TEXAs DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESO1700 N. Congress Avenue

Austin, Texas

TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARJDLoui* A. Beecherl, Jr., ChairmanGeorge W. McCleskey, Vice ChairmanGlen E. RoneyLonnie AT^Bo" PilgrimLouie WelchStuart S. Coleman

Charles E. NemirExecutive Director

July 16, 1985

TippleFaulds'

TEXAS WATER COMMISSIONPaul Hopkins, ChairmanLee B. M. BiggartRalph Romin

FILMEDE 7 i* •'

SYSTEM 200

Ms. Bonnie Uevos , ChiefState Proyrams Sect ionU. S. Environmental Protection AyencyRegion VIlk!Ul Elm StreetDa' . las , Texas 7S27UAttention: Ms. Carlene ChambersDear Ms. Uevos:He: Mult i-Site Cooperative Ayreement (MSCA) ; VOU6461-01Crystal City AirportP l ea s e f ind enclosed a draft work scope we have prepared for the contractualpnase of tne Kernedial Invest1yat1on and Feasibil ity Study for the CrystalCUy Airport site. This work scope 1s essent ia l ly a sampling plan outlinewhich has been prepared for costing and scoping purposes. Also, the Chaln-of-Custody, Quality Assurance/Quality Control, and Safety requirements areappl icable pursuant to our MSCA assurances.If you have any quest ions, please feel fr«e to call me or lireg Tipple at512/463-7727.Sincerely,

CMooo

Charles ft. Faulds, P.E . , HeadSuperfund UnitSolid Waste and Spill Response SectionGT:bfEnclosurecc: Mr. Russell Bartley, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

000051

P.O. Box 13087 Capitol Stttion • Austin, Texu 78711 • Area Code 512/463-7847 1836.1986

TEXAS WATER COMMISSION

WORK SCOPE AND CUST ESTIMATEFOR THEREMEDIAL INVESTIGATION AND

FEAS IB IL ITY STUDIES

CRYSTAL C I T Y AIRPORTSUPERFUND SITE:ZAVALA COUNTY, TEXAS

Prepared by:Martyn TurnerGreg Tipple

Fina l Report - October, 1985

CMooo

FILMED085

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 .0 Introduct ion2.0 Background Information3.0 S i t e Invest igat ions4.0 Waste Character i za t ion5.0 Remedial Invest igations and Feas ib i l i ty StudiesWork Scope6.0 Schedule7.0 RI/FS Cost8.0 References

PAGE11111212

222429

F IGURES1234566A7

891011

Topograph ic Map, Crystal CityGeo log i c Map of Por t i on s of Zava l a and DlmmitCount ies , TexasApproximate Depth to and Alt i tude of the Top of theCarr lzo AquiferHydrogeologlc Cross Sect ion ,Eas t -Wes tHydrogeologlc Cross Sect ion,North-SouthSo i l MapExplanat ionSo i l Sample(mg/ky) forRemoval ActionSuggested Locations for Intermediate (up to 180 feet)BoringsSuggested LocationsSuggested LocationsRI/FS Flow Process

Locat ions and Concentrat ion MeasurementsSamples Col lected after November, 1983

forfor Shal low (up to 50 feet) BoringsSurHcla l (3 1 to 5' ) Borings

23578910

14

17181923

ooo

TABLES1 Water Bearing Character i s t i c s of the Clafborne andWll cox Groups2 Summary of Events of the Crystal City AirportSuperfund Site3 Work Scope Cost Estimate and Schedule4 State Cost Estimatt5 Cost Estimate Site Investigation, Sampling Plan6 Cost Estimate Site Invest igat ion, Analyses

1325262728

SCOPE OF WORKCRYSTAL CITY AIRPORT SUPERFUND PROJECT

TEXAS HATF.R COMMISSION

1 .0 INTRODUCTIONThis document wil l descr ibe the background Information pertinent to theCrystal City Airport (CCA) Superfund s1t« located 1n Crystal City,Texas . It wil l a l so detai l the estimated costs required to completethe Remedial Invest igat ion (R I ) and Feas ib i l i ty Studies (FS ) . Alongwith the cost est imate, a schedule 1s Included for each spec if ic task .

2.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION2. 1 Locat ionThe Crystal City Airport Superfund Site 1s located 1n Zava la County,Texas on the east side of Crystal City. The airport 1s located 1n~Figure 1, Topographic map, Crystal City. The area within the sites lopes gently with maximum and minimum e levat ions of approximately 6 1 0 'mean sea level (MSI. . ) and 560 1 MSL, respectively.2 .2 GeologyThe surf l c la l sed iments at the CCA site cons i s t of cont inenta l depos i t sof the El Plco Clay as I l l u s trated 1n the Geolog i c Map, Figure 2. Indecend lng order, the geologic units below the El Plco Clay Include theClalborne and Wl l cox Groups. The sediments of the Wl l cox and Cla lborneGroups cons i s t of mar ine and cont inenta l depos its of clay, cross-bedded r iver sand, beach sand, s i lt , and l ignite. For the purposes ofthis report, the W l l c o x Group 1s not discussed because 1t underl ies theClalborne Group and 1s not expected to be contaminated because of Usdepth.The Clalborne Group 1s divided Into the El P1co Clay, the BlgfordFormation and the Carr lzo Sand. Each unit 1s discussed Individuallybelow. •

* El Pko Clay, 0-2U0 1 +_ (Tertiary)The El Plco Clay 1s present at the surface with in the study area.It consists of clay with Interbedded sandstone, claystone andl ign ite lenses.

* Blgford Formation, 20U' £ - 770 ' +. (Tertiary)The Blgford Formation underl ies the El Pico Clay and consists ofsand with Interbedded shale and silt. Plant remains are abundant.

r-cvjooo

i. ToraotAPHie HV, CRTSTM. CITT.««TAI em w^ArAt, M19/c i J

r---

ooo

Mft <

Fluviatil* trrrac* drpoxiU

Hal

£T-5\ V--

\ Uv^SflH Cook Mountain Formation. Sparta Sand.Laredo Formation

. ..l Weche* Form«l'on. Q"««n City Sand. D Pico Clay

"ViM

Rgford Format ion

Canizo Sand

EiIndio Formation

Kincaid Formation

FIGURE 2. GEOLOGIC MAP OF PORTIONS OF ZAYALA AND DIMMIT COUNTIES, TEXAS.(SOURCE GEOLOGIC ATLAS OF TEXAS, 1976) ' 0 0 0 2 7 8

* Carr lzo Sand, 770 ' +_ - ? (Tertiary)The Carr l zo sand underl ies the Bigford Formation and cons ists ofmass ive , cross-bedded, coarse to fine sand with a few partings ofcarbonaceous clay. K n.m»a ui

Crystal City l ies with in the Nueces P la i n s physiographic province.Structural ly , It 1s located on the southwestern flank of the ZavaiaSyncllne *hich trends northwest-southeast, as i l lustrated in Figure 3This Figure shows that fault ing 1s located In the area surroundingn/5J £ ? and penetrates the Carr lzo horizon. However, no fault ingof th is horizon is noted near the CCA site. o«inng2.3 HydrologyIn the vic in i ty of the CCA s i te , several fresh water sands are present-however, the Carr i zo Sand is considered the pr inc ipal aqu ifer with inthe area. Table 1 summarizes the water bearing character i s t i cs of thegeologic units with in the area.According to Texas Water Commiss ion records there are approximately 30water we l l s wi th in » 2 mi le radius of the study area. Hydrogeologtccross sect ions , Figures 4 and 5, were constructed from dr i l lers ' logslocated In and around the area surrounding Crystal City. Water wel l swhich were used to construct the cross sect ions are located on theTopographic Map, Figure 1. Interpreted water bearing zones with in thearea are summarized below.Approximate depth* 2U0 1 - 225 '

* 300' - 360'

* 430' - 450'

* 770 ' - ?

2.4 Pedology

Descr ipt ionBigford Format ion, sand, len-t i cu lar , not areally extens iveBigford Format ion , sand, areal lyextens ive, shale from 320' • 340'Bigford Formation, sand, len-t icular, not areally extens iveCarr l zo Sand, 'pr inc ipa laquifer In the area, areallyextens ive

The soi ls within the approximate boundaries of the CCA site Include theSl!r Sn/lneAa!!dyuloam ,(MA)! Cr?stal f1n« land* 1oam <CF ) , Monteolaclay (MO), and the Monteola clay loam (MM), , The location of the soi lsare Illustrated In Fllgure 6, Soil Map with an Explanation In Figure6A. A description of each soil 1s provided below.

ONr-c\jooo

HOVg*****

OYSTAL CITY AIRPORT SUPLVUMO SITE

^-^-^'^^^^^^^K^^^^.'if^-'-.." ' ""—""*̂

(SOURCE: KLEMT, WILLIAM B.. ET AL. 1981 . )

FIGURE 3App rox ima t e Dep t h to and Al t i t ude of the

: rO"0"02^"A u A q u i f e r

V^Mld. in gallon* per minut* : nn»ll. lea th«n 50; moder «t*. 50 to 500; Uroe. over 500.Salinity (total dbsotmd toUdt). in milligrams ptt liUr: fmh. ttn than 1.000: il^Uy ialin«. 1.000 to 3.000: moderately ulint. 3.000 to 10.000; very saline. 10.000 to

35.000: brine, over 35.000.

SYSTEM

TvrMnr

«

SERIES

Conn*

GROW*

Cle-txvne

vnce*

GEOLOGIC UNIT

Vegua Formation

teredoFormation

ttrXcoC>«r

•••toraFormenon

CookMount**

SM*USend

WfecweeFormationOmanC.r,S*V3

N««I«OTFo*"»«r»o«

CarruoSand

APPROXIMATETHICKNESS

(FT)

TOO-I.OOO.

600-

TflO-1.50O

30»9OO

«oo&00«o-200

soTOO500I.4OO

200-«oo

IM-1.2OO

0-3JMO

CHARACTER OF ROCKS

C!s*. Ws »»=»! «:s?S>«SSiS S^H^ KS :̂«S s-d»*no«TOi%«m^ So*̂ « m*rxK D*dl o* lKn»«ion« *ndov»t*^ trtvitt BYV *ov.n3.

ClauconttK ufx) *nacl»y. So«n« 9vP«*'«*ov«cl»» end impure!w»«ftO*>«&.

O«V wrlth *AWf>«tfd«4«**̂ tf«lon*«. cl»y«tOM*«.and l»0nit* co*l t***9%.

S*nd« MMtn int«»b.O43«d••lit »«m «tva«̂ «. Plantr«m«in« •>• «t««x)»nt.

Co«f«« to f*n« aan<». m*«f*M »wtH>ti ol carbonccx

Fot»>l»fafOu« cfav andOalt Sont* inter-b*M«d urxnton* andlin<«no««.Madivnt to tin* tand.Som* tnt*rb«><>»a CUT.

Foi«tl>f*rou*. fiauco-mne in»i« and tand.MMKX. m«d>um to f>n«>»Kl oitn int>ro«d<9*delr> and <naM.

(iMKonittc Mno.

owaOav.

b«M •* U«n«i«. TTw tftaM on« ctar »w~rHovwc*ntwn a>o>urM.

WATER-BEARING PROPERTIESYields Sf**£*i Qu£n**<»M •• fliohtlv to maa»r»talw

Vlcldt »malt tomodwat* quantum o'fratit to modarataivUlm* »«iar to wntlt

Y'Ctftl tmaH auantito*of tlifnthr to mod**at«lv malm* «>ata« to«»»!.

Vtald* wn«n to modar-at* ouantitxt ol «'•»"to vary taltn* wata> totmtl*.

Yield! tmall quantitmol «l'a <̂l» to moder-ately talma water towellvYield* xnall to moder-ate Quantities of fr»«r»to moderately talinewater to well*.Not known to Yieldwater to welt*.v»eiot ftm»ll to moder-ate ouentit*e« of fretnis >:.ii.~"!:y »;••-.£ f,»\fsto went.Yield! •">•»! quantitM*ol tligntiv to moder-ately taline water tow*u< in of near tneoutcrop.

Principal aouilar m lt>» report araa. Vtaldimoderate to lar«e qvantitie* of <retn to «li»t>rr»•ellne •»•»•» t« well*.View* tmeN t» maderat* ejuanrttle* o» fretfi toet<o*t«v aailxa weter to n»etia M% in* norrnern and»»»ieu» atarn of «na rfoort eree.

CoTABLE 1. WATER BEARING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CLAIBORNE AND WILCOX GROUPS.(SOURCE: KLEMT, WILLIAM B., ET AL, 1981 . )

it i 0 0 0 2 8 - 1

ClttSTHi CITt MWORTSITE

200 __

>oo _

—300.

— 300 _

EAST77-18-604

BIGFORD FORMATION.————•

^ WATER SAND 1 SHALE

U.M5-

CARRIZO SANDPRINCIPAL AQUIFER

TO 940*

10OO FT TO 1070*FIGURE 4. HYDROGEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION, WEST-EAST.

0 0 0 2 8 2 '

pk"'»|iiS|ihJ

tarsi*, cm M8POWSUPWRSO SITE

a PICO CLAY

3IGFCRD FORMATION

CARRIZO SANDPRINCIPAL AQUIFER1is t«r

HGURE 5. HYDROGEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION. NORTH-SOUTH.TO Itjtf

0 0 0 2 8 3

i££i~3c7 ;i 7r*SCSr7 \v/

FIGURE 6. SOIL flAP. (SOURCE: SMITH ET AL, 1940)

1 0 0 0 2 8 4

LEGEND

Hrennan ' Msvrrirkloamy fine sand fine randy loam

tryCMooO

FIGURE 6A. EXPLANATION. (SMITH, FT AL, 1940}

Maver i ck f ine sandy loam - This soil is one of the widely distr ibutedbrown sandy so i I s of the extreme western part of the Rio Grande pla in .From 0 to 10 inches below the surface, it cons ists of grayish-brownfine sandy loam, which is calcareous in most places . From 10 toapproximately 26 to 30 inches, it grades to light grayish-brown oryel low-brown crumbly calcareous clay or fine sandy clay. At a depth of26 to 30 inches , 1t passes into highly calcareous l ight-gray oryel lowish-gray fine sandy clay conta in ing soft and hard concret ions andclumps of d i s in tegrated calcareous sandstone. In some small flatareas , the subsoi l is a very heavy calcareous clay.Crystal f ine sandy loam - From a depth of 0 to approximately 12i nches , this soi l cons ists of brown or slightly reddish brown finesandy loam. It grades into brown or sl ightly reddish brown fine sandyloam or f ine sandy clay loam. Below a depth of. 30 inches, it passesinto yellow-brown calcareous fine sandy clay contain ing concretions ofcalc ium carbonate,, Below a depth of 6 to 8 feet, this material restson weathered sandstone . This soi l does not contain much organic matterand the upper hor izons are neutral or sl ightly acid ic .Monteola clay - From 0 to approximately 10 Inches , the Monteola claycons i s t s of dark-gray or black calcareous heavy clay, which 1s veryp last i c and tenacious when wet but separates natural ly into coarsegra ins and f ine irregular clods on drying. At a depth of approximately10 inches this unit grades Into grayish-brown heavy calcareous clayconta in i ng below a depth of 20 inches , some yel low spots and fine whiteconcret ions . At a depth of 28 inches, this mater ia l grades Into a unitwhich is 1 to 2 feet th ick , l ight yel lowish-brown or brownish-graycalcareous crumbly clay with ca lc ium carbonate concret ions. This unitover l i e s a yel lowish-brown calcareous clay or shaley clay whichcontains some soft, part ic les of gypsum and few segregated particles ofca lc ium carbonate,,Monteo la clay loam - The Monteola clay loam' s prof i l e 1s s imi lar to theMonteola clay except that the surface soil is less heavi ly textured.The surface soil is black or dark-gray calcareous clay loam andaverages approximately 10 Inches thick. In some areas, the contactbetween the surface soil and subsoil 1s wavy. The subsoil consists ofdark-gray calcareous clay grading Into yel lowish-gray compact and denseclay below a depth of 20 Inches. At a depth of approximately 30inches, this unit grades Into a l ight yel lowish-brown calcareous clayconta in ing some concret ions of ca lc ium carbonate and part ic les ofgypsum. At 50 Inches and below, this material becomes yel low shaleyclay contain ing fragments of gypsum.

3.0 SITE INVESTIGATIONS • *

On April 25, 1983 , the Texas Department of Water Resources * Distr ict 8Off i ce , responded to a telephone call from the Central Off i ceconcerning an abandoned chemical site at the CCA. During the Init ialInvestigation, 1t was determined that the contamination at CCA was

COCMOOO

caused by careless practices of pest control bus inesses operating outof CCA. These businesses Include Frank ' s Crop Dust ing Service, CrystalSpraying Service and Si lver Dol lar Pest Contro l . Both Crystal Sprayingand Si lver Dol lar Pest Control went out of bus iness sometime duringlate 1980 . Frank ' s Crop Dust ing Service went bankrupt 1n late 1982.Since the Init ial Invest igat ion by Distr i c t 8, several follow upi nvest igat ions have occurred. These events are summarized 1n Table 2.4.0 WASTE CHARACTERIZATION

The In i t ia l f ie ld Invest igat ion for the CCA site was conducted on Apri l25, 1983 . Since then, several sampl ing events have occurred before andafter the removal act ion conducted 1n November, 1983 . Figure 7Ind icates the locat ions and selected concentrat ion measurements forsamples col lected after the November, 1983 removal action.Contaminants found with in the CCA site Include the fol lowing:

Toxaphenep ,p ' DOTo,p ' DOTp,p ' DDEp,p ' ODD4 , 4 ' DDE4 , 4 ' DDT4 , 4 ' ODDD1-n-Buty l Phtha lateEthyl Parath lonAlpha ChlordaneBeta ChlordaneDEFOctach lorod lbenzo-d lox lnPhenanthreneAnthraceneFluoranthenePyreneo,p' ODDo,p ' DDEENPB-BHCTerbutryn

Atraz lneDl su l fo tonBeta BMCDle ldr l nEndr lnEndMn AldehydeHexachlorobenzeneMethyl Parath lonB1s- (2-Ethy l h exy 1JPhtha l a t eDacon l lDacthal2,4-Dlch loron l tro-phenoxy benzeneSevlnp-n1trophenolTetrachlorophenolBenz (A) AnthraceneChrysenePentachlorophenolCycloateNltrofenCarbarylEndusu lfan IDC PA

00CMOOO

5.0 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION AND FEAS IB IL ITY STUDIES WORK SCOPEThe Remedial Investigation will determine the nature and extent of theproblem at the Cry still City Superfund Site and wil l gather all thenecessary Information to support the Feasib i l i ty Study. TheFeasib i l i ty Study 1n turn will develop and evaluate remedialalternatives for the site.

TABLE 2SUtftttRY OF EVENTS OF THE CRYSTAL CITY AIRPORT SUPERFUND SITE

DATE1. 04/25/83

2. 06/13/83

3. 05/05/83

4. 06/21/83

AGENCYTDWRDistrict 8TDWR - E4FOEPA - TAT

TDWRDistrict 8EPATDWR

EVENT/ACTIONInitial investigation-composite soil samples obtained from areas A,B, C & D.

Sampling - 4 soil samples taken where apparent drainage pattern from areas of contair^natioiintersect airport boundaries, 2 soil samples from dirt road, 1 soil sample from the nearbyschoolyard, 1 water well, 1 open drum.Site Vis it . Determination of approximate area of contamination. jffr

Site Visit. Onsite observations.

5. 07/23/83

6. 10/31/8311/04/83

7. 12/15/83

8. 02/14/84

EPA

EPA

TDWRDistrict 8TDWRTACB

Soil Sampling - 33 soil samples taken from sites 1 (Areas ASB), 2 (Area C) and3 (Area D).Removal - Soil and Drums were placed in trenches.

Sampling - 4 composite soil samples from areas A, B, & C.

Sampling - 17 soil samples, air samples at the site and nearby school.

9. 03/29/84*

10. 03/29/8411. 04/17/84

04/25/8412. 08/20/85

TDWRE&FOEPACrystal CityEPA••TDWREPA

Sampling - 1 representative sample from Area C.

6 soil samples collected.Removal - Repaired erosion gull ies, built fence, removed contaminated soil anddrums offsite. 'Site visit to determine level of effort.

: 0 0 0 2 8 8

The fol lowing sect ion wil l provide an outl ine of the work scope for theRI/FS . The work scope closely follows the tasks l isted 1n the ModelStatement of Work for Conducting Remedial Invest igat ions andFeas ib i l i ty Studies.5.1 Remedial Invest igat ion Work ScopeThe Remedial Invest igat ion wil l be conducted 1n a Phase I and, 1fnecessary, a Phase It. Phase I 1s Intended to collect suff ic ient datato def ine the area! and vertical extent of contamination. The Phase IScope of Work has been tai lored based upon avai lab le data toInvest igate expected condit ions at the site. Addit ional Informationperta in ing to Task 3 - Site Invest igat ion for Phase I 1s providedbelow. The additional work of Phase II will be required, 1f the PhaseI work 1s Inconclus ive or 1f hazardous substances are found In areas orat depths now thought to be free of contaminat ion. A work scope 1s notprovided for Phase II s ince 1t 1s not feasible to predict the manner 1nwhich actual condit ions wil l depart from expected condit ions .Task 1 - Descr ip t i on of Current Situat ion

a. Site backgroundb. Nature and extent of problemc. History of Response Act ionsd . Si te V i s i te. Def i ne Boundary Cond i t i onsf . S i t e mapg. Site off i ceTask 2 - Plans and Management

a. Sampl ing and QA/QC Planb. Health and Safety Planc. Data Management PlanTask 3 - Site Invest igat ion

a. Waste CharacterizationA sampl ing and analysis program wil l be conducted tocharacterize all materia ls of Interest at the s ite. Theprogram wi l l determine the physical (mobi l i ty, vapor izat ion,etc . ) and chemical properties of the contaminants as well asthe lateral and vertical extent of contamination. Fieldscreening techniques will be used (If avai lable) to Identifysamples that do not require off-site laboratory analysis.Quality assurance and quality control will be maintained anddocumented along with cha1n-of-custody.If on-slte screening 1s not available or providesInconclusive Information, then laboratory chemical analyseswill be performed on those collected samples likely to

orCMOOO

contain contaminat ion from the surface to the total depth ofthe bor ing . Samples col lected from a boring shal l beanalyzed s tar t ing with the surface sample and proceeding toprogressively deeper samples. Those samples more than aspec i f i ed Interval below the last contaminated sample wi l lnot be tested dur ing the Phase I Invest igat ion . Suchcol lected samples not subjected to chemical analys is wil l beproperly stored for possible testing at a later date, Ifwarranted.b. Hydrogeologlc Inves t igat ion

The hydrogeologlc Invest igat ion wil l determine whether groundwater contaminat ion ex i s t s at the s i te . The ground waterInvest igat ion wi l l a l so aid 1n evaluat ing the su i tab i l i ty ofthe site for the on-slte landf i l l s constructed dur ing theremoval operation and for potent ia l future on-s1 te wasteconta inment ; . A total of 4 onslttt monitor wel l s wi l l bedr i l led and completed Into the uppermost water bear ing sand.The locat ion, depth, and completion Interval (maximum TD pf230 feet) wi l l be determined from the results of theIntermediate bor ings . One monitor well wi l l be constructedoffs l t e and upgradlent to determine background water and soi lcond i t ions , The off s l t e monitor well should be located 1n anarea s im i l a r to the CCA site ( I . e . , topographical ly andgeo log ica l ly) .

c . So i l s and Sediment Inves t i ga t ionThe object ive of the CCA so i l s and sediment Inves t igat ion 1sto def i ne 1n a cost e f fe c t i ve manner the areal and lateralextent of contaminated so i l s w i th i n the study area. In orderto accompl ish th i s , Intermediate, shal low, and surflclalbor ings are proposed so that If all of the boring locat ionsare superimposed, a grid pattern 1s formed. Since theava i lab le Information suggests that contamination Is mostlikely restricted to near surface sediments, the samplingscheme Is weighted heavi ly toward the surflc lal (3 to 5 feet)borings. Progress ive ly fewer and more widely spaced boringsare spec if ied for the sha l low (TD of 50 feet) andIntermediate (Tl) of 180 feet) depths. Avai lable Informationalso suggests that pest ic ide res idues may be dispersed alonglocal draHnageways and poss ibly other areas beyond the areaproposed for Invest igat ion by the surf lc la l borings .Surflclal soil samples are planned to further Investigatethis poss ib i l i ty . Figures 8, 9 and 10 show the suggestedlocation of the Intermediate, shal low, and surflclal borings,respectively. Each figure Is discussed Individually below.Figure B ihows the suggested locations for the Intermediate

ONCMOOO

16

.iMltl|»';3€|iKi:l*«^SS.!*SSB»il I

Suggested Locations for Intermediate(up to 180 feet) Borings

A -- -CNSITL LAHUVFILL LOCATION

FIGURE 8 0 0 0 2 9 2

investigation - Phase ISuggested Locations for Shallow(up to 50 feet) Borings

»•«• ••«••

1

A - ~

C9

GNSITE LANDFILL LOCATION

FIGURE 9 } 0 0 0 2 9 3

Oco c ro -s-to 3 <<CQ rorf O) CL «-cO rt- DJ —•cn ro —>-CL O

borings (up to 18U feet) . Depending on the avai lab i l i ty ofappropr iate f ie ld screening techniques and subsequentanalyt ica l results of the samples from the surfldal andsha l low bor ings , sampl ing to a depth of 180' may or may notbe required. This dec i s ion cannot be made unti l f ie ldact iv i t i e s are underway; therefore, f ive Intermediate bor ingsare Included In the Phase I work scope. The three bor ingslocated In the southern and southwestern port ion of the CCAare s ited 1n the areas where the highest concentrat ion ofsurface contaminat ion was found. These bor ings wi l l serve todetermine whether deep migrat ion of contaminants hasoccurred,, The two borings located In the northern portion ofthe study area are sited to provide l lthologlc Information 1nthe vic in ity of the two landf i l l s constructed dur ing theremoval operat ion . All of these Intermediate borings wi l lserve to provide l l tholoylc Informat ion to evaluate the on-s lte d isposa l a l ternat ive .Figure 9 shows the suggested locat ions for the sha l lowbor ings (TD of 50 fee t ) . These bor ings are located general ly1n areas where the highest concentrat ions of contaminantswere found. The bor ings are s i ted to provide data on thepotent ia l for vert i ca l m ig ra t i on of contaminat ion below the 5foot depth of the surf lda l bor ings . The 50 foot boringswi l l be taken f i r s t . If no contamination Is found at thatdepth, then the 180 foot bor ings w i l l not be dr i l l ed . Thefunds for the 180 foot borings wi l l be a l located foradd i t iona l sha l lower samples and/or chemical analyses .Figure 10 shows the suggested locat ions for the surf lc la lbor ings (TD of 5 feet ) . These bor ings are located throughoutthe s ite where var ious concentrat ions of contaminants werefound. The surf ldal soi l samples mentioned above are notspec i f i ca l ly located on a f igure but wi l l be col lectedwhenever necessary, as determined 1n the f ie ld, to determinethe extent of the d i s t r i bu t i on of pest i c ide res idues at thes i te by surface water or w ind .Throughout the soil and sediment Invest igat ion and especial lywhenever the Intermediate and shal low borings are dr i l leddirectly through highly contaminated surface soi ls , specialprecautions w i l l be taken to prevent any cross-contaminat ionof upper and lower strata. These may Include, but are notl imited to the Insta l lat ion of surface casing, decontamina-tion of cirll l lny equipment between bortngs, and changing ofdr i l l ing fluids between highly contaminated shal low zones anddeeper zones. The number of soil and sediment samples w i l t "range from a minimum of 350 to a maximum of 465.

d. Surface Mater InvestigationThe surface water invest igat ion wil l determine the extent ofcontamination, if any, of the Espantosa Slough located to

NOVS

inoc\jooo

20Q

east of the study area . Up to 10 surface runoff and up to10 stream sediment samples wi l l be obtained. Samplelocat ions are to be determined.e . Air Invest igat ion

An air Invest igat ion wi l l be conducted to determine theextent,, if any, of atmospheric contaminat ion present at theCAA site. Previous f ie ld Invest igat ions have noted odorswith in the site. The structure located onslte wil l besampled to determine the presence of contaminants . The typesof samples may Include a ir , dust , and soils.A1r monitor ing 1s necessary to evaluate the no actiona l ternat ive . Cons iderat ion wi l l a lso be given to thepotent ia l for part lcu late emiss ion of contaminated so i l sdur ing sampl ing and dr i l l i ng in order to evaluate the r isksassoc iated with construct ion.The locat ion for the air samp l i ng stat ions are to be -determined . Factors which may Inf luence the locat ions of thea ir samp l i ng stat ions Include temperature, wind d irect ion ,and locat ion of relevant fie ld act iv i t i e s .

Task 4 - Site Inves t i ga t ion Ana ly s i sTask 5 - Laboratory and Bench Sca le Stud iesTask 6 - Reports

a. Progress Reportsb. F i n a l Report5.2 Fea s i b i l i t y Study Work ScopeThe results from the remedial i nves t i ga t ion wi l l be used to develop andeva luate remedial a l t ernat ives for the CCA s i te . A reasonable numberof a l ternat ives wi l l be developed Inc lud ing :

* Off- s i t e tr«atment or disposal .* Alternat ives which atta in appl i cab le and/or relevant Federalpubl ic health or environmental standards .* Alternat ives which exceed appl icable and/or relevant publichealth or environmental standards, as appropriate. » •

* Alternat ives which do not attain applicable and/or relevantpubl ic health or environmental standards but wil l reduce thel ikel ihood of present or future threat from the hazardoussubstances. This must Include an alternative which most closelyapproaches the level of protection provided by the applicableor relevant standards. • A/A..OVs

21

vOONCMOOO

* No act ion.The scope to deve lop and evaluate these a l ternat ives Includes thefo l l ow ing :Task 8 - Descr ip t i on of Current Situat ionTask 9 - Pre l iminary Remedial TechnologiesTask 1U- Development of Alternat ives

a. Estab l i shment of Remedial Response Object ivesb. Ident if icat ion of Remedial Alternatives

Task 1 1- In i t ia l Screen ing of Alternat ivesa. Techn i ca l Analys i sb . Env ironmenta l Analys i sc . Pub l i c Health Analys i sd. In s t i tu t iona l Analys i se. Cost Analys i sf . Eva luat ion of Cos t -Eff e c t i v e Alternat ive s

Task 13 - Pre l im inary ReportTask 14 - Fina l Report

6.0 SCHEDULEThe Remedial Invest igat ion and Feas ib i l i ty Stud ie s wi l l be conductedconcurrently. FHyure 11 Is a general ized flow chart of the RemedialInvest igat ion and Feas ib i l i ty Studies process , I l lus trat ing theInterdependence and concurrence of tasks to be performed 1n theRemedial Invest igat ion and Feas ib i l i ty Studies . The boxed numberscorrespond to each task l isted In Sect ions 5.1 and 5 .2 . In add i t i on ,mi lestones and spec i f i c reports which w i l l be required are Ident i f i ed .

r-ONCMOOO

Figure l l .RI/FS Process

"RAtltlUTtITVIOT

1

1

> (

J ' Ii4 : »

• M

«Li Jwijonwxxn Oocumcni

11

{SOW lo>

i»»«

«

*Fn*l Rl

>Bl

11

KXfl

(•Y]*«9<

r

• n|"

( 1XXII

M •*

0» OCCo*HIQl

F*\j| RcixxlNMM ol PKX»X« Dull FS o. f>nfS RKXMI

« udy

CERClAM<xu< Si

In* F««GuOKKt

SluOw Unow CERClA

CH I lnt>cx>ucm»

Tiva ̂ £ ol FropoMd l*t«OOni«CH) Sxnc

CH 4 • DIM MciteenMni I

CH 4 - H«tHh MV) S*l*lr ^Uorang lot

CM*

CHT

CHI

CHS

O*v«lopin«nl ol A(lt

T.W »12

CH I EaKuliv*

CH 2 Do^top • "«"V« ol Rt»OTiAltar naiiws

CH 3 Cooduct >(V<IIKI««

CH 4CH S

CH S t«jlu«lf

CH / Coil

CH 8

CH J f«rK>*<f Sitx

s (SOURCE: GUIDANCE ON FEASIBILITY. 1985.)

1 0 0 0 2 9 8

7.0 PROJECT COSTTotal contractual and state project costs to complete Phase I andPhase II of the CCA Remedial Invest igat ion and the Feas ib i l i ty Studiesare est imated to be $700,000. Project costs for Phase I and II areest imated to be $556 ,044 and $ 1 4 3 , 9 5 6 , respectively. Phase II may berequired if the results of Phase I are inconc lus ive . If required,approva l wi l l be obtained from the EPA, Region VI prior to Phase IIproject In i t iat ion .Upon approval of th i s work plan, notice of request for proposals w i l loe posted for Phase I of the R I/FS . Table 3 provides a cost summaryfor Phase I and Phase II of the Remedial Invest igat ion and theFeas ib i l i ty Stud i e s . R I/FS Phase I State project costs are est imatedto be $85 ,394 and are i temized on Table 4. Deta i l ed cost est imates forthe sampl ing plan and assoc iated analyses for Phase I of the Remedia lI nves t igat ion are provided 1n Tables 5 and 6, respectively.

A summary of est imated costs is g iven below:* RI, Phase I contractual costs* FS, Phase I contractual costs* R I /FS , Phase I State costsSubtotal————•

ONOCMOoO

* R I /FS , Phase IIT o l a ' 1 "

$345 ,650$ 125 ,000

$85 ,3941556,044$ 1 4 3 , 9 5 6

171 )0,000

24

TABLE 3WORK SCOPE COST ESTIMATE AND SCHEDULE

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION, PHASE I

roen

Task No.1234567Subtotal

FEASIBILITY89

101112131415Subtotal

TOTAL Rl/FS,

Description of Task Contractual (S) State{$)Description of current situationPlans and ManagementSite InvestigationSite Investigation AnalysisLaboratory and bench-scale studies(liner compatibility)ReportCommunity Relations Support

345,650STUDIES

Description of Proposed ResponsePreliminary Remedial TechnologiesDevelopment of AlternativesInitial Screening of AlternativesEvaluation of AlternativesPreliminary ReportFinal ReportAdditional Requirements

125,000 85,394PHASE I ' 5556,044

•

Start(month)*00

2 1/2570

N/A

02 1/2

467911fcl 1 ftll/rt

12

Finish(month)1

2 1/257118

N/A

145791112N/A12"

months**

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION, PHASE II $143.956*

TOTAL 81/FS. PHASE I AND II J700.000*TWC approves and signs contract. ,** Assumptionso Does not include Remedial Investigation, Phase II.

o Contractor first draft subaittals will be reviewed by State and Federal Agenciesand returned to Contractor for revision within 2 weeks.o Contractor second draft subnittals wil l be granted approval wi tn in 2 weeks.0 0 0 3 0 0

109— no-« —111—— 112 ———

US—— Ill ———

1 15llfc-1 17

—— 1 IS ———11*• ^«-»I20~ "121

—— 1-22 ———123125 •

——— «* ———127

— — 12« ———129

,«. , J JJJ

131——— J-32 ———!>>» * "**•c* 133

1 J*

135137

——— 1-M ———13*

——— 1*0 ———1*11 *3—— 1%%-: —1*54 ̂ *T>1 *7"! * • - - - -1**

——— 150 ———151

-- 152 -- *153 •

- 15* -155

—— , ,mm 1 •?•

1571 1M15*1*1

——— **2 ———1*3

——— *•* ———

CRYSTAL CITY AIRPORT —RI/FS.PROPOSED REVIS ION*

A. PERSONNEL

TITLE• •" *

NTDPOLOGIST/ENC.HYDROLOCIST/ENC.PLANNER II————————————— tt€At-cte««— iv ——AOMIN. TECH. IV

———— ———————————————————— —— SECBETARY- IT I — -~

PHASE I

SALARY^

III 31tbO

IV 3*07031 *60 •

———————————— 363*8 —————237 12—— . . _ _ _ . —— 1%12* — ——

-- — ——

TASK

ADMINISTRATION AND——————— TECHNICAL— RE VIE1I

ADMIN ISTRAT ION AND——————— TECHNICAt-REVIEl*

COMMUNITY RELAT ION

FISCAL REV IEW

—— ---- —— -- —

_YEAR

0.6500.093

S 0,2790 . 186

—————————— Oi-186-

- - - - - - ' PiHiUNWtL LUiliFRINGE BENEFITS 9 0.2137

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —— - ———————— - ——— -IKOIREC-T COSTS ' a ———— OrS-ST*-————————— - ——— —— - —— - - - - -- - - - - - - - PERSONNEtnuBTOTALT

B. TRAVEL

TITLE^ , . .„ . , . _ . _ . _ _ . . . f>HRp°^E~ __ . , .. °L. TRIPS , RATEMYOROLOGIST/ENG. iv S ITE V IS ITS * COORDINAT ION WITH EPA.————— - ——— ——— - —————— HTOBOLOGIST/ENG.-III ———————— ON-SCCNE -COORDINATION— AND ————PI.AHXER II COMMUNITY RELAT IONS .

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— ADDITIONAL— f'lRSON-OATS— OF— PER- OIEH; ——

*

—————————————————— C» — COUIPftCNT —————————C. SUPPLIES —— — - — —E. - COWTRACTUAL- - —— -

• ————————————————— —fs — CO*S?*UC»IO«il ————————————————————————— 6.— OTHER ——— — ————————•t

— TO-BE— DETERMINED-. —————- SAFEIt SUPPLIESi —— —— ~ ** ri.H50M-u«TV 4 ———— -

EXECUTION OF: RI/FS, PHASE I———————— CMONC-! ——————————————————————-HI SCELLANEOUS- ALLOWABLE

TOTAL COST oF l CRYSTAL C ITY

i-EXPENSES^ ————————

AIRPORT ~ FE »S IB I L ITY

6 " 2001 2 2OQ

8 2 CO———— *S ——————— TO-

TRAVEL— SUB TOT A tr

50- - EACH:

STUD IES PHASE I

16 OCT B5

- —— ——————— — ———

COST " ' " —IDOLLARSI

207093 1 5 93573 ^^

———————— 1-6-M —— -"«- —%*0«

.. „._ •2.6^3"—————— * 1 *58 —————

8860- _2 2aO / 2

72390 ——— ——

COST12002*00 —————1600

. .. _ . -i 1 ̂ti— «350 flft-

^P

3502200 •—

0 '

" •2 ION

8 5 3 9 %

0 0 0 3 0 1

Description

TABLE 5COST ESTIMATE SITE INVESTIGATION, SAMPLING PLAN

PHASE IEstimated Unit

Estimated Quantity Price to Obtain Sample Estimated Cost ($)a.b.

c.

d.

e.f.

Waste characterizationHydrogeologic investigation* Monitor well installation* Ground water sampling* Public water supply samplingSoils and sediment investigation* Five intermediate borings1' intervals for 5'5' intervals for 45'10' intervals for 50'

20' intervals for 80' or T.O.* Ten shallow borings1* intervals for 5'

2.5* intervals for 5'5* intervals for 20'10' intervals for 20** I .vty surficial borings3 samples per boring* Surficial soil samplesSurface water investigation* Surface water/runoff sampling* Stream sediment samplingAir investigation* Air samplingAdditional items* Disposal of cuttings & fluidContaminatedUncontaminated* Health & safety equipment* Site restoration* Engineering personnel:' 6 people for* Overhead and fringe benefits

1.9 times engineering personnel* Mobilization* Well logging* Site survey and mapping

N/A5 wel ls

10 samples5 samples

25 samples45 samples25 samples20 samples50 samples20 samples40 samples20 samples

120 samples100 samples10 samples10 samples8 samples

103 barrels395 barrels

30 days1 week

10 weeks

5 days

N/A$6000/well$50/sample

$20/sample

$15/sample$15/sample$30/ samp la$507 sample$15/sample$15/sample$15/sample$15/sample$15/sample$20/sample$20/sample$20/sample

$800/sample'$100/barrel$20/barrel50/day/person$1000/week

$650/week/person

1

600/day

5,00030,000

500100

375675750

1,000750300600300

1 ,8002,000

200200

6,400

10,3007,9009,0001,000

39,00074,10015,00010,000

3,000Total 220,250

0 0 0 3 0 2

ItenAir sampleso Particulate

o Pesticide ealssionsSoil and ssdisent sampleso GC for pesticides

o GC/MS analysisGround water samples forindicator parametersgenerated fromGC/MS analysis

TABLE 6COST ESHMATE - SITE INVESTIGATION ANALYSES

PHASE 1Estimated Quantity

(Samples)

44

1010

Estimated Unit Price(VSample)

800800

200800800

Estimated Cost ($)

3,2003.200

91.0008,0008,000

Public water supplysamples for indicatorparameters generatedfroo GC/MS analysisSurface water/runoffsanples for indicatorparameters generatedfrom GC/KS analysis

800

10 800

4,000

8,000

Total* 125,400

0 0 0 3 0 3

8 .0 REFERENCESKle r np t , W i l l i a m B . , D u f f i n , Ga l l L . , a n d E lder , Glenward R . , Ground-Water Resources of the Car r l z o Aqu i fer In the Winter GardefTAreaof Texas"7~Voluine t , Report 2 1 0 , Texas Water Development Board,Aust i n , Texas, Second Pr in t i ng , November, 1 9 8 1 .Crysta l City Quadrang l e , 7.5 Minute Ser ies (Topograph i c ) , United StatesDepartment or t h e " I n t e r i o r Geo log i c a l Survey, Denver , Colorado, 1 9 7 2 .Geo log i c At la s of Texa s , Crystal Ci ty-Eag l e Pass Sheet, Bureau ofEconomic Ueology," the Un iver s i ty of Texas at Aus t i n , 1 9 7 6 .Guidance on Fea s i b i l i t y . .Studies Under CERCLA, Of f i c e of Emergency andRemed ia l Response" and Of f i c e of Waste Programs Enforcement , Of f i c e ofSo l i d Waste and Emergency Response , U . S . Environmental Protect ion

Agency, Wash i n g t on , D . C . , Ap r i l , 1985,Smi th , Howard M. et a l , So i l Survey of Zava l a County, Texas , Series"1 9 3 4 , No. 21 , Un i t ed States Department of Agr i cu l ture , Bureau ofP l an t Industry, Wash i ng ton U .C . , June, 1 ,94\J.

OK>OOO

29