National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List Update

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL-5902-8]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;

National Priorities List Update

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of intent to delete the Cleve Reber Superfund Site from

the National Priorities List and request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 6 announces

its intent to delete the Cleve Reber Superfund Site (the ``Site'') from

the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comment on this

proposed action. All public comments regarding this proposed action

which are submitted within 30 days of the date of this notice, to the

address indicated below, will be considered by EPA. The NPL,

promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, is codified

at appendix B to the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution

Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR part 300. EPA in consultation with the

State of Louisiana, through the Louisiana Department of Environmental

Quality (LDEQ), has determined that no further response is appropriate,

and that, consequently, the Site should be deleted from the NPL.

DATES: EPA will consider comments submitted by November 10, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to: Ms. Janetta Coats, Community

Relations Coordinator (6SF-PO), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, (214) 665-6617.

Information Repositories: Comprehensive information on the Site has

been compiled in a public deletion docket which may be reviewed and

copied during normal business hours at the following Cleve Reber

Superfund Site information repositories:

U.S. EPA Region 6 Library (12th Floor), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas

75202-2733, 1-800-533-3508.

Ascension Parish Public Library, 500 Mississippi Street,

Donaldsonville, Louisiana 70346, (504) 473-8052.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Caroline A. Ziegler, Remedial

Project Manager (6SF-LP), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region

6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, (214) 665-2178.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

III. Deletion Procedures

IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion

I. Introduction

This is the EPA Region 6 Notice of Intent to Delete (NOID) the Site

from the NPL. The NPL is the list, compiled by EPA pursuant to CERCLA

Section 105, of uncontrolled hazardous substance releases in the United

States that are priorities for long-term remedial evaluation and

response. As described in 40 CFR 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites

[[Page 52675]]

deleted from the NPL remain eligible for remedial actions in the

unlikely event that conditions at the site warrant such action.

The EPA will consider comments concerning this NOID which are

submitted within thirty days of the date of this NOID. EPA has also

published a notice of the availability of this NOID in a major local

newspaper of general circulation at or near the Site.

Section II of this NOID explains the NCP criteria for deleting

sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using

for this action. Section IV discusses the Cleve Reber Superfund Site

and explains that the Site meets the NCP deletion criteria.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

The NCP, at 40 CFR 300.425(e), provides that releases may be

deleted from the NPL if no further response is appropriate. In making a

determination to delete a release from the NPL, EPA shall consider, in

consultation with the State, whether any of the following criteria has

been met:

i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all

appropriate response actions required;

ii. All appropriate Fund-financed 1 response under

CERCLA has been implemented, and no further action by responsible

parties is appropriate; or

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ The ``Fund'' referred to here is the Hazardous Substance

Superfund established by section 9507 of the Internal Revenue Code

of 1986.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. The remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no

significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore,

taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.

If, at the site of a release, EPA selects a remedial action that

results in any hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants

remaining at the site, CERCLA Subsection 121(c), 42 U.S.C. 121(c),

requires that EPA review such remedial action no less often than each 5

years to assure that human health and the environment are being

protected by the remedial action. Since hazardous substances will

remain at the Site, 2 EPA shall conduct such reviews. If new

information becomes available which indicates a need for further

action, EPA may initiate remedial actions. Whenever there is a

significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the site may be

restored to the NPL without application of the Hazard Ranking System.

3

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ Hazardous substances remain on the Site under a multi-layer

soil cap which covers approximately seven acres of the Site. EPA

considers the cap to be protective; nonetheless, since hazardous

substances will remain on the Site, EPA must conduct the CERCLA-

required five-year reviews.

\3\ The Hazardous Ranking System is the method used by EPA to

evaluate the relative potential of hazardous substance releases to

cause health or safety problems, or ecological or environmental

damage.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Deletion Procedures

EPA followed these procedures regarding the proposed deletion:

(1) EPA Region 6 made a determination that no further response

action is appropriate and that the Site may be deleted from the NPL;

(2) EPA has consulted with LDEQ, and by letter dated September 12,

1997, LDEQ concurred in EPA's deletion decision;

(3) EPA has published, in a major local newspaper of general

circulation at or near the Site, a notice of availability of the NOID,

which includes an announcement of a 30-day public comment period

regarding the NOID, and EPA distributed the NOID to appropriate State,

local and Federal officials, and to other interested parties; and

(4) EPA placed copies of information supporting the proposed

deletion (i.e., the public deletion docket) in the Site information

repositories (the locations of these repositories are identified

above).

Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or

revoke any individual's rights or obligations. The NPL is designed

primarily for informational purposes and to assist EPA management. As

mentioned in Section II of this Notice, 40 CFR 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP

states that the deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude

eligibility of the site for future response actions.

EPA Region 6 will accept and evaluate public comments on this NOID

before making a final decision to delete. If necessary, EPA will

prepare a Responsiveness Summary to address any significant public

comments received.

Deletion of the Site from the NPL will occur when the EPA Regional

Administrator places a final notice in the Federal Register. Generally,

the NPL will reflect deletions in the final update following the NOID.

Public notices and copies of the Responsiveness Summary will be made

available to local residents upon request to the EPA Remedial Project

Manager, Caroline Ziegler at the address listed above. These will also

be placed in both repository locations listed above, where they can be

obtained by request.

IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion

The following information provides the EPA's rationale for the

proposal to delete the Site from the NPL:

A. Site Location

The Site is located two miles southwest of Sorrento in Ascension

Parish, Louisiana. The Site is an abandoned 25-acre landfill. Prior to

the completion of the remedial action on the Site, the Site contained

one large pond (about 10 acres) and three small ponds (approximately

one acre total). The Site is bordered on the north by residential

properties, on the east and south by swampland, and on the west by

Louisiana Highway 70.

The Site lies in the Mississippi alluvial plain section of the East

Coastal Plain Physiographic Province. The Site is on the Prairie

Formation of Pleistocene Age, which consists generally of

undifferentiated sediments. The sediments are made up of tan and gray

clays and clayey and sandy silts. The major fresh water aquifers

beneath the Site are composed of older deltaic deposits. These aquifers

used for water supplies include the Gonzales aquifer which is at a

depth of about 500 feet and an overlaying Norco aquifer which is at a

depth of about 260 feet below the ground surface. The shallow

groundwater is generally within a few feet of the surface and is not a

documented source of potable water in the area.

B. Site History

Pits located on the site were originally used as the source of

borrow material during the construction of embankments for the Sunshine

Bridge and portions of Interstate Highway 10. In 1970 the land was

leased for use as a landfill by the Environmental Controls Company

(ECCO) of Louisiana, with Mr. Cleve Reber as the president. In August

1970, Ascension Parish entered into a sanitary landfill operation

agreement with ECCO. Between 1970 and 1974, both municipal and

industrial wastes were disposed in the borrow pits. Trenches were also

dug on the Site, and were filled with wastes. One large pit and three

smaller pits filled with rain water and became ponds. In July 1974, the

landfill operators were found to be in violation of the State

sanitation code, and they were ordered to stop receiving waste.

Thereafter, the Site was abandoned by ECCO.

In 1981 the State of Louisiana, in response to citizen complaints,

funded a study to collect data to develop a plan to close the Site.

Tests showed the presence of significant levels of hazardous substances

including hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene. The Site was

promulgated to the National Priorities

[[Page 52676]]

List (NPL) in September 1983, (see 48 FR 40658, September 8, 1983).

The State fenced the Site in early 1983 due to citizen concerns. In

July 1983, EPA conducted an emergency removal. As part of the removal,

over 1,100 drums were removed from the Site. Piles of waste located on

the surface of the Site were also removed. As a temporary protective

measure, a thin clay cap was placed over areas thought to contain

buried drums and wastes. These areas of buried waste were later

permanently addressed as part of a remedial action.

A Remedial Investigation (RI) and Feasibility Study (FS) was

completed by EPA in May 1985. In order to include an expanded analysis

of innovative remedial technologies, and to quantify the groundwater

contaminants at much lower detection levels, a supplemental RI/FS was

initiated in August 1985 and completed in April 1986.

The major volume of waste disposed at the Site was municipal waste.

The analytical results of field samples collected during the original

and supplemental RI indicated that all significant contamination was

restricted to the Site. On-site media including the surface water,

sediments, surface soils, waste pits, and shallow groundwater were

contaminated with organic pollutants. The primary organic pollutants of

concern included hexachlorobenzene, hexachlorobutadiene,

hexachloroethane and tetrachloroethene. Inorganic analyses indicated a

wide range of inorganic pollutant concentration levels in the on-site

media and in background samples. No consistently high concentrations

were observed. This made qualitative evaluations of any inorganic

concentrations found very difficult and impractical.

The EPA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) 4 on March 31,

1987. The selected remedy called for excavation and on-site

incineration of buried drums and sludges, draining and backfilling on-

site ponds, placing a clay cap over the landfill areas, and groundwater

monitoring. The estimated cost of the cleanup was $25 million.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ EPA's Record of Decision documents the selection of the

remedial alternative which will be used to cleanup the site in

question.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On September 30, 1988, EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative

Order, amended on February 5, 1991 (hereinafter the 1988 order and its

1991 amendment are referred to collectively as the Order), addressed to

a total of five responsible parties. The Order required the

implementation of the remedial design and the remedial action for the

Site and the performance of operation and maintenance subsequent to

completion of implementation of the remedy. Some of these responsible

parties completed the remedial design and remedial action at a cost of

over $53 million. The remedial action began in August 1993, and ended

in May 1996 with the completion of the cap.

Dewatering and backfilling of the three Site ponds identified in

the ROD was completed in July 1995. Ponds were dewatered to a level of

approximately one foot above the pond bottom. Ponds were then

backfilled with sand until a firm working surface was achieved. The

sand was then covered with a geotextile material. Approximately 5 feet

of clay was placed over the geotextile in order to achieve grades that

would be resistant to erosion, and to complete the backfill operation.

The clay fill was installed and compacted in 8-inch lifts,5

and density tests were performed on every lift. If any lift failed the

testing it was reworked and retested. A 6-inch layer of topsoil was

placed on top of the clay fill prior to landscaping. These multi-layers

serve to form an impermeable cap.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ A lift is a layer of excavated material or fill material.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prior to excavating the waste and under EPA oversight, the

responsible parties constructed buildings capable of controlling air

emissions over the areas to be excavated. These ``Excavation and Feed

Preparation'' buildings were large aircraft hanger-like structures

designed to prevent escape of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The

responsible parties kept a negative air pressure vacuum in the

buildings in order to maintain VOC concentrations at less than 50 parts

per million (ppm), and to prevent an explosive concentration of gases

from accumulating. The exhausted air from the buildings was treated

with fume incineration and activated carbon prior to atmospheric

emission in order to insure that VOC action levels were not exceeded at

the fence line, or at residential ambient air monitoring stations.

The horizontal limits of excavation at the Site were based on RI

findings. Sheet pilings were installed around the perimeter of the

three excavation areas to mark the horizontal limits, support the

sidewalls and to control the flow of water into the excavations.

Vertical limits of excavation were based upon visual determination of

the limits of industrial waste present at the areas in question. The

responsible parties, subject to EPA review and approval, visually

inspected the material to be excavated and separated it into industrial

waste, municipal waste, and natural soils based on physical form,

color, and texture. Excavation continued until visual observation

confirmed that all visible industrial waste had been removed. Materials

classified as industrial waste were incinerated. The resulting

incinerator ash and the materials classified as municipal wastes and

native soil were used as a backfill material into the excavated areas.

Backfill material was compacted until it was level with the base of the

landfill cap. The completion of the landfill cap is described below.

Thermal treatment of industrial waste, drums, wastewater treatment

plant sludges, oils and grease was conducted on-site in a Shirco-

infrared type incinerator operated in compliance with the approved

operating conditions. A trial burn had been conducted at the Site

between July 1 and July 3, 1994. The trial burn results showed that the

concentrations of the constituents of concern were all in compliance

with the regulatory limits. An average destruction and removal

efficiency (DRE) of >99.99939% for hexachlorobenzene and >99.9940% for

hexachlorobutadiene were achieved. About 25,000 tons of waste material

was incinerated. Waste incineration was completed in September 1995.

The incinerator ash/scrubber filter cake that did not meet the

backfill material criteria due to its high metals content was

stabilized. Approximately 500 tons of incinerator ash/scrubber filter

cake was stabilized prior to placement into the excavated areas as

backfill.

The sources of wastewater produced on the Site included groundwater

from waste excavation areas, surface water from the on-site ponds,

decontamination water, and wastewater from the incineration operations.

The wastewater was treated on-site to meet the National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharge criteria set by EPA and

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ), and,

subsequently, the wastewater was discharged to the Mississippi River

via a dedicated pipeline. The wastewater treatment plant included air

stripping for VOCs removal, pH adjustment for metals precipitation,

coagulation and flocculation, filtration (filter presses), and carbon

adsorption units. The wastewater treatment plant operated from November

1993 to December 1995. About 64 million gallons of wastewater were

treated and discharged.

A final multi-layer cap was placed over all waste material (and

backfill) which remained in the excavation areas. This cap covers

approximately seven

[[Page 52677]]

acres of the Site. The cap was installed between November 1995 and May

1996. In preparation for the final cap profile, clean backfill material

was applied on top of the waste, and the backfill was graded to the

appropriate elevations per the design specifications. A synthetic

drainage net, a half foot sand layer and an eighty millimeter High

Density Polyethylene (HDPE) were placed on top of the backfill. This

allowed for installation of gas vents into the constructed sand layer.

The vents extend up through the cap and are used to monitor for gas

breakthrough using carbon canister detection units. This system was

devised in order to determine if any residual treated waste beneath the

cap is breaking down and causing formation of gas. The purpose of the

system is to enable contingency plans to be implemented if gas is

detected.

A two foot clay layer was installed and compacted in 8-inch lifts

on top of the gas vent layer. On top of this clay layer a geotextile

and HDPE were installed prior to covering the whole area with one foot

of topsoil. The topsoil, which is the exposed portion of the cap, was

seeded with vegetation that is intended to anchor the topsoil during

rainfall events. To complete the cap, the carbon canisters were

attached to the gas vents.

As part of the landfill construction, perforated stainless steel

pipes wrapped with a filter fabric were laid in along the bottom,

beneath the waste layers. There are various PVC pipe stands which stick

up through the cap that are attached to the piping beneath the

landfill. These pipe stands are checked on a regular basis (once every

three months) for their integrity, as well as to see if any liquids

have collected into the pipe system. This system is known as a leachate

collection system. The leachate (leachate is any water that percolates

through the landfill) can be collected and analyzed.

The responsible parties constructed the remedy at the Site to meet

performance standards specified in the ROD. The remedy implemented to

address the contamination at the Site has achieved the remedial action

objectives and the remediation goals described in the ROD. EPA and the

LDEQ have determined that the remedy which includes long-term

groundwater monitoring as well as an inspection and maintenance program

for the Site is performing as designed, and is operational and

functional. No additional treatment or other measures to restore

ground-or surface-water quality have been identified as being required.

C. Characterization of Risk

Continued monitoring of groundwater demonstrates that no

significant risk to public health or the environment is posed by the

hazardous materials remaining at the Site. Based on the successful

remedial actions addressing the hazardous materials on-site, the

monitoring results of operation and maintenance (O & M) activities to

date, and the public health consultation by the Agency for Toxic

Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), EPA verifies the implemented

Site remedy is protective of human health and the environment.

D. Community Involvement

Public participation activities have been satisfied as required in

CERCLA Subsection 113(k), 42 U.S.C. 9613(k), and in CERCLA Section 117,

42 U.S.C. 9617. Documents in the deletion docket on which EPA relied

for recommendation of the Site deletion from the NPL have been made

available to the public in the two information repositories the

location of which is identified above.

E. Proposed Action

In consultation with the LDEQ, EPA has concluded that responsible

parties have implemented all appropriate response actions required at

the Site (neither the CERCLA-required five-year reviews, nor operation

and maintenance of the constructed remedy is considered further

response action for these purposes), that all appropriate Fund-financed

response actions under CERCLA have been implemented, and that no

further response action by responsible parties is appropriate.

Moreover, EPA, in consultation with LDEQ, has determined that Site

investigations show that the Site now poses no significant threat to

public health or the environment; consequently, EPA proposes to delete

the Site from the NPL.

Dated: September 25, 1997.

Jerry Clifford,

Acting Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region 6.

[FR Doc. 97-26528 Filed 10-8-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P