third five-year review report - old inger oil refinery

THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT FOR OLD INGER OIL REFINERY SUPERFUND SITE

ASCENSION PARISH, LOUISIANA

5”<3)\

&

JULY 2017

UJC3

March 2017

Prepared by

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6

Dallas, Texas

nil III

This page intentionally left blank

THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT OLD INGER OIL REFINERY SUPERFUND SITE

EPA ID#: LAD980745533 ASCENSION PARISH, LOUISIANA

This memorandum documents the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's performance, determinations and approval of the Old Inger Oil Refinery Superfimd site (Site) third five-year review 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 ReportThe remedy for the Site’s single operable unit consists of treatment and off-site disposal of surface water from onsite impoundments, bioremediation of heavily contaminated soils and sludge, on-site capping of treated soils and sludge, and monitoring to confirm no need for further action for groundwater. Land use restrictions are in place to prevent exposure and protect the cap. Construction Completion was achieved on August 12, 2006.

Environmental IndicatorsHuman Exposure Status: Under Control Contaminated Groundwater Status: Under Control Sitewide Ready for Reuse: Yes

Actions NeededNone

Determination1 have determined that the remedy for the Old Inger Oil Refinery Superfund site is protective of human health and the environment.

Carl E. Edlund, P.E.Director, Superfund DivisionU.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6

Date

This page intentionally left blank.

CONCURRENCES


EPA ID#; LAD980745533 ASCENSION PARISH, LOUISIANA

Bartolome J. Canellas (6SF-RL) Remedial Project Manager

M lyDate

Blake Atkins (6SF-RL)Chief, Superfund LA/NM/OK Section

Date

AJofmlC. Meyer (6SF- Cnief. Superfund R( lial Branch

Gloria Moran (6RC-S)'Attorney, Office of Regional Counsel

(VT\

Date7A//7

Date 1-MU

Mark A. Peycke (6RC-S)Chief, Superfund Branch, Office of Regional Counsel

Date

Pamela Phillips Deputy Director, Superfuhd Division

Date

This oage intentionally left blank

ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS


EPA ID#: LAD980745533 ASCENSION PARISH, LOUISIANA

Issues/Rccommeiula lions

OU(s) without Issues/Recommendations Identified in the FYR:OUl/Sitewide

Issues and Recommendations Identified in the FYR:

None

Table of ContentsLIST OF ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS.................................................................................................... 2I. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................................4

Site Background............................................................................................................................................... 4FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SUMMARY FORM................................................................................................... 5

II. RESPONSE ACTION SUMMARY................................................................................................................. 5Basis for Taking Action................................................................................................................................... 5Response Actions............................................................................................................................................. 6Status of Implementation................................................................................................................................. 7Systems Operations/Operation & Maintenance (0«feM)...................................................................................11

III. PROGRESS SINCE THE LAST REVIEW.................................................................................................. 11IV. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS............................................................................................................... 12

Community Notification, Involvement & Site Interviews................................................................................12Data Review................................................................................................................................................... 12Site Inspection................................................................................................................................................ 12

V. TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT....................................................................................................................... 13QUESTION A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?....................................... 13QUESTION B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels and RAOs used at the time of theremedy selection still valid?............................................................................................................................13QUESTION C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy?..........................................................................................................................................................14

VI. ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................................ 14OTHER FINDINGS........................................................................................................................................14

VII. PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT........................................................................................................... 14VIII. NEXT REVIEW........................................................................................................................................ 15APPENDIX A - REFERENCE LIST...............................................................................................................A-1APPENDIX B - SITE CHRONOLOGY.......................................................................................................... B-1APPENDIX C - SITE MAPS...........................................................................................................................C-1APPENDIX D - SITE INSPECTION CHECKLIST........................................................................................D-1APPENDIX E - PUBLIC NOTICE.................................................................................................................. E-1APPENDIX F - SITE INSPECTION PHOTOS................................................................................................ F-1APPENDIX G - DETAILED ARARs REVIEW.............................................................................................. G-1APPENDIX H - DETAILED TOXICITY REVIEW........................................................................................H-1APPENDIX I - INTERVIEW FORMS............................................................................................................. I-lAPPENDIX J - CONVEYANCE NOTIFICATIONS........................................................................................ J-1

TablesTable 1: Site Contaminants by Media...................................................................................................................5Table 2: Cleanup Goals for Soil, Sludge, Sediment and Oil................................................................................. 6Table 3: Discharge Standards for Treated Water..................................................................................................7Table 4: Summary of Implemented Institutional Controls (ICs)............................................................................8Table 5; Protectiveness Determinations/Statements from the 2012 FYR.............................................................11Table 6; Status of Recommendations from the 2012 F YR..................................................................................11Table B-1: Site Chronology.............................................................................................................................. B-1Table 1-1: Health Evaluation of Soil Cleanup Level..........................................................................................H-1

FiguresFigure 1: Detailed and Institutional Control Map............................................................................................... 10Figure C-1: Site Vicinity Map...........................................................................................................................C-1

1

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS

ARAR Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirementbgs Below Ground SurfaceCERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability ActCOC Contaminant of ConcernEPA United States Environmental Protection AgencyESD Explanation of Significant DifferencesFYR Five-Year ReviewHQ Hazard QuotientIC Institutional ControlLDEQ Louisiana Department of Environmental Qualitymg/kg Milligram per Kilogrammg/L Milligram per LiterNCP National Contingency PlanNPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination SystemNPL National Priorities ListO&M Operation and MaintenanceOU Operable UnitPAH Polycyclic Aromatic HydrocarbonPRP Potentially Responsible PartyRAO Remedial Action ObjectiveRECAP Risk Evaluation/Corrective Action ProgramRI Remedial InvestigationROD Record of DecisionRPM Remedial Project ManagerRSL Regional Screening LevelSVOC Semi-Volatile Organic CompoundTPH Total Petroleum HydrocarbonsUSACE United States Army Corps of EngineersUU/UE Unlimited Use and Unrestricted ExposureVOC Volatile Organic Compound

This page intentionally left blank

I. INTRODUCTIONThe purpose of a Five-Year Review (F>YR) 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 Code of Federal Regulations Section 300.430(f)(4)(ii)), and considering EPA policy.

This is the third FYR for the Old Inger Oil Refinery Superfund site (the Site). The triggering action for this policy review is the completion date of the previous FYR. The FYR has been prepared due to the fact that 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 (OU). This FYR addresses this OU - OUl. OUl includes the remedies to address contaminated soil, sludge, surface water, sediment and groundwater at the Site.

EPA remedial project manager (RPM) Bartolome J. Canellas led the FYR. Participants included Todd Thibodeaux of the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ), and Brice Robertson and Johimy Zimmerman-Ward from Skeo (EPA contractor support). The review began on 3/2/2017.

Site BackgroundThe 19-acre Site is located in a rural area next to a Mississippi River levee, about 4.5 miles north of the town of Darrow in Ascension Parish, Louisiana. Louisiana State Highway 75 borders the Site to the northeast and north. The Mississippi River borders the Site to the southwest and south (Figure 1). An oil refinery and waste oil reclamation facility operated on the site property from 1967 to 1978. In 1980, new property owners abandoned the facility due to concerns about the facility’s economic viability. Facility operations resulted in contaminant releases from tank overfilling, discharges to the lagoons and swamps, and burial of drums and construction debris in lagoons. Facility operations resulted in the contamination of soil, groundwater, surface water and sediment with volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and metals.

Land use around the Site is predominantly agricultural, the nearest residence is located 0.3 miles southeast of the Site. The Site is currently vacant. The only remedy features remaining at the Site are the protective clay cap and perimeter security fencing. Following the construction of the remedy, vegetation has reestablished.

The Site is located in the Mississippi River floodplain. The river’s levee system protects the Site from flooding. Surface water at the Site ultimately drains to the east, to Bayou Conway and Bayou Manchac, and then into Lake Maurepas. Site groundwater occurs in four layers. The shallow aquifer occurs at about 6 feet below ground surface (bgs), the intermediate aquifer begins about 45 feet bgs and ranges in thickness from 60 feet to 70 feet, and the alluvial aquifer begins at about 120 feet bgs. The alluvial aquifer is used as a drinking water source near the Site. The bottom layer, the Gonzales Formation, is a major regional drinking water source. Remaining site contamination is limited to the shallow aquifer. Groundwater in the shallow and intermediate aquifers is not used as a drinking water source in the site area. Groundwater flow in the shallow and intermediate aquifers is influenced by the stage level of the Mississippi River. For most of the year, groundwater in these two aquifers flows to the east and away from the river. However, during low stage levels of the Mississippi River, groundwater in the two aquifers flows toward the river (Figure 1).

FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SUMMARY FORM

SITE IDENTIFICATION

Site Name: Old Inger Oil Refinery

EPA ID: LAD980745533Region: 6 State: Louisiana City/County: Darrow/Ascension Parish

NPL Status: Deleted

Multiple OUs?No

Has the site achieved construction completion?Yes

REV IEW STATUS

Lead agency: EPAAuthor name: Bartolome J. Canellas, with additional support provided by Skeo

Author affiliation: EPA Region 6

Review period: 3/2/2017 - 8/28/2017

Date of site inspection: 3/14/2017

Type of review: Policy

Review number: 3Triggering action date: 8/28/2012

Due date (fiveyears after triggering action date)’. 8/28/2017

II. RESPONSE ACTION SUMMARY

Basis for Taking ActionLDEQ completed the Site’s remedial investigation (RI) in 1983. It demonstrated that VOCs had been released to soil and migrated down to the shallow and intermediate aquifers, potentially impacting deeper aquifers used for drinking water purposes. The RI concluded that the greatest exposure potential for people and the environment from hazardous substances at the Site would occur if the Site were to flood and spread contamination over a large area. Table 1 summarizes the primary exposure media and types of contaminants identified at the Site during the RI. Appendix A provides a detailed list of site references. Appendix B provides a chronology of site events.

Table 1: Site Contaminants by Media

Contaminants* Waste OU or Sludge Groundwater Soil Surface Water Sediment

VOCs X X X X X

Metals X X X X

Contaminants” Waste Oil or Sludge Groundwater Soil Surface Water Sediment

Phenols

PAHsNotesa From Tables 2 and 3 of the Site’s 1984 Record of Decision (ROD). The ROD did not specify specific

contaminants of concern (COCs). Therefore, only general classes of contamination are listed.______

Response ActionsBetween April 1983 and August 1988, EPA completed five emergency removal actions at the Site. The actions reduced the potential for exposure to and migration of on-site contamination and made site conditions safer for the implementation of long-term remedial activities. These removal actions involved site security, control of the migration of on-site contamination, and excavation, consolidation and containment of soils. EPA listed the Site on the Superfund program’s National Priorities List (NPL) in September 1983.

EPA selected the Site’s long-term remedy in the September 1984 Record of Decision (ROD). EPA updated the cleanup plan in the Site’s 1993 and 2006 Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs). The remedial action objectives (RAOs) identified in the ROD and ESDs included:

• Prevent/minimize the migration of on-site heavily and slightly contaminated surface water.• Prevent/minimize the migration of on-site groundwater in the shallow aquifer.• Prevent/minimize the impact to off-site groundwater in the intermediate and alluvial aquifers.• Prevent/minimize the migration of on-site heavily contaminated soils and sludges.• Prevent/minimize the migration of on-site slightly contaminated soils.

Remedy components selected in the ROD and revised in the ESDs included:

• Carbon adsorption treatment through an on-site wastewater treatment plant and off-site discharge of contaminated fluids (including surface water and groundwater).

• On-site bioremediation through land treatment (land treatment unit) of heavily contaminated soils, sludges and sediments.

• In-place containment and capping of slightly contaminated soils.• Placement of land use restrictions on the Site.

EPA did not specify remediation goals for the bioremediation of contaminated soils, sludges, sediments or oil in the ROD or ESDs. Cleanup goals were established prior to the st£irt of the bioremediation work (Table 2) in the site Remedial Action Plan. The ROD deferred decisions regarding the level of cleanup for the shallow aquifer and the need for cleanup of the intermediate aquifer. The 2006 ESD stated that groundwater sampling data indicated that no further action was necessary to address groundwater in the shallow or intermediate aquifers at the Site. Therefore, cleanup goals were not developed for groundwater. The 1984 ROD specified discharge standards for treated water (Table 3).

Table 2: Cleanup Goals for Soil, Sludge, Sediment and Oil

Contaminant Cleanup Goal” (mg/kg)

Fats, oils and grease 5,000

Contaminant Cleanup Goal* (mg/kg)

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) 5,000Benzo(a)anthraceneChryseneDibenzofuranAcenaphtheneAcenaphthyleneFluorene2-MethylnaphthaleneNaphthalenePyrene

250*-

Notesa. From Table 2 of the Site’s first FYR Report.b. Standard is for combined concentrations of these six PAHs mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram

Table 3: Discharge Standards for Treated Water

Contaminant Discharge Standard (mg/L)

Biochemical oxygen demand <30Total suspended solids <30Chemical oxygen demand <150Oil and grease <15Total organic priority pollutants <0.1Notes

a. 1984 ROD, page 19. mg/L = milligrams per liter

Status of ImplementationLDEQ was the lead agency for the final, long-term remedial action at the Site. A Cooperative Agreement between EPA and LDEQ made the remediation effort possible. Remedial action took place between 1986 and 2002. LDEQ completed the remediation in four phases. The first phase included excavation and stockpiling of sludges jfrom the surface impoundments, construction of the land treatment unit, construction of the wastewater treatment plant, and removal and treatment of contaminated liquids from the surface impoundments.

The second and third phases included excavation of contaminated soils, sludges, sediments and oil, processing and placement of the material on the land treatment unit for treatment (e.g., addition of amendments to enhance biodegradation followed by disking and tilling with clean soil) in loose 6-inch lifts, vegetation clearing and grubbing, stormwater management and treatment, handling and disposal of on-site tanks, drums and debris, and site restoration work (e.g., backfilling of excavated areas, placement of a clay cap and topsoil, revegetation, and monitoring well abandonment). Remedial activities addressed material excavated from the surface impoundments during the first phase and additional areas discovered during excavation activities. These areas included the buried waste area, lagoon 1 and the southeast swamp. Additional actions included demolition and removal of all onsite buildings and structures.

The final phase of remediation involved an evaluation of groundwater conditions following' source removal and treatment. Based on the evaluation, EPA and LDEQ concluded in a 2006 ESD that the shallow groundwater does not present an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment as groundwater studies and sampling events showed that site groundwater met LDEQ Risk Evaluation/Corrective Action Program (RECAP) regulations and requirements. The monitoring wells were abandoned in accordance with State of Louisiana requirements. The Site achieved Construction Completion status on September 12,2006, when EPA issued the Site’s Final Close-Out Report. EPA deleted the Site from the NPL in August 2008.

Institutional Control (IQ ReviewTwo conveyance notices describing the site hazards were recorded in the deed records for the Site. LDEQ filed both notices with the Ascension Parish Clerk of Court, one on August 7,2006, and one on August 17,2006. The notices cover the entire Site. Appendix J provides a copy of the notices from the Ascension Parish Clerk of Court. They state that contaminants (oil and grease) remain at the Site above levels that allow for unrestricted exposure (total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) at less than 5 percent by weight), that a protective cap is in place, and that disturbance of the cap or contaminated portions of the Site may subject the property owner and party causing the disturbance to liability under CERCLA or other laws. In addition, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Pontchartrain Levee Control District have specific requirements for work performed near the levee of the Mississippi River. A permit is required from the Pontchartrain Levee District Board for any work performed within 300 feet of the centerline of the levee. The distance requirement is increased to 1,500 feet for any work involving subsurface work, such as coring or excavation. The Site falls within 300 feet of the centerline of the levee. US ACE reviews all permits prior to approval by the Pontchartrain Levee District.'

Table 4: Summary of Implemented ICsMedia,

Engineered Controls, and

Areas that Do Not Support UU/UE

Based on Current Conditions

ICsNeeded

ICs CaUed for in the Decision

Documents

ImpactedParcei(s)

ICObjective

Title of IC Instrument Implemented and Date

(or planned)

2034400

Notifies interested persons that contaminants (oil and grease) remain at the Site above levels that allow for unrestricted exposure (TPH at less than 5 percent by weight), that

Conveyance Notification Instrument # 00644688

August 7,2006

Soil Yes Yes 20845002077200

a protective cap is m place, and that disturbance of the cap or contaminated portions of the Site may subject the property owner and party causing the disturbance to liability underCERCLA or other laws.

Conveyance Notification Instrument # 00645737

August 17,2006

' USAGE, New Orleans District, Levee Permit Policy.http://www.mvn.usace.armv.mil/Portals/56/docs/MRT/MVNLeveePennitsPolicv.Ddf.

8

Media, Engineered

Controls, and Areas that Do Not Support UU/UE

Based on Current Conditions

ICsNeeded

ICs CaUed for in the Decision

Documents

ImpactedParcel(s)

ICObjective

Title of IC Instrument Implemented and Date

(or planned)

Soil Yes Yes203440020845002077200

Requires a permit for any work performed within 300 feet of the centerline of the levee, which increases to 1,500 feet for any work involving the subsurface.

USAGE, New Orleans District, Levee Permit

PolicyMay 10,2011

Figure 1: Institutional Control Map

v'.Kimamss m/W;ss7ssT^p7 'R/\7en^—

K.'

Mississippi Ri '^llpod Protection

^ 'd250 500 1,000

■■FeetLegend

I Approximate Site Boundary

Sources: Figure 3 of the 2012 FYR. Ascertsion Parish. Esri. DigitaiGlobe. CeoEye. Earthstar Geographies, CNES/Airbus DS. USDA. USGS. AEX. Getmapping. Aerogrid. IGN. IGP. swisstopo and the GiS User Community.

Area Under Conveyance Notifications #00645737 and #00644688

f ” 4 Fence Line

^ SkeoNORTH

Old Inger Oil Refinery Superfund SiteTown of Darrow, Ascension 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.

Systems Operations/Operation & Maintenance (O&M)There are no operating systems left in place at the Site. No sampling activities are ongoing. LDEQ is currently responsible for O&M activities at the Site. O&M activities required in the Site’s 2008 O&M Plan include regular site inspections, fence repairs, warning sign replacement and erosion control as necessary, and semi-annual mowing. Currently, the Site is only mowed once every five years. Only two site inspections have occurred in the past five years; this reduced fi-equency of mowing and site inspections has not been approved by EPA. At the FYR site inspection in March 2017, fencing was damaged in several places. The tree identified in the 2012 FYR Report as fallen over and resting on site fencing was still there. Signage was present in multiple places on the fence, including the gates. However, some signs were faded and illegible.

III. PROGRESS SINCE THE LAST REVIEWThis section includes the protectiveness determinations and statements from the last FYR as well as the two recommendations associated with O&M from the last FYR and the current status of those recommendations.

Table 5: Protectiveness Determinations/Statements from the 2012 FYR

OU# ProtectivenessDetermination Protectiveness Statement

1 Short-term Protective The remedy implemented for the Site is protective of human health and the environment in the short term The recommendations and follow-up actions identified in this FYR must be addressed to ensure continued protectiveness over the long term.________________________________________

Site wide Short-term Protective Because the remedial actions implemented at the Site are protective, the overall remedy implemented for the Site is protective of human health and the environment in the short term. The recommendations and follow-up actions identified in this FYR must be addressed to ensure continued protectiveness over the long term._____________________

Table 6: Status of Recommendations from the 2012 FYR

Issue Recommendations CurrentStatus

CurrentImplementation

StatusDescription

Completion Date (if

applicable)

The Site has not been mowed semi-annually and the overgrown vegetation prevented a thorough inspection of the cap during site inspections, including the second FYR site inspection. The Site’s May 2008 O&M Plan specifies that mowing and site inspections be conducted on a semi-annual basis to allow for visual inspections of the clay cap, to ensure the integrity of the cover, and to allow an opportunity to note any necessary repairs. Although site inspections have been performed twice yearly, except for 2010 (when only one inspection was documented), the Site has not been mowed semi-

Perform site mowing and maintenance in accordance with the O&M Plan. Semiannual mowing is needed to prevent growth of vegetation that might impact the cap integrity, and to allow thorough inspections of the cap condition.

UnderDiscussion

The Site was mowed once in

the past five years. LDEQ

performed two site inspections during the FYR

period The Site’s 2008 O&M Plan

requires semiannual mowing

and site inspections

3/14/2017

Issue Recommendations CurrentStatus

CurrentImplementation

StatusDescription

Completion Date (if

applicable)annually. At the time of the second FYR site inspection in April 2012, the Site had not been mowed since 2009. Mowing was scheduled in advance of the site inspection, but not completed due to rain events. LDEQ performed a follow-up site inspection in May 2012 after the Site had been mowed.A portion of the perimeter fence is damaged. The April 2009 site inspection documented that a large tree had fallen across the north perimeter fence (at the northwest comer) and damaged it. This has not yet been repaired. The opening is large enough to allow trespassing, although it is only visible to passers-by during the winter months when vegetation is low, and is not visible from the road at any time.

Complete the northwest comer fence repair. The northwest portion of damaged fence needs to be repaired, per O&M requirements, to help discourage trespass that might impact the cap over time.

Considered But Not

Implemented

LDEQ did not repair the

northwest comer part of the fence during the FYR period. During the 2017 FYR site inspection,

LDEQ Indicated that a lack of

funding delayed fence repairs.

3/14/2017

IV. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS

Community Notification. Involvement & Site InterviewsA public notice was published in the Gonzales Weekly Citizen newspaper on 3/2/2017. It stated that the FYR was underway and invited the public to submit any comments to EPA (Appendix E). The results of the review and the report will be made available at the Site’s information repositories - the LDEQ Public Records Center (602 North Fifth Street, Baton Rouge, LA 70802) and Ascension Parish Library (13728 Highway 73, Geismar, LA 70734) - and at EPA Region 6’s offices (1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202).

During the FYR process, interviews were conducted to document any perceived problems or successes with the remedy that has been implemented to date. The results of these interviews are summarized below. Appendix I provides the complete interviews.

The interviewees stated that the remedy is effective and protective of human health and the environment. One resident said he has not seen anything going on at the Site during the past 10 or 15 years.

Data ReviewRemedial action and groundwater monitoring finished in 2005. Therefore, no data were generated during the current FYR period (2012 to 2017).

Site InspectionThe site inspection took place on 3/14/2017. In attendance were EPA RPM Bartolome J. Canellas, Todd Thibodeaux from LDEQ, and Johnny Zimmerman-Ward and Brice Robertson from EPA contractor Skeo. The

purpose of the inspection was to assess the protectiveness of the remedy. The site inspection checklist is included in Appendix D. Site inspection photographs are included in Appendix F.

Participants discussed site events from the last five years and then walked around the outside of the Site inspecting the fence and signage. Fencing was damaged in multiple places. The tree identified in the 2012 FYR Report as fallen over and resting on site fencing was still there. Signage was present in multiple places on the fence, including the gates. However, some signs were faded and illegible. Signage at the gate on Highway 75 was newer and legible. The Site was being mowed at the time of the site inspection so participants were not able to go much past the gates of the Site. It appeared that some trees were growing on the capped area. The gates were locked and secured upon arrival. Following the site inspection, participants interviewed several nearby residents. Skeo staff visited the Site’s local information repositories. Ascension Parish Library and LDEQ’s office in Baton Rouge. The library contained many past records; the most recent record was the Site’s 2008 deletion docket. LDEQ’s Baton Rouge office also provides access to LDEQ’s online document repository. This electronic resource contained many site documents; the most recent record was the Site’s 2014 Site Inspection Report. The 2012 FYR Report was not available.

V. TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT

QUESTION A: Is the remedy fimctioning as intended by the decision documents?

Question A Summary;

Yes. The remedy is functioning as intended by the decision documents because contaminated sediment, sludge and soil were excavated and treated in the on-site land treatment unit, treated material was disposed of on site, a clay cap was placed over treated soil and waste, and the Site was revegetated. Lagoon water was treated and discharged through a permitted discharge. Eight rounds of quarterly monitoring demonstrated that no further action was required for groundwater. Institutional controls were put in place in 2006 in the form of two conveyance notices. They provide notice of site cleanup and contamination remaining on site, and protect the integrity of the clay cap. In addition, the USAGE and Pontchartrain Levee Control District have specific requirements for work performed near the levee of the Mississippi River. A permit is required from the Pontchartrain Levee District Board for any work performed within 300 feet of the centerline of the levee. The distance requirement is increased to 1,500 feet for any work involving subsurface work, such as coring or excavation. The Site falls within 300 feet of the centerline of the levee.

O&M activities required at the Site are semi-annual site visits for mowing, cap inspections and maintenance as necessary, and perimeter fence inspection and repair as necessary. At the time of the third FYR site inspection in March 2017, fencing was damaged in several places. The tree identified in the 2012 FYR Report as fallen over and resting on site fencing was still there. Signage was present in multiple places on the fence, including the gates However, some signs were faded and illegible. The Site was mowed in March 2017. Most of the Site was not able to be inspected during the FYR site inspection as mowing was occurring on the day of the inspection. Prior to that, mowing had not occurred since the previous FYR. Only two site inspections have occurred in the past five years; this reduced frequency of mowing and site inspections has not been approved by EPA.

QUESTION B; Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels and RAOs used at the time of the remedy selection still valid?

Question B Summary:There have been no changes in human health or ecological exposure pathways and no new contaminants or routes of exposure have been identified for the Site as part of this FYR. Site RAOs remain valid. Soil cleanup goals were reviewed. Based on a screening-level risk evaluation (Appendix H), the cleanup goals remain valid. See Appendix G for a detailed Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) review.

QUESTION C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy?

No new information has come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy.

VI. ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS

Issiics/Recomnieiulatioiis

OU(s) without Issues/Recommendations Identified in the FYR:OUl/Sitewide

Issues and Recommendations Identified in the FYR:

None

OTHER FINDINGS

Several additional recommendations were identified during the FYR. These recommendations do not affect current and/or future protectiveness.

• Ensure the Site’s document repositories contain copies of the most recent FYR Report.• Repair the perimeter fence, improve signage legibility, and perform mowing and removal of trees as

described in the Site’s 2008 O&M Plan.• Take pictures of the Site and send to EPA to confirm that mowing and tree removal were performed.

VII. PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT

ProlectiveiK'ss StatciiiciilOperable Unit. Protectiveness Determination.OUl Protective

Protectiveness Statement:The remedy at OUl is protective of human health and the environment because surface water from onsite impoundments was treated and disposed of off-site, heavily contaminated soils and sludge were bioremediated and then contained and capped on site, and institutional controls have been put in place. Monitoring demonstrated that groundwater does not require any response action. In addition, institutional controls have been put in place.

Sitcwidc Protectiveness StatementOperable Unit: Protectiveness Determination ■Sitewide Protective

Protectiveness Statement:The remedy at the Site is protective of human health and the environment because surface water from on-site impoundments was treated and disposed of off-site, heavily contaminated soils and sludge were bioremediated and then contained and capped on site, and institutional controls have been put in place. Monitoring demonstrated that groundwater does not require any response action. In addition, institutional controls have been put in place.

VIII. NEXT REVIEWThe next FYR Report for the Old Inger Oil Refinery Superfund site is required five years from the completion date of this review.

APPENDIX A - REFERENCE LIST

Explanation of Significant Differences. Old Inger Oil Refinery Site, Houston, Ascension Parish, Louisiana. EPA Region 6. September 1993.

Explanation of Significant Differences. Old Inger Oil Refinery Site, Houston, Ascension Parish, Louisiana. EPA Region 6. September 2006.

Final Close-Out Report. Old Inger Oil Refinery Site, Houston, Ascension Parish, Louisiana. EPA Region 6. September 2006.

Five-Year Review Report. Old Inger Oil Refinery Site, Houston, Ascension Parish, Louisiana. EPA Region 6. July 2007.

Five-Year Review Report. Old Inger Oil Refinery Site, Houston, Ascension Parish, Louisiana. EPA Region 6. June 2012.

Letter from Thomas F. Harris, RSD Administrator LDEQ, to Honorable Kermit “Hart” Bourque, Clerk of Court, Ascension Parish, regarding Notice of Lien-Second Filing, Old Inger Refining Site; AL4714. June 2010.

Notice of Deletion of the Oil Inger Oil Refinery Site. 48 Federal Register 40648. June 2008.

Notice of Lien, Instrument #00750966, Filed and recorded Ascension Clerk of Court June 22, 2010.

Operation and Maintenance Plan for the Old Inger Oil Refinery Superfund Site, Ascension Parish, Louisiana. Prepared by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ). May 2008.

Record of Decision and Remedial Alternative Selection. Old Inger, Ascension Parish, Louisiana. September 1984.

A-1

APPENDIX B - SITE CHRONOLOGY

Table B-1: Site ChronologyEvent Date

EPA discovered site contamination August 1,1978LDEQ declared Site “abandoned” 1981EPA proposed Site for listing on NPL December 30,1982EPA completed first removal action June 12,1983EPA completed second removal action July 18,1983EPA listed Site on NPL September 8,1983LDEQ completed Site’s RI September 30,1983LDEQ completed Site’s feasibility study and EPA signed Site’s ROD September 25, 1984EPA completed interim remedial action October 8,1984EPA completed third removal action May 10,1985EPA completed fourth removal action November 14,1985LDEQ completed Site’s remedial design October 27,1986EPA completed fifth removal action August 26,1988EPA signed ESD expanding area requiring remediation September 22,1993LDEQ completed remedy construction and remedial action June 4, 2002EPA issued Site’s second ESD and signed Site’s Fmal Close-Out Report September 12,2006EPA signed Site’s first FYR Report July 23,2007EPA published notice of intent to delete Site fi'om NPL June 13,2008EPA deleted Site fi-om NPL August 12,2008EPA signed Site’s second FYR Report August 8,2012

B-1

APPENDIX C - SITE MAPSFigure C-1: Site Vicinity Map

□arrow, LA

Vi: '

Qr-leansOld Inger Oil Refinery Superfund Site

Houma

ItdississippilM^il

\ i

Wym i

250 500 1,000HFeet

Sources: Figure 3 of the 2012 FYR. Esri. DigitalGlobe. GeoEye. Earthstar Geographies. CNES/Airbus DS. USDA. USGS. AEX, Getmapping. Aerogrid. IGN. IGF. swisstopo and the GIS User Community.

Legend

Approximate Site Boundary

^ SkeoNORTH

Old Inger Oil Refinery Superfund SiteTown of Darrow, Ascension 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,

C-1

APPENDIX D - SITE INSPECTION CHECKLIST

FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SITE INSPECTION CHECKLIST

I. SITE INFORMATIONSite Name: Old Inger Oil Refinery Date of Inspection: 03/14/2017Location and Region: Darrow, Louisiana 6 EPA ID: LAD980745533Agency, Office or Company Leading the Five-Year Review: EPA Weather/Temperature: Sunnv. 60 degrees fahrenheit

Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply)13 Landfill cover/containment r~| Access controls 3 Institutional controls □ Groundwater pump and treatment 3 Surface water collection and treatment n Other:

Q Monitored natural attenuation r~l Groundwater containment □ Vertical barrier walls

Attachments: 3 Inspection team roster attached □ Site map attached

II. INTERVIEWS (check all that apply)

1. 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 Todd Thibodeaux

Name

Problems/suggestions □ Report attached:.

ProjectMannerTitle

Date Phone No.

Agency. Contact Name

TitleProblems/suggestions □ Report attached..

AgencyContact ____ ____

Name TitleProblems/suggestions Q Report attached:

Agency. Contact

Name TitleProblems/suggestions □ Report attached*

Agency. Contact

Name TitleProblems/suggestions l~l Report attached:

Date

Date

Date

Date

Phone No.

Phone No.

Phone No.

Phone No.

Other Interviews (optional) d Report attached: During the site inspection, two residents were also interviewed.

III. ON-SITE DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS VERIFIED (check all that apply)

1. O&M Documents

^ O&M manual ^ Readily available ^ Up to date □ n/aQ As-built drawings □ Readily available □ Up to date Sn/a□ Maintenance logs □ Readily available □ Up to date Sn/aRemarks:

2. Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan

Q Contingency plan/emergency response plan

Remarks:

□ Readily available

l~l Readily available

□ Up to date

□ Up to date

Sn/aKn/a

3. O&M and OSHA Training Records □ Readily available □ Up to date ^N/A

Remarks:

4. Permits and Service Agreements

□ Air discharge permit □ Readily available □ Up to date ISn/a□ Effluent discharge □ Readily available □ Up to date ^N/A

□ Waste disposal, POTW Q Readily available □ Up to date ^N/A

n Other nermits: r~l Readily available □ Up to date Sn/aRemarks:

5. Gas Generation Records □ Readily available □ Up to date E]n/aRemarks:

6. Settlement Monument Records □ Readily available □ Up to date I2n/aRemerks*

7. Groundwater Monitoring Records r~l Readily available □ Up to date Hn/aRemarks:

8. Leachate Extraction Records □ Readily available □ Up to date ^N/A

Remarks:

9. Discharge Compliance Records

□ Air □ Readily available □ Up to date ^N/A

□ Water (effluent) □ Readily available □ Up to date ^N/A

Remarks.

10. Daily Access/Security Logs n Readily available □ Up to date Sn/aRemarks:

IV. O&M COSTS

1. O&M Organization1^ State in-house r~l Contractor for state

□ PRP in-house □ Contractor for PRP

n Federal facility in-house

□__□ Contractor for Federal facility

2. O&M Cost Records□ Readily available d Up to date

r~1 Funding mechanism/agreement in place |3 Unavailable

Original O&M cost estimate: Id Breakdown attached

Total annual cost by year for review period if availabler~l Breakdown attached

r~l Breakdown attached

n Breakdown attached



From: To:Date Date Total cost


From: To-Date Date Total cost


From: To.Date Date Total cost

3. Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs during Review Period Describe costs and reasons: None.

V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS ^ Applicable □ N/A

A. Fencing1. Fencing Damaged l~l Location shown on site map 1^ Gates secured QN/A

Remarks: Fencing damaged in several locations. The tree that fell during the last FYR period remains in place, laving across part of the fence.

B. Other Access Restrictions

1. Signs and Other Security Measures □ Location shown on site map QN/ARemarks. Signage is present in multiple locations. However, a few signs are faded and difficult to read.

Signage at Site's main entrance on Highway 75 is new and legible.

C. Institutional Controls (ICs)

1 Implementation and Enforcement Site conditions imply ICs not properly implemented Site conditions imply ICs not being fully enforced Type of monitoring (e.g., self-reporting, drive by). _ Frequency: None.Responsible party/agency: LDEO

Contact ____

□ Yes ^ No □ N/A

□ Yes El No □ N/A

Name

Reporting is up to date

Title Date Phone no.□ Yes □ No EN/A

Reports are verified by the lead agency □ Yes □ No ^N/A

Specific requirements in deed or decision documents have been met □ Yes □ No □ n/aViolations have been reported □ Yes □ No Sn/a

Other problems or suggestions: n Report attached

2. Adequacy ^ ICs are adequate □ ICs are inadequate □ N/A

Remarks:

D. General

1. Vandalism/Trespassing □ Location shown on site map ^ No vandalism evidentRemarks:

2. Land Use Changes On Site ^ N/A

Remarks:

3. Land Use Changes Off Site N/ARemarks.

VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS

A. Roads □Applicable ^N/A

B. Other Site Conditions

Remarks' The Site was beine mowed durine the site inspection.

VII. LANDFILL COVERS Applicable □ N/A

A. Landfill Surface

1. Settlement (low spots) □ Location shown on site map ^ Settlement not evident

Area extent: Depth'

Remarks:2. Cracks □ Location shown on site map ^ Cracking not evident

Leneths: Widths' Depths:

Remarks.

3. Erosion □ Location shown on site map □ Erosion not evident

Area extent: Depth'

Remarks:

4. Holes □ Location shown on site map ^ Holes not evident

Area extent: Depth:

Remarks:5. Vegetative Cover □ Grass 13 Cover properly established

13 No signs of stress 3 Trees/shrubs (indicate size and locations on a diagram)

Remarks:6. Alternative Cover (e.g., armored rock, concrete) 3 N/A

Remarks:

7. Bulges □ Location shown on site map ^ Bulges not evident

Area extent; Height-

Remarks;

8. Wet AreasAVater □ Wet areas/water damage not evidentDamage

^ Wet areas D Location shown on site man Area extent;

n Ponding n Location shown on site man Area extent;

n Seens HI Location shown on site man Area extent;

n Soft suberade fl Location shown on site man Area extent;

Remarks; There were a few wet areas, but it had iust rained.

9. Slope Instability [H Slides □ Location shown on site map

^ No evidence of slope instability

Area extent;

Remarks;

B. Benches □ Applicable ^ N/A(Horizontally constructed mounds of earth placed across a steep landfill side slope to interrupt the slope in order to slow down the velocity of surface runoff and intercept and convey the runoff to a lined channel.)

C. Letdown Channels □ Applicable ^ N/A(Channel lined with erosion control mats, riprap, grout bags or gabions that descend down the steep side slope of the cover and will allow the runoff water collected by the benches to move off of the landfill cover without creating erosion gullies.)

D. Cover Penetrations □ Applicable ^ N/A

E. Gas Collection and Treatment □ Applicable ^ N/A

F. Cover Drainage Layer □ Applicable ^ N/A

G. Detention/Sedimentation Ponds Q Applicable ^ N/A

H. Retaining Walls □ Applicable ^ N/A

I. Perimeter Ditches/OfT-Site Discharge □ Applicable ^ N/A

Vin. VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS □ Applicable ^ N/A

IX. GROUNDWATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES □ Applicable ^ N/AX. OTHER REMEDIES

If there are remedies applied at the site and not covered above, attach an inspection sheet describing the physical nature and condition of any facility associated with the remedy. An example would be soil vapor extraction.

XI. OVERALL OBSERVATIONSA. 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 remedv included treatment of contaminated soils, sludges, sediments and oil. backfilling of excavatedareas with the treated material, and covering of excavated areas with a clav cover. Institutional controls inthe form of two convevance notices nrovide notice of site contamination and nrotect the integritv of the clav can. The remedv is effective and functioning as designed.

B. Adepuacy of O&M

Describe issues and observations related to the implementation and scope of O&M procedures. In particular, discuss their relationship to the current and long-term protectiveness of the remedy.Fencing has been damaged in several areas of the Site. O&M activities are not occurring as required in the Site 2008 O&M Plan, including semi-annual mowing.Early Indicators of Potential Remedy ProblemsDescribe issues and observations such as unexpected changes in the cost or scope of O&M or a high frequency of unscheduled repairs that suggest that the protectiveness of the remedy may be compromised in the future.None.Opportunities for OptimizationDescribe possible opportunities for optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation of the remedy. None.

<a o%APPENDIX E - PUBLIC NOTICE

Old Inger Oil Refinery Superfund Site Public Notice

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6

March 2017 DEQLOUISIANA^

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6 (EPA) will be conducting the third five-year review of remedy implementation and performance at the Old Inger Oil Refinery Superfund site (Site) in Darrow, Louisiana. From 1967 until 1978, an oil refinery and waste oil reclamation facility operated on site Improper waste oil disposal activities contaminated soil, sediments, sludges, groundwater and surface water with hazardous chemicals.

The vacant Site is located in a predominantly rural area between Highway 75 and the Mississippi River. The sitewide remedy, selected by EPA in 1984, included the closing and sealing of an on-site ungrouted well; carbon adsorption treatment; in-place treatment, containment and capping of heavily contaminated soils, land use restrictions; and groundwater monitoring. Follovring cleanup, EPA took the Site off the National Priorities List in August 2008. The five-year review will determine if the

remedies are still protective of human health and the environment. The five-year review is scheduled for completion in August 2017.

The report will be made available to the public at the following local information repository:

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality Public Records Center

602 N. Fifth Street Baton Rouge, LA 70802

(225)219-5337

Site status updates are available on the Internet at www.eDa.gov/superfund/old-inger-oil-refinerv

All media inquiries should be directed to the EPA Press Office at (214) 665-2200

For more information about the Site, contact:

Bartolome Caflellas/EPA Remedial Project Manager (214)665-6662

or 1-800-533-3508 (toll-fi-ee) or by email at [email protected]

Todd Thibodeaux/ Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality

(225)219-3703or by email at [email protected]

E-1

APPENDIX F - SITE INSPECTION PHOTOS

aagaMiiiI4 ■*

i3(||il

7i^mAkimstwmimi'Vim-'-4.

MmSignage at main site entrance, in southeast comer along Highway 75.

lit Aa

S*:f ,K "2iam.s"ar»rr^ iawr< fiygewfea^

View of Site from main entrance in southeast corner looking north. Site was being mowed at time of inspection.Trees, grass and shrubs observed on site.

F-1

... ,

K*®?»m^^mm

m,M^w^mMs p«a'

mm^m&mtRuts observed near site entrance. Mowing was taking place during the site inspection. The area was wet due torecent rains.

m im

Site mowing.

F-2

mm

View of the Site from the levee looking to the northeast. Vegetation was cut on fence, but unclear who did it.

c f V,...

w < \ ' -K r^'

' mwk

i

mmmi

■

Faded signage on the west side of the Site, along the levee.

M teSfe ;mm m--

iKtfiSiwte m0

' ■ .-fj.

:^K:^

V■^.#.V«^

MDamaged fencing along the toe of the levee.

’Mmmsfmrns* %iwssa*=-

‘s/?l

y0‘S"'

Looking north on the levee - Site is on the right.

ilK

Tree remaining on site fencing in the northwest comer of the Site.

wmi«i nail^'

• ^'ijy-;:aste4^»

-v\

Vegetation growth on fencing along the eastern side of the Site, next to Highway 75.■ ■' ./r':t;»

APPENDIX G - DETAILED ARARs REVIEW

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 FYR for compliance with ARARs, only those ARARs that address the protectiveness of the remedy are reviewed.

Groundwater ARARsThe 1984 ROD and 1993 and 2006 ESDs did not identify chemical-specific ARARs for the Site’s groundwater, as COCs were not identified.

Soil, Sediment and Sludge ARARsThe 1984 ROD and 1993 and 2006 ESDs did not identify chemical-specific ARARs for the Site’s COCs in soil, sediment or sludge.

Surface Water ARARsThe 1984 ROD and 1993 and 2006 ESDs identified LDEQ discharge standards, as established under the technical and substantive requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the Clean Water Act, which is regulated at 40 Code of Federal Regulations 122 and 125. However, there are no longer any operating systems in place at the Site. Thus, an evaluation of NPDES discharge limits is not warranted in this FYR.

G-1

APPENDIX H - DETAILED TOXICITY REVIEW

EPA did not specify remediation goals for the bioremediation of the contaminated soils, sludges and sediments in the Site’s ROD or ESDs. Cleanup goals were established prior to the start of the bioremediation work and are provided in Table H-1. During bioremediation of contaminated soil, sludges and sediments, sampling of each lift placed on the land treatment unit confirmed that cleanup levels were being met. A screening-level risk evaluation based on EPA’s industrial regional screening levels (RSLs) for soil was performed on the COCs to determine if the cleanup goals were protective for direct exposure based on the current and future industrial use of the site property. As shown in Table H-1, the cleanup goals represent concentrations that fall within EPA’s acceptable risk range of 1 x lO"^ to 1 x lO"® or are below the noncancer hazard quotient (HQ) threshold of 1.0. The results of the analysis demonstrate that the cleanup goals remain valid.

Table H-1: Health Evaluation of Soil Cleanup Level

cocCleanup

GoaP(mg/kg)

Industri(mg

ial RSL'’/kg) Cancer

Risk'Noncancer

HQ"lxl0-«Risk HQ = 1.0

Fats, oils and grease 5,000 NA NA - -

TPH 5,000 NA NA

Benzo(a)anthracene 15 2.9 NA 5.2 X 10-« -Chrysene 15 290 NA 5.2 x 10-* ~Dibenzofuran 15 NA 1,000 - 0.02Acenaphthene 250 NA 45,000 - 0.006Acenaphthylene 250 NA 23,000 - 0.01Fluorene 250 NA 30,000 ~ 0.0082-Methylnaphthalene 250 NA 3,000 ~ 0.08Naphthalene 250 17 590 1.5x10 = 0.4Pyrene 250 NA 23,000 ~ 0.01Notes

a. From Table 2 of the Site’s 2007 FYR Report.b. Current EPA RSLs, dated May 2016, are available at https://www.eDa.gov/risk/regional-

screening-levels-rsls-generic-tables-mav-2016 (accessed 3/21/2017).c. The cancer risks were calculated using the following equation, based on the fact that RSLs are

derived based on 1x10'® risk: cancer risk = (cleanup goal - cancer-based RSL) x lO"*.d. The noncancer HQ was calculated using the following equation: HQ = cleanup goal -

noncancer-based RSL.NA = toxicity value not established- = cancer risk or noncancer HQ could not be calculated due to absence of toxicity value._______

H-1

APPENDIX I - INTERVIEW FORMS

Old iMer Oil Refinery Superfund Site Five-Year Review Interview FormSite Name: Old Inser Oil Reflnerv EPA ID No.: LAD980745533

Interviewer Name: Bart Canellas Affiliation: EPASubiect Name: Resident 1Subject ContactInformation:

Affiliation: Neishbor

Time: 12:30 n.m.Interview On SiteLocation:

Date: 03/14/2017

Interview Format (circle one): (jn Perso^ Phone Mail Other:

Interview Category: Residents

Are you aware of the former environmental issues at the Site and the cleanup activities that have taken place to date?

Yes.

What is your overall impression of the project, including cleanup, maintenance and reuse activities (as appropriate)?

I remember when the Site was active but that’s about it. I haven’t seen an)thing going on at the Site in the last 10-15 years.

What have been the effects of the Site on the surrounding community, if any?

None.

Have there been any problems with unusual or unexpected activities at the Site, such as emergency response, vandalism or trespassing?

No.

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?

N/A

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?

N/A.

Do you have any comments, suggestions or recommendations regarding any aspects of the project?

No.

Old Inger Oil Refinery Superfund Site Five-Year Review Interview FormSite Name: Old Inser Oil Refinery EPA ID No.: LAD980745533

Interviewer Name: Bart Canellas Affiliation: EPASubject Name: Subject Contact Information:

Resident 2 Affiliation: Neighbor

Time: 1:00 o.m. Date: 03/14/2017InterviewLocation:

Resident’s House

Interview Format (circle one): (inPers^ Phone Mail Other:

Interview Category: Residents

Are you aware of the former environmental issues at the Site and the cleanup activities that have taken place to date?

No.

What is your overall impression of the project, including cleanup, maintenance and reuse activities (as appropriate)?

None, I don’t know what it is.

What have been the effects of the Site on the surrounding community, if any?

N/A.

Have there been any problems with unusual or unexpected activities at the Site, such as emergency response, vandalism or trespassing?

No.

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?

N/A.

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?

N/A.

Do you have any comments, suggestions or recommendations regarding any aspects of the project?

No.

APPENDIX J - CONVEYANCE NOTIFICATIONS

fCO

INSnuetT • 00649737 HL6D RECORCD ftSCEieiON CLERK OF COURT

0H3O39W JOTHBL

CONVEYANCE NOnnCATION m COPY Bt

The Louisiana Depgtmcnlof Ecviroameottl Quality (LDEQ) IwjrfWlBIWlfe wd)Uc that the Old biger OU ReBneiy Suftoftod Site SiteD, AgeSfiBIBIft Nmnber 4714, localed el^ Looi^Be Hiîwqr If, wn eloeed widi centwnlmm levela peeseat that ere b aocoidaiee with die Record of Deeishm OLOD). die Exphnudioa of Sigoificaiitinffaraneft tn thft Mffdi Ag#wm tiH 4v%iif miiintin the Remedial Aedoa Plan fbr dM Old bger ReSnaqr Site.

The Site was closed in aBcordance with the LonUana Revised Statutes, SahtHle n of Title 30, Chapter 12. Infonnadon nganSng this Ae is evdlaUe in the LDEQ pidilic record md be obtained by contacting d» LDEQ Reends Msnager at (225) 210- 3168. Impuiies regarding te contents of this site may be dheeted to U>EQ, Remediation Services Dhrition, P.O. Box 4314, Batm Roiê, lA 70821-4314, or (225) 219-3236.

LDEQ hereby nodfiea interested persons of the fbliowing regarding the Site:

** • The Site hm been the subject of an action by the U.S. Bnviroonental Protection Agency (U.S. BPA) and LDEQ reqônse under dw Comprefaensve EnviromnaHal Response Conycnsation and Liahi% Act (CBRCLA);

• Haxardous substances (oil and grease) remain in aoQs at a spedfied iocation on the propcfQr above leveb that allow fat unrestricted capoeure (less dam 5 percent bywd^):

• Disturbing or moving soil in diese may pose a dueat to!"«»»—»>«—txthe environment, and may subject the property owner and the petty causing the diaturtwace to liability under CERCLA or ocher lews;

• A clay protective cap complete widi topooil and gists, necessary forprotectiveness of dw remedy tir for hs siicontfol mH matntwiawng^remains on the property at a specified tocadon;

• Disturbing or moving tfaia protective feature of the remedy may pose a threat tohuman hoddi or the environment, nd may subject dw properLy owner and the party Mwaii^ Hut titer PHnrtf A oro*bert'»w

Contamlnents remaining at the property:Media g. rvim.atte.1.Soil 1 OilandOreese <5HbyWei8ht

The Legs! Deacdptkm oftfae Site ia as follows:

A certain tract of land ahuated in die Paridi of Aaoensian. Louiaiana,andbebigtheionlliempottkmofTnetNo. I2aaddie noidwni pmtioo of Tnct 13 of Belle Helene Snbdiviaiflo bdng Strip "C in the Act of Partition anonB tbe of John T. Manydated June 9. 1930. and leoorded in CO.B. 70, Folio 432 of Asoenaion Pariah, LowWana, which said Strip “C" is more particularly deaoiiM as bounded on tbe North by Strip "B”, on the lower or South aide by Stt^ "D” and measuring 6.03 chains at its West Old or fioat by a d^ of 68J22 chains on its North or igiper line and 64.35 chains on its South or lower line and contains 31.66 acres or 37.47 atpents; together with all bmlding and inqMovements diBteon and dwreunao betooging.

A certain piece or pared of red estate dtualed in die Parish of Ascensioa, State of louMana, East of the KBsslssip^ River at about five and one-tulf miles above the Village of Darraw, and bdng a certain fiacdond portion of'Aact 12 of die Belle Helene Subdivision and bdng mom apectficdly described as LotNa “A” of add Tract No. 12, all as fidly described in an Act of Partition between Henry J. Many and <^era befiare J.F. Fdnandez, Notary PubUc, dated June 9,1930, and recorded in C.OA. 70, Ftolio 432; sdd parcel ofgrouttd bdng on die upper or North ride of Ttact 12 of dm Bdle Hdene Stibdiviaion and measures 3.472 chaiiis at its extrone West end or from Iqr a depdi of 74.93 chains and 4J1 chains onlberearlineoreastcndofsaid tract containing 31.66 acres or 37.47 arpents.

A certain tract of land dtuated in dm Parish of aacendon, Louiaiana, and bdng the southern portion of Tlract No. 12 and nortiwm portion of Ttact 13 of Belle Hdene Subdividim bdng Strip *B” in dm Act of Partition among die hdrt of John T Many dated June 9. 1930. and recorded in C.OB. 70, Fdto 432 of Ascension Paridi, Lmdslana. wUch add Strip “B" ia mme particularly described as bounded on die Nordi by Str^ “A”, on dm kraver or South aide by Strip "C and measuring 3.736 dudns at its West cod or from by a depth of 71.66 efadns on its Nordi or upper line and 68.22 chains oo hs Soudi or lower line and contains

acres or 37.47 arpents; tt^edwr with all buildings and improvements thereon and timeento bchaging.

A ceftain atrip of land together withal rights, ways, aod privilegBi thereon wi teeto bdoQgiqB. fitiiited in tile Paiab of Aseenrion. Sme (rf'Loniiiaiie^ hevhifl a fiat on tfie lediUe giwd reed of 114 firel. by a of 3^8 ftet, end a «4dth of 78 ftet in file rear,

11 bdM^fthe hein of John T. Meny, dated June 9, 1930; and neoided in C.03.70, FoUo 432 of Asoouum Pariah, LonisianB. togefiier with all birildingi and hqxovennnls dwrea a^ thereto bdo^ag.

The above deaeribed traeta being the prepeitiea aoipiired by Mr. Lenta Melanoa Many fion Oe^ J. Mdanom ^ act of aale dated Janniy 14.19S0 and recorded in C.OA. 91. Folio 74 of the Conveyance Reoonia ci the Pariah of Aacenaioo, loiaiana. For fintber acqoiaitia see COB. 90^ Folio 349, and COB. 70. FoUo 432 of the CoDveyanoe Reeads of Aaoenala Pariah, LonUana.

Mq » of the property are attadied.

LIaNWUbcrt F. Jonhtt. Jr., ^gjalint Secretary OtBcc of Environmental Aaifaanwim, LDEQ

&

fcaKs# : f "IKi^B' siS

eimM

• t' ’■K;.;|i

Hi

mi^KII

»S?r;L -4.|s^» V

2.000 1.000 0

REFEREKCE;uses 7.S lawK Quslnngil Topogn«Me Mip Oonnlht. a C«<A. LA <1QQB)

Sl^-LOUISIANA 0EPAR7MEMT OF

ENVIRONMENTAL QUAUTY BATON ROUQE LOUISIANA

F1GURE1

8ITBLOCATOMIIAPOO mOER SUPERFUND SITE

OARROW, LOUISANA

J-4