abbreviated preliminary assessment checklist · abbreviated preliminary assessment checklist ......

ABBREVIATED PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST

This checklist can be used to help the site investigator determine if an Abbreviated PreliminaryAssessment (APA) is warranted. This checklist should document the rationale for the decision onwhether further steps in the site investigation process are required under CERCLA. Use additionalsheets, if necessary.

Checklist Preparer: Shelly Jacksoi

Title: Environmental Specialist

Address: P.O. Box 176

City: Jefferson City

Telephone: 573-75 1-1288

State: MO

Date: March 27, 2007

Zip: 65 102

E-rnail Address: [email protected]

Site Name: Vienna Wells Site

Alias: NA

Address or other Location Identifier: 424 8th Street (City Hall)

City: Vienna

Latitude: 38. 18834

County: Maries State: MO

Longitude:

Zip: 65582

-91.94627

Describe the release (or potential release) and its probable nature:A release of a hazardous substance, PCE, has been documented by the quarterly monitoring reports of the publicdrinking water wells serving the city of Vienna. Levels of PCE have been slowly rising since it was first detected inwell #3 in 1997. In August 2006 the level of PCE in Well #3 was measured at 5.72 ppb, exceeding the MCL of 5.0ppb. The department's Public Dri iking Water Branch requested the Site Assessment Unit conduct an investigationto determine the source of the PCE in area groundwater.

Part 1 - Superfund Eligibility EvaluationIf all answers are "no", go on to Part 2, otherwise proceed to Part 3.

1. Is the site currently in CERCLIS or an "alias" of another site? Yes No X

Explain:This is a recently discovered site and is CERCLIS eligible. The CERCLIS discovery form is being submitted inconjunction with this APA form.

40279764

Superfund

I o f 6 (Revised by Missouri DNR 9/27/02)


2. Is the site being addressed by some other remedial program (Federal,State, or Tribal)?

Yes No X

Explain:The department's Public Drinking Water Branch has required quarterly VOC analysis at the site since PCE was firstdetected at 0.5 ppb in 1997. PDWB has been monitoring the levels since 1997 and, in 2006, requested the SiteAssessment Unit conduct an investigation to determine the source of the PCE.

3. Are the hazardous substances potentially rel eased at the site regulated undera statutory exclusion (e.g., petroleum, naturt 1 gas, natural gas liquids, syntheticgas usable for fuel, normal application of fertilizer, release located in a workplace,naturally occurring, or regulated by the NRC, UMTRCA, or OSHA) ?

Explain:PCE is not regulated under statutory exclusion.

Yes No X

4. Are the hazardous substances potentially releases at the site excluded by policyconsiderations (i.e., deferred to RCRA corrective action)?

Yes No X

Explain:The site consists of three public drinking water wells serving the city of Vienna. The department's Public DrinkingWater Branch (PDWB) does not have the authority to conduct an investigation of potential sources of the PCE, soPDWB requested the assistance of the Site Assessment Unit.

5. Is there sufficient documentation to demonstrate that no potential for a release Yes No Xthat could cause adverse environmental or b a man health impacts exists(e.g., comprehensive remedial investigation equivalent data showing no releaseabove ARARs, completed removal action, documentation showing that no hazardoussubstance releases have occurred, or an EPA approved risk assessment completed)?

Explain:Drinking water samples collected quarterly from 1997 to present have documented PCE in Well #3. Levels haveslowly increased and in August 2006, PCE wa> detected at 5.72 ppb, exceeding the MCL of 5.0 ppb. Well #1 wasput online in early 2006 and immediately began showing PCE. Levels in Well #1 have not exceeded 5.0 ppb. Well#2 also has PCE detections, but is not in service due to aesthetic concerns (sulfur odor).

Part 2 - Initial Site EvaluationIf information is not available to make a "yes" or "no" response, further investigation may beneeded. In these cases, determine whether and APA is appropriate. Exhibit 1 parallels thequestions in Part 2.

2 of 6 (Revised by Missouri DNR 9/27/02)


1. Does the site have a release or a potential to release? Yes X No

Explain:A release has been documented in the PCE present in the public drinking water wells serving Vienna since 1997.Levels first exceeded the MCL in August 2006. Subsequent samples have been below the MCL.

2. Does the site have uncontained sources containing CERCLA eligible substances? Yes _ No X

Explain:The site consists of three public drinking water wells serving Vienna. There are no sources at the site.

3. Does the site have documented on-site, adjacent, or nearby targets?

Explain:The Vienna Public Water Supply served 623 people in Vienna.

Yes X No

If the answers to questions 1, 2, and 3 were all "yes"> then answer the questions below beforeproceeding to Part 3.

4. Does documentation indicate that a target (e.g. drinking water wells, drinking Yes X Nosurface water intakes, etc.) has been exposed to a hazardous substance releasedfrom the site?

Explain:PCE has been documented in the three wells serving Vienna. These three wells are part of a blended water systemthat provides drinking water for the city. No other sources of drinking water are used. The 623 residents served bythe public water supply are targets.



5. Is there an apparent release at the site with no documentation of exposed targets, Yes X Nobut there are targets on site or immediately adjacent to the site?

Explain:PCE has been documented in the three wells serving Vienna. These three wells are part of a blended water systemthat provides drinking water for the city. No other sources of drinking water are used. The 623 residents served bythe public water supply are targets.

6. Is there an apparent release and no documented on-site targets or targetsimmediately adjacent to the site, but there are nearby targets (e.g. targetswithin 1 mile)?

Yes No X

Explain:PCE has been documented in the three wells serving Vienna. These three wells are part of a blended water

system that provides drinking water for the city. No other sources of drinking water are used. The 623 residentsserved by the public water supply are targets.

7. Is there no indication of a hazardous substance release, and there are uncontained Yessources containing CERCLA hazardous substances, but there is a potential torelease with targets present on site or in proximity to the site?

No X

Explain:A hazardous substance release has been documented by the PCE detected in the three public drinking water wellsserving the residents of Vienna.

Part 3 - EPA Site Assessment DecisionWhen completing Part 3. use Part 2 and Exhibit 1 to select the appropriate decision. Forexample, if the answer to question 1 in Part 2 was "no", then an APA may be performed and the"NFRAP" box below should be checked. Additionally, if the answer to question 4 in Part 2 is"yes," then you have two options (as indicated in Exhibit 1): Option 1 - conduct an APA andcheck the "Lower Priority SI' or "Higher Priority SI" box below; or Option 2 - proceed with acombined PA/SI assessment.

4 of 6 (Revised by Missouri DNR 9/2 7/02)


Check the box that applies based on the conclusions of the APA:

D NFRAPX Higher Priority SID Lower Priority SI

Defer to RCRA Subtitle C DDefer to NRC

Refer to Removal Program - further site assessment neededRefer to Removal Program - NFRAPSite is being addressed as part of another CERCLIS siteOther:

Explain rationale t'or your decision:A release of a hazardous substance, PCE, has been documented by the quarterly monitoring reports of the publicdrinking water wells serving the city of Vienna. All three public wells have shown PCE contamination, but currentlyonly wells #1 and #3 are in service. Levels of PCE have been slowly rising since it was first detected in well #3 in1997. In August 2006 the level of PCE in Well #3 was measured at 5.72 ppb, exceeding the MCL of 5.0 ppb. Thereare 623 targets in the city. The department's Public Drinking Water Branch requested the Site Assessment Unitconduct an investigation to determine the source of the PCE in area groundwater

An investigation should be conducted to determine the source of PCE contamination in the public drinking waterwells serving uhe 623 residents of Vienna. This investigation will require file reviews, interviews and off-sitesampling, theiefore eievating the investigation to Site Inspection status.

REVIEWED BY:NAME: Shelly Jackson SIGNATURE DATE: 3-28-07


*


EXHIBIT 1SITE ASSESSMENT DECISION GUIDELINES FOR A SITE

Exhibit 1 identifies different types of site information and provides some possible recommendations forfurther site assessment activities based on that information. You will use Exhibit 1 in determining the needfor further action at the site, based on the answers to the questions in Part 2. Please use your professionaljudgement when evaluating a site. Your judgement may be different from the general recommendations for asite given below.

Suspected/Documented Site Conditions

1 . There are no releases or potential to release.

2. No uncontained sources with CERCLA-eligiblesubstances are present on site.

3. There are no on-site, adjacent, or nearby targets.

4. There is documentationindicating that a target(e.g. drinking waterwells, drinking surfacewater intakes, etc.) hasbeen exposed to ahazardous substancereleased from the site.

5. There is an apparentrelease at the site withno documentation ofexposed targets, butthere are targets on siteor immediately adjacentto the site.

Option 1: APA -» SI

Option 2: PA/SI

Option 1: APA -» SI

Option 2: PA/SI

6. There is an apparent release and no documented on-sitetargets and no documented targets immediatelyadjacent to the site, but there are nearby targets, nearbytargets are those targets that are located within 1 mileof the site and have a relatively high likelihood ofexposure to a hazardous substance migration from thesite

7. There is no indication of a hazardous substance release,and there are uncontained sources containing CERCLAhazardous substance, but there is a potential to releasewith targets present on site or in proximity to the site.

APA Full PA PA/SI SI

Yes

Yes

Yes

<=>

No

CSD

No

No

No

OSi) CN&)

(NcT)

(fio^)

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

CNO)

CNO^>

CN<D>

<^NcT) CN^O

No C^£<J)

C£> N/A

No C^e^)

CYes)

No

No

N/A

0

CN<O

6 of 6 (Revised by Missouri D.VR 9/27/02)

abbreviated preliminary assessment checklist · abbreviated preliminary assessment checklist ......

Documents