Second Five-Year Review Report
for the
Madisonville Creosote Works
Superfund Site
Madisonville, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana
March 2009
PREPARED BY:
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 6
Dallas, Texas
-------
Determinations
I have determined that the selected remedy for the Madisonville Creosote Works (MCW) Superfund site is
protective of human health and the environment and will remain so provided that the dense nonaqueous
phase liquid (DNAPL) recovery trenches and the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) are maintained,
ground water monitoring data are evaluated to determine if the protection of ground water and the Upland
Terrace Aquifer is occurring, security fencing around the DNAPL recovery trenches and WWTP is
maintained, and access restrictions continue to be enforced.
Samuel Coleman, P.E. t-x Date
Director
Superfund Division
Madisonville Second 5-Year Review 2/19/2009
-------
CONCURRENCES
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW
Madisonville Creosote Works Superfund Site
EPA ID#LAD981522998
By:.
Laura Startkosky, U.S. EPA j
Remedial Project Manager, LA/OK/NM Section
Date:
By:.
Buddy PaYr, U.S. EPA
Chief, LA/OK/NM Section
Date:
By;
, HJ
Joseph Cornpton, U.S. EPA
Attorney, Office of Regional Counsel
Date:
Herb
Date:
Chief, Superfund Branch, Office of Regional Counsel
<<
y-
Donald Williams, US. EPA
Deputy Associate Director, Remedial Branch
Sfiarles Faultry, U.S lEPA7f
Associate Director, Remedial Bfsnch
Ramefa Phillips, U.S. EPA
Deputy Director, Superfund Division
Date:
9
Date:
Date:
I ° f
Mailisonviile Second 5-Yea.r Review
-------
Table of Contents
Section Page
List of Acronyms iii
Executive Summary v
Five-Year Review Summary Form vii
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 SITE CHRONOLOGY 2
3.0 BACKGROUND 2
3.1 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 2
3.2 LAND AND RESOURCE USE 3
3.3 HISTORY OF CONTAMINATION 4
3.4 INITIAL RESPONSE 6
3.5 SUMMARY OF BASIS FOR TAKING ACTION 6
4.0 REMEDIAL ACTIONS 6
4.1 REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES 6
4.2 REMEDY SELECTION 7
4.3 REMEDY IMPLEMENTATION 7
4.4 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE 11
5.0 PROGRESS SINCE LAST REVIEW 11
5.1 PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENTS FROM LAST REVIEW 11
5.2 STATUS OF RECOMMENDATIONS 11
6.0 FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS 12
6.1 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT 13
6.2 DOCUMENT REVIEW 13
6.3 DATA REVIEW 13
6.4 INTERVIEWS 15
6.5 SITE INSPECTION 15
7.0 TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 15
7.1 QUESTION A: Is THE REMEDY FUNCTIONING AS INTENDED BY THE DECISION DOCUMENTS? 16
7.2 QUESTION B: ARE THE EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS, TOXICITY DATA, CLEANUP LEVELS, AND REMEDIAL
ACTION OBJECTIVES (RAOs) USED ATTHE TIME OF THE REMEDY SELECTION STILL VALID? 17
7.2.1 Changes in ARARs 17
7.2.2 Changes in Exposure Pathways, Toxicity, and Other Contaminant Characteristics 21
7.3 QUESTION C: HAS ANY OTHER INFORMATION COME TO LIGHT THAT COULD CALL INTO QUESTION THE
PROTECTIVENESS OF THE REMEDY? 21
8.0 ISSUES 22
9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS 22
10.0 PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT 23
11.0 NEXT REVIEW 24
Madisonville Second 5-Year Review i 2/19/2009
-------
List of Figures
Figure 1 Aerial Photograph
Figure 2 Site Layout Map
Figure 3 Groundwater Recovery System Extraction Volumes
Figure 4 Waste Water Treatment Plant Plan View
List of Tables
Table 1 Chronology of Site Events
Table 2 Groundwater Treatment System Volumes
Table 3 Treated Effluent Discharge Sampling Results
Table 4 Groundwater Monitoring Well Results
Attachments
Attachment 1 Documents Reviewed
Attachment 2 Interview Record Forms
Attachment 3 Site Inspection Checklist
Attachment 4 Site Inspection Photographs
Attachment 5 Fact Sheet and Notice to the Public Regarding the Five-Year Review
Madisonville Second 5-Year Review ii 2/19/2009
-------
List of Acronyms
§ Section
|jg/L Micrograms per liter
|jm Micrometer
AMP Air management plan
ARAR Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement
B(a)P Benzo(a)pyrene
bgs Below ground surface
BOD Biological oxygen demand
BTEX Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene
CEC Callicott Environmental Consultants
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COC Contaminant of concern
DNAPL Dense nonaqueous phase liquid
DO Dissolved oxygen
E&E Ecology and Environment, Inc.
EDW Effluent discharge water
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6
FS Feasibility study
FSP Field sampling plan
HASP Health and Safety Plan
IASD Inactive and Abandoned Sites Division
LAC Louisiana Administrative Code
LDEQ Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
LNAPL Light nonaqueous phase liquid
LPAC Liquid Phase Activated Carbon
LSWR Louisiana Solid Waste Regulations
LTTD Low temperature thermal desorption
MCL Maximum contaminant level
MCW Madisonville Creosote Works
MCWI Madisonville Creosote Works, Inc.
mg/kg Milligrams per kilogram
mg/L Milligrams per liter
NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
ND Non-detect
NIOSH National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health
Madisonville Second 5-Year Review
111
2/19/2009
-------
NPL National Priorities List
NRHP National Registry of Historic Places
NTU Nephelometric turbidity unit
O&M Operation and maintenance
OSHA Occupational Health and Safety Administration
OU Operable unit
PAH Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
PM-10 Particulate matter smaller than 10 micrometers (urn) in diameter
PRP Potentially responsible party
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
RA Remedial Action
RAC Response Action Contract
RACR Remedial Action Completion Report
RAO Remedial Action Objectives
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RD Remedial Design
RI/FS Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study
ROD Record of Decision
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
SH 22 Louisiana State Highway 22
SVOC Semivolatile organic compound
TBC To be considered
TCRA Time Critical Removal Action
Tetra-Tech Tetra-Tech EM Inc.
VOC Volatile organic compound
WWTP Wastewater treatment plant
Madisonville Second 5-Year Review
2/19/2009
-------
Executive Summary
The second Five-Year Review of the Madisonville Creosote Works (MCW) Superfund Site located in
Madisonville, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana was completed in January 2009. The review was
conducted from September 2008 to January 2009. The results of the Five-Year Review indicate that the
remedy completed to date is operating as intended and is currently protective of human health and the
environment in the short term.
The MCW was a wood treatment facility from 1956 or 1957 until 1994 when MCW declared bankruptcy.
The MCW site was listed on the National Priorities List (NPL) in 1996. EPA signed the Record of
Decision (ROD) for the MCW site on August 25, 1998. The remedial action objectives (RAO), selected
remedy, and implementation status for the operable unit (OU) 01 are discussed in the following
paragraphs.
The RAO for OU 01 is as follows:
Prevent human (oral and dermal) and environmental exposure to soil, sediment, and
surface water, both on-property and off-property
Prevent migration of media contaminants into the Upland Terrace Aquifer
The selected remedy for OU 01 included (1) the excavation and treatment of contaminated soil and
sediments using low temperature thermal desorption (LTTD) technologies, (2) installing a dense
nonaqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) recovery trench system, and (3) constructing a DNAPL collection
system and wastewater treatment plant.
The remedial action (RA) activities began in January 1999 and concluded in May 2000 after the final
inspection certifying that all cleanup activities associated with LTTD operations and DNAPL recovery
trench construction were complete. Operations and Maintenance (O&M) of the DNAPL collection system
and wastewater treatment plant is associated with the OU 01 RA.
During this review, several issues were noted that may affect the protectiveness of the remedy:
The effluent discharge limits from the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) have been occasionally
exceeded.
DNAPL may stand in the recovery trench system piping because of plugging with the potential of
related migration to the lower aquifers.
The ground water analytical data show that detection limits for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs) are higher than their maximum contaminant levels (MCLs).
Madisonville Second 5-Year Review V 2/19/2009
-------
Arsenic has been detected in the WWTP effluent at concentrations above the MCL, but it is not
known what the groundwater concentrations are and whether the arsenic concentration in the
ground water meets the Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs).
The annual sampling of wells MW-1 and MW-2, and the semi-annual sampling of well RA-5 has
not been consistently carried out.
Naphthalene is now considered a carcinogenic compound which may change its toxicity
characteristic.
At this time, based on the information available during the second Five-Year Review, the selected remedy
appears to be performing as intended. The selected remedy currently protects human health and the
environment based on results from treated waste sampling and shallow groundwater sampling. However,
for the remedy to be protective in the long term, DNAPL recovery trenches, the pump vaults, pumps, and
WWTP need to be maintained, ground water monitoring data need to be collected and evaluated on a
routine basis to ensure contamination of the ground water and the Upland Terrace Aquifer is not
occurring, security fencing around the DNAPL recovery trenches and WWTP needs to be maintained,
and access restrictions need to continue to be enforced.
Madisonville Second 5-Year Review vi 2/19/2009
-------
Five Year Review Summary Form
SITE IDENTIFICATION
Site name (from WasteLAN): Madisonville Creosote Works Superfund Site
EPA ID (from WasteLAN): LAD981522998
Region: EPA Region 6 State: Louisiana City/County: Madisonville/St. Tammany Parish
SITE STATUS
NPL status: B Final D Deleted D Other (specify)
Remediation status (choose all that apply): D Under Construction B Operating B Complete
Multiple OUs?* D YES B NO | Construction completion date: May 2000
Has site been put into reuse? D YES S NO
REVIEW STATUS
Lead agency: S EPA D State D Tribe D Other Federal Agency
Author name: EPA Region 6, with support from USAGE Tulsa District
Review period: March 2004 to January 2009
Date(s) of site inspection: 9 / 30 / 2008
Type of review:
H Statutory
D Policy
D Post-SARA D Pre-SARA
D Non-NPL Remedial Action Site
D Regional Discretion
D NPL-Removal only
D NPL State/Tribe-lead
Review number: D 1 (first) S 2 (second) D 3 (third) D Other (specify)
Triggering action:
D Actual RA Onsite Construction
D Construction Completion
D Other (specify)
D Actual RA Start
[x] Previous Five-Year Review Report
Triggering action date (from WasteLAN): March 1, 2004 (date of signing of last Five-Year Review)
Due date (five years after triggering action date): March 1, 2009 (five years after 1st review)
OU refers to operable unit
Madisonville Second 5-Year Review
Vll
2/19/2009
-------
Five-Year Review Summary Form, cont'd
Issues: The following issues were identified:
1. The effluent discharge limits from the WWTP have been occasionally exceeded.
2. DNAPL may stand in the recovery trench system piping because of plugging with the potential of
related migration to the lower aquifers.
3. The ground water analytical data show that detection limits for PAHs are higher than their MCLs.
4. Arsenic has been detected in the WWTP effluent at concentrations above the MCL, but it is not
known what the groundwater concentrations are and whether the arsenic concentration in the ground
water meets the RAOs.
5. The annual sampling of wells MW-1 and MW-2, and the semi-annual sampling of well RA-5 has not
been consistently carried out.
6. Naphthalene is now considered a carcinogenic compound which may change its toxicity
characteristic.
Recommendations and Follow-up Actions: The following recommendations or follow-up actions are
given:
1. Ensure that effluent criteria are met before release of the effluent and discuss exceedences in the
monthly report.
2. Evaluate overall operation of DNAPL collection and treatment system in the monthly report and
institute corrective action for regular cleaning of the DNAPL recovery trench system piping.
3. Ensure that the laboratory detection limits are at or below the respective MCLs for PAHs.
4. The arsenic MCL was changed during the 5 year reporting period to 10 parts per billion (ppb), hence
during the treated effluent operational period when the arsenic MCL was 50 ppb, there was only one
exceedence in Feb 2007. Arsenic was not a constituent used in past facility operations; however, in
order to meet the RAOs for ground water, analysis for arsenic should be included in the ground water
monitoring schedule.
Madisonville Second 5-Year Review viii 3/17/2009
-------
Five-Year Review Summary Form, cont'd
5. Ground water monitoring was resumed approximately two years after the first Five-Year Review;
however, after Hurricane Katrina hit the southern Louisiana area the ground water monitoring
schedule was disrupted. While a regular ground water monitoring schedule should be established and
maintained, the monthly report should note if sampling could not be carried out due to catastrophic
weather events.
6. Re-evaluate the toxicity characteristics for naphthalene within specified time or upon EPA
promulgation of an MCL
Protectiveness Statement(s): At this time, based on the information available during the second
five-year review, the selected remedy appears to be performing as intended. The selected remedy
currently protects human health and the environment based on results from treated waste sampling and
shallow groundwater sampling. However, for the remedy to be protective in the long term, DNAPL
recovery trenches, the pump vaults, pumps, and WWTP need to be maintained, ground water monitoring
data need to be collected and evaluated on a routine basis to ensure contamination of the ground water
and the Upland Terrace Aquifer is not occurring, security fencing around the DNAPL recovery trenches
and WWTP is maintained, and access restrictions need to continue to be enforced.
Other Comments: The site is well maintained.
Madisonville Second 5-Year Review ix 2/19/2009
-------
1.0 Introduction
The purpose of a Five-Year Review is to determine how well an existing remedial action is operating in
order to protect human health and the environment, and to identify any problems or concerns that are
affecting the current and future protectiveness of the remedy. The Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) call for Five-Year Reviews of certain remedial actions. The EPA policy
also calls for a Five-Year Review of remedial actions in some other cases. The statutory requirement to
conduct a Five-Year Review was added to CERCLA as part of the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986. The EPA classifies each Five-Year Review as either statutory or
policy depending on whether it is being required by statute or is being conducted as a matter of policy.
The Five-Year Review for the Madisonville Creosote Works (MCW) site is required by statute.
As specified by CERCLA and the NCP, statutory reviews are required for sites where, after remedial
actions are complete, hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants will remain onsite at levels that
will not allow for unlimited use or unrestricted exposure. Statutory reviews are required for such sites if
the Record of Decision (ROD) was signed on or after the effective date of SARA. CERCLA §121 (c), as
amended by SARA, states:
If the President selects a remedial action that results in any hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants remaining at the site, the President shall review such remedial action no less often
than each five years after the initiation of such remedial action to assure that human health and
the environment are being protected by the remedial action being implemented.
Under the NCP, the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) states, in 40 CFR §300.430(f)(4)(ii):
If a remedial action is selected that results in hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants
remaining at the site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, the
lead agency shall review such action no less often than every five years after the initiation of the
selected remedial action.
The MCW Superfund Site is organized into one Operable Unit (OU): OU 01. The ROD was signed in
August 1998. The Five-Year Review for the MCW site is required by statute because materials remain
onsite above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. Because the MCW site is a
Superfund site, the EPA has regulatory authority. The triggering action for this review is five years from
the last Five-Year Review. The last Five-Year Review was accepted by the EPA on March 1, 2004. This
is the second Five-Year Review for the MCW site and was conducted for the period of January 2004
through January 2009 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District, on behalf of EPA Region 6.
Madisonville Second 5-Year Review 1 2/19/2009
-------
2.0 Site Chronology
A chronology of events and dates is included in Table 1, provided at the end of the report.
3.0 Background
This section describes the physical setting of the site, a description of the land and resource use, and the
environmental setting. This section also describes the history of contamination associated with the site,
the initial response actions taken, and the basis for each action.
3.1 Physical Characteristics
The MCWsite is located adjacent to the southern side of Louisiana State Highway 22 (SH 22), about 3
miles west of downtown Madisonville and 1.25 miles from the Madisonville city limits. The site covers
approximately 29 acres in Section 42, Township 7S, Range 10E, St. Tammany Parish, in southeastern
Louisiana. (Ecology & Environment, Inc. [E&E] 1997). The area surrounding the property is
predominantly rural and wooded (see Figure 1). During the site visit, three residences were noted
adjacent to the site on the west side of the site and one was noted adjacent to the site on the east side.
The topography is gently sloping to the south of the property and includes two primary surface-water
runoff receiving ditches. The southern ditch runs south on the west side of the property, then turns east
and leads off property to the south stream. The north ditch runs parallel to SH 22, outside the north
property line and leads to a culvert that flows north under SH 22 to an unnamed stream (north stream).
The area of St. Tammany Parish is located in the Gulf Coastal plain physiographic province (Tetra-Tech
2001). The coastal plain sediments typically thicken and dip to the south and are structurally influenced
by faulting and salt domes. The total sediment column thickness under the MCWsite is about 14,000
feet.
EPA delineated the site-specific geology and associated hydrogeology in order to address these areas of
potential contamination. In descending order from the ground surface, the geological formations are
described as the following:
Surface soils or fill materials from approximately ground surface to 2 feet below ground
surface (bgs);
Shallow clayey-silt from approximately just below surface soils to 25 feet bgs (the first
saturated zone is located within this matrix);
Madisonville Second 5-Year Review 2 2/19/2009
-------
Intermediate clay/peat from approximately 25 to 30 feet bgs;
Intermediate silt from approximately 32 to 35 feet bgs (the second saturated zone is
located within this matrix); and,
Deep silty-clay from approximately 35 to 80 feet bgs (the third saturated zone, before the
Upland Terrace Aquifer, is located within this matrix).
Information gathered during the Remedial Investigation (Rl) geological and hydrogeological investigations
revealed that the three saturated zones did not constitute viable aquifers because of their low hydraulic
conductivity and slow recharge. Hence, the ground water at the MCWSite, composed of these three
saturated zones, is not viable for domestic or industrial purposes. The Remedial Action Completion
Report (TetraTech, 2001) reports that the groundwater in aquifers underlying southeastern Louisiana
typically move from north to south. More specifically, the waters in the shallow subsurface layers
described above (shallow clayey silt, intermediate silt, deep silty clay) are believed to run as follows. The
water in the shallow layer is perched above the intermediate layer with flow directions and gradient
varying from the southeast and northwest. Water in the lower two units flows to the south-southwest.
Eight major aquifers that underlie the site area are (in descending order) the Shallow, Upper Ponchatoula,
Lower Ponchatoula, Abita, Covington, Tchefuncte, Hammond, and Amite (USGS 1994). Of the eight
major aquifers, the viable aquifers, not associated with the saturated zones at the MCW Site, for domestic
and industrial water usage were identified during the Rl and are listed as follows:
Shallow Aquifer, also known as the Upland Terrace Aquifer, from approximately 80 to
200 feet bgs;
Upper Ponchatoula Aquifer from approximately 250 to 650 feet bgs; and,
Lower Ponchatoula Aquifer from approximately 650 to 1,100 feet bgs.
The three active monitoring wells at the site are screened in the lower portion of the Upland Terrace
Aquifer and are located in the northwest, central, and southwest portions of the site.
3.2 Land and Resource Use
Prior to the establishment of wood-treating operations, the site was primarily forested land, with a
farmstead encompassing about 5.5 acres along the western property boundary. Wood-preserving
operations at the site began in 1956 or 1957 under the name Madisonville Creosote Works, Inc. (MCWI)
(LDEQ1987).
Madisonville Second 5-Year Review 3 2/19/2009
-------
As stated in the MCW Feasibility Study report, the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
(LDEQ) Inactive and Abandoned Sites Division (IASD) is aware of the presence of two protected or
endangered species, the bald eagle (threatened) and the red-cockaded woodpecker (endangered), in the
Madisonville area. The presence of either of these species at the MCW site has not been documented by
the LDEQ IASD. Other endangered species (that is, Gulf of Mexico sturgeon) potentially inhabit the
vicinity of the site; however, no endangered species have been documented within the study area (E&E
1997). Furthermore, an evaluation of the site for historical or archaeological significance indicated that
the site is not listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). As well, the site contains no
cultural resources eligible to be listed on the NRHP.
During the Rl, E&E identified an exceptionally large live oak (Quercus virginiana) tree. The tree's girth
and spread of limbs were measured on February 6, 1997, to evaluate its eligibility for registration in The
Live Oak Society. At 4 to 4.5 feet above ground surface, the tree's girth was 16.2 feet and the limb
spread was 102 feet. The minimum required 16-foot girth was exceeded, indicating that the tree was
likely to be greater than 100 years old, making the tree eligible for registration. As directed by U.S. EPA,
E&E completed and submitted a registration form, thereby protecting the tree under the constitution and
by-laws of The Live Oak Society (E&E 1997).
The district surrounding the MCW site is primarily zoned as rural, but large tracts within 1 mile of the site
are zoned for suburban use. Subdivisions are under construction on these tracts, and other subdivisions
are being planned. The property directly across SH 22 from the site and several other tracts on SH 22
west of the site are zoned for highway commercial use (E&E 1997). A current site layout map is available
as Figure 2.
3.3 History of Contamination
During wood-treating operations, poles, ties, and lumber were treated by impregnating the wood with
creosote in retort cylinders under elevated temperature and pressure. The waste streams generated
during these operations included process water, cooling water, boiler water, and waste creosote (LDEQ
1987). The process water and waste creosote were considered hazardous as defined by Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations, and the wastes were categorized as K001 and F034
waste, respectively. Waste code K001 applies to bottom sediment sludge from the treatment of
wastewater from wood-preserving processes that use creosote. Waste code F034 applies to wastewater,
process residuals, preservative drippage, and spent formulations from wood-preserving processes
generated at plants that use creosote formulations. The cooling and boiler water were considered
nonhazardous waste streams under RCRA.
Madisonville Second 5-Year Review 4 2/19/2009
-------
Since at least 1974, the facility used two unlined process water ditches and two unlined ponds to convey
and store process waste liquids and sludges. Waste creosote and wastewater drained from the treatment
cylinders to the large process ditch. The small process ditch conveyed waste liquids from the large
process ditch to former process water pond. The solids settled, and water overflowed through a
depression in the earthen dike separating the ponds, and into an evaporation pond.
The ponds and the process water ditches were closed as solid waste management units between 1984
and 1986 under an LDEQ-approved and inspected closure (Callicott Environmental Consultants [CEC]
1993). However, a post-closure maintenance and monitoring plan was required due to the presence of
ground water contamination.
The principal threats at the site were the creosote polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) that are
considered highly toxic and present a significant risk to human health or the environment should an
exposure occur. The majority of the principal threats were located within the on-site soil areas (EPA
1998).
On-site soil contamination was defined by the layer of contaminated soil that was not more than 4 feet
below ground surface (bgs). Off-site soil contamination was further delineated to no more than the banks
of the north drainage ditch and the banks of the north and south streams. The layer of soil contamination
that was in contact with surface water defines sediment contamination in the north drainage ditch, north
stream, and south stream. The majority of the soil contamination was located within on-site areas.
Surface water contamination was also found at the MCWsite. Surface water contamination was affected
by the creosote-contaminated soil and sediment sources. The source of surface water contamination
was eliminated and no additional action was required once the contaminated soil and sediments were
removed from the streams and ditches.
The ground water within the shallow clayey-silt matrix, immediately beneath the on-site area, is
contaminated. Creosote can be characterized as a DNAPL because it has a low solubility in water and
will separate out and settle towards the bottom within a saturated zone. DNAPL contamination was found
in this saturated zone, within the shallow clayey-silt matrix, approximately 15 to 25 feet bgs (Tetra-Tech,
2000).
The ROD stated that the LTTD component of the cleanup remedy would address the source of
contamination, approximately 75,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil and sediment. At the end of the
soil treatment operations, the amount of contaminated materials treated at the MCW site was
approximately 87,000 cubic yards.
Madisonville Second 5-Year Review 5 2/19/2009
-------
3.4 Initial Response
Based on the results from preliminary assessments and sampling, EPA initiated Rl activities at the MCW
site in March 1996 to determine the nature and extent of the contamination. In June 1996, EPA proposed
that the MCW site be included on the National Priorities List (NPL). In December 1996, EPA announced
that the MCW site had been added to the NPL.
During the Rl activities, a Time-Critical Removal Action (TCRA) was conducted concurrently. The 1996
EPATCRA involved demolition, consolidation, and/or disposal of the following: 11 site buildings and their
contents (including drums of oil waste); the process area (including 15 storage tanks and their contents,
three treatment cylinders, asbestos insulation, mercury-contaminated debris, and the concrete pad); piles
of treated wood; and steel railroad tracks leading from treatment cylinders to wood storage areas. In
addition, a 6-foot-high chain-link fence with barbed wire fencing was installed along the SH 22 side of the
highway.
3.5 Summary of Basis for Taking Action
Based on the data collected during the Rl, it was determined that actual or threatened releases of
hazardous substances from the MCW site, if not addressed by implementing the remedy selected in the
ROD, could present an imminent and substantial endangermentto public health, welfare, or the
environment. The most significant threats included (1) the risk of carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic
effects for a future on-site resident exposed to PAHs in the soil and ground water, (2) the risk of
carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic effects for an off-site resident exposed to PAHs in the soil and ground
water, and (3) the risk of carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic effects for a current or future on-site resident
exposed to soils with carcinogenic PAHs (Tetra-Tech 1997).
4.0 Remedial Actions
This section provides a description of the RAO, selection, and implementation. It also describes the
ongoing O&M, and the overall progress made at the MCW site.
4.1 Remedial Action Objectives
The EPA signed the ROD for the MCW site on August 25, 1998. Specific remedial objectives were
developed to aid in the development and screening of remedial action (RA) alternatives for the site. The
remedial objectives for the site are listed below:
Soil: Prevent direct contact/ingestion with media exceeding the lifetime incremental cancer risk of
1x10"4 to 1x10"6 due to carcinogenic PAHs based on residential risk scenarios.
Madisonville Second 5-Year Review 6 2/19/2009
-------
Sediment: Prevent direct contact/ingestion with media exceeding the lifetime incremental cancer
risk of 1x10~4 to 1x10~6 due to carcinogenic PAHs based on residential risk scenarios.
Surface Water: Prevent direct contact/ingestion with media exceeding the lifetime incremental
cancer risk of 1x10"4 to 1x10"6dueto carcinogenic PAHs based on residential risk scenarios.
Groundwater: Prevent migration of media contaminants into the Upland Terrace Aquifer which
would result in the Upland Terrace Aquifer exceeding the Maximum Contaminant Levels (highest
permissible concentration of a substance allowed in drinking water) or lifetime incremental cancer
risk of 1x10~4 to 1x10~6 due to carcinogenic PAHs based on residential risk scenarios.
The following benzo(a)pyrene (B[a]P) equivalents performance goals were set and must be met in order
to achieve cleanup of the MCWsite:
Benzo(a)pyrene B[a]P equivalent concentrations of 3 milligrams per kilogram (mg/Kg) for all RAOs
where residential risk scenarios are applicable.
B[a]P equivalent concentrations of 100 mg/Kg for all RAOs where recreational risk scenarios are
applicable
4.2 Remedy Selection
The remedy selected in the ROD addressed contamination in the soil, sediment, surface water, and
groundwater at the site by:
Low Temperature Thermal Desorption (LTTD) to address the principal threat wastes within the soil
and sediment (thus eliminating the source of contamination for surface water);
Dense NonAqueous Phase Liquids (DNAPL) Recovery Trench System to contain and recover low
level threat wastes within the groundwater;
Institutional controls to ensure that future individuals will not be exposed to remaining low level
Site contaminants during its containment and recovery; and,
Ground water monitoring to ensure the effectiveness of the cleanup remedy.
The overall Site cleanup strategy was to clean up the MCW Site such that the areas of concern are made
safe for residential and recreational usage. The RAOs were based on human health exposure pathways.
Ecological habitat was limited on-site with limited ecological exposure pathways; therefore, ecological
RAOs were not needed. Ecological exposure to off-site contamination in North and South ditches and
streams was addressed with the selected remedy.
4.3 Remedy Implementation
The ROD for the MCW Superfund Site was signed by the EPA Region 6, Regional Administrator on
Madisonville Second 5-Year Review 7 2/19/2009
-------
August 25, 1998. The remedial design (RD) was completed and submitted to EPA on
September 28, 1998.
Tetra-Tech performed RA activities for EPA under the Response Action Contract (RAC). Construction
began on January 14, 1999. RA activities included the following (Tetra-Tech 2001):
Demolition of site structures, and construction of a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) and on-
site perimeter roads.
Installation of perimeter fence, meteorological station, and electrical service for air monitoring.
Excavation of north ditch, north stream, south stream, and on-site contaminated soils.
Construction of thermal desorption pad, contaminated soils building, WWTP building, stormwater
holding basin, sound barrier wall, and secondary sound barrier.
Thermal treatment of contaminated soils, hauling and disposing of hazardous and nonhazardous
debris offsite, backfilling excavated areas on-property, restoration and final grading of site,
planting of perimeter tree buffer, and improving the site's stormwater drain age.
Modification design and construction of the DNAPL transfer and treatment system and revision of
the O&M manual.
During the RA, excavation depths of on-site soils ranged from 2 to 4 feet bgs. Confirmation samples
were collected and analyzed forsemivolatile organics and reported as B[a]P equivalents. If the
confirmation samples met the project RAO of 100 mg/kg, the area was released for backfill. All soils were
excavated and processed through the LTTD unit. Soils were treated to B[a]P equivalents of 3.0 mg/Kg or
less. Soils that did not meet this criterion were retreated. Treated soils were backfilled on site.
Confirmatory samples were collected from the bottom of the 2-foot excavation area. In each case where
B[a]P equivalents were exceeded in a confirmation sample, the excavation for that square was continued
to a 2 to 4 foot depth interval. Per the RD and field sampling plan (FSP), no confirmation samples were
collected for areas excavated to the 4-foot depth (Tetra-Tech 1998). In addition to removing additional
contamination in the 2 to 4 foot excavation area due to elevated confirmation results, soils that were
visibly stained were excavated as well. Based on (1) the results of the confirmation samples for the 0 to 2
foot excavation areas, (2) the removal of all visibly stained soils in the 2 to 4 foot excavation area, and (3)
the limits of excavation identified in the Rl and RD, the removal of contaminated soils from the
on-property areas has been accomplished (Tetra-Tech 2001).
The "Basis of Design" in the RD indicated that stream segments identified for cleanup on the (1) north
ditch, (2) north stream, and (3) south stream would be excavated 1 foot deep from bank to bank
(Tetra-Tech 1998). This procedure was identified in the FSP; therefore, confirmation sampling was not
conducted for the off-property areas. During the excavation of these off-property areas, Tetra-Tech
Madisonville Second 5-Year Review 8 2/19/2009
-------
personnel informed EPA of visible contaminants. At the time of identification, EPA authorized field
changes to excavate additional quantities in those areas. All excavated areas were backfilled with
imported soil. Based on (1) the excavation of all visible contamination and (2) the limits of contaminants
identified within the Rl and RD, the complete removal of off-property contaminated sediment has been
accomplished (Tetra-Tech 1997, 1998).
Treated Waste SamplingUsing the procedures identified in the FSP and Quality Assurance Project
Plan (QAPP) (Tetra-Tech 1999a, 1999b), Tetra-Tech field personnel conducted treated waste sampling
during the execution of the RA. Treatment of contaminated materials at the site included both on- and
off-property materials. The treated waste sampling results that failed to meet the waste treatment
standards were re-treated and subsequently re-sampled. Based on the results, the complete effective
thermal treatment of on- and off-property contaminated materials have been accomplished.
Upland Terrace Aquifer SamplingDuring remedial activities, monitoring wells RA-1 through RA-5
were initially installed. Wells RA-1 through RA-4 were completed in the 10-25 ft bgs interval and were
later plugged and abandoned. Well RA-5 was completed in the lower portion of the Upland Terrace
Aquifer from an interval of 166-181 ft bgs. To more completely monitor conditions in the lower Upland
Terrace Aquifer, wells MW1 and MW-2 are screened at intervals of 140-160 ft bgs and 153-173 ft bgs,
respectively. Using the procedures identified in the O&M manual, Tetra-Tech field personnel conducted
ground water sampling from the Upland Terrace Aquifer utilizing monitoring well RA-5 and water wells no.
1 and no. 2 in June 2001, and residential well sampling in May 2001. Analysis of those samples yielded
no contaminants above acceptable detection levels. Based on the sample results and the fact that no
contamination of the Upland Terrace Aquifer has ever been detected during previous investigations,
migration of media contaminants into the Upland Terrace Aquifer was proven to have been prevented at
that time.
DNAPL Recovery System - The DNAPL recovery and treatment system is composed of a system of
trenches for the recovery of the DNAPL and a WWTP for treatment of the recovered fluids. Ten trenches
were installed with the low ends being paired on the central portion of the trench field as shown in Figure
2. A vertical riser with an extraction pump is located at the low end of each trench. The pumps are run
manually as needed to remove DNAPL with a minimal volume of associated groundwater. Extracted
fluids are transferred from the trenches to the WWTP via a pipeline consisting of a 3-inch, stainless steel,
inner pipeline with a 6-inch PVC outer casing.
A diagram of the WWTP facilities is presented in Figure 4. At the WWTP, extracted fluids are collected at
the equalization tank (T-1). The equalization tank equalizes flow from the DNAPL recovery system and
decontamination sump extraction pump prior to discharge to the oil-water separator (OWS). Primary
Madisonville Second 5-Year Review 9 2/19/2009
-------
separation of DNAPL and suspended solids, via gravity, from the incoming waste water stream occurs in
the equalization tank.
The OWS tank (T-2) is the secondary treatment unit in the WWTP. The OWS tank separates DNAPL and
light nonaqueous phase liquids (LNAPL) constituents not removed from the waste water entering the
equalization tank from the field extraction pumps. DNAPL collected in the DNAPL chamber of the OWS is
removed from the OWS tank by the DNAPL sump pump and transferred to the DNAPL storage tank (T-3).
LNAPL collected in the LNAPL chamber of the OWS flows by gravity to the LNAPL storage tank (T-5).
Water separated from the nonaqueous phase liquids (NAPL) constituents in the OWS tank flows via
gravity from the OWS to the OWS effluent tank (T-7, not shown in Figure 4). The OWS effluent tank is a
horizontal cylindrical tank 6 feet long by 4 feet in diameter with a capacity of 550 gallons. At
predetermined levels in the OWS effluent tank, stored waste water from the OWS effluent tank is pumped
to the sand filters (F-1, F-2, F-3). The sand filters remove suspended solids from the waste water stream.
Effluent from the sand filters is pumped to two liquid phase activated carbon (LPAC) units (C-1A and C-
1B). The LPAC units are piped to allow operation in parallel or series, allowing continuous operation of
the WWTP system during media change out and alternation of the lead-lag orientation of the units.
The backwash tank (T-6) is used to store treated water from the LPAC units for use in backwashing the
sand filters and LPAC units. The backwash tank is a vertical cylindrical tank 8 feet tall by 6 feet in
diameter with a capacity of 5,500 gallons. Backwash water is removed from the backwash tank by the
backwash pump. Effluent from the backwash tank drains by gravity through flow meter F-12 to either a
discharge line in the North Ditch, or can be connected to a temporary storage device by employing 3-inch
flex hose equipped with cam-lock fittings connected to the backwash tank manifold located outside on the
northwest corner of the WWTP building.
EPA conducted a pre-final inspection on April 20, 2000, and a final inspection on May 31, 2000. EPA
determined that the RA was completed during the final inspection, and an official construction completion
ceremony was held on July 27, 2000.
Madisonville Second 5-Year Review 10 2/19/2009
-------
4.4 Operations and Maintenance
After the construction phase of the RAwas completed, EPA maintained ground water monitoring and
operation of the underground recovery trench system for approximately one year. On September 2,
2001, LDEQ took over the maintenance duties of the MCWsite, and official O&M activities began at that
time.
The O&M costs for 2004 through 2007 are listed below.
January 2004-December 2004 $111,000
January 2005 - December 2005 $159,000
January 2006 - December 2006 $76,000
January 2007 - December 2007 $67,000
The contractors for LDEQ conduct weekly inspections and subsequent maintenance of the MCWsite.
5.0 Progress Since Last Review
This section reviews the protectiveness statement and issues and recommendations from the last Five-
Year Review, which was the first Five-Year Review for the MCWsite. The status of the recommendations
made in that report are also reviewed and discussed.
5.1 Protectiveness Statements from Last Review
The protectiveness statement from the last Five-Year Review is given as follows:
At this time, based on the information available during the first five-year review, the selected
remedy appears to be performing as intended. The selected remedy currently protects human
health and the environment based on results from treated waste sampling and shallow
groundwater sampling. However, for the remedy to be protective in the long term, the pump
vaults, pumps, and wastewater treatment plant need to be maintained, ground water monitoring
data need to be collected and evaluated on a routine basis to ensure contamination of the
ground water is not occurring, and the security fencing needs to be maintained.
5.2 Status of Recommendations
The previous Five-Year Review report stated that the remedy continues to be protective of human health
and the environment in the short term. Four issues, however, were identified that could have potentially
required further actions. The previous Five-Year Review recommended that these issues be monitored
and re-evaluated to determine if they would adversely impact operations at the site. A summary of the
Madisonville Second 5-Year Review 11 2/19/2009
-------
issues from the last 5-Year Review and actions taken at the MCWsite since the previous Five-Year
Review are given below (TetraTech, 2004):
1. Issue: Minimal amounts of DNAPL collected - The pumps in the field are operated once a week, and
the amount of DNAPL collected has diminished significantly since the initial collection of 2,102 gallons
in March 2002. The reason for the significant decrease had not been determined.
Actions: In April 2004 and in January 2008, the trench collection pipes were cleaned out and flushed
using the clean outs that are on the end of each trench. The monthly DNAPL recovery volume has
increased since January with a slight decrease in the last reported month (August 2008) (Figure 3).
2. Issue: Lack of groundwater sampling - Semiannual sampling of monitoring well RA-5 had occurred
once during O&M activities. Annual sampling of on-property water wells identified as monitoring well
no. 1 and monitoring well no. 2 had not occurred during O&M activities.
Actions: Monitoring of well RA-5 was scheduled to occur semi-annually while monitoring of the
water well 1 (MW-1) and 2 (MW-2) was scheduled to occur annually. Ground water sampling has
been resumed; however, MW-1 was not sampled in 2004 and 2005, and RA-5 was only sampled
annually in 2005 and 2007.
3. Issue: Electrical identification - Wiring in the electrical system had been identified by the state's
contractor as being mislabeled. The contractor suggested that the panel wiring did not appear to
match the electrical wiring diagrams of the operating manual in use.
Actions: The wiring problems have been corrected.
4. Issue: Overgrowth of vegetation - The vegetation around the perimeter of the site was tall and
dense. An adjacent resident, to the west of the site, issued a complaint about the overgrowth of
vegetation along the fence perimeter through a follow-up e-mail.
Actions: The vegetation has been regularly mowed.
An issue that was not addressed in the last 5-Year Review was that of implementing Institutional Controls
in the form of a Conveyance (deed restriction). The LDEQ filed a Notice of Conveyance on August 11,
2004, with the St. Tammany Parish Clerk of Court Land Records, (see Section 7.1)
6.0 Five-Year Review Process
This Five-Year Review has been conducted in accordance with the EPA's Comprehensive Five-Year
Review Guidance (EPA, 2001). The Five-Year Review for this site was initiated by the EPA which tasked
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to perform the technical components of the multidisciplinary review.
The scheduled completion date for this review is March 1, 2009; five years after completion of the last
Five-Year Review. Interviews were conducted with relevant parties; a site inspection was conducted; and
Madisonville Second 5-Year Review 12 2/19/2009
-------
applicable data and documentation covering the period of the review were evaluated. The findings of the
review are described in the following sections.
6.1 Community Involvement
A public notice announcing initiation of the Five-Year Review was published in the St. Tammany News on
September 29, and Oct 1 and 3, 2008. Furthermore, fact sheets were left at the Madisonville Town Hall
and at the Post Office during the site visit. Upon signature, the Five-Year Review will be placed in the
information repository for the site, housed currently at the Madisonville Town Hall, a copy will also be
placed at the LDEQ office in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. A notice will be published in the St. Tammany
News to summarize the findings of the review and announce the availability of the report at the
information repositories. A copy of the first public notice and the fact sheet are provided as Attachment
5 to this report.
6.2 Document Review
This Five-Year Review included a review of relevant site documents, including decision documents,
construction and implementation reports, O&M reports, and related monitoring data. Documents that
were reviewed are listed in Attachment 1.
6.3 Data Review
Review of the Monthly Operational Reports, covering the time period from March 2004 through August
2008, provided information on volumes of extracted and treated groundwater, chemical analytical results
for groundwater sampled from monitoring wells at the site and treated groundwater (effluent). The
extracted quantities taken from these monthly reports were tabulated as shown in Table 2 with Figure 3
providing a graphical representation of the data overtime. As shown in the table and figure, monthly
extraction volumes have ranged from no extraction due to Hurricane Katrina or pump replacement to over
30,000 gallons. The average monthly extraction volume is approximately 9,400 gallons.
Monthly recovered DNAPL volumes have ranged from no recovery in seven months to 948 gallons in
April 2004. The period from April 2007 through January 2008 was dominated by a lack of recovered
DNAPL. However, after February 2008, monthly DNAPL recovery showed a definite increasing trend.
This increase followed clean out operations on the extraction trenches and suggests that the clean out
procedures improve the mobility of nonaqueous phase contaminant into the collection system. During the
period of no DNAPL recovery, it is possible that DNAPL collected and stood in the unlined collection
trenches. However, monitoring well results from this period do not indicate any infiltration into the aquifer.
The Monthly Operational Reports present the results of analytical sampling performed on the effluent
from the wastewater treatment system. The O&M Manual for the site dated August 2004 lists sampling
Madisonville Second 5-Year Review 13 2/19/2009
-------
frequency for the effluent as well as parameters for analysis. As listed in the O&M manual, the effluent is
to be sampled once a month for semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), three metals (arsenic, chromium, and zinc), and other parameters (BOD, COD, chloride, sulfate,
oil & grease, total dissolved solids, total suspended solids, turbidity, pH, and dissolved oxygen). The
results, except for SVOCs and VOCS are compiled in Table 3. In the period from March 2004 through
August 2008, there were eleven (11) monthly reports that did not contain analytical results for the effluent
water. Those months were April and May 2004, May, September, and December 2005, July and
October 2006, January and December 2007 and January and February 2008. During the months with no
analytical data the collection and treatment system were off-line due to mechanical and/or maintenance
issues.
For SVOCs and VOCs, there were limited detections over this reporting period. Listed below are the
detections for this review period. For SVOCs, one detection, 2,4-dimethylphenol, was over the effluent
limit. For the VOCs, none of the reported detections were of analytes with assigned effluent limits.
Semi-volatile Organic Compounds Detected in Wastewater Treatment
Plant Effluent
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Maximum Effluent
Limitation (|j.g/L)
258
47
Detection Result (|j.g/L)
[Sample Date]
12.1 [8/3/2004]
12.6 [2/1 5/05]
107(7/7/2004)
Volatile Organic Compounds Detected in Wastewater Treatment Plant
Effluent
Acetone
2-Butanone
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
Maximum Effluent
Limitation (|j.g/L)
No Limit Provided
No Limit Provided
No Limit Provided
No Limit Provided
Detection Result (|j.g/L)
[Sample Date]
1.65J [8/3/2004]
5. 32 J [2/1 5/05]
1 .49 J [9/7/2004]
6.85 [9/4/2007]
1.21 J [8/3/2004]
1.21 J [9/7/2004]
For the parameters listed in Table 3, exceedances of the effluent limitations were seen for BOD,
dissolved oxygen, total organic carbon, t urbidity, and arsenic. All except turbidity appear to be low
Madisonville Second 5-Year Review
14
2/19/2009
-------
frequency and random exceedances with no apparent pattern. Turbidity has been elevated in the last five
months of available monthly reports. This increase in turbidity may be related to the increase in
recovered DNAPL.
Groundwater was sampled from wells MW-2 and RA-5 six times from April 7, 2004 through May 9, 2006.
Well MW-1 was sampled August 23, 2006 and on December 19, 2006, MW-2 and RA-5 were sampled
again. All three wells were sampled on July 11, 2007, and April 22, 2008. The samples collected during
these sampling events were analyzed for SVOCs. These sampling events have been tabulated in Table
4. Seven compounds were detected in RA-5 in May 13, 2004 but were not repeated in subsequent
sampling events. One compound was detected in MW1 in July 11, 2007 with no other detections
reported in subsequent sampling events. Analysis of the data showed no discernable trends.
6.4 Interviews
Interviews were conducted with the site O&M manager, Rick Tibbs, the LDEQ Project Manager, Rich
Johnson, and the Honorable Peter Gitz, Mayor of Madisonville, during the site visit conducted on
September 30, 2008. An interview was also conducted by phone with Mrs. Pam Camp, a resident of
property adjacent to the site. The completed interview record forms are presented in Attachment 2.
6.5 Site Inspection
An inspection was conducted at the site on September 30, 2008. The completed site inspection checklist
is provided in Attachment 3. Site inspection tasks included a visual inspection of site features including
the WWTP facility, fences and gates, and the monitoring wells. During the site inspection, an interview
was conducted with the site manager, and the site logs, documents, and records were reviewed.
Photographs taken during the site inspection are provided in Attachment 4. The site inspection indicated
that the remedy was effective and operating as intended. No concerns were noted. Site fencing restricts
property access. The security fencing is in good shape and access is controlled through locked gates.
Also, site vegetation is regularly mowed. The registered live oak tree appeared to be in good condition,
as well as most of the planted trees located around the site's boundary. The inspection was conducted by
Cliff Murray and Frank Roepke of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. They were accompanied by Rick
Tibbs (O&M Site Manager), Rich Johnson (LDEQ Project Manager), and Laura Stankosky (EPA Region 6
RPM).
7.0 Technical Assessment
The Five-Year Review must determine whether the remedy at a site is protective of human health and the
environment. The EPA guidance describes three questions used to provide a framework for organizing
Madisonville Second 5-Year Review 15 2/19/2009
-------
and evaluating data and information, and to ensure all relevant issues are considered when determining
the protectiveness of a remedy.
7.1 Question A: Is the Remedy Functioning as Intended by the Decision
Documents?
The document that details the remedial decisions for the site is the August 1998 ROD. The remedy is
ongoing, and based on the data review, the site inspection, and interviews; the remedy is functioning as
intended. Remedial action performance and monitoring results, O&M operations, and O&M costs are
discussed in Sections 4 and 6. Opportunities for optimization, early indicators of potential remedy
problems, and implementation of institutional controls are discussed below.
Opportunities for Optimization. The site appears to be well run and functioning as intended. The
previous 5-Year Review had mentioned an issue with the trench collection pipes needing to be cleaned
out and flushed. An opportunity for optimization would be to regularly inspect these pipes to prevent them
from clogging in the future.
Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Problems. No early indications of problems were noted.
Implementation of Institutional Controls. The LDEQ filed a Notice of Conveyance on August 11, 2004,
with the St. Tammany Parish Clerk of Court Land Records (Instrument # 1448326) to provide notice of
site conditions and that the site was closed with contaminant levels in place. The notice describes that at
the completion of site remediation that an estimated 379,000 gallons of creosote constituents remained in
the soil sand lens under the site. It states that a collection system has operated since the commencement
of the O&M phase and is currently operating; therefore, the amount of remaining creosote is
undetermined. The notice describes that the site was closed with contaminant levels present that are
acceptable for industrial/commercial use. The notice notes that in accordance with Louisiana
Administrative Code 33:!., Chapter 13, if land use changes from industrial to non-industrial, the
responsible party shall notify the LDEQ within 30 days and the Site shall be reevaluated to determine if
conditions are appropriate for the proposed land use.
Engineering Controls. Engineering controls are in place to restrict property access. The site is fenced
and access is controlled through locked gates.
Madisonville Second 5-Year Review 16 2/19/2009
-------
7.2 Question B: Are the Exposure Assumptions, Toxicity Data, Cleanup
Levels, and Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) Used at the Time of the
Remedy Selection Still Valid?
The purpose of this question is to evaluate the effects of any significant changes in standards or
assumptions used at the time of remedy selection. Changes in promulgated standards or "to be
considered" (TBC) and assumptions used in the original definition of the remedial action may indicate that
an adjustment in the remedy is necessary to ensure the protectiveness of the remedy.
7.2.1 Changes in ARARs
ARARs pertaining to RA activities at the MCWsite are divided into chemical-, location-, and
action-specific categories. These categories are discussed below.
Chemical-Specific ARARs. Chemical-Specific ARARs are usually health- or risk-based numerical values
or methodologies that, when applied to site-specific conditions, establish numerical values. Each value
establishes the acceptable amount or concentration of a chemical that may remain in or be discharged to
the ambient environment. If more than one chemical-specific requirement exists for a contaminant of
concern (COC), the most stringent requirement is identified as an ARAR for the RA.
The 1998 ROD for MCW identified one chemical-specific ARAR for ground water: EPA's National Primary
Drinking Water Standards. Maximum contaminant levels (MCL) were identified as relevant and
appropriate for the viable water aquifers located deeper beneath the contaminated saturated zone at the
site. The ROD determined that the shallow clayey-silt saturated zone, which contains the DNAPL and the
LNAPL, is not considered a drinking water source due to insufficient yield. As part of the RA, the Upland
Terrace Aquifer (located deeper beneath the shallow clayey-silt saturated zone), which is used as
drinking water, is to be sampled to ensure contaminants from the shallow clayey-silt saturated zone do
not migrate to the Upland Terrace Aquifer. No changes to the pertinent MCLs have occurred since the
last Five Year Review except for arsenic and naphthalene.
The arsenic MCL was changed from 50 |j,g/L to 10 |j,g/L in 2006. Arsenic is not among the constituents
analyzed in the groundwater monitoring but is one of the metals tested for discharge of the treated
wastewater. However, the monthly results for arsenic in the treated wastewater have been below 10 |j,g/L
except in February, March, and April of 2007.
Naphthalene was not considered a carcinogenic compound when the ROD was signed but is considered
one now.
Madisonville Second 5-Year Review 17 2/19/2009
-------
The O&M manual states that three monitoring wells are to be sampled: RA-5 semiannually and
monitoring wells MW-1 and MW-2 annually. The samples are to be analyzed for (1) SVOCs and (2)
benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylene (BTEX).
Several chemical-specific contaminant values were used for the purpose of health and safety monitoring
during the soil excavation activities. The health and safety plan (HASP) for the MCWsoil excavation and
LTTD activities used the following values to determine appropriate worker health and safety procedures:
(1) the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) permissible exposure limit and
time-weighted average levels and (2) the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
recommended exposure levels, short-term exposure limits, and immediately dangerous to life and health
limits. Monitoring was conducted and worker health and safety procedures were reviewed and adjusted
accordingly. The Remedial Action Completion Report (RACR) documents compliance with the HASP
requirements.
The soil cleanup levels for the MCWsite were risk-based. Soils were cleaned up to 3 mg/kg B[a]P
equivalent concentrations for the 0 to 2 foot level and 100 mg/kg B[a]P equivalent concentrations for the 2
to 4 foot level as documented in the RACR. The soil cleanup goal for B[a]P equivalent concentrations is
based on risk assessment information, such as the cancer slope factor for B[a]P and exposure factors. In
the case of a five-year review, only contaminants for which significant changes in risk assessment
information reflect increased risk are pertinent, and then only if the selected remedy is no longer
protective. No changes in the cancer slope factor for B[a]P have occurred since the 1998 ROD was
issued; therefore, the original cleanup levels cited in the 1998 ROD are protective.
Location-Specific ARARs. Location-Specific ARARs are restrictions placed on the concentrations of
hazardous substances or the performance of activities solely because they are in special locations.
Examples of locations that might prompt a location-specific ARAR include wetlands, sensitive ecosystems
or habitat, flood plains, and areas of historical significance. The 1998 MCW ROD identified two
location-specific ARARs for the off-site areas: (1) the Floodplain Management Order, Executive Order
No. 11988, and (2) the Protection of Wetlands Order, Executive Order No. 11990.
As documented in the RACR, neither the on-property nor the off-property portions of the MCWsite reside
within the 100- or 500-year floodplain. Therefore, the Floodplain Management Order was deemed not
applicable as an ARAR to the MCW RA. In addition, no on-property or off-property portion of the MCW
site has been identified as a wetland. Therefore, the Protection of Wetlands Order was not applicable as
an ARAR to the MCW RA. No new location-specific ARARs have been promulgated since the 1998
MCW ROD was issued.
Madisonville Second 5-Year Review 18 2/19/2009
-------
Action-Specific ARARs. Action-Specific ARARs are usually (1) technology- or activity-based
requirements or limitations on actions taken with respect to hazardous wastes or (2) requirements to
conduct certain actions to address particular site circumstances. Such requirements are triggered by the
particular remedial activities selected to implement a remedy. Because there are usually several
alternative actions for any remedial site, very different requirements can come into play. Action-specific
requirements do not in themselves determine a remedial alternative; rather, they indicate how a selected
alternative must be achieved.
The action-specific ARARs for the MCWRA are identified and discussed below:
Solid Waste Requirements - Solid waste, such as nonhazardous, contaminated waste soils and
debris generated at the MCWsite through industrial activities, is defined under the Louisiana
Administrative Code (LAC) 33:VII. Chapter 1, identified by these regulations under LAC 33:VII.
Chapter 3, and subject to the requirements of RCRA Subtitles C and D and the provisions of the
Louisiana Solid Waste Regulations (LSWR). These regulations require that persons generating,
collecting, transporting, storing, processing, and disposing of solid waste comply with the
notification requirements for facilities and landfills under the LSWR, LAC 33:VII. As documented
in the RACR, all solid waste disposal activities were conducted in accordance with (1) the
appropriate chapters of LAC 33, (2) RCRA Subtitle C and D, and (3) the LSWR identified above.
Hazardous Waste Requirements - The rules and regulations for a hazardous waste management
system were established by the LDEQ under LAC 33:V. Generators of hazardous waste in
Louisiana must comply with the rules set forth by LDEQ in LAC 33:V. Chapter 11 (40 CFR 261
and 261).
As documented in the RACR, all rules and regulations listed above for hazardous waste
management were followed during the disposal of contaminated soil and debris.
These hazardous waste rules and regulations also apply to the disposal of the DNAPL collected
as part of the ground water treatment system. As documented in the RACR, approximately
11,800 gallons of DNAPL were transported to, and incinerated at Waste Management's Port
Arthur hazardous waste incineration facility.
Air Quality Requirements - As documented in the RACR, the LDEQ determined that the LTTD unit
used for MCW remedial activities did not qualify as a "major" source because it would not emit
more than 10 tons of a single toxic air pollutant per year or 25 tons or more per year of any
Madisonville Second 5-Year Review 19 2/19/2009
-------
combination of toxic air pollutants. The air management plan (AMP) for the LTTD activities
required air quality monitoring at four monitoring stations and established chemical action levels
based on time-weighted average permissible exposure limits and national ambient air quality
standards. Chemical monitoring was conducted for VOC, SVOCs, and particulate matter smaller
than 10 micrometers (urn) in diameter (PM-10); meteorological conditions were monitored as well.
The RACR documents the results of the air monitoring and the actions taken when exceedences
of established chemical concentrations were found.
Department of Transportation Regulations - As required by the U.S. Department of Transportation
(49 CFR 171), hazardous materials cannot be transported in interstate and intrastate commerce,
except in accordance with the requirements of 49 CFR 171, Subpart C. Hazardous wastes or
environmentally hazardous substances transported within the state must comply with the
applicable packaging, labeling, marking, and placarding requirements of 49 CFR 171, Subpart C
and/or Louisiana Hazardous Material Regulations Subchapter C and the Department of Public
Safety under LAC 33:V, Subpart 2, Chapter 101.
As documented in the RACR, all waste transportation activities at the MCWsite were performed in
accordance with the requirements listed above.
These transportation requirements will also be applicable to the destruction of the accumulated
DNAPL.
Water Quality Requirements-The Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 to 1376), as amended by the
Water Quality of Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-4-103), provides authority for each state to adopt
water quality standards designed to protect beneficial uses of each water body and requires states
to designate uses for each water body. All discharges from the MCWsite are required to meet
storm water and wastewater discharge limitations and monitoring requirements established by the
LDEQ. Even though the creosote wastes left in place were considered listed wastes, the ROD
specified that that the treated wastewater would only need to comply with State of Louisiana
effluent discharge criteria.
As documented in the RACR, the storm water generated during the soil excavation activities was
handled in accordance with LDEQ requirements. Storm water from clean, open excavations and
non-excavated areas was discharged off site through silt fencing material with no monitoring
conducted. Storm water collected in open excavation areas that may have been contaminated
was pumped into the storm water holding basin. The water was sampled and discharged in
accordance with LDEQ requirements.
Madisonville Second 5-Year Review 20 2/19/2009
-------
Treated effluent from the on-site ground water treatment system is discharged to a ditch. LDEQ
established discharge limitation requirements and monitoring requirements for the effluent discharge.
Overall, the treated effluent has met most discharge limitations. The LDEQ discharge limits have not
changed since the last Five Year Review. All discharge limitation exceedences as documented in the
monthly operating reports for March 2004 through August 2008 are listed in Table 3.
Overall, the DNAPL recovery system appears to be meeting most effluent discharge limitations. The
monthly operating report should be expanded in accordance with the reporting requirements detailed in
the O&M manual. However, the monthly operating report does not (1) adequately report exceedences; (2)
explain exceedences; (3) evaluate overall operation of the system; (4) provide suggestions for corrective
actions, if necessary; or (5) determine that the laboratory data are valid in accordance with the O&M
manual.
7.2.2 Changes in Exposure Pathways. Toxicity. and Other Contaminant Characteristics
There have been no changes in exposure pathways, toxicity characteristics, or other contaminant
characteristics for the Madisonville site that would impact the protectiveness of the remedy with the
possible exception of naphthalene. Naphthalene is now considered a carcinogenic compound which may
change its toxicity characteristic. There has been no change to the standardized risk assessment
methodology or land use that could affect the protectiveness of the remedy. An evaluation of possible
vapor intrusion has been considered for this site. Vapor intrusion is the exposure pathway where volatile
organic vapors are emitted from the soil into an enclosed area like a residence. This exposure pathway is
not considered a risk at this site due to the lack of volatile organics detected in the groundwater and the
distance from the site of the nearest residences.
7.3 Question C: Has Any Other Information Come to Light That Could Call
into Question the Protectiveness of the Remedy?
No other information has been identified that calls the protectiveness of the selected remedy into
question. There was minimal impact on the site from Hurricane Katrina. Trees located outside the site
fell onto and damaged the security fencing. The fencing has since been repaired and is in good
condition.
Madisonville Second 5-Year Review 21 2/19/2009
-------
8.0 Issues
Several issues are identified for this site, as described in the following table.
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Issues
The effluent discharge limits from the WWTP have been
occasionally exceeded.
DNAPL may stand in the recovery trench system piping
because of plugging with the potential of related migration to
the lower aquifers.
The ground water analytical data show that detection limits for
PAHs are higher than their MCLs.
Arsenic has been detected in the WWTP effluent at
concentrations above the MCL, but it is not known what the
groundwater concentrations are and whether the arsenic
concentration in the ground water meets the RAOs.
The annual sampling of wells MW-1 and MW-2, and the semi-
annual sampling of well RA-5 has not been consistently carried
out.
Naphthalene is now considered a carcinogenic compound
which may change its toxicity characteristic.
Affects Protectiveness
(Y/N)
Current
N
N
N
N
N
N
Future
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
9.0 Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions
Recommended further actions are listed in the table below.
No.
1
2
Recommendations/Follow-up
Actions
Ensure that effluent criteria are
met before release of the
effluent and discuss
exceedences in the monthly
report.
Evaluate overall operation of
DNAPL collection and treatment
system in the monthly report and
institute corrective action for
regular cleaning of the pipes.
Party
Responsible
LDEQ
LDEQ
Oversight
Agency
EPA
EPA
Milestone
Date
within 3
months of
final report
date
within 6
months of
final report
date
Follow-up
Actions: Affects
Protectiveness
(Y/N)
Current
N
N
Future
Y
Y
Madisonville Second 5-Year Review
22
2/19/2009
-------
3
4
5
6
Ensure that the laboratory
detection limits are at or below
the respective MCLs for PAHs.
The arsenic MCL was changed
during the 5 year reporting
period to 10 ppb, hence during
the treated effluent operational
period when the arsenic MCL
was 50 ppb, there was only one
exceedence in February 2007.
Arsenic was not a constituent
used in past facility operations;
however, in order to meet the
RAOs for ground water, arsenic
should be included in the ground
water monitoring schedule.
Ground water monitoring was
resumed approximately two
years after the first Five-Year
Review; however, after
hurricane Katrina hit the
southern Louisiana area the
ground water monitoring
schedule was disrupted. While
a regular ground water
monitoring should be
established and maintained, the
monthly report should be
established and maintained, the
monthly report should note if
sampling could not be carried
out due to catastrophic weather
events
Re-evaluate the toxicity
characteristics for naphthalene.
LDEQ
LDEQ
LDEQ
LDEQ
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
within 3
months of
final report
date
within 3
months of
final report
date
within 3
months of
final report
date
within 12
months of
final report
date*
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
' or upon EPA promulgation of an MCL
10.0 Protectiveness Statement
At this time, based on the information available during the second five-year review, the selected remedy
appears to be performing as intended. The selected remedy currently protects human health and the
environment based on results from treated waste sampling and shallow groundwater sampling. However,
for the remedy to be protective in the long term, DNAPL recovery trenches, the pump vaults, pumps, and
WWTP need to be maintained, ground water monitoring data need to be collected and evaluated on a
routine basis to ensure contamination of the ground water and the Upland Terrace Aquifer is not
Madisonville Second 5-Year Review
23
2/19/2009
-------
occurring, security fencing around the DNAPL recovery trenches and WWTP is maintained, and access
restrictions need to continue to be enforced.
11.0 Next Review
The next Five-Year Review, the third for this site, should be completed by March 1, 2013.
Madisonville Second 5-Year Review 24 2/19/2009
-------
Figures and Tables
Madisonville Second 5-Year Review 1/13/2009
-------
Wastewater
Treatment Plant
Extraction well
vaults
Figure 1
Madisonville Creosote Works Site and Surrounding Area
Aerial Photograph
-------
35,000
r 1000
- Extracted GW (monthly)
-A - - Recovered DNAPL(monthly)
900
12/5/2003
12/4/2004
12/4/2005
Date
12/4/2006
12/4/2007
Figure 3
Madisonville Creosote Works
Groundwater Recovery System Extraction Volumes
12/3/2008
-------
SPILL
CONTAINMENT
BDX
g--
-E o
Sgl
026-RA-RA-06AJ
Figure 4
-------
Table 1
Chronology of Site Events
Madisonville Creosote Works Superfund Site
Madisonville, Louisiana
Date
1956-1957
July 22, 1994
March 14, 1996
March 26, 1996
June 17, 1996
September 10, 1996
September 23, 1996 -January 9, 1997
November 12, 1996
December 23, 1996
January 17, 1997
February 6, 1997
March 27, 1997
August 1997
September 26, 1997
October 24, 1997
November 18, 1997
March 26, 1998
March 28, 1998
August 25, 1998
January 1999
February 11, 1999
April 20, 2000
May 31, 2000
July 27, 2000
July 2000 - August 2001
September 1, 2001
September 28, 2001
March 1 , 2004
Event
Wood preserving operations begin at the site
Site discovery
Initial residential water sampling
Initiation of Remedial Investigation
Proposed inclusion on the National Priorities List
Open house with community concerning site activities
Removal action
Ecological evaluation report
Final NPL listing
Feasibility Study initiated
Open house with community concerning site activities
Human Health Risk and Ecological Screening Risk
Assessments
Community Relations Plan complete
Rl report complete
Rl supplemental sampling report
Feasibility Study completed
Proposed Plan community meeting
Open house with community concerning site activities
Record of Decision issued
Remedial Action initiated
Community bulletin provided
Pre-final inspection
Final inspection completed
Official construction completion ceremony
Groundwater maintenance and operation
State operation and maintenance begins
Remedial Action Completion Report submitted
First Five Year Review report signed
Madisonville Second 5-Year Review
1/13/2009
-------
Table 2
Madisonvill Creosote Works
Groundwater Treatment System Volumes
As Reported in Monthly Operational Reports
Month
Ending
Date
3/31/2004
4/30/2664 n
5/3 1/26641
6/30/2004 J
7/31/2004
8/31/2664
9736/2664 n
10/31/2004
11/30/2004J
12/31/2004
i/31 72005 n
2/28/2005 "
3/31/2005
4/30/2005
5731/2665
6736/2665 n
7/31/2005
8/31/2005J
9/30/2005
i67§1/266"5
1 1730/2605''
12/31/2005
1/31/2006
2/2872006
§731 72006 n
4/30/2006
5/31/2006
Extracted
GW
(gallons)
16,214
2,750 n
13~,566 ]
11,106
6,980
4,065 "
______Z_1______
3,350 _
9,056
10,156 "
19~,7i6 ]
19,130
9,430
6,875
14",975 "
8,760
950 _
.....IAI ,
3,380
5,400 ^
3,590
5,670
i2~,270
6,1~75 n
8,240
6,400
Water
Treated and
Discharged
(gallons)
9,446
r 2,946 n
[1 16,709 ]
, 11,563 .
,_________H
r 4,07"i "
u 5<718 _
L. 3'583 J
9,105
10,156
1 19,713 ]
21,318
I- 956 H
h 7,015 H
r 15,190 "
8,767
L. 95° J
L....N.A1....J
3,402
r 5,426 ^
3,606
U....5J51
10,548
r 7,213 n
8,055
6,243
Recovered
DNAPL
(gallons)
48
948
" 750"
48
197.5
r 1 12.5"
37.5
L. 1°°
87.5
r ..........
25
200
100
h .........
50
12.5
L. NA1
, NA1
[_ ........
r 1 1 2~5"
62.5
. 100
h .........
r 62.5
100
62.5
Month
Ending
Date
6/30/2006
773172006 n
8/3 172006 "
9/30/2006 d
10/31/2006
1 1 730/26b"6
"l2/31/26b"6n
1/31/2007
2/28/2007 _j
3/31/2007
4/36/2007 "
5/3172067 "
6/30/2007
7/31/2007
8/3172667
9/36/2667 "
10/31/2007
11/30/2007J
12/31/2007
1/3172668
2729/2668 ^
3/31/2008
4/30/2008
5/3172668
6736/2668 n
7/31/2008
8/31/2008
Extracted
GW
(gallons)
6,500
6,400 n
3,166 "
.....L?.0.!....
1 1 ,064
9,116
5,69"§ "
8,750
14,800 _j
7,650
14,014
9,200 ]
17,200
5,300
1,266
§,io"6 n
17,671
12,200 _j
30,600 .
-0- H
13",494 ^
18,300
9,400
1 6,900
9,200 n
12,100
6,900
Water
Treated and
Discharged
(gallons)
4,835
5,296
"^ 3,6l~6
t 3,293
3,631
5,476
r 4,650
9,530
,_ 15,322
9,328
r 13,252
1 9,995
17,291
6,005
i ,482
r 7,886
12,760
,_ 1 1 ,622
, 28,891
"" 0
r 13,267
18,622
8,652
11,678
r 9,363
11,589
9,808
Recovered
DNAPL
(gallons)
137.5
r 150
______
100
137.5
h ______
125-
37.5
L NA2
150
r __
62.5
o
, o
h 0
__
25
o
h_____l?_5......
h o
50"
87.5
150
i~5~6
r_ ______
300
250
NA1 - Value unavailable due to Hurricane Katrina.
NA2 - Value unavailable due to replacement of recovery pumps.
-------
Table 3
Madisonville Creosote Works
Treated Effluent Discharge Sampling Results (March 2004 through August 2008)
(VOC and SVOC results summarized in text)
Parameter (mg/L)
BOD, 5 day
COD
Chloride
Oil & Grease
Sulfate
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Organic Carbon
Total Suspended Solids
Turbidity (NTU)
PH
Dissolved Oxygen
Metals (ug/L)
Arsenic
Chromium
Zinc
Sample ID
Effluent Limit
20
70
-
15
-
-
35
45
50
6.0-8.5
5
50
150
500
EDW-18
3/9/2004
6.14
<5
NA
<5
NA
684
3.58
8
31.6
7.6
5.1
<10
<10
<20
EDW-20
7/7/2004
5.37
20
38.8
<5
< 1
640
6.77
<4
20.6
7.54
5.1
<10
<10
<20
EDW-21
8/3/2004
8.1
20
96.1
<5
<10
716
6.21
16
23.2
7.48
5.02
<10
<10
<20
EDW-22
9/7/2004
26.5
8
35.1
<5
< 1
540
5.98
<4
30
7.6
5.1
<10
<10
<20
EDW-23
10/12/2004
<2
<5
4.32
<5
3.91
156
< 1
<4
0.75
7.83
5
<10
<10
520
EDW-24
11/2/2004
7.13
11
24.4
<5
<1
480
4.98
4
32.9
7.83
5
<10
<10
<20
EDW-25
12/7/2004
2.88
8
27.7
<5
5.25
432
2.2
9
74.5
7.75
5.12
10.3
<10
<20
EDW-26
1/12/2005
8.94
6
15.7
<5
6.27
392
15.6
<4
17.2
7.5
5.1
13.4
<10
25.7
EDW-27
2/15/2005
<2
9
19.3
<5
2.1
444
15.6
5
28.7
7.3
5.12
8.13 J
<10
5.67 J
NA = not analyzed
NR = not reported
Page 1 of 5
-------
Table 3
Madisonville Creosote Works
Treated Effluent Discharge Sampling Results (March 2004 through August 2008)
(VOC and SVOC results summarized in text)
Parameter (mg/L)
BOD, 5 day
COD
Chloride
Oil & Grease
Sulfate
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Organic Carbon
Total Suspended Solids
Turbidity (NTU)
PH
Dissolved Oxygen
Metals (ug/L)
Arsenic
Chromium
Zinc
Sample ID
Effluent Limit
20
70
-
15
-
-
35
45
50
6.0-8.5
5
50
150
500
EDW-28
3/9/2005
<2
<5
20.9
<5
6.56
416
26.5
<4
19.8
7.75
5.5
<10
<10
<20
EDW-29
4/7/2005
9.02
5
28.1
<5
< 1
552
15.6
12
53
7.76
5.1
<10
<10
<20
EDW-30
6/1/2005
6.24
<5
22.6
<5
< 1
404
11.7
10
NR
7.5
5.2
<10
<10
<20
EDW-31
7/6/2005
9.2
11
32.6
<5
< 1
892
4.84
31
73
7.58
5
145
<10
<20
EDW-32
8/8/2005
<2
17
17.5
<5
< 1
392
15.7
<4
15.4
7.63
5.2
<10
<10
28.3
EDW-33
10/4/2005
7.2
13
36.8
<5
< 1
804
7.08
32
97.5
7.57
5.4
<10
<10
20.1
EDW-34
11/15/2005
6.39
11
36.3
<5
< 1
620
43.2
7
83
7.56
5.1
<10
<10
24.3
EDW-35
1/11/2006
<2
6
28.5
<5
< 1
730
7.44
8
28.3
7.54
5
<10
<10
27.2
EDW-36
2/7/2006
<2
16
27.2
<5
29.7
655
20.8
5
53
7.5
5.2
<10
<10
<20
NA = not analyzed
NR = not reported
Page 2 of 5
-------
Table 3
Madisonville Creosote Works
Treated Effluent Discharge Sampling Results (March 2004 through August 2008)
(VOC and SVOC results summarized in text)
Parameter (mg/L)
BOD, 5 day
COD
Chloride
Oil & Grease
Sulfate
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Organic Carbon
Total Suspended Solids
Turbidity (NTU)
PH
Dissolved Oxygen
Metals (ug/L)
Arsenic
Chromium
Zinc
Sample ID
Effluent Limit
20
70
-
15
-
-
35
45
50
6.0-8.5
5
50
150
500
EDW-37
3/7/2006
<2
6
12
<5
16.8
544
3.76
<4
14
7.54
5.1
<10
<10
26.3
EDW-38
4/11/2006
14.2
13
14.7
<5
23.7
< 10
3.08
4
26.1
7.58
5.1
<10
<10
84.4
EDW-39
5/9/2006
19.6
5
33.2
<5
< 1
584
6.84
4
51
7.7
5
<10
<10
22.7
EDW-40
6/14/2006
13
17
43.1
<5
< 1
600
9.52
6
81
7.54
5.1
<10
<10
<20
EDW-41
8/9/2006
<6
<5
5.39
<5
4.52
132
<2
4
5.1
7.62
5.4
<10
<10
55.6
EDW-42
9/6/2006
7.02
<5
24.5
<5
1.94
264
2.5
6
25.5
7.52
5.1
<10
<10
<20
EDW-43
11/1/2006
<6
28
53.1
<5
< 1
595
10.01
24
28.4
7.53
5.2
<10
<10
<20
EDW-44
12/19/2006
6.66
7
12.4
<5
8.28
330
<2
5
15
7.5
5.1
<10
<10
35
EDW-45
2/7/2007
<6
<5
8.12
<5
< 1
264
<2
<4
0.59
7.46
5.1
94.9
<10
46.6
NA = not analyzed
NR = not reported
Page 3 of 5
-------
Table 3
Madisonville Creosote Works
Treated Effluent Discharge Sampling Results (March 2004 through August 2008)
(VOC and SVOC results summarized in text)
Parameter (mg/L)
BOD, 5 day
COD
Chloride
Oil & Grease
Sulfate
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Organic Carbon
Total Suspended Solids
Turbidity (NTU)
PH
Dissolved Oxygen
Metals (ug/L)
Arsenic
Chromium
Zinc
Sample ID
Effluent Limit
20
70
-
15
-
-
35
45
50
6.0-8.5
5
50
150
500
EDW-45
3/6/2007
<6
5
19.5
<5
<5
555
<2
5
1.6
7.52
5.1
47.8
<10
<20
EDW-47
4/10/2007
<6
<5
25
<5
12
544
<2
<4
12.8
7.55
5
12.4
<10
<20
EDW-48
5/2/2007
<6
<5
27.3
<5
5.15
616
<2
<4
4.25
7.51
5.1
<10
<10
<20
EDW-49
6/18/2007
<6
5
31
<5
18.7
592
<2
<4
9.29
7.51
5.1
<10
<10
<20
EDW-50
7/11/2007
<6
<5
31.6
5.2
< 1
544
3.72
<4
25.4
7.55
5.1
<10
<10
<20
EDW-51
8/15/2007
<6
<5
29.7
<5
< 1
1240
<2
4
36.9
7.5
5.3
<10
<10
<20
EDW-52
9/4/2007
<6
<5
20.3
<5
9.87
272
<2
<4
0.26
7.52
5.3
<10
<10
<20
EDW-53
10/3/2007
<6
10
29.2
<5
<2
720
4.41
16
91
7.6
5.1
<10
<10
<20
EDW-54
11/13/2007
<6
33
35.9
<5
< 1
568
5.31
19
147
7.54
5
<10
<10
<20
NA = not analyzed
NR = not reported
Page 4 of 5
-------
Table 3
Madisonville Creosote Works
Treated Effluent Discharge Sampling Results (March 2004 through August 2008)
(VOC and SVOC results summarized in text)
Parameter (mg/L)
BOD, 5 day
COD
Chloride
Oil & Grease
Sulfate
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Organic Carbon
Total Suspended Solids
Turbidity (NTU)
PH
Dissolved Oxygen
Metals (ug/L)
Arsenic
Chromium
Zinc
Sample ID
Effluent Limit
20
70
-
15
-
-
35
45
50
6.0-8.5
5
50
150
500
EDW-55
3/5/2008
<6
8
18.2
<5
9.26
464
4.04
5
37.5
7.58
5.1
<10
<10
<20
EDW-56
4/22/2008
6.72
21
2.76
<5
< 1
596
14.2
21
80
7.68
5.4
<10
<10
<20
EDW-57
5/6/2008
21.8
30
33.9
<5
< 1
1170
15.3
17
150
7.6
5.1
<10
<10
<20
EDW-58
6/3/2008
12
20
42.2
<5.56
< 1
645
13.1
15
134
7.52
5
<10
<10
<20
EDW-59
7/2/2008
7.02
16
46
6.67
< 1
745
7.66
24
108
7.5
5.1
<10
<10
<20
EDW-60
8/5/2008
17.1
25
56.6
<5.56
< 1
670
9.66
10
66.7
7.55
6.1
<10
<10
<20
NA = not analyzed
NR = not reported
Page 5 of 5
-------
Table 4 - Madisonville Creosote Works
Groundwater Monitoring Well Results
Parameter (Semi-volatile organic) ug/L
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzidine
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(a)pyrene (MCL 0.2)
4-Bromophenyl-phenylether
Butylbenzylphthalate
bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane
bis(2-Chloroethyl) ether
2,2'-oxybis(l-Chloropropane)
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol (o-Chlorophenol)
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Di-n-butylphthalate
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene (o-Dichlorobenzene) (MCL 600)
1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene (m-Dichlorobenzene)
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene (p-Dichlorobenzene) (MCL 75)
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
2,4-Dichlorophenol
Diethylphthalate
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Dimethylphthalate
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol (4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol)
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
Di-n-octylphthalate
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine (as azobenzene)
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate (MCL 6)
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene (MCL 5)
Hexachloroethane
lndeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isophorone
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
2-Nitrophenol (o-Nitrophenol)
4-Nitrophenol (p-Nitrophenol)
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitroso-di-n-propylaminc
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine (Diphenylamine)
Pentachlorophenol (MCL 1)
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
1.2,4-Trichlorobenzene (MCL 70)
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
MW2
4/7/2004
<10
<10
<10
<30
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<20
<10
<10
<10
<10
<25
<25
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<25
<10
<10
<10
<25
<10
<10
<10
<10
< 10
RA-5
4/7/2004
<10
<10
<10
<30
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<20
<10
<10
<10
<10
<25
<25
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<25
<10
<10
<10
<25
<10
<10
<10
<10
< 10
MW2
5/13/2004
<10
<10
<10
<30
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<20
<10
<10
<10
<10
<25
<25
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<25
<10
<10
<10
<25
<10
<10
<10
<10
< 10
RA-5
5/13/2004
89.8
<10
12.2
<30
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<20
<10
<10
<10
<10
<25
<25
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
35.2
71.3
<10
<10
<10
<10
341
<10
<10
<25
<10
<10
<10
<25
155
<10
14.4
<10
< 10
MW2
7/7/2004
<10
<10
<10
<30
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<20
<10
<10
<10
<10
<25
<25
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<25
<10
<10
<10
<25
<10
<10
<10
<10
< 10
RA-5
7/7/2004
<10
<10
<10
<30
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<20
<10
<10
<10
<10
<25
<25
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<25
<10
<10
<10
<25
<10
<10
<10
<10
< 10
Page 1 of 6
-------
Table 4 - Madisonville Creosote Works
Groundwater Monitoring Well Results
Parameter (Semi-volatile organic) ug/L
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzidine
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(a)pyrene (MCL 0.2)
4-Bromophenyl-phenylether
Butylbenzylphthalate
bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane
bis(2-Chloroethyl) ether
2,2'-oxybis(l-Chloropropane)
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol (o-Chlorophenol)
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Di-n-butylphthalate
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene (o-Dichlorobenzene) (MCL 600)
1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene (m-Dichlorobenzene)
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene (p-Dichlorobenzene) (MCL 75)
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
2,4-Dichlorophenol
Diethylphthalate
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Dimethylphthalate
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol (4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol)
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
Di-n-octylphthalate
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine (as azobenzene)
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate (MCL 6)
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene (MCL 5)
Hexachloroethane
lndeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isophorone
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
2-Nitrophenol (o-Nitrophenol)
4-Nitrophenol (p-Nitrophenol)
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitroso-di-n-propylaminc
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine (Diphenylamine)
Pentachlorophenol (MCL 1)
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
1.2,4-Trichlorobenzene (MCL 70)
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
MW2
12/7/2004
<10
<10
<10
<30
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<20
<10
<10
<10
<10
<25
<25
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<25
<10
<10
<10
<25
<10
<10
<10
<10
< 10
RA-5
12/7/2004
<10
<10
<10
<30
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<20
<10
<10
<10
<10
<25
<25
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<25
<10
<10
<10
<25
<10
<10
<10
<10
< 10
MW2
7/6/2005
<11.6
<11.6
<11.6
<34.8
<11.6
<11.6
<11.6
<11.6
<11.6
<11.6
<11.6
<11.6
<11.6
<11.6
<11.6
<11.6
<11.6
<11.6
<11.6
<11.6
<11.6
<11.6
<11.6
<23.2
<11.6
<11.6
<11.6
<11.6
<29
<29
<11.6
<11.6
<11.6
<11.6
<11.6
<11.6
<11.6
<11.6
<11.6
<11.6
<11.6
<11.6
<11.6
<11.6
<29
<11.6
<11.6
<11.6
<29
<11.6
<11.6
<11.6
<11.6
< 11.6
RA-5
7/6/2005
<12,2
<12.2
<12.2
<36,6
<12.2
<12.2
<12.2
<12.2
<12.2
<12,2
<12.2
<12,2
<12.2
<12.2
<12.2
<12.2
<12.2
<12.2
<12.2
<12.2
<12.2
<12.2
<12.2
<24.4
<12.2
<12.2
<12.2
<12,2
<30.5
<30.5
<12.2
<12.2
<12.2
< 122
< 12.2
< 12.2
< 12.2
< 12.2
< 12.2
< 12.2
< 12.2
< 12.2
< 12.2
< 12.2
< 30.5
< 12.2
< 12.2
< 12.2
< 30.5
< 122
< 12.2
< 12.2
< 122
< 12.2
Page 2 of 6
-------
Table 4 - Madisonville Creosote Works
Groundwater Monitoring Well Results
Parameter (Semi-volatile organic) ug/L
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Acetophenone
Anthracene
Atrazine
Benzaldehyde
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Biphenyl (Diphenyl)
4-Bromophenylphenyl ether
Butylbenzylphthalate
Caprolactam
Carbazole
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
4-Chloroaniline
bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane
bis(2-ehloroethyl) ether
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
4-Chlorophenylphenyl ether
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Dibenzofuran
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
2,4-Dichlorophenol
Diethylphthalate
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Dimethylphthalate
Di-n-butylphthalate
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
Di-n-octylphthalate
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachloro-l.3-butadiene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
lndeno(l.2.3-ed)pyrene
Isophorone
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylphenol (o-Cresol)
4-Methylphenol (p-Cresol)
Naphthalene
2-Nitroaniline
3-Nitroaniline
4-Nitroaniline
Nitrobenzene
MW2
5/9/2006
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
RA-5
5/9/2006
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
MW1
8/23/2006
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
MW2
12/19/2006
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
RA-5
12/19/2006
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
MW1
7/11/2007
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
12.1
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
NA
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
Page 3 of 6
-------
Table 4 - Madisonville Creosote Works
Groundwater Monitoring Well Results
Parameter (Semi-volatile organic) ug/L
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Acetophenone
Anthracene
Atrazine
Benzaldehyde
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Biphenyl (Diphenyl)
4-Bromophenylphenyl ether
Butylbenzylphthalate
Caprolactam
Carbazole
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
4-Chloroaniline
bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane
bis(2-ehloroethyl) ether
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
4-Chlorophenylphenyl ether
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Dibenzofuran
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
2,4-Dichlorophenol
Diethylphthalate
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Dimethylphthalate
Di-n-butylphthalate
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
Di-n-octylphthalate
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachloro-l.3-butadiene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
lndeno(l.2.3-ed)pyrene
Isophorone
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylphenol (o-Cresol)
4-Methylphenol (p-Cresol)
Naphthalene
2-Nitroaniline
3-Nitroaniline
4-Nitroaniline
Nitrobenzene
MW2
7/11/2007
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
NA
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
RA-5
7/11/2007
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
NA
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
MW1
4/22/2008
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
NA
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
MW2
4/22/2008
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
NA
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
RA-5
4/22/2008
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
NA
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
Page 4 of 6
-------
Table 4 - Madisonville Creosote Works
Groundwater Monitoring Well Results
Parameter (Semi-volatile organic) ug/L
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
2.2'-oxybis(l-ehloropropane)
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
2.4,5-Trichlorophenol
2.4,6-Trichlorophenol
MW2
5/9/2006
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
RA-5
5/9/2006
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
MW1
8/23/2006
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
MW2
12/19/2006
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
RA-5
12/19/2006
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
MW1
7/11/2007
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
Page 5 of 6
-------
Table 4 - Madisonville Creosote Works
Groundwater Monitoring Well Results
Parameter (Semi-volatile organic) ug/L
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
2.2'-oxybis(l-ehloropropane)
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
2.4,5-Trichlorophenol
2.4,6-Trichlorophenol
MW2
7/11/2007
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
RA-5
7/11/2007
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
MW1
4/22/2008
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
MW2
4/22/2008
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
RA-5
4/22/2008
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 10.0
Page 6 of 6
-------
Attachment 1
Documents Reviewed
Madisonville Second 5-Year Review 1/13/2009
-------
DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
Callicott Environmental Consultants. 1993. Letter Concerning the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) Facility Assessment, by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), of
Madisonville Wood Preserving Company, Inc. From Charles Callicott, To J. Scott Guilians,
Environmental Quality Specialist, LDEQ, Hazardous Waste Division. June 1.
Ecology and Environment, Inc. (E&E). 1997. "Remedial Investigation Report, Madisonville Creosote
Works, Madisonville, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana." September.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2001. "Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance". June
2001.
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ). 1987. "RCRA Facility Assessment for
Madisonville Wood Preserving Company, Madisonville, LA."
McDonald. 2004a. "Madisonville Wood Preserving Company Superfund Site, Monthly Operational Report,
March 1, 2004 through March 31, 2004." March 31.
McDonald. 2004b. "Madisonville Wood Preserving Company Superfund Site, Monthly Operational Report,
April 1, 2004 through April 30, 2004." April 30.
McDonald. 2004c. "Madisonville Wood Preserving Company Superfund Site, Monthly Operational Report,
May 1, 2004 through May 31, 2004." May 31.
McDonald. 2004d. "Madisonville Wood Preserving Company Superfund Site, Monthly Operational Report,
July 1, 2004 through July 31, 2004." July 31.
McDonald. 2004e. "Madisonville Wood Preserving Company Superfund Site, Monthly Operational Report,
August 1, 2004 through August 31, 2004." August 31.
McDonald. 2004f. "Madisonville Wood Preserving Company Superfund Site, Monthly Operational Report,
September 1, 2004 through September 30, 2004." September 30.
McDonald. 2004g. "Madisonville Wood Preserving Company Superfund Site, Monthly Operational Report,
October 1, 2004 through October 31, 2004." October 31.
McDonald. 2004h. "Madisonville Wood Preserving Company Superfund Site, Monthly Operational Report,
November 1, 2004 through November 30, 2004." November 30.
McDonald. 2004L "Madisonville Wood Preserving Company Superfund Site, Monthly Operational Report,
December 1, 2004 through December 31, 2004." December 31.
McDonald. 2005a. "Madisonville Wood Preserving Company Superfund Site, Monthly Operational Report,
January 1, 2005 through January 31, 2005." January 31.
McDonald. 2005b. "Madisonville Wood Preserving Company Superfund Site, Monthly Operational Report,
February 1, 2005 through February 28, 2005." February 28.
McDonald. 2005c. "Madisonville Wood Preserving Company Superfund Site, Monthly Operational Report,
March 1, 2005 through March 31, 2005." March 31.
McDonald. 2005d. "Madisonville Wood Preserving Company Superfund Site, Monthly Operational Report,
April 1, 2005 through April 30, 2005." April 30.
McDonald. 2005e. "Madisonville Wood Preserving Company Superfund Site, Monthly Operational Report,
May 1, 2005 through May 31, 2005." May 31.
McDonald. 2005f. "Madisonville Wood Preserving Company Superfund Site, Monthly Operational Report,
June 1, 2005 through June 30, 2005." June 30.
McDonald. 2005g. "Madisonville Wood Preserving Company Superfund Site, Monthly Operational Report,
July 1, 2005 through July 31, 2005." July 31.
Madisonville Second 5-Year Review Al-1 1/13/2009
-------
McDonald. 2005h. "Madisonville Wood Preserving Company Superfund Site, Monthly Operational Report,
August 1, 2005 through August 31, 200 ." August 31.
McDonald. 2005L "Madisonville Wood Preserving Company Superfund Site, Monthly Operational Report,
September 1, 2005 through September 30, 2005." September 30.
McDonald. 2005J. "Madisonville Wood Preserving Company Superfund Site, Monthly Operational Report,
October 1, 2005 through October 31, 2005." October 31.
McDonald. 2005k. "Madisonville Wood Preserving Company Superfund Site, Monthly Operational Report,
November 1, 2005 through November 30, 2005." November 30.
McDonald. 2005I. "Madisonville Wood Preserving Company Superfund Site, Monthly Operational Report,
December 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005." December 31.
McDonald. 2006a. "Madisonville Wood Preserving Company Superfund Site, Monthly Operational Report,
January 1, 2006 through January 31, 2006 ." January 31.
McDonald. 2006b. "Madisonville Wood Preserving Company Superfund Site, Monthly Operational Report,
February 1, 2006 through February 28, 2006." February 28.
McDonald. 2006c. "Madisonville Wood Preserving Company Superfund Site, Monthly Operational Report,
March 1, 2006 through March 31, 2006." March 31.
McDonald. 2006d. "Madisonville Wood Preserving Company Superfund Site, Monthly Operational Report,
April 1, 2006 through April 30, 2006." April 30.
McDonald. 2006e. "Madisonville Wood Preserving Company Superfund Site, Monthly Operational Report,
May 1, 2006 through May 31, 2006." May 31.
McDonald. 2006f. "Madisonville Wood Preserving Company Superfund Site, Monthly Operational Report,
June 1, 2006 through June 30, 2006." June 30.
McDonald. 2006g. "Madisonville Wood Preserving Company Superfund Site, Monthly Operational Report,
July 1, 2006 through July 31, 2006." July 31.
McDonald. 2006h. "Madisonville Wood Preserving Company Superfund Site, Monthly Operational Report,
August 1, 2006 through August 31, 2006." August 31.
McDonald. 2006L "Madisonville Wood Preserving Company Superfund Site, Monthly Operational Report,
September 1, 2006 through September 30, 2006." September 30.
McDonald. 2006J. "Madisonville Wood Preserving Company Superfund Site, Monthly Operational Report,
October 1, 2006 through October 31, 2006." October 31.
McDonald. 2006k. "Madisonville Wood Preserving Company Superfund Site, Monthly Operational Report,
November 1, 2006 through November 30, 2006." November 30.
McDonald. 2006I. "Madisonville Wood Preserving Company Superfund Site, Monthly Operational Report,
December 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006." December 31.
McDonald. 2007a. "Madisonville Wood Preserving Company Superfund Site, Monthly Operational Report,
January 1, 2007 through January 31, 2007." January 31.
McDonald. 2007b. "Madisonville Wood Preserving Company Superfund Site, Monthly Operational Report,
February 1, 2007 through February 28, 2007." February 28.
McDonald. 2007c. "Madisonville Wood Preserving Company Superfund Site, Monthly Operational Report,
March 1, 2007 through March 31, 2007." March 31.
McDonald. 2007d. "Madisonville Wood Preserving Company Superfund Site, Monthly Operational Report,
April 1, 2007 through April 30, 2007." April 30.
McDonald. 2007e. "Madisonville Wood Preserving Company Superfund Site, Monthly Operational Report,
May 1, 2007 through May 31, 2007." May 31.
Madisonville Second 5-Year Review Al-2 1/13/2009
-------
McDonald. 2007f. "Madisonville Wood Preserving Company Superfund Site, Monthly Operational Report,
June 1, 2007 through June 30, 2007." June 30.
McDonald. 2007g. "Madisonville Wood Preserving Company Superfund Site, Monthly Operational Report,
July 1, 2007 through July 31, 2007." July 31.
McDonald. 2007h. "Madisonville Wood Preserving Company Superfund Site, Monthly Operational Report,
August 1, 2007 through August 31, 2007." August 31.
McDonald. 2007L "Madisonville Wood Preserving Company Superfund Site, Monthly Operational Report,
September 1, 2007 through September 30, 2007." September 30.
McDonald. 2007J. "Madisonville Wood Preserving Company Superfund Site, Monthly Operational Report,
October 1, 2007 through October 31, 2007." October 31."
McDonald. 2007k. "Madisonville Wood Preserving Company Superfund Site, Monthly Operational Report,
November 1, 2007 through November 30, 2007." November 30.
McDonald. 2007I. "Madisonville Wood Preserving Company Superfund Site, Monthly Operational Report,
December 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007." December 31.
McDonald. 2008a. "Madisonville Wood Preserving Company Superfund Site, Monthly Operational Report,
January 1, 2008 through January 31, 2008." January 31.
McDonald. 2008b. "Madisonville Wood Preserving Company Superfund Site, Monthly Operational Report,
February 1, 2008 through February 29, 2008." February 29.
McDonald. 2008c. "Madisonville Wood Preserving Company Superfund Site, Monthly Operational Report,
March 1, 2008 through March 31, 2008." March 31.
McDonald. 2008d. "Madisonville Wood Preserving Company Superfund Site, Monthly Operational Report,
April 1, 2008 through April 30, 2008." April 30.
McDonald. 2008e. "Madisonville Wood Preserving Company Superfund Site, Monthly Operational Report,
May 1, 2008 through May 31, 2008." May 31.
McDonald. 2008f. "Madisonville Wood Preserving Company Superfund Site, Monthly Operational Report,
June 1, 2008 through June 30, 2008."" June 30.
McDonald. 2008g. "Madisonville Wood Preserving Company Superfund Site, Monthly Operational Report,
July 1, 2008 through July 31, 2008." July 31.
McDonald. 2008h. "Madisonville Wood Preserving Company Superfund Site, Monthly Operational Report,
August 1, 2008 through August 31, 2008." August 31.
Tetra-Tech EM Inc. (Tetra-Tech). 1997. "Madisonville Creosote Works Superfund Site, Final Feasibility
Study Report." November 18.
Tetra-Tech. 1998. "Final Design, Madisonville Creosote Works Superfund Site, Madisonville,
St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana." September 28.
Tetra-Tech. 1999a. "Field Sampling Plan for Remedial Action, Madisonville Creosote Works,
Madisonville, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana." March 9.
Tetra-Tech. 1999b. "Quality Assurance Project Plan for Remedial Action, Madisonville Creosote Works,
Madisonville, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana." March 12.
Tetra-Tech. 2000. "Interim Remedial Action Completion Report for the Madisonville Creosote Works,
Madisonville, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana." June 12.
Tetra-Tech. 2001. "Remedial Action Completion Report for the Madisonville Creosote Works,
Madisonville, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana." September 28.
Tetra-Tech. 2004. "First Five-Year Review for the Madisonville Creosote Works Superfund Site,
Madisonville, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana." March 1, 2004.
Madisonville Second 5-Year Review Al-3 1/13/2009
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1998. "Superfund Record of Decision: Madisonville
Creosote Works, EPA ID: LAD981522998, OU 01, Madisonville, LA." EPA/ROD/R06-98/163.
August 25.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1994. "Ground-Water Resources of Southern Tangipahoa Parish and
Adjacent Areas, Louisiana." Water Resources Investigations Report No. 92-4182.
Madisonville Second 5-Year Review Al-4 1/13/2009
-------
Attachment 2
Interview Record Forms
-------
INTERVIEW RECORD
Site Name: Madisonville Creosote
Subject: 5 year review La. State Views
Type: n Telephone n Visit X Other
Location of Visit: via electronic mail
Contact Made By:
Name: Laura Stankosky Title: RPM
Individual Contacted:
Name: Rich Johnson Title: Environmental Scientist III
EPA ID No.: LAD981522998
Time: Date: 10/22/2008
n Incoming n Outgoing
Organization: US EPA
Organization: LDEQ
Telephone No: (225) 219-3200 Street Address: 602 N. Fifth St.,
Fax No: (225) 219-3239 City, State, Zip: Baton Rouge, LA 70802
E-Mail Address: Rich.Johnson@la.gov
Summary Of Conversation
1. What is your overall impression of the project? (general sentiment)
My feelings are good as the overall impression of the project.
2. What effects have post-construction site activities in the last five years had on the surrounding community?
I have heard of no complaints.
3. Are you aware of any community concerns regarding the site or its operation and administration? If so, please
give details.
None.
4. Are you aware of any events, incidents, or activities at the site such as vandalism, trespassing, or emergency
responses from local authorities? If so, please give details.
None
5. Do you feel well informed about the site's activities and progress?
Yes.
Page 1 of 3
Madisonville Second 5-Year Review A2-1
1/13/2009
-------
6. Have there been routine communications or activities (site visits, inspections, reporting activities, etc.)
conducted by your office regarding the site? If so, please give purpose and results.
Yes the state has several improvements on site performance by changing recovery wells.
7. Have there been any complaints, violations, or other incidents related to the site requiring a response by your
office? If so, please give details of the events and results of the responses.
No.
8. Is the remedy functioning as expected? How well is the remedy performing?
Yes
9. What does the monitoring data show? Are there any trends that show contaminant levels are decreasing?
Yes
10. Is there a continuous on-site O&M presence? If so, please describe staff and activities. If there is not a
continuous on-site presence, describe staff and frequency of site inspections and activities.
Yes, a technician visits the site regularly, and has access to site computers via phone.
11. Have there been any significant changes in the O&M requirements, maintenance schedules, or sampling
routines since start-up or in the last five years? If so, do they affect the protectiveness or effectiveness of the
remedy? Please describe changes and impacts.
None that I know of except the inclusion of a drinking water well for sampling at the request of the EPA,
12. Have there been unexpected O&M difficulties or costs at the site since start-up or in the last five years? If so,
please give details.
None that I know of. Just improvements performed by the technicians running the plant to make it more
effecting and smoother to operate.
13. Have there been opportunities to optimize O&M, or sampling efforts? Please describe changes and resultant or
desired cost savings or improved efficiency.
Yes as stated previously the state implemented changing well types out to more effective recovery wells. Also
the experienced technicians have been able to keep and old system up and running by the sheer expertise they
possess.
Page 2 of 3
Madisonville Second 5-Year Review A2-2
1/13/2009
-------
14. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site's management or
operation?
No
Page 3 of3
Madisonville Second 5-Year Review A2-3
1/13/2009
-------
INTERVIEW RECORD
Site Name: MADISONVILLE CREOSOTE SUPERFUND SITE
Subject: Five- Year Review
Type: n Telephone n Visit X Other
Location of Visit: via electronic mail
EPA ID No.: LAD981522998
Time:
Date: 10-24-08
n Incoming n Outgoing
Contact Made By:
Name: Laura Stankosky
Title: RPM
Organization: US EPA
Individual Contacted:
Name: RICKTIBSS Title: OPERATOR
Telephone No: 985-847-1122
Fax No: 985-847-9639
E-Mail Address: ricktibbs@excite.com
Organization: McDONALD
Street Address: 425 WEST HALL AVE.
City, State, Zip: SLIDELL, LA 70460
Summary Of Conversation
1. What is your overall impression of the project? (general sentiment)
The project and system are doing what it was designed to do.
2. What effects have post-construction site activities in the last five years had on the surrounding community?
None.
3. Are you aware of any community concerns regarding the site or its operation and administration? If so, please
give details.
None.
4. Are you aware of any events, incidents, or activities at the site such as vandalism, trespassing, or emergency
responses from local authorities? If so, please give details.
None.
5. Do you feel well informed about the site's activities and progress?
Yes.
Page 1 of 3
Madisonville Second 5-Year Review
A2-4
1/13/2009
-------
6. Have there been routine communications or activities (site visits, inspections, reporting activities, etc.)
conducted by your office regarding the site? If so, please give purpose and results.
Yes, the 5-year evaluation done by the EPA. And monthly visits done by LDEQ.
7. Have there been any complaints, violations, or other incidents related to the site requiring a response by your
office? If so, please give details of the events and results of the responses.
none.
8. Is the remedy functioning as expected? How well is the remedy performing?
Yes and Yes.
9. What does the monitoring data show? Are there any trends that show contaminant levels are decreasing?
For a few months now recovery has shown an increase.
10. Is there a continuous on-site O&M presence? If so, please describe staff and activities. If there is not a
continuous on-site presence, describe staff and frequency of site inspections and activities.
Yes. McDonald Construction has the present O&M contract. Pumping and Maintenance is done at least one
week out of the month.
11. Have there been any significant changes in the O&M requirements, maintenance schedules, or sampling
routines since start-up or in the last five years? If so, do they affect the protectiveness or effectiveness of the
remedy? Please describe changes and impacts.
There have been small changes , but for the most part the system is run by design.
12. Have there been unexpected O&M difficulties or costs at the site since start-up or in the last five years? If
so, please give details.
Only storm issues, but LDEQ has worked with us on that.
Page 2 of 3
Madisonville Second 5-Year Review A2-5
1/13/2009
-------
12. Have there been unexpected O&M difficulties or costs at the site since start-up or in the last five years? If
so, please give details.
None.
13. Have there been opportunities to optimize O&M, or sampling efforts? Please describe changes and
resultant or desired cost savings or improved efficiency.
System has been run the same since we got the contract 6 years ago. Newair pumps were purchased and
installed. These pumps replaced the old electric pumps.
14. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site's management or
operation?
Happy at this time.
Page 3 of 3
Madisonville Second 5-Year Review A2-6
1/13/2009
-------
Site Name: Madisonville Creosote Works
Subject: Five- Year Review
Type: n Telephone X Visit n Other
Location of Visit: Madisonville City Hall
EPA ID No.: LAD981522998
Time: 0830 am
Date: 9-30-08
n Incoming n Outgoing
INTERVIEW RECORD
Contact Made By:
Name: Laura Stankosky*
Title: RPM
Organization: US EPA
Individual Contacted:
Name: The Honorable Peter Gitz
Title: Mayor of Madisonville
Telephone No: (985) 845-3636
Fax No:
E-Mail Address:
Organization:
Street Address: Madisonville City
403 St Frances Street
City, State, Zip: Madisonville, LA
Hall
70447
Summary Of Conversation
1. What is your overall impression of the project? (general sentiment)
No real concerns.
2. What effects have site operations had on the surrounding community?
No negative site effects were discussed. Development in the area was noted.
3. Are you aware of any community concerns regarding the site or its operation and administration? If so, please
give details.
Mr. Gitz expressed an interest in the reuse of the property for parking and storage of city and county equipment.
He said that the city had suffered losses due to gas that had been provided to the site operator when it was active
without receiving payment. He felt like use of the property would help offset those losses.
4. Are you aware of any events, incidents, or activities at the site such as vandalism, trespassing, or emergency
responses from local authorities? If so, please give details.
No incidents noted.
5. Do you feel well informed about the site's activities and progress?
Mr. Gitz felt like he was being informed of any activities that would impact the community.
6. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site's management or operation?
No management or operation comments were given.
Mr. Frank Roepke and Mr. Cliff Murray with the Tulsa District Corps of Engineers accompanied Ms. Stankosky at the interview.
-------
INTERVIEW RECORD
Site Name: Madisonville Creosote Works
Subject: Five- Year Review
Type: X Telephone
Location of Visit:
n Visit n Other
EPA ID No.: LAD981522998
Time: 3:45 pm Date: 10-31-08
n Incoming n Outgoing
Contact Made By:
Name: Laura Stankosky
Title: RPM
Organization: US EPA
Individual Contacted:
Name: Mrs. Pam Camp
Title:
Organization:
Telephone No: (985) 845-0321
Fax No:
E-Mail Address:
Street Address: 1411 Highway 22W
City, State, Zip: Madisoniville, LA 70447
Summary Of Conversation
1. What is your overall impression of the project? (general sentiment)
No real concerns.
2. What effects have site operations had on the surrounding community?
She was curious about the small building that went up on the east side of the property. There is often a truck
parked next to this building. I let Mrs. Camp know that this was an air quality monitoring station that is operated
by the LDEQ and actually has nothing to do with the former creosote site. She also indicated that some of her
neighbors are curious as to what the property reuse may be. She said rumors periodically circulate.
3. Are you aware of any community concerns regarding the site or its operation and administration? If so, please
give details.
No concerns on operation. She did note that there has been a lot of subdivision development in the area around
Madisonville since Hurricane Katrina hit. More concerns with the increase in traffic in the area.
4. Are you aware of any events, incidents, or activities at the site such as vandalism, trespassing, or emergency
responses from local authorities? If so, please give details.
The gates are usually well secured with locks, the site is securely fenced, and she has not observed any vandalism
incidents.
5. Do you feel well informed about the site's activities and progress?
She had questions about the truck, the new small building, and possible property reuse. She said all her questions
were answered with my call.
6. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site's management or operation?
Mrs. Camp recommended that I give her father-in-law (Mr. Adrian Camp) a call. He may be interested to know
about the site's status. He lived next door to the site during the cleanup. Mrs. Camp and Mr. Adrian Camp's son
now live in the house next to the site. The in-laws have moved to a smaller home to "downsize."
-------
Attachment 3
Site Inspection Checklist
Madisonville Second 5-Year Review 1/13/2009
-------
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SITE VISIT CHECKLIST
I. SITE INFORMATION
Site Name: Madisonville 5-Year Review
Date of Inspection: September 30, 2008
Location and Region: Madisonville, LA
EPA ID:
Agency, office, or company leading the five-year
review:
U. S. EPA Region 6
Weather/temperature:
Clear and sunny; high around 90 °F
Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply)
O Landfill cover/containment
^ Access controls
EX] Institutional controls
Ground water pump and treatment
Surface water collection and treatment
Other
Attachments:
Inspection team roster attached
Site map attached (Figure 2 of report)
II. INTERVIEWS (Check all that apply)
1. O&M Site Manager
Interviewed: O by mail |
Problems, suggestions: |
Rick Tibbs Operations Manager, McDonald Construction
Name Title
9/30/08
Date
at site I I by phone
Report attached
Phone no.
985-847-1122
2. O&M Staff
Name
Interviewed: O by mail O at office O by phone
Problems, suggestions: Q Report attached
Title
Phone no.
Date
3. Local regulatory authorities and response agencies (i.e.; State and Tribal offices, emergency
response office, police department, office of public health or environmental health, zoning office,
recorder of deeds, or other city and county offices, etc.). Fill in all that apply.
Agency LDEQ
Contact Rich Johnson Environmental Scientist III 9/30/08 (225)219-3200
Name
Problems, suggestions:
Agency
Title
Report attached Survey forms
Date
Phone no.
Contact
Name
Problems, suggestions:
Title
Report attached
Date
Phone no.
:nt\GOODA\l 116\Five-Year Review Docs\Exhibit B Site Visit Checklist doc
-------
4. Other interviews (optional): Kl Report attached
Survey from adjacent neighbor, east of the site.
III. ON-SITE DOCUMENTS & RECORDS VERIFIED (Check
all that apply)
1. O&M Documents
^1 O&M manual (long term monitoring plan) ^1 Readily available Q Up to date Q
£3 As-built drawings £3 Readily available O Up to date O
^ Maintenance logs
(semi-annual well inspection sheets) ^| Readily available O Up to date O
Remarks: Maintenance loss are the monthly reports submitted to LDEQ
2. Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan £
^ Contingency plan/emergency response plan £
Remarks: At Office in O&M manual.
3. O&M and OSHA Training Records £
Remarks: At Office
4. Permits and Service Agreements
Q Air discharge permit [
O Effluent discharge [
D Waste disposal, POTW [
1 1 Other permits f
Remarks: Mr. Tibbs stated that because the site is a
3 Readily available ^
3 Readily available ^
3 Readily available ^
^\ Readily available O
H Readily available Q
^\ Readily available O
^\ Readily available O
Superfund site, an effluent
Up to date Q
Up to date O
Up to date O
Up to date ^
Up to date ^|
Up to date ^
Up to date ^|
discharge permit
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
is not
required, but effluent limitations are observed and met for the wastewater treatment plant.
5. Gas Generation Records [
6. Settlement Monument Records [
7. Ground Water Monitoring Records £
8. Leachate Extraction Records [
9. Discharge Compliance Records
D Air [
IEI Water (effluent) £
Remarks: Monthly effluent (water) discharged from
H Readily available CH
^\ Readily available I I
3 Readily available 1 1
^\ Readily available O
Up to date Kl
Up to date IXI
Up to date 1 1
Up to date Kl
^\ Readily available O Up to date ^|
3 Readily available ^ Up to date O
the wastewater treatment plant.
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
10. Daily Access/Security Logs [
Remarks:
H Readily available Q
Up to date ^|
N/A
IV. O&M
1. O&M Organization
O State in-house ^ Contractor for State
l~1 Contractor for PRP |~~| Other
COSTS
D PRP in-house
:nt\GOODA\l 116\Five-Year Review DocsVExhibit B Site Visit Checklist doc
-------
2.
O&M Cost Records (O&M cost information not available during inspection)
O Readily available Q Up to date ^| Funding mechanism/agreement in place
O Original O&M cost estimate Q Breakdown attached
Total annual cost by year for review period, if available
Date Date Total Cost
From 1/1/2004 to 12/31/2004 $111,000 . |~~| Breakdown attached
From 1/1/2005 to 12/31/2005 $159,000 - |~~| Breakdown attached
From 1/1/2006 to 12/31/2006 $76,000 - |~~| Breakdown attached
From to - 1 1 Breakdown attached
From to - 1 1 Breakdown attached
From to - 1 1 Breakdown attached
From to - 1 1 Breakdown attached
From to - 1 1 Breakdown attached
3.
Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs During Review Period
V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS |EI Applicable D N/A
A.
Fencing
1. Fencing damaged Q Location shown on site map Q Gates secured
Remarks:
B.
1.
Other Access Restrictions
Signs and other security measures ^ Location shown on site map O N/A
Remarks: Property surrounded bv chain link fence. Fencing with barbed wire is
surrounding the wastewater treatment plant.
IEI N/A
partially
:nt\GOODA\l 116\Five-Year Review DocsVExhibit B Site Visit Checklist doc
-------
C. Institutional Controls
1. Implementation and enforcement
Site conditions imply ICs not properly implemented
Site conditions imply ICs not being fully enforced
Yes
Yes
No
No
N/A
N/A
Type of monitoring (e.g., self-reporting, drive by) Monitored during site maintenance visits.
Frequency Tens days/month (minimum)
Responsible party/agency LDEQ
Contact Rich Johnson Environmental Scientist III
9/30/08
(713)219-3200
Name
Title
Date
Reporting is up-to-date ^| Yes
Reports are verified by the lead agency ^ Yes
Specific requirements in deed or decision documents have been met O Yes
Violations have been reported O Yes
Other problems or suggestions: O Report attached
Phone no.
]NO E
]NO E
]NO H<
]NO £<
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2. Adequacy
Remarks:
ICs are adequate
ICs are inadequate
N/A
D. General
1. Vandalism/trespassing | | Location shown on site map IXI No vandalism evident
Remarks:
2. Land use changes onsite IXI N/A
Remarks:
3. Land use changes offsite
Remarks:
N/A
VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS
A. Roads
Applicable
N/A
Remarks: Dirt roads around the perimeter of the site are in good condition. Walked and verified.
B. Other Site Conditions
Remarks:
:nt\GOODA\l 116\Five-Year Review Docs\Exhibit B Site Visit Checklist doc
-------
VII. LANDFILL COVERS
Applicable
N/A
A. Landfill Surface
1. Settlement (Low spots) I I Location shown on site map
Areal extent Depth
Remarks:
Settlement not evident
2. Cracks
Lengths _
Remarks:
Location shown on site map
Widths
Cracking not evident
Depths
3. Erosion
Areal extent
Remarks:
Location shown on site map
Depth
Erosion not evident
4. Holes
Areal extent
Remarks:
Location shown on site map
Depth
Holes not evident
5. Vegetative Cover I I Grass I I Cover properly established
O Trees/Shrubs (indicate size and locations on a diagram) (None)
Remarks:
No signs of stress
6. Alternative Cover (armored rock, concrete, etc.) | | N/A
Remarks:
7. Bulges
Areal extent
Remarks:
Location shown on site map
Depth
Bulges not evident
8. Wet Areas/Water Damage
O Wet areas
O Ponding
O Seeps
O Soft subgrade
Remarks:
Wet areas/water damage not evident
Location shown on site map Q Areal extent.
Location shown on site map O Areal extent.
Location shown on site map O Areal extent
Location shown on site map O Areal extent
9. Slope Instability |_| Slides
O No evidence of slope instability
Remarks:
Location shown on site map
Areal extent
S:\Government\GOODA\1116\Five-YearReviewDocs\ExhibitBSiteVisitChecklistdoc
-------
B.
1.
2.
3.
C.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Benches Q Applicable Q N/A
(Horizontally constructed mounds of earth placed across a steep landfill side slope to interrupt the slope in order to slow
down the velocity of surface runoff and intercept and convey the runoff to a lined channel.)
Flows Bypass Bench Q
Remarks:
Bench Breached O
Remarks:
Bench Overtopped Q
Remarks:
Location shown
Location shown
Location shown
on site map Q
on site map |_
on site map d
N/A or okay
N/A or okay
N/A or okay
Letdown Channels O Applicable O N/A
(Channel lined with erosion control mats, rip rap, grout bags, or gabions that descend down the steep side slope of the
cover and will allow the runoff water collected by the benches to move off of the landfill cover without creating erosion
gullies.)
Settlement O
Areal extent
Remarks:
Material Degradation O
Material type
Remarks:
Erosion Q
Areal extent
Remarks:
Undercutting O
Areal extent
Remarks:
Obstructions Type
Areal extent
Remarks:
Excessive Vegetative Grow
O No evidence of excessive
O Location shown on site m
Remarks:
Location shown
Location shown
Location shown
Location shown
No obstructions
th Type
growth
ap
on site map |_
Depth
on site map d
Areal extent
on site map d
Depth
on site map |_
Depth
D
Size
O Vegetation in
Areal extent
No evidence
No evidence
No evidence
No evidence
of settlement
of degradation
of erosion
of undercutting
Location shown on site map
channels does
not obstruct flow
:nt\GOODA\l 116\Five-Year Review DocsVExhibit B Site Visit Checklist doc
-------
D.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
E.
1.
2.
3.
F.
1.
2.
Cover Penetrations I I Applicable I I
Gas Vents I | Active | |
O Properly secured/locked O Functioning Q
O Evidence of leakage at penetration O
Remarks:
Gas Monitoring Probes
O Properly secured/locked Q Functioning O
O Evidence of leakage at penetration Q
Remarks:
Monitoring Wells (within surface area of landfill)
O Evidence of leakage at penetration O
Remarks:
Leachate Extraction Wells
O Properly secured/locked O Functioning Q
O Evidence of leakage at penetration O
Remarks:
Settlement Monuments | | Located | |
Remarks:
Gas Collection and Treatment | | Applicable
N/A
Passive
Routinely sampled O
Needs O&M D
Routinely sampled Q
Needs O&M D
Needs O&M D
Routinely sampled O
Needs O&M D
Routinely surveyed | |
DN/A
Good condition
N/A
Good condition
N/A
N/A
Good condition
N/A
N/A
Gas Treatment Facilities
O Flaring O Thermal destruction O Collection for reuse
O Good condition Q Needs O&M
Remarks:
Gas Collection Wells, Manifolds, and Piping | |
Remarks:
Good condition | |
Needs O&M
Gas Monitoring Facilities (e.g., gas monitoring of adjacent homes or buildings)
O Good condition O Needs O&M O N/A
Remarks:
Cover Drainage Layer | | Applicable
Outlet Pipes Inspected | | Functioning
Remarks:
Outlet Rock Inspected | | Functioning
Remarks:
DN/A
DN/A
DN/A
S:\Government\GOODA\1116\Five-YearReviewDocs\ExhibitBSiteVisitChecklistdoc
-------
G. Detention/Sedimentation Ponds
1. Siltation Areal extent
D N/A n Siltation
Remarks:
EH Applicable EH N/A
Size
not evident
2. Erosion Areal extent
O Erosion not evident
Remarks:
Deoth
3. Outlet Works [
Remarks:
H Functioning EH N/A
4. Dam [
Remarks:
H Functioning O N/A
H. Retaining Walls [
1. Deformations H
Horizontal displacement
Rotational displacement
Remarks:
H Applicable EH N/A
H Location shown on site map | | Deformation
Vertical displacement
not evident
2. Degradation |_
Remarks:
H Location shown on site map O Degradation
not evident
I. Perimeter Ditches/Off-Site Discharge 1 1 Applicable 1 1 N/A
1. Siltation [
Areal extent
Remarks:
H Location shown on site map | | Siltation not
Deoth
evident
2. Vegetative Growth Q Location shown on site map O N/A
O Vegetation does not impede flow
Areal extent Tvoe
Remarks:
3. Erosion Q
Areal extent
Remarks:
H Location shown on site map | | Erosion not evident
Depth
4. Discharge Structure C
Remarks:
H Functioning O N/A
S:\Government\GOODA\1116\Five-YearReviewDocs\ExhibitBSiteVisitChecklistdoc
-------
VIII. VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS D Applicable |EI N/A
1. Settlement I | Location shown on site map | | Settlement not evident
Areal extent Depth
Remarks:
2. Performance Monitoring Type of monitoring
I | Performance not monitored Frequency I I Evidence of breaching
Head differential
Remarks:
IX. GROUND WATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES |E1 Applicable Q N/A
A. Ground Water Extraction Wells, Pumps, and Pipelines IXI Applicable | | N/A
1. Pumps, Wellhead Plumbing, and Electrical
H3 Good condition |^ All required wells located O Needs O&M O N/A
Remarks:
2. Extraction System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances
£3 Good condition O Needs O&M
Remarks:
3. Spare Parts and Equipment
123 Readily available O Good condition O Requires upgrade O Needs to be provided
Remarks:
B. Surface Water Collection Structures, Pumps, and Pipelines | | Applicable IXI N/A
1. Collection Structures, Pumps, and Electrical
O Good condition Q Needs O&M
Remarks:
2. Surface Water Collection System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances
O Good condition Q Needs O&M
Remarks:
3. Spare Parts and Equipment
O Readily available O Good condition Q Requires upgrade O Needs to be provided
Remarks:
:nt\GOODA\l 116\Five-Year Review Docs\Exhibit B Site Visit Checklist doc
-------
c.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
D.
Treatment System |EI Applicable D N/A
Treatment Train (Check components that apply)
O Metals removal ^ Oil/water separation O Bioremediation
O Air stripping ^ Carbon absorbers
IXI Filters sand
1 1 Additive (e.g., chelation agent, flocculent)
IXI Others Equilization tank, creosote holding tank
IXI Good condition | | Needs O&M
O Sampling ports properly marked and functional
O Sampling/maintenance log displayed and up to date
O Equipment properly identified
153 Quantity of ground water treated annually (68,000-143,000 gallons)
1 1 Quantity of surface water treated annually
Remarks:
Electrical Enclosures and Panels (Properly rated and functional)
O N/A £3 Good condition O Needs O&M
Remarks: Noted that alarms result from power outages and surges (normal
Tanks, Vaults, Storage Vessels
O N/A ^1 Good condition O Proper secondary containment
Remarks:
Discharge Structure and Appurtenances
O N/A ^| Good condition O Needs O&M
Remarks:
Treatment Building(s)
O N/A ^| Good condition (esp. roof and doorways)
O Chemicals and equipment properly stored
Remarks:
Monitoring Wells (Pump and treatment remedy)
[X Properly secured/locked E^l Functioning £3 Routinely sampled
153 All required wells located O Needs O&M
Remarks
Monitored Natural Attenuation O Applicable Kl N/A
1. Monitoring Wells (Natural attenuation remedy)
O Properly secured/locked O Functioning O Routinely sampled
O All required wells located O Needs O&M
Remarks:
operational problems).
D Needs O&M
O Needs repair
£3 Good condition
DN/A
O Good condition
DN/A
:nt\GOODA\l 116\Five-Year Review DocsVExhibit B Site Visit Checklist doc
10
-------
X. OTHER REMEDIES
If there are remedies applied at the site that are not covered above, attach an inspection sheet describing the physical
nature and condition of any facility associated with the remedy. An example would be soil vapor extraction.
XI. OVERALL OBSERVATIONS
A. Implementation of the Remedy
Describe issues and observations relating to whether the remedy is effective and functioning as designed. Begin with a
brief statement of what the remedy is to accomplish (i.e., to contain contaminant plume, minimize infiltration and gas
emission, etc.).
The goal of the remedy is to collect DNAPL and treat ground water collected from the field.
B. Adequacy of O&M
O&M appeared to be adequate.
C. Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Failure
D. Opportunities for Optimization
Describe possible opportunities for optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation of the remedy.
ait\GOODA\l 116\Five-Year Review DocsVExhibit B Site Visit Checklist doc
11
-------
Attachment 4
Site Inspection Photographs
Madisonville Second 5-Year Review 1/13/2009
-------
Photograph No. 1
Orientation: Southeast
Description: Registered Live Oak tree
Site: Madisonville Creosote Works
Date: 30 September 2008
Photograph No. 2 Site: Madisonville Creosote Works
Orientation: Southeast Date: 30 September 2008
Description: Wastewater Treatment Plant Building (registered live oak in center rear of photo)
A-l
-------
Photograph No. 3 Site: Madisonville Creosote Works
Orientation: South Date: 30 September 2008
Description: Wastewater Treatment Plant Building (discharge point in middle foreground)
Photograph No. 4
Orientation: Southeast
Site: Madisonville Creosote Works
Date: 30 September 2008
Description: Highway 22 and fence line along north side of site
A-2
-------
Photograph No. 5 Site: Madisonville Creosote Works
Orientation: North Date: 30 September 2008
Description: Wastewater Treatment Plant Building (discharge point in middle foreground)
Photograph No. 6 Site: Madisonville Creosote Works
Orientation: Northeast (Wastewater treatment plant interior) Date: 30 September 2008
Description: Influent equalization tank (Tl)
A-3
-------
Photograph No. 7 Site: Madisonville Creosote Works
Orientation: North (Wastewater treatment plant interior) Date: 30 September 2008
Description: Oil/water Separator in rear (T2); oil/water separator holding tank in left foreground(T7)
Photograph No. 8 Site: Madisonville Creosote Works
Orientation: North (Wastewater treatment plant interior) Date: 30 September 2008
Description: PEP sand filtration tanks
A-4
-------
Photograph No. 9 Site: Madisonville Creosote Works
Orientation: Southwest (Wastewater treatment plant interior) Date: 30 September 2008
Description: Creosote holding tank; TIGG carbon filtration tanks in background to the right
Photograph No. 10 Site: Madisonville Creosote Works
Orientation: North (Wastewater treatment plant interior) Date: 30 September 2008
Description: Wastewater treatment plant programmable logic controllers (PLC) screen
A-5
-------
Photograph No. 11 Site: Madisonville Creosote Works
Orientation: North (Wastewater treatment plant interior) Date: 30 September 2008
Description: Wastewater treatment plant programmable logic controllers (PLC) screen
Photograph No. 12 Site: Madisonville Creosote Works
Orientation: West (Wastewater treatment plant interior) Date: 30 September 2008
Description: Skylight that required sealing following Hurricane Gustav (1 Sept 2008)
A-6
-------
Photograph No. 13 Site: Madisonville Creosote Works
Orientation: South-southeast Date: 30 September 2008
Description: Open pump vaults; note compressor building in center-right of photo
* .v ' Ti.-; L .>
Photograph No. 14 Site: Madisonville Creosote Works
Orientation: North Date: 30 September 2008
Description: Open pump vaults; sumps 3& 4 in foreground; 1&2 in background; note hoses from
compressor
A-7
-------
BS&r
Photograph No. 15 Site: Madisonville Creosote Works
Orientation: South Date: 30 September 2008
Description: Open pump vaults; Trench #1 riser on the left; #2 on the right
Photograph No. 16
Orientation: South-southeast
Site: Madisonville Creosote Works
Date: 30 September 2008
Description: Building housing compressor for pneumatic pumps
A-8
-------
Photograph No. 17
Orientation: South
Description: Interior of compressor building
Site: Madisonville Creosote Works
Date: 30 September 2008
Photograph No. 18 Site: Madisonville Creosote Works
Orientation: North-northeast Date: 30 September 2008
Description: Open vaults; note LDEQ air monitoring station in upper right background
A-9
-------
Photograph No. 19
Orientation: North
Description: Recovery trench #9 cleanout
Site: Madisonville Creosote Works
Date: 30 September 2008
Photograph No. 20 Site: Madisonville Creosote Works
Orientation: Northwest Date: 30 September 2008
Description: Monitoring well RA-5; note LDEQ air monitoring station in upper right cornert
A-10
-------
Photograph No. 21 Site: Madisonville Creosote Works
Orientation: North Date: 30 September 2008
Description: Monitoring well RA-5; note survey marker in upper right corner of slab
Photograph No. 22 Site: Madisonville Creosote Works
Orientation: South Date: 30 September 2008
Description: Survey marker for RA-5 showing coordinates and elevation
A-ll
-------
Photograph No. 23
Orientation: West
Description: Locked building for water well #1
Site: Madisonville Creosote Works
Date: 30 September 2008
Photograph No. 24
Orientation: West
Description: Water well #1
Site: Madisonville Creosote Works
Date: 30 September 2008
A-12
-------
Photograph No. 25
Orientation: West
Description: Road along inside of south edge of property
Site: Madisonville Creosote Works
Date: 30 September 2008
A-13
-------
Attachment 5
Fact Sheet and Notice
to the Public Regarding the
Five-Year Review
Madisonville Second 5-Year Review 1/13/2009
-------
P.O. Box 90, Covington, LA 70434
P.O. Box 910, Slidcll, LA 70459
CEBTIFICATE OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF LOUISIANA
PAIilSH OF ST. TAMMANY
Before we, the nndei'signcd authority, [tei'soiially en me and apjiemfd TEBBY MADDOX,
who after Ix^iiig duly sworn, did dejxtse and sny Hint he or she is the PUBLISHEB, of
ST. TAMMANY NEWS three times a week mMrs/;r of general ein-nhitioii is the
St. Tiunnmny Parish, iMiiisiaini, and that the following legal notice npfienred in the
ST. TAMMANY NEWS in its regular editions of:
\ .- u\
14
O AND SUBSCRIBED BEFOBE ME THIS.
A.D.
NOTARY PUBLIC
C,
yf-
-------
Madisonville Creosote Works Superfund Site
PUBLIC NOTICE
U.S. EPA Region 6 Begins Third Five-Year Reviews of Site Remedy
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6 (EPA) has begun the Second Five-
Year Review of the remedy for the Madisonville Creosote Works Superfund Site in St.
Tammany Parish near Madisonville, Louisiana. The Review will evaluate the ability of
the remedy to correct contamination problems and protect public health and the
environment. The site is located are located approximately 3 miles west of downtown
Madisonville on the southern side of Louisiana State Highway 22.
Once completed, the results of the Five-Year Review will be made available to the public at the following
Information Repository:
Madisonville Town Hall
403 St Francis Street
Madisonville, LA 70447
Information about the sites is also available on the Internet at
www.epa.gov/region6/superfund.
For more information about the Site, contact:
Ms. Laura Stankosky Mr. Rich Johnson
Remedial Project Manager (Mail Code 6SF-RL) Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6 Remediation Services Division
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200 P.O. Box 4314
Dallas, Texas 75202 Baton Rouge, LA 70821
Phone: (214) 665-7525 Phone: (225) 219-3200
E-mail Stankosky.Laura@epamail.epa.gov E-mail: Rich.Johnson(S)la.gov
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA Begins Five-year Review of
Site Remedy
Madisonville Creosote Works
St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana
October 2008
The five-year review is:
A regular inspection of a Superfund site;
Conducted at sites that need continued monitor-
ing;
. A way to determine if a cleanup is protecting pub-
lic health and the environment; and
. A chance for you to tell EPA about site activities.
Checking up on Superfund sites:
The five-year review
After a Superfund National Priorities List (NPL) site
cleanup action is completed, the U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (EPA) conducts regular inspections, called
five-year reviews, at selected Superfund sites. The EPA
has begun a five-year review for the Madisonville Creo-
sote Works Superfund Site, St. Tammany Parish, Louisi-
ana.
The Site consists of a defunct creosote wood treating facil-
ity and covers about 29 acres adjacent to the southern side
of Louisiana State Highway 22, about 3 miles west of
downtown Madisonville and 1.25 miles from the Madi-
sonville city limits. The cleanup was completed in May
2000. Cleanup consisted of Low Temperature Thermal
Desorption (LTTD) to address the creosote contamination
within the soil and steam sediment and to eliminate the
source of contamination for surface water. A recovery
trench system continues to be used to contain and recover
dense non-aqueous phase liquids within the ground water.
Institutional controls are in place to ensure that future in-
dividuals will not be exposed to remaining low level Site
contaminants. Ground water monitoring is conducted to
ensure the effectiveness of the cleanup remedy. The site is
currently in operation & maintenance status. The Louisi-
ana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) oper-
ates the recovery trench system and performs routine
monitoring.
Since wastes remain onsite at the Madisonville Creosote
Works Superfund Site above levels that allow for unre-
stricted use, EPA will perform site reviews at a minimum
of every five years to determine if the cleanup at the site is
still protecting public health and the environment.
During the review, EPA studies information on the site,
including the cleanup and the laws that apply, inspects the
site, and may interview people in the nearby area. The
EPA will consider any information or concerns that people
may have about the site during the review. If you are fa-
miliar with the site, you may know things that can help the
review team. Here are some examples:
. Broken fences, unusual odors, illegal dumping, or
other problems;
Buildings or land being used in new ways around the
site;
Any unusual activities at the site such as vandalism or
trespassing; and
How the cleanup at the site has helped the area.
This fact sheet will tell you more about five-year reviews.
The five-year review: protecting you and
the environment
The EPA's Remedial Project Manager (RPM) is working
with State and Federal scientists and engineers to evaluate
the site. The five-year review began on September 29,
2008. The RPM will collect information about the site
from a variety of sources including historic information.
The site will be inspected to see if the cleanup continues to
function properly and if it is well maintained. The RPM
will talk with local officials to see if they have any con-
cerns or if there have been any changes in local policy or
zoning that might affect the original cleanup. People who
live near the site, own businesses nearby, or work at the
site may also be contacted to see if they have any informa-
tion or concerns about the site. These people may be con-
tacted with a mailed survey, a phone call, or an interview.
The RPM plans to conduct interviews with the local offi-
cials and members of the community during Septem-
ber/October 2008. The RPM will use the information
collected to decide whether or not the cleanup continues to
be protective of human health and the environment.
A report will be made available to the public once the five-
year review is complete. The report will include historical
information on the site and cleanup activities, site inspec-
tion results, data review and analysis, conclusions and rec-
ommendations. A copy of the report will be made
available at Madisonville City Hall, St. Frances Street.
You will be notified when the report is finished.
-------
What happens after the review?
The EPA will insure that if any problems are identified by
the review, they will be addressed. Since wastes or con-
taminants that prevent unlimited use and unrestricted ex-
posure remain onsite, EPA will return every five years for
another review. The EPA and the State will also keep an
eye on the site between reviews. If at any time you have
concerns or questions about the site, let EPA know. You
can contact EPA through the RPM, at 1.800.533.3508
(Toil-Free Number).
For more information, please contact...
Laura Stankosky, Remedial Project Manager
U.S. EPA Region 6
214.665.7525 or 1.800.533.3508 (toll-free)
stankosky.laura@epa.gov
Donn Walters, EPA Public Liaison
U.S. EPA Region 6
214.665.6483 or 1.800.533.3508 (toll-free)
walters.donn@epa.gov
For news media inquires contact, David Bary or Tressa
Tillman, EPA Region 6 Press Office, at 214.665.2208
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
Rich Johnson
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
Environmental Technology Division
P.O. Box 4314
Baton Rouge, LA 70821-4314
225-219-3200
rich .j ohnson@la. gov
Information Repositories
Madisonville City Hall
St. Frances Street
Madisonville, LA
985.845.7311
U.S. EPA on the Internet
U.S. EPA Headquarters
www.epa.gov
U.S. EPA Region 6
www.epa.gov/region6
U.S. EPA Region 6 Superfund
www.epa.gov/region6/superfund
v>EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 6
1445 Ross Ave. (6SF-TS)
Dallas, TX 75202
------- |