SAG_for_SLS_-_October_2000.pdf

FINAL

SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS GUIDE

FOR THE ST. LOUIS SITES

ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI

SEPTEMBER 2000

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers St. Louis District Office Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program

FINAL

SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS GUIDE

FOR THE ST. LOUIS SITES

ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI

SEPTEMBER 2000

prepared by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District Office, Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program with assistance from Science Applications International Corporation under Contract No. DAHA90-94-D-0007, Delivery Order 1004 iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF APPENDICES ...............................................................................................................vii

LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................viii

LIST OF FIGURES......................................................................................................................viii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................... ix

1.0 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................1-1

1.1 PURPOSE/AUTHORITY..........................................................................................1-1

1.2 SCOPE OF THE GUIDE ...........................................................................................1-1

1.3 ORGANIZATION .....................................................................................................1-3

1.4 SITE DESCRIPTIONS AND BACKGROUND .......................................................1-3

1.4.1 SLDS and VPs................................................................................................1-5

1.4.1.1 Operational History......................................................................1-5

1.4.1.2 Waste Inventories.........................................................................1-7

1.4.1.3 Site Characteristics.......................................................................1-7

1.4.1.4 Radiological and Chemical Characterization Summary ............1-11

1.4.2 SLAPS and CPs............................................................................................1-12

1.4.2.1 Operational History....................................................................1-12

1.4.2.2 Waste Inventory .........................................................................1-14

1.4.2.3 Site Characteristics.....................................................................1-14

1.4.3 HISS and Latty Avenue VPs........................................................................1-16

1.4.3.1 Operational History....................................................................1-16

1.4.3.2 Waste Inventory .........................................................................1-16

1.4.3.3 Site Characteristics.....................................................................1-16

1.4.4 Coldwater Creek...........................................................................................1-20

1.4.4.1 Site Characteristics.....................................................................1-20

1.5 CURRENT SITE STATUS......................................................................................1-21

1.6 SAMPLING OBJECTIVES.....................................................................................1-21

1.6.1 Data to Support Characterization Studies ....................................................1-22

1.6.2 Data to Support Feasibility Studies..............................................................1-22

1.6.3 Data to Support Remedial Design/Removal Actions...................................1-22

1.6.4 Data to Support Environmental Monitoring/Permits ...................................1-22

1.6.5 Health and Safety Data.................................................................................1-23

1.6.6 Background Reference Area Sampling ........................................................1-23

1.6.7 Final Status Survey.......................................................................................1-23

1.7 DEVELOPMENT OF AN ADEQUATE DATA SET ............................................1-24

1.7.1 Observational Approach...............................................................................1-24 iv

1.7.2 Adaptive Sampling and Analysis .................................................................1-25

1.7.3 Data Quality Objectives Process ..................................................................1-26

1.8 WORK DESCRIPTIONS (WDS)............................................................................1-28

2.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION APPROACH/SAMPLING ELEMENTS................................2-1

2.1 STAGES OF INVESTIGATION...............................................................................2-1

2.1.1 Preliminary Activities/Mobilization...............................................................2-1

2.1.2 Reconnaissance/Screening Activities.............................................................2-2

2.1.3 Data Compilation and Sample Location Selection ........................................2-2

2.1.4 Intrusive Sampling Field Activities................................................................2-3

2.1.5 Final Status Surveys .......................................................................................2-4

2.2 WORK ELEMENTS..................................................................................................2-4

2.2.1 Geophysical Surveying ..................................................................................2-4

2.2.2 Downhole Logging.........................................................................................2-5

2.2.3 Radiological Surveys......................................................................................2-5

2.2.3.1 Gamma Walkover Surveys (GWS)..............................................2-5

2.2.3.2 In-Situ Gamma Spectroscopy.......................................................2-5

2.2.4 Soil Gas Surveys ............................................................................................2-5

2.2.5 Meteorological Monitoring ............................................................................2-6

2.2.6 Ambient Air Monitoring ................................................................................2-6

2.2.7 Sediment and Surface Water Sampling..........................................................2-7

2.2.8 Storm-water and Wastewater Discharge Sampling........................................2-7

2.2.9 Soil Sampling Strategies ..............................................................................2-11

2.2.9.1 Sampling Equipment ..................................................................2-12

2.2.9.2 Sample Description/Classification .............................................2-13

2.2.9.3 Sampling Methods......................................................................2-13

2.2.10 Background Reference Area Soil Sampling.................................................2-14

2.2.11 Soil Sampling for Remedial Investigation and Design ................................2-15

2.2.12 Soil Sampling for Remedial Confirmation/Final Status Surveys.................2-15

2.2.13 Sampling of Waste Materials for Commercial Disposal..............................2-15

2.2.14 Sampling for Determination of Geotechnical Properties/Modeling

Parameters ....................................................................................................2-16

2.2.15 New Well Installation...................................................................................2-17

2.2.16 Ground-Water Monitoring ...........................................................................2-21

2.2.16.1 Ground-Water Sampling and Analyses......................................2-22

2.2.16.2 Remote Ground-Water Level Monitoring..................................2-23

2.2.17 Well and Borehole Decommissioning..........................................................2-23

3.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN (QAPP) .......................................................3-1

3.1 PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITIES......................................3-1

3.1.1 USACE Task/Technical Lead ........................................................................3-1

3.1.2 Project Manager .............................................................................................3-1

3.1.3 Quality Assurance (QA)/Quality Control (QC) Officer.................................3-1 v

3.1.4 Chemical Quality Control (CQC) Representative..........................................3-3

3.1.5 USACE Laboratory Coordinator....................................................................3-3

3.1.5.1 USACE Chemical QA Laboratory...............................................3-3

3.1.5.2 USACE Radiological QA Laboratory..........................................3-3

3.1.6 Contractor Health and Safety Officer.............................................................3-3

3.1.7 Laboratory Field Coordinator.........................................................................3-4

3.1.8 Field Operations Manager..............................................................................3-4

3.1.9 Field Personnel...............................................................................................3-4

3.1.10 Subcontractor Field Personnel .......................................................................3-4

3.1.11 Subcontractor Laboratory Support .................................................................3-4

3.1.11.1 Laboratory Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Manager........................................................................................3-5

3.1.11.2 Laboratory Project Manager.........................................................3-5

3.1.11.3 Laboratory Manager.....................................................................3-6

3.1.11.4 Laboratory Section Heads, Department Managers, and

Technical Leads............................................................................3-6

3.2 DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES .............................................................................3-6

3.2.1 Project Objectives ..........................................................................................3-6

3.2.2 Quality Assurance Objectives for Measurement Data ...................................3-7

3.2.2.1 Level of Quality Control Effort....................................................3-8

3.2.2.2 Accuracy, Precision, and Sensitivity..........................................3-10

3.2.2.3 Completeness, Representativeness, and Comparability.............3-17

3.3 GENERAL SAMPLING PROCEDURES...............................................................3-17

3.3.1 General Information and Definitions ...........................................................3-18

3.3.2 Sample Containers, Preservation Procedures, and Holding Times..............3-20

3.3.3 Field Documentation ....................................................................................3-21

3.3.3.1 Field Logbooks...........................................................................3-21

3.3.3.2 Sample Numbering System........................................................3-21

3.3.3.3 Documentation Procedures ........................................................3-21

3.3.3.4 Field Variance System ...............................................................3-23

3.4 SAMPLE CUSTODY ..............................................................................................3-23

3.4.1 Sample Documentation ................................................................................3-23

3.4.1.1 Field Procedures.........................................................................3-23

3.4.1.2 Field Logbooks/Documentation.................................................3-23

3.4.1.3 Transfer of Custody and Shipment Procedures..........................3-25

3.4.2 Laboratory Chain-of-Custody Procedures ...................................................3-25

3.4.2.1 Cooler Receipt Checklist............................................................3-25

3.4.2.2 Letter of Receipt.........................................................................3-28

3.4.3 Final Evidence Files Custody Procedures....................................................3-28

3.4.4 Storage/Archival of Samples........................................................................3-28

3.5 ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES .............................................................................3-28

3.5.1 Laboratory Analysis .....................................................................................3-28

3.5.2 Field Screening Analytical Protocols...........................................................3-29 vi

3.6 CALIBRATION PROCEDURES AND FREQUENCY .........................................3-29

3.6.1 Field Instruments/Equipment .......................................................................3-29

3.6.2 Laboratory Instruments ................................................................................3-33

3.7 INTERNAL QUALITY CONTROL CHECKS ......................................................3-34

3.7.1 Field Sample Collection ...............................................................................3-34

3.7.2 Field Measurement.......................................................................................3-34

3.7.3 Laboratory Analysis .....................................................................................3-34

3.7.3.1 QA Program ...............................................................................3-34

3.7.3.2 QC Checks..................................................................................3-35

3.8 CALCULATION OF DATA QUALITY INDICATORS .......................................3-37

3.8.1 Field Measurements Data.............................................................................3-37

3.8.2 Laboratory Data............................................................................................3-37

3.8.2.1 Precision .....................................................................................3-37

3.8.2.2 Accuracy.....................................................................................3-38

3.8.2.3 Completeness .............................................................................3-38

3.8.2.4 Sensitivity...................................................................................3-39

3.8.3 Project Completeness ...................................................................................3-39

3.8.4 Representativeness/Comparability ...............................................................3-39

3.9 CORRECTIVE ACTIONS ......................................................................................3-40

3.9.1 Sample Collection/Field Measurements.......................................................3-40

3.9.2 Laboratory Analyses ....................................................................................3-42

3.10 DATA REDUCTION, VALIDATION, AND REPORTING..................................3-44

3.10.1 Data Reduction.............................................................................................3-44

3.10.1.1 Field Measurements and Sample Collection..............................3-44

3.10.1.2 Laboratory Services....................................................................3-44

3.10.2 Data Review, Evaluation and Validation .....................................................3-46

3.10.2.1 Data Validation Approach..........................................................3-46

3.10.2.2 Primary Analytical Data Validation Categories.........................3-47

3.10.3 Project Analytical Data Set ..........................................................................3-52

3.10.4 Data Reporting .............................................................................................3-52

3.11 PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES................................................3-55

3.11.1 Field Instruments and Equipment ................................................................3-55

3.11.2 Laboratory Instruments ................................................................................3-55

3.12 PERFORMANCE AND SYSTEM AUDITS ..........................................................3-55

3.12.1 Field Assessments ........................................................................................3-56

3.12.2 Laboratory Audits ........................................................................................3-56

3.13 QA REPORTS TO MANAGEMENT .....................................................................3-57

3.13.1 Daily Quality Control Reports .....................................................................3-57

3.13.2 Quality Assurance Reports...........................................................................3-57

3.13.3 Quality Control Summary Reports...............................................................3-60 vii

4.0 DATA MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PLAN (DMPP).....................................................4-1

4.1 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................4-1

4.2 INVESTIGATION DATA.........................................................................................4-1

4.2.1 Data Types......................................................................................................4-1

4.2.1.1 Historical Information ..................................................................4-2

4.2.1.2 Mapping Data...............................................................................4-2

4.2.1.3 Radiation Walkover Data .............................................................4-3

4.2.1.4 Non-intrusive Geophysical Data ..................................................4-3

4.2.1.5 Discrete Sample Results...............................................................4-4

4.2.1.6 Secondary Borehole Information .................................................4-4

4.2.1.7 Gamma Exposure Measurement Data..........................................4-5

4.2.1.8 In-Situ Gamma Spectroscopy Data ..............................................4-5

4.2.1.9 Critical Project Records ...............................................................4-5

4.2.2 Key Identifiers................................................................................................4-5

4.3 DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ..........................................................................4-5

4.4 DATA MANAGEMENT AND TRACKING PROCESS .........................................4-6

4.4.1 Sampling and Analysis Planning....................................................................4-6

4.4.2 Field Sample Collection and Measurement ...................................................4-7

4.4.3 Chain-of-Custody Documentation .................................................................4-8

4.4.4 Analytical Laboratory Document and Data Submission................................4-8

4.4.5 Data Verification and Validation ...................................................................4-9

4.4.6 Data Centralization and Storage.....................................................................4-9

4.4.7 Data Summarization and Reporting ...............................................................4-9

4.4.8 Records Management and Document Control .............................................4-10

4.4.9 Data Dissemination and the Web .................................................................4-10

5.0 HANDLING OF INVESTIGATION-DERIVED WASTE (IDW) ....................................5-1

6.0 HEALTH AND SAFETY...................................................................................................6-1

7.0 REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY ...........................................................................7-1

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A: Screening Procedures Appendix B: MDNR-DGLS Annular Seal and Decommissioning Grout Variance viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1. Container Requirements for Air and Direct Radiation Monitoring .....................2-8 Table 2-2. Container Requirements for Soil and Sediment Samples for St. Louis

FUSRAP Investigations .......................................................................................2-9 Table 2-3. Container Requirements for Surface Water Samples for St. Louis

FUSRAP Investigations .....................................................................................2-10 Table 2-4. Analytical Parameters and Methods for Geotechnical Evaluation.....................2-17 Table 2-5. Backfill for Monitoring Wells and Exploration Holes.......................................2-21 Table 3-1. Soil/Sediment DQO1 Summary for St. Louis FUSRAP Investigations ...............3-7 Table 3-2. Water and Field QC Investigative DQO Summary for St. Louis

FUSRAP Investigations .......................................................................................3-8 Table 3-3. Analytical/Methods, Parameters, and Project Quantitation Limits for the

St. Louis FUSRAP Sites ....................................................................................3-10 Table 3-4. Analytical/Methods, Parameters, and Project Quantitation Limits for

St. Louis FUSRAP Sites – Waste Characteristics..............................................3-15 Table 3-5. Field Instrument Uses, Detection Limits, and Calibration.................................3-31 Table 3-6. Summary of Analytical Hard-Copy Data Deliverables......................................3-53 Table 3-7. Standard Electronic Data Deliverables ..............................................................3-54 Table 4-1. Example of a Data Matrix ....................................................................................4-6

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1. St. Louis Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program Location Map ......1-2 Figure 1-2. Schematic Representation of the FUSRAP St. Louis Site ...................................1-4 Figure 1-3. Plan View of SLDS..............................................................................................1-6 Figure 1-4. Generalized Stratigraphic Column for SLDS.......................................................1-8 Figure 1-5. Hydrostratigraphic Units of the St. Louis Downtown Site Area........................1-10 Figure 1-6. Plan View of the St. Louis Airport and Contiguous Properties .........................1-13 Figure 1-7. Generalized Stratigraphic Column for SLAPS and HISS..................................1-17 Figure 1-8. Conceptual Hydrogeologic Model for SLAPS...................................................1-18 Figure 1-9. Plan View of HISS and Latty Avenue Vicinity Properties ................................1-19 Figure 2-1. Typical Shallow Monitoring Well Construction................................................2-18 Figure 2-2. Typical Deep Monitoring Well Construction.....................................................2-19 Figure 3-1. St. Louis FUSRAP Sites Organizational Chart....................................................3-2 Figure 3-2. Example Spreadsheet - Activity or Task Sample Matrix...................................3-19 Figure 3-3. Unique Sample Identification System for St. Louis FUSRAP Sites..................3-22 Figure 3-4. Example of USACE Record of Technical Direction Form................................3-24 Figure 3-5. Example of a Chain-of-Custody Form...............................................................3-26 Figure 3-6. Example of a Cooler Receipt Checklist .............................................................3-27 Figure 3-7. Example of a Nonconformance Report ..............................................................3-41 Figure 3-8. USACE Data Validation Form...........................................................................3-49 Figure 3-9. Example of the Daily Quality Control Report ...................................................3-58 Figure 3-10. Quality Control Summary Report Format..........................................................3-61 ix

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Ac actinium AEC United States Atomic Energy Commission amsl above mean sea level As arsenic ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials Ba barium bgs below ground surface C12 chloride CAS Chemical Abstract Services Cd cadmium CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CLP Contract Laboratory Program cm centimeter CME central mine equipment COC contaminants of concern COPC contaminants of potential concern CP contiguous property cpm counts per minute CQC Chemical Quality Control CSR Code of State Regulations CX Center of Excellence DCE dichloroethene DCGL derived concentration guideline levels DMPP Data Management Program Plan DOD Department of Defense DOE United States Department of Energy DOT United States Department of Transportation DQCR data quality control reports DQO data quality objective EE/CA Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analyses EM electromagnetic EMG Environmental Monitoring Guide EMI Environmental Monitoring Implementation EML Environmental Measurements Laboratory EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency FCO Field Change Order Fe iron FFA Federal Facilities Agreement FID flame ionization detectors FOM Field Operations Manager FS Feasibility Study ft feet x

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (CONT'D)

FUSRAP Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program GC gas chromatography GFAA graphite furnace atomic absorption GPR ground-penetrating radar GPS global positioning system GWS gamma walkover survey ha hectare HISS Hazelwood Interim Storage Site HPGe High Purity Germanium HTRW Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste HU hydrostratigraphic units HZ hydrostratigraphic zone IA investigation area ICP inductively coupled plasma IDW investigative-derived wastes

in. inch(es) km kilometer L liter LCS laboratory control sample LOR Letter-of-Receipt m meters M&TE measuring and testing equipment MARSSIM Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual MCL maximum contaminant level MCPA 2-methyl-4-chlorophenoxy acetic acid MCPP 2-(2-methyl-4-chlorophenoxy) propionic acid MDA minimum detectable activities MDL maximum detection limits MDNR Missouri Department of Natural Resources MED Manhattan Engineering Districts mg/kg milligram per kilogram mg/L milligrams per liter

mi. miles mm millimeters Mn manganese MS matrix spike MSD matrix spike duplicate NAPL non-aqueous phase liquid NCR nonconformance report NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPL National Priority List xi

NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission NTU nephelometric turbidity units OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration OVA organic vapor analyzer Pa protactinium PCB polychlorinated biphenyl pCi/g picocuries per gram pCi/L picocuries per liter PCOC potential constituent of concern PID photoionization detectors PM10 micron particulate material PPE personal protective equipment ppm parts per million PQL practical quantitation limits PRG preliminary remediation goal PVC polyvinyl chloride QA quality assurance QAPP Quality Assurance Program Plan QC quality control QCSR Quality Control Summary Report Ra radium RAS Routine Analytical Services RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RI remedial investigation ROD Record of Decision RPD relative percent difference RSD relative standard deviation SAG Sampling and Analysis Guide SAIC Science Applications International Corporation SAS Statistical Analysis System SDG Sample Delivery Group SLAPS St. Louis Airport Site SLDEIMS St. Louis District Environmental Information Management System SLDS St. Louis Downtown Site SLS St. Louis Sites SMCL secondary maximum contaminant level SO4 sulfate SOP standard operating procedure SOW Statement of Work SSHO Site Safety and Health Officer SSHP Site Safety and Health Plan SVOC semi-volatile organic compound TAL target analyte list TCE trichloroethene xii

TCLP toxicity characteristic leaching procedure TDF Technical Direction Form Th thorium TIC tentatively identified compound TLD thermoluminescent dosimeter TOX total organic halides TPH total petroleum hydrocarbons TSP total suspended particulate U uranium USACE United States Army Corp of Engineers USCS Unified Soil Classification System USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency VOC volatile organic compound VP vicinity property WD work descriptions yd3 cubic yards °C degrees Centigrade µg/L microgram per liter µm micrometers

1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The St. Louis Sampling and Analysis Guide (SAG) was prepared to provide a single source document to guide sampling and analysis activities conducted under the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) at the St. Louis Sites (SLS). This document provides a compendium of procedures, protocols and methodologies, which may be used in preparing site-specific Work Descriptions (WDs). By using the methodologies, quality assurance and data management standards described in this guidance document, consistency and comparability of sampling results will be maintained for the SLS.

1.1 Purpose/Authority

This document provides the guidelines necessary to perform sampling activities at any of the St. Louis FUSRAP Sites and will aid in developing appropriate data quality objectives (DQOs), and monitoring requirements for each particular area. FUSRAP was initiated to identify and remediate contamination or otherwise control sites where residual radioactivity remains from activities conducted under contracts to the Manhattan Engineering District (MED) and the United States Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) or from commercial operations that Congress has added to the FUSRAP Sites. FUSRAP was transferred from the Department of Energy (DOE) to the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The USACE has the authority to characterize and remediate contaminants associated with the historical AEC facilities that supported the nations early nuclear defense related activities. A Federal Facilities Agreement (FFA) negotiated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region VII and the DOE outlines those responsibilities (DOE, 1990a). The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) also governs remedial efforts on specific FUSRAP Sites. The Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) also provides regulatory reviews of the ongoing remedial efforts at the SLS of FUSRAP.

1.2 Scope of the Guide

The document defines procedures for SLS sampling activities at the various sites. These sites include the St. Louis Downtown Site (SLDS) and vicinity properties (VPs), the St. Louis Airport Site (SLAPS) and contiguous properties (CPs), SLAPS VPs/Haul Roads, the Hazelwood Interim Storage Site (HISS) and Latty Avenue VPs, and Coldwater Creek. The locations of these sites are shown on Figure 1-1.

In addition, this document contains a Quality Assurance Program Plan (QAPP) that provides the organization, functional objectives, and general Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) requirements associated with sample collection for these sites. A Data Management Program Plan (DMPP) describes the process used for planning, collection, tracking, verification, validation, analysis, presentation, and storage of data collected at the SLS of FUSRAP.

1-3

Before initiation of a particular field activity, a WD will be generated and approved by the USACE. The WD is a task- or site-specific sampling and analysis plan or field sampling plan which may reference this manual for specific sampling methodologies, QA/QC, and data management guidance. The WD will identify the specific data and sampling needs. It will provide a summary of the current conditions, and applicable background information to support the task-specific DQOs. The media-specific parameters, location, depths, number of samples, QA/QC samples to be analyzed, et cetera must also be identified in each WD. Other documents and procedures not provided in this SAG may be incorporated by reference or attached to the WD, if needed. Finally, the WD will include a schedule of field activities, and description of what, how, and when the information is reported.

Some documents, including task specific health and safety plans, radiation safety and health plans and handling of investigation derived waste (IDW), are generated on a task- or contractor-specific basis. Guidance for the preparation and use of these plans is also identified within this document.

1.3 Organization

The SAG is organized into sections to facilitate access. In order to efficiently reference various methodologies, section numbers should be included when preparing work descriptions.

A description of the SAG organization is as follows:

• Section 1 contains an overview of the purpose, authority, scope, organization and objectives of the SAG.

• Section 2 describes field investigation approaches and protocols for selected media sampling activities.

• Section 3 provides the overall Quality Assurance guidance for the SLS.

• Section 4 presents guidance for overall data management at the SLS.

• Section 5 identifies general IDW guidance for the SLS.

• Section 6 identifies general health and safety guidance for the SLS.

• Section 7 provides a detailed bibliography and reference list for the SLS.

1.4 Site Descriptions and Background

The St. Louis FUSRAP Sites are the SLDS, SLAPS, HISS, Coldwater Creek, and their associated adjacent property(ies) or VP locations that were involved with or impacted by the development of uranium processing techniques, production of uranium metal and compounds, uranium recovery from residues and scrap, and storage, transportation, and disposal of associated process byproducts. These activities were conducted under contract to the MED and AEC from the early 1940's until the mid 1960's. A schematic representation of the SLS is provided in Figure 1-2.

SLDS and SLAPS were among the first sites to be designated for remedial actions under FUSRAP. Congress, through the 1984 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, added HISS to FUSRAP. SLAPS and HISS were added to the EPA National Priority List (NPL) on October 4, 1989 [40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 300, Appendix B]. Activities at

ST. LOUIS SITE

St. Louis Downtown Site

(SLDS)

St. Louis North County Site

SLAPS

Vicinity

Properties

St. Louis Airport Site

(SLAPS):

IAs 1 to 7

Latty Avenue PropertiesMallinckrodt Vicinity

Properties

Remediated Levee

Property

Railroad Properties McKinley Iron

Thomas & Proetz

Lumber PVO Foods Remediated

City Property

Norfolk & Western Railroad* St. Louis Terminal Railroad Assn.

Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad

Areas surrounding SLAPS:

IAs 8 to 13

Haul Roads & Haul Road Properties

Coldwater Creek and VPs

1C to 10C

Hazelwood Interim

Storage Site

(HISS)

Futura Coatings

Vicinity Properties

1L to 6L, 40A, 10K530087

Eva Ave.

Frost Ave.

Hazelwood Ave.

McDonnell Blvd. (East & West of IA-8)

Pershall Rd.

VPs 1 to 63

Perimeter VPs

Figure 1-2. Schematic Representation of the FUSRAP St. Louis Site

* Norfolk & Western is currently a wholly owned subsidiary of Norfolk Southern Railroad. All previous reports refer to this property as Norfolk and Western, thus this name has been retained for consistency.

Addressed by this Feasibility Study for the North County Sites IA - Investigative Area as shown on Figure 2-9

1-5 these three sites and subsequent migration of contaminants have resulted in contamination of portions of properties contiguous to SLDS, SLAPS, and HISS; these areas have been designated as CPs or VPs and are included within the scope of historical site characterization activities and remedial decisions. Coldwater Creek has also been impacted from migration of contaminants from SLAPS and HISS. Numerous documents contain detailed descriptions of the sites and operational histories, in particular the remedial investigation (RI) work plan (DOE, 1991) and RI reports (DOE,1994a; DOE, 1995). Thus, the site histories presented below are limited to summary and recent characterization information.

1.4.1 SLDS and VPs

SLDS is located in an industrialized area on the eastern border of St. Louis, 91 meters

(m) [300 feet (ft)] west of the Mississippi River and 18 kilometers (km) [11 miles (mi.)] southeast of the Airport Area (Figure 1-1). SLDS consists of the Mallinckrodt Chemical Works (Mallinckrodt Property), owned by Mallinckrodt, Inc. (Mallinckrodt), and VPs. The Mallinckrodt Property is bordered to the north by McKinley Iron Works, a large metal recycleing company; to the east by the Mississippi River, PVO Foods (abandoned), and property owned by the City of St. Louis; to the south by Thomas and Proctz Lumber; and to the west by Broadway Street. Additionally, the Norfolk and Western Railroad; the Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad; and the St. Louis Terminal Railroad Association have active rail lines passing in a north/south direction through the Mallinckrodt Property. An earthen levee between the river and SLDS protects the area from floodwaters. These commercial and city-owned properties are collectively referred to as SLDS VPs. Perimeter VPs include the City of St. Louis property, PVO Foods, McKinley Ironworks, and Thomas and Proetz Lumber Company. Manufacturing plants, support facilities, and administrative buildings cover a large portion of the site with the rest of the complex covered mostly with asphalt or concrete.

1.4.1.1 Operational History

SLDS is an active 18-hectare (ha) [45-acre] industrial property in eastern St. Louis. The majority of the property is owned by Mallinckrodt, Inc., which has used the property for chemical manufacturing since 1867. The industrial facility consists of multiple separate former and active production complexes (plants) and ancillary support buildings and offices (Figure 1- 3).

SLDS and VPs have been used for industrial purposes for over a century. Between 1942 and 1957, the former Mallinckrodt Chemical Works performed work under contract to the MED and AEC at Plants 1, 2, 4, 6, 6E, 7, 7E, 7N, and 7S. The work included development of uranium processing techniques and production of uranium metal using various chemical processes and intermediates (nitric acid leaching, solvent extraction, fluorination using hydrofluoric acid, and reduction using magnesium). In addition, some facilities were used for metallurgical processing of uranium, storage of reactor cores, and uranium recovery from slag (DOE, 1990b).

1-7

1.4.1.2 Waste Inventories

Byproducts from production activities at SLDS included spent pitchblende ore, process chemicals (primarily leached barium sulfate), and uranium, radium, and thorium-bearing residuals. The byproducts of the production activities of SLDS were staged or stored at various locations within the site for subsequent transport to SLAPS. Waste generation records are not available; estimated volumes of materials transported to SLAPS are discussed in subsequent sections. Demolition materials are sometimes temporarily stockpiled on the site as a result of interim remedial actions.

1.4.1.3 Site Characteristics

The topography of the area around St. Louis is typified by gently rolling hills in the uplands and steepwalled, broad [up to 16 km (10 mi) wide] river valleys. The SLDS is located near the western bank of the Mississippi River 21 km (13 mi) downstream of the Mississippi- Missouri confluence. The site is potected by a man-made levee and is flat due to extensive construction and grading. Industrial development has also oblitinated geologic features such as perennial streams and the soil column. Surface drainage is directed through drainage ditches and catchment basins into an extensive storm drain system that discharges to the Bissell Point Sewage Treatment Plant. All St. Louis area municipal water intakes are located upstream of the SLDS with the exception of the Illinois-American Water Plant intake which serves East St. Louis and is located about 13 km (8 mi.) downstream on the east bank of the river.

The St. Louis area is underlain by 1,829 m (6,000 ft) of cyclic deposition of Paleozoic sandstone, shale, limestone, and dolomite (Figure 1-4). The deposits thicken into the Illinois Basin to the east and toward the Ozark Dome to the southwest. They are nearly horizontal, dipping less than 1 degree to the northeast as a result of uplift of the Ozark Dome. The overlying Pleistocene and recent sediments and fill consist of sand, silt, and clay layers that typically range from less than 2 m (5 ft) to more than 30 m (100 ft) thick. The fill consists of cinders, bricks, soil, and other debris and has been placed on top of the original floodplain to depths of up to 9 m (30 ft) as the area has been developed. The naturally occurring surficial deposits originated from multiple sources including glacial outwash consisting of mixtures of clay, silts, and sand; wind-deposited loess; and deposits from the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers. The surficial sediments range in at depths from 6 m (19 ft) on the western side of the SLDS to 24 m (80 ft) near the Mississippi River.

Ground water at the SLDS is found within three horizons [or hydrostratigraphic units (HU)]: the upper unit, referred to as the HU-A (consisting of fill on top of clay and silt); the lower, alluvial unit, referred to as either the Mississippi Alluvial Aquifer or the HU-B; and the bedrock, referred to as the HU-C (Figure 1-5), (USACE, 1998a). The Mississippi Alluvial Aquifer is a principal aquifer in the St. Louis area, including the SLDS area. Aquifers in this region also exist in the bedrock formations underlying the alluvial deposits. Ground waters of the St. Louis area are generally of poor quality and do not meet drinking water standards without treatment. Expected future use of ground water at the SLDS is minimal, because the higher quality and large quantity of the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers is readily available.

1-9

The HU-A is heterogeneous and the youngest of the three hydrostratigraphic units. The unit overlies the HU-B on the east and bedrock on the west at the SLDS. The HU-A has the largest range of constituents and thus a wide variation of spatial hydraulic conductivity. This uppermost unit does not have water levels or flow directly related to the river stage. The base of the HU-A consists of fine-grained deposits behind the Mississippi River’s natural levee. The HU-A also had meandering creeks and swampy low topography prior to the introduction of fill material. In the 1800’s the HU-A’s surface was raised with the least expensive, most readily available fill materials: rubble and wood and coal combustion wastes, e.g., coal slag and cinders.

The combustion products used for fill had inherently high metal concentrations. Infiltration of water in the HU-A is relatively minor, because the ground surface has large areas of buildings, road surfacing, and channeled surface water flow. This shallow unit is not a productive source of water due to poor yield and its multiple chemical constituents. The HU-A is not an aquifer and is not considered a potential source of drinking water because it has insufficient yield, poor natural water quality, and susceptibility to surface water contaminants from the industrial setting.

Hydrostratigraphic Unit B ranges in thickness from 21 m (70 ft) just east of the Mississippi River to absent near the western boundary of the SLDS. The ancestral Mississippi River deposited the unit after the river’s greatest erosion of the bedrock floor. The unit is made up of repward-fining, interfingered, crossent sands that are hydrautically connected to the Mississippi River. The granular nature and association with the river allows the HU-B to have unique chemical and hydraulic character. The HU-B has high dissolved solids and metal concentrations [iron and manganese above their secondary maximum contaminant levels (SMCLs)]. The dissolved solids and metal content are naturally occurring.

The aquifer’s pressure and flow direction react to changing river stages. Fluid pressure and flow direction in the Mississippi Alluvial Aquifer responds directly to the river’s stages.

When the river is at low stage, recharge to the aquifer is from the higher pressured limestone below HU-B or from downward infiltration from HU-A and flow in toward the river. At high river stages or during heavy pumping, recharge is from the hydrautically connected river and flow in the aquifer is directed away from the river.

Extracted water from the HU-B would require treatment to reduce the natural total dissolved solid and metal content. The use of the HU-B for a drinking water resource is highly unlikely for several reasons: the industrial setting of the SLDS, the site’s proximity to both the Mississippi and the city’s drinking water supply, and the poor natural water quality of the HU-B.

However, the HU-B does qualify as a potential source of drinking water under the Guidelines for Groundwater Classification under the EPA Groundwater Protection Strategy (EPA, 1986b).

The HU-C surface slopes from the western uplands to the river. The limestone bedrock has nearly horizontal bedding, which slopes only a few degrees to the east. Solution channels and fractures dominate the water routes through the bedrock. Uplands recharge of the HU-C flows downgradient to the river valley providing recharge to the HU-B, the Mississippi Alluvial Aquifer. The HU-C would be an unlikely water supply source, as it is deeper and a less productive hydrostratigraphic unit.

Figure 1−5. Hydrostratigraphic Cross−Section of the St. Louis Downtown Site Area

1-11

1.4.1.4 Radiological and Chemical Characterization Summary

The following information, as compiled from the SLDS Record of Decision (ROD) [USACE, 1998b], provides a summary of the characterization studies performed to identify the extents of impacts from materials used in MED/AEC processes. As a result of characterization of the soil, ground water, surface water, sediment, air, and structures associated with SLDS, radiological contamination attributable to MED/AEC operations at Mallinckrodt was determined to be present in the surface and subsurface. The principal risk concern is potential exposure to radiological constituents which include the thorium, actinium, and uranium decay series that are attributable to MED/AEC operations at the site. The metals arsenic, cadmium, and total uranium were also identified for cleanup.

A RI was conducted in accordance with CERCLA to determine the nature and extent of contamination at SLDS relevant to this operable unit (DOE, 1994a). Analytical results for radiological and chemical characterization surveys are summarized in the RI report and the RI Addendum (DOE, 1994a; DOE, 1995).

Soil characterization results indicated that the areas associated with MED/AEC activities were principally contaminated with radionuclides, including radium-226 (Ra-226), Ra-228, thorium-230 (Th-230), Th-232, uranium-234 (U-234), U-235, and U-238, and associated daughter products (USACE, 1998b). Radiological constituents have also been identified on vicinity properties with the highest levels occurring at the City Property. The extent of contamination is limited mostly to shallow soils; however, contaminants may have migrated to depths of about 7 m (20 ft) below ground surface at Plants 2 and 6. Metals and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) have also been detected across the site but generally occur in limited pockets (USACE, 1998b). The ROD for SLDS identified arsenic (As) and cadmium (Cd) as contaminants of concern (COCs) in addition to the radionuclides indicated above.

Sediment samples were collected as part of the RI from 50 manholes and 23 storm drains or process pipelines as part of the initial RI completed in 1994. These samples indicated U-238, Ra-226, Th-232, and Th-230 contamination exceeding guidelines in 36 manholes and within 7 pipelines (DOE, 1995). Sampling of Mississippi River sediments along City of St. Louis property in 1987 and 1988 indicated Th-230 and Ra-226 contamination ranging from 1 to 160 picocuries per gram (pCi/g) and 6 to 1,100 pCi/g, respectively. Subsequent confirmatory sampling conducted in 1992 indicated no levels of radioactivity above minimum detectable activities (MDAs). Higher flows between the sampling events are suspected to have flushed the constituents downstream.

Ground water at the SLDS has been impacted by historical operations related to MED/AEC activities and other site industrial uses. Radiological contamination is limited to the HU-A through sorption processes and is dominated by uranium activity. Other isotopes have historically been close to background levels. Ground-water monitoring wells in the vicinity of the former Building K1E have historically had consistently elevated levels of uranium activity in excess of background levels. VOCs detected in the HU-A include benzene, 1,2-dichloroethene (DCE), trichlorethylene (TCE), and vinyl chloride. Inorganic contaminants detected at significant concentrations in the HU-A include As, Cd, iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), chloride (Cl2), and sulfate (SO4).

1-12

Radiological COCs, as identified by the ROD [Actinium-227 (Ac-227), Protactinium-231 (Pa-231), Ra-226, Th-230, Th-232, and U-238], have not been found in the HU-B at concentrations exceeding their respective maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). In general, historical concentrations of these isotopes in the HU-B have been near background levels (DOE, 1995).

Non-radiological COCs as identified by the ROD (As, Cd, and total uranium) have not been found in the HU-B at levels of significance. Organic contaminants, not selected as COCs in the ROD, have been detected in the HU-B at significant levels including 1,2 DCE, vinyl chloride, methylene chloride, TCE and hexachlorobenzene. The primary inorganic contaminants found in the HU-B that are attributed to non MED/AEC sources, and are not COCs under the ROD, are barium (Ba), Fe, Mn, and Cl2.

1.4.2 SLAPS and CPs

SLAPS is an 8.8-ha (21.7-acre) site…