Five-year review : Compass Industries, OKD980620983, Tulsa County, Oklahoma.

              FIVE-YEAR REVIEW
Compass Industries
OKD980620983
Tulsa County, Oklahoma
This memorandum documents the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
approval of the Compass Industries Five-Year Review Report prepared by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers on behalf of EPA.
Summary of Five-Year Review Findings
The remedy of a RCRA type cap over the 43-acre landfill is operating as designed. Water
samples from the shallow aquifer exposed in seeps adjacent to the cap, and surface water were
below action levels set forth in the Operating and Maintenance Plan. The cap is in good
condition, and minor repairs have been made. Settlement of the cap has been minimal.
Actions Needed
No major deficiencies were noted. To ensure future protectiveness, the following actions
are recommended: 1] the grass should be mowed every four years; 2] woody vegetation should
be removed; 3] periodic check of the cap to repair soil erosion and prevention of burrowing
animals.
Determinations
I have determined that the remedy for the Compass Industries is protective of human
health and the environment, and will remain so provided the action items identified in the Five-
Year Review Report are addressed as described above.
Myron O. Knudson, P.E. Date
Director
Superfund Division
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 6
CONCURRENCES
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW
for the
Compass Industries
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
Five-Year Review Summary Form
Acronyms
I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 1
II. Chronology of Remediation Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
III. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
A. Site Location and Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
B. History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
C. Investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
D. Legal Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
IV. Remedial Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
A. Record of Decision (ROD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
B. Remedial Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
C. Operations and Maintenance Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
V. Five-Year Review Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
VI. Five-Year Review Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
A. Review of Existing Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Water Sampling Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Settlement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Vent Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
B. Site Inspection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Inspection of the Cap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
VII. Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
VIII. Deficiencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
IX. Recommendations and Follow-up Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
X. Statement of Protectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
XI. Next Five-Year Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
XII. Other Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Attachments
Attachment 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Documents Reviewed
Attachment 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figures
Figure 1 - Location Map
Figure 2 - Site Topographic Map
Figure 3 - Geologic Cross-Section
Figure 4 - RCRA Cap Cross-SectionFigures
Attachment 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Photographs
Attachment 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Legal Description and Plat
Attachment 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Water Sample Data
Oversight Seep Samples
O&M Seep Samples
O&M Surface Samples
Attachment 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cap Vent and Settlement Data
Executive Summary
This documents the Five-Year Review of the Compass Industries Site in Tulsa County,
Oklahoma, which was scheduled to be completed in 1995. The remedy for the site
consists of a RCRA-type Cap over a 43-acre landfill. Post-completion activities consist
of obtaining and analyzing samples of the water from seeps located adjacent to the site
and from the surface of the cap; inspecting the cap for deterioration and settlement;
and, maintaining the site as a secured area.
The remedy, including the post closure Operations and Maintenance, is protective of
human health and the environment. The remedy is functioning as designed. The cap is
generally in good condition, with noticeable minor repairs having been made in the past.
Settlement has been minimal. All analyses of the seep and surface water have shown
no contaminants above the remedy threshold. The fence has kept the site generally
secure with only infrequent trespassing noted.
Because waste is left in place, another five-year review is scheduled for the first quarter
of FY 2001. It is recommended that this site be considered for partial or complete
deletion from the NPL.
Acronyms
BDL Below Detection Limit
BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation. and Liability Act
COD Carbon Oxygen Demand
COE Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
HDPE High Density Polyethylene
HRS Hazard Ranking Score
I.G. Interagency agreement
mg/l milligrams per liter (ppm)
NCP National Contigency Plan
NPL National Priorities List
OSDH Oklahoma State Department Of Health
OWSER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
O&M Operations and Maintenance
PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyls
ppb parts per billion
ppm parts per million
PRP Potentially Responsible Party
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
ROD Record of Decision
TOC Total Organic Carbon
TSS Total suspended Solids
ug/l micrograms per liter (ppb)
1
I. Introduction
The Compass Industries Superfund Site is a former landfill which has been
capped, with none of the contaminants removed. Remedial Action at the site began in
1990 and was essentially complete that same year. The site is currently under
Operations & Maintenance (O&M) and is restricted from public or private use.
The purpose of this report is to document the First Five-Year review and to
comply with the requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended, the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), and the Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response (OWSER) Guidance 9355.7-03B-P/EPA 540 R-98-
050, dated October 1999.
This review has been performed pursuant to Section 121 (c) of CERCLA which
states:
"If the President selects a remedial action that results in any hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site, the President shall
review such remedial action no less often than each 5 years after the initiation of
such remedial action to assure that human health and the environment are being
protected by the remedial action being implemented."
Subpart E of the NCP [40 CFR 300.430(f)(4)(ii)] delegates this responsibility to
the lead agency, in this case the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
This report is provided by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District
(COE), under EPA Interagency Agreement (I.G.) No. DW96934255-01-06 for
Hazardous Waste Enforcement Support at the Compass Industries, Oklahoma, site.
The EPA has utilized the Tulsa District as its sole oversight agent throughout the
Remedial Design, Remedial Action, and Operations and Maintenance (O&M) of the site.
Under this I.G., the Tulsa District provided full-time on-site monitoring during the
remedial action and has monitored the O&M contractor and performed Quality
Assurance testing. The Tulsa District has assisted the EPA, alerting it to O&M activities,
providing technical assistance, and enforcing EPA's requirements.
This report summarizes the data obtained under this agreement and provides the
technical recommendations for continued activity at the site. This information has been
summarized on the Five-Year Review Summary Form.
2
II. Chronology of Remediation Activities
A brief chronology of the activities concerning the Compass Industries site and
involving the EPA is provided in Table 1.
III. Background
A Site Location and Description
The Compass Industries Superfund Site is located in western Tulsa County,
Oklahoma, near the community of Berryhill (Figure 1). The remediation area occupies
approximately 50 acres in the northeastern portion of the 125-acre site. This area is
bounded on the east by the Chandler Park baseball diamonds, by the bluffs on the
northern side just above Avery Drive and the Arkansas River, and the road through the
site to the south. Photograph 1 in Attachment 3 is an aerial view of the site prior to
remediation. An overlay provides specific information about the site, the relative location
of the cap, and the seep locations.
The topography of the site has been modified by quarrying, landfill, and
remediation activities. The road to the south of the remediation area forms a drainage
divide, and most of the surface water from Chandler Park flows into one of two draws
located in the park area. (See Figure 2.) Therefore, the majority of surface runoff from
this site results from precipitation directly upon the site rather than run-on from other
areas. Run-off from the remediation area flows in a generally westerly direction to the
western portion of the site where the flow is intercepted by a draw of an unnamed
tributary of the Arkansas River.
John Mathes and Associates identified two aquifers under the Compass Site
during the Remedial Investigation. They consist of a perched aquifer and an unconfined
aquifer, and are depicted in an East-West cross-section provided in the Remedial
Investigation Report (Figure 3). There is no known use for the water contained in either
of these two aquifers.
Subsurface water in the upper (perched) aquifer consisted primarily of water
resulting from percolation of precipitation which fell directly upon the site and soaked
into the loose fill materials. Additional recharge is probably provided
through cracks in the limestone (Hogshooter Formation) adjacent to the site. The
underlying shale (Coffeyville Formation) forms the low permeability basal boundary of
this aquifer. Outcrops of these formations occur along the northern bluffs, often
associated with groundwater seeps.
3
Table 1
Chronology of Remediation Activities
Early 1983 Air Monitoring by EPA and OSDH after repeated complaints by
local residents and the media
Sept. 1983 Compass Industries Site proposed for the NPL
July 1984 EPA and OSDH enter Cooperative Agreement to undertake
RI/FS
Sept. 1984 Site listed on NPL
July 1987 Remedial Investigation Report Published
Aug. 1987 Endangerment Assessment
Sept. 1987 Record of Decision
Aug. 1988 Award of Remedial Design Contract
Mar. 1989 Unilateral Administrative Order issued by EPA against 7 PRPs
Apr. 1989 EPA approves Final Design
Jan. 1990 Remedial Action begins with construction of test fill
Oct. 1990 Remedial Action complete, except turfing
June 1991 Remedial Action complete
Aug. 1991 O&M Plan accepted by EPA
Oct. 1993 EPA notifies PRPs of intent to monitor vents and seeps adjacent
to cap
My 1995 Submission of First 5 Year Report (Draft), never finalized.
4
The unconfined aquifer is located 37 to 52 feet below the top of the Coffeyville
shale in the Layton Sandstone Formation. Some recharge of this aquifer is believed to
be through its overlying shale formation, but, because of the low permeability of the
shale, this recharge is believed to be a very small amount. Discharge from this aquifer is
again through small seeps in the bluffs on the northwest side.
B. History
The Compass Industries Superfund Site was originally operated as a quarry.
Based upon aerial photography, in 1938 the quarry already occupied approximately 44
acres or about 35% of the total 125 acres included in the site today. The Remedial
Investigation report states that the limestone at this site was being utilized as early as
1904 for cement-making and railroad ballast and that a crusher was in operation by
1908. Quarrying operations continued into the early 1960s. Aerial photography from
1964 shows that quarrying operations had ceased and waste disposal activities had
started. Photographic evidence shows waste disposal and landfill activities continued at
the site into the 1980s. The only period during which landfill activities were permitted by
the Oklahoma State Department of Health was between 1972 and 1976. The permit
allowed the site to be operated as a municipal landfill, but did not allow the disposal of
industrial wastes.
Very few records were maintained by the landfill operators concerning the
disposal of wastes or cell locations. However, records do show that the site accepted
three categories of hazardous wastes: solids, liquids, and sludges, which included
acids, caustics, potentially toxic solvents, and potentially carcinogenic materials. Aerial
photographs indicate numerous wet areas and pools of liquid. Sequential photographs
show apparent overlapping and irregular filling of landfill cells, making delineation of the
cells very difficult.
During the 1970s fires began to appear at landfill. These fires continued until
1984. Often these fires were the result of spontaneous combustion of the waste
materials and burned underground for extended periods of time. The smoke expelling
from the ground during these fires was noticeably multi-colored and produced odors
which prompted citizens' complaints. Photographs depicting these conditions are
included in Attachment 3.
As a result of these citizens' complaints, monitoring in the vicinity of the site was
conducted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Oklahoma State
Department of Health (OSDH). Based upon this monitoring, the site was proposed to
the National Priorities List (NPL) in September 1983 and
5
listed on the NPL in September 1984. The Hazard Ranking Score (HRS) for the site
was 36.57, with the air route of exposure receiving a significantly higher score than
either the groundwater or surface water exposure routes.
C. Investigations
During the initial site investigation in November 1983 conducted by several EPA
contractors, seven monitoring wells (four shallow and three deep) were installed and a
biological investigation was conducted. The wells were sampled in January 1984 and
June 1985. During 1983 and 1984, an aerial photographic survey was conducted and
approximately 28 borings were installed at the site to extinguish underground fires.
These investigations were followed by the Remedial Investigation, which was conducted
in 1986.
The Remedial Investigation (RI) was conducted by the Oklahoma State
Department of Health with John Mathes and Associates, Inc., as the State's
construction contractors. During the RI, eleven additional monitoring wells were
installed. Five of these were deep monitoring wells, extending into the Layton
Sandstone Formation, while the remaining 6 were shallow wells for monitoring the
perched water table. Groundwater samples obtained from the wells, seep water
samples obtained from the perimeter bluffs, and surface water samples from
drainageways around the perimeter of the landfill were collected and analyzed. Samples
were analyzed for inorganic and organic priority pollutants, Total Organic Carbon
(TOC), barium, chloride, fluoride, and sulfate. Additionally, samples from the monitoring
wells were analyzed for Carbon Oxygen Demand (COD).
Water analyses concentrations of benzene at three surface locations and one
seep location varying between 1.5 and 2.2 ug/l, exceeded the toxic substance goal
concentration established by the Clean Water Act Water Quality Criteria for drinking
water.
Soil samples from the landfill surface, from trenches, and from sediment in
drainage ways leaving the site were obtained and analyzed. The waste had high
concentrations of priority pollutant metals, volatile organics, and base-neutral organics,
but surface samples and sediment samples had much lower concentrations of organic
compounds.
Air sampling was conducted during subsurface explorations. This identified a
significant concentration of relatively low hazard nuisance gases, but only trace
quantities of toxic volatile organic vapors.
6
D. Legal Description
After the completion of the remediation, the property owner (Jackson) sold the
site, by tract, at auction. It was determined that deed restrictions needed to be applied.
Because no formal survey of the site had been performed, a meets and bounds survey
was conducted in January 1997. This data has been included in Attachment 4. The
necessity to have the survey completed was one of the reasons the Five-Year Review
report was not finalized in 1995.
The EPA has had deed restrictions incorporated into the deeds for these sites.
The EPA has required that no activity occur which may damage the landfill cap.
IV. Remedial Actions
A. Record of Decision (ROD)
Based upon this Remedial Investigation, a Feasibility Study was performed. The
preferred alternative for addressing the contamination at Compass was to cap the site
and provide on-site ground water treatment. The EPA, after public
comment, signed the ROD on September 29, 1987. The salient features of the ROD
were:
1) construction of a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) cap
over a graded site with diversion of surface water and monitoring of air
emissions;
2) treatment of the groundwater, if deemed necessary from monitoring
results, after construction of the RCRA cap;
3) restricting site access by installing a fence and posting signs;
4) monitoring the site for 30 years to ensure no significant contamination
migrates from the site;
5) providing for additional Remedial Action if significant migration of
contaminants occurs.
7
B. Remedial Activities
The contract for the design of the Remedial Action was awarded to Bechtel
Environmental, Inc., in August 1988 by the Oklahoma State Department of Health.
The primary objectives of the Remedial Action were:
1) to prevent direct contact between the contaminated site materials,
including soil, leachate, surface waters, and air emissions, and the human and
animal population;
2) to prevent the infiltration of precipitation into the waste; and,
3) to divert surface run-on and promote natural drainage of precipitation from
the landfill.
The Remedial Action began in January 1990 with the construction of the first test
fill. After site mobilization, the contractor installed the leachate collection system as the
first item of site work. Then the contractor began grubbing of the heavy vegetation.
Following the grubbing, the waste was reshaped by excavating the material from the
areas that were high, and filling in the low areas. All materials were compacted to
reduce settlement of the cap.
The waste at the perimeter was excavated until a bottom width of 36 inches of
clean material was obtained and no waste remained on the exterior slope. Prior to
backfilling the trench and covering the waste with impermeable clay material, a gas
transmission geotextile was placed directly over the graded waste surface to intercept
gases.
The clay material was placed in the trench over the waste and compacted. This
was overlain by a geosynthetic liner system, consisting of an impermeable membrane
(30 mil nominal thickness HDPE) and a subsurface drainage system. A sandy soil was
placed over the drainage system and covered with topsoil and native grasses. (Figure
4).
Construction was considered essentially complete in October 1990. Remaining
work at that time consisted of repairing damage which occurred during the first winter
and planting native grasses. Both of these items were accomplished in the Spring of
1991.
8
C. Operation and Maintenance Activities
The O&M Plan includes the following requirements.
1) Water leaving the surface of the landfill and water seeping from the bluffs
north of the site (above Avery Drive) shall be sampled quarterly. The
approximate location of the seeps are shown on an overlay of the first
photograph in Attachment 3.
2) Settlement monuments shall be surveyed at least annually to determine
settlement/swell within the landfill.
3) inspect the landfill surface semiannually. Repair cracks, fill voids, and
reseed as required.
4) Maintain security of the site, including fencing and signage.
Requirements added during the O&M period included sampling the air vents for
the presence of organic gases and sampling a seep adjacent to the cap.
The PRPs contracted with Flint Environmental Services (a division of Flint
Engineering & Construction Co.) to operate the site. Flint was responsible for
completing the tasks assigned in the O&M Plan. In 1994, Flint Engineering &
Construction Co., divested itself of Flint Environmental Services. Mr. J. Scott Stelle,
R.E.M., who had been the Project Manager, has operated the site since that time.
V. Five-Year Review Process
The Compass Industries Five-Year Review was led Mr. Shawn Ghose, Remedial
Project Manager for the site. Other persons involved in the review included Mr. Richard
Smith, COE Project Manager, and Mr. Scott Stelle, O&M Contractor.
The Five-Year Review consisted of reviewing the data (contaminants of concern
in the EPA approved O&M plan ) gathered from the O&M sampling events against the
established criteria, and an inspection of the site.
A draft five-year review report was not finalized in 1995 due to complications
arising from the lack of a legal description (in meets and bounds) of the RCRA cap, and
the property owner's desire to sell the remediated property.
9
Also EPA was pursuing recovery of the past costs from the PRPs. After a couple of
years the U.S. Department of Justice decided not to pursue the cost recovery action.
VI. Five-Year Review Findings
A. Review of Existing Data
Water Sampling Results
Sampling of the seeps on the bluffs began in February 1992, except for the seep
adjacent to the cap which was first sampled in August and September 1991. An
additional seep (shown as NS-1 on overlay in Attachment 3) was located adjacent to the
landfill along the northern side. This seep was first identified during the summer of 1991.
It has been determined that this seep is above and slightly east of Seep Number 5.
Because of its close proximity to the cap and its constant wetness, sampling of this
location occurred in August/September 1991 and also semiannually since October 1993
when the PRPs were notified that sampling of this seep is required.
Water collecting on the surface of the cap after a significant rain is also collected
quarterly, as practical.
Samples have been consistently below the Monitoring Concentration Levels
established in the O&M Plan. Tables 2 and 3 provide maximum concentrations for the
contaminants of concern. Tables of all water sampling results are provided in
Attachment 5.
Settlement
Data which have been provided by the PRPs (Attachment 6) show that
movement is occurring at some of the settlement monuments. Movement at individual
monuments has been as great as 0.16 ft. (-2 in.) between annual surveys. Most
interesting, however, is that the net movement, as shown in Table 4, between the
original survey and the current survey is only in excess of 0.10 ft. at one location. Also,
there is no apparent correlation between the amount of cut or fill of waste and the cap
movement. Settlement amounts of the magnitude indicated are normal for this type of
construction and do not pose any problem to the integrity of the cap.
10
Vent Sampling
The PRPs have sampled the vents monthly since receiving direction from the
EPA in October1993. Consistently, several vents have indicated the presence of
organic vapors. This indicates that the waste is continuing to off gas and that the
venting system is working. The organic vapor concentrations have ranged up to 1,000
ppm measured inside the vent pipes. The organic vapors are probably methane gas
from the biodegradation of the waste materials and will not constitute a hazard in the
open atmosphere at these levels. The results of the vent sampling with a figure showing
the vent location are provided in Attachment 6.
Table 2
Known Contaminants Vs. Surface Water Concentrations
ANALYTE
EPA
ANALYTICAL
METHOD
DETECTION
LIMIT (ppb)
MONITORING
CONCENTRATION
MAXIMUM O&M
CONCENTRATION
MAXIMUM
OVERSIGHT
CONCENTRATION
ARSENIC 7060 1 250 12.0 N/A
HEXAVALENT
CHROMIUM
7196 100 1,200 BDL N/A
LEAD 7421 1 340 10.0 N/A
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE 625 2.5 5,000 22.0 N/A
BENZENE 624 4.4 116 BDL N/A
POLYCHLORINATED
BIPHENYLS (PCBs) 608 0.1 0.1 BDL N/A
TOTAL ORGANIC
CARBON (TOC) 415.1 1,000 23,600 N/A
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN DEMAND
(BOD)
405.1 1000 31,800 N/A
TOTAL SUSPENDED
SOLIDS (TSS) 160.2 5,000 361,000 N/A
pH 150.1 N/A 8.5 N/A
N/A - NOT AVAILABLE BDL - BELOW DETECTION LIMITS
Table 3
Known Contaminants Vs. Seep Water Concentrations
ANALYTE
EPA
ANALYTICAL
METHOD
DETECTION
LIMIT (ppb)
MONITORING
CONCENTRATION
MAXIMUM O&M
CONCENTRATION
MAXIMUM
OVERSIGHT
CONCENTRATION
ARSENIC 7060 1 250 5.0 8.0
HEXAVALENT
CHROMIUM 7196 100 1,200 BDL 110.0
LEAD 7421 1 340 6.0 5.0
BIS (2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE 625 2.5 5,000 426.0 26.6
BENZENE 624 4.4 116 BDL BDL
POLYCHLORINATED
BIPHENYLS (PCBs) 608 0.1 0.1 BDL BDL
TOTAL ORGANIC
CARBON (TOC) 415.1 1,000 29,000 23,300
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN DEMAND
(BOD)
405.1 1,000 13,000 3,000
TOTAL SUSPENDED
SOLIDS (TSS) 160.2 5,000 49,000 87,000
PH 150.1 N/A 8.7 N/A
N/A - NOT AVAILABLE BDL - BELOW DETECTION LIMITS
13
b. Site Inspection
Inspection of the Cap
The vegetative cover is well established. The site is covered with native
grasses except in the main swale where bermuda grass was planted to control the
erosion. The bermuda grass has continued to thrive in spite of no maintenance.
The native grasses are beginning to naturally seed this area and mix with the
bermuda grasses. The vegetative cover is holding the soil in place, as there is no
new erosion sites and the prior erosion sites have been repaired.
The drainage system appears to be working properly. Wet areas at the west
end commonly remain after most other areas have dried. Initially, it was suspected
that this may be seepage from the landfill, but monitoring over several years has
shown cyclic wetting and drying. The wet areas dry after a prolonged dry spell and
do not reappear until after a wet period has occurred with suitable time for the water
to infiltrate the soil and pass through the drainage system. Also, the riprap at the
west end remains in good condition.
Security
There is no evidence of continued or long-term use of the site, although
evidence that unauthorized persons have been on the site has been noted. The
evidence includes theft of warning signs and broken gates and fences. Other
vandalism or damage to the cap has not occurred.
Table 4
Monitored Landfill Cap Movement
Monument Top of Waste Elev.
(Approx.) (Feet)
Settlement Monuments Elev.
( Monitored Annually)
Location Original Final Fill
(Cut)
Original
Oct-90
Latest
Jul-94
Deviations
Total Maximum
No. 1
N 415,100
E 2,567,200
858.5 857.5 (1.0) 860.74 860.73 (0.01) 0.02
No. 2
N 416,000
E 2,567,000
841.9 845.0 3.1 847.58 847.47 (0.11) 0.08
No. 3
N 415,600
E 2,566,600
842.2 844.0 1.8 846.15 846.09 (0.06) (0.16)
No. 4
N 416,400
E 2,566,600
826.1 829.8 3.7 832.54 832.58 0.04 0.12
No. 5
N 416,100
E 2,566,000
816.6 819.7 3.1 822.40 822.44 0.04 0.13
No. 6
N 415,600
E 2,567,000
819.7 818.5 (1.2) 823.34 823.34 0.00 0.13
15
VII. Assessment
Question A: is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?
• Construction of a RCRA cap over a graded site with diversion of surface
water:
The RCRA cap was determined to be in proper working order during the
inspection. The flow of water through the seeps has been determined to be
decreasing, indicating that surface water is not percolating into the waste.
• Treatment of the groundwater, if necessary: No contaminants above the
thresholds established in the O&M plan have been identified. Therefore, there
is no need for a treatment system because the cap is providing adequate
protectiveness of the groundwater.
• Restricting site access by installing a fence and installing warning signs:
The fence and warning signs have been installed. Because the site is located
several hundred yards from any populated area and is used for recreational
purposes by children and young adults for activities such as dirt bike riding,
some trespassing does occur. However, the vandalism has been limited to
stealing signs and breaking through the fence to ride. This vandalism does not
endanger the remedy or the trespassers/vandals.
• Monitoring the site for 30 years to ensure no significant contamination
migrates from the site: The data reviewed in conjunction with this five-year
review indicate that the site is being monitored on a regular basis and that
there is no migration of contaminants from the site.
Question B: Are the assumptions used at the time of the remedy selection still
valid?
• Changes in Standards: No change of the contaminants of concern or ARARs
were identified during this review, which would affect the remedy selection.
The maximum contaminant levels were established in the O&M Plan for this
specific site.
• Changes in exposure pathways: No changes have been noted because
there have been no changes in land use around this site.
16
Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into
question the protectiveness of the remedy?
No additional information has been identified that would call into question the
protectiveness of the remedy.
VIII. Deficiencies
No deficiencies were noted during the Five-Year review, as the data were
adequate and the site inspection revealed no major deficiencies. Several potential
deficiencies were identified during the inspection. These included
a) continued mowing of the native grasses may result in a buildup of
thatch; therefore if mowing continues the site should be raked approximately
every four years.
b) as the area returns to native vegetation, woody plants with strong root
systems may damage the liner system; therefore, remove woody vegetation
should be removed at least annually.
c) burrowing animals including mice, rats, and snakes may also damage
the liner system; therefore continued periodic checks on the site should be
maintained; and,
d) erosion of the protective soil continues to be a concern, and the site
should be periodically inspected to ensure that the full 24 inches remains
intact.
IX. Recommendations and Follow-up Actions
The O&M contractor was reminded to be continually aware of the potential
deficiencies identified and to be vigilant about making the repairs. Under the
requirements of the ROD, the PRPs are responsible for monitoring and maintaining
the site for a period of at least 30 years.
X. Statement of Protectiveness
Because the remedial action is expected to be protective, the remedy for the
site is expected to be protective of human health and the environment. Based upon
the site inspections, the sampling results, and the survey results, the remedial
17
actions are performing well. The RCRA Cap system has been well maintained and
now is performing its function with minimal maintenance and movement. The
groundwater leaving the site, when present, has been substantially below the
monitoring concentrations, never having exceeded 10% of any level. The site
appurtenant structures, including the fencing, the signs, and the vent pipes, are in
sound condition with no signs of physical deterioration. All contaminants of concern
appear to be fully controlled by the RCRA Cap.
XI. Next Five-Year Review
The next Five-Year Review will be conducted during FY 2001. The results of
this review support the view that the scope of the next Five-Year Review should be
limited to an inspection of the RCRA Cap System and the appurtenant structures to
ascertain that they are not being damaged by animals or the elements and that
vandalism of the site is controlled.
XII. Other Comments
The processes to delete this site from the NPL should be investigated as the
remedy has proved to be protective of human health and the environment. The site
may be separated into two distinct areas
1) the capped portion of the site where waste remains; and,
2) the remaining portion of the site which does not have waste.
The latter area may be deleted without restriction. The capped area should be
evaluated to determine if it meets the requirements of 40 CFR 300.425(e)(1).
Contingent upon meeting those requirements, the deletion should include institutional
controls to maintain the integrity of the cap.
Attachment 1
Documents Reviewed
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, (U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services), Compass Industries (Avery Drive), Tulsa, Tulsa County, OK, Site
Review and Update, December 16, 1993 (Revised).
Bechtel Environmental, Inc., Final Design Report for Remedial Action, Compass
Industries Superfund Site, March, 1989 (Prepared for the Oklahoma State
Department of Health, EPA Cooperative Agreement No. V-006459-01-0).
Bechtel Environmental, Inc., Specifications and Bidding Documents for Remedial
Action, Compass Industries Superfund Site, March, 1989 (Prepared for the
Oklahoma State Department of Health, Contains Scope of Work, Quality
Assurance Project Plan and Site Safety Plan).
Bechtel Environmental, Inc., Remedial Action Report, for the Compass Industries
Superfund Site, January 1991.
Bechtel Environmental, Inc., Post Closure Operations and Maintenance Plan for
the Compass Industries Superfund Site, August 1991 (Revised by letters dated
February 21, 1992 and October 6, 1993).
Camrud, M. J., Compass Industries Superfund Site, Unpublished Paper, July 17,
1994.
Environmental Protection Agency, Compass Industries Landfill, Tulsa County, OK,
Record of Decision, September 29, 1987.
Environmental Protection Agency, Compass Industries Site, Tulsa County, OK, First
Amended Administrative Order, May 31, 1989.
Environmental Protection Agency, Close Out Report, Compass Industries Landfill
Superfund Site, Tulsa County, OK, June 30, 1992.
Flint Environmental Services (A Division of Flint Engineering & Construction Co.),
1992 Annual Monitoring Report, Compass Industries Site, January 29, 1993.
Flint Environmental Services (A Division of Flint Engineering & Construction Co.),
1993 Annual Monitoring Report, Compass Industries Site, January 18, 1994.
Lockheed Engineering and Management Services Company, Inc., Aerial
Photographic Analysis of Compass Industries Landfill, Tulsa, OK, August 1984.
John Mathes & Associates, Inc., Remedial Investigation Report, Compass
Industries Landfill, Superfund Site, Tulsa County, Volume 1, July 13, 1987. (Prepared
for the Oklahoma State Department of Health).
John Mathes & Associates, Inc., Feasibility Study Report, Compass Industries
Landfill, Superfund Site, Tulsa County, July 13, 1987. (Prepared for the Oklahoma
State Department of Health).
John Mathes & Associates, Inc., Endangerment Assessment, Compass Industries
Landfill, Superfund Site, Tulsa County, August 10, 1987. (Prepared for the Oklahoma
State Department of Health).
J. Scott Stelle, R.E.M., 1994 Annual Monitoring Report, Compass Industries Site,
December 30, 1994.
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Tulsa District, Quality Assurance Final Report,
Compass Industries Superfund Site, Volumes I, II, and III, January, 1991.
Attachment 2
Figures
FIGURE 3 - GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION
Attachment 3
Photographs
COMPASS INDUSTRIES SUPERFUND SITE
Aerial Photo Prior To Remediation
Photograph showing fires and multicolored plumes
of smoke at the Compass Site ( circa 1980)
Photograph showing smoke from underground fires
at the Compass Site (circa 1980)
Reshaping the waste during remediation
Aerial view during remediation showing (left to right)
graded waste, gas transmission layer, clay, liner system
(geomembrane, geonet, and geotextile), soil fill, and topsoil.
Placement of gas transmission system
during construction.
Typical surface vent.
EPA Project Manager, Shawn Ghose, and O&M Contractor,
Scott Stelle discuss a recent slope repair during the 1994
Walkover Inspection.
Recently mowed cap allows easy visual inspection. Additional
fill has been placed in an eroded area.
Looking northwesterly across cap. North slope seep is located
just below the cap between these rock outcrops.
Runoff from cap through the liner system
and out the toe of the cap.
Typical seep sampling equipment -.
Stainless steel collector and glass jar North slope seep collection sump
0&M Contractor obtaining seep sample.
O&M Contractors collect surface samples after a rainfall.
Attachment 4
Legal Description and Plat
Attachment 5
Water Sample Data
Oversight Seep Samples
COMPASS INDUSTRIES SUPERFUND SITE
5 YEAR ANALYTICAL SUMMARY
OVERSIGHT TESTS
SITE ARSENIC
ppb
CHROMIUM VI
ppb
LEAD
ppb
BIS (2 EHTYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE
BENZENE
ppb
Quarter 1ST 2ND 3RD 4TH 1ST 2ND 3RD 4TH 1ST 2ND 3RD 4TH 1ST 2ND 3RD 4TH 1ST 2ND 3RD 4TH
1991
NS-1 6.0 BDL BDL BDL BDL
1992
SEEP 6 BDL BDL 26.6 BDL
SEEP 2 BDL BDL BDL 10.6 BDL
SEEP 5 2.3 BDL BDL BDL BDL
1993
SEEP 4 2.0 110.0 5.0 BDL BDL
SEEP 4 BDL BDL BDL BDL
SEEP 5 8.0 20.0 BDL BDL BDL
1994
NS-1 BDL 9.0 BDL 4.2 BDL
NS-1 2.2 BDL BDL 3.2 BDL
1995
SEEP 5 BDL BDL 2.8 BDL BDL
NS-1 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
COMPASS INDUSTRIES SUPERFUND SITE
5 YEAR ANALYTICAL SUMMARY
OVERSIGHT TESTS
SITE
POLYCHLORINATED
BIPHENYLS (PCB)
ppb
TOTAL ORGANIC
CARBON (TOC)
ppm
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN DEMAND (BOD)
ppm
TOTAL SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
ppm
Quarter 1ST 2ND 3RD 4TH 1ST 2ND 3RD 4TH 1ST 2ND 3RD 4TH 1ST 2ND 3RD 4TH
1991
NS-1 BDL 14.0 <1.0 19.0
1992
SEEP 6 BDL 4.9 <1.0
SEEP 2 BDL 1.8 <1.0 BDL
SEEP 5 BDL 8.0 1.65 1.0
1993
SEEP 4 BDL 7.8 87.0
SEEP 4 BDL 7.3 5.0
SEEP 5 BDL BDL <2.0 4.0
1994
NS-1 BDL BDL <2.0 2.0
NS-1 BDL 23.3 3.0 4.0
1995
SEEP 5 BDL 13.0 <2.0 BDL
NS-1 BDL 15.7 <2.0 BDL
O&M Seep Samples
Compass Site O&M Seep Sample Results
ANALYTE pH TSS ARSENIC LEAD BOD TOC PCB's BENZENE
Bis(2
ethylhexyl)
phthalate
Hexavalent
Chromium
UNITS mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l ug/l ug/l ug/l mg/l
DETECTION LIMIT 5.0 0.001 0.001 1.0 1.0 0.1 4.4 2.5 0.5
4 February 1992
2 8.0 6.0 BDL BDL 2.0 BDL BDL BDL BDL
3 8.1 BDL BDL BDL 9.0 BDL BDL BDL BDL
4 8.3 5.0 BDL BDL 11.0 BDL BDL BDL BDL
5 8.1 49.0 0.002 BDL 12.0 BDL BDL BDL BDL
6 8.1 BDL BDL BDL 8.0 BDL BDL BDL BDL
7 BDL BDL BDL
29 Aril 1992
2 8.5 7.0 BDL BDL 4.0 12.0 BDL BDL BDL BDL
5 May 1992
2 8.4 BDL BDL BDL BDL 2.0 BDL BDL _BDL
3 8.3 9.0 BDL BDL BDL 6.0 BDL BDL 5.4 BDI
5 8.3 6.0 0.002 BDL 2.0 12.0 BDL BDL 8.9 BDL
6 8.4 8.0 BDL BDL 2.0 2.0 BDL BDL 8.2 BDL
20 July 1992
2 8.1 BDL BDL BDL 2.0 3.0 BDL BDL BDL BDL
3 8.4 BDL 0.001 BDL 13.0 6.0 BDL BDL 27.3 BDL
5 8.4 BDL 0.003 BDL 4.0 13.0 BDL BDL 426.0 BDL
7 8.2 7.0 BDL BDL 12.0 2.0 BDL BDL BDL BDL
1 October 1992
2 8.4 BDL BDL BDL BDL 3.0 BDL BDL BDL BDL
5 8.1 BDL BDL BDL 1.0 14 BDL BDL 4.9 BDL
Compass Site O&M Seep Sample Results
ANALYTE pH TSS ARSENIC LEAD BOD TOC PCB’s BENZENE
Bis(2-
ethylhexly)
phthalate
Hexavalent
Chromium
UNITS mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l ug/l ug/l ug/l mg/l
DETECTION LIMIT 5.0 0.001 0.001 1.0 1.0 0.1 4.4 2.5 0.5
27 January 1993
1 8.0 BDL BDL BDL 2.0 7.0 BDL BDL BDL BDL
2 8.4 BDL BDL BDL 3.0 6.0 BDL BDL BDL BDL
3 8.0 BDL BDL BDL 3.0 9.0 BDL BDL BDL BDL
4 8.2 BDL BDL BDL 2.0 10.0 BDL BDL BDL BDL
5 8.1 BDL 0.002 BDL 1.0 11.0 BDL BDL BDL BDL
6 7.7 BDL BDL BDL 2.0 8.0 BDL BDL BDL BDL
7 8.4 BDL BDL BDL 2.0 4.0 BDL BDL BDL BDL
27 April 1993
1 8.2 BDL BDL BDL 2.0 7.0 BDL BDL 10.5 BDL
3 8.7 6.0 BDL BDL 1.0 7.0 BDL BDL 6.9 BDL
4 8.5 29.0 BDL BDL 2.0 9.0 BDL BDL 10.7 BDL
5 8.5 BDL 0.002 BDL 2.0 11.0 BDL BDL 8.4 BDL
6 8.2 8.0 BDL BDL 2.0 29.0 BDL BDL 10 BDL
17 September 1993
2 7.8 BDL BDL BDL 3.0 5.0 BDL BDL BDL BDL
3 7.9 BDL BDL BDL BDL 5.0 BDL BDL BDL BDL
4 7.7 BDL BDL BDL 2.0 10.0 BDL BDL BDL BDL
5 7.9 BDL BDL BDL 2.0 14.0 BDL BDL BDL BDL
25 October 1993
3 7.8 BDL 0.002 BDL 3.0 6.0 BDL BDL BDL BDL
4 8.2 BDL 0.004 BDL 2.0 13.0 BDL BDL BDL BDL
5 8.4 BDL 0.005 BDL 3.0 14.0 BDL BDL BDL BDL
Compass Site O&M Seep Sample Results
ANALYTE pH TSS ARSENIC LEAD BOD TOC PCB's BENZENE
Bis(2-
ethylhexyl)
phthalate
Hexavalent
Chromium
UNITS mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l ug/l ug/l ug/l mg/l
DETECTION LIMIT 5.0 0.001 0.001 1.0 1.0 0.1 4.4 2.5 0.5
7 March 1994
1 8.1 10.0 BDL BDL BDL 9 BDL BDL BDL BDL
3 8.4 2.0 BDL BDL BDL 9.8 BDL BDL BDL BDL
4 8.2 4.0 BDL BDL BDL 8.1 BDL BDL BDL BDL
5 8.1 10.0 BDL BDL 6.7 12.4 BDL BDL BDL BDL
6 7.8 BDL BDL BDL BDL 7.3 BDL BDL BDL BDL
14 June 1994
1
3 7.9 36.0 BDL 0.004 10.0 8.6 BDL BDL
4
5 8.2 13.0 BDL BDL BDL 10.8 BDL BDL BDL BDL
6 8.0 21.0 BDL BDL BDL 6.4 BDL BDL BDL BDL
16 August 1994
1
3
4
5 8.3 38.0 BDL 0.006 8.9 14.9 BDL BDL BDL BDL
6
13 December 1994
1
3 8.0 4.0 BDL BDL 10.1 7.7 BDL BDL BDL BDL
4 7.9 2.0 BDL BDL 4.3 9.7 BDL BDL BDL BDL
5 7.8 26.0 BDL BDL 7.8 13.0 BDL BDL BDL BDL
6 7.8 10.0 BDL BDL 8.0 7.7 BDL BDL BDL BDL
O&M Surface Samples
Compass Site O&M Surface Sample Results
ANALYTE pH TSS ARSENIC LEAD BOD TOC PCB’s BENZENE Bis (2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
Hexavalent
Chromium
UNITS mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l ug/l ug/l ug/l mg/l
DETECTION LIMIT 5.0 0.001 0.001 1.0 1.0 0.1 4.4 2.5 0.5
11 February 1992
1 8.0 42.0 BDL BDL 8.0 18.0 BDL BDL BDL BDL
2 8.0 BDL BDL BDL 14.0 19.0 BDL BDL BDL BDL
3 8.1 70.0 BDL 10.0 23.0 BDL BDL BDL BDL
5 7.4 12.0 BDL BDL 2.0 16.0 BDL BDL BDL BDL
6 7.4 361.0 0.002 0.010 3.0 16.0 BDL BDL BDL BDL
29 April 1992
2 7.7 18.0 0.011 BDL 5.0 10.0 BDL BDL BDL BDL
3 7.8 122.0 0.012 BDL 5.0 10.0 BDL BDL BDL BDL
5 7.3 28.0 BDL BDL 3.0 12.0 BDL BDL BDL BDL
6 7.2 231.0 BDL 0.003 4.0 12.0 BDL BDL BDL BDL
16 July 1992
1 8.5 22.0 0.001 0.003 8.0 15.0 BDL BDL 4.8 BDL
2 7.5 22.0 BDL 0.002 4.0 14.0 BDL BDL 5.4 BDL
3 7.7 21.0 BDL BDL 6.0 12.0 BDL BDL 5.7 BDL
5 7.1 47.0 BDL BDL 5.0 15.0 BDL BDL 3.1 BDL
6 6.9 110.0 BDL BDL 5.0 15.0 BDL BDL 3.1 BDL
11 November 1992
1 237.0 0.003 0.002 4.0 18.0 BDL BDL BDL BDL
2 7.0 BDL BDL 3.0 16.0 BDL BDL BDL BDL
3 18.0 BDL BDL 3.0 14.0 BDL BDL BDL BDL
5 18.0 BDL BDL 4.0 18.0 BDL BDL BDL BDL
6 67.0 BDL BDL 4.0 15.0 BDL BDL BDL BDL
Compass Site O&M Surface Sample Results
ANALYTE pH TSS ARSENIC LEAD BOD TOC PCB’s BENZENE Bis (2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
Hexavalent
Chromium
UNITS mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l ug/l ug/l ug/l mg/l
25 February 1993
1 8.0 BDL BDL BDL 2.0 8.0 BDL BDL BDL BDL
2 8.0 BDL BDL BDL 2.0 8.0 BDL BDL 3.8 BDL
3 8.4 BDL BDL BDL 2.0 8.0 BDL BDL BDL BDL
5 8.2 BDL BDL BDL 4.0 8.0 BDL BDL BDL BDL
6 7.8 BDL BDL BDL 2.0 7.0 BDL BDL BDL BDL
6 May 1993
1 7.6 16.0 0.002 BDL 5.0 18.0 BDL BDL 18.3 BDL
2 7.6 8.0 BDL BDL 6.0 18.0 BDL BDL 17.6 BDL
3 7.9 9.0 BDL BDL 6.0 19.0 BDL BDL BDL BDL
5 7.8 5.0 0.002 BDL 4.0 18.0 BDL BDL BDL BDL
6 8.2 6.0 BDL 0.001 5.0 17.0 BDL BDL BDL BDL
8 September 1993
1 7.2 BDL BDL BDL 6.0 21.0 BDL BDL 3.8 BDL
2 7.1 BDL BDL BDL 6.0 21.0 BDL BDL 8.6 BDL
3 7.1 BDL BDL BDL 5.0 19.0 BDL BDL 20.0 BDL
5 7.4 BDL BDL BDL 5.0 21.0 BDL BDL 7.6 BDL
6 7.3 BDL BDL BDL 6.0 19.0 BDL BDL 22.0 BDL
17 November 1993
1 7.5 6.0 BDL 0.001 2.0 18.0 BDL BDL BDL BDL
2 7.6 5.0 BDL BDL 2.0 18.0 BDL BDL BDL BDL
3 7.5 BDL BDL BDL 2.0 18.0 BDL BDL BDL BDL
5 7.4 16.0 BDL BDL 2.0 17.0 BDL BDL BDL BDL
6 7.6 11.0 BDL BDL 4.0 18.0 BDL BDL BDL BDL
Compass Site O&M Surface Sample Results
ANALYTE pH TSS ARSENIC LEAD BOD TOC PCB’s BENZENE Bis (2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
Hexavalent
Chromium
UNITS mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l ug/l ug/l ug/l mg/l
1 March 1994
1 7.1 6.0 BDL BDL 17.2 13.0 BDL BDL BDL BDL
2 7.3 6.0 BDL BDL 31.8 20.0 BDL BDL 5.5 BDL
3 7.6 11.0 BDL BDL 19.0 15.0 BDL BDL BDL BDL
5 7.7 2.0 BDL BDL 9.7 15.0 BDL BDL BDL BDL
6 7.1 3.0 BDL BDL 8.6 13.0 BDL BDL BDL BDL
2 May 1994
1 8.1 4.0 BDL BDL 2.3 105.0 BDL BDL BDL BDL
2 7.8 7.0 BDL BDL 2.0 12.1 BDL BDL BDL BDL
3 7.7 6.0 BDL BDL 2.3 11.2 BDL BDL BDL BDL
5 7.9 5.0 BDL BDL 2.3 11.1 BDL BDL BDL BDL
6 7.2 4.0 BDL BDL 2.3 11.5 BDL BDL BDL BDL
6 September 1994
1 7.5 10.0 BDL BDL BDL 9.8 BDL BDL BDL BDL
2 7.5 9.0 BDL BDL 2.0 15.1 BDL BDL BDL BDL
3 7.6 5.0 BDL BDL BDL 13.8 BDL BDL BDL BDL
5 7.4 4.0 BDL BDL BDL 23.6 BDL BDL BDL BDL
6 7.4 19.0 BDL BDL 2.8 22.4 BDL BDL BDL BDL
7 November 1994
1 7.4 3.0 BDL BDL 1.2 7.3 BDL BDL BDL BDL
2 7.4 3.0 BDL BDL BDL 4.5 BDL BDL BDL BDL
3 7.6 9.0 BDL BDL 4.0 6.8 BDL BDL BDL BDL
5 7.5 5.0 BDL BDL BDL 6.3 BDL BDL BDL BDL
6 7.4 7.0 BDL BDL 1.6 6.1 BDL BDL BDL BDL
Attachment 6
Cap Vent & Settlement Data
1994 Vent Monitoring Results
(Organic Vapor Analyzer Readings, ppm)
Month Vent No.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Jan-94 BDL BDL 50 BDL BDL BDL BDL 1,000 BDL 1,000 BDL
Feb-94 BDL BDL 100 BDL BDL BDL BDL 1,000 BDL 1,000 BDL
Mar-94 BDL BDL 80 BDL BDL BDL BDL 100 BDL 1,000 BDL
Apr-94 BDL 1,000 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL 1,000 50 BDL BDL
May-94 BDL 1,000 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL 1,000 100 BDL BDL
Jun-94 BDL 1,000 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL 1,000 80 BDL BDL
Jul-94 BDL 1,000 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL 1,000 100 BDL BDL
Aug-94 BDL 1,000 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL 1,000 100 BDL BDL
Sep-94 BDL 1,000 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL 1,000 80 BDL BDL
Oct-94 BDL 1,000 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL 1,000 80 BDL BDL
Nov-94 BDL 1,000 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL 1,000 80 BDL BDL
Dec-94 BDL 100 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL 1,000 50 BDL BDL
Attachment 6
Cap Vent & Settlement Data
COMPASS INDUSTRIES SUPERFUND SITE, OK
GAS VENT & SETTLEMENT MONUMENT LOCATION
1994 Vent Monitoring Results
(Organic Vapor Analyzer Readings, ppm)
Month Vent No.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Jan-94 BDL BDL 50 BDL BDL BDL BDL 1,000 BDL 1,000 BDL
Feb-94 BDL BDL 100 BDL BDL BDL BDL 1,000 BDL 1,000 BDL
Mar-94 BDL BDL 80 BDL BDL BDL BDL 100 BDL 1,000 BDL
Apr-94 BDL 1,000 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL 1,000 50 BDL BDL
May-94 BDL 1,000 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL 1,000 100 BDL BDL
Jun-94 BDL 1,000 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL 1,000 80 BDL BDL
Jul-94 BDL 1,000 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL 1,000 100 BDL BDL
Aug-94 BDL 1,000 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL 1,000 100 BDL BDL
Sep-94 BDL 1,000 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL 1,000 80 BDL BDL
Oct-94 BDL 1,000 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL 1,000 80 BDL BDL
Nov-94 BDL 1,000 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL 1,000 80 BDL BDL
Dec-94 BDL 100 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL 1,000 50 BDL BDL
10 August 1994
Scott Stelle
8822 South 75th East Avenue
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135
Subject: Compass Industries Superfund Site
Monitoring Data for the Settlement Markers
Dear Mr. Stelle:
Below are the results of our survey for the referenced markers. The numbering system is
consistent with that of Bechtal. The elevations were taken on July 1, 1994.
SETTLEMENT MARKERS
No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 No. 4 No. 5 No. 6
(By Others)
10-19-90
860.74 847.58 846.15 832.54 822.40 823.34
(Breisch)
9-27-91
860.76 847.50 846.17 832.45 822.30 823.21
Movement Up 0.02 Down 0.08 Up 0.02 Down 0.09 Down 0.10 Down 0.13
(Breisch)
6-25-92
860.75 847.43 846.01 832.48 822.31 823.23
Movement Down 0.01 Down 0.07 Down 0.16 Up 0.03 Up 0.01 Up 0.02
(Breisch)
10-19-93
860.75 847.51 846.13 832.60 822.44 823.36
Movement 0 Up 0.08 Up 0.12 Up 0.12 Up 0.13 Up 0.13
(Breisch)
7-01-94
860.73 847.47 846.09 832.58 Unable to
Locate
823.34
Movement Down 0.02 Down 0.04 Down 0.04 Down 0.02 Down 0.02
Alan J. Ringle
Vice President
AJR/ms Taken from J. Scott Stelle, R.E.M.
1994 Annual Monitoring Report