[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 95 (Thursday, May 16, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34886-34890]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-12145]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL-7212-2]


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of intent to delete the Compass Industries Landfill 
Superfund Site from the National Priorities List.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 6 announces 
its intent to delete 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) and requests public 
comment on this action. 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). The EPA, with the concurrence of the State of 
Oklahoma, through the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality 
(ODEQ), has determined that all appropriate response actions under 
CERCLA have been completed and, therefore, further remedial action 
pursuant to CERCLA is not appropriate.

DATES: Comments concerning this intent to delete may be submitted on or 
before June 17, 2002.

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 announces its intent to delete the Compass 
Industries Landfill Superfund Site from the NPL and requests public 
comments.
    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 Sec. 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.
    The EPA will accept comments on the intent to delete this Site for 
thirty (30) days after publication of this documents in the Federal 
Register.
    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

[[Page 34887]]

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 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 notice of intent to delete.
    (2) ODEQ concurred with deletion of the Site from the NPL in a 
letter dated October 9, 2001.
    (3) All appropriate responses under CERCLA have been implemented as 
documented in the Site Close-out Report dated June 25, 1992.
    (4) The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the deletion in 
the Site information repositories identified above.
    (5) A notice has been published in the local newspaper and has been 
distributed to appropriate Federal, State, and local officials and 
other interested parties announcing the commencement of a 30-day public 
comment period on EPA's Notice of Intent to Delete.
    Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or 
revoke any individual's rights or obligations, nor does it in any way 
alter EPA's right to take enforcement actions, as appropriate. The NPL 
is designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist Agency 
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.
    For deletion of this Site, EPA's Regional Office will accept and 
evaluate public comments before making a final decision to delete. If 
necessary, the Agency will prepare a Responsiveness Summary to address 
any significant public comments received.
    A deletion occurs when the Regional Administrator places a final 
notice in the Federal Register. Generally, the NPL will reflect 
deletions in the final update following the notice. Public notices and 
copies of the Responsiveness Summary will be made available to local 
residents by the Regional Office.

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 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 flows 
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 Site's 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 results 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 included 18 samples collected from 14 shallow wells 
completed in the perched water table aquifer, and 8 samples collected 
from 5 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

[[Page 34888]]

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 
chemicals' 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 State of Oklahoma concurred on the selected remedy. The selected 
alternative was protective of public health and the environment and 
cost-effective, attained applicable or relevant and appropriate Federal 
and State standards, and utilized 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 included:
     Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) cap 
involving Site grading, cap placement, diversion of surface water, and 
air emissions monitoring.
     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 RA 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. Runoff was to be slowed by natural ponding areas west of the 
Site and released through natural existing channels, ultimately flowing 
into the Arkansas River; 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

[[Page 34889]]

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 park 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 semiannually 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 reports. 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 human health or 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 indicate that the Site does not pose a human 
health or 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 can be taken before the integrity of the structure is 
compromised. The monitoring will consist of visual inspection during 
walkovers, 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 public 
health and the environment continues to be adequately protected by the 
implemented remedy.

First Five-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 
the 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 included (1) 
continued mowing of the native grasses could result in a buildup of 
thatch; therefore, if mowing continued the Site should be raked 
approximately every four years; (2) as the area returns to native 
vegetation, woody plants with strong root systems could damage the 
liner system; therefore, woody vegetation should be removed at least 
annually; (3) burrowing animals including mice, rats and snakes could 
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.
    The remedy for the Site is expected to be protective of public 
health and the environment. Based upon the Site inspections, sampling 
results, and survey results, the remedial actions were performing well. 
The RCRA cap system had been well maintained and was performing its 
function with minimal maintenance and movement. The ground water 
leaving the Site, when present, had 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, were in sound condition with no signs of physical 
deterioration. All contaminants of concern appeared to be fully 
controlled by the RCRA cap.

Second Five-Year Review-2001

    The second five-year review was finalized on December 26, 2001. At 
that time, no major deficiencies were noted. Several minor and 
potential deficiencies were identified during the inspection and 
include: (1) On an area along the northen slope, woody shrubs were 
clearly evident and required removal; (2) riprap placed at the lower 
end of the swale during recent repairs did not completely cover all of 
the geotextile and additional rock was needed; and, (3) the settlement 
monuments which were scheduled to be surveyed during the 10th year 
needed to be surveyed.
    The remedy for the Site is expected to be protective of public 
health and the environment. Based upon the Site inspections, the 
sampling results, and the survey results, 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 concentrations, never having exceeded 10% of any 
level. The Site 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.

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.

Previous Deletion Activities

    On November 28, 2001, the EPA published a Direct Final Notice of 
Deletion (66 FR 59363). During the comment period, an adverse comment 
was received and the Agency began work on the withdrawal of the direct

[[Page 34890]]

final notice of deletion which was not published within thirty days 
following the public comment period. Because the date was missed, the 
direct final notice of deletion became effective and the Agency issued 
a Removal of the direct final notice of deletion amendment on March 19, 
2002 (67 FR 12478). Now that the Site is listed on the NPL once more, 
the deletion process will begin again with the publication of this 
Notice of Intent to Delete and another public comment period.

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 issuing a Notice of 
Intent to Delete the Site from the NPL. Documents supporting this 
action are available from the docket.

    Dated: May 1, 2002.
Gregg A. Cooke,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 02-12145 Filed 5-15-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P