[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 168 (Tuesday, August 31, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47465-47477]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-22318]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[FRL-6429-2]
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Notice of intent to delete the PAB Oil and Chemical Services,
Inc. superfund site from the National Priorities List and request for
comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 6
announces its intent to delete the PAB Oil and Chemical Services, Inc.
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, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 9605, is codified at
appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which is the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The 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: Comments should be submitted regarding its proposal to delete
this Site from the NPL on or before September 30, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to: Ms. Janetta Coats, Community
Involvement Coordinator (6SF-PO), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, (214) 665-7308.
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 PAB Oil and
[[Page 47466]]
Chemical Services, Inc., Superfund Site information repositories:
U.S. EPA Region 6 Library (12th Floor), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas
75202-2733, 1-800-533-3508; and
Vermilion Parish Public Library, 200 N. Magdalen Square, Abbeville,
Louisiana 70511, (318) 893-2674.
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
Appendices
A. Site Map
B. Deletion Docket Information
I. Introduction
This is the 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
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. The 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 PAB Oil and Chemical
Services, Inc., 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 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 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
five 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
The 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 July 14, 1999,
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.
The 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 approximately three miles north of Abbeville,
Louisiana, adjacent to U.S. Route 167, in Vermilion Parish. The site
encompasses approximately 16.7 acres of land located in a generally
rural area. Adjacent properties are used primarily for livestock
grazing and crops. Residential properties are situated sparsely along
U.S. Route 167 west of the site and Parish Road.
The majority of the Site had consisted of disposal pits/ponds and
related berms or levees. The pits contained solid and/or liquid wastes
that had the potential to migrate into the surrounding environment. The
pits extended to within less than ten feet of a ground water-bearing
zone in the area, the Upper Chicot Aquifer. Hazardous substances
present in the pits, could have migrated into the Upper Chicot Aquifer.
There are more than fifty-five residential wells within \1/2\ mile of
the Site used for drinking water and agricultural purposes.
B. Site History
The Site was used for the disposal of oil and gas exploration and
production wastes including drilling muds, drilling fluids and produced
waters between
[[Page 47467]]
1979 and 1983. The Site consisted of three impoundments or pits that
were used to receive the drilling wastes: Northwest, Northeast and
South pits. The pits are believed to have been operated in series--
where the solids would settle out, oil would be skimmed off and the
remaining water flowed to the next pit through connecting piping. The
series began in the Northwest pit and ended in the South pit. The Site
also contained one other impounded area called the Saltwater Pond. This
area was used to receive produced water (i.e., production waters
generated from oil field activites) and the residual water from the
South pit during the years of operation.
In June, 1980, a citizen's complaint of discharge from the site to
an off-site drainage ditch led to site identification by EPA. As a
result, site inspections were conducted by EPA, the Louisiana
Department of Natural Resources (LDNR) and the Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality (LDEQ), including initial preliminary
assessments, sampling inspections and expanded site inspections during
the time period between 1980 and August 1987. Significant inorganic
contamination was found at the Site. The main contaminants included
arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, zinc,
benzene, xylene, naphthalene,
2-methylnaphthalene, fluorene, phenanthrene, and pyrene. Based in part
on the findings from these investigations, the site was proposed to the
Superfund National Priorities List (NPL) in June, 1988. The Site was
finalized on the NPL in March, 1989, 54 FR 13296, as set forth at 40
CFR part 300, appendix B.
An emergency removal action was conducted by the Potentially
Responsible Party (PRP) group in accordance with an Administrative
Order on Consent (AOC), effective date October 8, 1991. Four tanks were
present on site and were the target of the removal action. Three of the
four tanks were located in a bermed area near the Northwest pit and the
fourth tank was located at the northwest corner of the Saltwater Pond.
Two of the larger tanks in the bermed area contained only minor amounts
of material, but the third tank contained an estimated 10,500 gallons
of an oil and waste mixture. The ``oil'' phase of this waste mixture
had a measured flash point of 90 deg.F. Materials with flash points
below 140 deg.F are potential fire or explosion threats. In the event
of tank collapse, fumes from a fire or explosion could drift off-site.
There are residences nearby and a highway borders the Site. In
addition, the tank contents could flow through breaks in the dikes into
the saltwater pond and via surface drainage into the nearby irrigation
canals, resulting in the potential for direct human contact. The fourth
tank had a capacity of about 250 gallons and reportedly contained about
85 gallons of sludge/oil mixture and a thin layer of oil on top.
Analysis of the contents of this fourth tank indicated the presence of
the following parameters: chromium, lead, benzene, xylene, naphthalene
and toluene. All of these substances are listed in 40 CFR Table 302.4
as hazardous substances. It was deemed necessary to perform the removal
action due to the potential for release of these hazardous substances
to the environment. The removal action was deemed complete by EPA in
February 1992.
Remedial Investigation (RI) field activities for the Site were
conducted from January, 1991 through October, 1991 and the final report
was issued in February, 1993. In association with the RI activities, a
baseline risk assessment was prepared to evaluate the potential adverse
health effects resulting from human exposure to hazardous substances
found to be present at the site. In addition, an environmental baseline
risk assessment was conducted to evaluate risks to environmental
species.
The main site features or potential contaminant source areas that
were identified and investigated as part of the RI field activities
include three open waste impoundments or pits and their associated
berms, another impounded area referred to as the Saltwater Pond, four
aboveground storage tanks and their associated underlying soils, site
drainage/runoff areas, an adjacent abandoned canal which borders the
eastern edge of the site and other areas of suspected waste dumping.
Additionally, on-site and off-site subsurface geologic and
hydrogeologic conditions and contaminant impacts to groundwater were
investigated through drilling of soil borings and the installation of
groundwater monitoring wells. The result of the investigation indicated
that the principal concerns were from contaminated sludges, soil and
sediments, surface water, and to a lesser extent, ground water.
The EPA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) 4 on September
22, 1993. The selected remedy called for removal and on-site treatment
of surface water; excavation and biological treatment of organic
sludge, soil and sediment; solidification/stabilization of biologically
treated residuals to address inorganic contamination and any remaining
organic contaminants; final disposal of treated residuals in an on-site
disposal unit; long-term ground water monitoring and long-term site
operation and maintenance. The estimated cost of the cleanup was $13
million including annual operation and maintenance costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ EPA's Record of Decision documents the selection of the
remedial alternative which will be used to cleanup the site in
question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The biological treatment portion of the originally prescribed
remedy was to treat all carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(cPAHs) in soils and sludges to below the established Remedial Action
Objective (RAO) of 3 ppm. During pre-design investigation activities,
new EPA-approved laboratory procedures for cPAHs which were not
previously available during Remedial Investigation and Feasibility
Study (RI/FS) activities were used to test the soils and sludges. The
analytical data from this testing, which took place in 1993 and 1995,
showed that all cPAHs in the site soils and sludges were below the RAO
of 3 ppm. Biological treatment, therefore, was deemed unnecessary as
part of the remedial action. All aspects of the remedy remained the
same, with the exception of biological treatment, resulting in a cost
savings of approximately $4 million dollars. This change to the remedy
was made and documented in the Explanation of Significant Differences
(ESD) signed by EPA on March 12, 1997.
On September 27, 1994, EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order
(UAO) for Remedial Design and Remedial Action. It also included the
performance of operation and maintenance subsequent to completion of
implementation of the remedy. Under the terms of the UAO, the PRP
group, known as PAB Site Remediation Group, L.L.C. (PAB Group)
conducted the remedial action with EPA oversight. The remedial action
began in June, 1997 with the site mobilization and ended in June, 1998
with the completion of capping, grading and revegetation.
Dewatering and backfilling of the Saltwater Pond began soon after
site mobilization. Approximately six million gallons of water were
removed from this large pond; all of the water was treated in an
electro-precipitation unit and tested for the discharge standards prior
to being discharged into a drainage ditch which leads to the drainage
system along Highway 167.
The pond bottom sediment was sampled and tested for both total
arsenic and barium, as well as for PAHs. Some of the samples exceeded
the RAOs of 5,400 ppm for barium and 10 ppm for arsenic. Therefore, the
top six inches of
[[Page 47468]]
the entire saltwater pond bottom was removed, and this material was
incorporated into the soils/sludges that were being treated by
solidification/stabilization in the pit area. Approximately 7,000 cubic
yards of this material were treated. The entire area was then brought
up to grade with clean backfill and revegetated with grass seed.
The major component of the remedial program was to stabilize/
solidify the sludge pit material. The contaminated soils and sludges
were combined with reagent materials including cement, ferrous sulfate,
and organophyllic clay in order to achieve the main performance
standards which included an unconfined compressive strength exceeding
50 psi and Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) values for
arsenic and barium of less than 0.05 ppm and 2.0 ppm, respectively.
Once the treated material was tested and found to meet these standards,
it was placed back into the pit area for final disposal, after
verification sampling of the pit bottoms was conducted and found to be
free of contamination. A total of approximately 25,000 cubic yards of
material was treated in this manner. Once the pits were filled up with
treated material, all of the pits were brought up to grade and the low
permeability cap was installed according to the approved grading
specifications. A topsoil layer was then applied, and the area was
revegetated with grass seed.
The cleanup levels and all cleanup actions and other measures
identified in the ROD were met by the successful implementation of the
remedial action. The constructed remedies are operational and
performing according to engineering specifications. The 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 onsite, 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
As required in CERCLA section 113(k)(2)(B)(i-v) and 117, public
participation activities for this site were met by holding open houses
and public meetings and by mailing fact sheets. The EPA conducted
numerous open houses and informal meetings prior to remedy selection.
Community interest in the site has been relatively low. At the November
8, 1997 community open house, EPA reported on the progress of the
remedial action underway at that time. The majority of the people
attending were pleased with the site status. There were no complaints
or opposition.
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: August 16, 1999.
Jerry Clifford,
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 6.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[[Page 47469]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31AU99.000
[[Page 47470]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31AU99.001
[[Page 47471]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31AU99.002
[[Page 47472]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31AU99.003
[[Page 47473]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31AU99.004
[[Page 47474]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31AU99.005
[[Page 47475]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31AU99.006
[[Page 47476]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31AU99.007
[[Page 47477]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31AU99.008
[FR Doc. 99-22318 Filed 8-30-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
