TECHNOLOGY

MEMORANDUM

TO: David Wineman, Acting RPO (6ES-SH)

THRU:

THRU:

FROM:

K.H. Ma1one, Jr., FITOM

Tim Ha11, AFITO#-~ . I'

b1' Debra Pandak & Heather

DATE: September 23, 1987

'?\> Schijf, FIT

SUBJ: Response to Monroe Auto Equipment Comments on FIT Site Inspection Report Dated May 17, 1987 (ARD980864110), TDD F-6-8709-18.

In reference to the subject SI, answers to the questions posed by Monroe Auto Equipment representative Debra Brannum are attached. The questions are appended as Attachment A.

In addition, FIT has attached an amended site Inspection report that corrects two sections found to have typing errors (see question/answer #5 and #6).

FIT has a1so attached re1evant references that support the Site Inspection report, TDD F-6-8701-34, "Monroe Pit Site."

DP:HS:eln

Attachments

142578

1509 Main Street, Suite 800, Qailas. TX 75201 (214] 744-1641 •_ ,.' --,...,_---- ~7".:•,M ~- • . '•~-;, •- ,: • •

O" 0 0 0 0

...,,·

....

Monroe Auto Equipment Division of Tenneco Autorrfotive -

EPA Region VI Allied Bank Tower 1445 Ross Avenue Dallas, TX 75202-2733

Attention: Martha McKee

ATTACHMENT A International Drive Monroe. Michigan 48161 (313) 243-8000

August 27, 1987

Subject: EPA FIT Report from April 28 Monroe Landfill Site Assessment

Dear Ms. McKee:

~,

The Arkansas State Department of Health recently provided Monroe, upon request, a copy of the FIT Inspection Report from the site assessment conducted at our landfill near Paragould, Arkansas on April 28, 1987. A report had previously been requested verbally from Keith Bradley followed by a written request to Helen Newman on May 1987 as instructed by Mr. Bradley. We understand that the reports are public information and we would appreciate receiving the report from EPA. After reviewing the report we have noted the following questions or-comments regarding information contained in the report.

1. On Page 4 Item VII.C., EPA indicates that the sludge contains paint pigments, metal sludges, oily wastes, halogenated solvents, acids, flyash, metals and laboratory pharmaceuticals. What was the source of this information? The sludge is from NPDES approved waste water treatment plant. A description of the plant's sludge was provided to EPA with Monroe's delisting petition No. 0020.

2. On Page 7 Item VIII.R, EPA notes the existance of a two foot gulley that runs under the southeast corner of the fence. This gulley has been filled by Monroe and no longer exists. The perimeter of the landfill site will be monitored on a monthly basis to ensure adequate security.

3. How was "38 persons per one hour" established as being the number of people driving by the area in Item IX.A on Page 8?

4. What was the source of hydrogeological information presented in Items VIII.U, X.A, Band Don Page 8 that indicates the depth to grou~~water, the directio~ Qf flew and the pote~~ial yield of the aquifer?

5. Which aquifer stated to have a potential yield of 7500 GPM is referred to in Item X.D on Page 8?

-1-

•

N 0'-0 0 0 0

6. Item X.E on Page 8 states distance to drinking water supply is. 700 feet but Attachment A states 350 feet to domestic well. Which is correct or p~ease_ __ exI)lain? · · ·

. . -- --7. In Item X.I. on Page 9, how many miles downstream is the first

public water supply?

8. In Item VIII.U in Attachment A, a geologist from the Arkansas Geological Survey mentions •that minerals are not present in the area except on rare occasions when iron is found." What was the source of this information?

9. In Attachment A, Item.X.H, and the domestic well location map, which well is the Gann well? we understand it to be one of the mobile homes.

10. On the •Monroe Landfill Site Sketch" what is the EPA background on the unauthorized dump• site noted on the drawing? Our plant chemist visited the site and took.photo copies of which are attached. The photo•~ indicate the presence of oil stained soils and small containers.

!

11. Attachment D and Attachment F copies are not legible.

Again, Monroe would appreciate receiving a copy of the report from EPA as soon as possible. Your response to the above questions will also be appreciated. Please forward the above items to Mr. Paul Hill , the Plan.t Manager at:

DAB/tls

cc: K. Bradley -P. Katowicz M. Johnson s. Mostkoff P. Hill c. Pickney

DAB59

' Monr9e Auto Equipment Company Highway 49B North Paragould, AR 72450

l

EPA Reg~on VI

I - -

i

r. - ... '

Sincerely,

·-

Debra~- Brannum Environmental Engineer

--- ...... -

I [ ... ~.-· :- . _., .

:

.-2-

re)

q-. 0

.Q

0 0

Answer to Question f1:

1. Section VII C.2., page 4 of the EPA site Inspection report, contains a series of columns, each representing a different waste type category. In the report, written on the Monroe Pit, the only column.marked to indicate a waste type is the "SLUDGE" column, VII c.2.a. The "amount" box was completed with 15,000 cubic yards. This information is based on a memorandum given to the FIT by Charles Pickney, a Monroe Auto Equipment representative. This memorandum was attached to the original Site Inspection report as Attachment B. The other columns, "OIL", "SOLVENT", "SOLIDS" and "OTHER" were all completed with the amount value of "NONE". This means that FIT did not and does not have any records or evidence of these waste categories based on the result of the site inspection of April 28, 1987.

Although the waste sludge listed under petition No. 0020 seemed to present no hazard at that time, FIT cannot, without speculation, consider this site to be free of potential dangers to the public without further testing. During the investigation, area residents voiced concern over water quality problems. It is vitally important that -FIT/EPA seriously consider those concerns and problems experienced by residents living near potential hazardous waste sites. With the possibility that the landfill was lying in or close to the water table and no liners were used, FIT recommended that ground water sampling be conducted.

Answer to Question #2:

2. This is a comment made by Monroe about their efforts to correct erosion problems noticed on April 28, 1987. A reply by FIT is inappropriate.

Answer to Question f3:

3. The value of 11 38 persons per hour" in Section IX A.3., is an estimated calculation done during the inspection on April 28, 1987.

In a 5-minute period two cars were recorded. From this, 25 cars/hour was calculated. To calculate the number of persons per car a conversion factor of 1.5 persons/car was used.

25 cars/hour x 1.5 persons/car= 37.5 persons/hour

This value was rounded off to 38 persons/hour.

As the section indicates, this is an approximate number.

l.Aiiswer to Question 14 !

4. FIT obtained the information for section X. A, Band D from various sources. Section X. A was completed using the following:

1. FIT contacted a ground water specialist, Danny Goodwin, of the Arkansas Water commission. He informed FIT that the water level varied considerably and could be as high as 20 feet or at 75 feet. See Attachment B.

3.

FIT also used a State of Arkansas Geological Commission Water Resources Circular No. 13, "Alluvial Aquifer of the Cache aqd St. Frances River Basins." __ A copy of the page used is attached at Attachment c. i = ~

FIT also utilized the information in a memorandum from the state of Arkansas Department of Pollution control and Ecology; dated January 22, 1973. This memorandum was attach:ed to the Site Inspection report as Attachment q. The memorandum stated that depths to the water table !exceeded 75 feet.

Section X.B inf~rmation, on Direction of Flow, was also obtained from Danny Goodwin, of the Arkansas Water commission. The;FIT, in many cases, rely on experts in the local areas for : information because written documents are not always available on some subject matters.

Answer to Question 14, Part 3 and f5:

The information _presented in Section X.D., 7500 gpm, is incorrect and we appreciate the opportunity to correct it. The value of 7500 gpm should read> 500 gpm. This appears to have been a typing error and has been corrected in the attached amended Site Inspection report.

The aquifer reference to supply > 500 gpm is the Alluvium aquifer. This information was obtained from the publication:

1. Arkansas Water Resources Circular No. 1, 11 Arkansas Ground Water.Resources", p. 3.

See Attachment D.i

since there are varying volumes produced by this aquifer, FIT reported the conservative value of> 500 gpm.

lf\

O' 0 0 0 0

Answer to Question f6:

6. Attachment A is correct. The distance to the drinking water supply and nearest domestic well is 350 feet. This has been corrected on the attached amended Site Inspection report.

Answer to Question f7:

7. Section X. 1 on page 9 of the EPA report "Receiving Water" is to be completed with the closest surface water body near the site in question. In the case of the Monroe Pit, the closest water body is an unnamed tributary of Village Creek. In addition, this section requires that the uses of these water bodies be identified. Use information was obtained from the state of Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology Publication, "Regulation No. 2 as Amended, Regulation Establishing Water Quality Standards for surface Water for the State of Arkansas, November 1984."

This document, published by the State of Arkansas, does not list the user of Village Creek. Therefore, FIT does not know the distance to the nearest surface water user of Village Creek. This information is not and has not been -required for the Site Inspection report, EPA Form T2020-3. If this site moves into the next investigative stage, Hazard Ranking System, then all users will be identified fo~ surface water as well as ground water.

Answer to Question ts:

8. As stated above, FIT sometimes relies on experts in local areas for geologic information. FIT communicated with William Prior, of the Arkansas Geological Commission, about the mineral content in the area in question. In addition, FIT was supplied with a document, "The Tertiary and Quaternary Geology of Crowley's Ridge: A Guidebook", p. 7, M.S. Guccione, W.L. Prior, and E.M. Rutledge, Arkansas Geological Commission, March 1986. This report also serves to support the statement that the mineral content would be limited to iron. FIT was concerned about potential occurrences of copper in the area due to reported discoloration in the residential water wells.

See Attachment E for elaboration.

Answer to Question f9:

9. FIT is not familiar with any resident by the name of Gann. This name does not appear in the attachment for Section X. H or elsewhere in the report.

'° 0-. 0 0 0 0

.Answer to Question 110:

10. FIT is not aware of any background data on the unauthorized dump site next to the Monroe Pit. During the inspection of April 28, 1987, · FIT members observed standing rain water, dead trees and tree trunks and bricks. At the time of inspection, FIT did not observe any oil stains or other evidence of hazardous materials. This area was an old gravel mine pit with available access. It is possible that oil or other containers, as mentioned by Monroe, have been dumped following the April 28, 1987 inspection. This site, the unauthorized dump, could be re-evaluated, based on Monroe's concern and observation of oil stained soil and containers.

This decision for further action is EPA's and not a judgment appropriately made by FIT.

. .

Answer to Question 111:

r-0'-0 0 0

11. An amended and attached Site Inspection report contains a 0 higher quality copy of all attachments.

--=--- ATTACHMENT B RECORD OF

COMMUNICATION ~ Phone Cal 1 D Discussion tJ Field Trip

D Conference O Other(Specify)

t Record of ltem Checked -Aliove) 10! f ROM:

___ \k_e.i_,_~_s_c._l_;-..,, f_-r._c._i--_-_T_e_L_i_,o_(.,._.,,-f't---r- IT DATE

50\-'3 +I- llo(l) f llME \-r\c. wJc1 r., ........ ,ss,., .. c.,.,_,~&...,..L $~.

SUM-MARY Of CoMMUNicAfioN

CONCLUSioNS, XcTioR TAREN OR ~EQ01RED / ,1 Ji +le.. ,x....e..._ . ._. = (( .~ le...c-e,;. \.,..,+ +L.. ✓ ,J..~ · ~ S Li <::-+-8 7

lNfORMAllOM COPlt.!) I TO:

( .

t.PA a-orm 1JUU-b \1-1 Z) • Replaces £PA HQ Form 5300-l Which May Be_ used Unt·11 Supply 1s Exhausted.

- ....

.

CX)

9) 0 0 0

:

-\ -~

h ft

II ' I

t

f I

1-'--~· _-----·· r ATTACHMENT·c

- . •--..,:,, '• •. -. , • .r~~-

STATE OF ARKANSAS

ARKANSAS GEOLOGICAL COMMISSION

Norma; F. Williams, State Geologist

WATER RESOURCES CIRCULAR NO. 13

Alluvial Aquifer of the Cache and St. Francis River Basins . , Northeastern Arkansas

By

M. E. Broom and F. P. Lyford U. S~ GEOLOGICA~ SURVEY

Prepared by the U. S. -Geological Survey in cooperation with the Arkansas Geological Commission

l.,ittle Rock, Arkansas f -- . -~

1982

- <-~~1,~c.~ •• .... ,._. __ .L,.,-f -~-

·~=?¼l"iAw \: ·.11.c.-.i; ... -.. S"•.

----~-·-.: ... ::;-~.;:;~

Q'\

°' 0 0 0 0

i

1 .

--j I

- - - : :i/::~~g! (This publication is a reprint of U. S. Geological Survey Open File Report 81-476)

Water-Level Fluctuations and Declines

Water levels have been monitored in about 50 wells in the study area by

annual or more frequent measurements since the 1950' s. Other wells were

added to the observation-well network during the 1960' s and with the start ---

of this project in 1973. Hydrographs from a represen~ative selection of the

observation wells are shown on plate 7.

Water levels in areas of little or no water-level decline (pl. 7) are

generally within 20 feet of land surface and have an annual fluctuation of

about 5 feet. Most of the fluctuation is in response to stream-stage

changes, but some of the response is to recharge from precipitation and dis­

charge to evapotranspiration and wells.

Water levels in the area of water-level decline (pl. 7) during 1978 were

from about 40 to 75 feet below land surface and were declining as much as 2

i feet per year in some places. Hydrograph 12 (pl. 7) indicates about the same

rate of water-level decline in the Memphis aquifer as is indicated by hydro­

graphs for the rate of water-level decline in the alluvial aquifer. This

similarity is si&nificant because water-level decline in the Memphis aqui­

fer is almost entirely in response to irrigation-well discharge from the al­

luvial aquifer.

Water Quality

· The water pumped from the alluvial aquifer is typically a . calcium

bicarbonate (CaHC03) type which contains appreciable amounts of magnesium

(Mg) and iron (Fe). Other dissolved constituents in the water, but in com­

paratively small concentrations, include sodium (Na), chloride (Cl), potas­

sium (K), sulfate (S04), silica (SiOz), · nitrate (N03) 1 flouride (F), and

manganese (Mn). Chemical analyses of the water are contained in Ryling . (1960); Plebuch (1961); Lamonds, Hines, and Plebuch (1969); Hines, Plebuch,

and Lamonds (1972); and Westerfield (1977).

28

I

1J":'' ·- ..... .:..·:.,,,.,.··-~•-r ;""..._ ~,~~-r,·--:i,-..,~. I~/.,,• • ••," ,

.~~ i'' >.' ::-_ ~' ·:

• r -'----''--~----"~~ $-,;' -,

. ,?;'. • ~-- .. ,.•_.' - ~~~

·~ _ . ..,., • .-.• ~ ·--- i"..! ,.... • ~- '" • '"'.... ,t .-,.., _.,, ,.--i,~· . .1~-' ;,.i:... ..,..:..,_-,, -•,~.·--~ .""'' ·-:::--....,1~,·-;·-~•A• ··•-1r--.-~~~-- .... ,-r. ...... r.' -·-..,,."".":""'~""''i'""',"'.-.~~••· f' -~rst r: ·

...:, :;;~,'Mf:'.ft~)',j\D}in1:Vh/,'.{t°( iii,, ~';~·,J,./.'"' :,c' .'' .,

..... ·-· '.,..?, :;.___2.:---:..,.u.:....t_:i-, ... .:::~ . .:.....:- .. :.. .. ~..: ..;,_;:., ... !""- ·,:.,__., __ ..,.. ... - -- , ~--.. --•-·...:.... _._ ........ ,.. ....... ~"U..s.,.,:'__:_< .... ~ --· ~ ~: ~-t ~0.~~~~~~:~~·r, ~~-"~ •::0 '.':::~,?:~"': ,-f ~ ,- ~ "V'T' ~-- ::~ •~. 7-·,. ·. '.":;::::.~.?T~ ~ ... ~ .. ~~- ,-• -

' ., '!I:

Ii.:'_ ct

,, ,'Ii: -..-..L~~

........ .......,_.., ... ......_. .................. ...___ ........

EXPLANATION

APPROXIMATE YIELD OF WELLS

~ Mare than 50,0 gallons per mln,ult

- 5010500 gallon• per minute

D Ltll than 50 gallons per ml nut,

STATIC WATER LEVEL

il= } Depth In fHt bllow ground 111rfact

lCW­F'igure 2. Approximate yields to be expected from wells and th!il OJJOxl,•tp c@,tfto

the static water level in Arkansas. . · · .

.-

.R 26'

STA~E O~sAs \TTACHMENT E ARKANSAS GEOLOGICAL COMMISSION

Norman 'p. Williama, Director

THE TERTI~RY 1

AND Q'UATERNARY GEOLOGY OF

CROWLEY•s RIDGE:

~ GUIDEBO_OK

; By j/ . JI K.J'. Guccione, ·W.L. Prior, and E.M. Rutledre

.!IM. J. Guccione Geology 0epanment

UnivenitY of Arkansas Fayetteville. Arkansas

Field Trip Leaden

, ~.LPrlor Arkansas Gaalogical Commission

' -Little Rock. Arkansas

.J/e. M. Rutledge Agronomy Department University of Arkansas Fayeptville. Arkansas

Prepared for Southeaatern and South-Central Sections, of the Geological Society of America Memphis, Te1uie~aee

• April &, 1986

Prepared by the, Arkan~aa Geological Commission Norman F ~- -~ill_iama, State Geologist

; r-­t

. - ,-

Little Rock, Arkaiiaaa

'­' -

·Ma~ch.1986

0 0 0

,,"'"!!lb ... ;- =-~- ~

CONTENTS

Geomorphology . .....•..................••...•..•...

Geologic setting and stratigraphy •••••••••••••••••

Eocene strata ...•...••••••.•••••..••••..••••.•

Wilcox Group •••••••••••..•••.••••••.••••••• Claiborne Group •• Jackson Group •••••

....... . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . ... Pliocene strata .•••••••••.•.••••••••••••••••••

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Geometry. Source. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Age •••• Texture

. . . . and

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . sedimentary structures.

Soils . ............................ .

. . . . . -

. . . . . .

. . . . . . Depositional environments ••••••••••

Pliocene braided stream facies ••••• Pliocene coarse-grained meandering

. . . . .

stream facies •.•••.•••••••••••••••••• Climate •••..••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••

Pleistocene strata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Previous investigations of loess

stratigraphy •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Source of loess.................... • •••• Distribution of the loess ••••••••• . . -. . Age of the loess •••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Road log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Described sections . . . . . . . . . . --. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Crow Creek section· •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Wittsburg section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Copperas Creek section Poplar Creek section Liberty Church road section

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Liberty Church quarry section •••••••••••••••••

References cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendices

Appendix Appendix Appendix

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I

II III

... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

1

4

4 4 7

7

7 7 8 8

10 10 10

13 13

14

14 15 17 19

19

21

21 22 25 26 29 30

32

34

34 35 37

o;;::t

0 ~

0 0 0 ~--

_.i'

posited in deltaic and nearshore marine environments.

Jackson Group.--The Jackson Group overlies the Claiborne Group and is exposed along the. flanks of the southernmost P..Ortion of Crowley's Ridge (Fig. 3). Here the sediments are approximately 490 feet ( 150 m) thick and consist of sandy clay, silt, and glau-

• conitic, fossiliferous sandy clay deposited in a nearshore marine environment. The Jack­son Group was deposited during the last marine transgression into Arkansas. This trans­gression was centered over the Desha Basin, which is a struc­tural low that trends east.:. west, south of Crowley's Ridge (Wilbert, 1953). An undeter-mined ·thickness of Tertiary strata has been lost by ero­sion since the Eocene.

PLIOCENE STRATA ' .

Geometry.--Overlying the Te~~ tiary units on Crowley's Ridge is a Pliocene sand and grav~l unit. It varies from Oto 125 feet (38 m) in thickness and averages 33 feet (10 ~) (Holbrook, 1980). In outcrop the unit is continuous for hundreds of meters laterally, al though indi,vidual beds are more local. Subsurface litho­logic logs suggest a nearly continuous deposit that slopes 1.74 ft/mi (0.33 m/km) to the south (Fig. 4). Some deep channels within this broad sheet are incised into ~he bedrock. A larger anastomos­ing channel system is located just north of Jonesboro and is 9.9 mi (16 km) wide with a single channel being . 2. 8 mi

( 4 ~ 5 km) wide. The maximum thickness of the unit in this channel may have been 197 feet (60 m), if the gravels are the same age and if the channel was filled to the upper eleva­tion of the gravel on th~ sur­rounding surfaces. This chan­nel system has some surface expression in that the ground elevation is lower over the channel than it is on sur­rounding_ parts of the sheet • A smaller single channel east of Harrisburg _ is 1.4 mi (2.3 km) wide and may have .been filled with a maximum of 79 feet (24 m) of gravel. Sur­face expression of this chan­nel is minimal. Two small streams are aligned with this buried channel but the eleva­tion of the divide between them is no lower than that of the surrounding gravel sheet.

Source.--The source area of the. Pliocene sand and gravel unit included sedimentary and metamorphic rocks. The mid­continent Paleozoic craton and Appalachian Mountains in the ~astern United States probably provided the materials. Chert is the dominant lithology in the pebble fraction but sand­stone, quartz, and Tertiary clay pebbles are also present (Table 2). The heavy minerals in the sand fraction are domi­nantly zircon, rutile, and tourmaline. The high-rank

· metamorphic minerals sillman­ite, kyanite, and staurolite are also present (Table 3). This limited lithologic suite without any igneous rocks and a mineral suite with a paucity of epidote, hornblende, augite, and garnet is unlike the lithologic and mineralogic suite in Quaternary glacial

Lql

i ci

' --.1

I I