### i 

## HRS DOCUMENTATION RECORD

REVIEW COVER SHEET

Name of Site: EVR -Wood Treating /Evangeline Refining Company

CONTACT PERSONS

Site Investigation: Brenda Nixon Cook, EPA Region 6 (214) 665

- 7436

(Name) (Telephone)

Documentation Record: Brenda Nixon Cook, EPA Region 6 (214) 665

- 7436

(Name) (Telephone)

Site Description and History:

The EVR -Wood Treating/Evangeline Refining Company is an inactive and abandoned creosote

and wolmanizing preserving facility and a former oil refinery located near Jennings, in Acadia

Parish, Louisiana. The property is divided into nine parcels according to tax records, five on the

north side and four on the south side (Ref. 35, pp. 8-16). All four south parcels are listed under

Watson & Miller, Evangeline Property Development Corporation, which is the estate of Hilton

Watson . On the north side, three parcels are listed under Watson & Miller, which encompass

most of the wood- treating plant area . The remaining two parcels are owned by Simar Land Co.

which is owned by Edwin Simar. The facility was formerly owned in part by Mr. Burt

McBurney, a local resident, until 2000.

The facility started creoso te operations in the late 1940s (Ref. 6, p. 2). Creosoting operations

ceased around 1980. The facility was closed in 1985 (Ref. 29, p. 1; Ref. 28, p.1). The operation

was involved in the preservation of timber products, principally fence posts and lumber, through

pressure processes (Ref. 5, p. 15 ). The former processing area contained several tanks with

hazard communication signs identifying contents as Wolmanac Concentrate 50% (Ref. 6, p. 3).

Wolman ac is a trademark preservative which consists of arsenic acid, chromic acid, and copper

oxide (CCA) (Ref. 34, p. 1 ). Pentachlorophenol was also used in the dry treating process (Ref. 8,

p. 4 ).

Mr. Mc Burney also originally owned the Evangeline Refinery Co., which overlaps the

EVR

­ Wood proper ty (Ref. 30, p. 5). The Evangeline Refinery Co. operated as an oil refinery

from 1938 to 1981. The refinery produced naphtha, kerosene, diesel, and No. 5 fuel oil from

sweet condensate (Ref. 21, p. 2). When the refinery was sold, Mr. McBurney retained control of

the wood treating plant. The refinery was sold with the understanding that the treatment plant

could send waste water to the refinery on an as- needed basis (Ref. 30, p. 5). I n conversations

with industry people, it was noted that Evangeline Refining received wood treating waste water

into their lagoons from EVR-Wood Treating. "via a pipe across the fence" (Ref. 21, p. 2). No

distinct boundaries between the properties were set during operation years (Ref. 18, p. 5). The

releases from the two companies have been identified as a single site because the releases are

comingled.

### ii 

## The EVR -Wood Treating/Evangeline Refining Company site (EVR -Wood Treating/Evan geline

Refin ing), for HRS purposes, consists of unlined surface impoundments source located on the

western portion of the property, contaminated soil source located throughout the property, an

underground storage tank located east of the former surface impoundments and the associated

releases of PAHs, and metals to the nearby wetlands, the Bayou Nezpique, and the Mermentau

River.

Open fields connected to dense forest form the unfenced easte rn and northern boundaries of the

site (Ref. 6, p. 3) (Figs. 2, 4). Wetlands contiguous with Bayou Nezpique form the eastern

boundary.

Pathways, Components, or Threats Not Evaluated

1) Ground Water Pathway: The ground water migration pathway has not been scored

because an observed release to the ground water pathway has not been documented and

there are no analytical data to support a release. Based on information available at this

time, evaluation of the ground water migration pathway would not significantly affect the

listing decision (Ref. 1, Sec. 2.2.3).

2) Surface Wat er Pathway: Ground Water to Surface Water Migration Component:

The Surface Water Pathway has been scored for the Human Food Chain Threat and

Environmental Threat. The Ground Water to Surface Water Migration pathway has not

been scored . Based on informat ion available at this time, evaluation of this component

would not significantly affect the listing decision (Ref. 1, Sec. 2.2.3).

3) Air Migration Pathway: The air migration pathway has not been scored because an

observed release to the air migration pathway has not been documented and there are no

analytical data to support a release. Based on information available at this time,

evaluation of the air migration pathway would not significantly affect the listing decision

(Ref. 1, Sec. 2.2.3).

4) 

## Soil Exposure Pathway: The soil exposure pathway has not been scored because

observed contamination has not been documented on or within 200 feet of soil pathway

targets. Based on information available at this time, evaluation of the soil exposure

pathway would not significantly affect the listing decision (Ref. 1, Sec. 2.2.3).

### 1 

## HRS DOCUMENTATION RECORD

Name of Site: EVR -Wood Treating/Evangeline Refining Company

CERCLIS Number: LAN000605517

Site Spill Identifier Number (SSID): 06NY

EPA Region: 6 Date Prepared: March , 201 2

Street Address of Site * : Highway 97 North, 1 mile east of Interstate Highway 10

(Fig.1)

County and State: Acadia Parish, LA

General Location in the State: The site is located northeast of the City of Jennings in the

southwest portion of the state (Fig. 1 ).

Topographic Map: Mermentau Quadrangle, LA, 1984 (Ref. 39, p. 1)

Latitude *: 30° 14' 53" N Longitude*: 92° 37' 03" W

Air Pathway Not Scored

Ground Water Pathway Not Scored

Soil Exposure Pathway Not Scored

Surface Water Pathway 96.40

HRS SITE SCORE 48.20

*The street address, coordinates, and contaminant locations presented in this HRS documentation record identify the general a rea in which the site is located. They represent one or more locations EPA considers to be part of the site based on the screeni ng information EPA used to evaluate the site for NPL listing. EPA lists national priorities among the known "releases or threat ened

releases" of hazardous substances; thus, the focus is on the release, not precisely delineated boundaries. A site is defined as where a hazardous substance has been "deposited, stored, placed, or otherwise come to be located." Generally, HRS scoring an d

the subsequent listing of a release merely represent the initial determination that a certain area may need to be addressed u nder

CERCLA. Accordingly, EPA contemplates that the preliminary description of property boundaries at the time of scoring will be

refined as more information is developed as to where the contamination has come to be located.

### 2 

## NOTES TO THE

READER

Tracking numbers are assigned by the region to every page of every reference. The tracking

number consists of the reference number followed by the page number within that reference. A

tracking number will have a two -digit number followed by the sequential number (for example,

05 001; 05 002).

The following rules were used when citing references in the HRS (Hazard Ranking System)

package.

1. The tracking numbers are cited for all references.

2. Hazardous substances are listed by how they appear in the Superfund Chemic al Data

Matrix (SCDM).

3. Significant figures: Calculations are truncated to two significant figures to the right of the

decimal place when the HRS does not specify rounding.

4. Abbreviations/Conventions used to identify references and citations:

Figure Fig

Number No.

Reference Ref

Section Sec.

Single Pages p. Multiple Pages pp.

“.” Next Reference

() Selected acronyms

5. List of Figures

Figure 1 Facility Location Map

Figure 2 Facility Sketch and 2000 Sample Location Map

Figure 3 2011 Sample Location Map

Figure 4 Background Sample Location Map

Figure 5 Level II Wetland Segment Map

Figure 6 Surface Water Migration Pathway

- Fifteen Mile Downstream Target

Distance Limit

Parent Site EVR -Wood Treating/Evangeline Refining Company

6. Child Sites EVR -Wood Treating Company, CERCLIS No. LAD00806884

Evangeline Refin ing Co , CERCLIS No. LAD008073934

### 3 

## ACRONYMS

BGS below ground surface

CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act

CFS cubic feet per second

ESI expanded site inspection

HWD Hazardous Waste Division

HRS Hazard Ranking System

LDEQ Louisiana Department of Environmental

Quality

LDNR Louisiana Department of Natural Resources

LDWF Louisiana Department of Wildlife and

Fisheries

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System

NGV National Geodetic Vertical Datum

NWI National Wetlands Inventory

OFS Overland Flow Segment

PAH polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon

PPE probable point of entry

PR Parish Road

PVC polyvinyl chloride

RA removal assessment

RPB Response and Prevention Branch

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of

1976

RSD Remediation Services Division

START Superfund Technical Assessment and

Response Team

SA site assessment

SI site inspection

SCDM Superfund Chemical Data Matrix

SQL Sample Quantitation Limit

SSID Site Spill Identifier Number

TAL Target Analyte List

TAT Technical Assistance Team

TCL Target Compound List

TDL Target Distance Limit

TSD treatment/storage/disposal

# ! " # $ Æ · Evangeline Highway Evr-wood/Evangeline

Refining



# ^ _



# ±

Project # 0009-11-05-03 

## Evr-Wood/Evangeline Refinery

Acadia Parish, Lou i siana

Figure 1- Facility Locations 97

1:10,000 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 250

Feet 10 Facility Boundary

## Pi



# -.-

EVANGELINE COOLING

COOLING WATER POND

DRAINAGE

PATHWAY WOODED AREA

(EWTC PROPERTY)

SCRAP WETAL FORWER WOOD 

# D

CHIPPING

PROCESS AREA

WOODEN-.,.

_ VAT 

### 'lJ at TIWBER**PILE~**

PIT-20 .SDWET02**SDWETO~** WETLAND AREA (EWTC PROPERTY) SDWET03. SURFACE

IWPOUNDWENT 1**:;;><-- L.** **-'iSSll ~CCA**  STORAGE

SHED



# • SURFACE

IWPOUNDWENT

SSS12



### LEGEND

SAWPLE LOCATION

FACILITY BOUNDARY

TREE LINE

FENCE WOOD

STORAGE

SS12A PAD



### L4 HIGHW,"Y 97



## o DRUW

STORAGE

RESIDENCE

APPROXIWATE SCALE IN FEET

250 500



### CERCLIS NO.

LAN000605517 750

I



### US EPA

REGION 6

START-3 TOO NO.

TO-0009-11-08-01

FIGURE 2

FACILITY SKETCH

EVR-WOOD TREATING COMPANY/EVANGELINE REFINERY

JENNINGS, ACADIA PARISH, LOUISIANA

Pro'ect No: S109-15F Date: MARCH 2012

File Name:sl0915F-B.DWG 

# P.M.: KL

# Æ · 

# ^ _

Evangeline Highway Evr-wood/Evangeline Refining W5 W6 W7 W8

UST

S12

S11

S10

S09 S07 S04

S03

S02



# ±

Project # 0009-11-05-03 

## Evr-Wood/Evangeline Refinery

Acadia Parish, Lou i siana

Figure 3. START-3 September 2011 Sample Locations 97

1:2,500 0 125 250 375 500 62.5

Feet Sample Locations

Wetlands soil/sediment

Source soil

USTT9 W9



# ±

Project # 0009-11-05-03 

## Evr-Wood/Evangeline Refinery

Acadia Parish, Lou i siana

Figure 4. Background Sample Locations (September 2011) 97

1:3,000 

# ^ _ T9 W9

0 150 300 450 600 75

Feet Sample Locations

Source soil

Wetlands soil/sediment

### !

!

!

!

! !

!

Evangeline Highway PFO1A

PFO2/1F PUBHx PFO1A

W5 W6 W7 W8

SDWET 01 SDWET 02

SDWET 05



# ±

Project # 0009-11-05-03

Source: ESRI Aerial Imagery and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

National Wetlands Inventory 

## Evr-Wood/Evangeline Refinery

Acadia Parish, Lou i siana

Figure 5- Level II Wetland Segment Map 97

1:2.500 !

!

!

!

! !

!

0 125 250 375 500 62.5

Feet 

### PPE

Legend

! Wetlands soil/sediment

Level II Wetlands

Wetlands Level II Wetlands PFO2/1CMermentau River Bayou Nezpique

EVR-Wood Site

15-Miles Downstream

Wetland 

# ±

Source: ESRI Aerial Imagery and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

National Wetlands Inventory 

## Figure 6. 15-Mile Target Distance Limit

Surface Water Migration Pathway Map

0 1 2 3 4 0.5

Miles 

### !

!

!

!

! !

!

W5

SDWET 05 SDWET 01 SDWET 02

W7

W6 W8

Level II Wetlands PPE PPE

### 10 

## WORKSHEET FOR COMPUTING HRS SITE SCORE

s s2

1. Ground Water Migration Pathway Score (S w)

(from Table 3 -11, line 13) NS NS

2a. Surface Water Overland/Flood Migration Component

(from Table 4 -11, line 30) 96.40 9

, 292.96

2b. Ground Water to Surface Water Migration Component

(from Table 4 -25, line 28) NS NS

2c. Surface Water Migration Pathway Score (ssw)

Enter the larger of the line 2a and 2b as the pathway score 96.40 9

, 292.96

3. Soil Exposure Pathway Score (ss)

(from Table 5 -1, line 22) NS NS

4. Air Migration Pathway Score (sa) NS NS

5. Total of S

gw 2 

## +S

sw 2 

## +S

s 2 

## +S

a 2 

## 9

, 292.96

6. HRS Site Score : Div ide the value on line 5 by 4 and take the

square root. 48.20

NS = Not Scored

### 11 

## Table 4 -1 Surface Water Overland/Flood Migration Component Score Sheet

Factor Categories and Factors Maximum Value

DRINKING WATER TREAT Value Assigned

Likelihood of Release

1. Observed Release 550 550

2. Potential to Release by Overland Flow:

2a. Containment 10

2b. Runoff

2c. Distance to Surface Water 25

2d. Potential to Release by Overland Flow

(Lines 2a X [2b+2c]) 500 NS

3 Potential to Release by Flood

3a. Containment (Flood) 10

3b. Flood Frequency 50

3c. Potential to Release by Flood

(Line 3a X 3b) 500 NS

4. Potential to Release

(Lines 2d + 3c, subject to a maximum of

500) 500 NS

5. Likelihood to Release

(Higher of Lines 1 and 4) 550 550

NS

Waste Characteristics

6. Toxicity/Persistence *

7. Hazardous Waste Quantity *

8. Waste Characteristics 100 NS

Targets

9. Nearest Intake 50 NS

10. Population:

10a. Level I Concentrations ** NS

10b. Level II Concentrations ** NS

10c. Potential Contamination ** NS

10d. Population (Lines 10a+10b+10c) ** NS

### 12 

## Factor Categories and Factors Maximum Value

11. Value Assigned

Resources 5 NS

12. Targets (Lines 9+10d+11) ** NS

DRINKING WATER TREAT (Concluded)

Drinking Water Threat Score

13. Drinking Water Threat Score

([Lines 5 x 8 x 12]/82,500,

subject to a maximum of 100) 10 0 NS

HUMAN FOOD CHAIN THR EAT

Likelihood of Release

14. Likelihood of Release

(Same value as Line 5) 550 550

Waste Characteristics

15. Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation * 5x10 8



## 16. Hazardous Waste Quantity * 100

17. Waste Characteristics 1,000 320

Targets

18. Food Chain Individual 50 20

19. Population:

19a. Level I Concentrations ** 0

19b. Level II Concentrations ** 0.000033

19c. Potential Contamination **

- 19d. Population (Lines 1 9 a + 1 9 b + 1 9 c ) ** 0.000033

20. Targets ** 2 0.000033

(Value from Lines 18+19d)

Human Food Chain Threat Score

21. Human Food Chain Threat Score 100 42. 6 6

([Lines 14 x 17 x 20]/82,500,

subject to a maximum of 100)

ENIVORNMENTAL THREAT

Likelihood of Release

22. Likelihood of Release

(Same value as Line 5) 550 550

Waste Characteristics

23. Ecosystem Toxicity/Persistence/

Bioaccumulation * 5X10 8



## 24. Hazardous Waste Quantity * 100

25. Waste Characteristics 1,000 320

### 13 

## Factor Categories and Factors Maximum Value Value Assigned

Targets

26. Sensitive Environments:

26a. Level I Concentrations ** 0

26b. Level II Concentrations ** 25

26c. Potential Contamination ** 0. 195

26d. Sensitive Environments

(Lines 26a+26b+26c) ** 25.195

27. Targets

(Value from Line 26d) ** 2 5

. 1 95

ENIVORNMENTAL THREAT

28. Environmental Threat Score

([Lines 22 x 25 x 27]/82,500subject to a

maximum of 60)

60 5 3

. 74

SURFACE WATER OVERLAND/FLOOD MIGRATION COMPONENT SCORE FOR A

WATERSHED

29. WATERSHED SCORE

(Lines 13 + 21 + 28, subject to a maximum

of 100)

100 96.40

30. Component Score (S0,)

(Highest score from Line 29 for all

watersheds evaluated, subject to a

maximum of 100)

100 96.40

Maximum value applies to waste characteristic category

Maximum value applicable

Do not round to the nearest integer

### 14 

## Reference

Number Description of the Reference

1. U.S. EPA Hazard Ranking System (HRS); Final Rule. 55 FR No. 241 December 14,

1990 Page. 51532. Title page to the corresponding CFR provided. A complete version of

this document is available online at:

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/hrsres/index.htm

2. Superfund Chemical Data Matrix. Appendix B. January 28, 2004. Excerpt Pages: 14 . A

complete version of SCDM is available at:

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/hrsres/tools/scdm.htm

3. U.S.G.S 7.5-Minute Series Topographic Map. Mermentau, LA. Provisional Edition 1984.

Total Pages:1

4. Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination.

U.S. EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Publication 9285.7-14FS.

November 1996. Total Pages: 18

5. Removal Assessment Report for EVR-Wood Treating Company, Inc. Prepared for EPARegion VI Program Emergency Response Branch. Ecology and Environment, Inc.,

Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team. June 26, 2000. Total Pages: 87

6. Site Assessment Repo rt on EVR-Wood Treating Company, Inc. Prepared for EPARegion VI Emergency Response Branch. Ecology and Environment, Inc., Technical

Assistance Team. June 15, 1989. Total Pages: 6

7. Record of Communication. State of Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. RE:

Proposed Listing of the EVR -Wood Treating Company /Evangeline Refining Company

on the National Priorities List . From: Vincent Samaha and Keith Ho rn , Environmental

Scientist s. To: File. February 7, 2012. Total pages: 1

8. Potential Hazardous Waste Site, Site Inspection Report. Region VI. LA03239. EVRWood Treating Co., Inc. September 13, 1984. Total Pages: 10

9. Phone Conversation Record. Subject: Fishery Information on Nezpique Bayou and

Mermentau River. To: Paul Conzelmann, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Layfayette, LA. From:

John Mitchell, Weston. August 29, 1994. Total Pages: 1

10. Statistical Summaries of Stream -Gaging Station Records, Louisiana 1938- 64. Basie

Records Report No. 1. United States Department of Interior, Geological Survey, State of

Louisiana, Department of Public Works, 1968. Excerpt Pages: 7

11. Water Resources Data for Louisiana. Volume 2. Southern Louisiana. U.S. Geological

Survey Water

- Data Report LA -80. Water Year 1980. Prepared in cooperation with the

Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development and with other state and

### 15 

## Federal Agencies. Not Dated. Excerpt Pages: 6

12. Sampling QA/QC Work Plan. EVR-Wood Treating Company. Prepared by Ecology and

En vironment. Inc. TOO No. S06 -99-10-0013, Project No. 099801SFXX; U.S. EPA

Contract No. 68- W6 -0013. Prepared for the U.S. EPA. Approval Dates: December 2

and 5, 1999. Total Pages: 38

13. Logbook. EVR-Wood Treating Facility. Job Number000608KJ0604. S06-99-10-0013.

099801SFXX. Jennings, Acadia Parish, LA. Book 1 of 4. October 26, 1999 to April 5,

2000. Total Pages: 50

14. EVR -Wood Treating Company Chain of Custody Forms. Project No. S06-99-10-0013.

December 10, 1999 to April 24, 2000; Data Evaluation and Form Is. C ERCLIS No.

LAD008068884. PAN 099801SFXX. Case No. 6S268, Project Nos. 99235, 99234,

201359, 20143, 99237, 99236. Reviewed by Michelle Brown and Alma Canning,

Ecology and Environment, Inc. February 23, 2000 to May 01, 2000. Total Pages: 270

15. Logbook. EVR-Wood Treating, Evangeline Refinery Co. ESI/Removal Assessment

Logbook. LADEQ RSD. October 26, 1999 to March 27, 2000. Total Pages: 51

16. EVR -W ood Treating Co. Organic and Inorganic Report and Chain of Custody Records,

EPA Contract Laboratory Program. Cas e No. 27818. February 21, 2000 to February 24,

2000; Inorganic and Organic Contract Laboratory Program Data Review and Form Is.

Case No. 27818, SDG Nos. MHKB43, MFKB84, MFKB48, FHA40, FHA31, MFKB42,

FHA 11. To: J. Rinehart, 6SF

­ RA. Fr om: Marvelyn Humphre y, Alternate ESAT RPO,

6MD-HC, EPA Region 6. March 23, 2000 to April25, 2000. Total Pages: 227

17. Est ablishing Background Levels. EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response,

Directive 9285.7-19FS, PB94-963313. EPA5401 F- 94/030. September 1995. Total

P age: 7

18. Expanded Site Inspection Work Plan for EVR-Wood Treating Company/ Evangeline

Refinery Company, Jennings (Evangeline), Acadia Parish, Louisiana. CERCLIS Nos:

LAD008068884, LAD0008073934. Prepared by: Louisiana Department of

Environmental Quality Remediation Services Division. February 1, 1999. Total Pages: 53

19. Statement of Work for Sample Analysis (Organic and Inorganic). Multi- media, Multi

Concentration. Prepared by Ecology and Environment, Inc. EPA Region 6 Technical

Assistance Team, June 1995. Ex cerpt Pages: 2.

20. Memorandum. Subject: CRDL Calculation for Metal in Soil Sample. To: File. From:

David Anderson, Ecology and Environment, Inc. August 5, 1998. Total Pages: 8

21. Site Inspection Prioritization Report, Evangeline Refinery Site, Phase II. Prepa red for the

United States Environmental Protection Agency Region VI. Submitted by: Roy F.

### 16 

## Weston, Inc. September 1994. Total Pages: 7

22. EPA Potential Hazardous Waste Site Identification and Preliminary Assessment. Region

VI. Site Number LA02127. Evangeline Refinery Co. Inc. Prepared by T. Myers, The

Earth Technology Corporation. June 26, 1984. Total Pages: 1

23. EVR

- Wood Treating Company/Evangeline Refinery Company Site Reassessment.

Jennings, Jefferson Davis Parish, Louisiana. CERCLIS No: LAN000605517 . Prepare d by

Dynamac, Inc. EPA Region 6 START January 19, 2012. Total Pages: 337.

24. Record of Communication. Subject: Depth of Background Samples and Locations. To:

Ronnie Matte, LDEQ. From: Michelle Brown, Ecology and Environment, Inc. May 10,

2000. Total Page s: 1

25. National Wetland Inventory Maps. Mermentau, LA, 1992; Jennings, LA, 1992;

Hathaway, LA, 1992; Evangeline, LA, 1992. Site Location, 4- Mile Facility Radius, and

15-Mile Target Distance Limit added by Ecology and Environment, Inc. Total Pages: 4

26. NIOSH/OSHA Occupational Health Guidelines for Chemical Hazards. DHHS (NIOSH)

Pub. No. 81-123. Occupational Health Guideline for Coal Tar Pitch Volatiles. January

1981. Total Pages: 7

27. Creosote Chemical Backgrounds. Environment Writer, Environmental Health Center,

National Safety Council.

http://www.environmentwriter.org/resources/backissues/chemicals/creosote.htm. April

2006, downloaded January 20, 2012 . Total Pages: 3

28. General Inspection. Investigator: V. Montelaro, Louisiana Department of Environment al

Quality, Office of Solid and Hazardous Waste, Hazardous Waste Division. March 3,

1986. Total Pages: 1

29. Phone Conversation Record. Subject: EVR-Wood Treating. To: Napoleon Dogay,

LaCoue Lumber Company. From: Perello, Ecology and Environment, Inc. May 31, 1989.

Total Pages: 1

30. Potential Hazardous Waste Site. Identification and Preliminary Assessment and

Supplement Sheet. EVR-Wood Treating Company. Prepared by: T. Myers, The Earth

Technology Corporation. June 1984. Total Pages: 5

31. Soil Survey of Acadia Parish, Louisiana. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil

Conservation Service in cooperation with the Louisiana Agriculture Experiment Station

and the Louisiana Soil and Water Committee. Issued September 1962. Excerpt Pages: 6

32. Aerial Photo taken December 15, 1983 by the Louisiana Department of Transportation

and Development, Project 201-02-09 , Can No. 70905. Scale: 1 inch= 50 feet. Total

### 17 

## Pages: 1

33. Photographic Documentation. EVR -Wood/Evangeline Expanded Site Inspection Field

Photographs. LDEQ

- RSD. N ovember 18, 1999 to February 24, 2000. Total Pages: 6

34. Wolmanac Material Safety Data Sheet. Sold my ArchWood Protection, Smyrna, Georgia.

EPA Registration No. 62190-2. Total Pages: 1

35. Expanded Site Inspection Report for EVR

- Wood Treating Company/ Evangelin e Refining Company, Jennings (Evangeline), Acadia Parish, Louisiana. CERCLIS No’s : LAD008068884, LAD0008073934. Prepared by: Louisiana Department of

Environmental Quality Remediation Services Division. September 2000. Total Pages:

123.

36. Acadia Parish Tax A ssessor Plat Maps and Ownership Information. Total Pages: 12

37. EVR -Wood Treating Co. /Evangeline Refinery Chain of Custody Records and Form 1s,

A-4 Laboratory. September 27 to September 29, 2011. Total Pages: 193

38. START -3 Logbook. EVR-Wood Treating/Evangeline Refinery. Job No. S109-14F.

September 27 -28, 2011. Total pages:14

## SO

- Source Characterization

Source No.: 1

18 

## SOURCE DESCRIPTION

2.2 SOURCE CHARACTERIZATION

The sources evaluated at the EVR -Wood Treating/Evangeline Refinery site, for HRS purposes, are:

**•** Source No. 1: Surface impoundments:

**•** Source No. 2: C ontaminated soil ; and



## • Source No. 3: Underground storage tank.



## 2.2.1 Source 1 Identification

The following information corresponds to the first source identified for this documentation

record.

Number of the source: Source No . 1

Name and description of the source: Surface Impoundment

Source No. 1 is located in the western portion of the former process and refinery areas of the

EVR -Wood Treating/Evangeline Refin ing site (Ref. 32, p.1)(Figs. 2 and 3). Source No.1 consists

of three of the six backfilled and unlined surface impoundments (Fig. 2) (Ref. 32, p. 1). The

other three surface impoundments are considered to be sources but they are not included in the

scoring for this site. Two of these impoundments belonged to Evangelin e Refining Company

(Surface Impoundment 1 and Surface Impoundment 2) and were used to hold cooling tower

water and surface runoff (Ref. 2 1, p. 2). According to Evangeline employees, wood treating

wastewater was deposited into these impoundments from EVR- Wo od Treating Company (Ref.

21, p. 2). Samples collected from the impoundments on February 2000 by the Louisiana

Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) and the Superfund Technical Assessment and

Response Team (START) indicated elevated concentrations of arsenic, chromium, and copper

(CCA) ranging from 3.7 ppm to 136 ppm (Ref. 16, pp. 167, 172, 177, 183, 186, 189, 192). The

surface impoundments are covered by heavy vegetation (Ref. 33, pp. 2, 3). The five sampled

impoundments are aggregated as one source since they contained similar wastes, have similar

containment, and are in the same watershed.

On February 2000, the LDEQ and START used direct push to collect five surface (0

- 2 feet) and

subsurface samples (> 2 feet) from the six surface impoundments (Ref. 18, Table 3-1, p. 12).

The samples were analyzed by a Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) laboratory for Target

Analyte List (TAL) metals, Target Compound List (TCL) volatiles, and TCL semivolatiles (Ref.

35, p. 18 ). Chemical analyses of the samples revealed elevated concentrations of chromium,

copper, acenaphthene, anthracene, chrysene, fluorene, fluoranthene, 2-Methylnaphthalene,

phenanthrene, and pyrene three times above the background concentration levels and exceeding

their corresponding sample quantitation limits (SOLs) (Ref. 16, pp.165-192, 221-226).

## SO

- Source Characterization

Source No.: 1

19 

## In September 2011, START -3 used direct push to collect subsurface soil samples from three of

the six impoundments (Ref. 38, pp.6- 8). The samples were analyzed by a subcontracted

laboratory for Target Analyte List (TAL) metals, Target Compound List (TCL) volatiles, and

TCL semivolatiles (Ref. 37).

•Location of the source, with reference to a map of the site:

Source No. 1 is located in the western portion of the former process and refinery areas of the

EVR -Wood Treating/Evangeline Refining Company site (Ref. 32, p.1)(Figs. 2 and 3).

•Source Type for HRS evaluation purposes: Surface Impoundment

•Containment

Gas release to air: The air migration pathway was not scored; therefore, gas release to

air containment was not evaluated.

Particulate release to air: The air migration pathway was not scored; therefore,

particulate containment was not evaluated.

Release to ground water: The ground water migration pathway was not scored;

therefore, ground water containment was not evaluated.

Release via overland migration and/or flood: The source consists of five backfilled

surface impoundments, with no evidence of liners; therefore, a containment factor value

of gre ater than (>) 0 is assigned.

2.2.2 Hazardous Substances Associated with a Source

The substances listed in the following pages were present in the surface and subsurface soil

samples collected during the 1999- 2000 LDEQ Expanded Site Inspection (Ref. 35) and the

START -3 September 2011 sampling event (Ref. 23)

. The subsurface soils were collected from

the impoundments which were backfilled with the soil that was excavated out when they were

initially constructed. T he samples were collected where there was a discolorization of the soil in

the boring. The subsurface soil samples from these areas exhibited strong odors (Ref. 38, pp. 6-

8).

The following tables show the hazardous substances detected in the soil samples collected during

the LDEQ ESI sampling mission and the START -3 September 2011 Sampling Event. The

samples contained concentrations of hazardous substances equal to or greater than their

corresponding SOLs (Ref. 4, p.3; Ref. 16, pp. 165-192, 221-226; Ref. 18, pp. 24-27). The

samples were analyz ed for TCL volatiles, TCL semivolatiles, and TAL metals (Ref. 16, pp. 1-15,

165-192).

## SO

- Source Characterization

Source No.: 1

20 Notes and Qualifiers

Max: Maximum SQL: Sample Quantitation Limit ND: Not Detected

JK/JH/JL : Estimated concentrat ion, unknown bias / biased h igh/ biased low

. Identification of the analyte is acceptable

. ( ): Adjusted concentration for "J" data utilizing Qualified D ata to Document Observed Release included as Reference in the documentation package. EVIDENCE

SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT SAMPLES

LDEQ ESA October 2000

Hazardous Substance Sample No. SS

- SI -2

MFKB54 FHA2 5 (0 -4

ft.) Surface

Impoundment 2 Sample No. SS

- SI -2

MFKB55 FHA26 (10

- 12 ft.) Surface

Impoundment 2 Sample No. SS

- SI -2

MFKB56 FHA2 7 (15-18

ft.) Surface

Impoundment 2 Sample No. SS -SI2- A

MFKB66 FHA37 (7 -10

ft.) Surface

Impoundment 2 Sample No. SS

- SI 2- A

MFKB65 FHA36

(13

- 16 ft.) Surface

Impoundment 2 Sample No. SS

- S13

- A

MFKB71 FHA42

(4

- 7 ft.) Surface

Impoundment 3 Sample No. SS

- S14

- A

MFKB77 FHA48 (7 -10

ft.) Surface

Impoundment 4 Sample No. SS -14- A

MFKB80 FHA51 ( 16-

19 ft.) Surface

Impoundment 4

Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL

(mg/kg) Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL

(mg/kg) Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL

(mg/kg) Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL

(mg/kg) Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL

(mg/kg) Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL

(mg/kg) Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL

(mg/kg) Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL

(mg/kg)

Arsenic 31.5 2.68 6.9 2.54 21.7 2.52 30.20 2.50 60.80 2.45 11.70 2.88 22.3 3.22 3.70 2.57

Chromium 52.7 2.68 14.3 2.54 49.6 2.52 14.9 2.50 134.0 2.45 97.0 2.88 98.4 3.22 21.8 2.57

Copper 50.2 6.70 13.8 6.35 44.0 6.31 19.8 6.25 136.0 6.25 52.4 7.19 132 8.05 19.8 6.43

Acenaphthene 75.0 JK

(16.0) 88 780.0 110 15 4.2 49 13 1,600 JH

(342) 700 ND 13 12 JK

(2.6) 0.42 0.33 JK

(0.033) 0.43

Anthracene 130.0 88 670.0 110 6.1 4.2 14 13 360 JH

(35) 700 ND 13 7.2 JK

(0.72) 0.42 0.23 JK

(0.023) 0.43

Benzo(a)anthracene 29.0 JK

(2.90) 88 110 JK

(11) 110 2.8 JK

(0.28) 4.2 5.9 JK

(0.59) 13 200 JH

(20) 700 ND 13 2 JK (0.2) 0.42 0.072 JK

(0.007) 0.43

Benzo(b)flouranthene ND 88 42 JK

(4.2) 110 1.3 JK

(0.13) 4.2 3.7 J 13 ND 700 ND 13 ND 0.42 ND 0.43

Benzo(a)pyrene ND 88 30 JK

(3.0) 110 0.85 JK

(0.085) 4.2 1.7 JK

(0.17) 13 ND 700 ND 13 ND 0.42 ND 0.43

Chrysene 39.0 JK

(3.90) 88 120 110 3 JK

(0.03) 4.2 5.5 JK

(0.55) 13 180 JH

(18) 700 ND 13 2.3 JK

(0.23) 0.42 0.077 JK

(0.008) 0.43

Flourene 87.0 JK

(8.70) 88 670 110 14 4.2 36 13 1100 JH

(110) 700 1.4 JK

(0.14) 13 11 JK

(1.1) 0.42 0.33 JK

(0.03) 0.43

Flouranthene 220.0 88 840 110 22 4.2 46 13 1300 JH

(130) 700 ND 13 17 0.42 0.6 0.43

2

- Methylnaphthalene 41.0 JK

(4.10) 88 510 110 3.6 JK

(0.36) 4.2 34 13 1,200 JH

(120) 700 8.9 JK

(0.89) 13 12 JK

(1.2) 0.42 0.25 JK

(0.025) 0.43

Pentachlorophenol ND 220 150 JK

(2.07) 110 ND 4.2 ND 13 ND 1800 ND 32 ND 1.00 ND 0.43

Phenanthrene 300 88 1,600 E 110 3 7 E 4.2 94 13 2,900 JH

(290) 700 3.0 JK

(0.3) 13 31 0.42 1 0.43

Pyrene 170 88 560.0 110 14 4.2 32 13 910 JH

(77) 700 ND 13 11 JK

(0.92) 0.42 0.39 JK

(0.034) 0.43

REFERENCES

Chain of Custody Ref. 16, pp. 3, 12 Ref. 16, pp. 3, 12 Ref. 16, pp. 3, 12 Ref. 16, pp. 4 , 11 Ref. 16, pp. 4, 11 Ref. 16, pp. 6, 13 Ref. 16, pp. 7, 14 Ref. 16, pp. 7, 14

Data Evaluation Ref. 16, pp. 44 - 57,

110- 120, 228 -237 Ref. 16, pp. 44 - 57,

110- 120, 228 -238 Ref. 16, pp. 44 - 57,

110- 120, 228 -239 Ref. 16, pp. 44 - 57,

110- 120, 228 -240 Ref. 16, pp. 44 - 57, 86-

109 Ref. 16, pp. 58

- 59, 60

- 82, 145 238-242 Ref. 16, pp. 58

- 59, 86

- 109, 145 238-242 Ref. 16, pp. 58

- 59, 86

- 109, 146 238-243

Form Is Ref. 16, pp. 165 - 167 Ref. 16, pp. 168 - 172 Ref. 16, pp. 173 - 177 Ref. 16, pp. 178 -180 Ref. 16, pp. 181 -183 Ref. 16, pp. 18 4-186 Ref. 16, pp. 18 6-188 Ref. 16, pp. 190 -192

SQLs Ref. 16, pp. 165, 166,

227, Ref. 20, pp. 1

- 8 Ref. 16, pp. 168 -171,

227, Ref. 20, pp. 1

- 9 Ref. 16, pp. 173 -176,

227, Ref. 20, pp. 1

- 10 Ref. 16, pp. 178 -179,

227, Ref. 20, pp. 1

- 11 Ref. 16, pp. 181 -182,

227, Ref. 20, pp. 1

- 8 Ref. 16, pp. 181 -182,

227, Ref. 20, pp. 1

- 8 Ref. 16, pp. 184 -185

227; Ref. 20, pp. 1

- 8 Ref. 16, pp. 190, 191,

227, Ref. 20, pp. 1

- 8

Other Supporting

References Fig. 2 , Ref. 4 Fig. 2 , Ref. 4 Fig. 2 , Ref. 4 F ig. 2 , Ref. 4 Fig. 2 , Ref. 4 Fig. 2 , Ref. 4 Fig. 2 , Ref. 4 Fig. 2 , Ref. 4

## SO

- Source Characterization

Source No.: 1

21 EVIDENCE

SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT SAMPLES

2011 START

Sample No. S02

06 7Y- 0005 and

06NY

- 0005 Sample No. S03

067Y

- 0007 and

06NY

- 0007 1 Sample No. 04

06NY

- 0008

Sample Depth: 4

to 5 ft. bgs) Sample Depth: 6 to

7 ft. bgs Sample depth: 3

to 4 ft .bgs)

Hazardous Substance 

### Surface

Impoundment 4 Surface

Impoundment 3 Surface

Impoundment 2

Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL

(mg/kg) Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL

(mg/kg) Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL

(mg/kg)

Arsenic 11.0 1.40 40.60 1.40 9.00 1.10

Chromium 89.2 1.40 138.0 1.40 10.9 1.10

Copper 48.1 3.50 69.8 3.60 7.7 2.80

1,1'

- Biphenyl ND 2.40 53 49 ND 0.21

2- Methylnaphthalene 6.1 2.40 190 49 ND 0.21

Acenaphthene ND 2.40 260 49 ND 0.21

Anthracene ND 2.40 130 49 ND 0.21

Benzo(a)anthracene ND 2.40 26 2.5 ND 0.21

Benzo(a)pyrene ND 2.40 6.2 2.5 ND 0.21

Benzo(b)fluoranthene ND 2.40 9.8 2.5 ND 0.21

Benzo(k)fluoranthene ND 2.40 8.7 2.5 ND 0.21

Carbazole ND 2.40 59 49 ND 0.21

Chrysene ND 2.40 27 2.5 ND 0.21

Dibenzofuran ND 2.40 200 49 ND 0.21

Fluoranthene ND 2.40 280 49 ND 0.21

Fluorene ND 2.40 200 49 ND 0.21

Indeno(1,2,3

- cd)pyrene ND 2.40 3.1 2.5 ND 0.21

Naphthalene 3.1 2.40 260 49 ND 0.21

Pentachlorophenol ND 4.70 70 4.8 ND 0.21

Phenanthrene ND 2.40 590 49 0.30 0.21

Pyrene ND 2.40 170 49 ND 0.21

REFERENCES

Chain of Custody Ref. 37, p. 1 Ref. 37, p. 1 Ref. 37, p. 1

Data Evaluation Re f. 23

Form Is Ref. 37, p, 011

- 014 Ref. 37, pp. 019

- 02 5 Ref. 37 pp. 026

- 028

SQLs R ef. 23

Other Supporting

References Ref. 38, Figure 3 Ref. 38, Figure 3 Ref. 38, Figure 3

1 

### Samples listed “067Y” report organic compound values and samples listed “06NY” report metals values.

## SO

- Source Characterization

Source No.: 1

22 

## 2.4.2 Hazardous Waste Quantity

2.4.2.1.1 Hazardous Constituent Quantity

Insufficient data are available to adequately determine a Hazardous Constituent Quantity

according to the H RS (Ref.1, Sec. 2.4.2.1.1). A Hazardous Constituent Quantity Value is not

assigned according to the available data because the total mass of hazardous substances in the

source could not be estimated with reasonable confidence ; scoring proceeds to the evaluation of

Hazardous Wastestream Quantity (Surface Water Pathway) according to the HRS (Ref.1, Sec.

2.4.2.1.2).

NC: Not Calculated



## Hazardous Constituent Quantity Value (S): Not C alculated

Are the data complete for hazardous constituent quantity for this area? No

2.4.2.1.2 Hazardous Wastestream Quantity

Insufficient data are available to adequately determine a Hazardous Wastestream Quantity

(Surface Water Pathway) according to the H RS (Ref. 1,Sec.2.4.2.1.2). A Haz ardous Wastestream

Value is not assigned according to the available data because the total mass of all hazardous

wastestreams and all pollutants and contaminants for the source could not be adequately

determined ; scoring proceeds to an evaluation of volume according to the HRS (Ref. 1, Sec.

2.4.2.1.3).

NC: Not Calculated 

## Hazardous Wastestream Quantity Value (W): N ot C alculated

Are the data complete for hazardous constituent quantity for this area? No.

2.4.2.1.3 Volume

The volume of the surface impoundments cannot be determined because the depth s of the surface

impoundments are not known. Scoring will proceed to an evaluation of area according to the

HRS (Ref. 1, Sec. 2.4.2.1.3).

2.4.2.1.4 Area

The area of each surface impoundment was summed to obtain the area of source No. 1 (Ref. 32,

p. 1; Ref. 35, p. 80 ). The area s for surface impoundments 2, 3, and 4 are included in the

calculation because the information available for th es e impoundments are sufficiently complete

to allow the area estimate

.

## SO

- Source Characterization

Source No.: 1

23 

## Surface Impoundment No. 2 = 2,454 sq. ft.

Surface Impoundment No. 3 = 7,421 sq. ft.

Surface Impoundment No. 4 = 12,536 sq. ft.

Total Area: 22,411 sq. ft.

The hazardous waste quantity evaluation equation for surface impoundments is Area/13

(Ref. 1, Table 2- 5).

22,411 sq. ft/13 = 1,723.92

Area of source (ft 2 

## ): 2 2,411

Reference(s): Ref. 1, Table 2 -5, p. 51591;Ref. 32, p. 1; Ref. 35, pp. 80, 109

Area Assign ed Value: 1,723.92

2.4.2.1.5 Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value

Source No. 1, Surface Impoundments

NS = Not scored

NC: Not Calculated



## The highest value assigned to either Tier A, Tier B, Tier C, or Tier D is assigned as the Source

No. 1 Hazardous Waste Quantity Value (Ref. 1, Section 2.4.2.1.5). The highest value assigned is

Tier D.

Source No. 1 Hazardous Waste Quantity Value: 1,723.92

## SO

- Source Characterization

Source No.: 2

24 

## SOURCE DESCRIPTION

2.2 SOURCE CHARACTERIZATION

2.2.1 Source Identification

The following information corresponds to the second source identified for this documentation

record.

Number of the source: Source No. 2

Name and description of the source: Contaminated Soil

Source No. 2 is located in the former process and refinery areas north of the fence, west of Site

Road, east of the surface impoundments, and south of the wooded area (Figs. 2 and 3; Ref. 35, p.

60) ).

The area of observed contamination was delineated based upon analytical results from the

1999-2000 START Removal Assessment (RA) and the September 2011 START sampling ( Ref.

5; Ref. 14, pp. 119-270; Ref. 37; Ref. 38 ).

1999-2000 START Removal Assessment (RA)

Five -point composite samples were collected in 50 by 50-foot grids from 0-12" and 12- 24"

depths (Ref. 5, pp. 24 -28; Ref. 12, p.7). Two background samples at each depth and from the

same soil type were also collected from a residence approximately 0.6 mile east of the site on

Highway 97 (Ref. 13, p. 19; Ref. 31, pp. 3, 5). Contaminated soil samples were collected from

th e former locations of the process area and refinery areas of EVR -Wood and Evangeline

Refining properties which encompass approximately 50,000 ft (50 x 50 foot grids x 20 grids).

September 2011 START Sampling

START

- 3 collected grab surface s oil samples fr om areas near the former impoundments on the

north portion of the site, four samples from the area on the east side of the impoundments and

four samples from the area on the west side of entrance road within the former operational areas

of the plant ( Ref. 38; Figure 3). The samples were shipped to a subcontract laboratory for

analysis of semi -volatile organics and metals.

These areas overlap, with run

- off from the EVR -Wood buildings flowing across the Evangeline

property in a westerly direction to the wetlands (Fig. 3) (Ref. 5, pp. 14, 16). Concentrations of

hazardous substances in these soil samples were three times their highest respective background

concentration levels and exceeded their S QLs (Ref. 14, pp. 19-270). The hazardous substances

associated with this source are arsenic, chromium, copper (CCA) and polynuclear arom atic

hydrocarbons (PAHs) (Ref. 37 ; Ref. 3 8 ).

Access to the southern portion of EVR-Wood and part of the Evangeline Refinery properties,

just north of Highway 97, is only partially restricted by a locked gate and a fence running east to

west. Open fields connected to dense forest form the unfenced eastern and northern boundaries

(Fig. 3) (Ref. 6, p. 3).

Location of the source, with reference to a map of the site:

## SO

- Source Characterization

Source No.: 2

25 

## Source No. 2 is lo cated in the former process and refinery areas north of the fence, west of Site

Road, east of the surface impoundments, and south of the wooded area (Figs. 2 and 3).

Source Type for HRS evaluation purposes: Contaminated soil

Containment

Gas release to a ir: The air migration pathway was not scored; therefore, gas release to

air containment was not evaluated.

Particulate release to air: The air migration pathway was not scored; therefore,

particulate containment was not evaluated.

Release to ground water: The ground water migration pathway was not scored;

therefore, ground water containment was not evaluated.

Release via overland migration and/or flood: There is no documentation or evidence to

indicate that the contaminated soil area had a maintaine d run-on control system or runoff

management system, or an engineered cover (Ref. 33, pp. 1-6).

2.2.2 Hazardous Substances Associated with a Source

The substances associated with this source include arsenic, chromium, copper, and PAHs. The

samples contained concentrations of hazardous substances equal to or greater than their

corresponding SQLs (Ref. 14, pp.19-270).

During the 1999-2000 RA and the September 2011 START sampling, samples were collected

within the areas of historical site operations a nd compared to background samples that were also

collected during the RA and the Sept. 2011 START sampling event (Ref. 31, pp. 1-6). The

contaminants found in Source 2 are not naturally occurring at the levels found in the

contaminated area in the environ ment and the background samples show that the contaminants

are not ubiquitous at these levels in the area. Additionally, there is no other known source of

contamina tion in the area.

Background levels were established from samples collected outside the area of historical

operations. The highest concentration of each substance was selected to identify the established

background level (Ref 13, p. 19; Ref. 14, pp. 119-124; Ref. 17, p. 3). These samples were

analyzed by a laboratory using definitive data and EPA -approved methods for the TAL and the

TCL (Ref.12, pp. 16 - 18). The samples were analyzed for metals and PAHs (Ref. 14, pp. 1-18).

Source Background Samples

1999

- 2000 START RA

Sample ID Depth Date Reference

BKG

- 1

- A 0 to 12 inches December 16, 1999 Ref. 13, p. 19; Ref. 14, pp. 10, 119

- 12 1

BKG

- 1

- B 12 to 24 inches December 16, 1999 Ref. 13, p. 19; Ref. 14, pp. 10, 12 2

- 124

## SO

- Source Characterization

Source No.: 2

26 

## •EVIDENCE TABLE: Removal Assessment 1999 -2000

The following tables represent the soil samples collected during the 1999-2000 START RA

sampling mission. These soil samples were compared to a background level which was

established using background samples which were collected on the same sampling mission (Ref.

4,p. 3; Ref. 14, pp.1-270). These samples were analyzed for CCA and PA Hs.

CONTAMINATED SOIL

- SOURCE 2

BACKGROUND LEVELS

- 1999

- 2000 Removal Assessment

Sample No. BKG

- 1

- A ( 0

- 12 in.) Sample No. BKG

- 1

- B (12

- 24 in.) Established

Background Level

Hazardous Substance Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL

(mg/kg) 3X

Conc.

(mg/kg) Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL

(mg/kg) 3X

Conc.

(mg/kg) Max.

Conc.

(mg/kg) 3 X

Conc.

(mg/kg)

Arsenic 5.9 1.18 17.7 4

. 4 UB 1.10 13.2 5.9 17.7

Chromium 11.4 JK

(14.7) 1.18 44.1 10.7 JK

(3.8) 1.10 41.4 11.4 JK

(14.7) 44.1

Copper ND 2.95 2.95 ND 2.75 2.75 ND 2.95

Acenaphthene ND 0.389 0.389 ND 0.363 0.363 ND 0.389

Anthracene ND 0.389 0.389 ND 0.363 0.363 ND 0.389

Benzo(a)anthracene ND 0.389 0.389 ND 0.363 0.363 ND 0.389

Benzo(b)flouranthene ND 0.389 0.389 ND 0.363 0.363 ND 0.389

Benzo(a)pyrene ND 0.389 0.389 ND 0.363 0.363 ND 0.389

Chrysene ND 0.389 0.389 ND 0.363 0.363 ND 0.389

Flourene ND 0.389 0.389 ND 0.363 0.363 ND 0.389

Flouranthene ND 0.389 0.389 ND 0.363 0.363 ND 0.389

2

- Methylnaphthalene ND 0.389 0.389 ND 0.363 0.363 ND 0.389

Pentachlorophenol ND 0.983 0.983 ND 0.916 0.916 ND 0.983

Phenanthrene ND 0.389 0.389 ND 0.363 0.363 ND 0.389

Pyrene ND 0.389 0.389 ND 0.363 0.363 ND 0.389

REFERENCES

Chain of Custody Ref. 14, p. 10 Ref. 14, p. 10

Data Evaluation Ref. 14, pp. 98

- 1 24 Ref. 14, pp. 98

- 1 24

Form Is Ref. 14, pp. 119

- 121 Ref. 14, pp. 122

- 125

SQLs Ref. 14, pp. 105, 115

- 116; Ref.

20, pp. 1 -8 Ref. 14, pp. 105, 115

- 116; Ref.

20, pp. 1 -8

Other Supporting

References Ref. 12, p. 10 , Ref. 4 Ref. 12, p. 10

Notes and Qualifiers

Max: Maximum SQL: Sample Quantitation Limit ND: Not Detected

JK/JH/JL : Estimated concentrat ion, unknown bias/ biased h igh/ biased low

. Identification of the analyte is acceptable

. ( ): Adjusted concentration for "J" data utilizing Qualified Data to Document Obse rved Release included as Reference in the

documentation package.

## SO

- Source Characterization

Source No.: 2

27 Evidence

CONTAMINATED SOIL SAMPLES

1999

- 2000 Removal Assessment

Hazardous Substance Established

Background Level Sample No. G

- N4 -A Sample No. G

- N4 -B Sample No. G

- O4 -A Sample No. G

- O4 -B Sample No. G

- P4 -A

Max.

Conc.

(mg/kg) 3 X

Conc.

(mg/kg) Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL

(mg/kg) Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL

(mg/kg) Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL

(mg/kg) Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL

(mg/kg) Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL

(mg/kg)

Arsenic 5.9 17.7 37.8 1.2 9.9 1.4 14.9 1.1 5.4 1.2 33.3 1.1

Chromium 11.4 JK

(14.7) 44.1 60.3 JL 1.2 17.7 JL 1.4 24.9 JK

(19.3) 1.1 15.1 JK

(11.7) 1.2 40.3 1.1

Copper ND 2.95 194.0 3.0 19.3 3.5 19.5 JL 2.75 10.7 JL 3.0 24.5 JL 2.75

Acenaphthene ND 0.389 ND 1.92 ND 0.422 ND 0.376 ND 1.2 ND 0.370

Anthracen e ND 0.389 ND 1.92 ND 0.422 ND 0.376 ND 1.2 ND 0.370

Benzo(a)anthracene ND 0.389 ND 1.92 ND 0.422 ND 0.376 ND 1.2 ND 0.370

Benzo(b)flouranthene ND 0.389 ND 1.92 ND 0.422 ND 0.376 ND 1.2 0.535 0.370

Benzo(a)pyrene ND 0.389 ND 1.92 ND 0.422 ND 0.376 ND 1.2 ND 0.370

Chrysene ND 0.389 ND 1.92 ND 0.422 ND 0.376 ND 1.2 0.442 0.370

Flourene ND 0.389 ND 1.92 ND 0.422 ND 0.376 ND 1.2 ND 0.370

Flouranthene ND 0.389 ND 1.92 ND 0.422 ND 0.376 ND 1.2 1.2 0.370

2

- Methylnaphthalene ND 0.389 ND 1.92 ND 0.422 ND 0.376 ND 1.2 ND 0.370

Pentachlorophenol ND 0.983 7.41 5 2.11 1.02 ND 0.912 ND 0.912 2.92 JK

(0.403) 0.896

Phenanthr ene ND 0.389 ND 1.92 ND 0.422 ND 0.376 ND 1.2 ND 0.370

Pyrene ND 0.389 ND 1.92 ND 0.422 ND 0.376 ND 1.2 0.912 0.370

REFERENCES

Chain of Custody Ref. 14, p. 15 Ref. 14, p. 15 Ref. 14, p. 13 Ref. 14, p. 13 Ref. 14, p. 13

Data Evaluation Ref. 14, pp. 67

- 85 Ref. 14, pp. 67

- 85 Ref. 14, pp. 67

- 85 Ref. 14, pp. 67

- 85 Ref. 14, pp. 67

- 85

Form Is Ref. 14, pp. 125

- 127 Ref. 14, pp. 128

- 130 Ref. 14, pp. 131

- 133 Ref. 14, pp. 134

- 136 Ref. 14, pp. 137

- 139

SQLs Re f. 14, pp. 75

- 76, 83

- 84, 165

- 167 Ref. 20, pp.

1-8 Re f. 14, pp. 75

- 76, 83

- 84, 165

- 167 Ref. 20, pp.

1-8 Re f. 14, pp. 75

- 76,83

- 84, 165

- 167 Ref. 20, pp.

1-8 Re f. 14, pp. 75

- 76, 83

- 84, 165

- 167 Ref. 20, pp.

1-8 Re f. 14, pp. 75

- 76, 83

- 84, 165

- 167 Ref. 20, pp.

1-8

Other Supporting

References Ref. 12, p. 10 , Ref. 4 Ref. 12, p. 10 , Ref. 4 Ref. 12, p. 10 , Ref. 4 Ref. 12, p. 10 , Ref. 4 Ref. 12, p. 10 , Ref. 4

Notes and Qualifiers

Max: Maximum SQL: Sample Quantitation Limit ND: Not Detected

JK/JH/JL : Estimated concentrat ion, unknown bias/ biased h igh/ biased low

. Identification of the analyte is acceptable

. ( ): Adjusted concentration for "J" data utilizing Qualified Data to Document Observed Release included as Reference in the documentation package.

*: If the background concentration is not detected (or is less than the detection limit, the SQL is used

## SO

- Source Characterization

Source No.: 2

28 Evidence

CONTAMINATED SOIL SAMPLES

1999

- 2000 Removal Assessment

Hazardous Substance Established

Background Level Sample No. G

- P4 -B Sample No. G

- N5 -A Sample No. G

- N5 -B Sample No. G

- O5 -A Sample No. G

- O5 -B

Max.

Conc.

(mg/kg) 3 X

Conc.

(mg/kg) Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL

(mg/kg) Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL

(mg/kg) Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL

(mg/kg) Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL

(mg/kg) Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL

(mg/kg)

Arsenic 5.9 17.7 4.5 1.2 2510 1.26 9.9 1.23 17.3 1.26 6.0 1.35

Chromium 11.4 JK

(14.7) 44.1 10.6 1.2 2270 JK

(1,760) 1.26 22.9 JK

(17.75) 1.23 54.7 JK

(42.4) 1.26 26.2 JK

(20.3) 1.35

Copper ND 2.95 8.0 JL 3.0 1870 3.15 17.2 3.08 28.1 3.15 12.8 3.38

Acenaphthene ND 0.389 ND 0.406 83.3 20.9 34.7 20.4 ND 41.6 ND 4.46

Ant hracene ND 0.389 ND 0.406 55.5 20.9 55.5 20.4 ND 41.6 ND 4.46

Benzo( a)anthracene ND 0.389 ND 0.406 ND 20.9 ND 20.4 ND 41.6 ND 4.46

Benzo(b)flouranthene ND 0.389 ND 0.406 ND 20.9 ND 20.4 ND 41.6 ND 4.46

Benzo(a)pyrene ND 0.389 ND 0.406 ND 20.9 ND 20.4 ND 41.6 ND 4.46

Chrysene ND 0.389 ND 0.406 ND 20.9 ND 20.4 ND 41.6 ND 4.46

Flourene ND 0.389 ND 0.406 77.0 20.9 28.5 20.4 ND 41.6 5.4 4.46

Flouranthene ND 0.389 ND 0.406 161 20.9 41 20.4 ND 41.6 6.51 4.46

2

- Methylnaphthalene ND 0.389 ND 0.406 101 20.9 27 20.4 ND 41.6 11.9 4.46

Pentachlo rophenol ND 0.983 ND 0.984 594 D 253.0 199.00 49.4 310 101 41.2 10.8

Phenanthrene ND 0.389 ND 0.406 324 D 20.9 81.90 20.4 ND 41.5 15.6 4.46

Pyrene ND 0.389 ND 0.406 108 20.9 33 20.4 ND 41.5 4.98 4.46

REFERENCES

Chain of Custody Ref. 14, p. 13 Ref. 14, p. 08 Ref. 14, p. 08 Ref. 14, p. 07 Ref. 14, p. 07

Data Evaluation Ref. 14, pp. 67

- 85 Ref. 14, pp. 67

- 85 Ref. 14, pp. 67

- 85 Ref. 14, pp. 67

- 85 Ref. 14, pp. 67

- 85

Form Is Ref. 14, pp. 137

- 139 Ref. 14, pp. 137

- 139 Ref. 14, pp. 137

- 139 Ref. 14, pp. 137

- 139 Ref. 14, pp. 137

- 139

SQLs Re f. 14, pp. 75

- 76, 83

- 84, 165

- 167 Ref. 20, pp.

1

- 8 Re f. 14, pp. 75

- 76, 83

- 84, 165

- 167 Ref. 20, pp.

1

- 8 Re f. 14, pp. 75

- 76, 83

- 84, 165

- 167 Ref. 20, pp.

1

- 8 Re f. 14, pp. 75

- 76, 83

- 84, 165

- 167 Ref. 20, pp.

1

- 8 Re f. 14, pp. 75

- 76, 83

- 84, 165

- 167 Ref. 20, pp.

1

- 8

Other Supporting

References Ref. 12, p. 10 , Ref. 4 Ref. 12, p. 10 , Ref. 4 Ref. 12, p. 10 , Ref. 4 Ref. 12, p. 10 , Ref. 4 Ref. 12, p. 10 , Ref. 4

Notes and Qualifiers

Max: Maximum SQL: Sample Quantitation Limit ND: Not Detected

JK/JH/JL : Estimated concentrat ion, unknown bias/ biased h igh/ biased low

. Identification of the analyte is acceptable

. ( ): Adjusted concentration for "J" data utilizing Qualified Data to Document Observed Release included as Reference in the documentation package.

*: If the background concentration is not detected (or is less than the detection limit, the SQL is used

## SO

- Source Characterization

Source No.: 2

29 Evidence

CONTAMINATED SOIL SAMPLES

1999

- 2000 Removal Assessment

Hazardous Substance Established

Background Level Sample No. G

- P5 -A Sample No. G

- P5 -B Sample No. G

- Q5 -A Sample No. G

- Q5 -B Sample No. G

- N6 -A

Max.

Conc.

(mg/kg) 3 X

Conc.

(mg/kg) Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL

(mg/kg) Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL

(mg/kg) Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL

(mg/kg) Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL

(mg/kg) Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL

(mg/kg)

Arsenic 5.9 17.7 23.8 JK

(13.7) 1.26 7.4 JK

(4.25) 1.26 780 1.1 10.4 1.3 32.7 1.16

Chr omium 11.4 JK

(14.7) 44.1 32.4 JK

(25.1) 1.35 13.2 JK

(10.23) 1.26 554 1.1 18.4 1.3 50.3 JK

(39.0) 1.16

Copper ND 2.95 18.4 JK

(15.1) 3.15 7.70 UBJK

(6.31) 3.15 148 JL 2.75 11.2 JL 3.3 27.8 2.90

Acenaphthene ND 0.389 8.04 3.93 1.78 0.416 ND 0.376 ND 0.419 ND 7.66

Anthracene ND 0.389 ND 3.93 0.486 0.416 ND 0.376 ND 0.419 ND 7.66

Benzo(a)anthracene ND 0.389 ND 3.93 0.906 0.416 ND 0.376 ND 0.419 ND 7.66

Ben zo(b)flouranthene ND 0.389 ND 3.93 0.481 0.416 ND 0.376 ND 0.419 ND 7.66

Benzo(a)pyrene ND 0.389 ND 3.93 ND 0.416 ND 0.376 ND 0.419 ND 7.66

Chr ysene ND 0.389 4.66 3.93 1.01 0.416 ND 0.376 ND 0.419 ND 7.66

Flo urene ND 0.389 ND 3.93 0.444 0.416 ND 0.376 ND 0.419 ND 7.66

Flouranthene ND 0.389 23.20 3.93 7.02 D 2.09 0.506 0.376 ND 0.419 41.2 7.66

2

- M ethylnaphthalene ND 0.389 ND 3.93 0.775 0.416 ND 0.376 ND 0.419 ND 7.66

Pentachlorophenol ND 0.983 70.7 9.52 16.3 D 5.06 2.23 JK

(0.0308) 0.912 ND 1.020 86.8 D 37.20

Phe nanthrene ND 0.389 9.37 3.93 2.14 0.416 ND 0.376 ND 0.419 17.4 7.66

Pyrene ND 0.389 19.9 3.93 5.54 D 0.42 0.455 0.376 ND 0.419 38.6 7.66

REFERENCE S

Chain of Custody Ref. 14, p. 6 Ref. 14, p. 6 Ref. 14, p. 10 Ref. 14, p. 10 Ref. 14, p. 8

Data Evaluation Ref. 14, pp. 40

- 52 Ref. 14, pp. 40

- 52 Ref. 14, pp. 98

- 118 Ref. 14, pp. 98

- 118 Ref. 14, pp. 19

- 39

Form Is Ref. 14, pp. 15 5- 157 Ref. 14, pp. 158

- 160 Ref. 14, pp. 161

- 163 Ref. 14, pp. 164

- 165 Ref. 14, pp. 167

- 169

SQLs Re f. 14, pp. 44

- 45 50

- 51; Ref. 20, pp. 1 -8 Re f. 14, pp. 44

- 45, 50

- 51; Ref. 20, pp. 1 -8 Re f. 14, pp. 105, 115

- 116; Ref. 20, pp. 1 -8 Re f. 14, pp. 105, 115

- 116; Ref. 20, pp. 1 -8 Re f. 14, pp. 24, 30

- 31;

Ref. 20, pp. 1 -8

Other Supporting

References Ref. 12, p. 10 , Ref. 4 Ref. 12, p. 10 , Ref. 4 Ref. 12, p. 10 , Ref. 4 Ref. 12, p. 10 , Ref. 4 Ref. 12, p. 10 , Ref. 4

Notes and Qualifiers

Max: Maximum SQL: Sample Quantitation Limit ND: Not Detected

JK/JH/JL : Estimated concentrat ion, unknown bias/ biased h igh/ biased low

. Identification of the analyte is acceptable

. ( ): Adjusted concentration for "J" data utilizing Qualified Data to Document Observed Release included as Reference in the documentation package.

*: If the background concentration is not detected (or is less than the detection limit, the SQL is used

UB

– The analyte was detected in the sample, however, the presence of the analyte may be attributable to blank contamination

## SO

- Source Characterization

Source No.: 2

30 Evidence

CONTAMINATED SOIL SAMPLES

1999

- 2000 Removal Assessment

Hazardous Substance Established

Background Level Sample No. G

- N6 -B Sample No. G

- 06 -A Sample No. G -06-B Sample No. G

- P6 -A Sample No. G

- Q6 -A

Max.

Conc.

(mg/kg) 3 X

Conc.

(mg/kg) Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL

(mg/kg) Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL

(mg/kg) Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL

(mg/kg) Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL

(mg/kg) Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL

(mg/kg)

Arsenic 5.9 17.7 6.8 1.25 149 1.18 6.80 1.28 129 JK

(74.1) 1.16 25.1 1.22

Chr omium 11.4 JK

(14.7) 44.1 15.0 JK

(11.6) 1.25 241 JK

(187) 1.18 17.5 JK

(13.6) 1.28 179 JK

(139) 1.16 27.7 1.22

Copper ND 2.95 8.8 3.12 114 2.95 6.60 3.2 58.7 (48.1) 2.9 11.7 UB 3.05

Acenaphthene ND 0.389 ND 0.412 19.9 1.94 19.7 D 0.422 ND 0.383 ND 0.403

Anthracene ND 0.389 ND 0.412 7.3 1.94 6.35 D 0.422 ND 0.383 ND 0.403

Benzo(a)anthracene ND 0.389 ND 0.412 4.55 1.94 2.3 0.422 0.450 0.383 ND 0.403

Ben zo(b)flouranthene ND 0.389 ND 0.412 4.33 1.94 0.620 0.422 0.988 JH

(0.0988) 0.383 ND 0.403

Benzo(a)pyrene ND 0.389 ND 0.412 2.95 1.94 0.611 0.422 0.401 JH

(0. 0 401) 0.383 ND 0.403

Chr ysene ND 0.389 ND 0.412 5.23 1.94 1.79 0.422 0.682 0.383 ND 0.403

Flo urene ND 0.389 ND 0.412 9.76 1.94 13.8 D 4.22 ND 0.383 ND 0.403

Flouranthene ND 0.389 0.439 0.412 40.2 1.94 16.1 D 4.22 1.3 0.383 ND 0.403

2

- M ethylnaphthalene ND 0.389 ND 0.412 ND 1.94 10.8 D 4.22 ND 0.383 ND 0.403

Pentachlorophenol ND 0.983 ND 1.000 16.6 4.70 ND 10.2 6.6 0.926 ND 0.976

Phe nanthrene ND 0.389 0.821 0.412 23.200 1.94 27.3 D 4.22 ND 0.383 ND 0.403

Pyr ene ND 0.389 ND 0.412 28.4 1.94 13.5 D 4.22 2.03 0.383 ND 0.403

REFERENCES

Chain of Custody Ref. 14, p. 8 Ref. 14, p. 7 Ref. 14, p. 7 Ref. 14, p. 6 Ref. 14, p. 5

Data Evaluation Ref. 14, pp. 19

- 39 Ref. 14, pp. 86

- 97 Ref. 14, pp. 86

- 97 Ref. 14, pp. 40

- 52 Ref. 14, pp. 40

- 52

Form Is Ref. 14, pp. 170

- 172 Ref. 14, pp. 173

- 175 Ref. 14, pp. 176

- 178 Ref. 14, pp. 179

- 181 Ref. 14, pp. 185

- 187

SQLs Re f. 14, pp. 24, 30

- 31;

Ref. 20, pp. 1

- 8 Re f. 14, pp.90, 96;

Ref. 20, pp. 1

- 8 Re f. 14, pp.90, 96;

Ref. 20, pp. 1

- 8 Re f. 14, pp. 44

- 45, 50

- 51; Ref. 20, pp. 1

- 8 Re f. 14, pp. 44

- 45, 50

- 51; Ref. 20, pp. 1

- 8

Other Supporting

References Ref. 12, p. 10 , Ref. 4 Ref. 12, p. 10 , Ref. 4 Ref. 12, p. 10 , Ref. 4 Ref. 12, p. 10 , Ref. 4 Ref. 12, p. 10 , Ref. 4

Notes and Qualifiers

Max: Maximum SQL: Sample Quantitation Limit ND: Not Detected

JK/JH/JL : Estimated concentrat ion, unknown bias/ biased h igh/ biased low

. Identification of the analyte is acceptable

. ( ): Adjusted concentration for "J" data utilizing Qualified Data to Document Observed Release included as Reference in the documentation package.

*: If the background concentration is not detected (or is less than the detection limit, the SQL is used

## SO

- Source Characterization

Source No.: 2

31 Evidence

CONTAMINATED SOIL SAMPLES

1999

- 2000 Removal Assessment

Hazardous Substance Established

Background Level Sample No. G

- N7 -A Sample No. G

- N7 -B Sample No. G

- 07 -A Sample No. G

- 07 -B Sample No. 07

Max.

Conc.

(mg/kg) 3 X

Conc.

(mg/kg) Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL

(mg/kg) Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL

(mg/kg) Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL

(mg/kg) Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL

(mg/kg) Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL

(mg/kg)

Arsenic 5.9 17.7 14.2 1.18 26.1 1.28 20.3 1.19 5.0 1.23 195 1.22

Chr omium 11.4 JK

(14.7) 44.1 42.1 JK

(32.6) 1.18 47.0JK

(36.4) 1.28 68.9JK

(53.4) 1.19 17.7 JK

(13.7) 1.23 283 1.23

Copper ND 2.95 14.2 2.95 15.4 3.2 15.9 2.98 5.4 2.98 170 3.05

Acenaphthene ND 0.389 ND 1.94 ND 2.12 ND 0.393 ND 0.405 ND 8.05

Anthracene ND 0.389 ND 1.94 2.25 2.12 ND 0.393 ND 0.405 ND 8.05

Benzo(a)anthracene ND 0.389 ND 1.94 ND 2.12 ND 0.393 ND 0.405 ND 8.05

Ben zo(b)flouranthene ND 0.389 3.07 1.94 3.06 2.12 ND 0.393 ND 0.405 ND 8.05

Benzo(a)pyrene ND 0.389 ND 1.94 ND 2.12 ND 0.393 ND 0.405 ND 8.05

Chr ysene ND 0.389 2.4 1.94 3.9 2.12 ND 0.393 ND 0.405 ND 8.05

Flo urene ND 0.389 ND 1.94 ND 2.12 ND 0.393 ND 0.405 ND 8.05

Flouranthene ND 0.389 5.48 1.94 5.85 2.12 0.65 0.393 ND 0.405 ND 8.05

2

- M ethylnaphthalene ND 0.389 ND 1.94 ND 2.12 ND 0.393 ND 0.405 ND 8.05

Pentachlorophenol ND 0.983 16.8 4.70 23.3 D 10.20 14.0 D 4.76 ND 0.984 433 JK

(5.97) 19.5

Phe nanthrene ND 0.389 ND 1.94 ND 2.12 ND 0.393 0.705 0.405 ND 8.05

Pyr ene ND 0.389 6.97 1.94 8.84 2.12 ND 0.393 ND 0.405 ND 8.05

REFERENCES

Chain of Custody Ref. 14, p. 8 Ref. 14, p. 8 Ref. 14, p. 8 Ref. 14, p. 8 Ref. 14, p. 2

Data Evaluation Ref. 14, pp. 19

- 39 Ref. 14, pp. 19

- 39 Ref. 14, pp. 19

- 39 Ref. 14, pp. 19

- 39 Ref. 14, pp. 53

- 66

Form Is Ref. 14, pp. 191

- 193 Ref. 14, pp. 194

- 196 Ref. 14, pp. 197

- 199 Ref. 14, pp. 200

- 202 Ref. 14, pp. 203

- 205

SQLs Re f. 14, pp. 24, 30

- 31;

Ref. 20, pp. 1

- 8 Re f. 14, pp. 24, 30

- 31;

Ref. 20, pp. 1

- 8 Re f. 14, pp. 24, 30

- 31;

Ref. 20, pp. 1

- 8 Re f. 14, pp. 24, 30

- 31;

Ref. 20, pp. 1

- 8 Re f. 14, pp. 58, 64

- 66;

Ref. 20, pp. 1

- 8

Other Supporting

References Ref. 12, p. 10 , Ref. 4 Ref. 12, p. 10 , Ref. 4 Ref. 12, p. 10 , Ref. 4 Ref. 12, p. 10 , Ref. 4 Ref. 12, p. 10 , Ref. 4

Notes and Qualifiers

Max: Maximum SQL: Sample Quantitation Limit ND: Not Detected

JK/JH/JL : Estimated concentrat ion, unknown bias/ biased h igh/ biased low

. Identification of the analyte is acceptable

. ( ): Adjusted concentration for "J" data utilizing Qualified Data to Document Observed Release included as Reference in the documentation package.

*: If the background concentration is not detected (or is less than the detection limit, the SQL is used

## SO

- Source Characterization

Source No.: 2

32 Evidence

CONTAMINATED SOIL SAMPLES

1999

- 2000 Removal Assessment

Hazardous Substance Established

Background Level Sample No. G

- P7 -A Sample No. G

- P7 -B Sample No. G

- Q7 -A Sample No. G -R7-A Sample No. G -R7-B

Max.

Conc.

(mg/kg) 3 X

Conc.

(mg/kg) Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL

(mg/kg) Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL

(mg/kg) Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL

(mg/kg) Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL

(mg/kg) Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL

(mg/kg)

Arsenic 5.9 17.7 466 1.25 6.20 1.28 56.4 1.26 58.3 1.1 3.6 1.3

Chromium 11.4 JK

(14.7) 44.1 646 JK

(501) 1.25 13.5 JK

(10.46) 1.28 54.2 1.26 62.8 JL 1.1 14.1JK

(10.9) 1.3

Copper ND 2.95 178 3.12 7.4 3.2 22.1 3.15 25.0 JK

(20.5) 2.75 7.8 JL 3.24

Acenap hthene ND 0.389 7.4 4.12 ND 4.22 ND 0.416 ND 0.373 ND 0.413

Anthracene ND 0.389 ND 4.12 ND 4.22 ND 0.416 ND 0.373 ND 0.413

Ben zo(a)anthracene ND 0.389 ND 4.12 ND 4.22 ND 0.416 ND 0.373 ND 0.413

Benzo(b)flouranthene ND 0.389 ND 4.12 ND 4.22 ND 0.416 ND 0.373 ND 0.413

Ben zo(a)pyrene ND 0.389 ND 4.12 ND 4.22 ND 0.416 ND 0.373 ND 0.413

Chrysene ND 0.389 ND 4.12 ND 4.22 ND 0.416 ND 0.373 ND 0.413

Flo urene ND 0.389 4.8 4.12 ND 4.22 ND 0.416 ND 0.373 ND 0.413

Flo uranthene ND 0.389 12.3 4.12 ND 4.22 0.522 0.416 ND 0.373 ND 0.413

2

- Methylnaphthalene ND 0.389 8.9 4.12 ND 4.22 ND 0.416 ND 0.373 ND 0.413

Pentachlorophenol ND 0.983 89.9 10.0 ND 10.2 3.36 1.01 1.57 0.904 ND 0.413

Phenanthrene ND 0.389 15.5 4.12 ND 4.22 ND 0.416 ND 0.373 ND 0.413

Pyr ene ND 0.389 14.4 4.12 ND 4.22 0.588 0.416 ND 0.373 ND 0.413

REF ERENCES

Chain of Custody Ref. 14, p. 7 Ref. 14, p. 7 Ref. 14, p. 5 Ref. 14, p. 14 Ref. 14, p. 14

Data Evaluation Ref. 14, pp. 86

- 97 Ref. 14, pp. 86

- 97 Ref. 14, pp. 40

- 52 Ref. 14, pp. 67

- 85 Ref. 14, pp. 67

- 85

Form Is Ref. 14, pp. 206

- 208 Ref. 14, pp. 209

- 211 Ref. 14, pp. 212

- 21 5 Ref. 14, pp. 218

- 220 Ref. 14, pp. 221

- 223

SQLs Re f. 14, pp. 90, 96;

Ref. 20, pp. 1

- 8 Re f. 14, pp. 90, 96;

Ref. 20, pp. 1

- 8 Re f. 14, pp.44

- 45, 50

- 51; Ref. 20, pp. 1

- 8 Re f. 14, pp. 75

- 76, 83

- 84; Ref. 20, pp. 1

- 8 Re f. 14, pp. 75

- 76, 83

- 84; Ref. 20, pp. 1

- 8

Other Supporting

References Ref. 12, p. 10 , Ref. 4 Ref. 12, p. 10 , Ref. 4 Ref. 12, p. 10 , Ref. 4 Ref. 12, p. 10 , Ref. 4 Ref. 12, p. 10 , Ref. 4

Notes and Qualifiers

Max: Maximum SQL: Sample Quantitation Limit ND: Not Detected

JK/JH/JL : Estimated concentrat ion, unknown bias/ biased h igh/ biased low

. Identification of the analyte is acceptable

. ( ): Adjusted concentration for "J" data utilizing Qualified Data to Document Observed Release included as Reference in the documentation package.

*: If the background concentration is not detected (or is less than the detection limit, the SQL is used

## SO

- Source Characterization

Source No.: 2

33 Evidence

CONTAMINATED SOIL SAMPLES

1999

- 2000 Removal Assessment

Hazardous Substance Established

Background Level Sample No. G

- 08 -A Sample No. G

- 08 -B Sample No. G

- P8 -A Sample No. G

- P8 -B Sample No. G -R8-A

Max.

Conc.

(mg/kg) 3 X

Conc.

(mg/kg) Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL

(mg/kg) Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL

(mg/kg) Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL

(mg/kg) Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL

(mg/kg) Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL

(mg/kg)

Arsenic 5.9 17.7 49.0 1.19 14.0 1.26 417 1.11 12.3 1.48 26.8 1.1

Chromium 11.4 JK

(14.7) 44.1 74.6 JK

(57.8) 1.19 34.5 JK

(26.7) 1.26 425 JK

(329) 1.11 25.6 JK

(19.9) 1.48 32.6 1.1

Copper ND 2.95 24.2 2.98 11.9 3.15 177 2.78 16.5 3.7 10.4 JL 2.75

Ace naphthene ND 0.389 ND 0.393 ND 0.416 ND 0.366 ND 0.389 ND 0.353

Anthracene ND 0.389 ND 0.393 ND 0.416 ND 0.366 ND 0.389 ND 0.353

Ben zo(a)anthracene ND 0.389 ND 0.393 ND 0.416 ND 0.366 ND 0.389 ND 0.353

Benzo(b)flouranthene ND 0.389 ND 0.393 ND 0.416 ND 0.366 0.680 0.389 ND 0.353

Ben zo(a)pyrene ND 0.389 ND 0.393 ND 0.416 ND 0.366 ND 0.389 ND 0.353

Chrysene ND 0.389 ND 0.393 ND 0.416 ND 0.366 ND 0.389 ND 0.353

Flo urene ND 0.389 ND 0.393 ND 0.416 ND 0.366 ND 0.389 ND 0.353

Flo uranthene ND 0.389 ND 0.393 ND 0.416 ND 0.366 0.723 0.389 ND 0.353

2

- Methylnaphthalene ND 0.389 ND 0.393 ND 0.416 ND 0.366 ND 0.389 ND 0.353

Pentachlorophenol ND 0.983 ND 0.952 ND 1.01 6.15 D 4.44 1.96 0.944 ND 0.856

Phenanthrene ND 0.389 ND 0.393 ND 0.416 ND 0.366 ND 0.389 ND 0.353

Pyr ene ND 0.389 ND 0.393 ND 0.416 ND 0.366 ND 0.389 ND 0.353

REF ERENCES

Chain of Custody Ref. 14, p. 8 Ref. 14, p. 8 Ref. 14, p. 7 Ref. 14, p. 7 Ref. 14, p. 13

Data Evaluation Ref. 14, pp. 19

- 39 Ref. 14, pp. 19

- 39 Ref. 14, pp. 86

- 97 Ref. 14, pp. 86

- 97 Ref. 14, pp. 67

- 85

Form Is Ref. 14, pp. 224

- 226 Ref. 14, pp. 227

- 229 Ref. 14, pp. 2 30

- 2 32 Ref. 14, pp. 233

- 234, 244 Ref. 14, pp. 241

- 243

SQLs Re f. 14, pp. 24.30

- 31;

Ref. 20, pp. 1 -8 Re f. 14, pp. 24.30

- 31;

Ref. 20, pp. 1 -8 Re f. 14, pp. 24, .30

- 31; Ref. 20, pp. 1 -8 Re f. 14, pp. 90, 96; Ref.

20, pp. 1 -8 Re f. 14, pp. 75

- 76, 83

- 84; Ref. 20, pp. 1 -8

Other Supporting

References Ref. 12, p. 10 , Ref. 4 Ref. 12, p. 10 , Ref. 4 Ref. 12, p. 10 , Ref. 4 Ref. 12, p. 10 , Ref. 4 Ref. 12, p. 10 , Ref. 4

Notes and Qualifiers

Max: Maximum SQL: Sample Quantitation Limit ND: Not Detected

JK/JH/JL : Estimated concentrat ion, unknown bias/ biased h igh/ biased low

. Identification of the analyte is acceptable

. ( ): Adjusted concentration for "J" data utilizing Qualified Data to Document Observed Release included as Reference in the documentation package.

*: If the background concentration is not detected (or is less than the detection limit, the SQL is used

## SO

- Source Characterization

Source No.: 2

34 Evidence

CONTAMINATED SOIL SAMPLES

1999

- 2000 Removal Assessment

Hazardous Substance Established

Background Level Sample No. G -R8-B Sample No. G

- P9 -A Sample No. G

- P9 -B Sample No. G

- P10 -A Sample No. G

- P10 -B

Max.

Conc.

(mg/kg) 3 X Conc.

(mg/kg) Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL

(mg/kg) Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL

(mg/kg) Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL

(mg/kg) Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL

(mg/kg) Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL

(mg/kg)

Arsenic 5.9 17.7 6.4 1.2 126 1.22 21 1.18 26.6 1.1 12.0 1.1

Chromium 11.4 JK

(14.7) 44.1 16.8 1.2 184 JK

(143) 1.22 23.2 JK

(17.98) 1.18 34.2 1.1 25.8 1.1

Copper ND 2.95 6.9 JL 3.0 109 3.05 4.8 2.95 46.9 JL 2.75 11.4 JL 2.75

Acenaphth ene ND 0.389 ND 0.380 ND 0.403 ND 0.389 ND 1.79 ND 0.380

Anthracene ND 0.389 ND 0.380 ND 0.403 ND 0.389 ND 1.79 ND 0.380

Ben zo(a)anthracene ND 0.389 ND 0.380 ND 0.403 ND 0.389 ND 1.79 ND 0.380

Benzo(b)flouranthene ND 0.389 ND 0.380 ND 0.403 ND 0.389 ND 1.79 ND 0.380

Ben zo(a)pyrene ND 0.389 ND 0.380 ND 0.403 ND 0.389 ND 1.79 ND 0.380

Chr ysene ND 0.389 ND 0.380 ND 0.403 ND 0.389 ND 1.79 ND 0.380

Flourene ND 0.389 ND 0.380 ND 0.403 ND 0.389 ND 1.79 ND 0.380

Flo uranthene ND 0.389 ND 0.380 ND 0.403 ND 0.389 ND 1.79 ND 0.380

2

- Methylnaphthalene ND 0.389 ND 0.380 ND 0.403 ND 0.389 ND 1.79 ND 0.380

Pentachlorophenol ND 0.983 ND 0.920 1.61 0.946 ND 0.9449 8.16 JK

(0.112) 4.34 4.97 JKD

(0.0685) 1.840

Phe nanthrene ND 0.389 ND 0.380 ND 0.403 ND 0.389 ND 1.79 ND 0.380

Pyrene ND 0.389 ND 0.380 ND 0.403 ND 0.389 ND 1.79 ND 0.380

REF ERENCES

Chain of Custody Ref. 14, p. 14 Ref. 14, p. 7 Ref. 14, p. 7 Ref. 14, p. 137 Ref. 14, p. 13

Data Evaluation Ref. 14, pp. 67

- 85 Ref. 14, pp. 86

- 97 Ref. 14, pp. 86

- 97 Ref. 14, pp .67

- 85 Ref. 14, pp. 67

- 85

Form Is Ref. 14, pp. 244

- 246 Ref. 14, pp. 253

- 255 Ref. 14, pp. 25 6

- 25 8 Ref. 14, pp. 65

- 267 Ref. 14, pp. 268

- 270

SQLs Re f. 14, pp. 75

- 76,83

- 84; Ref. 20, pp. 1

- 8 Re f. 14, pp. 90, 96;

Ref. 20, pp. 1

- 8 Re f. 14, pp. 90, 96;

Ref. 20, pp. 1

- 8 Re f. 14, 75

- 76, 83

- 84;

Ref. 20, pp. 1

- 8 Re f. 14, pp. 75

- 76, 83

- 84; Ref. 20, pp. 1

- 8

Other Supporting

References Ref. 12, p. 10 , Ref. 4 Ref. 12, p. 10 , Ref. 4 Ref. 12, p. 10 , Ref. 4 Ref. 12, p. 10 , Ref. 4 Ref. 12, p. 10 , Ref. 4

Notes and Qualifiers

Max: Maximum SQL: Sample Quantitation Limit ND: Not Detected

JK/JH/JL : Estimated concentrat ion, unknown bias/ biased h igh/ biased low

. Identification of the analyte is acceptable

. ( ): Adjusted concentration for "J" data utilizing Qualified Data to Document Observed Release included as Reference in the documentation package

*: If the background concentration is not detected (or is less than the detection limit, the SQL is used

## SO

- Source Characterization

Source No.: 2

35 

## •EVIDENCE TABLE: START -3 September 2011 Sampling

The following tables represent the soil samples collected during the September 2011 START- 3 sampling

mission. These soil samples were compared to a background level which was established using

background samples which were collected on the same s ampling mission (Ref. 23; Ref. 37; Ref. 38).

These samples were analyzed for CCA and PAHs.

Notes:

Max: Maximum

SQL: Sample Quantitation Limit

ND: Not Detected 

### SOIL SAMPLE

BACKGROUND LEVELS

- SEPTEMBER 2011 START SAMPLING

Hazardous Substance Sample No. T9 06NY

- 004 0 3 X Conc.

Conc. (mg/kg) SQL (mg/kg) (mg/kg)

Arsenic 7.3 1.30 21.9

Chromium 7.5 1.30 22.5

Copper 7.7 3.20 23.1

2

- Methylnaphthalene ND 0.22 0.22

Acenaphthene ND 0.22 0.22

Anthracene ND 0.22 0.22

Benzo(a)anthracene ND 0.22 0.22

Benzo(a)pyrene ND 0.22 0.22

Benzo(b)fluoranthene ND 0.22 0.22

Benzo(k)fluoranthene ND 0.22 0.22

Chrysene ND 0.22 0.22

Dibenzofuran ND 0.22 0.22

Fluoranthene ND 0.22 0.22

Fluorene ND 0.22 0.22

Pentachlorophenol ND 0.43 0.43

Phenanthrene ND 0.22 0.22

Pyrene ND 0.22 0.22

REFERENCES

Chain of Custody Ref. 37, p. 3

Data Evaluation Ref. 23, Appendix C

Form Is Ref. 37, p. 16 1- 16 4

SQLs Ref. 23, Table 4

Other Supporting References Ref. 38 ; Figure 4

## SO

- Source Characterization

Source No.: 2

36 EVIDENCE

ON

- SITE SURFACE SOIL SAMPLES

2011 START SAMPLING

Hazardous Substance Established Background Level Sample No. S07 06NY

0011 Sample No. S09

06NY

- 0044 Sample No. S10

06NY

- 0014 Sample No. S11

06NY

- 0015 Sample No. S12 06NY

- 0016

Max. Conc.

(mg/kg) 3 X Conc.

(mg/kg) Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL (mg/kg) Conc.

(mg/

kg) SQL

(mg/kg) Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL

(mg/kg) Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL

(mg/kg) Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL (mg/kg)

Arsenic 7.3 21.9 24.20 1.20 51.9 1.10 31.3 1.10 21.8 1.10 50.0 1.10

Chromium 7.5 22.5 18.9 1.20 62.9 1.10 37.5 1.10 29.2 1.10 62.0 1.10

Copper 7.7 23.1 18.6 3.10 5 2.9 2.70 18.2 2.90 13.6 2.70 33.7 2.80

2- Methylnaphthalene ND 

### 0.22 ND 2.20 ND 1.90 ND 2.00 ND 1.90 ND 1.90

Acenaphthene ND 

### 0.22 ND 2.20 2.7 1.90 ND 2.00 ND 1.90 ND 1.90

Anthracene ND 

### 0.22 ND 2.20 12.0 1.90 ND 2.00 ND 1.90 ND 1.90

Benzo(a)anthracene ND 

### 0.22 ND 2.20 3.5 1.90 ND 2.00 ND 1.90 ND 1.90

Benzo(a)pyrene ND 

### 0.22 ND 2.20 ND 1.90 ND 2.00 ND 1.90 ND 1.90

Benzo(b)fluoranthene ND 

### 0.22 ND 2.20 ND 1.90 ND 2.00 ND 1.90 ND 1.90

Benzo(k)fluoranthene ND 

### 0.22 ND 2.20 ND 1.90 ND 2.00 ND 1.90 ND 1.90

Chrysene ND 

### 0.22 ND 2.20 3.6 1.90 ND 2.00 ND 1.90 ND 1.90

Dibenzofuran ND 

### 0.22 ND 2.20 3.2 1.90 ND 2.00 ND 1.90 ND 1.90

Fluoranthene ND 

### 0.22 ND 2.20 28 .0 1.90 ND 2.00 ND 1.90 2.5 1.90

Fluorene ND 

### 0.22 ND 2.20 4.6 1.90 ND 2.00 ND 1.90 ND 1.90

Pentachlorophenol ND 

### 0.43 ND 4.30 38 .0 3.70 ND 3.80 ND 3.70 13.0 3.60

Phenanthrene ND 

### 0.22 ND 2.20 32 .0 1.90 ND 2.00 ND 1.90 ND 1.90

Pyrene ND 

### 0.22 ND 2.20 16.0 1.90 ND 2.00 ND 1.90 ND 1.90

REFERENCES

Chain of Custody Ref. 37, pp. 1

- 3 Ref. 37, pp. 1

- 3 Ref. 37, pp. 1

- 3 Ref. 37, pp. 1

- 3 Ref. 37, pp. 1

- 3

Data Evaluation Ref. 23, Appendix C

Form Is Ref. 37, pp. 38

- 40 Ref. 37, 1 69

- 175 Ref. 37, 89

- 92 Ref. 37, pp. 93

- 9 6 Ref. 37, pp. 97

- 100

SQLs Ref. 23, Table 4 Ref. 23, Table 4 Ref. 23, Table 4 Ref. 23, Table 4 Ref. 23, Table 4

Other Supporting

References Ref. 38, Figure 3



### Notes and Qualifiers

Max: Maximum Conc: Concentration

*: If the background concentration is not detected (or is less than the detection limit, the SQL is used

## SO

- Source Characterization

Source No.: 2

37 

## 2.2.3 Hazardous Substances Available to a Pathway

Because containment for this source is greater than zero, the following substances associated

wi th the source can migrate via the Surface Water Pathway (Ref. 1, Sec. 4.1.2.1.2.1.1):

•Arsenic •Phenanthrene

•Chromium •Pyrene

•Copper •Pentachlorophenol

•Acenaphthene •Benzo(b)fluoranthene

•Anthracene •Benzo(a)pyrene

•Chrysene •Benzo(a)anthracene

•Fluorene

•F l uoranthene

•2

- Methylnaphthalene

2.4.2.1.1 Hazardous Constituent Quantity

Insufficient data are available to adequately determine a Hazardous Constituent Quantity

according to the H RS (Ref. 1, Sec.2.4.2.1.1). A Hazardous Constituent Qua ntity Value is not

assigned according to the available data because the total mass of hazardous substances in the

source could not be estimated with reasonable confidence ; scoring proceeds to the evaluation of

Hazardous Wastestream Quantity (Surface Water Pathway) according to the HRS (Ref. 1, Sec.

2.4.2.1.2).

NC: Not Calculated



## Hazardous Constituent Quantity Value (S): Not C alculated

Are the data complete for hazardous constituent quantity for this area? No

2.4.2.1.2 Hazardous Wastestream Quantity

Insufficient data are available to adequately determine a Hazardous Wastestream Quantity

(Surface Water Pathway) according to the H RS (Ref.1, Sec.2.4.2.1.2). A Hazardous Wastestream

Value is not assigned according to the available data because the total m ass of all hazardous

wastestreams and all pollutants and contaminants for the source could not be adequately

determined; scoring proceeds to an evaluation of volume according to the HRS (Ref. 1, Sec.

2.4.2.1.3).

NC: Not Calculated

## SO

- Source Characterization

Source No.: 2

38 

## Hazardous Wastestream Quantity Value (W): N ot C alculated

Are the data complete for hazardous constituent quantity for this area? No

2.4.2.1.3 Volume

The information available is not sufficient to evaluate Tier C because the depth of contamination

is not known throughout the source; therefore, it is not possible to adequately determine a source

volume (Tier C) in cubic yards (yd 3 

## for Source No.2 (Ref. 1, Sec. 2.4.2.1.3, p. 51591). As a

result, the evaluation of source volume proceeds to the evaluation of Tier D, source a rea (Ref. 1,

Sec. 2.4.2.1.4, p. 51591).

Dimension of source (yd3 or gallons): Not C alculated

Volume Assigned Value: Not C alculated

Are the data complete for volume quantity for this area? No

2.4.2.1.4 Area

Five

- point composite samples were collected from 50 -ft. x 50-ft. grids (Ref. 12, p. 7).

Approximately 20 grids contain hazardous substances above background. Some portions of this

area were covered by a building and a tramway (Ref. 12, pp. 30, 36- 38) (Fig. 2 ). For a more

conservative area estimate, the area source will be assigned an area hazardous waste quantity

value of >0. The value >0 reflects that the area value is known to be greater than 0,but the exact

area is unknown.

Area of source (ft 2 

## ): unknown, but >0

Area Assigned Value: >0

References: Fig. 2; Ref. 1, Sec. 2.4.2.1.4

2.4.2.1.5 Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value

NC = Not calculated

NS = Not scored



## The highest value assigned to either Tier A, Tier B, Tier C, or Tier D is assigned as the Source

No. 2 Hazardous Waste Quantity Value (Ref. 1, Section 2.4.2.1.5). The highest value assigned is

Tier D.

Source No. 2 Hazardous Waste Quantity Value: >0

## SO

- Source Characterization

Source No.: 3

39 

## 2.2 SOURCE CHARACTERIZATION

2.2.1 Source Identification

The following information corresponds to the third source identified for this documentation

record.

Number of the source: Source No. 3

Name and description of the source: Underground Storage Tank

Source No. 3 is located in the former process and refinery areas north of the fence, west of Site

Road, east of the surface impoundments, and south of the wooded area (Fig. 3). An underground

storage tank (UST) was located in the former process area east of the former surface

impoundments . It was used to separate the PCP process wastewater and sludge. The UST

measured 1 0 feet x 5 feet and had a capacity of approximately 1,400 gallons (Ref. 5, pp. 15, 16,

30). START sampled the sludge and aqueous solution in the UST in 1999. The sludge sample

contained 34,300 mg/kg of PCP and 873,000 mg/kg of total petroleum hydrocarbon s (TPH) Ref.

5, p. 30)

START collected a sample from the UST in September 2011. The sample was analyzed for

semivolatiles.

The hazardous substances associated with this source are polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons

(PAHs) (Ref. 37).

Access to the s outhern portion of EVR-Wood and part of the Evangeline Refining properties,

just north of Highway 97, is only partially restricted by a locked gate and a fence running east to

west. Open fields connected to dense forest form the unfenced eastern and northern boundaries

(Fig. 3) (Ref. 6, p. 3).

Location of the source, with reference to a map of the site:

Source No. 3 is located in the former process and refinery areas north of the fence, west of Site

Road, east of the surface impoundments, and south of the wooded area (Fig. 3).

Source Type for HRS evaluation purposes: Tank

Containment

Gas release to air: The air migration pathway was not scored; therefore, gas release to

air containment was not evaluated.

Particulate release to air: The air migration pathway was not scored; therefore,

particulate containment was not evaluated.

Release to ground water: The ground water migration pathway was not scored;

## SO

- Source Characterization

Source No.: 3

40 

## therefore, ground water containment was not evaluated.

Release via overland migration and/or flood: There is no documentation or evidence to

indicate that the tank had a liner (Ref. 33, pp. 1- 6).

2.2.2 Hazardous Substances Associated with a Source

The substances listed in the table below are present in the unlined underground stora ge tank . The

samples contained concentrations of hazardous substances equal to or greater than their

corresponding SQLs (Ref. 14, pp.19-270).

During Sept 2011, a sample was collected from the UST. This sample was analyzed by a

laboratory using definitive data and EPA -approved methods the TCL (Ref. 37). The samples

were analyzed for PAHs (Ref. 14, pp. 1-18).

UST SAMPLE

START 2011

Hazardous Substance Sample No. U1 06NY

0029

Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL (mg/kg)

1,1'

- Biphenyl 230 25

2,3,4,6

- Tetrachlorophenol 1200 25

2

- Methylnaphthalene 640 25

Acenaphthene 1300 25

Anthracene 1000 25

Benzo(a)anthracene 360 25

Benzo(a)pyrene 100 25

Benzo(b)flouranthene 130 25

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 100 25

Carbazole 850 25

Chrysene 330 25

Dibenzofuran 1100 25

Flouranthene 2500 2500

Flourene 1400 25

Indeno(1,2,3

- cd)pyrene 45 25

Naphthalene 660 25

Pentachlorophenol 11000 5000

Phenanthrene 5000 2500

Pyrene 1400 25

REFERENCES

Chain of Custody Ref. 37, p. 6

Data Evaluation Ref. 23, Appendix C

Form Is Ref. 37, p. 188

- 19 3

SQLs Ref. 23, Table 2

Other Supporting References Figure 3

Notes and Qualifiers : SQL: Sample Quantitation Limit

## SO

- Source Characterization

Source No.: 3

41 

## 2.2.3 Hazardous Substances Available to a Pathway

Because containment for this source is greater than zero, the following substances associated

with the source can migrate via the Surface Water Pathway (Ref. 1, Sec. 4.1.2.1.2.1.1):

•Acenaphthene •Phenanthrene

•Anthracene •Pyrene

•Chrysene •Pentachlorophenol

•Fluorene •Benzo(b)fluoranthene

•F l uoranthene •Benzo(a)pyrene

•2

- Methylnaphthalene •Benzo(a)anthracene

2.4.2.1.1 Hazardous Constituent Quantity

Insufficient data are available to adequately determine a Hazardous Constituent Quantity

according to the HAS (Ref. 1, Sec.2.4.2.1.1). A Hazardous Constituent Quantity Value is not

assigned according to the available data because the total mass of hazardous substances in the

source could not be estimated with reasonable confidence ; scoring proceeds to the evaluation of

Hazardous Wastestream Quantity (Surface Water Pathway) according to the HRS (Ref. 1, Sec.

2.4.2.1.2).

NC: Not Calculated



## Hazardous Constituent Quantity Value (S): Not C alculated

Are the d ata complete for hazardous constituent quantity for this area ? No

2.4.2.1.2 Hazardous Wastestream Quantity

Insufficient data are available to adequately determine a Hazardous Wastestream Quantity

(Surface Water Pathway) according to the H RS (Ref.1, Sec.2.4.2.1.2). A Hazardous

Wastestream Value is not assigned according to the available data because the total mass of all

hazardous wastestreams and all pollutants and contaminants for the source could not be

adequately determined; scoring proceeds to an evaluation of volume according to the HRS (Ref.

1, Sec. 2.4.2.1.3).

NC: Not Calculated



## Hazardous Wastestream Quantity Value (W): N ot C alculated

Are the data complete for hazardous constituent quantity for this area? No

## SO

- Source Characterization

Source No.: 3

42 

## 2.4.2.1.3 Volume

The volume of the tank was estimated to be approximately 1,400 gallons (Ref. 5, p. 16). The

volume of sludge in the tank was estimated to be approximately 80.8 gallons. Because the exact

volume has not been determined, for HRS scoring purposes, a more conservative es timate will be

used; the volume will be assigned a volume hazardous waste quantity value of >0. The value >0

reflects that the volume value is known to be greater than 0, but the exact volume is unknown

(Ref. 1, Sec. 2.4.2.1.3, p. 51591).

Dimension of source (yd 3 

## or gallons): >0

Reference(s): 1, 5

Volume Assigned Value: >0

2.4.2.1.4 Area

Since the volume was determined, the area receives a value of 0

.

Area of source (ft 2 

## ): 0

Area Assigned Value: 0

References: Ref. 1, Sec. 2.4.2.1.4

2.4.2.1.5 Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value

NC = Not calculated

NS = Not scored



## The highest value assigned to either Tier A, Tier B, Tier C, or Tier D is assigned as the Source

No. 3 Hazardous Waste Quantity Value (Ref. 1, Section 2.4.2.1.5). The highest value assigned is

Tier C.

Source No. 3 Hazardous Waste Quantity Value: >0

## SO

- Summary

43 

## 2.4.2.2.5 Calculation of Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value

SITE SUMMARY OF SOURCE DESCRIPTIONS

Containment

Source

No. Source Hazardous Waste Quantity

Value

Ground

Water Surface

Water Air

Surface Water

Migration

Pathway Soil Exposure

Pathway Gas Air

Particulate

1 1,723.92 NS NS 10 NS NS

2 >0 NS NS 10 NS NS

3 >0 NS NS 10 NS NS

Total >1,723.92



### NS: Not Scored



## The sum of the source hazardous waste quantity values is assigned as the Hazardous Waste

Quantity Factor Value (Ref. 1, Sec. 2.4.2.2). The sum of the source hazardous waste quantity

values for Surface Water Pathway is >1,72 3 . For a Hazardous Waste Quantity range of greater

than 100 to 10,000, a value of 100 is assigned for the migration pathway (Ref. 1, Sec. 2.4.2.2,

Table 2 -6).

Assigned Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value for Mi gration Pathways: 100

## SWOF -Surface Water Overland Flow/Flood Migration Component

44 

## 4.0 SURFACE WATER MIGRATION PATHWAY

4.1 OVERLAND/FLOOD MIGRATION COMPONENT

4.1.1.1 Definition of Hazardous Substance Migration Path for Overland/Flood

Component

General Considerations:

The facility is located approximately 1,000 feet east of the Bayou Nezpique (Ref. 39, p. 1). The

EV R-Wood Treating Co. and the associated former refinery comprise approximately 135 acres

of land (Ref. 12, p. 2). The overall gradient of the property is to the west, toward Bayou

Nezpique (Ref. 39, p.1). Perennial wetlands as defined by 40 CFR 230.41 are located west and

north of Source No. 1 on the site, and are contiguous with Bayou Nezpique (Ref. 19, p. 1; Ref.

25, pp. 1-4; Ref. 31, pp. 3, 4; Ref. 33, pp. 1, 3- 6).

Definition of Overland Segment and Probable Point of Entry (PPE)

PPE

The probable point of entry is into the wetlands approximately 15 0 feet west of surface

impoundment s 1 and 2 (Figure 5). The wetlands surround Source No. 1 on the west and northern

sides. (Ref. 25, pp. 1-4 ; Figure 5)

.

Definition of In- Water Segments

Wetlands

The average annual net surface water flow through the wetlands is minimal; however, since they

are contiguous with Bayou Nezpique, which is a moderate stream for HRS purposes, the

wetlands located along this stream receive a dilution weight of 0.01 for potential contamination

(Ref. 1, Sec. 4.1.2.3.1 , Table 4 -13 ).

Ba you Nezpique

The wetlands are contiguous with Bayou Nezpique, a perennial stream, approximately 0.19 mile

downstream from the contaminated portion of wetlands (Ref. 25, p. 1-4). Bayou Nezpique flows

southward approximately 6 miles until it empties into the Mermentau Ri ver (Ref. 25, pp.1-4).

Bayou Nezpique is used as a recreational and possibly a commercial fishery (Ref. 9, p. 1 ; Ref.

38, p. 3 ).

Bayou Nezpique is a moderate to large stream for HRS purposes, with an average flow of 786

cubic feet per second (cfs) (Ref. 1 0, p. 7).

## SWOF -Surface Water Overland Flow/Flood Migration Component

45 

## Mermentau River

The Mermentau River is joined by the Bayou Nezpique approximately 6.1 miles from the PPE.

The remaining 8.9 miles of the 15- mile target distance limit (TDL) is contained within the

Mermentau River, which is both a commercial and recreational fishery (Ref. 5, pp. 1-4; Ref. 9, p.

1).

The average stream flow for the Mermentau River is 1,584 cfs, which characterizes it as a large

stream to river for HRS purposes (Ref. 11, p. 6; Ref. 1, Table 4- 13).

4.1.2.1 Likelihood of Release

Che mical Analyses:

• Background Concentration – 2000 LDEQ ESI

Wetland Background Samples

LDEQ ESI February 2000

Sample ID Depth Date Reference

WET

- BKGD

- 01 0 to 6 inches February 21, 2000 Ref. 15, pp. 22

- 23 ; Ref. 35, p. 32

WET

- BKGD

- 02 0 to 6 inches February 21, 2000 Ref. 15, pp. 22

- 24 ; Ref. 35, p. 32

## SWOF -Surface Water Overland Flow/Flood Migration Component

46 

## The samples in the following tables are wetland sediment samples collected during the 2000

LDEQ ESI and 2011 START sampling missions. The background sample (W-9) for the 2011

wetland samples was col lected in the wetlands northwest of the process area (Figure 4). These

samples were grab samples collected from on

- site wetlands with similar flora and sediments as

those found in the background wetlands (Fig. 6) (Ref. 25, p. 1; Ref. 35, p. 32 ). The wetl and

sediment samples were analyzed for TCL semivolatiles and TAL metals by a CLP laboratory

(Ref. 16, pp. 1-15).

BACKGROUND WETLAND SAMPLES

2000 LDEQ ESI

Sample No. WET

- BKGD

- 01

MFKB47 FHA16 Sample No. WET

- BKGD

- 02

MFBKB45 FHA14 Established

Background Level

Hazardous Substance Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL

(mg/kg) 3x Conc.

(mg/kg) Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL

(mg/kg) 3x Conc.

(mg/kg) Max.

Conc.

(mg/kg) 3 X

Conc.

Or SQL

(mg/kg)

Arsenic 3.1 2.77 9.3 4.8 2.54 14.4 4.8 14.4

Chromium 14.6 2.77 43.8 17.5 2.54 52.5 17.5 52.5

Copper 8.8 6.92 26.4 13.8 6.35 41.4 13.8 41.4

Acenaphthene ND 0.460 0.460 ND 0.430 0.430 0.460 * 0.460*

Anthracene ND 0.460 0.460 ND 0.430 0.430 0.460 * 0.460*

Benzo(a)anthracene ND 0.460 0.460 ND 0.430 0.430 0.460 * 0.460*

Benzo(b)flouranthene ND 0.460 0.460 ND 0.430 0.430 0.460 * 0.460*

Benzo(a)pyrene ND 0.460 0.460 ND 0.430 0.430 0.460 * 0.460*

Chrysene ND 0.460 0.460 ND 0.430 0.430 0.460 * 0.460*

Flourene ND 0.460 0.460 ND 0.430 0.430 0.460 * 0.460*

Flouranthene ND 0.460 0.460 ND 0.430 0.430 0.460 * 0.460*

2

- Methylnaphthalene ND 0.460 0.460 ND 0.430 0.430 0.460 * 0.460*

Pentachlorophenol ND 1.10 1.10 ND 1.10 1.10 1.10 * 1.10*

Phenanthrene ND 0.460 0.460 ND 0.430 0.430 0.460 * 0.460*

Pyrene ND 0.460 0.460 ND 0.430 0.430 0.460 * 0.460*

REFERENCES

Chain of Custody Ref. 16 , p p

. 1,10 Ref. 16 , p p

. 1,10

Data Evaluation Ref. 1 6 , pp. 144 Ref. 1 6 , pp. 144

Form Is Ref. 16 , pp. 215

- 217 Ref. 16 , pp. 218

- 220

SQLs Ref. 16, p. 227; Ref. 20, pp. 1

- 8 Ref. 16, p. 227; Ref. 20, pp. 1

- 8

Other Supporting

References Ref. 15, p. 22

- 23; Ref. 35, p. 32 Ref. 15, p. 22

- 23; Ref. 35, p. 32

Max: Maximum

SQL: Sample Quantitation Limit

ND: Not Detected

*: If the background concentration is not detected (or is less than the detection limit), the SQL is used)

## SWOF

- Observed Release

47 EVIDENCE

WETLAND SAMPLES

2000 LDEQ ESI

Hazardous Substance Established

Background Level Sample No.

SDWET01 MFKB87

FHA58 Sample No.

SDWET02

MFKB88 FHA59 Sample No.

SDWET03 MFKB89

FHA60 Sample No. SDCWP02

MFKB59 FHA30

Max.

Conc.

(mg/kg) 3 X

Conc.

Or SQL

(mg/kg) Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL

(mg/kg) Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL

(mg/kg) Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL

(mg/kg) Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL (mg/kg)

Arsenic 4.8 14.4 128 JK

( 73.6 ) 4.30 645 JK

( 371 ) 4.11 11.4 JK

(6.55) 3.30 6.0 3.03

Chromium 17.5 52.5 604 JK

( 468 ) 4.30 808 JK

(626) 4.11 72.3 JK

(56.0) 3.30 26.1 3.03

Copper 13.8 41.4 585 JK

(480) 10.8 548 JK

(449) 10.3 29.9 JK

(24.5) 8.26 11.3 7.57

Acenaphthene 0.460 * 0.460* 1000 460 6900 1300 ND 3.30 ND 100

Anthracene 0.460 * 0.460* 650 460 6200 1300 ND 190 ND 100

Benzo(a)anthracene 0.460 * 0.460* ND 460 1400 1300 ND 190 ND 100

Benzo(b)flouranthene 0.460 * 0.460* ND 460 ND 1300 ND 190 ND 100

Benzo(a)pyrene 0.460 * 0.460* ND 460 ND 1300 ND 190 ND 100

Chrysene 0.460 * 0.460* ND 460 1500 1300 ND 190 ND 100

Flourene 0.460 * 0.460* 1200 460 6200 1300 ND 190 ND 100

Flouranthene 0.460 * 0.460* 2100 460 9800 1300 ND 190 240 100

2

- Methylnaphthalene 0.460 * 0.460* 1400 460 5200 1300 ND 190 ND 100

Pentachlorophenol 1.10 * 1.10* 3300 1200 8000 6700 ND 470 ND 260

Phenanthrene 0.460 * 0.460* 3500 D 930 15000 2700 ND 190 390 100

Pyrene 0.460 * 0.460* 1300 460 6 500 1300 ND 190 120 100

REFERENCES

Chain of Custody Ref. 16, pp. 8, 15 Ref. 16, pp. 8, 15 Ref. 16, pp. 8, 16 Ref. 16, pp. 4, 11

Data Evaluation Ref. 16, pp. 26

- 37,

60

- 82 Ref. 16, pp. 26

- 37,

60

- 82 Ref. 16, pp. 26

- 37,

60

- 82 Ref. 16, pp. 26

- 37, 60

- 84

Form Is Ref. 16, pp. 193

- 197 Ref. 16, pp. 198

- 202 Ref. 16, pp. 20 3

- 2 05 Ref. 16, pp. 2 12

- 2 14

SQLs Ref. 16, pp. 193

- 196,

227 Ref. 16, pp. 198

- 201,

227 Ref. 16, pp. 209

- 210,

227 Ref. 16, pp. 209

- 210, 229

Other Supporting

References Fig.4; Ref. 16, pp.

147, 161

- 162 ; Ref. 4 Fig.4; Ref. 16, pp.

147, 161

- 163 ; Ref. 4 Fig.4; Ref. 16, pp.

147, 161

- 164 ; Ref. 4 Fig.4; Ref. 16, pp. 151 ;

Ref. 4



### Notes and Qualifiers

Max : Maximum

Conc: Concentration

SQL: Sample Quantitation Limit

ND: Not Detected above the SQL, CRQL, or RL

JK or J : Estima ted concentration, unknown bias

JH or J^ : Estimated concentration, biased high

JL or J

v 

### : Estimated concentration, biased low

( ): Adjusted concentration for "J" data utilizing Qualified Data to Document Observed Release included as

Reference in the documentation package.

*: If the background conce ntration is not detected (or is less than the detection limit, the SQL is used)

## SWOF/

Food Chain- Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation

48 EVIDENCE

WETLAND SAMPLES

2011 START SAMPLING

Hazardous

Substance Established

Background

Level

(Sample

W9/06NY

- 0039) Sample No. W5

06NY

- 0034 Sample No.

W6 06NY

0035 Sample No. W6

-
DUP

06NY

- 0036 Sample No. W7

06NY

- 0037 Sample No. W8

06NY

- 0038

Max.

Conc.

(mg/kg) 3 X

Conc.

Or

SQL

(mg/kg

) Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL

(mg/kg

) Conc.

(mg/k

g) SQL

(mg/k

g) Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL

(mg/kg) Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL

(mg/kg

) Conc.

(mg/kg) SQL

(mg/kg

)

Arsenic 7.2 21.6 25.50 1.2 73.60 1.2 77.1 1.2 34.4 1.2 26.9 1.1

Chromium 12.25 36.75 38.2 1.2 93.6 1.2 77.6 1.2 33.2 1.2 19.8 1.1

Copper 5.49 16.47 21.8 3.0 33.1 3.0 32 3.0 14.2 2.9 9.8 2.8

REFERENCES

Chain of

Custody Ref. 37, pp. 4 Ref. 37, pp. 4 Ref. 37, pp. 4 Ref. 37, pp. 4 Ref. 37, pp. 4 Ref. 37, pp. 4

Data Evaluation Ref. 23,

Appendix C Ref. 23,

Appendix C Ref. 23,

Appendix C Ref. 23,

Appendix C Ref. 23,

Appendix C Ref. 23,

Appendix C

Form Is Ref. 37, pp. 1 57

- 160 Ref. 37, pp. 137

- 140 Ref. 37, pp.

141

- 144 Ref. 37, 145

- 148 Ref. 37, pp. 149

- 152 Ref. 37, pp. 153

- 156

SQLs Ref. 23, Table 6 Ref. 23, Table

6 Ref. 23,

Table 6 Ref. 23, Table 6 Ref. 23, Table

6 Ref. 23, Table

6

Other Supporting

References Ref. 23,

Appendices A, F Ref. 23,

Appendices A, F Ref. 23,

Appendices

A, F Ref. 23,

Appendices A, F Ref. 23,

Appendices A, F Ref. 23,

Appendices A, F

Notes and Qualifiers:

Max: Maximum Conc : Concentration

ND: Not Detected

*: If the background concentration is not detected (or is less than the detection limit, the SQL is used)

## SWOF/

Food Chain- Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation

49 

## Attribution:

The EVR -Wood Treating/Evangeline Refining Company site contains an inactive and abandoned wood

treating facility which utilized PAHs, and wolman ac in its wood preserving process (Ref. 6, pp. 2, 3).

Wolman ac is a trademark preservative which consists of arsenic acid, chromic aci d, and copper oxide

(CCA) (Ref. 18, p. 5; Ref. 34, p. 1).T he facility was active from the mid -1940s until 1985 (Ref. 6, p. 2;

Ref. 28, p. 1).

Wolman ac (CCA), PCP, and PAH constituents including those in the observed release were found in

source samples and wetland sediment samples collected during the 1999 LDEQ ESI, the 1999-2000

START Removal Assessment, and the START September 2011 sampling at levels three times above

their corresponding background concentrations and exceeding their sample quantitation limits (Ref. 14,

pp. 119-270; Ref.16, pp. 193-220).

PAHs, which are associated with creosote, do not occur naturally in the environment; they are created by

high -temperature treatment of beech and other woods, coal (coal tar creosote), or from the resin of the

creosote bush (Ref. 26, p. 2; Ref. 27, p.1). The former processing area contained several tanks with

hazard communication signs identifying contents as Wolmanac Concentrate 50% (Ref. 6, p. 3).

Photographic documentation conducted during the 1989 Technical Assistance Team (TAT) Site

Assessment revealed nume rous areas of stained soil, presumably the result of spills around the process

and storage tanks. The TAT also observed and photo documented a discharge through a break in the

berm near a discharge pipe which contaminated a 10-foot x 30- foot area of soil i n an open field at the

southwest corner of the site (Ref. 6, p. 3).

Evangeline Refinery reportedly accepted EVR -Wood wastewater into its two surface impoundments,

which are included as part of Source 1 at this site (Ref. 12, p. 2; Ref. 18, p. 5; Ref. 21, p. 2, Ref. 30, p.

5). The hazardous substances found in the surface impoundments and contaminated soil on site are

commonly found in the wastewater of both wood- treat ing and refinery operations, and the wastes were

commingled during deposition (Ref. 21, p. 2). Although wastes in these two impoundments include

Evangeline’s petroleum refining process wastewater and sludge, there is n o evidence that Evangeline

intend to recover any product from the sludge and non-aqueous liquid in the surface impoundments aft er operations ceased. Therefore, the residual waste in the backfilled surface impoundment is considered

waste and not a petroleum product. The remaining creosote being scored at the site is, in fact, waste

product from the wood treating facility and not spilled refining product.

There are no other industries located within a 1- mile radius of the site that might be responsible for the

contamination in the wetlands (Ref. 7, p. 1).

Observed Release Factor Value: 550

## SWOF/

Food Chain- Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation

50 

## 4.1.3.2 HUMAN FOOD CHAIN THREAT

- WASTE CHARACTERISTICS

4.1.3.2.1 Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation

Hazardous Substance Source

No. Toxicity

Factor

Value Persistence

Factor

Value Toxicity/Persistence

Factor Value

(Table 4

- 12) Bioaccumulation

Factor Value ** Toxicity/Persistence

/Bioaccumulation

Factor Value (Table

4

- 16) Reference

TAL Metals

Arsenic 2 10,000 1.0 10,000 5 50,000 Ref. 1, Table

4- 12, 4

- 16;

Ref. 2, pp .1

- 13 Chromium 1, 2 10,000 1.0 10,000 500 500,000

Copper 1, 2 0 1.0 0 500 0

TCL Semivolatiles

Acenaphthene 1, 2, 3 10 0.4 4 500 2,000

Ref. 1, Table

4- 12, 4

- 16;

Ref. 2, pp. 1

- 13 Anthracene 1, 2, 3 10 0.4 4 50,000 200,000

Benzo(a)anthracene 1, 2, 3 1,000 1.0 1,000 50,000 50,000,000

Benzo(a)pyrene 1, 2, 3 10,000 1.0 10,000 50,000 500,000,000

Chrysene 1, 2, 3 10 1.0 10 5 50

Flourene 1, 2, 3 100 1.0 100 500 50,000

Flouranthene 1, 2, 3 500 1.0 500 500 250,000

2- Methylnaphthalene 1, 2, 3 0 0.4 0 50,000 0

Pentachlorophenol 1, 2, 3 100 1.0 100 50,000 5,000,000

Phenanthrene 1, 2, 3 0 0

. 4 0 5,000 0

Pyrene 1, 2, 3 100 1.0 100 50,000 5,000,000



### * Persistence values assigned are based on River.

**Bioaccumulation values are assigned based on the surface category of fresh water



## Th e hazardous substance with the highest Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation Factor Value is

benzo(a)pyrene.

Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation Factor Value: 500,000,000

## SWOF/

Food Chain-Hazardous Waste Quantity

51 

## 4.1.3.2.2 Hazardous Waste Quantity

Source Number Source Hazardous Wast e Quantity Value (Secti on

2. 4 .2.1.5) Is Source Hazardous

Constituent Quantity Data

Complete? (yes/no)

1 1,723.92 No

2, 3 >0 No

TOTAL 1,723.92

The sum of the source hazardous waste quantity values is assigned as the Hazardous Waste

Quantity Factor Value (Ref.1, Sec. 2.4.2.2). The sum of the source hazardous waste quantity

values for Surface Water Pathway, rounded to the nearest integer, is 1,724. For a Hazardous

Waste Quantity range of greater than 100 to 10,000, a value of 100 is assigned from Ref. 1,

Table 2 -6 for the migration pathway (Ref. 1, Sec.2.4.2.2, Table 2

- 6). Level II concentrations

have been documented by chemical analyses to the surface water overland flow -environmental

threat. This could also serve as the basis for assigning a value of 100 for the hazardous waste

quantity factor value. See Section 4.1.4.3.1.2 for documentation of the observed release.

Sum of Values: 1,724

Hazardous Waste Quantity Assigned: 100

## SWOF/

Food Chain-Hazardous Waste Quantity

52 

## 4.1.3.2.3 Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value

The waste characteristics factor category value is assigned based on the Waste Characteristics

Product. The Waste Characteristics Product is the product of the Toxicity/P ersistence Factor

Value, the Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value, and Bioaccumulation Potential Factor

Value. Values from the substance with the highest Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation factor

value for the watershed, benzo(a)pyrene, will be used.

Toxicity/Persistence Factor Value: 10,000

x Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 100

(Toxicity/Persistence x Hazardous Waste Quantity):

10,000 X 100 = 1 X 10 6



## (Subject to a maximum product of 1.0 x 10 8



## Bioaccumulation Potential Factor Value: 50,000

( Toxicity/Persistence x Hazardous Waste Quantity) x

Bioaccumulation Potential Factor Value:

(1 X 10 6 

## ) X (50,000) = 5.0 X 10 10



## A Waste Characteristics Product value of 5.0 X 10 10 

## receives a waste characteristics factor

value of 320 (Ref. 1, Table 2-7).

Hazardous Waste Quantity Assigned Value: 100

Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value: 320

## SWOF/

Food Chain-Hazardous Waste Quantity

53 

## 4.1.3.3 HUMAN FOOD CHAIN THREAT

- TARGETS

4.1.3.3.1 Food Chain Individual

A food chain individual factor value of 20 is assigned based on an observed release by chemical

analyses of chromium, copper, acenaphthene, anthracene, benzo(a)anthracene, fluoranthene, 2-

methylnaphthalene, and pentachlorophenol with a Bioaccumulation Factor Value of 500 or

greater to sediments within the surface water target distance limit, and due to a fishery is present

within the 15-mile TDL of the in water segment (see Sec. 4.1.3.2.1)(Ref.1, Sec. 4.1.3.3.1; Ref. 2,

pp.1-13; Ref. 9, p.1) (see Sec. 4.1.3.2.1).

Food Chain Individual Factor Value: 20

## SWOF/

Food Chain-Hazardous Waste Quantity

54 

## 4.1.3.3.2 Population

The Population Factor for the watershed is based on three factors: Level I concentrations, Level

II concentrations, and potential human food chain contamination.

4.1.3.3.2.1 Lev el I Concentrations

There are no Level I concentrations established because there were no tissue samples collected

(Ref. 1, Sec. 4.1.3.3.2.1 ).

4.1.3.3.2.2 Level II Concentrations

No Level II concentrations have been established within a fishery.

4.1.3.3.2.3 Potential Human Food Chain Contamination

Recreation fishing is common in the area and has been documented by START in Bayou

Nezpique (Ref. 9, p. 1). Commercial fishing is conducted within the Mermentau River (Ref. 9, p.

1). The LDWF does not keep records on pounds of fish caught and consumed annually per water

body; therefore, it will be assumed that at least more than zero (>0) and less than 100 (<100)

pounds per year are consumed annually (Ref. 1,Tables 4-13, 4-18, Ref. 9, p. 1). The flow rate for

Ba you Nezpique is 786 cubic feet per second (cfs) (Ref. 10, p. 7). The flow rate for the

Mermentau River is 1,584 cfs (Ref. 11, p. 6).

Identity

of Fishery Annual

Production

(pounds) Type of

Surface

Water

Body Average

Annual

Flow Population

Value (P i 

## ) Dilution

Weight

(D i 

## ) P i 

## xD i 

## Reference

Bayou

Nezpique >0

- 100 Moderate

to large

stream 786 cfs 0.03 0.01 0.0003 Ref.1,

Tables 4

- 13, 4-18;

Ref. 10, p7

Mermenta

u River >0

- 100 Large

stream to

river 1,584 cfs 0.03 0.001 0.00003 Ref. 1,

Tables 4

- 17, 4-18;

Ref. 9, p.1;

Ref 6

Sum: 0.00033

(Sum of P 1 x 01)/10: 0.000033

Potential Human Food Chain Contamination

Factor Value: 3 .3 X 10 -5

## SWOF/Environment Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation

55 

## 4.1.3.3.2.4 Calculation of Population Factor Value

The population factor value is equal to:

Level I Concentrations (0) + Level II Concentrations (0) + Potential Human Food Chain

Contamination (0.000033) = 0.000033.

A value of 3.3 x 10 -5 

## is assigned as the Population Factor Value.

Population Factor Value: 3.3 x 10 -5



## 4.1.3.3.3 Calculation of Human Food Chain Threat- Targets Factor Category Value

The Human Food Chain Threat - Targets Factor Category value is calculated by summing the

food chain individual and population factor values for the watershed:

Food Chain Individual + Population Factor= 20 + 0.000033 = 20.000033

Target Factor Category Value: 20.000033

4.1.3.4 Calculation of Human Food Chain Threat Score for a Watershed

The Human Food Chain Threat score is calculated by multiplying the human food chain threat

factor cat egory values for likelihood of release, waste characteristics, and targets for the

watershed (Ref. 1, Section 4.1.3.4 ).

Likelihood of Release (550) x Waste Characteristics (320) x Targets (20.000033) = 3,520,006

(rounded to the nearest integer).

This product is then divided by 82,500:

3,520,006 ÷ 82,500 = 42.66

The resulting value, subject to a maximum of 100, is assigned as the Human Food

Chain Threat Score.

Human Food Chain Threat Score= 42.66

## SWOF/Environment Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation

56 

## 4.1.4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL THREAT

- WASTE CHARACTERISTICS

4.1.4.2.1 Ecosystem Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation

Hazardous Substance Source

No. Ecosystem

Toxicity

Factor

Value Persistence

Factor

Value Ecosystem

Bioaccumulation

Value Ecosystem

Toxicity/Persistence

Factor Value Ecosystem

Toxicity/Persis tence/

Bioaccumulation

Factor Value Reference

TAL Metals

Arsenic 2 10 1.0 5 ,0 00 10 50 ,000 Ref. 1, Table 4

- 20, 4

- 21; Ref. 2,

pp .1

- 13 Chromium 1, 2 10,000 1.0 5 00 10,000 5 ,00 0,000

Copper 1, 2 1,000 1.0 5,000 1,000 5,000,000

TCL Semivolatiles

Acenaphthene 1, 2, 3 10,000 0.4 500 4,000 2,000,000

Ref. 1, Table 4

- 20, 4

- 21; Ref. 2,

pp. 1

- 13 Anthracene 1, 2, 3 10,000 0.4 50,000 4,000 200,000,000

Benzo(a)anthracene 1, 2, 3 10,000 1.0 50,000 10,000 500,000,000

Benzo(a)pyrene 1, 2, 3 10,000 1.0 50,000 10,000 500,000,000

Chrysene 1, 2, 3 1,000 1.0 5,000 1,000 5,000,000

Flourene 1, 2, 3 1,000 1.0 5,000 1,000 5,000,000

Flouranthene 1, 2, 3 10,000 1.0 5,000 10,000 50,000,000

2

- Methylnaphthalene 1, 2, 3 100 0.4 50,000 40 2,000,000

Pentachlorophenol 1, 2, 3 100 1.0 50,000 100 5,000,000

Phenanthrene 1, 2, 3 10,000 0

. 4 50,000 4 ,000 2 00 ,000,000

Pyrene 1, 2, 3 1 0,0 00 1.0 50,000 1 0,0 00 5 00 ,000,000

* Persi stence values assigned are based on River.

**Ecosystem Toxicity and Ecosystem Bioaccumulation values are assigned based on the surface category of fresh water



## The contaminant with the highest Ecosystem Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation Factor Value

are benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene and phenanthrene (Ref. 1, Table 4-21; Ref. 2, pp. 1-13).

Ecosystem Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation Factor Value: 500,000,000

## SWOF/Environment Hazardous Waste Quantity

57 

## 4.1.4.2.2 Hazardous Waste Quantity

Source Number Source Hazardous Waste

Quantity Value (Section

2. 4 .2.1.5) Is Source Hazardous

Constituent Quantity Data

Complete? (yes/no)

1 1,724.92 No

2, 3 >0 No

TOTAL 1,724.92

The sum of the source hazardous waste quantity values is assigned as the Hazardous Waste

Quantity Factor Value (Ref. 1, Sec. 2.4.2.2). The sum of the source hazardous waste quantity

values for Surface Water Pathway, rounded to the nearest integer, is 1, 725. For a Hazardous

Waste Quantity range of greater than 10 0 to 10,000, a value of 100 is assigned from Ref. 1,

Table 2 -6 for the migration pathway (Ref. 1, Sec. 2.4.2.2, Table 2- 6). Level II concentrations

have been documented by chemical analyses to the surface water overland flow -environmental

threat. This could also serve as the basis for assigning a value of 100 for the hazardous waste

quantity factor value. See Section 4.2.4 for documentation of the observed release.

Sum of Values: 1,725

Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 100

## SWOF/Environment Hazardous Waste Quantity

58 

## 4.1.4.2.3 Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value

A Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value is assigned based on the Waste Characteristic

Product. The Waste Characteristic Product is the product of the Ecosystem Toxicity/Persistence/

Factor Value, the Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value, and the Ecosystem Bioaccumulation

Potential Factor Value.

Using HRS Table 4 -20 and Table 4.1.4.2.1 above , the Ecosystem Toxicity/Persistence value for

benzo(a)pyrene , benzo(a)anthracene, and pyrene is 10,000.

A Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value of 100 is assigned from the sum of Source

Hazardous Waste Quantity Value and the documented observed release (Ref. 1, Section

2.4.2.2, Table 2- 6).

Ecosystem Toxicity/Persistence Factor Value= 10,000

Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value = 100

10,000 X 100 =1.0 X 10 6



## (Subject to a maximum product of 1.0 x 10 8



## The Ecosystem Bioaccumulation Value for benzo(a)anthracene and benzo(a)pyrene is 50,000

(Ref. 2, p. 8).

Ecosystem Bioaccumulation Value = 50,000

( Ecosystem Toxicity/Persistence x Hazardous Waste Quantity) x Bioaccumulation Factor Value:

(1 X 10 6 

## )X (50,000) = 5 X 10 10 

## )

(Subject to a maximum product of 1 x 10 12 

## )

A Waste Characteristics Product Value of 5 x 10 10 

## receives a Waste Characteristic Factor Value

of 320 (Ref. 1, Table 2- 7).

Ecosystem Toxicity/Persistence Factor Value

x Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 5 x 10 10



## Waste Characteristics Factor Value: 320

## SWOF/ -Environment Targets

59 

## 4.1.4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL THREAT

- TARGETS

4.1.4.3.1 Sensitive Environments

4.1.4.3.1.1 Level I Concentrations

No water, benthic, or tissue samples have been collected within the Surface Water

Pathway; therefore, Level l concentrations are not being scored (Ref. 1, Sec. 4.1.4.3.1.1 ).

Level I Concentrations Factor Value: 0

## SWOF/Environment- Level II Concentrations

60 

## 4.1.4.3.1.2 Level II Concentrations

Level II concentrations have been established in the wetlands by chemical analyses of sediment

samples that met observed release criteria during th e LDEQ ESI sampling (SDWET02,

SDCWP02, and SDWET05) and the by the START 2011 wetlands samples (W-5, W-6, W-7,

and W-8). The perimeter of wetlands subject to Level II contamination is approximately 3,305

feet. This measurement is determined by drawing an arc with a radius that is equal to the distance

from the PPE to the farthest sampling point that establishes Level II contamination in the

wetland and measuring the perimeter of the contaminated wetlan ds (Fig. 5) (Ref. 25, pp. 1-4 ;

Ref. 7 ). A value of 25 is assigned from Table 4-24 of the HRS for length of wetlands from >0.1

to 1 mile (Ref. 1, Sec.4.1.4.3.1.2).

Threatened and endangered species have been reported within the general area; however, it i s not

known if their habitats overlap the zone of Level II contamination.

These other sensitive environments will not be evaluated. The Level II concentration factor value

is the sum of the wetlands value (25) and sensitive environments value ( 0):

25 + 0 = 25

Level II Concentrations Factor Value: 25

## SWOF/Environment- Potential Contamination

61 

## 4.1.4.3.1.3 Potential Contamination

Wetlands

There is wetland frontage along Bayou Nezpique and the Mermentau River (Ref. 25, pp. 1 - 4).

According to the National Wetlands Inventory Maps, there are more than 20 linear miles of

HRS

- eligible wetland frontage within the 15 -mile TDL (Ref. 25, pp. 1 - 4).

Type of Surface

Water Body Wetland Frontage Reference Wetland Value

( Ref. 1, Table 4

- 24)

Bayou Nezpique > 4 to 8 miles Ref. 25, pp 1

- 4 150

Mermentau River > 16 to 20 miles Ref. 25, pp 1

- 4 450

TOTAL 600

The Bayou Nezpique is categorized as a moderate stream and the wetlands located along this

stream receive a dilution weight of 0.01 for potential contamination (Ref. 1, Table 4-13). The

Mermentau River is categorized as a large stream to river and the wetl ands located along this

stream receive a dilution weight of 0.001

To obtain the Potential Contamination Factor Value, the sum of the sensitive environments value

is added to the wetland val ue, which is then multiplied by the assigned dilutio n for each in

- water

segment. Th is value is then divided by 10 to obtain the Potential Contamination Factor Value

(Ref. 1, Section 4.1.4.3.1.3).

Type of Surface

Water Body Sum of Sensitive

Environment

Values (Sj) Wetland

Frontage Value

(Dj) Adjusted

Diluti on Weight (Aj) Aj(Dj + Sj)

Bayou Nezpique 0 150 0.01 1.5

Mermentau 0 450 0.001 0.45

TOTAL 1.95

Potential Contamination Factor Value

1.95 / 10 = 0.195

Sum of Sensitive Environments Value+ Wetland Value: 25

Potential Contamination Factor Value: 0.195

## SWOF/Environment- Factor Category Value

62 

## 4.1.4.3.1.4 Environmental Threat- Targets Factor Category Value

The environmental threat target factor category value for the watershed is the sum of the values

for the Level l (0), Level II (25), and Potential Contamination factors (1.95) (Ref. 1, Section

4.1.4.3.1.4).

0 + 25 + 0.195 = 25.195

4.1.4.4 Calculation of Environmental Threat Score

The environmental threat score is calculated by multiplying the environmental threat factor

category values fo r likelihood of release (550), waste characteristics (320), and targets (25.1 95)

for the watershed; rounding the product to the nearest integer; and dividing by

82,500. The resulting value (53.74), subject to a maximum of 60, is assigned as the

environmental threat score for the watershed (Ref. 1, Sections 4.1.4.4 and 4.1.4.3.1.4).

Calculations:

550 X 320 X 25.195 =4,434,320 -:- 82,500 = 53.74

(subject to a maximum of 60)

4.1.5 Calculation of Overland/Flood Migration Component Score f or a Watershed

The overland/flood migration component score for the watershed is calculated by summing the

scores for the drinking water threat (0), human food chain threat (42.66), and environmental

threat ( 53.74) assigned as the surface water overland/flood migration compo nent score for a

watershed (Ref. 1, Section 4.1.5).

Calculations:

0 + 42.66 + 53.74 = 96.40

(subject to a maximum value of 100)

4.1.6 Calculation of Overland/Flood Migration Component Score

The highest surface water overland/flood migration component score from the watersheds

evaluated (in this case, only one watershed was evaluated) is selected and assigned as the surface

water overland/flood migration component score for the site, subject to a maximum of 100. The

overland/flood migration component score is assigned a value of 96.40 (Ref. 1, Section 4.1.6).

## Air

- General

63 

## 4.2 GROUND WATER TO SURFACE WATER MIGRATION COMPONENT

This component was not scored because an observed release was documented for the overland

flow/flood component.

4.3 CALCULATION OF SURFACE WATER MIGRATION PATHWAY SCORE

The overland/flood migration component was scored and this value is assigned to the surface

water migration pathway score.

Ground Water to Surface Water Factor Value: NS

Surface Water Migration Pathway Score: 96.40