third five-year review site inspection report cleve … · 1. o&m site manager carleton degges...
TRANSCRIPT
THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SITE INSPECTION REPORT
CLEVE REBER SUPERFUND SITE ASCENSION PARISH, LOUISIANA
July 2008
PREPARED BY:
United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 6
Dallas, Texas
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 6 has conducted the third five-year review of
the remedial action (RA) implemented at the Cleve Reber Superfund Site (site) in Ascension Parish,
Louisiana. The purpose of this third five-year review was to determine whether the selected remedy for
the site continues to protect human health and the environment.
A site inspection was conducted to verity that all components ofthe remedies are operating in
accordance with criteria established in the Record of Decision (ROD). This report summarizes the
results ofthe site inspection.
2.0 BACKGROUND SUMMARY
The site was originally used as a borrow pit for fill material used in the construction of Highway 70 and
the Sunshine Bridge. After the bridge and highway were completed, the site was used as a disposal area
for municipal waste. The site also accepted industrial waste from chemical plants located in the
Ascension Parish area. A Louisiana court ordered the site to stop receiving waste in 1974; the site was
abandoned later that same year. EPA conducled an emergency cleanup in 1983 and removed
numerous drums and surface piles. A temporary cap was put over the former landfill area to prevent
infiltration of surface water. Surface soil and surface water samples collected during a remedial
investigation al the site showed elevated levels of chlorinated organic compounds.
In March 1987, EPA signed a ROD outlining the following selected remedy for the site:
(1) excavation of contaminated soil, industrial wastes, and drums; (2) incineration of contaminated
soil using a transportable incineration system; (3) draining of on-site ponds and treatment of
pond water; (4) backfilling of drained ponds using ash from incinerated soil and clean backfill;
(5) ground water monitoring; (6) placement of a cap over the landfill; and (7) post-closure care
and monitoring for 30 years. RA activities began in September 1993 and were completed in
May 1996. The site was deleted from the National Priorities List in December 1997.
Semi-annual operation and maintenance (O&M) and ground water monitoring is currently being
performed. Ground water samples are being analyzed for the following contaminants of concern (COCs):
carbon tetrachloride, tetrachloroelhane, hexachlorobenzene, hexachlorobutadiene, hexachloroelhane.
hexachlorocyclopentadiene, and mercury. Since routine ground water monitoring began, concentrations
ofthe COCs listed above have consistently been below the maximum contaminant levels.
3.0 SITE INSPECTION ACTIVITIES
On July 15, 2008, a site inspection was conducted to assess the condition ofthe site and the protective
measures employed to protect human health and the environment from the contaminants still present al the
site. The inspection evaluated the condition ofthe monitoring wells, condition ofthe landfill cap,
postings, and site fencing, f̂he weather conditions during the inspection were sunny and humid with
temperatures in the mid-90s.
The following individuals attended the site inspection:
Bart Cafiellas, EPA Regina Philson, Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) Kim Wallace-Wymore, EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. Carleton Degges, Vulcan Materials Company, Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) Representative Scott Bergeron, Professional Technical Support Services, Inc. (Protech), PRP contractor
Cap
The landfill cap appeared to be in good condition al the lime ofthe site inspection. The grass cover
has been established on the cap. No cracking, settlement, or holes were observed in the cap. The
PRP contractor, Protech, stated that any animal burrows observed are plugged with bentonite to
prevent damage to the cap. Protech also recently repaired minor surface water erosion on the cap lo
the east ofthe gas vent system (Photograph 15). The site was mowed, clean, and appeared well
maintained.
Gas Vent System
The site is equipped with a passive gas vent system. A total of 21 vent units are located on the
landfill cap. The gas vent system was upgraded by the PRP to a carbon vent system in 2008. The
new vent units are constructed of polyvinyl chloride and contain activated carbon, which can be
easily removed and replaced as needed (Photographs 7 and 9). The vent units are protected by
wooden guard posts lo prevent damage by lawn mowing equipment.
Monitoring Wells
Ail monitoring wells were visually inspected and appeared in good condition. The monitoring wells
were clearly labeled and securely encased (lock and cover). Drums of purge water associated with
PRP ground water sampling were staged beside each monitoring well pending disposal
(Photograph 11). The inspection team observed two additional 55-gallon drums stored adjacent to
monitoring well P-22, which were associated wilh the 2005 Hurricane Katrina Response sampling
activities conducted by EPA (Photograph 14).
Fence
The site is secured by a chain-link perimeter fence with barbed wire on top. Warning signs are posted at
various locations along the northern, southem, eastern, and western property boundaries. A warning sign
is also posted at the entrance gale (Photograph 2). The entrance gate is closed and locked when the site is
unattended. During the site inspection, the perimeter fence was inspected for damage. The inspection
team observed damage to the perimeter fence along the southern property line caused by a fallen tree on
the adjacent property (Photograph 4). The fence is still standing, bul is leaning inward.
Resident Interviews
After the site inspection was completed, the inspecfion leam visited three residences located to the north
ofthe site lo determine if the residents had any comments or questions concerning the RA at the site.
One ofthe residents, Ms. Renee Theriot, was home at the lime and completed a site survey. Ms. Theriot
stated that she had no concerns or complaints regarding the RA. She also stated that she would leave a
copy ofthe survey form and postage-paid envelopes for the other two nearby residents. Interview
questionnaires will be included in the Five-Year Review Report.
Land Reuse
As stated in the deed notice, the EPA, the State of Louisiana, and the PRP have a Grant of Servitude
from the property owner, Mr. Vernon Schexnaydre, to perfonn the required RA acfivities at the site.
The PRP has the right to access the site and to take any "action deemed necessary to remediate the
environmental condilions in, on, under, and around the property". The property owner is not allowed lo
"interfere with any remediation facilities occurring on the properly" or "grant any hunting or other
rights to third parties to enter or use the property". The property owner had indicated interest in reusing
the property to EPA and the PRP. The PRP is currently discussing options for reuse ofthe property
with the property owner. The EPA has stated that any reuse ofthe land is not allowed to disturb the cap
or the O&M activities conducted by the PRP. Any change in land use requires approval by the EPA and
LDEQ.
4.0 FINDINGS
The following issues were identified during the site inspection:
The inspection leam observed damage to the perimeter fence along the southern property line caused by a fallen tree on the adjacent properly (Photograph 4). The fence is still standing, but is leaning inward. This issue should be addressed, but it does nol affect the protcctiveness ofthe remedy because the cap is functioning as intended.
The properly owner has indicated an interest in reuse ofthe property and is currently discussing opfions for land use with the PRP, EPA, and LDEQ. To ensure that the current protcctiveness ofthe remedy is nol affected, EPA has stated that any reuse ofthe property cannot disturb the integrity ofthe cap and cannot interfere with the O&M activities conducled by the PRP.
Attachment 1
Site Inspection Checklist
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SITE INSPECTION CHECKLIST
I. SITE INFORMATION
Site Name: Cleve Reber Superfiind Site Date of Inspection: July 15,2008
Location and Region: Ascension Parish, Louisiana EPA ID: LAD980501456
Agency, office, or company leading tlie five-year review:
EPA Region 6
Weather/temperature: 96° F, 80% humidity
Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply) ^ Landfill cover/containment ^ Access controls Kl Inslitutional controls
I I Ground water pump and treatment I i Surface water collection and treatment I I Other (Monitored natural attenuation)
Attachments: ^ Inspection team roster attached Q Site map aitached
n . INTERVIEWS (Check all that apply)
1. O&M Site Manager Carleton Degges Environmental Remediation Manager. Vulcan Materials Name Title
Interviewed: ^ by mail E] at office D by phone Phone no. (205) 298-3063 Problems, suggestions: D Report attached
Mr. Degges was an inspection team member on July 15,2008.
2. O&M Staff Scott Bergeron President Professional Technical Support Services. Inc. (Protech) Name Title
Interviewed: H by mail Q at office D by phone Phone no. (225) 293-0136
Problems, suggestions: \Z\ Report attached
Mr. Bergeron was an inspection team member on July 15, 2008.
3. Local regulatory authorities and response agencies (i.e.. State and Tribal offices, emergency response office, police department, office of public health or environmental health, zoning office, recorder of deeds, or other city and county offices, etc.) Fill in all that apply.
Agency Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
Contact Rggina Philson Name
Interviewed: ^ by mail Problems, suggestions:
Environmental Scientist Title
I I al office n by phone I I Report attached
Phone no. (225)219-3210
Ms. Philson was an inspection team member on July 15, 2008.
Agency Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals
Conlact Kjilhleen Golden Environmental Health Scienfist Supervisor
Name Tille
Interviewed: M by mail D at office D by phone Phone no. (888) 293-7020 Problems, suggestions: • Report attached
4. Other interviews (optional): |_J Reports attached
Renee Theriot. one ofthe adiacent residents. team attempted lo conlact two additional resi
completed an interview form during the site visit. The inst>ection 1 dents, but thev were not at home. Ms. Theriot stated that she would
pive a copv ofthe interview form to the other nearbv residents to complete.
m . ON-SITE DOCUMENTS & RECORDS VERIFIED (Check ail that apply)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10
O&M Documents
J O&M manual (O&M Work Plan) D Readily available
Q As-built drawings LJ Readily available
^ Maintenance logs Q Readily available
Remarks: Maintenance logs are kept at Protech's office.
Zl Up lo dale _J Up to dale 3 Up to date
Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan | Readily available • Up to date
Q Contingency plan/emergency response plan | | Readily available Up to date
Remarks: Protech uses a aeneric health and safety plan because the site has reached post closure
O&M and OSHA Training Records
Remarks: Records are kept at Protech'
Permits and Service Agreements
i 1 Air discharge permit ^ Effluent discharge ^ Waste disposal, POTW 1 1 Other permits
Remarks:
Gas Generation Records
Settlement Monument Records
Ground Water Monitoring Records
Leachate Extraction Records
Discharge Compliance Records
Zi Air • Water (effluent)
Remarks:
s office.
1 1 Readily available
^ Readily available d Readily available I 1 Readily available ^ Readily available
QReadily available
^ Readily available
3 Readily available
^ Readily available
I 1 Readily available 1 1 Readily available
. Daily Access/Security Logs O Readily available
Remarks: The securitv gate is locked when the site is unattended.
3 Uplo date
^ Up to date n Up to dale Z] Up to date ~\ Uplo date
n Up to date
^ Up to date
3 Uplo date
\Z\ Uplo dale
1 1 Up lo date • Up to date
n Up to date
Kl N/A a N/A H N/A
a N/A
U N/A
slams.
I ] N/A
X] N/A
a N/A
la N/A a N/A
a N/A la N/A H N/A
a N/A
a N/A Kl N/A
la N/A
IV. O&M COSTS
1. O&M Organization
• Slate in-house Q Contractor for State
n Contractor for PRP Q Other
PRP in-house
2. O&M Cost Records
I I Readily available H Up to date []] Funding mechanism/agreement in place
I I Original O&M cost estimate Q Breakdown attached
Total annual cosl by year for review period
From
From
From
From
From
From
From
From
Date
2001
2004
2005
2006
2007
.to
to
.to
to
.to
to
to
lo
Date
2004
2005
Total Cost (Average)
$29.000
$29,000
2006
2007
2008
$29,000
$29.000
$29.000
n Breakdown attached
im Breakdown attached
I I Breakdown attached
I I Breakdown attached
I I Breakdown attached
I I Breakdown attached
I I Breakdown attached
I I Breakdown attached
These cosls represent the average cost per year of operation and maintenance and ground water monitoring. (provided by Carleton Degges, PRP Representative)
3. Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs During Review Period
The PRP accrued an additional $35.000 in cost for the 2008 gas vent system upgrade.
V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS Applicable O N/A
A. Fencing
1. Fencing damaged Q Location shown on site map ^ Gates secured Q N/A
Remarks: Tree has damaged a portion ofthe perimeter fence to the east of monitoring well P-10.
B. Other Acce^ Restrictions
1. Signs and other security measures O Location shown on site map Q N/A
Remarks: Signs are posted at the front gate and along the perimeter fence. Monitoring wells are closed and locked.
C. Institutional Controls
1. Implementation and enforcement
Site conditions imply ICs not properly implemented QJ Yes ^ No LJ N/A Site condilions imply ICs nol being fully enforced LU Yes ^ No LU N/A
Type of monitoring (e.g., self-reporting, drive by) Ground water monitoring
Frequency Semi-annual
Responsible party/agency Vulcan Materials Company
Contact Carleton Degges Environmental Remediation Manager 205-298-3063 Name Title
Reporting is up-to-date Reports are verified by the lead agency Specific requirements in deed or decision documenls have been met Violations have been reported
Other problems or suggestions: LU Report attached
Phone
la Yes la Yes a Yes n Yes
no.
No
D No D No U No
D N/A H N/A H N/A la N/A
2. Adequacy K ICs are adequate LD ICs are inadequate LD N/A Remarks: Deed resfriction restticts any use ofthe property that interferes with the remediation activities.
D. General
1. Vandalism/trespassing LD Location shown on site map H No vandalism evident Remarks: ^
2. Land use changes onsite ^ N/A
Remarks:
3. Land use changes offsite K N/A
Remarks:
VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS
A. Roads Kl Applicable D N/A
1. Roads damaged LD Location shown on site map ^ Roads adequate LD N/A Remarks;
B. Other Site Conditions
Remarks: Site was in good condifion during site visit. The cap was in good condition at the time ofthe site visit. There is some damage to the perimeter fence, but it does not affect the overall protectiveness ofthe remedy. ^
VII. LANDFILL COVERS Applicable CD N/A
A. Landfill Surface
1. Settlement (Low spots) O Location shown on site map
Areal extent _^____ Depth
Remarks:
Settlement not evident
2. Cracks Lengths _ Remarks:
LD Location shown on site map Widths
Cracking not evident Depths
3. Erosion Areal extent Remarks:
I I Location shown on site map Erosion not evident Depth
4. Holes Areal extent
1 1 Location shown on site map Holes not evident Depth
Remarks: Any burrows identified are plugged wilh bentonite by the PRP.
5. Vegetative Cover ^ Grass LD Cover properly established LD Trees/Shrubs (indicate size and locations on a diagram) Remarks: Grass is mowed bv the PRP 4-5 times per year.
No signs of stress
6. Altemative Cover (armored rock, concrete, etc.) LD N/A Remarks:
7. Bulges Areal extent Remarks:
I I Location shown on site map Bulges nol evident Depth
8. Wet Areas/Water Damage
D D D D
Wet areas Ponding Seeps Soft subgrade
Ki Wet areas/water damage not evident i I Location shown on site map I I Location shown on site map I I Location shown on site map I I Location shown on site map
LD Areal extent I I Areal extent I I Areal extent 1 I Areal extent
Remarks:
9. Slope Instability D Slides
^ No evidence of slope instability Areal extent
Remarks:
LD Location shown on site map
B. Benches D Applicable ^ N/A (Horizontally constructed mounds of earth placed across a steep landfill side slope to intermpt the slope in order to slow down the velocity of surface mnoff and intercept and convey the mnoffto alined channel.)
1. Flows Bypass Bench LD Location shown on site map
Remarks: I I N/A or okay
2. Bench Breached Remarks:
I I Location shown on site map I I N/A or okay
3. Bench Overtopped Remarks: .
I I Location shown on site map I I N/A or okay
C. Letdown Channels G Applicable Kl N/A (Channel lined wilh erosion control mats, rip rap, grout bags, or gabions that descend down the steep side slope ofthe cover and will allow the runoff water collected by the benches to move off of the landfill cover without creating erosion gulUes.)
1. Settlement Areal extent Remarks:
I I Location shown on site map Depth
I I No evidence of settlement
2.
T
4.
Material Degradation Material tvpe Remarks:
Erosion Areal extent Remarks:
Undercutting Areal extent Remarks:
1 1 Location shown on site map LD No evidence of degradation Areal extent
^ Location shown on site map Depth
LD Location shown on site map Depth
_ | No evidence of erosion
1 1 No evidence of undercutting
5. Obstructions
Areal extent _ Remarks:
Type I I No obstmctions LD Location shown on site map
Size
6. Excessive Vegetative Growth Type LD No evidence of excessive growth LJ Location shown on site map Remarks:
I I Vegetation in channels does not obsttucl flow Areal extent
D. Cover Penetrations Applicable n N/A 1. Gas Vents LD Active K Passive
LJ Properly secured/locked LD Functioning [ J Routinely sampled LJ Evidence of leakage al penetration LD Needs O&M Remarks: New gas vent system installed bv the PRP in 2008.
^ Good condition n N/A
2. Gas Monitoring Probes LJ Properly secured/locked LD Funcfioning • Routinely sampled LD Good condition LJ Evidence of leakage at penetration LD Needs O&M ^ N/A Remarks:
3. Monitoring Wells (within surface area of landfill) LJ Evidence of leakage at penetration LD Needs O&M Remarks: No evidence of leakage at monitoring wells.
n N/A
4. Leachate Extraction Wells LJ Properly secured/locked • Functioning • Routinely sampled • Good condition LJ Evidence of leakage at penettation CD Needs O&M ^ N/A Remarks:
5. Settlement Monuments Remarks: •
LD Located LD Routinely surveyed N/A
E. Gas Collection and Treatment LD Applicable N/A
1. Gas Treatment Facilities Q Flaring LJ Good condition Remarks;
LD Thermal destruction LD n Needs O&M
Collection for reuse
2.
3.
F. 1.
2.
G. 1.
2.
3.
4.
H.
1.
2.
I. 1.
T
3.
Gas Collection Wells, Manifolds, and Piping Remarks:
Gas Monitoring Facilities (e.g. LD Good condition Remarks:
Cover Drainage Layer
Outiet Pipes Inspected Remarks;
Outlet Rock Inspected Remarks:
CD Good condition CD Needs O&M
, gas monitoring of adjacent homes or buildings) r Needs O&M U N/A
1 1 Applicable
1 1 Functioning
1 I Functioning
Detention/Sedimentation Ponds LD Applicable
Siltation Areal extent 1 1 N/A CD Siltation not evident Remarks:
Erosion Areal extent LD N/A CD Erosion not evident Remarks:
Outiet Works
Remarks:
Dam Remarks:
Retaining Walls
Deformations
Horizontal displacement Rotational displacement Remarks:
Degradation
Remarks:
^ Functioning
J Functioning
^ Applicable
CD Location shown
J Location shown
l a N/A r N/A
n N/A
Kl N/A
U N/A
H N/A
a N/A on site map
Vertical displa
on site
Perimeter Ditches/Off-Site Discharge LJ Applicable
Siltation Areal extent
Remarks:
CD Location showr
Vegetative Growth | i Location showr CD Vegetation does not impede flow Areal extent Remarks:
Erosion Areal extent
Remarks:
Discharge Structure
Remarks:
Z Location showr
^ Functioning
on site Depth
on site
Type^
1 on site Depth
map
map
map
map
Size
Depth
^ Deformation not evident :ement
CD Degradation not evident
Kl N/A
J Siltation not evident
3 N/A
^ Erosion not evident
n N/A
V m . VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS CD Applicable Kl N/A
1. Settlement Areal extent
Remarks:
I I Location shown on site map Depth
I 1 Settlement not evident
2. Performance Monitoring Type of monitoring I I Performance nol monitored Frequency Head differential Remarks:
[ I Evidence of breaching
IX. GROUND WATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES • Applicable Kl N/A
A. Ground Water Extraction Wells, Pumps, and Pipelines • Applicable Q N/A
1. Pumps, Wellhead Plumbing, and Electrical CD Good condition CD All required wells located Remarks:
D Needs O&M n N/A
2. Extraction System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances • Good condition • Needs O&M
Remarks:
3. Spare Parts and Equipment I I Readily available CD Good condition CD Requires upgrade
Remarks: _̂
CD Needs to be provided
B. Surface Water Collection Structures, Pumps, and Pipelines n Applicable G N/A
1. Collection Structures, Pumps, and Electrical G Good condition G Needs O&M
Remarks;
2. Surface Water Collection System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances G Good condition G Needs O&M Remarks: ^
3. Spare Parts and Equipment I 1 Readily available G Good condition G Requires upgrade G Needs to be provided Remarks:
C. Treatment System G Applicable G N/A
1. Treatment Train (Check components that apply) I 1 Metals removal G Oil/water separation G Bioremediation I I Air stripping G Carbon absorbers G Filters I I Additive (e.g., chelation agent, flocculent) G Others G Good condition G Needs O&M I I Sampling ports properly marked and functional G Sampling/maintenance log displayed and up to dale G Equipment properly identified G Quantity of ground water tteated annually 1 I Quantity of surface waler treated annually Remarks;
2. Electrical Enclosures and Panels (Properly rated and functional) G N/A G Good condition G Needs O&M Remarks:
3. Tanks, Vaults, Storage Vessels I I N/A G Good condition G Proper secondary containment G Needs O&M
Remarks;
4. Discharge Structure and Appurtenances G N/A [ J Good condition G Needs O&M
Remarks:
5. Treatment BuOding(s) I I N/A G Good condition (esp. roof and doorways) G Needs repair i I Chemicals and equipment properly stored
Remarks:
6. Monitoring Wells (Pump and treatment remedy) G Properly secured/locked G Functioning G Routinely sampled G Good condition G All required wells located G Needs O&M G N/A Remarks:
D. Monitored Natural Attenuation G Applicable G N/A
1. Monitoring Wells (Natural attenuation remedy) I I Properly secured/locked G Funcfioning G Routinely sampled (quarterly) G Good condition G All required wells located G Needs O&M G N/A Remarks: ^
X. OTHER REMEDIES
If there are remedies applied at the site that are not covered above, attach an inspection sheet describing the physical nature and condition of any facility associated wilh the remedy. An example would be soil vapor extraction.
XI. OVERALL OBSERVATIONS
A. Implementation ofthe Remedy
Describe issues and observations relating to whether the remedy is effective and iunctioning as designed. Begin with a brief staiement of what the remedy is to accomplish (i.e., to contain contaminant plume, minimize infilttation and gas emission, etc.). The purpose ofthe remedy was lo (1) eliminate the potential of unauthorized personnel to come in contact with site contaminants; (2) reduce the polenfial for future migration of contaminants to shallow ground water; and (3) eliminate the potential contamination of aquatic organisms. Based on the observations made during the site inspection, the remedy appears lo be effective and functioning as designed.
B. Adequacy of O&M
There were no O&M issues identified during the site visit. O&M appears to be adequate. The site was mowed. clean, and appeared well maintained.
C. Early Indicators of Potential Remedy FaUure
None identified.
D. Opportunities for Optimization
Describe possible opportunities for optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation ofthe remedy. Gas vent system was recently upgraded by the PRP.
10
Cleve Reber Superfund Site Third Five-Year Review
July 15,2008
INSPECTION TEAM ROSTER
Name
Bartolome Cafiellas
Kim Wallace-Wymore
Regina Philson
Carleton Degges
Scott Bergeron
Organization
EPA Region 6
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc.
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
Vulcan Materials Company
Professional Technical Support Services, Inc.
Title
Remedial Project Manager
Site Coordinator
Environmenlal Scientist
Environmenlal Remediation Manager
President
Attachment 2
Site Inspection Photographs
Third Five-Year Review Site Inspection Report Cleve Reber Superfund Site
July 2008
Photograph I Site: Cleve Reber Superfund Site Description: View ofthe front gate (facing east).
Lte: July 15.2008
Photograph 3 Site: Cleve Reber Superfund Site Description: Monitor well P-20 (facing south).
Date: July 15.2008
Photograph 2 Site: Cleve Reher Superfund Site Description: Signage on front gate (facing east).
Dale: July 15.2008
Photograph 4 Date: July 15,2008 Site: Cleve Reber Superfund Site Description: Fence damage due to fallen tree, located east of P-IO (facing south).
Third Five-Year Review Site Inspection Report Cleve Reber Superfund Site
July 2008
Photograph 6 Site: Cleve Reber Supertund Site Description: View of site with gas vent system (facing west).
5.2008
R ^ ^ l H^^l 1^1 ^H^^l m •H
• • • B^E ^•^ k^ k
H H^^^V^^^^n
• i • BB ^1^ g mi m
W^M m ^ w
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ j ^ V : '
wM m
B I F
K • 2 1 1 1
l i | i p H | | | fc^r^r^ Kggl ^^^B^lT^^^F
^^^ ^B'
^21 IH Date: July 15.2008 Photograph 8
Site: Cleve Reber Superfund Site Description: Close-up of gas vent system point V-3 (facing west).
Photograph 5 Site: Cleve Reber Superfund Site Description: Monitor well P-10 (facing south).
Photograph 7 Site: Cleve Reber Superfund Site Description: Gas venting system point V-3 (facing west).
Date: July 15.2008
Third Five-Year Review Site Inspection Report Cleve Reber Superfund Site
July 20Q8
Photograph 10 Site: Cleve Reber Superfund Site Description: View of site (facing southwest).
Date: July 15.2008
Photograph 12 Site: Cleve Reber Superfund Site Description: ViewofP-21 (facingeast).
Date: July 15.2008
Photograph 9 Site: Cleve Reber Superfund Site Description: View of carbon pellets inside V-3.
5.2008
Photograph I 1 Site: Cleve Reber Superfund Site Description: View of monitor well P-23 (facing east).
Date: July 15.2008
Third Five-Year Review Site Inspection Report Cleve Reber Superfund Site
July 2008
Photograph 14 Site: Cleve Reber Superfund Site Description: View of drums adjacent to P-22 (The Iwo black 55-gallon drums
are left from the 2005 EPA Hurricane Katrina assessnient).
Pnoiograpn 13 Site: Cleve Reber Superfund Site Description: View of P-22 (facing east).
Date: July 15,2008
^ OI^'T^SJMIifiiV.C
Photograph 15 Site: Cleve Reber Superfund Sue Description: Repair of surface water erosion (facing south).
Date: July 15.2008