J U L O 3

Honorable Jim Chapman^tenber, United States

Mouse of RepresentativesP.O. 3oxSulphur Spr ings , Texas 75482Dear Mr, Chapnan:Thank you for the information forwarded to me by your office on June 14* 1989,regarding the resolution that you received from the Bowle County Comiss ioners '~ourt, and the letters frori Judge Carlow and fir. Mclntyre- My staff is currentlyresearching answers to the 33 questions concerning the Texarkana Mood Preservingand Koppors Superfund s ites . As soon as the information is avai lable I will bepleased to forward it to you. The following, however, is a response to yourrequest for infornation on the status of each site.The Agency is presently negotiating with the PRPs to assume all financialresponsibi l ity for implementing the remedial action plan at the Koppers site.This is a tine consuming process and requires the Agency's utmost attention.If it appears that a plausible agreement cannot be reached within a reasonabletinefrane, the Agency will consider all options avai lable to it, includingtaking legal action against the PRPs by ordering them to renediate the site.In addition, the Agency is presently working with the City of Texarkana a Texas,to inprove the drainage problems in the Carver Terrace subdivis ion. The Age.icyhas also responded to the recent flooding of several hones in the subdivis ion,and residents requesting soil sampling when they had to repair or replace wateruti l ity l ines. The responses involved soil and drinking water sampling. Thesampling results showed no life or health threatening concentrations of contami-nants existed. An 'important point to note is that Lake Texarkana, located morethan ten miles from the s i te * Is the source from which residents fron the citywater system receive their water.The Texarkana Uood Preserving Company site was included on the National Prior-it ies List in June 1986. Upon reauthorization of Superfund in October 1986,funding for the investigation ohase of this project became avai lable . This^.oney was awarded to the State of Texas 1n March of 1987. The Texas WaterCommiss ion is the lead Agency for this project.

00OCM^ro

site invest igat ion, defining the extent of contamination at the s ite, hasconpleted. ">urin<-| the site Invest igation, ivater sanples fron nays Creek-ind the drainage ditch along Lubbock Street uere analyzed for contaminationfron the Texarkana wood Preserving s i te . The results of these analyses Indi-cate that the s ite is not contaminat ing Days Creek or the drainage ditch,

T-tese results were discussed with the cit izens of Texarkana at a ^eetinq heldan June 23, 1930, at City Hall In Texarkana.and the Texas Uater Cornlsslon are currently in the process of develop-ing and evaluating various treatnent technologies to address the proclens posedby the contanination at the s ite. This phase of the project Includes conductingtreatabil ity studies to evaluate these technologies* Conp'etion of the evalua-

tion process and selection of a renedy for the Texarkana Vood Preserving siteis scheduled for Sunner 1990,If you need further Information concerning these s ites, please contact ne?inccroly yours,rigioal bigi»cd By s•"V^ert T. Layton J r * » P .F ."erional Adninistrator

cr-oOJ

r>

CHAPMAN

- »29 C .

COWUlTTfESPUBLIC WORKS AND TRANSPORTATIONSCIENCE, SPACE. AND TECHNOLOGYDEMOCRATIC STEERING AND POLICY

HGjSE Of f ' L ls DC 205 15-

2021 225-jof tfje tSfnitebof lepregentatttmtf

Washington, SC 20515-4301June 14, 1989

Mr. Robert E. Layton, Jr . , P .E .Regional AdministratorU. S. Environmental Protection Agency1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200Dallas, Texas 75202Dear Mr, Layton:

Thank you for your letter of May 30, 1989, advising of youragency's reasons for selecting mechanical soil washing and groundwater treatment to remedy the contamination problem located atthe Koppers Texarkana Superfund site.

I am enclosing a letter from Bowie County Judge James M.Carlow concerning the cleanup of the two contaminated sites,Attached to the letter is a resolution by the Bowie CountyCommissioners' Court addressing this problem as well as eighty-eight questions posed by the Court for which, they are seekinganswers.

Also enclosed is a letter from Bowie County's EnvironmentalOfficer Cliff Mclntyre who feels very strongly about the serious-ness of this issue and methods being suggested to remedy thesituation.

I would be grateful if you would supply the information re-quested by the Bowie County Commissioners* Court and any othermaterial that would' reflect the progress taking place to resolvethis matter.

Please forward any response to my Sulphur Springs DistrictOffice, P. 0. Box 538 , Sulphur Springs, Texas 75482 , 2 14/835-8 6 8 2 .

With kindest regards, I amSincerely,

ess

C•\CM«tfV"O

CountyP O Bo* 248

**« Boston. Te»as 75570828-2571 e,t £7Honorable Jim Chapman•**y Cannon HOBWashington, D. c . 2 0 5 : 5

30 , 1989 O

Dear Congressman Chapman!

is a copy of an article from the May 30, Texarkanaconcerning th«,» two Superfund sites—Carver Terrace andTexarkana Wood Preserving Company on Lubbock Street,Also enclosed is a copy of an article that appeared in theGazet t e in March, 1986 , Also enclosed is a portion of an articlethat appeared in the Gazet te in April , 1 9 3 6 .I am submitting these articles to show that in 1986 when

Ei-A was grubbing for money to continue the Superfund program theysaid work had already started on the Lunnock Street site andwould continue if they got their two-month extension. When theextension was granted, the Lubbocfc Street sit^wjs not on the listof those to be cleaned up.

This is not unusual for Region vi EPA. Another article Ihave enclosed is frc«i the Arkansas Democrat in Little Rockconcerning the Vertac Superfund s i te in Jacksonville. Arkansas.

You will note that not even EPA officials in Washington arehappy with this crowd.

It rained Saturday in Bowie County. On Sunday I visitedDays Creek on South State Line. A slick that appeared to be froma petroleum based chemical could be clearly seen on the surface.The bank of the stre&m. under the bridge, we* hftdvily contaminatedoy a chemical that appeared to be petroleum-based. I then visitedthe Ltibbock Street site and a substance that appeared to be thesame as that found in the creek more than a mile away wan oo»ingtrom the ground into the ditcii next to th« road.

Congressman, anyone who *»y» th«y n*ed tests to determineif the pollutants are moving off-site either needs better eyeglasses or a wore al«rt seeing-eye dog.I an» sending nine Polaroid photos of the Days Creek

contamination to John Witherspoor of the Texas Water CommissionTyJer off ice .

I hope you can .find some way to convince these people thisis a proBlem that requires immediate action, not »or# #ft««fi**.

Cordi

Ark - As(MM workers rip out a haajiui's ner-tintenant invttMory fcwpfeal M«ou andprepare tine buiMmc for dteposiitnn.The Lafayette CeaRij*

said"The asbestos killed us," said con-sultant Jim Moore, who initially w«>fetr*d Go bait! the ailing &ctEity"If ftomcbody does no! put re-straints on Ebe federalwtib ttteir asbestos eonimlthey're going Co virtually shuthe said,

The beapKcf stepped admitting pa-tients (a August S987 because of fl-aancial diff cutties. Hospital boardmembers attempted to find a way tor*of.2fl, but to no avail The end camelittle over a month cflvr * battle be-tween two cifizens' groups over thecollection •' a the I-cent safes taxPlease *e* CLOSED on Paga 3A

w in* rancwOsrocQ IcaMndte Pttcne Mtntster Steftgrimff HN-

• O LuKamboufQ Prim*SanW, S2, * Ovw«n Oewoww,Q Dutch Prwna Mtntatar Auud Lubewra. SO, •. Chrtstfan Oontow atQ Norwegiao Pnm» M*o*9ftBmntttand, SO. wtw. huda aQoMnunant with SooafeM iaA support.'IJ SpM sn Pwtw Mmtaier FrtpeMartju^z. 47. a Soeurint.Cl TufHish Prtnw W*wtw TurguC Osot, 62. « •memb*r <rf tr» Motfwrtanfl PartyD BWsft Pwn* Mmatar M«oaf<M TttMctw,64, a ConfeiwjftM ,ft US. Prelaw C^otgft Bmft 64. _____ •

By iVE9 PEKOLE VOf the OMMte SwttSauttwra Am^ulamre attectfCants sunakoned fcfon-Uy to the aid «f a ne«r comatose eWerly womanp#roMieie« Bo Eraiupert tterInsiead, gfeey w«rc S»(d to stand by at the woman'sume in Nash fef several OBintates Awaiting the ar-ivaf Ufa TesarfcaM. TwK«t. Piy* Defwtuwa! emer-<>ney uttEt. said ttie WSOHSIB'S aeigfelw"i( must have been almost a liatf hotv between•t tina tbe first aMbuta»ee arrived and tfceyfe«r in tfe« secMtU one," MM| C.ft Ewing of

Thf woman, identified M Mrs. Dock Tuwery, wasta $tabl« eondilioa Mood*? aigbt at Medical An*Hospital in TCHirKcna. A bcspttal spokesman dec-ttned to release Atfther iaJ&imntion about tierTo was- aide Fire Chief Gearge Chaatbleo saidSouthern was denied permission to matte the runbecause Nash hu a contract: wtcfe the city to provideambulance a»rvice to the community.«nd he eonnrmed ttutt tae ArfeanMs a*K had re-qoested permission t* n»ke aa emergency call toNasb," Cttamblee said, "He denied pergniaoioA andtold the (SupaiciJwr to deny pvrmissioa. AS far aswe're concerned. tk*c'» *li there is to it "

Sieve Arnold, a co-owawr of Southern Ambulance,salt! bis unit had contacted the eily only ta obtaiapermission to us« a siren wbil« passing through Ikecity limits"I'm not aware of any ordinance prohibiting uafrom mafcififi emergency calls to Nasb," Arnold said.**THis is celUne to be ndteulotis, (*(ti«g patients Gl««at there lake taM."Arnold referred to a recent confrontation be-tween his ambulance attendants and Ckamblee IBwhicb the transportation of a woman having a b«artattack in a doctor's ofAc* was delayed"1 intend to tak* action (hi* time, starting teww-row (this* morninc." Arnold utd.

want us njundli*city of T«x«riaideny a private Irum to eonuwbencityefllcei"We do nave

Environmentafists attack EPA's cleanup inactivity• »

wilt tbetrlocal eAvtro*iBe*6aIigu ty Carverdart fe*-

ta be Kuppera Inc. - where ereeeoCewas u»eit for 22 yean to tr*»t wood.After iasoecliae the site, tile sute retutnmeiided that the K»pp*r* att* bepiafed en the U.S. EnyirooaMttUtl Prodec-tion Ag«»cy'8 wtieutal [Wierity U« »f toxic*rw«7 Terraee•iiad pftorrty li«t

, Carver Terrnc* luc bum a&wutbrtcfc Cornea cm a S4-a«r*of

federal Super-1984, btit UM sii« SUMTfc* EPA tiu adteuiifiterod cleaaup ef-forts at a saair» paw and baa »ot prwiiled

Adequate infurm«t»n t« the pw&lk ntMMitUM it«Rnvra «urf«u*din2 ttte subdtvistunWood Pr*i«rv

Jteth ittc» have b«e» oiesie»»ted for fed-eral assistance"1 think they're just pUyiftff canes and Ithink iheir credibility is stoat." tfclntyresaid of th* Federal agency.But a« SPA otTicial ia Dallas said th*federal c^veranea'. baa been worfeiat I*free Carver Terrace vf tti co»lAmlB«ft*Ssince tike souklt a«i$tkb(Nrbe«d »M placedow Cbe SuperAind list"It's « tone process and tt tsfte* time to

e«t result*." said SaiMty Sevier. • OallM-b*MKl SPA *iK*fe«swoi»*R "T*w dauc* rorevtfry »it« t* unique "Ma Seuiffr tiiirf Ehr flf'A c»mt»l*>io't "-

types ot coajtamituitioa.A.iiatys«9 of toolle 'bow heavy (races af awfals Md p*ljfaroti.%iie bydrocarbMi roaMB^Wuita, itMsaid.A feasittiltiy «udy fi«ali«««l In JUM* 1MB•Mlkto^ the GPA co doterMtM (tomctbods of cfeaoloc tA* sie«, MIL SevtefMid."The desifa for UM final remedy ii •»•'pected to be completed ia tMI," atet taid"The e»tvn*ttr« soil re«la«liiatiaii will ba1

treated u»inn a mechaaical s»il»nd itrouadwater

014213

O

Days Craet and downstreiar«*j,«fd Ronatd Surnelt, pwdeat of local environmentgroup Friends United for a SiEnvf ronmefit f FUSBX"H his bean d vary inefficientoperated crogran tip until no*Born*ft said. "The way the.*sites are being bandied defeaUio whof* puros

<v complete the soil-washingpneeti the federal government - — -ay *na.<will spend about t\.S million, she «*«* are being bandied defeesaid. tho whole purpose at (the) SupeTfte BPA asd T«as Water Com- fund (designation). "mission work jointly on Super- Sill Colbart, *a AIM"*-*-*--Ami sites in Texas. EPA officials Jpn/" - '«r* beading the toppers Super-Aind site and the state has takencontrol of th« Taxarkana WoodPreserving Co. Snporfund site,afrasaid.^fftHf* *

^?SfJ-«-M"atroi r£5Si.2tt

lfrtto«««fc«d and tSiSi to liJ^ plan*«n->it*aas«gTP'°.'^oit*a»fi itsw «"2S1* KftJ1* fwitrt-e'ode cr»o*S ? f! lhe *'<• *n-

•»««. SSSlSSS"*1"' »«-mS5and a ««"*? chp°-•«$SSX!tt*y**»«.*fl»n at the oifl«?.lfTftund «•^-tS?--«"«-«2.ta*-«s«ss?^?jKa'»m""«*ana WQ I JLf™*1 "•« Texar-*«fflSKa-jsac

_^r tfff/is..^.uejfffoat(on),1*Sill Colbart, an Aus(in-basfi>TWC ipult««BJ»n, said the Texarka«a Wood Preserving sitd ha.not received emergency afienttotbecause any pollutants that m«ienter Days Creelt are diluted tosuch an esi#m that they pose lit-tle danger to man or the environ-ment

TWC U Investigating (he extentof contamination at (he site, «idTWC spokeswoman Dana gtderMi. Sevfer said 3 TWC inspec-tion report will be available totfta public in the spring of 1990 -tlr* years after tho toxic wastesite was designated for federalast (stance.

£he said she eotild not estimatewhen Ihg site would be cleanedof its contaminants."Preliminary samp.ing indi-cates that tfta water, sludges andsoil* are eotnstialn***1* "J "...*•—

-at (Ho water, stodges andsoil* are contaminated and theEtoJlotaritj may 6e moving outside •the property boondanes."A third taxie waste site inBQWIA County was targeted forfetters, cleanup funds in JalyISSJ, «*. Serf er said.

W^y 20 thru June 3PREE I-R jaei<0t""hgrchaseoisHpg, *'Register to win

to b* glvsn sway JuneNo y uneNo purcliaae fl9c*»sarySALE PRICES

COMMISSION A

Superfund cleanup billstill being debatedBy Donafd WamSpec«u » the Gazette

WASHINGTON - Congr«ssiosal conferees are inching for-ward on their long-awaited nego-tiation process for reauthorizingcha "Superfund" hazardous wastecleanup bill.However, they have solved fewor the tough issu&i Inay will needto settle by the end of (he monthto keep the program from beingdismantled.After their first meeting Feb.28, House and Senate confereesbroke into two subgroups - oneon tax measures for fending theprogram and one on the cleanupprogram itself - in hopes ofreaching an agreement by theApril I deadline.Although the conferees are nowmeeting twice weekly, most of thereal negotiating is bain? done atthe staff level in a series of long,closed-door meetings.Funds for (he hazardous wastecleanup program expired lastSeptember, and EnvironmentalProtection Agency administratorLee H. Thomas announced bewould have to start shutting downcleanup operations if Congressdid not enact new funding legisla-tion. The EPA also hai threat-ened la start canceling contractsand to reduce its staff by 1.500 inApril.Failure to rsach an «fcTe*tmenthai stalled operations at the Tex-flikana Wood Presemag Co. ont ibboefc Stra*t, since it wasnamed to the EPA's Superfundlist issi March. Work continued atanotflsr Texsrtrarta tita becausec leanup n being funded byHoppers Co. Inc.CongreiHtaniil conferees Jfiohave exprasiad concern over sev-eral citiieiu' sum beeausB of thewasta-eantamineting sites.Conferees have manausd sameprogress on rauthlng agreementthat included settling a pro-cedural question that threatenedto boa »io*n tn* toihs - how tohandle ifto hard-foanht psraahialand "member issues" affectingparticular nate* »r 4tetricts.They agreed on a motion to in-

sifOet staff not tt. deal with thoseissues until later, when theywould be handled m a package."We've got to move faster if weare going to meet the deadlines

we have set," said Rep. GeneSnyder. R-Ky., who made the.•notion.THe conferees accepted 3House-Senate compromise au-thorizing grants of up to £50.000 tocommunity groups near toxicdump sites for technical assist-

ance so they can participate moreknowledgeably in EPA decisionson waste cleanup.The conferees also approvedfvo provisions aimed at easingthe liability problems faced bychemical-handling companies,which find they can no longer getpollution insurance.One provision would limit theliability of insurance companiesto the amount* set in the pollu-tion policies they issue. The otherauthorizes chemical-handlingcompanies to insure themselvesby setting up pools to share pollu-tion liability rwlts.

At the outset of the conference,chairman John Dingell, D-Mich.,defined a compromise between a$10 billion Hottte bill and a £73billion Senate hill to reauthorizeEPA waste cleanup program*. Be-foru determining the amount toauthorue, conferees must negoti-ate issues such us how to tax thefund; whether tt< include oil spiillegislation in the bill, as thttH»u*e has p ropo s ed : andwhether and to what extent Con-gress should sot deadlines forcleanup sitesThe tax iLiue has divided theiloase and Sennte ax well as oiland chemical manufacturers. Thecurrent Superfund program hasbaan largely financed by a five-yen r fax on oil and chemicals.Th* Sanate wants to- raise moat oftt.e Aimfo frjm an expnncteii baseof businesses. The House versionwould put Ih« main burden on oiland chemical companies.Serrate conferees are con-c«TR3d that i»guiatt«n a* oilspiife wouttt earnpitttfta the eon-

w

O

Caeh fcaveua pay forjya troeb-

IE

.yo* 2F

thattine House adopt a "brigbt tine"an ethics 10 tft*mbers wouldSee WrtXSHT. Page 9A

glaiy and cbcK charge*.But Lufloo's bailiffs released then* 'after jailers saidttiev could not accept them be-

W. UCtt M , atW iviaix'ua t/.Sanders. 17. of «!5 W. !5th St.,were taken into custody aboutnoon Sunday after their car

;tle Rock and are "the ones youare looking for."' After she slopped the vetii-

Agency didn't warnPG&E of 'high leveFdejected at plant site3V SANDY DAVtS

Official of toe federal Envi-Fonmental Pi^otection Agency(nsisced Tuesday that airbornedioKin detected in December1938 and January at tae VertacChemical Inc. plant did ttob•leave Itte plant property.Roger Meatfhaaa of Dallas, aspokesman fop EPA, confirmedTuesday thai employees ofReidei Bfflvirentnetttat Ser-vices Inc., an SPA contractorpreparing hazardous wastes atthe site fur disposal, werewarned in January through anoffice rnemoraicfttm that "ex-cessively high levels" of air*boroe diosin ha4 been de-teetettat the site.The office memo was signedby Steve jMoblett. ara anviron-mectiat scianttst who has sinceleft NteideE to warfc for the lili-nois Knvtraticncntal ProteetioaAgency. Noblitt declined com-ment Tuesday.Meacham said the publicwas raat notified of the prob-lem because th« contaminatedsir never left the site.State Department of P»EUt-teon Control and Ee«Sofi}' offi-eiats also were not &&tifiecj,Meaebam said, "becausethings sometimes fall throughthe cracks. "

Richard Werriti. a PC&Sspokesraaa, said Tuesday

AIR UONITOR - A Ngh'votume air monitor checksfew pollutants on the Vertac Checro«aal Inc. plant site inEPA offictats say Uie pubtlc wasn.'twarned about dioxins in (her air Decause me coniami-naietf air didni leave tfia plant site. On-siiewem warned, nowever.

there is no requirement for no-tification and rieparttaent offi-cials didn't mind not being no-tified

-Roger said these ire lowleveEs," he said. - *

PC&E officials rely on thefederal EPA to notify the statewhen necessary at "whateverLevet they feel tike they needto let us know," Merritt said

Gov. Bilt Clinton gtUagreed.

"The EPA should let usknow that kind of informationwhether it is required or not,especially considering the sen-sitivilv of this issue and the

See VEJRTAC. Page 9A

car did tun?Tstolen, Pritehett1

Discio|by lawn8VJQANMQW0

WASH1NQTCJim McCrery'sicerned becausebased on her hidisclosure mhad kept ., Jfrom the AmenEnergy CouoclfIt turned aa*na ftepublicutake on his Ifdisclosure forneating he hnmoney to charit"We negtectfhad given the esaid LeslieMeCrery's spofcMcCrery, etygress last year,number of lavcommitted errforms, either iport enough laproviding f"I've Ul». -fcrent membcthere were enous years."' sadrew Jacobs. Dbitually provi;formation thaatne 1978 EOtitment Act. ,'Seeking toreport, JacobsCocker Spanielcurrent iiabl

SeaMISTA

PANSY SA/ooCHiefofPurv

C214) W3-76C6(2^)624-2571

JAMES M. CARLOWCOUNTYJUDGEBOWIE COUNTY

BOWIECOtfflV COURTHOUSE80X2<J3TgXAS 75570^48

Washington, D ,C

Dear Congre«aman Chapman ,

JUN l3 1989 M a y 2 3 <

HwHC

"ould ur$ed

It iresident^

n!r*lly feit that

««Pon,, rro. *I" addition (-officials who wi i i

attached question,1Region vi, joe HWaste Divis

PD«w administratorJ * ? ? " * ? «P/ of ih- luda R°t>ert Layton° ' SuP«'f«nd l ecpartn-nt of

"therand theand

the Thankpast . I he help you haveCounty in

irdially.

imes M. CarlowCounty Judge, Bowie County

00r~OJ

THE STATE OF TEXAS (COUNTY OF BOWIE I RESOLUTION

On this the 22nd day of May, 1989, the Commissioners' Courtof Bowie County, Texas, convened in regular session at theregular meeting place thereof at the Courthouse in New Boston,Texas, with the following members of the Court present, to wit:

James H. CarlowCounty Judge

Jack StoneCommissioner, Presinct No. 1Dale BarrettCommissioner, Precinct No, 3

L. 8. GrimesCommissioner, Precinct No. 2Paul FanninCommissioner, Precinct No. 4

Marylene MegasonCounty Clerk _

and the following absenti NONE; constituting a quorum, and among ^—other proceedings, passed the following order: -.

WHEREAS the United Stax.es Environmental Protection «sfAgency has accepted three sites within Bowie County for inclusionon the National Priority (Superfund) list; and "**"

WHEREAS one of these three sites is completely withinthe boundaries of property owi.ed and controlled by the UnitedStates Government and is not subject to remedial efforts of theUnited States Environmental Protection Agency; and

WHEREAS the two remaining sites. Carver Terracesubdivision and the former Texarkana Wood Preserving Company onLubbock Street, Texarkana, Texas, are on private property and arethereby subject to remedial efforts by the United States Enviro-mentol Protection Agency; and

WHEREAS the site knovn as Carver Terrace appears topresent.a continuing potential threat to the health and v M-beingof more than 200 residents and through the runoff of rainwatersfrom this site may present a health hazard to other countyresidents as well; and

WHEREAS the site known as the former Texarkana WoodPreserving Company on Lubbock Street where a reported three-quarters of a million gallons of hazardous chemicals have soakedinto the ground also appears to present 3 continuing threat tonot only residents of Bowie County, Texas, but Miller County,Arkansas, as a result of overflow from contaminated holdingponds adjacent to Days Creek; and

WHEREAS Carver Terrace residents have been deprived ofthe true economic value of their homes,, causing also a negativeimpact on Bowie County revenues and those of other governmentalentities as a result of lower appraised values brought about bythe Superfund designation; and

S the former Toxnrkano Wood Preserv ing Companysite on Lubbock Struct cannot bo dcvelopt-d for ti productivecommercial and industrial use until the United States Environ-mental Protection Agency provides permanent remedies i»i theinterest of long-term protection, thereby depriving residentsof the area, the majority o£ which are low-income, o£ potentialemployment opportunities; and

WHEREAS the U .S . Environmental protection Agency planfor cleaning up Carver Terraes reportedly will take decades,posing a threat to thtt health of residents for that p&riod o£tiffia ae vail as depriving them and their heirs of the trueaconomic value of their homestead; and

WHEREAS the U .S . Environmental Protection Agency appearsto have done little, if anything, to prevent continuing pollutiono£ Days Creek by contaminated holding ponds adjacent to Days Creekthereby maintaining a continuing risk of health hazards to all whohave property adjoining the creek nor has the U .S . EnvironmentalProtection Agency notified Bowie County of any action taken toprevent contamination of the groundwater from which an estimated1 , 2 0 0 people in that area of the county get their drinking water;and

WHEREAS the Bowie County Commissioners' Court hasavailable to it very little factual information with which toassess its own position in regard to these two sites and formulateany future action which may be deemed appropriate and within itspower to encourage the U .S . Environmental Protection Agency toprovide timely, permanent, remedies to both these site*;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSIONERS'COURT OF BOWIE COUNTY, TEXAS, that we the undersigned represent-atives o£ the Commissioners' Court of Bowie County, Texas, dohereby support United States Congressman Jim Chapman and the Cityof Texarkana, Texas, in their current efforts to bring about atimely solution to this problem and by this Resolution and thequestions attached thereto, which shall be forwarded to WilliamRiley, Administrator, U .S . Environmental Protection Agency as wellas other elected and appointed officials who may lend their supportto this cause, the Bowie County Commissioners' Court does show itssincere interest in returning both of these sites to their fullhealthful, economic and productive uses and calls upon the U .S .Environmental Protection Agency to commence and conclude theirefforts in both instances in a timely manner.

PASSED AND APPROVED in regular Commissioners' CourtSession on this the 22nd day of Hay, 1989 .

OegCM

O

James M. CarlowCounty Judge

L.B. Si: litresComrKLSSioner, Precinct No. 2

Dale Barrett, Precinct No. 3

Paul FannirCommissioner, Precinct Mo. 4

'Mar-ylen'e HegasonCounty Clerk

TEXARKAHA WOOD PRESERVING SITE ON LUBBOCK STREET ,-CJ

I. ) On what date was this site included on the National Priority^(Superfund) list? ^j-

I. ) How many other sites across th« nation were also on the *""National Priority list as of the date this site was included^*)

3. ) How many other sites within this Environmental ProtectionAgency region were also on the National Priority lifct as ofthe dace this site was included?

4. ) How many s ites across the nation have been added to theNational Priority list since this site was included?

5. ) How many sites within this EPA region have been added to theNational Priority list since this site was included?

6. } Using the National Hazard Ranking System (Mitre Model), whatwas the score for the Lubbock Street s i te?

1. ) How many sites on the list nationally at the time this sitewas included had a higher score?

8. ) Were any of the sites with a higher score former chemicalwood treatment plants?

9. ) How m^ny of the sites within this EPA region that were onthe list at the time of this site was included had a higherscore?

- ' 0 . ) Were any of the sites with a higher score in this region formerchemical wood treatment plants?

1 1 . ) Hew many of the sites on the list nationally at the time thissite was included had a lower score?

1 2 . ) Were any of the sites with a lower score former chemicalwood treatment plants?

1 3 . ) How many of the sites within this EPA region that w*re onthe list at the time this site was included had a lowerscore?

14 . ) Were any of the sites with a lower score former chemical woodtreatment plants?

1 5 . ) How many of the sites that were listed nationally at the timethis site was included have been cleaned up?

1 6 . ) Using the National Hazard Ranking System, what was the score,name and location of each sites that had been on the list atthe time this site was included and on what date was eachadmitted to the list?

TEXARKANA &/OOD PRESERVING SITE ON LUBBOCK STREET

1 7 . ) Using the National Hazard Ranking System, what was the score,name and location of each site that has been cleaned upwithin this EPA region and that had been on the list as of £\jthe date this site was included and on what date was eachadmitted to the list? CM

1 8 . ) Using the National Hazard Ranking System, what was the score,name, location and date of inclusion to the list of each site*^that had been so designated after tnis site was included andwhich has been cleaned up?

1 9 . ) Using the National Hazard Ranking System, what was the score,name, location and date of inclusion to the list of eachsite within this EPA region that had been designated afterthis site was included on the National Priority List andwhich has since been cleaned up?

2 0 . ) Have hydrogeological studies been performed at this site?2 1 . ) What was the concentration of each toxin disco/ered at the

s i t e?22 . ) Hov does the concentration of e«»ch toxin discovered at the

site compare with "safe levels" as established by th« EPA?23. ) What was the depth of contamination for each toxin?2 4 . ) Have subsequent tests revealed any change in the depth of

contamination for any of the toxins?2 5 . ) What is the relationship between the known depth of

contamination and the level of subsurface waters?2 6 . ) What is th« danger of off-site migration of toxins through

wind, runoff , etc . ?2 7 . ) Has any action been taken to prevent runoff from the

contaminated holdiny ponds adjacent to Days Creek?2 8 . ) Have any tes t s been performed over any distance on Days

Creek to determine whether runoff from the holding pondsis contaminating the creek?

2 9 . ) If such tests have been conducted do they show anycontamination of the creek and. if so, to what extent bywhat toxins?

30 . ) Have monitoring well* been established at this sits?3 1 . ) If monitoring wells hi've been established, do they show

any potential threat to the groundwat«E?32 . ) By what procedure does Ef-A plan to clean up thi* site?33 . ) K«» an S*A project manager b*e.i named far this site and.

if so, what is his name, office -ddreas and affies telephonenumber?

3 4 . )35. )

36. )

3 7 . )

3 8 . )3 9 . )

4 0 . )4 1 . )

4 2 . )

4 3 . )

What is the est imated cost of cleaning up this s i t e?Assuming funding cont inues at least at its present level,when do you est imate cleanup can begin?Assuming funding cont inues at least at its present level,how long will the cleanup take?

Has EPA establ ished who the principal respcr.s ibJe party( P R P ) is for fftis s i te?

Has EPA been able to establ ish a sett lement with the PRP?Has ownership or this property changed iimediately prior toor after it was declared a Superfund s i te?If the property changed hands, who was the seller?Has EPA received any funds from the sale, if any, to applytowards the cleanup?

What funds have been expended by EPA on behalf of this siteand for what purpose?

Who were the contractors, if any, what was their responsibiiand how much did each receive as well as dates the work wasperformed, if any.

C4CM

O

ity

TEHRACE SITE

on the Nat iona l Priority

3 .

4.

1 2

M

1 6

I On what date was this s i t e in-{Superfund) list ? ^v

<Ti How r-any other sites across the nat ion w*»r*r also on theNationa l Prior i ty list as of tne date this s i t e was included? f

c**) How many other s i tes within this Environmental Protect ionAgency region were also on the National Pr ior i ty l ist as ofthe date this site was included?

; How many s i tes across the nat ion r.-ivc been added to tneNational Prior i ty l ist since th is s i t e was included?. ) How many s i tes within this EPA region have been added to

the National Prior ity list since tnis site was included?. ] How many of the sites across t,"^ nat ion that were .ilso on

the National Prior ity list as of the date this site wasincluded were residential subdivisions?, ; Kow many of the s ites wi th in this EPA region that were

also on the National Prior ity list <s* of the flats thiss ite was included were residential subdivisions?j How many of the s i tes added to the National Priority listsince the date this site was included are residentialsubdivisions?

) How many of the sites within this EPA region that were addedto the National Priority list since this s i t e was includedwere residential subdivisions?

.J Using the National Hazard Ranking System, what was the scorefor the Carver Terrace s i t e?„f How many of the sites nafionaliy at the time this site wasincluded had a higher score?.J Were any of the sites with a higher scoie residentialsubdivisions?

.; How many of the sites nationally at the time this sit* wasincluded had a lower score?} How many of tno*« with a higher score at the time this sit*

was included on the National Priority list have since bear.cleaned up?

.} How many of thos* with a lower score at th* tia*» Cilia sit*was included en ttm National Priority List have since be*ncleaned up,

. } How many of the sites that have been cleaned up wereresidential subdivisions?

CARVES TERRACE SITE

1 7 . ) Using the National Hazard Ranking System what was th« scoreof each residential subdivision cleaned up, when was itincluded on the list, what date did cleanup begin, whendid it end and what is the name and location of each s i t e?

; 8 . J What toxins were discovered at the Carver Terrace s i te?1 9 . ) What was the concentration of each toxin?2 0 . ) How does the concentration of each toxin compare withestablished EPA 'safe leve l s?"2 1 . ) What was the depth of contamination for each toxin discovereddt the s i te?

2 2 . ) Has subsequent test ing revealed any change in the depth ofcontamination for any or ali of the toxins discovered at thes i te?

2 3 . ) What is the danger ro areas surrounding the Si te due to wind,urban runoff, e t c .?2 4 . ) What toxin* at tne site would pose 9 threat if residentsdisturberf th«* earth in their yards?2 5 . ) Why is it necessary for worker* at the site to wear protectiveclothing?

2 6 . ) Why is it not necessary for residents to wear protectiveclothing?

2 7 . ) Have any tests been conducted to determine whether there isan actual threat to groundwater?2 8 . ) What is the relationship between depth of contamination andsuhsurace waters?

2 9 . ] Have monitoring wells been established around the s i te?3 0 . ) If monitoring wells have been established do they show anyindication of a threat to groundwater?3 1 . ) HOW roi,ny Super fund sites have been the object of "buyout"by the EPA?

3 2 . ) Li sung each "buyout* site individually, what was each scoreon the National Hazard Hanking Systect, on what date was «achincluded on th* National Priority list and on what datedid "buyout * concludft?

3 3 . ) Has an EPA pro)«ct menager b*«n n«Md for this site?34 .) in layman's terms, what procedure does EPA plan to cleanup this site?

IACMCM

o

CARVER TERRACE SI*-

CMCM

o

3 5 . ) At what other sites involving a residential subdivisionhas this procedure been successfully used?

3 6 . ) How does EPA plan to "sanit ize" the earth beneath the homeswithout removing or disturbing the homes?

3 7 . ) What public funds have already been expended cr. this s iteand, by category, for what purposes have these funds beenexpended?

3 8 . ) List each contractor receiving public funds for work at thiss i te , the amount received, the purpose of payment and thecalendar period in which the work was performed.

3 9 . ) What private funds have been expended on this site and, bycategory, for what purposes were these funds expended?

4 0 . ) List each contractor receiving private funds far work atthis site, the amount received, the purpose of paymentand the calendar period in which this work was performed.

4 1 . ) Have clinically observed medical studies been conducted onany or all of the residents of this subdivision?

4 2 . ) If clinically observed medical studies have not been performed,why not?

4 3 . ) Assuming the present level of funding continues for EPA,whei can permanent site remediation begin?

4 4 . ) Assuming the present level of funding continues for EPA,when do you estimate site remediation will end?

4 5 . ) Will residents of this subdivision be able to carry onnormal outdoor activities, i .e . , planting gardens,landscaping, e t c . , while site remediation i« taking place?