\a

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION 6 1445 ROSS AVENUE, SUITE 1200

DALLAS, TX 75202-2733

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Request for a Removal Action at the State Marine of Port Arthur Site, Jefferson

Texas

FROM:

THRU:

TO:

Coordinator

Response & Prevention Branch,

Charles A. Gazda, Chief

Response & Prevention

Myron O. Knudson, P.E., Director

Superfimd Division (6SF)

SiteTD#:BX

I. PURPOSE

The purpose of this Action Memorandum is to request and document approval of the

proposed removal action described herein, pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), as amended, 42 U.S.C. §9601 et seg..

at the State Marine of Port Arthur site, Jefferson County, Texas.

This action meets the criteria for initiating a removal action under Section 300.415 of the

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan ("NCP"), 40 CFR § 300.415.

This removal action is anticipated to require less than twelve months and less than $2 milion for

completion. No actions have been initiated under the On-Scene Coordinator's $50,000 authority.

Authority to make determinations that there may be an imminent and substantial

endangerment to public health or welfare or the environment pursuant to CERCLA was delegated

to Regional Administrators on April 15,1994, in delegation 14-14-A. Authority to make the

determination was redelegated to the Director, Superfimd Division, by Delegation R6-14-14-A,

effective August 4,1995.

OOOnl l

139533

Printed on Recycled Paper

00
JL SITE CONDITIONS AND BACKGROUND

CERCLISJD#: TXD099801102 Category of Removal: Time Critical

A. Site Description

1. Removal site evaluation

The State Marine of Port Arthur ("State Marine") site, also known as the State Welding

and Marine Works and Golden Triangle Shipyard, is an inactive barge cleaning and salvage facility

(the "Site").

Li 1974, State Marine was issued a wastewater Discharge permit (No. 01859) from the

Texas Department of Water Resources (the "TDWR") to operate a barge cleaning facility for

vessels carrying petroleum and other chemical products.

The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (the "TNRCC") records indicate

that at least 28 barges were cleaned at the Site in 1981, and that approximately 10,000 gallons of

washwater were generated per barge during cleaning activities. The washwater from operations

was allegedly pumped into a wastewater treatment system at the Site, where it was treated and

discharged to the Sabine Lake. However, State Marine was cited for a number of violations of its

wastewater discharge permit by the TDWR and the Texas Air Control Board (now both known as

the TNRCC). A TDWR inspection in 1980 found that the wastewater treatment system

impoundments and tanks were being used for wastewater storage, and not treatment; the

treatment system was inactive. The TDWR documented large areas of stained soils, breached and

unlined impoundments, and evidence of large spills from the treatment system.

On June 29,1981, the State of Texas signed an Agreed Order for Temporary Injunction,

which required proper site closure. On December 9,1982, a Judgement of Contempt and Order

of Commitment was signed, which ordered State Marine to comply with the Agreed Order. On

July 25,1983, the TDWR observed State Marine personnel pumping hazardous wastes from a barge directly to the surface water instead of to the treatment system at the Site.

In 1987, the Texas Water Commission (the "TWC") completed a State Superfimd registry

of hazardous waste facilities in Texas that were thought to pose an imminent and substantial

endangerment to public health and safety or the environment. The Site was ranked second on this

registry and referred to the Environmental Protection Agency (the "EP A") for evaluation under

the 1982 version of the Hazard Ranking System ("HRS"). The Site score fell below the EPA's

cut-off score required for remedial activities under CERCLA at that time. As a result, the EPA

referred the Site back to the TWC for action under State authority on May 28,1987.

OQO&1 2

002
On March 16,1988, the State of Texas issued a "Supedund" Administrative Order to

State Marine requiring all responsible parties to perform a complete Remedial Investigation ("RE")

and Feasibility Study ("FS") at the Site. Responsible parties did not comply with this Order. The

TWC again referred the Site to the EPA in 1992, for consideration under the revised 1990 HRS

(40 CFR Part 300, Appendix A, HRS). In January 1995, the EPA requested that TNRCC

perform an Expanded Site Inspection ("ESI") at the Site. Based on this ESI, the Site received

an HRS of 48 in November of 1997.

On December 4,1995, Governor George Bush signed a letter to the EPA concurring with

the possible listing of the Site on the National Priorities List (the "NPL") (See Attachment 1).

The EPA proposed the Site for listing on the NPL on March 6,1998, and initiated an RI/FS on

June 22,1998.

2. Physical location

The Site is located on Old Yacht Club ^ oad on Pleasure Islet, a peninsula located

approximately Vz mile southwest of the mouth of the Neches River where it enters Sabine Lake in

Jefferson County, Texas (See Attachment 2). The Site coordinates are latitude 29°57'39" north,

longitude 93°51'33" w«st.

The area is mainly industrial. The Sabine lake is a commercial and recreational fishery.

The EPA Region 6 Environmental Justice Computer Model was run for this Site. Within

a one mile radius of the Site, the percent minority is 0% and the percent economically stressed is

0%. Within a 50 mile radius of the Site, the percent minority is 22.8% and the percent

economically stressed is 26.8%. In comparison, the State of Texas percent minority is 39.4%

and the percent economically stressed is 27.6%. (See Attachment 3)

3. Site characteristics

The Site occupies approximately 17.2 acres. While in operation, the State Marine facility

included a waste water treatment system, a waste oil storage area, three surface impoundments,

and several large aboveground storage tanks ("tank farm"). Known sources of contamination

above ground include the now buried surface impoundments, the former tank farm area, an area

of contaminated soils adjacent to the shoreline of Sabine Lake and the sediments of Sabine Lake.

4. Release or threatened release into the environment of a hazardous substance, or

pollutant, or contaminant

The TNRCC's ESI identified three areas where hazardous substances have been released.

00001 3

003
• Three buried surface impoundments: Forma-surface impoundments, which

measured ISO x ISO1; 90 x 75'; and 90' x 45', were used for waste oil storage and

were never properly closed. Soil samples revealed several elevated organic

constituents, most notably anthracene, phenanthrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene,

benzo(a)pyrene, pyrene and chrysene.

• Contaminated sotts adjacent to the dock along the Sabine Neches Canal where

barges were emptied and cleaned: Soil samples revealed several elevated

organic constituents, most notably anthracene, phenanthrene, and fluorene.

• Former tank farm location where wastes oils were refined into bunker fuel:

Once contained a 20,000 gallon above-ground storage tank (AST), a 10,000 gallon

AST, and several smaller tanks used to store wastewater and waste oil from the

barge cleaning operations. Stained soils and discarded tanks bottoms are the only

remnants now in this tank. Soil samples revealed several elevated concentrations of

organic constituents, most notably benzo(b)fluoranthene, pyrene, fluoranthene, and

chrysene.

5. NPL status

The Site received an HRS of 48 in November 1997. The Site was proposed to the NPL

on March 6,1998. Should the Site rank and remedial funding for clean-up of this Site be

approved, the current removal action is consistent with a remedial cleanup due to the fact that the

proposed action constitutes access control measures.

6. Maps, pictures and other graphic representations

Attachment 1: Governor Bush's Letter to the EPA

Attachment 2: Site Location Map Attachment 3: Potential Environmental Justice (EJ) Index Pilot

Attachment 4: TNRCC field report Attachment 5: Oil & Hazardous Materials/Technical Assistance Database

(OHM/TADS) Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for PCBs Attachment 6: Enforcement Addendum

B. Other Actions to Date

1. Previous actions

Previous activities conducted by the EPA, state, local, and private entities at the site are

detailed in section one, "Removal site evaluation."

00001 4

004
2. Current actions

The EPA is currently conducting an RI/FS of the Site in support of a remedial action.

The RI/FS wil help detennine the selection of a feasible and cost effective remedial action remedy

at the Site.

C. State and Local Authorities'Roles

1. State and local actions to date

The TNRCC through a multi-cooperative agreement with the EPA conducted an ESI at

the Site. This ESI resulted in an HRS Documentation Report used to propose the Site for listing

ontheNPL.

2. Potential for continued State/local response

The State referred the Site to the EPA in 1992, for consideration under the revised 1990

HRS (40 CFR Part 300, Appendix A, HRS). All enforcement attempts at the State level have

failed. By letter dated December 4,1995, the Governor of the State of Texas concurred with the

proposed listing of the Site on the NPL. At present, the State intends to take no further action.

m. THREATS TO PUBLIC HEALTH OR WELFARE OR THE ENVIRONMENT;

STATUTORY AND REGULATORY AUTHORITIES

Section 300.415 of the NCP lists the factors to be considered in determining the

appropriateness of a removal action. Paragraphs (bX2XO a°d (iv) directly apply to the

conditions at the Site. Any one of these factors may be sufficient to determine whether a removal

action is appropriate.

A Threats to Public Health or Welfare

1. Exposure to human populations, animals or the food chain, NCP Section

300.415(bX2)(i)

The predominant threat to human populations is the potential for exposure by direct

contact with organic constituents including: anthracene, phenanthrene, benzo(a)pyrene, pyrene,

chrysene, fluorene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, and fluoranthene; and Polychlorinated Biphenyls

("PCBs"). The facility is not secured and can be easily accessed from the Old Yacht Club Road.

The TNRCC has documented illegal trespassing of individuals on the Site. On one occasion,

representatives of the State witnessed an individual fishing from the contaminated shoreline, who

moved inland as the TNRCC approached the Site by boat (See Attachment 4).

000 0 1 5

005
There is visual and analytical evidence of extensive contamination of surface soil.

Persons entering the Site would be exposed to this contamination.

Benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, chrysene and phenanthrene are considered

carcinogens. Routes of exposure include inhalation, dermal, ocular absorption, and ingestion.

Dermal absorption is an important exposure route potentially producing skin cancer. In addition,

organic liquids and vapors are strong irritants potentially producing local erythema, pulmonary

edema, dermatitis, dizziness, nausea, convulsions, and kidney and liver damage.

Naphthalene if inhaled may cause breathing difficulties, respiratory failure, and central

nervous system depression. Additionaly, naphthalene may cause contact dermatitis to skin;

cornea! injury or blindness to eyes; and, if ingested, it may cause gastrointestinal tract

disturbances, and liver and kidney damage.

According to Database (OHM/TADS) Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS), PCBs can

cause liver and skin disorders and reproduction abnormalities (See Attachment 5). PCBs are

considered probable human carcinogens. PCB exposure may initiate or aggravate skin, liver, and

nervous system diseases. Acute exposure may initiate chloracne and eye irritation, dermatological

signs associated with follicular keratosis, and various nervous symptoms. Occupational exposures

have been related to chloracne, jaundice, and acute yelow liver atrophy.

2. Contaminants in soils, NCP Section 300.415(b)(2)(iv)

There are hazardous substances in soils at the Site. Constituents found included,

anthracene, phenanthrene, benzo(a)pyrene, pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, chrysene, fluorene,

naphthalene, fluoranthene, benzo(a)anthracene, naphthalene, benzo(a)fluoranthene, gammachlordane, lead and antimony. Sampling results of such wastes indicate that they constitute

hazardous substances pursuant to Section 101(14) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9601(14), and

further defined at 40 C.F.R. § 302.4.

The hazardous substances listed below were detected in soils samples collected during the

1995, ESI conducted by the TNRCC. These soils samples were collected at depths of 6 to 6.5

inches from the on-sitc buried surface impoundment area, shoreline area and former tank f~,m

area.

Organic

Hazardous Substance

anthracene

phenanthrene

benzo(a)pyrene

pyrene

benzo(b)fluoranthene

Highest Detected Concentration

3,400 ug/kg

4,800 ug/kg

3,900 fig/kg

25,000 ug/kg

7,900 ug/kg

000 0

00
chrysene

fluorene

fluoranthene

benzo(a)anthracene

Naphthalene

benzo(a)fluoranthene

8,400 ug/kg

1,200 ug/kg

7,900 ug/kg

3,800 ug/kg

790 jig/kg

4,000 ug/kg

PCBs

gamma-chlordane 5.6 ug/kg

INORGANICS

lead

antimony

201 p.g/kg

44.7ug/kg

B. Threats to the Environment

Not applicable to this proposed removal action.

IV. END ANGERMENT DETERMINATION

Actual or threatened releases of pollutants and contaminants from this site, if not

addressed by implementing the action selected in this Action Memorandum, wil present an

imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, or welfare.

V. PROPOSED ACTIONS AND ESTIMATED COSTS

A Proposed Actions

1. Proposed action description

The proposed response wil consist of erecting approximately 3,600 linear feet offence

along the north, south and west boundaries of the Site. Installation of a fence is the quickest and

most effective way to limit site access and mitigate the public health threat posed by direct human

contact with contaminants in the surface soils of the Site.

2. Contribution to remedial performance

Because this action constitutes access control, this action is cost effective and consistent

with any long term remediation strategies that may be developed for the Site.

00001 7

007
 *

3. Description of alternative technologies

No other technologies exist to quickly and effectively eliminate human contact with

surface soils at die site.

4. Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs)

No ARARs exist for the proposed action.

5. Project schedule

The construction of a fence to secure the Site should be completed within two weeks from

mobilization to the Site.

B. Estimated Costs:

Extramural Costs: *

Regional Allowance Costs:

ERRS............................................................................................$ 40,000.00

Other Extramural Costs:

START......................................................................................... 15,000.00

Subtotal, Extramural Costs.................................................. 55,000.00

Extramural Costs Contingency..................................................... 11,000.00

TOTAL, EXTRAMURAL COSTS............................................... 66,000.00

Intramural Costs:

EPADirect Costs......................................................................... 13,000.00

EPAIndirect Costs....................................................................... 22,000.00

TOTAL INTRAMURAL COSTS................................................. 35,000.00

TOTAL REMOVAL PROJECT CEILING.........______..... $101,000.00

8

00001 8

008
VL EXPECTED CHANGE IN THE SITUATION SHOULD ACTION BE DELAYED OR NOT TAKEN

Should the action described in the Action Memorandum be delayed or not taken, the

potential exposure of nearby human populations to pollutants and contaminants in the surface soil

of the landfill wil remain unabated.

VEL OUTSTANDING POLICY ISSUES

There are no outstanding policy issues associated with the Site.

VHL ENFORCEMENT

See Attachment 6.

IX. RECOMMENDATION

This decision document represents the selected removal action for the State Marine of

Port Arthur Site in Jefferson County, Texas, developed in accordance with CERCLA, as

amended, and not inconsistent with the NCP. This decision is based on the administrative record

for the site.

Conditions at the site meet the criteria as defined by 40 CFR Section 300.415(b)(2)(i) and

(iv) of die NCP for a removal, and I recommend approval of the proposed removal action. The

total project ceiling, if approved, wil be $101,000. Of this, an estimated $40,000 comes from the

Regional removal allowance (ERRS Clean-up contractor cost).

APPROVED: IU/f/ULM^ [-~wuwyr; DATE:

Attachments

00001 9

009