HRS DOCUMENTATION RECORD COVER SHEET Name of Site: Eagle Industries EPA ID No. OKN000607068 Contact Persons Site Investigation: Brenda Nixon Cook, NPL Coordinator, EPA Region 6 (Name) (214) 665-7436 (Telephone) Documentation Record: Brenda Nixon Cook, NPL Coordinator, EPA Region 6 (Name) (214) 665-7436 (Telephone) Pathways, Components, or Threats Not Scored 1) Surface Water Pathway: The surface water pathway overland/flood migration component of the Surface Water Migration Pathway has not been scored. Since there are no probable points of entry (PPEs), no ecological systems of importance within a 4-mile radius, and no contaminants of concern were detected in the on-site pond, there is no evident threat to surface water resources attributable to the site (Ref. 6, pp. 5, & 144-147; Ref. 7, p. 19; Ref. 27, pp. 20, 105-106). The surface water pathway has not been evaluated for scoring and would not significantly affect the listing decision (Ref. 1, Sec. 2.2.3). 2) Air Migration Pathway: A volatile release is anticipated because of solvent impact to site soils and ground water but no direct release was observed (Ref. 7, p.20). Based on information available at this time, evaluation of the air migration pathway would not significantly affect the listing decision (Ref. 1, Sec. 2.2.3). 3) Soil Exposure and Subsurface Intrusion Pathway: Previous sampling events have shown onsite soils to be impacted by release of solvent (Ref. 7, p. 19). Based on information available at this time, further evaluation of the soil exposure and subsurface intrusion pathway would not significantly affect the listing decision (Ref. 1, Sec. 2.2.3; Ref. 1a, Sec. 2.2.3). These pathways and components are of concern to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and may be considered during a future evaluation. HRS DOCUMENTATION RECORD Name of Site: Eagle Industries Date Prepared: July 2017 EPA ID Number: OKN000607068 EPA Region: 6 Street Address of Site*: 10901 S.E. 29th St., Midwest City, Oklahoma 73130 Section 7, Township 11 North, Range 1 West, Quarter Southeast in Midwest City, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma (Ref. 4, p. 2; Figure 1 of this HRS Documentation Record). City, Parish, State, Zip Code: Midwest City, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma 73130 General Location in the State: Eagle Industries is located just north of Southeast 29th Street in Midwest City, southern Oklahoma County, approximately 11 miles east-southeast of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma along Interstate 40 (Figure 1). Topographic Map: Choctaw Quadrangle, Oklahoma (Ref. 3, p. 3). Latitude: Longitude: 35.435631° North (35° 26’ 8.272” North) 97.337507° West (97° 20’ 15.025” West) Geographical coordinates were obtained from the southeast corner of the Eagle facility building (Figure 2A). Air Pathway Not Scored Ground Water Pathway 100.00 Soil Exposure and Subsurface Intrusion Pathway Not Scored Surface Water Pathway Not Scored HRS SITE SCORE 50.00 *The street address, coordinates, and contaminant locations presented in this HRS documentation record identify the general area the site is located. They represent one or more locations EPA considers to be part of the site based on the screening information EPA used to evaluate the site for NPL listing. EPA lists national priorities among the known "releases or threatened releases" of hazardous substances; thus, the focus is on the release, not precisely delineated boundaries. A site is defined as where a hazardous substance has been "deposited, stored, disposed, or placed, or has otherwise come to be located." Generally, HRS scoring and the subsequent listing of a release merely represent the initial determination that a certain area may need to be addressed under CERCLA. Accordingly, EPA contemplates that the preliminary description of facility boundaries at the time of scoring will be refined as more information is developed as to where the contamination has come to be located. 1 FIGURES Figure 1 Figure 2A Figure 2B Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Facility Location Map Location of Sources and Potential Sources Ground Water Background and Release Sample Locations Map Regional Geology Map Ground Water Wells Within 4-mile TDL Map Public Water Supply Wells within 4-Mile Radius NOTES TO THE READER The following rules were used when citing references in the HRS (Hazard Ranking System) package. 1. Hazardous substances are listed by how they appear in the Superfund Chemical Data Matrix (SCDM). 2. Significant figures: Calculations are reported to two significant figures to the right of the decimal place when the HRS does not specify rounding. 3. Abbreviations/Conventions used to identify references and citations: Figure Fig Number No. Reference Ref Section Sec. Single Pages p. Multiple Pages pp. “;” Next Reference () Selected acronyms 2 ABBREVIATIONS AIRS/AFS BGS CERLCA CERCLIS CO 2 COCs DCE EI EPA ESI LUST MCLs NPDES OCC ODEQ PPE PWS RCRA SAM SEL SI TCE TDL USTs Air Facility System Below Ground Surface Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System Carbon Dioxide Chemicals of concern Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene Eagle Industries Environmental Protection Agency Expanded Site Inspection Leaky Underground Storage Tank Maximum Contaminant Levels National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Oklahoma Corporation Commission Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality Probable Points of Entry Public Water Supply Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Site Assessment Manager State Environmental Lab Site Inspection Trichloroethylene Total Distance Limit Underground Storage Tanks 3 FIGURE REFERENCE SHEET Figure 1: Facility Location Map Base Map Source*, Copyright 2013 National Geographic Society * Map annotated by EPA START-3 on November 8, 2016 to depict site location and property boundary (Ref. 4, pp. 2 & 4; Ref. 5, pp. 5, 14-15, 21, 43-47 & 68; Ref. 7, pp. 4, 23, 56-59 & 81; Ref. 8, pp. 6-7, 25, 44-47 & 69; Ref. 15, pp. 5, 17, 31-34 & 56; Ref. 17, pp. 13 & 21; Ref. 20, pp. 4-5 & 22; Ref. 21, pp. 4-5, 14-15 & 122; Ref. 22, p. 4; Ref. 23, pp. 4 & 12; Ref. 24, pp. 4 & 11; Ref. 27, p. 12; Figure 2A) Figure 2A: Locations of Identified and Potential Sources Base Map Source*, Esri**- World Imagery Metadata: DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community * Map annotated by EPA START-3 on November 8, 2016 to depict site location, sources, property boundary and background and release sample locations (Ref. 4, pp. 1 & 3; Ref. 5, pp. 6, 14-15, 21, 4347, 68 & 111-113; Ref. 6, p. 5; Ref. 8, pp. 25-30; Ref. 17, pp. 3-5, 10, 12 & 20; Ref. 18, p. 2; Ref. 21, p. 16; Ref. 23, pp. 4 & 11-13; Ref. 27, pp. 6, 7, 13-14, & 15-16; Ref. 28, pp. 5 & 10; Ref. 29, p. 55; Ref. 31, p. 4; Figure 2A) ** Source map image is Esri, and is used by EPA with Esri’s permission Figure 2B: Ground Water Background and Release Sample Locations Base Map Source*, Esri**- World Imagery Metadata: DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community * Map annotated by EPA START-3 on November 8, 2016 to depict site location, property boundary, and background and release sample locations (Ref. 4, pp. 1 & 3; Ref. 5, pp. 6, 14-15, 21, 43-47, 68 & 111-113; Ref. 6, p. 5; Ref. 8, pp. 25-30; Ref. 17, pp. 3-5, 10, 12 & 20; Ref. 18, p. 2; Ref. 21, p. 16; Ref. 23, pp. 4 & 11-13; Ref. 27, pp. 6, 7, 13-14, & 15-16; Ref. 28, pp. 5 & 10; Ref. 29, p. 55; Ref. 31, p. 4; Figure 2B) Figure 3: Regional Geology Map Base Map Source*, Esri** - World Imagery Metadata: DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community; OKDEQ for Geology data * Map annotated by EPA START-3 on November 8, 2016 to depict site location and property boundary (Ref. 4, pp. 2 & 4; Ref. 5, pp. 5, 14-15, 21, 43-47 & 68; Ref. 7, pp. 5, 24, 57-60 & 82; Ref. 8, pp. 6-7, 25, 44-47 & 69; Ref. 15, pp. 5, 19, 31-34 & 56; Ref. 17, pp. 13 & 21; Ref. 20, pp. 4-5 & 22; Ref. 21, pp. 4-5, 14-15 & 122; Ref. 22, p. 4; Ref. 23, pp. 4 & 12; Ref. 24, pp. 4 & 11; Ref. 27, p. 12). ** Source map image is Esri, and is used by EPA with Esri’s permission 4 Figure 4: Ground Water Wells Within 4-mile TDL Map Base Map Source*, Esri**- World Imagery Metadata: DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community ; Oklahoma Water Resources Board (ground water wells) * Map annotated by EPA START-3 on November 8, 2016 to depict site location, property boundary and ground water wells within 4-mile TDL of site (Ref. 4, pp. 2 & 4; Ref. 5, pp. 5, 14-15, 21, 43-47 & 68; Ref. 7, pp. 5, 24, 57-60 & 82; Ref. 8, pp. 6-7, 25, 44-47 & 69; Ref. 15, pp. 5, 19, 31-34 & 56; Ref. 17, pp. 13 & 21; Ref. 20, pp. 4-5 & 22; Ref. 21, pp. 4-5, 15-16 & 123; Ref. 22, p. 4; Ref. 23, pp. 4 & 12; Ref. 24, pp. 4 & 11; Ref. 27, p. 12; Ref. 39, pp. 2-27; Figure 2A). ** Source map image is Esri, and is used by EPA with Esri’s permission Figure 5: Public Water Supply Wells Within 4-Mile Radius Base Map Source*, Esri**- World Imagery Metadata: DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community ; Oklahoma Water Resources Board (ground water wells) * Map annotated by EPA START-3 on February 3, 2017 to depict site location, property boundary and the Midwest City and Tinker Air Force Base Public drinking water wells within 4-mile TDL of site (Ref. 7, p. 16; Ref. 39, pp. 2-27; Ref. 50, p. 2-5). 5 Facility Location Map of Oklahoma Legend Eagle Industries Facility Boundary . US EPA Region 6 START-3 Figure 1. Facility Location Map Eagle Industries 10901 SE 29th Street Midwest City, Oklahoma County, OK 73130 1:24,000 0 0.25 0.5 1 CERCLIS No. OKN000607068 Miles TDD No. 9/Dynamac-077-16-005 October 2016 Former Storm Water Runoff Pond Source No. 1 Source No. 2 Septic System Field Septic Tank Water Sump , % ( ! -97.337507, 35.435631 Map of Oklahoma Legend Eagle Industries Facility Boundary Sources . Potential Source , % 0 Septic Tank 100 1:2,000 200 400 Feet US EPA Region 6 START-3 Figure 2A. Location of Identified and Potential Sources Eagle Industries 10901 SE 29th Street Midwest City, Oklahoma County, OK 73130 CERCLIS No. OKN000607068 February 2017 ! . RW-7 MW-4 DEQ-1 DEQ-2 ! . MW-3 ! ( ( ! ! ( ( ! DEQ-3 ! ( DEQ-4 ! ( ( ! ! . RW-2 RW-1 ( ! ( ! MW-2 ! . BW-1 WW-7 ( MW-1 ! RW-5 ( ! RW-19 ( ! RW-6 ! ( RW-8 ! . ( ! RW-21 RW-9 ( ! RW-20 ( ! RW-17 Map of Oklahoma Legend ! . Background Sample ( ! Release Sample . Eagle Industries Facility Boundary 1:6,000 0 300 600 1,200 Feet US EPA Region 6 START-3 Figure 2B. Groundwater Background and Release Sample Locations Eagle Industries 10901 SE 29th Street Midwest City, Oklahoma County, OK 73130 CERCLIS No. OKN000607068 February 2017 Pg Qal Pfa Qt Map of Oklahoma Legend Eagle Industries Facility Boundary Pg - Garber Sandstone . Pfa - Fairmont Shale Qal - Alluvium Qt - Terrace Deposits 0 0.25 0.5 US EPA Region 6 START-3 Figure 3. Regional Geology Map Eagle Industries 10901 SE 29th Street Midwest City, Oklahoma County, OK 73130 1:24,000 1 CERCLIS No. OKN000607068 Miles TDD No. 9/Dynamac-077-16-005 October 2016 4 Miles# * * # *# *# # * *# # # * ## * # * # * * # * *# * # # *# * # # # # # * * * * *# * * # * # *# # * # # * # * # * * * # * # # * # # * * # * * *# # *# * * # # * # * *# *# *# *# *# # # * # * # * *# # # *# *# * *# *# * * # * # * * # * # # # *# *# * *# * # * # * # * # # # # # # # # # # # # * * * * * * * *# * * * * * * 3 Miles # # # # *# # # *# * * # * # *# * # * * * # *# * # * # # # # # # * * * * * ** # # # * * * # # # * * * # * # # * # * # * # # # * # * * * # * # * # * # * # * # # # *# *# *# ** * *# # # * * * # *# * # # # # * * * * # * # * # * # # # # * * * * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # # # # * * # * * ** # # * # * * # * *# # # *# * # # # # # * # * * * * * # * # * * # 2 Miles *# # * # # * # # * * * # # * * * *# ## # * * *# # # *# * * # *# # # *# *# * * # # * # * *# # * * *# # # * * # * * # # # # # *# * * # # * *# * * * # # # * * * # * # *# * # * # * # * # * * # # * * # # # * * * # # # # * * * # # * # # * * * * # # # * * * # # # # * * # * * * # * # * # # # # # * *# * * * # # * *# # # *# * # * * *# # * *# # * # * # # # * * * # # * * # * * * * # * # # * # # * * * # * # # * # * # # * *# *# *# # *# * * # * *# # # * # * *# *# *# * # # # # * * # * * # * # * # * # * # * # # # # # * * # * * # * * # # #*# * # ** **# *# * # # # * *# * # * *# *# * # * * *# * # # *# **# # * 1 Mile # # * # * # * # * * *## # # # # # * * * * * # *# * * # * # # * # * * *# * * # # * * # # ## # # * * # # # # # * * * * * * * # *# # * # # * * # # *# * # # *# *# * * * * # * # **# *# **# # # # *# *# *# * *# # *# * # * * # * # *# * * # * # * * * # # * *# # * # * # # # # * * * # # # 0.5 Mile ## ** # # * # * * * *# * # * # * # # # * # * * * * # # # * * # # # * * # * * # * # * # 0.25 Mile * # # # # *# *# * # * # * ## # *# ** * * # * * * # * # * # # * * # * # # *# * # # # # * * ** # * * * * # # *# * # * * # # * # * # ** *# # * # # # *# * #* # # # # #* # * # * * * *# * # *# * *# # * # * # * # # # * * * # * * # # * * * # *# *# # * *# # * # * * # # * # *# # *# # * # * # * * * # # # * * * * # * # *# # # * * # # # # * * * * # # # * * # *# * # # *# * * # * *# * # * # *# # # # * # * ** * # * # # * # # * # * * # # # * * * # # * * * # # * # * * # # * * # * # # * * # * # # * # * * # * # * # * * # # * # * * * # # * # * # * # # * # # # # # # # * * * * * * * # # # # # * * * * * # * # # * # # * * * # * # # # * * * # # *# *# * * # # * # * # # # * * * # * * # # * *# * # * # # * # * # * * * # # * # * # *## *# # # *# *# # # *# * * # * * # # # * # * * * * # * # # * # * * * * # # # * * # * # # * * # * # * *# # *# **# * # * *# * * *# # *# # * # * # *# * # * # # *# # # * # * *# # # # # * # * * *# # * * # ** # # * * * # * *# *# *# # * # * * # # * *# # # * # # # * * * * # # # # # # # # * # * * * * * * # * * * # # * * # * * # * # * * * # * # # # * *# # # * * # # # *# * ** * # # * ## # * * * # # * *# * # # *# * * *# # # # # # # # # * * * * * *# *# * * # * * # * # * # # # * # * * * * # # # # * *# * *# *# *# * # *# # * * # # * # # # # * # # * * * * * * # # # # # # # * * * * * * * # * # * # * # ** # ## # # # # *# # * *# * #* * * # ** ** * *# *# # # # * *# *# * *# *# *# *# # * # * # * # * # * * # # # # # # # * #* * # * * # * * * * # # * # * # # * # # * * * # * * # # *# # # # * # # *# ** *# *# * * # *# *# * *# * # * # # * *# * # *# * # * # * # # * *# * # * # * *# * # *# # ** * *# * * # # # #* # # # # # * # * * * * * # * # *# # *# *# # *# *# * # * # * * # # * * # * * * # # * * # # * # * # # # # # * * * *# *# *# * # * * # # * # * # # * * * *# # * # # * # # * * * # * # * # # # * * * # # * * * # * # # * # # * * # * *# *# # * # * Map of Oklahoma Legend Eagle Industries Property Boundary # * Domestic # * Industrial # * Irrigation # * Public Water Supply 0 0.75 1.5 . 1:80,000 3 Miles US EPA Region 6 START-3 Figure 4. Groundwater Wells Within 4-Mile TDL Map Eagle Industries 10901 SE 29th Street Midwest City, Oklahoma County, OK 73130 TDD No. 9/Dynamac-077-16-005 CERCLIS ID No. OKN000607068 October 2016 53 ! ( 4 Miles 55 ! ( 51 ! ( 54 ! ( 24 ! ( 20 ! ( 18 ! ( 19 17 ! ( ! ( 16 ! 22 ( ! ( 15 26 ! ! ( ( 25 ! ( 23 ! ( ! (6 ! (12 ! (3 30 ! ( ! ( ! (5 31 ! ( ! (7 34 ! ( 29 ! ( Map of Oklahoma 2 Miles 50 ! ( 52 ! ( 48 ! ( 49 ! ( 1 Mile 28 ! ( 21 ! ( 32 ! ( 3 Miles 27 ! ( 0.5 Mile 0.25 Mile ! (8 13 ! ( 33 ! ( ! ( 11 20 ! ( ! ( 21 22 ! ! ( ( 23 ! ( 24 27 ! ( ! ( 25 ! ( 26 ! ( Legend ! ( ! ( . Tinker Wells MWC Wells Eagle Industries Property Boundary 1:90,000 0 0.75 1.5 3 Miles US EPA Region 6 START-3 Figure 5. Public Water Supply Wells Within 4-Mile Radius Eagle Industries 10901 SE 29th Street Midwest City, Oklahoma County, OK 73130 CERCLIS ID No. OKN000607068 February 2017 WORKSHEET FOR COMPUTING HRS SITE SCORE s 100.00 s2 10,000 2a. Surface Water Overland/Flood Migration Component (from Section 4.3 of the HRS Documentation Record) NS NS 2b. Ground Water to Surface Water Migration Component NS NS 2c. Surface Water Migration Pathway Score (Ssw) Enter the larger of the line 2a and 2b as the pathway score NS NS 3. Soil Exposure and Subsurface Intrusion Pathway Score (Ssessi) NS NS 4. Air Migration Pathway Score (Sa) NS NS 5. Total of Sgw2 +Ssw2+Ssessi2+Sa2 100.00 10,000 6. HRS Site Score: Divide the value on line 5 by 4 and take the square root. 50.00 1. Ground Water Migration Pathway Score (Sgw) NS = Not Scored 12 HRS Table 3-1 –Ground Water Migration Pathway Scoresheet Factor Categories and Factors LIKELIHOOD OF RELEASE TO AN AQUIFER: 1. Observed Release 2. Potential To Release: 2a. Containment 2b. Net Precipitation 2c. Depth To Aquifer 2d. Travel Time 2e. Potential to Release [lines 2a x (2b + 2c + 2d)] 3. Likelihood of Release (higher of lines 1 and 2e) Maximum Value Value Assigned 550 550 10 10 5 35 500 550 NS 550 (a) (a) 100 10,000 100 32 50 50 (b) (b) (b) (b) 5 20 (b) 303.2 2.44 169.2 474.84 5 5 534.84 GROUND WATER MIRGATION SCORE FOR AN AQUIFER : 12. Aquifer Score [(lines 3 x 6 x 11)/82,500]c 100 100.00 WASTE CHARACTERISTICS: 4. Toxicity/Mobility 5. Hazardous Waste Quantity 6. Waste Characteristics TARGETS: 7. Nearest Well 8. Population: 8a. Level I Concentrations 8b. Level II Concentrations 8c. Potential Contamination 8d. Population (lines 8a + 8b + 8c) 9. Resources 10. Wellhead Protection Area 11. Targets (lines 7 + 8d + 9 + 10) GROUND WATER MIRGATION PATHWAY SCORE : 13. Pathway Score (S gw ), (highest value from line 12 for all aquifers evaluated)c 100 100.00 Maximum value applies to waste characteristics category. Maximum value not applicable. c Do not round to nearest integer. a b 13 REFERENCE SHEET Ref. No. Description of the Reference 1. U.S. EPA. Hazard Ranking System (HRS); Final Rule. Federal Register. Volume 55, Number 241.Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, December 14, 1990. Title Page only. A complete version of this document is available online at: https://semspub.epa.gov/work/HQ/174028.pdf. 1a. U.S. EPA. Addition of a Subsurface Intrusion Component to the Hazard Ranking System, 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 300, 82 Federal Register 2760. January 9, 2017. Available on-line at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQSFUND-2010-1086-0104. Total pages: 49. 2. U.S. EPA Superfund Chemical Data Matrix (SCDM) Query. SCDM Query by Substance and HRS Factor Values for Surface Water. URL: https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-chemical-data-matrix-scdm-query; Accessed on February 2, 2017. Total Pages: 20. 2a. U.S. EPA. SCDM Addendum: Human Toxicity Factor Evaluation under the Subsurface Intrusion Component Addition to the Hazard Ranking System. March 2017. Total Pages: 3. 3. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 7.5-Minute Series. Choctaw Quadrangle, Oklahoma. 2016. Total Pages: 2. 4. Leonard Sullivan-Oklahoma County Assessor Public Access System (Live Records). Name Search: Eagle Industries. Account #: R154131250; URL: http://www.oklahomacounty.org/assessor/Searches/ANR.asp?ACCOUNTNO=R154131250. Accessed October 11, 2016. Total Pages: 8. 5. Samwel, Aron. State of Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality. Expanded Site Inspection Updated Sampling and Analysis Plan. Eagle Industries Site, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, OKN000607068. March 15, 2013. Total Pages: 132. 6. Booz Allen Hamilton. Trip Report For Soil Borings and Monitoring Wells Installation and Sampling at the Eagle Industries Site. Midwest City, Oklahoma. February 9, 2011. Total Pages: 290. 7. Samwel, Aron. Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality. Expanded Site Inspection of Eagle Industries located near Southeast Twenty-ninth Street & South Westminster Road, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. July 22, 2013. Total Pages: 531. 14 8. Riley, Patrick. Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality. Site Inspection of Eagle Industries located near Southeast Twenty-ninth Street & South Westminster Road, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. May, 31, 2011. Total Pages: 227. 9. NETROnline Environmental Radius Report: Eagle Industries, 35 26 09.12, -97 20 13.74°. Accessed at: http://environment.netronline.com/search/report.php?search_box=35%2026%2009.12, %20-97%20%2020%2013.74. Accessed October 12, 2016. Total Pages: 25. 10. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Soil Survey of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma Part I. 2003. URL: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_MANUSCRIPTS/oklahoma/OK109/0/Okl ahoma.pdf Accessed October 12, 2016. Total Pages: 477. 11. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Custom Soil Resource Report for Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. Eagle Industries 10901 S.E. 29th Street, Midwest City, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed October 12, 2016. Total Pages: 62. 12. Brittain, Amy. Environmental Programs Manager, Land Protection Division. Memorandum to Eagle Industries File. Re: Hydrogeology and Ground Water Use Eagle Industries, SE1/4 SE1/4 Sec 7 T11N R1W, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. October 24, 2016. Total Pages: 15. 13. Mashburn, S.L. and Magers, Jessica. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Scientific Investigations Map 3147. Potentiometric Surface in the Central Oklahoma (GarberWellington) Aquifer, Oklahoma, 2009. 2011. Total Pages: 2. 14. Mashburn, Shana L., Ryter, Derek W., Neel, Christopher R., Smith, S. Jerrod and Magers, Jessica S. U. .S. Geological Survey (USGS). Hydrogeology and Simulation of Ground water Flow in the Central Oklahoma (Garber-Wellington) Aquifer, Oklahoma, 1987 to 2009, and Simulation of Available Water in Storage, 2010–2059. Scientific Investigations Report 2013-5219. Total Pages: 109. 15. Riley, Patrick. State of Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality. Preliminary Assessment of Eagle Industries located near Southeast Twenty-Ninth Street & South Westminster Road, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. July 30, 2010. Total Pages: 161. 16. Memorandum. From: Kyle Gregory, Engineer II Intern, ODEQ Land Protection Division. To: Eagle Industries File. Subject: Soil Sample Locations Map. Date: January 26, 2017. Total Pages 3. 17. Land Protection Division (LPD). 6-1 Eagle Industries PowerPoint – LPD Brief.pptx. Total Pages: 21. 15 18. Samwel, Aron. Interoffice Memorandum to Pam Dizikes “Eagle Industries Site Visit”, March 30, 2007. Total Pages: 18. 19. U.S. EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination. EPA 540-F-94-028, OSWER 9285.7-14FS, PB94-963311. November 1996. Total Pages: 19. 20. Riley, Patrick. State of Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality. Site Inspection Sampling and Analysis Plan Eagle Industries Site Oklahoma County, Oklahoma OKN000607068. March 14, 2011. Total Pages: 30. 21. Cook, Clint. State of Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality. Expanded Site Inspection Sampling and Analysis Plan Eagle Industries Site Oklahoma County, Oklahoma OKN000607068. February 28, 2012. Total Pages: 130. 22. Chaudhry, Iman. Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality. Monitoring and Residential Well Sampling Report for February- March 2016 Sampling Event for Eagle Industries Site. May 23, 2016. Total Pages: 128. 23. Chaudhry, Iman. Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality. Sampling Analysis Plan of Eagle Industries located near Southeast Twenty-Ninth Street & South Westminster Road, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. February 2, 2016. Total Pages: 14. 24. Gregory, Kyle. Land Protection Division, Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality. Monitoring and Residential Well Sampling Report for April-May 2016 Sampling Event for Eagle Industries Site. June 13, 2016. Total Pages: 230. 25. U.S. Census Bureau Quickfacts. Midwest City, Oklahoma. URL: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/HSD410214/4048350. Accessed November 4, 2016. Total Pages: 3. 26. Gregory, Kyle. Memorandum to Eagle Industries File. Re: Davis Repair and Collision Employee Count. October 27, 2016. Total Pages: 2. 27. StanTech. Environmental Investigation, Eagle Industries, Inc., 10901 S.E. 29th Street, Midwest City, OK. StanTech File No. 1306-2749. Prepared for Eagle Industries, Inc. April 14, 2006. Total Pages: 124. 28. Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality. RCRA Compliance Evaluation Inspection Report for Eagle Industries. June 19 and 20, 2003. Total Pages: 126. 29. StanTech Environmental Services. Limited Investigation/Source Removal Report. Prepared by StanTech Environmental Services for Eagle Industries. December 29, 2006. Total Pages: 82. 16 30. Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, Land Protection Division. Administrative Compliance Order in the matter of Eagle Industries, Inc. September 20, 2004. Total Pages: 22. 31. Chen, Alicia. Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, Land Protection Division. Compliance Evaluation Inspection initiated on September 23, 2013 EPA ID# OKR000018861. Report for Eagle Industries. October 3, 2013. Total Pages: 36. 32. Letter. To: Matt Salmon, Owner Eagle Industries. Subj: RCRA Compliance Evaluation Inspection (CEI) conducted on June 19, 2003, EPA ID #: OKR000018861. Total Number of Pages: 4. 33. Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, Land Protection Division. Report of Analysis by Metals and Report of Analysis by GCMS. Analytical Data for Samples Collected on June 20, 2003. Total Pages: 23. 34. Memorandum. From: Amy Johnson, Site Remediation Unit, Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, Land Protection Division. To: Tami Johnson, Hazardous Waste Compliance Section, Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, Land Protection Division. Subject: Ground Water Investigation at Eagle Industries, Midwest City, Oklahoma. October 6, 2003. Total Pages: 4. 35. Interoffice Memorandum. From: Pam Dizikes. To: Files. Subject: Eagle Industries (Eagle) Case Number 04-323, Meeting with Bret Davis. April 20, 2005. Total Pages: 4. 36. Missouri Census Data Center. Mable /Geocorr1 2: Geographic Correspondence Engine with Census 2010 (and later) Geography. URL: http://mcdc.missouri.edu/websas/geocorr12.html. Accessed November 7, 2016. Total Pages: 8. 37. Oklahoma Department of Health, Environmental Health Services. Individual Sewage Disposal System Inspection Report: 10901 S.E. 29th Street, Midwest City, Oklahoma. Installation Number: 8399; Serial Number: 6596. From Guy Coulter, RS, Oklahoma Department of Health. Date: March 3, 1989. Total Pages: 4. 38. Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, State Environmental Laboratory. Quality Assurance Plan for 2011, Revision 5. Date: August 15, 2011. Total Pages: 206. 39. Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality. GIS Data Viewer. Water Wells Within the 4-mile TDL. URL: http://gis.deq.ok.gov/maps/. Accessed November 8, 2016. Total Pages: 27. 40. Memo to File: From: Kyle Gregory, Intern II, Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality. Subject: Eagle Industries Wellhead Protection Areas. Date: February 3, 2017. Total Pages: 6. 17 41. Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, State Environmental Laboratory. Eagle Industries Level IV Data Validation Package for Samples Collected in February/March 2016, Date: November 11, 2016. Total Pages: 4. 42. Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality. RCRA Compliance Evaluation Inspection Report for Davis Paint and Collision, Inc. Date: July 20, 2003. Total Pages: 18. 43. Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, State Environmental Laboratory. Quality Assurance Plan for 2015. Date: May 15, 2015. Total Pages: 198. 44. Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, State Environmental Laboratory. Eagle Industries Level IV Data Validation Package for Samples Collected in April/May 2016. Date: October 11, 2016. Total Pages: 4. 45. Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, State Environmental Laboratory. Quality Assurance Plan for 2013. Date: April 23, 2013. Total Pages: 203. 46. Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality. Chain-of Custody and Laboratory Data for Samples Collected on June 19, 2003. Total Pages: 23. 47. Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality. Case Number: 04-323. Subject: Alleged Violation of Oklahoma Environmental Quality Code by: Eagle Industries, Inc., Respondent vs. Land Protection Division, Petitioner. Deposition of Matthew H. Salmon, Taken on Behalf of the Petitioner in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Date: July 1, 2009. Total Pages: 294. 48. Letter. From: Ryan Kirk, Environmental Programs Specialist, Land Protection Division, Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality. To: Mr. Matthew H. Salmon, Eagle Industries. Subject: Deadline for Compliance with the January 13, 2009 Consent Order. Date: April 20, 2009. Total Pages: 11. 49. Memorandum. From: Ryan Kirk, Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality. To: Eagle Industries File. Subject: Eagle Industries, Inc., - Status Regarding Compliance with ACO. Date: October 27, 2007. Total Pages: 33. 50. Memorandum. From: Kyle Gregory, Intern II, Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality. To: Eagle Industries File. Subject: Tinker and Midwest City Public Water Supply System (PWS) Sources. Date: February 2, 2017. Total Pages: 17. 18 SITE DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY: SITE DESCRIPTION Eagle Industries site is a contaminated ground water site near S.E. 29th Street and Westminster Road in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma (Ref. 7, p. 20; Ref. 8, p. 22). Two contaminants in particular, trichloroethylene (TCE) and cis-1,2-dichloroethene (DCE), have been detected above MCLs and/or the cancer risk screening concentration (Ref. 2, pp. 9 & 15; Ref. 7, p. 20; Ref. 8, p. 22). The source of the ground water contamination has been attributed, at least in part, to Eagle Industries Inc., which has since switched from using TCE to Tech Kleen AZE, in which the active ingredient is n-propyl bromide (Ref. 7, p. 20; Ref. 8, p. 2). Limited excavation of the contaminated soil has been accomplished and eight monitoring wells have been installed (Ref. 7, p. 20). Unfortunately, TCE has recently been documented in private wells used for drinking (Ref. 7, pp. 20-21). Currently this area is not serviced by Oklahoma City’s public water supply (Ref. 7, p. 21). The site is located in an area of potential recharge for the Garber Wellington Formation (Ref. 7, p. 21; Ref. 8, p. 22). The Garber Wellington is a major source of ground water in Central Oklahoma (Ref. 7, p. 21; Ref. 8, p. 21). There are ten private water wells within ¼-mile radius of sources at the site (Ref. 7, p. 21; Ref. 8, p. 21). Targets associated with the Ground Water Migration pathway consist of residential water wells and public water supply wells located with the 4-mile target distance radius (Ref. 39, pp. 1-26).There is a potential for vapor intrusion from the contamination into homes and businesses (Ref. 7, p. 21; Ref. 8, p. 21). The Eagle Industries site as scored includes two sources (contaminated soil, and a water sump and associated septic system (Ref. 5, p. 6; Ref. 6, p. 6; Ref. 8, pp. 7 & 30; Ref. 15, pp. 5 & 19; Ref. 17, pp. 3, 5 & 11; Ref. 18, p. 3; Ref. 28, p. 5; Figure 2) and a release to ground water. Contamination in the sources document hazardous substances, including TCE and DCE (Ref. 6, pp. 119, 121, 125-126, 128-129, 148, 209, 218, 226, 228 & 275-276; Ref. 15, p. 6, 70 & 75). TCE and its daughter products DCE ground water contamination is documented based on an observed release to monitoring wells and private drinking water wells (Ref. 7, pp. 7-13; Ref. 22, pp. 6-9; Ref. 24, pp. 7-8). Level I, Level II and potential contamination of domestic and public water wells are located within the 4-mile target distance limit (TDL) of the Site (Sections 3.1.1, Observed Release, 3.3, Ground Water Pathway Targets, and Figure 4 of this HRS documentation record). The ground water pathway is the pathway of concern being evaluated for this HRS package (Ref. 6, pp. 148, 208, 218, 226 & 228; Ref. 7, pp. 431, 440, 446, 449, 455-456 & 459; Ref. 8, pp. 142,145- 148, 157 & 163; Ref. 22, pp. 15, 19, 31, 34- 35 & 38-39; Ref. 24, pp. 13, 14, 30, 32-34 & 36). The Eagle Industries (EI) facility encompasses 2.271 acres at 10901 S.E. 29th Street, Midwest City, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma (Ref. 4, p. 1; Ref. 5, p. 5; Figure 1). The facility is situated within commercial and residential properties (Ref. 5, p. 5). There is one residence located in the southeast corner of the property (Ref. 5, p. 5). Facility access is controlled through the use of chain-linked fencing on the north and south property boundaries and wooden stockade fencing on the east and west boundaries (Ref. 5, p. 5). The residence is fenced separately from the rest of the facility (Ref. 5, p. 5). A paved entrance is located along the western property boundary that transitions to gravel to the north of the main building (Ref. 5, p. 5). A concrete building apron is located along the north side of the main building with the balance of the property vegetated in grass sloping to the north (Ref. 5, p. 5). Structures located at the facility include a 4,560 square 19 feet main office/shop building built in 1989 and which lies directly north of the parking lot, a corrugated metal outbuilding in the northwest corner of the property with attached cinderblock shed, a pond located on the east side of the metal building, and a 1,208 square feet residential dwelling built in 1960 accessed via S.E. 29th Street (Ref. 5, pp. 5 & 14; Ref. 28, pp. 4-5). Land use adjacent to the facility to the north included residences and the Midwest City water treatment plant (Ref. 5, p. 5). Land use to the south included residences, a former bank, Davis Paint & Collision, and agricultural land (Ref. 5, p. 5). Located to the east are three churches, residences, and a roofing company (Ref. 5, p. 5). Located to the west are gas stations, a wrecker company, car repair shop, Parkway Mobile Home Park, Springer Trailers, Metrobrake, agricultural land (horses & llamas), sod farm, Williams & Sons lawn/tree service, church, Dolese Concrete, Sand, and Stone, and Amerigas (Ref. 5, p. 5). FACILITY HISTORY EI was engaged in the business of inspecting and repairing aircraft oxygen and fire extinguisher systems for third party customers (Ref. 30, p. 2). The main building at EI included an office and reception area in the southwest and south central sections, respectively and the lab and cleanup room in the southeast (Ref. 28, p. 5). Along the eastern edge of the building, from south to north, is the oxygen tank filling room, fire extinguisher room and the paint booth (Ref. 28, pp. 5 & 1317). The shop area takes up the majority of the remainder of the northern part of the building (Ref. 28, p. 5). A separate room, containing a soldering table and blasting cabinet occupies the section immediately north of the paint booth and the eastern part of the shop (Ref. 28, p. 5 & 1920). Eagle uses a septic system (septic tank with lateral field) that is located northeast of the main building (Ref. 28, p. 5). Since 1990 the EI facility has been an aircraft parts repair and cleaning operation that used trichloroethylene (TCE) as a solvent in the cleaning process, and was found by Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) to be violating Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations (Ref. 5, p. 5; Ref. 7, p. 7; Ref. 8, p. 8). EI operations included inspecting and repairing life support systems on airplanes, specifically, oxygen and fire extinguisher systems (Ref. 28, p. 5). Upon receipt of the equipment, EI visually inspected the exterior of the apparatus for damage (Ref. 28, p. 5). The overhaul manual specific to the particular type of equipment was consulted and the specified procedures were followed (Ref. 28, p. 5). The parts were cleaned as the equipment was disassembled (Ref. 28, p. 5). The equipment was then tested and the appropriate adjustments were made (Ref. 28, p. 5). All testing was done in the lab (Ref. 28, p. 4). During the painting operations at the facility EI painted the oxygen tanks/bottles in a paint booth (Ref. 28, pp. 5 & 16-17). Carbon Dioxide (CO 2 ) tanks and fire extinguishers were occasionally painted as well (Ref. 28, p.4). The tanks were painted with Quick Touch L.F. Blind GR produced by Anchor Paint Manufacturing (Ref. 28, p. 5). EI used Calumet 210-245, <1% and D997-2562A/D-J 1131 as paint thinner (Ref. 28, p. 5). Several waste streams resulted from the use of paint and paint thinners, including empty paint and thinner cans, empty aerosol cans used to paint small parts, and paint booth filters contaminated by overspray 9; Ref. 30, p. 5). Prior to painting, the tanks/bottles were often blasted in a Zero Blast Cabinet using size 13T Zero Premium Glass Beads (Ref. 28, p. 4; Ref. 30, p. 5). The resulting waste stream consisted of paint chips intermixed with glass beads not removed by the filter in the blast cabinet (Ref. 30, p. 6). Furthermore, the structural integrity of the reassembled tanks were 20 determined by pressurizing the tanks and placing them in a hydrostatic tester (Ref. 28, pp. 5 & 23). Tanks were pressurized and placed in the hydrostatic tester, a vertical, water-filled tank with sensors that detect loss of pressure (Ref. 30, p. 4). Sensors in the hydrostatic tester indicated if the tank was losing pressure and therefore, if the structural integrity was compromised (Ref. 28, p. 5). The hydrostatic tester sat directly over a below-floor level grated sump, and sometimes spilled its contents over into the sump (Ref. 30, p. 4). The resulting waste stream, consisted of water contaminated by any other substances entering the sump, was periodically emptied from the sump by siphoning through a hose, to a grassy area located near a concrete pad behind the building (Ref. 30, p. 4). Additionally, EI refilled oxygen bottles, CO 2 bottles and fire extinguishers (Ref. 28, p. 5). Oxygen and CO 2 bottles were filled in the oxygen tank filling room (Ref. 28, pp. 5 & 13). The majority of the bottles were filled with oxygen (Ref. 28, p. 5). Tanks supplying oxygen and CO 2 were placed on the west side of the main building by the supplier and moved to the oxygen filling room where they were used to fill the aircraft bottles (Ref. 28, p. 5). As the supply tanks become empty, they were placed on the west side of the main building for exchange (Ref. 28, p. 5). Empty ABC fire extinguishers were filled with dry chemical in the fire extinguisher room (Ref. 28, pp. 5 & 14-15). Also, EI used solder to fasten piano wire to the bottles, which are wrapped in the piano wire to provide additional strength (Ref. 28, pp. 6 & 19). EI used a “50-50 solder mixture that contains “no lead” (Ref. 28, p. 6). The waste stream, spent soldering compound, was evident during the June 2003 Compliance Evaluation on the soldering table, on the legs of the soldering table, and on the floor in the immediate vicinity of the soldering table (Ref. 30, p. 5). Moreover, as equipment was disassembled to replace the components, the parts were cleaned with TCE in an ultrasonic cleaning system which was located in the cleanup room (Ref. 28, pp. 6 & 26). Once the TCE in the ultrasonic cleaner became dirty, it was moved to a nearby container where it was used to pre-clean dirtier parts (Ref. 28, p. 6). Occasionally, the tanks were cleaned and any labels removed by wiping with a rag containing TCE (Ref. 28, p. 6). The rags used to apply the solvent were air-dried and previously, were laundered when they ran low (Ref. 28, p. 6). EI stopped using the laundry service because the service was not dependable (Ref. 28, p. 6). Because the rags contained a listed waste, spent TCE, and pursuant to the mixture rule, were themselves hazardous waste, the rags should have either been disposed as hazardous waste, or placed in a covered container and sent to a laundry service (Ref. 28, p. 6). Eagle then began accumulating their rags in a container to be sent to another laundry service (Ref. 28, p. 6). The resulting waste stream consisted of spent TCE and TCE contaminated rags (Ref. 30, p. 4) The EI facility has a regulatory history in regards to compliance inspection activities. DEQ was first notified by a complainant on January 6, 2003 that their water well was contaminated by benzene from a nearby Leaky Underground Storage Tank (LUST) at EI (Ref. 5, p. 6). It was determined that the matter was within OCC’s jurisdiction and referred to them on the same day (Ref. 5, p. 6). In March 2003, OCC referred the case back to ODEQ, because they found a solvent (1,2-Dichloroethane) in the complainant’s water well which was not part of their petroleum hydrocarbon investigation (Ref. 5, p. 6). Subsequent investigation by ODEQ turned up RCRA violations (Ref. 5, p. 6). TCE has been found in soil, sump water and ground water samples from on-site monitoring and residential wells (Ref. 5, p. 6). ODEQ sampled OCC’s 21 monitoring wells near the site on August 1, 2003, November 7, 2003, and July 12, 2004, TCE and DCE were observed in many of the samples (Ref. 5, p. 6). On September 22, 2003 ODEQ’s Water Quality Division inspected the facility (Ref. 5, p. 6). On October 1, 2003 Water Quality sent EI a letter stating that EI was discharging TCE contaminated water without a permit (Ref. 5, p. 6). On November 4, 2003 EI sent a letter stating they no longer discharge the water, but rather recycle it (Ref. 5, p. 6). On November 20, 2003 ODEQ Water Quality Division sent EI an acceptance letter (Ref. 5, p. 6). Due to the proximity to the contaminated ground water, ODEQ sampled the neighbor’s domestic water well across the street (10800 S.E. 29th St.) in June 2003, August 2006, June 2007, June 2008, June 2009, November 2009 and September 2010 (Ref. 5, p. 6). All of the contamination found in the well had been below Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) (Ref. 5, p. 6). On November 28, 2006 a limited soil removal was conducted by EI’s contractor; approximately 40 cubic yards of contaminated soil was excavated from the Sump Water discharge area located behind and north of the main building and used TCE storage area (Ref. 5, p. 6; Ref. 27, pp. 15 and 17). Contaminated soil was excavated to a depth of 3.5 feet below the ground surface (bgs) (Ref. 29, pp. 49-50 & 81-82). EI’s contractor collected confirmatory soil samples from the four sidewalls associated with the excavated area and delivered the collected confirmatory soil samples to a ODEQ-certified laboratory, Environmental Testing, Inc., located in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma for VOC analysis by EPA Method 8260B (Ref. 29, pp. 51-52 & 53-56). Analytical results of the confirmation soil sampling were compared to the US. EPA Region 6 Human Health Medium-Specific Screening Levels (MSSLs). The laboratory results indicated that concentrations detected in the confirmatory soil samples exceeded the EPA MSSLs for trichloroethylene in the soil samples collected from the north side wall and the bottom of the excavation area (Ref. 29, p. 52, 64, 69, & 79-82). In addition, to the detection of trichloroethylene, the analytical results indicated the presence of DCE and vinyl chloride (trichloroethylene breakdown products) in concentrations below the EPA MSSLs for those two VOCs (Ref, 29, p. 51). Based on the confirmatory laboratory results, the EI contractor recommended that additional soil excavation be conducted to reduce the additional source material identified at the facility (Ref. 29, pp. 53 & 57). On January 13, 2009 EI signed a Consent Order to do more site assessment at the facility (Ref. 5, p. 6). Due to financial problems, EI was not able to comply with the requirements of the consent order (Ref. 5, p. 6). On April 28, 2009 EI sent a letter to ODEQ stating they no longer use TCE to clean their parts, and have switched to n-propyl bromide solution sold under the trade name of Tech Kleen AZE (Ref. 5, p. 6). A field investigation was conducted from August 30 through September 2, 2010, which included the installation of four permanent ground water monitoring wells, development of these new wells, redevelopment of an existing well, collection of ground water samples from the four new wells and one existing well, collection of ground water samples from seven residential wells, advancement of six boreholes and collection of 18 subsurface soil samples from the soil borings, collection of two sediment samples at the pond, collection of one surface water sample from a sink hole believed to be a collapsed septic tank system, and shipment of the samples to the EPA Region 6 Laboratory for analysis (Ref. 5, p. 6; Ref. 6, pp. 5-14). All of the samples were 22 analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by EPA method 8260 (Ref. 5, p. 6; Ref. 6, p. 6). Sampling results indicated the continued presence of TCE and associated degradation products in on-site monitoring wells, soils and septic system (Ref. 5, p. 7; Ref. 6, pp. 130-231). In April 2011 ODEQ performed a Site Inspection (SI) (Ref. 8, p. 18). This investigation entailed the collection of non-analytical data concerning the site and its environs and the collection of more media samples for laboratory analysis (Ref. 8, p. 6). During the April 15, 2011 ODEQ SI ground water samples were collected from five monitoring wells on-site and one on-site residential well (Ref. 8, p. 18). Samples were analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by the Oklahoma State Environmental Laboratory (SEL) utilizing EPA Method 8260 (Ref. 8, p. 17). Sample results from the SI documented TCE in five of the six monitoring wells, and in the private well on-site above EPA MCL for drinking water (Ref. 7, p. 13; Ref. 8, p. 18). In May 2013 ODEQ conducted an Expanded Site Inspection (ESI) (Ref. 7, p. 5). This investigation entailed the collection of additional ground water samples for laboratory analysis to further evaluate conditions at the site (Ref. 7, p. 5). Ground water samples were collected from six on-site monitoring wells, two off-site monitoring wells, one off-site residential well, and two off-site business wells (Ref. 7, p. 16). Samples were analyzed for volatile organic compounds by the SEL in Oklahoma City (Ref. 7, p. 16). Monitoring well samples were analyzed by EPA Method 8260 (Ref. 7, p. 16). Residential and business well samples were analyzed by EPA Method 524.3 (Ref. 7, p. 16). The May 2013 sampling event documented TCE in four of the eight monitoring wells and in one of the three private wells, above EPA MCLs for drinking water (Ref. 7, p. 17). DCE was documented in one well above the EPA MCL for drinking water (Ref. 7, p. 17). Two monitoring wells were also impacted by the nearby OCC case (Ref. 7, p. 17). TCE’s daughter products of DCE (cis-1,2-dicholoroethene) and vinyl chloride have been seen in soil borings at the site in 2010 (TCE was found in surface soil at the site in 2003, and at high levels after the 2006 excavation) (Ref. 7, p. 18). This round of sampling showed that ground water on and off the site has been impacted by TCE and its degradation product DCE (Ref. 7, p. 18). Ground water resources are impacted at the site and the surrounding area (Ref. 7, p. 18). 23 SO-Source Characterization 2.2 SOURCE CHARACTERIZATION The sources evaluated at Eagle Industries, for HRS purposes, are: • • Soil (Contaminated Soil) Water Sump/Septic System (Other) 24 SO-Source Characterization Source No.: 1 2.2.1 SOURCE IDENTIFICATION – SOURCE 1 The following information corresponds to the first source identified for this documentation record. Number of source: 1 Name of source: Area of Contaminated Soil (Figure 2) Source Type: Contaminated Soil Description and Location of Source: At the Eagle Industries site, there is an area in which TCEcontaminated soil was excavated and removed from the site in November 2006 (Ref. 29, pp. 57, 79-82; Figure 2A). The excavated soil area was located adjacent to and east of the former TCE Storage Area and north of the Eagle Industries building (Ref. 29, pp. 56, 79, & 82). In addition to the excavated soil area, a second contaminated soil area exists which was not excavated; this area is designated by the horizontal and diagonal hatching represented on page 57 of Ref. 29. Due to funding being “marginal”, the Potential Responsible Party (PRP) has not conducted a soil removal or remedial action on the remaining contaminated soil (Ref. 7, p. 96). Areas of soil contamination at the site are being aggregated as Source No. 1. Source aggregation is done based on having more than two areas that could be considered individual sources as one discrete source. Source aggregation for Source No. 1 is applied because all sources can be classified as the same source type, the sources affect the similar target populations, the sources have similar containment, the sources contain substances with similar waste characteristics factor values, and the sources are in the same watershed and floodplain. Source 1 is located north of the Eagle building and adjacent to the TCE storage area (Ref. 27, pp. 8, 14, & 17-18; Figure 2A). On June 19, 2003, Land Protection inspectors (RCRA and Superfund) conducted a hazardous waste Compliance Evaluation Inspection at Eagle Industries. During the inspection two (2) soil samples were collected near the TCE product storage area. The TCE storage area is located adjacent to and north of the concrete slab and building (Ref. 27, p. 14). VOC analysis of the collected samples (Sample #2 and Sample #3) detected TCE at 41 µg/kg in Sample #2 and 51 µg/kg in Sample #3 (Ref. 7, p. 7; Ref. 8, p. 8; Ref. 15, p. 6, 70 & 75; Ref. 16, pp. 2-3; Ref. 46, pp. 2-23). There were no background soil samples collected during the ODEQ CEI conducted in the summer of 2003. On February 16, 2006, Eagle’s contractor, StanTech conducted soil sampling at the Eagle Industries facility. Five boreholes (HA-1 to HA-5) were installed with a hand auger. The bore holes were installed on the north side of the Eagle Building, which corresponds to the TCE Storage Area (Ref. 27, pp. 4, 17 & 18). A composite soil sample was obtained from the ground surface to a maximum depth of 2 feet below ground surface from each borehole. The soil samples were collected and placed in sample containers containing teflon-lined lids. The soil samples were transported to Environmental Testing Inc., (ETI) in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma for VOC identification by EPA Method 8260B (Ref. 27, pp. 4-5). Chemical analysis of the collected soil samples detected the presence of TCE at 0.137 mg/kg in sample HA-3, 1.02 mg/kg in sample HA-4, 0.282 mg/kg in HA-5, and 0.188 mg/kg in HA-8 (duplicate of HA-3) and cis25 SO-Source Characterization Source No.: 1 1,2-dichloroethene at 0.375 mg/kg in sample HA-4 and 0.076 mg/kg in sample HA-5 (Ref. 27, pp. 99, 101,102, & 104). Based on the February 2006 soil sample results and an ODEQ-approved Work Plan, StanTech conducted a soil removal action at the Eagle facility on November 28, 2006. StanTech removed a contaminant source area just north of the facility and adjacent to the TCE store location. Soils to a depth of 3.5 feet bgs were excavated and removed from the area (Ref. 7 p. 10; Ref. 15, p. 9; Ref. 29, pp. 50-51, 55-57, & 79-82). The excavated soil, approximately 12 feet by 18 feet in area was excavated. Approximately 40 cubic yards of contaminated soil was transported to Waste Connections Oklahoma Landfill located at 7600 SW 15th Street, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (Ref. 29, p. 50). The soil encountered in the excavation area was described as red clayey silt grading downward to silty clay (Ref. 29, pp. 50, & 79-82). StanTech collected four sidewall samples for confirmation. In addition, one soil sample was collected from directly beneath an area exhibiting the highest Photo-ionization Detector (PID) reading on the floor of the excavated area (Ref. 29, p. 51). A duplicate soil sample was also collected from the bottom of the excavation area. Soil samples were collected and placed in Teflon-lined jars and transported to an ODEQ-certified laboratory, ETI, for VOC analysis by EPA method 8260B (Ref. 29, p. 51). VOC analysis of the collected soil samples detected concentrations of TCE in the north sidewall and Bottom soil samples in concentrations that exceeded the EPA Region 6 MSSLs for TCE. Chemical analysis of the collected soil samples also indicated concentrations of TCE degradation products (DCE and vinyl chloride) below the EPA Region 6 MSSLs (Ref. 29, pp. 37, 43, and 51). After the soil excavation activities were completed, the Eagle contractor placed 6-mil visqueen over the excavated area to prevent potential migration of chemical of concern, should precipitation events occur before the remaining contaminated soil could be excavated (Ref. 29, p. 51). Based on the VOC analytical results and the limited soil excavation, the Eagle Contractor recommended that additional soil excavation be conducted to reduce the additional source material identified at the facility (Ref. 29, pp. 53 & 57). The area recommended to be excavated, as measured from Ref. 29, p. 57, was approximately 11 feet by 13 feet, with an excavation depth of 4 to 6.5 feet bgs (Ref. 29, p. 57). On December 14, 2006 StanTech sent ODEQ analytical results from the soil excavation and on December 15, 2006, DEQ compared StanTech results to ODEQ’s split samples (Ref. 15, p. 10 & 73). Based on a review of the two data sets, on December 22, 2006 ODEQ communicated to StanTech that a problem still existed and further excavation needed to take place (Ref. 15, p. 73). On January 5, 2007, ODEQ discussed telling the contractor to go ahead with the excavation (extend to the eastern wall with the 11 ppb TCE) and store waste on-site until a representative sample is taken to determine which landfill would be used for disposal of the soil (Ref. 15, p. 73). On March 30, 2007 a memorandum documenting observations from a site visit states that the excavation that took place on-site is discharging waste to the environment. At the time of the site visit the excavation was not filled in and the sides had begun to slump inside the pit. A tarp was not completely covering the excavation and trash had begun to collect in the pit. The excavation was eroding away and standing water was coming from the pit (Ref. 18, pp. 3-7). By August 21, 2007, Eagle Industries had still not complied with an ODEQ Administrative Compliance Order (ACO) issued to Eagle on September 20, 2004 in relation to providing a 26 SO-Source Characterization Source No.: 1 sampling and analysis plan and timeline to address the horizontal and vertical extent and volume of soils contaminated with hazardous waste or hazardous constituents (Ref. 49, pp. 2-3). As of August 21, 2007, the soil excavation area remained open or not properly covered since November 28, 2006, possibly allowing contaminated soil to be exposed to rainwater and potentially dispersing contaminants (Ref. 49, pp. 4 & 10-11). In addition, Eagle had not submitted a ground water sampling and analysis plan to ODEQ, and thus, was not compliant with the ACO (Ref. 49, p. 5). On July 1, 2009, a deposition hearing was conducted between a representative of Eagle Industries and the ODEQ, Case No. 04-023, Alleged Violation of the Oklahoma Environmental Quality Code by Eagle Industries (Ref. 47, p 3). Based on the deposition records, Eagle Industries had not submitted a sample and analysis plan per an ODEQ Consent Order due on January 13, 2009, to continue the investigation of subsurface soil contamination in the excavated soil area, which occurred in November 2006 (Ref. 29, pp. 50-51 & 79-82; Ref. 47, p.7; Ref. 48, p. 6). Per Eagle Industries, they had insufficient funds to conduct additional investigations (Ref. 47, p. 7). In addition, Eagle Industries filled in the excavated area before conducting additional subsurface soil investigations (Ref. 47, pp. 9-10). The ODEQ and EPA Region 6, RCRA conducted a subsurface soil and ground water investigation at the facility in August /September 2010, when it was apparent the Eagle Industries did not have the funds to conduct the additional soil and ground water investigations (Ref. 6, pp. 5, 8—11, & 16). In August/September 2010, as part of the U.S. EPA Region 6 REPA contract, Booz-Allen Hamilton installed six monitoring wells at the Eagle facility. As part of the monitoring well installation, Booz Allen Hamilton representatives collected soil samples from six bore hole locations located on the Eagle property (Ref. 6, pp. 5, 8—11, & 16). A direct push drill rig was utilized to collect subsurface soil samples from six (6) soil boring locations within the property area that was previously excavated on November 28, 2006 (Ref. 6, p. 7-10, 15, 19-53, 56-85, 93113; Ref. 29, p. 79-82). The six boreholes were advanced to 10 feet bgs, and three subsurface soil samples were collected from each soil boring. As instructed by the ODEQ site representative, for each soil boring, one sample was collected from 4-5 feet bgs, and a second soil sample was collected from the deepest interval recovered. The third soil sample was collected from the interval determined in the field to most likely have VOC contamination due to elevated photoionization detector (PID) measurements, staining, etc. No elevated PID measurements and no staining were observed for any of the soil boring, and as such, the third sample was collected from the 5-7 feet bgs interval (Ref. 6, pp. 8-9). A total of 20 subsurface soil samples were collected and analyzed for VOCs. 2.2.2 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES ASSOCIATED WITH THE SOURCE The primary hazardous substance of concern associated with the soil source is Trichloroethylene (TCE), which has been detected in high concentrations in soil located immediately to the north of the concrete slab on the north side of the facility and just east of the used TCE storage location (Figure 2B) (Ref. 15, pp. 6, 70 & 75). ODEQ inspectors collected two surface soil samples from a grassy area located behind the main building where the sump hose was discharging into vegetation that appeared distressed (Ref. 28, 27 SO-Source Characterization Source No.: 1 p. 43; Ref. 30, p. 9). Two of the sampled areas were located approximately six feet east of the concrete pad where it stores the TCE product containers (Ref. 30, p. 9). Samples were analyzed for VOCs utilizing EPA Method 8260B (Ref. 46, pp. 7, 8, 11, 12). Chemical analyses of the collected soil samples indicated 41 µg/mg and 51 µg/mg of TCE, respectively (Ref. 28, pp. 101, 59-60 & 90-91; Ref. 46, pp. 2, 7, & 10). It should be noted that background soil samples were not collected as part of the ODEQ 2003 RCRA CEI (Ref. 28, pp. 1 – 126). See Table 1. TABLE 1 – ODEQ Soil Sample Results for 2003 RCRA Compliance Evaluation Inspection ODEQ Sample Number: ODEQ SEL Sample Number: Sampling Location: Sample Description Sample #2 Sample #3 332580 332581 6 feet NE of TCE Drum Storage Area Surface Soil Result µg/Kg Flag RL µg/Kg ANALYTE: VOCs 12.0 41.0 Tricholoroethyene 5.0 J 12.0 cis-1,2-dichloroethene KEY ODEQ - Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality SEL - State Environmental Laboratory J - Indicates an estimated value RL- Reporting Limit µg/kg - Concentration in microgram per kilogram Bold - Concentration detected above reporting limit REFERENCES Ref. 46, p. 2 Chain of Custody Data Ref. 16, pp. 2-3; Ref. 28, pp. 10, 59-60, & 90-91; Ref. 46, pp. 7, 8 5 feet East of Pad Surface Soil Result µg/Kg 51.0 50.0 Flag RL µg/Kg 12.0 12.0 Ref. 46, p. 2 Ref. 16, pp. 2-3; Ref. 28, pp. 10, 5960, & 90-91;Ref. 46, pp. 11, 12 Excavated Soil On February 16, 2006, Eagle’s contractor, StanTech conducted soil sampling at the Eagle Industries facility. Five boreholes (HA-1 to HA-5) were installed with a hand auger. The bore holes were installed on the north side of the Eagle Building, which corresponds to the TCE Storage Area (Ref. 27, pp. 5, 17 & 18). A composite soil sample was obtained from the ground surface to a maximum depth of 2 feet below ground surface from each borehole. The soil samples were collected and placed in sample containers containing teflon-lined lids. The soil samples were transported to Environmental Testing Inc., (ETI) in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma for VOC identification by EPA Method 8260B (Ref. 27, pp. 4-5). Chemical analysis of the 28 SO-Source Characterization Source No.: 1 collected soil samples detected the presence of TCE at 0.137 mg/kg in sample HA-3, 1.02 mg/kg in sample HA-4, 0.282 mg/kg in HA-5, and 0.188 mg/kg in HA-8 (duplicate of HA-3) and cis1,2-dichloroethene at 0.375 mg/kg in sample HA-4 and 0.076 mg/kg in sample HA-5 (Ref. 27, pp. 99, 101,102, & 104). See Table 2. TABLE 2 – Soil Sample Results, February 2006 StanTech or ODEQ Sample Number: HA-2 (StanTech) HA-2 (ODEQ) 2 (ETI) 392740 (ODEQ) Northeast of Sample HA-1 Soil Northeast of HA-1 Soil (Split) ETI or ODEQ SEL Lab Sample Numbers: Sampling Location: Sample Description Result mg/Kg Flag RL mg/Kg Result µg/Kg Flag RL µg/Kg ANALYTE: VOCs 1,2-Dichlorobenzene < 0.025 0.025 KEY 18 15.0 ODEQ SEL = Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, State Environmental Laboratory ETI = Environmental Testing, Inc. RL- Reporting Limit U - Undetected µg/kg - Concentration in microgram per kilogram mg/Kg - Concentration in milligram per kilogram Bold/Highlighted - Concentration detected above background concentration or above reporting limit Chain of Custody Data REFERENCES Ref. 27, p. 121 Ref. 27, pp. 4-5, 97-98, & 118-120 Ref. 27, p. 124 Ref. 27, pp. 4-5, 26-27 29 SO-Source Characterization Source No.: 1 TABLE 2 – Soil Sample Results, February 2006 (continued) StanTech or ODEQ Sample Number: HA-3 (StanTech) HA-3 (ODEQ) 3 (ETI) 392741 (ODEQ) East of Sample HA-1 Soil East of HA-1 Soil (Split) ETI or ODEQ SEL Lab Sample Numbers: Sampling Location: Sample Description Result mg/Kg Flag RL mg/Kg Result µg/Kg Flag RL µg/Kg ANALYTE: VOCs Tricholoroethylene 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 0.137 < 0.025 0.025 0.025 92 26 15.0 15.0 KEY ODEQ SEL = Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, State Environmental Laboratory ETI = Environmental Testing, Inc. RL- Reporting Limit U - Undetected µg/kg - Concentration in microgram per kilogram mg/Kg - Concentration in milligram per kilogram Bold/Highlighted - Concentration detected above reporting limit REFERENCES Ref. 27, p. 121 Ref. 27, p. 124 Chain of Custody Ref. 27, pp. 4-5, 98-99, & Data Ref.27, pp. 4-5, 30-31 118-120 30 SO-Source Characterization Source No.: 1 TABLE 2 – Soil Sample Results, February 2006 (continued) StanTech or ODEQ Sample Number: HA-4 (StanTech) HA-4 (ODEQ) 4 (ETI) 392742 (ODEQ) Northeast of Sample HA-2 Soil Northeast of HA-2 Soil (Split) ETI or ODEQ SEL Lab Sample Numbers: Sampling Location: Sample Description Result mg/Kg Flag RL mg/Kg Result µg/Kg Flag RL µg/Kg ANALYTE: VOCs Tricholoroethylene cis-1,2-dichloroethene 1.02 0.375 0.025 0.025 270 66.0 J 80.0 80.0 KEY ODEQ SEL = Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, State Environmental Laboratory ETI = Environmental Testing, Inc. RL- Reporting Limit U – Undetected J – Indicates an estimated value µg/kg - Concentration in microgram per kilogram mg/Kg - Concentration in milligram per kilogram Bold/Highlighted - Concentration detected above reporting limit Chain of Custody Data REFERENCES Ref. 27, p. 121 Ref. 27, pp. 4-5, 18, 100-101, & 118-120 Ref. 27, p. 124 Ref. 27, pp. 4-5, 34-37 31 SO-Source Characterization Source No.: 1 TABLE 2 – Soil Sample Results, February 2006 (continued) StanTech or ODEQ Sample Number: HA-5 (StanTech) HA-5 (ODEQ) 5 (ETI) 392743 (ODEQ) Southeast of Sample HA-4 Soil Southeast of HA-4 Soil (Split) ETI or ODEQ SEL Lab Sample Numbers: Sampling Location: Sample Description Result mg/Kg Flag RL mg/Kg Result µg/Kg Flag RL µg/Kg U 17.0 17.0 17.0 ANALYTE: VOCs Tricholoroethylene cis-1,2-dichloroethene 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 0.282 0.076 < 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 48 < 17.0 17 KEY ODEQ SEL = Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, State Environmental Laboratory ETI = Environmental Testing, Inc. RL- Reporting Limit U - Undetected µg/kg - Concentration in microgram per kilogram mg/Kg - Concentration in milligram per kilogram Bold - Concentration detected above reporting limit Chain of Custody Laboratory Reports Data REFERENCES Ref.27, p. 121 Not Available Ref. 27, pp. 4-5, 18, 101-103, & 118-120 Ref. 27, p. 124 Not Available Ref. 27, pp. 4-5, 38-41 After the soil excavation activities were completed at Eagle on November 28, 2006, StanTech representatives collected soil confirmation samples on November 28, 2006 from the sidewalls and bottom of the excavated area (Ref. 29, pp. 50, 55, & 79-82). Soil samples were collected and placed in laboratory-supplied sample jars with Teflon-lined lids. The sample jars were placed on ice and transported to the procured laboratory, ETI in Oklahoma City, OK, under chain-ofcustody. The soil samples were analyzed for VOCs utilizing EPA Method 8260B (Ref. 29, pp. 51-52.) In addition, split samples were collected by StanTech representatives and relinquished to the ODEQ representatives present during the sampling activities; to be analyzed for VOCs using 32 SO-Source Characterization Source No.: 1 EPA Method 8260B by the OFEQ Laboratory (Ref. 29, pp. 4--36). It should be noted that background soil samples were not collected by StanTech representatives as part of this field soil sampling event. Chemical analyses of the collected soil samples detected the presence of TCE, DCE, vinyl chloride, toluene, and acetone in concentrations exceeding the ETI laboratory reporting limits (Ref. 29, pp. 63 – 70). See Table 3. TABLE 3 – Excavated Area, Soil Confirmation Sample Results StanTech or ODEQ Sample Number: N. Sidewall (StanTech) EINSW (ODEQ) 1 (ETI) 409899 (ODEQ) North Sidewall Soil North Sidewall Soil (Split) ETI & ODEQ SEL Lab Sample Numbers: Sampling Location: Sample Description Result mg/Kg Flag RL mg/Kg Result µg/Kg Flag RL µg/Kg ANALYTE: VOCs Tricholoroethylene cis-1,2-dichloroethene vinyl chloride Toluene 2.25 1.26 0.03 0.209 E E 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 480 440 < 120.0 < 120.0 U U 120.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 KEY ODEQ SEL = Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, State Environmental Laboratory ETI = Environmental Testing, Inc. RL- Reporting Limit U – Undetected E – Estimated Value (above linear range) µg/kg - Concentration in microgram per kilogram mg/Kg - Concentration in milligram per kilogram Bold - Concentration detected above reporting limit Chain of Custody Laboratory Reports Data REFERENCES Ref. 29, p. 75 Not Available Ref. 29, pp. 37, 51-52, 56, 6364 & 73-74 Ref. 29, p. 4 Not Available Ref. 29, pp. 17-20 33 SO-Source Characterization Source No.: 1 TABLE 3 – Excavated Area, Soil Confirmation Sample Results (continued) StanTech or ODEQ Sample Number: E. Sidewall (StanTech) EIESW (ODEQ) 2 (ETI) 409901 (ODEQ) East Sidewall Soil North Sidewall Soil (Split) ETI & ODEQ SEL Lab Sample Numbers: Sampling Location: Sample Description Result mg/Kg Flag RL mg/Kg Result µg/Kg Flag RL µg/Kg ANALYTE: VOCs Tricholoroethylene < 0.025 0.025 11 11.0 KEY ODEQ SEL = Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, State Environmental Laboratory ETI = Environmental Testing, Inc. RL- Reporting Limit U - Undetected µg/kg - Concentration in microgram per kilogram mg/Kg - Concentration in milligram per kilogram Bold - Concentration detected above reporting limit Chain of Custody Data REFERENCES Ref. 29, p. 75 Ref. 29, pp. 37, 51-52, 56, 6566 & 73-74 Ref. 29, p. 4 Ref. 29, pp. 25-28 34 SO-Source Characterization Source No.: 1 TABLE 3 – Excavated Area, Soil Confirmation Sample Results (continued) StanTech or ODEQ Sample Number: Bottom (StanTech) EIB (ODEQ) 5 (ETI) 409896 (ODEQ) Bottom of Excavation Area Soil Bottom of Excavation Area Soil (Split) Result mg/Kg Result µg/Kg ETI & ODEQ SEL Lab Sample Numbers: Sampling Location: Sample Description Flag RL mg/Kg Flag RL µg/Kg ANALYTE: VOCs Acetone Tricholoroethylene cis-1,2-dichloroethene vinyl chloride Toluene 0.129 10.7 2.79 0.037 9.51 E E 0.1 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 3,100 12,000 < 2,400 < 2,400 3,500 B U U 2,400.0 2,400.0 2,400.0 2,400.0 2,400.0 KEY ODEQ SEL = Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, State Environmental Laboratory ETI = Environmental Testing, Inc. B = The analyte was detected in the associated method blank and in the sample. RL- Reporting Limit U – Undetected E – Estimated Value (above linear range) µg/kg - Concentration in microgram per kilogram mg/Kg - Concentration in milligram per kilogram Bold - Concentration detected above reporting limit REFERENCES Chain of Custody Ref. 29, p. 75 Ref. 29, p. 4 Data Ref. 29, pp. 37, 51-52, 56, 6970 & 73-74 Ref. 29, pp. 5-8 35 SO-Source Characterization Source No.: 1 Remaining Contaminated Soil In August/September 2010, as part of the U.S. EPA Region 6 REPA contract, Booz-Allen Hamilton installed six monitoring wells at the Eagle facility. As part of the monitoring well installation, Booz Allen Hamilton representatives collected soil samples from six bore hole locations located on the Eagle property (Ref. 6, pp. 5, 8—11, & 16). A direct push drill rig was utilized to collect subsurface soil samples from six (6) soil boring locations within the property area that was previously excavated on November 28, 2006 (Ref. 6, p. 8-11, 16, 20-54, 57-86, 94114; Ref. 29, p. 79-82). The six boreholes were advanced to 10 feet bgs, and three subsurface soil samples were collected from each soil boring. As instructed by the ODEQ site representative, for each soil boring, one sample was collected from 4-5 feet bgs, and a second soil sample was collected from the deepest interval recovered. The third soil sample was collected from the interval determined in the field to most likely have VOC contamination due to elevated photoionization detector (PID) measurements, staining, etc. No elevated PID measurements and no staining were observed for any of the soil boring, and as such, the third sample was collected from the 5-7 feet bgs interval (Ref. 6, pp. 8-9). A total of 20 subsurface soil samples were collected and analyzed for VOCs. Samples were analyzed for VOCs utilizing EPA Method 8260/5035 (Ref. 6, pp. 125-128, 232-274 & 280). Field duplicate samples were collected for SB-01-001 and SB-02-001 and designated as SB-1-004 and SB-2-004, respectively. For each subsurface soil sample, three (3) Encore samplers and one (1) 4-oz. glass jar were utilized for sample collection (Ref. 6, p. 9). Details regarding the collected subsurface soil samples can be found in Table 4 for Ref. 6, pp. 10-11). It should be noted that no background subsurface soil samples were collected as part of the field sampling activity. See Table 5/6 below for the analytical results associated with the August/September subsurface field sampling activities. See Table 3. 36 SO-Source Characterization Source No.: 1 TABLE 4 – Subsurface Soil Results for August 2010 EPA RCRA Sampling Event Booz Allen Hamilton Sample Number: SB-1-002 EPA Region 6 Lab Sample Numbers: Sampling Location: Depth of Sample Sample Description 1008058-23 35.43589°N, -97.33767°W 5.5' to 6.5' bgs Subsurface soil Result µg/Kg cis-1,2-dichloroethene vinyl chloride Toluene Ethylbenzene meta,para-Xylene ortho-Xylene Flag ANALYTE: VOCs 24.3 81.7 125 20.6 63.9 25.1 KEY RL µg/Kg 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 9.2 4.6 RL- Reporting Limit J = The identification of the analyte is acceptable; the reported value is an estimate. U - Undetected µg/kg - Concentration in microgram per kilogram Bold - Concentration detected above the laboratory reporting limit REFERENCES Chain of Custody Ref. 6, pp. 118 & 276 Laboratory Reports Ref. 6, pp. 125-128, 232-274 & 280 Data Ref. 6, pp. 10, 16, 83, 128 & 174-175 37 SO-Source Characterization Source No.: 1 TABLE 4 – Subsurface Soil Results for August 2010 EPA RCRA Sampling Event (continued) SB-1-003 SB-1-004 (Duplicate of SB-1001) EPA Region 6 Lab Sample Numbers: 1008058-24 1008058-22 Sampling Location: Depth of Sample Sample Description 35.43589°N, -97.33767°W 9.0' to 10.0' bgs Subsurface soil 35.43589°N, -97.33767°W 4.0' to 5.0' bgs Subsurface soil Booz Allen Hamilton Sample Number: Result µg/Kg Flag RL µg/Kg Result µg/Kg Flag RL µg/Kg ANALYTE: VOCs cis-1,2-dichloroethene Ethylbenzene meta,para-Xylene ortho-Xylene 4.4 57.9 5.6 15.5 7.6 4.6 9.2 4.6 KEY RL- Reporting Limit J = The identification of the analyte is acceptable; the reported value is an estimate. µg/kg - Concentration in microgram per kilogram Bold - Concentration detected above the laboratory reporting limit Chain of Custody Laboratory Reports Data REFERENCES Ref. 6, pp. 118 & 276 Ref. 6, pp. 125-128, 232-274 & 280 Ref. 6, pp. 118 & 276 Ref. 6, pp. 125-128, 232-274 & 280 Ref. 6, pp. 10, 16, 83, 128 & 176-177 Ref. 6, pp. 10, 116, 83, 128 & 172-173 38 SO-Source Characterization Source No.: 1 TABLE 4 – Subsurface Soil Results for August 2010 EPA RCRA Sampling Event (continued) Booz Allen Hamilton Sample Number: SB-2-001 SB-2-002 EPA Region 6 Lab Sample Numbers: 1008058-04 1008058-06 Sampling Location: Depth of Sample Sample Description 35.43590°N, -97.33762°W 4.0' to 5.0' bgs Subsurface soil 35.43590°N, -97.33762°W 6.0' to 7.0' bgs Subsurface soil Result µg/Kg Flag RL µg/Kg Result µg/Kg Flag RL µg/Kg ANALYTE: VOCs cis-1,2-dichloroethene vinyl chloride < 5.3 < 5.3 U U KEY 5.3 5.3 96.5 77.4 3.9 3.9 RL- Reporting Limit J = The identification of the analyte is acceptable; the reported value is an estimate. U - Undetected µg/kg - Concentration in microgram per kilogram Bold - Concentration detected above the laboratory reporting limit Chain of Custody Laboratory Reports Data REFERENCES Ref. 6, pp. 119 & 275 Ref. 6, pp. 125-128, 232-274 & 280 Ref. 6, pp. 119 & 275 Ref. 6, pp. 125-128, 232-274 & 280 Ref. 6, pp. 10, 16, 83, 128 & 136-137 Ref. 6, pp. 11, 16, 83, 128 & 140141 39 SO-Source Characterization Source No.: 1 TABLE 4 – Subsurface Soil Results for August 2010 EPA RCRA Sampling Event (continued) SB-2-003 SB-2-004 (Duplicate of SB-2001) EPA Region 6 Lab Sample Numbers: 1008058-067 1008058-05 Sampling Location: Depth of Sample Sample Description 35.43590°N, -97.33762°W 8.0' to 9.0' bgs Subsurface soil 35.43590°N, -97.33762°W 4.0' to 5.0' bgs Subsurface soil Booz Allen Hamilton Sample Number: Result µg/Kg Flag RL µg/Kg Result µg/Kg Flag RL µg/Kg < 5.9 U 5.9 ANALYTE: VOCs cis-1,2-dichloroethene 4.3 11.9 KEY RL- Reporting Limit J = The identification of the analyte is acceptable; the reported value is an estimate. U - Undetected µg/kg - Concentration in microgram per kilogram Bold - Concentration detected above the laboratory reporting limit Chain of Custody Laboratory Reports Data REFERENCES Ref. 6, pp. 119 & 275 Ref. 6, pp. 125-128, 232-274 & 280 Ref. 6, pp. 119 & 275 Ref. 6, pp. 125-128, 232-274 & 280 Ref. 6, pp. 11, 16, 83, 128 & 142-143 Ref. 6, pp. 10, 16, 83, 128 & 138139 40 SO-Source Characterization Source No.: 1 TABLE 4 – Subsurface Soil Results for August 2010 EPA RCRA Sampling Event (continued) Booz Allen Hamilton Sample Number: SB-3-003 SB-4-001 1008058-20 1008058-29 35.43593°N, -97.33766°W 9.0' to 10.0' bgs Subsurface soil 35.43592°N, -97.33763°W 5.0' to 6.0' bgs Subsurface soil Result µg/Kg Result µg/Kg EPA Region 6 Lab Sample Numbers: Sampling Location: Depth of Sample Sample Description Flag RL µg/Kg Flag RL µg/Kg ANALYTE: VOCs cis-1,2-dichloroethene vinyl chloride J 198 34.8 4.0 4.0 12.5 4.3 KEY RL- Reporting Limit J = The identification of the analyte is acceptable; the reported value is an estimate. µg/kg - Concentration in microgram per kilogram Bold - Concentration detected above the laboratory reporting limit Chain of Custody Laboratory Reports Data REFERENCES Ref. 6, pp. 118 & 276 Ref. 6, pp. 125-128, 232-274 & 280 Ref. 6, pp. 10, 16, 83, 128 & 168-169 Ref. 6, pp. 118,119 & 275 Ref. 6, pp. 125-128, 232-274 & 280 Ref. 6, pp.10 11, 83, 128 & 186-187 41 SO-Source Characterization Source No.: 1 TABLE 4 – Subsurface Soil Results for August 2010 EPA RCRA Sampling Event (continued) Booz Allen Hamilton Sample Number: SB-4-002 SB-4-003 1008058-01 1008058-02 35.43592°N, -97.33763°W 5.0' to 6.0' bgs Subsurface soil 35.43592°N, -97.33763°W 9.0' to 9.5' bgs Subsurface soil Result µg/Kg Result µg/Kg EPA Region 6 Lab Sample Numbers: Sampling Location: Depth of Sample Sample Description Flag RL µg/Kg Flag RL µg/Kg ANALYTE: VOCs cis-1,2-dichloroethene 2-Butanone < 4.5 5.9 U 4.5 4.5 9.7 4.7 KEY RL- Reporting Limit J = The identification of the analyte is acceptable; the reported value is an estimate. U - Undetected µg/kg - Concentration in microgram per kilogram Bold - Concentration detected above the laboratory reporting limit Chain of Custody REFERENCES Ref. 6, pp. 118,119 & 275 Ref. 6, pp. 118, 119 & 276 Laboratory Reports Ref. 6, pp. 125-128, 232-274 & 280 Ref. 6, pp. 125-128, 232-274 & 280 Ref. 6, pp. 10, 16, 83, 128 & 130-131 Ref. 6, pp. 10, 16, 83, 128 & 132-133 Data 42 SO-Source Characterization Source No.: 1 TABLE 4 – Subsurface Soil Results for August 2010 EPA RCRA Sampling Event (continued) Booz Allen Hamilton Sample Number: SB-6-001 EPA Region 6 Lab Sample Numbers: 1008058-25 35.43594°N, -97.33764°W 4.0' to 5.0' bgs Subsurface soil Sampling Location: Depth of Sample Sample Description Result µg/Kg cis-1,2-dichloroethene Flag ANALYTE: VOCs 13.7 KEY RL µg/Kg 3.9 RL- Reporting Limit J = The identification of the analyte is acceptable; the reported value is an estimate. µg/kg - Concentration in microgram per kilogram Bold - Concentration detected above the laboratory reporting limit REFERENCES Chain of Custody Ref. 6, pp. 118 & 276 Laboratory Reports Data Ref. 6, pp. 125-128, 232-274 & 280 Ref. 6, pp. 10, 16, 83, 128 & 178-179 43 SO-Source Characterization Source No.: 1 TABLE 4 – Subsurface Soil Results for August 2010 EPA RCRA Sampling Event (continued) Booz Allen Hamilton Sample Number: SB-6-002 EPA Region 6 Lab Sample Numbers: 1008058-26 35.43594°N, -97.33764°W 6.0' to 7.0' bgs Subsurface soil Sampling Location: Depth of Sample Sample Description Result µg/Kg Flag RL µg/Kg ANALYTE: VOCs cis-1,2-dichloroethene KEY 19.2 3.8 RL- Reporting Limit J = The identification of the analyte is acceptable; the reported value is an estimate. µg/kg - Concentration in microgram per kilogram Bold - Concentration detected above the laboratory reporting limit Chain of Custody Laboratory Reports Data REFERENCES Ref. 6, pp. 118 & 276 Ref. 6, pp. 125-128, 232-274 & 280 Ref. 6, pp. 10, 16, 83, 128 & 180-181 Chemical analysis of the collected subsurface soil samples indicated the presence of cis-1,2Dichloroethene and/or vinyl chloride in concentrations exceeding the corresponding EPA Houston Laboratory Reporting Limits in several of the collected subsurface soil samples: SB-1002 (5.5’ to 6’ bgs); SB-1-003 (9’ to 10.0’ bgs); SB-2-002 (6.0’ to 7.0’ bgs); SB-2-003 (8.0’ to 9.0’ bgs); SB-3-003 (9.0’ to 10.0’ bgs); SB-4-001 (4.0’ to 5.0’ bgs); SB-4-003 (9.0’ to 9.5’ bgs); SB-6-001 (4.0’ to 5.0’ bgs); and SB-6-002 (6.0’ to 7.0’ bgs) (Ref. 6, pp. 130 to 183). TCE was not detected in any of the collected subsurface soil samples (Ref. 6, pp. 130 to 183). The VOCs, toluene, ethylbenzene, m,p-xylene, and o-xylene were detected in subsurface soil samples SB-1-002 and SB-1-004 (Ref. 6, pp. 174-177); however, these constituents are found in petroleum products. Toluene, ethylbenzene, m,p-xylene and o-xylene will not be utilized to evaluate the waste characteristics associated with Source No. 1 or the site score (see section 3.2, Waste Characteristics, and Table 28 of this HRS documentation record). 44 SO-Source Characterization Source No.: 1 Hazardous substances detected in Source 1 are listed as follows: • TCE; • Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene; • Vinyl chloride; • Acetone; • 2-Butanone; and • 1,2-Dichlorobenzene. 2.2.3 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AVAILABLE TO A PATHWAY Containment Gas release to air: The air migration pathway was not scored; therefore, gas release to air containment was not evaluated. Particulate release to air: The air migration pathway was not scored; therefore, particulate containment was not evaluated. Release to ground water: Chemical analysis of collected soil samples from the north sidewall and the bottom of the excavated soil area located behind the building and near the TCE storage area indicated the presence of TCE and its degradation products, DCE and vinyl chloride (Ref. 29, pp. 37, 43, & 52). Chemical analyses of subsurface soil samples collected in August 2010 from the same area as the excavated soil detected the presence of DCE and vinyl chloride in concentrations exceeding the U.S. EPA Houston Laboratory’s reporting limits (Ref. 6, pp. 130- 183). In addition, there is no documentation to indicate that a Liner was in place to limit the horizontal and vertical extent of contaminant migration. A ground water containment score of 10 will be assigned based on “Evidence of hazardous substance migration from a source area” and “No Liner”. Release via overland migration: The surface water pathway (overland migration) was not scored; therefore, surface water containment was not evaluated. 2.4.2 HAZARDOUS WASTE QUANTITY 2.4.2.1.1. Hazardous Constituent Quantity – Tier A The total Hazardous Constituent Quantity for Source 1 could not be adequately determined according to the HRS requirements; that is, the total mass of all CERCLA hazardous substances in the source and releases from the source is not known and cannot be estimated with reasonable confidence (Ref. 1, Sec. 2.4.2.1.1). Sufficient historical and current data (manifests, potentially responsible party [PRP] records, State records, permits, waste concentration data, etc.) are not available to adequately calculate the total or partial mass of all CERCLA hazardous substances in the source and the associated releases from the source. Therefore, there is insufficient information to calculate a total or partial Hazardous Constituent Quantity estimate for Source 1 45 SO-Source Characterization Source No.: 1 with reasonable confidence. Scoring proceeds to the evaluation of Tier B, Hazardous wastestream quantity (Ref. 1, Sec. 2.4.2.1.1). Hazardous Constituent Quantity Value (S): Not Calculated Are the data complete for hazardous constituent quantity for this area? No 2.4.2.1.2. Hazardous Wastestream Quantity – Tier B The total Hazardous Wastestream Quantity for Source 1 could not be adequately determined according to the HRS requirements; that is, the total mass of all hazardous waste streams and CERCLA pollutants and contaminants for the source and releases from the source is not known and cannot be estimated with reasonable confidence (Ref. 1, Sec. 2.4.2.1.2). Sufficient historical and current data (manifests, potentially responsible party [PRP] records, State records, permits, waste concentration data, annual reports, etc.) are not available to adequately calculate the total or partial mass of all hazardous waste streams and CERCLA pollutants and contaminants for the source and the associated releases from the source. Therefore, there is insufficient information to adequately calculate or extrapolate a total or partial Hazardous Wastestream Quantity estimate for Source 1 with reasonable confidence. Scoring proceeds to the evaluation of Tier C, Volume (Ref. 1, Sec. 2.4.2.1.2). Hazardous Wastestream Quantity Value (W): Not Calculated Are the data complete for hazardous waste stream for this source? No 2.4.2.1.3. Volume – Tier C Approximately 40 cubic yards (yds3) of TCE-contaminated soil was removed from the site and disposed at an ODEQ-approved landfill (Ref. 29, p. 50). In 2006, the estimated contaminated soil areas consist of two sections: Section A, which is located north and adjacent to the excavated soil area, and is designated by horizontal hatching on page 57 of Ref. 29. Section B, which is located adjacent to and north of Section A, is designated by diagonal hatching on page 57 of Ref. 29. In August/September 2010, as part of the U.S. EPA Region 6 EPA contract, Booz-Allen Hamilton installed six monitoring wells at the Eagle Industries facility. As part of the monitoring well installation, Booz Allen Hamilton representatives collected soil samples from six bore hole locations located on the Eagle Industries property (Ref. 6, pp. 5, 8—11, & 16). The soil sampling in 2010 indicated additional contaminated soil at varying depths. However, insufficient information is available to adequately calculate or extrapolate a total or partial Volume for Source 1 with reasonable confidence. Scoring proceeds to the evaluation of Tier D, Area (Ref. 1, Sec. 2.4.2.1.2). Hazardous Waste Volume Quantity Value (V):0 Are the data complete for volume for this source? No 2.4.2.1.4. Area – Tier D In 2006, the estimated contaminated soil areas consist of two adjacent sections, Sections A and B, north of the excavated soil area (Ref. 29, p. 57): 46 SO-Source Characterization Source No.: 1 Section A has been measured as approximately 8’ in width x 11’ in length = 88 square feet (ft2) (Ref. 29, p.57). Section B has been measured as approximately 5’ wide x 11 feet in length = 55 ft2 (Ref. 29, p. 56). In August/September 2010, as part of the U.S. EPA Region 6 EPA contract, Booz-Allen Hamilton installed six monitoring wells at the Eagle Industries facility. As part of the monitoring well installation, Booz Allen Hamilton representatives collected soil samples from six bore hole locations located on the Eagle Industries property (Ref. 6, pp. 5, 8—11, & 16). The soil sampling in 2010 indicated additional areas of contaminated soil (Table 4 of this HRS documentation record). Therefore, because contaminated soil remains at several sampling locations, the Area of Source 1 is estimated to be greater than zero but exact value is unknown. Hazardous Waste Area Quantity Value (V): >0 Are the data complete for area quantity for this source? No 2.4.2.1.5. Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value Source No. 1: Measures Tier A Tier B Tier C Tier D Assigned Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value (Ref. 1, Sec. 2.4.2.1.5) Surface Water, Ground Water and Air Pathways NC NC 0 >0 >0 NC: Not Calculated 47 SO-Source Characterization Source No.: 2 2.2.1 SOURCE IDENTIFICATION – SOURCE 2 The following information corresponds to the second source identified for this documentation record. Number of source: 2 Name of source: Water Sump and Septic System (Tank and Field Lines) Source Type: Other Description and Location of Source: The indoor sump and septic system (tank and field lines) are being aggregated as Source No. 2. Source aggregation is done based on having more than two areas that could be considered individual sources as one discrete source. Source aggregation for Source No. 2 is applied because the indoor sump and septic system (tank and field lines) can be classified as the same source type, the sources affect the similar target populations, the sources have similar containment, the sources contain substances with similar waste characteristics factor values, and the sources are in the same watershed and floodplain (Ref. 1, Sec. 4.2). Source Number 2 consists of an indoor, below-floor level, grated sump and septic system (septic tank and field lines). The sump is located inside the main building and is situated underneath the Hydrostatic Tester (Ref. 27, p. 7; Ref. 28, p. 10). The sump receives spill content from the Hydrostatic Tester (Ref. 28, p. 10; Ref. 30, pp. 8- 9). The sump is plumbed to a line where the sump contents are drained to an underground septic tank (Ref. 27, p. 7; Ref. 31, p. 4). The resulting waste stream consists of water contaminated by any substances entering the sump (Ref. 30, pp. 8- 9). The sump is periodically emptied by siphoning the water through a hose to a grassy area located behind the main building (Ref. 30, 8- 9; Ref. 32, p. 4). The sump is located in the same area of the main building where parts and equipment are cleaned with TCE (Ref. 30, pp. 8 – 9). Small amounts of TCE-based solvent are washed into the sump and mixed with the sump water, making it a hazardous waste by RCRA definition (Ref. 30, pp. 8- 9). During an ODEQ RCRA Compliance Inspection conducted on June 19, 2003, the ODEQ inspectors observed the sump contents being discharged from the hose and into a grassy area. The discharge material from the hose had a paint-like smell and was foaming (Ref. 28, pp. 10 & 939; Ref. 30, pp. 8- 9; Ref. 35, p. 3). On October 9, 2003 and October 14,2003, a representative from Eagle Industries acknowledged that periodically small volumes of water accumulation in the sump would be removed by siphoning the sump contents to the rear of the main building (Ref. 30, pp. 8- 9). The septic tank with a soaker line and 3 lateral lines (lateral field) is located east- northeast of the main building (Ref. 28, p. 5; Ref. 37, pp. 2-3; Figure 2). The precast septic tank is circular in design, with a diameter of six feet, six inches, a liquid depth of four feet, eight inches, and with a liquid capacity of 1,000 gallons (Ref. 37, p. 2). A sink hole located within the lateral lines of the septic system was observed by representatives of Booz Allen and ODEQ on August 30, 2010. Representatives from Booz Allen collected a surface water sample (SW-1-001) from the sink hole and had the sample analyzed for VOCs by method 8260B at the U.S. EPA Houston Laboratory (Ref. 6, pp. 10, 12, 16, 59, 83, 129, 178). See Table 6 for the analytical results. 48 SO-Source Characterization Source No.: 2 2.2.2 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES ASSOCIATED WITH THE SOURCE RCRA 2003 CEI: SUMP (WATER) SAMPLES ODEQ inspectors collected a sump water sample from the west hydrostatic pressure tank on June 20, 2003, as part of the RCRA CEI inspection (Ref. 28, pp. 10, 63 & 91). The collected sump water sample was analyzed for VOCs by EPA Method 524.2 (Ref. 8, p. 8; Ref. 28, p. 10; Ref. 33, pp. 2 & 13-16). Chemical analysis of the collected ODEQ sump water sample indicated the presence of TCE at 17 µg/L (Ref. 33, p. 14; Ref. 34, p. 3). See Table 5. TABLE 5 – Sump Sampling, 2003 RCRA Compliance Evaluation Inspection ODEQ Sample Number: ODEQ SEL Lab Sample Number: Sampling Location: Sample Description Sample #8 332667 West Hydrostatic Pressure Tank Sump Water, with paint smell Result µg/L Flag RL µg/L ANALYTE: VOCs Bromodichloromethane Bromoform Dibromochloromethane Chloroform Trichloroethylene 23.6* 1.6* 13.1* 42* 17.1 KEY N N N NJ 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 ODEQ SEL= Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality State Environmental Laboratory J = Indicates an estimated value N = noncertified parameter for 524.2 (trihalomethanes), not to be used for THM compliance purposes RL = Reporting Limit. The reporting limit is the lowest concentration verified by the laboratory with an acceptable degree of precision and accuracy and typically the lowest calibration standard used for developing a calibration curve. µg/L- Concentration in micrograms per Liter Bold - Concentration detected s above reporting limit REFERENCES Chain of Custody Laboratory Reports Data Ref. 33, p. 2 Not Available Ref. 28, pp. 70-73 & 93; Ref. 33, pp. 1315; Ref. 38, pp. 38 & 202 49 SO-Source Characterization Source No.: 2 STANTECH FIELD SAMPLING, FEBRUARY 2006: SUMP SAMPLING On February 16, 2006, StanTech, a contractor for the Responsible Party (RP) collected a water grab sample and an ODEQ split sample from the sump with a polyethylene bailer (Ref. 27, p. 7). The water samples were placed in pre-preserved laboratory-supplied, 40 ml glass containers and analyzed for VOCs using EPA Method 8260B (Ref. 27, p. 5). Chemical analysis of the collected water samples from the sump indicated that neither TCE, cis-1,2-dichloroethene, or vinyl chloride were detected in concentrations above the laboratory reporting limit for those two VOCs; however, the following VOCs were detected in the samples: Bromodichloromethane, Bromoform, Chloroform, Dibromochloromethane, acetone, and 4-Isopropyltoluene (Ref. 8, p. 11; Ref. 27, pp. 5 & 110-111). ODEQ analyses of the collected split sump samples (Sump 1 and Sump 2[duplicate sample]) did not detect the presence of TCE, cis-1,2-Dichloroethene, or vinyl chloride; however, bromodichloromethane, bromoform, Chloroform, dibromochloromethane, and acetone were detected in concentrations exceeding the ODEQ reporting limits (Ref. 27, pp. 58-65). It should be noted that a background water sample was not collected during the February 16, 2006 StanTech sampling activities. See Table 6. TABLE 6 – Sump Sampling Results for February 2006 StanTech or ODEQ Sample Number: ETI Lab or ODEQ Lab Sample Number: Sampling Location: Sample Description Sump Sump 1 Sump 2 10 (ETI) 392748 (ODEQ SEL) 392749 (ODEQ SEL) Indoor Sump Water Sample Indoor Sump (Split) Water Sample Indoor Sump (Split) Water Sample Result µg/L ANALYTE: VOCs Acetone 4-Isopropyltoluene Bromodichlorometha ne Bromoform Chloroform Dibromochlorometha ne RL µg/L Result µg/L 34.2 16.7 5 5.0 11.0 < 5.0 10.4 5.0 5.0 5.0 Flag Result µg/L 34.0 NAZ 10.0 NAZ 37.0 NAZ 12.0 4.0 11.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 12.0 4.0 11.0 10.0 15.0 15.0 KEY ODEQ SEL = Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, State Environmental Laboratory ETI = Environmental Testing, Inc. B = Indicates the analyte found in the associated blank, as well as in the sample (ODEQ SEL) J = Indicates an estimated value (ODEQ SEL) NAZ = Not Analyzed by Laboratory RL = Reporting Limit µg/L = Concentration in micrograms per Liter 13.7 5.0 RL µg/L Flag Flag B J RL µg/L 10 NAZ 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 50 SO-Source Characterization Source No.: 2 StanTech or ODEQ Sump Sump 1 Sump 2 Sample Number: ETI Lab or ODEQ 10 (ETI) 392748 (ODEQ SEL) 392749 (ODEQ SEL) Lab Sample Number: < = less than Bold = Concentration detected significantly above background concentration or above reporting limit REFERENCES Ref. 27, p. 121 Ref. 27, p. 124 Ref. 27, p. 124 Chain of Custody Ref. 27, pp. 4-5, 109-111, Data Ref. 27, pp. 58-61 Ref. 27, pp. 62-64 118-120 EPA RCRA SAMPLING, 2010: SEPTIC FIELD LINE One water sample, SW-001, was collected from a sink hole believed to be associated with the damaged septic tank system by representatives of Booz-Allen Hamilton on August 30, 2010, as part of a joint RCRA sampling support action between the U.S. EPA Region 6 and ODEQ RCRA (Ref. 6, pp. 9, 11, 16 & 119). The sink hole was located approximately 30 feet east of monitor well DEQ-1 (Ref. 6, p. 9). At the time of the joint RCRA sampling activities, the sink hole was full of standing water. The water sample was collected from the sink hole with the use of a plastic ladle attached to a telescopic rod. The water sample was transferred to three 40-ml glass vials and analyzed for VOCs by EPA Method 8260 by the EPA Region 6 – Houston Laboratory (Ref. 6, p. 9). See Table 7. TABLE 7 – Sink Hole Sample Results Booz Allen Sample Number: SW-1-001 EPA Houston Lab Sample Number: 1008058-14 Sampling Location: Sink Hole (Septic Line; 35.43599°N, -97.33730°W) Sample Description Water Sample Result Acetone Tricholoroethylene cis-1,2-dichloroethene vinyl chloride Toluene Ethylbenzene m,p-Xylene o-xylene µg/L ANALYTE: VOCs 60.5 6.9 188 (18.8)* 585 (58.5)** 5.1 4.3 13.0 3.6 Flag J J RL µg/L 20.0 2.0 20.0 20.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 51 SO-Source Characterization Source No.: 2 Booz Allen Sample Number: SW-1-001 EPA Houston Lab Sample Number: 1008058-14 KEY J = The identification of the analyte is acceptable; the reported value is an estimate. RL- Reporting Limit; the reporting limit for this analyte was raised because absence or presence at the routine lower value could not be verified. µg/L - Concentration in micrograms per Liter Bold - Concentration detected significantly above background concentration or above reporting limit * = The detected concentration was evaluated and adjusted per the EPA fact sheet “Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination” (Ref. 19, pp. 9 & 12-13). The value presented in parentheses is the adjusted value. Chain of Custody Laboratory Reports Data REFERENCES Ref. 6, p. 119 & 275 Ref. 6, pp. 125-129, 233-274, 280-281 Ref. 6, pp. 10 -12, 16, 59, 83, 128, , 156-157, 288281; Ref. 19, pp. 9 & 12-13 The VOCs, toluene, ethylbenzene, m,p-xylene, and o-xylene were detected in sink hole sample SW-1001 (Ref. 6, pp. 156-157); however, these constituents are found in petroleum products. Toluene, ethylbenzene, m,p-xylene and o-xylene will not be utilized to evaluate the waste characteristics associated with Source No. 2 or the site score (see section 3.2, Waste Characteristics, and Table 28 of this HRS documentation record). Hazardous substances detected in Source 2 are listed as follows: • Acetone; • 4-Isopropyltoluene; • Bromodichloromethane; • Bromoform; • Chloroform; • Dibromochloromethane; • cis-1,2-dichloroethene; • Trichloroethylene; and • Vinyl Chloride. 2.2.3 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AVAILABLE TO A PATHWAY Containment Gas release to air: The air migration pathway was not scored; therefore, gas release to air containment was not evaluated. 52 SO-Source Characterization Source No.: 2 Particulate release to air: The air migration pathway was not scored; therefore, particulate containment was not evaluated. Release to ground water: Chemical analysis of a water sample collected from the Sump during the ODEQ 2003 RCRA CEI detected the presence of TCE at 17 µg/L (Ref. 28, pp. 10 & 63; Ref. 33, pp. 1 & 12-14). Chemical analysis of a Sump water sample collected by StanTech representatives in February 2006 detected the presence of bromoform, bromodichloromethane, chloroform, and dibromochloromethane in concentrations exceeding the laboratory reporting units (Ref. 27, p. 110). In addition, chemical analysis of the collected split Sump water sample by the ODEQ Laboratory, also detected the presence bromoform, bromodichloromethane, chloroform, and dibromochloromethane in concentrations exceeding the laboratory reporting units (Ref. 27, pp. 58-65). Chemical analysis of a water sample from a sink hole associated with the septic system in August 2010 detected the presence of TCE, cis-1,2-Dicholorethene, and vinyl chloride in concentrations exceeding the U.S. EPA Houston Laboratory’s reporting limit (Ref. 6, pp. 156-157). In addition, there is no documented Liner associated with Source No. 2. Release via overland migration: Release via overland migration: The surface water pathway (overland migration) was not scored; therefore, surface water containment was not evaluated. 2.4.2 HAZARDOUS WASTE QUANTITY 2.4.2.1.1. Hazardous Constituent Quantity – Tier A The total Hazardous Constituent Quantity for Source 1 could not be adequately determined according to the HRS requirements; that is, the total mass of all CERCLA hazardous substances in the source and releases from the source is not known and cannot be estimated with reasonable confidence (Ref. 1, Sec. 2.4.2.1.1). Sufficient historical and current data (manifests, potentially responsible party [PRP] records, State records, permits, waste concentration data, etc.) are not available to adequately calculate the total or partial mass of all CERCLA hazardous substances in the source and the associated releases from the source. Therefore, there is insufficient information to calculate a total or partial Hazardous Constituent Quantity estimate for Source 2 with reasonable confidence. Scoring proceeds to the evaluation of Tier B, Hazardous wastestream quantity (Ref. 1, Sec. 2.4.2.1.1). Hazardous Constituent Quantity Value (S): Not Calculated Are the data complete for hazardous constituent quantity for this source? No 2.4.2.1.2. Hazardous Wastestream Quantity – Tier B The total Hazardous Wastestream Quantity for Source 1 could not be adequately determined according to the HRS requirements; that is, the total mass of all hazardous waste streams and CERCLA pollutants and contaminants for the source and releases from the source is not known and cannot be estimated with reasonable confidence (Ref. 1, Sec. 2.4.2.1.2). Sufficient historical and current data (manifests, potentially responsible party [PRP] records, State records, permits, waste concentration data, annual reports, etc.) are not available to adequately calculate the total or partial mass of all hazardous waste streams and CERCLA pollutants and contaminants for the source and the associated releases from the source. Therefore, there is insufficient information to adequately calculate or extrapolate a total or 53 SO-Source Characterization Source No.: 2 partial Hazardous Wastestream Quantity estimate for Source 2 with reasonable confidence. Scoring proceeds to the evaluation of Tier C, Volume (Ref. 1, Sec. 2.4.2.1.2). Hazardous Wastestream Quantity Value (W): Not Calculated Are the data complete for hazardous wastestream quantity for this source? No 2.4.2.1.3. Volume – Tier C There is insufficient data to determine the size or capacity of the indoor sump. The septic tank has a capacity of 1,000 gallons (Ref. 37, p. 2). To determine the Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value for Tier C- Volume for Sump and Septic System, (Other) a devisor of 2.5 was used to calculate the Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value. (Ref. 1, Table 2-5; Ref. 16, pp. 2-3). 1000 gallons x 1 yd3/200 gallons = 5 yd3 5 yd3 ÷ 2.5 = 2 Hazardous Waste Volume Quantity Value (V): 2 Are the data complete for volume for this source? No 2.4.2.1.4. Area – Tier D Tier D is not applicable for source type other (Ref. 1, Section 2.4.2.1.4, Table 2-5). Hazardous Waste Area Quantity Value (A): 0 Are the data complete for area for this source? No 2.4.2.1.5. Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value Source No. 2: Measures Tier A Tier B Tier C Tier D Assigned Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value (Ref. 1, Sec. 2.4.2.1.5) Surface Water, Ground Water and Air Pathways NC NC 2 0 2 NC: Not Calculated 54 SO - Summary Other Possible Sources SITE SUMMARY OF SOURCE DESCRIPTIONS Source No. Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value 1 2 >0 2 Total Source Hazardous Constituent Quantity Complete? (Y/N) N N Ground Water (GW) Yes Yes Available to Pathway Surface Water (SW) Air Overland /Flood GW to SW Gas Air Particulate NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 2 NS: Not Scored Other Possible Sources Storm Water Runoff Pond: The buried/backfilled Storm Water Runoff is located along the northern property boundary of the Eagle Industries facility (Ref. 8, pp. 7 & 30; Ref. 15, pp. 5 & 19). The storm water runoff pond appears to have been in place in 1991 and was still located at the facility during the ODEQ RCRA Compliance Evaluation Inspection conducted on June 19, 2003 (Ref. 28, pp. 5-6, & 20). The dimensions of the former storm water runoff pond, as calculated from a scaled figure in the ODEQ Site Investigation report are 20 feet in width by 50 feet in length (Ref. 8, p. 30). The depth of the former storm water runoff pond has not been documented. Sometime between June 18, 2010 and April 15, 2011, the former storm water pond was filled in with backfill material (Ref. 5, pp. 14-15; Ref. 8, p. 17; Ref. 15, pp. 5 & 68). Eagle Industries was not required to have a permit to operate the Storm Water Runoff Pond, thus, there is no documentation as to the date of closure and how the closure of the Storm Water Runoff pond was conducted. A composite sediment sample (SED-1) was collected from the water pit during the StanTech sampling activities conducted on February 16, 2006 and analyzed for VOCs by EPA Method 8260B (Ref. 27, pp. 5, 20, & 124). A split sediment sample was collected by StanTech and relinquished to the ODEQ representative (Ref. 8, p. 11). The composite sediment sample was made up of five aliquots taken from beneath the water surface and mixing them in a pre-cleaned, stainless steel bowls (Ref. 27, p. 5). The composite sediment sample was then placed in a laboratory-supplied sample jar, closed and sealed, and then placed into the sample cooler with previously collected samples (Ref. 27, p. 5). Chemical analyses of the collected composite sediment sample did not detect TCE and DCE in concentrations exceeding the laboratory reporting limits (Ref. 27, pp. 20, 105-106). The corresponding split sediment sample with ODEQ did not detect the presence of TCE or DCE, in concentrations exceeding the ODEQ laboratory reporting limits; however, acetone was detected at 19 µg/kg in the ODEQ split sediment sample (Ref. 8, p. 11). 55 SO - Summary Other Possible Sources Two sediment samples, SD-1-001 and SD-2-001 were collected from the Storm Water Runoff Pond by representatives of Booz-Allen Hamilton on August 30, 2010 as part of a joint RCRA sampling support action conducted by the U.S. EPA Region 6 RCRA and ODEQ RCRA at the Eagle Industries site (Ref. 6, pp. 5, 9, 119, & 275). Using a plastic scoop attached to a telescopic rod, the two sediment samples were collected from along the banks of the water pit. As directed by the EPA, the sediment samples were collected from just below the water line. Sample SD-1-001 was collected from the northwestern portion of the Storm Water Runoff Pond and sediment sample, SD-2-001 was collected from the eastern portion of the Storm Water Runoff Pond. Both samples were rather dry and thus were collected with three Encore sampling devices and one 4-oz glass jar per sample. The sediment samples were analyzed for VOCs by EPA Method 8260 (Ref. 6, p. 9). Chemical analyses of the two sediment samples detected the presence of acetone in both samples and in concentrations exceeding the corresponding laboratory reporting limits (Ref. 6, pp. 144-147). 56 Ground Water Migration Pathway General Considerations 3.0 GROUND WATER MIGRATION PATHWAY 3.0.1 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS Ground Water Migration Pathway Description Regional Geology Relief in Oklahoma County can be divided into four topographic areas; the western part of the county, the eastern part of the county, the central part of the county, and the fourth area parallels the escarpments and flood plains along the North Canadian River (Ref. 10, p. 15). The site lies within the eastern topographic part of the county (Figure 1). The eastern part of the county includes uplands and flood plains and is characterized by very gently sloping to steep hills and entrenched drainage ways with loamy, sandy, and fine textured soils that formed in material weathered from sedimentary bedrock (sandstone or shale) in colluvium or alluvium (Ref. 10, p. 15). The soils on uplands are shallow to deep and are low in productivity (Ref. 10, p. 15). Most areas of these soils support native or improved grasses or trees (Ref. 10, p. 15). The soils on flood plains are very deep and are moderate to very high in productivity (Ref. 10, p. 15). Most areas of these soils are cultivated (Ref. 10, p. 15). According to the Oklahoma County Soil Survey, the oldest rock unit exposed in Oklahoma County is the Wellington Formation (Ref. 10, p. 16). Wellington sediments in Oklahoma County consist mainly of red-brown and orange-brown sandstones and siltstones with interbeds of red-brown shale (Ref. 10, p. 17). Sandstone units in the Wellington Formation and the overlying Garber Sandstone comprise the Garber-Wellington aquifer (Ref. 10, p. 17). The Wellington Formation is about 400 to 500 feet thick, although only the uppermost 200 feet is exposed in the county (Ref. 10, p. 17). Wellington landscapes are characterized by gently rolling hills that are forested with scrub oak, blackjack, and other small, slow-growing deciduous trees (Ref. 10, p. 17). Sandy soils and moderate rainfall (an average annual precipitation ranging from about 30 inches in the western part of the county to about 34 inches in the eastern part) favor this type of vegetation (Ref. 10, p. 17). The Wellington Formation is the parent material of soils in the Stephenville-Harrah-Darsil general soil unit (Ref. 10, p. 17). These sandy and loamy soils formed in colluvium and residuum weathered from sandstone, shale, and interbedded sandstone and shale (Ref. 10, p. 17). The soils are shallow to very deep, are well drained or excessively drained, and are in nearly level to steep areas (Ref. 10, p. 17). Soils that formed on Wellington sandstones typically are moderately permeable, whereas those that formed on shales are very slowly permeable (Ref. 10, p. 17). The Wellington Formation is conformably overlain by the Garber Sandstone, which crops out over a large portion of Oklahoma County (Ref. 10, p. 17). Garber Sandstone deposits consist primarily of orange-brown to red brown sandstone beds irregularly interlayered with red-brown shales and siltstones (Ref. 10, p. 17). In Oklahoma County, the total thickness of the Garber Sandstone ranges from about 400 to 600 feet (Ref. 10, p. 17). The Garber outcrop area is characterized by gently rolling hills covered with prairie grasses and some woody species (Ref. 10, p. 17). The steeper slopes, drainage areas, and scattered woodlands are covered by blackjack, post oak, cedar, and elm (Ref. 10, p. 17). 57 Ground Water Migration Pathway General Considerations The Garber Sandstone is the parent material of soils in the Stephenville-Harrah-Darsil general soil (Ref. 10, p. 17). These loamy soils formed primarily in alluvium, colluvium, and residuum weathered from sandstone and minor amounts of shale (Ref. 10, p. 17). The soils are shallow to very deep, are well drained to excessively drained, are moderately permeable, and developed mostly on gently sloping, forested uplands and, to a lesser extent, on steep slopes (Ref. 10, p. 17). Regional Aquifer Ground water in the Oklahoma City area is derived from precipitation falling directly upon the area (Ref. 8, p. 16). Analysis of regional ground water flows indicate that ground water in the shallow, local flow systems discharge to nearby streams and the rate of flow and flux of water are greatest in these local flow systems (Ref. 14, p. 16). Flow in the deeper part of the aquifer is slower and flowlines are longer than in the shallow, local flow systems. In the deeper flow system, ground water flows under small streams to discharge primarily to the Deep Fork River and Little River (Ref. 14, p. 16). Flow in the Central Oklahoma aquifer is slowest in the confined part of the Garber Sandstone and Wellington Formation and in the less transmissive parts of the unconfined flow system, which includes part of the Chase, Council Grove, and Admire Groups (Ref. 14, p.16). The Eagle Industries site directly overlies the Garber Sandstone and the Wellington Formation (Ref. 8, p. 16). Stratigraphic column of geologic and hydrogeologic units in central Oklahoma (Shaded hydrogeologic units are included in the Central Oklahoma aquifer) ERATHEM SYSTEM GEOLOGIC UNIT HYDROGEOLOGIC THICKNESS, IN UNIT FEET Alluvium Cenozoic Quaternary Terrace Deposits Paleozoic 0–100 Alluvial and Terrace Deposits El Reno Group El Reno Hennessey Group Hennessey Garber Sandstone Garber-Wellington Wellington Formation Permian Chase Group Chase, Council Grove, Council Grove Group and Admire Groups Admire Group Pennsylvanian Vanoss Formation Vanoss 0–100 200 700 1,165–1,600 570–940 250–490 Ref. 13, p. 2 58 Ground Water Migration Pathway General Considerations Site Specific Geology According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Web Soil Survey, four specific soil series types exist at the site (Ref. 11, p. 9). The four major soil series are Harrah fine sandy loam (HarC), Littleaxe fine sandy loam (LitB), Littleaxe-Urban land complex (LtUC) and the Stephenville-Darsil complex (StDC) (Ref. 11, p. 11). The soil series covering the majority, and present along the western and bulk of the northern boundary of the property and dipping into the central portion of the site is the Harrah fine sandy loam (HarC) soil series (Ref. 11, pp. 9 & 11). The typical profile of the HarC soil series is fine, sandy loam from ground surface to approximately 9 inches bgs, sandy clay loam from approximately 9 to 70 inches bgs, and fine sandy loam from approximately 70 to 80 inches bgs (Ref. 11, p. 13). Slope characteristics of the HarC soil series is 3 to 5 percent and is well drained, with depth to restrictive features more than 80 inches deep (Ref. 11, p. 13). The capacity of the most limiting layer of the HarC soil series to transmit water is moderately high to high, at approximately 0.57 to 1.98 inches/hour, and the depth to the water table being more than 80 inches (Ref. 11, p. 13). There is no frequency of flooding or ponding in the HarC soil series, with the available water storage in the profile being moderate (Ref. 11, p. 13). Minor components of the HarC soil series are the Stephenville, Newalla, and Pulaski series (Ref. 11, p. 14). The soil series composing the western mid-central portion of the site is the Stephenville-Darsil complex (StDC) (Ref. 11, pp. 9 & 11). The typical profile of the StDC soil series is loamy fine sand from ground surface to approximately 15 inches bgs, sandy clay loam from approximately 15 to 33 bgs, and bedrock from approximately 33 to 51 inches bgs (Ref. 11, p. 17). Slope characteristics of the StDC soil series is 1 to 5 percent and is well drained, with depth to restrictive features between 31 to 39 inches to a weathered layer of bedrock (Ref. 11, p. 17). The capacity of the most limiting layer of the StDC soil series to transmit water is low, at between 0.04 to 0.10 inches/hour, and depth to the water table being more than 80 inches (Ref. 11, p. 18). There is no frequency of flooding or ponding in the HarC soil series, with the available water storage in the profile being low at about 5.0 inches (Ref. 11, p. 18). Minor components of the StDC soil series are the Newalla, and Harrah series (Ref. 11, pp. 18-19). The soil series making up of the lower western, southern and the majority of the eastern property boundary is the Littleaxe fine sandy loam (LitB) (Ref. 11, pp. 9 & 11). The typical profile of the LitB soil series is fine sandy loam from ground surface to approximately 9 inches bgs, sandy clay loam from 9 to 36 inches bgs, fine sandy loam from 36 to 43 inches bgs, and bedrock from 43 to 53 inches bgs (Ref. 11, p. 15). Slope characteristics of the LitB soil series is 1 to 3 percent and is well drained, with depth to restrictive features between 40 to 52 inches to a weathered layer of bedrock (Ref. 11, p. 15). The capacity of the most limiting layer of the LitB soil series to transmit water is moderate low, at between 0.04 to 0.20 inches/hour, and depth to the water table being more than 80 inches (Ref. 11, p. 16). There is no frequency of flooding or ponding in the LitB soil series, with the available water storage in the profile being moderate at about 6.7 inches (Ref. 11, p. 15). Minor components of the LitB soil series are the Stephenville and Newalla series (Ref. 11, p. 15). The soil series encompassing a small polygonal section along the north-eastern corner of the property boundary is the Littleaxe-Urban land complex (LtUC) (Ref. 11, pp. 9 &11). The typical profile of the LtUC soil series is fine sandy loam from ground surface to approximately 11 inches bgs, sandy clay loam from 11 to 44 inches bgs, and bedrock from 44 to 54 inches bgs (Ref. 11, p. 16). Slope characteristics of the LtUC soil series is 3 to 5 percent and is well drained, with depth to restrictive 59 Ground Water Migration Pathway General Considerations features between 40 to 60 inches to a weathered layer of bedrock (Ref. 11, p. 16). The capacity of the most limiting layer of the LtUC soil series to transmit water is moderate high to high, at between 0.20 to 2.00 inches/hour, and depth to the water table being more than 80 inches (Ref. 11, p. 16). There is no frequency of flooding or ponding in the LtUC soil series, with the available water storage in the profile being low at about 6.0 inches (Ref. 11, p. 16). There are no minor components to the LtUC soil series (Ref. 11, p. 17). During the EPA RCRA/ODEQ Field Sampling activity conducted in August/September 2010, six (6) geotechnical soil borings were collected and four (4) monitoring wells were installed at the Eagle facility (Ref. 6, pp. 7-9, 11-13, & 16). Site-specific geology was obtained from the six geotechnical soil borings and from the soil borings collected from the installation of the monitoring wells. According to the ODEQ well completion report for the six geotechnical soil borings, the site-specific lithology consisted of red top soil from 0 to 1 foot below grade and from 1 to 10 feet below ground surface (Ref. 6, pp. 113-114). The six geotechnical soil borings were collected from the area where the remaining contaminated soil existed (north of and adjacent to the Eagle Building) (Ref. 6, p. 16). The site-specific lithology can also be obtained from the four installed monitoring wells. The details of each monitoring well and the specific site lithology for each well are described below: • Monitoring Well-1: located in the southern section of the site, near W. 29th Street (35.43549°N, -97.33769°W) had a total depth of 65 feet and the screened interval was set from 45 feet to 65 feet below ground surface (bgs) (Ref. 6, pp. 16, 83, 94-96 and 105-106). The lithology is described as shale from 0 to 20 feet bgs; and sandstone and shale mix from 20 feet to 65 feet bgs (Ref. 6, pp. 105-106). • Monitoring Well-2: was located in the former soil excavation area (35.43590°W, and 97.33769°W) had a total depth of 50 feet, and the screened interval was set from 30 to 50 feet bgs (Ref. 6, pp.16, 83, 97-98 and 107-108). The lithology is described as fill from 0 to 5 feet bgs; shale from 5 to 15 feet bgs; and sandstone from 15 to 50 feet bgs (Ref. 6, pp. 107-108). • Monitoring Well-3: was located near the northwest corner of the concrete parking lot (35.43594°N, and -97.33791°W) had a total depth of 48 feet, and the screened interval was set at 28 to 48 feet bgs (Ref. 6, pp. 16, 83, 99-101, and 109-110). The lithology is described as soil from 0 to 2 feet bgs; sandy clay from 2 to 5 feet bgs; red sand with clay from 5 to 35 feet bgs; and red sandstone from 35 to 48 feet bgs (Ref. 6, pp. 109-110). • Monitoring Well-4: was located west of the former Storm Water Runoff Pond and east the small metal shed (35.43628°N, and -97.33773°W) had a total depth of 35 feet, and the screened interval was set at 15 to 35 feet bgs (Ref. 6, pp. 16, 83, 102-103, and 111-112). The lithology is described as top soil from 0 to 2 feet bgs; silty sand from 2 to 7 feet bgs; red sand with silt from 7 to 11.5 feet bgs; red clay from 11.5 to 15 feet bgs; red sandstone from 15 to 24 feet bgs; and red shale from 24 to 35 feet bgs (Ref. 6, pp. 111-112). Site Aquifer Description The Garber Formation underlies the Eagle Industries site (Ref. 8, pp. 16 & 119; Ref. 12, pp. 2-4). The Garber is deposited in a fluvial deltaic system (Ref. 12, p. 2). The lithology of the Garber is complex, consisting of lenticular beds of fine-grained, cross-bedded sandstone interbedded with siltstone and mudstone (Ref. 12, p. 2). The Garber is sandstone, mostly fine-grained to less commonly very fine to medium-fine-grained; appears to be very fine grained near base; moderate reddish brown, moderate 60 Ground Water Migration Pathway General Considerations reddish orange, moderate red, light brown, and dark yellowish orange; minor siltstone, shale, and siltstone pebble-conglomerate (Ref. 8, pp. 16 & 119; Ref. 12, p. 2). The sandstone is typically porous and friable (Ref. 8, pp. 16 & 119; Ref. 12, p. 2). Thickness is about 1,300 feet (Ref. 12, pp. 2 & 4). The depth to the base of the fresh water is approximately 900 feet in this area (Ref. 12, pp. 2 & 4). The chemical quality of the Garber ground water is generally good (Ref. 12, p. 1). Many wells in the area yield 150-300 gallons per minute (Ref. 8, pp. 16 & 119; Ref. 12, p. 2). The site is in the recharge area for the Garber Wellington Formation (Ref. 8, pp. 16 & 119; Ref. 12, pp. 1 & 3). The Garber Wellington Formation is a major source of ground water in Central Oklahoma (Ref. 8, pp. 16 & 119; Ref. 12, p. 2). The Eagle Industries site area includes outcrops of the aquifer and overlying porous and permeable rocks hydraulically connected with the aquifer (Ref. 8, pp. 16 & 119; Ref. 12, pp. 2 & 4). The site is in the boundaries of the Central Oklahoma (Garber-Wellington) aquifer (Ref. 8, pp. 16 & 119; Ref. 12, pp. 2-4). The aquifer underlies about 3,000 square miles of central Oklahoma (Ref. 8, pp. 16 & 119; Ref. 12, pp. 2-3). The aquifer is extensively used for municipal, industrial, commercial, and domestic water supplies (Ref. 8, pp. 16 & 119; Ref. 12, p. 2). The ground water in the aquifer starts as recharge from precipitation and circulates in alluvium and terrace deposits along major streams; in the Garber Sandstone and Wellington Formation; and in the Chase, Council Grove, and Admire Groups (ref. 8, pp. 16 & 119; Ref. 12, pp. 2& 4). Most deep wells in central Oklahoma are drilled in the Garber and Wellington (Ref. 8, pp. 16 & 119; Ref. 12, pp. 2 & 8-15). According to a geologic cross section of the Oklahoma City/Midwest City area, the Eagle facility is situated on the Central Oklahoma Aquifer, which consists of the Garber Sandstone and Wellington Formation, unconsolidated (Ref. 12, p. 4; Ref. 14, p. 24). Aquifer 1 – Central Oklahoma The Central Oklahoma aquifer consists of consolidated Permian-age Garber Sandstone and Wellington Formation and Chase, Council Grove, and Admire Groups that dip to the west at about 50 feet per mile (Ref. 13, p. 2). The Garber Sandstone and Wellington Formation have similar lithologies and consist of lenticular beds of fine-grained, cross-bedded sandstone interbedded with siltstone and mudstone (Ref. 13, p. 2). The Chase, Council Grove, and Admire Groups consist of fine-grained, cross-bedded sandstone, shale, and thin limestone (Ref. 13, p. 2). Overlying these bedrock units are Quaternary-age unconsolidated alluvial and terrace deposits along streams (Ref. 13, p. 2). The Quaternary-age alluvial and terrace deposits along the streams are in contact with the Central Oklahoma aquifer (Ref. 13, p. 2). Yields in the Garber Sandstone and Wellington Formation generally range from 50 to 300 gallons per minute (Ref. 13, p. 2). Chase, Council Grove, and Admire Groups typically yield 25 to 50 gallons per minute (Ref. 13, p. 2). Yields from the alluvial and terrace deposits are typically higher than the bedrock units and are commonly greater than 300 gallons per minute (Ref. 13, p. 2). The Central Oklahoma aquifer also is commonly referred to as the “Garber-Wellington aquifer” because most deep wells in central Oklahoma are completed in the Garber Sandstone and Wellington Formations (Ref. 13, p. 2). A potentiometric surface is defined as the level to which water will rise in tightly cased wells (Ref. 13, p. 2). An aquifer with substantial vertical flow can have multiple potentiometric surfaces (Ref. 13, p. 2). The potentiometric surface in this report approximates only the upper zone of saturation in the Central 61 Ground Water Migration Pathway General Considerations Oklahoma aquifer, sometimes referred to as the water table (Ref. 13, p. 2). Most of these wells are used for domestic supply and are completed in the different geologic units in the Central Oklahoma aquifer including the alluvial and terrace deposits (Ref. 13, p. 2). The highest water-level altitudes are in the western part of the aquifer and the lowest water-level altitudes are where the Cimarron River flows beyond the extent of the aquifer (Ref. 13, p. 2). The general slope of the potentiometric surface is westto-east (Ref. 13, p. 2). Ground water flows perpendicular to potentiometric contour lines from high potentiometric altitude to low potentiometric altitude (Ref. 13, p. 2). The west-to-east slope of the potentiometric surface indicates that the regional trend in shallow ground water flow is from west to east (Ref. 13, p. 2). The potentiometric surface slopes steeply toward the Deep Fork River in Oklahoma County, with the potentiometric contour lines forming approximate “V” patterns that point upstream along the Deep Fork River, indicating the Deep Fork River acts as a drain for the ground water-flow system (Ref. 13, p. 2). The potentiometric contour lines show a similar pattern along the North Canadian River, but only in the eastern part of the area (Ref. 13, p. 2). The ground water environment at the Eagle Industries site appears to be located on a potentiometric high with regional ground water flow primarily to the southeast (Ref. 24, p. 6). Recharge in the Central Oklahoma aquifer can be inferred to exist from two main processes: the infiltration of streamflow through stream channels and lake beds, and infiltration of precipitation through the unsaturated zone above the aquifer (Ref. 14, p. 56). The saturated thickness of the Central Oklahoma aquifer in the eastern part of the aquifer in Lincoln and Pottawatomie counties is relatively thin, 200–300 feet, related to the thinner geologic units in that area that are caused by the dip of the formations and erosion (Ref. 14, pp. 33-35). The thickest zone of saturation is about 1,000 feet located near 35° 50ʹ latitude and 97° 23ʹ longitude (near Tinker Air Force Base) along the extent of the Hennessey Group confining unit that allows freshwater recharge just to the east of the Hennessey Group extent and coincides with the deepest part of the base of freshwater and the areas of higher percent sand in the aquifer (Ref. 14, pp. 34 & 36). The saturated thickness near 35° 50ʹ latitude and 97° 05ʹ longitude in another relatively thick part of the aquifer in northwest Lincoln County is about 800 feet (Ref. 14, p. 36). The Central Oklahoma aquifer provides water for public-water supply, irrigation, commercial, industrial, recreation, fish, wildlife, and domestic uses (Ref. 14, p. 42). The Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB) regulates the use of water from the aquifer with the exception of domestic use, which can be defined as water use of less than five acre-feet/year for domestic (self-supplied) and agricultural purposes, or water use for irrigation on land not exceeding three acres (Ref. 14, p. 42). Aquifer Interconnections The hydrogeologic framework of the Central Oklahoma aquifer includes sandstones, siltstones, and mudstones (Ref. 14, p. 65). The distribution and variability of mudstones interbedded with sandstones and siltstones are considered to be the major control on ground water flow in the aquifer as there were no known major structural or karst features in the aquifer that might substantially affect ground water flow (Ref. 14, p. 50). The lower external boundary of the Central Oklahoma aquifer is defined as either the contact between the Chase, Council Grove, and Admire Groups (undifferentiated), a confining unit, and the Vanoss Formation or the depth of the base of freshwater (< 5,000 mg/L dissolved solids) (Ref. 14, p. 72). 62 Ground Water Migration Pathway General Considerations Aquifer Discontinuities and Faults There are no discontinuities that physically transect the entire aquifer within the site’s 4-mile total distance limit (TDL). The Central Oklahoma aquifer extends to land surface with a potentiometric surface below the top of the Central Oklahoma aquifer, the ground water system acts as a confined system due to laterally extensive interbedded mudstone and large contrasts in vertical hydraulic conductivity (Ref. 14, p. 97). 63 Ground Water Migration Pathway Likelihood of Release 3.1 LIKELIHOOD OF RELEASE 3.1.1 OBSERVED RELEASE Based on the geology and hydrogeology located beneath Eagle Industries, the water bearing strata extends to land surface with a potentiometric surface below the top of the Central Oklahoma aquifer, with the ground water system acting as a confined system due to laterally extensive interbedded mudstone and large contrasts in vertical hydraulic conductivity, and form a single hydrologic unit for HRS scoring purposes (Ref. 14, p. 97; Ref. 1, Section 3.0.1.2; see section 3.0.1 of this HRS documentation record). An observed release can be established for the target aquifer that supplies drinking water, the Central Oklahoma aquifer system, by analysis of ground water samples from the aquifer (Ref 1, Section 3.1.1). Ground Water Observed Release Factor Value: 550 Observed Release to the Aquifer 3.1.1.1 August 30 through September 2, 2010 Sampling Event From August 30 through September 2, 2010, ground water from monitoring wells and residential wells were sampled to identify and evaluate potential environmental impacts associated with historic operations at Eagle Industries (Ref. 6, p. 5). Ground water monitoring wells were sampled at the Eagle Industries facility using a submersible pump and the low-flow sampling technique. Prior to collection, the wells were purged until ground water parameters stabilized (Ref. 6, p. 8). For all ground water samples the following parameters were measured prior to sampling: static water level (SWL), pH, temperature, turbidity, specific conductance, oxidation-reduction potential (ORP), and dissolved oxygen (DO) (Ref. 6, p. 8). Ground water samples were collected and analyzed for VOCs (Ref. 6, p. 8). Additionally, ground water from off-site residential wells near the Eagle Industries site were collected during the investigation and also analyzed for VOCs (Ref. 6, p. 8). All ground water samples were analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by EPA method 8260 (Ref. 6, p. 6). The ground water sampling locations identified below were sampled during the August 30 through September 2, 2010 sampling event by the Booz Allen Hamilton (Ref. 6, p. 5). Ground water samples were collected by Booz Allen Hamilton from four new monitoring wells and one existing well, and ground water samples were collected from seven residential wells, located on and near the Eagle Industries facility (Ref. 6, pp. 5, 16 & 18). A ground water sample collected during the August 30 - September 2, 2010 sampling event was used as a background sample. The background sample was collected from Residential Well (RW)-7, which had a total depth of 16 feet (Ref. 6, p. 79). The background sample (RW-7) was of the same media, was collected during the same sampling event, and was analyzed with the same analytical methods as the other ground water samples collected from wells, MW-1, MW-2, MW-3, MW-5 (DEQ-1), and RW-1 (Ref. 6, pp. 5, 8, 11-12). The background ground water sample GW-RW-7-001 was collected off-site, north of the former Eagle Industries facility (Ref. 6, p .18). MW-1 has a total depth 65 feet and lithology consisting of shale and sandstone/shale mix (Ref. 6, pp. 105-106). MW-2 has a total depth of 50 feet and lithologies consisting of fill material, shale, and sandstone (Ref. 6, pp. 107-108). MW-3 has 64 Ground Water Migration Pathway Likelihood of Release a total depth of 48 feet and lithology consisting of top soil, sandy clay, red sand with clay, and red sandstone (Ref. 6, pp. 109-110). MW-5 (DEQ-1) has a total depth of 44.4 feet (Ref. 6, p. 60). Table 8 – August 30 - September 2, 2010 Sampling Event – Background Sample Station ID/Sample Location/Laboratory ID Depth to Water (feet) / Well Depth (feet bgs) Date (military time) GW-RW7-001/ RW-7/ 1009006-03 NA / 16 08/31/2010 (1045) References Ref. 6, pp. 11, 79 & 128; Ref. 12, pp. 2-4; Ref. 14, pp. 16, 18, 23-25, 42, & 71 Table 9 – Background Water Sample August 30 - September 2, 2010 Sampling Event Hazardous Substance cis-1,2Dichloroethene Trichloroethylene T Evidence Client Sample C Location RW-7 RL (µg/L) ( 2.0 RW-7 2.0 Concentration References (µg/L) Ref. 6, pp. 120, 125-126, 128, 192, 275-276 U U Ref. 6, pp. 120, 125-126, 128, 192, 275-276 Note: RL – Reporting Limit µg/L – Concentration microgram per liter U - Undetected The wells that meet observed release criteria during the August 30 through September 2, 2010 sampling event are presented below and their locations are shown on Figure 2 of this HRS documentation record. Table 10 – August 30 - September 2, 2010 Sampling Event – Observed Release Samples Station ID/Sample Location/Laboratory ID Depth to Water (feet) / Well Depth (feet bgs) GW-MW1-001/ MW-1/ 1009018-01 41.1 / 64.71 GW-MW2-001/ MW-2/ 1009018-10 35.0 / 50.0 GW-MW3-001/ MW-3/ 1009018-06 31.5 / 47.8 Date (military time) 09/02/2010 (1030) 09/01/2010 (1530) 09/01/2010 (1005) References Ref. 6, pp. 7, 12, 65 & 129 Ref. 6, pp. 7, 12, 73 & 129 Ref. 6, pp. 7, 12, 63 & 129 65 Ground Water Migration Pathway Likelihood of Release Station ID/Sample Location/Laboratory ID Depth to Water (feet) / Well Depth (feet bgs) GW-MW5-001/ DEQ-1/ 1009018-11 29.0 / 44.4 GW-RW-1-001/ RW-1/ 1008058-10 NA Date (military time) 09/01/2010 (1545) 08/30/2010 (1600) References Ref. 6, pp. 7, 12, 60 & 129 Ref. 6, pp. 11, 59 & 128 The background level established and the level to show a significant increase for DCE and TCE is 2.0 µg /L (see Table 2 & 4 of this HRS documentation record). Ground water samples identified below are those meeting HRS observed release by chemical analysis criteria as defined by the HRS (Ref. 1, Section 2.3, Table 2-3). Observed release criteria is met when analytical evidence of a hazardous substance significantly above background exists and some portion of that increase is attributable to a release from the site. Hazardous Substance cis-1,2-Dichloroethene Trichloroethylene cis-1,2-Dichloroethene Trichloroethylene Trichloroethylene cis-1,2-Dichloroethene Trichloroethylene cis-1,2-Dichloroethene Trichloroethylene Table 11 – Ground Water Observed Release Samples August 30 - September 2, 2010 Sampling Event Evidence Client Sample RL Concentration References Location (µg/L) (µg/L) Ref. 6, pp. 122, 125-127, 129, MW1 2.0 7.5 L* 208, 232-274, 279 MW1 Ref. 6, pp. 122, 125-127,129, 208, 2.0 103 232-274, 279 MW2 2.0 6.9 L* Ref. 6, pp. 121, 125-127, 129, 226, 232-274, 278 Ref. 6, pp. 121, 125-127, 129, 226, MW2 2.0 38.4 232-274, 278 Ref. 6, pp. 121, 125-127, 129, 218, MW3 40.0 987 232-274, 278 Ref. 6, pp. 121, 125-127, 129, 228, DEQ-1 2.0 2.3 L* 232-274, 278 Ref. 6, pp. 121, 125-127, 129, 228, DEQ-1 2.0 58.7 232-274, 278 Ref. 6, pp. 119, 125-127, 129, 148, RW-1 2.0 2.4 232-274, 275 Ref. 6, pp. 119, 125-127, 129, 148, RW-1 2.0 29.4 232-274, 275 Note: RL – Reporting Limit µg/L – Concentration microgram per liter L - The identification of the analyte is acceptable; the reported value may be biased low. The actual value is expected to be greater than the reported value. * - The detected concentration was evaluated per the EPA fact Sheet "Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination" (Ref. 19, p. 9). Per the guidance document, the adjusted value adjustment is not necessary. 66 Ground Water Migration Pathway Likelihood of Release 3.1.1.2 April 2011 SI Sampling During the Site Investigation (SI) performed in April 15, 2011 ground water samples were collected from five monitoring wells on-site and one on-site residential well (Ref. 8, p. 19). Samples were analyzed for volatile organic compounds by Oklahoma State Environmental Laboratory (SEL) utilizing EPA Method 8260B (Ref. 8, pp. 18 and 142-164; Ref. 20, p. 9). Ground water samples collected by ODEQ were preserved, processed and analyzed according to the SI Sampling and Analysis Plan for Eagle Industries Site (Ref. 8, p. 38; Ref. 20, pp. 5-11). The wells that meet observed release criteria are presented below and their locations are shown on Figure 2 of this HRS documentation record. A ground water sample collected during the April 15, 2011 SI Sampling Event was used as a background sample. The background sample was collected from MW-4, which had a total depth of 35 feet (Ref. 6, pp. 7 & 111). The background sample was of the same media, was collected during the same sampling event, and was analyzed with the same analytical methods as the other ground water samples. The background ground water sample GW-04 was collected on-site, east of the shed located on the northwest edge of the Eagle Industries property at global positioning system locations 35.43628’ N, 97.33773’ E (Ref. 8, pp. 18 & 28). For the release wells, MW-1 has a total depth 65 feet and lithology consisting of shale and sandstone/shale mix (Ref. 6, pp. 105-106). MW-2 has a total depth of 50 feet and a lithology consisting of fill material, shale, and sandstone (Ref. 6, pp. 107-108). MW-3 has a total depth of 48 feet and lithology consisting of top soil, sandy clay, red sand with clay, and red sandstone (Ref. 6, pp. 109-110). MW-5 (DEQ-1) has a total depth of 44.4 feet (Ref. 6, p. 60). These wells are situated in the Garber-Wellington Aquifer (Ref. 12, p. 2). Table 12 – April 15, 2011 SI Sampling Event – Background Sample Station ID/Sample Location/Laboratory ID Depth to Water (feet) / Well Depth (feet bgs) Date (military time) GW-04/ MW-4/ 501884 20.0/ 35.0 04/15/2011 (1203) References Ref. 6, p. 7; Ref. 8, pp. 18 & 151 Table 13 – Background Water Sample April 15, 2011 SI Sampling Event Evidence Hazardous Substance Client Sample Location cis-1,2-Dichloroethene Trichloroethylene MW-4 MW-4 RL Concentration References (µg/L) (µg/L) Ref. 8, pp. 151 & 175 10.0 < 10.0 Ref. 8, pp. 151 & 175 10.0 < 10.0 Note: RL – Reporting Limit µg/L – Concentration microgram per liter 67 Ground Water Migration Pathway Likelihood of Release Table 14 – April 15, 2011 SI Sampling Event – Observed Release Samples Station ID/Sample Location/Laboratory ID Depth to Water (feet) / Well Depth (feet bgs) Date (military time) GW-01/ MW-1/ 501881 41.1 / 64.71 4/15/2011 (1112) Ref. 6, pp. 7 & 65; Ref. 8, pp. 18, 142, & 175 GW-02/ MW-2/ 501883 35.0 / 50.0 4/15/2011 (1154) Ref. 6, pp. 7 & 73; Ref. 8, pp. 18, 145, & 175 GW-03/ MW-3/ 501882 31.5 / 47.8 4/15/2011 (1140) Ref. 6, pp. 7 & 63; Ref. 8, pp. 18, 148, & 175 GW-06/ DEQ-1/ 501886 29.0 / 44.4 4/15/2011 (1227) Ref. 6, pp. 7 & 60; Ref. 8, pp. 18, 157, & 175 RW-01/ RW-1/ 501888 NA / NA 4/15/2011 (1255) Ref. 8, pp. 18, 163, & 175 References The background level established and the level to show a significant increase for DCE and TCE is 10.0 µg/L (see Table 6 & 8 of this HRS documentation record). Ground water samples identified below are those meeting HRS observed release by chemical analysis criteria as defined by the HRS (Ref. 1, Section 2.3, Table 2-3). Observed release criteria is met when analytical evidence of a hazardous substance significantly above background exists and some portion of that increase is attributable to a release from the site. Table 15 – Ground Water Observed Release Samples April 15, 2011 SI Sampling Event Evidence Hazardous Substance Client Sample Location Trichloroethylene Trichloroethylene cis-1,2-Dichloroethene Trichloroethylene Trichloroethylene Trichloroethylene MW-01 MW-02 MW-02 MW-03 DEQ-1 RW-01 RL (µg/L) 10.0 10.0 10.0 200.0 10.0 10.0 Concentration (µg/L) 100.0 77.0 21.0 2020.0 30.0 32.0 References Ref. 8, p. 142 & 175 Ref. 8, p. 145 & 175 Ref. 8, p. 146 & 175 Ref. 8, p. 148 & 175 Ref. 8, p. 157 & 175 Ref. 8, p. 163 & 175 Note: RL – Reporting Limit µg/L – Concentration microgram per liter 68 Ground Water Migration Pathway Likelihood of Release 3.1.1.3 May 2013 ESI Sampling Event During the Expanded Site Investigation (ESI) performed in May 2013 ground water samples were collected from six on-site monitoring wells, two off-site monitoring wells, one off-site residential well, and two off-site business wells. Samples were analyzed for volatile organic compounds by the State Environmental Lab (SEL) in Oklahoma City utilizing the following methods: All monitoring well samples were analyzed by EPA Method 8260 (Ref. 7, p. 17); all residential and business well samples were analyzed by EPA Method 524.3 (Ref. 7, p. 17). Ground water samples collected by ODEQ were preserved, processed and analyzed according to the ESI Updated Sampling and Analysis Plan for Eagle Industries Site (Ref. 7, p. 428; Ref. 21, pp. 9-11). A monitoring well (MW-4) and a business well (BW-1) sampled for ground water during the May 2013 ESI sampling event were used as representative background samples (GW-05 and BW-1, respectively). The background sample collected from MW-4 (GW-05) had a total depth of 35 feet (Ref. 6, pp. 7 & 111). The monitor well background ground water sample GW-05 (MW-4) was collected on-site, east of the shed located on the northwest edge of the Eagle Industries property at global positioning system locations 35.43628’ N, -97.33773° W (Ref. 8, pp. 18 & 28). The business well, BW-1, is reportedly 125 feet in depth (Ref. 7, p. 482). The business well background ground water sample BW-1 was collected off-site, east of Eagle Industries property at address location 10975 S.E. 29th, Midwest City, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma (Ref. 7, p. 17). The background samples were of the same media, were collected during the same sampling event, and were analyzed with the same analytical methods as the other ground water samples. For the release wells, MW-1 has a total depth 65 feet and lithology consisting of shale and sandstone/shale mix (Ref. 6, pp. 105-106). MW-2 has a total depth of 50 feet and lithologies consisting of fill material, shale, and sandstone (Ref. 6, pp. 107-108). MW-3 has a total depth of 48 feet and lithology consisting of top soil, sandy clay, red sand with clay, and red sandstone (Ref. 6, pp. 109110). MW-5 (DEQ-1) has a total depth of 44.4 feet (Ref. 6, p. 60) and monitoring well DEQ-2 has a total depth of 50 feet with a screened interval from 30 to 50 feet bgs (Ref. 7, pp. 475-476). These wells are situated in the Garber-Wellington Aquifer (Ref. 12, p. 2). Table 16 – May 2013 ESI Sampling Event – Background Sample Station ID/Sample Location/Laboratory ID Depth to Water (feet) / Well Depth (feet bgs) Date (military time) GW-05/ MW-4/ 529272 25.96 / 35.0 05/23/2013 (1240) Ref. 6, p. 7 & 111; Ref. 7, pp. 17, 435 & 484 BW-01 / BW-1/ 029657.002 NA / 125 05/22/2013 (1000) Ref. 7, pp. 17, 429 & 482 References 69 Ground Water Migration Pathway Likelihood of Release Table 17 – Background Water Sample May 2013 ESI Sampling Event Evidence Hazardous Client Sample RL Concentration References Substance Location (µg/L) (µg/L) cis-1,2-Dichloroethene MW-4 10.0 < 10.0 J*, QCF Ref. 7, p. 435 & 444; Ref. 45, p. 41 (< 10.0) MW-4 Ref. 7, p. 435 & 443; Ref. 45, Trichloroethylene 10.0 < 10.0 p. 41 BW-1 Ref. 7, p. 429 & 432; Ref. 45, Trichloroethylene 0.5 < 0.5 p. 41 Note: RL – Reporting Limit µg/L – Concentration microgram per liter QCF – Quality Control Failure (Ref. 7, pp. 456, and 459) * - The detected concentration was evaluated per the EPA fact Sheet "Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination" (Ref. 19, p. 8). Per the guidance document, the adjusted value adjustment is not necessary. Table 18 – May 2013 ESI Sampling Event – Observed Release Samples Station ID/Sample Location/Laboratory ID Depth to Water (feet) / Well Depth (feet bgs) Date (military time) GW-01/ MW-1/ 529277 46.15 / 61.5 Ref. 6, pp. 7 & 65; Ref. 7, pp. 17, 435, 481, 486 GW-03/ MW-2/ 529276 42.4 / 50.0 GW-04/ MW-3/ 529278 42.93 / 47.8 GW-06/ DEQ-1/ 529274 37.57 / 44.4 GW-07/ DEQ-2/ 529273 39.34 / 50.0 GW-08/ DEQ-3/ 529271 46.56 / 60 05/23/2013 (1317) 05/23/2013 (1305) 05/23/2013 (1325) 05/23/2013 (1300) 05/23/2013 (1247) 05/23/2013 (1225) RW-02/ RW-2*/ 029657.001 NA/ NA 05/22/2013 (0907) Ref. 7, pp. 17, 429 & 432 References Ref. 6, pp. 7 & 73; Ref. 7, pp. 17-18, 435, 480 Ref. 6, pp. 7 & 63; Ref. 7, pp. 17-18, 435, 480 Ref. 6, pp. 7 & 60; Ref. 7, pp. 17-18, 435, 480 Ref. 7, pp. 17-18, 435, 480 Ref. 7, pp. 17-18, 435, 481 Note:* = RW-2/RW-02 is associated with 10800 S.E. 29th Street 70 Ground Water Migration Pathway Likelihood of Release The wells that meet observed release criteria are presented below and their locations are shown on Figure 2 of this HRS documentation record. The background level established for the monitoring wells and the level to show a significant increase for DCE and TCE is 10.0 µg/L for monitoring wells (see Table 10 & 12 of this HRS documentation record). The background level established for the residential and business wells and the level to show a significant increase for trichloroethylene is 0.5 µg/L (see Table 10 & 12 of this HRS documentation record). Ground water samples identified below are those meeting HRS observed release by chemical analysis criteria as defined by the HRS (Ref. 1, Section 2.3, Table 2-3). Observed release criteria is met when analytical evidence of a hazardous substance significantly above background exists and some portion of that increase is attributable to a release from the site. Table 19 – Ground Water Observed Release Samples May 2013 ESI Sampling Event Evidence Hazardous Substance Trichloroethylene Client Sample RL Location (µg/L) MW-2 10.0 Concentration (µg/L) 90.4 Trichloroethylene MW-3 10.0 170 Trichloroethylene DEQ-1 10.0 29.5 Trichloroethylene DEQ-2 10.0 88.1 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene DEQ-3 10.0 Trichloroethylene RW-2 0.5 175 J, QCF (17.5*) 8.4 References Ref. 7, p. 435 & 455; Ref. 45, p. 41 Ref. 7, p. 435 & 461; Ref. 45, p. 41 Ref. 7, p. 435 & 449; Ref. 45, p. 41 Ref. 7, p. 435 & 446; Ref. 45, p. 41 Ref. 7, p. 435 & 440; Ref. 19, pp. 9 & 12; Ref. 45, p. 41 Ref. 7, p. 429 & 431; Ref. 45, p. 41 Note: RL – Reporting Limit µg/L – Concentration microgram per liter J – The associated value is an estimated concentration QCF – Quality Control Failure (Ref. 7, pp. 456, and 459) * - The detected concentration was evaluated and adjusted per the EPA fact sheet “Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination” (Ref. 19, pp. 9 & 12. The value presented in parentheses is the adjusted value. 3.1.1.4 February through March 2016 Sampling Event During the monitoring and residential well sampling event for February through March 2016 ground water samples were collected from a total of seven residential and monitoring wells for laboratory analysis, as well as the interpretation of the analytical results to evaluate migration of chemicals of concern (COCs) (Ref. 22, p. 5). All water samples were collected with sampling equipment dedicated to the individual sampling point (Ref. 23, p. 7). The ODEQ sampling team members wore disposable nitrile gloves as part of their personal protection equipment during the collection of samples (Ref. 23, p. 7). To ensure that no cross contamination occurred from the gloves, after each sample has been sealed, the used gloves were discarded and new gloves were donned (Ref. 23, p. 7). The monitoring wells of 71 Ground Water Migration Pathway Likelihood of Release interest were sampled using passive diffusion bags (Ref. 23, p. 7). The passive diffusion bag sampler was assembled with a weighted line and the bags were deployed and secured in position (Ref. 23, p. 8). After the bags equilibrate, they were detached from the weighted lines and used to fill sample containers for analysis (Ref. 23, p. 8). Residential wells were sampled with tap sampling as described in the EPA Handbook for Sampling and Sampling Preservation of Water and Wastewater, under guidelines for representative samples (Ref. 23, p. 7). For tap sampling, faucets, from which the samples are to be collected, were opened and flushed for approximately 2-3 minutes (Ref. 23, p. 7). Once this was done, sample containers were filled for analysis (Ref. 23, p. 7). All monitoring well samples were analyzed for volatile organic contaminants by EPA Method 8260 and residential water samples by EPA Method 524.3 (Ref. 23, p. 7-8). A residential well ground water sample (RW-2) collected during the February through March 2016 sampling event was used as a background sample. The background residential well ground water sample RW-2 was collected off-site, east of Eagle Industries property at address location 10928 S.E. 29th Street, Midwest City, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma (Ref. 22, pp. 12 & 126; Figure 2B). The depth of RW-2 is not known. The residential well background sample was of the same media, was collected during the same sampling event, and was analyzed with the same analytical methods as the other residential well ground water samples. For the release wells, MW-1, which is located on-site and is correlated with sample number GW-1, has a total depth 65.30 feet and a depth to water reading of 44.32 feet bgs (Ref. 22, pp. 9, 12, & 124; Figures 2B). The lithology of MW-1consists of shale and sandstone/shale mix (Ref. 6, pp. 105-106). An installed ODEQ monitoring well designated as DEQ-3, which is located off-site and west of the Eagle facility, is correlated with sample number GW-7 (Ref. 22, pp. 9, 12, 37 & 124; Figure 2B). Well DEQ-3 has a total depth of 58.2 feet and a depth to water reading of 44.68 feet bgs (Ref. 22, p. 124). An installed ODEQ monitoring well designated as DEQ-4, which is located off-site and south of S.E. 29th Street, is correlated with sample number GW-8 (Ref. 22, pp. 9, 12, 33, & 125; Figure 2B). ODEQ monitoring well DEQ-4 has a total depth of 59.8 feet and a depth to water reading of 44.15 feet bgs (Ref. 22, p. 46). Residential water well, RW-5, which is located off-site and southwest of the Eagle facility, is correlated with sample number RW-5 (Ref. 22, p. 7, 12, 14, & 126). Residential water well, RW-5/sample number RW-5, is located at 10830 S.E. 29th Street, which is the location of the Davis Paint and Collision facility (Ref. 22, pp. 12 & 14; Ref. 42, p. 4; Figure 2B). The total depth, depth to water and lithology of geologic materials are not known as a well log for this residential water well has not been obtained. Residential water well, RW-6/sample number RW-6, is located at 3031 Westminster Road (Ref. 22, pp. 7, 12, 14, & 125; Figure 2B). The total depth, depth to water and lithology of geologic materials are not known as a well log for this residential water well has not been obtained. Based on available geological data, these wells are situated in the Garber-Wellington Aquifer (Ref. 12, p. 2). 72 Ground Water Migration Pathway Likelihood of Release Table 20 – February-March 2016 Sampling Event – Background Sample Station ID/Sample Location/Laboratory ID Depth to Water (feet) / Well Depth (feet bgs) Date (military time) GW-10 / RW-2**/ 068748.003 NA / NA 02/24/2016 (1105) References Ref. 22, pp. 12, 14 & 126; Ref. 23, p. 11 Note: ** = For this sampling event, GW-10/RW-2 is located at 10928 S.E. 29th Street Table 21 – Background Water Sample February-March 2016 Sampling Event Evidence Hazardous Substance Trichloroethylene Client Sample Location RW-2** RL (µg/L) 0.5 Concentration References (µg/L) Ref. 22, p. 18; Ref. 41, pp. 2-4; < 0.5 Ref. 43, p. 46 Note: ** - GW-10/RW-2 is located at 10928 S.E. 29th Street RL – Reporting Limit µg/L – Concentration microgram per liter Table 22 – February-March 2016 Sampling Event – Observed Release Samples Station ID/Sample Location/Laboratory ID Depth to Water (feet) / Well Depth (feet bgs) GW-1 / MW-1/ 547891 44.32 / 65.30 GW-7 / DEQ-3/ 547892 44.68 / 58.2 GW- 8 / DEQ-4/ 547893 44.15 / 59.8 GW-12 / RW-5/ 068748.005 NA GW-13 / RW-6/ 068748.001 NA Date (military time) References 02/24/2016 (0930) 02/24/2016 (1043) 02/24/2016 (1056) 02/24/2016 (1135) 02/24/2016 (1043) Ref. 22, pp. 9, 12, 41, & 124; Ref. 23, p. 11 Ref. 22, pp. 9, 12, 37, & 124; Ref. 23, p. 11 Ref. 22, pp. 9, 12, 33, & 125; Ref. 23, p. 11 Ref. 22, pp. 7, 12, 20 & 126; Ref. 23, p. 8 Ref. 22, p. 14 & 125; Ref. 23, p. 8 73 Ground Water Migration Pathway Likelihood of Release The background level established and the level to show a significant increase for DCE and TCE is 10.0 µg/L for monitoring wells (see Table 14 & 16 of this HRS documentation record). For all hazardous substances the background level for residential wells to compare against is 0.5 µg/L. The background level established and the level to show a significant increase for trichloroethylene is 0.5 µg/L for business and residential wells (see Table 14 & 16 of this HRS documentation record). Ground water samples identified below are those meeting HRS observed release by chemical analysis criteria as defined by the HRS (Ref. 1, Section 2.3, Table 2-3). Observed release criteria is met when analytical evidence of a hazardous substance significantly above background exists and some portion of that increase is attributable to a release from the site. The wells that meet observed release criteria are presented below and their locations are shown on Figure 2 of this HRS documentation record. Table 23 – Ground Water Observed Release Samples February-March 2016 Sampling Event Evidence Hazardous Substance Client Sample Location MW-1 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene RL (µg/L) 10.0 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene DEQ-3 10.0 Trichloroethylene DEQ-4 10.0 Trichloroethylene RW-5 0.5 Trichloroethylene RW-6 0.5 Concentration References (µg/L) Ref. 22, p. 41; Ref. 41, pp. 2-4; 19.9 Ref. 43, p. 46 Ref. 22, p. 37; Ref. 41, pp. 2-4; 30.0 Ref. 43, p. 46 Ref. 22, p. 33; Ref. 41, pp. 2-4; 24.8 Ref. 43, p. 46 54.6 Ref. 22, p. 20; Ref. 41, pp. 2-4; Ref. 43, p. 46 Ref. 22, p. 16; Ref. 41, pp. 2-4; 0.8 Ref. 43, p. 46 Note: RL – Reporting Limit µg/L – Concentration microgram per liter MJ – The associated value is an estimate quantity at or below the MDL and reported at the request of the customer (Ref. 22, p. 42) * - The detected concentration was evaluated and adjusted per the EPA fact sheet “Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination” (Ref. 19, pp. 8 & 11. The value presented in parentheses is the adjusted value. 3.1.1.5 April-May 2016 Sampling Event During the residential well sampling event for April-May 2016, ground water samples were collected from a total of 15 residential wells for laboratory analysis, as well as the interpretation of the analytical results to evaluate migration of chemicals of concern (COCs) (Ref. 24, p. 4). Ground water samples were collected from the following residential water wells during the April/May 2016 sampling event: RW-5, RW-6, RW-8, RW-9, RW-10, RW-11, RW-13, RW-14, RW-15, RW-16, RW-17, RW-18, RW19, RW-20, and RW-21 (Ref. 24, p. 4). It should be noted that the sample collected from residential well, RW-5, was a resampling of a well at Davis Paint & Collision (automotive shop) located at 10830 S.E. 29th Street (Ref. 24, p. 5; Ref. 42, p. 4). The ground water sample collected from RW-5 was taken from a bathroom sink (Ref. 24, p. 12). Ground water sample number RW-8, collected from residential water well RW-8 was taken from a well that feeds three adjacent properties: 3030, 3200, and 3212 S. Nona Road (Ref. 24, p. 5; Figure 2B). All water samples were collected with sampling equipment 74 Ground Water Migration Pathway Likelihood of Release dedicated to the individual sampling point (Ref. 23, p. 7). The ODEQ sampling team members wore disposable nitrile gloves as part of their personal protection equipment during the collection of samples (Ref. 23, p. 7). To ensure that no cross contamination occurred from the gloves, after each sample has been sealed, the used gloves were discarded and new gloves were donned (Ref. 23, p. 7). Residential wells were sampled with tap sampling as described in the EPA Handbook for Sampling and Sampling Preservation of Water and Wastewater, under guidelines for representative samples (Ref. 23, p. 7). All residential well samples beside RW-5 and RW-6 were taken from outside faucets as close to the source well as possible (Ref. 24, p. 4). RW-6 was taken from the house’s kitchen sink, while RW-5 was taken from a bathroom sink (Ref. 24, p. 4). All water sources were allowed to run for between 3-5 minutes at high flow rates before reducing the flow to allow effective filling of each sample container (Ref. 24, p. 4). Sample bottles contained preservatives and were kept on ice before and after the samples were gathered (Ref. 24, p. 4). All residential water samples by EPA Method 524.3 (Ref. 23, p. 8). A residential well ground water sample (RW-9) collected during the April through May 2016 sampling event was used as a background sample. The background residential well ground water sample RW-09 was collected off-site, south of Eagle Industries property at address location 3205 S. Westminster, Midwest City, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma (Ref. 24, pp. 10, 15, & 225). The depth of residential well, RW-9, has not been ascertained due to the lack of an associated well log. The residential well background sample was of the same media, was collected during the same sampling event, and was analyzed with the same analytical methods as the other residential well ground water samples. Table 24 – April-May 2016 Sampling Event – Background Sample Station ID/Sample Location/Laboratory ID NA / RW-9/ LABP1027403-03 Hazardous Substance cis-1,2-Dichloroethene Trichloroethylene Depth to Water (feet) / Well Depth (feet bgs) Date (military time) NA / NA 04/14/2016 (1446) References Ref. 24, pp. 4, 11, 15, 17 & 225 Table 25 – Background Water Sample Results April-May 2016 Sampling Event Evidence Client Sample RL Concentration References Location (µg/L) (µg/L) RW-9 Ref. 24, pp. 15-17; Ref. 43, p. 0.5 < 0.5 46; Ref. 44, pp. 2-5 RW-9 Ref. 24, pp. 15-17; Ref. 43, p. 0.5 < 0.5 46; Ref. 44, pp. 2-5 Note: RL – Reporting Limit µg/L – Concentration microgram per liter < - less than 75 Ground Water Migration Pathway Likelihood of Release Table 26 – April-May 2016 Sampling Event – Observed Release Samples Station ID/Sample Location/Laboratory ID GW-12 / RW-5/ OTHR1026567-02 NA / RW-20/ OTHR1031198-03 Depth to Water (feet) / Well Depth (feet bgs) NA/ NA NA/ NA Date (military time) 04/12/2016 (1330) 04/25/2016 (1000) References Ref. 23, p. 11; Ref. 24, pp. 4, 12-13 Ref. 24, pp. 4, 34-35, 37 & 47 The background residential well ground water level established and the level to show a significant increase for DCE, and TCE is 0.5 µg/L (see Table 18 & 20 of this HRS documentation record). Ground water samples identified below are those meeting HRS observed release by chemical analysis criteria as defined by the HRS (Ref. 1, Section 2.3, Table 2-3). Observed release criteria is met when analytical evidence of a hazardous substance significantly above background exists and some portion of that increase is attributable to a release from the site. The wells that meet observed release criteria are presented below and their locations are shown on Figure 2 of this HRS documentation record. Table 27 – Ground Water Observed Release Samples April-May 2016 Sampling Event Evidence Hazardous Substance Trichloroethylene Trichloroethylene Client Sample RL Concentration References Location (µg/L) (µg/L) Ref. 23, pp. 11-12; Ref. 24, pp. 4, 6, RW-5 0.5 59.8 11- 13 & 225; Ref. 43, p. 46; Ref.44, pp. 2-4 0.5 Ref. 24, pp. 4, 11, 34-35, 37 & 22; RW-20 1.1 Ref. 43, p. 46; Ref. 44, pp. 2-5 Note: RL – Reporting Limit µg/L – Concentration microgram per liter J – The associated value is an estimated concentration (Ref. 24, p. 32) * - The detected concentration was evaluated and adjusted per the EPA fact sheet “Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination” (Ref. 19, pp. 9, 12, & 13). The value presented in parentheses is the adjusted value. 76 Ground Water Migration Pathway Likelihood of Release Attribution: The Eagle Industries (EI) facility encompasses 2.271 acres at 10901 S.E. 29th Street, Midwest City, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma (Ref. 4, p. 2; Ref. 5, p. 4). The EI facility was an aircraft parts repair and cleaning operation that used TCE as a solvent in the cleaning process, and was found by Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) to be violating Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations (Ref. 7, p. 8; Ref. 8, p. 9). EI has switched from using TCE to Tech Kleen AZE, in which the active ingredient is n-propyl bromide (Ref. 7, p. 20; Ref. 8, p. 2). The solvent TCE (trichloroethylene) has been found in ground water at the EI facility and downgradient of the facility, as well as in soils and a septic system at the facility (Ref. 7, p. 14). TCE’s daughter products of cis-1,2dicholoroethene (DCE) and vinyl chloride have been documented in soil borings at the site (Ref. 7, p. 19). Contaminants of concern (COCs) at the site are being scored are constituents associated with the previous aircraft parts repair and cleaning operation that used solvents in the cleaning process (Ref. 7, p. 8; Ref. 8, p. 9). The COCs at the site are CERCLA hazardous substances, and thus are subject to CERCLA response authority and responsibility. Previous site investigations documented TCE and its daughter products DCE and vinyl chloride as known or suspected constituents to have been released onsite (Ref. 7, p.19). Wastes managed at Eagle Industries consisted of TCE and its daughter products, and there is historical data indicating ODEQ found Eagle Industries to be violating RCRA regulations, with ODEQ Water Division discovering Eagle Industries discharging TCE contaminated water without a permit (Ref. 7, pp. 8-9; Ref. 8, pp. 9-10). Alternative facilities that could potentially be contributing releases of hazardous substances to those found at the Eagle Industries facility were identified. The following types of facilities within a one (1) mile radius of the Eagle Industries facility are: • • • • One (1) U.S. Toxic Release Inventory facility (Ref. 9, pp. 3 & 13-14); One (1) U.S. RCRA Generator facility (Ref. 9, pp. 3 & 15-16); One (1) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) facility (Ref. 9, pp. 3 & 1819); and Two (2) US Air Facility System (AIRS/AFS) facilities (Ref. 9, pp. 3 & 20-22) There are no identified National Priorities List (NPL) sites, CERCLIS No Further Remedial Action Planned (NFRAP) sites, RCRA non-Correction Action Report (CORRACTS) Treatment, Storage, Disposal (TSD) facilities, Federal Institutional Control/Engineering Control Registry sites, Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) sites, U.S. Assessment, Cleanup and Redevelopment Exchange System (ACRES) (Brownfields), Oklahoma (OK) Voluntary Cleanup Program sites, OK Active Solid Waste Landfills sites, and OK Activity and Use Limitations sites located within a one (1) mile radius of the Eagle Industries facility (Ref. 9, pp. 3, 5. 8-12, 17 & 23-25). Ground water at the Eagle Industries site has been impacted by trichloroethylene and its degradation product cis, 1-2-DCE (Ref. 7, p. 18; Ref 24, pp. 7-10). The significant increase in hazardous substances in ground water is attributable at least in part to the release at the Site. 77 Ground Water Migration Pathway Waste Characteristics 3.2 WASTE CHARACTERISTICS 3.2.1 TOXICITY/MOBILITY Table 28 – Toxicity/Mobility of Hazardous Substances Hazardous Substance Acetone Source No. (and/or Observed Release) Toxicity Factor Value Mobility Factor Value Does Hazardous. Substance Meet Observed Release by chemical analysis? (Y/N) Toxicity/ Mobility (Ref. 1, Table 39) 1&2 1 1 N 1 Bromodichloromethane 2 100 1 N 100 Bromoform 2 -- -- N -- Chloroform 2 100 1 N 100 Dibromochloromethane 2 -- -- N -- cis-1,2 Dichloroethene (DCE) 1 & 2, OR 1,000 1 -- -- 4-isopropyltoluene 2 Y N 1,000 -- References Ref. 1, Sections 2.4.1.2 & 3.2.1; Ref. 1a, Section 2.4; Ref. 2, p. 3; Ref. 2a, pp. 2-3 Ref. 1 Sections 2.4.1.2 & 3.2.1; Ref. 1a, Section 2.4; Ref. 2, p. 6; Ref. 2a, pp. 2-3 Ref. 1 Sections 2.4.1.2 & 3.2.1; Ref. 1a, Section 2.4; Ref. 2, pp. 2-20; Ref. 2a, pp. 2-3 Ref. 1 Sections 2.4.1.2 & 3.2.1; Ref. 1a, Section 2.4; Ref. 2, p. 9; Ref. 2a, pp. 2-3 Ref. 1 Sections 2.4.1.2 & 3.2.1; Ref. 1a, Section 2.4; Ref. 2, pp. 2-20; Ref. 2a, pp. 2-3 Ref. 1 Sections 2.4.1.2 & 3.2.1; Ref. 1a, Section 2.4; Ref. 2, p. 12; Ref. 2a, pp. 2-3 Ref. 1 Sections 2.4.1.2 & 3.2.1; 78 Ground Water Migration Pathway Waste Characteristics Hazardous Substance Trichloroethylene (TCE) Vinyl Chloride Source No. (and/or Observed Release) Toxicity Factor Value Mobility Factor Value 1 & 2, OR 1,000 1 1&2 10,000 1 Does Hazardous. Substance Meet Observed Release by chemical analysis? (Y/N) Y N Toxicity/ Mobility (Ref. 1, Table 39) 1,000 10,000 References Ref. 1a, Section 2.4; Ref. 2, pp. 2-20; Ref. 2a, pp. 2-3 Ref. 1 Sections 2.4.1.2 & 3.2.1; Ref. 1a, Section 2.4; Ref. 2, p. 15; Ref. 2a, pp. 2-3 Ref.1 Sections 2.4.1.2 & 3.2.1; Ref. 1a, Section 2.4; Ref. 2, p. 18; Ref. 2a, pp. 2-3 Note: OR = Observed Release The hazardous substance with the highest toxicity/mobility factor value available to the ground water migration pathway is vinyl chloride with a toxicity/mobility factor of 10,000. Toxicity/Mobility Factor Value (Ref. 1, Section 3.2.1.3, Table 3-9): 10,000 3.2.2 HAZARDOUS WASTE QUANTITY Source No. 1 2 Table 29 – Hazardous Waste Quantity Source Hazardous Source Type Constituent Quantity Complete? Contaminated Soil N Other N Sum of Values Source Hazardous Waste Quantity >0 2 2 The hazardous constituent quantity data are not adequately determined for one or more sources for the site. According to Section 2.4.2.2 of the HRS (Ref. 1, Section 2.4.2.2), if any target sample for the migration pathway under consideration is subject to Level I or Level II concentrations, assign either 79 Ground Water Migration Pathway Waste Characteristics the value from Table 2-6 (Ref. 1) or a value of 100, whichever is greater, as the hazardous waste quantity factor value for that pathway. Because the hazardous constituent quantity data is not adequately determined for one or more sources, and targets for the Ground Water Migration Pathway are subject to actual contamination, a hazardous waste quantity factor value of 100 is assigned (Ref. 1, Section 2.4.2.2, Table 2-6) Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value (Ref. 1, Section 2.4.2.2): 100 3.2.3 WASTE CHARACTERISTICS FACTOR CATEGORY VALUE As specified in the HRS (Ref. 1, Section 3.2.3), the Hazardous Waste Quantity factor value of 100 was multiplied by the highest Toxicity/Mobility Value 10,000, resulting in a product of 1,000,000 (1.0 x 105). Based on this product, a Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value of 32 was assigned from Table 2-7 of Reference 1 (Ref. 1, Section 2.4.3.1). Toxicity/Mobility Factor Value: 10,000 Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 100 Toxicity/Mobility Factor Value (10,000) x Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value (100): 1 x 106 Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value (Ref. 1, Table 2-7): 32 80 Ground Water Migration Pathway Targets 3.3 GROUND WATER PATHWAY TARGETS 3.3.1 NEAREST WELL Residential wells, RW-1, RW-2, RW-5 and RW-20 are subject to Level I contamination (see Section 3.1.1), thus a value of 50 is assigned. Nearest Well Factor Value (Ref. 1, Table 3-11): 50 3.3.2 POPULATION 3.3.2.1 Level of Contamination 3.3.2.2 Level I Concentrations Level I concentrations are those concentrations detected in ground water which exceed an eligible HRS benchmark for a given contaminant. Residential Wells RW-1 and RW-2, RW-5, and RW-20 are subject to Level I contamination. Concentrations in these wells were above the cancer risk screening concentration and in some cases also above the maximum contaminant level. Table 30 – Level I Concentrations Sample ID Hazardous Substance Concentration (μg/L) HRS Reporting benchmark(s) Limit (μg/L) (μg/L) 1.1* References Ref. 2, p.15; Ref. 6, p. 148 GW-RWTrichloroethylene 1-001 29.4 2.0 RW-2 Trichloroethylene 8.4 0.5 RW-5 Trichloroethylene 59.8 0.5 1.1* 5.0** Ref. 2, p. 15; Ref. 24, p. 13 RW-20 Trichloroethylene 1.1 0.5 1.1* Ref. 2, p. 15; Ref. 24, p. 37 5.0** 1.1* 5.0** Ref. 2, p. 15; Ref. 7, p. 431 *TCE cancer risk screening concentration is 1.1 µg/L. ** TCE maximum contaminant level (MCL) is 5.0 µg/L. 81 Ground Water Migration Pathway Targets Level I Population Targets Table 31 – Level I Population Targets Level I Well Aquifer No. Population RW-1 RW-2 RW-5 RW-20 1 1 1 1 2.44 2.44 23 2.44 References Ref. 25, p. 2; Figure 2B Ref. 25, p. 2; Figure 2B Ref. 26, p. 2; Figure 2B Ref. 25, p. 2; Figure 2B Sum of Population Served by Level I Wells: 2.44 + 2.44 + 23.0 + 2.44 = 30.32 Sum of Population Served by Level I Wells x 10: 30.32 x 10 = 303.2 Level I Concentrations Factor Value: 303.2 3.3.2.3 Level II Concentrations Level II concentrations are those concentrations detected in ground water which have been detected at the observed release criteria but are lower than the HRS benchmark for a given contaminant. Residential Well RW-6 is subject to Level II contamination. Concentrations in this well met the observed release criteria but were below an eligible HRS benchmark. Table 32 – Level II Concentrations Sample ID RW-6 Hazardous Substance Concentration (μg/L) Trichloroethylene Reporting Limit (μg/L) References 0.5 Ref. 2, p. 15; Ref. 22, p. 15, 16; Ref. 41, pp. 2-4; Ref. 43, p. 46 0.8 Level II Population Targets Table 33 – Level II Population Targets Level I Well Aquifer No. Population RW-6 1 2.44 References Ref. 25, p. 2 Sum of Population Served by Level II Wells: 2.44 x 1 = 2.44 Level II Concentrations Factor Value: 2.44 82 Ground Water Migration Pathway Targets 3.3.2.4 Potential Contamination The potential contamination factor was evaluated and scored. Active domestic water supply wells were determined from ODEQ on-line GIS Data Viewer within a radius of 0 to 0.25, 0.25 to 0.50, 0.5 to 1, 1 to 2, 2 to 3, and 3 to 4 miles from the site (Figure 4; Ref. 39, pp. 2-27). All of the targets wells are within the Central Oklahoma Aquifer (Figure 3 & 4). There are no discontinuities that physically transect the entire Central Oklahoma aquifer within the site’s 4-mile TDL. The Central Oklahoma aquifer extends to land surface with a potentiometric surface below the top of the Central Oklahoma aquifer. The ground water system acts as a confined system due to laterally extensive interbedded mudstone and large contrasts in vertical hydraulic conductivity (Ref. 14, p. 97). The target wells which draw drinking water are within the same aquifer system (Figure 3). The potential targets were calculated based on the number of users served by each PWS well located within each distance category, and the population was allocated to each well as directed by the HRS, and the weighted population assigned from the “Other Than Karst” portion of Table 3-12 of the HRS (Ref. 1, Sections 3.3.2 and 3.3.2.4, Table 3-12). Potential Population Targets Domestic Water Well Number of Domestic Water Wells determined by ODEQ on-line GIS Data Viewer search conducted November 8, 2016 is 1,078 (Ref. 39, pp. 2-27). Population estimate of 2.44 people per well based on the person per household, 2010-2014, estimated from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, State and County Quick Facts for Midwest City, Oklahoma (Ref. 25, p. 2). 83 Ground Water Migration Pathway Targets Table 34 – Potential Population Targets – Domestic Water Wells Distance Category (miles) Number of Wells Estimated Population Served by Domestic Water Wells1 0 to 1/4 9 21.96 >1/4 to 1/2 9 21.96 >1/2 to 1 51 124.44 >1 to 2 328 800.32 >2 to 3 262 639.28 >3 to 4 419 1,022.36 References Ref. 25, p. 2; Ref. 39, pp. 2-27: Fig. 4 Ref. 25, p. 2; Ref. 39, pp. 2-27; Fig. 4 Ref. 25, p. 2; Ref. 39, pp. 2-27; Fig. 4 Ref. 25, p. 2; Ref. 39, pp. 2-27; Fig. 4 Ref. 25, p. 2; Ref. 39, pp. 2-27; Fig. 4 Ref. 25, p. 2; Ref. 39, pp. 2-27; Fig. 4 Estimated Population is arrived at by multiplying the number of domestic wells by the estimated average number of persons (2.44) per household in Midwest City, Oklahoma (Ref. 25, p. 2). 1 Public Water Wells There were no municipal or public water supply wells identified within the 0 to ¼, >¼ to ½ mile, and >½ to 1 mile radius of the site (Ref. 7, p. 16; Ref. 39, pp. 2-27; Figures 4 and 5). Tinker Air Force Base (TAFB) obtains drinking water from 23 ground water wells within the 4-mile radius and screened in the Garber-Willington aquifer (Ref. 50, p. 3; Figure 5). There are 23 water wells associated with TAFB: 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34 of which nine are in use (Ref. 50, p. 3, Table 1). At the present time, there is no documentation to indicate which nine (9) wells are currently being utilized at TAFB. At a minimum, all nine active TAFB water wells will be assumed to be located in the 3 to 4 mile radius if not closer. According to the provided annual pumpage capacities, no single well serves more than 40% of the total water supply (Ref. 50, p. 3). Information related to the water distribution system has not been ascertained; it will be assumed that the water from the water wells is blended and distributed to the various locations throughout the Base by one distribution system. The number of individuals at TAFB obtaining their drinking water from ground water sources is 26,000 (Ref. 50). Apportionment of potential ground water targets for TAFB is as follows: No single well supplies more than 40% of the total water supply for TAFB (Ref. 50, p. 3) 26,000 individuals ÷ 9 active wells = 2,889 individuals per well In 3-4 mile radius: 9 wells x 2,888.9 = 26,000 Midwest City obtains its drinking water from both surface water and ground water resources (Ref. 50, pp. 3-5). Surface water is obtained from Lake Thunderbird; the annual pumpage capacity for Lake Thunderbird is 2,843,587,070 gallons (Ref. 50, p. 4). In addition, ground water is used to supplement the surface water supply. Midwest City operates and maintains 23 public drinking water wells: 6, 15 through 28, and 48 through 55 supplying a total of 256,275,000 gallons of water (Ref. 50, p. 4-5; Figure 5). Of the 23 water wells, six (6) wells are located within the 2 to 3 mile radius, and five (5) wells are 84 Ground Water Migration Pathway Targets located within the 3 to 4 mile radius (Ref. 50, p. 5; Figure 5). The remaining twelve (12) water wells are located outside the 3 to 4-mile radius (Figure 5). The total annual amount of water for the Midwest City Public Water Supply system in 2016 was reported as 3,099,862,070 gallons (Ref. 50, pp. 4 & 5). Lake Thunderbird supplies approximately 91.7% of the drinking water and ground water wells provide 8.3% of the drinking water supply. No single water well supplies more than 40% of the ground water supply (Ref. 50, p. 5). The number of individuals obtaining drinking water from the Midwest City Public Water Supply system is 54,731 (Ref. 50, p. 4). Apportionment of potential ground water targets for Midwest City can be calculated as follows: Supplied By Surface Water: 54,731 individuals x 91.7% = 50,188.3 individuals Supplied By Ground Water: 54,731 individuals x 8.3% = 4,542.6 individuals Number of Individuals per Well: 4,542.6 individuals ÷ 23 wells = 197.50 individuals per well 2 to 3-mile radius: 6 wells x 197.5 individuals/well = 1,185 individuals 3 to 4 mile radius: 5 wells x 197.5 individuals/well = 987.5 The total population served by PWS is described in the table below (Ref. 39, p. 1-26). Distance Category (miles) Table 35 – Potential Population Targets – Public Water Wells Estimated Population Number Served by Public Population References of Wells Water Wells1 0 to 1/4 >1/4 to 1/2 >1/2 to 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >1 to 2 0 0 0 >2 to 3 6 1,185 + 0 1,185 >3 to 4 14 26,000 + 988 = 26,988 Ref. 7, p. 16; Ref. 39, pp. 2-27 Ref. 7, p. 16; Ref. 39, pp. 2-27 Ref. 7, p. 16; Ref. 39, pp. 2-27 Ref. 7, p. 16; Ref. 39, pp. 227; Ref. 50, pp. 2-5; Figure 5 Ref. 7, p. 16; Ref. 39, pp. 327; Ref. 50, pp. 2-5; Figure 5 Ref. 7, p. 16; Ref. 39, pp. 227; Ref. 50, pp. 2-5; Figure 5 Estimated Population is arrived at by adding the number of individuals from the TAFB system and the Midwest City system (Ref. 50, pp. 2-5; Figure 5) 1 85 Ground Water Migration Pathway Targets Distance-Weighted Population Values for Potential Population Targets Distance Category (miles) 0 to 1/4 >1/4 to 1/2 >1/2 to 1 >1 to 2 >2 to 3 >3 to 4 Water Well Type Table 36 – Potential Population Targets DistanceWeighted Population Population Population (individuals) Subtotal Value (Ref. 1, Table 312) Domestic 22 Public 0 Domestic 22 Public 0 Domestic 124 Public 0 Domestic 800 Domestic 639 Public 1,185 Domestic 1,022 Public 26,988 22 17 22 11 124 52 800 94 1,824 212 28,010 1,306 Total References Ref. 7, pp. 16 & 425; Ref. 25, p. 2; Ref. 39, pp. 2-27 Ref. 7, pp. 16 & 425; Ref. 25, p. 2; Ref. 39, pp. 2-27 Ref. 7, pp. 16 & 425; Ref. 25, p. 2; Ref. 39, pp. 2-27 Ref. 7, pp. 16 & 425; Ref. 25, p. 2; Ref. 39, pp. 1-27: Ref. 50, pp. 2-4 Ref. 7, pp. 16 & 425; Ref. 25, p. 2; Ref. 39, pp. 2-27; Ref. 50, pp. 2-4 Ref. 7, pp. 16 & 425; Ref. 25, p. 2; Ref. 39, pp. 2-27; Ref. 50, pp. 2-4 1,692 Sum of Distance-Weighted Population Values: 1,692 (Other than Karst) Sum of Distance-Weighted Population Values ÷ 10 (Ref. 1, Section 3.3.2.4): 169.2 Potential Contamination Factor Value (Ref. 2, Section 3.3.2.5): 169.2 3.3.2.5 Calculation of Population Factor Value The population factor value is calculated by determining the sum of the factor values for Level I Concentrations, Level II concentrations, and potential contamination (Ref. 1, Section 3.3.2.5). Level I Concentrations (303.2) + Level II Concentrations (2.44) + Potential Contamination 169.2 Sum of Population Value: 474.84 86 Ground Water Migration Pathway Targets 3.3.3 RESOURCES A resource value of 5 was assigned since water in the Central Oklahoma aquifer system being evaluated is usable for drinking water purposes (Ref. 39, pp. 1 - 26). Resources Factor Value: 5 3.3.4 WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREA There are 112 wellhead protection areas in the vicinity of the site, and therefore a value of 5 has been assigned (Ref. 1, Section 3.3.4; Ref. 40, pp. 2-6). Wellhead Protection Area Factor Value: 5 3.3.5 CALCULATION OF TARGETS FACTOR CATEGORY VALUE The target factor category value is calculated by determining the sum of the factor values for the nearest well, population, resources, and wellhead protection area (Ref. 1, Section 3.3.5). Nearest Well (50) + Population (474.84) + Resources (5) + Wellhead Protection Area (5) = Targets Factor Category Value: 534.84 87 Ground Water Migration Pathway Pathway Score 3.4 GROUND WATER MIGRATION SCORE FOR AN AQUIFER The ground water migration score for an aquifer is calculated by multiplying the factor category values for likelihood of release, waste characteristics, and targets. Divide by 82,500, the resulting value (maximum value 100) is assigned as the ground water migration pathway score (Ref. 1, Section 3.4). Likelihood of Release (550) × Waste Characteristics (32) × Targets (534.84) ÷ 82,500 = 114.09 Ground Water migration Score For An Aquifer: 100 3.5 CALCULATION OF GROUND WATER MIGRATION PATHWAY SCORE The Ground Water Migration Pathway Score assigned is based on the highest ground water migration score calculated for an aquifer underlying sources at the site. For the aquifer being evaluated, the Central Oklahoma Aquifer system, the maximum value of 100 is assigned. Ground Water Migration Pathway Score: 100 88