SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTIONSAND SPRINGS PETROCHEMICAL COMPLEX

SANO SPRINGS, TULSA COUNTV, OKLAHOMASEPTEMBER 1987

r-CM^Too

DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION

SITE NAME AND LOCATIONSands Springs Petrochemical Complex, Tulsa County, Oklahoma.Control Operable Unit .STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

Source

This decision document represents the selected remedial action for thiss ite developed in accordance with Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensat ion, and Liability Act of 1930 (CERCLA) as amended by theSuperfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), and to theextent practicable, the National Contingency Plan (40 CFR Part 300).The State cf Oklahoma concurs with the on-site solidification and/orstabi l izat ion and off-site thermal destruction of chlorinated organiccontaminants described in this Record of Decision. The State does notconcur with the on-site incineration concept proposed by £PA at tnestart of the publi: comment period. (Letter attached)

This decision is based upon the administrative record for the SdndSprings Petrochemical Complex Superfund Site [index attached]. Theattached index identifies the items which comprise the administrativerecord upon which the selection of a remedial action is based.DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDYThe Record of Dec i s i on addresses the Source Contro l Operable Unit ,which includes all surface liquids, sludges, and heavily contaminatedsoi ls (within EPA's removal criteria), but does not include min i 'a l lycontaminated soi l c* groundwater. These aspects of the site wi l l beaddressed in another Record of Decis ion at a later date.After reviewing all avai lable information, it is EPA's judgement thaton-site thermal destruction of wastes (Alternative 2 in the attached"Summary of Remedial Alternat ive Selection") appears to meet morestatutory selection criteria than the other remedies evaluated buthas serious implementation problems. A description of this remedy andan explanation of how it meets statutory requirements in comparison tothe other remedies is contained in the attached "Summary of RemedialAlternative Selection."During the public comment period, the ARCO Petroleum Products Company,a div is ion of Atlant ic Richfield Company (ARCO), one of the potentiallyresponsible parties for this site, made written and verbal proposalsfor a privately financed remedy for the site. The most effective ~e

the ARCO proposals provides for:

1) The excavation and off-site thermal destruction of sludges, fit leastto the sludge/soi l interface from the portion of the site identif iedas the North and South Glen Wynn Lagoons.

2) Sol id if icat ion and/or stabi l izat ion of all remaining sludges andcontainment of the resulting matrix in a hazardous waste (RCRA) cellto be constructed on-site. This cell (or cells) is to meet theminimum technological requirements of subtitle C of the Solid WasteDisposal Act.

3) As part of the remedial design ARCO will demonstrate that theso l id if icat ion technology wil l meet Ef ;A approved criteria. Thiscriteria will include both chemical and physical testing requirements.Should the solidification technology fail these criteria; thermaldestruct ion will be the remedy for the above mentioned operableunit.

4) No liability release for the site or from future maintenance andmonitoring.5) Repair or restoration of the RCRA cell to ensure no migration from

the unit or destruction or treatment of all or a portion of itscontents, as EPA deems appropriate, should monitoring show that thesolidification and/or stabil ization remedy fai ls .

This proposal is very similar to the solidification alternative evaluatedin the Feasibi l ity Study for this site and in the attached "Summary ofRemedial Alternat ive Select ion" (Alternative 3).ARCO's proposed remedy appears to be technically feasible and able tomeet appl icable, or relevant and appropriate State and Federal require-ments. Both the EPA and ARCO remedies are considered "alternativetechnologies." ARCO's proposal would greatly reduce the mobility of\as t e s , t ' unlike on-site thermal destruction, the toxicity of ./asteswould not oe reduced and the volume of wastes would be increased.The ARCO proposal has a lower initial cost than thermal destruction andis supported by State and local agencies and residents.The lack of demonstrated permanence of solidfied wastes is a concernof the EPA. Unlike thermal destruction, which would eliminate organiccontaminants from future concern, the capability of solidificationor s tab i l i zat ion techniques to permanently bind high organic wastes ,such as those found at Sand Springs, has not been demonstrated in thepilot studies conducted on-site. Even though the stabil ization/solidi-fication technology has not been conclusively demonstrated for highorganic wastes, EPA considers ARCO's proposal as a promising innovativetechnology. ARCO has assured EPA that if the remedy fails, ARCO willundertake corrective action.

oof concept i«.« «« APCO

--_, w~. . vi *-, r ,C. *Regional Admin i s trator

cvji-oo

Allyn M.lDavis, DirectorHazardous Waste Management Division ffl "K Etfl nd, Chief

Superfund Program Branch \Hazardous Waste Management Division

OO

"Ste&tfsn A. Gil'rein, ChiefALONM Remedial SectionSuperfund Program BranchHazardous Waste Management Division

' ; !f. ,y*~s\&^ L^J^Snruej7~DeVos, ChiefState Programs SectionSuperfund Program BranchHazardous Waste Management Division

„Bennett Stokes, ChiefSolid Waste and Bnergency

Response BranchOffice of Regional Counsel

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Site History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Remedial Invest igat ion Resu l t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Potent ia l Impacts of Site on Human

Health and the Environment . . . . . .

PAGE

I I . ENFORCEMENT

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Pilot Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7IH. COMHUNITY RELATIONS HISTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8IV. ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION

Evaluat ion Cr i ter ia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Descr ip t ion of Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Eva luat ion of Alternat ives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Operat ion and Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Future Act ions , . . . . - -V- APPENDICES

9121318IS

A, Tables 1-6B. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)/Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Evaluat ionC. Community Re la t ions Respons iveness SummaryD. Admin i s t ra t ive Record IndexE. State Concurrence Letter

00(VI^3-Oo

EXECUT IVE SUMMARY

The Sand Spr ings Superfund s i te is located in Sand Spr ings , Oklahoma.The s i t e is the former location of tne S in c l a i r Refinery which operatedfrom the turn of the century through the 1940 ' s . After the refinerywas shut down, most of the property was conveyed to the Sand SpringsHome. In 1968, Sinc la i r merged with Atlant ic Richf ie ld Company (AfiCO)and the remaining 38 acres retained by Sinc la ir were absorbed in themerger. The portion of the complex identif ied in the RemedialInvest igat ion/Feas ib i l i ty Study as the Glen Wynn site operated as asolvent recycl ing faci l ity during the late 1960' s and early 1970 ' s .The total known waste volume is approximately 130,000 cubic yards.Unl ined sludge pits on the site contain several thousand cubic yardsof sulfur ic acid s ludge. In add i t ion to these wastes , the lagoons,p i t s , and spray ponds on the site contain various heavy metals andorgan i c s .

The remedial a l ternat ives evaluated focus on control l ing or destroyingthe source of the contaminat ion. The Main Site Operable Unit wi l laddress the remainder of the s i te , primari ly the groundwatercontaminat ion .

CM00CVI*=roO

Summary of Remedial Alternative SelectionSource Control Ctperable Unit for

Sane1 Springs Petrochemical ComplexTulsa County, OklahomaSeptember 1987

SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

The Sand springs Petrochemical Complex Suparfund site is locatedin Sand Springs, Oklahoma. As shown in figure I the site islocated on the northern bank of the Arkansas River, immediately _west of Tulsa, Oklahoma. The site encompasses approximately 235acres and is the Corner location of a refinery. As shown in figure °°2, the site inclines unlined acid sludge pits, a surface impoundment, OJsurficial sludge contamination, solvent and waste oil lagoons and *sjcontaminated sediments. Figure 2 also shows several subsurface Qsludge pits and spray ponds which were discovered subsequent to othe publication of tha Source Control Operable Unit RemedialInvestigation arid Feasibility Study. These areas will also beaddressed in this operable unit. Total known waste volume isapproximately 130,003 cubic yards. The site is situated in asandy alluvial deposit with & thickness ranging from 26 to 52feet. This deposit is underlain by approximately 100 feet ofshale. Pits and lagoons have contaminated shallow groundwnter.Site,HistoryThe site operated as a refinery from the turn of the centurythrough the 1943 's. Th* property has since been developed as anindustrial area and consists of an abandoned solvent and waste oilrecycler, an active transformer salvage/recycler, active chemicalmanufacturers and various other industries.The Sinclair Refinery acid sludge pita resulted from refineryoperations which occurred between 1910 and 1949. Refinery operationswere shut down in 1949. By October 1953, Sinclair had conveyedmost of the refinery property to the Sand Springs Home, with 38acres stil1 retained by Sinclair. In 1969, Sinclair merged withthe Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) and the 38 acre tract ofland was absorbed in the merger. In December 1986 the ChemlinkDivision of ARCO, which occupies this property, was sold toPony Industries.Several thousand cubic yards of suIfuric acid sludge, with a pHranging from 1.5 to 2.S and containing heavy metals and organic^,exist in the unlined sludge pits. The .1 lodge deposits on theriver side of the levee are of similar composition as the acidsludge pits north of the levee.

LOCATION MAP OF THESAND SPRINGS

PETROCHEMICAL COMPLEX

tACDCM•q-Oo

on *

y

FIGURE 2

MAP Of THE SAND SPRINGSPETROCHEMICAL COMPLEX

OPERABLE UNIT

The surface impoundment, located between the large and small acid sludgepits, drained surface water to the Arkansas River prior to conductionof the levee. An analysis of the surface impoundment liquid by the U.S .environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1980 indicated a pH of 2.1 andthe presence of chrysene, anthracene, phenanthre.ie, pyrene, benzene,1,1-difluorotetrachloroethane. toluene, phenol, nitrobenzene, andfluoronaphalene.An area designated in the studies as the "Glen Wynn" portion of thesite was a solvent recycling facility w/*ich operated during the late1960's and early I970's . Durfng the period of operation hazardoussubstances were stored or disposed of in drums, tanks, unlined pits andlagoons or buried on-site. These substances Include various volatileand non-volatile organics, chlorinated solvents, and sludges containingheavy metals. Waste pits have contaminated local groundwater and causedmigration of surface contaminants. Samples from the north and southGlen Wynn lagoons wera collected in 1982. Saraples from the south lagoonshowed signif icant contamination by chlorinated volati les, benzene,toluene, and numerous long-chain aliphatic hydrocarbons indicative ofoils. Lead and zinc levels were also high. Samples from the northlagoon showed the sane types of contaminants as the south lagoon.However, sediments from the nortn lagoon have shown higher levels ofvolatile organics and metals.In September 1983 the site was proposed for inclusion on the NationalPriorities Lis t . Promulgation of the site was in June 1986, In June1984, the Oklahoma State Department of Health (OSOH) entered into aCooperative Agreement with EPA to conduct the Remedial Investigation/Feasibil ity Study (Rl/FS) at the site. Uti l iz ing funds from thiscooperative agreement, the OSOH contracted with John Mathes and Associatesto perform the sampling, analysis, and technical assessments of thes i te .In an effort to address the obvious contamination in an expeditiousmanner, a source control operable unit was establ ished to focus on thewaste In the pits, ponds, and lagoons. This Record of Decision dealswith those sources of contamination. By placing a portion of the fullfeasibility study on an expedited schedule the major sources of contam-ination can be considered without wait ing for completion of the fullFS. The remainder of the site, primarily the groundwater will beaddressed in the full or "Main Site" FS. The Remedial Investigationreport on Sludge and Surface Impoundment Sampling and the Source ControlOperable Unit Feasibility Study are dated April 1987.GeologyThe Sand Springs Petrochemical Complex Is located in the alluvialfloodplafn of the Arkansas River. The alluvial material consistsprimarily of silts and fine-medium grain sands with an estimated

permeability of 82-300 gallons per day per square foot. The depth ofthe alluvial sands on the site ranges from 26 to 52 feet with thethinner deposits occurring near the river. The groundwater flowvelocity in the alluvial materials is estimated to be in the range of243 to 764 feet per year.Underlying the floodplain alluvium is the Coffeyville formation. Thisformation is composed of shales, thin ripply bedded sandstones, andsiltstones approximately 335 feet in thickness. From a regionalperspective, 70 percent of the formation is composed of shales. Includedin the upper half of the formation is a thick (20 - 50 feet) layer ofsandstone termed Layton Sandstone. This sandstone is readily identi-fied in the rocky bluffs on the south side of the Arkansas River oppositethe site. Since the site is topographically lower than the sandstoneoutcrops, this indicates that the upper portion of the Coffeyvilleformation, including the Layton sandstone, has been eroded away in thearea of the Sand Springs Petrochemical Complex. The lower portion ofthe Coffeyville is reported to be shale with thin tongues of sandstone,Remedial Investigation ResultsEleven distinct waste disposal locations were sampled on the Sand SpringsPetrochemical Complex site. At these locations, numerous discreteinterval and composite samples were collected for chemical analysis.These locations {Figure 2) are referred to as:

Surfaceo the small acid sludge pito the lar^e acid sludge pito the river acid sludge pito the South Glen Wynn lagoono the North Glen Wynn lagoono the Chefn.Unk waste pitso the surface impoundnent

Subsurfaceo the round river pito the levee pito the spray pondso the Con-Rad sludge

The Source Control Operable Unit Feasibility Study considered the sludgesand liquids in seven identified surface pits, ponds and lagoons. Foursubsurface areas consisting of petroleum sludges and acidic sludgeswere discovered during the Phase II boring and drilling activities. Soiland groundwater data from beneath these identified areas indicate theyare sources or potential sources of groundwater contamination. For thisreason volume calculations for these areas were included by addendum tothe volume estimates in the Feasibility Study. Additional analyticaldata may be developed during the design phase to further define thesewastes. The additional subsurface areas of sludges represent approximatelya 23 percent increase in volume. A cost sensitivity analysis had alreadybeen developed based on a 25 percent increase in volume. Because theadditionally identified subsurface volume (23 percent increase) soclosely approximates the cast sensitivity analyses (25 percent increase)no additional cost estimates have been calculated. The costs sensitivityanalysis estimates have been adopted for comparison of alternatives.

Tables 1 and 2 show the compounds with the highest concentrations as aresult of samples collected from the eleven disposal locations. Leadhad the highest concentration (3,775 mgAg) of all the inorganic compoundsfound in the solid samples, while tetrachloroethene had the highestconcentration { 19 ,000 mgAg) of all the organic compounds. In theliquid samples, chromium had the highest concentration ( 10,460 mg/1) ofthe inorganic compounds found and Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate had thehighast concentration (11 mg/1) of the organic compounds. The mostfrequently detected organic priority pollutant compounds detected insolid samples were chrysene and total xylene. Bis {2-ethylhexyl)phthalate and toluene were the most frequently detected organic prioritypollutant compounds in the liquid samples. The inorganic compoundsmost frequently detected in liquid and solid samples were lead, zinc,chromium and barium.A more detailed description of the analytical results can be found inthe Sand Springs Petrochemical Complex Remedial Investigation Report.Potential Impacts of the Site on Human Health and the EnvironmentBased on the information gathered in studies of the site, EPA hasconcluded that the site poses four major risks to human health and theenvironment. These are:1. Direct contact - many of the organic compounds (benzene, tetrachloro-

ethylene, and others) found on the site have been determined t~ becarcinogenics. Absorption through the skin or other routes ofinadvertent ingestion therefore pose potential health risks. Inaddition, the wastes and surface waters were found to be highly acidic.

2. Air emissions - consisting of acid fumes and volatile organiccompounds also pose potential health threats. An extreme exatiple ofacute medical impact is evident in an accident that occured in 1S80,During excavation for sanitary sewer improvements on the west sideof the large acid sludge pit, sludge . om the pit was uncovered anda n—'Tec of people required medical attention from breathing fumes(probably sulphuric acid). During the remedial investigation, lowlevels of trichloroethylene and sulphuric oxides were detected inthe ambient air.

3. Surface waters - are polluted by the runoff from the site,especially during heavy rains. There are 550,000 gallons ofcontaminated liquids contained in the surface impoundment and165,020 gallons of liquid in th* Glen Wynn lagoons.

4. Groundwater - is being contaminated directly by the Glen Wynnlagoons and indirectly by runoff from the main site. Relativelyclean sands were found beneath the main waste deposits aboveunderlying groundwater, indicating that direct contamination by themain waste deposits does not appear to be significant. Large volumes

O

of runoff water (in heavy rains the site is submerged) do, however,carry contaminants off the main waste deposits to mix with contaminantsfrom the other waste deposits. This eventually sinks into the ground-water from standing pools of water in low places on-site.

It should be noted that the study of Sand Springs groundwater is beingcarried out separately. EPA has determined however, that remedying theidentified sources of contamination will not conflict with the ultimate

for the site.II .ENFORCEMENTBackgroundApproximately 300 Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) have beenidentifies 3t the site. Special notice may be provided to the PRPsto conduct the Remedial Design and Action,To date, two PRPs have taken action at the site; ARCQ and the SandSprings Home. The Sand Springs Home, performed a removal action in1984 under the terms of a Unilateral Administrative Order. ARCOconducted pilot studies under an Administrative Order.Pilot. StudiesDuring the sumner of 1987, ARCO conducted treatability studies on theacid sludge wastes under an Administrative Order on Consent. Theresults of these studies were submitted to EPA on July 15, 1987, inthe "Interim Report - Acid Sludge Treatability Evaluations". Thisdocument was placed in the repositories of information for review bythe public. The three treatment processes evaluated are thermaltreatment, stabilization, and solidification. A final version of thereport was submitted on September 1, 1987.The thermal treatment processes studied were infrared, rotary kiln,fluidizec btd, i»\ ! circulating fluidized bed. The actual pilot testswere conducted using an infrared incinerator, but the results of thesetests should be representative of the other processes. High temperatureincineration was used to destroy the acid sludges and scrub the combustiongases. Indicator organic compounds, known as principal organic hazardousconstituents (POHC's), were measured to determine if the incineratorcould attain a destruction and removal efficiency of 99.99% for organics.This destruction and removal efficiency is required by RCRA for mosthazardous wastes. The results obtained from the pilot test verifiedthat the thermal treabnent unit could attain the 99.99% criteria.Stabilization was evaluated as a potential renvedy for the acid sludges.This technology uses a stabilizing agent, such as lime, to reduce themobility of the contaminants and increase the bearing capacity of themass containing the contaminants. The toxicity characteristics leachingprocedure (TCLP) was used to evaluate the performance of this technology.

The analytical results show that without further treatment free liquidcontaminant concentrations were not reduced to meet RCRA land banrestrictions. The unconfined compressive strength of the stabilizedmaterial was determined by the EPA-Cincinnat.1 laboratory to be 1.8pounds per square inch (psi), which does not meet the recomrendeddisposal criteria requiring a compressive strength of 150 psi.The pilot study of solidification involved mixing a cementing agent withthe waste to produce a brick-like material. This process is also usedto reduce the mobility of the contaminants and increase the bearingcapacity of the mass containing the contaminants, Although this processmeets the RCRA land ban requirements, leaching tests conducted by EPAsCincinnati laboratory show that the solidified material leaches contam-inants, although leaching may diminish over time. Leaching of contami-nants, an^ incomplete encapsulation raises questions about the longterm effectiveness and permanence of the process. Visual examinationof the solidified waste shows small globules of waste which are notfully encapsulated.III. COMNaJNITY RELATIONS HISTORY

On July 24, 1984, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issueda news release announcing that funds had been awarded to the OklahomaState Department of Healtn (OSDH) to conduct the RI/FS at the SandSprings site.The completion of the studies was announced to the public via newsreleases issued by the OSDH on July 9, 1987, and by EPA on July 15, 1987.The August 4, 1987, public meeting to discuss the proposed remedy forthe site was also announced. EPA prepared a fact sheet describingalternative cleanup plans and the EPA preferred alternative which wassent to the interested and affected public on July 29, 1987. The factsheet gave a brief site history, described the renedy selection processand alternatives and gave details about the public comment period andmeetingThe public meeting was held in Sand Springs on August 4, 1987. Themeeting was changed from the original public library location to theCity Council Chambers so that the large crowd of interested peoplecould be accommodated. About 180 people attended the meeting whichbegan at 7:03 pui and ended at midnight.During the meeting, requests were made for EPA to extend the publiccomment period. That request was granted by the presiding officialand the comnent period was extended until September 1, 1987, A newsrelease was issued by tne EPA on August 7 announcing the extension.In addition to the Agency media list/ the news release was mailed to allpersons known to have an interest in the site.Community concerns centered on potential air pollution from thermaldestruction, potential adverse economic impacts on the city and whether

10o Magnitude of reduction of existing risks;o Short-term risks that r.._.ght be posed to the coorrrjnity, workers,

or the environment during implementation of an alternativeincluding potential threats to human health and the environmentassociated with excavation, transportation, and redisposal orcontainment;

o Time until full protection is achieved.Long-term Effectiveness and PermanenceAlternatives are assessed for the long-term effectiveness andpermanence they afford along with the degree of certainity thatthe remedy will prove successful. Factors considered ace:o Magnitude of residual risks in terms of amounts and concen-trations of waste remaining following implementation of aremedial action, considering the persistence, toxicity, mobility,and propensity to bioaccumulate of such hazardous substancesand their constituents;

o Type and degree of long-term management required, includingmonitoring and operation and maintenance;

o Potential for exposure of human an^ environmental receptorsto remaining waste considering the potential threat to humanhealth and the environment associated with excavation,transportation, redisposal, or containment;

o Long-term reliability of the engineering and institutionalcontrols, including uncertainties associated with land disposa*of untreated wastes and residuals;

o Potential need for replacement of the renedy,Implementa_bilityThe ease or difficulty of implementing the alternatives areassessed by considering the following types of factors:o Degree of difficulty associated with constcucting the technology;o Expected operational reliability of the technologies;o Need to coordinate with and obtain necessary approvals andpermits (e.g., NPDES, Dredge and Fill Pennies for off-siteactions} from othec offices and agencies;

o Availability of necessary equipment and specialists;

11o Available capacity and location of needed treatment/ storage,and disposal services.

6. CostThe types of costs that should be assessed include thefollowing:o Capital cost;o Operation and maintenance costs;o Net present value of capital artf 0 & M costs;o Potential future remedial action costs.

7. Crtraunity AcceptanceThis assessment should look at;o Components of the alternatives that the community supports;o Features of the alternatives about which the oomnunity hasreservations;o Elements of the alternatives which the conmunity strongly opposes

8- State AcceptanceEvaluation factors include assessments of:o Components of the alternatives the State supports;o Features of the alternatives about which the State hasreservations;o Elements of the alternatives under consideration that theState strongly opposes.

' Overall Protection o£.Human Health and the EnvironmentFollowing the analysis of the remedial options againstindividual evaluation criteria, the alternatives are assessedfrom the standpoint of whether they provide .adequate protectionof human health and the environment considering the multiplecriteria.BPA is also directed by SARA to give preference to remedialactions that utilize treatment to remove contaminants from theenvironment. Off-site transport and disposal without treatmentis the least preferred option where practicable treatment tech-nologies are available.

OJOCVJ«sroo

12

Description of AlternativesIn contormance with the National Contingency Plan, initial remedialapproaches were screened tc determine which might be appropriate forthis site. (See the Feasibility Study for details of this evaluation).From these possible remedies, six alternatives were chosen for moredetailed evaluation and comparison with the remedy selection criteriaoutlined above. Each is summarized below:

ALTERNATIVE lf HO ACTIOM - This remedy consists primarily ofrestricting public access to the contaminated areas and monitoringthe site. The areas would be secured using fencing and warningsigns. Site monitoring will involve air -ton it or ing and anestablished wa ning system Cor evacuation of the nearby public incase contamination is detected above any applicable standards.Grcundwattir and barm conditions will be monitored periodically.Thj estimated cost to implement the "No Action" alternati"-* is

All five of the remaining alternatives require excavatiod of thecontaminated materials. If any waste ronains on-site, a landfillconstructed in compliance with RCRA requirements will be used to reducegroundwatur infiltration and the chances of any contaminants migratingoff-site. In addition the site will be monitotdsd for at toast 30 years.Each remedial action alternative also includes removal and treatment ofthe liquids in the surface impoundments, the north and south Glen Wynnlagoons and collected stormwater. Surface impoundment liquids andliquids from the north and south Glen Wynn lagoons will be pur.ipedtreated, and discharged.The specified treaUtent unit will be capable of removing the metal andorganic contaminants from the liquids to result in concentrations thatcomply with Federal and/or State standards for direct discharge to theArkansas River . Stormwnter will be collected within the individual.reas as they are being rarwJiated. It is assumed that the collectedstoratwate? will have similar or lower concentrations of hazardoussubstances as the surface impoundment liquids -ind will be treated inthe sane manner.

ALTERNATIVE 2f ON-SITE THERMAL DESTRUCTION - Involves removingand transporting the hazardous material to an on-fiite thermaltreatment unit. Materials handling will likely include haulingthe hazardous waste to the thermal destruction unit, possiblyadding chemicals to neutralize the low pH sludges, mixing thewaste an£ chemicals to make than as homogeneous as possible,end reducing the solid materials to « suitable size for thermal<$eatruction. Stack gases will be scrubbed And treated prior toatmospheric release. The residual ash will be teatad, solidified,and land filled to comply with RCRA requirements* if necassary.The estimate^ cost of this alternative is $67 million.

CM«=roo

13

oo

ALTERNATIVE 3, SOLIDIFICATION AND ON-SITE LANDFILL - In general,solidification technologies involve uniformly combining thehazardous material with cementitious materials, such as Portlandcement or fly ash and letting the mixture harden. This remedyinvolves neutralizing and excavating the hazardous material andplacing it in an on-site blending unit for mixing with thesolidification agent. The solidified mixture would be disposed ofin an on-site RCRA specification landfill. Prior to landfilling,relevant tests would be perfODued to confirm the effectiveness ofthe solidification technology. Implementation of this alternativemay produce a total volume increase of 50 to 200 percent that ofthe original volume. A fence would be installed to restrict siteaccess and groundwater monitoring would be performed for at least ^a 30 year period following closure. The cost of this alternative <^is estimated to be $38 million. CM

«CfALTERNATIVE 4, ON-SITE SOLVENT EXTRACTION - This remedy entailsthe excavation and neutralization of the hazardous sludges,treatment in an en-site facility, and proper disposal of thethree by-products (oil, water, and solids). Solvent extractiontreatment includes sizing and pretreating the material prior toextracting the oil with a solvent. Each waste stream of oil,water, and solids will require sampling and analysis to determinethe appropriate method of disposal. This alternative would requirepilot studies prior to development of performance specificationsto determine the degree which products may be contaminated and howto treat the oil, water, and solids product streams, if necessary.The estimated cost of this remedy is $272 million.ALTERNATIVE 5f OFF-SITE THERMAL DESTRUCTION - This remedy wouldinvolve removal and transport of hazardous material to an off-sitethermal destruction unit in compliance with the Superfund off-sitepolicy. The description of the off-site thermal destructiontechnology is similar to alternative 2. The estimated cost ofthe remedy is $429 million. Transportation cost is the primaryreason for the cost differential between alternative 2 andalternative 5.ALTERNATIVE 6, OFF-SITE SOLVENT EXTRACTION - This remedy is similarto alternative 4, although it requires transporting the materialoff-site to a treatment facility in compliance with the Superfundoff-site policy. The estimated cost of the off-site solvent extractionalternative ir $294 million.

Evaluation of AlternativesThe degree that the six remedial alternatives meet the niiie selectioncriteria is contained in Table 4. The following values were assignedto compare remedial selection criteria:•*•+ Alternative would greatly exceed a selection criterion when

compared to other alternatives.

* Alternat ive would exceed a criterion in comparison to otheralternatives.0 Alternat ive can be des igned to meet the select ion cr i ter ion,- Special efforts wil l be necessary in the design of the remedyto meet the selection cr iter ion.

-- In comparison to other remedies, these alternatives would presentmost difficulty in achieving a selection criterion.

The rationale for the rat ings ass igned in this table is as fo l lows:1. Compl ies with ARAPS ( i . e . meets or exceeds Appl icab le , or Relevant

and Appropriate Federal and State Requirements) .a < No Act ion was ass igned a "--" because it would violate RC3Acorrect ive action requirements requir ing remediation of a hazardouswaste s ite and does not comply with the National Contingency Planprovis ions to respond to a threat of release.

Thermal Destruct ion was rated "+" based on the growing

inoCM^rOo

body of knowledge the agency has about the ability of this processto meet environmental standards and the highly incinerablecharacter i s t i cs of waste at the s i te . In add i t i on , an on-xitepi lot test of a thermal destruct ion unit showed that 99.39*destruction of organics (a RCRA requirement) was achievableafter fuel to air ratios were adjusted. All other standards (andwater qual ity standards) should ^e met as we l l ,On-site Sol idif icat ion and Landfil l was rated "-" for both thesol idi f icat ion and stabi 1 i zation processes evaluated broadly inthe feas ib i l i ty Study and in more detai l -in the field pilots tud i e s . The waste at this sits contains 50% organic compoundsra i s ing doubts about the abil ity of stabi l ized or solidifiedwaste to meet RCRA requirements In the long term. The s tab i l i za t ionpilot tests showed that stabi l ized waste may require a supportstructure* to support a RCRA cap due to low compressive strengths( 1 . 8 p s i ) . It is recommended that landf i l l ed sol ids attain 150psi if a cap is instal led without a support structure. Liquids(up to 40% by volume) separated from stab i l i zed materia l wouldrequire further treatment* before disposal to meet RCRA requirements.The so l id if ied waste contained vis ib le chunks of waste from peato fist size and had a wide variat ion in compressive strengths(from 180 to 650 ps i ) . Tests to determine the long term abi l ityof tne sol idifying matr ix to contain the waste were not conclus ivedue to the lack of a rel iable test methodology. A modified leachingtest (see ORD report) on pilot study samples did show obviousdegradation of the sol id ifying matr ix following analyses fortotal organic content.

* not included in Feasibility Study cost estimates

15

Finally, available pilot project data indirectly points to thepotential for significant air emissions from both the solidificationand stabil ization processes. Analysis of solidified or stabilizedwaste shows that the quantity of low volatile compounds remainedunchanged in treated samples. Compounds with higher volatilityhowever, nearly disappeared. Tulsa County is designated by EPAas nonattainment for ozone; the possibility of significant additionsof hydrocarbon compounds must be considered.The net assessment is that solidification or stabil ization processespresent d i ff i cu l t problems w.th respect to meeting AKARs.

d. Other Alternat ives were all rated "O" because all involvedtreatment processes that can be designed to meet ARARs,2. Reduces : Tqxic i ty, Mob i l i t y , and Volume

*• N.Q...AcMon was rated "-" because it does nothing to reduceany of these parameters.D< .Qj\*site Thermal Destruc t ion was rated "+" In each category because

this process wou ld e l iminate organic compounds that const i tuteSOS of the waste .c. So l i d i f i ca t i on/Stab i l i za t i on was rated differently for esch ofthe parameters.

* • Mobi l i ty - was rated "•*" because pilot studies suggest thisremedy reduces mobility. It was not rated 'V+11 because oftne possibi l ity for leaching exists even though the contaminantswil l be fixed to a solidifying agent.ii- ToxlcUy - was rated "-" because none of the metals ororganic compounds were removed from the waste exceptthe elimination of possible air emissions.iii. Volume - was rated "—" because of pilot data showing aToTumetric increase of 501 to 200% for these remedial

techniques.d. Other Remedies - were all rated "+" because each involves removal

of the organic components of the waste.3. S ho r t*t erm Effectiveness

With the exception of the No Action remedy all alternatives were ratedat least "-" because of the potential for release of acid fumes orother noxious gases during waste excavation. This problem can probablybe avoided by the use of foams, cautious work practices, or temporaryenclosures and will need to be addressed in the design of the remedy.

Off-s i te remedies were all rated "--" because, in addition to theexcavat ion problems, transportation of the waste off-s ite posesaddit ional environmental r i sks . No action was also, rated "--"because of the risk the site presents, as demonstrated by the watercompany worker injuries.4. Long-term Effect iveness and Perma_nence

The highest rat ings; "**" were given to the thermal destructionoptions since they entailed the destruction of organics and solidifi-cation of any toxic ash. Solidified ash should be extremely stablein t*ie environment because the organic compounds will have beenel iminated. Lower ratings of "+" were given to the solvent extractionoptions because sl ight inefficiences in the water-oi l-sol ids separationprocess wi l l result in somewhat "dirtier" end products than thethermal destruction techniques. The solidification alternative wasgiven a "-" due to the general lack of proven effectiveness, pilotstudy data, and doubts about the long term stability. The no actiona l ternat ive was rated "--" because of the r isks involved with leavingthe untreated waste on-site,5. Ircplementability

All a l ternat ives that entai led the excavat ion of the waste wererateJ at least "-" due to expected d iff i cu l t i e s in mater ia ls handl ing.These problems becaoe apparent dur ing the pilot studies and wi l lrequire attention djring the design phase. The processes that woulotreat the waste on-site are judged to each have the same degree ofImplementability. Solidif ication and stabil ization would likelyrequire waste to be more finely pulver ized than many thermaldestruct ion techniques and require staging and curing areas withassoc iated leachate collection and treatement systems. On the otherhand, thermal destruction systems would require exhaust gas capture,pollutant removal, and treatment systems that would not be requiredby the so l id i f i cat ion/stab i l i zat ion techniques. Off-s i t e remediesreceived an addit ional "-" due to the added transportation problems.6. Cost

Estimated costs for each remedial action alternative are summarizedin Table 5. Inc luded in this table are total capital and implementationcosts , annual operation and maintenance costs, total present worth,and replacement costs . Replacement costs were included to evaluatethe costs involved in remediation if the alternative were to fail.The potential for failure was determined to be greatest for the on-sitesolidification remedy, since the potential for contaminants leachingfrom the sol id if ied material exists . Replacement cost is estimated tobe $100 mi l l ion, assuming on-site thermal destruction is the replacementclean up technology.

The no action remedy has the lowest present worth of the alternatives,but has an annual operating and maintenance cost of over $25,000.This expense is due to groundwater monitoring, air monitoring, and siteinspections.The projected cost for on-site thermal destruction is $67 million,which is over $350 million less than off-site thermal destfact ion . Theprimary reason for this difference is the higher cost that vendorscharge at permitted off-site faci l i t ies. These cost can be attributedto off-site permitt ing requirements and the l iabi l i t ies incurred by theoperators.The on-s i te so l id i f i cat ion alternat ive was est imated to cost $38 mi l l ion ,The largest portion of this cost can be attributed to construction andimplementation expenses.Transportation costs are the primary reason for the difference in thecost between on-site and off-site solvent extraction. Although on-sitesolvent extraction is less expensive than off-site solvent extraction,the on-site version also requires annual operation and maintenancewhich is not required for off-site treatment.?• Community AcceptanceAt the publ ic meeting 01 August 4, 1987, the residents ' comments centeredon the on-site thermal destruct ion and the so l id i f i cat ion a l ternat ives .There was general agreement favoring some form of remedial act ion forthe s i te .The community was concerned that the site would be used in the futureto destroy hazardous waste from other sites, that the thermal destructionoption would add to exist ing air pollution and that the local economymight suffer from the presence of a hazardous waste incinerator. Someresidents favored destruction of the waste, however. Because of theaforementioned concerns, the on-site thtrmal destruction option was ratedas less acceptable to the community than solidification/stabil ization.On-site thermal destruction received a rating of "-" , while thesolidification remedy received a rating of "+". A rating of "0" wasgiven to the other remedial alternatives due to a lack of comment aboutthese options.8. State AcceptanceThe Oklahoma State Department of Health cited concerns s imi lar to thosevoiced by res idents . L ikewise , the on-s i te thermal destruction remedyreceived a rating of D~", the sol idif ication remedy received a ratingof and all other remedies were rated "09. Overal l Protection of Human jjealth and the EnvironmentOn-site and off-site thermal destruction received the highest rating of"++". Thermal treatment results in elimination of the contaminated

material The thermal treatment unit will be designed tc meet RCRAs t anaa^ - s . It is poss ible that noxious gases wi l l be given off byexcava t i on act iv ity, but a contingency plan wi l l be developed to addres stiis problem. That level of destruction required by RCRA, 99.99» of tneorganic contaminat ion, should be destroyed. Sol idif icat ion of the flyasn that might contain metals* has been sho*/n to be very stable in theenv ironment .On-s i te sol idification was given a lower rating of " • * • " . This rating islargely due to the fact that the source of the contamination will not bedestroyed and tne potential for leaching of contaminants exists.On-s i t e and off-s ite solvent extract ion were given a rat ing of ' '0".Solvent extraction would separate the oil, water and solid phases butmay req^ir* further treatment of each waste stream to meet RCRA disposalcr iter ia, "me contaminants will not be destroyed and the potential forfuture exposure ex i s t s .The risk involved with leaving untreated waste on-site is theprincipal reason that the no action alternative received a ratingof "--" .Operation and Maintenance (O&M)The need for future operation and maintenance wil l be minimized sincethe source of the contaminat ion wi l l be removed. Site operation andmaintenance wil l include a monitoring well sampling and analysisprogram. Addit ional site maintenance will entai l the inspection ofsurface vegetation, periodic repair of the perimeter fencing, andinspect ion of the on-site RCRA lanaf i l l . The State of Oklahoma wil l beresponsible for the cost of 04M for a period of at least 30 years afterthe completion of the remedial action.Future ActionsNo future act ions are ant i c i pa ted for the Source Control Operable Un * t .Future groundwater remediation wil l be addressed in the Main SiteOperable Unit. The proposed remedial action is considered permanent.If, however, s ignif icant, unforeseen, off-site migration or contaminationoccurs as a result of the site, appropriate remedial measures wil l bet aken .

Remedial Action ScheduleApprove Remedial Action (sign ROD)Complete Enforcement NegotiationsObligate Funds (Start Remedial Design)for State or US Army Corps of Engineersto Conduct Remedial Des ign (assumingthe PRPs do not take over)Complete DesignObligate Funds to Start RemedialActionComplete Remediation

September 1987January 1988January 1988

March 1989March 1589

November 1991

K IGh t ST CCXPOvIO CCNCENTKATIONS FOR SOL ID SAMPLESH: G h e s t

Con c e n t r a t i o n2 r. o r g a n i cCor.pour .ds

( r r . c/kg )rcal i ac id. . s ludce r i t

Large ac ids lucce p i t• lr rim, i,, i |*1^ , lA^M^^ j

Rive r ac id. . j s ludce p i t

South GlenWynn lacoon

Nor th GlenKynn lagoon

Cheml i n kwas t e p i t s

Sur f a c eirno pund n e n t

Lead *Bar ium2in c *Lead *Bar i umChrom i um *Zin c *Lead*Ch r om i u m *Lead*Z i n c *Ba r i u mLead *Z i n c *Coppe r *Bar i u r :Lead*Z i n c *2 i n c *Lead *Bar i um

3 1 7 . 5

6 1 7 . 52 3 9 . 12 3 5 . 62 3 5 . 91 9 2 . 81 5 1 . 1

2 , 0 2 21 , 8 4 5

7 6 0 . 53 , 7 7 53 , 4 2 22 , 7 4 5

1 6 4 . 82 7 . 42 3 . 7

3 , 5 0 42 , 0 7 71 , 2 4 6

Hig h e s t 3

Con c e n t r a t i o nOrgan i c

Compoundsf r o g/k g )

Benzo le ac id 1 , 7 0 0Chrysene * 240Tota l Xylene 81Chrysene * 480Benzo ( a ) py r e n e * 3 9 0Benzoic acid 240Chrysene * 57 .Total Xylene 24 .Phenanthrene * 18 .Tetrach loroethene * 1 9 , 0 0 0Tr ich loroethane * 3 , 4 0 0Total Xylene 5 , 4 0 0To luene * 3 , 5 0 0Tetrach 1 oroethane * 3 , 0 0 0Total Xylene 2 , 3 0 0Tota l Xylene 3604-methy l~2-pentanone 3502-methy lnaphtha lene 1302-ne thy l naph tha l e n e * 300p-ch loro-m-cre so l * 260b i s - (2- e t h y l h e x y l )

phtha late * 240

Pr i o r i t y Po l l u tan t CompoundTen ta t i v e l y ident i f i ed compounds were not inc luded( e . g . , hydrocarbons )An e s t imated value

H I G H E S T C O X P C V N DHighe s t Cor.cent ra t: onInorgan i c Compound s

(me/I)_________South Glen

Wynn lagoon

7A5LE 2

CONCENTRAT IONS FOF. L IC ' J ID SAM?

2in c *Bar lurcLead *

Nor th Glenla : on

6 2 ?5 9 65 9 3

Chrom i um * 1 0 , 4 6 0Zin c * 5 , 8 7 3Lead* 2 , 6 9 2

Sur fa c e. . . . impoundment

Zin c *Lead*Ba r i um

7 4 23 6 6189

Conc en t r a t i o nOrgan i c Compounds( m c / 1 )

Bis (2-e thy l h exy l ) ph tha i a t e * 1 1 . 0trans 1/2-d i c h l o r o e t h e n e * 1 20Toluene* 0 . 6 2 0

Toluene*B i s (2-e thyhexy l ) ph tha l a t e *trans 1 ,2-d ich loroethene *

0 . 4 9 00 . 3 3 00 . 2 8 0

Chrysene * 0 i (MObenzo (a )py r en e * 0 . 0 0 7 6b i s (2~ethyhexy l ) phtha la te * o l o 0 4 9

CMO

Oo

* P r i o r i t y Po l l u t a n t Compounda Tentat ive ly ident i f i ed compounds not included ( e . g ,hydrocarbon s )

TABLE 3TABLE OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS

WHICH MAY BE APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE

LAW OR REGULATIONFederalResource Conservationand Recovery Act

(RCRA)

DOT HazardousMaterials Transport

NOANALYSIS ACTION

Violations XlikelyCompliancedemonstratedor feasibleWot XApplicable

ON -SITETHERMAL

DESTRUCTION

X

X

ON -SITESOLIDIFICATION& LANDFILLIHG

x(U

X ( I J

X

ON -SITE OFF -SITESOLVENT THERMAL

EXTRACTION DESTRUCTION

X X

X

OFF -SITESOLVENT

EXTRACTION

X

Rules

Clean Air Act (CAA)and NationalArabient Air QualityStandards (NAAQS)

Toxic SubstancesControl Act (TSCA)

National PollutantDischargeElimination System(NPDES)Requirements

Compliancedemonstratedor feasibleApplicable

NotApplicableNotApplicableApplicable

(I) Pi lot studies indicate violations likely trith on-site- solidification, however*may devlop a feasible alternative. J u pilot studies

LAW OR REGULATIONClean Water Act

Executive Orders£ £0) for FloodPlains (11968)

Fish and WildlifeCoordination Act(FtfCA)StateOklahonw Solid WasteRegulations

)fclahon& Clean AirAct

MOANALYSIS ACTIONViolations XlikelyCompliancedemonstratedor feasibleApplicable XNot ApplicableApplicable X

Not XApplicableCompliancedemonstratedor feasibleViolations Xlikely

OK -SITETHERMALDESTRUCTION

X

X

X

X

Compliancedemonstratedor feasible

TABLE 3 (continued)

OW-SITE ON-SITE OFF-SITESOLIDIFICATION SOLVENT THERMALS LAHDFILLING EXTRACTION DESTRUCTION

OFF-SITESOLVENT

EXTRACTION

9 0 4 3 0 4

3 (continued)

_Utf_OftJ?EGULA7ION ANALYSISOklahoma HazardousWasta Regulations

Oklahoma WaterQuality Standards

LocalLocal Permits

ON-SITEf THERMALACTION DESTRUCTIONNotApplicableCompliancedwionst ratedorisolationsHkel

demonstratedor feasible

NotApplicable

QW-SITE ON-SITE OFF-^FTFSQUDIFICATIQK SOLVENT THERMAL*J^5L!yj/«L EXTRACTION OESlSuCTIOH

OFF-SITESOLVENT

EXTRACTION

0 0 4 3 0 5

TABLE 4COMPARISON OR REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES

SAND SPRINGS PETROCHEMICAL COMPLEXSUPERFUND SITE

ALTERNATIVES

2. NO ACTION2. ON -SITE

THERMALDESTRUCTION

3. ON-SITESOLIDIFICATIONS LANDFILLING

4. ON-SITE SOLVENtEXTRACTION

5. OFF-SITE THERMADESTRUCTION

6. OFF-SITESOLVENTEXTRACTION

COMPLIESWITHARARS- -

-*-

-

0

L0

0

REDUCESMOB. • " ' •-

+

+

4-

+

4-

TOX.-

+

*

4-

4-

4-

.

VOL.-

4-

- -

+

•f

•f

SHORTTERM

EFFECT_ -

-

-

_

- -

- -

LONGTERM

EFFECT_ -

+ 4-

_

+

+ +

+

IMPIEMENT-ABILITV

+ +

-

.

—

- -

- _

COST$_MJLi_IQNINIT. REPL.1

67

38

272

429

294

0

0

100

0

0

0

COMMUNITYACCEPT.

0

STATEACCEPT.

0

-

+

0

0

0.

-

*

0

0

0

OVERALLPROTECTOF HH&E_ _

+ +

4-

0

•f 4-

0

0 0 4 3 0 6

Total Capi ta l &Implementat ionCost ($)Annual GSMCost ($ )Total PresentWorth ($ }ReplacementCost (S )

ALT. 1NO

ACTION

TABLE 5COST SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES

ALT. 'ON-S i . ITHERMAL

DESTRUCTION283 ,420 6 6 . 4 8 0 , 6 8 4

1 5 ,000

5 2 5 , 5 3 4 6 6 , 7 2 2 , 7 9 9

0 0

ALT. 3ON-SITE

SOLID IF ICATION& LANOFILL ING

ALT. 4ON-S I :SOLVENT

EXTRACTION

15 ,000 15 ,000

3 7 , 5 9 4 , 4 5 4 2/2 ,35 1 , 59 1

100 ,000,000 n

ALT. 5OFF-SITE

THERr-tALDESTRUCTIO

3 7 , 4 5 3 , 0 5 0 272 ,2 10 , 1 88 4 2 8 , 4 4 1 , 0

428 ,582 ,4

0 0 4 3 0 7

TABLE 6Ant i c i pa ted Ex cava t i o n s

Locat ionSmal l Ac id PitLarge Acid PitSiver Ac i d P i tSouth Glen Wynn LagoonNorth Glen Wynn LagoonCheml ink Waste Pi t sRound R-; .«r PitLevee PitEast Spray PondWest Spray PondCon-Rad SludgeSuna-« Impoundment Sediments

Contaminated„ Interval0 to 6'0 to 6*0' t o 8 1

O 1 t o 5 '0 to 2'0' to 1 '0' to 163' - 10'4' - 3 '2' - 3'O 1 t o 7 '0' to I 1

- 9'- 9'- 10'- r

- 3'- 2'1 - 18

- 8'- 2 l

Contar i inated Liqu idsSouth Glen Wynn LagoonNorth Glen Hyrn LagoonSurface Impoundment

EstimatedVolume

14 ,4894 6 , 7 7 53 7 , 9 9 5

1 , 1 33648627

2,8444 , 5 3 71 , 5893 ,7568,889

00O

OO

__£,u:>:>TOTAL -m^TTcu. yds

TOTAL

76,30089,000

5 4 S 0 8 7

DEPARTMENT Of HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES Heai!*~

Agencv for Tox.c Sub^and Disease Reg^ s t ry

Atlanta GA 30333

-:} : cr* r-1 ''• $f *~c-*=e ("'+_~hiL'*" i cc.- * pr Ht-£< l t h F-

O

OO

* - . • • - T-j ; . _ ^- . -bu l e r i c c- i '«nd t ' j&f t fSC Re^is .t '" ,- f^T£L-R> h£-s beenL tie En .-; rcr.n.t .-ot *1 r- >otect ior ^ger-c/ ' E ^A 1 to ravieu and e v * K- :- 1si Jr. ' - e ^ t i g;* 3 cr. • ? * - ? £ j DJ ] j 1 > E t y d/ 3.nd Endanger men t As^oESff ierd d^t

--r- • ; .- ' - r t v ' . 1 f ' - c - . t » - ( * C.--J--IU -Sprinc. ; Super fund Si te locdLed in Sj-id

* . * • • . • ' ^ _ — ic t G thi.-Ei* doc-jmcntc to provide( ' ' is Gi t - - - ,

Mith 3

t": -,t.-v' •:-. ' ' I.--L"- •"'••- i -L•_-rr- :;L i t -•'. \ ci , *-i«. ri e - - ' J • _ ^ - i : - g L £ • - • • : • £ • •

M.C , t ;- - r-*Bi.'F F«ec) O'-t^ii 0+ -f jet -for Hc-c<l \h F.esponse*t •-M'jL^ - Heddq-j^*- ters i •; o- the opin ion th*t thei*e dc-i?-j pose- a ci/Tent and potential publ ic : f '& rJ t ^

j 1 j r ,€ i €' M •- I:

di c^t i U"--] -^ ' - i r - r" •"- •"• : •

E jr c- If ?t &

TSL 1^ recor-mcndat ions wi 1 1 be directed towari-ith d irect public contact end ''or potent ia l

Car i R. Hi c t . sm , F:.

\ , £ 1 7 0 0

Sand Springs {Petrochemical Complex)Sand Spr ings , OklahomaRespons iveness Summary

This Community Relat ions respons iveness summary is div ided intotwo sec t ions :Section I: Background..on Community Involvement and Concerns. This

section provides a brief history of community interest andconcern raised during the remedial p lann ing activit ies atthe Sand Springs Superfund s i te .

Sect ion II: Summary of MajorComments Received during the Publ icComment Per iod and the EPA Responses to the Comments,Both written and spoken comments are categorized bytopics. EPA responses to these relevant major topics arealso presented.

I . Background on Community InvolvementThe Sand Springs Petrochemical Complex Superfund site li^s threemiles west of Tulsa along the Arkansas r iver , in the city of SandSpr ings , Ok l a homa . The site is in an industrial complex with noresidential neighborhoods nearby. There is one family livingwithin the site boundaries.Dur ing the August 1984 on-site assessment conducted by the OSOH,every business and industry occupying the site was contacted alongwith the resident family. Many people expressed concern about acidpits from the old on-s ite refinery. Concern was expressed about anincident where construct ion act iv i t i e s exposed part of one pit andtne released fumes caused a factory to be evacuated. Severalpeople required medical attention. The family l iving on siteexpressed concern about the poor quality of groundwater. They haddr i l l ed two we l l s , neither of which could be used because of thepoor water quality.On the afternoon of August 4, 1987, officials of the EPA met withSand Spr ings city off ic ia ls to brief them about the results of thestudies on the site and discern EPA' s preferred remedy. Amongthose in attendance were Mayor George Hooper, city ManagerLoy Calhoun, Chamber of Commerce representative Jim Dougherty,County Commiss ioner John Selph and some fifteen other off ic ia l s .Dur ing the meeting a great deal of concern was expressed that ifEPA finally selected on-site incineration as the remedy, considerableeconomic hardship could be suffered by the city. It is believedthat inc inerat ion going on in Sand Springs would discourage newbusiness from locating in the city. Further fears were expressedthat once an incinerator was on-site f i it could be used to Incineratehazardous materials from other sources. The leadership was adamantthat the people of Sand Springs would not want that outcome.That even ing at 7 :00 p.m. , the public meeting was scheduled tobegin at tne Page Memorial Library, So many people arrived thatthe Mayor and City Manager offered the City Council Chambers. Thepresenters and audience went across the street to the city officesand the meeting comm^nc^d. Some 180 people were in attendance.

CM

oo

1 1 , Summary j)f Major Comments Received during the Publ ic Commentand the EPA Responses to the Comments.

1. Comment: There is not a good estimate of the amount of contaminatedsoi Is on-si te.

Response: EPA disagrees. Sufficient information has been gatheredto formulate a decision on basic clean up concept. Additionalinformation will be gathered during design studies, to the extentit is need, to accurately fix construction specifications.

2- Corcment: EPA failed to provide sufficient time to reivew andevaluate the impact on the plan by the community and by potentiallyrespons ib le parties (PRPs ) .

Response: A U;o week publ ic notice and thrpe week publ ic commentper iod was provided. As a twenty one day public comment perioa isrequired by the National Cont ingency P lan . In add i t ion , a twoweek extens ion to the publ ic comment period, for a total of sevenweeks , was prov ided . In add i t ion , separate notices were sent tothe PRPs to alert them to the impending dec is ion though notrequired by the statute or regulat ions . Des ign plans will notcommence until PRP ' s have been given time to indicate whetherthey wish to take over the project. Most of the questionsraised by the public relate to design issues and will be thetopic of the future public meetings as the design plans progress.

3. Comment: Little or no consideration has been given to the horrendouscost imposed on private industry that is obviously passed on tothe consumer.

Response: EPA disagrees with this conclusion; cost effectivenessis a inajor consideration in selecting a remedy. The ComprehensiveEnvironmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) asamended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of1986 {SARA} and the National Contingency Plan of 1985 (NCP) requiresconsideration of cost from the standpoint of eliminating highercosts a l ternat ives when comparing alternatives which are equallyprotect ive of publ ic health and the environment.

4. Comment: EPA has fa i led to give adequate cons iderat ion to thepotent ia l environmental and health risks that would be imposed bythe thermal destruct ion process .

Response : EPA disagrees with this conc lus ion, ML; "i more informat ionis ava i lab le regarding the reduction and control of emissionsfrom thermal treatment processes. Furthermore > standards foremiss ions have been set and can be met with the thermal treatmentprocess . Volati le organic re leases, reactive processes andcontrollability of emissions from the stabilization and sol idi-fication processes are not as well known.

oo

5- Comment: EPA has fai led to give adequate cons iderat ion to the potent ialeconomic and social impact on the community which would be imposed by thethermal destruct ion process .

Response: Concerns of the local community have been incorporated into thisRecord of Decis ion and will be addressed in more detail in the design ofthe remedy. Tne thermal destruct ion system has been defined as a temporaryoperation that wi l l be removed from the s i te . The des ign wi l l ensure thatthe operation of this system will be environmentally sound and unobtrusive.Wastes from other s i tes wi l l not be treated at Sand Springs . Final ly, bye l im inat i ng the exposed hazardous waste , EPA bel ieves that the communitywill benefit social ly and economical ly as wel l .

6. Coinent: "So l id i f i ca t ion would more effect ively deal with the problem of ^a majority of the waste and would protect pub l i c health and environment ^rwithout air, water and hazardous ash generated by incineration at a £>drastically lower cost." _

Response : Wh i l e a hazardous waste landfi l l of so l id i f ied waste would protectpublic health in the short term, the long term stability of this materialis not proven .

7. Comme_nt: What guarantee is there to the cit izens of Sand Springs that thes ite wil l not be used as a commercial incinerator for wastes from others i tes in the future?

Respons_e: The EPA proposal stated that the thermal destruction unit would beused only during remedial activit ies at the Sand Springs site and would bed i smant l ed ana removed from the s ite fo l lowing those act iv i t i e s .

8- Comment: Cit i zens need a written guarantee that the thermal destruction unitw i l l operate 9 9 . 9 9 percent eff ic ient ly al l the time.Response : If employed, states that the thermal destruction unit will berequired to meet the 99.99 percent combustion standards of RCRA in addition

to al l State and Federal emi s s ions standards .9. Comment: Sol id if icat ion meets the requirements of SARA for treatment which

permanently ana significantly reduces the volume, toxicity, or mobility ofthe hazardous substances .

Response: EPA disagrees with much of these claims. Based on the technicalinformat ion obta ined during the pi lot stud ies , so l id i f i cat ion increases ,informat ion obta ined during the pi lot stud ies , so l id i f i cat ion increases ,rather than reduces, volume; toxicity remains essent ia l ly the same; and,the mobility of organic contaminants is tnknown over the long term. A moreHo t a i i eH H- i c r n t c j o n of these findings i., provided in the body of the Recordthe mobilitydetailed discussionof Dec i s i on .

10 not have to cp through the permit process as wouldCfrnment: Why doespr iva t e industry?

Response : CERCLA as amended by SARA exempts EPA remedial act ion from 901 13through the administrative process of acquir ing a permit for on-s i teactivity, however, EPA is required to meet standards of State and Federalenvironmental laws.

11- Comment: Tulsa City-County Department of Health has not been adequatelyinvo lved in the Sands Springs project.Response : The Tu l sa City-County Department of Health entered into an

Interag'ency A9reement with the Oklahoma State Department of Health (OSDHTand received funding fron the OSDH-EPA cooperat ive agreement to conduct 1^sampling at the site. The Sands Springs site activit ies were a "State-^lead" project and coordination should be init iated at the City/County QHealth Department level by the State. _

12. Comment: Can a local government or agency be a party to an EPA consentdecree w i th a potent ia l ly respons ib le party (PRP) to insure that an on-s itethermal des truct ion un i t would not be used to treat waste from other s i t e s?

3e>j)Q_nse_:_ Yes , sect ion 1 13 ( 1 ) of CERCLA (42 U . S . C . §9613 ( 1 ) prov ides theright of intervent ion to any person who has an interest relat ing to thesubject of a court action which may be impaired or impeded by judic iald ispos i t ion of that action. Thus, if a local government or agency canshow the court that it has an interest in the action and that the local -government 's interest will be impaired if the government is not allowedto be a part,/ to the act ion , that government may intervene as a party.If it chooses to do so, the in tervenor wi l l share all the r ights andr e spon s i b i l i t i e s and costs borne by other par t i e s .

I3 * Comment: If on-s i te thermal destruct ion is selected, how long wil l tieprocess take?

Response: The feasibil ity study estimated 3.5-4 years to conduct therenedidl des ign, procurement of contractor and on-site thermaldestruct ion of the wastes.

14. Comment: " Inc inerat ion is not favored at the Sa-id Spr ings s ite becauseTul sa County already has ex i s t ing air pol lut ion prob lems . Anothersource of air pol lut ion which might cause Tulsa County to exceedaibieot air quality standards is not wanted/ 1

Response: The exist ing major source of particulate matters, SheffieldSteel , "is scheduled to come into compliance in the next year. Theincinerator emissions would have an insignif icant impact on air quality.

15. Comment: So l i d i f i c a t i on should get more cons iderat ion before a decisionis made.

Response: Sol idif icat ion was considered in detail during the Feasibil ityStudy and actual p i lot studies . Actuate information "is avai lable onwhich to base a dec i s ion .

16. Comment: "How dangerous is the ar id sludge to workers in the area?"Response : Acid sludge at the S '1 V ings site currently poses a directcontact threat due to the hignl. , ac id i c character ist ic of the waste

(t' . is means skin burns can result from touching the material)* Therehave also been reports of respiratory tract irritations requiringhospital treatment of workers in and around the acid sludge materialdue to the release of sulfuric acid gases. The potential also exists 'for workers to come in contact with acid ic surfaie runoff waters. Ahealth and safety plan will be developed prior to the initiation of Ion-site act ivit ies .

17. Comment: Did EPA make its final decis ion on select ing a remedy forSand Spr ings prior to the publ ic meeting?

OoResponse: No. CERCLA requires EPA to indicate a preference to allow the

public an opportunity to focus their comments. A final decision onselect ing a remedy is not made jntil after the public comment period,then all comments are reviewed and cons idered ana the Record of Dec i s i o nis signed.

18. Comment,:. Sol idif ication technologies are only experimental and have notbeen proven.Response: Sol idif icat ion technologies can be effective on low organic

wastes and heavy metals. High organic waste such as the acid sludge attne Sand Springs site creates difficulties in producing a non-leachableproduct, as shown in the pilot studies .

19- Comment; "Mat interaction will there be between the currently on-goinggroundwater study and those recommendations for clean-up compared towhat EPA is recommending to do with the acid sludge pits/ 1

Response:. The NCP requires operable units to be consistent with overal lremedies. Information from the groundwater study is currently beinguti l ized. The feasibility study for the groundwater is scheduled *orcompletion in early 1983, which coincides with the beginning of thedesign phase for the Source Control remedy. Coordinat ion for treatmentoptions and implementation logist ics will be addressed at that time.

20. Comment: No samples taken outside the actual sludge pits.Response:, Phase I of the remedial investigation addresses the known majorsources of contamination and samples were taken from these areas primarily

to characterize and quantify these known sources. Phase II sampling wasconducted over the entire 235 acre site and this information is beingutilized, as evidenced in the inclusion of the additional subsurfaceareas of contamination in the Source Control Operable Unit .

§0Bm

22,

24,

25.

26.

Comment: How many times has thermal destruct ion heen used and what hasbeen the outcome when it was used?Response: , Thermal destruct ion has been shown to be effect ive in destroying

organic po l lutants in l i teral ly thousands of app l i cat ions . EPA is convincedthat , with adequate pol lut ion control eng ineer ing , thermal destruct ic ,can be effective at the Sand Springs s i te .Comment: Why is there such a great difference in cost between on ando ff-s ite inc inerat ion?

r~~Response: Transportat ion is a portion of the cost difference. The cootfor inc inerat ion both on and off-site as well as all other a l ternat ives *""are based on actual vendor quotes and histor ical informat ion. ^

Comment: What is the basis for naming the four eastern sludge pitsident if ied in the fact sheet as the Chem Link Waste P i t s? Can the namebe changed?

ooResponse: These j i ts were named the Chem Link Pits for ease of ident if i-

cat ion because they are with in the Chem Link faci l ity boundary. Theirnames may be changed in the Jes ign phase of this project ,Comment: Inc inerat ion of the Sand Springs s ludges wi l l result in a volumereduction of only 40-50%.

Response : Pi lo t :* .udies were conducted us ing one part icu lar thermaldestruct ion technology which required the add i t ion of neutral izes pr iorto proces s i ng . Other technologies could require considerably less or noneu t ra l i za t i on . Laboratory inc inerat ion tests on 19 samples indicatean average volume reduct ion of approximately 85£. Even 40% or 50% reduc-t ion in volume is cons idered "s ign i f i cant" .

Comp ts: The Federal guide l ines which OS&H had to fo l low to produce tthe Kernedia1 Invest igat ion and Feas ib i l i ty Study (RI/FS) reports arefaulty and do not a l low the freedom to gather deta i led engineer ing dataneeded to bui ld a des ign . Not enough engineer ing data is ava i l ab l e tomake a treatment select ion at this tiiie.

Response : EPA disagrees with this viewpoint. The RI/FS met the statutoryand regulatory requirements. Deta i l ed engineer ing informat ion, necessaryfor the des ign stage, is not needed to select a remedial concept.

Comment: The ? i & f c of air emiss ions and runoff contamination have not heenaddressed.

Response: EPA d i sagrees . These routes of exposure have been fullyaddressed in the Feasibi l i ty Study and summarized in ths body of theRecord of Dec i s i on .

27. Comment: How are you going to protect the groundwater from further con-tamination while excavating for the removal options.

Response: Detai ls of protection of the groundwater during excavation willbe addressed in the upcoming design phase.

Comment: The Feasibility Study does not give the solvent extractionalternative credit for 200,000 barrels of oil that coi'ld be recoveredby solvent extraction.

Response: The Feasibility Study viewed the oil being extracted from thehazardous waste as also being hazardous under RCRA. This would render Ia non-salable product and therefore requiring additional treatment.

30,

31

29. CoiMient: Treated material produced during the stabil ization/solidificatioa?pilot studies passed the Toxicity Characterist ic Leaching Procedure (TCl£jtest and therefore the.se processes should be considered effective.

Response:, The TCLP test was only one of many analytical and physical testsperformed and considered during the remedy selection process. Althoughsome samples met exist ing leaching standards for ?andfi l lable materialsunder RCRA, other samples did show evidence of leaching contaminants.Leaching of contaminants was also seen in other analytical extract iontechniques conducted by the EPA Cincinnati laboratory. Leaching of coi.taiinants , even at low leve ls , indicates quest ionable long term eft'ectivnessand permanence of these stabi l ization/ solidification techniques. Alsothere is concern that the TCLP test may not detect all potential contami-nants due to the filtering mechanism of the test and the oily nature oftne waste .

Comment: Do PRPs have to implement the Record of Decis ion or can newconcepts and ideas for study be reviewed?

Resp?": :: A*t the Record of Decis ion is signed for a conceptual remedya treatment process within those technologies should be implemented eitherby the PRP or EPA. The details of implementation of the rer/.edy are addressedin the design phase.

Comment: How can people who have received notification letters of being aPRP find out additional information regarding their position.Response:Branch. Contact FOIA requestor Branch Chief, EPA Region 6 Enforcement

Comment: "Why are separate entities on one geographic location bound intoone Superfund site creating PRPs that should have a small responsibilityand a small site, into a PRP with a larger responsibility and a largesite?"

Response: The S-perfund site boundaries were delineated based on theexpected extent of contamination.

Are the cost estimates in the Feasibi l i ty Study actual contractorcosts to do the work or are they site costs plus State aid EPA oversightcosts .

35.

33

Response: Cost est imates in the Feas ib i l i ty Study are est imates wi th in arao-je of -30i to +50S of the costs to implement the remedies and do notinclude State or EPA oversight costs . These cost figures are only val idfor comparison of the liter-natives studied, they do not represent actualbids.

Comment: The final remedy that EPA selects should recognize the differenttypes "of waste present at the Sand Springs s i te . o

Sesgonse: EPA agrees. The variabil ity in wastes has been taken into "*"consideration. f^

Comment: It would be feasible to solidify the acid sludges on the site cin one year which is not achievable by thermal destruction. ^Response: The Feasibi l ity Study indicates all remedies could be imple-

mented in approximately 3-4 years. Actual implementation ti-ie forso l id i f i cat ion and thermal destruction is comparable, however, it isvariable depending on the a>.iount of eqjipnent, number of treatment unitsetc . , which is ut i l ized.

Comment:stjdTe's

Where did theco<ne front?

testing criteria for the sol id if icat ion pilot

Response: The EPA Cincinnat i laboratory supplied the document "TestMetnbds" for Sol id if ied Waste Character i zat ion" which was incorporatedinto tne workplan of the EPA Administrat ive Order with A3CO,Cofiime.fit: An adequate health risk assessment of the exist ing health r isksat"the"site and determination of the health risks of the /ei.iedial alternate is has not been conducted.

Response: At sites where source control remedial measures are evaluated,as for the Sand Springs site, a qual itat ive assessment of the potentialpub' i c health threats in the absence of remedial action is generallyconducted. This was accomplished in the Sand Springs Source ControlOperable Unit Endangerment Assessment under the Cooperative Agreementwith OSDH. Quant i tat ive health risk assessments are not required foralternative selection or desigi of source control remedies.

Comment: The Source Control Operable Unit Feas ib i l i ty Study does notsetiTfy the National Contingency Plan because it is based on inadequatedata and on evaluations which have not adequately addressed the require-merits of the National Contingency Plan, the Superfund Amendments andReauthorization Act, or the EPA Guidance on Feasibil ity Studies underCERCLA.

Response: Adequate data has been gathered aid the evaluations have beeiconducted to satisfy those necessary guidance documents and statutoryrequirements on which to base a decision for a source control renedy.

39. Comment: The selection of a source control remedy for the Glen iVynnlagoons is unnecessary since removal of tie majority of waste at thisfacility has already been completed.

Response: Only tne drummed and containerized waste have been removed frortthe Glen Wynn facility. No wastes have been removed .Yon the Glen iVynnlagoons.^3' Comnent: In accordance with a consent order, ARCO developed for EPA site-..

performance data specific to the effectiveness of three remedial alternatives( i . e . thermal destruction, stabi l ization and solidification) for tne acv?sludge at the Sand Springs Petrochemical Complex. Use of this data giv*£the agency a basis for selecting a re.-s&jfal alternative for the acid Qsludge ponds consistait with a permanent re.iedy for the site, as opreferred under SARA.EPA agrees. The pilot studies had a najor influence on there-iedy selected.

Comnent: Human health and the environment can be protected as well asthe studied alternatives by much simpler remedies. Why not just addadditional fencing around the site and increase security or cover thewastes with a staple earthen cap?.PAse:. Increased security at the site may reduce the chance for directhuman contact with the wastes but it would do nothing to solve the surfaceand groundwater pollution that is taking place. Installation of a simplecap is not practical because of the instability of the tarry sludges;on warn days the weight of the cap would cause sludges to ooze out fromunder or through the cap. Both of these approaches fall far short of

meeting the minimum requirements of the C£RCLA.Comrcent.: Why not use an oil extraction thermal process to treat the waste?THFTale of the thousands of barrels of oil derived would offset expenses

and bring the total cost down to $24 million.Response: The oil extraction thermal process is similar to the solventextraction process, except that it uses heat instead of solvents toseparate the oil, water, and solids. Unfortunately, RCRA regulations statethat any constituent derived from a hazardous waste must be treated ashazardous until proven otherwise. The overall cost of this alternativewould be much greater than $24 million since the oil could not be sold and

the regaining hazardous constituents would require further treatment priorto disposal .

43. Conment: How much residual ash wi l l be created by thermal destruct ion andwhere wi l l it be disposed?

Response : Thermal destruct ion would be used to treat approximately 125,000cubic yards of waste . EPA studies indicate that thermal destruction wi l latta in an 85 percent reduction in volume, while ARCO' s studies , us ing aneutral iz ing material before thermal treatment, indicate a 40 to 50 percentreduction in volume. If the neutra l iz ing material is not required to treatthe waste, an estimated 18 ,750 cubic yards of residual ash wi l l remainafter thermal destruct ion. The residual ash would be sol id if ied, ifnecessary, and landf i l led on-s i te .

44. Comment: What types of air quality problems does sol id if icat ion pose? ^Response : Pi lot studies have shown that some volati le compounds are drivel

off during excavat ion and mixing of the waste with the sol idifying agent."^Mass em. s s ion rates have not been quant if ied. O45. Comment: Has the sol id if icat ion remedy been suffic iently tested over therange of the waste?

Response: So l i d i f i ca t ion pilot studies were only conducted on the surf ic ia lacid sludge waste . Addit ional waste characterizat ion and pretreatmentstudies wi l l need to be performed on the subsurface petroleum wastes.46. Comment: "It seems surpr i s i ng that after f ive years of preliminary study

when no Information was ava i lab le on the site, a hurried ROD must beprepared ."

Response : A hurried ROD has not been prepared. The alternat ive evaluat ionprocess has been ongoing since the in it ia l stages of the Remedial Invest i-gat ion/Feas ib i l i ty Study. The Record of Dec i s ion is merely a summar izat ionand culminat ion of these s tud i e s .

m

o

0 0 4 3 2 2

Job. Ho. SS-1977Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number SequenceJob Ho. SS-1980Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number SequenceDocument DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number SequenceDocument Dater^-;» !&Kiul TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number SequenceDocument DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number Sequence

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

6/22/77Inspection ReportRob SiimnsOklahoma Water Resources Board

Investigation of Complaint21

6/12/80Potential Hazardous Waste Site InspectionGary McDonaldOSDHFor Hazardous Waste Log FileOil Bottom Sludge Pit Improvement926/13/80Interoffice CorrespondenceTom DrakeOklahoma Air Quality Service

Initial Investigation of Spill136/18/80F.'Le'. l ial Hazardous Vasle SHo Inspection I » j » t . .Gary McDonaldOSDHFor Hazardous Waste Log FileOil Bottom Sludge Pit Impoundment9

8/1/80Communication/RecordLarry WrightUSEPA (6AE6H)Mike WrightTulsa County Health DoptAccident at S3 Pit15

C\J

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDJob. No. SS-1981Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number SequenceDocument DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number SequenceDocument DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number SequenceDocument DateDocument TypeOriginacorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number SequenceJob No. SS-1981Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number Sequence

1/9/81RCRA Compliance Inspection Rpt. FacilitiesChecklistIndustrial Waste DivisionOSDHIndustrial Solid Waste DivisionOSDHMonthly Rpt . w/shipping manifests1 162/2/81Monthly Report Controlled Industrial WasteReceiving SiteGlenn WynnSite Owner/OperatorIndustrial and Solid Wast® DivisionOSDHMonthly Report with Shipping Manifests1 172/19/81LetterDiana DuttonUSEPA (6AE)Glenn Wynn

C\J

OO

Initial Inspection of Site782/25/81CommunicationJim TurnerUSEPA (6AELG)Richard HolmesAttorneyPhone call concerning Glenn Wynn19

2/27/81Controlled Industrial Waste Shipping ManifestGlenn E. WynnVacuum & Pressure Tank Truok Svos. , Inc.Industrial Waste DivisionOSDHHazardous Waste Manifests for Month1110

RBOORDJob No. SS-1981Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number Sequence

2/27/81PlanGlenn E. WynnVacuum 4 Pressure Tank Truck Svcs . , Inc,Ind. & Solid Waste Div,, OSDHControlled Ind. Waste Disposal Plan81 1

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDesct iptionNumber of PagesDocument Number Sequence

3/6/81Order/Tulsa City-County Health Dept.Ray Bishop, R .P . S .Tulsa City-County Health Dopt.Fred WhitakerResource Recovery & Refining Corp.Order to Cease Operation of Facility112

inCM

oo

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number Sequence

5/27/81Supplemental Laboratory ReportWilliam D. LangleyChief Laboratory Svcs. Section, 65A-HLWilliam J. LibrizziDir. Surveillance 4 Analysis Div. 65ASupplement to 3/ 19/81 Preliminary Data Report13

Document DateItocument T/peOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number Sequence

6/29/81Magazine ArticleChemical Business, Page 7

Article on Solvent Recovery Business 4 Process2

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDJob. No. SS-1981Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number Sequence

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator ~ AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionHut"her of PagesDocument Number Sequence

10/2/8-1Controlled Industrial Waste Shipping ManifestBob OsseryVacuum Pressure Tank Truck ServicesIndustrial & San.? Waste DivisionOSCHWaste Shipping Manifests & Monthly ReceivingSite Reports

215

CM10/22/81 K%RCRA Inspection Site Identification ^Kenneth C. Burns, Senior Environmental SpecialistOSDH *~*O

Compliance Inspection Rpt. of Resource Recovery4 Refining Corp.

716

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number Sequence

10/22/81RCRA Compliance Inspection ReportIndustrial Waste DivisionOSDHRCRA FileFacility Standards Checklist1317

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number Sequence

10/22/81RCRA InspectionKenneth C. Burns, Sr. Environmental SpecialistDHRCRA File

Site Identification & Inspection Information118

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDJob No. SS-1981Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionHuaber of PagesDocument Number Sequence

10/23/81Industrial Waste Receiving Site Monthly Rpt.Industrial & Solid Waste DivisionOSDHRCRA FileMonthly Rpt . of Delivered Waste for September19

1981

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number Sequence

1 1 / 16/8 1LeaseS. Heal JohnsonSandsprings HomeSam FarmerRecyclon CorporationLease for Purpose of Conducting Re-Refining &Treatment of Solvents, Crude & Lube Oils

620

r-CMto^too

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Nuaber SequenceJob No. 1982Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number Sequence

12/18/81Spill Prevention Control & Countermeasure PlanDennis I. KelleyO'Kelley Engineersllenn WynnVacuum Pressure Tank Truck Services, Inc.Plan to Prevent and Contain Oil Spills921

2/1/82Industrial Waste Receiving Site Monthly Rpt . &

Shipping ManifestsBob OsserySiteowner/OperatorIndustrial & Solid Waste DivisionOSDHWaste Shipping Manifests & Monthly Receiving

Site Reports922

Job No. SS-1982Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number Sequence

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number Sequence

2/26/82Data Reports w/Cover LettersPeters, ChiefHazardous Waste Section (§ES-SH)Nott, ChiefEnforcement Section (iAW-SE)Copies of the Analysis of Samples Collected atVacuum & Presssure Tank Truck Services.

523

8/1/82Acknowledgement of Notification of Hazardous

Waste ActivityDw;'.ght CorleyRC11AWhitierResource Recovery & Refining Corp.Letter Changing Organization's EPA I .D. Number10

00CM

oo

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number Sequence

8/10/82Civil Action BriefCarol E. DinklnsAsst. Atty. general, Land & Natural ResourcesDivision, DOJ

Northern District of OklahomaComplaint of EPA vs, Def. Site Owners (PRP ' b )Petition for a T .R .O . Prohibiting Recycling2325

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number Sequence

8/ 1 1/82MemorandumRod HuffmanPilesListing of Violations by Recyclon Found DuriiInspection

1?6

ADKINISTRATIVE RECORDJob No. SS-1982Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number Sequence

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecip. ntRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number Sequence

8/27/82PetitionState of OklahomaDistrict Court Tulsa CountyState of OklahomaPet. '/or a TRO Prohibiting Recyclon fromReceiving at Site

927

8/27/82AffidavitRod HuffmanInspectorDistrict Court Tulsa CountyState of OklahomaDeposition of Unchanged Conditions at Siteafter Several Visits u/Hemedial Orders.

328

CM

oo

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of Page?Document Number Sequence

8/27/82MemorandumWilliam W. lordon, Jr. , Enforcement OfficerOSDHMark S. ColemanDeputy Commissioner for Environmental Health Svcs.Memo tells of "Hecyclon" Cleanup after hearingof Potential Lawsuit and Lists Alternatives129

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number Sequence

8/27/82CorrespondenceJoan K, Leavitt, H .D . , Commissioner of HealthOSDHHon. David Hoas, District AttorneyTulsa County CourthouseRequo&t for Proaecutorial Procedures to facil-itate compliance at Sito.

130

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number Sequence

9/1/82MemorandumRod HuffmanOSDHFilesFollow-Up Inspection on 8/20/82 showed viola-tions persisted.

131

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number Sequence

9/9/82Memorandum & Water Analysis ReportRod HuffmanOSDHFiles

O

OSamples Taken fi Recyclon 9/7/82 of Barrels &Soil532

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number SequenceJob. No. SS-1983Document PateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number Sequence

9/30/82MemorandumRod HuffmanOSDHFilesUnchanged Condition of Site as of 9/24/82133

2/1/83Industrial Waste Receiving Site Monthly Rpts .Bob UaserySite Owner/OperatorIndustrial & Solid Wasts DivisionOSDHMonthly Reports of Delivered Waste (January 1983)5

Job. No. SS-1983Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number Sequence

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocuaer.t Number Sequence

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number Sequence

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number Sequence

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

H/10/83PetitionState of Oklahoma (OSDH)District Court Tulsa CountyState of OklahomaRequest for TRO & Permanent Injunction Prohib-iting Operation.

535

6/8/83CorrespondenceJoan K. Loavltt, J .D . , Commissioner of HoaltlPOSDHNon. David Koaa, District Attorney QTulsa County CourthouaaRequest for ProaccutorUl Proceedings under (3

0.3. 198) .136

6/6/83QA SuaaaryCynthia PachunaaOSDHOklahoma State AgencySummary Sheet - NPL2

7/5/83Industrial Waste Receiving Site Monthly Rpts(Juno-Dec. 1983)

Bob UaaerySite Owner/OperatorIndustrial and Solid Waste DivisionOSDHMonthly Reports of Delivered Vaoto838

ADHmiSTRATIVE RECORD

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionHuaber of PagesDocuaent Nuabcr SequencePocuneiit DateDocuaent TypoOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNuaber of PagesDoouaont Huaber SequenceDocument DateDoouaent T/peOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient • AffiliationDescriptionNuaber of PageaDoouaent Hunber SequenceDocuaont DateDocuaont TypeOrig4natorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNuaber of Page*Docuaent Nuaber SequenceDoouaent DateDoouaent TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNuaber of PagesDoouaent Nuaber Sequence

8/1 1/83PetitionState of Oklahoma (OSDH)District Court Tulsa CountyState of OklahomaPrayer for Civil Penalty Assessment for Des-cribed Violations7391/25/8URoute SlipKen BurnsOSDHJeff lilleyBPA-6File listings of likely to be found SandSprings aaterial13

CM

OO

2/2/81Industrial Waste Receiving Site Monthly Report*(Jan-April »8OBob OssttrySite Owner/OperatorIndustrial and Solid Waste DivisionOSDMonthly receiving site reports413/1/81Action MeooDick tfhittlngton, P.g .Regional Adoinistrator (6A )tee M. ThOBfts, Asaiatant AdoinlstratorSolid Vtste and Baergenoy ResponseBaala for decision to spend superfund noney forlaoedlate reaoval action*

3/2/84Administrative OrderDick tfhlttington, P .B .USEPARodney Vilaont Clftlro Wilaon, Bill Creel,Danois Bei|jatroat David Kieaao, Fred Whit tierVynn Site Oporating CorporationsOrder a Tariou» aotlooa to be taken by flltd operators1343

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocuoent Nunber Sequence

3/13/84Administrative OrderDick WhittingtonU.S .E .P .A .Samuel C. Farmer, Peggy Farmer, Jeffrey B. NooleenRecyclon Corporation, Wynn SiteOrder directs action to protect public health andthe environment1244

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Nunber Sequence

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNunber of PagesDocument Number Sequence

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number Sequence

5/9/84Notice of Public MeetingOSDHGeneral PublicSurmary of work to be performed at site

oo

5/31/84Community Relations PlanOSDHInterested PartiesPlan to keep interested parties informed ofprogression site11«6

5/31/64Site history and locationU.S .E .P .A,Interested PartiesSite history and sunaary of inspections and lab analysi47

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNunber of PagesDocument Nunber Sequence

5/31/84File SummaryU.S .E .P .A .Interested PartiesFile suomary of inspections and analysis (June 13,1980-May 31, 1984) _.tt «r48 ^

Docunent DateDocunent TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number Sequence

o6/22/84 °CorrespondenceWilliam C. AndersonDoerner, Stuart, Saunder, Daniel & AndersonAll parties listed as "generators"Hynn Site OperationDemand on "generators" to reimburse the home forPhase I Cleanup549

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescription

Number of PagesDocument Nunber Sequence

7/1/84Health and Safety Plan for S .S .P .C.C. RIWaste Management ServiceDSDHInterested PartiesTo protect health of public near the site andprovide information concerning health ofpersonnel working on site during RI period3150

ADHINISTRftTIVF:

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNunber of PagesDocument Nunber Sequence

March 1, 1985Work Plan SummaryOklahoma State Dept. of HealthPublicSummary of technical work plan - Sand Springs5 m51

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNunber of PagesDocument Nunber Sequence

3/1/85Information SheetOklahoma State Dept. of HealthPublicBnergency responder information sheetSprings252

o

- Sand

Docunent DateDocunent TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNunber of PagesDocument Nunber Sequence

3/19/85Cover letter, response planDennis Kelley - PresidentO'Kelley Engineers, Inc.Kenneth BurnsOklahoma State Health Dept.Cover letter, response plan (U acre Wynn!s site -Sand Springs)«253

Docunent DateDocunent TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNuaber of PagesDocunent Nunber Sequence

Docuner-t DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number Sequence

3/19/85ReportDennis Kelly & Sami HalaebO'Kelley EngineersUSEPASite Evaluation Report

1/2/86Sampling Plan DepartMnt of Health

Oklahoma State Dept. of HealthPlan

vO

oo

755

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNunber of PagesDocunent Nunber Sequence

3/11/86Record of CommunicationDave HcCartneyEPA Region VIDennis HrebecOklahoma State tepl. of HealthPossible Phase II activities - Sand Springs1256

Docunent DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocunent Nunber Sequence

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

5/28/86Record of communication to fileDave McCartneyEPA - Region VIDennis Hrebec, Hal CantwellOklahoma State Dept. of HealthSand Springs R1/FS;QA/QC check of lab data157

Docunent DateDocunent TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNunber of PagesDocunent Nunber Sequence

6/5/86Request LetterDennis Hrebec, Environmental ConsultanlOklahoma State Dept. of HealthBill Anderson

oO

Requests pertnissj^n to conduct activities at Sand Spri58

Docunent DateDocunent "typeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNunber of PagesDocunent Nunber Sequence

Docunent DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNunber of PagesDocument Nunber Sequence

8/11/86Ct. Petition, certificateDistrict Ct. of Tulsa Co. - State of Okla.Oklahoma State Dept. of HealthSuit brought against Sand Springs parties by Stateof Oklahoma559

8/29/86tetterChris. SwanbergARCORegional Administrator (VI)USEPAMaintenance of Dyke160

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDoounent Number Sequence

9/2/86Sampling PlanOklahoma State Dept. ~f HealthOklahoma State Dept. of HealthOrganic screening sampling plan-Sand Springs361 CO

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number Sequence

9/10/86MemoDavid HcCartneyUSEPA (6H-SA)AddresseesUSEPAProgress & Planning262

o

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDo jment Number Sequence

9/30/86Sampling PlanOklahoma State Dept. of OklahomaOklahoma State Dept. of OklahomaSludge sampling plan - Sand Springs763

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDoc-«roent Number Sequence

11/15/86Sampling PlanOklahoma State Dept. of OklahomaOklahoma State Dept. of OklahomaSurface impoundments sampling plan - Sand Springs20

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

Docunent DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Nunber Sequence

11/20/86Cover letter, sample analysisLisa Lyhane - Environmental EngineerOklahoma State Dept. of HealthHark Kroenig, P.E.John Hathes & Assoc.Surface run-off/dt ainage sediment sample analysis1165

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient * AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number Sequence

12/1/86Sampling PlanOkla. State Dept. or HealthOkla. State Dept. of HealthSediments Sampling Plan666

oo

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number Sequence

1/16/87Cover Letter with Data AttachmentsLisa Lyhane, Environmental EngineerSolid Waste Division, OSOHHark H. Kroenig, P.E.John Mathes & Associates, Inc.Sample Analysis for Metals, Organics andInorganics (sample numbers 88- 1 1 1 )667

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number Sequence

2/11/87OrderLarry GutterridgeARCOJames TurnerUSEPA (6C-H)Consent Order2268

1DMINISTRATIVE_RECORD

Document DateDocunent TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocunent Nunber Sequence

«/10/87Addendum to the Endangerment AssessmentJohn Hathes & AssociatesWaste Management ServiceOSDHToxicant profiles, Exhibits A-615069 o

Docunent DateDocunent TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocunent Nunber Sequence

«/11/87Route SlipDennis HrebecOSDHJulie BozichUSEPA (6B-EC)Hap of Site Boundaries270

OO

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number Sequence

5/1/87Feasibility Study ReportJohn Hathes & Associates, Inc.Waste Hanagement ServiceOSDHFeasibility Study Report for Operable Unit of SSSiteW71

Docunent DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNunber of PagesDocunent Number Sequence

5/V87Remedial Investigation ReportJohn Hathes & AssociatesWaste Hanagement ServiceOSDHSludge and Surface Impoundment Sampling12672

/ iA

ADMINISTRATIVE-RECORD

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number Sequence

5/V87Remedial Investigation Report, Appendix E,Analytical Data, Volume IJohn Mathed & Associates, Inc.Waste Management ServiceOSDHSludge and Surface Impoundment Sampling28173

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number Sequence

5/V87Remedial Investigation Report, Appendix E,Analytical Data, Volume IIJohn Hatt.es & AssociatesWaste Management ServiceOSDHSludge and Surface Impour-iwsnt Sampling273

Oo

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number Sequence

5/5/87Quality Assurance ProceduresSpecial Materials DivisionEagle-Picher Industries, Inc.Waste Management ServiceOSDHQuality Assurance Procedures for the AnalyticalLaboratory15675

Document DateDocument Typ*OriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number Sequence

5/6/87OrderJames TurnerUSEPA (6C-H)Larry GutterridgeARCOAdministrative Order (Final Revision) AHOO TestBurn Study2376

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNunber of PagesDocunent Nunber Sequence

5/7/87Endangerment AssessmentJohn Ma the s & Associates, Inc.Waste Management ServicesOSDriEndangerment Assessment for the Operable Unit atSite11577 CM

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNunber of PagesDocument Nunber Sequence

5/7/87Work PlanR. Walter SimmonsARCORobert Layton, Jr.USEPA - (6A)Work Plan for Solidification\278

°O

Docunent DateDocunent TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Nunber Sequence

5/7/87BrochureR, Walter SimmonsARCORobert LaytonUSEPA (6A)Solidification Brochure879

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Nunber Sequence

5/8/87PlanLarry GutterridgeARCOJames TurnerUSEPA (6C-H)Final Portion of Workplan880

Document DateDocunent TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescription

Nunber of PagesDocunent Number Sequence

Docunent DateDocument IV peOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number Sequence

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient. - AffiliationNumber of PagesDocument Number Sequence

Docunent DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNunber of PagesDocunent Nunber Sequence

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

5/13/87Cover Letter with Data AnalysisDale C. Markley, Senior HydrogeolistJohn Mathe.3 & Associates, Inc.Lisa LyhaneOSDHRemaining Analysis for Dioxin and Furans runthe 0.1 PPB detection limits. (First Data sentV10/87) ^381

5/15/87LetterRobert HanneschlagerUSEPA (6B-E)Roseann StevensonARCOGarments on Workplan382

5/15/87Communication RecorOSteve LemonsUSEPA (6E-Q)Paul SierainskiUSEPA (6B-SA)Review S3 Workplan883

5/18/87OrderJames TurnerUSEPA (6C-H)Robert LaytonUSEPA (6A)Administrative Order2384

ftiS?!

ADHIHISTRATIV

Docunent DateDocunent TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNunber of PageaDocument Nunber Sequence

Document DateDocunent TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Nunber Sequence

Docunent DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionof Pages

Docunent Number Sequence

Document DateDocunent TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNunber of PagesDocument Nunber Sequence

5/27/87News ReleaseJoan K. Leavitt, H.D.OSDH

Announcement that R.I. Report la completed andavailable.285 ^KN«3-O6/29/8?tetterRobert HannasschlagerUSEPA (6H-E)Roseann StevensonARCOResponse to June 2, '87 letter186

7/15/87News ReleaseKaren L. BrownOSDtl

Announcement of 8/4/87 public meeting explainingcleanup operations287

7/30/87ReportKevin JacksonJacobs Engineering Group, Inc.June BozichEPA Region 6Summary of Compliance monitoring activities1288

•RECORDS INDEX ADDENDUM

Job Name; Sand Springs Petto-Chemical ComplexJob Number: _______ OIQD980?46446

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator * AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNunfcer of PagesDocument Nurrtxr

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - *(filiationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number

UndatedEvaluationResearch Triangle Institute & U.S. E.P.A,U.S. E.P.A. Region VI•Evaluation of TCLP.. ."1

UndatedAnswers to noticeChftmlink PetroleumU.S. E.P.A. (6) Sand SpringsResponse to U.S. E .P.A. notice1

UndatedTest methodsU.S. E.P.A. (6) Sand Springs fileU.S. E.P.A. (6) Sand Springs fileTest methods/solidified waste character91

lA

Oo

06/66Handbk.M. Jn. Cullinane, Jr. , et alUSi\E Waterways Experiment Sta.U.S. E.P.A. Region VIHandbk. Stabilization/Solidification

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS INDEX ADDENDUM

Job Name: Sand Springs Petro-Chemical ComplexJob Nuwfcer: _______00)980748446

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Hunter

09/86ManualU.S. E.P.A. (6) Sand Springs fileU.S. E.P.A, (6) Sand Springs fileVest Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste59

09/22/66Cover letter/closure reportDavid McCartheyMary Ellen McLeary, Bill Taylor, et alClosure report - Itynn Tank28

oo

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number

10/15/86Cover letter/reportJn. Mathes & Assoc.i Inc.Paul SieminskiU.S. E.P.A, (6) Sand Springs fileRI report 2 - surface impoundment tech. memo17

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number

1987Research articleHazardous Haste & Ha2ardous MaterialsU.S. E.P.A. Region VIEffect of three organic compounds12

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS INDEX ADDENDUM

Job Name: Sand Springs Petro-Chemical ComplexJob Number: OKD980748446

Dociment DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number

04/1987PlanAROO Petroleum Prod- Co.U.S. E.P.A. (6) Sand Springs fileWork plan - Pilot Therman Treatment165

04/30/87Follow-up letterCarlton C. Wiles/ChiefU.S. E.P.A.Walt SinroonsAROO Petroleum Products Co.Sample tests and analyses2

oo

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number

04/30/87LetterCarleton Wiles - Office of R & DU.S. E.P.A. WashingtonWalt SimoonsAROO Petroleum Products Co.Followup to phone conversation 04/29/872

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument

05/07/87PlanAROO Petroleum Prod. Co.U.S. E.P.A, (6) Sand Springs fileWork Plan - Waste Solidification/Stabil.14

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS INDEX ADDENDUM

Job Name: Sand Springs PetrochemicalJob Number: 0X0980746446

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number

05/11/87LetterWalter Simmons, Hgr.U •&• C> . r .A > •Carleton WilesU.S. E.P.A. ~ HWERLARCO's solidification testing1

CO

ooDocument DateDocument Typ;OriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionfrtanber of PagesDocument Number

05/11/87LetterR. Vfelter Siimons, Hgr. Environ. Protect.AROO Petroleum Products Co.Carleton Wiles (HWERL)U.S. E.P.A. (Cincinnati, OH)Solidification portion - Work Plan1

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number

05/21/87MemorandumPaul Sieminski (HMD)U.S. E.P.A. Region VIEd Barth, Environ. Engr,U.S. E.P.A. (Cincinnati, OH)Review - Solidification/Stabilization Work Plan2

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient ~ AffiliationDescriptiontober oi. PagesDocument Number

05/21/87MemorandumEd Barth, Environmental EngineerU.S. E.P.A, - Remedial Action StaffPaul SieminskiU.S. E.P.A, - Hazardous Waste Kgtment. Div.Review of Work Plan2

ADDENDUM

Job Name: Sand Springs Petro-Chemical ComplexJob Number;

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number

09/25/84Memo/planRonnie Romo - QAU.S. E.P.A. <6)Paul Sieminski, Project OfficerU.S. E.P.A. (6) 6AW-SSRevised QA/QC Plan Pages21

oo

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS INDEX ADDENDUM

Job Name: Sand Springs Petro-Chemical ComplexJob Number: OKD980748446

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number

06/02/87LetterR. Walter Simoons, Mgr.ARCO Petroleum Products Co.Robert E. HanneschlagerU.S. E.P.A. (6) Sand Springs fileUpdated Work Plan - Incineration/Solidif.3

06/29/87Cover letter/sample analyses for wsllsLisa Lyhane - Environmental EngineerU.S. E.P.A, SuperFund Program/Solid Waste Div,Paul SieminskiU.S. E.P.A, Region VISample analysis for Phase II monitor43

Oin

OO

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number

6/30/87MemorandumRagan Broyles, ChiefU.S. E.P.A. Region VI (6TSAS)Steve Gilrein, ChiefU.S. E.P.A. Region VI (6H-SA)Solidification Process Air Monitoring

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number

06/30/87MemorandumRagan Broyles, ChiefU.S. E.P.A, - State Programs SectionSteve Gilrein, ChiefU.S. E.P.A. - ALONM Remedial SectionAir monitoring methods2

Job Name: ggnd^ggrings _Petro-Chemlcal ComplexJob Number: OKD980748446

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number

07/08/87Research articlePaul Marsden, et alS-CUBESU.S. E.P.A. Region VI"Modification of the TCLP.. ."8

07/15/87Interim reportAROO Bstroleum Products CompanyU.S. E.P.A, (6) Sand Springs fileAcid Sludge Treatability Evaluations486

v*°IA

OO

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number

08/04/87LetterJerry Cleveland - Assistant DirectorTulsa City - County Health DepartmentCarl Edlund, ChiefU.S. E.P.A. (6) SuperFund ProgramsSujpports solidification1

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument lumber

08/04/87Letter/attachmentReeves D. IngoldCrestwood Distributors, Inc.Dennis HrebecOklahoma State Department of HealthSuimary of treatment of samples

INDEX ADDENDOM

Job Itae: gaod_Springs Petro-Chemical .ComplexJob Number:

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number

08/04/87Public Meeting TranscriptAnn Hart - Certified Shorthand ReporterU.S. E.P.A. (6) Sand Springs fileTranscript172

CV

Oo

ADMINISTRATIVE flEOORPS INDEX ADDENDUM

Job Name: Sand Springs Petro-ChemicalJob Number: _______OKD980748446

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number

08/06/87LetterRussell Harbaugh, Jr. - AttorneyLaw office - Conner & WintersCarl Edlund, ChiefU.S. E.P.A. (6) SuperFund ProgramsComments Re: ROD1

08/07/87LetterR. J. Morris - Sr. Staff EngineerChemLink PetroleumCarl Edlund, ChiefU.S. E.P.A. (6) SuperFund ProgramsComments Re: ROD1

Oo

Job Name: SandJob Number: OKD980748446

Document DateDocument iypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescription&jmber of PagesDocument Number

Document DateDocument iypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Numbet

08/10/87Cover letter/attachmentsLisa Lyhane - Environmental EngineerSuperFund Program/Solid Waste Division/U.SPaul SieminskiU.S. E.P.A. Region VIMap and sanple results83

08/12/87LetterWayne Hillin - AttorneyResources Conservation CompanyJn. Mathes & Assoc., Inc.Estimated cost cleanup remedy4

in

Oo

DocLiment DateDocumentOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number

08/12/87LetterFrank Smith - Environmental EngineerBurgess-Norton ManufacturingAl Davis, Director (fMD)U.S. E.P.A. (6)Public hearing 08/04/87

Job Name: SandJob Number: ,OKD980748446

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number

08/13/87Cover letter/reportLisa Lyhane, Environmental EngineerU.S. E.P.A. SuperFund programPaul SieminskiU.S. E.P.A.Cover letter/Draft RI report114 pages

Document DateDocument oypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionJAimber of PagesDocument Number

08/14/87LetterM. P. Reece - Assistant DirectorTulsa City - County Health DeparUnentCarl Edlund, ChiefU.S. E.P.A. (6) SuperFund ProgramsContents Re: ROD2

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number

08/14/87LetterChas. Scott - Acting Field SupervisorU.S. Department of Interior * Fish/Wildlife Serv,Carl Edlund, ChiefU.S. E.P.A. (6) SuperFunds ProgramPreliminary comments Re: completed studies2

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - /\ffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number

08/18/87LetterSteven P. Case - Attorney

MeGrath, North, et al- corapuance &c-Law flnn

Conments Re: FS report - operable unit

Job Name: Sand Springs Petro-Chemical

Document DateDocumentOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number

08/16/87LetterJoel Burcat - AttorneyLaw firm - Rhoads 6 SinonCarl Edlund, ChiefU.S. E.P.A. (6) SuperFund ProgramsPublic comment Re: RI/FS2 O

O

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number

08/18/87LetterL. R. DossCitizen - Sand Springs, OklahomaCarl Edlund, ChiefU.S. E.P.A. (6) SuperFund ProgramsComments Re: cleanup1

Document DateDocument lypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number

08/21/87Lab resultsEdwin Earth - Environmental EngineerU.S. E.P.A. (Washington, D. C.)Paul Sieminski - RJPMU.S. E.P.A. Region VIPilot work8

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number

08/21/87MemorandumEdwin F, Barth, Environmental EngineerU.S. E.P.A. - Remedial Action staffPaul Sieminski, RPM - Region VIU.S. E.P.A.Summary of solidified materials tests8

Job Name: Sand Springs Petro-Chemical ComplexJob Number: OKD930748446

Document DateDocument typeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of Pa<^esDocument Number

Document DateDocumentOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number

08/24/87Memorandum/attachmentsAllyn H. Davis, DirectorU.S. E.P.A. Region VI (6H)Walter Kovalick, Deputy DirectorU.S. E.P.A. Washington (WH-548)Follow-up to ROD Briefing5

08/24/87MemorandumAllyn Davis, DirectorU.S. E.P.A. BVMGTOWalter Kovalick, Deputy DirectorU.S. E.P.A.Record of Decision (ROD) briefing5

irv

oo

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - £" !liationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Numoer

08/25/87LetterGeorge Hooper, MayorCity of Sand SpringsRobert Layton, Jr. - Regional Ad.U.S. E.P.A. Region VIResponse to ROD3

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number

08/27/87Letter/enclosuresR. Penton Rood, DirectorOklahoma State Department of HealthCarl Edlund, ChiefSuperFund Programs BranchComments Re: remedy9

Job Name: Sand Springs Petro-Chemical ComplexJob Number: OKD980746446

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescription*taber °f PagesDocument Number

Document DateDocurnent lypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescription(tober of PagesDocument Number

08/27/87LetterStanley Reigel - AttorneyLaw firm - Horrison, Hecker/ et alJulie BozichU.S. E*P.A. (6) Compliance SectionResponse to 07/15/87 U.S. E.P.A. letter3

08/27/87LetterM. Louise HcFall - Corp. CounselScrivner, Inc.Carl Edlund, ChiefU.S. E.P.A. (6) SuperFund ProgramsConsideration of all remedies1

00in

oo

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - Aff'liaticnDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Nuntoer

08/28/87LetterTimothy L. 01 senSavage, O'Donnell, Scott, et alJulie L. BozichU.S. E.P.A. Region VIPublic comment by Advance Chemical Dist.,4

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number

08/31/87LetterVincent A. Kietlicki - AttorneyDeSoto, Inc. *Carl Edlund, ChiefU.S. E.P.A. 05) SuperFund ProgramConroents Re:4

Job Number:

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptiontimber of PagesDocument Number

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number

08/31/87LetterMatthew G. Livingood - Attorney

08/31/87

in

oo(CO Petroleum Products Companyjntractor

U.S. E.P.A. Region VIReview of operable unit 7533

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - Aft^liationDescriptionRjmber of PagesDocument Number

08/31/87LetterLinda Gill Taylor - AttorneyLaw firm - Gage & TuckerCarl Edlund, ChiefU.S. E.P.A. Region VI SuperFundConner* Re! ^lection - response action

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptiontoJntoer of PagesDocument Number

08/31/87I^tter/attachmsntSherry D. BluraTerra Resource Managerent, inc.Dennis Rebeck/Fenton RoodReport addendum3

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS INDEX ADDENDUM

Job Name: Sand Springs Petrochemical ComplexJob Number: OKD980748446

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number

08/31/87LetterMichael D. GravesHall, Estill, Hardwick, et alCarl EdlundU.S. E.P.A. Region VIComments upon the RI/FS9

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptiontimber of PagesDocument Number

08/31/87ReportRivkin, Radler, et al/Mittelhauser, Inc.Law firm/consultantsCarl Edlund, ChiefU.S. E.P.A. (6) SuperFund ProgramsComments Re: proposed FS (operable unit)63

Document DaceDocument lypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number

08/31/87Lette '^nclosureJerry L. Riddles, Corp. DirectorTrinity Industries, Inc.Carl Edlund, ChiefU.S. E.P.A. (6) SuperFund ProgramComments Re: RI/FS5

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number

08/31/87LetterPaul McGough - Vice PresidentResources Conservation CompanyCarl Edlund, ChiefU.S. E.P.A. (6) SuperFund ProgramOperable unit FS16

Job Name; Sand Springs Petro-Chemical ComplexJob Number: _______OKD980748446

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number

08/31/87LetterJn, Selph - Co. CommissionerBoard of Co. ConmissionersCarl Edlund, ChiefU.S. E.P.A. (6) SuperFund ProgramsResponse to ROD2

08/31/87Report (Final)AROO Petroleum Products CompanyU.S. E.P.A. - Region VIAcid Sludge Treatability Evaluations678

o

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number

09/01/87LetterJoe A, Williams, PresidentSand Springs HomeJulie BozichU.S. E.P.A. (6) Compliance SectionResponse to Bozich letter (07/15/87)4

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number

09/01/87LetterRoseann C. Stevenson - ManagerARCO Petroleum Product CompanyAllyn M. Davis, DirectorU.S. E-P.A, (6) Sand Springs fileProposal to perform 8D/RA3

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS INDEX ADDENDUM

Job Name:Job Number:

Sand Springs Pet go-Chemical ComplexJDKD980748446

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number

09/01/87LetterThomas A. Waite - CounselBoeing Co. - Office General CounselCarl Edlund, ChiefU.S. E.P.A. Region VI SuperFund ProgramRI/FS - first operable unit2

CM 'vO

Document DateDocument iypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number

09/01/87LetterMark D, Edie - Staff AttorneyFord Co. - Office of General CounselCarl Edlund, ChiefU.S. E.P.A. (6) SuperFund ProgramPublic comment period Re: RI/FS2

Oo

Document DateDocument TypeOriqjiiatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number

09/01/87LetterR. Fenton Rood, DirectorState of Oklahoma Health DepartmentCarl Edlund, Chief (6H-S)U.S. E.P.A. (6) SuperFund ProgramPublic comments Re: remedy2

Document DateDocument iypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number

09/01/87Letter/attachmentLisa Seglin/David StringhamWaste Management North Anerica, Inc.Carl Edlund, ChiefU.S. E.P.A. (6) SuperFund ProgramsComments Re: RI/FS11

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS INDEX ADDENDUM

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number

09/01/87LetterHark D. Edie - Staff AttorneyOffice of General Counsel - Ford Co.Carl Edlund, ChiefU.S. E.P.A. (6) SuperFund ProgramsPublic conwent period - RI/?S2

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number

09/03/87Lettern. H. SmithAllyn M. Davis - DirectorU.S. E.P.A. (6) Sand SpringsProposal to perform RD/RA3

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNumber of PagesDocument Number

09/05/87LetterLonnie N. BoboCitizen - Edmond, OklahomaCarl Edl'jnd, ChiefU.S. E.P.A. Region VI - SuperFundConsents Re: public meeting2

Document DateDocument TypeOriginatorOriginator - AffiliationRecipientRecipient - AffiliationDescriptionNuinber of PagesDocument Number

09/10/87LetterJerry Lasker - Executive DirectorIndian Nations Council of GovernmentsRobert Layton - Regional Admin.U.S. E.P.A. Region VIComments Re: ROD3

0 0 4 3 6 4

Joan K. Ucvltt. M.D. OKLAHOMA STATEDEPARTMENT OF HEAtVHtotrO o' Health*rv. AC* / v:

rrr S JOS

6**-j * re w^tt"t C^B

P.O. BOX 53551' 1000 N.f. TENTH

OKLAHOMA CITY. OK 73152AM EQUV OPPOffn-WfTV EMPLOYE*

September 16, 1987

AJlyn M. Da/is, DirectorHazardous \\aste Management DivisionU. S. Environmental Protection AgencyRegion VI1 445 Ros* AvenueDallas, Texas 75202-2733Dear Dr. Davis:The Oklahoma State Department of Health (OSDH) does not concur with the alternativeof on-stte.incineration chosen by the Region VI Environmental Protection "Agency "for" theSand Springs Petrochemical Complex Superfund site.As stated in the public meeting and through written comments, the QSDH prefers asolidification process for the acid sludge wastes which will be more protective of publichealth than incineration. Included in those comments is the rationale 'or our p.sferenceand an explanation of how sojjdifj cation meets the requirements of the NCP and CERCLAas amended by SARA. Please refer to our previous formal comments for the appropriateexplanations and rationale.Enclosed are OSDH comments on the draft Record of Decision received on September &,1987.Sincerely,

Mark S. Coleman, Deputy Commissionerfor Ei.vironmemaJ HeaJth ServicesEnclosure