Document X7Dx36Y70dGgYBRkL5qJKpBY4

R-S86-1-0-16 PINAL SCREENING SITE INSPECTION REPORT. PHASE II CONOCO CHEMICAL COMPANY ABERDEEN. MONROE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI EPA10 #MSD007031230 Prepared Under TDD No. F4-8901-64 CONTRACT NO. 68-01-7346 Revision 0 FORTHE WASTE MANAGEMENT DIVISION U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY JANUARY 17, 1990 NUS CORPORATION SUPERFUND DIVISION Prepared By Reviewed By Approved By Kelvin A. Davis Project Manager Assistant Regional Project Manager L/ Regional Project Manager SAL 0GC021485 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Conoco Chemical Company is located in the town of Aberdeen, Mississippi, at 3348`32* N latitude and 8832'33" W longitude. Conoco Chemical operand from 1963 to 1984. Vista Polymer Corporation purchased the facility in 1984 and is now the present operator. During the use by Conoco Chemical, the large industrial complex produced plasticizers and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) products. Conoco Chemical Company is located near the northern edge of the Gulf Coastal Plain Physiographic Province. The site is underlain by the predominantly sandy strata of the Tuscaloosa and Eutaw formations. The aquifer of concern in this area is the Eutaw McShan aquifer which outcrops throughout central Monroe County encompassing the city of Aberdeen. It is composed of many thick to thin beds of sand, clay, and shale in the Eutaw and McShan formations of late Cretaceous AfWells completed in this aquifer range from 100 to 300 feet below land surface and yield 100 to 770 gallons per minute. The Eutaw McShan aquifer is the primary source for drinking water within the 4-mile radius of the facility. Potentially affected populations include all persons served by the public water supply systems in Aberdeen and surrounding areas. Aberdeen has 3,200 connections to its system. Residents who use the Tombigbee River for boating and fishing may also be at some risk. Other people potentially at risk include students, employees and residents within a 4-mile radius of the facility. Population within a 4-mile radius of the facility is 7,184. Analytical results from the field investigation indicate extremely high concentrations of bis (2-ethyl hexyl) phthalate and di-n-octylphthalate. The contamination was present in surface, subsurface soil samples, and a monitoring well sample taken from the vicinity of the former onsite landfills. Vinyl chloride and di-n-octylphthalate were present at elevated levels in a surface water sample taken downgradient from James Creek. James Creek enters the Tombigbee River approximately 5 miles southeast of the point at which the drainage ditch from the site enters James Creek. Because of the significant contamination present at the facility and the presence of many people who are potentially at risk of being affected by this contamination, FIT 4 recommends that Phase I of a Listing Site Inspection be initiated at Conoco Chemical Company. ES-1 SAL 000C21486 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page No. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES*1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Objectives 1.2 Scope of Work 1 1 1 2.0 SITE CHARACTERIZATION 2.1 Site Background and History 2.2 Site Description 2.2.1 Site Features 2.2.2 Waste Characteristics 3 3 3 3 6 3.0 REGIONAL POPULATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTS 3.1 Population and Land Use 3.1.1 Demography 3.1.2 Land Use 3.2 Surface Water 3.2.1 Climatology 3.2.2 Overland Drainage 3.2.3 Potentially Affected Water Bodies 3.3 Groundwater 3.3.1 Hydrogeology 3.3.2 AguiferUse 3.4 Summary of Potentially Affected Populations and Environments 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 4.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION 4.1 Geophysical Screening 4.1.1 Methodology 4.1.2 Results of Geophysical Screening 4 2 Field Analytical Support Project 4.2.1 Methodology 4.2.2 Results of Field Screening 4 3 Sample Collection 4.3.1 Sample Collection Methodology 4.3.2 Duplicate Samples 4.3.3 Description of Samples and Sample Locations 4.3.4 Field Measurements 4.4 Sample Analysis 4.4.1 Analytical Support and Methodology 4.4.2 Analytical Data Quality 4.4.3 Presentation of Analytical Results 4.4.3.1 Soil Samples 4.4.3.2 Sediment Samples 4.4.3.3 Groundwater Samples 4.4.3.4 Surface Water Samples 11 11 11 12 12 12 15 IS 15 15 15 16 16 16 16 22 22 27 27 34 S.O SUMMARY 39 REFERENCES 41 APPENDIX A Topographic Map APPENDIX B Geophysical Methodology APPENDIX C FASP Methodology APPENDIX D Analytical Results APPENDIX E Site inspection Report SAL 0C0021487 Number TABLES Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 Table 11 Table 12 Table 13 Table 14 Table 15 Table 16 Table 17 FASF Sample Descriptions and Analytical Results Sample Codes, Descriptions, Locations, and Rationale Field Measurements Inorganic Analyses-Surface Soil Samples Organic Analyses - Surface Soil Samples Inorganic Analyses - Subsurface Soil Samples Organic Analyses-Subsurface Soil Samples Inorganic Analyses-Sediment Samples Organic Analyses Sediment Samples Inorganic Analyses Monitoring Well Samples Organic Analyses - Monitoring Weil Samples inorganic Analyses Temporary Well Samples Organic Analyses - Temporary Well Samples Inorganic Analyses-Public Well Samples Organic Analyses-Public Well Samples Inorganic Analyses Surface Water Organic Analyses Surface Water Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figures FIGURES Site Location Map Site Layout Map FASP Sample Location Map CLP Sampling Locations Map Existing Monitoring Well Sampling Locations Page No. 14 19 21 23 24 25 26 28 29 30 31 32 33 35 36 37 38 4 5 13 17 18 SAL 000021488 1.0 INTRODUCTION The NUS Corporation Region 4 Field Investigation Team (FIT) was tasked by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Waste Management Division to conduct a screening site inspection (SSI) at the Conoco Chemicals site in Aberdeen, Monroe County, Mississippi. The investigation was performed under the authority of the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) and the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of '1986 (SARA). The task was performed to satisfy the requirements stated in Technical Directive Document (TDD) number F4-8901-64. The field investigation was conducted February 6, 1989 through February 10,1989. 1.1 OBJECTIVES | f The objectives of this investigation were to determine the nature of contaminants present at the site and to determine if a release of these substances has occurred or may occur. Further, this investigation sought to determine the possible pathways by which contamination could migrate from the site and the populations and environments it would potentially affect. Through these objectives, a recommendation was made regarding future activities at the site. 1.2 SCOPE OF WORK The objectives were achieved through the completion of a number of specific tasks. These activities were to: Obtain and review background materials relevant to HRS scoring of site. Obtain information on local water systems. Evaluate target populations associated with the groundwater, surface water, and air and onsite exposure pathways. Conduct a survey of private wells. SAL 000021489 -1-  Determine location and distance to nearest potable well. e Develop a site sketch. e Conduct a geophysical screening of site to determine the landfill areas and whether buried drums may be present-- e Conduct field analytical screening to assist in determining CLP sample locations and provide Health and Safety information. Collect 36 environmental samples consisting of surface soil, subsurface soil, sediment, surface water and groundwater samples. SAL 000021V?0 -2- 2.0 SITE CHARACTERIZATION 2.1 tiiTE BACKGROUND AND HISTORY The Conoco Chemical facility, presently Vista Polymer Corporation, is located on U.S. Highway 25, approximately 2000 feet west of the city of Aberdeen, Monroe County, Mississippi. Geographically, the site is located at latitude N 33#48'32" and longitude W 8832'33' (Figure 1). During its use by Conoco Chemical, the large industrial complex produced plasticizers and polyvinyl chloride (PVQ products (Ref. 1). Between 1963 and 1979, Conoco Chemical used four onsite landfills to dispose of waste containing bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, PVC, and plasticizers (Refs. 2, 3). Conoco Chemical also had wpste treatment facilities in which process waters from the plant were received and treated before being discharged (Ref. 1). Conoco Chemical filed a CERCLA Notification of Hazardous Waste Activity form . The facility also file a RCRA Part A application, but it was later withdrawn. Conoco Chemical operated under an NPDES permit while in business (Ref. 3). In July of 1.984, Conoco Chemical was acquired by Vista Polymer Corporation. This transaction concluded the 20-year period of Conoco Chemical's operation (Ref. 3). 2.2 SITE DESCRIPTION 2.2.1 Site Features The Conoco Chemical facility lies on a square tract of land encompassing an area of approximately 40 acres (Figure 1). Facility slope is approximately 8 percent and intervening terrain slope is estimated at 3 percent. Drainage is southeastward into James Creek, 200 feet away (Ref. 4). The facility is located in a slightly populated area, but it is surrounded by a fence (Figure 2). Approximately 50 percent of the property within the fenced area is floored by concrete. The remainder of the property is gravel and vegetated with grasses and weeds (Ref. 5). SAL 000021491 -3- SITE LOCATION MAP CONOCO CHEMICALS ABERDEEN, MISSISSIPPI SAL 000021^92 FIGURE 1 poftnsit LANDFILLS foams StTTLINO POND hwt n 1-- 1 1 1 ] 1 1 1 1___ foam* LANDFILL SITE LAYOUT MAP CONOCO CHEMICALS ABERDEEN, MONROE COUNTY,MISSISSFPI AM PUT FIGURE 2 jglMUS SAL 000021493 A guard shack is situatad along tht northern edge of the property, facing U S. Highway 25. A parking lot for employees and visitors is located just northwest of the guard shack. The main offices and fire pond are located outside of the fenced area of the facility. Inside the fenced area are several buildings which include: vinyl chloride monomer (VCM) tank farm, old PVC reactor module, PVC dryers and new PVC reactor module. Located in the rear of the property are wastewater treatment ponds and former landfills. There are railroad tracks leading throughout the property (Figure 2) (Ref. 5). 2.2.2 Waste Characteristics Conoco Chemicals produced plasticizers and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) products. Production capacity by Conoco Chemicals yielded 1.4 million pounds of PVC resin and 68,000 pounds of plasticizers per day (Ref. 1). The facility has four former landfill areas in which 97,000 gallons (nearly 500 cubic yards) of Ameican Petroleum Institute (API) separator sludge and filter cake was disposed of between 1963 and ti|79. Landfill number one is reported to contain an estimated 4,000 gallons of API sludge containing polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and plasticizers. Landfill number two contains an estimated 75,000 gallons of mixture of bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate and carbon filter cake. Landfill number three contains an estimated 13,000 gallons of PVC and plasticizer sludge from the API separator. Landfill number four contains an estimated 5,000 gallons of bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate filter cake. The estimated depth of the disposal of the API sludge and filter cake waste in all the landfills is 10 feet (Refs. 2,3). File material indicates that, in 1983, the state planned to sample the then inactive landfill areas on the property (Ref. 2). Results of any such sampling, however, are not present in the files, nor is there any evidence that this sampling was ever done. File material does contain analytical results, from November 1983, for water samples collected from Conoco's USGS well and process well #2. These samples were analyzed for bis (2-ethylhexyi) phthalate. The analyses indicated the presence of the contaminant at a concentration of 17 ug/l in the sample taken from the USG5 well. The contaminant was not detected in the other sample (Ref. 6). -6- SAL 000021494 3.0 REGIONAL POPULATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTS 3.1 POPULATION AND LAND USE 3.1.1 Demography Conoco Chemical is located in Aberdeen, Mississippi. Aberdeen is a rural town with a population of 7,040 (Refs. 4, 7). The closest residential community to the facility is located less than one quarter of a mile away (Ref. 4). There are six public schools located m the city of Aberdeen. There are a total of 2,400 students attending Aberdeen public schools. The closest school to the facility is Aberdeen High School with 700 students attending and is approximately one quarter of a mile from the facility (Ref. 8).-The population within a 1-mile radius is approximately 3,371 (Ref. 9). The facility employs 250 workers (Ref. 10). 3.1.2 Land Use Land in the study area is used for agricultural, industrial, residential, and recreational purposes. Agricultural use is mainly crop production, industries include small manufacturing businesses. Residential areas are comprised of both apartment and single-family homes (Ref. 4). 3.2 SURFACE WATER 3.2.1 Climatology Conoco Chemicals is situated in a humid continental region of northeastern Mississippi. The average annual precipitation is 54 inches with an average temperature of 63F (Ref. 11, pp. 3,32-34; 12). 3.2.2 Overland Drainage The facility lies within the Tombigbee River basin. Drainage from the site flows into James Creek which runs into the Tombigbee River approximately 5 miles downstream (Refs. 4,13, pp. 15-28). SAL 000021495 -7- 3.2.3 Pofntiattv Affected Water Bodies The Tombigbee River, located approximately 2 miles east of the facility, is not a source of drinking water for the city of Aberdeen. It is, however, used for boating and fishing as well as transport of industrial and agricultural goods downstream (Ref. 4). 3.3 GROUNDWATER 3.3.1 Hydrogeology The facility is located in Aberdeen, Monroe County, Mississippi. Monroe County is situated near the northern edge of the Gulf Coastal Plain Physiographic Province. Monroe County lies within part of the Tombigbee River Hills or Fall Line Hills physiographic division and part of the Black Prairie belt (Refs. 13, p. IS; 13). The surface area is generally hilly and ranges from low smoothly rounded hifls of 40 to 50 feet relief, with broad intervening valleys, to hills and ridges of 200 feet relief, with 9teep slopes, narrow crests, and narrow separating valleys. All of Monroe County lies within the drainage basin of Tombigbee River which flows south to Aberdeen, and a little east of south to its junction with the Buttahatchie at the southern boundary of the county (Ref. 13, p. 15). The site is located on the outcrop of the Eutaw Formation and underlain by the McShan, Gordo and Coker formations. The aquifer of concern in this area is the Eutaw-McShan aquifer, which outcrops throughout central Monroe County encompassing the city of Aberdeen. It is composed of many thick to thin beds of sand, clay, and shale in the Eutaw and McShan formations of Late Cretaceous Age. The aquifer is thickest in the south, exceeding 400 feet, and thins to the north eventually disappearing. The Eutaw consists of two units, the lower Eutaw and the upper Tombigbee sand member. The lower unit of the Eutaw has a thickness of 200 to 250 feet, and the Tombigbee sand has an average thickness of 100 feet or less. The Eutaw is predominantly fine-grained to medium-grained micaceous glauconitic sand, but contains considerable gray to black clays, which is chiefly in the lower member. Plant fragments and pieces of lignite are common in these clays. Other features are small lenses, stringers of small pebbles, and fossiliferous. The Tombigbee sand member is a massive glauconitic somewhat calcareous sand, some layers of which are hardened and contain concretionary masses. The Eutaw Formation dips, a little south of west, approximately 30 feet per mile (Ref. 13, pp. 25,26). SAL 000021496 -8- The Eutaw formation is underlain by the Tuscaloosa aquifersystem consisting of the Gordo and Coker formations. The Gordo crops out along the eastern border of north Mississippi and in northwest Alabama. The formations dip to the southwest and thicken downdip. The Gordo Formation is composed of an upper clay unit, which separates it from the Eutaw-McShan, and a lower sand and gravel unit. The Coker consists of an upper unnamed member of mixed clay, sand, and gravel, and a basal massive sand. The Gordo and Coker formations are hydraulically connected (Ref. 14, p. b5). Large municipal wells in the Eutaw-McShan aquifer pump as much as 770 gpm, but some produce under 100 gpm. Transmissivities determined range from 200 to 4,900 ft*/d. Hydraulic conductivities average 13.4 ft/d and specific capacities average 3.3 (gpm)/ft of drawdown. Water in the outcrop area is hard calcium-bicarbonate type having excessive iron. Large quantities of water are also available from the underlying Tuscaloosa aquifer and are frequently utilized rather than the EutawMcShan aquifer (Ref. 14, pp. 65, 73). Recharge to the Eutaw-McShan aquifer is primarily from rainfall on the outcrop area. Water movement is downdip from the outcrop (Ref. 14, p. 59). The Gordo Formation shows transmissivities of 535 to 21,400 ft*/d and an average hydraulic conductivity of 42.8 ft/d. The Coker Formation indicates transmissivities ranging from 762 to 80,200 ft2/d. Large wells in the Gordo commonly produce 500 to 1,000 gpm and large wells in the Coker produce 1,500 to 1800 gpm. Increased use of the Coker aquifer can be expected in the future due to low water levels in areas where the Gordo and the overlying Eutaw-McShan aquifers are being drawn down excessively (Ref. 15, p. 73). 3.3.2 Aquifer Use There are 10 public water supply wells and approximately 250 private wells within a 4-mile radius of the facility. The city of Aberdeen produces water from all 10 municipal wells. Each of these wells is anywhere from 1 SO feet to 450 feet deep. The closest well to the facility is well #4. it is located 4,000 feet northeast of the facility. Aberdeen serves water to approximately 3,200 connections, respectively (Ref. 15). All 10 municipal wells and the 250 private wells are completed in the Eutaw and McShan aquifer (Refs. 4,16, 17). 3.4 SUMMARY OF POTENTIALLY AFFECTED POPULATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTS There are four pathways of concern for the facility: the groundwater, surface water, air, and onsite exposure pathways. The groundwater migration pathway is of concern because the Eutaw and McShan aquifer, the aquifer used for drinking water in the area, is a highly transmissive, water-table SAL 000021497 -9- aquifer that readily accepts recharge from land surface (Ref. 13). All ten public supply wells within a 4-mile radius of the facility are completed in the Eutaw and McShan aquifer. Approximately 3,200 connections are served by groundwater within a 4-mile radius of the site (Ref. 16). There are 250 private wells within 4 miles of the facility (Ref. 17). The surface water pathway is of concern because James Creek flows adjacent to the facility and receives surface drainage from the facility. James Creek flows into the Tombigbee River, which is used for boating and fishing as well as a waterway (Ref. 4,17). The air pathway is of concern because the facility is located in a populated area. If there was a release by air, the nearby population could be affected (Ref. 4). The onsite exposure is of concern also because of the facility's daily operations and previous operations taken place at the facility. Employees as well as visitors could be affected (Ref. 1). SAL 000021498 -10- 4.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION During the field investigation conducted the week of February 6, 1989, FIT 4 attempted to identify and characterize contaminants which may be present in the environment as a result of activities that were conducted at Conoco Chemicals. To accomplish this, FIT conducted a geophysical survey, field analytical screening and also collected 36 environmental samples from a number of strategic onsite and offsite locations. 4.1 GEOPHYSICAL SCREENING The purpose of the geophysical screening was to provide the sampling team with information that would aid in the selection of environmental sampling locations. To accomplish this task, suspected disposal areas were surveyed with an 6M-31 Non-Contacting Terrain Conductivity Meter. A complete summary of the geophysical method is presented in Appendix B. 4.1.1 Methodology The EM-31 was calibrated according to standard operating procedures in a clear field located approximately 300 feet east of the eastern entrance road to the plant. Five conductivity readings were taken at 20-foot intervals along a grid line oriented east-west. The average value of the five stations (51.8 micromhos per meter) was used as the background value. Two areas were gridded and surveyed to locate anomalous features. The first area was located north of the main aeration pond over an old settling pond that had been filled in with soil to conform with the surrounding topography. The grid lines were oriented east-west and were located 20 feet apart. Stations along the grid lines were separated by a distance of 20 feet. A total of 154 station readings were taken in the first grid area. The second area surveyed was located adjacent to the settling pits, west of the first grid area. The grid consisted of one main grid line oriented north-south with station distances of 20 feet. Grid lines of varying length were located off of the main grid line at distances of 20 feet where the area permitted the extra grid stations. A total of 137 station readings were taken in the second grid area. SAL 000021499 4.1.2 Results of the Geophysical Screening Readings above background were noted in both survey areas. The first grid area had conductivity values that ranged between 90 and 200 micromhos per meter. The second area had conductivity values that ranged between 60 and 250 micromhos per meter. Soil samples collected for both CLP and FASP were collected within the survey areas, which were selected based on areas of anomalously high conductivity readings. Because of anomalously high conductivity readings, a total of five soil samples were collected for both CLP and FASP purposes. 4.2 FIELD ANALYTICAL SUPPORT PROGRAM The purpose of the Field Analytical Screening Program (FASP) was to provide the sampling team with information that would aid in the selection of environmental sampling locations. The primary instrument that was to be used to accomplish this task was the Tracor 540 Gas Chromatograph (GQ. During the set-up of this instrument in the mobile lab, several power failures occurred. The final power failure caused a power surge which overloaded several of the circuits in the Tracor S40 GC The overloading rendered the Tracor 540 GC inoperative. The back-up instrument that was used was the Photovac 10S50 GC. This instrument can analyze for volatile organic compounds in water and soil samples. 4.2.1 Methodology Based upon the results from the geophysical survey, five soil samples were collected from the former landfill area. These samples were collected because of known prior disposal practices. A total of seven water samples were collected at random. These water samples were taken from nearby James Creek and from temporary wells near the wastewater treatment ponds on site. FASP sample locations are shown on Figure 3 and are described in Table 1. Because the Photovac 10S50 GC was only a back-up instrument for this project, the standard needed to calibrate the instrument was not available. The only preparation that was performed before samples were analyzed was to anai vze a zero air blank and a preparation blank to determine whether the column, syringe and deionized water were free of volatile organic compounds. The water samples were prepared for analysis by filling a volatile organic analysis (VOA) vial with approximately 30 milliliters of a water sample. The soil samples were prepared for analysis by filling a VOA vial half full with a soil sample and adding 20 milliliters of deionized water. The VOA sample SAL 000021500 -12- V(CC-*W-01 hwt ii &CC*SS*04 ACC-ta*04 &cc-m-oa A CC-M-04 ACC-t-0 ^-CC-TW-O* & cc-s-oa A cc--oa OUTFALL cc-w-oa< A aumfacs soa. V MMPACI WATSJt FIELD ANALYTICAL SUPPORT PROGRAM (FASP) SAMPLE LOCATION MAP CONOCO CHEMICALS ABERDEEN, MONROE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI 13SAL 000021501 0 400 raiNiusFIGURE 3 I cQFPORtfnavi Sample ID No. CC-SW-01 CC-SW-04 CC-SW-05 CC-PB-01 CC-PB-02 CC-TW-02 CC-TW-03 CC-SS-04 CC-SS-05 CC-SB-04 CC-SB-05 CC-SB-08 TABLE 1 FASP SAMPLE DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYTICAL RESULTS CONOCO CHEMICAL COMPANY Sample Type Location/Rationale Surface Water Offsite Jpstream/characterize background conditions Surface Water Offsite - Downstream/determine presence or absence of contaminants Surface Water Offsite - Downstream/determine presence or absence of contaminants Groundwater Offsite - Municipal well #4 and #6/determine presence or absence of contaminants Groundwater Offsite Municipal well #4 and #6/determme presence or absence of contaminants Groundwater Onsite - Near outfall/determine presence or absence of contaminants Groundwater Onsite South of largest lagoon near edge of property/determine presence or absence of contaminants Surface Soil Onsite - Near northern landfill #1/determine presence or absence of contaminants Subsurface Soil Onsite - Near northern landfill #1/determme presence or absence of contaminants Surface Soil Onsite - Near landfill #2/determine presence or absence of contaminants Subsurface Soil Onsite - Near landfill #2/determine presence or absence of contaminants Subsurface Soil Onsite - Former pond/determine presence or absence of contaminants No contamination detected * Contamination detected Results * * * * * * * / SAL 000021502 -14- viais were shaken for approximately 1 minute then the gases in the head-space were allowed to reach equilibrium. The gases that collected in the head-space of the VOA vials were analyzed by injecting them into the Photovac 10S50 GC with a syringe. The Photovac 10S50 GC analyzed each sample and printed out the results. The complete methodology can be found in Appendix C. 4.2.2 Results of Field Screening Since a calibration standard could not be analyzed before the samples were analyzed, the FASP results could only determine if there was contamination or no contamination present in the samples. Of the 12 samples analyzed, 8 samples were contaminated with volatile organics. The water samples analyzed indicated the presence of contamination. Sample CC-SW-05 indicated that contamination may be migrating off site into James Creek. There were also contaminants found in the two temporary well samples. The results of the analyses of the two temporary wells indicated contaminants may be present m the shallow aquifer. Analyses of the five soil samples indicated the presence of contamination. These samples were taken from the former landfill areas. Based on the FASP results, samples were recollected from all FASP sample locations, as well as several additional loctions, for CLP analysis. 4.3 SAMPLE COLLECTION 4.3.1 Sample Collection Methodology All sample collection, sample preservation, and chain-of-custody procedures used during this investigation were in accordance with the standard operating procedures as specified in Sections 3 and 4 of the Engineering Support Branch Standard Operating Procedures and Quality Assurance Manual: United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, Environmental Services, Division, April 1, 1986. 4.3.2 DuoHcate Samples Mr. Frank Jensen, Environmental Coordinator, accepted duplicate samples of all samples. 4.3.3 Description of Samples and Sample Locations The purpose of this sampling investigation was to identify and characterize contaminants which may be present in the environment as a result of activities that were conducted at Conoco Chemicals. ooooz^03 -15- SAL. Surface and subsurface soil samples were collected from potentially contaminated areas that were defined by the geophysical survey. Monitoring wells and temporary wells were sampled to determine if site-related constituents have migrated into the groundwater from the facility. Thirty-six environmental samples were collected for the investigation: seven surface soil samples, eight subsurface soil samples, eight sediment samples and thirteen groundwater samples. Sample code descriptions and locations are contained in Table 2 and Figures 4 and 5. 4.3.4 Field Measurements The pH, temperature and conductivity were measured and recorded for each water sample collected. These measurements, along with the date and time each sample was collected, are shown in Table 3. 4.4 SAMPLE ANALYSIS 4.4.1 Analytical Support and Methodology All samples collected were analyzed under the Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) and analyzed for all parameters listed in the Target Compound List (TCL). Organic analysis of soil and water samples was performed by PEI Associates, Cincinnati, Ohio and Pacific Analytical, Carlsbad, California. Inorganic analysis of soil and water was performed by RMAL, Arvada, Colorado. All laboratory analyses and laboratory quality assurance procedures used during this investigation were in accordance with standard procedures and protocols as specified in the Analytical Support Branch Operations and Quality Assurance Manual. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, Environmental Services Division, revised June 1, 1985; or as specified by the existing United States Environmental Protection Agency standard procedures and protocols for the contract analytical laboratory program. 4.4.2 Analytical Data Quality All analytical data were subjected to a quality assurance review as described in the EPA Environmental Services Division laboratory data evaluation guidelines. In the tables, some of the concentrations of the organic and inorganic parameters have been flagged with a 'J*. This indicates that the qualitative analysis was acceptable, but the quantitative value has been estimated. A few other compounds are flagged with an "N" indicating that they were detected based on the -16- SAL 000021504 CLP SAMPLE LOCATION MAP CONOCO CHEMICALS ________ ABERDEEN, MONROE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI -17- FIGURE 4 0 MISTING m6n|T6A|NG WELL SAMPLING LOCATIONS CONOCO CHEMICALS ABERDEEN, MISSISSIPPI 1* CALlt rilT I .... . --J 1 4M SAL 000021506 F1QUItE5 NUS TABLE 2 CLP SAMPLE COOES DESCRIPTIONS AND LOCATIONS CONOCO CHEMICAL COMPANY ABERDEEN, MONROE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI Sample Code Sample Type CC-MW-01 Groundwater CC-MW-02 Groundwater CC-MW-03 Groundwater CC-MW-04 Groundwater CC-MW-05 Groundwater CC-MW-06 Groundwater CC-TW-01 CC-SS-01 CC-SB-01 CC-TW-02 CC-SS-02 CC-SB-02 CC-TW-03 CC-SS-03 CC-SB-03 CC-PB-01 CC-PB-02 CC-SW-01 CC-SD-01A CC-SD-01B CC-SD-01C CC-SW-04 CC-SD-04 CC-SW-05 CC-SD-05 Groundwater Surface Soil Subsurface Soil Groundwater Surface Soil Subsurface Soil Groundwater Surface Soil Subsurface Soil Groundwater Groundwater Surface Water Sediment Sediment Sediment Surface Water Sediment Surface Water Sediment Location/Rationale Onsite/Characterize background conditions in southwest corner of test area Onsite/Analysis used to characterize conditions in southeast Onsite/Analysis used to characterize conditions in the east Onsite from USGS well/determ me presence or absence of contaminants Onsite/Analysis used to characterize conditions in west area Onsite/Ana lysis used to characterize conditions in north 4 area Onsite, upgradient/characterize background conditions in northwest Onsite, near outfall/Determine presence or absence of contaminants Onsite, south of largest lagoon near the edge of property/Determine presence or absence of contaminants Offsite, municipal well #4 and #6/Determine presence or absence of contaminants Offsite, upstream/Characterize background conditions Offsite, downstream/Detcrmine presence or absence of contamination Offsite, downstream James Creek/Determine presence or absence of contamination SAL 0C0021507 19- TABLE 2 CLP SAMPLE COOES DESCRIPTIONS AND LOCATIONS CONOCO CHEMICAL COMPANY ABERDEEN, MONROE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI Sample Coda Sample Type CC-SS-04 CC-SB-04 CC-SS-05 CC-SB-05 CC-SS-06 CC-SB-06 CC-SS-07 CC-SB-07 CC-SB-08 Surfaca Soil Subsurface Soil Surfaca Soil Subsurface Soil Surface Soil Subsurface Soil Surface Soil Subsurface Soil Subsurface Soil CC-SD-02 Sediment CC-SD-03 Sediment Location/Rationale Onsite, near northern landfill #1/Detcrmine presence or absence of contaminants Onsite, near landfill #2/Determine presence or absence of contaminants Onsite, west of landfill #3/Determine presence or absence of contamination Onsite, east of landfill #4/Determine presence or absence of contamination Onsite, former pond/Determme presence or absence of contaminants Onsite, drainage ditch on southeast/identify contaminant migration Onsite, drainage ditch on western border/identify contaminant migration SAL 000021508 -20- TABLE 3 FIELD MEASUREMENTS CONOCO CHEMICAL COMPANY ABERDEEN, MONROE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI Sample Code Date CC-MW-01 CC-MW-02 CC-MW-03 CC-MW-04 CC-MW-05 CC-MW-06 CC-TW-01 CC-TW-02 CC-TW-03 CC-SW-01 CC-SW-04 CC-SW-05 CC-PB-01 Cc-PB-02 2/9/89 2/9/89 2/9/89 2/9/89 2/9/89 2/9/89 2/8/89 2/8/89 2/8/89 2/8/89 2/8/89 2/8/89 2/9/89 2/9/89 Time 1555 1640 1500 1815 1535 1610 1025 1545 1820 1420 1155 1115 0915 0935 Temp. Conductivity pH c (umhos/cm) 7.7 10 7.6 10 7.8 16 7.9 14 8.2 15 8.0 15 6.1 8 6.7 14 6.7 12 7.7 5 8.1 9 6.7 10 7.7 14 7.8 13 785 785 615 1170 565 535 118 1820 1050 253 389 1700 585 565 S SAL 000021509 -21- presumptive evidence of their presence. This means that the compound was tentatively identified, and its detection cannot be used as positive identification to its presence. The complete analytical data sheets are provided in Appendix D. 4.4.3 Presentation of Analytical Results The following sections present a discussion of the analytical results from the environmental samples collected during the investigation at Conoco Chemicals. The results of the soil and sediment samples are summarized in Tables 4-4 through 4-9. Groundwater and surface water results are summarized in Tables 4-lOthrough 4-17. Supporting data are presented in Appendix D. 4.4.3.1 Soil Samples Seven surface soils samples were collected and analyzed. Inorganic analytical results show chromium and barium at elevated levels in most surface soil samples, and lead at an estimated value of.460 mg/kg is CC-SS-04 (Table 4). Organic results show elevated levels of di-n-octylphthalate and bis (2-ethyhexyl) phthalate contamination in surface soil sample CC-SS-04 and CC-SS-05, which were collected on site in the vicinity of former landfills #1 and #2. Organic analytical results show small concentrations of ethylbenzene, phenanthrene and fluoranthene. All of the contaminants found in CC-SS-04 are at estimated values (Table 5). Slight organic contamination was also detected in CC-SS-03 and CC-SS-06. Eight subsurface soil samples were collected and analyzed. Inorganic analytical results indicate no significant onsite contamination (Table 6). Organic results show some onsite contamination in subsurface samples CC-SB-06 through CC-SB-08. Samples CC-SB-06 was collected west of former landfill #3, CC-SB-07 was collected east of former landfill #4, and CC-SB-08 was collected from a former pond on site. Each sample contained elevated levels of bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, and samples CC-SB-07 and CC-SB-08 contained elevated levels of di-n-octylphthalate. CC-SB-08 and contain concentrations of chloroethane. Other contaminants found in sample CC-SB-07, such as vinyl chloride and fluoranthene, are at estimated values. The organic contaminants can be attributed to known disposal practices conducted at the facility (Table 7). -22- SAL 000021510 TABLE4 SUMMARY OF INORGANIC ANALYTICAL RESULTS SURFACE SOIL SAMPLES CONOCO CHEMICALS COMPANY ABERDEEN, MISSISSIPPI Background PARAMETERS (mg/kg) CC-SS-01 ALUMINUM 3600 ARSENIC 52 BARIUM 27 BERYLLIUM - CALCIUM 780 CHROMIUM 8 COBALT 2.2 IRON 6700J LEAO 14J MAGNESIUM 2S0 MANGANESE 220J NICKEL POTASSIUM - VANADIUM 13 ZINC - CC-SS-02 20000 12 140 18 22000 4 87 27000J 16J 1900 4603 17 1100 56 58 CC-SS-03 10000 13 71 6000 19 56 16000J 8 9J 1200 240J 53 590 32 56 OnsHa CC-SS-04 cc-ss-os 13000 9300 47 - 92 56 -- 5600 3100 26 16 6.5 2.9 180003 13000J 460J S3 1100 1200 3203 1303 58 2 860 1100 39 22 33 - CC-SS-06 10000 49 67 4500 16 83 160003 883 900 4303 47 500 32 23 Material analyzed for but not detected above minimum quantitation limit J Estimated value CC-SS-07 7300 .3.1 5600 91 6.7 110003 8.73 880 2803 19 20 - SAL 000021511 -23 SUMMARY OF ORGANIC ANALYTICAL RESULTS SURFACE SOIL SAMPLES CONOCO CHEMICALS COMPANY ABERDEEN. MISSISSIPPI Background Estimated value Presumptive evidence o f presence o f material S M9Ml 8 MMill WW MOl JIA% 0u 'Oc3 3 MMll wSJ m M9Mll Wu 9MMll y 9 Ml Uw s. I oPS oP-ss s PS sPS i s* i Ps mIN IN <N o*s s 2 mm 2 z-s pl I*Ns PS 1 23 t/l Mazl o az3 Mzal Up<-l p&<XX- Uh<-l 0 21oz3 Ml 2 \Ml UJ s a<&c 31*1 a4<MACl L UpUCUZZDgdll >hUIJ- 2OU zoOUzzUll VUl < C 2 zX .2. UJ UaZZ--eJ Z<zUXJ *zUzUX--Jl 8 <XU.>XXJl Ul sMIN^l < XH&>XI* * * Ul OaU>>Z-XJ.l! 3 2OW aUl zUZzDl Z 5 Ml . J. JL c<<99 `u9 fl5 2 SAL 000021512 2200 | ___ * * ____ 1 ____ 1 M aterial analyzed for but not detected above m inim um quantitation lim it Estimated value O nsite SUMMARY OF INORGANIC ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLES CONOCO CHEMICALS COMPANY ABERDEEN. MISSISSIPPI 3 0 VI 6 sw p* o VI ph VI 0 w V> ' Px pm 3 3 Px hi m VI * ph 0 - PM m X PM 2 PN m PM VI PM 3 V0I 1 Px M O o w w 2 Px rsi 0 tr 03o ph N VI VI VI m PH aVI 0 i VI u u r* 0 0 5 o0 O' o ph 0 0 VI 01 0ph Px ph VI 0 V PM 3 0 i V* O o VI 6 u 2 <% PM 0 0 1 ph 3 PM m * Px 3px 01 P'S O' PM m 9 0VI 0o <"H ph 0u ph V - I i * 3VI hi PM VI VI VI PM PeM VI w 8<0 PH VI CO u 2 rx. PM * <N io O' ai 3 VI 9 VI 0 3 Px 0 hi o V0I 0w i 5 /M c* m i s 5vi O 0Px 3 3 Px VI PM VaeI Ml Ml s< C<0L 23 Z 23-i Z S' <X. | S< 52 aVe Ml 23 2Q4 s2 C 0< 23 1 Oez F0< oW z oac a< 23 2Ml s vUU>JJ Z4oz4 aws3Ve 00* 23 VI <VI Mi .2. . | i. 23 24 Z4 wz Background SAL 000021513 25 Onsite M aterial analyzed for but not detected above m inim um quantitation lim it Estimated value Presumptive evidence o f presence o f material SUMMARY OF ORGANIC ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLES CONOCO CHEMICALS COMPANY ABERDEEN. MISSISSIPPI I? 'x* NJI IN o zz l u IN u r* 9a t* IN U w ? 9a u w l o N ' ' ss Ps N a> a u* w w ?N a w* i i ' 0 IN CO w m e IN a 9 '' y IN a9 6 u a9 w N u '' O z UJ 0 UJ X a o3 g 4 z a > 1/1 UOls W* zo o Uh-l 3 3a z 1/1 1* a 2 3 *j 4 X X X UJ a z Z 4 2m 0 0. a ml UJ o 4 soW 0VJ3 1o s o z >< a > Q4 1OB u a< 0 a1*1 > -j k- X& UJ C oc UJ Z X i-- u a w X w IM < UJ Z UJ X H- -a > X UJ X j > X X UJ IN Z UJ X UJ UJ X >* z P m1 UJ P X zc z< w < Z UJ 3UJ oc UJ < a UJ UJ UJ az Oaa. ?5 O wia 0 a 5 z0 > Z mi X ZO IN D H j j UJ 1 s 5 -2-> .2. u. a. CD z Background SAL 000021524 -26- 4.4.3.2 Sediment Samples Seven sediment samples were collected and analyzed. Inorganic analytical results show some onsite contamination in samples CC-SD-02 and CC-SD-04. Sample CC-SD-02 was collected from a drainage ditch on the southeast portion of the property. Sample CC-SD-04 was collected downstream of the facility from James Creek. Cach sample contained levels of chromium, over three times the background concentration (Table 8). Organic results show some offsite contamination in background sample CC-SD-01B, which was collected upstream of the facility from James Creek. Sample CC-SD-01B contained levels of (3- and/or 4-methyl phenol and fluoranthene. Samples CC-SD-04 and CC-SD-05 contained estimated levels of din-octylphthalate. Sample CC-SD-05 was collected from the outfall of the wastewater treatment system located at the southeast corner of the property leading into James Creek. 4.4.3.3 Groundwater Samples Six monitoring wells were sampled and analyzed. Locations of these wells are shown in Figure 5. Inorganic analytical results show some onsite contamination in samples CC-MW-02 through CC-MW04. Sample CC-MW-02 was collected from a well in the southeast portion of the property. Sample CCMW-04 was collected from the USGS well, which is located inside of a processing building. The building is located in the centermost portion of the property. Sample CC-MW-04 contained a trace amount of mercury (Table 10). Organic results show onsite contamination in groundwater samples CC-MW-02 and CC-MW-04. Sample CC-MW-02 contained elevated levels of bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthaiate (54 ug/l). Sample CC-MW04 contained elevated levels of toluene (44 ug/l) (Table 11). Three temporary wells were installed and sampled and analyzed (Figure 4). inorganic analytical results show onsite contamination in samples CC-TW-02 and CC-TW-03. Sample CC-TW-02 was taken from the southeast section of the property near the outfall. Sample CC-TW-03 was taken south of the largest lagoon near the edge of the property. Both samples contained elevated chromium concentrations (Table 12). Organic results of the temporary well samples show little onsite contamination. Sample CC-TW-02 contained toluene at 6 ug/l (Table 13). SAL 000021515 -27- M aterial analyzed for but not detected above m inim um quantitation lim it Estimated value SUMMARY OF INORGANIC ANALYTICAL RESULTS SEDIMENTS SAMPLES CONOCO CHEMICALS COMPANY ABERDEEN. MISSISSIPPI O nsite CCSD05 | 1 00 u s sa g O' ("t E a p*1 a Nlit <*1 13000J | 800 | = IN IA aIN m m I ? Ito *c i Q a N 0> Q O px. aIN a a W 1 I X a moa om O U m Se b w> px. S m r a rs. PX. a m i ut m a N N 0 u a m Px. XIN a IN IN OO bi a a X x a <*x a IN N i/t uX u Q ph Oa X ol*t a a <*s px. mlit oa w b a <N rp*xx. X gi aN a X IN O N a IN IN a IN 0 u * wto* b s. a 3 0 w g N PX. 00 a' g No p*. N o X lit n IN a m X a IN ma < 9 o ** am u V N Px. N i PX. olit Px. N rs. a IN $3 E a UJ Ml 5 s3 <Z zoe o< i oz z za. 3 o 2 t/i a 2 x < 2--x 0 -J 4 5 3 I ae X P- < a O oe a < Ui s 3 5 U! o < .2. ui (/* Ul Z 4 O 4 2 > a 2 D W a Ul a < Ul i U i. . 2 3 5 4 Z 4 SAL 000021516 28 SAL 000021517 29 z >a 5 hzUJ- Ow a Urn zUi < a. tA X mHUi 3 X <0. f>URGEABLE COMPOUNDS |extractable co m po unds 2 oa. oz *5 % oz e 5z at/i c'N 6u SUMMARY OF ORGANIC ANALYTICAL RESULTS SEDIMENT SAMPLES CONOCO CHEMICALS COMPANY ABERDEEN. MISSISSIPPI Upstream Onsite u o Q ' uu < e 8VQI o00 ' 3 3 zzz o I'M oUI 0 z Ui XX > tX-- Ui Ui Ui 222 Ui UJ X XXC iz< 2< <X 2 Ui X 2 O 3 |d i-n -o c t y ip h t h a l a ie Ui 2 Ui 2 2 kU > z ur Z 0 1 ui 2 Ui .u X X O >X < i o 0 z a 1 O w t Ui S Ui [unidentified co m po unds/no M aterial analyzed fo r but not detected above m inim um quantitation lim it Estimated value Presumptive evidence of presence o f material e u6n P0u Ao* s vQ uu f v> s di wu Downstream 3 'o <3N m 9VaI 0u TABLE 10 PARAMETERS (ug/1) ALUMINUM ARSENIC BARIUM CALCIUM CHROMIUM COBALT IRON LEAD MAGNESIUM MANGANESE MERCURY POTASSIUM SODIUM ZINC SUMMARY OF INORGANIC ANALYTICAL RESULTS MONITORING WELL SAMPLES CONOCO CHEMICALS COMPANY ABERDEEN, MISSISSIPPI U pgradwrit CC-MW-01 370 72000 9 3600J - 16000 180 8600 21000 CC-MW-02 5500J 16 600 74000 33 7 35000J 21 16000 830 13000 25000 Dowmgradieflt CCMW-03 CC-MW-04 CC-MW-0S -- - 190 310 130 31000 48000 23000 - 8- -- 12000J - 22 - 6500 11000 4700 130 350 92 -1 6400 89 5300 47000 34000 52000 330J - CC-MW-06 140 25000 - 4700 160 5600 48000 Material analyzed for but not detected above minimum quantitation limit J Estimated value SAL 000^15i8 -30- TABLE 11 SUMMARY OF ORGANIC ANALYTICAL RESULTS MONITORING WELL SAMPLES CONOCO CHEMICALS COMPANY ABERDEEN. MISSISSIPPI PARAMETERS (uq/1) PURGEABIE COMPOUNDS TOLUENE EXTRACTABLE COMPOUNDS BISU-ETHYIHEXYU phtmalate IMIDAZOUDINETHIONE UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS/NO. PEST1O0E\PCB COMPOUNDS Upgradiarrt CC-MW-01 CCMW-02 Oawmgradient CC-MW-03 CC-MW-04 CC-MW-OS CC-MW-OC 9 S 3J 44 - - . 100 J/3 54 700J/6 - 20JN 2000J/7 - - - - Material analyzed for but not detected above minimum quantitation limit J Estimated value N Presumptive evidence of presence of material sal 2l5l9 -31- TABLE 12 SUMMARY OF INORGANIC ANALYTICAL RESULTS TEMPORARY WELL SAMPLES CONOCO CHEMICALS COMPANY ABERDEEN. MISSISSIPPI PARAMETERS (ug/l> ALUMINUM BARIUM CALCIUM CHROMIUM COBALT IRON LEAD MAGNESIUM MANGANESE NICKEL POTASSIUM SODIUM VANADIUM Badeground CC-TW-01 12000J 150 6500 i4000J J 2500 420 2900 25 Omite CCTW-02 CC-TW-03 14000J 57000J 230 640 200000 110000 36 110 26 11000J 96000J s 27 10000 10000 350 1900 6 52 - 4000 82000 71000 41 160 material analyzed for but not detected above minimum quantitation limit J Estimated value SAL 0002I52o -32- TABLE 13 SUMMARY OF ORGANIC ANALYTICAL RESULTS TEMPORARY WELL SAMPLES CONOCO CHEMICALS COMPANY ABERDEEN, MISSISSIPPI PARAMETERS (uq/l) PURGEAILE COMPOUNDS TOLUENE EXTRACTABLE COMPOUNDS DlMETHYLBENZENEM ETHANOL methyethenybenzene PETROLEUM PROOUCT UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDSi'NO PESTICIDE/PCB COMPOUNDS Background CC-TW-01 - - Onsita CCTW-OJ CC-TW-03 6- 60JN - 30J/1 20JN - Material analyzed for but not detected above minimum quantitation limit J Estimated value N Presumptive evidence of presence of material SAL 000021521 -33- Two municipal walls wara sampled and analyzed. Inorganic analytical results show soma contamination in samples CC-PB-01 and CC-PB-02. Sample CC-PB-01 was collected from municipal well #4, which is located 4,000 feet northeast of the facility. CC-PB-02 was collected from municipal well #6, which is located 2.5 miles north of the facility. Both samples contained elevated levels of barium and manganese. None of the inorganic contaminants can presently be attributed to known disposal practices conducted at the site (Table 14). Organic results showed a trace of toluene present in CC-PB-02 (Table 15). 4.4.3.4 Surface Water Samples Three surface water samples were collected and analyzed. Inorganic analytical results showed no significant contamination in samples CC-SW-01, CC-SW-04 and CC-SW-05. Samples CC-SW-01 was collected upstream of the facility from James Creek. CC-SW-04 and CC-SW-05 were collected downstream of the facility from James Creek (Table 16). Organic results show offsite contamination in surface water sample CC-SW-05. Sample CC-SW-05 contained concentrations vinyl chloride (26 ug/l) and di-n-octyphthalate (16 ug/l) as well as trace amounts of endosulfan II (Beta) (Table 17). SAL 000021522 -34- TABLE 14 SUMMARY OF INORGANIC ANALYTICAL RESULTS PUBLIC WELL SAMPLES CONOCO CHEMICALS COMPANY ABERDEEN, MISSISSIPPI BARIUM PARAMETERS (ug/l) CALCIUM MAGNESIUM MANGANESE POTASSIUM SODIUM Upgradfent CC-Pt-01 110 22000 M00 S7 4800 52000 Downgradent CC-PS-02 75 14000 2800 49 4300 72000 Material analyzed for but not detected above minimum quantitation limit SAL 000021523 -35- TABLE 15 SUMMARY OF ORGANIC ANALYTICAL RESULTS PUBLIC WELL SAMPLES CONOCO CHEMICALS COMPANY ABERDEEN, MISSISSIPPI PARAMETERS (U9/I) PURGEABLE COMPOUNDS TOLUENE extractable compounds BIS<DIMETHYLETHYL)PHENOL hydroxyphenylethanone PETROLEUM PRODUCT UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS/NO. PESTICIDE .PCB COMPOUNDS Upgradtont Oowngradiant CC-PS-01 CC-Pt-02 -7 - 30JN -- N 100J/4 Material analyzed for but not detected above minimum quantitation limit J Estimated value N Presumptive evidence of presence of material SAL 000021524 -36- TABLE 16 SUMMARY OF INORGANIC ANALYTICAL RESULTS SURFACE WATER SAMPLES CONOCO CHEMICALS COMPANY ABERDEEN, MISSISSIPPI PARAMETERS (ug/l) ALUMINUM BARIUM CALCIUM IRON MAGNESIUM MANGANESE POTASS. UM SODIUM VANADIUM Upstream CCSW-01 1700J 32 39000 1500J '400 27 S Downstream CC-SW-04 CC-SW-05 9603 - 3 150 35000 25000 1000J - 1600 4500 49 63 2000 6200 25000 240000 Material analyzed for but not detected above minimum quantitation limit J Estimated value DRAF SAL 000021525 -37- TABLE 17 SUMMARY OF ORGANIC ANALYTICAL RESULTS SURFACE WATER SAMPLES CONOCO CHEMICALS COMPANY ABERDEEN, MISSISSIPPI PARAMETERS (ug/l) PURGEASLE COMPOUNDS VINYL CHLORIDE METHYLBUTANOL DIMETHYLPENTANOL EXTRACTABLE COMPOUNDS (3-AND/OR 4-)METHVLPHENCL PHENANTHRENE FLUORANTHENE BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE di-n-octylphthalate methylethyudenebisphenol BENZENEDICARBOXYUC ACID HYDROXYPHENYLETHANONE UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS/NO PESTICIOE\PCB COMPOUNDS ENDOSULFANII(BETA) Upstream CC-SW-01 Downstream CC-SW-04 cc-sw-os - - 26 - - AOJN - - 10JN - NA NA - - NA - NA - NA 16 - 900JN - 30JN 30JN - 100J/5 - NA 0 26 Material analyzed for but not detected above minimum quantitation limit J Estimated value N Presumptive evidence of presence of material S SAL 000021526 -38- 5.0 SUMMARY The field investigation conducted at Conoco Chemical Company consisted of three steps. The first step consisted of a geophysical screening of the former landfills on the property to detect anomalous areas of high resistivity. Once these areas were identified, the second part, which involved field analytical screening by FIT 4 the FASP Team, was conducted. Random samples were collected and analyzed to help select the most efficient CLP sample locations. Step three consisted of environmental sampling for CLP analysis. A total of 36 environmental samples were collected. Analytical results of samples collected during the field investigation indicate subsurface soil contamination on site. Surface and subsurface soil samples collected from former landfill areas show extremely elevated concentrations of bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate and di-n-octylphthalate. |his contamination can be attributed to former disposal practices into onsite landfills. Four migration pathways are of concern for Conoco Chemical Company: the groundwater, surface water, air, and onsite exposure pathways. The groundwater route is the primary pathway of concern. Toluene was found in two wells and bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate was found in one well at concentrations more than three times the detection limits. These analytical results constitute an "observed release" of contamination to groundwater in the shallow aquifer underlying the facility. Approximately 250 private wells are completed in this aquifer within 4 miles of the facility. The surface water route is also a pathway of concern. Analytical results show an "observed release" vinyl chloride in a sample collected from James Creek. This indicates that contamination is attributable to the facility and is migrating off site via surface water runoff. James Creek flows adjacent to Conoco Chemical into the Tombigbee River, 2600 feet away. The Tombigbee River is used for fishing and boating as well as a major waterway. The air and onsite exposure routes are also considered possible pathways due to the presence of significantly contaminated surface soils. Both potential exposure pathways are of concern since the facility is situated near a residential area. Approximately 2271 people live within 1 mile and 7,184 people reside within 4 miles of the facility. Although access to the public is restricted, 250 workers are currently employed at the facility. -39- Because of the significant contamination present at the facility and the presence of numerous targets that could be affected by this contamination, FIT 4 recommends that Phase I of a Listing Site inspection be initiated. SAL 000021528 -40- REFERENCES 1. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systtm Permit Application (No. MS00D1970) and attached Schematic of Water Flow for Conoco Chemicals Company, Aberdeen, Mississippi, September 28,1979. 2. Jim Hardage, Mississippi Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Pollution Control, memo to file, February 16,1983. Subject: meeting with Conoco, Aberdeen Officials. 3. Melanie Rish, memo to file, March 8, 1986. Subject: Conoco Corporation/Vista Polymer Company, Aberdeen, Mississippi, 39730. 4. U.S. Geological Survey, 7.5 minute series Topographic'Quadrangle Maps of Mississippi: Pr e 1966 (Photorevised 1982), Aberdeen 1966 (Photorevised 1982), Armory Southwest 1$66 (Photorevised 1982), scale 1: 24,000. 5. NUS Corporation, Field Logbook No. F4-777 for Conoco Chemicals Company, Monroe County, Mississippi, TDD No. F4-8804-06, April 12, 1988. 6. Organics Analysis Data Sheet - Analysis of Waters received on November 17, 1983 from Mississippi Bureau of Pollution Control. Analysis performed by Mississippi State University, December 16, 1983. Department of Natural Resources; Analysis No. 677,719,677,720. 7. United States Bureau of Census, Dallas Regional Census Center, telephone conversation with Kelvin A, Davis, NUS Corporation, January 17, 1990. Subject: Population of Aberdeen, Mississippi. 8. Sarah Poss, Monroe County Schools, Superintendent Office, telephone conversation with Kelvin A. Davis, NUS Corporation, September 25,1989. Subject: Aberdeen Public Schools. 9. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Graphical Exposure Modeling System (GEMS) Data Base. compiled from U.S. Bureau of the Census data (1980). SAL 00002l5!9 -41- 10. NUS Corporation, Field Logbook No. F4-1234 for Conoco Chemicals Company, Monroe County. Mississippi, TDD No. F4-8901-64. 11. U.S. Department of Commerce. Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United States. Technical Paper Number40 (Washington, D.C: GPO, 1963). 12. U.S. Department of Commerce, Climatic Atlas of the United States (Washington, D.C.: GPO, June 1968) Reprint: 1983, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 13. F. Vestal, "Monroe County Mineral Resources," Bulletin 57, (University, Mississippi: Mississippi State Geological Survey, 1943), pp. 15-28. 14. L. Stephenson and W. Monroe, The Upper Cretaceous Deposits. Bulletin 40 (Mississippi State Geological Survey, 1959). 15. L.A. Gandl, Characterization of Aquifers Designated as Potential Drinking Water Sources in Mississippi. (U.S. Geological Survey, Mississippi Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Pollution Control, 1982). 16. Robert Ashley, Aberdeen Water Plant, telephone conversation with Kelvin A. Davis, NUS Corporation, August 10,1989. Subject: Customers and municipal wells. 17. Robert Ashley, Aberdeen Water Plant, telephone conversation with Jeff Myers, NUS Corporation, September 30, 1988. Subject: Private wells and surface water use in Aberdeen area. SAL 000021530 -42-