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. The precise nature and extent of the site are typically not known at the time of listing.
Printed on Recycled Paper UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
ESCAMBIA WOOD-PENSACOLA Escambia County, Florida
Escambia Wood-Pensacola is located at 3910 North Palafox Street, in a primarily low-income, minority area of Pensacola, Escambia County, Florida. The facility is an abandoned wood preserving plant which operated from 1942until 1982. During its operational period the facility treated wood products with creosote and pentachlorophenol. Three open surface impoundments remained at the facility after its closure. Another backfilled surface impoundment was located in the northeast portion of the facility.
In November 1980, Escambia Wood-Pensacola filed a RCRA Part A application, but there is no record of a RCRA Part B application for the facility. In 1986 the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER) determined that the backfilled surface impoundment was an unpermitted disposal area not regulated under RCRA. In 1990, a RCRA Facility Assessment was conducted at the facility, but the facility is no longer classified under RCRA.
Sampling investigations were conducted at the facility by EPA in April 1982, FDER in September 1987, EPA in April and June 1991, and by EPA in May 1992. During the various investigations, pentachlorophenol and numerous other creosote constituents were detected at elevated concentrations in ground water samples. In addition, pentachlorophenol and several other organic and inorganic analytes were detected in numerous surface soil, subsurface soil, and sludge samples collected during the investigations.
In 1985, Escambia Wood-Pensacola conducted a partial removal action that removed sludges from the three surface impoundments. A subsequent removal conducted in 1988 removed the contaminated wooden side walls of the two small impoundments. During both of these removal actions, the waste was taken 'offsite for proper disposal. In addition, approximately 220,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil have been excavated from two pits and stored in piles at the facility. The presence of an observed release to ground water at the facility indicates that hazardous substances were released prior to the initiation of removal activities at the site.
The primary source of ground water in Escambia County is the Sand-and-Gravel aquifer, which lays beneath the facility. Approximately 20 public water supply and numerous private wells located within 4 miles of the Escarnbia Wood-Pensacola facility are completed within the Sand-and-Gravel aquifer and serve approximately 129.3 30 people. The nearest public supply well is located 1 mile northeast of the site. medescription ofthe site (releare) is based on information available atthe time the site was scored. 7he description may change as additional information is gathered on the sources and extent of contaminarlorr. See 56 FR 5600, February 11, 1991, or subsequent FR notices.] UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF EMERGENCY AND REMEDIAL RESPONSE HAZARDOUS !SJTE EV&UATION DIVISION SITE ASSESSMENT BRANCE
HRS DOCUMENTATION RECORD COVER SEIEET
EarEy in the evaluation of this site (and in some cases elsewhere in the docwnentation nco4, its name may have been different than what is shown here. At the end of the evaluation, however, EPA mnduded that the following name is more approphte: Escambia Wood--Pensacola Region 4
This package has undergone and passed EPA quality assurance for proposal to the National Priorities List. ERS DOCUHENTATION RECORD--REVIEW COVER SHEET
Name of Site: Escambia Wood - Pensacola (also known as Escambia Treating Company)
EPA ID No.: -008168346
Contact Persons
EPA Region IV Contacts:Tillman McAdams ~
DocumentationRecord: William E. Vasser, Dyxmt'IaC Corporation
Pathwavs. Components or Threats not Evaluated
The pathways listed below were not evaluated due to expected minimal impacts on the site score.Explanations are provided inthe following paragraphs.
Surface Water Migration Pathway: When the facility was inoperation, surface water runoff from thefacility was containedwithin the boundaries of the facility (Ref 8. 4, p. 1; 5, p. 2). Water was discharged from onsitesurface impoundments to the citysewer system, but there were no known discharges to any surface water bodies(Refs. 5, p. 2; 6, p. 9; 7, p. 7; 8, p. 39; 9, p. 7). The nearest perennial surface water body is located more than 1 mile northeast of the facility, and the facility is not within a 100-year flood plain (Refs. 3; 7, p. 2)
Soil Exposure Pathway: Removal operations are in progress at thefacility. Approximately 220,000 cubic yards (yd3) of soil have been excavated from two pits and storedin piles at the facility (Refs. 10, pp. 57, 61; 11). Contamination of surface and subsurface soil at the facility has been documented; however, the facility is not active, no resident individuals were identified and no offsite contaminationattributable to operations at thefacility has been documented (Refs. 12, p. 1; 12A; 13, p. 2; 14, pp. 5, 12-14, 16, 17, 19-29, 31, 32; 10, pp- 15, 16, 19, 20, 32, 33, 35, 36, 46, 47, Appendix B [pp. B5, B9, B10, B12, B13, B24, B25, B30, B31, B40-B42, B49, B50,B521) .. According to the Agency for Toxic Substances andDisease Registry (ATSDR), analytical results for samples collected in the nearest residential area, located 200 feet north of one of the excavation areas at the facility, indicate that contamination present in the residential area does not pose a human health threat (Refs. 3; 10, pp. 57, 61; 14, pp. 2, 5, 8, 12-14, 16, 17, 19-29, 31, 32; pp.15, 1, 2). Approximately 9,629 persons live within 1 mile of the facility,. and three schools are located within 1 mile (Refs. 3; 18; 19; 20; 61).
1 Air Migration Pathway: During October and December1991, the EPA Environmental Response Team/Response Engineering and Analytical Contract(EPA ERT/REAC) team (Roy F. Weston, Inc.) conducted air sampling atthe facility (Ref. 58, pp. I, 7, 26-28). According to an ATSDR Health Consultation report,the levels of air contaminants migrating offsite are unlikelyto cause adverse health effects (Refs. 58, pp. 7-12, 14-24, 26-28, 68-82, 173-187; 59, pp. 2-6). The Escambia Wood - Pensacola facility locatedis in an industrial/residential (Refs.area 3; 17, p. 5). Approximately 111,138 persons live within4 miles of the facility (Ref. 18). A total of 15 schools are located within2 miles of the facility . ..(Refs. 3;.19; 20; .61). Nesting areas of the least tern (Sterna antillarum), a State-designated threatened species, have been observed within4 miles of the facility, but no designated sensitive environments are present4 miles within of the facility (Refs. 3; 21, pp. 1-5; 62, attachment [pp. 65-68]; 63, p. 3). -Freshwater wetlands are locatedfrom 2 to 4 miles west of the facility, and saltwater wetlands are located from2 to 3 miles to the south (Ref. 3).
Removal Criteria
The EPA Environmental Services Division(ESD) and Field Investigation Team(FIT) contractor, Ecology and Environment,Inc., conducted a sampling investigationat the Escambia Wood- Pensacola facility in April1982 (Ref. 4, p. 1). Hazardous constituents were detected in samples collectedfrom source areas duringthe investigation (Ref. 4, pp. 10, 29, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 43, 44, 45). In 1985, Escambia Wood- Pensacola conducted a partial removal action which ofconsisted the removal of sludges from the three surface impoundments (Refs.22, p. 4; 23, p. 1; 24; 55). A subsequent removal was conducted1988 in which consisted ofthe removal of the contaminated wooden side walls ofthe two small impoundments. During both of these removal actions, the waste was taken offsite for proper disposal (Refs. 24). EPA approved an Action Memorandumon April 11, 1991 which authorized a Removal Action at the facility (Ref. 57, pp. 1, 6-9). Further removal activities are now in progressat the facility. Approximately 220,000 yd3 of contaminated soil have been excavated twofrom pits and stored in piles at the facility (Refs. 10, pp. 57, 61; 11). 'In1987, the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER) conducted a sampling investigation at the facility (Ref. 17, pp. 6, 8). During the investigation, an observed releaseto groundwater at the facility was established, which indicates that hazardous substances were released priorto the initiation of removal activitiesat the facility (Ref. 17, pp. 7, 8, 17, 18, 128, 129, 132, 133, 136, 137, 144, 148, 149). Since the EPA ESD and FIT conducted a sampling investigation at the facility in 1982, limited qualifying removals have occurredat the facility; however, in excess of 220,000 yd3 of excavated contaminated soil are now stockpiled onsite (Refs. 4, p. 1; 10, pp. 57, 61; 11; 22,'p. 4; 23, p. 1; 24; 55). Therefore, removal operations conductedat the facility by EPA Emergency Response and Removal Branchthus far do not constitute a "qualifying removal" under the requirements establishedin the preamble to the HRS final rule (Ref. 1, Preamble [Section IIIQ]). HRS DOCUHENTATION RECORD
Name of Site: Escambia Wood - Pensacola EPA Region: Region IV Date Prepared: November 22, 1993 Street Addressof Site: 3910 NorthPalafox Street, Pensacola County and State: Escambia, Florida General. Location in the,State: Southwest corner of the "panhandle"of Florida, near the Alabama/Florida border.
Topographic Map: U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute seriestopographic quadrangle map for Pensacola,Florida, 1970 (Photorevised1987)
Latitude: 30° 27' 19" north Longitude: 87O 13' 54" west
Scores
Groundwater Pathway 100.00 Surface Water Pathway NS Soil Exposure Pathway NS Air Pathway NS
HRS SITE SCORE 50.00
NS = Not scored
3 Qo t 0 ?
I L
xuOaJ
0 f SOURCE: FDER Report, 1987 (Ref. 17)
..
A?**- DER Monitor Well .. .""T" ETC Monitor Well -..-.... .
""- Abandoned RaU Spur Line
Abandoned Structure or Pond
FIQURE 2.2. Escambia Treating Company Site
3B -..
'.- "
gfJT-.._ .. .._ . . .;.._.._._...... '". " i*"
F
J 2
I i u
a
0 ..-" ..".I\ XOMVd
WORKSHEET FOR COMPUTING HRS SITE SCORE
S S2
1. Groundwater Migration Pathway Score (Sw) 100.00 10,000.00 (fromTable 3-1, line 13)
2a. Surface Water Overland/FloodMigration Component NS NS ..(from Table 4-1, line 30)
2b. Groundwater to Surface Water Migration Component NS NS (fromTable 4-25, line 28)
2C. Surface Water Migration Pathway Score (S,) NS NS Enter the larger of lines 2a and 2b as the pathway score.
3. Soil Exposure Pathway Score (S,) NS NS (fromTable 5-1, line 22)
4. Air Migration Pathway Score (Sa) NS NS (fromTable 6-1, line 12)
5. Total of SW2 + SSw2 + 5,' + Sa2 10,000.00
6. HRS Site Score - Divide the value on line 5 by 4 and take the square root 50.00
S = Pathway score S2 = Square of the pathway score NS = Not scored
4 site Names pscambia Wood - Pensacola Locat iont pensacola. Escambia Countv. Florida
GROUNDWAmR MIGRATION PATHWAY SCORESHEET Factor citeaoriesand Factors Likelihood of Release to an Auuifer Maximum Value Value Assianed " Observed Release 1. Observed 550 2. Potential to Release Containmen t 10 2a. Containment 2b. Net 2b. Precipitation 10 ,2c. Depth..to.Aquifer 5 Travel Time 2d. Travel 35 26. Potential to Release [lines2a x (2b + 2c + 2d)J 500 3. Likelihood of Release (higherof lines2e) 1 and 550 550 Waste Characteristics 4. Toxicity/Mobility a 10.000 5. Hazardous WasteQuantity a 100 6. Waste Characteristics 100 32 Tatuets 7. Nearest Well 50 8. Population 8a. Level I Concentrations b 8b. Level I1 Concentrations b 0 8c. Potential Contamination b 2,033 8d. Population (lines 8a + 8b + 8c) b 2,033 9. Resources 5 5 10. Wellhead Protection Area 20 0 11. Targets (lines7 + 8d + 9 + 10) b 2,038 Groundwater Miatation Score for an Amifer 12. Aquifet score [(lines 3 x6 x 11)/82,S00]c 100 100 Groundwater Miuration Pathway Score 13 Pathway Score (S,), (highest value from line 12 for all aquifers evaluated) 100 100
a Maximum value appliemto waste characterieticecategory. b ~axiw~nvalue not app!.icable. Do not round to nearest integer, t REFERENCES
Reference Number Description of the Reference
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Hazard Ranking System, Final Rule, 55 FR 241: 51532-51667, December 14, 1990.
2. U.'S. 'Environmental Protection Agency, Superfund Chemical Data Matrix (SCDM), June 24, 1994, Appendix B-1, June 24, 1994 version. 71 pages.
3. U.S.G.S. 7.5 minute series Topographic Quadrangle Maps: Pensacola, Florida, 1970 (Photorevised [PR] 1987); Pace, Florida, 1978 (PR 1987); Cantonment, Florida, 1978 (PR 1987); West Pensacola, Florida-Alabama, 1970 (PR 1987); scale 1:24,000. .
4. Hazardous Waste Site Inspection Report, Escambia Treating Company, Pensacola, Escambia County, Florida. Prepared by R.J. Bruner, 111, Environmental Engineer, EPA, November 17, 1982. Subject: Inspection conducted on January 11, 1982. (Poor quality original.) 86 pages.
5. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, RCRA Interim Status> Standards Compliance Inspection Report, Escambia Treating Company, Inc., Pensacola,Escambia County, Florida. Prepared by Mike Clark, Environmental Specialist, Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. 16 pages.
6. Thomas W. Moody, Special Programs Supervisor, Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, letter with attachments to Charles Rollins, Jr., Operations Manager, Escambia Treating Company, Inc.,18, March1981. Subject: RCRA Interim Status Standards Compliance Inspection Report for inspection conducted at the facility, February26, 1981. 9 pages.
7. Application for a Hazardous Waste Facility Permit, Escambia Treating Company, Pensacola, Escambia County, Florida, with attachments. Prepared by CharlesA. Soule, Jr., Owner and Operator, March1, 1985, and Frank J. Fabre, Professional Engineer, March8, 1985. 21 pages.
8. Application for a Hazardous Waste Facility Permit, Escambia Treating Company, Pensacola, Escambia County, Florida, with attachments. Prepared by Charles H. Rollins, Jr., Vice President, April9, 1983, and Frank J. Fabre, Professional Engineer, April4, 1983. 51 pages.
9. Hazardous Waste Permit Application (EPA 3510) Form for Escambia Treating Company, Inc., Pensacola, Escambia County, Florida, with attachments. Filed by Jerry S. Fell, Vice President, November18, 1980. 8 pages.
5 10. Roy F. Weston, Inc., "Final Report: Extent of Contamination Study - Phase 11, Soil Samplingand Lithologic Characterization, Escambia Wood- Treating Site,Pensacola, Florida." Preparedfor the U.S. EPA Environmental Response Team under Contract Number 68-03-3482 (August 1992). Text, 62 pages; Appendix A, 8 pages; Appendix B, 102 pages.
11. Paul Peronard, OSC, Removal Operations Section, Emergency Response and Removal Branch, EPA Region IV, memorandumto file for Escambia Treating Company, September 10, 1992. Subject: Remediation activities at the facility. -1 page.
12. William E. Kellenberger, Hazardous Waste Engineer, Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, memorandum to Robert V. Kriegel, District Manager, Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, December 9, 1986. Subject: Permit evaluation summary, Escambia Treating Company, HF17-101252. (The titles of Mr. Kellenberger and Mr. Kriegel are illustrated in Reference12A.) 3 pages.
12A. William E. Kellenberger, Hazardous Waste Engineer, Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, letterto Charles H. Rollins, Vice President, Escambia Treating Company, July 6, 1984. Subject: Site closure. 1 Page
13. HazardousWaste Compliance Report for Escambia Treating Company, Pensacola, Escambia County, Florida. Prepared by Richard A. Singer, Environmental Specialist, Flordia Department of Environmental Regulation. Subject: Report of inspection conducted on August 17, 1984. 13 pages.
14. BruceFerguson, Hazardous Waste Section, Environmental Compliance Division, Environmental Services Division, EPA Region IV, memorandum with attachments to Mario Villamarzo, Chief, South Assessment Unit, Site Assessment Section, Waste Program Branch, Waste Management Division, EPA Region IV, October 1,1992. Subject: Transmittal of Sampling Investigation Report for Escambia Treating Company, Pensacola, Florida, ESD Project No. 92-0667. 33 pages.
15. ATSDR Record of Activity, Escambia Wood Treating Site, Pensacola, Florida. Filed by Timothy Walker, Environmental Health Scientist, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, September 17, 1992. (Mr. Walker's complete titleand affiliation are illustrated in Reference59.) 2 pages.
16. Deleted.
17. Richard W. Hicks, William A. Martin, Jr., and Allan M. Stodghill, "Escambia Treating Company- Creosote Pond, Escambia County, Groundwater Investigation Report No. 88-03 (Tallahassee, Florida: Bureau of Waste Cleanup, Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, February 1988). 162 pages.
6 17A. William E. Vasser, Staff Scientist, Dynamac Corporation, telephone conversation with WilliamA. Martin, Jr., Environmental Scientist, Bureau of Waste Cleanup, Florida Departmentof Environmental Regulation, June 24,1993. Subject: Informationconcerning Florida Department of Environmental RegulationReport Number 88-03, Escambia Treatinq -Company Creosote Pond (February1988). 1 page.
18. EPA, Graphical Exposure Modeling System (GEMS) Base,Data compiled from U.S. Bureau of the Census data (1980). 2 pages.
19. Barbara J. Caprita, Staff Scientist, Dynamac Corporation, telephone conversation with Jackie Watts, Secretary to the Director, Escambia County Board of Education, July24, 1992. Subject: Number of students in specific schools. (Ms. Caprita's title is illustrated in References 20, 40 and 41). 1 page.
20. Barbara J. Caprita, Staff Scientist, Dynamac Corporation, telephone conversation withMs. Halsey, Data Manager, Pensacola ChristianSchool, July 27, 1992. Subject: Number of students at Pensacola Christian Elementary Schooland Pensacola Christian HighSchool. 1 page.
21. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endanqered and Threatened Speciesthe of Southeastern United States (Atlanta,Georgia, 1992). Excerpts, 6 pages.
22. Thomas K. Maurer, Senior Attorney, Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, letter with attachmentsto Robert N. Steinwurtzel, Collier,
Shannon, Rill & Scott, January 4, 1988. ' Subject: Revised draft Consent Order, Escambia Treating Company, OGC FileNo. 87-0176. 12 pages.
23. Hazardous waste closurepermit HF17-101252 with attachment for Escambia Treating Company, Escambia County, Florida. Issued by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, 1986. 12 pages.
24. BradJackson, NUS Corporation, telephoneconversation with Bill Kellenberger, Hazardous Waste Engineer, Pensacola District Office, FloridaDepartment of Environmental Regulation, October 7,1988. Subject: Past removal actions at and current statusEscambia of Treating Company, Pensacola, Florida.(Mr. Kellenberger's title is illustrated in Reference 12A.) 1 page.
25. George E. Hoffman, Jr., District Enforcement Officer, Florida Department of EnvironmentalRegulation, letter to Charles Soule, Jr., President, Escambia Treating Company, June23, 1986. Subject: Warning NoticeNWHW 17-1138. (Mr. Soule's title is illustrated in Reference26.) 2 pages.
26. Charles A. Soule, Jr., President, Escambia Treating Company, letterto Thomas W. Moody, Special Programs Supervisor, Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, December3, 1985. Subject: Pond in northeast Part of property. (See Reference 6 for clarification of Mr. Moody's affiliation.) 1 page.
7 27. Bill Kellenberger, Hazardous Waste Engineer, Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, memorandum to file for Escambia Treating Company,December 3,1985. Subject: Allegedcreosote impoundment formerlypresent at the facility. (Mr. Kellenberger's title is illustrated in Reference 12A.) 1 page.
William E. Kellenberger, Hazardous Waste Engineer, Florida Departmentof Environmental Regulation, memorandumto.George F. Hoffman, Jr., Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, May 15, 1986. Subject: Escambia Treating.Company. ,(Mr. Kellenberger's title is illustrated in Reference 12A.) 1 page.
29. William E. Kellenberger, Hazardous Waste Engineer, Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, memorandum with attachments to Bill Buzick, Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, April 14, 1987. Subject: ORT assistanceat Escambia Treating Company, Escambia County, Pensacola. (Mr.Kellenberger's title is illustrated in Reference12A.) 11 pages.
30. Thomas W. Moody, Special Programs Supervisor, Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, letter to Charles Soule, President, Escambia Treating Company, Inc., November 18, 1985. Subject: Covered impoundment at the facility. 1 page.
31. Roy F. Weston, Inc., "Preliminary Assessment, Escambia Treating Company, Pensacola, Florida, Draft Final Report." Prepared for the U.S. EPA Environmental Response Team under Contract Number 68-03-3482 (September 1991). Text, 51 pages; Appendix A,. 77 pages; Appendix B, 241 pages; Appendix C, 16 pages. .+
32. Pioneer Laboratory,Inc., analytical results for Old Creosote Impoundment Site Investigation, split spoon samples, borings1 and 2, composited,Lab ID number 86-181, January 21, 1986. Approved by Paul Cameron. 1 page.
33. James G. Mueller, Peter J. Chapman I and P. Hap Pritchard, "Creosote- Contaminated Sites:Their Potential for Bioremediation, l1 in Environmental Scienceand Technolom,'Volume 23, Number 10 (1989). Pages 1197-1201.
34. Hazardous Waste Compliance Report for Escambia Treating Company, Pensacola, Escambia County, Florida. Prepared by Michael R. Clark, Environmental Specialist, Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. Subject: Report of inspection conducted on January13, 1983. 17 pages.
35. Owen T. Marsh, GeoloqV of Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties. Western FloridaPanhandle, Bulletin No. 46 (Tallahassee,Florida: Florida Geological Survey, 1966), 142 pages, 5 plates. Excerpts, pages 6, 10, 13, 20.
8 36. Morris L. Maslia and Larry R. Hayes, Hvdroaeoloav and Simulated Effects of Ground-Water Development of the Floridan Aquifer System, Southwest Georsia, Northwest Florida, and Southernmost Alabama, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1403-H (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1988), 71 pages, 24 plates. Excerpts, pages H13, H16, H18, H31.
37. Keithley T. Wilkins, Jeffry R. Wagner and ThomasW. Allen, Hvdroaeoloqic
Data for the Sand-And-Gravel Aquifer ' in Southern Escambia Countv, Technical File Report 85-2 (Havana, Florida: Northwest Florida Water Management..District, 1985),153 pages. (Poor qualityoriginal.) Excerpts, pages 8, 13, 14, 17, 18, 29, 31, 32, 72, 73, 83-89, 120, 121.
38. James A. Miller, Hvdroqeolocric Framework ofthe Floridan Aquifer System in Florida and in Parts of Georsia, Alabama. and South Carolina,U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1403-B (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1986), 91 pages, 33 plates. Excerpts, plates 2, 28, 29.
39. U.S. Geological Survey, National Water Summary 1984: Hvdroseoloaic Events, Selected Water-Quality Trends, and Ground-Water Resources,U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2275 (Washington,D.C.: GPO, 1985), 467 pages. Excerpts, pages 174-176.
40. J.W. Hellums, Jr., District Manager, Peoples Water Service Company, letter to William E. Vasser, Staff Scientist, Dynamac Corporation, July 1, 1993. Subject: Information concerning the Peoples Water Service Company system. (Mr.Vasser's title is illustrated in Reference 49.)1 Page
41. Barbara J. Caprita, Staff Scientist, Dynamac Corporation, telephone conversation with Danny Majors, Supervisor, Escambia County Utilities Authority, August 4, 1992. Subject:, Aquifer utilized by the ECUA wells. 1 page.
42. Rufus H. Musgrove, Jack T. Barraclough and Rodney G. Grantham, Water Resources of Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties, Florida, Report of Investigations No. 40 (Tallahassee, Florida: Florida Geological Survey, 1965), 102 pages. Excerpts, pages 13, 16-19, 21.
43. Craig L. Sprinkle, Geochemist= of the Floridan Asuifer SYStemF!l&da in and in Parts of Georsia, South Carolina, and Alabama, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1403-1 (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1989), 102 pages, 9 plates. Excerpt, page ,150.
44. N. Irving Sax and Richard J. Lewis, Sr. , Danserous Properties of Industrial Materials, Seventh Edition, Volume(New I1 York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1989). Excerpt, page 357.
9 45. Barbara J. Caprita, Staff Scientist, Dynamac Corporation, telephone conversation with BillEllis, Water Control Supervisor, Escambia County Utilities Authority, July 27, 1992. Subject: Depths of ECUA's wells. (Ms. Caprita's title is illustrated in References 20, 40 and 41.) 2 pages.
46. Maps indicating locations of wells operated by the Escambia County Utilities Authority. Base maps prepared bythe Pensacola-Escambia County Regional Planning Commission, July 1967, scale 1:12,000. 4 sheets.
47. William E. Vasser, Staff Scientist, Dynamac Corporation, letter to Jim Ogle, Peoples Water Service Company, June 18, 1993. Subject: Project No. 52013 - Groundwater Survey Request. (Mr. Vasser's title and Mr. Ogle's title are illustrated in Reference49.) 2 pages.
48. BillEllis, Water Control Supervisor, Escambia County Utilities Authority, letter with attachmentto William E. Vasser, Staff Scientist, Dynamac Corporation, July15, 1993. Subject: Information concerningthe Escambia County Utilities Authority water system. (The title of Mr. Ellis is illustrated in Reference45. Mr. Vasser's title is illustrated in Reference 49.) 3 pages.
49. William E. Vasser,Staff Scientist, Dynamac Corporation, telephone conversation with JimOgle, Water Production Supervisor, Peoples Water Service Company, September 15, 1992. Subject: Boundaries of service area. 1 page.
50. Deleted.
51. Charles Hooper, Data Quality Control, EPA, Athens, Georgia, telephone conversation with WilliamE. Vasser, NUS Corporation, January 9, 1991. Subject: Dioxin and furan congeners. 5 pages.
52. William E. Vasser,Staff Scientist, Dynamac Corporation, telephone conversation with Anita Shipley, Florida State Coordinator,EPA Region IV, January 13, 1992. Subject: RCRA history and current status of the facility. 1 page.
53. CDM Federal Programs Corporation, "RCRA Facility Assessment, Interim Final Report, Escambia Treating Company, Pensacola, Florida." Prepared by A.T. Kearny under Contract No. 68-W9-0004 for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Waste Programs Enforcement, Washington,D.C. (April 17, 1992). Text, 146 pages; AppendixA, 2 pages; Appendix B, 16 pages; Appendix C, 36 pages; Appendix D, 2 pages.
54. NationalArchives andRecords Administration, Code of Federal Resulations. Protection of the Environment 40: Parts 260-299, Revised ' July 1, 1990 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1990). Excerpt, 2 pages.
10 55. Tillman McAdams, Site Assessment Manager,EPA Region IV, memorandum to file,February 12, 1993. Subject: Escambia Wood - Pensacola (FZDOO8168346). 1 page.
56. Kelly S. Bonyata, Environmental Specialist I, Site Screening Superfund Subsection, Bureau of Waste Cleanup, Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, letter with attachmentsto Tillman McAdams, Site Assessment Manager, EPA Region IV, March 31, 1993. Subject: Escambia Wood - Pensacola site (FLD008168346). (The complete title of Mr. McAdams is .. . , ill strated in Reference55.) -89 pages.
57 Fre Stroud, OSC, EPA Region IV, 'and Paul Peronard, OSC, Removal Oper tionsSection, Emergency Response and Removal Branch, EPA Region IV, acti n memorandum to Donald J. Guinyard, Acting Director, Waste Mana ement Division, April 11, 1991., Subject: Request for a Removal Acti nat the Escambia Treating Company Site, Pensacola, Escambia County, Flor'da. 10 pages.
58. Roy . Weston, Inc., "Air Monitoring and Air Sampling, Escambia Treating CompLny, Pensacola, Escambia County, Florida, Final Report.'' Prepared .for dhe U. S. EPA Environmental Response Team under Contract68-03- Number 3482 1 (April 1992). Text, 28 pages; Appendix A, 7 ,pages; AppendixB, 23 pages;I Appendix C, 174 pages. 59. TimothyWalker, Environmental Health Scientist, Agency for Toxic Subsdances and Disease Registry, memorandum with attachmentto Robert E. Saf ai, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Regional Representative RegionIV, August 3, 1992. Subject: Health Consultation: Escambia Wood Treating Site (40GS), Pensacola,Florida. 8 pages.
60. Larry M. Jacobs andAssociates, Inc., "Report of Geohydrological Investigation for the Escambia Treating Company Pensacola Plant Site, Escambia County, Florida," File No. 86-248. Prepared for Earnest[sic] Schluter, Escambia Treating Company,P.O. Box 17108, Pensacola, Florida 32522. 27 pages.
61. William E. Vasser, Staff Scientist, Dynamac Corporation, telephone conversation with Ms.Brewton, Secretary, Student Affairs Office, PensacolaChristian College, June 14, 1993. Subject: Location of Pensacola Christian College and the number of students attending the school. 1 page.
62. Don A. Wood, Endangered Species Coordinator, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, letter with attachment to William E. Vasser, Staff Scientist,Dynamac Corporation, July 7,1993. Subject: Potential occurrence of endangered and threatened species in southern Escambia County, Florida. (Mr. Vasser's title and affiliation are illustrated in Reference 61.) 9 pages.
11 63. FloridaGame and FreshWater Fish Commission, Official Lists of Endanqered and Potentially Endanuered Fauna and Flora in Florida, compiled by DonA. Wood, Endangered Species Coordinator (April1991). 24 pages.
64. Charles H. Hooper,Chief, Laboratory Evaluation/Quality Aesurance Section, Environmental Services Division,US EPA Region 4, Memorandum to Deborah A. Vaughn-Wright, Region 4 NPL Coordinator, November 2, 1993. Subject: Request for BiasIndicators of Analytical Data; Escambia Wood, Pensacola, FL; Region IV Project 82-98. 1 page.
65. Deborah A. Vaughn-Wright, Region 4 NPL Coordinator, US Environmental Protection Agency, Record,of Communication with Chris Richards, Senior Hydrogeologist and Ernie Roaza, Associate Hydrogeologist, Bureau of Groundwater, April1, 1994, Subject: Wells located inthe upper Sand and Gravel Aquifer. 1 page.
66. Deborah A. Vaughn-Wright, Region 4 NPL Coordinator, US Environmental Protection Agency,Record of Communicationwith Sandra Barrett, Permitting Specialist, Bureau of Groundwater. April I, 1994. Subject: Wells located near Escambia Wood, Pensacola, Florida. 1 page.
67. Sandra Barrett, Permitting Specialist, Division of Resource Regulation, letter to Debbie Vaughn-Wright,'US Environmental Protection Agency, April 5, 1994. Subject: Wells located near Escambia Wood. 15 pages.
12 SuMMARa OF SOURCE DESIGHATIONS
HRS HRS Source Source Name Locat ion Locat Name Source Source Number Name Other Names References ReferencesReferences Names Other Name Number
1 Backfilled Old creosote impoundment; 10, pp. I, 10, p. 57; surf ace creosote pond; old creosote 57; 17, p. 17, PP= 6, impoundment pond; northern impoundment; 6; 22, p. 7; 22, PP. Solid Waste Management Unit3; 24; 25, 3, 4; 25,p. (SWMU) 10; old impoundment p. 1; 28; 1; 26; 27; site 31, PP. 4, 28; 29, p. 50; 53, p. 1; 31, p. 50; 111-15 , 53, Appendix Appendix A (P- 2) A (Po 2)
2 aceSurf Large surface impoundment; 7, P. 8; 8, 4, pp. 1, 15; impoundment concrete holdingpond; p. 43; 9, 6, PP. 3, 9; swimming pool; concrete p. 7; 23, 8, pp. 2, 43; pond; rainfall runoff p. 12; 34, 9, p. 7; 17, impoundment; runoff PP. 2, 3; p. 7; 23,p. impoundment; holding 53, pp- 12; 53, pond; SWMU 9 111-13, Appendix A 111-14, (Pa 2) Appendix A (P* 2)
3 Condensor Barometric condensor 6, P= 3; 7, 4, pp. 1, 15; ponds cooling water inground P. 7; 8, 6, PP- 3, 9; concrete tanks;hot and pp. 32, 43; 8, pp. 2, 43; cold tanks; barometric 10, PP= 5, 9, p. 7; 17, condensor cooling water 57; 22, pp. p. 7; 23,p. ponds; recirculation 3, 6; 23, 12; 53, impoundments; cool ponds; p. 12; 24; Appendix A condensor water/ 34, p. 2; (Pa 2) recirculation ponds; SWMU 53, 111-2 2 and SWMU 3; former lrhotle to 111-5, and "cold" ponds; part of Appendix SWMU 16 excavation area A (Pa 2) SD-Characterization and Containment
SOUR& DES;CRIPTION
2.2 SOURCE CBARACTERIZATION
Number of the source: 1
, Name and description ofthe source: Backfilled surface impoundment
A surface impoundmentwas located inthe northeast portion theof facility (Refs. 17, p. 1; 22, pp. 3, 4; 25, p. 1; 26; 27; 28; 29, p.1; 30; 55). FDER -. investigations indicate thatthe impoundment was first-utilizedsome time in the 1940s or 1950s (Refs. 22, p. 4; 27; 53, p. 111-15; 55). The impoundment, which covered approximately1.5 acres, was backfilled with native soiltime some in the early 1960s (Refs. 17, pp. 6, '7; 22, pp. 3,4; 26; 28; 29, p. 1; 55). In various file documentsthe impoundment is referredto as "the oldcreosote impoundment, a "creosote pond," "the old creosote pond,"the "northern impoundment", "Solid Waste Management Unit(SWMU) lo", "North Landfill/Former North Impoundment Site" and the "old impoundment site" (Refs.10, pp. 1, 57; 17, p. 6; 22, p. 3; 24; 25, p. 1; 28; 31, pp. 4, 50; 53, p. 111-15, Appendix A [p. 21; 55). Throughout this Documentation Record this source area will be referredto as "the backfilled surf ace impoundment.
File materialsdo not indicate specifically thehow surface impoundment was used (Refs. 17, p. 6; 22, pp. 3, 4; 25, p. 1; 26;,27; 28; 29, p. 1; 55). Allegedly, process wastewater from creosote treatment operationswas discharged into the impoundment (Refs. 27; 30).
Representatives of the facility collected at least one soil boring from the backfilled surface impoundmentarea, evidently in early 1986 (Refs.p. 25,1; 32; 33, p. 1198). During April 1991and May 1992,the EPA ERT/REAC team collected additional surface and subsurface soil samples in the backfilled surface impoundment area (Refs. 10, pp. lA, 1, 2, 9, 57; 31, pp. lA, 1, 2, 3, 42). The results of the analyses of samples collected during both sampling events indicated that creosote constituents were present thein subsoil of the area (Refs. 10, pp. 9, 16, 20, 23, 46, 57,60, Appendix B [pp. B9, B10, B11, B27, B30, B311; 31, pp. 14, 21, Appendix B [pp. B70, B711; 32; 33, pp. 1198, 1199). Although the facility filed a RCRA Part A application in November 1980, FDER determined that the backfilled surface impoundment was an unpermitted hazardous waste storage facilityand was not covered byRCRA regulations (Refs.9, pp. 1, 6, 7; 25, pp. 1, 2; 28; 30; 52). Removal operations at the facility have included the excavation of contaminated soil from the backfilled surface impoundment area (Ref. 10, pp. 10, 57, 61).
Location of the source, with reference to a man of the site: The backfilled surface impoundment was located in the northeastern portion of the 26-acre facility (Refs. 10,p. 57; 17, pp. 6, 7; 22, pp. 3, 4; 25, p. 1; 26; 27; 28; 29,
x pp. 1, 11; 31, p. 50; 55). See page 3B .of this Documentation Record for locat ion.
14 SD-Characterization andContainment Source No.: 1
Containment
Release to groundwater:There is no indication whether or notan engineered liner was present before the impoundment was'backfilled (Refs. 17, pp. 6, 7; 22, pp. 3, 4; 26; 28;29, p. 1; 55). FDER conducted a samplinginvestigation at the Escambia Wood - Pensacola facilityin September 1987. The investigation primarily addressed groundwater contamination believed to be attributabletothe backfilled surface impoundment. The study includedthe installation and sampling of five monitoring wells around the perimeter of the backfilled area (Ref. 17, pp. 6-8). The presence,of numerous creosoteconstituents in the samples collected downgradientof thebackfilled surface impoundment indicatesthat migration of the constituents ,from the 'source has occurred (Ref. 17, pp. 7, 17, 18, 128, 129, 132, 133, 136, 137, 144, 148, 149).Therefore, there is apparently no functioning liner present beneath the area. Using Table 3-2 of Reference 1, this information yields a containment value,.of 10.
2.3 LLKELIHOOD OF RELEASE
See Section 3.1 of this DocumentationRecord.
15 SD-Hazardous Substances Source No.: 1
2.4 WASTE CHARACTERISTICS
2.4.1 Hazardous Substances
During April 1991, the following surface and subsurface soil samples were collected from the area of the backfilled surface impoundment as part of an investigation whichEPA ERT/REAC conducted (Ref. 31,pp. lA, 1, 2, 3, 42). The samples were analyzed for selected creosote constituents (Refs. 31, pp. 10, Appendix B [pp. B70, B71]; 33, pp. 1198, 1199). No background sample was '. collected, as the primary objectives of the investigation were to define the extent and magnitude of contamination andthus guide future removal activities (Ref. 31, p. 1). However, no creosote contaminants were detected in subsurface soil samples collectedfrom test pit TP-14 located lessthan 100 feet south of the backfilled surface impoundment(Refs. 31, pp. 42, Appendix B [p. B73]; 33, p. 1198). samples collected from this test pit were designated as control samples. N~merOU8creosote constituents were detected the in samples collected from the area of the backfilled surface impoundmentat 4 to 8 feet below land surface (bls) (Refs. 31, pp. 14, 21, Appendix B [pp. B70, B711; 33, pp. 1198, 1199). These samples are consideredto be representative ofthe source. Sample locations are indicated in Reference31, p. 42. Quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) information forthe April1991sampling event are available (Ref. 31, pp. 7, 8, Appendix B [pp. B104-Bllll).
Haz ardous substance Evidence substance Hazardous Reference(s1
Acenaphthene Historic, analytical 31, Appendix B (Samples collected from (PP. B70, boreholes 10Aand 10B) B71); 33, p. 1198; 53, pp. 11-4, 111-15
Anthracene 11 I,
Biphenyl Historic, analytical 31, Appendix B (Sample collected from (p. B70); 33, borehole 1OA) p. 1198; 53, p. 111-15
Dibenzofuran Historic, analytical 31, Appendix B (Samples collected from (PP. B70, boreholes 10A and10B) B71); 33, p. 1199; 53, p. 111-15
Fluorene Historic, analytical 31, Appendix B (Samples collected from (PP. B70, boreholes 10A and 10B) 871); 33, p. 1198; 53, p. 111-15
16 SD-Hazardous Substances Source No.: 1
Hazard ous substance Evidence Referencets) Evidence substance Hazardous
1-MethylnaphthaleneHistoric,analytical 31, Appendix B (samples collected from (PP. B70, boreholes 10A and 10B) B71); 33, p. 1198; 53, p. 111-15
2-MethylnaphthaleneHistoric,analytical 31, Appendix B (Samples collected from (PP. B70, boreholes 10A and10B) B71); 33, p. 1198; 53, p. 111-15
Naphthalene Historic, analytical 31, Appendix B (samples collected from (PP- B70, boreholes 10A and10B) B71); 33, p. 1198; 53, pp. 11-4, 111-15
Phenanthrene 11 11
Pyrene ll 11
17 SD-Hazardous Constituent Quantity Source No.: 1
2.4.2 Hazardous Waste Quantity
2.4.2.1 Source Hazardous Waste Quantity
2.4.2.1.1. Hazardous Constituent Quantity
Not evaluated due to incomplete information.
2.4.2.1.2. Hazardous Waste Stream Quantity
Not evaluated due to incomplete information.
2.4.2.1.3. Volume
Not evaluated due to incomplete information.
2.4.2.1.4. Area
The surface impoundment covered approximately1.5 acres before itwas backfilled (Ref. 17, pp. 6, 7).
1.5 acres x 43,560 square feet( ft2) /acre= 65,340 ft2
Based on this area, the following area,assigned value was obtained:
65,340 ft2/ 13 = 5,026.15
Area of source (ft2): 65,340
References: 1, Table 2-5; 17, pp. 6, 7
Area Assigned Value: 5,026.15
2.4.2.1.5. Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value
Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value: 5,026.15
18 SD-Characterization and Containment
SOURCE DESCRIPTION
2.2 SOURCE CHARACTERfZATION
Number of the source: 2
Name and description of the source: Surface impoundment
A surf ace impoundment (measuring100 feet longx 60 feet wide x 4 to 6 feet deep) located inthe southeastern portion the of facility received rainfall runoff from the wood treatment operations areaand other parts ofthe facility (Refs. 4 , p. 15; 5, p. 2; 7, p. 7; 8, pp. 6,..43; 9, p. 7; 17, p. 7; 6, pp. 3, 9; 22, p. 3; 23, p. 12; 55). Additionally, residual treatment materials (pentachlorophenol and #2 diesel fuel)and wastewater fromthe cleaning ofthe treatment cylinders were collected in a andsump directedto the surface impoundment after passing through an oil/water separator(Refs. 4, p. 1; 5, p. 2). In various file documents the surface impoundment is referred to as "the large surface impounhent ,l1 a "concrete holding pond, "the swimming pool ," a "concrete pond, a "rainfall runoff impoundment, a "runoff impoundment", a "holding pond" "SWMUand 9" (Refs. 7, p. 8; 8, p. 43; 9, p. 7; 23, p. 12; 34, pp. 2, 3; 53, pp. 111-13, 111-14, Appendix A [p. 21; 55). The surface impoundment was constructed in1977 (Ref. 7 , p. 7). The impoundment was constructed with a concrete bottom and sides with expansion joints incorporatedand was underlainby a clay layer (Refs.5, p. 2; 6, p. 5; 8, p. 32; 12, p. 2; 22, p. 3; 34, p. 12). An oil skimmer was usedto collect oil from the surface of the surface impoundment for return to an oil/waterseparator. Thesurface impoundmentusually functioned as an evaporation pond (Ref. p.4, 1). However , water was dischargedto the city sewer system when the impoundment was filledto overflowing (Refs. 5, p. 2; 6, p. 9; 7, p. 7; 8, p. 39; 9, p. 7).
In April 1982 EPA ESD conducteda sampling investigationat the Escambia Wood- Pensacola facility (Ref. 4, p. 1). Pentachlorophenol and several inorganic analytes were detected in water and sludge samples collectedthe from surface impoundment during the investigation (Ref. 4, pp. 10, 29, 31, 35, 36, 44, 45).
In September 1985, Escambia Wood- Pensacola conducted a partial removal action which consisted ofthe removal of 168 yd3 ofKO01 sludges from the condensor ponds andthe surface impoundment (Refs.22, p. 4; 23, p. 1; 55). In Part 261.32 of the.Code of Federal Regulations, KO01 sludge is defined as "bottom sediment sludge fromthe treatment of wastwatersfrom wood preserving processes that use creosote and/or pentachlorophenol"(Ref. 54 , p. 49). The waste wastaken offsite for proper disposal (Refs. 22, p. 4; 24). Additional removal operations have been conducted at the facility (Refs. 10, pp. 10, 57, 61; 11). Soil excavated from other areasof the facility may have been piledthe in area ofthe surface impoundment (Refs. 10, pp. 57, 61; 17, p. 7).
19 SD-Characterization and Containment Source No.: 2
Location of the source, with reference to ' a map of the site: The surface impoundment was located in the southeastern portion of the 26-acre facility (Refs. 4, pp. 1, 15; 6, pp. 3, 9; 8, pp. 2,, 43;9, p. 7; 17, p. 7; 23, p. 12; 55). See pages 3Aand 3B of this Documentation Record for location.
Containment
Release to groundwater: The impoundment was constructed with a 4-inch thick concrete bottom and sides with expansion joints incorporated and was underlain by a clay layer (Refs.5, p. 2; 6, p. 5; 8, p. 32; 12, p. 2; 22, p. 3; 34, pp. 1, 2, 12; 55) . Using Table 3-2 of Reference 1, this information yields a containment value of9.
2.3 LIKELIHOOD OF RELEASE
See Section3.1 of this Documentation Record.
20
'. .. SD-Hazardous Substances Source No.: 2
2.4 WASTE CsARACTERISTICS
2.4.1 Hazardous Substances
The following samples were collected in April 1982, during a hazardous waste site investigation conductedat the Escambia Wood- Pensacola facility theby EPA ESD and FIT (Ref.~ 4, p. 1): , The samples collected duringthe investigation were analyzed atthe Analytical Support Branch(ASB) of the EPA ESD for purgeable and extractable organic analytes, selected pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and selected inorganic analytes (Ref. 4, pp. 4, 5) . These are waste samples and are consideredto be representativeof the source. Sample locations are indicated in Reference4, p. 15. Data qualifiers are discussed in Reference 64; none of these datareceived a data qualifier flag.
Haz ardous substance Evidence Referencels) Evidence substance Hazardous
PentachlorophenolHistoric,analytical 4, pp. 7, 10, (Samples ETH-009, water, 15, 35, 36; and ETH-009, sludge) 33, p. 1198; 53, pp. 11-4, 111-13
Arsenic Analytical 4, pp. 7, 10, (Sample ETH-009, sludge) 15, 31
Barium Analytical 4, pp. 7, 10, (samples ETH-009, water, 15, 29, 31 and ETH-009, sludge)
Chromium
Lead Analytical (Sample ETH-009, sludge)
Manganese Analytical (Samples ETH-009, water, and ETH-009, sludge)
Nickel Analytical (Sample ETH-009, sludge)
Zinc Analytical 4, PP- 7, 10, (Samples ETH-009, water, 15, 29, 31 and ETH-009, sludge)
21 SD-Hazardous Constituent Quantity Source No.: 2
2.4.2 HazardousWaste Quantity
2.4.2.1 Source Hazardous Waste Quantity
2.4.2.1.1. Hazardous Constituent Quantity
Not evaluated dueto incomplete information.
2.4.2.1.2. Hazardous Waste Stream Quantity
Not evaluated dueto incomplete information.
2.4.2.1.3. Volume
The surf ace impoundment covered an areaof 6,000 ft2 and was from 4 to 6 feet deep (Refs. 5, p. 2; 6, p. 3; 7, p. 7; 8, p., 6; 22, p. 3; 55). An estimate of the source volumewas obtained as follows:
(6,000 ft2 x 4 feet) / (27 cubic feet [ft3J/yd3)= 888.89 yd3
Based on this source volume, the following volume assigned value was obtained:
888.89 yd' / 2.5 = 355.56
Alternatively, the volume of the surface runoff impoundment was reportedly 225,000 gallons (Refs. 5, p. 2; 6, p. 3; 22, p. 3; 55).
225,000 gallons / (200 gallons/yd3) = 1,125 yd3
Based on this source volume, the following volume assigned valuewas obtained:
1,125 yd3 / 2.5 = 450.00
Dimension of source: 1,125 yd3, or 225,000 gallons
References: 1, Table 2-5; 5, p. 2; 6, PP- 3, 5; 7, PO 7; 8, p. 6; 22, p. 3; 55
Volume Assigned Value: 450.00
22 SD-SourceHazardous Waste Quantity Value Source No.: 2
2.4.2.1.5. Source HazardousWaste Quantity Value
Source HazardousWaste Quantity Value: 450.00
23 SD-Characterization and Containment
SOURCE DESCRIPTION
2 -2 SOURCE CHZLRAC'JZRIZATION
Number of the source: 3
Name and description of the source: Condensor ponds
Two impoundments (each measuring 32 feet x 32 feet x 8 feet) were used as recirculation ponds for condensor coolingand towater receive drippingsfromthe treatment cylinders (Refs. 6, pp. 3, 6; 7, p. 7; 8, p. 6). In various file documents the impoundments are referredto as "barometric condensor cooling water inground concrete tanks,l1 "hot and cold tanks, "barometric condensor cooling waterponds, l1 "recirculationimpoundments, '' llcool ponds,"condensor water/recirculation ponds, l1 "condensor ponds, l1 "condensor cooling water, "recirculation pondsg1,"SWMU 2 and SWMU 3", the "former 'hot' pond and 'cold' pond" and as part ofthe llSWMU 16" excavation area (Refs. 6, p. 3; 7, p. 7; 8, pp. 32,43; 10, pp. 5, 57;22, pp. 3,6; 23, p. 12;24; 34, p. 2; 55). At some time prior to 1965, these ponds were constructed approximately15 feet from each other with timber side wallsand concrete bottoms(Refs. 7, p. 7; 8, p. 32;12, p. 2; 22,,p.3; 53, pp. 111-3,111-4; 55). The condensate was contaminated with entrained oils, wood carbohydrates and other organic compounds (Refs.6, p. 6; 7, p. 7). Some oily materials were reclaimed in an oil/water separator before the cooling waterwas recycled, dischargedto the surface runoff impoundment or discharged to the city sewer system (Refs.4, p. 1; 5, p. 2;6, p. 3; 7, p. 7).
EPA ESD conducted a sampling investigation.at the Escambia Wood - Pensacola facility in April 1982 (Ref. 4, p. 1). A water sample collected from the condensor ponds duringthe investigation contained pentachlorophenol, xylenes, toluene, ethyl benzene and several inorganic analytes (Ref.4, pp. 10, 28, 39, 42). Pentachlorophenol,numerous polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) compounds and several inorganic analytes were detected in a sludge sample collected from the impoundments (Ref. 4, pp.. 10, 32,37, 43).
In September1985, Escambia Wood- Pensacola conducted a partial removal action which consisted of the removal of 168 yd3 of KOOl sludges from the condensor ponds andthe surface runoffimpoundment (Refs. 22, p. 4; 23, p. 1; 55). In Part 261.32 of the Code of Federal Regulations, KOOl sludge is definedas "bottom sediment sludge from the treatment of wastewaters from wood preserving processes that use creosote and/or pentachlorophenol" (Ref. 54, p. 49) . A subsequent removal was conducted 1988 in which consisted theof removal ofthe contaminated wooden side walls ofthe two small impoundments. During both ofthese removal actions, the waste was taken offsite for proper disposal (Ref. 24). Removal operations conductedat the facility have includedthe excavation of soil the in central area of the facility, including the area around the condensor ponds (Refs. 4, p. 15; 10, pp. 5, 10, 57, 61; 17, p. 7).
24 c
SD-Characterization and Containment Source No.: 3
Location ofthe source, with referenceto a map theof site: The condensor ponds were located inthe central portion ofthe 26-acre facility (Refs.4, pp. 1, 15; 6, pp. 3, 9; 8, p. 43; 9, p. 7; 17, p. 7; 23, p.' 12). See pages 3A and3B of this Documentation Record for location.
Containment
Release to groundwater: These ponds were constructed approximately 15 feet from each-otherwith timber side wallsand concrete bottoms -(Refs. p. 7, 7; 8, p. 32; 12, p. 2; 22, p. 3; 53, pp. 111-3, 111-4; 55). A 1-foot retaining wall around the impoundments wasthe only form of secondary containment present (Ref.8, p. 32). There is no indication in available file materials that any liner was present belowthe walls and bottomsof the impoundments (Refs.7, p. 7; 8, p. 32; 12, p. 2; 22, p. 3; 24; 55). In 1988, Escambia Wood - Pensacola conducted a partial removal action which consistedof the removal ofthe contaminated wooden side wallsof the two small impoundments (Ref. 24). Using Table 3-2 of Reference i, this information yields a containment value 9. of
2.3 LIKELIHOOD OF RELEASE
See Section3.1 of this Documentation Record.
25 SD-Hazardous Substances Source No.: 3
2.4 WASTE CHARACTERISTICS
2.4.1 Hazardous Substances
The following samples were collected in April 1982 during a hazardous waste site investigation which the EPA ESD and FIT conducted at the Escambia Wood - Pensacolafacility (Ref. 4, p.1). Thesamples collected during the investigation were analyzed by the US EPA, Region 4,, Environmental Services Division, Analytical Support Branch for purgeable and extractable organic analytes, selected pesticides andPCBs and selected inorganic analytes (Ref.4, pp. 4, 5). These are waste samples and are consideredto be representativeof the source. Sample locations are indicated in Reference4, p. 15. t These samples received a 'J' qualifier because the detected values was lessthe than minimum quantitation limit (MOL) (Ref. 64).
Ha zardous substance Evidence Reference(8) Evidence substance Hazardous
Benzo(a)anthracene Historic, analytical (Sample ETH-007 t, sludge)
Benzo(b and/or k)- Historic, analytical fluoranthene (sample ETH-007+, sludge)
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene t 'I
Ethylbenzene Analytical (Sample ETH-007, water)
Fluoranthene Historic, analytical (Sample ETH-007+, sludge)
Naphthalene
Pentachlorophenol Historic, analytical (Samples ETH-007, water, and ETH-007, sludge) SD-Hazardous Substances Source No.: 3
Hazard ous substance Evidence Referencets) Evidence substance Hazardous
Phenanthrene Historic, analytical 4, pp- 7, 10, (sample ETH-007, sludge) 15, 37; 33, p. 1198; 53, pp. 11-41 111-3, 111-4
Pyrene I
Toluene Historic, analytical 4, pp= 7, 10, (Sample ETH-007, water) 15, 42: 53, pp. 11-4, 111-3, 111-4 m-Xylene Analytical 4, pp. 7, 10, (sample ETH-007, water) 15, 42
11 0- and/or p-Xylene 11
Arsenic Analytical 4, pp. 7, 10, (sample ETH-007, sludge) 15, 32
Barium Analytical 4, pp. 7, 10, (samples ETH-007, water, 15, 28, 32 and ETH-007, sludge)
Cadmium Analytical (Sample ETH-007, sludge)
Chromium Analytical . 4, PP. 7, 10, (samples ETH-007, 'water, 15, 28, 32 and ETH-007, sludge)
Lead Analytical (Sample ETH-007, sludge)
Manganese Analytical 4, pp. 7, 10, (Samples ETH-007, water, 15, 28, 32 and ETH-007, sludge)
Nickel Analytical 4, pp. 7, 10, (Sample ETH-007, sludge) 15, 32
2 inc Analytical 4, PP. 7, 10, (samples ETH-007, water, 15, 28, 32 and ETH-007, sludge)
27 SD-Hazardous Constituent Quantity Source No.: 3
2.4.2 HazardousWaste Quantitv
2.4.2.1 Source HazardousWaste Quantity
2.4.2.1.1. Hazardous Constituent Quantity
Not evaluated dueto incomplete information.
2.4.2.1.2. Hazardous Waste Stream Quantity
Not evaluated due to incomplete information.
2.4.2.1.3. Volume
The two condensor ponds each measured 32 feetx 32 feet x 8 feet (Refs. 6, pp. 3, 6; 7, p. 7; 8 , p. 6). An estimate of the source volume was obtained as follows :
(2 impoundments x [32 x 32 x 81 ,feet) / (27 'ft3/yd3)= 606.81 yd3
Based on this source volume, the following volume assigned value was obtained:
606.81 yd3 / 2.5 = 242.72
Dimension of source (yd3): 606.81
References: 1, Table 2-5; 6, pp. 3, 6; 7, p. 7; 8, p. 6
Volume Assigned Value: 242.72
2.4.2.1.5. Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value
Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value: 242.72
28 SD-Potential Source Area
SOURCE DESCRIPTION
2.2 SOURCE CHARACTERIZATION
Otherpotential source area: Contaminated soil
Several areas of contaminated soil are present at the facility as a result of wood treatment operations and spills of wood treatment chemicals and waste (Refs. 11; 24; 31, pp. 14-19, 31, 32, 34-37, 42,Appendix B [pp. B57-863, B65, B66, B69- B74, B79, B80, B83-B86]; 34, pp. 2, 3). Forexample, in January 1983; FDER personnel observed-that the oil/water separator in the large surfaceimpoundment (source number 2) had overflowedonto the surrounding soil (Ref. 34, pp. 2, 3).
In April 1991, the EPA ERT/REAC team conducted a sampling investigation at the facility (Ref. 31, pp. 1, 2). The objective of the investigation was to define theextent andmagnitude of contamination present inorder to guide ongoing remediationactivities (Ref. 31, p. 1). Sample locations are shown on page 42 of Reference 31. Most samples were collected from areas known to be contaminated withwood-preservative waste; no backgroundsample was collectedduring the investigation.Pentachlorophenol; numerous PAH compounds characteristic of creosote;arsenic; chromium; copper; and severalchlorinated dioxin and furan congeners were detected in various soil samples collected from the surface to 8 feet bls (Refs. 31, pp. 14-19, 31, 32, 34-37,Appendix B [pp. B57-B63, B65, B66, B69-B74, B79, B80, B83-B86]; 33, pp. 1198, 1199; 51, pp. 1-5).
In the course of removal activities at the facility approximately 220,000 yd3 of contaminated soil have been excavated fromtwo pits and stored in piles at the facility (Refs. 10, pp. 57, 61; 11). The excavationin the central part of the facility includes portions of the main process area, wood storage areas and the "drip track site" (Refs. 10, pp. 5, 10, 57, 61; 31, p. 42). However, available information is inadequate €or complete characterization of the contaminated soil source, and an accurate HRS waste quantity could not be determined.
SourceHazardous Waste Quantity Value:Undetermined
29 SD-Summary
SITE SUMMARY OF SOURCE DESCRIPTIONS
, containment Source Hazardous source Waste Quantity Surf ace Air No. Value Groundwater Water Gas Particulate
1 5,026.15 10 NS NS NS
2 450.00 9 NS NS NS
3 242.72 9 NS NS NS
NS = Not scored
30 GW-General
GROUNDWA!lXR MIGRATION PATBWAP
3.0.1 General Considerations
Asuifer Beina Evaluated: Sand-and-Gravel aquifer
The Escambia Wood- Pensacola facility is located the in Coastal Lowlands region of the Coastal Plain physiographic province (Ref.35, p. 6). The terrain in the Coastal Lowlands region is characterizedby relatively undissected, nearly level plains that lieat elevations of lessthan 100 feet above mean sea level (msl) (Refs. 3; 35, p. 6). The elevation of the Escambia Wood- Pensacola facility is approximately 85 feet above msl(Ref. 3).
The Coastal Plain physiographic province is underlain by a sequence of unconsolidated to semiconsolidated sedimentary rocks that dip and thicken toward the Gulf of Mexico (Ref. 36, p. H13). The geologic units which underliethe facility include, listed in descending stratigraphic order: marine terrace deposits and the Citronelle Formation undifferentiated;the upper member theof Pensacola Clay; the Escambia Sand memberof the Pensacola Clay;the lower member of the Pensacola Clay; the Tampa Formation (or Limestone) and Chickasawhay Limestone (or Formation) undifferentiated; andthe Bucatunna Clay member theof Byram Formation (Refs. 35, pp. 10, 20; 37, p. 88; 38, plate 2). The marine terrace deposits consist of a fine- to coarse-grained sand. The Citronelle Formation consists of fine-very to very coarse-grained sand with lenses of clay and gravel. The upper and lower members the of Pensacola Clay consist of dense clay and sandy clay.These upper and lower members are separatedthe Escambia by Sand member which consistsof fine-to coarse-grained sand. The Tampa Formation consists of vesicular, dolomiticlimestone. The Chickasawhay Limestone consists of limestone with several bedsof clay. The Bucatunna Clay member the of Byram Formation consists of siltyto sandy carbonaceous clay (Ref. 35,p. 10).
The Sand-and-Gravel aquifer, the principal aquifer used in Escambia County, is composed ofthree hydrogeologic units withinthe marine terrace depositsand the Citronelle Formation (Refs. 36, pp. H16, H31; 37, pp. 83, 85; 39, pp. 174, 175; 41). These zones are referredto as the surficial zone, the low permeability zone and the main producing zone, and are thoughtto be hydraulically connected (Refs. 36, p. H16; 37, p. 83; 42, p. 19). Wells screened in allthree zones are used for various purposes,includingpublic drinkingwater supply, landscape, and domestic (Ref. 65; 66; 67).The surficial zone consists of sand, silty sand and clayey sand with a hydraulic conductivity lom6 of to 1 1 xx 10'' centimeters per second (cm/sec) (Refs. 36, p. H16; 37, p. 83; 60, p.3, 8, 9,12, 15). Groundwater in this zone is unconfined and in some areas is perched on the underlying low permeability zone (Refs. 37,p. 83; 60, p. 5). At the facility, the water table is present from to36 48 feet bls, andno continuous clay layer is present within150 feet bls (Refs. 3; 10, pp. 8, 57, 62; 11; 17, pp. 10, 14; 60, pp. 1-4, 9-17) . In southern Escambia County, the low permeability zone consists of discontinuous layersof clay, sandy clay and silt and actsa as
31 GW-General
semiconfining zone in some areas (Refs.36, p. H16; 37, p. 83; 42, pp. 13, 16, 18, 19). At the facility, the low permeability zone consists of to a 40-foot 35- thick layer of silty to silty fine sand with a hydraulic conductivity 1 x to 1 x cm/sec (Ref. 60, pp. 3, 4, 8, ‘10, 13, 16). The underlying main producing zone consists of sand and gravel interbeddedthin beds withof clay and silt with a hydraulic conductivity of x 1 lo-’ to 1 x cm/sec, less than two orders of magnitude greaterthan the overlying low permeability zone (Ref.36, p, 16; 37, pp. 83, 85, 89; 60, pp. 3, 4, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17). Water levels in wells completed thewithin main producing zone are generallythan lower the water levels in wells completed withinthe surficial zone (Refs. 37,pp. 8, . -29, 31, 32,’ 72, 73,-. 83,- 89;. 39, pp. 174,. 1.76;-29.). 42,The, p.. top of .the main producing zone occursat approximately 135 feet atbls the facility (Ref. 60, p. 4). Within 4 miles of the facility, the Sand-and-Gravel aquifer ranges in thickness from235 feetto the southeast to 375 feetto the northwest (Refs. 35, p. 20; 37, p. 84). Recharge of the Sand-and-Gravel aquifer is primarily by infiltration of rainfallto the water table(Ref. 42,p. 16). Groundwater inthe surficial zone rechargesthe lower two zones ofthe Sand andGravel Aquifer(Ref. 65). No karst features are present withinthe noncarbonate, clastic sediments comprising the Sand-and-Gravel aquifer (Refs. 3; 37, pp. 83, 120, 121; 42, p. 16).
The Pensacola Clay acts as a confiningunit betweenthe overlying Sand-and-Gravel aquifer and the underlying Upper Fioridan aquifer (Refs.36, p. 16; 37, p. 85). Within 4 miles of the facility, the Pensacola Clay ranges in thickness from 575 feet to the northeast to 1,000 feet to the southwest. The unit is approximately 750 feet thick beneath the facility (Refs. 35,p. 20; 37, p. 87).
The Upper Floridan aquifer is not widely used within southern Escambia County due to the presence ofthe productive Sand-and-Gravel aquifer overlying it (Ref. 37, pp. 14, 17, 18). However, freshwater occurs withinthe Upper Floridan aquifer beneath the facility area (Refs. 38,plate 29; 43, p. 150). The confined Upper Floridan aquifer is composedof permeable unitsin the Tampa Formationand the Chickasawhay Limestone (Ref. 42, pp. 16, 17) . The top of the Upper Floridan aquifer occurs at approximately 1,030 feet bls beneath the facility and is approximately 200 feetthick (Refs. 3; 37, pp. 86, 87; 38, plates 28, 29).
The Bucatunna Clay formsthe lower confining unit the of Upper Floridan aquifer (Refs. 36, p. H18; 42, pp. .16, 21). The thickness of the Bucatunna Clay is approximately 200 feet (Ref. 35, pp. 13, 20).
32 GW-Observed Release
3.1 LIKELIHOOD OF RELEASE
3.1.1 OBSERVED RELEASE
Aquifer Beincr Evaluated: Sand-and-Gravel aquifer
Chemical Analysis:
- BackgroundConcentration
. .' The 'analytical.data citations in .the following- section -of~. the ..documentation record are from the FDER sampling investigation conducted atthe facility in September 1987 (Ref. 17, pp. 1, 8). Groundwater samples were analyzed atthe FDER SPAN laboratory in Tallahasse, Florida, for many, but not all, of the parameters included thein Contract Laboratory Program(CLP) Target Compound List (TCL) and Target Analyte List (TAL) (Ref. 17, pp. 8 , 70-106). Sample CP-1 is considered to be a background sample. The sample did not contain detectable concentrations of the organic compounds detected in samples collectedsix from downgradient well8 duringthe FDER sampling investigation (Ref.17, pp. 7,17- 20). Sample CP-1 was collected from a monitoring well installed upgradient, offsite approximately200 feet north ofthe facility, with a screened interval located from 49 to 69 feet bls (Refs.17, pp. 6,7, 10, 14, 54, 73, 74, 91, 92, 127-130;17A). See also page 3B of this documentation record for the sample location. QA/QC information for samples collected duringthis investigation is available (Refs. 17, pp. 17-20,71-156; 56, pp. 1-89).
Dept h DepthDepth to SampleID (ft bls)Water ( ft 1 * 'DateReference(s)
69 35.54 CP-1 69
* Below top of well casing
33 GW-Observed Release
Minimum HazardousConcentration Detection Sample ID Substance (uq/l) Referencels)(uq/l)Limit
CP-1 Acenaphthene ND 10 17, PP. 17, 128
Acenaphthylene ND 10 11
Anthracene ND 10 11
' Benzo(a)anthracene ND 10 2, p. B-2; (listed as 17, PP. "benz (a)anthracene" 17, 128; in Refs. 2 and 44) 44, p. 357
Dioctylphthalate ND
Fluorene ND 10 11
Naphthalene ND 10 11
Phenanthrene ND 10 n
Pyrene ND 10 11
Pentachlorophenol ND 30 17, PP- 17, 129
Xylenes ND 1
ND = Not detected
The analytical data citations in the following section of the documentation record are from a sampling investigation whichthe EPA ERT/FU3AC team conducted at the facility in Apriland June 1991(Ref: 31, pp. 1-3, 5, 6).The groundwater samples collected duringthe investigation were analyzed for selected and organic inorganic analytes, including creosote constituents, arsenic, chromium and copper (Ref. 31, pp. 26, 27, 29, 30, 33; 33, pp. ,1198, 1199). Groundwater samples collected from monitoring well MW-1 in April and June 1991 did not contain detectable concentrationsof any of the analytes detected in samples collected from eight downgradient wells duringthe EPA ERT/REAC sampling investigation (Ref. 31, pp. 12-14, 18, 27, 29, 30, 33, Appendix B [B19, B20, B24, B26, B36, B37, B45, B46, B47, B781).Monitoring wellMW-lwas installed upgradient, onsite
34 GW-Observed Release
approximately 550 feet northwest ofthe main operations area of the facility (Ref. 31, p. 42). Although the screened interval for monitoring well MW-01 is not recorded in available file material, both samples collectedfrom MW-1 are considered to be background samples (Ref. pp.17, 6, 8; 17A) . See also pages 3B and 3C of this documentation recordfor the sample location. QA/QC information for samples collected duringthis investigation is available(Ref. 31, pp. 7,8, Appendix B [pp. B2, B3, BlO-Bl3, B17, B90-Blll, B119-B123, B196-B204]).
Monitoring well'MW-1 was also eampled duringthe FDER sampling investigationat the facility in September 1987(Ref. 17, pp.8, 111-113). The analytical results
' . . ,for--the.sample .wereused for. evaluation of compliance RCRA only(Ref. 17,p. 8).
D epth DepthDepth to Sample ID Water(ft)* Ift)* ReferencelslDate
MW-1 Not Not 04/19/91 31,04/19/91 Not Not MW-1 p. 9, Appendix (April 1991) recordedrecorded A491 (P.
MW-1 54.66 40.57 06/25/91 31, p. 31,06/25/91 40.57 54.66 MW-1 9, (June 1991) A Appendix (p. A59)
* It is not clear whetherthe reported depths are below land surfaceof below the topof the well casing (Ref. 31, p. 9, Appendix A [A59]).
35
.: GW-Observed Release
Method HazardousConcentration Detection Sample ID Substance (US/l) Limit (us/l) Referencels)
Mw-1 Acenaphthene ND 20
Anthracene ND 10 11
Benzo(a)anthracene ND 10 (listed as "bene (a)anthracene" in Ref8. 2 and 44)
Benzo(b)fluorantheneND 10 2, p. B-3; (listed as 31, PP- 113,4-benzof luor- 29, 30, anthene" in Appendix B Ref. 2) (PP. B36, B45 )
Benzo(a)pyrene ND 10 31, PP. 29, 30, Appendix B (PP. B36, B45 )
I1 Biphenyl ND; 10
Fluorene ND 10 1I
Naphthalene ND 10* 11
Pentachlorophenol ND 10 31, PP- 29, 30, Appendix B (Po B45)
ND = Not detected * In samples collected during April1991, naphthalene was analyzed for only as a base-neutral-acid extractable (BNA) compound (Ref. 31, pp. 12, 13, 29). In samples collectedduring.June 1991, naphthalene was analyzed for as botha volatile organic compound and as a BNA compound(Ref. 31, pp. 11, 13, 14, 27, 30). Only the method detection limit (MDL) the BNA analyses is presented here (Ref. 31, p. 11, Appendix B [pp. B36, B451).
36 GW-Observed Release
\ Method Hazardous ConcentrationDetection Sample ID Substance l ucl/l)Limit ( us/ 1 1 Reference( 8 )-
MW-1 Phenanthrene ND 10 (continued)
Pyrene ND 20 11
p- and/or ND 5 m-Xylene
ND = Not detected
37 GW-Observed Release
- ContaminatedSamples
The concentrationof a constituent is consideredto meet observed release criteria if the concentration is three times thatthe in background sample. If the concentration inthe background sample is belowthe MDL, then the concentration in a downgradient sample is consideredto meet observed release criteria if the concentration is greaterthan the MDL (Ref. 1, Table 2-3).
The following samples were collectedduring,the FDER investigation in September 1987 (Ref. 17, pp. 6, 8, 10). Groundwater samples CP-2, CP-3, CP-4
1 . -1 and-CP-5.- were-collected-.from -four- monitoring%wells.. with..the. corresponding designations, each located downgradient ofthe backfilled surface impoundment and screened at intervals from 49 to 69 feet bls (Ref. 17, pp. 6,7, 56, 57, 59,61, 63, 75, 76, 79-82, 93, 97-102, 131-134, 139-150). See page 38 of this documentation record for samplelocations. QA/QC information for samples collected during this investigation is available (Refs.17, pp. 17-20, 71-158; 56, pp. 1-89).
DepthDepth to SampleID fft bls) Water (ft)* DateReference ( 8
CP-2 69 09/16/8738.87 17, pp. 57,6,56, 10, ,75,76, 93, 94, 131-134
CP-4 69 09/16/8738.07 17, pp. 6, 10,61, 81, 82, 99, 100, 143-146
CP-5 69 09/16/8737.57 17, pp. 6, 10, 63, 83, 84, 101, 102,147-150
* Below top of well casing OW-Observed Release
Minimum HazardousConcentration Detection Sample ID Substance (ucr/l) Limit (ua/l)* Reference ( s )
CP-2 Acenaphthene 340 10
Anthracene 30 10 W
Benzo(a)anthracene15 10 p. 2, B- 2; (listed as 17, .pp. . . 17, anthrac ene" 128, 132;"benz (a)128,anthracene" in Ref in 8. 2 and 44) 27; 441 p. 357
Dioctylphthalate 19 10
Fluoranthene 80 10 1)
Fluor ene 240 . Fluorene 10 1)
Napht halene 350 Naphthalene 10 n
Phenanthrene 490 10 11
Pyrene 34 10 11
Pentachlorophenol 800
* Background minimum detection limit used
39 GW-Observed Release
Minimum HazardousConcentration Detection Sample ID Substance fus/l) Limit (uq/l)* Reference (81
CP-4 Acenaphthene 660 10
Acenaphthylene 29 10 11
Fluorene 87 10 11
Naphthalene10 3,000** 11
Phenanthrene10 100 11
Pentachlorophenol100 30 17, PP. 18, 129, 145
CP-5 Acenaphthene 2, ooo** 10 17, PP. 18, 128,148; 17A
Naphthalene 4,000** 10 11
Xylenes 113 1 17, PP. 18, 91, 101
* Background minimum detection limit used ** Estimated value
40 GW-Observed Release
The following samples were collected duringthe sampling investigation which the EPA ERT/REAC team conducted in April and June 1991 (Ref.pp. 1-4,31, 6). See pages 3Band 3C of this documentation record for sample locations.The depths recorded for monitoring wellsCP-2, CP-4, CP-5 andMW-4 during the EPA ERT/REAC sampling investigation were slightly different than those recorded for the same wells duringthe 1987 FDER sampling investigation (Refs. 17, pp. 6, 7, 10, 75-78, 81-88, 93-96, 99-106, 131-138, 143-148; 31, Appendix A [pp. A52, A55, A58, A61). The screened intervals for monitoring wells CP-2, CP-4 and CP-5 were reported inthe FDER sampling.investigation reportto be from 49 to 69 feet bls (Ref. 17, pp.6, 56, 57, 61, 63). The screened intervals for '. monitoring,wells MW-3,.MW-4, MW-5, MW-6.and MW-7.are not recorded in available file material (Refs. 17, pp. 6, 8; 17A). QA/QC information for samples collected duringthe EPA ERT/REAC sampling investigation is available (Ref. 31, Appendix B [pp. B2, B3, B10-B13, B17, B90-Blll, B119-B123, B196-B204]).
DepthDepth to Sample(ft)*ID Water Ift)* Date Reference ( s L
CP-2 42.2371.49 06/26/919, p. 31, Appendix A (P-A551
CP-4 ** NotNot 04/18/919, pp. 31, recor ded recorded 12, Appendixrecordedrecorded 12, A (Po A521
CP-4 70.4341.40 06/26/91 31,9, p. Appendix A (Pa A571
CP-5 *** Not Not 04/18/919, p. 31, reco rded recorded Appendix A Appendixrecordedrecorded (Po A531
CP-5 70.1340.85 06/26/91 31, p. 9, Appendix A (P* A581
* It is notclear whether the reported depths are below land surface or below the top of the well casing (Ref. 31, p. 9, Appendix A [pp. A55, A57,A58) ** Incorrectly referredto as "CP-7" atthe time the sample was collected (Ref. 31, Appendix A [p. A521). Correctly referred to as 11CP-4"on page 12 of Reference 31. *** Incorrectly referredto as "CP-UNK unknown well" timeat the time the sample was collected(Ref. 31, AppendixA [p. A531). Correctly referred to as "CP-5" on page 12 of Reference31.
41 GW-Observed Release
DepthDepth to Samp le ID (ft)* Water (ft)* Date Reference(s1(ft)*Water(ft)*DateSample ID
Mw-4 41.9155.45 06/25/91 p. 31, 9, Appendix A (P. A611
MW-6 54.97**42.15** 04/18/91 31, p. 9, Appendix A
(Po A511
Mw-7 9,49.6341.5906/25/91 p. 31, Appendix A (Po A641
* It is notclear whether the reported depths are below land surfaceor below the top of the well casing (Ref. 31,p. 9, Appendix A [pp. A60, A61, A62, A63, A64).
** Measurements recorded during June25, 1991, sampling event (Ref. 31,p.9, Appendix A (p.A63)). GW-Observed Release Minimum
Hazardous , Concentration Detection Sample ID Substance (ua/l\ Limit (ua/l\ Referencelsl
CP-2 Acenaphthene 12 J 000 200
(June 1991)
I Anthracene 2,500 100 Benzo (a)- 1 ,700 100 anthracene
(listed as "benz (a)anthracene" in Refs. 2 and 44) Benzo(b)fluor- 620 100 anthene
(listed as n3,4-benzofluor- anthene" in Ref. 2) Benzo(a)pyrene 470 100 31, PP. 13, 30, Appendix B (POB47) 11 Biphenyl 1 J 200 100 Fluorene 8,800 100 n Naphthalene 3,900* 100 11 Pentachlorophenol 520 100 31, PP. 13, 30, Appendix B (Po B47) Phenanthrene 23 ,000 100 31J pp- 13, 30, Appendix B (p. B47) Pyrene 5 ,500 200 11
* In samples collected during June 1991, naphthalenewas analyzed for as both a volatile organic compoundas a andBNA compound (Ref. 31, pp. 11, 13, 14, 26, 30). Only the results for the BNA analyses are presented inthis table.
43 GW-Observed Release
Minimum Hazardous Concentration Detection Sample ID Substance (us/l) Limik (ua/l) ReferenceIsl
CP-4 Acenaphthene 710 20 31, pp. 12, (April 1991) 29, Appendix B (p. B37)
Biphenyl 160 10 11
Fluorene 130 10 11
Naphthalene 9,500 10 1I
Pentachlorophenol 12 0 10 11
Phenanthrene 78 10 31, PP- 12, 29, Appendix B (p.B37)
CP-4 Acenaphthene 500 20 31, PP= 13, (June 1991) 30,Appendix B (Po B46)
Biphenyl 72 10 n
Fluorene 100 10 31, PP. 14, 30, Appendix B (Pa B46)
Naphthalene 5,800* 10 31, PP. 13, 30,Appendix B (Po 846)
* In samples collected during June1991, naphthalenewas analyzed for as both a volatile organic compound and as a BNA compound(Ref. 31, pp. 11, 13, 14, 26, 30). Only the results for the BNA analyses are presented inthis table.
44 GW-Observed Release
Minimum Hazardous Concentration Detection SampleSubstance ID (ucr/l) Limit (uq/l) Reference ( s ).
CP-4 Phenanthrene 67 10 (June 1991)
Pentachlorophenol 91 10
CP-5 Acenaphthene 680 20 (April 1991)
Biphenyl 150 10
Fluorene 160 10
Naphthalene 6,600 10
Phenanthrene 150 10
CP-5 Acenaphthene 420 20 (June 1991)
Biphenyl 66 10
Fluorene 150 10 , Naphthalene 4,900* 10
Pentachlorophenol 18 I 10
Phenanthrene 160 10
* In samples collected during June1991, naphthalene was analyzedfor as both a volatile organic compoundand as a BNA compound (Ref. 31,pp. 11, 13, 14, 26, 30). Only the results for the BNA analyses are presented inthis table.
45 GW-Observed Release
Minimum Hazardous Concentration Detection Sample ID Substance (uq/l) Limit (uq/l) Reference(s 1
"-4 Acenaphthene (June..,1991)
Biphenyl 14 10 W
Fluor ene 51 Fluorene 10 11
Naphth alene 130* Naphthalene 10 11
Phenanthrene 28 10 H
MW-6 Naphthalene MW-6 10.8 (April 1991)
* In samples collected during June1991, naphthalene was analyzed for as both a volatile organic compoundand as a BNA compound (Ref. 31,pp. 11, 13, 14, 27, 30). Only the results forthe BNA analyses are presented inthis table.
46 GW-Observed Release
Minimum Hazardous Concentration Detection Sample ID Substance (us/l) Limit (uq/1) Reference I s 1
Mw-7 Acenaphthene 88 20 31, PP. 13, (June 1991) 30,Appendix B (Po B45)
Biphenyl 25 10 11
Fluo rene 54 Fluorene 10 W
Napht halene 1,400* Naphthalene 10 11
Pentachlorophenol 2,700 '. 10 31, PP. 14, 30,Appendix B (Po B45)
Phenanthrene 59 10 13,pp.31, 30,Appendix B (Po 845)
p- and/or m-Xylene 40 31,25 PP* 12, 27, Appendix B (p. 819)
* In samples collected duringJune 1991, naphthalene was analyzed for as both a volatile organic compoundand as a BNA compound (Ref. 31,pp. 11, 13, 14, 27, 30). Only the resuLts for the BNA analyses are presented inthis table.
- Level I Samples
No Level I samples have been documented.
47 GW-Observed Release
Attribution
Pentachlorophenol and numerous PAH compounds, including acenaphthene, anthracene, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(a)pyrene, fluorene, naphthaleneand pyrene, were detected in surface and subsurface soil samples collectedfrom the backfilled surface impoundment area theand central area of the facility in 1992 (Refs. 10,pp. 9, 15, 16, 19, 20, 23, 46, 57, 60, Appendix €3 [pp. B9, B10, B11, B12, B13, B24, B25, B27,B30, B31J; 32; 33, p. 1198). Wastewater from creosote treatment processes was apparently disposed of in the impoundment before it was backfilled (Refs. 25,p. 1; 29, p. 1; 27)...... ‘The~compounds detected,in.the,soil.samples.are constituents.of.creosote (Ref. 33, p. 1198). Naphthalene, fluoranthene, pyrene, benz(a)anthracene, pentachlorophenol, and xylenes were detected in samples collected the from condensor ponds in April 1982(Refs. 4, pp. 7, 10, 15, 28, 32, 37, 39, 42; 44, p. 357). Pentachlorophenol was detected in samples collected thefrom surface impoundment during the 1982 investigation (Ref.4, pp. 7, 10, 15, 29, 31, 35, 36).
Hazardous Substances Released
Acenaphthene Anthracene Benz(a)anthracene, or “benzo(a)anthracene” 3,4-Benzofluoranthene, or “benzo(b)fluoranthene” Biphenyl Fluoranthene Fluorene Naphthalene Pentachlorophenol Pyrene Xylenes Benzo(a)Pyrene Phenanthrene Dioctyl phthalate
” I
Groundwater Observed Release FactorValue: 550
48 3.2 WASTE CHARACTERISTICS
3.2.1 ToxicitvlMobility
ToxicityMobility Hazardous Source Factor Factor Toxicity/ Substance No. Value Value MobilitvRef Is).
Acenaphthene* 10 1 10 B-1 Anthracene" 10 1 10 B-2 Benz(a)anthracene* 1,000 1 1,000 B-2 3,4-Benzofluor- 10 ,000 1 10,000 B-3 anthene* Benzo(a)pyrene* 10,000 1 10,000 B-2 Fluorene* 100 1 100 B-9 Naphthalene* 1 1 1 B-12 Pentachlorophenol* 100 1 100 B-14
Pyrene* 100 1 100 B-15 Xylenes" 10 1 1 B-18 Arsenic 10,000 1.OE-02 100 ,B-2 Chromium 10,000 1.OE-02 100 B-5 Cadmium 10,000 1 10,000 B-4 Lead 10,000 1.OE-02 100 B-11 Nickel 100 1.OE-02 1 B-12
* Mobility factors have been assigned based on the presencethe constituents of in an observed releaseto groundwater (Ref. 1, Section 3.2.1.2). i GW-Hazardous Waste Quantity
3.2.2 HazardousWaste Ouantity
Source Hazardous Is sourcehazardous Waste Quantity constituent quantity Source Number Value(Section 2.4.2.1.5) data complete?(ves/no)
1 5,,026.15 No 2 450.00 No 3 242.72 No
Sum of Values: 5,718.87
Waste QuantityFactor Value: 100
3.2.3 Waste CharacteristicsFactor Cateaory Value
Toxicity/Mobility Factor Value X Hazardous Waste QuantityFactor Value: 1 x 10“
Hazardous Waste QuantityFactor Value(Ref. 1, Table 2-6): 100 Waste CharacteristicsFactor Category Value(Ref. 1, Table 2-7): 32
50 GW-Target 8
3-3 TARGETS
Level I Level I1 Potential DistanceCont am. Contam.Cont am. W ell From Source From Well (Y/N) (Y/NI (Y/N\ Ref (s).
Escambia County Utilities Authority(ECUA) wells: Royce Street 1-2 miles N N Y 3; 45, p. 2; 46, sheet 9 F and Scott 11 N N Y 3; 45, p. 1; 46, sheet 6 W and Avery 91 N Y 11 #9 well 11 N Y 11 Montclair #1 11 N Y 11 Montclair #2 2-3 miles N Y 11 Montclair #3 11 N Y 3; 45, p. 1; 46, sheet 9 t6 well I1 N N Y 3; 45, p. 1; 46, sheet 6 East well 11 N N Y 11 West well 11 N N Y n Davis 11 N N Y 3; 45, p. 1; 46, sheet 9 9th Avenue , 11 N N Y 11 Hagler 11 N N Y 3; 45, p. 1; 46, sheet 8 West Pensacola ll N N Y 3; 45, p. 1; 46, sheet 6 McAllister 3-4 miles N N Y 3; 45, p. 1; 46, sheet 8 Airport North 11 N N Y 11
51 GW-Targets
Level I Level I1 Potential Distance Contam.Contam.Cont am. W ell From Source From Well (Y/N\ (Y/N) (Y/N) Ref Is).
Olive 3-4 miles N N Y 3; 45, p. 1; 46, sheet 9 Tennant II N N Y .3; 45, p. 2; 46, sheet 6
Peoples Water Service Company(PWSC) well: Well #8 3-4 miles N N Y 40; 3; 46, sheet 6
Nineteen public water supplywells, all completed within the Sand-and-Gravel aquifer, are located within 4 miles the of site (Refs. 3; 40; 41; 45, pp. 1, 2; 46; 48, p. 3). As of July 1993, ECUA operated 33 18wells, of which were located within 4 milesof the Escambia Wood- Pensacola facility(Refs- 3; 45, pp. 1, 2; 48, pp. 1-3). No single well operatedby ECUA supplies greaterthan 10 percent of the total water supply for the system (Ref. 48, p. 2). The 18 ECUA wells located within 4 milesthe of facility range%in depth from 192to 272 feet, with the tops of the well screens located from 120to 190 feet bls (Refs- 45, pp. 1, 2; 48, p. 3). The nearest ECUA well is located1.20 miles northeast ofthe site, and another ECUA well is located1.25 miles to the south (Refs. 3; 45,p. 1; 46). Water obtained from the wells is distributed through two interconnected distribution systems, or "pressure zones" (Refs. 45,p. 2; 46; 48, p. 1). ECUA serves approximately 225,000to 250,000 persons (Ref. 48,p. 2). One ofthe five wells whichPWSC currently operates (Well #8) is located within 4 milesthe of Escambia Wood - Pensacola facility (Ref8. 3; 40; 46, sheet 6). Well #8 has a total depth of240 feet with the top of the well screen locatedat 230 feet bls (Ref. 40). PWSC blends water from all its wells and provides waterto 33,000 people inthe Warrington and Pleasant Grove areas southwest of Pensacola (Refs. 40; 47, p. 1; 49). No PWSC well supplies greaterthan 40 percent of the total water supply for the system (Ref8. 40; 47, p. 1). There may be some private wells located within 4 miles ofthe facility, but no private wells have been specifically identified withinthis area (Refs. 8, p. 2; 45, p. 2; 48, p. 2).
52 GW-Nearest Well
3.3.1 Nearest Well
Well: ECUA Royce Street well Levelof Contamination: Potential Distance from source in miles: 1-20 miles to the northeast
The nearest well, the Royce Street well operated by ECUA, is located 1.20 miles .northeast of the Escambia Wood - Pensacola facility (Refs. 3; 45, p. 2; 46, sheet 9). The well has a totaldepth of 240 feetwith the top of the well screen located at 140 feetbls (Refs. 45, p. 2; 48, p. 3). The assignedvalue was determined fornonkarst conditions (see Section 3 .O. 1 of this documentation record).
-
Nearest Well FactorValue (Ref. 1, Table 3-11): 5
53 GW-Level I Concentrations
3.3.2 Population
3.3.2.1 Level of Contamination
Not applicable.
3 .3 .2 .2 . Level I .Concentrations
No Level I concentrations have been documented.
3.3.2.3 Level I1 Concentrations
No Level I1 concentrations have beendocumented.
54 GW-Potential Contamination
3.3.2.4 Potential Contamination
Distance Distance-Weighted Cateaorv Population Population Value Referencets)
0-0.25 mile 0 0 1, Table 3-12;3; 46, sheet 6
0.25-0.50 mile 0 0 I,
0.50-1 mile 0 0 n
1-2 miles 34,091 9 ,385 1, Table 3-12;3;. 45, pp. 1, 2; 46, sheets 6, 9; 48, PP. 1, 2
2-3 miles 61,364 6,778 1, Table 3-12;3; 45, p. 1; 46, sheets 6, 8, 9; 48, PP* 1, 2
3-4 miles 33,873 4,1711, Table 3-12;3; 40; 45, pp. 1, 2; 46, sheets 6, 8, 9; 48, pp. 1, 2
ECUA and PWSC obtain water from wells located within 4 miles of the facility. Approximately 225,000 to 250,000 persons are served byECUA (Ref. 48, p. 2). The total population served by ECUA (225,000 persons used as a low estimate) was multiplied by the proportion of the wells ECUA operates within each distance category to obtain the population served by each potentially contaminated well. The populatio'n served theby well operated by PWSC was obtained by dividingthe total population served (presented in Section 3.3) by 5 (the total number of supply wells operated by the utility). The total population for each ring was obtained by adding the values obtained for each utility. Distance-weighted population values were determined for nonkarstconditions (see Section 3.0.1 of this documentation record). GW-Potential Contamination
The calculations used to determine the potentially affected groundwater population are presented below.
0-0.25 mile No wells present (Refs.3; 46, sheet 6).
0.25-0.50 mile No wells present (Refs,3; 46, sheet 6).
0.50-1 mile No wells present (Refs.3; 46, sheet 6).
1-2 miles 225,000 persons served by xECUA (5 ECUA wells within /ring 33 total ECUA wells) = 34,901 persons (Refs. 3; 45, pp. 1, 2; 46, sheets 6, 9;.48, pp. 1, 2)
2-3 miles 225,000 persons served by xECUA (9 ECUA wells within /ring 33 total ECUA wells) = 61,364 persons (Refs. 3; 45, p. 1; 46, sheets 6, 8, 9; 48, pp. 1, 2)
3-4 miles 225,000 persons served by xECUA (4 ECUA wells within / ring33 total ECUA wells) = 27 ,273 persons
33,000 persons (PWSF)x (1 PWSC well within.ring/ 5 total PWSC wells)= 6,600 persons
Total persons served by wells within3- tothe 4-mile ring= 33,873 persons (Refs. 3; 40; 45, pp. 1, 2; 46, sheets 6, 8, 9; 48, pp. 1, 2)
Sum of Distance-Weighted Population Values: 20,334
The potential contamination factor value was calculated from sum the of the distance-weighted population values:
20,334 / 10 = 2,033
Potential Contamination Factor Value (Ref.1, Table 3-12): 2,033
56 GW-Resources and.Wellhead Protection Area
3.3.3 Resources
No use of groundwater for resources has been documented within4 miles of the facility (Refs. 37, pp. 13; 45, p. 2).
Resources Factor Value: 0
3.3.4 Wellhead Protection Area
No wellhead protection areasidentified.
Wellhead Protection Area FactorValue: 0
57