fourth five-year review report for hardage-criner · pdf filefourth five-year review report...

FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT FOR

HARDAGE-CRINER SUPERFUND SITE

MCCLAIN COUNTY, OKLAHOMA

MAY 4, 2017

Prepared by

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Prepared for

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 6

Dallas, Texas

FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT HARDAGE-CRINER SUPERFUND SITE

EPA ID#: OKD0004000093 MCCLAIN COUNTY, OKLAHOMA

This memorandum documents the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's performance, determinations, and approval of the Hardage-Criner Superfund Site (Site) Fourth Five Year Review, under Section 121(c) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S . Code Section 9621(c), as provided in the attached Fourth Five-Year Review Report.

Summary of the Fourth Five-Year Review Report This is. the Fourth Five-Year Review of the Hardage-Criner Superfund Site. The Hardage Site Remediation Corporation has continued the Operation and Maintenance in accordance with the 2016 Revised Performance Monitoring Plan, as required by the Court Order. Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP) components include monitoring the ground water quality and surface water quality on and near the site, monitor and operate the passive aeriation system (PAS), monitor the performance of the V-Trench, monitor the integrity of the cap, monitor liquid levels in the Barrel Mound and Main Pit wells, document the quantity of liquids extracted by the Permanent Mounds Liquid Recovery System (PLRS), maintain the institutional control boundary (ICB), prepare and submit quarterly and annual remediation status reports, and provide support to EPA' s Five-Year Review Process.

The site is not ready for reuse and is only used for remediation purposes. Currently, there are no reuse plans associated with the site proper, although an area south of the site boundary has been approved for the grazing of cattle, hay baling, and row crops. All issues and recommendations from the Third Five-Year Review have been addressed. This review found that there are neither issues nor recommendations for the site. The next Five-Year Review of the site will be required five years from the completion of this Five-Year Review.

Environmental Indicators Human Exposure Status: Under Control Contaminated Groundwater Status: Under Control Site-Wide Ready for Reuse: No

Actions Needed The following actions must be taken for the remedy to be protective in the long term: None.

Determination I have determined that the remedy for the Hardage-Criner Superfund Site is protective of human health and the environment.

s/ ~ /17 Date

Director, Superfund Division U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6

2

Blake Atkins

CONCURRENCES

FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT HARDAGE-CRINER SUPERFUND SITE

EPA ID#: OKD0004000093 MCCLAIN COUNTY, OKLAHOMA

3-/£-/7 Date

Date Chief, Louisiana/New Mexico/Oklahoma Section

Date

/J~~ Ma ih Bento~ Zey, Offic:o;Regional Counsel

Date ranch, Office of Regional Counsel

l Pamela Phillips Date Deputy Director, Superfund Division

3

4

ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS

FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT


EPA ID#: OKD0004000093

MCCLAIN COUNTY, OKLAHOMA

Issues/Recommendations

OU(s) with Issues/Recommendations Identified in the Five-Year Review:

Sitewide: No issues were noted during this Five-Year Review.

5

Table of Contents LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS ......................................................................................... 6

I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 7 FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SUMMARY FORM ......................................................................................... 8

II. RESPONSE ACTION SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 8 Basis for Taking Action .......................................................................................................................... 8 Response Actions .................................................................................................................................... 9

Status of Implementation ...................................................................................................................... 10 IC Summary Table ................................................................................................................................ 10 Systems Operations/Operation & Maintenance .................................................................................... 11

III. PROGRESS SINCE THE LAST REVIEW ....................................................................................... 12 IV. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS .................................................................................................... 15

Community Notification, Involvement & Site Interviews .................................................................... 15 Data Review .......................................................................................................................................... 15

Permanent Mounds Liquids Recovery System (PLRS) .................................................................... 15 V-Trench Recovery System: ............................................................................................................. 16 Southwest Wells Recovery System (SWWRS): ............................................................................... 16 Passive Aeriation System (PAS):...................................................................................................... 17

Injection Well/Infiltration Gallery: ................................................................................................... 17 North Criner Creek Alluvium: .......................................................................................................... 17

North Criner Creek Surface Water: .................................................................................................. 18 Northwest Borrow Area…………………………………………………………………………….18

Air Monitoring: ................................................................................................................................. 19

Site Inspection ....................................................................................................................................... 19 V. TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................................ 19

QUESTION A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? .......................... 19 QUESTION B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action

objectives (RAOs) used at the time of the remedy selection still valid? .............................................. 19 QUESTION C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the

protectiveness of the remedy? ............................................................................................................... 20

VI. ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................... 20 VII. PROTECTIVNESS STATEMENT .................................................................................................. 20

VIII. NEXT REVIEW .............................................................................................................................. 20 APPENDIX A – REFERENCE LIST....................................................................................................... 21 APPENDIX B – SITE BACKGROUND ................................................................................................. 22

APPENDIX C – SITE CHRONOLOGY .................................................................................................. 26 APPENDIX D – SITE MAPS................................................................................................................... 31 APPENDIX E – SITE INSPECTION CHECKLIST................................................................................ 33 APPENDIX F – SITE INTERVIEWS ...................................................................................................... 43

6

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS

AGV Active Gas Vent

ARAR Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act

Court U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma

Court Order U.S. v. Royal N. Hardage, et al, C.A. No. 86-1401-P (W.D.Okla.)

DOJ U.S. Department of Justice

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

FWA Flow-weighted Average

Gpm Gallons per minute

HSC Hardage Steering Committee

HSRC Hardage Site Remedy Corporation

ICB Institutional Control Boundary

NAPL Non-aqueous Phase Liquids

NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan

NES National Environmental Services, Inc

NPL National Priorities List

NWBA Northwest Borrow Area

O&M Operations and Maintenance

OSDH Oklahoma State Department of Health

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

OU Operable Unit

PAS Passive Aeration System

PCOR Preliminary Close Out Report

PDB Passive Diffusion Bags

PLRS Permanent Mounds Liquid Recovery System

PMP Performance Monitoring Plan

ppb Parts Per Billion

PRP Potentially Responsible Party

PTP Phytoremediation Test Plot

RA Remedial Action

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

ROD Record of Decision

SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act

Site Hardage-Criner Superfund Site

SWWRS Southwest Wells Recovery System

SVOC Semi-volatile Organic Compound

TOU Thermal Oxidation Unit

ug/l Micrograms Per Liter

U.S.C. United States Code

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

VOC Volatile Organic Compounds

V-Trench V-Trench Recovery System

WTP Water Treatment Plant

7

I. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of a Five-Year Review (FYR) is to evaluate the implementation and performance of a

remedy, in order to determine if the remedy is and will continue to be protective of human health and the

environment. The methods, findings, and conclusions of reviews are documented in five-year review

reports such as this one. In addition, FYR reports identify issues found during the review, if any, and

document recommendations to address them.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is preparing this five-year review pursuant to the

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Section 121,

consistent with the National Contingency Plan (NCP)(40 CFR Section 300.430(f)(4)(ii)), and

considering EPA policy.

This is the fourth FYR for the Hardage Criner Superfund Site. The triggering action for this statutory

review is the signing of the third FYR on May 10, 2012. The FYR has been prepared, due to the fact that

hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at the site above levels that allow for unlimited

use and unrestricted exposure (UU/UE).

The Hardage-Criner Superfund Site Five-Year Review was led by the Oklahoma Department of

Environmental Quality (DEQ). Participants included Chanh Le of the DEQ, Mike Hebert of EPA-

Region 6, and Brian LaFlamme of Nationwide Environmental Services, Inc. Documents reviewed as

part of this Five-Year Review is listed in Appendix A. The review began on July 11, 2016.

Site Background

The Hardage-Criner Superfund Site was an industrial hazardous waste land disposal facility and covers

approximately 160 acres. The site is located on old State Highway 122 near Criner, Oklahoma. The site

is bordered by open farmland with the North Criner Creek, located to the southwest of the site.

The site was active from 1972 to 1980 and accepted approximately 21 million gallons of waste,

including acids, caustics, lead, cyanide, arsenic, aromatic solvents, chlorinated solvents, pesticides,

polychlorinated biphenyls, oil recycling waste, and other hazardous substances. Initially, liquid and

sludge waste from drums or tank trucks was discharged into unlined pits. As the disposal pits filled,

drums were piled into a sludge mound. Eventually, the site contained waste impoundments, including a

large unlined main pit, a series of smaller pits, a sludge mound, and a barrel mound. Although the site

was initially permitted by the Oklahoma State Department of Health, its permit was later revoked when

the facility failed to meet newly imposed standards of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42

United States Code Section 6924.

Historical land use surrounding the Site is primarily rural agricultural. The institutional control

boundary (ICB) restricts the Site and some adjoining property surrounding the Site (USDC WD 1991,

USDC WD 2008a). In 2010, the EPA approved and the Court granted partial release and modification

of the restrictive covenants previously imposed upon the ICB. The following activities on designated

tracts shall be permitted, including the erection and maintenance of a fence separating tract 3 from tract

7, and tracts 2, 3 and 6 may be used for animal grazing, animal husbandry and seeding, sowing and

haying of grasses only for feeding grazing animals, provided that any tilling or plowing of soil shall not

exceed six inches in depth (EPA, 2010, USDC WD 2010).

8

Additional information concerning the site background can be found in the Hardage-Criner Superfund

section of DEQ’s website as well as in Appendix B of this review.

FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SUMMARY FORM

II. RESPONSE ACTION SUMMARY

Basis for Taking Action

During site operations, approximately 21 million gallons of industrial wastes including acidic, caustic

and corrosive wastes, many classified as carcinogenic, were disposed on the Site. The principal source

of contamination is estimated to be 278,000 cubic yards of sludges, waste drums, highly contaminated

soils, and waste liquids contained in three waste disposal areas near the center of the property.

Hazardous substances detected in the source area include: 1,2-dichloroethane, 1,1,2-trichloroethane, 1,1-

dichloroethene, tetrachloroethene, trichloroethene, lead, chromium, polychlorinated biphenyls, and

toxaphane.

Hazardous substances from the source area have contaminated the ground water present in Strata I, II,

and III. Ground water flows east toward the east farm ponds, and west-southwest toward the North

SITE IDENTIFICATION

Site Name: Hardage-Criner

EPA ID: OKD000400093

Region: 6 State: OK City/County: Criner/McClain

SITE STATUS

NPL Status: Final

Multiple OUs? No

Has the site achieved construction completion?

Yes

REVIEW STATUS

Lead agency: State

Author name (Federal or State Project Manager): Chanh Le

Author affiliation: Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality

Review period: 7/11/2016 - 10/31/2016

Date of site inspection: 10/3/2016

Type of review: Statutory

Review number: 4

Triggering action date: 5/10/2012

Due date (five years after triggering action date): 5/10/2017

9

Criner Creek alluvium. Strata IV and V consist of low permeability mudstones and silty mudstones that

separates the shallow ground water from saline water in Stratum VI.

Response Actions

In 1978, the State of Oklahoma filed complaints against the facility for suspected lead contamination of

the air around the Site. In 1979, the OSDH began proceedings to revoke the facility’s permit for

utilizing unpermitted pits, failure to seal permeable lenses beneath the pits, improper closure of pits,

failure to retain runoff, and improper storage of wastes at the Site. Subsequently, preliminary EPA

investigations and inspections indicated poor waste management practices that posed a potential threat

to public health and the environment. In September 1980, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed

suit in United States v. Hardage against Mr. Royal Hardage on behalf of the EPA. The suit alleged

violations of Section 7003 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. Section 6973 and sought injunctive relief for Site

cleanup and closure. The Site was closed in November 1980 and Royal Hardage filed bankruptcy in

1983. In 1984, potentially responsible parties (PRPs) were notified of potential EPA CERCLA liability

and the DOJ began legal action seeking to recover costs and impose an EPA CERCLA remedy. After a

trial, the EPA CERCLA remedy was determined de novo and the Judge ordered implementation of the

Hardage Steering Committee (HSC) remedy, thereby rejecting the 1989 EPA CERCLA remedy as

“arbitrary and capricious”. Therefore, the Site is under the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for the

Western District of Oklahoma (Court) and operates under a Court Ordered remedy, not an EPA

CERCLA Record of Decision (ROD).

The Court Order specified remedial objectives for the Site without specifying cleanup goals for

individual media. The objectives described in the 1990 Judgement and Order (USDC WD 1990)

included:

Control of the surface water pathway;

Preclusion of site access and direct contact with waste;

Control of air emissions from source areas;

Preclusion of the use of affected ground water; and

Provision for a contingent response to ensure continued maintenance of the quality of North

Criner Creek.

The remedy components described in the 1990 Judgement and Order form the basis of a waste

containment remedy at the site. Remedy components consisted of:

V-shaped, gravel-filled interceptor trench constructed at the base of Stratum III and top of

Stratum IV to provide hydraulic control of the source areas by capture and removal of affected

groundwater and non-aqueous phase liquids for subsequent treatment.

Composite Cap (CAP) over source areas to prevent direct contact with wastes, to control surface

water flow in source areas, to limit erosion of affected soils, to reduce infiltration of

precipitation, and to provide passive gas collection and treatment.

Permanent vertical liquid recovery wells in the Barrel Mound and the Main Pit to extract

pumpable liquids for off-site treatment by incineration and disposal in order to protect the

stability of the Barrel Mound and Main Pit and to reduce the volume of free liquids.

10

Southwest Interceptor wells to prevent migration of affected ground water in the North Criner

Creek alluvium.

Water treatment system to treat ground water collected from the trench and wells to standards

applicable for discharge into North Criner Creek.

Natural attenuation and, if necessary, control of migration of constituents presently found in the

alluvial ground water to effect cleanup of alluvial ground water, and to prevent significant

expansion of the area of affected ground water.

Institutional controls to limit public access to affected areas, to prohibit future withdrawal of

affected ground water, and to continue the public water supply to area residents.

A ground water and surface water monitoring system to monitor groundwater and surface water

for continued effectiveness of the remedy.

Status of Implementation

The HSRC completed construction of the Court-Ordered Remedy in 1995.

In 2010, the EPA approved and the Court granted partial release and modification of the restrictive

covenants previously imposed upon the ICB. The following activities on designated tracts shall be

permitted, including the erection and maintenance of a fence separating tract 3 from tract 7, and tracts 2,

3 and 6 may be used for animal grazing, animal husbandry and seeding, sowing and haying of grasses

only for feeding grazing animals, provided that any tilling or plowing of soil shall not exceed six inches

in depth (EPA, 2010, USDC WD 2010).

IC Summary Table

Table 1: Summary of Planned and/or Implemented ICs Media, engineered

controls, and areas

that do not support

UU/UE based on

current conditions

ICs

Needed

ICs Called

for in the

Decision

Documents

Impacted

Parcel(s)

IC

Objective

Title of IC Instrument

Implemented and Date

(or planned)

Groundwater Yes Yes Sitewide

Restrict future

withdrawal of

groundwater not

relating to the

Remedy.

Supplemental

Judgement and Order –

Hardage Site (May

1991)

Sitewide fencing,

warning signs,

other forms of

security.

Yes Yes Sitewide Restrict access to

site.

Supplemental

Judgement and Order –

Hardage Site (May

1991)

11

Systems Operations/Operation & Maintenance

In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the remedy and compliance with discharge limits, a

Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP) describes the monitoring and evaluation measures for operations

conducted on the site. The original PMP was in effect in 1996 then revised in 1998, 2005, 2008, and

2011. The most recent revision is the 2016 revision that supersedes all previous versions of the PMP.

The 2016 Revised PMP details the procedures and reporting required to:

Monitor liquid levels in the Barrel Mound and Main Pit wells and document quantities of liquid

extracted by the PLRS;

Monitor performance and verify hydraulic capture of the V-Trench Recovery System (V-

Trench);

Monitor water quality conditions of the SWWRS while on standby;

Monitor performance and verify hydraulic capture of the SWWRS if the HSRC is required to

begin pumping and treating ground water from the SWWRS;

Monitor operation and performance of the PAS and water quality of the effluent;

Monitor water levels and the natural attenuation of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in North

Criner Creek (NCC) alluvial monitoring wells;

Monitor the surface water quality in NCC;

Monitor water quality in Northwest Borrow Area (NWBA) Seep-14;

Monitor water quality of the NWBA surface water County Road sampling location;

Monitor the integrity and performance of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

Composite Cap (RCRA Cap);

Monitor the Hardage Site Security Fence (Security Fence) to ensure it continues to meet the

design specifications;

Monitor the Institutional Control Boundary (ICB) fence to ensure it continues to meet the design

specifications;

Prepare and submit the quarterly and annual Remediation Status Reports (RSRs); and

Provide support to EPA’s 5-Year Review process by performing the cap subsidence survey, the

down-hole video logging of the SWWRS and V-Trench wells, and any additional work requested

by EPA.

12

III. PROGRESS SINCE THE LAST REVIEW

This section includes the protectiveness determinations and statements from the last five-year review, as

well as the recommendations from the last five-year review and the current status of those

recommendations.

Table 2: Protectiveness Determinations/Statements from the 2012 FYR

OU # Protectiveness

Determination Protectiveness Statement

Sitewide Protective All immediate threats at the Site have been

addressed, and the Court selected remedy

components are expected to remain protective of

human health and the environment. The Court Order

specified remedial objectives for the site, without

specifying cleanup goals for individual media. The

remedy components form the basis of a waste

containment remedy at the Site and must be

monitored in perpetuity. The V-Trench must be

maintained and operated indefinitely, but the HSRC

has received permission from the Court to cease

pumping the SWWRS and place it in a “stand-by

mode” (USDC WD 2005). The institutional controls

ordered by the Court dedicate the Site solely to the

remedial activities ordered by the Court and restrict

access and use of the Site and certain adjoining

properties.

Table 3: Status of Recommendations from the 2012 FYR

Component Issue Recommendations Current

Status

Completion

Date (if

applicable)

Northwest

Borrow

Area

Phytoremediation

test plot (PTP)

does not appear to

be functioning as

intended.

Re-evaluate the PTP

remedy to determine if it is

functioning as intended.

Take the appropriate steps

to ensure a proper

functioning or develop an

alternative that would meet

the objectives of the PTP.

Considered

But Not

Implemented

12/2/2013

Composite

Cap

Small holes and

burrows persist on

surficial layer of

cap.

Continue monitoring of cap

with expedited actions if

liner material is found.

Completed 12/2/2013

Security

Fence

Depressions and

burrows present

underneath

security fence.

Continued monitoring and

to take appropriate actions

to prevent access from

humans or large animals.

Completed 12/2/2013

13

Passive

Aeration

System

(PAS)

Detection of

112TCA in PAS

Effluent and

retention pond.

Control switches

on PAS are

exposed to the

elements.

Aggressive monitoring of

PAS effluent and retention

pond. Regular monitoring

and replacement of

switches as needed.

Completed 12/2/2013

Southwest

Wells

Recovery

System

(SWWRS)

Roots present in

SWWRS-6

preventing pump

removal.

Continue to work toward

efficient and effective

removal of roots.

Considered

But Not

Implemented

12/2/2013

Performance

Monitoring

Plan (PMP)

2008 PMP should

be updated to

include changes in

ICB, FWA

calculation,

permanent

implementation of

PAS.

Revise PMP to include

changes in the ICB, FWA

calculation, permanent

implementation of PAS.

Completed December

2011

Active Gas

Venting

Carbon Canisters

appeared rusty and

in need of

replacement.

Replace rusted and old

carbon canisters.

Considered

But Not

Implemented

12/2/2013

Toxicity

Criteria

Updates to RfD of

12 DCE and TCE

and updated

cancer oral slope

factors and

inhalation risk.

Make appropriate changes

to the PAS risk assessment

if recent changes

significantly affect risk.

Completed 12/2/2013

Recommendation 1

The Phytoremediation Test Plot (PTP) was a test to see if root growth from planted trees into Stratum I

would remove shallow ground water through root uptake and evapotranspiration. If successful, it would

affect the ephemeral flow of several small ground water seeps that appeared as a result of removing the

overburden soil in the Northwest Borrow Area, during the construction of the 14-acre RCRA Cap over

the mound source areas. In the previous 5 Year Review, it was determined that the remedy was not

functioning as intended, as only a fraction of the originally planted trees survived and the ones that did

were young, skinny, and appeared unhealthy.

In a response letter dated October 15, 2012, the HSRC believes that the recommendation in the 5 Year

Review to “take appropriate steps to ensure a properly functioning PTP” or “develop an alternative that

would meet the objectives of the PTP” are unnecessary, as the PTP was just a “test” and not a part of the

court-ordered remedy. Since the PTP has been problematic, the EPA agreed that it is practical not to try

to ensure the PTP properly functions or develop another alternative. However, since contaminants

found in the Northwest Borrow Area are directly attributable to the site and the PTP will not be

14

maintained, sufficient sampling should be performed to ensure that contaminants are not migrating off-

site.

After correspondence between the HSRC and the EPA, the following actions will now occur in the

Northwest Borrow Area:

Semi-annual sampling at the Seep-14 and County Road locations;

Samples to be collected as soon as practical (e.g. within one business day) of significant

precipitation event (e.g. likely to produce seep flow);

Whenever possible, the semi-annual sampling would occur during March-April in the first half

of the calendar year and September-October in the second half of the calendar year;

During each semi-annual period, when sufficient water is present for sampling at Seep-14

location, one sample will be collected. When there is sufficient water present for sampling at the

County Road location, a sample will be collected contemporaneously with the Seep-14 sample;

During each semi-annual period, if contemporaneous samples from Seep-14 and County Road

have not been collected with the first Seep14 sample, the HSRC will continue to monitor the

County Road after precipitation events. If following a subsequent precipitation event, there is

sufficient water present for sampling at the County Road location, a sample will be collected at

the County Road location and the Seep-14 location.

All data collected will be reported in the next Remedial Status Report (RSR). If there are no data,

the HSRC will provide the reason(s) for no data in the next RSR.

The HSRC will collect the sample associated with the NWBA at the frequency proposed above,

at least through the scheduled September-October 2016 sample. After this sample, the HSRC, as

part of the next Five Year Review, which is due for completion by May 10, 2017, can submit a

request to change the sampling frequency for the NWBA. This request should include all the

sampling data from 2013 through 2016, as well as any other previous historical data for the

NWBA.

Recommendation 5

The FWA calculation for the SWWRS remains consistently well below the Court-mandated action

levels of 100 ppb and 150 ppb; therefore, there is no pressing reason to remove the roots from SWWR-

06. Attempts have been made, but resulted in the pump being irretrievably stuck. If reactivation of the

SWWR becomes necessary, the HSRC will ensure proper operation in accordance with the 1990 Court

Order and subsequent modifications, up to and including, over drilling and reinstalling SWWR-06.

Recommendation 7

The canisters are exposed to the elements and will tend to exhibit external weathering characteristics

such as rusting. However, inspections indicate the physical integrity of these “rusty” canisters has not

been compromised and there are not indications that vapors are being released to the atmosphere. As per

the Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP), the canisters are routinely observed and replacement is based

on the condition and/or analytical results of air samples from the effluent of the canisters.

15

Recommendation 8

EPA acknowledges that Hardage has evaluated updates to the reference doses and cancer oral slope

factors for various hazardous substances used in the PAS Risk Assessment and that these changes do not

significantly alter the overall risk.

IV. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS

Community Notification, Involvement & Site Interviews

A public notice was made available by newspaper in the Purcell Register, on August 18, 2016, stating

that there was a five-year review and inviting the public to submit any comments to the DEQ or U.S.

EPA. The results of the review and the report will be made available at the Site information repository,

located at the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (707 N. Robinson, OKC, OK 73101), the

Environmental Protection Agency Region 6 (1445 Ross Ave, Dallas, TX 75202), and the Purcell Library

(919 N. 9th Ave, Purcell, OK 73080).

During the FYR process, interviews were conducted to document any perceived problems or successes

with the remedy that has been implemented to date. The results of these interviews are summarized

below.

Brian LaFlamme (HSRC), Mike Hebert (EPA), Hal Cantwell (DEQ), and Dick Vinson (Local Citizen)

were contacted for interviews concerning the site. The overall impression of the site is that O&M of the

site has been performed routinely with no significant problems over the last five years. There have been

no complaints, violations, or incidents relating to the site other than HSRC no longer allows Mr. Vinson

to raise cattle on the Institutional Control property. The remedy continues to function as expected.

Several changes have occurred in the O&M, in order to optimize the O&M of the site. Changes made in

the last 5 years do not negatively affect the protectiveness of the remedy.

Data Review

In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the remedy, monitoring data is required and reported.

Permanent Mounds Liquids Recovery System (PLRS):

The approximate weight of liquids recovered from the PLRS recovery wells shall be documented during

the load-out events.

Table 4: Annual Production Totals

Year PLRS/MLRS (kilograms)

2012 6,800

2013 3,400

2014 4,200

2015 2,400

2016 2,930

16

V-Trench Recovery System:

Performance of the V-Trench Recovery System is based on the requirement that water level within the

V-Trench must be a minimum of 1-foot lower than the simultaneous water level of the respective down

gradient piezometer. From 2012-2016 this criteria has been met annually.

Monitoring data is collected of the ground water retrieval:

Table 5: Annual Ground Water Retrieval

Year Ground Water (gallons)

2012 2,673,500

2013 2,467,200

2014 2,371,800

2015 2,914,500

2016 4,401,300

Annual affected ground water pumped via the V-Trench Recovery System decreased every year except

in 2015. This exception correlates with the higher than average precipitation the state of Oklahoma

experienced in 2015. Ground water recovered is received by the Passive Aeration System where

monitored natural attenuation is the chosen remedy method.

Water quality samples of the V-Trench influent into the PAS are also collected:

Table 6: V-Trench Effluent Analytical Results

Year Average Total VOC (µg/l)

2012 808

2013 900

2014 747

2015 636

2016 778

Water quality samples are to monitor the VOC concentrations being inputted into the PAS.

Southwest Wells Recovery System (SWWRS):

The SWWRS were not active in the years of interest of this 5-Year Review. The annual flow-weighted

average (FWA) of VOCs for the SWWRS are collected and if the action levels of 100-ppb or 150-ppb

are reached then the frequency of the ground water monitoring will change or the SWWRS will be

reactivated. The table below shows the annual FWA of the SWWRS.

Table 7: Total Annual FWA of Total VOC Concentration

Year FWA (ppb)

2012 25.1

2013 35.3

2014 26.3

2015 15.0

2016 19.1

17

Passive Aeriation System (PAS):

The PAS basin is routinely sampled for VOCs, SVOCs, Pesticides/PCBs, metals and inorganics. Since

the PAS has been active, no VOCs, SVOCs, nor Pesticides/PCBs were detected for the years of interest

for this 5-Year Review. Metal and inorganic constituents found in the samples were found to be within

historical concentrations. Further, the concentrations were less than Oklahoma’s water quality standards

to which the PAS effluent is compared.

Injection Well/Infiltration Gallery:

This component was in temporary abandonment during the years of interest for this 5-Year Review. A

mechanical integrity test (MIT) continues to be performed every five years.

North Criner Creek Alluvium:

Monitoring wells for the North Criner Creek Alluvium are divided into three groups, with Group I being

the most up gradient and Group III being the most downgradient. The groups are monitored to prove that

monitored natural attenuation is occurring downgradient.

Group I Wells: MW-12S, MW-12M, MW-13S, MW-13M, MW-28, MW-29S, MW-29M, MW-30, AW-

S03, AW-A01

Ground water from these well locations flow toward North Criner Creek and is part of the monitored

natural attenuation remedy components. Monitoring for this group of wells include the sampling of

upgradient background well (MW-30) and sampling of MW-29S and MW-29M if MW-30 is confirmed

to have VOCs. For the years of interest for this 5-Year Review, VOCs were non-detect.

Group II Wells: MW-31, MW-32, MW-33, MW-34S, MW-34M

Historically these wells report no detections of VOCs, but in 2014 MW-34S was confirmed to have

detections of VOCs. In 2015 no VOCs were detected in the annual sampling of Group II Wells.

Table 8: Total VOC Detection in Group II Wells

Year Total VOC (µg/l)

2014 8.7

2015 nd

2016 nd

Confirmed detections of VOCs in Group II Wells trigger the requirement to sample Group III wells the

following year.

Group III Wells: MW-35, MW-36, MW-37, MW-38, MW-39

Group III Wells are sampled every five years, with the previous 5 year sampling event occurring in 2012

and the next scheduled sampling to occur in 2017. Due to detections of VOCs in a Group II Well in

2014, the Group III Wells were sampled in 2015. Group III Wells were reported as non-detects for

VOCs in the 2012 and 2015 sampling events. Since the Group II Wells reported non-detect in 2015, the

18

Group III Wells will resume a five year sampling interval, with the next scheduled sampling event in

2020.

Table 9: Total VOCs in Group III Wells

Year Total VOC (µg/l)

2012 nd

2015 nd

North Criner Creek Surface Water:

Sampling locations for this monitoring include NCC-1, NCC-2, NCC-3, and NCC-4. All locations are

sampled annually, as long as sufficient flow is possible and is less than one cubic feet per second. NCC-

2 and NCC-4 are also sampled quarterly, as possible. No detections of VOCs were reported during the

years of interest for this 5-Year Review.

Northwest Borrow Area:

Surface runoff across the Northwest Borrow Area, including seeps within the area, is carried to a

singular discharge point that travels to the County Road sampling location and onward to North Criner

Creek. There is no action level associated with this location, and sampling occurs to ensure that

contaminants are not migrating off-site.

Per the 2016 Revised PMP, monitoring of the Northwest Borrow Area consists of semi-annual water

quality sampling of Seep-14 and the County Road location, if sufficient water is present.

Seep-14:

The table on the following page summarizes total VOC concentrations of Seep-14. Sampling occurred if

sufficient water was available.

Table 10: Total VOCs Concentration (µg/l) of Seep-14

Year 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter

2012 2814 - - -

2013 967 - - -

2014 - - - -

2015 - 552 424 968 “-“ Insufficient Water

Year 1st Half 2nd Half

2016 1989 - “-“ Insufficient Water

All concentrations are within the historical range of the location. The maximum total concentration

collected from Seep-14 was 5,340 µg/l, in 1995.

19

County Road:

This location was not sampled in 2012-2014, due to insufficient water. In 2015, sampling of this

location reported non-detect for VOCs. Therefore, there is not an indication that contaminants from the

Site are migrating off-site.

Air Monitoring:

Effluent air from the Permanent Liquid Recovery System (PLRS) and the Active Gas Vent (AGV)

system discharge is monitored using a PID. PID readings for the years of interest for this 5-Year Review

did not indicate any breakthroughs; therefore, no effluent air samples were collected from the PLRS and

AGV.

Site Inspection

The inspection of the Site was conducted on October 3, 2016. In attendance were Chanh Le, Hal

Cantwell, and Scott Thompson of the ODEQ, and Brian LaFlamme, Ben Costello, George Davis, and

Ryan Savage of Nationwide Environmental Services, acting on behalf of the HSRC. The purpose of the

inspection was to assess the protectiveness of the remedy.

Remedy components inspected include the V-Trench, the PLRS, the AGV, the Drying Shed, the

SWWRS, the Security Fence, and the Cap. All remedial components appeared to be in working

condition and no evidence of potential issues or failures were seen. The security fence appeared to be in

good condition for the purpose of restricting access and signs were visible to warn passersby. The cap

was found to be in good condition, with good vegetation and no indications of burrowing animals or

erosion concerns.

V. TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT

QUESTION A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?

Yes, the remedy is currently functioning as intended, is in compliance with the Court-ordered remedy,

and continues to be protective of human health and the environment. The remedy is evaluated yearly and

an Annual Report is submitted to ODEQ and EPA. The effectiveness of the remedy is evaluated by

requirements laid out in the Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP). HSRC continually searches for

opportunities to improve the performance of the remedy. The 2016 Revised PMP details what activities

will be performed to maintain the remedy.

QUESTION B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action

objectives (RAOs) used at the time of the remedy selection still valid?

Yes, the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives used at the

time of the remedy selection are still valid.

The exposure assumptions and toxicity data for the contaminants of concern have not changed since the

previous Five Year Review.

20

The Court Order specified remedial objectives for the Site, without specifying cleanup goals for

individual media. HSRC has implemented the remedy as described in the court order.

Institutional controls require the prevention of public access to the affected area, prohibition of

withdrawal of affected ground water, and supply of potable water to area residents. As such, there are no

current exposure pathways, except for the on-site workers and trespassers. For this five year review,

there are no changes to be made to the exposure pathway.

There have been slight modifications to the institutional control property land use in the last five years.

In addition to the previous modification that allowed a local land owner to run cattle on property south

of the Site Boundary, another modification has allowed for hay baling and row crops. The modifications

remain in compliance.

QUESTION C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness

of the remedy?

No other information has come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy.

VI. ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS

Issues/Recommendations

OU(s) with Issues/Recommendations Identified in the Five-Year Review:

Sitewide - No issues were noted during this Five-Year Review.

VII. PROTECTIVNESS STATEMENT

Sitewide Protectiveness Statement

Protectiveness Determination:

Protective

Protectiveness Statement:

The remedy at the site is protective of human health and the environment. The Court Order

remedial objectives are being met and the Court selected remedy components are expected to

remain protective. Remedy components form the basis of waste containment at the Site, and

institutional controls ordered by the Court dedicate the Site solely to the remedial activities

ordered by the Court and restrict access and use of the Site and certain adjoining properties.

VIII. NEXT REVIEW

The next five-year review report for the Hardage-Criner Superfund Site is required five years from the

completion date of this review.

21

APPENDIX A – REFERENCE LIST

EPA. 2001. “Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance.” EPA 540-R-01-007. June 2001.

EPA. 2002. “First Five-Year Review Report for the Hardage-Criner Superfund Site. McClain County,

Oklahoma. September.

EPA. 2007. “Second Five-Year Review Report for the Hardage-Criner Superfund Site. McClain County,

Oklahoma September.

EPA. 2012. “Third Five-Year Review Report for the Hardage-Criner Superfund Site. McClain County,

Oklahoma. May.

HSRC. 1996. Performance Monitoring Plan for Long-Term Operation and Remedy Implementation.

HSRC. 2012. Annual Remedial Site Report. January.





HSRC. 2016. Revised Performance Monitoring Plan for Long-Term Operation and Remedy

Implementation.

APPENDIX B – SITE BACKGROUND (Site background information is derived from the Third Five-Year Review of the Site)

22

3.0 BACKGROUND

This section discusses the Site’s physical characteristics, land and resource use near the Site, history of

site contamination, initial response to the Site, and the basis for the response.

3.1 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS

The Site is located on old State Highway (SH) 122, 3/4 mile west of the intersection of old SH 122 and

SH 59 (Attachment 1). The Site is near Criner, McClain County, Oklahoma, approximately 30 miles

south-southwest of Oklahoma City. According to the 2010 census, the population within a one-mile

radius of the Site is approximately 48 persons.

The Site covers approximately 160 acres and is bordered by open farmland. The topography of the area is

flat to gently rolling hills. The principal disposal operations were conducted along a north-south trending

ridge at the center of the property. Relief is about 100 feet from the ridge to the adjacent stream valley.

The Site is bounded on the southwest by the North Criner Creek floodplain. North Criner Creek flows in

a southeasterly direction past the Site, eventually discharging to the Canadian River. Runoff from the

western side of the Site enters North Criner Creek and runoff from the eastern side drains into three small

farm ponds.

3.2 LAND AND RESOURCE USE

Historical land use surrounding the Site is primarily rural agricultural. The institutional control boundary

(ICB) restricts the Site and some adjoining property surrounding the Site (USDC WD 1991, USDC WD

2008a). In 2010, the EPA approved and the Court granted partial release and modification of the

restrictive covenants previously imposed upon the ICB. The following activities on designated tracts shall

be permitted including the erection and maintenance of a fence separating tract 3 from tract 7, and tracts

2, 3 and 6 may be used for animal grazing, animal husbandry and seeding, sowing and haying of grasses

only for feeding grazing animals, provided that any tilling or plowing of soil shall not exceed six inches in

depth (EPA, 2010, USDC WD 2010).

3.3 HISTORY OF CONTAMINATION

Royal N. Hardage owned and operated an industrial hazardous waste land disposal facility at the Site

from September 1972 to November 1980. Initially, the facility was permitted by the Oklahoma State

Department of Health (OSDH), but the permit was later revoked when the facility failed to meet newly

23

imposed standards of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 United States Code

(U.S.C.) Section 6973. During its operation, approximately 21 million gallons of waste were transported

to the Site for storage or disposal. Wastes included acids, caustics, lead, cyanide, arsenic, aromatic

solvents, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls, oil recycling waste, and other

hazardous substances. Initially, liquid and sludge waste from drums or tank trucks was discharged into

unlined pits. As the disposal pits filled, drums were piled into a Sludge Mound. Eventually, the Site

contained waste impoundments, including a large unlined Main Pit, a series of smaller pits, a Sludge

Mound, and a Barrel Mound.

3.4 INITIAL RESPONSE

In 1978, the State of Oklahoma filed complaints against the facility for suspected lead contamination of

the air around the Site. In 1979, the OSDH began proceedings to revoke the facility’s permit for utilizing

unpermitted pits, failure to seal permeable lenses beneath the pits, improper closure of pits, failure to

retain runoff, and improper storage of wastes at the Site. Subsequently, preliminary EPA investigations

and inspections indicated poor waste management practices that posed a potential threat to public health

and the environment. In September 1980, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed suit in United States

v. Hardage against Mr. Hardage on behalf of the EPA. The suit alleged violations of Section 7003 of

RCRA, 42 U.S.C. Section 6973 and sought injunctive relief for Site cleanup and closure. The Site was

closed in November 1980 and Royal Hardage filed bankruptcy in 1983. In 1984, potential responsible

parties (PRPs) were notified of potential EPA CERCLA liability and the DOJ began legal action seeking

to recover costs and impose an EPA CERCLA remedy. After a trial, the EPA CERCLA remedy was

determined de novo and the Judge ordered implementation of the Hardage Steering Committee (HSC)

remedy, thereby rejecting the 1989 EPA CERCLA remedy as “arbitrary and capricious”. Therefore, the

Site is under the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma (Court) and

operates under a Court Ordered remedy, not an EPA CERCLA Record of Decision (ROD).

The Court Order specified remedial objectives for the Site without specifying cleanup goals for individual

media. The HSC completed construction of the court-ordered remedy in 1995. Periodic modifications

have been made (i.e. Southwest Wells Recovery System [SWWRS] and Passive Aeration System [PAS]).

The First Five-Year Review was completed on September 27, 2002. The Second Five-Year Review was

completed on September 24, 2007.

3.4 BASIS FOR TAKING ACTION

During site operations, approximately 21 million gallons of industrial wastes including acidic, caustic and

corrosive wastes, many classified as carcinogenic, were disposed on the Site. The principal source of

24

contamination is estimated to be 278,000 cubic yards of sludges, waste drums, highly contaminated soils,

and waste liquids contained in three waste disposal areas near the center of the property. Hazardous

substances detected in the source area include: 1,2-dichloroethane, 1,1,2-trichloroethane, 1,1-

dichloroethene, tetrachloroethene, trichloroethene, lead, chromium, polychlorinated biphenyls, and

toxaphane.

Hazardous substances from the source area have contaminated the ground water present in Strata I, II, and

III. Ground water flows east toward the east farm ponds, and west-southwest toward the North Criner

Creek alluvium. Strata IV and V consist of low permeability mudstones and silty mudstones that

separates the shallow ground water from saline water in Stratum VI.

4.0 REMEDIAL ACTIONS

This section discusses the selected remedy, remedy implementation, operation and maintenance (O&M)

activities, and O&M costs.

4.1 SELECTED REMEDY

The Court selected remedial objectives for the Site, but did not select specific numerical cleanup

standards for attainment by the remedy. The remedial objectives described in the 1990 Judgment and

Order included (USDC WD 1990):

Control of the surface water pathway;

Preclusion of site access and direct contact with waste;

Control of air emissions from source areas;

Preclusion of the use of affected ground water; and

Provision for a contingent response to ensure continued maintenance of the quality of North Criner Creek.

The Court selected the following remedy components for the Site as described in the 1990 Judgment and

Order (see Section VIII, Finding No. 16, pages 56-58). The remedy components form the basis of a waste

containment remedy and must be monitored in perpetuity.

25

APPENDIX C – SITE CHRONOLOGY

26

CHRONOLOGY OF SITE EVENTS


Date Event

September 1972 - November 1980

Site operated as an Oklahoma Controlled Industrial Hazardous Waste Land Disposal Facility.

1978 State of Oklahoma filed complaints against the Site operator (i.e., Royal Hardage) for suspected lead contamination of the air around the Site.

September 1979

State of Oklahoma began proceedings to revoke the Site permit as a result of Royal Hardage's use of un-permitted pits, his failure to seal permeable lenses in the pits, his improper closure of pits, his failure to retain runoff, and his improper storage of wastes.

1979 Preliminary EPA investigations and inspections of the Site indicated poor waste management practices posing threats to public health and the environment.

September 1980

United States filed suit in United States v. Hardage (Hardage I) on behalf of the EPA against Royal Hardage seeking cleanup and closure of the Site. U.S. complaint alleged endangerment under Section 7003 of the RCRA, 42 U.S.C. Section 6973.

November 1980 Royal Hardage closed the Site prior to the effective date of the RCRA Subtitle C regulations.

1980 – 1986 EPA, RCRA, and CERCLA investigations and studies. Royal Hardage filed bankruptcy. Hardage I was dismissed in 1985 and U.S. filed CERCLA suit in Hardage II on June25, 1986.

1984 The EPA notified arranger and transporter companies that used the Site that they were CERCLA PRPs. The HSC was formed by the PRPs.

1986 – 1989

HSC site investigations and Hardage II case discovery. The EPA made second CERCLA remedy selection after 1986 remedy was not found compliant with RCRA land disposal restrictions. PRPs found liable in Hardage II, and the EPA entered $11 million de minimis settlement.

October 1989 HSC Recommended Comprehensive Site Remedy: Source Control and Management of Migration - Preliminary Design Report.

August 9, 1990 U.S. District Court rejected the EPA remedy and selected HSC Site remedy de novo in Hardage II.

September 1990 HSC Site Remedial Design /Remedial Actions began.

May 2, 1991 U.S. District Court Supplemental Judgment and Order.

May 1993 Site Remedial Design completed.

August 31, 1993 Modifications to the remedy were identified in the Order Modifying Remedy Implementation: Mounds Liquids Recovery System and On Site Class-1 Non-Hazardous Injection Well.

October 1993 Site remedial construction contract signed.

November 1993 Site remedial construction commenced started.

27

mhebert

Typewritten Text

272727

Date Event

May 1994 Site V-Trench construction completed.

February 1995 Site Water Treatment Plant brought on-line.

September 1995 The Site remedial construction contractor finished its six-month shakedown and O&M started.

1995 HSRC contracted with Nationwide Environmental Services, Inc. for long-term O&M for the Site remedy.

September 1997 The EPA signed Hardage Site Preliminary Close Out Report.

September 2002 First Five Year Review Report for the Hardage-Criner Superfund Site completed.

January 2003 Hardage-Criner Superfund Site 2002 Annual Remedial Status Report completed.



March 9, 2005 U.S. District Court Joint Stipulation Agreement.

June 2005 Safety, Health, and Emergency Response Plan completed.

August 2005 Revised Performance Monitoring Plan for Long-Term Operation of the Remedy Implementation.

December 2005 Southwest Wells “Stand-by” Flow-Weighted Average Sampling Results finalized.


May 2006 O&M Manual (Revision 2) completed.

December 2006 Screening Level Health and Ecological Risk Assessment completed. Hardage-Criner Superfund Site Proposed V-Trench Passive Aeration System completed.


June 8, 2007 5 year down-hole video survey of V-trench and Southwest Wells Recovery System. Unable to obtain video logs from four wells blocked with root mats.

June 16, 2007 5 year RCRA Composite Cap subsidence survey completed. Nine locations showed subsidence of at least 0.5 ft or greater. Locations inspected by HSRC with no slope subsidence indicated.

July 2007 Court grants temporary modification to remedy for construction and operation of Passive Aeration System to treat ground water collected in V-Trench.

September 24, 2007 Second Five Year Review Report for the Hardage-Criner Superfund Site completed.

28

Date Event

November 2007 V-Trench Passive Aeration System Pilot Study implemented.

April, 14 2008 A Court order was issued on April 14, 2008, to amend the Hardage Site and Institutional Control Boundary (ICB) lines.

April 2008

Revised pages to the 2005 PMP were approved by EPA and DEQ documenting the O&M changes during the operation of the PAS pilot test, the change in measuring the PLRS levels, the removal of pumps from the SWWRs wells, and the use of PDBs for sampling.

November 2008 The Annual FWA report was provided to EPA and DEQ in November 2008. Roots obstructed sample collection in SWWRS-6.


May 2009 Mechanical Integrity Test of Injection Well No. 1. Satisfies 5-year requirement.

July 13, 2009 HSRC notified the Court of the EPA approved modification of annual sampling event, replacing SWWRS-6 with a nearby piezometer for calculation of 2009 FWA.


March 24, 2010 Hardage Site Passive Aeration System 2-Year Full-Scale Pilot Test submitted.

June 15, 2010 A Court order was filed to allow the HSC to continue to operate the PAS as a temporary modification to the remedy during the HSRC’s evaluation.

May-June 2010 The HSC filed a Notice of Partial Release and Modification of Restrictive Covenants which only pertains to the ICB south of 180th Street to allow grazing and animal husbandry on the subject property.

August 2, 2011 Court approves implementation of Passive Aeration System as part of permanent remedy.

October 7, 2011 Court approves modification to SWWRS sampling protocol and the temporary replacement of SWWRS-6 with nearby piezometer (SWPZ-9) becomes part of permanent remedy.

January 25, 2012 2011 Revised Performance Monitoring Plan

June 8, 2012 5Year Down Hole Video

July 24, 2012 5 Year RCRA Composite Cap Topographic Survey

May 10, 2012 3rd Five-Year Review Signed

2014 Water Treatment Plant Decomissioning

29

Date Event

October 21, 2014 New carbon canisters installed in AGV and PLRS

October 12, 2016 Revised Performance Monitoring Plan

30

APPENDIX D – SITE MAPS

31

APPENDIX E – SITE INSPECTION CHECKLIST

FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SITE VISIT CHECKLIST

I. SITE INFORMATION

Site Name: Hardage-Criner Superfund Site Date of Inspection: 10/3/2016

Location and Region: McClain County, Oklahoma EPA ID: OKD000400093

Agency leading the five-year review: DEQ Weather/temperature: Sunny/ Cool temperature

Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply)

Landfill cover/containment Groundwater pump-and-treatment

Access controls Surface water collection and treatment

Institutional controls Other-Leachate collection and treatment

Attachments: Inspection team roster attached Site map attached to report

II. INTERVIEWS (Check all that apply)

1. O&M Site Manager Brian LaFlamme Project Manager/NES 10/9/16 Name Title Date

Interviewed: by mail at site by phone Phone no. 303-232-2134

Problems, suggestions: Report attached Survey form attached to report

2. O&M Staff n/a_______________________________________________

Name Title Date

Interviewed: by mail at office by phone Phone no.

Problems, suggestions: Report attached

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

Agency ODEQ

Contact Hal Cantwell Project Manager 10/6/16 405-702-5139

Name Title Date Phone no.


Agency EPA

Contact Michael Hebert RPM 10/6/16

Name Title Date Phone no.


4. Other interviews (optional): Report attached

33

III. ONSITE DOCUMENTS & RECORDS VERIFIED (Check all that apply)

1. O&M Documents

O&M manual (long term monitoring plan) Readily available Up to date N/A

As-built drawings Readily available Up to date N/A

Maintenance logs (current and cumulative monitoring reports) Readily available Up to date N/A

Remarks:

2. Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan Readily available Up to date N/A

Contingency plan/emergency response plan Readily available Up to date N/A

Remarks:

3. O&M and OSHA Training Records Readily available Up to date N/A

Remarks:

4. Permits and Service Agreements

Air discharge permit Readily available Up to date N/A

Effluent discharge Readily available Up to date N/A

Waste disposal, POTW Readily available Up to date N/A

Other permits Readily available Up to date N/A

Remarks:

5. Gas Generation Records Readily available Up to date N/A

6. Settlement Monument Records Readily available Up to date N/A

7. Groundwater Monitoring Records Readily available Up to date N/A

8. Leachate Extraction Records Readily available Up to date N/A

9. Discharge Compliance Records

Air Readily available Up to date N/A

Water (effluent) Readily available Up to date N/A

Remarks:

10. Daily Access/Security Logs Readily available Up to date N/A

Remarks:

34

IV. O&M COSTS

1. O&M Organization

State in-house Contractor for State PRP in-house

Contractor for PRP Other

2. O&M Cost Records

Readily available Up to date Funding mechanism/agreement in place

Original O&M cost estimate Breakdown attached

Total annual cost by year for review period, if available

Date Date Total Cost

From 2012 to 2012 $387, 000 - Breakdown attached

From 2013 to 2013 $378,000 - Breakdown attached



From 2016 to 2016 $294,000* - Breakdown attached

*Costs are to date 10/20/16

3. Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs During Review Period

Water Treatment Plant Decommissioning

V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS Applicable N/A

A. Fencing

1. Fencing damaged Location shown on site map Gates secured N/A

Remarks: The security fence is 9-feet high and consists of an 8-foot high chain-link fabric and three strands of barbed-wire supported by 45-degree extensions. The fence restricts access of both unauthorized persons and animals. A motorized gate at the main entrance prevents unauthorized entrance; it is operated by an intercom and keypad system. This allows ready access by the Site workers, while restricting access by others. The security fence surrounds approximately 160 acres of land. In addition, surrounding the security fence, perimeter fencing runs along the border of approximately 333 acres of land within the institutional control boundary.

B. Other Access Restrictions

1. Signs and other security measures Location shown on site map N/A

Remarks: Signs are posted at regular intervals along the security fence identifying the site as a

hazardous waste site and warning against unauthorized entry. Site lighting is provided by

floodlights that are operated by photocell detectors and hand switches.

35

C. Institutional Controls

1. Implementation and enforcement

Site conditions imply institutional controls not properly implemented Yes No N/A

Site conditions imply institutional controls not being fully enforced Yes No N/A

Type of monitoring (e.g., self-reporting, drive by) Onsite personnel enforce the institutional controls during normal work hours.

Frequency Daily

Responsible party/agency HSRC/NES

Contact Brian LaFlamme Project Manager/NES 10/6/16 918-746-7977 Name Title Date Phone no.

Reporting is up-to-date Yes No N/A

Reports are verified by the lead agency Yes No N/A

Specific requirements in deed or decision documents have been met Yes No N/A

Violations have been reported Yes No N/A

Other problems or suggestions: Report attached

2. Adequacy Institutional controls are adequate Institutional controls are inadequate N/A

Remarks:

D. General

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

Remarks:

2. Land use changes onsite N/A

Remarks: The Court Order precludes the change of future land use.

3. Land use changes offsite N/A

Remarks: Hay baling and row crops now allowed

VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS

A. Roads Applicable N/A

Remarks: The roads were in excellent condition.

B. Other Site Conditions Applicable N/A

Remarks:

VII. LANDFILL COVERS Applicable N/A

A. Landfill Surface

1. Settlement (Low spots) Location shown on site map Settlement not evident

Areal extent Depth

Remarks:

36

2. Cracks Location shown on site map Cracking not evident

Lengths Widths Depths

Remarks:

3. Erosion Location shown on site map erosion not evident

Areal extent Depth

Remarks:

4. Holes Holes evident Holes not evident

Areal extent Depth

Remarks:

5. Vegetative Cover Grass Cover properly established No signs of stress

Trees/Shrubs (indicate size and locations on a diagram) (None)

Remarks:

6. Alternative Cover (armored rock, concrete, etc.) N/A

Remarks: Surface water relief channels were noted with rip-rap and armored as necessary.

7. Bulges Location shown on site map Bulges not evident

Areal extent Depth

Remarks:

8. Wet Areas/Water Damage Wet areas/water damage not evident

Wet areas Location shown on site map Areal extent

Ponding Location shown on site map Areal extent

Seeps Location shown on site map Areal extent

Soft subgrade Location shown on site map Areal extent

Remarks:

9. Slope Instability Slides Location shown on site map

No evidence of slope instability Areal extent

Remarks:

B. Benches Applicable N/A (Horizontally constructed mounds of earth placed across a steep landfill side slope to interrupt the slope in order to slow

down the velocity of surface runoff and intercept and convey the runoff to a lined channel.)

1. Flows Bypass Bench Location shown on site map N/A or okay

Remarks:

2. Bench Breached Location shown on site map N/A or okay

Remarks:

3. Bench Overtopped Location shown on site map N/A or okay

Remarks:

C. Letdown Channels Applicable N/A

1. Settlement Location shown on site map No evidence of settlement

Areal extent Depth

Remarks:

2. Material Degradation Location shown on site map No evidence of degradation

Material type Areal extent

Remarks:

37

3. Erosion Location shown on site map No evidence of erosion

Areal extent Depth

Remarks:

4. Undercutting Location shown on site map No evidence of undercutting

Areal extent Depth

Remarks:

5. Obstructions Type

No obstructions Location shown on site map

Areal extent Size

Remarks:

6. Excessive Vegetative Growth Type

No evidence of excessive growth Vegetation in channels does not obstruct flow

Location shown on site map Areal extent

Remarks:

D. Cover Penetrations Applicable N/A

1. Gas Vents Active Passive

Properly secured/locked Functioning Routinely sampled Good condition

Evidence of leakage at penetration Needs O&M N/A

Remarks: monitored monthly

2. Gas Monitoring Probes



Remarks:

3. Monitoring Wells (within surface area of landfill)


Remarks:

4. Leachate Extraction Wells



Remarks:

5. Settlement Monuments Located Routinely surveyed N/A

Remarks: 2012 Survey (surveyed every 5 years)

E. Gas Collection and Treatment Applicable N/A

1. Gas Treatment Facilities

Flaring Thermal destruction Collection for reuse

Good condition Needs O&M

Remarks:

2. Gas Collection Wells, Manifolds, and Piping Good condition Needs O&M

Remarks:

3. Gas Monitoring Facilities (e.g., gas monitoring of adjacent homes or buildings)

Good condition Needs O&M N/A

Remarks:

F. Cover Drainage Layer Applicable N/A

38

1. Outlet Pipes Inspected Functioning N/A

Remarks:

2. Outlet Rock Inspected Functioning N/A

Remarks:

G. Detention/Sedimentation Ponds Applicable N/A

1. Siltation Areal extent Size

N/A Siltation not evident

Remarks:

2. Erosion Areal extent Depth

Erosion not evident

Remarks:

3. Outlet Works Functioning N/A

Remarks:

4. Dam Functioning N/A

Remarks:

H. Retaining Walls Applicable N/A

1. Deformations Location shown on site map Deformation not evident

Horizontal displacement Vertical displacement

Rotational displacement

Remarks:

2. Degradation Location shown on site map Degradation not evident

Remarks:

I. Perimeter Ditches/Off-Site Discharge Applicable N/A

1. Siltation Location shown on site map Siltation not evident

Areal extent Depth

Remarks:

2. Vegetative Growth Location shown on site map N/A

Vegetation does not impede flow

Areal extent Type

Remarks:

3. Erosion Location shown on site map Erosion not evident

Areal extent Depth

Remarks:

4. Discharge Structure Functioning N/A

Remarks:

VIII. VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS Applicable N/A

1. Settlement Location shown on site map Settlement not evident

Areal extent Depth

Remarks:

2. Performance Monitoring Type of monitoring

Performance not monitored Frequency Evidence of breaching

39

Head differential

Remarks:

IX. GROUNDWATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES Applicable N/A

A. Groundwater Extraction Wells, Pumps, and Pipelines Applicable N/A

1. Pumps, Wellhead Plumbing, and Electrical

Good condition All required wells located Needs O&M N/A

Remarks: SWWRS continues to be on Standby

2. Extraction System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances


Remarks:

3. Spare Parts and Equipment

Readily available Good condition Requires upgrade Needs to be provided

Remarks:

B. Surface Water Collection Structures, Pumps, and Pipelines Applicable N/A

1. Collection Structures, Pumps, and Electrical


Remarks:

2. Surface Water Collection System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances


Remarks:

3. Spare Parts and Equipment

Readily available Good condition Requires upgrade Needs to be provided

Remarks:

40

C. Treatment System Applicable N/A

1. Treatment Train (Check components that apply) Metals removal Oil/water separation Bioremediation Air stripping Carbon absorbers Filters Additive (e.g., chelation agent, flocculent) pH management Others Passive Aeration System Good condition Needs O&M Sampling ports properly marked and functional Sampling/maintenance log displayed and up to date Equipment properly identified Quantity of groundwater treated annually (See below. Quantities in Gallons) Quantity of surface water treated annually

Remarks: 2012 – 2,673,500; 2013- 2,467,200; 2014 – 2,371,800; 2015 – 2,914,500

2. Electrical Enclosures and Panels (Properly rated and functional)

N/A Good condition Needs O&M

Remarks:

3. Tanks, Vaults, Storage Vessels

N/A Good condition Proper secondary containment Needs O&M

Remarks:

4. Discharge Structure and Appurtenances

N/A Good condition Needs O&M

Remarks:

5. Treatment Building(s)

N/A Good condition (esp. roof and doorways) Needs repair

Chemicals and equipment properly stored

Remarks:

6. Monitoring Wells (Pump-and-treatment remedy)


All required wells located Needs O&M N/A

Remarks:

D. Monitored Natural Attenuation Applicable N/A

1. Monitoring Wells (Natural attenuation remedy)


All required wells located Needs O&M N/A

Remarks:

41

X. OTHER REMEDIES

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

XI. OVERALL OBSERVATIONS

A. Implementation of the Remedy

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

The Court selected remedial objectives for the Site, but did not select specific numerical cleanup standards for attainment by the remedy. The remedial objectives included control of the surface water pathway, air emissions, and affected ground water, as well as preclusion from site access and exposure to waste. The current implementation of the remedy is effective and is functioning as planned.

B. Adequacy of O&M

Current O&M activities are adequate.

C. Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Failure

There are no early indicators of potential remedy failure.

D. Opportunities for Optimization

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

The HSRC continues to look for optimization opportunities. Evidence is shown in the continual update to the performance monitoring plan. An example is the removal of the water treatment plant and full use of the passive aeration system.

42

APPENDIX F – SITE INTERVIEWS

43

INTERVIEW RECORD

Site Name: Hardage-Criner Superfund Site EPA ID No.: OKD000400093

Location: Criner, McClain County, Oklahoma Date:

Contact Made By:

Name: Chanh Le Title: Environmental Programs Specialist

Organization: DEQ

Individual Contacted:

Name: Hal Cantwell Title: Project Manager Organization: DEQ

Telephone No: (405) 702-5139

E-Mail Address: [email protected] Street Address: 707 North Robinson

City, State, Zip: Oklahoma City, OK 73102

1. What is your overall impression of the project? (general sentiment)

Very Positive – a very well managed and operated endeavor.

2. What effects have site operations had on the surrounding community?

The rural community in proximity to the Site have been minimally impacted. Several immediately neighboring landowner’s properties were obtained at fair market value by the HSRC to institute the stipulated Site Land Use restrictions. The site contamination is all encompassed within these properties owned by the HSRC.

3. Are you aware of any community concerns regarding the site or its operation and administration? If so,

please give details.

Occasionally, I receive inquiries regarding real estate transactions in the Sections near the Site but when the details of the history and cleanup activities of the site are known the parties do not express negative concerns.

4. Are you aware of any events, incidents, or activities at the site such as vandalism, trespassing, or

emergency responses from local authorities? If so, please give details.

I do not know of any incidents of types listed that have occurred recently at the Site.

5. Do you feel well informed about the site’s activities and progress? I feel Very well informed concerning all aspects of the Site.

6. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site’s management or

operation?

I do not.

7. Have there been routine communications or activities (site visits, inspections, reporting activities, etc.)

conducted by your office regarding the site? If so, please give purpose and results.

There has been and continue to be frequent communications and activities related to the DEQ’s responsibilities in the role of representing the State of Oklahoma regarding the environmental remediation of the Site. The activities and results are too numerous and voluminous to list but can be obtained by visiting DEQ’s website or a submitting formal request to the DEQ Central Records.

8. Have there been any complaints, violations, or other incidents related to the site requiring a response by

your office? If so, please give details of the events and results of the responses.

There have there been no complaints, violations, or other incidents related to the Site requiring a response by our office.

44

INTERVIEW RECORD


Location: Criner, McClain County, Oklahoma Date:

Contact Made By:

Name: Chanh Le Title: Environmental Programs

Specialist

Organization: DEQ

Telephone No: (405) 702-5102

E-Mail Address: [email protected]

Street Address: 707 North Robinson

City, State, Zip: Oklahoma City, OK 73101


Name: Brian LaFlamme Title: HSRC Facility Manager Organization: NES

Telephone No: (303) 232-2134

E-Mail Address: [email protected]

Street Address: 14818 6th Ave. West, Suite 5A

City, State, Zip: Golden, CO 80401

45

Summary Of Conversation


Operation and maintenance (O&M) of the remedial action at the Hardage Site has been conducted in accordance with

the approved plan in an efficient manner and all required reports have been filed in a timely manner. Ongoing

collaboration with the ODEQ and EPA ensures continued efficiency and protection of human health and the

environment.

During the last 5-year interval, Site-related VOC concentrations in the Stratum III groundwater (previously captured

by the Southwest Wells Recovery System [SWWRS] remedy component) continue to be below the flow-weighted average

(FWA) VOC concentration limits of 100 (parts per billion) ppb and 150 ppb. This meets the natural attenuation

requirements, allowing this remedy component to remain idle.

The Court approved Passive Aeration System (PAS) continues to operate efficiently as a permanent remedy component

for the treatment of groundwater extracted from the V-Trench. The substitution of the PAS for the water treatment

plant has greatly decreased the site-wide energy usage and, therefore, the carbon footprint of the remedy. This has

allowed the decommissioning/dismantling of the water treatment plant in 2014.

A mechanical integrity test of the non-hazardous injection well in 2014 indicates the well is intact and has not been

compromised. The well remains in temporary abandonment and will be monitored and tested as the regulations require

until a final decision is made to permanently abandon it.

As anticipated, each year the permanent mound liquids recovery system (PLRS) recovers fewer liquids than the year

before. The HSRC continues to conduct load outs of the recovered mounds liquids consistent with RCRA.

The phytoremediation test plot was discontinued in 2013, with approval by EPA & ODEQ. The Site related VOC

concentrations in water quality samples from Seep 14 are decreasing.

2. Is the remedy functioning as expected? How well is the remedy performing?

The remedy is functioning as expected, performing efficiently and continuing to be protective of the human health and

the environment as well as the surrounding community.

The HSRC has been very proactive in their communications with their neighbors to ensure that ongoing Site operations

have no negative effects on the adjacent property owners. The HSRC has been working diligently with the various first

responders near the Hardage Site that might be called upon to enter the Site in case of a Site-related emergency. The

HSRC has voluntarily prepared first responder information notebooks and distributed them to each local fire

department and police force and installed first responder information boxes at each entrance to the Site. The first

responder information boxes are equipped with all relevant Site-related maps and annotated photographs, health and

safety information and HSRC emergency contact information.

The HSRC is currently seeking to enter into a lease agreement with a local farmer to allow growing/cutting of hay on

land south of the Hardage Site proper. The growing/cutting of hay would allow continued support for the local

community and provides a maintained landscape for unencumbered access to monitoring wells and creek locations that

also serves as a wildfire control.

3. What does the monitoring data show? Are there any trends that show contaminant levels are decreasing?

The O&M monitoring data indicate that overall VOC concentrations in Stratum III groundwater down gradient of the

V-Trench Remedy component are decreasing and the volume of mounds liquids (able to be pumped) recovered from

underneath the Cap are decreasing. This is an indication of the continuing integrity of the RCRA cap.

46

4. Is there a continuous on-site O&M presence? If so, please describe staff and activities.

There is an O&M presence onsite during normal working days, i.e., Monday through Friday from approximately 7:00

AM to 3:30 PM and on call during the weekends. The presence consists of two onsite technicians. The technicians

perform routine maintenance of equipment, sampling, and monitoring activities, and maintain the grounds.

Maintenance of the grounds includes providing a firebreak along all of the fence lines of the owned property. In

addition, the Hardage Site is equipped with emergency call-out capabilities that notify the onsite technician of any site

related emergency, e.g., break-in, fire, leaks, etc., after normal working hours. The onsite technicians assess the

situation and call the first responders if the situation requires their presence at the Hardage Site.

5. Have there been any significant changes in the O&M requirements, maintenance schedules, or sampling

routines since start-up or in the last five years? If so, do they affect the protectiveness or effectiveness of the

remedy?

Any changes to the O&M requirements are the result of improving sampling activities (i.e., from bailing to the use of

passive diffusion bags), monitoring activities (i.e., measuring liquid levels in the mounds only during load outs), and

treatment processes (i.e., replacing the water treatment plant with the PAS). The changes continue to maintain the

remedy’s overall protectiveness relative to treating groundwater and provide additional protectiveness for workers

during hands on O&M activities.

6. Have there been unexpected O&M difficulties or costs at the site since start-up or in the last five years?

Not over the last five years. However, in 1996, shortly after start-up, seeps in the Northwest Borrow Area (as described

earlier) were observed and, following testing and coordination with EPA and ODEQ a plan to monitor the water quality

in the Northwest Borrow Area was implemented.

7. Have there been opportunities to optimize O&M, or sampling efforts? Please describe changes and resultant or

desired cost savings or improved efficiency.

As previously mentioned, the opportunity to include the PAS as a permanent remedy component has been realized.

This system provides all the protectiveness of the original water treatment plant while increasing the efficiency with

which groundwater is treated, reducing the overall carbon footprint of the remedy, reducing energy consumption, and

eliminating the need for expensive water treatment chemicals. The HSRC continues to evaluate opportunities to

optimize O&M activities and sampling efforts without compromising the protectiveness of the remedy. During the last

5-year interval, the Site-related VOC concentrations in the Stratum III groundwater (previously captured by the

SWWRS remedy component) continue to be below the flow-weighted average (FWA) VOC concentration limits of 100

ppb and 150 ppb. This meets the natural attenuation requirements, allowing this remedy component to remain idle.

8. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the project?

The Hardage Site Remedy Corp (HSRC), the organization implementing the remedy at the Hardage Site, appreciates

the proactive, cooperative teamwork and insights that Mike Hebert, EPA RPM, and Hal Cantwell, ODEQ RPM, have

provided over the years to streamline operational aspects of the remedy. This has allowed a significant reduction in

the site-wide energy consumption and carbon footprint and has made the remedy more cost-effective, all without

compromising the protectiveness of the remedy. The HSRC will continue its conscientious operation, maintenance, and

performance monitoring of the remedy at the Hardage Site.

47

INTERVIEW RECORD


Location: Criner, McClain County, Oklahoma Date: 10/05/2016

Contact Made By:

Name: Chanh Le Title: Environmental Programs Specialist

Organization: DEQ


Name: Michael Hebert Title: Remedial Project Manager Organization: EPA

Telephone No: (214) 665-8315

E-Mail Address: [email protected] Street Address: 1445 Ross Ave, Suite 1200

City, State, Zip: Dallas, TX 75202

48

Summary Of Conversation


Operation and Maintenance activities have been performed routinely over the past 5 years with no significant problems.

2. Is the remedy functioning as expected? How well is the remedy performing?

The Court ordered remedy has functioned as expected in the last 5 years. The V-Trench Recovery System and the Mounds Liquid Recovery System continue to recover contamination from the composite cap area. Consistent with the Monitored Natural Attenuation component of the Court-Ordered Remedy, the analytical results indicate total VOCs in the NCC alluvial system have decreased in the last 5 year period.

3. What does the monitoring data show? Are there any trends that show

contaminant levels are decreasing?

V-Trench Influent VOC concentrations have varied with no real discernable trend as in the last 5 year period. Consistent with the Monitored Natural Attenuation component of the Court-Ordered Remedy, the analytical results indicate total VOCs in the NCC alluvial system have decreased in the last 5 year period.

4. Is there a continuous on-site O&M presence? If so, please describe staff and

activities. If there is not a continuous on-site presence, describe staff and

frequency of site inspections and activities.

The Hardage Steering Committee and the Hardage Site Remediation Corp. have consultants that maintain a continuous on-site presence during regular working hours. The Programmable Logic Controller which monitors the site’s remedial systems has a

remote notification system to alert staff to upsets in the system operations when staff is not on-site.

5. Have there been any significant changes in the O&M requirements, maintenance

schedules, or sampling routines since start-up or in the last five years? If so, do

they affect the protectiveness or effectiveness of the remedy? Please describe

changes and impacts.

None of the following O&M changes affect the protectiveness of the remedy:

March 2013 – Samples were discontinued from the phytoremediation area

2014 – The PLC system was upgraded

2014 – The Water Treatment Plant was decommissioned

2014 – A mechanical integrity test was performed on the injection well

2014 – Maintenance was performed on the PLRS pumps – some pumps were replaced

2014 – New carbon canisters were installed on the PLRS air treatment systems 49

mhebert

Line

mhebert

Line

INTERVIEW RECORD


Location: Criner, McClain County, Oklahoma Date: March 31, 2017

Contact Made By:

Name: Chanh Le Title: Environmental Programs

Specialist

Organization: DEQ


Name: Dick E. Vinson Title: citizen Organization: n/a

Telephone No: -

E-Mail Address: -

Street Address: -

City, State, Zip: -

1. What is your overall impression of the project? (general sentiment) A lot better.

2. What effects have site operations had on the surrounding community?

At first every one was pretty happy because I was helping with the trees around the area.

3. Are you aware of any community concerns regarding the site or its operation and

administration? If so, please give details. None

4. Are you aware of any events, incidents, or activities at the site such as vandalism,

trespassing, or emergency responses from local authorities? If so, please give details.

None 5. Do you feel well informed about the site’s activities and progress? Yes. I get a letter every November concerning the wells on my property.

6. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site’s

management or operation? They do not let anybody on the tree area in front of the site. It’s a fire hazard right now without someone taking care of the area or raising cattle on it.

Originally I had it on record about what I could and could not do on the land that I was

originally working on when I agreed to clean it up. I helped keep trespassers out. I was okayed

to lay wheat and fertilize the ground. I was told that as long as I took care of the land I could

raise cattle on it. I was using a certain spray on the land and everybody knew about it, but one

day they came out and told me I couldn’t use it and kicked me off the land.

50