THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT FOR
HIGHWAY 71/72 REFINERY SITE
BOSSIER PARISH, LOUISIANA
£
<
STA^
ao
%
V PRO^
X)
z
LU
-------
THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
HIGHWAY 71/72 REFINERY SITE
BOSSIER PARISH, LOUISIANA
EPA ID#: LAD981054075
This memorandum documents the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's performance, determinations and
approval of the third five-year review for the Highway 71/72 Refinery site (Site) under Section 121 (c) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S. Code Section 9621 (c),
as provided in the attached Third Five-Year Review Report.
Summary of the Third Five-Year Review Report
Former oil refinery operations and waste disposal practices contaminated Site soil, groundwater and indoor air
with hazardous substances. The Site's PRP constructed the EPA remedy selected in the ROD between 2008
and 2010. Long-term monitoring of hazardous substance concentrations in contaminated media is ongoing.
The institutional controls required by the selected remedy have been implemented.
The protectiveness of the remedy is anticipated to not be affected by climate change. See Section V, Question
C for additional information.
The EJ Screen report (Appendix L) identifies EJ Indexes that exceed the 80th percentile at the national and
state average level. Public input on the FYR was solicited through a public notice in the Shreveport Times
newspaper, on 11/17/2022. FYR interviews are included in Section IV. Community Notification. Involvement
& Site Interviews.
Actions Needed
No actions are needed for the remedy to be protective over the long term.
Determination
I have determined that the remedy for the Highw ay 71/72 Refinery site is protective of human health and the
environment. No issues were identified during this five-year review process that affect the protectiveness of
the remedy.
Digitally signed by LISA
i ka PRirFPRICE
LI JH r III V_L_ Date: 2023.05.18 13:36:14
-05'00'
Lisa Price
Acting Director. Superfund and Emergency Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Region 6
-------
This page intentionally left blank
-------
Table of Contents
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 3
I. INTRODUCTION 4
Site Background 4
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SUMMARY FORM 6
II. RESPONSE ACTION SUMMARY 8
Basis for Taking Action 8
Response Actions 8
Status of Implementation 11
Systems Operations/Operation and Maintenance (O&M) 17
III. PROGRESS SINCE THE PREVIOUS REVIEW 17
IV. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS 18
Community Notification. Community Involvement and Site Interviews 18
Data Review 19
Site Inspection 22
V. TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 23
QUESTION A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents'.' 23
QUESTION B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels and RAOs used at the time of the
remedy selection still valid'.' 23
QUESTION C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the
remedy'.' 24
VI. ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS 24
OTHER FINDINGS 24
VII. PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT 24
VIII. NEXT REVIEW 25
APPENDIX A - REFERENCE LIST A-l
APPENDIX B - SITE CHRONOLOGY B-l
APPENDIX C - BOSSIER CITY ORDINANCE C-l
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY NOTICE D-l
APPENDIX E - PRESS NOTICE E-l
APPENDIX F - INTERVIEW FORMS F-l
APPENDIX G-ADDITIONAL FIGURES G-l
APPENDIX H -SITE INSPECTION CHECKLIST H-l
APPENDIX I - SITE INSPECTION PHOTOS 1-1
APPENDIX J - DETAILED ARARS REVIEW TABLES J-l
APPENDIX K -SCREENING-LEVEL RISK REVIEW K-l
APPENDIX L -EJSCREEN REPORT L-l
Tables
Table 1: Site COCs. by Media' 8
Table 2: Soil. Air and LN APL Cleanup Goals 11
Table 3: Summary of Planned and/or Implemented Institutional Controls (ICs) 15
Table 4: Protectiveness Determination and Statement from the 2018 FYR Report 17
Table B-l: Site Chronology B-l
Table k-l: Screening Risk Evaluation of the ROD's Soil Cleanup Remedial Goals k-l
Table K-2: Screening Risk Evaluation of the ROD Benzene Air Cleanup Goal K-2
1
-------
Figures
Figure 1: Site Vicinity Map 7
Figure 2: Institutional Control Map 16
Figure 3: Average LNAPL Thickness - Phase I Recovery Wells 19
Figure 4: Average LN APL Thickness - Phase 2 Recovery Wells 20
Figure 5: Total BTEX Concentrations from Select Wells 21
Figure G-l: Soil Removal Areas and 2018 Soil Sampling G-l
Figure G-2: Location of Phase 1 and Phase 2 Area Recovery Wells G-2
Figure G-3: Monitoring Well Locations G-3
Figure G-4: Groundwater Potentiometric Contours - May 2021 G-4
Figure G-5: Groundwater Potentiometric Contours - November 2021 G-5
Figure G-6: BTEX Concentrations in Groundwater. May 2021 G-6
Figure G-7: BTEX Concentrations in Groundwater. November 2021 G-7
Figure G-8: Area A Benzene Soil Vapor Sampling Locations and Results. 2018 and 2021 G-8
Figure G-9: Area B and D Benzene Soil Vapor Sampling Locations and Results. 2018 and 2021 G-9
Figure G-10: Historical Indoor Air Sample Locations. 1990 to 2018 G-10
2
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ARAR
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement
BaP
Benzo(a)pyrene
BTEX
Benzene. Toluene. Ethylbenzene. Xylene
btoc
Below Top of Casing
CERCLA
Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation, and Liability Act
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
CIC
Community Involvement Coordinator
coc
Contaminant of Concern
COPCO
( anadianOw Offshore Production Co.
CSC
Cities Service Company
DPE
Dual Phase Extraction
DPE-RTS
Dual Phase Extraction - Recovery and Treatment System
EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
FYR
Five-Year Review
GSHI
Glenn Springs Holding, Inc.
HI
Hazard Index
HQ
Hazard Quotient
IC
Institutional Control
IEUBK
Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic
LDEQ
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
LDHH
Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals
LNAPL
Light Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid
MCL
Maximum Contaminant Level
MCLG
Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
M-g/dL
Microgram per Deciliter
Hg/L
Microgram per Liter
mg/kg
Milligram per Kilogram
NCP
National Contingency Plan
NPL
National Priorities List
O&M
Operation and Maintenance
OSWER
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
OU
Operable Unit
OXY
OXY USA. Inc.
PAH
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon
PID
Photoionization Detector
ppbv
Parts per Billion by Volume
PPm
Parts per Million
PRP
Potentially Responsible Party
PVI
Petroleum Vapor Intrusion
RAO
Remedial Action Objective
ROD
Record of Decision
RPM
Remedial Project Manager
RSL
Regional Screening Level
SDWA
Safe Drinking Water Act
SEET
Section of Environmental Epidemiology and Toxicology
SOW
Statement of Work
TEPPCO
Texas Eastern Petroleum Products Company
Tl
Technical Impracticability
UAO
Unilateral Administrative Order
UU/UE
Unlimited Use/Unrestricted Exposure
voc
Volatile Organic Compound
3
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of a five-year review (FYR) is to evaluate the implementation and performance of a remedy to
determine if the remedy is and will continue to be protective of human health and the environment. The methods,
findings and conclusions of reviews are documented in FYR reports such as this one. In addition. FYR reports
identify issues found during the review, if any, and document recommendations to address them.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is preparing this FYR pursuant to the Comprehensive
Environmental Response. Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Section 121. consistent with the National
Contingency Plan (NCP) (40 CFR Section 300.430(f)(4)(ii)), and considering EPA policy.
This is the third FY R for the Highway 71/72 Refinery site (the Site). The triggering action for this statutory
review is the completion date of the previous FYR. The FYR has been prepared because hazardous substances,
pollutants or contaminants remain at the Site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure
(UU/UE).
The Site consists of one operable unit (OU1) that includes soil, groundwater, and light non-aqueous phase liquids
(LNAPL). This FYR Report addresses the remedies for soil. air. groundwater and LNAPL.
EPA remedial project manager (RPM) Michael Torres led the FYR. Participants included EPA community
involvement coordinator (CIC) Jarietta Coats. Brandee McCarthy from the Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality (LDEQ). and Melissa Oakley and Kirby Webster from EPA support contractor Skeo. The
potentially responsible party (PRP). CanadianOxy Offshore Production Co. (COPCO). was notified of the
initiation of the FYR. The review began on 10/30/2022.
Site Background
The 215-acre Site is located near the intersection of Louisiana State Highway 71 and State Highway 72 in Bossier
City, Bossier Parish. Louisiana (Figure 1) about 2 miles east of downtown Shreveport. Between 1923 and 1948,
the Louisiana Oil Refining Corporation operated a refinery at the Site. It produced residential heating and fuel oil.
The refinery ceased operating around 1948. Site owners continued to operate a petroleum storage and distribution
facility on the property until 1967. Past Site operations and waste disposal practices contaminated soil,
groundwater, and indoor air with hazardous constituents.
Old Minden Road runs through the center of the Site, dividing it into northern and southern halves. During
refinery operations, site features included a bulk storage area north of Old Minden Road and refinery process,
bulk storage, and distribution areas south of Old Minden Road. The Site underwent some redevelopment after
closure of refinery operations. It now includes mixed residential, commercial, and light industrial uses.
Residential areas include single-family homes and apartment complexes. Commercial areas contain several
improved hotel locations, such as the Hilton Garden Inn and Homewood Suites complex at the former Holiday
Inn property, the Extended Studio Suites at the previous Mainstay Hotel site, and the Super 7 Inn situated near the
place of an earlier Days Inn Hotel that was demolished after a fire in 2021. The property at the site of the fire is
currently undergoing infrastructure improvements to accommodate and sustain construction of a Northern Tools
retail facility.
See Appendix D A Texas Eastern Petroleum Products Company (TEPPCO) storage facility and pump station
borders the Site to the south. The Site's groundwater and LNAPL treatment system compound (Dual Phase
Extraction - Recovery and Treatment System) is located south of Old Minden Road. Pavement and buildings
cover about half of the Site. Groundwater beneath the Site is classified as a Class MB aquifer (one that is not
currently being used but could potentially be used in the future). It occurs in a shallow aquifer (about 10 to 60 feet
below ground surface) known as the Red River Alluvial Aquifer, which generally flows toward the Red River
(about 1,500 feet south of the Site) but is impacted by on-site pumping by the treatment system. Currently, the
groundwater from this aquifer is not being used on the Site.
4
-------
Appendix A includes a list of documents reviewed during this FYR. Appendix B includes a timeline of site
events.
5
-------
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SUMMARY FORM
SITE IDEM II IC A I ION
Site Name: Highway 71/72 Refinery
EPA ID: LAD981054075
| Region: 6
State: Louisiana
City/County: Bossier/Bossier |
1
SITE S I A 1 I S
NPL Status: Non-NPL
Multiple OUs?
No
Lead agency: EPA
Author name: Michael Torres, with additional support provided by Skeo
Author affiliation: EPA Region 6
Review period: 10/30/2022 - 5/22/2023
Date of site inspection: 12/7/2022
Type of rev iew: Statutory
Review number: 3
Triggering action date: 5/22/2018
Due date (fiveyears after triggering action date): 5/22/2023
Has the Site achieved construction completion?
Yes
REVIEW S I A I I S
6
-------
Disclaimer This map and any boundary lines within the map are approximate
and subject to change. The map is not a survey. The map is for informational
purposes only regarding EPA's response actions at the Site Map image is
the intellectual property of Esri and is used herein under license. Copyright ©
2020 Esri and its licensors. All rights resen/ed. Sources: Esri, Maxar, Esri
Community Maps Contributors, Texas Parks & Wildlife, CONANP, Esri,
HERE. Garmin. SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc. METI/NASA, USGS,
EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA and the 2000 ROD.
Highway 71/72 Refinery Site
City of Bossier, Bossier Parish, Louisiana
Last Modified: 1/19/2023
Figure 1: Site Vicinity Map
fMmm
Approximate Site Boundary
7
-------
II. RESPONSE ACTION SUMMARY
Basis for Taking Action
In December 1960, Arkansas Fuel Oil Corporation conveyed and assigned all but one tract of its property within
the former boundaries to Cities Service Reserves. Inc. The property was then conveyed to Cities Service
Company (CSC). In 1962 and 1963, CSC conveyed several tracts of site land. In 1964, the State of Louisiana,
through the Department of Highways, expropriated two tracts of site land for the Interstate 20 right of way. In
November 1966, CSC announced plans for the demolition of the remaining refinery structures and cleanup of the
property. In 1966 and 1967, CSC undertook site clearing, which reportedly included: filling in all remaining
ponds and bayous (with soil) with the exception of the two canals on the north half of the property; leveling all
dikes, spoils banks, and mounds; clearing structures, foundations, and piping in planned residential areas to a
depth of two feet; removing oil. product, and gas lines regardless of depth, and burning or removing all asphaltic
refinery waste from the Site.
EPA conducted Site investigations in the early 1990s and discovered sludge deposits buried under thin layers of
fill material or graded into a level surface, and high concentrations of lead in surface soil (greater than 40,000
milligrams per kilogram [mg/kg]). Numerous abandoned pipelines, foundation remnants, concrete rubble, railroad
tracks and ties, coke materials, and tar materials (sludge) were also encountered in the surface soil during early
response actions at the Site.
Based on the results of the Site's 1999 baseline risk assessment. EPA determined that future residential exposure
to indoor air. soil and groundwater could pose lifetime excess cancer risks that exceed 1 x 10"4 and a
noncarcinogenic target-organ-based hazard index (HI) greater than 1. EPA identified the LNAPL floating on the
groundwater underlying the Site as a principal threat waste. LNAPL may volatilize into soil, migrate to the
surface, and accumulate in the air inside buildings on site at concentrations substantially above levels that pose an
unacceptable risk to human health. EPA also identified benzene, carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs) and lead as COCs in soil. Table 1 summarizes the Site's primary exposure media and COCs. Based on the
Site's developed urban setting. EPA concluded that an ecological risk assessment was not needed due to the lack
of ecological receptors.
Table 1: Site COCs, by Media3
coc
Soil
Groundwater
Air
Wasfeb
Benzene
X
X
X
X
Carcinogenic PAHs0
X
--
--
--
Lead
X
--
--
--
Notes:
a. Information obtained from the Site's 2000 Record of Decision (ROD).
b. Waste includes LNAPL on top of groundwater or sorbed on to soil.
c. Carcinogenic PAHs were evaluated based on equivalent toxicity to benzo(a)pyrene.
X = contaminant is a COC for the given medium.
- = contaminant not a COC for the given medium.
Response Actions
Removal Actions
Both CanadianOxy Offshore Production Co. (COPCO) and Glenn Springs Holding. Inc. (GSHI) performed
removal actions under EPA orders at the Site on behalf of the PR P. COPCO. In accordance with a July 1996
Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO), OXY USA, Inc. (OXY). and later GSHI. conducted a removal action
between 1996 and 1998 to address lead-contaminated surface soil at several Site locations. The soil removal
action included an investigation of 13 areas to determine the extent of lead contamination in surface soil at those
8
-------
areas (Appendix G, Figure G-l). For the removal action. EPA selected a lead action level and cleanup level of 500
mg/kg. In addition to the areas selected for investigation and cleanup, the soil removal action addressed lead-
contaminated surface soil at three primarily residential areas known to exceed the established lead cleanup level.
Cleanup involved the excavation and off-site disposal of 7,858 cubic yards of soil contaminated with lead
concentrations above the cleanup level. The soil removal action addressed the top two feet of soil (defined as
surface soil) in the areas targeted for cleanup.
Pursuant to the December 1996 UAO, GSHI completed an indoor air removal action in 1997 to address indoor air
contamination at eight locations consisting of one private residence, two apartments, and five motel rooms to
mitigate confirmed indoor air hazards. EPA selected 10 parts per billion by volume (ppbv) as the benzene action
level and cleanup level based on site-specific data available at the time. Corrective action included engineering
controls such as sealing cracks in foundations, where accessible; sealing penetrations in walls and foundations,
where accessible; and/or installing or modifying ventilation systems for dw elling units where concentrations of
benzene in indoor air exceeded the benzene action level. These engineering controls were designed to reduce
indoor air concentrations of benzene to concentrations that were below the cleanup level. The engineering
controls did not address the source of the benzene.
In addition to the soil and indoor air removal actions. GSHI voluntarily began an LNAPL recovery program to
remove remnant LNAPL from below the ground surface in groundwater in early 1997. The purpose of the
LNAPL recovery program is to reduce the volume of LNAPL, a primary source of the indoor air contamination
documented at the Site. The LNAPL program involves pumping LNAPL and groundwater from beneath the
former refinery process area and capturing and disposing of the LNAPL off site.
Throughout Site investigations, community leaders requested that EPA take a non-intrusive approach to site
investigation and remediation to avoid disruption to homeowners and business operations. To that end. EPA.
Bossier City, LDEQ and OXY. acting on behalf of COPCO. entered an "Agreement in Principle" in September
1995. The Agreement in Principle provided a framework within which to implement cleanup. EPA proposed the
Site to the National Priorities List (NPL) in 1995.
Record of Decision
EPA issued the Site's Record of Decision (ROD) in September 2000. It provides a full description of site
contamination, risk assessment, remedial alternatives, and the selected remedy. The ROD identified the follow ing
remedial action objectives (RAOs):
Soil RAOs
• Prevent human (especially child) ingestion of lead-contaminated surface and subsurface soil with lead
concentrations that exceed 510 parts per million (ppm or mg/kg1).
• Prevent human ingestion of. human dermal contact with, and human inhalation of surface and subsurface
soils containing carcinogenic PAHs at concentrations greater than 1 ppm benzo(a)pyrene (BaP)
equivalents, or benzene at concentrations greater than 1 ppm.
• Prevent human ingestion of and human dermal contact with soils containing other site-related compounds
that present a carcinogenic risk greater than 1 x 10~6 or an HI greater than 1.
• Reduce and/or eliminate the potential for soil to be impacted by COCs present in refinery waste materials
in the subsurface by removing LN APL from groundw ater until the performance standard (a threshold
thickness of 0.1 foot of LN APL. measured using an interface probe in monitoring or extraction wells) is
attained.
Groundwater RAOs
• Prevent human ingestion or inhalation of groundwater containing site related COCs at concentrations that
exceed the corresponding maximum contaminant level goals (MCLGs) established under the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA) that are set above zero for these COCs. Alternatively, prevent human
1 For soils. 1 ppm = 1 mg/kg of contaminant.
9
-------
ingestion or inhalation of groundwater containing SDWA maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) of these
COCs when the corresponding MCLGs are set at zero.
• Reduce and/or eliminate the potential for groundw ater to be impacted by COCs present in refinery waste
materials located in the subsurface by removing LNAPL from groundwater until the performance
standard (a threshold thickness of 0.1 foot of LN APL, measured using an interface probe in monitoring or
extraction wells) is attained, and by removing hydrocarbon-contaminated surface and subsurface soils,
containing carcinogenic PAHs at concentrations greater than 1 ppm BaP equivalents, or benzene at
concentrations greater than 1 ppm. should they become uncovered.
• Prevent human ingestion or inhalation of groundwater containing site-related COCs at concentrations that
exceed the corresponding non-zero MCLGs (or MCLs where the corresponding MCLGs equal zero) by
monitoring to ensure that concentrations of site-related COCs do not exceed remediation goals in site
groundwater that may migrate to an area that is not within the area under the jurisdiction of Bossier City's
ban on groundwater use.
Indoor Air RAOs
• Prevent human inhalation of concentrations of benzene in indoor air that exceed 10 ppbv benzene.
• Reduce and/or eliminate the potential for indoor air to be impacted by COCs present in refinery waste
materials in the subsurface by removing LNAPL from groundwater until the performance standard (a
threshold thickness of 0.1 foot of LN APL measured using an interface probe in monitoring or extraction
wells) is attained.
The selected remedy included the following components:
• Implementation of groundwater use restrictions through a city ordinance.
• Sampling for lead in surface soil (0 to 2 feet below ground surface) and sampling for hydrocarbons in
surface and subsurface soils at the request of on-site community members.
• Cleanup of lead-contaminated surface soil and hydrocarbons in surface and subsurface soil discovered
during requested sampling or uncovered during earthmoving activities.
• Quarterly notification of the on-site community of potential contamination, available environmental
services and groundw ater use restrictions.
• Enhanced LNAPL recovery by dual-phase extraction from LNAPL plumes (A, B. C and D). LNAPL
recycling/reuse or disposal, and treatment of co-cxtracted groundwater (w ith reinjection to the aquifer)
and vapors using granular activated carbon.2
• Monitoring of groundwater. LNAPL and indoor air.
• Sampling for benzene in indoor air at the request of on-site community members.
• Mitigation of indoor air contamination discovered through requested sampling.
The 2000 ROD states that the remedy will not meet applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs)
for groundwater because compliance with these ARARs is technically impracticable from an engineering
perspective. The ROD attributed the basis for the Technical Impracticability (Tl) Waiver to the follow ing factors:
• The presence of a potentially large source area that will remain at the Site beneath existing structures.
• The nature and extent of the contaminated groundwater plume.
• The community's request that EPA take an approach to remediation that does not disturb the development
on the Site.
Table 2 summarizes site soil and groundw ater cleanup goals, as presented in the ROD. Figure 2 shows the area
subject to the Tl Waiver.
2 The ROD identified four potential LNAPL areas, defined as LNAPL Plume areas A, B. C and D. to be addressed by the
LNAPL recovery program.
10
-------
Table 2: Soil, Air and LNAPL Cleanup Goals
Soil"
Air'
LNAPL"-b
(mg/kg)
(ppbv)
(thickness in feet)
Benzene
1
10
0.1
Carcinogenic PAHs0
1
-
-
Lead
510
-
-
Notes:
a. Information obtained from the ROD with soil and indoor air cleanup goals based on residential exposure. The cleanup
goal for LNAPL is represented as a threshold thickness (basis for selection of remediation goals).
b. EPA initially identified drinking water standards established under the SWDA as potential cleanup goals for
groundwater but waived these standards in the ROD because compliance with the standards is technically
impracticable from an engineering perspective.
c. Carcinogenic P AHs were evaluated based on equivalent toxicity to benzo(a)pyrene.
- = cleanup goal not required
Status of Implementation
CanadianOxy Offshore Production Co (COPCO aka PRP). EPA. and the state of Louisiana entered a Consent
Decree on June 17. 2005. The Consent Decree and the associated Statement of Work (SOW) set forth the
conditions under which COPCO would conduct remediation of the Site in accordance with the remedy selected in
the ROD. Site cleanup is being conducted as a Superfund Alternative Approach cleanup. Glenn Springs Holdings.
Inc. is performing the work on behalf of COPCO. GSHI. on behalf of the Settling Defendant. COPCO. completed
the remedial design in September 2006. EPA approved the Remedial Action Work Plan in February 2008 and the
PRP began remedy construction in May 2008.
COPCO implemented an LNAPL recovery demonstration program in 2007 to define Plume Areas A, B. C and D.
In Plume Area A, GSHI located potentially recoverable LN APL in three areas. GSHI determined that recoverable
LN APL is not present in Plume Areas B. C and D. GSHI continues to monitor wells in Areas B. C and D for the
presence of LN APL. GSHI implemented the approved LN APL Recovery Program in the identified areas at Plume
Area A. The PRP installed the DPE-RTS between 2008 and 2010.3 The PRP expanded the existing well network
by installing three more wells along the southern boundary of the Site in November 2008. EPA completed the
Site's pre-final inspection in July 2010 and approved the Site's Preliminary Close-Out Report in September 2010,
demonstrating that the PRP had constructed the remedy in accordance with the remedial design and the Remedial
Action Work Plan. In May 2011, EPA determined that the LN APL DPE-RTS was operational and functional. In
September 2011, the PRP completed the Site's Remedial Action Completion Report. The DPE-RTS continues to
operate.
Actions taken entirely on site under CERCLA authority require no permit. Nonetheless. GSHI did obtain a permit
in one instance. The DPE-RTS operates under a Louisiana Department of Natural Resources Class V In jection
Well Permit. A copy of the current permit is included in Appendix A of the Site's 2021 Annual Remedial Action
Report. The permit docs not require monitoring of the treated groundwater prior to injection into the aquifer.
Effluent groundw ater monitoring consists of periodic operations and maintenance checks, as specified in the
Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Plan, to confirm the equipment is operating as specified in accordance with
the permit.
In December 2005, GSHI removed about 150 cubic yards of lead-impacted soil from two addresses on Preston
Boulevard. The soil removal was conducted based on soil sample results from community-requested soil
sampling. Since February 2007, GSHI has mailed community notices to property ow ners within the former
3 Dual-Phase Extraction (DPE-RTS) is a technology that applies a strong vacuum to extraction wells to simultaneously
remove LNAPL floating on the water table and residual LNAPL trapped in the soil above the water table. DPE can also
remove groundwater and vapor. Once above ground, this co-extracted groundwater and vapor arc separated from the LNAPL
and treated.
11
-------
refinery site boundary. The groundwater and soil institutional controls required by the selected remedy have been
implemented and are discussed in the Institutional Control Review section of this FYR Report.
In response to community requests, the PRP performed 13 indoor air sampling events and 12 soil sampling events
betw een January 2007 and June 2019. Three requests by community members for indoor air and/or soil sampling
were received by GSHI in spring 2018 and 2019. Prior to these community requests, the most recent request was
in 2012. Of the soil and indoor air samples collected by the PRP. only one soil sample exceeded remediation goals
in 201 1 and a remediation was completed at this location.
Reuse and Redevelopment at the former Holiday Inn Property
In May 201 1. in preparation for construction of a new hotel complex, soil sampling at the former Holiday Inn
property at 2015 Old Minden Road identified soil contamination concentrations above cleanup levels. In 2011 and
2012, the PRP remediated soil (involving excavation and off-site disposal) and refinery waste material found at
the property during construction. The developer completed construction of the new Hilton Garden Inn and
Homewood Suites hotel complex in 2013. The hotel developer incorporated vapor intrusion protection into design
plans for the new facility to address any potential for site-related air contamination. This collaboration of cleanup
and redevelopment efforts is an example of how the Site's alternative, non-intrusive cleanup approach allowed the
PRP to address previously inaccessible waste during development and provided a better environment for
redevelopment.
Vapor Intrusion Assessment
In June 2015, EPA issued two new guidance documents: 1) the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER) Technical Guide for Assessing and Mitigating the Vapor Intrusion Pathway from Subsurface Vapor
Sources to Indoor Air (OSWER Publication 9200.2-154)4; and 2) the Technical Guide for Addressing Petroleum
Vapor Intrusion at Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites (EPA 510-R-15-001).5 Together, these two
documents replace draft guidances that had not been updated since 2002. In May 2016, EPA. LDEQ and GSHI
negotiated a revision to the SOW per paragraph 109 of the Consent Decree regarding compliance with indoor air
RAOs. The use of Soils and Soil Media Methods, as previously required in SOW paragraph 58(a), was
determined unsuitable by the State based on Site knowledge obtained from sampling and in light of the two new
EPA technical guides listed above. Consequently. EPA proposed and LDEQ and GSHI agreed to a modification
of paragraph 58(a), as follows:
"In order to demonstrate that the remedial action objective in subparagraph a. of the SOW has been met,
the Settling Defendant shall utilize the OSWER Technical Guide for Assessing and Mitigating the Vapor
Intrusion Pathway from Subsurface Vapor Sources to Indoor Air, OSWER Publication 9200.2-154, June
2015, and the Technical Guide for Addressing Petroleum Vapor Intrusion at Leaking Underground
Storage Tank Sites, EPA 510-R-15-001, June 2015, to evaluate Site data. The Settling Defendant shall
evaluate Site data and conduct sampling and analysis of any additional data required in accordance with
an EPA-approved amendment to the Remedial Action Work Plan, which Settling Defendant shall prepare
and submit to EPA for review and approval by [date], "
In compliance with the SOW modification. GSHI submitted a draft Remedial Action Work Plan Amendment in
June 2016. EPA coordinated with LDEQ and the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals (LDHH). Section
of Environmental Epidemiology and Toxicology (SEET) regarding the work plan amendment. GSHI revised the
work plan, as required by EPA. LDEQ and SEET, and based on stakeholder's comments. EPA subsequently
approved it in July 2017.
The Remedial Action Work Plan Amendment added the following activities:
4 See https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-09/documents/oswer-vapor-intrusion-technical-guide-final.pdf.
5 See https://www.eKi.gov/sites/default/files/2015-Q6/doaiments/pvi-guide-fimil-6-10-15.pdf.
12
-------
1. Delineate the lateral inclusion zones by using existing groundwater and LNAPL monitoring data to
eliminate areas not likely to be impacted by petroleum vapor intrusion (PVI). (EPA identifies buildings
that are "near" a subsurface vapor source and that generally warrant assessment by establishing an area -
a "zone" - around that subsurface vapor source based on a set lateral distance from the source. Buildings
in this "lateral inclusion zone" will generally be assessed for human health risk from LN APL
contamination in groundwater.)
2. Use existing soil and groundw ater/LN A PL data to determine the vertical distances between the base of
the buildings in the lateral inclusion zone and any impacted media, which they directly overlie.
3. Evaluate previous soil vapor and indoor air sample results for all buildings in areas identified in the lateral
inclusion zone, which demonstrate potential for PVI based on vertical separation distance.
4. Compile the data and submit recommendations to EPA for the collection of near-slab soil/gas samples if
more investigation is recommended, to further evaluate potential PVI at any specific buildings. If the
potential for PVI cannot be ruled out based on near-slab sample results, the PRP will submit
recommendations for sub-slab soil/gas and/or indoor air sample collection.
5. Remediate any buildings at the Site containing concentrations of benzene in indoor air such that indoor air
concentrations of benzene attributable to petroleum refinery-related wastes do not exceed 10 ppbv in
accordance with the Consent Decree.
GSHI installed ten soil vapor implants in February 2018. Based on observed conditions and information obtained
from maintenance workers at some locations, the soil vapor implants in some locations were likely being
impacted by the landscape sprinkler systems and water leaks from the adjacent structures, as well as high seasonal
groundw ater levels. These conditions prevented the collection of soil gas samples at these locations. Based on site
conditions encountered and discussions with EPA and LDEQ. GSHI submitted a Revised Remedial Action Work
Plan Amendment in 2020, which was subsequently approved by EPA and LDEQ. GSHI installed eight soil vapor
implants in 2021. Data collected from these sampling events is discussed in the Data Review section.
Rev iew of Soil Cleanup
EPA. LDEQ and GSHI evaluated existing historical data to determine existing benzene and PAH concentrations
in soil. Several additional sample locations were resampled in 2018 to determine current soil concentrations
where historical samples with elevated benzene or PAH concentrations and/or elevated laboratory detection limits
existed from historical data. Additionally, one location was sampled based on a community request and one new
location was sampled near the playground at First Methodist Church based on EPA request. GSHI prepared a
statistical risk-based determination of whether current surface and subsurface soil in the exposed site area contains
benzene or BAP equivalents at concentrations above the remediation goal of 1 ppm. Using EPA approved
methods, it has been determined, with 95 percent confidence, that the population means for benzene and PAH
concentrations in soil within the exposed site area do not exceed the established threshold of 1 ppm. This
evaluation is summarized in the 2018 Remedial Action Completion Report - Benzene and Polynuclear Aromatic
Hydrocarbons in Soil.
In 2021, EPA withdrew the previous proposal to add the Site to the NPL based on its determination that the PRP
implemented all appropriate response actions and that only continued monitoring as a component of O&M is
required.
The former Days Inn hotel located on the Site caught on fire in February 2021. After the fire, the city bulldozed
the remnants of the building and cleared the debris from the Site. An investment company purchased the property
and hired a developer to construct a Northern Tool retail business in the general footprint of the former hotel. The
new property owner had liability concerns regarding purchase of the property. GSHI provided written assurances
to the new property owner that GSHI would be responsible for cleanup of any contamination found during
construction. Prior to excavation, the PRP conducted soil pre-characterization work. GSHI conducted the first
phase of soil excavation in November 2022, which involved stockpiling and off-site disposal of excavated soil by
the PRP. Excavation activities are closely monitored to ensure protectiveness and include monitoring for volatile
organic compounds (VOCs). The PRP will pay to install a vapor barrier beneath the new Northern Tool building
13
-------
to eliminate the risk of vapor intrusion into the structure. Follow ing construction completion, the PRP will
reevaluate the need to install new recovery wells on the property, to replace those that were removed to facilitate
development. The next phase of site development will include installation of utilities and stormwater control
features.
Institutional Control (IC) Review
Groundwater use restrictions required by the 2000 ROD have been satisfied by the Bossier City Ordinance 109 of
2000, adopted by Bossier City on October 17. 2000 (Table 3). In addition to restricting groundwater use. the
ordinance also states that potable water supplies must be sourced from the Bossier City water distribution system.
Groundwater data are reviewed for each semiannual sampling event and annually. If it is determined that site-
related LNAPL or groundwater contamination has migrated beyond the extent of the current groundwater use
restriction area, the PRP will investigate the issue to define the extent of the contamination and notify EPA.
LDEQ and Bossier City to revise the boundaries of the groundwater use restriction area. A copy of the Bossier
City Ordinance 109 of 2000 is included in Appendix C.
The ROD requires GSHI to send quarterly notifications to the on-site community of potential contamination,
available environmental services and groundwater use restrictions. These periodic mai louts notify residents and
business owners of potential contamination, available services for sampling, groundwater use restrictions, and the
number to call to request sampling services. After two years of quarterly mai louts. GSHI requested in April 2009
to reduce the frequency of mai louts to once every six months. Relatively few requests for soil and indoor air
sampling had been received after two years of quarterly mailouts. After communication and coordination with the
city, EPA agreed in June 2009 to the reduction of mailout frequency from quarterly to semiannually. The
community notice mailing list is updated by EPA as new information becomes available. The semiannual
community notices act as an informational IC by informing on-site residents and business owners of groundwater
use restrictions and of available environmental services if community members encounter visually impacted or
malodorous soils or have indoor air complaints. The community notices also include various methods to contact
EPA and LDEQ. including a dedicated community hotline number to obtain information or request sampling. A
copy of the November 2022 Community Notice is included in Appendix D.
The Louisiana Underground Utilities and Facilities Damage Prevention Law requires notification to the Louisiana
One Call system prior to any work that may result in ground disturbance. Anyone planning digging activities must
first call Louisiana One Call to make sure the digging will not disrupt any underground utilities. Louisiana One
Call notifies the PRP if someone schedules an appointment to identify existing underground utilities on the Site.
The PRP investigates all calls reported by One Call for properties located within the site boundary. The PRP can
monitor Site digging and construction and ensure that excavation areas do not impact the remedy and that any
excavated materials are handled safely and disposed of properly.
Table 3 summarizes the Site's ICs. Figure 2 show s the area subject to the Site's institutional controls.
14
-------
Table 3: Summary of Planned and/or Implemented Institutional Controls (ICs)
Media, Engineered
Controls, and Areas
That Do Not
Support UU/lJE
Based on Current
Conditions
ICs
Needed
ICs Called
for in the
Decision
Documents
Impacted
Parcel(s)
IC
Objective
Title of IC Instrument
Implemented and Date
(or planned)
Groundwater
Yes
Yes
Properties
within the
former
refinery
boundary -
the current
site
boundary
Prohibition of the use
of existing wells and
installation of
groundwater wells on
site to prevent
exposure to impacted
groundwater.
Bossier City Ordinance
109 of 2000
October 17, 2000
No
Properties
within the
Notification of the
PRP of potential
digging activities at or
near the Site that could
potentially affect the
remedy.
Louisiana One Call
notification system
Soil
Yes
Yes
former
refinery
boundary -
the current
site
boundary
Notification of the on-
site community of
potential
contamination,
available services and
groundwater use
restrictions.
The semiannual
community notices inform
on-site residents and
business owners of
LNAPL and groundwater
contamination and of
environmental services
available if community
members encounter
visually impacted or
malodorous soil.
15
-------
Figure 2: Institutional Controls Map
Extended Studio
Suite Hotel
Hilton
Garden Inn
Super 7
Motel
Former Days
Inn Property
Oasis Apartment_
Complex
Alexis Park
Apartments
Approximate Site Boundary and Area Subject to the
2000 Bossier City Ordinance and Louisiana One Call
Notification System
Groundwater and LNAPL Treatment System Compound
LNAPL Plume Area
Highway 71/72 Refinery Site
City of Bossier, Bossier Parish, Louisiana
Disclaimer: This map and any boundary lines within the map are approximate and
subject to change. The map is not a survey. The map is for informational purposes
only regarding EPA's response actions at the Site. Map image is the intellectual
property of Esri and is used herein under license. Copyright © 2020 Esri and its
licensors. All rights reserved. Sources: Esri, Esri Community Maps Contributors.
Texas Parks & Wildlife, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, CONANP, Esri, HERE,
Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US
Census Bureau, USDA, Maxar and the 2000 ROD.
^Skeo
Last Modified: 1/19/2023
16
-------
Systems Operations/Operation and Maintenance (Q&M)
In accordance with the Site's 2019 O&M Plan, the PRP conducts daily, bi-weekly, weekly, bi-monthly and
semiannual O&M inspections. Inspection findings are documented, and issues are addressed upon discovery.
These inspections include but are not limited to visually inspecting remedial components and the fence that
secures the DPE-RTS compound; checking the operation of remedial components; inspecting the DPE-RTS
compound for signs of unauthorized entry; review ing the Site Health and Safety Plan; monthly gauging of site
wells; groundwater sampling; and scheduled maintenance of remedial components. The PRP also performs
semiannual inspections and maintenance of the indoor air corrective measures installed as part of the 1997 indoor
air removal action. Those measures include sealing cracks and penetrations in foundations and walls, and the
installation or modification and maintenance of ventilation systems at eight Extended Studio Suite Hotel
(formerly Mainstay Suites/Residence Inn) units, two Alexis Park apartment units and one St. Charles Place
apartment unit. A new vacuum pump was installed in the DPE-RTS treatment system in 2019. Wells within the
former Days Inn property have been abandoned and plugged to facilitate the new development. The PRP conducts
periodic inspections of soil removal areas to confirm that the backfill has not subsided and created areas that hold
surface water, cause potential property damage, or present safety concerns.
According to the Site's O&M Plan, while not required by the 2000 ROD. the two LNAPL storage tanks in the
DPE-RTS compound operate under an existing 1998 LDEQ Small Source Exemption.' According to the 2021
Annual Report, the PRP submitted the air emissions calculations for the DPE-RTS operations and LDEQ required
no additional permits. Effluent air monitoring consists of monitoring odor and photoionization detector (PID)
levels during periodic O&M checks and carbon influent and effluent vapor sample analysis for VOCs on a
quarterly basis to evaluate the carbon efficiency, as specified in the current O&M Plan. Between system startup
in September 2008 and the middle of 2022, the DPE-RTS treated 10,258,421 gallons of groundw ater and
recovered 45,622 gallons of LN APL. The Annual Reports summarize waste materials moved off site:
• In 2018, 1,470 gallons of recovered LN APL and associated groundw ater were transported off site. About
5,000 pounds of spent carbon were transported off site for reactivation.
• In 2019, 1,554 gallons of recovered LNAPL and associated groundwater were transported off site. Nine
drums containing soil cuttings and drilling debris were removed from the Site.
• In 2020, about 5,000 pounds of spent carbon were transported off site for reactivation.
Annual reports are provided to LDEQ and EPA. Quarterly remedial action status updates are also provided to
LDEQ and EPA.
III. PROGRESS SINCE THE PREVIOUS REVIEW
This section includes the protectiveness determination and statement from the last FYR Report.
Table 4: Protectiveness Determination and Statement from the 2018 FYR Report
OIJ #
Protectiveness
Determination
Protectiveness Statement
Silcu idc
Protective
The remedy at Highway 71/72 Refinery Site is protective of
human health and the environment.
The 2018 FYR Report did not identify any issues with recommendations. The 2018 FYR Report identified several
additional findings warranting follow up actions. The additional findings are listed below with how they were
resolved.
6 February 1992 OSWER Directive 9355.7-03 states that CERCLA response actions arc exempted by law from the
requirement to obtain federal, state or local permits related to any on-site remedial actions. While that exemption docs not
waive ARARs. the 2000 ROD did not select LDEQ small source exemption requirements as an AR AR. Therefore, from a
CERCL A standpoint, the operation of the DPE-RTS is not required to meet LDEQ small source exemption criteria. The
Site's 1998 small source exemption established a maximum VOC emission rate of 0.2 tons per year.
17
-------
• As noted during the site inspection, the soil around the concrete well pad of one well at Alexis Park, near
MW-59, has eroded, leaving most of the well pad exposed above the surface of the ground and resulting
in pad instability. The recommendation during the inspection was to repair and stabilize the well pad, or
properly abandon the well.
The well pad was repaired January 19, 2018.
• A trigger for outdoor air had not been established to identify the need for carbon bed replacement.
The PRP indicated that it would address the issue regarding a trigger for carbon bed replacement. While
a combination of carbon effluent sampling and PID system readings have been performed monthly since
the inception of the DPE-RTS operation to monitor system performance, a process for comparing pre-
andpost- carbon treatment air samples to monitor carbon efficiency will now be implemented. Carbon
influent and effluent air samples will be collected and analyzed for VOCs on a quarterly basis to evaluate
the carbon efficiency. When the carbon efficiency falls below the target of 90% reduction in benzene,
replacement of the carbon will be evaluated. Status of carbon replacement and analytical results will be
reported to EPA in the Quarterly and/or Annual Reports.
The 2019 O&M Plan incorporates this adjustment.
• The work required by the 2017 Remedial Action Work Plan Amendment is in the process of being
implemented. The PRP initiated work plan activities in February 2018 with the installation of near slab
soil gas sampling ports. Sampling was conducted in March 2018. Results are pending. Additional
sampling will be required due to water in the port tubing; additional sampling will be conducted during
drier months to reduce the chance of water in port tubing.
Based on site conditions encountered and discussions with EPA and LDEQ, a Revised Remedial Action
Work Plan Amendment was submitted in 2020 and approved by EPA and LDEQ. Eight soil vapor
implants were installed in 2021. Data collected from these sampling events is discussed in the Data
Review section.
IV. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS
Community Notification, Community Involvement and Site Interviews
A public notice was made available by a newspaper posting in the Shreveport Times, on 11/17/2022 (Appendix
E). It stated that the FY R was underway and invited the public to submit any comments to EPA. The results of the
review and the report will be made available at the Site's information repository, located at the Bossier Parish
Library. 2206 Beckett Street. Bossier City, Louisiana.
During the FYR process. EPA conducted interviews to document any perceived problems or successes with the
remedy implemented to date. The interviews are summarized below and included in Appendix F.
EPA conducted interviews with LDEQ. the Bossier Parish Sheriff s Office, the Bossier City Administration
Office, the Community Development Department for the City of Bossier, the Bossier City Library and History
Center Manager, Lisa Waskom from GSHI, Nick Groves from PRP O&M contractor GHD, a resident and
representatives for two hotels located on the Site. LDEQ stated that this project has been very successful in
reducing and eliminating any contamination that may pose a risk to the community. LDEQ says the remedy is
successful in keeping the community safe. LDEQ stated that it is comfortable with the institutional controls in
place and is not aware of any changes in projected land use at the Site.
Interviewees are generally aware of the Site and the cleanup activities that have taken place. Remedial activities
performed to date have proven effective in eliminating exposure to contaminants in soil, groundwater, and vapor.
The PRP's O&M contractor noted that, with EPA approval, opportunities for future cost savings and efficiency
could include reducing the frequency of the community notifications to once a year due to a decrease in
community sampling requests, and temporary shut-down of the groundwater recovery system, based on the
successful reduction of LNAPL thickness to less than 0.1 feet. One interviewee was not aware of the Site.
Interviewees generally stated that they feel that the project has been successful in eliminating contamination that
may pose a risk to the community. Cleanup efforts have allowed the property of the former refinery to not just sit
18
-------
empty, but to be successfully utilized by the community for homes and businesses. Interviewees mentioned that
they hope EPA is monitoring the current development that is occurring on site. One interview mentioned concern
in property values because of the Site.
Data Review
The data evaluated in this FYR include LNAPL thickness (measured quarterly) and groundwater monitoring data
for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX) included in 2018 through 2021 annual remedial action
reports (measured semiannually). It also includes a summary of the soil vapor sample collection conducted in
2018 and 2021. The key findings of the data review are included below, followed by media-specific data analysis.
• Very limited areas of 0.1-foot LNAPL thickness remain in Plume Area A. The ongoing monitoring
program will ensure that the LNAPL continues to shrink in Plume Area A, and continues to remain below
the threshold thickness of 0.1 feet in Plume Areas B, C and D.
• The 2021 BTEX data show that only several wells (all within the TI Waiver Zone) still contain benzene
above the MCL of 5 micrograms per liter (|ig/L), which is the same as the 2017 data. Results indicate that
shallow groundwater contamination is not currently present beyond the Site's southern boundary,
however ongoing monitoring is necessary to ensure contamination remains within the TI Waiver Zone.
• Results from the soil vapor sample collection indicate that more sampling is warranted.
LNAPL
The PRP operates the DPE-RTS to reduce the thickness of LNAPL present within Plume Area A (Figure 2). The
LNAPL DPE system is connected to 72 recovery wells (30 in Phase 1 Area and 42 in Phase 2 Area) shown in
Appendix G, Figure G-2. In 2021, monitoring well MW-101-97 was converted to a DPE system recovery well by
connecting it permanently to the DPE system. Substantial removal of LNAPL mass, both in thickness and areal
extent, has been achieved by remedial efforts (see Figures 3 and 4). In 2021, only one area near MW-90 exceeded
the 0.1-foot LNAPL thickness in Plume Area A. During the other quarterly events in 2021, no LNAPL
measurements exceeded the 0.1-foot thickness. Groundwater monitoring and sampling data collected in Plume
Areas B, C and D do not indicate the presence of LNAPL. The remedy has achieved the performance objective of
a threshold thickness of 0.1 foot of LNAPL in Plume Areas B, C and D. The ongoing monitoring program will
ensure that the LNAPL continues to shrink in Plume Area A, and continues to remain below the threshold
thickness of 0.1 feet in Plume Areas B, C and D.
Figure 3: Average LNAPL Thickness - Phase I Recovery Wells7
7 Figure 5.2A from the 2021 Annual Remedial Action Report.
19
-------
Figure 4: Average LNAPL Thickness - Phase 2 Recovery Wells8
Groundwater Level and BTEX
The 2000 ROD requires groundwater monitoring of BTEX to determine whether groundwater contamination or
LNAPL has migrated into areas not covered by Bossier City's groundwater use restrictions. If it is determined
that groundwater contamination or LNAPL has migrated into areas not covered by Bossier City's groundwater
use restrictions, the PRP must alert EPA, LDEQ and the city so that the boundaries of the groundwater use
restrictions can be revised.
The PRP conducted a baseline groundwater sampling event in July 2007 to identify the location of the plume and
establish groundwater flow direction. Semiannual groundwater sampling has been conducted since 2008 (see
Appendix G, Figure G-3 for monitoring well locations). Since the 2000 ROD included a TI Waiver for on-site
groundwater, this groundwater data review focuses on areas where groundwater COCs could potentially migrate
off site (beyond the Site's southern border). This FYR evaluates water level and BTEX concentration data
obtained during the semiannual groundwater monitoring events and reported in the Annual Reports for 2018
through 2021. Figure G-4 and G-5 show potentiometric contours from May and November 2021. Groundwater
flow is heavily influenced by the pumping.
The Site's 2013 FYR Report raised a concern that the groundwater plume along the southern boundary of the Site
appeared to be migrating south into areas not covered by the groundwater use restriction. In 2014, the PRP
installed monitoring well MW-115 and added existing off-site well MW-72 (see Figure G-3) to future semiannual
groundwater sampling events. During the 2018 to 2021 reporting period, the only BTEX contaminant detected
was toluene during the June 2019 event at an estimated concentration of 0.44 (ig/L at MW-72 (MCL = 1,000
|ig/L). These results indicate that shallow groundwater contamination is not present beyond the Site's southern
boundary.
Figure 5 shows BTEX concentrations in select wells. Five wells had detections of BTEX during both the May and
November 2021 sampling events (B-2R, MW-59, MW-60, MW-63, MW-66). During this review period,
ethylbenzene (MCL = 700 |ig/L). toluene (MCL = 1,000 |ig/L) and total xylenes (MCL = 10,000 |ig/L)
concentrations at all southern boundary wells (MW-60, MW-62, MW-71, MW-112, MW-113 and MW-114) were
below their respective MCLs (Figures G-6 and G-7).
8 Figure 5.2D.3 from the 2021 Annual Remedial Action Report.
20
-------
As of November 2021, benzene concentrations at wells MW-59 and MW-60, just north of the Site's southern
boundary, exceeded MCLs at 1,700 |ig/L and 30 |ig/L. respectively. Boundary well MW-60 is screened deeper
than the off-site wells, at a depth between 55.5 feet and 65.5 feet below top of casing (btoc), but still within the
shallow groundwater unit at the Site. Groundwater is not used south of the Site and the property immediately
downgradient of wells MW-60 and MW-59 is occupied by an industrial facility (TEPPCO), as opposed to a
residential area. Boundary wells MW-59 (screened between 17.5 feet and 27.5 feet btoc) and MW-60 historically
exhibit the highest benzene concentrations of the wells along the Site's southern boundary. Wells MW-72 and
MW-115, located south of MW-59 and MW-60, are screened at different levels below the top of the well casing
within the Red River alluvial aquifer. Wells MW-72 and MW-115 show no measurable contamination at screened
intervals located at 22.0 feet and 32.0 feet btoc and 16.0 feet and 26.0 feet btoc, respectively. Ongoing long-term
groundwater monitoring is required by the ROD to verify that the plume is not expanding. Groundwater data are
reviewed for each semiannual sampling event. The southern boundary groundwater contamination is evaluated on
an annual basis. If it is determined that site related LNAPL or groundwater contamination has migrated beyond
the extent of the current groundwater use restriction area, the southern boundary of the Site, the PRP will
investigate the issue to define the extent of the contamination and notify EPA, LDEQ and Bossier City to revise
the boundaries of the groundwater use restriction area. Current groundwater monitoring indicates that shallow
groundwater contamination is not present beyond the Site's southern boundary.
Soil Vapor Sampling
In 2018, PRP contractors installed 10 soil vapor implants at two separate depth intervals per location. Eight soil
vapor implants were installed in 2021, at the same locations as in 2018, except for SV-3 and SV-4 which were not
sampled in 2021 (see Figures G-8 and G-9). Predicted indoor air concentrations exceeded the residential exposure
standards from both depths at SV-6 near the Super 7 Inn motel (18 ppbv predicted from the 5 foot below ground
surface sample and 87 ppbv predicted from the 10 foot below ground surface sample) and both depths at SV-9
near the Oasis Apartments (15 ppbv from the 5 foot below ground surface sample and 23.4 ppbv predicted from
the 10 foot below ground surface sample). Tins is a conservative screen, given that neither location is a residential
9 Figure 5.3E from the 2021 Annual Remedial Action Report.
21
-------
establishment. The 2022 Sampling Report proposes additional evaluation of the soil gas concentrations at the
existing locations on a semiannual basis for one year. Following these two sampling events, the monitoring of the
PVI pathway will be evaluated. If these data demonstrate that the PVI pathway is no longer present, the sampling
points will be abandoned. Additionally, the continued operation of the indoor air corrective measures systems will
be evaluated. Figures G-8 and G-9 show the location of the benzene soil vapor sampling locations and results.
Figure G-10 show s the historical locations of indoor air sampling.
Site Inspection
The Site inspection took place on 12/7/2022. In attendance were Remedial Project Manager Michael Torres (EPA
Region 6), Janetta Coats (EPA Community Involvement Coordinator). Brandee McCarthy (LDEQ), Nick Groves
and Tom McDermott (PRP contractor GHD). Lisa Waskom (GSHI). and Melissa Oakley (Skeo). The purpose of
the inspection was to assess the protectiveness of the remedy. The Site inspection checklist is included in
Appendix H. Site inspection photographs are included in Appendix I.
Prior to the Site inspection, participants met at the Bossier City Library History Center for a Site briefing. The site
inspection began with a safety briefing at the DPE-RTS compound (Figure 1). A tall wooden fence with a locking
gate prevents unauthorized access to the compound. Warning signage is clearly posted along the outside of the
fence. All components of the DPE-RTS were operational, surrounded by secondary containment, were clearly
labeled and appeared to be in good condition. System components observed included piping, a settling tank,
oil/w ater separator, air stripper, carbon filtration units. LN APL storage tanks and the new treatment system
vacuum pump that the PRP installed in 2019. Hard copies of the site's O&M manual and Health and Safety Plan
are maintained within the secured compound. System injection wells are located within the large vacant lot east of
the DPE-RTS compound. Occasionally, residents use the open field/lot as an area to walk their dogs. During the
inspection. Tom McDermott indicated that there have been a few instances of trespassing since the previous FYR.
In one instance, trespassers jumped the compound fence, broke into and damaged the locked storage shed and
stole a law n mower. The PRP has since purchased a new , locking storage shed. In another instance, a trespasser
broke one of the fence boards when trying to jump over the fence. The exterior of the compound fence included
signage to deter trespassers, and GHD's daily presence at the compound also helps deter trespassing.
Following the tour of the DPE-RTS compound, participants inspected the rest of the Site by car. Areas and Site
features inspected included: soil vapor sampling locations associated with the Alexis Park multi-unit residential
apartment development. Oasis apartments and the Super 7 Motel, monitoring wells located throughout the site,
and one of the positive-pressure vapor mitigation systems installed at the Extended Studio Suite Hotel (formerly
Mainstay Suites). All recovery, injection and monitoring wells appeared to be in good condition and were secured
with either bolts or padlocks and the vapor mitigation system was operational and appeared to be in good
condition. Site inspection participants also observed the now vacant former Days Inn hotel property, where
development activities are underway. The developer started excavation in late November 2022. Site inspection
participants observed two wells that the PRP abandoned and plugged to facilitate the new development, as well as
piles of clean fill and heavy equipment staged for additional earth moving activities.
Prior to the Site inspection, participants visited the Site's local information repository, located at the Bossier City
Library Historical Center at 2206 Beckett Street in Bossier City. A records review verified that a large collection
of older printed site-related documents is available for public viewing. The librarian mentioned that the library
will be moving to a new facility in the summer of 2023 and expressed interest in having the site administrative
record provided on CD. The EPA RPM and CIC indicated that EPA would provide copies of site documents on
CD and that they would be in touch regarding an approach to do so. Discussions also included the possibility of
developing and providing a written list of instructions regarding how to access electronic EPA site-related records
and electronic records available on LDEQ's electronic document management system. The information sheet
could potentially be posted at the library to serve as an additional information resource for the public.
22
-------
V. TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
QUESTION A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents'.'
Question A Summary:
Yes. based on a review of Site documents, the data review and observations made during the site inspection, the
remedy is functioning as designed.
Both OXY and GSHI have performed removal actions under EPA orders at the Site on behalf of the PR P.
COPCO. The soil removal action was officially completed in 1998. The 2018 Remedial Action Completion
Report - Benzene and Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Soil documents the remedial actions completed to
date to achieve the ROD RAO for benzene and PAHs in soil. Results discussed in the report determine that the
performance standards for benzene and PAHs (measured by BaP equivalents) have been met in the exposed site
area.
LNAPL and groundwater extraction and treatment are ongoing and appear to be successful at reducing the extent
and thickness of LN APL in the subsurface. Routine inspections and maintenance of remedial components,
including the indoor air corrective measures, help ensure the continued protectiveness of the remedy. The PRP
monitors vapor emissions from the DPE-RTS carbon filtration units and documents the results in annual O&M
reports.
Ongoing long-term groundwater monitoring is required by the ROD to verify that the plume is not expanding.
During this review period. BTEX was not detected above laboratory reporting limits at any off-site downgradient
wells. Those results indicate that shallow groundwater contamination is not currently present beyond the Site's
southern boundary. The 2000 Bossier City groundwater ordinance effectively prevents the use of site groundwater
and the installation of water supply wells.
Extensive sampling of indoor air and soil gas has been conducted since 1990 to investigate vapor intrusion
through the evaluation of indoor air benzene concentrations across the Site. Based on EPA request and updated
guidance, additional soil gas sampling was conducted in 2018 and 2021 and summarized in the 2022 Soil Vapor
Sampling Report. The report recommends additional evaluation of the soil gas concentrations at the existing
locations on a semiannual basis for one year. The PRP continues to perform indoor air sampling events in
response to community requests. The Louisiana Underground Utilities and Facilities Damage Prevention Law
requires notification to the Louisiana One Call system prior to any work that may result in ground disturbance.
When a call is made, the PRPs have to determine if digging poses a risk. If it does, the PRP is responsible for
addressing any additional needed cleanup, which can include paying for vapor intrusion barriers in new buildings
such as for the new Northern Tool building.
QUESTION B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels and RAOs used at the time of the
remedy selection still valid'.'
Question 6 Summary:
Yes. EPA waived the chemical specific applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) for
groundwater at the Site. Specifically. EPA waived drinking water standards established under EPA's Safe
Drinking Water Act. EPA waived these ARARs due to the presence of an extensive BTEX source that will remain
at the Site under existing structures. The waiver was also warranted due to the nature and extent of the
contaminated groundwater plume, which is currently wholly within the boundaries of the former refinery
property, and because the institutional controls in the form of the ordinance restricting use prohibits any exposure
to site groundwater.
Appendix J includes a detailed ARARs review. The screening-level risk evaluation of the ROD soil and air
cleanup goals using current toxicity values, performed as part of this FYR. demonstrates that the cleanup goals
23
-------
remain valid (Appendix K). Exposure assumptions have not changed, and the cleanup goals fall within EPA's risk
management range of 1 x 1()"" to 1 x 10"4or are below a noncancer hazard quotient (HQ) of 1. Further, the site-
specific soil lead cleanup goal remains valid, as the goal was based on a blood-lead model following EPA's lead
guidance. EPA is in the process of updating its policy based on recent studies, which indicate that lower blood
lead levels may be associated with health effects. EPA Region 6 will continue to use the current EPA policy until
the Agency finalizes and updates its policy, at which time the ROD cleanup goal will be re-evaluated.
The RAOs used at the time of remedy selection are still valid. Most of the soil RAOs have been met with the
removal actions. LNAPL thickness has been greatly reduced, with only one small portion of Area A that has not
consistently achieved less than 0.1 -foot thickness of LN APL. The groundwater and indoor air RAOs are currently
being met. and ongoing monitoring will ensure that they continue to be met.
QUESTION C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the
remedy'.'
CERCLA and the NCP require consideration of potential extreme weather/climate change impacts at the site. As
part of this FYR. EPA conducted a forward-looking climate change analysis to estimate whether extreme weather
could affect the protectiveness of the remedy, and what actions would be needed to ensure its resilience under
future climate conditions that could affect short term and long-term protectiveness. The breakdown of potential
conditions at the site indicates very low vulnerability to extreme temperature; annual, seasonal, and heavy
precipitation; dry days; inland flooding, sea level rise, and hurricane surge; wildfire, and landslides. The change
over current conditions assessment indicates potentially dangerous weather would not affect site operations or the
remedy. Climate change/extreme weather will continue to be evaluated at subsequent five-year reviews to ensure
remedy resilience at the site.
No other information has come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy.
VI. ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS
Issues/Recommendations
OU(s) without Issues/Recommendations Identified in the FYR:
OU1
OTHER FINDINGS
Two additional recommendations were identified during the FYR. These recommendations do not affect current
and/or future protectiveness.
• Conduct additional evaluation of the soil gas concentrations at the existing locations on a semiannual
basis for one year to ensure vapor intrusion is not a concern.
• Continue monitoring the southern boundary of the Tl Waiver zone to ensure groundwater contamination
has not migrated off site.
• During the FYR interview process, the PRP's O&M contractor shared suggestions for potential cost
savings related to O&M activities. Consider further optimization opportunities to potentially reduce site-
related O&M costs.
• Provide a CD with site-related documents to the library information repository.
VII. PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT
Ol I and Sitcwidc I'rolcclncness Statement
24
-------
Protectiveness Determination:
Protective
Protectiveness Statement:
The remedy at the Site is protective of human health and the environment. There is currently no potential
for complete exposure pathways to remaining waste in soil and groundwater. However, ongoing
monitoring is integral in ensuring there are no completed exposure pathways
VIII. NEXT REVIEW
The next FYR Report for the Highw ay 71/72 Refinery site is required five years from the completion date of this
review.
25
-------
APPENDIX A - REFERENCE LIST
2018 Annual Remedial Action Report. Highway 71/72 Former Refinery Site. Bossier City, Louisiana. Glenn
Springs Holdings. Inc. July 26. 2019.
2019 Annual Remedial Action Report. Highway 71/72 Former Refinery Site. Bossier City, Louisiana. Glenn
Springs Holdings. Inc. May 26. 2020.
2020 Annual Remedial Action Report. Highway 71/72 Former Refinery Site. Bossier City, Louisiana. Glenn
Springs Holdings. Inc. July 9, 2021.
2021 Annual Remedial Action Report. Highway 71/72 Former Refinery Site. Bossier City, Bossier Parish.
Louisiana. Glenn Springs Holdings. Inc. May 25, 2022.
EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Highway 71/72 Refinery. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. September
28, 2000.
First Quarter 2018 Remedial Action Status Update. Highw ay 71/72 Former Refinery Site - Bossier City,
Louisiana. GHD. April 3, 2018.
First Quarter 2019 Remedial Action Status Update. Highw ay 71/72 Former Refinery Site - Bossier City,
Louisiana. Glenn Springs Holdings. Inc. April 24, 2019.
First Quarter 2020 Remedial Action Status Update. Highw ay 71/72 Former Refinery Site - Bossier City,
Louisiana. GHD. April 8, 2020.
First Quarter 2021 Remedial Action Status Update. Highw ay 71/72 Former Refinery Site - Bossier City,
Louisiana. GHD. April 9, 2021.
First Quarter 2022 Remedial Action Status Update. Highw ay 71/72 Former Refinery Site - Bossier City,
Louisiana. GHD. April 15, 2022.
Fourth Quarter 2018 Remedial Action Status Update. Highway 71/72 Former Refinery Site - Bossier City,
Louisiana. GHD. January 9, 2019.
Fourth Quarter 2019 Remedial Action Status Update. Highway 71/72 Former Refinery Site - Bossier City,
Louisiana. GHD. January 7. 2020.
Fourth Quarter 2020 Remedial Action Status Update. Highway 71/72 Former Refinery Site - Bossier City,
Louisiana. GHD. January 8, 2021.
Fourth Quarter 2021 Remedial Action Status Update. Highway 71/72 Former Refinery Site - Bossier City,
Louisiana. GHD. January 7. 2022.
Memorandum. Withdrawal of Previous Proposal to Add the Highway 71/72 Refinery Site. Bossier City, LA to the
NPL. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Region 6. July 15, 2021.
Remedial Action Completion Report Benzene and Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Soil. Highway 71/72
Former Refinery Site. Bossier City, Louisiana. Glenn Springs Holdings. Inc. September 19, 2018.
Remedial Action Work Plan Amendment. Evaluation of Vapor Intrusion Pathway. Highway 71/72 Former
Refinery Site - Bossier City, Louisiana. GHD. June 26. 2017.
A-l
-------
Revised Remedial Action Work Plan Amendment. Evaluation of Vapor Intrusion Pathway. Highway 71/72
Former Refinery Site - Bossier City, Louisiana. GHD. May 8, 2020.
Second Five-Year Review Report for Highway 71/72 Refinery Site. Bossier Parish. Louisiana. Prepared by U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. May 2018.
Second Quarter 2018 Remedial Action Status Update. Highw ay 71/72 Former Refinery Site - Bossier City,
Louisiana. GHD. July 6, 2018.
Second Quarter 2019 Remedial Action Status Update. H ighw ay 71/72 Former Refinery Site - Bossier City,
Louisiana. GHD. July 9, 2019.
Second Quarter 2020 Remedial Action Status Update. H ighw ay 71/72 Former Refinery Site - Bossier City,
Louisiana. GHD. July 7. 2020.
Second Quarter 2021 Remedial Action Status Update. H ighw ay 71/72 Former Refinery Site - Bossier City,
Louisiana. GHD. July 8. 2021.
Second Quarter 2022 Remedial Action Status Update. H ighw ay 71/72 Former Refinery Site - Bossier City,
Louisiana. GHD. July 13, 2022.
Soil Vapor Sampling Report. Highway 71/72 Former Refinery Site. Bossier City, Bossier Parish. Louisiana.
Glenn Springs Holdings. Inc. September 29, 2022.
Third Quarter 2018 Remedial Action Status Update. Highw ay 71/72 Former Refinery Site - Bossier City,
Louisiana. GHD. October 10, 2018.
Third Quarter 2019 Remedial Action Status Update. Highw ay 71/72 Former Refinery Site - Bossier City,
Louisiana. GHD. October 9, 2019.
Third Quarter 2020 Remedial Action Status Update. Highw ay 71/72 Former Refinery Site - Bossier City,
Louisiana. GHD. October 8. 2020.
Third Quarter 2021 Remedial Action Status Update. Highw ay 71/72 Former Refinery Site - Bossier City,
Louisiana. GHD. October 6. 2021.
Operation and Maintenance Plan. Highway 71/72 Refinery Site. Bossier City, Louisiana. Glenn Springs Holdings.
Inc. Report No. 9 - Revision 4. February 26. 2019.
A-2
-------
APPENDIX B - SITE CHRONOLOGY
Table B-l: Site Chronology
Event
Date
Louisiana Oil Refining Corporation, and later the Arkansas Fuel Oil
Company, operated a refinery on site
1923-1948
Refinery operations ceased and the owner operated the facility as a
petroleum storage and distribution facility
1948-1967
Petroleum storage and distribution facility closed and owners began
clearing the Site for redevelopment
1967
Cities Service Oil Companv merged into Cities Service Companv
1978
Cities Service Companv became COPCO
Februarv 1984
Cities Service Companv. and later OXY. began site investigations
1985
Explosion hazard was identified at the Alexis Park apartment complex.
Organic vapors were detected at levels greater than 1,000 ppin
February 1990
Forty-seven families were evacuated from Alexis Park due to high
methane and other organic chemical levels.
1991
EPA conducted an expanded site investigation
September 1992
EPA proposed the Site for listing on the NPL
Februarv 13, 1995
EPA, Bossier City, LDEQ and OXY. acting on behalf of COPCO.
entered into an "Agreement in Principle"
September 10, 1995
EPA issued the first UAO to the PRP for the performance of the soil
removal action; PRP began the removal action
July 31, 1996
EPA issued the second U AO for the performance of the indoor air
removal action; PRP began the indoor air removal action
December 1996
PRP performed the indoor air removal action and initiated a voluntary
LNAPL recovcrv program
1997
PRP began the Site's remedial investigation
June 26, 1997
PRP completed a soil removal action
December 30, 1998
PRP completed the remedial investigation
Februarv 1999
PRP completed the Site's baseline risk assessment
March 1999
PRP completed the Site's feasibility studv
March 2000
EPA issued the Site's ROD
September 28, 2000
Bossier City Administrative Council approved groundwater ordinance
(Ordinance 109 of 2000)
October 17, 2000
PRP started the remedial design
June 8, 2004
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. Shrcvcport
Division, entered a Consent Decree for the PRP to clean up the Site
June 2005
PRP completed the remedial design and started the remedial action
September 25, 2006
EPA approved the PRP's Remedial Action Work Plan
Februarv 2008
PRP mobilized to the Site to begin reincdv construction
Mav 2008
PRP completed the Site's O&M Plan
April 2009
EPA completed the Site's pre-final inspection
Julv 2010
EPA completed the Site's Preliminary Close-Out Report, documenting
the completion of reincdv construction
September 30, 2010
EPA declared the LNAPL DPE-RTS operational and functional
May 2011
PRP completed the Site's Remedial Action Completion Report
September 27, 2011
EPA completed the Site's first FYR Report
May 3, 2013
Developer completed construction of the Hilton Garden Inn and
Homewood Suites hotel complex on site
2013
EPA, LDEQ and GSHI negotiated a revision to the SOW, per paragraph
109 of the Consent Decree
May 2016
EPA approved the PRP's Remedial Action Work Plan Amendment to
further evaluate the vapor intrusion pathway; the PRP began
July 25, 2017
B-l
-------
Li csrs
Date
implementing the work plan amendment
EPA completed the Site's second FYR Report
Mav 22. 2018
PRPs completed the Remedial Action Completion Report. Benzene and
Polvnuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Soil
September 2018
PRP submitted the Revised Remedial Action Work Plan Amendment to
further evaluate the vapor intrusion pathway
May 8, 2020
EPA withdrew the Site's previous proposal to the NPL
July 2021
PRPs began excavation to facilitate the new construction at the former
Days Inn property
November 2022
B-2
-------
APPENDIX C - BOSSIER CITY ORDINANCE10
ZM »».( n mhV
IUI IK M-»o« mt'-a
The fcltowwg UC&OKKC offered and actostal!
ORttfNANClf, 109 OF JOOO
AW 0EWNANC* HKflHimri.NGTIIK LNCTALLAIiU.N Of UKOLKDWATER
WELLS Trains TJBJi MIUHWAI nm BJEHNKRY SHE IN BOSSIER CITY
WHEREAS, the City has no fsMitto pmciws to determine the contents, qualify, of safely
uf uniierwound soaroes nf water: nm!
WHERE V*i, till; City has sufficient water to meet cw'tfsitf j'esidfeiilial mill oummerwal
water nc,c4$ i,»r tlio vky Srvni vximiag watci1 treatmeui piaiit rcsourws.
NOW, TtUC&KFORE, BE IT ORDAI\*I>, ihot the City Council of ta CHy,
Jbooisiwa, in legular susre convened, hrnifcy jjrjSsbitt the iastallahoii ol my new jroundwaler
walla m Ac Highway 71/72 Kefmeiy Site,
BE IT fUKTHER ORDAINED, water frnwi the cxisflag well on that iiie, or any other
Ital may be Jisoovsreil nti ih«t alls, shall not be used for'uuy putpuse,
Thr. nbovc. and (tangoing Ordinance, was read in Ml at open find tigul session convened,
onmoiioaof fiK ¦ UftRBY aeennrtrri by ilKS, RAHL3
mid adopted on ihs_l7 rrf«y of OCTOBER 20W, by the Mowing vote
ayes-. mrs> Cooper, Hh. BePrang,, Mrs. Raw.s., Nr. Darby,
Mr . Wi> i„ TAHs< Hr. Rogers
•NAYS; NOME
4BSEHT; Mk. JONLS
A,BS,rAlW:N0HE
Coy Coohek
Vint -PutsiPLNi
iti^rsssssssssf
HELEN THORNTON. CITY CLEKK
Ed WdiSlCB 18® ii -^a
ZSL8 tti Bit : "OH 3N0Hd
oNiaaamaNS isissoa ; hosj
10 Source: Exhibit A of the 2021 Annual Remedial Action Report.
C-l
-------
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY NOTICE
xvEPA
Highway 71/72 Former Refinery Site
November 2022
This notification will tell you about
Site location and history
Soil sampling & cleanup
Indoor air sampling & mitigation
Ground water use restrictions
Howto find out more about the Site
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in
conjunction with the Louisiana Department of Environmental
Quality (LDEQ), and in collaboration with the Highway 71 .<72
Former Refinery Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) are
cleaning up residual public health and environmental risks
from former refinery operations. EPA and the LDEQ oversee
ongoing PRP-led remedial actions, and also work with the
PRPs to provide long-term community involvement activities
as the Site.
Site Location and History
The Site (also called the Arkansas Fuel Qil Refinery) is
located near the intersections of Louisiana State Highways
71 and 72 in Bossier City, Bossier Parish, Louisiana,
app roxim atel y 2 m il es e ast o f downtown
Shreveport. The Site consists of approximately 215 acres of
land where a crude oil refinery was once located.
Today, the Site is fully developed with single-family homes,
apartments, and businesses. Several removal
actions have been conducted to mitigate lead-contaminated
surface soils at the Site, and to eliminate the risk of potential
vapor intrusion to indoor air at private residences and m otel
rooms located at the Site.
Soil Sampling and Cleanip
Parties who may suspect or encounter stained or
malodorous soil while conducting typical digging or soil
removal activities on-site (e.g., tree planting, gardening,
irrigation, underground utility installation and/or repair, etc.)
can call (318) 459-2635 to obtain previously-collected soil
and/or ground water sampling and analysis information on
their property. The public is invited to request soil sampling
and dean up information as needed. Ifthe results show
levels above the soil deanup levels required by the Record
of Decision (ROD), the soil will be removed, transported, and
disposed of at a proper hazardous waste facility. The
excavated area(s) will be backfilled with clean soil and re-
vegetated Ae -landscaped if necessary.
Note Any soil sampling and deanup/indoorair sampling
and mitigation will be coordinated with the property owner,
and conducted by the responsible parties, in collaboration
with the EP A/LDE Q, at no cost to the on-site property
owners(s) that may need these services.
Indoor Air Sampling and Mtigation
On-site residents, workers, businesses, or nearby
property-owners can call (318) 459-2635 if fuel-like odors
are noticed in indoor air to obtain information about any
previously-collected indoor air sampling and analysis
information on their property. The public is invited to
request indoor air sampling and dean up information as
needed. If pollutants related to the former refinery are
found at levels above the specified cleanup level required
by the ROD .then m rtigation actions will be taken to
eliminate the potential risk pathway to the indoor air (e.g.,
venting, sealing, etc.), as appropriate. Follow-up sampling
will be conducted as necessary.
Groundwater use Restrictions
The City of Bossier City has adopted a dty ordinance to
ban the use of Site ground water as another way to
eliminate the potential risk for human exposure to former
refinery-related pollutants in the ground water.
'ft Do you need more information?
Vou can use a computer to uisit the website.
U.S. EPA Headquarters: www.epa.goii
U.S. EPA Region 6 Superfund Division:
http://wvw2.eDa.Qcw/suDerfund
EPA Site Profile Page:
ww^egajgou/sjijerfmd/highwj^TI^T^
SThefol lowing EPA and LDEQ Staff a re available to
answer yoir questions about the Highway 71,72 Site.
IJS EPA Region 6
Michael Torres, Remedial Project Manager
(214) 665-2108 or 1 -800 533-3508 (toll-free)
Janetta Coats, Community Involvement Coordinator (214)
665-7308 or 1-800 533-3508 (toll-free)
LDEQ Remediation Division
Braridee McCarthy, Project Manager Al# 5347
P .0. Box 4312
Baton Rouge, LA 70821 -431 2
Phone: 0318)676-7232
D-l
-------
GHD
9228 Lin wood Ave. Suite K
ShreveportlJW1106
PRSRTSTD
US FOSTAGE
PAID
PERMIT #266
SHREVEPORTLA
«Prefix» «First Name» «Last Name»
«Tiile»
«Company»
«Number» «Street» «APT #» <
-------
APPENDIX E - PRESS NOTICE
5475844
Highway 71/72
K ht>> & v '*• ti
P? Ml' I i rft M
U.S. Environment©
November 2022
The U.S. Environ-
mental Protection
JVF!»V.V s
(EPA) will be con-
ducting ihc third
five-year review of
f&intJdv implementa-
tion ond perform-
ance or the HI 9 h way
71/72 Refinery site
(Jhe Site) in Bossier
City,. Louisiana. The
Slltf is about 2 miles
east pi downtown
Shreveport and 1,500
fee? north of the Reel
River, A crude oil
refinery once operat-
ed of the 215-acre
orea, Its operations
resulted in soil and
g rou ndwa 161* con"
tominahnn, The Si-
te's remedy includes
cleanup of soil,
groundwater ond in-
door air. os well m
institutional controls
and long-term moni-
toring. The five-year
review win deter-
mine if the remedies-
are still protective of
human health and
the- envir on m & n t,
The five year review
is scheduled for com-
pletion in May 20?3.
The report will be*
made available to
the public of the foi-
i. I I" L Hiillii!1
t ion repository:
Bossier Parish Li-
brary History Center
2206 Beckett Street
Site status updates
are available an the
Ah media inquiries
s-hcufd be directed
to the EPA Press Of
fic& at (214) 665-2200,
For more informo
tion about the Site
please contact:
Michael Torres
EPA Remedial Hroi
eel Manager
or by wiaH at torres
janetta" Coats'
EPA Community In
volvement Coorciinc
n,n
{214} 665-7308
or i 800-887-606:
0.90 V
"Ihi 1 ini> *¦
(11) 17
E-l
-------
APPENDIX F - INTERVIEW FORMS
HIGHWAY 71/72 REFINERY SITE
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW INTERVIEW FORM
Site Name: Highway 71 72 Refinery Site
EPA ID: LAD981054075
Interviewer name: Janetta Coats
Interviewer affiliation: EPA Region 6
Subject name: Bran dee McCarthy
Subject affiliation: LDEQ/Project Manager
Subject contact information: 318.676.7232
Interview date: 12.9.2022
Interview time:
Interview location: Discussed interview on site 12.7.2022
Interview format (circle one): In Person
Phone
Mail
Email
Other:
Interview category: LDEQ
1. What is your overall impression of the project, including cleanup, maintenance, and reuse activities (as
appropriate)'.'
This project has been very successful in reducing and eliminating any contamination that may pose a risk to
the community. Their efforts have allowed the property of the former refinery to not just sit empty, but to be
successfully utilized by the community for homes and businesses.
2. What is your assessment of the current performance of the remedy in place at the Site'.'
The current remedies in place (the treatment system and indoor air remedial efforts) are proving to be
successful in keeping the community safe.
3. Are you aw are of any complaints or inquiries regarding site-related environmental issues or remedial
activities from residents in the past five years?
I can recall one visit to a home for soil sampling in their yard. There were no issues found.
4. Has your office conducted any site-related activities or communications in the past five years? If so. please
describe the purpose and results of these activities.
LDEQ has not conducted any site related activities or communications. However, we review and approve the
community mailings prior to their disbursement.
5. Are you aware of any changes to state laws that might affect the protectiveness of the Site's remedy'.'
Not at this time.
6. Are you comfortable with the status of the institutional controls at the Site'.' If not. what are the associated
outstanding issues'.'
Yes. the institutional controls in place are addressing any current concerns.
7. Are you aware of any changes in projected land use(s) at the Site'.'
Not at this time.
8. Do you have any comments, suggestions or recommendations regarding the management or operation of the
Site's remedy'.'
GSHI has been very proactive as a responsible party. They never hesitate to answer any community or
regulatory requests. They are willing to do anything possible to make the site safe and useable for the
community.
9. Do you consent to have your name included along with your responses to this questionnaire in the FYR
report'.'
Yes. Brandee McCarthy. Environmental Scientist. LDEQ
F-l
-------
HIGHWAY 71/72 REFINERY SITE
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW INTERVIEW FORM
Site Name: Highway 71/72 Refinery Site
EPA ID: LAD981054075
Interviewer name: Janetta Coats
Interviewer affiliation: EPA CIC
Subject name: Major Doyle Dempsey
Subject affiliation: Bossier Parish Sheriffs
Office
Subject contact information:
Interview date: 12/7/2022
Interview time: 2:38 pm
Interview location: Bossier Parish Sheriffs Office
Interview format (circle one)! In Person
Phone
Mail
Email
Other:
Interview category: Local Government
1. Are you aware of the former environmental issues at the Site and the cleanup activities that have taken place
to date'.'
Aw are of initial/early cleanup. Know n about it for a long time.
2. Do you feel well-informed regarding the Site's activities and remedial progress'.' If not. how might EPA
convey site-related information in the future'.'
Yes. I believe so.
3. Have there been any problems with unusual or unexpected activities at the Site, such as emergency response,
vandalism or trespassing'.'
None that I am aware of.
4. Are you aware of any changes to state laws or local regulations that might affect the protectiveness of the
Site's remedy'.'
None that I am aware of.
5. Are you aware of any changes in projected land use(s) at the Site'.'
None that I am aware of.
6. Has EPA kept involved parties and surrounding neighbors informed of activities at the Site'.' How can EPA
best provide site-related information in the future'.'
Yes.
7. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the project'.'
No comments, suggestions, or recommendations.
8. Do you consent to have your name included along w ith your responses to this questionnaire in the FYR
report'.'
Yes.
F-2
-------
HIGHWAY 71/72 REFINERY SITE
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW INTERVIEW FORM
Site Name: Highway 71/72 Refinery
EPA ID: LAD981054075
Interviewer name: Janetta Coats
Interviewer affiliation: EPA
Subject name: Confidential
Subject affiliation: City of Bossier
Subject contact information: 318.918.8655
Interview date: 12.08.2022
Interview time: 12:30 pm
Interview location: City of Bossier Mayor Office
Interview format (circle one): In Person
Phone
Mail
Email
Other:
Interview category: Local Government
1. Are you aware of the former environmental issues at the Site and the cleanup activities that have taken place
to date'.' Aware but not fully aware of the cleanup that is going on. I have heard talk from the previous
administration office.
2. Do you feel well-informed regarding the Site's activities and remedial progress'.' If not. how might EPA
convey site-related information in the future'.' Somewhat... Email is the best way of notification:
3. Have there been any problems w ith unusual or unexpected activities at the Site, such as emergency response,
vandalism or trespassing'.' Not aw are
4. Are you aware of any changes to state laws or local regulations that might affect the protectiveness of the
Site's remedy'.' Not aware of any. Assumed the company has approval for the new construction going on at
the site.
5. Are you aw are of any changes in projected land use(s) at the Site'.' No change in land use.
6. Has EPA kept involved parties and surrounding neighbors informed of activities at the Site'.' How can EPA
best provide site-related information in the future'.' Not personally informed but thru information received in
the office.
7. Do you have any comments, suggestions or recommendations regarding the project'.' None
Send information to mavorsoffice@bossiercitv.org
Or 620 Benton Road; Bossier. Louisiana 71111
8. Do you consent to have your name included along w ith your responses to this questionnaire in the FYR
report'.' Confidential
F-3
-------
HIGHWAY 71/72 REFINERY SITE
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW INTERVIEW FORM
Site Name: Highway 71/72 Refinery Site
EPA ID: LAD981054075
Interviewer name:
Interviewer affiliation:
Subject name: Lisa Waskonr
Subject affiliation: GSHI
Subject contact information: Lisa_Waskom@oxy.com
Interview date:
Interview time:
Interview location:
Interview format (circle one): In Person
Phone
Mail
Other:
Interview category: Potentially Responsible Party (PRP)
1. What is your overall impression of the remedial activities at the Site9
The remedial activities performed to date have proven effective in eliminating exposure to
contaminants in soil, groundwater, and vapor. Additional achievements in soil closure have been
completed since the last 5 year review as approved by the EPA and LDEQ and LNAPL removal to
achievement of the RAO across the site is nearing completion.
2. What have been the effects of this Site on the surrounding community, if any?
While one aspect of the remedy is evident if you see the groundwater treatment compound up close,
a lot of the work performed is unremarkable and unrecognizable. As new development occurs, such
as the current construction activity at the Former Days Inn Hotel property, soil removal activities
will occur that are likely seen as a positive impact to the area by enhancing a formerly dilapidated
structure and property into a viable business for the surrounding community.
3. What is your assessment of the current performance of the remedy in place at the Site9
The remedy continues to meet the project Remedial Action Objectives, and we are constantly
working to improve the effectiveness of the localized groundwater recovery system by actively
monitoring ground water plumes and LN APL thicknesses to maximize performance and target only
those small areas where recovery is still required and nearing completion. The community and one-
call response is ongoing, and is promptly addressed by our local team to ensure any reported or
identified issues are addressed promptly.
4. Are you aware of any complaints or inquiries regarding environmental issues or the remedial action
from residents since implementation of the cleanup9
No.
5. Do you feel well-informed regarding the Site's activities and remedial progress9 If not, how might
EPA convey site-related information in the future9
F-4
-------
Yes. As the PRP representative, I am constantly in the know of site activities based on our
consultant's routine activity and communications to me and my team.
6. Do you have any comments, suggestions or recommendations regarding the management or
operation of the Site's remedy9
No.
7. Do you consent to have your name included along with your responses to this questionnaire in the
FYR report9
Yes.
F-5
-------
HIGHWAY 71/72 REFINERY SITE
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW INTERVIEW FORM
Site Name: Highway 71/72 Refinery Site
EPA ID: LAD981054075
Interviewer name:
Interviewer affiliation:
Subject name: Nick Groves
Subject affiliation: GHD
Subject contact information: 979-220-6642
Interview date: 1/23/23
Interview time: 11:00
Interview location: Lake Charles, LA
Interview format (circle one): In Person
Phone
Mail
Other:
Interview category: O&M Contractor
1. What is your overall impression of the project, including cleanup, maintenance and reuse activities
(as appropriate)9 I feel the project is progressing well and we are in a maintenance phase. We are
working well with local stakeholders and the regulatory agencies (EPA and LDEQ) on the project.
2. What is your assessment of the current performance of the remedy in place at the Site9 I feel the
remedy is effective as noted by the decrease in groundwater contamination.
3. What are the findings from the monitoring data9 What are the key trends in contaminant levels that
are being documented over time at the Site9 The I.N A PI. plume thickness has dramatically
decreased since operations of the remediation system began. This is demonstrated in the maps
provided from our annual reports.
4. Is there a continuous on-site O&M presence9 If so, please describe staff responsibilities and
activities. Alternatively, please describe staff responsibilities and the frequency of site inspections
and activities if there is not a continuous on-site O&M presence. Yes there is a continuous presence
on the site. The groundwater remediation system is monitored multiple times per week to veri fy it is
operating properly. Any notice of excavations through the Louisiana One Call system is evaluated
and a site visit is performed if necessary. One Call tickets are provided a copy of the community
notice and notified that they are working within the boundaries of the site. Groundwater wells are
gauged on a monthly basis and sampled semi-annually.
5. Have there been any significant changes in site O&M requirements, maintenance schedules or
sampling routines since start-up or in the last five years9 If so, do they affect the protective!!ess or
effectiveness of the remedy9 Please describe changes and impacts. No significant changes have
occurred in the last 5 years, the remediation system has requi red repairs but nothing causing any
changes to the program.
6. Have there been unexpected O&M difficulties or costs at the Site since start-up or in the last five
years9 If so, please provide details. None
7. Have there been opportunities to optimize O&M activities or sampling efforts9 Please describe
changes and any resulting or desired cost savings or improved efficiencies. I feel we currently have
a good balance of efficiency and maintaining a strong presence on the site. As we approach
F-6
-------
satisfying our RAOs, we will evaluate and modify the O&M and sampling plans as necessary. In the
2022 Annual Remedial Action Report we will show that thickness of the LNAPL plume has been
less than the RAO of 0.1 ft. This has been sustained over multiple sampling events. According to
the approved O&M plan, and additional correspondence with EPA and LDEQ, a temporary
shutdown of the groundwater recovery system will be proposed based on these LNAPL thickness
measurements. Observations of rebound in the thickness of the LNAPL plume will be monitored
during this period. Shutting down the recovery system would result in large cost savings in both
maintenance and utilities.
8. Do you have any comments, suggestions or recommendations regarding O&M activities and
schedules at the Site9 I believe we have a good balance concerning our O&M and monitoring
activities. However, it may be prudent to reduce the community mailers to an annual schedule as
opposed to biannual due to a decrease in community requests as a result of the mailers.
9. Do you consent to have your name included along with your responses to this questionnaire in the
FYR report? Yes
F-7
-------
HIGHWAY 71/72 REFINERY SITE
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW INTERVIEW FORM
Site Name: Highway 71/72 Refinery Site
EPA ID: LAD981054075
Interviewer name: Janetta Coats
Interviewer affiliation: EPA
Subject name: Robert Brown
Subject affiliation: Community Dev.
Department City of Bossier
Subject contact information: 318.698.2204
Interview date: 12.8.2022
Interview time: 11:45 am
Interview location: 100 John Wesley Blvd, Bossier City, LA 71111
Interview format (circle one): In Person
Phone
Mail
Email
Other:
Interview category: Comm. Dev. Department City of Bossier/Resident
1. Are you aware of the former environmental issues at the Site and the cleanup activities that have taken place
to date'.' Yes
2. What is your overall impression of the project, including cleanup, maintenance, and reuse activities (as
appropriate)'.' Good job. Cleanup of the project was good. When the installation of the monitoring well was
put in place efforts was made to make sure vegetation was done well.
3. What have been the effects of this Site on the surrounding community, if any?
Not aw are of any effects. The area is better off since the work has been completed in the area. It would be
worst off if the work had not been completed.
4. Have there been any problems with unusual or unexpected activities at the Site, such as emergency response,
vandalism, or trespassing'.' Yes. When the property was vacant homeless people often visit the area. He
believes homeless may have started the fire in the hotel.
5. Has EPA kept involved parties and surrounding neighbors informed of activities at the Site'.' How can EPA
best provide site-related information in the future? Yes. . . Please add to the site mailing list: 620 Benton
Road; Bossier. LA 71111. City Hall is the normal address for the Comm. Dev. Department.
6. Do you own a private well in addition to or instead of accessing city/municipal water supplies'.' If so. for what
purpose*s) is your private well used'.' No
7. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding any aspects of the project'.' Hope
EPA monitors the construction work being done on the site.
F-8
-------
HIGHWAY 71/72 REFINERY SITE
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW INTERVIEW FORM
Site Name: Highway 71/72 Refinery Site
EPA ID: LAD981054075
Interviewer name: Janetta Coats
Interviewer affiliation: EPA CIC
Subject name: Marisa Richardson
Subject affiliation: Bossier City Library and
History Center Manager
Subject contact information:
Interview date: 12/7/2022
Interview time: 11:30 am
Interview location: Bossier City Library History Center
Interview format (circle one)( In Person
Phone
Mail
Email
Other:
Interview category: Community
1. Are you aware of the former environmental issues at the Site and the cleanup activities that have taken place
to date'.'
No, not really.
2. What is your overall impression of the project, including cleanup, maintenance, and reuse activities (as
appropriate)'.'
Not really aware of the Site or project, cleanup, etc.
3. What have been the effects of this Site on the surrounding community, if any?
Not aware of any.
4. Have there been any problems with unusual or unexpected activities at the Site, such as emergency response.
vandalism, or trespassing'.'
Not aware of any.
5. Has EPA kept involved parties and surrounding neighbors informed of activities at the Site'.' How can EPA
best provide site-related information in the future'.'
The library receives the community notices.
6. Do you own a private well in addition to or instead of accessing city/municipal water supplies'.' If so. for what
purpose*s) is your private well used'.'
No. Home and Library are on public water supply.
7. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding any aspects of the project'.'
Whatever hard copies can be eliminated moving forward would be helpful. Having digital copies would be
ideal.
8. Do you provide permission for your responses and name to be included in the FYR?
F-9
-------
Yes.
9. How often do patrons ask for information about the Site'.'
Not ever
10. During the upcoming library move, will the boxed records be moved'.'
Yes.
F-10
-------
HIGHWAY 71/72 REFINERY SITE
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW INTERVIEW FORM
Site Name: Highway 71/72 Refinery Site
EPA ID: LAD981054075
Interviewer name: Janetta Coats
Interviewer affiliation: EPA CIC
Subject name: Name not included/Confidential
Subject affiliation: Resident
Subject contact information:
Interview date:
Interview time:
Interview location:
Interview format (circle one)( In Person
Phone Mail Email Other:
Interview category: Resident
1. Are you aware of the former environmental issues at the Site and the cleanup activities that have taken place
to date'.'
Yes.
2. What is your overall impression of the project, including cleanup, maintenance and reuse activities (as
appropriate)'.'
Cleanup has been ok. They did a lot of soil removal at my house. Some of my shrubs have died. I feel safe, it
was an effective cleanup. PRPs have done a great job.
3. What have been the effects of this Site on the surrounding community, if any?
There was a law suit years ago. I was part of it. I thought that cancer rates increased in the 1990s as a result of
the Site.
4. Have there been any problems with unusual or unexpected activities at the Site, such as emergency response.
vandalism or trespassing'.'
Tom told me about some instances of trespassers at the treatment compound.
5. Has EPA kept involved parties and surrounding neighbors informed of activities at the Site'.' How can EPA
best provide site-related information in the future'.'
Yes. I receive regular community notices in the mail. I am not aware of the records repository.
6. Do you own a private well in addition to or instead of accessing city/municipal water supplies'.' If so. for what
purpose(s) is your private well used'.'
No. I'm on public water.
7. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding any aspects of the project'.'
I am a life-long Bossier City resident. I'm concerned about low property values. An appraiser previously told
me that the location results in much lower property values. They might improve now that the Site is no longer
proposed to the NPL.
F-ll
-------
HIGHWAY 71/72 REFINERY SITE
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW INTERVIEW FORM
Site Name: Highway 71/72 Refinery Site
EPA ID: LAD981054075
Interviewer name: Janetta Coats
Interviewer affiliation: EPA
Subject name: Employee
Subject affiliation: Main Stay Suites
Subject contact information: 318.747.6220
Interview date: 12.8.2022
Interview time: 10:30 am
Interview location: 1001 Gould Dr., Bossier City, LA
Interview format (circle one): In Person Phone
Mail
Email
Other:
Interview category: Main Stay Suites Manager/Resident
1. Are you aware of the former environmental issues at the Site and the cleanup activities that have taken place
to date'.' Yes
2. What is your overall impression of the project, including cleanup, maintenance and reuse activities (as
appropriate)'.' Impressed by the measures taken to keep the community safe. Ms. April grew up in the
community and aware of what is going on.
3. What have been the effects of this Site on the surrounding community, if any?
None. Lived on the property for two years. Always use to notice lighter fluid odor on the property betw een
building 1 & 2 and halfway between building 8 & 9 and in the front of the office. There is no gas on the
property except for the laundry room. May be lighter fluid from cooking but not sure.
4. Have there been any problems with unusual or unexpected activities at the Site, such as emergency response.
vandalism or trespassing'.' Not aw are of any.
5. Has EPA kept involved parties and surrounding neighbors informed of activities at the Site'.' How can EPA
best provide site-related information in the future'.' Yes... Quarterly Community Bulletin. Worked at the
complex 3 years. Previous managers did not share any information with the new management team.
6. Do you own a private well in addition to or instead of accessing city/municipal water supplies'.' If so. for what
purpose(s) is your private well used'.' No
7. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding any aspects of the project'.'
Receiving information in the mail. Enough being done to keep the community informed. None... So far I
feel a good job in being done to keep the community informed. Would like to make sure management is on
the site mailing list for future updates.
F-12
-------
HIGHWAY 71/72 REFINERY SITE
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW INTERVIEW FORM
Site Name: Highway 71/72 Refinery Site
EPA ID: LAD981054075
Interviewer name: Janetta Coats
Interviewer affiliation: EPA
Subject name: Employee
Subject affiliation: Alexis Park Apt. Manager
Subject contact information: 318.615.9997 aiexis.mgr@fairfieidpropmgmt.com
Interview date: 12.8.2022
Interview time: 2:00 pm
Interview location: 2201 Loreco St. #9
Interview format (circle one): In Person Phone Mail Email Other:
Interview category: Resident
1. Are you aware of the former environmental issues at the Site and the cleanup activities that have taken place
to date'.' Yes. EPA monitors in the apartments
2. What is your overall impression of the project, including cleanup, maintenance, and reuse activities (as
appropriate)'.' Good impression of the site area. No indication of a previous SF site exist at the location.
3. What have been the effects of this Site on the surrounding community, if any?
Not aware of any.
4. Have there been any problems with unusual or unexpected activities at the Site, such as emergency response,
vandalism, or trespassing'.' Not aware of any.
5. Has EPA kept involved parties and surrounding neighbors informed of activities at the Site'.' How can EPA
best provide site-related information in the future'.' Yes... Quarterly Community Bulletin
6. Do you own a private well in addition to or instead of accessing city/municipal water supplies'.' If so. for what
purpose(s) is your private well used'.' No
7. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding any aspects of the project'.'
Receiving information in the mail. Enough being done to keep the community informed.
F-13
-------
APPENDIX G - ADDITIONAL FIGURES
Figure G-l: Soil Removal Areas and 2018 Soil Sampling11
2907(100
'Hampton]
^Rre= ton
Place ipts
[Port Au Prince
'TS-51l5v
La Quinta ;
Xtiurcl
;MW67j
MW87j|
gMW-66]
'Carriage,-
. Square-
MW-54
i
^s.Park'
s: fp's-
jMlssion.
liViiiaqcl
pjfiEis
•VANSJiJ
2907200
11 Figure 2 from the Remedial Action Completion Report, Benzene and Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Soil,
September 2018.
G-l
-------
Figure G-2: Location of Phase 1 and Phase 2 Area Recovery Wells12
12 Figure 4.2.1 of the 2021 Annual Remedial Action Report.
G-2
-------
Figure G-3: Monitoring Well Locations13
MWV-26
~~~~Oo/
V.1W-- v
~ MW-53
_.
LEGEND
MW-70 • MONITORING WELL LOCATION
PZ-1-97 q PIEZOMETER LOCATION
RW-1 (5) RECOVERY WELL LOCATION
I-5 (S) INFILTRATION WELL LOCATION
CURRENT TEPPCO PIPELINE
FORMER 4" PIPELINE
FORMER 8" PIPELINE
N
&
GLENN SPRINGS HOLDINGS, INC
R CITY, LOUISIANA
Project No. 11224811
Data April 2022
FIGURE 1.3.1
13 Figure 1.3.1 of the 2021 Annual Remedial Action Report.
G-3
-------
Figure G-4: Groundwater Potentiometric Contours, May 202114
14 Figure 5.3A of the 2021 Annual Remedial Action Report.
G-4
-------
Figure G-5: Groundwater Potentiometric Contours, November 2021
15
MW-70 #
(154.37)
1545—
LEGEND
MONITORING WELL LOCATION
PROPERTY f SITE / FOR NCR
REFINERY BOUNDARY
CURRENT TEPPCC PIPELINE
FORMtR 4" PIPELINE
FORMER 6" PIPELINE
GROUNDWATER ELEVATION (ft AMSL)
¦ GROUNDWATER ELEVATION CONTOUR fit AMSL.I
- GROUNDWATER c LOW DIRECTION
Gl FNN SPRINGS HOI DINGS, INC
bossier crrr, Louisiana
GROUNDWATER POTENTIOMETRtC
ELEVATIONS AND CONTOURS,
NOVEMBER 9, 2021
Prnjeri fvn fl17?4Sfl
Ca!e FebruaryJ023
FIGURE 5.3B
~~~~Do/
v\OijSiSU .AREA 0
—rB-lK '•
• 1155.62)
yw-8i
'(155.62)
r;hrr j
MW-92 I
mri<
-------
Figure G-6: BTEX Concentrations in Groundwater, May 202116
16 Figure 5.3C of the 2021 Annual Remedial Action Report.
G-6
-------
Figure G-7: BTEX Concentrations in Groundwater, November 202117
17 Figure 5.3D of the 2021 Annual Remedial Action Report.
G-7
-------
Figure G-8: Area A Benzene Soil Vapor Sampling Locations and Results, 2018 and 202118
MW-50 +
PZ-ti97+
RW-"
B-5 ¦
SV-3
2018
2021 —
5
10.000/300
NS/NS
10
2.800/84
NS/NS
LEGEND
MONITORING WELL LOCATION
PIEZOMETER LOCATION
RECOVERY WELL LOCATION
MONITORING WELL LOCATION
(CRA JULY 2007)
SOIL VAPOR SAMPLE LOCATION
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
CURRENT TEPPCO PIPELINE
FORMER 4" PIPELINE
FORMER 8" PIPELINE
PLUME AREAS
NOT SAMPLED
PARTS PER BILLION BY VOLUME
- SOIL VAPOR LOCATION
SAMPLE DATE
PREDICTED IA BENZENE
CONCENTRATION (ppbv)
BENZENE RESULT (ppbv)
SAMPLE DEPTH (ft bgs)
GLENN SPRINGS HOLDINGS, INC.
BOSSIER CITY, LOUISIANA
BENZENE SOIL VAPOR SAMPLING
LOCATIONS AND RESULTS -
AREA A (2018, 2021)
Project No 12576994
Date September 2022
FIGURE 3
18 Figure 3 of the 2022 Soil Vapor Sampling Report .
G-8
-------
RW-311,
MW-10b-9^fc^) W113W |
RW-114-^^-^® RW-116 RW-205
RW-115 ffi) RW-204pJ
RW-201ffl) ^7 VMP-5
RW-203m55
RW-206
g) RW-207
S.VMP-4
5TRW-208
•VMP-3
Hi MW-100-97
^RW-209
MW-65
appOMHungni
NS/NS
500/15
7,000/210
780/23.4
NS/NS
mi—iPTT
<16/0.48
Figure G-9: Area B and D Benzene Soil Vapor Sampling Locations and Results, 2018 and 202119
T
(H) I MW-103-97 MW.ifi VPZ-1-87
RW304 @#™" n \
LJ LJ -| jj| !~~~! JOQpQO^
pm5?BL BHftjtfO-®
3 0 DEnD Ur -a MW-!
AREA B
ft rcocSfi
RW-1 (S)
MONITORING WELL LOCATION
PIEZOMETER LOCATION
RECOVERY WELL LOCATION
INFILTRATION WELL LOCATION
SOIL VAPOR SAMPLE LOCATION
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
CURRENT TEPPCO PIPELINE
FORMER 4" PIPELINE
FORMER 8" PIPELINE
PLUME AREAS
NS NOT SAMPLED
ppbv PARTS PER BILLION BY VOLUME
SV-2
2018
2021 —
5
3.4/0.102
2.2/0.066
10
NS/NS
1.7J/O.OS1
PREDICTED IA BENZENE
CONCENTRATION (ppbv)
• BENZENE RESULT (ppbv)
• SAMPLE DEPTH (ft bgs)
GLENN SPRINGS HOLDINGS, INC.
bossier crrv, Louisiana
BENZENE SOIL VAPOR SAMPLING
LOCATIONS AND RESULTS -
AREA B AND D (2018,2021)
Project No. 1257699*
Date July 2022
FIGURE 4
19 Figure 4 of the 2022 Soil Vapor Sampling Report .
G-9
-------
Figure G-10: Historical Indoor Air Sample Locations, 1990 to 201820
20 Figure 2 of the 2022 Soil Vapor Sampling Report.
G-10
-------
APPENDIX H - SITE INSPECTION CHECKLIST
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SITE INSPECTION CHECKLIST
I. SITE INFORMATION
Site Name: Highway 71/72 Refinery
Date of Inspection: 12/7/2022
Location and Region: Bossier City, Louisiana. Region
EPA ID: LAD981054075
Agency, Office or Company Leading the Five-Year
Review: EPA Region 6
Weather/Temperature: Sunny and 80 degrees
Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply)
~ Landfill cover/containment
~ Access controls
Institutional controls
[3 Groundwater pump and treatment
~ Surface water collection and treatment
^ Other: Sampling of soil or indoor air upon site resident/business request and LNAPL extraction.
~ Monitored natural attenuation
~ Groundwater containment
~ Vertical barrier walls
Attachments:
Inspection team roster attached
~ Site map attached
II. INTERVIEWS (check all that apply)
GHD
Title
Phone:
1. O&M Site Manager Nick Groves
Name
Interviewed ~ at site ~ at office by email
Problems, suggestions ~ Report attached: Interviews are summarized in Section IV Completed
interview forms can be found in Appendix F.
2. O&M Staff
1/23/2023
Date
Name
Interviewed ~ at site ~ at office ~ by phone
Problems/suggestions ~ Report attached:
Title
Phone:
Date
3. Local Regulatory Authorities and Response Agencies (i.e., state and tribal offices, emergency
response office, police department, office of public health or environmental health, zoning office,
recorder of deeds, or other city and county offices). Fill in all that apply.
Agency LDEO
Contact Brandee McCarthy
Name
LDEO Site
Manager
Title
12/9/2022
Date
Phone No.
Problems/suggestions Q Report attached: Interviews are summarized in Section IV. Completed
interview forms can be found in Appendix F.
Agency Bossier Parish Sheriffs Office
Contact Major Dovle Dempsev Major. Bossier 12/7/2022 318-965-3497
Name Parish Date Phone No.
Sheriff's
Department
Title
Problems/suggestions ~ Report attached: Interviews are summarized in Section IV. Completed
interview forms can be found in Appendix F.
Agency
Contact
Name Title
Problems/suggestions ~ Report attached:
Date
Phone No.
H-l
-------
Aeencv
Contact
Name Title Date Phone No.
Problems/suggestions PI Report attached:
Agencv
Contact
Name Title Date Phone No.
Problems/suggestions [~~| Report attached:
4.
Other Interviews (optional) [~~l Report attached: Interviews arc summarized in Section IV. Completed
interview forms can be found in Appendix F.
City of Bossier, Community Development Department. Bossier City Libraries
Lisa Waskom. GSHI (PRP)
Main Stay Suites, Alexis Park Apartment Manager
Site resident
III. ON-SITE DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS VERIFIED (check all that apply)
1.
O&M Documents
13 O&M manual [3 Readily available [3 Up to date d N/A
13 As-built drawings 13 Readily available [3 Up to date dl N/A
13 Maintenance logs ^ Readily available ^ Up to date Q N/A
Remarks: GHD maintains hard copies of the site's health and safetv plan. O&M manual and other site
documents arc maintained on site in the secured treatment compound. GHD also maintains electronic
copies of those documents.
2.
Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan ^ Readily available |3 Up to date ~ N/A
13 Contingency plan/emergency response plan ^ Readily available |3 Up to date O N/A
Remarks: GHD maintains hard copies of the site's health and safetv plan. O&M manual and other site
documents arc maintained on site in the secured treatment compound. GHD also maintains electronic
copies of those documents.
3.
O&M and OSHA Training Records ^ Readily available |3 Up to date O N/A
Remarks: O&M and OSH A training records arc maintained electronicallv.
4.
Permits and Service Agreements
~ Air discharge permit ~ Readily available ~ Up to date 13 N/A
~ Effluent discharge ~ Readily available ~ Up to date 13 N/A
~ Waste disposal. POTW ~ Readily available ~ Up to date 13 N/A
Other permits: K1 Rcadilv available 153 Up to date PI N/A
Remarks: The LNAPL extraction and treatment process involved the injection of treated groundwater
back into the aciuifcr. The svstcin operates under a LDNR Class V Injection Well Permit. A copv of
the current permit is included in Appendix A of the Site's 2021 Annual Remedial Action Report.
H-2
-------
5. Gas Generation Records ~ Readily available ~ Up to date ^ N/A
Remarks:
6. Settlement Monument Records ~ Readily available ~ Up to date E3 N/A
Remarks:
7. Groundwater Monitoring Records Readily available m Up to date ~ N/A
Remarks: Groundwater monitoring results are submitted in Annual Remedial Action reports.
8. Leachate Extraction Records ~ Readily available ~ Up to date E3 N/A
Remarks:
9. Discharge Compliance Records
~ Air Q] Readily available ~ Up to date N/A
~ Water (effluent) ~ Readily available ~ Up to date El N/A
Remarks:
10. Daily Access/Security Logs ^ Readily available m Up to date ~ N/A
Remarks: GHD maintains logs of all individuals who visit the DPE-RTS compound.
IV. O&M COSTS
1. O&M Organization
~ State in-housc O Contractor for state
[~l PRP in-housc K1 Contractor for PRP
~ Federal facility in-house ~ Contractor for Federal facility
m The PRP has contracted GHD to conduct site-related O&M activities.
2. O&M Cost Records
~ Readily available O Up to date
~ Funding nicclianisin/agrccincnt in place Unavailable
Original O&M cost estimate: __ ____ ~ Breakdown attached
Total annual cost by year for review period if available
From: To: O Breakdown attached
Date Date Total cost
From: To: O Breakdown attached
Date Date Total cost
From: To: O Breakdown attached
Date Date Total cost
From: To: O Breakdown attached
Date Date Total cost
From: To: O Breakdown attached
Date Date Total cost
3. Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs during Review Period
Describe costs and reasons:
H-3
-------
V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS |£| Applicable ~ N/A
A. Fencing
1. Fencing Damaged ~ Location shown on site map Gates secured ~ N/A
Remarks: A tall wooden fence surrounds the DPE-RTS compound; a locked gate prohibits unauthorized
e^
B. Other Access Restrictions
1. Signs and Other Security Measures ~ Location shown on site map ~ N/A
Remarks: The outside of the treatment compound fence is posted with warning and informational
signage.
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
IE1
No
~ N/A
Type of monitoring (e.g.. self-reporting, drive bv):
Frequencv:
Responsible partv/agencv: The PRP and Bossier Citv
Contact
Name Title
Date
Phone no.
Reporting is up to date
[~l Yes
~
No
IXlN/A
Reports arc verified by the lead agency
[~l Yes
~
No
0N/A
Specific requirements in deed or decision documents have been met
S Yes
~
No
~ n/a
Violations have been reported
l~l Yes
~
No
Sn/a
Other problems or suggestions: ~ Report attached
2. Adequacy [3 ICs arc adequate ~ ICs arc inadequate ~ N/A
Remarks: The remedy selected by the ROD requires groundwater institutional controls. The 2000
groundwater ordinance, implemented by Bossier City meets that requirement.
D. General
1. Vandalism/Trespassing ~ Location shown on site map ~ No vandalism evident
Remarks: During the inspection. Tom McDermott indicated that there have been a few instances of trespassing
since the previous FYR. In one instance, trespassers jumped the compound fence, broke into and damaged the
locked storage shed and stole a lawn mower. The PRP has since purchased a new, locking storage shed. In
another instance, a trespasser broke one of the fence boards when trying to jump over the fence. The exterior of
the compound fence included signage to deter trespassers, and GHD's daily presence at the compound also helps
2. Land Use Changes On Site ~ N/A
Remarks: The former Days Inn hotel caught on fire in February 2021. After the fire, the city bulldo/cd the
remnants of the building and cleared the debris from the site. An investment company purchased the
property and has hired a developer to construct a new Northern Tool business in the general footprint of
the former hotel.
3. Land Use Changes Off Site ^ N/A
Remarks:
H-4
-------
VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS
A. Roads Applicable ~ N/A
1. Roads Damaged ~ Location shown on site map Roads adequate N/A
Remarks: All site roads are paved and are in good condition.
B. Other Site Conditions
Remarks: None
VII. LANDFILL COVERS ~ Applicable ^ N/A
VIII. VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS ~ Applicable ^ N/A
IX. GROUNDWATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES ^ Applicable ~ N/A
A. Groundwater Extraction Wells, Pumps and Pipelines Applicable ~ N/A
1. Pumps, Wellhead Plumbing and Electrical
[3 Good condition IE1 All required wells properly operating ~ Needs maintenance ~ N/A
Remarks: All extraction system components inspected were operational and appeared to be well
maintained and in good condition.
2. Extraction System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes and Other Appurtenances
Good condition ~ Needs maintenance
Remarks: All extraction system components inspected were operational and appeared to be well
maintained and in good condition.
3. Spare Parts and Equipment
E3 Readily available ^ Good condition ~ Requires upgrade Q Needs to be provided
Remarks:
B. Surface Water Collection Structures, Pumps and Pipelines ~ Applicable 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 ^ Applicable ~ N/A
1. Treatment Train (check components that apply)
~ Metals removal ^ Oil/water separation ~ Biore mediation
Air stripping ^ Carbon adsorbers
O Filters:
~ Additive (e.g., chelation agent, flocculent):
H-5
-------
n Others:
[x] Good condition Q Needs maintenance
Sampling ports properly marked and functional
~ Sampling/maintenance log displayed and up to date
[x] Equipment properly identified
[x] Ouantitv of groundwater treated annually: 250.914 gallons treated in 2021
n Ouantitv of surface water treated annually:
Remarks:
2.
Electrical Enclosures and Panels (properly rated and functional)
~ N/A ^ Good condition ~ Needs maintenance
Remarks:
3.
Tanks, Vaults, Storage Vessels
~ N/A ^ Good condition ^ Proper secondary containment ~ Needs maintenance
Remarks: The two LNAPL storage tanks and drums of svstem-related wastes within the compound were
clearlv labeled and located within appropriate secondary containment.
4.
Discharge Structure and Appurtenances
O N/A ^ Good condition ~ Needs maintenance
Remarks: Air emissions from the treatment system arc discharged to the ambient air through tall PVC
t>it>es. The nines appeared to be in good condition.
5.
Treatment Building)*)
O N/A Good condition (esp. roof and doorways) O Needs repair
~ Chemicals and equipment properly stored
Remarks: The DPE-RTS is outdoors; it docs not need to be housed within a building. Drummed waste is
located under a roofed enclosure adjacent to the DPE-RTS. The roof over the drummed waste is in good
condition. There arc two small sheds within the DPE-RTS compound that hold equipment; the shed
doors arc kept locked.
6.
Monitoring Wells (pump and treatment remedy)
E3 Properly secured/locked ^ Functioning ^ Routinely sampled Good condition
~ All required wells located ~ Needs maintenance ~ N/A
Remarks: All active monitoring wells observed appeared to be in good condition and were secured with
bolts or padlocks. All wells arc flush mounted with the ground surface.
D. Monitoring Data
1.
Monitoring Data
E3 Is routinely submitted on time ^ Is of acceptable quality
2.
Monitoring Data Suggests:
Groundwater plume is effectiv ely contained ~ Contaminant concentrations arc declining
E.
Monitored Natural Attenuation
1.
Monitoring Wells (natural attenuation remedy)
O Properly secured/locked Q Functioning ~ Routinely sampled O Good condition
O All required wells located Q Needs maintenance ^ N/A
Remarks:
H-6
-------
X. OTHER REMEDIES
If there arc remedies applied at the site and not covered above, attach an inspection sheet describing the physical
nature and condition of anv facilitv associated with the rcmcdv. An example would be soil vapor extraction.
XI. OVERALL OBSERVATIONS
A.
Implementation of the Remedy
Describe issues and observations relating to whether the remedy is effective and functioning as designed.
Begin with a brief statement of what the remedy is designed to accomplish (e.g., to contain contaminant
plume, minimize infiltration and gas emissions).
The Site's long-term rcmcdv. as established bv the 2000 ROD. includes sampling of indoor air and soil at
public rcaucst; mitigation of impacted indoor air or soil identified through the rcciucstcd sampling;
groundwater use restrictions; monitoring of groundwater. LNAPL. and indoor air; periodic notification of
the on-site coniniunitv of potential contamination, of available services and of groundwater use
restrictions; and enhanced LNAPL recovcrv bv dual-phase extraction (including LNAPL rccvcling/rcuse
or disposal and treatment or disposal of co-extracted groundwater and vapors). Based on the information
obtained and the observations made during the site inspection, all remedial components appear to be
functioning as designed. LNAPL and groundwater extraction and treatment arc ongoing and appear to be
successful at reducing LNAPL in the subsurface. The 2000 Bossier Citv groundwater ordinance
cffcctivclv prevents the use of site groundwater and the installation of water supplv wells. Routine public
outreach bv the PRP keeps the communitv well-informed of the site status and the options available if
suspected contamination is encountered. The earlv soil removal and indoor air removal actions addressed
immediate threats to human health and the environment. Efforts arc undcrwav to more fullv assess and
address the vapor intrusion exposure pathway at the Site. The PRP is working with the new propertv
owner and developer of the former Davs Inn propertv to facilitate redevelopment and to ensure that
excavation and constructions activities are protective of human health, the environmental and the rcmcdv.
The PRP will pav to install a vapor barrier beneath the new Northern Tool building to eliminate the risk of
vapor intrusion into the structure.
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 protcctivcncss of the remedy.
O&M activities seem to be adcauatc. The DPE-RTS appears to be well-maintained. Site-related
monitoring is performed as rcciuircd bv the ROD and O&M Plan. The PRP monitors vapor
emissions from the DPE-RTS carbon filtration units and documents the results in annual O&M reports.
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 protcctivcncss of the remedy may be compromised
in the future.
No earlv indicators of potential rcmcdv problems were observed during the FYR site inspection.
D.
Opportunities for Optimization
Describe possible opportunities for optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation of the remedy.
In his FYR interview ciucstion responses, the PRP's O&M contractor suggested opportunities for
optimization and cost savings related to O&M activities. Specificallv. he noted that the following changes
(with EPA approval) could result in cost-savings: reducing the frcciucncv of the coniniunitv notifications
to once a vcar due to a decrease in coniniunitv sampling rcciucsts. and temporary shut-down of the
groundwater recovcrv svstcni. based on the successful reduction of LNAPL thickness to less than 0.1 feet.
H-7
-------
APPENDIX I - SITE INSPECTION PHOTOS
The entrance to the DPE-RTS compound is secured with a locking gate. Warning signage is posted along the
outside of the fence that surrounds the compound.
Extracted groundwater and LNAPL enter the DPE-RTS through the piping network shown above.
1-1
-------
View of the DPE-RTS. Two carbon filtration units filter the air emissions from the DPE-RTS
Extracted LNAPL is stored in the two red storage tanks pictured above
1-2
-------
Air scrubber within the compound
View of the new vacuum pump installed in 2019
1-3
-------
New locking shed within the DPE-RTS compound.
Storage area Within the compound.
1-4
-------
The vacant field shown above is owned by the PRP and is immediately east of the DPE-RTS compound. Injection
wells are located within the area shown above.
1-5
-------
Vapor monitoring point 1, located adjacent to (east of) the compound
9BM
Swgi
1-6
-------
Example of the A1 CX1S Park Apartments units.
Four positive pressure vapor mitigation systems operate at the on-site Extended Studio Suite Hotel (formerly
Mainstay Suites).
1-7
-------
One of the positive pressure vapor mitigation systems at the Extended Studio Suite Hotel.
Soil vapor sample location SV-9, within Plume Area B (Oasis apartment complex)
1-8
-------
Soil vapor sample location SV-6, within Plume Area A (north of the Super 7 Motel).
In July 2021, monitoring well MW-101-97 (location shown above at Super 7 Motel) was converted to a DPE
system recovery well by permanently connecting it to the DPE system.
1-9
-------
Former location of the Days Inn Hotel and future location of Northern Tool.
One of the abandoned and plugged wells on the former Days Inn property
1-10
-------
Pipes staged on the former Days Inn property.
Equipment staged on the former Days Inn property.
1-11
-------
Excavation equipment staged on the former Days Inn property.
View of former Days Inn property, after initial excavation activities
1-12
-------
Clean fill staged on the former Days Inn property
1-13
-------
APPENDIX J - DETAILED ARARS REVIEW TABLES
CERCLA Section 121 (d)( 1) requires that Superfund remedial actions attain "a degree of cleanup of hazardous
substance, pollutants, and contaminants released into the environment and of control of further release at a
minimum which assures protection of human health and the environment." The remedial action must achieve a
level of cleanup that at least attains those requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate. In
performing the FY R for compliance with A R A Rs. only those ARARs that address the p reflectiveness of the
remedy are reviewed.
Groundwater ARARs
EPA identified nonzero MCLGs (or MCLs where MCLGs equal zero) as chemical-specific ARARs for the
remediation of groundwater. However, based on the presence of an extensive source area that will remain at the
Site (i.e., contaminated subsurface soil) and the nature and extent of the contaminated groundwater plume. EPA
determined that it was technically impracticable to remediate groundwater contamination at the Site to nonzero
MCLGs. Therefore. EPA issued a Tl Waiver regarding groundwater ARARs for the Site. The Tl Waiver applies
to the shallow zone of groundwater (from about 10 feet to 60 feet below ground surface) beneath the 215-acre
Site.
Although the ROD did not identify ARARs for LNAPL in groundwater, the ROD required LNAPL recovery from
groundwater until the performance standard (a threshold thickness of 0.1 foot of LNAPL, measured in monitoring
or extraction wells) is attained and has stabilized. This performance standard, based on EPA guidance and
common engineering practice during hydrocarbon recovery operations per the 2000 ROD. remains valid.
Soil and Air ARARs
There were no chemical-specific ARARs identified for site soil or indoor air. In lieu of chemical-specific ARARs
for site soil or indoor air. the remediation goals for soil and indoor air were selected based on risk to human
health.
J-l
-------
APPENDIX K - SCREENING-LEVEL RISK REVIEW
To determine if the cleanup goals for soil and air remain protective for residential use. the cleanup goals were
compared to EPA's 2022 regional screening levels (RSLs). since the RSLs incorporate current toxicity values and
standard default exposure factors.
The evaluation of cleanup levels for soil (Table K-l) and air (Table K-2) demonstrates that, except for lead in soil,
the cleanup goals remain valid, as the associated screening-level cancer risks are within or below EPA's risk
management range of 1 x 10~6to 1 x 10"4 or below the noncancer HQ of 1.
Lead is unique in that EPA has not established cancer-based or non-cancer-based toxicity criteria for lead. EPA
evaluates lead exposure with an alternative approach using the Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic (IEUBK)
model that estimates the likely effect of lead exposure based on the concentration of lead in the blood of the
children living on site. EPA established the residential soil lead cleanup goal of 510 mg/kg in the 2000 ROD
based on site-specific inputs into the IEUBK model using the target blood lead level of 10 micrograms per
deciliter (fig/dL), consistent with the lead risk assessment guidance at that time.21 Since the ROD, EPA has
updated the lead risk assessment guidance and associated blood lead models for adult and child exposure several
times. As summarized in EPA guidance, current scientific literature on lead toxicology and epidemiology
provides evidence that adverse health effects are associated with blood lead levels less than 10 (xg/dL.22 EPA is in
the process of updating its policy based on recent studies. EPA Region 6 will continue to use the current EPA
policy until the Agency finalizes and updates its policy. In summary, based on the screening-level risk evaluation
and qualitative assessment of the lead cleanup goal, the ROD soil cleanup goals remain valid.
Table K-l: Screening Risk Ev aluation of the ROD's Soil Cleanup Remedial Goals
coc
2000 ROD Cleanup
Level
(m«/k«)
Residential RSL"
(m«/ku)
Cancer
Riskh
Noncancer
HQ1'
I x 10"Risk
HQ= 1.0
Benzene
1
1.2
82
8 x 10"7
0.01
Carcinogenic PAHs1
1
0.11
18
9 x 10"9
0.06
Lead6
510
400f
•RSL
Notes:
a. Current EPA RSLs, dated November 2022, are available at https://www.epa. gov/risk/regiona 1 -screeni ng-
levels-rsls-geiieric-tables (accessed 11/11/2022).
b. The cancer risks were calculated using the following equation, based on the fact that RSLs are derived based
on 1 x 10"6 risk: cancer risk = (cleanup level ^ cancer-based RSL) x 10~6.
c. The noncancer HQ was calculated using the following equation: HQ = cleanup level ^ noncancer-based RSL.
d. Carcinogenic PAHs arc evaluated based on equivalent toxicity to bcnz.o(a)pyrcnc. Thus, the toxicity values
for benzol a Ipyrcnc were used in this equation.
c. Lead exposure is evaluated based on blood lead concentrations, which should generally not exceed 10 ng/dL
in blood, but this value is currently being revised downward based on more current information on lead
exposure in young children.
f. The residential RSL of 400 mg/kg for lead was derived using standard default assumptions in the IEUBK
model such that the target blood lead in 5% or less of the exposed children have a blood lead level below 10
micrograms per deciliter (ug/dL).
21 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Directive #9200.4-27P. Clarification to the 1994 Revised Interim Soil
Lead Guidance for CERCLA Sites and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Corrective Action Sites. August 1998.
22 Updated Scientific Considerations for Lead in Soil Cleanups. Office of Land and Emergency Management Directive
9200.2-167. December 22, 2016.
K-l
-------
Table K-2: Screening Risk Ev aluation of the ROD Benzene Air Cleanup Goal
coc
2000 ROD Cleanup
Level"
(MU/m-')
Residential RSLb
Cancer
Risk'
Noncancer
HQ1'
1 x fO-6 Risk
HQ =1.0
Benzene
31.9
0.36
31
9 x 10"5
1
Notes:
a. The ROD listed the cleanup goal in air as 10 ppbv. which has been converted to ng/m\
b. Current EPA RSLs, dated November 2022, are available at https://www.epa.gov/risk/regiona 1 -screen!ng-
levels-rsls-geiieric-tables (accessed 12/16/2022).
c. The cancer risks were calculated using the following equation, based on the fact that RSLs arc derived based
on 1 x 10"6 risk: cancer risk = (cleanup level ^ cancer-based RSL) x 10~6.
d. The noncancer HQ was calculated using the following equation: HQ = cleanup level ^ noncancer-based RSL.
Ug/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
K-2
-------
APPENDIX L - EJSCREEN REPORT
SEPA
United Slates
Environmental Protection
Agency
EJScreen Report (Version 2.11)
3 miles Ring Centered at 32.516645,-93.711674, LOUISIANA, EPA Region 6
Approximate Population: 53,128
Input Area (sq. miles): 28.27
Highway 71/72
Selected Variables
State
Percentile
USA
Percentile
Environmental Justice Indexes
Particulate Matter 2.5 EJ index
91
90
Ozone EJ index
91
71
Diesel Particulate Matter EJ index*
78
83
Air Toxics Cancer Risk EJ index'
82
88
Air Toxics Respiratory HI EJ index*
86
90
Traffic Proximity EJ index
76
81
Lead Paint EJ index
79
81
Superfund Proximity EJ index
75
65
RMP Facility Proximity EJ index
76
84
Hazardous Waste Proximity EJ index
78
81
Underground Storage Tanks EJ index
78
81
Wastewater Discharge EJ index
72
78
EJ Indexes ¦ The EJ indexes help users screen for potential EJ concerns. To do this, the EJ index combines data on low income and people of color populations
with a single environmental indicator.
EJ Index for the Selected Area Compared to All People's Blockgroups in the State/US
¦
0—®
v """v. VA V. V, V.
c->'
v„
X.
"V
"v
EJIndexes
x "V
°+s
state Percentile ¦ U5A Percentile
*Diesel particular matter, air toxics cancer risk, and air toxics respiratory hazard index are from the EPA's Air Toxics Data Update, which is the Agency's ongoing,
comprehensive evaluation of air toxics in the United States. This effort aims to prioritize air toxics, emission sources, and locations of interest for further study. It
is important to remember that the air toxics data presented here provide broad estimates of health risks over geographic a reas of the country, not definitive risks
to specific individuals or locations. Cancer risks and hazard indices from the Air Toxics Data Update are reported to one significant figure and any additional
significant figures here are due to rounding. More information on the Air Toxics Data Update can be found at: https://www.epa.gov/haps/air-toxics-data-update.
March 30, 2023
1/4
K-l
-------
EJScreen Report (Version 2.11)
3 miles Ring Centered at 32.516645,-93.711674, LOUISIANA, EPA Region 6
Approximate Population: 53,128
Input Area (sq. miles): 28.27
Highway 71/72
Sites reporting to EPA
Superfund NPL
0
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDF)
6
March 30, 2023 2/4
K-2
-------
^FPA ^omS'ProtecMn EJScreen Report (Version 2.11)
3 miles Ring Centered at 32.516645,-93.711674, LOUISIANA, EPA Region 6
Approximate Population: 53,128
Input Area (sq. miles): 28.27
Highway 71/72
Selected Variables
Value
State
%ile in
USA
%ile in
Avg.
State
Avg.
USA
Pollution and Sources
Particulate Matter 2.5 (ng/m3)
10.2
9.2
93
8.67
87
Ozone (ppb)
40.9
37
97
42.5
37
Diesel Particulate Matter' (ng/m3)
0.331
0.297
66
0.294
60-70th
Air Toxics Cancer Risk" (lifetime risk per million)
41
40
83
28
95-100th
Air Toxics Respiratory HI*
0.67
0.45
98
0.36
95-100th
Traffic Proximity (daily traffic count/distance to road)
740
640
77
760
75
Lead Paint (% Pre-1960 Housing)
0.34
0.2
76
0.27
61
Superfund Proximity (site count/km distance)
0.037
0.076
52
0.13
34
RMP Facility Proximity (facility count/km distance)
0.91
0.96
65
0.77
73
Hazardous Waste Proximity (facility count/km distance)
1.5
1.4
66
2.2
64
Underground Storage Tanks (count/km2)
4.5
2.2
83
3.9
75
Wastewater Discharge (toxicity-weighted concentration/m distance)
0.0063
0.37
68
12
65
Socioeconomic Indicators
Demographic Index
57%
41%
71
35%
80
Supplemental Demographic Index
21%
17%
69
15%
80
People of Color
58%
42%
68
40%
72
Low Income
55%
38%
73
30%
84
Unemployment Rate
8%
7%
68
5%
75
Limited English Speaking Households
2%
2%
80
5%
63
Less Than High School Education
15%
14%
59
12%
71
Under Age 5
8%
7%
71
6%
76
Over Age 64
13%
15%
45
16%
40
Low Life Expectancy
22%
22%
50
20%
75
EJScreen is a screening tool for pre-decisional use only. It can help identify areas that may warrant additional consideration, analysis, or outreach. It does not
provide a basis for decision-making, but it may help identify potential areas of EJ concern. Users should keep in mind that screening tools are subject to substantial
uncertainty in their demographic and environmental data, particularly when looking at small geographic areas. Important caveats and uncertainties apply to this
screening-level information, so it is essential to understand the limitations on appropriate interpretations and applications of these indicators. Please see
EJScreen documentation for discussion of these issues before using reports. This screening tool does not provide data on every environmental impact and
demographic factor that may be relevant to a particular location. EJScreen outputs should be supplemented with additional information and local knowledge
before taking any action to address potential EJ concerns.
March 30, 2023 3/4
K-3
-------
v>EPA Environmental Protection EJScreen Report (Version 2.11)
3 miles Ring Centered at 32.516645,-93.711674, LOUISIANA, EPA Region 6
Approximate Population: 53,128
Input Area (sq. miles): 28.27
Highway 71/72
Selected Variables
State
Percentile
USA
Percentile
Supplemental Indexes
Particulate Matter 2.5 Supplemental Index
92
92
Ozone Supplemental Index
93
65
Diesel Particulate Matter Supplemental Index*
79
85
AirToxics Cancer Risk Supplemental Index*
83
89
AirToxics Respiratory HI Supplemental Index*
87
91
Traffic Proximity Supplemental Index
76
81
Lead Paint Supplemental Index
77
79
Superfund Proximity Supplemental Index
71
62
RMP Facility Proximity Supplemental Index
76
83
Hazardous Waste Proximity Supplemental Index
79
82
Underground Storage Tanks Supplemental Index
77
80
Wastewater Discharge Supplemental Index
67
74
Supplemental Indexes - The supplemental indexes offer a different perspective on community-level vulnerability. They combine data on low-income, limited
English speaking, less than high school education, unemployed, and low life expectancy populations with a single environmental indicator.
Supplemental Index for the Selected Area Compared to All People's Blockgroups in the State/US
\
"V
"Hr
X
h
X
%
"o-
N
"s,,
Supplemental Indexes
State Percentile H USA Percent le
This report shows the values for environmental and demographic indicators, EJScreen indexes, and supplemental indexes. It shows environmental and
demographic raw data (e.g., the estimated concentration of ozone in the air), and also shows what percentile each raw data value represents. These
percentiles provide perspective on how the selected block group or buffer area compares to the entire state, EPA region, or nation. For example, if a given
location is at the 95th percentile nationwide, this means that only 5 percent of the US population has a higher block group value than the average person in the
location being analyzed. The years for which the data are available, and the methods used, vary across these indicators. Important caveats and uncertainties
apply to this screening-level information, so it is essential to understand the limitations on appropriate interpretations and applications of these indicators.
Please see EJScreen documentation for discussion of these issues before using reports. For additional information, see: www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice.
March 30, 2023 4/4
K-4
------- |