Source: http://digitalprairie.ok.gov/cdm/ref/collection/stgovpub/id/22107/
Timestamp: 2018-12-12 21:51:36
Document Index: 158113843

Matched Legal Cases: ['§962', '§9621', '§ 121', 'art 300', '§962', '§962', '§9621', '§ 121', 'art 300']

Second five-year review report for the Tenth Street dump/junkyard Superfund site, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Oklahoma. :: Documents.OK.Gov
Home Documents.OK.Gov Second five-year review report for the Tenth Street dump/junkyard Superfund site, Oklahoma City,...
Second five-year review report for the Tenth Street dump/junkyard Superfund site, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Oklahoma.
22396.pdf
Second Five-Year Review Report
The Tenth Street Dump/Junkyard Superfund Site
OKD980620967
Second Five-year Review Report - 1
This memorandum documents the United States Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA's) performance, determinations, and approval of the Tenth Street Dump/Junkyard
Superfund Site (site) second five-year review under Section 121(c) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation & Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 United States Code
(USC) §962 l(c), as provided in the attached Second Five-Year Review Report prepared by
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality and the EPA.
Summary of Five-Year Review Findings
The second five-year review for this site indicates that the current site conditions are
protective of human health and the environment. This assessment has been made based on a
review of data available for the site, a site inspection, technical evaluation, and interviews.
The short-term protectiveness of the remedy is not affected. In May 2006, the Oklahoma
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) placed a notice on the deed for the site. The deed
notice is intended as an institutional control to provide notification of the site conditions and
remedial actions and to restrict the uses of the land at the site and minimize potential exposure to
To address the findings during the second five-year review, several recommendations and
follow-up actions have been identified for the site. Periodic site inspections should occur to
insure the deed notice is functioning as intended. It is recommended that the five (5) monitoring
wells be plugged because the 8 year monitoring program has shown that there are no PCB's in
the ground water. Operations and maintenance of the cap, namely mowing, should continue.
I have determined that the remedy for the Tenth Street Superfund Site is protective of
human health and the environment in the short term, and will continue to be protective so long as
the action items identified in the Five-Year Review Report are addressed as described above.
Samuel J. Coleman, P.E.
EPA ID# OKD980620967
By: •y—
Bartolome J. Canellas, Ur£. EPA
Gloria Moran, U.S. EPA
MarkPeycke, U.S.
Chief, Superfund Branch, Office of Regional Counsel
Sing Chia, U.
Chief, Louisi
Date: 7 -
klahoma Program Management Section
'ew Mexico/Oklahoma Branch
Date: 1 ~ ° C
Pam PhWips, U.S. EPAN
Deputy Director, Superfund Division
Date: ~T x
List of Acronyms ...............................................................................................................................6
Executive Summary ...........................................................................................................................7
Five-Year Review Summary Form ....................................................................................................8
I. Introduction ..............................................................................................................................10
II. Site Chronology.......................................................................................................................12
III. Background.............................................................................................................................13
Physical Characteristics .............................................................................................................13
Land and Resource Use .............................................................................................................13
History of Contamination ..........................................................................................................13
Initial Response .........................................................................................................................13
Basis for Taking Action.............................................................................................................14
IV. Remedial Actions .....................................................................................................................15
Remedy Selection ......................................................................................................................16
Remedy Implementation............................................................................................................17
System Operations/Operation and Maintenance (O&M) ..........................................................18
V. Progress Since the Last Five-Year Review ............................................................................19
VI. Five-Year Review Process......................................................................................................20
Administrative Components ......................................................................................................20
Community Involvement ...........................................................................................................20
Document Review .....................................................................................................................20
Data Review..............................................................................................................................20
Site Inspection ...........................................................................................................................21
Interviews .................................................................................................................................21
VII. Technical Assessment ...........................................................................................................21
Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the
decision documents?..................................................................................................................22
Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data,
cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives (RAOs) used at the
time of the remedy still valid? ...................................................................................................22
Question C: Has any other information come to light that could
call into question the protectiveness of the remedy? .................................................................23
Technical Assessment Summary ...............................................................................................23
VIII. Issues.....................................................................................................................................23
IX. Recommendations and Follow-up Actions...........................................................................23
X. Protectiveness Statement(s)....................................................................................................24
XI. Next Review............................................................................................................................24
Table 1 - Chronology of Site Events...........................................................................................12
Table 2 - Feasibility Study Alternatives Summary.....................................................................15
Table 3 - Initial PCB Results for Groundwater Monitoring .......................................................18
Table 3 - Annual System Operations/O&M Costs .....................................................................19
Table 4 - Issues ...........................................................................................................................23
Table 5 - Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions.................................................................24
Appendix 1 - Site Location Maps
Appendix 2 - List of Documents Used in the Review
Appendix 3 - Photographs
Appendix 4 - Site Inspection Checklist
Appendix 5 - Interviews
Appendix 6 – Community Involvement, DEQ Press Release (5/23/2006)
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980 also known as Superfund: Amended in 1986 by the Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act (SARA).
DEQ Oklahoma Department Of Environmental Quality
NPL National Priorities List: A list of sites identified for remediation under CERCLA.
ROD Record of Decision: Documents selection of cost-effective Superfund
financed remedy.
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986. (See CERCLA.)
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineer
WasteLAN The Regional database related to CERCLIS
Pursuant to Section 121(c) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation & Liability Act (“CERCLA” or “Superfund”), 42 United States Code (USC)
§9621(c), the second five-year review of the remedy in place has been completed for the Tenth
Street Dump/Junkyard Superfund Site (“site” or “Tenth Street site”) located in Oklahoma
County, Oklahoma.. The results of the five-year review indicate that the remedy is protective of
human health and the environment in the short-term. No deficiencies were noted that currently
impact the short-term protectiveness of the remedy, although issues were identified that require
further action to ensure the continued long-term protectiveness of the remedy.
Under the statutory requirements of Section 121(c) of CERCLA, as amended by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), P. L. 99-499, and the subordinate
provisions of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 300.430(f)(4)(ii), performance of five-year reviews are
required for sites where hazardous substances remain on site above levels that allow for
unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. This situation applies to the Tenth Street site. The U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Oklahoma Department of Environmental
Quality completed the first five-year review at the Tenth Street site in September 2001.
The remedy implemented at the Tenth Street Superfund Site in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma, and completed in January 4, 1996 is protective of human health and the environment.
Protection of the ground water has been verified by regular ground water sampling and analysis
of the five monitoring wells. This sampling revealed that there are no detectable levels of PCBs
in the groundwater. It is recommended that the ground water detection monitoring be
discontinued and that the five monitoring wells be plugged.
The trigger for the first five-year review was the actual start of construction on August
28, 1995. This is the second five-year review.
Site name (from WasteLAN): Tenth Street Dump/Junkyard Superfund Site
EPA ID (from WasteLAN): OKD980620967
Region: 6 State:
City/County: Oklahoma City/Oklahoma County
NPL status: □ Final ■ Deleted □ Other (specify)
Remediation status (choose all that apply): □ Under Construction □ Operating ■ Complete
Multiple OUs?* □ YES ■ NO Construction completion date: 01 / 07/ 1997
Has site been put into reuse? □ YES ■ NO
Lead agency: ■ EPA ■ State □Tribe □ Other Federal Agency ______________________
Author name: Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality and EPA, Region 6
Author title: Dennis L. Datin Author affiliation: Oklahoma DEQ
Review period:** April 2006 to June 2006
Date(s) of site inspection: 05 / 16 / 2006 and 05/17/2006
■Post-SARA □ Pre-SARA □ NPL-Removal only
□ Non-NPL Remedial Action Site □ NPL State/Tribe-lead
□ Regional Discretion
Review number: □ 1 (first) ■ 2 (second) □ 3 (third) □ Other (specify) __________
□ Actual RA Onsite Construction at OU #____ □Actual RA Start at OU#____
□ Construction Completion ■Previous Five-Year Review Report
Triggering action date (from WasteLAN): September 2001
Due date (five years after triggering action date): September 2006
Five-Year Review Summary Form, cont��d.
Issues: The second five-year review for this site indicates that the remedial actions set forth in the
decision documents for this site continue to be implemented as intended by the decision documents.
This assessment has been made based on a review of data available for the site, a site inspection, and
technical evaluation. The site inspection revealed some minor issues that do not alter the protectiveness
statement but that do require some action. These issues include: the 5 year ground water monitoring is
maintained though the results indicate that there are no PCBs in the groundwater; on a small portion of
the fence on the east side, a post is bent and the fence fabric is not attached; the warning sign from the
front gate is missing; and small trees are starting to grow along the fenceline.
Recommendations and Follow-up Actions: To address the issues identified during the second five-year
review, the following recommendations are made: discontinue ground water detection monitoring
and plug all monitoring wells; repair the damaged fence post and reattach the fence fabric; replace the
warning sign; and eliminate trees along the fenceline.
Protectiveness Statement(s): The remedy implemented at the Tenth Street Superfund Site in Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma, and completed on January 4, 1996 is protective of human health and the environment.
Protection of the ground water has been verified by ground water detection monitoring of the five
monitoring wells. This monitoring revealed that there are no detectable levels of PCBs in the
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 6 and the Oklahoma
Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) conducted a second five-year review of the
remedial action implemented at the Tenth Street Dump/Junkyard Superfund Site (“site” or
“Tenth Street site”), located in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, for the period between September
2001 (when the first five-year review was completed) and May 2006. The purpose of a five-year
review is to determine whether the remedy at a site remains protective of human health and the
environment, and to document the methods, findings, and conclusions of the five-year review in
a report. Five-Year Review Reports identify issues found during the review, if any, and make
recommendations to address the issues. This Second Five-Year Review Report documents the
results of the review for the Tenth Street Superfund site, conducted in accordance with EPA
guidance on five-year reviews.
EPA guidance on conducting five-year reviews is provided by Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER) Directive 9355.7-03B-P, Comprehensive Five-Year Review
Guidance. EPA and ODEQ personnel followed the guidance provided in this OSWER directive
in conducting the five-year review performed for the Tenth Street site.
The purpose of a five-year review is to determine whether the remedy at the Tenth Street
site is protective of human health and the environment. The methods, findings, and conclusions
of reviews are documented in Five-Year Review reports. In addition, Five-Year Review reports
identify issues found during the review, if any, and identify recommendations to address them.
EPA must implement five-year reviews consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). CERCLA § 121 (c), as amended, states:
If the President selects a remedial action that results in any hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site, the President shall
review such remedial action no less often than each five years after the initiation
of such remedial action to assure that human health and the environment are
being protected by the remedial action being implemented. In addition, if upon
such review it is the judgement of the President that action is appropriate at such
site in accordance with section [104] or [106], the President shall take or require
such action. The President shall report to the Congress a list of facilities for
which such review is required, the results of all such review, and any actions
taken as a result of such reviews.
The NCP part 300.430(f)(4)(ii) of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) states:
If a remedial action is selected that results in hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants remaining at the site above levels that allow for unlimited use and
unrestricted exposure, the lead agency shall review such action no less often than
every five years after the initiation of the selected remedial action.
The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) conducted the second five-year
review of the remedy implemented at the Tenth Street Superfund Site in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma. This review was conducted by the DEQ Project Manager for the site. This report
documents the results of the review.
This is the second five-year review for the Tenth Street Superfund site. The triggering
action for this statutory review is the date of the start of the remedial action, which was August
28, 1995 and the date of the first five-year review which was September 2001. In accordance
with the EPA five-year review guidance, the five-year review for the Tenth Street site is being
conducted because the implemented remedial action resulted in hazardous substances, pollutants,
or contaminants remaining on site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure. The second review for the Tenth Street Superfund Site must be completed by
II. Site Chronology
Table 1: Chronology of Site Events
North Canadian River channelized and levees built, removing the meander
loop, which crossed through the Site. Site was operated as a municipal
No activity noted at the Site. 1954 – 1959
Site was operated as a salvage yard. 1959 – 1985
EPA inspected the Site, finding drums, which were bulging, corroded and/or
EPA sampled soils and drums and posted warning signs at the Site. 1984 – 1985
EPA Region VI Regional Administrator approved a removal action to fence and
cap the Site.
Phase I removal action conducted by Region VI Emergency Response Clean
Up Service contractor to decontaminate and relocate automobiles, spare parts,
the office building and tire repair machine shop.
Sep 12-27, 1985
Phase II removal action conducted to level, temporary cap placed, and seeded
Site; installed fencing; and disposed of 20 drums.
Dec 9, 1985 - Apr 10, 1987
Site proposed for the National Priorities List (52 FR 2492). January, 1987
Site added to the National Priorities List (52 FR 27620). July, 1987
Field investigation conducted for Remedial Investigation Report. April, 1989
Feasibility Study Report published. July, 1990
Record of Decision (ROD) issued requiring chemical treatment of the PCB-contaminated
Feasibility Study Report Addendum published. April 1993
Public Notice announced Amended Proposed Plan. July 13, 1993
Amended ROD (including responses to comments from public) issued
requiring capping of contaminated soil meeting technical requirements for caps
under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) 40 CFR 761.75 (b) (1) and
EPA issued Interagency Agreement No. DW96950179-01-0 to the USCOE to
perform remedial design.
EPA issued Interagency Agreement No. DW96950200-01-0 to the USCOE to
Final Remedial Design completed. January, 1995
O & M Plan May 1995
Awarded Contract DACW56-95-C-0027 for construction of the remedial action
to Abatement Systems, Inc.
Notice To Proceed issued. May 31, 1995
Remediation activities at the Site began. Aug 28, 1995
Pre-final inspection conducted with determination that remedial action
construction activities were substantially complete, except turfing.
4-Month Warranty Inspection Apr 30, 1996
EPA Issued Preliminary Close-Out Report Jun 11, 1996
8-month Warranty Inspection Sep 18, 1996
Final Inspection January, 1997
Operational and Functional Determination January, 1997
The site was deleted from the NPL November 21, 2000
First five-year review completed August 2001
The Site is located in an industrial and residential area in northeast Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma (Section 31, Township 12 North, Range 2 West). The Site is located on the south side
of Tenth Street between Bryant Avenue and the North Canadian River and covers approximately
3.5 acres (Figure 1). One residence is located adjacent to the west side of the Site. Residential
subdivisions are located approximately one block to the north and approximately one block to
the west of the Site.
Aerial photos show that in 1951 a meander loop of the North Canadian River cut almost
directly through the Site, making the Site subject to a 100-year flood. Between 1951 and 1954,
the river was channelized and levees were constructed on both sides of the river.
The site is in an area of mixed residential and industrial land use, and is surrounded on
three sides by active automobile salvage yards. In the September 27, 1990 Record of Decision,
EPA indicates an industrial land use to this site. The site is currently not being used. The site is
owned by a private land owner.
Although insufficient information exists to classify the alluvial aquifer at the site, EPA
believes the appropriate classification is Class II, a potential drinking water supply. The aquifer
is not contaminated with PCBs, meets primary drinking water standards, does not exceed 10,000
ppm total dissolved solids, and probably yields more than 150 gallons per day. No users of the
alluvial aquifer have been identified; all known water supply wells in the immediate area are
probably completed in the Garber-Wellington.
The Site, including the cutoff meander loop, was operated as a municipal landfill between
1951 and 1954. No activity at the Site was noted between 1954 and 1959. Beginning in 1959,
Mr. Raymond Cobb leased the Site from Mr. Sullivan Scott and used the Site as a salvage yard,
accepting materials such as tires, solvents, and transformers. The dielectric fluids from the
transformers contained Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs). The fluids were drained from the
transformers, then transferred to barrels and sold. During the recovery process, substantial
quantities of oil were spilled onto the ground. Mr. Cobb continued this operation until his death
in 1979, when Mr. Rolling Fulbright began operating the Site as Deadeye's Salvage Yard, an
automobile salvage yard.
Sampling by the EPA in 1984 and 1985 identified PCB concentrations up to 39,000 parts
per million (ppm) in the soil.
After reviewing the data, EPA determined that the contaminants posed a potential health
threat. The Regional Administrator authorized a removal action in an Action Memorandum
dated August 23, 1985. EPA began the removal action for the Site in September 1985 to address
direct human contact threats and the potential for offsite migration of contaminants.
The removal action was successfully completed in April 1987. The removal action
• Removing and disposing of the electrical equipment and drums containing hazardous
• Decontaminating and relocating of automobiles and other salvage material;
• Consolidation of contaminated soils to the center of the Site;
• Grading of the Site for effective drainage,
• Installation of a temporary synthetic liner and clay cap; and
• Erection of a security fence around the Site.
The Site was proposed for the National Priorities List (NPL) in January 1987 (52 FR
2492) and placed on the NPL in July 1987 (52 FR 27620).
The purpose of the response actions conducted at the Tenth Street site was to protect
public health and welfare and the environment from releases or threatened releases of hazardous
substances from the site.
The EPA initiated a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) in 1989. The RI
determined the types and amounts of contaminants present at the Site and discovered the extent
of contamination. The RI indicated that PCBs were the contaminants of concern at the Site, and
were limited to surface and subsurface soils at the Site. The predominant PCB species present
was Aroclor 1260.
The groundwater table at the site ranged from about 1151.7 Mean Sea Level (MSL) to
about 1150.0 MSL. Contaminated soil at its deepest point onsite was approximately 3 feet above
the water table. No PCBs or other compounds were detected in groundwater samples taken
during the RI. In addition, surface water samples were collected during the RI and no
contaminates attributable to the Site were detected.
The human health risk assessment conducted during the Remedial Investigation (RI )
indicated that carcinogenic risks posed by the site were attributed to PCB contamination in the
soil. The average lifetime carcinogenic risk from direct contact with soil, based on the average
concentration of PCBs in soil was estimated to be 3.8 x 10 –5 excess cancer incident.
The environmental risks associated with contaminants at the site were reported during the
RI to be non-measurable or minimal. Surface waste samples collected showed no organic
chemicals related to the site. In addition biota samples collected indicated that the North
Canadian River, downstream from the site, contained more individual and species than upstream.
During 1987, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of the Interior
conducted a Preliminary Natural Resource Survey and granted a release from natural resource
The Feasibility Study (FS) developed and evaluated a range of alternatives to remediate
the soil contamination. A total of 5 alternatives were considered after a screening process.
Table 1 below lists the alternatives considered.
Table 2. Feasibility Study Alternatives Summary, Tenth Street Superfund Site, Oklahoma
Capital Cost Annual
1 No Action $ 2,500 $ 11,800 $ 184,200 30 years for
3 Excavation and
$ 4,037,000 $ 0 $ 4,037,000 3 months
4 Excavation,
Onsite-Chemical
Disposal Onsite
$ 4,044,000 $ 0 $ 4,044,000 6-9 months
5 Excavation,
Onsite Thermal
$ 4,406,000 $ 0 $ 4,406,000 6-9 months
6 Excavation and
Offsite Thermal
$17,829,000 $ 0 $ 17,829,000 3 months
Note: Alternative 2 was screened out prior to the detailed evaluation of alternatives because the site was in a flood
plain and because the alternative would not satisfy the preference for treatment expressed in SARA, (ROD,
September 27, 1990).
Based upon the concentration and risk of PCBs, the Site was determined to pose a
principal threat because of the potential for direct contact with the contaminated soil and the
soil’s potential impact on groundwater. The scope of the response action was to address the
principal threat at the Site by preventing current or future exposure to the contaminated soil
through treatment and/or containment, and reducing or controlling the potential migration of
contaminants from the soil to groundwater.
A proposed plan for the Site was issued in August 1990, presenting the preferred
alternative of chemical dechlorination of the contaminated soil. The EPA Regional Administrator
for Region 6 signed a Record of Decision (ROD) on September 27, 1990. In the ROD, EPA
selected Alternative 4 - Excavation, Onsite Chemical Treatment and Disposal Onsite, as the
remedy for the Tenth Street Superfund Site. As noted in the ROD in the "Statement of Basis and
Purpose", the State of Oklahoma (State) did not support the original remedy selected in the ROD.
The major components of the Selected Remedy included:
• Removal of the existing red clay cover and the visqueen plastic liner placed during the
removal action;
• Excavation of an estimated 7,500 cubic yards of PCB contaminated soil with
concentrations of 25 ppm and higher;
• Chemical treatment of the excavated contaminated oil by a chemical dechlorination
process meeting the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) PCB alternative treatment
• Backfill the treated soil in the excavated area; and
• Grade the site for effective drainage and establish vegetative cover.
During the Remedial Design (RD) phase of the onsite chemical treatment remedy, the
EPA became aware of problems with the implementation of this process at other Superfund sites.
Problems that were experienced included: low production rates; severe odor problems during the
treatment process in the soil after treatment; "soupy" (wet) physical condition of the treated soil
and the ensuing need for stabilization before placement back on the ground as backfill; soil
volume increases of 100% during treatment, causing space problems for backfilling on the site;
and leaching of residual reagent from the soil following treatment.
In addition to the technical problems related to chemical dechlorination experienced at
other Superfund sites, onsite treatment of the contaminated soil was further complicated as the
result of construction debris and other types of solid waste that had been dumped at the Tenth
Street Site previous to the PCB spills. The contaminated soil from PCBs became mixed with the
solid waste. The materials handling problems from such a mixture greatly complicated the
treatment remedy. Projected construction costs were also greatly increasing. As a result, EPA re-evaluated
the remedial alternatives at the Site.
ROD Amendment
On September 30, 1993, the EPA Regional Administrator for Region 6 signed an Amended
ROD, with State concurrence. The amended remedy addressed approximately 9,800 cubic yards
of soil contaminated with PCBs at or above 25 ppm. The objective of the amended remedy was
the same as the original ROD, which was to protect human health and the environment by
preventing current or future exposure to the contaminated soil through treatment and/or
containment, and reducing or controlling the potential migration of contaminants from the soil to
groundwater. The major components of the selected remedy as reflected in the Amended ROD
• Excavation and placement of contaminated soil from the roadway right-of-way on the
south side of N.E. Tenth Street onto the existing cap;
• Allowing the Oklahoma Department of Transportation’s widening of Tenth Street to
cover contaminated soil in the roadway right-of-way on the North side of N.E. Tenth
• Construction of a new cap meeting the technical requirements for caps under the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA), 40 CFR Section 761.75 (b)(1) and (2); and
• Maintenance of the cap and ground water monitoring.
The revised remedy of capping the waste does not satisfy the statutory preference for
treatment as a principal element of the remedy. But the EPA, with concurrence from the State of
Oklahoma, determined that this alternative was protective of human health and the environment,
complied with Federal and State requirements that are applicable or relevant and appropriate,
was cost effective compared to equally protective alternatives that utilized permanent solutions
and alternative treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable.
The EPA entered into an Interagency Agreement (IAG) with the U.S. Army Corp of
Engineers (USACE) (Tulsa District) to perform the remedial design and the remedial action.
The USACE initiated the remedial action contract on May 31, 1995, and the actual
remedial action construction activities at the Site began on August 28, 1995. The major
components of the remedial action included:
* Drum sampling and disposal.
* Overdrilling and grouting of existing monitoring wells.
* Excavation and relocation of PCB-contaminated soil from the perimeter of the Site.
* Soil sampling of the walls and bottom of the excavated area for PCBs.
* Placement, grading and compaction of random fill to grade Site at the required
foundation elevation.
* Installation and development of three down-gradient ground water monitoring wells.
* Placement of 3-foot thick clay barrier layer.
* Placement of geomembrane, drainage net, and geotextile.
* Installation of perimeter drain system.
* Placement of cover soil and topsoil layers.
* Monitoring well sampling.
* Installation of new fence around the Site.
* Establishment of turf on the cap.
During the remedial action activities, 2 feet of additional excavation was needed in an
area which was determined to exceed the PCB cleanup standard after the initial excavation
sampling. This additional 275 cubic yards of excavation and the additional testing required
added an additional $17,825 to the original estimated costs.
At the conclusion of the remedial action, approximately 4,655 cubic yards (cy3) of soil
with the concentrations of PCBs greater than 25 ppm had been excavated from the north and
west perimeter and the south corner of the perimeter of the Site. These soils were then spread in
the area where the existing cap, along with the remainder of the waste (from the Removal Action
in 1987), was located. This area was then capped, sprigged and fertilized. A new fence was also
installed around the Site.
The remedial action contractor obtained samples from the 5 monitoring wells (3 new
downgradient wells which are MW3A, MW 4A, and MW 5A and 2 existing upgradient wells
which are M-1 and M-2) and analyzed them for PCBs. All analyses showed non-detectable
levels of PCBs, indicating that no PCBs are leaching into the groundwater and migrating offsite.
The results of the analyses are shown in Table 2 below.
TABLE 3. INITIAL PCB RESULTS FOR GROUNDWATER MONITORING
1996 SAMPLING
MW 4A
NOTE: The MCL for PCBs is 0.5 μg/l.
The remedial action was completed on January 4, 1996.
The initial Operations and Maintenance plan had the cap inspected once a month or
immediately following a heavy rainfall event for the first six months and then every six months
thereafter. Groundwater monitoring occurred once every year. An annual report was to be
developed following receipt of laboratory data from the monitoring well sampling. From the
results of the sampling over several years (see Table 4), it has been determined that there is no
need to continue sampling of the wells. Therefore, it is recommended that the five monitoring
wells be plugged this year.
In January 1997, the State of Oklahoma began inspection, maintenance, and monitoring
activities in accordance with the approved O&M Plan issued May 1995. The ground water
monitoring wells at the Site were sampled annually at the beginning of O&M. Monitoring
consists of sampling 5 monitoring wells, 2 up gradient and 3 down gradient, to verify that PCBs
from this Site are not contaminating the ground water. Additionally, the grass on the cap was
mowed three times the first year and twice the second year and third years and then will be
mowed only once a year for several years. The mowing of the grass cover was changed in 2004
to once again mowing three times per year. More frequent mowing is easier than mowing once
per year. The cap is inspected for damage on regular basis. Repairs from erosion or other
damage will be made as necessary by the State. To date, no repairs of the cap have been needed.
Table 3: Annual System Operations/O&M Costs
Dates Total Cost rounded to nearest $1000
July 1, 1997 June 30, 1998 1800
July 1, 1998 June 30, 1999 1800
July 1, 1999 June 30, 2000 1600
July 1, 2000 June 30, 2001 1650
July 1, 2001 June 30, 2002 600
July 1, 2002 June 30, 2003 1500
July 1, 2003 June 30, 2004 600
July 1, 2004 June 30, 2005 1950
July 1, 2005 June 30, 2006 900
V. Progress Since the Last Five-Year Review
Since the first five-year review was conducted in August, 2001, the mowing of the grass
cover was changed to mowing three times per year from once per year, locks were placed on the
monitoring wells, a deed notice was prepared and filed in the land records, and ground water
detection monitoring was changed from once per year to every two years.
VI. Five-Year Review Process
The five-year review team consisted of Dennis L. Datin of the DEQ. The review was
conducted from April 2006 to July 2006. The tasks for the five-year review included:
1. Review of existing sampling data up to September 2005,
2. Inspection of the site on May 16, 2006,
3. A press release stating that a five-year review was underway, and
4. Preparation of the five-year review report.
The community was notified on May 23, 2006 that a five-year review was being
conducted. A copy of the Press Release issued by the ODEQ is provided as an attachment to this
Upon signature, the Second Five-Year Review Report will be placed in the information
repositories for the site, both local to the site and at the EPA Region 6 office in Dallas, Texas. A
notice will then be published in the local newspaper to summarize the findings of the review and
announce the availability of the report at the information repositories.
The following documents were reviewed to complete this five-year review. These
��� The first five-year review, September 2001 and
• Groundwater Assessment reports, 1996-2005.
Prior to the completion of the remedial action, ground water sampling was conducted as
part of the confirmation sampling (See Table 2 in Remedy Implementation Section). The O& M
plan also required ground water sampling once a year. Table 4 below summarizes the results of
the annual ground water sampling. No PCBs were detected in the groundwater between 1996
and September 2004. In the first Five-year Review, it was decided that the monitoring could be
modified to once every two years instead of once every year because the PCBs being below the
TABLE 4. ANNUAL PCB RESULTS FOR GROUNDWATER MONITORING, 1997-2004
MW3AS
MW4AS
MW5AS
Total PCBs in Water
< 0.220
< 0.019 < 0.019 < 0.019 < 0.019 < 0.019
<0.190 <0.190 <0.190 <0.190 <0.190
NOTE 1: N = No PCBs detected and confirmed.
NOTE 2: The sampling method used is EPA Method 608.
Dennis L. Datin and Kelly Dixon of the ODEQ conducted a site inspection on May 16,
2006. The visual inspection revealed that the site cap cover is sound and that the vegetative
cover is adequate. The fence was in good shape except for one post on the east side that was
bent at an approximate 45 degree angle toward the west. The groundwater monitoring wells are
located outside of the fenced area. Some of the protective bollards at some of the wells are gone.
The wells themselves were in good condition.
On May 18, 2006 Gayla Scott, whose father lives next to the site, was interviewed. She
had no problems with the remedy but had concerns about the stigma of owning part of a
superfund site and wondered how that would affect the selling of the property. She would like
for the address of her father’s house to be taken out of the documentation concerning the location
of the site. The deed notice was revised to use the metes and bounds description of the property
for the site and does not use the house address of this adjacent landowner.
On May 18, 2006 Robbie Kienzie of the Oklahoma City Planning Department was
interviewed. She had no problems with the site.
VII. Technical Assessment
An overall assessment of the remedy implemented at the Site was conducted to confirm
that the selected remedy is operating according to the ROD expectations and is still protective of
human health and the environment. The assessment was used to primarily answer the following
• Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?
• Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action
objectives (RAOs) used at the time of the remedy selection still valid?
• Has any other information come into light that could call into question the protectiveness
of the remedy?
Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?
The decision document for the Tenth Street site is the September 30, 1993 amended
ROD. All activities at the Site were consistent with the ROD, as amended, and with the RD and
RA statements of work issued to the USCOE for design and construction of the remedy.
All contaminated soil with more than 25 ppm PCBs was placed under a clay barrier layer
with a geo-membrane liner. Infiltration of precipitation is retarded because of this liner, thereby
reducing the possibility of leaching of the contaminants into the ground water. The inspection
and maintenance of the cap according to the O & M plan insures that cap’s integrity remains in
Sampling of the ground water has revealed that no PCBs are present, which supports the
The health and safety plan for the site is adequate. Access control to the site is adequate
with the chain link fence in good condition and locks are on the gates. The performance of the
remedial action continues as originally planned.
The operation and maintenance of the site is easily accomplished with mowing to control
the grass taking place usually in September of each year. The groundwater sampling usually
occurs in September of each year. The cost of mowing the site is about $1050 per year. Since
the ground water has shown the PCBs to be below the MCLs, the plugging of the wells is
Since the site has been closed, there have been no changes in the effectiveness of the
remedy and the remedy is functioning adequately. There have been no changes in land use of the
surrounding areas since the remedy began.
Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial
action objectives (RAOs) used at the time of the remedy selection still valid?
The baseline risk assessment conducted during the 1990 RI/FS and a second risk
assessment conducted in March 1993 for the amended ROD was based on an exposure scenario
for an industrial worker.
Current and future land uses are expected to remain industrial onsite and residential
offsite. Although no formal land use plan was obtained from the City of Oklahoma, land use
patterns in the immediate vicinity of the site are consistent with these designations, and
consequently are consistent with the assumptions in the ROD.
The MCL for PCBs in the groundwater is 0.5 μg/l. The remedial action complies with all
applicable and relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs). These include the EPA and
DEQ rules and regulations.
Because the cap is functional and no PCBs were found in the groundwater, no risk
recalculation/assessment was necessary for this site.
Question C: Has any other information come into light that could call into question the
protectiveness of the remedy?
The type of other information that might call into question the protectiveness of the
remedy include potential future land use changes in the vicinity of the site or other expected
changes in site conditions or exposure pathways. A request was made by a landowner whether
the site could be used to store junk vehicles at this location. The deed notice requires DEQ
approval before any use can occur on the cap. Any use like this would require additional
protective cover material. No other information has come to light as part of this second five-year
review for the site that would call into question the protectiveness of the site remedy. Although
the site is in the 100-year flood plain, the USACE has confirmed that current controls, such as
levees, are still protective. This demonstrates that the cap will not be impacted from a 100-year
Technical Assessment Summary
The technical assessment, based on the data review, site inspection, and technical
evaluation indicates that the remedial actions selected for the site continue to be implemented as
intended by the decision document.
Table 7: Issues
Affects Future
Fence on the east side of the site had one post that was bent N N
Protective bollards at some of the monitor wells are gone N N
Sign was not on the site fence N N
Small trees along the fence line N N
IX. Recommendations and Follow-up Actions
Table 8: Recommendations and Follow-up Actions
Issue Affects
Protectiveness (Y/N)
Bent Post Straighten post DEQ EPA September
Plug wells DEQ EPA September
Sign Replace Sign DEQ EPA September
X. Protectiveness Statement
Oklahoma, is protective of human health and the environment. Protection of the ground water
has been verified by the regularly ground water sampling of the five monitoring wells, in which
this sampling has revealed that there are no detectable levels of PCBs in the groundwater.
XI. Next Review
The next five-year review, the third for the site, will be due on September 2011, which is
5 years from the date of this report.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Tenth Street Superfund Site Feasibility Study Report,
EPA Region 6, July 1990.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Tenth Street Superfund Site Feasibility Study Report
Addendum, EPA Region 6, April 1993.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Tenth Street Dump, Record of Decision, EPA Region 6,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Tenth Street Site, Amended Record of Decision, EPA
Region 6, September 1993.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District, 10th Street Superfund Site Final Design Analysis,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District, 10th Street Superfund Site Construction
Specifications and Plans, January 1995.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District, Tenth Street Superfund Site Preliminary Close
Out Report -Draft, February 1996.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance, (OSWER
No. 9355.7-03B-P or EPA 540-R-01-007), June 2001.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Oklahoma Department of Environmental
Quality, First Five-Year Review Report for Tenth Street Superfund Site, September 2001.
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, Ground water data, 1997 – 2004.
List of Documents Used in the Review
Photo 1. Tenth Street Superfund site vegetative cover.
Photo 2. Monitoring well for the Tenth Street Superfund site.
Photo 3. Bent post in the fence on the East side of the Tenth Street Superfund site.
Site name: Tenth Street Superfund Site Date of inspection: May 16, 2006
Location and Region: Oklahoma City, OK Region 6 EPA ID: OKD980620967
Agency, office, or company leading the five-year
review: Oklahoma DEQ
Weather/temperature: Clear/68 F
Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply)
■ Landfill cover/containment □ Monitored natural attenuation
■ Access controls □ Groundwater containment
■ Institutional controls □ Vertical barrier walls
□ Groundwater pump and treatment
□ Surface water collection and treatment
■ Other Ground water Sampling
Attachments: ■ Inspection team roster attached □ Site map attached
II. INTERVIEWS (Check all that apply)
1. O&M site manager ____________________________ ______________________ ____________
Interviewed □ at site □ at office □ by phone Phone no. ______________
Problems, suggestions; □ Report attached ________________________________________________
2. O&M staff ____________________________ ______________________ ____________
Problems, suggestions; □Report attached _______________________________________________
3. Local regulatory authorities and response agencies (i.e., State and Tribal offices, emergency response
office, police department, office of public health or environmental health, zoning office, recorder of
deeds, or other city and county offices, etc.) Fill in all that apply.
Agency ____________________________
Contact ____________________________ __________________ ________ ____________
Name Title Date Phone no.
Problems; suggestions; □ Report attached _______________________________________________
4. Other interviews (optional) □ Report attached.
III. ON-SITE DOCUMENTS & RECORDS VERIFIED (Check all that apply)
1. O&M Documents
■ O&M manual ■ Readily available □ Up to date □ N/A
□ As-built drawings □ Readily available □ Up to date □ N/A
□ Maintenance logs □ Readily available □ Up to date □ N/A
2. Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan □ Readily available □Up to date □ N/A
□ Contingency plan/emergency response plan □ Readily available □ Up to date □ N/A
3. O&M and OSHA Training Records □ Readily available □Up to date ■ N/A
4. Permits and Service Agreements
□ Air discharge permit □Readily available □ Up to date ■ N/A
□ Effluent discharge □ Readily available □ Up to date ■ N/A
□Waste disposal, POTW □ Readily available □ Up to date □ N/A
□ Other permits_____________________ □ Readily available □ Up to date □ N/A
5. Gas Generation Records □ Readily available □ Up to date □ N/A
6. Settlement Monument Records ��� Readily available □ Up to date □ N/A
7. Groundwater Monitoring Records ■ Readily available ■ Up to date □ N/A
8. Leachate Extraction Records □ Readily available □ Up to date □ N/A
9. Discharge Compliance Records
□ Air □ Readily available □ Up to date □ N/A
□ Water (effluent) □ Readily available □ Up to date □N/A
10. Daily Access/Security Logs □ Readily available □ Up to date □ N/A
IV. O&M COSTS
1. O&M Organization
■ State in-house □ Contractor for State
□ PRP in-house □ Contractor for PRP
□ Federal Facility in-house □ Contractor for Federal Facility
□ Other__________________________________________________________________________
2. O&M Cost Records
■ Readily available □ Up to date
□ Funding mechanism/agreement in place
Original O&M cost estimate____________________ □ Breakdown attached
Total annual cost by year for review period if available
From__________ To__________ __________________ □ Breakdown attached
Date Date Total cost
3. Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs During Review Period
Describe costs and reasons: __________________________________________________________
V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS ■ Applicable □ N/A
1. Fencing damaged □ Location shown on site map ■ Gates secured □ N/A
B. Other Access Restrictions
1. Signs and other security measures □ Location shown on site map □ N/A
C. Institutional Controls (ICs)
1. Implementation and enforcement
Site conditions imply ICs not properly implemented □ Yes □ No ■ N/A
Site conditions imply ICs not being fully enforced □ Yes □ No ■ N/A
Type of monitoring (e.g., self-reporting, drive by) _________________________________________
Frequency ________________________________________________________________________
Responsible party/agency ____________________________________________________________
Reporting is up-to-date □ Yes G No G N/A
Reports are verified by the lead agency □ Yes G No G N/A
Specific requirements in deed or decision documents have been met □ Yes □ No ■N/A
Violations have been reported □Yes □No ■ N/A
Other problems or suggestions: □Report attached
2. Adequacy ■ICs are adequate □ ICs are inadequate □N/A
1. Vandalism/trespassing □ Location shown on site map ■No vandalism evident
2. Land use changes on site G N/A
3. Land use changes off site G N/A
VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS
A. Roads □ Applicable ■N/A
1. Roads damaged □ Location shown on site map ■Roads adequate □N/A
B. Other Site Conditions
_ _________________________________________________________________ _ _
VII. LANDFILL COVERS ■Applicable □ N/A
A. Landfill Surface
1. Settlement (Low spots) □Location shown on site map □Settlement not evident
Areal extent______________ Depth____________
Remarks____________________________________________________________
2. Cracks □ Location shown on site map ■Cracking not evident
Lengths____________ Widths___________ Depths__________
3. Erosion □ Location shown on site map ■Erosion not evident
4. Holes □Location shown on site map ■ Holes not evident
5. Vegetative Cover ■ Grass ■ Cover properly established ■No signs of stress
□ Trees/Shrubs (indicate size and locations on a diagram)
6. Alternative Cover (armored rock, concrete, etc.) ■ N/A
7. Bulges □ Location shown on site map ■ Bulges not evident
Areal extent______________ Height____________
8. Wet Areas/Water Damage ■ Wet areas/water damage not evident
□Wet areas □ Location shown on site map Areal extent______________
□ Ponding □Location shown on site map Areal extent______________
□Seeps □Location shown on site map Areal extent______________
□ Soft subgrade □Location shown on site map Areal extent______________
9. Slope Instability □Slides □ Location shown on site map ■ No evidence of slope instability
Areal extent______________
B. Benches □ Applicable ■N/A
(Horizontally constructed mounds of earth placed across a steep landfill side slope to interrupt the slope
in order to slow down the velocity of surface runoff and intercept and convey the runoff to a lined
1. Flows Bypass Bench G Location shown on site map ■ N/A or okay
2. Bench Breached G Location shown on site map ■N/A or okay
3. Bench Overtopped G Location shown on site map ■ N/A or okay
C. Letdown Channels G Applicable ■N/A
(Channel lined with erosion control mats, riprap, grout bags, or gabions that descend down the steep side
slope of the cover and will allow the runoff water collected by the benches to move off of the landfill
cover without creating erosion gullies.)
1. Settlement G Location shown on site map ■ No evidence of settlement
2. Material Degradation G Location shown on site map ■No evidence of degradation
Material type_______________ Areal extent_____________
3. Erosion G Location shown on site map ■ No evidence of erosion
4. Undercutting G Location shown on site map ■No evidence of undercutting
5. Obstructions Type_____________________ ■ No obstructions
G Location shown on site map Areal extent______________
6. Excessive Vegetative Growth Type____________________
■ No evidence of excessive growth
G Vegetation in channels does not obstruct flow
D. Cover Penetrations G Applicable ■ N/A
1. Gas Vents G Active G Passive
G Properly secured/locked G Functioning G Routinely sampled G Good condition
G Evidence of leakage at penetration G Needs Maintenance
2. Gas Monitoring Probes
G Evidence of leakage at penetration G Needs Maintenance ■N/A
3. Monitoring Wells (within surface area of landfill)
■ Properly secured/locked G Functioning ■ Routinely sampled ■ Good condition
G Evidence of leakage at penetration G Needs Maintenance G N/A
Remarks___________________________________________________________
4. Leachate Extraction Wells
G Evidence of leakage at penetration G Needs Maintenance ■ N/A
5. Settlement Monuments G Located G Routinely surveyed ■ N/A
E. Gas Collection and Treatment G Applicable ■ N/A
1. Gas Treatment Facilities
G Flaring G Thermal destruction G Collection for reuse
G Good condition G Needs Maintenance
2. Gas Collection Wells, Manifolds and Piping
3. Gas Monitoring Facilities (e.g., gas monitoring of adjacent homes or buildings)
G Good condition G Needs Maintenance G N/A
F. Cover Drainage Layer ■ Applicable G N/A
1. Outlet Pipes Inspected ■ Functioning G N/A
2. Outlet Rock Inspected ■ Functioning G N/A
G. Detention/Sedimentation Ponds G Applicable ■ N/A
1. Siltation Areal extent______________ Depth____________ ■N/A
G Siltation not evident
2. Erosion Areal extent______________ Depth____________
G Erosion not evident
3. Outlet Works G Functioning ■ N/A
4. Dam G Functioning ■N/A
H. Retaining Walls G Applicable ■ N/A
1. Deformations G Location shown on site map G Deformation not evident
Horizontal displacement____________ Vertical displacement_______________
Rotational displacement____________
2. Degradation G Location shown on site map G Degradation not evident
I. Perimeter Ditches/Off-Site Discharge G Applicable ■ N/A
1. Siltation G Location shown on site map G Siltation not evident
2. Vegetative Growth G Location shown on site map ■ N/A
G Vegetation does not impede flow
Areal extent______________ Type____________
3. Erosion G Location shown on site map ■ Erosion not evident
4. Discharge Structure G Functioning ■ N/A
VIII. VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS G Applicable ■ N/A
1. Settlement G Location shown on site map G Settlement not evident
2. Performance Monitoring Type of monitoring__________________________
G Performance not monitored
Frequency_______________________________ G Evidence of breaching
Head differential__________________________
C. Treatment System G Applicable ■ N/A
1. Treatment Train (Check components that apply)
G Metals removal G Oil/water separation G Bioremediation
G Air stripping G Carbon adsorbers
G Filters_________________________________________________________________________
G Additive (e.g., chelation agent, flocculent)_____________________________________________
G Others_________________________________________________________________________
G Sampling ports properly marked and functional
G Sampling/maintenance log displayed and up to date
G Equipment properly identified
G Quantity of groundwater treated annually________________________
G Quantity of surface water treated annually________________________
2. Electrical Enclosures and Panels (properly rated and functional)
G N/A G Good condition G Needs Maintenance
3. Tanks, Vaults, Storage Vessels
G N/A G Good condition G Proper secondary containment G Needs Maintenance
4. Discharge Structure and Appurtenances
5. Treatment Building(s)
G N/A G Good condition (esp. roof and doorways) G Needs repair
G Chemicals and equipment properly stored
6. Monitoring Wells (pump and treatment remedy)
G All required wells located G Needs Maintenance G N/A
■ Is routinely submitted on time ■ Is of acceptable quality
2. Monitoring data suggests:
G Groundwater plume is effectively contained G Contaminant concentrations are declining
D. Monitored Natural Attenuation
1. Monitoring Wells (natural attenuation remedy)
G All required wells located G Needs Maintenance ■ N/A
X. OTHER REMEDIES
XI. OVERALL OBSERVATIONS
A. Implementation of the Remedy
The remedy is operating as planned. No significant issues noted during the site inspection.
B. Adequacy of O&M
O&M procedures are being implemented in accordance with the plan, and appear to be adequate.
C. Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Problems
No significant issues noted during the site inspection.
D. Opportunities for Optimization
Because the ground water data shows non detects for the PCBs, plugging of the ground water wells
Site Name: Tenth Street Superfund Site EPA ID No.: OKD980620967
Subject: Five-Year Review Time: Date:
Name: Dennis L. Datin Title: Engineer Organization: DEQ
Individual Contacted:
Name: Robbie Kienzle
Title: Urban Redevelopment
Organization: Office of Economic
Telephone No: (405) 297-1740
Fax No: (405) 297-1631
E-Mail Address: robbie.kienzle@okc.gov
Street Address: 420 W. Main, 9th Floor
City, State, Zip: Oklahoma City, OK 73102
1. What is your overall impression of the project? (general sentiment) Okay
2. Have there been routine communications or activities (site visits, inspections, reporting
activities, etc.) conducted by your office regarding the site? If so, please give purpose and
results. Yes, such as possible reuse of the site.
3. Have there been any complaints, violations, or other incidents related to the site requiring a
response by your office? If so, please give details of the events and results of the responses. No
4. Do you feel well informed about the site’s activities and progress? Yes
5. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site’s
management or operation?
She says it would have been better to have removed the waste from the site and will glad for the deed notice to be
placed on the site.
Type: ■ Telephone □ Visit □ Other
Location of Visit:
□ Incoming □ Outgoing
Name: Gayla Scott
Title: Neighbor Organization:
Telephone No: 405-843-1565 x4
Street Address: 5613 NW 103rd Place
City, State, Zip: Oklahoma City, OK 73162
2. What effects have site operations had on the surrounding community? The stigma of the site being a superfund
site and how that effects the selling of the site.
3. Are you aware of any community concerns regarding the site or its operation and
administration? If so, please give details. No
4. Are you aware of any events, incidents, or activities at the site such as vandalism, trespassing,
or emergency responses from local authorities? If so, please give details.
Some cars in the area have been stolen.
5. Do you feel well informed about the site’s activities and progress? Yes
6. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site’s management
or operation? She would like for the address of the site not be same as her fathers house which is right next to the
DEQ Press Release (5/23/2006)
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 9:26 AM
To: Black Chronicle (E-mail); Capitol Hill Beacon (E-mail); Edmond Sun (E-mail); KFOR TV (E-mail); KKNG/
KTLR/ KTUZ Radio (E-mail); KOCO TV (E-mail); KOKH TV (E-mail); KOMA/KRXO Radio (E-mail); KTOK
AM Radio (E-mail); KWTV TV (E-mail); Norman Transcript (E-mail); OETA TV (E-mail); Oklahoma County
Newspapers (E-mail); Oklahoma Gazette (E-mail); The Journal Record (E-mail)
Subject: DEQ Press Release: 5 year Review for 10th Street Superfund Site
Contact: Monty Elder, (405)702-1017
Five-Year Review for the Tenth Street Superfund Site
The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) began conducting a five-year review of the Tenth Street Superfund
Site earlier this month. The purpose of this review is to determine whether the site remedy
remains protective of human health and the environment as well as to document the methods,
findings, and conclusions of the five-year review in a report. The report will be available to the
public in September. This will be the second Five-Year Review for the site. Five Year Reviews
of remedies at Superfund sites are required when waste is left in place; in this case, waste was
consolidated and capped onsite.
The Tenth Street Superfund Site is located in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The Site was used as a
municipal landfill from 1951 to 1954. The Site was then used as a salvage yard from 1959 to
1979, accepting materials such as tires, solvents, and transformers. Sampling by the EPA in 1984
and 1985 identified elevated polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) concentrations in the soil. After
reviewing the data, EPA determined that the contaminants posed a potential health threat. In
1985 EPA placed a temporary cover on the contaminated soil to address direct human contact
threats and the potential for offsite migration of contaminants. The Site was proposed for the
National Priorities List (NPL) in January 1987 (52 FR 2492) and placed on the NPL in July 1987
(52 FR 27620).
Following a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, EPA signed a Record of Decision (ROD)
on September 27, 1990. The ROD is a legally binding decision document that directs the remedy
for the site. The ROD was amended in 1993 to change the remedy from soil washing to capping.
The objective of the amended remedy was the same as the original ROD, to protect human health
and the environment by preventing current or future exposure to the contaminated soil through
treatment and/or containment, and reducing or controlling the potential migration of
contaminants from the soil to groundwater. The selected remedy was to place the contaminated
soil under a new cap and to monitor the ground water for PCBs.
The remedial action was completed on January 4, 1996. Since that time the State of Oklahoma
has been performing operations and maintenance at the site, which included mowing and
sampling of the ground water.
Title Second five-year review report for the Tenth Street dump/junkyard Superfund site, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Oklahoma.
Purpose This memorandum documents the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) performance, determinations, and approval of the Tenth Street Dump/Junkyard Superfund Site (site) second five-year review under Section 121(c) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation & Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 United States Code (USC) §962 l(c), as provided in the attached Second Five-Year Review Report prepared by Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality and the EPA.
Contents Executive Summary; Five-Year Review Summary Form; I. Introduction; II. Site Chronology; III. Background; Physical Characteristics; Land and Resource Use; History of Contamination; Initial Response; Basis for Taking Action; IV. Remedial Actions; Remedy Selection; Remedy Implementation; System Operations/Operation and Maintenance (O&M); V. Progress Since the Last Five-Year Review; VI. Five-Year Review Process; Administrative Components; Community Involvement; Document Review; Data Review; Site Inspection; Interviews; VII. Technical Assessment; Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?; Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives (RAOs) used at the time of the remedy still valid?; Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy?; Technical Assessment Summary; VIII. Issues; IX. Recommendations and Follow-up Actions; X. Protectiveness Statement(s); XI. Next Review; Appendix; Appendix 1 - Site Location Maps; Appendix 2 - List of Documents Used in the Review; Appendix 3 - Photographs; Appendix 4 - Site Inspection Checklist; Appendix 5 - Interviews; Appendix 6 – Community Involvement, DEQ Press Release (5/23/2006)
Notes (Five-year review report); OKD980620967
OkDocs Class# E4850.3 T313rr 2006
ODL electronic copy Downloaded from agency website: http://www.deq.state.ok.us/lpdnew/SF/Superfund%20Project/Tenth%20Street/Tenth%20Street%202006.pdf
Full text Five-Year Review Report Second Five-Year Review Report For The Tenth Street Dump/Junkyard Superfund Site Oklahoma City Oklahoma, Oklahoma OKD980620967 July 2006 PREPARED BY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6 Dallas, Texas and Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Second Five-year Review Report - 1 Second Five-Year Review For The Tenth Street Dump/Junkyard Superfund Site OKD980620967 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma This memorandum documents the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) performance, determinations, and approval of the Tenth Street Dump/Junkyard Superfund Site (site) second five-year review under Section 121(c) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation & Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 United States Code (USC) §962 l(c), as provided in the attached Second Five-Year Review Report prepared by Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality and the EPA. Summary of Five-Year Review Findings The second five-year review for this site indicates that the current site conditions are protective of human health and the environment. This assessment has been made based on a review of data available for the site, a site inspection, technical evaluation, and interviews. The short-term protectiveness of the remedy is not affected. In May 2006, the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) placed a notice on the deed for the site. The deed notice is intended as an institutional control to provide notification of the site conditions and remedial actions and to restrict the uses of the land at the site and minimize potential exposure to contaminants. Actions Needed To address the findings during the second five-year review, several recommendations and follow-up actions have been identified for the site. Periodic site inspections should occur to insure the deed notice is functioning as intended. It is recommended that the five (5) monitoring wells be plugged because the 8 year monitoring program has shown that there are no PCB's in the ground water. Operations and maintenance of the cap, namely mowing, should continue. Determinations I have determined that the remedy for the Tenth Street Superfund Site is protective of human health and the environment in the short term, and will continue to be protective so long as the action items identified in the Five-Year Review Report are addressed as described above. Samuel J. Coleman, P.E. Director, Superfund Division U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6 - 2 - CONCURRENCES SECOND FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Tenth Street Dump/Junkyard Superfund Site EPA ID# OKD980620967 By: •y— Bartolome J. Canellas, Ur£. EPA Remedial Project Manager Date: By: Gloria Moran, U.S. EPA Assistant Regional Counsel Date: Date: MarkPeycke, U.S. Chief, Superfund Branch, Office of Regional Counsel By: Sing Chia, U. Chief, Louisi Date: 7 - klahoma Program Management Section By: Wren Chief, Louisi .EPA 'ew Mexico/Oklahoma Branch Date: 1 ~ ° C By: Pam PhWips, U.S. EPAN Deputy Director, Superfund Division Date: ~T x - 3 - Table of Contents List of Acronyms ...............................................................................................................................6 Executive Summary ...........................................................................................................................7 Five-Year Review Summary Form ....................................................................................................8 I. Introduction ..............................................................................................................................10 II. Site Chronology.......................................................................................................................12 III. Background.............................................................................................................................13 Physical Characteristics .............................................................................................................13 Land and Resource Use .............................................................................................................13 History of Contamination ..........................................................................................................13 Initial Response .........................................................................................................................13 Basis for Taking Action.............................................................................................................14 IV. Remedial Actions .....................................................................................................................15 Remedy Selection ......................................................................................................................16 Remedy Implementation............................................................................................................17 System Operations/Operation and Maintenance (O&M) ..........................................................18 V. Progress Since the Last Five-Year Review ............................................................................19 VI. Five-Year Review Process......................................................................................................20 Administrative Components ......................................................................................................20 Community Involvement ...........................................................................................................20 Document Review .....................................................................................................................20 Data Review..............................................................................................................................20 Site Inspection ...........................................................................................................................21 Interviews .................................................................................................................................21 VII. Technical Assessment ...........................................................................................................21 Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?..................................................................................................................22 Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives (RAOs) used at the time of the remedy still valid? ...................................................................................................22 Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy? .................................................................23 Technical Assessment Summary ...............................................................................................23 VIII. Issues.....................................................................................................................................23 IX. Recommendations and Follow-up Actions...........................................................................23 - 4 - X. Protectiveness Statement(s)....................................................................................................24 XI. Next Review............................................................................................................................24 Tables Table 1 - Chronology of Site Events...........................................................................................12 Table 2 - Feasibility Study Alternatives Summary.....................................................................15 Table 3 - Initial PCB Results for Groundwater Monitoring .......................................................18 Table 3 - Annual System Operations/O&M Costs .....................................................................19 Table 4 - Issues ...........................................................................................................................23 Table 5 - Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions.................................................................24 Appendix Appendix 1 - Site Location Maps Appendix 2 - List of Documents Used in the Review Appendix 3 - Photographs Appendix 4 - Site Inspection Checklist Appendix 5 - Interviews Appendix 6 – Community Involvement, DEQ Press Release (5/23/2006) - 5 - List of Acronyms CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 also known as Superfund: Amended in 1986 by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA). CFR Code of Federal Regulations DEQ Oklahoma Department Of Environmental Quality EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency FS Feasibility study FR Federal Register IAG Interagency Agreement NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan NPL National Priorities List: A list of sites identified for remediation under CERCLA. O&M Operation and maintenance OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response PCBs Polychlorinated biphenyls RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RD Remedial design RI/FS Remedial investigation/ feasibility study ROD Record of Decision: Documents selection of cost-effective Superfund financed remedy. SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986. (See CERCLA.) SWDA Solid Waste Disposal Act TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act USACE United States Army Corps of Engineer WasteLAN The Regional database related to CERCLIS - 6 - Executive Summary Pursuant to Section 121(c) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation & Liability Act (“CERCLA” or “Superfund”), 42 United States Code (USC) §9621(c), the second five-year review of the remedy in place has been completed for the Tenth Street Dump/Junkyard Superfund Site (“site” or “Tenth Street site”) located in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma.. The results of the five-year review indicate that the remedy is protective of human health and the environment in the short-term. No deficiencies were noted that currently impact the short-term protectiveness of the remedy, although issues were identified that require further action to ensure the continued long-term protectiveness of the remedy. Under the statutory requirements of Section 121(c) of CERCLA, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), P. L. 99-499, and the subordinate provisions of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 300.430(f)(4)(ii), performance of five-year reviews are required for sites where hazardous substances remain on site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. This situation applies to the Tenth Street site. The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality completed the first five-year review at the Tenth Street site in September 2001. The remedy implemented at the Tenth Street Superfund Site in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and completed in January 4, 1996 is protective of human health and the environment. Protection of the ground water has been verified by regular ground water sampling and analysis of the five monitoring wells. This sampling revealed that there are no detectable levels of PCBs in the groundwater. It is recommended that the ground water detection monitoring be discontinued and that the five monitoring wells be plugged. The trigger for the first five-year review was the actual start of construction on August 28, 1995. This is the second five-year review. - 7 - Five-Year Review Summary Form SITE IDENTIFICATION Site name (from WasteLAN): Tenth Street Dump/Junkyard Superfund Site EPA ID (from WasteLAN): OKD980620967 Region: 6 State: Oklahoma City/County: Oklahoma City/Oklahoma County SITE STATUS NPL status: □ Final ■ Deleted □ Other (specify) Remediation status (choose all that apply): □ Under Construction □ Operating ■ Complete Multiple OUs?* □ YES ■ NO Construction completion date: 01 / 07/ 1997 Has site been put into reuse? □ YES ■ NO REVIEW STATUS Lead agency: ■ EPA ■ State □Tribe □ Other Federal Agency ______________________ Author name: Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality and EPA, Region 6 Author title: Dennis L. Datin Author affiliation: Oklahoma DEQ Review period:** April 2006 to June 2006 Date(s) of site inspection: 05 / 16 / 2006 and 05/17/2006 Type of review: ■Post-SARA □ Pre-SARA □ NPL-Removal only □ Non-NPL Remedial Action Site □ NPL State/Tribe-lead □ Regional Discretion Review number: □ 1 (first) ■ 2 (second) □ 3 (third) □ Other (specify) __________ Triggering action: □ Actual RA Onsite Construction at OU #____ □Actual RA Start at OU#____ □ Construction Completion ■Previous Five-Year Review Report □ Other (specify) Triggering action date (from WasteLAN): September 2001 Due date (five years after triggering action date): September 2006 - 8 - Five-Year Review Summary Form, cont��d. Issues: The second five-year review for this site indicates that the remedial actions set forth in the decision documents for this site continue to be implemented as intended by the decision documents. This assessment has been made based on a review of data available for the site, a site inspection, and technical evaluation. The site inspection revealed some minor issues that do not alter the protectiveness statement but that do require some action. These issues include: the 5 year ground water monitoring is maintained though the results indicate that there are no PCBs in the groundwater; on a small portion of the fence on the east side, a post is bent and the fence fabric is not attached; the warning sign from the front gate is missing; and small trees are starting to grow along the fenceline. Recommendations and Follow-up Actions: To address the issues identified during the second five-year review, the following recommendations are made: discontinue ground water detection monitoring and plug all monitoring wells; repair the damaged fence post and reattach the fence fabric; replace the warning sign; and eliminate trees along the fenceline. Protectiveness Statement(s): The remedy implemented at the Tenth Street Superfund Site in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and completed on January 4, 1996 is protective of human health and the environment. Protection of the ground water has been verified by ground water detection monitoring of the five monitoring wells. This monitoring revealed that there are no detectable levels of PCBs in the groundwater. - 9 - Second Five-Year Review Report Tenth Street Dump/Junkyard Superfund Site The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 6 and the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) conducted a second five-year review of the remedial action implemented at the Tenth Street Dump/Junkyard Superfund Site (“site” or “Tenth Street site”), located in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, for the period between September 2001 (when the first five-year review was completed) and May 2006. The purpose of a five-year review is to determine whether the remedy at a site remains protective of human health and the environment, and to document the methods, findings, and conclusions of the five-year review in a report. Five-Year Review Reports identify issues found during the review, if any, and make recommendations to address the issues. This Second Five-Year Review Report documents the results of the review for the Tenth Street Superfund site, conducted in accordance with EPA guidance on five-year reviews. EPA guidance on conducting five-year reviews is provided by Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) Directive 9355.7-03B-P, Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance. EPA and ODEQ personnel followed the guidance provided in this OSWER directive in conducting the five-year review performed for the Tenth Street site. I. Introduction The purpose of a five-year review is to determine whether the remedy at the Tenth Street site is protective of human health and the environment. The methods, findings, and conclusions of reviews are documented in Five-Year Review reports. In addition, Five-Year Review reports identify issues found during the review, if any, and identify recommendations to address them. EPA must implement five-year reviews consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). CERCLA § 121 (c), as amended, states: If the President selects a remedial action that results in any hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site, the President shall review such remedial action no less often than each five years after the initiation of such remedial action to assure that human health and the environment are being protected by the remedial action being implemented. In addition, if upon such review it is the judgement of the President that action is appropriate at such site in accordance with section [104] or [106], the President shall take or require such action. The President shall report to the Congress a list of facilities for which such review is required, the results of all such review, and any actions taken as a result of such reviews. - 10 - The NCP part 300.430(f)(4)(ii) of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) states: If a remedial action is selected that results in hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, the lead agency shall review such action no less often than every five years after the initiation of the selected remedial action. The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) conducted the second five-year review of the remedy implemented at the Tenth Street Superfund Site in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. This review was conducted by the DEQ Project Manager for the site. This report documents the results of the review. This is the second five-year review for the Tenth Street Superfund site. The triggering action for this statutory review is the date of the start of the remedial action, which was August 28, 1995 and the date of the first five-year review which was September 2001. In accordance with the EPA five-year review guidance, the five-year review for the Tenth Street site is being conducted because the implemented remedial action resulted in hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining on site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. The second review for the Tenth Street Superfund Site must be completed by September 2006. - 11 - II. Site Chronology Table 1: Chronology of Site Events EVENTS DATES North Canadian River channelized and levees built, removing the meander loop, which crossed through the Site. Site was operated as a municipal landfill. 1951 – 1954 No activity noted at the Site. 1954 – 1959 Site was operated as a salvage yard. 1959 – 1985 EPA inspected the Site, finding drums, which were bulging, corroded and/or leaking. 1983 EPA sampled soils and drums and posted warning signs at the Site. 1984 – 1985 EPA Region VI Regional Administrator approved a removal action to fence and cap the Site. Aug 16, 1985 Phase I removal action conducted by Region VI Emergency Response Clean Up Service contractor to decontaminate and relocate automobiles, spare parts, the office building and tire repair machine shop. Sep 12-27, 1985 Phase II removal action conducted to level, temporary cap placed, and seeded Site; installed fencing; and disposed of 20 drums. Dec 9, 1985 - Apr 10, 1987 Site proposed for the National Priorities List (52 FR 2492). January, 1987 Site added to the National Priorities List (52 FR 27620). July, 1987 Field investigation conducted for Remedial Investigation Report. April, 1989 Feasibility Study Report published. July, 1990 Record of Decision (ROD) issued requiring chemical treatment of the PCB-contaminated soil. Sep 27, 1990 Feasibility Study Report Addendum published. April 1993 Public Notice announced Amended Proposed Plan. July 13, 1993 Amended ROD (including responses to comments from public) issued requiring capping of contaminated soil meeting technical requirements for caps under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) 40 CFR 761.75 (b) (1) and (2). Sep 30, 1993 EPA issued Interagency Agreement No. DW96950179-01-0 to the USCOE to perform remedial design. May 11, 1994 EPA issued Interagency Agreement No. DW96950200-01-0 to the USCOE to perform remedial action. Sep 28, 1994 Final Remedial Design completed. January, 1995 O & M Plan May 1995 Awarded Contract DACW56-95-C-0027 for construction of the remedial action to Abatement Systems, Inc. Apr 26, 1995 Notice To Proceed issued. May 31, 1995 Remediation activities at the Site began. Aug 28, 1995 Pre-final inspection conducted with determination that remedial action construction activities were substantially complete, except turfing. Jan 4, 1996 4-Month Warranty Inspection Apr 30, 1996 EPA Issued Preliminary Close-Out Report Jun 11, 1996 8-month Warranty Inspection Sep 18, 1996 Final Inspection January, 1997 Operational and Functional Determination January, 1997 The site was deleted from the NPL November 21, 2000 First five-year review completed August 2001 - 12 - III. Background Physical Characteristics The Site is located in an industrial and residential area in northeast Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (Section 31, Township 12 North, Range 2 West). The Site is located on the south side of Tenth Street between Bryant Avenue and the North Canadian River and covers approximately 3.5 acres (Figure 1). One residence is located adjacent to the west side of the Site. Residential subdivisions are located approximately one block to the north and approximately one block to the west of the Site. Aerial photos show that in 1951 a meander loop of the North Canadian River cut almost directly through the Site, making the Site subject to a 100-year flood. Between 1951 and 1954, the river was channelized and levees were constructed on both sides of the river. Land and Resource Use The site is in an area of mixed residential and industrial land use, and is surrounded on three sides by active automobile salvage yards. In the September 27, 1990 Record of Decision, EPA indicates an industrial land use to this site. The site is currently not being used. The site is owned by a private land owner. Although insufficient information exists to classify the alluvial aquifer at the site, EPA believes the appropriate classification is Class II, a potential drinking water supply. The aquifer is not contaminated with PCBs, meets primary drinking water standards, does not exceed 10,000 ppm total dissolved solids, and probably yields more than 150 gallons per day. No users of the alluvial aquifer have been identified; all known water supply wells in the immediate area are probably completed in the Garber-Wellington. History of Contamination The Site, including the cutoff meander loop, was operated as a municipal landfill between 1951 and 1954. No activity at the Site was noted between 1954 and 1959. Beginning in 1959, Mr. Raymond Cobb leased the Site from Mr. Sullivan Scott and used the Site as a salvage yard, accepting materials such as tires, solvents, and transformers. The dielectric fluids from the transformers contained Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs). The fluids were drained from the transformers, then transferred to barrels and sold. During the recovery process, substantial quantities of oil were spilled onto the ground. Mr. Cobb continued this operation until his death in 1979, when Mr. Rolling Fulbright began operating the Site as Deadeye's Salvage Yard, an automobile salvage yard. Sampling by the EPA in 1984 and 1985 identified PCB concentrations up to 39,000 parts per million (ppm) in the soil. Initial Response Actions After reviewing the data, EPA determined that the contaminants posed a potential health threat. The Regional Administrator authorized a removal action in an Action Memorandum dated August 23, 1985. EPA began the removal action for the Site in September 1985 to address direct human contact threats and the potential for offsite migration of contaminants. - 13 - The removal action was successfully completed in April 1987. The removal action consisted of: • Removing and disposing of the electrical equipment and drums containing hazardous substances; • Decontaminating and relocating of automobiles and other salvage material; • Consolidation of contaminated soils to the center of the Site; • Grading of the Site for effective drainage, • Installation of a temporary synthetic liner and clay cap; and • Erection of a security fence around the Site. The Site was proposed for the National Priorities List (NPL) in January 1987 (52 FR 2492) and placed on the NPL in July 1987 (52 FR 27620). Basis for Taking Action The purpose of the response actions conducted at the Tenth Street site was to protect public health and welfare and the environment from releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the site. The EPA initiated a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) in 1989. The RI determined the types and amounts of contaminants present at the Site and discovered the extent of contamination. The RI indicated that PCBs were the contaminants of concern at the Site, and were limited to surface and subsurface soils at the Site. The predominant PCB species present was Aroclor 1260. The groundwater table at the site ranged from about 1151.7 Mean Sea Level (MSL) to about 1150.0 MSL. Contaminated soil at its deepest point onsite was approximately 3 feet above the water table. No PCBs or other compounds were detected in groundwater samples taken during the RI. In addition, surface water samples were collected during the RI and no contaminates attributable to the Site were detected. Human Health and Environmental Impacts The human health risk assessment conducted during the Remedial Investigation (RI ) indicated that carcinogenic risks posed by the site were attributed to PCB contamination in the soil. The average lifetime carcinogenic risk from direct contact with soil, based on the average concentration of PCBs in soil was estimated to be 3.8 x 10 –5 excess cancer incident. The environmental risks associated with contaminants at the site were reported during the RI to be non-measurable or minimal. Surface waste samples collected showed no organic chemicals related to the site. In addition biota samples collected indicated that the North Canadian River, downstream from the site, contained more individual and species than upstream. During 1987, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of the Interior conducted a Preliminary Natural Resource Survey and granted a release from natural resource damages. - 14 - Feasibility Study The Feasibility Study (FS) developed and evaluated a range of alternatives to remediate the soil contamination. A total of 5 alternatives were considered after a screening process. Table 1 below lists the alternatives considered. Table 2. Feasibility Study Alternatives Summary, Tenth Street Superfund Site, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Alt. Number Alternative Description Capital Cost Annual O & M cost Present Worth Cost Implementation Time 1 No Action $ 2,500 $ 11,800 $ 184,200 30 years for O& M 3 Excavation and Off-site Disposal $ 4,037,000 $ 0 $ 4,037,000 3 months 4 Excavation, Onsite-Chemical Treatment and Disposal Onsite $ 4,044,000 $ 0 $ 4,044,000 6-9 months 5 Excavation, Onsite Thermal Treatment, and Disposal Onsite $ 4,406,000 $ 0 $ 4,406,000 6-9 months 6 Excavation and Offsite Thermal Treatment $17,829,000 $ 0 $ 17,829,000 3 months Note: Alternative 2 was screened out prior to the detailed evaluation of alternatives because the site was in a flood plain and because the alternative would not satisfy the preference for treatment expressed in SARA, (ROD, September 27, 1990). IV. Remedial Actions Remedial Action Objectives Based upon the concentration and risk of PCBs, the Site was determined to pose a principal threat because of the potential for direct contact with the contaminated soil and the soil’s potential impact on groundwater. The scope of the response action was to address the principal threat at the Site by preventing current or future exposure to the contaminated soil through treatment and/or containment, and reducing or controlling the potential migration of contaminants from the soil to groundwater. Remedy Selection A proposed plan for the Site was issued in August 1990, presenting the preferred alternative of chemical dechlorination of the contaminated soil. The EPA Regional Administrator for Region 6 signed a Record of Decision (ROD) on September 27, 1990. In the ROD, EPA selected Alternative 4 - Excavation, Onsite Chemical Treatment and Disposal Onsite, as the - 15 - remedy for the Tenth Street Superfund Site. As noted in the ROD in the "Statement of Basis and Purpose", the State of Oklahoma (State) did not support the original remedy selected in the ROD. The major components of the Selected Remedy included: • Removal of the existing red clay cover and the visqueen plastic liner placed during the removal action; • Excavation of an estimated 7,500 cubic yards of PCB contaminated soil with concentrations of 25 ppm and higher; • Chemical treatment of the excavated contaminated oil by a chemical dechlorination process meeting the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) PCB alternative treatment requirements; • Backfill the treated soil in the excavated area; and • Grade the site for effective drainage and establish vegetative cover. During the Remedial Design (RD) phase of the onsite chemical treatment remedy, the EPA became aware of problems with the implementation of this process at other Superfund sites. Problems that were experienced included: low production rates; severe odor problems during the treatment process in the soil after treatment; "soupy" (wet) physical condition of the treated soil and the ensuing need for stabilization before placement back on the ground as backfill; soil volume increases of 100% during treatment, causing space problems for backfilling on the site; and leaching of residual reagent from the soil following treatment. In addition to the technical problems related to chemical dechlorination experienced at other Superfund sites, onsite treatment of the contaminated soil was further complicated as the result of construction debris and other types of solid waste that had been dumped at the Tenth Street Site previous to the PCB spills. The contaminated soil from PCBs became mixed with the solid waste. The materials handling problems from such a mixture greatly complicated the treatment remedy. Projected construction costs were also greatly increasing. As a result, EPA re-evaluated the remedial alternatives at the Site. ROD Amendment On September 30, 1993, the EPA Regional Administrator for Region 6 signed an Amended ROD, with State concurrence. The amended remedy addressed approximately 9,800 cubic yards of soil contaminated with PCBs at or above 25 ppm. The objective of the amended remedy was the same as the original ROD, which was to protect human health and the environment by preventing current or future exposure to the contaminated soil through treatment and/or containment, and reducing or controlling the potential migration of contaminants from the soil to groundwater. The major components of the selected remedy as reflected in the Amended ROD included: • Excavation and placement of contaminated soil from the roadway right-of-way on the south side of N.E. Tenth Street onto the existing cap; • Allowing the Oklahoma Department of Transportation’s widening of Tenth Street to cover contaminated soil in the roadway right-of-way on the North side of N.E. Tenth Street; - 16 - • Construction of a new cap meeting the technical requirements for caps under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 40 CFR Section 761.75 (b)(1) and (2); and • Maintenance of the cap and ground water monitoring. The revised remedy of capping the waste does not satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as a principal element of the remedy. But the EPA, with concurrence from the State of Oklahoma, determined that this alternative was protective of human health and the environment, complied with Federal and State requirements that are applicable or relevant and appropriate, was cost effective compared to equally protective alternatives that utilized permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable. Remedy Implementation The EPA entered into an Interagency Agreement (IAG) with the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) (Tulsa District) to perform the remedial design and the remedial action. The USACE initiated the remedial action contract on May 31, 1995, and the actual remedial action construction activities at the Site began on August 28, 1995. The major components of the remedial action included: * Drum sampling and disposal. * Overdrilling and grouting of existing monitoring wells. * Excavation and relocation of PCB-contaminated soil from the perimeter of the Site. * Soil sampling of the walls and bottom of the excavated area for PCBs. * Placement, grading and compaction of random fill to grade Site at the required foundation elevation. * Installation and development of three down-gradient ground water monitoring wells. * Placement of 3-foot thick clay barrier layer. * Placement of geomembrane, drainage net, and geotextile. * Installation of perimeter drain system. * Placement of cover soil and topsoil layers. * Monitoring well sampling. * Installation of new fence around the Site. * Establishment of turf on the cap. During the remedial action activities, 2 feet of additional excavation was needed in an area which was determined to exceed the PCB cleanup standard after the initial excavation sampling. This additional 275 cubic yards of excavation and the additional testing required added an additional $17,825 to the original estimated costs. At the conclusion of the remedial action, approximately 4,655 cubic yards (cy3) of soil with the concentrations of PCBs greater than 25 ppm had been excavated from the north and west perimeter and the south corner of the perimeter of the Site. These soils were then spread in the area where the existing cap, along with the remainder of the waste (from the Removal Action in 1987), was located. This area was then capped, sprigged and fertilized. A new fence was also installed around the Site. - 17 - The remedial action contractor obtained samples from the 5 monitoring wells (3 new downgradient wells which are MW3A, MW 4A, and MW 5A and 2 existing upgradient wells which are M-1 and M-2) and analyzed them for PCBs. All analyses showed non-detectable levels of PCBs, indicating that no PCBs are leaching into the groundwater and migrating offsite. The results of the analyses are shown in Table 2 below. TABLE 3. INITIAL PCB RESULTS FOR GROUNDWATER MONITORING 1996 SAMPLING (μg/l) Analyte M-1 M-2 MW 3A MW 4A MW 5A Arochlor 1016 < 10.0 < 10.0 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 Arochlor 1221 < 10.0 < 10.0 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 Arochlor 1232 < 10.0 < 10.0 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 Arochlor 1242 < 10.0 < 10.0 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 Arochlor 1248 < 10.0 < 10.0 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 Arochlor 1254 < 20.0 < 20.0 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 Arochlor 1260 < 20.0 < 20.0 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 NOTE: The MCL for PCBs is 0.5 μg/l. The remedial action was completed on January 4, 1996. Operation and Maintenance The initial Operations and Maintenance plan had the cap inspected once a month or immediately following a heavy rainfall event for the first six months and then every six months thereafter. Groundwater monitoring occurred once every year. An annual report was to be developed following receipt of laboratory data from the monitoring well sampling. From the results of the sampling over several years (see Table 4), it has been determined that there is no need to continue sampling of the wells. Therefore, it is recommended that the five monitoring wells be plugged this year. In January 1997, the State of Oklahoma began inspection, maintenance, and monitoring activities in accordance with the approved O&M Plan issued May 1995. The ground water monitoring wells at the Site were sampled annually at the beginning of O&M. Monitoring consists of sampling 5 monitoring wells, 2 up gradient and 3 down gradient, to verify that PCBs from this Site are not contaminating the ground water. Additionally, the grass on the cap was mowed three times the first year and twice the second year and third years and then will be mowed only once a year for several years. The mowing of the grass cover was changed in 2004 to once again mowing three times per year. More frequent mowing is easier than mowing once - 18 - per year. The cap is inspected for damage on regular basis. Repairs from erosion or other damage will be made as necessary by the State. To date, no repairs of the cap have been needed. Table 3: Annual System Operations/O&M Costs Dates Total Cost rounded to nearest $1000 From To July 1, 1997 June 30, 1998 1800 July 1, 1998 June 30, 1999 1800 July 1, 1999 June 30, 2000 1600 July 1, 2000 June 30, 2001 1650 July 1, 2001 June 30, 2002 600 July 1, 2002 June 30, 2003 1500 July 1, 2003 June 30, 2004 600 July 1, 2004 June 30, 2005 1950 July 1, 2005 June 30, 2006 900 V. Progress Since the Last Five-Year Review Since the first five-year review was conducted in August, 2001, the mowing of the grass cover was changed to mowing three times per year from once per year, locks were placed on the monitoring wells, a deed notice was prepared and filed in the land records, and ground water detection monitoring was changed from once per year to every two years. - 19 - VI. Five-Year Review Process Administrative Components The five-year review team consisted of Dennis L. Datin of the DEQ. The review was conducted from April 2006 to July 2006. The tasks for the five-year review included: 1. Review of existing sampling data up to September 2005, 2. Inspection of the site on May 16, 2006, 3. A press release stating that a five-year review was underway, and 4. Preparation of the five-year review report. Community Involvement The community was notified on May 23, 2006 that a five-year review was being conducted. A copy of the Press Release issued by the ODEQ is provided as an attachment to this report. Upon signature, the Second Five-Year Review Report will be placed in the information repositories for the site, both local to the site and at the EPA Region 6 office in Dallas, Texas. A notice will then be published in the local newspaper to summarize the findings of the review and announce the availability of the report at the information repositories. Documents Review The following documents were reviewed to complete this five-year review. These documents included: ��� The first five-year review, September 2001 and • Groundwater Assessment reports, 1996-2005. Data Review Prior to the completion of the remedial action, ground water sampling was conducted as part of the confirmation sampling (See Table 2 in Remedy Implementation Section). The O& M plan also required ground water sampling once a year. Table 4 below summarizes the results of the annual ground water sampling. No PCBs were detected in the groundwater between 1996 and September 2004. In the first Five-year Review, it was decided that the monitoring could be modified to once every two years instead of once every year because the PCBs being below the MCLs. - 20 - TABLE 4. ANNUAL PCB RESULTS FOR GROUNDWATER MONITORING, 1997-2004 (μg/l) ANALYTE M1S M2S MW3AS MW4AS MW5AS Total PCBs in Water September 1997 < 0.300 < 0.300 < 0.300 < 0.300 < 0.300 Total PCBs in Water September 1998 < 0.220 < 0.300 < 0.300 < 0.300 < 0.300 Total PCBs in Water September 1999 N N N N N Total PCBs in Water September 2000 N N N N N Total PCBs in Water September 2002 < 0.019 < 0.019 < 0.019 < 0.019 < 0.019 Total PCBs in Water September 2004 <0.190 <0.190 <0.190 <0.190 <0.190 NOTE 1: N = No PCBs detected and confirmed. NOTE 2: The sampling method used is EPA Method 608. Site Inspection Dennis L. Datin and Kelly Dixon of the ODEQ conducted a site inspection on May 16, 2006. The visual inspection revealed that the site cap cover is sound and that the vegetative cover is adequate. The fence was in good shape except for one post on the east side that was bent at an approximate 45 degree angle toward the west. The groundwater monitoring wells are located outside of the fenced area. Some of the protective bollards at some of the wells are gone. The wells themselves were in good condition. Interviews On May 18, 2006 Gayla Scott, whose father lives next to the site, was interviewed. She had no problems with the remedy but had concerns about the stigma of owning part of a superfund site and wondered how that would affect the selling of the property. She would like for the address of her father’s house to be taken out of the documentation concerning the location of the site. The deed notice was revised to use the metes and bounds description of the property for the site and does not use the house address of this adjacent landowner. On May 18, 2006 Robbie Kienzie of the Oklahoma City Planning Department was interviewed. She had no problems with the site. VII. Technical Assessment An overall assessment of the remedy implemented at the Site was conducted to confirm that the selected remedy is operating according to the ROD expectations and is still protective of human health and the environment. The assessment was used to primarily answer the following questions: • Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? - 21 - • Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives (RAOs) used at the time of the remedy selection still valid? • Has any other information come into light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy? Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? The decision document for the Tenth Street site is the September 30, 1993 amended ROD. All activities at the Site were consistent with the ROD, as amended, and with the RD and RA statements of work issued to the USCOE for design and construction of the remedy. All contaminated soil with more than 25 ppm PCBs was placed under a clay barrier layer with a geo-membrane liner. Infiltration of precipitation is retarded because of this liner, thereby reducing the possibility of leaching of the contaminants into the ground water. The inspection and maintenance of the cap according to the O & M plan insures that cap’s integrity remains in place. Sampling of the ground water has revealed that no PCBs are present, which supports the protectiveness of the remedy. The health and safety plan for the site is adequate. Access control to the site is adequate with the chain link fence in good condition and locks are on the gates. The performance of the remedial action continues as originally planned. The operation and maintenance of the site is easily accomplished with mowing to control the grass taking place usually in September of each year. The groundwater sampling usually occurs in September of each year. The cost of mowing the site is about $1050 per year. Since the ground water has shown the PCBs to be below the MCLs, the plugging of the wells is recommended. Since the site has been closed, there have been no changes in the effectiveness of the remedy and the remedy is functioning adequately. There have been no changes in land use of the surrounding areas since the remedy began. Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives (RAOs) used at the time of the remedy selection still valid? The baseline risk assessment conducted during the 1990 RI/FS and a second risk assessment conducted in March 1993 for the amended ROD was based on an exposure scenario for an industrial worker. Current and future land uses are expected to remain industrial onsite and residential offsite. Although no formal land use plan was obtained from the City of Oklahoma, land use patterns in the immediate vicinity of the site are consistent with these designations, and consequently are consistent with the assumptions in the ROD. - 22 - The MCL for PCBs in the groundwater is 0.5 μg/l. The remedial action complies with all applicable and relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs). These include the EPA and DEQ rules and regulations. Because the cap is functional and no PCBs were found in the groundwater, no risk recalculation/assessment was necessary for this site. Question C: Has any other information come into light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy? The type of other information that might call into question the protectiveness of the remedy include potential future land use changes in the vicinity of the site or other expected changes in site conditions or exposure pathways. A request was made by a landowner whether the site could be used to store junk vehicles at this location. The deed notice requires DEQ approval before any use can occur on the cap. Any use like this would require additional protective cover material. No other information has come to light as part of this second five-year review for the site that would call into question the protectiveness of the site remedy. Although the site is in the 100-year flood plain, the USACE has confirmed that current controls, such as levees, are still protective. This demonstrates that the cap will not be impacted from a 100-year flood. Technical Assessment Summary The technical assessment, based on the data review, site inspection, and technical evaluation indicates that the remedial actions selected for the site continue to be implemented as intended by the decision document. VIII. Issues Table 7: Issues Issues Affects Current Protectiveness (Y/N) Affects Future Protectiveness (Y/N) Fence on the east side of the site had one post that was bent N N Protective bollards at some of the monitor wells are gone N N Sign was not on the site fence N N Small trees along the fence line N N - 23 - IX. Recommendations and Follow-up Actions Table 8: Recommendations and Follow-up Actions Issue Affects Protectiveness (Y/N) Recommen-dations and Follow-up Actions Party Responsible Oversight Agency Milestone Date Current Future Bent Post Straighten post DEQ EPA September 2006 N N Monitor Wells Plug wells DEQ EPA September 2006 N N Protective Bollards Plug wells DEQ EPA September 2006 N N Sign Replace Sign DEQ EPA September 2006 N N X. Protectiveness Statement The remedy implemented at the Tenth Street Superfund Site in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, is protective of human health and the environment. Protection of the ground water has been verified by the regularly ground water sampling of the five monitoring wells, in which this sampling has revealed that there are no detectable levels of PCBs in the groundwater. XI. Next Review The next five-year review, the third for the site, will be due on September 2011, which is 5 years from the date of this report. - 24 - List of Documents Reviewed U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Tenth Street Superfund Site Feasibility Study Report, EPA Region 6, July 1990. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Tenth Street Superfund Site Feasibility Study Report Addendum, EPA Region 6, April 1993. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Tenth Street Dump, Record of Decision, EPA Region 6, September 1990. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Tenth Street Site, Amended Record of Decision, EPA Region 6, September 1993. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District, 10th Street Superfund Site Final Design Analysis, June 1995. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District, 10th Street Superfund Site Construction Specifications and Plans, January 1995. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District, Tenth Street Superfund Site Preliminary Close Out Report -Draft, February 1996. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance, (OSWER No. 9355.7-03B-P or EPA 540-R-01-007), June 2001. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, First Five-Year Review Report for Tenth Street Superfund Site, September 2001. Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, Ground water data, 1997 – 2004. - 25 - APPENDIX 1 Site Location Maps - 26 - - 27 - - 28 - APPENDIX 2 List of Documents Used in the Review U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Tenth Street Superfund Site Feasibility Study Report, EPA Region 6, July 1990. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Tenth Street Superfund Site Feasibility Study Report Addendum, EPA Region 6, April 1993. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Tenth Street Dump, Record of Decision, EPA Region 6, September 1990. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Tenth Street Site, Amended Record of Decision, EPA Region 6, September 1993. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District, 10th Street Superfund Site Final Design Analysis, June 1995. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District, 10th Street Superfund Site Construction Specifications and Plans, January 1995. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District, Tenth Street Superfund Site Preliminary Close Out Report -Draft, February 1996. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance, (OSWER No. 9355.7-03B-P or EPA 540-R-01-007), June 2001. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, First Five-Year Review Report for Tenth Street Superfund Site, September 2001. Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, Ground water data, 1997 – 2004. - 29 - APPENDIX 3 Site Photographs - 30 - Photo 1. Tenth Street Superfund site vegetative cover. - 31 - Photo 2. Monitoring well for the Tenth Street Superfund site. - 32 - Photo 3. Bent post in the fence on the East side of the Tenth Street Superfund site. - 33 - APENDIX 4 Site Inspection Checklist - 34 - Site Inspection Checklist I. SITE INFORMATION Site name: Tenth Street Superfund Site Date of inspection: May 16, 2006 Location and Region: Oklahoma City, OK Region 6 EPA ID: OKD980620967 Agency, office, or company leading the five-year review: Oklahoma DEQ Weather/temperature: Clear/68 F Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply) ■ Landfill cover/containment □ Monitored natural attenuation ■ Access controls □ Groundwater containment ■ Institutional controls □ Vertical barrier walls □ Groundwater pump and treatment □ Surface water collection and treatment ■ Other Ground water Sampling Attachments: ■ Inspection team roster attached □ Site map attached II. INTERVIEWS (Check all that apply) 1. O&M site manager ____________________________ ______________________ ____________ Name Title Date Interviewed □ at site □ at office □ by phone Phone no. ______________ Problems, suggestions; □ Report attached ________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ 2. O&M staff ____________________________ ______________________ ____________ Name Title Date Interviewed □ at site □ at office □ by phone Phone no. ______________ Problems, suggestions; □Report attached _______________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ - 35 - 3. Local regulatory authorities and response agencies (i.e., State and Tribal offices, emergency response office, police department, office of public health or environmental health, zoning office, recorder of deeds, or other city and county offices, etc.) Fill in all that apply. Agency ____________________________ Contact ____________________________ __________________ ________ ____________ Name Title Date Phone no. Problems; suggestions; □ Report attached _______________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ Agency ____________________________ Contact ____________________________ __________________ ________ ____________ Name Title Date Phone no. Problems; suggestions; □ Report attached _______________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ Agency ____________________________ Contact ____________________________ __________________ ________ ____________ Name Title Date Phone no. Problems; suggestions; □ Report attached _______________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ Agency ____________________________ Contact ____________________________ __________________ ________ ____________ Name Title Date Phone no. Problems; suggestions; □ Report attached _______________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ 4. Other interviews (optional) □ Report attached. - 36 - III. ON-SITE DOCUMENTS & RECORDS VERIFIED (Check all that apply) 1. O&M Documents ■ O&M manual ■ Readily available □ Up to date □ N/A □ As-built drawings □ Readily available □ Up to date □ N/A □ Maintenance logs □ Readily available □ Up to date □ N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ 2. Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan □ Readily available □Up to date □ N/A □ Contingency plan/emergency response plan □ Readily available □ Up to date □ N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ 3. O&M and OSHA Training Records □ Readily available □Up to date ■ N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ 4. Permits and Service Agreements □ Air discharge permit □Readily available □ Up to date ■ N/A □ Effluent discharge □ Readily available □ Up to date ■ N/A □Waste disposal, POTW □ Readily available □ Up to date □ N/A □ Other permits_____________________ □ Readily available □ Up to date □ N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ 5. Gas Generation Records □ Readily available □ Up to date □ N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ 6. Settlement Monument Records ��� Readily available □ Up to date □ N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ 7. Groundwater Monitoring Records ■ Readily available ■ Up to date □ N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ 8. Leachate Extraction Records □ Readily available □ Up to date □ N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ 9. Discharge Compliance Records □ Air □ Readily available □ Up to date □ N/A □ Water (effluent) □ Readily available □ Up to date □N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ 10. Daily Access/Security Logs □ Readily available □ Up to date □ N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ IV. O&M COSTS - 37 - 1. O&M Organization ■ State in-house □ Contractor for State □ PRP in-house □ Contractor for PRP □ Federal Facility in-house □ Contractor for Federal Facility □ Other__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ 2. O&M Cost Records ■ Readily available □ Up to date □ Funding mechanism/agreement in place Original O&M cost estimate____________________ □ Breakdown attached Total annual cost by year for review period if available From__________ To__________ __________________ □ Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost From__________ To__________ __________________ □ Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost From__________ To__________ __________________ □ Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost From__________ To__________ __________________ □ Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost From__________ To__________ __________________ □ Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost 3. Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs During Review Period Describe costs and reasons: __________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS ■ Applicable □ N/A A. Fencing 1. Fencing damaged □ Location shown on site map ■ Gates secured □ N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ B. Other Access Restrictions 1. Signs and other security measures □ Location shown on site map □ N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ - 38 - C. Institutional Controls (ICs) 1. Implementation and enforcement Site conditions imply ICs not properly implemented □ Yes □ No ■ N/A Site conditions imply ICs not being fully enforced □ Yes □ No ■ N/A Type of monitoring (e.g., self-reporting, drive by) _________________________________________ Frequency ________________________________________________________________________ Responsible party/agency ____________________________________________________________ Contact ____________________________ __________________ ________ ____________ Name Title Date Phone no. Reporting is up-to-date □ Yes G No G N/A Reports are verified by the lead agency □ Yes G No G N/A Specific requirements in deed or decision documents have been met □ Yes □ No ■N/A Violations have been reported □Yes □No ■ N/A Other problems or suggestions: □Report attached _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ 2. Adequacy ■ICs are adequate □ ICs are inadequate □N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ D. General 1. Vandalism/trespassing □ Location shown on site map ■No vandalism evident Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ 2. Land use changes on site G N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ 3. Land use changes off site G N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS A. Roads □ Applicable ■N/A 1. Roads damaged □ Location shown on site map ■Roads adequate □N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ - 39 - B. Other Site Conditions Remarks ______________________________________________________________ _ _________________________________________________________________ _ _ _________ ___________________________________________________________ __ __________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ VII. LANDFILL COVERS ■Applicable □ N/A A. Landfill Surface 1. Settlement (Low spots) □Location shown on site map □Settlement not evident Areal extent______________ Depth____________ Remarks____________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 2. Cracks □ Location shown on site map ■Cracking not evident Lengths____________ Widths___________ Depths__________ Remarks____________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 3. Erosion □ Location shown on site map ■Erosion not evident Areal extent______________ Depth____________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ 4. Holes □Location shown on site map ■ Holes not evident Areal extent______________ Depth____________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ 5. Vegetative Cover ■ Grass ■ Cover properly established ■No signs of stress □ Trees/Shrubs (indicate size and locations on a diagram) Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ 6. Alternative Cover (armored rock, concrete, etc.) ■ N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ 7. Bulges □ Location shown on site map ■ Bulges not evident Areal extent______________ Height____________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ 8. Wet Areas/Water Damage ■ Wet areas/water damage not evident □Wet areas □ Location shown on site map Areal extent______________ □ Ponding □Location shown on site map Areal extent______________ □Seeps □Location shown on site map Areal extent______________ □ Soft subgrade □Location shown on site map Areal extent______________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ - 40 - 9. Slope Instability □Slides □ Location shown on site map ■ No evidence of slope instability Areal extent______________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ B. Benches □ Applicable ■N/A (Horizontally constructed mounds of earth placed across a steep landfill side slope to interrupt the slope in order to slow down the velocity of surface runoff and intercept and convey the runoff to a lined channel.) 1. Flows Bypass Bench G Location shown on site map ■ N/A or okay Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ 2. Bench Breached G Location shown on site map ■N/A or okay Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ 3. Bench Overtopped G Location shown on site map ■ N/A or okay Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ C. Letdown Channels G Applicable ■N/A (Channel lined with erosion control mats, riprap, grout bags, or gabions that descend down the steep side slope of the cover and will allow the runoff water collected by the benches to move off of the landfill cover without creating erosion gullies.) 1. Settlement G Location shown on site map ■ No evidence of settlement Areal extent______________ Depth____________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ 2. Material Degradation G Location shown on site map ■No evidence of degradation Material type_______________ Areal extent_____________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ 3. Erosion G Location shown on site map ■ No evidence of erosion Areal extent______________ Depth____________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ 4. Undercutting G Location shown on site map ■No evidence of undercutting Areal extent______________ Depth____________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ 5. Obstructions Type_____________________ ■ No obstructions G Location shown on site map Areal extent______________ Size____________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ 6. Excessive Vegetative Growth Type____________________ ■ No evidence of excessive growth G Vegetation in channels does not obstruct flow G Location shown on site map Areal extent______________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ - 41 - D. Cover Penetrations G Applicable ■ N/A 1. Gas Vents G Active G Passive G Properly secured/locked G Functioning G Routinely sampled G Good condition G Evidence of leakage at penetration G Needs Maintenance ■ N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ 2. Gas Monitoring Probes G Properly secured/locked G Functioning G Routinely sampled G Good condition G Evidence of leakage at penetration G Needs Maintenance ■N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ 3. Monitoring Wells (within surface area of landfill) ■ Properly secured/locked G Functioning ■ Routinely sampled ■ Good condition G Evidence of leakage at penetration G Needs Maintenance G N/A Remarks___________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ 4. Leachate Extraction Wells G Properly secured/locked G Functioning G Routinely sampled G Good condition G Evidence of leakage at penetration G Needs Maintenance ■ N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ 5. Settlement Monuments G Located G Routinely surveyed ■ N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ E. Gas Collection and Treatment G Applicable ■ N/A 1. Gas Treatment Facilities G Flaring G Thermal destruction G Collection for reuse G Good condition G Needs Maintenance Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ 2. Gas Collection Wells, Manifolds and Piping G Good condition G Needs Maintenance Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ 3. Gas Monitoring Facilities (e.g., gas monitoring of adjacent homes or buildings) G Good condition G Needs Maintenance G N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ F. Cover Drainage Layer ■ Applicable G N/A 1. Outlet Pipes Inspected ■ Functioning G N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ 2. Outlet Rock Inspected ■ Functioning G N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ G. Detention/Sedimentation Ponds G Applicable ■ N/A - 42 - 1. Siltation Areal extent______________ Depth____________ ■N/A G Siltation not evident Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ 2. Erosion Areal extent______________ Depth____________ G Erosion not evident Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ 3. Outlet Works G Functioning ■ N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ 4. Dam G Functioning ■N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ H. Retaining Walls G Applicable ■ N/A 1. Deformations G Location shown on site map G Deformation not evident Horizontal displacement____________ Vertical displacement_______________ Rotational displacement____________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ 2. Degradation G Location shown on site map G Degradation not evident Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ I. Perimeter Ditches/Off-Site Discharge G Applicable ■ N/A 1. Siltation G Location shown on site map G Siltation not evident Areal extent______________ Depth____________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ 2. Vegetative Growth G Location shown on site map ■ N/A G Vegetation does not impede flow Areal extent______________ Type____________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ 3. Erosion G Location shown on site map ■ Erosion not evident Areal extent______________ Depth____________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ 4. Discharge Structure G Functioning ■ N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ VIII. VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS G Applicable ■ N/A 1. Settlement G Location shown on site map G Settlement not evident Areal extent______________ Depth____________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ - 43 - 2. Performance Monitoring Type of monitoring__________________________ G Performance not monitored Frequency_______________________________ G Evidence of breaching Head differential__________________________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ C. Treatment System G Applicable ■ N/A 1. Treatment Train (Check components that apply) G Metals removal G Oil/water separation G Bioremediation G Air stripping G Carbon adsorbers G Filters_________________________________________________________________________ G Additive (e.g., chelation agent, flocculent)_____________________________________________ G Others_________________________________________________________________________ G Good condition G Needs Maintenance G Sampling ports properly marked and functional G Sampling/maintenance log displayed and up to date G Equipment properly identified G Quantity of groundwater treated annually________________________ G Quantity of surface water treated annually________________________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ 2. Electrical Enclosures and Panels (properly rated and functional) G N/A G Good condition G Needs Maintenance Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ 3. Tanks, Vaults, Storage Vessels G N/A G Good condition G Proper secondary containment G Needs Maintenance Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ 4. Discharge Structure and Appurtenances G N/A G Good condition G Needs Maintenance Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ 5. Treatment Building(s) G N/A G Good condition (esp. roof and doorways) G Needs repair G Chemicals and equipment properly stored Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ 6. Monitoring Wells (pump and treatment remedy) G Properly secured/locked G Functioning G Routinely sampled G Good condition G All required wells located G Needs Maintenance G N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ D. Monitoring Data 1. Monitoring Data ■ Is routinely submitted on time ■ Is of acceptable quality 2. Monitoring data suggests: G Groundwater plume is effectively contained G Contaminant concentrations are declining D. Monitored Natural Attenuation - 44 - 1. Monitoring Wells (natural attenuation remedy) G Properly secured/locked G Functioning G Routinely sampled G Good condition G All required wells located G Needs Maintenance ■ N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ X. OTHER REMEDIES Not Applicable XI. OVERALL OBSERVATIONS A. Implementation of the Remedy The remedy is operating as planned. No significant issues noted during the site inspection. B. Adequacy of O&M O&M procedures are being implemented in accordance with the plan, and appear to be adequate. C. Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Problems No significant issues noted during the site inspection. D. Opportunities for Optimization Because the ground water data shows non detects for the PCBs, plugging of the ground water wells will be done. - 45 - APPENDIX 5 Site Interviews - 46 - INTERVIEW RECORD Site Name: Tenth Street Superfund Site EPA ID No.: OKD980620967 Subject: Five-Year Review Time: Date: Contact Made By: Name: Dennis L. Datin Title: Engineer Organization: DEQ Individual Contacted: Name: Robbie Kienzle Title: Urban Redevelopment Specialist Organization: Office of Economic Development OKC Planning Department Telephone No: (405) 297-1740 Fax No: (405) 297-1631 E-Mail Address: robbie.kienzle@okc.gov Street Address: 420 W. Main, 9th Floor City, State, Zip: Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Summary Of Conversation 1. What is your overall impression of the project? (general sentiment) Okay 2. Have there been routine communications or activities (site visits, inspections, reporting activities, etc.) conducted by your office regarding the site? If so, please give purpose and results. Yes, such as possible reuse of the site. 3. Have there been any complaints, violations, or other incidents related to the site requiring a response by your office? If so, please give details of the events and results of the responses. No 4. Do you feel well informed about the site’s activities and progress? Yes 5. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site’s management or operation? She says it would have been better to have removed the waste from the site and will glad for the deed notice to be placed on the site. - 47 - INTERVIEW RECORD Site Name: Tenth Street Superfund Site EPA ID No.: OKD980620967 Subject: Five-Year Review Time: Date: Type: ■ Telephone □ Visit □ Other Location of Visit: □ Incoming □ Outgoing Contact Made By: Name: Dennis L. Datin Title: Engineer Organization: DEQ Individual Contacted: Name: Gayla Scott Title: Neighbor Organization: Telephone No: 405-843-1565 x4 Fax No: E-Mail Address: Street Address: 5613 NW 103rd Place City, State, Zip: Oklahoma City, OK 73162 Summary Of Conversation 1. What is your overall impression of the project? (general sentiment) Okay 2. What effects have site operations had on the surrounding community? The stigma of the site being a superfund site and how that effects the selling of the site. 3. Are you aware of any community concerns regarding the site or its operation and administration? If so, please give details. No 4. Are you aware of any events, incidents, or activities at the site such as vandalism, trespassing, or emergency responses from local authorities? If so, please give details. Some cars in the area have been stolen. 5. Do you feel well informed about the site’s activities and progress? Yes 6. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site’s management or operation? She would like for the address of the site not be same as her fathers house which is right next to the site. - 48 - APPENDIX 6 Community Involvement DEQ Press Release (5/23/2006) - 49 - Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 9:26 AM To: Black Chronicle (E-mail); Capitol Hill Beacon (E-mail); Edmond Sun (E-mail); KFOR TV (E-mail); KKNG/ KTLR/ KTUZ Radio (E-mail); KOCO TV (E-mail); KOKH TV (E-mail); KOMA/KRXO Radio (E-mail); KTOK AM Radio (E-mail); KWTV TV (E-mail); Norman Transcript (E-mail); OETA TV (E-mail); Oklahoma County Newspapers (E-mail); Oklahoma Gazette (E-mail); The Journal Record (E-mail) Subject: DEQ Press Release: 5 year Review for 10th Street Superfund Site News Release Picture (Metafile) 707 North Robinson, P.O. Box 1677, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73101-1677 For Immediate Release: May 23, 2006 Contact: Monty Elder, (405)702-1017 Five-Year Review for the Tenth Street Superfund Site The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began conducting a five-year review of the Tenth Street Superfund Site earlier this month. The purpose of this review is to determine whether the site remedy remains protective of human health and the environment as well as to document the methods, findings, and conclusions of the five-year review in a report. The report will be available to the public in September. This will be the second Five-Year Review for the site. Five Year Reviews of remedies at Superfund sites are required when waste is left in place; in this case, waste was consolidated and capped onsite. The Tenth Street Superfund Site is located in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The Site was used as a municipal landfill from 1951 to 1954. The Site was then used as a salvage yard from 1959 to 1979, accepting materials such as tires, solvents, and transformers. Sampling by the EPA in 1984 and 1985 identified elevated polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) concentrations in the soil. After reviewing the data, EPA determined that the contaminants posed a potential health threat. In 1985 EPA placed a temporary cover on the contaminated soil to address direct human contact threats and the potential for offsite migration of contaminants. The Site was proposed for the National Priorities List (NPL) in January 1987 (52 FR 2492) and placed on the NPL in July 1987 (52 FR 27620). - 50 - Following a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, EPA signed a Record of Decision (ROD) on September 27, 1990. The ROD is a legally binding decision document that directs the remedy for the site. The ROD was amended in 1993 to change the remedy from soil washing to capping. The objective of the amended remedy was the same as the original ROD, to protect human health and the environment by preventing current or future exposure to the contaminated soil through treatment and/or containment, and reducing or controlling the potential migration of contaminants from the soil to groundwater. The selected remedy was to place the contaminated soil under a new cap and to monitor the ground water for PCBs. The remedial action was completed on January 4, 1996. Since that time the State of Oklahoma has been performing operations and maintenance at the site, which included mowing and sampling of the ground water. - 51 -
OCLC number 815521364
Add tags for Second five-year review report for the Tenth Street dump/junkyard Superfund site, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Oklahoma.