1 First Five-Year Review Report
for Redwing Carriers, Inc.

527 U.S. Highway 43
Saraland Mobile County, Alabama

List of Acronyms .............................................................................................................. ............. 3

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. ......... 4

Five-Year Review Summary Form .............................................................................................. 5

1.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................. ............... 7

2.0 Site Chronology ........................................................................................................... ............ 8

3.0 Background ................................................................................................................ ............. 9

3.1 P HYSICAL C HARACTERISTICS .......................................................................................... 9
3.2 L AND AND R ESOURCE U SE ............................................................................................ 11

3.3 H ISTORY OF C ONTAMINATION ....................................................................................... 11
3.4 I NITIAL R ESPONSE ......................................................................................................... 11

3.5 B ASIS FOR T AKING A CTION ........................................................................................... 11

4.0 Remedial Actions .......................................................................................................... ........ 13

4.1 R EMEDY S ELECTION ...................................................................................................... 13

4.2 R EMEDY I MPLEMENTATION ........................................................................................... 15

4.3 O PERATION AND M AINTENANCE (O&M) ....................................................................... 16

5.0 Progress Since the Last Five-Year Review ......................................................................... 16

6.0 Five-Year Review Process .................................................................................................. .. 17

6.1 A DMINISTRATIVE C OMPONENTS .................................................................................... 17

6.2 C OMMUNITY I NVOLVEMENT .......................................................................................... 17

6.3 D OCUMENT R EVIEW ...................................................................................................... 17

6.4 D ATA R EVIEW ............................................................................................................... 20
6.5 S ITE I NSPECTION ............................................................................................................ 22

6.6 I NTERVIEWS ................................................................................................................... 22

7.0 Technical Assessment ...................................................................................................... ..... 23

7.1 Q UESTION A: I S THE REMEDY FUNCTIONING AS INTENDED BY THE DECISION

DOCUMENTS ? ............................................................................................................... 23

7.2 Q UESTION B: A RE THE EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS

, TOXICITY DATA

, CLEANUP LEVELS AND

REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES (RAO S ) USED AT THE TIME OF REMEDY SELECTION

STILL VALID ? ............................................................................................................... 23

7.3 Q UESTION C: H AS ANY OTHER INFORMATION COME TO LIGHT THAT COULD CALL INTO

QUESTION THE PROTECTIVENESS OF THE REMEDY ? ...................................................... 23

7.4 T ECHNICAL A SSESSMENT S UMMARY ............................................................................. 23

8.0 Issues .................................................................................................................... .................. 24

9.0 Recommendations and Follow-up Actions ......................................................................... 24

10.0 Protectiveness Statements ................................................................................................ .. 242 11.0 Next Review .............................................................................................................. ........... 24

Appendix A: List of Do cuments Reviewed ............................................................................. A-1

Appendix B: Press Notice ...................................................................................................... ... B-1

Appendix C: Interview Form ................................................................................................... C-1

Appendix D. ROD Cleanup Goals ........................................................................................... D-1

Tables Table 1: Chronology of Site Events ............................................................................................ .... 8 Table 2: Ground water Cleanup Goals.......................................................................................... 1 4 Table 3: Subsurface soil Cleanup Goals ....................................................................................... 15 Table 4: Surface soil and Sediment Cleanup Goals ...................................................................... 15
Table 5: Previous and Current ARARs for Ground Water COCs ................................................ 19

Figures Figure 1: Site Location Map ................................................................................................... ........ 9 Figure 2: Detailed Site Map ................................................................................................... ....... 103 

### List of Acronyms

ADEM Alabama Department of Environmental Management ARAR Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Re sponse, Compensation and Liability Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CIC Community Involvement Coordinator
COC Contaminant of Concern EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency ESD Explanation of Significant Difference
FYR Five-Year Review HUD United States Department of Housing and Development μg/L micrograms per liter
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
NPL National Priorities List O&M Operation and Maintenance OU Operable Unit PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon PRP Potentially Responsible Party
RA Remedial Action RAO Remedial Action Objective

RCRA Resource Conserva tion and Recovery Act
ROD Record of Decision RPM Remedial Project Manager
TLM Tar Like Material UU/UE Unlimited Use and Unrestricted Exposure VOC Volatile Organic Compound4 

### Executive Summary

The Redwing Carrier, Inc. Superfund site (the Site) is 5.1 acres in size and is located in the City of Saraland, Mobile County, Alabama. The Site is bounded to the east by U.S. Highway 43 and a skating rink. On the north it is bounded by a United Gas Pipe Li ne easement with a residential development south of the easement. The Site is bounded on the north by a trailer park, and on the west by an undeveloped lot. The Site was th e former location of the Saraland Apartment Complex (Apartments) that has since been demolis hed to allow for the complete remediation of
the site.

From 1961 to 1971, Redwing Carriers, Inc. (Red wing), a trucking company, owned and operated the Site as a terminal for cleaning, repairing, and parking its fleet of trucks. The company transported a variety of substances, including aspha lt, diesel fuel, chemicals, and pesticides from local plants. Redwing discharged untreated ha zardous substances to the ground during the cleaning of tanker trucks, creati ng a tar-like sludge and contamin ating Site soils. The tar-like sludge was composed predominately of polycyc lic aromatic hydrocarbon compounds together with lesser amounts of pesticid es, herbicides and volatile orga nic compounds. These operations
resulted in contamination of soils, ground water and sediment.

The United States Environmental Protection Ag ency (EPA) placed the Site on the National Priorities List (NPL ) on February 21, 1990.

EPA selected the remedy in the 1992 Record of Decision (ROD) and updated the remedy in
2000. The ROD states that the remedial action objectives (RAOs) include:

 Prevent migration of contaminated ground water.

 Prevent human exposure to contamin ated soils, sediments and sludge.

 Permanently reduce the toxicity of the harmful constituents in all media.

 Prevent migration of site contamin ants via drainage pathways.

The remedy consists of:

 Removal of the surface soil, subsurface soil and sediments until the remaining soil is
below the remedial levels established in the ROD.

 Off-site disposal in a Resource Conserva tion and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle D
landfill for soils and sediments that are excavated.

 Treatment of soils and sediments by inci neration at the RCRA Subtitle D landfill.

 Removal of all buildings, foundations and pavi ng to allow for removal of soils beneath the buildings.

 Reconstitution of the ground wate r monitoring program at the Site after the backfilling and regrading of excavated areas had b een completed. The ground water monitoring program included sampling to establish base line conditions at the Site and quarterly ground water monitoring for up to three years to determine the effectiveness of the source material excavation in reducing surf icial ground water contamination.

The remedy at the Site is protective of human health and the environment because the surface soil, subsurface soil, sediment and ground water at the Site met performance standards established in the RODs and the Explan ation of Significant Difference (ESD).5 

### Five-Year Review Summary Form

SITE IDENTIFICATION

Site Name: Redwing Carriers, Inc. (Saraland)

EPA ID: ALD980844385

Region: 4 State: AL City/County: Saraland/ Mobile County

SITE STATUS

NPL Status: NPL

Multiple OUs?

No Has the site achieved construction completion?

Yes

REVIEW STATUS

Lead agency: EPA If “Other Federal Agency” selected above, enter Agency name: Click here to enter text.

Author name: Shelby Johnston, EPA

Author affiliation: Site RPM

Review period: 8/25/2014 – 9/02/2014

Date of site inspection: N/A

Type of review: Policy

Review number: 1

Triggering action date: 9/02/2009

Due date (five years after triggering action date) : 9/02/20146 Five-Year Review Summary Form (continued)

Protectiveness Statement(s)

Operable Unit:
OU1 Protectiveness Determination:
Protective Addendum Due Date (if applicable):
Click here to enter date.

Protectiveness Statement: The remedy at the Site is protective of human health and the environment because the surface soil, subsurface soil, sediment and ground water at the Site met performance
standards established in the RODs and the ESD.

Environmental Indicators

- Current human exposures at the Site are under control. - Current ground water migration is under control.

Are Necessary Institutional Controls in Place?

All Some None No institutional Controls are necessary.

Has EPA Designated the Site as Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use?

Yes No

Has the Site Been Put into Reuse?

Yes No7 

### First Five-Year Review Report
for Redwing Carrier, Inc. Superfund Site

1.0 Introduction

The purpose of a five-year review (FYR) is to ev aluate the implementation and performance of a remedy in order to determine if the remedy will c ontinue to be protective of human health and the environment. FYR reports document FYR me thods, findings and conclusions. In addition, FYR reports identify issues found during the re view, if any, and document recommendations to
address them.

EPA prepares FYRs pursuant to the Comprehe nsive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) Section 121 and the National Oil and H azardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). CERCLA Section 121 states:

If the President sel ects a remedial action that resu lts in any hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the si te, the President shall review such remedial action no less often than each 5 years after the initiation of such reme dial action to assure
that human health and the environment are being protected by the remedial action being implemented. In addition, if upon such review it is the judgment of the President that action is appropriate at such site in accordan ce with section [104] or [106], the President shall take or require such action. The Presid ent shall report to th e Congress a list of facilities for which such review is require d, the results of all su ch reviews, and any
actions taken as a resu lt of such reviews.

EPA interpreted this requirement further in th e NCP, 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 300.430(f)(4)(ii), which states:

If a remedial action is select ed that results in hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, the lead agency shall review such action no less often than every five years after initiation of the selected remedial action.

The assigned EPA Region 4 Remedial Project Ma nager (RPM) conducted the FYR and prepared this report regarding the remedy implemented at the Site in Saraland, Mo bile County, Alabama. The RPM conducted this FYR from August to September 2014. EPA is the lead agency for developing and implementing the remedy for the potentially responsible party (PRP)-financed cleanup at the Site. The Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM), as the support agency representing the St ate of Alabama, has reviewed all supporting documentation and provided input to EPA during the FYR process.

This is the first FYR for the Site. The triggeri ng action for this policy re view was the signing of the Preliminary Closeout Report on September 3, 2009. No hazardous substances, pollutants or
contaminants remain at the Site above leve ls allowing for unlimited use and unrestricted8 exposure, however it is the policy of EPA to conduct a policy review on all sites which will require five or more years to complete. Th e Site consists of one operable unit (OU).



### 2.0 Site Chronology

Table 1 lists the dates of important events for the Site.

Table 1: Chronology of Site Events

Event Date Site Operated as a Tr uck Terminal 1961- 1971 Property sold to Harrington, Inc. May 1971 Saraland Apartments Ltd. Purchase d the Site and constructed a U.S. Housing and Urban Development apartment complex on-site. 1973

ADEM investigation of Tar-like material (TLM) 1984 First Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) with trucking company for
removal of visible TLM July 1985

EPA listed site on NPL February 21, 1990 PRPs and EPA signed a second AOC to conduct the remedial investigation and feasibility study June 1990

remedial investigation and feasibility study completed July 1992 EPA signed Record of D ecision (ROD) December 1992 First UAO to trucking company and nine (9) other PRPs August 1993 First RD field work completed March 1994 First 90% design completed May 1995 Second UAO to remove tar seeps July 1995 START Contractor and TAT Contractor assigned by EPA March 1996 Initial removal action underway October 1996 PRP contractor prepares and presents FFS and Second Look Remedy 1997-1999 ROD amended based on Second Look Remedy June 14, 2000 SOW agreed upon and approved 2000 Remedial Design Initiated 2002 Buildings and Facilities Demolition Spring 2004 Final RD Work Plan Approved April 2005 Pre-Design Complete December 2005 Remedial Design Approved by EPA June 28, 2007 RA Contractor selected August 2007 EPA issued an ESD for the Site to revise several ground water cleanup
levels September 25, 2007

RA Initiated December 2007 RA Field Work Completed June 2008 Final RA inspection by EPA and ADEM September 5,2008 Final Ground water monitoring Program Established March 2009 EPA Signed the Preliminary Closeout Report September 3, 2009 Final Ground water Monitoring Event Completed August 2012 All Remaining Monitoring Wells Abandoned February 2013 Final Remedial Action Report Submitted April 2013 First Five Year Review due September 20149 

### 3.0 Background

3.1 Physical Characteristics

The Site is located at 527 U.S. Highway 43, Saraland, Mobile County, Alabama (Figure 1). The Site was the location of the former Apartment Complex. The residents of the Apartments were permanently relocated and the Apartments have since been demolished to allow for the complete remediation of th e Site and a drainage ditch. The Site is bounded to the east by U.S. Highway 43 and a skating rink. On the north it is bounded by a United Gas Pipe Line easement with a resi dential development south of the easement. The Site is bounded on the north by a trailer pa rk, and on the west by an undeveloped lot.

Figure 1: Site Location Map

Disclaimer: This map and any boundary lines within the map are a pproximate and subject to change. The map is not a survey. The map is for informational purposes only regarding EPA’s response actions at the Site.10 Figure 2: Detailed Site Map

Disclaimer: This map and any boundary lines within the map are a pproximate and subject to change. The map is not a survey. The map is for informational purposes only regarding EPA’s response actions at the Site.11 3.2 Land and Resource Use

The Site is located in the City of Sara land, Mobile County, Alabama and is bounded to the east by U.S. Highway 43 and a skating rink. On the north it is bounded by a United Gas Pipe Line easement with a residential deve lopment south of the easement. The Site is bounded on the north by a trailer park, and on the west by an undeveloped lot. The Site was the former location of the Apartments have since been demolished to allow for the complete remediation of the Site.

The Site is underlain by strata that comprise the Alluvial Aquifer of Mobile County. Two distinct hydrogeologic units were identified fr om four strata underl ying the Redwing Site. The designations assigned to these three units are as follows: (1) a Low Permeability Unit and (2) the Alluvial Aquifer (l ower sands). The Alluvial A quifer is considered a Class IIA ground water as it is a curr ent source of drinking water. The first aquifer beneath the Site is where the ground water protection le vels will apply is the Alluvial Aquifer.

3.3 History of Contamination

From 1961 to 1971, Redwing Carriers, Inc. (Redwing), a trucking company, owned and operated the Site as a terminal for cleaning, re pairing, and parking its fleet of trucks. The firm transported a variety of substances, in cluding asphalt, diesel fuel, chemicals, and pesticides from local plants. During clean ing, untreated hazardous substances were released to the ground creating a tar-like sludge and contaminati ng site soils. The tar-like sludge is composed predominately of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon compounds together with lesser amounts of pesticides, herbicides and volatile organic compounds.

3.4 Initial Response

In 1984, ADEM investigated apartment resident s' complaints about the tar-like sludge seeping to the surface at numerous loca tions at the Site. In 1985, under Superfund removal authority, EPA conducted initial studi es in which high concentrations of 1,2,4- trichlorobenzene and naphthalene were detected in the soil and in leachate coming from the sludge. On July 9, 1985, the Agency and Redwing entered into a removal
Administrative Order on Consent which re quired Redwing to (among other things) conduct a limited sludge and contaminated soil removal.

The Site was placed on the National Priori ties List (NPL) in February 1990. On December 15, 1992, EPA issued a Record of D ecision for the Site (described in more detail below).

3.5 Basis for Taking Action

Redwing, under EPA's oversight, began field acti vities for the first phase of the remedial investigation in January 1991. The RI/FS wa s completed in July of 1992. During the investigation, 39 soil borings we re collected with a total of 123 separate soil samples being analyzed. The substances found most frequently at concentrations above cleanup12 levels fall into three major categories: 1) pe sticides and herbicides; 2) Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs). These substances were found in soils, ditch sediments and ground water across the Redwing Site. The highest levels of contaminati on were detected in the southe rn and eastern portions (the
location of the former containment levee us ed by Redwing) and across areas of former terminal operations. Inorganic substances, which may occur in nature at significant levels, were also detected in soils, sludge and ground water. During this investigation
EPA determined that the contaminants at the Site presented an unacceptable risk to human health. Redwing continued periodic removal of surface seeps until 1994, when they stopped doing any work at the Site.

On July 12, 1996, EPA issued a removal Unilate ral Administrative Order to Redwing and Saraland Apartments, Ltd., directing them to re move the source of the recurring tar seeps. When both parties refused to comply with the order, EPA conducted a Removal Action which consisted of temporarily relocati ng 57 families living in the complex and excavating and transporting off Site for di sposal approximately 20,724 tons of sludge,
contaminated soil and debris.

Air monitoring conducted in the Saraland Apar tments after the removal was completed and detected unacceptable levels of benzene and the pesticide Aldrin in some of the Saraland Apartments. Based on this monitoring, EPA determined that the residents could not return to live in the Saraland Apartm ents. Working together, EPA and HUD (United States Department of Housi ng and Development) relocated the residents to comparable permanent housing.

In July, 1997, EPA collected soil, sedime nt and water samples from twenty-three properties adjacent to the Redwing Site. The purpose of this sampling was to address community concerns about possible releases fr om the Site. Based on a risk evaluation of the analytical results of these samples, the Agency determined that there is no unacceptable health risk or hazard in the neighborhood adjacent to the Redwing Site.13 

### 4.0 Remedial Actions

In accordance with CERCLA and the NCP, the overriding goals for any remedial action are protection of human health and the environment a nd compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs). A number of remedial alternatives were considered for the Site, and final selection was made based on an evaluation of each alternative against nine evaluation criteria that are spec ified in Section 300.430(e )(9)(iii) of the NCP. The nine criteria

are:

1. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment

2. Compliance with ARARs

3. Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence

4. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility or Volume through Treatment

5. Short-Term Effectiveness

6. Implementability

7. Cost

8. State Acceptance

9. Community Acceptance

4.1 Remedy Selection

The Redwing Site ROD was signed on December 15, 1992. The major components of the 1992 selected remedy include:

 Excavation of sludge, sediments and contaminated soils.

 Off-site treatment/disposal of contam inated soils, sediments and sludge.

 Regrading and backfill of excavations using clean, compacted-fill material.

 Temporary and possibly permanent reloca tion of residents with the potential demolition of selected apartment units.

 On-site treatment of contaminated ground wa ter in the surficial aquifer. Monitoring and possible withdrawal and treatment of ground water in the alluvial aquifer. Treatment of ground water for discharge to a Publicly Owned Treatment Works, or if unavailable, to a nearby surface water body.

The 1992 ROD was subsequently amended on June 14, 2000. The major components of the amended remedy were:

 Development of a phased approach to implement the amended remedy during the Remedial Design.

 Demolition, removal, and off-site disposal of all buildings, foundations, concrete walkways, asphalt driveways and parking areas.14  Excavation, off-site treatment and disposal of the remaining source material (sludge, sediments and contaminated soils) to aid in restoring and pr otecting ground water quality.

 Reconstitution of the ground water monitoring program at the Site after the backfilling and regrading of excavat ed areas had been completed.

 Postponement of the 1992 ROD requirement for on-site extraction and treatment of contaminated ground water and compliance monitoring. Implementation was to be contingent upon the results of the baselin e ground water sampling and evaluation of the quarterly ground water monitoring data . Evaluation of the current remedial strategy would be achieved as a result of the removal of the source material.

On September 25, 2007, EPA issued an ESD fo r the Redwing Site. In the ESD, EPA revised the 1992 ROD subsurface soil cleanup le vels for acetone, Aldrin, alpha-BHC, and
Dieldrin.

The remedy at the Site is protective of hu man health and the environment because the surface soil, subsurface soil, sediment and ground water at the Site met performance
standards established in the RODs and the E xplanation of Significant Difference (ESD).

Table 2: Ground Water Cleanup Goals

Ground Water COCs ROD Cleanup Goal* (micrograms per liter, μg/L)

4,4-DDT 0.158

Acetone 1,120

Aldrin 0.00317

Alpha-BHC 0.00855

Beryllium 4.00

Bis (2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate 6.00

Caron Disulfide 47.6

Chloroform 100

Chromium 50

Dieldrin 0.00337

Gamma- BHC (Lindane) 0.2

Methylene Chloride 5

Nickel 100

Vanadium 78.1

Vernolate 11.2

*Based on Risk Assessment15 Table 3: Subsurface Soil Cleanup Goals

Subsurface soil COCs ROD Cleanup Goal* (micrograms per liter, μg/L)

4,4’- DDT** 566

Acetone 453***

Aldrin 640,000***

Alpha-BHC 2.2***

Chloroform 70

Chromium 47,000

Dieldrin 81***

Gamma- BHC (Lindane) 3.2

Methylene Chloride 0.6

Nickel 30,000

Vanadium** 156,000

Vernolate 55

*Cleanup levels are based on risk to ground water protection.

** Concentrations of these site related contaminan ts were detected in the ground water during the RI but not above cleanup levels in the subsurface soils but contaminants were included post excavation confirmation sampling.

***Cleanup goals updated by revised site specific risk assessment which was detailed in the 2007

ESD.

Table 4: Surface Soil a nd Sediment Cleanup Goals

Surface soil and Sediment COCs ROD Cleanup Goal* (micrograms per liter, μg/L)

Benzo (A) Pyrene 94.9

Benzo (B) Fluoranthene 540

Benzo (A) Anthracene 1,025

Carbon Tetrachloride 9,590

Chrysene 362

*Based on risk from inhalation or ingestion.

4.2 Remedy Implementation

EPA approved the Final Remedial De sign on June 28, 2007. The Redwing PRP conducted the remedial action pursuant to the February 26, 2002 Remedial Design/Remedial Action Consent Decree. Si te demolition activities started in March 2004 and were completed in June 2004. During the demolition, 5,700 cubic yards of16 demolition debris were transported off-site fo r disposal and 3,915 cubic yards of asphalt and concrete were transported off-site for recycling.

The Final Remedial Design Report wa s approved on June 28, 2007. The Redwing Remedial Action (RA) started in mid-December 2007 and was completed in June 2008. During the RA, a total of 25,114 cubic yards of soil were excavated. Of this amount, approximately 21,375 cubic yards were transpor ted off-site for disposal. The remaining soil, together with clean fill brought in fr om off-site, was used in backfilling and regrading excavated ar eas of the Site. Upon completion of site grading, grass seed was
broadcast over the site to establish a grass cover.

After regrading and seeding activities were completed, six (6) monitoring wells were installed on-site and gro und water samples were collected on September 5, 2008. The sampling detected vernolate in one monito ring well (MW-16) at a concentration above the ROD ground water cleanup. The monitoring we lls were resampled in early December 2008 and vernolate was again detected in MW-1 6. It was determined that this well was installed near an area where soils containing unexpectedly high concentrations of vernolate were removed during the soil excava tion phase of the RA. In response to the 2008 ground water sampling, three monitoring wells were installed on adjacent property in early April 2009 to determine if contam inated ground water has migrated of-site. Sampling results from these wells di d not detect any contamination.

From September 2009 to August 2012, ground wate r samples were collected quarterly and exclusively from MW-16 and the three (3 ) off-site monitoring wells. In September 2012, EPA agreed that the ground water in th ese monitoring wells was below the ROD
standard for all constituents and abandonment of the remaining monitoring wells for the Site was approved.

4.3 Operation and Maintenance (O&M)

There are no associated annual O&M costs as the Site meet the Remedial Goal Objectives and cleanup goals set fo rth in the decision documents.



### 5.0 Progress Since the Last Five-Year Review

This is the first FYR for the Site.17 

### 6.0 Five-Year Review Process

6.1 Administrative Components

EPA Region 4 initiated the FYR in August 2014 and scheduled its completion for September 2014. The EPA RPM Shelby Johnston led the EPA site review team, which also included the EPA site attorney Marianne Lodin and the EPA community involvement coordinator (CIC) Angela Miller. The review sc hedule established consisted of the following activities:

 Community notification.

 Document review.

 Data collection and review.

 FYR Report development and review.

6.2 Community Involvement

On September 5, 2014, EPA published a public notice in the Mobile Press Register newspaper announcing the commencement of the FYR process for the Site, providing contact information for Shelby Johnston and inviting community par ticipation. The press notice is available in Appendix B. No one cont acted EPA as a result of the advertisement.

EPA will make the final FYR Report availa ble to the public. Upon completion of the FYR, EPA will place copies of the docume nt in the designated site repository.

6.3 Document Review

ARARs Review

CERCLA Section 121(d)(1 ) requires that Superfund remedial actions attain “a degree of cleanup of hazardous substance, pollutants , and contaminants released into the
environment and of control of further releas e at a minimum which assures protection of
human health and the environment.” The reme dial action must achieve a level of cleanup that at least attains those requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate.

 Applicable requirements are those cleanup stan dards, standards of control, and other substantive requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated under federal
environmental or state environmental or facil ity siting laws that specifically address a hazardous substance, remedial action, locat ion, or other circumstance found at a
CERCLA site.

 Relevant and appropriate requirements are those standards that, while not “applicable,” address problems or situations sufficiently similar to those encountered
at the CERCLA site that their use is well suit ed to the particular site. Only those state standards that are more stringent than fe deral requirements may be applicable or relevant and appropriate.18  To-be-considered criteria are non-promulgat ed advisories and gui dance that are not legally binding, but should be considered in determining the necessary remedial action. For example, to-be-considered crit eria may be particularly useful in determining health-based levels wher e no ARARs exist or in developing the appropriate method for c onducting a remedial action.

Chemical-specific ARARs are health- or risk -based numerical values or methodologies which, when applied to site-specific conditions , result in the establishment of numerical
values. These values establish an acceptable amount or concen tration of a chemical that may remain in, or be discharged to, the ambient environment. Examples of chemicalspecific ARARs include maximum contaminan t levels (MCLs) under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act and ambient water quality criteria enumerated under the federal
Clean Water Act.

Action-specific ARARs are technology- or activity-based requirements or limits on actions taken with respect to a particular hazardous substance. These requirements are triggered by a particular remedial activity, such as discharge of contaminated ground
water or in-situ remediation.

Location-specific ARARs are restrictions on hazardous substances or the conduct of the response activities solely ba sed on their location in a speci al geographic area. Examples include restrictions on activities in wetlands, sensitive habitats and historic places.

Remedial actions are required to comply w ith the chemical-specifi c ARARs identified in the ROD. In performing the Five-Year Revi ew for compliance with ARARs, only those ARARs that address the protectiven ess of the remedy are reviewed.

Ground Water ARARs

According to the ROD, the ground water ARARs are the National Primary Drinking Water Standards. As shown in Table 5, dri nking water standards have only changed for
three site contaminants. Two contaminant st andards have become less stringent and the chloroform became slightly more stringent. Th e ground water remediation data at the site indicate that the more stringent ARAR for Chloroform has been met and thus the remedy is still protective.19 Table 5: Previous and Current ARARs for Ground Water COCs

COCs 1992 ROD Cleanup Goals (μg/L) Current (2014) ARAR (μg/L) ARAR Changes

4,4-DDT 0.158 None None

Acetone 1,120 None None

Aldrin 0.00317 None None

Alpha-BHC 0.00855 None None

Beryllium 4.00* 4.00 None

Bis (2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate 6.00* 6.00 None

Carbon Disulfide 47.6 None None

Chloroform 100* 80 More stringent b

Chromium 50* 100 Less stringent

Dieldrin 0.00337 None None

Gamma- BHC (Lindane) 0.2* 0.2 None

Methylene Chloride 5* 5 None

Nickel 100* 300 Less stringent

Vanadium 78.1 None None

Vernolate 11.2 None None

All clean up levels were determined by MCL* or by site specific risk development if no MCL was published. The assumptions made for calculation of the site specific clean up levels are still valid.

b. The ground water remediation data for the site meets the new ARAR for Chloroform.

Table 6: Previous and Current ARARs fo r Surface Soil and Sediments COCs

COCs 1992 ROD Cleanup Goals (μg/L) Current ARAR (2014) (μg/kg) ARAR Changes

Benzo (A) Pyrene 94.9 None None

Benzo (B) Fluoranthene 540 None None

Benzo (A) Anthracene 1,025 None None

Carbon Tetrachloride 9,590 None None

Chrysene 362 None None

All cleanup goals indicated were developed by site specific risk development. The assumptions made for calculation of the site specific clean up levels are still valid.20 Table 7: Previous and Current ARARs for Subsurface Soil COCs

COCs 1992 ROD Cleanup Goals (μg/kg) Current ARAR (2014) (μg/kg) ARAR Changes

4,4’- DDT 566 None None

Acetone 453* None None

Aldrin 640,000* None None

Alpha-BHC 2.2* None None

Chloroform 70 None None

Chromium 47,000 None None

Dieldrin 81* None None

Gamma- BHC (Lindane) 3.2 None None

Methylene Chloride 0.6 None None

Nickel 30,000 None None

Vanadium 156,000 None None

Vernolate 55 None None

All Cleanup Goals indicated were develope d by site specific risk development. *Cleanup Goals revised by site specific risk assessment which was detailed in the 2007 ESD. The assumptions made for calculation of the site specific clean up levels are still valid.

6.4 Data Review

Soil

The excavation of TLM contaminated soil was executed from December 2007 to June 2008. The excavation program was performed by the removal blocks of soil to predetermined depths based on analytical results from the pre- design investigation.
Additional TLM contaminated soil was remove d laterally based on vi sual presence of
TLM contaminated soils on excavated sidewall s. Additional soil was excavated from the bottom of pre-determined excavation block depths based on confirmation analysis. Specifically, five-point composite samples were colle cted at the bottom of each excavation block and analyzed for ROD constituents. If the concentration of any
constituent resulted in an exceedance of the 90% Upper Confidence Limit (UCL) average concentration for the Site, then additional so il was excavated and the deeper block bottom was again sampled.

The large majority of the soils excavated fr om the site contained TLM and were thus
removed from the site based on that criter ion. The removal of the TLM contaminated soils resulted in the need to only remove a small amount of additional soils to meet the 90% UCL average concentration requir ement for soil constituent impacts. In accordance with the cut lines develope d from data obtained during the Geoprobe® Investigation, contaminated soil and TLM was re moved to the pre-designated cut lines. In21 addition, any additional visible TLM was excavat ed. These visual determination criteria
resulted in the excavation of a substantia lly greater volume of soil than originally anticipated form the initial cu t lines. TLM and TLM contaminat ed soil was disposed of at a Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facility.

Transportation and storage of the excavated soils was governed by the disposition of the soil as defined by the ARARs which incl uded RCRA. The ROD indicated that the Toxicicity Characteristic L eaching Procedure (TCLP) was to be used for determining
whether soils are hazardous or non-hazar dous. TLM and excavated soil were not
considered listed wastes. The Site excav ation was backfilled with clean soil and compacted to simulate natural conditi ons. Re-vegetation was performed using conventional hydroseeding methods to establis h a stable stand of vegetation for soil
erosion control.

The final excavation volume was greater th an the original estimated design volume primarily because: 1) confirmation analysis in certain areas required deeper excavation to meet 90% UCL requirements, and 2) sidewall TLM contaminated soils were much more extensive than previously estimat ed from pre-design sampling data.

Excavation proceeded to the limits of visual TLM contaminated soil along the complete western, southern and eastern boundaries of th e Site property. On a small portion of the property on the northern Site boundary, some visual TLM soil staining was permitted to be left in place due to the proximity of th e excavation to the main pressure natural gas line for the City of Saraland. Th e excavation in this area was terminated approximately 2- ft. from the gas line. Note that even though a small volume of TLM was left in this area, the preponderance of the analy tical data from the TLM stag ing piles indicated low to
non-detectable concentrations of ROD constituen ts in the soil. In summary, the original design excavation volume was 12,300 CY. Th e final excavation volume was 25,114 CY.

Ground Water

Long-term, post-remediation ground water mon itoring was initiated after the completion of the RA in 2008 and was ongoing until la te 2012. 4,4-DDT, Acetone, Aldrin, AlphaBHC, Beryllium, Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, Carbon Disulfide, Chloroform, Chromium, Dieldrin, Gamma-BHC (Lindane), Methylene Chloride, Nickel, Vanadium and Vernolate are the ground water COCs listed in the ROD. This monitoring program began with the installation of six (6) ne w monitoring wells (MW-14, MW-15, MW-16, MW-17, MW-18, and MW- 19) on-site. Two (2) monitoring wells th at existed prior to the remediation were left in place (MW-12U and MW-13U). These ei ght (8) wells were sampled in September 2008, December 2008, and March 2009 for the following constituents: Sulfate, Chloride, Beryllium (total and dissolved), Total Chromium (total and dissolved), Nickel (total and dissolved), Vanadium (total and dissolved), Total Organi c Carbon, Methylene Chloride, Acetone, Carbon Disulfide, Chloroform, Bis( 2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, Vernolate, Lindane, Alpha-BHC, 4,4-DDT, Diel drin and Aldrin.22 Three (3) sampling events were initially pe rformed for the on-site monitoring wells and one (1) sampling event for the off-site monitoring wells. Only a few minor exceedances of the ROD clean up criteria were observed with the exception of Vernolate in MW-16. Three (3) off-site wells (MWOS-01, MWOS-02, and MWOS-03) were installed in April 2009; however, they were only sampled and an alyzed for Vernolate as it was the only
constituent on-site which still exceeded its cleanup goal. Monitori ng continued on these three (3) wells and on-site well MW-16 fo r Vernolate until the ground water cleanup standards were achieved in MW-16, consiste nt with the Ground water Monitoring Plan specified in this document. No Vernolate was detected in the off-site monitoring wells.

During the March 2010 sampling event both Dieldrin and Vanadium ground water ARARs were met, each previously detected in one monitoring well each out of sixteen total monitoring wells. Following this sampling event, EPA determined that the performance standards for all COCs in ground water except Vernolate had been met. All monitoring wells except MW-16 and the th ree (3) off-site monitoring wells were
abandoned in 2010.

From September 2009 to August 2012, ground wate r samples were collected to monitor Vernolate concentrations quarterly and exclus ively from MW-16 and the three (3) off-site monitoring wells. In September 2012, EPA dete rmined that the cleanup goals for all COCs in the ground water had been met and that the remedy was protective of human
health and the environment. With this dete rmination the abandonment of the remaining monitoring wells for the site was approved.

6.5 Site Inspection

No site inspection occurred in conjunction with this FYR. There was a final RA inspection conducted between EPA and ADEM on August 28, 2008. During this final inspection, it was determined that the PRP has constructed the remedy in accordance with the Redwing Remedial Design plans.

6.6 Interviews

No interviews were conducted in conjunction with this FYR.23 

### 7.0 Technical Assessment

7.1 Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?

The remedial actions are functioning as inte nded. Contaminated soil and sediment have been removed preventing any further e xposures. Ground water monitoring results
indicated that the remedial goals established in the ROD have been met.

7.2 Question B: Are the exposure assumption s, toxicity data, cleanup levels and remedial action objectives ( RAOs) used at the time of remedy selection still valid?

Yes, the exposure assumptions, toxicity data , cleanup levels and RAOs used at the time of remedy selection are still valid. The gr ound water standards applied as cleanup goals have not changed. Surface soil cleanup goals were based on risk of inhalation and ingestion and subsurface so il cleanup goals are based on site specific protection of ground water. There have been no changes in th e toxicity of the cont aminants that would affect the cleanup goals.

7.3 Question C: Has any other information co me to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy?

No other information has come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy.

7.4 Technical Assessment Summary

The remedial actions are functioning as inte nded. Contaminated soil and sediment have been removed preventing any further e xposures. Ground water monitoring results indicated that the remedial goa ls established in the ROD have been met. The Site does not require any institutional controls since the Site was remediated to residential
standards to allow for Unlimited Use and Un restricted Exposure (UU/UE). The exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels and RAOs used at the time of remedy selection
are still valid. No other information has come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy.24 

### 8.0 Issues

There are no current site issues.



### 9.0 Recommendations and Follow-up Actions

There are no recommendations required to address the current site issues.



### 10.0 Protectiveness Statements

The remedy at the Site is protective of human health and the environm ent because the surface soil, subsurface soil, sediment and ground water at the Site met performance standards established in the RODs and the Explan ation of Significant Difference (ESD).



### 11.0 Next Review

The policy requirement for the five-year review has been met and will be discontinued. Per EPA’s 2001 Five-Year Review guidance, “Five-year reviews may no longer be needed when no hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain on site above levels that allow for unlimited use or unrestricted exposure” (UU/UE). Since the site is UU/UE and has met the requirements established by the ROD it is not ne cessary to conduct another FYR. The site is scheduled for deletion from the NPL within the next year.A-1 

### Appendix A: List of Documents Reviewed

Amended Record of Decision. Redwing Carrier s, Inc. (Saraland) NPL Site. EPA ID: ALD980844385. Saraland, AL. Prepared by EPA Region 4. June 14, 2000.

Explanation of Significant Differe nce. Redwing Carriers, Inc. (Saraland) NPL Site. EPA ID: ALD980844385. Saraland, AL. Prepared by EPA Region 4. September 2007.

Preliminary Closeout Report. Redwing Carri ers, Inc. (Saraland) NPL Site. EPA ID: ALD980844385. Saraland, AL. Prepared by EPA Region 4. September 2009.

Record of Decision. Redwing Carriers, Inc. (Saraland) NPL Site. EPA ID: ALD980844385. Saraland, AL. Prepared by EPA Region 4. December 15, 1992.

Remedial Action Report. Redwing Carriers, Inc. (Saraland) NPL Site. EPA ID: ALD980844385. Saraland, AL. Prepared by NewFields. July 2014.B-1 

### Appendix B: Press Notice

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4
Announces the first Five-Year Review of

the Redwing Carrier Superfund Site, Saraland, Mobile County, Alabama

Purpose/Objective: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is conducting a FiveYear Review of the remedy for the Redwing Ca rrier Superfund site (the Site) in Saraland, Alabama. The purpose of the Five-Year Review is to ensure that the selected cleanup actions effectively protect human h ealth and the environment.

Site Background: The 5.1-acre site is located in Sa raland, a suburb of Mobile County, Alabama. Site surroundings include residentia l and commercial land uses. Residential areas border the site to the north, s outh and west. Commercial businesse s border the site to the east. From 1961 until 1971, Redwing Carriers, Inc. ow ned and operated a terminal for cleaning, repairing and parking trucks at the site. Cleaning operations rel eased hazardous substances onto the ground.

In 1973, Saraland Apartments purchased the si te property and built an apartment complex subsidized by the U.S. Department of Hous ing and Urban Development (HUD). Construction activities covered the sludge and contaminated soils with approximately five feet of clean soil. In 1984, ADEM investigated apartment residents' comp laints about the tar-like sludge seeping to the surface at numerous locations. In 1990, EPA listed the site on the NPL. The apartment complex was demolished in 2004. The vacant site is fenced and secured. Primary contaminants of concern at the Site include benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, be nzo(a)anthracene, carbon tetrachloride and chrysene in the soil and acet one, arsenic and carbon disulfide in the ground

water.

Cleanup Actions: EPA designated one operable unit (OU) to address the Site’s soil and ground water contamination. EPA signed the Site’s Record of Decision (ROD) December 15, 1992, selecting a remedy to dig and haul the Site’s soil contamination. The major components of the remedy included temporary relocation of reside nts, onsite treatment of ground water and
monitored natural attenuation of ground water contaminants. The ROD was amended June 14, 2000. The amended plan allowed for demolition, removal and disposal of all buildings, foundations, concrete walkways, and asphalt driv eways and parking areas offsite, digging up and treating remaining contamination and offsite di sposal, and delaying the ROD requirement for ground water treatment until it was determined to be needed. In 2007, EPA issued an Explanation of Significant Differences to upda te the soil remediation goals based on new findings during the 1996- 1997 removal actions whic h indicated that the depth to actual ground water was much greater than previously determined.

Between 1985 and 1994, Redwing Carriers, Inc. conducted periodic cl eanups at the site. Beginning in 1996, EPA took over cleanup activities. EPA relocated 57 resi dents temporarily in 1996 and then permanently in 1997. EPA also dug up and disposed of approximately 20,724 tons of sludge, contaminated soil and debris off site. In 2004, the site’s PRPs removed the SaralandB-2 apartment buildings, foundations, concrete walk ways, asphalt driveways and parking areas. The PRPs completed soil contamination cleanup activiti es in 2007 and 2008. PRPs removed a total of 25,114 cubic yards of soil. The PRPs backfilled and graded the dug-up areas and installed six monitoring wells on site. PRPs conducted groun d water sampling in 2008. In 2009, the PRPs installed three additional monitoring wells on a property next to the site which concluded the
onsite construction for the site. After monito ring until 2011, a review of the sampling results
determined that the site remediation had been completed and the ROD requirements full filled.

Five-Year Review Schedule: The National Contingency Plan re quires that remedial actions that result in any hazardous substances, pollutants or c ontaminants remaining at the Site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure be reviewed every five years to ensure the protection of human health and the environment. While no waste has been left in place on this site it is a policy of Region 4 to complete at least one policy Five Year Review before a site is delisted. The first and only anticipated Five-Yea r Review for the Site will be completed by September 2014.

EPA Invites Community Participation in the Five-Year Review Process: EPA is conducting
this Five-Year Review to evaluate the effectiven ess of the Site’s remedy and to ensure that the remedy remains protective of human health and the environment. As part of the Five-Year Review process, EPA staff members are availa ble to answer any questions about the Site. Community members who have questions about th e Site or the Five-Year Review process are
asked to contact:

Shelby Johnston , EPA Remedial Project Manager Angela Miller , EPA Community
Involvement Coordinator Phone: (404) 404-562-8287 Phone: (404) 562-8561 / (800) 435-9233 (toll-free)
E-mail: johnston.shelby@epa.gov E-mail: miller.angela@epa.gov

Mailing Address: U.S. EPA Re gion 4, 61 Forsyth Street, S.W ., 11th Floor, Atlanta, GA 30303-
8960
Additional site information is available at th e Site’s local document repository, located at Saraland Public Library, 111 Saraland Loop, Saraland, AL 36571 and online at: http://www.epa.gov/region4/waste/npl/index.htm - AL.C-1 

### Appendix C: Interview Form

REDWING CARRIERS, INC. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW

SUPERFUND SITE INTERVIEW FORMD-1 

### Appendix D. Site Cleanup Goals

1992 RODD-2D-3 

### 2007 ESD Revised Subsurface Clean-up Levels