m.

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION 6 1445 BOSS AVENUE, SUITE 1200

DALLAS, TX 75202-2733

May 8,2000

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:

FROM:

TO:

THRU:

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

Texas

Lon Biasco, Federal On-Scene Coordinator

Response & Prevention Branch, Removal

Myron O. Knudson, P.E., Director

Superfund Division (6SF) «

Charles A. Gazda,

Response & Prevention

L 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 etseq.. 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.

This action meets the criteria for initiating a removal action under the National Contingency Plan

(NCP), 40 C.F.R. §300.415. This action is expected to require less than twelve months and $2 milion to

complete.

Page 1 of 11

'000130

144231

>F^- _ • Internet Address (URL) • http:/Avww.epa.gov

Icyclad/Hacyclabla . Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 25% Postconsumer)
H. SITE CONDITIONS AND BACKGROUND

CERCLISID#: TXD099801102

SiteID#:BX

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").

In 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 Superfund 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 "EPA") 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.

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

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

Page 2 of 11 .

00013 1
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 a RI/FS on June 22,1998. On

July 28,1998, the site was listed as Final on the NPL.

In March 1999, the EPA conducted a removal action to construct a fence around the facility to

limit human exposure to contaminated soils on the site.

In March of 2000, a fire at the facility caused the release of several hundred 5-gallon buckets of

material identified by the owner as roofing tar. Due to unknown hazardous materials at a Superfund site,

fire suppression activities were delayed until arrival of an EPA On-Scene Coordinator (OSC) to

coordinate air monitoring for safety. Nearby facilities were evacuated to prevent exposure of workers to

toxic vapors. The fire was extinguished and the site was secured. Brush and flammable materials on

site continue to pose a risk of future fires which would result in additional releases from drums and tanks.

2. Physical location

The Site is located on Old Yacht Club Road on Pleasure Islet, a peninsula located approximately

'/a 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" west.

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

Sabine is a documented fishery with an estimated 300,000 Ibs of commercial fish harvested annually.

Fishery catches include 10,000 Ibs of shrimp, 266,000 Ibs qf Blue crab, 2,000 Ibs of flounder and 8,000

Ibs of other commercial fish.

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)

f • • . 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 with

anthracene, phenanthrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(a)pyrene, pyrene and chrysene as identified

contaminants; and several large aboveground storage tanks ("tank farm") with a combined capacity of

45,000 gallons and benzo(b)fluoranthene, pyrene, fluoranthene, and chrysene as identified contaminants.

Known sources of contamination include the now buried surface impoundments, the former tank farm

area with several tanks remaining, approximately 75 to 100 55-gallon leaking drums scattered throughout

the site, an area of soil contaminated from 5-gallon buckets that had been destroyed in the fire, another

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

Page 3 of 11 00013 2
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.

• Three buried surface impoundments: Former surface impoundments, which measured

150' x 150'; 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 soils 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: A 20,000-gallon AST, and five 5,000-gallon ASTs, and several smaller tanks used to store

wastewater and waste oil from the barge cleaning operations still exist on site. Stained

soils and discarded tanks bottoms are in this area. 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, and went final on July 28,1998. The current removal action is consistent with a remedial

cleanup due to the fact that the proposed action constitutes source control and removal.

6. Maps, pictures and other graphic representations

Attachment 1: Governor Bush's Letter to the EPA

Attachment 2: Site Location Map

Attachment 3: 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".

2. Current actions

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

The RI/FS will help determine the selection of a feasible and cost effective remedial action remedy at the

Site.

Page 4 of 11

00013 3
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 on the NPL.

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). AH 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.

BDE. 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. 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(b)(2)(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 now

secured with a fence and this should minimize direct contact. 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). Leaks from tanks and containers are documented and the potential for

further releases into the environment is likely. Runoff from the site will enter Sabine Lake. The Sabine

is a documented fishery with an estimated 300,000 Ibs of commercial fish harvested. Fishery catches

include 10,000 Ibs of shrimp, 266,000 Ibs of Blue crab, 2,000 Ibs of flounder and 8,000 Ibs of other

commercial fish. A release from the site to the fishery would directly impact the human food chain.

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

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. Additionally, naphthalene may cause contact dermatitis to skin; corneal injury or

blindness to eyes; and, if ingested, it may cause gastrointestinal tract disturbances, and liver and kidney

damage.

Page5ofl!

 00013 4
According to Database (OHM/TADS) Material Safety Data Sheets \MSDS.j, ?C3s-jan. cause

iiver 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 and dermatological signs associated

with follicular keratosis. Occupational exposures have been related to chloracne, jaundice, and acute

yellow liver atrophy.

2. Contamination of Drinking Water Supplies or Sensitive Ecosystems, NCP Section 300.4 1 5

Hazardous substances leaking from several containers, including drums and large storage tanks,

have contaminated the soils around the Site and migration during rainfall will impact sensitive

ecosystems/environments surrounding the site. As described above, Sabine Lake is a documented fishery

and is used for recreational purposes. In addition, the area has several federally listed endangered species,

such as: Bald Eagle, Black Rail, and American Swallow Tail Kite. Several bird rookeries exist within a mile of the site. Fifteen miles of listed wetlands surroimd'the site.

3. Hazardous Substance in Drums or Tanks, NCP Section 300.415 (b)(2)(iii)

There are six aboveground storage tanks with an estimated 45,000 gallons of aggregate waste

capacity containing various hazardous substances at the Site. These tanks are in varying stages of

deterioration and many have shown evidence of releasing contents into the environment. Further

investigation is necessary to determine the contents of the tanks.

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

Due to deteriorating containers, leaking materials from drums and tanks have been discharged

onto surrounding soils. 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, gamma-chlordane,

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 niches from the

on-site buried surface impoundment area, shoreline area and former tank farm area.

Organics

Hazardous Substance

anthracene

phenanthrene

benzo(a)pyrene

pyrene

benzo(b)fluoranthene

chrysene

Highest Detected Concentration

3,400 Jig/kg

4,800 Jig/kg

3,900 Hg/kg

25,000 |lg/kg

7,900 |lg/kg

8,400 p.g/kg

Page 6 of 11

000135
fluorene

fluoranthene

benzo(a)anthracene

Naphthalene

benzo(a)fluoranthene

1,200 p,g/kg

7,900 jig/kg

3,800 Jig/kg

790 \igfkg

4,000 Jig/kg

PCBs

gamma-chlordane 5.6 jig/kg

INORGANICS

lead

antimony

201 jig/kg

44.7|lg/kg

5. Weather Conditions That May Cause the Release or Migration of Hazardous Substances,

NCP Section 300.415 (b)(2)(v)

The area is subject to several types of extreme weather conditions which could cause the further

release of hazardous substances. Thunderstorms and heavy rain will entrain material which has leaked

and spilled from containers around the property and transport off-site. The area is prone to hurricanes

which could cause a catastrophic release of all contents of the tanks.

6. Threat of Fire or Explosion, NCP Section 300.415 (b)(2)(vi)

Because of the ignitable hazardous constituents present on-site and the recent fire at the site mere

is a continued potential threat of fire and explosion at the Site. The previous fire at the Site has released

organic vapors to the atmosphere and required the evacuation of nearby facilities.

7. Availability of Other Mechanisms, NCP Section 300.415 (b)(2)(vii)

The TNRCC has requested EPA removal action assistance at the Site. Due to the site

characteristics, such as the previous fire and continued threat of releases, remedial action would not

address the site in a timely fashion to prevent a significant release to the environment.

B. Threats to the Environment

As previously discussed, the Site is located adjacent to Sabine Lake. The Site poses a potential

threat to the environment due to possible hazardous substances migrating into the lake that is a fishery

and contains sensitive environments.

IV. ENDANGERMENT DETERMINATION

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

implementing the action selected in this Action Memorandum, will present an imminent and substantial

endangerment to public health, or welfare, or the environment.

Page 7 of 11 00013 6
V. PROPOSED ACTIONS AND ESTIMATED COSTS

A. Proposed Actions

1. Proposed action description

As discussed below, ail of the actions to be taken at the Site during this removal will comply

with all applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) to the extent practicable,

considering the exigencies of the situation, and provide an effective mitigation of the imminent and

substantial threats posed to the public health and the environment.

The proposed action involves the removal, transportation, and off-site disposal of all hazardous

substances, pollutants, and contaminants located on the Site. The removal action will be conducted in

two phases. Phase one is a time critical action to secure Site access and stabilize leaking containers and

tanks on-site and complete the waste characterization. The site will be cleared and grubbed to prevent

additional brush fires in the dry summer months. This will also facilitate conducting the remedial

investigation at the site, since access to overgrowth areas will be easier.

Phase two action wil be the transportation and off-site disposal of the containerized and secured

materials. No materials will be stored, by the EPA, on site for greater than 90 days; therefore, RCRA

262.34 is not applicable. Disposal options will be evaluated following material sampling and disposal

profiling. Such profiles wil then be sent to the appropriate RCRA Subtitle C or Subtitle D waste

treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. Site structures, tanks, and process equipment which pose a hazard will be dismantled, decontaminated, and removed off-site.

All hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants removed off-site pursuant to this action for

treatment, storage, or disposal shall be treated, stored, or disposed of, at a facility in compliance, as

determined by the EPA, with CERCLA Section 121(d)(3), 42 U.S.C. § 9621(d)(3), and the following

rule: "Amendment to the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;

Procedures for Planning and Implementing Off-Site Response Action: Final Rule." 58 FR 49200

(September 22,1993), and codified at 40 C.F.R. § 300.440. RCRA empty containers will be disposed

off-site, as appropriate.

All materials to be sent off-site for disposal will be packaged and labeled in accordance with

RCRA requirements found at 40 CJFJR. § 262.30-32 and will be properly manifested in accordance with

the requirements set out at 40 C.F.R. § 262.20-23. All transportation will be in accordance with

Department of Transportation (DOT) rules and regulations. See generally, 40 C.F.R. § 263.

Off-site RCRA disposal of hazardous substances at the Site is the most effective action to take

for mitigating threats posed by the Site. Chemical hazards identified and potential exposure pathways

documented support this rationale. Site stabilization without ultimate off-site disposition of

contaminants is a temporary remedy which is not protective of public health and the environment. The

proposed time critical removal action will provide protection of public health hi a timely, feasible, and

appropriate manner.

As directed in 40 C.FJt § 300.150 Worker health and safety, response actions under the NCP

will comply with the provisions for worker safety and health in 29 C.F.R. § 1910.120.

PageSofl l 00013 7
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.

3. Description of alternative technologies

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

at the site.

4. Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs)

This removal action will be conducted to eliminate the actual or potential release of a hazardous

substance, pollutant, or contaminant to the environment, pursuant to CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9601 etseq..

and in a manner consistent with the NCP, 40 C.F.R. Part 300, as required at 33 U.S.C. § 1321(c)(2) and

42 U.S.C. § 9605. As per 40 C.F.R. § 300.415(i), Fund-financed removal actions pursuant to CERCLA

Section 104,42 U.S.C. § 9604, and removal actions pursuant to CERCLA Section 106,42 U.S.C. § 9606,

shall, to the extent practicable considering the exigencies of the situation, attain the applicable or relevant

and appropriate requirements under Federal environmental law.

Due to the fact that consolidation and off-site disposal are the principal elements of this removal

action, RCRA waste analysis requirements found at 40 C.F.R. § 261.20 and 261.30, RCRA manifesting

requirements found at 40 C.F.R. § 262.20, and RCRA packaging and labeling requirements found at 40 C.F.R. § 262.30 are deemed to be relevant and appropriate requirements for this removal action.

5. Project schedule

The initial time critical phase one action will secure Site access, stabilize leaking containers and

tanks, test material profiles, and prepare for off-site transportation and disposal of Site chemicals. The

site will be cleared of brush and vegetation. Phase one action is expected to require approximately six

weeks. All hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants wil be properly manifested and

transported to the appropriate disposal facilities as a phase two action. The entire duration of the project

is expected to be approximately six months from initial Site mobilization.

Page9ofl l 00013 8
B. Estimated Costs;

Extramural Costs:

Regional Allowance Costs:

USAGE...................................................................................... $400,000.00

Other Extramural Costs:

START....................................................................................... $30,000.00

Subtotal, Extramural Costs............................................. $430,000.00

Extramural Costs Contingency (20%)....................................... $86,000.00

TOTAL, EXTRAMURAL COSTS........................................... $516,000.00

Intramural Costs:

EPA Direct Costs....................................................................... $13,000.00

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

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

TOTAL REMOVAL PROJECT CEILING......................... $551,000.00

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

will remain unabated.

VH. OUTSTANDING POLICY ISSUES

There are no outstanding policy issues associated with the Site.

Vffl. ENFORCEMENT

See Attachment 3.

IX. RECOMMENDATION

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

Arthur Site hi 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.

PagelOofl l 00013 9
Conditions at the site meet the criteria as defined by 40 CFR Section 300.415(b)(2)(i) and (iv) of

the NCP for a removal, and I recommend approval of the proposed removal action. The total project

ceiling, if approved, will be $551,000. Of mis, an estimated $516,000 comes from the Regional removal

allowance CUSACE).

APPROVED Signed by NJyron O. Knudson, P

Attachments

Pagallofll 00014 0