This Proposed Plan identifies the Preferred Alternative forcleaning up the contaminatedsoil and ground water atthe

', Delatte Metals Superfund Site (Site) and provides the'ratio-nale for this preference. In addition, this Proposed Plan in-

:, eludes summaries of other cleanup alternatives evaluated foruse at this Site. This document is issued by the U.S. Envi-,,ronmehtal ProtectionAgency(EPA), the lead agency for Siteactivities, and the Louisiana Department of Environmental

^ Quality (LDEQ), theState of Louisiana support agency. The;, : EPA, m consultation with the LDEQ, wiU select a final rem- ' .

edy for the Site after reviewing and considering all informa-;:• tion submitted during the 30-day public comment period. The

• .4"; EPA, in consultation with the LDEQ, may modify the Pre- .; ferredAItemative or select another response action presented

"•'. :•': in,this Plan based on new information or public comments.;7' ; Therefore, the public is encouraged to review and commentg ! on all the alternatives presented in this Proposed Plan. —':

nation at the Delatte Metals Superiund Site inPonchatoula, Louisiana.i::."^ 'll 'ii^^C^^^S'St'

Describe the otherremedial alternatives consid-ered in detail in the Feasibility Study: ^ ^[^^

Solicit public review andcottunentonallofthealternatives presented, as well as on informationcontained in the Administrative Record File, ,^^

Provide mforrnation on how the public can learn' . . - . . . . . . _ : • • ' , - .•.'..,.......„.;;... .;. •;-..-. ,'..:';-'-- -,::—. . .... -. ...• - ..:;-,..- .;-;-:-^ ...••••

more abput the decision process rbr the DelatteMetals Superfiind Site.

^^tingency Plan (NCP): This Proposed Plan summarizes infbr- activities that have been conductedatlheSitebyvis^^-i:^-"'. / ' • . . ' ' ' . . « " " . - - ' • ' ' - --•, • -,; ^^•.-^-^-- ••• •~ ^ . • . ^ - " . , ^ • • ' • ' . i ' ' _i" : :""-"""" " . ' ' " • • ' . ' " - • • • ' - ' ' " . ' ."-^--;^;.^:-:..\•:-^'^;;:.^': ' ' • - • . ' . : '• ••:•^\s•,••^ ^.^f:^^'-^-^^-^--:^:^^^^-:^^^^-^w - , mation that can be round m greater detail m the documents information repositories. Information concerning thepublicr - contained in the Administrative Record File forjthis Site. ^comment period'theopenhouse.fh^

• ^ . : ' : . . -' • . ' ' • • • " " " • : ..::^',;':::.'.. .-.i'-.;?; .'.' •'"'y.' • .^^^'M';^"--'^-,.. ."";•.•-• aV^^^.:. '..-.;'*;••..-."-7?;;. --.•.-.••:•;,;.• ... ;•-?•.• •K':- •• "yy; rta-: ;..•'i»; ., •:!~5a •-M••;

- •": --- -' : ! .' -^^:•;':;.:i^^^^^l¥^:",;^:•"^^^;:^?^&>;•&^:^ ;^-:^^^s^and.the,mfonna.tion repbsitQnes'are provided with; this Pro- , .\:.• r*f\nimui iMjnrv BA iaTi/*mAT'i<^M" ':^'. ' " " ' : ' ' ' ' ' ' ;.•*.'\" ">-'•;. '''•-i^'i'".^' iw •' '~':••.' ;'.';„ ;-':•?;'- •••'•-''<•• -•'••;••• -• -•••"•'. •-•~:•<^^^»;s/i>s:i;t-»s;tiK>^•'s;a;$%;8^*;&B':CpMmUNITY PARTICIPATION • - . . • • . • ^•^•.•'^••..^^^^^posedPlan. : . . ^ . . y • . . :,• ^^ :.:• :X;:C^^^$@f ^;l|iSl%®

^ - ; ; The EPA and LDEQ provide information regarding cleanup^,,,: activities to the public through open houses, public meet-^^ihgs, and announcements published' in local newspapers.B^There is also anAdmimstratiYe Record, File locatedat all als,Inc.<DMQ:fac^„ ... „„-.;.,.—— ..;. . . .- ..-.-,..- ...... ...-,...,..-,.,.„..-.». .,.....,.-„ ..-.,,.^..,-^..:.- .-..., .1.,.:. ;..; ;-, .,••...;.•:•,;"•,-••:...-. ——.„.:-.....,..•...- .- :-W.S.: ^B^S..lK-~;.Aw^

^ ^ ^

Pre-Remedial' '\'' ' ?• .. S^1^^ _^esp< ..F^SS,;; ; l vy^- Preliminary Assessment' '. ' - s / ^ \ R B m B d i a i • • • ' •• • " " ^ " ' " " : • •••..\. . ' . • ..^-^ i .Y'^ '-^t .ra.- ,^

; l!S=? ..ona, -4) .^^^•i^^'}' - • • prinritw 1 ict. ' '"" ' • ' " ' ' •'•'••'" '•"'';;* ' ' '' ' ^RIFSI : ^ • " • - ':'''. '"'"-;• .'•:' v ' - ' t . f ' vr-y - - / . - - . , ,„ . v-..,; . ..,

^yM^S i ^^^^^^^&S^^^oposed Record 'of.g sg.Ss ^ ,

::^^£ (ROD)• - • ,.K, • • •

023990 •:2'

Dates to Remember: ' ^^ \;

MARK YOUR CALENDAR :

PUBLIC COMMENT PERiOD^July 14 -August 14. 2000 ^

PUBLIC MEETING: S^July 31. 2000 ^^

The EPA will hold a public meeting to explain the Pro-posed Plan and all of the alternatives presented in theFeasibility Study. Oral and written comments will alsobe accepted at the meeting. The meeting wffl be held atSouth Tangipahoa Parish Health Unit, 15481 W, ClubDeluxe Road, Hanunond, Louisiana. . ? ' :^y:;

For more information, see the Administrative Record.File at the fpllowmg locations: '^^^^y^^^^

Ponchatoula Library . EPARegion 6 Library '380 N. 5th Street , - ^ 1445 Ross Avenue': „ '.^Ponchatoula. LA 70454'' '^"yDa^^

. Hours: Mon-Sat, ^ ^^.^/.;^^^Hfours^Mq^^8:30 a.m.to^SO'p.m;^ "^^30!a!m;ltof4:30^

- A _ . -^ ^ • •. J • ••»- • - - - - • •••-' •-•••• •- •!.' .• ft -l:.;: ?^ ^ ^ . "' .' / ^?^

and battery chips. Other identified source areas removed from :'the Site included the acid tank: farm, furnace buUding,'drums.^^;;;;of metal-contaminated waste, and tote bags of baghouse dust. T"r"

. • • • : • • • • " • • • ' . • • • . . • • ; . . . • '•"...•• :; ^-..^ /•^^^•..' •^SAW'8";'' ^"®^9

Between themid-I98dstoJ990s/LDEQw^facility in attempts to correct Site deficiencies within envi-T^Sronmental regulations. However in September 1997, Louisi- , >i|ana Governor Mike Foster formally requested that the Site ;: ^be addressed by EPA and listed on the Superfund National "'""'"Priorities List (NPL). A Hazard Ranking System documenta- ; , '

- - • - . - • • . • • • - - • . - - • • • - . ' - . • . • - - ' . :-,. '. \. . - • — . . , . - . • • ' • . . - , . •:. . • • • , - • • • ; " l .•:l»i-;."v%!i.S

tion package was subsequently prepared and the Site was pro- .. ^posed for addition to the NPL in July'1998. T

On January 19, 1999, ERA formally announced^the addition;^of the Site to theNPLm the Federal Register Y'^'^.^ ^iJ

' SITE CHARACTERiSTicS'::' '".T'^^'^'^^:^ ^

The Site is located in a rural area of Tangipahoa Parish. The '.;area around the Site consists of residential properties- unde- ;

-- • - - ....:.•..-: s'. . . . ' - • - - ' • - - ' .'• . . -'.-: " •.. • - • '•-• . ' - ~ -:,.• - • ' • - -• - ' - . •--.

veloped land, and farm.land.^ Weinberger Road is located ,. ^south of the Site, and due soulfaofWembergerRoadls aresi- ^dential neighborhdbd. The southeast comer oftise Site is bpr- ^deredbytwo^^residences.^,Eastoftfe^Site is undeveloped land, l

which coritams^wetlancts:,InimeAatelyduenor&- .;,..;^.;,AA»^.^,;^55:^;^:ij^^^.i^^^;y^.-^s^^^^^ neighborhood.' West of the Site^is a residence, ' "' •

~;:•'•^:: ;i ; '. ^?i i ^^Si ?aa^^

site ine UMl taciutv consists ot approximatelyIJ zacres "n'aiucii,u<upiupcJtLy, iuiuovcJnJpcuiBuiu,aiiu,tainii<mu. Jinc

. ; iThe total areaof me Delatte Metals Site^i^^TOrbximafely'' •• ' .' . . '•• - • ' . ;•:. T-ii.-'-fff'.'^'-y —:•!••:,.-iX/fFf,1^y:•••,•VW•v ^W.iftlr-'.'^v.w^v, J~ •vS.

18.9 acres. The Site is located at 19113:Wemberger Road in• ; • • • • • . • • : ; •.:• ••• ^-•\'•^•:^^;.^..?**w:•W^:K»^»ws••~w-"c';i(";•..y;.'.c>al.^^yl.^.s.a,•-,••;•iS

. • Tangipahoa Parish about 2.5 miles southeast ofPonchatoula-- "Louisiana"

-' •'During the l96ds, the batteryrecycling and smeltingoper- '- ' '-" - - - .* • I . . . . ' • . •.••-,, *- • ' . - . :. •^•^'•s' - ' • ' • . • • : • •~ : • .. .- . - ~ : > . •-.•.'.-.-,. I'-. 1;,-.- .-•J:-. -:l.'::l*"~^V> ——-.-:• .- ..•.-.-j1

ated under the name Delatte and Fuscia'Hattery Compahy^?In the early 1980s, the facility'name was'changed to DML

t:.-- - " -'." .- • • • - - • . -;-••--".• ;.'.'.• :• . "-••"-•--•• • 'I ; •-.-• '••',<• '•:;;--'•.-':-,-: •i; '•• •?.••"•''•.-•K -•.•,•--;:••\'•-•;<v—-. ; -- •..•..•'•.•. -•iAS ."'- .-

: The operations performed at the facility included spent. - .- ;, "•-" :.-" -;'. • --• . -•- '. 1'.": ••- S - • • - : -» ..•-,.- . . -'--: ;. . - . . - • . . - - -'"... " -l- :;. - - • - . ' ; • . • • < . : - — — -- - ,•-•. ...

lead-acid battery demolition to remove associated lead plates 1- • . • - . . • • • • ; -•r:--'".^ ^v.;--—. .. - • ^ :.-"•••;•:-:.- --:-.. ,'- --.=-..•;-,•:•-;:.. '-';;:-^^;.^..s^:-—r-.-..•i-^ -A;.:

and the subsequent lead smelting of the lead plates to pro-duce lead ingots. The typical process at me facility involved".:sawing off the tops of the batteries and removing the lead

; plates in me battery saw buUdmgl' After opening the battery^ \cases,the battery acid was.drained into a sump. Prior to the\

mid-1980s, the acid was pumped fromthe^sump to an ua-'• .lined pond located on the^north^side^of^tfee !§ite; ".Ajfter Ae"

( : ' :'closure of the acid pond, the acid was pumped through an:underground pipe to me acid tank farm. The spent acid was'

8- ':-' "M." ' • I - - ' '" ' i A-'rt-l "-i,"! "''••'•'"• •^^^•'i-^W'iW-^M-w-.K'^^'.^'-'^.-iiw:.^^aea shipped aft-Site^ror recyclmg.'?^^.^^;';^^^^^^^:^..

^-^i In September 1998, EM Region began a^Rfimova^ ''r^atlhe[Site. Theremoval activitiesxsonsisted of removing abovey^ ground wastes at the Site, vhich"included pUes ofsiag^dust,

'AtW1; . :,-.

tWt\<o- .--.. .yi Ms .i.B.a.s'-W. '-Si.-ie'SS ;

Delatte Metals

nearest residence is located on-Site in the DMI office build-^ ing. • ; ; ' ' ' • • • : '' •'. ;''•^••:;^^';:;:;:•-' ^•••'•;;^-:.\..V :... '.l': ;';•.:? •^A

SCOPE AND ROLE OF THE ACTION

This action, referred to as Delatte Metals Remedial Action,will be the final action for the Site. The Remedial ActionObjectives for Delatte Metals are to prevent current and fu-ture exposure to contaminated media through a combinationof the immobilization treatment process, off-Site disposal,and monitoring of ground water at the Site. Through the useof treatment technologies^ this response will permanently re-duce the toxicity, mobility, and volume of those source mate-rials that constitute the principal threat wastes at the Site.

SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS S

Throughout the year of 1999-2000, EPA conducted Reme-dial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) field sampling ac-tivities. The RI/FS identified the types, quantities, andlocations of contaminants and developed ways to address the

" ' • " " " . " " " " . . ' " . WHATARETHE '•"" "":•;";"" "";'-:"CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN"?

TheEPAandLDEQ have identified one contaminantof con-cem that poses the greatest potential riskfo human health atfhissite. .^ : ;••<. ::.;.;• [.\^:•^.^^^'^•?:^K:':^^•.^^Lead: Lead is a bluish-white lustrous metal, whicim verysoft, highly malleable, ductile, and a conductor of electricity.The density of lead is 1.1,340 irf/kg, and the melting point is327.5 EC. During the production process, lead is typicallycontaminated with antimony, arsenic, copper, and zinc. Thetypical background concentration of lead in soil is 10 to 18nig/kg.; •• y:;.-.,:.. .:; ': ;;; ^^ iS^ •:^Lead has been used by humans for thousands of years be-"cause of its malleability, resistance to corrosion, and abun-dance. This metal can be a component of solder, paint,gasoline, ceramics, roofing, caulking, and ammunition. How-ever, with-the exception of roofing and ammunition, theamount of lead added to these products has generally de-creased in recerityears as awareness of the toxicity associ- "ated with lead has increased (ATSDR 19931; Carson, Ellis,and McCann 1986). Currently in me U.S., leadis predomi-

'. nanfty used in batteries. ^ ' ' ^ ' ^ - ' • ' ^ '•^K^.i^^'^X\^'/^^: •-..:.•" '-i:- ••'•- . ^yi;! ^ ^ ?;'. ; :Wimleadbemgthemostabundaht contaminant atthe site, it ;

.:is consideredthe contaminantofcbhcem. Lead wjU be used as the target compound in cleanup procedures. When the^,lead contamination is removed from the ate, all other con-!tanunarits will be removed or lowered to safe levels along

-with it • ri 'iS'y 't:,' ?' ^^^5; ^

contamination problems. In addition, EPA conducted a Hu-'maffHealth.Risk Assessment and an Ecological RiskAssess-mentto determine the current and _future effects ofcontaminants oh human health and the environment.The :EPA also completed a Treatability Study to assess tile appli-cability of different remedial techhoiogies.' ^ ;

According to the zoning board of Porichatoula, Louisiana,"'the areas adjacent to the Site facility areasarc zoned forvest-,Tr:dential usage, while the facility areas are zoned as industrialusage. Therefore, these are the reasonably anticipated futureland uses for the off-Site and on-Ske areas. ^ ^^^^"^^

Lead was detected above the industrial risk level of 1,700;mg/kg in 26 of the on-Site surface soil samples. The highest: lead concentration detected was 185,000 mg/kg. The higherlead concentrations^were[detected on the northend of site in !the area of the former slag pile, on tile eastsideofthe site inthe area of the former NPB facility, arid on the south side ofthe site in the areas of the battery saw building and Ihe main-tenance building. ^ ^ ^J !\?'?' ''^''l'^':^^^^^^']^^

Lead/was detected^aboye the industrial risk; level of 1,'700 V ":;:mg/kg UL:12 of me shallow subsurface soil samples. Tti&laigh- ^^^est detected lead concentration in the shallow subsurface was^^,7^94.000 mg/kg in the 4 to 5 foot depth. The higher lead con- : • %

-. . .-. ~^ - - . . - : ' • •? • - " " • • " - • • • • .•:. - ' ."- ' " • . " " - — -•• - '• " -'• •'- "•-'••'": l;.''-"'-'•"";':: v • '•' •"•l':^cehtrations were detected on the east side of the site and'on1 y^the north end of the site.

Most of the metals were detected in Ihe first TOter-beanngzone, and included high concentrations of alununum fanti- ;:mony, cadmium, lead, manganese, and zinc on the north^side ; ;;of the Site andmIhe^aofthefimnerl B fa^^. .....,,....,. ...,...,...., , .. „.:-,•;.-,,.;;•.,;;.:,. mi: -.- ..t . - i . 'B'iKiai ^^e-tii w^ap

. . ; • •^.^/^'^"^^^^^'"-s^^^^^^e^^^ss^^Surface water samples were collected fromreisers^C^4 ,its tributaries. MostTof the metals detectedl in the Surface"' ^

: •:• • . . , • : • • • . •• • '• ••: • .-. ,;,.;-:,•<•->-S^»i^B»%<S'^'?st^water were above the risk screening levels for lead and zinc.;.; ;';:: :;;;:i_, .": . • " . • • • .•.-'/•.^•.-;''-, ••;; •-^^^-^^i-^'^^^i^^^SW-.RiREa^;These concentrations were detected in the surface .water fe^;

...• • • ' . • ; . •.•..:•.-.•.-• .. . :.,.•.,.•...,!.:•.,,•••.• ......... ....';. .. ...,...'....,. .w'^^WsSQ^-^is^iSpti^.samples'•collected, from^a.ditch eastofthe.Site^^^^:^Weinberger Road, the tributary of Selsers CreeklQcated|nor&of the Site, Ihe low-lying land located west or'th&^S ; ^.. . . . ' . - . . . • . • '. : . :• ., ... .: '..7\,..- aT=a«;wws»wK. e»es^s^the cypress swamp located southwestof the'^Site' across : ;wWeinberger Road,^,

. . . ' .'. .i/::;:^:•:;' :;"?^^:S;;%!::iA't^^^S%Sediment samples were collected fi-omyairit ^

. r - . . • : • • : : • ' . • ^;\;;.'•_.^Aa«;^KlyS5•:i•:.^»;ii^.;»^,~•;.^:a^•-Ai«--;^•s^;^.aquatic habitats near the Site and from locations;, in-Selsers : ;

••••;• :••-•• •^•••' .y.K--': -,..<.( _^.•^^^-•^?.^^v^«^?.,a^>< '»sW^^^••w•<wCreek upstieam of the Si fos^^me^s^^the sediment .mcluded highc enti is p tiscreening levels), of antinKKiy rs ^centrations were detected m me'sedimentsainples.^oll^^. .. . . . .,,,,,; ...„.;..... .,.~;:.i-;-a, B^^ ls.i, ^ .- S%W^from the ditch on the norih^osduth of the Site, in: a tributary of &

. - • ' : . • : . . : ^ -: .z.,.-: :\^•V-:t:^j•rS'y ~:.:."-• ••• "•••-^ '^w^

023992

WHAT IS A^PRINCIRAL THREAT'?

TheNCP establishes an expectation that EPA will usetreatment to address the principal threats posed by asite wherever practicable (NCP Section300.430(a)(i)(iii)(A)). the rmcipaltiireat'^co^is applied to the characterization of"source maten- \als" at a Superfund site. A source material is materialthat includes or contains hazardous substances, pol-lutants, or contaminants that act as a reservoir for 'migration of contamination toground water, surfacewater, or air, or acts as a source for direct exposure:Principal threat wastes are those source materials con-:3sidered to be highly toxic or highly mobile that gener-ally cannot be reliably contained, or would present a :

significant risk to human healthorthe environmentshould exposure occur. The, decision fefreat these;

•-. ,* .;, .-. ,•. .•^.._.. . . ^^—^".^^'•s-^^ --»••wastes is made on a site-specific basis through a de-tailed analysis of the alternatives using the nine rem-edy selection criteria. Thisanalysis provides a basisfor making a statutory finding that the remedy em-ploys treatment as a principal element.

also identified to be.at nsk due to Site contaminants. Thesehabitats are: (1) bottomland hardwood forest, (2) SelsersCreek and its tributaries, and (3) cypress swamp habitat.

REMEDIALACTION OBJECTIVES

The Remedial Action Objectives (RAO) for Hie Site are to:

0 ^ Reduce or eliminate the direct contact threat associ-ated with contaminated soil. ::

0 Minimize or eliminate contaminant migration to the: ground water and surface waters to levels that en-

sure the beneficial reuse of these resources.0 . Minhnize future migration of ground water contami-.. ; • ' ' .^'nation.''''''"^'''1*';^'^'^.^;/-'^-'^?'^'^"^0 ^Reduce or eliminate further contamination of ground.'; .,: :\ .water.." .v. ."•; '\ V' ' •^ ' f;^^ ':''"^"''';'' ';' ';''';','..

This proposed action will achieve the RAOs by reducing theconcentrations of the soil contaminants to the following Pre-liminary Remedial Goals (PRGs). Th&EPAexpectsthat meet-ing the PRGs will both reduce the risk associated withexposure.to soU contaminants to an acceptable leyel, and en-

"""IL;;, ure minimal migration of contaminants into the ground wa-. .i--^fe^.?.:^^;^^K;^^^^5;@i^^^^^y^^^

of the Site, and inme tributary of Selsers Creek located norm ^ „,

._- • • • • • •l...•;•.^\.;".^•^Y^.;•,^^-,y^•••^^•-:•:t^¥»»%?>?K.^^^":S^^^^.•^w^;^^The contaminated soils within the pn-Site .areas are consid-.,, . S&^^K^, S^a-y^ered to be "principal threat stes'i;becau!se the chemicals oiT"*, ,. ,:Resideatial .5°P,nig/kg Lead,-:.•::...' •:. ',^ •:•, -^-t..- ,r- •"'; v.•^•••^^!,,i<?s!:^e•^w^if: ; ffi:<^ ii'«s%-Mtfs"xsi?^^concerns are highly mobile and found at concentrations that :.; • ; ; '\;;:;CJ^/' ^; ':'V^r''\.!:?^:??'•^^:;' ^pose a signtiBicant riskto niunan health and me environmerit.^ : fiColog^caliSOmg/kgl^^ • . .:•;; .;.'•.•;:.;.;^ •^:; ^i;:-; ^4

. „;_, • - • ^:•!.••;/M• l;•••'y•,"->^w»v•^,i''-^<-••^;^'^y„;^s^^^^, „.; - 'The excess caixanpgenicnsktoan^mdiYidual.posed by these. •;;,? , '.;•:... .; i: ^%^ i; ,®i ^

maiteriaisisupwa^ 1^ "''"' " dusihnari,7b0mg/k^.• .„ , ''.'.,-••.. - • .- ;,:•• •^••i^v'.. •'.-.:. vf.ay'^^vv^'w'f^ssf.iiS^if^.v- a-v:,.';.:?:;' .^aw^-^^^^^^^^.^.tiK^^y^;;^;.^^.^;,,-^:,.^^;^.^.^^.^^-^^-^^.- . •;-. . .~.-s.

words, rfme contaminated sou at me Site is not remediated, :, .;whichwasusedtp Calculate a commercial reroedia-,' ;as manyas four out pf^eyery 106,000 mdividuals exposed to ^the soil could develop cancer as^a .resultof tha^e^osure.';: ': ^ y ; kg lead. • Removal of lead-contammated soils, also

'- ••; ^%^^%;i ^B%%s ' ''•,'' "•'"^^ " "' y1-,-:- -';•W;W•i;•':•„;"tt-•;!•^fcE•;^^^^<AK;..^»•i•^rt-tei<,yS,^•• ^!,.^;:^v-;i::;;>¥;;"ff^^te^^,^^^^^•^!i%?.^.^feSat..y^t^^In off-Site soils, the excess carcinogenicnsk to a n ; m d i y i d u a l , , ; n a n t , ^ a nposed by identified contaminants is upwards of six in ' \ closeiy co-located; "'.1,000,000 (6^W6):: m'othervrords.tflte'conte^^

, •. „.'. • -., • ' , ?"<_;-•'.;»•.•.• . -?.-<^\^^^^t^,»?,®-y?"CT.Ji;...vy;K:^^.-r,-."^ri^,:;;B';K;;^^^^Sitesoil at^the^ Site isnotrememated, as many as si o :; 2. Residential 500 mg/kg lead: The Integrated Expo-every l.OOO.dbo individualsexposedto the^ff-Site soil coul^ ^^ ^^^^^

''• ' ' •""-i • i "' '":1" •"•• " ';:' ^'^'•t:''.•,"•'^"^••"•;;l•~'•8?>r"»^•t''t^^•l^^:•l-^''^W!^^,AAi8^^^s'!^A:.i:? .'.-•,....-;;>.^-.:. ,,; •;.'•.•.-:- •-, .• :\develop cancer as a. result of exposure. ^ ^ ^ ^ ^S^^; :;^^^is^;-:^i3Kthe nsk assessmenfcto initially determine the prob-^ .- w iiaiai ^ ^ —.,:.,-%.l ofconteminan^

2^£*^., -,•-••^l•^••',;A^^»^^?^^?^^.^^w"^.^.^ •";„„.„-,.-„.... ..^^^ developed by taking into account various .cpiitservative' as- . ^^ lead level (Clarification to the 19$4 Revised Interim " ^Sl ,.;.,'.';(~:. -. -..'..- • . --->••• •-'.•--• "-• • • : - _ i :; --•.^-•.'•W.-"^:--^. •.•:••• • .•V.--. '•---iy.:-'- '-.'*•: !-^.:;-'w ;-.'<?_;- '^'^•^.^^•^^f^^'-^^^^-^:-^^^-^-^^^::^^^.'-.^.:^. ^.••'.-^-t.vVY^;'-- ..;•;...::..•. •••^.-;'i •-^.- ,. • •- ---- ,-- .'-. -.:-.^.^-----i^1 ^ - •-.! •;.,.;- .--.- S^g

^;;'; sumptions about the frequency and duralionofanmdividual's: Soil Lead Gmdance:forC^ ':SS'y-'-'S" •;•••• '- ••-•; •:\': •W.-^^f.-'.^-'':. .<-,;-•;'• -•'S''^^-^-''"^-!^''^^?^^-^'^'^"-^1^'-..^'^^^^''^;^-'^.^;^^-;^''^^^^^?,-,^^ i'.i'.——K-:-'! .'~,;.v.''\ .r-?;';, -.3Mfc. sureto .sodand^^p-^pf detected chemicals. Three, ecological habitats have been - ^^^^uig the IEUBK, this gavea;PRGof5()(>ma^lead'^

023993

WHAT IS RISK AND HOW IS ITCALCULATED?

A Superfund human health risk assessment estimatesthe "baseline risk." This is an estimate of the likeli-hood of health problems occurring if no cleanup actionwere taken at a site. To estimate the baseline risk at Su-perfund sites, EPA undertakes a four-step process:Step 1: Analyze ContaminationStep 2: Estimate ExposureStep 3: Assess Potential Health DangersStep 4: Characterize Site RiskIn Step 1, EPA looks at the concentrations of contami-nants found at a site as well as past scientific studies onthe effects these contaminants have had on people (oranimals, when human studies are unavailable). Com-parisons between site-specific concentrations and con-centrations reported in past studies helps EPA todetermine which contaminants are most likely to posethe greatest threat to human health.In Step 2, EPA considers the different ways that peoplemight be exposed to the contaminants identified in Step1, the, concentrations that people might be exposed to,and the potential frequency and duration of exposure.Using this information, EPA calculates a "reasonablemaximum exposure" (RME) scenario, which portraysthe highest level of human exposure that could reason-ably be expectedfo occur, 'l ^^•.\"^'^'^:''^..^i^,;^^^. ,^'In Step 3, EPA uses the information from Step 2 com-bined with information on the toxicity of eachchemicalto assess potential health risks. EPA considers two typesof risk: cancer risk and non-cancer risk. The likelihoodof any kind of cancer resulting from a Superfund site isgenerally expressed as an upper bound probability; forexample, a "1 in 10,000 chance." In other words, forevery 10,000 people that could be exposed, one extracancer may occur as a result of exposure to site con-taminants. An extra cancer case means that one moreperson could get cancer than would normally be ex-pected to from all other causes. For non-cancer health

-;, effects, EPA calculates a "hazard index." The key con-cept here is that a "threshold level" (measured usuallyas a hazard index of less than 1) exists below which :

^non-cancer health effects are no longer predicted. " •In ;Step'4, EPA determines whether site risks are greatenough to cause health problems for people at or nearthe Superfund site. The results of the three previoussteps are'JCombined, evaluated, arid summarized. The

•:- EPA adds up the potentialrisks from the individual re-J^ ceptprs and contaminants and characterizes the site as¥ rhazardous or. nonhazardous. '^ !^? ' i ^®S

3. Ecoiogtcal80mg/kg lead:The Lowest ObservedAdverse Effect Level for lead was identified and is aPRO because exposures above this level are predictedto result in adverse effects to ecological receptors.

SUMMAIWOFREMEDIALALTER^^

Remedial alternatives for the Delatte Metals Site, are presented .;,.';below. Many of these alternatives include commpff compo- ! ;^nents. The soil contains hazardous waste as defined by theResource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and istherefore subject to the RCRA land disposal restrictions(LDR) if the waste is excavated and treated orremoved fromthe area of contamination. All remedies involving such ac-tivities willcomply with the LDR (63 FR 28555; May 26,1998) and will meet 90 percent removal efficiency or 10 timesthe universal treatment standard for that contaminant in^tihe ,material prior to land disposal in a RCRA-compuant landfill. ':.:..

Several of the remedies require institutional cpritrols (e.g., , \deed restrictions such as an easement or covenant) to limit ;the use of portions of the property or to ensure that the wateris not used for drinking water purposdsl These resource use f^restrictions are discussed in each. alternative as appropriate. ';:The type of restriction and enfbrceability will need to be de- ;?

-•- - • - . - . ' - - • . ' - •;-•'- --••^•-- :--;••;--•-•..--..-:";"•' -•'- • - -..'--:•:•.----..•.-.-!.;:-. ..'•"'."• ^^^S

termined for the selected remedy in the Record of Decision ^(ROD); Consistent with expectations set 'out in the Super- ^iund regulations, none of the remedies rely exciusively on :,- - — • - - • . - ...: . . . • ' . - . ^ - -^ . -^ .-.;----•-..---•..•-•.-,• - " . • - • ..-.-- ' ":-''- '-'.-.'• '••/:".';-;,•--'.,..'.;./;:;';institutional controls to achieve protectiveness.' Mpmtonng ^to ensure the effectiveness of the remedy, including deed re- ; ^strictions, are a component ofeach alternative, except the : ^"no action" alternative. :• "•'•:\^';^.^:;•';' •^•^•^'^S^'S^i^^®

There is, a ground water .component of Alternatives'2 to <S,' ^that requires the monitoring of ground water to ensure that •contaminants have not migrated into the third^ water-bearirig ^zone (the uppermost drinking water aquifer). Additionally, •:

• - • • ••\-:: ."•- . • - • • • . . • -.-.....-.. ,...,...?•.••.;,. .••^^••ft/- i.S'.-:^.'?-.*!;?;this ground water component includes recovering and treat- ;ing contaminated ground water as a'contingency ifcontami-Jnation of the third water-bearing zone becomesevident; All ,",soil and ground water alternatives, except the "no action" ,

' ' '- ' " " - • " attain'EPA's-RAT'"^"1"31""'"'^

TREATMENT ALTERNATiyES 'gS

Presented herein are the 'treatment 'alternali&, -- • •=;-• :• : ; - . . . . . . - . . - . •--•-.• .-:. .. -..-..•>'.•' - •'.;;• '•" "y-';•'"•?•<,: __<•'•; _:;•:. •• --•i—:-: ;-;-„;

posed remedial action for the Delatte Metals, Sne^Eightal-r •:. .......... . . . . . . : . . . . . ..*,._- -t;..• v-,ii ••! •i ^v'c.• K•(-i;'''•s^l

tematives are presented mtms Proposed Plan: Alternative;l,,;• .. , . ...'. •.,:..'. .. . ' • •...•• .•::. .-;.• l... ,;K;.h, ••.;.i' .x.»\'--.»S•;»,'„ ; ^^^^^

isthe°^actipn'Ialternative.-Alter^^

'alternative, are expected to attam'EPA's-RAQs. t ^g

;: „ .-^; ^may be placed in the lined area or used as topsoil for theEstimated Capital Cost: $106,C)Q6 '.' "^ ^ ,:,:;\c<n^ ifitmeetetihetppsoUspec^ 'the area would

^^Estimated Construction Tmiefr^ I".' Z rbe ]mlOT"^^; The total cost iorthe 'acticm"^aiSnativelsfl$io^ not leaking. 'Permeable treatment walls wiiJ be^ . , thetotalcostmchidesno<;^^ side of]the Site to neutralize flie shal-'^ based on the^ review^pfSiteconditions^fsvery. 5 years overa^ i-10 , 0™^^ Md 1TO^^ met"

30-year period. No other operation^aiKl maintenance costs 7^. : wUlbe included, ReguiaticmsgowrnmgtheSupel^^

gram generally require that the "no action" alternative be to the Site and potential future uses will be limited throughevaluated generally to establish a baseline for comparison.; '&euseof^tita^Under this alternative, EPA would take no action at the Site tions. Ground water^ monitonng will be^performed with thisto prevent exposure to the soil ahd'ground water contanuna-^ aItCTnative to monitor the ""S1' 1011 of FP11^111"1^0? m flle -.tion^ "^ '"^ ' /" ' ^7;: '7:^^^ ' ^i-: ^^^^^^S" .' ^ " ' ' ' ' " ' " " ' ' ' \ ' " ' " : : ' ; ^ ' ' ' ' ' ^ " ' '

IVIUIIILtJIIIIfJ • • • ^ •.;;•".,.:;. •~'"--' ^\.^,W?^».^.;^^--Kiy.;--Y;^a^?s..,^^;^^^?-^ . . , . . - . - . ^^:. .;(,....-.• -;.,^;.-^-.;^..:

Estimated Capital Cost: 7 000,000 ". ^^e^S^s^TT^ec/ Capital Cost: ;; $8,800 ftOO ^Es^teof^eto^c^^'RAO^e/^Ss^Contanuhated soil willbe,eappedm piace wimalRC^haz^ ' .a1^^ardous waste animuancecap^Thea^^ contammated soils on Site. The con-".. •J:^^^ '/^^^^?^:^^:.^^ ' ^^^^^^

..<@?%»®^ ; ^& -" -—•

'y'W'"'?;',""'••••<,••" -'••11 I '•-:!.."rrt.-?—}•iinated soils will be excayat?taminateci sous wiii uc cx.txtva.iou <mu pinui-u mo. i-uinuuoii.w .u.»». tt**o.w>. „-,«....—• ————...,-.-^ . „ . . . . . , . , ; . . . . . . . . . , „„ , . . , „ . ,

|soasn^b^placed inthelineaarcaw^astopsoU for the areas will be-badeffledwith^orl ils;a^^pcoverifitmeete^^s^^ cause the contaminated soils will be permanently imioved^

l 'moniSfm^etaiiyW^^^P^ntyandisnotlea 'PexmeaMe^^Imstalied onthe'norm side? o£me SitetoIiieutTali the'shai- "pBw' CTmd water an^Unut ''nugra^p^Umewmiseap^^pax^^^whidi notcapppte 'Site and po^ail6tureuses^ be limited titoough not excavated, lime will be applied to fhe surface soils in ^^Ptite^afmstitutio^ iiotices/restric- areas with acidic soils for iieutraHzaficm/Access totheSite^

^&m£' Ground wtencn^utorii willte^llaitemtivefe monitor the miration of corijamiiati the mstitutional controls"s^ch' as deed; notices/restrictions, ^llgroimdwater ^^^ ' this 31tGT~ ^ :tis^^^ :;'?-, ; ^ :' ^^^ ^ 'h, ys^>'%^TO•^' ;;%:%'"P?S^»:T •£%;';i^^p Alternative 4: Immobilization (Solidification/ groundwater, . ,;,,...,:;;.., ^^•: -^.^Q^&^^m^^SRsi ili&on) -SiteDisposar& Ground Water •'"'"^ i ^^^^^t^^^••A" l•'; ti., „••'••' ^:^^^?^^^ 6: Off-Site Disposal & Ground Wa- • - •M6mt6ring-': ; .®^^Sl®E^^^EstimatedCapital Cos^: ,$8,000,000 ':;;:/' ter Monitoring

Estimated Capital Cost:^-Es^ated^^sffifonTwe^^Ihis aitemati e^^vaS^ Consfm /rTTmeframe: 4 months _taminantspresei mtesurfa^ands^^ On :;Ttealtemafiyea^ and

- the^on^cbrnanmiliiemixture-wiirbeused^

i-tions-Th^off^conQim^^ transported to^Site;'BecanseTOisrmiedial action

tive efEectivelyTeduces the mobility ofthe<^ntammant^it;terial.Bec^^^eliminates risks associated wi&iurther confammationofthe: removed fi-omthe Site, this altema^elnninatesn^

\ subsurface ^ Consequently it pnof future Site users and nearby residents. Permeable treat- 'lace: Consequently, provides long-tCTm protection to :.:r^

^ment walls v^bein^ed ltenoilhsideofte: neutralize the shallowiround; of dissolved metals. EOT soils that are not excavated, lime water and limit the migration of dissolved metals^For^ds , ,

wmbeappUed^lfes^for rieutralization?'^cess'to'fhe Site and' potential fature - 'soUs in areas with acidic soils for neutralization. Access to ; ^;; uses^^WlinSibrou fhe^^^ such as deed notices/restiictionst'ffiou^ " trols such as deednotices/restactois.,

' ^beperfonnedwig^alternafiw••:.-: .tion of contanunationm'a^oundl g^ ^ ^ momtpr.the migration of cohtamination m the

t < Alternative 5* ImmbDilizaiioh (Sollidification/Sta- .: ".;;^:-,;^ ^; . . . . . . . : .,\.'.;.; .^^r.; •' ::.s.:. .•••.t "•:'' ''.:^ • : : ; : ^^:b.l.zation)r6ff ite^spo%&:er ^

.csnmareo Wl^^^ -S^^^^—^ "" ':aite^native^ against'eacli other m order W:'Wmated ConsfrUC^n^^^^^^^ . ^ y :^ section of the Proposed PW profiles;;: i ,»» ,ic^ tme andimmob^ me^ ^ relative per&rmance;aCe^

br"rTiSiSifflr" "criteria, rioting how it compares to the other options underme JJ iana.aii. ._: - . ^ -_, „„"•'.'•; ..••.•v:'. ,; '': '' '":. ^"^"^••"'••'r.^'^^L-n--"''

SsEEstimated Capital UQSt,_^^-S''--*.--''''"'• • '• • • "• .."••:.• ... .* -.• •- -i.';. •'..... .-. .. .'."v""';"'1'?

^ This alternative aataU&exca? ^famihantsmthesui u i

^®-;.^ i'.'...;;?:,,..• i; . . .• .• .• ; . : •••-'t-;-. .-'-,S^4«,B5~

• WGlCtll 1 _• WI^V»^V«BW»-..«^IIM» •»»•»•«. • •»»»»•»• • ^ ^ • • M . . . ^ i » » ^ .;wrij lic«liuw VV1LII fkWjJim'CXWG- V| 1%W|GVC111L

: the rivironrheri %^^""-f^-^'-'-' . .. -:„;.-.•., ~.?'\'.!,. •...^^t^ '. ' i'a^syiiW^^ ilS^.?;?. '" ' ;^^®?^^*^-"^^?"®^ -..,.-;...»,* ..., . .... ..•;.' ..;. .........tAUJofthe alteiT ryes^eo^epttte iio^ Al- ' :^'r wouldprovideadequate. protection ofhuman health'and the tematives 2 and 3 do not conform with the presumptive rem-^ --• • - .- • . - - -< -'\ - ;•:J.--tfl -;-v''.v.;:".'-;:-5•'•• ¥•:\•-.-' i-•.:,••- . •;-. J-;- ". .;-. ^" :;?- -'- ;.- -;'- :-' -..- •-.•^•'•^'•,,'-'..% -•;?:'•- > ; -: v',•:-.•-•.:\. '•' .'. -•"^^Y^-il' -•.---.. — -^••.-i- ...•-••^" . -. .*- - . A - ..-. . , . .

^environment bywm&atmg, jredhicmg, :or s<M^ edies for, metals^m-soils. Sites; •,•, If. properly designed and'through treatment, ^eennglcontrcds, and/or ^^controls; Alternatives 1 and3':would provide protection by Alternative D^A^^comply w i l h A R A R ^ . ' " ' : , ^ - ^ ^;..--.'."::. ; . ••• '...:' •••'-• - - • ; : _ • .-ww^f^ —•ft-Kfs^^''!.. •-:s:?f' ••-• ' , • ; ., •• ;^-•^,•>^..•- : • • ' • • wwf:^•..':ff^•:!.:sK\w•S.^.J,. .••..••,..• i-.,. . ..,•„; ',. ^;-.-,:•;•-^!'!i••^:•; t-"~E.^l^;';^•.^:?preventing direct contact exposure to contaminated soils and : ^^ ^;;/;y^^:^^^^-;^"^-®- :?: "^^^-^^f^^

,..f^ ... ..-•-: .-a.;.-"- . .'..•. .\ ;...•: ...'. •.•'.,...*..--;..•.•.,..„ .. mt... •.;.!.,. S. ,; '.. .l-,..l.;;•;.^.,-;.^.^.^:a^^?^i;'A""^S^>••':•^A^.;•!^^r'l' •<i?w•SW•.^^a^^<^ "•,».!^.^" : • •;• ^ ."

'preventrng leakage ofthese (xintammated sourcel ^ Effectiveness and Pemrianehce.t&; ground w^byJcappir^^arca^ ^

:: mauitenanceandmonite^. the cap remained protective. Also^Altematiyesi 2 and 3 only health or the environment. The magnitude of risk will pro- ^ ?

; provide containment of the on ite^wastematCTals, Co^ gressiveiy decrease underAltematives 2;3,4, 5, an^ "Al-'1' '"^tainment s the Jeresumptiw .remedy for low-level ti ;,ternatives4, 5;and^vvUl provide the greatest mininSion ''wa^^A^W^Amchonas_ab^^.water run on to, the Site and tQ.miiunuze.franspdrt of con-; and/or disposing contaminated media: Alternative 2 3 "4 ^ •taminants by>urface-water runoffor^^^ 5; and 6 will include ground water monitoring to ensure long^•will not prevent wrtical .nugratipnofaie Site cpntamina

• to the third water-bearing; zone. .Because the "no action" al- ^•'^^^^^--•'^'^^^^"^^^^^^^^^ ^•^^ --- ... ..,.s^^^.: •• • • • .••• -.-•••;:• ^.^A;-;;''-,.^^^0,." -.;..,•A.~''";;•t.»'ft^':••'-'? •.•• • s-^r"^^-^.^^.;^,^-"^^? ''.?' •:^"^'y^^i^^^.\^-^"t'~»^^:^c"^'^

remaining eight cntena.. •? • > ; ",--K: At \W^^^$'; ^^^^^^^ :; i ;,y^ ?. ^s' :-:;; " -. . *. ., -_:. . . • .- .^.;.-. , , :. :,'... ^^/^S

• as- .isa^^g-s^gKBsgSR-w |I ATll/CO —'':- '-'" •LE!-:-'if\f IVCO--'—^-"8--'--'"'-"--

CompliancewithARAKs^ evaluates whether flie alternative meets Federal and State environmental statutes regula^tions, and other requirements that pertam to the site; or whether a waiver is justified . ' " ' " - • : ;

• '• ' • • • - ' • • • . • • • . . • • .•. ! .. • . .• ^.' , .„ . ' : , . . • ; . - . • , . « ;..,-^,^.-,.^;..^ •_.-'.., _,;,; .'. .,,„,..'„',•>, v::.', •.•...;:...'. .<.;.,' .;,\:.,.,.-..ti«ffl:B.J«g» ^ .

Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence considers the ability of an alternative to maintain protection ofhunian

Reducfion of Toxidty, Mobility, or Volume of Contaminants through Treatment evaluates an alternative's useoftreatment to reduce the harmful iGfects of principal contemmants, ! Jn't e ronment'Sd' ie'amount of contamination present." ?:^;; ";s :: ^

Short-term Effectiveness considers the length of time needed to implement an alternative and the^nsKsthe'altemaposes to workers, residents, and the environment during implementation.

Implementability considers the technical and administrative feasibilityof implementing the^altemative., includmaTSc "Implementability considers the technical and administrative feasibilityof implemetors such as the relative avauabjiity of goods and services. :\':'.',: "•;"•:, '"^ '•^-^sl'

Cost includes estimated capital and annual operations and maintenance costs-as weiraTpresent rti cost; Present '« , • • . - . • - • . - . ' ; - - . . . : . - . • . *• . ^. -. -.: .-. - 3..,. _ .• - .--„-.-.?"_-:•.-,. J; *—— - - -. ^_-.^^-.-_ .£_ _ - '- • - — -•g - —™ • _worth cost is the totalcost of an alternative overaccurate within a range of+50 to -30 percent,

— — . . — - r , . . ^ . *****•***»*», v/ w.B.M.M.vAAi.y <J,AJIU. J.l.XCLLU.i. ilJJUJ. ^ y^fOLO^ Op . Vy^U-.O^LJAUOH/JiAftt VVV^A IA1 »^l/i3»».__,A^*^'g*

worth cost is the total, cost of an, alternative over time in terms of today's doUar value! "GostS' . -• ; ' - • • • - - • ' • •-• , - . .- . .- .- t .t-••———;.-.—^•-. ...... -" . ^ - : - , . . . . - . . . .—. - ^ •"- -••••••- -?•• ... ..r.---...-,.; ^-.^=^.».-g-^ .-*••> 7*^^^—- F^E-. ..fcr_ ,J,,., ,„„ -n-.riiS.

. ~.,.4-;;-.-a.-».-.-Jli.:~JgJ««> »M>«——— -J^ww^

State/SupportAgency Acceptance considers whether the State agrees with the EPA's ardescribed m the RI/FS and Proposed Plan. ^ ^ .:,..' : ^^ ;»^^

Community Acceptance considers'whetfaer the local community agrees with EPA's"ana&ses^d^5 ra^^^^^^comments received on the;Propdsed Plan are an important indicator of commumly a1

—. " - , : . - ••—•.-.•-* v.'-x^* - ;*;:».•••?s"— •'.:•l{ .•:•.•;^ -".:.fi.•.1W•'•"''•.:?'-'.?" f-,v'- '• *••. • • » .. "*. .-..- >..-. i..----,-,-.<i-:'et-i.'.T.>As-».<"''aa-aE-A^<«'.B'™i..*Sh™La.

S^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ teKi f 'AI+p^a^P1?''' ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^g^ . J0301"1^^^^ •

sSSS: ^^nn^ flM^^^^S/ flHy' ' QD r&CT' ffi ^,;,r;.5?;S'. i.-:• » ,•.-.---?;: ••~^ tE£% "M;?;» .WW•A^""i" /^^».<r^'•^''T^•£;'Cn»^t,™1^.».^^ Ci+ra+OOTltTlT'AtlT'rittTltQl IQWC thn+ : .^-^•^^ff"^l^•'^^^»»~-;;•;[A.l«?«-^*«s^-.SA..-^>»»W^^^^ •.:;•""-&••'» • (AKAKs) —• ia& r.ecleiai and olale enviroiinieniai Jiaws ind.i :;.. .^.^I'.-^.ii"^'-*.. ^-frriTri 'Hie HaTard;' •' .rf.i1 <;A?,v, .- ' LSs^^gy^Ht ,®^^ QB^6-,500^^®11 ..-?0^^

ite. . •'•; .;•?&^K?l; 1.-i.'Sfcs«»^ ^ i-'1-?'

'%'<•¥ '-'( flr Moff ic 'Acancer causuifi

s88;"'^ fhemastAtoxiccKemical "When a^c»nfaininaatofC6ncem:, '-would present a sigmficant^k^

sss» 'waterisafi sed'astsOTm^ofdririfln^ EpBAalspprow fiffsafe , .•28»g ' t^aKd 'DisposalRestriction (LTfB) —The:U?Rprograiii,_;^._.^.y-^..A^;.,.^^ ; .B

i- &te^s?^^' 'iup actipn JMoMtonng, • ";:

State/Support Agency Acceptaniceaa^, _ _'••- •^^?^—^,%p^^^^-=^^A^isistedEEAnit yeIopnientfifct ^

-M^Wttt ^•"s-•»-&»^~w•te>^^iciaUy^r^^> assisted EPA'»»;- •,-'•• •,.-&S''>-';:- K; '•,'.,;•.•?;public comment

-_„ .-... •te^^ '. 'i'S-iyrfi.te their acceptam

&jfeg 'ig'flie^DelatteMetals^^. - 'KA^aiAws--; -SJ' i iiiTu Tgmr-Jii iBjiprija,aiBrii»Txi~n!ing,i.;r • Jnr.iMwrH/wi /C/^^irliC——a.s-^/rt^.-^^--' " - *

' '•••ii7i 11 •" i 1 1

^Cbnimuhityt'accej.^yK-1-WS ..-,,\ . .....-, ."^•^••-i^-. •:;..w.MCT-wy w -^

Devaluated after ;the publicS:'-'':-'- ^^^^^-::t•'»^.;^•~?-3;l•'w.•SS!»i

^descnbeduy^BQ&Mfe

. , Ty--!. -'.-'' :;. ;.\-;- - ..- ^

^sS^W ia^S ' g^f^^sss^

tthr6ugh;;(he munobilizatiori treatment 'saa"feS iWisS^V^ :; ^^?saijtG:a:,no%-hazardQUs;landfai

^SS^gig" 'T^?^a'w•!??^s%:Ssy^^

'••'" i --.- ti'V. .•\; ¥

StepheaTzlroffi l

U.^-EI»A;]RfigKw5| ®"""' ^.1445RossAve^sS^

^ I)aUas,-Iexas^520 |^ifw^^l®-. .-•"•.•. •• .. •;;.'.i.!,S&!;' :}. --?»,,;'yl;,¥>i!,

. ^^g^^^

•»T • - *'' r i . " •",'• •".'''-• •'-^-•"•'"a®3

Nancy Stoiiebareer'tSSi1.*?-

^S.'B^S-a'.vSw? '??-' ^^

r .A ' . JS^ .' ' - '; ^^ ' " ^^? ' - ^ .'-i. ftv. -'-y-''''a Department of Environmental Quality 1'asa.RA-.MMtsA.r,; a®,- ••..- wh»is •» i p"»• .•.>^A

< ;.lA.,i.. ,,;,,«te...Q^ .S% ;y., ""-:

i®3&- 1

WSiwronm^Si2ffi s6ra a«»» ; §i a...te, .iSK&y ?^ -' 'a^^^s^^sws1^ '?^JLfCUlClOq JlW^dO /^^U^'--".--\;'..-'-^'Sv;?^'?^'^';5¥^;^^^^^ -IvOSS^AVenilG ''-•''''••^ -"'-'• :;•'• .':^^-l^"i ; -ii"^^;^:^•&^-' ^^ •<":.• '•- '•^ ;«^

/^1/^ ' <<^^•'V' ?^ii^^%^^(214) 665-679Q.or "I-800-533-3508 (Toll..Fi-ee) . ' ^^w^D^as, Texas'75202 ^^^^•^^^— . •w ...%;%,< "%^«®s&^^

,_..» ;s ,W^^5^^^^^^ .,,: ,

.Siites ^ ^ gs; g^ gi,; £i| S ^ ^ ig ^@ti%|§§Sa" 7nR 10" ' ' i •.'(. ^ :,?-.>;- ^•-^.-?;s,y 'i;---i,-' i •—£;•-

^^^fe®^^^^ws^^^ ' t - iei &M^^^^^^^^'• "fe^^as^S'M^sS. -t ^

tal Tro^^on-Agericy^1' ^ ;y^^^s^^^^^ai ^^T-'tw';--'. '• •.•-•lY . - -. ^^ .•. ii\.s-<C-^^^ • Y>'t-';•\.S\ ^ .-.>•• >fr...„.

. . .. . .-<'•-*-.—-•—^ -';- 'l%•?-?--\ H • "i:;\:^;wgR?;• • • •.• r .n^ ^M^w'S&siiife'.S& i

- A ' ;•:l..'/»••^^""'•"i?-^i5s-^SWArnold Ondarza ^^sa^®• :. - • • -__-..- '-,<".v,.".!S»c.

Superfund Region 6 Ombi.U.S.EPA^R^ion®^"

/;1445i]R^^renl %SDallas, Texas 75202

:. . ...-,;,.: -; .'i;. •••-• I ••-. >«;;;<.. .1 •IV; TCi'l-.tt';;W -;:.>;-!?; ;

^^T:<?yl^;??^%@?®^;%®S€m4) 665-6427 •iri iw.*\".t^ty;•?<^r;•'-•?.>^•.:•<•.^-••tX••;^^^iH^ ^s te?%M^ rt&^^ac®c^A^S^^S^Ssia^

; lt^^? '• ;:T ''', - -:'.-..- ;'< . ^^W ; ^^ : ^ '*\ -;t' .tl t ils ill ^ ^NsiglS^^^s^^ .-te^ iKSKii '. •..

.also be accessed via the U.S. EPA Inter-

•"" "•" —————'legion 6: www.epa.gov/region^»>S>~» --•'•_»!>»« i#••'••»•.T«••.•"•l•••.,..•«.~a --•.- •».t ^cegion 6 Superfund Division;';'» . -i»-si.ty.;tK-y,aa.,E».!'- '.-: ...;.i..„,i&< ••»

ion6/superfund '

lf'1- T"t- ' --^"--"^^^"Wi.iW^e"^®? - - - - - • • • • - • - - • --.--.-^^->«-^--^ ......A"-..-- ^•. -Rich Johnson,, aS^%^^^:.

.^^^1^£Mi»fi3'uaitt-y. • ;^----.-^-\.-'".-^'t.<r;^>.>^

'"• .l'.?,»,*"f-t'p-yi ;.5(!?!•C.' A1;;. :,!?, ;? ';.!..-;-. .'.!. ——' •;

- ^^ .N^^^a^^^sBaton Rouge. Louisiana 70810 ••.-'•as- ' ^?^^(225)

..\.-.: ^ <-\y.^^.gw^.^y ia!ga^Erica- raeor^"**"'1^ '"^c^rKd v/aesar, .,, ,,.,, , ,Louisiana Office ofPubHcJ tr,,:-; .-™ -'33"'3:?^ 'f

'-v.i-A -"-"•-!K^ ~.£. .°'"yacrfi*--.'?.;—; -ifS&Wt'.•.•'Sr'"!rt<'-\''-in:"'-a&? "• ti?/234Loyola,-Sulte.&2 ;3gg|y

- New Orieans,l Kiaaa7Q112, ^_. ^_.,,. ..„,,(504)

s-; %—."-