[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 8, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33368-33373]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-11270]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL-7921-6]


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Direct final notice of deletion of the Delatte Metals 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 Delatte Metals 
Superfund Site (Site), located in Ponchatoula, Tangipahoa Parish, 
Louisiana, 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 notice of deletion is being published by EPA with the concurrence 
of the State of Louisiana, through the Louisiana Department of 
Environmental Quality (LDEQ), 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 August 8, 
2005 unless EPA receives adverse comments by July 8, 2005. If adverse 
comments are received, EPA will publish a timely

[[Page 33369]]

withdrawal of the direct final notice of deletion in the Federal 
Register informing the public that the deletion will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to: Beverly Negri, Community Outreach 
Team Leader, U.S. EPA Region 6 (6SF-PO), 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 during central standard time at 
the Site information repositories located at: U.S. EPA Region 6 
Library, 7th Floor, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-
2733, (214) 665-6424, Monday through Friday 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. and 1 
p.m. to 4 p.m.; Ponchatoula Branch Library, 380 N. Fifth Street, 
Ponchatoula, Louisiana, 70454, (985) 386-6554, Monday through Friday 
8:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.; Saturday 8:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.; Louisiana 
Department of Environmental Quality Public Records Center, Galvez 
Building Room 127, 602 N. Fifth Street, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 70802, 
(225) 219-3168, Monday through Friday 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Email: 
[email protected], web page: http://www.deq.louisiana.gov/pubrecords.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katrina Higgins-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 Delatte Metals 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 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.
    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 August 8, 2005 unless 
EPA receives adverse comments by July 8, 2005 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 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 Delatte Metals 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 LDEQ on the deletion of the Site from 
the NPL prior to developing this direct final notice of deletion.
    (2) LDEQ 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 Delatte Metals Site includes the Delatte Metals, Inc., (DMI) 
facility, the abandoned North Ponchatoula Battery facility and parts of 
the offsite areas. The Site is located at 19113 Weinberger Road in 
Tangipahoa Parish about 2.5 miles southeast of Ponchatoula, Louisiana 
with an estimated 645 persons living within one-mile. The

[[Page 33370]]

combined area of the two facilities is approximately 18.9 acres. The 
approximate total area of the Site, encompassing both facilities and 
offsite areas, is 56.8 acres.

Site History

    During the 1960s, under the name Delatte and Fuscia Battery 
Company, battery recycling and smelting operations were conducted in 
the DMI facility area of the Site. In the early 1980s, the facility 
name was changed to Delatte Metals, Inc. The operations performed at 
the facility included spent lead-acid battery demolition to remove 
associated lead plates and the subsequent lead smelting of the lead 
plates to produce lead ingots. The typical process at the facility 
involved sawing off the tops of the batteries and removing the lead 
plates in the battery saw building. After opening the battery cases, 
the battery acid was drained into a sump. Before the mid-1980s, the 
acid was pumped from the sump to an unlined pond located on the north 
side of the Site. After the closure of the acid pond, the acid was 
pumped through an underground pipe to the acid tank farm. The spent 
acid was then shipped offsite for recycling. Similar operations took 
place at the North Ponchatoula Battery (NPB) facility.
    From the mid-1980s into the 1990s, the Louisiana Department of 
Environmental Quality (LDEQ) worked with both facilities in attempts to 
correct deficiencies in environmental practices. In September 1997, 
however, Louisiana Governor Mike Foster formally requested that the 
Site be addressed by EPA and listed on the Superfund National 
Priorities List (NPL). A Hazard Ranking System documentation package 
was subsequently prepared and the Site was proposed for addition to the 
NPL in July 1998. On January 19, 1999, EPA formally announced the 
addition of the Site to the NPL in the Federal Register.

Removal Action

    On July 24, 1998, EPA signed an Action Memorandum for a time-
critical removal action at the Site. The action addressed occupied 
residential properties as well as stabilization, removal, and offsite 
disposal of crushed battery casings, slag piles, settling basin solids, 
waste in tote bags and waste piles located inside the battery saw 
building. Onsite activities began on September 9, 1998, with the 
establishment of a command post and associated utilities, delivery of 
heavy equipment, construction of the loading truck staging area, and 
the identification of truck routes. Transportation and disposal of 
contaminated battery chips, battery mud and debris began on October 12, 
1998. Removal activities were completed in less than six months and 
resulted in the removal of approximately 30,000 tons of crushed battery 
casings, smelter slag, smelter ash, and other source material; 68 tons 
of grossly contaminated smelter equipment; 28 drums of lead 
contaminated oil and oil debris; approximately 6,617 gallons of 
sulfuric acid; and, approximately 650 tons of scrap metal. In addition, 
contaminated sediment in a roadside ditch along Weinberger Road was 
excavated to facilitate the installation of a public water supply pipe, 
and contaminated soil found in two residential properties was 
excavated.

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

    During 1999 and 2000, EPA conducted field sampling and 
investigation activities at the Site including collection and analyses 
of soil, sediment, surface water, ground water, and animal tissue 
samples. The Remedial Investigation (RI) and Feasibility Study (FS) 
reports identified the types, quantities, and locations of contaminants 
found in these samples and developed ways to address the contamination 
problems. A treatability study report was also completed to assess the 
applicability of different remedial technologies. In addition, a Human 
Health Risk Assessment and an Ecological Risk Assessment were performed 
to determine the current and future effects of contaminants on human 
health and the environment.
    Lead was identified as the one contaminant of concern that posed 
the greatest potential risk to human health and ecological receptors as 
well as natural habitats. Lead was detected in all onsite surface and 
shallow subsurface soil sampling locations; in several surface and 
shallow subsurface offsite soil sampling locations; in sediment and 
surface water samples collected from various offsite ecological 
habitats and Selsers Creek; and, in ground water samples from the first 
water-bearing zone, which is a very acidic environment and tends to 
flow towards Selsers Creek.

Record of Decision

    The Proposed Plan was presented to the community during a public 
meeting held on July 31, 2000. After review and response to comments 
received during the 30-day comment period, the Record of Decision was 
signed on September 26, 2000. The Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) for 
the Site were to:
     Treat or remove the principal threat wastes at the Site;
     Reduce or eliminate the direct contact threats associated 
with contaminated soil; and,
     Minimize or eliminate contaminant migration to the ground 
water and surface waters to levels that ensure beneficial reuse of 
these resources.
    In order to achieve these RAOs, certain numerical cleanup levels 
would have to be maintained or attained in the various environmental 
media. These were:
     Soil: Industrial: 1,700 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) 
lead; Residential: 500 mg/kg lead; and, Ecological: 80 mg/kg lead.
     Sediment: Industrial: Not Applicable (n/a); Residential: 
n/a; and, Ecological: 100 mg/kg lead.
     Ground Water: Industrial: n/a; Residential: 15 micrograms 
per liter ([mu]g/l) lead; and, Ecological: n/a.
     Surface Water: Industrial: n/a; Residential: n/a; and, 
Ecological: 0.6 [mu]g/l lead.
     Air: Industrial: n/a; Residential: n/a; and, Ecological: 
n/a.
    Lead was the most abundant and widespread heavy metal at the Site 
and was co-located at the same locations where other heavy metals were 
detected. Since the source of the contamination was mainly in surface 
and subsurface soils, the selected remedy was designed primarily to 
address the soil contamination. (The reference to soil contamination 
includes sediment.) It was expected that when the soil cleanup levels 
for lead were achieved, the other forms of cleanup would also be 
achieved: Sediment to 80 mg/kg lead for ecological; ground water to 15 
[mu]g/l lead for residential; and, surface water 0.6 [mu]g/l lead for 
ecological. Because the other metals were found at the same locations 
as lead, it was expected that they would be addressed also.
    Therefore, the measurement of success at accomplishing the RAOs 
will be based on the media specific numerical cleanup levels that will 
be achieved in the various designated areas of soil contamination. 
These are:
     Industrial: 1,700 mg/kg lead in soil;
     Residential: 500 mg/kg lead in soil; and,
     Ecological: 80 mg/kg lead in soil.
    This ROD addressed the contamination in the soil, sediment, surface 
water and ground water at the Site by:
     Immobilization to address the principal threat wastes in 
the soil (thus eliminating the source of contamination for sediment, 
surface water, ground water);

[[Page 33371]]

     Offsite disposal to transport immobilized wastes to a 
disposal facility;
     Permeable treatment walls to neutralize the acidity of the 
shallow ground water and limit the migration of dissolved metals;
     Institutional controls (ICs) in the form of deed notices 
to inform the public of Site conditions; and,
     Ground water monitoring to ensure the effectiveness of the 
selected remedy.

Response Actions

    The EPA issued a Remedial Action (RA) work assignment to the 
contractor on September 26, 2002, with onsite RA construction beginning 
on November 19, 2002.
    On January 8, 2003, EPA revised the cleanup criteria based on 
additional soil sample data collected during the RA. The purpose of 
this sampling was to better delineate areas designated for remediation. 
These data allowed areas to be more easily separated into future land 
use categories of ecological, residential, or industrial and then 
remediated based on the cleanup criteria for that particular use. 
Additional ecological areas not representative of drainage areas were 
reassessed using revised toxicity values resulting in a 200 mg/kg 
cleanup level for these areas. The following revisions were 
implemented.
    1. For ecological excavation areas identified during the RI and RD, 
the soil remediation level was maintained at 80 mg/kg.
    2. For additional ecological areas that were identified during the 
RA, soil was remediated to or below 200 mg/kg (around grids H-1, I-1, 
and O-1).
    3. Sample point RA-16, near Grid O-1, with a concentration of 227 
mg/kg was considered as effectively meeting the 200 mg/kg target. This 
determination was based on the isolation of the sample location, the 
existence of sample points with lower concentrations surrounding the 
area, and the conservative assumptions that were used to determine 
risk.
    4. No excavation was to be performed within the dripline of the 
large magnolia tree in Grid I-1. The landowner had requested that the 
large magnolia tree not be removed. After reviewing additional sampling 
data from the area, removal of soil within the dripline of the magnolia 
was not necessary.
    5. Onsite soils were to be excavated to 1,700 mg/kg both 
horizontally and vertically.
    6. Offsite soils (except those identified in item 2) were to be 
excavated using the following criteria:
     0 to 6 inches below ground surface (bgs)--80 mg/kg lead in 
soil (ecological standard);
     6 to 24 inches bgs--500 mg/kg lead in soil (residential 
standard); and,
     > 24 inches bgs--1,700 mg/kg lead in soil (industrial 
standard).
    On April 9, 2003, EPA revised the cleanup criteria for M-, P-, and 
Q-excavation grids since the areas were considered residential rather 
than ecological. These grids were located in established ecological 
environments. Because of intrusive remediation activities that 
eliminated these ecological environments and the possible reuse as 
residential, these areas were redefined as residential and thus 
required a residential cleanup value. Excavation within the tributary 
still used the ecological criteria. The revised criteria listed below 
were used.
     For soils 0 to 24 inches bgs, the cleanup level was 500 
mg/kg lead in soil (residential standard).
     For soils greater than 24 inches bgs, the cleanup level 
was 1,700 mg/kg lead in soil.
    On February 18, 2003, staff from the EPA, the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, the LDEQ, and Tetra Tech met to discuss the 
remediation of the cypress swamp. On May 15, 2003, EPA revised the 
cleanup criteria for Cypress Swamp. Weighing the detrimental effects of 
habitat destruction versus estimated risk in the Cypress Swamp area 
indicated that limiting remedial efforts to the removal of highly-
contaminated sediments will serve to adequately protect current and 
future human health and the environment. Therefore, the sediments with 
concentrations greater than 500 mg/kg lead were removed to a depth of 6 
inches (after removal of overlying detrital material) and back-filled 
with 6 inches of clean fill material. This removed a large portion of 
the contamination and provided a barrier to future ecological exposure 
to remaining contamination, while maintaining the hydrology and habitat 
value of the area.
    Excavation of the soils and waste pits began in December 2002 and 
was completed in July 2003. Following soil excavation, surface 
restoration activities were conducted for onsite and offsite areas. 
Installation of the permeable reactive barrier began in February 2003 
and was completed in June 2003.
    The EPA and the State conducted the RA as planned and completed a 
pre-final inspection on July 30, 2003. During the inspection, several 
punch list items were identified for completion; however, RA 
construction activities had been completed according to design 
specifications. The preliminary close out report was signed on 
September 22, 2003, initiating the operational and functional period. 
The final inspection was conducted on July 21, 2004. All punch list 
items identified during the pre-final inspection were completed, and no 
other outstanding items existed. The final Remedial Action report was 
accepted on September 22, 2004, initiating the Operation and 
Maintenance phase under the lead of the Louisiana Department of 
Environmental Quality (LDEQ). The final close out report was signed on 
March 7, 2005, signifying that all response actions at the Site were 
successful and no further Superfund response is required to protect 
human health and the environment.
    On September 22, 2004, LDEQ filed the ICs for the onsite 
properties. The ICs are conveyance notices which are filed with the 
Tangipahoa Parish Clerk of Court Office and notify the public that the 
properties have contaminant levels present that are acceptable for only 
industrial/commercial use of the property as described in LDEQ's Risk 
Evaluation/Corrective Action Program (RECAP), June 20, 2000, Section 
2.9. In accordance with LAC 33:I., Chapter 13, if land use changes from 
industrial to non-industrial, the property owner(s) shall notify the 
LDEQ within 30 days so that the Site shall be reevaluated to determine 
if conditions are appropriate for the proposed land use. Should the 
property owner provide adequate proof that the property no longer 
contains waste restricting use and the secretary (State), or designee, 
grants approval, the notice may be removed from the mortgage and 
conveyance records of the parish in which the property is located. If 
the secretary, or designee, objects to the removal, or fails to make a 
final determination within ninety days, the property owner may petition 
the court in the parish where the property is located for removal of 
the notice and after a contradictory hearing between the landowner, the 
clerk of court, and the secretary or his designee, the court may grant 
such relief upon adequate proof by the petitioner that the property no 
longer contains the waste which may pose a potential threat to health 
or to the environment.
    The remedial action set forth in the ROD was consistent with, and 
complied with, the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) 
of 1986, P.L. 99-499, which substantially amended CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 
9601 et seq., and the NCP. SARA codified many of the existing 
requirements under the then existing NCP (1985), as well as adding, 
among other things, a new section 121 to CERCLA, which provided

[[Page 33372]]

direction for selection of remedial actions compliant with applicable 
or relevant and appropriate Federal, State, and Local laws regulations 
and requirements, 42 U.S.C. 9621.

Cleanup Standards

    The EPA contract for the remedial action contained provisions for 
performing sampling during all remedial activities in order to verify 
that remedial objectives were met, to ensure quality control and 
assurance for all excavation and construction activity, and to ensure 
protection and safety of the public, the environment, and the onsite 
worker. Nonhazardous wastes were sent to the BFI Colonial Landfill in 
Sorrento, Louisiana, and hazardous wastes were transported by a 
hazardous waste transporter to the Clean Harbors Landfill in Waynoka, 
Oklahoma.
    Air: Meteorological conditions were monitored on a continuous 
basis. Real-time and integrated air monitoring was conducted near 
excavations areas, soil stockpiles, the soil treatment work area, and 
various work zones onsite, as well as along the Site perimeter. Air 
monitoring ensured that there was no onsite exposure and no offsite 
migration of Site contaminants.
    Excavation: The surveyor established the Site boundaries, clearing 
and grubbing limits, and onsite and offsite excavation limits. Field 
sampling and lab confirmation sampling were done for all excavation 
areas. Excavation bottoms with sample results that exceeded the cleanup 
criteria were then excavated an additional 1 foot in depth by 10 feet 
by 10 feet horizontally, and the area was resampled to ensure that the 
prescribed cleanup level had been met. This process was iterated until 
the cleanup criteria was met.
    Backfill: All imported backfill material was sampled and analyzed 
to ensure that priority pollutant metals were within allowable limits 
before being accepted.
    Solidification/Stabilization: Five-point composite samples from 
each treated stockpile were submitted to the laboratory and analyzed 
for Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Toxicity Characteristic 
Leachate Procedure (TCLP) metals to ensure that all disposal criteria 
were met. Stockpiles in which treatment confirmation samples exceeded 
disposal requirements were reprocessed and resampled for the failed 
parameter before disposal as nonhazardous waste.
    Permeable Reactive Barrier Wall: Before full scale installation, 
compatibility tests were performed between the ground water and the 
bio-polymer, permeability testing was conducted to verify that the 
backfill material was more permeable than the water-bearing zone, and a 
test section was installed and monitored to ensure PRB effectiveness. 
The alignment of the PRB wall was surveyed prior to installation, and 
during installation, a geologist was onsite to examine the excavated 
material and to determine when the impermeable layer was reached.
    Storm Water Discharge: Precipitation and ground water from 
excavations were collected and treated to meet the discharge 
parameters. Water was discharged to the creek only after sample 
analyses verified that the LDEQ discharge parameters had been met.
    Ground Water Wells: The 15 ground water monitoring wells were 
plugged and abandoned in accordance with Louisiana State regulations.
    Concrete Demolition: The concrete slabs were demolished, 
decontaminated, and analyzed for TCLP metals. Debris that passed TCLP 
metals limits was utilized as onsite backfill. Concrete demolition 
debris that failed to meet the TCLP metals limits were shipped to and 
disposed as hazardous waste.
    Wastes addressed during remedial action include:
     Approximately 41,000 cubic yards (cy) of onsite and 1,400 
cy of offsite soil were excavated, treated, and disposed of at an 
offsite landfill. The total weight of soil disposed of at the landfill 
was 85,444 tons. Approximately 10,000 cy of offsite soil meeting onsite 
cleanup levels were placed in the onsite excavations.
     An estimated 1.5 million gallons of water were treated and 
discharged.
     Approximately 450 tons of concrete were disposed of as 
hazardous waste.
     A total of 33 acres was cleared and grubbed and all trees, 
shrubs, and stumps were chipped and scattered onsite.
     Miscellaneous debris encountered during the remedial 
effort at the site were transported to the landfill and disposed of as 
nonhazardous waste. Examples of miscellaneous debris include telephone 
poles, old tires, drums, Polyvinyl Chloride pipe, wood pieces, 
household trash, and other solid waste.
     Approximately 300 drums containing investigation-derived 
waste were disposed.
     Approximately 0.5 cy of Asbestos Containing Material were 
removed from a storage building, double-bagged, and disposed as 
nonhazardous waste material.

Summary of the Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD)

    The EPA issued an ESD for the Site to document the increase in 
cost; increase in waste volume treated and disposed; and, revisions to 
the cleanup values. No other significant differences exist between the 
final remedial action and the selected remedy presented in the 2000 
ROD. All components of the 2000 ROD, including RAOs and remedial 
technologies, were instituted in order to achieve protection of human 
health and the environment. The total volume of waste treated and 
disposed was 85,444 tons; this represents an increase of 32,794 tons 
over the estimated 52,650 tons presented in the 2000 ROD. Battery 
wastes encountered at depths and locations not previously identified 
were defined as principal threat wastes; therefore, removal, treatment 
and disposal were necessary to eliminate the source of contamination 
for sediment, surface water, and ground water. No source materials 
discovered during remedial action were left in place above the risk-
based cleanup levels. The final remedial action cost of $13.1 million 
is an increase of $3.2 million over the ROD estimate of $9.9 million. 
Cleanup values were established for additional onsite and offsite areas 
identified for cleanup during the remedial action (see Response Actions 
section). More detail can be found in the Final ESD dated December 14, 
2004.

Operation and Maintenance (O&M)

    Long-term O&M activities will be required at the site in order to 
ensure the effectiveness, protectiveness, and integrity of the remedy 
and are discussed in the site Final O&M manual dated February 18, 2004. 
O&M activities will be conducted under the State and will include a 
ground water monitoring program, routine maintenance, and site 
inspections. The total estimated cost for all O&M activities over a 30-
year period at a discount rate of 7% is $557,000.
    Ground water monitoring activities will include well sampling to 
determine that the ground water pH downgradient of the PRB is 
increasing, metals concentrations in the ground water downgradient of 
the PRB are decreasing, and the metals concentrations in the ground 
water of the third water-bearing zone are not increasing. Quarterly 
monitoring of the well network will be required to obtain at least 
eight time-independent data points that will be evaluated using 
statistical tools to quantitatively assess metals concentrations and 
pH. Intra-well trends and population trends (upgradient and

[[Page 33373]]

downgradient) in metals concentrations and pH will be used to evaluate 
the efficacy of the remedy and to recommend changes to the monitoring 
program, as necessary.
    Routine maintenance and visual site inspections will be performed 
at the Delatte Site to ensure the integrity of the RA. Inspections will 
be made of the monitoring network, the institutional controls (ICs), 
and the PRB.
    The monitoring wells will be maintained and repaired as necessary. 
If during O&M, the monitoring program changes to remove wells from the 
sampling schedule, then these wells will be plugged and abandoned.
    The integrity of the PRB cap will be inspected and documented. If 
subsidence results in a low area developing over the PRB, additional 
soil may need to be imported to raise the soil higher than the 
surrounding areas to minimize infiltration. Additionally, the soil 
overlying the PRB will be inspected for erosion, cracks, or other 
pathways that could allow for surface water to enter the subsurface.
    The deed files for the property will be inspected during the time 
of sampling to ensure that ICs remain in place. General Site inspection 
will also document any reuse of the Site to ensure that it is within 
the allowable parameter, industrial, as set by the IC. Reporting of any 
additional information or discussion related to future reuse, either 
city planning or developer purchasing, will also be included.

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 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 do 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. The first five-year review will be completed no 
later than November 19, 2007.

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 Louisiana, 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 August 8, 2005 unless EPA receives adverse comments by 
July 8, 2005. 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 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: May 23, 2005.
Lawrence E. Starfield,
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 6.
    For the reasons set out in this document, 40 CFR part 300 is 
amended as follows:

PART 300--[AMENDED]

0
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]

0
2. Table 1 of Appendix B to Part 300 is amended under Louisiana 
(``LA'') by removing the Site name ``Delatte Metals''.

[FR Doc. 05-11270 Filed 6-7-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P