[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 196 (Thursday, October 9, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52674-52677]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26528]


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

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