[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 229 (Wednesday, November 28, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59363-59367]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-29469]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL-7108-5]


National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan; 
National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Direct final notice of deletion of the Compass Industries 
Landfill Superfund Site from the National Priorities List.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 6 is 
publishing a direct final notice of deletion of the Compass Industries 
Landfill Superfund Site (Site), located in the Chandler Park area west 
of Tulsa, Tulsa County, Oklahoma, from the National Priorities List 
(NPL). The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 
(CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is appendix B of 40 CFR part 300, which 
is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan 
(NCP). This direct final deletion is being published by EPA with the 
concurrence of the State of Oklahoma, through the Oklahoma Department 
of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), because EPA has determined that all 
appropriate response actions under CERCLA have been completed and, 
therefore, further remedial action pursuant to CERCLA is not 
appropriate.

DATES: This direct final notice of deletion will be effective January 
28, 2002 unless EPA receives adverse comments by December 28, 2001. If 
adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of 
the direct final deletion in the Federal

[[Page 59364]]

Register informing the public that the deletion will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to: Beverly Negri, Community 
Involvement Coordinator, U.S. EPA Region 6 (6SF-LP), 1445 Ross Avenue, 
Dallas, TX 75202-2733, (214) 665-8157 or 1-800-533-3508 
([email protected]).
    Information Repositories: Comprehensive information about the Site 
is available for viewing and copying at the Site information 
repositories located at: U.S. EPA Region 6 Library, 12th Floor, 1445 
Ross Avenue, Suite 12D13, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, (214) 665-6427, 
Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; Tulsa City-County 
Library, 400 Civic Center, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103, (918) 596-7977, 
Monday through Friday 9 a.m. to 9 p.m.; Friday and Saturday 9 a.m. to 5 
p.m.; Sunday, September through mid-May 1 p.m. to 5 p.m.; Oklahoma 
Department of Environmental Quality, Contact: Eileen Hroch, 5th floor 
file room, 707 N. Robinson, P.O. Box 1677, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 
73101, (405) 702-5100, Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katrina Coltrain, Remedial Project 
Manager (RPM), U.S. EPA Region 6 (6SF-LP), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 
75202-2733, (214) 665-8143 or 1-800-533-3508 
([email protected]).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents:

I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Site Deletion
V. Deletion Action

I. Introduction

    The EPA Region 6 office is publishing this direct final notice of 
deletion of the Compass Industries Landfill Superfund Site from the 
NPL.
    The EPA identifies sites that appear to present a significant risk 
to public health or the environment and maintains the NPL as the list 
of those sites. As described in section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites 
deleted from the NPL remain eligible for remedial actions if conditions 
at a deleted site warrant such action.
    Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and 
routine, EPA is taking it without prior publication of a notice of 
intent to delete. This action will be effective January 28, 2002 unless 
EPA receives adverse comments by December 28, 2001 on this document. If 
adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period 
on this document, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct 
final notice of deletion before the effective date of the deletion and 
the deletion will not take effect. The EPA will, as appropriate, 
prepare a response to comments and continue with the deletion process 
on the basis of the notice of intent to delete published elsewhere in 
this issue of the Federal Register and the comments already received. 
There will be no additional opportunity to comment.
    Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting 
sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using 
for this action. Section IV discusses the Compass Industries Landfill 
Superfund Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria. 
Section V discusses EPA's action to delete the Site from the NPL unless 
adverse comments are received during the public comment period.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    Section 300.425(e) of the NCP provides that releases may be deleted 
from the NPL where 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 have 
been met:
    i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all 
appropriate response actions required;
    ii. All appropriate Fund-financed (Hazardous Substance Superfund 
Response Trust Fund) response under CERCLA has been implemented, and no 
further response action by responsible parties is appropriate; or,
    iii. The remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no 
significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, 
the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.
    Even if a site is deleted from the NPL, where hazardous substances, 
pollutants, or contaminants remain at the deleted site above levels 
that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, CERCLA section 
121(c), 42 U.S.C. 9621(c) requires that a subsequent review of the site 
be conducted at least every five years after the initiation of the 
remedial action at the deleted site to ensure that the action remains 
protective of public health and the environment. 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 deleted site may be restored to the 
NPL without application of the hazard ranking system.

III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to deletion of the Site:
    (1) The EPA consulted with ODEQ on the deletion of the Site from 
the NPL prior to developing this direct final notice of deletion.
    (2) ODEQ concurred with deletion of the Site from the NPL.
    (3) Concurrently with the publication of this direct final notice 
of deletion, a notice of the availability of the parallel notice of 
intent to delete published today in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of 
the Federal Register is being published in a major local newspaper of 
general circulation at or near the Site and is being distributed to 
appropriate federal, state, and local government officials and other 
interested parties; the newspaper notice announces the 30-day public 
comment period concerning the notice of intent to delete the Site from 
the NPL.
    (4) The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the deletion in 
the Site information repositories identified above.
    (5) If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public 
comment period on this document, EPA will publish a timely notice of 
withdrawal of this direct final notice of deletion before its effective 
date and will prepare a response to comments and continue with the 
deletion process on the basis of the notice of intent to delete and the 
comments already received.
    Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or 
revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from 
the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement 
actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for 
informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section 
300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the 
NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should 
future conditions warrant such actions.

IV. Basis for Site Deletion

    The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting the 
Site from the NPL:

Site Location

    The Compass Industries Landfill Site is an abandoned landfill 
located in a former limestone quarry west of Tulsa, Oklahoma. The Site 
is situated directly west of the Chandler Park softball facility, which 
is owned by Tulsa County. Physically, the Site is situated on a bluff 
approximately one-quarter mile south and 200 feet above the

[[Page 59365]]

Arkansas River. The Site's topography slopes downward to the west and 
north. The majority of runoff flows through water gaps in the east-west 
ridge above Avery Drive. Runoff from precipitation, springs and seeps 
flow into the Arkansas River through a simple network of small streams.

Site History

    The Site operated as a municipal landfill between 1972 and 1976, as 
a facility permitted by the Oklahoma State Department of Health (OSDH), 
now called ODEQ. The permit conditions did not allow the disposal of 
industrial waste at the Site; however, disposal of industrial waste was 
done counter to regulations and permit conditions. During the Site's 
operation as a limestone quarry, the operators of Compass Industries 
Landfill kept few records concerning the wastes which were disposed of 
in the landfill. The Site data indicated that disposal of waste was 
done in an irregular manner, making it difficult to ascertain where the 
wastes of concern were located.
    During the 1970's several fires were reported at the landfill. The 
most recent fire burned out in late 1984. It had burned underground for 
several years, breaking through the top soil cover on occasion. In 
early 1983, citizen complaints of odors prompted air monitoring in the 
vicinity of the landfill by the EPA and the OSDH. The results obtained 
from this monitoring revealed the presence of some organics, but at 
levels that were considered non-hazardous.
    In September 1983, the Compass Site was proposed for the NPL, and 
was listed in September 1984.

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

    During the RI of the Compass Industries Landfill Site, samples were 
collected from soil, water, and air to determine if significant 
pollutant concentrations were present. Routes of offsite migration 
include surface runoff, ground water (by way of recharge to seeps and 
surface runoff), transported sediments, and air.
    Analytical result of the samples collected from the Site identified 
12 inorganic and 33 organic priority pollutants. The most common 
priority pollutants were base-neutral compounds. The concentrations 
were greatest in samples of waste collected from surface and test 
trench soils.
    Ground water samples were collected from 19 monitoring wells during 
the RI. These include 18 samples collected from 14 shallow wells 
completed in the perched water table aquifer, and eight samples 
collected from five deep wells completed in the Layton Sandstone. 
Surface water runoff and sediment samples from drainage ways were 
collected around the perimeter of the landfill to determine if 
contaminated runoff and sediments were leaving the Site.
    Ten seep samples were collected to determine if contaminants were 
being leached out of the landfill wastes and transported. Seepage 
occurs along the perimeter of the landfill near the contact between the 
Hogshooter formation and Coffeyville formation.
    Air samples were collected by the EPA technical assistance team 
during trench excavation and waste sampling. These samples were 
collected immediately upwind, downwind, and within the test pit. In 
addition, air monitoring using an organic vapor analyzer (OVA) was 
performed at each trench during excavation.

Results

     Migration of contaminants in the ground water was being 
mitigated by attenuating mechanisms since much greater concentrations 
were measured in soil/sediment samples.
     Offsite migration of contaminants was limited to surface 
runoff and seeps. However, concentrations were greatly diminished at 
discharge points in comparison to onsite waste concentrations. Soil 
samples collected in the drainage ways were contaminated with inorganic 
priority pollutants. These contaminants did not pose a significant 
hazard, as they were expected to stay adsorbed on the soil.
     The shallow perched aquifer (Hogshooter Formation) 
containing water that had percolated through the waste was 
contaminated. The deeper aquifer (Layton Sandstone) was also 
contaminated, but to a lesser extent. This was due to its relative 
isolation from the shallow aquifer by a low permeability shale.
     Wastes sampled on the ground surface showed significant 
concentrations of both inorganic and organic priority pollutants. The 
surface waste samples were similar in composition to wastes sampled 
from trenches.
     The large spatial variation in compound concentration and 
types of compounds detected suggested that the location of disposal and 
the type of wastes disposed may have varied widely across the Site.
     Random soil samples from the Site showed significantly 
higher concentrations of priority pollutants than the background soil 
samples. However, this was not the case for all surficial soil samples, 
i.e., not all soils samples were polluted in the landfill.

Characterization of Risk

    John Mathes and Associates completed an Endangerment Assessment 
study for the Site in August 1988, for OSDH. The Endangerment 
Assessment was the precursor of the current Risk Assessment, and prior 
to 1989 was prepared using the Endangerment Assessment Handbook (1985). 
Thus the methodology of the Compass Endangerment Assessment is 
different from the current Risk Assessment which is based on Risk 
Assessment Guidance for Superfund (1989).
    The Endangerment Assessment study picked 15 chemicals as indicator 
chemicals from among the numerous chemicals detected at the Site. 
Selection of the final list of indicator chemicals was determined by 
the magnitude of the indicator scores and an evaluation of the 
chemical's environmental fate and transport characteristics.
    The results of the Endangerment Assessment for the 15 indicator 
chemicals were as follows: (1) Ingestion of ground water was not 
considered a potential exposure pathway, because it was considered 
incomplete since nearby residents use city water; (2) ingestion or 
dermal absorption of surface water was determined not to pose a health 
hazard; and, (3) site soil represented the only contaminated 
environmental medium for which the exposure pathways were complete.

Record of Decision Findings

    On September 29, 1987, EPA signed a Record of Decision (ROD) for 
the Site. The remedy was chosen in accordance with CERCLA and the NCP. 
The decision was based on the administrative record for this Site and 
the concurrence of the State of Oklahoma on the selected remedy. This 
alternative is protective and cost-effective, attains applicable or 
relevant and appropriate Federal and State standards, and utilizes 
permanent solutions and treatment technologies to the maximum extent 
practicable.
    The Site was addressed as one operable unit. The principal concerns 
addressed at the Site were from surface soils contaminated with 
inorganic and organic priority pollutants. The major components of the 
selected remedy include:
     Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) cap 
involving site grading, cap placement, diversion of surface water, and 
air emissions monitoring.

[[Page 59366]]

     Ground water will be treated at a later date if found to 
be necessary.
     Installation of security fences and signs to restrict 
access to the Site.
     Monitoring of the site for 30 years to ensure no 
significant offsite migration.
     Additional Remedial Action if significant migration of 
contaminants occurs.

Response Actions

    In late March 1988, EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order 
(UAO) to seven potentially responsible parties (PRPs) to assume 
responsibility for remedial action (RA) at the Site.
    The essential elements of the Remedial Action included subcontract 
award and mobilization, clearing and grubbing, grading, construction of 
the clay cap, placement of the liner, permanent vegetative cover, final 
inspection, and demobilization. Other work needed to meet the results 
called for in the ROD but not explicitly stated, were included in the 
Statement of Work (SOW) as follows:
    (1) Installation of a gas vent system to relieve any gas buildup 
under the cap; (2) construction of a surface drainage system consisting 
of a swale which collects sheet flow from the cap and carries water to 
a point beyond the hazardous waste area to drain into natural runoff 
channels at the western end of the Site; and, (3) construction of a 
berm to close openings in the bluffs along the northern end of the Site 
to prevent runoff from the cap from following existing drainage 
washouts, which threaten the road and rail right-of-way below the Site.
    The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) provided 
oversight for EPA through an Interagency Agreement. The USACE 
maintained full time oversight of the construction activities and 
assured quality by independent testing and ensured compliance with 
specifications and design drawings.

Cleanup Standards

    During the Remedial Construction, samples were taken and analyzed 
to ascertain that construction requirements established by the ROD and 
set forth in the Remedial Design (RD) were met. The results of the 
construction quality, ambient air monitoring, and personnel safety are 
found in the Quality Assurance Final Report. The report notes that the 
requirements of the ROD as defined in the RD were always equaled or 
exceeded. Some of the important results are summarized below:
     Specifications required that the clay be compacted to a 
minimum of 98% of maximum dry density and 1% above optimum moisture. 
Passing tests showed compaction to average 100.9% density and 2.6% 
above optimum moisture. All fill represented by failing tests were 
reworked to meet the specification requirements:
     The high density polyethylene (HDPE) used for the 
multiplayer cap was sampled for peel strength and seam strength. The 
average peel strength (extrusion) was 68.8 pounds per inch (ppi) 
against a design criteria of 38 ppi. The average seam strength 
(extrusion) was 84.1 ppi against a design requirement of 64 ppi.
     The average tensile strength at break for the HDPE liner 
was 4740 pounds per square inch (psi) against the design criteria of 
4000 psi.
     A perimeter air monitoring system installed between the 
Site and Chandler Park baseball diamonds noted no noxious vapors 
leaving the Site during the construction.

Operation and Maintenance

    A post closure Operation and Maintenance (O&M) plan was developed 
to ensure integrity, provide a performance demonstration, and verify 
long term success of the remedial action. The O&M plan specified the 
actions to be carried out during the post-closure period.
    Environmental Monitoring: The scope of this program will include 
sampling and analysis of ground water, surface water, and sediment for 
parameters which could potentially pose a threat to human health and 
environment.
    Seeps located on the bluffs on the northeast will be sampled to 
check for the presence of chemical contaminants from the perched 
aquifers. Post closure sampling of the seeps will be conducted to show 
that the RCRA cap has achieved the ROD requirements. There will be a 
minimum of five seep locations sampled, five surface water/sediment 
samples, and two background seep samples. The analytical results will 
be evaluated and compared to risk based requirements and background 
sampling data. Compliance will be based on analytical results not 
exceeding the monitoring concentrations listed in the O&M plan and 
based on risk of less than 10-6 (1 in 1,000,000).
    Monitoring will be conducted every year on a quarterly basis. The 
analytical data will be evaluated semi-annually and an annual report 
provided to EPA and OSDH. After five years of quarterly monitoring the 
program will be reviewed and modified if necessary, based on the 
results of the annual report(s). The monitoring program is planned for 
a period of 30 years with 5-year periodic reviews. If any five-year 
review indicates that the Site poses a threat to the environment, then 
an onsite water treatment facility will be installed. The program can 
be discontinued after any five-year review, provided EPA and the 
parties conducting the program agree, in writing, that the data from 
the ground water indicates that the Site does not pose an environmental 
threat.
    Performance Monitoring: This monitoring will verify that the main 
engineered elements are performing as designed. The main objective of 
the performance monitoring system is the early detection of trends that 
could indicate weaknesses developing in the containment system, so that 
corrective action could be taken before the integrity of the structure 
is compromised. The monitoring will consist of visual inspection during 
walkover, topographic surveys based on predetermined grid lines and 
aerial surveys. Repairs will be performed as required.

Five-Year Review

    Consistent with section 121(c) of CERCLA and requirements of the 
OSWER Directive 9355.7-03B-P (``Comprehensive Five-Year Review 
Guidance'', June 2001), a five-year review is required at the Compass 
Site. The Directive requires EPA to conduct statutory five-year reviews 
at sites where, upon attainment of ROD cleanup levels, hazardous 
substances remaining within restricted areas onsite will not allow 
unlimited use of the entire site.
    Since hazardous substances remain onsite, this Site is subject to 
five-year reviews to ensure the continued protectiveness of the remedy. 
Based on the five-year results, EPA will determine whether human health 
and the environment continues to be adequately protected by the 
implemented remedy.

5-Year Review--2000

    The first five-year review was scheduled for completion in 1996; 
however, it was not completed until September 26, 2000. The review was 
held up due to the lack of a clear definition of the capped area. In 
spring of 1997, the cap was surveyed and defined by the legal metes and 
bound definition. The five-year review denoted no deficiencies; 
however, potential deficiencies were identified and include (1) 
continued mowing of the native grasses may result in a buildup of 
thatch; therefore, if mowing continues the site should be raked 
approximately every four years; (2) as the area returns

[[Page 59367]]

to native vegetation, woody plants with strong root systems may damage 
the liner system; therefore woody vegetation should be removed at least 
annually; (3) burrowing animals including mice, rats and snakes may 
also damage the liner system; therefore, continued periodic checks on 
the site should be maintained; and, (4) erosion of the RCRA cap 
continues to be a concern, and the site should be periodically 
inspected to ensure that the full 24 inches of the RCRA cap remains 
intact.
    Because the remedial action is expected to be protective, the 
remedy for the site is expected to be protective of human health and 
the environment. Based upon the site inspection, the sampling results, 
the survey results and the remedial actions are performing well. The 
RCRA cap system has been well maintained and now is performing its 
function with minimal maintenance and movement. The ground water 
leaving the site, when present, has been substantially below the 
monitoring concentration, never having exceeded 10% of any level. The 
site appurtenant structures, including the fencing, the signs, and the 
vent pipes, are in sound condition with no signs of physical 
deterioration. All contaminants of concern appear to be fully 
controlled by the RCRA cap.

5-Year Review--2001

    The second five-year review is in the process of being finalized. 
At this time, no major deficiencies have been noted. Several minor and 
potential deficiencies were identified during the inspection and 
include: (1) On an area along the northen slope, woody shrubs are 
clearly evident and must be removed; (2) riprap placed at the lower end 
of the swale during recent repairs did not completely cover all of the 
geotextile and additional rock is needed; and, (3) the settlement 
monuments which were scheduled to be surveyed during the 10th year will 
be surveyed as soon as practical. The change of primacy for O&M 
activities may delay completion of this activity.
    Because the remedial action is expected to be protective, the 
remedy for the site is expected to be protective of human health and 
the environment. Based upon the site inspection and the sampling 
results, the remedial actions are performing well. All contaminants of 
concern appear to be fully controlled by the RCRA cap.

Community Involvement

    Public participation activities have been satisfied as required in 
CERCLA section 113(k), 42 U.S.C. 9613(k), and CERCLA section 117, 42 
U.S.C. 9617. Documents in the deletion docket which EPA relied on for 
recommendation of the deletion from the NPL are available to the public 
in the information repositories.

V. Deletion Action

    The EPA, with concurrence of the State of Oklahoma, has determined 
that all appropriate responses under CERCLA have been completed, and 
that no further response actions, under CERCLA, other than O&M and 
five-year reviews, are necessary. Therefore, EPA is deleting the Site 
from the NPL.
    Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and 
routine, EPA is taking it without prior publication. This action will 
be effective January 28, 2002 unless EPA receives adverse comments by 
December 28, 2001. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day 
public comment period, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this 
direct final notice of deletion before the effective date of the 
deletion and it will not take effect. The EPA will prepare a response 
to comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the 
notice of intent to delete published elsewhere in this issue of the 
Federal Register and the comments already received. There will be no 
additional opportunity to comment.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, 
Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, 
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water 
pollution control, Water supply.

    Dated: November 8, 2001.
Gregg A. Cooke,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.


    For the reasons set out in this document, 40 CFR part 300 is 
amended as follows:

PART 300--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 
12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p.351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 
2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p.193.

Appendix B--[Amended]

    2. Table 1 of Appendix B to Part 300 is amended under Oklahoma 
(``OK'') by removing the entry for ``Compass Industries (Avery Drive), 
Tulsa''.

[FR Doc. 01-29469 Filed 11-27-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P