## Superfun dRecor do f Decisio n Palmer Barg e Lin e Superfun dSit e Port Arthur , Jefferso n County , Texa s Septembe r

200 5

UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y REGIO N 6

19567 3[Thi s pag e intentionall y lef t blank ]PALME RBARG E LIN E SUPERFUN D SITE POR T ARTHUR , JEFFERSO N COUNTY , TEXA S

RECORD O FDECISIO N TABL E O FCONTENTS DECLARATIO N 1 SIT E NAM E AN D LOCATIO N 1 STATEMEN T O FBASI S AN D PURPOS E 1 ASSESSMEN T O FTH E SITE 1 DESCRIPTIO N O FTH E SELECTED REMED Y 1 STATUTOR Y DETERMINATION S 2 RO D DAT A CERTIFICATIO N CHECKLIS T 2 AUTHORIZIN G SIGNATURE 3 DECISIO N SUMMARY 7 SITE NAME , LOCATION , AN D BRIE FDESCRIPTIO N 7 SITE HISTORY AN D ENFORCEMEN T ACTIVITIE S 7 Sit e Histor y 7 History o f Federal an dStat e Investigation s 8 History o f CERCL A Remova l Action s 9 History o f CERCL A Enforcemen t

Activitie s 9 Nationa l Prioritie s Lis t

9 COMMUNIT Y PARTICIPATIO N 9 SCOP E AN D ROL E O FRESPONS E ACTIO N 1 0 SIT E CHARACTERISTIC S 1 0 Source s o f Contaminatio n 1 0 Remedia l Investigatio n Summary 1 1 Geologi c Settin g 1 2 Hydrogeologi c Finding s 1 3 Sedimen t Samplin g - Sabin e Lake 1 3 Surfac e Wate r

Samplin g - Sabin e Lak e 1 4 CURRENT AN D POTENTIAL FUTURE LAN D AN D GROUN D WATE RUSE S . . 1 4 SUMMARY O FSIT

E RISK S 1 4 Identificatio n o f

Chemical s o f

Concern 1 5 Exposur e Assessmen t

1 6 Toxicity Assessmen t

1 9 Ris k Characterizatio n 2 1 Off-Sit e Worke r

2 2 Dat afro mHistoric Investigation s an dUncertaint y 2 3 Screenin g Leve l Ecologica l Ris k Assessmen t

2 5 Preliminar y Remediatio n Goal s 2 7Huma n Health PRG s 2 7 Ecologica l Saf

e Soi l Concentration s 2 8 Basi s fo r Actio n 2 8 REMEDIAL ACTIO N OBJECTIVE S AN D GOAL S 2 8 APPLICABLE O RRELEVAN T AN D APPROPRIAT E REQUIREMENT S 2 9 DESCRIPTIO N O FREMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE S 3 8 Statutory Requirements/Respons e Objective s 3 8 Technolog y an dAlternativ e Developmen t an dScreenin g 3 8 Commo n Element s 3 9 Summary o f

Remedia l Alternative s fo r

Soil s 3 9 COMPARATIV E ANALYSI S O FALTERNATIVE S 4 3 PRINCIPA L AN D LOW-LEVE L THREA T WASTE S 4 6 SELECTE D REMED Y 4 6 Descriptio n o f

th e Selecte dRemed y 4 6 Remedia l Actio n Area s 4 7 SLERA Respons e Area s 4 7 Approximat e Volum e Requirin g Remedia l Actio n 4 9 Summary o f

Estimate dRemed y Cost s 4 9 Expecte dOutcome s o f

Selecte dRemed y 5 0 STATUTORY DETERMINATION S 5 0 Protectio n o f

Huma n Health an dth e Environmen t 5 1 Complianc e wit hApplicabl e o r Relevan t an dAppropriat e Requirement s 5 1 Cos t Effectivenes s 5 1 Utilizatio n o f

Permanen t Solution s an dAlternativ e Treatmen t (o r Resourc e Recovery ) Technologie s t o th e Maximu mExten t Practicabl e 5 2 Preferenc e fo r

Treatmen t a s aPrincipa l Elemen t

5 2 Institutiona l Control s 5 2 Five-Yea r Revie w Requirement s 5 2 DOCUMENTATIO N O FSIGNIFICANT CHANGE S 5 3 RESPONSIVENES S SUMMARY 5 4 STAKEHOLDERCOMMENT S AN D LEAD AGENC Y RESPONSE S 5 4 TECHNICAL AND LEGA L ISSUE S 5 6 APPENDICE S Appendi x A : TCE Q Concurrenc e Lette r

uLIS T O FFIGURE S

Figure 1- 1 Sit

e Locatio n Ma

p Figur e 1- 2 Locatio n o f

AOC s Figur e 3- 2 Identifie dRespons e Area s fo r Soi l Remed y Figur e 3- 3 Identifie dRespons e Area s - Area s o f Potentia l Ecologica l Risk s

LIS T O FTABLE S Tabl e Pag e 1 Summary o f

Chemical s o f

Concern an dExposur e Poin t Concentration s 1 5 2 Exposur e Assumption s - Industria l Worke r 1 7 3 Exposur e Assumption s - Recreationa l Fisherma n 1 7 4 Cance r

Toxicit y Dat aSummary 1 9 5 Non-Cance r

Toxicit y Dat aSummary 2 1 6 Cumulativ e Cancer

Ris k an dNoncance r

Hazar dIndice s - On-Sit e Worke r 2 2 7 Cance r

an dNoncance r

Hazar dIndice s - Off-Sit e Recreationa l Angle r 2 2 8 Uppe r

En dRis k Estimat e Fro mR I an dES I Soi l Dat a2 4 9 Preliminar y Remediatio n Goal s 2 7 1 0 SLER

A Saf e Soi l Concentration s 2 8 1 1 Actio n Specifi c ARAR s 3 1 1 2 Chemica l Specifi c ARAR s 3 4 1 3 Locatio n Specifi c ARAR s 3 71 4 T o B e Considere dGuideline s 3 7

1 5 Presen t

WorthCos t

Summar y o f

th e Alternative s 4 5 1 6 Respons e Area s fo r

Huma n HealthRis k

4 7 1 7 Respons e Area s fo r

Ecologica l Saf

e Soi l Level s 4 8 1 8 Estimat e Capita l Cos t fo r Selecte dRemed y 4 9

I V[Thi s pag e intentionall y lef t blank ]PALME RBARG E LIN E SUPERFUN D SITE POR T ARTHUR , JEFFERSO N COUNTY , TEXA S

RECOR D O FDECISIO N PARTI : DECLARATIO N SITE NAM E AN D LOCATIO N Th e Palme r

Barg e Lin e Superfun dSit e i s locate di n Port Arthur , Jefferso n County , Texas . Th e Nationa l Superfun dDatabas e (CERCLIS ) identificatio n numbe r fo r thi s Sit e i s TXD068104561 . Thi s Sit e ha s no t

bee n divide dint o separat e operabl e unit s an dal l area s an dmedi awithi n th e Sit e ar e addresse dtogethe r

i n thi s Recor do f

Decision . STATEMEN

T O F BASI S AN

D PURPOS E Thi s decisio n documen t

present s th e selecte dremedia l actio n fo r th e Palme r

Barg e Lin e Superfun dSit e locate di n Por t Arthur , Jefferso n County , Texas , whic h wa s chose n i n accordanc e wit hth e Comprehensiv e Environmenta l Response , Compensation , an dLiabilit y Ac t o f 198 0 (CERCLA) , 4 2 US C § 960 1 e t seq. . a s amende db y th e Superfun dAmendment s an d Reauthorizatio n Ac t

o f 198 6 (SARA) , and , t o th e exten t practicable , th e Nationa l Oi l an d Hazardous Substance s Pollutio n Contingenc y Pla n (NCP) , 4 0 CF RPart 30 0 e t seq. . a s amended . Thi s decisio n wa s base do n th e Administrativ e Record , whic h ha s bee n develope di n accordanc e wit h Sectio n 113(k

) o f CERCLA , 4 2 U.S.C . § 9631(k) , an di s availabl e fo r revie w at th e Port Arthu r Publi c Library , 461 5 9 t hAvenue , Port

Arthur , Texas ; at

th e Texa s Commissio n o n Environmental Qualit

y (TCEQ ) office s i n Austin , Texas ; an da t th e Unite dState s Environmental Protectio n Agenc y (EPA ) Regio n 6 office s i n Dallas , Texas . Th e Administrativ e Recor dInde x (Appendi x B t o th e Recordo f Decision ) identifie s eac h o f th e item s comprisin g th e Administrativ e Recor dupo n whic h th e selectio n o f th e remedia l actio n i s based . Th e Stat e o f

Texas , throug h th e TCEQ , concur s wit h th e Selecte dRemedy . ASSESSMEN T O FTH E SITE Th e respons e actio n selecte di n thi s Recor do f Decisio n (ROD ) i s necessary t o protec t th e publi c health o r welfar e o r th e environmen t

fro mactua l o r

threatene drelease s o f

hazardou s substance s int o th e environment . DESCRIPTIO N O FTH E SELECTED REMED Y Thi s RO D set s fort hth e selecte dremed y fo r th e Site , whic h wil l protec t

huma n health an dth e environmen t

b y removin g contaminate dmaterial s tha t excee dris k

base dlevel s fro mth e Site .Th e majo r component s o f

thi s remed y are :

• Excavatio n o f

approximatel y 1,204 cubi c yard s o f th e uppe r tw o fee t o f soi l tha t excee d risk-base dlevel s at

eac h o f th e respons e areas ; • Confirmatio n samplin g a t eac h o f th e respons e areas . Confirmatio n sample s wil l b e collecte dfro meac h respons e are aan danalyze dfo r Contaminant s o f

Potentia l Concer n (COPC) ; • Backfillin g o f

excavate darea s tha t

excee dris k

base dlevel s wit h clea n soil ; Off-sit e disposa l o f

th e excavate dsoil s a t

apermitte ddisposa l facility ; • Implementatio n o f

Institutiona l Control s t o restric t futur e lan dus e t o industria l purpose s only . Th e Institutiona l Contro l shal l b e arestrictiv e covenan t b y th e propert y owner , t o th e benefi t o f th e Stat e o f

Texa s an dth e Unite dState s Government , recorde di n th e real propert y record s o f

Jefferso n County , Texas ; Abandonmen t

o f existin g monitorin g well s - Fiv e (5 ) existin g monitorin g well s a t th e Sit e wil l b e abandoned ; an d • Wastewate r

Above-groun dStorag e Tank (AST ) demolitio n an dsludg e remova l - Sludg e containe dwithi n on e remainin g Wastewate r AS T wil l b e remove dan ddispose do f off-site . Th e tan k

wil l b e decontaminate dan dreuse da s scra p meta l b y th e sit e owner . STATUTOR Y DETERMINATION S Th e selecte dremed y fo r

th e soi l an dsedimen t

contaminatio n i s protectiv e o f huma n health an d th e environment , complie s wit h Federa l an dStat e requirement s tha t ar e applicabl e o r

relevan t an dappropriat e t o th e remedia l action , an di s cost-effective . Th e contaminate dsoi l an dsedimen t "hot spots " i n several area s o f

th e Sit e are considere dt o b e "low-leve l threat wastes " base do n th e absenc e o f

ahighl y toxi c o r

highl y mobil e characteristic . Sinc e th e soi l an dsedimen t contaminatio n represent s alow-leve l threat waste , th e selecte dremed y doe s no t utiliz e treatmen t t o reduc e th e toxicity , mobility , o r volum e o f contaminatio n an dtherefor e doe s no t satisf y th e statutory preferenc e fo r

treatmen t a s aprincipa l elemen t

o f th e remedy . Sinc e th e selecte dremed y wil l resul t i n hazardou s substance s remainin g on-sit e abov e level s that allo w fo r unlimite dus e an dunrestricte dexposure , astatutor y revie w wil l b e conducte dt o ensure tha t th e remed y remain s protectiv e o f huma n health an dth e environment . Pursuan t t o CERCL A Sectio n 121(c) , 4 2 U.S.C . § 9621(c) , an da s provide di n th e curren t guidanc e o n Fiv e Yea

r Review s [OSWERDirectiv e 9355.7-03B-P , Comprehensiv e Five-Yea r Revie w Guidanc e (Jun e 2001)] , th e EP A wil l conduc t astatutory five-year

revie w withi n fiv e year s fro minitiatio n o f th e remedial action . RO D DAT A CERTIFICATIO N CHECKLIS T Th e followin g informatio n i s include di n th e Decisio n Summar y sectio n o f thi s Recor do f Decision . Additiona l informatio n ca n b e foun di n th e Administrativ e Recor dfil e fo r thi s Site .Chemical s o f concern (COCs ) an dthei r

respectiv e concentration s (se e th e Identificatio n o f Chemical s o f

Concern Section) ; Th e baselin e ris k

represente db y th e COC s (se e th e Ris k Characterizatio n Section) ; • Cleanu p level s establishe dfo r th e COC s an dth e basi s fo r

thes e level s (se e th e Remedia l Actio n Objective s an dGoal s Sectio n an dth e Expecte dOutcome s o f Selecte dRemed y Section) ; • Sourc e material s constitutin g principa l threat waste s hav e no t

bee n identifie di n th e soi l an dsedimen t

at thi s Sit e (se e th e Principa l an dLow-Leve l Threa t Waste s Section) ; • Curren t

an dpotentia l futur e beneficia l lan dan dwate r use s use di n th e RO D (se e th e Curren t an dPotentia l Futur e Lan dan dGroun dWate r Use s Section) ; Potentia l lan dan dwate r

us e tha t wil l b e availabl e at

th e Sit e a s aresul t

o f th e Selecte d Remed y (se e th e Expecte dOutcome s o f Selecte dRemed y Section) ; • Estimate dcapital , annua l operatio n an dmaintenanc e (O&M) , an dtota l presen t worth costs ; discoun t

rate , an dth e numbe r

o f year s ove r whic h th e remed y cos t

estimate s ar e projecte d(se e th e Summary o f Estimate dRemed y Cost s Section) ; and , • Decisiv e factor(s ) tha t le dt o selectin g th e remed y (se e th e Summar y o f th e Rational e fo r th e Selecte dRemedy) . AUTHORIZIN G SIGNATUR E By : ^rWV . \<4foA ^ , U ^ Date : San/fue l Coleman , P. I Superfun dDivisio n U.S . EP A Regio n 6[Thi s pag e intentionall y lef t blank ]By :

By : RECOR D O FDECISIO N

PALME RBARGE LIN E SUPERFUN D SIT E

CONCURRENC E LIS T

Date : Carlo s A . Sanche z RemediaLProjec t

Manage r
Omstav o T . Chavarria , Chie f AR/T X Projec t

Managemen t

Sectio n JohmHepola , Chi e X Branc h By : 

# d - 

# ,., ,

Date : 

# 27/o s

Date :

Date : Mar k A . Peyckq^Chie f Superfun dBranch , Offic e o f

Regiona l Counse l By :
By : Jun e Buzzell , Write r Superfun dDivisio n
PafAel aPhillips , Deput y Direc t Superfun dDivisio n Date :

Date :[Thi s pag e intentionall y lef t blank ]PALME RBARG E LIN E SUPERFUN D SITE PORT ARTHUR , JEFFERSO N COUNTY , TEXA S

RECOR D O FDECISIO N PART 2 : DECISIO N SUMMAR Y SIT E NAME , LOCATION , AN D BRIE FDESCRIPTIO N Th e Palme r

Barg e Lin e Superfun dSit e i s locate do n Pleasur e Isle t o n th e wester n shore o f

Sabin e Lake , i n Jefferso n County , Texas . Th e sit e i s locate dapproximatel y 4. 5 mile s east-northeas t o f th e Cit y o f Port Arthur . A sit e locatio n map i s provide di n Figure 1-1 . Th e Palme r Barg e Site encompasse s approximatel y 1 7 acre s an di s locate do n Ol dYach t Club Roa do n th e South Industrial Islet . Th e Site i s bounde dt o th e north b y vacan t property , t o th e wes t

b y Ol dYacht Clu b Road , t o th e sout

h b y th e Stat e Marin e Superfun dSite , an dt o th e eas t b y Sabin e Lake . There i s very littl e topographica l relie f t o th e Site . Th e Site i s locate dapproximatel y 0. 5 mile s southwes t o f th e confluenc e o f

th e Neche s Rive r

an dth e Sabin e Neche s Barg e Canal . SITE BACKGROUN D AN D ENFORCEMEN T ACTIVITIE S Sit e Histor y Th e Site , alon g wit h th e adjacen t propertie s t o th e nort h an dsouth , wer e use da s aMunicipa l Landfil l fo r

th e Cit y o f Por t Arthu r fro m195 6 t o 1987 . Althoug h disposa l at th e landfil l ha s lon g sinc e cease dan dth e landfil l content s hav e bee n covere dwith dredge dsediments , th e content s ar e stil l presen t o n th e Sit e i n th e subsurfac e soils . I n Apri l 1982 , Joh n Palmer , Presiden t o f Palme r Barg e Line , Inc. , purchase dapproximatel y 1 7 acre s fro mth e City o f

Port Arthur , fo r

th e purpos e o f

servicin g an dmaintainin g barge s an d marin e vessels . I n Jul y 1983 , Barke r Phares , atruste e o f

Jefferso n County , place dalie n o n th e Palme r Barg e Lin e Property . I n Octobe r 1994 , Wrangle r

Capita l assume dal l claim s fro mth e Palme r Barg e Line , Inc . I n Jul y 1997 , Wrangle r Capita l purchase dPalme r

Barg e Lin e fro m receivership , an dth e compan y cease doperation s o n th e property . Th e curren t owne r i s Mr . Cheste r Slay . A t present , th e Sit e i s use db y Mr . Sla y fo r industria l purposes . Meta l structure s on-Sit e ar e bein g salvaged , an dth e salvage dmeta l i s bein g use db y th e curren t owner t o construc t marin e equipmen t

o n th e Site . Durin g operation , th e typica l activitie s performe da t th e Sit e include dcleaning , degassing , maintenance , an dinspectio n o f barge s an dothe r

marin e equipment . Cleanin g operation s include dth e removal o f

sludg e an dother

residual material b y pressure steamin g th e vessel holds , engine s an dboilers . Engine s wer e degreased , an daccumulation s o f sludge s wer e removed . Degassin g activitie s involve dth e remova l o f explosiv e vapor s fro mvesse l hold s usin g nitroge no r

boiler exhaust . Maintenanc e an dinspectio n activitie s include dth e replacemen t and/o r repai r o f valves , engin e repairs , an dlin e lea k repair s followe db y pressur e tests . A flar e wa s locate d on-sit e t o bu mexces s gase s an dliquid s produce ddurin g facilit y operations . cHistor y o f

Federa l an dStat e Investigation s Previou s investigation s o f

th e Sit e includ e th e following :

• Decembe r

1996 : Texa s Natura l Resourc e Conservatio n Commissio n (TNRCC , no w name dth e Texa s Commissio n o n Environmenta l Quality , o r TCEQ ) Regio n 1 0 Fiel d Offic e personne l conducte damulti-medi ainvestigation . Th e purpos e o f thi s stud y wa s t o determin e th e complianc e statu s o f th e facility . Marc h 1998 : TNRC C Regio n 1 0 Fiel dOffic e wit h EP A Regio n 6 conducte dan investigatio n t o identif

y potentia l source s an dt o sampl e soi l an dsediment . Fiv e area s o f staine dsoi l wer e identifie don-site , whic h include dth e following : staine dsoil s near sumps , staine dsoi l near

th e boile r house , staine dsoi l nea

r th e flare , staine dsoi l near abovegroun dstorag e tanks , an dstaine dsoi l nea r wastewate r

tanks . Sampl e result s indicate dth e presenc e o f

inorgani c constituent s suc h a s metals , semi-volatil e organi c constituent s (SVOCs) , an dpesticide s i n on-sit e soil . Metal s an dSVOC s wer e detecte di n offshor e sedimen t

adjacen t t o th e Site .

• Jul y 1999 : TNRC C Regio n 1 0 Fiel dOffic e sample dabovegroun dstorag e tanks , rol l off-boxe s an d"slop " tank s t o characteriz e material s stored . Octobe r 1999 : EP A Regio n 6 conducte dan Expande dSit e Inspectio n (ESI ; Westo n 2000 ) t o determin e th e presenc e an dnatur e o f constituen t

occurrenc e on-sit e an doff-sit e an dt o determin e migratio n route s an droute s o f exposur e o f

sit e relate dconstituents . Result s o f th e inspectio n indicate dth e presenc e o f volatil e organi c constituent s (VOCs) , SVOCs , pesticides , polychlorinate dbiphenyl s (PCBs) , an dmetals .

• I n 2000 , th e Site wa s ranke dan dwa s place do n th e Nationa l Priorit y Lis t (NPL) . Th e Hazar dRankin g conclude dtha t constituent s presen t

i n Sabin e Lake sediment s adjacen t t o th e Sit e wer e apotentia l threat t o huma n healt h primaril y vi ath e fis h consumptio n exposure pathway (USEPA , 2000) . 2003 : UR S Corporatio n (URS) , o n behal f o f th e Potentiall y Responsibl e Partie s (PRPs) , conducte daremedia l investigatio n (RI ) at th e Site i n Jul y 2003 , whic h characterize dth e natur e an dexten t

o f constituent s presen t

i n environmenta l medi aat

th e Site an di n adjacen t Sabin e Lake surfac e wate r

an dsediment s (URS , 2004d) .

8Histor y o f CERCL A Remova l Action s I n Augus t 2000 , EP A Regio n 6 conducte daRemova l Actio n t o remov e sourc e material s store d on-site . Activitie s include dwaste removal , wate r treatment , oil/wate r

separation , an dsludg e stabilization . Approximatel y 250,00 0 gallon s o f wate r wer e treate do n site ; 50 0 cubi c yard s o f sludg e stabilized ; an d100,00 0 gallon s o f oil/styren e wer e separate dan dremove dfro mth e site . Al l o f th e above-groun dstorag e tank s wer e remove dexcep t fo r a25,00 0 gallo n AS T o n th e norther n portio n o f

th e site tha t

contain s sludge . Severa l o f

th e concret e AS T foundation s remai n alon g wit h grave l throughou t th e Site . Histor y o f CERCL A Enforcemen t

Activitie s O n Septembe r

30 , 2002 , EP A Regio n 6 issue dan Administrativ e Orde r o n Consen t

t o conduc t th e remedia l investigatio n an dfeasibilit y stud y (RJ/FS ) fo r th e Palme r Barg e site . Voluntar y respondent s t o th e Orde r

were : E . I . du Pon t

d e Nemour s an dCompany , Chevron/Texac o Inc. ; Kirb y Inlan dMarine , LP ; Kirb y Inlan dMarine , Inc . o f Louisiana ; an dAshlan dInc . Nationa l Prioritie s Lis t Th e EP A publishe dapropose drul e o n May 11 , 2000 , t o ad dth e Palme r Barg e Lin e Site t o th e Nationa l Prioritie s Lis t

(NPL ) o f Superfun dsites . Th e Sit

e wa s adde dt o th e NP L i n afina l rul e publishe do n Jul y 27 , 200 0 [Federal Registe r Listin g (FRL-6841-3) , Volum e 65 , Numbe r 145 , Page s 46096-46104] . COMMUNIT Y PARTICIPATIO N Th e Remedia l Investigatio n an dFeasibilit y Stud y Report , alon g wit h th e Propose dPla n fo r th e Palme r Barg e sit e i n Port

Arthur , Texas , wer e mad e availabl e t o th e publi c o n Jul y 27 , 2005 . Thes e an dothe r

Site document s ca n b e foun di n th e Administrativ e Recor dfil e an dth e informatio n repositorie s at

th e followin g locations : Port Arthu r Publi c Library locate dat

461 5 9 th Avenue , Port

Arthur , Texas ; th e U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y Regio n 6 locate dat 144 5 Ros s Avenue , Dallas , Texas ; an dth e Texa s Commissio n o n Environmenta l Qualit y locate d at 1210 0 Park

3 5 Circle , Buildin g E , 1 s 1 Floor , Austin , Texas . Th e notic e o f th e availabilit y o f thes e document s wa s publishe di n th e Port Arthu r New s o n Jul y 28 , 2005 . A publi c commen t perio dwa s hel dfro mJul y 27 , 200 5 t o Augus t 25 , 2005 . Th e EP A an dth e Texa s Commissio n o n Environmenta l Qualit y conducte dapubli c meetin g o n Augus t 11 , 2005 , t o discus s th e Propose d Pla n an dreceiv e comment s fro mth e community . Th e publi c meetin g wa s hel dat th e Wes t Grove s Educatio n Center , locate dat 584 0 Wes t Jefferson , i n Groves , Texas . Thes e activitie s mee t th e community participatio n requiremen t o f CERCL A 300.430(f)(3 ) an dth e NCP . I n th e Responsivenes s Summary , EP A responde dt o al l comment s receive ddurin g th e publi c commen t period . Th e Responsivenes s Summary i s include da s part o f thi s ROD .SCOPE AN D ROL E O FRESPONS E ACTIO N

I n Augus t 2000 , EP A conducte daTim e Critica l Remova l Actio n at th e sit e t o remove , transport , an ddispos e off-sit e al l hazardou s substance s (excep t fo r approximatel y 23 3 cubi c yards) , pollutants , an dcontaminant s locate do n th e Site . Th e remova l actio n consiste do f wast e removal , wate r treatment , oil/water

separation , an dsludg e stabilization . Approximatel y 250,00 0 gallon s o f wate r wer e treate do n site ; 50 0 cubi c yard s o f sludg e stabilized ; an d100,00 0 gallon s o f oil/styren e wer e separate dan dremove dfro mth e site . Al l o f th e above-groun dstorag e tank s wer e remove dexcep t

fo r a25,00 0 gallo n AS T o n th e norther n portio n o f th e sit e tha t

contain s approximatel y 23 3 cubi c yard s o f sludg e tha t ma y b e hazardous . Severa l o f th e concret e AS T foundation s remai n alon g wit h grave l throughou t th e Site . Thi s respons e actio n i s th e fina l Sit e remed y an di s intende dt o addres s th e remainin g threat s t o huma n healt han dth e environmen t pose db y th e condition s a t

thi s Site . Th e purpos e o f

thi s respons e actio n i s t o implemen t aremed y tha t

prevent s exposur e t o contaminate dsoil s an d sediment s an dprevent s futur e runof f o f contaminant s t o th e Sabin e Lak e sediments . Thi s respons e actio n addresse s th e remainin g "ho t spots " at th e Sit e tha t

pos e aris k t o huma n health an decologica l receptor s tha t

wer e no t addresse db y th e prio r

remova l action . Thi s remedia l actio n wil l als o remov e approximatel y 23 3 cubi c yard s o f sludg e fro mth e remainin g AST . SITE CHARACTERISTIC S Source s o f Contaminatio n A s part o f th e ES I conducte di n Octobe r 1999 , asite reconnaissanc e wa s performe dt o identif y Area s o f Concern (AOCs ) o n th e Site . Th e followin g AOC s were identifie do n site :

• Wastewate r

Abovegroun dStorag e Tank s (ASTs) : Fou r AST s wer e locate di n th e northeastern portio n o f

th e Site . Th e fou r

AST s include don e 25,000-gallo n tan k an d thre e 5,000-gallo n tanks . The y wer e constructe do f stee l an dsurrounde db y an earthe n berm . Th e tank s wer e use dfo r bul k storag e durin g barg e cleanin g operations .

• Boile r

Hous e ASTs : Fou r

AST s wer e locate dadjacen t t o th e boile r

hous e locate di n th e southwester n portio n o f

th e Site . Th e AST s were approximatel y 7,000-gallo n capacity each . Thre e o f

th e fou r boile r hous e AST s wer e reportedl y use dt o stor e diese l fue l fo r steamboiler s tha t

wer e operate da s part

o f th e barg e cleanin g process . Th e fourt hboile r hous e AS T wa s use dt o stor e fres h water . Th e AST s wer e locate do n th e groun dsurfac e an ddi dno t hav e containmen t

berm s o r dikes .

• Ope n To p Slo p Tanks : Fou r ope n to p slo p tank s wer e locate do n th e wester n portio n o f th e Sit e near

th e flar e area . Th e tank s wer e constructe do f stee l an dmeasure d8 fee t

b y 5 fee t b y 4 feet . Th e tank s wer e place do n th e groun dan ddi dno t hav e secondary containment . 1 0• Horizonta l ASTs : Th e horizonta l AST s wer e locate di n th e southeaster n portio n o f th e Sit e nea r th e Sabin e Lake shoreline . Th e thre e AST s ha dacapacit y o f 10,00 0 gallon s each . A concret

e bermsurrounde dth e thre e ASTs . Th e tank s were use da s part o f th e barg e cleanin g an ddegassin g system .

• Twelv e ASTs : Twelv e (12 ) AST s wer e locate di n th e eastern portio n o f th e Site nea

r th e shorelin e o f

Sabin e Lake . Eac h tan k

wa s approximatel y 7,00 0 gallon s i n capacity . Th e tan k far mi s surrounde db y aconcret e bermmeasurin g 9 5 fee t b y 3 0 fee t latera l dimensio n b y 1 foo t

i n height . Th e tank s wer e likel y use dfo r liqui dtransfe r

an dliqui d separatio n activitie s durin g cleanin g operations .

• Flare : A flar e wa s locate di n th e centra l portio n o f th e Site . Th e flar e wa s use dt o bu m exces s gase s produce ddurin g cleanin g operations . Location s o f

thes e AOC s ar e show n i n Figur e 1-2 . EPA' s remova l actio n i n Augus t 2000 , remove dal l above-groun dstorag e tank s excep t fo r alarg e tan k

o n th e norther n portio n o f

th e site tha t contain s sludge . Severa l o f

th e concret e AS T foundation s remai n alon g wit h grave l throughou t th e Site . Remedia l Investigatio n Summar y Th e followin g summarize s finding s relate dt o th e exten t o f constituent s identifie ddurin g th e R I conducte di n Jul y 2003 :

• Generally , ther e appea r t o b e anumbe r

o f metal s presen t

i n soi l abov e th e backgroun d 95 % uppe r confidenc e limi t

(UCL) . Thes e concentration s ar e quit e variabl e wit h hig h metal s ofte n bein g presen t

i n soi l wit hobviou s sign s o f municipa l wast e an dothe r

time s i n soi l wit h n o apparen t

sig n o f "impact. " Th e backgroun ddat ase t itsel f ha dsome result s tha t appeare dt o b e "outliers " fro mth e res t o f th e backgroundse t

suggestin g tha t th e soi l use da s "ca

p material " fo r

th e sit e may no t

b e uniform . Th e origi n o f

thi s cap materia l coul dno t

b e determined , therefor e i t

i s unknow n i f

constituent s foun di n th e cap materia l ar e naturall y occurrin g o r fro manothe r

contaminate dsite .

• Wastewate r

AS T Area : Soi l containe dalarg e numbe r o f semivolatil e constituent s a s wel l a s pesticide s suc h a s pentachloropheno l (PCP) . I t i s unknow n i f

th e PC P wa s relate d t o th e Wastewate r

activities , becaus e th e highes t concentration s o f

PC P wer e foun di n soi l tha t als o containe dmunicipa l waste . Th e groundwate r impac t downgradien t

i s minima l a s indicate db y th e MTB E detecte dconcentratio n o f 3 2 ug/1 . Boile r Hous e ASTs : Soi l contaminate dwit h SVOC s wa s detecte di n thi s area . There i s n o apparen t

groun dwate r

impac t downgradien t

fro mthi s area . 1 1• Ope n To p Slo p Tanks : Soi l fro mnear th e Slo p Tank s containe dSVOC s an dmetals . Th e hig h concentration s wer e no t associate dwit h th e soi l near th e unit , bu t

rathe r th e soi l tha t surrounde dadru mo f

blac k sludg e tha t

wa s formerl y burie dnea r

thi s area . Th e groundwate r

impac t downgradien t

is minimal . Horizonta l ASTs : Concentration s o f benzen e an disopropylbenzen e wer e detecte dnear thi s area . However , ther e wer e n o constituent s i n soi l abov e residentia l criteri ai n thi s area .

• Twelv e ASTs : Soi l near thi s are acontaine dVOCs , SVOCs , an dmetals . Th e distributio n o f thes e result s sugges t

mor e VOC s ar e presen t

i n soi l fro mth e north an deas t side s o f th e unit . Th e groun dwate r

impac t downgradien t

fro mthi s are aappear s minima l base do n th e lo w detectio n o f

1 8 ug/ 1 o f MTBE . Metal s detecte di n groun dwate r wer e comparabl e t o thos e fro mth e backgroun dwell .

• Flare : Soi l sample s fro mthi s are aindicate dtha t surfac e soil s di dno t

contai n detectabl e constituent s relate dt o th e Flare , excep t fo r a"J-value " concentratio n o f benzene , whic h indicate s tha t

th e concentratio n i s a n estimate dvalu e belo w level s tha t ca n b e reliabl y quantified . Th e deepe r

soi l tha t containe dmunicipa l wast e containe dnumerou s metal s abov e th e backgroun d95 % UC L an dthre e "J-value " pesticide/PCBs . Th e groun dwate r impac t downgradien t

appear s minima l a s indicate db y th e "J-value " concentratio n o f 3 ug/ 1 o f MTBE . Metal s detecte di n groundwate r wer e comparabl e t o thos e fro mth e backgroun dwell .

• Surfac e Water : Sample s o f surfac e wate r

di dno t contai n an y site-relate dVO C constituents . Th e onl y SVO C detecte dwa s bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate , whic h appeare di n th e lab blan k

associate dwit hthes e samples . Fou r metal s wer e detecte dabov e th e practica l quantificatio n limi t i n surfac e wate r

(aluminum , manganese , mercury , an dzinc) . Fou r additional metal s wer e detecte dat "J-value " concentration s (bariu m(J) , coppe r (J) , chromiu m(J) , an dnicke l (J)) . Sediment : Site-relate dVOC s wer e no t detecte di n th e eigh t

sedimen t sample s collecte d adjacen t t o th e Palme r

Site . Th e larges t

numbe r o f quantifiabl e detection s o f SVOCs/pesticides/PCB s wer e at alocatio n closes t

t o th e south en do f

th e shee t piling . Geologi c Settin g Th e Palme r

Barg e Sit e i s locate do n th e seawar dmargi n o f th e southeastern Gul f

Coastal Plai n o f Texas , h i general , th e sedimen t i n thi s are ai s ten s o f

thousand s o f

fee t thic k at th e coastline . Th e unconsolidate dsedimen t sequenc e consist s o f

sand , silt , an dcla y an drepresent s depositiona l marin e an dnon-marin e environments . A s aresul t o f subsidenc e o f

th e Gulf Coas t basi n thes e sediment s thicke n towar dth e Gulf . 1 2I n general , th e near surfac e soil s alon g waterway s i n thi s are ao f th e Coasta l Plai n consis t

o f fil l an dspoi l materia l dredge dfro mSabin e Lake . I n th e subsurface , th e Coasta l Plai n sediment s ar e primaril y Quaternary alluvium , compose do f cla y an dsilt . Th e Beaumont Clay , Montgomer y Formation , an dWilli s San dmak e u p th e underlyin g Chico t Aquifer . Base do n historica l information , th e Palme r

Barg e Sit e an dassociate dbarg e cleanin g operation s hav e bee n buil t o n to p o f fil l an dsedimen t

tha t wa s remove ddurin g dredgin g o f th e Intercoastal Waterway s an dth e Sabine-Neche s shi p channel . Thi s dredge dmateria l wa s place dadjacen t t o th e shippin g canals . Th e forme r municipal landfil l wa s develope do n thi s smal l manmad e island . Surfac e soil s ar e avariabl e mixtur e o f dark brow n t o blac k

clay , sand , an dsil t

ofte n withshel l material . Th e majorit y o f

th e sit e subsoi l i s derive dfro mdredg e sedimen t fro mSabin e Lake . Part o f th e island s wa s us e a s amunicipa l landfil l b y th e City o f Port Arthu r an dalaye r

o f cap materia l wa s place dove r

th e landfil l areas . Th e origi n o f th e cap materia l ha s no t

bee n determined . Asid e fro marea s tha t ar e mowe do r

hav e gravel , o r

concret e foundations , mos t

o f th e soi l i s covere db y tal l grasses . N o distinc t soi l horizon s hav e formed , no r i s ther e aclearl y distinc t "tras h layer " o f

municipa l waste . Th e uppe r 1- 2 fee t o f surfac e soi l consist s o f

san dan d sil t an dar e typicall y fre e o f

municipa l wast e material . Thi s uppe r cove r ofte n ha s root s fro msit e vegetatio n o r

shel l fro mdredging . Wast e wa s encountere dsporadicall y i n th e fil l betwee n abou t on e foo t t o fiv e fee t

belo w groun dsurfac e (bgs) . Th e interva l fro mabou t fiv e fee t bg s t o approximatel y 1 8 fee t

i s ami x o f dark gra y t o gra y clay , silt , an dfin e sand . A t adeptho f abou t 1 8 fee t bgs , th e to p o f

th e nativ e Sabin e Lak e sediment s i s encountered . Thi s gray silt y clay i s muc hmor e homogeneou s tha n th e overlayin g dredg e fil l an dbecome s firme r wit hdepth . Thi s uni t i s muc hmore consisten t

tha n th e dredg e spoi l uni t

an dextend s t o at

leas t 3 0 fee t bgs . Hydrogeologi c Finding s Groundwate r

wa s encountere di n th e sand y portion s o f th e dredg e fil l unit . Th e firs t shallo w water-bearin g zon e at

th e Palme r Barg e Sit e i s typicall y encountere dat depth s o f approximatel y 4 fee t bgs . Stati c wate r

level s range dfro malmos t

9 fee t abov e Mean Se aLeve l (MSL ) at an upgradien t wel l t o slightl y ove r

1 foo t abov e MS Lat

th e edg e o f

Sabin e Lake . Thi s wate r bearin g zon e i s no t

part o f th e dee p Chico t

Aquife r tha t i s generall y use da s adrinkin g wate r source . Th e surficia l shallo w water-bearin g zon e resulte dfro mth e adjacen t shippin g channe l dredg e material s tha t

wer e use dt o buil dth e islan dwher e th e sit e i s located . Groundwate r i n thi s uni t als o include s infiltrate dprecipitation . Thi s groundwate r flow s toward s an ddischarge s t o Sabin e Lake . Sedimen t Samplin g - Sabin e Lak e Sedimen t samplin g result s indicate dth e presence s o f several polycycli c hydrocarbon s (PAHs ) at lo w concentrations . N o pesticides , PCB s o r VOC s wer e detecte di n th e sedimen t sample s collected . Several metal s wer e detecte di n th e sedimen t samples . Mos t

o f thes e suc ha s chromium , copper , lead , manganese , nickel , an dvanadiu mwere reasonably consistent . Bariu m an dzin c result s ha dmor e variation , an dther e wer e some detection s o f mercury . Organi c carbo n 1 3result s range dfro m8,63 0 mg/k g t o 16,30 0 mg/k g (0.8 % t o 1.6%) . Th e rati o o f simultaneousl y extracte dmetal/acid-volatil e sulfid e (SEM/AVS ) range dfro m0.0 6 t o 0.30 . Th e SEM/AV S rati o can be use dto infe r

the bioavailabilit y of

divalen t metal s to benthi c organisms . The lowe r the SEM/AV S ratio , th e lowe r

th e bioavailabilit y o f

th e metal . Surfac e Wate r

Samplin g - Sabin e Lak e Th e onl y constituent s detecte di n surfac e wate r fro mSabin e Lak e wer e "J-value " concentration s o f bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalat e (believe dt o b e du e t o blan k contamination) , an daluminum , barium , manganese , an dzinc . Mercur y (0.0000 8 ug/L ) wa s detecte dat on e location . Calciu m carbonat e hardnes s wa s als o measured , an di t range dfro m100 0 mg/

L t o 108 0 mg/L . CURREN T AN D POTENTIA L FUTUR E LAN D AN D GROUN D WATE RUSE S Lan dUse s Th e forme r

Palme r Barg e sit e i s currentl y bein g operate db y th e sit e owne r a s a n industria l propert y fo r

meta l scrapin g activities . Futur e us e o f th e Sit e i s als o anticipate dt o b e limite dt o industria l us e du e t o it s locatio n an dothe r surroundin g industria l sites . Th e closes t schoo l i s locate dapproximatel y 2. 7 mile s fro mth e site . There ar e onl y fourtee n (14 ) residentia l propertie s locate dwithi n a1-mil e radius . Groun dWate r

Use s There i s n o curren t

o r anticipate dfutur e us e o f

th e shallo w groun dwate r

at th e site . Th e shallo w groun dwate r

at th e sit e i s no t

considere dapotentia l drinkin g wate r source . Th e shallo w groun d wate r resulte dfro mth e dredgin g activitie s tha t forme dth e isl e wher e th e forme r Palme r Barg e sit e i s located . SUMMAR Y O FSITE RISK S Baselin e Huma n Healt h Ris k Assessmen t Th e primary source s o f

informatio n use di n th e Baselin e Huma n Healt h Ris k Assessmen t (BHHRA ) conducte di n Jun e 2005 , ar e th e Expande dSite Inspectio n Report (ESI ) (Weston , 2000 ) an dth e Remedia l Investigatio n (RI) Report fo r Palme r Barg e Lin e Superfun dSit e (URS , 2004d) . Th e Sit e Conceptua l Exposur e Mode l fo r th e ris k assessmen t

indicate s tha t

th e primar y exposur e scenario s o f

interes t ar e on-sit e industria l worke r exposur e t o constituent s presen t i n surfac e soi l an doff-sit e exposur e t o arecreationa l fisherma n primaril y vi aconsumptio n offis h fro mSabin e Lake tha t

ma y hav e accumulate dsite-relate dconstituent s fro msurfac e wate r an d sediment . Th e primar y constituent s o f

concern detecte dat

th e Sit e ar e polycycli c aromati c hydrocarbon s (PAHs) , pesticides , an dmetals . Baselin e ris k calculation s fo r

surfac e soi l wer e performe dfo r eac h o f si x AOC s base do n analytica l dat areporte di n th e RI . Risk s fo r th e recreationa l 1 4fisherma n wer e estimate dusin g dat afro mth e R I report supplemente db y dat afro mothe r investigation s o f

Sabin e Lake sedimen t

an dfis htissu e concentrations . Eac ho f th e medi aan d pathway s evaluate di n th e baselin e calculation s resulte di n ris k estimate s withi n th e rang e o f ris k managemen t

criteri atypicall y employe di n th e Superfun dprogram(10" 6 t o 10" 4 cancer ris k an da noncance r hazar dinde x o f

1.0) , wit hon e exception . Th e maximu mconcentratio n o f benzo(a)pyren e presen t

i n sedimen t

resulte di n a n estimate dcance r ris k vi afis hconsumptio n tha t i s slightl y abov e th e uppe r

en do f th e targe t ris k range . However , actua l fis htissu e dat afro m Sabin e Lak e indicate s tha t

th e benzo(a)pyren e resul t

doe s no t represen t athreat t o huma n health . A n uncertaint y analysi s wa s performe dt o identif y source s o f

uncertaint y i n th e baselin e ris k calculations . A significan t

observatio n o f

th e uncertaint y analysi s wa s that histori c pre-R I soi l dat awoul dlikel y produc e ris k estimate s approximatel y a n orde r o f magnitud e greate r

tha n th e estimate s develope dbase do n th e R I soi l data . Therefore , Sit e soi l concentration s fro mbot hth e histori c an dR I dat awer e compare dt o risk-base dpreliminar y remediatio n goal s (PRGs ) tha t wer e develope dfo r

th e rang e o f

applicabl e targe t

ris k criteri a(10~ 6 t o 10" 4) . Several surfac e soi l sampl e location s wit hconcentration s exceedin g PRG s fo r th e 10" 5 targe t

ris k rang e wer e identifie da s "ho t spots " t o b e addresse di n th e selecte dremedy . Addressin g th e identifie d"ho t

spots " i n th e selecte dremed y wil l resul t i n aris k leve l tha t i s protectiv e o f

huma n healt han dth e environment . Identificatio n o f

Chemical s o f

Concer n Chemical s o f

potentia l concern (COPCs ) wer e identifie dfro mth e remedia l investigatio n whic h exceede dcommercial/industria l mediu mspecifi c screenin g leve l (MSSL ) value s t o prepare dth e sit e specifi c Huma n Healt hRis k Assessmen t

(HHRA) . Tabl e 1 summarize s th e COPC s an d contain s th e exposur e poin t

concentration s use dt o evaluat e th e reasonabl e maximu mexposur e scenari o (RME ) i n th e baselin e ris k assessment . Lea dwa s analyze dseparately .

Tabl e 1 Summar y o f

Chemical s o f

Concer n an dExposur e Poin t Concentration s fro mR I Recepto r
Industria l Worke r Exposur e

Mediu m On-Sit e Surfac e Soi l Chemica l o f

Concer n Aroclor-125 4 Benzen e Benzo(a)pyren e Benzo(b ) fluoranthene Dieldri n Pentachloropheno l Maximu m

Concentratio n (rag/kg ) 4.1 8 2.0 2 3. 3 2.7 3 0. 4 15 0 Exposur e Poin t

Concentratio n (mg/kg ) 4.1 8 2.0 2 3. 3 2.7 3 0. 4 15 0 Statistica l Measur e

Maximu mDetectio n Maximu mDetectio n Maximu mDetectio n Maximu mDetectio n Maximu mDetectio n Maximu mDetectio n 1 5Tabl e 1 Summar y o f

Chemical s o f

Concer n an dExposur e Poin t Concentration s fro mR I Recepto r Exposur e

Mediu m Chemica l o f

Concer n Arseni c Maximu m

Concentratio n (mg/kg ) 12 0 Exposur e Poin t

Concentratio n (mg/kg ) 12 0 Statistica l Measur e

Maximu mDetectio n Key : mg/kg : milligram s pe r

kilogra m Th e tabl e present s th e COC s an dexposur e poin t concentratio n fo r

eac ho f th e COC s detecte di n th e medi a(i.e. , th e concentratio n tha t

wil l b e use dt o estimat e th e exposur e an dris k fro meac hCO C i n th e soil) . Th e tabl e include s th e maximu m concentration s detecte dfo r

eac h COC , th e exposur e poin t concentratio n (EPC) , an dho w th e EP C wa s derived . Exposur e Assessmen t Th e exposur e scenario s evaluate dfo r Huma n Health Ris k

are : On-sit e Industria l Worke r

expose db y wa y of :

• Incidenta l ingestio n o f soil ; • Derma l contac t

wit h soil ; • Inhalatio n o f

airborn e dust ; an d Inhalatio n o f

vapor s emanatin g fro mvolatil e constituent s i n soil ; Recreationa l Angle r

expose db y wa y of :

• Derma l contac t

wit h surfac e wate r

durin g angling ; and , Ingestio n o f

fis h harveste dfro mSabin e Lake . I n accordanc e wit h Ris k

Assessmen t

Guidanc e fo r

Superfun d(RAGS) , exposur e assumption s fo r th e ris k assessmen t

wer e selecte dt o represen t

th e reasonabl e maximu mexposur e (RME ) tha t coul doccu r

at th e Site . Fo r

th e industria l worke r

scenario , thes e assumption s wer e take n fro m EPA' s Regio n 6 MSSLs . A summary o f thes e assumption s i s presente do n Table s 2 an d3 below . Th e concentratio n tha t

a n individua l woul db e expose dt o ove r th e chroni c exposur e period s assume di n th e ris k

assessmen t

woul db e bes t

represente db y a n arithmeti c averag e o f th e concentration s presen t

throughou t

th e mediu mwher e th e exposur e woul doccu r ove r tha t tim e period . T o account

fo r uncertainty i n what

th e tru e averag e concentratio n i s base do n th e limite d sampl e dat aavailable , ris k

assessment s ofte n utiliz e a n uppe r confidenc e limi t

(UCL ) o f th e mean t o represen t

th e exposur e concentration . However , statistica l evaluatio n o f thi s sor t fo r th e Palme r Barg e Site wa s complicate db y th e presenc e o f non-detec t result s i n th e sampl e dat aset . Thi s wa s particularl y th e cas e fo r thi s sit e sinc e constituent s wer e no t detecte di n amajorit y o f the sample s analyze dfor

the man y COPC s identifie dfor the Site . For

the Palme r

Barg e Site , the simpl e an dconservativ e approac h take n fo r thi s assessmen t

wa s generall y t o assum e tha t th e 1 6recepto r wa s expose dt o th e maximu mdetecte dconcentratio n o f th e COPC . Thi s approac hwil l probabl y resul t

i n an overestimatio n o f

actual risk s associate dwithth e Site . On e exceptio n t o th e us e o f

maximu mdetecte dconcentration s i n th e ris k assessmen t

wa s fo r th e evaluatio n o f

lea d(Pb ) i n soil . Sinc e th e distributio n o f lea dconcentration s i n soi l range dfro m belo w backgroun dt o abov e MSSLs , an dth e frequenc y o f detectio n wa s high , a95 % UC L wa s utilize dt o represen t

th e exposur e concentratio n o f lea di n soil . Exposur e Assumption s fo r

Industria l Worke r

Tabl e 2 Exposur e Assumption s fo r

Industria l Worke r Symbo l E F E D IR s B W AT c ATn c IR a S A AF PEF Definitio n

Exposur e Frequenc y Exposur e Duratio n Ingestio n Rat e o f

Soi l Bod y Weigh t Averagin g Time-carcinogeni c

effect s Averagin g Time-noncance r

effect s Inhalatio n Rat e o f

Ai r Surface Are ao f

Ski n Expose d Adherenc e Factor Particulat e Emissio n Facto r RM E Valu e 22 5 2 5 10 0 7 0 7 0 2 5 2 0 330 0 0. 2 1.32xl0 9 Unit s

days/y r yr s mg/da y k g yr s yr s mVda y cnrVda y cmVda y mg 3 /kg Sourc e

a a a a a
a a a a a Exposur e Assumption s fo r

Recreationa l Fisherma n Scenari o

Tabl e 3 Exposur e Assumption s fo r

Recreationa l Fisherma n Scenari o Symbo l EF f EF d E D Definitio n

Exposur e Frequenc y fo r

Fis h Consumptio n Exposur e Frequenc y fo r

Derma l Contac t Exposur e Duratio n RM E Valu e 36 5 100 3 0 Unit s

days/y r days/y r yr s Sourc e

a d

a 1 7Tabl e 3 Exposur e Assumption s fo r

Recreationa l Fisherma n Scenari o Symbo l IRf B W AT c ATn c S A Is c Definitio n

Ingestio n Rat e o f

Fis h (annua l average ) Bod y Weigh t Averagin g Time-carcinogeni c

effect s Averagin g Time-noncance r effect s Surfac e Are ao f

Ski n Expose d Thicknes s o f

Strateu mCorneu m RM E Valu e 0.017 5 7 0 7 0 3 0 517 0 0.00 1 Unit s

kg/da y k g yr s yr s cm 2/da y c m Sourc e

b

a a

a c c Notes : a- EP A Regio n 6 Medium-Specifi c Screenin g Levels , Januar y 200 4 b - Methodolog y fo r

Derivin g Ambien t

Wate r Qualit y Criteri afo r

th e Protectio n o f

Huma n Health , EP A 200 0 c - Supplementa l Guidanc e fo r Derma l Ris k

Assessment , RAG S Par t

E , EP A 200 1 d- Conservativ e assumptio n fo r arecreationa l angle r

fishin g 2 time s pe r

wee k 5 0 weeks/year Fis hTissu e Concentration s Evaluatio n o f

potentia l exposure s vi afis hconsumptio n a s aresul t o f impact s i n groundwater , surfac e water , an dsedimen t

dat ainvolve s us e o f

abioaccumulatio n mode l t o estimat e th e concentratio n o f

COPC s i n fis h tissue . Us e o f bioconcentratio n factor s (BCFs) , bioaccumulatio n factor s (BAFs) , an dbiota-sedimen t accumulatio n factor s (BSAFs ) ar e asignifican t sourc e o f uncertainty i n th e ris k

assessmen t

du e t o th e comple x metaboli c processe s bein g simulate db y thes e publishe dfactors . Therefore , th e ris k assessmen t

relie dpreferentiall y o n measure dfis h tissu e concentration s fro mth e 199 5 Texa s Departmen t o f Health(TDH ) stud y i n lie u o f modele d estimate s wher e possible . Whil e us e o f measure dfis h tissu e concentration s eliminate s th e uncertaint y o f

th e modele destimates , i t

als o result s i n a n evaluatio n o f risk s associate dwithal l source s o f loadin g t o th e fis htissu e tha t i s no t limite dt o impact s tha t

migh t hav e originate d specificall y fro mth e Palme r

Barg e Site . Althoug hsample s i n th e TD H wer e collecte dfro m variou s location s throughou t

Sabin e Lake , th e ris k

assessmen t

utilize dth e maximu mdetecte d concentratio n identifie di n an y specie s fro man y sampl e locatio n i n Sabin e Lake a s a conservativ e measur e t o accoun t fo r an y uncertaint y associate dwit hth e ag e o r qualit y o f th e data . Sinc e th e TD H stud y di dno t

analyz e al l Palme r

Barg e COPCs , modele dfis h tissu e concentration s wer e generate dfo r thes e constituent s a s necessary . I n addition , i n case s wher e th e maximu mmeasure dfis h tissu e concentration s were reporte da s no t detected , modele dfis h tissu e concentratio n estimate s wer e generate dan dcompare dt o th e detectio n limit . I f th e modele d estimat e wa s lowe r

tha n th e measure ddetectio n limit , th e modele destimat e wa s use dt o



### 1 8represen t th e fis htissu e concentratio n a s a n estimat e o f th e censore dconcentratio n tha t migh t b e presen t belo w th e analytica l detection . I f th e modele destimat e resulte di n afis htissu e concentratio n tha t

wa s highe r

tha n th e detectio n limi t

i n th e non-detec t

analysis, the n th e measure dresul t

wa s use dt o represen t

th e fis h tissu e concentratio n i n th e ris k assessmen t

sinc e th e measure dresul t

i s considere dmor e reliabl e tha n th e estimate dresult . Toxicity Assessmen t Exces s lifetim e cance r

risk s wer e determine dfo r

eac hexposur e pathwa y b y multiplyin g adail y intak e leve l wit hth e chemica l specifi c cancer slop e factor . Cancer

slop e factor s hav e bee n develope db y th e EP A fro mepidemiologica l o r anima l studie s t o reflec t

aconservativ e "uppe r bound " o f th e ris k pose db y potentiall y carcinogeni c compounds . That is , th e tru e ris k

i s unlikel y t o b e greater

tha n th e ris k

predicted . Th e resultin g ris k estimate s ar e expresse di n scientifi c notatio n a s aprobabilit y (e.g . 1 x 10" 6 fo r 1/1,000,000 ) an dindicat e (usin g thi s example) , tha t an averag e individua l i s no t

likel y t o hav e greater

tha t aon e i n amillio n chanc e o f

developin g cance r ove r 7 0 year s a s aresul t

o f site-relate dexposur e t o th e compoun dat th e state d concentration . Al l risk s estimate drepresen t a n "exces s lifetim e cance r

risk " - o r th e additiona l cancer ris k o n to p o f tha t whic hw e al l fac e fro mothe r cause s suc ha s cigarett e smok e o r exposur e t o ultraviole t

radiatio n fro mth e sun . Th e chanc e o f an individua l developin g cancer fro mal l othe r

(non-sit e related ) cause s ha s bee n estimate dt o b e a s hig ha s on e i n three . Th e EPA' s generall y acceptabl e ris k rang e fo r sit e relate dexposur e i s lO^t o 10" 6

. Curren t EP A practic e consider s carcinogeni c risk s t o b e additiv e whe n assessin g exposur e t o amixtur e o f hazardou s substances . Carcinogeni c an dnoncarcinogeni c ris k estimate s wer e calculate dusin g areasonabl e maximu m exposur e (RME) . Exces s lifetim e cance r ris k i s calculate dfro mth e followin g equation : Ris k = GD I x SF , where :

• Ris k

= aunitles s probabilit y (e.g. , 2 x 10" 5 ) o f an individual' s developin g cancer GD I = chroni c dail y intak e average dove r 7 0 year s (mg/kg-day ) • S F= slop e factor , expresse da s (mg/kg-day)-1 . A summary o f

th e cancer toxicit y dat arelevan t

t o th e COC s i s presente di n Tabl e 4 . Tabl e 4 Cance r Toxicit y Dat aSummar y Chemica l o f Concer n
Benzen e Pentachloropheno l Benzo(a)anthracen e Ora l Cance r

Slop e Facto r (mg/kg)/da y 5.5E-0 2 1.2E-0 1 7.3E-0 1 Derma l Cance r

Slop e Facto r (mg/kg)/da y N/ A 1.2E-0 1 7.3E-0 1 Inhalatio n

Cance r Slop e Facto r (mg/kg)/da y 2.9E-0 2 N/ A N/ A Weigh t

o f Evidence/Cance r Guidelin e Descriptio n A B 2 B 2 Sourc e

IRI S IRI S NCE A Dat e o f

Publicatio n
01/28/200 5 01/28/200 5 07/01/199 3 1 9Tabl e 4 Cance r Toxicit y Dat aSummar y Chemica l o f Concer n Benzo(a)pyren e Benzo(a)fluoranthen e Dieldri n Heptachlo r epoxid e PCB-125 4 Arseni c Ora l Cance r

Slop e Facto r (mg/kg)/da y 7.3E+0 0 7.3E-0 1 1.6E+0 1 9.1E+0 0 2.0E+0 0 1.5E+0 0 Derma l Cance r

Slop e Facto r (mg/kg)/da y 7.3E+0 0 7.3E-0 1 1.6E+0 1 9.1E+0 0 2.0E+0 0 1.5E+0 0 Inhalatio n

Cance r Slop e Facto r (mg/kg)/da y 3.1E+0 0 N/ A 1.61E+0 1 9.IE+0 0 2.0E+0 0 1.51E+0 1 Weigh t o f Evidence/Cance r Guidelin e Descriptio n B 2 B 2 B 2 B 2 N/ A A Sourc e

IRI S NCE A IRI S IRI S IRI S IRI S Dat e o f

Publicatio n
01/28/200 5 07/01/199 3 01/28/200 5 01/28/200 5 01/28/200 5 01/28/200 5 Key : EP A Group : IRIS : Integrate dRis k

Informatio n System , U.S . EP A A - Huma n carcinoge n NCEA : Nationa l Cente r

fo r Environmenta l Assessmen t

B l - Probabl e huma n carcinoge n - Indicate s tha t limite dhuma n dat a ar e availabl e HEAST : Healt h Effect s Assessmen t Summar y Table s B 2 - Probabl e huma n carcinoge n - Indicate s sufficien t evidenc e i n animal s an dinadequat e o r

n o evidenc e i n human s N/A : No t availabl e D

- No t classifiabl e a s ahuma n carcinogen Th e potentia l fo r

non-carcinogeni c effect s i s evaluate db y comparin g a n exposur e leve l ove r a specifie dtim e perio d(e.g. , life-time ) with areferenc e dos e (RfD ) derive dfo r asimilar exposur e period . A n Rf

D represent s aleve l tha t

a n individua l ma y b e expose dt o tha t i s no t expecte dt o caus e an y deleteriou s effect . Th e rati o o f exposur e t o toxicit y i s calle dahazar dquotien t (HQ) . A n H Q < 1 indicate s tha t

areceptor' s dos e o f

asingl e contaminan t

i s les s tha n th e RfD , an dtha t toxi c noncarcinogeni c effect s fro mtha t chemica l ar e unlikely . Th e Hazar dInde x (HI ) i s generate db y addin g th e HQ s fo r al l chemical(s ) o f

concern that

affec t th e sam e targe t

organ (e.g. , liver ) o r tha t ac t throug h th e sam e mechanis mo f actio n withi n amediu mo r

acros s al l medi at o whic h agive n individua l ma y reasonabl y b e exposed . A HI < 1 indicate s that , base do n th e su m o f al l HQ s fro mdifferen t

contaminant s an dexposur e routes , toxi c noncarcinogeni c effect s fro m al l contaminant s ar e unlikely . A H I > 1 indicate s tha t site-relate dexposure s ma y presen t aris k t o huma n health . Th e H Q i s calculate da s follows : Non-cance r H Q = CDI/RfD , where : GD I = Chroni c dail y intak e Rf D = Referenc e Dose . GD I an dRf

D ar e expresse di n th e sam e unit s an drepresen t th e sam e exposur e perio d(i.e. , chronic , subchronic , o r

short-term) . Tabl e 5 list s th e COC s an dthei r respectiv e non-cance r toxicit y data .

2 0Tabl e 5 Non-Cance r

Toxicit y Dat aSummar y Chemica l o f Concer n Benzen e Pentachloropheno l Dieldri n Heptachlo r epoxid e PCB-125 4 Arseni c Chroni c Ora l

RfD Valu e (mg/kg-day ) 4.0E-0 3 3.0E-0 2 5.0E-0 5 1.3E-0 5 2.0E-0 5 3.0E-04 Chroni c

Derma l Rf D (mg/kg-day ) N/ A 3.0E-0 2 5.0E-0 5 I.3E-0 5 2.0E-0 5 3.0E-0 4 Chroni c

Inhalatio n RfD (mg/kg-day ) 3.0E-0 2 N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A Primar y Targe t

Orga n Bon e Marro w Liver / Kidney / Live r Live r Skin/immun e syste m Vascula r system/ski n Source s o f

RfD : Targe t Orga n NCE A IRI S IRI S IRI S IRI S IRI S Date s o f

RfD :

— 01/28/200 5 01/28/200 5 01/28/200 5 01/28/200 5 01/28/200 5 Key : N/A : No t availabl e IRIS : Integrate dRis k

Informatio n System , U.S . EP A NCEA : Nationa l Cente r

fo r Environmenta l Assessmen t Ris k Characterizatio n Usin g th e element s o f

th e Sit e Conceptua l Exposur e Mode l (SCEM ) an dassociate dexposur e assumptions , constituent-specifi c cance r ris k an dnoncance r

hazar dwer e calculate da s well a s cumulativ e cance r

ris k an dnoncance r

hazard . Th e detaile dresult s o f th e calculation s ar e include di n Appendi x B o f

th e Baselin e Huma n Health Ris k Assessmen t

(BHHRA ) RAG S Part D spreadsheets . Fo r al l carcinogens , cumulativ e cancer risk , assumin g simultaneou s exposur e t o multipl e carcinogens , wa s assume dt o b e additiv e (that is , th e individua l cance r

risk s fo r al l carcinogeni c constituent s presen t

i n soi l wer e summed) . Fo r

simultaneou s exposur e t o multipl e noncarcinogen s i n soil , th e targe t noncance r hazar dinde x o f

1. 0 i s applicabl e o n ape r organ/syste mbasi s rathe r

tha n o n th e cumulativ e hazar dinde x fo r a n exposur e scenario . Noncance r hazard s ar e apportione db y targe t organ i n Appendi x B o f

th e BHHRA RAG S Part

D tables . Du e t o th e uniqu e biokineti c metabolis mo f lead , acance r

ris k o r hazar dinde x wa s no t

calculate d fo r lea di n th e sam e manne r

a s th e othe r

COPCs . Fo r

lea di n soil , ris k

characterizatio n consiste d o f compariso n o f

th e 95 % UC L o f

soi l lea dconcentration s t o th e Regio n 6 industria l worke r MSS L fo r lea do f 80 0 mg/kg . Th e Regio n 6 MSS L fo r lea duse di n thi s assessmen t i s base do n industria l lan dus e an dexposur e o f adevelopin g fetu s withi n a n adul t worke r assume dt o work

at th e sit e durin g pregnancy . Thus , exceedenc e o f th e Regio n 6 MSS L fo r

lea di n industria l soi l woul dsugges t

tha t atarge t bloo dlea dleve l i n adevelopin g fetu s woul db e exceeded . Becaus e the targe t organ (e.g . blood ) for

leadin adult s is differen t

fro mtarge t

organ s for other noncarcinogeni c constituents , ther e ar e n o additiv e assumption s necessar y fo r lead . Thus , th e 2 1risk-base devaluatio n o f leadi n soi l consiste do f

compariso n o f

th e Regio n 6 MSS L fo r

leadwith th e 95 % UC L o f

concentration s foun dat

th e Site . On-Sit e Worke r Th e resultin g cance r

ris k an dhazar dinde x estimate s fo r th e industria l worke r

scenario , base do n th e R I data , fo r

eac h o f th e si x soi l AOC s ar e presente do n Tabl e 6 . Th e cancer ris k result s rang e fro m3x10- 6 t o 7x10- 5 an dHazar dInde x result s rang e fro m0.0 2 t o 0.5 . Ris k an dHazar dInde x result s b y constituen t

an dpathwa y fo r

thi s scenari o ar e show n i n Appendi x B o f th e BHHRA RAG S Part

D formatte dtables . Fo r

lea di n sit e soils , th e 95 % UC L o f 59 0 mg/k g lea dfro mth e R I soi l dat ai s les s tha n th e Regio n 6 industrial worke r Medium-Specifi c Screenin g Leve l (MSSL ) fo r

lea do f 80 0 mg/kg . Tabl e 6 Cumulativ e Cance r

Ris k an dNoncance r

Hazar dIndice s fo r

Soi l fro mR I Dat a Are ao f Concer n Wastewate r

AS T Are a Boile r Hous e AST s Former Open To p Slop Tank s Horizonta l AST s Twelv e AST s Flar e Cumulativ e Cance r Ris k 4xlO' 5 9xlO' 6 4xlO' 6 3xlO- 6 7xlO' 5 IxlO' 5 Hazar dQuotien t 0. 1 0.0 9 0.0 2 0.0 2 0. 5 0. 4 Off-Sit e Recreationa l Angle r Th e resultin g cance r

ris k an dhazar dinde x estimate s fo r th e recreationa l angle r

scenari o ar e presente do n Tabl e 7 . Table ?

Cance r Ris k an dNoncance r

Hazar dIndice s Sourc e Mediu m Groun dWate r Surfac e Wate r Sedimen t Cance r Ris k 7xlO' 9 N o carcinoge n COPC s 

### 2x 1 0- 4 Hazar dInde x 0. 5 0.00 3 

### 1. 5

2 2Fo r

th e off-sit e recreationa l angler , th e primar y contributor s t o th e 2xlO" 4 cance r ris k associate d wit hsedimen t

wa s benzo(a)pyrene . However , interpretatio n o f thi s resul t shoul dconside r

th e followin g factors :

• Th e calculate dbenzo(a)pyren e cancer ris k wa s associate dwit h amodele dfis h tissu e concentration . Th e actua l measure dfis h tissu e concentratio n fo r benzo(a)pyren e wa s non-detec t i n al l sample s collecte dfro mSabin e Lake i n th e 199 5 TD H study .

• Th e modele dfis h uptak e wa s base do n th e maximu mdetecte dbenzo(a)pyren e concentratio n i n sedimen t

(0.29 J mg/kg) . Th e maximu mdetecte dconcentratio n o f benzo(a)pyren e i n sedimen t wa s a"J"-flagge dresul t

indicatin g tha t

th e concentratio n i s a n estimate dvalu e belo w level s tha t ca n b e reliabl y quantified . Benzo(a)pyren e wa s no t detecte dabov e laboratory detectio n limit s i n ove r 60 % o f th e sedimen t

sample s analyzed . Th e assumptio n that

fis h uptak e i s base do n th e maximu mdetecte dconcentratio n i n sedimen t result s i n a n artificiall y elevatedestimat e o f th e concentratio n tha t

coul db e presen t i n fis h tissue .

• Th e benzo(a)pyren e i n sediment s adjacen t t o th e Sit e ma y b e presen t

a s aresul t o f source s othe r tha n th e barg e cleanin g operation s performe da t th e site . Othe r

potentia l source s ma y includ e barg e traffic , an dothe r industria l an durba n runof

f source s i n th e vicinity .

• Th e rapi dmetabolis mo f polycycli c aromati c hydrocarbon s (PAHs ) i n fis h int o readil y excrete dsubstance s prevent s substantia l bioaccumulatio n fro moccurring . Partitionin g o f PAH s fro msurfac e wate r

an dsedimen t

int o fis h tissu e ca n resul t

i n a n overestimatio n o f ris k du e t o ingestio n o f

fis h assume dt o b e expose dt o PAH s i n surfac e wate r and/o r sediment . Th e primar y contributor s t o th e noncance r hazar dinde x o f

1. 5 ar e Aroclor-1254 , arsenic , cadmium , copper , mercury , an dzinc . However , when apportione dou t o n atarge t organ basi s th e hazar dinde x fo r

eac h targe t

organ i s les s tha n 1.0 . Therefore , noncance r ris k associate dwit h PCB s an dmetal s i n sedimen t doe s no t appea r t o b e a n issu e fro mahuma n health perspective . Dat afro mHistori c Investigation s an dUncertaint y Althoug h th e dat acollecte ddurin g th e ES I wer e no t combine dwit h dat acollecte ddurin g th e R I fo r evaluatio n o f

soi l i n th e bod y o f

th e ris k assessment , th e ES I soi l dat awer e evaluate da s part o f th e uncertaint y analysi s t o furthe r defin e an y area s o n o r

of f site that exceede drisk-base d targe t criteria . T o evaluat e th e significanc e o f th e ES I soi l dat aset , concentration s fro mbot h th e R I an dES I dat aset s wer e screene dagains t Regio n 6 MSSLs . A revie w o f thes e concentration s reveal s tha t th e maximu mconcentration s fo r eac h constituen t

o n th e lis t originate s fro msample s collecte d durin g th e ESI . 2 3A simpl e baselin e ris k calculatio n performe dbase do n th e identifie dmaximu mconcentration s result s i n ris k

estimate s mor e tha n 1 0 time s greater (i.e. , 2x10~ 3 cancer

ris k an d4. 3 hazar dindex ) tha n thos e presente di n th e ris k assessmen t

base do n th e R I soi l dat aonly . Th e result s o f thi s ris k calculatio n ar e show n o n Tabl e 8 below . Tabl e 8

Uppe r en dRis k Estimat e fro mR I an dES I Soi l Dat a Constituent s (a ) 4,4'-DD E 4,4'-DD T Aldri n Aroclo r 125 4 Aroclo r 126 0 Arseni c Benzen e Benzo(a)anthracen e Benzo(a)pyren e Benzo(b)fluoranthen e Benzo(k)fluoranthen e Dibenzo(a,h)anthracen e Dieldri n Heptachlo r Heptachlo r Epoxid e Indeno( l ,2,3)cd-pyren e Naphthalen e Pentachloropheno l Ma x Sitewid e Soi l

Concentratio n (mg/kg ) (f ) 1 2 1 1 9. 2 4.1 8 0.8 5 12 0 3. 1 28 0 24 0 22 0 19 0 11 0 4. 4 1. 0 9. 5 28 0 37 0 57 0 Soi l Concentratio n

forHI=1. 0 mg/k g (b )

— 47 4 20. 5 11. 8

— 28 4 18 3

—

.. .

—

—

— 34. 2 34 2 8.8 9

— 21 0 1290 0 Soi l Concentratio n

forTR=lxlO ^ (mg/kg ) (c ) 7. 8 7. 8 0.1 1 0.8 3 0.8 3 1. 8 1. 6 2. 3 0.2 3 2. 3 2 3 0.2 3 0.1 2 0.4 3 0.2 1 2. 3

.. . 1 0 SU M Hazar d

Quotien t (d )

... . 2.32E-0 2 4.48E-0 1 3.54E-0 1

— 4.22E-0 1 1.69E-0 2

—-

—

—

—

— 1.29E-0 1 2.92E-0 3 1.07E+0 0

— 1 .76E+0 0 4.43E-0 2 4.27E+0 0 Cance r

Ris k (e ) 1.54E-0 6 1.41E-0 6 8.36E-0 5 5.04E-0 6 1.02E-0 6 6.67E-0 5 1.94E-0 6 1.22E-0 4 1.04E-0 3 9.57E-0 5 8.26E-0 6 4.78E-0 4 3.67E-0 5 2.33E-0 6 4.52E-0 5 1.22E-0 4

— 5.70E-0 5 2.17E-0 3 Notes : a- Al l constituent s withdetecte dconcentration s i n soi l exceedin g Regio n 6 MSSL s fo r a n Industria l worker . Leadi s evaluate d separately . b - Derive db y ratio s fro mbaselin e ris k calculations , excep t

Naphthalen e base do n publishe dMSSL . c - Regio n 6 MSSL s d- Derive db y Ma x Soi l Concentration/Soi l Concentratio n fo r H I = 1. 0 e - Derive db y Ma x Soi l Concentratio n x lE-6/Soi l Concentratio n fo r T R= 1E- 6 f - include s bot hR I an dES I soil s data . 2 4Thes e result s demonstrat e tha t exclusio n o f

th e ES I dat ase t

fro mth e baselin e ris k

assessmen t

fo r soi l i s asignifican t

sourc e o f uncertaint y i n th e soi l ris k

assessmen t

conclusions . Therefore , preliminary remediatio n goal s (PRGs ) wer e develope dfor the soi l mediu mandsoi l concentration s fro mbothth e R I an dES I investigations . Th e PRG s were compare dt o bot hth e R I an dES I soi l tes t

result s t o identif

y soi l area s tha t

wil l b e addresse di n th e selecte dremedy . Screenin g Leve l Ecologica l Ris k Assessmen t A Screening-Leve l Ecological Ris k Assessmen t

(SLERA ) wa s performe dfo r th e Palme r Barg e Lin e Superfun dSite (Site ) locate di n Port Arthur , Texa s i n Jun e 2005 . Ecologica l exposur e an d ris k assessmen t

fo r th e Sit e wer e base do n th e 8-Step proces s outline di n EPA' s Ecological Ris k Assessmen t

Guidanc e for

Superfund : Proces s for

Designin g andConductin g Ecologica l Ris k Assessment s (1997) , an dwa s performe dconsisten t wit hth e Texa s Commissio n o n Environmenta l Qualit y (TCEQ ) documen t entitle dGuidanc e fo r

Conductin g Ecologica l Ris k Assessment s at

Remediatio n Site s i n Texa s (2001 ; 200 4 Draft) . Th e SLER A consist s o f

Step s 1 an d2 o f th e 8-Step process . Initially , maximu mconcentration s o f analyte s detecte di n ecological exposur e medi awer e identifie dan dscreene dagains t highl y conservativ e Ecologica l Screenin g Level s (ESLs ) t o selec t constituent s o f

potentia l concern (COPCs ) fo r th e Step 2 exposur e an dris k calculations . Exposur e an dris k

characterization s o f

COPC s fo r

direc t contac t were performe dusin g th e maximu mdetecte dconcentration s an drisk s were characterize dusin g Hazar dQuotients . Subsequently , wildlife ingestio n exposur e pathway s were evaluate dfo r al l bioaccumulativ e chemical s usin g dos e modelin g wit hth e maximu mconcentration s an dth e 95%UCL s a s requeste db y EPA , TCE Q an dth e Trustees . Risk s t o wildlif e wer e characterize dusin g Hazar d Quotient s (HQs ) calculate dfo r No-Observable-Advers e Effec t Level s (NOAEL ) an dLowest

Observable-Advers e Effec t

Level s (LOAEL ) endpoints . Result s o f th e SLER A showe dtha t

th e COPC s identifie di n Sabin e Lake surfac e wate r an d sedimen t d o no t pos e risk s o f

sufficien t magnitud e t o requir e remedia l action . Risk s o f COPC s t o aquati c biot ab y adirec t

contac t pathwa y wer e fe w an dHazar dQuotient s base do n highl y conservativ e ESL s were low , withfe w exceedances . Hazar dquotient s fo r COP C exposur e t o wildlif e b y afood/pre y ingestio n pathway s wer e al l les s tha n 1. 0 base do n th e compariso n o f th e 95%UC Lversu s th e LOAELendpoint . Therefore , th e propose decological ris k managemen t decisio n fo r

sedimen t i s t o allo w degradatio n t o naturall y attenuat e organi c COPC s an dt o implemen t on-Sit e sourc e contro l t o preven t potentia l fo r

futur e input s t o Sabin e Lake . I n addition , potentiall y unacceptabl e risk s wil l b e addresse deithe r i n part o r wholl y b y action s undertake n a s part

o f th e Natura l Resourc e Damag e (NRD ) process . Th e COPC s identifie di n On-Sit e surfac e soi l coul dpos e a n unacceptabl e ris k t o terrestria l biot a b y adirec t contac t pathwa y an dt o wildlife b y afood/pre y ingestio n pathwa y i f receptor s were
2 5present . Th e curren t paucit y o f vegetatio n an dminima l site us e b y terrestria l receptor s i n th e forme r industria l portion s o f

th e Sit e justify th e conclusio n tha t ecologica l exposur e i s low . A s part o f th e SLERA , maximu mconcentration s o f analyte s detecte di n ecologica l exposur e medi awer e identifie dan dscreene dagains t highl y conservativ e Ecologica l Screenin g Level s (ESLs) . Th e screenin g wa s complete dt o selec t constituent s o f

potentia l concern (COPCs ) fo r th e Ste p 2 exposur e an dris k

calculations . Exposur e an dris k characterization s o f

COPC s fo r

direc t contac t were performe dusin g th e maximu mdetecte dconcentration s an drisk s wer e characterize d usin g Hazar dQuotients . Wildlife ingestio n exposur e pathway s were evaluate dfo r bioaccumulativ e chemical s usin g dos e modelin g withth e maximu mconcentration s an dth e 95 % UCLs . Risk s t o wildlif

e wer e characterize dusin g Hazar dQuotient s calculate dfo r no-observable-adverse-effect-level s (NOAELs ) an dlowest-observed-adverse-effect-leve l (LOAEL ) endpoints . Result s o f th e SLERA showe dtha t

th e COPC s identifie di n Sabin e Lake surfac e wate r an d sedimen t d o no t pos e risk s o f

sufficien t magnitud e t o warran t

remedia l action . Therefore , th e selecte dremed y t o addres s ecological ris k wil l consis t

o f allowin g degradatio n t o naturall y attenuat e organi c COPC s an dt o implemen t on-sit e sourc e contro l t o preven t futur e ru n of

f o f soi l contaminant s t o Sabin e Lake . Result s o f th e SLERA indicate dtha t

th e COPC s identifie di n on-sit e surfac e soi l coul dpos e a n unacceptabl e ris k

t o terrestria l biot ab y adirec t contac t pathwa y an dt o wildlif

e b y afood/pre y ingestio n pathway , i f

receptor s wer e present . Th e lac k o f vegetatio n an dminima l sit e us e b y terrestria l receptor s justifie s th e conclusio n tha t ecological risk s ar e negligibl e an dtherefor e exposure i s low . However , futur e long-ter mindustria l us e o f

th e Sit e i s uncertain , an dpotential exposur e coul doccu r

i f ecologica l successio n were t o procee dnaturally . Therefore , th e selecte d remed y wil l includ e soi l remediatio n t o addres s uncertainty associate dwit hth e potentia l fo r futur e on-sit e ecologica l risk . I n orde r t o evaluat e potentia l respons e areas , Sit e soi l concentration s fro mth e ES I an dR I dat a wer e compare dt o saf

e soi l concentration s fo r

wors t cas e exposur e t o th e American robin . Saf e soi l concentration s wer e bac k calculate dfo r

COPC s tha t

exceede dLOAELvalues . Several ecologica l "ho t

spots " wer e identifie da s respons e areas . Base do n thes e results , Preliminar y Remediatio n Goal s were develope dfo r o n sit e contaminant s that

pos e aris k

t o ecological receptors . A saf

e soi l concentratio n o f

49 7 mg/k g lea di n surfac e soi l wa s calculated . Thes e saf e soi l concentration s facto r

i n site-specifi c condition s o f curren t an dfutur e commercial/industria l lan dus e an dth e paucit y o f

vegetatio n an dminima l usabl e habita t availabl e t o th e robi n an dothe r terrestria l receptors .

2 6Preliminar y Remediatio n Goal s (PRGs )

Huma n Healt h PRG s Base do n th e ris k

characterization , quantitativ e risk s a t th e Palme r Barg e Sit e appea

r t o b e generall y withi n th e rang e o f ris k managemen t

criteri atypicall y employe di n th e Superfun d program , tha t

i s acumulativ e cancer

ris k i n th e rang e fro mIxlO" 6 t o IxlO' 4 an dahazar dinde x o f 1 . However , soi l concentratio n dat afro mahistori c investigatio n no t include di n th e baselin e ris k calculation s indicat e tha t

site contaminant s ma y pos e aris k t o huma n health a t

th e Site . Criteri awer e develope dfo r

al l soi l COPC s that

wer e detecte di n eithe r

th e ES I o r R I dat aset s abov e MSSLs . However , uncertaintie s associate dwit h background , occurrence s o f arseni c at concentration s exceedin g th e MSS L ar e prevalen t at th e Sit e ye t

mos t o f thes e result s ar e at concentration s that

ar e belo w background . Therefore , sit e soi l arseni c concentration s fro mth e R I an dES I wer e compare dt o site-specifi c backgroun dlevels . Th e targe t cleanu p leve l fo r

leadi s base do n th e MSS L concentratio n o f 80 0 mg/k g fo r

an industrial/commercia l site . PRG s fo r th e 10' 6 leve l wer e take n directl y fro mth e Regio n 6 MSS L tables . Site-specifi c PRG s wer e calculate dfo r

th e 10" 5 an d10- 4 targe t

ris k levels . An y COPC s o n th e lis t tha t ar e no t considere dcarcinogenic , o r

i n case s wher e th e COP C exhibit s bot h cancer an dnoncancer

effects , th e noncance r

PR G base do n ahazar dinde x o f 1. 0 wa s use da s th e PR G i f

tha t concentratio n wa s lowe r tha n th e cancer-base dPRG . I n consultatio n with TCEQ , EP A chos e a10" 5 targe t cleanu p leve l fo r

th e Palme r Barg e sit e base d o n exposur e t o contaminant s tha t excee dthos e level s at

surfac e soil s ( 0 t o 2 feet) . Th e contaminant s o f

concern an dth e selecte dPRG s ar e presente di n Tabl e 9 . Th e result s indicat e tha t fou r (4 ) location s hav e concentration s exceedin g th e 10" 5 PRGs . Tabl e 9 Huma n Health Preliminar y Remediatio n Goal s fo r 1 0 5 Targe t

Ris k Leve l Constituen t Aldri n Benzo(a)pyren e Benzo(a)anthracen e Dieldri n Heptachlo r Epoxid e Naphthalen e Pentachloropheno l Maximu mConcentratio n mg/kg 9. 2 24 0 28 0 4. 4 9. 5 37 0 57 0 PR G Cleanu p Leve l mg/k g 1. 1 2. 3 2 3 1. 2 2. 1 21 0 100 2 7Tabl e 9 Huma n Health Preliminar y Remediatio n Goal s fo r 1Q' S Targe t

Ris k Leve l Lea d 505 0 80 0 Note : A saf

e soi l concentratio n o f

49 7 mg/k g lea di n surfac e soi l wa s calculated . Thes e saf e soi l concentration s facto r

i n site

specifi c condition s o f

curren t an dfutur e commercial/industria l lan dus e an dthe . paucit y o f vegetatio n an dminima l usabl e habita t availabl e t o th e robi n an dothe r terrestria l receptors . Ecologica l Saf

e Soi l Concentration s Base do n th e result s o f

th e Screenin g Leve l Ris k

Assessment , saf

e soi l concentration s wer e develope dfo r

o n sit e soil s tha t

woul db e protectiv e o f

ecologica l receptors . Th e ecologica l saf e soi l concentration s fo r

o n sit e soil s ar e presente di n Tabl e 10 . Th e result s indicat e tha t seve n (7 ) location s excee dth e targe t

cleanu p level s fo r

th e sit e surfac e soil s ( 0 t o 2 feet) . Tabl e 1 0 SLER A Saf

e Soi l Concentration s Constituen t Buty l Benzy l Phthalat e 4,4-DD D 4,4-DD E 4,4-DD T Methoxychlo r Lea d Maximu mConcentratio n mg/k g 2 4 5 1 2 6 1 1 4. 7 505 0 Targe t Cleanu p Level s mg/k g 5.3 7 0.086 4 0.086 4 0.086 5 0.0 9 49 7 Basi s fo r Actio n Th e respons e actio n selecte di n thi s Recor do f Decisio n (ROD ) i s necessary t o protec t th e publi c healt ho r welfar e o r th e environmen t

fro mactual o r

threatene drelease s o f

hazardou s substance s int o th e environment . Th e respons e actio n wil l addres s remainin g "ho t spots " tha t wer e no t addresse ddurin g th e Tim e Critica l Remova l Actio n conducte di n Augus t 2000 . REMEDIA L ACTIO N OBJECTIVE S AN D GOAL S Remedia l actio n objective s (RAOs ) wer e develope dfo r th e Palme r Barg e Sit e fo r

thos e COC s tha t pos e acarcinogeni c ris k

abov e EPA' s targe t

cancer ris k rang e o r non-carcinogeni c hazar dt o human healt

h an dth e environmen t

base do n site-specifi c ris k

calculations . RAO s are als o
2 8define dsuc htha t Applicabl e o r

Relevan t an dAppropriat e Requirement s (ARARs ) ar e met . Th e Remedia l Actio n Objective s wer e develope dbase do n th e following :

• Th e reasonabl e anticipate dlan dus e scenari o i s base do n th e futur e redevelopmen t o f thi s Sit e fo r industria l o r

commercia l use , consisten t

wit hcurren t

sit e us e an dsurroundin g lan duse ; • Potentia l ecologica l risk s were considere dfo r site soil s t o preven t

exposur e t o ecologica l receptor s an dpreven t

surfac e runof

f o f contaminant s t o th e Sabin e Lak e sediments . Th e remedia l actio n objective s fo r thi s Sit e are :

• Preven t

direc t contact , ingestion , an dinhalatio n o f surfac e soil s tha t

excee dhuma n health base dlevels , base do n th e industria l worke r scenario , fo r

th e chemical s o f

concern ; • Preven t

off-sit e migratio n o f

COC s t o Sabin e Lake sediment s tha t excee dhuma n an d ecologica l base dlevel s fo r

th e chemical s o f

concern ; and , • Preven t

exposur e t o site soil s tha t

may pos e aris k

t o ecological receptors . APPLICABL E O RRELEVAN T AN D APPROPRIAT E REQUIREMENT S Unde r CERCL A an dth e NCP, th e RO D i s require dt o describ e th e ".. . federa l an dstate requirement s that

ar e applicabl e o r

relevan t an dappropriat e t o th e sit e tha t th e remed y wil l attain. " 4 0 C.F.R . 300.400(f)(5)(ii)(A) . Thes e ARAR s deriv e fro mth e potentia l ARAR s tha t were identifie db y EPA , whic hwer e identifie da s "requirement s applicabl e t o th e releas e o r remedia l actio n contemplate dbase dupo n a n objectiv e determinatio n o f whethe r th e requiremen t specificall y addresse s ahazardou s substance , pollutant , contaminant , remedia l action , location , o r othe r circumstanc e foun dat

aCERCL A site. " 4 0 C.F.R . 300.40 0 (g)(l) . I f no t applicabl e t o a specifi c release , thes e federal o r stat e requirement s might

stil l b e determine dt o b e "relevan t an d appropriat e to th e circumstance s o f th e release. " Se e 4 0 C.F.R . 300.400(g)(2) . Se e als o CERCLA , 4 2 U.S.C . §9621(d)(2)(A) . A n ARA Rcoul db e specifi c t o agive n action , chemical , o r locatio n at aCERCL A site . Th e NC P define s "applicabl e requirements " a s follows : Applicabl e requirement s mean s thos e cleanu p standards , standard s o f control , an dothe r substantiv e requirements , criteria , o r limitation s promulgate dunde r federa l environmenta l o r state environmen t

o r facilit y sitin g law s tha t

specificall y addres s ahazardou s substance , pollutant , contaminant , remedia l action , location , o r othe r circumstanc e foun d at aCERCL A site . Only thos e stat e standard s tha t ar e identifie db y astate i n atimel y manne r an dthat ar e mor e stringen t

tha n federa l requirement s may b e applicable . 4 0 C.F.R . 300.5 . Th e NC P the n goe s o n furthe r t o defin e "relevan t

an dappropriat e requirements" : Relevan t an dappropriat e requirement s mean s thos e cleanu p standards , standard s o f control , an dothe r

substantiv e requirements , criteria , o r limitation s promulgatedunde r 2 9federal environmental o r state environmental o r

facility sitin g law s that , whil e no t "applicable " t o ahazardou s substance , pollutant , contaminant , remedial action , location , o r othe r circumstanc e at

aCERCL A site , addres s problem s o r situation s sufficientl y similar t o thos e encountere da t

th e CERCL A sit e tha t

thei r us e i s wel l suite dt o th e particula r site . Onl y thos e stat e standard s tha t ar e identifie di n atimel y manne r an dar e mor e stringen t

tha n federa l requirement s ma y b e relevan t an dappropriate . (Emphasi s Added) . 4 0 C.F.R . 300.5 . Thus , i t i s clear fro mth e NC P tha t

stat e requirement s mus t

b e "substantive" ; an da s th e statut e commands , the y mus t

b e "more stringent " tha n an y federa l standard , requiremen t o r limitation . 4 2 U.S.C . §9621(d)(2)(A)(ii) . ARAR s deal wit h th e degre e o f cleanup , o r

level s an dstandard s o f contro l an dar e no t

procedura l o r

administrativ e requirements . Se e NC P Preamble , 5 5 Fed . Reg . 8666 , 875 6 (Mar . 8 , 1990) . Se e als o State o f Ohi o v . Unite dState s Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , 99 7 F.2 d1520 , 1526-2 7 (B.C . Cir. , 1993) . I n connectio n wit h stat e ARARs , th e NC P als o amplifie s an dexplain s th e natur e o f "promulgated " standard s o r

limitations , wher e i t provides : Onl y thos e state standard s tha t ar e promulgated , ar e identifie di n atimel y manner , an d ar e mor e stringen t

tha n federa l requirement s ma y b e applicabl e o r relevan t an d appropriate . Fo r

purpose s o f

identificatio n an dnotificatio n o f promulgate dstat e standards , th e termpromulgate dmean s tha t th e standard s ar e o f

genera l applicability an d are legally enforceable . (Emphasi s Added) . 4 0 C.F.R . 300.400(g)(4) . I f astandar di s no t

applicable , th e questio n o f

whethe r th e standar di s relevan t

an dappropriat e t o th e circumstance s o f

th e releas e i s addresse db y severa l enumerate dfactors , whic h ".. . shal l b e examined , wher e pertinent , t o determin e whethe r arequiremen t

addresse s problem s o r

situation s sufficientl y similar

t o th e circumstance s o f

th e releas e o r

remedia l actio n contemplated , an d whethe r th e requiremen t

i s well-suite dt o th e site , an di s therefor e both relevan t an dappropriate. " 4 0 C.F.R . 300.400(g)(2) . Finally , ther e i s acategory o f othe r federa l o r state advisories , criteria , o r guidance , whic h ma y b e use dt o develo p aCERCL A remed y tha t fall s int o acategory calle d "t o b e considere d(TBC) " guidelines . 4 0 C.F.R . 300.400(g)(3) . ARAR s ar e divide dint o thre e categories : chemica l specific , actio n specific , an dlocatio n specific . Thes e classification s ar e describe da s follows : Actio n Specifi c ARAR s ar e technolog y o r activit y base drequirement s o r limitation s o n action s take n regardin g hazardou s substances , pollutants , an dcontaminants . Chemica l Specifi c ARAR s ar e promulgate dvalue s tha t includ e health o r

ris k base d standards , numerica l values , o r methodologie s that, whe n applie dt o site-specifi c conditions , establis h th e acceptabl e amoun t o r contaminan t

concentratio n tha t

ma y b e detecte di n o r

discharge dt o th e ambien t

environment . Thes e value s focu s o n protectin g

3 0publi c health an dth e environment . However , technologica l o r cos t limitation s ma y influenc e som e values , suc h a s maximu mcontaminan t level s (MCLs) . Locatio n Specifi c ARAR s relat e to th e geographica l positio n o f

th e site , suc h a s state an d federa l law s an dregulation s tha t protec t wetland s o r

constructio n i n floo dplains . Th e exten t t o whic h an y locatio n specifi c requirement s ma y b e considere ddepend s solel y o n th e sensitivit y o f

th e environmen t

an dan y possibl e impac t

cause db y remedia l activities . Th e ARAR s pertainin g t o R A activitie s a t th e Site ar e divide dint o action , chemical , an dlocatio n specifi c categorie s a s describe di n th e followin g tables . I n addition , an y TBC s an dpotentia l waiver s ar e discussed . Tabl e 1 1 Actio n Specifi c ARAR s Requiremen t Justificatio n Federa l StormWate r

Regulation s 4 0 CF RPart s 122 , 12 5 Nationa l Pollutio n Discharg e Eliminatio n Syste m(NPDES ) permit s are

addresse drelativ e t o stor

mwate r discharge s associate dwit hindustria l activity . Thes e regulation s requir e th e developmen t an dimplementatio n o f astor mwate r pollutio n preventio n pla n o r

astormwate r

bes t managemen t

plan . Monitorin g an dreportin g requirement s fo r avariety o f facilitie s are outlined . Applicabl e to the Site . Permit s an d Enforcement ; CERCLA Sectio n 121(e ) Thi s sectio n specifie s tha t n o federal , state , o r

loca l permi t

shal l b e require dfo r

an y portio n o f

aCERCL A remedia l actio n tha t i s conducte d on the sit e of

the facilit y bein g remediated . Thi s include s exemptio n fro mth e RCR A permittin g process . Applicabl e t o th e Site . Standard s fo r

Owner s an dOperator s o f Hazardou s Wast e Treatment , Storage , an d Disposa l Facilities ; 4 0 CF RPart 26 4 Subpart s B , C , D an dG Subpart s B , C , an dD establis hminimu mstandard s tha t defin e th e acceptable managemen t

o f hazardou s wast e fo r

owner s an doperator s o f facilitie s tha t

treat , store , o r

dispos e o f hazardou s waste . Subpart

G establishe s standard s fo r

closur e an dpos t

closure car e fo r

site desig n an d operation . Thes e standard s wil l b e relevan t an dappropriat e t o th e Sit e i f waste s onsit e ar e identifie da s RCR A hazardou s waste s o r ar e sufficientl y simila r t o RCR A hazardou s wastes . Nationa l Contingenc y Plan , 4 0 CF RPart 300.430 ; Baselin e Huma n Healt hRis k Assessment , RI/FS , an dRO D Evaluate s baselin e huma n healt hris k a s aresul t o f curren t an dpotentia l futur e site exposures , an destablishe s contaminan t level s i n environmenta l medi afo r protectio n o f

publi c health . Als o provide s guideline s an d requirement s fo r

conductin g RI/F S an dROD . Applicabl e t o th e Site .

3 1Exception s t o ARA R

Rules ; CERCL A Allow s EP A t o waiv e complianc e wit hARAR s i n si x circumstances : 1 . Th e selecte dactio n i s onl y par t o f atotal remedia l actio n tha t

wil l compl y wit hth e ARA Rrequirement s whe n completed . 2 . Complianc e wit hth e ARA Rrequirement s woul dpresen t greate r health/environmenta l risk s tha n alternativ e options . 3 . Complianc e wit hth e ARA Rrequirement s i s technicall y impracticabl e fro man engineerin g perspective . 4 . Th e selecte dremed y wil l attai n astandar do f performanc e tha t

i s equivalen t t o a n ARA Rrequire dstandar dthroug hus e o f anothe r metho d o r approach . 5 . Wit hrespec t

t o astat e requirement , th e stat e ha s no t demonstrate d consisten t applicatio n o f

th e requiremen t

i n similar circumstances . 6 . Wher e th e remed y i s t o b e fund-finance d(a s oppose dt o private-part y financed) , meetin g th e ARA Rstandar dwoul dno t provid e balanc e betwee n th e nee dfo r

cleanu p a t th e sit e i n questio n considerin g th e amoun t o f fun dresource s tha t

mus t b e use da t othe r site s i n nee do f cleanup . Thes e provision s ar e applicabl e t o th e Site . Permit s an d Enforcement ; CERCL A Sectio n 12 1 (e ) Thi s sectio n specifie s tha t n o federal , state , o r

loca l permi t

shal l b e require dfo r

an y portio n o f

aCERCL A remedia l actio n tha t i s conducte d o n th e sit e o f

th e facilit y bein g remediated . Thi s include s exemptio n fro mth e RCR A permittin g process . Applicabl e t o th e Site . Standard s fo r

Owner s an dOperator s o f Hazardou s Wast e Treatment , Storage , an d Disposa l Facilities ; 4 0 CFRPart 26 4 Subpart s B , C , D an dG Subpart s B , C , an dD establis hminimu mstandard s that defin e th e acceptabl e managemen t

o f hazardou s wast e fo r

owner s an doperator s o f facilitie s tha t

treat , store , o r

dispos e o f hazardou s waste . Subpart

G establishe s standard s fo r

closur e an dpos t

closur e car e fo r

sit e desig n an d operation . Thes e standard s wil l b e relevan t an dappropriat e t o th e Sit e i f waste s onsit e ar e identifie da s RCR A hazardou s waste s o r ar e sufficientl y similar t o RCR A hazardou s wastes . Us e an dManagemen t

o f Container s Tan k Systems ; 4 0 CFRPart 26 4 Subpart s I an dJ Subpart I set s operatin g an dperformanc e standard s fo r containe r storag e o f hazardou s waste . Thes e requirement s woul db e relevan t an d appropriat e t o th e Sit e fo r

container s use dfo r

storag e o f liquids , soil , o r other waste s a s par

t o f th e remedia l action . Subpar t J outline s simila

r standard s bu t

applie s t o tank s rathe r

tha n containers . Standard s fo r

Wast e Pile s an dLandfills ; 4 0 CF RPart 26 4 Subpart s L and N Subpart Lset s desig n an doperatin g requirement s fo r th e storag e o r treatmen t o f waste s i n piles . I f

th e wast e pile s ar e close dwit hwaste s lef t i n place , Subpar

t N requirement s mus t

b e met . Subpar t

N establishe s construction , design , performance , closure , an doperatio n requirement s pertainin g t o hazardou s wast e landfills . I f treatment , storage , o r

disposa l o f RCRA wast e i n pile s i s include da s part o f th e remedia l action , Subpart Land/o r N woul db e relevan t

an dappropriat e t o th e Site . Subpart N woul db e applicabl e t o th e Site i n th e even t tha t hazardou s waste s ar e identifie da t

th e Site . 3 2Miscellaneou s Units ; 4 0

CF RPart 26 4 Subpart

X Relate s t o "miscellaneous " unit s tha t treat , store , o r

dispos e o f hazardou s wastes . Provide s genera l performanc e standard s fo r location , design , construction , operation , monitoring , an dclosure/pos t closure . I f

th e remedia l actio n include s treatment , storage , o r disposa l o f

hazardou s wast e i n amiscellaneou s unit , thes e requirement s woul db e relevan t an d appropriat e t o th e Site . Lan dDisposa l Restriction s (LDRs) ; 4 0 CF RPart 26 8 Subpar t

C , Prohibition s o n Lan d Disposal ; Subpart

D , Treatmen t Standard s 4 0 CF RPart 26 8 establishe s restriction s o n lan ddisposa l unles s treatmen t standard s ar e me t

o r a"n o migratio n exemption " i s granted . LDR s establis hprohibitions , treatmen t standards , an dstorag e limitation s befor e disposal fo r

certai n waste s a s se t

forthi n Subpart s C an dD . Treatment standard s ar e expresse da s eithe r concentration-base dperformanc e standard s o r

a s specifi c treatmen t

methods . Waste s mus t

b e treate d accordin g t o th e appropriat e standar dbefor e waste s o r th e treatmen t residual s o f

waste s may b e dispose di n o r o n th e land . Th e Universa l Treatmen t Standard s (UTS ) establis haconcentratio n limi t fo r 30 0 regulate dconstituent s i n soi l regardles s o f wast e type . Th e LDR s ar e applicabl e t o th e Sit e i f

hazardou s waste s ar e identified . Requirement s fo r Identificatio n an dListin g o f Hazardou s Wastes ; 4 0 CF RPar t 26 1 Thes e regulation s establis hth e requirement s fo r th e identificatio n an d listin g o f hazardou s wastes . Thes e requirement s ar e applicabl e t o th e Site an dwoul drequir e tha t

potentia l hazardou s waste s b e teste dfo r identificatio n an dliste di f

appropriate . Standard s Applicabl e t o Generator s an d Transporter s o f Hazardou s Waste ; 4 0 CF RPart 26 2 an dPart 26 3 Part 26 2 establishe s th e recor dkeepin g requirement s an dmanifestin g requirement s fo r

th e transport

o f hazardou s wastes . Part

26 3 establishe s requirement s for

the transport

of hazardou s wastes . Thes e requirement s woul db e applicabl e t o th e Sit e i f hazardou s waste s ar e identifie dan d shippe doffsit e fo r

disposal . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n Requirement s Governin g th e Transportatio n o f Hazardou s Materials ; 4 9 CF RPart s 10 7 an d 171-17 9 Establishe s th e requirement s fo r th e transportatio n o f

hazardou s material s a s define db y th e U . S . Departmen t o f Transportation . Thes e requirement s woul db e applicabl e t o th e Site i f th e hazardou s waste s are identifie dan dtransporte doffsit e fo r disposal .

Stat e TPDE S Constructio n Stor mwate r Permit ; 3 0 TA C 20 5 Require s submissio n o f Notic e o f Inten t (NOI ) fo r coverag e unde r

th e genera l permi t

fo r stormwate r

discharge s resultin g fro mconstructio n occurrin g o n site s greate r

tha n 1 acr e i n size . Thi s requiremen t wil l b e applicabl e to th e Sit

e durin g th e site remedial construction .

3 3Spil l Preventio n an d

Control ; 3 0 TA G32 7 Require s tha t release s o f reportabl e quantitie s o f

liste dmaterial s b e reporte dt o th e agenc y (TCEQ ) withi n 2 4 hours . Th e responsibl e perso n shal l submi t

writte n information , suc ha s aletter , describin g th e detail s o f th e discharg e o r

spil l an dsupportin g th e adequac y o f th e respons e action , t o th e appropriat e TCE Q regiona l manage r withi n 3 0 workin g day s o f

th e discovery o f

th e reportabl e discharg e o r

spill . Th e regiona l manage r ha s th e discretio n t o exten dth e deadline . Th e rul e i s applicabl e t o th e Sit e i f durin g remedia l activitie s areleas e greate r tha n th e documente d reportabl e quantit y o f

aliste dmateria l occurs . Contro l o f Ai r Pollutio n fro mVisibl e Emission s an dParticulat e Matter ; 3 0 TA G11 1 Require s that al l reasonabl e precaution s shal l b e take n t o preven t particulat e matte r

fro mbecomin g airborne , includin g us e o f wate r o r chemical s fo r

contro l o f dus t i n th e constructio n operations , clearin g o f land , an do n dirt

road s o r stockpiles . Applicabl e durin g excavatio n an dtransport

o f soils , o r an y othe r activit y tha t

ma y generat e airborn e particulat e matte r

a t th e Site . Texa s Industria l Soli d Wast e an dMunicipa l Soli dWast e Regulations ; 3 0 TA C 33 5 Guideline s fo r generator s t o determin e i f

asoli dwast e i s ahazardou s waste. Require s adherence t o recor dkeepin g an dshippin g requirements . Applicabl e t o th e soil s an dwaste s t o b e remove da t th e Site , whic hma y o r ma y no t b e hazardous .

Tabl e 1 2 Chemica l Specifi c ARAR s Requiremen t Justificatio n Federa l America n Conferenc e o f Governmenta l Industria l Hygienists-Threshol d Limi t Value s (TLV ) TLV s ar e base do n th e developmen t o f atim e weighte daverag e (TWA ) exposur e t o an airborn e contaminan t ove r an 8-hou r work da y o r a40-hou r wor k week . TLV s identif

y level s o f

airborn e contaminant s a t

whic h health risk s ma y b e associated . Thes e value s ar e applicabl e t o wor k at th e Site . Clean Ai r Ac t (CAA ) 40CFRPart6 1 Th e CA A i s th e primar y federa l legislatio n protectin g ai r quality . Nationa l Primar y an dSecondary Ambien t Ai r Qualit y Standard s (NAAQS) , Nationa l Emissio n Standard s fo r Hazardou s Ai r

Pollutant s (NESHAP) , an dth e Ne w Sourc e Performanc e Standard s (NSPS ) ar e promulgate db y EP A unde r

th e CAA . Thes e requirement s ar e relevan t an dappropriat e t o th e Site .

3 4Nationa l Primary an d

Secondary Ai r

Qualit y Standard s (NAAQS) ; 4 0 CFR , Par t 5 0 Th e NAAQ S specif y th e maximu mconcentratio n o f afederall y regulate dai r

pollutan t (i.e. , SO2 , paniculat e matte r (PM10) , NO2 , CO , ozone , an dlead ) i n a n are aresultin g fro mal l source s o f tha t pollutant . N o ne w constructio n o r

modification o f

afacility , structur e o r installatio n ma y emi t

a n amoun t o f an y criteri apollutan t

tha t wil l interfer e wit hth e attainmen t

o r maintenanc e o f

aNAAQ S (se e 4 0 CF R ' 51.160) . Fo r

th e federa l NAAQ S standards , al l measurement s o f ai r qualit y ar e correcte dt o areferenc e temperatur e o f 25E C an dt o a referenc e pressur e o f

76 0 m mH g (1,013. 2 millibars) . Thes e requirement s ma y b e applicabl e durin g th e excavatio n an ddisposa l activitie s at th e Site . America n Conferenc e o f Governmenta l Industria l Hygienists-Estimate dLimi t Value s (ELY ) ELV s ar e base do n TLV s an dconverte dt o reflec t exposur e t o contaminant s o n a24-hou r

pe r day basis . Th e calculatio n o f an EL V doe s no t tak e int o consideratio n th e additiv e an dsynergisti c effect s o f contaminant s an dadditiona l exposure s fro mmedi aothe r tha n air . ELV s ar e no t

expecte dt o b e completel y protectiv e o f th e potentia l effect s o f exposure s t o contaminants ; however , the y d o provid e some indicatio n o f

airborn e contaminan t

level s a t whic hadvers e healt h effect s coul doccur . Thes e value s ar e relevan t an dappropriat e fo r th e Site . Saf e Drinkin g Wate r

Ac t 4 0 US C 39 9 Primar y Drinkin g Wate r Standard s (Maximu m Contaminan t

Level s [MCLs]) ; 4 0 CFRPart

14 1 Establishe s MCL s fo r drinkin g water . Surfac e wate r near th e site i s no t designate dfo r

publi c o r privat e wate r

supply , bu t

ma y b e use dfo r recreationa l purposes . Th e shallo w groun dwate r at th e sit e i s no t considere da s adrinkin g wate r suppl y source ; therefore , MCL s ar e no t applicabl e t o th e Site . Maximu mContaminan t Leve l Goal s (MCLG) ; 4 0 CF RPart 141.5 0 Thes e level s d o no t take int o accoun t

cos t o r feasibility , an dar e full y protectiv e of

huma n health . The y are onl y enforceabl e unde r CERCL A unde r

specifi c communit y wate r

syste mprovision s tha t

ar e no t applicabl e o r

relevan t an dappropriat e t o th e Site . Federa l Clea n Wate r

Ac t (CWA ) Wate r

Qualit y Criteria ; 4 0 CF RPart

131 ; U.S . EP A Qualit y Criteri a fo r Water , 1976 , 1980 , an d 198 6 Thes e criteri a(ambien t wate r qualit y criteria ) appl y t o wate r classifie d a s afisherie s resource . Thes e requirement s ar e relevan t an d appropriat e t o th e surfac e wate r i n Sabin e Neche s Channel . Thes e criteri aar e containe di n Clean Wate r Ac t (CWA) ' 30 3 an d304 . A s non-enforceabl e criteria , thes e criteri aar e include da s t o b e considere d only . Hazardou s Substances ; 4 0 CF RPart 116. 3 an d116. 4 Establishe s reportin g requirement s for certai n discharge s of

reportabl e quantitie s o f

hazardou s substances . Create s n o substantiv e clea n u p requirement . May b e relevan t an dappropriat e t o th e Sit e base do n th e chose n remedia l alternativ e an di f discharge s o f

reportabl e quantitie s o f hazardou s substance s occu r

durin g implementatio n o f

th e remedy .

3 5Soli dWast e Disposal Ac t

Subtitl e C Requirement ; 4 0 CFR , Par t 264 , Subpart

F Govern s th e maximu mconcentratio n o f constituent s release dt o groun d wate r fro msoli dwast e managemen t unit s (SWMU) . Applicabl e t o th e Sit e i f th e chose n remed y include s onsit e disposa l an dgroun dwate r i s adversel y affected . Designatio n o f

Hazardou s Substances ; 4 0 CFR , Part 302. 4 Thi s sectio n provide s table s o f th e followin g substances : (a ) Liste dhazardou s substances . Th e element s an dcompound s an d hazardou s waste s appearin g i n Tabl e 302. 4 ar e designate da s hazardou s substance s unde r

Sectio n 102(a) o f

CERCLA . (b ) Unliste dhazardou s substances . A soli dwaste , a s define di n 4 0 CF R261.2 , whic h i s no t

exclude dfro mregulatio n a s ahazardou s wast e unde r

4 0 CF R261.4(b) , i s ahazardou s substanc e unde r Sectio n 101(14 ) o f CERCL A i f

i t exhibit s an y o f

th e characteristic s identifie d i n 4 0 CF R261.2 0 throug h 261.24 . Thes e requirement s are applicabl e t o th e Sit e becaus e solid/hazardou s waste s wer e previousl y dispose da t th e sit e an dhazardou s substance s ar e presen t i n soi l an dsediment . Lan dDisposa l Restriction s 4 0 CFR , Part

26 8 Establis h numerica l treatmen t standard s fo r

disposa l o f

hazardou s wastes . Thes e requirement s ar e potentiall y applicabl e i f hazardou s waste s ar e identifie dan doffsit e disposa l i s aselecte dremedy . Stat e Texa s Surfac e Wate r Qualit y Standards ; 3 0 TA G 30 7 Establishe s limit s fo r constituent s fo r

th e protectio n o f

surfac e wate r quality . Require s th e maintenanc e o f th e qualit y o f

wate r i n th e state consisten t wit hpubli c health an denjoyment , propagatio n an d protectio n o f

terrestria l an daquati c life , operatio n o f existin g industries , an deconomi c developmen t o f th e state . Thes e requirement s ar e applicabl e fo r releas e o f COC s fro mth e Sit e int o th e Sabine-Neche s Channel . Hazardou s Metal s (3 0 TA G 319 , Genera l Regulation s Incorporate dint o Permits , Subchapte r B ) Establishe s allowabl e concentration s fo r discharg e o f

hazardou s metal s t o inlan dwater s (319.22) . These'requirement s ar e potentiall y applicabl e fo r

th e Site a s hazardou s metal s hav e bee n detecte di n soi l an dsedimen t

sample s collecte dfro mth e Sit e an dth e hazardou s metal s may b e discharge dt o water s o f th e state . Wast e Classificatio n 3 0 TA G335 , Subchapte r

R Establis h numerica l criteri afo r designatin g awast e a s ahazardou s wast e o r a s on e o f thre e classe s o f

soli dwaste . Thes e requirement s ar e applicabl e fo r

classificatio n o f

waste s generate ddurin g th e sit e remediation .

3 6Tabl e 1 3 Locatio n Specifi c ARAR s Requiremen t Justificatio n Federa l Executive Orde r

o n Floo dplai n Management , Orde r

No . 1198 8 Require s al l federa l agencie s an dassociate s t o avoi dlong

- an d

short-termadvers e impact s associate dwit hoccupanc y an d modificatio n o f

floo dplains . An y action s take n t o reduc e th e ris k o r impac t o f remedia l action s shoul daccomplis hth e following : • Reduc e th e ris k

o f floo dloss . • Minimiz e th e impact s o f

flood s o n huma n safety , health , an d welfare . • Restore an dpreserv e th e natural an dbeneficia l value s serve d b y floo dplains . Thi s requiremen t

i s applicabl e onl y i f

th e sit e lie s withi n th e 100-yea r floo dplai n o r

th e remed y impact s a100-yea r floo d plain . Fis h an dWildlif

e Coordinatio n Ac t 1 6 USC'66 1 etseq . 1 6 USC'74 2 a 1 6 USC'290 1 Require s consultatio n whe n amodificatio n o f astreamo r

othe r wate r bod y i s propose do r

authorize dan drequire s adequat e provisio n fo r

protectio n offis han dwildlife resources . Thes e requirement s are relevant

an dappropriate to th e Sit

e fo r remova l o f contaminate dsedimen t

fro mth e Sabin e Lak e i f

th e remed y require s contaminate dsedimen t t o b e removed . Endangere dSpecie s Act ; 1 6 US C ' 153 1 et . seq . 5 0 CFRPart

40 2 Require s tha t propose dactio n minimiz e impact s o n endangere d specie s withi n critica l habitat s upo n whic hendangere dspecie s depend , includin g consultin g wit hDepartmen t o f Interior . Endangere do r

threatene dspecie s hav e no t

bee n identifie da t

th e Site ; th e Ac t

i s no t an ARA Rfo r

th e Site .

Tabl e 1 4 T o B e Considere dGuideline s Requiremen t Justificatio n Federa l Reference s Dose s (RfDs) , EP A offic e o f Researc han d Developmen t Th e EP A Offic e o f Researc han dDevelopmen t

provide s non enforceabl e toxicit y dat afo r

specifi c chemical s fo r

us e i n publi c healt hassessments . Thi s dat ai s use dt o asses s th e risk s associate d wit hcontaminate dmedi aa t

th e Site . 3 7Ris k Specifi c Dose s (RSDs) , EP A Carcinoge n Assessmen t Grou p an dEP A Environmenta l Criteri aan dAssessmen t

Offic e RSD s represen t

th e dos e o f

achemica l i n mg/k g o f

bod y weigh t pe r da y associate dwit haspecifi c ris k leve l (i.e. , 10-6) . RSD s ar e determine db y dividin g th e selecte dris k leve l b y th e cance r potenc y facto r

(slop e factor) . Thi s standar di s use dt o asses s th e risk s associate dwithcontaminate dmedi aa t th e Site . Stat e Texa s Ris k Reductio n Program (TRRP ) 3 0 TA G 35 0 TRRP establishe s th e TCEQ' s minimu mremediatio n standard s fo r presen t an dpas t uncontrolle dconstituen t

releases . TRRP use s ris k evaluatio n t o determin e i f

correctiv e actio n i s necessary fo r th e . protectio n o f

huma n healt han dth e environmen t an dt o identif

y acceptabl e constituen t

level s i n th e impacte dmedia . TRRP define s the lan duse categories , groun dwate r classifications , requirement s fo r plum e managemen t

zone , soi l reus e issues , an dtiere dris k evaluatio n fo r

affecte dsites . Thi s stat e regulatio n i s no t applicabl e fo r

th e Federa l superfun dsite s bu t shoul db e considere d a t th e Site . DESCRIPTIO N O FREMEDIA L ALTERNATIVE S Statutor y Requirements/Respons e Objective s Unde r it s legal authorities , th e EPA' s primar y responsibility at Superfun dsite s i s t o undertak e remedia l action s tha t

ar e protectiv e o f

huma n healthan dth e environment . I n addition, Sectio n 12 1 o f CERCLA , 4 2 U.S.C . § 9621 , establishe s several othe r statutory requirement s an d preferences , including : (1 ) arequiremen t tha t EPA' s remedia l action , whe n complete , mus t compl y wit hal l applicable , relevant , an dappropriat e federa l an dmor e stringen t stat e environmenta l an dfacilit y sitin g standards , requirements , criteri ao r limitations , unles s awaive r i s invoked ; (2 ) arequiremen t tha t EP A selec t

aremedia l actio n tha t

i s cost-effectiv e an dthat utilize s permanen t

solution s an dalternativ e treatmen t technologie s o r

resourc e recovery technologie s t o th e maximu mexten t practicable ; an d(3 ) apreferenc e fo r remedie s i n whic h treatmen t permanentl y an dsignificantl y reduce s th e volume , toxicity , o r mobilit y o f

th e hazardou s substances . Respons e alternative s wer e develope dt o b e consisten t withthes e statutory mandates . However , sinc e Principa l Threat waste s ar e no t

presen t at th e site , th e statutor y preferenc e fo r

remedie s tha t

emplo y treatmen t

that reduce s toxicity , mobility , o r volum e a s aprincipa l elemen t

i s no t warranted . Technolog y an dAlternativ e Developmen t an dScreenin g Constructio n an dengineerin g control s wer e evaluate di n th e remedia l alternative s sinc e th e contaminate dsoil s an dsediment s wer e identifie da s alow-leve l threa t wast e tha t ca n b e reliabl y containe dan dwoul dpresen t

onl y alo w ris k

i n th e even t

o f release . 3 8CERCL A an dth e Nationa l Contingenc y Pla n (NCP ) se t fort hth e proces s b y whic hremedia l action s ar e evaluate dan dselected . I n accordanc e wit hthes e requirements , arang e o f alternative s wer e develope dt o addres s th e soi l an dsedimen t contaminatio n at

th e Palme r Barg e Site . Fou r remedia l alternative s involvin g differen t constructio n an dengineerin g contro l option s fo r th e soi l an dsedimen t

contaminatio n wer e selecte dfo r detaile danalysis . Detaile ddescriptions o f th e remedia l alternative s fo r

addressin g th e contaminatio n associate dwit hth e Sit e ca n b e foun di n th e Feasibilit y Stud y Report . Th e constructio n tim e fo r eac halternativ e reflect s onl y th e tim e require dt o construc t

o r implemen t th e remed y an ddoe s no t

includ e th e tim e require dt o desig n th e remed y o r

procur e contract s fo r

construction . Th e present-worthcost s associate dwit hth e groun dwate r

monitorin g requirement s ar e calculate dusin g adiscoun t rat e o f seve n percen t

(7%) . Commo n Element s Alternative s 2 throug h4 contai n th e followin g commo n elements :

• Institutiona l Control s - Implementatio n o f Institutiona l Control s t o restric t futur e lan dus e t o industria l purpose s only . Th e Institutiona l Contro l shal l b e arestrictiv e covenan t b y th e propert y owner , t o th e benefi t o f th e Stat e o f

Texa s an dth e Unite dState s Government , recorde di n th e real propert y record s o f Jefferso n County , Texas ;

• Abandonmen t

o f existin g monitorin g well s - A s th e BLRA determine dtha t groundwate r at th e Sit e doe s no t

contribut e significantl y t o Sit e risk , fiv e existin g monitorin g well s a t th e Sit e wil l b e abandoned ; an d

• Wastewate r

AS T demolitio n an dsludg e remova l - Sludg e containe dwithi n th e Wastewate r

AS T wil l b e remove dan ddispose do f off-site . Th e tan k

wil l b e decontaminated , an dreuse da s scra p meta l b y th e propert y owner . Summar y o f

Remedia l Alternative s fo r

Soil s Alternativ e 1 : N o Furthe r

Actio n Estimate dCapita l Cost : $ 0 Estimate dAnnua l O& M Costs : $ 0 Estimate dPresen t

Worth(7%) : $ 0 Regulation s governin g th e Superfun dprogram , 4 0 C.F.R . § 300.430(e)(6 ) requir e that th e "n o action " alternativ e b e evaluate dat every Sit e t o establis habaselin e fo r comparison . Unde r

thi s alternative , EP A woul dtak e n o furthe r actio n at th e Site t o preven t

exposur e t o th e remainin g contaminate dsoil s an dsedimen t at th e Site .

3 9ALTERNATIV E 2 - Institutiona l Control s

Estimate dCapita l Cost : $135,00 0 Estimate dAnnua l O& M Costs : $50 0 Estimate dPresen t

Worth (7%) : $141,20 5 Alternativ e 2 include s th e followin g activities :

• Institutiona l Control s - T o limi t futur e us e o f

th e propert y t o industria l purposes ; • Abandonmen t

o f existin g monitorin g well s - Fiv e (5 ) existin g monitorin g well s at th e Site wil l b e abandoned ; an d • Wastewate r

AS T demolitio n an dsludg e remova l - Sludg e containe dwithi n th e Wastewate r

AS T wil l b e remove dan ddispose do f off-site . Th e tan k

wil l b e decontaminate dan dlef

t o n site . • Th e tim e t o implemen t thi s remed y woul db e 1 t o 3 months . Alternativ e 2 involve s n o remedia l actio n t o addres s th e contaminant s tha t pos e aris k

t o huma n health an dth e environment . Structura l controls , suc h a s postin g o f "n o excavation " sign s an d fencing , woul db e implemente di n additio n t o proprietary control s restrictin g futur e lan dus e t o industria l purpose s only . Effectivenes s Alternativ e 2 provide s n o physica l contro l o f exposur e t o impacte dsoil s an dn o reductio n i n ris k to huma n health . Thi s alternativ e woul dno t compl y with an y applicabl e o r relevant an d appropriat e requirements , suc h a s PRG s develope ddurin g th e HHRA o r saf e soi l concentration s develope dbase do n th e SLERA . Th e potentia l fo r sedimen t runof f fro mth e Sit e that

ma y contai n COPC s woul dno t

b e eliminated . Thi s alternativ e woul dno t provid e protectio n t o curren t o r futur e sit e workers . Alternativ e 2 doe s no t reduc e th e toxicity , mobility , o r volum e o f th e waste . Implementabilit y Ther e ar e n o implementabilit y issue s associate dwit h thi s alternative . ALTERNATIV E 3 - EXCAVATION/ON-SIT E DISPOSAL/SOI L COVER/IC s Estimate dCapita l Cost : $310,66 9 Estimate dAnnua l O& M Costs : $10,00 0 Estimate dPresen t

Worth (7%) : $504,75 9

4 0Alternativ e 3 include s th e followin g activities : Excavatio n o f

approximatel y 1,204 cubi c yard s o f th e uppe r tw o fee t o f soi l tha t excee d ris k base dlevel s at

eac ho f th e respons e areas ; • Relocatio n o f

th e excavate dsoil s t o adesignate dare aon-sit e an dconsolidation . Th e are a require dfo r

consolidatio n encompasse s approximatel y 12,80 0 squar e feet ; • Confirmatio n samplin g at eac ho f th e respons e areas . Confirmatio n sample s woul db e collecte dfro meac hrespons e are aan danalyze dfo r COPCs . • Backfillin g o f

th e respons e area s wit hclean soil ; • Placemen t

o f a n isolatio n soi l cove r

ove r th e relocate dan dconsolidate dimpacte dsoil s consistin g o f

asyntheti c roo t

penetratio n barrie r

an d24-inche s o f

clean soil , includin g 3 t o 4 inche s o f

topsoi l suitabl e fo r

vegetatio n growth ; an d Installatio n o f

structura l control s t o protec t huma n health . Structura l control s t o b e installe da s part

o f thi s alternativ e includ e fencin g aroun dth e are adesignate dfo r disposa l an dpostin g o f

"n o trespassing " signs . • Th e tim e t o implemen t thi s remed y woul db e approximatel y 2 months . Effectivenes s Placemen t o f a n isolatio n soi l cove r

ove r surfac e soil s reduce s ris k

b y eliminatin g potentia l pathway s identifie di n th e HHRA tha t include dingestion , derma l contact , an dinhalatio n o f dust/vapors . Alternativ e 3 complie s wit happlicabl e o r relevan t an dappropriat e requirement s b y preventin g exposur e t o contaminant s tha t presen t aris k t o huma n healt han dth e environment . Thi s alternativ e doe s no t

provid e an y reductio n i n th e toxicity , mobility , o r volum e o f impacte d soil . Alternativ e 3 woul dinvolv e th e disturbanc e o f surfac e soil s exceedin g acceptabl e ris k levels . Th e potential fo r

aslight , temporary increas e o f ris k t o th e communit y an dt o fiel d personne l exists ; however , engineerin g control s (e.g. , wate r sprays ) mayb e implemente dt o reduc e ris k du e t o fugitiv e dus t

durin g construction . Unde r Alternativ e 3 , fiv e respons e area s woul db e excavate dan dbackfille dwit hclean soi l o r gravel . Therefore , th e potentia l fo r sedimen t runof f fro mth e Site tha t

ma y contai n COPC s wil l b e eliminated . Th e soi l cover ove r th e consolidatio n are acontainin g impacte dsoil s woul d preven t o r reduc e th e potentia l fo r

runof f o f contaminate dsoils . T o ensure long-ter

meffectivenes s o f

thi s alternative , maintenanc e o f th e isolatio n soi l cove

r mus t b e completed . Failur e t o properl y maintai n th e cover coul dresul t

i n th e potentia l fo r

direc t contac t wit himpacte dsoils . Thi s alternativ e woul dals o rel y o n structura l control s t o reduc e potentia l fo r

exposure , an dlong-termmaintenanc e o f thes e control s woul db e required . Becaus e thi s alternativ e woul dresul t

i n contaminate dsoil s remainin g onsit e abov e healthbase dlevels , fiv e yea r review s wil l b e conducte dt o ensur e that th e remed y continue s t o b e protectiv e o f huma n healthan dth e environment , i n accordanc e wit hCERCL A 12 1 (c) .

4 1Implementabilit y

I t i s anticipate dtha t

n o special techniques , materials , permits , o r labo r woul db e require dt o implemen t thi s Alternative . Th e are arequire dt o contai n approximatel y 1,204 cubi c yard s o f contaminate dsoil s i s approximatel y 12,80 0 squar e fee t o r a115-foo t b y 115-foo t

cell . Thi s amoun t o f lan di s readil y availabl e onsite . Th e cove r soil , whic hwil l consis t

o f 2 4 inche s o f

lo w permeabilit y soil , i s readil y available , a s i s th e syntheti c roo t penetratio n barrier . Th e lo w permeabilit y soi l an dtopsoi l require dfo r constructio n i s availabl e locally . ALTERNATIV E 4 - EXCAVATION/OFF-SIT E DISPOSA L Estimate dCapita l Cost : $351,97 5 Estimate dAnnua l O& M Costs : $50 0 Estimate dPresen t

Worth(7%) : $428,18 0 Alternativ e 4 consist s o f

th e followin g activities : Excavatio n o f

approximatel y 1,204 cubi c yard s o f th e uppe r tw o fee t o f soi l that excee d ris k base dlevel s at

eac ho f th e respons e areas ; • Confirmatio n samplin g at eac ho f th e respons e areas . Confirmatio n sample s woul db e collecte dfro meac hrespons e are aan danalyze dfo r COPCs . • Backfillin g o f

th e respons e area s wit hclean soil ; • Off-sit e disposa l o f

th e excavate dsoil s at

apermitte ddisposa l facility ; an d • Implementatio n o f

Institutiona l Control s t o restric t futur e lan dus e t o industria l purpose s only . Th e Institutiona l Contro l shal l b e arestrictiv e covenan t b y th e propert y owner , t o th e benefi t o f th e Stat e o f

Texa s an dth e Unite dState s Government , recorde di n th e rea l propert y record s o f

Jefferso n County , Texas ; • Th e tim e t o implemen t thi s remed y i s expecte dt o b e approximatel y 2 months . Th e objectiv e o f

thi s alternativ e i s t o protec t

huma n healthan dth e environmen t b y removin g material s that

excee dris k

base dlevel s fro mth e Site . Pendin g result s o f wast e characterization , i t coul db e necessary t o dispos e o f th e excavate dmaterial s at

ahazardou s wast e landfill . Effectivenes s Alternativ e 4 i s protectiv e o f huma n healthb y removin g th e sourc e o f th e ris k a t th e Site . Alternativ e 4 complie s withapplicabl e o r relevan t an dappropriat e requirement s b y removin g contaminant s fro mth e site tha t excee dris k

base dlevel s fo r

protectio n o f

huma n healthan dth e environment . Thi s optio n doe s no t provid e an y reductio n i n th e toxicity , mobility , o r volum e o f impacte dsoi l throug htreatment . Alternativ e 4 woul dinvolv e th e disturbanc e o f surfac e soil s exceedin g acceptabl e ris k

levels . Th e potentia l fo r

aslight , temporar y increas e o f ris k t o th e communit y an dt o fiel dpersonne l exists ; however , engineerin g control s (e.g. , wate r sprays ) ma y b e implemente dt o reduc e ris k du e t o fugitiv e dus t

durin g construction . 4 2A s part o f Alternativ e 4 , th e respons e area s woul db e excavate dan dbackfille dwit hclea n soi l o r gravel . Therefore , th e potentia l fo r sedimen t runof f fro mth e sit e tha t

ma y contai n COPC s woul d b e eliminated . Alternativ e 4 ensure s long-ter meffectivenes s an dpermanenc e b y removin g th e sourc e o f th e ris k fro mth e Site . Implementabilit y Implementabilit y issue s associate dwit h thi s alternativ e includ e lan ddisposa l restriction s (LDR) . Alternativ e 4 mus t

b e implemente di n accordanc e wit h applicabl e Stat e an dFedera l LD Rrules . Successfu l implementatio n o f thi s alternativ e require s that th e impacte dsoil s b e characterize dt o determin e th e typ e o f

disposa l facilit y tha t

mus t b e used . Shoul dwast e characterizatio n result s indicate tha t

th e impacte dsoil s ar e considere dhazardous , disposa l a t ahazardou s wast e landfil l woul db e required . I n addition , unde r Federal LD Rrules , al l hazardou s wast e mus t b e treate d befor e lan ddisposa l t o mee t Universa l Treatmen t

Standard s (UTS) . Th e result s o f th e Toxicit y Characteristi c Leachin g Procedur e (TCLP ) analysi s for wast e characterizatio n wil l determin e whethe r incineratio n o r

disposa l i n aResourc e Conservatio n an dRecovery Ac t (RCRA ) hazardou s wast e landfil l i s necessary t o mee t th e LD Rrequirement s i n th e even t tha t th e soi l i s foun dt o b e ahazardou s waste . However , i t i s anticipate dtha t

th e impacte dsoil s on-sit e wil l b e characterize da s non-hazardou s waste . Non-hazardou s soil s wil l b e transporte dt o asoli dwast e landfill . Safet y concern s durin g transportatio n ar e minima l du e t o th e relativel y smal l volum e o f soi l t o b e transported , suc h tha t th e volum e o f

additiona l truc k

traffi c shoul dno t

constitut e a significan t additiona l risk . COMPARATIV E ANALYSI S O FALTERNATIVE S Nin e criteri aar e use dt o evaluat e th e differen t remediatio n alternative s individuall y an dagains t eac h othe r i n orde r t o selec t aremedy . Th e nin e evaluatio n criteri aar e (1 ) overal l protectio n o f huma n health an dth e environment ; (2 ) complianc e wit h ARARs ; (3 ) long-termeffectivenes s an d permanence ; 4 ) reductio n o f toxicity , mobility , o r

volum e o f contaminant s throug h treatment ; (5 ) short-termeffectiveness ; (6 ) implementability ; (7 ) cost ; (8 ) State/support agenc y acceptance ; an d (9 ) communit y acceptance . Thi s sectio n o f th e RO D profile s th e relativ e performanc e o f eac h alternativ e agains t

th e nin e criteria , notin g ho w i t compare s t o th e othe r

option s unde r consideration . Th e nin e evaluatio n criteri aar e discusse dbelow . 1 . Overal l Protectio n o f

Huma n Healt h an dth e Environmen t addresse s whethe r

eac h alternativ e provide s adequat e protectio n o f huma n healt h an dth e environmen t an ddescribe s ho w risk s pose dthroug h eac h exposur e pathwa y ar e eliminated , reduced , o r controlled , throug h treatment , engineerin g controls , and/o r institutiona l controls . Alternative s 3 an d4 ar e protectiv e o f huma n health an dth e environmen t throug h th e us e o f engineerin g control s t o reduc e o r contro l th e ris k

o f accidenta l exposur e t o contaminate dsoil s an dsediment s tha t

excee dris k

base dlevels . Alternativ e 2 provide s som e control s fro mpotentia l

4 3exposur e o f site contaminant s throug hinstitutiona l controls . Alternativ e 1 doe s no t reduc e o r contro l risk s fro mpotentia l exposur e a t th e Site . 2 . Complianc e wit hApplicabl e o r Relevan t an dAppropriat e Requirement s ("ARAR") . Sectio n 121(d ) o f

CERCLA , 4 2 U.S.C . §962l(d) , an dNC P §300.430(f)(l)(ii)(B ) requir e tha t remedia l action s at

CERCL A site s at

leas t attai n legall y applicabl e o r

relevan t an dappropriat e Federa l an dStat e requirements , standards , criteria , an dlimitation s whic har e collectivel y referre d t o a s ARARs , unles s suc hARAR s ar e waive dunde r CERCL A sectio n 121(d)(4) , 4 2 U.S.C . §9621(d)(4) . Alternative s 3 an d4 woul dmee t thei r respectiv e ARAR s fro mFedera l an dStat e laws . Alternative s 3 an d4 coul dtrigge r th e RCR A lan ddisposa l restriction s throug hth e excavatio n an dconsolidatio n o f

th e soil s i n a n on-sit e locatio n o r th e off-sit e disposa l i n apermitte dRCR A landfill . Alternative s 1 an d2 d o no t mee t Federal o r Stat e ARARs . 3 . Long-ter mEffectivenes s an dPermanenc e refer s t o expecte dresidua l ris k an dth e abilit y t o maintai n reliabl e protectio n o f huma n healt hover

time , onc e cleanu p level s hav e bee n met . Alternative s 3 an d4 achiev e long-ter meffectivenes s throug hth e us e o f engineerin g control s t o preven t exposur e t o th e soil s an dsediments . Alternativ e 4 provide s th e mos t effectiv e an d permanen t solutio n throug hth e off-sit e disposa l o f soil s tha t excee dth e PRGs . Alternative s 3 an d4 als o utiliz e institutiona l control s t o preven t accidenta l exposur e t o th e contaminate dsoil s an dsediments . Alternative s 1 an d2 d o no t provid e long-termeffectivenes s o f permanenc e sinc e exposur e t o sit e contaminant s woul dno t b e addressed . Alternativ e 2 onl y use s institutiona l control s t o preven t

exposur e t o contaminate dsoil s an dsediments . 4 . Reductio n o f

Toxicity , Mobility , o r

Volum e o f

Contaminant s throug hTreatmen t evaluate s a n alternative' s us e o f treatmen t t o reduc e th e harmfu l effect s o f principa l contaminants , thei r

abilit y t o mov e i n th e environment , an dth e amoun t o f contaminatio n present . Th e us e o f engineerin g control s fo r

containmen t

o f th e wast e materia l i n Alternative s 3 an d4 ar e appropriat e sinc e th e contaminate dsoil s an dsediment s represen t alo w leve l threat

at thi s Site . Therefore , th e statutory preferenc e fo r remedie s tha t

emplo y treatmen t

tha t reduce s toxicity , mobility , o r

volum e a s aprincipa l elemen t doe s no t appl y at thi s Site . 5 . Short-ter mEffectivenes s addresse s th e perio do f tim e neede dt o implemen t

th e remed y an d an y advers e impact s tha t

ma y b e pose dt o workers , th e community , an dth e environmen t durin g implementatio n Alternative s 3 throug h4 woul db e effectiv e withi n 2 month s o r les s throug haction s t o addres s al l o r part o f th e contaminate dsoil s an dsediments . Al l o f th e alternative s hav e minima l impact s t o th e on-sit e workers , th e surroundin g community , an dth e environmen t durin g implementation .
4 4Th e off-sit e disposa l o f contaminate dmaterial s i n Alternativ e 4 woul dresul t i n truc k traffi c throug hth e community durin g implementation . 6 . Implementabilit y consider s th e technica l an dadministrativ e feasibilit y o f aremed y suc ha s relativ e availabilit y o f

good s an dservice s an dcoordinatio n wit hothe r governmenta l entities . Alternativ e 1 an d2 can b e easil y implemente di n avery shor t perio do f time . Th e technica l feasibility fo r

consolidatio n an dcappin g th e material s i n Alternative s 3 i s th e simples t i n term s o f readil y availabl e material s an dequipment . Disposa l o f contaminate dmaterial s a t

a n off-sit e facilit y unde r

Alternativ e 4 wil l requir e additiona l action s t o secur e adisposa l facility, costs , transportation , an dsupportin g documentation . Ther e ar e n o expecte dadministrativ e problem s wit han y o f th e alternatives . 7 . Cos t include s estimate dcapita l an doperatio n an dmaintenanc e cost s a s wel l a s presen t worth costs . Presen t

worthcos t i s th e tota l cos t

o f a n alternativ e ove r

tim e i n term s o f

today' s dollar value . Cos t estimate s ar e expecte dt o b e accurat e withi n arang e of+5 0 t o -3 0 percent . Capita l cost s rang e fro m$135,00 0 for Alternativ e 2 to $351,97 5 for Alternativ e 4. Annua l operatio n an dmaintenanc e cost s fo r th e Sit e rang e fro m$50 0 fo r Alternative s 2 an d4 t o $10,00 0 fo r Alternativ e 3 . Cos t

summarie s are foun di n Tabl e 1 1 . Tabl e 1 5 Presen t Wort h Cos t

Summar y o f

th e Alternative s Remedia l Alternativ e

1 2 3 4 Capita l Cos t

S O $135,00 0 $310,66 9 $351,97 5 Presen t

Wort h o f Tota l O& M Cos t $ 0 $6,20 5 $124,09 0 $6,20 5 Estimate dYear s o f

O& M 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 Tota l Presen t Wort h Cos t $ 0 $141,20 5 $504,75 9 $428,18 0 8 . Stat e Agenc y Acceptanc e consider s whethe r th e Stat e agree s withU.S . EPA' s analyse s i n th e F S Report an dPreferre dRemed y i n th e Propose dPlan . Th e Stat e o f

Texas , throug hth e Texa s Commissio n o n Environmenta l Quality , support s Alternativ e 4 . Th e state' s concurrenc e lette r i s include di n Appendi x A . 9 . Communit y Acceptanc e consider s whethe r th e loca l communit y agree s wit hU.S . EPA' s analyse s an dpreferre dalternativ e describe di n th e Propose dPlan . Th e communit y provide dcomment s o n th e propose dremed y component s an dn o recommendation s wer e mad e t o chang e th e preferre dalternative , Alternativ e 4 . Th e EP A ha s 4 5considere dthes e comment s befor e makin g afina l remed y selection . Th e EPA' s respons e t o

comment s ar e include di n th e Responsivenes s Summary . PRINCIPA L AN D LOW-LEVE L THREA T WASTE S Principa l threat

waste s ar e thos e sourc e material s tha t ar e highl y toxi c o r

highl y mobil e tha t generall y canno t

b e reliabl y containe do r

woul dpresen t

asignifican t

ris k t o huma n health o r

th e environmen t

shoul dexposur e occur . The sourc e material s includ e liquid s andothe r highl y mobil e material s (e.g. , solvents ) o r material s havin g hig h concentration s o f toxi c compounds . Lo w leve l threat

waste s ar e sourc e material s tha t generall y ca n b e reliabl y containe dan dthat woul dpresen t

onl y alo w ris k

i n th e even t

o f release . Th e NC P establishe s a n expectatio n tha t EP A wil l us e treatmen t

t o addres s th e principa l threat s pose db y asite whereve r practicable . Th e Site investigation di dno t identif y liquid s o r

semi-liqui dwaste s tha t

woul dappea

r t o b e a highl y mobil e sourc e material . The sludg e materia l in the remainin g AST may contai n wast e material s tha t

coul db e considere dprincipa l threat waste . Th e sludg e material s wil l b e sample d an ddispose do f

at a n off-sit e permitte dfacility . Th e disposa l facilit y wil l b e base do n th e samplin g result s prio r

t o disposal . Th e ris k

evaluatio n di dno t

identif y othe r waste s material s tha t ar e highl y toxi c t o huma n healt h unde r th e industrial/commercia l exposur e scenario . Therefore , th e EP A ha s determine dth e contaminate dsoil s an dsedimen t t o b e alow-leve l threa t

wast e base d o n th e overal l ris k

pose db y th e contaminatio n an dth e lo w mobilit y o f th e contaminant s i n th e soi l an dsediment . SELECTE D REMED Y Descriptio n o f

th e Selecte dRemed y Th e selecte dremed y wil l achiev e th e remedia l actio n objective s of : 1 ) preven t huma n exposure , base do n industrial/commercia l worke r scenarios , throug h derma l contact , ingestion , o r inhalation , t o contaminate dsoi l abov e risk-base dstandards ; 2 ) preven t off-sit e migratio n o f contaminate dsoil s t o Sabin e Lake ; and , 3 ) preven t exposur e t o site soil s tha t

may pos e aris k

t o ecological receptors . Th e Selecte dRemed y consist s o f th e followin g components :

• Excavatio n o f

approximatel y 1,204 cubi c yard s o f th e uppe r tw o fee t o f soi l tha t excee d huma n health an decologica l ris k base dlevel s at

eac h o f th e respons e areas ; • Confirmatio n samplin g at eac h o f th e respons e areas . Confirmatio n sample s woul db e collecte dfro meac h respons e are aan danalyze dfo r COPCs . • Backfillin g o f

excavate darea s wit h clean soil ; • Off-sit e disposa l o f

th e excavate dsoil s at

apermitte ddisposa l facility ; • Implementatio n o f

Institutiona l Control s t o restric t futur e lan dus e t o industria l purpose s only . Th e Institutiona l Contro l shal l b e arestrictiv e covenan t b y th e property owner , t o th e benefi t o f th e Stat e o f

Texa s an dth e Unite dState s Government , recorde di n th e rea l propert y record s o f

Jefferso n County , Texas; ;

4 6• Abandonmen t o f existin g monitorin g well s - Fiv e (5 ) existin g monitorin g well s at th e Site wil l b e abandoned ; an d • Wastewate r

AS T sludg e remova l an ddecontaminatio n - Sludg e containe dwithi n th e remainin g Wastewate r

AS T wil l b e remove dan ddispose do f off-site . Th e tan k

wil l b e decontaminate dan dreuse da s scra p meta l b y th e property owner . Remedia l Actio n Area s Four (4 ) "ho t spots " wer e identifie dat

th e site tha t

exceede dth e 10" 5 huma n healt h risk-base d PRGs . Th e locatio n ar e show n o n Figur e 3- 2 an dth e estimat e are aan dvolum e ar e presente do n Tabl e 12 . Tabl e 1 6

Respons e Area s fo r

Huma n Healt h Ris k Respons e Are a
HR-1

- Ope n To p Slo p Tank s are a HR-2

- Boile r

Hous e AST s are a HR-3

- sout

h o f the Wastewate r

AST s HR- 4 Contaminan t

PAH s Lea d heptachlo r epoxide benzo(a)pyren e TOTA L Are a

squar e fee t

(Ft Z ) 95 3 75 9 1,98 3 1,93 2 562 7 Volum e

Assumin g tw o foo t

dept h cubi c yard s (Yd 3 ) 7 1 5 6 (overlap s wit

h EC O #1 ) 14 7 (overlap s wit

h EC O #2 14 3 20 0 SLERA Respons e Area s Th e SLERA identifie do n sit e surfac e soil s that requir e respons e actio n t o mitigat e potentia l futur e ecological risk s at

th e Site . Analysi s o f

on-sit e area s needin g soi l remediatio n t o protec t ecological resource s wer e performe db y calculatio n o f saf e soi l concentration s fo r

th e wors t cas e exposur e t o asensitiv e groun dfeedin g bird, , th e America n robin . Respons e area s wer e the n develope dbase do n th e location s wher e soi l concentration s exceede dth e saf e soi l values . Saf e soi l concentration s fo r

th e America n robi n were back-calculate dfo r al l COPC s whos e 95 % UCLconcentratio n resulte din ados e tha t exceede daLOAEL valu e in the evaluatio n of bioaccumulativ e risks . Saf

e soi l concentration s wer e back-calculate db y interactivel y enterin g soi l concentration s int o th e dos e rat e mode l unti l th e exposur e poin t concentratio n resulte di n a dos e equivalen t

t o th e toxicit y referenc e valu e (TRY ) LOAEL (i.e. , aLOAEL-base dH Q = 1.0) . Th e calculate dsaf

e soi l concentrations , o r

ecologica l PRGs , wer

e the n compare dto detecte d concentration s t o identif

y samplin g location s wher e ther e i s apotentia l fo r advers e effect s t o th e 4 7American robin . Location s Contaminant s exceedin g th e saf e soi l concentration s ar e show n o n Figure 3-3 . Area s an dvolum e o f surfac e soil s tha t

excee dth e saf

e soi l concentration s ar e presente do n Tabl e 13 . Lea dwa s th e onl y meta l tha t ha da95 % UC L concentratio n tha t exceede dth e TR V LOAEL . Bac k calculatio n fro mth e TR V LOAEL resulte di n asaf e soi l concentratio n o f

49 7 mg/k g leadi n surfac e soil . Thes e saf

e soi l concentration s facto r

i n site-specifi c condition s o f curren t an dfutur e commercial/industria l lan dus e an dth e paucit y o f vegetatio n an dminima l usabl e habita t availabl e t o th e robi n an dothe r terrestria l receptors . Comparison s o f th e saf e soi l concentratio n t o detecte dconcentration s indicat e tha t tw o location s fro mth e R I dat ase t an dfou r location s fro m th e ES I dat ase t

excee dth e saf

e soi l concentratio n fo r

th e American robin . Th e evaluatio n o f

pesticide s indicate dtha t

th e 95 % UC L concentration s o f methoxychlo r

an d DD T exceede dLOAE Ldose s fo r American robin . Detecte dconcentration s o f thes e pesticide s exceede dcalculate dsaf

e soi l concentration s at

tw o R I location s an dat

fou r ES I locations . A t on e locatio n th e exceedanc e o f 4,4'-DD D i s co-locate dwit han exceedanc e o f lead . Base do n th e dat apresente di n th e SLERA , seve n respons e area s wer e identifie dfo r remedia l actio n t o addres s ecologica l site risk . Tw o o f th e ecological respons e area s overla p wit harea s identifie dfo r

respons e t o huma n healthrisk . Tabl e 1 7 Respons e Area s fo r

Ecologica l Saf

e Soi l Level s Respons e Are a
EC O Are a1 EC O Are a2 EC O Are a3 EC O Are a4 EC O Are a5 EC O Are a6 EC O Are a7 Contaminan t

lea dan dbuty l benzy l phthalat e 4,4'-DD D 4,4'-DD D an d4,4'-DD E 4,4'-DD D an d4,4'-DD E 4,4'-DDD , 4,4'-DDE , 4,4'-DDT , an d methoxychlo r

• lea d 4,4'-DD E an dlea d TOTAL Are a squar e fee t (Ft 2 ) 1,764 51 3 1,52 7 1,64 7 2,41 9 80 6 4,86 9 13,545 Volum e

Assumin g tw o foo t

dept h cubi c yard s (Yd 3 ) 13 1 3 8 11 3 12 2 17 9 6 0 36 1 1,00 4

4 8Approximat e Volum e Requirin g Remedia l Actio n

Tota l soi l volum e t o addresse dlocation s that ma y pos e aris k

t o bot hhuma n healt han d ecological receptor s i s approximatel y 1,20 4 cubi c yards . Thi s estimat e i s base do n removin g contaminate dsoil s dow n t o amaximu mdeptho f tw o (2 ) feet . Actua l volum e ma y b e les s i f th e contaminant s ar e no t

presen t dow n t o th e two-foo t

deptho r th e areal exten t

i s les s than wha t

wa s estimat e i n th e Feasibilit y Study . Th e volum e coul dincreas e i f th e areal exten t

o f contaminatio n increase s onc e remedia l actio n activitie s ar e conducted , h i addition , th e selecte dremed y include s removin g approximatel y 23 3 cubi c yard s o f sludg e containe dwithi n th e Wastewate r AS T an d disposin g o f

thi s materia l at

a n off-sit e permitte dfacility . Summar y o f

Estimate dRemed y Cost s Th e cos t estimat e summar y informatio n i n Tabl e 1 4 i s base do n th e bes t availabl e informatio n regardin g th e anticipate dscop e o f th e selecte dremedy . Change s i n th e cos t element s ar e likel y t o occu r a s aresul t o f change s i n th e qualifyin g bid s fo r performanc e o f

th e remedia l actio n an d progres s du e t o Sit e an dweathe r conditions . Majo r

change s ma y b e documente di n th e for mo f a memorandu mi n th e Administrativ e Recordfile , an BSD , o r aRO D amendment . Th e tota l presen t wort hcos t i s calculate dusin g a7 % discoun t rate . Thi s i s an order-of-magnitud e engineerin g cos t

estimat e tha t

i s expecte dt o b e withi n +5 0 t o -3 0 percen t o f th e actua l projec t cost . Tabl e 1 8

Estimate dCapita l Cos t

fo r Selecte dRemed y Descriptio n Mobilizatio n Site Preparation/Erosio n Contro l TCL P Testin g Excavatio n Transportatio n an dHandlin g Disposal (Non-Hazardous ) Backfillin g Site Restoratio n an dDemobilizatio n Implementatio n o f

IC s Abando n Existin g Monito r

Well s Wastewate r

AS T Demolitio n an d Sludg e Remova l Uni t Lump Su m Lump Su m Lump Su m Cubi c Yard s To n Ton Cubi c Yard s Lump Su m Lump Su m Eac h Lum p Su m Estimate d

Quantit y 1 1 1 1,204 2,04 7 2,04 7 1,204 1 1 5 1 Uni t

Cost s ($ ) $50,00 0 $10,00 0 $10,00 0 $6.3 0 $8.3 0 $50.0 0 $12.5 0 $10,00 0 $5,00 0 $5,00 0 $100,00 0 Tota l

$50,00 0 $10,00 0 $10,00 0 $7,58 5 $16,99 0 $102,35 0 $15,05 0 $10,00 0 $5,00 0 $25,00 0 $100,00 0 4 9Tabl e 1 8 Estimate dCapita l Cos t

fo r Selecte dRemed y SUBTOTAL CAPITA L COST S 351,97 5 Additiona l Constructio n Cost s Descriptio n Desig n an dProcuremen t

Service s Constructio n Oversigh t Reportin g Tota l Additiona l Constructio n Cost s $30,00 0 $20,00 0 $20,00 0 $30,00 0

$20,00 0 $20,00 0 $70,00 0 Operatio n an dMaintenanc e Cost s Annua l Maintenanc e o f

IC s 3 0 year s O& M Ne t

Presen t Valu e a t 7.0 %
TOTA L ESTIMATE D REMEDIA L COS T $50 0 pe r year $50 0

$6,20 5 428,18 0 Expecte dOutcome s o f

Selecte dRemed y Th e expecte doutcom e o f

th e selecte dremed y i s tha t

th e contaminate dsoil s an dsedimen t wil l n o longe r presen t a n unacceptabl e ris k

t o futur e industria l an dconstructio n worker s vi aingestion , inhalation , o r

derma l exposur e an dth e propert y wil l b e suitabl e fo r redevelopmen t

a s a n industria l o r

commercia l property . Th e remedia l actio n i s expecte dt o achiev e th e remedia l objective s an dgoal s withi n approximatel y 6 months . Th e Sit e wil l b e availabl e fo r socio

economi c o r

communit y revitalizatio n project s followin g implementatio n o f th e selecte dremedy . Site-specifi c soi l concentration s protectiv e o f groun dwate r

were no t develope dbecaus e th e Sit e groun dwate r

i s no t considere dapotentia l drinkin g wate r source . Th e sit e i s locate don " aisl e constructe dfro mdredg e material s an dtherefore , th e sit e groun dwate r doe s no t represen t atru e groun dwate r

transmissiv e zone . Th e site shallo w groun dwate r resulte dfro mth e dredgin g operation s tha t

buil t th e isle . STATUTOR Y DETERMINATION S Unde r CERCL A sectio n 121 , 4 2 U.S.C . § 9621 , th e EP A mus t selec t remedie s tha t

ar e protectiv e o f huma n healt h an dth e environment , compl y wit h applicabl e o r relevan t an dappropriat e 5 0requirement s (unles s astatutory waive r i s justified) , ar e cost-effective , an dutiliz e permanen t solution s andalternativ e treatmen t technologie s or

resourc e recovery technologie s to the maximu mexten t

practicable . I n addition , CERCL A include s apreferenc e fo r remedie s tha t emplo y treatment

that permanentl y an dsignificantl y reduc e th e volume , toxicity , o r mobility o f hazardou s waste s a s thei r

principa l element . Th e followin g section s discus s ho w th e selecte d remed y meet s thes e statutory requirements . Protectio n o f

Huma n Health an dth e Environmen t Th e selecte dremed y protect s huma n healthan dth e environmen t throug hth e excavatio n an doff

sit e disposa l o f

contaminate dsoil s tha t

pos e aris k t o huma n healt han decologica l receptors . Excavatio n an doff-sit e disposa l wil l provid e apermanen t solutio n t o th e contaminate dsoil s tha t pos e arisk . Th e placemen t

o f aclean soi l cove r

wil l als o preven t

direc t contac t wit h contaminant s tha t

ma y remai n o n sit e belo w th e two-foo t depth . Placemen t

o f a n institutiona l contro l o n th e Sit e property woul densur e tha t th e sit e remain s protectiv e fo r th e intende d industria l use . Thi s wil l ensure futur e sit e developmen t i s consisten t

withth e industrial/commercia l huma n healthexposur e scenari o (i.e. , non-residentia l usage ) that i s th e basi s fo r th e soi l cleanu p goals . Complianc e wit hApplicabl e o r Relevan t an dAppropriat e Requirement s Th e selecte dremed y complie s wit hthos e Federa l an dStat e requirement s tha t ar e applicabl e o r relevan t an dappropriat e fo r

thi s remedia l action . Ther e wer e n o location-specifi c ARAR s pertinen t t o th e selecte dremedy . Cos t Effectivenes s Th e estimate dpresen t

worthcos t o f th e selecte dremed y i s $428,180 . Th e selecte dremed y i s cost-effectiv e an drepresent s areasonabl e valu e fo r th e mone y t o b e spent . I n makin g thi s determination , th e followin g standar dwa s used : " A remed y shal l b e cost-effectiv e i f it s cost s ar e proportiona l t o it s overal l effectiveness. " (NC P 300.430(f)(l)(ii ) (D)) . Th e overal l effectivenes s o f th e remed y i s determine db y evaluatin g thre e o f th e fiv e balancin g criteri ause di n th e detaile d analysi s o f th e alternatives : (1 ) long-termeffectivenes s an dpermanence ; (2 ) reductio n i n toxicity , mobility , an dvolum e throug htreatment ; an d(3 ) short-termeffectiveness . Overal l effectivenes s wa s the n compare dt o cost s t o determin e cost-effectiveness . Th e selecte dremed y bes t attain s long-ter meffectivenes s tha n Alternative s 2 an d3 ; achieve s an equa l o r greater reductio n i n toxicity , mobility , an dvolum e a s th e les s expensiv e Alternative s 2 an d3 an dan equa l reductio n withi n an appropriat e tim e fram e a s Alternative s 2 an d3 ; and , i s equall y effectiv e i n th e short

termwhe n compare dwit hal l th e alternatives . Th e relationshi p o f th e overal l effectivenes s o f thi s remedia l alternativ e wa s determine dt o b e proportiona l t o it s costs , an dhence , thi s alternativ e represent s areasonabl e valu e fo r th e mone y t o b e spent .

5 1Utilizatio n o f Permanen t

Solution s an dAlternativ e Treatmen t (o r Resourc e Recovery ) Technologie s t o th e Maximu mExten t Practicabl e Th e selecte dremed y meet s th e statutory requiremen t t o utiliz e permanen t

solution s an d alternativ e treatmen t

technologie s t o th e maximu mexten t practicable. Th e EP A ha s determine d tha t th e selecte dremed y provide s th e bes t balanc e o f trade-off s i n term s o f

long-term effectivenes s an dpermanence , reductio n i n toxicity , mobility , o r volum e achieve dthroug h treatment , short-ter meffectiveness , implementability , an dcost . Th e statutor y preferenc e fo r treatmen t a s aprincipa l elemen t

i s no t warrante dfo r

thi s sit e sinc e principa l threat wast e material s wer e no t

identifie ddurin g th e remedia l investigation . Preferenc e fo r

Treatmen t

a s aPrincipa l Elemen t Principa l threa t

waste s wer e no t

identifie dat

th e Sit e an dth e contaminate dsoil s ar e considere d low-leve l threat

wast e an dtherefor e treatmen t i s no t warranted . Institutiona l Control s Institutiona l Control s (IC's ) ar e require dt o maintai n th e permanenc e an deffectivenes s o f th e Selecte dRemed y fo r

soi l an dsedimen t

a t th e Site . Th e objectiv e o f

th e 1 C ' s i s to maintai n a futur e industria l o r

commercia l lan dus e scenari o fo r th e onsite impacte dproperty . The Institutiona l Contro l shal l be arestrictiv e covenan t by the propert y owner , to the benefi t of th e Stat e o f

Texa s an dth e Unite dState s Government , recorde di n th e rea l propert y record s o f Jefferso n County , Texas . Th e timin g o f

implementatio n o f

th e IC' s wil l b e consisten t

with th e propose dremedia l actio n schedule , an dIC' s shoul db e i n plac e befor e signatur e o f th e Preliminary Closeou t

Report (PCOR) , signifyin g remedia l actio n constructio n completion . EP A wil l b e responsibl e fo r implementin g th e IC's , with technical assistanc e fro mth e TCEQ . Futur e responsibilitie s fo r

1 C managemen t

wil l b e negotiate dwith th e curren t property owner . Five-Yea r Revie w Requirement s Sinc e th e selecte dremed y wil l resul t i n hazardou s substance s remainin g on-sit e abov e level s tha t allo w fo r unlimite dus e an dunrestricte dexposure , astatutory revie w mus t b e conducte dn o les s ofte n than every fiv e year s fro minitiatio n o f th e remedia l actio n t o ensur e tha t th e remed y is , o r wil l be , protectiv e o f

huma n health an dth e environment . Pursuan t t o CERCL A Sectio n 121(c) , 4 2 U.S.C . § 9621(c) , an da s provide di n th e curren t guidanc e o n Fiv e Yea

r Review s [OSWER Directiv e 9355.7-03B-P , Comprehensiv e Five-Yea r Revie w Guidanc e (Jun e 2001)] , EP A mus t
5 2conduc t astatutor y revie w n o les s ofte n tha n every fiv e year s fro mth e initiatio n o f construction at th e Site . DOCUMENTATIO N O FSIGNIFICAN T CHANGE S Th e Propose dPla n fo r

th e Palme r Barg e Sit e wa s release dfo r

publi c commen t

o n Jul y 27 , 2005 . Th e Propose dPla n identifie dAlternativ e 4 , Excavatio n an dOff-Sit e Disposal , a s th e preferre d alternativ e fo r

th e contaminate dsoi l an dsediment . Base dupo n it s revie w o f th e writte n an d verba l comment s submitteddurin g th e publi c commen t period , th e EP A determine dthat n o significan t change s t o th e remedy , a s originall y identifie di n th e Propose dPlan , wer e necessar y o r appropriate .

5 3PALME RBARG E LIN E SUPERFUN D SIT E POR T ARTHUR , JEFFERSO N COUNTY , TEXA S

RECORD O FDECISIO N PAR T 3 : RESPONSIVENES S SUMMAR Y STAKEHOLDE RCOMMENT S AN D LEA D AGENC Y RESPONSE S Th e EP A ha s prepare dthi s Responsivenes s Summary fo r th e Site , a s part

o f th e proces s fo r makin g afina l remed y selection . Thi s Responsivenes s Summar y documents , fo r

th e Administrativ e Record , publi c comment s an dissue s raise ddurin g th e publi c commen t perio do n th e EPA' s recommendation s presente di n th e Propose dPlan , an dprovide s th e EPA' s response s t o thos e comments . Th e EPA' s actua l decision s fo r th e Sit e ar e detaile di n th e ROD . Pursuan t t o Sectio n 11 7 o f

th e Comprehensiv e Environmenta l Response , Compensation , an dLiability Ac t (CERCLA) , 4 2 U.S.C . § 9617 , th e EP A ha s considere dal l comment s receive ddurin g th e publi c commen t perio di n makin g th e fina l decisio n containe di n th e RO D fo r th e Site . Overvie w o f

Publi c Commen t

Period . Th e EP A issue dit s Propose dPla n o f Actio n detailin g remedia l actio n recommendation s fo r publi c revie w an dcommen t

o n Jul y 27 , 2005 . Thes e an dothe r Site document s ca n b e foun di n th e Administrativ e Recor dfil e an dth e informatio n repositorie s a t th e followin g locations : Port Arthu r Publi c Library locate da t

461 5 9 thAvenue , Port

Arthur , Texas ; th e U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y Regio n 6 locate dat 144 5 Ros s Avenue , Dallas , Texas ; an dth e Texa s Commissio n o n Environmental Quality locate da t 12100 Par k 3 5 Circle , Buildin g E , 1 s t

Floor , Austin , Texas . Th e notic e o f th e availabilit y o f

thes e document s wa s publishe di n th e Por t Arthu r New s o n Jul y 28 , 2005 . A publi c commen t perio dwa s hel dfro mJul y 27 , 200 5 t o Augus t 25 , 2005 . Th e EP A an dth e Texa s Commissio n o n Environmenta l Qualit y conducte dapubli c meetin g o n Augus t

11 , 2005 , t o discus s th e Propose dPla n an dreceiv e comment s fro mth e community . Th e publi c meetin g wa s hel dat th e Wes t Grove s Educatio n Center , locate dat 584 0 Wes t Jefferson , i n Grove s ,Texas . Thi s Responsivenes s Summary summarize s comment s submitte ddurin g th e publi c commen t perio dan dpresent s th e EPA' s writte n respons e t o eac h issue , i n satisfactio n o f communit y relation s requirement s o f

th e NCP . Th e EPA' s response s t o comment s receive ddurin g th e publi c meetin g ar e provide dbelo w an di n som e case s includ e subsequen t expande dresponse s t o thos e comment s a s appropriate . Summar y o f

Publi c Comment s an dEP A Response s Comment : Questio n wa s aske di f th e remainin g AS T wil l b e cleane da s part o f th e preferre d alternative .
5 4EP A Response : Th e sludg e i n th e remainin g AS T wil l b e remove dan ddispose do f off-sit e an d th e tan k wil l b e decontaminate di n th e preferre dalternativ e an dal l alternative s excep t th e n o actio n alternative . Comment : Al l risk s nee dt o b e considered . Diggin g aroun dalandfil l ma y presen t arisk . Th e ris k o f excavatio n o n Palme r

ma y no t hav e bee n properl y assesse dwhe n yo u start considerin g th e differenc e betwee n excavatio n an dcapping , an dcappin g ma y actuall y provid e certai n improvement s t o preexistin g condition s a s far a s providin g abette r

cap fo r th e preexistin g landfill . EP A Response : Th e excavatio n alternativ e wil l no t di g int o th e landfil l materials . Unde r th e excavatio n alternative s contaminate dmaterial s woul db e remove dt o adeptho f tw o (2 ) fee t belo w groun dsurfac e an dwoul dno t remov e material s belo w thi s depth , whic hi s wher e mos t o f th e landfil l material s ar e located . Furthermore , informatio n fro mth e investigation s conducte da t th e sit e indicat e tha t

th e landfil l material s ar e no t foun di n thic k

layer s an dar e mixe dwit hth e dredg e fil l materials . Tes t

result s d o no t

indicat e tha t

thes e mixe dmaterial s presen t asignifican t ris k at th e Site . Area s tha t

ar e excavate dwoul db e backfille dwithclean soi l an dwoul db e a n improvemen t

t o th e material s tha t

ar e presentl y locate da t

th e site . Th e backfille dmaterial s woul dprovid e abette r

cap fo r th e site . Comment : Althoug hth e Palme r Barg e an dState Marin e site s ar e nex t t o eac hother , yo u woul d thin k i n general the y shoul dcom e ou t prett y muc hth e sam e resul t

bu t they'r e differen t

levels , differen t typ e o f contaminatio n —a s measure db y th e R.I . process . EP A Response : Th e contaminate dmaterial s at bot hth e Stat e Marin e an dPalme r Barg e site s ar e similar sinc e bothsite s wer e use dfo r barg e cleanin g operations . Afte r th e remova l actio n conducte di n Augus t

2000 , th e remainin g residua l contaminate di s at differen t concentration s at bot hsites . Althoug hno t

th e sam e contaminant s wer e identifie da s presentin g aris k at eac hsite , wer e ar e presen t

at bot hsites , bu t

may no t represen t th e sam e risk . Als o th e distributio n o f contaminatio n at

th e site wa s different . So , althoug hth e site s ar e nex t t o eac hothe r

an dwere use dfo r th e same typ e o f

activities , th e remainin g contaminant s ar e at differen t concentration s an ddifferen t

ris k levels . Comment : Questio n wa s aske dregardin g th e differenc e i n O& M cos t fo r th e Palme r Barg e sit e an dStat e Marin e site sedimen t i n Sabin e Lake . Th e site soi l excavatio n alternativ e fo r th e Stat e Marin e sit e include s monitore dnatura l attenuatio n fo r th e sediment s whil e th e soi l excavatio n alternativ e fo r

th e Palme r Barg e doe s not . Th e concern raise dwa s tha t al l th e cos t fo r monitorin g o f th e Sabin e Lake sediment s wa s include di n th e State Marin e alternative . EP A Response : Th e monitore dnatura l attenuatio n o f th e Stat e Marin e sediment s doe s no t includ e monitorin g o f

th e sediment s locate dnex t

t o th e Palme r

Barg e site . Th e contaminan t level s foun di n th e sediment s nex t t o th e Stat e Marin e site wer e highe r tha n thos e foun dnex t

t o th e Palme r Barg e site . That

i s part o f th e reaso n tha t

othe r alternative s ar e bein g considere dfo r 5 5th e sediment s locate dnex t t o th e Stat e Marin e site . Th e monitorin g o f th e sediment s fo r

th e Stat e Marin e sit e woul db e onl y fo r th e sedimen t

nex t t o th e site an dwoul dno t

includ e monitorin g fo r

th e sediment s locate dnex t

t o th e Palme r

Barg e site . In addition , the preferre dremedia l alternativ e for the Palme r

Barg e Sit e wil l includ e excavatio n an doff-sit e disposa l o f

sit e soi l tha t

ma y presen t

aris k t o ecologica l receptors . Thi s wil l furthe r ensur e that site soil s d o no t

migrat e off-sit e t o th e Sabin e Lake sediment s an daccumulat e at concentration s tha t

ma y pos e aris k

t o th e environment . TECHNICA L AN D LEGA L ISSUE S Th e Selecte dRemed y i s consisten t wit hth e potentia l propert y redevelopmen t fo r industria l o r commercial use . Institutiona l control s wil l b e anecessar y componen t

o f th e long-termSite managemen t

t o ensur e futur e propert y developmen t i s consisten t

wit h th e soi l cleanu p levels .

5 60 1000 " 2000 ' SCAL E I NFEE T

SOURCE : U S GEOLOGICA L SURVEY , POR T ARTHU R NORT H QUADRANGLE . 7. 5 MINUT E SERIE S (TOPOGRAPHIC) . AN O WES T O F GREEN S BAYO U QUADRANGLE . TEXAS - LOUISIANA . 1093 . Sit e Locatio n Ma p Feasibilit y Stud y Repor t Patnte f Baitf e Lin e SupeffuiKJ Sit e Port Arthi r .Wli»r*o n Cnunl y T^it a Pakna r B«s * U n Sup«rtun d SM > 1- 1sg E 

# K £ 3? i a 

# ISM S PROPERT Y

OPE N TO P 'I BK-1 1 SLO P TANKS

TP-09 X LEGEN D ES I SAMPLN G LOCATION S R l SAMPLIN G LOCATIO N R l TES T PI T SAMPLIN G LOCATIO N ARE A O F POTENTIA L HUMA N HEALT H RIS K(1 0 •• )

•-SABIN E LAKE- .

PALME R BARG E SUPERFUN D SIT E 870 0 Ferr y Roa d Por t Arthur . T X Figur e 3- 2 Identifie d Respons e Area s for KT 5 Ris k Soi l Remed ySM S PROPERT Y LEGEN D R l SO L SAMPUN G LOCATIO N R l TES T PI T SAMPUN G LOCATIO N ARE A O F POTENTIA L ECOLOGICA L RIS K ES I SOI L SAMPLIN G LOCATIO N

"SABIN E LAKE- -

PALME R BARG E SUPERFUN D SIT E 870 0 Ferr y Roa d Por t Arthur . T X Figur e 3- 3 Identifie d Respons e Areas Area s o f Potentia l Ecologica l Ris k

Ju l 1 Z 200 S - 1:42p mAPPENDI X AHartnett White , Chairman Larr y R . Soward , Commissioner Glen n Shankle , Executiv e Directo r R . B . "Ralph " Marquez , Commissione r fSilNPfMfe: ! - ••- . .- • . • •: " I V K D .-,.._ - 1 1 j ^ , , ^ c v " | - j -« *

, \K

—" ' ^ 

# TEXA S COMMISSIO NO NENVIRONMENTA LQUALITY, , 0; 

# ,-... , / , ^ . bvu^c b

w rr\

! '.- ' ' Protectin g Texas b y Reducin g an dPreventin g Pollutio n

Septembe r

30 , 200 5


### Mr . Samue l Coleman , P.E. , Directo r o c o 

### '-f \

- . '.• ; , '.""T1 ^ 

### Superfun dDivisio n U.S . Environmental Protectio n Agency , Regio n 6 • ; 144 5 Ros s Avenu e ' r .^ : ; 

### Dallas , Texa s 7520 2 -vJ g §. ; ••r' i ?' E V O 

### Re : Palme

r Barg e Line , Jefferso n County , Texa s P ; 

### " ; 

### c • Recor do f Decisio n (ROD ) Dear Mr . Th e Texa s Commissio n o n Environmenta l Quality (TCEQ ) ha s complete dou r revie w o f th e abov e reference ddocument . W e concu r that th e remedia l actio n fo r th e Palme r Barg e Lin e Site , describe d i n th e Septembe r

2005 , ROD , i s th e mos t

appropriat e fo r

thi s site . However , th e TCE Q doe s hav e concern s that

afundamenta l aspec t

o f th e selecte dremed y relie s o n landowne r permission . W e trus t that i f that permissio n canno t

b e obtained , th e RO D wil l b e formall y amende dt o addres s th e situatio n i n anothe r

manner . Sincerely , Vv . iihaii c Executiv e Director 

### LV/T S

P.O . Bo x 13087 • Austin , Texa s 78711-308 7 • 512/239-100 0 • Interne t address : www.tceq.state.tx.u s prinli- j i? n iix'yck' J [^pi- r usin ^ soy-h;ihc din kMr . Samue l Coleman , Directo r

Pag e 2

bcc : Mr . Dan Eden , Deputy Director , Offic e o f Permittin g Ms . Jacquelin e S . Hardee , P.E. , Director , Remediatio n Divisio n Mr . Jay Carsten , P.O. , Manager , Environmenta l Cleanu p I Sectio n Ms . Cath y Remmert , Tea

mLeader , Environmenta l Cleanu p I Sectio n Ms . Lud aVoskov , P.O. , Projec t Manager , Environmenta l Cleanu p I Sectio n