third five-year review site inspection report cleve … · 1. o&m site manager carleton degges...

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






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).


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


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


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