ID t' S&aak:, , o I · Five-Year Review Summary Form, cont'd. Issues: No issues were identified. Recommendations and Follow-up Actions: It is recommended that this be the last five-year

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

ID t' _S&aak:,

.OTSU.

, o

Vni ritnQ.

Approved by:

SecondFive-Year Review Report

Big River Sand Company SiteWichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas

EPAID:KSD980686174

February 2004

Prepared for:U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region VII901 North 5th Street

Kansas City, Kansas 66101

Prepared by:Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp.

6601 College Blvd.Overland Park, Kansas 66211

Date:

40200312

SUPERFUND RECORDS

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION VII901 NORTH 5TH STREET

KANSAS CITY, KANSAS 661010 1 NOV 2004

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:

FROM:

THRU:

THRU:

TO:

Addendum to Five-Year Review Report for the Big River Sand Co.,dated February 2004

Bill Gresham, RPMIA/NE Remedial Branch

Glenn Curtis, Branch ChiefIA/NE Remedial Branch

Cecilia Tapia, DirectorSuperfund Division

The Big River Site File

The purpose of this memorandum is to more completely document the reason that nofurther five-year reviews will be necessary at this site.

The last and final five-year review for the Big River Sand Co. site was signed ascompleted on March 26, 2004. The reason no further five-year reviews are necessary atthis site is because "no hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain on siteabove levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure."

PLEAST ATTACH THIS MEMORANDUM TO THE ORIGINAL AND ANYCOPIES OF THE BIG RIVER SAND CO. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORTSIGNED ON MARCH 26, 2004.

RECYCLE©

111 Second

Five-Year Review Report

1

111i

Big River Sand Company SiteWichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas

EPA ID:KSD980686174

February 2004

Prepared for:U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region Vll901 North 5th Street

1

1

Kansas City, Kansas 66101

Prepared by:Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp.

1

1

1

1

1

1

6601 College Blvd.Overland Park, Kansas 6621 1

Approved by:

Lf //OJj fq~~*\l JO /!/ ifi] /

w_^4" 7~—

Date:

^*>/26>/s4-/ '

FEB 1 1 2004SUPERFUNQ OJVISIOM

[This page intentionally left blank.]

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Contents

Abbreviations and Acronyms i

Executive Summary ES-1

1.0 Introduction : 1-1

2.0 Site Chronology 2-1

3.0 Background '. 3-13.1 Physical Characteristics 3-13.2 Land and Resource Use 3-13.3 History of Contamination 3-13.4 Initial Responses 3-23.5 Basis for Taking Action 3-2

4.0 Remedial Actions 4-14.1 Interim Remedial Measures Remedy Selection 4-14.2 Final Remedy Selection 4-14.3 Post Remedial Action Activities 4-1

5.0 Progress Since Last Five-Year Review 5-1

6.0 Five-Year Review Process 6-16.1 Administrative Components 6-16.2 Community Notification and Involvement 6-16.3 Document Review 6-16.4 Data Review 6-16.5 Site Inspection 6-26.6 Interviews 6-2

7.0 Technical Assessment 7-17.1 Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision

documents? 7-17.2 Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup

levels, and remedial action objectives (RAOs) used at the time ofremedy selection still valid? 7-1

7.3 Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call intoquestion the protectiveness of the remedy? 7-1

7.4 Technical Assessment Summary 7-1

8.0 Issues 8-1

Big River Sand Company Site 46916.846-01Second Five-Year Review Report TC-1 02/2004

Contents (Continued)

9.0 Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions 9-1

10.0 Protectiveness Statement 10-1

11.0 Next Review 11-1

Attachment 1 Site Figures and Well LogsAttachment 2 Site Documents ReviewedAttachment 3 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate RequirementsAttachment 4 2003 Groundwater Sampling DataAttachment 5 Site Inspection Trip Memorandum with Checklist and Interview Forms

Tables

Table 2-1 Chronology of Site Events 2-1Table 6-1 Groundwater Sampling Results 6-3

Big River Sand Company Site 46916.846-01Second Five-Year Review Report TC-2 02/2004

IIIIIIIIIIII1IIIIII

Abbreviations and Acronyms

ARAR Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements

ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

bgs below ground surfaceBVSPC Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp.CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

FS feasibility studyKDHE Kansas Department of Health and Environment

MCL maximum contaminant level

NCP National Contingency Plan

NPL National Priorities List

RA remedial action

RAO remedial action objectiveRI remedial investigationROD Record of Decision

RPM Remedial Project ManagerSARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act

TCE trichloroethylene

ug/L micrograms per literUSEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

VOC volatile organic compound

Big River Sand Company SiteSecond Five-Year Review Report

46916.846-0102/2004


III1IIIIIiIiiiiiiiI

Executive Summary

The Big River Sand site is located in the south half of Section 2, Township 27

South, Range 1 West, Sedgwick County, Kansas. The site covers approximately 123 acres,half of which have been extensively mined for sand and gravel. The site is currently ownedby Mr. Victor Eisenring. Sand and gravel operations are no longer active at the site. TheEisenring office and residence are located on the southern portion of the property.

A removal action was conducted by the site owner, Mr. Victor Eisenring, from 1982 to1984. The removal action included disposal of hazardous paint sludges and solvent from thesite. The Record of Decision (ROD) for the site, signed June 28, 1988, selected the NoFurther Action alternative as the final remedy for the Big River Sand Company site. The sitewas deleted from the National Priorities List (NPL) on October 14, 1992.

The first five-year review of the remedies at the site was completed in February 1999.The first five-year reviews concluded that the site remained protective of human health andthe environment. The first five-year review recommended that a groundwater sample beeither collected from monitoring well El 01S or in the immediate vicinity of El 01S duringthe next five-year review.

The assessment of this, the second, five-year review found that the remedies continueto be protective. The immediate threats have been addressed and the remedies remainprotective of human health and the environment. Review of the analytical data from the

groundwater sampling conducted as part of this review indicate that remedial actionobjectives (RAOs) identified in the ROD have been achieved. Specifically, the groundwatercontamination has reduced to below the maximum contaminant levels (MCLs).

It is recommended that the five-year reviews be discontinued for the Big River SandCompany site.

Big River Sand Company Site 46916.846-01Second Five-Year Review Report ES-1 02/2004

IIIIII


111

1

iIV

1iiIiiiiIiI

Five-Year Review Summary Form

I SITE IDENTIFICATION HI

Site name (from WasteLAN): Big River Sand Company Site

EPA ID (from WasteLAN): KSD980686174

Region: 7 State: KS City/County: Wichita/Sedgwick County

I SITE STATUS II

NPl status' H Final !•! Deleter! D Other (specify)

Remediation status (choose all that apply): D Under Construction D Operating H Complete

Multiple OUs?* DYES H NO Construction completion date: 06/28/1988

Has site been put into reuse? H YES D NO

I REVIEW STATUS II

I, e?rf agency- f"l PPA n Rtatp P Tn'he l~l <~>ther F^fleral Agency

Author name: Genise M. Luecke

Author title: Site Manager Author affiliation: Black & Veatch

Review period:" 10/01/2003 to 02/28/2004

Date(s) of site inspection: 1 2/1 9/2003

Type of review:B Post-SARA D Pre-SARA D NPL-Removal onlyD Non-NPL Remedial Action Site D NPL State/Tribe-leadD Regional Discretion

Review number: D 1 (first) H 2 (second) D 3 (third) D Other (specify)

Triggering action:D Actual RA Onsite Construction at OU # D Actual RA Start at OU#D Construction Completion H Previous Five-Year Review ReportPI nthpr (cporify)

Triggering action date (from WasteLAN): 02/01/1999

Due date (five years after triggering action date): 02/01/2004

* l"OU" refers to operable unit.]** [Review period should correspond to the actual start and end dates of the Five-Year Review inWasteLAN.]

Big River Sand Company Site 469 1 6.846-0 1Second Five-Year Review Report SF-1 02/2004

Five-Year Review Summary Form, cont'd.

Issues:

No issues were identified.

Recommendations and Follow-up Actions:

It is recommended that this be the last five-year review conducted at the site. The selenium concentrationin the groundwater sample collected in December 2003 from the direct-push boring completed 4 feetfrom monitoring well E101S was below the MCL. The remedial action objectives of the Record ofDecision have been met.

Protectiveness Statement(s):

Because the remedial actions are protective, the site is protective of human health and the environment.The groundwater concentrations have reduced to beJow the MCL for selenium.

Other Comments:

None.

Big River Sand Company SiteSecond Five-Year Review Report SF-2

46916.846-0102/2004

III1Iiiiiiiiiiiiiii

1.0 Introduction

The purpose of the five-year review is to determine whether the remedy at a site is

protective of human health and the environment. The methods, findings, and conclusions

of the reviews are documented in Five-Year Review reports. In addition, Five-Year Review

reports identify issues found during the review, if any, and identify recommendations to

address them.

The Agency is preparing this Five-Year Review report pursuant to the Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) § 121 and the

National Contingency Plan (NCP). CERCLA § 121 states:

If the President selects a remedial action that results in any hazardous substances,pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site, the President shall review suchremedial action no less often than each five years after initiation of remedial actionto assure that human health and the environment are being protected by theremedial action being implemented. In addition, if upon such review it is thejudgement of the President that action is appropriate at such a site in accordancewith section [104] or [106], the President shall take or require such action. ThePresident shall report to Congress a list of facilities for which such review isrequired, the results of such reviews, and any actions taken as a result of suchreviews.

The Agency interpreted this requirement further in the NCP; 40 CFR §300.430(f)(4)(ii)

states:

If a remedial action is selected that results in hazardous substances, pollutants, orcontaminants remaining at the site above levels that allow for unlimited use andunrestricted exposure, the lead agency shall review such action no less often thanevery five years after the initiation of the selected remedial action.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region VII has conducted a five-year review of the remedial actions implemented at the Big River Sand Company site in

Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas. This review was conducted by a contractor, Black &Veatch Special Projects Corp. (BVSPC), for the entire site from October 2003 through

January 2004. This report documents the results of the review.

This is the second five-year review for the site. The first five-year review was

completed by USEPA Region VII in February 1999. The triggering action for this second

Big River Sand Company Site 46916.846-01Second Five-Year Review Report 1-1 02/2004

statutory review is the completion of the previous five-year review. The five-year review isrequired because hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remained at the siteabove levels that allowed for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure.

Big River Sand Company Site 46916.846-01Second Five-Year Review Report 1 -2 02/2004

IIIIiIiIiiiIiiiiiii

2.0 Site Chronology

Table 2-1 presents a summary of the major site events and relevant dates in the site

chronology.

Table 2-1Chronology of Site Events

Event

Site discovery by the Kansas Department of Natural Resources (KDHE).

Preliminary assessment completed.

KDHE issued order to Mr. Eisenring to conduct a removal and sitecleanup.

Removal action and site cleanup completed by Mr. Eisenring.

Proposed for the National Priorities List (NPL).

Site inspection completed.

Final listing on the NPL.

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) provided aHealth Consultation for the Site

Combined remedial investigation/feasibility study (Rl/FS) completed.

Record of Decision (ROD) selecting final remedy signed.

Deleted from the NPL.

KDHE conducted groundwater sampling.

The first Five- Year Review was completed.

Date

08/1982

10/01/1982

09/20/1982

1984

10/15/1984

10/31/1985

06/10/1986

11/1987

06/28/1988

06/28/1988

10/14/1992

11/1995

02/01/1999

Big River Sand Company SiteSecond Five-Year Review Report 2-1

46916.846-0102/2004


IIIiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

3.0 Background

This section presents site background information including descriptions of the site

physical characteristics, land use, and past response actions.

3.1 Physical CharacteristicsThe Big River Sand site is located in the south half of Section 2, Township 27 South,

Range 1 West, Sedgwick County, Kansas. The site covers approximately 123 acres, half of

which have been extensively mined for sand and gravel. The site is currently owned by Mr.Victor Eisenring. Sand and gravel operations are no longer active at the site. The Eisenringoffice and residence are located on the southern portion of the property. A vicinity mapshowing the general location of the site is included in Attachment 1.

3.2 Land and Resource UseThe land use for the site is commercial industrial. Part of the property site is used as a

sand quarry. The remaining portions of site are used as a junk yard.

3.3 History of ContaminationDuring the 1970s, approximately 2,000 drums of paint-related wastes were disposed of

on the Eisenring property, adjacent to a 5-acre sand quarry lake. In 1978, Mr. Eisenring soldabout 80 acres of his property, which included the quarry lake and drum storage area, to theBig River Sand Company. As part of the sales agreement, Mr. Eisenring began to transfer

the drums to his adjacent property in 1982. Nearly 200 barrels were transferred before theKansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) halted the action because Mr.Eisenring did not have a permit to store or dispose of the waste.

KDHE conducted an initial site inspection in August 1982 and identified damaged,corroded, and leaking drums. KDHE sampled materials from several drums includingsolvents and paint sludges. Metals including arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead andselenium, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including toluene, ethylbenzene, andtrichloroethylene (TCE) were detected in the waste materials. Waste solvents from the

barrels were determined to be hazardous waste due to the characteristic of ignitability. Paintsludges failed the EP Toxicity test for chromium.


3.4 Initial ResponsesIn September 1982, KDHE issued an order to Mr. Eisenring to conduct a removal and

site cleanup. From 1982 to 1984, the State provided oversight of the removal and site

cleanup activities performed by Mr. Eisenring. Approximately 40 cubic yards of hazardouspaint sludges were landfilled offsite and 10,000 gallons of solvents were recycled.

Between 1982 and 1985, KDHE collected samples from the site soils, the quarry lake,residential drinking water wells, and monitoring wells. Arsenic, lead, and selenium weredetected in drinking water wells at concentrations greater than the Maximum ContaminantLevels (MCLs) established by the Safe Drinking Water Act. Concentrations of several

metals detected in the onsite monitoring wells also exceeded MCLs. VOCs, includingtoluene, were detected in the onsite soils and monitoring wells.

The site was proposed for the National Priorities List (NPL) in October 1984, and inMay 1986 was placed on the NPL.

A remedial investigation (Rl) was conducted in 1987. The R] found metals in soil andgroundwater above background levels but not outside the range of metals that may be foundnaturally occurring in the soil and groundwater in the area. Selenium was detected inmonitoring well El 01S at 62 ug/L which is above the MCL of 50 ug/L. Selenium was not

detected in any other monitoring wells or drinking water wells sampled.

3.5 Basis for Taking ActionThe Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) provided a Health

Consultation for the site in November 1987. The ATSDR concluded that the site did not atthat time appear to present a significant health threat based on the Rl data and information.With this information, USEPA selected no further action for the final remedy for the Big

River Sand Company sites in the June 28, 1988, Record of Decision (ROD).


IIIIIIIIIIIiiiiiiii

4.0 Remedial Actions

A ROD was signed on June 28,1988, which selected the No Further Action alternative

as the final remedy for the site. The USEPA, in consultation with KDHE, determined thatthe site did not pose significant threat to public health and the environment and, therefore,taking additional remedial measures was not appropriate.

4.1 Interim Remedial Measures Remedy SelectionIn September 1982, KDHE issued an order to Mr. Eisenring to conduct a removal and

site cleanup. From 1982 to 1984, the State provided oversight of the removal and sitecleanup activities performed by Mr. Eisenring. Approximately 40 cubic yards of hazardouspaint sludges were landfilled offsite and 10,000 gallons of solvents were recycled.

4.2 Final Remedy SelectionA ROD for the Big River Sand Company site was signed on June 28, 1988, which

selected the final remedy for the site. The ROD selected a "no further action" remedy basedon a review of the effectiveness, technical feasibility, cost effectiveness, and impact to the

environment. The USEPA, in consultation with KDHE, determined that the site did not posesignificant threat to public health and the environment and, therefore, taking additional

remedial measures was not appropriate.

4.3 Post Remedial Action ActivitiesThe Big River Sand site was deleted from the NPL on October 14, 1992.

KDHE was tasked by the USEPA to conduct the first five-year review of thegroundwater contamination associated with the Big River Sand site. As part of the five-yearreview, groundwater samples were to be collected from two private drinking water wells andthree monitoring wells to assess the current levels of metals contamination in thegroundwater. In November 1995, KDHE conducted the field work, collecting groundwatersamples from the drinking water wells at the Eisenring shop and residence and monitoring

wells B101S and El 02S. An attempt was made to sample monitoring well El 01S, but therewas an obstruction in the well (possibly due to sediment buildup or a collapsed casing) and

the sample could not be collected.



Big River Sand Company Site 46916.846-01Second Five-Year Review Report 02/2004

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

5.0 Progress Since Last Five-Year Review

The first five-year review (February 1999) determined that the response actions at the

site continued to protect human health, welfare, and the environment at the site. The firstfive-year review recommended that during the second five-year review an attempt be madeto collect a sample from monitoring well E101S or in the immediate vicinity of El 01S toassess the concentration of selenium in the groundwater at this location.



Big River Sand Company Site 46916.846-0)Second Five-Year Review Report 02/2004

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

6.0 Five-Year Review Process

6.1 Administrative ComponentsKDHE was notified of the initiation of the five-year review in August 2003. The Big

River Sand Company site five-year review team was led by William Gresham of USEPA,the Remedial Project Manager (RPM) for the site. The five-year review site inspection was

conducted by USEPA's contractor, BVSPC The BVSPC team was led by Genise Luecke,Site Manager.

A schedule was developed for the five-year review extending throughFebruary 28, 2004, which included the following components:

• Document Review.• Data Review.

• Site Inspection.Site Interviews.Five-Year Review Report Development and Review.

6.2 Community Notification and InvolvementA fact sheet announcing the five-year review for the Big River Sand Company site was

developed in December 2003. The fact sheet was made available on the USEPA's web siteand a notice was published in the Wichita Eagle on December 21, 2003.

6.3 Document ReviewThis five-year review consisted of a review of relevant documents including monitoring

data for the site. A complete list of documents reviewed as part of the five-year reviewprocess is included in Attachment 2. Applicable cleanup standards were reviewed. Theresults of this review are listed in Attachment 3.

6.4 Data ReviewGroundwater at the Big River Sand Company site was sampled during the RI in 1987

and again in 1995 as part of the first five-year review. In addition, as part of this five-yearreview site inspection, a groundwater sample was collected from a direct-push boringcompleted 4 feet from monitoring well E101S to assess the selenium concentration in thegroundwater in this location. The groundwater sample was collected in accordance with the

Quality Assurance Project Plan prepared by BVSPC for the site, dated November 7, 2003.

Table 6-1 presents a summary of the analytical data from the 2003 sampling event as well


as the historical concentrations of selenium in monitoring well El 01S. Based on a reviewof the available data, it appears that the selenium levels in the groundwater at monitoringwell El 01S have reduced to below the MCL of 50 ug/L.

6.5 Site InspectionA site inspection was conducted on December 19 ,2003, by the BVSPC Site Manager.

The site inspection was also attended by Daniel Gravatt with KDHE. The purpose of the site

inspection was to assess the protectiveness of the remedy. As part of the site inspection, agroundwater sample was collected from the immediate vicinity of monitoring well E101Sas recommended by the first five-year review. The groundwater sample was collected froma direct-push boring because monitoring well E101S was again found to be obstructedprohibiting collection of a sample from El 01 S. Based on the boring log and monitoring wellcompletion log for E101S (provided in Appendix A), E101S was screened fromapproximately 5 to 15 feet below ground surface (bgs). The water level in El 01S measuredin 1987 was 5.6 feet bgs. Therefore, to intersect the middle of the screened interval in El 01Sand most closely simulate the RI sampling effort, the direct-push sampler was placed fromapproximately 8 to 12 feet bgs as specified in the QAPP. The results of the split samplingeffort are discussed in Section 6.4.

6.6 InterviewsInterviews were conducted with various parties connected to the site. Mr. Daniel

Gravatt with KDHE indicated that the state of Kansas would be in favor of discontinuing the

five-year reviews. In addition, Mr. Victor Eisenring, the property owner, was interviewed.Mr. Eisenring indicated that he had performed all activities required of him and thatregulatory activities at the site should cease.


IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Table 6-1Groundwater Sampling Results for Monitoring Well E101S

Analyte

Selenium

2003 Results(December 2003)

ND (35 ug/L)

RI Results(1987)

62 ug/L

Cleanup Standard

50 ug/L

Notes:The 2003 results were obtained from a groundwater sample collected from a direct-push sampling location installed 4 feet northwest of monitoring well E101S.

ND - Analyte not detected above the detection limit provided in parentheses.

The cleanup standard for selenium is the MCL.

Big River Sand Company SiteSecond Five-Year Review Report 6-3

46916.846-0102/2004


Big River Sand Company Site 46916.846-0)Second Five-Year Review Report 02/2004

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

7.0 Technical Assessment

7.1 Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by thedecision documents?

Review of documents, applicable or relevant and appropriate regulations (ARARs), risk

assumptions, and results of the site inspection indicates that the remedies for the site are

functioning as intended by the ROD. Analytical results from the groundwater sampling

indicate that the selenium levels have reduced to below the MCL.

7.2 Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data,cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives (RAOs) used at thetime of remedy selection still valid?

There have been no changes in the physical conditions of the site that would affect the

protectiveness of the remedies. The ARAR for selenium, an MCL of 50 ug/L, has been met

in the groundwater.

7.3 Question C: Has any other information come to light that couldcall into question the protectiveness of the remedy?

No new ecological targets have been identified at the site. No events have occurred

since the last five-year review that would effect the protectiveness of the remedies. There

is no other information that calls into question the protectiveness of the remedies.

7.4 Technical Assessment SummaryAccording to the data reviewed, the site inspection, and the interviews, the remedies are

functioning as intended by the ROD. There have been no changes in the physical conditions

of the site that would affect the protectiveness of the remedies. The groundwater levels ofselenium have reduced to below the MCL.




I™ 8.0 Issues

B There were no major issues identified during the five-year review that effect the

protectiveness of the remedies.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I_ Big River Sand Company Site 46916.846-01I Second Five-Year Review Report 8-1 02/2004

I



I' 9.0 Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions

I It is recommended that this be the last five-year review conducted at the site. Selenium

concentrations in the groundwater in the vicinity of monitoring well El 01S during this five-• year review were below the MCL. The remedial action objectives of the ROD have been

met.

iiiiiiiiiiiiiI


I



I• 10.0 Protectiveness Statement

• Because the remedial actions are protective, the site is protective of human health andthe environment. The groundwater concentrations have reduced to below the MCL for

•' selenium.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I_ Big River Sand Company Site 46916.846-01• Second Five-Year Review Report 10-1 02/2004

I



11.0 Next Review

No additional five-year reviews are recommended for the site. All the remedial actions

are complete. The concentrations of selenium in the groundwater have reduced to below the

MCL at monitoring well E101S. No hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants'

remain on site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure.




IX

IiIII1I_ Attachment 1| Site Figures and Well Logs

I

I1

I1IIII


Big River Sand Company Site 46916.846-01Second Five-Year Review Report 01 /2004

V: •

i Meadow.;

MapPpihf

gW 29th St N

^V.£K!^Big River Sand Site

€>2003 MlciosoHCoifp €2003 NJVTtcr.in

NORTH

Legend_ Monitoring Well/Direct

Push Sample Location

Figure 1Site LocationBig River Sand Company Site

EXPLANATION

E101S® GROUNDWATER SAMPLING LOCATION

AND NUMBER (WELL INSTALLED BY MATHES)PW1

(g) PRIVATE WELL

500

SCALE IN FEET

1000

Figure A-1Site MapBig River Sand Company Site

O iIi

B-12

JOHN MATHES & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE'GEOLOGIC LOG FOR BORING NO. EiOlS SERIAL # GL

L_OF_L

00007

DATE )-30-87 / 0930

PROJECT _

LOCATION

Big River Sand

PROJECT NO. I28727t9

MAJOR TASK 2187 SUBTASK 2057

Wichita, KansasGROUND SURFACE ELEVATION 1315'°'

a.tuD

SAMPLE

K ~Ul *•I-*"

UJ0. SAMPLE DESCRIPTIONS N/6' REMARKS

No samples taken. For stratigraphy see E101DGeologic log.

- 5-

-10-

-15-

-20-

-25-

- 30-

- 35-

T.O.B @ 16.25'

#2

#2

#2

#3

DRILLING METHOD

DATE DRILLED

DRILLED BY .

LOGGED BY

PIEZOMETER

Wl SERIAL #

1M" Hollow-Stemmed Augers (IDJfiRQUN nWATER

t/30/87

J. BreedingEncountered at 6.0 f ee t

T. Fuhrhop

Yes

DATE/TIME OF COMPLETIONBORING t-30-87 1015

0000^ WELL INSTALLATION 1100

WELL PROTECTION 1100

JOHN MATHES & ASSOCIATES, INC.

GEOLOGIC DRILLING COMMENTS

PAGE 2 OF 2

BORING NO.. •'•'E101S JMA PROJECT NO. 128727^9 DATE <t-30-87I

REMARK NO.

#1

#2

#3

REMARKS

Encountered water at - 6.0'

Added water to auqers to control "blow-in" problems.

"Blow-in" up in augers. Augers pulled to allow sand to fall out of auoers. Auoers

at 16.3'. Set well used total of 35 gallons of water in borinq.

IIIIIilIiIliliiII

WATER LEVELS

REFERENCE POINT

Ground Surface

DATE

i|-30-87

TIME

1030

DEPTH( f t . )

6.0'

COMMENTS

Water encountered during drilling

TECH.

TEF

B-14

GEOLOGIC LOG

DA-

PR

LO

^

zi-

• CLUl0

- 5-

-10-

-15-

-20 _

-25-

-30

-35

OROAOR

LO

PIEWl

JOHN MATHES & ASSOCIATES,FOR RORIMf; NO E101D

INC. PP

SERIAL #

LGE__1 OF_3

Gl QQ005

rF 4-29-87 / 0830 PROJEP-T MO 12872749

OJE

CAT

CT Rig Riwr Sanri MA,IOR TASK 2187 SMRTASK 2057

ON Wichita, Kansas ^RnilNfp SURF*'

SAMPLE

NU

MB

ER

1

2

3

4

il

6

7

8

LLI

TE [

LLE

GGE

.lOt:

SEF

_i<>ecZJ^z

0'4'

it'6'

9.011.0'

14.0'.16.0'

19.Q1

20.5'

24.0'25.5'

29.030.5

34.035.5

UG M

>RILt

0 B\

D B1

rtETE

UAL

TY

PE

AS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

ETHC

.EDf

RE

CO

VE

RY

(In

)

17"'

20"

10"

17"

12"

18'

16"

SAMPLE DESCRIPTIONS

Silty clay - brown - some sand; trace organics;lenses of dark brown sand clay - CL

SAA - some Fe stains seen; Changes to -fine sand-brown - some silt, some med - coarse sand - sub-rounded," Fe stains present - SP

Fine Brown sand - SAA

Brown sandy c lay - sand fine - Med heavily stainec(Red-brown Fe stains) - CL

Med - coarse sand - light brown sub- •rounded; trace gravel; mostly quartz - SP

Med - coarse sand - brown; trace fines ; no gravelsub rounded - SP

S.A.A.

Fine - med sand - brown; no fines or gravel;rounded; mostly quartz SP

Med - coarse sand - brown; sub rounded; tracegravel and f ines reached yellow zone 35 ' -35 '3"No HNU readings SP

JE ELE VATIC

1DE

PT

H

OP

CH

AN

GE

5.7

0.4'

N/6'

2

1

3

8

8

2

2

4

11

10

10

5

1

4

18

1

1

5N 1315.2'

REMARKS

#1

#2

#3

#4#2#3

#2#3

#2#3

n#3

->n W Hollow-Sf.f.imnpd Augers ( l .n.) GROUNDWATER<t-29-87 / 0830 - Fnr,

J. BreedingT. Fuhrhop UATE/TI&

D Yes BORING

>untored at

/IE OF COM4-29-87

M 00003 WELL INSTALLATION

WELL PROTECTION

6.0 ,„„,

PLETION1145

.16301630'-.

B-15

JOHN MATHES & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE

GEOLOGIC LOG FOR BORING NO. E1Q1D SERIAL # GL 00005

DATE 4-29-87 0830

PROJECT Big River Sand

PROJECT NO. T2872749

MAJOR TASK 2187 SUBTASK 2057

LOCATION Wichita, Kansas GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION 131S-2'

0.uiO

SAMPLE

cc ».

QUla

SAMPLE DESCRIPTIONS N/6' REMARKS

-40-

-45- 10

11

39.0'40.5'

44.0'45.5'

46.547.5

-50-

-55-

-60-

-70

-80

SS

SS

SS

10'

18'

12'

Med - coarse sand - brown; .subrounded; tracegravel and -fines. Seem 4" thick -fine brown sand;no.rfines or coarse sand (39'8" - 40'0")- SP

Sandy clay - gray; some thin layers of gray clay(<1" thick). Some yellow leached areas-CL

Sandy gravelly clay - brown - wet CL. Changes toSilty clay - brown - stiff; some fissures (filledwith gray silty material); some gravel; 47.0'-None below that, no vi sable water in sample when -broken. Clay confining layer. CL

T.O.B d> 47.5

45'

16.8

n#3

#5

#6

#7

DRILLING METHOD

DATE DRILLED

DRILLED BY

LOGGED BY

PIEZOMETER

Wl SERIAL *

4V Ho now-Stemmed Augers ( I .D . )

4-29-87 / 0830

J. Breeding

T. FuhrhopYes

00003

GROUNDWATER: Encountered at

b.O f e e t l

DATE/TIME OF COMPLETIONBORING 4-29-87 1145

WELL INSTALLATION

WELL PROTECTION .

.16301630'..

IIIIIIIIiiiIiiIiIii

JOHN MATHES & ASSOCIATES. INC.

GEOLOGIC DRILLING COMMENTS

B-16PAGE_LOF 3

BORING NO E101B JMA PROJECT NO. 128727^9 DATE 4-29-87

REMARK NO.

#1

#2

#3

#<t

#5

#6

#7

#8

REMARKS

Sample wet but not saturated.

Water encountered @ •?. 6.0'. Very bottom of S.S. wet (C16.01).

"Blow-in" encountered - augers lifted to allow sand to fall out.

Split spoons only driven 18" as opposed to 7U" originally. Over driven to start

(First 3 spoons) to assure adequate sample.

Gray sandy clay on bottom of drag bit - drove spoon to varify confining layer.

Not good enough confining layer defined with S.S. #10. Insirnrtprl drillers to goanother 2V and drive another spoon.

Jim Breeding felt difference in drilling @ <td.O' .

Spoon driven to <t7.5' -cl ay ..conf -i ning 1 ayer def i ned. Wei 1 set at 46. 51 . Waterlost during drilling = 175 gallons.

WATER LEVELS

REFERENCE POINT

Ground surface

DATE

4-29-87

TIME

0900

DEPTH( I t . )

6.0'

COMMENTS

Where drillers encountered water

TECH.

TEF

This page intentionally left blank.

RAC VII Big River Sand Company Sile 46916.841-04Second Five-Year Review

C-5

rnoJE^T urt 12872749

MONITnRINfi WELL NO. E101S

APPROXIMATE 2.VGROUND SURFACEELEVATION 1315. 0'x

Depth Be lowGround S u r f a c e

2.0"

4.0'

GROUNDWATER 5.0'

| FVEL ON T 5.6'

MAY 13, 1987

15.8'16.3'

*

*<J

o• .\4

sC'^^ .

IV\-.

f'•}$

îffiT'V '•C < *

«>;! •;

'i'/i ='

•J. ".'

*vv '

• :-J'

§• **"'!•'•

• •• ""•*

"•. "•" f

•'". ; :'"

1'•';"•"•

'•'f:\

'. ''"m-• •<

•-.•;:?:«,

|

H

-

_~_

—

—

Y

—

—

—

D m l l P R J. BREEDING/J. BARKER

ATE INSTALLED 4/30/87

^^—4" DIA. STEEL WELL\*^ PROTECTIVE CASING

'/•I

•"«:]'>£iV»:

V.s-

S-v,S;\T^-

>W:v.v,<*iAvJ*-'i:

Sv?3$®i^

1V1/ " ,'.*

?£$'$.

it'";*•*-••;•••'•'•jr, i:;-'

•'."v.'tr

®H;iirf.S

;Kr.5

ll

ISi$$:xSAriS5Ke^g11

P

•M:.I'.-iK4

WS-j$?#

^^_ — PREMIX CONCRETE

___ — 2" DIA. STAINLESS-STEELRISER

BENTONITE PELLET^ SEAL

^ WB-40. SAND PACK

^-2' DIA. 0.010' SLOTL ' STAINLESS-STEEL

WELL SCREEN

I

NOT TO SCALE

BOREHOLE D I A M E T E R

SCREEN LENGTH

SANDPACK 12.3' WB-40

10.8' RISER LENGTH 7.V

This page intentionally left blank.

RAC VII Big River Sand Company Sile ' 46916.841-04

Second Five-Year Review

I

Attachment 2Site Documents Reviewed


I™

•

Site Documents Reviewed

Big River Sand Company Site

Second Five-Year Review

• Department of the Army, Kansas City District Corps of Engineers, Big River Sand

Company Superfund Site Remedial Investigation Report, prepared by John Mathis &

Associates, April 1988.

KDHE, Site Inspection Follow-Up Report, Big River Sand Company/Eisenring Site,

Wichita, Kansas, October 9, 1 985.

• KDHE, Groundwater Analytical Results, Big River Sand Company Site, Wichita,

Sedgwick County, Kansas, February 1 996.

m USEPA, Record of Decision, Big River Sand Company, EPA ID KSD980686174,

^ Wichita, Kansas, June 28, 1988.

USEPA, Big River Sand Superfund Site, Five-Year Review Report for the Big River

• Sand Company Site, Sedgwick County, Kansas, February 1 , 1 999.

I

iiiiiiii


IIIIIIIIi_ Attachment 38 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements

I

I

I

I

iiiii


iIiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

ARARs Review

The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Big River Sand Company site identified the

federal maximum contaminant level (MCL) for selenium as an applicable or relevant and

appropriate requirements (ARAR). At the time the ROD was signed (June 28, 1988), the

MCL for selenium was 10 ug/L. In 1991, the MCL for selenium was raised to 50 ug/L. This

raised MCL was identified in the first five-year review in 1999.

A review of the current standards show that the MCL for selenium has not changed since

the first five-year review was conducted in 1999. Therefore, the MCL for selenium of

50 ug/L remains in ARAR for the site.


IIiiiiiii_ Attachment 4I 2003 Groundwater Sampling Data

I

II

III

I

I

I


6 1 - 2 1 - Q 4 16:35 PQ1/Q8

I

I

i

iIiiiiiiiiiiiiii

United States EnvironmReg

901 N. 5Kansas Gift

ntal Protection Agencyon?h Street, KS 66101

Date: 01/15/2004

Subject: Tiansmittal of Sample Analysis Results for ASR #: 2251

Project ID: WG075N

Project Description: Big River Sand Company site• I

From: D;ile I. Bates, Director }Regional Laboratory, Environmental Services Division

To: Bill GreshamSUPR/IANE

Enclosed are the analytical data for the above-referenced Analytical Services Request (ASR) andProject. The Regional Laboratory has reviewed and verified the results in accordance with proceduresdescribed in our Quality Manual (QM). In addition to ail of the analytical results, this transmittalcontains pertinent information that may have influenced the reported results and documents anydeviations from the established requirements of the QM.

i

Please contact us within 14 days of receipt of this package if you determine there is a need for anychanges. Please complete the enclosed Customer Satisfaction Survey and Data Disposition memo forthis ASR.

If you have any questions or concerns relating to this data package, contact our customer service lineat 913-551-52'J5.

Enclosures

cc: Analytical Data File. OPIIONA'L FOfiw pe rr-M)

FAX TRANSMITTAL |»ot pages »

Genfee LuDepVAgency

Fa"

From

Fa" 551-7C&3

Pagejl of 5

ASR Number: 2251 Summary of Project Information 01/15/2004

Project Manager: Bill Gresham prg: SUPR/IANE Phone: 913-551-7804

Project ID: WG075N

Project Desc: Big River Sand Company site

Location: Wichita Stpte: Kansas Program: Superfund

Site Name: BIG RIVER SAND CO. - REMEDIAL ACTIVITIES Site ID: 075N Site OU: 01

Purpose: Site Characterization

Explanation of Codes, Units and Qualifiers used on this report

Sample QC Codes: QC Codes identify the type of Units: Specific units in which results aresample for quality control purpose. reported.

— = Field Sample ; ug/L = Micrograms per Liter

Data Qualifiers: Specific codes used in conjunction i with data values to provide additional informationon the quality of reported results, of used to explain the absence of a specific value.

(Blank)= Values have been reviewed and found acceptable for use.U = The analyte was not detected at or above the reporting limit.

Page J2 of 5

S I - 2 1 - G 4 16:35 ID = PS3/Q8

1ASR Number: 2251

• Project ID: WG075N

- Sample QC| No Code Matrix Location

Sample Infotr

Project Desc: Big Riv

nation Summary

sr Sand Company site

External Start Start EndDescription Sample No Date Time Date

01/15/2004

End ReceiptTime Date

1 • _ Water Geoprobe E101S Replacement GP10JIS 12/19/2003 12:19 12/22/2003

Page 13 of. 5

PS4/Q8

ASR Number:2251

Project ID: WG075N

RLAB Approved (Analysis

Project Desc: Big Rjvqr

Comments

Sand Company site01/15/2004

Analysis Comments About Results For This Analysis

1 Metals in Water by ICPLab: Contract Lab Program (Out-Source)

Method: CLP Statement of Work

Samples: 1-

Comments:

Page of 5

Q 1 - 2 1 - Q 4 16:35

| ASR Number: 2251

Project ID: WG075N

ID = PS5/Q8

1 Analysis/ Analyte

1 Metals in Water by ICPSelenium

RLAB Approved Sample Analysis Results

Project Desc: Big lUver Sand Company site

Units !-___- i

01/15/2004

ug/LJ 35.0 U

Paa E 5 of 5

P86/88

CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORDENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION VII

IACTIVITY lEADER(Prim) NAME OF SURV DATE^QF COITION

DAY MONTH ~YFAft

CONTENTS Ol: SHlPMENl

RECtlVING LABORATORYREMARKS/OTHER INFORMATION(confined el umplcs upon receipt

other umpie numfters. tit.)

SAMPLINUMBEli

NUMBERS OF CONTAINERS PEP SIMPLE NUMBER

DESCRIPTION OF SHIPMENT OF SHIPMENT

. PIECHS) CONSISTING OF.

. ICE CHEST(S): OTHER

EOX(ES) COMMERCIAL CARRIER:.

COURIER

-X-SAMPLER CONVEYED (SHIPPING DOCUMENT NUMBER)

PERSONNELCUSTODY RECORD

BY

—I SEALED UNSEALED'^

'/4>3

T I M E

<&UNSEALED

REASON FOR CHANGF. OF CUSTOOV

REUNQUI5MEC' BY

I SEALED

''DATE TIME

UNSEALED!

RECEIVED BY

""[SEflLED

/^ REASON FOR CHANGE OF CUSTODY

LINSEALEDRELINQUISHEf. BY

~~1 SEALED

DATE REC Iiveo BY REASON FOR CHANGE OF cusToov

UNSEALED[ ~| SEALED UNSEALED^

7-EPA-9262(Rev.:ca 5/85)

61 -21-94 16:36PS7/S8

1- . „ . " "" T \

Sample Collection Field SheetUS UpA Region 7

• Kan; >as City, KS

!

• ASR Number: 2251 Sample Number: 1 QC Code: Matrix: Water Tag ID: 2251-1-

m Project ID: WG075N Project Manager: Bill Gresham1 Project Desc: Big River Sand Company site

City: Wichita State: KansasProgram: Superfund

^ Site Name: BIG RIVER SAND CO. - REMEDIAL ACTIVITIES Site ID: 075N

IfLocation Desc: \j4~0jpfr

I ^_ Expected Cone:

I Latitude:

_ Longitude:

•

£-W €7/01 O \^^jLoL^6^ff^L^J^1

External Sample Number: v~il 0 / o

(or Circle One: (low) Medium High) Date

Sample Collection: Start: 11/13/0^

: End: / /

Site OU: 01

Time(24 hr)

.

Laboratory Analyses: ;Container Preservative Holding Tinie Analysis

• 1 • 1 Uter Cubitaiuer HNO3 acidify, 4 Deg C 180 Days 1 Metals in Water by 1CP

•

Sample Comments

(N/A)

I

I

I

I

I

I

/ z

Sample Collected By:

1 of 1!

i

Sample Collection Field SheetUS EPA Region 7Kansas City, KS

ASR Number: 2251 Sample Number: 2 Code: PE Matrix: Water Tag ID: 2251-2-PE

Project ID: WG075NProject Desc: Big River Sand Company site

City: WichitaProgram: Superfund j

Site Name: BIG RIVER SAND CO. - REMEDIAL ACTIVITIES

Project Manager: Bill Gresham

State: Kansas

Site ID: 075N Site OU: 01

Location Desc: CLP QATS PE SAMPLE: METALS ;

External Sample Number:|

Expected Cone: Low (or Circle One: Low Medium High)

Latitude: Sample Collection: Start:

Longitude: ;

Date

12/22/2003

End:

Time(24 hr)

10:00

Laboratory Analyses: ;Container Preservative Holding Tlttie Analysis

i - i LHo/ûbitoTXeT- HNO3 acidify, 4 Deg C ISO Days 1 Metals in Water by ICP

Sample Comments: !

QATS SAMPLE ID # IS2565 i

SAMPLES AND INSTRUCTION SHEETS IN BACK DOCKSAMPLES. 12-03-03 RKE

REFRIGERATOR TO BE INCLUDED WITH THE FIELD

Sample Collected By: GL

1 cf 1

IIIIIIII

Attachment 5• Site Inspection Trip Memorandum with

Checklist and Interview Forms

I

III

II

I

I

I


IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

BLACK & VEATCH SPECIAL PROJECTS CORP.

TRIP MEMORANDUM

USEPA BVSPC Project 46916.845Big River Sand Company Site BVSPC File E.1Second Five-Year Review Report December 31, 2003Site Inspection

To: File

From: G.M. Luecke

Dates onsite: December 19, 2003Personnel onsite: Genise Luecke, BVSPC

Trip Purpose: Conduct the site inspection and collect groundwater sample from monitoring wellE101S or in the immediate vicinity of E101S in accordance with the quality assurance project plan(QAPP) prepared by BVSPC dated November 7, 2003.

The following is a summary of the activities completed during the site inspection. The siteinspection activities were recorded on pages 1 through 3 of the Field Logbook. Two pictureswere taken during the site inspection and copies are attached.

Friday. December 19. 2003Met with Mr. Vic Eisenring, property owner, at 1030. Dan Gravatt with the Kansas Department ofHealth and Environment (KDHE) and BVSPC's direct-push subcontractor, BSG, also arrivedonsite.

Mr. Eisenring provided site access and aided in locating the monitoring well nest E101. Bothwells were locked and appeared to be in good condition. No keys were available for the locks, sothe locks were cut. Replacement locks were provided. Water levels and total depth of the wellswere measured.to determine which of the two wells in the well nest was the shallow well (E101S).The northwesterly well was obstructed at about 10 feet below top of casing and no water waspresent. The other well in the well nest was approximately 49 feet deep and the water level wasabout 9.5 feet below top of casing. Based on the overall depth of the well compared to the wellcompletion logs, it was determined that the northwesterly well was E101S.

Because E101S was obstructed, a direct-push boring was installed approximately 4 feetnorthwest of E101S. The boring was installed to a total depth of 12 feet below ground surface(bgs). There was approximately 4 feet of water in the boring. The groundwater sampler wasplaced from 8 to 12 feet bgs and the boring was purged using a peristaltic pump. Readings fortemperature, pH; and oxidation reduction potential (ORP) were recorded during purging. Aturbidity meter was not available. Readings were recorded approximately every 5 minutes. It isestimated that 1.5 to 2 gallons of water were purged from the boring. After the readings stabilized(in accordance with the QAPP) and the water cleared, one groundwater sample (along with extravolume for a matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate) was collected for analysis of metals.

Following collection of the groundwater sample, the boring was backfilled with bentonite. Thedirect-push equipment was decontaminated and everyone demobilized from the site at 1300.Purge water and decontamination water was disposed of to the ground in the vicinity of theboring.

Copies of the Field Logbook pages, photographs, field sheet, and chain of custody are attached.

«H™

mS . - r , ; w

$$$

'

i-m

ft&'iV*:*.*'-^

Ufas**;SP?'^•"îfff

§ :K'%WWa&S^Kf,Vv •Ztj:<~llL?'-#. cipfirwyf

^•^^

i J3r: S?i :4Bh-',iff,tr-«imwXi'.fi'ij'-s1

I S^^Pi!$s!rSSJI- fl;?'?

Klfe^-TV'-.yS'.'.^^-T1;

1||pif

•m

...J.._L.

• I - ! - !

ID= PQ7/GB

ISample Collection Field Sheet

US EPA Region /Kanias City, KS

US EPA Region 7 •

IASR Number: 2251 Sample Number; 1 Q(j Code: _ Matrix: Water Tag IDi 225l-l-_

Project ID; WG075N j Project Manager: Bill Gresham .Project Desc: Big River Sand Company site j I

City: Wichita ! State: KansasProgram: Superfund j

Site Name: BIG RIVER SAND CO, - REMEDIAL ACTIVITIES Site ID: 075N Site OU: 01 I

Location Desc:

External Sample Number:

Expected Cone: (or Circle One: (Wy Medium High) Date Time(24 hr) I

Latitude: . Sample Collection: Start:

Longitude: i End: /i

Laboratory Analyses: jContainer Preservative Holding Time Analysis

1 . 1 LlcerCubitahier HNO3 addlfy, 4 Deg c 180 Days l Mewls in Water by ICP

Sample Comments: j

(N/A) . i/ '

Sample Collected By: .i

1 of 1

11 ACTIVITY LEADER(Print)

CONTENTS OF SHIPMENT

SAMPLENUMBER CUBITAINER BOHLE

CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORDENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION VII

TYPE OF

NAME OF SURVEY OR ACTIVITY D/Cs. 0- • < - i —P i o. f~. i \IG^T i c. ri A

ffE OF COLLECTION SHEET

•DAT MONTH "WAT I |01| /

CONTAINERS

BOTTLE BOTTLEVOA SET

2 VIALS EA)

NUMBERS OF CONTAINERS PER SAMPLE NUMBER

1•

1•

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

5 2 5 ! - C - \

^\

\\

1

r5 *

\.\

X

\

X. _„

X - -^f , .

^S \

^X *— 7

DESCRIPTION OF SHIPMENT

picrc(c\ (

I IPF THFS

INSISTING C

Ti<; \ - fTTHFR

)F

PERSONNEL CUSTODY RECORDMELINQUISHED BY (SAMPLER)

—| SEALED UNSEALED fx

RELINQUISHED BY

~~!«;FALED UNSEALEoPRELINQUISHED BY

DQFAI FD UNSEALED(~•7 CDA-OOf^1?! QauiQpd h/flfbl

BOX(

,,

DATE

DATE

ES)

TIME

TIME

•^

•ra

^\^

x

SAMPLED MEDIA

*J

\

i

x\

x

tneiRECEIVING LABORATORY

REMARKS/OTHER INFORMATION(condition ot simples upon receipt

other sample numbers, etc.)

/Vj ^ / v'vi *r r^.

X

X

\

\

\

\

\

MODE OF SHIPMENT

rnMMrnnni

ERCIAL CARRIE

ERER CONVEYED

B-

(SHIPPING DOCUMENT NUMBER)

•--.

|xSfeAL'ED ' UNSEAuED ''f

RECEIVED BY

ISEALED UNSEALED fRECEIVED BY

"] SEALED UNSEALEDf

,S /

• REASON FOR CHANGE OF CUSTODY

REASON FOR CHANGE OF CUSTODY M

m«

Photo 1 -12/19/03Big River Sand CompanyFacing north. WellE101Sdirect-push boring location

'1ie

-12/19/03. Sand Company Sitenorthwest. Installing (!

. Zdirect-push boring - 4 feet'- ^horthwest of well E101S.mm

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Site Inspection Checklist

I. SITE INFORMATION

Site name: Big River Sand Company Site

Location and Region: Wichita, KS/ Region 7

Agency, office, or company leading the five-yearreview: USEPA Region 7

Date of inspection: December 19, 2003

EPAID:KSD980686174

Weather/temperature:

Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply)D Landfill cover/containment D Monitored natural attenuationD Access controls D Groundwater containmentD Institutional controls D Vertical barrier wallsD Groundwater pump and treatmentD Surface water collection and treatmentH Other ^roundwater monitoring at the time of the five-vear review

Attachments: D Inspection team roster below H Site map attached

Site Inspection performed by:Genise M. Luecke with Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp.

Big River Sand Company Corp. SiteSecond Five-Year Review Site Inspection Checklist - 1

46916.846

II. INTERVIEWS (Check all that apply)

Dan Gravatt, Kansas Department of Health and Environment. Interview form attached.Victor Eisenring, property owner. Interview form attached.


46916.846

11111111111

1 . O&M site managerName Title Date

Interviewed D at site D at office D by phone Phone no.Problems, suggestions; D Report attached

1111111 Big River Sand Company Corp. Site . 46916.846

second Five-vear Review Site Inspection Checklist - 3

1

2. O&M staffName Title

Interviewed D at site D at office D by phone Phone no.Problems, suggestions; D Report attached

Date


46916.846

3. Local regulatory authorities and response agencies (i.e., State and Tribal officesresponse office, police department, office of public health or environmental health,recorder of deeds, or other city and county offices, etc.) Fill in all that apply.

" Aeencv KDHEContact Dan Gravatt Env. Geoloeist/PM Various

Name Title DateProblems; suggestions; B Report attached

AeencvContact

Name Title DateProblems; suggestions; D Report attached

AeencvContact


AeencvContact


, emergencyzoning office,

785/296-6378Phone no.

Phone no.

Phone no.

Phone no.

4. Other interviews (optional) B Report attached.

Victor Eisenring, Property Owner


46916.846

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

III. ON-S1TE DOCUMENTS &

O&M Documents N/AD O&M manualD As-built drawingsD Maintenance logsRemarks

RECORDS VERIFIED (Check all that apply)

D Readily available D Up to dateD Readily available D Up to dateD Readily available D Up to date

Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan N/A D Readily available D Up to dateD Contingency plan/emergency response plan D Readily available D Up to dateRemarks

O&M and OSHA Training RecordsRemarks

N/A D Readily available D Up to date

Permits and Service Agreements N/AD Air discharge permit D Readily available D Up to dateD Effluent discharge D Readily available D Up to dateD Waste disposal, POTW D Readily available D Up to dateD Other permits D Readily available D Up to dateRemarks

Gas Generation Records N/ARemarks

Settlement Monument Records N/ARemarks

Groundwater Monitoring RecordsRemarks

Leachate Extraction RecordsRemarks

Discharge Compliance RecordsDAirD Water (effluent)Remarks

Daily Access/Security LogsRemarks

D Readily available D Up to date




D Readily available D Up to dateD Readily available D Up to date


BN/ABN/ABN/A

BN/ABN/A

BN/A

BN/ABN/ABN/ABN/A

BN/A

BN/A

BN/A

BN/A

BN/ABN/A

BN/A


46916.846

IV. O&M COSTS

1.

2.

O&M Organization - NAD State in-house D Contractor for StateD PRP in-house D Contractor for PRPD Federal Facility in-house D Contractor for FederalD Other

O&M Cost Records - N/AD Readily available D Up to dateD Funding mechanism/agreement in placeOriginal O&M cost estimate

Facility

D Breakdown attached

Total annual cost by year for review period if available

From To D Breakdown attached

3.

Date Date Total costFrom To




Date Date Total cost





Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs During Review PeriodDescribe costs and reasons:

V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS D Applicable a N/A

A.

1.

B.

1.

Fencing

Fencing damaged D Location shown on site mapRemarks

Other Access Restrictions

D Gates secured D N/A

Signs and other security measures D Location shown on site map B N/ARemarks


46916.846

C. Institutional Controls (ICs)

1. Implementation and enforcementSite conditions imply ICs not properly implementedSite conditions imply ICs not being fully enforced

Type of monitoring (e.g., self-reporting, drive by)Frequency

D Yes D NoD Yes D No

HN/ABN/A

Responsible party/agencyContact

TitleName

Reporting is up-to-dateReports are verified by the lead agency

Specific requirements in deed or decision documents have been metViolations have been reportedOther problems or suggestions: D Report attached

Date



Phone no.

BN/ABN/A

HN/ABN/A

2. AdequacyRemarks

D ICs are adequate D ICs are inadequate

D. General

1. Vandalism/trespassing D Location shown on site map No vandalism evidentRemarks

2. Land use changes on siteRemarks None noted

DN/A

3. Land use changes off siteRemarks None noted

DN/A

VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS

A. Roads D Applicable B N/A

1. Roads damagedRemarks

D Location shown on site map D Roads adequate DN/A


46916.846

B. Other Site Conditions

Remarks

VII. LANDFILL COVERS D Applicable a N/A

A. Landfill Surface

1. Settlement (Low spots)Areal extentRemarks

D Location shown on site map D Settlement not evidentDepth

2. CracksLengths_Remarks

D Location shown on site map D Cracking not evidentWidths . Depths

3. ErosionAreal extent_Remarks

D Location shown on site map D Erosion not evidentDepth

4. HolesAreal extent_Remarks

D Location shown on site map D Holes not evidentDepth

Vegetative Cover D Grass D Cover properly established D No signs of stressD Trees/Shrubs (indicate size and locations on a diagram)Remarks

AJternative Cover (armored rock, concrete, etc.)Remarks

DN/A

7. BulgesAreal extent_Remarks

D Location shown on site map D Bulges not evidentHeight


46916.846

Wet Areas/Water DamageD Wet areasD PondingD SeepsD Soft subgradeRemarks

D Wet areas/water damage not evidentO Location shown on site map Areal extent_D Location shown on site map Areal extent_D Location shown on site map Areal extent_D Location shown on site map Areal extent_

9. Slope InstabilityAreal extentRemarks

D Slides D Location shown on site map D No evidence of slope instability

B. Benches D Applicable D N/A(Horizontally constructed mounds of earth placed across a steep landfill side slope to interrupt the slopein order to slow down the velocity of surface runoff and intercept and convey the runoff to a linedchannel.)

1. Flows Bypass BenchRemarks

D Location shown on site map D N/A or okay

2. Bench BreachedRem arks


3. Bench OvertoppedRemarks


C. Letdown Channels D Applicable D N/A(Channel lined with erosion control mats, riprap, grout bags, or gabions that descend down the steepside slope of the cover and will allow the runoff water collected by the benches to move off of thelandfill cover without creating erosion gullies.)

1. SettlementAreal extent_Remarks

D Location shown on site mapDepth

D No evidence of settlement

Material Degradation D Location shown on site mapMaterial type Areal extentRemarks

D No evidence of degradation

3. ErosionAreal extent_Remarks

D Location shown on site mapDepth

D No evidence of erosion


46916.846

4.

5.

6.

D.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Undercutting D Location shown on site map D No evidence of undercuttingAreal extent DepthRemarks

Obstructions TypeD Location shown on site mapSizeRemarks

Excessive Vegetative GrowthD No evidence of excessive growthD Vegetation in channels does not obsD Location shown on site mapRemarks

Cover Penetrations D Applicable D

Gas Vents D ActiveD Properly secured/locked DD Evidence of leakage at penetrationDM/ARemarks

Gas Monitoring ProbesD Properly secured/locked DD Evidence of leakage at penetrationRemarks

D No obstructionsAreal extent

Type

tract flowAreal extent

N/A

D PassiveFunctioning D Routinely sampled

D Needs Maintenance

Functioning D Routinely sampledD Needs Maintenance

Monitoring Wells (within surface area of landfill)D Properly secured/locked D Functioning D Routinely sampledD Evidence of leakage at penetration D Needs MaintenanceRemarks

Leachate Extraction WellsD Properly secured/locked DD Evidence of leakage at penetrationRemarks

Settlement Monuments DRemarks

Functioning D Routinely sampledD Needs Maintenance

Located D Routinely surveyed

D Good condition

D Good conditionDM/A

D Good conditionON/A

D Good conditionDN/A

ON/A


46916.846

E.

1.

2.

3.

F.

1.

2.

G.

1.

2.

3.

4.

Gas Collection and Treatment

Gas Treatment FacilitiesD Flaring DD Good condition DRemarks

D Applicable D N/A

Thermal destruction D Collection for reuseNeeds Maintenance

Gas Collection Wells, Manifolds and PipingD Good condition D Needs MaintenanceRemarks

Gas Monitoring Faculties (e.g., gas monitoring of adjacent homes or buildings)D Good condition D Needs Maintenance D N/ARemarks

Cover Drainage Layer

Outlet Pipes InspectedRemarks

Outlet Rock InspectedRemarks

Detention/Sedimentation Ponds

D Applicable D N/A

D Functioning D N/A

D Functioning D N/A

D Applicable D N/A

SUtation Areal extent Depth D N/AD Siltation not evidentRemarks

Erosion Areal extent DepthD Erosion not evidentRemarks

Outlet Works DRemarks

Dam DRemarks

Functioning D N/A

Functioning D N/A


46916.846

H.

1.

2.

I.

1.

2.

3.

4.

1.

2.

Retaining Walls D Applicable D N/A

Deformations D Location shown on site map D Deformation not evidentHorizontal displacement Vertical displacementRotational displacementRemarks

Degradation D Location shown on site mapRemarks

Perimeter Ditches/Off-Site Discharge D Applicable

Siltation D Location shown on site mapAreal extent DepthRemarks

Vegetative Growth D Location shown on site mapD Vegetation does not impede flowAreal extent TypeRemarks

Erosion D Location shown on site mapArea) extent DepthRemarks

Discharge Structure D Functioning D N/ARemarks

VIII. VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS

Settlement D Location shown on site mapAreal extent DepthRemarks

Performance Monitoring Type of monitoringD Performance not monitoredFrequency D E\Head differentialRemarks

D Degradation not evident

DM/A

D Siltation not evident

DM/A

D Erosion not evident

D Applicable B N/A

D Settlement not evident

'idence of breaching


46916.846

A.

1.

2.

3.

B.

1.

2.

3.

IX. GROUNDWATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES a

Ground-water Extraction Wells, Pumps, and Pipelines

Pumps, Wellhead Plumbing, and ElectricalD Good condition D All required wells properly operating DRemarks

Applicable D N/A

D Applicable B N/A

Needs Maintenance D N/A

Extraction System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other AppurtenancesD Good condition D Needs MaintenanceRemarks

Spare Parts and EquipmentD Readily available D Good condition D Requires upgradeRemarks

D Needs to be provided

Surface Water Collection Structures, Pumps, and Pipelines D Applicable HN/A

Collection Structures, Pumps, and ElectricalD Good condition D Needs MaintenanceRemarks

Surface Water Collection System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes,D Good condition D Needs MaintenanceRemarks

Spare Parts and EquipmentD Readily available D Good condition D Requires upgradeRemarks

and Other Appurtenances

D Needs to be provided


46916.846

c.1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

D.

1.

2.

Treatment System D Applicable H N/A

Treatment Train (Check components that apply)D Metals removal D Oil/water separation O BioremediationD Air stripping D Carbon adsorbersD FiltersD Additive (e.g., chelation agent, flocculent)D OthersD Good condition D Needs MaintenanceD Sampling ports properly marked and functionalD Sampling/maintenance log displayed and up to dateD Equipment properly identifiedD Quantity of groundwater treated annuallyD Quantity of surface water treated annuallyRemarks

Electrical Enclosures and Panels (properly rated and functional)D N/A D Good condition D Needs MaintenanceRemarks

Tanks, Vaults, Storage VesselsD N/A D Good condition D Proper secondary containmentRemarks

Discharge Structure and AppurtenancesD N/A D Good condition d Needs MaintenanceRemarks

Treatment Building(s)D N/A D Good condition (esp. roof and doorways) D NeedsD Chemicals and equipment properly storedRemarks

Monitoring Wells (pump and treatment remedy)D Properly secured/locked D Functioning D Routinely sampledD All required wells located D Needs MaintenanceRemarks

Monitoring Data - Required at the time of the five-year review

Monitoring DataH Is routinely submitted on time H Is of acceptable quality

Monitoring data suggests:D Groundwater plume is effectively contained B Contaminant concentrations

D Needs Maintenance

repair

D Good conditionDN/A

are declining


46916.846

D. Monitored Natural Attenuation

Monitoring Wells (natural attenuation remedy)B Properly secured/locked H Functioning H Routinely sampled B Good conditionB All required wells located D Needs Maintenance D N/ARemarks El01S continues to be blocked. A direct-push groundwater sample was collected.

X. OTHER REMEDIES

If there are remedies applied at the site which are not covered above, attach an inspection sheet describingthe physical nature and condition of any facility associated with the remedy. An example would be soilvapor extraction.

XI. OVERALL OBSERVATIONS

A. Implementation of the Remedy

Describe issues and observations relating to whether the remedy is effective and functioning asdesigned. Begin with a brief statement of what the remedy is to accomplish (i.e., to containcontaminant plume, minimize infiltration and gas emission, etc.).

B. Adequacy of O&M

Describe issues and observations related to the implementation and scope of O&M procedures. Inparticular, discuss their relationship to the current and long-term protectiveness of the remedy.


46916.846

1111111111111111111

C. Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Problems

Describe issues and observations such as unexpected changes in the cost or scope of O&M or a highfrequency of unscheduled repairs, that suggest that the protectiveness of the remedy may becompromised in the future.No potential problems were identified during the site visit/site inspection.

D. Opportunities for Optimization

Describe possible opportunities for optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation of the remedy.

Big River Sand Company Corp. Site 46916. 84£Second Five-Year Review Site Inspection Checklist - 1 7


11• INTERVIEW DOCUMENTATION FORM

1 The following is a list of individual interviewedfor this five-year review. See the attachedcontact record(s) for a detailed summary of the interviews.

™ EnvironmentalGeologist/Project

1 Daniel Gravatt Manager

Name Title/Position

1Victor Eisenring Property Owner

Name Title/Position

1Name Title/Position



1• Name Title/Position

1

1

1

1

1

1

KDHE

Organization

N/A

Organization

Organization

Organization

Organization

Organization

Various

Date

12/19/03

Date

Date

Date

Date

Date


IIIIIIII

IIII

IIIII

INTERVIEW RECORD

Site Name: Big River Sand Company Site

Subject: Second Five-Year Review

Type: H Telephone B Visit D OtherLocation of Visit: Big River Sand Site, Wichita, KS

EPA ID No.: KSD980686174

Time: 1030 Date: 12/19/03

n Incoming a Outgoing

Contact Made By:

Name: Genise Luecke Title: Site Manager Organization: BVSPC

Individual Contacted:

Name: Daniel Gravaft Title: Envir. Geologist/PM Organization: KDHE

Telephone No: 785/296-6398Fax No: 785/296-4823E-Mail Address: [email protected]

Street Address: 1000 S\V JacksonCity, State, Zip: Topeka, KS 66612

Summary Of Conversation

Mr. Gravatt did not identify any concerns regarding the site.

Page 1 of 1

INTERVIEW RECORD

Site Name: Big River Sand Company Site

Subject: Second Five-Year Review

Type: B Telephone H Visit D OtherLocation of Visit: Big River Sand Site, Wichita, KS

Contact Made By:

Name: Genise Luecke

Name: Victor Eisenring

Telephone No: 316/943-4372Fax No:E-Mail Address:

Title: Site Manager

Individual Contacted:

Title: Property Owner

EPA ID No.: KSD980686174

Time: Various Date: Various

D Incoming D Outgoing

Organization: BVSPC

Organization: N/A

Street Address: 4620 W. 21st St. NCity, State, Zip: Wichita, KS 67205

Summary Of Conversation

Mr, Eisenring provided us access to monitoring well E101S. Mr. Eisenring provided copy of a newspaper articlefrom the Wichita Eagle detailing the delisting of the site.

Mr. Eisenring stated that he had done everything that the regulatory agencies had requested and the site has beendeleted from NPL. He didn't understand why additional work was being conducted. He felt there were manyother sites in the area much worse than his and provided information to Dan Gravatt of KDHE.

1

11

|1

11

1

I

1

11

Page 1 of 1