SIXTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT FOR
HIGHLANDS ACID PIT SUPERFUND SITE
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
£D srA?k
2
<
30
O
\
4
z
PRO^C
-------
SIXTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
HIGHLANDS ACID PIT SUPERFUND SITE
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
EPA ID#: TXD980514996
This memorandum documents the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's performance, determinations and
approval of the sixth five-year review for the Highlands Acid Pit Superfund site (Site) under Section 121(c) of
the Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S. Code Section
9621(c), as provided in the attached sixth Five-Year Review Report.
Summary of the Sixth Five-Year Review Report
The Site's remedy consisted of excavation of waste and contaminated soil to the approximate groundwater
level with off-site disposal and backfilling excavated areas with clean fill. The long-term remedy for
groundwater included installation of groundwater monitoring wells and a 30-year monitoring program for
groundwater, surface water and sediments. Monitoring is ongoing. No institutional controls have been filed
for the Site. The Site is not currently in use.
This Site is located within the 10-year floodplain and protectiveness of the remedy may be vulnerable to
potential impacts of climate change. A climate vulnerability assessment is recommended to be completed
prior to the next five-year review to determine if changes in climate may affect remedy protectiveness and
whether adaptation measures are required.
This Site is not located within an environmental justice (EJ) impacted community. The EJ Screen report was
run on February 7. 2023, using a 1 -mile buffer around the Site (see Appendix H). None of the 12
environmental justice indexes exceeded the 80th percentile threshold denoting an EJ community. The highest
reported index from the EJ Screen report was the EJ Index for Superfund Proximity at the national level (76th
percentile).
Actions Needed
The follow ing actions must be taken for the remedy to be protective in the long term:
• Complete a climate vulnerability assessment to determine if changes in climate may affect remedy
protectiveness and whether adaptation measures are required.
• Determine the need for institutional controls and implement the institutional controls, as appropriate.
• Collect additional surface water and sediment samples (including background samples) to determine
if the contaminated upper aquifer is impacting areas beyond the Site.
• Evaluate the current extent of contamination in the upper aquifer and determine impacts to long-term
protectiveness.
• Determine whether the Site poses a vapor intrusion concern for nearby properties with a focus on the
planned redevelopment of the former sand pit property.
-------
Determination
I have determined that the status of the remedy for the Highlands Acid Pit Superfund Site is short-term
protective. This five-year review report specifies the actions that need to be taken for the remedy to be
protective over the long term.
, « «-» s-% e ¦— Digitally signed by LISA PRICE
LISA PRICEs^'5"™*
Lisa Price
Acting Director. Superfund and Emergency Management Division
-------
This page intentionally left blank
-------
ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS
SIXTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
HIGHLANDS ACID PIT SUPERFUND SITE
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
EPA ID#: TXD980514996
Issues and Recommendations Identified in the FYR:
OU(s): 1, 2
Issue Category: Other
Issue: This site is located within the 10-year floodplain and protcctivcness of the remedy
may be vulnerable to potential impacts of climate change.
Recommendation: Complete a climate vulnerability assessment to determine if
changes in climate may affect remedy protcctivcness and whether adaptation measures arc
required to ensure remedy protcctivcness.
Affect Current
Protecti veil ess
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Party
Responsible
Oversight
Party/Support
Agency
Milestone Date
No
Yes
EPA
TCEQ
5/31/2027
OU(s): 1, 2
Issue Category: Institutional Controls
Issue: The OU1 and OU2 RODs did not require institutional controls. However, soil
contamination remains below 8 feet and groundwater concentrations exceed standards in
the upper and middle aquifers.
Recommendation: Determine the need for institutional controls and implement the
institutional controls, as appropriate.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Party
Responsible
Oversight
Party/Support
Agency
Milestone Date
No
Yes
EPA
TCEQ
5/25/2025
OU(s): 2
Issue Category: Remedy Performance
Issue: During this FYR period, surface water concentrations from three locations were
detected above both human health and ecological standards. In June 2022, concentrations
were not detected above the laboratory detection limit for all three locations.
Recommendation: Collect additional surface water and sediment samples (including
background samples) to determine if the contaminated upper aquifer is impacting areas
beyond the Site.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Party
Responsible
Oversight
Party/Support
Agency
Milestone Date
No
Yes
EPA
TCEQ
5/25/2025
-------
OU(s): 2
Issue Category: Remedy Performance
Issue: Groundwater contamination remains in the upper aquifer and concentrations
suggest that remaining source material continues to a fleet the upper aquifer. Upper aquifer
monitoring well UA-12 has the highest concentrations of arsenic and benzene and is
located at the site boundary. In the middle aquifer, limited contamination in excess of
PCLs was detected in two wells.
Recommendation: Evaluate the current extent of contamination in the upper aquifer
and determine impacts to long-term protectiveness.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Party
Responsible
Oversight
Party/Support
Agency
Milestone Date
No
Yes
EPA
TCEQ
5/25/2025
OU(s): 2
Issue Category: Changed Site Conditions
Issue: The adjacent property, including the former sand pit. is currently being developed.
The upper aquifer groundwater contamination is not delineated and may extend onto this
property. A vapor intrusion screening-level assessment indicates the potential for vapor
intrusion on this property.
Recommendation: Determine whether the Site poses a vapor intrusion concern for
nearby properties with a focus on the planned redevelopment of the former sand pit
property.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Party
Responsible
Oversight
Party/Support
Agency
Milestone Date
No
Yes
EPA
TCEQ
5/25/2025
-------
Table of Contents
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 3
I. INTRODUCTION 4
Site Background 4
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SUMMARY FORM 5
II. RESPONSE ACTION SUMMARY 7
Basis for Taking Action 7
Response Actions 7
Status of Implementation 8
Systems Operations/Operation and Maintenance (O&M) 12
III. PROGRESS SINCE THE PREVIOUS REVIEW 12
IV. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS 14
Community Notification. Community Involvement and Site Interviews 14
Data Review 15
Site Inspection 19
V. TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 20
QUESTION A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents'.' 20
QUESTION B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels and RAOs used at the time of the
remedy selection still valid'.' 21
QUESTION C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the
remedy'.' 21
VI. ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS 22
OTHER FINDINGS 24
VII. PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENTS 24
VIII. NEXT REVIEW 25
APPENDIX A - REFERENCE LIST A-1
APPENDIX B - SITE CHRONOLOGY B-l
APPENDIX C - PRESS NOTICE C-1
APPENDIX D - SITE INSPECTION CHECKLIST D-l
APPENDIX E - REMEDIAL ACTION AND SITE INSPECTION PHOTOS E-l
APPENDIX F - DATA REVIEW FIGURES AND TABLES F-l
APPENDIX G - INTERVIEW FORMS G-l
APPENDIX H - EJSCREEN REPORT H-l
Tables
Table 1: Site COCs. by Media 7
Table 2: Summary of Planned and/or Implemented Institutional Controls (ICs) 9
Table 3: Protectiveness Determinations/Statements from the 2018 FYR Report 12
Table 4: Status of Recommendations from the 2018 FYR Report 13
Table 5: Upper Aquifer Maximum Contaminant Concentrations Above PCLs. 2018 to 2022 18
Table 6: Vapor Intrusion Screening Risk Results - UA-12 21
Table B-l: Site Chronology B-l
Table F-l: Upper Aquifer Groundwater Monitoring Results F-7
Table F-2: Middle and Deep Aquifer Groundwater Monitoring Results F-l6
Table F-3: Surface Water Monitoring Results F-28
Table F-4: Sediment Monitoring Results F-33
1
-------
Figures
Figure 1: Site Vicinity Map 6
Figure 2: Institutional Control Map 1 1
Figure 3: Detailed Site Map 16
Figure F-l: Site Map F-l
Figure F-2: Upper Aquifer Potentiometric Surface Map - June 2022 F-2
Figure F-3: Middle Aquifer Potentiometric Surface Map - June 2022 F-3
Figure F-4: Deep Aquifer Potentiometric Surface Map - June 2022 F-4
Figure F-5: Upper Aquifer Benzene and Arsenic Concentrations - June 2022 F-5
Figure F-6: Surface Water Benzene Concentration - November/December 2021 F-6
2
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ARAR
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement
BTEX
Benzene. Toluene. Ethylbenzene. Xylenes
CERCLA
Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation, and Liability Act
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
CIC
Community Involvement Coordinator
coc
Contaminant of Concern
DA
Deep Aquifer
EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
FS
Feasibility Study
FYR
Five-Year Review
HCWCID # 1
Harris County Water Control & Improvement District # 1
HQ
Hazard Quotient
IC
Institutional Control
MA
Middle Aquifer
MCL
Maximum Contaminant Level
mg/L
Milligrams per Liter
NCP
National Contingency Plan
NPL
National Priorities List
O&M
Operation and Maintenance
OU
Operable Unit
PCL
Protective Concentration Level
PCS
Pollution Control Services
PRP
Potentially Responsible Party
RAO
Remedial Action Objective
RI
Remedial Investigation
ROD
Record of Decision
RPM
Remedial Project Manager
RV
Recreational Vehicle
TCEQ
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
TDWR
Texas Department of Water Resources
TRRP
Texas Risk Reduction Program
UA
Upper Aquifer
UU/UE
Unlimited Use/Unrestricted Exposure
VISL
Vapor Intrusion Screening Level
VOC
Volatile Organic Compound
3
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of a five-year review (FYR) is to evaluate the implementation and performance of a remedy to
determine if the remedy is and will continue to be protective of human health and the environment. The methods,
findings and conclusions of reviews are documented in FYR reports such as this one. 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 FYR pursuant to the Comprehensive
Environmental Response. Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Section 121. consistent with the National
Contingency Plan (NCP) (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 300.430(f)(4)(ii)) and considering EPA
policy.
This is the sixth FYR for the Highlands Acid Pit Superfund site (Site). The triggering action for this statutory
review is the completion date of the previous FYR. The FYR has been prepared because hazardous substances,
pollutants or contaminants remain at the Site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure
(UU/UE).
The Site consists of two operable units (OlJs). OU1 addresses source control of waste and contaminated soil. OU2
addresses contaminated groundwater and monitoring of surface water and sediment. This FYR Report addresses
both OlJs.
EPA remedial project manager (RPM) Stephen Pereira led the FYR. Participants included EPA community
involvement coordinator (CIC) Adam Weece. Adam Nichols from the Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality (TCEQ). and Hagai Nassau and Ali Cattani from EPA FYR contractor Skeo. The review began on
9/15/2022.
Appendix A lists the resources referenced during the development of this FY R Report. Appendix B provides a
chronology of major site events.
Site Background
The 3.3-acre Site is located at the end of Clear Lake Road in Highlands, Harris County. Texas (Figure 1). Early in
the 1950s, the site owner allowed disposal of an unknown quantity of industrial waste sludge, believed to be spent
sulfuric acid, from oil and gas refining processes. The sludge may have been transported to the Site by barge.
Waste sludges were placed in an excavated sand pit (or pits) at the Site. After disposal, the sludge was reportedly
covered with sand. The waste disposal activities contaminated soil and the shallow groundwater aquifer (also
referred to as the upper aquifer) with hazardous chemicals.
The Site is on a peninsula in the San Jacinto River's 10-year floodplain. The current average elevation of the Site
is 5 feet to 10 feet above mean sea level. There is historical subsidence at the Site. Nearly 5 feet of subsidence was
recorded at the Site between 1890 and 1973. Since 1964. the Site has subsided at least 2.4 feet. The Site is vacant
with the exception of monitoring wells and fencing. Future development is not foreseen at the Site due to its
location in the 10-year floodplain. but the current owner has expressed interest in selling the property for possible
development. The Site is bordered by two adjacent active oil/gas production wells and a petroleum distribution
center. Baytown Boat Club to the north, flooded former sand pits to the east. Clear Lake to the south, and the
Grennel Slough to the west. The property east of the Site was recently cleared of vegetation to prepare for
development. The nearest permanent residence is about 1,000 feet north of the Site. Recreational vehicles are 275
feet north of the site entrance gate. It is unknown if the recreational vehicles are occupied year-round.
Groundwater occurs in three zones at the Site - the upper, the middle and the deep aquifers. Groundwater in the
upper aquifer flows radially from the Site and discharges to Grennel Slough. Clear Lake and the adjacent former
sand pits. The flow direction in the upper aquifer is variable due to tidal fluctuations. Flow in the middle aquifer is
4
-------
generally toward the northwest and in the deep aquifer is to the south-southeast. The 2018 FYR Report and other
site documents provide more information about the area's geology and hydrogeology. Previous site documents
indicate the area immediately surrounding the Site receives its drinking water from the municipal water supply.
Based on this FYR's review of Texas Water Development Board well databases, the closest private drinking
water well is about 2 miles northeast of the Site. See Question C of this FYR Report for additional information.
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SUMMARY FORM
SITE IDEM II IC A I ION
Site Name: Highlands Acid Pit
EPA ID: TXD980514996
Region: 6
State: Texas
City/County: Highlands/Harris
SITE S I A 11 S
NPL Status: Final
[
Multiple OUs?
Yes
Has the Site achieved construction completion?
Yes
Lead agency: EPA
REVIEW S I A 11 S
Author name: Stephen Pereira. with additional support provided by Skeo
Author affiliation: EPA Region 6
Rev iew period: 9/15/2022 - 5/24/2023
Date of site inspection: 12/5/2022
Type of rev iew: Statutory
Review number: 6
Triggering action date: 5/24/2018
Due date (five years after triggering action date): 5/24/2023
5
-------
Disclaimer This map and any boundary Unas within the map are approximate
and subject to change The map is not a survey The map is for informational
purposes only regarding EPA's response actions at the Site. Map image is
the intellectual property of Esri and is used herein under license Copyright ©
2020 Esri and its licensors All rights reserved, Sources: Esri. Maxar,
Microsoft and the 2018 FYR Report
Highlands Acid Pit Superfund Site
City of Highlands, Harris County, Texas
Last Modified: 1/18/2023
Figure 1: Site Vicinity Ma]
Clear, Lake Road
¦fSanM
Jacinto
River
'hormeriSandlnitl
J( SupmerqeajMI
Grennel
Slough
Approximate Site Boundary
6
-------
II. RESPONSE ACTION SUMMARY
Basis for Taking Action
In 1978, the Texas Department of Water Resources (TDWR) received a complaint concerning the Site (known
locally as the Acid Pit). TDWR collected waste sludge, sediment, storm water and groundwater samples. TDWR
found waste materials at the Site characterized by low pH and elevated total organic carbon, sulfate, heavy metals
and organics, including benzene, toluene, xylene and phenols. Based on these results. EPA proposed listing the
Site on the Superfund program's National Priorities List (NPL) in 1982. EPA finalized the Site's listing on the
NPL in September 1983.
State-led site investigation work finished in July 1983. The Site's feasibility study was completed in December
1983. Exposure pathways of greatest concern identified during these investigations were inhalation, ingestion and
absorption of contaminants in site soils; migration of contaminants to surrounding surface waters; and downward
migration of contaminants in the upper aquifer to the middle aquifer. Human contact with existing contamination
was likely, as evidenced by records of trespassing, garbage disposal activities and recreational uses of adjacent
properties and water bodies. Soil contaminants would have continued to migrate off-site through wind and surface
water erosion. The contaminants of concern (COCs) were identified in EPA's Record of Decision (ROD) for each
OU (Table 1).
Table 1: Site COCs, by Media
coc
Media
Metals (lead, chromium, beryllium, manganese)
Soil'
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) (benzene, toluene, xylene)
Metals (arsenic, cadmium, lead, chromium, manganese)
Groundwater1
VOC (benzene)
Semi-VOC (pyridine)
Notes:
a. Source: Table 3, 1984 ROD.
b. Source: Table 1, 1987 ROD.
Response Actions
OU1 - Source Control of Waste and Contaminated Soil
EPA selected the OlJ 1 remedy in the Site's 1984 ROD.
The OU 1 ROD identified the follow ing remedial action objectives (RAOs) for the Site:
• Control off-site migration of wastes by surface and subsurface pathways to mitigate future environmental
impacts on surface waters and groundwater.
• Minimize potential for human contact with waste materials.
The remedy included:
• Excavation of contaminated soils and waste material to an approximate depth of 8 feet below ground
surface (the approximate groundwater level).
• Transportation of waste to a permitted Class I hazardous waste disposal facility.
• Backfilling the excavated area with clean fill.
• Construction of a temporary site perimeter fence with warning signs.
• Installation of a groundwater monitoring system, and monitoring groundwater for at least 30 years after
cleanup.
7
-------
EPA estimated that excavation would remove about 19,000 cubic yards of material above the water table. During
excavation, if contaminated soil and material (e.g., black soil) was observed beyond the defined lateral limit of
excavation, it would also be removed during cleanup. An estimated 58,000 cubic yards of waste and contaminated
sand and soil beneath the water table would not be excavated during cleanup.
OU2 - Groundwater and Monitoring of Surface Water and Sediment
EPA selected the OU2 groundwater remedy in the Site's 1987 ROD.
The RAOs for OU2 were to:
• Characterize contaminant migration to surface waters, area environment and deeper groundwater.
• Determine potential impacts on potential receptors.
• Evaluate the need for groundwater corrective action at the Site.
The OU2 remedy was a "no action" remedy with long-term monitoring of the surface environment and
groundwater to track attenuation. The OU2 ROD selected no further action because OU1 cleanup would eliminate
the potential for surface water contamination and EPA sampling at the time did not detect COCs in the middle or
deep aquifers.
The OU2 ROD stated that "upon completion of the Source Control Remedial Action [OU1], surface water
contamination from runoff will be eliminated; natural flow of groundwater will cleanse the pore spaces within the
shallow aquifer over time; groundwater flow to surface water bodies will continue to carry some contaminants to
the surface environment, but the heavy metals are not mobile at the pH of the transition region for groundwater
flow to surface water bodies, the organics are volatile upon contact with the atmosphere, and in view of the
dynamics of the river and properties of the contaminants, the San Jacinto River should not be affected." It also
stated that "attenuation of contaminants dow n to nondetectable levels within the upper aquifer should take about
350 years."
No numeric cleanup goals were established for the upper aquifer in either ROD for the Site. The 1987 ROD states
that, based on the Site's 1987 Groundwater Contamination Evaluation, a well survey of the area had determined
that the upper aquifer was not considered a source of potable water. The 1984 OU 1 ROD identified Clean Water
Act water quality criteria as applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) for potential surface
water impacts from site soils or lateral movement of shallow groundw ater. The 1987 OU2 ROD identified Safe
Drinking Water Act maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) as ARARs for the middle and deep aquifers. Texas
Risk Reduction Program (TRRP) tier 1 industrial groundwater protective concentration levels (PCLs) and MCLs
are currently equivalent for groundwater COCs at the Site.
Status of Implementation
OU1 - Source Control of Waste and Contaminated Soil
EPA's contractor conducted construction activities for the OlJ 1 remedy between February and July 1987. Cleanup
included excavating waste and contaminated soil to an approximate depth of 8 feet and conveying the material to
the Chemical Waste Management disposal site in Louisiana. Excavated areas were backfilled with clean soil,
including 6 inches of topsoil that was seeded, mulched and fertilized. Excavated areas were also contoured to
mitigate on-site flooding. The Site is partially fenced as shown in Figure F-l in Appendix F.
During OU 1 cleanup activities and subsequently during the operational and functional period, more monitoring
wells were installed to assess whether groundwater was moving laterally.
OU2 - Groundwater and Monitoring of Surface Water and Sediment
The OU2 ROD called for no action other than long-term monitoring of surface water, sediment and groundw ater.
8
-------
TCEQ currently undertakes groundwater sampling of the shallow, middle and deep aquifers, adjacent surface
water, and sediment semi-annually.
In 2001, the groundwater monitoring network at the Site consisted of 21 wells. In 2002, one middle aquifer
monitoring well (MA-OX) and one deep aquifer monitoring well (DA-OX) were plugged and abandoned due to
suspected cross contamination between the upper and the middle and deep aquifers. Replacement wells were
installed (MA-OXA and DA-OXA). In addition, three wells (UA-03, UA-13 and MA-04). which were considered
redundant by TCEQ, were plugged and abandoned in 2002. The monitoring network currently includes seven
wells in the upper aquifer, six wells in the middle aquifer and five wells in the deep aquifer.
TCEQ continues to conduct semi-annual monitoring of groundwater, surface water and sediment. Groundwater
contaminant concentrations remain above the TRRP PCLs in the upper aquifer. Arsenic has been persistently
detected in the middle aquifer since 2012, with PCLs exceeded in three of six middle-aquifer wells since 2012.
Benzene exceeded the PCL in one deep aquifer well in 2016. The Data Review section of this FYR Report
includes the data collected from 2018 through 2022. EPA is evaluating if more remedial action is needed to
prevent contaminated groundwater migration from the upper aquifer to the middle and deep aquifers.
Institutional Control (IC) Review
The Site's decision documents did not call for institutional controls. However, institutional controls are needed
because contaminated soil and groundwater remain at the Site. In 2007, EPA prepared a draft institutional control
for the Site in the form of a deed notice. How ever, this deed notice was never filed. The draft deed notice states
that "any reuse or redevelopment involving subsurface utilities, excavation, fence removal, trenching, or well
installation requires prior approval by TCEQ. EPA. and the four property ow ners." The Site is part of a larger
100-acre parcel. The draft deed notice only applies to the 3.3 acres that make up the Site (Figure 2). Further
evaluation of the institutional controls required for the Site is necessary. There are no site-related institutional
controls associated with any adjacent parcels.
Based on the historic and current surface water monitoring results, there are exceedances of both human health
and ecological standards in the former sand pit. the Grennel Slough and Clear Lake. EPA is in the process of
determining if groundwater contamination extends off-site. The status of institutional controls at the Site are
shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Summary of Planned and/or Implemented Institutional Controls (ICs)
Media, Engineered
Controls, and Areas
That Do Not
Support IJU/lJE
Based on Current
Conditions
ICs
Needed
ICs Called
for in the
Deeision
Documents
Impacted
Parcel(s)
IC
Objective
Title of IC
Instrument
Implemented and
Date (or planned)
Groundwater
Yes
No
The Site, which is
part of a parcel
with four parcel
numbers
(0410390000204,
0410390000205,
0410390000206,
0410390000207).
Possibly off-site
areas (to be
determined)
Restrict groundwater
use.
To be determined
9
-------
Restrict reuse or
redevelopment
involving subsurface
Soil
Yes
No
Site
utilities, excavation,
fence removal,
trenching or well
installation without
prior approval.
To be determined
10
-------
N Highlands Acid Pit Superfund Site
A City of Highlands, Harris County, Texas
Disclaimer This map and any boundary lines within the map are
approximate and subject to change. The map is not a survey. The
map is fot informational purposes only regarding EPAs response
actions at the Site Map image is the intellectual property of Esn and
is used herein under license. Copyright © 2020 Esn and its licensors.
All rights reserved. Sources. Esn, Maxar. Microsoft, Maxar. Hams
County and the 2018 FYR Report.
Last Modified: 1/1&2Q23
Figure 2: Institutional Control Map
Clear Lake Road
Ihomje^andbiitl
WiSuDmeroeaim
Grennel
Slough
Clear
Lake
Draft Deed Notice Boundary
Parcel Boundary
11
-------
Systems Operations/Operation and Maintenance (Q&M)
TCEQ's contractor conducts O&M activities and monitoring in accordance with the Site's 2011 O&M Plan. The
2011 O&M Plan includes the follow ing requirements:
• Sampling 18 on-site wells semi-annually, evaluating groundwater data and submitting reports to EPA and
TCEQ.
• Inspecting site security and replacing and/or repairing security features as approved by TCEQ (i.e.,
signage, fencing, gates and locks, road access).
• Inspecting the Site to determine whether subsidence has occurred or if site benchmarks have been
removed or damaged.
• Inspecting the Site for the effectiveness and extent of vegetative cover, erosion, cap and benchmark
settling, heaving, and site run-on/runoff.
• Conducting grass mow ing, vegetation clearing and debris removal, including inspecting the Site for
conditions that may indicate that soil erosion has occurred.
• Managing investigation-derived waste generated during O&M activities.
• Performing regular sediment and surface water sampling as part of O&M activities.
TCEQ's contractor conducted site inspection and maintenance activities semi-annually in conjunction with the
monitoring activities. Mow ing was conducted as needed. The most recent site survey finished in 2018. Per the
O&M Plan, the Site must be resurveyed every five years to assess potential subsidence and cap integrity. The next
site survey will need to be completed in 2023.
III. PROGRESS SINCE THE PREVIOUS REVIEW
This section includes the protectiveness determinations and statements from the 2018 FYR Report (Table 3) as
well as the recommendations from the 2018 FYR Report and the status of those recommendations (Table 4).
Table 3: Protectiveness Determinations/Statements from the 2018 FYR Report
OIJ#
Protectiveness
Determination
Protectiveness Statement
1
Short-term
Protective
The remedy for OIJ 1 is currently protective of human health and the environment. The
OU1 remedy included excavation of waste material and contaminated soil to a depth of 8
feet below ground surface and disposal at an off-site hazardous waste facility, backfilling
of the excavated area with clean soil, establishing vegetation, and installation of a
security fence. EPA completed source removal of site soils in 1987. For the OU 1 remedy
to be protective over the long term, revisit the draft institutional control instrument to
ensure long-term protectiveness.
2
Short-term
Protective
The remedy for OU2 is currently protective of human health and the environment. The
OU2 remedy was a "no further action" remedy with long-term monitoring of surface
water and groundwater. For the remedy to be protective over the long term: 1) collect
additional surface water and sediment samples in the former sand pit adjunct to the Site
to determine if the contaminated upper aquifer is impacting areas beyond the Site and
take appropriate measures to ensure protectiveness; 2) revisit the draft institutional
control instrument to ensure long-term protectiveness; 3) continue to monitor and
evaluate contaminants of concern (COCs) being detected more frequently in the middle
and deep aquifers and determine impacts to long-term protectiveness; 4) compare surface
water and sediment sample data to ecological benchmarks and to appropriate human
health screening values to determine if further study is needed.
12
-------
OU#
Protcctivcness
Determination
Protcctivcness Statement
Sitewide
Short-term
Protective
The Site remedy is currently protective of human health and the environment. For the
remedy to be protective over the long term: collect additional surface water and sediment
samples in the former sand pit adjunct to the Site to determine if the contaminated upper
aquifer is impacting areas beyond the Site and take appropriate measures to ensure
protcctivcness; revisit the draft institutional control instrument to ensure long-term
protcctivcness; continue to monitor and evaluate contaminants of concern (COCs) being
detected more frequently in the middle and deep aquifers and determine impacts to long-
term protcctivcness; compare surface water and sediment sample data to ecological
benchmarks and to appropriate human health screening values to determine if further
study is needed.
Table 4: Status of Recommendations from the 2018 FYR Report
OIJ #
Issue
Recommendation
Current
Status
Current Implementation
Status Description
Completion
Date (if
applicable)
2
Data on the current
extent of the
groundwater
upper aquifer arc not
available.
Because of the high
benzene concentrations in
well UA-12 at the eastern
boundary of the Site,
collect more surface water
and sediment samples in
the former sand pit
adjunct to the Site to
determine if the
contaminated upper
aquifer is impacting areas
beyond the Site. Take
appropriate measures to
ensure protcctivcness.
Ongoing
TCEQ collected samples from
sampling locations SW-3/SD-3
until June 2022 (not sampled in
December 2022 due to lack of
access permission). The results
arc provided in the Data
Review section of this FYR
Report. Surface water data
from SW-3 during this FYR
period showed cxcccdanccs of
human health criteria and
ecological benchmarks (lead).
During this FYR period there
were no criteria or benchmark
cxcccdanccs in sediment
samples. TCEQ re-established
access to this monitoring point
and collected a sample in May
2023; the results were not
available for this FYR.
Not
applicable
1,2
No deed notice was
recorded on file with
Harris County. The
draft deed notice
contains limited
information, which may
not provide sufficient
protection from source
material left in place
during excavation and
contaminated
groundwater.
Revisit and update the
institutional control
instrument to strengthen
language and ensure long-
term protcctivcness (e.g.,
make sure the institutional
control runs with the land,
prevents exposure to
contaminated
groundwater).
Ongoing
Areas to apply institutional
controls may need to be
expanded pending further
characterization of extent of
groundwater contamination and
potential for vapor intrusion
exposure.
Target date to
implement
institutional
controls: May
2025
2
Arsenic and benzene
have been persistently
detected in the middle
aquifer and periodically
detected in the deep
aquifer since the
previous FYR.
Continue to monitor and
evaluate COCs being
detected more frequently
in the middle and deep
aquifers and determine
impacts on long-term
protcctivcness.
Ongoing
Monitoring is ongoing.
Not
applicable
13
-------
OIJ #
Issue
Recommendation
Cu rrent
Status
Current Implementation
Status Description
Completion
Date (if
applicable)
2
Perform regular
sediment and surface
water sampling as part
of site O&M activities.
Surface water and
sediment data have not
been compared to
ecological benchmarks.
Local residents arc
presumed to use the
adjacent sand pit area
for recreational
purposes (swimming
and fishing).
Compare surface water
and sediment sample data
to ecological benchmarks.
or equivalent, and to
appropriate human health
screening values to
determine if further study
is needed.
Ongoing
EPA compared surface water
and sediment to ecological
benchmarks. Surface water data
during this FYR period showed
some exceedances of human
health criteria (benzene and
lead) and ecological
benchmarks (lead). During this
FYR period there were no
criteria or benchmark
exceedances in sediment
samples. The results arc
provided in the Data Review
Section of this FYR period.
Target date to
complete
additional
sampling of
surface water
and sediment:
May 2025
In addition to the issues and recommendations, the 2018 FYR Report included several other findings:
• The OU2 ROD identified MCLs as ARARs for the middle and deep aquifers. Recent monitoring reports
have compared groundwater sampling results to TRRP Tier I PCLs. The TRRP Tier I PCLs are the same
as MCLs.
o Annual reports continue to compare groundwater results to TRRP PCLs.
• Use the most recent TRRP Tier I PCLs to compare groundwater sampling analytic results in the O&M
Plan. The August 2016 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report used the May 2011 TRRP Tier I PCLs
for residential groundwater to evaluate analytical results. TCEQ issued updated PCLs in March 2016.
However, there were no changes to PCLs in 2016 that affected the most recent sampling analytical
results.
o Annual reports use current TRRP PCLs.
• Based on semi-annual monitoring data, some upper aquifer wells (e.g., UA-16) appear to be influenced by
seasonal variations or tidal changes. More study would help identify potential tidal or seasonal influences
on upper aquifer groundw ater.
o No progress was made on this finding during this FYR period.
• Ensure all monitoring well covers are locked, make repairs as necessary to barbed wire along the top of
the fencing surrounding wells and re post warning signs on monitoring well fences. While the main
entrance gate is locked, fencing surrounds about 50% of the Site. Consider fencing the entire site
perimeter, including the shoreline along Grennel Slough, to discourage trespassers entering the Site from
adjacent water bodies.
o The Site is partially fenced. All wells are in locked fenced areas. Most wells are locked, although
some wells were not locked during the FYR site inspection (see Section IV of this FYR Report).
IV. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS
Community Notification, Community Involvement and Site Interviews
A public notice was made available by a new spaper posting in the Highlands Star Crosby Courier on 10/27/2022,
in both English and Spanish (Appendix C). It stated that the FYR was underway and invited the public to submit
any comments to EPA. The results of the review and the report will be made available at the Site's information
repository. Highlands Public Library - Stratford Branch, located at 509 Stratford Street in Highlands, Texas.
During the FYR process, interview s were conducted to document any perceived problems or successes with the
remedy implemented to date. The interviews are summarized below .
14
-------
During the FYR site inspection, the EPA and TCEQ project managers visited homes near the Site to interview
residents. They spoke with four residents. Residents indicated very little, if any. knowledge of the Site. All
residences are connected to the municipal water supply. One resident indicated that they have independently
tested their city water. Results indicated the presence of arsenic and benzene. While these are site COCs. the
drinking water provided by the city is not affected by the Site. The EPA project manager attempted to follow up
with this resident via postal mail to discuss their drinking water concern, but the resident did not reply. During the
May 2023 sampling event, EPA and TCEQ visited the resident again. The resident indicated they no longer have
a copy of the results but have added a treatment system to their water.
Adam Nichols, the TCEQ project manager, stated that the remedy needs further evaluation to ensure continued
protectiveness of human health and the environment. He said that shallow groundwater and surface water
contamination needs to be better delineated and evaluated for health and ecological risks on off-site properties that
are adjacent to the Site. He also stated that the adjacent property that was recently cleared should be investigated
for potential vapor intrusion risk. He stated that institutional controls need to be filed to restrict on-site land use or
groundwater use.
Dr. Latrice Babin. Executive Director at the Office of Harris County Pollution Control Services (PCS) indicated
that PCS is aware of the Site and the cleanup activities. PCS would like to receive more information about the Site
and be included on communications in the future. PCS recommended that site fact sheets be available on the EPA
website and that EPA hold community meetings to raise awareness. PCS also recommended that EPA verify
institutional controls and draft updated institutional controls if needed. PCS also indicated that signage and gate
adjustments should be addressed as needed. PCS indicated they were concerned with the protectiveness of the
remedy since groundwater in the upper aquifer transmits to surface water, which can be ingested by people and
organisms.
Data Review
In accordance with decision documents, the 2017 Quality Assurance Project Plan and the 2012 Sampling and
Analysis Plan. TCEQ conducted groundwater, surface water and sediment sampling semi-annually during this
FYR period. Figure 3 shows the sampling locations. Results are reported in annual reports. This FYR Report
reviewed groundwater, surface water and sediment data collected from 2018 through 2022 (the most recent data
available for review ).
Overall, the data show the follow ing:
• The groundwater data collected during this FYR period indicates groundwater contamination remains in
the upper aquifer and concentrations suggest that remaining source material continues to impact the upper
aquifer. Monitoring well UA-12 has the highest concentrations for both benzene and arsenic (the primary
COCs above PCLs). UA-12 is located farthest downgradient under some flow conditions (last observed in
November 2020). Currently, there are no monitoring wells located off-site; additional wells may be
needed to determine the extent of the groundwater contamination.
• In the middle aquifer, concentrations above PCLs were detected primarily in two wells: MA-03 and MA-
06. During this FYR period, there were no MCL/PCL exceedances in the deep aquifer.
• Surface water data during this FYR period show ed some exceedances of human health criteria (benzene
and lead) and ecological benchmarks (lead). During this FYR period, there were no criteria or benchmark
exceedances in sediment samples.
15
-------
UA-06
#DA-05
¦ SW/SD-0.1
©DA-08
lMA-08
MA-07
N Highlands Acid Pit Superfund Site
A City of Highlands, Harris County, Texas
Disclaimer: This map and any boundary lines within the map arc
approximate and subject to change. The map is not a survey.
The map is for Informational purposes only regarding EPA's
response actions at the Site. Map image is the inteilectual
properly of Esri and is used herein under license Copyright ©
2022 Esri and Us //censors. Ail rights reserved. Sources: Esri.
Maxar, Microsoft and the 2018 FYR Report.
^Skeo
Last Modified: 1/18/2023
Approximate Site Boundary
—x Fence Line
Surface Water and Sediment
Sample Location
© Upper Aquifer Well
® Middle Aquifer Well
® Deep Aquifer Well
® Plugged and Abandoned Well
SW/SD-03
© DA-01
I SW/SD-02
Figure 3: Detailed Site Map
16
-------
Groundwater
The semi-annual ground w ater monitoring events include gauging and sampling 18 monitoring wells. Samples are
analyzed for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes (BTEX). metals (arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium,
lead, mercury, selenium and silver), phenol and pyridine, total dissolved solids and sulfate. The results are
provided below, by aquifer zone.
Upper Aquifer
Based on the depth to groundwater in the upper aquifer monitoring wells, the general flow direction in the upper
aquifer appears to vary, flowing toward the former sand pit (northeast) as well as toward the Grennel Slough
(northwest). Figure F-2 in Appendix F show s the most recent (June 2022) potentiometric surface map for the
upper aquifer. It continues to be likely that the upper aquifer is influenced by river and sand pit water levels.
During this FYR period, the follow ing contaminants exceeded the MCL/PCL in the upper aquifer: benzene,
pyridine, arsenic, barium, cadmium, lead, selenium and chromium. Benzene and arsenic are the most prevalent
COCs and have the highest concentrations relative to their PCLs; they exceeded PCLs in all upper aquifer wells
during this FYR period. Lead also frequently exceeded its PCL in the upper aquifer monitoring wells. As shown
in Table 5, concentrations in select upper aquifer wells vary. In 2020, benzene concentrations increased in lJA-12.
Metals concentrations in UA-12 also increased in 2020. In 2021 and 2022, concentrations generally decreased but
remained above PCLs for benzene and arsenic. Figure F-5 show s the benzene and arsenic concentrations in the
upper aquifer in 2022. Table F-l in Appendix F includes groundwater data collected through 2022.
As noted in the 2018 FYR Report, the current benzene and arsenic concentrations in the upper aquifer suggest that
remaining source material continues to impact the upper aquifer. Concentrations likely fluctuate due to the tidal
influence at the Site. Depending on those influences, groundwater flow varies. Monitoring well lJA-12 is farthest
dow ngradient under some flow conditions and has the highest concentrations for both benzene and arsenic.
Middle Aquifer
In the middle aquifer, groundwater generally flow s northwest toward the Grennel Slough. Figure F-3 in Appendix
F provides the most recent (June 2022) potentiometric surface map for the middle aquifer.
During this FYR period, two contaminants exceeded their respective PCLs in two wells in the middle aquifer.
Middle aquifer well MA-03 exceeded the arsenic PCL of 0.010 milligrams per liter (mg/L) in June 2018
(concentration 0.0123 mg/L). Arsenic exceeded the PCL in this well consistently from 2012 through 2018. Since
2018, arsenic concentrations in MA-03 have decreased to below the PCL.
Benzene was detected above the PCL in MA-06 at a concentration of 0.012 mg/L in November 2020 (PCL =
0.005 mg/L). This is the first exceedance of the benzene PCL in the middle aquifer since December 2015. Prior to
2014, benzene was not detected above the laboratory method detection limit (0.0002 mg/L) in MA-06. In 2021,
benzene decreased to below the detection limit once again. It is unclear what caused the increase in contaminant
concentrations in MA-06 in 2020. Similar increases were also observed in the upper aquifer. MA-06 is upgradient
of MA-03. Benzene has been below the detection limit at MA-03 since at least 2011.
Deep Aquifer
In the deep aquifer, groundwater generally flows to the south-southeast toward the river. Figure F-4 in Appendix
F provides the most recent (June 2022) potentiometric surface map for the deep aquifer.
During this FYR period, there were no exceedances of the PCLs in the deep aquifer, which is consistent with
historical results. While several COCs were detected, the concentrations were at least one order of magnitude
below the PCLs; some results were several orders of magnitude less than the PCLs. Based on the deep aquifer
concentrations observed during this FYR period, there is no indication of contaminant migration to the deep
aquifer at levels of concern.
17
-------
Table 5: Upper Aquifer Maximum Contaminant Concentrations Above PCLs, 2018 to 2022
Well/Sample
Year
Maximum Concentration per Year
(mg/L)
Benzene
Arsenic
Lead
PCL
0.005
0.010
0.015
UA-10
2018
2.4
0.0348
0.0169
2019
7.7
0.111
0.106
2020
17
0.164 JI-FD
0.102 JI-FD
2021
0.11
0.0144
0.00816
2022
1.9
0.0104
0.00236
IJA-l 1
2018
49 JI-FD
0.721 JI-FD
0.306 JI-FD
2019
14
0.348
0.26
2020
43
0.693
0.407
2021
1.4 JI-FD
0.0143 UH-RB
0.0027 JI-FD
2022
2.9
0.00695
0.000643 J
UA-12
2018
69
0.255
0.0614
2019
39
0.329
0.077
2020
57
1.75
0.489
2021
12 JI-FD
0.0215
0.00322
2022
23
0.0139
< 0.000600 U
Notes:
Source: Tabic 1 A, 2022 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report.
All results arc the highest concentrations per year and include both parent and duplicate sample results.
mg/L = milligrams per liter
J = Estimated concentration
1 = Bias in sample results is indeterminate
FD = Field duplicate evaluation criteria not met
U = Not detected
H = Bias in sample results is likely to be high
RB = Analyte was detected in associated riiisatc/cquipmcnt blank
Bold = Exceeds PCL
Surface Water and Sediment
TCEQ conducts semi-annual surface water and sediment sampling at three locations (Figure 3). Samples are
analyzed for BTEX. phenol and pyridine, and select metals. Surface water results are compared to the lower of the
human health criteria (TRRP PCLs for groundwater and the human health surface water risk-based exposure
limits) and the ecological surface water benchmark for freshwater chronic exposures. Analytical results for
sediment are compared to the residential soil PCLs and the ecological sediment benchmarks for freshwater.
Surface Water
During this FYR period, lead and benzene concentrations in surface water were detected above one or more
standards. Lead exceeded the human health surface water risk-based exposure limits and ecological surface water
benchmark for freshwater chronic exposures and benzene exceeded the human health surface water risk-based
exposure limits.
Lead exceeded the human health surface water risk-based exposure limit (0.0015 mg/L) and ecological
benchmark (0.00117 mg/L) in all three sampling locations during this FYR period. The maximum concentration
was observed in SW-03 at a concentration of 0.00378 mg/L (in December 2018). In June 2022, lead
concentrations were below both the human health criteria and ecological benchmarks. These results are generally
consistent with the previous FYR period.
18
-------
During this FYR period, benzene exceeded the human health criteria (the PCL for groundwater and the human
health surface water risk-based exposure limit are both 0.005 mg/L) at all locations in December 2021. At all
sampling locations, prior exceedances occurred in 2017. From 2017 through 2020, benzene did not exceed any
standard. In December 2021 benzene concentrations were 0.028 mg/L (SW-01). 0.027 mg/L (SW-02) and 0.024
mg/L (SW-03). In June 2022, concentrations for all locations were not detected above the laboratory detection
limit. There were no exceedances of the benzene ecological surface water benchmark for freshwater chronic
exposures (0.13 mg/L) during this FYR period.
There were no cadmium or silver detections during this FYR period; however, the laboratory detection limits for
cadmium and silver were above their ecological benchmarks.
Once the May 2023 surface water and sediment sampling results are available, they will be provided to the new
owner of the adjacent property including the former sand pit. The owner of that property will also be notified of
additional sampling results from this FYR period show ing exceedances of lead and benzene in surface water of
the former sand pit (SW-03).
Sediment
Phenol, pyridine and various metals were detected in all three sediment samples. However, there were no criteria
exceedances during this FYR period in sediment.
During the FYR site inspection. TCEQ indicated it has not been able to access surface water and sediment
sampling location SW-3/SD-3 since June 2022 due to clearing and logging activities at the adjacent property.
TCEQ re-established access to this sampling point in May 2023 and were able to collect a sample; the results
were not available for this FYR.
Site Inspection
The site inspection took place on 12/5/2022. Participants included EPA RPM Stephen Pereira. CIC Adam Weece.
TCEQ project manager Adam Nichols and Hagai Nassau with Skeo (EPA FYR contractor). The purpose of the
inspection was to assess the protectiveness of the remedy. The current remedy consists of the maintenance of the
capped area (OU1) and monitoring of groundw ater, surface water and sediment (OU2). Site inspection
participants inspected the OlJ 1 capped area and the monitoring locations. There were no signs of erosion or ruts
on the capped area. Some sections of the perimeter fence and some of the fences surrounding monitoring wells
have vegetation and trees growing on and through them.
Site inspection participants observed that the chain link on the entrance gate had been repaired temporarily with
cable ties and the gate had a new chain for locking. The TCEQ project manager explained that someone had
recently cut the previous chain, and that someone had cut a hole in the gate; a permanent gate repair is planned.
Site inspection participants observed that the adjacent property with the submerged former sand pit (northeast of
the Site) was recently logged and cleared of vegetation, and a section of the hog wire fence was removed between
the Site and that property. The TCEQ project manager indicated that surface water and sediment monitoring
location SW-3/SD-3 is no longer marked; trees and brush were pushed into the flooded sand pit at that location
during the logging and clearing activities. Participants located all wells, most of which were locked and
surrounded by locked fences. Not all monitoring wells were labeled legibly. Follow ing the inspection, participants
visited nearby residents for interview s. Site photographs and the inspection checklist are provided in Appendix D
and Appendix E, respectively.
As part of the site inspection. EPA's contractor visited the Site's information repository (Highlands Public
Library - Stratford Branch, at 509 Stratford Street in Highlands. Texas) to determine whether site documents are
available for public viewing. The library has paper copies of the Site's 1983 Feasibility Study and 1983 Site
Inspection Report, and a compact disc sent by EPA in 2019 with documents dated 1978 to 1987. EPA will update
the library with more recent documents.
19
-------
V. TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
QUESTION A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?
Question A Summary:
The OU1 source control remedy has been implemented and is functioning to minimize human contact with waste
material and eliminate contaminated surface water runoff into adjacent surface waters. However, the limited
existing surface water monitoring data suggest that the OU 1 source control remedy may not be achieving the
remedial action objective of controlling off-site migration of wastes by subsurface pathways to mitigate future
environmental impacts on surface waters and groundwater. In accordance with the OU 1 ROD, the remedy
included excavation of waste material and contaminated soil to an approximate depth of 8 feet below ground
surface and disposal at an off-site hazardous waste facility, backfilling of the excavated area with clean soil,
establishing vegetation, and installation of a security fence. However, soil contamination remains below 8 feet.
Site vegetation is well established and maintained by ongoing O&M activities at the Site. The entrance to the Site
is gated and locked. Warning signs are posted. During the FYR site inspection, several monitoring wells were not
locked. In addition, due to neighboring property development, surface water and sediment monitoring location
SW-3/SD-3 was not accessible from June 2022 until May 2023. TCEQ re-established access to this monitoring
point and collected a sample in May 2023; the results were not available for this FYR.
The OU2 remedy included long-term monitoring of the surface environment (i.e., surface water and sediment) and
groundwater to determine potential impacts on potential receptors and to evaluate the need for groundwater
corrective action at the Site. The state O&M contractor has conducted water and sediment sampling semi-annually
since 2011. The groundwater data collected during this FYR period indicate groundwater contamination remains
in the upper aquifer and concentrations suggest that remaining source material continues to affect the upper
aquifer. Monitoring well UA-12 is located farthest downgradient under some flow conditions and has the highest
concentrations for both benzene and arsenic. This well is upgradient of the former sand pit. The former sand pit
property is currently being developed; the planned future use is not known. In the middle aquifer, limited
contamination was detected primarily in two wells, MA-03 and MA-06. Most recently, benzene exceeded its PCL
in middle aquifer well MA-06 by an order of magnitude in 2020. In 2021, concentrations in both the upper and
middle aquifers decreased. During this FYR period, there were no PCL exceedances in the deep aquifer.
Lead and benzene were detected in surface water above one or more standards during this FYR period, including
surface water in the former sand pit on property adjacent to the Site that is apparently undergoing development..
Lead exceeded the human health surface water risk-based exposure limit and ecological surface water benchmark
for freshwater chronic exposures. Benzene exceeded the human health surface water risk-based exposure limits.
The surface water exceedances were noted in all three sampling locations. In the most recent sampling from June
2022, concentrations for all locations were below the laboratory detection limits. There were no exceedances of
the benzene ecological surface water benchmark for freshwater chronic exposures during this FYR period. The
previous FYR report indicated that recreation in the former sand pit may be occurring indicating a potential for
human exposure to contaminated surface water. For sediment, there were no criteria exceedances during this FYR
period. Once the May 2023 surface water and sediment sampling results are available, they will be provided to the
new owner of the adjacent property including the former sand pit. The owner of that property will also be notified
of additional sampling results from this FYR period showing exceedances of lead and benzene in surface water of
the former sand pit (SW-03).
Due to the presence of contaminants above the PCLs in an upper aquifer monitoring well at the site boundary, the
extent of the contaminated groundwater is not fully defined. Currently, there are no monitoring wells located off-
site and more comprehensive sampling of surface water in the former sand pit has not occurred. Therefore, for the
OU2 remedy, additional assessment is needed to characterize the potential site contaminant migration to surface
waters and groundwater and determining potential impacts on potential receptors.
20
-------
EPA drafted a deed notice in 2007 that was not filed. Institutional controls need to be re-evaluated for the Site to
ensure long-term protectiveness.
QUESTION B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels and RAOs used at the time of the
remedy selection still valid'.'
Question 6 Summary:
Cleanup levels and RAOs remain valid. However, some exposure assumptions have changed. While toxicity data
and risk assessment methodology have been updated since the remedy was selected, these do not impact the
protectiveness of the cleanup levels.
The OU1 and OU2 RODs did not identify numeric cleanup goals for soil, groundwater, surface water or sediment.
Current groundw ater monitoring efforts compare groundw ater to current Texas PCLs and compare surface water
and sediment to current TRRP values.
The OU2 ROD identified MCLs as ARARs for the middle and deep aquifers. Annual monitoring reports continue
to compare groundwater sampling results to TRRP Tier 1 PCLs. PCLs and MCLs are currently equivalent for
COCs at the Site. Clean Water Act water quality criteria were identified as surface water ARARs in the 1984 and
1987 RODs. Surface water is currently compared to TRRP Tier 1 groundwater PCLs and human health surface
water risk-based exposure limits as well as surface water freshwater chronic benchmarks. Sampling and
monitoring plans should be updated to clarify appropriate site action levels, as identified in the RODs. to evaluate
groundwater, surface water and sediment analytical results.
Vapor intrusion to indoor air was not considered as a potential exposure pathw ay in either ROD for the Site.
Current groundwater contamination data are not available to evaluate potential off-site vapor intrusion impacts.
The maximum benzene concentration in the upper aquifer during this FYR period was observed in the farthest
downgradient well, UA-12 (69 mg/L). This well is also closest to the recently observed development at the former
sand pit property. Utilizing EPA's Vapor Intrusion Screening Level Calculator (VISL). the predicted vapor
intrusion risk is well above EPA's acceptable cancer risk range and noncancer hazard quotient (Table 6). The Site
and the adjacent properties are not currently in use. On site use is not likely because it is in the 10-year floodplain
although the property ow ner has expressed interest in selling the Site property for development. The adjacent
property with the former sand pit is currently under development.
Table 6: Vapor Intrusion Screening Risk Results - UA-12
Maximum Benzene
Concentration at UA-12
(mg/L)
2023 VISL Calculator'
Residential Exposure
(average groundwater temperature 25"Celsius)
Cancer Risk
Noncancer HQ
69 (2018)
4 x 10 2
500
Notes:
a. VISL calculator at: httDs://www.era.gov/vaix)rintrusion/vaix)r-intrusion-screening-level-calculator
(accessed 1/10/2023).
Bold = noncanccr HQs exceeds 1.0 or the cumulative cancer risk exceeds 1 x 10~4.
HQ = noncanccr hazard quotient
The current extent of the groundwater contamination in the upper aquifer and the potential for vapor
intrusion for nearby properties needs to be evaluated. The vapor intrusion evaluation should focus on the
planned redevelopment of the former sand pit property. QUESTION C: Has any other information come to
light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy'.'
Previous site documents indicate the area immediately surrounding the Site receives its drinking water from the
municipal water supply. Based on this FYR's review of Texas Water Development Board well databases, the
closest private well is about 2 miles northeast of the Site. However, this FYR contacted the Harris County Water
21
-------
Control & Improvement District #1 (HCWCID #1) and staff indicated that the area immediately surrounding the
Site is not within their service district. After further discussion, it was learned that several homes along Clear
Lake Road near the Site are serviced by HCWCID #1 even though they are west of the service boundary shown
on the HCWCID #1 website; however, the Baytown Boat Club and Red Ear River Boat and RV Park are not
serviced by HCWCID #1. It is unclear where the boat club and RV park receive drinking water since they are not
serviced by public water and do not appear to have a private well. The source of drinking water for these two
properties as well as the residential properties along Clear Lake Road should be verified with a well survey.
This Site is not located within an environmental justice (EJ) impacted community. The EJ Screen report was run
on February 7. 2023, using a 1 -mile buffer around the Site (see Appendix H). None of the 12 environmental
justice indexes exceeded the 80th percentile threshold denoting an EJ community. The highest reported index
from the EJ Screen report was the EJ Index for Superfund Proximity at the national level (76th percentile).
In 2022, a screening level assessment of the potential for climate change to affect the protectiveness of the remedy
was completed. The Site has a current elevation of 5 to 10 feet above sea level, has subsided at least 2.4 feet since
1964, and is in a 10-year flood plain. The screening level assessment found that the site has high vulnerability to
heavy precipitation, inland flooding, sea level rise, hurricane storm surge and wildfire.
VI. ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS
Issues/Recommend;! (ions
OlJ(s) without Issues/Recommendations Identified in the FYR:
None
Issues and Recommendations Identified in the FYR:
OU(s): 1, 2
Issue Category: Other
Issue: This site is located within the 10-year floodplain and protectiveness of the remedy
may be vulnerable to potential impacts of climate change.
Recommendation: Complete a climate vulnerability assessment to determine if
changes in climate may affect remedy protectiveness and whether adaptation measures arc
required to ensure remedy protectiveness.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Party
Responsible
Oversight
Party/Support
Agency
Milestone Date
No
Yes
EPA
TCEQ
5/31/2027
22
-------
OU(s): 1, 2
Issue Category: Institutional Controls
Issue: The OU1 and OU2 RODs did not require institutional controls. However, soil
contamination remains below 8 feet and groundwater concentrations exceed in the upper
and middle aquifers.
Recommendation: Determine the need for institutional controls and implement the
institutional controls, as appropriate.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Party
Responsible
Oversight
Party/Support
Agency
Milestone Date
No
Yes
EPA
TCEQ
5/25/2025
OU(s): 2
Issue Category: Remedy Performance
Issue: During this FYR period, surface water concentrations from three locations were
detected above both human health and ecological standards. In June 2022, concentrations
were not detected above the laboratory detection limit for all three locations.
Recommendation: Collect additional surface water and sediment samples (including
background samples) to determine if the contaminated upper aquifer is impacting areas
beyond the Site.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Party
Responsible
Oversight
Party/Support
Agency
Milestone Date
No
Yes
EPA
TCEQ
5/25/2025
OU(s): 2
Issue Category: Remedy Performance
Issue: Groundwater contamination remains in the upper aquifer and concentrations
suggest that remaining source material continues to affect the upper aquifer. Upper aquifer
monitoring well UA-12 has the highest concentrations of arsenic and benzene and is at the
site boundary. In the middle aquifer, limited contamination in excess of PCLs was
detected in two wells.
Recommendation: Evaluate the current extent of contamination in the upper aquifer
and determine impacts to long-term protectiveness.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Party
Responsible
Oversight
Party/Support
Agency
Milestone Date
No
Yes
EPA
TCEQ
5/25/2025
23
-------
OU(s): 2
Issue Category: Changed Site Conditions
Issue: The adjacent property, including the former sand pit. is currently being developed.
The upper aquifer groundwater contamination is not delineated and may extend onto this
property. A vapor intrusion screening-level assessment indicates the potential for vapor
intrusion on this property.
Recommendation: Determine whether the Site poses a vapor intrusion concern for
nearby properties with a focus on the planned redevelopment of the former sand pit
property.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Party
Responsible
Oversight
Party/Support
Agency
Milestone Date
No
Yes
EPA
TCEQ
5/25/2025
OTHER FINDINGS
Several additional recommendations were identified during the FYR. These recommendations do not affect
current and/or future protectiveness.
• Update the Site's Sampling and Analysis Plan to clarify the appropriate criteria for groundwater, surface
water and sediment.
• Label all site monitoring wells.
• Conduct a well survey to determine if properties near the Site are using private well water.
VII. PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENTS
Operable Unit:
1
IVolCCtiMMK'SS Stiltl'llK'Ill
Protectiveness Determination:
Short-term Protective
Protectiveness Statement:
The remedy for OU1 is currently protective of human health and the environment. The OU1 remedy included
excavation of waste material and contaminated soil to a depth of 8 feet below ground surface and disposal at an
off-site hazardous waste facility, backfilling of the excavated area with clean soil, establishing vegetation, and
installation of a security fence. However, for the remedy to be protective in the long term, the following actions
need to be taken to ensure protectiveness: complete a climate vulnerability assessment to determine if changes in
climate may affect remedy protectiveness and whether adaptation measures arc required to ensure remedy
protectiveness and determine the need for institutional controls and implement the institutional controls, as
appropriate.
24
-------
IVolCCtiMMK'SS Stiltl'llK'Ill
Operable Unit: Protectiveness Determination:
2 Short-term Protective
Protectiveness Statement:
The remedy for OU2 is currently protective of human health and the environment. The OU2 remedy was a "no
further action" remedy with long-term monitoring. For the remedy to be protective in the long term, the
following actions need to be taken to ensure protectiveness: collect additional surface water and sediment
samples (including background samples) to determine if the contaminated upper aquifer is impacting areas
beyond the Site and take appropriate measures to ensure protectiveness; revisit the draft institutional control
instrument to ensure long-term protectiveness; evaluate the current extent of contamination in the upper aquifer
and determine impacts to long-term protectiveness; continue to monitor and evaluate contaminants of concern in
the middle and deep aquifer and determine impacts to long-term protectiveness; determine if the site poses a
vapor intrusion concern for nearby properties.
Silewide I'rolccliMMicss Slnlcmcnl
Protectiveness Determination:
Short-term Protective
Protectiveness Statement:
The Site remedy is currently protective of human health and the environment. For the remedy to be protective
over the long term, the following actions need to be taken to ensure protectiveness: complete a climate
vulnerability assessment to determine if changes in climate may affect remedy protectiveness and whether
adaptation measures arc required to ensure remedy protectiveness; collect additional surface water and sediment
samples around the Site to determine if the contaminated upper aquifer is impacting areas beyond the Site;
determine the need for institutional controls and implement the institutional controls, as appropriate; evaluate the
current extent of contamination in the upper aquifer and determine impacts to long-term protectiveness; and
determine if the site poses a vapor intrusion concern for nearby properties.
VIII. NEXT REVIEW
The next FY R Report for the Highlands Acid Pit Superfund site is required five years from the completion date of
this review.
25
-------
APPENDIX A - REFERENCE LIST
Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report December 2019 and June 2020 Sampling Events. Highlands Acid Pit
Federal Superfund Site. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. August 2020.
Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report November 2020 and June 2021 Sampling Events. Highlands Acid Pit
Federal Superfund Site. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. August 2021.
Final Report for Highlands Acid Pit. Highlands. Texas - Groundwater Contamination Evaluation. United States
Environmental Protection Agency Region 6. April 1987.
First Five-Year Review. Highlands Acid Pit Superfund Site. United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 6. November 1995.
Fourth Five-Year Review Report for the Highlands Acid Pit Superfund site. United States Environmental
Protection Agency Region 6. September 27. 2012.
Fifth Five-Year Review Report for the Highlands Acid Pit Superfund site. United States Environmental Protection
Agency Region 6. September 27. 2012. May 24, 2018.
Health Assessment. Highland Acid Pit (NPL) Site. Highlands. Harris County. Texas. Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry. December 7. 1988.
Operations and Maintenance Plan. September 2011, Highlands Acid Pit. State Superfund Site. Contract No. 582-
10-91049. Work Order No. 246-0023. URS. September 23, 2011.
Record of Decision. Highlands Acid Pit. OU1. United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 6. June
25, 1984.
Record of Decision. Highlands Acid Pit. Groundwater Operable Unit. United States Environmental Protection
Agency Region 6. June 26. 1987.
Remedial Action Feasibility Study. Highlands Acid Pit. Highlands. Texas. Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality. December 1983.
Second Five-Year Review Report for the Highlands Acid Pit. United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 6. September 27. 2002.
Third Five-Year Review Report. Highlands Acid Pit Superfund Site. United States Environmental Protection
Agency Region 6. September 28, 2007.
A-1
-------
APPENDIX B - SITE CHRONOLOGY
Table B-l: Site Chronology
Ku'ili
Date
TCF.Q (formerly TDWR) received a telephone complaint concerning the
Site
W;
TDWR analysis of sludge, sediment and stormwater samples found low pH.
concentrations of metals, high chemical oxygen demand and high total
organic carbon
September 1978
TDWR analysis of groundwater samples found VOCs and heavy metals
October 1981
EPA proposed the Site for listing on the NPL
June 1982
EPA and TCEQ entered into a Cooperative Agreement for a state-led
remedial investigation and feasibility study
September 1982
EPA finali/cd the Site's listing on the NPL
September 1983
State-led Site Investigation Report indicated extensive contamination of site
media with heavy metals and VOCs
December 1983
State completed the Site's Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Studv Report
December 1983
EPA finalized the ROD for OU1
June 1984
EPA finalized the ROD for OU2
June 1987
TCEQ conducted O&M activities at the Site
July 1988 to July 1996
TCEQ assumed responsibility for 30 years of O&M activities at the Site
June 1993
EPA and TCEQ agreed on a revised well development plan, which proposed
10 more monitoring wells with a revised monitoring strategy and an
expansion of the sampling analysis program
May 1996
EPA completed the Site's first FYR Report
June 1996
EPA contractor conducted more groundwater sampling activities at the Site
April 1997 to December 1999
TNRCC completed the Site's revised O&M Plan
September 2001
EPA completed the Site's second FYR Report
September 2002
EPA completed the Site's third FYR Report
September 2007
TCEQ selected URS as the Site's O&M contractor
2011
URS completed the Site's O&M Plan
September 2011
EPA completed the Site's fourth FYR Report
September 2012
EPA completed the Site's fifth FYR Report
Mav 2018
B-l
-------
APPENDIX C - PRESS NOTICE
£
<
33
\
*§k
>4l PRO^°
UJ
V
£
Highlands Acid Pit Superfund Site
Public Notice
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6
October 2022
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6 (EPA)
will be conducting the sixth five-year review of remedy
implementation and performance at the Highlands Acid Pit
Superfund site (Site) in Highlands, Texas. In the early 1950s,
the Site received an unknown amount of industrial waste
sludge, believed to be spent sulfuric acid, from oil and gas
refining processes. Waste disposal activities contaminated
the soil and groundwater with hazardous chemicals. Cleanup
included the excavation and ofif-site disposal of hazardous
soil, backfilling of the excavated area with clean soil,
establishment of vegetation and installation of a security
fence. The remedy also included monitored natural
attenuation and institution controls. Site maintenance and
groundwater monitoring are ongoing. The five-year review
will determine if the remedies are still protective of human
health and the environment. The five-year review is
scheduled for completion in May 2023.
The report will be made available to the public at the
following local information repository:
Highlands Public Library, Stratford Branch
509 Stratford Street
Highlands, Texas 77562
Site status updates are available on the Internet at
https://www.epa.gov/superfund/highlands-acid-pit
All media inquiries should be directed
to the EPA Press Office at (214) 665-2200
For more information about the Site, contact:
Stephen Pereira/Remedial Project Manager
(214)665-3137
or by email at pereira.stephen@epa. gov
Adam Weece/Community Involvement Coordinator
(214)665-2264
or 1-800-887-6063 (toll free)
or by email at weece.adam@epa.gov
C-l
-------
Sitio Superfund Highlands Acid Pit
Aviso Publico
'Region 6 de la Agenda de Protection Ambiental de los Estado Unidos
La Region 6 de la Agenda de Protection Ambiental (EPA,
por sus siglas en ingles) 1 levari a cabo la sexta revision de
cinco afios de la implementation y rendimiento del plan de
limpieza del sitio Superfund Highlands Acid Pit (Sitio) en
Highlands, Texas, A principles de la decada de 1950, el Sitio
rccibio una cantidad desconocida de lodos de desecho
industrial, que se cree que era acido sulfurico gastado, de los
procesos de refinacion de petroleo y gas. Las actividades de
eliminaeidn de desechos contaminaron el suelo y las aguas
subterraneas con productos quimicos peligrosos. La limpieza
incluyo la excavacion y la eliminaeidn fuera del sitio de
suelo peiigroso, el relleno del area excavada con suelo
limpio, el estableeimiento de vegetacion y la instalacion de
una cerca de seguridad. La accion correctiva tarnbien
incluyo atenuacion natural monitoreada y controles
institucionales. El mantenimiento del Sitio y el monitoreo de
las aguas subterraneas siguen en curso. La revision de cinco
Para obtener mas information
Stephen Pereira/Gerente de Proyecto de Limpieza
(214)665-3137
o por correoelectronicoa . < • • • • .: .gov
Octubre 2022
anos determinara si las aeciones eorrectivas aun protegen la
salud hum ana y el medio ambiente. La revision de cinco
afios esta programada para completarse en mayo de 2023.
El informe se pondra a disposicion del publico en el
siguiente repositorio de informacion local:
Biblioteca Piiblica de Highlands, Sucursal de Stratford
509 Stratford Street
Highlands, Texas 77562
Las actuali/aciones del estado del Sitio esfan disponibles por
Interneten : .. i •. i _'si ncls-acid-
Todas las preguntas de los medios deben dirigirse a la
Oficina de la Prensa se la EPA al (214) 665-2200
re el Sitio, comuniquese con:
Adam Weece/Coordinador de Participacion Comunitaria
(214)665-2264
o 1-800-887-6063 (niimero gratuilo)
o por correo electronico a v gov
C-2
-------
APPENDIX D - SITE INSPECTION CHECKLIST
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SITE INSPECTION CHECKLIST
I. SITE INFORMATION
Site Name: Highlands Acid Pit
Date of Inspection: 12/05/2022
Location and Region: Highlands, Texas, Region 6
EPA ID: TXD980514996
Agency, Office or Company Leading the Five-Year
Review: EPA
Weather/Tcnipcratu re: 80s, sunny
Remedy Includes: (check all that apply)
~ Landfill cover/containment
ISI Access controls
Institutional controls
~ Groundwater pump and treatment
~ Surface water collection and treatment
Other: Surface water and sediment monitoring
Monitored natural attenuation
~ Groundwater containment
~ Vertical barrier walls
Attachments: Q Inspection team roster attached
~ Site map attached
II. INTERVIEWS (check all that apply)
1. O&M Site Manager
Name Title
Interviewed ~ at site ~ at office ~ by phone Phone:
Problems, suggestions ~ Report attached:
Date
2. O&M Staff
Name Title
Interviewed ~ at site ~ at office ~ by phone Phone:
Problems/suggestions ~ Report attached:
Date
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). Fill in all that apply.
Agency TCEO
Contact Adam Weece
Name
Problems/suggestions ~ Report attached:.
Project
Manager
Title
Date
Phone
Agency Harris County Pollution Control Services
Contact Dr. Lattice Babin Executive
Name
Problems/suggestions ~ Report attached:.
Director
Title
12/19/2022
Date
Phone
Agency
Contact
Name Title
Problems/suggestions ~ Report attached:
Date
Phone
Agency
Contact
Name Title
Problems/suggestions ~ Report attached:
Date
Phone
D-1
-------
Agencv
Contact
Name Title
Problems/suggestions [~~| Report attached:
Date
Phone
4.
Other Interviews (optional) HI Report attached:
Residents
III. ON-SITE DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS VERIFIED (check all that apply)
1.
O&M Documents
~ O&M manual ~ Readily available
~ Up to date
Hn/a
~ As-built drawings ~ Readily available
~ Up to date
N/A
~ Maintenance logs ~ Readily available
~ Up to date
IEIn/a
Remarks:
2.
Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan
~ Readily available
~ Up to date
|N/A
~ Contingency plan/emergency response plan
~ Readily available
~ Up to date
Sn/a
Remarks:
3.
O&M and OS HA Training Records
Remarks:
~ Readily available
~ Up to date
Sn/a
4.
Permits and Service Agreements
~ Air discharge permit
~ Readily available
~ Up to date
Sn/a
~ Effluent discharge
~ Readily available
~ Up to date
Bn/a
~ Waste disposal, POTW
~ Readily available
~ Up to date
IXIn/a
n Other Dcrmits:
~ Readily available
~ Up to date
Sn/a
Remarks:
5.
Gas Generation Records
Remarks:
~ Readily available
~ Up to date
0N/A
6.
Settlement Monument Records
Remarks:
~ Readily available
~ Up to date
Sn/a
7.
Groundwater Monitoring Records
Remarks:
~ Readily available
~ Up to date
0N/A
8.
Leachate Extraction Records
~ Readily available
O Up to date
|N/A
Remarks:
9.
Discharge Compliance Records
~ Air ~ Readily available
~ Up to date
E|n/a
~ Water (effluent) ~ Readily available
~ Up to date
m
n/a
Remarks:
10.
Daily Access/Security Logs
~ Readily available
~ Up to date
Bn/a
D-2
-------
Remarks:
IV. O&M COSTS
1. O&M Organization
l~l State in-house
E3 Contractor for state
1 1 PRP in-housc
O Contractor for PRP
l~l Federal facility in-house
O Contractor for Federal facility
~
2. O&M Cost Records
l~l Readily available
E3 Up to date
l~l Funding mechanism/agreement in place O Unavailable
Original O&M cost estimate:
l~l Breakdown attached
Total annual cost by year for review period if available
From: To:
n Breakdown attached
Date Date
Total cost
From: To:
n Breakdown attached
Date Date
Total cost
From: To:
n Breakdown attached
Date Date
Total cost
From: To:
n Breakdown attached
Date Date
Total cost
From: To:
n Breakdown attached
Date Date
Total cost
3. Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs during Review Period
Describe costs and reasons:
V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS [X] Applicable ~ N/A
A. Fencing
1. Fencing Damaged ~ Location shown on site map E3 Gates secured ~ N/A
Remarks:
B. Other Access Restrictions
1. Signs and Other Security Measures
~ Location shown on site map ~ N/A
Remarks: Warning signs in Spanish and English posted at site entrance and on fencing surrounding the
Site.
C. Institutional Controls (ICs)
D-3
-------
1. Implementation and Enforcement
Site conditions imply ICs not properly implemented
Site conditions imply ICs not being fully enforced
Type of monitoring (e.g., self-reporting, drive by): __
Frequency:
Responsible party/agency:
Contact
~ Yes ~ No |X1 N/A
~ Yes ~ No El N/A
Name Title
Date
Phone
Reporting is up to date
l~l Yes
~ No
G3n/a
Reports arc verified by the lead agency
I~1 Yes
~ No
Sn/a
Specific requirements in deed or decision documents have been met
I~1 Yes
~ No
IXIn/a
Violations have been reported
I~1 Yes
~ No
Sn/a
Other problems or suggestions: ~ Report attached
2.
~ ICs arc adequate
ICs arc inadequate
~ N/A
Adequacy
Remarks: Draft deed notice has not been filed with the county. EPA and TCEO will update the deed
notice after determining if additional remedial action is needed.
D. General
1. Vandalism/Trespassing ~ Location shown on site map No vandalism evident
Remarks:
2. Land Use Changes On Site
Remarks:
0N/A
3. Land Use Changes Off-site ~ N/A
Remarks: The former sand pit area is being redeveloped and the vegetation has been cleared.
VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS
A. Roads ~ Applicable ^ N/A
B. Other Site Conditions
Remarks:
VII. LANDFILL COVERS Applicable ~ N/A
A. Landfill Surface
Settlement (low spots)
Area extent:
Remarks:
~ Location shown on site map
Settlement not evident
Depth:
Cracks
Lengths: _
Remarks:
~ Location shown on site map
Widths:
Cracking not evident
Depths:
Erosion
Area extent:
~ Location shown on site map
M Erosion not evident
Depth:
D-4
-------
Remarks:
4.
Holes ~ Location shown on site map [3 Holes not evident
Area extent: Depth:
Remarks:
5.
Vegetative Cover ^ Grass ^ Cover properly established
PI No signs of stress ~ Trees/shrubs (indicate si/e and locations on a diagram)
Remarks:
6.
Alternative Cover (e.g., armored rock, concrete) ^ N/A
Remarks:
7.
Bulges ~ Location shown on site map Bulges not evident
Area extent: Height:
Remarks:
8.
Wet Areas/Water Damage Wet areas/water damage not evident
n Wet areas PI Location shown on site mm Area extent:
n Ponding PI Location shown on site man Area extent:
PI Sccds n Location shown on site man Area extent:
PI Soft suberade n Location shown on site man Area extent:
Remarks:
9.
Slope Instability O Slides ~ Location shown on site map
E3 No evidence of slope instability
Area extent:
Remarks:
B. Benches Q 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 comev the runoff to a lined channel.)
C.
Letdown Channels ~ Applicable ^ N/A
(Channel lined with erosion control mats, riprap, grout bags or gabions that descend down the steep side
slope of the cover and will allow the runoff water collected by the benches to move oil of the landfill
cover without creating erosion gullies.)
D.
Cover Penetrations ^ Applicable ~ N/A
1.
Gas Vents Q Active Q Passive
PI Properly secured/locked Q Functioning O Routinely sampled O Good condition
l~l Evidence of leakage at penetration O Needs maintenance Kl N/A
Remarks:
2.
Gas Monitoring Probes
PI Properly secured/locked ~ Functioning O Routinely sampled Q Good condition
l~l Evidence of leakage at penetration Q Needs maintenance EI N/A
D-5
-------
Remarks:
3. Monitoring Wells (within surface area of landfill)
IKI Properly secured/locked IXI Functioning £3 Routinely sampled Good condition
~ Evidence of leakage at penetration O Needs maintenance ~ n/a
Remarks: Some monitoring wells were not labeled.
4. Extraction Wells Leachate
~ Properly secured/locked ~ Functioning
l~l Evidence of leakage at penetration
Remarks:
5. Settlement Monuments Q Located O Routinely surveyed Q N/A
Remarks: Benchmarks were surveyed in 2018.
E. Gas Collection and Treatment ~ Applicable ^ N/A
F. Cover Drainage Layer ~ Applicable N/A
G. Detention/Sedimentation Ponds ~ Applicable N/A
EL Retaining Walls ~ Applicable £3 N/A
I. Perimeter Ditches/Off-Site Discharge ~ Applicable ^ N/A
VIII. VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS ~ Applicable ^ N/A
IX. GROUNDWATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES ^ Applicable ~ N/A
A. Groundwater Extraction Wells, Pumps and Pipelines ~ Applicable N/A
B. Surface Water Collection Structures, Pumps and Pipelines ~ Applicable |N/A
C. Treatment System ~ Applicable £3 N/A
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 arc declining
E. Monitored Natural Attenuation
1. Monitoring Wells (natural attenuation remedy)
E3 Properly secured/locked [3 Functioning ^ Routinely sampled ^ Good condition
E3 All required wells located ~ Needs maintenance ~ N/A
Remarks: Wells appear to be in good condition. All wells are surrounded by locked fences. Most well
caps were also locked, although several wells did not have locks at the time of the inspection. Most wells
were labeled. Some were weathered and difficult to read.
X. OTHER REMEDIES
If there are remedies applied at the site and 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.
O Routinely sampled O Good condition
O Needs maintenance §N/A
D-6
-------
XI. 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 designed to accomplish (e.g., to contain contaminant
plume, minimize infiltration and gas emissions).
The renicdv includes soil excavation (to 8 feet below ground surface) and off-site disposal (OU1) and
groundwater monitored natural attenuation and surface water and sediment sampling. Monitoring is
ongoing. There have been detections and cleanup goal cxcecdances in the middle aciuifer and detections in
the deep aciuifer. COG concentrations in the upper aciuifer remain well above PCLs. These conditions
indicate that there mav be remaining source area that continues to contaminate groundwater on site. There
is no exposure on site since the groundwater is not in use on site; this FYR recommends a well survev to
confirm that groundwater is not used off site. Institutional controls were not reciuired bv site decision
documents but should be implemented to prevent certain land uses and groundwater use. A draft deed
notice has not been filed. EPA and TCEO will update the deed notice and file it.
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 protcctivcness of the remedy.
TCEO conducts O&M activities, which include semi-annual groundwater, surface water and sediment
monitoring, site securitv and cover maintenance (including mowing). Gencrallv. O&M activities arc
conducted as appropriate.
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 protcctivcness of the remedy may be compromised
in the future.
None at this time.
D.
Opportunities for Optimization
Describe possible opportunities for optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation of the remedy.
None at this time.
D-7
-------
APPENDIX E - REMEDIAL ACTION AND SITE INSPECTION PHOTOS
After Cleanup
Gated entrance to the Site, circa 2001
E-l
-------
Site Inspection Photos: December 2022
Gated site entrance
Fenced monitoring wells on site
E-2
-------
Unlocked monitoring well DA-05
Unlocked monitoring well DA-06
E-3
-------
Monitoring well UA-15
Monitoring well, with the Grennel Slough in background
E-4
-------
Cleared vegetation near the former sand pit
E-5
-------
Monitoring well UA-10
E-6
-------
Mowed cover area
E-7
-------
Figure F-l: Site Map2
APPENDIX F - DATA REVIEW FIGURES AND TABLES1
_ ENTRANCE
/ GATE
GRENNEL
SLOUGH
FORMER SAND Pff
MA-03 MA-08
HOG WIRE FENCE
& 1
OA-01
"V I
' 4
/¦--
V •-
hp ^
*
s
*
¦ UPPER AQU FEB WELL VOCATION
- MIOXL AQIJ3 liR WtLL LOCAT HJN
- L'LLP AQUhfcN VVHL LOCAT PN
PLUGGED (tOF»lcmOIWAJjEFr1'OF 3015 HOI-AND? ~- Af.
QUADRANGLE
AZCOM
1S2V3KA**fR6E«"kV ailfE I'X'
K'JSrOM.T<7?C®«
fa* f»iris«s«r
SITE MAP WITH SAMPLING AND
WELL LOCATIONS
* fEXAS !;OwWIS3IOW EHVIRI3VMEIirAi f.UAjj ¦ s'
1 All figures and tables are from the Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, November/December 2021 and June 2022 Sampling Events
2 Part of the hog wire fence was removed during the clearing of the adjacent property (see Figure 3 for the current extent of fencing)
F-l
-------
Figure F-2: Upper Aquifer Potentiometric Surface Map - June 2022
A=COM
14.J1HKATV FRBEVW"', aim- 1CII
HOUSTON, TV J7W«
FH (38!>B«-J<00
fh/.
UPPER AQUIFER
POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE MAP
JUNE 2022
Ckt -FVASCOMM SSIC*) Ql-'A. ~'f
pc"K"e |Fi«u",Na
£0*112? <3 hwwtWi* fi
-i -v;
LEGEND
¦V - UPPER AGUlFB?VYB.l LOCATION
- PLUGGED AND ABANDOfCOWQ .
w LOCATION (PSA'g)
X - CHAIN-LINK FENCE
0 HO&-WIRE FENCE
2 14 POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE
ELEVATION. FT |MSL)
2.0 POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACF CONTOUR
CONTOUR INTERVAL=1 OFT
APPARENT GROUNDWATER FLOW
DIRECTION
F-2
-------
Figure F-3: Middle Aquifer Potentiometric Surface Map - June 2022
ENTRANCE
GATE
m
GRENNEL
SLOUGH
HOG WIRE FENCE
APPROXIMATE
FORMER SAND PIT
CSUB^GB^
•OS —
- MCOLE AOUFBR 'A€LL LOCATI ON
- PLUGGED AND WSANDGMEDVMiLL
LOCATION (P&A'CJ
CHWJ-LINK FENCE
- HCK^-WRE FETJCE
- POTENT10METRIC 'SURFACE
ELEVATION, FT iMSLi
- POTEWriOMETRir. 3.1RFACS GONTOUft
CONTOUR INTffl VAL = 0 I FT
APRAR&r GROUfOVATER FLOW
DIRECTION
v *
*/HALU£K.
|! GEOLOGY isi
1&\ 1-316 /tS
% +
SOURCg
AECOM
1*2' J 'ATT FRSWi BUTE 'C"
HiXBTON. TK 7.11M
ph
fax c:^)o4fi-]iai
TT,
S.t7-2022
«- MIDDLE AQUIFER
POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE MAP
JUNE 2022
ct*" TPXAS COMMISSION R,MRONME?JT.N. QUALITY
' "'V'¦
FT
F-3
-------
Figure F-4: Deep Aquifer Potentiometric Surface Map - June 2022
GRENNEL
SLOUGH
ENTRANCE
GATE
FORMER SAND PIT
(SUBMERGBj)
HOG WORE FENCE
{APPROXIMATE
m *
ffV- C *"•
r ' > .
$r »; -
r
~
- DEEP AQUIFER WELL LOCATION
- PLUGGED AND ABANDONED -WELL
LOCATION (P&A'd)
CHAIN-l INK FENCE
HO&WIRE FENCE
POTENT lOhCTRIC SURFACE
ELEVATION, PT (MSL)
- POTENtlOMETPIC SURFACE CONTOUR
CONTOUR INTERVAL = 05 FT
APPARENT GROUNDWATER FLOW
DIRECTION
5+:h
AECOM
1-2' J fATT FRSWi 3UTE 'C"
HtXJHTON, TK 7.11M
ph
fax
S-IB-2Q2S
—
*" DEEPER AQUIFER
POTENTIOWETRIC SURFACE MAP
JUNE 2022
ct*" TR1A5 COMMESCN Ef-MRONMEWTJM. QUALITY
F-4
-------
Figure F-5: Upper Aquifer Benzene and Arsenic Concentrations - June 2022
UA-36
fi/lS/2022
Eensne
c 3 00020U
Araert c
0.03620
6/15/?Q2?
Bcrzcnc 2.0
0 30695
IJA-11
UA 10
C/1V202?
UA-16
6/15/2022
Eenzene
0.00022 J
A'senic
0.00972
UA-1S
U15/2022
GRENNEL
SLOUGH
CHAIN-LINK
FENCE
E
N D:
UPPER AQUIFER WELL LOCATION
PLUGGED AND ASANtXJNrD WELL
LOCATION (P&Ad)
CHAlNLlNk FENCE
B0G-WRE FENCE
ENTRANCE
GATE
UA-16
FORMER SAND PIT
(SUBMERGED)
1 BENZENECOMMERlCAL 'INDUSTRIAL PCI - 0 Q05MGA
9 i - BIAS IN SANTLE RESULT IS INDETERMINATE.
tO FD- R ELD PJFLICA7E EVALUATION CFSTERl A NOT MET
AR30JC COMMEROAUINDUSTRIAl Pa - 0 OtO M6/L
HIGH_:GM1ED RESULTS INDICATE H i EXCEH3ANCE OF THE
pa
ALL RESULTS ARE IN MILLIGRAMS PGR LITER{MG4|
FOR L'ST OF QUALIFIERS AND DEFINITIONS SEE TAELE IN THE
REPORT
' V INDICATES NOT DETECTED AT SANR.E CFTECnON LIMITS
U - NOT DETECTEQ THE ANALTE WAS ANALYZED FOR DJT
WAS NOT DETECTED A80VE The l£v£L OF *hE ASS-COATED
VALUE THE ASSOO ATED VALUE IS TIC SAMPLE DETECTION
UMTtSCU
J - ESTIMATED THE ANALY7E WAS DETECTH) AND
P03TIVB_Y iDBvlTFIED THE ASSOCIATED NUMB*ICAL VALL'S
iSTHE APPRO«]MATEC QNCENTRATK5NOF THE ANALVTE IN
THE SAMPLE.
HOG WIRE FENCE
(APPROXIMATE BQUNDAR''
AECOM
1«JW wn FAEEVWY, BUTTE 131
W>UgrCM,TX rf09<
V» 6tt-2*CO
r«i:
F-5
-------
Figure F-6: Surface Water Benzene Concentration - November/December 2021
F-6
-------
Table F-l: Upper Aquifer Groundwater Monitoring Results
TRRP Tier 1
UA-06
Sample ID
Sa-rjple Date
Lai; Sample ID
Residential PCts*
""GW„
mart.
HAP0M-UAO6
08A3&I2011
1108225-05
HAPQM-UA-06-0
11/17/2011
111165005
HAP-UA06-07D512-0
07/05/2012
1207231-03
HAP-UAQ6-112812-0
1V28/2012
12111017-20
H AP-J A06-061913-0
00/19/2013
1300881-01
H A-MJA06-NOV2Q13
02/19/2014
14021012-01
HAP-UAQ9-JJL2014
07/102014
14070538-12
HAP-uAoe-oao
11/13/2014
14110545-14
HAP4JAO0-OSO
5/14/20t5
15050876-1*
HAP-UA06-10Q
12/17/2015
HS15120827 11
HAP-UA06-110
6/2S/2018
HS10070019^ 13
HAP-UAO&-120
11/3CV201©
HS'8120073-10
ANALYTE
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
(mtj'Lt
Bwero
0005
0.5
0,93
0.11
1.0
0.GO88UH'
0,00093 J
0.0030
<0 00020
0.0002
0.0016 UH-RB.FB
0,0002 J
0.0050
ECiyberizene
0.70
<0 00010
<0.00010
<0.00030
Phenol
7.3
000Q26 U"
0,00081 J'
0 00011 U*
0.0033 JL'
<0.000050
<0 000032
<0 00044 UJL*
<0.000028 JJL-
HT*
<0 000036
<0 000035 U
30020 U
<0 00C2D U
<0 00020 U
Arsenic
0010
0.00540
0.00160 J
0.0210
0.0111
0.0904
0.0249
0.00878
0.0964
0.025
0.0325
0.058
0.00820
Baium
20
0.0/16
0.124
0.0/3/
0.0866
0.0/54
0.0753
0,0/93
0.165
0.08/
0.0561
UH RB
0.0/6/
0.0522
Cadmium
0.0C5O
-------
Sample ID
Sartpl® Date
LaC Sample ID
TRRP Ttef 1
Resiiiwtfiri PCl.S:
itia'L
UA-1D
-APCM-UA-10
03/05/2011
1106225-06
HAPOM-UA-10-0
1VI7/2011
1111950-11
HAPOM-U A-10-1
11/17)2011
1111650-12
HAP-UA1Q-070&12-0
07/05/2012
1207331-11
H AP-UA10-D70G12-1
07/QS/2012
1207231-12
HAP-UAIO-t 12812-0
11)28/2012
12111017-14
H AP-UA10-061913-0
06/19/2013
I306S61-12
HAP-UA10-NOV2013
02T1S/2014
14021012-02
HAP-UA10-JU L2014
07/11/2C14
14070538-19
HAP-UA10-08G
11/14/2014
14110S4&-1S
<0UP)
HAP-UA10-081
11/14/2014
14110545-16
HAP-UA10-090
05)14/2015
15O50676-22
ANALYTE
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
'M
Bmzere
0.00b
9.9
1.2 J*
2.7 J"
2.3
2.8
5.0
4.8
0.61
6.1
3.1
2.9
0.00481)
El"iyfc>«i.iene
0.70
<0 OQQ10
HAP-JA10-181
12M8/10
HS19121142-07
HAP-UA f0-1©0
6/24/20
HS20361381-01
ANALYTB
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
BertfMia
0 005
2.4
0.076
0.11
0.55
0.15
23
2.1
2.4
4.3 7.7
4.7
6.6
Etftytowizene
0.70
<0 0030 U
<0.00030 U
<0,C0030U
<0 00030U
<0.00030 U
-------
TORf Tien
UA-10
UA-11
Sample ID
Residents PCLs*
^OWms
it)9/L
HAP-UA10-200
11/18/20
HSZ0110979-17
(DUPi
HAP-UA10-200
HAP-UA10-210
6/17/21
HS21061020-04
HAP-UA10-220
12/1/21
HS21120166-01
HAP-UA 10-230
6/15/22
H 522060875^06
HAPOM-UA-11
08/05/2011
1108225-07
HAPOM-U A-11-0
11/17/2011
1111650-13
HAP-UA11-070612-0
07/06/2012
1207230-07
HAP-UA11-112912-0
11/23/2012
12111017-15
'L}
Berwnaife
0 005
17
13
0.05
0.11
1.9
91
64
46
48
55
48
Efrrytoflnzene
0,70
<0.0030
U
0.0059
J
<0.00030
U
<000030
U
< 0.00330
u
<0.00010
<0.0'0
*0.030
<0.030
<0.030
<0.015
Toluene
1.0
0-031
Jf-FC
o.o??
Jl-FD
<0.00020
u
< D.00020
U
0,00035
J
0.15 J
0.11
0.060 J
0.073 J
0-084 J
fl.QSO
Xylenra tots!
10
0.05
0.052
<0.00030
u
<0 00030
u
0.0036
0.76 J
0.52
0.33
0.39
0.42
0.430
SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Phenol
7.3
0.025
JL-LCS, FD
0.017
JL-LCS.F0
<0003035
u
< 3.0QGO35
u
0.00025
0,027
0.22 J*
0.31 J*
0-17 JL*
0.24 JL*
0.39 JL*
P'jTidino
0024
0.022
JL-LCS.
MS/SO FD
0.015
JL-LCS.
MS/SD.FD
<0.000030
u
0.0054
JL-LCS
<0.000030
u
0 047 J*
0.023 J*
1.6 J*
0.022 JL*
0,034 JL*
0.53
METALS (maXI
Arsenic
0.010
0.164
Jl-FD
0.116
Jl-FD
O.OOB63
UH-RB
0.0144
0.0104
0.242
a 146
0.151
0.188
0.217
0.223
Ba-k-m
2.0
0.27
Jl-FD
0.177
Jl-FD
0.0922
UIH-RB
0,0841
0,0791
0.0323 J
0.06/3
0.0257
0.0284
0.0271
0.0290 J
Cadmium
0.0C5Q
0.0057
Jt-FC
0.00356
<0.000200
u
< O.GQ0200
U
< 0.000200
u
0.01 es J
0.0122
0.0141
0.0171
0.0194
0.0168 J
Chromium
0.10
0.726
0.552
0.00868
0.00773
0.0104
0.013
0.71S
0.625
0.772
0.833
0.925
Lead
0 015
0.102
Jl-FD
0.0597
Jl-FD
Q.0081&
0.00359
0.00236
0.0711
0,0708
0.0580
0,0799
0,0900
0,0510
Mercury
0.0020
<0.0)00300
U
<0.0000300
U
<0.0000300
u
0.0000350
J
< 0 .00 DOS DO
u
<0.000042
0.0000580 J
0.0000440 J
0.0000710 J
0.0000720 J
0.0009640 J
Sssnium
0060
0.186
0.16
0.00144
J
0.00308
0.00445
0.120
0.0350
0.0550
0.0610
0.0694
0.0697
Slh/er
0.12
0.0013 J
0.000761
J
<0 003203
u
< 3.000200
U
< 0.000200
u
Beruwe
0005
50
46
?6
2-2
??
31
41
4.4 Jl-FD
11 Jl-FD
5.4
24
49 Jl-FO
13 Jl-FD
Ethytoenzene
0.70
<0015
<0.015
<0015
<0 0030
<0 0030
<0.0030 0
<0 030 U
<0.0030 U
<0.0030 U
<0 0030 U
<0.0030 U
<0 30 U
<0030 U
Toluene
1.0
0.&9O
0.075
0,051
<0.0020
<00020
0.082
0.068 J
0.006-1 Jl-FD
0.017 Jl-FD
0.012
0.052
-------
TRRP Tterl
UA-11
UA-12
Sanple ID
Sample Date
Lab Sample ID
Residential PCls"
g"G\N,s.
mgfl.
HAP-UA11-16G
12/20/2018
HS18*21234-05
HAP-UA 11-160
12120/2018
HS18121234-07
HAP-UA11-170
tff&flS
HS19361132-01
HAP-UA11-180
12/18/19
-IS1B121142-0©
I--AP-UA11-191
«HWQ
HS20061381-04
(DUP)
HAP-UA11-190
6/24/20
HS2OO013B1-D3
HAF-UA11-2CO
11/19/20
HS2011 t046-C1
HAP-UA11-210
6/17/21
HS21081020-06
(DIJPl
HAP-UA11-211
6/17/21
HS210S1920-07
HAP-UA11-220
12/1/21
HS21120185-03
HAP-UA11-230
eneas
HS22060a75-08
HAPOM-UA-12
08/05/20" 1
110622508
ANAIYTE
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
\tnglL)
Btxuaie
0 005
6
0.0D06
J
9
14
21
12
43
0.34 JI-FO
1.4
JI-FD
0.55
2.9
60
Efriytaenic
0.010
0.163
30200
U
-------
Sample ID
Sample Date
Lab Sampl* ID
TRRP Tier 1
Residential pcls*
°*GW«J
mart.
UA-12
UA-12
HAP-UA 12-130
6/7/2017
HS 17060566^21
MAP-UA12-140
12/21/2017
HS17121222-Q7
<0LIP>
HAA-UA12-141
12/21/2017
HS17121222-08
HAP-OA12-15Q
06/14/2018
HS16060737-06
HAP-UA 12-160
12/202016
HS16121234-05
HAP-UA12-170
6/19/19
HS1B061132-02
HAP-UA12-160
12/16/19
HS1B121142-10
HAP-UA12-190
9/24/20
HS2QO01 361-05
HAP-UA12-200
11/19/20
HS20111046-02
HAP-UA12-210
6/17/21
HS2106102O-0S
HAP-UA12-220
12/2/21
HS21120168-04
DUP
HAP-UA 12-221
12*2/21
HS21120188-05
HAP-UA 12-230
8/15/22
HS22060875-09
AMALYTE
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
(rnr^'L)
0005
54
16
13
55
60
30
39
6.7
57
8.2
8.8
JI-FD
12
JI-F0
?3
Ethytoflnzeno
0.70
<0.015 U
<0.015 U
<0.0030 U
<0.30 U
<0.030 J
<0.015 U
<0 030 U
<0.0030
U
<0.0'5
U
<00030
U
<00015
U
<0 0015
U
0.0011
Toluene
1.0
0.11
0.027 J
0.023
<0.20 U
0.14
<0.010 u
0,992 J
0.015
0.11
0.044
0.013
JI-FD
0.019
JI-FD
0037
Xylenes total
10
0.51
0.19
0.17
0.71 J
0.62
0.31
0.48
0.07
0.53
0.29
0.086
JI-FD
0.12
JI-FD
0.22
SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Phenol
r.s
0.34
0.052 JL4.CS.FD
0.03B JL-LCS.FD
0.54 JL-MS/SD
0.39
0.89
0,25
0.059
0.18
0.12
0.024
JI-FD
0.033
JI-FD
< 0 030035
U
Pvridinn
0024
0.11 JL-US/SO
013 JL-LCS.FD
0.031 JL-LCS.FD
0.42 JL-
LCS.MS/SD
12
<0 000030 U
0 29
0.0045
0.071
0.03?
0.075
JL-LC8
9.066
JL-LCS
< 0 000030
u
METALS (fTKjX)
A re en;:
0.010
0.0475
0.0138
0.0159
0.255
0.111
0.204
0.329
0.13
1.75
0.0215
0.0176
0.0153
0.0139
Ba-u-'ir
2.0
0.0250
0.0278
0.0281
00372
0.0274
0.0326
0.0751
1.17
0.479
0.0782
UH-RB
0,0293
0,0235
0,9252
Cadmium
0.0C5O
0.000753 J
0.000287 J
0.000263 J
0.06426
0.00905
0.0071 J
0.00396
0.0143
00325
0 00158
J
< 0.000200
U
0.990231
J
< 0 0X1230
u
Chromium
0.10
0.243
0.0383
0,0396
0.232
0-386
0.36
0,162
0,0882
0.489
0.139
Q.0344
0.0435
D.0505
Lead
0.015
0.00375 J
0.00214
0-00241
0-0614
0.O2OB
0.0549
0,077
0,112
Q.4B9
0-00322
0-00116
J
0.00144
J
< 0.000600
u
Mercury
0.002Q
<0 0000300 U
0 0000470 UH-MB
0 0000360 UH-MB
0 0000560 UH-MB
<00000300 U
<0.0000300 U
0.000057 J
<0 0000303
ii
0.000032
JL-MS
0.000062
UH-CCB
O.000077CI
J
0.0000440
J
- 0.0000300
u
StSenKin
0050
0.IM34
0.0281
0.0273
0 0242
0.0392
1)0235
0.0478
0.0159
00738
0,0173
0.00770
0.00925
0.0065
Silver
0.12
<0.00020 U
<0 00C20C U
<0.0C02CO U
<0 000200 U
<0000200 J
<0.001 CO u
<0.030230 U
<0 000200
U
00005
J
<0 000200
u
< 0.000200
u
< 0 000200
U
< 0.030230
u
OTHER
Sulfate
NA
6180
1270
1270
6<580
10500
2380
4620
1710
7080
4150
1370
1620
2050
Total Oissctveu SorJs
NA
12000
2700
2700
12100
18700
16300
aeeo
4940
14400
3920
75B0
3150
4050
Sample ID
Sample Date
Lab Sample (U
TRRP Tier 1
Residential PCls'
""GW,,
mg/L
UA-14
HAPOM-UA-14
06/05)2011
1106225-OB
I.DUP>
HAPOf.'-DUP
38/05/2011
1108225-12
HAPOM-UA-14-D
11/17/2011
11116S0-0S
MAP-UA14-070612-0
07/00/2012
120723D-0S
HAP-UA14-0/0612-1
07/06/2012
1207230-06
HAP-UA14-11201.2-0
11/20/2012
12111017-14
HAP-UA14-062013-0
06/20/2013
1306361-19
HAFMJA14-NOV2D13
02/20/2014
14021012-19
(DUP)
HAP-UA 14-NCV2013-1
Q2/20/2C14
14021012-20
HAP-UA 14-JUL2014
07/11/2&14 14070636
22
AWALYTE
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Benzene*
0.00b
22
21
28
1B
19
46
30
5
5
7.0
Elftybenzene
0.70
0.04060 J
0.0011
«=0O05€
<0.0075
<0,0075
<0 0075
-0015
<0.0330
<0 0030
0 03040 J
Toluane
1.0
0.010
0.011
0.035 J
0.011 J
0.011 J
0.D49
0.050
0.0035 J
0.0035 J
0.0951
Xylene* tot a*
10
0.013
0.018
0.11 J
0.052 J
0.953 J
0.22
0.220
0.037
0.035
0.044
SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Pherd
7.3
0.015
0.015
0.093 J*
0.057 J'
0.074 J*
0.19 JL*
0.11
<0.000032 UJL-SUR
<0.000032
0.043 JL*
Pyridine
0.024
0.0018 J*
0.0021 J
0.0033 UJ'
0.59 J*
0.55 J*
0.012 JL*
0.028
0.029 JI-FD
0.12 JI-FD*
0.27 JL*
METALS |jih»'L>
Arsenic
0.010
0.0056
0.005078
0.00721
0.00519
0.00535
0.0154
0.0118
0.00309 J
0.06418 J
0.0021
Ba-»uri>
2.0
0.0458
0.0414
0.0304
0.0776
0.0826
0.0363
0.158
0.174
0.171
0.194
Cadmium
0 0050
<0.00080
<0 OOCAO
-------
TRRP Tier 1
UA-14
Sa-nple ID
Sample Date
lab- Sample 10
Residential pcls"
w'GWm,
mart.
HAP-UA14-060
11/14/2014
14110545-19
HAP-UA 14-090
5/14/2015
15050676 17
HAP-UA14-1Q0
12/1 a/2015
HS15120S26-02
HAP-UA14-110
8/3012016
HS16070019 16
{~UP)
HAP-UA14-111
6/30(2016
HS16070Q19-19
HAP-UA 14-120
12/1/2016
HSI3120073 12
HAP-UA14-130
6/7/2017
HS17060538- *9
roup)
HAP-UA14-131
ST.12017
HS17060583-20
HAP-UA 14-140
12/21/2017
HS17121222 09
HAP-UA 14-150
06/13/2018
HSI8060737 05
HAP-UA 1-5-160
12/20(2018
HS1&121234-04
HAP-UA 14-170
6/19/19
HS19061132-03
HAP-UA14-1B0
12/13/10
HS19121142-11
ANALYTE
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Bwwcri it
0005
4.2
2.5
5.0
0.15 JI-FD
0.31 JI-FD
18
0.68
o.aa
O.ftfi
18
0.79
1.8
15
Ethytoflnzune
0,70
<0.00^5
<0 0030
<0 0030 U
<0 0CO3O U
<0.00030 U
<0.0030 U
<0.00030 U
<0 03030 U
-------
Sample ID
Sample Date
Lat Sample ID
TRRP Tier 1
Residential PCts'
mgVL
UA-15
H AP-U A16-NOV2013
02/19/2014
14021012-03
HAP-UA 15-JUL2014
07/lGf2Q14
14070536-13
(DUP)
H AP-UA15- JU L2014-1
07/10/2014
14070530-14
HAP-UA16-06U
11'13/2014
1411DS4S-21
HAP-JA1&-Q90
5/14/2016
' £050676-1S
NAH-UA16-100
12/17/201 &
HS 1512C827-0B
HAP-UA1&-110
tt)2W2016
H51607001&-14
HAP-UA15-120
"1/30/2016
HS 16120D73-0E
HAP-UA1&-133
0/7/2017
Hsi7060saa-n
HAP-UA* 5-140
12/20/2017
HS17'21222-01
HAP-UA15-150
06/13/2018
HS18090737-01
HAP-UA15-160
12/19/18
HS16"21186-14
AHALYTE
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
O.OOS
0.022
0.00/6
0.0082
<0.00020
0.007
0.0011 UH-RB.FB
<0.00020 U
-------
Sample ID
Sanpl* Dirte
Lab Sample ED
TRRP Tfer1
RfsidnnHal PCi.s'
''v'GWMj
mg/L
UA-16
HAP-UA16-061913-0
0»1flJ20l3
1306361-07
HAP-UA1 6-NOV2013
02/19*2014
14021012-04
HAP-UA16-JUL2D14
07/10/2014
14070536-15
HAP-UAlO-OttO
11/14/2014
14110545-22
HAP-UA16-0S3
5/14/2015
15050676-16
HAP-UA16-100
12/17/2015
HS15120527-09
HAP-UA16-110
6/29/2016
HS16D70019-15
HAP-UA16-120
11/30/2010
HS16120073-09
HAP-UA16-130
6/7/2017
HS17060566-15
^AP-UA16-14G
12/20/2017
HS17121222-02
HAP-UA16-1 &0
00/13/2018
H Si5060737-02
ANALYTE
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Barszensi
0.00b
0.410
2.9
0.0090
6.3
0.0015
2.6
U. 04/036 J
5.4
<0 00020 U
3.6
-0 00020 U
Eltijftwsniefie
0.70
<0 DD030
<0 0030
<0 0330
<0 D030
<0.00333
•:0 0030 U
<0 .00030 U
<0.0030 U
<0 30030 U
•o.ooeo u
•.-0.CCO3G U
Toluene
I 0
<0 03020
<0 0020
<0 00?0
0.041062 J
<0.00320
<0 0020 U
<0 00020 U
<0 0C20 U
<0 00020 U
<0.0040 u
<0 GCO» IJ
Xylenes, total
10
0.0047
<0 0050
<0.0350
0.011
0.0006? J
0.015 J
-------
Sample id
Sanpls Date
LaP Sample ID
TRRPTier 1
Residential PCLs"
^"SUVws
mg/L
UA-ifl
HAP-UA16-16Q
*2/19201 a
HS1S1211B6-15
HAF-UA16-170
6/20/1 o
HS19G61132-07
HAIMJA16-180
12/ia'19
HS1S1211S6-CQ
HAP-UA16-190
8/25/20
H3200fi13B1-Oa
HAP-UA16-200
11/19/20
H320111C4Q-05
HAP-UA16-210
6/17/21
HS210(31095-03
HAP-UA16-220
12/2/21
HS5ii20iaa-ca
HAP-UA16-230
6/15/22
•I322060933-03
ANAIYTE
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
(rngiLI
Benzene
0 005
00015
<0.00020
u
0,00092
J
0.0082
1,5
0,18
0.0022
0.00022
J
Etfoy&renzene
o.?o
<0.00030
u
<0.00050
u
<0.0003C
U
<0.00030
U
<0.0015
U
<0.001 &
u
< 0.00)30
U
< 0.00030
U
Toluene
1.0
«0.00020
u
¦-0.0D023
u
¦-0 0002C
u
•:O.DD020
u
00038
J
CO 001D
u
•: D.0CO20
U
•: 0.00020
u
Xylenes tota
10
<0.00030
u
<003030
u
<0.00030
u
0.00087
J
0,024
0.013
0,6041
0.0038
SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Phenol
73
0.900064
J
.
Bc
-------
Table F-2: Middle and Deep Aquifer Groundwater Monitoring Results
MA-02
Sample ID
Samp 1 & Date
Lffci Sarrplc ID
PCU
•*9Wm5
mg/l
HAPOM-fcW-02
oemr20ii
1105188-01
HA POM--02-0
11/17/2011
1111650-04
HAP-MAQ2-0705*2-0
07/05/2012
1207231-00
HAP-M402-112812-0
11G8/2012 12111017-
07
HAP-MA02-Q61913- 5
06/19/2013
1306661-10
H AP-Mai02-NOV2013
02/19/2014
140210-12-06
HAP-MA02-JUL2014
07/11/2014
14070538-18
HAP-r,nA02-oac
11/14/2314
14110546-06
HAP-MAD2-390
Sf14G0lS
15060576-06
HAP-MA02-1D0
12/17/2CI5
HS15120827-07
HAP-MA02-110
5/2EV2D16
H51607001S-13
HAP-MA02-120
11/30/2016
H516133Q73-06
ANALYTE
VOLATILE ORGANIC CO
UPOUNDS
Ser^csrWt
0005
<0 00030
<0 00030
11(1
<00010
<0.0010
Silver
012
<0.00020 U
<0.000200 U
<0 0X200 U
<0.000200
u
<0.000200
U
<0 000200
u
<0.000200
u
<000200
u
<0.000200
U
< O.OOCWO
= o nnmoo
<0.00030
<©.'00060
OTHER
Sulfate
NA
4 25 UH-RS
5.67
4 66
5.25
4 S3
460
4.67
4.58
4.74
i.W
4.41
69.4
24.3
Tcta' ra®s<*v»d Sdlds
NA
148
134
155
170
324
124
"1*2
1il
150
141
S44
1.140
614
F-16
-------
WIA-03
Sample ID
Sample Dale
Ltl) Sartple tD
PCts*
""SWk
not*.
I-AP-MA03-070512-0
07/0612012
1207231-06
HAP-MA03-112312-0
11/28/2012
12111017-08
HAP-MA 03-061813-0
06T1»2013
13C6&61-05
HAP-MA03-NOV2U13-3
02f18f2014
14021012-0®
HAP-MMi3-JUL2014
07/10/2014
14070638-07
HAP-WIA03-3SC
11/14/2014
14110546-07
HAP-MA03-OBO
aiAf2Dl6
16050676-10
WP-MAU3-T03
12/17/2016
HS15120827-00
HAP-MA03-110
1*2^2010
HS16070019-12
HAP-MAG3-123
11/30/2016
HS16120073-05
HAP-M* 03-130
6/7/2017
HS1706368 6-12
HAKr^AD3-140
12*20(201?
KS17121134-11
AMALYTE
VOLATILE ORGANIC CO
M POUNDS (mart.?
aenjerve
O.Otti
.000026 UJL-
SUR.WS/SCr
<0000036 UJL-SUR
<0 000035 J
<0 000035 U
<0,000036 UJL-
MS/50
<0.000036 UJL-SUR
<0.000035 U
P>ndin«
0.02*
<0.00010 R*
<0.00010 UJL*
<0 00010
<0.000048
O.G025UJL*
<0 GC0G40 UJL-
MS/SD'
<0.000030
<0.000000
<0 0CCO33UJL-
MS/SO
0.0013 Jl_-
SUR MS'SD
<0000031 UJL-
MS/SD
-------
MA-OS
Sampl® ID
3-ample Dale
Lato Sarrplfl ID
pas'
mg/l
IIAP-MACS-112712-0
11/27/2012
12111017-06
»(AP-MAQ5-C62013-0
C6/2O2013 130SQG1
16
1 IAP-MA.Q5-NGV2013
02/19/2014
1402101207
1 IAP-I.1A05-JUL2014
07/1QQD14
1437053S-0B
IIAP-MAOSOSO
11/14/2014
*4110545-03
11AP-MA0S-090
5/14/2015
15050076-01
1IAP-MA05-1G0
12/17/2015
HS15120SZ7-05
1IAP-MA05-110
6/29(2016
HS16G70019-11
HAP-MA 05-120
11/30(2013
HS16120073-02
IDUP1
HAP-MA05-121
11/30/2018
HS1812007303
IMP-MA05-130
67/2017
HS17000548-10
IIAP-W05-140
12012017
HS17121134-10
ANALYTE
VOLATILE ORGANIC CO
POUNDS (rnqfl-li
Qenjfne
OOC6
0.0005BJ
<0 DCC2Q
<000020
<0 COO 20
<000020
0 00CO7 J
O 00023 U
0.0004 J
<0 00020 U
<0 00020 U
<0 00020 U
<0 DCC20 U
Etbyibensere
0 70
0-00000
0020
r
•C0003C
<0 DOC30
Elhtttienzere
070
•O 0003«3 U
<003030 U
<0.00030 U
<0 00330 U
<0 03030 U
<0 00030
U
^0.00030
U
<0 00030
u
•• 0 COOiO
l"
- o.oocon
"
• 0.00050
r
•33.00010
<0 00010
Tduone
to
<0.00020 U
<0 00020 U
<0.00020 U
--0 00020 U
<000020 U
<000020
u
<0 00020
U
<0.00020
V
0OJ020
< n.nooio
¦
»• 0.000:0
n
<0.00010
<0.00010
X'jlor.rss. trtai
10
aniXHte j
<0 00030 U
<00003) U
<0 00030 U
<0 00090 U
O.OflWifl
J
<0 00030
U
0.0013
iKMlMtt
i
n.nn.ii
n.no*?
0.0077 J
0.0021 J
SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS Im^L)
Phenol
7.3
<0.000335 UJL-
LCS/vlS/SD
<0 000034 U
<0000035 U
aooon j
<0.000035 U
<0000037
u
<0.000036 U JL-
LC-S
<0000035
u
u
•-O.OOOCU5
0
- 0.00003.1
1
000004 ur
<0 000050 UJ*
P>TiditMS
0024
<0.000030 UJL-
LCSMSreO
<0 OC0030 U
<0,000030 U
<0 000030 U <0000030 U
<0.000032
u
<0 000030 UJL
LCS.MS.SD
<0000030
u
•OOCOOJO
ujL-u-rs.
«.uooa>o
f
-- 0,000030
11
<0 00010 UJ*
-------
WA-oe
S-impl»710
Sample Dale
Lab Sarrple ID
PCtS"
JWGWHe
mS(/l
HA P-MA05-Q70512-0
07/OEV2O12
1207231-02
HAP->,1*06-112312-0
11/23/2012
12111017-09
»-iAP-MA060ei913-0
O&IKMIS
1305861-06
HAP-MA06-W OV2013
02/19/2014
14021012-C8
HAP-MA06-JU L2014-3
07/102014
14070S38-09
!HAP-r/AG6-060
11/i 3.C2014
14110645-06
(OUP)
HAP-MA0«KS1
11/13/2014
14110545-10
HAP-MA06-C3I
& 12/2015
150SC675-C9
HAP-MAC6-1C0
12/16/2015
HS1S120S27-04
H AP-IAA06-113
6/2SU2016
HS16C70019-06
HAP-MA05-12-0
11/29/2016
HS16120073-01
HAP-r.V.06-130
6/6.2017
H557OeO58S-O0
HAP-MA 05-140
12/20!20\7
H517121134-00
AMALYTE
VOLATILE ORGANC CO
UPOUNDS (tngd.*
B^RzaFie
0006
<0 00030
<0 00020
O0C023
O.GD041 J
Benzene
O.OOS
0.0015
0.U016
0.0016
aoo«
0.00031
J
RIX)29
0.012
<0.00020
U
< aoccco
u
o.oo'a
<0.00030
*0 OOC3Q
cO XKOO
cO. 0X20
hthyfconzws
0.70
<0.00030 U
<0 00030 U
<0.00030
U
<0.00030
U
<0.00030
U
40.1)0330
U
<0.00030
u
<0.00030
u
- aa»3o
u
•1-4411191
<0.00010
•OD0C10
<0.WXJ10
<0.00030
T duene
10
<0.00020 L
<0 OOCQO L
<0 00020
U
<0 00020
U
<0.00020
u
<0.00020
U
<0.00020
u
<0.00020
u
< ancniD
u
OdHDlCl
<0.00010
?
u
•=0 00070
=0 000?©
<0 00070
<0,00070
Mercury
0.0020
<0.0000300 U
¦«.0D0O3COU
<0.0000300
u
--00000300
u
CL0000310
J
<0.0000300
u
<0.0000300
u
<0.0000300
u
CiOCCOJOO
u
ftOOOOSCifl
0
<0.000042
<0.000042
<0.000042
<0.000042
Selenium
0.050
-------
TRftPTlsr 1 Rea
-------
MA-OB
Sample 10
Sample Dale
Lab Sarrple ID
PCU
-^GW^r.
mg/L
HAP-MA08-062013-0
06/20/2013
1306861-18
HAP-MAO&NOV2313
02(20.2014
14021012-21
HAP-MAQ8-JUI2014
07/10/2014
14070538-11
r-AP-M*0&Oa0
11/13/2014
14110545-13
HAP-MA0&-09D
0&12/2015
15050676-03
HA3-MA0fl-09Q
dsnmots
153SC67&03
HA.P-MA06-100
12/16/2015
HS15120785-09
HAP-MAD8-110
&28.2016
H516070019-07
1AP-MW08-120
1V2»2D16
HS16111331-07
HAW.1A08-133
6*82017
HS17060588-07
HAP-MA08-140
12/13/2017
HS17121134-07
HAP-MA08-150
06/12/2018
HS1806063S-05
HAPMAO&-160
13*182018
HSTS121186-06
AMALYT6
VOLATILE ORGANIC CO
1 POUNDS (mart.)
genjenft
ooos
¦:0 03020
•:0 00020
<000020
•cO.ODOSO
<000030
<000020
<000020 U
•--0 CC020 U
O0C020U
<0 00020 U
<0.GCO20 U
<0.00020 U
-:0 0CO20
Etliysbenzere
0.70
<0 03030
--0 00030
<000030
<300030
<300030
Tidirws
002*
<0 00010
<0 0000*8
<0 0024 UJL"
<0.000040 UjL-
LCS*
<0.000030 UJL-
MSJSD
<0.000030 U J L-
MSI5D
<0000030 U
<0.000030 UJL-
MSSO
<0 000030 U
<0X0030 U JL-
sur.ms/so
<0.000030 UJL-
LCS.MS/SU
Tidine
0024
<0000030
o
<0.000030
u
-=0000030
U
<0.000031
U
<0.a«030UJL-
ICS.NK/SC'
<0 000030
u
<0 000030
UJL-
ICS,
M&SD
¦-0 000030
u
<0.00010 UJ*
<000010 OJ*
<0.00010 UJ*
<000010 UJL*
<0.00010 UJL*
METALS (nit*!-)
Arvenic
0.010
tt00596
0.00688
000613
0,00706
0.0061
a00722
UH-RB
Oil0444
«.mr4«
<0,0013
<0.0013
<00013
<0,0013
<0.0010
Barium
20
O.D9S7
0.113
ai?i
a 168
ai24
0.153
UH-RB
l!.!V!>i/
n.i»
0 080S
0.0851
0.109
0.116
0.122
Cadmium
00050
<0 000200
u
<0.000200
LJ
<0000200
U
<0003200
U
<0 053200
u
<0 000300
U
< a 000200
u
-------
DA-D1
Sample ID
Sample- Dale
Lab Sample ID
PCU"
^SWwe
tr.g/1
HAF»-DAC1-f*OV2013
C31®2014
14021012-10
HAP-DAG1-JUL2014
07/IQ'20I4
14070S36-01
iDUP)
HAP-3AC1-JUL20"4-1
07/^2014
14070538-02
HAP-QWD'l-060
11/1V2014
14110W&-01
HAP-DA01-Q90
5/12/2015
15050676-07
HAP-DAQ1-100
12H5TC015
HS1612D76&-02
HAP-DA01-110
6/27/2015
H516O7CO10-G1
KV-DA01-120
ii/2aaoi6
HS16111331-01
-1AP-0A01-130
5/5/2017
HS17G605S8-01
HAP-DA01-131
6/5/2017
KS17093588-02
HAP-QA0M40
12/19/2017
HS17121134-01
HAP-OAOt-150
05ni/23ia
HS1K60636-01
HAP-DAG t-16©
1317/3013
Hsisi2iiaa-oi
AMALYTE
VOLATILE ORGANIC CO
(POUNDS Sarrple ID
PCls*
^GW)JU
mg/L
HAP-OAC1-170
6/16/2019
HS16060976-06
HAP-DA01-180
12M7/10
HS18121053-0S
(DUP)
IIAP-DA31-181
12f17ri0
HS191210SO-06
HAP-OA01-190
6/23/23
HS20061190-05
HAP DA01 200
11/17(70
HS30110973 05
{DUP)
IIAP-DA31-201
11/1700
H£20^ 1C97&-0S
HAP-DAO1-210
&14S1
HS21060975-05
-AP-DAOI-220
11/30/21
HS2* 120107-04
HAP-DA01-210
6/14/22
HS22060764-06
MAPQM-DA-02
D6/D4/2011
1103136-06
1IAPOM-OA-02-O
11/16/2011
1111590-7
HAP-DA02-070S12-0
37/06/2012
1207230-02
HAP-0A02-112712-3
11/27/2012
12111017-0(2
AMALYTE
VOLATILE ORGANIC CO
\l POUNDS {ma/l>
Hcriryip
0006
<0 00020
u
<0 00020
U
<3 00000
U
<0,00020
u
<0 0X20 U
<0 00020
u
<0 00020
U
•- .1 i>QQQa
u
o.oou^u
I
oooox
<0 00020
<0.00020
<0 03023
rtt-y benzere
070
<0 00330
u
<300030
U
<3 00003
U
<0.00030
u
<0 0X30 U
<0.00030
u
<0 0X00
U
¦- >1 I KKMCt
U
'- UUUUJU
L
<000010
<0 00010
<0.00030
<0 00030
Tduene
10
<0 00320
u
<0.00020
U
<-3.00023
U
<0.00020
U
<0 3X20 ^
101
J
<0000400
u
<0 000400
u
0000690
J
0.000433 » MS
0 0ft0fl?1 JH-MS
0.001 ?B
UH RB
n.niMMiih
J
11.114215
. ti-im
<0 001?
0.00391 J
<00012
<00312
L«W
0.015
<0 030600
u
<0 00050C
u
<0000300
u
<0(X06X'
u
¦"
5fi0
470
4W
424
F-22
-------
DA-02
Sample ID
3-ample Dale
Lab Sartpla ID
PCLS"
mgfl.
HAP-D.A02-052C1 >0
06/20/2013
1306861-17
HAP-DA02-NOV2013
02/18/2014
140210^3-12
x
<&eooeco
<0.00080
<0.000200 U
<0 000200 U
<0.000200 U
<0.000200 U
<3.00020 U
<0.000200 U
Cnrormum
0.10
<0.0010
<0.0010
Ber-*cne
0.006
:ov
u
0.00010 J
Xslerw. ccflai
10
<0.00030 U
<0.00030
77
<0.00030
<0.0XX
u
FD I
1 0.XW2
J-FC
< O.OOO.V3
I
< -J.OCOJO
u
u
<0.00030
S EMf-VOLATl LE ORGAN
C COMPOUNDS ImgiL)
I I
I
1
I I
PheiMl
7.3
<0 00X35 UJl-
ICS.MS/SD
<0 0X035
u
<0.000035
J
<0.X0335
u
•-0.XX36
u
<0.0X037
u
<0 0X035 L> JL-
SUR.LCS
<0X0035
U
2.U
Barium
20
a 124
a 131
0.0534
aio? i
0.106 |
0.143
0.12
0107
JH-KB
Q 0966
UH-KB
V.lWb
«.I
¦ ¦ o uuueaou
LI
<0.000042
Selenium
O.O'jO
0.00182 J
<0.00110
2
<0.00- 1C
"7
<0.0^110
<0'.X'i1G
<0.00110
[U
<0.00110 u
--U0711U
U
<0X110
U
- C.OOIIj
i
• OlOOUO
L1
« (L 00110
Li
<0.0010
Silver
0.12
<0.003200 J
<00X230
y
<0.003200
j
--O.X020C
j
<0.X3200
u
-0.0CO200
<0.XC'2X 0
<0.X02C0
U
-------
OA-65
-Sample ID
Sample Dal«
Laij Sample I D
PCLsr
mg/L
HAPOt.VDA-O^O
11/1612011
1111500-02
HAP-QA05-0706120
07.-06/2012
1207231-01
HAP-DA06-112712-O
11/27/2012
12111017-03
HAP-DA05-G61&13-0
06/19/2013
1306601-0$
(DUP)
HAP-DA05-061913-1
06/19/2013
1305661-04
KAP-DAQW40V2013
G2/1S2014
14021012-14
HAP-&A0G-JUL2014
07/10/2014
14070633-04
HAP-DAC6-O80
11/13/2014
14115045-03
HAP-OAG&-OSO
5/1272015
15GG067&-13
HAP-DA06-100
12/10/2015
HS15120788-06
HAP-OAQ6-110
6/26/2016
HS16070019-04
(DUP)
HAP-DA05-111
6.QS/2016
HS16D7C0'I9^05
HAP-DA05-120
11/29EC10
MS16111331-04
AMALYTE
VOLATILE ORGANIC CO
1 POUNDS (mgil|
Banaene
0.005
Arsenic
0010
<0.0013
0.00566
0.004S3 J
<0.0010
0.0010
0.00505
aoon
<0.00100
<00010
0.CO4S6 J
0.0045 UH-
MB.CCB
0.0D43 UH-
MB.CC8
0.00127 J
Barium
20
0.131
0.133
0l151
0,157
ft 155
0.144
0.148
0,119
aw
ai33
0.0778
a 0868
0.0831
Cadmium
0.0050
<0 0QC80
<0.00060
20o o
<0.000200 U
<0.000200 U
OTHER
Sulfate
NA
4,920 1 0.306
3.026 I 39.2 1 40.1
245 1 3B.7 I 37.9 1 37 1 0.913 I 6.02 1 6'6
16.7
1 eta Unsolved Solids
MA
318 I 540
293 I 314 | 326
ICS ] 328 I 316 I 360 I 314 | 162 | 176
212
TRR^ Tier I Readerrtia
PCU*
mg/L
DA-05
Sample ID
Sample Dole
Lab SarrplelD
1IAP-0A05-130
a"S/20i7
H517050566-05
--AP-0A05-140
12/19/2017
HS 17121134-CM
(DUP)
HAP-OA05-141
'2/19/2017
HS17121134-05
HAP-DA05-15C
O&12'2O10
H51B060335-04
HAT-DA 05-153
12/18/2016
H316121136-04
HAP-DA05173
0/18/2018
HS190S0875-C6
HAP-DA05 (33
12/17/19
HS1&12105CM)S
HAP-DA05-190
Sf23i?l
HS20C61199-06
HAP-DA05-203
11/17,20
HS20110979-06
HAP-DAC5-210
6/15/21
KS21060975-06
HAP-DA05-223
11/30/21
HS21120107-08
HAP-DA.05-230
6/14,22
HS2206C754-07
AMALYTE
VOLATILE ORGAN&C CO
VIPOUNDS (mail*
Oerj;iy»e
O.OCC
<0 00320 0
<0 00020U
<0.00300 U
<0 00020 u
<0.00020 U
<0.00020 U
<0.00020
u
<0,00020
u
<0«3020 0
<0 0X20
u
- iKKW2i»
- U.UU/2iP
ti
~hybcnzerc
070
<000030 0
<0 00030 U
<3 OC'OXl U
<0 00030 U
<0.00330 U
<0.00030 U
<0,00030
u
<0.00030
u
<000030 J
<0 0X30
u
-- h.ci;m>m>
u
• u.uwmi
u
1 duane
1.0
<0 00020 ^
<0.00020 U
<3.00320 U
<0.00020 U
0.0012
<0.00020 U
<0.00320
u
<0X0320
u
<0.00020 O
<0 0X23
u
- >
u
• U.UCWiO
u
X\1er «. cola;
10
<0.00030 0
<0.00030 U
<0.00030 U
<0.00030 U
<0.00030 U
<0.00030 U
<0,00030
u
<0.00030
u
<0.00030 J
<0.0X30
0
< 0.00033
- fl .1)0030
II
SEMI-VOLATILE ORGAN
C COMPOUNDS Irng/L)
PheftH
7.3
a000041 JL-SUR
<0.000035 U
<0000035 UJL
SUR
<0 000035 UJl
SUR. I CS MSSD
<0.000035 U
<0.000035 U
<0X00035
<0.000036
u
•«30C035UJL-
SUR.LCS
-X000035
u
•: U.OU(tU)S
0.000035
II
Pyidin#
0.024
<0.000031 UJL-
SUft.MS/SC
<3.000030 UJL-
LCS MS/SD
<0X00030 UJL-
LCS.HftSSD
<0 0CC03OUJL-
SUR. LCSMS/SD
<0000030 U
<0.000030 U
•=0000030
u
<0.000033
u
=0000030 UJL
LCS.MS.SO
<0000030
u
(I.OtMNl^l)
UJU
LiCS.
MSSI)
o.iioocnw
u
METALS iniffl)
MM.
0010
0.00111 J
ft. 00171J
0.00145 J
0.0001159 J
0.000806 J
0.000555 J
0.00178
J
ft00140
J
0 000934 J
0.00188
OH-H3
COB
t.Dn4SI
Barium
20
0.120
0.0/8!)
0.0847
0 106
0.114
0.121
0.0769
0.154
0.0969
0.118
UH-«B
«,rs
I'.l.'J
Cadmium
0.0053
¦£.00020 O
<0.000200 U
<0XC02X U
•XI.0X203 U
'••OOCOZX u
<0000230 U
'•'0.CC02X
u
¦0.000200
u
<0.000200 J
<0.000200
0
u
fl.iiooioii
II
Chromium
0.10
0 000660 J
<0 000400U
<0000400 u
<0 0004000
<0000400 u
<0X04X1 u
0.000653
J
a00137
J
0 00107 J
0 000480
UH-RB
•.imiiM?
L'll-RB
l«»C
0015
0ft»34i)
J
0.0000300
n
Selenium
0050
*00011U
<0.00110U
<0.00110 u
<0 00110 u
<0.00110 u
<0.00110 U
<0.00-10
u
<0.00110
u
•=000110 u
<0 00110
U
- iKiMUr
L!
• n.oo: 10
TI
Silver
012
<0 0003} 0
<>CMK200 U
<0 00020cu
^•0 000200 U
•-0.000200 U
<0000200 U
<0000200 U
<0000200
u
<0 000200 O
<0000200
u
-1.1 niMGiKf
If
0.11001011
II
OTHER
Sulfate
NA
27.8 I 22 5 I 24 2 1 29.3 ] 31 1
30.6 I 10 7
1 ise
23.7 I 18.2 [ *4* 1 I 2.T4 I
Tot® OiesavBd Sdlds
NA
252 1 202 1 210 | 264 1 290
294 | 154
ISO
214 | 338 1 312 | f fi
F-24
-------
0A-06
OA-OS
Sample ID
PCLsr
HAPOM-DA-OG
HAP0M-Q4-06-U
HAPOM-DA-OO-1
HAP-DA06-O7O612-3
HAP-OAQG- 112712-3
HAP-DAO&-Cei0134>
HAP-QAO5-NOV2013
HAP-OA06-.RJL20"4
HAP-QA06-G80
HA P-D.A06-090
HAP-DAOG-100
HAP-DAG6-110
hAP-QAOS-120
Sample Dade
"^GVU,,.
tlii1>U2011
11/16(2011
11/16/2011
07/05)2012
11/27/2012
03/19*5013
02/1&'2014
07/1W20U
11/13/2014
5/14/2015
12/15)2015
©/28/2C16
'1/29.2010
Lab Sample (0
mg/L
1106188-04
1111560-03
1111500-04
1207231-07
12111017-04
1306861-02
14021012-15
14070538-05
14110545-04
15050676-12
HS15120788-04
HSH5070O1&-O3
HS16111331-03
AMALYTE
VOLATILE ORGANIC CO
nI POUNDS (mgil|
Banaane
0.005
<0 0X30
<0X030
<0 00030
<0 0X20
<0.0X20
<~.00020
<0.0X20
<0X020
ns/scr
-0 X0030 UJL
f^SO
<0.000030 U
<0.000030 UJt
MS/SD
<0.0XD30U
METALS
Arsenic
0010
<0 0013
<0.0013
<0.0013
<0X13
<0 0013
•-0.OT10
<0X10
<000042
<0.00100
<00010
<0 000400U
0.00329 UH-
MB.CCB
0.00943
Barium
20
0.117
0.110
a 107
0.126
0.128
0.13#
0.12S
0.131
a 130
0.12
0.121
0.108
0.0790
Cadmium
Q.G050
u
l)
•5000010UJ-
<0.0X10
<000010 UJ*
METALS (nwjT.)
Arsenic
0010
<0 00040 U
0.00201
0.00240
0.001 S9 J
0M170 J
0.0023a
0.0033.5
1X0729 J
Q.DOD643
UH-RB
CC8
6.001 IS
•.finiu
j
0.00179 J
a 00153 J
0.0020ft J
Barium
20
0.123
0.105
0.103
0.DB74
0.QSB3
0.0567
a.irn
0.0663
O.OS5S
UH Re
II.HM
11.112
ari!*i4
aafl46
0,082ft
Cadhiiufii
D.C050
¦"•G.0OO2C L
<00x2x0
110
t;
-noo: io
r
<0.0010
<0.0010
0 00205U*
Silver
012
--0 000?3 L
<0 000200 L
^OCXJCOU
--C €00»0 U
<00«5i2X u
'-00'M?Cfl
u
<0.0002X 11
¦^0 000500 U
<0. CO0200
u
u
s.nnnsi*
j
<000080
-0OOCO8O
<0 OCO&O
OTHER
Sulfate
HA
3.65
7.57 I 9 73
3&?. 14 4 17.S
1 21 i
12 8 1 7.91 I 4.2« I I 4.01 |
578 I £52
4.87
Tcta- Ctesttved Solids
HA
2S6
148 I 170
4«0 I 342 1 278
I 302
280 I 300 1 322 | ] 2H* 1
336 | 2-36
629
F-25
-------
OA-oe
Sample ID
Sample Dale
Lat? Sample ID
PCLs'
mgfl.
MAP-0AO0-11271*0
11/27/2012
12111017-05
HA P-Q AOS-062013-Q
06(2020^3
13C6651-15
IIAP-DAQWJOU'2013
0220/2014
14021012-23
11AP-OAQ&-JU L2014
07/10201*
1407D53S-06
l-IAP-£iAO&-OQO
11/13/2314
14110545-05
IIAP-DAOO-OSO
0ST14/2O15
15350675-05
HAP-DAOa-100
12/15T2015
HS151207B8-C3
MAP-DAOfi-110
S/27/2Q16
HS1Q07Q01B-02
I 'AP-DA08-120
11/20/2016
HS16111331-02
HAP-OA 00-130
s'-vs; ¦ 7
HS17060583-03
IIAP-DA03-UO
12?19I2017
HS17121134-02
AMALYTE
VOLATILE ORGANIC CO
MPOUNDS (mgill
Borcjusn*
0005
<000020
<0 0Q020
<0 00020
<000020
<0 00020
<000020
<000020 U
Q.00025J
0.00039 j
<0 00020 U
<0,00020 U
QHyhenzwe
0,70
<000030
<0 03130
<000030
<000030
<0 00030
<000030
<000030 U
<0.00030 U
<000030U
<0.00030 U
ridir*«
0X324
<0.00010 UJL*
<003010
-------
DA-08
Sample ID
Sample Dale
Lab Sanple ID
PCLs'
^eWfx.
mg/L
HAP-DA08-15Q
06/122018
HS 14^90635*02
¦1AP-DACO-'60
1218/2016
HS1B121186-02
HAP-DAOS-173
ana,20i9
HS1S061Q24-02
I M.P-DAOB-175
©1ST2019
H5190G1G24-03
IIAP-DA0&-133
12/17/19
HS19121142-01
1 8nzw»
0.70
<0.00030 U
<000030 U
<0 00030 U
<0.00030 U
-•0.00030 U
<0.00030 U
<0.00030 U
<0.00030 U
<0.00030 U
<0.00030
U
< 0.00330
U
< 3.W03D
u
T duenc
1.0
<0.00020 U
<000020 U
<0.0X20 U
<0.CCO20 U
<0 0X20 U
<0.0X20 U
<0,X020 U
-3o u
0.0037
<0.X03O U
0.0026
0.0024
< 0.OCO30
u
< 3.C003C
U
SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS |mo>'L)
Ph»iwl
7A
¦--a 000035 UJL-
SUR. LCSMS/SD
<0 000035 U
<0000035 U
i.i
<0.0CO2O0 V
<0.000200 U
<0000230
U
< 0.CGG2G0
U
< 3.0X2D0
u
CtifCfnium
0.10
0.00105 J
0.00126 J
0 00110 J
<0000400 U
0.00213 J
<0000400 U
0.000869 J
<0.000400 U
0000077
0.000881
UH-RB
a000671
J
0.M1IH
UH-RB
bsSHl
0.015
0.000000 U
<0.000800 U
0.000813 J
!~^5t
Jj*>: vaucir,»;«« a oncsmrjc:- x :i
iitxiuu il»»«rph lr »
I m --.tV lu -rua-.lvj Ci-!..-iiiarj|iLi/«<
V ifcaccc-itfwl
*T«1H &•"< Mil • »!
QUALIFIERS:
CCB- f">snte dctoctt-Jin ssMttatMfeaKriifls ^ttaton tlail
rO rail lipi i-jcm w.Kuatiy J m-i
-< -&« »¦ Mlttl IK-tlfi Mlhrlnl- • iji
*T • iarfc'ms*'-***! WMifcoUHjler-str-w
•»"» > i•*»»! aimfaewmriate
Bsnwwil Tin? pBttoVkterlficKl •(*«« nr the4twoilfMtex(*««rit»t)on*>,
.d - Anew# «k detoaod in 95M>:s!Ma I±oto-. :crtid tore*
VB- Mewsatisnli^ssmnacon.
v( vwik t-lunuw, mute «i>> ii
Wa~SD Mj*ji>ip*jrfnm diJ'- J^-•- :li¦ Wrama vjiiJ
SB AittMs was oMouacj.ioc jltii • nwlstolUlsmaittftr*
5JK ?vllfjjln»c,"»v .tKMlt 9- *nj«
tU. -ft" »J I. i I - -lltM- n<» |ihi'i.' » Ij.- I « -r -I,*M» "• i J>'-••- ¦!.. IttwtD. •.^»-:|....|ll4l
UJ '< I W- M»l <¦"> •• -M ¦*•*¦¦ Til* JliWv li I i (>.« km. i iMw -J h! ¦/.'« Ih« .«[;¦«.*. S!X
H»W Ule Itdto: iU. it 3T> 'Ktjrjll a* 6 ~>3,' M II3CCU-S» V tti[T4li:0
¥-27
-------
Table F-3: Surface Water Monitoring Results
TRRPTier f Residential
PCLs*
mg/L
Human Health Surface
Water Risk-3ased
Exposure Limits
s*'RBELs
mg/L
RG2B3B Surface Water
Benchmark
Freshwater Chronic
Benchmark
mgfl-
SW-01
Sample ID
Sample Date
Lab Sample ID
HAP-SW01-0712-3
07y06W2012
1207234-08
HAF-SW01-112912-0
11/29/2012
12111016-05
(DUP)
HAP-SW0I-112812-1
11/28/2012
12111016-06
H AP-SW01-062113-3
08/25/2013
1306886-08
HAP-SWD1-NOY2013-3
02/20/2014
14021014-02
HAP-SW01-JUL2014
07/11/2014
14070603-01
HAP-SW01-000
11/14/2014
14110541-05
(DUP)
HAR-SW01-093
05/15/2015
1411054I-06
ANALYTE
VOLATILE ORGANIC
COMPOUNDS (mg/L)
3er»zere
COO 5
0 005
0.13
0.00020
<0.00023
-------
TRRP Tier ! Residential
pas*
mg/L
Human Healtti Surface
Water Pi sfc-Qassd
Exposure Limits
"RBELs
mg/L
RG2B3B Surface Water
Benchmark
Freshwater Chrome
Benchmark
mg/L
SW-01
Sampl# ID
Sample Date
Lab Sam pi* ID
(DUP)
HAP-SW01-093
05/15/2015
14 110541-06
HAP-SW01-080
12/18/2015
HS15120023-10
HAP-SW01-110
6/30/2016
HS16070019-20
(DUP)
HAP-SW01-111
6/30/2016
HS16070013-29
HAP-SW01-120
12/2/2016
HS16120124-01
HAP-SVV01 -1 3C
6JW2017
'IS 17080588-23
HAP-^V01-149
12/21/2017
HS17121232-01
(DUP)
HAP-SW01-141
12/21/2017
HS17121232-02
ANALYTE
VOLATILE ORGANIC
COMPOUNDS (mg/L)
genxene
0.005
0 005
0.13
*0 00020
=0 00020 LI
<0.00020 U
O 00020 LI
O00020U
0.0076
0.0070
0.0067
Ftfiylben/Bne
n 70
0 70
1 no
0 Q0Q30
=0 00030U
<0 00030 U
43 00030 IJ
<300030 U
<300030U
00030U
O00030U
Toluene
1.0
10
3.4
F'lPnr
73
4
0,11
<0 000026 LUL-SUR,
MS/SD"
<0 000035 UJL-SUR
<0 000035 UJL-
LCSSUR.MSSD
<0 000035 UJL'
LCSSUR.MS/SD
O00003B UJL-M9SD
0.00011 JL-SUR
i "i T-r' II
<0 000035 M il LCS
Pyridine
0024
0.023
-
<0 000040 UJL SUR.
LCS, MS/SO*
<0 000030 U
<0 000030 UJL
LC5.MS/SD
<0.000030 LCS MS/SO
<3 000031 UJL-MS/5D
<0 000031 U
<0000030 UJL-LCS
<0 OOOG30 UJL-LCS
METALS (mg/L)
A/Senic
0 010
ooto
0.15
<0 00500
0.00224 J
0.00493 UH-MB.CCB
0.00608 UH-MB.CCB
0.00298 J
0.00377 J
0.00264
0.00220 1
3anum
2 0
20
18
0-107
0.061S
0.0619
0.0612
0.123
0.0532 JH-DL
0.0703
0.0754
Cadmium
D GD5
0 005
0 ODD15
O 00400
<0 000200 LI
<3 000200 I
JO2O0U
<0 000200L
<0 UQ0:43D U
Chromium
010
0 0106'
<0 00500
0.00387 UH-CCB
0.00207 UH-MB
0 00213 UH-MB
<0 000400 L
0.000410 J
-n 000400 u
<0 000400 U !
Lead
0 015
0 0015
0.00117
*0 00350
0.00164 J
0 .00168 J
0.00172 J
<0 oooeou i
<0 000600 U
0.00113 J
0.00104 J
Mercury
0.0020
0 0013
<0 0000400
3.OO0Q40O U
<0 0000400 L
3 0000400 U
<0.000030
O3G0U
000320 UH-MB
ii .ii .:i.
Silver
0 12
0 050
0005
0 0001
0 00561 J
<0.00400
<3 00110 U
0.00311 UH-CCB
<3 000200 U
0.00283 UH-CCB
O000200U
0.00174 J
ojmnnu
<0 0011 u
::xu
[100110 u
ooo-io'J
"TRRPTief t Residential
PCLs*
mg/L
i-uman Heah Surface
Water Risk-Based
Exposure Limits
^REELs
mg/L
RC3253B Surface Water
Benchmark
Freshwater Chronic
Benchmark
mg
-------
TRRP Tier 1 Residential
PCLs*
"GWM
mg/L
Human Heallii Surface
Water FSsfc-Bssed
Exposure Limes
^"FBELs
mg/L
R6263B Surface Wate*
Benchmark
Freshwater Chronic
Benchmark
mg/L
SW-02
Sample to
Sample Date
Lab Sample 10
HAP-SW02-NOV2013
02/2G/2G14
14021014-05
(DUP)
HAP*SW02-NOV2013-1
02/20/2014
14021014-06
HAP-SVV02JUL2Q14-3
07711/2014
140708G3-02
HAP-9WQ2-080
11/14/2014
14110541-07
HAF :W? mCts"
lb . ,U
15050676-29
(DUP)
HAP-SVW2-0B1
05/15/2015
15050676-29
HAP-6VV02-100
12/18/2015
HS15120626-11
HAP-SWV02-110
6^30/2010
H SI 8070013-30
HAP-SW02-120
12/2/2016
HS16120124-02
ANALYTE
VOLATILE ORGANIC
COMPOUND5 (m g/L)
Benzene
~ 305
0 005
D 13
0 0041
0.0040
<0 00020
<0 00020
<0 0Qt'20
<0 00020
<100020 U
<0,00020 U
<0 00020 U
Etnyibenzene
0 7G
0,70
1 OD
<0 00030
<0 00030
3 00030
<0 00030
<0 00030
<0.00030
<0 0003Q U
<0.09030 U
<0 00030 U
PSuene
1 U
1 0
3.4
<000020
<0.00020
<0 00020
<0 00020
<0 00020
<0.00020
0.00020 U
<0.00020 U
<0.00020 U
x.yienes,
10
-
1 34
<0 00050
<000050
<0 00050
<0.00050
<0.00050
<0.00050
<0.00050 U
<0.00050 U
<0.00030 U
SEMUVOLATILE OR
SANIC COMPOUNDS (m
n.)
:' l:¦ il
72
A
011
<0 000038
<0 000038
O 000026 UJL*
<0 000026 UX-SUR.
MS/SCf
<0 000035 UX-
SUR.MS/SD
<0 000035 UX-
SUR .MS/SO
<0 000035 UX-SUR
<0.000035 UJL-
LCS.MS/SD
<0.000035 UJL-
MS/SD
Pyadme
0024
0.023
-
<0.000053 UX-FD
0.00022 JI-FD"
O 000040 UJL*
<0.000040 UX-LCS,
MS/SO*
0.000035 JL-
sur.ms/so
<0 000030 UX-
SUR, MS/SO
<0.000030 U
<0.003030 UJL-
LCS.MS'SD
0.00032 JL-MS/SD
METALS (mg/L)
Arsenic
3 01Q
0010
0 15
<0 0050
0.00502 J
0.0036 JL"
<0 00500
0.0032 J
0.0032
0.00204 J
0.00535 UH-MB.CCB
0.00313 J
Barium
20
2 0
16
0.0680
0.0928
0.072
0.106
0.081
0.083
0.06 OS
0.0567
0.126
Cadmium
0 005
0005
0 00015
<0 00080
<0 00080
D ClOOC'9
<0 00400
<0 OOt'30
<0 00080
<0 000200 U
<1000200 J
<0IJ00200 U
Chromium
010
0 0106*
; 0050
=0 CQ50
0.0011
<0 00500
0.0056
0.0064
0 00270 UH-CCS
0.00251 UH-MB
=0 000400 U
.Bad
0 015
0 0015
0.0011
0.00306 J
0.00396 J
0.00045 J
<000350
0.0064
0X1070
0.00161 J
0,00145 J
<0 000600 U
W ercurv
0.002D
-
00013
<0 000040 UJL-MS
'-G.CJ304C UJL-MS*
<0.000012
c0 0000400
<0,C00040
¦=0 000040
O.OOOD4QC U
O.OCOEWQO U
<0 000030C U
Selenium
0 050
0 050
0 005
<0 0050
<0 C-D50
<0,0011
<0 00500
0.00* UH.CC8
0 00 H UH-CCB
<0.00110 U
0.00386 UH-CCB
0 .00136 J
Siver
0 12
ri onm
) D040
<0 00080
<0 D00058
5a™
" ™
- -JOBZBB1L _
<1Q00200 u
TTRRPTier 1 Res»
-------
TRRPTier 1 F&scSentra!
pas'
mtfL
Hjman Mea«tri Surface
Water Rsfc-Based
Exposure Limits
^RBELs
mg/L
RG263B Surf are Walter
Sencnmark
Freshwater Chronic
Benchmark
mg/L
sua
mm 1
Sample ID
Sample Dale
Lab Sample ID
HAP-SW02-I95
8i'2B/20
MS20081382-04
HAP-SW02-200
11/1»20
HS20111099-02
(DUP)
HAP-SWD2-2GI
11/1920
HS20111099-03
MAP-SW02-210
6/1E/21
HS21061093-03
HAP-SW02-220
12/2CI
HS21120189-12
HAP-5W02-23O
B/1&I77
HS22060933-11
(DUP)
HAP-SW02-231
mmi
HS2206Q933-12
IW-SVv03-Q712-0
07/00/2012
1207234-03
HAP-SW03-112912-3
11/29/2012
12111016-02
^NALYTE
VOLATILE ORGANIC
COMPOUNDS (m g/L}
Benzene G 0C35
0 005
0 13
<0 00020 U
0 00020 U
<0 0002c u
<0.00020
U
0.027
< 0 30020
ij
•- U 00021
u
0.0CO46 J
<0 00020
¦tlv&ertzene
5.76
1 M
<0 000X1 U
<0130030 U
<0 00030 U
<0 000-;3
u
-- a CQO30
U
0 00030
IJ
¦ 1 ill"- r-
IJ
<0.00030
<000030
Toluene »D
1.0
34
<0 0002C U
<0 00020 U
<0 0002c u
<0110020
u
= 0 00020
U
< 0 00020
u
1 ill: !..
u
<0 00030
<0 00030
Xylenes, total '6
-
1 34
<0 00030 U
<0 00030 U
<0.00030 U
<0.000:0
u
< D.C0030
u
< O D0030
u
•• L.Uljij...
u
<0.00090
<0.00030
SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (m
HI
1
3henol
7.3
4
011
0.000-52
<0.000035 U
<0 000035 U
<0 000035
u
< 0 000035
u
< O00GO35
u
<0 000005
U
O 000050 UJ*
<0 000050 UJL*
pyridine
0024
0 023
<0 000033 U
<0000030 U
<0 000030 U
<0 000030
u
< 0 000030
LUL-LCS
< 0 000030
u
< 0 GO0030
u
<0 00010 UJ*
<0 00010 UUL*
METALS (ma/L) |
1 1
1 II
Arsenic
0010
0 010
015
-------
SW-03
Sample 10
Samplt Date
Lib Sam pi* ID
TRPPTier t Resj dental
PCLs*
mg/L
Human Health Surface
Water Risk-Based
Exposure Limits
^RflELs
rng/L
M.-.- i _ ir.iir -
Benchmark
Freshwater Chronic
Benchmark
mg(L
HAP-SW03-120
12/2/2016
HS16120124-04
HAP-SW03-130
fVB/2017
HS17060588-26
(CUP)
HAP-SWJ3-I31
6/8/2Q17
HS17060588-27
HAP-SW03-140
12/21/2017
HS17121232-04
HAP-SW03-150
0fi/W3fl18
•- ' II I¦; ' :
HAP-SW03-160
12/21/2010
HS1B121291-07
HAP-SVWJ3-1S1
12/21/2016
HS18l2t291-08
KAPSWO3-t70
6/2G/19
HS 19061123-08
HAP-SW33-180
12/19/19
HS19121186-06
HAP-SWD3-19G
5/26/20
HS20O61382-05
UNALYTE
VOLATILE ORGANIC
COMPOUNDS (mg/L)
3ertzene
0 005
0 006
01
<0 00020U
0.027
0.0065
<0 00020 U
0.0032
0.0032
<0 00020 Li
<0 00020
u
0 00031 J
ithvfcenzene
OJfi
10
¦I lira
<0 00030 U
<0 00039U
LiflCSl': U
0 0005 il i
<0 000200
,i i. ii ; in ii
eleniurn
0 050
0 050
o bos
0 00197 J
<0 0011 I.
<0 0011 u
0 00134 J
<0 00110u
00110
<0 00110 U
<0.001 to
_
30110
>iiver
o.ii
-
o.bbCn
'"MM"
<0 000200 U
<0 000200 1.1
<0 000200 U
<0.000200 LI
<0 000200 U
<0 000200 U
j SW-03 |
I 1
Sample ID
Sample Date
Lab Sample ID
~RRPTier 1 Ressdenaal
PCLs*
"*GW*
mg/L
Human Health Surface
Water Risk-Based
Exposure brnits
"REELS
mg/L
RG263S Surface Water
Benchmark
Freshwater Chronic
Benchmark
mg/L
HAP-SW03-200
11/19/20
HS20111099-04
HAP-SW03-210
8/18/21
HS21081093-05
HAP-SW03-220
12/2/21
HS21120188-14
HAP-SWU3-230
B/16/22
HS22060933-13
ANALYTE
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (mg/L)
Benzere
0 005
0.0Q5
a 13
<0.00020
~
<0.00020
U
0.024
<0.00020
u
bltiylaenzene
6.76
0 JO
1 oo
<0 00030
O 00030
U
< 0 00030
u
<0 00030
u
Toluene
1.0
1 0
34
<0 00020
<0 00020
<0 00020
U
< 0 00020
Xylenes, total
10
1.34
<0 00030
<0.00030
U
< 0.00030
u
<0.00030
u
ISEMI-VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS fm<
JfL) 1
Phenol
7.3
4
011
<0.000035
u
O 000036
U
< 0000035
u
< 0 000036
u
Pyr :l' "it
0024
0.023
~
<0.000030
u
<0.000030
u
< 0 000030
UJL-LCS
< 0 000030
I METALS (mg/L)
I I
1 1
Arsenic
0010
0.010
0 15
0.00238
0.00316
0.00240
0.00361
Barium
2.0
20
13
0.103
0.0633
0.0893
0.117
Cadmim
0 DOS
0.005
0 00015
<0 000200 U
<0 000200
U
<0 0OC2OO
u
U
Chromium
0.10
-
0.G106a
<0.000400
u
<0 OOWOO
u
0 00175
J
mzwmm
J
Lead
0015
O.OG15
0 00117
0.00135
J
0.000948
J
0.00329
0,00100
J
0 0020
..
0 0013
<0.0000300 UJ
L-MS
0.0000820
UH-CCS
0.0000340
J
< 0 0000300
u
Seieniun
0 050
0.050
0.005
0,0013
J
<0 00110
u
<0 00110
u
<0.00110
u
Silver
012
00001
<0 000200
¦
<0 000200
< LI 000200
u
< 0 000200
F-32
-------
Table F-4: Sediment Monitoring Results
TRRP Tier 1
Residerifeal*
TdSo«CanB
mg/kg
RO2630 Sediment
Benchmarks.
Freshwater Benchmark
mgfog
SD-01
Sample 10
Sample Date
Lab Sample ID
!~' - ' ''
07/08/2012
1207234-07
HAP-SD01-112912-0
11/29/2012
12111016-07
(DUP)
HAP.SD01.112912-1
11/29/2012
12111016-08
H a r -i ii- i -
06/21/2013
1306888-07
HAP-SDG1*N0V2013'3
02/20/2014
14021014-01
HAP-SD01-JUL2014
07/11/2014
14070603-05
HAP-SD0T-080
11/14/2014
14110641-01
(DUP)
HAI .Ill:
11/14/2014
14110541-02
HAP-SD01-093
5/15/2015
14110541-01
HAP-SD01-100
12/18/2015
HS15120826-06
ANALYTE
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
165
O OOG45
<0 6011
<0 QOOta
<0 00072
<000076
<0.00096
cO .0010
<0 OOOS7
<0 00089
<000064 U
Toluene
5400
6 76
e raccurate or mprecise
F-33
-------
SD-01 j
Sample ID
Sample Drte
Lab Sample ID
TRRP Tier 1
Resieten&a^"
'"Soiled,
mg/kg
RG283B Sediment
Benchmarks
Freshwater Benchmark
mg/kg
HAP-SD01-110
6/3012016
HS1607001&-24
HAP-SD01-111
6/30/2016
HS16070019-25
HAP-SD01-123
12/2/2016
HS16120124-05
HAP-SD01-130
6/8/2017
HS17060516-02
HAP-SD01-140
12/22/2017
NS17121232-07
(OUP)
HAP-SD01-141
12/22/2017
HS17121232-08
HAP-SD01-153
06/14/2018
HS18060745-01
HAP-SD01 160
12/20/2018
HS18121291-01
HAP-SD01-170
6/20/19
HS19061123-01
HAP-SD01-171
6/20/19
HS19061123-02
HAP-SO01-183
12/19/19
HS19121186-10
AMALYTE
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (mj
l/kfl)
Benzene
69
0 16
<0.00046 U
<0.00048 U
<0 00046U
<0 00044 U
<0 00043 U
<0 00043 U
0 00048 U
0 00048
<0 G0048
U
<060044
u
<0 00052 I
ES'nvl benzene
5300
^ 63
<0 00064 11
<000068 U
5 00064 U
-r v v.;
<0 00060 U
<0 00067 U
<0 00067 U
<¦0 00068
<0 G0067 U
<0 03062
|
<000073 U
Tofejene
5400
6 76
<0 00055 11
<000058 IJ
<0 00055U
<0 00053 U
<0 00052U
<0 00053 U
000057U
0 G0058
<0 00057
u
<0 00053
U
<0 00063 t;
Xylenes, lolal
3 TOO
4
<0 .0022 'J
<0 0023 U
<0.00092 U
<000089 UJ-MS/SD
<0 00086 U
<0.00096U
<0 00096 U
¦II'- •
u
<0 00095
u
<000088
u
<0.0010 u
SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNOS (mg/kg)
Pfcenol
.'000!)
012
<0 0040 U
<0 0041 U
CO 0013"
<0 0013 U
<0 0013 U
<0.0014 U
<0 0014 U J SUR
0.0026
J
0.0024
J
0.0066
J
<0.0013 U
Pyridine
82
0.0072 J
<0 0034 U
<0 001DU
O 0011 UJI-MS/SD
<0.0011 U
<0 0012U
<0 0011 R-MS/SD
0.017
<0.0011
u
<0.0011
Li
<0.0010
METALS (mg/kg)
Arsewc
24
9 79
0 669 JI-FD
114 JI-FD
226
149
0 859 JI-FD
121 J-FD
131 JH-MS
1.13
322
1.64
0906
Cerium
8100
8.46 JH-MS
8.69 JH-MS
45.4
24.5 JH-MS
8.96 JH-MS,FD
24.7 JH-MS,FD
22.1 JH-MS
11.5
24.1
137
4.40 I
Cadmium
52
0 99
<0 0579 U
0.0729 J
<0 053 U
0.0598 J
)0310 U
<00320 Li
0.237 J
0.0311
J
<00305
u
<0 0315
U
<0 0294
Chromium
27000
43 4
5.12 UH-MB
4.8 UH-MB
5 96
5.49
1.74 JI-FD
3.56 JI-FD
7 42 JH-MS
4.01
5.57
6.92
2.20
Lead
500
35 8
4 8 JI-FO
9 49 JI-FD
7.07
16.2
2.82 JI-FD
3.75 JI-FD
28.6 JL-PDS.MS
8.78
6.32
5.61
7.76 !
Mercury
2 1
0 18
0.00347 JI-FD
0.0128 JI-FD
0.0112
0 0468
0.00271 UH-R6
0 00478 UH-RB
0.0218
0.0123
0.00306
J
0.00381
J
0.00486
Selenium
310
-
0.26 UH-CCB
<0.211 U
0.388 J
0.683
0.293 J
0.236 J
*0 11 u
0.256
J
0.394
J
0.325
J
0.356 J
&h/er
97
0 57
<0 0926 J
0 0938 U
<0 085 U
<0 092 U
>.017011
0.0231 J
0.0799 J
0.0319
J
0.0174
J
00193
J
<00163 U
I |SD-01 |
(SD-02
Sample ID
Sample Date
Lab Sample ID
TRRP Tier 1
Residential*
''Sole,,
mg/kg
RG2630 Sediment
Benchmarks
Freshwater Benchmark
mg/kg
KAP-SD01-190
6/26*20
HS20061382-06
HAP-SD01-203
11/19/20
HS20111099-05
HAP-SD01-210
6/18/21
HS21061093-06
HAP-SD01-220
12T2/21
HS21120188-15
(DUP)
HAP-SD01-221
12/2/21
HS21120188-16
HAP-SD01-233
6/16/22
HS22060933-04
HAR-SD02-0712-3
07/06/2012
1207234-04
HAP-SD02-112912-0
11/29/2012
12111016-04
HAP-SC02-062113-0
06/21/2013
1306888-03
ANALYTE
1 1
(VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (mj
/kg)
¦Benzene
69
0 16
<0 00046
<0 00053
ID
0 00050
L
nilUjiE:;
aiicifl&m
u
00046
<0.00035
00C«" :
<0 00061
¦Ethvl benzene
5300
2 63
<0 00-06.3
"7T
<000074
2
, ,
'
sn
< 0 00065
<0.00053
<0 00005
<0 0009? !
FUS/
5400
6 76
0.0034
J
<000063
'
- I C II10
U
< 0 00058
ii mi
u
00056
u
<0 00041
<0 00063
<000072
[Xylenes. total__
3700
A
<0.00092
<0 0011
i
j 00' C
u
<0 00096
U
< 00010
u
< 0 00093
IJ
<0.0015
<0 0026
<0 0017
ISEMI-VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS fmofkfid i
I I
I I
I I
¦Phenol
20000
0.12
<0 0013
j
<00013
ID
I ,v-j
UJL-SUR
<00013
u
< 00013
UJL-SUR
< 0 0012
6.8 J
<0 0024UJL*
<0 00089 UJLr
82
<0 0011
U
<00011 UJL-LCSJMS/SD
<0,0011
IJJL-.CS
SUR
< 0.0011
UJL-
MS/SD
<00011
UJL-SUR
MS/SD
<00010
u
<00050 UJ*
<0 0024 UA*
<0 0013UJL*
IMETALS (mg/kg) j
I I
I I
I I
Arsenic
24
9 79
i 0 545
JJ
0 846
0.218
J
0.228
0.319
J
1.32
0.964
0.540
0 .395 J
Barium
8100
_
1 40.8 I
61.1
4.63
4.41
4.66
7.18
8.59
2.09
2.27 jr
Cadmium
52
0.99
1 <0 0300
0.0386
3
'¦0.03*7
u
< 0.0316
< 0.0304
u
0.0589
J
0.115 J
<0.053
<0.046
Chromium
27000
43 4
7.18
7.51
0.898
1.27
JI-FD
1.45
ji-FD
2.56
184
0.58
0.422 J
500
358
670
7.2
239
2.19
2 22
360
19,8
132
3.03
Mercury
2 >
0 18
0.0104
0.0124
0.00243
J
0 00183
JL-MS
0.00144
JL-MS
0.0152
0.00344 J
0.000426 J
<000060
Selenium
310
-
I 0.244
—3
0 447
<0 107
u
<0.106
< 0 .102
u
0.199
J
0.278 J
<0 19
0.299 J
Silver
97
0 57
J 0.0171
Zj*
0,0216
1
0.0309
J
0 0249
0,0235
00161
<0 092
<0 084
<0074
F-34
-------
TRRP Tier 1
Residential
mg/kg
RG263B Sediment
Benchmarks
Freshwater Benchmark
mg/kg
SD-02
Sample 10
Sample Date
Lab Sample ID
(DUP)
HAP- SC02-062113-1
06/21/2013
1306888-04
HAP-SD02-NOV2G13
02/20/2014
14021014-07
iDUP)
HAP-SD02-NOV2013-1
02/20/2014
14021014-08
HAP-SD02- JUL 2014- 3
07/11/2014
14070603-06
HAP-S0O2-O8O
11/14/2014
14110541-03
HAP-SD02-090
05/15/2015
15050676-23
(DUP)
HAP-SD02-091
05/15/2015
"5050676-24
HAP-SD02-103
12/18/2015
HS1512Q826-07
HAP-SD02-110
6/30/16
HS16070019-26
HAP-SD02-120
12/2/16
HS16120124-06
ANALYTE
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (mj
/kg)
Benzene
69
0 16
<000056
<0 00054
<0 00055
<0 00066
<0 00070
<0 00055
*0 00058
<0 00062 IJ
0 00049 U
<0 00050 U
Ethvlbenzene
2 63
<000084
<0 00082
<0 0011
<0 00083
<0 00087 IJ
0 00069 0
76 ij
Toluene
5400
6 76
<000066
I 00063
<0 00064
<0 00076
<0 00082
<0 00065
<0 00068
<0 00074 U
0 00059 U
60 U
/lenes. total
3700
4
<0 0016
<0 0015
<00015
<0 0019
<0 0020
<00016
<0 0016
<0 0030 U
<0 0024 IJ
<0 00101
SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (mq/kg)
Phenol
20000
012
: 00090 UJL'
<0 00070 UJL-SUR
0.0021 J
<0 056
0.0041 J
<0 0013
<0 0014
0 0019 U
0 0040U
<0 0014 U
-• r .li!-o
82
-
<0.0013 UJL*
--0 0010 1.J.JI
SU RMS'SO
<0 0010
<0 034
<0.0018
<0 0011
<0.0011
<0.0015 I
MS/SO
<00033 U
<00011 u
METALS (mo/kg)
Arsenic
24
9 79
0.0403 J
0.340 J
0.382 J
0.36 J
0.551 J
1.1 JI-FD
061
2.80
0.852
1.98 JI-FD
Barium
8100
4.06 Jl*
2.18
224
6.6 J
380
17 X-DL.FD
8.7
16.1
6.55 JH MS
124 JI-FD
Cadmium
52
0 99
<0 049
<0.048
0 0522 J
<0.05
<0.0672
<0.060
<0 062
0.0849 J
0 0848 J
<0 059 U
Chromium
27000
43 4
0.556
0.682
0.866
1.1 J
0.816
6.2
3.3
4.56
3.05 UH-MB
6.22
Lead
500
35 8
2.52
3.91
3.9
5.10
3 52
12
7.9
71.1
5.66
6.33
Mercury
2 1
0 18
<0.00061
<0 00048
<0.00048
0,0035 4
0.00439 J
0.012
0.028
0.0404
0.00696
0.00632 JI-FD
Selenium
iib
-
0 239 J
<0.17
<0.18
<0.30
<0.242
0.26
0.23
0.411 J
0.263 UH-CCB
0.493 J
SiVer
97
057
=0 078
=0 077
=0079
<0017
0 108
<0.096
£ 110 u
n G959 U
<0 0940 U
SD-02
Sample ID
Sample Date
Lab Sample ID
TRRP Tier 1
Residential3
TaSoilccmb
mg/kg
RGIK3B Sedimenr
Benchmarks
Fresh water Benchmark
mg/kg
HAP-SD02-121
12/2/16
HS16120124-0 f
HAP-SD02-133
6/8/2017
HS17060516-03
HAP-SD02-140
12/22/2017
HS17121232-09
HAP-SD02-150
06/14/2018
HS18060 745-02
(DUP)
HAP-SD02-151
06/14/2018
HS'. 8060745-03
HAPSD02-
163
12/20/2018
HS18121291-
02
HAP-50Q2-
170
6/21*19
HS 19061123-
03
HAP-SD02-180
12/19/19
HS19121186-11
(DUP)
HAP-SD02-181
12/19/19
HS19121186-12
HAP-SD02-193
6/26/20
HS20Q6138 2-08
ANALYTE
VOLATILE ORG Ah
IC COMPOUNDS (rrif
/kg)
Benzene
69
0.16
<0.00048 U
<0.00046 U
<0.00052 U
<0.00050 L
<0.000511
<0.00057
U
<0.00048 U
<0 00047 L
<0.00048
U
<0.00043
U
Ethvlbenzen e
5300
2.63
<0.00067 U
<0 00064 UJI-MS/SD
<0.00073 U
<0.00070 L
<0 00071 U
<0.00080 U
<0.00068 U
<0 00065 L
<0.00067
u
<0.00060
u
Toluene
5400
6 76
<0.00057 U
<0 00055 U
<0.00063 U
<0 00060 U
<000061 U
<0 00068
u
<0.00058 U
<0 00056 U
<0 00057
u
0.0034
J
Xylenes, total
3700
4
<0.00096 U
sO 00091 UJI-MS/SD
<0 0010U
<0 00099 U
<0 0010 U
<0 0011 u
<0.00097 U
<0 00094
U
<0 00095
IJ
<0 00086
u
SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (mg/krf}
^ienol
20000
012
<0 0014 U
<0 0013U
<0.0014 U
<00014 U
<0 .0014 U
<0.0015 U
<0.0013
U
<0.0013
u
<0.0013
u
<0.0013
u
Pyndine
82
-
<0 0011 U
<0.0011 UJI-MS/SD
<0.0012 U
::' ¦ p-ms/so
<0.0011 R-MS/SD
<0 0012
u
<0.0011
U
<0.0011
u
<0.0011
u
<0.0011
u
METALS (ma/kg)
Arsenic
24
9 79
1.28 JI-FD
0.798
0.962
0.827 JH-MS. FD
1.35 JH-MS,FD
2.87
4.05
4.58
3.91
0.763
Barium
3100
_
36.5 JI-FD
12.3 JH-MS
73.S JH-MS
12.1 JH-MS.FD
25.0 JH-MS.FD
15.1
40,4
128
69.9
42.2
Cadmium
52
0 99
<0 0590 U
<0.0560 U
<0 0330 LI
0.0583 JI-FD
0.195 JI-FD
0.220
J
<0 0314 U
<0 0312 U
<0 0315 U
<0 0306
IJ
Ch-romurr
27000
43.4
4.13
3.41
3.61
5.74 JH-MS
6.74 JH-MS
5.02
7.34
8.59
6.47
628
,_ead
500
35.8
5.49
7.07
6.29
11.2 JL-PDS.MS.FD
23.9 JL-PDS,MS,FD
11.0
5.73
7.85
6.10
6.09
Mercury
2.1
0.18
0 .00333 JI-FD
0.0189
0 00150 UH-RB
0.0229
0.0228
0.0942
0.00627
0.0126
0.00928
0.00671
Ssieniurn
310
-
0.408 J
0.461 J
0.159 J
0.114 UH-CCB
0.170 UH-CCB
0.359
J
0,495
J
1.73
1.34
0.371
J
Silver
87
0 57
<0.0940 U
<0 090 LI
0.0396 J
0.0292 J
0.0421 J
0.0546
J
0.0220
J
0.0227
J
0.0210
J
0.0188
J
F-35
-------
SD-02
SO-03
TRRP Tier 1
RG263B Sediment
(DUP)
HAP-SDG2-201
11/19/20
HS20111099-07
(DUP)
HAP-SD03-0712-1
07/06/2012
1207234-02
Sample ID
Sample Date
Residential0
"•Soiled
Benchmarks
Freshwater Benchmark
HAP-SD02-200
11/19/20
HAP-SD02-213
6/18/21
HAP-SD02-220
12/2/21
HAP-SD02-230
6/16/22
(UUr
HAP-SD02-232
6/16/22
HS22060933-07
HAP-SD03-0712-0
07/06/2012
1207234-01
HAP-SD03-112912-3
11729/2012
Lab Sample ID
rngfkg
mg/kg
HS20111099-06
HS21061093-08
HS21120188 18
HS22060933 06
12111016-01
ANALYTE
fVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (mf
/kg)
Benzene
69
0 16
<0.00046 U
<0 00045 U
<0.00052
U
H"JWO£K
U
< 0.00051
U
•- Q . D045
U
<0.00029
<0.00039
<0 00065
Ethvlbenzen 0
5300
2 63
<0.00064 U
- 0 00063
000073
U
um*m\
U
<0 00071
U
< 0 00063
U
<0.00044
<0 00058
<0 00097 :
Toluene
5400
6 76
<0.00055 U
<0 00054
<0.00063
U
< 0 00055
u
<0 00061
U
< 0 C0054
U
<0.00034
<0.00045
<0 00075
Xylenes, total
3700
4
<0 00091 U
<0 00090 U
<0 0010
U
< 0 000S2
u
< 0 0010
U
< 0 00090
U
<0 0013
O 0017
<00028
[SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (mq/kg)
Phenol
20000
0.12
<0 0013 UJL-SUR
<0.00'3 LL_-SIR
0.0023
J
< 0.0013
UJL-SUR
< 0 013
IJ
< 0.0012
L JL-3JR
<00025 UJ'
<0.0023
<0.0026
Pyridine
82
-
<0.0011 UJL-
LCS.MS/SD
<0 0011 IJJL-
LC3.MS.fSD
<0.0011
UJL-LCS
<0.0011
UJL-MS/SD
<0 011
u
< 0 00098
U
<0 0025 UJ*
<0.0028 UJ*
<0.0026 UJL*
IMETALS (ma/kg)
Arsenic
24
9 79
1.01
0.927
0.285 J
4.02
1.05
, II FD
0.596
JI-FD
0.498 J
0 561 J
1.20
Barium
8100
_
49.2 JI-FD
88.1 JI-FD
5.21
69.3
12.2
JI-FD
6.08
JI-FD
5.37
3.85
12.4
Cadmium
52
0.99
•=0.0300 U
<0.03'0 U
<0.0316 U
< C.G329
U
< 0.0300
U
< 0.0282
u
<0.054
<0.060
0.0667 J
Chromium
27000
43.4
8.19
8.01
1.24
7.81
2.62
JI-FD
1.51
JI-FD
0.908
0.910
2.21
Load
500
35.8
7.28
7.38
2.81
5.56
696
JI-FD
2.51
JI-FD
2.00 J1
2.24 J1
4.94
Mercuiy
2 1
0 18
0.0127 JI-FD
0.0171 JI-FD
I 0.00370
J I
0.00481
JL-MS
0.0280
JI-FD
0.0121
JI-FD
0.00115 J
0.994 J
0.0112
Seleniurr
310
-
0.43 J
0.358 J
0.126 J
0.191
J
0.372
J
0.185
J
0.311 J
0.361 J
0.316 J
Silver
97
0 57
<00170 U
<0.0180
0.0256 J
0.0214
J
0.0211
J
<0.0157
U
<0086
<0 096
<0.093
TRRP Tier 1
Residential®
mg/kg
RG263B Sediment
Benchmarks
Freshwater Benchmark
mg/kg
SD-03
Sample ID
Sample Date
Lab Sample ID
HAPSD03-062113-0
06/21/2013
1306888-01
H AP-SC03- N OV2013
02/20/2014
14021014-04
HAP-SD03-JUL2014
07/11/2014
14070603-07
(DUP)
H AP-SD03-JUL 2014-1
07/11/2014
14070603-08
HAP SD03-083
11/14/2014
14110541-04
H APSD03- 090
05/15/2015
15050676-26
HAP-SD03-100
12/18/2015
HS15120826-08
HAP-SD03-101
12/18/2015
HS 15120826-09
HAP-SD03-113
6/30/16
HS 16070019-27
HAP-SD03-120
12/2/16
HS16120t 24-08
ANALYTE
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
-------
SD-03
Sample ID
Sample Date
Lab Sample ID
TRRP Taer 1
Residential*
^SOllcomb
mgfcg
RG263B Sediment
Benchmarks
Freshwater Benchmark
mgfcg
HAP-SDG3-130
6/8/2017
HS17060516-04
(DUP)
HAP-SD03-131
6/8/2017
HS17060516-05
HAP-SD03-143
12/22/2017
HS17121232-10
HAP-SD03-150
06/14/2018
HS18060745-C4
HAP-SD03-160
12/20/2018
HS18121291-03
HAP-SD03-161
12/20/2018
HS18121291-04
HAP-SD03-165
12/20/2018
HS18121291-09
HAP-SD03-173
6/20/19
HS19061123-04
HAP-SDQ3-180
12/19/19
HS19121188-13
HAP-SD03-190
6/26/20
HAP-SD03-190
(DUP)
HAP-SD03-19I
6/26/20
HS20061382-10
ANALYTE
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (ms
Benzene
69
0 16
<0 00044U
0 00044 U
<0.00046 U
-0 00054 U
" "1
U
<0 00066
U
<0 00020
-'0 00046
<000045
U
<0 00043
U
<0 00043
EiMberzene
5300
2 63
<0.00061 UJI-MSTSD
<000062 UJI-MS/SD
<0 00064U
<0 00075 U
<000085 U
<0 00092
<000030
u
<000065
u
<000064
U
<0 00060 U
<000060
U
Toluene
5400
6 76
<0 00053U
)0053 U
<0 .00055 U
<0 00064 U
<0 00073
U
<0 00079
U
000020
000056
<0 00055
u
0 0033
J
0 0034
J
Xylenes, total
3700
J
<0.00088 UJI-MSTSD
<000089 UJI-MSTSD
<0 0009? U
<0 0011 u
<0 0012
LI
<0 0013
U
<000030
<0 00093
<000091
u
<0 00086
U
<000086
U
SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (msfkg)
20000
012
<0 0013U
<00013 U
<0 0014 U
<0 0014 U
<0 0015
U
0 0030
J
<¦0 000049
<0 0013
0 0021
J
<0 0013
U
<0 0013
Li
Fyndine
82
<0 0011 UJI-MS/SO
<0.0010 UJL-MS/SD
<00011 u
<0 0011 R-MS/SD
<0 0012
U
0.041
<0.000042
u
<0 0010
u
<0.0011
u
<00011
u
<0 0011
u
METALS (mg/hfi)
Arsenic
24
9 76
0.393 J
0.162 J
0.961
1.77 JH-MS
1.79
2.31
<0 000400
u
1.13
2.40
0.970
0.667
Barium
8100
4.85 JH-MS.FD
2.59 JH-MS.FD
12.6 JH-MS
62.1 JH-MS
16.7
19.8
<0 00190
u
34.2
123
49.7
47.5
Cadmium
52
0 99
<0 057 U
<0.066 U
<0.0320 U
0.392 J
0.0847
J
0.0936
J
<0 000200
<0 0293
<0 0295
u
<00288
u
<0 0305
u
Chromium
2^00
43 4
1.66 JI-FD
0.722 JI-FD
2.68
8.75 JH-MS
5.34
5.93
<0 000400
Li
3 55
3.76
6.59
5.81
Lead
5-00
358
3.90 JI-FD
2.01 JI-FD
11.9
481 X-PDS.MS
13.4
114
<0 000600
4 31
4.89
7 96
6.24
2 1
0.18
0.0105 JI-FD
0.00438 JI-FD
0.00866 UH-RB
0.0220
0.0200
0.0395
<0.0000300
u
0.00286
J
0.00451
0.00817
000828
Selenium
310
-
0.224 J
<0 20 U
<0.110 u
<0 11 U
0.305
J
0.428
J
<0.00110
u
0.261
J
1.18
0.348
J
0.271
J
Silver
97
0.57
<0.091 U
<0 089 U
0.0186 J
0 0461 J
0.0294
J
0 0361
J
<0 000200
0.0213
J
0.0212
J
00166
J
00187
J
SD-03
Sample IP
Sample Date
Lab Sample ID
TRRP Tier 1
Residential3
"SoilcaM,
mgteg
RG263B Sediment
Benchmarks
Freshwater Benchmark
mg/kg
HAP-SD03-200
11/19/20
HS20111099-08
HAP-SDO3-210
6/18/21
HS21061093-09
(DUP)
HAP-SD03-211
6/18/21
HS21061093-10
HAP-SD03-223
12/2/21
HS21120188-19
HAP-SD33-230
6/16/22
HS22060933-08
ANALYTE
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (ms
I/kg)
Benzene
69
0.16
<0 00045 LJ
<0.00050
u
<0 0005.3
U
< 0.00046
U
< 0.00045
U
Ethvt benzene
5300
2.63
<0 00063 U
<0.00070
u
<0 00074
U
< 0.00065
IJ
< 0.00063
U
Toluene
5400
6 76
<0 00054 U
<0 00060
u
<0 00064
U
< 0.00055
U
<0,00054
U
Xylenes, tots
3700
4
<0.00090 U
<0.0010
u
<0.0011
U
< 0.00092
U
< 0.00090
U
SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUM3S (mg/kg)
Phenol
20000
0.12
<0.0013 UJL-SUR
0.0017
J
0.0021
J
<0 0013
U
< 0 .0012
U
Pyridine
82
<0.0011 UJL-
LCS.MS/S0
<0 0011
UJL-LCS
<0 0011
UJL-LCS
<0 0011
UJL-MS/SD
<0.00098
U
METALS (mgfcg)
Arsenic
24
9.79
1.27
0.289
J
0.279
0.686
0.751
Barium
8100
48.6
4.96
5.06
12.4
14.3
Cadmium
52
0.99
-0.0320 U
<0 0312
U
<0 0332
U
<0 0316
U
< 0.0282
U
Chromium
27000
43.4
7.1
1.15
JI-FD
0.892
JI-FD
5.57
1.49
Lead
500
35.8
6.75
3.52
JI-FD
2.10
JI-FD
4.53
4.76
Mercury
2.1
0.18
0.0141 J
0.00292
J
0.00212
J
0.00549
JL-MS
0.0232
Selenium
310
0.332 U
0.132
J
<0 112
U
0,155
0.144
J
Silver
97
0 57 !
<0.0180
0.0263
J
<0 0185
U
0.0258
<0.0157
U
F-37
-------
APPENDIX G - INTERVIEW FORMS
HIGHLANDS ACID PIT SUPERFUND SITE
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW INTERVIEW FORM
Site Name: Highlands Acid Pit federal Superfund site
EPA ID: TXD980514996
Interviewer name:
Interviewer affiliation:
Subject name: Adam Nichols
Subject affiliation: TCEQ
Subject contact information: adam.nichols@tceq.texas.gov 512-239-2215
Interview date: 2/10/2023
Interv iew time: 3:30 PM
Interview location: TCEQ Central Office
Interview format (circle one): In Person Phone Mail XEmail Other:
Interview category: State Agency
1. What is your overall impression of the project, including cleanup, maintenance and reuse
activities (as appropriate)9
My overall impression of the site is that the remedy needs further evaluation to ensure continued
protectiveness of human health and the environment. Shallow groundwater and surface water
contamination needs to be better delineated and evaluated for health and ecological risks on off site
properties that are adjacent to the site. Also, the adjacent property that was recently cleared should be
investigated for potential vapor intrusion risk.
2. What is your assessment of the current performance of the remedy in place at the Site9
The contaminant levels in the onsite shallow aquifer continue to be very high, even in perimeter wells,
and the remedy may not be protective because of the lack of off site delineation and investigation. Future
investigation should include evaluation of the vapor intrusion health risk. Also, the contaminant levels in
the surface water surrounding the site persist and need to be investigated and potentially remediated.
3. Are you aware of any complaints or inquiries regarding site-related environmental issues or
remedial activities from residents in the past five years9
Yes. During the site visit and community interviews conducted with the EPA, the TCEQ was made aware
of a resident who described independently obtained and tested water samples from their tap that indicated
the presence of arsenic and benzene. The TCEQ has not had any discussion or follow-up with the resident
who had their water tested.
4. Has your office conducted any site-related activities or communications in the past five
years9 If so, please describe the purpose and results of these activities.
The TCEQ has conducted routine semi-annual operation and monitoring at the site.
5. Are you aware of any changes to state laws that might affect the protectiveness of the Site's
remedy9
No.
G-l
-------
6. Are you comfortable with the status of the institutional controls at the Site9 If not, what are the
associated outstanding issues9
No. Institutional controls need to be filed to restrict on-site land use or groundwater use.
7. Are you aware of any changes in projected land use(s) at the Site9
Yes, the property adjacent to the site that contains the sand pits and the surface water SW-3 sampling location was
recently cleared of trees and brush. The reason for clearing this land is unknown.
8. Do you have any comments, suggestions or recommendations regarding the management or
operation of the Site's remedy9
The TCEQ recommends that the EPA perform additional studies to delineate and assess the potential
impact of the contamination in the shallow aquifer and adjacent surface waters.
9. Do you consent to have your name included along with your responses to this questionnaire in
the FYR report9
Yes.
G-2
-------
HIGHLANDS ACID PIT SIJPERFUND SITE
FIVE-YEAR REV IEW INTERV IEW FORM
Site Name: Highlands Acid Pit
EPA ID: TXD980514996
Interviewer name: Stephen Pereira and Hagai
Nassau
Interviewer affiliation: EPA and Skeo
Subject name: name withheld for privacy
Subject affiliation: nearby resident
Interview date: December 5, 2022
Interview time: 2:54 p.m.
Interview location: front porch of residence
Interview format (circle one): In Person
Phone Mail Email Other:
Interview category: Resident
1. Are you aware of the former environmental issues at the Site and the cleanup activities that have taken place
to date'.'
No, we just moved here in April 2022 from Wyoming. If there is contamination. I want it to be cleaned up.
2. What is your overall impression of the project, including cleanup, maintenance and reuse activities (as
appropriate)'.'
I don't have any impression of it.
3. Have there been any problems with unusual or unexpected activities at the Site, such as emergency response,
vandalism or trespassing'.'
I don't know what people do at the Site. I haven't been there. Drivers speed down this road. They use U-
Hauls without license plates to bring stolen goods to the end of the road; maybe they ship the items out by
boat from the end of the road. Across the road there used to be a notorious bar called Tugboat Annie's; it
closed down.
4. Has EPA kept involved parties and surrounding neighbors informed of activities at the Site'.' How can EPA
best provide site-related information in the future'.'
I'm not interested in being informed about it.
5. Do you own a private well in addition to or instead of accessing city/municipal water supplies'.' If so. for what
purpose*s) is your private well used'.'
We don't have a well. We use city water.
6. Do you have any comments, suggestions or recommendations regarding any aspects of the project'.'
No.
G-3
-------
HIGHLANDS ACID PIT SIJPERFUND SITE
FIVE-YEAR REV IEW INTERV IEW FORM
Site Name: Highlands Acid Pit
EPA ID: TXD980514996
Interviewer name: Stephen Pereira and Hagai
Nassau
Interviewer affiliation: EPA and Skeo
Subject name: name withheld for privacy
Subject affiliation: nearby resident
Interview date: December 5, 2022
Interview time: 3:07 p.m.
Interview location: front porch of residence
Interview format (circle one): In Person
Phone Mail Email Other:
Interview category: Resident
1. Are you aware of the former environmental issues at the Site and the cleanup activities that have taken place
to date'.'
I know that there has been a cleanup, but I don't know if it was adequate.
2. What is your overall impression of the project, including cleanup, maintenance and reuse activities (as
appropriate)'.'
No opinion.
3. What have been the effects of this Site on the surrounding community, if any?
It has had a huge effect. People know about the Site and it makes this an undesirable area, which lowers the
property prices.
4. Have there been any problems with unusual or unexpected activities at the Site, such as emergency response,
vandalism or trespassing'.'
I don't know .
5. Has EPA kept involved parties and surrounding neighbors informed of activities at the Site'.' How can EPA
best provide site-related information in the future'.'
EPA has not kept us informed. I'd suggest mailings, phone calls or in-person communication.
6. Do you own a private well in addition to or instead of accessing city/municipal water supplies'.' If so. for what
purpose*s) is your private well used'.'
We use city water. We had it tested several times by Costco and Culligan's or a similar company. It has
arsenic and benzene in it, so we put filters on it. We probably wouldn't have bought this house if we knew
about the poor drinking water quality.
7. Do you have any comments, suggestions or recommendations regarding any aspects of the project'.'
No.
G-4
-------
HIGHLANDS ACID PIT SUPERFUND SITE
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW INTERVIEW FORM
Site Name: Highlands Acid Pit
EPA ID: TXD980514996
Interviewer name: Hagai Nassau
Interviewer affiliation: Skeo
Subject name: Dr. Latrice Rabin
Subject affiliation: Executive Director
Subject contact information: 713-920-2831
Interview date: 12 19 2022
Interview time: 5:00 pm
Interview location: Office of Harris County Pollution Control Services
Interview format (circle one): In Person
Phone
Mail
^maiP)~
Other:
Interview category: Local Government
1. Are you aware of the former environmental issues at the Site and the cleanup activities that
have taken place to date?
Harris County Pollution Control Services (PC'S) is aware of environmental issues and
cleanup activities through publicly available documents.
2. Do you feel well-informed regarding the Site's activities and remedial progress? If not, how
might EPA convey site-related information in the future?
PCS requests to be copied and included on all correspondence and communication,
including those conducted by government agencies, contractors, and any other entity
affiliated with the Site.
3. Have there been any problems with unusual or unexpected activities at the Site, such as
emergency response, vandalism or trespassing?
PCS is unaware of any unexpected activities at the Site related to emergency response,
vandalism, or trespassing.
4. Are you aware of any changes to state laws or local regulations that might affect the
protectiveness of the Site's remedy?
PCS is not aware of any changes to state laws or local regulations that might affect the
protectiveness of the Site's remedy.
5. Arc you aware of any changes in pro jected land use(s) at the Site?
PCS is not aware of any changes hi the projected land use at the Site.
PCS requests to be updated on any changes related to projected land uses at and around
the Site.
G-5
-------
6. Has EPA kept involved parties and surrounding neighbors informed of activities at the Site?
How can EPA best provide site-related information in the fixture?
Per the EPA website, a public meeting was last held in 1987. There are no fact sheets
available on the website. The 2018 Five-Year Review (FYR) noted nearby residents felt
the EPA could do a more effective job of keeping them up to date regarding ongoing
activities at the Site. The 2018 FYR stated the EPA plans to send an annual facts sheet or
host a community meeting for the local residents that live near the site. It is unknown if
the fact sheet or meetings was held.
PCS recommends Site fact sheets be made available on the EPA website and community
meetings be held as stated in the FYR.
7. Do you have any comments, suggestions or recommendations regarding the project?
According to the 2018 FYR, the deed was not located despite EPA drafting a deed notice
in 2007. The 2018 FYR stated the Institutional Control (IC) are inadequate since the deed
was not recorded with the county.
PCS recommends the EPA verily ICs are in place by finding the deed notice or a new
deed notice be drafted and put in place.
Upon review of the 2019 to 2020 and 2020 to 2021 annual groundwater reports, both
inspection checklists revealed the signage around the fence to be missing. While reading
the text in the report for the Site Inspection and Maintenance Activities of both reports,
no mention of the missing signs was stated, but both reports said the front gate needs
adjusting as it is slightly tilted. In the 2019 to 2020 annual groundwater report, hi the
conclusions and recommendations section, site signage and front gate adjustment are
needed. The signs will be replaced during the first groundwater sampling event in FY
2021.
PCS recommends missing signs and gate ad justments be addressed at the time of the
discovery and not be recommended to be accomplished in the next report.
The Site is located south of the Baytown Boat club. According to the 2018 FYR, local
residents may use an adjacent sand pit for recreational purposes. The sand pit is
submerged, located north of the site and south of Clear Lake Road, it is not part of the
deed notice, and there are no site-related ICs associated with this parcel. The sampling
frequency may be insufficient to evaluate the potential impacts of the upper aquifer
groundwater on adjacent surface water and sediment. The highest concentrations of
benzene have been detected in an upper aquifer well adjacent to the flooded sand pit. The
following actions must be taken for the remedy to be protected over the long term, which
includes collecting additional surface water and sediment samples in the former sand pit
adjunct to the site to determine if the contaminated upper aquifer is impacting areas
beyond the Site and take appropriate measures to ensure proteetiveness. Based on the
G-6
-------
2019 to 21121 animal groundwater reports, benzene, pyridine, arsenic, lead, cadmium,
and chromium have been detected abo\e protectee concentration level (PCI,) .it curious
times in the upper aquifer (I A), which transmits water to the neighboring surface waters.
PC'S Is concerned with the remedy's protectiveness of health ami the environment to
neighboring surface water, which can be ingested by people or organisms if the
contaminants are measured above the l'CL in the IIA.
PC'S recommends more frequent sampling of surface w ater and sediments outside of the
Site per the actions stated in the 201X FYR and take appropriate measures to ensure
protectiveness.
8, Do you consent to have your name included along with your responses to this questionnaire
in die FYR report?
Yes,
G-7
-------
APPENDIX H - EJSCREEN REPORT
EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
EiScreen Report (Version 2.1)
1 mile Ring Centered at 29.815402,-95.080879, TEXAS, EPA Region 6
Approximate Population: 842
input Area (sq. miles): 3.14
Highland Acid Pit
Selected Variables
State
Percentile
USA
Percentile
Environmental Justice Indexes
EJ Index for Particulate Matter 2.5
58
72
EJ Index for Ozone
27
25
EJ Index for Diesel Particulate Matter*
66
73
EJ Index for Air Toxics Cancer Risk*
47
64
EJ Index for Air Toxics Respiratory HI*
52
67
EJ Index for Traffic Proximity
36
49
EJ Index for Lead Paint
56
57
EJ Index forSuperfund Proximity
66
76
EJ Index for RMP Facility Proximity
59
71
EJ Index for Hazardous Waste Proximity
54
56
EJ Index for Underground Storage Tanks
41
57
EJ Index for Wastewater Discharge
61
70
EJ Index for the Selected Area Compared to All People's Blockgroups in the State/US
I
"fit
v.
""v S
^ r* $ ' Qhs
9uk "fr-. m
X.
V v.
¦"'ty
'Hj
EJ Indexes
XX
*x'x
xx>
StatB FancentilB fl L.5A PErcantile
This report shows the values for environmental and demographic indicators and EJSCREEN indexes. It shows environmental and demographic raw data (e.g., the
estimated concentration of ozone in the air), and also shows what percentile each raw data value represents. These percentiles provide perspective on how the
selected block group or buffer area compares to the entire state, EPA region, or nation. For example, if a given location is at the 95th percentile nationwide, this
means that only 5 percent of the US population has a higher block group value than the average person in the location being analyzed. The years for which the
data are available, and the methods used, vary across these indicators. Important caveats and uncertainties apply to this screening-level information, so it is
essential to understand the limitations on appropriate interpretations and applications of these indicators. Please see EJSCREEN documentation for discussion of
these issues before using reports.
February 07, 2023 1/3
H-l
-------
V>EPA |HrS,Pro,M,on EJScreen Report (Version 2.1)
1 mile Ring Centered at 29.815402,-95.080879, TEXAS, EPA Region 6
Approximate Population: 842
Input Area (sq. miles): 3.14
Highland Acid Pit
Highland Acid Pit
^articulate Matter 2.5
¦Nations! Percentiles)
Less than 50 percentile
50 60 percentile 80 90 percantile Data rot available
fill-/() percentile 1 Sit)-&h percentile Search Uesult (point)
1 70 - 80 percentile 95 - 100 percentile
003 0.04
vi*e § CpcnStrscMao Miirssoft, CCNAI.P.
'ti , Fauissjuae, SifeGia^lt OcjTsu injloyass
Sites reporting to EPA
Superfund NPL
1
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDF)
0
February 07, 2023 2/3
H-2
-------
|S,S«aiprotection EJScreen Report (Version 2.1)
1 mile Ring Centered at 29.815402,-95.080879, TEXAS, EPA Region 6
Approximate Population: 842
Input Area (sq. miles): 3.14
Highland Acid Pit
Selected Variables
Value
State
%ile in
USA
%ile in
Avg.
State
Avg.
USA
Pollution and Sources
Particulate Matter 2.5 (ng/m3)
10.1
9.5
76
8.67
85
Ozone (ppb)
37.2
40
31
42.5
17
Diesel Particulate Matter' (ng/m3)
0.739
0.211
99
0.294
95-100th
Air Toxics Cancer Risk* (lifetime risk per million)
61
31
98
28
95-100th
Air Toxics Respiratory HI"
0.6
0.35
99
0.36
95-100th
Traffic Proximity (daily traffic count/distance to road)
180
570
45
760
44
Lead Paint (% Pre-1960 Housing)
0.21
0.14
70
0.27
49
Superfund Proximity (site count/km distance)
1.1
0.084
99
0.13
98
RMP Facility Proximity (facility count/km distance)
2
0.94
87
0.77
90
Hazardous Waste Proximity (facility count/km distance)
0.85
0.72
74
2.2
53
Underground Storage Tanks (count/km2)
1.3
2.3
48
3.9
52
Wastewater Discharge (toxicity-weighted concentration/m distance)
0.031
0.38
85
12
77
Socioeconomic Indicators
Demographic Index
28%
46%
28
35%
49
People of Color
24%
59%
19
40%
44
Low Income
33%
33%
51
30%
58
Unemployment Rate
10%
5%
84
5%
83
Limited English Speaking Households
1%
7%
43
5%
59
Less Than High School Education
9%
16%
43
12%
54
Under Age 5
8%
7%
67
6%
75
Over Age 64
13%
13%
55
16%
41
""Diesel particular matter, airtoxics cancer risk, and airtoxics respiratory hazard index are from the EPA's AirToxics Data Update, which is the Agency's
ongoing, comprehensive evaluation of airtoxics in the United States. This effort aims to prioritize airtoxics, emission sources, and locations of interest for
further study. It is important to remember that the airtoxics data presented here provide broad estimates of health risks over geographic areas of the country,
not definitive risks to specific individuals or locations. Cancer risks and hazard indices from the AirToxics Data Update are reported to one significant figure and
any additional significant figures here are due to rounding. More information on the AirToxics Data Update can be found at: https://www.epa.gov/haps/air-
toxics-data-update.
For additional information, see: www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice
EJScreen is a screening tool for pre-decisional use only. It can help identify areas that may warrant additional consideration, analysis, or outreach. It does not
provide a basis for decision-making, but it may help identify potential areas of EJ concern. Users should keep in mind that screening tools are subject to substantial
uncertainty in their demographic and environmental data, particularly when looking at small geographic areas. Important caveats and uncertainties apply to this
screening-level information, so it is essential to understand the limitations on appropriate interpretations and applications of these indicators. Please see
EJScreen documentation for discussion of these issues before using reports. This screening tool does not provide data on every environmental impact and
demographic factor that may be relevant to a particular location. EJScreen outputs should be supplemented with additional information and local knowledge
before taking any action to address potential EJ concerns.
February 07, 2023 3/3
H-3
------- |