SIXTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT FOR
NORTH CAVALCADE STREET SUPERFUND SITE
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
£
<
30
V
4
prO^^°
Z
LU
o
T
June 2023
2010
2023
Southern Portion of the Site
2005 2023
mm
wHHH HOl
Northern Portion of the Site
Prepared by
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 6
Dallas, Texas
-------
SIXTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
NORTH CAVALCADE STREET SUPERFUND SITE
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
EPA ID#: TXD980873343
This memorandum documents the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's performance,
determinations, and approval of the sixth five-year review for the North Cavalcade Street 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
This Five-Year Review (FYR) Report summarizes the status of the remedy at the North Cavalcade
Street Superfund Site. For Operable Unit (OU) 1, groundwater sampling indicates the contamination in
the shallow aquifer is contained within the Technical Impracticability (Tl) Zone. For OU2 (Site soils),
the containment cell appears to be functioning as intended. For OU3, groundwater in the interbedded
aquifer, monitoring indicates the presence of dense non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) in a well near
the TI Zone. Groundwater detections of Site-related contaminants of concern (COCs) below current
standards and other non-COCs above current standards have been observed in the interbedded aquifer
outside the TI Zone near a monitoring well. Construction was completed at the Site in 201 1.
This FYR assessed the vulnerability of the effects of climate and weather hazards. The Site does not lie
within a 100-year flood plain and is not considered at increased risk or impact from drought or wildfire.
The physical remedy components have been in place since 201 1.
The E J Screen Report (Appendix J) identifies EJ Indexes that exceed the 80th percentile at the national
and state average level. Public input on the FYR was solicited through a public notice in the Houston
Chronicle on 1 1 /21/2022. Public comments and/or Site interviews are included in Section IV,
Community Notification, Involvement & Site Interviews.
Actions Needed
The following actions must be taken for the remedy to be protective over the long term:
• Further evaluate the vapor intrusion pathway using multiple lines of evidence.
• Complete the investigation to evaluate and delineate the DNAPL and dissolved plume.
• Re-evaluate the need to update Site COCs.
• Continue to work toward implementing institutional controls (ICs) required in decision
documents.
Determination
I have determined that the selected remedy for the North Cavalcade Superfund Site is currently
protective of human health and the environment in the short term. This Five-Year Review Report
specifies the actions that need to be taken for the remedy to remain protective over the long term.
I I Q A n D I f" II Digitally signed by LISA PRICE
LI JA rnlLC Date: 2023.06.28 10:39:33 -05'00'
Lisa Price
Acting Director, Superfund and Emergency Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6
-------
This page intentionally left blank
-------
ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS
SIXTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
NORTH CAVALCADE STREET SUPERFUND SITE
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
EPA ID#: TXD980873343
Issiies/Uecoinmendalions
OlJ(s) without Issues/Recommendations Identified in the FYR:
None.
Issues and Recommendations Identified in the FYR:
OU(s): 1
Issue Category: Monitoring
Issue: A conservative screening-level risk review identified vapor intrusion risks
for naphthalene at well MW-54S greater than EPA's noncancer hazard quotient of
1 for industrial exposure.
Recommendation: Complete the current evaluation of the vapor intrusion
pathw ay near well MW-54S and adjacent areas.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Party
Responsible
Oversight
Party/Support
Agency
Milestone Date
No
Yes
EPA
EPA/TCEQ
6/26/2024
OU(s): 3
Issue Category: Changed Site Conditions
Issue: The DNAPL and the dissolved plume may not be fully delineated.
Recommendation: Complete the current investigation to evaluate and delineate
the DNAPL and the dissolved plume on the northwestern side of the Tl Zone.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Party
Responsible
Oversight
Party/Support
Agency
Milestone Date
No
Yes
EPA
EPA/TCEQ
6/26/2024
-------
OU(s): 1, 2 and 3
Issue Category: Institutional Controls
Issue: Soil and groundwater ICs required by Site decision documents have not yet
been implemented.
Recommendation: Implement ICs required in decision documents.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Party
Responsible
Oversight
Party/Support
Agency
Milestone Date
No
Yes
EPA/TCEQ
EPA/TCEQ
6/26/2025
OU(s): 1 and 3
Issue Category: Monitoring
Issue: Contaminants that have not been formally identified in a decision
document as COCs. such as vinyl chloride, pentachlorophenol. arsenic, carbazole
and 1.1 -dichloroethylene. exceed groundwater standards.
Recommendation: Re-evaluate the contaminants that exceed groundwater
standards and determine the impact on the remedy.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Party
Responsible
Oversight
Party/Support
Agency
Milestone Date
No
Yes
EPA
EPA/TCEQ
6/26/2025
-------
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 9
Institutional Control (IC) Review 12
Systems Operations/Operation and Maintenance (O&M) 12
III. PROGRESS SINCE THE PREVIOUS REVIEW 13
IV. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS 15
Community Notification. Community Involvement and Site Interviews 15
Data Review 16
Site Inspection 20
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'.' 22
VI. ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS 23
OTHER FINDINGS 24
VII. PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT 24
VIII. NEXT REVIEW 25
APPENDIX A - REFERENCE LIST A-l
APPENDIX B - SITE CHRONOLOGY B-l
APPENDIX C - PRESS NOTICE C-l
APPENDIX D - SITE INSPECTION CHECKLIST D-l
APPENDIX E - SITE INSPECTION PHOTOS E-l
APPENDIX F -DATA TABLES AND FIGURES F-l
APPENDIX G - DETAILED ARARS REVIEW TABLES G-l
APPENDIX H - SCREENING-LEVEL RISK REVIEW H-l
APPENDIX I - INTERVIEW FORMS 1-1
APPENDIX J - EJ SCREEN REPORT J-l
Tables
Table 1: Site COCs. by Media 7
Table 2: Summary of RAOs and Soil and Groundwater Remedy Components 8
Table 3: COC Cleanup Goals 9
Table 4: Summary of Planned and/or Implemented Institutional Controls (ICs) 13
Table 5: Protectiveness Determinations/Statements from the 2018 FYR Report 13
Table 6: Status of Recommendations from the 2018 FYR Report 14
Table B-l: Site Chronology B-l
Table F-l: DNAPL Thickness in Monitoring Wells (in feet) F-l
Table F-2: Analytical data from wells with PRG exceedances, 2018 to 2022 F-2
1
-------
Tabic F-3: Vinyl Chloride Concentrations in Selected Wells F-3
Table F-4: PCP Concentrations in Selected Wells F-4
Table F-5: Non-COC Chemicals Exceeding Current PCL during 2022 Groundwater Monitoring Event F-5
Table G-l: Performance Standard Comparison for Groundwater COCs G-l
Table H-l: Industrial Health Evaluation of OU2 Soil Cleanup Goals H-l
Table H-2: Residential Health Evaluation of OU2 Soil Cleanup Goals H-l
Table H-3: Health Evaluation of Groundw ater Cleanup Goals H-2
Table H-4: Screening-Level Vapor Intrusion Evaluation of Groundw ater Data. 2018 to 2020 H-3
Figures
Figure 1: Site Vicinity Map 6
Figure 2: Detailed Site Map 11
Figure F-l: Monitoring Well Locations and Site Features F-6
Figure F-2: Leachate Fluid Tliickness in Sumps (in feet) F-7
Figure F-3: PRG and PCL Exceedances in the Interbedded Unit, 2022- F-8
Figure F-4: Approximate Extent of DNAPL. June 2022 F-9
Figure F-5: Approximate Extent of DN APL. 2018 to 2022 F-10
Figure F-6: DNAPL Tliickness over time F-l 1
2
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ARAR
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement
AROD
Record of Decision Amendment
CERCLA
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
COC
Contaminant of Concern
CPT
Cone Penetration Test
cPAH
Carcinogenic Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon
DNAPL
Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid
EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
ESD
Explanation of Significant Differences
FYR
Five-Year Review
HQ
Hazard Quotient
IC
Institutional Control
ISS
In-Situ Stabilization
LCS
Leachate Collection Sump
LDS
Leak Detection Sump
MIP
Membrane Interface Probe
|ig/L
Micrograms per Liter
mg/kg
Milligrams per Kilogram
mg/L
Milligrams per Liter
MW
Monitoring Well
N/A
Not applicable
NCP
National Contingency Plan
NM
Not measured
NPL
National Priorities List
O&M
Operation and Maintenance
OU
Operable Unit
PAH
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon
PCL
Protective Concentration Limit
PCP
Pentachl orophenol
PCS
Harris County Pollution Control Services
PRG
Primary Remedial Goal
PRP
Potentially Responsible Party
RAO
Remedial Action Objective
RI
Remedial Investigation
ROD
Record of Decision
RPM
Remedial Project Manager
RSL
Regional Screening Level
svoc
Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds
TCEQ
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
TI
Technical Impracticability
TNRCC
Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission
TRRP
Texas Risk Reduction Program
UU/UE
Unlimited Use and 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 CFR Section 300.430(f)(4)(ii)) and considering EPA policy.
This is the sixth FYR for the North Cavalcade Street Superfund Site (the 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 three operable units (Ous). OIJ1 addresses the shallow groundwater sand unit. OU2
addresses the soil. OU3 addresses the deeper interbedded sand and clay groundwater unit. This FYR
Report addresses all three OUs.
EPA remedial project managers (RPMs) Karen Berecz and Rajalakshmi Josiatn led the FYR.
Participants included Christopher Siegel from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)
and Kirby Webster, Kim Johnson Chase, and Treat Suotni from EPA FYR support contractor Skeo. The
review began on 10/20/2022.
Site Background
The 21 -acre Site is in a commercial/industrial corridor just north of downtown Houston, about 1 mile
southwest of the intersection of Loop 610 and U.S. Highway 59, in Houston, Harris County, Texas
(Figure 1). Beginning in 1946, Houston Creosoting Company, Inc. operated a creosote wood-treating
plant on 10 acres on the southern part of the Site. In about 1955, the company added pentachlorophenol
(PCP) wood-preservation services and other support facilities to their operations. In 1961, the property
went into foreclosure. Facilities associated with wood-treating operations included creosote ponds,
various tanks and storage units, a lumber shed, a treatment facility and other buildings. Site operations
resulted in spills and releases that contaminated soil and groundwater with polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
Residential areas are located northeast and west of the Site. The South Cavalcade Street Superfund Site,
also a former wood-treating facility, is located directly south of the Site. Contamination at the Site is
unrelated to contamination at the South Cavalcade Street Superfund Site. There are two commercial
businesses, a food warehouse, and a casting facility located on the southern part of the Site. There is a
containment cell on the undeveloped northern part of the Site to isolate contaminated soils. The
containment cell is composed of a double bottom liner, a cap, and a leachate system.
Site topography is generally flat, with surface drainage occurring through three storm water drainage
ditches. Two of these ditches flank the Site on the east and west sides and drain to the third ditch, which
bisects the Site into northern and southern sections. The third ditch drains into a flood control ditch,
which discharges into Hunting Bayou about a mile to the east.
4
-------
Groundwater beneath the Site occurs in three zones: the shallow, interbedded and deep units.
Contamination is limited to the shallow and interbedded units, which are hydraulically connected but
confined from the deeper unit. The shallow and interbedded units are not used for drinking water on-site
or within a 1-mile radius of the Site. Commercial buildings on-site and neighboring residents access
water from the City of Houston's water supply, which obtains drinking water from the deep Evangeline
Aquifer 10 miles from the Site, or a surface water reservoir located over 20 miles from the Site.
Groundwater in the shallow and interbedded units flows to the west.
Appendix A lists the resources referenced during the development of this FYR Report. Appendix B
provides a chronology of major site events.
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SUMMARY FORM
sin: idi:m ii k \ i ion
Site Name: North Cavalcade Street
EPA ID: TXD980873343
Region: 6
State: Texas
City/County: Houston/Harris
Sin: S I A I I S
NPL Status: Final
Multiple OlJs?
Yes
Has the Site achieved construction completion?
Yes
ri:vii:\\ stat i
Lead agency: EPA
Author name: Karen Berecz and Rajalakshmi Josiam, with additional support provided by
Skeo
Author affiliation: EPA Region 6
Review period: 10/20/2022 - 6/1/2023
Date of site inspection: 1 /24/2023
Type of review: Statutory
Review number: 6
Triggering action date: 6/26/2018
Due date (fiveyears after triggering action date)'. 6/26/2023
5
-------
Figure 1: Site Vicinity Map
- . , «
m? K
m ae
¦«
r -g - y-
liiflsfP^n
tf5 fcf f%
leSy'Srf HI
lauSi
? B^-v £ ' ,
-y t? .% 2 t * ~
I 3ft Ml Hi
?!?*• 'v- £:«| . -v.
North Cavalcade Street Superfund Site
City of Houston, 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 for informational purposes only regarding EPA's
response actions at the Site. Map image is the intellectual property of Esn and is used herein
under license. Copyright © 2020 Esri and its licensors. All rights reserved. Sources: Esri, Esri
Community Maps Contributors. City of Houston. HPB. Texas Parks & Wildlife, ©
OpenStreetMap. Microsoft, CONANP. Esri, HERE. Garmln, Foursquare, SafeGraph.
GeoTechnologies, Inc. METI/NASA, USGS. EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, Maxar. the
2011AROD and the 2018 FYR.
6
-------
II. RESPONSE ACTION SUMMARY
Basis for Taking Action
Between 1985 and 1987, EPA sampled five environmental media at the Site (air, surface water,
sediments, soils, and groundwater). On the southern 10 acres of the Site, EPA found PAHs and VOCs in
soils, groundwater, and sediments at levels above those natural to the area. Following site investigation,
EPA placed the Site on the Superfund program's National Priorities List (NPL) in June 1986. In 1988,
EPA and the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission (TNRCC, renamed TCEQ in 2002)
concluded that remediation of contaminated soil and groundwater was needed based on future
unacceptable human and environmental health risks. These risks are due to direct exposure to
contaminants in soil and future potable use of shallow unit groundwater contaminated with DNAPL and
dissolved contaminants. In 2009, EPA and TCEQ identified that DNAPL and contaminants in the
interbedded unit would also pose an unacceptable risk if this unit were used as a future drinking water
supply. Table 1 summarizes the primary exposure media and COCs for the Site.
The Site's 1987 remedial investigation (RI) assessed other potential environmental receptors at the Site
and found that a variety of plants, birds, amphibians, reptiles, insects, and mammals could be exposed to
Site-related contaminants through soil and sediments in drainage ditches, potentially bioaccumulating
and causing adverse effects.
Table 1: Site COCs, by Media
coc
Soil
Groundwater
Benzene
--
X
Carcinogenic Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons (cPAHs)
X
X
Naphthalene
--
X
Notes:
Benzene and cPAHs were selected as COCs for soil and groundwater in the Site's
1988 Record of Decision (ROD). The Site's 2009 ROD Amendment ( AROD)
added naphthalene as a COC for groundwater. Benzene was deleted as a soil COC
in the 2009 AROD as it was no longer detected in consolidated soils.
X = COC selected for corresponding media.
- = COC not selected for corresponding media.
Response Actions
EPA selected the Site's initial remedy for OIJ1 soil, shallow unit groundwater and DNAPL in the Site's
1988 Record of Decision (ROD). After implementation of the 1988 remedy (see Table 2), EPA
determined that additional remedy components were warranted to meet the remedial action objectives
(RAOs) for the Site. EPA modified the Site's remedy in a 1994 Explanation of Significant Differences
(ESD), a 2009 Record of Decision Amendment (AROD), and a 2011 A ROD. EPA also adjusted the
Site's OUs from the original one to three:
• OU1: Groundwater plume associated with the shallow unit aquifer.
• OU2: Soil.
• OU3: Groundwater plume associated with the interbedded unit aquifer.
The final RAOs were established for soil and groundwater (including DN APL) in the 2009 AROD and
the 201 1 AROD, respectively. Table 2 summarizes the Site's remedy components and RAOs.
7
-------
Table 2: Summary of RAOs and Soil and Groundwater Remedy Components
RAO
Remedy Component
Soil -
OU2
Prevent human exposure to contaminated soil in excess of
current site preliminary remediation goals (PRCs) (30
mg/kg for cPAHs).
Minimize migration of soil contaminants currently residing
in the temporary containment cell into the groundwater,
surface water and other Site soil. "
On-site biological treatment and containment (until 1998).a
Construction of a permanent cap over the existing soil
containment cell that has a double bottom liner.1
ICs to prevent disturbance of the containment cell.1'
Return a majority of site surface area to reuse wherever
practicable.
Groundwater - Shallow Unit (OU1) and Interbedded Unit (OU3)
Contain two groundwater contaminant plumes, associated
with the shallow unit (OU1) and the interbedded unit
(OU3), through natural processes.
Prevent human exposure to contaminated groundwater
above acceptable risk levels by implementing ICs to restrict
access to. or use of. contaminated water by restricting the
installation of groundwater wells within the designated
Technical Impracticability (TI) Zone.
Remove Site-related DNAPL accumulations in impacted
monitoring wells until the amounts diminish and/or
retrieval is no longer practicable.
OU 1: Pumping and treatment of groundwater using carbon
absorption and DNAPL removal (until 2003).°
OU 1 and OU3:
• In-situ stabilization (ISS) of DNAPL and
monitored natural attenuation.1
• TI Waiver for remaining dissolvcd-plia.se
contamination and DNAPL in groundwater waives
cleanup goals within the TI Zone.'1
• Periodic pumping of DNAPL in impacted
monitoring wells until retrieval is no longer
practicable.'0
• Implementation of ICs to:b
o Provide notice to property owners and
prospective purchasers that contaminated
water from the shallow and interbedded
sand should not be used for drinking or
potable water until remedial goals arc
met.
o Prohibit digging into the stabilized area
and to protect the monitoring wells.
• Implementation of ICs to restrict access to. or use
of. contaminated water by restricting the
installation of groundwater wells within the
designated TI Zone.1
• Implementation of long-term monitoring.1
Notes:
a. On-site biological treatment, a 1988 ROD component, was discontinued because the soil cleanup goal could not
be achieved. Thus, contaminated soil was consolidated on the northern portion of the Site in a temporary
containment cell pending evaluation of options for its final disposition.
b. Remedy component selected in the 2009 AROD.
c. The 1988 ROD punip-and-treat remedy addressed contaminated shallow groundwater and DNAPL (OU 1). The
system was shut down in 2003 due to inability to address contamination in the interbedded unit (OU3).
d. Remedy component selected in the 2011 AROD because EPA determined that it was technically impracticable to
restore all parts of the dissolvcd-phase groundwater because of the intermittent occurrence of residual and free-
phase DNAPL in the shallow and interbedded units.
e. DNAPL removal was discontinued in June 2012.
cPAHs = carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram
Table 3 lists the Site's cleanup goals for soil and groundwater.
8
-------
Table 3: COC Cleanup Goals
COC
Soil (m«f/k«),!
Groundwater (jig/L)b
DNAPL1'
Benzene
N/Ad
5
Pumped for collection and
disposal until the amounts
diminish and/or retrieval is
no longer practicable."
Bcnzo(a)pyrcnc
(cPAHs for soil)
30
0.2
Naphthalene
N/A
1,500 on-site6
490 off-site1
Notes:
a. Established in the 1988 ROD. based on a 1 x 10~6 cancer risk for a commercial site. Goal for cPAHs changed in the
1994 ESD, based on updated risk assessment methodologies. Also described in Section 2 of the 2009 AROD.
b. Established in the 2009 AROD based on the federal drinking water standards or a state standard in the absence of a
federal drinking water standard; values only apply outside the TI Zone boundary according to the 2011 AROD
(Section 7.4).
c. Established in the 2011 AROD for residual DNAPL on-site since most of the DNAPL had been addressed by the
pump-and-treat system and ISS.
d. The 1988 ROD established 0.04 mg/kg as a PRC. The 2009 AROD deleted the soil PRC for benzene because it was
no longer detected in consolidated solids.
e. Based on TCEQ drinking water standard for commercial/industrial use.
f. Based on TCEQ drinking water standard for residential use.
g. DNAPL removal was discontinued in June 2012.
N/A = not applicable
p.g/L = micrograms per liter
Status of Implementation
OU2 - Soil
Through an agreement between EPA and the state, TCEQ (then TNRCC) obtained contracts to
implement the remedy in the Site's 1988 ROD. TCEQ constructed the biotreatment facility in April
1996 and performed biotreatment for 808 days without achieving the cleanup level established in the
1994 ESD for carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (cPAHs). TCEQ discontinued treatment
in August 1998. EPA revised the TCEQ contract to include a modified closure phase to place the
contaminated soil in the treatment cell on the northern portion of the Site and cover it with a liner
pending final determination of disposition by EPA and TCEQ.
Based on the 2009 AROD, EPA modified the temporary treatment cell for permanent containment by
retrofitting the liner and installing a permanent cap. Prior to the remedial design, EPA confirmed the
containment cell was constructed with a bottom liner consisting of the following from top to bottom:
geotextile fabric, high-density polyethylene primary liner (leachate collection liner), sand leachate
collection layer and a high-density polyethylene secondary liner (leak detection liner). EPA completed
the remedial design of the permanent containment cell in July 2010. Construction activities began in
August 2010 and finished by February 201 1. The old high-density polyethylene cover was removed. The
surface of the contaminated soil was regraded, and additional material placed so that the appropriate
slope was achieved. The final cover consists of about 6-8 inches of topsoil, 18 inches of protective soil
cover followed by a geocomposite drainage net, a low-density polyethylene geomembrane and a
geosynthetic clay liner. The cell contains five PVC leachate riser pipes. Four of the riser pipes, one at
each corner of the containment cell, are for the leak detection sump (LDS). The riser on the south side is
for the leachate collection sump (LCS). TCEQ began operation and maintenance (O&M) activities for
the soil remedy in 2012.
9
-------
OIJ1 and OU3 - Groundwater
Between September 1988 and September 1991, EPA completed the remedial design for the pump-and-
treat system to address shallow groundwater contamination. Additional sampling demonstrated that
DNAPL extended below the shallow unit to the interbedded unit. After modifications to the system,
operation of the pump-and-treat system was suspended in October 2003; it could not operate effectively
in the silty interbedded unit. EPA completed a focused feasibility study in 2008 to evaluate additional
remedies to address groundwater and DN APL contamination in the interbedded unit that had extended
off-site to the west.
In 2009, EPA and TCEQ selected in-situ stabilization (1SS) to address the highest-volume DNAPL areas
in the shallow and interbedded units and reduce the rate of dissolution of the three target compounds
(benzene, benzo(a)pyrene and naphthalene) in groundwater. EPA completed the remedial design for ISS
between September 2009 and May 2010. EPA performed the ISS in two source areas: the northeast
source area and the southwest source area (Figure 2). EPA completed the ISS remedial action in May
2010; installation of a permanent monitoring well network followed between November 2010 and
March 201 1. Monitored natural attenuation was considered as a remedial technology used in conjunction
with ISS. EPA later ruled it out in 201 1 due to the presence of DN APL in some wells within the newly
installed monitoring well network.
In 201 1, EPA revised the groundwater remedy to address remaining DNAPL in monitoring wells. A 16-
acre Technical Impracticability (TI) Zone was established as part of the 201 1 A ROD. Within the TI
Zone, the groundwater cleanup levels (Table 3) are waived. The 2011 A ROD also specified the periodic
removal of DN APL in several wells where residual DN APL remained and ICs to restrict installation of
groundwater wells. In June 2012, DN APL removal was discontinued. The 2013 FYR Report indicated
that the DNAPL accumulation in select wells "does not represent a mobile plume but is a residual phase
that is confined to the formation pore space of the water-bearing zones." The 2013 FYR Report
recommended continued tracking of DN APL in monitoring wells but recommended discontinuing
DNAPL removal and sampling of these monitoring wells.
The 201 1 remedy specifies that long-term groundwater monitoring will document the effectiveness of
the source stabilization and the stability of the dissolved groundwater plumes in the shallow and
interbedded units. In the 2013 FYR Report, EPA identified detections of vinyl chloride and solvent-
related contaminants that needed further evaluation. In 2013, TCEQ assumed responsibility for O&M
duties including monitoring for the final groundwater remedy, which began in September 2014. Results
of this monitoring during this FYR period are discussed in the Data Review Section of this FYR Report.
In 2017, TCEQ contractor Ensafe conducted a cone penetration test/membrane interface probe
(CPT/MIP) investigation of the shallow and interbedded units in an area northwest of the Site because
previous monitoring events indicated the presence of DN APL in monitoring well MW-37I near the TI
Zone boundary. The investigation assessed the potential migration of Site contaminants beyond the TI
Zone boundary. CPT/MIP locations are shown in Figure F-3 along with 2022 monitoring well data.
Results from the investigation showed no evidence of DN APL in the nine boring locations installed
outside the TI Zone boundary. However, results from groundwater analysis from the interbedded unit
identified detections of VOCs and semi-VOCs (SVOCs), including benzene and PCP at one of the
locations and benzo(a)pyrene at a second location, all of which were below current groundwater
standards. 1,1-dichloroethene and vinyl chloride above current groundwater standards were also
detected at one of the locations. 1,1-dichloroethene and vinyl chloride are solvent based contaminants
and typically not associated with creosote contamination as indicated in the 1987 RI report. The 1987 RI
Report postulated that activity from other nearby sources or possibly localized dumping contributed to
10
-------
1,1-dichloroethene and vinyl chloride detections in one of the northeast most off-site wells. A Quality
Assurance Sampling Plan was developed in April 2023 to investigate the DNAPL and dissolved plume
on the northwestern side of the TI Zone, and EPA is currently working on getting access to install
monitoring wells for the investigation.
Figure
Disclaimer Ttus map and any boundary tinea within the map art approximate and subject to
change The map is not a survey The map is lor tn/ormational purposes only regarding EPA's
response actions at Iho Site Map image is the Intellectual property of Esrt and is used herein
under license. Copyright iy 2020 Esrt and Its licensors AH tights reserved. Sources Esrt. Esn
Community Maps Contributors City of Houston. HPS, Texas Parks 4 Midhfe G OpenStreetMap
Microsoft. CONANP. Esrt, HERE Garmn. Foursquare, SafeGraph, GeoTochnologtos Inc. METi'
NASA USGS. EPA. NPS. US Census Bureau. USDA, Maxar. Mkrosomha 2011AROD. the 2017
O&M Manual, the 2018 FYR Report and the 2022 Annual O&M Report
North Cavalcade Street Superfund Site
City of Houston, Harris County, Texas
Last Modified: 2/6/2023
2: Detailed Site Map
Site Boundary
TI Zone Boundary
Containment Cell
Estimated Extent of
DNAPL
In-situ Stabilization
Area
Interbedded Well with
2022 PRG
Exceedances
[CetTerairdire'ctionofiflow}
^^^mterbedaea^^t^M
Northeast
Source »
Area
Southwest
' Source
Area
»5 iiiM
|/ » i# *»
|
11
-------
Institutional Control (IC) Review
The 2009 A ROD required ICs in the form of either restrictive covenants or deed notices on all properties
affected by the groundwater and soil contamination following completion of construction at the Site.
The 201 1 A ROD further required placement of deed notices or restrictive covenants to provide notice to
property owners that contaminated water from the shallow and interbedded sand units should not be
used for potable water where cleanup goals are not met or have been waived. Restrictions were also to
be placed to prevent installation of water supply wells in those areas and to protect components of the
groundwater remedy (i.e., restrictions on digging into the two ISS areas) including the permanent
monitoring wells.
To date, no ICs have been implemented. ICs, as required in the decision documents, will be
implemented once the dissolved plume on the northwestern side of the TI Zone is evaluated and
delineated. Table 4 presents a summary of planned ICs.
The United States owns the parcel where the soil containment cell is located. The on-site and off-site
parcels receive drinking water through a public supply. The containment cell area is surrounded by a
locked chain-link fence that prevents access to this part of the Site. Fencing is not a remedy component
but is present and prevents disturbance of on-site remedy components.
Systems Operations/Operation and Maintenance (Q&M)
TCEQ is responsible for O&M activities at the Site. The 2014 O&M Plan prepared by Shaw
Environmental outlines required O&M activities for the soil and groundwater remedies. Activities
specified in the 2014 O&M Manual for remedies implemented at the Site include:
• Monthly m owi ng/i n specti on of the capped areas and around Site monitoring wells during the
growing season.
• Periodic inspection of the Site during the non-growing season.
• Inspection of the Site following severe weather events (as needed).
• Inspection of Site wells and leachate system riser pipes during the annual gauging/sampling
event, and the gauging-only event. Gauging is to include the collection of water levels and
DNAPL thickness measurements in all Site monitoring wells.
• One gauging/sampling event per year, during which all leachate collection and detection sump
risers will be gauged and sampled, all monitoring wells will be gauged, and select monitoring
wells will be sampled. Within the interbedded unit, wells with measurable DNAPL will not be
sampled. Within the shallow sand, only select wells near the perimeter of the monitoring zone
will be sampled.
• One gauging-only event performed per year, inclusive of all Site monitoring wells and leachate
collection and leak detection sump risers.
• Annual evaluation and reporting of collected data (by August of each year).
• Routine and non-routine maintenance as needed.
TCEQ has been responsible for O&M activities since fiscal year 2014. In addition to regular O&M
activities, which are being performed as prescribed, TCEQ performed the following tasks:
• Fiscal year 2019: repaired containment cell riprap, painted bollards and cleaned culverts.
• Fiscal year 2020: repaired a section of fence on the west portion of the containment cell area.
• Fiscal year 2021: repaired sections of perimeter fence and removed tree limbs along the
containment cell fence.
• Fiscal year 2022: no non-routine maintenance activities were required.
12
-------
Table 4: Summary of Planned and/or Implemented Institutional Controls (ICs)
Media, Engineered
Controls, and Areas
That Do Not
Support UU/lJE
Based on Current
Conditions
ICs
Needed
ICs Called
for in the
Decision
Documents
Impacted
Parcel(s)'
IC
Objective
Title of IC
Instrument
Implemented and
Date (or planned)
OU1 - ISS Areas
Yes
Yes
0420490000014
Protect the groundwater
remedy b
Not yet
implemented1
0421980000005
0420490000015
OU2-
Contaimncnt Cell
Yes
Yes
0420490000233
Prevent disturbance of the
containment cell.°'d
Not yet
implemented1
OU1/OU3 -
Groundwater TI Zone
Yes
Yes
To be
determined
Provide notice to property
owners and prospective
purchasers that
contaminated water from
the shallow and
interbedded sand should
not be used for drinking
or potable water until
remedial goals are met.0
Not yet
implemented1
Notes:
a. Parcel information from httDs://arcweb.hcad.org/Darcelviewer and httos://hcad.or(?/oroDertv-search/real-oroDertv.
b. The 2011 A ROD required implementation of restrictions to protect components of the groundwater remedy (the two
stabilized source areas and permanent monitoring wells).
c. The 2009 A ROD called for ICs for OU2 soils to prevent disturbance of the capped soil containment cell.
d. The 1988 ROD based soil cleanup goals on commercial use of the Site properties. The 2009 A ROD states that "the
EPA will implement a program to place ICs on all properties affected by the groundwater and soil contamination
following completion of the construction activities at the Site."
e. The 2011 A ROD specified ICs to provide notice to on-site and off-site property owners and prospective purchasers
that contaminated water from the shallow and interbedded groundwater should not be used for drinking or potable
water where cleanup goals arc not met or have been waived. The 2011 A ROD also required placement of restrictions
to prevent the installation of water supply wells in those areas.
f. ICs will be implemented once the dissolved plume on the northwestern side of the TI Zone is evaluated and delineated
III. PROGRESS SINCE THE PREVIOUS REVIEW
Table 5 presents the protectiveness determinations and statements from the previous FYR Report. Table
6 provides the recommendations from the previous FYR Report and the status of those
recommendations.
Table 5: Protectiveness Determinations/Statements from the 2018 FYR Report
OU #
Protectiveness
Determination
Protectiveness Statement
1
Short-term Protective
The remedy at OU 1 currently protects human health and the
environment because there arc no completed exposure pathways.
However, in order for the remedy to be protective in the long term, the
following actions need to be taken: MW-54S is near the railroad tracks
and no buildings arc located in this area; however, further evaluate the
vapor intrusion pathway by using current data from appropriate wells
and using multiple lines of evidence, consider installing a permanent
monitoring well at boring location MIP-C5 to continue to monitor
concentrations of site-related chemicals, evaluate the effectiveness and
function of the rcincdv based on current monitoring data and additional
13
-------
OIJ #
Protectiveness
Determination
Protectiveness Statement
data as needed, evaluate the need to update site COCs in a decision
document, and continue to work toward implementing institutional
controls required in decision documents both on-site and oil-site (TI
Boundary) to ensure protectiveness.
2
Short-term Protective
The remedy at OU2 currently protects human health and the
environment because there arc no completed exposure pathways.
However, in order for the remedy to be protective in the long term, the
following actions need to be taken: continue to work toward
implementing institutional controls required in decision documents on-
site to ensure protectiveness.
3
Short-term Protective
The remedy at OU3 currently protects human health and the
environment because there arc no completed exposure pathways.
However, in order for the remedy to be protective in the long term, the
following actions need to be taken: consider installing a permanent
monitoring well at boring location MIP-C5 to continue to monitor
concentrations of site-related chemicals, evaluate the effectiveness and
function of the remedy based on current monitoring data and additional
data as needed, evaluate the need to update site COCs in a decision
document, continue to work toward implementing institutional controls
required in decision documents both on-site and off-site (TI Boundary)
to ensure protectiveness.
Sitewide
Short-term Protective
The remedy for the North Cavalcade Street Superfund site is currently
protective of human health and the environment. However, in order for
the remedy to be protective in the long term, the following actions need
to be taken: MW-54S is near the railroad tracks and no buildings arc
located in this area; however, further evaluate the vapor intrusion
pathway by using current data from appropriate wells and using
multiple lines of evidence, consider installing a permanent monitoring
well at boring location MIP-C5 to continue to monitor concentrations
of Site-related chemicals, evaluate the effectiveness and function of the
remedy based on current monitoring data and additional data as needed,
evaluate the need to update site COCs in a decision document, and
continue to work toward implementing institutional controls required in
decision documents both on-site and oil-site (TI Boundary) to ensure
protectiveness.
Table 6: Status of Recommendations from the 2018 FYR Report
OIJ #
Issue
Reco m m e n (1 at io n s
Current Status
Current
Implementation
Status Description
Completion
Date (if
applicable)
1
A conservative
screening-level risk
assessment identified
vapor intrusion risks for
naphthalene at well MW-
54S greater than EPA's
noncanccr hazard
quotient (HQ) of 1 for
industrial exposure.
MW-54S is near the railroad
tracks and no buildings arc
located in this area. However,
further evaluate the vapor
intrusion pathway by using
current data from appropriate
wells and using multiple lines
of evidence.
Ongoing
EPA is currently
conducting an
evaluation of the
vapor intrusion
pathway near well
MW-54S and
adjacent areas. A
sampling plan was
finalized in May
2023 identifying 23
locations across the
southern portion of
the Site for passive
soil gas sampling
and the sampling
Not applicable
14
-------
OIJ #
Issue
Recommendations
Current Status
Cu rrent
Implementation
Status Description
Completion
Date (if
applicable)
will be conducted in
June 2023.
3
The dense non-aqueous
phase liquid (DNAPL)
and the dissolved plume
appear to be migrating
west and Site-related
detected outside of the
Technical
Impracticability (TI)
Zone.
Consider installing a
permanent monitoring well at
boring location MIP-C5 to
continue to monitor
concentrations of Site-related
chemicals. Evaluate the
effectiveness and function of
the remedy based on current
monitoring data and additional
data as needed.
Ongoing
A Quality Assurance
Sampling Plan was
developed in April
2023 to investigate
the DNAPL and
dissolved plume on
the northwestern side
of the TI Zone and
EPA is currently
working on getting
access to install
monitoring wells for
the investigation.
Not applicable
1 and
3
Potentially site-related
not been formally
identified in a decision
document as
contaminants of concern
(COCs) exceed
groundwater standards.
Evaluate the need to update
site COCs in a decision
document.
Ongoing
EPA to re-evaluate
the COCs that
exceed groundwater
standards for the Site
to determine the
impact on the
remedy
Not applicable
1,2
and 3
Soil and groundwater
institutional controls
required by site decision
documents have not yet
been implemented.
Continue to work toward
implementing institutional
controls required in decision
documents both on-site and
off-site (TI Boundary).
Ongoing
The extent of
required
groundwater ICs is
dependent on the
findings of the
DNAPL and
dissolved plume
investigation.
Not applicable
IV. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS
Community Notification, Community Involvement and Site Interviews
The EJScreen Report (Appendix J) identifies EJ Indexes that exceed the 80th percentile at the national
and state average level. The EJ Index parameters that are greater than 80th percentile are as follows:
Particulate Matter, Diesel Particulate Matter, Air Toxics Cancer Risk, Air Toxics Respiratory Hazard
Index, Traffic Proximity, Lead Paint, Superfund Proximity, RMP Facility Proximity, and Underground
Storage Tanks.
A public notice, in English and Spanish, was made available by newspaper posting in the Houston
Chronicle local edition for the 77009-zipcode on 1 1 /21/2022 (Appendix D). It stated that the FYR was
underway and invited the public to submit any comments to EP A. The results of the review and the
report will be made available at the Site's information repository, Houston Central Library, located at
550 McKinney Street in Houston, Texas.
15
-------
During the FYR process, interviews were conducted to document any perceived problems or successes
with the remedy implemented to date. The interviews are summarized below and included in Appendix
1.
Chris Siegel, Site project manager for TCEQ, stated that TCEQ's primary concerns are the apparent
expansion of DN APL within the TI Zone boundary and ICs that need to be implemented.
Dr. Latrice Babin, Executive Director of Harris County Pollution Control Services (PCS) recommended
that the community involvement plan be revisited to ensure the public is properly informed about the
Site. PCS also recommended placing fact sheets, annual O&M reports, groundwater sampling data, etc.
on the EPA website. PCS further recommended ICs be implemented, vapor intrusion investigations be
completed, and the TI Zone boundary be updated.
During the 2023 site inspection visit, Jason McKinney and Cheryl Nichols, the EPA community
involvement coordinators, and Treat Suotni and Kim Johnson Chase from EPA FYR support contractor
Skeo conducted interviews with five residents living in the TI Zone. Two of the residents were not
aware of the Site and had received no information about it. One resident was aware of the Site but knew
very little about it. Two other long-time residents from the neighborhood were aware of the Site and
conveyed that had been told there was no threat to them, but that they did not believe it to be true. They
both said that if there is still contamination in the groundwater, they feel they are still at risk. One person
further stated that she has had many friends and neighbors who had died or were diagnosed with cancer,
which she attributes to the Site. The other person said that the EPA should have more public meetings to
keep residents up to date and build trust with the community. An on-site business owner interviewed via
email felt that the Site was a waste of money and noted that other contaminated sites in the area had
been paved over to prevent infiltration of precipitation.
Data Review
This data section summarizes the leachate and groundwater monitoring program for the OU2
containment cell and OU1/OU3 groundwater monitoring associated with the DN APL and dissolved-
phase plumes. This data review section will focus on the most recent sampling event, which was
conducted in February 2022 and is summarized in the 2022 Annual O&M Report. Historic trends
observed during this FYR period (2018 through 2022) will also be discussed.
Leachate and groundwater samples collected during this FYR period were analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs
and metals. The ROD and ARODs identify benzene, benzo(a)pyrene and naphthalene as site COCs for
groundwater. In the 2013 FYR Report, EPA identified detections of vinyl chloride and solvent-related
contaminants that needed further evaluation. In fiscal year 2014, TCEQ assumed responsibility for
O&M duties. TCEQ added arsenic to the list of chemicals to be monitored. The 2022 Annual O&M
Report compares results against preliminary remediation goals (PRGs) for COCs, as defined in the ROD
or Texas Risk Reduction Program (TRRP) PCLs for all analyzed constituents not specified as COCs.
This data review section will include a discussion of all analyzed constituents.
A map of all monitoring well and leachate sampling locations are presented in Figure F-l in Appendix
F.
The overall conclusions of the data review include:
• OIJ1: sampling indicates the contamination in the shallow aquifer is contained within the TI
Zone. The only exceedance in 2022 was carbazole.
• OU2: the containment cell appears to be functioning as intended.
16
-------
• 0U3: sampling indicates that the thickness and extent of DNAPL inside the TI Zone has
stabilized throughout the FYR period. Most dissolved-phase constituent concentrations have
generally declined within the TI Zone, though others remain inconsistent. However, the
northwest part of the dissolved and DNAPL plume remains ill-defined. EPA is investigating the
northwest plume.
OU2 Soil Containment Cell - Leachate Monitoring Program
The containment cell leachate monitoring program was performed concurrently with the annual
groundwater monitoring/gauging event (March 2022) and the gauging-only event (June 2022). During
the monitoring and gauging events, the depth to liquid in the one LCS and four LDS sump risers were
measured (LCS, LDS-NW, LDS-SW, LDS-SE, and LDS-NE, shown in Figure F-3 in Appendix F).
Generally, fluid thickness measurements during this FYR period were similar to past thickness
measurements. In 2022, fluid thickness was lower than normal due to decreased rainfall compared to the
previous five years. Figure F-2 in Appendix F shows measured leachate fluid thickness. The LCS and
LDS appear to be operating as intended.
TCEQ also collected leachate and groundwater samples from the sumps and the six monitoring wells
(MW-22S, MW-23S, MW-24S, MW-25S, MW-26S and MW-27S) surrounding the containment system
and analyzed them for metals, VOCs and SVOCs. In the leachate system, arsenic exceeded its PCL in
sumps LCS and LDS-NW during this FYR period. No other PCL or PRG exceedances occurred.
However, PRGs and PCLs are action levels that only apply to groundwater, not soil containment cell
leachate; they are only provided as a reference.
In the groundwater monitoring wells surrounding the leachate system, no COCs nor other monitored
constituents exceeded their respective PRGs or PCLs. Tables 3, 5 and 7 of the 2022 Annual Operation
and Monitoring Report provide full analytical results for groundwater monitoring wells, leachate
detection sumps and the leachate collection sump.
OIJ1 and OU3 - Outside the TI Zone Boundary
Shallow monitoring wells outside the TI Zone boundary are located around the containment cell and
discussed above. None of these wells exceeded PRGs for site COCs benzene, benzo(a)pyrene and
naphthalene during this FYR period.
Within the interbedded unit, no Site COCs were detected within the past five years at concentrations
above their respective PRG limits in groundwater monitoring wells outside of the TI Zone (MW-49I and
MW-50I, as shown on Figure F-1 in Appendix F). MW-49I was not sampled in 2020, 2021 or 2022 due
to access issues. The 2022 Annual Operation and Maintenance Report recommended installation of a
permanent monitoring well west of the TI Zone boundary to replace MW-49I to monitor potential
westward COC migration beyond the TI Zone boundary. However, there are currently no monitoring
wells being sampled in the area northwest of the TI Zone boundary. Tables 4, 6 and 8 in the 2022
Annual Operation and Monitoring Report provide analytical data for monitoring wells outside of the TI
Zone boundary. Figure F-4 shows the estimated extent of DNAPL. A Quality Assurance Sampling Plan
was developed in April 2023 to investigate the DNAPL and dissolved plume on the northwestern side of
the TI Zone and EPA is currently working on getting access to install monitoring wells for the
investigation.
OIJ 1 and OU3 - Within the TI Zone Boundary
The current groundwater monitoring activities include water level and DNAPL gauging in affected
interbedded unit wells. It also includes water level gauging and groundwater sampling in interbedded
17
-------
unit wells without DNAPL and select monitoring wells in the shallow unit. Sampling is conducted
annually and gauging, including DNAPL thickness measurements, is conducted on a semiannual basis.
DNAPL
Maps showing the current estimated extent of DN APL within the site boundary (Figure F-4) and the
estimated extent from 2018 to 2022 (Figure F-5) are in Appendix F.
In the previous FYR period, DNAPL thickness appeared to be increasing. During this FYR period,
DN APL thickness has varied in most wells where it is present but does not appear to have increased or
decreased since 2018 and is higher than 2013 in most wells. DN APL thickness in most wells decreased
during the June 2022 sampling event and future monitoring will determine if this the beginning of a
trend. DNAPL has not been observed in any new wells. Table F-l and Figure F-6 show cumulative
DN APL thickness measurements over time.
MW-47I, the furthest downgradient well where DNAPL is observed, has stabilized at about 3.5 feet of
DNAPL thickness over this FYR period (Table F-l). One anomalous measurement of 9.4 feet occurred
in June 2018. TCEQ determined that the measurement was the result of field error due to DN APL
smearing based on measurements collected in April and June 2019 and discussed in Appendix C of the
2019 Annual O&M Report.
DN APL thickness in MW-37I, the furthest northwest well near the TI Zone boundary, had been steadily
increasing throughout the period of record, until 2018-2020, when it appeared to stabilize slightly at
over 5 feet of thickness (Table F-l). However, between February and June of 2021, the measured
thickness decreased drastically from 6.0 feet to 2.4 feet. Variation in measurements taken in 2022 (4.9
feet in March and 3.1 feet in June) indicate potential DNAPL plume instability in this area.
Figure F-5 shows the approximate extent of DN APL on an annual basis from 2018 to 2022. To the
extent the DNAPL plume can be delineated, it has been generally stable during this period. An
investigation to better define the plume in the northwest area of the TI Zone is ongoing.
Shallow Unit
Within the shallow unit, no Site COCs (benzene, naphthalene, and benzo(a)pyrene) exceeded their
respective PRGs inside the TI Zone in this FYR period. Full analytical data for the shallow unit is
presented in Tables 3 through 8 in the 2022 Annual O&M Report.
Interbedded Unit
In some sampling events during this FYR period. Site COCs benzene and naphthalene exceeded PRGs,
but not consistently, in three interbedded unit wells: MW-46I, which is downgradient of the Site, and
MW-35I and MW-34I, which are within the Site boundary (Figure F-l, Table F-2). Benzo(a)pyrene was
not exceeded in this FYR period in this unit.
Other Monitored Constituents - Shallow and Interbedded Units
The 2013 FYR Report identified detections of vinyl chloride and solvent-related contaminants that
needed further evaluation. The 2013 FYR report also included detections of PCP within the TI Zone.
PCP was not identified as a final COC in the 1988 ROD because at that time this contaminant was
below detection in soil and groundwater. Vinyl chloride is a solvent-based contaminant and is typically
not associated with creosote contamination as indicated in the 1987 RI Report. The 1987 RI Report
postulated that activity from other nearby sources or possibly localized dumping contributed to vinyl
chloride detection in one of the northeast most off-site well. The 2013 FYR showed that while these
18
-------
contaminants were routinely sampled over the years, the analytical methods did not have low enough
sample detection limits to meet the levels of required performance under TRRP. In fiscal year 2014,
TCEQ assumed responsibility for O&M duties, and groundwater was monitored for solvent-related
constituents and Site-related constituents. TCEQ also added arsenic to the list of chemicals to be
monitored. This section summarizes the results of these and other contaminants that are now being
detected due to the use of more sensitive analytical methods.
Currently there is no known exposure to the contaminants in groundwater outside the TI Zone boundary.
Commercial buildings on-site and neighboring residents access water from the City of Houston's water
supply, which obtains drinking water from the deep Evangeline Aquifer 10 miles from the Site, or a
surface water reservoir located over 20 miles from the Site
Vinyl Chloride and PCP
Tables F-3 and F-4 present concentrations of vinyl chloride and PCP, respectively, in wells discussed
here. The PCL for PCP was not exceeded in the 2022 monitoring event and the PCL for vinyl chloride
was only exceeded in one well, MW-45I, which is downgradient of the Site within the TI Zone. MW-
37S, in the shallow sand unit on-site, generally exceeded the vinyl chloride PCL in 2010-2012 sampling
events, then met the standard for five years until again exceeding it from 2018 to 2020 and then
decreasing below the PCL again in 2021 and 2022 (Table F-3). Similarly, MW-45I, which is in the
interbedded unit in the TI Zone off-site, historically exceeded standards before decreasing to meet them
for several years. The concentration has been variable since, exceeding the PCL in 2017, 2020 and 2022,
and falling below it in 2018, 2019 and 2021.
Concentrations of PCP in previously exceeding wells have improved over this FYR period (Table F-4).
MW-34I, in the interbedded unit on-site, consistently exceeded the PCL for PCP until 2017. However,
samples from the well have been below the PCP standard during this FYR period. Likewise, MW-46I,
which is in the interbedded unit within the TI Zone boundary off-site, exceeded the PCP standard until
2013, then decreased below the standard for three years before exceeding it again in 2017. This well has
also been below the PCP standard since 2018.
Other Monitored Contaminants
Table F-5 shows non-COC chemicals exceeding TRRP Tier 1 PCLs during the 2022 sampling event in
both the shallow and interbedded units. All exceedances occurred within the TI Zone boundary and
mostly in the interbedded unit, with one exceedance in the shallow unit. Arsenic concentrations exceed
the PCL in four on-site wells (MW-28I, MW-3 11, MW-34I and MW-35I) and one off-site well (MW-
461), all of which are in the interbedded unit. The 1987 RI Report indicated that arsenic compounds
were not used in the wood treatment process until the early 1970's and were not expected at this Site, as
the wood treatment processing ceased in 1964. The 1987 RI Report also indicated that all of the
groundwater samples were also analyzed for inorganic compounds. Elevated concentrations of arsenic,
chromium, and lead were detected in individual wells, but there was no pattern of elevated
concentrations of metal in the groundwater samples related to the location of creosote contamination.
The results indicate that inorganic contamination (associated with wood treatment) of the groundwater is
not present. The 1988 ROD indicated that a remedial level for arsenic was not developed because
arsenic was only found with the free phase creosote in one well. Collection and treatment of
groundwater to attain the benzene level would collect the free phase and remove the arsenic.
Concentrations of carbazole in 2022 exceeded the PCL in MW-54S, an on-site, shallow unit well that
has generally exceeded the PCL for carbazole. Additionally, MW-45I exceeded the PCL for 1,1-
19
-------
dichloroethylene in 2022. This off-site, interbedded unit well has typically exceeded this standard for its
entire period of record.
Site Inspection
The Site inspection took place on 1 /24/2023. Participants included Rajalakshmi Josiam, Karen Berecz,
Cheryl Nichols and Jason McKinney from EPA, Christopher Siegel from TCEQ, Elizabeth Hartson
from EPA contractor Weston Solutions, and Treat Suotni and Kim Johnson Chase from EPA FYR
support contractor Skeo. The purpose of the inspection was to assess the protectiveness of the remedy.
Participants gathered in front of the food warehouse business, in the southwest corner of the Site and
proceeded to the southwest and northeast ISS areas. The southern portion of the Site is surrounded by
fencing, which is gated and locked outside of normal business hours. Monitoring wells observed were
secured and locked. The Site is vegetated with well-established grasses, which are mowed five times per
year. Drainage features were in good shape with no apparent erosion nor overgrowth of vegetation.
Participants then proceeded to the northern portion of the site where the containment cell is located. This
area is surrounded by security fence and accessed through two locked gates. The containment cell is also
covered with well-established, mowed grasses. Grasses on the side slopes of the containment cell were
not mowed because soils were too wet during the last mowing. The side slopes were otherwise in good
condition, with no apparent erosion. Overall, no erosion, subsidence, animal burrows or other issues
were observed on or surrounding the containment cell. Drainage features were in good condition with
rock lining and appropriate grass vegetation to prevent erosion by runoff. Participants also walked on
top of the containment cell to observe the LCS and four leachate detection system risers (LDS-SE, LDS-
NE, LDS-NW, and LDS-SW), which appeared to be secured and in good condition.
Site inspection participants then walked along the southwest area of the Site behind the casting facility
business and the food warehouse business to observe the flush-mounted monitoring wells, which were
all locked and in good condition. Both facilities appeared to have good ventilation due to open garage
doors and large ventilation fans at the food warehouse. EPA and Skeo spoke to residents in the
neighborhood, which is summarized in the interview section of this report.
After the site inspection, Skeo staff visited Houston Central Library, the designated Site's information
repository. Library staff confirmed that they had disposed of the documents including previous FYRs
they had kept on hardcopy files.
The Site inspection checklist is in Appendix D. Photographs of the Site both before remedial action and
during the Site inspection are in Appendix E.
V. TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
QUESTION A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents9
Question A Summary:
OU2
The OU2 remedy included consolidation of wastes in a containment cell and ICs to prevent disturbance
of the containment cell. Current monitoring requirements include a network of leachate collection and
20
-------
leak detection sumps. Current monitoring indicates that the containment cell portion of the OU2 remedy
continues to operate and function as intended by the decision documents. The containment cell area is
enclosed by a locked chain-link fence to prevent disturbance of the remedy and the containment cell is
on the parcel owned by the United States. However, ICs are not yet in place to prevent disturbance of
the containment cell.
OIJ1 and OU3
The OIJ 1 and OU3 remedy included ISS, monitored natural attenuation and a TI Waiver for
groundwater. In addition, the remedy included ICs and long-term monitoring. The required ICs have not
been put in place yet. Based on the data review, the DNAPL plume within the TI Zone appears to have
stabilized and concentrations of dissolved-phase contaminants have decreased or are variable. However,
results from the 2017 CPT/MIP investigation in the interbedded unit identified detections of VOCs and
SVOCs, including benzene and PCP at one of the locations and benzo(a)pyrene at a second location, all
of which were below current groundwater standards. 1,1-dichloroethene and vinyl chloride were also
detected at one of the locations but were above current groundwater standards. 1,1-dichloroethene and
vinyl chloride are solvent based contaminants and typically not associated with creosote contamination
as indicated in the 1987 RI report. The 1987 RI Report postulated that activity from other nearby sources
or possibly localized dumping contributed to 1,1-dichloroethene and vinyl chloride detections in one of
the northeast most off-site wells. The 2018 FYR Report recommended installing a permanent
monitoring well at boring location MIP-C5 to monitor concentrations of COCs and assess the
protectiveness of the remedy and the TI Zone boundary. This work is in progress and will support
whether or not the remedy is functioning as intended by the decision documents and provide information
for the next steps to be taken.
QUESTION B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels and RAOs used at the time
of the remedy selection still valid9
Question 6 Summary:
The exposure assumptions, cleanup levels, and RAOs used at the time of the remedy selection are still
valid, however, the toxicity values have changed. The Site remains in commercial use. The TI Zone
encompasses commercial and residential areas. The chemical-specific applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements (ARARs) for groundwater presented in the 2009 A ROD were reviewed
(Appendix G) and demonstrate that the ARARs remain valid.
Toxicity values have changed for some soil and groundwater COCs. The cleanup goals were evaluated
(Appendix H) to determine if revisions are warranted and whether the revisions affect the proposed TI
Zone boundary. Based on a screening-level risk evaluation of the soil and groundwater cleanup goals,
soil cleanup goals remain valid for commercial or industrial land uses. Groundwater cleanup goals
remain valid for benzene and benzo(a)pyrene. However, a screening-level risk assessment of the on-site
and off-site (TI Zone boundary) groundwater cleanup goals (Table H-3) indicates that the cleanup goals
for naphthalene exceed a cancer risk of 1 x 10"4 and a noncancer hazard quotient (HQ) of 1. The cleanup
goal for naphthalene was based on a state standard. The remedy remains protective because there are
currently no known completed exposure pathways since groundwater is not being used in this area.
Additionally, the 201 1 A ROD waived cleanup goals within the TI Zone.
Other monitored chemicals have exceeded PRGs and/or TRRP Tier 1 PCLs during this FYR period in
both the shallow and intermediate units. All exceedances were within the TI Zone boundary. However,
exceedances in MW-46I (benzene and naphthalene) and MW-37S (vinyl chloride), which are both near
21
-------
the northwestern/northern border of the TI Zone, support the need for the ongoing investigation to
evaluate the TI Zone boundary.
A screening-level vapor intrusion evaluation was conducted in the 2018 FYR Report using the EPA's
Vapor Intrusion Screening Level (V1SL) calculator, which concluded that vapor intrusion risks for
naphthalene in well MW-54S were greater than EPA's noncancer HQ of 1. This well, however, is not
near existing buildings. Therefore, the 2018 FYR Report recommended further evaluation of vapor
intrusion using current data from appropriate wells (near buildings) and using multiple lines of evidence.
This effort is ongoing by EPA.
This FYR conducted a screening-level vapor intrusion evaluation using EPA's VISL calculator,
incorporating current toxicity and again used shallow unit wells with the highest concentration of
volatile compounds. As shown in Table H-4, the 2020 maximum concentration of naphthalene on-site at
MW-54S is equivalent to a screening-level residential risk greater than EPA's cancer risk management
range, while the noncancer HQ for both industrial and residential land use exceeds 1.0. These results
support the need for further evaluation of the on-site vapor intrusion pathway following EPA guidance
requiring the use of multiple lines of evidence to determine if this is a completed exposure pathway.
There are currently two active industrial buildings in use on-site. Other shallow monitoring wells located
near the building include OW-1, MW-34S, MW-35S and MW-39S. MW-39S, MW-34S and MW-35S
which have not been sampled since 2014. These wells were included in TCEQ's 2023 sampling list.
OW-1 had a naphthalene concentration of 0.062 |ig/L in 2022. This well is located on the downgradient
side of the building further from the source area and is not ideally located for a conservative evaluation
of potential vapor intrusion. This is further rationale for conducting more vapor intrusion investigations
using multiple lines of evidence. A Quality Assurance Sampling Plan was prepared in March 2023
identifying 23 locations across the southern portion of the Site for passive soil gas sampling and the
sampling is being conducted in June 2023.
QUESTION C : Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness
of the remedy9
No other information has come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy.
This FYR assessed the vulnerability to the effects of climate and weather hazards. The Site does not lie
within a 100-year flood plain and is not considered at increased risk or impact from drought and
wildfire. The physical remedy components have been in place since 201 1.
22
-------
VI. ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS
Issiics/Kccom iiioii(l:il ions
OU(s) without Issues/Recommendations Identified in the FYR:
None.
Issues and Recommendations Identified in the FYR:
OU(s): 1
Issue Category: Monitoring
Issue: A conservative screening-level risk review identified vapor intrusion risks
for naphthalene at well MW-54S greater than EPA's noncancer hazard quotient of
1 for industrial exposure.
Recommendation: Complete the current evaluation of the vapor intrusion
pathw ay near well MW-54S and adjacent areas.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Party
Responsible
Oversight
Party/Support
Agency
Milestone Date
No
Yes
EPA
EPA/TCEQ
6/26/2024
OU(s): 3
Issue Category: Changed Site Conditions
Issue: The DNAPL and the dissolved plume may not be fully delineated.
Recommendation: Complete the current investigation to evaluate and delineate
the DNAPL and the dissolved plume on the northwestern side of the Tl Zone.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Party
Responsible
Oversight
Party/Support
Agency
Milestone Date
No
Yes
EPA
EPA/TCEQ
6/26/2024
OU(s): 1, 2 and 3
Issue Category: Institutional Controls
Issue: Soil and groundwater ICs required by Site decision documents have not yet
been implemented.
Recommendation: Implement ICs required in decision documents.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Party
Responsible
Oversight
Party/Support
Agency
Milestone Date
No
Yes
EPA/TCEQ
EPA/TCEQ
6/26/2025
23
-------
OU(s): 1 and 3
Issue Category: Monitoring
Issue: Contaminants that have not been formally identified in a decision
document as COCs. such as vinyl chloride, pentachlorophenol. arsenic, carbazole
and 1.1 -dichloroethylene. exceed groundwater standards.
Recommendation: Re-evaluate the contaminants that exceed groundwater
standards and determine the impact on the remedy.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Party
Responsible
Oversight
Party/Support
Agency
Milestone Date
No
Yes
EPA
EPA/TCEQ
6/26/2025
OTHER FINDINGS
Several additional recommendations were identified during the FYR. These recommendations do not
affect current and/or future protectiveness.
• Off-site well MW-49I was not sampled in 2020, 2021 or 2022 due to access issues. Either install
a permanent monitoring well west of the TI Zone boundary to replace MW-49I and monitor
potential westward COC migration beyond the TI Zone boundary or secure access to MW-49I
for continued monitoring.
• Update Site Repository.
• Update Community Involvement Plan and increase communications and public involvement
regarding the Site.
VII. PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT
I'rotectiMMiess Slalcmcnl(s)
Operable Unit: Protectiveness Determination:
1 Short-term Protective
Protectiveness Statement:
The remedy at OU1 currently protects human health and the environment because there are no
completed exposure pathways. For the remedy to be protective over the long term, the following
actions need to be taken:
• Complete evaluation of the vapor intrusion pathway using multiple lines of evidence.
• Re-evaluate the contaminants that exceed groundwater standards for the Site to determine
impact on the remedy.
• Continue to work toward implementing ICs required in decision documents.
I'rotectiMMiess Sl2iteinent(s)
Operable Unit: Protectiveness Determination:
2 Short-term Protective
Protectiveness Statement:
The remedy at OU2 currently protects human health and the environment because there are no
completed exposure pathways. For the remedy to be protective over the long term, the following
24
-------
action needs to be taken: continue to work toward implementing ICs required in decision
documents on-site to ensure protectiveness.
I'rotectiMMiess StitlemcnUs)
Operable Unit: Protectiveness Determination:
3 Short-term Protective
Protectiveness Statement:
The remedy at OU3 currently protects human health and the environment because there are no
completed exposure pathways. For the remedy to be protective over the long term, the following
actions need to be taken:
• Complete the investigation to evaluate and delineate the DNAPL and dissolved plume.
• Re-evaluate the contaminants that exceed groundwater standards for the Site to
determine impact on the remedy.
• Continue to work toward implementing ICs required in decision documents.
Protectiveness Determination:
Short-term Protective
Sitewide IVoUtUmmicss Slitlemciil
Protectiveness Statement:
The remedy for the Site 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:
• Complete evaluation of the vapor intrusion pathway using multiple lines of evidence.
• Complete the investigation to evaluate and delineate the DNAPL and dissolved plume.
• Re-evaluate the contaminants that exceed groundwater standards for the Site to
determine impact on the remedy.
• Continue to work toward implementing ICs required in decision documents.
VIII. NEXT REVIEW
The next FYR Report for the North Cavalcade Street Superfund Site is required five years from the
completion date of this review.
25
-------
APPENDIX A - REFERENCE LIST
Annual Operation and Maintenance Report, Fiscal Year 2018, North Cavalcade St Superfund Site,
Houston, Harris County Texas. Prepared for TCEQ by Ensafe. November 30, 2018.
Annual Operation and Maintenance Report, Fiscal Year 2019, North Cavalcade St Superfund Site,
Houston, Harris County Texas. Prepared for TCEQ by Ensafe. September 10, 2019.
Annual Operation and Maintenance Report, Fiscal Year 2020, North Cavalcade St Superfund Site,
Houston, Harris County Texas. Prepared for TCEQ by Ensafe. August 27, 2020.
Annual Operation and Maintenance Report, Fiscal Year 2021, North Cavalcade St Superfund Site,
Houston, Harris County Texas. Prepared for TCEQ by Ensafe. August 30, 2021.
Annual Operation and Maintenance Report, Fiscal Year 2022, North Cavalcade St Superfund Site,
Houston, Harris County Texas. Prepared for TCEQ by Ensafe. August 3 1, 2022.
Explanation of Significant Difference, North Cavalcade Street Superfund Site, Houston, TX. EPA
Region 6. July 1994.
Fifth Five Year Review Report for North Cavalcade Street Superfund Site, Harris County, TX. EPA
Region 6. June 2018.
Fourth Five Year Review Report for North Cavalcade Street Superfund Site, Harris County, TX. EPA
Region 6. September 2013.
Focused Feasibility Study Report, North Cavalcade Street Superfund Site, Harris County, TX.
CH2MHill for EPA Region 6. June 2008.
Preliminary Close-Out Report, North Cavalcade Street Superfund Site, Harris County, TX. EPA Region
6. August 201 1.
Quality Assurance Sampling Plan for North Cavalcade Street Superfund Site Shallow Aquifer Northeast
of Cavalcade St. & Maury St. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6 by Weston
Solutions. March 2023.
Record of Decision, North Cavalcade Street Superfund Site, Houston, TX. EPA Region 6. June 1988.
Record of Decision Amendment, North Cavalcade Street Superfund Site, Houston, TX. EPA Region 6.
September 2009.
Record of Decision Amendment, North Cavalcade Street Superfund Site, Houston, TX. EPA Region 6.
August 201 1.
Remedial Investigation Report for North Cavalcade Street Site, Houston, TX. Prepared by Camp
Dresser and McKee. October 28, 1987.
A-l
-------
APPENDIX B - SITE CHRONOLOGY
Table B-l: Site Chronology
Event
Date
Houston Creosoting Company, Inc. developed the property for wood
treating
1946
Site operations ceased due to a bank foreclosure
1961
The bank sold the site property in 1964; the property was split into tracts.
under three different owners
1964
The commercial owners built two warehouses on the southwest part of
the Site
1980
EPA proposed the Site for listing on the NPL
October 1984
EPA sampling confirmed contamination in soil, ditch sediment and
shallow groundwater
September 1985 to
November 1987
EPA finali/cd the Site's listing on the NPL
June 10, 1986
EPA completed the Site's Rl
October 28, 1987
EPA signed the Site's ROD. It outlined remedies for OU1 (shallow
groundwater) and OU2 (soils)
June 28, 1988
First cleanup action initiated
September 12, 1991
TCEQ (then TNRCC) implemented a field pilot study for OU2. It failed
to demonstrate that biorcinediation could reduce cPAH concentrations
below ng/L
1992
TCEQ began groundwater DNAPL pump-and-treat operations at the Site
for shallow groundwater (OU1)
December 27. 1993
EPA signed an ESD to raise soil cleanup criteria for cPAHs to 30 parts
per million
August 8, 1994
Operation of the groundwater pump-and-treat system was suspended to
reevaluate system capacity and inefficiencies in handling larger volumes
of extracted DNAPL
December 1995
Construction of the biotreatinent facilitv for soils finished
Mav 18, 1996
Operation of the biotreatinent facilitv began
June 4, 1996
EPA issued the Site's first FYR Report
Julv 1998
Efforts to biorcinediate contaminated soils were discontinued due to
inability of the selected remedial approach to reach the ESD-rcvised
cleanup goal
August 1998
TCEQ completed the first groundwater investigation and determined the
initial extent of the DNAPL and contaminant plume
November 1998
Soils were placed in a temporary treatment (containment) cell, covered
with an impermeable liner awaiting final disposition by EPA and TCEQ
December 1999
TCEQ completed a phase 11 groundwater investigation that confirmed the
presence of DN APL and contaminated groundwater in the interbedded
unit (OU3) below the shallow sand aquifer (OU1)
March 2000
Modifications to the groundwater pump-and-treat system began to
expand capacity and accommodate the DNAPL volume being extracted
from the Site
June 2000
Modifications to the groundwater treatment system finished and the
svstcm was placed back online
August 2001
EPA issued the Site's second FYR Report
September 2003
The groundwater treatment system was suspended pending evaluation of
the deeper DNAPL and groundwater contamination in the interbedded
unit, and consideration of other remedial options for both groundwater
units (OU 1 and OU3) and soils (OU2), per EPA and TCEQ agreement
October 2003
EPA and TCEQ completed more field work at the Site. The extent of
groundwater contamination was delineated off-site for the interbedded
unit and confirmed for the shallow sand unit. The two DNAPL source
areas (on-site) were better defined to support reassessment of the existing
January 2004
B-l
-------
Li csrs
Date
remedy and other remedial options. EPA formally designated the
contaminated interbedded unit as OU3
EPA completed the evaluation of remedial alternatives for soils (OU2)
and groundwater (OU1 and OU3) detailed in a focused feasibility study
(EPA. 2008)
June 2008
EPA issued the Site's third FYR Report
September 2008
EPA issued the A ROD Proposed Plan for soils (OU2) and groundwater
(OU 1 and OU3)
July 2009
The EPA A ROD selected ISS for the two DNAPL source areas to
minimize the continued impacts of free-phase DNAPL at these two
locations on dissolvcd-phase groundwater (OU 1 and OU3). The final
remedy for soils was selected to cap contaminated soils in place,
changing the initial treatment rcmcdv to containment
September 2009
The 2011 A ROD revised RAOs to include containment of the
groundwater plumes through natural processes, implementation of ICs to
prevent human exposure to groundwater by restricting access to
groundwater wells in the TI Zone, and removal of DNAPL in monitoring
wells until retrieval is no longer practicable (source removal)
August 2011
EPA issued the Site's Preliminary Close-Out Report
August 2011
The Remedial Action Report documenting the completion of the remedy
for soils at OU2 was completed, including reconstruction of an existing
containment cell cover and installation of permanent monitoring wells
around the containment cell
September 2011
EPA issued the Remedial Action Report for OU 1 and OU3. It
documented the completion of groundwater source area stabilization and
installation of the long-term monitoring well network (installed to
demonstrate the effectiveness of the stabilization remedy for source
control and the containment remedy for the dissolvcd-phase groundwater
plume)
September 2012
EPA issued the Site's fourth FYR Report
September 2013
TCEQ assumed O&M responsibilities
2013 (Fiscal Year 2014)
TCEQ conducted a CPT and MIP evaluation to assess potential
downgradient migration of groundwater contaminants in an area
northwest of the Site
July and August 2017
EPA issued the Site's fifth FYR Report
June 2018
EPA began a shallow and intermediate aquifer investigation
August 8, 2022
EPA began a vapor intrusion investigation
August 8, 2022
B-2
-------
APPENDIX C - PRESS NOTICE
» Tl
:/
North Cavalcade Street Superfund Site
Public Notice
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 6
November 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
North Cavalcade Street
Superfund site (Site) in
Houston, Texas. From 1946
to 1961, wood-preserving
facilities operated on site..
These operations resulted in
the contamination of the Site
with hazardous chemicals.
The site-wide remedy
implemented included the
containment and capping
of soils and in-place
solidification of groundwater
source areas. The remedy
to be implemented includes
institutional controls
to restrict installation
of groundwater wells.
Operation and maintenance
activities as well as
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 June 2023.
The report will be made
available to the public at the
following local information
repository:
Houston Central Library
Julia Ideson Building,
Government Documents Area
550 McKinney Street
Houston, TX 77002
(832) 393-1662
Site status updates are
available on the Internet at
https://www.epa.gov/
superfund/north-cavalcade
All media inquiries should
be directed to the EPA
Press Office at
(214)665-2200
For more information about the Site, contact:
Karen Berecz/Remedial
Project Manager
(214)665-3165
or 1-800-533-3508 (toll-free)
or by email at
Berecz,Karen®epa.gov
J.ason McKinney/Community
Involvement Coordinator
(214)665-8132
or 1-800-533-3508 (toll-free)
or by email at
mckinnev.iason@epa.gov
% g
Sitio Superfund Calle Cavalcade Norte
Aviso Publico
Region 6 de la Agenda de Proteccion Ambiental
delosEstadosllnidos
Noviembre 2022
La Region 6 de la Agenda de
Proteccion Ambiental (EPA,
por sus siglas en irtgl6s) llevari
a cabo la sexta revision de
cinco afios de la implementation
y rendimiento del plan de
limpieza del sitio Superfund
(sitio) Calle Cavalcade Norte en
Houston, Texas. De 1946 a 1961,
instalaciones de conservation
de madera operaron en e! sitio.
Estas operaciones resultaron
en la contamination del Sitio
con quimicos peligrosos.
Las acciones correctives
implementadas para todo el
sitio incluyeron !a contention y
el recubrimiento de los suelos
y la solidification en lugar de
las areas donde se originan
las aguas subterraneas. Las
acciones que se implementaran
incluyen coritroles institucionales
para restringir la instalacion
de pozos de agua subterranea.
Las actividades de operation
y mantenimiento, as! como
el monitoreo de las aguas
subterraneas, siguen en curso.
La revision de cinco afios
determinara si los remedios aun
protegen la salud humana y el
medio ambiente. La revision de
cinco afios esta programada
para completarse en iunio de
2022.
El informe estara disponible
para el publico en el siguiente
repositorio de information local:
Biblioteca Central de Huston
Julia Ideson Building, Area de
pocumentos Gubemamentales
550 McKinney Street
Houston, Texas77002
(832)393-1662
Actualizaciones sobre el estado
del sitio estan disponibles por
Internet en
Todas las preguntasde los
mediosdeben dirigirse a ia
Oficina de la Prensa dela
EPA al (214) 665-2200
Para obtener mas Information sobre el Sitio, comuniquese con:
Karen Berecz /Gerente del
Proyectode Limpieza
(214)665-3165
o 1-800-533-3508 (nomerogratuito)
o por correo electronico a
ere
Jason McKinney/Coordinadorde
Participation Comunitaria
(214) 665-6132
o l -800-533-3508 (niirnero gratuito)
o por correo electronico a
mckinnev.iason@epa.gov
C-l
-------
APPENDIX D - SITE INSPECTION CHECKLIST
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SITE INSPECTION CHECKLIST
I. SITE INFORMATION
Site Name: North Cavalcade Street Superfund Site
Date of Inspection: 1/24/2023
Location and Region: Houston, Texas, Region 6
EPA ID: TXD980873343
Agency, Office or Company Leading the Five-Year
Review: EPA Region 6
Weather/Temperature: RainvAvindv. 60°F
Remedy Includes: (check all that apply)
Landfill cover/containment
Access controls
Institutional controls
~ Groundwater pump and treatment
~ Surface water collection and treatment
~ Other:
Monitored natural attenuation
Groundwater containment
~ Vertical barrier walls
Attachments: S 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 O by phone Phone: _
Problems, suggestions Q Report attached:
Date
2. O&M Staff
Name Title
Interviewed ~ at site ~ at office Q 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.
Contact
Name
Problems/suggestions ~ Report attached:.
Title
Date
Phone
Agency.
Contact
Name
Title
Date
Phone
Problems/suggestions ~ Report attached:.
Agency
Contact
Name Title
Problems/suggestions ~ Report attached:
Date
Phone
Agency
Contact
Name Title
Problems/suggestions ~ Report attached:
Date
Phone
Agency
Contact
Name Title
Prob le ms/suggest io ns ~ Report attached:
Date
Phone
D-l
-------
4.
Other Interviews (optional) [x] Report attached: See Appendix 1.
III. ON-SITE DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS VERIFIED (check all that apply)
1.
O&M Documents
~ O&M manual ~ Readily available ~ Up to date ^ N/A
~ As-built drawings ~ Readily available ~ Up to date N/A
~ Maintenance logs ~ Readily available ~ Up to date S N/A
Remarks: There is no on-site field office. O&M documents arc stored at TCEO's office.
2.
Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan
~ Contingency plan/emergency response plan
Remarks:
~ Readily available
~ Readily available
~ Up to date
~ Up to date
Sn/a
0N/A
3.
O&M and OSHA Training Records
Remarks:
~ Readily available
~ Up to date
Sn/a
4.
Permits and Service Agreements
~ Air discharge permit
~ Effluent discharge
~ Waste disposal, POTW
n Other Dcrmits:
Remarks:
~ Readily available
~ Readily available
~ Readily available
~ Readily available
~ Up to date
~ Up to date
~ Up to date
~ Up to date
0N/A
0N/A
§N/A
0N/A
5.
Gas Generation Records
Remarks:
~ Readily available
~ Up to date
§N/A
6.
Settlement Monument Records
Remarks:
~ Readily available
~ Up to date
0N/A
7.
Groundwater Monitoring Records
Remarks:
[3 Readily available
13 Up to date
~ n/a
8.
Leachate Extraction Records
Remarks:
~ Readily available
~ Up to date
0N/A
9.
Discharge Compliance Records
~ Air ~ Readily available
~ Water (effluent) ~ Readily available
Remarks:
~ Up to date
~ Up to date
Sn/a
Sn/a
10.
Daily Access/Security Logs ~ Readily available ~ Up to date E3 N/A
Remarks: The northern portion of the Site is surrounded bv a locked securitv fence. Fencing was not a
remedv component, but the fencing protects the OU2 remedv and monitoring wells until ICs can be
established. The southern portion of the Site is surrounded bv a chain-link fence with a gate that is
closed and locked outside of on-site business hours
D-2
-------
IV. O&M COSTS
O&M Organization
~ State in-housc
~ PRP in-housc
~ Federal facility in-house
~
[x] Contractor for state
O Contractor for PRP
~ Contractor for Federal facility
2.
O&M Cost Records
~ Readily available O Up to date
~ Funding nicclianisni/agrccnicnt in place £3 Unavailable
Original O&M cost estimate: __ ____ ~ Breakdown attached
Total annual cost by year for review period if available
From: To:
Date
Date
Total cost
From:
To:
Date
Date
Total cost
From:
To:
Date
Date
Total cost
From:
To:
Date
Date
Total cost
From:
To:
~ Breakdown attached
~ Breakdown attached
~ Breakdown attached
~ Breakdown attached
~ 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 ^ Applicable ~ N/A
A. Fencing
1. Fencing Damaged ~ Location shown on site map [3 Gates secured [3 N/A
Remarks: Fencing is not a remedy component but is in good shape and limits access to the northern
portion of the Site.
B. Other Access Restrictions
1. Signs and Other Security Measures ~ Location shown on site map ~ N/A
Remarks: Sign at the gate to the northern portion of the Site.
C. Institutional Controls (ICs)
D-3
-------
Date
Phone
l~l Yes
~
No
IXlN/A
[~l Yes
~
No
|N/A
[~l Yes
No
~ n/a
[~l Yes
~
No
IXIn/a
1. Implementation and Enforcement
Site conditions imply ICs not properly implemented ~ Yes ~ No M N/A
Site conditions imply ICs not being fully enforced Q Yes Q No N/A
Type of monitoring (e.g., self-reporting, drive by):
Frequency:
Responsible party/agency:
Contact Raialakshmi Josiain EPA RPM
Karen Berec/ EPA RPM
Name Title
Reporting is up to date
Reports arc verified by the lead agency
Specific requirements in deed or decision documents have been met
Violations have been reported
Other problems or suggestions: ~ Report attached
ICs were specified in the 2009 AROD as well as the 2011 AROD as part of the remedy. ICs are being
developed, but have not vet been implemented.
2. Adequacy ~ ICs arc adequate ICs arc inadequate Q N/A
Remarks: ICs are required to prevent future exposure to groundwater and soil and to prevent disturbance
of remedy components. ICs will be implemented once the dissolved plume on the northwestern side of the
T1 is evaluated and delineated. .
D. General
1. Vandalism/Trespassing ~ Location shown on site map ^ No vandalism evident
Remarks:
2. Land Use Changes On-Site [3 N/A
Remarks:
3. Land Use Changes Off-Site |^N/A
Remarks:
VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS
A. Roads ^ Applicable ~ N/A
1. Roads Damaged ~ Location shown on site map Roads adequate Q N/A
Remarks: Roads and parking lots on the southern portion of the Site are in good shape. There are no roads
on the northern portion of the Site.
B. Other Site Conditions
Remarks:
VII. LANDFILL COVERS Applicable ~ N/A
A. Landfill Surface
1. Settlement (low spots) ~ Location shown on site map Settlement not evident
Area extent: Depth:
Remarks: The containment cell surface is in good shape. No subsidence was evident.
D-4
-------
2.
Cracks
l~l Location shown on site map
[x] Cracking not evident
Lengths:
Widths:
Depths:
Remarks:
3.
Erosion
Area extent:
Remarks:
l~l Location shown on site map
Erosion not evident
Depth:
4.
Holes
Area extent:
Remarks:
~ Location shown on site map
^ Holes not evident
Depth:
5.
Vegetative Cover
E3 Grass
[x] Cover properly established
E3 No signs of stress
[~l Trees/shrubs (indicate si/e and locations on a diagram)
Remarks: Grass cover is complete and well maintained. The side slopes of the containment cell were
not able to be mowed during the last mowing because of wet ground that could have been damaged
from a mower.
6.
Alternative Cover (e.£
Remarks:
armored rock, concrete)
M N/A
7.
Bulges
Area extent:
Remarks:
~ Location shown on site map
^ Bulges not evident
Height:
8.
Wet Areas/Water Damage Wet areas/water damage not evident
l~l Wet areas
O Location shown on site map
Area extent:
[~l Ponding
~ Location shown on site map
Area extent:
[~l Seeps
~ Location shown on site map
Area extent:
l~l Soft subgrade
O Location shown on site map
Area extent:
Remarks: Site has good drainage.
9.
Slope Instability
O Slides
~ Location shown on site map
1^ No evidence of slope instability
Area extent:
Remarks: Slopes are covered with thick grass cover.
B.
Benches ~ Applicable [3 N/A
(Horizontally constructed mounds of earth placed across a steep landfill side slope to interrupt the slope in
order to slow down the velocity of surface runoff and intercept and convey the runoff to a lined channel.)
1.
Flows Bypass Bench
Remarks:
[~l Location shown on site map
[~l N/A or okay
2.
Bench Breached
Remarks:
l~l Location shown on site map
l~l N/A or okay
3.
Bench Overtopped
l~l Location shown on site map
l~l N/A or okay
D-5
-------
Remarks:
C.
Letdown Channels Applicable ~ N/A
(Channel lined with erosion control mats, riprap, grout bags or gabions that descend down the steep side
slope of the cover and will allow the runoff water collected by the benches to move off of the landfill
cover without creating erosion gullies.)
1.
Settlement (Low spots) ~ Location shown on site map
^ No evidence of settlement
Area extent:
Depth:
Remarks:
2.
Material Degradation ~ Location shown on site map
^1 No evidence of degradation
Material tvpc:
Area extent:
Remarks:
3.
Erosion ~ Location shown on site map
13 No evidence of erosion
Area extent:
Depth:
Remarks:
4.
Undercutting ~ Location shown on site map
^ No evidence of undercutting
Area extent:
Depth:
Remarks:
5.
Obstructions Tvoe:
n Location shown on site man Area extent:
Size:
Remarks:
^ No obstructions
6.
Excessive Vegetative Growth Tvoe:
13 No evidence of excessive growth
~ Vegetation in channels docs not obstruct flow
n Location shown on site man Area extent:
Remarks:
D.
Cover Penetrations [3 Applicable ~ N/A
1.
Gas Vents Q Active
l~l Passive
[~l Properly secured/locked O Functioning O Routinely sampled ~ Good condition
[~l Evidence of leakage at penetration ~ Needs maintenance 13 N/A
Remarks:
2.
Gas Monitoring Probes
[~l Properly secured/locked ~ Functioning O Routinely sampled ~ Good condition
l~l Evidence of leakage at penetration O Needs ma
mtenance ^ N/A
Remarks:
3.
Monitoring Wells (within surface area of landfill)
l~l Properly secured/locked [U Functioning O Routinely sampled O Good condition
D-6
-------
l~l Evidence of leakage at penetration O Needs maintenance ^ N/A
Remarks:
4.
Extraction Wells Leachate
Properly secured/locked ^ Functioning ^ Routinely sampled ^ Good condition
[~l Evidence of leakage at penetration O Needs maintenance ~ N/A
Remarks: A leachate extraction svstem is in place but Dumping has not been reauired due to the low
volume of leachate present.
5.
Settlement Monuments ~ Located ~ Routinely surveyed ^ N/A
Remarks:
E.
Gas Collection and Treatment ~ Applicable N/A
1.
Gas Treatment Facilities
[~l Flaring ~ Thermal destruction ~ Collection for reuse
[~l Good condition ~ Needs maintenance
Remarks:
2.
Gas Collection Wells, Manifolds and Piping
[~l Good condition ~ Needs maintenance
Remarks:
3.
Gas Monitoring Facilities (e.g., gas monitoring of adjacent homes or buildings)
[~l Good condition ~ Needs maintenance ~ N/A
Remarks:
F.
Cover Drainage Layer ^ Applicable ~ N/A
1.
Outlet Pipes Inspected ^ Functioning O N/A
Remarks:
2.
Outlet Rock Inspected ^ Functioning ~ N/A
Remarks:
G.
Detention/Sedimentation Ponds ~ Applicable [3 N/A
1.
Siltation Area extent: Depth: [~~l N/A
O Siltation not evident
Remarks:
2.
Erosion Area extent: Depth:
~ Erosion not evident
Remarks:
3.
Outlet Works ~ Functioning ~ N/A
Remarks:
4.
Dam ~ Functioning ~ N/A
Remarks:
EL Retaining Walls ~ Applicable ^ N/A
D-7
-------
1.
Deformations O Location shown on site map
l~l Deformation not evident
Horizontal displacement: Vertical displacement:
Rotational displacement:
Remarks:
2.
Degradation ~ Location shown on site map
Remarks:
[~l Degradation not evident
I. Perimeter Ditches/Off-Site Discharge ~ Applicable
gN/A
1.
Siltation ~ Location shown on site map
[~l Siltation not evident
Area extent:
Depth:
Remarks:
2.
Vegetative Growth ~ Location shown on site map
~ Vegetation does not impede flow
~ n/a
Area extent:
Tvpe:
Remarks:
3.
Erosion ~ Location shown on site map
[~l Erosion not evident
Area extent:
Depth:
Remarks:
4.
Discharge Structure O Functioning
Remarks:
~ n/a
VIII. VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS ~ Applicable
^ N/A
1.
Settlement O Location shown on site map
l~l Settlement not evident
Area extent:
Depth:
Remarks:
2.
Performance Monitoring Tvpe of monitoring:
~ Performance not monitored
Frcauencv:
[~l Evidence of breaching
Head differential:
Remarks:
IX.
GROUNDWATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES Applicable ~ N/A
A. Groundwater Extraction Wells, Pumps and Pipelines
~ Applicable [3 N/A
1.
Pumps, Wellhead Plumbing and Electrical
~ Good condition ~ All required wells properly operating ~ Needs maintenance ~ N/A
Remarks:
2.
Extraction System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes and Other Appurtenances
~ Good condition Q Needs maintenance
Remarks:
D-8
-------
3.
Spare Parts and Equipment
O Readily available Q Good condition O Requires upgrade Q Needs to be provided
Remarks:
B. Surface Water Collection Structures, Pumps and Pipelines ~ Applicable ^ N/A
1.
Collection Structures, Pumps and Electrical
~ Good condition ~ Needs maintenance
Remarks:
2.
Surface Water Collection System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes and Other Appurtenances
O Good condition Q Needs maintenance
Remarks:
3.
Spare Parts and Equipment
~ Readily available ~ Good condition ~ Requires upgrade ~ Needs to be provided
Remarks:
C.
Treatment System ~ Applicable ^ N/A
1.
Treatment Train (check components that apply)
O Metals removal Q Oil/water separation Q Biorcinediation
~ Air stripping O Carbon adsorbers
n Filters:
n Additive (e.g.. chelation agent, flocculent):
n Others:
~ Good condition ~ Needs maintenance
~ Sampling ports properly marked and functional
O Sampling/maintenance log displayed and up to date
O Equipment properly identified
n Ouantitv of groundwater treated annuallv:
n Ouantitv of surface water treated annuallv:
Remarks:
2.
Electrical Enclosures and Panels (properly rated and functional)
~ N/A ~ Good condition ~ Needs maintenance
Remarks:
3.
Tanks, Vaults, Storage Vessels
~ N/A ~ Good condition ~ Proper secondary containment ~ Needs maintenance
Remarks:
4.
Discharge Structure and Appurtenances
O N/A ~ Good condition ~ Needs maintenance
Remarks:
5.
Treatment Building)*)
D-9
-------
O N/A ~ Good condition (esp. roof and doorways) O Needs repair
O Chemicals and equipment properly stored
Remarks:
6.
Monitoring Wells (pump and treatment remedy)
O Properly secured/locked Q Functioning ~ Routinely sampled O Good condition
O All required wells located Q Needs maintenance O N/A
Remarks:
D. Monitoring Data
1.
Monitoring Data
[x] 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)
Properly secured/locked E3 Functioning ^ Routinely sampled Good condition
E3 All required wells located Q Needs maintenance O N/A
Remarks:
X. OTHER REMEDIES
If there arc remedies applied at the site and not covered above, attach an inspection sheet describing the physical
nature and condition of anv facilitv associated with the rcmcdv. An example would be soil vapor extraction.
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 OU2 soil rcmcdv initially was biotrcatmcnt followed bv containment of treated soils that still
exceeded cleanup goals in an on-site cell. In addition, the soils rcmcdv included ICs to prevent
disturbance of the containment cell and long-term monitoring of lcachate and groundwater immediately
outside the containment cell. For the shallow and intcrbcddcd groundwater zones. OU1 and OU3.
respectively. the rcmcdv began with Dimming and treating of groundwater. DNAPL removal, and
in-situ stabilization of two DNAPL source areas. The final component of the long-term rcmcdv was
establishing a TI Zone and long-term monitoring to ensure the residual containment plumes remain within
the TI Zone.
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 and itscontractor conducted a focused CPT/MIP evaluation to the west of the TI Zone boundarv.
The contractor recommended the installation of a permanent monitoring well at boring location MIP-C5
to continue to monitor concentrations of Site-related chemicals and assess the protcctivcness of the TI
Zone boundarv. An investigation is underway to evaluate and delineate the plume.
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 rcmcdv may be compromised
in the future.
Data since the previous FYR indicate that DNAPL mav be migrating bevond the current northwest TI
Zone boundarv near monitoring well MW-37I and MVV-47I westward near the TI Zone boundarv. An
investigation is underuav to evaluate and delineate the plume.
D.
Opportunities for Optimization
D-10
-------
Describe possible opportunities for optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation of the remedy.
Determine if the TI Zone needs to be revised in areas west and northwest due to dissolved contaminants or
DNAPL in the interbedded unit. In addition, evaluate vapor intrusion in residential and commercial areas
^
D-ll
-------
APPENDIX E - SITE INSPECTION PHOTOS
Perimeter fence on eastern boundary of Site
E-l
-------
Looking north-northwest from southwest corner of Site
Southeast in-situ stabilization area
E-2
-------
Drainage swale, looking north of in-situ stabilization area
- -
MW-28S and MW-28I located in-situ stabilization area
E-3
-------
Sign on locked perimeter fence gate to northern portion of Site
Top of containment cell, looking north
E-4
-------
LCS located on top of containment cell
LDS-SW located on top of containment cell
E-5
-------
is®
MW-24S and west fence line along containment cell
E-6
-------
¦. ¦ ' .*• it:,:
bsmmi
IhR8
Flush-mounted wells west of casting facility
Food warehouse business
E-7
-------
Casting facility business
Residential area in TI Zone west of Site
E-8
-------
APPENDIX F -DATA TABLES AND FIGURES
Table F-l: DNAPL Thickness in Monitoring Wells (in feet)
Date
MW-29I
MW-30I
MW-33I
MW-37I
MW-39I
MW-47I
MW-54I
MW-56I
MW-57I
MW-59I
Apr. 2014
3.0
1.7
4.4
3.0
0.8
0.0
1.5
4.0
5.5
4.1
Jim. 2014
3.1
2.1
4.6
2.9
0.5
0.2
1.6
4.2
5.1
4.2
Feb. 2015
3.0
2.4
4.5
3.2
0.8
0.3
1.8
4.9
5.3
4.1
Jim. 2015
3.1
3.0
4.4
2.9
0.8
0.8
2.0
5.0
5.4
4.0
Mar. 2016
3.2
3.0
4.8
3.5
0.9
NM
2.7
4.9
5.4
4.3
Jim. 2016
3.3
3.4
4.4
3.4
0.8
0.8
2.4
4.9
4.9
4.0
Feb. 2017
3.3
3.5
4.4
3.8
0.8
2.5
2.6
NM
4.9
4.0
Jim. 2017
3.4
4.2
4.9
4.1
1.1
5.0
3.2
5.3
5.4
4.2
Feb. 2018
3.6
4.0
4.8
4.7
1.1
3.1
3.1
5.1
3.2
4.3
Jim. 2018
3.5
4.4
4.5
5.1
0.9
2.9
3.1
5.2
4.3
5.0
Feb. 2019
3.7
4.1
1.9
5.2
1.0
9.4a
3.1
5.2
4.3
4.4
Jim. 2019
3.6
4.3
4.6
5.3
1.0
3.5
2.8
5.3
4.5
2.7
Feb. 2020
1.5
3.4
4.4
5.2
1.0
3.4
2.2
3.4
4.5
2.2
Jim. 2020
3.8
4.1
4.5
5.0
0.8
3.5
3.1
5.1
4.3
2.3
Feb. 2021
2.9
4.2
4.8
6.0
0.9
3.5
3.0
4.9
4.8
4.7
Jim. 2021
3.6
4.2
4.5
2.4
1.0
3.5
3.1
5.4
4.5
4.4
Mar. 2022
3.5
4.0
4.7
4.9
1.0
3.6
2.6
3.6
4.5
3.5
Jim. 2022
2.4
2.9
4.6
3.1
0.7
3.6
2.4
3.0
2.6
1.8
Notes:
Source: Tabic 1 in the Annual Operation and Maintenance Report Fiscal Year 2022, North Cavalcade Street Supcrfund Site.
Houston. Harris County Texas. Prepared for TCEQ by Ensafe. August 31, 2022.
NM = not measured
a. Value is assumed to be due to field error.
F-1
-------
Table F-2: Analytical data from wells with PRC exceedances, 2018 to 2022
MW-46I (off-site")
MW-35I (on-site)
MW-34I (on-site)
Date
Benzene
(UU/L)
Naphthalene
(UU/L)
Benzene
(H5I/L)
Naphthalene
(WU/L)
Benzene
(UJl/L)
Naphthalene
OiK/L)
December 2010
14.8
1,070"
537
13,600
198
5,880"
April 2011
9.9
2,000
__
__
__
__
September 2011
4.6
369
50
1,810
180
4,080
December 2011
6.0
882
364
11,600
188
9,070
March 2012
13.1
1,990
272
8,800
185
12,400
June 2012
8.7
1,300
252
12,000
156
11,000
September 2012
11.5"
1,010
271"
8,990
208
9,880
February 2013
7.3
1,410
__
__
221
10,100
June 2013
6.3
1,590
__
__
190
11,500
April/May 2014
7.6
310
150
19,000
150
4,200
February 2015
6.4
1,600
33
2,600
110
10,000
March 2016
8.2
640
100
6,700
110
10,000
February 2017
9.7
1,100
52
4,800
130
18,000
March 2018
0.51b
ND
35
1,900
55
4,600
February 2019
1.3
ND
35
950
77
5,700b
February 2020
ND
ND
18
600
24
3,500
February 2021
12.0
180
92
1,300
31
2,100
March 2022
22.0
500
4.4
82°
61
3,900b
Notes:
Source: Tables 5 through 8 in the Annual Operation and Maintenance Report Fiscal Year 2022, North
Cavalcade Street Superfund Site. Houston. Harris County Texas. Prepared for TCEQ by Ensafe. August
31, 2022.
a. Off-site, however, within the TI Zone.
b. Estimated value.
c. Estimated value may be biased low.
Bolded values exceed site PRCs. PRC for benzene is 5 ng/L. PRC for naphthalene is 1,500 ng/L for on-
site wells and 490 ng/L for off-site wells.
ND = analyte not detected.
F-2
-------
Table F-3: Vinyl Chloride Concentrations in Selected Wells
Vinvl Chloride (utj/L)
Date
1Y1W-37S
1MW-45I
(on-site)
(off-site)
December 2010
8.8
4.7
April 2011
—
4.5
September 2011
4.5
4.9
December 2011
1.7
6.0
March 2012
7.2
2.3"
June 2012
15.0
ND
September 2012
9.3
2.9
February 2013
ND
ND
June 2013
ND
2.6
May 2014
ND
2.0
February 2015
ND
1.3
March 2016
ND
1.7
February 2017
0.81a
4.0
March 2018
2.5
0.20a
February 2019
4.7
1.9
February 2020
3.8
2.0
February 2021
1.7
1.9
March 2022
0.6a
2.5
Notes:
Source: Tables 7 and 8 of the Annual Operation and
Maintenance Report Fiscal Year 2022, North
Cavalcade St Superfund Site. Houston. Harris County
Texas. Prepared for TCEQ by Ensafc. August 31,
2022.
Boldcd values exceed the current TRRP Tier 1 PCL
for vinyl chloride of 2 ng/L.
a. Estimated value.
ND = analyte not detected.
- = not sampled on this date.
F-3
-------
Table F-4: PCP Concentrations in Selected Wells
PCP (m«/L)
Date
MW-46I
MW-34I
(off-site)"
(on-site)
December 2010
ND
65.0 h
April 2011
8.3b
—
September 2011
7.4
41.3
December 2011
4.2
19.3
March 2012
5.6
21.8
June 2012
ND
10.0b
September 2012
5.3
34.8
February 2013
4.0
15.7
June 2013
5.1
16.3
May 2014
0.69b
6.2
February 2015
0.97b
0.88
March 2016
ND
1.1
February 2017
1.6
3.4
March 2018
ND
ND
February 2019
ND
ND
February 2020
ND
ND
February 2021
ND
ND
March 2022
0.3b
ND
Notes:
Source: Tables 7 and 8 of the Annual Operation and
Maintenance Report Fiscal Year 2022, North
Cavalcade St Supcrfund Site. Houston. Harris County
Texas. Prepared for TCEQ by Ensafc. August 31,
2022.
Boldcd values exceed the current TRRP Tier 1 PCL
for PCP of 1 ng/L.
a. Off-site, however, within the TI Zone.
b. Estimated value.
ND = analvte not detected.
- = not sampled on this date.
-------
Table F-5: Non-COC Chemicals Exceeding Current PCL during 2022 Groundwater Monitoring Event
Analvtc
Current TRRP Tier 1
PCL(M«/Lr
Shallow Sand Wells
within Site
Boundary
Interbedded Wells
within Site
Boundary
Interbedded Wells
Down«radient of
Site Boundary
Well
Result
OiK/L)
Well
Result
(UU/L)
Well
Result
(MS/L)
Arsenic
10
-
MW-28I
11.9
MW-46I
76.9
MW-31I
38.9
MW-34I
31.6
MW-35I
57.6
Carbazole
100 (on-site
commercial/industrial)
46 (off-site residential)
MW-54S
150
-
-
-
-
1,1 -Dichlorocthylcne
7
-
-
MW-45I
62
-
-
Notes:
Source: Tables 9-1 through 9-6 of the Annual Operation and Maintenance Report Fiscal Year 2022, North Cavalcade
Street Supcrfund Site. Houston. Harris County Texas. Prepared for TCEQ by Ensafe. August 31, 2022.
a. Current TRRP Tier 1 PCLs. dated March 2022. available at: httDs://www.fceo.texas.gov/remediation/txrD/txJDDcls.htM
(accessed 11/2/2022).
- = no cxcecdances.
F-5
-------
Woodard>St"-
W./Fairbanks'St
Cavalcade St
teaTalSoe'SW
Glasgow St
o O»
i Containment!
m
Hamblen St"
"Sayajglndg^sti
Figure F-l: Monitoring Well Locations and Site Features
j®48S]
faitfi02j
iM'lVjOS]
[MWpy
|»SMW-gij
; SCALE •INlFEETj
FIGURE 2
SITE FEATURES
JUNE 2022
NORTH CAVALCADE SUPERFUND SITE
HOUSTON, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
LEGEND
& SHALLOW MONITOR WELL
1NTERBEDDED MONITOR WB_L
® LEAK DETECTION/COLLECTION SUMPS
NAD 1983 STATE PLANE
TEXAS SOUTH C0JTRAL FEE!
p APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
PECORE FAULT LINE
"1 SITE BOUNDARY
TECHNICAL IMPRACTICABILITY ZONE BOUNDARY
YZA IN-SIHJ STABILIZATION AREAS (OU1 &OU3)
vzx CONTAINMENT CELL (OU2)
DRAWN BY:
8/23/2022
Cre*ive thinking.
03/03/2016]
1 Source: Figure 2 of the Fiscal Year 2022 Annual Operation and Maintenance Report, Ensafe, August 31, 2022.
F-6
-------
Figure F-2: Leachate Fluid Thickness in Sumps (in feet)2
Leachate Fluid Thickness within Sumps
4.5
3.5
(u
£
2.5
;a
'3
1.5
0.5
0
Aug-13
Dec-14
*LCS value of 9.75 ft from
6/22/2017 omitted from
graph because of likely
field error.
Oct-21
Mar-23
¦LDS-NW
¦LDS-NE
¦LDS-SW
LDS-SE
•LCS
2 Data Source: Section 4.2 of the Fiscal Year 2022 Annual Operation and Maintenance Report, Ensafe, August 31, 2022.
F-7
-------
Figure F-3: PRG and PCL Exceedances in the Interbedded Unit, 20223'4
SITE LOCATION
laytown
-Rosenberg
SCALE IN MILES
ffi/L
0.0119
rce/i 1
0.062
0.0025|
|l,1-Dichloroethene
|vinyl Chloride
•Arsenic
yArsenic
FIGURE 8
COCs EXCEEDING PRGs OR PCLs
WITHIN THE INTERBEDDED UNIT
JUNE 2022
NORTH CAVALCADE SUPERFUND SITE
HOUSTON, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
NOTES:
- * = MW-49I WAS INACCESSIBLE FOR SAMPLING
- NO COCs DETECTED IN MONITORING WELLS OUTSIDE THE TI ZONE
CHEMICAL OF OFF-SITE TRRP TIER 1 PCL OFF-SITE TRRP TIER 1 PCL
CONCERN FS- h 1 .. "" t I,,:-. iMG/Li COMMERCIALflNDUSTRIAL °"'GW,»: (MG/L1
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE 0.007 0.007
ARSENIC 0.01 0.01
BENZENE 0.005 0.005
NAPHTHALENE 0.49 1.5
VINYL CHLORIDE 0.002 0.002
[Arsenic
0.0576
lArsenic
NAD 19B3 STATE PLANE
TEXAS SOUTH CENTRAL FEET
PLUGGED AND ABANDONED INTERBEDDED MONITORING WELL ® 2017 CPT/MIP BORING (ENSAFE) 1771 IN-SITU STABILIZATION AREAS (OU1 a OU3)
INTERBEDDED M ONITOR WELL I I SUBJECT PROPERTY BOUNDARY BOUNDARY OF TECHNICALIM PRACTICABILITY ZONE
® LEAK DETECTION/COLLECTION SUMPS P77I CONTAINMENT CELL (OU2) ° APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF PECORE FAULT LINE
DRAWN BY:
INTERBEDDED MONITORING WELL WITH EXCEEDANCE
Creative thin king. Custom solutions.
INTERBEDDED MONITORING WELL WITH DNAPL
SCALE IN FEET PROJECT:
iur.it./; Gcogle Earth Cfo Imagery - 01/2021; Site features frc
3 Source: Figure 8 of the Fiscal Year 2022 Annual Operation and Maintenance Report, Ensafe, August 31, 2022.
4 Note that this figure erroneously omitted the following PRG exceedances: benzene in MW-34I (0.061 milligrams per liter [mg/L]) and MW-46I (0.022 mg/L),
naphthalene in MW-34I (3.9 mg/L).
F-8
-------
JHQMAS WlBEftft
f/VWoi
IMWS7J
NAD 1983 STATE PLANE
TEXAS SOUTH CENTRAL FEE!
DRAWN BY:
Figure F-4: Approximate Extent of DNAPL, June 2022s
LEGEND
INTERBEDDED MONITOR WELL DNAPL EXTENT (ENSAFE, JUNE 2022 DASHED WHERE INFERRED) ^p^ORE F^^LINE^
— GROUNDWATER CCNTOUR (FT), DASHED WHERE INFERRED V/A IN-SITU STABILIZATION AREAS (QUI & OU31
—•*" GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION TECHNICAL IMPRACTICABILITY ZONE BOUNDARY
rn SUBJECT PROPERTY BOUNDARY
800.588.79621 www. en safe.com
ENSAFE
FIGURE 5-1
APPROXIMATE EXTENT OF DNAPL
JJNE 2022
NORTH CAVALCADE SUPERFUND SITE
HOUSTON, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
5 Source: Figure 5-1 of the Fiscal Year 2022 Annual Operation and Maintenance Report, Ensafe, August 31, 2022.
F-9
-------
Northwest
Source Area
Southeast
Source Area
igure F-5: Approximate Extent of DNAPL, 2018 to 2022'
2019 DNAPL
2020 DNAPL'
2018ijDNAPLj
BWvpTl
iivwSoT
iitwam
(SGAL'EjlN FEET
[F/ffiiSSij
IMA&6II
FIGURE 5-2
APPROXIMATE EXTENT OF
DNAPL OVB* TIME
NORTH CAVALCADE SUPER FUND SITE
HOUSTON, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
SCALE IN FEET,
LEGEND
SHALLOW MONITCR WELL
-$>- INTERBEDDED MCNITOR WELL \
"1 SUBJECT PROPERTY BOUNDARY J
DRAWN BY:
8/23/2022
Creative thinking.Custom
NAD 1933 STATE PLANE
TEXAS SOUTH CENTRAL FEET
Source: Google Earth Pro Imagery - 01/2021; Site features from Q3I - North Cavalcade super fund sit annual repcrt - 2015
6 Source: Figure 5-2 of the Fiscal Year 2022 Annual Operation and Maintenance Report, Ensafe, August 31, 2022.
F-10
-------
Figure F-6: DNAPL Thickness over time7
10.00
.p. 6.00
-------
APPENDIX G - DETAILED ARARS REVIEW TABLES
CERCLA Section 12 l(d)( 1) requires that Superfund remedial actions attain "a degree of cleanup of
hazardous substance, pollutants, and contaminants released into the environment and of control of
further release at a minimum which assures protection of human health and the environment." The
remedial action must achieve a level of cleanup that at least attains those requirements that are legally
applicable or relevant and appropriate. In performing the FYR for compliance with ARARs, only those
ARARs that address the protectiveness of the remedy are reviewed.
Groundwater ARARs
The 2009 A ROD identified federal MCLs under the Safe Drinking Water Act and Texas TRRP Tier 1
PCLs as state ARARs for the groundwater COCs. As shown in Table G-l, there have been no changes
to the criteria for benzene, benzo(a)pyrene or naphthalene since the signing of the ROD in 1988.
Table G-l: Performance Standard Comparison for Groundwater COCs
coc
2(1(19 AROD Performance
Standards (jijj/L)
Current Standards
(HK/L)
Change
Benzene
5
5a
None
Bcn/o(a)pvrene
0.2
0.2a
None
Naphthalene
1,500 on-site
490 off-site
1,500
(commercial/industrial)'
490 (residential)'
None
Notes:
a. Based on the current MCL in the national primary drinking water standards, available at:
https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/national-primarv-drinking-water-regulation-table
(accessed 11/29/2022).
b. Based on Texas TRRP Tier 1 PCLs. available at:
https://www.tcea.texas.gov/downloads/remediation/publications/2022-pcl-tables-l-march-2022-final.xlsx
(accessed 11/29/2022).
Soil ARARs
There are no chemical-specific soil ARARs for the Site identified in the decision documents for OU2.
The soil cleanup goals were Site specific and risk based. They are compared to current toxicity data and
evaluated in Appendix H.
G-l
-------
APPENDIX H - SCREENING-LEVEL RISK REVIEW
The 2009 A ROD established an industrial-based soil cleanup goal for site COCs. To determine if these
cleanup goals remain valid, a screening-level health evaluation was conducted by comparing the cleanup
goals to EPA's 2022 regional screening levels (RSLs). As shown in Table H-l, the cleanup goals remain
valid for an industrial land use because they are equivalent to cancer risks that fall within EPA's risk
management range of 1 x 10"6 to 1 x 10"4 and the noncancer HQs are below EPA's threshold of 1.0.
The cleanup goals were also compared to EPA's residential RSLs for soil. As shown in H-2, the cleanup
goal for benzo(a)pyrene exceeds EPA's cancer risk management range and the HQ of 1.0 for residential
use. Based on this, the ICs for OU2, apart from preventing disturbance of the containment cell, should
include a restriction for use of the property for commercial purposes only.
Table H-l: Industrial Health Evaluation of OIJ2 Soil Cleanup Goals
coc
1988 ROD and
1994 ESD
Cleanup Goal
(mg/kg)
Industrial RSL" (mg/kg)
Cancer Riskb
Noncancer HQC
1 \ 10* Risk
HQ= 1.0
Benzene
0.04
5.1
420
8 xlO"9
0.0001
Bcnzo(a)pvrcnc
30
2.1
220
1 x 10"5
0.1
Notes:
a. Current EPA RSLs. dated November 2022. arc available at https://www.epa.gov/risk/regional-screening-levels-rsls-
generic-tables (accessed 12/09/2022).
b. The cancer risks were calculated using the following equation, because RSLs arc derived based on 1 x 10~6 risk:
cancer risk = (cleanup level cancer based RSL) x 10~6.
c. Noncancer HQ was calculated using the following equation: HQ = cleanup level ^ noncancer-based RSL.
Table H-2: Residential Health Ev aluation of OIJ2 Soil Cleanup Goals
coc
1988 ROD and
1994 ESD
Cleanup Goal
(m«/k«)
Residential RSL" (nig/kg)
Cancer Riskb
Noncancer HQ'
1 x 10* Risk
HQ= 1.0
Benzene
0.04
1.2
82
3 x 10"8
0.0005
Benzo(a)pyrened
30
0.11
18
3 x 10 4
1.7
Notes
Bold text indicates an cxcccdancc of a 10~4 cancer risk or a noncancer HQ of 1.
a. Current EPA RSLs. dated November 2022, arc available at https://www.epa.gov/risk/regional-screening-levels-rsls-
generic-tables (accessed 12/09/2022).
b. The cancer risks were calculated using the following equation, because RSLs arc derived based on 1 x 10~6 risk:
cancer risk = (cleanup level cancer based RSL) x 10~6.
c. Noncancer HQ was calculated using the following equation: HQ = cleanup level ^ noncancer-based RSL.
d. The 1994 ESD indicated 30 mg/kg as the soil cleanup goal for cPAHs. This comparison uses the RSL for
ben/o(a)pvrene. which may be overly conservative.
The groundwater cleanup goals selected in the 2009 A ROD were based on ARARs, which remain valid.
The cleanup goals were compared to EPA's RSLs for tap water to determine if the groundwater criteria
represent concentrations that fall within EPA's acceptable risk range of 1 x 10"6 to 1 x 10"4 or are below
the noncancer HQ of 1.0 (Table H-3). The results of the analysis demonstrate that the industrial and
residential groundwater criteria for naphthalene exceed EPA's upper bound of the cancer risk
management range and the HQ of 1.0. However, affected groundwater is not currently a source of
drinking water for any nearby businesses or residences.
H-l
-------
Table H-3: Health Ev aluation of Groundwater Cleanup Goals
COC
2009 AROD
Cleanup Goals
(MK/L)
Tap Water RSL' (fifj/L)
Cancer Riskh
Noncancer HQ'
1 \ 10* Risk
HQ=1.0
Benzene
5
0.46
33
1 x 10"5
0.15
Bcn/o(a)pvrcnc
0.2
0.025
6
8 x 10"6
0.03
Naphthalene (on-
site industrial)
1500
0.12
6.1
1 x 102
246
Naphthalene (off-
site residential)
490
0.12
6.1
4 x 10 '
80
Notes:
a. Current EPA RSLs. dated November 2022. arc available at littDs://www.era.gov/risk/regional-screening-levels-rsls-
generic-tables (accessed 12/09/2022).
b. The cancer risks were calculated using the following equation, because RSLs arc derived based on 1
x 10-6 risk:
cancer risk = (cleanup level cancer based RSL) x 10~6.
c. Noncancer HQ was calculated using the following equation: HQ = cleanup level ^ noncancer-based RSL.
Bold text indicates an cxcecdance of a 10~4 cancer risk or a noncancer HQ of 1.
Vapor Intrusion
The Site's June 2008 Focused Feasibility Study conducted a screening-level vapor intrusion pathway
using the Johnson and Ettinger Model. The results of the modeling indicated that the highest
concentrations in groundwater close to building footprints did not exceed screening levels and that vapor
intrusion is unlikely to be a potential exposure pathway at the Site.
However, the 2018 FYR conducted a conservative screening-level risk assessment that identified vapor
intrusion risks for naphthalene at well MW-54S greater than EPA's noncancer HQ of 1 for industrial
exposure. The 2018 FYR Report recommended further evaluation of the vapor intrusion pathway using
current data from appropriate wells and using multiple lines of evidence. This evaluation is ongoing.
The 2013 FYR Report recommended evaluating the vapor intrusion pathway at the time of each FYR.
Although DNAPL and elevated contamination exists in the interbedded zone, the shallow zone is the
zone closest to a foundation. The vapor intrusion pathway was evaluated as part of this FYR using the
most current shallow zone data. A screening-level vapor intrusion evaluation was conducted using
EPA's VI SL calculator.
To provide a conservative vapor intrusion evaluation, the maximum-detected COC concentrations from
2018 to 2022 in the shallow wells monitoring were entered into EPA's VISL calculator (excluding
benzo(a)pyrene, which is not sufficiently volatile to present a vapor intrusion risk). Additionally, vinyl
chloride was included because it has exceeded its PCL during three of the last four years of record in
one shallow well, MW-37S.
The highest concentrations of both naphthalene (990 micrograms per liter [jug/L] in 2020) and benzene
(2.8 |ig/L in 2022) during this FYR period were found in MW-54S, which is about 300 feet upgradient
of the closest building and about 100 feet north of the southeast source area. MW-54S is near the
railroad tracks and near a subsurface gas line; no excavations were conducted in this area due to the
tracks and gas line. A minor accumulation of source material may still exist under the railroad, which
may be the source for the naphthalene concentrations. However, there are no buildings in this area due
to the railroad tracks.
H-2
-------
The highest concentration of vinyl chloride in MW-37S (4.7 |ig/L) during this period occurred in 2019.
MW-37S is within the site boundary and in the northwest comer of the TI Zone. It is less than 100 feet
west of an on-site building and less than 100 feet east and upgradient of the border of the TI Zone.
Table H-4: Screening-Level Vapor Intrusion Ev aluation of Groundwater Data, 2018 to 2020
Constituent
Maximum
Concentration, 2018
to 2022 (n«/L);1
2022 VISL Calculator*
(average groundwater temperature 25"C)
Industrial Exposure
Residential Exposure
Cancer Risk
Noncancer HQ
Cancer Risk
Noncancer HQ
Benzene
2.8 (MW-54S, 2022)
4 x 10"7
0.0004
2 x 10"6
0.02
Naphthalene
990 (MW-54S, 2020)
5 x 10"5
1.4
2 x 10 4
5.7
Vinvl chloride
4.7 (MW-37S, 2019)
2 x 10"6
0.02
3 x 10"5
0.06
Notes:
a. Source: Annual Operation and Maintenance Report Fiscal Year 2022, North Cavalcade Street Supcrfund Site.
Houston, Harris County Texas. Prepared for TCEQ by Ensafe. August 31, 2022.
b. EPA's VISL calculator, accessed 12/12/2022 at httDs://www.epa.eov/vaDorintmsion/vaDor-intmsion-screenine-level-
calculator.
Bold = cxcecdance of a 1 x 10~4 cancer risk or a noncancer HQ of 1.
As shown in Table H-4, the noncancer HQ for naphthalene is greater than 1.0 for both industrial and
residential exposure and the screening-level residential risk is greater than EPA's cancer risk
management range (10~6 to 10"4). These results support the 2018 FYR Report recommendation for
further evaluation of the on-site vapor intrusion pathway in appropriate wells following EPA guidance
requiring the use of multiple lines of evidence to determine if this exposure pathway requires further
remedial action.
H-3
-------
APPENDIX I - INTERVIEW FORMS
NORTH CAVALCADE SUPERFUND SITE
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW INTERVIEW FORM
Site Name: North Cavalcade Superfund Site
EPA ID: 0678
Interviewer name: Jason McKinney
Interviewer affiliation: U.S. EPA
mckinnev .i ason@epa. gov
Subject name: Chris Siegel, P.E.
Subject affiliation: TCEQ
Subject contact information: christopher.siegel@tceq.texas.gov
Interview date: 2/15/23
Interview time: 4pm
Interview location: Via email
Interview format (circle one): In Person
Phone
Mail
[Email
Other:
Interview category: State Agency
1. What is your overall impression of the project, including cleanup, maintenance and reuse activities
(as appropriate)9
Communication and coordination has been on-going between the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) regarding site status
and general maintenance issues. The TCEQ's main concerns are the apparent expansion of dense
non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) within the Technical Impracticability (Tl) boundary, and that
institutional controls need to be implemented.
2. What is your assessment of the current performance of the remedy in place at the Site9
Although the remedy components are protective of human health and the environment in the short
term, the TCEQ is concerned about the apparent expansion of DN APL within the Technical
Impracticability (Tl) boundary and that the institutional controls needed at the site are not fully
implemented. DNAPL has grown by about 60% in aerial size from 2010 to 2022. In 2010,
monitoring well MW-37I, located in the northwest portion of the Tl Zone, did not have DN APL
present and delineated the DNAPL to the northwest. In 2022, this monitoring well was measured
with 3.08 feet of DNAPL and there are no monitoring wells located to the northwest to delineate the
current extent of the DNAPL in this direction. Therefore, the TCEQ recommends installation of
additional monitoring wells to delineation the DN APL to the northwest of monitoring well MW-37I
and then expansion of the Tl Zone to encompass the DN APL area if needed.
3. Are you aware of any complaints or inquiries regarding site-related environmental issues or remedial
activities from residents in the past five years9
To my knowledge, the TCEQ has not received any complaints regarding site-related environmental
issues.
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.
1-1
-------
TCEQ contractors have performed O&M activities over the past five years, which have included
monthly inspections as well as gauging and monitoring of monitoring wells and leak
detection/col 1 ection sumps.
5. Are you aware of any changes to state laws that might affect the protectiveness of the Site's remedy?
To my knowledge, there have not been any changes to state law(s) that might affect the
protectiveness of the Site's remedies.
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 regarding the cap and TI zone have not been implemented.
7. Are you aware of any changes in projected land use(s) at the Site9
To my knowledge, there have not been significant changes to land use(s) at the Site.
8. Do you have any comments, suggestions or recommendations regarding the management or
operation of the Site's remedy9
Although the remedy components are protective of human health and the environment in the short
term, the TCEQ is concerned about the apparent expansion of DNAPL within the Technical
Impracticability (TI) boundary and that the institutional controls needed at the site are not fully
implemented (see response to question #2).
9. Do you consent to have your name included along with your responses and affiliation to this
questionnaire in the FYR report9
Yes.
1-2
-------
NORTH CAVALCADE SUPERFUND SITE
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW INTERVIEW FORM
Site Name: North Cavalcade Superfund Site
EPA ID: 0678
Interviewer name: Jason McKinney
Interviewer affiliation: U.S. EPA
mckinnev .i ason@,epa. gov
Subject name: Dr. Latrice Babin
Subject affiliation: Executive Director
Subject contact information: 713-920-2831
Interview date: 2/16/2023
Interview time: 5:00 PM
Interv iew location: Office of Harris County Pollution Control Services
Interview format (circle one): In Person Phone Mail
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 date9
Harris County Pollution Control Services (PCS) 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 progress9 If not, how might
EPA convey site-related information in the future9
PCS requests to be copied and included in 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 trespassing9
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 remedy9
PCS is not aware of any changes to state laws or local regulations that might affect the
protectiveness of the Site's remedy.
5. Are you aware of any changes in projected land use(s) at the Site9
PCS is not aware of any changes in the proj ected land use at the Site. PCS requests to be updated on
any changes related to projected land uses at and around the Site.
6. Has EPA kept involved parties and surrounding neighbors informed of activities at the Site9 How
can EPA best provide site-related information in the future9
1-3
-------
Per the Community Involvement Plan (CIP) dated January 2016, the program is committed to
promoting communications between citizens and the agency, with active public involvement crucial
to any public project's success. Per the 2016 CIP, a public meeting was last held in 2014. Several
activities, objectives, and methods with timing were specified in the CIP, along with revisions to the
CIP at least every 3 years. The Site repository is located at the Houston Central Library in
downtown, according to the CIP and the 2018 Five Year Review (FYR). According to the 2018
FYR, upon review of the documents at the library, there were no FYRs, and several other documents
were also missing.
PCS recommends the CIP be revisited and, if necessary, revised every 3 years to ensure the public is
informed of activities, objectives, and methods at the Site per the CIP. PCS also recommends a local
repository be established at a library closer to the Site. PCS additionally recommends verifying the
repository documents at the central library are in place and up to date with all available documents.
PCS recommends public meetings be held at regularly scheduled intervals instead of on an as-
needed basis.
PCS was unable to locate any information on the EPA's website regarding groundwater sampling
data, gauging results, inspections, or maintenance information per the O&M plan mentioned in the
2018 FYR. PCS also did not find any fact sheets on the EPA website. The only available information
allocated is a Site Status Summary dated September 2015. PCS was able to acquire a limited number
of O&M reports from the TCEQ Records online website, with the most recent one dated 2018.
PCS recommends placing all information on the EPA website, including but not limited to fact
sheets, annual O&M reports, groundwater sampling data, gauging results, inspection results,
maintenance findings, and the results of vapor intrusion pathway monitoring.
7. Do you have any comments, suggestions or recommendations regarding the project9
Per the August 26, 2011 Record of Decision (ROD) amendment, EPA is to implement institutional controls
(IC) to restrict the use of or access to contaminated groundwater, restrictions to prevent the installation of
water supply wells, provide notice of the presence of groundwater contamination, deed notices or restrictive
covenants to provide notice to property owners and prospective purchasers that contaminated water from the
shallow and interbedded sand unit should not be used for drinking or potable water where cleanup goals are
not met or have been waived as is the case for the Technical Impracticability (Tl) Zone. According to the
2018 FYR and several annual O&M reports, the ICs have not been put in place.
PCS recommends the IC be implemented without further delay. Additionally. PCS recommends IC restrict the
usage of vegetable gardens and fruit trees grow ing in the area, which may be affected by the contaminants in
the groundwater until further studies can be conducted to determine the safety of food grown in the Tl Zone.
The 2018 FYR noted several action items to be completed, but due to limited information on the EPA
website, the status of those action items is unknown. The action items include many of the same items stated
below. The 2018 FYR noted the TCEQ has concerns regarding maintenance, expansion of the DNAPL within
the Tl Zone, lack of IC per the ROD. and residential development inside and outside the Tl Zone boundary.
Furthermore, past groundwater sampling and gauging from before the 2018 FYR indicate the plume is not
stable, and DNAPL containment using natural attenuation is not viable. Per the 2011 ROD amendment, the
selected remedy will be re-evaluated if the plume is not stable and is found to be expanding outside the Tl
Zone. Per the 2018 FYR. with the increase in residential properties over the Tl Zone boundary, volatile
organic compounds in the subsurface may pose a potential vapor intrusion threat to the existing and new
homes in the area. Vapor intrusion pathways need to be monitored to ensure the protectiveness of human
health and the environment.
1-4
-------
Upon review of 2015, 2017, and 2018 O&M reports, some of the same concerns from the 2018 FYR were
repeated in all the O&M reports, including those of the IC not being implemented yet, and potential vapor
intrusion in residence over the Tl Zone. Additionally, the O&M reports raised concerns due to DNAPL
thickness increasing overtime, particularly in MW-371 and MW-471, showing a westward movement and
expansion of the plume. The westward expansion of the plume at MW-371 is of concern since there is no Tl
Zone boundary near this well that extends past the Site property line. DN APL has not been removed from
monitoring wells per the 2013 FYR. In the past. MW-45 1 and MW-461, both in the Tl Zone, had
concentrations of contaminants of concern (COC) above the Protective Concentration Level (PCL). The
O&M reports suggested additional monitoring wells west of MW-371 and MW-451 and northw est of OW-2.
The Tl Zone boundary may need to be revised in areas west and northwest of the current areas. According to
the 2015 O&M report, the TCEQ performed comprehensive groundwater monitoring in 2014 and found
several compounds not considered as COC for the Site. The 2015 O&M reports also stated that warning signs
need to be posted on the gate and perimeter fence. Additionally, vapor intrusion pathway monitoring using
residential limits, not industrial limits, needs to be conducted due to an increase in residences over the Tl
Zone. A vapor intrusion screening evaluation was prepared for commercial/industrial areas of the Site around
2008 and may not be applicable for residential human health. Other objectives of O&M at the Site include but
are not limited to cap verification, maintenance of the leachate system, repairs, mowing, and inspections.
PCS is concerned the tenants or residences within the Tl Zone have not been made aware or reminded of the
Site. PCS is concerned developers, landow ners, and businesses on the Site or over the IT zone may not
understand the environmental and health effects of the contaminants. They may not desire local, state, and
federal attention, which may disrupt their business operations, and would thus be hesitant to report
contaminants to potential residents or tenants or. in a worst-case, may conceal or improperly dispose of
contaminated wastes. PCS is also concerned residential vapor intrusion pathway monitoring has not been
conducted. PCS is concerned O&M is not being regularly performed on-site.
PCS recommends the EPA inform and remind not only the landow ners but also the businesses, tenants, and
residents of the Site at regularly scheduled intervals. PCS recommends, due to the westward movement of the
DN APL and other COC. vapor intrusion pathway monitoring using residential limits be conducted over the Tl
Zone. PCS recommends signs be placed around the Site and the Tl Zone to make the public aware of the
Site's existence. PCS recommends the activities performed in the past O&M reports be continued and the
results be made public on the EPA website and at the local repositories. PCS also recommends the periodic
testing of groundwater for compounds not considered COC. as was done in the comprehensive groundwater
monitoring of 2014. PCS recommends monitoring wells in the Tl Zone near residential homes be locked,
reinforced, and inspected at regular intervals to address any issues compromising the integrity of the wells.
PCS further recommends 2018 FYR recommendations and actions be verified for implementation and to be
accomplished as soon as possible. PCS recommends the Tl Zone delineation be verified and subsequently
revised to show the current plume boundary.
PCS is concerned due to the proximity to the South Cavalcade Site; some of the same issues associated with
that Site are of concern here, particularly with contaminants in the groundw ater entering the stormwater
system and potentially impacting the surface waters of the state.
PCS recommends similar actions to those taken at South Cavalcade be implemented at this Site to verify
contaminated groundwater is not entering the stormwater system and impacting the surface waters of the
state.
8. Do you consent to have your name included along with your responses and affiliation to this
questionnaire in the FYR report9
Yes.
1-5
-------
NORTH CAVALCADE SUPERFUND SITE
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW INTERVIEW FORM
Site Name: North Cavalcade Superfund Site
EPA ID: 0678
Interviewer name: Jason McKinney
Interviewer affiliation: EPA
mckinnev .i ason@epa. gov
Subject name:
Subject affiliation: Resident
Subject contact information:
Interview date: 1/24/2023
Interview time: 11:30 A.M.
Interview location: 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 date9 No.
2. What is your overall impression of the project, including cleanup, maintenance and reuse activities
(as appropriate)9 I have not noticed anything.
3. What have been the effects of the Site on the surrounding community, if any9 None.
4. Have there been any problems with unusual or unexpected activities at the Site, such as emergency
response, vandalism or trespassing9 Not that I know of.
5. Has EPA kept involved parties and surrounding neighbors informed of activities at the Site9 How
can EPA best provide site-related information in the future9 I have not received any
communications.
6. Do you own a private well in addition to or instead of accessing city/municipal water supplies9 If so,
for what purpose(s) is your private well used9 I'm on city water.
7. Do you have any comments, suggestions or recommendations regarding any aspects of the project9
No.
1-6
-------
NORTH CAVALCADE SUPERFUND SITE
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW INTERVIEW FORM
Site Name: North Cavalcade Superfund Site
EPA ID: 0678
Interviewer name: Jason McKinney
Interviewer affiliation: EPA
mckinnev .i ason@,epa. gov
Subject name:
Subject affiliation: Resident
Subject contact information:
Interview date: 1/24/2023
Interview time: 11:35 A.M.
Interview location: 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 date9 A little.
2. What is your overall impression of the project, including cleanup, maintenance and reuse activities
(as appropriate)9 It was bad before but is better now.
3. What have been the effects of the Site on the surrounding community, if any9 None.
4. Have there been any problems with unusual or unexpected activities at the Site, such as emergency
response, vandalism or trespassing9 Not that I have seen.
5. Has EPA kept involved parties and surrounding neighbors informed of activities at the Site9 How
can EPA best provide site-related information in the future9 No. we haven't received any updates.
6. Do you own a private well in addition to or instead of accessing city/municipal water supplies9 If so,
for what purpose(s) is your private well used9 I have a well, but it is not for drinking water. It has
been tested.8
7. Do you have any comments, suggestions or recommendations regarding any aspects of the project9
No.
8 EPA investigated the existence of this well. It was not listed in the following resources: the Texas Groundwater Data
Viewer, the TCEQ Water Well Report Viewer, the Houston Galveston Subsidence District Well Radius Map and the
Houston Public Works Geo link Public Viewer.
1-7
-------
NORTH CAVALCADE SUPERFUND SITE
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW INTERVIEW FORM
Site Name: North Cavalcade Superfund Site
EPA ID: 0678
Interviewer name: Jason McKinney
Interviewer affiliation: EPA
mckinnev .i ason@,epa. gov
Subject name:
Subject affiliation: Resident
Subject contact information:
Interview date: 1/24/2023
Interview time: 11:45 A.M.
Interview location: 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 date9 Yes. I have lived here since I was a kid.
2. What is your overall impression of the project, including cleanup, maintenance and reuse activities
(as appropriate)9 EPA told us there is nothing to worry about, but the contamination is still there. I
don't believe it.
3. What have been the effects of the Site on the surrounding community, if any9 I have many relatives
and neighbors who have died of cancer. My daughter had cancer.
4. Have there been any problems with unusual or unexpected activities at the Site, such as emergency
response, vandalism or trespassing9 Not recently.
5. Has EPA kept involved parties and surrounding neighbors informed of activities at the Site9 How
can EPA best provide site-related information in the future9 They told us it was all fine now a few
years ago.
6. Do you own a private well in addition to or instead of accessing city/municipal water supplies9 If so,
for what purpose(s) is your private well used9 I am on city water. There is a monitoring well on my
property.
7. Do you have any comments, suggestions or recommendations regarding any aspects of the project9 I
think EPA needs to look into how much cancer there is around here and whether it is related to the
Site.
1-8
-------
NORTH CAVALCADE SUPERFUND SITE
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW INTERVIEW FORM
Site Name: North Cavalcade Superfund Site
EPA ID: 0678
Interviewer name: Jason McKinney
Interviewer affiliation: EPA
mckinnev .i ason@,epa. gov
Subject name:
Subject affiliation: Resident
Subject contact information:
Interview date: 1/24/2023
Interview time: 11:55 A.M.
Interview location: 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 date9 Yes. I am the fourth generation to live in this neighborhood.
2. What is your overall impression of the project, including cleanup, maintenance and reuse activities
(as appropriate)9 EPA told us not to worry about it a few years ago, but I don't really trust it. I don't
understand how we can be safe if it's still there. I don't know what the effects are on us.
3. What have been the effects of the Site on the surrounding community, if any9 People are really
concerned about this. Lots of people have been sick.
4. Have there been any problems with unusual or unexpected activities at the Site, such as emergency
response, vandalism or trespassing9 Not recently.
5. Has EPA kept involved parties and surrounding neighbors informed of activities at the Site9 How
can EPA best provide site-related information in the future9 No. There have been public meetings
about other sites around here, but not this one. They told us nothing was wrong anymore. I think
people would like a public meeting so we can understand what's going on and ask questions.
6. Do you own a private well in addition to or instead of accessing city/municipal water supplies9 If so,
for what purpose(s) is your private well used9 I'm on city water.
7. Do you have any comments, suggestions or recommendations regarding any aspects of the project9 I
think people here would like more public meetings to keep us up to date.
1-9
-------
NORTH CAVALCADE SUPERFUND SITE
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW INTERVIEW FORM
Site Name: North Cavalcade Superfund Site
EPA ID: 0678
Interviewer name: Jason McKinney
Interviewer affiliation: EPA
mckinnev .i ason@,epa. gov
Subject name:
Subject affiliation: Resident
Subject contact information:
Interview date: 1/24/2023
Interview time: 11:40 A.M.
Interview location: 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 date9 Yes.
2. What is your overall impression of the project, including cleanup, maintenance and reuse activities
(as appropriate)9 I don't have one.
3. What have been the effects of the Site on the surrounding community, if any9 No comment.
4. Have there been any problems with unusual or unexpected activities at the Site, such as emergency
response, vandalism or trespassing9 No.
5. Has EPA kept involved parties and surrounding neighbors informed of activities at the Site9 How
can EPA best provide site-related information in the future9 No. I don't want to answer.
6. Do you own a private well in addition to or instead of accessing city/municipal water supplies9 If so,
for what purpose(s) is your private well used9 I'm on city water.
7. Do you have any comments, suggestions or recommendations regarding any aspects of the project9
No.
1-10
-------
NORTH CAVALCADE SUPERFUND SITE
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW INTERVIEW FORM
Site Name: North Cavalcade Superfund Site
EPA ID: 0678
Interviewer name: Kir by Webster
Interviewer affiliation: Skeo
Subject name:
Subject affiliation: Local Business
Subject contact information:
Interview date: February 6, 2023
Interview time: 10:00 AM
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 date9 Yes. Very familiar.
2. What is your overall impression of the project, including cleanup, maintenance and reuse activities
(as appropriate)9 It has been the largest waste of taxpayer's money I have ever seen or heard about.
It is a joke.
3. What have been the effects of this Site on the surrounding community, if any9 Zero.
4. Have there been any problems with unusual or unexpected activities at the Site, such as emergency
response, vandalism or trespassing9 No, because we keep everyone out.
5. Has EPA kept involved parties and surrounding neighbors informed of activities at the Site9 How
can EPA best provide site-related information in the future9 No, not at all. The best thing for the
EPA to do on this site is to leave and never return.
6. Do you own a private well in addition to or instead of accessing city/municipal water supplies9 If so,
for what purpose(s) is your private well used9 No. As far as I know, 100% of the people have public
water in the surrounding area.
7. Do you have any comments, suggestions or recommendations regarding any aspects of the project9 I
wish the government would stop wasting taxpayer's dollars and completely shut down. I have a very
low opinion of this project, especially when all over the other project areas that were contaminated
were covered over with concrete to keep the rain water from going subsurface. This whole project
was nothing but a joke.
8. Do you consent to your responses being included in the Site's FYR? Yes.
1-11
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
AQcncy
APPENDIX J - E J SCREEN REPORT
EJScreen Report (Version 2.11)
1 mile Ring Centered at 29.803720,-95.349759, TEXAS, EPA Region 6
Approximate Population: 12,523
Input Area (sq. miles): 3.14
N. Cavalcade
Selected Variables
State
Percentile
USA
Percentile
Environmental Justice Indexes
Particulate Matter 2.5 EJ index
93
96
Ozone EJ index
55
47
Diesel Particulate Matter EJ index*
96
96
AirToxics Cancer Risk EJ index*
90
95
AirToxics Respiratory HI EJ index*
91
95
Traffic Proximity EJ index
90
93
Lead Paint EJ index
93
94
Superfund Proximity EJ index
96
98
RMP Facility Proximity EJ index
92
96
Hazardous Waste Proximity EJ index
87
83
Underground Storage Tanks EJ index
91
92
Wastewater Discharge EJ index
66
78
EJ Indexes - The EJ indexes help users screen for potential EJ concerns. To do this, the EJ index combines data on low income and people of color populations
with a single environmental indicator.
EJ Index for the Selected Area Compared to All People's Blockgroups in the State/US
100
EJ Indexes
State Percentile I U5A Percent: le
*Diesel particular matter, air toxics cancer risk, and air toxics respiratory hazard index are from the EPA's Air Toxics Data Update, which is the Agency's ongoing,
comprehensive evaluation of air toxics in the United States. This effort aims to prioritize air toxics, emission sources, and locations of interest for further study. It
is important to remember that the air toxics 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 Air Toxics Data Update are reported to one significant figure and any additional
significant figures here are due to rounding. More information on the Air Toxics Data Update can be found at: https://www.epa.gov/haps/air-toxics-data-update.
March 27, 2023 1/4
J-i
-------
Protection EJScreen Report (Version 2.11)
1 mile Ring Centered at 29.803720,-95.349759, TEXAS, EPA Region 6
Approximate Population: 12,523
Input Area (sq. miles): 3.14
N. Cavalcade
March 27, 2023
* N Cavalcade
+ Search Result (point)
1:36.112
3 0.4 0,0 1.0 ml
i "o.V" ' V '
BSaKHEea?*®
Sites reporting to EPA
Superfund NPL
2
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDF)
0
March 27, 2023 2/4
J-2
-------
^FPA SSiPMMk'n EJScreen Report (Version 2.11)
1 mile Ring Centered at 29.803720,-95.349759, TEXAS, EPA Region 6
Approximate Population: 12,523
Input Area (sq. miles): 3.14
N. Cavalcade
Selected Variables
Value
State
%ile in
USA
%ile in
Avg,
State
Avg.
USA
Pollution and Sources
Particulate Matter 2.5 (ng/m3)
10.6
9.5
95
8.67
90
Ozone (ppb)
36.1
40
26
42.5
14
Diesel Particulate Matter' (ng/m3)
0.581
0.211
99
0.294
90-95th
Air Toxics Cancer Risk* (lifetime risk per million)
40
31
95
28
95-100th
Air Toxics Respiratory HI"
0.5
0.35
99
0.36
95-100th
Traffic Proximity (daily traffic count/distance to road)
2100
570
93
760
91
Lead Paint (% Pre-1960 Housing)
0.63
0.14
93
0.27
81
Superfund Proximity (site count/km distance)
1.9
0.084
99
0.13
99
RMP Facility Proximity (facility count/km distance)
2.6
0.94
91
0.77
93
Hazardous Waste Proximity (facility count/km distance)
1
0.72
78
2.2
56
Underground Storage Tanks (count/km2)
6.6
2.3
93
3.9
82
Wastewater Discharge (toxicity-weighted concentration/m distance)
0.0016
0.38
53
12
53
Socioeconomic Indicators
Demographic Index
70%
46%
81
35%
90
Supplemental Demographic Index
25%
17%
80
15%
88
People of Color
91%
59%
81
40%
89
Low Income
50%
33%
73
30%
79
Unemployment Rate
7%
5%
72
5%
71
Limited English Speaking Households
16%
7%
82
5%
90
Less Than High School Education
30%
16%
80
12%
91
Under Age 5
6%
7%
51
6%
59
Over Age 64
18%
13%
70
16%
59
Low Life Expectancy
23%
20%
83
20%
82
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.
March 27, 2023 3/4
J-3
-------
o-EPA Environmental Protection EJScreen Report (Version 2.11)
1 mile Ring Centered at 29.803720,-95.349759, TEXAS, EPA Region 6
Approximate Population: 12,523
Input Area (sq. miles): 3.14
N. Cavalcade
Selected Variables
State
Percentile
USA
Percentile
Supplemental Indexes
Particulate Matter 2.5 Supplemental Index
92
96
Ozone Supplemental Index
54
35
Diesel Particulate Matter Supplemental Index*
94
95
AirToxics Cancer Risk Supplemental Index*
87
94
AirToxics Respiratory HI Supplemental Index*
89
95
Traffic Proximity Supplemental Index
90
92
Lead Paint Supplemental Index
91
93
Superfund Proximity Supplemental Index
94
97
RMP Facility Proximity Supplemental Index
91
94
Hazardous Waste Proximity Supplemental Index
87
84
Underground Storage Tanks Supplemental Index
89
92
Wastewater Discharge Supplemental Index
70
75
Supplemental Indexes - The supplemental indexes offer a different perspective on community-level vulnerability. They combine data on low-income, limited
English speaking, less than high school education, unemployed, and low life expectancy populations with a single environmental indicator.
Supplemental Index for the Selected Area Compared to All People's Blockgroups in the State/US
Supplemental Indexes
State Percentile I USA Percent!le
This report shows the values for environmental and demographic indicators, EJScreen indexes, and supplemental 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. For additional information, see: www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice.
March 27, 2023 4/4
J-4
------- |