SEMS-RM DOCID # 100010774
FIFTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT FOR
KOPPERS COMPANY, INC. SUPERFUND SITE
BUTTE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED BY
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Seattle District
Seattle, WA
FOR
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX
Dana Barton I
AssTCtant Director, Superfund Division
California Site Cleanup and Enforcement Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 9
-------
[This page is intentionally left blank.]
-------
Executive Summary
This is the fifth Five-Year Review of the Koppers Company, Inc. Superfund Site (Site) located in
Oroville, Butte County, California. The purpose of this FYR is to review information to determine if
the remedy is and will continue to be protective of human health and the environment. The triggering
action for this FYR was the signing of the previous FYR on August 28, 2013.
The approximately 205-acre Site is located within Butte County, in the southern portion of the City of
Oroville, California, east of Highway 70. Residual waste from wood-treatment operations was
historically discharged to on-site unlined evaporation basins. Product handling and two fires (in 1963
and 1987) also contributed to Site contamination. Contaminants of concern include
pentachlorophenol, isopropyl ether, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, polychlorinated dibenzo-p-
dioxins/polychlorinated dibenzofiirans, arsenic, barium, boron, chromium, copper, and creosote.
The Record of Decision was signed in September 1989. Subsequent changes to the Record of
Decision were documented by an Explanation of Significant Differences (January 1991), and two
Record of Decision Amendments (August 1996 and September 1999).
To address soil and groundwater contamination and to protect long-term human health and the
environment, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) selected and implemented the
following remedy: excavation of contaminated soils, debris and sediments; disposal into on-site
landfill cells and capping; extraction and treatment of (On-Property and Off-Property) groundwater
contamination with enhanced in situ bioremediation; product recovery; providing an alternate
domestic water supply to downgradient impacted community members; and implementing institutional
controls which restrict use of the property.
The selected remedy achieved construction completion with EPA signing of the Preliminary Close
Out Report on September 4, 2003. The Off-Property groundwater remediation is completed and the
treatment system has been removed. The On-Property treatment system is still operating, cleanup
standards have not been met, and routine Operations and Maintenance tasks are ongoing.
Review of groundwater data during this review period indicates the Off-Property pentachlorophenol
groundwater plume has been remediated and restored to its beneficial use as drinking water supply.
The On-Property (1994-Present) groundwater extraction and treatment remedy continues to operate to
control the migration of remaining On-Property groundwater contamination. There has been no
migration of contaminants of concerns from the Technical Impracticability Zone or from the On-
Property plume.
Recorded institutional controls restrict groundwater extraction and limit land use to
industrial/commercial. Access controls in the form of fencing also exist to prevent tampering and
vandalism to the remedy. The exposure assumptions, Toxicity Data, Cleanup Levels, and Remedial
Action Objectives are still valid.
No issues or other findings were found during the review period of this Five-Year Review.
Koppers Company Inc. Fifth Five-Year Review
i
-------
The remedy at the Koppers Company, Inc. Superfund Site is protective of human health and the
environment because all exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risk are being controlled.
A deed restriction restricts the property to industrial/commercial use only. The Off-Property
groundwater has been restored to beneficial use. Current data indicate that the groundwater
remediation is progressing and that the remedy is functioning as required to achieve groundwater
cleanup standards.
Koppers Company Inc. Fifth Five-Year Review
-------
Contents
Executive Summary i
List of Figures iv
List of Tables iv
List of Abbreviations v
1. Introduction 6
1.1. Background 8
1.2. Physical Characteristics 8
1.3. Hydrology/Hydrogeology 11
2. Remedial Actions Summary 12
2.1. Basis for Taking Action 12
2.2. Remedy Selection 12
2.3. Remedy Implementation 14
2.3.1. Soil Remedial Actions 14
2.3.2. Groundwater Remedial Actions 15
2.3.3. Institutional Controls 18
2.4. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) 18
3. Progress Since the Last Five-Year Review 19
3.1. Previous Five-Year Review Protectiveness Statement and Issues 19
3.2. Work Completed at the Site During this Five-Year Review Period 19
4. Five-Year Review Process 21
4.1. Community Notification, Involvement and Site Interviews 21
4.2. Data Review 21
4.3. Site Inspection 25
5. Technical Assessment 25
5.1. Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? ....25
5.2. Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, Toxicity Data, Cleanup Levels, and
Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) Used at the Time of Remedy Selection Still Valid?...26
5.3. Question C: Has Any Other Information Come to Light That Could Call Into
Question the Protectiveness of the Remedy? 26
6. Issues/Recommendations 26
7. Protectiveness Statement 26
8. Next Review 27
Koppers Company Inc. Fifth Five-Year Review
-------
Appendix A: List of Documents Reviewed 28
Appendix B: Data Review 30
Appendix C: ARAR Assessment 38
Appendix D: Human Health and the Environment Risk Assessment 40
Appendix E: Press Notice 44
Appendix F: Interview Forms 46
Appendix G: Site Inspection Checklist 49
Appendix H: Trip Report 60
Appendix I: Photographs from Site Inspection Visit 62
List of Figures
Figure 1. Location Map for the Koppers Company, Inc Superfund Site 9
Figure 2. Detailed Map of the Koppers Company, Inc Superfund Site 10
Figure 3. Detailed Map of soil excavation locations at the Koppers Company, Inc Superfund
Site 11
Figure 4. On-Property and Off-Property Pentachlorophenol Plume Comparison from 1993
through 2011 (Tetra Tech, 2013) 17
Figure 5. Wells abandoned in September 2015 20
List of Tables
Table 1. Five-Year Review Summary Form 7
Table 2. Soil Areas 13
Table 3. Cleanup Standards 14
Table 4. Summary of Implemented Institutional Controls (IC) 18
Table 5. PCP Concentrations in Select Wells 22
Table 6. Creosote Removal from the Product Recover Well 23
Table 7. Protectiveness Statement 26
iv
Koppers Company, Inc. Fifth Five-Year Review
-------
List of Abbreviations
ARAR
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement
bgs
below ground surface
CERCLA
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
COC
contaminants of concern
DTSC
Department of Toxic Substances Control
EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
ESD
Explanation of Significant Differences
FYR
Five-Year Review
GAC
Granular Activated Carbon
ICs
Institutional Controls
NCP
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
NPL
National Priorities List
O&M
Operation and Maintenance
PAHs
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
PCP
pentachlorophenol
PR
product recovery
PRP
Potentially Responsible Party
RAO
Remedial Action Objectives
RCRA
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
ROD
Record of Decision
RWQCB
Regional Water Quality Control Board
TI
Technical Impracticability
USACE
United States Army Corps of Engineers
Koppers Company Inc. Fifth Five-Year Review
v
-------
1. Introduction
The purpose of a Five-Year Review (FYR) is to evaluate the implementation and performance of a
remedy to determine if the remedy will continue to be protective of human health and the environment.
The methods, findings, and conclusions of reviews are documented in FYR reports. In addition, FYR
reports identify issues found during the review, if any, and document recommendations to address them.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is preparing this five-year review pursuant to the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Section 121, 40
Code of Federal Regulation Section 300.430(f)(4)(ii) of the National Contingency Plan (NCP) and EPA
policy.
This is the fifth FYR for the Koppers Company, Inc. Superfund Site (Site). The triggering action for this
statutory review is the completion date of the previous FYR. The FYR is necessary because hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at the Site above levels that allow for unlimited use and
unrestricted exposure.
Daewon Rojas-Mickelson of EPA, Region IX, led the Site FYR. Participants included Blair Kinser and
Jeff Weiss of the U.S Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Seattle District. The Department of Toxic
Substances Control, as the support agency representing the State of California, has reviewed all
supporting documentation and provided input to EPA during the FYR process. The review began on
10/19/2017.
Documents reviewed for this FYR are included in Appendix A.
6
Koppers Company, Inc. Fifth Five-Year Review
-------
Tabl< e-Year Review Summary Form
SITE IDENTIFICATION
Site Name: Koppers Company, Inc. Superfund Site
EPA ID: CAD009112087
Region: 9
State: CA
City/County: Oroville, Butte County
NPL Status: Final
Multiple OUs? No
Has the site achieved construction completion? Yes
Lead agency: EPA
[If "Other Federal Agency", enter Agency name]:
Author name (Federal or State Project Manager): Daewon Rojas-Mickelson
Author affiliation: EPA Region 9
Review period: 10/19/2017 - 6/29/2018
Date of site inspection: 3/28/2018
Type of review: Statutory
Review number: 5
Triggering action date: 8/28/2013
Due date (fiveyears after triggering action date): 8/28/2018
Koppers Company Inc. Fifth Five-Year Review
-------
1.1. Background
Beginning in 1920, Hutchison Lumber mill operated at the location which later became the Koppers
Company, Inc. Superfund Site. In 1948, National Wood Treating Company purchased the property and
initiated wood treatment operations with ammoniacal copper arsenate, pentachlorophenol-in-oil mixture
and creosote. In 1955, Koppers Company, Inc. (Koppers) purchased the property and expanded its wood
treatment operations using chemical preservatives such as: pentachlorophenol (PCP), polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), creosote, chromated copper arsenate solution, and boron. The operations
of the wood treating facility included injections of preservatives under pressure into wood products such
as railroad ties and telephone poles to prevent deterioration by insects and fungi. Chemical fires, wood
treatment operations, product and chemical handling methods, and wastewater handling procedures
contaminated soil On-Property, and groundwater both On and Off-Property. In 1988, Beazer East, Inc.
(Beazer) assumed responsibility for historical contamination caused by Koppers' operations and since that
time has conducted all remedial response actions at the Site. Koppers ceased production operations in
2001. A land use covenant has been recorded which, among other things, restricts the property to
industrial/commercial use.
1.2. Physical Characteristics
The approximately 205-acre Site is located in Oroville, the county seat of Butte County, California, off
Highway 70 on Baggett-Marysville Road (Figure 1). As of 2010, the population of Oroville was
approximately 15,600 with over 10,000 people living within a three-mile radius of the Site. Land near the
Site is zoned for a mixture of residential, industrial, commercial, and agricultural uses. Many residents
raise livestock and grow produce for personal use. There are three schools within a 2-mile radius of the
Site (EPA, 1989).
Elevation of the Site is approximately 145 feet above mean sea level with topography sloping towards the
southwest. The western boundary of the Site is roughly 3,000 feet east of the Feather River and the Site
lies within the Feather River flood plain. The Oroville Wildlife Area occupies the area west of the Feather
River. To the south of the Site the Yuba River flows into the Feather River near Marysville, California,
the Feather River then joins the Sacramento River approximately ten miles north of the City of
Sacramento.
8
Koppers Company, Inc. Fifth Five-Year Review
-------
Feather River
Area of
Interest
Oroville Wildlife
Area
NEVADA
Sacramento
Simpco LA
CALIFORNIA
Stuart ct
Koppers Company, Inc
Superfund Site
^Industrial
Figure 1. Location Map for the Koppers Company, Inc Superfund Site (EPA, 2013).
Koppers Company Inc. Fifth Five-Year Review
9
-------
EXPLANATION
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
TIZONE
4+ MONITORING, TEST, AND REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION WELLS
• DOMESTIC WELLS
¦ EXTRACTION AND INJECTION WELLS
300 600 FEET
SCALE IS APPROXIMATE
Figure 2. Detailed Map of the Koppers Company, Inc Superfund Site (EPA, 2003).
10
Koppers Company, Inc. Fifth Five-Year Review
-------
Figure 3. Detailed Map of soil excavation locations at the Koppers Company, Inc Superfund Site
(EPA, 2003).
1.3. Hydrology/Hydrogeology
Site storm water runoff flows into the Koppers Ditch and Drainage Ditch into the L-P ditch, located at the
western property boundary (Figure 2). The L-P Ditch then drains to the L-P pond west of the Site. The
Feather River is located approximately 3,000 feet west of the Site (Figure 1), trending west-southwest at
approximately 130 feet above sea level.
The geology underlying the Site consists of alluvial gravel, sand, and clay deposits from the Feather River
and its ancestral river systems. Four geologic units within the Site footprint have been identified from the
ground surface to approximately 300 feet below ground surface (bgs) (FISI Geo Trans, 1999 and Dames
and Moore, 1988). Three interconnected geologic units or zones, referred to as the A-zone, the B-zone,
and the C-zone, occur both on and off-Site.
The regional A-zone is composed of mixed gravel, which is unsaturated e on the Site and, thus, is not
present as an aquifer unit. The A-zone aquifer is a saturated zone south of the Site. The B-zone aquifer
divides into the upper B and lower B, due to the presence of discontinuous shallow clay layers ranging
from 50 to 80 feet bgs. The C-zone aquifer separates from the lower B by a discontinuous middle clay
zone at approximately 125 feet bgs, and the C aquifer extends to an irregular discontinuous silty clay
layer at approximately 165 feet bgs. Interbedded clays form discontinuous aquitards and create confining
conditions. On a sitewide scale, the upper B, lower B, and C-zone aquifers are interconnected; however,
in some portions of the Site competent clay layers (FISI Geo Trans, 1999) locally vertically separate them.
Koppers Company Inc. Fifth Five-Year Review
11
-------
Groundwater flow direction is to the south at an average velocity of 500 feet/year. The hydraulic gradient
ranges from 0.001 to 0.004 feet per foot, and is somewhat higher On-Property than the gradient Off-
Property (HSI Geo Trans, 1999). There is an extensive groundwater monitoring well network at the Site
used for contaminants of concern (COCs) concentration evaluation and for groundwater level
measurements (see Figure 2). Vertical gradients are variable throughout the Site.
2. Remedial Actions Summary
Basis for Taking Action
Koppers Company, Inc. operated a wood treating facility, within the southern extent of the city of
Oroville, California. The operations of the wood treating facility included injections of preservatives
under pressure into wood products such as railroad ties and telephone poles to prevent deterioration by
insects and fungi. Chemical fires, wood treatment operations, product and chemical handling methods,
and wastewater handling procedures contaminated soil On-Property, and groundwater both On and Off-
Property. The primary human health risks associated with On-Property soil was via incidental ingestion or
inhalation of soil contaminated with PCP, PAHs, metals, polychlorinated dibenzo-p-
dioxins/polychlorinated dibenzofurans (dioxins), and creosote. Another human health risk was the
ingestion of groundwater contaminated with PCP, which was found in residential wells over one mile
south of the Site.
Historically, there were three somewhat distinct contaminated groundwater plumes. The Eastern On-
Property and Off-Property plumes were both primarily contaminated with PCP, while the Western On-
Property plume contained creosote. The majority of drinking water supply for residents who lived near
the Site came from groundwater from residential wells. However, since 1986, when Site related PCP
contamination was discovered in the wells, Beazer has provided an alternative water supply (South
Feather Water and Power Agency) to homes in the affected area.
lection
EPA selected soil and groundwater remedies at the Koppers Superfund Site in its September 13, 1989,
Record of Decision (ROD). The remedies addressed four On-Property soil units (designated SI through
S4) for soil contamination, and one combined groundwater unit for On-Property and Off-Property
groundwater contamination. The groundwater component of the remedy included extraction and
treatment of the contaminated groundwater and providing an alternative water supply to residents with
contaminated drinking water wells. The soil component of the remedy consisted of various in-situ
treatment technologies. (See Table 2)
12
Koppers Company, Inc. Fifth Five-Year Review
-------
Soil Unit Number
Area
Technology Selected
SI
Former pole-wash area and areas along the drip track
leading to the process area, areas east and south of the
process area, the fire debris site at the eastern side of
the western spray field, and the surface soils
throughout the treated wood transport areas.
In-situ biodegradation
S2
Former creosote pond and cellon blowdown areas, an
area of creosote-contaminated soil along the L-P ditch,
and sediments in offsite drainage ditches and ponds
southwest of the Site.
Excavation and soil washing
S3
Wood-treating process area used in normal production
operations at the Site.
Capping
S4
East and south of the process area, where wood treated
with metals was stored.
Excavation and soil fixation
In 1991, EPA modified the soil component remedy in an Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD)
which clarified that the soil remedial objectives applied only to soils from the ground surface to five feet
bgs, and that EPA would establish future cleanup standards for soils deeper than five feet bgs to protect
groundwater. EPA also required institutional controls, land use restrictions prohibiting among other
things, residential use of the plant property, until EPA determined that the Site was clean enough to
remove those restrictions.
In 1996, EPA issued ROD Amendment No. 1 changing the soil and groundwater cleanup standards based
on continued industrial use, while prohibiting future residential use through institution controls (e.g., deed
restrictions). Along with the reversal from future residential land use, a new soil remedy was selected.
Instead of various in-situ treatment/stabilizations selected for each soil unit, all contaminated soils, from
the four soil units as well as soil from other contaminated areas, not accessible at that time, were to be
disposed into an engineered on-site landfill (Soil Disposal Cell). EPA determined that development of
cleanup standards for subsurface soils deeper than five feet below ground surface was not needed; this
determination in the 1996 ROD Amendment supersedes the requirement of the 1991 ESD. The 1996
ROD Amendment also included long-term management and maintenance of the landfill cover and
groundwater monitoring around the landfill.
In 1999, EPA issued ROD Amendment No. 2 modifying the groundwater remedy to include a Technical
Impracticability (TI) Waiver for a 4-acre area of the Western On-Property plume (Figure 2) encompassing
the former creosote pond and cellon blowdown areas. EPA determined a need for the TI Waiver because
it is technically impracticable from an engineering perspective to achieve the groundwater cleanup
standards in the TI Zone due to the presence of dense non-aqueous phase liquid.
The 1999 ROD Amendment No. 2 also augmented the pump-and-treat remedy for the Eastern On-
Property groundwater plume, by adding enhanced in-situ bioremediation (i.e., injecting nutrients) into
select On-Property wells. EPA additionally selected a contingency remedy of monitored natural
attenuation. Finally, EPA selected the implementation of institutional controls through deed restrictions
to prevent access to groundwater, surface disturbances and the addition of new sources of surface water to
groundwater in the TI Zone.
Koppers Company Inc. Fifth Five-Year Review
13
-------
The final remedial action objectives, although not explicitly stated as such in the ROD, ROD amendments
or ESD, are as follows: 1) groundwater containment in the TI Zone, 2) restoration of groundwater to
beneficial uses outside the TI Zone, and 3) prevention of exposure to contaminated soil and groundwater.
Finally, the remedy requires maintenance and monitoring of the landfill to assure that the landfill does not
release any contaminants to groundwater. Table 3 presents the soil and groundwater cleanup standards for
the Site.
Table 3. Cleanup Standards
Media
Chemical
Cleanup Standard
from Decision
Document
Source of Clean-up Standard
Arsenic
7.15 mg/kg
Background; 1996 ROD Amendment 1
Chromium
181 mg/kg
Background; 1996 ROD Amendment 1
Soil
Carcinogenic
PAHsa
2.6 mg/kg
10"5 cancer risk for industrial worker; 1996
ROD Amendment 1
Dioxins
1 ng/kg
Cancer risk as determined in 1996 ROD
Amendment 1
PCP
79 mg/kg
10"5 cancer risk for industrial worker; 1996
ROD Amendment 1
Benzene
lHg/1
California MCL; 1989 ROD
Ethylbenzene
680 (ig/1
California MCL; 1989 ROD
Total Xylenes
1,750 (ig/1
California MCL; 1989 ROD
Isopropyl Ether
2,800 jxg/1
Cancer risk as determined from ARARs,
1999 ROD Amendment 2
Carcinogenic
PAHsa
7 ng/1
Cancer risk as determined from ARARs,
1999 ROD Amendment 2
Groundwater
Dioxins
0.53 (ig/1
10"6 excess cancer risk; 1989 ROD
Pentachlorophenol
lHg/1
Federal MCL; 1999 ROD Amendment 2
Arsenic
27 (ig/1
Background; 1999 ROD Amendment 2
Barium
1,000 jxg/1
California MCL; 1999 ROD Amendment 2
Boron
1,200 jxg/1
Cancer risk as determined from ARARs,
1999 ROD Amendment 2
Chromium
50 jxg/1
California MCL; 1999 ROD Amendment 2
Copper
1,000 ng/L
California Secondary MCL; 1999 ROD
Amendment 2
olementation
2.3.1. Soil Remedial Actions
Soil treatability studies were conducted in 1993 (pilot testing for soil washing), 1994 (soil fixation
treatability study), and 1995 (pilot testing for bioremediation) to evaluate the effectiveness and
implementability of the ROD-specified treatment remedies. Upon completion of these studies, EPA found
that the proposed remedies were not effective in removing COCs and were not implementable.
14
Koppers Company, Inc. Fifth Five-Year Review
-------
During the in-situ bioremediation treatability study for soils in unit SI, high levels of dioxins were found
in the test plots, and a removal action was ordered by EPA in 1995. This contaminated soil was landfilled
onsite in a RCRA-designated Class I landfill, later referred to as Soil Disposal Cell No. 1. The following
year EPA issued ROD Amendment No. 1, which changed the soil remedies for all four soil units to On-
Property soil disposal.
Beazer constructed Soil Disposal Cell No. 2, a RCRA-designated Class I landfill, adjacent to Soil
Disposal Cell No. 1, near the northern boundary of the Site (Figure 2). Between 1996 and 2002, Beazer
excavated and placed 146,930 cubic yards of contaminated soil and building materials in Soil Disposal
Cell No. 2. In 1997 and 1998, contaminated soil was excavated from the former cellon blowdown area,
the former pond and the pole washer area and placed in Soil Disposal Cell No. 2. In March 2001,
following Koppers' closure of the wood treatment plant, approximately 40,000 cubic yards of soil from
the operations area, which had been capped as an interim remedy during plant operations, was excavated
and placed in the on-site Soil Disposal Cell No. 2. This final action completed soil remediation at the Site
and Soil Disposal Cell No. 2 closure occurred in September 2002. The Site achieved construction
completion when EPA signed the Preliminary Close Out Report on September 4, 2003. This report
documented completion of all remedial construction activities for Koppers Superfund Site in accordance
with closeout procedures for NPL sites.
In September 2003, Beazer, the owner of the property where Koppers operated, and the DTSC completed
negotiations on a land use covenant intended to protect current and future users of the Site, because the
soil cleanup actions do not allow for unrestricted use of the property (per ROD Amendment No. 1). The
land use covenant incorporates restrictions that prohibit certain uses of the property and prohibit certain
activities.
2.3.2. Groundwater Remedial Actions
Beginning in March 1986, Beazer began connecting 34 residences downgradient of the Site affected by
PCP contaminated groundwater to the Oroville-Wyandotte Irrigation District (now South Feather Water
and Power Agency) water supply. Although this remedial action predated the decision document, the
1989 ROD formalized the provision of an alternative water supply to those affected by groundwater
contamination.
Beazer constructed two groundwater pump-and-treat system systems (one On-Property and one Off-
Property) in 1993 and 1994. The groundwater pump-and-treat system for the Eastern On-Property plume
includes two extraction wells (EW-1 and EW-2/replaced by EW-2R), and two injection wells (IW-3 and
IW-4) for re-injecting treated water. Groundwater treatment utilizes air stripping, multimedia filters, and
granular activated carbon (GAC) to achieve the removal of COCs. Beazer constructed the Off-Property
groundwater treatment system approximately two miles south of the Site. The system included two
extraction wells (EW-3 and EW-4), a treatment plant, two injection wells (IW-1 and IW-2), and
approximately 1,500 feet of pipelines. Initially treated water was discharged to Wyman Ravine, but was
later reinjected via injection wells IW-1 and IW-2.
In September 1994, Beazer installed a product recovery well (PR-1) in the former cellon blowdown area
and former creosote pond area (i.e., Western Plume) to evaluate whether the subsurface pools of creosote
at the Site could be effectively remediated by draining the fluid into a recovery well.
Koppers Company Inc. Fifth Five-Year Review
15
-------
On December 28, 1995, EPA approved suspension of the Off-Property remediation system. Ongoing
monitoring demonstrated that COC concentrations in groundwater had been reduced below cleanup
standards near the extraction wells, and further pumping of EW-3 and EW-4 would draw contamination
downgradient. Analysis of monitoring results determined that more than 95% of the residual plume
naturally attenuated during the time the Off-Property extraction wells operated. EPA approved the
deconstruction and removal of the Off-Property groundwater extraction and treatment system in 2007, 12
years after the system was shut down because of the significant decline in PCP concentrations.
In April 1998, Beazer stopped paying for municipal water (through the alternative water supply) at 26 of
the original 34 homes with contaminated residential wells because the groundwater in the wells of those
residences met the PCP ROD cleanup standard.
In August 1998, Beazer added in-situ bioremediation of Off-Property groundwater to augment
degradation of PCP. Enhancements (magnesium peroxide and di-ammonium phosphate) were added
intermittently to wells 26, RI-11, and RI-20A. Performance evaluation of this system relied on data from
Off-Property monitoring wells RI-2, RI-3, RI-10, RI-12, and RI-16B.
Beazer completed the construction of well MW-8, near the center of the Eastern On-Property Plume, in
2002. This additional well allows the remedial system to contain and extract groundwater with elevated
boron concentrations from the former Dri-Con and chromated copper arsenate Tank Area. Since treatment
of boron is not possible with GAC or air stripping, extraction and blending of groundwater from well
MW-8 with other influent to the treatment system is the de facto remedy for boron.
EPA approved ending the Off-Property in-situ bioremediation program in September 2009. After the
program, each of the wells where enhancements had been added was sampled for four consecutive
quarters. PCP was not detected in the analytical sampling results collected from any of these wells during
the four quarterly events.
16
Koppers Company, Inc. Fifth Five-Year Review
-------
/
Off-Property plume
ar|a.
Western On-Property plume area.
10pp6
101*6
1.0 ppb itowiM/Dkflolar VX*
l Oppe HovriMr 20W
lOflpfc Sacortw ami*
Hd* It nr. OW-fVgptrtj cutejiyyuwl
p*iPt to 2D10 or 2011
W-22AAC'
MM
Figure 4. On-Property and Off-Property Pentachiorophenoi Plume Comparison from 1993 through
2011 (Tetra Tech, 2013).
Koppers Company Inc. Fifth Five-Year Review
17
-------
2.3.3.
Institutional Controls
Butte County officially recorded a Covenant to Restrict Use of Property for the Koppers Company, Inc.
Superfund Site on November 12, 2003 (Butte County official records serial no. 2003- 7930, Table 4).
DTSC has the primary role for enforcement of the institutional controls for the Site. The covenant,
generally:
• Restricts future Site uses to industrial/commercial uses;
• Requires soil management whenever excavation occurs;
• Restricts access to, and use of, contaminated groundwater beneath the Site;
• Requires that effective drainage patterns be maintained property-wide;
• Prohibits irrigation or other activities that introduce water to subsurface soils;
• Provides right of entry and access for implementing remediation and operation and maintenance
(O&M); and
• Prohibits interference with remedial systems or system components.
Table 4. Summary of Implemented Institutional Controls (IC)
Modiii.
engineered
controls. ;iihI
l( s( idled lor
Title of l(
SIIV.IS lllill (Id
ICs
in (lie
Impeded P;irccl(s)
l(
Instrument
not support
Ncoded
Decision
035-4"70-\\\
OI>.jcc(i\c
Imp lemon led ;ind
I I /I 1 bused
Documents
l);ilc (or phinncd)
on current
conditions
Soil and
No
Yes
005, 029, 031, 008,
009, 022, 032, 033,
As noted
in bullet
Environmental
Restriction
Groundwater
034, 035, 036, 028,
030, 037
points
above.
12 November 2003
wation and Maintenam ')
System operations, operations, and maintenance are limited to upkeep of monitoring wells, operation and
maintenance of the groundwater extraction, treatment and reinjection systems, Soil Disposal Cells,
fencing, and the product recovery well located On-Property. As noted above Beazer deconstructed and
removed the Off-Property treatment system in 2007 and stopped sampling Off-Property monitoring wells
in 2013.
18
Koppers Company, Inc. Fifth Five-Year Review
-------
3. Progress Since the Last Five-Year Review
3.1. Previo ¦ ar Review Protectiveness Statement and Issues
The protectiveness statement from the 2013 FYR for the Koppers Company, Inc Site stated the following:
The remedy at the Koppers Company, Inc. Superfund Site is protective of human health
and the environment because all exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable
risk are being controlled. Residents within the former plume have been supplied with an
alternate source of drinking water. A deed restriction on the property prevents
unacceptable exposure to onsite soil contamination and restricts the property for
industrial use only. Current data indicate that the groundwater remediation is
progressing and that the remedy is functioning as required to achieve groundwater
remediation standards.
The 2013 FYR did not identify any issues or recommendations.
Tipleied at the Site During it, : r Review Period
Beazer performed an optimization evaluation of the existing remedy resulting in recommendations to
remove monitoring wells from the monitoring network or to reduce the frequency of sampling or to
otherwise optimized the remedy (TetraTech, 2013). For On-Property wells MAROS software was used to
evaluate individual well concentrations trends over time and evaluate Site cleanup status on a constituent
by constituent basis, using data sufficiency analysis. Off-Property wells were evaluated in a similar
manner. As a result of this work, EPA approved a number changes to On-Property monitoring well
sampling, the termination of all Off-Property monitoring well sampling, decreasing the number of wells
that receive oxygen enhancements and reducing the frequency of Soil Disposal Cell monument surveying.
In April 2015 EPA approved Beazer's request for abandonment of all Off-Property wells, and three On-
Property monitoring wells in April 2015. Most of the Off-Property wells are located on private property
and are owned by individuals, Beazer offered to abandon these wells at no cost to the land owners: many
Off-Property owners declined or did not respond to Beazer's offer to abandon wells. Ten of the 36 Off-
Property wells and three On-Property monitoring wells (Figure 5) were destroyed in accordance with
State of California Department of Water Resources Water Well Standards (TetraTech, 2016).
From 2013 to 2018, the On-Property groundwater extraction and treatment system removed and treated
approximately 1 billion gallons of water over this five-year period. On-going maintenance of the On-
Property treatment system included replacing GAC media in the fall of 2015 and Air Stripper media in
August 2016.
The pumping rate of EW-2 was observed to be lower than normal in 2015. Beazer performed
rehabilitation activities in late 2015 and noticed significant failures in the screen from 57 feet bgs to the
total depth (80 ft. bgs). EW-2 was abandoned and a replacement well, EW-2R, was installed in April
2016.
Koppers Company Inc. Fifth Five-Year Review
19
-------
Annual Soil Disposal Cell monitoring and five-year elevation monument surveying occurred in 2017. as
scheduled within the reporting timeframe of this FYR. No change in elevation was observed.
No further changes to the remedy or the site have occurred over the last five years (2013-2018).
Se/em Um
ftotice Raad
E
Rt-9
RI-1UI
-Google!
inniraf
IE«Palernffo'St'
39'2t 17 08 ' N 121"33'42.33" W elev 191 fl
Figure 5. Weils abandoned in September 2015 (Tetra Tech, 2016).
20
Koppers Company, Inc. Fifth Five-Year Review
-------
4. Five-Year Review Process
4.1. nmunity Notification, involvement and Site interviews
EPA posted a public notice in the Chico Enterprise-Record, on March 28, 2018, stating that there was a
Five-Year Review and inviting the public to submit any comments to EPA. The results of the review and
the report will be made available at the Site information repositories located at Butte County Public
Library at 1820 Mitchell Avenue, Oroville, CA 95966, at Mariam Library at 400 West First Street, Chico,
CA 95929 and at https://www.epa. gov/superfund/koppersoroville.
On February 15, 2018, USACE and EPA conducted two interviews over the phone with Beazer's
contractor and with a RWQCB representative. The interviewees mentioned the following successes:
contaminant reduction in Off-Property monitoring wells, the related well abandonments, and continued
operation of the On-Property groundwater treatment system. The interviewees identified some O&M
difficulties over the past five years including well screening/development issues and vandalism. In 2016,
EW-2 was replaced. This was necessary due to a compromise of the well screen that could not be
repaired. A new extraction well was installed without any negative effects to containment or the remedy.
Periodic vandalism to remedial system components were noted but damage did not impact the remedy's
protectiveness.
On March 28, 2018, Jeff Weiss, USACE, conducted a site inspection with Site O&M personnel after the
site inspection. Both the On-Property groundwater extraction and treatment system and soil disposal cells
are functioning as intended. O&M has been maintained at an adequate level to ensure that the remedy
continues to function and protect human health and the environment. The only concerns noted were
related to vandalism and declining pumping rate for MW-8.
lew
Contamination at the Site is currently limited to On-Property sources including the Eastern Plume,
Western Plume (TI Zone) and Soil Disposal Cells. Off-Property groundwater achieved the remediation
objective of restoring groundwater to its beneficial use, as a drinking water supply, prior to this current
Five-Year Review period and the Off-Property groundwater monitoring ceased in June 2013.
Eastern On-Propertv Plume
The remediation of the On-Property Plume has almost achieved its remedial action objective to restore
groundwater to beneficial use outside the Technical Impracticability Zone. Currently, all the PCP
concentrations from groundwater samples are below the cleanup goal of 1 (.ig/L. with the exception of
MW-8 (Figure 7). MW-8 is located near the center of the PCP plume and was added as an extraction well
in August 2002, primarily to increase the removal of boron which has remained above the MCL of 1,200
(ig/L. During this review period, PCP concentrations ranged from 220 |a,g/L in November 2016 to non-
detect with the most recent value in December 2017 of 27 |ag/L; boron concentrations ranged from 2000
(ig/L in December 2014 to 860 (ig/L in July 2015 with the most recent value of 1700 (ig/L in December
2017. Mann-Kendall trend analyses using the PCP and boron data from MW-8 indicates PCP is stable
Koppers Company Inc. Fifth Five-Year Review
21
-------
while boron is probably increasing (Appendix B). The increasing trend of boron at MW-8 is likely due to
the extraction well drawing in higher boron concentrations.
The On-Property remediation system prevents migration of the plume and is making progress toward
cleanup standards (PCP 1 j^ig/L and Boron 1200 j^ig/L) and returning groundwater to beneficial use as a
drinking water supply. The treatment system consists of three extraction wells (EW-1, EW-2R and MW-
8), a treatment system, two injection wells (IW-3 and IW-4) and in-situ bio enhancement added quarterly
at monitoring wells: MW-1, MW-2 and MW-4. Extraction wells EW-1 and EW-2R are located down
gradient of the source area and each pump approximately 150 gallons per minutes. During the previous
five years PCP concentrations from extraction wells EW-1 and EW-2 have been below the reporting limit
of 0.48 (ig/L. and therefore, are not removing significant PCP mass. However, these extraction wells do
provide hydraulic control and it is believed that in-situ bioremediation may have a greater impact on PCP
concentration reduction.
The hydraulic capture is verified by comparing groundwater flow direction and gradients over time. The
flow direction and gradient were compared over time using groundwater contour maps that were based on
groundwater elevations collected from 34 On-Property wells. The most recent groundwater contour map
from December 2017 had a similar flow direction and gradient as the contour maps from the same time of
year during the previous five years (Appendix B) indicating groundwater capture has not changed.
In addition to monitoring the PCP concentrations at the extraction wells, two monitoring wells (MW-3,
and 86) are sampled for PCP along the downgradient property line. PCP concentrations have been non-
detect at MW-3 during the previous five years. Well 86 is the furthermost downgradient monitoring well
for the PCP plume and concentrations were non-detect during two of the four sampling events during the
previous five years with detections ranging from 3.5 |a,g/L in November 2014 and 1.3 |a,g/L in November
2017 (Appendix B).
Date
Well 86
PCP Concentration (|ig/L)
MW-8
PCP Concentration (|ig/L)
12/19/13
120
8/12/2014
<0.48
11/6/2014
3.5
12/23/2014
1.6
7/8/2015
41
11/15/2015
<0.5
12/10/2015
150
11/2/2016
<0.47
220
8/23/2017
36
9/20/2017
87
10/30/2017
68
11/28/2017
84
12/6/2017
1.3
12/19/2017
27
22
Koppers Company, Inc. Fifth Five-Year Review
-------
Western On-Propertv Plume (Tl Zone)
The contamination within the TI Zone has not migrated outside the TI Zone over the past five years.
Groundwater samples collected annually from well MW-24, located downgradient of the TI Zone and
used to monitor containment, have been non-detect during the previous five years.
A product recovery well (PR-1) removes creosote from the TI Zone, as required in ROD Amendment 2.
According to the annual reports from the previous five years approximately 50 to 100 gallons of free
product is removed from by PR-1 each quarter. The second ROD amendment estimates that
approximately one million gallons of free product may be within the TI Zone footprint. Although the
creosote removed from the product recovery well is not significantly reducing the overall quantity of
creosote, its continued operation meets the ROD Amendment 2 requirement that PR-1 operate until
creosote recovery is less than one gallon per year at PR-1.
Table S. Creosote Removal from the Product Recover Well
Year
Creosote
Product
Removal
(gallons)
Creosote
Emulsion
Removal
(gallons)
Total Creosote
Removed
(gallons)
2013
125
62
187
2014
150
64
214
2015
275
186
461
2016
117
102
218
2017
111
91
202
On-Propertv Soil Disposal Cell
The On-Property Soil Disposal Cells are lined and capped, all components appear to be in good condition
and there is no indication of any contaminant containment issues with any of the disposal cells.
Groundwater analytical data, collected over the last five years, from six pairs of monitoring wells,
installed around the perimeter of the cells and sampled annually for Site COCs, have reported no
detections of any COCs above ROD cleanup standards.
Review of elevation monument survey data for the Soil Disposal Cells indicate no settlement has
occurred within the past five years that could potentially compromise cell integrity and allow infiltration
into or out of the Soil Disposal Cells.
Koppers Company Inc. Fifth Five-Year Review
23
-------
Seq|«: 1"=W0'
EXPLANATION
Bomealle Wels
-*|3- Industrial Wells
krlgaiton and Stock Wells
Unused Wells
Mwiilcfing. Test and ,a .n
Ramedal kwesllgcllon Welb
A Sqrftjw Wdltr Gauge
"Cx Destroyed/Abandoned Walls
® Extraction Wells
¦ IW lt\>c||oh Walt
Tl Zone
* OK^h EnliahcBrneiil Addition Well
- — Property Boundary
^ q PCP Cohcshtrcifloh Oifl/L) Ih
Groundwater December 2017
Pentachloroplvenol
Concentration Oig/L)
December 2017
PATE: 2-2-1B
DESIGNED:
SM
CHECKED:
JA
APPROVED:
DRAWN:
CP
PROJ.: 117—2201-412
Figure 3
Koppers Company, Inc.
_ Superfund Site
On-Property Pentachlorophenol
Concentrations Third Quarter
and Annual Monitoring 2017
TETRATECH
*¦
MW-21A.B
MW-22A,B,C ,
P—1A
Figure 7. PCP Concentrations from third quarter 2017 (Tetra Tech, 2017)
24
Koppers Company, Inc. Fifth Five-Year Review
-------
: spection
The inspection of the Site occurred on March 28, 2018 In attendance were Daewon Rojas-Mickelson,
EPA, Jeff Weiss, USACE, Bill Bergmann, Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB), Jennifer Abrahams, Tetra Tech, Inc., Marvin Raasch and Casey Wilmunber of Field
Technical Services, and Carolyn Yee and Jim Rohrer, DTSC. The purpose of the inspection was to assess
the protectiveness of the remedy (Appendix H).
Activities of the inspection included a safety briefing and inspection of the On-Property treatment plant,
extraction wells, injection wells, product recovery well and Soil Disposal Cells. The Soil Disposal Cell
caps were observed to be in good condition. The Site has continued to have minor issues with vandalism
including theft of dedicated sampling pumps, theft of wiring at extraction wells, damage to treatment
system and dumping of garbage.
5. Technical Assessment
Question A: is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision
documents?
The remedy at the Koppers Company, Inc Superfund Site is functioning as intended. The On-Property
groundwater extraction and treatment remedy continues to operate to control the potential migration of
the limited remaining Eastern Plume contamination. The On-Property groundwater outside the TI Zone
has been restored to beneficial use, except for the area near MW-8. TI Zone downgradient groundwater
monitoring results show there is no migration of COCs from the TI Zone, while the product recovery well
continues to remove contamination. The Off-Property PCP groundwater plume has been remediated to the
cleanup standard and the aquifer restored to its beneficial use as a drinking water supply.
Contaminated soils have been excavated, and transported to On-Property Soil Disposal Cells that meet
RCRA requirements. This action has reduced Site exposures from contaminated soils to acceptable levels.
Because On-Property soils and groundwater contamination still exists above levels allowing unlimited
use or unrestricted exposure, Institutional Controls, landfill caps, and fencing ensure that exposure
pathways to residual contaminated soils and groundwater do not exist. Vandalism has occurred at the Site
but damage to the remedies has not impacted the protectiveness of the remedies. No opportunities exist to
improve the performance and/or cost of the remedy.
Institutional Controls have been recorded to effectively prevent exposures by restricting groundwater
extraction, limiting land use to industrial/commercial and requiring soil management during excavation.
Access controls also exist at the Site to prevent equipment tampering and vandalism.
Koppers Company Inc. Fifth Five-Year Review
25
-------
5sti he expos ssumptk tity Data, Cleanup
'els, a, medial Action Objectives the Time of
Rer lection Still Valid?
The exposure assumptions used at the time of the remedy selection are still valid. COC cleanup standards
have changed for ethylbenzene, arsenic, and copper since the 1999 ROD amendment but these changes do
not impact the protectiveness of the remedy since COC groundwater concentrations are below the current
ARARs. Pertinent ARARs from decision documents were reviewed for any changes that would affect
protectiveness (Appendix C). This review found no changes to ARARs that would affect the protective of
the remedies implemented at the Site. The groundwater remedial objectives of containment in the TI Zone
and restoration of groundwater to beneficial use outside the TI Zone are still valid and are still
progressing On-Property. Exposure to contaminated groundwater within the TI Zone and On-Property is
controlled due to ICs and fencing.
5siion Other Informatii we to Light Thai Could
Call In estion the Protectiveness of the Remedy?
No further information has come to light that would call into question the protectiveness of the remedy.
6. Issues/Recommendations
There are no issues identified for the Koppers Company Inc. Superfund Site that affect current or future
protective of the remedy.
The following additional observation was made regarding the possibly increasing boron concentrations
Eastern On-Property Plume. It is believed that the boron concentrations are being pulled in from a high
boron concentration area, but the current treatment system is not effective at removing boron. Therefore,
achieving the cleanup level for boron may be challenging. There is no risk of exposure.
7. Protectiveness Statement
Table ?. Protectiveness Statement
Protectiveness Statement(s)
Operable Unit: Protectiveness Determination:
01 Protective
Protectiveness Statement: The remedy at the Koppers Company, Inc. Superfund Site is protective of
human health and the environment because all exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risk
are being controlled. A deed restriction restricts the property for industrial/commercial use only. The
Off-Property groundwater has been restored to beneficial use. Analysis of current data indicate that the
groundwater remediation is progressing and that the remedy is functioning as required to achieve
groundwater remediation standards.
26
Koppers Company, Inc. Fifth Five-Year Review
-------
8. Next Review
The next five-year review report for the Koppers Company Inc. Superfund Site is required five years from
the completion date of this review.
Koppers Company Inc. Fifth Five-Year Review
27
-------
Appendix A: List of Documents Reviewed
Dames and Moore, 1988. Final Endangerment Assessment, Koppers Company Feather River Plant
SuperfundSite. November 1988.
Dames and Moore, 1996. Site-Wide Soils Remedy Report. March 1996.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1989. EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Koppers Co., Inc.
(Oroville Plant) EPA ID: CAD009112087 OU1. Oroville, CA. September 13, 1989.
EPA. 1991. EPA Superfund Explanation of Significant Differences: Koppers CO., Inc. (Oroville Plant)
EPA ID: CAD009112087 OUOl. Oroville, CA. January 29, 1991.
EPA. 1996. EPA Superfund Record of Decision Amendment: KOPPERS Co., Inc. (Oroville Plant) EPA
ID: CAD009112087 OUOl. Oroville, California. August 29, 1996.
EPA. 1999. Amendment #2 to the Record of Decision for the Soil and Ground Water Operable Unit,
KOPPERS Company, Inc. Superfund Site. Oroville, California. September 23, 1999.
EPA. 2003. Preliminary Close out Report for Koppers Company, Inc., Superfund Site, Oroville,
California. September 2003.
EPA, 2013. Fourth Five-Year Review Report for Koppers Company, Inc. Superfund Site. Oroville, Butte
County, California. August 28, 2013.
HIS GeoTrans, 1999. Final Evaluation of Technical Impracticability of Groundwater Restoration in the
Former Creosote Pond and Cellon Blow down Area, Koppers Company, Inc. Superfund Site (Feather
River Plan). March 8, 1999.
Tetra Tech GEO, 2012a. Off-Property Groundwater Remedy Attainment Evaluation and Exit Strategy.
Koppers Company, Inc. Superfund Site (Feather River Plant). Oroville, California. October 5, 2012.
Tetra Tech GEO, 2012b. Recommended Optimized Remedial Action Activities Post-Closure Monitoring
Disposal Cells 1 and 2. Koppers Company, Inc. Superfund Site (Feather River Plant). Oroville,
California. October 5, 2012.
Tetra Tech GEO, 2012c. Recommended Optimized Remedial Action Activities Technical Impracticability
Zone. Koppers Company, Inc. Superfund Site (Feather River Plant). Oroville, California. October 5,
2012.
TetraTech GEO, 2013. On-Property Groundwater Remedy Attainment Evaluation Response, EPA letter
dated June 14, 2013. Koppers Company, Inc. Superfund Site (Feather River Plant). Oroville, California.
August 30, 2013.
28
Koppers Company, Inc. Fifth Five-Year Review
-------
TetraTech GEO, 2014. Annual 2013 Remedial Action Groundwater Monitoring Report. Koppers
Company, Inc. Superfund Site (Feather River Plant). Oroville, California. April 11, 2014.
Tetra Tech GEO, 2015. Annual 2014 Remedial Action Groundwater Monitoring Report. Koppers
Company, Inc. Superfund Site (Feather River Plant). Oroville, California. March 3, 2015.
Tetra Tech GEO, 2016a. Annual 2015 Remedial Action Groundwater Monitoring Report. Koppers
Company, Inc. Superfund Site (Feather River Plant). Oroville, California. April 4, 2016.
Tetra Tech GEO, 2016b. Documentation of Abandoned Remedial Investigation Wells. Koppers
Company, Inc. Superfund Site (Feather River Plant). Oroville, California. April 4, 2016.
Tetra Tech GEO, 2017. Annual 2016 Remedial Action Groundwater Monitoring Report. Koppers
Company, Inc. Superfund Site (Feather River Plant). Oroville, California. January 30, 2017.
TetraTech GEO, 2017. Semiannual 2017, Remedial Action Groundwater Monitoring Report, Koppers
Company, Inc Superfund Site (Feather River Plant) Oroville, California. July 26, 2017
Tetra Tech GEO, 2018. Annual 2017 Remedial Action Groundwater Monitoring Report. Koppers
Company, Inc. Superfund Site (Feather River Plant). Oroville, California. February 12, 2017.
Koppers Company Inc. Fifth Five-Year Review
29
-------
Appendix B: Data Review
Appendix B includes tables and figures used for the data review and Section 4.2 of the report provides
the conclusions from the data review. Figures B-l and B-2 are Mann-Kendall tables and plots for
boron and PCP data collected at well MW-8 during the previous five years. Well MW-8 was the only
location where enough data was collected to use the Mann-Kendall method. Well 86 is the down
gradient monitoring well the eastern On-Property plume. Figures B-3 through B-7 are the groundwater
contour plots from the fourth quarter from 2013 to 2017. The groundwater contours were reviewed to
ensure the flow direction did not change during the previous five years.
Koppers Company Inc. Fifth Five-Year Review
30
-------
GSI MANN-KENDALL TOOLKIT
for Constituent Trend Analysis
Sampling Point ID:| MW-8
Sanpling
Evwit
^Dats^
PCP CONCENTRATION (ug/L)
1
2-Apr-12
610
2
19-Jun-12
140
3
4-Sep-12
74
4
* £-Dec-12
110
5
tS-Oeo-13
120
6
23-Dec-14
1.6
7
3-Jul-15
41
S
••^Dec-15
150
9
2-Nov-16
220
10
23-Aug-17
36
11
20-Sep-17
67
12
300) or decreasing {SO): >95% = Increasing or Decreasing
£ 90% = Probably Increasing or Probabey Decreasing; < 90% and S>0 = No Trend; < S0%, SsO, and COV £ 1 = No Trend; < 90*14 and COV < 1 = Stable.
3. Methecology based on 'MAROS A Decscn Support System for Optimizing Monitoring Flans', J.J. Azz, M. Ling, H.S. Rifai, C.J Newel, and J R. Gonzales,
Ground Water 41{3):355-367,20G3.
DISCLAIMER: The GSI fAann-KendaX Toolkit is available "as is'. Considerable cars nas beef exercised in preparing this software product; .however, nc party, hcftjcfog without
HrftHation GSI E^vrotnmerta' frc., mates any representation or warrant/ regarding the accuracy, correctness, or coirpletene&s of the hfamabon conrawed Jhefe*}, atxi' no such
pact/ shai1 be liable for any direct, .indirect conseqjertia', inotimbf or otter oanages resufing from She use of true fraAxr or the hfwrnatjoo contained herein, /nfonnatkyi iv
this ou&'eanbn is subject to criange wflitout notice. GSi Bnovnmen& Inc.. disclaims any responskMHty or obfigfatbri to iiooate the Vifcnriatiop contained herein.
GSi Erftwyrrenai Arc,
-------
GSI MANN-KENDALL TOOLKIT
for Constituent Trend Analysis
Evaluation Date:
Facility Nam*:
Conducted By:
I -Apr-18
Koppers Superfund Site
Jeffrey Weiss
Job ID:
Constituent:
Concentration Units:
5-Year Review
Boron
u9'l
Sampling Point ID': I
Sampling
Event
Sampling
Date
BORON CONCENTRATION (jgJL)
t
2-Apr-12
42 OD
2
3-May-12
2000
3
1B-Jun-12
1800
4
4-Sep-12
1800
5
19-Dec-12
1700
6
3G-Jul-t3
1403
7
19-Sep-13
13 CO
e
19-Dec-13
144X)
9
12-Aug-14
MOD
10
23-Dec-14
2000
11
S-Jul-15
660
12
1D-Dec-15
1600
13
9-Aug-16
1300
14
2-NOV-16
1400
15
8/23/2017
2QOD
16
9/2Q»2Q17
1700
17
3D-Oct-17
1800
18
28-Nov-17
1700
19
1Q-Dec-17
1700
20
Coefficient of Variation:
0.38
1 1 1 1 1
Mann-Kendall Statistic (S):
-26
Confidence Factor:
80.7%
1 1 1 1 1
Concentration Trend:
Stable
1M00
1000
.2 100
c
o
o
c
o
O
11/10
04/12
OS/13
12/14
COT6
OS/17
02/19
Sampling Date
Notes:
1. At feast four independent sampling events per well are required for calculating the trend. Methodology .is valid for 4 to 40 samples.
2. Confidence in Trend = Confidence (in percent) that constituent concentration is increasing (S>D) or decreasfig | S95% = Increasmg of Decreasing;
£ 90% = Probably Increasing or Probably Decfeasnig; < 90% and S>D = No Trend: < 90%, SfiO, and COV £ 1 = No Trend; < fiO% and COV < 1 = Stable
3. Methodology based on "MAROS A Decision Support System for Optimizing Monitoring Plans", J-J. Azsz, M Ling, H.S. RifaL CJ. Newel, and J.R. Gonzales
Ground Water. 4t(3):355-367, 2Q03.
DISCLAIMER: The GSI Mann-Kendall Tootttit is available "as is" Consaderabfe care nas Dsen exercised1 jn preparing this sorfrvare product' toweier, no party, including wnhout
ffmrtafwn GSI Emimnmeata! Inc., makes any representation or warrant"/ regarding the accuracy, correctness, or completeness of the information contained herein, and no such
party sihaff be ftaibfe for any direct indirect consequential, incidental or other damages resulting from the i/se of this product or the information contained herein. Information in
this publication is subject to change wrtroot notice. GSJ Environmental Inc., disclaims any responsibility or obigatnon to u^dare fte iVirormatio'i contained herein.
GSi' ErnirorOTie.niai' inc., mww.g&Hteicom
Figure B-2. Mann-Kendall results for Boron concentrations at MW-8.
32
Koppers Company, Inc. Fifth Five-Year Review
-------
Dumcsto Wells
hdjstrral Walli
higution and Stack Wells
gj Jnused Wells
jh Uonftcring, Tesr and
^cmcdal hvestigation Wells
A Surface Water Gauge
Dcstroycd/Alwrdsncd Wells
® EW Extraction Wells
¦ |W Injection Wells
Note:
Wells included in the Remedial Actior Monitoring Program appear in
regular font Well* not ireluded ir the r'on'rtorirg program have
been screened for differentiation pjrposes.
Property Boundary
1 n POP Concentration (jug/L) ir»
,u December 2013
— 121 -- Groundwater Contours (ft M5L)
120 bb Groundwater Elevation (ft MSL)
71 Zone
Koppers Company, Inc.
Superfund Sjte
On-Property
Groundwater Contours
November 2013
TETRATECH
DATE: 4-1-1 i
DESIGNED: KM
CHECKED:
JA
PROJ,: 117-2201327
Figure 2
Figure B-3. Groundwater contours from November 2013.
Koppers Company Inc. Fifth Five-Year Review
33
-------
DATE: 2-26-15
DESIGNED: KM
CHECKED: JA
APPROVED;
DRAWN: CP
PROJ.:117-2201351
Figure 2
Scdle: 1"=BOO'
EXPLANATION
Qoifrtstk: 1Mb
Industrial Wells
Irrigation ard Stock Wills
lnus*d Wells
Monitoring, Tes: and
Remedial Investigation 'A'dls
Sir^ocn Wntor Cqu^a
Destnjyed/^fcandcired Wels
EW Extraction Wells
I* Inaction Wells
— Property Boundary
1 r, PCP Concentratfcr (jug/L) in
November 2014
— 121 — Groundwater Contours (ft M5L)
118 72 Groundwater Elevation (ft MSL)
Tl Zone
Note:
Wells included ir the Remedial Action Monitoring Program appear in
regular fort- Wells not included in the monitoring program have
been screened for differentiation purposes
WW-21 A, B
120.71 (A)
Koppers Company, Inc.
Superfuna Site
On-Property
Groundwater Contours
November 2014
TETRATECH
M\V—22A.B.C
MM fit
^P-1A
Figure B-4. Groundwater contours from November 2014.
34
Koppers Company, Inc. Fifth Five-Year Review
-------
Oomesiiic Wells
hdjstrial Wells
c}> frrigdlion und Stock Wells
«i Jnused Wells
Monitoring, Tes? and
^cmcdal hvcstigation Wells
a fl PCP Concentration (/ig/L) in
mJ September 2015
inn PCP Copcerrtration (/ig/L) in
Noverr bcr/December 2015
¦: Surf0« Water Gauge — 121 - Groundwater Contours (ft MSL)
Dcstroyed/Alxirdsncd Wells
¦ EW Extraction Wells Groundwater Elevator (ft MSL)
¦ |W injection Wells n zono
Note:
Wells included In the Remedial Action Monitoring Program appear in
regular font Wells not included in the monitoring program have
been screened for differertlatlon purposes.
Koppers Company, Ire.
Superfurd Site
On-Property
Groundwater Contours
November 2015
"It
TETRATECH
DATE: 3-21-16
KM
JA
PROJ.: 117-2201 387
Figure 2
Figure B-5. Groundwater contours from November 2015.
Koppers Company Inc. Fifth Five-Year Review
35
-------
Scole: 1 "=6O0_
600'
EXPLANATION
• Domestic Wells --- — Property Boundary
Irdustrid Welly ^ |0 PCP Concentration O-ig/L) in
4? Irrigation and Stock Wels " November 2016
» Unused «cl3 ppp Concentration iwp in
^ Monrtoring. Test ard ' November ZD 15
Remedial Investigation Wells _ , _ . lIX
A Surrce ttrter Gap 121 CrMnd»aier Contwlra ;?-< 73 , , , i Groundwater Elevation (ft MSL)
¦a .. a. ii ' in *.He A Completion
¦ i* Injection w«l|s r
71 Zone
Note:
Wells included in the Remedial Action Monitoring Program appear in
regular font Wells not ireluded ir the monitoring program have
been screened for differentiation purposes.
Koppers Company,
Superfund Site
rc.
On-Property
Groundwater Contours
October 2016
PATE: 1-31-17
DESIGNED:
SM
CHECKED:
JA
APPROVED:
DRAWN:
CP
PROJ.il 17-2201396
TETRATECH
Figure 2
MW-16
MW—22A.B.C
120.73(A)
MW-:
121.90 (A)
PR— 1
P-1B
+ P-1A
Figure B-6. Groundwater contours from October 2016.
36
Koppers Company, Inc. Fifth Five-Year Review
-------
DCMW-1B DCMW-1A
DCMW-2A
124
MW-21A.B
123.91 (A)
• Domestic Wells
Industrial Wells
4> Irrigation and Stack Wells
S3 Urused Weils
tfonitrsrinq, 1*5+ and
Remedal Investigation Weils
A Surfoce Voter Gouge ng/A>1
Destroyed/Abandoned Wells »
® EW Extraction Wells
¦ IW Injection *ek
* Oxygen Enhancement Additicn Weil
— Property Boundary
1.0-
- 125 - Groundwater Contours (ft MSL)
123.97 Groundwater Elevation (ft MSL)
PCP Ccncchtfd^on (ug/L) if
December 2017
Groundwater Elevation (ft MSL)
in the A Completion
71 lone
Note:
Wells Included in the Remedial Action Monitoring Program appear in
regular font Wells not included ir- the monitoring program have
been screened for differentiation purposes.
Koppers Company, Inc.
Superfund Site
On-Property
Groundwater Contours
December 2017
It
TETRATECH
BATE: 2-12—IS
SM
JA
PRO J,: 117-2201 At 2
Figure 2
Figure B-7. Groundwater contours from December 2017.
Koppers Company Inc. Fifth Five-Year Review
37
-------
Appendix C: ARAR Assessment
Section 121 (d)(2)(A) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) specifies that Superfund remedial actions must meet any federal standards,
requirements, criteria, or limitations that are determined to be legally applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements (ARARs). Applicable requirements are those standards, criteria, or
limitations promulgated under federal or state law that specifically address a hazardous substance,
pollutant, contaminant, remedial action, location, or other circumstance at a CERCLA site. Relevant
and appropriate requirements are those cleanup standards and other substantive environmental
protection requirements promulgated under federal or state law that, while not directly "applicable" to
a CERCLA site, address problems or situations sufficiently similar to those found at a site that their
use is well suited to the particular cleanup.
Because remedial design and construction to implement previous Records of Decision (RODs) for the
Koppers Company Inc. Superfund Site is complete, ARARs that address those activities are no longer
pertinent and are not addressed in this review.
Table C-l presents the chemical-specific ARARs identified in the decision documents. The
ethylbenzene cleanup standard for groundwater is above the current MCL. However, ethylbenzene has
not been detected in groundwater samples from the site during this five-year review period.
TableC-1. Summary of Groundwater Chemical-Specific ARARs
Contaminants of
Concern
Cleanup Standards
from Decision
Current
State MCL
Current
Federal MCL
Is Cleanup
Standard above the
Documents (p.g/1)*
(HS/Lf
(Mg/L)
Current MCL?
Benzene
1
1
5
No
Ethylbenzene
680
300
700
Yes
Total Xylenes
1,750
1,750
10,000
No
Pentachlorophenol
1
1
1
No
Barium
1,000
1,000
2,000
No
Chromium
50
50
100
No
Copper
1,000
1,300
1,300
No
*lncludes 1989 ROD, and 1996/1999 ROD Amendments Chemical-specific ARARs.
±As of January 10, 2018.
38
Koppers Company, Inc. Fifth Five-Year Review
-------
Table C-2. Action specific ARARs
Action
Media
Citation
Requirements
Origin
ARAR Changes
during this Review
Period
Property
Title 22, CCR,
Title 22, CCR,
For properties that contain
New
Change without
Containing
Chapter 39,
Chapter 39,
hazardous waste, citation
regulation,
regulatory effect
Hazardous Waste
Section 67391.1
Section 67391.1
requires all land use
covenants to be signed by
the DTSC and the
landowner and be recorded
in the county where the land
is located
Effective
April 19,
2003.
amending
subsections (b) and
(d) and Note filed 1 -
7-2013 pursuant to
section 100, title 1,
California Code of
Regulations
(Register 2013, No.
2).
No other Federal or State laws and regulations for ARARs have been promulgated or changed over the
past 5 years in a manner that affects protectiveness. See Table C-2 above.
Koppers Company Inc. Fifth Five-Year Review
39
-------
Appendix D: Human Health and the
Environment Risk Assessment
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region IX
75 Hawthorne Street (SFD-9-4)
San Francisco, CA 94105
MEMORANDUM
June 2018
Subject: Koppers Company, Inc. Superfund Site, Oroville CA, fourth Five Year Review
Protectiveness with Respect to Changes in Toxicity Values.
Revisions to toxicity assessments for site-related contaminants may call into question the
protectiveness of cleanup levels established in the Record of Decision (ROD) for a Superfund site.
Thus, it is appropriate during a site's Five-Year Review (FYR) to re-evaluate protectiveness for
contaminants where risk-based cleanup levels were chosen in the ROD.
Cleanup levels at Superfund sites are typically set to either Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements (ARARs), such as drinking water Maximum Contaminant Goals (MCLs). When an
ARAR is not available for a contaminant, the National Contingency Plan (NCP) directs EPA to set a
cleanup level that is "protective of human health and the environment", usually based on the risk
assessment for the site.
While ARARs are "frozen" at the time of the ROD, risk-based cleanup levels should be re-evaluated
considering any revisions to underlying toxicity assessments, to ensure continued protectiveness. If a
Superfund site remedy is intended to meet a site-specific, risk-based cleanup level, the FYR guidance
requires EPA to assess whether toxicity or other contaminant characteristics used to determine the
original cleanup level have changed and whether it remains protective considering the change(s).
40 Koppers Company, Inc. Fifth Five-Year Review
From:
Daniel Stralka, Ph.D.
Regional Toxicologist
For:
Five Year Review report,
-------
Table 1. Contaminants of Concern and Basis for Selecting Cleanup Level
Media
Chemical
Cleanup Standard
from Decision
Document
Source of Clean-up Standard
Soil
Arsenic
7.15 mg/kg
Background; 1996 ROD Amendment 1
Chromium
181 mg/kg
Background; 1996 ROD Amendment 1
Carcinogenic
PAHs3
2.6 mg/kg
10"5 cancer risk for industrial worker; 1996
ROD Amendment 1
Dioxins
1 ng/kg
1998 EPA guidance b, 1996 ROD
Amendment 1
PCP
79 mg/kg
10"5 cancer risk for industrial worker; 1996
ROD Amendment 1
Groundwater
Benzene
lHg/1
California MCL; 1989 ROD
Ethylbenzene
680 (ig/1
California MCL; 1989 ROD
Total Xylenes
1,750 (ig/1
California MCL; 1989 ROD
Isopropyl Ether
2,800 jxg/1
1989 ROD, risk calculation
Carcinogenic
PAHs3
7 ng/1
1989 ROD, risk calculation
Dioxins
25 pg/1
Analytical detection limit; 1989 ROD
Pentachlorophenol
lHg/1
Federal MCL; 1999 ROD Amendment 2
Arsenic
27 (ig/1
Background; 1999 ROD Amendment 2
Barium
1,000 (ig/1
California MCL; 1999 ROD Amendment 2
Boron
1,200 jxg/1
1989 ROD, risk calculation
Chromium
50 jxg/1
California MCL; 1999 ROD Amendment 2
Copper
1,000 (ig/1
California Secondary MCL; 1999 ROD
Amendment 2
a. Carcinogenic PAHs Include: benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene,
benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene, and indeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene
b. Formalized in EPA's 1998 Approach for Addressing Dioxin in Soil at CERCLA and Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Sites, industrial soil cleanup level.
mg/kg-milligrams per kilogram, (ig/kg-micrograms per kilogram, jj.g/1- micrograms per liter, ng/1-
nanograms per liter, pg/1- picograins per liter
Koppers Company Inc. Fifth Five-Year Review
41
-------
Table 2. Comparison of RSL to ROD Cleanup Standards for soil and groundwater
::
Media
£
::
Contaminant of
Concern
2018 RSI.
Ma> 211IX1'
Cleanup Standard from
Decision Document
Is the Cleanup
Standard still
protectee?
Soilb
Carcinogenic
PAHs
2.1 mg/kg ca
2.6 mg/kg
Yes
Dioxins
0.022 ug/kg ca
1 ug/kg
No
PCP
4.0 mg/kg ca
79 mg/kg
Yes
Groundwater
Isopropyl Ether
5900 jxg/1 nc
2,800 (ig/1
Yes
Carcinogenic
PAHs
0.025 jxg/1 ca
0.007 (ig/1
Yes
Dioxins
0.12 pg/1 ca
25 ng/1
No
Boron
4000 jxg/1 nc
1,200 ppb
Yes
a. ca-cancer effect, nc-non-cancer effect
b. Soil based on industrial exposure
c. Groundwater based on residential use.
Protectiveness Determination: For these contaminants, a protectiveness determination using current
toxicological and risk assessment information was made by comparing the risk-based cleanup goals
specified in the ROD, ESD or 2 ROD Amendments to current risk-based screening levels. The
Superfund RSLs (Regional Screening Levels) were used to make this comparison. RSLs incorporate
current contaminant toxicity values into standard Superfund risk assessment scenarios to generate
contaminant concentrations in impacted media that are protective of human health as defined in the
NCP. RSLs are not de facto cleanup standards for a Superfund site; rather as risk-based screening
levels they provide a reliable indication of whether additional actions may be needed to address
potential human health exposures.
The RSLs for carcinogens are chemical-specific concentrations that correspond to an excess lifetime
cancer risk (ELCR) of 1x10-6, which is the lower boundary of the Superfund protective range for
cancer risks (ELCR = 10"6 to 10"4) as defined in the NCP. RSLs for contaminants posing non-cancer
health hazards are concentrations corresponding to a Hazard Quotient =1.0 (HQ=1). HQ=1 RSLs
represent "concentration levels to which the human population, including sensitive subgroups, may be
exposed without adverse effect during a lifetime or part of a lifetime, incorporating an adequate
margin of safety", as specified in the NCP.
To evaluate the protectiveness of the clean-up levels in soils were compared to industrial RSLs to
account for the land-use restrictions already in place. For groundwater, clean-up levels were
compared to MCLs, if available, or RSLs for drinking water.
42
Koppers Company, Inc. Fifth Five-Year Review
-------
The cleanup level of 1 j^ig/kg dioxins expressed as 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro dibenzo-p-dioxin equivalents
(TEQ) is higher than the 2018 Remedial Screening Level for industrial sites of 0.022 j^ig/kg based on a
10"6 increased cancer risk. It is also higher than the non-cancer toxicity value results in soil screening
levels of 0.6 j^ig/kg TEQ for industrial scenarios. After soil excavation had been completed,
confirmation samples were collected and analyzed, along with previous samples where excavation was
not required. A total of 182 samples were used to calculate the residual dioxin concentration using the
upper 95% confidence level of the mean. The residual concentration of dioxin was calculated to be
0.6 (ig/kg TEQ (TRC, 1999). This is equal to the non-hazard risk screening level, and is within EPA's
cancer risk range of 10~4 to 10~6 excess cancer risk for industrial use. (0.022 j^ig/kg TEQ to 2.2 j^ig/kg
TEQ). Therefore, the remedy is protective.
In groundwater, both the State and Federal MCL is 30 pg/1 and the ground water cleanup goal is 25
pg/1 based on the then analytical detection limit and is below the promulgated MCL and would be at
the upper end of the risk range.
Koppers Company Inc. Fifth Five-Year Review
43
-------
Appendix E: Press Notice
Newspaper : Chico Enterprise Record
Issue Date : 03^28/2018
Advertiser: CALIF NEWSPAPER
Ad Number : 000612859501
itOCALMS-O a
BID WELL PARK
Cilv: Disc golfers upholding their agreement
By Laura Urscny
hitxfi.uQtMrtrtrMnn
<$LatirnUr>tn'j nit Twitter
chico » Despite ainti nulng
criticism from Friends of
Bidwdl Park, disc golf
crs arc meeting their finan-
cial and env i ro nmcntc I ol>-
ligi'.tinns in Lining care of
Peregrine Point Disc Golf
Course. In tiie eyes of tlie
city.
Irt a long staff report
and then verba! report to
the Ridwrll Piuk and ilriy-
groiiiul Commission Mon-
day, parks and natural re-
source manager Line:a
Herman explained her rea-
soning,
Outdoor Recreation Ad-
vocacy Inc. is the local non-
profit group of disc golf
players tlmt has been Icas-
ing the course front the city
since 2010, and following
mitigation and monitor-
ing obligations.
i'hs course is east of
Cliieo, off Highway 32, in
upper Bidwcll Park
Friends of Bidwcll Park
objected when Herman
suggested earlier this year
tha" thr. city should take
over the cost of environ-
mental monitoring of the
area from the disc golfers.
Herman pointed
out the city's
long-range plan
for the area
was not only
for a disc golf
course but a
recreation area,
with bathroom,
trailhead, signs
and information
for different
types of users.
Mil MViM-t«tt*rxiU-HtCU*anil
\aircv/ wooden pule, set ir front of trcos to protect them from flying pi jctl: d scs s;
"eregtlne Pen: [) sc Col? Coc.-se h»ve bien deemsd unsuccessful The c?t> suggests
wiappng tie t.-unks of fees: kely \o be hit with cushioned neeh.
Not off the hook tu put Up diun't wcrk, and be given a real. H»ar sug-
Herman said dlse golf- now another option will bo gestcd the disc golfers, city
ers have been Working on tried, wrapping the trunks and Friends of Rid well Pnik
the course. in cushion-like mesh to should meet. He pointed out
"We're not letting ihum protect them from flying thai promised signs, which
off the hook," she s aid. but discs, Herman said after would have kept visitors on
said ihe club's resources research, she found trunks paths, still weren't installed,
are batter spent on main- ware taking more damage Herman said relocating
taining the course rather than brunches. several targets in the course
than spending on mont- _ . could roach the same end,
taring studies. erosion and was part of t he original
Of Peregrine Point, she Responding to previous plan. Complaining about
said, "We'rerecognizing k is criticism overongoing ero- the erosion, Commissioner
a recreation area and all arc sion at the course, with vis- Elaina McReynclds, asked
shitting tlieres'.tcnsibililics." itors not staying on desig- for an update of work done
Herman told the Park nated paths, Herman said at the course by the fall.
Commission that sen si- the city ws»s> gelling ready Elliott did not attend
live plunts awl wildlife ere lo install alow railing that Monday's meeting, but
found throughout the area, would better delineate the President John Mere said
not just at the course. Sew path Friends of Bidweil Park
cral of the pnrk con.mis- Herman pointed out the would be happy to sit down
sioners acknowledged the city* long-range plan for the with Outdoor Raereation
Paiks Division's short staff- area was not only for a disc Advocacy Inc. to work
ins, which they felt had golf course but a recreation through it.
played a role In lack of over- area, with bathroom, trail- Phil Brock from the disc
sight at thecourse. Itend,signs ar.d information golf group attended the
Herman also produced for different types ol'users. mcetitigbut did not speak.
a report showing wiiat the Commissioner Aaron
disc golfers had contributed. Hanr suggested that pf.r- Contact reporter -fount
The club provided 50 Iwps the course needed to Urseny at896-77S&.
percent of the course e
strnction coats
i cash,
Friends of Rid well Park
representative Woody El-
iictt said at that time that
theagivi'ineat with Lite disc
golfers staled they would
cover costs of biological
studies, adhere tn mitiga-
tion plans, and work on the
course. Herman has coun-
tered that tin: disc golfers
are doing U'.eii' pari. but the
city is having trouble on its
side because of staff sign-
ages. Additionally, it's more
than disc golfers who are
causing the impact on Ihe
arcn, including erosion and
plant damage caused by hik-
ers ami cyclists, skesaid
Environ mentally sen-
sitive wildlife and plants
arc found there, including
peregrine falcons. Bid well's
knotwocd and checker-
bloom, a swell as blue oaks.
Environmentalists also
have pointed out tremen-
dous soi: erosion that lias
occurred on the site, which
is thin over lava cap.
as agreed to; contributed
nearly 2,000 hours to con-
strue! the course; and
funded $24,030 in biologi-
cal studies although it only
owed about $11,181.
Herman said the club
paid for biological studies
every year from 2011-2016
when it only owed for every
other year. After the coarse
was finished, the club "pro-
vided additional cash and
in-kind contributions in
the amount of SC5.611 (in-
cluding volunteor hours)
for a total overall contri-
bution including the stud-
ies of $109,647," she wrote
in tlie report. Herman said
wood chips for scil protec-
tion have been delivered to
the course, but Hie rocky
tcrruln makes it difficult
in distribute the chips to
the various points in the
course, which hugs the can-
yon edge in places.
Regarding blue oak pro-
tection, Herman said the
wooden poles and later
screens the club was told
Chico's Aaron Brothers
arl, frame slore lo close
By Laura Uisony
tursenyi£tl Jw
roads center on Martin Lu-
ther King Jr. Boulevard.
Contact reporter Laum
CHICO « The Aaron Brothers Urscny at 8QG-775G
store in the shopping center
near Best Buy will be closed i
by the summer.
Michael's Stores an-
nounced it would close sill
91 Aaron Brothers through- I
[w)
Tltt U.S. Envjonmontol Protection Agene/ (SPA) Is wnetcdnj » buiVt
flvr-ymr rei/m ol tlcaniip ocwni crmsWM CI IM WMlem Psetflc
PaSioad Ccnjdriy (WPRJIj Stpoiuid Ste near OicyiIc, Calfoiria. The
"—f the (rei nowolo- and sot cleanup remsij <» «U">» oto.
EPA lrtv-1 is llm axjinu.-w to lean rwf us
f>j< lnp'j'_ Irfe.rvi'yon is (waJabto nt E
n (opo; lory lhai WMiflS toe
H Flirts Ltacrr al 1820 M£d cll A<5i
Tho U.S. Era-on'WMl =V»lecii6n Afldrrty (CPA) is condudTO n liflli
CM>-V»ar Review (PVR- ol nt» mni.ilu or, u» sfm. tin tlnamip vrfl bo
leihwd evory tv« ycpii. Ti» to; FVR i»io m 20T3. isrWocc tbe
9'OuntfrtOtSI and sal! rmrcdcj. The FVR found tho ferneiilej frcHccIfd
EPA n,iH» |h« •» l-S" n»wo abo
yevt Input.
InfWMllor is evsilabfe »i EPA'» *ob »ie: H'<~
'.¦wyw-teajav.-auKftiid'
tf*«, OlOvlKl. CA SB.S5S
weii f«i Suesi, Cnny,
utra city government
will sponsor panel discus-
sions, lectures and other
public events centered
around the book.
"We are committed to
the Book in Common and
to using a shared reading
experience not only to ed-
ucate ourselves on impor-
tant subjects, but also to
bring us togelliei and make
us more empathctie human
beings," said Chico State
President fiayle Hutchin-
son. "Tim Hernandez's
book serves those purposes
beautifully"
Post community reads
include "The Distance
Between Us." by Rcyna
Grande, "Unquenchable." by
Robert Glumion, and "My
1 jfeon the Road,"authored
hy Gloria Steinem.The 2017-
18 Book in Common selec-
tion, Malt Richtcl's nonfic-
ticn work "A Deadly Wan-
dering," focused usi a* cur
wreck caused by inatten-
tion from using a cell phono
while driving. Riditel vis-
ited Chico in October for
discussions at Chico State
and Butte College.
A community kickoff
event for"AU They Will Call
You" will be scheduled for
the early pari of Ihe fall se-
mester.
For more information on
tlie Book in Common, visit
wvvw.csuch lco.e du/bic,
Holy Week Scrvkcs a:
Bidwdl Presbyters Church
.ui-iimin RrtVflfMtYiw?! u»n • nniwiin
Moundy Thursday. March z<)
Mjciugef, at (415 j 94 7-4191 cr c^eenilbtefiBdgjKi^aa JBB
) >Ct )» it
Gnnd. Friday, Mnrclt 30
1.•Sfi-.Vw t;rU V«W» til
ifOi'iil
Exiter Syntby, April 1
ttefcJt»» Ji^iildv Scvloc
n««y H»m«n
3:10<1 it- Tf(K|ll>atulw'.tHth.nKrff.li«:ii
0:)*it.r.4t t»lW jrtsr
> Wwto »rflwr
SOS
Sao Antonio Shoemakers"
5 OFF
ONE PAIR OF SAS SHOES
$40 OFF
TWO PAIR OF SAS SHOES
($20 OFF EACH ADDITIONAL PAIR)
Purchase or Order On All SAS
Today thru Tuesday April 10 "
44
Koppers Company, Inc. Fifth Five-Year Review
-------
t rffc \
EPA CONDUCTS FOURTH REVIEW OF CLEANUP ACTIONS AT
WgSTERH PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY SUPERFUND 5fTE
The U,S, Environment^ Protection Agency (EPA) Is conducting o fourth
fivt*y&?»r review of cleanup actions compiled jj| the Western PiJ&fic
Railroad Company (WPRfl) Superfund Site near Orcvi|lfll CdlifGfniji. The
tovlouf wiJt covof the grOu nmvater a nd soil cleanup remed es ot tho site.
According to law, It o cleanup tahos mom tham five years to
ccmpfcts, or hAzandous wastes remain on tho ate, the cleanup vvi3 he
reviewed every five years, The last five-year review, conducted 1n 2D 13,
r owe wed the comptotid gtotindwalef £>nd Soil remedies and found thai the
remedies were protective of human health and (boenviramnnrrt.
The Fourth Five^Vear Revow rpporl will be firtsf In September 2013 and wiB
be ava table to thfj puWicbeth online and at the locsf Information repository.
EPAlrv/ilas the community to team mure nbotit Ibis review and welcomes
ycur Input. Information k available eiI EPA's website: ww gga novf
The infonmi'^ort repository that contains IHO sito's Admifliilffstiv© RacortfS,
reports, documents. tscl sheets and other materia, Es loeetMl fit Iho Butt*
County PubEc Library at 1820 MilcSi-pJV Avenue fen Orovitie, Cftk-fcrnLn, To
obtain additional Information you con contact HoDy Hodtocfc, SuperfurKf
Rci-frfidsft] Project Manner. m (415^72-3171 or at .
EPA CONDUCTS FIFTH REVIEW OF CLEANUP ACTIONS AT
KOPPERS COMPANY, CMC. SUPERFUNO SITE
Tho IAS. Environmental Protection A$or*cy (EPA) is conducting a fifth
Five-Year Review (FYR} or cleanup actions competed al tho Kopper&
Company, IrtC. Suptirfund site roar OfoviBo, CA, Tho raview wiS cover tho
gfoundwaier and soil detmup remedies at tho site.
According to Supertund faw, if ~ cteanup takes moro than fiv& years to
compete, or hazardous waste remain on uxj site, tho cleanup will be
revved every five yesrs, Tho last FVR, done in 20 T3, ro/lowed the
groundwater and soil remedies, Tho FYR found tho remedies protected
human health and the environment,
The fifth FYR will bo completed In September 2018 and made available tot
tho public online and at tho mfofma!»ofi mpositortcslistod beltsw.
EFPA the commtrnily to leam more about tftis FYR ervd welcomes
yotirJfipiji
tnfotmetion rs Ovaisabro on EPA'a wab sito: httn't ^-Wff.nn.1 .qovi'si i rvR|t; i nrl^
koppftrsotovillo.
Thefo ure two infomni^ion rciMSJSciricr. that hold tho site's Administrati/a
Records, project reports, fact, shoots and oth
-------
Appendix F: Interview Forms
Five-Year Review Interview Record
Site: Koppers
E PA ID No: CAD009112087
Interview Type:
Location of Visit: Teleconference
Date: 15 February 2018
Time: 10:00
Interviewers
Name
Title
Organization
Jeffrey Weiss
Hydrogeologist
USACE
Interviewees
Name
Organization
Title
Telephone Email
William Bergmann
RWQCB
Summary of Conversation
1) What is your overall impression of the project?
I do not know of any negative issues with the project. Currently I review monthly data reports from the project and do not
have a significant role in the project.
2) Is the remedy functioning as expected? How well is the remedy performing?
Not applicable based on my current role with the project.
3) What does the monitoring data show? Are there any trends that show contaminant levels are decreasing?
No, nothing significant.
4) Is there a continuous O&M presence? If so, please describe staff and activities. If there is not a continuous on-
site presence, describe staff and frequency of site inspections and activities.
Not applicable, I have not been out in a few years.
5) Have there been any significant changes in the O&M requirements, maintenance schedules, or sampling routines
in the last five years? If so, do they affect protectiveness of the remedy? Please describe changes and impacts.
Not applicable, I am not involved in the monthly work.
6) Have there been unexpected O&M difficulties or costs at the site in the last five years? If so, please give details.
No
-------
Five-Year Review Interview Record
Site: Koppers
EPA ID No: CAD009112087
Interview Type:
Location of Visit: Teleconference
Date: 15 February 2018
Time: 11:00
Interviewers
Name
Title
Organization
Jeffrey Weiss
Hydrogeologist
USACE
Interviewees
Name
Organization
Title
Telephone Email
Jennifer Abrahams
Tetra Tech
Summary of Conversation
Ms. Abrahams Does not do a lot of on-site work she is the project manager. Field Technical Services does OM, interacts with
Field Technical Services, she has a good working relationship.
1) What is youroverall impression of the project?
Remediation is progressing residual plume is decreasing, boron, and PCP. More in maintenance not as much active.
2) Is the remedy functioning as expected? How well is the remedy performing?
Yes, and performing well.
3) What does the monitoring data show? Are there any trends that show contaminant levels are decreasing?
Does not do a lot of monitoring. Wrote in 2012 and approved in 2013 resulted in 2013 optimized sampling schedule.
4) Is there a continuous O&M presence? If so, please describe staff and activities. If there is not a continuous on-
site presence, describe staff and frequency of site inspections and activities.
Field Technical Services are the ones who conduct O&M, sampling, MW-8 has the boron concentrations. Weekly checks at
treatment plant.
5) Have there been any significant changes in the O&M requirements, maintenance schedules, or sampling routines
in the last five years? If so, do they affect protectiveness of the remedy? Please describe changes and impacts.
Optimization changed the sampling. 2015 extraction rate was tailing off and tried to rehab EW2, significant portions of screen
were compromised. Screen was missing. Drilled new extraction well. New well brought production rates back to reasonable
levels. Maintains capture and meets its goals.
6) Have there been unexpected O&M difficulties or costs at the site in the last five years? If so, please give details.
Replacing well EW-2. After optimization, closed out. Contacted owners and let them know they could have the wells
abandoned, abandoned 15 wells. Off-Property and a few Tl wells. Periodic vandalism does occur.
7) Have there been opportunities to optimize O&M or sampling efforts? Please describe changes and resultant or
desired cost savings or improved efficiency.
Optimization approved in 2013 (this resulted in discontinuation of monitoring Off-Property and well abandonment).
8) Are you aware of any changes in Federal/State/County/Local laws and regulations that may impact the
protectiveness of the remedy?
Federal status with respect to dioxins looked at dioxins and current remedy is protective.
9) Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the project?
No, there are no big changes to how we implement the remedy. Ideally turn off GET system.
Koppers Company Inc. Fifth Five-Year Review
47
-------
48 Koppers Company, Inc. Fifth Five-Year Review
-------
Appendix G: Site Inspection Checklist
I. SITE INFORMATION
Site name: Koppers Company, Inc. Superfund Site
Date of inspection: March 28, 2018
Location: Oroville (Butte County) California
EPA ID: CAD009112087
Agency, office, or company leading the five-year
review: USACE Seattle District
Weather/temperature: Sunny in the 70s
Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply)
Landfill cover/containment
Access controls
^Institutional controls
Groundwater extraction and treatment
~ Surface water collection and treatment
~ Other: e.g. (iroundwaler monitoring
~ Monitored natural attenuation
~ Groundwater containment
~ Vertical barrier walls
Attachments: Inspection team roster attached
Trip report attached
~ Site map attached
II. INTERVIEWS (Check all that apply)
1. O&M site manager Marvin Raasch
Site Supervisor
Interviewed ^ at site
Problems, suggestions;
Name Title
~ at office ~ by phone Phone no.
~ Report attached
March 28. 2018
Date
2. O&M staff
Casey Wilmanber
O&M Technician
Name Title
Interviewed £3 at site Qat office ~ by phone Phone no.
Problems, suggestions; ~ Report attached
March 28. 2018
Date
Koppers Company Inc. Fifth Five-Year Review
49
-------
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.
Asencv: DTSC
Contact: CarolvnYee March 28.2018 (916)255-3671
Name Title Date Phone no.
Problems: suggestions: PI Report attached: Carolvn recently took over the oroicct so a formal interview
was not completed. She was dresent for the site walk
Asencv: Central Vallev RWOCB
Contact: BillBereman February 15.2018 (530)224-4852
Name Title Date Phone no.
Problems; suggestions; Report attached
Agency:
Contact:
Name Title Date Phone no.
Problems; suggestions; PI Report attached
Agency:
Contact:
Name Title Date Phone no.
Problems; suggestions; n Report attached
4.
Other interviews (optional) ^ Report attached.
Jennifer Abrahams with Tetra Tech
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 £3 Up to date ~ N/A
Maintenance logs ^ Readily available ^ Up to date ~ N/A
Remarks
2.
Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan ^ Readily available £3 Up to date ~ N/A
Contingency plan/emergency response plan ^ Readily available ^ Up to date ~ N/A
Remarks
50
Koppers Company, Inc. Fifth Five-Year Review
-------
3. O&M and OSHA Training Records £3 Readily available ^ Up to date QN/A
Remarks Operators and O&M personnel have 40 hour HAZWOPER training.
4. Permits and Service Agreements
~ Air discharge permit ~ Readily available ~ Up to date ^ N/A
~ Effluent discharge ~ Readily available EHUp to date ^ N/A
~ Waste disposal, POTW ~ Readily available ~ Up to date £3 N/A
~ Other permits ~ Readily available ~ Up to date ^ N/A
Remarks Facility operations are in substantive compliance with local requirements.
5. Gas Generation Records ~ Readily available ~ Up to date ^ N/A
Remarks
6. Settlement Monument Records ^ Readily available ^ Up to date ~ N/A
Remarks: Settlement monitoring is completed on the landfill and occurs every 5 years.
7. Groundwater Monitoring Records ^ Readily available ^ Up to date QN/A
Remarks: Groundwater monitoring reports are completed annually.
8. Leachate Extraction Records ~ Readily available ~ Up to date £3 N/A
Remarks: Leachate levels are checked monthly and pumped to treatment system as needed. The volume
of leachate is not recorded since it is treated with other water from the site.
9. Discharge Compliance Records
~ Air ~ Readily available ~ Up to date ^ N/A
~ Water (effluent) ~ Readily available ~ Up to date £3 N/A
Remarks The effluent water is tested prior to being injected.
10. Daily Access/Security Logs ^Readily available ^ Up to date ~ N/A
Remarks: A log of all visitors to the site is maintained.
Koppers Company Inc. Fifth Five-Year Review
51
-------
IV. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS M Applicable ~ N/A
A. Fencing
1. Fencing damaged ~ Location shown on site map ^Gates secured ~ N/A
Remarks: Vandalism has been a problem at the site. Damages are reported to the local police and
repaired. Security cameras have also been installed at the site.
B. Other Access Restrictions
1. Signs and other security measures ~ Location shown on site map ~ N/A
Remarks Do not enter signs are posted and security cameras are located at the treatment system and
extraction wells.
C. Institutional Controls (ICs)
1. Implementation and enforcement
Site conditions imply ICs not properly implemented ~ Yes ^ No ~ N/A
Site conditions imply ICs not being fully enforced I I Yes 153 No ~ N/A
Type of monitoring (e.g., self-reporting, drive by) Drive by
Frequency: Annually
Responsible party/agency
Contact
Name Title
Date
Phone no
Reporting is up-to-date
~ Yes QNo
~ n/a
Reports are verified by the lead agency
~ Yes DNo
~ n/a
Specific requirements in deed or decision documents have been met
~ Yes ~ No
~ n/a
Violations have been reported
~ Yes QNo
~ n/a
Other problems or suggestions: ~ Report attached
2. Adequacy £3 ICs are adequate ~ ICs are inadequate ~ N/A
Remarks:
D. General
1. Vandalism/trespassing ~ Location shown on site map ~ No vandalism evident
Remarks: The site has continued to have problems with vandalism including theft of dedicated sampling
pumps, theft of wiring at extraction wells, damage to treatment system and dumping of garbage. Local
law enforcement is notified when vandalism occurs and security cameras have been installed.
2. Land use changes on site £3 N/A
Remarks:
52
Koppers Company, Inc. Fifth Five-Year Review
-------
3.
Land use changes off site £3 N/A
Remarks:
V. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS
A.
Roads Applicable ~ N/A
1.
Roads damaged ~ Location shown on site map £3 Roads adequate ~ N/A
Remarks: Roads are rutted in some locations however thev are still functional.
B.
Other Site Conditions
Remarks: Fire breaks are maintained around the treatment facility, extraction wells, iniection wells,
landfill, and product recovery well.
VI. LANDFILL COVERS M Applicable ~ N/A
A.
Landfill Surface
1.
Settlement (Low spots) ~ Location shown on site map £3 Settlement not evident
Areal extent Depth
Remarks: There are verv minor ruts likelv caused bv mo wins and small dirt mounds from animal
burrow. There was no evidence of the can beins compromised.
2.
Cracks ~ Location shown on site map ^ Cracking not evident
Lengths Widths Depths
Remarks:
3.
Erosion Q Location shown on site map ^ Erosion not evident
Areal extent Depth
Remarks: There is surface drainase including ditches and Dioina to prevent surface water from
collecting on the landfill. There was minor surface water flow on the access road on the southern side of
the landfill: however, it was not causins anv erosion.
4.
Holes ~ Location shown on site map £3 Holes not evident
Areal extent Depth
Remarks
5.
Vegetative Cover £3 Grass Cover properly established
~ No signs of stress ~ Trees/Shrubs (indicate size and locations on a diagram)
Remarks: The landfill was recently mowed and is in sood condition.
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
Koppers Company Inc. Fifth Five-Year Review
53
-------
8. Wet Areas/Water Damage £3 Wet areas/water damage not evident
I"! Wet areas PI Location shown on site map Areal extent
I"! Ponding PI Location shown on site map Areal extent
|~~| Seeps |~~| Location shown on site map Areal extent
|~~| Soft subgrade |~~|Location shown on site map Areal extent
Remarks: Minor amounts of surface water seepaee. however it was not causine erosion and drainaee
ditches and pipine was convevine the seepaee and surface water awav from the landfill.
9.
Slope Instability ~ Slides ~ Location shown on site map £3 No evidence of slope instability
Areal extent
Remarks:
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 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
4.
Undercutting ~ Location shown on site map ^ No evidence of undercutting
Areal extent Depth
Remarks
54
Koppers Company, Inc. Fifth Five-Year Review
-------
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 £3 Applicable ~ N/A
1.
Gas Vents ~ N/A Q Active £3 Passive ~ Properly secured/locked ~ Functioning
~ Routinely sampled ^ Good condition ~ Evidence of leakage at penetration
~ Needs Maintenance
Remarks
2.
Gas Monitoring Probes
~ Properly secured/locked ~ Functioning
~ Routinely sampled ~ Good condition
~ Evidence of leakage at penetration
~ Needs Maintenance £3 N/A
Remarks
3.
Monitoring Wells (within surface area of landfill)
~ Properly secured/locked ~ Functioning
~ Routinely sampled ~ Good condition
~ Evidence of leakage at penetration
~ Needs Maintenance £3 N/A
Remarks
4.
Leachate Extraction Wells
Properly secured/locked ^ Functioning
I5\l Routinely sampled £3 Good condition
~ Evidence of leakage at penetration
~ Needs Maintenance ~ N/A
Remarks The leachate levels are checked monthly and pumped to treatment system as needed.
5.
Settlement Monuments ^ Located
Remarks: Monitoring occurs every 5 years. _
Routinely surveyed QN/A
E.
Gas Collection and Treatment ~ Applicable
IEIN/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
Koppers Company Inc. Fifth Five-Year Review
55
-------
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
£3 N/A
1. Outlet Pipes Inspected
~ Functioning
£3 N/A
Remarks
2. Outlet Rock Inspected
~ Functioning
£3 N/A
Remarks
G. Detention/Sedimentation Ponds ~ Applicable
£3 N/A
1. Siltation ~ N/A
~ Siltation not evident
Areal extent
Depth
Remarks
2. Erosion Areal extent Depth
[53 Erosion not evident
Remarks
3. Outlet Works
~ Functioning ^ N/A
Remarks
4. Dam
~ Functioning ^ N/A
Remarks
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
Degradation not evident
Remarks
I. Perimeter Ditches/Off-Site Discharge £3 Applicable
~ n/a
1. Siltation
~ Location shown on site map
Siltation not evident
Areal extent
Depth
Remarks Surface water drainaee is conveyed awav from the landfill in ditches around the ocrimeter of
the landfill.
2. Vegetative Growth
~ Location shown on site map
^ N/A
~ Vegetation does not impede flow
Areal extent
Type
Remarks
56
Koppers Company, Inc. Fifth Five-Year Review
-------
3. Erosion ~ Location shown on site map £3 Erosion not evident
Areal extent Depth
Remarks
4. Discharge Structure ~ Functioning ^ N/A
Remarks
VII. GROUNDWATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES ~ Applicable ~ N/A
A. Groundwater Extraction Wells, Pumps, and Pipelines ^ Applicable ~ N/A
1. Pumps, Wellhead Plumbing, and Electrical
Good condition ^ All required wells properly operating G Needs Maintenance G N/A
Remarks: A new extraction well 2 was installed in 2016 due to issues with the screen. Well MW-8.
which is used as an extraction well, has a decreased extraction rate.
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
Koppers Company Inc. Fifth Five-Year Review
57
-------
C. Treatment System ^ Applicable ~ N/A
1. Treatment Train (Check components that apply)
~ Metals removal ~ Oil/water separation ~ Bioremediation
Air stripping ^ Carbon adsorbers
^ Filters There are mixed media filters with sand, gravel and anthracite coal between the air strippers
and GAC vessels. The mixed media filters occasionally clogged so bag filters were added that are
plumed in parallel with the mixed media filters to ensure adequate flow to the GAC vessels. The GAC
filters have two trains, each with a lead and lag vessel. Only train B is operating and it is adequate for
operating the system.
~ Additive (e.g., 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: The settling tank that backwash water and leachate water is stored in is occasionally drained
into a cement lined evaporation pond. The sediment in the settling pond is occasionally removed and
disposed of at appropriate disposal facilities.
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 (groundwater extraction and treatmentment 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
58
Koppers Company, Inc. Fifth Five-Year Review
-------
D. Monitored Natural Attenuation
1.
Monitoring Wells (natural attenuation remedy)
~ Properly secured/locked ~ Functioning ~ Routinely sampled ~ Good condition
~All required wells located QNeeds Maintenance ^N/A
Remarks
VIII.
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.
IX. 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 non-detect concentrations of PCP in extraction wells EW-1 and EW-2 indicate the dIluhc is
shrinking and the remedy of sroundwater extraction and treatment is functioning as intended. The
landfill cover is intact and there were no sisns of damase.
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.
The O&M is adeauate and the sroundwater extraction and treatment and landfill continue to function as
desisned. The vandalism as the site continues to be a cost issue however; it does not affect the remedy.
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.
There are no indicators of DOtcntial remedy problems. The sroundwater sroundwater extraction and
treatment system continues to one rate as desisned and the landfill cover is intact.
D.
Opportunities for Optimization
Describe possible opportunities for optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation of the remedy.
MW-8 which is beins used as an extraction well has a declinins DiiniDins rate. The extraction rate is
adeauate for removins contamination however; the removal of boron and PCP could be increased bv
addressins the decreasins DiiniDins rate. The reauirement for removins Droduct from the Droduct
recovery wells should be evaluated.
Koppers Company Inc. Fifth Five-Year Review
59
-------
Appendix H: Trip Report
Trip Report
Koppers Superfund Site, Oroville, CA
1. INTRODUCTION
a. Date of Visit: March 28, 2018
b. Location: Oroville, CA
c. Purpose: A site visit was conducted to visually inspect and document the conditions of the
remedy, the site, and the surrounding area for inclusion into the Five-Year Review Report.
d. Participants:
Jennifer Abrahams, P.G.
Bill Bergmann, CHG
Michael W. Bollinger
Marvin Raasch
Casey Wilmunber
Daewon Rojas-Mickelson, PE
Carolyn Yee
Jim Rohrer
Jeffrey Weiss
Tetra Tech, Inc.
Central Valley RWQCB
Beazer East, Inc.
Field Technical Services
Field Technical Services
US EPA Region 9
DTSC
DTSC
USACE
(916)704-4711
(530)224-4852
(412) 327-3362
(415) 947-4191
(916) 255-3671
(206)764-3312
2. SUMMARY
A site visit to the Koppers Superfund site was conducted on March 28, 2018. The participants toured
the groundwater treatment system, extraction wells, injection wells, product recovery well and landfill.
The groundwater extraction and treatment system has been operating since 1994 and has treated
approximately 3.6 billion gallons of water as of December 2017. The groundwater extraction and
treatment system currently consists of three extraction wells with a combined pumping rate of
approximately 300 gallons per minute which is treated at the on-site treatment plant and re-injected in
two up gradient wells. The product recovery well extracts approximately 200 to 250 gallons of
combined product and emulsion per year. The landfill is capped and monitoring includes annual
sampling from 10 monitoring wells surrounding the landfill, measuring and removing leachate and
settlement monitoring completed every five years.
3. DISCUSSION
Site overview
60
Koppers Company, Inc. Fifth Five-Year Review
-------
Marvin Raasch with Field Technical Services (FTS) completed a site safety briefing and conducted the
site inspection of the treatment plant, extraction wells, injection wells, product recovery wells and
landfill.
The treatment system consists of one air stripping tower, multimedia and bag filter and two granular
activated carbon (GAC) filters in series. Water is pumped from the extraction wells into a settling tank
and then pumped through the treatment system. Sediment from the settling tank is occasionally
drained into a cement lined evaporation pond and after evaporation; the sediment is disposed of at an
appropriate facility. The treatment system operates continuously at 200 to 300 gallons per minute
(gpm) and the extraction and injection wells cycle on and off to maintain the necessary flow through
the treatment system. The multimedia filter was limiting the pumping rate through the treatment
system so a bag filter was installed to operate in parallel with the multimedia filter to maintain flow
required for the rest of the treatment system. Two GAC trains each with a lead and lag filter are
installed at the site however only one of the trains is used. Leachate from the disposal cells is pumped
into a storage tank at the treatment system and then treated using the treatment system. FTS performs
maintenance and operations at the site approximately six days a week.
Extraction wells
Three extraction wells EW-1, EW-2 and MW-8 pump water to the treatment system. The three wells
are cycled on and off simultaneously to maintain the necessary flow through the treatment system.
When operating the pumping rates at the wells are approximately 100 gpm at EW-1, 200 gpm at EW-2
and 30 gpm at MW-8. The pumping rate at MW-8 has been declining and the reason for the declining
rate is being evaluated. Extraction well EW-2 was replaced in 2016 due to a failure with the screen.
Injection Wells
The treated water is pumped at equal rates to the injection wells IW-3 and IW-4. Two equalization
tanks at the treatment system store treated water and floats in the tanks control injection. Occasional
vandalism at the injection wells has caused them to be offline.
Product Recovery Well
The level of product is measured in the product recovery well each week and pumped out when the 5-
ft. sump is full of product. The product and emulsion is stored the treatment system and then disposed
offsite.
Landfill
The landfill cap is intact with no signs of failure. Vandalism continues to be an issue at the site.
Security cameras have been installed to reduce the vandalism. Extraction well EW-2 was replaced in
2016 due to issues with the screen.
Jeffrey Weiss
Geologist
CENWS-ENT-G
Koppers Company Inc. Fifth Five-Year Review
61
-------
Appendix I: Photographs from Site
Inspection Visit
62
Koppers Company, Inc. Fifth Five-Year Review
-------
Main control panel for the On-Property
GET.
Storage tanks for On-Property GET plant.
-------
Granular Activated Carbon holding tanks at Stripping tower of the On-Property GETs
On-Property GETs plant. plant.
Settling basin at On-Property GETs plant.
On-Property GETs plant surge tank and
containment basin.
64
Koppers Company, Inc. Fifth Five-Year Review
-------
On-Property GETs process tanks.
On-Property GETs bag filter units.
Extraction well #1.
Koppers Company Inc. Fifth Five-Year Review
65
-------
Extraction well #2.
Koppers Company Inc. landfill.
Extraction well #3
66
Koppers Company, Inc. Fifth Five-Year Review
-------
Stormwater basin on Site.
Koppers Company Inc. Fifth Five-Year Review 67
------- |