: REDACTED VERSION
<
THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
FOR
MADISONVILLE CREOSOTE WORKS SUPERFUND SITE
ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA
February 2014
sx
(SzJ
Prepared by
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 6
Dallas, Texas
702776
-------
Determinations
The remcu;. at tnc Madisonvilie Creosote Works Super fund Site currently protects human health and the
environment. Lont- enr, protcctiveness of the remedial action will be assured by continuing to perform operation
and maintenance tO&M) in accordance with the Operation and Maintenance Plan (O&M Plan), that the dense
non-aqueous phase . .. ฆ , DNAPL) recovery trenches and the wastewater treatment piant (WWTP) are
maintained, grounc 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
maintained, and inr.itutional controls in the form of a deed notice continue to be enforced.
As a conip: nent of the next Five-Year Review to continue to evaluate long-term protcctiveness and
ensure that the rcmody remains protective of human health, benzene in soil should be re-evaluated to determine
the potential for benzene to cause a vapor intrusion risk.
Date
-------
CONCURRENCES:
THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
MADISONVILLE CREOSOTE WORKS SUPERFUND SITE
EPA IB NO. LAD981522998
Concur By: _ l,<. Dale:
Liura Siankosky
Ii.S. FFA, Region 6
Rcmeci si Project Manager
/f fn - 0 r-
Concur 3>: Date:
Cathy Cilmore
U.S. li~A, Region 6
Chief, LA, OK, NM Section, Superfund Reinedial Branch
Concur By:
Date:
JcftinlM .
U.W EPA, Region 6
Depul; Associate Director, Superfund Remedial Branch
ilai llH
/
//
y
Concur B^:
Cliarlc; 3'aultry '/
U.S. F?A, Region 6 7
Associate Director, Superfund Remedial Branch
Date: /V>'--
/
Concur Bv:
r1, r' _ _
Joseph Compton
U.S/L^A, Region 6
Site A .orney, Office of Regional Counsel
Concur
Mark. A. Peycke,
U.S. 11PA, Region 6
Chief Superfund Branch, Office of Regional Counsel
Date: '/W'H
D tie:
>ZJ(0
>hk_
Concur Bv:
Panic] i ฆ :~illips
I'.S ] Region 6
Assoc :j.te Director, Superfund Division
? /-ซ-) ll f h
Date;
-------
Table of Contents
List of Acronyms iii
Executive Summary 1
Five-Year Review Summary Form 2
I. Introduction 5
II. Site Chronology 6
III. Background 7
A. Physical Characteristics 7
B. Land and Resource Use 7
C. History of Contamination 7
D. Initial Response 8
E. Basis for Taking Action 9
IV. Remedial Actions 10
A. Remedy Selection 10
B. Remedy Implementation 11
C. System Operations/Operation and Maintenance 13
V. Progress Since the Last Five-Year Review 13
VI. Five-Year Review Process 14
A. Administrative Components 14
B. Community Involvement 14
C. Document Review 15
D. Data Review 15
E. Site Inspection 16
F. Interviews 17
VII. Technical Assessment 17
A. Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?17
B. Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial
action objectives (RAOs) used at the time of remedy selection still valid? 18
C. Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the
protectiveness of the remedy? 21
D. Technical Assessment Summary 21
VIII. Issues 22
IX. Recommendations and Follow-up Actions 22
X. Protectiveness Statement 23
XI. Next Review 23
i
-------
Tables
Table 1 - Chronology of Site Events
Table 2 - Issues Identified
Table 3 - Recommendations and Follow-up Actions
Attachments
Attachment 1 - Site Location Map and Site Layout Map
Attachment 2 - Tables Summarizing Monthly Operational Report Data
Attachment 3 - Announcement of the First Five-Year Review
Attachment 4 - List of Documents Reviewed
Attachment 5 - Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
Attachment 6 - Site Visit Checklist
Attachment 7 - Site Inspection Photographs
Attachment 8 - Interview Records
Attachment 9 - Institutional Controls
ii
-------
Mg
l-ig/L
AMP
ARAR
B(a)P
bgs
BOD
BTEX
CD
CDC
CERCLA
CFR
COC
COD
CWA
DNAPL
DO
EDW
EPA
FS
FSP
HASP
HRS
IASD
IC
IRIS
J
kg
L
LAC
LDEQ
LDNR
LNAPL
LPAC
LSWR
LTTD
m3
MCL
MCW
MCWI
mg/kg
mg/L
MW
NCP
List of Acronyms
Microgram
Microgram per liter
Air management plan
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement
Benzo(a)pyrene
Below Ground Surface
Biological oxygen demand
Benzene, Toluene, Ethyl Benzene, and Xylenes
Consent Decree
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
Code of Federal Regulations
Contaminant of Concern
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Clean Water Act
Dense nonaqueous phase liquid
Dissolved oxygen
Effluent discharge water
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6
Feasibility Study
Field sampling plan
Health and Safety Plan
Hazard Ranking System
Inactive and Abandoned Sites Division
Institutional Control
Integrated Risk Information System
Estimated
Kilogram
Liter
Louisiana Administrative Code
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
Louisiana Department of Natural Resources
Light Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid
Liquid Phase Activated Carbon
Louisiana Solid Waste Regulations
Low temperature thermal desorption
Cubic Meter
Maximum Contaminant Level
Madisonville Creosote Works
Madisonville Creosote Works, Inc.
Milligrams per kilogram
Milligrams per liter
Monitoring Well
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
111
-------
ND
Non-detect
NIOSH
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health
NPL
National Priorities List
NRHP
National Registry of Historic Places
NTU
Nephelometric turbidity unit
O&M
Operations and Maintenance
OSHA
Occupational Health and Safety Administration
OU
Operable unit
PAH
Poly cyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon
PM-10
Particulate matter smaller than 10 micrometers (|im) in diameter
PCOR
Preliminary Close Out Report
ppm
Parts Per Million
PRP
Potentially Responsible Party
QAPP
Quality Assurance Project Plan
RA
Remedial Action
RAC
Response Action Contract
RACR
Remedial Action Completion Report
RAO
Remedial Action Objective
RAWP
Remedial Action Work Plan
RCRA
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RD
Remedial Design
RI
Remedial Investigation
ROD
Record of Decision
RPM
Remedial Project Manager
SARA
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
SEMS, Inc.
Southern Environmental Management & Specialties
SH 22
Louisiana State Highway 22
Site
Madisonville Creosote Works Superfund Site
svoc
Semivolatile organic compound
TBC
To be considered
U
Not Present at or Above the Associated Limit
VOC
Volatile organic compound
WWTP
Wastewater treatment plant
IV
-------
Executive Summary
The Madisonville Creosote Works Superfund Site (MCW Site or Site) is located adjacent to the southern
side of Louisiana State Highway 22 (SH 22), about three 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.
EPA signed the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Site on August 25, 1998. The selected remedy for
Operable Unit (OU) 01 included (1) the excavation and treatment of contaminated soil and sediments using low
temperature thermal desorption (LTTD) technologies, (2) installing a dense non-aqueous 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. Operation and maintenance (O&M) of the DNAPL collection system and wastewater treatment
plant is ongoing.
The MCW Site achieved construction completion with the signing of the Preliminary Close Out Report
on June 16, 2000. The trigger for this five-year review was the site mobilization and the actual start of
construction on January 11, 1999.
The assessment of this five-year review found that the remedy was constructed in accordance with the
requirements of the ROD. The MCW Site is currently protective of human health and the environment. Long-term
protectiveness of the remedial action will be assured by continuing to perform O&M in accordance with the
Operation and Maintenance Plan (O&M Plan), that the 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 institutional controls in the form of a deed notice continue to be enforced.
However, as a component of the next Five-Year Review and to continue to evaluate long-term
protectiveness, benzene in soil should be re-evaluated to determine the potential for benzene to cause a vapor
intrusion risk.
1
-------
Five-Year Review Summary Form
SITE IDENTIFICATION
Site Name: Madisonville Creosote Works Superfund Site (Site)
EPA ID:
LAD981522998
Region: 6
NPL Status: Final
State: LA
City/County: Madisonville/St. Tammany Parish
SITE STATUS
Multiple OUs?
No
Has the site achieved construction completion?
Yes
Lead agency: EPA
If "Other Federal Agency" was selected above, enter Agency name:
Author name (Federal or State Project Manager): Laura Stankosky
Author affiliation: EPA
Review period: April 2013 - February 2014
Date of site inspection: September 17, 2013
Type of review: Statutory
Review number: 3
Triggering action date: February 26, 2009
Due date (five years after triggering action date): February 26, 2014
2
-------
Five-Year Review Summary Form (continued)
Issues/Recommendations
OU(s) without Issues/Recommendations Identified in the Five-Year Review:
None.
Issues and Recommendations Identified in the Five-Year Review:
OU(s): Site
Issue Category: Remedy Performance
Issue: Benzene is a compound found in creosote. The vapor intrusion
potential of benzene at the Site was not evaluated during the Remedial
Investigation.
Recommendation: The only buildings currently at the Site are the
wastewater treatment plant and an air monitoring station maintained by
the state. While these buildings are only occupied during the Site
Managers periodic visits or state maintenance at the air monitoring station,
if Site reuse included more continuously occupied buildings, vapor
intrusion may pose a risk. As a component of the next Five-Year Review
to continue to evaluate long-term protectiveness and ensure that the
remedy remains protective of human health, benzene in soil should be re-
evaluated to determine the potential for benzene to cause a vapor
intrusion risk.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Implementing
Party
Oversight
Party
Milestone Date
No
Yes
EPA/State
EPA/State
March 2019
Protectiveness Statement(s)
Operable Unit: Protectiveness Determination: Addendum Due Date
Site Protective (if applicable):
Not Applicable
Protectiveness Statement:
See Sitewide Protectiveness Statement
Sitewide Protectiveness Statement (if applicable)
Protectiveness Determination: Addendum Due Date (if applicable):
Protective Not Applicable
Protectiveness Statement:
The remedy at the Madisonville Creosote Works Superfund Site currently protects human
health and the environment. Long-term protectiveness of the remedial action will be assured
by continuing to perform O&M in accordance with the O&M Plan, that the DNAPL recovery
3
-------
trenches and the 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
institutional controls in the form of a deed notice continue to be enforced.
However, as a component of the next Five-Year Review to continue to evaluate long-term
protectiveness and ensure that the remedy remains protective of human health, benzene in
soil should be re-evaluated to determine the potential for benzene to cause a vapor intrusion
risk.
4
-------
Madisonville Creosote Works Superfund Site
Madisonville, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana
Third Five-Year Review Report
I. Introduction
The purpose of the five-year review is to determine whether the remedy at a site is protective of human
health and the environment. The methods, findings, and conclusions of reviews are documented in Five-Year
Review reports. In addition, Five-Year Review reports identify issues found during the review, if any, and
identify recommendations to address them.
The Agency is preparing this Five-Year Review report pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Section 121(e), 42 U.S.C. ง 9621(e) and the National Oil
and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR Part 400. CERCLA Section 121(e) 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. In
addition, if upon such review it is the judgment of the President that action is appropriate at
such site in accordance with section [104] [42 U.S.C. ง 9604] or [106][42 U.S.C.ง 9606], the
President shall take or require such action. The President shall report to the Congress a list of
facilities for which such review is required, the results of all such reviews, and any actions
taken as a result of such reviews.
The Agency interpreted this requirement further in the NCP; 40 Code of Federal Regulations
ง300.430(f)(4)(ii) states:
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 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 6, conducted the five-year review of
the remedy implemented at the MCW Site, Madisonville, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana. This review was
conducted by the Remedial Project Manager (RPM) for the Site, supported by Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality project manager and Southern Environmental Management & Specialties (SEMS, Inc.)
site manager, from April 2013 to November 2013. This report documents the results of the review.
This is the third five-year review for the MCW Site. The triggering action for this statutory review is the
completion of the second Five-Year Review completed on February 26, 2009. The five-year review is required
due to the fact that hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at the Site above levels that allow for
unlimited use and unrestricted exposure.
5
-------
II. Site Chronology
A chronology of site events for the MCW Site is provided below in Table 1.
Table 1 - Chronology of Site Events
Event
Date
Wood preserving operations begin at the site
1956-1957
Site discovery
July 22, 1994
Initial residential water sampling
March 14, 1996
Initiation of Remedial Investigation
March 26, 1996
Proposed inclusion on the National Priorities List
June 17, 1996
Open house with community concerning site activities
September 10, 1996
Removal action
September 23, 1996-
January 9, 1997
Ecological evaluation report
November 12, 1996
Final NPL listing
December 23, 1996
Feasibility Study initiated
January 17,1997
Open house with community concerning site activities
February 6, 1997
Human Health Risk and Ecological Screening Risk
Assessments
March 27, 1997
Community Relations Plan complete
August 1997
RI report complete
September 26, 1997
RI supplemental sampling report
October 24, 1997
Feasibility Study completed
November 18, 1997
Proposed Plan community meeting
March 26, 1998
Open house with community concerning site activities
March 28, 1998
Record of Decision issued
August 25, 1998
Remedial Action initiated
January 1999
Community bulletin provided
February 11, 1999
Pre-final inspection
April 20, 2000
Preliminary Close Out Report signed
June 16, 2000
Official construction completion ceremony
July 27, 2000
Groundwater maintenance and operation by EPA
July 2000 - August 2001
State operation and maintenance begins
September 1, 2001
Remedial Action Completion Report submitted
September 28, 2001
First Five Year Review report signed
March 1, 2004
Second Five Year Review report signed
February 26, 2009
Mail-out of Third Five-Year Review fact sheet
September 2013
Public Notice of Third Five-Year Review
September 18, 2013
6
-------
III. Background
A. Physical Characteristics
The Site 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 MCW Site covers approximately 29 acres in Section 42, Township 7S, Range 10E, St. Tammany
Parish, in southeastern Louisiana. 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).
An aerial photograph of the MCW Site and surrounding area (See Figure 1) and a site layout map (See
Figure 2) are provided in Attachment 1.
B. Land and Resource Use
The area surrounding the Site is predominantly rural and wooded. During the site visit, three or more
residences were noted adjacent to the Site on the west side of the Site and a new residential housing development
was noted adjacent to the Site on the east side.
Prior to the establishment of wood-treating operations, the MCW 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.
As stated in the Feasibility Study report for the Site, 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 MCW Site; however,
no endangered species have been documented within the study area. During the Remedial Investigation (RI), an
exceptionally large live oak (Quercus virginiana) tree was identified. 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. A registration form was completed and submitted to The Live Oak Society, thereby
protecting the tree under the constitution and by-laws of the society.
The district surrounding the Site is primarily zoned as rural, but large tracts within 1 mile of the Site are
zoned for suburban use. Subdivisions have been developed or 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.
C. 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. 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
7
-------
sediment sludge from the treatment of wastewater from wood-preserving processes that use creosote. Waste code
F034 applies to wastewater, process residuals, preservative dripping, 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.
Starting in 1974 or prior, 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. A post-closure maintenance and monitoring plan was
required due to the presence of ground water contamination.
D. Initial Response
Based on the results from preliminary assessments and sampling, EPA initiated RI activities at the Site in
March 1996 to determine the nature and extent of the contamination. In June 1996, EPA proposed that the Site be
included on the National Priorities List (NPL). In December 1996, EPA announced that the Site had been added
to the NPL.
During the RI activities, a Time-Critical Removal Action (TCRA) was conducted concurrently. The 1996
EPA TCRA 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.
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 Site. 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.
The area of St. Tammany Parish is located in the Gulf Coastal plain physiographic province. 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 Site 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 and saturated zones are described as the following:
8
-------
Surface soils or fill materials from approximately ground surface to 2 feet below ground surface;
Shallow clayey-silt from approximately just below surface soils to 25 feet bgs (the first saturated zone is
located within this matrix);
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 RI 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 MCW Site, composed of these three saturated zones, is not viable for domestic or
industrial purposes. 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 first shallow saturated zone layer
is perched above the intermediate layer with flow directions and gradient varying from the southeast and
northwest; water in the lower two saturated zones flows to the south-southwest.
The eight major aquifers that underlie the site area (in descending order) are: the Shallow, Upper
Ponchatoula, Lower Ponchatoula, Abita, Covington, Tchefuncte, Hammond, and Amite (USGS 1994). Of the
eight major aquifers that underlie the site area, the viable aquifers, not associated with the saturated zones at the
Site, for domestic and industrial water usage were identified during the RI 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.
On March 3, 1998, EPA released a Proposed Plan (US EPA, 1998) for a 30-day public comment period.
The Proposed Plan provided a detailed summary and discussion of the risks present at the MCW Site, the
remedial objectives established for the Site, and an analysis of remedial alternatives. The EPA held a Proposed
Plan community meeting on March 26, 1998, to present EPA's recommended course of action. An open house
was conducted to share information with the community on activities relating to the MCW Site on March.28,
1998. Comments were received from the public and addressed in the responsiveness summary. The LDEQ
submitted a letter July 13, 1998, addressing the Proposed Plan and concurring with the preferred alternative.
The creosote contamination was the object of considerable public interest in Madisonville. As a result, the
EPA Community Involvement Coordinator and the RPM conducted an active campaign to ensure that the
residents were well-informed about the activities at the MCW Site. Community involvement activities included:
public meetings and open house functions, updates to town officials, routine distribution of fact sheets and
community bulletins, and a final close-out meeting and site tour when construction activities were completed.
E. Basis for Taking Action
Contaminants
Hazardous substances that have been released at the Site include (EPA, 1998):
Soil Sediment
Benzo[a]pyrene (B[a]P) Benzo[a]pyrene
B[a]P equivalents B[a]P equivalents
Heptachlor epoxide
9
-------
Groundwater
Benzo[a]pyrene
B[a]P equivalents
Surface Water
Benzo[a]pyrene
B[a]P equivalents
The principal threats at the MCW Site were the creosote polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), which
includes Benzo[a]pyrene and B[a]P equivalents. Principal threat wastes 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).
Based on the data collected during the RI, 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 endangerment to 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 PAHs.
IV. Remedial Actions
A. Remedy Selection
On August 25, 1998, the EPA Regional Administrator signed a ROD for the Site. Remedial Action
Objectives (RAOs) were developed for site soil, sediment, surface water, and groundwater. The RAOs are shown
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.
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 1x10-6 due to 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 MCW Site:
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
The remedy selected in the ROD addressed contamination in the soil, sediment, surface water, and
groundwater at the MCW 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;
10
-------
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.
B. Remedy Implementation
The Remedial Design (RD) was completed by EPA's contractor, Tetra-Tech, and submitted to EPA on
September 28, 1998. Tetra-Tech performed Remedial Action (RA) activities for EPA under the Response Action
Contract (RAC).
Construction began on January 14, 1999. RA activities included the following:
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, storm water
holding basin, sound barrier wall, and secondary sound barrier,
Thermal treatment of contaminated soils, hauling and disposing of hazardous and nonhazardous debris
off-site, backfilling excavated areas on-property, restoration and final grading of Site, planting of
perimeter tree buffer, and improving the site storm water drainage, and
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 for semivolatile 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 RI 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 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 RI and RD, the complete removal of off-
property contaminated sediment has been accomplished (Tetra-Tech 1997, 1998).
11
-------
Treated Waste Sampling - Using the procedures identified in the Field Sampling Plan (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 MCW 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 Sampling - During 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 3. At the WWTP, extracted fluids are collected
at the equalization tank (T-l). 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 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- IB). 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
12
-------
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.
C. System Operations/Operation and Maintenance
After the construction phase of the RA was 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 MCW site, and official O&M activities began at that time.
The contractors for LDEQ conduct weekly inspections and subsequent maintenance of the MCW site.
The three active monitoring wells at the MCW 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. The well completed at the
shallowest depth is monitored once per six months and the deeper wells are monitored once per year.
Around the time of the second Five-Year Review, the LDEQ re-bid the O&M contract. The company that
was awarded the O&M contract by the state required safety upgrades at the Site to protect worker health and
safety. While the O&M costs are higher than estimated in the ROD, in addition to the safety upgrades, the
contractor has implemented DNAPL Recovery System changes to improve DNAPL capture and improve the
maintenance of the electrical components of the system.
V. Progress Since the Last Five-Year Review
This section reviews the protectiveness statement and issues and recommendations from the last Five-
Year Review, which was the second Five-Year Review for the MCW Site. The status of the recommendations
made in that report are also reviewed and discussed.
The protectiveness statement from the last Five-Year Review is given as follows: "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."
The previous Five-Year Review report stated that the remedy continues to be protective of human health
and the environment in the short term. Five issues, however, were identified that could have potentially affected
future protectiveness. A summary of the issues from the last 5-Year Review and actions taken at the MCW Site
since the previous Five-Year Review are given below:
1) Issue - The effluent discharge limits from the WWTP have been occasionally exceeded.
Action - The LDEQ contractor now ensures that effluent criteria are met before release of the effluent.
Any exceedences are now discussed in the monthly report along with measures to prevent reoccurrence.
2) Issue - DNAPL may stand in the recovery trench system piping because of plugging with the potential of
related migration to the lower aquifers.
Action - The LDEQ contractor has instituted a program for regular cleaning of the piping. Additionally,
all electrical components have been moved out of the vaults and into the pump shed. This reduced issues
caused by excess water or flooding in vaults. The pumps have been changed to pneumatic pumps. The
13
-------
pump risers are elevated above the ground water level so ground water does not enter as easily.
3) Issue - The ground water analytical data show that detection limits for PAHs are higher than their
maximum contaminant levels (MCLs).
Action - LDEQ and its contractor worked with analytical laboratory to ensure that the
detection/analytical levels are at or below the respective MCLS for PAHs.
4) Issue - 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.
Action - Metals have been removed from routine analysis. Metals were not used in the wood treating
process. The principal threat at the Site is the risk of carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic effects for a future
on-site resident exposed to PAHs in the soil and ground water. The Notice of Conveyance (discussed
further in Section VILA.) describes that the Site was closed with contaminant levels present that are
acceptable for industrial/commercial use.
5) Issue - The annual sampling of wells MW-1 and MW-2, and the semiannual sampling of well RA-5 has
not been consistently carried out. 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.
Action - The monthly report now notes if sampling could not be carried out due to catastrophic weather
events and also notes when the wastewater treatment system is down for maintenance activities.
6) Issue - Naphthalene is now considered a carcinogenic compound which may change its toxicity
characteristic.
Action - In addition to the random naphthalene hits identified during the second five-year review period,
naphthalene was identified in one sample for well RA-5 during this five-year review period. Naphthalene
hits over the past ten (10) years have been random and only one hit was identified during this five-year
review period with a very low measurement, Additional discussion and potential follow-up work is
presented in Section VI.D.
VI. Five-Year Review Process
A. Administrative Components
This third five-year review was led by Ms. Laura Stankosky, EPA RPM for the Site. LDEQ and state
contractor personnel assisted in the review process. The representative from LDEQ was Mr. John Halk, State
Project Manager for the Site. The LDEQ contractor for site O&M is SEMS, Inc.; present from SEMS Inc. for the
five-year review site inspection were Brian Sullivan, Project Manager, Rick Tibbs, Site Manager, and Darren
McKenzie, Field Technician.
From April 2013 through September 2013, the review team established the review schedule, which
included the following components:
Document review
Site inspection/technology review
Interviews
ARARs review
Data review
Five-Year Review Report development and review.
B. Community Involvement
The area around the MCW Site has experienced considerable growth since the last five-year review. A
housing development was built adjacent to the Site on the east side. A fact sheet announcing initiation of the third
Five-Year Review was mailed to an updated mailing list that included residents at an approximately one-mile
14
-------
radius from the Site. Additionally, fact sheets were left at the Madisonville Town Hall and at the library during
the site visit. A notice was published in the St. Tammany Farmer on September 18, 2013.
Upon signature, the Five-Year Review will be placed in the information repository for the MCW Site and,
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.
During the site inspection interviews were conducted with both the Madisonville Town Clerk and the
reference librarian at the Madisonville Branch of the St. Tammany Parish Library, discussed further in Section
VI.F, below. The site repository had been located at the Madisonville Town Hall after Hurricane Katrina severely
damaged the old Madisonville Branch of the St. Tammany Parish Library. In preparation for Hurricane Isaac in
2012, the Madisonville Town Hall moved town documents out into storage for records preservation. Since
Hurricane Isaac and after the passing of the former Town Clerk the site repository records have not been
relocated. The EPA Community Involvement Coordinator will work with the reference librarian at the
Madisonville Branch of the St. Tammany Parish Library to reestablish the site repository documents.
A copy of the first public notice announcing the five-year review start and the Community Notification
fact sheet are provided as Attachment 3 to this report.
C. Document Review
The five-year review included a review of relevant decision documents, implementation documents,
remedy performance documents, and legal documents. The review included, among other documents, the:
(1) ROD, (2) RD, (3) RA Report, (4) PCOR, (5) monthly reports, (6) O&M Plan, (7) previous Five-Year
Reviews, and (8) Institutional Controls (ICs). Documents reviewed are provided in Attachment 4.
D. Data Review
Review of the Monthly Operational Reports, covering the time period from January 2009 through
September 2013, provided information on volumes of extracted and treated groundwater, chemical analytical
results for groundwater sampled from monitoring wells at the MCW Site and treated groundwater (effluent). The
extracted quantities taken from these monthly reports were tabulated as shown in Table 1 of Attachment 2. As
shown in the table, monthly extraction volumes have ranged from no extraction due to maintenance and system
upgrade to 24,000 gallons. The average monthly extraction volume is approximately 10,500 gallons. Monthly
recovered DNAPL volumes have ranged from no recovery to 350 gallons in April 2010. The average monthly
recovered DNAPL volume is approximately 139 gallons.
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, and the updated O&M
Project Specifications, dated July 2010, list sampling frequency for the effluent as well as parameters for analysis.
The effluent is to be sampled once a month for semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), and other parameters (biological oxygen demand (BOD) 5-day, chemical oxygen demand
(COD), chloride, sulfate, oil & grease, total dissolved solids, total suspended solids, turbidity, pH, and dissolved
oxygen). Site data from January 2009 through September 2013 were reviewed; there were three (3) monthly
reports that did not contain analytical results for the effluent water. During the months with no analytical data the
collection and treatment system were off-line due to mechanical and/or maintenance activities. Those months
were February and December 2009, and March 2010.
For the parameters listed in Table 2 of Attachment 2, exceedences of the effluent limitations were seen for
BOD, COD, and turbidity. The BOD and COD exceedences appear to be low frequency and random with no
apparent pattern. Turbidity has been elevated 13 months out of the five-year review period, with most
15
-------
exceedences occurring during 2009 and 2010 after periods of maintenance activities. For SVOCs and VOCs, there
were limited detections over this review period: 4/2009 - chloroform; 1/2011 - methylene chloride; 2/2011 -
fluoranthene; All of these detections were well below effluent limitations. The presence of methylene chloride
may be an artifact of sample collection, transport, laboratory storage, or analysis.
Groundwater is sampled from RA-5 once every six months and from MW-1 and MW-2 once per year.
For SVOCs and VOCs, there were limited detections over this review period. All detections were in well RA-5:
7/2011 - naphthalene; 6/2012 - bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate and phenol; 12/2012 - phenol. Analysis of the data
showed no discernible trends. The presence of bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate, a common plasticizer, may be an
artifact of sample collection, transport, laboratory storage, or analysis. There was one "J-flagged" hit of
naphthalene on July 11, 2011 in the Well RA-5 ground water sample. A "J-flagged" analytical result if an
estimated value for the analyte that is below the adjusted reporting limit but above the instrument reporting limit.
The result was 5.38 J parts per billion (ppb); the detection level was 10 ppb. The remainder of the analytical
results were "no measurable" naphthalene at the 10 ppb detection level for all other twice yearly results.
Well RA-5 is sampled differently than the method used for Wells 1 and 2. Wells 1 and 2 are sampled via
low flow (minimal drawdown) ground water sampling; Well RA-5 is sampled from a spigot at the WWTP
building. RA-5 was connected to the WWTP at the end of the RA to be a water supply to the WWTP. There is a
likely possibility that the low naphthalene hit may be due to contamination introduced the sampling process. The
LDEQ Project Manager will work with his Site Manager to determine if naphthalene may be getting into the RA-
5 sample from operation of the pump that powers the RA-5 well spigot or introduced through other routes. All of
the operational components of RA-5 are associated with or located within the WWTP. The WWTP has tanks and
containers treating the water from the DNAPL Recovery System vaults and also recovered creosote/DNAPL
being storage awaiting disposal. LDEQ will look into sampling protocols, status of the WWTP during sampling,
and possibly taking some extra RA-5 samples to determine a cause for the random low-level naphthalene hits.
E. Site Inspection
An inspection was conducted at the MCW Site on September 17, 2013. The completed site inspection
checklist is provided in Attachment 5. 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 site logs, documents,
and records were reviewed. Photographs taken during the site inspection are provided in Attachment 6. 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 site inspection participants were: Ms. Laura Stankosky, EPA RPM for the Site; Mr. Bill Little, EPA
Community Involvement Coordinator; Mr. John Halk, LDEQ Project Manager for the Site; and from the LDEQ
contractor for the Site, SEMS, Inc, Brian Sullivan, Project Manager, Rick Tibbs, Site Manager, and Darren
McKenzie, Field Technician.
Issues specifically identified or evaluated during the site inspection included: 1) The vault covers have
been modified due to worker safety concerns. The vault covers were very heavy and required two individuals for
lifting the covers. The metal covers have been cut to be made smaller and wooden slat covers have been place on
either side the metal cover. The wooden slat vault covers have small gaps in between the boards that may allow
small terrestrial animals; rodents, lizards, snakes, etc., to fall through and into the vault; and 2) A housing
development has been constructed adjacent to the Site to the east since the last Five-Year Review. A resident
requested additional vegetation removal along the property fence line so that she would not have an obstructed
view and to reduce the occurrence of rats, mice, and snakes living in brush so close to her home. The work was
completed in August 2013.
16
-------
F. Interviews
In accordance with the community involvement requirements of the five-year review process, key
individuals to be surveyed were identified by EPA. Completed survey forms for the following individuals are
included in Attachment 7:
John Halk: State Project Manager - LDEQ
Rick Tibbs: State Contractor Representative, Site Manager
Joyce Core: Madisonville Town Clerk
Maria Reyes: St. Tammany Parish Library, Madisonville Branch, Reference Librarian
Janice Sapia: homeowner
Overall, the responses received were positive. Responding interviewees indicated they were not aware of
any trespassing or vandalism and they did not know of any negative impacts on the community. Both the
Madisonville Town Clerk and the St. Tammany Parish Library, Madisonville Branch, Reference Librarian were
new to the area and were not very familiar with the MCW Site but felt more informed after reviewing the fact
sheet.
Ms. Sapia appreciated the additional vegetation clearing that was completed by the LDEQ contractor
separating her backyard from the Site. She indicated that some of her neighbors may also want their fence lines
cleared. Her concerns about soil contamination were addressed during the interview.
After mail out of the fact sheet, EPA received several email inquiries from local homeowners unfamiliar
with the MCW Site. Responses to the inquiries were coordinated with LDEQ. While many of the homeowners
expressed concerns living near the Site, one homeowner conveyed appreciation at the fast and thorough response
from EPA and no feedback was received from most of the homeowner inquiries.
VII. Technical Assessment
A. Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?
RA Performance
Based on the review of documents, data, ARARs, and the findings of the site inspection, the components
of the selected remedy, listed in Section IV.A., are functioning as intended by the ROD (EPA, 1998). The RAOs
required by the ROD included preventing the direct contact/ingestion with soil, sediment, surface water, and
ground water containing creosote PAHs that are considered highly toxic and present a significant risk to human
health or the environment should an exposure occur.
The LTTD addressed the principal threats wastes at the MCW Site. Cleanup of creosote liquid source
materials located in contaminated soil and sediment prevents direct contact/ingestion and removed this principal
threat to human health and the environment. Operation of the DNAPL recovery system contains and recovers
creosote source materials within the shallow saturated zone to prevent any migration of contaminants into the
viable aquifers and continues to reduce and/or eliminate the source contaminants.
17
-------
System Operations/O&M
The MCW Site appears to be well run and functioning as intended. The first 5-Year Review described an
issue with the trench collection pipes needing to be cleaned out and flushed. LDEQ used this opportunity for
optimization and now has instituted a program to regularly inspect these pipes to prevent them from clogging.
Significant electrical and pump work was performed in 2009 and 2010.
Implementation of Institutional Controls and Other Measures
Institutional Controls (ICs) are generally defined as non-engineered instruments such as administrative
and legal tools that do not involve construction or physically changing the Site and that help minimize the
potential for human exposure to contamination and/or protect the integrity of a remedy by limiting land and/or
resource use. ICs can be used for many reasons including restriction of site use, modifying behavior, and
providing information to individuals (EPA, 2000a). ICs may include easements, covenants, restrictions or other
conditions on deeds, and/or groundwater and/or land use restriction documents.
The LDEQ filed a Conveyance Notice 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 MCW 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 33:1., 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. A copy of the Conveyance Notice is included in Attachment 8.
Monitoring Activities
Groundwater monitoring activities were evaluated in the Data Review (See Section VI.D ). The Site
ground water wells are monitored for VOC and SVOC constituents. Review of the data indicates that no site
contamination has migrated below the saturated zones at the Site. Ground water will continue to be monitored as a
part of the O&M activities.
Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Failure
No early indications of problems were noted.
B. Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action
objectives (RAOs) used at the time of remedy selection still valid?
Changes in standards and To Be Considereds
The ROD (EPA, 1998) identified applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) for the
MCW Site.
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.
18
-------
The 1998 ROD 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.
The O&M manual requires 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 xylenes (BTEX). The ground water analytical data from the second Five-Year Review
showed detection levels for PAHs higher than their maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). LDEQ and its
contractor worked with the analytical laboratory to ensure that the detection/analytical levels are at or below the
respective MCLS for PAHs.
The soil cleanup levels for the MCW Site 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
remain protective.
Benzene is a compound found in creosote. The vapor intrusion potential of benzene at the Site was not
evaluated during the RI. The only buildings currently at the Site are the wastewater treatment plant and an air
monitoring station maintained by the state. While these buildings are only occupied during the Site Manager's
periodic visits or state maintenance at the air monitoring station, if site reuse included more continuously
occupied buildings, vapor intrusion may pose a risk. As a component of the next Five-Year Review to continue to
evaluate long-term protectiveness and ensure that the remedy remains protective of human health, benzene in soil
should be re-evaluated to determine the potential for benzene to cause a vapor intrusion risk.
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 RA Completion Report, neither the on-property nor the off-property portions of the
MCW Site lie within the 100- or 500-year floodplain. Therefore, the Floodplain Management Order was
determined as 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 that are applicable to the
Site since the 1998 MCW ROD was issued.
19
-------
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 from the MCW RA applicable to O&M at the MCW Site are identified and
discussed below:
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 RA Completion Report, 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.
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 MCW Site 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 MCW Site 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 RA
Completion Report, 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 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 2009 through October 2013 are discussed in Section VI.D. with BOD5-day, COD, chloride, sulfate,
oil & grease, total dissolved solids, total suspended solids, turbidity, pH, and dissolved oxygen results
also listed in Table 3.
Overall, the DNAPL recovery system appears to be meeting most effluent discharge limitations.
Recommended changes were described in the second Five-Year Review for the monthly operating reports. The
monthly reports have been expanded in accordance with the reporting requirements detailed in the O&M manual.
The monthly operating report has been expanded to address reported exceedences, to evaluate overall operation of
the system and provide recommendations for corrective actions, if necessary; and address the validity and/or data
qualifiers for laboratory data.
20
-------
Changes in Exposure Pathways, Toxicity, and Other Contaminant Characteristics
There have been no changes in toxicity characteristics or other contaminant characteristics for the MCW
Site that would impact the protectiveness of the remedy with the possible exception of naphthalene. Naphthalene
is now considered a carcinogenic compound; however, naphthalene does not have a quantitative estimate of
carcinogenic risk from oral or inhalation exposure. There has been no change to the standardized risk assessment
methodology or land use that could affect the current protectiveness of the remedy. The exposure pathways
evaluated in the ROD included trespassers, current and future residents, and recreational users. The ICs prevent
the occurrence of the residential use scenario; the residential exposure pathway is no longer a reasonably
anticipated future land use.
An evaluation of possible vapor intrusion has been considered for this MCW 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 the Site at this time due to the lack of volatile organics detected
in the groundwater and the distance from the Site of the nearest residences. The only buildings currently at the
Site are the wastewater treatment plant and an air monitoring station maintained by the state. While these
buildings are only occupied during the Site Manager's periodic visits or state maintenance at the air monitoring
station, if site reuse included more continuously occupied buildings, vapor intrusion may pose a risk. As a
component of the next Five-Year Review to continue to evaluate long-term protectiveness and ensure that the
remedy remains protective of human health, benzene in soil should be re-evaluated to determine the potential for
benzene to cause a vapor intrusion risk.
C. Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the
protectiveness of the remedy?
The Madisonville area has been impacted by hurricanes in the past; impact to the geographical area
continues to be a risk. There was minimal impact on the MCW Site from Hurricane Isaac in 2012. No new or
previously unidentified risks were identified during the site inspection. No other information has come to light as
part of this Third Five-Year Review for the Site that would call into question the protectiveness of the site
remedy.
D. Technical Assessment Summary
According to the data reviewed, the site inspection, and the interviews, the remedy is functioning as
intended by the ROD. There have been no changes in the physical conditions of the Site that would affect the
protectiveness of the remedy. However, as a component of the next Five-Year Review to continue to evaluate
long-term protectiveness and ensure that the remedy remains protective of human health, benzene in soil should
be re-evaluated to determine the potential for benzene to cause a vapor intrusion risk. There is no other
information that calls into question the protectiveness of the remedy.
21
-------
VIII. Issues
Table 7 summarizes the issues for the MCW Site.
Table 7 - Issues
Issue
Currently
Affects
Protectiveness
(Yes/No)
Affects Future
Protectiveness
(Yes/No)
Vapor Intrusion Potential - Benzene is a compound found in creosote.
The vapor intrusion potential of benzene at the Site was not evaluated
during the RI.
No
Yes
IX. Recommendations and Follow-up Actions
Table 8 summarizes the recommendations and follow-up actions for the MCW Site.
Table 8 - Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions
Affects
Issue
Recommendations/
Party
Oversight
Milestone
Protectiveness?
Follow-up Actions
Responsible
Agency
Date
(Yes/No)
Current
Future
Vapor
The only buildings
LDEQ/EPA
EPA
2019
No
Yes
Intrusion
currently at the Site are the
Potential
wastewater treatment plant
and an air monitoring
station maintained by the
state. While these
buildings are only
occupied during the Site
Managers periodic visits
or state maintenance at the
air monitoring station, if
Site reuse included more
continuously occupied
buildings, vapor intrusion
may pose a risk. As a
component of the next
Five-Year Review to
continue to evaluate long-
term protectiveness and
ensure that the remedy
remains protective of
human health, benzene in
soil should be re-evaluated
to determine the potential
for benzene to cause a
vapor intrusion risk.
22
-------
X. Protectiveness Statement
The remedy at the Madisonville Creosote Works Superfund Site currently protects human health and the
environment. Long-term protectiveness of the remedial action will be assured by continuing to perform O&M in
accordance with the O&M Plan, that the DNAPL recovery trenches and the 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 institutional
controls in the form of a deed notice continue to be enforced.
However, as a component of the next Five-Year Review to continue to evaluate long-term protectiveness
and ensure that the remedy remains protective of human health, benzene in soil should be re-evaluated to
determine the potential for benzene to cause a vapor intrusion risk.
XI. Next Review
The Madisonville Creosote Works Superfund Site requires ongoing five-year reviews. The next, or
fourth, five-year review shall be conducted no later than five years from the date of the Superfund Division
Director's signature of this Third Five-Year Review Report.
23
-------
ATTACHMENTS
-------
ATTACHMENT 1
Site Location Map and Site Layout Map
-------
Figure 1
Madisonville Creosote Works Site and Surrounding Area
Aerial Photograph
-------
LEGEND
~ HOMirORMG WEIL
ง3 VAULT FOR MAPI. THEKCH VERTICAL RISER
DNAPL TRENCH CUANOUT
RURED DNAPL TRANSFER HPE
" GHIRED ELECTRICAL CONDUIT AND APPURTENANCES (AS-1AEEUD)
. DtUPI. RECOVERY TRENCH SYSTEM
DHE OVERHEAD ELECTRIC
UOE: UNDERGROUND EUCTRK
' SECURTTY FENCMG
PROPERTY BOUNDMIY
GRAVEL HAUL ROADS AND RUKIMG AREAS
CULVERT
REGISTERED LIVE OAK TREE
SCALE IN FEET
MADISONVILLE CREOSOTE WORKS
ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA
FIGURE 2
SITE LAYOUT MAP
PREPARED FOR:
&EPA
Ma Bi m fc*
-------
SCALE M FST
o
EQUALIZATION A
TANK VW
T1
o
o
o
DRAINAGE SUMP
DNAPL STORAGE TANK
T3
iO
SPILL
CONTAINMENT
BOX
2
111
ฎ
I-
ซ
k_
ฉ
G3
ฃ
1 ฃ
Sjo.Eiso
3
111 >-*
cd
KJ
I "
. E ฎ
SIS
ฃ* =
Si!
I c
Ss
So.
o ฆ
ฎ:
S;
y S
P
|S
9 ฐ
<
-------
ATTACHMENT 2
Tables Summarizing Monthly Operational Report Data
-------
Table 1-WWTP Volumes
Month
Extracted
Treated and
Recovered
Ending
Ground
Discharge
DNAPL
Date
Water
(gallons)
(gallons)
1/31/2009
10,100.00
10,220.51
200.00
2/28/2009
NA1
NA1
NA1
3/31/2009
9,892.00
11,401.66
100.00
4/30/2009
NA2
658.33
NA2
5/31/2009
9,900.00
10,227.85
25.00
6/30/2009
3,400.00
3,845.53
125.00
7/31/2009
13,000.00
10,548.46
150.00
8/31/2009
8,000.00
7,936.42
175.00
9/30/2009
7,800.00
10,881.02
137.50
10/31/2009
11,500.00
13,883.93
200.00
11/30/2009
10,000.00
14,537.23
187.50
12/31/2009
6,600.00
23,374.10
150.00
1/31/2010
11,500.00
11,114.95
200.00
2/28/2010
24,000.00
38,871.37
100.00
3/31/2010
16,500.00
25,535.36
300.00
4/30/2010
9,000.00
11,000.26
350.00
5/31/2010
4,000.00
3,872.66
100.00
6/30/2010
4,200.00
4,032.64
250.00
7/31/2010
7,000.00
4,230.31
100.00
8/31/2010
10,000.00
26,175.22
150.00
9/30/2010
10,000.00
20,410.32
100.00
10/31/2010
10,600.00
13,826.71
150.00
11/30/2010
10,300.00
10,487.60
200.00
12/31/2010
7,200.00
7,171.50
150.00
1/31/2011
10,000.00
10,533.24
225.00
2/28/2011
8,700.00
8,494.37
200.00
3/31/2011
8,800.00
10,424.99
125.00
4/30/2011
9,700.00
11,247.16
150.00
5/31/2011
11,500.00
10,837.38
200.00
Month
Extracted
Treated and
Recovered
Ending
Ground
Discharge
DNAPL
Date
Water
(gallons)
(gallons)
6/30/2011
11,000.00
11,116.46
150.00
7/31/2011
11,200.00
11,383.12
125.00
8/31/2011
11,200.00
11,662.81
150.00
9/30/2011
12,800.00
12,582.95
100.00
10/31/2011
12,000.00
12,009.08
75.00
11/30/2011
10,700.00
10,919.88
125.00
12/31/2011
11,200.00
13,069.90
200.00
1/31/2012
11,000.00
11,084.70
250.00
2/28/2012
9,500.00
10,010.56
300.00
3/31/2012
3,000.00
3,293.67
75.00
4/30/2012
12,100.00
12,995.34
100.00
5/31/2012
14,200.00
13,961.18
100.00
6/30/2012
4,000.00
4,996.11
25.00
7/31/2012
14,500.00
14,411.49
100.00
8/31/2012
6,500.00
6,560.07
75.00
9/30/2012
14,000.00
14,645.53
150.00
10/31/2012
11,500.00
11,579.61
100.00
11/30/2012
6,500.00
6,947.32
75.00
12/31/2012
8,300.00
7,652.03
75.00
1/31/2013
4,000.00
4,616.91
25.00
2/28/2013
16,600.00
15,982.22
50.00
3/31/2013
18,000.00
18,700.83
100.00
4/30/2013
11,000.00
11,044.98
100.00
5/31/2013
13,000.00
13,249.10
100.00
6/30/2013
13,000.00
13,104.69
100.00
7/31/2013
16,500.00
17,287.90
62.50
8/31/2013
15,500.00
15,769.14
162.50
9/30/2013
18,000.00
15,542.24
125.00
NOTES:
NA1- No value, due to maintenance activities.
NA2 - No value, due to storage capasity. Waiting for date to dispose DNAPL.
-------
Table 2 EDW Analytical Data
EDW - 2009
Sample ID
EDW-65
EDW-66
EDW-66
EDW-67
EDW-68
EDW-69
EDW-70
EDW-71
EDW-72
EDW-73
EDW-74
EDW-75
Parameter (mg/L)
Effluent Limit
1/13/2009
2/9/2009
3/4/2009
4/8/2009
5/5/2009
6/17/2009
7/21/2009
8/4/2009
9/15/2009
10/13/2009
11/11/2009
12/31/2009
BOD, 5 day
20
<6.00
NA1
<6.00
<6.00
18.7
12.9
19.5
11.7
8.09
22.5
18.5
NA1
COD
70
<5.00
NA1
<5.00
<5.00
13
29
54
36
56
30
72
NA1
Chloride
-
5.46
NA1
129
9.85
27.7
26.9
32.5
39
41.5
34.9
38.7
NA1
Oil & Grease
15
<5.56
NA1
8.67
9.7
5.1
<5.00
<5.00
<5.00
<5.00
<5.00
<5.00
NA1
Sulfate
-
12.1
NA1
7.27
12.1
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
NA1
TDS
-
200
NA1
990
240
600
125
588
638
718
522
505
NA1
TOC
35
1.75
NA1
1.82
3.51
3.93
10
14.5
14
17.1
15.3
11.4
NA1
TSS
45
<4.00
NA1
<4.00
<4.00
20
<4.00
21
23.5
29.5
12.5
15
NA1
Turbidity(NTU)
50
0.54
NA1
23.5
0.068
118
2.75
124
24.1
91
27
24.2
NA1
PH
6.0-8.5
7.5
NA1
7.54
7.62
7.42
7.02
6.52
6.5
6.24
6.29
6.21
NA1
D.O
>5
5
NA1
5.1
5.2
5
5.2
5.2
5
5
5.3
5
NA1
EDW - 2010
Sample ID
EDW-75
EDW-76
EDW-77
EDW
EDW-78
EDW-79
EDW-80
EDW-81
EDW-82
EDW-83
EDW-84
EDW-85
Parameter (mg/L)
Effluent Limit
1/26/2010
2/24/2010
3/24/2010
4/1/2010
5/21/1010
6/9/2010
7/21/2010
8/11/2010
9/20/2010
10/20/2010
11/30/2010
12/28/2010
BOD, 5 day
20
6.6
<12.0
<12.0
NA1
<12.0
<12.0
<12.0
<12.0
<12.0
7.49
19.9
<6.00
COD
70
50
13
<5.00
NA1
16
15
18
17
12
32
43
<5.00
Chloride
-
24
31.4
30.7
NA1
35.5
19.6
18.6
22.4
20.1
35.6
58.6
10.7
Oil & Grease
15
<5.00
<5.00
<5.00
NA1
<5.00
<5.00
<5.00
<5.00
<5.00
<5.00
<5.00
5.45
Sulfate
-
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
NA1
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
TDS
-
515
518
562
NA1
515
425
308
480
432
572
572
180
TOC
35
3.98
4.81
4.11
NA1
5.31
8.2
4.71
4.11
4.42
7.38
12.8
3.44
TSS
45
13
10
13
NA1
22.5
24.5
24
<4.00
15
10.5
8.5
6
Turbidity(NTU)
50
45
45.3
82
NA1
19.6
21.4
69
66.5
53
82
9.72
8.95
PH
6.0-8.5
6.5
6.52
6.45
NA1
6.39
6.23
6.18
6.8
6.18
6.68
NA1
6.22
D.O
>5
5.2
5
5.1
NA1
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.1
5
-------
EDW - 2011
Sample ID
EDW-86
EDW-87
EDW-88
EDW-89
EDW-90
EDW-91
EDW-92
EDW-93
EDW-94
EDW-95
EDW-96
EDW-97
Parameter (mg/L)
Effluent Limit
1/26/2011
2/16/2011
3/16/2011
4/13/2011
5/18/2011
6/22/2011
7/6/2011
8/31/2011
9/28/2011
10/12/2011
11/16/2011
12/14/2011
BOD, 5 day
20
44.4
<6.00
12.9
<6.00
7.69
<6.00
<6.00
<6.00
<6.00
8.65
32.8
22.5
COD
70
5
15
11
32
17
12.2
8.25
<5.00
9.23
5.29
42.7
33.9
Chloride
-
5.18
47
27.6
27.9
20.3
6.55
5.95
5.47
5.81
7.94
30
41.8
Oil & Grease
15
<5.00
<5.00
<5.00
<5.00
<5.00
<5.00
<5.00
<5.00
<5.00
<5.00
<5.00
<5.00
Sulfate
-
2.69
3.19
<1.00
6.17
<1.00
<1.00
1.52
1.86
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
TDS
-
95
392
290
445
458
285
250
182
152
255
652
628
TOC
35
1.57
10.1
4.67
1.4
13.6
4.05
2.29
2.38
3.16
1.59
17.8
18.3
TSS
45
<4.00
14.5
16.5
9.5
11.5
6
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
7.5
13.5
Turbidity(NTU)
50
1.34
38.5
20.8
10
13.8
11.4
4.59
3.05
5.04
9.65
46
54
PH
6.0-8.5
6.63
6.51
6.48
6.33
6.56
6.69
6.59
6.64
6.72
6.3
6.59
6.47
D.O
>5
4.9
5
5.2
5
5.2
5.1
5
5.2
5
5.2
5.1
5.1
EDW - 2012
Sample ID
EDW-98
EDW-99
EDW-100
EDW-101
EDW-102
EDW-103
EDW-104
EDW-105
EDW-106
EDW-107
EDW-108
EDW-109
Parameter (mg/L)
Effluent Limit
1/11/2012
2/29/2012
3/21/2012
4/18/2012
5/9/2012
6/20/2012
7/11/2012
8/22/2012
9/26/2012
10/24/2012
11/7/2012
12/19/2012
BOD, 5 day
20
<6.00
<6.00
<6.00
7.32
19.7
<6.00
<6.00
<6.00
<6.00
<6.00
17
10.2
COD
70
<5.00
11.9
13.9
45.4
85.8
28.7
13.9
10.9
19.8
<5.00
31.9
26.7
Chloride
-
6.22
5.39
5.24
31.5
38
5.71
8.37
73
14.2
10.5
27.2
30.3
Oil & Grease
15
<5.00
<5.00
<5.00
<5.00
<5.00
<5.00
<5.00
<5.00
<5.00
<5.00
<5.00
<5.00
Sulfate
-
12.5
2.53
3.54
<1.00
<1.00
2.81
2.32
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
TDS
-
212
102
165
495
600
135
135
385
302
372
602
532
TOC
35
2.06
<1.00
<1.00
7.67
10.3
<1.00
<1.00
2.12
<1.00
<1.00
10.4
7.24
TSS
45
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
22
12
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
<4.00
4.5
33
28
T urbidity(NTU)
50
0.26
4.88
5.36
31.1
28.4
0.85
8.34
0.39
4.22
1.98
205
98.5
PH
6.0-8.5
9.14
6.53
6.94
6.57
6.37
6.9
6.64
8.72
6.93
6.82
6.93
6.52
D.O
>5
5
5
5.1
5.1
5.2
5.1
5.1
5.2
5.1
5.2
5.1
5
-------
EDW - 2013
Sample ID
EDW-110
EDW-111
EDW-112
EDW-113
EDW-114
EDW-115
EDW-116
EDW-117
EDW-118
Parameter (mg/L)
Effluent Limit
1/9/2013
2/20/2013
3/20/2013
4/24/2013
5/22/2013
6/12/2013
7/24/2013
8/21/2013
9/25/2013
BOD, 5 day
20
<6.00
<6.00
8.34
17
<6.00
18.4
<6.00
10
<6.00
COD
70
27.7
8.97
<5.0
51.3
15.9
84.8
<5.0
49.4
<5.0
Chloride
-
17.4
12.1
28.3
38.7
8.8
29.8
4.9
38.8
18.1
Oil & Grease
15
<5.00
<5.00
<5.00
<5.00
<5.00
<5.00
<5.00
<5.00
<5.00
Sulfate
-
5.19
4.04
<1.00
<1.00
12.6
<1.00
4.5
<1.00
2.52
TDS
-
245
340
612
495
222
555
120
628
380
TOC
35
2.77
2.04
5.29
8.02
1.44
10.7
<1.00
6.86
2.24
TSS
45
6
4.5
12.5
23
<4.00
33.5
<4.00
21
9.5
Turbidity(NTU)
50
15.8
19.1
47.4
49.6
1.3
144
3
80
49.8
PH
6.0-8.5
6.98
6.83
6.77
6.95
8.45
6.7
6.59
6.6
6.51
D.O
>5
5.10
5.00
5.20
5.00
5.20
5.00
5.10
5.20
5.00
NOTES:
NA1- No value, due t NA1- No value, due to maintenance activities.
NA2 - No value, due NA2 - No value, due to storage capasity. Waiting for date to dispose DNAPL.
-------
ATTACHMENT 3
Announcement of the Third Five-Year Review and Community Notification fact sheet
-------
MADISONVILLE CREOSOTE WORKS
SUPERFUND SITE PUBLIC NOTICE
U.S. EPA Region 6 Begins
Five-Year Review of Site Remedy
September 2013
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6 (EPA) has begun a five-year review of the
remedy implementation and performance for the Madisonville Creosote Works Superfund Site in
St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana. The five-year review will determine if the remedy for the site re-
mains protective of human health and the environment. Questions or concerns about the Superfund
Site and the remedy performance should be directed to Laura Stankosky/Remedial Project Manager
at 214.665.7525 (direct) or 1.800.533.3508 (toll-free). Upon completion, the five-year review re-
port will be made available to the public at the local information repository located at the Madi-
sonville Town Hall, 403 St. Francis Street, Madisonville, LA 70447-9779, phone: 985.845.7311;
and on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/region6/6sf/6sf-5_year_reviews.htm. Additional infor-
mation about the Site is available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/region6/6sf/6sf-la.htm.
-------
** EDA EPA Begins Five-year Review of
OtrM Site Remedy
United States
Agencymen'el Protect,on Madisonville Creosote Works
St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana September 2013
The five-year review is:
A regular inspection of a Superfund site;
Conducted at sites that need continued moni-
toring;
A way to determine if a cleanup is protecting
public health and the environment; and
A chance for you to tell EPA about site activi-
ties.
Checking up on Superfund sites:
The five-year review
After a Superfund National Priorities List (NPL)
site cleanup action is completed, the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) conducts regular
inspections, called five-year reviews, at selected
Superfund sites. The EPA has begun a five-year re-
view for the Madisonville Creosote Works Super-
fund Site (Site), St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana.
The Site consists of a defunct creosote wood treat-
ing facility 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 Madisonville 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 stream 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 individuals will not be exposed to re-
maining low level Site contaminants. Ground water
monitoring is conducted to ensure the effectiveness
of the cleanup remedy. The site is currently in op-
eration & maintenance status. The Louisiana De-
partment of Environmental Quality (LDEQ)
operates the recovery trench system and performs
routine monitoring.
Since wastes remain onsite at the Site above levels
that allow for unrestricted use, EPA will perform
site reviews at a minimum of every five years to de-
termine 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 infor-
mation or concerns that people may have about the
Site during the review. If you are familiar 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 van-
dalism 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 en-
gineers to evaluate the site. The five-year review
began on September 17, 2013. The RPM will col-
lect 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 concerns 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 al-
so be contacted to see if they have any information
or concerns about the Site. These people may be
contacted with a mailed survey, a phone call, or an
interview. The RPM plans to conduct interviews
with the local officials and members of the com-
-------
munity during September 2013. The RPM will
use the information collected to decide whether or
not the cleanup continues to be protective of hu-
man 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 inspection results, data re-
view and analysis, conclusions and recommenda-
tions. 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 identi-
fied by the review, they will be addressed. Since
wastes or contaminants that prevent unlimited use
and unrestricted exposure remain onsite, EPA will
return every five years for another review. The EPA
and the State will also keep an eye on the site be-
tween 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
Bill Little, Community Involvement
Coordinator/SEE
U.S. EPA Region 6
214.665.8131 or 1.800.533.3508 (toll-free)
little.bill@epa.gov
For news media inquires, contact EPA Region 6
Press Office at 214.665.2208.
John Halk
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
Environmental Technology Division
P.O. Box 4314
Baton Rouge, LA 70821-4314
225.219.3200 ext. 3652
iohn.halk@la.gov
information Repositories
Madisonville Town Hall
403 St. Francis Street
Madisonville, LA 70447-9779
985.845.7311
U.S. EPA on the Internet
U.S. EPA Headquarters http://www.epa.gov
U.S. EPA Region 6 http://www.epa.gov/region6
U.S. EPA Region 6 Superfund
http ://www. epa. gov/earth 1 r6/6sf/6sf.htm
vปEPA
UMV t
LsKifr pnHutai >'~. U \
\
1 lib v 0N
TX T* W
2
-------
ATTACHMENT 4
List of Documents Reviewed
-------
Ecology and Environment, Inc. (E&E). 1997. "Remedial Investigation Report, Madisonville Creosote
Works, Madisonville, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana." September.
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ). 1987. "RCRA Facility Assessment for
Madisonville Wood Preserving Company, Madisonville, LA."
Southern Environmental Management & Specialists (SEMS) Monthly Operational Reports, Madisonville
Creosote Works Superfund Site, Agency Interest No. 1344, January 1, 2009 through September 2013.
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.
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. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2001. "Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance".
June 2001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009. Second Five-Year Review for the Madisonville
Creosote Works Superfund Site, Madisonville, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana." February 26, 2009.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1994. "Ground-Water Resources of Southern Tangipahoa Parish and
Adjacent Areas, Louisiana." Water Resources Investigations Report No. 92-4182.
-------
ATTACHMENT 5
Site Inspection Checklist
-------
Site Inspection Checklist
I. SITE INFORMATION
Site name: Madisonville Creosote Works
Date of inspection: 9-17-2013
Superfund Site
Location and Region: St. Tammany Parish, LA
EPA ID: LAD981522998
Agency, office, or company leading the five-year
Weather/temperature:
review:
87ฐ F and sunny
EPA, Region 6
Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply)
Landfill cover/containment
Monitored natural attenuation
S Access controls
Groundwater containment
^ Institutional controls
Vertical barrier walls
^ Groundwater pump and treatment
Surface water collection and treatment
Other
Attachments: ^ Inspection team roster attached
Site map attached
II. INTERVIEWS (Check all that apply)
1. O&M Site Manager Rick Tibbs
Site Manaser 9-17-2013
Name
Title Date
Interviewed: ^ by email at office
bv phone Phone no. (98)5-502-7342
Problems, suggestions:
^ Report attached
2. O&M Staff
Name
Title Date
Interviewed: by mail at office by phone
Phone no
Problems, suggestions:
Report attached
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.
Asencv Louisiana Department of Environmental Oualitv
Contact JohnHalk Proiect Manaser 9-17-2013
Name Title
Date
Interviewed: ^ by email at office
bv phone Phone no. 225-219-3652
Problems, suggestions:
^ Report attached
III. ON-SITE DOCUMENTS & RECORDS VERIFIED (Check all that apply)
O&M Documents
O&M manual S Readily available Up to date N/A
As-built drawings ^ Readily available Up to date N/A
Maintenance logs ^ Readily available Up to date N/A
Remarks
Page 1 of 11
-------
Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan S Readily available ^ Up to date N/A
Contingency plan/emergency response plan S Readily available ^ Up to date N/A
Remarks
O&M and OSHA Training Records S Readily available S Up to date N/A
Remarks
4. Permits and Service Agreements
Air discharge permit
Effluent discharge
Waste disposal, POTW
Other permits
Remarks
Readily available
Readily available
Readily available
Readily available
Up to date
Up to date
Up to date
Up to date
S N/A
S N/A
S N/A
S N/A
Gas Generation Records
Remarks
Readily available
Up to date ^ N/A
Settlement Monument Records
Remarks
Readily available
Up to date S N/A
Groundwater Monitoring Records
Remarks
S Readily available ^ Up to date N/A
Leachate Extraction Records
Remarks
Readily available
Up to date ^ N/A
9. Discharge Compliance Records
Air
Water (effluent)
Remarks
Readily available
^ Readily available
Up to date
^ Up to date
S N/A
N/A
10. Daily Access/Security Logs
Remarks
Readily available
Up to date S N/A
Page 2 of 11
-------
IV. O&M COSTS
O&M Organization
State in-house ^ Contractor for State
PRP in-house Contractor for PRP
Federal Facility in-house Contractor for Federal Facility
Other: the site requires no O&M N/A
O&M Cost Records
Readily available Up to date
^ Funding mechanism/agreement in place
Original O&M cost estimate
Breakdown attached
Total annual cost by year for review period if available
From January 2009
To December 2009
$220.800
Date
Date
Total cost
From
January 2010
To
December 2010
$220,800
Date
Date
Total cost
From
January 2011
To
December 2011
$220,800
Date
Date
Total cost
From
January 2012
To
December 2012
$220,800
Date
Date
Total cost
From
January 2013
To
December 2013
$215,160
Date
Date
Total cost
Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs During Review Period
Describe costs and reasons:
V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS S Applicable N/A
A. Fencing
1. Fencing damaged Location shown on site map ^ Gates secured N/A
Remarks: fencing is not required: the property owner has the site fenced to prevent illegal dumping on
the property
B. Other Access Restrictions
1. Signs and other security measures ^ Location shown on site map ^ N/A
Remarks Property surrounded by chain link fence. Fencing with barbed wire is partially
surrounding the wastewater treatment plant
Page 3 of 11
-------
c.
Institutional Controls (ICs)
1.
Implementation and enforcement
Site conditions imply ICs not properly implemented Yes ^ No N/A
Site conditions imply ICs not being fully enforced Yes ^ No N/A
Type of monitoring (e.#., self-reporting, drive by) Monitored during site maintenance visits.
Frequency Tens days/month (minimum)
Responsible party/agency LDEQ
Contact JohnHalk Project Manager 9/17/13 225-219-3652
Name Title Date Phone no.
Reporting is up-to-date ^ Yes No N/A
Reports are verified by the lead agency ^ Yes No N/A
Specific requirements in deed or decision documents have been met Yes No ^ N/A
Violations have been reported Yes No ^ N/A
Other problems or suggestions: Report attached
2.
Adequacy ^ ICs are adequate ICs are inadequate N/A
Remarks
D.
General
1.
Vandalism/trespassing Location shown on site map ^ No vandalism evident
Remarks
2.
Land use changes on site S N/A
Remarks
3.
Land use changes off site N/A
Remarks A housins development was built adiacent to the site, alone the east side of the site. A
homeowner in the development was interviewed as Dart of the five-vear review process.
VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS
A.
Roads ^ Applicable N/A
1.
Roads damaged Location shown on site map Roads adequate ^ N/A
Remarks Dirt roads around the perimeter of the site are in good condition. Walked and verified.
Page 4 of 11
-------
B.
Other Site Conditions
Remarks
VII. LANDFILL COVERS Applicable
S N/A
A.
Landfill Surface
1.
Settlement (Low spots) Location shown on site map
Areal extent Depth
Remarks
Settlement not evident
2.
Cracks Location shown on site map
Lengths Widths Depths
Cracking not evident
Remarks
3.
Erosion Location shown on site map
Areal extent Depth
Remarks
Erosion not evident
4.
Holes Location shown on site map
Areal extent Depth
Remarks
Holes not evident
5.
Vegetative Cover Grass Cover properly established No signs of stress
Trees/Shrubs (indicate size and locations on a diagram)
Remarks
6.
Alternative Cover (armored rock, concrete, etc.) N/A
Remarks
7.
Bulges Location shown on site map
Areal extent Height
Remarks
Bulges not evident
8.
Wet Arcas/Water Damage Wet areas/water damage not evident
Wet areas Location shown on site map
Areal extent
Ponding Location shown on site map
Areal extent
Seeps Location shown on site map
Areal extent
Soft subgrade Location shown on site map
Areal extent
Remarks
9.
Slope Instability Slides Location shown on site map
Areal extent
Remarks
No evidence of slope instability
Page 5 of 11
-------
B.
Benches Applicable 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.)
1.
Flows Bypass Bench Location shown on site map N/A or okay
Remarks
2.
Bench Breached Location shown on site map N/A or okay
Remarks
3.
Bench Overtopped Location shown on site map N/A or okay
Remarks
C.
Letdown Channels Applicable N/A
(Channel lined with erosion control mats, riprap, 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.)
1.
Settlement Location shown on site map No evidence of settlement
Areal extent Depth
Remarks
2.
Material Degradation Location shown on site map No evidence of degradation
Material type Areal extent
Remarks
3.
Erosion Location shown on site map No evidence of erosion
Areal extent Depth
Remarks
4.
Undercutting Location shown on site map No evidence of undercutting
Areal extent Depth
Remarks
5.
Obstructions Type No obstructions
Location shown on site map Areal extent
Size
Remarks
6.
Excessive Vegetative Growth Type
No evidence of excessive growth
Vegetation in channels does not obstruct flow
Location shown on site map Areal extent
Remarks
D.
Cover Penetrations Applicable N/A
Page 6 of 11
-------
1.
Gas Vents Active Passive
Properly secured/locked Functioning Routinely sampled Good condition
Evidence of leakage at penetration Needs Maintenance
N/A
Remarks
2.
Gas Monitoring Probes
Properly secured/locked Functioning Routinely sampled Good condition
Evidence of leakage at penetration Needs Maintenance N/A
Remarks
3.
Monitoring Wells (within surface area of landfill)
Properly secured/locked Functioning Routinely sampled Good condition
Evidence of leakage at penetration Needs Maintenance N/A
Remarks
4.
Leachate Extraction Wells
Properly secured/locked Functioning Routinely sampled Good condition
Evidence of leakage at penetration Needs Maintenance N/A
Remarks
5.
Settlement Monuments Located Routinely surveyed N/A
Remarks
E.
Gas Collection and Treatment Applicable N/A
1.
Gas Treatment Facilities
Flaring Thermal destruction Collection for reuse
Good condition Needs Maintenance
Remarks
2.
Gas Collection Wells, Manifolds and Piping
Good condition Needs Maintenance
Remarks
3.
Gas Monitoring Facilities (e.g., gas monitoring of adjacent homes or buildings)
Good condition Needs Maintenance N/A
Remarks
F.
Cover Drainage Layer Applicable N/A
1.
Outlet Pipes Inspected Functioning N/A
Remarks
2.
Outlet Rock Inspected Functioning N/A
Remarks
G.
Detention/Sedimentation Ponds Applicable N/A
Page 7 of 11
-------
1. Siltation Areal extent
Depth N/A
Siltation not evident
Remarks
2. Erosion Areal extent Depth
Erosion not evident
Remarks
3. Outlet Works
Functioning N/A
Remarks
4. Dam
Functioning N/A
Remarks
H. Retaining Walls
Applicable N/A
1. Deformations
Location shown on site map Deformation not evident
Horizontal displacement
Vertical displacement
Rotational displacement
Remarks
2. Degradation
Location shown on site map Degradation not evident
Remarks
I. Perimeter Ditches/Off-Site Discharge Applicable N/A
1. Siltation Location shown on site map Siltation not evident
Areal extent
Depth
Remarks
2. Vegetative Growth
Location shown on site map N/A
Vegetation does not impede flow
Areal extent
Type
Remarks
3. Erosion
Location shown on site map Erosion not evident
Areal extent
Depth
Remarks
4. Discharge Structure
Functioning N/A
Remarks
VIII. VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS Applicable S N/A
1. Settlement
Location shown on site map Settlement not evident
Areal extent
Depth
Remarks
Page 8 of 11
-------
2. Performance Monitoring Type of monitoring
Performance not monitored
Frequency Evidence of breaching
Head differential
Remarks
IX. GROUNDWATER/SURF ACE WATER REMEDIES ^Applicable N/A
A. Groundwater Extraction Wells, Pumps, and Pipelines J Applicable N/A
1. Pumps, Wellhead Plumbing, and Electrical
^ Good condition S All required wells properly operating Needs Maintenance N/A
Remarks All electrical components have been moved out of the vaults and into the pump shed. This
reduced issues caused by excess water or flooding in vaults. The pumps have been changed to
pneumatic pumps. The pump risers are elevated above the ground water level so ground water does not
enter as easily.
2. Extraction System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances
^ Good condition Needs Maintenance
Remarks
3. Spare Parts and Equipment
^ Readily available Good condition Requires upgrade Needs to be provided
Remarks
B. Surface Water Collection Structures, Pumps, and Pipelines Applicable S N/A
1. Collection Structures, Pumps, and Electrical
Good condition Needs Maintenance
Remarks
2. Surface Water Collection System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances
Good condition Needs Maintenance
Remarks
3. Spare Parts and Equipment
Readily available Good condition Requires upgrade Needs to be provided
Remarks
C. Treatment System S Applicable N/A
Page 9 of 11
-------
1.
Treatment Train (Check components that apply)
Metals removal ^ Oil/water separation Bioremediation
Air stripping S Carbon adsorbers
^ Filters sand and carbon
Additive (e.ฃ., chelation agent, flocculent)
S Others Equalization tank, creosote holding tank
^ Good condition Needs Maintenance Sampling ports properly marked and functional
Sampling/maintenance log displayed and up to date
Equipment properly identified
Quantity of groundwater treated annually
Quantity of surface water treated annually
Remarks Carbon has been chaneed twice since the last Five-Year Review
2.
Electrical Enclosures and Panels (properly rated and functional)
N/A S Good condition Needs Maintenance
Remarks
3.
Tanks, Vaults, Storage Vessels
N/A S Good condition Proper secondary containment Needs Maintenance
Remarks The middle well vaults oroduce more creosote: these vaults are checked more frequently,
generally weekly. The vault covers have been modified due to worker safety concerns. The vault covers
were very heavy and required two individuals for liftine the covers. The metal covers have been cut to
be made smaller and wooden slat covers have been olacc on either side the metal cover.
4.
Discharge Structure and Appurtenances
N/A S Good condition Needs Maintenance
Remarks
5.
Treatment Building(s)
N/A S Good condition (esp. roof and doorways) Needs repair
Chemicals and equipment properly stored
Remarks Small creosote soill noted. Sorbent was noted on too of soil 1 for its removal.
6.
Monitoring Wells (pump and treatment remedy)
Properly secured/locked Functioning Routinely sampled Good condition
All required wells located Needs Maintenance N/A
Remarks
D. Monitoring Data S Applicable N/A
1.
Monitoring Data
^ Is routinely submitted on time ^ Is of acceptable quality
2.
Monitoring data suggests:
^ Groundwater plume is effectively contained Contaminant concentrations are declining
E.
Monitored Natural Attenuation Applicable ^ N/A
1.
Monitoring Wells (natural attenuation remedy)
Properly secured/locked Functioning Routinely sampled Good condition
All required wells located Needs Maintenance N/A
Remarks
Page 10 of 11
-------
X. OTHER REMEDIES
If there are remedies applied at the site which 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.
XL 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
Describe issues and observations related to the implementation and scope of O&M procedures. In
particular, discuss their relationship to the current and long-term protectiveness of the remedy.
_0&M appears to be adequate. The wooden slat vault covers have small gaps in between the boards that
may allow small terrestrial animals: rodents, lizards, snakes, etc.. to falls through and into the vault.
Discussed installing a wire mesh, i.e.. hog wire, to reduce the chance that small animals may fall into the
vaults with the LDEO project manager.
C. Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Problems
Describe issues and observations such as unexpected changes in the cost or scope of O&M or a high
frequency of unscheduled repairs that suggest that the protectiveness of the remedy may be compromised
in the future.
No indictors of potential remedy problems were noted during the site inspection.
D. Opportunities for Optimization
Describe possible opportunities for optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation of the remedy.
N/A
Page 11 of 11
-------
f/acisorvl te C'eosote Wcr\W ! Lt>ฃ&
\ "7j\ IP4 A
".x; .
s h? M^rji
ctxce,
// 5 ^ S-f/t'6 ,i7i/c
jll: -r!" 1f A'O ฃ'tf S fs
ฆ i ; v,... / .
ฆy-J, ~f Al
/ /' CJ eปd ' /, 'S-ts <-*,
/~/t fj /cr c ฃ\
v-h-r.
i
ฆ
' i
September 17, 2013
-------
ATTACHMENT 6
Site Inspection Photographs
-------
Site Inspection Photographs
September 17, 2013
Madisonville Creosote Works Superfund Site Five-Year Review
Description: Registered Live Oak.
Description: Highway 22, Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) and fence line along north side of
site.
-------
Site Inspection Photographs
September 17, 2013
Madisonville Creosote Works Superfund Site Five-Year Review
Description: WWTP staining on floor from small spills/leak.
Description: Wastewater treatment plant programmable logic controllers (PLC) screen.
-------
Site Inspection Photographs
September 17, 2013
Madisonville Creosote Works Superfund Site Five-Year Review
Description: Influent equalization tank (Tl).
Description: TIGG carbon filtration tanks and creosote holding tank in background to left
-------
Site Inspection Photographs
September 17, 2013
Madisonville Creosote Works Superfund Site Five-Year Review
Description: PEP sand filtration tanks and Oil/water Separator to right (T2)
Description: Pump vault.
-------
Site Inspection Photographs
September 17, 2013
Madisonville Creosote Works Superfund Site Five-Year Review
Description: Vault cover showing where metal covers have been cut to be made smaller and
wooden slat covers have been place on either side the metal cover.
Description: Open vault cover.
-------
Site Inspection Photographs
September 17, 2013
Madisonville Creosote Works Superfund Site Five-Year Review
Description: Open pump vault.
Description: Interior of compressor pump shed, all electrical components have been moved out
of the vaults and into the pump shed.
-------
Site Inspection Photographs
September 17, 2013
Madisonville Creosote Works Superfund Site Five-Year Review
description: Site as viewed to the east; note fence area cleared at request of resident.
Description: Site as viewed to the west.
-------
ATTACHMENT 7
Interview Records
-------
INTERVIEW RECORD
Site Name: Madisonville Creosote Works Superfund Site
Site Location: Approx. 3 miles west of Madisonville on Hwy 22
EPA ID No.: LAD981522998
Type: ~ Telephone x Visit ~ Other
Time: 10:00a Date: 9/17/2013
Contact Made By:
Name: Laura Stankosky
Title: EPA RPM
Organization: EPA Region 6
Telephone No: 214-665-7525
E-Mail:
Stankosky.laura@epa.gov
Street Address: 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
City, State, Zip: Dallas, TX 75202
Individual Contacted:
Name: John Halk, CHMM
Title: State Project Mgr.
Organization: LDEQ
Underground Storage Tanks and
Remediation Division
Telephone No: 225-210-3652
E-Mail Address: john.halk@la.gov
Street Address: 602 N. Fifth St.
City, State, Zip: Baton Rouge, LA 70821
Summary Of Conversation
1. What is your overall impression of the site/project (general sentiment)?
I believe the site has been functioning well given the age of the current recovery system and due in
large part to the current operator, who has been at the site for many years. . The State has been in
charge of treating groundwater at the site since September 2001, we continue to remove creosote
from the shallow groundwater zone at a consistent rate.
2. What effects have post-construction site activities in the last five years had on the surrounding
community?
Minimal to no impact; we operate exclusively within the site boundaries and do not impede off-
site activities. The site pre-dates much of the current development of subdivisions in the vicinity;
so it appears as an open field for the most part to area residents.
Page 1 of 4
-------
Interview Record continued
Site Name: Madisonville Creosote Works Superfund Site
EPA ID No.: LAD981522998
Site Location: 3 miles west of Madisonville on Hwy 22
3.
Are you aware of any community concerns regarding the ongoing operation and maintenance
activities at the site? If so, please give details.
We have addressed aesthetic concerns with Ms. Janice Sapia, who resides in Coquille Subdivison
adjacent to the east fence line. She requested that we bush hog next to the fence and clear
vegetation along the fence that abuts her backyard. We have recently been contacted by other
residents in the area during the recent 5 Year Review to address any questions they had regarding
the site. LDEQ plans to bush hog the eastern fence line which abuts the backyards of the 10
Coquille Subdivision houses.
4.
Are you aware of any events, incidents, or activities at the site such as vandalism, trespassing, or
emergency response from local authorities? If so, please provide details.
No
5.
Do you feel well informed about the site's activities and progress?
As state project manager, I am responsible for the operation and maintenance program at the site.
We have been managing O&M for a number of years. We maintain an existing contract with
SEMS to perform O&M operations. As manager, I am in frequent contact with the site operator
and make periodic inspections at the site to observe operations.
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, as manager of the O&M activities, I maintain contacts with the contractor, make periodic
inspections and document with field inspection reports, and re-bid contracts every 3 years. I also
review contractor monthly operational reports and respond with a letter on those reports. I
correspond with the site operator and contract manager on a routine basis to resolve any issues.
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 response.
No safety related incidents have occurred on the site since the last 5 year review. We had some
damage to the treatment building roof that was repaired during Hurricane Isaac and we have done
some improvements to the vault openings to increase safety. As stated previously, we are
addressing aesthetic concerns along the east fence line
Page 2 of 4
-------
Interview Record continued
Site Name: Madisonville Creosote Works Superfund Site
Site Location:
EPA ID No.: LAD981522998
8. Is the remedy functioning as expected? How well is the remedy performing?
The groundwater treatment operations are performing as expected, given the current design.
9. What do the monitoring data show? Are there any trends that show contaminant levels are
decreasing?
Monitoring of on-site groundwater deep wells do not show evidence of creosote migration to the
deep groundwater zone. As for recovery of shallow groundwater contaminated with creosote, we
have averaged approximately 150 gallons per month of creosote recovery from the system during
the last 3 years; overall trends of recovery show some decrease but it is dependent on how much
water we treat each month, which is variable, and allowing the system to rest, which tends to lead
to increased accumulation of DNAPL into the pore space.
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.
No, the site operation is not continuous. We operate approximately 10-14 days out of the month;
the site operator visits the site every day however to check on the site when not in pumping mode.
The site is securely locked when the operator is not on-site.
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.
No
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.
No
Page 3 of 4
-------
Interview Record continued
Site Name: Madisonville Creosote Works Superfund Site
Site Location:
EPA ID No.
13. Have there been opportunities to optimize O&M, or sampling efforts? Please describe changes
and resultant or desired cost savings or improved efficiency.
We have modified the opening of the vaults to increase safety concerns when working around the
vaults and make it easier to set up and operate the system. In the past, we have also eliminated
the electrical connections originally located inside the vaults and went to a air-driven pump
sytem. This increased safety as well as efficiency, since there was significant down time when
electrical pumps were used due to pump failures.
In the future, we may put risers on the existing groundwater extraction pipes so that the covers to
the vaults do not have to be pulled each time work is done.
14. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site's management
or operation?
No.
Page 4 of 4
-------
INTERVIEW RECORD
Site Name: Madisonville Creosote Works Superfund Site
Site Location: Madisonville, La.
EPA ID No.:
LAD981522998
Type: ~ Telephone
~ Visit
Visit
~ Other
Time:
10:30
Date:
9/17/13
Contact Made By:
Name:
Laura Stankosky
Title:
Project Manager
Organization: EPA Region 6
Telephone No:
E-Mail:
stankosky.laura@epa.gov
Street Address: 1445 Ross Ave. (6sf-lp)
City, State, Zip: Dallas, Texas 75202
Individual Contacted:
Name: Rick Tibbs
Title: Site Manager
Organization: SEMS INC.
Telephone No: 985-502-7342
E-Mail Address: rtibbs@semsinc.net
Street Address: 335 W. Saint Mary dr.
City, State, Zip: Covington, La. 70433
Summary Of Conversation
1. What is your overall impression of the site/project (general sentiment)?
Good
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 ongoing operation and maintenance
activities at the site? If so, please give details.
None
Page 1 of 3
-------
Interview Record continued
Site Name: Madisonville Creosote Works Superfund Site
EPA ID No.: LAD981522998
Site Location: Madisonville, La.
4. Are you aware of any events, incidents, or activities at the site such as vandalism, trespassing, or
emergency response from local authorities? If so, please provide details.
No
5. Do you feel well informed about the site's activities and progress?
Yes
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
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
9. What do the monitoring data show? Are there any trends that show contaminant levels are
decreasing?
Think we have a slight decrease, but recovery is steady.
Page 2 of 3
-------
Interview Record continued
Site Name: Madisonville Creosote Works Superfund Site
EPA ID No.: LAD981522998
Site Location: Madisonville, La.
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, there is an oneoine O&M and a Dailv presence. We have an excellent, professional
staff and crew handling the operations, maintenance, site upkeep and recovery.
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 impactsA
None
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.
Operations are the same, have become more efficient over time
14.
Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site's management
or operation? Do you feel that operations are sufficient?
Recovery is working and steadv. Don't feel that the small changes I as the operator would
want to do, would justify the cost.
Page 5 of 3
-------
INTERVIEW RECORD
Site Name: Madisonville Creosote Works Superfund Site
Site Location: Madisonville, St. Tammany Parish, LA
EPA ID No.: LAD981522998
Type: ~ Telephone X Visit ~ Other
Time: 10:00am Date: 9/17/13
Contact Made By:
Name: Bill Little/Laura
Stankosky
Title: CIC/ RPM
Organization: EPA
Telephone No: 214-665-7525
E-Mail: Stankosky.laura@epa.gov
Street Address: 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
City, State, Zip: Dallas, TX 75202
Individual Contacted:
Name: Ms. Joyce Core
Title: Town Clerk
Organization: City of Madisonville
Telephone No: : (985) 845-7311
E-Mail Address:
Street Address: 403 St. Francis Street
Summary Of Conversation
1. What is your overall impression of the site/project (general sentiment)?
Ms. Core was not too familiar with the site. She had just recently started with the city.
2. What effects have post-construction site activities in the last five years had on the surrounding
Community?
She has received no negative or positive information about the site.
Page 1 of 2
-------
Interview Record continued
Site Name: Madisonville Creosote Works Superfund Site
EPA ID No.: LAD981522998
Site Location: Madisonville, St. Tammany Parish, LA
3. Are you aware of any community concerns regarding the ongoing operation and maintenance
activities at the site?
No.
4. Are you aware of any events, incidents, or activities at the site such as vandalism, trespassing, or
emergency response from local authorities? If so, please provide details.
No
5. Do you feel well informed about the site's activities and progress?
Ms. Core feels more informed about the site from the interview process and now that she has been
supplied the fact sheet that was mailed out to the surrounding community.
6. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site's management
or operation?
Not at this time..
Page 2 of 2
-------
INTERVIEW RECORD
Site Name: Madisonville Creosote Works Superfund Site
Site Location: Madisonville, St. Tammany Parish, LA
EPA ID No.: LAD981522998
Type:
~ Telephone
X Visit
~ Other
Time: 1:30 pm
Date: 9/17/13
Contact Made By:
Name: Bill Little/Laura
Stankosky
Title: CIC/ RPM
Organization: EPA
Telephone No: 214-665-7525
E-Mail: Stankosky.laura@epa.gov
Street Address: 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
City, State, Zip: Dallas, TX 75202
Individual Contacted:
Name: Maria Reyes
Title: Reference Librarian
Organization: St. Tammany Parish
Library
Telephone No: : 985-845-4819
E-Mail Address: madisonville@stpl.us
Street Address: St. Tammany Parish Library/
Madisonville Branch
City, State, Zip: 1123 Main St., IVladisonvillc, LA 70447
Summary Of Conversation
1. What is your overall impression of the site/project (general sentiment)?
The Madisonville Branch of the St. Tammany Parish Library had been open only since the beginning of
September 2013, after being closed since August 2005 due to flooding and damage sustained during
Hurricane Katrina. Ms. Reyes has recently moved into the area and is not yet familiar with the site.
2. What effects have post-construction site activities in the last five years had on the surrounding
community?
N/A
Page 1 of 2
-------
Interview Record continued
Site Name: Madisonville Creosote Works Superfund Site
Site Location: Madisonville, St. Tammany Parish, LA
EPA ID No.: LAD981522998
3. Are you aware of any community concerns regarding the ongoing operation and maintenance
activities at the site? If so, please give details.
Ms. Reyes was not aware of any community concerns with the site.
4. Are you aware of any events, incidents, or activities at the site such as vandalism, trespassing, or
emergency response from local authorities? If so, please provide details.
Ms. Reyes was not aware of any events, incidents at the site.
5. Do you feel well informed about the site's activities and progress?
The fact sheet has helped Ms. Reyes become more familiar.
6. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site's management or
operation?
Ms. Reyes requested that the Administrative Record be sent to the library on multiple DVD's for the
inclusion in the repository. The Library is brand new, opened within the past two weeks; it has numerous
computer access stations that would allow the public to review site repository documents electronically.
Ms. Reyes indicated that she would work with Joyce Core, Town Clerk, on trying to locate the old site
repository records so that the blotter size maps might also be available for public review.
Page 2 of 2
-------
INTERVIEW RECORD
Site Name: Madisonville Creosote Works Superfund Site
Site Location: Madisonville, St. Tammany Parish, LA
EPA ID No.: LAD981522998
Type:
~ Telephone
X Visit
~ Other
Time: 2:30 pm
Date: 9/17/13
Contact Made By:
Name: Bill Little/Laura
Stankosky
Title: CIC/ RPM
Organization: EPA
Telephone No: 214-665-7525
E-Mail: Stankosky.laura@epa.gov
Street Address: 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
City, State, Zip: Dallas, TX 75202
Individual Contacted:
Name: Mrs. Janice Sapia
Title: Homeowner
Organization
Telephone No: :
E-Mail Address:
Street Address!
Summary Of Conversation
1. What is your overall impression of the site/project (general sentiment)?
She indicated that everything looks good; they are doing a great job keeping the fence line clear. Will they
eventually be able to take the fence down?
Answer given during interview - The property is owned by a private individual and that would have to be a
decision made by the property owner.
2. What effects have post-construction site activities in the last five years had on the surrounding
Community?
Can they clear the area by the fence line for all of my neighbors, so they can have a view of the property?
Answer given during interview - Each individual wanting the fence line cleared should contact the
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality project manager, John Halk, and he can make the
arrangement to have that done. Trees and vegetation on your side of the fence line is not part of the site
and LDEQ does not have the authority to perform clearing. Ms. Sapia indicated that it is common space,
and that is controlled by the Management Company of the Housing Development.
Page 1 of 2
-------
Interview Record continued
Site Name: Madisonville Creosote Works Superfund Site
Site Location: Madisonville, St. Tammany Parish, LA
EPA ID No.: LAD981522998
3. Are you aware of any community concerns regarding the ongoing operation and maintenance
activities at the site?
We would like access to the area so the children could play in the open area.
Answer given during interview - That would have to be a decision made by the property owner.
We are concerned about dead trees falling on our homes. Ms. Sapia walked us outside to show us the tree
with which she is concerned.
Answer given during interview - The particular tree Ms. Sapia showed us was on the housing
development side of the fence line. Removal of trees on the housing development side of the fence would
be either the homeowner's responsibility or the housing development responsibility, as applicable. Any
dead trees on the Site would be addressed by contacting LDEQ, john Halk. if they pose a danger of
causing damage.
4. Are you aware of any events, incidents, or activities at the site such as vandalism, trespassing, or
emergency response from local authorities? If so, please provide details.
No
5. Do you feel well informed about the site's activities and progress?
Yes
6. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site's management
or operation?
She feels safe next to the site.
Page 2 of 2
-------
ATTACHMENT 8
Institutional Controls
-------
State of Louisiana
t
I
Department of Environmental Quality
KATHLEEN BABINEAUX BLANCO
GOVERNOR
August 23, 2004
MIKE D. McDANIEL, Ph.D.
SECRETARY
Laura Stankosky
US EPA - Region 6 ;
Superfund - Louisiana/Oklahoma (6SF-LP) !
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202 i
I
i
RE: Madisonville Wood Preserving Company, AI #1344
Conveyance Notice ;
Dear Ms. Stankosky:
Please find enclosed a copy of the Conveyance Notice for the Madisonville Wood
Preserving Company, AI #1344, site. The instrument wjas filed by Donald L. Norwood,
Registered Agent, with the St. Tammany Clerk of Court Land Records on August 11,
2004. ' !
i
Please contact me at (225) 219-3198 with any questions. All correspondence must include
the AI number and be submitted in triplicate to:
Keith L. Casanova, Administrator
Remediation Services Division
P.O. Box 4314
Baton Rouge, LA 70821-4314.
Sincerely,
William N. Perry
Environmental Scientist Supervisor
Remediation Services Division
204599
W
c: LDEQ File Scanning Room 144-IAS
5 -6 rx#
: \w~*
ฆJ
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
P.O. BOX 4314 BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA 70821-4314 TELEPHONE: (225) 219-3236 FAX: (225) 219-3239
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
CONTAINS
SOYOtL
-------
Madisonville Creosote Works, Inc.
a.k.a.
Madisonville Wood Preserving Company
CONVEYANCE NOTIFICATION
, -St. TaniainB Pa> ishJ' !8ง5
Ins trn4ift~#rfff83-2S=^',
Resists #M42i253 ICV
08/U/200* 11:19:00 am
MB CB X HI UCC
Madisonville Wood Preserving Company, Inc hereby notifies the public that the
following described Area of Investigation (AOI) located at 1421 West Hwy 22, Madisonville,
LA, and with Agency Interest Number 1344 was closed with contaminant levels present that are
acceptable for industrial/commercial use of the property as described in the Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality's (LDEQ) Risk Evaluation/Corrective Action Program
(RECAP), Section 2.9. In accordance with LAC 33:1, Chapter 13, if land use changes from
industrial to non-industrial, the responsible party shall notify the LDEQ within 30 days and the
AOI shall be reevaluated to determine if conditions are appropriate for the proposed land use.
This A'OI was closed in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. ง 9601 et seq., as amended by
the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) and the Louisiana
Administrative Code, Title 33: Chapter 12. Information regarding the AOI is available in the
LDEQ public record and may be obtained by contacting the LDEQ Records Manager at (225)
219-31.68. Inquiries regarding the contents of the AOI maybe directed to the current LDEQ
Remediation Services Division (RSD) Team Leader at P.O. Box 4314, Baton Rouge, LA, 70821-
4314.
AOI Description:
The site covers approximately 29 acres in Section 42, Township 7S, Range 10E, St. Tammany
Parish, in southeastern Louisiana. The property is south of Louisiana State Highway 22, about 3
miles west of downtown Madisonville and 1.25 miles from the Madisonville city limits. The
approximate geographical center of the property is at 30ฐ25'38" north latitude and 90ฐ11'55"
west longitude as measured from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 15-minute series
topographic quadrangle for Madisonville, Louisiana.-
Legal Description of the Property:
A CERTAIN PIECE OR PORTION OF GROUND situated in Section 42, Township 7 South,
Range 10 East, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana, and more fully described, according to map and
plat of survey by H. C. Sanders & Associates, dated July 6, 1979, revised July 10, 1979, as
follows, to wit:
. Froin"t^e;$out^ Section 42, go South 75 degrees East 1419.0 feet to an 1-1/8 inch
Nijpp^ft "degrees 15 minutes East 912.86 feet (Title-914.0 feet) to an 1-
inch iron-pip,e;, thence North.T4 degrees 44 minutes East 121.3 feet (Title-North 14 degrees 15
19.0 feet), ta.aj/8-inch iron pipe located on the southerly right-of-way line of
-------
Louisiana Highway 22 (formerly U. S. Highway 190); thence go along the southerly right-of-
way line of said highway North 61 degrees 47 minutes West 102.0 feet (Title-North 62 degrees
West 100.0 feet) to an 1-inch iron pipe; thence North 62 degrees 08 minutes West 125.0 feet
(Title-North 62 degrees West) to an 1/2-inch square iron rod and the point of beginning. From
the point of beginning, continue along the southerly right-of-way line of Louisiana Highway 22
North 62 degrees 08 minutes West 205.7 feet (Title-North 62 degrees West) to an 1-1/8 inch iron
pipe; thence South 13 degrees 27 minutes West 38.2 feet (Title-South 10 degrees West) to an 1-
1/8 inch iron pipe located in the center of an old abandoned highway; thence South 51 degrees
29 minutes 30 seconds East 218.68 feet (Title-South 52 degrees 12 minutes East) along the
center line of said old abandoned highway to a point; thence North 14 degrees 15 minutes East
79.7 feet to an 1/2-inch square iron rod located on the southerly right-of-way line of Louisiana
Highway 22 and point of beginning.
Constituents of Concern Remaining:
At the completion of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) remediation, an estimated
379,099 gallons of creosote constituents remained in the soil sand lens under the site. A
collection system has operated since the commencement of the operation and maintenance phase;
therefore, the amount of remaining creosote is undetermined.
Signature of Person Filing Parish Record
Donald L. Norwood
Typed Name and Title of Person Filing Parish Record
August 11, 2004
Date:
(A true copy of the document certified by the parish clerk of court must be sent to the
Remediation Services Division, Post Office Box 4314, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70821-4314.)
-------
0 100 200
' SCALE M FEET '
LEGEND
~ HOMTQoie ซCU
Q uui nt oun. nocii wracu ma
(3D
ESI
0*
WE-
una owa twara m
ua mcTBOL conout m imctOMco (u-Laaa)
ซii oduvaid mo ottci or acmnoN
cooff dr aavAHM, o - i rai ซes
QODt Or OUV<OM, o - 4 ren ecj -
own. Kawprr nom ststcw
OVOMU0 niCTBC
D IUCTBC
HBKXrt
GKlttL KW. MAS AM NJNNS AKU
e*ซซ
Halo Sซ
------- |