HRS DOCUMENTATION RECORD REVIEW COVER SHEET

Transcription

NPL-U32-2-11-R6
HRS DOCUMENTATION RECORD
REVIEW COVER SHEET
Name of Site:
Talen’s Landing Bulk Plant
CONTACT PERSONS
Site Investigation:
Brenda Nixon Cook, EPA Region 6
(Name)
Documentation Record:
Brenda Nixon Cook, EPA Region 6
(Name)
(214) 665-7436
(Telephone)
(214) 665-7436
(Telephone)
Site Description and History:
Talen’s Landing Bulk Plant (TLBP) is an inactive and abandoned crude oil refinery and bulk
storage facility located on the north bank of the Intracoastal Waterway (ICW), near mile marker
193, twenty-three miles northeast of Grand Cheniere, Cameron Parish, Louisiana (Fig. 1; Fig.
2)(Ref. 5, p. 3; Ref. 11, p. 9). The site is comprised of two 5-acre tracts of land, referred to as
the TLBP East and West facilities (Fig. 3)(Ref. 11, p. 9). The TLBP East Facility is bordered to
the north and west by the ICW (north and barge slips), and by wooded wetland areas to the
south and east (Fig. 3A)(Ref. 11, p. 9; Ref. 14, p. 3; Ref. 18, p. 3). The TLBP West Facility is
bordered by a ditch, an unnamed road, and wooded wetland areas to the north and west, by
Talen’s Marine and Fuel (TMF) to the south, and by an open field/parking lot to the east (Fig. 1;
Fig. 3B)(Ref. 11, p. 9; Ref. 13, pp. 41, 47, Photograph Nos. 702, 714; Ref. 14, p. 3; Ref. 18, p.
3). TMF is an active refueling facility and dock (Ref. 11, p. 9; Ref. 14, pp. 4-5). The area
surrounding the site is mainly undeveloped and utilized for hunting and cattle grazing (Ref. 11,
p. 10; Ref. 15, p. 1). The nearest resident or regularly occupied building is the resident manager
of the Jupiter Plant located approximately 1,200 feet northeast of the TLBP West Facility (Fig.
1)(Ref. 11, p. 10; Ref. 14, p. 4).
The TLBP property was owned by Mallard Bay Landing, Inc. Ms. Guillot and Ms. Meaus, the
principals of the corporation, received the property from their father, Charles Talen, in the mid1970s. In the late 1970s, Ms. Guillot leased the property to Mallard Resources, Inc. (MRI) (Ref.
9, p. 3). In early 1980, the newly constructed facility began its operation as a crude oil refinery.
The plant was permitted to accept a maximum of 5,000 barrels of mixed crude oil per day. The
mixed crude oil was refined to produce naphtha, diesel fuel, and No. 6 fuel oil. The facility
1
continued its refining operations until August 1983. In early 1984, MRI filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy. The facility was sold to Cameron Resources, Inc. (CRI), contingent upon obtaining
certification to operate the plant after renovations and repairs were made. In August 1985, CRI
began crude oil refining operations at the facility. In early 1987, CRI began its bankruptcy
proceedings (Ref. 6, p. 8; Ref. 11, pp. 10-11). In April 1987, Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality-Hazardous Waste Division (LDEQ-HWD) performed a general inspection
based on information received that CRI had undergone bankruptcy and that the property was
closed. The inspection revealed that the property was not in operation and negotiations for sale
of the facility were underway (Ref. 9, p. 4). According to the LDEQ-HWD inspection report, CRI
allegedly accepted hazardous waste fuels for which they were not permitted. The report also
indicated that the facility had received styrene, which it tried to process, resulting in serious
problems within the refinery and ultimately leading to its closure (Ref. 6, p. 8; Ref. 7, p. 1; Ref.
8, p. 1; Ref. 9, p. 4; Ref. 11, p. 11). No documentation exists in state records indicating that CRI
sold the facility after the bankruptcy proceedings (Ref. 11, p. 11).
The facility was actively monitored by the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (LDNR)
and LDEQ during its operational years (Ref. 11, pp. 12-13). Based on the information obtained
during the 1993 LDEQ Phase I Site Assessment (SA) inspection, LDEQ referred the site to the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in June 1993 (Ref. 6, p. 1; Ref. 11, p. 13).
The EPA-Response and Prevention Branch (RPB) tasked the Superfund Technical Assessment
and Response Team (START) to conduct a removal assessment at the site (Ref. 9, pp. 1-23;
Ref. 11, p. 13). START conducted site inventory, sample collection, and hazard categorization
of tanks and drums (Ref. 9, p. 8; Ref. 13, pp. 39-41, Photograph Nos. 633-701). Chemical
analyses of drum samples revealed elevated concentrations of benzene, ethylbenzene, styrene,
toluene, xylenes (total), 2-methylnaphthalene, and naphthalene (Ref. 9, pp. 21-22, Ref. 26, pp.
10, 23-24, 33-34). In November 1998, removal support activities began at the site. From
January to March 1999, approximately 866,304 gallons of oil/waste material from on-site tanks
was transported off site for disposal. However, some of the polymerized waste could not be
removed and 152,392 gallons of oil/waste material remain stored in four on-site tanks (Ref. 11,
p. 13; Ref. 28, p. 1). Soil, sediment, and ground water samples were collected during the 1999
START Site Inspection (SI) for source waste characterization (Ref. 11, pp. 28-31). Chemical
analyses of the tank waste sample revealed elevated concentrations of benzene, ethylbenzene,
styrene, toluene, xylenes (total), 2-methylnaphthalene, naphthalene, arsenic, barium, chromium,
cobalt, copper, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, vanadium, and zinc (Ref. 11, pp. 58, 65; Ref.
12, pp. 50, 124, 214-215). Chemical analyses of wetland sediment samples collected from the
second overland flow segment (OFS No. 2) revealed elevated concentrations of arsenic,
barium, copper, manganese, mercury, nickel, vanadium, and zinc. No organic compounds
were present in the samples at concentrations that met the criteria for an observed release (Ref.
11, pp. 62, 87; Ref. 12, pp. 23-26, 114-117, 194-201). A total of 1 mile of contaminated wetland
frontage along the OFS No. 2 was identified by chemical analysis during the 1999 START SI
(Fig. 7; Fig 8)(Ref. 11, pp. 98-101; Ref. 15, pp. 2-3).
2
Pathways, Components, or Threats Not Evaluated
1)
Ground Water Pathway: An observed release has been documented in a rig supply
well at the Jupiter Plant; however, there are no target receptors associated with this well.
An observed release was not documented from the samples collected from the other
wells. Due to the lack of target receptors, evaluation of this pathway will not significantly
affect the site score.
2)
Surface Water Pathway: Ground Water to Surface Water Migration Component:
This component was not scored because an observed release was documented for the
overland flow/flood component.
3)
Air Migration Pathway: Air samples were not collected during the SI field activities;
therefore, an observed release to the air migration pathway cannot be documented.
There are a limited number of targets; therefore, the pathway would result in a minimal
score. Because the value of this pathway will not significantly affect the site score, the
pathway was not scored.
4)
Soil Exposure Pathway: Due to limited residents and nearby population, the pathway
would result in a minimal score. Because evaluation of this pathway will not significantly
affect the site score, it has not been scored.
3
HRS DOCUMENTATION RECORD
Name of Site:
CERCLIS ID Number:
LA0000187518
Site Spill Identifier Number (SSID):
DB
EPA Region:
6
Street Address of Site:
0.6 mile of Cameron Parish Road (PR) 109 in Grand
Cheniere (Fig. 1)
County and State:
Cameron Parish, LA
General Location in the State:
The site is located northeast of the City of Grand
Cheniere in the southwest portion of the state (Fig. 2).
Topographic Map:
Date Prepared: February 16, 2000
Mallard Bay Quadrangle, LA, 1979 (Ref. 5, p. 3)
Latitude: 29° 56' 2.45" N
Longitude: 92° 39' 19.69" W
Scores
Air Pathway
Ground Water Pathway
Soil Exposure Pathway
Surface Water Pathway
HRS SITE SCORE
4
Not Scored
Not Scored
Not Scored
97.09
48.54
Topo worksheet
A copy of this worksheet is available at the EPA Headquarters Superfund Docket:
U.S. CERCLA Docket Office
Crystal Gateway #1, 1st Floor
1235 Jefferson Davis Highway
Arlington, VA 22202
Telephone: (703) 603-8917
E-Mail: [email protected]
5
NOTE TO THE READER
Tracking numbers are assigned by the region to every page of every reference. The tracking
number consists of the reference number followed by the page number within that reference.
A tracking number will have a two-digit number followed by the sequential number (for example,
05 001; 05 002).
The following rules were used when citing references in the HRS (Hazard Ranking System)
package.
1.
The tracking numbers are cited for all references.
2.
Hazardous substances are listed by how they appear in the Superfund Chemical Data
Matrix (SCDM).
3.
Significant figures: Calculations are reported to two significant figures to the right of the
decimal place.
4.
Abbreviations/Conventions used to identify references and citations:
Fig.
Figure
No.
Number
Reference
Ref.
Section
Sec.
Single Page
p.
Multiple Pages
pp.
“;”
Next Reference.
()
Selected acronyms.
6.
List of Figures
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 3A
Figure 3B
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
7.
Site Aliases
Facility Location Map
Facility Location Within State Map
Facility Sketch
East Facility Sketch
West Facility Sketch
Soil and Sediment Background Sample Location Map
Source Characterization Sample Location Map
Surface Water Sediment Sample Location Map
Overland Flow Segment No. 2 Sample Locations
Overland Flow Segment No. 2 Wetland Frontage
Determination
CERCLIS No. LAD000631697
Mallard Resources, Inc. (MRI)
Cameron Resources, Inc. (CRI)
Cameron Refinery
6
ACRONYMS
ASTs
BGS
BPSD
CERLIS
CRI
EPA
hazcat
HWD
HRS
ICW
LDEQ
LDNR
LDWF
MRI
NPDES
NGV
NWI
OFS
PPE
PR
PVC
RPB
RCRA
START
SA
SI
SCDM
SQLs
SSID
TAL
TCL
TDL
TLBP
TMF
TSD
Aboveground Storage Tanks
Below Ground Surface
Barrels Per Stream Day
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
Cameron Resources, Inc.
Environmental Protection Agency
Hazardous Categorization
Hazardous Waste Division
Hazard Ranking System
Intracoastal Waterway
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
Louisiana Department of Natural Resources
Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries
Mallard Resources, Inc.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
National Geodetic Vertical Datum
National Wetlands Inventory
Overland Flow Segment
Probable Point of Entry
Parish Road
Polyvinyl Chloride
Response and Prevention Branch
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team
Site Assessment
Site Inspection
Superfund Chemical Data Matrix
Sample Quantitation Limits
Site Spill Identifier Number
Target Analyte List
Target Compound List
Target Distance Limit
Talen’s Marine and Fuel
Treatment/Storage/Disposal
7
Figure 1
Facility Location Map
A copy of the Facility Location Map, Figure 1, is available at the EPA Headquarters Superfund
Docket:
Arlington, VA 22202
Telephone: (703) 603-8917
8
Figure 2
Facility Location in State
A copy of the Facility Location in the State, Figure 2, is available at the EPA Headquarters
Superfund Docket:
Arlington, VA 22202
Telephone: (703) 603-8917
9
Figure 3
Facility Sketch
A copy of the Facility Sketch, Figure 3, is available at the EPA Headquarters Superfund
Docket:
Arlington, VA 22202
Telephone: (703) 603-8917
10
Figure 3A
East Facility Sketch
A copy of the East Facility Sketch, Figure 3A, is available at the EPA Headquarters
Superfund Docket:
Arlington, VA 22202
Telephone: (703) 603-8917
11
Figure 3B
West Facility Sketch
A copy of the West Facility Sketch, Figure 3B, is available at the EPA Headquarters
Superfund Docket:
Arlington, VA 22202
Telephone: (703) 603-8917
12
Figure 4
Soil and Sediment Background Sample Location Map
A copy of the Soil And Sediment Background Sample Location Map, Figure 4, is available at
the EPA Headquarters Superfund Docket:
Arlington, VA 22202
Telephone: (703) 603-8917
13
Figure 5
Source Characterization Sample Location Map
A copy of the Source Characterization Sample Location Map, Figure 5, is available at the
EPA Headquarters Superfund Docket:
Arlington, VA 22202
Telephone: (703) 603-8917
14
Figure 6
Surface Water Sediment Sample Location Map
A copy of the Surface Water Sediment Sample Location Map, Figure 6, is available at the
EPA Headquarters Superfund Docket:
Arlington, VA 22202
Telephone: (703) 603-8917
15
Figure 7
Overland Flow Segment No. 2 Sample Locations
A copy of the Overland Flow Segment No. 2 Sample Locations Map, Figure 7, is available at
the EPA Headquarters Superfund Docket:
Arlington, VA 22202
Telephone: (703) 603-8917
16
Figure 8
Overland Flow Segment No. 2 Wetland Frontage Determination
A copy of the Overland Flow Segment No. 2 Wetland Frontage Determination Map, Figure 8,
is available at the EPA Headquarters Superfund Docket:
Arlington, VA 22202
Telephone: (703) 603-8917
17
WORKSHEET FOR COMPUTING HRS SITE SCORE
1. Ground Water Migration Pathway Score (Sgw)
(from Table 3-1, line 13)
2a. Surface Water Overland/Flood Migration Component
2b. Ground Water to Surface Water Migration Component
2c. Surface Water Migration Pathway Score (Ssw)
Enter the larger of lines 2a and 2b as the pathway score.
S
S2
NS
NS
97.09
9,426
NS
NS
97.09
9,426
3. Soil Exposure Pathway Score (Ss)
NS
NS
4. Air Migration Pathway Score (Sa)
NS
NS
5. Total of Sgw2 + Ssw2 + Ss2 + Sa2
9,426
6. HRS Site Score Divide the value on line 5
by 4 and take the square root
48.54
NS = Not Scored
18
TABLE 4-1
SURFACE WATER OVERLAND/FLOOD MIGRATION COMPONENT SCORE SHEET
Factor Categories and Factors
Maximum Value
Value Assigned
DRINKING WATER THREAT
Likelihood of Release
1.
2.
Observed Release
Potential to Release by Overland Flow:
2a. Containment
2b. Runoff
2c.
550
10
25
25
Distance to Surface Water
2d.
3.
4.
5.
Potential to Release by Overland Flow
(Lines 2a x [2b + 2c])
Potential to Release by Flood:
3a. Containment (Flood)
3b. Flood Frequency
3c.
Potential to Release by Flood
(Lines 3a x 3b)
Potential to Release
(Lines 2d + 3c, subject to a
maximum of 500)
Likelihood to Release
(Higher of Lines 1 and 4)
500
10
50
500
500
550
NS
*
*
100
NS
Waste Characteristics
6.
7.
8.
Toxicity/Persistence
Hazardous Waste Quantity
Targets
9. Nearest Intake
10. Population:
10a. Level I Concentrations
10b. Level II Concentrations
10c. Potential Contamination
10d. Population (Lines 10a + 10b + 10c)
11. Resources
12. Targets (Lines 9 + 10d + 11)
*
**
***
50
**
**
**
**
5
**
Maximum value applies to waste characteristics category
Maximum value not applicable
Do not round to the nearest integer
19
NS
TABLE 4-1 (Continued)
Maximum Value Value Assigned
DRINKING WATER THREAT (Concluded)
Drinking Water Threat Score
13. Drinking Water Threat Score
([Lines 5 x 8 x 12]/82,500,
subject to a maximum of 100)
100
NS
550
550
HUMAN FOOD CHAIN THREAT
14. Likelihood of Release
(Same value as Line 5)
15. Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation
16. Hazardous Waste Quantity
17. Waste Characteristics
*
*
1,000
2 × 108
100
320
50
20
**
**
**
0
0
3 x 10-7
**
3 x 10-7
Targets
18. Food Chain Individual
19. Population:
19c. Potential Human Food Chain Contamination
19d. Population
(Lines 19a + 19b + 19c)
20. Targets
(Value from Lines 18 + 19d)
**
20.0000003
Human Food Chain Threat Score
21. Human Food Chain Threat Score
([Lines 14 x 17 x 20]/82,500,
*
**
***
100
20
42.67
TABLE 4-1 (Concluded)
Maximum Value
Value Assigned
ENVIRONMENTAL THREAT
22. Likelihood of Release
(Same value as Line 5)
550
550
23. Ecosystem Toxicity/Persistence/
Bioaccumulation
24. Hazardous Waste Quantity
25. Waste Characteristics
*
*
1,000
2 × 108
100
320
Targets
26. Sensitive Environments:
26c. Potential Contamination
26d. Sensitive Environments
(Lines 26a + 26b + 26c)
27. Targets
(Value from Line 26d)
**
**
**
0
25
0.50975
**
25.50975
**
25.50975
Environmental Threat Score
28. Environmental Threat Score
([Lines 22 x 25 x 27]/82,500
60
54.42
SURFACE WATER OVERLAND/FLOOD MIGRATION COMPONENT SCORE FOR A WATERSHED
***
29. WATERSHED SCORE
(Lines 13 + 21 + 28,
100
97.09
SURFACE WATER OVERLAND/FLOOD MIGRATION COMPONENT SCORE
***
30. Component Score (Sof)
(Highest score from Line 29 for all
watersheds evaluated, subject to
a maximum of 100)
*
**
***
100
21
97.09
REFERENCES
Reference
Number
Description of the Reference
1
U.S. EPA Hazard Ranking System (HRS); Final Rule.
pp. 51532-51667. December 14, 1990. Total Pages: 1
2
Superfund Chemical Data Matrix. Appendix B. June 1996. Excerpt Pages: 13
3
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response. Hazard Ranking System Guidance Manual. Publication 9345.1-07,
PB92-963377, EPA 540-R-92-026. November 1992. Excerpt Pages: 5
4
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed
Contamination. U.S. EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response,
Publication 9285.7-14FS. November 1996. Total Pages: 18
5
U.S.G.S. 7.5-Minute Series Topographic Maps. Lake Misere, LA, 1980; Latania
Lake, LA, 1980; Mallard Bay, LA, 1979; Latanier Bayou, LA, 1979; Forked Island
NW, LA, 1979; Grand Cheniere, LA, 1980; Catfish Lake, LA, 1980; Collicon Lake,
LA, 1979; Lake Le Bleu, LA, 1979; Jacks Point Island, LA, 1979; Cow Island, LA,
1979; Deep Lake, LA, 1979; Floating Turf Bayou, LA, 1979. Site Location, 1-Mile
Facility Radius, and 15-Mile Target Distance Limit Arc added by Ecology and
Environment, Inc. Total Pages: 13
6
Site Discovery. Talen’s Landing Bulk Plant Site, Cameron Parish, Louisiana. State
Site ID# SLA00888. From: Tim Knight, State of Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality, Inactive and Abandoned Sites Division. To: LaDonna
Walker, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. June 16, 1993. Total Pages: 9
7
Field Services Site Status Update Form. Talen’s Landing Bulk Plant. IASD ID#
00888. Prepared by Keith Horn, State of Louisiana Department of Environmental
Quality, Inactive and Abandoned Sites Division. May 28, 1996. Total Pages: 1
8
Field Services Site Status Update Form. Talen’s Landing Bulk Plant. IASD ID#
00888. Prepared by Keith Horn, State of Louisiana Department of Environmental
Quality, Inactive and Abandoned Sites Division. April 10, 1997. Total Pages: 2
9
Removal Assessment Report for Talen’s Landing Bulk Plant, Grand Cheniere,
Cameron Parish, Louisiana. LA0000187518. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency by Ecology and Environment, Inc. December 19, 1996. Excerpt
Pages: 23
10
Site Inspection Work Plan for Talen’s Landing Bulk Plant, Grand Cheniere,
Cameron Parish, Louisiana. LA0000187518. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency by Ecology and Environment, Inc. March 16, 1999. Total
Pages: 33
22
40 CFR, Part 300
11
Site Inspection Report for Talen’s Landing Bulk Plant, Grand Cheniere, Cameron
Parish, Louisiana. LA0000187518. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency by Ecology and Environment, Inc. September 15, 1999. Total Pages: 110
12
Data Quality Assurance Review, Laboratory Analysis Data Sheets, Chain of
Custody Record, and SQL Calculations. Talen’s Landing Bulk Plant, Case No.
6S221, SDG No. 99047, Pace Analytical Services, Inc. Prepared by Alma Canning
and Maggie Carson, Ecology and Environment, Inc. May 19, 1999. Total Pages:
304
13
Photograph Documentation. Talen’s Landing Bulk Plant, Removal and Site
Inspection Field Photographs. Ecology and Environment, Inc. June 24, 1997 to
August 26, 1999. Total Pages: 62
14
Talen’s Landing Bulk Plant Site Inspection Logbook, TDD No. S06-99-01-0007,
PAN 076601SIXX. Logbook No. 1. Ecology and Environment, Inc. Total Pages:
36
15
Memorandum. To: Talen’s Landing Bulk Plant (TLBP) Site File. Subject: Field
Observations During the Site Inspection Conducted in March 1999. From: Maxie
Lee, Jr., and David Bordelon, Ecology and Environment, Inc. September 7, 1999.
Total Pages: 3
16
Record of Communication. Subject: Talen’s Landing Bulk Plant. To: Bobby Reed,
LDWF-Lake Charles. From: John Mueller, Ecology and Environment, Inc.
February 2, 1999. Total Pages: 5
17
Soil Survey of Cameron Parish, Louisiana. United States Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with the Louisiana Agriculture
Experiment Station and the Louisiana Soil and Water Committee. Issued April
1995. Excerpt Pages: 5
18
National Wetlands Inventory Maps. Lake Misere, LA, 1992; Latania Lake, LA, 1992;
Mallard Bay, LA, 1992; Latanier Bayou, LA, 1992; Forked Island, NW, LA, 1992;
Grand Chenier, LA, 1992; Catfish Lake, LA, 1992; Collicon Lake, LA, 1992; Lake Le
Bleu, LA, 1992; Cow Island, LA, 1992; Deep Lake, LA, 1992, Floating Turf Bayou,
LA, 1992; Jacks Point Island, LA, 1992; U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and
Wildlife Service. Total Pages: 13
19
Record of Communication. Subject: Commercial Fishing Within 15-mile TDL of
TLBP. To: Bobby Reed, LDWF-District 5. From: Jeff Wright, Ecology and
Environment, Inc. September 13, 1999. Total Pages: 1
20
Letter. Subject: Oil Treatment Facility. To: Muriel Bouzinac, Ecology and
Environment, Inc. From: Gary Lester, Natural Heritage Program, State of Louisiana
Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. February 11, 1999. Total Pages: 1
21
Record of Communication. Subject: Surface Drinking Water Intakes within 15-mile
Radius of Talen’s Site. From: Michael Dowty, Engineering Division - H&H Safe
23
Drinking Water Program (Alexandria).
To: Muriel Bouzinac, Ecology and
Environment, Inc. February 3, 1999. Total Pages: 1
22
Record of Communication. Subject: Habitat for Paddle Fish around Former Talen’s
Landing Bulk. To: Bobby Reed, LDWF. From: Muriel Bouzinac, Ecology and
Environment, Inc. August 25, 1999. Total Pages: 1
23
Memorandum. Subject: Endangered Species - Talen’s Landing (LA0000187518).
To: Charles Fisher, On-Scene Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
F rom: William Kirchner, Professional Wetland Scientist, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. July 19, 1998. Total Pages: 2
24
Interoffice Memorandum. Subject: Quantitation Limit Calculation. To: Jody Shires,
Ecology and Environment, Inc. From: David Anderson, Ecology and Environment,
Inc. July 17, 1998. Total Pages: 5
25
Statement of Work for Sample Analysis (Organic and Inorganic), Multi-media, Multiconcentration. Prepared by Ecology and Environment, Inc. Technical Assistance
Team, EPA Region 6. June 1995. Total Pages: 5
26
Data Quality Assurance Review.
Talen’s Landing Bulk Plant.
CERCLIS
LA0000187518. Case No. 117183, SDG No. 97114. Prepared by William Perry,
Ecology and Environment, Inc. December 19, 1997. Total Pages: 35
27
Talen’s Landing Removal Logbooks 1 and 2. TDD No. S06-96-07-0013, PAN
017401SFXX. Ecology and Environment, Inc. August 13, 1996 to August 19, 1997
(Logbook 1), August 10, 1997 to August 14, 1997 (Logbook 2). Total Pages: 77
28
Letter. Subject: Transportation and Disposal of Remaining Material at Talen’s
Landing Bulk Plant. To: Charles Fisher, Environmental Protection Agency. From:
Jon Howley, CET Environmental Services, Inc. April 9, 1999. Total Pages: 1
29
Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United States for Durations from 30 Minutes to 24
Hours and Return Periods from 1 to 100 Years. Technical Paper No. 40. David M.
Hershfield, U.S. Department of Agriculture. May 1961. Total Pages: 2
30
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
Mallard Resources, Inc.
Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Division of Water Pollution Control.
Received July 21, 1980. Total Pages: 3
31
Fact Sheet. Subject: Proposed NPDES Permit for Mallard Resources, Inc. United
States Environmental Protection Agency. Not Dated. Total Pages: 4
32
Letter. Re: LAD00036197. To: Tome McCrary, Mallard Resources, Inc. From:
Tom Patterson, Louisiana Department of Natural Resources Hazardous Waste
Management Division. February 12, 1982. Total Pages: 2
24
33
Citizens’ Complaint Record. Assigned to: Victor Montelaro, Louisiana Department
of Natural Resources Hazardous Waste Regulation. Complaint Received: April 13,
1982. Total Pages: 1
34
Letter. Subject: Mallard Resources, Inc. To: Dale Givens, Mallard Resources, Inc.
From: Richard Goudeau, Environmental Affairs, LDNR Water Pollution Control
Division. April 22, 1982. Total Pages: 2
35
RCRA Inspection. Mallard Resources, Inc. LAD000631697. January 18, 1983.
Total Pages: 2
36
General Inspection. Mallard Resources. Louisiana Department of Environmental
Quality, Office of Solid and Hazardous Waste Division. Inspection Date: April 13,
37
Letter. Subject: Compliance to Notice Issued June 10, 1985. LAD000631697. To:
Timothy Linscomb, Cameron Refinery. From: John Koury, Louisiana Department
of Environmental Quality, Office of Solid and Hazardous Waste. June 20, 1985.
Total Pages: 3
38
Interoffice Correspondence. Subject: Cameron Refinery (LAD000631697). To:
Tom Patterson, Enforcement Program Management, Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality. From: Victor Montelaro, Southwest Region, Enforcement
Section, Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. May 11, 1987. Total
Pages: 1
39
Crude Oil Basic Excerpt Pages Handout. Refer to References. October 1995.
Total Pages: 14
40
Shreve’s Chemical Process Industries, Fifth Edition. George Austin. McGraw-Hill
Book Company. 1984. Total Pages: 3
41
Occupational Health Guidelines for Chemical Hazards. Mackinson, Stricoff, and
Partridge. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department
of Labor. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. DHHS (NIOSH).
Publication No. 81-123. January 1981. Total Pages: 18
42
Chemical Hazards of the Workplace.
Company. 1978. Total Pages: 6
43
Sector Notebook Project. Petroleum Refining. US Environmental Protection
Agency. SIC 2911. September 1995. Excerpt Pages: 9
44
Mercury in Petroleum. Reprinted from Fuel Processing Technology 63 (2000) 1-27.
S. Mark Wilhelm, Mercury Technology Services and Nicolas Bloom, Frontier
25
Proctor and Hughes. J.B. Lippincott
Geosciences. September 30, 1999. Excerpt Pages: 6
45
U.S. Environmetnal Protection Agency Office of General Counsel. Applicability of
CERCLA to Contamination of Ground Water by Diesel Oil. December 1982. Total
Pages 4.
46
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Federal Register 40 CFR Parts 117 and
302. Notification Requirements; Reportable Quantity Adjustments. Final Rule.
April 1985. Total Pages 1.
47
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response. Scope of the CERCLA Petroleum Exclusion under Sections 101(14)
and 104(A)(2). Publication PB91-139550. July 1987. Total Pages: 7.
48
US v. Western Processing. United States District Court for the Western District
of Washington. March 22, 1999. Total Pages: 30
49
Record of Communication. Subject: Jupiter Plant Operations. From: Andrea
West, START-Dallas. To: Cindy Nunez, Spirit 76 Energy Plant. April 10, 2000.
Total Pages: 1
50
AutoCAD® 2000 User’s Guide. Autodesk, Inc. 00120-010000-5010. February 5,
26
SD-Source Characterization
Source No.: 1
SOURCE DESCRIPTION
2.2 SOURCE CHARACTERIZATION
2.2.1 Source Identification
The following information corresponds to the first source identified for this documentation
record.
Number of the source : Source No. 1
Name and description of the source: TLBP East Facility Tanks T01, T02, T03, and T07
During the August 1997 START removal assessment sampling mission, START inventoried 34
aboveground storage tanks (ASTs), three underground oil-water separators, and two hoppers
at the facility (Fig. 3)(Ref. 9, p. 8). In November 1998, removal support activities began at the
site. From January to March 1999, approximately 866,304 gallons of material collected from 30
tanks was transported off site for disposal (Ref. 11, p. 13). At the time of the 1999 SI,
approximately 152,392 gallons of material remained at the TLBP East Facility in four ASTs: T01,
T02, T03, and T07 (Ref. 11, p. 13). The remaining material is a thick, oily-sludge polymerized
waste that could not be removed during the removal (Ref. 11, pp. 13-14; Ref. 28, p. 1).
Chemical analyses of representative tank waste sample TLE-WS1-RG from T01 revealed
elevated concentrations of benzene, ethylbenzene, styrene, toluene, xylenes (total), 2methylnaphthalene, naphthalene, arsenic, barium, chromium, copper, lead, manganese,
mercury, nickel, vanadium, and zinc equal to or greater than their corresponding sample
quantitation limits (SQLs) (Fig. 5)(Ref. 10, p. 25; Ref. 11, pp. 28, 58, 65; Ref. 12, pp. 50, 124,
214-215; Ref. 14, p. 22).
The four ASTs are surrounded by a secondary earthen containment berm (Ref. 11, p. 14; Ref.
13, pp. 6, 8-10, 18, Photograph Nos. 111, 116-118, 120, 212). There is no historical or visual
evidence that the containment system was lined. The earthen berm is heavily vegetated with
no evidence of maintenance. During the 1999 START SI field activities, a breech/cut in the
northwestern side of the earthen berm was noted, but no liquids were observed escaping.
However, standing water was present in the southeastern portion of the berm area and material
was observed seeping through the south side of the berm where wetlands are identified. There
was approximately 2 feet of freeboard remaining within the containment area (Fig. 3A)(Ref. 9,
p. 6; Ref. 11, p. 14; Ref. 13, pp. 11, 17, 20-21, 28, Photograph Nos. 122, 210, 217-218, 310-312;
p. 53, Photograph No. 106; Ref. 15, pp. 2-3).
CLocation of the source, with reference to a map of the site :
Source No. 1 is located in the tank battery of the East Facility of the TLBP site (Fig. 3; Fig.
27
Source No.: 1
3A)(Ref. 11, p. 14). The TLBP East Facility is a 5-acre area bordered on the west by the ICW
(north and south barge slips), by wooded wetlands to the south and east, and by an unnamed
road to the north. A dirt road runs along the east boundary of the facility. The tank battery
consists of seven vertically oriented ASTs and two horizontally oriented ASTs, all of which are
contained within an earthen berm. The East Facility has a locked gate which is bound to an 8foot-high, chain-link fence. It can be accessed by PR 109 (South Talen’s Landing Road)(Ref.
9, pp. 5-6; Ref. 11, p. 9; Ref. 13, p. 50, Photograph No. 719).
CSource Type for HRS evaluation purposes: Tank
CContainment
Gas release to air: The air migration pathway was not scored; therefore, gas release to air
containment was not evaluated.
Particulate release to air: The air migration pathway was not scored; therefore, particulate
Release to ground water: The ground water migration pathway was not scored; therefore,
ground water containment was not evaluated.
Release via overland migration and/or floo d : The four ASTs are surrounded by a
secondary earthen containment berm (Ref. 11, p. 14; Ref. 13, pp. 6, 8-10, 18, Photograph
Nos. 111, 116-118, 120, 212). There is no historical or visual evidence that the containment
system was lined. The earthen berm is heavily vegetated with no evidence of maintenance.
During the 1999 START SI field activities, a breech/cut in the northwestern side of the
earthen berm was noted, but no liquids were observed escaping. However, standing water
was present in the southeastern portion of the berm area and material was observed
seeping through the south side of the berm where wetlands are identified (Fig. 3A)(Ref. 9,
p. 6; Ref. 11, p. 14; Ref. 15, pp. 2-3). Analytical results of sediment samples collected from
these wetlands revealed elevated concentrations of arsenic, barium, copper, manganese,
mercury, nickel, vanadium, and zinc that met the observed release criteria. See Sec.
4.1.2.1 of this documentation record for additional analytical evidence. This source receives
a containment value greater than (>) 0 (Ref. 1, Table 4-2).
2.2.2 Hazardous Substances Associated with a Source
The 17 substances listed in the following pages were present in the waste sample collected
from T01 during the 1999 START SI. The sample contained concentrations of hazardous
substances equal to or greater than their corresponding SQLs (Ref. 11, pp. 58, 65; Ref. 12, pp.
50, 124, 214-215).
28
Source No.: 1
EVIDENCE TABLE: 1999 START SI
The following tables show the hazardous substances detected in the waste sample collected
during the 1999 START SI sampling mission. The sample contained concentrations of
hazardous substances equal to or greater than their corresponding SQLs (Ref. 11, pp. 58, 65;
Ref. 12, pp. 50, 124, 214-215). The sample was analyzed for Target Compound List (TCL)
volatiles, TCL semivolatiles, and Target Analyte List (TAL) metals (Ref. 12, p. 290).
Hazardous Substance
Evidence
Reference
TCL Volatiles
Benzene
1999 START SI Report
Refer to Source No. 1 Source Characterization Tables
Section 2.2.2
Ref. 11, p. 65;
Ref. 12, p. 124
Ethylbenzene
Section 2.2.2
Ref. 11, p. 65;
Ref. 12, p. 124
Styrene
Section 2.2.2
Ref. 11, p. 65;
Ref. 12, p. 124
Toluene
Section 2.2.2
Ref. 11, p. 65;
Ref. 12, p. 124
Xylenes (total)
Section 2.2.2
Ref. 11, p. 65;
Ref. 12, p. 124
2-Methylnaphthalene
Section 2.2.2
Ref. 11, p. 65;
Ref. 12, pp. 214215
Naphthalene
Section 2.2.2
Ref. 11, p. 65;
Ref. 12, pp. 214215
Section 2.2.2
Ref. 11, p. 65;
Ref. 12, p. 50
TCL Semivolatiles
TAL Metals
Arsenic
29
Source No.: 1
Hazardous Substance
Evidence
Reference
Barium
Section 2.2.2
Ref. 11, p. 65;
Ref. 12, p. 50
Chromium
Section 2.2.2
Ref. 11, p. 65;
Ref. 12, p. 50
Copper
Section 2.2.2
Ref. 11, p. 65;
Ref. 12, p. 50
Lead
Section 2.2.2
Ref. 11, p. 65;
Ref. 12, p. 50
Manganese
Section 2.2.2
Ref. 11, p. 65;
Ref. 12, p. 50
Mercury
Section 2.2.2
Ref. 11, p. 65;
Ref. 12, p. 50
Nickel
Section 2.2.2
Ref. 11, p. 65;
Ref. 12, p. 50
Vanadium
Section 2.2.2
Ref. 11, p. 65;
Ref. 12, p. 50
Zinc
Section 2.2.2
Ref. 11, p. 65;
Ref. 12, p. 50
30
Source No.: 1
Evidence Sample - TLBP East Facility Tanks
Sample No. TLE-WS1-RG
(mg/kg)
Hazardous Substance
Conc.
SQL
Benzene
1,420
100
Ethylbenzene
2,040
100
Styrene
3,010
100
Toluene
4,600
100
Xylenes (total)
12,400
100
2-Methylnaphthalene
724
500
Naphthalene
954
500
Arsenic
14.40
1
Barium
225
20
Chromium
185
1
59.20
2.50
327 JK
(227.08)
0.30
Manganese
146
1.50
Mercury
4.47
0.10
Nickel
16.20
4
Vanadium
17.90
5
647
2
TCL Volatiles
TCL Semivolatiles
TAL Metals
Copper
Lead
Zinc
REFERENCES
Form I’s
Ref. 12, pp. 50, 124, 214-215
Chain of Custody
Ref. 12, p. 290
Data Evaluation
Ref. 12, pp. 1-10, 96-111, 184-189
SQLs
Ref. 12, pp. 50, 124, 214-215
Other Supporting References
Fig. 5
Notes and Qualifiers:
Conc:
Concentration
mg/kg: Milligrams per kilogram
SQL:
Sample Quantitation Limit
Underlined numbers denote that concentration meets observed contamination.
Adjusted Factors (Ref. 4, pp. 8, 18, Table 4)
Lead : 1.44
31
Source No.: 1
Sample Source Characterization for Source #1
Hazardous Substances Associated with a Source
Available to Pathway
Surface Water
(SW)
Air Pathway
Soil Exposure
Gas
Particulate
Ground
Water
(GW)
Benzene
NS
NS
NS
Y
NS
NS
NS
Ethylbenzene
NS
NS
NS
Y
NS
NS
NS
Styrene
NS
NS
NS
Y
NS
NS
NS
Toluene
NS
NS
NS
Y
NS
NS
NS
Xylenes (total)
NS
NS
NS
Y
NS
NS
NS
2-Methylnaphthalene
NS
NS
NS
Y
NS
NS
NS
Naphthalene
NS
NS
NS
Y
NS
NS
NS
Arsenic
NS
NS
NS
Y
NS
NS
NS
Barium
NS
NS
NS
Y
NS
NS
NS
Chromium
NS
NS
NS
Y
NS
NS
NS
Copper
NS
NS
NS
Y
NS
NS
NS
Lead
NS
NS
NS
Y
NS
NS
NS
Manganese
NS
NS
NS
Y
NS
NS
NS
Mercury
NS
NS
NS
Y
NS
NS
NS
Nickel
NS
NS
NS
Y
NS
NS
NS
Vanadium
NS
NS
NS
Y
NS
NS
NS
Zinc
NS
NS
NS
Y
NS
NS
NS
Hazardous
Substances
Overland/
Flood
GW to
SW
Resident
Nearby
TCL Volatiles
TCL Semivolatiles
TAL Metals
Key:
NS = Not Scored
Y = Yes
32
Source No.: 1
2.2.3 Hazardous Substances Available to a Pathway
Because containment for this source is greater than zero, the following substances associated
with the source can migrate via the Surface Water Pathway (Ref. 1, Sec. 4.1.2.1.2.2.1):
CBenzene
CEthylbenzene
CStyrene
CToluene
CXylenes (total)
C2-Methylnaphthalene
CNaphthalene
CArsenic
CBarium
CChromium
CCopper
CLead
CManganese
CMercury
CNickel
CVanadium
CZinc
Furthermore, sediment samples collected at the Probable Point of Entry No. 3 (PPE 3) and from
the on-site wetlands confirm that the following hazardous substances have already migrated to
the Surface Water Migration Pathway (see Sec. 4.1.2.1 of this Documentation Record) (Ref. 11,
p. 87; Ref. 12, pp. 23-25, 114-117, 194-201):
CArsenic
CBarium
CCopper
CManganese
CMercury
CNickel
CVanadium
CZinc
2.3 LIKELIHOOD OF RELEASE
Refer to Sec. 4.1.2.1 of this documentation record for specific information related to the
Likelihood of Release to the Surface Water Migration Pathway.
33
Source No.: 1
2.4 WASTE CHARACTERISTICS
2.4.1 Selection of Substances Potentially Posing Greatest Hazard
The hazardous substances benzene, ethylbenzene, styrene, toluene, xylenes (total),
2-methylnaphthalene, naphthalene, arsenic, barium, chromium, copper, lead, manganese,
mercury, nickel, vanadium, and zinc are the substances associated with this source posing the
greatest hazard. They were detected at concentrations equal to or greater than their
corresponding SQLs or are present in a source with containment greater than zero.
Specific toxicity factors, HRS Sec. 2.4.1.1, and selection of the hazardous substances with the
highest combined factor values (toxicity, mobility, persistence, and bioaccumulation), HRS
Sec. 2.4.1.2, are presented under the Surface Water Migration Pathway section of this
documentation record.
34
SD-Hazardous constituent Quantity
Source No.: 1
2.4.2 Hazardous Waste Quantity
2.4.2.1.1 Hazardous Constituent Quantity
Insufficient data are available to evaluate a Hazardous Constituent Quantity according to the
HRS (Ref. 1, Sec. 2.4.2.1.1). A Hazardous Constituent Quantity Value is not assigned
according to the available data (in this case, none), and scoring proceeds to the evaluation of
Hazardous Wastestream Quantity (Surface Water Pathway) according to the HRS (Ref. 1, Sec.
2.4.2.1.2).
Hazardous Substance
Constituent Quantity
(pounds) (Mass-s)
Reference
NC
NC
NC
NC: Not Calculated
Hazardous Constituent Quantity Value (S): NC
Are the data complete for hazardous constituent quantity for this area..... No
2.4.2.1.2 Hazardous Wastestream Quantity
Insufficient data are available to evaluate a Hazardous Wastestream Quantity (Surface Water
Pathway) according to the HRS (Ref. 1, Sec. 2.4.2.1.2). A Hazardous Wastestream Value is
not assigned according to the available data (in this case, none), and scoring proceeds to an
evaluation of volume according to the HRS (Ref. 1, Sec. 2.4.2.1.3).
Hazardous Wastestream
Quantity (pounds)
Reference
NC
NC
NC
NC: Not Calculated
Hazardous Wastestream Quantity Value (W): NC
Are the data complete for hazardous constituent quantity for this area...No
35
SD-Volume
Source No.: 1
2.4.2.1.3 Volume
At the time of the 1999 SI, there were approximately 152,392 gallons [754.51 cubic yards (yd3)]
of material remaining on site in four aboveground storage tanks: T01, T02, T03, and T07. The
remaining material is a thick, oily-sludge polymerized waste that could not be removed during
the removal.
According to the HRS Table 2-5, the divisor for tanks is V ÷ 2.5
754.51 yd3 ÷ 2.5 = 301.80
Dimension of source (yd3): 754.51
Reference(s): Ref. 1, Table 2-5; Ref. 11, pp. 13-14; Ref. 28, p. 1
Volume Assigned Value: 301.80
36
SD-Area
Source No.: 1
2.4.2.1.4 Area
Because the volume of Source No. 1 can be determined, the area is not evaluated.
Area of source (ft2): NC
Reference(s): Ref. 1, Table 2-5, p. 51591
Area Assigned Value: NC
Are the data complete for area quantity for this area?...No
37
SD-Hazardous Constituent Quantity
Source No.: 1
2.4.2.1.5 Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value
Source No. 1, TLBP East Facility Tanks T01, T02, T03, and T07
Surface Water,
Ground Water and Air
Pathways
Soil Exposure
Pathway
(Ref. 1,
Sec. 5.2.2.2)
Tier A
NC
NC
Tier B
NC
NC
Tier C
301.80
NC
Tier D
NC
NC
301.80
NC
Measures
Assigned Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value
(Ref. 1, Sec. 2.4.2.1.5)
NC = Not calculated
The highest value assigned to either Tier A, Tier B, Tier C, or Tier D is assigned as the
Source No. 1 Hazardous Waste Quantity Value (Ref. 1, Section 2.4.2.1.5). The highest value
assigned is Tier C.
Source No. 1 Hazardous Waste Quantity Value: 301.80
38
Source No.:2
SOURCE DESCRIPTION
The following information corresponds to the second source identified for this documentation
record.
Name and description of the source: Contaminated Soil (East Facility’s Tank Battery)
The contaminated soil associated with the TLBP East Facility Tank Battery is located within the
earthen berm that surrounds Source No. 1 (ASTs T01, T02, T03, and T07)(Fig. 3; Fig. 3A; Fig.
5)(Ref. 11, pp. 14-15; Ref. 13, pp. 10, 29, Photograph Nos. 120, 312). The areal extent of
Source No. 5 contaminated soils was estimated to be 55,161 ft2 (Ref. 11, p. 15; Ref. 15, p. 2).
The earthen berm is heavily vegetated with no evidence of maintenance. During the 1999
START SI field activities, a breech/cut in the northwestern side of the earthen berm was noted,
but no liquids were observed escaping. However, standing water was present in the
southeastern portion of the bermed area and material was observed seeping through the south
side of the berm where wetlands are identified. There was approximately 2 feet of freeboard
remaining within the containment area (Fig. 3A; Fig. 5)(Ref. 9, p. 6; Ref. 11, p. 14; Ref. 13, pp.
11, 20, 21, Photograph Nos. 122, 216-218; p. 53, Photograph No. 106; Ref. 15, pp. 2-3).
Three surface soil samples (TLE-SS1-AG, TLE-SS3-AG, and TLE-SS7-AG) at a depth of 0 to
6 inches BGS and one collocated subsurface sample (TLE-SS1-DG) at a depth of 6 to 24
inches BGS were collected (Ref. 10, pp. 25, 27; Ref. 13, pp. 52-52, Photograph Nos. 104, 105).
The subsurface sample was collected to characterize the nature and extent of site-related
contaminants (Fig. 5)(Ref. 11, p. 58). Chemical analyses of the surface soil samples revealed
elevated concentrations of benzene, ethylbenzene, styrene, toluene, xylenes (total), arsenic,
barium, chromium, copper, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, vanadium, and zinc equal to or
greater than their corresponding SQLs (Ref. 11, pp. 58-59; Ref. 12, pp. 38-40, 42, 119-120, 122123). Chemical analyses of the subsurface sample revealed elevated concentrations of xylenes
(total), arsenic, barium, chromium, copper, lead, manganese, nickel, vanadium, and zinc equal
to or greater than their corresponding SQLs (Ref. 11, pp. 58-59; Ref. 12, pp. 38-40, 42, 119-120,
122-123).
Location of the source, with reference to a map of the site :
Source No. 2 is located in the tank battery in the East Facility of the TLBP site (Fig. 3; Fig.
3A)(Ref. 11, p. 14). The TLBP East Facility is a 5-acre area bordered to the west by the ICW
(north and south barge slips), by wooded wetlands to the south and east, and by an unnamed
road to the north. A dirt road runs along the east boundary of the facility. The tank battery
39
Source No.:2
consists of seven vertically oriented ASTs and two horizontally oriented ASTs, all of which are
contained within an earthen berm. The East Facility has a locked gate which is bound to an 8foot-high, chain-link fence. It can be accessed by PR 109 (South Talen’s Landing Road)(Ref.
9, pp. 5-6; Ref. 11, p. 9; Ref. 13, p. 50, Photograph No. 719).
Source Type for HRS evaluation purposes: Contaminated soil
Containment
Release via overland migration and/or flood: There is no documentation or evidence to
indicate that the contaminated soil area had a maintained run-on control system or runoff
management system, or an engineered cover (Ref. 11, p. 14; Ref. 15, p. 2). The earthen berm
area is heavily vegetated with no evidence of maintenance. During the 1999 START SI field
activities, a breech/cut in the northwestern side of the earthen berm was noted, but no liquids
were observed escaping. However, standing water was present in the southeastern portion
of the bermed area and material was observed seeping through the south side of the berm
where wetlands are identified (Fig. 3A)(Ref. 9, p. 6; Ref. 11, p. 14; Ref. 13, pp. 11, 20, 21,
Photograph Nos. 122, 216-218; p. 45, Photograph No. 106; Ref. 15, pp. 2-3). Analytical results
of samples collected from these wetlands revealed elevated concentrations of arsenic, barium,
copper, manganese, mercury, nickel, vanadium, and zinc. See Sec. 4.1.2.1 of this
documentation record for additional analytical evidence. This source receives a containment
value of >0 (Ref. 1, Table 4-2).
The substances associated with this source include benzene, ethylbenzene, styrene, toluene,
xylenes (total), arsenic, barium, chromium, copper, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel,
vanadium, and zinc. The samples contained concentrations of hazardous substances equal
to or greater than their corresponding SQLs (Ref. 11, pp. 58-59, Ref. 12, pp. 38-40, 42, 119-120,
122-123).
40
Source No.:2
C EVIDENCE TABLE: 1999 START SI Report
The following tables show the hazardous substances detected at elevated concentrations in soil
samples collected during the 1999 START SI sampling mission. The sample was analyzed for
TCL volatiles, TCL semivolatiles, and TAL metals (Ref. 12, pp. 292, 296).
Hazardous
Substance
Evidence
Reference
TCL Volatiles
Benzene
Refer to Source No. 2 Source Characterization Tables,
Section 2.2.2
Ref. 11, p. 73;
Ref. 12, pp. 119, 123
Ethylbenzene
Section 2.2.2
Ref. 11, p. 73;
Ref. 12, pp. 119, 123
Styrene
Section 2.2.2
Ref. 11, p. 73;
Ref. 12, pp. 119, 123
Toluene
Section 2.2.2
Ref. 11, p. 73;
Ref. 12, pp. 119, 123
Xylenes (total)
Section 2.2.2
Ref. 11, p. 73;
Ref. 12, pp. 119, 123
Arsenic
Section 2.2.2
Ref. 11, p. 74;
Ref. 12, pp. 38-40, 42
Barium
Section 2.2.2
Ref. 11, p. 74;
Ref. 12, pp. 38-40, 42
Chromium
Section 2.2.2
Ref. 11, p. 74;
Ref. 12, pp. 38-40, 42
Copper
Section 2.2.2
Ref. 11, p. 74;
Ref. 12, pp. 38-40, 42
Lead
Section 2.2.2
Ref. 11, p. 74;
Ref. 12, pp. 38-40, 42
TAL Metals
41
Source No.: 2
Hazardous
Substance
Evidence
Reference
Manganese
Section 2.2.2
Ref. 11, p. 74;
Ref. 12, pp. 38-40, 42
Mercury
Section 2.2.2
Ref. 11, p. 74;
Ref. 12, pp. 38-40, 42
Nickel
Section 2.2.2
Ref. 11, p. 74;
Ref. 12, pp. 38-40, 42
Vanadium
Section 2.2.2
Ref. 11, p. 74;
Ref. 12, pp. 38-40, 42
Zinc
Section 2.2.2
Ref. 11, p. 74;
Ref. 12, pp. 38-40, 42
42
Source No.:2
Evidence Samples - Contaminated Soil (East Facility Tank Battery)
0 to 6 inches SURFACE
Sample No.
TLE-SS1-AG
(mg/kg)
Hazardous
Substance
Conc.
Sample No.
TLE-SS3-AG
(mg/kg)
SQL
Conc.
6 to 24 inches
SUBSURFACE
Sample No.
TLE-SS7-AG
(mg/kg)
SQL
Conc.
Sample No.
TLE-SS1-DG
(mg/kg)
SQL
Conc.
SQL
TCL Volatiles
Benzene
4.96
1.40
ND
0.63
3.39 JH
(1.72)
0.82
ND
1.15
13.30
1.40
ND
0.63
5.57 JH
(0.56)
0.82
ND
1.15
Styrene
3.92
1.40
ND
0.63
2.53 JH
(0.25)
0.82
ND
1.15
Toluene
7.82
1.40
ND
0.63
19.30 JH
(11.84)
0.82
ND
1.15
11.90
1.40
ND
0.63
7.39 JH
(0.74)
0.82
2.46
1.15
Arsenic
3.38
1.33
2.52
1.35
2.15
1.39
2.15
1.19
Barium
154
26.60
180
27
111
27.80
174
23.80
Chromium
13.2
1.33
17.80
1.35
7.76
1.39
5.56
1.19
Copper
7.50
3.33
9.88
3.37
5.73
3.47
4.33
2.97
16.5 JK
(11.46)
0.40
23.40 JK
(16.25)
0.41
9.12 JK
(6.33)
0.42
5.26 JK
(3.65)
0.36
Manganese
168
2
292
2.03
136
2.08
101
1.78
Mercury
0.15
0.13
0.40
0.14
0.20
0.14
ND
0.12
Nickel
7.39
5.32
5.82
5.40
5.66
5.56
6.70
4.76
11.70
6.65
11.10
6.75
8.77
6.95
8.90
5.95
205
2.66
192
2.70
150
2.78
59.90
2.38
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes (Total)
TAL Metals
Lead
Vanadium
Zinc
43
Source No. 2
Evidence Samples - Contaminated Soil (East Facility Tank Battery)
0 to 6 inches SURFACE
Sample No.
TLE-SS1-AG
(mg/kg)
Hazardous
Substance
Conc.
6 to 24 inches
SUBSURFACE
Sample No.
TLE-SS3-AG
(mg/kg)
SQL
Conc.
Sample No.
TLE-SS7-AG
(mg/kg)
SQL
Conc.
SQL
Sample No.
TLE-SS1-DG
(mg/kg)
Conc.
SQL
REFERENCES
Chain of Custody
Ref. 12, pp. 292, 296
Ref. 12, pp. 292, 296
Ref. 12, pp. 292, 296
Ref. 12, pp. 292,
296
Data Evaluation
Ref. 12, pp. 1-10,
96-111
Ref. 12, pp. 1-10,
96-111
Ref. 12, pp. 1-10, 96-111
Ref. 12, pp. 1-10,
96-111
Form I’s
Ref. 12, pp. 38, 119
Ref. 12, pp. 42, 122
Ref. 12, pp. 40, 123
Ref. 12, pp. 39, 120
SQLs
Ref. 12, pp. 38, 119
Ref. 12, pp. 42, 122
Ref. 12, pp. 40, 123
Ref. 12, pp. 39, 120
Other Supporting
References
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Conc:
Concentration
JK:
Estimated concentration, assuming unknown bias
JH:
Estimated concentration, assuming high bias
Max:
Maximum
ND:
Not Detected
SQL:
Sample Quantitation Limit
(
) :
Adjusted concentration for “J” data utilizing Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed
Contamination
*:
(Ref. 4, p. 8)
If the background concentration is not detected (or is less than the detection limit), the SQL is used (Ref. 1, p. 51589).
Adjusted Factors (Ref. 4, pp. 8, 11-12, 18, Tables 1, 4)
Benzene:
1.97
Ethylbenzene:
10
Styrene:
10
Toluene:
1.63
Xylenes (total):
10
Lead :
1.44
44
Source No.2
Surface Water
Air Pathway
(SW)
Ground
Hazardous
Soil Exposure
GW
Parti-
Water
Overland
to
Gas
culate
(GW)
/Flood
SW
Resident
Nearby
Benzene
NS
NS
NS
Y
NS
NS
NS
Ethylbenzene
NS
NS
NS
Y
NS
NS
NS
Styrene
NS
NS
NS
Y
NS
NS
NS
Toluene
NS
NS
NS
Y
NS
NS
NS
Xylenes (total)
NS
NS
NS
Y
NS
NS
NS
Arsenic
NS
NS
NS
Y
NS
NS
NS
Barium
NS
NS
NS
Y
NS
NS
NS
Chromium
NS
NS
NS
Y
NS
NS
NS
Copper
NS
NS
NS
Y
NS
NS
NS
Lead
NS
NS
NS
Y
NS
NS
NS
Manganese
NS
NS
NS
Y
NS
NS
NS
Mercury
NS
NS
NS
Y
NS
NS
NS
Nickel
NS
NS
NS
Y
NS
NS
NS
Vanadium
NS
NS
NS
Y
NS
NS
NS
Zinc
NS
NS
NS
Y
NS
NS
NS
Substances
TCL Volatiles
TAL Metals
Key:
NS = Not Scored
Y = Yes
45
Source No.2
CBenzene
CEthylbenzene
CStyrene
CToluene
CXylenes (total)
CArsenic
CBarium
CChromium
CCopper
CLead
CManganese
CMercury
CNickel
CVanadium
CZinc
Furthermore, sediment samples collected at PPE 3 and from on-site wetlands confirm that the
following hazardous substances have already migrated to the Surface Water Migration Pathway
(see Sec. 4.1.2.1 of this Documentation Record) (Ref. 11, p. 87; Ref. 12, pp. 25-28; 116-119,
194-201):
CArsenic
CBarium
CCopper
CManganese
CMercury
CNickel
CVanadium
CZinc
46
Source No.2
2.4.1 Selection of Substance Potentially Posing Greatest Hazard
The hazardous substances benzene, ethylbenzene, styrene, toluene, xylenes (total), arsenic,
barium, chromium, copper, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, vanadium, and zinc are the
substances associated with this source. They were detected at concentrations equal to or
greater than their corresponding SQLs or are present in a source with containment greater than
zero.
47
Source No.: 2
Insufficient data are available to evaluate a Hazardous Constituent Quantity according to the HRS
(Ref. 1, Sec. 2.4.2.1.1). A Hazardous Constituent Quantity Value is not assigned according to
the available data (in this case, none), and scoring proceeds to the evaluation of Hazardous
Wastestream Quantity (Surface Water Pathway) according to the HRS (Ref. 1, Sec. 2.4.2.1.2).
Hazardous Substance
(pounds) (Mass-s)
Reference
NC
NC
NC
NC: Not Calculated
Pathway) according to the HRS (Ref. 1, Sec. 2.4.2.1.2). A Hazardous Wastestream Value is not
assigned according to the available data (in this case, none), and scoring proceeds to an
Quantity (pounds)
Reference
NC
NC
NC
NC: Not Calculated
48
SD-Volume
Source No.: 2
2.4.2.1.3 Volume
The information available is not sufficient to evaluate Tier C; therefore, it is not possible to
adequately determine a source volume (Tier C) in cubic yards (yd3) for Source No. 2 (Ref. 1,
Sec. 2.4.2.1.3, p. 51591). As a result, the evaluation of source volume proceeds to the evaluation
of Tier D, source area (Ref. 1, Sec. 2.4.2.1.4, p. 51591).
Dimension of source (yd3 or gallons): NC
Reference(s): NC
Volume Assigned Value: NC
Are the data complete for volume quantity for this area?...No
49
SD-Area
Source No.: 2
2.4.2.1.4 Area
Four representative soil samples were collected from an area (berm area) with similar soil type.
During the 1999 Start SI reconnaissance, the areal extent of the East Facility tank battery was
measured to be approximately 55,161 ft2 for the area associated with tanks T01, T02, T03, and
T07. However, areas covered by buildings and/or maintained, impenetrable materials (such as
ASTs) were excluded from the area calculations because they could not be adequately
delineated and/or identified. Therefore, the area source will be assigned an area hazardous
waste quantity value of >0. The value >0 reflects that the area value is known to be greater than
0, but the exact amount is unknown.
Area of source (ft2): unknown, but >0
Area Assigned Value: >0
References: Fig.3, Fig. 3A, Fig. 5;
Ref. 1, Sec. 2.4.2.1.4;
Ref. 11, p. 15; Ref. 15, pp. 2-3;
Ref. 17, pp. 1-5
50
SD-Waste Quantity Value
Source No.: 2
Source No. 2, Contaminated Soil (East Facility Tank Battery)
Surface Water, Ground
Water and Air Pathways
Soil Exposure
Pathway
(Ref. 1, Sec. 5.2.2.2)
Tier A
NC
NC
Tier B
NC
NC
Tier C
NC
NC
Tier D
>0, but unknown
NC
>0
NC
Measures
(Ref. 1, Sec. 2.4.2.1.5)
NC = Not calculated
assigned is Tier D.
Source No. 2 Hazardous Waste Quantity Value: >0
51
Source No.:3
SOURCE DESCRIPTION
The following information corresponds to the third source identified for this documentation record.
Name and description of the source: Drums
During the August 1997 START Removal sampling activities, ten 55-gallon drums were
inventoried and hazard categorized (hazcat) on site. Each of the ten drums were labeled
sequentially D01 through D10. The drums were open, and full of what appeared to be water with
several inches of salt at the bottom. A sack of salt was on the ground next to the drums. Based
on the field chemistry results, the following hazard categories were assigned: D01, acid oxidizer;
D04, D08, D09, and D10, non-characteristic; and D02, D03, and D05, combustible (Ref. 9, pp.
11-12, 16-17; Ref. 27, p. 45).
A grab sample from drum D01 (Sample No. 01DUG01) was sent to a procured laboratory for pH
analysis. The pH was measured at 1.0. Grab samples from drums D02 and D05 (Sample Nos.
01DOG02 and 01DOG05) were analyzed for TCL volatiles. A composite sample of drums D02
and D05 (Sample No. 01DOC01) was analyzed for TCL semivolatiles, TCL
pesticides/polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and TAL metals (Ref. 9, pp. 11-12, 19; Ref. 26, p.
35; Ref. 27, p. 45). Chemical analyses of the drum samples revealed the presence of benzene,
ethylbenzene, styrene, toluene, xylenes (total), 2-methylnaphthalene, and naphthalene at
concentrations equal to or greater than their corresponding SQLs (Ref. 9, pp. 21-22; Ref. 13, pp.
39-41, Photograph Nos. 633-636; Ref. 26, pp. 10, 23-24, 33-34).
Location of the source, with reference to a map of the site :
Source No. 3 is located in the Process Area in the TLBP East Facility (Fig. 3A)(Ref. 9, p. 11).
The TLBP East Facility is a 5-acre area bordered to the west by the ICW (north and south barge
slips), by wooded wetlands to the south and east, and by an unnamed road to the north. A dirt
road runs along the east boundary of the facility. The East Facility has a locked gate which is
bound to an 8-foot-high, chain-link fence. It can be accessed by PR 109 (South Talen’s Landing
Road)(Ref. 9, pp. 5-6; Ref. 11, p. 9; Ref. 13, p. 50, Photograph No. 719).
52
Source No.:3
Source type for HRS evaluation purposes: Drums
Containment
Release via overland migration and/or flood: The drums were open, and full of what
appeared to be water with several inches of salt at the bottom. There is no evidence or
documentation that diking (or similar structure) surrounds the container area (Ref. 9, pp. 11-12;
Ref. 13, pp. 39-41, Photograph Nos. 633-636). This source receives a containment value of
>0 (Ref. 1, Table 4-2).
The substances associated with this source include benzene, ethylbenzene, styrene, toluene,
xylenes (total), 2-methylnaphthalene, and naphthalene. The samples contained concentrations
of hazardous substances equal to or greater than their corresponding SQLs (Ref. 9, pp. 21-22;
Ref. 26, pp. 10, 23-24, 33-34).
53
Source No.:3
C EVIDENCE TABLE: 1997 START Removal Report
The following tables show the hazardous substances detected at elevated concentrations in the
drum samples collected during the 1997 START Removal sampling mission. The samples were
analyzed for TCL volatiles, TCL semivolatiles, TCL pesticides/PCBs, and TAL metals (Ref. 9,
pp. 11-12; Ref. 26, p. 35; Ref. 27, p. 24).
Hazardous
Substance
Evidence
Reference
TCL Volatiles
Benzene
1997 START Removal Assessment
Refer to Source No. 3 Source Characterization
Tables, Section 2.2.2
Ref. 9, pp. 11-12;
Ref. 26, pp. 10, 23-24, 33-34
Ethylbenzene
Ref. 9, pp. 11-12;
Ref. 26, pp. 10, 23-24, 33-34
Styrene
Ref. 9, pp. 11-12;
Ref. 26, pp. 10, 23-24, 33-34
Toluene
Ref. 9, pp. 11-12;
Ref. 26, pp. 10, 23-24, 33-34
Xylenes (total)
Ref. 9, pp. 11-12;
Ref. 26, pp. 10, 23-24, 33-34
2-Methylnaphthalene
Ref. 9, pp. 11-12;
Ref. 26, pp. 10, 23-24, 33-34
Naphthalene
1999 Expanded Site Inspection
Ref. 9, pp. 11-12;
Ref. 26, pp. 10, 23-24, 33-34
TCL Semivolatiles
54
Source No.:3
Evidence Samples - Drums
Sample No. 01DOG02
(mg/kg)
Hazardous Substance
Conc.
Sample No. 01DOG05
(mg/kg)
SQL
Conc.
Sample No. 01DOC01
(mg/kg)
SQL
Conc.
SQL
TCL Volatiles
Benzene
ND
120
170
120
NA
NC
Ethylbenzene
370
120
300
120
NA
NC
Styrene
ND
120
120
120
NA
NC
110 JK
(67.48)
120
350
120
NA
NC
930
120
550
120
NA
NC
2-Methylnaphthalene
NA
NC
NA
NC
3,800
500
Naphthalene
NA
NC
NA
NC
2,500
500
Toluene
Xylenes (Total)
55
TCL Semivolatiles
REFERENCES
Form I’s
Ref. 26, p. 33
Ref. 26, p. 34
Ref. 26, pp. 23-24
Data Evaluation
Ref. 26, pp. 15-22, 26-32
Ref. 26, pp. 15-22, 26-32
Ref. 26, pp. 15-22, 26-32
Chain of Custody
Ref. 26, p. 35
Ref. 26, p. 35
Ref. 26, p. 35
SQLs
Ref. 12, p. 304;
Ref. 24, pp. 1-5;
Ref. 25, pp. 1-5
Ref. 12, p. 304;
Ref. 24, pp. 1-5;
Ref. 25, pp. 1-5
Ref. 12, p. 304;
Ref. 24, pp. 1-5;
Ref. 25, pp. 1-5
Other Supporting
References
Ref. 9, p. 15; Fig. 3B
Ref. 9, p. 15; Fig. 3B
Ref. 9, p. 15; Fig. 3B
Conc: Concentration
JK:
Source No.: 3
Max: Maximum
NA:
Not Analyzed
NC:
Not Calculated
ND:
Not Detected
SQL: Sample Quantitation Limit
( ) : Adjusted concentration for “J” data utilizing Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination (Ref. 4, p. 8)
Adjusted Factors ( Ref. 4, pp. 8, 12, Table 1)
Toluene:
1.63
56
Source No.:3
Surface Water
(SW)
Air Pathway
Soil Exposure
Gas
Particulate
Ground
Water
(GW)
Overland
/Flood
GW
to
SW
Resident
Nearby
Benzene
NS
NS
NS
Y
NS
NS
NS
Ethylbenzene
NS
NS
NS
Y
NS
NS
NS
Styrene
NS
NS
NS
Y
NS
NS
NS
Toluene
NS
NS
NS
Y
NS
NS
NS
Xylenes (total)
NS
NS
NS
Y
NS
NS
NS
2-Methylnaphthalene
NS
NS
NS
Y
NS
NS
NS
Naphthalene
NS
NS
NS
Y
NS
NS
NS
Hazardous
Substances
TCL Volatiles
TCL Semivolatiles
Key:
NS = Not Scored
Y = Yes
April 17, 2000
06:KJ6105_100501SSXX
57
LA0000187518
Source No.:3
CBenzene
CEthylbenzene
CStyrene
CToluene
CXylenes (total)
C2-Methylnaphthalene
CNaphthalene
Furthermore, sediment samples collected at PPE 3 and from the on-site wetlands confirm that
the following hazardous substances have already migrated to the Surface Water Migration
Pathway (see Sec. 4.1.2.1 of this Documentation Record) (Ref. 11, p. 87; Ref. 12, pp. 25-28,
116-119, 194-201).
CArsenic
CBarium
CCopper
CManganese
CMercury
CNickel
CVanadium
CZinc
58
Source No.:3
2.4.1 Selection of Substance Potentially Posing Greatest Hazard
The hazardous substances benzene, ethylbenzene, styrene, toluene, xylenes (total), 2methylnaphthalene, and naphthalene are the substances associated with this source. They were
detected at concentrations equal to or greater than their corresponding SQLs, or are present in
a source with containment greater than zero.
59
Source No.: 3
Insufficient data are available to evaluate a Hazardous Constituent Quantity according to the HRS
(Ref. 1, Sec. 2.4.2.1.1). A Hazardous Constituent Quantity Value is not assigned according to
the available data (in this case, none), and scoring proceeds to the evaluation of Hazardous
Wastestream Quantity (Surface Water Pathway) according to the HRS (Ref. 1, Sec. 2.4.2.1.2).
Hazardous Substance
(pounds) (Mass-s)
Reference
NC
NC
NC
NC: Not Calculated
Pathway) according to the HRS (Ref. 1, Sec. 2.4.2.1.2). A Hazardous Wastestream Value is not
assigned according to the available data (in this case, none), and scoring proceeds to an
Quantity (pounds)
Reference
NC
NC
NC
NC: Not Calculated
60
SD-Volume
Source No.: 3
2.4.2.1.3 Volume
The ten 55-gallon drums were open, and full of what appeared to be water with several inches
of salt at the bottom. The exact volumes of the source in the drums cannot be determined;
therefore, a default volume of 50 gallons is assigned to each container. To calculate the amount
of the source in the drums, Tier C will be used for the calculation.
Total Volume
=
=
50 gallons x
500 gallons
10 drums
According to the HRS Table 2-5, the divisor for a drum is V÷500
500 ÷ 500 = 1
Dimension of source (yd3 or gallons): 500 gallons
Reference(s): Ref. 1, Table 2-5; Ref. 9, p. 11
Volume Assigned Value: 1
61
SD-Area
Source No.: 3
2.4.2.1.4 Area
Because the volume of Source No. 3 can be determined, the area is not evaluated.
Area of source (ft2): NC
Reference(s): NC
Area Assigned Value: NC
Are the data complete for area quantity for this area?...No
62
SD-Hazardous Waste Quantity Value
Source No.: 3
Source No. 3, Drums
Surface Water,
Ground Water and Air
Pathways
Soil Exposure
Pathway
(Ref. 1, Sec. 5.2.2.2)
Tier A
NC
NC
Tier B
NC
NC
Tier C
1
NC
Tier D
NC
NC
1
NC
Measures
(Ref. 1, Sec. 2.4.2.1.5)
NC = Not calculated
assigned is Tier C.
Source No. 3 Hazardous Waste Quantity Value: 1
63
SD-Summary
2.4.2.2.5 Calculation of Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value
SITE SUMMARY OF SOURCE DESCRIPTIONS
CONTAINMENT
Source Hazardous Waste
Quantity Value
Air
Source
No.
Surface Water
Migration
Pathway
Soil Exposure
Pathway
Ground
Water
Surface
Water
Gas
Air
Particulate
1
301.80
NS
NS
10
NS
NS
2
>0
NS
NS
10
NS
NS
3
1
NS
NS
10
NS
NS
Total
>302.80
NS - Not Scored
NS
The sum of the source hazardous waste quantity values is assigned as the Hazardous Waste
Quantity Factor Value (Ref. 1, Sec. 2.4.2.2). The sum of the source hazardous waste quantity
values for Surface Water Pathway, rounded to the nearest integer, is >302.80. For a Hazardous
Waste Quantity range of greater than 100 to 10,000, a value of 100 is assigned from Ref. 1, Table
2-6 for the migration pathway (Ref. 1, Sec. 2.4.2.2, Table 2-6). Level II concentrations have been
documented by chemical analyses to the surface water overland flow-environmental threat. This
could also serve as the basis for assigning a value of 100 for the hazardous waste quantity factor
value. See Section 4.2.4 for documentation of the observed release.
Assigned Factor Value for Migration Pathways: 100
64
GW-General
3.0 GROUND WATER MIGRATION PATHWAY
3.0.1 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
An observed release has been documented in a rig supply well of the Jupiter Plant facility, located
approximately 1,200 feet northeast of the TLBP West Facility; however, there are no target
receptors associated with this well. An observed release was not documented from the samples
collected from the other wells. Due to the lack of target receptors and observed release,
evaluation of this pathway will not significantly affect the site score.
65
SWOF-Surface Water Overland Flow/Flood Migration Component
4.0 SURFACE WATER MIGRATION PATHWAY
4.1 OVERLAND/FLOOD MIGRATION COMPONENT
4.1.1.1 Definition of Hazardous Substance Migration Path for Overland/Flood
Component
General Considerations:
The topography of the TLBP site and the surrounding area is relatively flat. The elevation of the
site is approximately 5 feet above the National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). The site is
slightly built up above the original grade due to deposition dredge spoils from the construction of
the ICW and docking slips (Ref. 5, p. 3; Ref. 11, p. 97). The area of drainage associated with the
site is considered the TLBP Facility, which consists of 5 acres for the TLBP West Facility and
5 acres for the TLBP East Facility (Ref. 11, p. 98). The 2-year, 24-hour rainfall is 5.5 inches (Ref.
29, pp. 1-2). Based on the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Flood Insurance Rate
Map for Cameron Parish, Louisiana, the site is located within a 100-year flood plain (Ref. 11, pp.
97-98).
Definition of Overland Segment and Probable Point of Entry (PPE)
Surface water runoff from the TLBP site has been divided into two segments. OFS No. 1
includes surface water runoff from the Heater/Process Area and the northwest section of the
TLBP East Facility Tank Battery, entering the ICW at PPE 1 and 2 (Fig. 6)(Ref. 11, p. 98). OFS
No. 2 consists of the surface water runoff area from the TLBP East Facility Tank Battery entering
the wetlands at PPE 3, which is located south of the site (Fig. 6)(Ref. 18, p. 3; Ref. 11, p. 98; Ref.
15, p. 1).(Fig. 6)(Ref. 11, p. 98)(Ref. 13, pp. 21-22, Photograph Nos. 217-219).
PPE 1 and 2:
OFS No. 1 includes surface water runoff from the Heater/Process Area and the northwest
section of the TLBP East Facility Tank Battery entering the ICW. This overland flow
segment does not contain a drainage ditch, but the general topography of the area
indicates that the runoff drains from the Heater/Process Area toward the north barge slips,
which is contiguous with the ICW. During the 1999 START SI field activities, a breech/cut
in the northwestern side of the earthen berm was noted, but no liquids were observed
escaping. However, standing water was present in the southeastern portion of the berm
area and material was observed seeping through the south side of the berm where
wetlands are identified. There was approximately 2 feet of freeboard remaining within the
containment area (Fig. 3A)(Fig. 6)(Ref. 11, pp. 14-16; Ref. 15, pp. 2-3). The two PPE
associated with OFS No. 1 are PPE 1 and PPE 2. The distance from the Heater/Process
Area to PPE 1 at the north barge slip of the ICW is approximately 75 feet. Sample Nos.
TLE-SD1-AG and TLE-SD7-AG were collected at PPE 1 (Ref. 13, p. 62, Photograph No.
66
SWOF-Surface Water Overland Flow/Flood Migration Component
123). The distance from the breach in the northwest section of the tank battery to PPE 2
at the south barge slip of the ICW is approximately 50 feet. Sample No. TLE-SD2-AG was
collected at PPE 2 (Fig. 6)(Ref. 11, p. 98; Ref. 13, p. 61, Photograph No. 122).
PPE 3:
OFS No. 2 consists of surface water runoff from the TLBP East Facility Tank Battery,
flowing south and east towards the surrounding low-lying wetlands (Ref. 15, p. 1; Ref. 18,
p. 3). OFS No. 2 begins at the point where the seep was identified in the south berm of
the tank battery and continues into the nearby wetlands. At this point, the drainage path
appears to split, with one drainage continuing northeast within the wetland area, while the
other drainage proceeds south towards an additional wetland area and the ICW (Ref. 11,
pp. 98-99; Ref. 18, p. 3). The point where the drainage pathway first enters the wetland
is PPE 3. Sample No. TLE-SD4-AG was collected at PPE 3 (Fig 6)(Ref. 13, p. 51,
Photograph No. 101). The distance from the TLBP East Facility to the wetland area is
approximately 10 feet (Ref. 11, pp. 98-99; Ref. 15, p. 1; Ref. 18, p. 3). Additional samples
were collected along this pathway during the 1999 START SI to delineate contaminated
wetlands (Fig. 6; Fig. 7).
67
SWOF-Observed Release
Definition of In-Water Segments
Wetlands
Based on the analytical data obtained during the 1999 START SI sampling activity,
samples associated with OFS No. 1 did not meet the criteria for an observed release.
Level II contamination of the wetlands is documented by chemical analyses within OFS
No. 2 (see Sec. 4.1.4.3). The segment subject to Level II contamination is approximately
1 mile and was determined by extrapolating the perimeter of the wetland starting at PPE3
to the farthest wetland sample (Sample No. TLE-SD6-AG) that met the observed release
criteria (Fig. 8) (Ref. 3, pp. 1-4; Ref. 11, p. 101; Ref. 15, pp. 1-3; Ref. 18, p. 3). The
average annual surface water flow through the wetlands is assumed to be minimal; a
conservative default dilution weight of 0.1 is assigned (Ref. 1, Sec. 4.1.4.3.1, Table 4-13).
There are numerous designated wetlands within the 15-mile TDL area (Ref. 18, pp. 1-13).
According to the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Maps, there are more than 20 linear
miles of wetland area that are subject to potential contamination (Ref. 1, Sec. 4.4.3.1.3;
Ref. 11, p. 100; Ref. 18, pp. 1-13).
Intracoastal Waterway/Coastal Tidal Area
Due to the complex and erratic flow patterns of the ICW, along with the large number of
interconnected water bodies and wetlands, the 15-mile downstream target distance limit
(TDL) is considered to encompass the entire area within a 15-mile arc. The origin point
of the 15-mile arc is the contaminated wetlands associated with PPE 3, and the arc
covers the entire surface water area to the east, south, and west of the site (Ref. 5, pp.
1-13; Ref, 11, p. 100; Ref. 18, pp. 1-13). The following water bodies are considered to be
within the 15-mile TDL: Grand Lake, Mermentau River north of its point of entry into Grand
Lake, White Lake, and Gueydan Canal and numerous unnamed canals and bayous to the
south and east of the site and wetlands that are contiguous with this water segment (Ref.
5, pp. 1-13; Ref. 11, p. 100; Ref. 18, pp. 1-13).
The direction of flow in the ICW is variable, depending on tidal influences and the water
level of the Mermentau River (Ref. 16, pp. 2, 5). The confluence of the ICW and the
Mermentau River is approximately 10 stream miles west of the site (Ref. 5, pp. 1-13; Ref.
16, p. 5). According to the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF), during
periods of low water levels, the water flow in the Mermentau River reverses, causing the
flow in the ICW to also reverse direction (Ref. 16, p. 5). The ICW system with the 15-mile
TDL arc of the site is primarily fresh water. A series of locks restricts the amount of
saltwater that can enter the system. Calcasieu Locks to the west prevent saltwater
intrusion from Calcasieu Lake, freshwater Bayou Locks to the east prevent saltwater
intrusion from Vermillion Bay, and Catfish Point Control Locks at the south end of the
Grand Lake limit saltwater intrusion from the Gulf of Mexico (Ref. 5, pp. 1-13; Ref. 11, pp.
99-100; Ref. 16, p.1). A dilution weight of 0.0001 (coastal tidal waters) is assigned to the
ICW (Ref. 1, Sec. 4.1.4.3.1.3, Table 4-13).
68
Recreational fishing is common in the area and has been documented by START at the
TMF facility (Ref. 14, p. 5). Commercial fishing is also conducted within the 15-mile TDL
arc for both freshwater and marine species including: catfish, buffalo (fish), blue crabs,
paddlefish, and white shrimp. Grand Lake is the primary commercial fishing grounds for
those species in Cameron Parish. The LDWF does not keep records on pounds of fish
caught and consumed annually per water body (Ref. 11, p. 100; Ref. 16, pp. 4-5; Ref. 19,
p. 1; Ref. 22, p. 1).
Paddlefish (Polydon spathula) is a rare, threatened, and/or endangered species in the
State of Louisiana and it is found within the 15-mile TDL of the site (Ref. 11, p. 101; Ref.
16, p. 4; Ref. 20, p. 1) Grand Lake is located within the TDL in the Lacassine National
Wildlife Refuge, approximately 10 miles west of the site (Ref. 5, pp. 1-13; Ref. 20, p. 1).
There are no surface water intakes within the 15-mile TDL (Ref. 21, p. 1; Ref. 11, p. 101).
69
4.1.2.1 Likelihood of Release
During the 1999 START SI, wetland sediment samples were collected to determine the extent
of contamination in the surface water migration pathway. Chemical analyses of the four wetland
sediment samples (Sample Nos. TLE-SD3-AG, TLE-SD4-AG, TLE-SD5-AG, and TLE-SD6-AG)
collected from OFS No. 2 contained concentrations of arsenic, barium, copper, manganese,
mercury, nickel, vanadium, and zinc that met observed release criteria (Fig. 7; Fig. 8)(Ref. 11,
p. 62; Ref. 13, pp. 51-52, Photograph Nos. 101-103).
The background wetland sediment sample for OFS No. 2 (Sample No. TLO-BD2-AG) was
collected on March 25, 1999 at 0 to 6 inches BGS from the wetlands northeast of the site, 110
feet south of Parish Road 104, 75 feet east of a camp entrance, east of the Jupiter Plant (Fig. 4)
(Ref. 11, pp. 36, 87-88).
The background wetland samples and the contaminated wetland samples were collected from
comparable wetland sediments (Ref. 17, pp. 1-5). All samples were analyzed for TCL
semivolatiles, TCL volatiles, and TAL metals (Ref. 12, pp. 286, 291, 296, 300). The wetland
samples in the OFS No. 2 contained contaminants at concentrations equal to or greater than
their corresponding SQLs and than three times the background sample concentration (Ref. 11,
pp. 87-88).
70
Chemical Analyses:
C OFS No. 2 Background Concentration - 1999 START SI
Sample No. TLO-BD2-AG was collected on March 25, 1999 at 0 to 6 inches BGS from the
wetlands northeast of the site, 110 feet south of Parish Road 104 and 75 feet east of a camp
entrance (Fig. 4) (Ref. 11, pp. 36, 87-88). The grab sample was collected from upstream
wetlands with similar flora and sediments as those found in the downstream wetlands and was
analyzed for TCL semivolatiles, TCL volatiles, and TAL metals (Fig. 4)(Ref. 12, pp. 291, 296).
Sample No.
Depth
Date
Reference
TLO-BD2-AG
0 to 6 inches
March 25, 1999
Ref. 11, pp. 36, 87-88
71
Background Wetland Sample
Sample No. TLO-BD2-AG
(mg/kg)
Hazardous
Substance
Conc.
SQL
3x Background*
Arsenic
ND
1.60
1.60
Barium
54
32
162
Chromium
4.10
1.60
12.30
Copper
ND
4
4
10.80 JK
(15.55)
0.48
46.65
20.50
2.40
61.50
Mercury
ND
0.16
0.16
Nickel
ND
6.40
6.40
Vanadium
ND
8
8
Zinc
9.89
3.20
29.67
TAL Metals
Lead
Manganese
REFERENCES
Form I’s
Ref. 12, p. 43
Chain of Custody
Ref. 12, p. 296
Data Evaluation
Ref. 12, p. 1-12
SQLs
Ref. 12, p. 303; Ref. 24, pp. 1-5; Ref. 25, pp.1-5
Other Supporting
References
Fig. 4
Conc: Concentration
JK:
ND:
Not Detected
( ):
Adjusted concentration for “J” data utilizing Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and
Observed
Contamination (Ref. 4, p. 8)
*:
If the background concentration is not detected (or is less than the detection limit), the SQL is used (Ref.
1,p. 51589).
Lead : 1.44
72
C Contaminated Samples - 1999 START SI
The samples in the following tables are wetland sediment samples collected during the 1999
START SI sampling mission from OFS No. 2. These samples are grab samples collected from
PPE 3 and from on-site wetlands with similar flora and sediments as those found in the
background wetlands (Fig. 4; Fig. 6; Fig. 7) (Ref. 17, pp. 1-5). The wetland sediment samples
were analyzed for TCL semivolatiles, TCL volatiles, and TAL metals by a procured laboratory
(Ref. 11, pp. 87-88; Ref. 12, pp. 286, 300; Ref. 13, pp. 51-52, Photograph Nos. 101-103).
Sample No.
Depth
Date
TLE-SD3-AG
0 to 6 inches
March 23, 1999
TLE-SD4-AG
0 to 6 inches
March 23, 1999
TLE-SD5-AG
0 to 6 inches
March 23, 1999
TLE-SD6-AG
0 to 6 inches
March 23, 1999
73
Reference
Ref. 11, pp. 87-88;
Ref. 12, pp. 23-26;
114-117
Evidence - Overland Flow Segment No. 2 Wetland Sediment Samples
Background Sample*
Sample No. TLO-BD2-AG
(mg/kg)
Sample No.
TLE-SD3-AG
(mg/kg)
SQL
Conc.
Sample No.
TLE-SD5-AG
(mg/kg)
SQL
Conc.
Sample No.
TLE-SD6-AG
(mg/kg)
Max
Conc.
SQL
3x
Max.
Conc.
Arsenic
ND
1.6
1.60
4.46
1.70
2.37
1.20
4.22
1.50
ND
1.70
Barium
54
32
162
376
34
81.70
24
434
30
193
34
Chromium
4.1
1.60
12.30
10.60
1.70
6.04
1.20
10.70
1.50
4.21
1.70
Copper
ND
4
4
6.60
4.25
ND
3
9.24
3.75
ND
4.25
10.80 JK
(15.55)
0.48
46.65
14.50
0.51
5.44
0.36
13.30
0.45
6.95
0.51
20.50
2.40
61.50
84.80
2.55
159
1.80
106
2.25
138
2.55
Mercury
ND
0.16
0.16
ND
0.17
ND
0.12
0.38
0.15
ND
0.17
Nickel
ND
6.40
6.40
7.5
6.80
6.31
4.80
8.64
6
ND
6.80
Vanadium
ND
8
8
19
8.50
10.2
6
18.60
7.50
8.98
8.50
Zinc
9.89
3.20
29.67
636
3.40
21.20
2.40
69.10
3
33.50
3.40
Hazardous
Substance
Conc.
Sample No.
TLE-SD4-AG
(PPE 3)
(mg/kg)
SQL
Conc.
SQL
TAL Metals
Lead
74
Manganese
REFERENCES
Form I’s
Ref. 12, p. 43
Ref. 12, p. 23
Ref. 12, p. 25
Ref. 12, p. 26
Ref. 12, p. 24
Chain of Custody
Ref. 12, p. 296
Ref. 12, p. 300
Ref. 12, p. 300
Ref. 12, p. 300
Ref. 12, p. 300
Data Evaluation
Ref. 12, pp. 1-10
Ref. 12, pp. 1-10
Ref. 12, pp. 1-10
Ref. 12, pp. 1-10
Ref. 12, pp. 1-10
SQLs
Ref. 12, pp. 303;
Ref. 24, pp. 1-5; Ref. 25, pp.1-5
Ref. 12, pp. 303;
Ref. 24, pp. 1-5;
Ref. 25, pp. 1-5
Ref. 12, pp. 303;
Ref. 24, pp. 1-5;
Ref. 25, pp. 1-5
Ref. 12, pp. 303; Ref.
24, pp. 1-5;
Ref. 25, pp. 1-5
Ref. 12, pp. 303;
Ref. 24, pp. 1-5;
Ref. 25, pp. 1-5
Other Supporting
References
Fig. 4
Fig. 7; Fig. 8
Fig. 7; Fig. 8
Fig. 7; Fig. 8
Fig. 7; Fig. 8
Conc: Concentration
JK:
ND:
Not Detected
( ):
Adjusted concentration for “J” data utilizing Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination (Ref. 4, p. 8)
*:
If the background concentration is not detected (or is less than the detection limit), the SQL is used (Ref. 1, p. 51589).
Lead : 1.44
75
Attribution:
Talen’s Landing Bulk Plant was designed to process 5,000 barrels per stream day (BPSD) of
southern Louisiana mixed crude. The three main products of this facility were naphtha, diesel,
and reduced crude (Ref. 30, p. 2). A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit was issued to TLBP to discharge wastewater into an unnamed tributary of the ICW (Ref.
31, p. 1). The facility operated as a Treatment/Storage/Disposal (TSD) Facility, and a Hazardous
Waste Generator of petroleum refining industry listed wastes, EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. K048
and K051 (Ref. 32, p. 1).
On April 13, 1982, a citizen’s complaint record, documented by the LDNR Hazardous Waste
Regulation, stated that the facility was in violation of the Hazardous Waste Management Plan for
failing to notify the department of two spills. Review of the facility’s water quality records also
showed a violation of their NPDES discharge allowances (Ref. 33, p. 1).
On April 16, 1982, the LDNR Office of Environmental Affairs Water Pollution Control Division
conducted a facility inspection. It was reported that a blowout of the waste heater recovery
system caused a discharge of high temperature water with a light sheen that had entered the
boat slip (Ref. 34, p. 1).
On January 18, 1983, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA)
Compliance Inspection Report of the facility documented that the treatment ponds were used to
contain wastes and sludge, and had a considerable amount of oily material contents (Ref. 35,
p. 2).
On April 13, 1984, the LDEQ-HWD conducted a facility inspection and reported that the treatment
ponds continued to receive waste from storage cleanups (Ref. 36, p. 1).
On October 22, 1985, a RCRA inspection of the facility documented that nine drums were used
to contain sludge/oil waste and were stored adjacent to the API separator. It was also noted that
spills were observed around the API separators and within tank batteries, and several piles of
sludge tank bottoms were deposited on the east and north sides of the north tank battery (West
Facility’s Tank Battery) (Ref. 37, pp. 2-3).
Hazardous substances found on the site may be attributed to previous site operations. The
substances include benzene, ethylbenzene, styrene, toluene, xylenes (total), 2methylnaphthalene, naphthalene, arsenic, barium, chromium, copper, lead, manganese,
mercury, nickel, vanadium, and zinc, which have been detected at levels equal to or greater than
their corresponding SQLs (see Source Nos. 1-3 in this documentation record)
Crude oil (petroleum) is a complex mixture of hundreds of chemical compounds, primarily
composed of hydrocarbons such as benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, and xylenes. Naphthalene
and 2-methylnaphthalene are derived from naphtha, which is a crude oil distillation fraction (Ref.
39, pp. 2, 7, 13; Ref. 43, pp. 7-9).
76
Chromium is used commonly at refineries as a catalyst for halogenation, alkylation, and catalytic
cracking of hydrocarbons (Ref. 41, p. 11). Chromium is also used in reforming or aromatization,
which is the process of obtaining higher-octane levels from naphthas (Ref. 40, pp. 2-3). Barium,
mercury, and nickel (nickel carbonyl) are also used as a catalysts in the petroleum industries
(Ref. 41, p. 6; Ref. 42, pp. 3-5). Zinc (zinc chloride) is liberated from petroleum refining
operations (Ref. 41, p. 16). Crude oil and unprocessed gas condensates contain significant
amounts of suspended mercury compounds, mostly mercuric sulfide. The dominant dissolved
species in petroleum are elemental mercury and ionic halides. (Ref. 44, pp. 2, 4-6).
Analytical results of samples collected from storage tanks and soils during the 1999 START SI
revealed elevated levels of arsenic, copper, lead, manganese, and vanadium (see Source Nos.
1-3 in this documentation record). These other hazardous substances may be present as a
result of the facility’s attempt to process other substances besides crude oil or are often found
as impurities in crude oil (Ref. 43, p. 2).
On April 21, 1987, information provided by local residents and from a site inspection conducted
by LDEQ-HWD reported that storage tanks adjacent to the treatment ponds contained from 9 to
56 inches of hazardous wastes. Information was also provided that the facility had received
styrene, which it had tried to process, causing serious problems within the refinery and ultimately
leading to its closure (Ref. 38, p.1).
The materials present in the sources defined for the Talen’s Landing Bulk Plant site are CERCLA
hazardous substances. In the definition of hazardous substance, §101 (14) of CERCLA provides
that “[t]he term does not include petroleum, including crude oil or any fraction thereof which is not
otherwise specifically listed or designated as a hazardous substance under subparagraph (A)
through (F) of this paragraph...”. This provision has been termed the “petroleum exclusion.”
In a number of policy statements since CERCLA was enacted, EPA has presented a generally
accepted interpretation of the petroleum exclusion. In a December 1982 memorandum, EPA’s
Office of General Council (OGC) determined that if hazardous substances have been added to
petroleum such that the petroleum and hazardous substances are commingled to the extent that
it is not practical to separate the substances, the entirety of the resulting material is a hazardous
substance subject to CERCLA authority (Ref. 45, p. 3). This policy was reiterated in EPA’s April
1985 final rule adjusting CERCLA reportable quantities (Ref. 46, p.1 ). In an OGC opinion (dated
July 31, 1987), EPA clarified this policy and determined that the petroleum exclusion does not
apply to hazardous substances that are either added to petroleum or increase in concentration
solely as a result of use of petroleum (Ref. 47, p. 4).
These EPA determinations interpreting the petroleum exclusion have been upheld in numerous
court decisions. For example, in its decision in US v. Western Processing (1991), the U.S.
district court concluded that storage constitutes a “use” of petroleum products, as that term is
applied in the July 1987 OGC opinion. The district court went on to conclude that tank bottom
sludge resulting from storage is a contaminated waste product, and not a petroleum fraction, as
that term is used in CERCLA. The district court reasoned that, if metals had leached from the
storage tank walls into the petroleum, this would constitute the addition of CERCLA hazardous
substances to the petroleum. These substances would not be subject to the petroleum
77
exclusion. The court further reasoned that carbon occluded from petroleum storage tank walls
had combined with metals and PAHs indigenous to the petroleum and had formed a sludge. The
court ruled that, although the material in the sludge had originated from petroleum, the sludge
itself was a “waste,” not a “petroleum fraction,” and was, therefore, not exempt from CERCLA
under the petroleum exclusion (Ref. 48, pp. 1-30).
In the case of the TLBP site, styrene, a CERCLA hazardous substance, was added to the
petroleum stored and processed at the facility. The sludge that resulted from this is subject to
CERCLA authority. Styrene was detected in a sludge sample collected from Tank T01 in Source
1 and in two of three surface soil samples collected from Source 2, an area of contaminated soil
in the bermed area within which Tank T01 is located. Based on the presence of styrene, it can
be concluded that styrene was added to the petroleum stored in Tank T01. After being added,
the styrene polymerized and formed a sludge consisting of styrene and indigenous components
of the petroleum, many of which are CERCLA hazardous substances, including the metals used
to established an observed release in the nearby wetlands. The presence of styrene in Source
2, located along the overland flow path between Tank T01 and the wetland and in the area from
which liquid was observed seeping out of the berm toward the wetland, supports attribution of the
metals in the observed release to hazardous substances present in sources at the site, namely
hazardous substances present in the contaminated sludge (Fig. 3)(Ref. 9, p. 6; Ref. 11, pp. 14,
28, 58-59, 65; Ref. 13, pp. 11, 20, 21, Photograph Nos. 122, 216-218; p. 45, Photograph No. 106;
Ref. 12, pp. 38-40, 42, 50, 119-120, 122-124, 214-215; Ref. 14, p. 22; Ref. 38, p.1).
Another plant exists within the target radius of the TLBP site. The Spirit 76 Energy Plant (Jupiter
Plant), a division of Unocal, is located 1,200 feet northeast of the TLBP site. The plant prepares
for sale natural gas that it receives, via pipeline, from an offshore drilling facility. Once the gas
arrives at the Jupiter Plant, it goes through a “Mole Sieve Process”, also known as a bead bed,
which separates liquid, like water, from the gas in order to get the gas and liquid to a certain
pound per square inch ratio that the buyer specifies. After the process is complete, another
pipeline transports the finished product to where the gas is bought. The gas is only owned by the
Jupiter Plant when it is on their property. The plant’s operations are not attributable to the
contamination documented at the wetlands because the plant is not a petroleum refinery nor
manufactures or accepts crude oil, liquid petroleum products or any similar substances as those
associated with the TLBP site. (Ref. 49, p. 1).
Observed Release Factor Value: 550
78
SWOF-Containment
4.1.2.1.2 Potential to Release
4.1.2.1.2.1 Potential to Release by Overland Flow
Due to the observed release that was documented in the Likelihood of Release (Section 4.1.2.1.1
of this documentation record), the Potential to Release by Overland Flow will not be scored
(Ref. 1, Section 4.1.2.1.1).
Containment Factor Value: NS
79
SWOF/Drinking-Toxicity/Persistence
4.1.2.2 WASTE CHARACTERISTICS
4.1.2.2.1 Toxicity/Persistence
There are no surface water intakes (drinking) located within the 15-mile TDL arc (Ref. 11, p. 101;
Ref. 21, p. 1). Therefore, the Drinking-Toxicity/Persistence will not be scored.
Drinking -Toxicity/Persistence Factor Value: NS
80
SWOF/Food Chain - Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation
4.1.3.2 HUMAN FOOD CHAIN THREAT - WASTE CHARACTERISTICS
4.1.3.2.1 Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation
Hazardous
Substance
Source
No.
Toxicity
Factor
Value
Persistence
Factor
Value*
Toxicity/
Persistence
Factor Value
(Table 4-12)
Bioaccumulation
Factor
Value**
Toxicity/
Persistenc
e/
Bioaccumulation
Factor
Value
(Table 4-16)
TCL Volatiles
Benzene
1, 2, 3
100
0.4
40
5,000
2 x 10 5
Ethylbenzene
1, 2, 3
10
0.4
4
50
200
Styrene
1, 2, 3
10
1
10
50
500
Toluene
1, 2, 3
10
0.4
4
50
200
Xylenes (total)
1, 2, 3
10
1
10
50
500
2-Methylnaphthalene
1, 3
---
0.4
---
5,000
---
Naphthalene
1, 3
100
0.4
40
500
2 x 10 4
Arsenic
1, 2
10,000
1
10,000
500
5x10 6
Barium
1, 2
10,000
1
10,000
0.5
5,000
Chromium
1, 2
10,000
1
10,000
500
5x10 6
Copper
1, 2
---
1
---
50,000
---
Lead
1, 2
10,000
1
10,000
5,000
5 x 10 7
Manganese
1, 2
10,000
1
10,000
0.5
5,000
Mercury
1, 2
10,000
0.4
4,000
50,000
2 x 10 8
Nickel
1, 2
10,000
1
10,000
500
5x10 6
Vanadium
1, 2
100
1
100
0.5
50
Zinc
1, 2
10
1
10
50,000
5x10 5
Reference
Ref, 1,
Tables 4-12,
4-16;
Ref. 2, pp.
1-13
TCL Semivolatiles
TAL Metals
--- :
* :
** :
No value found in SCDM.
Persistence values assigned are based on “River.”
Bioaccumulation values are assigned based on the surface water category of fresh and salt waters.
The hazardous substance with the highest Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation Factor Value is
mercury.
Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation Factor Value: 2 x 108
81
SWOF/Food Chain-Hazardous Waste Quantity
4.1.3.2.2 Hazardous Waste Quantity
Source Number
Quantity Value
(Section 2.4.2.1.5)
Is Source Hazardous
Constituent Quantity Data
Complete?
(yes/no)
1
301.80
No
2
>0
No
3
1
No
TOTAL
>302.80
values for Surface Water Pathway, rounded to the nearest integer, is >302.80. For a Hazardous
Waste Quantity range of greater than 100 to 10,000, a value of 100 is assigned from Ref. 1, Table
2-6 for the migration pathway (Ref. 1, Sec. 2.4.2.2, Table 2-6). Level II concentrations have been
documented by chemical analyses to the surface water overland flow-environmental threat. This
could also serve as the basis for assigning a value of 100 for the hazardous waste quantity factor
value. See Section 4.2.4 for documentation of the observed release.
Sum of Values: >302.80
Hazardous Waste Quantity Assigned: 100
82
SWOF/Food Chain-Hazardous Waste Quantity
4.1.3.2.3 Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value
The waste characteristics factor category value is assigned based on the Waste Characteristics
Product. The Waste Characteristics Product is the product of the Toxicity/Persistence Factor
Value, the Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value, and Bioaccumulation Potential Factor Value.
Values from the substance with the highest Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation factor value
for the watershed mercury will be used.
Toxicity/Persistence Factor Value: 4,000
× Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 100
(Toxicity/Persistence × Hazardous Waste Quantity):
4,000 X 100 = 4 x 105
Bioaccumulation Potential Factor Value: 50,000
(Toxicity/Persistence × Hazardous Waste Quantity)
× Bioaccumulation Potential Factor Value:
(4 x 105) X (50,000) = 2.0 X 1010
A Waste Characteristics Product value of 2.0 X 1010 receives a waste characteristics factor value
of 320 (Ref. 1, Table 2-7).
Hazardous Waste Quantity Assigned Value: 100
Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value: 320
83
SWOF/Food Chain-Targets
4.1.3.3 HUMAN FOOD CHAIN THREAT-TARGETS
4.1.3.3.1 Food Chain Individual
A food chain individual factor value of 20 is assigned based on an observed release by chemical
analyses of arsenic, copper, mercury, nickel, and zinc with a Bioaccumulation Factor Value of
500 or greater to sediments within the surface water target distance limit, and due to the fact that
a fishery is present within the 15-mile TDL of the inwater segment (see Sec. 4.1.3.2.1)(Ref. 1,
Sec. 4.1.3.3.1; Ref. 2, pp. 1-13; Ref. 11, p. 101; Ref. 16, pp. 4-5; Ref. 19, p. 1; Ref. 22, p. 1).
Food Chain Individual Factor Value: 20
84
SWOF/Food Chain-Targets
4.1.3.3.2 Population
The Population Factor for the watershed is based on three factors: Level I concentrations, Level II
concentrations, and potential human food chain contamination.
4.1.3.3.2.1 Level I Concentrations
There are no Level I concentrations established because there were no tissue samples collected,
and surface water and sediment samples cannot be used to establish Level I concentrations
(Ref. 3, p. 5).
4.1.3.3.2.2 Level II Concentrations
No Level II concentrations have been established within a fishery.
85
SWOF/Food Chain-Potential Human Food Chain Contamination
4.1.3.3.2.3 Potential Human Food Chain Contamination
Recreation fishing is common in the area and has been documented by START at the TMF
facility (Ref. 14, p. 5). Commercial fishing is also conducted within the 15-mile TDL arc for both
freshwater and marine species including: catfish, buffalo (fish), blue crabs, paddlefish, and white
shrimp. Grand Lake is the primary commercial fishing grounds for those species in Cameron
Parish. The LDWF does not keep records on pounds of fish caught and consumed annually per
water body (Ref. 11, p. 100; Ref. 16, pp. 4-5; Ref. 19, p. 1; Ref. 22, p. 1). It will be assumed that
at least more than zero (>0) and less than 100 (<100) pounds per year are consumed annually
(Ref. 1, Tables 4-13, 4-18). Flow in cubic feet per second (cfs) and depth characteristics are not
applicable in the evaluation of coastal tidal waters (Ref. 1, Table 4-13).
Identit
y
of
Fisher
y
Grand
Lake
Annual
Production
(pounds)
>0 - <100
Type of
Surface
Water
Body
Average
Annual
Flow
Population
Value
(P i)
Dilution
Weight
(Di)
P ixDi
Reference
Coastal
Tidal waters
Not
Applicable
0.03
0.0001
0.000003
Ref. 1, Tables
4-13, 4-18;
Ref. 11, p. 100;
Ref. 16, pp. 45; Ref. 19, p. 1;
Ref. 22, p. 1
Sum of Pi x Di: 0.000003
(Sum of Pi x Di)/10: 0.0000003
Potential Human Food Chain Contamination
Factor Value: 3.0 x 10-7
86
SWOF/Food Chain-Population Factor Value
4.1.3.3.2.4 Calculation of Population Factor Value
The population factor value is equal to:
Level I Concentrations (0) + Level II Concentrations (0) + Potential Human Food Chain
Contamination (0.0000003) = 0.0000003.
A value of 3 x 10-7 is assigned as the Population Factor Value.
Population Factor Value: 3.0 x 10-7
87
SWOF/Food Chain-Targets Factor Category Value
4.1.3.3.3 Calculation of Human Food Chain Threat - Targets Factor Category Value
The Human Food Chain Threat - Targets Factor Category value is calculated by summing the
food chain individual and population factor values for the watershed:
Food Chain Individual + Population Factor = 20 + 0.0000003 = 20.0000003
Targets Factor Category Value: 20.0000003
88
SWOF/Environment-Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation
4.1.3.4 Calculation of Human Food Chain Threat Score for a Watershed
The Human Food Chain Threat score is calculated by multiplying the human food chain threat
factor category values for likelihood of release, waste characteristics, and targets for the
watershed (Ref. 1, Section 4.1.3.3.3).
Likelihood of Release (550) × Waste Characteristics (320) × Targets (20.0000003) =
3,520,000 (rounded to the nearest integer).
This product is then divided by 82,500:
3,520,000 ÷ 82,500 = 42.67
The resulting value, subject to a maximum of 100, is assigned as the Human Food Chain
Threat Score.
Human Food Chain Threat Score: 42.67
89
SWOF/Environment-Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation
4.1.4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL THREAT - WASTE CHARACTERISTICS
4.1.4.2.1 Ecosystem Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation
Hazardous
Substance
Ecosyste
m Toxicity
Factor
Value**
Persistenc
e Factor
Value*
Ecosyste
m Bioaccumulation
Value**
Ecosystem
Toxicity/
Persistence
Factor Value
Ecosystem
Toxicity/
Persistence/
Bioac
-cumulation
Factor Value
TCL Volatiles
Benzene
7
1,000
0.4
50,000
400
2 x 10
Ethylbenzene
100
0.4
50
40
2,000
Styrene
100
0.4
50
40
2,000
Toluene
100
0.4
50
40
2,000
Xylenes (total)
100
0.4
500
40
20,000
2-Methylnaphthalene
1,000
0.4
5,000
400
2 x 10 6
Naphthalene
1,000
0.4
5,000
400
2 x 10 6
Arsenic
100
1
500
100
5 x 10 4
Barium
1
1
0.5
1
0.5
Chromium
100
1
5
100
500
Copper
100
1
50,000
100
5 x 10 6
1,000
1
5,000
1,000
5 x 10 6
---
1
50,000
---
---
Mercury
10,000
0.4
50,000
4,000
2 x 10 8
Nickel
1,000
1
500
1,000
5 x 10 5
---
1
0.5
---
---
100
1
50,000
100
5 x 10 6
Reference
Ref. 1, Tables 420, 4-21;
Ref. 2, pp. 1-13
TCL Semivolatiles
TAL Metals
Lead
Manganese
Vanadium
Zinc
*
Persistence Values assigned are based on the predominant surface water body "River."
** Ecosystem Toxicity and Ecosystem Bioaccumulation values assigned are based on "fresh and salt waters."
--- No value in SCDM
The contaminant with the highest Ecosystem Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation Factor
Value is mercury (Ref. 1, Table 4-21; Ref. 2, pp. 1-13).
Ecosystem Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation Factor Value: 2 x 108
90
SWOF/Environment-Hazardous Waste Quantity
4.1.4.2.2 Hazardous Waste Quantity
Source Number
Quantity Value
Is Source hazardous Consistent
Quantity Data Complete (Yes/No)
1
301.80
No
2
>0
No
3
1
No
Total
>302.80
values for Surface Water Pathway, rounded to the nearest integer, is >302.80. For a
Hazardous Waste Quantity range of greater than 100 to 10,000, a value of 100 is assigned
from Ref. 1, Table 2-6 for the migration pathway (Ref. 1, Sec. 2.4.2.2, Table 2-6). Level II
concentrations have been documented by chemical analyses to the surface water overland
flow-environmental threat. This could also serve as the basis for assigning a value of 100 for
the hazardous waste quantity factor value. See Section 4.2.4 for documentation of the
observed release.
Sum of Values: >302.80
Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 100
91
SWOF/Environment-Hazardous Waste Quantity
4.1.4.2.3 Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value
A Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value is assigned based on the Waste Characteristic
Product.
The Waste Characteristic Product is the product of the Ecosystem
Toxicity/Persistence/ Factor Value, the Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value, and the
Ecosystem Bioaccumulation Potential Factor Value.
According to HRS Table 4-20, the Ecosystem Toxicity/Persistence value for mercury is 4,000.
A Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value of 100 is assigned from the sum of Source
Hazardous Waste Quantity Value and the documented observed release (Ref. 1, Section
2.4.2.2, Table 2-6).
Ecosystem Toxicity/Persistence Factor Value = 4,000
Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value = 100
4,000 × 100 = 4.0 × 105
(Subject to a maximum product of 1.0 x 108)
According to Table 4-21, the Ecosystem Bioaccumulation Potential Factor Value for mercury
is 50,000 (Ref. 2, p. 8).
Ecosystem Bioaccumulation Potential Factor Value = 50,000
(Ecosystem Toxicity/Persistence × Hazardous Waste Quantity)
× Bioaccumulation Potential Factor Value:
(4.0 × 105) × (50,000) = 2 ×1010
(Subject to a maximum product of 1 x 1012)
A Waste Characteristics Product Value of 2 x 10 10 receives a Waste Characteristic Factor
Value of 320 (Ref. 1, Table 2-7).
Ecosystem Toxicity/Persistence Factor Value
× Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 2 × 1010
Waste Characteristics Factor Value: 320
92
SWOF - Environment Targets
4.1.4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL THREAT - TARGETS
4.1.4.3.1 Sensitive Environments
4.1.4.3.1.1 Level I Concentrations
No water, or benthic, or tissue samples have been collected within the Surface Water Pathway;
therefore, no Level I concentrations can be established (Ref. 3, p. 5).
Level I Concentrations Factor Value: 0
93
SWOF/Environment - Potential Contamination
4.1.4.3.1.2 Level II Concentrations
Level II concentrations have been established in the wetlands by chemical analyses of
sediment samples that met observed release criteria. The segment subject to Level II
contamination is approximately 1 mile and was determined by extrapolating the perimeter of
the wetland starting at PPE3 to the farthest wetland sample (Sample No. TLE-SD6-AG) that
met the observed release criteria (Fig. 8) (Ref. 3, pp. 1-4; Ref. 11, p. 101; Ref. 15, pp. 1-3; Ref.
18, p. 3; Ref. 50, pp. 1-2). A value of 25 is assigned from Table 4-24 of the HRS for length of
wetlands from 0.1 to 1 mile (Ref. 1, Sec. 4.1.4.3.1.2). The Level II concentration factor value
is the sum of the wetlands value (25) and sensitive environments value (0):
25 + 0 = 25
Sum of Sensitive Environments Value + Wetland Value: 25
94
4.1.4.3.1.3 Potential Contamination
Sensitive Environments
Information provided by the LDWF Habitat Section of the Fur and Refuge Division, indicates
that the paddlefish (Polydon spathula) is a rare, threatened, and/or endangered species in the
State of Louisiana and it is found within the 15-mile TDL arc of the site (Ref. 20, p. 1).
Numerous waterbird nesting colonies, exemplary freshwater marshes, blue water lily
(Nymphaea elegans), American Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum), West Indian
Manatee (Trichechus manatus), Brown Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis), Piping Plover
(Charadrius melodus), Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta), and Black-capped Vireo (Vireo
atricapillus) also occur within the 15-mile TDL arc search area. Grand Lake and Mermentau
River are the primary remaining habitats for the paddlefish in Louisiana (Ref. 16, p. 4; Ref. 22,
p. 1; Ref. 23, p. 1). Grand Lake is located approximately 0.5 mile from the site. Also located
within the search area is the Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge, approximately 10 miles west
of the site. (Ref. 5, pp. 1-5; Ref. 11, p. 101; Ref. 18, pp. 1-13).
Type of Surface Water
Body
Sensitive Environment
Reference
Sensitive
Environment Value
(Ref. 1, Table 4-23)
Intracoastal Waterway/
Coastal Tidal Area
Lacassine Wildlife
Ref. 11, p. 101; Ref. 20, p. 1
75
Coastal Tidal Area
Paddlefish habitat
Ref. 11, p. 101; Ref. 20, p. 1
50
Coastal Tidal Area
American Peregrine Falcon
Ref. 23, p. 1
50
Coastal Tidal Area
West Indian Manatee
Ref. 23, p. 1
50
Coastal Tidal Area
Brown Pelican
Ref. 23, p. 1
50
Coastal Tidal Area
Piping Plover
Ref. 23, p. 1
50
Coastal Tidal Area
Loggerhead Sea Turtle
Ref. 23, p. 1
50
Coastal Tidal Area
Black-capped Vireo
Ref. 23, p.1
50
Total
475
Wetlands
There are numerous designated wetlands within the 15-mile TDL arc. According to the
National Wetlands Inventory Maps, there are more than 20 linear miles of HRS-eligible wetland
frontage within the 15-mile TDL arc (Ref. 3, pp. 1-4; Ref. 18, pp. 1-12).
95
SWOF/Environment - Potential Contamination
Body
Wetland Frontage
Reference
Wetland Value
(Table 4-24)
Wetlands
> 1 to 2 miles
Ref. 18, pp. 1-13
50
Coastal Tidal Area
>20 miles
Ref. 11, p. 101;
Ref. 18, pp. 1-13
500
TOTAL
550
To obtain the Potential Contamination Factor Value, the sum of the sensitive environments
value is added to the wetland value, which is then multiplied by the assigned dilution for each
in-water segment. This value is then divided by 10 to obtain the Potential Contamination Factor
Value (Ref. 1, Section 4.1.4.3.1.3)
Body
Sum of Sensitive
Environment
Values (Sj)
Wetland
Frontage Value
(Dj)
Adjusted Dilution
Weight (Aj)
Aj(Dj + Sj)
Wetlands
0
50
0.1
5
Intracoastal waterway/
Coastal Tidal Area
475
500
0.0001
0.0975
TOTAL
5.0975
Sum of Sensitive Environments Value + Wetland Value: 5.0975
Potential Contamination Factor Value: 0.50975
96
SWOF/Environment - Factor Category Value
4.1.4.3.1.4 Environmental Threat - Targets Factor Category Value
The environmental threat target factor category value for the watershed is the sum of the values
for the Level I (0), Level II (25), and Potential Contamination factors (0.50975) (Ref. 1, Section
4.1.4.3.1.4).
0 + 25 + 0.50975 = 25.50975
4.1.4.4 Calculation of Environmental Threat Score
The environmental threat score is calculated by multiplying the environmental threat factor
category values for likelihood of release (550), waste characteristics (320), and targets
(25.50975) for the watershed; rounding the product to the nearest integer; and dividing by
82,500. The resulting value (54.42), subject to a maximum of 60, is assigned as the
environmental threat score for the watershed (Ref. 1, Sections 4.1.4.4 and 4.1.4.3.1.4).
Calculations:
550 × 320 × 25.50975 = 4,489,716 ÷ 82,500 = 54.42
(subject to a maximum of 60)
4.1.5 Calculation of Overland/Flood Migration Component Score For a Watershed
The overland/flood migration component score for the watershed is calculated by summing the
scores for the drinking water threat (0), human food chain threat (42.67), and environmental
threat (54.42). The resulting score, subject to a maximum value of 100, is assigned as the
surface water overland/flood migration component score for a watershed (Ref. 1, Section
4.1.5).
Calculations:
0 + 42.67 + 54.42 = 97.09
(subject to a maximum value of 100)
4.1.6 Calculation of Overland/Flood Migration Component Score
The highest surface water overland/flood migration component score from the watersheds
evaluated (in this case, only one watershed was evaluated) is selected and assigned as the
surface water overland/flood migration component score for the site, subject to a maximum of
100. The overland/flood migration component score is assigned a value of 97.09 (Ref. 1,
Section 4.1.6).
97
SWOF-Migration Component
4.2 GROUND WATER TO SURFACE WATER MIGRATION COMPONENT
This component was not scored because an observed release was documented for the
overland flow/flood component.
4.3 CALCULATION OF SURFACE WATER MIGRATION PATHWAY SCORE
The overland/flood migration component was scored and this value (97.09) is assigned to the
surface water migration pathway score.
Ground Water to Surface Water Factor Value: NS
Surface Water Migration Pathway Score: 97.09
98
Soil-General
5.0 SOIL EXPOSURE PATHWAY
Due to limited resident and nearby population, the pathway would result in a minimal score.
Because evaluation of this pathway will not significantly affect the site score, it has not been
scored.
99
Air-General
6.0 AIR MIGRATION PATHWAY
Air samples were not collected during the SI field activities; therefore, an observed release to
the air migration pathway cannot be documented.
100

HRS DOCUMENTATION RECORD REVIEW COVER SHEET

Transcription

Similar documents

Inżynier Utrzymania Ruchu – Elektryk

Kessington before and after

Tudeshk ref. 20588 Around 1950 Related to the Nain carpets Soft

RG FLOOR - ReF. 6667 - "LONDON"

Auction

Private label Give your achievements a face

Cokin Mineral ND Filters technical sheet.indd

Who said hamburguers always have to be round?

ASK How to Create an Field in Word. Return to Index

Print - balearhouse