|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
|
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT FIRST FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT for Tenth Street Superfund Site Oklahoma City Oklahoma County , Oklahoma EPA ID# OKD980620967 September 2001 Prepared by: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6 Dallas, Texas and the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality Oklahoma City, Oklahoma \ Concurred by: A^L^LQ V^AVAViJct' Stacey Bennei P.E., US EPA Remedial Project Manager Date Concurred Gus Chavama,US hrA Chief, Texas/Arkansas Programs Section Date Concurred by: //.,.'-((i^^c^^ ^-Mr.j^.^A /..i -A Tracy She^p^rd, U.S. EPA Regional Counsel Superfund Date 146341 Concurred by: Chief, Texas/Arkansas Branch Concurred byL J^>^<^^^ J^L, Mark A. Peycke,p.sTEPA Regional Counsel Superfund €f//7^/ /Date- Concurred by:G^ 1/L{D^4^- JMne Buzzell, water Editor Superfund Division Date •& UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGIONS 1445 ROSS AVENUE, SUITE 1200 DALLAS, TX 75202-2733 MEMORANDUM From: Stacey Bennett, P.E. . ^ l a ^(J Remedial Project Manager (6SF-AP) Through: William Honker, Chief ,c TX/AR Branch (6SF-A^ To: Myron 0. Knudson, P.E., Director Superfund Division (6SF) RE: Approval of the First 5-year Review Tenth Street Superfund Site OKD980620967 This memorandum approves the 5-year review report dated September 2001, which was prepared jointly by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6 and the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality. Based upon the 5-year review report, the Tenth Street Superfund Site remedy is protective of human health and the environment. The 5-year review was a statutory requirement as per the NCP part 300.430 (f)(4)(ii) of the Code of Federal Regulations. The review was comprised of: 1) inspecting the areas remediated, 2) conducting a review of ground water sampling data, 3) inspecting the River, and 4) interviewing a nearby business owner, a former member of a community advisory group, and a city council member to determine whether there were additional concerns regarding the remedy and its protectiveness. Although the results of the review concluded that the overall remedy is protective of human health and the environment, there were 3 minor issues that must be addressed to ensure future protectiveness of the remedy. All issues will be followed up by the State before the end of the calendar year. Minor Issues 1. The current 0 & M plan (dated 1995) requires groundwater sampling annually and mowing of the grass twice a year. The current frequency of mowing has been altered to meet the seasonal needs. Action: Because no PCBs have been detected in the groundwater for the last 5 years, it Internet Address (URL) - http://www.epa.gov/earth1 r6/ Recycled/Recyclable - Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer) is recommended that the sampling of the wells be reduced to once every other year instead of every year. Mowing of the grass will continue twice a year, unless there is a fire danger from letting the grass grow too tall in dry years. The 0& M plan should be revised to incorporate these changes. 2. All monitoring wells are located outside of the Site fence and do not have locks to prevent unauthorized access. Action: The ODEQ will place locks on all monitoring wells before the end of the month. 3. There are no institutional controls in place to prevent future land uses or activities from placing structures or digging into the cap. Action: The EPA and State should meet with the City and appropriate owners to determine how this issue can be addressed. One potential mechanism is the use of a deed notice. Determinations I have determined that the remedy for the Tenth Street Superfund Site is protective of human health and the environment, and will remain so provided the minor concerns identified in the Five-Year Review Report are addressed as described above. ^0^1 ,^ C Myron 0. Knudson, P.E. Director Superfund Division U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6 Date Five-Year Review Report First Five-Year Review Report For The Tenth Street Superfund Site Oklahoma City Oklahoma, Oklahoma OKD980620967 September 2001 PREPARED BY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6 Dallas, Texas and the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality Oklahoma City, Oklahoma TTSFive-yearreview.doc - 1 - 09/26/01 Table of Contents List of Acronyms..................................................................... 3 Executive Summary.................................................................. 4 Five Year Review Summary Form ................................................ 5 I. Introduction................................................................... 7 II. Site Chronology............................................................... 8 III. Background.................................................................... 9 Site Characteristics...............................9 Land and Resource Use..........................9 History of Contamination........................9 Initial Response Actions.........................9 Contaminants and Media Impacted............ 10 Tinman Health and Environmental Impacts... 10 Feasibility Study.................................. 11 IV. Remedial Actions............................................................. 11 Remedial Action Objectives....................11 Remedy Selection................................ 11 ROD Amendment................................12 Remedy Implementation........................ 13 Operation and Maintenance.....................14 V. Five-Year Review Progress................................................... 15 VI. Five-Year Review Process.................................................... 15 Community Involvement......................... 15 Documents Review............................... 15 Data Review....................................... 16 Site Inspection..................................... 16 Interviews.......................................... 16 VII. Assessment...................................................................... 17 VIIL Issues...........................................................................18 IX. Recommendations and Follow-up Actions................................18 X. Protectiveness Statements................................................... 18 XI. Next Review...................................................................19 Tables Table 1: Chronology of Site Events...................................... 7 Table 2: Feasibility Study Alternatives Summary..................... 11 Table 3: Initial PCB Results for Groundwater Monitoring, 1996 ..... 12 Table 4: Annual System Operations/O&M Costs....................... 13 Table 5: Annual PCB Results for Groundwater Monitoring........... 14 Figures Figure 1: Site Map ...................................................... Appendix TTSFive-yearreview.doc - 2 - 09/26/01 List of Acronyms CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 also known as Superfund: Amended in 1986 by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA). CFR Code of Federal Regulations DEQ Oklahoma Department Of Environmental Quality EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency FS Feasibility study FR Federal Register IAG Interagency Agreement NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan NPL National Priorities List: A list of sites identified for remediation under CERCLA. O&M 'Operation and maintenance OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response PCBs Polychlorinated biphenyls RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RA Remedial action RD Remedial design RI/FS Remedial investigation/ feasibility study ROD Record of Decision: Documents the selection of cost-effective Superfund Financed remedy. SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986. (See CERCLA.) SWDA Solid Waste Disposal Act TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers WasteLAN The Regional database related to CERCLIS TTSFive-yearreview.doc 09/26/01 - 3 Executive Summary The Tenth Street Superfund Site is located in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The Site was used as a municipal landfill from 1951 to 1954. The Site was then used as a salvage yard from 1959 to 1985, accepting materials such as tires, solvents, and transformers. The initial Record of Decision (ROD) selected a remedial alternative to excavate and chemically treat contaminated soils onsite. After technical problems arose during the implementation of the remedy, an amended ROD was signed in September 1993, which provided for the construction of a permanent cap to cover the additional consolidated soils contaminated with PCBs. Construction activities were initiated August 28, 1995 and completed January 4, 1996. The EPA issued the Final Close Out Report for the Site on July 3, 1997. The trigger for this five-year review was the actual start of construction on August 28, 1995. The assessment of this five-year review found that the remedy was constructed in accordance with the requirements of the ROD and that the remedy is functioning as designed. Although no major deficiencies were found during the review, three minor concerns were discovered and will be addressed to ensure the future protectiveness of the remedy. These three minor concerns are: 1) updating the 0 & M plan to incorporate the current grass mowing schedule and proposed ground water sampling frequency; 2) placing locks on the ground water monitoring wells; and, 3) determining adequate institutional controls to ensure that future land activities or uses do not compromise the cap's integrity. TTSFive-yearreview.doc - 4 - 09/26/01 Five-Year Review Summary Form SITE IDENTIFICATION Site Name (from WasteLan): Tenth Street Superfund Site EPA ID (from WasteLan): OKD980620967 City/County: Oklahoma NPL status: Final Remediation Status: Under Construction Operating XX Complete Multiple OUs: NO Construction Completion Date: January 7,1997 Has Site been put into Reuse: NO REVIEW STATUS Lead Agency: EPAandODEQ Author name: Stacey Bennett (EPA) and Dennis Datin (ODEQ) Author title: Remedial Project Manager Review period: August 2000 through September 2001 Date(s) of Site Inspection: May 9, 2000 Type of Review: Post-SARA Review number: 1 (first) Triggering Action: Actual RA On-Site Construction Triggering Action Date (from WasteLAN): August 28, 1995 Due Date (five years after triggering action date): August 28, 2000 TTSFive-yearreview.doc 09/26/01 - 5 Five-Year Review Summary Form, continued Issues: No major issues were identified. Three minor issues were identified. 1. The current 0 & M plan (dated 1995) requires ground water sampling annually and mowing of the grass twice a year. The current frequency of mowing has been altered to meet the seasonal needs. 2. All monitoring wells are located outside of the site fence and do not have locks. 3. There are no institutional controls to prevent future owners from placing structures or digging into the cap. Recommendations and Follow-up Actions: 1. It is recommended that the sampling of the wells be reduced to once every other year instead of every year. The results of the sampling show that no PCBs are in the ground water. Mowing of the grass will continue twice a year, unless there is a fire danger from letting the grass grow too tall in dry years. The 0& M plan should be revised to incorporate these changes. 2. All monitoring wells must have locks in order to prevent unauthorized access. 3. The EPA and DEQ will need to investigate necessary measures to ensure that future uses of the property will not compromise the cap's integrity. Protectiveness Statement The remedy that was implemented for the Tenth Street Supermnd Site is protective of human health and the environment, and will remain so provided the minor concerns listed above are addressed. TTSFive-yearreview.doc - 6 - 09/26/01 I. Introduction The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) have jointly conducted a five-year review of the remedial actions implemented at the Tenth Street Dump/Junkyard Superfand Site in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The review was conducted from August 2000 through September 2001. This report documents the results of the review. The purpose of five-year reviews is to determine whether the remedy at a site is protective of human health and the environment. The methods, findings, and conclusions of reviews are documented in five-year review reports. In addition, five-year review reports identify deficiencies found during the review, if any, and recommendations to address them. The EPA musfimplement five-year reviews consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). CERCLA § 121 ©, as amended, states: If the President selects a remedial action that results in any hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site, the President shall review such remedial action no less often than each five years after the initiation of such remedial action to assure that human health and the environment are being protected by the remedial action being implemented. The NCP part 300.430(f)(4)(ii) of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) states: If a remedial action is selected that results in hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, the lead agency shall review such action no less often that every five years after the initiation of the selected remedial action. This is the first five-year review for the Tenth Street Superfand site. The triggering action for this statutory review is the date of the start of the remedial action, which was August 28, 1995. The five-year review is required due to the fact that hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at the site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. TTSFive-yearreview.doc - 7 - 09/26/01 II. Site Chronology Table 1: Chronology of Site Events EVENTS North Canadian River channelized and levees built, removing the meander loop, which crossed through the Site. Site was operated as a municipal landfill. No activity noted at the Site. Site was operated as a salvage yard. EPA inspected the Site, finding drums, which were bulging, corroded and/or leaking. Sampling of soils and drums by EPA and posting of warning signs at the Site. EPA Region VI Regional Administrator approves a removal action to fence and cap the Site. Phase I removal action conducted by Region VI Emergency Response Clean Up Service contractor to decontaminate and relocate automobiles, spare parts, the office building and tire repair machine shop. Phase II removal action conducted to level, place temporary cap, and seed Site; install fencing; and dispose of 20 drums. Site proposed for the National Priorities List (52 FR 2492). Site added to the National Priorities List (52 FR 27620). Field investigation conducted for Remedial Investigation Report. Feasibility Study Report published. Record of Decision (ROD) issued requiring chemical treatment of the PCB-contaminated soil. Feasibility Study Report Addendum published. Public Notice announcing Amended Proposed Plan. Amended ROD (including responses to comments from public) issued requiring capping-of contaminated soil meeting technical requirements for caps under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) 40 CFR 761.75 (b) (1) and (2). EPA issues Interagency Agreement No. DW96950179-01-0 to the USCOE to perform remedial design. EPA issues Interagency Agreement No. DW96950200-01-0 to the USCOE to perform remedial action. Final Remedial Design completed. 0 & M Plan Contract DACW56-95-C-0027 for construction of the remedial action awarded to Abatement Systems, Inc. Notice To Proceed issued. Remediation activities at the Site began. Pre-final inspection conducted which determined that the remedial action contractor has substantially completed the construction activities, except turfing, in accordance with the Remedial Design plans and specifications. 4-Month Warranty Inspection EPA Issued Preliminary Close-Out Report 8-month Warranty Inspection Final Inspection Operational and Functional Determination Final Close-Out Report The site was delisted from the NPL DATES 1951 - 1954 1954-1959 1959-1985 1983 1984-1985 Aug 23, 1985 Sep 12-27, 1985 Dec 9, 1985-AprlO, 1987 January, 1987 July, 1987 April, 1989 July, 1990 Sep 27, 1990 April 1993 July 13, 1993 Sep 30, 1993 May 11, 1994 Sep 28,1994 January, 1995 May 1995 Apr26, 1995 May 31, 1995 Aug 28, 1995 Jan 4, 1996 Apr30,1996 Junll, 1996 Sep 18, 1996 January, 1997 January, 1997 July 3, 1997 November 21,2000 TTSFive-yearreview.doc 09/26/01 - 8 III. Background Site Characteristics The Site is located in an industrial and residential area in northeast Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (Section 31, Township 12 North, Range 2 West). The Site is located on the south side of Tenth Street between Bryant Avenue and the North Canadian River and covers approximately 3.5 acres (Figure 1). One residence is located adjacent to the west side of the Site. Residential subdivisions are located approximately one block to the north and approximately one block to the west of the Site. Aerial photos show that in 1951 a meander loop of the North Canadian River cut almost directly through the Site, making the Site subject to a 100-year flood. Between 1951 and 1954, the river was channelized and levees were constructed on both sides of the river. Land and Resource Use The site is in an area of mixed residential and industrial land use, and is surrounded on three sides by active automobile salvage yards. In the September 27, 1990 Record of Decision, EPA assigned an industrial land use to this site. The site is currently not being used. The Oklahoma County owns the majority of the property and three private landowners own other portions of the property. The area is not currently zoned. Although insufficient information exists to classify the alluvial aquifer at the site, EPA believes the appropriate classification is Class II, potential drinking water supply. The aquifer is not contaminated with PCBs, meets primary drinking water standards, does not exceed 10,000 ppm total dissolved solids, and probably yields more than 150 gallons per day. No users of the alluvial aquifer have been identified; all known water supply wells in the immediate area are probably completed in the Garber-Wellington. History of Contamination The Site, including the cutoff meander loop, was operated as a municipal landfill between 1951 and 1954. No activity at the Site was noted between 1954 and 1959. Beginning in 1959, Mr. Raymond Cobb leased the Site from Mr. Sullivan Scott and used the Site as a salvage yard, accepting materials such as tires, solvents, and transformers. The dielectric fluids from the transformers contained Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs). The fluids were drained from the transformers, then transferred to barrels and sold. During the recovery process, substantial quantities of oil were spilled onto the ground. Mr. Cobb continued this operation until his death in 1979, when Mr. Rolling Fulbright began operating the Site as Deadeye's Salvage Yard, an automobile salvage yard. Initial Response Actions Sampling by the EPA in 1984 and 1985 identified PCB concentrations up to 39,000 parts per million (ppm) in the soil. After reviewing the data, EPA determined that the contaminants posed a potential health threat. TTSFive-yearreview.doc - 9 - 09/26/01 The Regional Administrator authorized a removal action in an Action Memorandum dated August 23, 1985. The EPA began the removal action for the Site in September 1985 to address direct human contact threats and the potential for offsite migration of contaminants The removal action was successfully completed in April 1987. The removal action consisted of: • Removing and disposing of the electrical equipment and drums containing hazardous substances; • Decontaminating and relocating of automobiles and other salvage material; • Consolidation of contaminated soils to the center of the Site; • Grading of the Site for effective drainage, • Installation of a temporary synthetic liner and clay cap; and • Erection of a security fence around the Site. The Site was proposed for the National Priorities List (NPL) in January 1987 (52 FR 2492) and placed on the NPL in July 1987 (52 FR 27620). Contaminants and Media Impacted The EPA initiated a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) in 1989. The RI determined the types and amounts of contaminants present at the Site and discovered the extent of contamination. The RI indicated that PCBs were the contaminants of concern at the Site, and were limited to surface and subsurface soils at the Site. The predominant PCB species present was Aroclor 1260. The ground water table at the site ranged from about 1151.7 Mean Sea Level (MSL) to about 1150.0 MSL. Contaminated soil at its deepest point onsite was approximately 3 feet above the water table. No PCBs or other compounds were detected in ground water samples taken during the RI. In addition, surface water samples were collected during the RI and no contaminates attributable to the Site were detected. Human Health and Environmental Impacts The human health risk assessment conducted during the RI, indicated that carcinogenic risks posed by the site were attributed to PCB contamination in the soil. The average lifetime carcinogenic risk from direct contact with soil, based on the average concentration of PCBs in soil was estimated to be 3.8 x 10 -5 excess cancer incident. The environmental risks associated with contaminants at the site were reported during the RI to be non-measurable or minimal. Surface waste samples collected showed no organic chemicals related to the site. In addition, biota samples collected indicated that the North Canadian River, downstream from the site, contained more individual species than upstream. During 1987, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of the Interior conducted a Preliminary Natural Resource Survey and granted a release from natural resource damages. TTSFive-yearreview.doc -10- 09/26/01 Feasibility Study The Feasibility Study (FS) developed and evaluated a range of alternatives to remediate the soil contamination. A total of 5 alternatives were considered after a screening process. Table 2 below lists the alternatives considered. Table 2. Feasibility Study Alternatives Summary, Tenth Street Superfund Site, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Alt. Number 1 3 4 5 6 Alternative Description 1 No Action Excavation and Off-site Disposal Excavation, Onsite-Chemical Treatment and Disposal Onsite Excavation, Onsite Thermal Treatment, and Disposal Onsite Excavation and Offsite Thermal Treatment Capital Cost $ 2,500 $ 4,037,000 $ 4,044,000 $ 4,406,000 $17,829,000 Annual O&Mcost $ 11,800 $0 $0 $0 $0 Present Worth Cost $ 184,200 $ 4,037,000 $ 4,044,000 $ 4,406,000 $ 17,829,000 Implefflsent^itm • - 'Ilriwh1':1^' 30 years for O&M 3 months 6-9 months 6-9 months 3 months Note: Alternative 2 was screened out prior to the detailed evaluation of alternatives because the site was in a flood plain and because the alternative would not satisfy the preference for treatment expressed in SARA, (ROD, September 27, 1990). IV. Remedial Actions Remedial Action Objectives Based upon the concentration and risk ofPCBs, the Site was determined to pose a principal threat because of the potential for direct contact with the contaminated soil and the soil's potential impact on ground water. The scope of the response action was to address the principal threat at the Site by preventing current or future exposure to the contaminated soil through treatment and/or containment, and reducing or controlling the potential migration of contaminants from the soil to ground water. Remedy Selection A proposed plan for the Site was issued in August 1990, presenting the preferred alternative of chemical dechlorination of the contaminated soil. The EPA Regional Administrator for Region 6 signed a Record of Decision (ROD) on September 27, 1990. In the ROD, EPA selected Alternative 4 - Excavation, Onsite Chemical Treatment, as the TTSFive-yearre view.doc 09/26/01 - 11 remedy for the Tenth Street Superfund Site. As noted in the ROD in the "Statement of Basis and Purpose," the State of Oklahoma (State) did not support the original remedy selected in the ROD. The major components of the Selected Remedy included: • Removing the existing red clay cover and the visqueen plastic liner from the removal action, • Excavating an estimated 7,500 cubic yards ofPCB contaminated soil with concentrations of 25 ppm and higher, • Chemically treating the excavated contaminated soil by a chemical dechlorination process meeting the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) PCB alternative treatment requirements, • Backfilling the treated soil in the excavated area, and • Grading the site for effective drainage and establish vegetative cover. During the Remedial Design (RD) phase of the onsite chemical treatment remedy, the EPA became aware of problems with the implementation of this process at other Superfund sites. Problems that were experienced included: low production rates; severe odor problems during the treatment process and persisting in the soil after treatment; "soupy" (wet) physical condition of the treated soil and the ensuing need for stabilization before placement back on the ground as backfill; soil volume increases of 100% during treatment, causing space problems for backfilling on the site; and leaching of residual reagent from the soil following treatment. In addition to the technical problems related to chemical dechlorination experienced at other Superfund sites, onsite treatment of the contaminated soil was further complicated as the result of construction debris and other types of solid waste that had been dumped at the Tenth Street Site previous to the PCB spills. The contaminated soil from PCBs became mixed with the solid waste and the materials handling problems resulting from such a mixture greatly complicated the treatment remedy. Projected construction costs were also greatly increasing. As a result, EPA re-evaluated the remedial alternatives at the Site. ROD Amendment On September 30, 1993, the EPA Regional Administrator for Region 6 signed an Amended ROD, which was concurred upon by the State. The amended remedy addressed approximately 9,800 cubic yards of soil contaminated with PCBs at or above 25 ppm. The objective of the amended remedy was the same as the original ROD, which was to protect human health and the environment by preventing current or future exposure to the contaminated soil through treatment and/or containment, and reducing or controlling the potential migration of contaminants from the soil to ground water. The major components of the selected remedy-as reflected in the Amended ROD included: • Excavation and placement of contaminated soil from the roadway right-of-way on the south side ofN.E. Tenth Street onto the existing cap; TTSFive-yearreview.doc -12- 09/26/01 • Allowing the Oklahoma Department of Transportation's widening of Tenth Street to cover contaminated soil in the roadway right-of-way on the North side ofN.E. Tenth Street; • Construction of a new cap meeting the technical requirements for caps under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 40 CFR Section 761.75 (b)(l) and (2); and • Maintenance of the cap and ground water monitoring. The revised remedy of capping the waste does not satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as a principal element of the remedy. But, the EPA, with concurrence from the State of Oklahoma, determined that this alternative was protective of human health and the environment, complied with Federal and State requirements that are applicable or relevant and appropriate, was cost effective compared to equally protective alternatives that utilized permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable. The estimated cost of this selected remedy was $648,000. Remedy Implementation The EPA entered into an Interagency Agreement (IAG) with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE-Tulsa District) to perform the remedial design and the remedial action. The US ACE initiated the remedial action contract on May 31, 1995, and the actual remedial action construction activities at the Site began on August 28,1995. The major components of the remedial action included: * Drum sampling and disposal, * Over-drilling and grouting of existing monitoring wells, * Excavation and relocation ofPCB-contaminated soil from the perimeter of the Site, * Soil sampling of the walls and bottom of the excavated area for PCBs, * Placement, grading and compaction of random fill to grade the Site at the required foundation elevation, * Installation and development of three down-gradient ground water monitoring wells, * Placement of 3-foot thick clay barrier layer, * Placement ofgeomembrane, drainage net, and geotextile, * Installation of perimeter drain system, * Placement of cover soil and topsoil layers, * Monitoring well sampling, * Installation of a new fence around the Site, and * Establishment of turf. During the remedial action activities, 2 feet of additional excavation was needed in an area which was determined to exceed the PCB cleanup standard after the initial excavation sampling. This additional 275 cubic yards of excavation and the additional testing required added an additional $17,825 to the original estimated costs. TTSFive-yearreview.doc - 13 - 09/26/01 At the conclusion of the remedial action, approximately 4,655 cubic yards (cy3) of soil with the concentrations ofPCBs greater than 25 ppm had been excavated from the north and west perimeter and the south comer of the perimeter of the Site. These soils were then spread in the area where the existing cap, along with the remainder of the waste (from the Removal Action in 1987), was located. This area was then capped, sprigged and fertilized. A new fence was also installed around the Site. The remedial action contractor obtained samples from the 5 monitoring wells (3 new downgradient wells which are MW3A, MW 4A, and MW 5A and 2 existing upgradient wells which are M-l and M-2) and had the samples analyzed for PCBs. All analyses showed non-detectable levels of PCBs, indicating that no PCBs are leaching into the groundwater and migrating offsite. The results of the analyses are shown in Table 3 below. TABLE 3. INITIAL PCB RESULTS FOR GROUNDWATER MONITORING, 1996 (Hg/1) Analyte Arochlor 1016 Arochlor 1221 Arochlor 1232 Arochlor 1242 Arochlor 1248 Arochlor 1254 Arochlor 1260 M-l <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <20.0 <20.0 M-2 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <20.0 <20.0 MW3A < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 MW4A < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 MW5A < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 NOTE: The MCL for PCBs is 0.5 ug/1. The remedial action was completed on January 4, 1996. Operation and Maintenance The initial Operations and Maintenance (0 & M) plan required that the cap be inspected once a month or immediately following a heavy rainfall event for the first six months and then every six months thereafter. Ground water monitoring would be conducted once every year. An annual report was to be developed following receipt of laboratory data from the monitoring well sampling. In January 1997, the State of Oklahoma began inspection, maintenance, and monitoring activities in accordance with the approved O&M Plan issued May 1995. The TTSFive-yearreview.doc 09/26/01 - 14 ground water monitoring wells at the Site are sampled annually. Monitoring consists of sampling 5 monitoring wells, 2 up gradient and 3 down gradient, to verify that PCBs from this Site are not contaminating the ground water. Additionally, the grass on the cap was mowed three times the first year and twice the second year and third years and then will be mowed only once a year for this year. The current mowing schedules are changes to the original O&M plan. The cap is inspected for damage at least once a year. Repairs from erosion or other damage will be made as necessary by the State. Table 4 below summarizes the annual O&M costs since 1997. Table 4: Annual System Operations/O&M Costs Dates From July 1, 1997 July 1,1998 July 1, 1999 To June 30, 1998 June 30, 1999 June 30, 2000 Total Cost rounded to nearest $1000 1800 1800 1600 V. Progress Since the Last Five-Year Review This was the first five-year review for the Site. VI. Five-Year Review Process The five-year review team consisted of Dennis L. Datin of the DEQ, and Camille Hueni, Noel Bennett, and Stacey Bennett with the EPA. The review was conducted from August 2000 until September 2001. The tasks for the five-year review included: 1. Review of the existing sampling data up to September 1999, 2. Review of the MCL set for PCBs, 3. Interviews with a nearby business owner, former member of a citizen advisory group, and a city council member, 4. Inspection of the site on May 9, 2000, and 5. Preparation of the five-year review report. Community Involvement The community was not notified that a five-year review has begun. Instead, a fact sheet will be provided to the community stating the results of the five-year review. Documents Review The following documents were reviewed to complete this five-year review. These documents included: • Tenth Street Operation and Maintenance Plan, May 1995, • 10th Street Dump Record of Decision, September 1990, • Amended Record of Decision, September 1993, • Preliminary Close-Out Report, Tenth Street Superfund Site, Feb 1997, • Final Close-Out Report, Tenth Street Superfund Site, July 3, 1997, TTSFive-yearreview.doc 09/26/01 - 15 • Groundwater Assessment reports, 1996-2000, • 10th Street Superfund Site Final Design Analysis, June 1995, • Remedial Action Report, Tenth Street Superfund Site Data Review Prior to the completion of the remedial action, ground water sampling was conducted as part of the confirmation sampling (See Table 3 in the Remedy Implementation Section). The 0& M plan also required ground water sampling once a year. Table 5 below summarizes the results of the annual ground water sampling. No PCBs have been detected in the ground water through September 2000. TABLE 5. ANNUAL PCB RESULTS FOR GROUNDWATER MONITORING, 1997-2000 (Hg/1) ANALYTE Total PCBs in Water September 1997 Total PCBs in Water September 1998 Total PCBs in Water September 1999 Total PCBs in Water September 2000 M-l < 0.300 < 0.220 N 0.000 N 0.000 M-2 < 0.300 < 0.300 N 0.000 N 0.000 MW3A < 0.300 < 0.300 N 0.000 N 0.000 MW4A < 0.300 < 0.300 N 0.000 N 0.000 MW5A < 0.300 < 0.300 N 0.000 N 0.000 NOTE I: N = No PCB common peaks detected and confirmed. NOTE 2: The sampling method used is EPA Method 608. Site Inspection The EPA and DEQ conducted a site inspection on May 9, 2000. The visual inspection revealed that the site cap cover is sound and that the vegetative cover is adequate. The fence was in good condition at this time with the gates having adequate locks on them. The monitoring wells are located outside of the fenced area. Although the monitoring wells were in good condition, there were no locks on the wells. Interviews DEQ interviewed a nearby business owner, a former member of a citizen advisory group, and a city council member. None of the interviewees expressed any concerns regarding the remedy at the site. The city council member stated that the frequency of grass mowing should be carefully monitored. VII. Assessment An overall assessment of the remedy implemented at the Site was conducted in order to confirm that the selected remedy is operating according to the ROD expectations. The assessment was primarily used to answer the following questions: • Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? TTSF ive-yearreview. doc 09/26/01 - 16. • Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives (RAOs) used at the time of the remedy selection still valid? • Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy? Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? All activities at the Site were consistent with the ROD, as amended, and with the RD and RA statements of work issued to the USCOE for design and construction of the remedy. All contaminated soil with more than 25 ppm PCBs was placed under a clay barrier layer with a geo-membrane liner. Infiltration of precipitation is retarded because of this liner, thereby reducing the possibility of leaching of the contaminants into the ground water. The inspection and maintenance of the cap according with the 0 & M plan insures that cap's integrity remains in place. Annual sampling of the ground water has revealed that no PCBs are present, which supports the successfulness of the remedy. The health and safety plan for the site is adequate. Access control to the site is adequate with the chain link fence in good condition and there are locks on the gate. The operation and maintenance of the site is easily accomplished with mowing to control the grass, which usually takes place in September of each year. The cost of mowing the site is about $650 per year. The ground water sampling usually occurs in September of each year. One issue that was discovered is that the monitoring wells do not have locks to prevent unauthorized access. All of the monitoring wells are located outside of the Site fence. Since the site has been closed, there have been no changes in the effectiveness of the remedy and the remedy is functioning adequately. There have been no changes in land use of the surrounding areas since the remedy began. Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives (RAOs) used at the time of the remedy selection still valid? The baseline risk assessment conducted during the 1990 RI/FS and a second risk assessment conducted in March 1993 for the amended ROD was based on an exposure scenario for an industrial worker. Current and future land uses are expected to remain industrial onsite and residential offsite. Although no formal land use plan was obtained from the City of Oklahoma Planning Department, land use patterns in the immediate vicinity of the site TTSFive-yearreview.doc -17- 09/26/01 are consistent with these designations, and consequently are consistent with the assumptions in the ROD. The MCL for PCBs in the groundwater is 0.5 ug/1. The remedial action complies with all applicable and relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs). These include the EPA and DEQ rules and regulations. Because the cap is functional and no PCBs were found in the ground water, no risk recalculation/assessment was necessary for this site. Question C: Has any other information come into light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy? There is no additional information which calls into question the protectiveness of the remedy. Although the site is in the 100-year flood plain, the USACE has confirmed that current controls, such as the levees, are still protective. This demonstrates that the cap will not be impacted from a 100-year flood. VIII. Issues An inspection of the site revealed no deficiencies in the remedy. At the current time there are no institutional controls for the site if the property is sold. This is a minor deficiency that will need to be monitored. Additionally, locks need to be maintained on the monitoring wells to prevent unauthorized access. IX. Recommendations and Follow-up Actions The current 0 & M plan requires ground water sampling annually and mowing of the grass twice a year. It is recommended that the sampling of the wells be reduced to once every other year instead of every year. The results of the sampling show that no PCBs are in the ground water. Mowing of the grass will continue twice a year, unless there is a fire danger from letting the grass grow too tall in dry years. There are no institutional controls to prevent future owners from placing structures or digging into the cap. The EPA and DEQ will need to investigate necessary measures to ensure that the cap's integrity is not compromised. In addition, locks need to be placed on all monitoring wells to prevent unauthorized access. The five-year reviews will continue as required. X. Protectiveness Statements Four years after completion of the remedial action, the remedy at the Tenth Street Superfund Site in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, is protective of human health and the environment. All contaminated soil with more than 25 ppm PCBs was placed under a clay barrier layer with a gee-membrane liner. This liner, reducing possible leaching of the TTSFive-yearreview.doc -18- 09/26/01 contaminants into the ground water, retards infiltration of precipitation. Protection of the ground water has been verified by the yearly ground water sampling of the five monitoring wells, in which this sampling has revealed that there are no detectable levels ofPCBs in the ground water. XI. Next Review The next five-year review will be due in September 2006, which is 5 years from the date of this report. TTSFive-yearreview.doc - 19 • 09/26/01 BIBLIOGRAPHY U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Tenth Street Superfund Site Remedial Investigation Report, 2 Volumes, EPA Region 6, Undated. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Tenth Street Superfund Site Feasibility Study Report, EPA Region 6, July 1990. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Tenth Street Superfund Site Feasibility Study Report Addendum, EPA Region 6, April 1993. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Tenth Street Dump, Record of Decision, EPA Region 6, September 1990. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Tenth Street Site, Amended Record of Decision, EPA Region 6, September 1993. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District, 10th Street Superfund Site Final Design Analysis, June 1995. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District, 10th Street Superfund Site Construction Specifications and Plans, January 1995. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District, Tenth Street Superfund Site Preliminary Close Out Report -Draft, February 1996. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Southwestern Division Laboratory, Results of Chemical Analyses of Soil Samples 10th Street (sic) Superfund Site, SWDED-GL Report No. 16402, October, 1995. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Southwestern Division Laboratory, Results of Borrow Material for Clay Cap Tenth Street, OK, SWDED-GL Report No. 16402-1, January, 1995. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Close Out Procedures for National Priority List Sites - Interim Final, (U. S. EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Directive 9320.2-09), August 1995. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Structure and Components ofFive-Year Reviews, (U. S. EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Directive 9355.7- 02), May 1991 TTSFive-yearreview.doc - 20 - 09/26/01 APPENDIX VICINITY MAP 10th STREET SUPERFUND SITE OKLAHOMA CITY,OKLAHOMA Figure 1 2
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.
Okla State Agency |
Environmental Quality, Oklahoma Department of |
Okla Agency Code | '292' |
Title | First five-year review report for Tenth Street Superfund site, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma |
Authors |
United States. Environmental Protection Agency. Region VI. Oklahoma. Department of Environmental Quality. |
Publisher | Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality |
Publication Date | 2001-09 |
Publication type | Technical Reports |
Subject |
Hazardous waste sites--Oklahoma--Oklahoma City. Hazardous waste site remediation--Oklahoma--Oklahoma City. |
Purpose | The Tenth Street Superfund Site is located in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The Site was used as a municipal landfill from 1951 to 1954. The Site was then used as a salvage yard from 1959 to 1985, accepting materials such as tires, solvents, and transformers.; The 5-year review was a statutory requirement as per the NCP part 300.430 (f)(4)(ii) of the Code of Federal Regulations. The review was comprised of: 1) inspecting the areas remediated, 2) conducting a review of ground water sampling data, 3) inspecting the River, and 4) interviewing a nearby business owner, a former member of a community advisory group, and a city council member to determine whether there were additional concerns regarding the remedy and its protectiveness. |
Contents | Executive Summary; Five Year Review Summary Form; II. Site Chronology; III. Background; Site Characteristics; Land and Resource Use; History of Contamination; Initial Response Actions; Contaminants and Media Impacted; Health and Environmental Impacts; Feasibility Study; IV. Remedial Actions; Remedial Action Objectives; Remedy Selection; ROD Amendment; Remedy Implementation; Operation and Maintenance; V. Five-Year Review Progress; VI. Five-Year Review Process; Community Involvement; Documents Review; Data Review; Site Inspection; Interviews; VII. Assessment; VIII. Issues; IX. Recommendations and Follow-up Actions; X. Protectiveness Statements; XI. Next Review |
Notes | (Five-year review report); EPA ID#OKD980620967 |
OkDocs Class# | E4850.3 T313rr 2001 |
Digital Format | PDF, Adobe Reader required |
ODL electronic copy | Downloaded from agency website: http://www.deq.state.ok.us/lpdnew/SF/Superfund%20Project/Tenth%20Street/1st%20Five-Year%20Review/FIRST%20FIVE%20YEAR%20REVIEW%20REPORT%20FOR%20TENTH%20STREET%20SUPERFUND%20SITE%20-%20OKLAHOMA%20CITY,%20OKLAHOMA%20COUNTY,%20OKLAHOMA.pdf |
Rights and Permissions | This Oklahoma state government publication is provided for educational purposes under U.S. copyright law. Other usage requires permission of copyright holders. |
Language | English |
Full text | FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT FIRST FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT for Tenth Street Superfund Site Oklahoma City Oklahoma County , Oklahoma EPA ID# OKD980620967 September 2001 Prepared by: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6 Dallas, Texas and the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality Oklahoma City, Oklahoma \ Concurred by: A^L^LQ V^AVAViJct' Stacey Bennei P.E., US EPA Remedial Project Manager Date Concurred Gus Chavama,US hrA Chief, Texas/Arkansas Programs Section Date Concurred by: //.,.'-((i^^c^^ ^-Mr.j^.^A /..i -A Tracy She^p^rd, U.S. EPA Regional Counsel Superfund Date 146341 Concurred by: Chief, Texas/Arkansas Branch Concurred byL J^>^<^^^ J^L, Mark A. Peycke,p.sTEPA Regional Counsel Superfund €f//7^/ /Date- Concurred by:G^ 1/L{D^4^- JMne Buzzell, water Editor Superfund Division Date •& UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGIONS 1445 ROSS AVENUE, SUITE 1200 DALLAS, TX 75202-2733 MEMORANDUM From: Stacey Bennett, P.E. . ^ l a ^(J Remedial Project Manager (6SF-AP) Through: William Honker, Chief ,c TX/AR Branch (6SF-A^ To: Myron 0. Knudson, P.E., Director Superfund Division (6SF) RE: Approval of the First 5-year Review Tenth Street Superfund Site OKD980620967 This memorandum approves the 5-year review report dated September 2001, which was prepared jointly by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6 and the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality. Based upon the 5-year review report, the Tenth Street Superfund Site remedy is protective of human health and the environment. The 5-year review was a statutory requirement as per the NCP part 300.430 (f)(4)(ii) of the Code of Federal Regulations. The review was comprised of: 1) inspecting the areas remediated, 2) conducting a review of ground water sampling data, 3) inspecting the River, and 4) interviewing a nearby business owner, a former member of a community advisory group, and a city council member to determine whether there were additional concerns regarding the remedy and its protectiveness. Although the results of the review concluded that the overall remedy is protective of human health and the environment, there were 3 minor issues that must be addressed to ensure future protectiveness of the remedy. All issues will be followed up by the State before the end of the calendar year. Minor Issues 1. The current 0 & M plan (dated 1995) requires groundwater sampling annually and mowing of the grass twice a year. The current frequency of mowing has been altered to meet the seasonal needs. Action: Because no PCBs have been detected in the groundwater for the last 5 years, it Internet Address (URL) - http://www.epa.gov/earth1 r6/ Recycled/Recyclable - Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer) is recommended that the sampling of the wells be reduced to once every other year instead of every year. Mowing of the grass will continue twice a year, unless there is a fire danger from letting the grass grow too tall in dry years. The 0& M plan should be revised to incorporate these changes. 2. All monitoring wells are located outside of the Site fence and do not have locks to prevent unauthorized access. Action: The ODEQ will place locks on all monitoring wells before the end of the month. 3. There are no institutional controls in place to prevent future land uses or activities from placing structures or digging into the cap. Action: The EPA and State should meet with the City and appropriate owners to determine how this issue can be addressed. One potential mechanism is the use of a deed notice. Determinations I have determined that the remedy for the Tenth Street Superfund Site is protective of human health and the environment, and will remain so provided the minor concerns identified in the Five-Year Review Report are addressed as described above. ^0^1 ,^ C Myron 0. Knudson, P.E. Director Superfund Division U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6 Date Five-Year Review Report First Five-Year Review Report For The Tenth Street Superfund Site Oklahoma City Oklahoma, Oklahoma OKD980620967 September 2001 PREPARED BY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6 Dallas, Texas and the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality Oklahoma City, Oklahoma TTSFive-yearreview.doc - 1 - 09/26/01 Table of Contents List of Acronyms..................................................................... 3 Executive Summary.................................................................. 4 Five Year Review Summary Form ................................................ 5 I. Introduction................................................................... 7 II. Site Chronology............................................................... 8 III. Background.................................................................... 9 Site Characteristics...............................9 Land and Resource Use..........................9 History of Contamination........................9 Initial Response Actions.........................9 Contaminants and Media Impacted............ 10 Tinman Health and Environmental Impacts... 10 Feasibility Study.................................. 11 IV. Remedial Actions............................................................. 11 Remedial Action Objectives....................11 Remedy Selection................................ 11 ROD Amendment................................12 Remedy Implementation........................ 13 Operation and Maintenance.....................14 V. Five-Year Review Progress................................................... 15 VI. Five-Year Review Process.................................................... 15 Community Involvement......................... 15 Documents Review............................... 15 Data Review....................................... 16 Site Inspection..................................... 16 Interviews.......................................... 16 VII. Assessment...................................................................... 17 VIIL Issues...........................................................................18 IX. Recommendations and Follow-up Actions................................18 X. Protectiveness Statements................................................... 18 XI. Next Review...................................................................19 Tables Table 1: Chronology of Site Events...................................... 7 Table 2: Feasibility Study Alternatives Summary..................... 11 Table 3: Initial PCB Results for Groundwater Monitoring, 1996 ..... 12 Table 4: Annual System Operations/O&M Costs....................... 13 Table 5: Annual PCB Results for Groundwater Monitoring........... 14 Figures Figure 1: Site Map ...................................................... Appendix TTSFive-yearreview.doc - 2 - 09/26/01 List of Acronyms CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 also known as Superfund: Amended in 1986 by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA). CFR Code of Federal Regulations DEQ Oklahoma Department Of Environmental Quality EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency FS Feasibility study FR Federal Register IAG Interagency Agreement NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan NPL National Priorities List: A list of sites identified for remediation under CERCLA. O&M 'Operation and maintenance OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response PCBs Polychlorinated biphenyls RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RA Remedial action RD Remedial design RI/FS Remedial investigation/ feasibility study ROD Record of Decision: Documents the selection of cost-effective Superfund Financed remedy. SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986. (See CERCLA.) SWDA Solid Waste Disposal Act TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers WasteLAN The Regional database related to CERCLIS TTSFive-yearreview.doc 09/26/01 - 3 Executive Summary The Tenth Street Superfund Site is located in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The Site was used as a municipal landfill from 1951 to 1954. The Site was then used as a salvage yard from 1959 to 1985, accepting materials such as tires, solvents, and transformers. The initial Record of Decision (ROD) selected a remedial alternative to excavate and chemically treat contaminated soils onsite. After technical problems arose during the implementation of the remedy, an amended ROD was signed in September 1993, which provided for the construction of a permanent cap to cover the additional consolidated soils contaminated with PCBs. Construction activities were initiated August 28, 1995 and completed January 4, 1996. The EPA issued the Final Close Out Report for the Site on July 3, 1997. The trigger for this five-year review was the actual start of construction on August 28, 1995. The assessment of this five-year review found that the remedy was constructed in accordance with the requirements of the ROD and that the remedy is functioning as designed. Although no major deficiencies were found during the review, three minor concerns were discovered and will be addressed to ensure the future protectiveness of the remedy. These three minor concerns are: 1) updating the 0 & M plan to incorporate the current grass mowing schedule and proposed ground water sampling frequency; 2) placing locks on the ground water monitoring wells; and, 3) determining adequate institutional controls to ensure that future land activities or uses do not compromise the cap's integrity. TTSFive-yearreview.doc - 4 - 09/26/01 Five-Year Review Summary Form SITE IDENTIFICATION Site Name (from WasteLan): Tenth Street Superfund Site EPA ID (from WasteLan): OKD980620967 City/County: Oklahoma NPL status: Final Remediation Status: Under Construction Operating XX Complete Multiple OUs: NO Construction Completion Date: January 7,1997 Has Site been put into Reuse: NO REVIEW STATUS Lead Agency: EPAandODEQ Author name: Stacey Bennett (EPA) and Dennis Datin (ODEQ) Author title: Remedial Project Manager Review period: August 2000 through September 2001 Date(s) of Site Inspection: May 9, 2000 Type of Review: Post-SARA Review number: 1 (first) Triggering Action: Actual RA On-Site Construction Triggering Action Date (from WasteLAN): August 28, 1995 Due Date (five years after triggering action date): August 28, 2000 TTSFive-yearreview.doc 09/26/01 - 5 Five-Year Review Summary Form, continued Issues: No major issues were identified. Three minor issues were identified. 1. The current 0 & M plan (dated 1995) requires ground water sampling annually and mowing of the grass twice a year. The current frequency of mowing has been altered to meet the seasonal needs. 2. All monitoring wells are located outside of the site fence and do not have locks. 3. There are no institutional controls to prevent future owners from placing structures or digging into the cap. Recommendations and Follow-up Actions: 1. It is recommended that the sampling of the wells be reduced to once every other year instead of every year. The results of the sampling show that no PCBs are in the ground water. Mowing of the grass will continue twice a year, unless there is a fire danger from letting the grass grow too tall in dry years. The 0& M plan should be revised to incorporate these changes. 2. All monitoring wells must have locks in order to prevent unauthorized access. 3. The EPA and DEQ will need to investigate necessary measures to ensure that future uses of the property will not compromise the cap's integrity. Protectiveness Statement The remedy that was implemented for the Tenth Street Supermnd Site is protective of human health and the environment, and will remain so provided the minor concerns listed above are addressed. TTSFive-yearreview.doc - 6 - 09/26/01 I. Introduction The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) have jointly conducted a five-year review of the remedial actions implemented at the Tenth Street Dump/Junkyard Superfand Site in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The review was conducted from August 2000 through September 2001. This report documents the results of the review. The purpose of five-year reviews is to determine whether the remedy at a site is protective of human health and the environment. The methods, findings, and conclusions of reviews are documented in five-year review reports. In addition, five-year review reports identify deficiencies found during the review, if any, and recommendations to address them. The EPA musfimplement five-year reviews consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). CERCLA § 121 ©, as amended, states: If the President selects a remedial action that results in any hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site, the President shall review such remedial action no less often than each five years after the initiation of such remedial action to assure that human health and the environment are being protected by the remedial action being implemented. The NCP part 300.430(f)(4)(ii) of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) states: If a remedial action is selected that results in hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, the lead agency shall review such action no less often that every five years after the initiation of the selected remedial action. This is the first five-year review for the Tenth Street Superfand site. The triggering action for this statutory review is the date of the start of the remedial action, which was August 28, 1995. The five-year review is required due to the fact that hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at the site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. TTSFive-yearreview.doc - 7 - 09/26/01 II. Site Chronology Table 1: Chronology of Site Events EVENTS North Canadian River channelized and levees built, removing the meander loop, which crossed through the Site. Site was operated as a municipal landfill. No activity noted at the Site. Site was operated as a salvage yard. EPA inspected the Site, finding drums, which were bulging, corroded and/or leaking. Sampling of soils and drums by EPA and posting of warning signs at the Site. EPA Region VI Regional Administrator approves a removal action to fence and cap the Site. Phase I removal action conducted by Region VI Emergency Response Clean Up Service contractor to decontaminate and relocate automobiles, spare parts, the office building and tire repair machine shop. Phase II removal action conducted to level, place temporary cap, and seed Site; install fencing; and dispose of 20 drums. Site proposed for the National Priorities List (52 FR 2492). Site added to the National Priorities List (52 FR 27620). Field investigation conducted for Remedial Investigation Report. Feasibility Study Report published. Record of Decision (ROD) issued requiring chemical treatment of the PCB-contaminated soil. Feasibility Study Report Addendum published. Public Notice announcing Amended Proposed Plan. Amended ROD (including responses to comments from public) issued requiring capping-of contaminated soil meeting technical requirements for caps under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) 40 CFR 761.75 (b) (1) and (2). EPA issues Interagency Agreement No. DW96950179-01-0 to the USCOE to perform remedial design. EPA issues Interagency Agreement No. DW96950200-01-0 to the USCOE to perform remedial action. Final Remedial Design completed. 0 & M Plan Contract DACW56-95-C-0027 for construction of the remedial action awarded to Abatement Systems, Inc. Notice To Proceed issued. Remediation activities at the Site began. Pre-final inspection conducted which determined that the remedial action contractor has substantially completed the construction activities, except turfing, in accordance with the Remedial Design plans and specifications. 4-Month Warranty Inspection EPA Issued Preliminary Close-Out Report 8-month Warranty Inspection Final Inspection Operational and Functional Determination Final Close-Out Report The site was delisted from the NPL DATES 1951 - 1954 1954-1959 1959-1985 1983 1984-1985 Aug 23, 1985 Sep 12-27, 1985 Dec 9, 1985-AprlO, 1987 January, 1987 July, 1987 April, 1989 July, 1990 Sep 27, 1990 April 1993 July 13, 1993 Sep 30, 1993 May 11, 1994 Sep 28,1994 January, 1995 May 1995 Apr26, 1995 May 31, 1995 Aug 28, 1995 Jan 4, 1996 Apr30,1996 Junll, 1996 Sep 18, 1996 January, 1997 January, 1997 July 3, 1997 November 21,2000 TTSFive-yearreview.doc 09/26/01 - 8 III. Background Site Characteristics The Site is located in an industrial and residential area in northeast Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (Section 31, Township 12 North, Range 2 West). The Site is located on the south side of Tenth Street between Bryant Avenue and the North Canadian River and covers approximately 3.5 acres (Figure 1). One residence is located adjacent to the west side of the Site. Residential subdivisions are located approximately one block to the north and approximately one block to the west of the Site. Aerial photos show that in 1951 a meander loop of the North Canadian River cut almost directly through the Site, making the Site subject to a 100-year flood. Between 1951 and 1954, the river was channelized and levees were constructed on both sides of the river. Land and Resource Use The site is in an area of mixed residential and industrial land use, and is surrounded on three sides by active automobile salvage yards. In the September 27, 1990 Record of Decision, EPA assigned an industrial land use to this site. The site is currently not being used. The Oklahoma County owns the majority of the property and three private landowners own other portions of the property. The area is not currently zoned. Although insufficient information exists to classify the alluvial aquifer at the site, EPA believes the appropriate classification is Class II, potential drinking water supply. The aquifer is not contaminated with PCBs, meets primary drinking water standards, does not exceed 10,000 ppm total dissolved solids, and probably yields more than 150 gallons per day. No users of the alluvial aquifer have been identified; all known water supply wells in the immediate area are probably completed in the Garber-Wellington. History of Contamination The Site, including the cutoff meander loop, was operated as a municipal landfill between 1951 and 1954. No activity at the Site was noted between 1954 and 1959. Beginning in 1959, Mr. Raymond Cobb leased the Site from Mr. Sullivan Scott and used the Site as a salvage yard, accepting materials such as tires, solvents, and transformers. The dielectric fluids from the transformers contained Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs). The fluids were drained from the transformers, then transferred to barrels and sold. During the recovery process, substantial quantities of oil were spilled onto the ground. Mr. Cobb continued this operation until his death in 1979, when Mr. Rolling Fulbright began operating the Site as Deadeye's Salvage Yard, an automobile salvage yard. Initial Response Actions Sampling by the EPA in 1984 and 1985 identified PCB concentrations up to 39,000 parts per million (ppm) in the soil. After reviewing the data, EPA determined that the contaminants posed a potential health threat. TTSFive-yearreview.doc - 9 - 09/26/01 The Regional Administrator authorized a removal action in an Action Memorandum dated August 23, 1985. The EPA began the removal action for the Site in September 1985 to address direct human contact threats and the potential for offsite migration of contaminants The removal action was successfully completed in April 1987. The removal action consisted of: • Removing and disposing of the electrical equipment and drums containing hazardous substances; • Decontaminating and relocating of automobiles and other salvage material; • Consolidation of contaminated soils to the center of the Site; • Grading of the Site for effective drainage, • Installation of a temporary synthetic liner and clay cap; and • Erection of a security fence around the Site. The Site was proposed for the National Priorities List (NPL) in January 1987 (52 FR 2492) and placed on the NPL in July 1987 (52 FR 27620). Contaminants and Media Impacted The EPA initiated a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) in 1989. The RI determined the types and amounts of contaminants present at the Site and discovered the extent of contamination. The RI indicated that PCBs were the contaminants of concern at the Site, and were limited to surface and subsurface soils at the Site. The predominant PCB species present was Aroclor 1260. The ground water table at the site ranged from about 1151.7 Mean Sea Level (MSL) to about 1150.0 MSL. Contaminated soil at its deepest point onsite was approximately 3 feet above the water table. No PCBs or other compounds were detected in ground water samples taken during the RI. In addition, surface water samples were collected during the RI and no contaminates attributable to the Site were detected. Human Health and Environmental Impacts The human health risk assessment conducted during the RI, indicated that carcinogenic risks posed by the site were attributed to PCB contamination in the soil. The average lifetime carcinogenic risk from direct contact with soil, based on the average concentration of PCBs in soil was estimated to be 3.8 x 10 -5 excess cancer incident. The environmental risks associated with contaminants at the site were reported during the RI to be non-measurable or minimal. Surface waste samples collected showed no organic chemicals related to the site. In addition, biota samples collected indicated that the North Canadian River, downstream from the site, contained more individual species than upstream. During 1987, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of the Interior conducted a Preliminary Natural Resource Survey and granted a release from natural resource damages. TTSFive-yearreview.doc -10- 09/26/01 Feasibility Study The Feasibility Study (FS) developed and evaluated a range of alternatives to remediate the soil contamination. A total of 5 alternatives were considered after a screening process. Table 2 below lists the alternatives considered. Table 2. Feasibility Study Alternatives Summary, Tenth Street Superfund Site, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Alt. Number 1 3 4 5 6 Alternative Description 1 No Action Excavation and Off-site Disposal Excavation, Onsite-Chemical Treatment and Disposal Onsite Excavation, Onsite Thermal Treatment, and Disposal Onsite Excavation and Offsite Thermal Treatment Capital Cost $ 2,500 $ 4,037,000 $ 4,044,000 $ 4,406,000 $17,829,000 Annual O&Mcost $ 11,800 $0 $0 $0 $0 Present Worth Cost $ 184,200 $ 4,037,000 $ 4,044,000 $ 4,406,000 $ 17,829,000 Implefflsent^itm • - 'Ilriwh1':1^' 30 years for O&M 3 months 6-9 months 6-9 months 3 months Note: Alternative 2 was screened out prior to the detailed evaluation of alternatives because the site was in a flood plain and because the alternative would not satisfy the preference for treatment expressed in SARA, (ROD, September 27, 1990). IV. Remedial Actions Remedial Action Objectives Based upon the concentration and risk ofPCBs, the Site was determined to pose a principal threat because of the potential for direct contact with the contaminated soil and the soil's potential impact on ground water. The scope of the response action was to address the principal threat at the Site by preventing current or future exposure to the contaminated soil through treatment and/or containment, and reducing or controlling the potential migration of contaminants from the soil to ground water. Remedy Selection A proposed plan for the Site was issued in August 1990, presenting the preferred alternative of chemical dechlorination of the contaminated soil. The EPA Regional Administrator for Region 6 signed a Record of Decision (ROD) on September 27, 1990. In the ROD, EPA selected Alternative 4 - Excavation, Onsite Chemical Treatment, as the TTSFive-yearre view.doc 09/26/01 - 11 remedy for the Tenth Street Superfund Site. As noted in the ROD in the "Statement of Basis and Purpose," the State of Oklahoma (State) did not support the original remedy selected in the ROD. The major components of the Selected Remedy included: • Removing the existing red clay cover and the visqueen plastic liner from the removal action, • Excavating an estimated 7,500 cubic yards ofPCB contaminated soil with concentrations of 25 ppm and higher, • Chemically treating the excavated contaminated soil by a chemical dechlorination process meeting the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) PCB alternative treatment requirements, • Backfilling the treated soil in the excavated area, and • Grading the site for effective drainage and establish vegetative cover. During the Remedial Design (RD) phase of the onsite chemical treatment remedy, the EPA became aware of problems with the implementation of this process at other Superfund sites. Problems that were experienced included: low production rates; severe odor problems during the treatment process and persisting in the soil after treatment; "soupy" (wet) physical condition of the treated soil and the ensuing need for stabilization before placement back on the ground as backfill; soil volume increases of 100% during treatment, causing space problems for backfilling on the site; and leaching of residual reagent from the soil following treatment. In addition to the technical problems related to chemical dechlorination experienced at other Superfund sites, onsite treatment of the contaminated soil was further complicated as the result of construction debris and other types of solid waste that had been dumped at the Tenth Street Site previous to the PCB spills. The contaminated soil from PCBs became mixed with the solid waste and the materials handling problems resulting from such a mixture greatly complicated the treatment remedy. Projected construction costs were also greatly increasing. As a result, EPA re-evaluated the remedial alternatives at the Site. ROD Amendment On September 30, 1993, the EPA Regional Administrator for Region 6 signed an Amended ROD, which was concurred upon by the State. The amended remedy addressed approximately 9,800 cubic yards of soil contaminated with PCBs at or above 25 ppm. The objective of the amended remedy was the same as the original ROD, which was to protect human health and the environment by preventing current or future exposure to the contaminated soil through treatment and/or containment, and reducing or controlling the potential migration of contaminants from the soil to ground water. The major components of the selected remedy-as reflected in the Amended ROD included: • Excavation and placement of contaminated soil from the roadway right-of-way on the south side ofN.E. Tenth Street onto the existing cap; TTSFive-yearreview.doc -12- 09/26/01 • Allowing the Oklahoma Department of Transportation's widening of Tenth Street to cover contaminated soil in the roadway right-of-way on the North side ofN.E. Tenth Street; • Construction of a new cap meeting the technical requirements for caps under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 40 CFR Section 761.75 (b)(l) and (2); and • Maintenance of the cap and ground water monitoring. The revised remedy of capping the waste does not satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as a principal element of the remedy. But, the EPA, with concurrence from the State of Oklahoma, determined that this alternative was protective of human health and the environment, complied with Federal and State requirements that are applicable or relevant and appropriate, was cost effective compared to equally protective alternatives that utilized permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable. The estimated cost of this selected remedy was $648,000. Remedy Implementation The EPA entered into an Interagency Agreement (IAG) with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE-Tulsa District) to perform the remedial design and the remedial action. The US ACE initiated the remedial action contract on May 31, 1995, and the actual remedial action construction activities at the Site began on August 28,1995. The major components of the remedial action included: * Drum sampling and disposal, * Over-drilling and grouting of existing monitoring wells, * Excavation and relocation ofPCB-contaminated soil from the perimeter of the Site, * Soil sampling of the walls and bottom of the excavated area for PCBs, * Placement, grading and compaction of random fill to grade the Site at the required foundation elevation, * Installation and development of three down-gradient ground water monitoring wells, * Placement of 3-foot thick clay barrier layer, * Placement ofgeomembrane, drainage net, and geotextile, * Installation of perimeter drain system, * Placement of cover soil and topsoil layers, * Monitoring well sampling, * Installation of a new fence around the Site, and * Establishment of turf. During the remedial action activities, 2 feet of additional excavation was needed in an area which was determined to exceed the PCB cleanup standard after the initial excavation sampling. This additional 275 cubic yards of excavation and the additional testing required added an additional $17,825 to the original estimated costs. TTSFive-yearreview.doc - 13 - 09/26/01 At the conclusion of the remedial action, approximately 4,655 cubic yards (cy3) of soil with the concentrations ofPCBs greater than 25 ppm had been excavated from the north and west perimeter and the south comer of the perimeter of the Site. These soils were then spread in the area where the existing cap, along with the remainder of the waste (from the Removal Action in 1987), was located. This area was then capped, sprigged and fertilized. A new fence was also installed around the Site. The remedial action contractor obtained samples from the 5 monitoring wells (3 new downgradient wells which are MW3A, MW 4A, and MW 5A and 2 existing upgradient wells which are M-l and M-2) and had the samples analyzed for PCBs. All analyses showed non-detectable levels of PCBs, indicating that no PCBs are leaching into the groundwater and migrating offsite. The results of the analyses are shown in Table 3 below. TABLE 3. INITIAL PCB RESULTS FOR GROUNDWATER MONITORING, 1996 (Hg/1) Analyte Arochlor 1016 Arochlor 1221 Arochlor 1232 Arochlor 1242 Arochlor 1248 Arochlor 1254 Arochlor 1260 M-l <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <20.0 <20.0 M-2 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <20.0 <20.0 MW3A < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 MW4A < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 MW5A < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 NOTE: The MCL for PCBs is 0.5 ug/1. The remedial action was completed on January 4, 1996. Operation and Maintenance The initial Operations and Maintenance (0 & M) plan required that the cap be inspected once a month or immediately following a heavy rainfall event for the first six months and then every six months thereafter. Ground water monitoring would be conducted once every year. An annual report was to be developed following receipt of laboratory data from the monitoring well sampling. In January 1997, the State of Oklahoma began inspection, maintenance, and monitoring activities in accordance with the approved O&M Plan issued May 1995. The TTSFive-yearreview.doc 09/26/01 - 14 ground water monitoring wells at the Site are sampled annually. Monitoring consists of sampling 5 monitoring wells, 2 up gradient and 3 down gradient, to verify that PCBs from this Site are not contaminating the ground water. Additionally, the grass on the cap was mowed three times the first year and twice the second year and third years and then will be mowed only once a year for this year. The current mowing schedules are changes to the original O&M plan. The cap is inspected for damage at least once a year. Repairs from erosion or other damage will be made as necessary by the State. Table 4 below summarizes the annual O&M costs since 1997. Table 4: Annual System Operations/O&M Costs Dates From July 1, 1997 July 1,1998 July 1, 1999 To June 30, 1998 June 30, 1999 June 30, 2000 Total Cost rounded to nearest $1000 1800 1800 1600 V. Progress Since the Last Five-Year Review This was the first five-year review for the Site. VI. Five-Year Review Process The five-year review team consisted of Dennis L. Datin of the DEQ, and Camille Hueni, Noel Bennett, and Stacey Bennett with the EPA. The review was conducted from August 2000 until September 2001. The tasks for the five-year review included: 1. Review of the existing sampling data up to September 1999, 2. Review of the MCL set for PCBs, 3. Interviews with a nearby business owner, former member of a citizen advisory group, and a city council member, 4. Inspection of the site on May 9, 2000, and 5. Preparation of the five-year review report. Community Involvement The community was not notified that a five-year review has begun. Instead, a fact sheet will be provided to the community stating the results of the five-year review. Documents Review The following documents were reviewed to complete this five-year review. These documents included: • Tenth Street Operation and Maintenance Plan, May 1995, • 10th Street Dump Record of Decision, September 1990, • Amended Record of Decision, September 1993, • Preliminary Close-Out Report, Tenth Street Superfund Site, Feb 1997, • Final Close-Out Report, Tenth Street Superfund Site, July 3, 1997, TTSFive-yearreview.doc 09/26/01 - 15 • Groundwater Assessment reports, 1996-2000, • 10th Street Superfund Site Final Design Analysis, June 1995, • Remedial Action Report, Tenth Street Superfund Site Data Review Prior to the completion of the remedial action, ground water sampling was conducted as part of the confirmation sampling (See Table 3 in the Remedy Implementation Section). The 0& M plan also required ground water sampling once a year. Table 5 below summarizes the results of the annual ground water sampling. No PCBs have been detected in the ground water through September 2000. TABLE 5. ANNUAL PCB RESULTS FOR GROUNDWATER MONITORING, 1997-2000 (Hg/1) ANALYTE Total PCBs in Water September 1997 Total PCBs in Water September 1998 Total PCBs in Water September 1999 Total PCBs in Water September 2000 M-l < 0.300 < 0.220 N 0.000 N 0.000 M-2 < 0.300 < 0.300 N 0.000 N 0.000 MW3A < 0.300 < 0.300 N 0.000 N 0.000 MW4A < 0.300 < 0.300 N 0.000 N 0.000 MW5A < 0.300 < 0.300 N 0.000 N 0.000 NOTE I: N = No PCB common peaks detected and confirmed. NOTE 2: The sampling method used is EPA Method 608. Site Inspection The EPA and DEQ conducted a site inspection on May 9, 2000. The visual inspection revealed that the site cap cover is sound and that the vegetative cover is adequate. The fence was in good condition at this time with the gates having adequate locks on them. The monitoring wells are located outside of the fenced area. Although the monitoring wells were in good condition, there were no locks on the wells. Interviews DEQ interviewed a nearby business owner, a former member of a citizen advisory group, and a city council member. None of the interviewees expressed any concerns regarding the remedy at the site. The city council member stated that the frequency of grass mowing should be carefully monitored. VII. Assessment An overall assessment of the remedy implemented at the Site was conducted in order to confirm that the selected remedy is operating according to the ROD expectations. The assessment was primarily used to answer the following questions: • Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? TTSF ive-yearreview. doc 09/26/01 - 16. • Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives (RAOs) used at the time of the remedy selection still valid? • Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy? Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? All activities at the Site were consistent with the ROD, as amended, and with the RD and RA statements of work issued to the USCOE for design and construction of the remedy. All contaminated soil with more than 25 ppm PCBs was placed under a clay barrier layer with a geo-membrane liner. Infiltration of precipitation is retarded because of this liner, thereby reducing the possibility of leaching of the contaminants into the ground water. The inspection and maintenance of the cap according with the 0 & M plan insures that cap's integrity remains in place. Annual sampling of the ground water has revealed that no PCBs are present, which supports the successfulness of the remedy. The health and safety plan for the site is adequate. Access control to the site is adequate with the chain link fence in good condition and there are locks on the gate. The operation and maintenance of the site is easily accomplished with mowing to control the grass, which usually takes place in September of each year. The cost of mowing the site is about $650 per year. The ground water sampling usually occurs in September of each year. One issue that was discovered is that the monitoring wells do not have locks to prevent unauthorized access. All of the monitoring wells are located outside of the Site fence. Since the site has been closed, there have been no changes in the effectiveness of the remedy and the remedy is functioning adequately. There have been no changes in land use of the surrounding areas since the remedy began. Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives (RAOs) used at the time of the remedy selection still valid? The baseline risk assessment conducted during the 1990 RI/FS and a second risk assessment conducted in March 1993 for the amended ROD was based on an exposure scenario for an industrial worker. Current and future land uses are expected to remain industrial onsite and residential offsite. Although no formal land use plan was obtained from the City of Oklahoma Planning Department, land use patterns in the immediate vicinity of the site TTSFive-yearreview.doc -17- 09/26/01 are consistent with these designations, and consequently are consistent with the assumptions in the ROD. The MCL for PCBs in the groundwater is 0.5 ug/1. The remedial action complies with all applicable and relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs). These include the EPA and DEQ rules and regulations. Because the cap is functional and no PCBs were found in the ground water, no risk recalculation/assessment was necessary for this site. Question C: Has any other information come into light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy? There is no additional information which calls into question the protectiveness of the remedy. Although the site is in the 100-year flood plain, the USACE has confirmed that current controls, such as the levees, are still protective. This demonstrates that the cap will not be impacted from a 100-year flood. VIII. Issues An inspection of the site revealed no deficiencies in the remedy. At the current time there are no institutional controls for the site if the property is sold. This is a minor deficiency that will need to be monitored. Additionally, locks need to be maintained on the monitoring wells to prevent unauthorized access. IX. Recommendations and Follow-up Actions The current 0 & M plan requires ground water sampling annually and mowing of the grass twice a year. It is recommended that the sampling of the wells be reduced to once every other year instead of every year. The results of the sampling show that no PCBs are in the ground water. Mowing of the grass will continue twice a year, unless there is a fire danger from letting the grass grow too tall in dry years. There are no institutional controls to prevent future owners from placing structures or digging into the cap. The EPA and DEQ will need to investigate necessary measures to ensure that the cap's integrity is not compromised. In addition, locks need to be placed on all monitoring wells to prevent unauthorized access. The five-year reviews will continue as required. X. Protectiveness Statements Four years after completion of the remedial action, the remedy at the Tenth Street Superfund Site in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, is protective of human health and the environment. All contaminated soil with more than 25 ppm PCBs was placed under a clay barrier layer with a gee-membrane liner. This liner, reducing possible leaching of the TTSFive-yearreview.doc -18- 09/26/01 contaminants into the ground water, retards infiltration of precipitation. Protection of the ground water has been verified by the yearly ground water sampling of the five monitoring wells, in which this sampling has revealed that there are no detectable levels ofPCBs in the ground water. XI. Next Review The next five-year review will be due in September 2006, which is 5 years from the date of this report. TTSFive-yearreview.doc - 19 • 09/26/01 BIBLIOGRAPHY U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Tenth Street Superfund Site Remedial Investigation Report, 2 Volumes, EPA Region 6, Undated. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Tenth Street Superfund Site Feasibility Study Report, EPA Region 6, July 1990. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Tenth Street Superfund Site Feasibility Study Report Addendum, EPA Region 6, April 1993. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Tenth Street Dump, Record of Decision, EPA Region 6, September 1990. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Tenth Street Site, Amended Record of Decision, EPA Region 6, September 1993. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District, 10th Street Superfund Site Final Design Analysis, June 1995. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District, 10th Street Superfund Site Construction Specifications and Plans, January 1995. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District, Tenth Street Superfund Site Preliminary Close Out Report -Draft, February 1996. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Southwestern Division Laboratory, Results of Chemical Analyses of Soil Samples 10th Street (sic) Superfund Site, SWDED-GL Report No. 16402, October, 1995. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Southwestern Division Laboratory, Results of Borrow Material for Clay Cap Tenth Street, OK, SWDED-GL Report No. 16402-1, January, 1995. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Close Out Procedures for National Priority List Sites - Interim Final, (U. S. EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Directive 9320.2-09), August 1995. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Structure and Components ofFive-Year Reviews, (U. S. EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Directive 9355.7- 02), May 1991 TTSFive-yearreview.doc - 20 - 09/26/01 APPENDIX VICINITY MAP 10th STREET SUPERFUND SITE OKLAHOMA CITY,OKLAHOMA Figure 1 2 |
Date created | 2011-07-22 |
Date modified | 2012-10-18 |
OCLC number | 815521365 |
|
|
|
A |
|
C |
|
D |
|
F |
|
I |
|
L |
|
O |
|
R |
|
S |
|
T |
|
|
|