DOCSLIB.ORG

Profiles of Selected Pollutants in Bayou Texar, Pensacola, FL

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Profiles of Selected Pollutants in Bayou Texar, Pensacola, FL Profiles of Selected Pollutants in Bayou Texar, Pensacola, FL Dr. Carl J. Mohrherr Center for Environmental Diagnostics and Bioremediation University of West Florida Dr. Johan Liebens Department of Environmental Studies University of West Florida Dr. J. Eugene Lepo Center for Environmental Diagnostics and Bioremediation University of West Florida Dr. K. Ranga Rao Center for Environmental Diagnostics and Bioremediation University of West Florida May 10, 2005 FOREWORD This study is a component of the "Assessment of Environmental Pollution and Community Health in Northwest Florida, " supported by a USEPA Cooperative Agreement award X- 9745502 to The University of West Florida (Project Director: Dr. K. Ranga Rao). The contents of this report are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the USEPA. The study was undertaken because of the increasing concern for environmental pollution and potential impacts on human health in Northwest Florida. It was designed to assess environmental impacts of toxic pollutants in Bayou Texar with an emphasis on possible superfund site impacts upon the bayou. Kristal Flanders managed the spatial databases for the project and drafted the maps. Her assistance has been invaluable. Alan Knowles, Jason Moore, Jeff Seebach, Kevin Bradley, and Tony DiGirolamo helped with the fieldwork and some laboratory procedures. We wish also to thank Michael Lewis, Ecosystem Assessment Branch of the US EPA Gulf Ecology Division for discussing some data from US EPA studies on Bayou Texar with us. ii Table of contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1 2. STUDY AREA ........................................................................................................................ 2 2.1. Description ............................................................................................................................ 2 2.2 Clean Water Act Classification .............................................................................................. 3 3. ENVIRONMENTAL HISTORY OF BAYOU TEXAR ......................................................... 3 3.1 Pre 1990 .................................................................................................................................. 3 3.2 20th Century ............................................................................................................................ 3 3.3 Bathymetry and Sedimentation of the Bayou/Creek System ................................................. 4 4. Current Public Works Activities .............................................................................................. 8 4.1 Sediments ............................................................................................................................... 8 4.2 Stormwater ............................................................................................................................. 9 4.2.3 Shore Erosion .................................................................................................................... 10 5. NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITES ............................................................................... 11 5.1 Public Perception of Superfund Site Impacts ....................................................................... 11 5.2 ACC and ETC National Priorities List Sites ........................................................................ 11 6. CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN, LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................... 12 6.1 Sediments ............................................................................................................................. 12 6.2 Nutrients ............................................................................................................................... 13 6.3 Fluoride ................................................................................................................................ 14 6.4 Radium ................................................................................................................................. 14 6.5 Semivolatiles ........................................................................................................................ 16 6.5.1 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)............................................................. 16 6.5.2 Dinitrotoluene (DNT) ............................................................................................... 17 6.5.3 Organochlorine Contaminants of Concern .............................................................. 17 6.6 Dioxins ................................................................................................................................. 18 6.6.1 Dioxins at ETC ........................................................................................................ 18 6.7 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) ...................................................................................... 19 6.8 Pesticides .............................................................................................................................. 19 6.9 Heavy Metals ....................................................................................................................... 20 6.10 Bacteria .............................................................................................................................. 21 7. OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................................ 21 8. METHODS ............................................................................................................................ 22 iii 9. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................................ 24 9.1 Gaps in existing data ............................................................................................................ 24 9.2 Bathymetry ........................................................................................................................... 25 9.3 Fluoride in Porewater ........................................................................................................... 25 9.4 Fluoride in Sediments .......................................................................................................... 26 9.5 Fluoride in Bayou Bottom Water ......................................................................................... 27 9.6 Existence of 2nd Fluoride Hot Zone ..................................................................................... 28 9.7 Radium ................................................................................................................................. 28 9.7.1 Radium Activities .................................................................................................... 28 9.7.2 Radium Origin in The ACC Aquifer ....................................................................... 29 9.7.3 Radium in Bayou Sediments .................................................................................... 31 9.7.4 Bayou Texar Sediments and the Hagler Well .......................................................... 31 9.8 Semivolatile Compounds ..................................................................................................... 32 9.8.1 Distribution of Semivolatiles in Sediments ............................................................. 32 9.8.2 Total Petroleum and PAHs ...................................................................................... 33 9.8.3 PAH Ratios and PAH Origin ................................................................................... 33 9.8.4 Naphthalene Discharge to Bayou ............................................................................. 34 9.8.5 Dinitrotoluene (DNT), Phthalates and Carbazole .................................................... 35 9.9 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) ...................................................................................... 36 9.10 Pesticides ............................................................................................................................ 36 9.11 Metals ................................................................................................................................. 37 9.12 Bacteria .............................................................................................................................. 38 10. REMEDIAL CONSIDERATIONS ..................................................................................... 39 10.1 Erosion and Sedimentation ................................................................................................ 39 10.2 Pollution Concerns ............................................................................................................. 40 11. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................. 42 12. REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 44 13. APPENDIX 1: TABLES....................................................................................................... 51 14. APPENDIX 2: MAPS........................................................................................................... 73 15. APPENDIX 3: CORE DESCRIPTIONS,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • RCED-98-241 Superfund
    United States General Accounting Office GAO Report to Congressional Requesters August 1998 SUPERFUND Information on the Status of Sites GAO/RCED-98-241 United States General Accounting Office GAO Washington, D.C. 20548 Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division B-280503 August 28, 1998 The Honorable John D. Dingell Ranking Minority Member Committee on Commerce House of Representatives The Honorable Thomas J. Manton Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials Committee on Commerce House of Representatives The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to identify severely contaminated hazardous waste sites and place them on the National Priorities List for cleanup under the Superfund program. The progress of cleanup work at National Priorities List sites has been a focus of congressional and EPA attention over the history of the program. National Priorities List sites generally follow a regular path toward cleanup that includes a study of site conditions and an evaluation of cleanup alternatives, the selection of one or more cleanup remedies (that is, the cleanup standards and techniques to be used at site), and the design and construction of the remedies. Given the congressional interest in the status of sites on the National Priorities List, you asked us to (1) determine the progress the Superfund program has made in selecting remedies at both federal and nonfederal sites; (2) verify the accuracy of the information in the Superfund database on sites’ cleanup progress; and (3) determine the number of cleanup projects that cannot be started in fiscal year 1998 because of a lack of funding.
    [Show full text]
  • Overview of Occupational Exposures to Pentachlorophenol
    Overview of Occupational Exposures to Pentachlorophenol Components, Contaminants , and Common Co-Exposures Kevin L Dunn, M.Sc. CDC/NIOSH Disclaimer: The findings and conclusions in this presentation are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Background • PCP was produced in the United States primarily in four chemical plants, from 1936 to 2006 • PCP was widely used in herbicides, fungicides, and wood preservatives • Currently used industrially as a wood preservative for utility poles, railroad ties, and wharf pilings Background • PCP was not restricted to its country of origin, some products were made during this time with PCP produced outside of the U.S. • Currently there are no companies reporting production activities in the U.S., one facility in North America • One known formulation facility in Tuscaloosa AL Background • PCP is classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as a possible human carcinogen (Group 2B) • Use has been restricted to certified applicators in the U.S. since 1984 • Polychlorinated di-benzo dioxins and 2,3,4,5,6-pentachlorophenol polychlorinated di-benzo furans are (CAS 87-86-5) contaminants formed during the production of PCP Manufacturing • All PCP manufactured in the United States was produced by the direct chlorination of phenol in the presence of various catalysts • Phenol and chlorophenols were added to a chlorinator tank • Chlorination was achieved with vaporized liquid chlorine until the Trichlorophenol
    [Show full text]
  • Public Health Assessment
    Public aealth ...-­ Ass-essment 'fo·r I I ~- fSCAMBIA WOOD -PENSACOLA (A/K I A ESCAMBIA TREATING COMPANY) PENSA=OL ~ . ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA CERCLIS NO. FLD008168346 MAY 23, 1995 PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT ESCAMBIA WOOD-PENSACOLA (A/K/A ESCAMBIA TREATING COMPANY) PENSACOLA, ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA CERCLIS NO. FLD008168346 Prepared by The Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Under a Cooperative Agreement with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry THE ATSDR PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT: A NOTE OF EXPLANATION This Public Health Assessment wa.s prepared by ATSDR pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, &nd Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund) section 104 (i)(6) (42 U.S.C. 9604 (i)(6), and in ac~rdance with our implementing regulations 42 C.F.R. Part 90). In preparing this document ATSDR h:u collected relevant health data, environmenl:ll dau, and community health concerns from the Environmenul Protection Agency (EPA), sute and loC3l hC3lth and environmenul agencies, the community, and potentially responsible parties, where appropriate. In addition, this document has previously been provided to EPA and the affected sutes in an initial release, as required by CERCLA section 104 (i)(6)(H) for their infonnation and review. The revised document w:u released for a 30 day public comment period. Subsequent to the public comment period, ATSDR addressed all public comments and revised or appended the document as appropriate. The public health assessment h:u now been reissued. This concludes the public health assessment process for this site, unless additional infonnation is obuined by ATSDR which, in the Agency's opinion, indicates a need to revise or append the conclusions previously issued.
    [Show full text]
  • Move, Or Wait for the Flood and Die: Protection of Environmentally Displaced Populations Through a New Relocation Law Jessica Scott
    Florida A & M University Law Review Volume 9 Number 2 Empowering Environmental Justice Article 6 Communities Locally and Globally--Fourth Annual Environmental Law and Justice Symposium Issue Spring 2014 Move, or Wait for the Flood and Die: Protection of Environmentally Displaced Populations Through a New Relocation Law Jessica Scott Follow this and additional works at: http://commons.law.famu.edu/famulawreview Part of the Environmental Law Commons, and the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Jessica Scott, Move, or Wait for the Flood and Die: Protection of Environmentally Displaced Populations Through a New Relocation Law, 9 Fla. A&M U. L. Rev. (2014). Available at: http://commons.law.famu.edu/famulawreview/vol9/iss2/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons @ FAMU Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Florida A & M University Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarly Commons @ FAMU Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. \\jciprod01\productn\F\FAM\9-2\fam103.txt unknown Seq: 1 8-APR-15 8:38 MOVE, OR WAIT FOR THE FLOOD AND DIE: PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENTALLY DISPLACED POPULATIONS THROUGH A NEW RELOCATION LAW Jessica ScottA “If we’re still here in 10 years time we either wait for the flood and die, or just walk away and go someplace else.” Colleen Swan, Kivalina Council Leader1 INTRODUCTION ................................................... 369 R I. THE PROBLEM: ENVIRONMENTAL DISPLACEMENT ........... 371 R II. CASE STUDY: KIVALINA .................................... 375 R III. SOME PROPOSED INTERNATIONAL SOLUTIONS AND THEIR LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS .................................. 377 R IV. A DOMESTIC SOLUTION: A LEGAL FRAMEWORK TO RELOCATE EDPS .........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Escambia Wood Treating Company Superfund Site Operable Unit 2 – Ground Water
    U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY SUPERFUND PROPOSED PLAN ESCAMBIA WOOD TREATING COMPANY SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT 2 – GROUND WATER Pensacola, Escambia County, Florida August 2014 INTRODUCTION Contact the EPA Community The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Involvement Coordinator for further (EPA) is proposing changes to the remedy information. selected for Operable Unit* (OU) 2 (the groundwater portion) of the Superfund cleanup at This Proposed Plan is part of EPA's requirements the Escambia Wood Treating Company (ETC) under Section 117(a) of the Comprehensive Superfund Site in Pensacola, Florida. The EPA is Environmental Response, Compensation and the lead agency on this Site and is supported by Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund). Greater detail can be found in the Focused Feasibility the Florida Department of Environmental Study, and other documents in the Administrative Protection (FDEP). Through this Proposed Plan, Record. the EPA and FDEP present the proposed changes The Information Repository and Administrative to the groundwater cleanup and request Record for the Escambia Treating Company Site comments from the public. This Proposed Plan are located at the: presents and highlights key information from the Genealogy Branch Library groundwater investigation and from the Focused 5740 N. Ninth Ave Feasibility Study, which are available along with Pensacola, FL 32504 other Site documents in the Information EPA Region 4 Superfund Record Center Repository (see inset). 61 Forsyth Street SW Atlanta, Georgia 30303 The EPA documents the cleanup decision for a Superfund Site in a Record of Decision (ROD), Direct comments or questions to: Erik Spalvins, Remedial Project Manager and when the remedy (cleanup strategy) needs to be changed in a fundamental way, the EPA OR documents the changes in an Amended Record L’Tonya Spencer, Community Involvement of Decision (AROD).
    [Show full text]
  • Citizen Activism in Environmental Justice Remediation
    Rollins College Rollins Scholarship Online Honors Program Theses Spring 2020 How Grassroots Can Save a Community: Citizen Activism in Environmental Justice Remediation Jordan Halloran [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.rollins.edu/honors Recommended Citation Halloran, Jordan, "How Grassroots Can Save a Community: Citizen Activism in Environmental Justice Remediation" (2020). Honors Program Theses. 125. https://scholarship.rollins.edu/honors/125 This Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by Rollins Scholarship Online. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Program Theses by an authorized administrator of Rollins Scholarship Online. For more information, please contact [email protected]. How Grassroots Can Save a Community: Citizen Activism in Environmental Justice Remediation Jordan Halloran A Senior Honors Project Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of Requirements of the Honors Degree Program April 2020 Faculty Sponsor: Dr. Leslie Poole Rollins College Winter ParK, Florida Halloran 2 Acknowledgments I would like to thank Dr. Josephine Balzac, Dr. Nolan Kline, two of my committee members, for their advice, words of encouragement, and numerous resources. ThanK you to Dr. Robert Bullard for visiting campus and taking the time to speak with me directly. ThanK you to Environmental Studies Department, the Winter Park Institute and all those involved in the Transformative Learning Summit. The dialogue that occurred during this summit was important, but as we all know, actions must follow. I would also like to thanK the Environmental Studies Department for accepting this thesis proposal as well as for their support in so many ways. Each professor in this department has inspired me to continue environmental worK with their same care and compassion.
    [Show full text]
  • Superfund Explanation of Significant Differences %P«O^%/ Eoambia Wood Treating Company Superfund Site Pensaco/A, Escambia County, Florida
    ^^'"_:% U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ISS i Superfund Explanation of Significant Differences %p«o^%/ Eoambia Wood Treating Company Superfund Site Pensaco/a, Escambia County, Florida Pensacola, Escambia Coimly, Florida Mardi 2012 to these components do not fiuidainenraily alter the This fact sheet is being issued to document overall cleanup approach. The objective of controlling technical changes made during the Superfund human exposure remains unclianged and has been cleanup at the Escambia Wood Treating achieved by the cleanup, Company Superfund Site in Pensacola Florida. EPA made these changes because the Tliis ESD is being issued as part of EPA's public conditions found during coastmction differed participation responsibilities under Section 13 7(c) of the from the conditions known when the Record of Comprehensive EnvinmmenE^il Response, Compensation Decision was signed. When a Remedial Action and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended by the is adjusted. EPA documents the decision in an Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act ''Explanation of Significant Differ^nces". (SARA). 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601 el seq.. and Section 300,435(e)(2)(i) of the National Contingency Plan Introduction (NCP),40C,F,R.Part300. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is This FSD will become part of the Administrative Record conducting a remedial action for the soils portion of in accordance with 40 C.F.R, ij 300.825(a)(2) of the Operable Unit 1 (OUl) at the Escambia Wood Treating NCP. The Administrative Record contains documents CompaEiy (ETC) Superfund Site (Site) located in used as the ha.sis for the remedy selected for the Sile, Pensacola.
    [Show full text]
  • Uterine Cancer, Including Endometrial Cancer, to Health Condition to the List in 42 CFR Administrator of the World Trade 88.15
    49954 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 24, 2019 / Rules and Regulations PART 300—NATIONAL OIL AND Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. ■ 2. Table 1 of appendix B to part 300 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES 9601–9657; E.O. 13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, is amended by revising the entry for POLLUTION CONTINGENCY PLAN 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, ‘‘FL’’, ‘‘Escambia Wood—Pensacola’’, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 ‘‘Pensacola’’ to read as follows: FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193. ■ 1. The authority citation for part 300 Appendix B to Part 300—National continues to read as follows: Priorities List TABLE 1—GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION State Site name City/county Notes a ******* FL .............................................................. Escambia Wood—Pensacola ................... Pensacola ................................................. P. ******* a = Based on issuance of health advisory by Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (if scored, HRS score need not be greater than or equal to 28.50). ******* P = Sites with partial deletion(s). * * * * * for the addition of a health condition as enforcement officers, and rescue, [FR Doc. 2019–20347 Filed 9–23–19; 8:45 am] of September 24, 2019. recovery, and cleanup workers who BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ADDRESSES: Visit the WTC Health responded to the September 11, 2001, Program website at https:// terrorist attacks in New York City, at the www.cdc.gov/wtc/received.html to Pentagon, and in Shanksville, review Petition 023. Pennsylvania (responders), and to DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND eligible persons who were present in the HUMAN SERVICES FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachel Weiss, Program Analyst, 1090 dust or dust cloud on September 11, 42 CFR Part 88 Tusculum Avenue, MS: C–48, 2001, or who worked, resided, or Cincinnati, OH 45226; telephone (855) attended school, childcare, or adult [NIOSH Docket 094] 818–1629 (this is a toll-free number); daycare in the New York City disaster email [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • ESCAMBIA WOOD TREATING 3910 North Palafox Avenue Pensacola
    ESCAMBIA WOOD TREATING 3910 North Palafox Avenue Pensacola, Florida County: Escambia District: Northwest Site Lead: EPA Placed on National Priorities List: 12/1994 HWC# 111 Site Description and History The Escambia Wood Treating Company (ETC) is located at 3910 Palafox Highway, northeast of the intersection of Fairfield Drive in Pensacola, Florida. The 26 acre site is situated in an area of mixed land use, bordered by a small residential community to the north, the CSX railway to the east, Palafox Drive to the west, and by numerous businesses in an area of mixed residential and industrial zoning to the south. ETC operated from 1942 until 1982 as a manufacturer of treated wooden utility poles and foundation pilings. From 1942 until 1963, ETC used creosote in the wood treating process. In 1963, pentachlorophenol (PCP) was introduced to the process and was used exclusively from 1970 until the facility was closed in 1982. During operation, ETC discharged spent creosote and PCP-laden waste into unlined holding ponds on site. Groundwater contamination at the site was discovered when elevated levels of naphthalene, phenols, and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), PCP, and other compounds associated with a wood preserving facility were detected in the groundwater at the nearby Agrico Superfund site in 1986. In 1988, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) completed a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Facility Assessment which identified thirty-one solid waste management units (SWMUs) and two other areas of concern. Contained within these areas were several unlined surface impoundments, an unlined landfill, several wastewater treatment units, an abandoned laboratory, and a chemical and preservative storage area.
    [Show full text]
  • Air Exposures to Wood Treatment Chemicals KERR-Mcgee
    Air Exposures to Wood Treatment Chemicals KERR-McGEE CHEMICAL CORPORATION COLUMBUS, MISSISSIPPI EPA FACILITY ID: MSD990866329 OCTOBER 21, 2009 THE ATSDR PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT: A NOTE OF EXPLANATION This Public Health Assessment was prepared by ATSDR pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund) section 104 (i)(6) (42 U.S.C. 9604 (i)(6)), and in accordance with our implementing regulations (42 C.F.R. Part 90). In preparing this document, ATSDR has collected relevant health data, environmental data, and community health concerns from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), state and local health and environmental agencies, the community, and potentially responsible parties, where appropriate. In addition, this document has previously been provided to EPA and the affected states in an initial release, as required by CERCLA section 104 (i)(6)(H) for their information and review. The revised document was released for a 30-day public comment period. Subsequent to the public comment period, ATSDR addressed all public comments and revised or appended the document as appropriate. The public health assessment has now been reissued. This concludes the public health assessment process for this site, unless additional information is obtained by ATSDR which, in the agency’s opinion, indicates a need to revise or append the conclusions previously issued. Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry.................................................... Julie L. Gerberding, M.D., M.P.H., Administrator Howard Frumkin, M.D., Dr.P.H., Director Division of Health Assessment and Consultation…. .....................................................................William Cibulas, Jr., Ph.D., Director Sharon Williams-Fleetwood, Ph.D., Deputy Director Health Promotion and Community Involvement Branch………………………………………..Hilda Shepeard, Ph.D., M.B.A., Chief Exposure Investigations Site Assessment Branch....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Escambia Wood
    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE Date: July 31, 1995 Identification Number:FLD008168346 Site Name: Escambia Wood- Pensacola Region: 4 This notice is included in the Hazard Ranking System package located within each Regional docket and the Headquarters docket to clarify what the National Priorities Site, Escambia Wood - Pensacola, represents. This has been added to ensure that the listing is consistent with policy. When a site is listed,it is .necessary to identify or define the release (or releases) encompassed within the listing. The approach generally used is to delineate a geographical area (usually the area within the installation or plant boundaries) and define the site by reference to that Asarea. a legal matter, the site is not coextensive with that area, and the boundaries of the installation or plant are not the Ilboundaries" of the site. Rather, the site consists of all contaminated areas within the area used to define the site, and any other location to which contamination from that area has come to be located. While geographic terms are often used to designate the site (e.g., the "Jones Co. plant site") in terms of the property owned by the particular party, the site properly understood is not limited to that property (e.g., it may extend beyond the property due to contaminant migration), and conversely may not occupy the full extent of the property(e.g., where there are uncontaminated parts of the identified property, they may not be, strictly speaking, part of the llsitell).llsitewl The is thus neither equal to nor confined by the boundaries of any specific property that may give the site its name, and the name itself should not be read to imply that this site is coextensive with the entire area within the property boundary of the facility or plant.
    [Show full text]
  • Record of Decision (Rods)
    RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION ESCAMBIA WOOD TREATING COMPANY SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT 2 (GROUND WATER) PENSACOLA, ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA PREPARED BY: U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 4 ATLANTA, GEORGIA T' SEPTEMBER 2008 10588777 Record of Decision Page ii Escambia Wood Treating Superfund Site Operable Unit 2 (Ground Water) September 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART 1: THE DECLARATION 1.1 Site Name and Location 1 1.2 Statement of Basis and Purpose 1 1.3 Assessment of Site .1 1 1.4 Description of Selected Remedy 1 1.5 Statutory Determinations 2 1.6 Data Certification Checklist 2 1.7 Authorizing Signature 3 PART 2: THE DECISION SUMMARY 2.1 Site Name, Location, and Brief Description 4 2.2 Site History and Enforcement Activities 4 2.2.1 Operational History 4 2.2.2 Regulatory and Enforcement History 7 2.2.3 Previous Investigations 9 2.2.4 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study 15 2.3 Community Participation 17 2.4 Scope and Role of Operable Unit or Response Action 17 2.5 Site Characteristics 18 2.5.1 Concephjal Site Model 18 2.5.2 Site Overview 18 2.5.3 Geology 20 2.5.4 Hydrogeology 21 2.5.5 Nature and Extent of Contamination 23 i2.6 Current and Future Land Use 29 2.6.1 Current Land Use 29 2.6.2 Future Land Use 29 2.7 Summary of Site Risks 29 2.7.1 Summary of Human Health Risk Assessment 31 2.7.2 Summary of Ecological Risk Assessment 35 2.8 Remedial Action Objectives 35 2.8.1 Cleanup Levels ........;...; 39 2.9 Description of Alternatives 42 2.9.1 Detailed Remedial Altematives Evaluation..,., 42 2.9.2 Common Elements and Distinguishing Features of the Altematives 71 2.10 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives ..:......
    [Show full text]