ~ ICs are inadequate
Remarks
~ N/A
D.
General
1.
Vandalism/trespassing ~ Location shown on site map ^ No vandalism evident
Remarks
2.
Land use changes on site £3 N/A
Remarks Land use on site has not changed.
3.
Land use changes off site ^ N/A
Remarks Land use off site has not changed in the vicinity of the site.
VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS
A.
Roads Applicable ~ N/A
1.
Roads damaged ~ Location shown on site map ^ Roads adequate
Remarks
~ N/A
Five-year Review Report - 5
-------
B.
Other Site Conditions
Remarks All site access, security, institutional controls, and restrictions were observed to be adeauate.
functioning. and well maintained.
VII. LANDFILL COVERS |S1 Applicable ~ N/A
A.
Landfill Surface
1.
Settlement (Low spots) ~ Location shown on site map ^ Settlement not evident
Areal extent Depth
Remarks Landfill cao was observed to be in sood condition with little to no evidence of settline.
2.
Cracks ~ Location shown on site map ^ Cracking not evident
Lengths Widths Depths
Remarks Landfill cat) is a vesetated cover.
3.
Erosion ~ Location shown on site map ^ Erosion not evident
Areal extent Depth
Remarks No evidence of erosion within the landfill car) was observed. Some verv minor erosion was
identified alone exterior drainaee channels.
4.
Holes ~ Location shown on site map ^ Holes not evident
Areal extent Depth
Remarks A few small rodent/snake holes were observed at the site however none were noted as potential
concerns to the inteeritv of the car).
5.
Vegetative Cover ^ Grass ^ Cover properly established ^ No signs of stress
~ Trees/Shrubs (indicate size and locations on a diagram)
Remarks The vesetative cover was observed to be in verv sood condition with no sisns of stress. No
trees or shrubs were identified within the landfill car).
6.
Alternative Cover (armored rock, concrete, etc.) £3 N/A
Remarks
7.
Bulges ~ Location shown on site map ^ Bulges not evident
Areal extent Height
Remarks
8. Wet Areas/Water Damage ~ Wet areas/water damage not evident
~ Wet areas ~ Location shown on site map Areal extent
[>3 Pondins I-! Location shown on site mat) Areal extent Minor
~ Seeps ~ Location shown on site map Areal extent
~ Soft subgrade ~ Location shown on site map Areal extent
Remarks Minor areas of oondine were observed alone the edse of the roadwavs but not within the
landfill can. The sccds were not inspected at the time of the site visit.
Five-year Review Report - 6
-------
9.
Slope Instability ~ Slides ~ Location shown on site map £3 No evidence of slope instability
Areal extent
Remarks The landfill slooe was observed to be adeauate across the entire site with no evidence of
slides.
B.
Benches ~ Applicable ^ N/A
(Horizontally constructed mounds of earth placed across a steep landfill side slope to interrupt the slope
in order to slow down the velocity of surface runoff and intercept and convey the runoff to a lined
channel.)
1.
Flows Bypass Bench ~ Location shown on site map ~ N/A or okay
Remarks
2.
Bench Breached ~ Location shown on site map ~ N/A or okay
Remarks
3.
Bench Overtopped ~ Location shown on site map ~ N/A or okay
Remarks
C.
Letdown Channels ~ Applicable ^ N/A
(Channel lined with erosion control mats, riprap, grout bags, or gabions that descend down the steep side
slope of the cover and will allow the runoff water collected by the benches to move off of the landfill
cover without creating erosion gullies.)
1.
Settlement ~ Location shown on site map ~ No evidence of settlement
Areal extent Depth
Remarks
2.
Material Degradation ~ Location shown on site map ~ No evidence of degradation
Material type Areal extent
Remarks
3.
Erosion ~ Location shown on site map ~ No evidence of erosion
Areal extent Depth
Remarks
Five-year Review Report - 7
-------
4.
Undercutting ~ Location shown on site map ~ No evidence of undercutting
Areal extent Depth
Remarks
5.
Obstructions Type ~ No obstructions
~ Location shown on site map Areal extent
Size
Remarks
6.
Excessive Vegetative Growth Type
~ No evidence of excessive growth
~ Vegetation in channels does not obstruct flow
~ Location shown on site map Areal extent
Remarks
D.
Cover Penetrations ^ Applicable ~ N/A
1.
Gas Vents ~ Active ~ Passive
~ Properly secured/locked ~ Functioning ~ Routinely sampled
~ Evidence of leakage at penetration ~ Needs Maintenance
~ N/A
Remarks
~ Good condition
2.
Gas Monitoring Probes
~ Properly secured/locked ~ Functioning ~ Routinely sampled
~ Evidence of leakage at penetration ~ Needs Maintenance ~ N/A
Remarks
~ Good condition
3.
Monitoring Wells (within surface area of landfill)
Properly secured/locked £3 Functioning ^ Routinely sampled
~ Evidence of leakage at penetration ~ Needs Maintenance ~ N/A
Remarks
Good condition
4.
Leachate Extraction Wells
~ Properly secured/locked ~ Functioning ~ Routinely sampled
~ Evidence of leakage at penetration ~ Needs Maintenance ~ N/A
Remarks
~ Good condition
5.
Settlement Monuments ~ Located ~ Routinely surveyed
Remarks
~ N/A
Five-year Review Report - 8
-------
E.
Gas Collection and Treatment ~ Applicable £3 N/A
1.
Gas Treatment Facilities
~ Flaring ~ Thermal destruction ~ Collection for reuse
~ Good condition ~ Needs Maintenance
Remarks
2.
Gas Collection Wells, Manifolds and Piping
~ Good condition ~ Needs Maintenance
Remarks
3.
Gas Monitoring Facilities (e.g., gas monitoring of adjacent homes or buildings)
~ Good condition ~ Needs Maintenance ~ N/A
Remarks
F.
Cover Drainage Layer ^ Applicable ~ N/A
1.
Outlet Pipes Inspected ~ Functioning ^ N/A
Remarks
2.
Outlet Rock Inspected ^ Functioning ~ N/A
Remarks Outlet rock for the drainaee laver was observed to be in sood condition.
G.
Detention/Sedimentation Ponds ~ Applicable £3 N/A
1.
Siltation Areal extent Depth ~ N/A
~ Siltation not evident
Remarks
2.
Erosion Areal extent Depth
~ Erosion not evident
Remarks
3.
Outlet Works ~ Functioning ~ N/A
Remarks
4.
Dam ~ Functioning ~ N/A
Remarks
Five-year Review Report - 9
-------
H. Retaining Walls ~ Applicable £3 N/A
1.
Deformations ~ Location shown on site map ~ Deformation not evident
Horizontal displacement Vertical displacement
Rotational displacement
Remarks
2.
Degradation ~ Location shown on site map
Remarks
~ Degradation not evident
I. Perimeter Ditches/Off-Site Discharge ^ Applicable
~ N/A
1.
Siltation ~ Location shown on site map
Areal extent Depth
Remarks
^ Siltation not evident
2.
Vegetative Growth ~ Location shown on site map
~ Vegetation does not impede flow
Areal extent Type
Remarks
N/A
3.
Erosion ~ Location shown on site map ~ Erosion not evident
Areal extent Depth
Remarks Very minor erosion of an area to the east of the landfill located adiacent to the DII Bulk Fuel
Facility and alone the roadwav was observed.
4.
Discharge Structure ~ Functioning ^ N/A
Remarks
VIII. VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS
~ Applicable £3 N/A
1.
Settlement ~ Location shown on site map
Areal extent Depth
Remarks
~ Settlement not evident
2.
Performance MonitoringType of monitoring
~ Performance not monitored
Frequency ~ Evidence of breaching
Head differential
Remarks
Five-year Review Report -10
-------
IX. GROUND WATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES ~ Applicable M N/A
A.
Groundwater Extraction Wells, Pumps, and Pipelines ~ Applicable £3 N/A
1.
Pumps, Wellhead Plumbing, and Electrical
~ Good condition ~ All required wells properly operating ~ Needs Maintenance ~ N/A
Remarks
2.
Extraction System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances
~ Good condition ~ Needs Maintenance
Remarks
3.
Spare Parts and Equipment
~ Readily available ~ Good condition ~ Requires upgrade ~ Needs to be provided
Remarks
B. Surface Water Collection Structures, Pumps, and Pipelines ~ Applicable ^ N/A
1.
Collection Structures, Pumps, and Electrical
~ Good condition ~ Needs Maintenance
Remarks
2.
Surface Water Collection System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances
~ Good condition ~ Needs Maintenance
Remarks
3.
Spare Parts and Equipment
~ Readily available ~ Good condition ~ Requires upgrade ~ Needs to be provided
Remarks
C.
Treatment System ~ Applicable ^ N/A
1.
Treatment Train (Check components that apply)
~ Metals removal ~ Oil/water separation ~ Bioremediation
~ Air stripping ~ Carbon adsorbers
~ Filters
~ Additive (e.£., chelation agent, flocculent)
~ Others
~ Good condition ~ Needs Maintenance
~ Sampling ports properly marked and functional
~ Sampling/maintenance log displayed and up to date
~ Equipment properly identified
~ Quantity of groundwater treated annually
~ Quantity of surface water treated annually
Remarks
Five-year Review Report -11
-------
2.
Electrical Enclosures and Panels (properly rated and functional)
~ N/A ~ Good condition ~ Needs Maintenance
Remarks
3.
Tanks, Vaults, Storage Vessels
~ N/A ~ Good condition ~ Proper secondary containment ~ Needs Maintenance
Remarks
4.
Discharge Structure and Appurtenances
~ N/A ~ Good condition ~ Needs Maintenance
Remarks
5.
Treatment Building(s)
~ N/A ~ Good condition (esp. roof and doorways) ~ Needs repair
~ Chemicals and equipment properly stored
Remarks
6.
Monitoring Wells (pump and treatment remedy)
~ Properly secured/locked ~ Functioning ~ Routinely sampled ~ Good condition
~ All required wells located ~ Needs Maintenance ~ N/A
Remarks
D. Monitoring Data
1.
Monitoring Data
~ Is routinely submitted on time ~ Is of acceptable quality
2.
Monitoring data suggests:
~ Groundwater plume is effectively contained ~ Contaminant concentrations are declining
E.
Monitored Natural Attenuation
1.
Monitoring Wells (natural attenuation remedy)
~ Properly secured/locked ~ Functioning ~ Routinely sampled ~ Good condition
~ All required wells located ~ Needs Maintenance ~ N/A
Remarks
X. OTHER REMEDIES
If there are remedies applied at the site which are not covered above, attach an inspection sheet describing
the physical nature and condition of any facility associated with the remedy. An example would be soil
vapor extraction.
Five-year Review Report -12
-------
XL OVERALL OBSERVATIONS
A. Implementation of the Remedy
Describe issues and observations relating to whether the remedy is effective and functioning as designed.
Begin with a brief statement of what the remedy is to accomplish (i.e., to contain contaminant plume,
minimize infiltration and gas emission, etc.).
The landfill cap, monitoring wells, and associated portions of the remedy were all
observed to be in very good condition. It is evident that O&M at the site has been
diligent in maintaining the integrity of the remedy and proactive in preventing issues
from developing.
B. Adequacy of O&M
Describe issues and observations related to the implementation and scope of O&M procedures. In
particular, discuss their relationship to the current and long-term protectiveness of the remedy.
No issues with O&M were identified during the site inspection.
Five-year Review Report -13
-------
C. Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Problems
Describe issues and observations such as unexpected changes in the cost or scope of O&M or a high
frequency of unscheduled repairs, that suggest that the protectiveness of the remedy may be
compromised in the future.
Minor notes of erosion outside of the landfill cap were noted and discussed with on-site
personnel these items are not believed to be a concern but should continue to be
monitored.
D. Opportunities for Optimization
Describe possible opportunities for optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation of the remedy.
No opportunities for optimization were noted at the site inspection.
Five-year Review Report -14
-------
Site Inspection Team Roster
Personnel
Representing
Phone Number
Laura Price
EPA
Ann Jacobs
EPA
Jessica Kidwell
EPA
Craig Wood
Johnson County Department
of Health and Environment
Mick Cossairt
Deffenbaugh Industries, Inc.
Jay Churchill
Conastoga-Rovers and
Associates
Phil Rosewicz
USACE
Greg Hattan
USACE
Kenneth Kamp
USACE
Five-year Review Report -15
-------
Appendix 5
Site Inspection Photographs
-------
Photo 1. Landfill Cap
Date: April 1, 2015
Description: Condition of vegetated cover in central portion of site. Camera view is to the East.
-------
Photo 2. Monitoring Well OW-1 la
Description: Condition of OW-1 la. Bollards and Monitoring Well casing are typical
throughout the site for color and condition. Camera View is to the South from the roadway.
-------
Photo 3. Drainage Channel within landfill cap
Date: April 1, 2015
Description: Condition of drainage channel l ocated in the west-central portion of the landfill
cap. Camera view is to the North.
-------
Photo 4. Deffenbaugh Fuel Depot
Date: April 1, 2015
Description: Deffenbaugh fuel depot located in the northeast corner of the site, outsi de the
landfill cap. Camera view is to the North.
-------
Photo 5. Rock at edge of Drainage Layer
Date: April 1, 2015
Description: The rock in the center of the image consists of large and small graded rock placed
at the edge of the interior drainage layer located beneath the cap. Water which may infiltrate the
cap is collected in the drainage layer and exits the cap through the rock. Camera view is to the
South from the roadway outside of the landfill cap.
-------
Photo 6. Landfill Cap
Date: April 1, 2015
Description: Condition of the northern edge of the landfill cap. Camera view is to the West.
-------
Photos 7. Rodent/Snake Burroughs Date: April 1,2015
Description: Small diameter rodent or snake burroughs. A few small burroughs such as this
were observed at the landfill cap, but not of significant size or quantity to warrant concern.
-------
Photo 8. Area of water ponding
Date: April 1, 2015
¦St j&ik' ISiS'a
Description: Small area where water ponding and roadway runoff has prevented vegetation
from establishing. The Deffenbaugh Fuel Depot is adjacent to this location and is out of frame to
the right. Background of the picture is the roadway and the landfill cap. MW-7, OW-lOa, and
OW-lOaR (from left to right) can be seen in the background. Camera view is to the West.
-------
Photo 9. Area of distressed vegetation
Date: April 1, 2015
Ifivf
• •••
Description: Area of poorly established vegetation at the southwest corner of the site on the
south side of the Jersey barrier along the roadway near the cap boundary. Camera view is to the
West.
-------
APPENDIX 6
Deed Restriction
-------
Craft Fridkin & Rhyne
ATTOR
IIOO ONE MAIN PLAZA
4435 MAIN STREET
Kansas City, Missouri 64i 11
(816) 5 31-1 700
TELECOPIER (816) 753-3222
(816) 753-1168
JULIE K . ATHEY
Daniel J. Shiel, Esq.
U.S. E.P.A.
Region VII
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
JUN 25 m6
SWeww»obSIW|
June 24, 1996
3 1 O MONROE
Jefferson City, Missouri €5102
(314) 636-8578
TELECOPIER (314) 636-8615
FEO IO #43-1447920
(PLEASE REPLY TO KANSAS CITY OFFICE)
Re: Doepke-Holliday Site
Dear Dan:
I am enclosing copies of the following documents which we have recorded with the
Register of Deeds for Johnson County pursuant to the requirements of the Consent Decree:
1. Deed Restrictions, recorded on June 19, 1996.
2. Affidavit and Notice of Consent Decree, which was recorded with file-stamped
copy of consent decree attached on June 19, 1996.
Please note that I have not attached the copy of the consent decree which was attached to the
Affidavit due to its size.
We have previously provided you with a copy of the recorded Notice of Obligation to
Provide Access and Implement Institutional Controls.
Please call me if you have any questions regarding any of the above.
Very truly yours,
CRAFT FRIDKIN & RHYNE
j(uMe K. Athey
JKA:ps
Enclosures
cc: Shelley Brodie
Betsy Six
Dan Swyers
Ronald D. Deffenbaugh (w/o encl.)
h:,diivdocpkovcorr^shicl.624
40066419
SUPERFUND RECORDS
-------
2608026/
DEED RESTRICTIONS FOR DOEPKE-HOLLIDAY
SUPERFUND SITE
icf
filed
JOHNSON CO UN f y. KANSAS
1996 JUN 19 p 12: 08.2
TO ALL TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME, GREETING:
Deffenbaugh Industries, Inc. (formerly known as Handi-Can Disposal Service Inc.),
a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Missouri, and having its usual
place of business at 18181 West 53rd, Shawnee, Johnson County, Kansas, being the owner
of all that certain real estate evidenced by Kansas Warranty Deed dated September 27,
1982, filed September 29, 1982, in the Registry of Deeds of Johnson County, Kansas, in
Book 1789, Pages 799-801, as Document Number 1378530, the total external boundary of
which can be more particularly described as follows,
PART OF THE NORTHWEST FRACTIONAL OF SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 12. RANGE. 24,
JOHNSON COUNTY. KANSAS, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID NORTHWEST FRACTIONAL !<; THENCE
NORTH 2°-14'-44" WEST. ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST FRACTIONAL
>4, A DISTANCE OF 1640.83 FEET (DEED 1640.46 FEET) TO A POINT ON THE
SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF HOLLIDAY DRIVE. AS NOW ESTABLISHED: THENCE
NORTH 71°-04' -32" EAST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, A DISTANCE
OF 559.63 FEET (DEED 560.33 FEET) TO A POINT THAT IS 235.00 FEET RIGHT OF
CENTERLINE STATION 30+75 OF SAID HOLLIDAY DRIVE, AS MEASURED AT RIGHT
ANGLES THERETO: THENCE NORTH 63°-14,-41" EAST, CONTINUING ALONG SAID
SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 626.86 FEET (DEED 626.54 FEET)
TO A POINT THAT IS 155.00 FEET RIGHT OF CENTERLINE STATION 37+00 OF SAID
HOLLIDAY DRIVE. AS MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES THERETO. SAID POINT ALSO BEING
ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY NO. 435 (1-435).
AS NOW ESTABLISHED: THENCE SOUTH 34°-43'-00" EAST ALONG SAID WESTERLY
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE. A DISTANCE OF 402.74 FEET (DEED 403.17 FEET) TO A POINT
THAT IS 1049.00 FEET LEFT OF CENTERLINE STATION 449+00 OF SAID 1-435. AS
MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES THERETO: THENCE SOUTH 48°-09'-22" EAST CONTINUING
ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 739.95 FEET TO A
POINT THAT IS 545.00 FEET LEFT OF CENTERLINE STATION 443+50 OF SAID 1-435,
AS MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES THERETO: THENCE SOUTH 35°-42'-27" EAST.
CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE. A DISTANCE OF 517.23
FEET TO A POINT THAT IS 290.00 FEET LEFT OF-CENTERLINE STATION 439+00 OF
SAID 1-435, AS MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES THERETO; THENCE SOUTH 5°-58'-37"
EAST, CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE. A DISTANCE OF
764.17 FEET (DEED 763.89 FEET) TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF AFORESAID
NORTHWEST FRACTIONAL fc; THENCE SOUTH 87°-25'-08" WEST, ALONG THE SOUTH
LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST FRACTIONAL fc. A DISTANCE OF 2189.10 FEET TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING.
("real estate"), does hereby make and declare said real estate to be subject to the following
1. Status of Real Estate as Superfund Site. The above-referenced real estate was
declared to be a Superfund site by listing on the National Priorities List on September 8,
1983, 48 Fed. Reg. 40674. Final remediation of the real estate, consisting primarily of
construction of an Impermeable Multi-Layer Cap, is scheduled to begin in May of 1995 and
to be completed no later than November of 1996. Interim Groundwater Monitoring is
covenants:
Li
49U«a 11
-------
scheduled to begin in March of 1995 and will continue until the Long-Term Groundwater
Monitoring Plan is implemented some two years after construction of the Impermeable
Multi-Layer Cap is completed. In addition, upon the EPA's approval of the Impermeable
Multi-Layer Cap, the real estate will be subject to Operation and Maintenance requirements
for a period of thirty years. The technical requirements for construction of the Cap,
Groundwater Monitoring, and Operation and Maintenance are set forth in the Consent
Decree (and attachments thereto) entered on May 20, 1996 in Civil Action No. 96-2124-JWL
in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas (hereinafter "Consent Decree"),
a copy of which was recorded with the Registry of Deeds for Johnson County, Kansas, on
June , 1996.
2. Land Use. The real estate shall not be used or developed in any manner
which may affect the integrity of the Impermeable Multi-Layer Cap or implementation of the
Interim Groundwater Monitoring Plan, the Long-Term Groundwater Monitoring Plan, or
Operation and Maintenance requirements, without the express written consent of the United
States Environmental Protection Agency, Region VII. Prohibited uses include but are not
limited to the following:
a. excavation, boring, or other actions which might disturb the integrity of the
Cap, such as construction of permanent structures, alteration of the contours
of the Cap, or the placing of rock piles on the top of the Cap or in areas
which would affect drainage from or onto the Cap;
b. removal or disturbance of environmental monitoring stations installed on the
real estate;
c. digging of drainage ditches;
d. changing of vegetation or the production, use, or sale of food chain crops
grown on areas used for waste disposal;
e. the removal of security booths, fences, gates, signs, or other devices installed
or used to restrict public access to the real estate; and
f. any other usage which could affect the integrity and viability of the Remedial
Action.
3. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VII. Any person wishing to obtain
consent for or approval of any proposed land use which is contrary to the terms of this deed
restriction may direct an inquiry to the following:
Project Coordinator - Doepke-Holliday Site
U.S. E.P.A., Region VII
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, Kansas 66101.
2
i!Bc;491ij,ac£ 12
-------
4. Term. These covenants are to run with the land and shall be binding on all
parties and all persons claiming under them until such time as a notice of termination,
executed by Deffenbaugh Industries, Inc. and the United States Environmental Protection
Agency, has been recorded with the Registry of Deeds for Johnson County, Kansas.
5. Enforcement. Enforcement shall be by proceedings at law or in equity against
any person or persons violating or attempting to violate any covenants either to restrain
violation or to recover damages.
ATTEST:
DEFFENBAUGH INDUSTRIES, INC.
By:
President
-f\onT day of June A.D. 1996, before me, the
undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the county arid state aforesaid, came Ronald D.
Deffenbaugh, President and Secretary of Deffenbaugh Industries, Inc., a corporation duly
organized, incorporated and existing under and by virtue of the laws of Missouri, who is
personally known to me to hold such offices and v»ho is personally known to me to be the
same person who executed, as President and Secretary of said corporation, the within
instrument on behalf of said corporation, and such person duly acknowledged the execution
of the same to be the act and deed of said corporation.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal
the day and year last above written.
My commission expires
WvPmteSLU- 19fh
o
i
-------
26080277
FILED
STATE OF MISSOURI ) JOHNSC-H COUN I Y. KANSAS
^ ss cP
COUNTY OF JACKSON ) /£($>' 1996 JUM 19 p I2: i I .2
3 SARA F.ULLMANN
REGISTER OF DEEDS
AFFIDAVIT AND NOTICE OF CONSENT DECREE -
I, JULIE K. ATHEY, having been duly sworn upon oath, state to the best of my
knowledge and belief as follows:
1. I am of legal age and a resident of Kansas City, Missouri.
2. I am an attorney with the law firm of Craft Fridkin & Rhyne, 4435 Main Street,
Suite 1100, Kansas City, Missouri 64111, (816) 531-1700.
3. I am the attorney for Deffenbaugh Industries, Inc. (formerly known as Handi-Can
Disposal Service Inc.), a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Missouri, and
having its usual place of business at 18181 West 53rd, Shawnee, Johnson County, Kansas.
4. Deffenbaugh Industries, Inc. is the owner of all that certain real estate evidenced
by Kansas Warranty Deed dated September 27, 1982, filed September 29, 1982, in the Registry
of Deeds of Johnson County, Kansas, in Book 1789, Pages 799-801, as Document Number
1378530, the total external boundary of which can be more particularly described as follows:
PART OF THE NORTHWEST FRACTIONAL '4 OF SECTION 6. TOWNSHIP 12. RANGE 24, JOHNSON
COUNTY, KANSAS. BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID NORTHWEST FRACTIONAL THENCE NORTH 2°-14'-44" WEST,
ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST FRACTIONAL fc. A DISTANCE OF 1640.83 FEET
(DEED 1640.46 FEET).TO A POINT. ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF HOLLIDAY
DRIVE, AS NOW ESTABLISHED: THENCE NORTH 71°-04'-32" EAST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 559.63 FEET (DEED 560.33 FEET) TO A POINT THAT
IS 235.00 FEET RIGHT OF CENTERLINE STATION 30+75 OF SAID HOLLIDAY DRIVE, AS
MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES THERETO: THENCE NORTH 63°-14' -41" EAST, CONTINUING ALONG
SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 626.86 FEET (DEED 626.54 FEET)
TO A POINT THAT IS 155.00 FEET RIGHT OF CENTERLINE STATION 37+00 OF SAID HOLLIDAY
DRIVE, AS MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES THERETO, SAID POINT ALSO BEING ON THE WESTERLY
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY NO. 435 (1-435), AS NOW ESTABLISHED:
THENCE SOUTH 34°-43'-00" EAST ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE. A DISTANCE
OF 402.74 FEET (DEED 403.17 FEET) TO A POINT THAT IS 1049.00 FEET LEFT OF
CENTERLINE STATION 449+00 OF SAID 1-435, AS MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES THERETO:
THENCE SOUTH 48°-09'-22" EAST CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE,
A DISTANCE OF 739.95 FEET TO A POINT THAT IS 545.00 FEET LEFT OF CENTERLINE
STATION 443+50 OF SAID 1-435, AS MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES THERETO: THENCE SOUTH
35°-42'-27" EAST, CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE. A DISTANCE
OF 517.23 FEET TO A POINT THAT IS 290.00 FEET LEFT OF CENTERLINE STATION 439+00
OF SAID 1-435, AS MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES THERETO: THENCE SOUTH 5°-58' -37" EAST,
CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 764.17 FEET (DEED
763.89 FEET) TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF AFORESAID NORTHWEST FRACTIONAL
THENCE SOUTH 87°-25'-08" WEST, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST FRACTIONAL
A DISTANCE OF 2189.10 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
UB[r49HmCE 14
-------
5. The above-referenced real estate was declared to be a Superfund site by listing on
the National Priorities List on September 8, 1983, 48 Fed. Reg. 40674. Final remediation of the
real estate, consisting primarily of construction of an Impermeable Multi-Layer Cap, is scheduled
to be completed no later than November of 1996. The technical requirements for remediation
of the real estate are set forth in the Consent Decree entered on May 24, 1996 in Civil Action
No. 96-2124-JWL in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas (hereinafter
"Consent Decree").
6. Deffenbaugh's performance under the Consent Decree is subject to the approval
of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region VII, 726 Minnesota Avenue,
Kansas City, Kansas 66101.
7. The Consent Decree requires Deffenbaugh Industries, Inc., as the owner of the Site,
to record a copy of the Consent Decree with the Recorder of Deeds for Johnson County.
8. The United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region VII, has agreed that,
due to the length of the document and the expense of recording, Deffenbaugh need not record
all of the signature pages to the Consent Decree.
9. Attached hereto for recording is a true and correct copy of the Consent Decree on
file in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, Civil Action No. 96-2124-JWL,
with the exception that, due to length, the signature pages for certain parties to the Consent
Decree are not attached hereto for recording. Such signature pages are attached to the original
file-stamped copy of the Consent Decree on file with the United States District Court for the
District of Kansas, Civil Action No. 96-2124-JWL.
FURTHER AFFIANT SAITH NOT.
J^^K^Athey
Attorney for Deffenbaugh Industries, Inc.
2
IISEx4911pA6E 15
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
STATE OF MISSOURI )
) ss:
COUNTY OF JACKSON )
BE IT REMEMBERED, That on this j/y^. day of June A.D. 1996, before me, the
undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the county and state aforesaid, came Julie K. Athey,
Attorney for Deffenbaugh Industries, Inc., a corporation duly organized, incorporated and existing
under and by virtue of the laws of Missouri, who is personally known to me to be the same
person who executed, as attorney of said corporation, the within instrument on behalf of said
corporation.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the
day and year last above written.
Patricia Sinclair
Notary Public, State of Missouri
My Commission'Exp?resV08/20/S9 V J y*
Notary Public
My commission expires
h:\dii\doepke\pld\afTjdvLjlca
3
U5[a4911pACZ 16
-------
APPENDIX 7
Interview Form
-------
INTERVIEW RECORD
Site Name: Doepke-Holliday Superfund Site
EPA ID No.: KSD980632301
Subject: Forth Five Year Review (FYR)
Time: 900
Date: 4/1/2015
Type:
~ Telephone
~ Visit
~ Other
~ Incoming NA Outgoing NA
Location of Visit: Deopke - Holliday Site
Contact Made By
Name: KC Kamp , Phil Rosewicz & Greg Hattan
Organization: USACE Kansas
City District
Individual Contacted
Name:
Title:
Organization:
Jay Churchill
Project Manager
CRA
Laura Price
Project Manager
EPA
Craig Wood
Environmental Specialist
Johnson County Environmental
Parry 1 Morgan
Project Manager
KDHE
Mick Cossairt
Project Manager
DH
Summary of Conversation
Interviews were conducted with EPA, KDHE, JCED, DII, and CRA in correspondence with the Site
Inspection for the fourth FYR All four persons indicated the landfill cover was in good condition and was
functioning as intended. Both EPA and KDHE indicated they were well informed about the site and had no
issues to report. No problems were identified by any of the parties interviewed.
-------
APPENDIX 8
Public Notice
-------
SHAWNEEDISPATCH.COM I THE DISPATCH I NOVEMBER 26, 2014
Spring election filings begin Dec. 1
Ballot will
include council
seats, mayor
By Nico Roesler
nroesler@theworldco.info
With the November
mid-term state elections
not even one-month
gone, the city of Shaw-
nee will begin prepara-
tions for the 2015 spring
general election for city
government positions.
The 2015 spring
Primary Election (if
needed) will be held
on March 3, 2015 and
the 2015 spring General
Election will be held on
April 7, 2015. Candidates
interested in running for
mayor or city council
can get a candidate
filing packet from the
City Clerk's office. The
city will accept filings
beginning Monday, Dec.
1, through noon on Jan.
27, 2015.
Each candidate must
be a resident of the
ward they run for and
the mayoral candidate
must be a resident of
Shawnee. Each council
member is elected to a
four-year term.
Mayor Jeff Meyers,
who is coming to the
end of his third term
as mayor, has said that
he does not intend to
pursue a fourth term.
Recently, Meyers said
that he "has never said
never" and will watch
to see who runs for the
position and measure
the participation and
each candidate in the
race before he gives a
definitive answer. Mey-
ers has served the city
of Shawnee for 26 years,
including 12 years as
mayor, nine as a coun-
cil member and six as a
member of the zoning
and appeals board.
"I'm not a lifer," Mey-
ers said. "There comes
a time when a person
needs to step down and
let someone else have a
shot at it. But I want to
be comfortable and sure
that the city will be left
in good hands."
The current council
members representing
Ward I are Dan Pflumm
and Jim Neighbor.
Representing Ward II
is Mike Kemmling and
Neal Sawyer. Repre-
senting Ward III is Jeff
Vaught and Stephanie
Meyer and represent-
ing Ward IV is Michelle
Distler and Mickey
Sandifer.
The seats up for
election this year are
Neighbor's, Sawyer's,
Meyer's and Sandifer's.
Each have said they plan
on seeking re-election in
the 2015 election.
Pflumm, Kemmling,
Vaught and Distler will
be up for re-election in
2017.
Voter turnout for the
2013 general election
was poor and the city is
hoping for more partici-
pation in the upcoming
spring election. In 2013,
only 1,389 ballots were
cast in Ward 1,1,232
were cast in Ward II,
1,283 were cast in Ward
III and just 639 were
cast in Ward IV.
Shawnee has over
40,000 registered vot-
ers, according to the
Johnson County Elec-
tion Office.
The mayor's race saw
more than 5,000 ballots
cast. In the recent 2014
state elections, more
than 50 percent of Shaw-
nee's voters went to the
polls.
Letter to the Editor
Angry about
media coverage
The media cover-
age during this election
season, specifically of the
Kansas incumbent, Gov.
Sam Brownback, infuri-
ated me. With an incum-
bent running on platforms
of economic growth and
fiscal responsibility, why
did stories about Brown-
back's $279 million budget
shortfalls fill headlines the
week after the election?
Did journalists not
feel like investigating
the credibility of this
candidate's claims before
Kansas re-elected him on
Nov. 4? I feel like the me-
dia failed Kansas voters.
The sickening part is
I expect to be misled by
political candidates be-
cause they lie to win elec-
tions. However, the media
has a duty to constituents
to report the facts on
candidates.
The fact is I am disap-
pointed in the media for
failing to provide this
information during the
storm of election season
We see enough politi-
cal smear campaigns on
television, and we need
a reliable source to help
us become well-informed
voters. My journalism
education has taught
me die importance of
objective reporting, and I
believe the political bias
in today's media accounts
for the lack of factual
political reporting we
need to become educated
voters.
Reece Nichols
PREMIER. REALTY
An Independently Owned and Operated Member of the Reoce & Nichols Alliam
913-724-2300
Basehor sbssss;
913-369-2300 [" j
Tonganoxie
www.ReeceAndNichols.com
7924 LAKEVIEW AVE,
LENEXA
$265,000
MOTIVATED SELLERS.
BRING ANY REASONABLE OFFER!
4 Bdrm 2M bath, 2 Story Colonial,
2 car garage. Brand new granite
counters, wood floors, new carpet
and linoleum. You will find new paint
through out, even in the garage.
Hugh master suite located in
Stoneridge Manor. Move
in ready! MLS# 1911183
Call Charles Lanza at
(913)-416-3769 or use my web page
CLanza. ReeceAndNichols. com
111 WILLIS DRIVE • TONGANOXIE
$225,000
3 Bdrm 2% bath, raised ranch, 3 car garage. Great
commuter house with covered wrap around porch. Full
finished basement with porcelain floor tile and carpet
throughout, MLS#1883072
304 CHURCH STREET • TONGANOXIE
$95,500
3 Bdrm 2 bath, traditional ranch, detached 2 car garage,
011 a nice large level corner lot with mature trees, walking
distance to schools, churches and downtown shopping.
Bring your best offer to the table! MLS#1874389
A Premier Company. An Independently
Owned and Operated Member of the
Reece and Nichols Alliance, Inc. ss.'ass
Call John Barnes
200 West Street
Tonganoxie, KS
913-775-0577
lenria Boutte
Shawnee
DID YOU KNOW?
HEART HEALTH IS LINKED TO
HEARING HEALTH?
Did You Know,..
New research from Brigham and
Women's Hospital reveals that a healthy
heart may be the key to keeping your
hearing healthy. The study published
in the American Journal of Medicine,
suggests a possible link between
cardiovascular disease and hearing loss.
Maintaining a healthy heart,
veins and arteries can help
lead to healthy hearing.
Our hearing systems are sensitive to
changes in blood flow. Compromised
cardiovascular health may harm the
peripheral and central auditory systems.
Simply stated, inadequate blood flow can
damage your hearing.
•§< .
Through the month of November,
WE'LL TAKE
OFF $500
a Set of Premium
Hearing Aids!
An active lifestyle can improve
cardiovascular health and increase
blood flow to the ear. According to the
American Journal of Medicine study,
increased physical activity can actually
decrease your risk for hearing loss.
The American Heart Association also
recommends maintaining a healthy diet
and keeping blood pressure within a
healthy range.
Be heart and hearing healthy and have
your hearing tested as part of your
routine medical care. Individuals with
risk factors for developing heart disease
and those who have already been
diagnosed should be especially vigilant
about hearing health. Contact us today
and schedule a FREE hearing health
consultation with Lawrence's premiere
Audi0logist, Dr. MatthewJ. Brown.
Etesssft? d 1 it®®® $ Ikrtro,. SB.
in conjuJSft'jflttfjj
NMRMR"m tlB-laSM1 Jittitute SIHeaffij.
CALL
TODAY!
(913) 945-1419
D
KAW VALLEY
HEARING
13047 Kansas Avenue
Bonner Springs, KS 66012
(913) 945-1419
facebook
www.kawvalleyhearirig.com
.©. 20.14 Starkey..All Rights Reserved. 30258-14 11/14 Individual results may vary
Dr. Matthew J. Brown
Owner & Audiologist
ID
O
\
SSEZ
^ PRO"V^°
Z
LU
O
T
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 7
begins the
Fourth Five-Year Review Report
for the Doepke-Holiday Superfund Site
Shawnee Mission, Johnson County, Kansas
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has initiated the fourth
five-year review at the Doepke-Holiday Superfund site. The review
is required by the Superfund law to make sure completed cleanups
continue to protect human health and the environment. This fourth five-
year review should be completed by December 2015.
The contaminants of concern at the site are volatile organic compounds,
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), metals, semi volatile organic
compounds (SVOCs) including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs). The selected remedy for the site was completed in 1996. It
included construction of an impermeable multi-layer cap over the
waste disposal area. The cap was designed to prevent contact with any
of the contaminated materials and reduce infiltration of surface water.
Cap maintenance and groundwater monitoring will continue at the site
indefinitely.
The EPA will study site information during this fourth five-year review
and inspect the site to determine if the remedy continues to protect
human health and the environment. The EPA encourages community
members to ask questions and report any concerns about the site.
A final report will be prepared at the end of the review and will be
available at the site information repositories.
Detailed information about the site is available at the following
locations:
Johnson County Public Library
8700 West 63rd Street
Merriam, Kansas
EPA Records Center
11201 Renner Boulevard
Lenexa, Kansas 66219
Questions or requests for site information and/or the five-year review
process can be submitted to:
Pamela Houston
Community Engagement Specialist
Toll free: 800-223-0425
E-mail: houston.pamela@epa.gov
Previous Five-Year Reviews for the site are available at the EPA Region
7 website:
http://cumuiis.epa.gov/fiveyear/index.cfm ?fuseaction=fyrseareh.showSitePage&id=0700631
22251 W Sycamore $212,950
Tonganoxie true ranch with lake access!
Open concept in dining, kitchen and living,
wood & ceramic floors, 3 full baths, sun
room overlooking new composite deck& new
privacy fence for pets, natural stained custom
cabinets w/ beautiful island bar, finished
basement with family room, ceiling fans
throughout, living room with corner fireplace
7523 Mackey St. Overland Park $134,950
City living with country feel! Priced in $150's! Close to
Shawnee Mission Medical Center, schools, pool, 75th and
I-35! Charming 1500+ square foot true ranch on near 1/2
acre! Fenced for pets, deck and patio for entertaining, first
floor living and family rooms, country kitchen with loads of
storage. Low maintenance vinyl siding, 3/4 basement with
rec room, asphalt driveway, beautiful mature trees on lot.
Agent is related to seller!
T-v
623 E 7th $89,950
Privacy in the middle of Tonganoxie! Dead
end street with low traffic, fenced for pets
with wood privacy and 5' chain link, huge
garden spots, detached work shop 20x12, true
ranch with two bedrooms, large bath/laundry
combination, all appliances stay! New roof/
guttering on home and work shop'
239th Evans Rd. $346,080
57.68 Acres! Hunter's paradise plus fenced
for live stock or 25 acres of good brome hay
fields! 33 Acres of heavily treed wilderness
Daniel Boone would love! Loads of building
sites! Pond on property. Land comes with one
water meter but must be installed.
19323 Tonganoxie Dr. $359,950
Step back in time in this all brick historic Victorian 2 story
near Tonganoxie on 17.66 Acres! One of a kind, features
include; large covered porch, surrounded by trees, asphalt
road, fenced for horse/cattle with brome hay fields, stocked
pond, stalls for horses, carriage house crafts or workshop!
Home: wood floors, living & family room (parlor) with wood
stove and pocket doors, formal dining, sun room walk-in
closets, sitting & dressing rooms.
18567153rd,, Basehor $169,950
Gorgeous basehor side by side split on 1 acre with room
to breathe! Super convenient location! Covered porch plus
deck! Trees with large yard for kids to play! Updates include
40 year roof, painted exterior and several interior rooms,
96% furnace, efficient pellet stove insert in wbfp. Vaulted
ceiling in great room with hardwood floor, country kitchen
with bay window, vaulted ceiling, ail appliances stay!
------- |