## AMENDED FINAL CLOSE OUT REPORT STATE MARINE OF PORT ARTHUR SUPERFUND SITE PORTARTHUR, JEFFERSON COUNTY, TEXAS EPA ID# TXD099801102

REGION 6

## CONCURRENCE PAGE AMENDED FINAL CLOSE OUT REPORT STATE MARINE OF PORT ARTHUR SUPERFUND SITE EPAID# TXD099801102

Rafael Casanova, P.G.; Remedial Project Manager Date

Compton, Office ofRegional Counsel, Superfund Branch Date 

# gJk Date Carlos Sanchez, Chief, Arkansas/Texas ection

Donald Williams, Deputy Associate Director, Superfund Division

Charles Faultry, Associate Director 

# df/olo/r Date • ,Office ofRegional Counsel, Superfund BranchAMENDED FINAL CLOSE OUT REPORT STATE MARINE OF PORT ARTHUR SUPERFUND SITE PORT ARTHUR, JEFFERSON COUNTY, TEXAS
I. INTRODUCTION This AmendedFinal Close Out Report documents that the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Texas Commission on EilVironmental Quality (TCEQ) have· completed all ofthe cleanup activities for the State Marine ofPort Arthur Superfund Site (hereinafter "the Site" or "SMPA Site") in accordance with the EPA's guidance document titled, "Close OutProcedures for National Priorities List Sites" (OSWER Directive 9320.2-22, May 2011). II. SUMMARY OF SITE CONDITIONS Background The SMPA Site (CERCLIS ID

- TXD099801102), a former barge-cleaning operation and municipal landfill, occupied a 17-acre industrial tract ofland located approximately 4.5 miles east-northeast ofthe City ofPort Arthur on Old Yacht Club Road on Pleasure Islet. Pleasure Isletis a peninsula located approximately 0.5 miles southwest ofthe mouth ofthe Neches River. TheSiteis bordered by the Palmer Barge Line Superfund Site (hereinafter "the PBL Site") to the north, by Old Yacht Club Road to the west, by undeveloped propertyto the south, and Sabine Lake to the east. Pleasure Islet is a manmade landmass consisting ofdredge spoils generated during the construction and maintenance ofthe Sabine-Neches canal, also called the Intracoastal Waterway. The canal was constructed between 1898 and approximately 1920inthe vicinity ofSabine Lake and the Neches River, between the current Site location and the mainland. Between 1955 and 1957, a portion ofthe canal along the western side ofPleasure Islet was abandoned, and a new canal was cut along the eastern and southern sides ofPleasure Islet. Pleasure Islet was created when a land bridge was constructed across the abandoned portions ofthe canal, between the northern tip ofPleasure Island and the mainland. Vehicle access to the Site is limited to a single dirt road starting at the western Site border along Old Yacht Club Road. Ownership ofPleasure Islet was transferred from the State ofTexas to the City ofPort Arthur, Texas, in 1955. Development ofthe islet and the Site began after 1957, following construction ofthe land bridge across the abandoned portions ofthe Sabine-Neches Canal. In approximately 1963, the City ofPort Arthur began municipal landfill operations in the northern and central portions ofthe islet. Initially, the landfill consisted ofa bumpitin whichwasteswere incinerated. By December 1969, bum operations were discontinued, and the landfill was used solely for disposal ofwastes. Between 1969 and 1972, landfill disposal operations expanded to include the central and northern portions ofthe Site and the property north ofthe Site. Between 1972 and 1974, disposal activities were generally concentrated inthe northern partsofthe islet. In December 1974, the City ofPort Arthur closed the landfill in accordance withTexas Department ofHealth regulations, which required covering the entire landfill with approximatelytwo feet offine-grained fill material. The cover material is believed to be dredge spoils that originated onthe islet. Site operations began about 1973 under the names ofState Welding and Marine Works and the Golden Triangle Shipyard. The construction ofwastewater impoundments in the northwestern portion ofthe Site was also reported. The impoundments were reportedly unlined earthen dike areas approximately two acres in size used to store oil and wastewater from barge-cleaning operations. Inspection reports indicate that wastewater from the barge-cleaning operations was directed to two aboveground storage tanks and then pumped to the wastewater impoundments. Some ofthe oil from the tanks was diverted to an old ship, docked

.onthe land, that was used as an oil/water separator. Oil from the separator was collected for reuse, potentially onthe Site. The Site is currently being operated bythe owner as an industrial property for metal scrapping activities. Site History In 1995, the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC), now the TCEQ, initiated anExpanded Site Inspection (ESI) at the Site. The objective ofthe TNRCC's ESI was to collect sufficient data to develop an understanding ofthe Site contaminants and to identify the potential migration pathways, primary contaminant sources, exposure pathways, and the presence ofpotential human health and ecological receptors. Other investigations adjacent to the Site included a Preliminary Assessment (PA), a Screening Site Inspection (SSI), and anESI that were conductedimmediately adjacent to the Site at the PBL Site. The PBL Site is located on Pleasure Islet immediately north ofthe Site. These investigations did notinvolve collecting soil, sediment, or ground water directly from the Site; however, some sediment data obtained from the PBL Site at near-shore and offshore locations were used inthe human health and ecological screening risk assessments for the Site. The EPA-determined that the Site warranted further investigation to assess the nature and extentofthe human health and environmental risks associated with the Site's previous bargecleaning andlandfill activities. The investigations ofthe Site included the locations ofthe former wastewater impoundments, wastewater treatment facility, tar bum area, above ground storage tank area, maintenance shed area, Lauren Refining Company tank farm area, non-source areas of the Site, ground water, and the sediments ofSabine Lake. The EPApublished a proposed rule onMarch 6, 1998 (63 FR 11340), to add the Site to the National Priorities List (NPL). The Site was added to the NPL in a final rule published on
4July 28,1998 (63 FR40182). The surface water migration pathway was scored as part ofthe Hazard Ranking System Documentation Record. History ofCERCLAEnforcementActivities On October29, 1998, the EPA issued Special Notice Letters to potentially responsible parties (PRP) requiring them to conduct the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RIfFS). In February 1999, the EPA issued 104(e) Information Request letters to the PRPs regarding the Site. The EPAdid not receive positive responses to these letters and began a fundlead RIlFS. Removal Actions Performed 

### and Cleanup Activities In 2001, a Remedial Investigation was conducted at the Site to determine the nature and extent ofcontaminationpresent at the Site. The EPA completed a Time Critical Removal Action inAugust 2001 (USACE 2001) to remove source materials stored on-site. Activities included the removal and off-site disposal ofwaste materials, water treatment, oil/water separation, and stabilization .and off-site disposal ofsludge materials. This Removal Action addressed the materials thatposed a risk to human imd ecological receptors.**Twenty~two** (22) aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) ofvarying sizes, several oil pits, 27 drums, and debris materials scattered throughout the Site were identified during the Removal Action. Materials removed and disposed off-site included 26,000 gallons ofwaste oil, water, diesel fuel, and kerosene; 3,800gallons ofheavy sludge; 27 drums; 28 compressed gas cylinders; and 14 batteries. After disposing ofliquids and sludge materials from the ASTs, the tanks were decontaminated utilizing a degreaser solution and a pressure washer. The decontamination rinse water was disposed off-site. Remedial Investigation and Supplemental Remedial Investigation In May and June 2006, the EPA conducted a Supplemental Remedial Investigation to determine ifthe former surface impoundments were a continuing source ofcontaminationto the Sabine Lake sediments bymovement through the shallow ground water. The objectives ofthe Remedial Investigation (RI, Weston 2003) for the Site were to:
• To determine the nature and extent ofcontaminationknown or suspected onsite and off-site locations, and

• To assess the potential humanhealth and ecological risks associated withthe Site. The objectives ofthe Supplemental Remedial Investigation (SRI, CH2M 2006) for the 

### 5Site were to: • Collect and analyze sediment samples to determine ifcontaminants in Sabine Lake sediments posed anunacceptable risk to benthic organisms.

• Collect and analyze subsurface soil samples from the wastewater impoundment areato determine ifcontaminants inthe impoundment soil could serve as a potential source ofcontaminationto the ground water and eventually to benthic organisms in the sediments ofSabine Lake.

• Collect and analyze subsurface soil samples from the wastewater impoundment areato determine ifcontaminants in the impoundment soil posed 'an unacceptable risk to future onsite construction workers.

• Install and develop monitoring wells at two ofthe soil boring locations inthe wastewater impoundment area for associated ground water sampling.

• Collect and analyze ground water samples to determine ifSite ground water was a current orpotentiallyfuture source ofcontamination to benthic organisms in Sabine Lake.

• Store, analyze, andproperly dispose ofany investigation-derived waste that was produced during field activities in support ofthe SRI. The RI scope ofworkfocused on collecting additional information not obtained during previous investigations. The 200I RI investigation consisted oftwo sampling events. The first sampling event consisted ofcollecting sediment samples from off-site locations inSabine Lake. The second sampling event consisted ofcollecting soil and ground water samples from on-site locations. The following tasks were completed during the RI:

• Completion offive shallow and six deep borings ranging in depths from 4.0 to 9.0 and 25.0 to 60.0 feet belowthe ground's surface (bgs), respectively.

• Installation ofsix ground water monitoring wells.

• Collection ofsurface soil samples from 87 locations ranging in depth from 0.0 to 6.0 inches bgs.

• Collection ofintertidal samples from nine locations ranging in depth from 0.0 to 6.0 inches bgs.

• Collection ofsediment samples from 46 locations ranging in depth from 0.0 to 6.0 feet bgs. 

### 6TheRI analytical results were compared to commercial/industrial protective concentration levels (PCLs) established by the Texas Risk Reduction Program (TRRP), and where appropriate, to background levels for the Site's contaminants ofconcern (COCs). The most frequently detected COCs for all sediment samples collected were metals including arsenic, lead, and mercury. Forintertidal sediments, six metals (antimony, arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury, and selenium) and one semi-volatile organic compound (SVOC, pentachlorophenol) exceeded their respective PCLs, the default cleanup standards under TRRP. Constituents that exceeded PCLs for nearshore sediments included six metals (arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, lead, and mercury) and one SVOC (3,3 dichlorobenzidine). Only arsenic, lead, and mercury exceeded PCLsfor off-shore sediments. The most frequently detected COCs for soils were metals including antimony, arsenic, barium, lead, mercury, and silver. These metals consistently exceeded the GwSoil PCL (Exposure pathway: i.e., the soil-to-ground water leaching ofCOCs to ground water). Based onthe distribution ofthese constituents, their occurrenc.e is most likely a result ofthe former incineration and landfill operations. Ingeneral, the metals were widely distributed across the Site and not limited to the Site's source areas. Isolated detections ofthe SVOCs (benzo[a]pyrene, benzo[a]anthracene, benzola]fluoranthene, and pentachlorophenol) were reported atrelatively low concentrations for on-site soils. Because the SVOC exceedances were only detected at isolated locations, impact from operations onthe Site appeared minimal. Nine constituents including eight metals (antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, lead, manganese, silver, and thallium) and one SVOC (pentachlorophenol) exceeded GwSoilrng PCLs (Exposure pathway: soil-to-ground water leaching COCsto ground water). Based ona preliminary comparison ofground water analytical results to Class 3 groundwater criteria, no constituents exceeded Class 3 ground water PCLs and itis unrealistic to assume any beneficial use ofthe shallow ground water. The State ofTexas defines ground water resources based Qn water quality and sustainable well yield. A Class 3 ground water-bearing 

### unit is not capable of producing greaterthan a 150 gallon/day ground water flow with a Total Dissolved Solids content less than 10,000 milligramslliter. The SRI included an investigation ofthe former wastewater impoundments to determine ifwaste materials were still present that could be a source ofcontaminationto the Sabine Lake sediments. Soil samples were analyzed for metals and SVOCs. The SRI also includedthe installation ofgroimd water monitoring wells downgradient ofthe former wastewater impoundments and the collection ofsediments samples from Sabine Lake. These samples were also analyzed for metals and SVOCs.

7The screening level ecologicalriskassessmentindicates that selenium concentrations in the Site sediments from the SRI maypose a riskto benthic invertebrates; however, the selenium concentrations are within one order ofmagnitude ofthe primaryeffects screening level. Furthermore, results from the soils and ground water data do notindicatethat a selenium pathway exists from the Siteto the sediments as the potential source ofseleniumcontamination. Therefore, the EPAhas determined that noRemedial Action is warranted for the Site soils to prevent contaminationofthe Site sediments. Based on seleniumconcentrations inthe sedirpents, no Remedial Action is warranted for the Site sediments to protectecological receptors. Record ofDecision Findings The EPA's Record ofDecision (ROD, EPA 2007) was signed onApril 27, 2007. Based onthe results ofthe Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment (BHHRA, CH2M 2005b), ScreeningLevel Ecological Risk Assessment (SLERA, CH2M 2005c), and the EPA's Time Critical Removal Action, the EPA's Selected Remedyidentifiedinthe ROD for the SMPA Site was "No FurtherAction is Necessary." An institutional control (IC), inthe form ofa Restrictive Covenant, was selected to ensure that the current and future use ofthe Site remains for industrial or commercialpurposes. The "No FurtherAction is Necessary" remedy is based on an industrial/commercial land use scenario. The Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) achieved bythe Selected Remedy for the Site werebased onthe future redevelopment ofthe Site for industrial/commercial land use and protecting future industrial/construction workers and ecological receptors. The RAOs for the Site were:
• Preventexposure to contaminated soil/sedimentviaingestion, inhalation, or dermal contactthat wouldresult in an excess carcinogenicriskof 1.0 x 10.5 or a Hazard Index of 1.0.

• Preventexposure ofcontaminated soil/sedimentto aquatic orterrestrial organisms via direct contact or indirect ingestion ofbioaccumulative chemicals thatwould result in a Hazard Quotient of 1.0.

• Prevent orminimize migration ofsoil contaminants to ground water.

• Prevent orminimize further migration ofsoil and sediment contaminants to surface waterthat couldresult in exceedance ofambient water quality criteria. The EPAhas obtained an IC 

### (i.e., Restrictive Covenant) fromthe landowner, which was filed on March 25, 2011, inthe appropriate propertyrecords for the Site, indicatingthat the future use of theproperty is restricted to commercial/industrial purposes.

8III. MONITORING RESULTS The cleanup goals, accomplished by the 2001 Time Critical Removal Action, included the removal, treatment, and off-site disposal ofthe liquids and sludges in the ASTs and drums. There were no cleanup goals selected inthe "No Further Action is Necessary" ROD. Based on the results ofthe BHHRA, SLERA, and the EPA's Time Critical Removal Action, the EPA's Selected Remedy identified inthe ROD for the SMPA Site of"No Further Action is Necessary" is protective ofhuman health and the enviroument. The cleanup goals, accomplished by the 2001 Time Critical Removal Action, included the removal, treatment, and off-site disposal ofthe liquids and sludges inthe ASTs and drums. This Removal Action addressed the materials that posed a risk to human and ecological receptors. IV. SUMMARY OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE REQUIRED Operation and Maintenance activities include monitoring effectiveness ofthe recorded restrictive covenant. In addition, as a part ofthe Five-Year Reviews required for the Site, sediment sampling and monitoringwill be considered in Sabine Lake adjacentto the Site to ensure that the "No Further Action is Necessary" remedy remains protective ofecological receptors. V. DEMONSTRATION OF CLEANUP ACTIVITY QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL The U.S. Corps ofEngineers (USACE), through the EPA's removal program, implemented the Removal Action for the Site. Roy F. Weston, USACE's contractor, conducted the field construction activities at the Site. The EPA's On-Scene Coordinator and USACE conducted field oversight throughoutthe Removal Action activities to ensure that the Removal Action met quality assurance and quality control guidelines consistent withthe Action Memorandum for the Site's Removal Action. VI. FIVE-YEARREVIEWS· Since remaining conditions at the Site will not allow for unlimiteduse and unrestricted exposure, a Five-Year Review (FYR) must be conducted no less than every five years from signing the "No Further Action" ROD to ensure that the remedy is, or will continue to be, protective ofhumanhealth and the environment. The effectiveness ofthe recorded IC will bepart ofthe FYRto ensure that future Site developmentis consistent withthe industrial cleanup standards for which the remedy is based and that conditions remainprotective ofhuman health and the environment. As part ofthe FYR, sediment sampling and monitoring will.be considered in Sabine Lake adjacent to the Site to ensure that the remedy remains protective ofecological receptors. The EPA will conductthe first statutory FYRbefore April IS, 2012.
9VII. .

### SITE COMPLETION CRITERIA Based onthe results ofEPA's Time Critical Removal Action, BHHRA and SLERA, the EPA selected a "No Further Action" ROD with institutional controls. The implemented restrictive covenant ensures future land use will remain commercial/industrial. Therefore, no further Superfundresponse is needed to protect human health and the environment.

Samuel Coleman, P.E., Director Superfund Division

10 Date

### VIII. BIBLIOGRAPHY CH2M IDLL (CH2M). 2005a. Focused Feasibility Study, State Marine ofPort Arthur Superfund Site. July. CH2M. 2005b. Human Health Risk Assessment, State Marine ofPort Arthur Superfund Site. July. CH2M. 2005c. Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment, State Marine ofPort Arthur Superfund Site. July.
. CH2M.2006. Supplemental Remedial Investigation, State Marine ofPort Arthur Superfund Site. October. United States Army Corps ofEngineers (USACE). 2001. Removal Action Report. State Marine ofPort Arthur Superfund Site. February. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2005. Proposed Plan. State Marine ofPort Arthur Superfund Site. July. EPA. 2007. Record ofDecision. State Marine ofPort Arthur Superfund Site. April. Weston Solutions, Inc. (Weston). 2003. Remedial Investigation Report. State Marine ofPortArthur Superfund Site. April.



### 11