UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION 6

RECORD OF DECISION

OPERABLE UNIT 2

OFF-SITE RESIDENTIAL YARDS AND HIGH ACCESS AREAS

MANY DIVERSIFIED INTERESTS, INC. SUPERFUND SITE

TXD008083404

HOUSTON, TEXAS

SEPTEMBER 23, 2005

193699

031889
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS v

PART 1: THE DECLARATION 1

1.0 SITE NAME AND LOCATION 1

2.0 STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE 1

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE REMEDY - NO FURTHER REMEDIAL ACTION 2

4.0 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS 2

5.0 AUTHORIZING SIGNATURE 3

PART 2: THE DECISION SUMMARY 5

6.0 SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION 5

7.0 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 6

7.1 History of Site Activities 6

7.2 History of Federal and State Investigations and Removal/Remedial Actions ... . 7

7.3 History of CERCLA Enforcement Activities 9

8.0 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 10

8.1 Community Involvement Plan 10

8.2 Technical Assistant Grant 11

8.3 Superfund Redevelopment Initiative 11

8.4 Community Meetings 11

8.4.1 Community Meeting for the Proposed Plan for OU 2 12

9.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT OR RESPONSE ACTION 13

031890
9.1 Operable Unit 1 (On-Site Soils and Ground Water) 13

9.2 Operable Unit 2 (Off-Site Residential Soils and High Access Areas) 13

9.3 Operable Unit 3 (Residential Crawlspaces, Kelly Village Housing Complex and

Those Residential Areas Not Addressed under Operable Unit 2) 14

10.0 SITE CHARACTERISTICS 15

10.1 Demographics and Current Land Use 15

10.2 Soils 15

10.3 Regional Geology and Hydrogeology 15

10.4 Climate and Wind Direction 16

10.5 Soil Sampling Strategy 16

10.5.1 Soil Investigation - Air Dispersion Modeling 16

10.5.2 Soil Investigation - Sampling Methodology 17

10.6 Nature and Extent of Soil Contamination 17

10.6.1 Lead Contamination 18

10.6.2 Arsenic Contamination 18

10.6.3 Sources of Lead Contamination ' 19

11.0 FUTURE LAND USES 20

12.0 SITE RISKS 21

12.1 Human Health Risk Assessment 21

12.1.1 Risk Assessment for EPA Removal Action for Lead 22

12.1.2 Future Risks 23

12.2 Uncertainties in the Risk Assessment 28

12.2.1 Lead 28

12.2.2 Arsenic - Residential Yard 29

12.2.3 Arsenic - Bruce Elementary 29

13.0 BLOOD LEAD STUDY 29

14.0 CONCLUSIONS 29

11

031891
14.1 Lead Contamination and Risks 30

14.2 Arsenic Contamination and Risks 30

14.3 Source Evaluation 30

15.0 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 31

15.1 Kelly Village Housing Complex History 31

16.0 STATE ROLE 32

17.0 COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE 32

PART 3: RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY 33

18.0 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY • 33

19.0 REFERENCES 36

in

031892
FIGURES

1 - Site Location

2 - Summary of EPA and TNRCC Activities

3 - Areas Evaluated during Remedial Investigation of Operable Unit 2

4 - Predicted Deposition Area Based on Air Quality Impact Model

TABLES

Table

1 - Lead Contamination by Depth

2 - Arsenic Contamination

3 - ffiUBK Modeled Lead Results

APPENDICES

Appendix

A - Administrative Record Index

B - Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Concurrence with the Selected Remedy

C - Transcript of the August 16, 2005, Public Meeting

D - Letter from the 5th Ward Mothers for Clean Air on the RI/FS for Operable Unit 2

IV

031893
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ARARs

BHHRA

bgs

Can-AM

CDC

CERCLA

CFR

CIP

COC

COPC

CSM

yd3

E&E

Eagle

EJ

ELCR

EPA

EMSL

EPC

ERA

ft2

FR

FS

HAAs

HI

HQ

IEUBK

kg

Pb

MDI

NERL-LV

ug/dL

fig/day

mg

mg/kg

mg/L

MSSL

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements

Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment

Below ground surface

Can-Am Resource Group

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act

Code of Federal Regulations

Community Involvement Plan

Chemicals of concern

Contaminant (chemical) of potential concern

Conceptual Site Model

Cubic yard

Ecology and Environment '

Eagle Construction and Environmental Services, L.P.

Environmental justice

Excess lifetime cancer risk

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Region 6)

Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory

Exposure point concentration

Ecological Risk Assessment

Square foot

Federal Register

Feasibility study

High Access Areas

Hazard index

Hazard quotient

Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model

Kilogram

Lead

Many Diversified Interests, Inc. Superfund Site (also known as TESCO)

National Exposure Research Laboratory, Las Vegas, Nevada

Microgram per deciliter

Microgram per day

Milligram

Milligram per kilogram

Milligram per liter

Medium-specific screening level (EPA Region 6)

031894
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS (Continued)

NCP

NPL

OU

PPM

PRP

RCRA

ROD

RI

RI/FS

RME

SARA

SRI

SSI

SJF

TA

TAG

TCEQ

TCLP

Tetra Tech

TESCO

TNRCC

USDA

UAO

95% UCL

XRF

National 'Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan

National Priorities List

Operable, Unit

Parts permillion

Potentially responsible party

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

Record of Decision

Remedial investigation

Remedial investigation and feasibility study

Reasonable maximum exposure

Superfurid Amendments and Reauthorization Act

Superfund Redevelopment Initiative

Screening Site Inspection

San Jacirito Foundry

Technical Advisor

i

Technical assistance grant

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure

Tetra Tec|h EM Inc.

Texas Electric Steel Casting Company

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

United States Department of Agriculture

Unilateral administrative order

95% Upper confidence limit

X-ray fluorescence

VI

031895
Many Diversified Interests, Inc. Superfund Site Record of Decision for Operable Unit 2

PARTI: THE DECLARATION

1.0 SITE NAME AND LOCATION

The Many Diversified Interests, Inc., Superfund Site is located in Houston, Texas (Harris

County). The Site is also known as Texas Electric Steel Casting Company (TESCO). The

National Superfund Database Identification Number is TXD008083404. The Site was finalized

on the National Priorities List on January 15, 1999. The Site was divided into three Operable

Units which are described in detail in Section 9.0 (Scope and Role of Operable Units and

Response Action) of this Record of Decision. The Record of Decision for Operable Unit 1 (OnSite Soils and Groundwater) was issued on July 30, 2004. This Record of Decision is for

Operable Unit 2 (Off-Site Residential Yards and High Access Areas). Operable Unit 3

(Residential Crawlspaces, Kelly Village Housing Complex, and Those Residential Areas Not

Addressed under Operable Unit 2) specifically addresses residential crawlspaces, the Kelly

Village Housing Complex, and those residential areas where the EPA could not obtain access for

sampling. The EPA plans to issue a Proposed Plan and Record of Decision for Operable Unit 3

in the near future.

2.0 STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE

This decision document presents the selected remedy for the Many Diversified Interests,

Inc. Superfund Site (MDI, hereinafter "the Site," Figure 1 - Site Location). The United States

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that no further remedial action is

necessary to ensure protection of human health and the environment for Operable Unit 2 for this

Site. No further remedial action is necessary because previous response actions have eliminated

the need for further remedial response.

This record of decision (ROD) was developed in accordance with the Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), 42 United States

Code §9601 et seq., as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986

(SARA), and, to the extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution

Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR Part 300, as amended.

This decision is based on the Administrative Record for Operable Unit 2, which has been

developed in accordance with Section 113(k) of CERCLA, 42 United States Code §9613(k).

This Administrative Record fileis available for review at the Fifth Ward Multi-Service Center in

Houston, Texas, and at the EPA Region 6 Records Center in Dallas, Texas. The Administrative

Record Index (Appendix A) identifies each of the items comprising the Administrative Record

upon which the selection of the Remedial Action is based. The State of Texas (Texas

Commission on Environmental Quality) concurs with the Selected Remedy.

1

031896
Many Diversified Interests, Inc. Superiiind Site Record of Decision for Operable Unit 2

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE REMEDY - NO FURTHER REMEDIAL ACTION

Because previous response actions have addressed unacceptable risks posed by site

contaminants, the EPA has determined that no further action is necessary to protect public health

or welfare or the environment for Operable Unit 2.

4.0 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS

Previous response actions implemented at Operable Unit 2 have eliminated the need for

further remedial response. Thus, no further remedial actions are necessary to ensure protection

of human health and the environment. The Selected Remedy complies with Federal and State

requirements that are applicable or relevant and appropriate to the response action, is costeffective, and utilizes permanent solutions.

In 1999, the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC, now the Texas

Commission on Environmental Quality) conducted a removal action and restoration of 89

residential yards located north and west of the MDI site (Eagle 1999). The removal action was

conducted to remove surface soil with lead concentrations that exceeded 500 mg/kg and to

reduce the exposure of children and adults to lead. Following each removal, TNRCC conducted

confirmation sampling to ensure that lead-contaminated soils did not extend below the 18-inch

below ground surface (bgs) excavation depth. Approximately 12,025 tons of soil were removed,

characterized, and disposed of at permitted landfills, with some of the soils being taken to a

Subtitle C landfill (hazardous waste landfill), and some of the soils taken to a Subtitle D landfill

(non-hazardous waste landfill).

Immediately following completion of the off-site field investigation in 2003, EPA

performed a time-critical removal action. In November 2003 and June 2005, the EPA completed

removal actions at 59 residential yards and high access areas (HAAs), which included the

Blanche Kelso Bruce Elementary School, Fifth Ward Multi-Service Center, and several churches.

The purpose of the removal actions was to remove surface soil with concentrations of lead that

equaled or exceeded the cleanup goal of 500 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) to reduce the

exposure of children and adults to lead. EPA conducted confirmation sampling to ensure that

lead-contaminated soils did not extend below the 18-inch below ground surface (bgs) excavation

depth.

hi July 2005, the EPA began planning for a removal action at the northeastern portion of

the Kelly Village Public Housing Complex where the concentrations of lead in the soil, from 0.5

foot bgs to a depth of 1.5 feet bgs exceeded the cleanup goal of 500 mg/kg. Although the

cleanup goal was set at 500 mg/kg, the practical cleanup level was set at 463 mg/kg. This lower

more conservative level took into account the average relative standard deviation (SD) for the XRay Fluorescence (XRF) instrument of 37 mg/kg. For simplicity and consistency, 500 mg/kg

031897
Many Diversified Interests, Inc. Superfund Site Record of Decision for Operable Unit 2

will be used throughout the rest of this document. The EPA's objective was to perform a

removal action in these areas to prevent future exposure in the event the deeper soil is exposed to

the surface by future construction or other excavation activities. As of the date of this ROD, the

EPA has not obtained site access to conduct the removal action. EPA will be discussing options

with the City of Houston Housing Authority and the final decisions for the Kelly Village Public

Housing Complex will be documented in the ROD for Operable Unit 3.

The EPA believes that the removal actions which were completed prior to this ROD,

address all of the properties that could have been affected by the air emissions of particulates

containing lead from the former foundry and for which the EPA was granted access for sampling.

The locations of the properties where the EPA and TNRCC removal actions were performed are

presented on Figure 2 (Summary of EPA and TNRCC Activities).

During the removal actions conducted in 1999 and 2003-2005, confirmation sampling

below 2 feet indicated that levels of contaminants were below the action levels for lead. Because

Operable Unit 1 had contaminants above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted

exposure, as a matter of policy, EPA will conduct at least one five year review, for all operable

units, to ensure that the implemented actions are protective of human health and the environment.

5.0 AUTHORIZING SIGNATURE

This ROD documents the Agency's decision of no further remedial action necessary for

the off-site residential properties and high access areas. This remedy was selected by the EPA

with the concurrence of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (Appendix B -Texas

Commission on Environmental Quality Concurrence with the Selected Remedy). The Director

of the Superfund Division (EPA, Region 6) has been delegated the authority to approve and sign

this ROD.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Region 6)

By: f~r . , .. ge ~ ^ ^. Date:

Samuel Coleman, P.E., Director

Superfund Division (6SF)

031898
09/12/2005 14:58 FAX 2025010269 EPA

11= ID c.rn - surcKrunu

2)002/002

r. eifi.'oe:

CONCURRENCE PAGE

RECORD OF DECISION FOR OPERABLE UNIT 2

MANY DIVERSIFIED INTERESTS, INC. SUPERFUND SITE

WLufbuMBft ^Jjkffigy Bennett! Dat e

Stacoy Bcrmc

Remedial Project Manager

Rflf'ail Abrego Casanova, Date

Remedial Project Manager

Gbftssan Khoury, <-> Date

Human Health Risk Assessor

Barbara Nann, Date

ssistastSRcgional Counsel

Gustavo Chavairia,

Chief, AR/TX Section

L&A

Date

OS

i Hepola.

Mark Peyoke, Cnlcf Date

Regional COUIUB] Superfund

lLnl

Phillips,

Deputy Division Director

115 Buzzel],

"Writer/Editor

Date

TOTRL P.02

031899
CONCURRENCE PAGE

RECORD OF DECISION FOR OPERABLE UNIT 2

MANY DIVERSIFIED INTERESTS, INC. SUPERFUND SITE

Stacey Bennett, Date

Remedial Project Manager

Rafael Abrego Casanova, Date

Remedial Project Manager

Ghassan Khoury, Date

Human Health Risk Assessor

Barbara Nann, Date

Assistant Regional Counsel

Gustavo Chavarria, Date

Chief, AR/TX Section"

John Hepola, Date

Chief, AR/TX Branch

Mark Peycke, Chief Date

Regional Counsel Superfund

Pamela Phillips, Date

Deputy Division Director

June Buzzell, Date

Writer/Editor

031900
Many Diversified Interests, Inc. Superfund Site Record of Decision for Operable Unit 2

PART 2: THE DECISION SUMMARY

6.0 SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION

The MDI Superfund Site is located in Houston, Texas (Harris County) and is also known

as Texas Electric Steel Casting Company (TESCO). The National Superfund Database

Identification Number is TXD008083404. The Site occupies a 36-acre tract of land located at

3617 Baer Street in Houston. The abandoned Site (former foundry) is located approximately 2

miles east of downtown Houston and 1 block south of Interstate Highway 10 (Figure 1 - Site

Location) in an area of mixed industrial and residential land use. This part of Houston is known

as the "Fifth Ward."

According to Census data from the year 2000, there are 3,952 persons living within !/•>

mile of the Site, with a minority percentage of 98.9% (EPA 2003c). The EPA defines

environmental justice (EJ) as the "fair treatment for people of all races, cultures, and incomes,

regarding the development of environmental laws, regulations, and policies." Based on the high

percent minority population, the potential for EJ concerns for the Site is high.

The Site is divided into three Operable Units (OUs). OU 1 consists of the soil and

ground water located within the fenced boundary that occupies the former foundry. OU 2

consists of the residential yards and high access areas that surround the Site. OU 3 consists of

the crawlspaces underneath the houses, Kelly Village Housing Complex, and addresses

properties which were not sampled during the RI/FS for OU1 and OU2. Section 9.0 (Scope and

Role of Operable Units and Response Action) discusses the OUs in greater detail.

OU 2, which is the subject of this Record of Decision (ROD), was investigated as a

distinct OU. As a result of the RI/FS for the Site, the EPA discovered 59 residential areas,

including high access areas, with lead concentrations equal to or greater than 500 mg/kg. The

EPA completed a removal action for these properties in November 2003 and completed other

residential properties in June 2005. The EPA has been coordinating with the City of Houston

Housing Authority to conduct a removal action at the Kelly Village Public Housing Complex.

Since site access was not granted by the City of Houston prior to the issuance of this ROD for the

conduct of the removal action, the Kelly Village Housing Complex will be addressed under

Operable Unit 3.

The EPA is the lead agency for the Site removal and current remedial activities. The

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) is the support agency. The Potentially

Responsible Parties (PRPs) identified for the Site did not participate in the RI/FS for the Site

(OU 1 or OU2).

031901
Many Diversified Interests, Inc. Superfund Site Record of Decision for Operable Unit 2

7.0 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES

This section of the ROD provides the history of the Site and a brief discussion of the

EPA's and the State's removal, remedial, and enforcement activities. The "Proposed Rule"

proposing the Site to the National Priorities List (NPL) was published in the Federal Register

(FR) on September 29, 1998. The "Final Rule" adding the Site to the NPL was published in the

FR on January 15, 1999.

7.1 History of Site Activities

In 1926, TESCO began operations as a metal casting foundry. TESCO primarily

manufactured specialty molded parts such as large wheels, tracks, and mining equipment. A

second foundry was built on the eastern portion of the Site during the latter half of 1970. The

process area consisted of the two casting plants. Plant I produced large castings, while Plant II

produced smaller castings. Both plants maintained separate sand systems; core ovens; mold

makers; electric arc furnaces; pouring facilities; and cleaning, annealing, and heat treating

process areas.

Various grades of steel, including high carbon, chrome molybdenum, high nickel, and

stainless steel were cast at the TESCO facility. Scrap metal and iron were melted in the carbon

arc furnaces, tested, corrected for the elements needed for the different grades of steel, and

poured into molds. Molds and cores were constructed by mixing sand with flour binders. Some

cores were made by mixing iron oxide with an oil-based material, and then hardened in core

ovens. Cores and molds were treated with a water-based zircon flour and dye mixture to prevent

the molten metal from eroding them.

Castings were cleaned (by mechanical grinding, shot blasting, or sand blasting) and heattreated. Heat-treating consisted of annealing followed by water or oil quenching. Final

machining was performed either at the Site or at the customer's shop, if needed. Some parts

required X-ray inspection or certification.

During the mid-1980s, the southern portion of the Site was leased to Can-Am Resource

Group (Can-Am). Can-Am conducted a spent catalyst recycling operation using an experimental

process. Can-Am reportedly obtained between 2,000 and 4,000 drums of spent catalyst from

chemical plants and refineries located along the Houston Ship Channel. By 1988, Can-Am

ceased operations and the stored drums of spent catalyst were abandoned on the Site.

In 1990, MDI bought the TESCO note from Texas Commerce Bank. TESCO ceased

operations in February 1991, and MDI foreclosed on the property. MDI reopened as the San

Jacinto Foundry (SJF) on March 1, 1991. SJF continued operations until about June 1, 1992.

MDI filed for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of

Texas (Houston District) on May 20, 1992. The on-site facilities were demolished as a salvage

031902
Many Diversified Interests, Inc. Superfund Site Record of Decision for Operable Unit 2

operation under order of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court between March 1995 and January 1996.

7.2 History of Federal and State Investigations and Removal/Remedial Actions

The MDI site has had several investigations completed over a period of years to

determine the source and nature of contamination. In addition, several removal actions have

been conducted to remove imminent threats from lead contamination to protect the residents.

The TRNCC program files for the TESCO facility, and later SJF, documented frequent

Texas Clean Air Act compliance inspections and complaint investigations conducted at the

facility from January 1982 through October 1991. Violations documented during this period

primarily involved visible emissions of particulate matter from the stacks and vents of the

facility's baghouses.

On January 23, 1996, TNRCC's Pollution Cleanup Division collected soil samples from

five residential properties in the MDI Residential Area as part of a Screening Site Inspection

(SSI) conducted for the EPA's Region 6 Superfund Site Assessment Program. Concentrations of

lead in soil ranging from 556 to 1,170 mg/kg were found in all five residential yard soils sampled

by TNRCC. In addition, the EPA collected 100 soil samples from residential properties within

the MDI Residential Area from February 1996 through June 1996 as part of the SSI. The SSI is

an investigation that is used to gather sampling data to evaluate potential releases of hazardous

contaminants and determine if the Site may be eligible to be included on the National Priorities

List (NPL).

From May 13, 1998, through June 26, 1998, the TNRCC collected soil samples, which

included the resampling of properties previously identified by the EPA as having soil lead levels

between 400 and 500 mg/kg and other areas.

On December 30, 1998, the TRNCC submitted a memorandum to the EPA requesting

approval for a Time Critical Removal Action at the MDI Site for the purposes of the removal and

off-site disposal of lead contaminated soil from residential properties near the former MDI Site.

This request was based on the 1996 through 1998 investigations conducted by the EPA and

TNRCC. This removal action was conducted to remove surface soil (to a maximum depth of 1.5

feet bgs) with concentrations of lead that equaled or exceeded 500 mg/kg for 89 residential

properties mainly located to the north and west of the site. This removal action reduced the

1

 exposure of adults and children to lead. Following each removal, TNRCC conducted

confirmation sampling to ensure that lead-contaminated soils did not extend below the 18-inch

bgs excavation depth. Approximately 12,025 tons of soil were removed, characterized, and

disposed of at permitted landfills, with some of the soils being taken to a hazardous waste

landfill, and some of the soils taken to a Subtitle D landfill. The locations of the residential lots

where the TNRCC removal action was performed are presented on Figure 2 (Summary of EPA

and TNRCC Activities.

031903
Many Diversified Interests, Inc. Superfund Site Record of Decision for Operable Unit 2

In 1998 and 1999, the PRPs performed an extensive drum removal action with the EPA's

oversight. Over 4,000 drums, containing spent refinery and petrochemical catalysts from the

Can-Am operation, and visibly contaminated soils were removed from the Site.

In January 2003, the EPA began the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

for OUs 1 and 2. The purpose of the RI/FS was to determine the nature and extent of

contamination, and to gather sufficient information about the Site to support an informed risk

management decision regarding the most appropriate long-term remedy. The primary objective

of the soil sampling in Operable Unit (OU) 2 was to evaluate the distribution of lead in soils

downwind of the MDI Superfund Site. This was accomplished by first modeling the predicted

area of impact (Slowdown Area) from the Site that was determined through the use of

conservative assumptions (Tetra Tech 2003a), and then collecting samples from the properties

within the Slowdown Area. Any impact from blowers reported to have operated on the east side

of the Site may not have been fully accounted for in the air dispersion model; therefore,

properties east of Press Street (off-site East Blower Area) were also included within the OU 2

Study Area. As a result of the sampling during the RI/FS for the Site, the EPA discovered 59

residential areas, including high access areas, with lead concentrations equal to or greater than

500 mg/kg. Although the cleanup goal was set at 500 mg/kg, the practical cleanup level was set

at 463 mg/kg. This lower more conservative level took into account the average relative standard

deviation (SD) for the X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) instrument of 37 mg/kg. For simplicity and

consistency, 500 mg/kg will be used throughout the rest of the document.

The EPA Removal Action at the site began on July 15, 2003. EPA completed a removal

action at 56 properties, which included Blanche Kelso Bruce Elementary School, the Fifth Ward

Multi-Service Community Center, a church, and residential properties.

During May and June 2005, a second EPA removal action was performed at five

properties with lead concentrations in soil greater than the cleanup level of 500 mg/kg that were

not previously addressed during the 2003 EPA removal action. Three of the five properties were

not addressed during the 2003 EPA removal action because owner access was not obtained to

conduct removal activities at the properties. The other two properties were addressed during the

2003 EPA removal action; however, not all soils with lead concentrations greater than the

cleanup level of 500 mg/kg had been removed.

At the conclusion of the 2003 and June 2005 EPA removal actions, the Agency

completed a total of 59 residential properties, including high access areas, located to the east and

north of the site. These removal actions were conducted to remove surface soil with

concentrations of lead that equaled or exceeded the 500 mg/kg action level to a maximum depth

of 1.5 feet below ground surface for the purpose of reducing the exposure of adults and children

to lead. Confirmation sampling was conducted to ensure that lead-contaminated soils did

not extend below the bottom of the excavation. The contaminated soil removed from the

residential properties was stockpiled and covered within the fenced property of the former

8

031904
Many Diversified Interests, Inc. Superfund Site Record of Decision for Operable Unit 2

foundry (OU1). More detailed information concerning the 2003 and 2005 EPA removal actions

is available in the final reports submitted to EPA by its START contractor, Weston (2004; 2005),

which is included in the Administrative Record.

The locations of the properties where the EPA and TNRCC removal action were

performed are presented on Figure 2 (Summary of EPA and TNRCC activities).

7.3 History of CERCLA Enforcement Activities

On September 25, 1998, the EPA signed a Removal Action Memorandum to address the

removal of the reportedly 5,355 deteriorating drums of waste from the Site and 100,000 yd3 of

contaminated on-site soils.

On September 28, 1998, the EPA issued "104(e) information request letters" to 40

owners, operators, and/or generators associated with the Site.

On March 10, 1999, the EPA's Region 6 Emergency Response Branch began

"stabilization" efforts at the Site to mitigate the potential for the off-site migration of

contaminants associated with nearly 600 leaking drums of liquid hazardous waste abandoned onsite.

On April 9, 1999, the EPA held a meeting with the PRPs. The PRPs were offered the

opportunity to conduct the drum removal action and the EPA provided copies of all the evidence

of the PRPs' involvement with the Site. A Draft Administrative Order on Consent was provided

to all the parties, and they were given 7 calendar days from the date of the meeting to notify the

EPA of their intent to conduct the removal action. None of the PRPs accepted the EPA's offer to

voluntarily conduct the removal action.

On May 18, 1999, the EPA issued Unilateral Administrative Orders (UAO) directing 11

PRPs to conduct a removal action at the Site. In response to the UAO, the PRPs formed a "PRP

Group" to address the drummed wastes present at the Site.

On June 8, 1999, the EPA sent the First Amended UAO to 10 additional PRPs associated

with the Site. These PRPs were added to the UAO in response to the information made available

to the EPA by the other PRPs. This UAO encouraged the recipients wishing to comply with the

UAO to coordinate with the PRP Group in addressing the drum removal action.

On June 17, 1999, a conference was held for the second group of PRPs receiving the

Amended UAO. Seven of the nine additional PRPs were represented at this meeting.

On June 23, 1999, in accordance with the UAO, the PRP Group submitted to the EPA,

for review and approval, a Removal Action Work Plan and a Health & Safety Plan for the

031905
Many Diversified Interests, Inc. Superfund Site Record of Decision for Operable Unit 2

Removal Action to address the drummed waste abandoned within the fenced boundaries of the

Site (OU 1). The result of this action was the bulk containerizing, sampling/analysis, and

transport for off-site disposal of over 4,000 drums and associated debris and visually

contaminated soils. This action was completed on November 23, 1999.

On May 6, 2002, a combination "special notice" and "demand" letter was sent to the

PRPs for the conduct of the RI/FS.

On December 26, 2002, a federal lien was placed on the MDI property. On January 17,

2003, the Harris County Clerk registered the EPA's federal lien on the Site property (OU 1) and

notified MDI and TESCO of the lien. This lien is for response costs that the EPA has incurred

and will incur in the future.

The PRPs who performed the 1998 and 1999 on-site (OU 1) drum removal action were

not involved in the EPA's and TCEQ's efforts to investigate and remediate the OU 2 residential

soils and HAAs. The drum removal action involved the catalyst stored on-site within the former

foundry's boundaries. The catalyst material did not impact the off-site (OU 2) areas of the Site.

On March 10, 2004, the EPA met with several prospective purchasers interested in the

Site to discuss the proposed plan for OU 1 and the results of the RI/FS.

On March 22, 2005, the Bankruptcy Trustee for the MDI property, auctioned the 36 acres

of on-site property (OU1) for a total sales price of $ 7,897,539.00. The winning bidder, 5th

Ward Investments, Ltd, is scheduled to close on the property between 30-60 days. At the

closing, the buyer will deliver either a letter signed by an authorized EPA representative that

financial assurance in the amount of $ 6,642,539 was received or the cash equivalent. The buyer

is currently in negotiations with the EPA and has the option to either conduct the remedial design

and clean-up or submit the cash equivalent to EPA for the clean-up for OU1.

8.0 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

This section of the ROD describes the EPA's community involvement activities. The

EPA has been actively engaged in dialogue and collaboration with the affected community and

has strived to advocate and strengthen early and meaningful community participation during the

EPA's remedial activities at the Site. These community participation activities during the

remedy selection process meet the public participation requirements in CERCLA and the NCP.

8.1 Community Involvement Plan

The Community Involvement Plan (CIP) for the Site was prepared in November 1999.

This CIP specifies the community involvement activities that the EPA has undertaken, and will

continue to undertake, during the remedial activities planned for the Site.

10

031906
Many Diversified Interests, Inc. Superfund Site Record of Decision for Operable Unit 2

8.2 Technical Assistant Grant

A Technical Assistant Grant (TAG) was awarded to the 5th Ward Mothers for Clean Air

on September 2, 2001. The purpose of a TAG is for a local citizens' group to secure the services

of a technical advisor (TA) to increase citizen understanding of information that will be

developed about the Site during the Superfund process. Throughout the RI/FS process, the EPA

has communicated with the TAG and the TA, Sound Environmental Solutions, to disseminate

documents (statement of work for the conduct of the RI/FS as well as the RI/FS documents) for

review and comment.

8.3 Superfund Redevelopment Initiative

In September 1999, the Mayor's Office of Environmental Policy (City of Houston)

received a Superfund Redevelopment Initiative (SRI) Grant. The City of Houston was selected

to receive one of 10 pilot grants being awarded nationwide under the EPA's innovative SRI. The

City received $100,000 to conduct a reuse assessment and public outreach to help determine how

best to redevelop the former foundry (MDI, TESCO) property in the Fifth Ward. The "Reuse

Assessment Report," issued by the City of Houston in September 2002, recommended that the

fenced boundaries of the Site (OU 1) should be redeveloped for mixed residential and light

commercial use.

8.4 Community Meetings

The EPA and TCEQ have conducted numerous community meetings during the course of

the RI/FS for the Site and have provided public notices of these meetings in order to encourage

the community's participation. The EPA has also been invited to several meetings with local

groups. The following is a brief summary of the community meetings held by the EPA.

On June 9-13, 2002, the EPA's staff conducted an extensive "Door-To-Door Community

Outreach Campaign" in an effort to inform the Fifth Ward residents of the EPA's current and

future remedial activities at the Site, gather information about the Site, and provide the

community with an opportunity to meet with the EPA staff responsible for the activities at the

Site. The Site Team conducted interviews with over 80 residents of homes located within a 1/4

mile radius of the Site, held a public meeting, interviewed several former employees of the

TESCO Site, and met with local community leaders and business owners. Several community

leaders and members of the "Mothers for Clean Air" organization (TAG for the site) participated

in the extensive outreach effort.

On November 19, 2002, a community meeting was held at the Blanche Kelso Bruce

Elementary School, which is located one block from the Site. A simultaneous translator was

provided for the Spanish speaking community members. The purpose of this meeting was to

discuss the EPA's planned activities during the RI/FS for the Site.

11

031907
Many Diversified Interests, Inc. Superfund Site Record of Decision for Operable Unit 2

On June 24, 2003, another community meeting was held at the local Fifth Ward MultiService Center. A simultaneous translator was provided for the Spanish speaking community

members. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the planned removal and remedial actions

for the Site. The EPA coordinated participation by the City of Houston Health and Human

Services Department, the Texas Department of Health, and the Agency for Toxic Substances and

Disease Registry to address the community's health concerns. The City's health department

conducted child blood-lead screening during the course of the meeting.

A public meeting was held on February 26, 2004, at 7 pm at the Fifth Ward Multi-Service

Center to present the proposed plan for Operable Unit 1 (On-Site Soils and Ground Water). Oral

and written comments were accepted at the meeting.

The EPA issued a Record of Decision for OU 1 on July 30, 2004, based on community

input. A community meeting was held on August 19, 2004, at 7 pm at the Fifth Ward MultiService Center to discuss the Selected Remedy for OU 1 with the community.

The EPA established a local Site Repository to provide the public a location near the

community to review and copy background and current information about the Site. The Site

Repository is located in the library at the Fifth Ward Multi-Service Center.

Numerous fact sheets, translated into Spanish, have been prepared during the planning

and implementation of the RI/FS. These fact sheets were placed at the Site's repository and

distributed to those community members on the mailing list maintained by the EPA.

On August 3, 2005, the EPA met with the TAG to discuss the status of site and to discuss

the findings documented in the RI/FS documents for OU2.

8.4.1 Community Meeting for the Proposed Plan for OU 2

On August 3, 2005, the EPA published advertisements in three newspapers (Houston

Chronicle, El Dia, and the African American News and Issues) in the Houston area to: 1) notify

residents of the public comment period for the proposed plan and specify the mailing address to

submit comments, 2) notify residents of the location of the repository to review the documents in

the Administrative record, and 3) notify residents of the upcoming public meeting for the

proposed plan. In addition, EPA mailed a fact sheet summarizing highlights of the proposed

plan to all residents on the Site mailing list as well as mailed a postcard to remind residents of the

date and time for the public meeting.

On August 16, 2005, the EPA held a public hearing to discuss the proposed plan and to

accept any oral comments. 11 members of the community, including the Technical Advisor for

the TAG attended this meeting. A transcript of this meeting and the comments received during

the public comment period can be found in the Administrative Record (Appendix C). The

12

031908
Many Diversified Interests, Inc. Superfund Site Record of Decision for Operable Unit 2

Agency's response to comments are included in the Responsiveness Summary, which is part of

this ROD. Representatives from other State and local offices who attended the Public meeting

including the Chief of Staff for State House representative Harold V. Button, Jr., the City of

Houston's Department of Health and Human Services (HDHHS, Childhood Lead Poisoning

Prevention Program), the City of Houston Housing Authority, and the Bankruptcy Trustees for

the MDI site.

9.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT OR RESPONSE ACTION

The term "Operable Unit" (OU) means a discrete action that comprises an incremental

step toward comprehensively addressing a site. The cleanup of a site can be divided into a

number of OUs, depending on the complexity of the problems associated with a site. OUs may

address geographical portions of a site, specific site problems, or initial phases of an action, or

may consist of any set of actions performed over time or any actions that are concurrent but

located in different parts of a site. OUs will not impede .implementation of subsequent actions,

including final action at a site.

The EPA has divided the Site into three Operable Units.

9.1 Operable Unit 1 (On-Site Soils and Ground Water)

OU 1 consists of the "On-Site Soils and Ground Water" (e.g., the area within the fenced

boundary of the Site). The EPA issued a Record of Decision for OU 1 on July 30, 2004. This

Record of Decision can be found in the Administrative Record.

9.2 Operable Unit 2 (Off-Site Residential Soils and High Access Areas)

. OU 2 consists of the "Off-Site Residential Yards and High Access Areas" surrounding

the site. OU2 is the subject of this Record of Decision. The boundaries of OU2 are shown on

Figure 3.

The boundaries for OU2 were based on air modeling. Air quality impact modeling was

conducted to predict where (1) particulate matter from historical stack emissions would have

been deposited onto the ground surface and (2) soil lead concentrations may potentially meet or

exceed the EPA Region 6 MSSLs for heavy metals associated with foundry activities. More

detail concerning the air modeling can be found in Appendix G in the RI report (Tetra Tech,

2005).

EPA identified approximately 418 properties within the OU 2 Study Area (Slowdown

Area and East Blower Area) for potential evaluation (See Figure 4). Of those 418 properties, 181

properties were evaluated and sampled during the 2003 EPA RI; approximately 106 properties

were sampled by EPA and the TNRCC from 1996 through 1998; 112 properties involved

13

031909
Many Diversified Interests, Inc. Superfund Site Record of Decision for Operable Unit 2

property owners that denied access, were unresponsive, or could not be contacted; and 19

properties were not evaluated due to their commercial/industrial status.

Therefore, the total number of residential properties included in the OU2 Study Area

which this ROD addresses is 287 properties . This number is based on the 181 properties

evaluated by EPA during the 2003 RI and the 106 properties evaluated previously prior to this RI

by TNRCC/EPA. The 112 properties that could not be evaluated due to the owners not granting

site access will be evaluated under OU3.

The distribution of lead in soils within the OU 2 Study Area has been characterized. With

the exception of the Kelly Village housing complex, all residential yards and high-access areas

with lead concentrations in soils equal to or greater than 500 parts per million (or mg/kg)

established for the OU 2 Study Area have been remediated in the form of a removal action,

whereby the contaminated soils have been removed and replaced with clean backfill.

The EPA believes that all the removal actions, which were completed prior to this ROD,

address all of the properties that could have been affected by the air emissions of particulates

containing lead from the former foundry and for which the EPA was granted access for sampling.

9.3 Operable Unit 3 (Residential Crawlspaces, Kelly Village Housing Complex and

Those Residential Areas Not Addressed under Operable Unit 2)

OU3 will consist of the crawlspaces underneath the houses in the OU2 Study Area, the

Kelly Village Housing Complex (a high access area), and the 112 properties that EPA could not

gain site access to sample.

The EPA has determined that there was not enough data to make a decision regarding the

crawlspaces during the 2003 RI. There are potentially 399 residential homes in the Study Area

and a determination will be made regarding the number of homes that have crawlspaces. In

addition, the EPA will need to ensure that our risk scenario models the type of exposure that an

individual will encounter for crawlspaces. Specifically, EPA will need to investigate several

possible exposure scenarios. For these reasons, EPA will be conducting additional studies

regarding the crawlspaces under OU3.

The EPA was not able to sample all residential properties within the Study Area due to

not being able to contact the owner. EPA cannot verify nor determine if a risk is present for

these 112 residential yards because site access was not granted to sample the properties. The

EPA proposes to send a third round of letters to the owners (if known) as well as provide

notification to the Harris County clerk's office to document that the property was not sampled.

Owners will be given a second opportunity to have their property sampled when EPA begins the

investigation for OU3.

14

031910
Many Diversified Interests, Inc. Superfund Site Record of Decision for Operable Unit 2

Lastly, EPA was not able to obtain site access from the City of Houston Housing

Authority to conduct a removal action at the Kelly Village Housing Complex. The EPA will be

working with the Housing Authority to present options to ensure that future activities do not

redistribute the contaminated soil below 0.5 feet to the surface. These options will be addressed

in the ROD for OU3.

10.0 SITE CHARACTERISTICS

10.1 Demographics and Current Land Use

Surrounding land use is a mixture of residential and industrial. Residential areas are

located adjacent to the site. There are an estimated 942 housing units and approximately 2,756

people within !/2 mile of the site (EPA 2003d). Blanche Kelso Bruce (Bruce) Elementary School

is located adjacent to and west of the site.

10.2 Soils

Soils in the OU 2 Study Area were classified as part of the Soil Survey of Harris County,

Texas. In general, the soils are of the Lake Charles-Bernard Association. These soils are

considered "somewhat poorly drained, very slowly permeable, clayey and loamy". The OU 2

Study Area is mapped as Urban Land (Ur) meaning that the site is primarily fill material, which

excludes further classification (USDA 1976).

10.3 Regional Geology and Hydrogeology

The MDI site is located within the Texas Coastal Plain region. The Texas Coastal Plain

region is underlain by thousands of feet of sand and clay (coastal plain) deposits, which are

mostly unconsolidated.

The two uppermost regional aquifers present in the Houston-Galveston area, the Chicot

and underlying Evangeline, are composed of alternating beds of clay, silt, sand, and gravel

deposited in a series of fluvial-deltaic environments that were affected by rapid changes in

sedimentation rate, regional subsidence of the Gulf of Mexico, and changes in sea level since at

least the end of the Tertiary (Tetra Tech 2005).

Residences within close proximity to the site receive their potable water from the City of

Houston water supply (E&E 1998). Because the focus of the OU 2 RI was surface soils only,

ground water is not addressed under this ROD for OU 2. The investigation of OU 1 determined

that ground water impacts associated with the foundry operations do not extend beyond OU 1.

The Record of Decision for OU 1 identifies the Selected Remedy for the ground water

contamination discovered within the fenced boundaries of the Site. For additional information

concerning OU1, refer to the Administrative Record.

15

031911
Many Diversified Interests, Inc. Superfund Site Record of Decision for Operable Unit 2

10.4 Climate and Wind Direction

The site's proximity to Galveston Bay and the Gulf of Mexico affects the climate area,

resulting in mild weather conditions and an average daily temperature of 70 T. Two principal

wind regimes are present in the Texas Coastal Zone: southeasterly winds from March through

November, and principally northerly winds from December through February. Prevailing winds

in Harris County are from the south-southeast. The highest average wind speeds generally occur

during April. The strongest seasonal winds in the area are produced by winter polar air masses

arriving from the north, producing wind speeds of 20 to 40 miles per hour over a time period of

12 to 36 hours (Bomar 1983).

10.5 Soil Sampling Strategy

The soil sampling strategy for the residential soils and HAAs (i.e., the study area) was to

determine the distribution of metals concentrations in near-surface soils; specifically, lead

deposited as a result of dispersion and deposition of air emissions from the historical foundry

operations. The EPA conducted conservative air dispersion modeling and community interviews

to determine the spatial boundaries of the study area targeted for sampling.

In addition to the standard evaluation of the nature and extent of contamination through

sampling and analytical techniques, additional analyses were performed in order to evaluate other

potential sources of contamination in the residential yards and HAAs of the Site. These

additional analyses included a comparison of the ratio of certain metals in soil, evaluation of

scatter plots, and the use of microscopic techniques.

10.5.1 Soil Investigation - Air Dispersion Modeling

Conservative air dispersion modeling was conducted to predict where particulate matter,

containing lead, from the historical foundry emissions could have been deposited onto the ground

surface and where lead concentrations in the soil could potentially exceed a conservative

screening level of 400 mg/kg.

The modeled depositional area, or study area, extending from the former foundry's

boundary to the 0.8 gram per square meter per year (g/m2-year) isopleth was identified as the

priority area for off-site residential sampling. An isopleth is a line(s) on a map represented by

more than one sample point exhibiting the same analyte (e.g., lead) concentration. This isopleth

identified the area predicted to have soil lead concentrations equal to the screening level of 400

mg/kg. Blowers were reported to have operated in the eastern part of the former foundry. The

study area was expanded to include this area, since it may not have been fully accounted for in

the modeling (See Figure 4). Soil samples were then collected from each residential yard and

HAA located within the study area and analyzed for metals, including lead.

16

031912
Many Diversified Interests, Inc. Superfund Site Record of Decision for Operable Unit 2

10.5.2 Soil Investigation - Sampling Methodology

The off-site soil investigation consisted of the collection of five-point composite shallow

soil samples from four depth intervals. This area consisted of 181 residential yards and HAAs,

including the Blanche Kelso Bruce Elementary School, Fifth Ward Multi-Service Center, and

several churches.

For each location, soil samples were collected with hand auger equipment or a slide

hammer from four depth intervals: 0 to 0.08 foot (1 inch), 0 to 0.5 foot, 0.5 to 1.0 foot, and 1.0 to

1.5 feet bgs. XRF and laboratory analytical techniques were then used to quantify the

concentrations of lead and other metals in the soils.

Each sampled residential "yard" represented an area approximately equal to 2,500 square

feet. These 2,500-square-foot "yards" were selected as the exposure area for future residents in

areas anticipated to be conducive to high activity by future child residents (EPA 2003a). If the

residential yard was small, only one sample was collected over an area covering both front and

back yards (Tetra Tech 2005). The same methodology was used for vacant lots in the residential

areas.

Because multi-family housing areas may have larger areas of possible high activity, these

larger areas were subdivided into approximately 2,500-square-foot subareas, each to be counted

as a discrete residential "yard," although they might be part of a larger residential parcel.

In addition to residential properties, Tetra Tech sampled schools, public parks,

churchyards, and other locations. As with the sampling conducted at the residential locations, for

each 2,500-square-foot "high-access area" (equivalent to a residential yard), one 5-point

composite sample was collected for each sample depth interval.

10.6 Nature and Extent of Soil Contamination

Over the course of the RJ, more than 1,600 soil samples were collected and analyzed for

metals and other contaminants in the soil. The RI focused on surface soil, which is defined as

soils that extend to 1.5 feet bgs. The RI Report for OU 2 revealed that the potential contaminants

of concern (COPCs) in surface soil were arsenic, lead, and antimony; with lead being the primary

contaminant of concern (COC).

Antimony was found in one off-site sample at a concentration of 48.1 mg/kg at a depth of

0-0.5 feet. However, since this location was remediated during the 2003 EPA removal action,

antimony was eliminated from further evaluation and will not be further addressed in this ROD.

17

031913
Many Diversified Interests, Inc. Superfund Site

10.6.1 Lead Contamination

Record of Decision for Operable Unit 2

377 soil samples were analyzed for lead for each of the intervals from 0 to 0.08 foot bgs,

0 to 0.5 foot bgs, and 0.5 to 1.0 foot bgs intervals. 368 soil samples were analyzed for lead from

the 1.0 to 1.5 feet bgs interval. Table 1 below provides a range of the lead concentrations by

depth.

The maximum detected concentrations of lead in the soil from 0 to 0.08, 0 to 0.5, 0.5 to

1.0, and 1.0 to 1.5 feet bgs were 1720, 1899, 2779, and 6298 mg/kg, respectively.

Table 1: Lead Contamination by Depth

Depth

0-0.8 feet

0-0.5 feet

0.5- 1.0 feet

1.0- 1.5 feet

Non-Detect

25 samples

1 8 samples

51 samples

118 samples

Non-Detect to

200 mg/kg

173 samples

195 samples

253 samples

220 samples

201 to 399

mg/kg

1 10 samples

109 samples

53 samples

16 samples

400 mg/kg

(residential

screening

level)

69 samples

55 samples

20 samples

14 samples

10.6.2 Arsenic Contamination

The RJ revealed that arsenic was a COPC. The arsenic contamination ranged from nondetect to 23.1 mg/kg. Arsenic was detected in 8 samples (representing 6 locations) above EPA's

residential screening levels of 0.39 mg/kg and above background (5.9 mg/kg).

18

031914
Many Diversified Interests, Inc. Superfund Site

Table 2: Arsenic Contamination

Record of Decision for Operable Unit 2

Location ID

72 (Residential)

140 (Residential)

87 (Residential)

Bruce Elementary

Location 1

Bruce Elementary

Location 6

Bruce Elementary

Location 9

Bruce Elementary

Location 9

Bruce Elementary

Location 9

Concentration (mg/kg)

14.1

6.1

9.7

6.2

7.9

7.8

15.0

10.1

Depth

0-0.5 ft

0- 0.5 ft

0.5- 1.0ft

0.5- 1.0ft

0- 0.5 ft

0- 0.5 ft

0.5 -1 ft

1.0-1. 5 ft

Removal Action at Depth

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

10.6.3 Sources of Lead Contamination

In addition to the evaluation of the nature and extent of soil contamination, additional

analyses were performed in order to assess the potential source of contamination. The three

methods employed were an evaluation of the ratio of the metals in samples, a statistical analysis

(scatter plots), and microscopy analysis.

Source Evaluation Using Ratio of Metals in Soils

Five samples of bag house waste were collected on-site and analyzed for total metals and

toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) metals. These samples were used as a standard

to compare with off-site results. The premise of this assessment is that in order for metal

concentrations in off-site soils to be fully attributable to on-site activities, the ratios of the metals

should be similar. Lead, chromium, and molybdenum were selected as heavy metals that are

likely to be associated with foundry wastes. Ratio of the metals in bag house and OU1 on-site

samples are significantly similar; suggesting that the metal concentrations on-site are attributable

to historical releases from the former foundry. The ratios for these metals in OU2 off-site

samples, are significantly different, suggesting that there are other probable sources of lead

contamination. Two likely sources are tail pipe emissions from automobiles during the period

19

031915
Many Diversified Interests, Inc. Superfund Site Record of Decision for Operable Unit 2

when leaded gasoline was in use (pre mid-1970s), as well as lead-based paint from residences.

Lead-based paint is a well-known source of lead in soils, and is a likely contributor, given the

fact that houses in the area are reported to have undergone lead-based paint abatement and

removal activities.

Scatter Plots of Metals By Location

Metal results from the off-site locations and background areas have a distinctly different

distribution than the on-site locations, indicating that the off-site areas were impacted by a more

complex source of heavy metal contamination than simply a result of air dispersion of

particulates in the air emissions from the former foundry. The EPA National Exposure Research

Laboratory, Las Vegas, Nevada, (NERL-LV) report also noted that lead contamination in the offsite residential yards and HAAs and background samples is characterized by a strong correlation

with zinc, indicating that one possible source is paint with a combination of lead carbonate and

zinc oxide pigments.

Microscopic Techniques

EPA NERL at Las Vegas and the Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory

(EMSL) concluded that a definitive connection could not be established between the lead

contamination found on-site, within the fenced boundaries of the Site, and the off-site lead

contamination, in the residential yards and high access areas of the Site. This conclusion was

based on an analysis of SEM images and a search for marker compounds. Lead compounds

(wulfenite, lead oxide sulfate) found in the baghouse sample were not found in the on-site,

residential, and background soil samples. Also, no clearly definable marker compounds could be

established between the on-site samples and the off-site residential/background samples. The

EMSL report noted that no construction materials (paint chips/solder) could be linked to the lead

contamination in the residential samples. This was based on limited samples (7 samples).

The EPA believes that the air emissions from the former foundry, which contained

particles of lead, may have caused the on-site (OU 1) and off-site (OU 2) soils to become

contaminated through the air deposition of these particles. However, the widespread

contamination of lead in residential areas is not totally due to the foundry, but due to probable

sources of lead contamination including lead-based paint and historical deposition from vehicular

lead-based fuel emissions. Additional discussion regarding Source Evaluation Conclusions is

found in Section 14.3 of this ROD.

11.0 FUTURE LAND USES

Land use in the OU2 Study Area has historically been residential, although some

industrial properties are also found in the immediate vicinity of the site. The City of Houston's

Reuse Assessment Report determined that the likely reuse of the MDI property (OU1) would be

20

031916
Many Diversified Interests, Inc. Superfund Site Record of Decision for Operable Unit 2

mixed residential and neighborhood-type commercial use (City of Houston, 2002). The OU1

Site is surrounded by residential properties to the north, east, and west, and industrial properties

to the south.

Over the last year, industrial areas to the southwest that surround OU1 have been

redeveloped into condos. Because the City of Houston does not have zoning, the EPA developed

removal clean-up criteria as well as developed the baseline risk assessment upon residential use

scenarios.

12.0 SITE RISKS

Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments are an integral part of the Remedial

Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) process.

A Human Health Risk Assessment estimates the current and possible future risks if no

action were taken to clean up a site. The EPA's Superfund risk assessors determine how

threatening a hazardous waste site is to human health and the environment. They seek to

determine a safe level for each potentially dangerous contaminant present (e.g., a level at which

ill health effects are unlikely and the probability of cancer is very small). Living near a

Superfund site doesn't automatically place a person at risk, that depends on the chemicals present

and the ways people are exposed to them.

An Ecological Risk Assessment is defined as a process that evaluates the likelihood that

adverse ecological effects are occurring or may occur as a result of exposure to one or more

stressors. A stressor is any physical, chemical, or biological entity that can induce an adverse

ecological response. Adverse responses can range from sublethal chronic effects in individual

organisms to a loss of ecosystem function.

An Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) was not a component of the OU 2 investigation

due to the lack of any current natural habitat in the residential areas. The ERA was a component

of the RI/FS for OU 1 and the EPA. determined that there is little potential for significant

exposure of wildlife to lead, or other contaminants, located within the fenced boundaries of the

Site.

12.1 Human Health Risk Assessment

Human health risks are determined by evaluating known chemical exposure limits and

actual chemical concentrations found at the site as identified during field sampling activities. The

actual contaminant concentrations are compared to the exposure concentrations known to have

an adverse impact. In the risk assessment, carcinogenic risks and non-carcinogenic health risks

are calculated. The risk calculation uses conservative assumptions that weigh in favor of

protecting human health. The results may be used to make decisions regarding the necessity and

21

031917
Many Diversified Interests, Inc. Superfund Site Record of Decision for Operable Unit 2

extent of remediation, to develop site-specific cleanup levels, and to help select appropriate

remedial technologies.

To protect human health, the EPA has established acceptable exposure levels for known

or suspected carcinogens. The acceptable exposure levels are generally concentration levels that

represent an excess upper bound lifetime cancer risk to an individual in a range between one in

ten thousand and one in a million (also expressed as 10"" and 10"6) with one in a million being the

point of departure for cleanup goals. The cancer risk estimated for Superfund sites is referred to

as excess lifetime cancer risk (ELCR) because it would be in addition to the risks of cancer

individuals face from all other causes such as smoking or exposure to too much sun.

The level of concern for non-carcinogenic contaminants is determined by calculating a

Hazard Index (HI). The HI is calculated by adding chemical-specific Hazard Quotients (HQs). If

the HI exceeds one (1.0), there may be concern for potential non-cancer effects from exposure to

site contaminants.

Risks for exposure to lead are calculated using more site specific data and specifically

focus on risks to children. Young children can be exposed to lead by several media including air,

soil, water, dust, diet, and paint. Recognizing the multi-media potential for lead exposure, EPA

developed the Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic (IEUBK) model to evaluate lead exposure

in children. The IEUBK model predicts the probability that children exposed to lead-containing

media will have blood lead concentrations exceeding a health-based level of concern.

The EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) states in directive

# 9200.4-27P (August 1998) that the risk reduction goal is to attempt to limit exposure to soil

lead (Pb) levels such that a typical (or hypothetical) child or group of similarly exposed children

would have an estimated risk of no more than 5% of exceeding a 10 ug/dL blood-Pb level. This

blood-Pb level is established by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The directive also states that the EPA recommends that a soil Pb concentration be determined so

that a typical child or group of children exposed to Pb at this level would have an estimated risk

of no more than 5% of exceeding a blood-Pb level of 10 (j.g/dL.

12.1.1 Risk Assessment for EPA Removal Action for Lead

EPA as well as TCEQ have conducted numerous risk assessments for previous sites

contaminated with lead. TNRCC's removal action in 1999 established a clean-up level for lead

at 500 mg/kg, which was determined to be protective. Lead data collected during the off-site RI

indicated that 59 properties (several residences as well as Bruce Elementary School) had lead

concentrations exceeding the action level for the 1999 TNRCC removal action. An EPA removal

action targeting Bruce Elementary School and residential yards with lead concentrations greater

than or equal to 500 mg/kg was conducted in the summer and fall of 2003 as well as the summer

of 2005. The action level for lead in soils (463 mg/kg) was determined to be protective of human

22

031918
Many Diversified Interests, Inc. Superfund Site Record of Decision for Operable Unit 2

health based on IEUBK modeling of actual data collected from other EPA Region 6 Superfund

sites, namely Tar Creek Superfund Site (EPA 1997), RSR Corporation Superfund Site (EPA

1995), and Delatte Metals Superfund Site (EPA 2000).

EPA devised a priority schedule for conducting the removal actions for the 59

residential properties, including the high access areas. The properties were prioritized based on

lead levels and the presence of children on the property. Priority one comprised of properties

above 500 ppm lead with children less than 6 years old residing at these properties. Priority 2

comprised of properties above 1000 ppm lead with no children residing in these properties.

Priority 3 comprised of properties with 500-1000 ppm lead. At the end of June 2005, EPA had

completed the removal at all 59 properties.

12.1.2 Future Risks

After completing the removal action in which EPA removed lead contaminated soil,

which was considered the principal threat waste, EPA conducted a risk assessment on the

residual soils to determine future risks. The potential contaminants of concerns (COPCs) were

lead and arsenic; with lead as the primary contaminant of concern (COC).

Lead

The focus of the integrated exposure uptake biokinetic (IEUBK) model for lead in

children is the prediction of blood lead concentrations in young children exposed to lead from

several sources and by several routes.

The model is a four-step process that mathematically and statistically links environmental

lead exposure to blood lead concentrations for a population of children (0 - 84 months of age).

The four model components each reflect a different aspect of the overall biologic process and are

described as follows:

1) The Exposure component quantitates a child's exposure to lead (fig/day) by

estimating the concentration of lead in the environmental media that the child contacts,

multiplied by the amount of contact the child has with the medium and duration of that contact.

The results from the exposure component of the IEUBK model are estimated intake rates for the

quantities of lead inhaled or ingested from environmental media. The media addressed by the

IEUBK model include soil, house dust, drinking water, air, and food. Paint is usually addressed

in terms of its contribution to the measured concentration of lead in soil or house dust.

2) The Uptake component models the process by which lead intake (lead that has

entered the child's body through ingestion or inhalation) is transferred to the blood plasma.

Uptake is the quantity of lead absorbed per unit time from portals of entry (gut, lung) into the

systemic circulation of blood. This absorption fraction is, by convention, termed bioavailability'.

23

031919
Many Diversified Interests, Inc. Superfund Site Record of Decision for Operable Unit 2

The IEUBK model addresses the different bioavailabilities of lead from different environmental

media and provides for a partial saturation of absorption at high levels of lead intake.

3) The Biokinetics component of the IEUBK model is a mathematic expression of

the movement of absorbed lead throughout the body over time by physiologic or biochemical

processes. The model continuously recalculates the lead masses in each of the body

compartments especially the changing concentration of lead in blood.

4) The Variability component addresses variability in blood lead concentrations

among exposed children. Children having contact with the same concentrations of environmental

lead can develop very different blood lead concentrations due to differences in behavior,

household characteristics, and individual patterns of lead uptake and biokinetics. The IEUBK

model uses a log-normal probability distribution to characterize this variability and provides best

estimate of the geometric mean and the 95 % upper confidence level (UCL) of the distribution of

the blood lead levels among young children potentially exposed to lead in their environment.

The OSWER directive # 9200.4-27P (August 1998), recommends the scenario to be

evaluated (through use of the EEUBK Model) is a young child in full-time residence. Therefore

OSWER recommends characterizing exposure units as exposure potential at the individual

residence as the primary unit of concern for evaluating potential risk at lead contaminated

residential sites.

For the MDI site, soil samples from front yard and back yard of residences were sampled

at each of four depth intervals: 0 to 0.08 foot below ground surface (bgs), 0 to 0.5 foot bgs, 0.5 to

1.0 foot bgs , and 1.0 to 1.5 feet bgs. Each sample collected from a specific depth interval

consisted of a five-point composite sample. Each sampled residential yard represented an area

approximately equal to 2,500 square feet. These 2,500-square-foot "yards" were selected as the

exposure area for future residents in areas anticipated to be conducive to high activity by future

child residents. Multi-family housing areas may have larger areas of possible high activity. These

larger areas were subdivided into approximately 2,500 -square-foot subareas. In addition to

residential properties, schools, public parks, churchyards and vacant lots in residential

neighborhood were also subdivided into 2,500-square-foot exposure areas and sampled as a one

five point composite sample at each of the four depth intervals.

Except for Kelly Village Housing Complex, a point-by-point evaluation for lead was

done utilizing the IEUBK lead model. That is, each composite soil sample that exceeded the soil

lead screening level of 400 mg/kg and was less than the removal practical clean up level of 463

mg/kg was input into the IEUBK model to evaluate the residual risk left after the soil removal

action. The other input variables were left at their default values with the dietary lead intake

values updated to the new default values.

Sixteen lead results (representing 13 properties) for samples collected at depths between 0

24

031920
Many Diversified Interests, Inc. Superfund Site Record of Decision for Operable Unit 2

and 0.08 foot bgs were evaluated with the IEUBK lead model. Modeled lead concentrations

ranged between 400.4 mg/kg to 457.6 mg/kg. At this depth interval, the estimated percentage of

children predicted to have a blood lead level greater than 10 [ig/dL ranged from 5.0 to 7.5

percent.

Seven lead results (representing six locations) for samples collected at depths between 0

and 0.5 foot bgs were evaluated using the IEUBK lead model. Modeled lead concentrations

ranged from 406.6 mg/kg to 446.8 mg/kg . At this depth interval, the estimated percentage of

children predicted to have a blood lead level greater than 10 fig/dL ranged from 5.241 to 6.985.

Two lead results (431.6 mg/kg and 412.0 mg/kg) for samples collected from 0.5 and 1.0

foot bgs were evaluated with the IEUBK lead model. At this depth interval, the estimated

percentage of children predicted to have a blood lead level greater than 10 u.g/dL ranged from

5.46 to 6.3 percent.

One lead result (428 mg/kg) for a sample collected from 1.0 and 1.5 foot bgs was

evaluated with the IEUBK lead model. At this depth interval, the estimated percentage of

children predicted to have a blood lead level greater than 10 [ig/dL was 6.14 percent

Table 3 shows the IEUBK modeled results for lead. Although these percentages exceed

the EPA OSWER recommended risk reduction goal that limit exposure to soil lead levels such

that a typical (or hypothetical) child or group of similarly exposed children would have an

estimated risk of no more that 5% of exceeding a 10 u.g/dL blood lead level, the experience of

Region 6 with other superfund sites (RSR, Tar Creek and Delatte Superfund sites) with lead

contamination show that the removal action of 500 mg/kg is protective for human health and the

environment.

25

031921
Many Diversified Interests, Inc. Superfund Site Record of Decision for Operable Unit 2

Table 3: IEUBK Modeled Lead Results- Predicted Percent Above Blood Level of Concern for

Resident Child

Location Id *

47

106

122

133

137

158

161

185

197

218

227

237

240

247

257

273

278

296

318

Lead

Concentration (mg/kg)

 b

424.4

428.4

444.4

434.4

438.4

411.6

446.0

443.2

457.6

418.4

426.8

414.0

433.2

446.0

431.6

434.4

428.0

400.4

412.0

450.8

429.6

413.0

444.0

446.8

403.8

406.6

Depth

(ft)

0-0.08

0.05

0-0.08.

0-0.08

0-0.08

0-0.08

0-0.08

0-0.5

0-0.08

0-0.5

0-0.08

0-0.08

0-0.08

0-0.05

0.5-1.0

0-0.08

1.0-1.5

0-0.08

0.5-1.0

0-0.08

0-0.08

0-0.5

0-0.08

0-0.5

0-0.08

0-0.5

Geometric Mean

Blood-Lead Level '

(Hg/dL)

4.812

4.845

4.975

4.894

4.927

4.707

4.988

4.966

5.082

4.763

4.832

4.727

4.884

4.988

4.871

4.894

4.842

4.615

4.710

5.027

4.855

4.719

4.972

4.995

4.643

4.666

Percent Above

 d

5.983

6.156

6.874

6.421

6.600

5.444

6.948

6.819

7.494

5.727

6.087

5.543

6.368

6.948

6.297

6.421

6.139

4.994

5.461

7.172

6.209

5.502

6.856

6.985

5.129

5.241

Notes:

a- Location ID corresponds to a sample ID. See RJ report to cross reference.

b- The background concentration for lead in soil (0 to 0.08 foot bgs) is 150.5 mg/kg.

c- Geometric mean blood-lead level for a child calculated over 0 to 84 months (or 0 to 7 years). The blood-lead level was determined using the

IEUBK Model for Lead in Children (EPA 2003b). The measured soil concentration was used as the model input. The data set was limited to

residential properties only and censored for duplicate results.

d- The percentage of exposed children that would have a blood-lead level exceeding the lead level of concern

26

031922
Many Diversified Interests, Inc. Superfund Site Record of Decision for Operable Unit 2

Arsenic

EPA evaluated the risks associated with arsenic contaminated soil by performing a

proportional comparison to the medium-specific screening level (MSSL) for residential soil to

estimate the cancer risk and noncancer hazards, as well as through the computation of an

exposure point concentration (EPC).

There was one residential sample and 4 samples (representing 2 locations) from the Bruce

Elementary School that exceeded the EPA MSSL for arsenic and for which EPA did not perform

a removal action for that location (See Table 2 in Section 10.6.2).

For the residential sample, EPA assumed that a resident would be exposed daily for 30

years to the 9.7 mg/kg concentration, which would correspond (based on scaling against the

residential cancer-based MSSL for arsenic) to a cancer risk of 25 in 1 million (or 2.5 x 10~5).

This is within the risk management range but below the "bright line" of 1 in 10,000 (or 1 x 10~4)

that would trigger Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act

(CERCLA) remediation. If a resident was exposed daily for 30 years, this would correspond to a

noncancer hazard (based on scaling against the noncancer-based MSSL of 22 mg/kg) of 0.4,

which is below the target threshold of 1.0.

EPA employed a methodology for the Bruce Elementary School arsenic exceedances

which involved calculating a 95-percent upper confidence limit (95UCL) on arsenic results to get

a measure of the exposure mean of arsenic concentration across all areas over time, not just the

maximum in the one limited strip of land adjacent to Bringhurst Street (this strip was where the

exceedances were located). A 95UCL for the arsenic remaining after the summer 2003 EPA

removal is 5.1 mg/kg (assuming a nonparametric distribution using the Chebychev inequality

discussed in EPA 2002b) when calculated with EPA's ProUCL software (Version 2.1) assuming

half the detection limit for results that were nondetect for arsenic.

If a resident was exposed daily for 30 years to the 5.1 mg/kg arsenic concentrations

(95UCL) at Bruce Elementary School, this would correspond (based on scaling against the

residential cancer-based MSSL for arsenic) to a cancer risk of 13 in 1 million (or 1.3 x 10"5),

which is within the risk management range but below the "bright line" of 1 in 10,000 (or 1 x 10")

that would trigger CERCLA remediation. If a resident was exposed daily for 30 years, this

would correspond to a noncancer hazard (based on scaling against the noncancer-based MSSL of

22 mg/kg) of 0.2, which is below the target threshold of 1.0. Exposure at Bruce Elementary

School is expected to be for a maximum of 8 years instead of the 30 years exposure assumed in

the above exposure calculations. (See the Uncertainty Section for Bruce Elementary in Section

12.2.3 of this ROD)

27

031923
Many Diversified Interests, Inc. Superfund Site Record of Decision for Operable Unit 2

Kelly Village

Part of the Kelly Village Public Housing fell within the deposition of lead isopleth model

level which delineated the extent of contamination and investigation of the offsite residential

areas for the MDI site. The housing section east of Grove street was included in this

investigation. This area is made up of three blocks, each block has four building apartments. The

three block area was subdivided into approximately 2,500 square-foot subareas, each to be

counted as a discrete residential "yard," although they might be part of a larger residential parcel.

A composite soil sample was collected from each 2,500 square-foot "yard," at the four

different depth intervals. To better understand the risk to a child living in any section of the

Kelly Village housing complex, three exposure areas were identified to calculate an exposure

point concentration representing the concentration of soil that a child would be exposed to over

time. The whole Kelly Village housing area investigated was considered as one exposure area,

that is a child could come in contact with all the contaminated soil over time. A 95 UCL on the

arithmetic mean of 232.45 mg/kg was calculated and input in the IEUBK lead model. The

estimated geometric mean blood lead level was 2.885 fig/dL .The estimated percentage of

children predicted to have a blood-lead level greater than 10 u.g/dL was 0.409 percent, which is

below the EPA OSWER goal of 5 percent.

The same was performed for exposure areas of half a block and a block. Children playing

in Block No. 2 (Refer to the HHRA report in the Administrative Record for Figures on Kelly

Village) were found potentially at an increased risk of having a blood lead level exceeding 10

|ig/dL whether we assumed the exposure area to be half the block or the whole block area. The

estimated percentage of children predicted to have a blood-lead level greater than 10 ^g/dL was

9.8 percent and 34 percent respectively, which is above the EPA OSWER goal of no more than 5

percent exceeding a blood lead level of 10 |ig/dL. However, most of the contamination is found

at 0.5 foot bgs and 1.5 foot bgs, which prevents current exposure. In order to prevent future

exposure in the event the contaminated soil at depth is exposed to the surface, EPA recommends

that the area be remediated. See Section 15.0 and 15.1 for additional information regarding the

Kelly Village Housing Complex.

12.2 Uncertainties in the Risk Assessment

12.2.1 Lead

There are uncertainties associated with the exposure assumptions in the risk assessment.

These exposure assumption uncertainties concern the use of the default 70% mass correlation of

Pb concentrations with outside soil to indoor dust.

A potential source of uncertainty associated with the exposure assessment is the 70%

contribution of Pb in yard soil to Pb concentrations in'indoor dust. Indoor dust data are not

28

031924
Many Diversified Interests, Inc. Superfund Site Record of Decision for Operable Unit 2

available for OU2; therefore, the EEUBK Model default value of 70% was assumed. This means

that Pb in yard soil was assumed to contribute 70% of the Pb concentrations in indoor dust.

Based on measured indoor dust concentrations at other Superfund sites within EPA Region 6

(e.g., RSR and Tar Creek Superfund sites), the 70% dust lead enrichment value may be an

overestimation of the actual contribution from outdoor soil. This default value resulted in an

overestimation of this site specific risk evaluation, that is the percentage of children of no more

than 5%, slightly exceeded the 10 ug/dL blood-Pb level established by the CDC.

12.2.2 Arsenic - Residential Yard

A conservative default assumption for arsenic's relative bioavailability, which is 100

percent, was used in the EPA MSSL calculation. However, the TCEQ has adopted a reduced

bioavailability factor of 78 percent. If this scientifically valid bioavailability factor were applied

to the arsenic MSSL, the soil ingestion contribution to the MSSL would be decreased by 22

percent, reducing the cancer risk to 2 x 10"5 and the hazard index to 0.3.

12.2.3 Arsenic - Bruce Elementary

The risk assessment assumed a residential scenario in which a resident would be exposed

to the arsenic concentration for a period of 30 years. Since exposure at the elementary school

yard is not the same as exposure over 30 years, the estimated risk is overestimated. A sitespecific child assessment would yield lower cancer risks and noncancer hazards, given that

exposure would be expected to occur only over the elementary school-age years (ages 4 to 12 at

Bruce Elementary), which would amount to approximately 8 years of exposure rather than 30

years of exposure.

13.0 BLOOD LEAD STUDY

The City of Houston's Department of Health and Human Services (HDHHS, Childhood

Lead Poisoning Prevention Program) performed blood-Pb screening of Fifth Ward children

during the "Screening Targeted Areas at Risk (STAR) Project" which occurred on July 29 and

August 21, 2003. The EPA participated in the August 21st effort and targeted the RI study area.

The HDHHS's analysis of the STAR Project blood-Pb data indicated that none of the 49 children

tested venously exhibited blood-Pb levels greater than the 10 ug/dL level established by the

federal CDC.

14.0 CONCLUSIONS

All residential property yards and high access areas (for which EPA received site-access)

with lead concentrations above 500 mg/kg were addressed by a removal action. A total of 148

properties were remediated. TCEQ conducted a removal of 89 properties during 1998 and 1999,

and EPA conducted a removal of 59 properties in November 2003 and June 2005. EPA believes

29

031925
Many Diversified Interests, Inc. Superfund Site Record of Decision for Operable Unit 2

that the removal actions have eliminated the existing and potential risks to human health and the

environment so that no further action is necessary.

14.1 Lead Contamination and Risks

Based on the blood-Pb screening data by the City of Houston Health and Human Services

and the blood-Pb levels predicted by the IEUBK Model, the EPA believes that Pb in soil does not

present a significant risk to the community, especially since the residential yards within the study

area have been remediated. Although the percentages of the residual lead after the removal

action exceed the EPA OSWER recommended risk reduction goal that limit exposure to soil lead

levels such that a typical (or hypothetical) child or group of similarly exposed children would

have an estimated risk of no more that 5% of exceeding a 10 u.g/dL blood lead level, the

experience of Region 6 with other superfund sites (RSR, Tar Creek, and Delatte Superfund sites)

with lead contamination show that the removal action of 500 mg/kg is protective for human

health and the environment

14.2 Arsenic Contamination and Risks

The arsenic concentrations are within the risk management range of 10"4 to 10~6. Based

upon the assumptions and defaults used in the risk assessment, the arsenic risks are

overestimated.

Secondly, arsenic is not a chemical that was associated with the foundry operations and is

most likely a result of background concentrations. Therefore, the arsenic concentrations at one

residential area and the 4 areas located at Bruce Elementary School do not pose a risk that needs

to be addressed.

14.3 Source Evaluation

The EPA's recommendation of "no further remedial action" is also based on the

uncertainties associated with the additional analyses performed in order to evaluate other

potential sources of contamination in the residential yards and HAAs of the Site. These

additional analyses included a comparison of the ratio of certain metals in soil, evaluation of

scatter plots, and the use of microscopic techniques.

The comparison of the ratio of certain metals in soil, including the bag house waste

representing a specific time period of air emissions, and the evaluation of scatter plots concluded

that the former foundry is not the source of widespread contamination in the residential yards and

HAAs of the Site. Based on these evaluations, the EPA believes that likely sources contributing

to the concentrations of Pb in the soils are tail pipe emissions from vehicles and Pb-based paint,

among other possible sources. The comparison of the ratio of certain metals in soil and the

evaluation of scatter plots are described in more detail in the "Source Evaluation - Ratio of

30

031926
Many Diversified Interests, Inc. Superfund Site Record of Decision for Operable Unit 2

Metals in Soils" and "Source Evaluation - Scatter Plots" sections of this ROD.

Through the use of microscopic analyses, NERL- LV and EMSL concluded that a

definitive connection could not be established between the Pb contamination found on-site,

within the fenced boundaries of the Site, and the off-site Pb contamination, the residential areas

of the Site. Based on the best available data, even if limited, the EPA believes that the former

foundry is not the source of widespread contamination in the residential yards and HAAs of the

Site, since no clearly definable marker compounds could be established between the on-site

samples and the off-site residential and background samples.

15.0 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES

The proposed plan for the Many Diversified Interests Superfund Site Operable Unit 2 was

released on July 29, 2005. The proposed plan recommended "no further remedial action" for

Operable Unit 2. The public comment period was held from August 8, 2005, to September 8,

2005. EPA reviewed the transcript from the public meeting on August 16, 2005, and no written

or verbal comments were submitted during the public comment period. EPA has determined that

no significant changes to the remedy of "no further remedial action", as originally identified in

the proposed plan, were necessary.

One change from the proposed plan is the scope of Operable Unit 2. The proposed plan

identified Off-Site Residential Soils and High Access Areas, which included conducting a

removal action at the northeastern portion of the Kelly Village Housing complex. Since site

access was not granted by the City of Houston prior to the issuance of this ROD for the conduct

of the removal action, the Kelly Village Housing Complex will be addressed under Operable

Unit3.

15.1 Kelly Village Housing Complex History

hi July 2005, the EPA began planning for a removal action at the northeastern portion of

the Kelly Village Housing complex where the concentrations of lead in the soil exceeded the

cleanup goal of 500 mg/kg. All of the soil samples collected from Kelly Village from 0 to 0.5

foot below ground surface (bgs) contained lead concentrations less than the 463 mg/kg practical

cleanup level for lead in soil and therefore does not pose a threat to the community.

The soil sample data did identify lead contamination at 9 grid areas ranging from 0.5 to

1.5 feet bgs in the northeastern portion of the complex, but this also does not pose a current

immediate threat to the community because of the clean soil and adequate grass cover from 0 to

0.5 foot bgs. However, as a conservative measure, the EPA recommended performing a removal

action in these areas to prevent future exposure in the event the deeper soil is exposed to the

surface by future construction or other excavation activities.

31

031927
Many Diversified Interests, Inc. Superfund Site Record of Decision for Operable Unit 2

On July 28, 2005, EPA requested a ceiling increase and an amendment to the Removal

Action to include the Kelly Village Housing Complex. At the time of the issuance of the

proposed plan for this Operable Unit, the EPA was in the process of coordinating with the City of

Houston Housing Authority to conduct a removal action at the Kelly Village Housing Complex.

EPA's objective for a removal action was to remove surface soil (to a depth of 1.5 feet bgs) with

concentrations of lead that equaled or exceeded the cleanup goal of 500 mg/kg to reduce future

exposure of children and adults to lead, in the event construction activities expose the deeper soil

to the surface.

Several meetings and communications between the EPA and the City of Houston

Housing Authority have occurred: July 26, July 29, and August 18,2005. On August 18,2005,

EPA met with the City of Houston Housing Authority to further explain EPA's recommendation.

As of the date of this ROD, the EPA has not obtained site access to conduct the removal action.

The EPA will be discussing options with the City of Houston Housing Authority and the final

decisions for the Kelly Village Public Housing Complex will be documented in the ROD for

Operable Unit 3.

16.0 STATE ROLE

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, on behalf of the State of Texas, has

concurred with the EPA's recommendation of No Further Remedial Action. The State has also

reviewed the Remedial Investigation, Risk Assessment and Feasibility Study to determine if the

selected remedy is in compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate State environmental

laws and regulations. The State of Texas' letter of support for the selected remedy for the Many

Diversified Interests Superfund Site Operable Unit 2 is included in Appendix B.

17.0 COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE

The public comment period began on August 8, 2005, and concluded on September 8,

2005. One letter was submitted to the Agency on September 6, 2005 via email and followed by a

letter sent express mail. The letter, submitted by the 5th Ward Mothers for Clean Air, the TAG

recipient for the Site, was in support of the Agency's recommendation of "No further remedial

action" for Operable Unit 2.

32

031928
Many Diversified Interests, Inc. Superfund Site Record of Decision for Operable Unit 2

PART 3: RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY

18.0 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY

On August 16, 2005, the EPA held a public meeting at the 5lh Ward Multi-Service Center

in Houston, Texas, to discuss and answer questions regarding Operable Unit 2. All of EPA's

responses to the questions during that public meeting are presented in Appendix C.

The public comment period was from August 8, 2005 to September 8, 2005. One letter

was submitted to the Agency on September 6, 2005 via email and followed by a hard copy of the

letter sent express mail. The letter was submitted by the 5th Ward Mothers for Clean Air, the

TAG recipient for the MDI Superfund Site. A copy of the letter is included in Appendix D.

Overall, the comments submitted by the TAG were in support of the recommendations in

the proposed plan for OU2. The TAG did have comments regarding the upcoming RI/FS for

Operable Unit 3. EPA will be working with the TAG as well as other City, State, and Federal

Agencies to obtain information that will assist in securing site access for properties within the

study area to conduct sampling as well as clean-up, if necessary. EPA has determined that the

comments received from the TAG do not change the recommendation for Operable Unit 2, which

is "no further remediation action."

The following is a summary of the comments received from the 5th Ward Mothers for

Clean Air and the Agency's response.

TAG Comment

1. We concur with the findings of the RI and FS reports in that all sites containing lead

concentrations which exceeded 500 mg/kg were remediated by soil removal or, in the

case of Kelly Village area, remediation will soon be completed.

EPA response to statement 1:

EPA has completed clean-up at 59 properties to date. The TCEQ completed clean-up at

89 properties in 1998 to 1999. EPA was not able to obtain site access from the Housing

Authority as of the date of this ROD to began the soil removal at the Kelly Village

Housing Complex. Currently, the soil contamination at Kelly Village is not a current

risk to the public; as the area has an adequate grass cover. EPA's recommendation for a

removal action is based on the assumption that in the future, there may be the potential

that the soil contamination could be spread to the surface by construction or other

activities. EPA will continue to work with the Housing Authority to present options for

addressing the soil contamination at a depth of 0.5 feet and the final decisions will be

documented in the ROD for Operable Unit 3.

33

031929
Many Diversified Interests, Inc. Superfund Site Record of Decision for Operable Unit 2

TAG Comment

2. We also concur that since all known areas of soils containing greater than 500 mg/kg lead

concentrations have been remediated, that the no action alternative for the Feasibility

Study is the appropriate conclusion.

EPA response to statement 2:

EPA agrees that all residential and high access areas within the scope of this Operable

Unit have been remediated.

TAG Comment

3. We agree with the decision to carry out an Operable Unit 3 RI and FS to cover the 112

properties not sampled and to evaluate additional crawlspaces.

EPA response to statement 3:

EPA thanks the TAG for their support. Operable Unit 3 will include the 112 properties

not sampled previously, crawlspaces, and the Kelly Village Housing Complex.

TAG Comment

4. We are, however, very concerned about the level of effort that EPA has expended, to

date, in trying to obtain access to the 112 properties not sampled. These 112 properties

represent 27% of the potentially affected properties. We believe that EPA needs to make

gaining access to these properties a real priority. To allow 27% of the potentially

contaminated sites in the 5"' Ward, a historic minority area, to go unsampled, raises real

questions about Environmental Justice. We are especially concerned when we are told

that one reason was because EPA works through the Department of Justice and the

Department of Justice does not see this project as a high enough priority to support EPA.

If this is the case, then EPA should ask the local citizens for assistance so that we can

mobilize our local and national political representatives to put pressure on the

Department of Justice. I am sure our state representatives as well as our U.S. Senators

and members of the U.S. House of Representatives would provide support and put

pressure on the Department of Justice if they are not supporting EPA in this matter.

EPA response to statement 4:

EPA has expended numerous hours working to obtain site access from all property

owners in the Study Area. EPA has attempted to meet with the property owners, left

flyers if the owner was not available, and has sent more than one letter to the property

owners of record (owners according to the Harris County Appraisal District) requesting

site access. EPA has also used a variety of sources to obtain a phone number to contact

the property owners. The EPA as well as the Department of Justice is committed to

conducting a thorough investigation of the properties within the Study Area. As EPA

begans the investigation for OU3, the Agency will be working with the TAG as well as

other City, State, and Federal Agencies to obtain information that will assist in securing

34

031930
Many Diversified Interests, Inc. Superfund Site Record of Decision for Operable Unit 2

site access to the properties within the study area to conduct sampling as well as clean-up,

if necessary. EPA will be keeping the TAG and community aware of our progress of

securing site access through community meetings as well as fact sheets.

35

031931
19.0 REFERENCES

Bomar, George W. 1983. "Texas Weather." University of Texas Press. Austin, TX

City of Houston. 2002. "Many Diversified Interests, Inc. (MDI), Federal Superfund Site,

Houston, Texas, Reuse Assessment Report." Mayor's Office of Environmental Policy. Final

Draft. May.

Eagle Construction and Environmental Services, L.P. 1999. "Final Project Report, MDI

Residential Area Soil Removal, Houston, Texas." July.

Ecology & Environment (E&E), Inc. 1998. HRS Documentation Record, Many Diversified

Interests, Inc., Houston, Texas, CERCLIS ID Number: TXD008083404. Prepared for the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Dallas, TX. September.

EPA. 1997. "Record of Decision, Residential Areas, Operable Unit 2, Tar Creek Superfund Site,

Ottawa County, Oklahoma." EPA Region 6. August.

EPA. 1995. "Record of Decision, RSR Corporation Superfund Site, Operable Unit No. 1 -

Residential Property, Dallas, Texas." EPA Region 6. May.

o

EPA. 2000. "Record of Decision, Delatte Metals Superfund Site, Ponchatoula/Tangipahoa

Parish, Louisiana." EPA Region 6. September.

EPA. 2002b. "Calculating Upper Confidence Limits for Exposure Point Concentrations at

Hazardous Waste Sites." OSWER 9285.6-10. December.

EPA. 2003a. "Superfund Lead-Contaminated Residential Sites Handbook." OERR. Lead Sites

Workgroup. OSWER 9285.7-50. June.

EPA. 2003b. "Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model for Lead in Chilren, Windows

Version (ffiUBKwin vl.O build 254)." September. Available at

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/lead/products.htm.

EPA. 2003c. "San Jacinto Foundry, Detailed Facility Report." July. Available on the Internet at

http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/getlcReport.cgi?IDNumber=l 100050373161&tool=rad01echo

EPA. 2003d. "San Jacinto Foundry, Detailed Facility Report." July. On-line address:

http://oaspub.epa.gov/envj ust/ej_master.fii_retrieve?database_type=EJ.

Tetra Tech EMI Inc. (Tetra Tech). 2003a. "Field Sampling Plan, Remedial Investigation and

Feasibility Study, Many Diversified Interests Superfund Site." March 26.

36

031932
Tetra Tech. 2005. "Remedial Investigation Report for Operable Unit 2, Many Diversified

Interests Superfund Site, Houston, Texas." July.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1976. Soil Survey of Harris County, Texas. August

Weston Solutions, Inc. (Weston). 2004. "MDI Offsite Properties Removal Report, Houston,

Harris County, Texas." Prepared for EPA Region 6. March.

Weston. 2005. "Addendum to the MDI Offsite Properties Removal Report, Houston, Harris

County, Texas." Prepared for EPA Region 6. June.

37

031933
FIGURES

031934
BUFFALO BAYOU

MDI SUPERFUND SITE

HOUSTON, TEXAS

0 1000 2000

1

SCALE IN FEET

FIGURE 1

SITE LOCATION

SOURCE: MODIFIED FROM USGS, SETTEGAST,

TEXAS, QUADRANGLE. 1982

031935
N

MDI SUPERFUND SITE

HOUSTON, TEXAS

FIGURE 2

SUMMARY OF EPA AND

TNRCC ACTIVITIES

&EPA

031936
MDI SUPERFUND SITE

HOUSTON, TEXAS

FIGURE 3

AREAS EVALUATED DURING REMEDIAL

INVESTIGATION OF OU 2

£EPA

031937
MDI SUPERFUND SITE

HOUSTON, TEXAS

FIGURE 4

PREDICTED DEPOSITION AREA

BASED ON AIR QUALITY IMPACT MODEL

oEPA

031938
APPENDIX A

031939
Prepared for

United States Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 6

RECORD OF DECISION OPERABLE UNIT No. 2

 ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX

for

MANY DIVERSIFIED INTERESTS INC.

EPA ID No. TXD008083404

ESS II

Task Order No. 091-021

Rafael A. Casanova

Remedial Project Manager

U.S. EPA Region 6

Prepared by

Science Applications International Corporation

555 Republic Drive, Suite 300

Plano, TX 75074

October 5, 2005

031940
1

PREAMBLE

The purpose of this document is to provide the public with an index to the Administrative

Record File (AR File) for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) selected remedial

action to respond to conditions at the Many Diversified Interests Inc. (the “Site”). EPA’s action is

authorized by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

(CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. Section 9601 et seq. 

Section 113 (j)(1) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. Section 9613 (j)(1), provides that judicial review

of the adequacy of a CERCLA response action shall be limited to the Administrative Record (AR).

Section 113 (k)(1) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. Section 9613 (k)(1), requires the EPA to establish an AR

upon which it shall base the selection of its remedial actions. As the EPA decides what to do at the

site of a release of hazardous substances, it compiles documents concerning the site and it’s decision

into an “AR File.” This means that documents may be added to the AR File from time to time.

After the EPA Regional Administrator or the Administrator’s delegate signs the Action

Memorandum or the Record of Decision memorializing the selection of the action, the documents

which form the basis for the selection of the response action are then known as the Administrative

Record “AR.”

Section 113(k)(1) of CERCLA requires the EPA to make the AR File available to the public

at or near the site of the response action. Accordingly, the EPA has established a repository where

the AR File may be reviewed near the Site at:

5th Ward Multi-Service Center Branch Library

4014 Market

Houston, TX 77020

Contact: Jo Blair

Telephone: (832) 393-1770

The public also may review the AR File at the EPA Region 6 office in Dallas, Texas, by

contacting the Remedial Project Manager at the address listed below. The AR File is available for

public review during normal business hours. The AR File is treated as a non-circulating reference

document. Any document in the AR File may be photocopied according to the procedures used at

the repository or at the EPA Region 6 office. This index and the AR File were compiled in

accordance with the EPA’s Final Guidance on Administrative Records for Selecting CERCLA

Response Actions, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) Directive Number

9833.3A1 (December 3, 1990). 

Documents listed as bibliographic sources for other documents in the AR File might not be

listed separately in the index. Where a document is listed in the index but not located among the

documents which the EPA has made available in the repository, the EPA may, upon request, include

the document in the repository or make the document available for review at an alternate location.

This applies to documents such as verified sampling data, chain of custody forms, guidance and

policy documents, as well as voluminous site-specific reports. It does not apply to documents in

EPA’s confidential file. (Copies of guidance documents also can be obtained by calling the

RCRA/Superfund/Title 3 Hotline at (800) 424-9346.) 

031941
2

 These requests should be addressed to:

Rafael A Casanova

Remedial Project Manager

U.S. EPA Region 6

1445 Ross Avenue

Dallas, Texas 75202-2733

(214) 665-7437

The EPA response selection guidance compendium index has not been updated since

March 22, 1991 (see CERCLA Administrative Records: First Update of the Compendium of

Documents Used for Selecting CERCLA Response Actions [March 22, 1991]); accordingly, it is not

included here. Moreover, based on resource considerations, the Region 6 Superfund Division

Director has decided not to maintain a Region 6 compendium of response selection guidance.

Instead, consistent with 40 CFR Section 300.805(a)(2) and 300.810(a)(2) and OSWER Directive No.

9833.3A-1 (page 37), the AR File Index includes listings of all guidance documents which may form

a basis for the selection of the response action in question.

The documents included in the AR File index are arranged predominantly in chronological

order. The AR File index helps locate and retrieve documents in the file. It also provides an

overview of the response action history. The index includes the following information for each

document:

• Doc ID- The document identifier number.

• Date - The date the document was published and/or released. “01/01/2525" means no

date was recorded.

• Pages - Total number of printed pages in the document, including attachments.

• Title - Descriptive heading of the document.

• Document Type - General identification, (e.g. correspondence, Remedial Investigation

Report, Record of Decision.)

• Author - Name of originator, and the name of the organization that the author is

affiliated with. If either the originator name or the organization name is not identified,

then the field is captured with the letters “N/A”.

• Addressee- Name and affiliation of the addressee. If either the originator name or the

organization name is not identified, then the field is captured with the letters “N/A”.

031942
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX

10/05/2005

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

Site Name:

CERCLIS:

OUID:

SSID:

Action:

MANY DIVERSIFIED INTERESTS INC.

TXD008083404

02

CN

RECORD OF DECISION

Docid: 161406

Bates: 000001 To: 000009

Date: 03/27/1986

Pages: 9

INTERIM RCRA/CERCLA GUIDANCE ON NON-CONTIGUOUS SITES AND ON-SITE 

MANAGEMENT OF WASTE AND TREATMENT RESIDUE

Title:

Doc Type: MEMORANDUM

ELECTRONIC RECORD

Name Organization

Author: PORTER, J W U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Name Organization

Addressee: NONE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Docid: 161398

Bates: 000010 To: 000195

Date: 10/01/1988

Pages: 186

GUIDANCE FOR CONDUCTING REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS AND FEASIBILITY STUDIES 

UNDER CERCLA

Title:

Doc Type: REPORT / STUDY

ELECTRONIC RECORD

Name Organization

Author: NONE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Name Organization

Addressee: NONE, NONE

Docid: 161390

Bates: 000195.001 To: 000195.287

Date: 12/01/1989

Pages: 287

RISK ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE FOR SUPERFUND VOLUME I HUMAN HEALTH EVALUATION 

MANUAL [PART A] INTERIM FINAL

Title:

Doc Type: REPORT / STUDY

ELECTRONIC RECORD

Name Organization

Author: NONE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Name Organization

Addressee: NONE, NONE

10/05/2005 Page 1 of 33

031943
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX

10/05/2005

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

Site Name:

CERCLIS:

OUID:

SSID:

Action:

MANY DIVERSIFIED INTERESTS INC.

TXD008083404

02

CN

RECORD OF DECISION

Docid: 161376

Bates: 000196 To: 000201

Date: 04/01/1990

Pages: 6

Title: A GUIDE TO SELECTING SUPERFUND REMEDIAL ACTIONS

Doc Type: ELECTRONIC RECORD

FACTSHEET

Name Organization

Author: NONE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Name Organization

Addressee: NONE, NONE

Docid: 161381

Bates: 000202 To: 000212

Date: 04/22/1991

Pages: 11

ROLE OF THE BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT IN SUPERFUND REMEDY SELECTION 

DECISIONS [OSWER DIRECTIVE 9355.0-30]

Title:

Doc Type: MEMORANDUM

ELECTRONIC RECORD

Name Organization

Author: CLAY, DON R U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Name Organization

Addressee: NONE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Docid: 161394

Bates: 000213 To: 000288

Date: 10/01/1991

Pages: 76

RISK ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE FOR SUPERFUND VOLUME 1 - HUMAN HEALTH MANUAL 

(PART C, RISK EVALUATION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES)

Title:

Doc Type: REPORT / STUDY

ELECTRONIC RECORD

Name Organization

Author: NONE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Name Organization

Addressee: NONE, NONE

10/05/2005 Page 2 of 33

031944
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX

10/05/2005

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

Site Name:

CERCLIS:

OUID:

SSID:

Action:

MANY DIVERSIFIED INTERESTS INC.

TXD008083404

02

CN

RECORD OF DECISION

Docid: 161393

Bates: 000289 To: 000352

Date: 12/01/1991

Pages: 64

RISK ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE FOR SUPERFUND VOLUME1 - HUMAN HEALTH 

EVALUATION MANUAL (PART B, DEVELOPMENT OF RISK-BASED PRELIMINARY 

REMEDIATION GOALS)

Title:

Doc Type: REPORT / STUDY

ELECTRONIC RECORD

Name Organization

Author: NONE, NONE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Name Organization

Addressee: NONE, NONE

Docid: 169292

Bates: 000353 To: 000370

Date: 08/01/1994

Pages: 18

OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9355.4-12: REVISED INTERIM SOIL LEAD GUIDANCE FOR CERCLA 

SITES AND RCRA CORRECTIVE ACTION FACILITIES

Title:

Doc Type: MEMORANDUM

ELECTRONIC RECORD

Name Organization

Author: NONE, OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY 

RESPONSE U.S. EPA

Name Organization

Addressee: NONE, NONE

Docid: 93081

Bates: 000371 To: 000372

Date: 08/28/1994

Pages: 2

Title: FIELD ACTIVITY REPORT FOR THE MANY DIVERSIFIED INTEREST SUPERFUND SITE

Doc Type: REPORT / STUDY

Name Organization

Author: WINKELMANN, ROGER TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

Name Organization

Addressee: NONE, NONE

10/05/2005 Page 3 of 33

031945
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX

10/05/2005

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

Site Name:

CERCLIS:

OUID:

SSID:

Action:

MANY DIVERSIFIED INTERESTS INC.

TXD008083404

02

CN

RECORD OF DECISION

Docid: 155397

Bates: 000373 To: 000373

Date: 03/29/1995

Pages: 1

[NOTIFICATION THAT SITE IS IN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL 

AREA]

Title:

Doc Type: E-MAIL MESSAGE

Name Organization

Author: POTEET, DIANE TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATI0N 

COMMISSION

Name Organization

Addressee: MEADOURS, STENNIE CORRIGAN CONSULTING INCORPORATED

Docid: 155371

Bates: 000374 To: 000374

Date: 04/11/1995

Pages: 1

Title: [RESULTS OF AIR SAMPLING AT SAN JACINTO FOUNDARY]

Doc Type: E-MAIL MESSAGE

Name Organization

Author: HAMM, STEVE TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION 

COMMISSION

Name Organization

Addressee: NEWBERRY, WESLEY G TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION 

COMMISSION

MEADOURS, STENNIE CORRIGAN CONSULTING INCORPORATED

POTEET, DIANE TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATI0N 

COMMISSION

Docid: 161397

Bates: 000375 To: 000385

Date: 05/25/1995

Pages: 11

[LAND USE IN THE CERCLA REMEDY SELECTION PROCESS][OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 

9355.7-04]

Title:

Doc Type: MEMORANDUM

ELECTRONIC RECORD

Name Organization

Author: LAWS, ELLIOT P U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Name Organization

Addressee: NONE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

10/05/2005 Page 4 of 33

031946
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX

10/05/2005

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

Site Name:

CERCLIS:

OUID:

SSID:

Action:

MANY DIVERSIFIED INTERESTS INC.

TXD008083404

02

CN

RECORD OF DECISION

Docid: 93121

Bates: 000386 To: 000389

Date: 03/27/1996

Pages: 4

Title: [CONCERNS REGARDING THE TEXAS ELECTRIC STEEL CASTING COMPANY]

Doc Type: CORRESPONDENCE

Name Organization

Author: BRYANT, CHARLES BLANCHE K BRUCE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

Name Organization

Addressee: YORK, HAROLD HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT

Docid: 93202

Bates: 000390 To: 000390

Date: 04/08/1996

Pages: 1

[TRANSMITTAL OF RESULTS FROM THE INORGANIC CONTRACT LABORATORY PROGRAM 

FOR THE RESIDENTIAL AND SCHOOL YARD SAMPLES FOR THE MANY DIVERSIFIED 

INTEREST SUPERFUND SITE]

Title:

Doc Type: FAX TRANSMITTAL / COVER SHEET

Name Organization

Author: SEILS, ALLAN M TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION 

COMMISSION

Name Organization

Addressee: CABALLAS, BARTOLOME' J U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Docid: 93122

Bates: 000391 To: 000392

Date: 05/08/1996

Pages: 2

[TNRCC'S ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE APRIL 19, 1996 BLANCHE 

KELSO BRUCE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STAFF MEETING]

Title:

Doc Type: CORRESPONDENCE

Name Organization

Author: NEWBERRY, WESLEY G TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION 

COMMISSION

Name Organization

Addressee: BRYANT, CHARLES BLANCHE K BRUCE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

10/05/2005 Page 5 of 33

031947
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX

10/05/2005

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

Site Name:

CERCLIS:

OUID:

SSID:

Action:

MANY DIVERSIFIED INTERESTS INC.

TXD008083404

02

CN

RECORD OF DECISION

Docid: 93058

Bates: 000393 To: 000393

Date: 08/13/1996

Pages: 1

[DISCUSSION WITH THE CITY OF HOUSTON REGARDING RESULTS OF CHILDREN TESTED 

FOR LEAD]

Title:

Doc Type: MEMORANDUM

Name Organization

Author: GARZA, JANIE NONE

Name Organization

Addressee: FERGUSO, B NONE

Docid: 93061

Bates: 000394 To: 000394

Date: 08/15/1996

Pages: 1

[SCHOOL PRINCIPAL REQESTS UPDATE ON HAZARDOUS WASTE AND SAMPLING 

RESULTS FOUND AT BLANCHE K. BRUCE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL]

Title:

Doc Type: CORRESPONDENCE

Name Organization

Author: NEWBERRY, WESLEY G TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION 

COMMISSION

Name Organization

Addressee: MEADOURS, STENNIE TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION 

COMMISSION

Docid: 161380

Bates: 000395 To: 000402

Date: 09/01/1996

Pages: 8

Title: [THE ROLE OF COST IN THE SUPERFUND REMEDY SELECTION PROCESS]

Doc Type: ELECTRONIC RECORD

FACTSHEET

Name Organization

Author: NONE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Name Organization

Addressee: NONE, NONE

10/05/2005 Page 6 of 33

031948
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX

10/05/2005

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

Site Name:

CERCLIS:

OUID:

SSID:

Action:

MANY DIVERSIFIED INTERESTS INC.

TXD008083404

02

CN

RECORD OF DECISION

Docid: 161375

Bates: 000403 To: 000429

Date: 08/01/1997

Pages: 27

Title: RULES OF THUMB FOR SUPERFUND REMEDY SELECTION [OSWER 9355.0-69]

Doc Type: REPORT / STUDY

ELECTRONIC RECORD

Name Organization

Author: NONE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Name Organization

Addressee: NONE, NONE

Docid: 161395

Bates: 000430 To: 000474

Date: 08/01/1997

Pages: 45

Title: EXPOSURE FACTORS HANDBOOK

Doc Type: REPORT / STUDY

ELECTRONIC RECORD

Name Organization

Author: NONE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Name Organization

Addressee: NONE, NONE

Docid: 93050

Bates: 000475 To: 000476

Date: 10/07/1997

Pages: 2

[REQUEST FOR AN EPA LEAD TIME CRITICAL REMOVAL ACTION TO ADDRESS THE 

IMMEDIATE THREATS POSED BY THE MANY DIVERSIFIED INTEREST SUPERFUND SITE IN 

THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS]

Title:

Doc Type: CORRESPONDENCE

Name Organization

Author: DAVIS, DAVID L TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION 

COMMISSION

Name Organization

Addressee: KNUDSON, MYRON O U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

10/05/2005 Page 7 of 33

031949
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX

10/05/2005

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

Site Name:

CERCLIS:

OUID:

SSID:

Action:

MANY DIVERSIFIED INTERESTS INC.

TXD008083404

02

CN

RECORD OF DECISION

Docid: 93198

Bates: 000477 To: 000478

Date: 04/16/1998

Pages: 2

COMMUNICATION STRATEGY FOR REMOVAL ACTION FOR THE MANY DIVERSIFIED 

INTEREST SUPERFUND SITE

Title:

Doc Type: FAX TRANSMITTAL / COVER SHEET

CORRESPONDENCE

Name Organization

Author: NEWBERRY, WESLEY G TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION 

COMMISSION

Name Organization

Addressee: BROYLES, RAGAN U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Docid: 93048

Bates: 000479 To: 000483

Date: 04/29/1998

Pages: 5

[REQUEST FOR AN EPA TIME CRITICAL REMOVAL IN THE RESIDENTIAL AREA ADJACENT 

TO THE MANY DIVERSIFIED INTEREST SUPERFUND SITE]

Title:

Doc Type: CORRESPONDENCE

Name Organization

Author: DAVIS, DAVID L TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION 

COMMISSION

Name Organization

Addressee: KNUDSON, MYRON O U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Docid: 104342

Bates: 000484 To: 000490

Date: 06/22/1998

Pages: 7

Title: POLLUTION REPORT 1 FOR THE MANY DIVERSIFIED INTERESTS SUPERFUND SITE

Doc Type: REPORT / STUDY

Name Organization

Author: MEADOURS, STENNIE TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION 

COMMISSION

Name Organization

Addressee: GAZDA, CHARLES A U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

10/05/2005 Page 8 of 33

031950
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX

10/05/2005

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

Site Name:

CERCLIS:

OUID:

SSID:

Action:

MANY DIVERSIFIED INTERESTS INC.

TXD008083404

02

CN

RECORD OF DECISION

Docid: 931480

Bates: 000491 To: 000551

Date: 07/01/1998

Pages: 61

[STATUS REPORT OF THE TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION] 

[CASE NO. 94-43489-H3-7]

Title:

Doc Type: REPORT / STUDY

Name Organization

Author: MORRIS, HAL F ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL

Name Organization

Addressee: NONE, NONE

Docid: 93186

Bates: 000552 To: 000552

Date: 07/08/1998

Pages: 1

[AFFIDAVIT OF DANIEL BENSON REGARDING THE RECEIPT OF FINDINGS FOR THE MANY 

SITE]

Title:

Doc Type: AFFIDAVIT

Name Organization

Author: BENSON, DANIEL R TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION 

COMMISSION

WENZEL, ELLEN R NONE

Name Organization

Addressee: NONE, NONE

Docid: 93189

Bates: 000553 To: 000553

Date: 07/08/1998

Pages: 1

[AFFIDAVIT FOR SIDNEY CHARLES REGARDING THE RECEIPT OF FINDINGS FOR THE 

MANY DIVERSIFIED INTEREST SUPERFUND SITE]

Title:

Doc Type: AFFIDAVIT

Name Organization

Author: WHEAT, SIDNEY C TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION 

COMMISSION

Name Organization

Addressee: NONE, NONE

10/05/2005 Page 9 of 33

031951
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX

10/05/2005

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

Site Name:

CERCLIS:

OUID:

SSID:

Action:

MANY DIVERSIFIED INTERESTS INC.

TXD008083404

02

CN

RECORD OF DECISION

Docid: 93173

Bates: 000554 To: 000555

Date: 07/20/1998

Pages: 2

[A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OR HIS DESIGNEE TO ENTER 

INTO ONE OR MORE CONTRACTS TO REMOVE LEAD CONTAMINATED SOILS FROM THE 

MANY DIVERSIFIED INTEREST SUPERFUND SITE]

Title:

Doc Type: RESOLUTION

Name Organization

Author: MCBEE, BARRY R TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION 

COMMISSION

Name Organization

Addressee: NONE, NONE

Docid: 93180

Bates: 000556 To: 000567

Date: 07/20/1998

Pages: 12

[ORDER AUTHORIZING THE USE OF FUNDS FROM THE HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL 

FEE FUND FOR AN IMMEDIATE REMOVAL ACTION IN THE MANY DIVERSIFIED INTEREST 

SUPERFUND SITE]

Title:

Doc Type: OTHER ORDERS

Name Organization

Author: MCBEE, BARRY R TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION 

COMMISSION

Name Organization

Addressee: NONE, NONE

Docid: 93177

Bates: 000568 To: 000569

Date: 07/23/1998

Pages: 2

[TRANSMITTAL OF ORDER AUTHORIZING THE USE OF FUNDS FROM THE HAZARDOUS 

WASTE DISPOSAL FEE FUND FOR THE MANY DIVERSIFIED INTEREST SUPERFUND SITE]

Title:

Doc Type: MAILING LIST / CONTACT

Name Organization

Author: BRUMM, EUGENIA K TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION 

COMMISSION

Name Organization

Addressee: NONE, TEXAS ELECTRIC STEEL CASTING COMPANY

HOWARD, ROBERT A CAN-AM RESOURCES GROUP INCORPORATED

WALDRON, ROBBYE R MANY DIVERSIFIED INTERESTS INCORPORATED

BENSON, DANIEL R TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION 

10/05/2005 Page 10 of 33

031952
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX

10/05/2005

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

Site Name:

CERCLIS:

OUID:

SSID:

Action:

MANY DIVERSIFIED INTERESTS INC.

TXD008083404

02

CN

RECORD OF DECISION

Name Organization

Addressee: COMMISSION

NONE, SAN JACINTO FOUNDRY INCORPORATED

NEHMAN, LARA TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION 

COMMISSION

Docid: 104343

Bates: 000570 To: 000576

Date: 07/30/1998

Pages: 7

POLLUTION REPORT NUMBER 2 REPORT FOR THE MANY DIVERSIFIED INTERESTS 

SUPERFUND SITE

Title:

Doc Type: REPORT / STUDY

Name Organization

Author: MEADOURS, STENNIE TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION 

COMMISSION

Name Organization

Addressee: GAZDA, CHARLES A U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Docid: 93123

Bates: 000577 To: 000577

Date: 09/03/1998

Pages: 1

[EPA'S RESPONSE TO TNRCC'S REQUEST FOR A SUPERFUND REMOVAL ACTION AT THE 

MANY DIVERSIFIED INTERESTS SITE]

Title:

Doc Type: CORRESPONDENCE

Name Organization

Author: KNUDSON, MYRON O U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Name Organization

Addressee: SAITAS, JEFFERY A TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION 

COMMISSION

Docid: 161408

Bates: 000578 To: 000591

Date: 10/01/1998

Pages: 14

Title: MANAGEMENT OF REMEDIATION WASTE UNDER RCRA [EPA530-F-98-026]

Doc Type: REPORT / STUDY

ELECTRONIC RECORD

Name Organization

Author: NONE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Name Organization

10/05/2005 Page 11 of 33

031953
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX

10/05/2005

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

Site Name:

CERCLIS:

OUID:

SSID:

Action:

MANY DIVERSIFIED INTERESTS INC.

TXD008083404

02

CN

RECORD OF DECISION

Name Organization

Addressee: NONE, NONE

Docid: 104345

Bates: 000592 To: 000594

Date: 12/28/1998

Pages: 3

Title: SITE UPDATE: EPA, TNRCC BEGIN PLANS FOR MDI SITE CLEAN UP

Doc Type: FACTSHEET

Name Organization

Author: NONE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Name Organization

Addressee: NONE, NONE

Docid: 104344

Bates: 000595 To: 000600

Date: 01/14/1999

Pages: 6

POLLUTION REPORT NUMBER 5 FOR THE MANY DIVERSIFIED INTERESTS SUPERFUND 

SITE

Title:

Doc Type: REPORT / STUDY

Name Organization

Author: MEADOURS, STENNIE TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION 

COMMISSION

Name Organization

Addressee: GAZDA, CHARLES A U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Docid: 904214

Bates: 000601 To: 000606

Date: 02/18/1999

Pages: 6

Title: POLLUTION REPORT NUMBER 7 FOR MANY DIVERSIFIED INTERESTS INCORPORATED

Doc Type: REPORT / STUDY

Name Organization

Author: MEADOURS, STENNIE TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION 

COMMISSION

Name Organization

Addressee: GAZDA, CHARLES A U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

10/05/2005 Page 12 of 33

031954
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX

10/05/2005

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

Site Name:

CERCLIS:

OUID:

SSID:

Action:

MANY DIVERSIFIED INTERESTS INC.

TXD008083404

02

CN

RECORD OF DECISION

Docid: 128530

Bates: 000607 To: 000612

Date: 03/04/1999

Pages: 6

Title: POLUTION REPORT NUMBER 8 FOR MANY DIVERSIFIED INTERESTS INCORPORATED

Doc Type: REPORT / STUDY

Name Organization

Author: MEADOURS, STENNIE TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION 

COMMISSION

Name Organization

Addressee: GAZDA, CHARLES A U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Docid: 107847

Bates: 000613 To: 000613

Date: 05/27/1999

Pages: 1

[NOTIFICATION OF TNRCC'S COMPLETION OF THE REMOVAL OF CONTAMINATED SOIL, 

BACKFILLING AND RESTORATION AT 89 SITES AND TRANSMITTAL OF NEWS RELEASE]

Title:

Doc Type: CORRESPONDENCE

Name Organization

Author: DAVIS, DAVID L TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION 

COMMISSION

Name Organization

Addressee: LEE, SHEILA J CONGRESS

Docid: 107850

Bates: 000614 To: 000614

Date: 06/01/1999

Pages: 1

Title: NEWS RELEASE: TNRCC COMPLETES MDI RESIDENTIAL CLEAN UP

Doc Type: PRESS RELEASE

Name Organization

Author: NONE, TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATI0N 

COMMISSION

Name Organization

Addressee: NONE, NONE

10/05/2005 Page 13 of 33

031955
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX

10/05/2005

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

Site Name:

CERCLIS:

OUID:

SSID:

Action:

MANY DIVERSIFIED INTERESTS INC.

TXD008083404

02

CN

RECORD OF DECISION

Docid: 907283

Bates: 000615 To: 000615

Date: 06/30/1999

Pages: 1

[AGREEMENT TO TAKE LEAD AGENCY STATUS FOR REMEDIAL 

INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY]

Title:

Doc Type: CORRESPONDENCE

Name Organization

Author: CROUCH , SCOTT T TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION 

COMMISSION

Name Organization

Addressee: HONKER, WILLIAM K U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Docid: 917234

Bates: 000616 To: 000629

Date: 08/29/2002

Pages: 14

Title: FINAL SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION AND FEASIBILITY STUDY

Doc Type: WORK PLAN / AMENDMENT

Name Organization

Author: NONE, TETRA TECH EM INCORPORATED

Name Organization

Addressee: NONE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Docid: 917243

Bates: 000630 To: 000643

Date: 08/29/2002

Pages: 14

FINAL POLLUTION CONTROL AND MITIGATION PLAN FOR REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION AND 

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Title:

Doc Type: WORK PLAN / AMENDMENT

Name Organization

Author: NONE, TETRA TECH EM INCORPORATED

Name Organization

Addressee: NONE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

10/05/2005 Page 14 of 33

031956
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX

10/05/2005

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

Site Name:

CERCLIS:

OUID:

SSID:

Action:

MANY DIVERSIFIED INTERESTS INC.

TXD008083404

02

CN

RECORD OF DECISION

Docid: 929969

Bates: 000644 To: 000645

Date: 08/29/2002

Pages: 2

COMMENTS ON THE TRANSPORTATION AND DISPOSAL PLAN FOR INVESTIGATION 

DERIVED WASTE

Title:

Doc Type: CORRESPONDENCE

Name Organization

Author: NONE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Name Organization

Addressee: NONE, TETRA TECH EM INCORPORATED

Docid: 929972

Bates: 000646 To: 000646

Date: 08/29/2002

Pages: 1

Title: COMMENTS ON THE HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN

Doc Type: CORRESPONDENCE

Name Organization

Author: NONE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Name Organization

Addressee: NONE, TETRA TECH EM INCORPORATED

Docid: 917246

Bates: 000647 To: 000787

Date: 08/29/2002

Pages: 141

FINAL HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN FOR REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION AND FEASIBILITY 

STUDY

Title:

Doc Type: REPORT / STUDY

Name Organization

Author: NONE, TETRA TECH EM INCORPORATED

Name Organization

Addressee: NONE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

10/05/2005 Page 15 of 33

031957
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX

10/05/2005

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

Site Name:

CERCLIS:

OUID:

SSID:

Action:

MANY DIVERSIFIED INTERESTS INC.

TXD008083404

02

CN

RECORD OF DECISION

Docid: 917244

Bates: 000788 To: 000800

Date: 08/29/2002

Pages: 13

Title: FINAL TRANSPORTATION AND DISPOSAL PLAN

Doc Type: REPORT / STUDY

Name Organization

Author: NONE, TETRA TECH EM INCORPORATED

Name Organization

Addressee: NONE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Docid: 929992

Bates: 000801 To: 000802

Date: 08/29/2002

Pages: 2

Title: COMMENTS ON THE SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Doc Type: CORRESPONDENCE

Name Organization

Author: NONE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Name Organization

Addressee: NONE, TETRA TECH EM INCORPORATED

Docid: 929995

Bates: 000803 To: 000804

Date: 08/29/2002

Pages: 2

Title: COMMENTS ON THE POLLUTION CONTROL AND MITIGATING PLAN

Doc Type: CORRESPONDENCE

Name Organization

Author: NONE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Name Organization

Addressee: NONE, TETRA TECH EM INCORPORATED

10/05/2005 Page 16 of 33

031958
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX

10/05/2005

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

Site Name:

CERCLIS:

OUID:

SSID:

Action:

MANY DIVERSIFIED INTERESTS INC.

TXD008083404

02

CN

RECORD OF DECISION

Docid: 161389

Bates: 000805 To: 000893

Date: 09/01/2002

Pages: 89

GUIDANCE FOR COMPARING BACKGROUND AND CHEMICAL CONCENTRATION IN SOIL 

FOR CERLCA SITES

Title:

Doc Type: REPORT / STUDY

ELECTRONIC RECORD

Name Organization

Author: NONE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Name Organization

Addressee: NONE, NONE

Docid: 917236

Bates: 000894 To: 000894

Date: 09/03/2002

Pages: 1

Title: [TRANSMITTAL OF COMMENTS ON THE HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN]

Doc Type: CORRESPONDENCE

Name Organization

Author: CASANOVA, RAFAEL U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Name Organization

Addressee: FRIDAY, CANDACE TETRA TECH EM INCORPORATED

Docid: 917239

Bates: 000895 To: 000895

Date: 09/03/2002

Pages: 1

Title: [TRANSMITTAL OF COMMENTS ON THE SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN]

Doc Type: CORRESPONDENCE

Name Organization

Author: CASANOVA, RAFAEL U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Name Organization

Addressee: FRIDAY, CANDACE TETRA TECH EM INCORPORATED

10/05/2005 Page 17 of 33

031959
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX

10/05/2005

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

Site Name:

CERCLIS:

OUID:

SSID:

Action:

MANY DIVERSIFIED INTERESTS INC.

TXD008083404

02

CN

RECORD OF DECISION

Docid: 917237

Bates: 000896 To: 000896

Date: 09/03/2002

Pages: 1

[TRANSMITTAL OF COMMENTS ON THE TRANSPORTATION AND DISPOSAL PLAN FOR 

INVESTIGATION DERIVED WASTE]

Title:

Doc Type: CORRESPONDENCE

Name Organization

Author: CASANOVA, RAFAEL U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Name Organization

Addressee: FRIDAY, CANDACE TETRA TECH EM INCORPORATED

Docid: 917238

Bates: 000897 To: 000897

Date: 09/03/2002

Pages: 1

Title: [TRANSMITTAL OF COMMENTS ON THE POLLUTION CONTROL AND MITIGATION PLAN]

Doc Type: CORRESPONDENCE

Name Organization

Author: CASANOVA, RAFAEL U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Name Organization

Addressee: FRIDAY, CANDACE TETRA TECH EM INCORPORATED

Docid: 923232

Bates: 000898 To: 000898

Date: 11/21/2002

Pages: 1

Title: CATALYST / SLAG ANALYSIS

Doc Type: E-MAIL MESSAGE

Name Organization

Author: FRIDAY, CANDACE TETRA TECH EM INCORPORATED

Name Organization

Addressee: CASANOVA, RAFAEL U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

10/05/2005 Page 18 of 33

031960
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX

10/05/2005

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

Site Name:

CERCLIS:

OUID:

SSID:

Action:

MANY DIVERSIFIED INTERESTS INC.

TXD008083404

02

CN

RECORD OF DECISION

Docid: 161392

Bates: 000899 To: 000930

Date: 12/02/2002

Pages: 32

CALCULATING UPPER CONFIDENCE LIMITS FOR EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS AT 

HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES

Title:

Doc Type: REPORT / STUDY

ELECTRONIC RECORD

Name Organization

Author: NONE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Name Organization

Addressee: NONE, NONE

Docid: 923521

Bates: 000931 To: 000938

Date: 12/19/2002

Pages: 8

[COMMENTS REGARDING DRAFT QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT AND DRAFT FIELD 

SAMPLING PLAN]

Title:

Doc Type: MEMORANDUM

Name Organization

Author: CASANOVA, RAFAEL U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Name Organization

Addressee: BENNETT, STACEY U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Docid: 923489

Bates: 000939 To: 000941

Date: 12/24/2002

Pages: 3

PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE MDI APPROVED WORK PLAN BUDGET CONTRACT 

NUMBER 68-W6-0037, WA NUMBER 107-RICO-06CN

Title:

Doc Type: MEMORANDUM

Name Organization

Author: BENNETT, STACEY U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Name Organization

Addressee: STANLEY, CORA U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

10/05/2005 Page 19 of 33

031961
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX

10/05/2005

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

Site Name:

CERCLIS:

OUID:

SSID:

Action:

MANY DIVERSIFIED INTERESTS INC.

TXD008083404

02

CN

RECORD OF DECISION

Docid: 943673

Bates: 000942 To: 000942

Date: 03/26/2003

Pages: 1

Title: [TRANSMITTAL OF THE FIELD SAMPLING PLAN REVISION 2]

Doc Type: CORRESPONDENCE

Name Organization

Author: VEGA, LUIS TETRA TECH EM INCORPORATED

Name Organization

Addressee: BENNETT, STACEY U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Docid: 943674

Bates: 000943 To: 001341

Date: 03/26/2003

Pages: 399

Title: FIELD SAMPLING PLAN REVISION 02

Doc Type: WORK PLAN / AMENDMENT

ELECTRONIC RECORD

Name Organization

Author: VEGA, LUIS TETRA TECH EM INCORPORATED

Name Organization

Addressee: NONE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Docid: 169979

Bates: 001342 To: 001487

Date: 03/27/2003

Pages: 146

Title: QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN REVISION 02

Doc Type: WORK PLAN / AMENDMENT

ELECTRONIC RECORD

Name Organization

Author: VEGA, LUIS TETRA TECH EM INCORPORATED

Name Organization

Addressee: NONE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

10/05/2005 Page 20 of 33

031962
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX

10/05/2005

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

Site Name:

CERCLIS:

OUID:

SSID:

Action:

MANY DIVERSIFIED INTERESTS INC.

TXD008083404

02

CN

RECORD OF DECISION

Docid: 943675

Bates: 001488 To: 001488

Date: 03/27/2003

Pages: 1

Title: [TRANSMITTAL OF THE QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN REVISION 02]

Doc Type: CORRESPONDENCE

Name Organization

Author: VEGA, LUIS TETRA TECH EM INCORPORATED

Name Organization

Addressee: BENNETT, STACEY U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Docid: 160906

Bates: 001489 To: 001601

Date: 05/09/2003

Pages: 113

SUMMARY OF SAMPLING RESULTS FOR THE BLANCHE KELSO BRUCE ELEMENTARY 

SCHOOL

Title:

Doc Type: SAMPLING / ANALYSIS

Name Organization

Author: NONE, TETRA TECH EM INCORPORATED

Name Organization

Addressee: NONE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Docid: 929863

Bates: 001602 To: 001603

Date: 06/01/2003

Pages: 2

Title: COMMUNITY MEETING MANY DIVERSIFIED INTERESTS (TESCO) SUPERFUND SITE

Doc Type: NOTICE

ELECTRONIC RECORD

Name Organization

Author: NONE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Name Organization

Addressee: NONE, NONE

10/05/2005 Page 21 of 33

031963
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX

10/05/2005

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

Site Name:

CERCLIS:

OUID:

SSID:

Action:

MANY DIVERSIFIED INTERESTS INC.

TXD008083404

02

CN

RECORD OF DECISION

Docid: 161382

Bates: 001604 To: 001727

Date: 08/01/2003

Pages: 124

Title: SUPERFUND LEAD-CONTAMINATED RESIDENTIAL SITES HANDBOOK FINAL

Doc Type: ELECTRONIC RECORD

REPORT / STUDY

Name Organization

Author: NONE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Name Organization

Addressee: NONE, NONE

Docid: 190282

Bates: 001728 To: 001738

Date: 10/14/2003

Pages: 11

EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS OF SOIL DATA FOR THE MANY DIVERSIFIED INTERESTS 

INCORPORATED SITE

Title:

Doc Type: SAMPLING / ANALYSIS

Name Organization

Author: ENGLUND, EVAN J U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Name Organization

Addressee: NONE, NONE

Docid: 951248

Bates: 001739 To: 002178

Date: 12/15/2003

Pages: 440

Title: [DATA EVALUATION SUMMARY REPORT FOR OPERABLE UNIT 2]

Doc Type: ELECTRONIC RECORD

REPORT / STUDY

Name Organization

Author: VEGA, LUIS TETRA TECH EM INCORPORATED

Name Organization

Addressee: NONE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

10/05/2005 Page 22 of 33

031964
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX

10/05/2005

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

Site Name:

CERCLIS:

OUID:

SSID:

Action:

MANY DIVERSIFIED INTERESTS INC.

TXD008083404

02

CN

RECORD OF DECISION

Docid: 169224

Bates: 002179 To: 002180

Date: 12/18/2003

Pages: 2

[CONCURRENCE COPY OF THE RESPONSE TO THE SEPTEMBER 15, 2003 LETTER 

REGARDING THE SUPERFUND REMOVAL ACTION]

Title:

Doc Type: CORRESPONDENCE

Name Organization

Author: COLEMAN, SAMUEL U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Name Organization

Addressee: RACKLEFF, NEAL HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF HOUSTON

Docid: 936987

Bates: 002181 To: 002249

Date: 02/13/2004

Pages: 69

Title: PROPOSED PLAN ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX FOR MANY DIVERSIFIED INTEREST

Doc Type: INDEX

Name Organization

Author: NONE, SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL 

CORPORATION GEOMARINE, INCORPORATION

Name Organization

Addressee: NONE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Docid: 164864

Bates: 002250 To: 003744

Date: 03/01/2004

Pages: 1495

Title: REMOVAL REPORT FOR MDI OFF-SITE PROPERTIES

Doc Type: REPORT / STUDY

ELECTRONIC RECORD

Name Organization

Author: BECK, ROBERT WESTON SOLUTIONS INCORPORATED

Name Organization

Addressee: CARTER, LINDA U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

10/05/2005 Page 23 of 33

031965
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX

10/05/2005

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

Site Name:

CERCLIS:

OUID:

SSID:

Action:

MANY DIVERSIFIED INTERESTS INC.

TXD008083404

02

CN

RECORD OF DECISION

Docid: 190281

Bates: 003745 To: 003759

Date: 03/22/2004

Pages: 15

Title: MICROSCOPY ANALYSIS OF LEAD-CONTAMINATED SOILS

Doc Type: SAMPLING / ANALYSIS

ELECTRONIC RECORD

Name Organization

Author: NONE, NONE

Name Organization

Addressee: NONE, NONE

Docid: 951249

Bates: 003760 To: 003760

Date: 03/22/2004

Pages: 1

Title: [TRANSMITTAL OF THE MICROSCOPY ANALYSIS OF LEAD-CONTAMINATED SOILS]

Doc Type: ELECTRONIC RECORD

SAMPLING / ANALYSIS

Name Organization

Author: PEARSON, GARETH U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Name Organization

Addressee: CASANOVA, RAFAEL U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Docid: 169304

Bates: 003761 To: 003762

Date: 05/26/2004

Pages: 2

[TRANSMITTAL OF THE FIELD SAMPLING PLAN ADDENDUM FOR THE PHASE II 

INVESTIGATION]

Title:

Doc Type: CORRESPONDENCE

Name Organization

Author: VEGA, LUIS TETRA TECH EM INCORPORATED

Name Organization

Addressee: BENNETT, STACEY U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

10/05/2005 Page 24 of 33

031966
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX

10/05/2005

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

Site Name:

CERCLIS:

OUID:

SSID:

Action:

MANY DIVERSIFIED INTERESTS INC.

TXD008083404

02

CN

RECORD OF DECISION

Docid: 943663

Bates: 003763 To: 003779

Date: 05/26/2004

Pages: 17

Title: FIELD SAMPLING PLAN ADDENDUM REVISION NO. 3

Doc Type: WORK PLAN / AMENDMENT

Name Organization

Author: VEGA, LUIS TETRA TECH EM INCORPORATED

Name Organization

Addressee: NONE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Docid: 169790

Bates: 003780 To: 003785

Date: 06/14/2004

Pages: 6

Title: FIELD ACTIVITIES SUMMARY REPORT - PHASE II INVESTIGATION

Doc Type: SAMPLING / ANALYSIS

Name Organization

Author: VEGA, LUIS TETRA TECH EM INCORPORATED

Name Organization

Addressee: BENNETT, STACEY U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Docid: 170590

Bates: 003786 To: 004035

Date: 07/30/2004

Pages: 250

Title: RECORD OF DECISION FOR OPERABLE UNIT 1: ON-SITE SOILS AND GROUND WATER

Doc Type: RECORD OF DECISION / AMENDMENT

ELECTRONIC RECORD

Name Organization

Author: NONE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Name Organization

Addressee: NONE, NONE

10/05/2005 Page 25 of 33

031967
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX

10/05/2005

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

Site Name:

CERCLIS:

OUID:

SSID:

Action:

MANY DIVERSIFIED INTERESTS INC.

TXD008083404

02

CN

RECORD OF DECISION

Docid: 951687

Bates: 004036 To: 004117

Date: 06/01/2005

Pages: 82

[REDACTED]REMOVAL REPORT ADDENDUM FOR MANY DIVERSIFIED INTERESTS, 

INCORPORATED OFF - SITE PROPERTIES

Title:

Doc Type: REPORT / STUDY

ELECTRONIC RECORD

Name Organization

Author: NONE, WESTON SOLUTIONS INCORPORATED

Name Organization

Addressee: NONE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Docid: 190666

Bates: 004118 To: 004128

Date: 07/05/2005

Pages: 11

SITE STATUS SUMMARY FOR THE MANY DIVERSIFIED INTERESTS INCORPORATED 

SUPERFUND SITE

Title:

Doc Type: ELECTRONIC RECORD

FACTSHEET

Name Organization

Author: NONE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Name Organization

Addressee: NONE, NONE

Docid: 191059

Bates: 004129 To: 004136

Date: 07/25/2005

Pages: 8

HIGH INTENSITY TARGETED SCREENING PROJECT / CITY OF HOUSTON CHILDHOOD LEAD 

POISONING PREVENTION PROGRAM

Title:

Doc Type: REPORT / STUDY

ELECTRONIC RECORD

Name Organization

Author: NONE, NONE

Name Organization

Addressee: NONE, NONE

10/05/2005 Page 26 of 33

031968
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX

10/05/2005

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

Site Name:

CERCLIS:

OUID:

SSID:

Action:

MANY DIVERSIFIED INTERESTS INC.

TXD008083404

02

CN

RECORD OF DECISION

Docid: 191142

Bates: 004137 To: 004159

Date: 07/28/2005

Pages: 23

[REQUEST FOR CEILING INCREASE AND AMENDMENT TO THE ACTION MEMORANDUM AT 

THE HIGH ACCESS AREAS OF THE MANY DIVERSIFIED INTERESTS, INCORPORATED 

SUPERFUND SITE]

Title:

Doc Type: MEMORANDUM

Name Organization

Author: FIFE, GREGORY E U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Name Organization

Addressee: COLEMAN, SAMUEL U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

BROYLES, RAGAN U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Docid: 191204

Bates: 004160 To: 004179

Date: 07/28/2005

Pages: 20

PROPOSED PLAN FOR OPERABLE UNIT 2 (OFF-SITE RESIDENTIAL YARDS AND HIGH 

ACCESS AREAS)

Title:

Doc Type: REPORT / STUDY

ELECTRONIC RECORD

Name Organization

Author: NONE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Name Organization

Addressee: NONE, NONE

Docid: 191206

Bates: 004180 To: 004211

Date: 07/29/2005

Pages: 32

FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR OPERABLE UNIT 2 (OFF-SITE RESIDENTIAL YARDS AND HIGH 

ACCESS AREAS)

Title:

Doc Type: REPORT / STUDY

ELECTRONIC RECORD

Name Organization

Author: VEGA, LUIS TETRA TECH EM INCORPORATED

Name Organization

Addressee: BENNETT, STACEY U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

CASANOVA, RAFAEL U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

10/05/2005 Page 27 of 33

031969
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX

10/05/2005

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

Site Name:

CERCLIS:

OUID:

SSID:

Action:

MANY DIVERSIFIED INTERESTS INC.

TXD008083404

02

CN

RECORD OF DECISION

Docid: 950698

Bates: 004212 To: 004213

Date: 07/29/2005

Pages: 2

[TRANSMITTAL OF THE FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR OPERABLE UNIT 2 (OFF-SITE 

RESIDENTIAL YARDS AND HIGH ACCESS AREAS)]

Title:

Doc Type: CORRESPONDENCE

ELECTRONIC RECORD

Name Organization

Author: VEGA, LUIS TETRA TECH EM INCORPORATED

Name Organization

Addressee: BENNETT, STACEY U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Docid: 950701

Bates: 004214 To: 004215

Date: 07/29/2005

Pages: 2

[TRANSMITTAL OF THE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT FOR OPERABLE UNIT 2 (OFFSITE RESIDENTIAL YARDS AND HIGH ACCESS AREAS)]Title:

Doc Type: ELECTRONIC RECORD

CORRESPONDENCE

Name Organization

Author: VEGA, LUIS TETRA TECH EM INCORPORATED

Name Organization

Addressee: BENNETT, STACEY U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Docid: 950702

Bates: 004216 To: 004230

Date: 07/29/2005

Pages: 15

[TETRA TECH EM INCORPORATED'S RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE REMEDIAL 

INVESTIGATION / FEASIBILITY STUDY / HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT REPORTS FOR 

Title:

Doc Type: ELECTRONIC RECORD

CORRESPONDENCE

Name Organization

Author: VEGA, LUIS TETRA TECH EM INCORPORATED

Name Organization

Addressee: BENNETT, STACEY U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

10/05/2005 Page 28 of 33

031970
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX

10/05/2005

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

Site Name:

CERCLIS:

OUID:

SSID:

Action:

MANY DIVERSIFIED INTERESTS INC.

TXD008083404

02

CN

RECORD OF DECISION

Docid: 950700

Bates: 004231 To: 004232

Date: 07/29/2005

Pages: 2

[TRANSMITTAL OF THE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT FOR OPERABLE UNIT 2 (OFFSITE RESIDENTIAL YARDS AND HIGH ACCESS AREAS)]Title:

Doc Type: ELECTRONIC RECORD

CORRESPONDENCE

Name Organization

Author: VEGA, LUIS TETRA TECH EM INCORPORATED

Name Organization

Addressee: BENNETT, STACEY U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Docid: 191207

Bates: 004233 To: 005984

Date: 07/29/2005

Pages: 1752

Title: REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION FOR OPERABLE UNIT 2 (OFF-SITE RESIDENTIAL YARDS AND 

Doc Type: REPORT / STUDY

ELECTRONIC RECORD

Name Organization

Author: VEGA, LUIS TETRA TECH EM INCORPORATED

Name Organization

Addressee: BENNETT, STACEY U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Docid: 191208

Bates: 005985 To: 006399

Date: 07/29/2005

Pages: 415

HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT FOR OPERABLE UNIT 2 (OFF-SITE RESIDENTIAL 

YARDS AND HIGH ACCESS AREAS)

Title:

Doc Type: REPORT / STUDY

ELECTRONIC RECORD

Name Organization

Author: VEGA, LUIS TETRA TECH EM INCORPORATED

Name Organization

Addressee: BENNETT, STACEY U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

10/05/2005 Page 29 of 33

031971
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX

10/05/2005

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

Site Name:

CERCLIS:

OUID:

SSID:

Action:

MANY DIVERSIFIED INTERESTS INC.

TXD008083404

02

CN

RECORD OF DECISION

Docid: 191215

Bates: 006400 To: 006400

Date: 08/01/2005

Pages: 1

[ENGLISH VERSION] NEWSPAPER PUBLIC NOTICE FOR PROPOSED PLAN FOR OPERABLE 

UNIT 2 (OFF-SITE RESIDENTIAL YARDS AND HIGH ACCESS AREAS)

Title:

Doc Type: ELECTRONIC RECORD

NOTICE

Name Organization

Author: NONE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Name Organization

Addressee: NONE, NONE

Docid: 191216

Bates: 006401 To: 006401

Date: 08/01/2005

Pages: 1

[SPANISH VERSION] NEWSPAPER PUBLIC NOTICE FOR PROPOSED PLAN FOR OPERABLE 

UNIT 2 (OFF-SITE RESIDENTIAL YARDS AND HIGH ACCESS AREAS)

Title:

Doc Type: ELECTRONIC RECORD

MEDIA CLIPPING

NOTICE

Name Organization

Author: NONE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Name Organization

Addressee: NONE, NONE

Docid: 191234

Bates: 006402 To: 006404

Date: 08/01/2005

Pages: 3

FACT SHEET: PROPOSED PLAN FOR OPERABLE UNIT 2 (OFF-SITE RESIDENTIAL YARDS 

AND HIGH ACCESS AREAS)

Title:

Doc Type: ELECTRONIC RECORD

FACTSHEET

Name Organization

Author: NONE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Name Organization

Addressee: NONE, NONE

10/05/2005 Page 30 of 33

031972
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX

10/05/2005

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

Site Name:

CERCLIS:

OUID:

SSID:

Action:

MANY DIVERSIFIED INTERESTS INC.

TXD008083404

02

CN

RECORD OF DECISION

Docid: 191418

Bates: 006405 To: 006437

Date: 08/08/2005

Pages: 33

PROPOSED PLAN ADMINSTRATIVE RECORD INDEX FOR THE MANY DIVERSIFIED 

INTERESTS SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT 2

Title:

Doc Type: INDEX

ELECTRONIC RECORD

Name Organization

Author: NONE, SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL 

CORPORATION

Name Organization

Addressee: NONE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Docid: 193697

Bates: 006437.001 To: 006437.001

Date: 08/11/1999

Pages: 1

[DOI PARTICIPATION IN SUPERFUND PLANNING PROCESS APPEARS TO BE 

UNNECESSARY]

Title:

Doc Type: CORRESPONDENCE

Name Organization

Author: SEKAVEC, GLENN DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR

Name Organization

Addressee: WILLIAMS, RUBY U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Docid: 192641

Bates: 006438 To: 006488

Date: 08/16/2005

Pages: 51

[U.S. EPA PUBLIC MEETING REGARDING THE MANY DIVERSIFIED INTERESTS, 

INCORPORATED (MDI, TESCO) SUPERFUND SITE]

Title:

Doc Type: PUBLIC MEETING TRANSCRIPT

Name Organization

Author: ANTONE, PEGGY A ALLIED ADVANCED REPORTING INCORPORATED

Name Organization

Addressee: NONE, NONE

10/05/2005 Page 31 of 33

031973
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX

10/05/2005

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

Site Name:

CERCLIS:

OUID:

SSID:

Action:

MANY DIVERSIFIED INTERESTS INC.

TXD008083404

02

CN

RECORD OF DECISION

Docid: 951835

Bates: 006489 To: 006492

Date: 09/01/2005

Pages: 4

COMMENTS ON THE MDI SUPERFUND SITE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION AND FEASIBILITY 

STUDY REPORTS FOR OU 2, DATED 07/29/2005]

Title:

Doc Type: REPORT / STUDY

ELECTRONIC RECORD

Name Organization

Author: NONE, FIFTH WARD CHAPTER OF MOTHERS FOR CLEAN 

AIR

Name Organization

Addressee: NONE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Docid: 192633

Bates: 006493 To: 006493

Date: 09/01/2005

Pages: 1

[TRANSMITTAL OF COMMENTS ON THE MDI SUPERFUND SITE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION 

AND FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORTS FOR OU 02, DATED 07/29/2005]

Title:

Doc Type: REPORT / STUDY

ELECTRONIC RECORD

Name Organization

Author: FULLER, RICHARD H SOUND ENVIRONMENTAL SOULUTIONS INC.

Name Organization

Addressee: CASANOVA, RAFAEL U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Docid: 193699

Bates: 006494 To: 006638

Date: 09/23/2005

Pages: 145

Title: RECORD OF DECISION OPERABLE UNIT 2, OFF-SITE RESIDENTIAL YARDS AND HIGH 

Doc Type: RECORD OF DECISION / AMENDMENT

Name Organization

Author: NONE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Name Organization

Addressee: NONE, NONE

10/05/2005 Page 32 of 33

031974
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX

10/05/2005

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

Site Name:

CERCLIS:

OUID:

SSID:

Action:

MANY DIVERSIFIED INTERESTS INC.

TXD008083404

02

CN

RECORD OF DECISION

Docid: 193698

Bates: 006639 To: 006645

Date: 10/04/2005

Pages: 7

[DENIED ACCESS FOR EPA TO CONDUCT A REMOVAL ACTION AT THE KELLY VILLAGE 

HOUSING COMPLEX]

Title:

Doc Type: CORRESPONDENCE

Name Organization

Author: COLEMAN, SAMUEL U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Name Organization

Addressee: ALLISON, HORACE C HOUSTON HOUSING AUTHORITY

10/05/2005 Page 33 of 33

031975
APPENDIX B

031976
Kathleen Hartnett White, Chairman

R. B. "Ralph" Marquez, Commissioner

Larry R. Soward, Commissioner

Glenn Shankle, Executive Director

TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Protecting Texas by Reducing and Preventing Pollution

September 14, 2005

Mr. Richard E. Greene, Regional Administrator (6RA)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6

1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200

Dallas, Texas 75202

Re: Record of Decision,

Operable Unit 2, Off-Site Residential Soils and High Access Areas

Many Diversified Interests, Inc. Superfund Site, TXD008083404

Houston, Texas

Dear Mayor Greene:

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has completed review of the above-referenced

Record of Decision. We concur with the finding that, due to the effect of completed removal

actions, no further response action is required to address risks formerly presented by Operable Unit

2, Off-Site Residential Soils and High Access Areas, Many Diversified Interests, Inc. Superfund Site.

Tay Carsten, Manager

Environmental Cleanup Sect: on

Remediation Division

JC/AE/cw

P.O. Box 13087 • Austin, Texas 78711-3087 • 512/239-1000 • Internet address: www.tceq.state.tx.us

031977
APPENDIX C

031978
942343ab-6c0e-4f35-ba6d-d84cc5cd7444

EPA Public Meeting 8/16/2005

Page 1

 U.S. EPA REGION 6

 MANY DIVERSIFIED INTERESTS, INC. (MDI, TESCO)

 SUPERFUND SITE

 PUBLIC MEETING

 HOUSTON, TEXAS

 8-16-2005

Reported By:

 Peggy Ann Antone, CSR, RMR, CRR

 Allied Advanced Reporting, Inc.

 1647 Colquitt

 Houston, Texas 77006

 713.524.6777

 1.800.223.9409

031979
942343ab-6c0e-4f35-ba6d-d84cc5cd7444

EPA Public Meeting 8/16/2005

Page 2

1 P R O C E E D I N G S

2 MR. JOHN HEPOLA: Okay. We're going to

3 open the public meeting now. First, I'd like to thank

4 everyone for coming out tonight. Everyone has a lot of

19:11 5 things to do and I appreciate everyone being here.

6 My name is John Hepola, and I'm the

7 chief of the Arkansas-Texas Superfund branch with EPA

8 Region 6 in Dallas, Texas. There are several other EPA

9 employees with me tonight: The remedial project

19:12 10 managers -- Rafael Casanova is here, Stacey Bennett,

11 who will be speaking later -- and Gus Chavarria in the

12 back over there, the remedial supervisor. Donn Walters

13 is our community involvement coordinator.

14 And we also have a gentleman from

19:12 15 Houston Housing Authority, Jay Patel. Is there anyone

16 else representing any organization from the city or the

17 state?

18 MR. BRAD RAFFLE: We're together.

19 MR. JOHN HEPOLA: You're together.

19:12 20 MR. BRAD RAFFLE: I'm with Baker, Botts.

21 We work sometimes with the Housing Authority.

22 MR. RAFAEL CASANOVA: Richard Fuller

23 with the TAG group.

24 MR. JOHN HEPOLA: And Richard Fuller

19:12 25 with the TAG group. Thank you very much.

031980
942343ab-6c0e-4f35-ba6d-d84cc5cd7444

EPA Public Meeting 8/16/2005

Page 3

1 The purpose of tonight's meeting is to

2 present the Proposed Plan for the OU2, which is the

3 residential yards and high access areas of the MDI

4 Superfund site, and we have a court reporter who's

19:12 5 making a transcript of the proceedings, and that will

6 be available in the administrative record.

7 EPA is issuing this Proposed Plan in

8 accordance with its public participation and

9 responsibilities under the Comprehensive Environmental

19:13 10 Response Compensation and Liability Act or, as we call

11 it, the Superfund law, and the National Oil and

12 Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan.

13 The recommendations in the Proposed

14 Plans have -- are based on the administrative file,

19:13 15 which is available locally over in the Fifth Ward Multi

16 Service Building if you have an interest in seeing it.

17 It's also available in the EPA office in Dallas, Texas.

18 What we hope to do is present the plan

19 tonight, and we will take any comments you have. The

19:13 20 comment period is actually open until September the

21 8th, and you can provide comments to Rafael Casanova at

22 the address in the handout sheet that is available on

23 the table over there.

24 Once EPA reviews the comments, we will

19:14 25 prepare a responsiveness summary based on public

031981
942343ab-6c0e-4f35-ba6d-d84cc5cd7444

EPA Public Meeting 8/16/2005

Page 4

1 comments, and that will become part of the Record of

2 Decision, which lays out the final remedy that we will

3 select, and that will then also become part of

4 the official record.

19:14 5 So I'm going to now turn it over to

6 Stacey, who will present the Proposed Plan for OU2, and

7 we'll go from there. Stacey.

8 MS. STACEY BENNETT: Thank you, John.

9 Can y'all hear me? Do I need a mic?

19:14 10 Okay. I'll go ahead and use the -- use

11 the mic so that the court reporter can hear me, as

12 well. There we go.

13 Okay. The many diversified interests

14 Superfund site. What John talked about during his

19:15 15 presentation was that we're only going to deal with

16 Operable Unit 2. What EPA did was divide the site into

17 smaller portions so that we could address certain areas

18 so that it wouldn't hold up the whole site.

19 So Operable Unit 1, which we wrote a

19:15 20 Record of Decision on last year, dealt with the actual

21 facility, inside the fenced properties; okay?

22 Operable Unit 2, which is the subject of

23 our meeting tonight, deals only with the residential

24 yards and what we call high access areas. High access

19:15 25 areas are your churches, your schools, playgrounds, and

031982
942343ab-6c0e-4f35-ba6d-d84cc5cd7444

EPA Public Meeting 8/16/2005

Page 5

1 daycares. Okay? So that's what we're going to deal

2 with tonight.

3 And this is just a picture of Operable

4 Unit 1, which is on the property itself.

19:16 5 We've already discussed about the

6 purpose of the meeting and -- okay. Our proposed

7 remedy that we're going to talk to you about tonight is

8 no further action needed on the residential yards for

9 which EPA sampled and got access to. We're going to

19:16 10 talk a little bit more later on about the properties in

11 which we did not get access to and what's our plan for

12 addressing those.

13 And then at the end of the meeting,

14 we'll have comments on Operable Unit 2, which is what

19:16 15 we're getting ready to talk about, which are the

16 residential yards and high access areas.

17 Okay. The first thing we want to talk

18 about is our strategy for the residential sampling;

19 okay? One of the things when we first met with the

19:16 20 community back in June of 2003 and we had an

21 informational meeting during that time, one of the

22 things that the residents were concerned with was that

23 they felt like previous investigations did not address

24 all the properties that could have been affected by the

19:17 25 air from the result of the foundry. So what EPA did

031983
942343ab-6c0e-4f35-ba6d-d84cc5cd7444

EPA Public Meeting 8/16/2005

Page 6

1 was we came up with an air dispersion model so that we

2 could determine: What are the boundaries for the

3 residential areas?

4 Secondly, during the meeting, a lot of

19:17 5 youall told us that there were areas or houses that you

6 knew that people had taken gravel and sand from the

7 foundry and had put it in their yards, so we also

8 wanted to address that, also, during this sampling that

9 we did.

19:17 10 And then, thirdly, we had some comments

11 during that initial meeting in which people stated that

12 they felt like there was contamination underneath their

13 homes -- in other words, in the crawl spaces -- and so

14 what we agreed to do was do some sampling beneath the

19:18 15 houses in only limited areas; okay?

16 And this is the area -- the boundaries

17 of the study area for Operable Unit 2, for the

18 residential areas.

19 And I'm going to let Rafael talk more

19:18 20 about how we arrived at these boundaries and what all

21 this means.

22 MR. RAFAEL CASANOVA: Early on in the

23 investigation, we realized that we had to set some

24 special boundaries for the investigation; otherwise,

19:18 25 we'd be sampling forever, I think, and I think you -- I

031984
942343ab-6c0e-4f35-ba6d-d84cc5cd7444

EPA Public Meeting 8/16/2005

Page 7

1 really think you'd find lead in a lot of places that

2 really wasn't -- that really didn't come from the

3 foundry.

4 So the best way, we thought, to go about

19:18 5 it, since there was a foundry problem where we would

6 have air emissions from the foundry, and what we needed

7 to find was where particulates containing lead would

8 have been emitted from the foundry, we decided to do an

9 air dispersion modeling. We did the industrial source

19:19 10 complex, long-term model, and it's basically a computer

11 model. So we input data, all the data that we had

12 about the foundry. We used conservative assumptions

13 about the foundry, and we came up with an isopleth, and

14 an isopleth is this purple area. This is what the

19:19 15 model predicted would be deposited on the ground, and

16 what this means is -- an isopleth is an equal line of

17 concentration or line of equal concentration, and it

18 equals to 400 milligram per kilogram of lead.

19 And this is what the -- what the model

19:19 20 predicted. So we decided, you know, we think we have a

21 conservative model, and we decided that was going to be

22 our study area.

23 So we sampled every home within this air

24 dispersion predictive modeling, every home. We didn't

19:20 25 sample industrial areas, because that wasn't the

031985
942343ab-6c0e-4f35-ba6d-d84cc5cd7444

EPA Public Meeting 8/16/2005

Page 8

1 subject our -- of our investigation. We sampled some

2 crawl spaces. We sampled schools, daycare centers,

3 churches, and then there was an area down here that

4 wasn't accounted for in the model. Some people

19:20 5 reported to us that live in this area, said that there

6 used to be some blowers here that would constantly blow

7 in that direction. So we decided to extend the study

8 area to include this area.

9 So the area that we studied in the

19:20 10 remedial investigation in January of 2003 was this

11 entire area predicted by the model and then this

12 blowdown area over here.

13 These other areas were actually studied

14 by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality back

19:21 15 in 1998.

16 So this was the entire study area.

17 MS. STACEY BENNETT: Okay. Like Rafael

18 said, that's the diagram, so you can look at that and

19 see all of the areas that we did study, so everything

19:21 20 that's within the purple area, as well as the yellow

21 area, at some point in time, whether it was EPA or

22 whether it was the state, which is the Texas Commission

23 of Environmental Quality, did sampling in those yards.

24 Okay? And, again, that's for properties in which we

19:21 25 got access to.

031986
942343ab-6c0e-4f35-ba6d-d84cc5cd7444

EPA Public Meeting 8/16/2005

Page 9

1 Our scheme for sampling is that we look

2 at a 2500-cubic-yard --

3 MR. RAFAEL CASANOVA: Square foot.

4 MS. STACEY BENNETT: -- square-foot

19:22 5 area, and so normally what we did was we divided,

6 depending on how your house is located on the property,

7 you had a front yard and a backyard, and we took five

8 samples in the front yard and five samples in the

9 backyard, and we took them at different depths. Okay?

19:22 10 And what we did was we put all those

11 samples together, so, in other words, if we sampled at

12 half a foot, the five points, they were compositted

13 together, and that's how we got our concentration that

14 was in your yard.

19:22 15 We collected soil samples to a depth of

16 18 inches below the ground surface. We analyzed the

17 samples for lead and also other metals. And we used

18 what we call an XRF analyzer, and, basically, it's just

19 an instrument to where you put it down in the ground

19:22 20 and it tells you instantaneously what the concentration

21 is for lead.

22 Now, if you kind of think back to that

23 particular map that we had, there are 418 properties

24 within that purple area as well as the yellow area,

19:23 25 that kind of outline. 19 were industrial properties,

031987
942343ab-6c0e-4f35-ba6d-d84cc5cd7444

EPA Public Meeting 8/16/2005

Page 10

1 of which we did not sample. Okay? Because that was

2 not the purpose of this particular study.

3 181 properties is what EPA sampled

4 during our investigation.

19:23 5 106 properties had been previously

6 sampled by the state, TCEQ, as well as EPA under some

7 other previous investigations.

8 And then there were 112 properties that

9 we did not sample because we could not get access to

19:23 10 those properties. We'll talk about that a little bit

11 later.

12 Now, once we looked at the results of

13 those samples, we had to come up with a criteria, and

14 what we did was, because we know that children play in

19:23 15 the area and we didn't want to wait until -- normally,

16 the process is, after we determine what the

17 contamination is, then we normally do like we're doing

18 tonight, we have a Proposed Plan, then we write a

19 Record of Decision, and then later on we do a cleanup

19:24 20 action.

21 But what we decided to do was to move

22 things a whole lot faster. We have a group in our

23 agency called emergency response, and what we did is

24 because we know that children are more susceptible to

19:24 25 lead contamination, we used their authority so that we

031988
942343ab-6c0e-4f35-ba6d-d84cc5cd7444

EPA Public Meeting 8/16/2005

Page 11

1 could do a cleanup at the time that we discovered that

2 there were high concentrations.

3 So we had a -- basically, a priority

4 scale. High access areas were first.

19:24 5 In other words, Bruce Elementary School,

6 the Fifth Ward Community Center, and any vacant lots,

7 because people have access to that, or children could

8 have access to those, those were the areas that we

9 cleaned up first, or, rather, that's the ones that we

19:24 10 had first priority.

11 Second priority were residential

12 properties for which there were documented cases to

13 where children had high blood levels. Okay?

14 Third priority were residential

19:25 15 properties with pregnant mothers or children that were

16 less than four years of age.

17 Then we did residential properties with

18 children between the ages of four and seven that

19 were -- that were above the 500 parts per million lead.

19:25 20 Then any residential property that was

21 greater than 1200.

22 And then residential properties which

23 were greater than or equal to 500.

24 So, in other words, we addressed every

19:25 25 property that was 500 parts per million lead.

031989
942343ab-6c0e-4f35-ba6d-d84cc5cd7444

EPA Public Meeting 8/16/2005

Page 12

1 Now, when we did our cleanup, we made

2 sure, because with the XRF, you want to make sure,

3 because that's an instantaneous reading, so what we did

4 was we compensated for, in case there may be a margin

19:25 5 of error with our instruments, so we actually cleaned

6 up to 463 parts per million lead, and that's just to

7 account for the instrument in case there were

8 differences in the reading for the instrument.

9 Okay. So based on the study area that

19:26 10 we talked about, we talked about the number of

11 properties that EPA actually addressed or sampled,

12 which was 181. We actually, out of that 181, found out

13 that 59 properties were above the 500 parts per million

14 lead, and so we actually did a cleanup. We started the

19:26 15 cleanup in November of 2003, and we finished in June of

16 2005, which was two months ago.

17 TCEQ had previously conducted a cleanup

18 for 89 properties, and they did that back in 1998 to

19 1999, and that was based on the 106 properties that

19:26 20 they sampled that were located to the west of the

21 property.

22 And these are just some pictures of what

23 we actually did. We actually go in, depending on your

24 yard, we excavate down to whatever the contamination is

19:27 25 that we've determined is the level at which it's 500,

031990
942343ab-6c0e-4f35-ba6d-d84cc5cd7444

EPA Public Meeting 8/16/2005

Page 13

1 so we dug as deep as we could to address that, and we

2 did -- I think no property was over 18 inches that we

3 cleaned up, and then we backfilled with clean soil and

4 then we put seeds down for the grass to grow.

19:27 5 Now, here's a map that kind of shows you

6 everything, whether it was EPA or the Texas Commission

7 of Environmental Quality.

8 Okay. Looking at the study area,

9 everything that you see in yellow are the industrial

19:27 10 properties, so we did not look at those.

11 Everything that you see in green, EPA or

12 TCEQ sampled. If the green area has hatched marks in

13 it, that means that those properties were determined to

14 be above 500 parts per million lead and we did an

19:28 15 actual cleanup of those properties.

16 The areas that you see in red are part

17 of the 112 properties that we did not get access to,

18 so, therefore, those properties were not sampled.

19 Okay?

19:28 20 Now, there's one area that we haven't

21 talked about -- I talked about how we cleaned up all of

22 the residential properties above 500 and high access

23 areas. There's only one other area that we need to

24 address and that is Kelly Village, and they're really

19:28 25 considered a high access area, they're really not

031991
942343ab-6c0e-4f35-ba6d-d84cc5cd7444

EPA Public Meeting 8/16/2005

Page 14

1 considered a residential property, and what we

2 discovered when we did the sampling for Kelly

3 Village -- Kelly Village is just on the edge of our

4 study area, based on the air model; okay? And we

19:28 5 sampled these -- I think it's -- you can't see how many

6 complex -- I don't know if you call them three separate

7 complexes in a courtyard type area, and we sampled

8 within there, and what you see, when you see the square

9 areas, we divided them up into approximately 2500

19:29 10 square feet, because that's what we would do for a

11 residential area.

12 And then what we did was we sampled,

13 just like we would a residential yard.

14 And what we found is, even though there

19:29 15 was no contamination at the surface, which means from

16 zero to half a foot, we did find levels above 500 from

17 half a foot to a foot.

18 Now, normally, because you have a good

19 surface, you have -- there's no contamination on the

19:29 20 surface, you have a great grass cover, no one is being

21 exposed. But because we know that there's a lot of

22 construction activities going on in the Fifth Ward

23 area, we decided to go ahead and ask for permission to

24 go ahead and address those properties. And that's why

19:30 25 we're working with the Housing Authority to address

031992
942343ab-6c0e-4f35-ba6d-d84cc5cd7444

EPA Public Meeting 8/16/2005

Page 15

1 those nine areas, and I know it's kind of hard to see

2 on this diagram, but there's one area right here.

3 That's the first one. This is the second one, the

4 third one, the fourth one, the fifth one, the sixth

19:30 5 one. The seventh one is this whole area.

6 I think I'm missing two. It's nine --

7 it's kind of hard -- oh, here -- here are the other

8 two. Seven, eight, nine.

9 So those are the nine areas in which at

19:30 10 half a foot to a foot, in which there are

11 concentrations above the 500 parts per million lead.

12 And we just want to go ahead and address those, because

13 we just don't want in the future for some type of

14 construction activity to where that material would be

19:30 15 placed on the surface, and even if it were placed on

16 the surface, you have to realize that our models are

17 based on a child playing in that area for seven years.

18 So they'd have to be exposed daily for seven years,

19 really, to have an effect on them.

19:31 20 MR. ALVIN BYRD: It doesn't -- it just

21 doesn't mean digging. You just -- you mean, they have

22 to be exposed --

23 MS. STACEY BENNETT: Right.

24 MR. ALVIN BYRD: -- every day for seven

19:31 25 years, just playing in that particular area?

031993
942343ab-6c0e-4f35-ba6d-d84cc5cd7444

EPA Public Meeting 8/16/2005

Page 16

1 MS. STACEY BENNETT: Right. Right.

2 Right. In order for it to be -- to be a problem. Just

3 because you expose it to the surface, if no one comes

4 in contact with that -- and we're talking about a child

19:31 5 getting the soil on their hand and then it being

6 ingested -- so that's what it would -- would be, if

7 they were exposed over a period of seven years, then it

8 would be a problem. And that's the same way, really,

9 for the residential properties, too, you know, they

19:31 10 would have to be exposed over a period of years for

11 there to be really a risk to that particular child.

12 One of the things that we did after we

13 completed our investigation was we issued what we call

14 comfort letters to all of the residents, so everything

19:31 15 that was in green, everyone should have received a

16 letter.

17 The comfort letter, you had one of two

18 comfort letters. One said, "We sampled your property

19 and we did not find anything above 500." Okay?

19:32 20 Or you could have gotten a second letter

21 which said, "We sampled your property, it was above

22 500, and we did a cleanup of your property, and,

23 therefore, you can use this letter to document later on

24 that your property has been cleaned, that there is no

19:32 25 lead there."

031994
942343ab-6c0e-4f35-ba6d-d84cc5cd7444

EPA Public Meeting 8/16/2005

Page 17

1 For that reason, for the 181 properties

2 that we sampled, EPA's conclusion is that there's no

3 further remedial action that we need to do. I mean,

4 we've already conducted the cleanup of those properties

19:32 5 that are above what we call our action level of 500

6 parts per million. We cleaned up 59. The Texas

7 Commission of Environmental Quality cleaned up 89.

8 We're in the process of working with the Housing

9 Authority so that we can get Kelly Village addressed.

19:33 10 So for the properties that we looked at, there's

11 nothing more in the process that we could do.

12 Okay. Some other conclusions that

13 you'll find, if you read the documents that are placed

14 in the repository, one of the things that Rafael talked

19:33 15 about early on was that when we started this

16 investigation, we told the residents at that time that

17 EPA can only address contamination that is a result of

18 the foundry operations. So, in other words, if there

19 are other sources out there, under our authority, we

19:33 20 cannot address those properties.

21 Now, one of the things that we did find

22 is we did three different studies: Ratio of the metals

23 in soils, scatter plots of metals by location, and,

24 also, microscopic techniques, and I'm going to let

19:34 25 Rafael just talk briefly about those studies and who

031995
942343ab-6c0e-4f35-ba6d-d84cc5cd7444

EPA Public Meeting 8/16/2005

Page 18

1 conducted those studies for us just so that you have

2 that as background information.

3 MR. RAFAEL CASANOVA: For the ratios of

4 metals in soils, what we did was we compared the ratios

19:34 5 of certain metals on the site, the -- within the

6 boundaries of the site itself. We used some -- we also

7 took the ratios of metals from the off site areas in

8 the residential areas and we compared them, and the

9 ratios were totally different. You could see a pattern

19:34 10 where they were just totally different. They didn't

11 compare to each other.

12 So from that we concluded that the

13 foundry was not the source of widespread contamination.

14 It could have contributed some, but we didn't think it

19:34 15 was -- it was the source of widespread contamination.

16 We also did -- we also had our Las Vegas

17 lab do some scatter plots. These are basically

18 statistical plots where it looks for the distribution

19 of metals, of certain metals. So we took all these

19:35 20 metals, and we plotted these scatter plots, and what

21 you could see is, if you could visualize, some red

22 dots, some blue dots, some green dots. And say that

23 these are metals from background, these are metals from

24 the onsite, and these are metals from off site, and

19:35 25 when we compared we those, you could see the

031996
942343ab-6c0e-4f35-ba6d-d84cc5cd7444

EPA Public Meeting 8/16/2005

Page 19

1 distribution was totally different. Based on the

2 scatter plots, they were in totally different areas.

3 If they would have been related in any way, they would

4 have been closer together. So you could see the

19:35 5 distribution was very, very wide -- different using the

6 scatter plots.

7 The microscopic techniques, we actually

8 used electronmicro -- scanning electron microscopes

9 when we looked at the smallest particles of soil, and

19:35 10 what we were trying to do there, we were trying to look

11 for marker compounds, where we looked at soils from the

12 site itself, we looked at soils from the residential

13 areas, and we also looked at soils from bag house.

14 What bag house is, is using a process that the foundry

19:36 15 used, it was used like a filter, so we thought that if

16 we saw the marker compounds from the bag house or the

17 onsite and compared them to the soils in the

18 residential areas that we could conclude that maybe the

19 foundry did cause a lot of contamination there, but we

19:36 20 found no marker compounds.

21 So from these three studies, we

22 determined that really the foundry was not the source

23 of widespread contamination. It may have contributed

24 some, but we think we've addressed most of it through

19:36 25 our cleanup.

031997
942343ab-6c0e-4f35-ba6d-d84cc5cd7444

EPA Public Meeting 8/16/2005

Page 20

1 MR. ALVIN BYRD: When you say not the

2 source, but they contributed to some, from our

3 initial -- from your initial investigation, wasn't lead

4 one of the metals found at the foundry?

19:36 5 MR. RAFAEL CASANOVA: Yes.

6 MR. ALVIN BYRD: Okay. So through

7 emissions or through, I guess, with the drenching of

8 the floods and all of the different ways or travel

9 methods that these contaminants could have gotten into

19:37 10 residential, wouldn't you say that the foundry was a

11 major contributor to that lead being found in some of

12 our -- in some of the residential inspections you've

13 done?

14 MR. RAFAEL CASANOVA: And we think we've

19:37 15 addressed all those through our cleanup efforts.

16 MS. STACEY BENNETT: I think -- I think,

17 though, what we're trying to say is when you look under

18 a microscope and you look at what's on site, so if I

19 look under the microscope and I have lead, I'm looking

19:37 20 at how the particles are together; okay? And I'm

21 looking at those under a microscope. If that's not the

22 same blueprint that I see in the residential yards,

23 that tells me that it's not just the foundry. It has

24 to be something else there, and that's all we're

19:37 25 saying. We're not saying the foundry didn't cause some

031998
942343ab-6c0e-4f35-ba6d-d84cc5cd7444

EPA Public Meeting 8/16/2005

Page 21

1 of the contamination. We're just saying that as

2 widespread as what we saw, there's no way that the

3 foundry was the only source --

4 MR. ALVIN BYRD: Right. Okay.

19:38 5 MS. STACEY BENNETT: -- for that lead

6 contamination, and that's all we're saying. We know

7 that there's a commingling of the waste between the

8 foundry and other sources, and that's why we have that

9 the other potential sources were -- you have lead-based

19:38 10 paint chips, okay? So you have chips coming off of

11 houses that are falling into the soil; okay?

12 That's one potential source.

13 Also, some of the homes were near the

14 freeway, and in the '70s, of course, you had leaded

19:38 15 fuel. Those could be a second source of contamination

16 of the yards during that time, but all we're saying is

17 that the foundry was not, because you still should see

18 some type of pattern when you look under a microscope

19 or when you're doing those other tests. It all -- it

19:38 20 should be that if I take one test and I take another

21 test, I should be able to put them over each other and

22 they should match, and what we're saying is they're not

23 matching, the DNA is not matching exactly.

24 MR. ALVIN BYRD: Would the percentage of

19:39 25 either one, would that matter?

031999
942343ab-6c0e-4f35-ba6d-d84cc5cd7444

EPA Public Meeting 8/16/2005

Page 22

1 MS. STACEY BENNETT: We didn't --

2 MR. ALVIN BYRD: Which one contributed

3 the most?

4 MS. STACEY BENNETT: We don't know that.

19:39 5 We didn't go into that -- in that in-depth study of

6 that. We just didn't do that in-depth study. All we

7 can say is that the blueprints don't match exactly, so,

8 therefore, we know that there are other contributors.

9 MR. DONN WALTERS: This was Alvin Byrd.

19:39 10 MR. ALVIN BYRD: Oh, I'm sorry.

11 MR. DONN WALTERS: For the court

12 reporter.

13 MS. STACEY BENNETT: Okay. Thanks a

14 lot.

15 MS. DOROTHY WRIGHT: Let me ask you a

16 question.

17 MS. STACEY BENNETT: Could you come to

18 the mic so that the court reporter can hear you, just

19 state your name.

20 MS. DOROTHY WRIGHT: My name is Dorothy

21 Wright. I live right across the street from the lead

22 site. Okay. Why do they keep on --

23 MS. STACEY BENNETT: You've got to

24 really speak into it.

19:40 25 MS. DOROTHY WRIGHT: Okay. My name is

032000
942343ab-6c0e-4f35-ba6d-d84cc5cd7444

EPA Public Meeting 8/16/2005

Page 23

1 Dorothy Wright. I live across the street from the lead

2 site. They still some old cans out on the other side

3 here. They're still dumping over there.

4 Now, on the day, down a little further,

19:40 5 towards the plant's right, water floods over there, I

6 suspect, over at Texas Electric.

7 MS. STACEY BENNETT: Okay. Now --

8 MS. DOROTHY WRIGHT: It is really bad,

9 and our water is still yellow.

19:40 10 MS. STACEY BENNETT: Okay. That's

11 something we'll probably have to get with the City of

12 Houston. When we tested as part of the first study

13 that we did on site, we did test all of the water that

14 was backing up on the street, and we didn't find any

19:40 15 concentrations that would be harmful to people, and so

16 that's -- it's not a problem as far as a risk to your

17 health. However, it is a nuisance, and so that's

18 something that we'll have to address with the City of

19 Houston.

19:41 20 In answer to your second question about

21 the drums, we're aware that people keep putting drums

22 around -- right in front of the site, and we have been

23 working with the City of Houston to try to identify who

24 is putting those drums there. But I don't think those

19:41 25 drums are contributing to any contamination in your

032001
942343ab-6c0e-4f35-ba6d-d84cc5cd7444

EPA Public Meeting 8/16/2005

Page 24

1 yards.

2 MS. DOROTHY WRIGHT: You sure?

3 MS. STACEY BENNETT: I'm sure.

4 MS. DOROTHY WRIGHT: Okay. I'm going to

19:41 5 ask you one more question. Why -- how many feet y'all

6 go through the yard? Not too long ago, they all -- not

7 too long ago, they were working over there and quit.

8 MS. STACEY BENNETT: Are you talking

9 about the --

19:41 10 MS. DOROTHY WRIGHT: On Nance Street,

11 across the street from my house.

12 MS. STACEY BENNETT: You talking about

13 the development?

14 MS. DOROTHY WRIGHT: Yes.

19:41 15 MS. STACEY BENNETT: Okay.

16 MS. DOROTHY WRIGHT: Why they quit

17 working on the property?

18 MS. STACEY BENNETT: I don't know. We

19 can -- we can assist you with trying to get ahold of

19:41 20 that developer and working with the City of Houston to

21 do that. I think most of that property wasn't in our

22 study area. It was right outside of that, so we didn't

23 do any type of investigation on that.

24 MS. DOROTHY WRIGHT: I have another

19:42 25 question. I live on Nance, I live right across the

032002
942343ab-6c0e-4f35-ba6d-d84cc5cd7444

EPA Public Meeting 8/16/2005

Page 25

1 street from the lead site, where that --

2 MS. STACEY BENNETT: So she's talking

3 about on Nance Street.

4 MR. DONN WALTERS: Nance.

19:42 5 MS. DOROTHY WRIGHT: Uh-huh. I was

6 going to ask you -- I forgot now. Okay. Let me see.

7 What y'all going to put on the lead

8 site?

9 MS. STACEY BENNETT: Okay. This meeting

19:42 10 is just to deal with the residential properties.

11 MS. DOROTHY WRIGHT: Okay.

12 MS. STACEY BENNETT: Okay? But give us

13 a little chance, and when we finish with these slides,

14 we'll go to the Operable Unit 1, which is -- we're

19:42 15 going to have some upcoming meetings on that.

16 Right now, we just want to handle, if

17 you have any questions on the actual residential yards.

18 MS. DOROTHY WRIGHT: Okay. Thank you.

19 MS. STACEY BENNETT: Okay. Any more

19:43 20 questions up to this point about the contamination and

21 what EPA has done? Okay.

22 Okay. Now, remember at the very

23 beginning of the presentation, we had talked about some

24 of the people were concerned with crawl spaces up

19:43 25 underneath their houses? What EPA had done was we had

032003
942343ab-6c0e-4f35-ba6d-d84cc5cd7444

EPA Public Meeting 8/16/2005

Page 26

1 sampled approximately under 23 homes, and we chose

2 those homes based on previous removals that were

3 completed by the Texas Commission of Environmental

4 Quality, and that's because we hadn't sampled the rest

19:43 5 of the area yet, so we only wanted to deal with those

6 homes in which we knew a cleanup had already been

7 conducted.

8 And what we concluded from there is we

9 really don't have enough data to draw any conclusions.

19:43 10 So what we're going to do is we're going to do a third

11 study, and this will be our last study, and in this

12 study, we will address crawl spaces.

13 One of the things that we want to do is

14 look at the entire study area, which is really 399

19:44 15 homes, if you take out the 19 industrial properties of

16 the 418 that are within the study area, so we really

17 have 399. We really need to get a handle on how many

18 of those homes really have crawl spaces, whether a

19 child can get up underneath that crawl space and make a

19:44 20 determination before we do more investigation, but we

21 will be doing some more investigation, and that will be

22 handled in a separate investigation.

23 Also, under this separate investigation,

24 we're going to be addressing the 112 properties that we

19:44 25 did not sample -- that we did not sample. And those,

032004
942343ab-6c0e-4f35-ba6d-d84cc5cd7444

EPA Public Meeting 8/16/2005

Page 27

1 to give you a breakdown of those 112, 53, the owners

2 could not be located. What that means is that we were

3 looking at the Harris County Appraisal District

4 information, and there is no up-to-date information on

19:45 5 who the owner of those properties are. Okay? And that

6 also means that no taxes have been paid, usually, on

7 those properties, and that's the reason why they don't

8 have the up-to-date information.

9 Out of that 112, 43, the owners were

19:45 10 unresponsive, so we don't know if it's a person that's

11 deceased, we don't know if they've moved somewhere, but

12 we sent letters out and the letters came back

13 undeliverable to whoever that person was in the current

14 address.

19:45 15 And then we had 16 owners that outright

16 denied us access to sample their property, so we cannot

17 make a determination on whether or not they have the

18 issue in their yard or not.

19 What EPA is going to do is for the next

19:45 20 four months, we're going to be going back to the Harris

21 County Appraisal District, trying to get some

22 up-to-date information. Also, the TAG group has agreed

23 to help us with the properties to where the owners,

24 where no one knows who the owner is, there may be some,

19:46 25 I guess, oral history from people that we can get to

032005
942343ab-6c0e-4f35-ba6d-d84cc5cd7444

EPA Public Meeting 8/16/2005

Page 28

1 try to determine maybe who are the heirs of that

2 property or what have you, or who was the last owner,

3 since the appraisal district doesn't know.

4 Mr. Williams.

19:46 5 MR. EARNEST WILLIAMS: Yes, I was going

6 to ask you a question about, like the Harris County

7 Appraisal District, on them 53 homes have not been

8 sampled that y'all don't know -- don't have no data on

9 them.

19:46 10 MS. STACEY BENNETT: Right.

11 MR. EARNEST WILLIAMS: When could EPA

12 get the right to just go in there and check and do a

13 sample?

14 MS. STACEY BENNETT: We have to be given

19:46 15 authority to be able to do that. We cannot go into

16 anyone's yard or else it's considered a takings issue,

17 and we can be sued, so, therefore, we have to go

18 through proper procedures to get access, so that's why

19 we cannot go on there. Unless you have documentation

19:46 20 that shows that there is an imminent and substantial

21 endangerment, which means that we had data to say that,

22 yes, it's above a risk number, that would be probably

23 the only way that we could go on there, but, right now,

24 we're going to have to work through our attorneys and

19:47 25 work with the City of Houston to try to get access to

032006
942343ab-6c0e-4f35-ba6d-d84cc5cd7444

EPA Public Meeting 8/16/2005

Page 29

1 those properties. We can't just go on the properties.

2 MR. ALVIN BYRD: What is TAG?

3 MS. STACEY BENNETT: The Technical

4 Assistance Group. That's the Mothers for Clean Air.

19:47 5 For every Superfund site, groups can apply to EPA to

6 receive a grant, and the whole purpose of the grant is

7 so that when information about the site that EPA is

8 working on, a lot of the technical information, they

9 get those reports from us and they interpret that

19:47 10 information for the public.

11 Donn, you have anything to add on that?

12 MR. DONN WALTERS: Yeah, I'll just

13 add -- Donn Walters -- the TAG is an important part of

14 many of our NPL sites. We've had one for approximately

19:48 15 three or four -- three or four years. The TAG group is

16 represented here this evening by Richard Fuller, and,

17 also, to -- in preparation for this meeting this

18 evening, I'll mention that we did meet with TAG

19 representatives several weeks ago to provide

19:48 20 information to them, as well.

21 MR. ALVIN BYRD: And that information

22 through TAG is filtered down. How is it filtered down

23 to the community?

24 MR. DONN WALTERS: Well, the TAG group

19:48 25 for a site, this site, represents the community. Their

032007
942343ab-6c0e-4f35-ba6d-d84cc5cd7444

EPA Public Meeting 8/16/2005

Page 30

1 technical advisor and representatives of the TAG group

2 talk with us, meet with us, and then provide the

3 information further to the communities, and I believe

4 that has happened here.

19:48 5 MR. RICHARD FULLER: The group that got

6 the grant is Mothers for Clean Air.

7 MR. DONN WALTERS: That's right.

8 Mothers for Clean Air, which is based here in Houston.

9 MR. RICHARD FULLER: Richard Fuller.

19:49 10 MS. STACEY BENNETT: And Richard can

11 give you information on who are the contacts for

12 Mothers for Clean Air, so if anyone has a question

13 about what EPA's doing at any point, if you can't reach

14 us, you can definitely call Mothers for Clean Air and

19:49 15 the contacts for them and they should be able to tell

16 you where we are in the process and what's going on

17 with the site. That's the whole purpose of the TAG is

18 to basically be a conduit to be able to get the

19 information from EPA and be able to interpret that

19:49 20 information for the community.

21 Over the next, like I said, three to

22 four months, we're going to be working very hard to try

23 to get access to the remainder of the 112 properties,

24 and, also, to make some determination regarding the

19:50 25 crawl spaces.

032008
942343ab-6c0e-4f35-ba6d-d84cc5cd7444

EPA Public Meeting 8/16/2005

Page 31

1 And this is just a diagram that talks

2 about the Superfund process. Right now, we just

3 completed the remedial investigation feasibility study,

4 which is basically the sampling, the sampling and the

19:50 5 reports for Operable Unit 2. And right now, we're

6 right here, we're doing the Proposed Plan, which we

7 wrote, and that's what the purpose of this meeting is,

8 to tell you what's in the Proposed Plan, and then after

9 that, we write what we call a Record of Decision, which

19:50 10 is we come up with our final remedy for the site, based

11 on comments that we get from the public and based on

12 all the data and information that we have in our

13 record.

14 And The Record of Decision, we're trying

19:50 15 to get that completed by the end of September. The

16 public comment period for your comments to us on what

17 we've proposed tonight to you under Operable Unit 2,

18 which are the residential properties and high access

19 areas, that comment period will end on September the

19:51 20 8th, so if you have any comments, please either tonight

21 ask those questions or there are sheets of paper on the

22 table in which you can write your questions and you can

23 give it to us tonight, or the other option is to mail

24 it in to us.

19:51 25 Let's go on to the next slide. I know

032009
942343ab-6c0e-4f35-ba6d-d84cc5cd7444

EPA Public Meeting 8/16/2005

Page 32

1 we had one more question that I wanted to address. Is

2 there another slide? Yeah. Okay.

3 I think some of you have been asking

4 about the onsite property. Right now, EPA is in

19:51 5 negotiations with the developer. One of the things

6 that the bankruptcy trustee had done when the property

7 was auctioned off was in there was a requirement that

8 whoever was the winning bidder that they would have to

9 enter into an agreed order with EPA to either conduct

19:52 10 the cleanup themselves or to make arrangements for EPA

11 to do the cleanup and they would give us the funds for

12 that cleanup.

13 So right now, we're in negotiations with

14 the developer for this agreed order.

19:52 15 And we anticipate an upcoming

16 information meeting, and that will be in late 2005 or

17 either early 2006. That's our current projection.

18 Secondly, we want to talk about OU3.

19 Again, one of the things that we plan on doing is we're

19:52 20 going to issue notification letters to the city for the

21 properties in which we did not sample and see if we can

22 get some help from the City of Houston. We're also

23 going to send out letters again to the residents --

24 okay -- that we have on file and for those who denied

19:53 25 us access. We're going to send them another letter

032010
942343ab-6c0e-4f35-ba6d-d84cc5cd7444

EPA Public Meeting 8/16/2005

Page 33

1 and, basically, give them some more information about

2 why it's important to allow us to sample the property.

3 It's no cost to the resident for us to sample and it

4 has been no cost for us to do the cleanup, and also

19:53 5 we're going to use Mothers for Clean Air to try to help

6 us to determine some of the ownerships of the

7 properties that are not in the Harris County Appraisal

8 District system through oral histories.

9 One of the things that it's kind of

19:53 10 important to understand is once we send out these

11 letters and once we start the second round of sampling

12 for those 112 properties, once we're finished, we're

13 finished, so if we don't get access, sometimes there's

14 nothing that we can do. We cannot force access on

19:53 15 people. That has been the Region 6 EPA policy.

16 But we're going to do everything we can

17 with working with our attorneys and working with the

18 city and working with our Department of Justice to see

19 what we can do to locate those owners and to get access

19:54 20 onto those properties.

21 Okay?

22 MR. DONN WALTERS: Stacey, did you

23 mention the schedule for the OU3 investigation?

24 MS. STACEY BENNETT: Yes. We're going

19:54 25 to start in January, so that gives us about four months

032011
942343ab-6c0e-4f35-ba6d-d84cc5cd7444

EPA Public Meeting 8/16/2005

Page 34

1 to try to locate all those 112 parties. And we're

2 hoping that once we start the sampling, that this time

3 next summer we'll have the results of those last 112

4 properties as well as the crawl spaces, and we'll come

19:54 5 back to you again and tell you what are our findings

6 from that.

7 MR. ALVIN BYRD: In regards to OU1, in

8 the context of the community establishing the CAG, the

9 Citizen Advisory Group, along with four proposed

19:54 10 recommendations for reuse of the property, does that

11 hold any merit anymore?

12 MS. STACEY BENNETT: EPA can't make any

13 land use decisions. We -- we're not granted that

14 authority. Who you would have to work with is the City

19:55 15 of Houston, because they're the ones that issue the

16 permits for buildings and structures to go up.

17 We anticipate that when we have the

18 upcoming information meeting, the developers will be

19 there, so you will have the opportunity to ask those

19:55 20 types of questions to them at that time.

21 MR. ALVIN BYRD: Thank you.

22 MR. DONN WALTERS: And that CAG, Alvin,

23 was formed by a grant -- EPA grant to the City of

24 Houston. That's what they used to help form that CAG

19:55 25 to get input on that unit at that time.

032012
942343ab-6c0e-4f35-ba6d-d84cc5cd7444

EPA Public Meeting 8/16/2005

Page 35

1 MS. STACEY BENNETT: Okay. Any more

2 questions on -- let's go back to Operable Unit 2,

3 because that's what we're here tonight to address, and

4 that's if you have any questions on what we did on the

19:55 5 residential properties. Any questions on that?

6 MR. ALVIN BYRD: No, you pretty much

7 covered it. I guess the primary concern would be about

8 the 112 that you haven't been able to do.

9 MS. STACEY BENNETT: Right. And that

19:56 10 was the whole purpose of us creating a separate -- a

11 separate investigation to deal with that, because what

12 we didn't want to do is hold up letters and a process

13 that had already been established for the people that

14 we had already addressed their property, so that's the

19:56 15 reason why we separated those out into a separate

16 investigation.

17 MR. ALVIN BYRD: And the 181 that you

18 did --

19 MS. STACEY BENNETT: Right.

19:56 20 MR. ALVIN BYRD: -- everybody got a

21 clean bill of health.

22 MS. STACEY BENNETT: Everyone has been

23 cleaned up and --

24 MR. ALVIN BYRD: They got comfort

19:56 25 letters and everything?

032013
942343ab-6c0e-4f35-ba6d-d84cc5cd7444

EPA Public Meeting 8/16/2005

Page 36

1 MS. STACEY BENNETT: Correct. Correct.

2 Yes, Miss Carrie.

3

4 MS. CARRIE NICHOLSON: Those ones that

19:56 5 you did not test, how close are they to the ones that

6 you did test and would it make a difference? Would you

7 think it would make a difference?

8 MS. STACEY BENNETT: Go back, Luis, to

9 that map.

19:57 10 Okay. This just gives you an idea of

11 the properties. Again, the ones in red are the ones

12 that we did not sample, and your question is, if

13 they're located next to one that has been cleaned or

14 that one that has been sampled and it was okay, will

19:57 15 they affect those properties?

16 Our experience has been with metals,

17 with lead, it does not -- it does not move, so it

18 should not be traveling across into another yard, even

19 through water. Metals stay fixed to the soil, so,

19:57 20 therefore, it should not be a problem. It won't be a

21 problem in your yard.

22 Now, if children are playing in other

23 yards that are not their own and that soil hasn't been

24 tested, I mean, there is always a potential. But,

19:58 25 again, they have to be exposed over a period of years

032014
942343ab-6c0e-4f35-ba6d-d84cc5cd7444

EPA Public Meeting 8/16/2005

Page 37

1 for it to really have an effect on them.

2 So it's not going to recontaminate your

3 yard, but we still need to find out what's the status

4 of those other properties.

19:58 5 Any other questions?

6 MS. NICOLE BATES: I have some questions

7 about OU1? Can you address that?

8 MS. STACEY BENNETT: Can you come to a

9 mic?

19:58 10 MS. NICOLE BATES: You can't hear me?

11 MS. STACEY BENNETT: No, we have our

12 court reporter and she has to be able to hear you to

13 document the question. And your name, please.

14 MS. NICOLE BATES: Nicole Bates, State

19:58 15 Representative Harold Dutton's office. Okay.

16 Back on OU1, who are the developers?

17 MS. STACEY BENNETT: It's the Fifth Ward

18 Investment Corporation.

19 MR. RAFAEL CASANOVA: I think that's

19:59 20 changed now. I can't remember the name. Do you

21 remember the name now?

22 MR. RANDY ASHBY: They haven't told us

23 the final name.

24 MR. RAFAEL CASANOVA: Okay.

19:59 25 MS. STACEY BENNETT: It was Fifth Ward

032015
942343ab-6c0e-4f35-ba6d-d84cc5cd7444

EPA Public Meeting 8/16/2005

Page 38

1 when -- when the auction was held the name of record

2 was the Fifth Ward Investment Corporation.

3 MS. NICOLE BATES: And you say the name

4 has since been changed?

19:59 5 MS. STACEY BENNETT: From what I

6 understand from the bankruptcy trustee that they're

7 going through a name change.

8 MS. NICOLE BATES: But that name change

9 hasn't been completed yet; correct?

19:59 10 MR. RANDY ASHBY: Correct.

11 MS. STACEY BENNETT: Not to our

12 knowledge, it hasn't been completed.

13 MS. NICOLE BATES: Okay. And do we know

14 how much of the site that they're planning on

19:59 15 remediating?

16 MS. STACEY BENNETT: No, that's the

17 whole purpose of the negotiations, because whatever

18 they don't clean up, EPA has to clean up, so

19 regardless, the site will be addressed and it has to be

19:59 20 addressed in accordance with the Record of Decision

21 that we came out with last year in July.

22 MS. NICOLE BATES: Okay. And do you

23 know when remediations are set to begin?

24 MS. STACEY BENNETT: No, because we have

20:00 25 not finished the negotiations. Until we determine

032016
942343ab-6c0e-4f35-ba6d-d84cc5cd7444

EPA Public Meeting 8/16/2005

Page 39

1 who's doing what on the property, we can't actually

2 start the cleanup.

3 MS. NICOLE BATES: Okay. Now, if the

4 developers choose to be the one who are going to

20:00 5 remediate the site, how will youall determine that they

6 did exactly what they were supposed to do? Do you go

7 back and check?

8 MS. STACEY BENNETT: Because we have

9 oversight authority. EPA will -- Rafael and myself and

20:00 10 other EPA staff will be out there. They have to submit

11 work plans. There's a whole process that they will

12 have to go through, and once an order is signed, we'll

13 be coming back to the community and we'll be giving the

14 community all that information, so it'll talk about

20:00 15 what work plans are due, what remedy that they're going

16 to be -- that's documented in the ROD, what they're

17 actually going to be doing. It'll have time frames and

18 schedules, and there are also penalties in the order --

19 EPA always has penalties associated in their order when

20:01 20 someone does not abide by the schedule or by the

21 procedures that have been laid out and agreed to.

22 So there will be checks and balances to

23 make sure that the cleanup is done accordingly to what

24 the Record of Decision is.

20:01 25 MR. RICHARD FULLER: Let me ask one

032017
942343ab-6c0e-4f35-ba6d-d84cc5cd7444

EPA Public Meeting 8/16/2005

Page 40

1 question the lady asked. Richard Fuller.

2 Stacey, is it my understanding that this

3 is the first time EPA has ever allowed a Superfund site

4 to be sold and then cleaned up by a new owner?

20:01 5 MS. STACEY BENNETT: I believe -- I

6 believe that that's correct.

7 MR. DONN WALTERS: Yeah, it's the first.

8 MS. STACEY BENNETT: This is the first

9 time. I mean, we've had prospective purchaser

20:01 10 agreements with other Superfund sites, but not in which

11 they're cleaning up a Superfund -- an NPL-listed

12 Superfund site.

13 MS. NICOLE BATES: Okay. Last question.

14 Are the developers going to guarantee that no latent

20:02 15 effect will result from whatever site cleanup that they

16 choose to do or --

17 MS. STACEY BENNETT: Well, it's still on

18 EPA's responsibility, because whatever they're doing,

19 it's done according to an order, so they're being --

20:02 20 there's an order created which basically is -- it has

21 penalties associated, so, basically, EPA guarantees

22 that it will be done in accordance with the Record of

23 Decision.

24 MS. NICOLE BATES: Okay. Now, when was

20:02 25 the property sold?

032018
942343ab-6c0e-4f35-ba6d-d84cc5cd7444

EPA Public Meeting 8/16/2005

Page 41

1 MS. STACEY BENNETT: It has been

2 auctioned, but from what I understand is that they have

3 not actually taken possession of the property and they

4 cannot do that until they complete the order with the

20:02 5 EPA, which states exactly what they're going to do. So

6 they won the auction, but they have not actually taken

7 possession of the property.

8 MS. NICOLE BATES: Do you know about how

9 long that's going to be?

20:02 10 MS. STACEY BENNETT: We don't know.

11 MS. NICOLE BATES: No estimate? Within

12 the next couple of years, maybe?

13 MS. STACEY BENNETT: We're hoping by the

14 end of this year that we would have reached an

20:02 15 agreement on exactly what they're going to do.

16 That's our hope.

17 MS. NICOLE BATES: And what if y'all

18 don't reach an agreement?

19 MS. STACEY BENNETT: Then EPA has to

20:03 20 clean up the site and they have to give us the funds

21 for that.

22 MS. NICOLE BATES: Okay. Thanks.

23

24 MS. CARRIE NICHOLSON: With reference to

20:03 25 the name change, is it just the Fifth Ward Investment,

032019
942343ab-6c0e-4f35-ba6d-d84cc5cd7444

EPA Public Meeting 8/16/2005

Page 42

1 Inc. going to change its name or --

2 MS. STACEY BENNETT: I have no idea. I

3 really don't have all that information. Our EPA

4 attorney would have that type of information, and what

20:03 5 we can do is give you her name and e-mail address and

6 you can submit an e-mail to her asking about that.

7

8 MS. CARRIE NICHOLSON: What's her name

9 again, please?

20:03 10 MS. STACEY BENNETT: Barbara Nann, B A R

11 B A R A. Last name, Nann, N A N N, and her e-mail

12 address is the same as ours. It's last name, dot,

13 first name at EPA.gov. So that would be

14 NANN.Barbara@EPA.gov.

20:04 15 Any questions on the residential

16 properties or OU2?

17 MR. DONN WALTERS: Or just general

18 comments you'd like to make.

19 MS. STACEY BENNETT: Come up to the mic,

20:04 20 if anyone has any general comments or anything.

21 MS. DOROTHY WRIGHT: Okay. When y'all

22 get ready to do the yards, how many feet y'all going

23 down?

24 MS. STACEY BENNETT: We went down to 18

20:04 25 inches, which is a foot and a half.

032020
942343ab-6c0e-4f35-ba6d-d84cc5cd7444

EPA Public Meeting 8/16/2005

Page 43

1 MS. DOROTHY WRIGHT: I think y'all need

2 to go down a little further.

3 MS. STACEY BENNETT: Well, see, what we

4 did is 18 inches was the deepest depth at which we

20:04 5 found contamination. Below 18 inches we didn't find

6 anything that was above the 500.

7 MS. DOROTHY WRIGHT: Okay. Can I ask

8 you another question?

9 They found one tank over there. There's

20:05 10 two more tanks y'all got to find.

11 MS. STACEY BENNETT: Tanks, you talking

12 about on the site itself?

13 MS. DOROTHY WRIGHT: People were working

14 on that. They were since 1996.

20:05 15 MS. STACEY BENNETT: Okay.

16 MS. DOROTHY WRIGHT: When the people

17 came out, inspected, doing all the tests, okay, they

18 say they found two more tanks.

19 MS. STACEY BENNETT: They found tanks,

20:05 20 but those tanks are not leaking out onto residential

21 properties. So everything is contained within the

22 fenced boundaries. So we're going to make sure that

23 when they do handle the onsite, which is within the

24 fenced areas, that that is not going off site, and

20:05 25 that's one of the things that they have to do is they

032021
942343ab-6c0e-4f35-ba6d-d84cc5cd7444

EPA Public Meeting 8/16/2005

Page 44

1 have to put procedures in place to make sure that when

2 they remove those tanks, that none of that material

3 goes off site. So there will be procedures in place to

4 make sure that the residential properties aren't

20:05 5 affected.

6 MS. DOROTHY WRIGHT: Okay.

7 MS. NICOLE BATES: I have some more

8 questions. Sorry.

9 MS. STACEY BENNETT: Okay. Go right

20:06 10 ahead.

11 MS. NICOLE BATES: Who all is a part of

12 the Fifth Ward Investment Corporation?

13 MS. STACEY BENNETT: I don't know.

14 MS. NICOLE BATES: Would the bankruptcy

20:06 15 judge know?

16 MS. STACEY BENNETT: Bankruptcy, do

17 y'all know who all is part of the Fifth Ward?

18 MR. RANDY ASHBY: I haven't seen the

19 organizational structure, so I don't know.

20:06 20 MS. NICOLE BATES: What's their address?

21 MR. RANDY ASHBY: I don't have it with

22 me.

23 MS. NICOLE BATES: Do you have any

24 information at all?

20:06 25 MR. RANDY ASHBY: Well, I mean, I do

032022
942343ab-6c0e-4f35-ba6d-d84cc5cd7444

EPA Public Meeting 8/16/2005

Page 45

1 not -- recall offhand what their address is. They

2 would be with the Secretary of State, I would think.

3 It's Fifth Ward Development, LTD., I think. Limited is

4 L T D, period.

20:06 5 I'm sorry. It's Fifth Ward -- Fifth is

6 F I F T H, Ward Development, comma, L T D, period. Oh,

7 my name is Randy Ashby, A S H B Y.

8 MR. RICHARD FULLER: This is Richard

9 Fuller again. On that, weren't we told at our last

20:07 10 meeting, you and I, that the name Frank Lu was

11 associated with this -- the group that had just bought

12 that property?

13 MS. STACEY BENNETT: That was in the

14 newspapers. We have not -- we've never had a meeting

20:07 15 with Frank Lu.

16 MR. RICHARD FULLER: So we don't know

17 whether Frank Lu really is the main prime mover of this

18 group?

19 MS. STACEY BENNETT: We don't have -- I

20:07 20 don't have that information. And I'm not trying to get

21 off of OU1, but just realize this meeting is on OU2 and

22 that what we're trying to do is get your comments on

23 this and that with the upcoming meeting, after we

24 reach -- you know, when we have negotiations with

20:07 25 someone that's a potential buyer, we don't ever deal

032023
942343ab-6c0e-4f35-ba6d-d84cc5cd7444

EPA Public Meeting 8/16/2005

Page 46

1 with the person that's actually the buyer. You always

2 deal with a law firm. So our attorneys, they meet with

3 the attorneys of the person that they're representing,

4 so a lot of times we don't even know the identity of

20:08 5 that person until at the end in which the paperwork is

6 signed.

7 But you will have an opportunity to

8 comment, because once they sign an agreed order with

9 us, it'll have to go to the Federal Register, it'll be

20:08 10 published in the Federal Register, and there's a public

11 comment period on that, and so you will have an

12 opportunity to comment. So just be patient with us,

13 and hopefully at the end of this year, we'll be able to

14 have some type of information meeting, and we will try

20:08 15 to get the developer at that meeting so that you'll

16 have the opportunity to ask those questions.

17 But the main thing we just want to do is

18 get your comments on what we've done so far on the

19 residential areas.

20:09 20 MR. EARNEST WILLIAMS: About the cleanup

21 and everything, with the EPA; right?

22 MS. STACEY BENNETT: Right. EPA or the

23 Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, all the

24 properties that were above 500 parts per million lead

20:09 25 have been cleaned up.

032024
942343ab-6c0e-4f35-ba6d-d84cc5cd7444

EPA Public Meeting 8/16/2005

Page 47

1 MR. ALVIN BYRD: Well, you know, you've

2 done such a good job, Stacey, that the only remaining

3 questions is: Who are these developers?

4 MR. EARNEST WILLIAMS: Yeah, that's --

20:09 5 MR. ALVIN BYRD: That's the primary

6 concern, and then I guess this lends toward an

7 opportunity every time we have a meeting, you know

8 we're going to ask you about it.

9 MS. STACEY BENNETT: That's true.

20:09 10 MR. ALVIN BYRD: So we can really clear

11 the air and just say who it is.

12 MS. STACEY BENNETT: Right. And we're

13 hoping at the end of this year, we'll be able to, once

14 we've reached an agreement -- the attorneys have

20:09 15 reached an agreement on that agreed order, that all of

16 those individuals will be present for a meeting and

17 you'll get an opportunity to ask those questions.

18 MR. ALVIN BYRD: Okay.

19 MS. STACEY BENNETT: Any other

20:09 20 questions?

21 MR. EARNEST WILLIAMS: That's about it

22 that I need.

23 MS. STACEY BENNETT: If not, you can

24 always give us a call on the fact sheet. You have

20:10 25 Rafael, myself, Donn Walters, all of our names, phone

032025
942343ab-6c0e-4f35-ba6d-d84cc5cd7444

EPA Public Meeting 8/16/2005

Page 48

1 numbers, and address, e-mail addresses. You can always

2 e-mail us a question.

3 But we want to thank you for taking time

4 out of your busy schedule tonight and for coming out to

20:10 5 the Proposed Plan meeting for the residential areas.

6 Thank you.

7 (Meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m.)

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

032026
942343ab-6c0e-4f35-ba6d-d84cc5cd7444

EPA Public Meeting 8/16/2005

Page 49

1 THE STATE OF TEXAS:

2 COUNTY OF HARRIS:

3

4 I, Peggy Ann Antone, Certified Shorthand

5 Reporter in and for the State of Texas, do hereby

6 certify that the foregoing proceedings were taken by me

7 in machine shorthand and later transcribed from machine

8 shorthand to typewritten form by me.

9 I further certify that the above and

10 foregoing proceedings, as set forth in typewriting, is

11 a full, true and correct transcript of the proceedings

12 had at the time of taking said proceedings.

13 GIVEN under my hand and seal of office

14 on this, the 28th day of August, 2005.

15

16

17 -----------------------------------

18 Peggy Ann Antone, RMR, CRR

 C.S.R. No. 755 Expires 12/31/06

19 Notary Public, State of Texas

 Commission expires 8/20/08

20

 Allied Advanced Reporting, Inc.

21 1647 Colquitt

 Houston, Texas 77006

22 713.524.6777

 aari@alliedadvancedreporting.com

23

24

25

032027
APPENDIX D

032028
Sound Environmental Solutions, Inc.

September 6, 2005

Mr. Rafael Casanova

Remedial Project Manager

Superfund Division (6SF-AP)

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

1445 Ross Avenue

Suite 1200

Dallas, Texas 75202-2733

Subject: Comments On The Many Diversified Interests, Inc. Superfund Site, Remedial

Investigation And Feasibility Study Reports For Operable Unit 2.

Dear Mr. Casanova:

The Houston Chapter of Mothers for Clean Air has requested that I submit to you the

attached "Comments On The Many Diversified Interests, Inc. Superfund Site, Remedial

Investigation And Feasibility Study Reports For Operable Unit 2". We trust that EPA will

understand our concerns about the need to access all properties in the study area so that

all contaminated properties can be remediated.

Should you have any questions regarding these comments or wish to discuss them,

pleased contact me.

Sincerely,

Richard H. Fuller, P.O., C.P.G., P.H.G.

TAG Technical Advisor to Mothers for Clean Air

cc: Dr. Priscilla Weeks, Mothers for Clean Air

Ms. Jane Laping, Mothers for Clean Air

Sound Environmental Solutions, Inc. •11111 Katy Freeway, Suite 1004, Houston, Texas 77079

713/973-6085 • Fax: 713/973-6087 • E-mail: sesinc@ses-inc.net

032029
COMMENTS ON THE MANY DIVERSIFIED INTERESTS, INC. SUPERFUND SITE,

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION AND FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORTS FOR

OPERABLE UNIT 2, DATED JULY 29, 2005

Prepared For

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 6

Superfund Division

Prepared By

The Fifth Ward Chapter of Mothers for Clean Air

under

An EPA Technical Assistance Grant

TAG Technical Advisor

Richard H. Fuller, P.O., C.P.G., P.H.G.

Sound Environmental Solutions, Inc.

11111 Katy Freeway, Suite 1004

Houston, Texas 77079

September 1,2005

032030
COMMENTS ON THE MANY DIVERSIFIED INTERESTS, INC. SUPERFUND SITE,

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION AND FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORTS FOR OPERABLE

UNIT 2, DATED JULY 29, 2005

Introduction

The Fifth Ward Chapter of Mothers for Clean Air is a non-governmental organization made up

of citizens who live predominantly in the Fifth Ward area of Houston, Texas, the area in which

the Many Diversified Interests, Inc. (MDI) Superfund Site is located. In September 2001,

Mothers for Clean Air received as Technical Assistance Grant from EPA Region 6. This grant

has allowed them to hire a Technical Advisor, Sound Environmental Solutions, Inc., to advise

the group on EPA activities at the MDI site, review EPA documents on the MDI site, and act as

spokesperson for Mothers for Clean Air to EPA Region 6.

The following comments have been prepared by Richard H. Fuller, of Sound Environmental

Solutions, Inc., on behalf of the Fifth Ward Chapter of Mothers for Clean Air. The comments

are based on a review of the July 29, 2005 Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study Reports

for Operable Unit 2.

Remedial Investigation

The Remedial Investigation for the MDI Operable Unit 2 (OU 2) covered investigations of offsite occurrences of metals thought to have originated from the smelter operations at the MDI site.

418 properties were identified in the OU 2 study area. Of these properties, 106 properties had

already been sampled during the 1996 through 1999 study and remediation that had been carried

out by EPA and the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission, now the Texas

Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). 181 properties were sampled and evaluated

during this Operable Unit 2 investigation. 112 properties were not evaluated because assess was

denied (16 properties), the owners of the property could not be determined (53 properties) or the

owners failed to respond to EPA letters requesting site assess (43 properties). An additional 19

properties were not evaluated because they were classified as commercial/industrial.

A cleanup level of 500 mg/kg for lead was established. During the previous 1996 through 1999

study there were 106 properties sampled and 89 properties were remediated. During EPA's

Operable Unit 2 investigation 59 of the 181 properties sampled were found to contain lead

concentrations above the 500-mg/kg cleanup criteria. These 59 sites were remediated by the

removal of lead affected soils.

At 23 locations soil samples were collected from crawlspaces under homes in an attempt to

determine if the lead concentration in soils beneath crawlspaces posed a health risk. It was

determined that additional sampling of crawlspaces was necessary to ascertain if concentrations

of lead are statistically significant in determining if a health risk exists. This work will be carried

as part of the Operable Unit 3 activities.

Operable unit 3 activities will also include efforts to gain access to the 112 properties that were

not previously investigated due to lack of site access.

032031
Feasibility Study

All properties that were studied and found to contain lead concentrations above cleanup levels

were remediated by the removal of lead affected soils. The feasibility study therefore chose the

no action alternative for further remediation since there were no known sites where soils

exceeded the cleanup levels.

Comments on the Findings of th e Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study

1. We concur with the findings of the RI and FS reports in that all sites containing lead

concentrations which exceeded 500 mg/kg were remediated by soil removal or, in the case of

the Kelly Village area, remediation will soon be completed.

2. We also concur that since all known areas of soils containing greater than 500 mg/kg lead

concentrations have been remediated, that the no action alternative for the Feasibility Study

is the appropriate conclusion.

3. We agree with the decision to carry out an Operable Unit 3 RI and FS to cover the 112

properties not sampled and to evaluate additional samples from crawlspaces.

4. We are, however, very concerned about the level of effort that EPA has expended, to date, in

trying to obtain access to the 112 properties not sampled. These 112 properties represent 27%

of the potentially affected properties. We believe that EPA needs to make gaining access to

these properties a real priority. To allow 27% of the potentially contaminated sites in the 5th

Ward, a historic minority area, to go unsampled, raises real questions about Environmental

Justice. We are especially concerned when we are told that one reason that EPA could not

use the court system to gain access to the properties was because EPA works through the

Department of Justice and the Department of Justice does not see this project as a high

enough priority to support EPA. If this is the case, then EPA should ask the local citizens for

assistance so that we can mobilize our local and national political representatives to put

pressure on the Department of Justice. I am sure our state representatives as well as our U. S.

Senators and members of the U.S. House of Representatives would provide support and put

pressure on the Department of Justice if they are not supporting EPA in this matter.

We suggest that the following actions be taken to obtain access to the unsampled sites:

• For the 16 sites where access was denied, we believe that EPA representatives, perhaps

accompanied by some local concerned citizens, should meet with the site owner to

explain exactly what EPA is proposing to do and to explain that all work will be done at

no cost to the site owner.

• Extra efforts should be expended to contact the owners of the 43 sites where no response

was obtained after sending letters notifying the site owners of EPA request to sample the

sites. Additional letters of request should be sent out. The owners should be contacted

by phone if a phone number can be obtained. If these efforts fail to elicit a response, then

they should be visited by EPA representatives, perhaps accompanied by some local

032032
concerned citizens, to explain exactly what EPA is proposing to do and to explain that all

work will be done at no cost to the site owner.

• For the 53 sites where no owner can be identified via the tax rolls, and for any of the 43

sites where that owner failed to respond and further effort have resulted in no response,

we suggest that EPA use the court system to gain access and sample the properties based

on the premise that the sites may constitute a danger to public health and the

environment.

We believe that EPA has not utilized local citizens groups enough in attempting to gain site

access. Local citizens groups could be helpful in determining site ownership and in working with

site owners to gain EPA access for sampling and site cleanup.

032033