{This EPA R6 FYR template is adapted from the EPA HQ recommended template (OLEM-9200.0-89, Jan. 20, 2016).} {All R6 specific instructions are in: green highlight.}
R6 Five Year Review Checklist:

RPM:   Michael Torres
FYR Lead Agency/Entity:  The Oklahoma Departement of Envivronmenal Quality
FYR start date in SEMS: October 1, 2018
FYR public notice date:  Decenber 5, 2018
FYR inspection & community interviews:  November 29, 2018
Draft FYR received date: May 10, 2019

When the Draft FYR is received:
 Please review and send to site team members for their review. 
 Send to the state environmental agency for their review (if they were not the lead agency):
 Draft FYR send date to state environmental agency:  N/A
 Comments received date:  N/A
 Send to EPA HQ (Jennifer Edwards/OSRTI for private sites) for their review.
 Draft FYR send date to EPA HQ: June 13, 2019
 Comments received date: July 10, 2019
 Please allow for 30-days for all reviews and feedback.
After review and feedback, please consolidate comments and send to Lead Agency/Entity:
Draft FYR consolidated comments send date to Lead Agency/Entity: July 29, 2019

Draft Final/Final FYR received date: August 7, 2019

After the Draft Final/Final FYR is received, please review and ensure all comments have been resolved. 
Then begin R6 concurrence routing for final signature:
 R6 concurrence routing start date:____________________________
 R6 6SF briefing date (if one is scheduled): _____________________
 R6 Final FYR signature date: ________________________________

After completion of final signature, please complete the SEMS records process to obtain the SEMS Document ID for the Final FYR: _________

Then send the Final FYR, along with the SEMS Document ID, to EPA HQ (to: David Reynolds/OSRTI, with cc: Jennifer Edwards/OSRTI, Charles Sands/OSRTI. For federal facilities, add cc: Monica McEaddy/FFRRO):
 Final FYR and SEMS Document ID send date to EPA HQ: ___________

Send the Final FYR to the state environmental agency: _________________________________
Ensure that the Final FYR is publicly available at the site local repository:__________________
Ensure that the Final FYR is publicly available on the R6 site profile page: __________
Ensure that the Final FYR availability public notice is published: ___________________________________ 
Update SEMS with Issues/Recommendations Info (or send to Sandy Suell/R6 for input into SEMS):_______

                      FIRST FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT FOR 
                  TULSA FUEL AND MANUFACTURING SUPERFUND SITE
                            TULSA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       

                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       

                                       
                                       
                                  Prepared by
                                       
                     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                   Region 6
                                  Dallas, TX
                                       
                                August 31, 2019




					
                                 												
                                       
                                       
                        FIRST FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT 
                  TULSA FUEL AND MANUFACTURING SUPERFUND SITE
                               ID#: OKD987096195
                            TULSA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA
                                       
                                       
This memorandum documents the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's performance, determinations, and approval of the Tulsa Fuel and Manufacturing Superfund Site (Site) first five year review under Section 121(c) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S. Code Section 9621(c), as provided in the attached first Five-Year review Report.  

Summary of the first Five-Year Review Report
The 2008 Record of Decision required contaminated waste from the Site to be placed into an on-site consolidation cell. Following the completion of remedial action at the Site in 2017, operation and maintenance (O&M) activities have been conducted as intended. O&M activities include groundwater monitoring to ensure that the contents of the consolidation cell have not leached into groundwater, and inspection of the Site to ensure the physical integrity of the cell. To date, groundwater monitoring indicates that groundwater has not been impacted by site-related waste. Institutional controls should remain in place and continue to be enforced. The remedy is performing as expected and continues to achieve remedial action objectives.

Environmental Indicators
Human Exposure Status:  Human Exposure Under Control
Contaminanted Groundwater Status: Contaminated Groundwater Migration Under Control
The Site is Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Reuse

Determination
I have determined that the remedy for the Tulsa Fuel and Manufacturing Superfund Site is protective  of human health and the environment.  This five-year review report specifies that there are no actions that need to be taken for the remedy to remain protective in the long term.





____________________________________		______________________________
Wren Stenger     						Date
Director, Superfund Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6

                                 CONCURRENCES
                                       
                        FIRST FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT 
                  TULSA FUEL AND MANUFACTURING SUPERFUND SITE
                             EPA ID#: OKD987096195
                            TULSA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA
                                       
                                       

____________________________________		______________________________
Michael Torres		.					Date
Remedial Project Manager



____________________________________		______________________________
Blake Atkins							Date
Chief, LA/OK/NMSection



__________________________________		            ______________________________
John C. Meyer							Date
Chief, Superfund Remedial Branch



____________________________________		______________________________
Elizabeth Pletan							Date
Attorney, Office of Regional Counsel



____________________________________		______________________________
Pam Travis 							Date
Acting Chief, Superfund Division, 
Office of Regional Counsel




________________________________________		_________________________________
Lisa Price 
Deputy Director, Superfund Division				Date








Table of Contents		
List of Figures	1
List of Tables	1
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS	2
I. INTRODUCTION	3
Site Background	3
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SUMMARY FORM	5
II. RESPONSE ACTION SUMMARY	5
Basis for Taking Action	5
Response Actions	6
Status of Implementation	7
Institutional Controls Summary Table	9
Systems Operations/Operation & Maintenance	9
III. PROGRESS SINCE THE LAST REVIEW	10
IV. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS	10
Community Notification, Involvement & Site Interviews	10
Data Review	10
Site Inspection	10
V. TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT	12
QUESTION A:  Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?	12
QUESTION B:  Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives used at the time of the remedy selection still valid?	12
QUESTION C:  Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy?	12
VI. ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS	13
OTHER FINDINGS	13
VII. PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT	13
VIII.	NEXT REVIEW	13
APPENDIX A  -  REFERENCE LIST	14
APPENDIX B  -  CONFIRMATION SAMPLING  AND OFF-SITE EXCAVATION FIGURES	15
APPENDIX C  -  INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS	18
APPENDIX D  -  INTERVIEWS	24
APPENDIX E  -  SITE INSPECTION CHECKLIST	38
APPENDIX F  -  SITE INSPECTION PHOTOS	53
APPENDIX G  -  SITE CHRONOLOGY	59
APPENDIX H  -  PUBLIC NOTICE OF FIVE-YEAR REVIEW	62
APPENDIX I  -  GROUNDWATER SAMPLING DATA	64
List of Figures
Figure 1                      TFM Site Layout
Attachment A             Map of Affected Property (Appendix C)

List of Tables
Table 1                       Cleanup Levels of Concern
Table 2                       Summary of Implemented ICs
Table 3                       Groundwater Results  -  All Events
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS
                                       

ARAR 		Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement
CERCLA 	Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CERCLIS	Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System
CFR 		Code of Federal Regulations
COC		Contaminant of Concern
DEQ		Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality
EPA 		United States Environmental Protection Agency
FYR		Five-Year Review
ICs		Institutional Controls
MCLs		Maximum Contaminant Levels
NCP 		National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
NPL 		National Priorities List
O&M 		Operation and Maintenance
OSDH		Oklahoma State Department of Health
PA		Preliminary Assessment
PRP		Potentially Responsible Party
RA		Remedial Action
RAO		Remedial Action Objectives
RI/FS		Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
ROD		Record of Decision
RPM		Remedial Project Manager


I. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of a Five-Year Review (FYR) is to evaluate the implementation and performance of a remedy in order to determine if the remedy is and will continue to be protective of human health and the environment. The methods, findings, and conclusions of reviews are documented in FYR reports such as this one. In addition, FYR reports identify issues found during the review, if any, and document recommendations to address them.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is preparing this FYR pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Section 121, consistent with the National Contingency Plan (NCP)(40 CFR Section 300.430(f)(4)(ii)), and considering EPA policy. 

This is the first FYR for the Tulsa Fuel and Manufacturing Superfund Site. The triggering action for this statutory review is the on-site construction start date of the remedial action. The FYR has been prepared due to the fact that hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at the Site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure (UU/UE). 

The Site consists of a single operable unit that will be addressed in this FYR. The Site remedy resulted in the cleanup of soil, sediment, and surface water.

The Tulsa Fuel and Manufacturing Superfund Site Five-Year Review was led by the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality. Participants included representatives of the DEQ and EPA. The review began on 10/1/2018.

Site Background 
The Tulsa Fuel and Manufacturing (TFM) Superfund Site was formerly operated as a zinc smelter and lead roaster industrial facility from 1914 through 1925. In 1999, EPA placed this Site on the National Priorities List (NPL) in an effort to remediate areas affected by heavy metals and to prevent potential contamination of surface water, sediment, and groundwater in the area. The Site is located in northeastern Oklahoma approximately 1-1/3 miles south of downtown Collinsville in Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Figure 1 shows a map of the approximately 61-acre site. 
                                       
   Figure 1: TFM Site Layout
















                         FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SUMMARY FORM
                              SITE IDENTIFICATION
Site Name:	Tulsa Fuel and Manufacturing Superfund Site
EPA ID:	 OKD987096195
Region: 6
State: OK
City/County: Tulsa County
                                  SITE STATUS
NPL Status: Final
Multiple OUs?
No
Has the site achieved construction completion?
Yes

                                 REVIEW STATUS
Lead agency: State
[If "Other Federal Agency", enter Agency name]: 
Author name (Federal or State Project Manager): Michael Torres
Author affiliation: USEPA
Review period: 12/1/2018 - 3/1/2019
Date of site inspection: 11/29/2018
Type of review: Statutory
Review number: 1
Triggering action date: 8/11/2014
Due date (five years after triggering action date): 8/11/2019


II. RESPONSE ACTION SUMMARY

Basis for Taking Action
The basis for taking action at the Site was to protect human health and the environment. The contaminants of concern (COCs) for the Site were identified as arsenic, cadmium, and lead. During the remedial investigation, a human health risk and ecological risk assessment was conducted that showed an excess lifetime cancer risk range greater than 1 in 10,000 to one in one million and a non-carcinogenic Hazard Index > 1 for various risk scenarios. The risk assessment determined that cleanup levels for the COCs were to be governed by the risk to human health because human health risk areas and ecological risk areas were co-located. Populations reasonably expected to be present at the Site are: adult and child residents, youth trespassers, outdoor commercial/industrial workers, and construction/utility workers (USEPA 2008). Table 1 below describes the human health benchmarks.



Table 1. Cleanup Levels for Chemicals of Concern, Tulsa Fuel and Manufacturing Site
Media: Soil
Site Area: On-Site Waste and Non-Waste Area
Available Use: Residential
                              Chemical of Concern
                        Cleanup Level
(mg/kg) or (ppm)
                            Basis for Cleanup Level
                             Risk at Cleanup Level
                                    Arsenic
                                      37
                         Human Health Risk Assessment
                                    3.0E-05
                                    Cadmium
                                      75
                         Human Health Risk Assessment
                                    3.0E-05
                                     Lead
                                      500
                         Human Health Risk Assessment
                                    3.0E-05
Media: Soil
Site Area: On-Site Waste and Non-Waste Area
Available Use: Non-Residential
                                    Arsenic
                                      200
                         Human Health Risk Assessment
                                    3.0E-05
                                    Cadmium
                                      560
                         Human Health Risk Assessment
                                    3.0E-05
                                     Lead
                                     1,000
                         Human Health Risk Assessment
                                    3.0E-05
Media: Sediment
Site Area: On-Site Waste and Non-Waste Area
Available Use: Residential/Non-Residential
                                    Arsenic
                                      181
                         Human Health Risk Assessment
                                    3.0E-05
                                    Cadmium
                                      813
                         Human Health Risk Assessment
                                    3.0E-05
                                     Lead
                                      500
                         Human Health Risk Assessment
                                    3.0E-05
Media: Surface Water
Site Area: On-Site Waste and Non-Waste Area
Available Use: Residential/Non-Residential
                              Chemical of Concern
                        Cleanup Level
(ug/L) or (ppb)
                            Basis for Cleanup Level
                             Risk at Cleanup Level
                                    Cadmium
                                      238
                         Human Health Risk Assessment
                                    3.0E-05
Reference:USEPA 2008 

Response Actions
In November 1992, the Oklahoma State Department of Health conducted a focused Preliminary Assessment (PA) under the direction of the EPA as part of a multi-site cooperative agreement. In May 2001, voluntary blood lead testing was conducted on children from six months to six years of age. In September 2001, after the potentially responsible party (PRP) declined to conduct the remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS), the EPA and DEQ negotiated a cooperative agreement in which DEQ assumed the role of lead agency for the RI/FS with the EPA acting as the support agency.  In 2003, unilateral administrative orders for access and noninterference were issued to two property owners of the Site, and site access was granted (BMcD, Oct. 2017). In 2004, a perimeter fence was installed as an emergency response action to secure the Site.  No removal actions have been conducted. A detailed site chronology is presented in Appendix G. 

In 2008, a Record of Decision (ROD) describing the selected remedy for the Site was issued by the EPA (BMcD, Oct. 2017).  The ROD established the following Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) for the selected remedy (USEPA 2008):

 Soil and Waste Materials: Protect human health by preventing direct contact, through the ingestion and inhalation exposure pathways, with arsenic, cadmium, and lead contaminated on-site and off-site soil and waste material by reducing arsenic, cadmium, and lead concentrations to residential levels less than 37 ppm, 75 ppm, and 500 ppm respectively, or to nonresidential levels less than 200 ppm, 560 ppm, and 1,000 ppm respectively.

 Sediment: Protect human health and the environment by preventing direct contact, through the ingestion pathway, with arsenic, cadmium, and lead contaminated sediment by reducing arsenic, cadmium, and lead concentrations to levels less than 181 ppm, 813 ppm, and 500 ppm, respectively.

 Surface Water: Protect human health and the environment by preventing direct contact, through the ingestion pathway, with cadmium contaminated surface water by reducing cadmium concentrations to levels less than 238 ppb.

In June 2015, a ROD Amendment was finalized to waive Oklahoma Administrative Code (OAC) 252:515-11-3, allowing for construction of the consolidation cell without the minimum five-foot vertical separation between the highest groundwater elevation and the lowermost waste surface; and to remove sediment treatment as a component of the remedy (BMcD, Oct. 2017). For both of these changes, it was determined that the amended remedy would attain an equivalent level of protection. The ROD Amendment did not alter the original RAOs identified in the 2008 ROD (USEPA 2015). 

To achieve RAOs, the major remedy components for the Site, as selected in the 2008 ROD and modified in the 2015 ROD Amendment, were the following (USEPA 2015):

 Soil and Waste Material: On-site remedy components consisted of consolidation and on-site capping of soil and waste material exceeding cleanup levels. Confirmation soil sampling was conducted in each area of excavation to ensure cleanup levels were met and all contaminated soil and waste material was removed. 

 Sediment and Surface Water: On-site ponds, mid-site ravine, and strip mine pit remedy components consisted of on-site disposal of material exceeding the cleanup levels for sediment and surface water. Sediment was dewatered, excavated, and analyzed according to toxicity characteristic leaching procedures (TCLP), and consolidated on-site. Confirmation sediment sampling was conducted after excavation to ensure cleanup levels were met and all contaminated sediment was removed. 

 Off-Site Soil. Sediment, and Waste Material Locations: Off-site excavation and disposal was conducted for waste material exceeding the cleanup levels for soil, sediment, and waste material. This off-site waste material was analyzed via TCLP and consolidated on-site. Confirmation sampling was conducted after excavation to ensure cleanup levels were met and all contaminated soil, sediment, and waste material was removed. 

Long-term monitoring, Site inspections, operation & maintenance (O&M), institutional controls (ICs), and Five-Year Reviews were required due to the consolidation and capping of waste materials on-site. 
Status of Implementation
In 2017, the remedial action (RA) for the cleanup of metals at the Site was completed.  Approximately 186,000 yd[3] of contaminated soil, sediment, and waste were placed into an on-site consolidation cell. On-site soil excavations were the major contributor to cell volume, but contaminated soils from off-site locations to the north, west, and southeast were also placed into the cell. Contaminated soils that are contiguous with the Site are part of the TFM off-site locations (USEPA 2008). The consolidation cell was surrounded by a five-strand barbed wire fence. Four groundwater monitoring wells were installed (Figure 1)(ODEQ, Aug. 2018). Groundwater at the Site has not been impacted by site-related waste, so groundwater was not remediated; however, a long-term monitoring program was established that requires recurring groundwater monitoring to ensure the COCs continue to be effectively contained within the consolidation cell. Site inspections, operation & maintenance, five-year reviews, and institutional controls, in addition to groundwater monitoring, are all required for as long as waste material continues to be present on-site within the consolidation cell (USEPA 2015).

Contaminated soils and sediment were excavated until confirmation sampling showed that cleanup levels had been achieved, and then backfilled to varying degrees based on the design of the stormwater runoff grading. Exceptions to this occurred at the following locations (Appendix B):

 where excavation was only carried out to 1-2 ft, because waste was excavated by using only visual
inspection for waste identification, such as the strip mine pit banks and the southern portion of the T-37 length of land adjacent to the railroad.

 where no excavation was carried out due to concerns for safety of access by the construction crew, or due to the proximity of the railroad. These locations are within the T-37 area (to the north east of the T-37 portion mentioned above), at multiple sidewall locations adjacent to the railroad, and also approximately 300 ft to the north of the consolidation cell at a corner of the Site's chain-link perimeter fence. 

 Although sampling carried out near the start of the RA indicated that TFM-related waste areas extend onto the right-of-way of the adjacent railroad, the company that operates the railroad, Watco Companies, LLC, has declined to allow cleanup activities on its property. Further investigation of the railroad right-of-way has been deferred to EPA's Superfund Site Assessment program.

The following engineering controls are currently in place and must be maintained to ensure the protectiveness of the remedy: an engineered consolidation cell cap, groundwater monitoring wells, and fencing around the consolidation cell area.  

The ROD required institutional controls to be placed on the Site to protect the remedy (Table 2). The Site was cleaned up to standards for residential reuse, with the exception of the fenced-in consolidation cell area, and also a length of land adjacent to the railroad to the southeast where institutional controls (ICs) have been placed to limit use (Appendix B).  After completion of the RA, the specific components of the institutional controls were finalized. The table below describes these institutional controls. The Notice of Remediation for the Site property is provided in Appendix C. 


Institutional Controls Summary Table

Table 2: Summary of Implemented ICs
Media, engineered controls, and areas not supporting UU/UE based on current conditions
                                  ICs Needed
                   ICs Called for in the Decision Documents
                              Impacted Parcel(s)
                                      IC
                                   Objective
           Title of IC Instrument Implemented and Date (or planned)
         Soil (media); Fencing and warning signs (engineered controls)
                                      Yes
                                      Yes
                                   Cell Area
                                     (See 
                                   Figure 1)
Restrict damage to consolidation cell cap. No erection of buildings. No residential, day care, or preK-12 uses.
                     Notice of Remediation, September 2017
                                     Soil
                                      Yes
                                      No
                          T-37 Area (See Appendix B)
                        Commercial/Industrial use only
                     Notice of Remediation, September 2017
                         Groundwater monitoring wells
                                      Yes
                                      No
                                Cell Area (See 
                                   Figure 1)
Protect continued monitoring of groundwater as an indicator of consolidation cell integrity 
                     Notice of Remediation, September 2017

Systems Operations/Operation & Maintenance
O&M has encompassed the following: quarterly groundwater monitoring to ensure that the contents of the consolidation cell have not leached into groundwater; and inspection of the Site to ensure that there are no erosion problems, no settling on the cell, and that cell vegetation remains healthy. Future groundwater monitoring will be conducted on a yearly basis. O&M may include any maintenance of the consolidation cell and site drainage features that is deemed relevant and necessary (ODEQ, Jan. 2018). This maintenance may consist of grading, mulching, seeding, sodding, mowing, backfill importing, controlling pests, removing drainage blockages, installing rip-rap, and installing rock & brush dams. To date, no problems in the implementation of O&M have been encountered that would require such maintenance, though routine mowing has been implemented and continued as a preventative measure to ensure that trees do not grow on the consolidation cell and to control pests.

In the Spring of 2019, after reaching an agreement with the property owner of the Site, a cooperative of local businesses installed honey bee hives on the Site to facilitate honey making operations. There is currently no concern that these operations could negatively impact the structural integrity of  the consolidation cell. The owner of the property and the owners of the honey bee hives are aware of the restrictions specified in the institutional controls (see Appendix C). The presence of honey bees should facilitate pollination and provide ecological benefits to the surrounding area. The major property owner is actively engaged in finding other opportunities for redevelopment.


III. PROGRESS SINCE THE LAST REVIEW

This is the first five-year review report for the Site.

IV. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS

Community Notification, Involvement & Site Interviews
A public notice of the five-year review process was made available by newspaper release on 12/5/2018 in the Tulsa World (Appendix H), mailing notices to homes, leaving notices at the Tulsa Fuel and Manufacturing Superfund Site information repository at the Collinsville Public Library, and by email. These notices invited the public to submit any comments to the EPA via DEQ. Additionally, the results of the FYR and this report will be made available at the Collinsville Public Library, 1223 West Main Street, Collinsville, OK 74021. 

During the FYR process, interviews were conducted to document any perceived problems or successes with the remedy that has been implemented to date. This interview process consisted of reaching out to nearby residents, city and county officials, and governmental organizations for feedback. 

None of the interviewees responded that they were displeased with any element of the remedy, that they had any pressing concerns, or that they knew the community had been negatively impacted by the cleanup activities. Multiple interviewees mentioned the local news media coverage that became especially publicized during the RA. The property owner gave an account of attractive nuisance trespassing at the Site for the purposes of fishing in the flooded strip mine pit, and he suggested that completing the Site's perimeter chain-link fence would deter trespassing. This chain-link fence, which is different from the barbed-wire fence that surrounds the cell, uses the strip mine pit as a natural barrier along the entire southern perimeter. Interviewees responded that they felt well-informed about the Site by the DEQ and EPA. 

No continued or unresolved issues were discovered during the interview process. Completed interview questionnaires are provided in Appendix D. 

Data Review
Groundwater was not a component of the remedy set forth in the ROD, so there are no RAOs to be met for groundwater. Nevertheless, as part of regular O&M of the Site, groundwater monitoring has been implemented and conducted to ensure the integrity of the consolidation cell by verifying that the waste contents of the cell have not leached into groundwater. 

Analytical results show that the consolidation cell continues to contain its waste, and no abnormal occurrences have been observed that would trigger contingencies. There are currently no readily observable trends of concern. Following construction completion in October of 2016, groundwater sampling events have not yielded exceedances of Safe Drinking Water Act MCLs for COCs in monitoring wells (Appendix I). Groundwater monitoring up to and including the year 2019 is expected to establish a baseline dataset by which a statistical analysis can be undertaken. Groundwater elevation measurements indicate that groundwater continues to flow generally to the southeast towards Blackjack Creek. 

Site Inspection
The inspection of the Site was conducted on 11/29/2018. In attendance were Michael Torres - EPA, Amy Brittain - DEQ, and Michael Lea - DEQ. The purpose of the inspection was to assess the protectiveness of the remedy.

The Site remedy has continued to operate as intended. Vegetation is well established, the Site drainage features remain operational, and the consolidated waste within the cell continues to be effectively contained. There are no issues with ponding, erosion, burrowing or cracks in the consolidation cell cap. Although erosion gullies and some poorly vegetated areas were observed at the strip mine pit and south of the cell access road, respectively, at the conclusion of the RA, the progress of this erosion has stabilized. Consolidation cell fencing is in good condition and completely encloses the cell. There is no damage to the well casing, pad, or locks of any of the four monitoring wells. The Site Inspection Checklist is provided in Appendix E. Photographs taken during the Site inspection are presented in Appendix F. 



V. TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT

QUESTION A:  Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?

Question A Summary:
The remedy has been functioning as intended by the ROD and amended ROD. The contaminated soil, sediment, and waste material has been consolidated and capped on-site, and groundwater monitoring has not shown that site-related contamination has infiltrated the groundwater. 

Required O&M is being carried out to ensure the structural integrity of the consolidation cell by inspecting the cell and monitoring groundwater. O&M Site inspections have shown that Site grading and drainage features provide for adequate runoff, and the cell is generally well-vegetated without erosion. Institutional controls are in place on the Site, and they are functioning as intended. No evidence of trespassing or physical disturbances on the cell have ever been observed. Post-cleanup, no members of the community or local government have expressed that the remedy is not meeting their pubic health and environmental protection needs. 

Institutional controls required by the ROD are in place and appear to be effective.

QUESTION B:  Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives used at the time of the remedy selection still valid?

Question B Summary:
The remedy set forth in the ROD established RAOs to addresses all current and potential future residential risks associated with exposure to soil, sediment, surface water, and waste. The remedy is currently achieving RAOs. There are no newly promulgated Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) since the 2015 ROD Amendment. There have been no changes in the land use of the surrounding areas. The Site remains in an area of residential interest, so it continues to be reasonable that future land use for the Site may be residential. 

The majority of areas with ecological receptors for potential Site contamination continue to be co-located with areas where human health risk is of importance, so human health risk continues to govern the protective cleanup levels at the Site. The ROD Amendment declared that COCs at the Site presented both an excess lifetime cancer risk range greater than 1x10[-4] and a non-carcinogenic Hazard Quotient greater than 1 for several risk scenarios. The website for the Superfund Chemical Data Matrix (SCDM) provides a Change Control and Errata Sheet that shows that the parameters used to determine risks for the COCs have not been modified since the 2015 ROD Amendment (SCDM 2019). Similarly, EPA's Integrated Risk Information System website shows that the last significant revision to risk parameters for the COCs was in 2004 (IRIS 2019). There are no changes in exposure pathways (ingestion and inhalation) or assumptions for receptors specified in the ROD: adult and child residents, trespassers, outdoor commercial/industrial workers, construction/utility workers, and recreationists. There have been no changes in the physical conditions of the Site or contaminant characteristics that would affect the protectiveness of the remedy. There are no newly identified contaminant sources. The preceding findings confirm that the numerical cleanup levels and RAOs derived from risk calculations in the original risk assessment are still valid.

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 calls into question the protectiveness of the remedy.
            
            


VI. ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS

There are no issues or recommendations that affect current or future protectiveness.
OTHER FINDINGS

There are no other findings that affect current or future protectiveness.
      
VII. PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT

                       Sitewide Protectiveness Statement
Protectiveness Determination:
Protective


Protectiveness Statement:
The remedy implemented at the Site is currently protective of human health and the environment. Areas of the Site where waste was left in place remain below uncontaminated soil and vegetation continues to grow. Institutional controls are in place to restrict use and access at the consolidation cell area.


VIII.	NEXT REVIEW

The next five-year review report for the Tulsa Fuel and Manufacturing Superfund Site is required five years from the completion date of this review.



APPENDIX A  -  REFERENCE LIST

Burns and McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc. (BMcD). Remedial Action Completion Report. Tulsa Fuel and Manufacturing Superfund Site. July 2017.

Burns and McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc. (BMcD). October 2017 Ground Water Monitoring Event Report. November 2017.

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). Notice of Remediation, Tulsa Fuel and Manufacturing Superfund Site, EPA ID No. OKD987096195 and DEQ Case No. 03-020(A). September 2017.

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). Operation and Maintenance Plan, Tulsa Fuel and Manufacturing Superfund Site, Tulsa County, Oklahoma. January 2018.

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). 6[th] Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Event Report, Tulsa Fuel and Manufacturing Superfund Site, Collinsville, Oklahoma. August 2018.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Record of Decision, Tulsa Fuel and Manufacturing Superfund Site, Collinsville, Tulsa County, Oklahoma. November 2008.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Record of Decision Amendment, Tulsa Fuel and Manufacturing Superfund Site, Collinsville, Tulsa County, Oklahoma. June 2015.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Preliminary Close Out Report, Tulsa Fuel and Manufacturing Superfund Site, Collinsville, Tulsa County, Oklahoma. September 2016.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). Retrieved from https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris_drafts/atoz.cfm?list_type=alpha. March 2019. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Superfund Chemical Data Matrix (SCDM). Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-chemical-data-matrix-scdm. March 2019.















APPENDIX B  -  CONFIRMATION SAMPLING 
AND OFF-SITE EXCAVATION FIGURES




                                       















APPENDIX C  -  INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
                                       




















APPENDIX D  -  INTERVIEWS 
                                       











Hattie Marsh
Hattie Marsh















APPENDIX E  -  SITE INSPECTION CHECKLIST 
                                       


                  Five-Year Review Site Inspection Checklist


                             I.  SITE INFORMATION
Site name: Tulsa Fuel and Manufacturing Superfund Site
Date of inspection:11/29/2018
Location and Region: Tulsa County, OK, Region 6
EPA ID: OKD987096195
Agency, office, or company leading the five-year review: Oklahoma DEQ
Weather/temperature: Clear & moderately windy/69°F
Remedy Includes:  (Check all that apply)
       ■ Landfill cover/containment		□ Monitored natural attenuation
       ■ Access controls			■ Groundwater containment
       ■ Institutional controls			□ Vertical barrier walls
       □ Groundwater pump and treatment
       □ Surface water collection and treatment
       □ Other______________________________________________________________________
       _____________________________________________________________________________
Attachments:	■ Inspection team roster attached		■ Site map attached
                    II.  INTERVIEWS  (Check all that apply)
1.  O&M site manager __                 N/A      ___________      ______________________      ____________
                         Name				Title			Date
     Interviewed □ at site  □ at office  □ by phone    Phone no.  ______________
     Problems, suggestions; □ Report attached ________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________________________

2.  O&M staff ___________N/A_______________      ______________________      ____________
                   Name				Title			Date
     Interviewed □ at site  □ at office  □ by phone    Phone no.  ______________
     Problems, suggestions; □ Report attached _______________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________________________

3.	Local regulatory authorities and response agencies (i.e., State and Tribal offices, emergency response office, police department, office of public health or environmental health, zoning office, recorder of deeds, or other city and county offices, etc.)  Fill in all that apply.

      Agency _Inter-Tribal Environmental Council___________________________
      Contact _Jason White___________          Environmental Manager           _1/2/18_      _918-453-5110__
                   Name				Title		       Date	Phone no.
      Problems; suggestions; ■ Report attached  _________________________________________________
      ___________________________________________________________________________________

      Agency _Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality____________________________________
      Contact _Amy Brittain_______      _Environmental Programs Manager    _5/10/19_   _405-702-5157__
                   Name				Title		       Date	Phone no.
      Problems; suggestions; ■ Report attached  _________________________________________________
      ___________________________________________________________________________________

      Agency _City of Collinsville___________________________________
      Contact _Pam Polk___________________      __ City Manager      ____6/13/2019_      _918-371-1010_
                   Name				Title		       Date	Phone no.
      Problems; suggestions; ■ Report attached  __________________________________________________
      ___________________________________________________________________________________

      Agency ____________________________
      Contact ____________________________      __________________      ________      ______________
                   Name				Title		       Date	Phone no.
      Problems; suggestions; □ Report attached   _________________________________________________
      ____________________________________________________________________________________

4.	Other interviews (optional)  ■ Report attached.
Bob Beauchanp is the majority property owner of the Site.
Frances Brown is a resident of the community who lives to the northeast of the Site in the city of Collinsville.
Barbara Nielson is a Remediation Project Manager for the nearby Superfund site owned by Cyprus Amax Minerals Company.






    III.  ON-SITE DOCUMENTS & RECORDS VERIFIED  (Check all that apply)
1.	O&M Documents
      ■ O&M manual			              ■ Readily available	■ Up to date	□ N/A
      ■ As-built drawings			■ Readily available	■ Up to date	□ N/A
      □ Maintenance logs			□ Readily available	□ Up to date	□ N/A
      Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
      ____________________________________________________________________
2.	Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan		■ Readily available	■ Up to date	□ N/A
      □ Contingency plan/emergency response plan	□ Readily available	□ Up to date	■ N/A
      Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
      _________________________________________________________________________________
3.	O&M and OSHA Training Records	□ Readily available	□ Up to date	■ N/A
      Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
      _________________________________________________________________________________
4.	Permits and Service Agreements
      □ Air discharge permit			□ Readily available	□ Up to date	■ N/A
      □ Effluent discharge			□ Readily available	□ Up to date	■ N/A
      □ Waste disposal, POTW		              □ Readily available	□ Up to date	■ N/A
      □ Other permits_____________________	□ Readily available	□ Up to date	■ N/A
      Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
      _________________________________________________________________________________
5.	Gas Generation Records		              □ Readily available	□ Up to date	■ N/A
      Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
      _________________________________________________________________________________
6.	Settlement Monument Records		□ Readily available	□ Up to date	■ N/A
      Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
      _________________________________________________________________________________
7.	Groundwater Monitoring Records	■ Readily available	■ Up to date	□ N/A
      Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
      _________________________________________________________________________________
8.	Leachate Extraction Records		□ Readily available	□ Up to date	■ N/A
      Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
      _________________________________________________________________________________
9.	Discharge Compliance Records 
      □ Air					□ Readily available	□ Up to date	■ N/A
      □ Water (effluent)			□ Readily available	□ Up to date	■ N/A
      Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
      _________________________________________________________________________________
10.	Daily Access/Security Logs		□ Readily available	□ Up to date	■ N/A
      Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
      _________________________________________________________________________________

                                       
                              IV.  O&M COSTS
1.	O&M Organization
      ■ State in-house			□ Contractor for State
      □ PRP in-house			□ Contractor for PRP
      □ Federal Facility in-house	□ Contractor for Federal Facility
      □ Other__________________________________________________________________________
       _________________________________________________________________________________
2.	O&M Cost Records 
      ■ Readily available	■ Up to date
      □ Funding mechanism/agreement in place
      Original O&M cost estimate_______$65808/yr (Years 1 & 2)_ 	■ Breakdown attached
                                       
           Total annual cost by year for review period if available
                                       
      From_July 1, 2017 To_June 30, 2018      ____$68978_______ 	□ Breakdown attached
             Date		Date		Total cost
      From_July 1, 2018 To_Feb. 28, 2019      ____$18829_______  	□ Breakdown attached
             Date		Date		Total cost
      From__________   To__________         __________________	□ Breakdown attached
             Date		Date		Total cost
      From__________   To__________         __________________	□ Breakdown attached
             Date		Date		Total cost
      From__________   To__________         __________________	□ Breakdown attached
             Date		Date		Total cost

3.	Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs During Review Period
      Describe costs and reasons:  _No such costs______________________________________________
      _________________________________________________________________________________
      _________________________________________________________________________________
      _________________________________________________________________________________
      _________________________________________________________________________________
      _________________________________________________________________________________
       V.  ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS   ■ Applicable   □ N/A
A.  Fencing
1.	Fencing damaged	□ Location shown on site map	■ Gates secured		□ N/A
      Remarks_Fence is intact and stable_______________________________________________________
      _________________________________________________________________________________
B.  Other Access Restrictions
1.	Signs and other security measures	□ Location shown on site map	□ N/A
      Remarks_Signage is present around cell at North, South, East, and West perimeter fencing and also at gate entrance.  Signage is in generally good condition, though the sign at the cell perimeter north fence is twisted at its base, but still sturdy and upright.________________________________________

C.  Institutional Controls (ICs)
1.	Implementation and enforcement
      Site conditions imply ICs not properly implemented			□ Yes  	■ No	□ N/A
      Site conditions imply ICs not being fully enforced			□ Yes  	■ No	□ N/A

      Type of monitoring (e.g., self-reporting, drive by) _site inspections for groundwater monitoring or confirming mowing of cell                                                ____________________________________
      Frequency  _2-4 times annually________________________________________________            __
      Responsible party/agency  _DEQ_______________________________________________________
      Contact _Michael Lea___________      _Engineer Intern__      _12/4/2018_      _405-702-5195______
                   Name				Title		       Date	Phone no.

      Reporting is up-to-date							□ Yes  	□ No	■ N/A
      Reports are verified by the lead agency					□ Yes  	□ No	■ N/A

      Specific requirements in deed or decision documents have been met	■ Yes  	□ No	□ N/A
      Violations have been reported						□ Yes  	□ No	■ N/A
      Other problems or suggestions:	□ Report attached 
      _________________________________________________________________________________
      _________________________________________________________________________________
      _________________________________________________________________________________
2.	Adequacy		■ ICs are adequate		□ ICs are inadequate		□ N/A
      Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
      _________________________________________________________________________________
      _________________________________________________________________________________
D.  General
1.	Vandalism/trespassing	□ Location shown on site map	□ No vandalism evident
      Remarks_ Signs of occasional vagrant activity at T-37 area (e.g., trash, an abandoned small boat) where the Strip Mine Pit reaches its easternmost limit before turning to the south.  The IC on this T-37 area is to limit activity to commercial/industrial.____________________________________________________
2.	Land use changes on site	■ N/A
      Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
      _________________________________________________________________________________
3.	Land use changes off site	■ N/A
      Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
      _________________________________________________________________________________
                         VI.  GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS
A.  Roads    	■ Applicable   	□ N/A
1.	Roads damaged		□ Location shown on site map	■ Roads adequate	□ N/A
      Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
      _________________________________________________________________________________

B.  Other Site Conditions
      Remarks ______________________________________________________________
      ____________________________________________________________________

       
      ____________________________________________________________________
             
      ____________________________________________________________________

       
      ____________________________________________________________________
      ____________________________________________________________________

               VII.  LANDFILL COVERS    ■ Applicable   □ N/A
A.  Landfill Surface
1.	Settlement (Low spots)		□ Location shown on site map	■ Settlement not evident
      Areal extent______________	Depth____________
      Remarks____________________________________________________________
      __________________________________________________________________  
2.	Cracks				□ Location shown on site map	■ Cracking not evident
      Lengths____________	Widths___________	Depths__________
      Remarks____________________________________________________________
      __________________________________________________________________  
3.	Erosion				■ Location shown on site map	□ Erosion not evident
      Areal extent______________	Depth_Gully: 3.5 ft; Rills: surficial_____
      Remarks_At the strip mine pit bank, a gully has formed but seems to have stabilized with some vegetation growing down within it.  Along the slope to the south of the south portion of the access road, especially to the southwest, there are some areas with compacted dirt at the surface that aren't vegetating well and some slight rills are apparent.____________________________________________
4.	Holes				□ Location shown on site map	□ Holes not evident
      Areal extent_3-6"diameter (typ.)______	Depth____________
      Remarks__There are occasional burrowing holes in the soil cover, especially around the perimeter berm, though this has lessened over the past 2018 calendar year.__________________________________
5.	Vegetative Cover	■ Grass		■ Cover properly established	□ No signs of stress
      □ Trees/Shrubs (indicate size and locations on a diagram)
      Remarks__During the hot, sunny, and dry part of Summer 2018, the vegetation became brown and sparser than before.  The health of the vegetation seemed to be restored during the Fall 2018 when more temperate weather and rainfall became common.____________________________________________
6.	Alternative Cover (armored rock, concrete, etc.)		■ N/A
      Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
      _________________________________________________________________________________
7.	Bulges				□ Location shown on site map	■ Bulges not evident
      Areal extent______________	Height____________
      Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
      _________________________________________________________________________________

8.	Wet Areas/Water Damage	■ Wet areas/water damage not evident
      □ Wet areas			□ Location shown on site map	Areal extent______________
      □ Ponding			□ Location shown on site map	Areal extent______________
      □ Seeps				□ Location shown on site map	Areal extent______________
      □ Soft subgrade			□ Location shown on site map	Areal extent______________
      Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
      _________________________________________________________________________________
9.	Slope Instability         □ Slides	□ Location shown on site map    ■ No evidence of slope instability
      Areal extent______________
      Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
      _________________________________________________________________________________
B.  Benches		■ Applicable	□ N/A
      (Horizontally constructed mounds of earth placed across a steep landfill side slope to interrupt the slope in order to slow down the velocity of surface runoff and intercept and convey the runoff to a lined channel.)
1.	Flows Bypass Bench		□ Location shown on site map		■ N/A or okay
      Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
      _________________________________________________________________________________
2.	Bench Breached		              □ Location shown on site map		■ N/A or okay
      Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
      _________________________________________________________________________________
3.	Bench Overtopped		□ Location shown on site map		■ N/A or okay
      Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
      _________________________________________________________________________________
C.  Letdown Channels	■ Applicable	□ N/A
      (Channel lined with erosion control mats, riprap, grout bags, or gabions that descend down the steep side slope of the cover and will allow the runoff water collected by the benches to move off of the landfill cover without creating erosion gullies.)
1.	Settlement		□ Location shown on site map	■ No evidence of settlement
      Areal extent______________	Depth____________
      Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
      _________________________________________________________________________________
2.	Material Degradation	□ Location shown on site map	■ No evidence of degradation
      Material type_______________	Areal extent_____________
      Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
      _________________________________________________________________________________
3.	Erosion			□ Location shown on site map	■ No evidence of erosion
      Areal extent______________	Depth____________
      Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
      _________________________________________________________________________________
                                       
4.	Undercutting		□ Location shown on site map	■ No evidence of undercutting
      Areal extent______________	Depth____________
      Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
      _________________________________________________________________________________
5.	Obstructions	Type_____________________		■ No obstructions
      □ Location shown on site map			Areal extent______________ 
      Size____________
      Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
      _________________________________________________________________________________
6.	Excessive Vegetative Growth		Type____________________
      ■ No evidence of excessive growth
      □ Vegetation in channels does not obstruct flow
      □ Location shown on site map			Areal extent______________
      Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
      _________________________________________________________________________________
D.  Cover Penetrations	□ Applicable	■ N/A
1.	Gas Vents		□ Active	□ Passive
      □ Properly secured/locked	□ Functioning	□ Routinely sampled	□ Good condition
      □ Evidence of leakage at penetration			□ Needs Maintenance
      □ N/A
      Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
      _________________________________________________________________________________
2.	Gas Monitoring Probes
      □ Properly secured/locked	□ Functioning	□ Routinely sampled	□ Good condition
      □ Evidence of leakage at penetration			□ Needs Maintenance	□ N/A
      Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
      _________________________________________________________________________________
3.	Monitoring Wells (within surface area of landfill)
      □ Properly secured/locked	□ Functioning	□ Routinely sampled	□ Good condition
      □ Evidence of leakage at penetration			□ Needs Maintenance	□ N/A
      Remarks___________________________________________________________
      _________________________________________________________________  
4.	Leachate Extraction Wells
      □ Properly secured/locked	□ Functioning	□ Routinely sampled	□ Good condition
      □ Evidence of leakage at penetration			□ Needs Maintenance	□ N/A
      Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
      _________________________________________________________________________________
5.	Settlement Monuments		□ Located		□ Routinely surveyed	□ N/A
      Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
      _________________________________________________________________________________

E.  Gas Collection and Treatment	             □ Applicable  	■ N/A
1.	Gas Treatment Facilities
      □ Flaring		□ Thermal destruction	□ Collection for reuse
      □ Good condition	□ Needs Maintenance 
      Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
      _________________________________________________________________________________
2.	Gas Collection Wells, Manifolds and Piping
      □ Good condition	□ Needs Maintenance 
      Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
      _________________________________________________________________________________
3.	Gas Monitoring Facilities (e.g., gas monitoring of adjacent homes or buildings)
      □ Good condition	□ Needs Maintenance 	□ N/A
      Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
      _________________________________________________________________________________
F.  Cover Drainage Layer		□ Applicable		■ N/A
1.	Outlet Pipes Inspected		□ Functioning		□ N/A
      Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
      _________________________________________________________________________________
2.	Outlet Rock Inspected		□ Functioning		□ N/A
      Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
      _________________________________________________________________________________
G.  Detention/Sedimentation Ponds	■ Applicable		□ N/A
1.	Siltation	Areal extent______________	Depth____________		□ N/A
      ■ Siltation not evident
      Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
      _________________________________________________________________________________
2.	Erosion		Areal extent______________	Depth____________
       ■ Erosion not evident
       Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
       _________________________________________________________________________________
3.	Outlet Works		□ Functioning	■ N/A
       Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
       _________________________________________________________________________________
4.	Dam			□ Functioning	■ N/A
       Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
       _________________________________________________________________________________

H.  Retaining Walls		□ Applicable	■ N/A
1.	Deformations		□ Location shown on site map	□ Deformation not evident
      Horizontal displacement____________	Vertical displacement_______________
      Rotational displacement____________
      Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
       _________________________________________________________________________________
2.	Degradation		□ Location shown on site map	□ Degradation not evident
      Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
      _________________________________________________________________________________
I.  Perimeter Ditches/Off-Site Discharge		■ Applicable	□ N/A
1.	Siltation		□ Location shown on site map	■ Siltation not evident
      Areal extent______________	Depth____________
      Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
      _________________________________________________________________________________
2.	Vegetative Growth	□ Location shown on site map	□ N/A
      ■ Vegetation does not impede flow
      Areal extent______________	Type____________
      Remarks__Vegetation growth at inlet to culvert underneath railroad does not impede flow.________
      _________________________________________________________________________________
3.	Erosion			□ Location shown on site map	■ Erosion not evident
      Areal extent______________	Depth____________
      Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
      _________________________________________________________________________________
4.	Discharge Structure	■ Functioning	□ N/A
      Remarks__Culvert underneath railroad is functioning as intended.____________________________
      _________________________________________________________________________________
         VIII.  VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS       □ Applicable   ■ N/A
1.	Settlement		□ Location shown on site map	□ Settlement not evident
      Areal extent______________	Depth____________
      Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
      _________________________________________________________________________________
2.	Performance Monitoring	Type of monitoring__________________________
      □ Performance not monitored
      Frequency_______________________________	□ Evidence of breaching
      Head differential__________________________
      Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
      _________________________________________________________________________________

    IX.  GROUNDWATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES    □ Applicable       ■ N/A
A.  Groundwater Extraction Wells, Pumps, and Pipelines		□ Applicable	■ N/A
1.	Pumps, Wellhead Plumbing, and Electrical
      □ Good condition	□ All required wells properly operating □ Needs Maintenance □ N/A
      Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
      _________________________________________________________________________________
      _________________________________________________________________________________
2.	Extraction System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances
      □ Good condition	□ Needs Maintenance
      Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
      _________________________________________________________________________________
3.	Spare Parts and Equipment
      □ Readily available	□ Good condition	□ Requires upgrade	□ Needs to be provided
      Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
      _________________________________________________________________________________
B.  Surface Water Collection Structures, Pumps, and Pipelines	□ Applicable	■ N/A
1.	Collection Structures, Pumps, and Electrical
      □ Good condition	□ Needs Maintenance 
      Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
      _________________________________________________________________________________
2.	Surface Water Collection System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances
      □ Good condition	□ Needs Maintenance
      Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
      _________________________________________________________________________________
3.	Spare Parts and Equipment
      □ Readily available	□ Good condition	□ Requires upgrade	□ Needs to be provided
      Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
      _________________________________________________________________________________

C.  Treatment System		□ Applicable	■ N/A
1.	Treatment Train (Check components that apply)
      □ Metals removal		□ Oil/water separation		□ Bioremediation
      □ Air stripping			□ Carbon adsorbers
      □ Filters_________________________________________________________________________
      □ Additive (e.g., chelation agent, flocculent)_____________________________________________
      □ Others_________________________________________________________________________
      □ Good condition		□ Needs Maintenance 
      □ Sampling ports properly marked and functional
      □ Sampling/maintenance log displayed and up to date
      □ Equipment properly identified
      □ Quantity of groundwater treated annually________________________
      □ Quantity of surface water treated annually________________________
      Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
      _________________________________________________________________________________
2.	Electrical Enclosures and Panels (properly rated and functional)
      □ N/A		□ Good condition	□ Needs Maintenance 
      Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
      _________________________________________________________________________________
3.	Tanks, Vaults, Storage Vessels
      □ N/A		□ Good condition	□ Proper secondary containment	□ Needs Maintenance
      Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
      _________________________________________________________________________________
4.	Discharge Structure and Appurtenances
      □ N/A		□ Good condition	□ Needs Maintenance 
      Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
      _________________________________________________________________________________
5.	Treatment Building(s)
      □ N/A		□ Good condition (esp. roof and doorways)		□ Needs repair
      □ Chemicals and equipment properly stored
      Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
      _________________________________________________________________________________
6.	Monitoring Wells (pump and treatment remedy)
      □ Properly secured/locked	□ Functioning	□ Routinely sampled	□ Good condition
      □ All required wells located	□ Needs Maintenance         		□ N/A
      Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
      _________________________________________________________________________________
D. Monitoring Data
 	Monitoring Data
      □ Is routinely submitted on time			□ Is of acceptable quality	
 	Monitoring data suggests:
      □ Groundwater plume is effectively contained	□ Contaminant concentrations are declining 

D.  Monitored Natural Attenuation
1.	Monitoring Wells (natural attenuation remedy)
      □ Properly secured/locked		□ Functioning	□ Routinely sampled	□ Good condition
      □ All required wells located	□ Needs Maintenance			□ N/A
      Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
      _________________________________________________________________________________
X.  OTHER REMEDIES
     If there are remedies applied at the site which are not covered above, attach an inspection sheet describing the physical nature and condition of any facility associated with the remedy.  An example would be soil vapor extraction.
                           XI.  OVERALL OBSERVATIONS
A.	Implementation of the Remedy
      Describe issues and observations relating to whether the remedy is effective and functioning as designed.  Begin with a brief statement of what the remedy is to accomplish (i.e., to contain contaminant plume, minimize infiltration and gas emission, etc.).
      __The remedy is operating as planned._____________________________________
      ____________________________________________________________________
      ____________________________________________________________________
      ____________________________________________________________________
      ____________________________________________________________________
      ____________________________________________________________________
      ____________________________________________________________________
      ____________________________________________________________________
      ____________________________________________________________________
      ____________________________________________________________________
 B.	Adequacy of O&M
      Describe issues and observations related to the implementation and scope of O&M procedures.  In particular, discuss their relationship to the current and long-term protectiveness of the remedy.
      __O&M procedures are being implemented in accordance with the plan, and appear to be adequate.________________________________ _________________________
      ____________________________________________________________________
      ____________________________________________________________________
      ____________________________________________________________________
      ____________________________________________________________________
      ____________________________________________________________________
      ____________________________________________________________________
      ____________________________________________________________________
      ____________________________________________________________________

C.	Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Problems
      Describe issues and observations such as unexpected changes in the cost or scope of O&M or a high frequency of unscheduled repairs, that suggest that the protectiveness of the remedy may be compromised in the future.   
      __No significant issues noted during the site inspection._______________________
      ____________________________________________________________________
      ____________________________________________________________________
      ____________________________________________________________________
      ____________________________________________________________________
      ____________________________________________________________________
      ____________________________________________________________________
      ____________________________________________________________________
      ____________________________________________________________________
D.	Opportunities for Optimization
      Describe possible opportunities for optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation of the remedy.
      __None______________________________________________________________
      ____________________________________________________________________
      ____________________________________________________________________
      ____________________________________________________________________
      ____________________________________________________________________
      ____________________________________________________________________
      ____________________________________________________________________
      ____________________________________________________________________
      ____________________________________________________________________


















APPENDIX F  -  SITE INSPECTION PHOTOS


Photo: 		1
Taken by:	Michael Lea
Looking:	South
Comments:	Approaching the Consolidation Cell
  


Photo: 		2
Taken by:	Michael Lea
Looking:	North
Comments:	Stormwater Impoundment to Northeast of Cell
                                       








Photo: 		3
Taken by:	Michael Lea
Looking:	East
Comments:	Box Culvert (Outside of Cell Fenced-In Area)
                                       


Photo: 		4
Taken by:	Michael Lea
Looking:	West
Comments:	Consolidation Cell Gate and Entrance Warning Sign
                                       

Photo: 		5
Taken by:	Michael Lea
Looking:	Northwest
Comments:	Bottom Outlet of Cell Letdown Structure (Inside of Cell Fenced-in Area)
                                       
                                       
                                       
Photo: 		6
Taken by:	Michael Lea
Looking:	Northeast
Comments:	Top Inlet of Cell Letdown Structure
                                       
Photo: 		7
Taken by:	Michael Lea
Looking:	East
Comments:	Southwest of Cell Access Road
                                       


Photo: 		8
Taken by:	Michael Lea
Looking:	Northwest
Comments:	Condition on Top of Cell
                                       
Photo: 		9
Taken by:	Michael Lea
Looking:	Northwest
Comments:	Well MW-01 Pad and Lock
                                       
















APPENDIX G  -  SITE CHRONOLOGY 


The TFM Superfund Site was identified during a formal study of zinc smelters in the state of Oklahoma.  Discovery related to the TFM Superfund Site occurred in July 1992.  Regulatory activities related to the TFM Superfund Site include the following (BMcD, Oct. 2017):
 November 1992:  OSDH conducted a Preliminary Assessment under the direction of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as part of a Multi-Site Cooperative Agreement (CA# V-00645-01)
 September 1994:  DEQ conducted a focused Site Inspection (SI) under the direction of EPA.
 August  -  September 1998:  Search for potentially responsible parties (PRPs) was conducted.
 September 1998:  Hazard Ranking System (HRS) Documentation was completed by EPA.
 September 29, 1998:  Site was proposed to the Superfund National Priorities List (NPL).
 January 19, 1999:  Final listing of the TFM Superfund Site to the NPL.
 May 1999:  A Removal Assessment Report was completed by EPA Superfund Technical Assistance and Response Team (START).
 July 27, 1999:  A public meeting to inform concerned citizens about the TFM Superfund Site was held by EPA in conjunction with DEQ and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).
 July 27, 2000:  The Public Health Assessment for Tulsa Fuel and Manufacturing was finalized by ATSDR.
 July  -  October 2000:  EPA issued Special Notice Letter to PRP with follow-up meeting, clarifications regarding EPA's Enforcement Position, and copies of the Removal Assessment Report.
 January 24, 2001:  DEQ press release regarding the TFM Superfund Site was published in the Collinsville News.
 May 21  -  22, 2001:  Voluntary blood lead testing was conducted on children from 6 months to 6 years of age.
 September 2001:  After the PRP declined to conduct the remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS), the EPA and DEQ negotiated a cooperative agreement in which DEQ assumed the role of lead agency for the RI/FS with the EPA acting as the support agency.
 May  -  August 2003:  Unilateral Administrative Orders for Access and Noninterference were issued to two property owners of the TFM Superfund Site, and Site access was granted.
 2005  -  2007:  The RI/FS was performed under the direction of DEQ.
 November 24, 2008:  A Record of Decision (ROD), describing the selected remedy for the TFM Superfund Site, was issued by the EPA.
 2012  -  2014:  DEQ lead the remedial design (RD) activities under the original cooperative agreement.
 June 2015:  A ROD Amendment was finalized in June 2015 to (1) waive Oklahoma Administrative Code (OAC) 252:515-11-3 and construct the consolidation cell without the minimum five-foot vertical separation between the highest ground water elevation and lowermost waste surface; (2) remove sediment treatment as a component of the remedy; and (3) implement all other remedy components as stated in the 2008 ROD.
 2015  -  2016:  The RA was initiated in April 2015.  Construction of the consolidation cell was completed in August 2016.  Site restoration and RA contractor demobilization was completed in October 2016 (BMcD, Oct. 2017).  
 August 30, 2016  -  September 30, 2017:  Remedy Operational and Functional (O&F) period
 September 2016:  Preliminary Close Out Report (PCOR) issued by EPA
 October 1, 2017:  O&M activities began.  
 January 1, 2018:  DEQ took over O&M monitoring activities from Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc (BMcD).
 April 2019: Shadow Mountain Honey Company and Ide's Gary Avenue Gold installed honey bee hives north of the on-site consolidation cell and began conducting honey making operations.
   













APPENDIX H  -  PUBLIC NOTICE OF FIVE-YEAR REVIEW 
                                       













APPENDIX I  -  GROUNDWATER SAMPLING DATA 
                                       



     Table 3: Groundwater Results - All Events
                         TFM Superfund Site - Collinsville, OK

                                                    Sample Name: Lab Sample ID:
                                                                            MCL
                                 Arsenic ug/L
                               Arsenic, Dissolved
                                     ug/L
                                 Cadmium ug/L
                              Cadmium, Dissolved
                                     ug/L
                                   Lead ug/L
                                Lead, Dissolved
                                      ug/L
                             Depth to Groundwater
                                 ft above msl

10
 10
5
  5
 15
  15
   N/A
  Well ID
    Sample ID
     Comments
  Sample Date







  MW-01
 (background)
   MW-01/GW01
   MW-01/GW02
   MW-01/GW03
                                   MW-01/GW04

   12/2/2016
   4/6/2017
   7/27/2017
  10/24/2017
5.00 U
5.00 U
5.00 U
2.00 U
                                       NA
                                       NA
 5.00 U
 2.00 U
2.00 U
2.00 U
2.00 U
2.00 U

                                       NA
                                       NA
 2.00 U
 2.00 U
 7.48
 7.64
 5.00 U
 2.94
                                      NA
                                      NA
5.00 U
2.00 U
649.46
650.03
651.72
651.22
  
                                   MW-01/GW05

  01/29/2018
15.1
 2.0 U
2.0 U
 2.0 U
 49.3
5.0 U
650.54
  
                                   MW-01/GW06
                                   MW-05/GW06
                                       
                              Dup of MW-01/GW-06
  4/31/2018
  4/31/2018
3.9
3.6
 2.0 U
 2.0 U
2.0 U
2.0 U
 2.0 U
 2.0 U
 11.7
 10.9
5.0 U
5.0 U
650.79
                                      dup
  
   MW-01/GW07

   7/31/2018
5.5
 2.0 U
2.0 U
 2.0 U
 22.8
5.0 U
648.21
 
   MW-01/GW08

                                  10/30/2018
2.0 U
 2.0 U
2.0 U
 2.0 U
 6.4
5.0 U
                                 not collected
  MW-02
                                   MW-02/GW01
                                   MW-02/GW02
                                  MW-2000/GW02
                                   MW-02/GW03
                                  MW-3000/GW03
                                   MW-02/GW04
                                 MW-4000/GW04
                                       
                                        
                                Dup of MW-02/GW02
                                        
                                Dup of MW-02/GW03
                                        
                                Dup of MW-02/GW04
   12/2/2016
   4/6/2017
   4/6/2017
   7/27/2017
   7/27/2017
  10/24/2017
  10/24/2017
11.4
11.4
12.8
                                       NA
                                       NA
                                       NA
 5.00 U
 5.00 U
 6.26
 5.87
2.00 U
2.00 U
2.00 U
2.00 U
2.00 U
2.00 U
2.00 U
                                       NA
                                       NA
                                       NA
 2.00 U
 2.00 U
 2.00 U
 2.00 U
 5.00 U
 5.00 U
 5.00 U
 5.00 U
 5.00 U
 2.00 U
 2.00 U
                                      NA
                                      NA
                                      NA
5.00 U
5.00 U
2.00 U
2.00 U
642.04
643.86
                                      dup




5.00 U
5.00 U
5.76
5.89
 

 
 

643.37
                                      dup
644.71
                                      dup

                                  MW-02/GW05

                                  01/29/2018
17.4
 8.6
2.0 U
 2.0 U
 12.6
5.0 U
643.86
  
                                   MW-02/GW06

   04/31/2018
11.0
 3.4
2.0 U
 2.0 U
 12.1
5.0 U
644.34
  
                                   MW-02/GW07

   7/31/2018
6.9
 4.5
2.0 U
 2.0 U
 9.6
5.0 U
642.48

                                   MW-05/GW07
                                       
                                Dup of MW-02/GW07

                                   7/31/2018
                                       
4.9
 4.6
2.0 U
 2.0 U
 5.0 U
5.0 U
                                      dup

                                  MW-02/GW08

                                  10/30/2018
6.7
 6.3
2.0 U
 2.0 U
 5.0 U
5.0 U
                                 not collected
      Notes:	Bold - Constituent was detected.	Shaded - Concentration is above numerical value of Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL). 			ug/L - micrograms per liter
NA - Not Analyzed			U - Constituent not detected.  Value is the reporting limit.						Blue  -  Most recent quarter
Sample ID "MW-05" identifies a field duplicate sample.  Sample ID suffix descriptor of the form /GWXX indicates sampling quarter.


     Table 3: Groundwater Results - All Events (continued)
                         TFM Superfund Site - Collinsville, OK

                                                    Sample Name: Lab Sample ID:
                                                                            MCL
                                 Arsenic ug/L
                               Arsenic, Dissolved
                                     ug/L
                                 Cadmium ug/L
                              Cadmium, Dissolved
                                     ug/L
                                   Lead ug/L
                                Lead, Dissolved
                                      ug/L
                             Depth to Groundwater
                                 ft above msl
   
10
 10
 5
 5
 15
 15
                                      N/A
  Well ID
    Sample ID
     Comments
  Sample Date







  MW-03
   MW-03/GW01
   MW-03/GW02
   MW-03/GW03
   MW-03/GW04

   12/2/2016
   4/6/2017
   7/27/2017
  10/24/2017
20.8
17.7
                                       NA
                                       NA
 5.00 U
 5.23
2.00 U
2.00 U
2.00 U
2.00 U
                                       NA
                                       NA
 2.00 U
 2.00 U
 5.00 U
 5.00 U
 5.00 U
 2.00 U
                                      NA
                                      NA
5.00 U
2.00 U
 643.63
 645.09




5.00 U
4.84
 

 
 

 645.28
 645.80
  
                                  MW-03/GW05

  01/29/2018
16.8
 10.4
2.0 U
 2.0 U
 7.3
5.0 U
 645.83
  
                                  MW-03/GW06

  04/31/2018
10.0
 7.2
2.0 U
 2.0 U
 5.0 U
5.0 U
 645.65
  
   MW-03/GW07

   7/31/2018
5.3
 4.1
2.0 U
 2.0 U
 5.0 U
5.0 U
 644.73
  
                                  MW-03/GW08

  10/30/2018
4.8
 4.1
2.0 U
 2.0 U
 5.0 U
5.0 U
 not collected
  MW-04
                                   MW-04/GW01
                                  MW-2000/GW01
                                   MW-04/GW02
                                   MW-04/GW03
                                  MW-04/GW04
                                  MW-04/GW05
                                  MW-04/GW06

  Dup of MW-04/GW01
   12/2/2016
   12/2/2016
   4/6/2017
   7/27/2017
  10/24/2017
  1/29/2018
  4/31/2018
7.69
7.76
7.83
5.00 U
2.00 U
9.2
4.9
                                       NA
                                       NA
                                       NA
 5.00 U
 2.00 U
 2.1
 2.0 U
2.00 U
2.00 U
2.00 U
2.00 U
2.00 U
2.0 U
2.0 U

                                       NA
                                       NA
                                       NA
 2.00 U
 2.00 U
 2.0 U
 2.0 U
 5.00 U
 5.00 U
 5.00 U
 5.00 U
 2.00 U
 11.5
 6.1
                                      NA
                                      NA
                                      NA
5.00 U
2.00 U
5.0 U
5.0 U
 641.93
                                      dup
 643.84
 642.99
 644.80
 643.86
 644.27
  
                                   MW-04/GW07
                                   MW-04/GW08


   7/31/2018
                                  10/30/2018
4.4
5.1
 2.0 U
 2.0 U
2.0 U
2.0 U
 2.0 U
 2.0 U
 5.2
 5.7
5.0 U
5.0 U
 642.04
                                 not collected
  
                                   MW-05/GW08
                               Dup of MW-04/GW08
   10/30/2018
4.8
 2.0 U
2.0 U

 2.0 U
 5.4
5.0 U
                                      dup
       Notes:	Bold - Constituent was detected.	Shaded - Concentration is above numerical value of Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL).		 	ug/L - micrograms per liter
NA - Not Analyzed			U - Constituent not detected.  Value is the reporting limit.						Blue  -  Most recent quarter
Sample ID "MW-05" identifies a field duplicate sample.  Sample ID suffix descriptor of the form /GWXX indicates sampling quarter.





