FIFTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT FOR SOUTHERN ST. …

FIFTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT FOR SOUTHERN SHIPBUILDING SUPERFUND SITE

ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA

\

&

UJa

DECEMBER 2019

m

Prepared by

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6

Dallas, Texas

Fifth Five-Year Review Report

Southern Shipbuilding Superfund Site EPA ID# LAD008149015

Slidell, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana

This memorandum documents the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s performance, determinations, and approval of the Southern Shipbuilding Superfimd Site (Site) fifth five-year review imder Section 121 (c) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S. Code § 9261 (c), as provided in the attached fifth Five-Year Review Report.

Summary of the Fifth Five-Year Review FindingsThe Southern Shipbuilding Superfund Site operated as a ship and barge construction and repair facility from 1919 to 1993. Contamination at the Site resulted from disposal of wastes in uidined sludge pits and other poor waste management practices at the Site. Early removal actions pumped down water levels in the sludge pits and treated the discharge waters. The remedial actions consisted of excavation of contaminated soil and sediment, incineration of a portion of the excavated material, and disposal of the incinerator ash and excavated soil on site beneath a 2- foot clay cap on site. EPA installed an 18-inch clay layer overlain by gravel underwater in the graving dock to prevent ecological receptors from being exposed to the remaining contaminated sediments that could not be excavated.

The site inspection revealed minor erosion on portions of the Operable Unit 1 cap. Additionally, a portion of the site is being leased by American Bridge for use as a lay down yard for construction materials. An on-site groundwater well from the lower confined aquifer has been reopened by the property owner to provide water to the tenants. Finally, it was noted that institutional controls have not been placed on the property.

Environmental IndicatorsHuman Health: Human Exposure Under Control (HEUC)Groundwater Migration: Groundwater Migration Under Control (GMUC)Site-Wide Ready for Reuse: Site-Wide Ready for Anticipated Use (SWRAU)

Actions NeededIt will be necessary to establish institutional controls at the site to protect the capped areas, prevent excavation into any remaining subsurface contamination, prohibit or restrict use of the shallow groundwater and prohibit or restrict residential use of the property.

DeterminationI have determined that the selected remedy for the Southern Shipbuilding Superfimd Site is protective of human health and the environment. This Five-Year Review Report specifies the actions that need to be taken for the remedy to remain protective in the long term.

Wren Stenger V / DateDirector, Superfimd and Emergency Management Division U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6

CONCURRENCES

FIFTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT SOUTHERN SHIPBUILDING SUPERFUND SITE

EPA m#: LAD008149015SLIDELL, ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA

Amber Howard /Remedial ProjeciManager

Blake AtkinsChief, Louisiana/New Mexico/Oklahoma Section

It 4Sf

Date

f /Wa^Joh/Chfie

\JMeyer

, Superfund Remed^^ Date

Branch

Benton\_yAttomeVOffice of Regional Counsel

IJung^iang / ^Chief, Superfund Branch, Office (of Regiotfal Counsel

Date ml

Date

This page intentionally left blank.

■■■• ./

ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS

FIFTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT SOUTHERN SHIPBUILDING SUPERFUND SITE

EPA ID#: LAD008149015SLIDELL, ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA

Issiies/Rcconinieiulations

OU(s) without Issues/Recommendations Identified in the Five-Year Review:

None

I Issues and Recommendations Identified ini the Five-Year Review:

OU(s): 1,2 Issue Category: Institutional ControlsIssue: No institutional control has been implemented to protect the cap at OUl and to prevent excavation into any remaining subsurface contamination at OU2.

Recommendation: EPA,LDEQ, St. Tammany Parish and the site owner will collaborate to determine institutional controls needed to protect the cap at OUl and to prevent excavation into any remaining subsurface contamination at OU2. Implement the institutional controls needed.

Affect Current Protectiveness

Affect Future Protectiveness

PartyResponsible

OversightParty/Support

Agency

Milestone Date

No Yes Owner EPA/LocalGovernment

9/30/2020

OU(s): 1 Issue Category: Institutional ControlsIssue: No institutional cOntrpl has been implemented to prevent use of shallovv groundwater!

Recommendation: EPA, LDEQ, St. Tammany Parish and the site owner will collaborate to determine institutional controls needed to prevent the use of shallow groundwater. Irnplement the institutional controls needed.



PartyResponsible


Agency

Milestone Date


9/30/2020

OU(s): 1 Issue Category: Institutional ControlsNo institutional control has been implemented to protect the underwater cap in the former graving dock.

Recommendation: EPA, LDEQ, St. Tammany Parish and the site owner will collaborate to determine institutional controls needed to protect the underwater cap in the former graving dock. Implement the institutional controls needed.



PartyResponsible


Agency

Milestone Date.


9/30/2020

OU(s): 1,2 Issue Category: Institutional ControlsNo institutional control has been implemented to prohibit residential use as a possible land use.

Recommendation: ERA, LDEQ, St. Tammany Parish and the site owner will collaborate to ensure future land use restricts residential use through a Conveyance Notice. Implement the institutional controls needed.



PartyResponsible


Agency

Milestone Date


9/30/2020

OU(s): 1 Issue Category: Monitoring

Tributyltin is present below the cap in the graving dock at levels greater than EPA’s current national recommended water quality criteria to protect aquatic life.

Recommendation: Conduct periodic monit cap to ensure that it continues to prevent ex

oring of the graving dock’s underwater posure to the underlying contamination.



PartyResponsible


Agency

Milestone Date

No Yes Onwer EPA/State 9/30/2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION........... ...........................;............................................................................................3FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SUMMARY FORM.................. ....................................................................4

II. RESPONSE ACTION SUMMARY....:............. ........................................^...........................................6Basis for Taking Action.................^.... !..............................'................................................................. 6Response Actions.'.,.... ...................................................!.....................................................................6Status of Implementation........ ......! ..............................................’....................................... 7Institutional Control (IC) Review....... .................................................................................... .............8Systems Operations/Operation & Maintenance.......... ..........................................;..............................8

III. PROGRESS SINCE THE PREVIOUS REVIEW......................... ;....................................................10IV. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS........... .........................................................................................12

Community Notification, Community Involvement and Site Interviews........................... ...............12Data Review........................ .............. ................................................................................................13Site Inspection..... ......................!.... ...................................................................................................13

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

VI. ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS ....../....... 15VII. PROTECTIVNESS statement ....... .....................................;....................................................16VIII. NEXT REVIEW............................................................................................................................... 17APPENDIX A - REFERENCE LIST............................................. A-1APPENDIX B - SITE CHRONOLOGY.................................................................................................B-1APPENDIX C - PUBLIC NOTICE............................ ...........................................................................C-1APPENDIX D - SITE INSPECTION REPORT................................................................................... D-1APPENDIX E - SITE INSPECITON PHOTOS............................. .......................................................E-1APPENDIX F - INTERVIEWS....................................................... ......................................................F-1

TABLESTable 1 - RAOs and Remedy Components...................................................................................... ..6Table 2 - Site Contaminants and Action Levels....................................................................................... 7Table 3 - Summary of Planned and/or Impleihented Institutional Controls............................................ 8Table 4 - Protectiveness Determinations/Statements from the 2015 FYR............................... 10Table 5 - Status of Precommendations from the 2015 FYR..................... 11

FIGURESFigure 1: Site Vicinity Map............. 5Figure 2; Detailed Site Map.................................................................... 9

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS

ARAR Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate RequirementAUV Autonomous Underwater VehicleCERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability ActCFR Code of Federal RegulationsCIC Community Involvement CoordinatorCity City of Slidell, LouisianaEPA United States Environmental Protection AgencyFYR Five-Year ReviewICs Institutional ControlsLDEQ Louisiana Department of Environmental Qualitypg/kg Milligrams per KilogramNCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency PlanNPL National Priorities ListO&M Operation and MaintenanceOU Operable UnitPAH Polycyclic Aromatic HydrocarbonPCB Polychlorinated BiphenylRAO Remedial Action ObjectivesRI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility StudyROD Record of DecisionRPM Remedial Project ManagerSITE Southern Shipbuilding Superflind SiteSWRAU Sitewide Ready for Anticipated UseUSACE United States Army Corps of Engineersuses United States Geological SurveyUU/UE Unlimited Use/Unrestricted Exposure

I. INTRODUCTIONThe purpose of a Five-Year Review (F YR) is to evaluate the implementation and performance of a remedy in order 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, 42 U.S.C. §9621, consistent with the National Contingency Plan (NCP) (40 CFR .Section 300.430(f)(4)(ii)), and considering EPA policy. .

This is the fifth FYR for the Southern Shipbuilding Superflmd site (Site). The triggering action for this statutory review is the sighing date of the previous FYR on August 13, 2015. This FYR has been completed after only four years as part of an effort by EPA to balance its workload and most successfully address the responsibility of the many FYRs that are required each year. 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 two operable units (OUs), both of which are addressed in this FYR. OUl is the area, around the graving dock and the former sludge pits (about 11 acres); 0112 is the rest of the Site (about 45 acres). This FYR report addresses both site OUs.

The Southern Shipbuilding Superfund Site Five-Year Review was led by EPA Remedial Project Manager (RPM) Amber Howard. Participants included Keith Horn, Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) Senior Environmental Scientist and Jason McKinney, EPA Community Involvement Coordinator (CIC). The property owner, the City of Slidell and the community were notified of the initiation of the five-year review. The review began on March 1, 2019. Appendix A indues documents reviewed as part of the FYR. Appendix B includes the Site’s chronology.

Site BackgroundThe Southern Shipbuilding Superfimd Site is situated on approximately 55 acres at 999 Canulette Road in the city of Slidell, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana (see Figure 1). The Site is bordered by Canulette Road to the south. Bayou Bonfouca to the north and west and State Highway 433 (Bayou Liberty Road) to the east. Residential areas are located less than a half-mile around the site.

The Site operated as a ship and barge construction and repair facility from 1919 to 1993. Contamination at the Site resulted from disposal of wastes in unlined sludge pits and other poor waste management practices at the Site. EPA divided the Site into two OUs for investigation and response purposes. The site now consists of a containment cell on the north end of the site that is covered with native vegetation (i.e. rye grass), as well as an underwater cap to prevent ecological exposure to remaining contaminated sediments that could not be excavated.

The Port of Slidell, LLC owns the property. The Site is currently being leased by American Bridge for use as a lay down yard for a nearby construction project. EPA originally anticipated that the Site’s expected foture land use would be residential as stated in the 1995 OUl Record of Decision (ROD);

however, EPA later determined that the Site’s future land use is expected to be industrial, as stated in the 1997 OU2 ROD. The site is zoned M-2 Light Industrial, which prohibits residential use.

FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SUMMARY FORM

Site Name: Southern Shipbuilding Superfiind Site

EPA ID: LAD008149015

City/County: Slidell, St. Tammany ParishRegion: 6 State: LA

NPL Status: Deleted

Multiple OUs?Yes

Has the site achieved construction completion?Yes

SITE IDENTIFICATION

SITE STATUS

REVIEW STATUS

Lead agency: EPA

Author name (Federal or State Project Manager): Amber Howard

Author affiliation: EPA Region 6 Remedial Project Manager

Review period: 3/1/2019 - 5/31/2019

Date of site inspection: 3/28/2019

Type of review: Statutory

Review number: 5Triggering action date: 8/13/2015

Due date (fiveyears after triggering action date): 8/13/2020Note: This FYR has been completed after only four years as part'of an effort by EPA to balance its workload and most successfully address the responsibility of the many FYRs that are required each year.

Figure 1: Site Vicinity Map

; w -■ ; '. .,>■■■- ■ ■■

lidell, LASlidellBayou Bonfouca

Superfund Site

Southern Shipbuilding Superfund Site

a V., y.'i« *• 1

we»v '^' • •'• t=>lw

i >•

0 5001,000 2,000■■Feet

^0skep i>NORTH

Southern Shipbuilding and Bayou Bonfouca Superfund SitesSlidell, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana /

II. RESPONSE ACTION SUMMARY

Basis for Taking ActionThe Site operated as a ship and barge construction and repair facility from 1919 to 1993. The facility included a graving dock where maintenance operations occurred and two sludge pits that were used to dispose of wastes pumped from vessels. In August 1992, it was discovered that the levees around the sludge pits had failed, and 325,000 gallons of materials were released into Bayou Bonfouca. EPA subsequently conducted an investigation which determined that the north sludge pit was releasing material into the bayou. EPA, LDEQ and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) inspected the levees around the sludge pits, and concluded that potential catastrophic failure of the levees was an imminent and substantial endangerment to human health and the environment.

Additional site investigations conducted from 1994-1996 determined that the soils in and around the sludge pits were extensively contaminated with Polycyclic Arorriatic Hydocarbons (PAH). The onsite graving dock sediments were extensively contaminated with tributyltin. Thirty (30) areas of soil in other portions of the Site were found to be contaminated with PAHs, Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB), lead, arsenic and asbestos. The shallow unconfmed aquifer was slightly contaminated, but the next lower, confined aquifer was not contaminated.

EPA determined that the principle threats posed by the Site were direct exposure to hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants that pose a threat to human health and the environment, and the potential migration of contamination away from source areas.

Response ActionsIn 1993 and 1994, EPA conducted two removal actions at the Site to pump down water levels within the sludge pits and treat the discharge waters. From 1994 to 1995, EPA and USAGE installed sheet piling around the levees to address the threat of the pits releasing into Bayou Bonfouca. In April 1995, EPA conducted a removal action that removed about 2,000 cans, containers and drums from the Site.

EPA divided the Site into two OUs for investigation and response purposes. OUT is the area around the graving dock and the former sludge pits (about 11 acres); OU2 is the rest of the Site (about 45 acres) (see Figure 2).

EPA proposed the Site for listing on the National Priorities List (NPL) in February 1995. EPA finalized the Site’s listing on the NPL on May 26,1995. EPA issued the ROD for OUl on July 20, 1995. The ROD for OU2 was issued on September 15, 1997 Remediail action objectives (RAOs) and remedy components are presented in Table 1. Action levels for the contaminants are presented in Table 2.

Table 1; RAOs and Remedy ComponentsMedia RAOs Remedy Component

Sludge in waste pits and surrounding soils

To prevent direct contact and/or ingestion of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants that pose a human health or environmental risk.

Excavation of contaminated sludge, sediment and soils. Transportation of this material for inceration to the nearby Bayou Bonfouca Superfund Site by barge. After incineration, transportation of the residual ash back to the Southern Shipbuilding Site and disposal under a 2-foot clay cap on site.

Sediments in graving dock

Cans, Containers and DrumsSoilsGroundwater

To remove or control the source of contamin^ts so that they do not Continue to irnpact other media.

To be protective of potential future site workers.

Sediments that could not be excavated were overlain with an 18-inch underwater clay layer overlain with gravel v^thin the graving dock.Disposed of off-site.

Excavation and off-site disposal.Monitored through November 1995. OU2 ROD concluded that natural attenuation would adequately address contamination and recommended no further action.

able 2; Soil/Sediment Cleanup Levels. Contaminant OUl," OU2

PAHs (BAP equivalents) 1 mg/kg 10 mg/kgTributyltin Remove sediments with tributyltin

at level harmful to aquatic life80 pg/kg

Dioxin^: 1 pg/kg Not included in this OULead Not included in this OU 2,000 mg/kgArsenic Not included in this DU. 30 mg/kgPCBs Not included in this OU 10 mg/kgNote: Information obtained from the 1995 OUl ROD and 1997 OU2 ROD. Action levels are intended to be protective for industrial exposures.

pg/kg Micrograms per Kilogram

“ EPA did not select dioxin as a contamihaht of concern for thk Site based on its low concentrations and infrequent detections. However, the OUl ROD stated that soils containing dioxin at levels of 1 pg/kg or greater would be covered with at least 1 foot of clean cover. EPA's current screening levels for dioxins in soil (based on non-cancer health effects) are 0.052 \ig/kgfor residential use and 0.72 \ig/kgfor industrial use. The data indicates that the ash is below the current residential screening level of0.052 \ig/kg.

Status of ImplementationEPA and USACE signed an Interagency Agreement Grant in July 1995 to conduct the remedial action for OUT Excavation and staging of contmninated sludge, sediment and soil at OUl began in September 1995. The material that was to be incinerated was transported to the Bayou Bonfouca Superfund Site by barge. The incinerator ash was then returned to the Southern Shipbuilding Site and placed into the sludge pits, along with the marginally-contaminated excavated soil. The sludge pits, now filled with approximately 88,000 cubic yards of incinerator ash and contaminated soil, sludge and sediment from both OUl and OU2 were then covered with a 2-foot clay cap.

Sampling results after excavation indicated that sediments within the graving dock were still contaminated with tributyltin. The condition of the dock was such that further excavation could not be done. To prevent exposure of ecological receptors to the sediments, an 18-inch clay layer overlain by gravel was constructed underwater in the graving dock.

OU2 soils that were not categorized as hazardous waste were excavated and disposed of off site at a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Subtitle D municipal landfill in Walker, Louisiana. All work

associated with these actions was completed by June 1996, and all incineration ended in September 1996.

As required by the OUl ROD, EPA conducted additional groundwater monitoring during the OU2 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS), supplemented by additional groimdwater sampling in November 1995. The OU2 ROD stated that no further action is needed to address groundwater contamination at the Site because natural attenuation would adequately address the groundwater contamination, which is limited to the unused shallow aquifer near the former sludge pits.

The remedial action finished in 1997. The site was deleted from the NPL June 16, 1998.

Institutional Control (IC) ReviewTable 3 below presents a summary of the institutional controls needed for the Site.

Table 3: Summary of Planned and/or Implemented ICsMedia, engineered controls, and areas that do not support

UU/UE based on current conditions

ICsNeeded

ICs Called for in the Decision

Documents

ImpactedParcel(s)

ICObjective

Title ofIC Instrument

Implemented and Date (or

planned)

Soil 124-105- 3337 •

ICs are needed to protect the cap at OU1

and to prevent excavation into any

remaining subsurface contamination at OU2.

Not yet implemented

Shallow groundwater 124-1 OS- 3337

An IC is needed to prevent use of shallow

groundwater.Not yet

implemented

Sediment in former graving dock Yes 124-105-

3337

An IC is needed to protect the underwater

cap in the former graving dock.

Not yet implemented

Land Use 124-105-3337

An IC is needed to prohibit residential

land use.Not yet

implemented

Systems Operarions/Operation & MaintenanceSince 1998, LDEC? has conducted periodic inspections of the Site to verify the condition of the OUl sludge pits cap; these inspections are in addition to the FYR Site inspections conducted every five years by EPA. During the past five years, the property owner has continued to voluntarily mow the grass and maintain vegetation to ensure the integrity of the OUl cap is not compromised. Although the property owner has addressed areas of erosion on the cap, the same areas continue to experience minor erosion. Because this site is located in an area frequented by hurricanes and other severe weather events, the EPA RPM and/or LDEQ inspect the site after these events as needed. Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for the past five years were not available for this FYR.

8

.. •'■

Figure 2: Detailed Site Map

■- "ki

.m.'w ' * fiiaa'm

m •mm' /^ f - ■ ' ■■■■>: ■

I '''l— t 'm . tf -.WA, W - v.». -V.

r^.vr

^ 1.;y m

>-'‘.'4.':'j'y/. .1^^'

250 500 1,000

Legend

-*»*- FKUd AIM \/A Foonw Studga Pie“_“J AppwlFiae CMP«d Aim B01111M7 I I Oixnlie Unt BoundwM

FonmrOiMng Doet

^skeo O^ .OLU,,0^. NORTH

Southern Shipbuilding Superfund SiteSlidell, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana

ij.

III. PROGRESS SINCE THE PREVIOUS REVIEWThis section includes the protectiveness determinations and statements from the last five-year review as well as the recommendations from the last five-year review and the current status of those recommendations.

Table 4: Protectiveness Determinations/Statements from the 2015 FYR

OU# ProtectivenessDetermination Protectiveness Statement

1 Short-term Protective The remedy at OUl currently protects human health and the environment because the contamination remaining on site is contained beneath a 2-foot clay cap; the,contamination remaining in the graving dock sediments is contained beneath an 18-inch underwater clay layer overlain by gravel; the contaminated shallow groundwater is not used;

and access to the Site is restricted by a fence and thick vegetation. However, in order for the remedy to be protective in the long term, the following actions need to be taken to ensure protectiveness: EPA arid LDEQ will collaborate to determine institutional controls needed to:

protect the cap at OU 1, prevent use of contaminated shallow groundwater, protect the underwater cap in the former graving dock;

and prohibit or restrict residential use on areas not suitable for unrestricted use; implement the institutional controls needed; and

conduct periodic monitoring of the graving dock’s underwater cap to ensure that it continues to prevent exposure to the underlying

contamination.Short-term Protective The remedy at OU2 currently protects human health and the

environment because the subsurface soil contamination remaining on site is contained beneath clean backfill and access to the Site is

restricted by a fence and thick vegetation. However, in order for the remedy to be protective in the long term, the following actions need to be taken to ensure protectiveness: EPA and LDEQ will collaborate to.

determine institutional controls needed to: prevent excavation into any remaining subsurface contamination at OU2, and prohibit or restrict

residential use on areas not suitable for unrestricted use; andimplement the iristitutional controls needed._________

Sitewide Short-term Protective The remedy currently protects huriian health and the environment. However, in order for the remedy to be protective iri the long term, the following actions need to be taken to ensure protectiveness: EPA and LDEQ will collaborate to determine institutional controls needed to:

protect the cap at OU 1, prevent excavation into any remaining subsurface contamination at OU2, prohibit or restrict residential use on

areas of the Site not suitable for unrestricted use, prevent use of contaminated shallow groundwater, and protect the underwater cap in the former graving dock; implement the institutional controls needed; and conduct periodic monitoring of the graving dock’s underwater cap

to ensure that it continues to prevent exposure to the underlying contamination.

Table 5: Status of Recommendations from the 2015 FYR

OU# Issue Recommendations

CurrentStatus

Current Implementation Status Description*

Completion Date (if

applicable)1,2 No institutional control

has been implemented to protect the cap at OU 1 and to prevent excavation into any

remaining subsurface contamination at OU2.

EPA and LDEQ will , collaborate to -

determine institutional controls needed to

protect the cap at OU 1 and to prevent

excavation into any remaining subsurface

contamination at OU2. Implement the

institutional controls needed.

UnderDiscussion

EPA is working closely with the property owner and St. Tammany Parish to file a

Conveyance Notice for this property.

: The property owner has erected signage near the OUl

caj5 to discourage dredging or any other disturbance of

the capped areas.

9/30/2020

1,2 The cleanup levels selected for QU2 were based on, industrial use.

However, no institutional controls

have been implemented to restrict land use. The .Site’s zoning (light

industrial) allows residential use.

EPA and LDEQ will collaborate to

determine institutional controls needed to prohibit or restrict

residential use on areas of the Site not suitable

for unrestricted use.Implement the


UnderDiscussion



The Site is zoned M-2 Light Industrial which, upon recent clarification, does not allow

for residential use.

9/30/2020

The OU2 Record of Decision (ROD) states

that the shallow, unconfined groundwater should not be used for any purposes unless future testing by the property owner or

developer deems it fit for use. However, no

institutional control has been implemented to

prevent use of contaminated shallow

groundwater.

EPA and LDEQ will collaborate to .


prevent use of contaminated shallow

groundwater. Implement the


UnderDiscussion


Conveyance Notice for this property..

9/30/2020

No institutional control has been implemented

to protect the underwater cap in the former graving dock.

EPA and LDEQ will collaborate to


protect the underwater cap in the former

graving dock. Implement the


UnderDiscussion



The property owner has erected signage near the

graving dock to discourage dredging or any other

9/30/2020

disturbance of the capped areas.

Tributyltin is present below the cap in the

graving dock at levels greater than EPA’s current sediment

screening benchmark to protect aquatic life.

Conduct periodic monitoring of the

graving dock’s underwater cap to

ensure that it continues to prevent exposure to

the underlying contamination.

Completed The uses deployed an autonomous underwater

vehicle (AUV) to inspect the underwater cap. The AUV

ran approximately six missions that yielded

EcoMapper data related to the total water depth

(bathymetry) at the graving dock site and side-scan sonar

imagery of the area. The data indicated a uniform bottom approximately 3 meters deep without any

noticeable holes or ______ depressions.______

12/7/2015

IV. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS

Community Notification. Community Involvement and Site InterviewsA public notice was made available by mailing notices to homes on 3/7/2019, stating that there was a five-year review and inviting the public to submit any comments to the EPA. A copy of the public notice can be found in Appendix C. The results of the review and the report will be made available at the Site information repository located at the St. Tammany Parish Library’s Slidell Branch, 555 Robert Boulevard, Slidell, Louisiana 70458.

During the FYR process, interviews were conducted to document any perceived problems or successes with the remedy that has been implemented to date. In general, community interest in the site is minimal. The interviews are summarized below and included in Appendix F.

Keith Horn, LDEQ Project Manager for the Site, provided interview responses via email on March 29, 2019. Mr. Horn stated that the remedy is functioning as expected. LDE(^ has conducted, and will continue to conduct, periodic inspections of the Site to verify the condition of the cap. Mr. Horn, along with Amber Howard of EPA, suggested hydro-seeding the eroded areas of the cap to the property owner. Mr. Horn believes the site is adequately secured by fencing and thick vegetation, given the difficult access and lack of signs of trespassing. He agreed that if the fence is not part of the remedy, then it is not an O&M requirement. Mr. Horn believes that the Site’s current zoning of commercial/light industrial is appropriate; future land use should include discussions with EPA and LDEQ and would likely involve further investigatory actions on the part of either the current owner or future owners/developers.

The owner of the site, Mr. Steven Siegler, participated in the site inspection on March 28, 2019. Mr. Siegler also provided interview responses via email on April 1,2019. The owner believes the remedy is functioning as expected. The owner explained that a tenant recently began occupying the site and is leasing the property from 2018 to 2020. The owner stated that he performs property maintenance (including mowing and visual inspection of site conditions) on a quarterly basis. The owner is also working with the City of Slidell to explore redevelopment options at the site. He anticipates

12 .

redevelopment will include commercial and/or industrial land use, which is consistent with the site’s current M-2 light industrial zoning.

EPA interviewed Eric Lundin, Acting Director of the city of Slidell (City) Planning Department, Blaine Clancey, City Engineer of the city of Slidell; and Councilman Val Vanney representing District D for the city of Slidell at the City offices on March 28,2019. The City is aware of the environmental concerns at the site and are looking forward to potential reuse opportunities. The City confirmed that the Site is zoned M-2 Light Industrial which does not allow for residential use.

Amber Howard and Jason McKinney interviewed a nearby resident at his residence on March 28, 2019. The resident, who’s property abuts the western boundary of the Southern Shipbuilding site, is very familiar with the site and its history. He has lived at this property for over 30 years, which includes the timeframe during which the removal and remedial actions at the site were performed. He is not concerned about the Site’s enyirpnmental history. In fact, he is happy to see the Site being temporarily used as a lay down yard by American Bridge because it makes the area “feel more like it used to be.”He consented to have his name and contact information included in this FYR (see Appendix F).

Data ReviewThe 2015 FYR recommended periodic monitoring of the OUl graving dock’s underwater cap to ensure that it continues to prevent exposure to the underlying contamination. EPA requested technical support from the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) to inspect the underwater cap. On December 7,2015, the USGS deployed an autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV) to inspect the underwater cap. The AUV ran approxiihately six missions that yielded EcoMapper data related to the total water depth (bathymetry) at the graving dock site and side-scan sonar imagery of the area. The data indicated a uniform bottom approximately 3 meters deep without any noticeable holes or depressions.

Site InspectionThe inspection of the Site was conducted ph 3/28/20,19. Participants included Amber Howard, EPA RPM; Keith Horn of LDEQ; Councilman Val Vanney of the City of Slidell and Steven Siegler, the prpperty owner. The purpose of the inspection was to assess the protectiveness of the remedy. Land access to the Site is restricted by a fencing and thick vegetation. There is no fence along the Site’s boundary with Bayou Bonfouca. Parts of the fence have been voluntarily repaired by the property owner. There are no signs of trespassing or vandalism on the Site. The site is currently being leased by American Bridge Company as a lay down yard for a nearby construction project. The lease began in 2018 and is anticipated to terminate in 2020. The Site Inspection Report and photographs from the site inspection are included in Appendices D and E, respectively.

The OUl cap, which overlies incinerator ash and excavated contaminated soil, is covered with mowed grass and native vegetation, with the exception of a few minimally eroded areas. No trees are present on the capped area. The property owner has continued to voluntarily mow the grass. After the site inspection identified eroded areas, the property owner agreed to hydroseed portions of the capped area. Site inspection attendees did not observe any cracks, wet spots or subsidence in the capped area. Site inspection attendees walked along the Site’s shoreline at the graving dock; a metal structure is present across the mouth of the graving dock which prevents watercrafts from entering the graving dock. The property owner agreed to erect signage at the graving dock to discourage dredging in the area of the underwater cap. Both the hydroseeding and the signage placement were conducted in August 2019.

Amber Howard, EPA RPM and Jason McKinney, EPA CIC visited the site information repository located at the St. Tammany Parish Library’s Slidell Branch, 555 Robert Bouleivard, Slidell, Louisiana 70458. The repository contained m^y Site documents, the most recent document in the repository was the 2015 FYR report. EPA has working with the reference librarian to exchange the bulky; hard copy documents with digital media (CDs).

Amber Howard, EPA RPM met with the City of Slidell Planning Department, the City of Slidell Engineering Department, and the councilman representing the district within which the Site is located to discuss land use controls on this property. To date, no land use controls exist on the property aside from the zoning ordinance of M-2, light industrial. The EPA RPM also rnet with the property owner separately to discuss issuance of a Conveyance Notice on the property. The Conveyance Notice would effectively place institutional controls on the property, which would aillow the site to achieve long-term protectiveness. The property owner was amenable to filing a Conveyance Notice with St. Tammany Parish.

V. TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT

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

Question A Summary:Yes. The review of decision documents, applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) and risk assumptions, as well as the site inspection, indicate that the selected remedies are functioning as intended by the RODs. Incinerator ash and excavated contaminated soil are contained on site under a 2-foot clay clap. Sediments in the graving dock are contained under a 18-inch clay cap. All other contaminated materials have been disposed of off-site. There are no new ARARs to address. As stated in the OU2 ROD, no futher federal response action is needed at this site.

Institutional Controls (ICs) are needed to protect the OUl cap, to prevent excavation into any remaining subsurface contamination at OU2, to protect the underwater cap in the former graving dock, to prevent the use of shallow groundwater and to prohibit or restrict residential land use.

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

Question B Summary;Yes. The exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and RAOs used at the time of the remedy selection still valid. There have been no changes in exposure, pathways, toxicity or RAOs that impact the protectiveness of the remedy.

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

Question C Summary:Yes. Reasonably anticipated future land use for the site remains light industrial. Because the site is now being leased and an on-site groundwater well has been reopened, it is important to ensure proper institutional controls are implemented at the site.

VI. ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS

Issues/Rcconimeiulatioiis

OU(s) without Issues/Recommendatidns Identified in the Five-Year Review:None

Issues and Recommendations Identified in the Five-Year Review:

OU(s): 1,2 Issue Category: Ihstitutiohal ControlsIssue: No institutional control has been implemented to protect the cap at OU1 and to prevent excavation into any remaining subsurface contamination at OU2.

Recommendation: EPA, LDEQ, St. Tammany Parish and the site owner will collaborate to determine institutional controls needed to protect the cap at OU 1 and to prevent excavation into any remaining subsurface contamination at OU2. Implement the institutional controls needed. A Conveyance Notice would effectively place institutional controls on the property but must be voluntarily filed by the property owner.



PartyResponsible


Agency

Milestone Date

No Yes ' Other , EPA/LocaiGovernment

9/30/2020

OU(s): 1 Issue Category: Institutional Controls

Issue: No institutional control has been implemented to prevent use of contaminated shallow groundwater.

Recommendation: EPA, LDEQ, St. Tarnmany Parish and the site owner will collaborate to determine institutional controls needed to prevent the use of shallow groundwater. Implement the institutional controls needed. A Conveyance Notice would effectively place institutional controls on the property but must be voluntarily filed by the property owner.



PartyResponsible


Agency

Milestone Date

No Yes Other EPA/LocalGovernment

9/30/2020

OU(s): 1 Issue Category: Institutional ControlsNo institutional control has been implemented to protect the underwater cap in the former graving dock.

Recommendation: EPA, LDEQ, St. Tammany Parish and the site owner will’ collaborate to determine institutional controls needed to protect the underwater

cap in the former graving dock. Implement the institutional controls needed. A Conveyance Notice would effectively place institutional controls on the property but must be voluntarily filed by the property owner. .



PartyResponsible


Agency

Milestone Date


9/30/2020

OU(s): 1,2 Issue Category: Institutional ControlsNo institutional control has been implemented to prohibit residential use as a possible land use.

Recommendation: EPA, LDEQ, St. Tammany Parish and the site owner will collaborate to ensure future land use restricts residential use through a Conveyance Notice. Implement the institutional controls needed.



PartyResponsible


Agency

Milestone Date


9/30/2020

OU(s): 1 Issue Category: MonitoringTributyltin is present below the cap in the graving dock at levels greater thanEPA’s current national recommended water quality criteria to protect aquatic life.

Recommendation; Conduct periodic monitoring of the graving dock’s underwater cap to ensure that it continues to prevent exposure to the underlying contamination.



PartyResponsible


Agency

Milestone Date

No Yes Other EPA/State 9/30/2021

VII. PROTECTIVNESS STATEMENT

Si tew ill e P lo tec ti ve n ess S ta (eiii e ii t

Protectiveness Determination:Short-term Protective

Protectiveness Statement:The.remedy currently protects human health and the environment. However, in order for the remedy to be protective in the, tong term, the following actions need to be taken to ensure

protectiveness: EPA, LDEQ, St. Tammany Parish and the property owner will collaborate to implement institutional controls needed to protect the cap at OUl, prevent excavation into any remaining subsurface contamination at OU2, prevent use of shallow groimdwater, protect the underwater cap in the former graving dock, conduct periodic monitoring of the graving dock’s underwater cap to ensure that it continues to prevent exposure to the vmderlying contamination and prohibit residential land use. A Conveyance Notice would effectively place institutional controls on the property but must be voluntarily filed by the property owner.

VIII. NEXT REVIEW

The next five-year review report for the Southern Shipbuilding Superfund Site is required five years from the completion date of this review.

APPENDIX A - REFERENCE LIST

Completion Report, Autonomous Underwater Vehicle Investigation of Graving Dock at Southern Shipbuilding Superfund Site. USGS. December 2015.

Field Interview Form (site inspection report), Southern Shipbuilding Corporation Superfimd Site, Slidell, Louisiana. LDEQ. June 13, 2018.

Field Interview Form (site inspection report). Southern Shipbuilding Corporation Superfund Site, Slidell, Louisiana. LDEQ. January 29, 2018.

Field Interview Form (site inspection report). Southern Shipbuilding Corporation Superfimd Site, Slidell, Louisiana. LDEQ. April 18,2017.

Field Interview Form (site inspection report). Southern Shipbuilding Corporation Superfimd Site, Slidell, Louisiana. LDEQ. February 21, 2017.

Field Interview Form (site inspection report). Southern Shipbuilding Corporation Superfimd Site, Slidell, Louisiana. LDEQ. October 25, 2016.

Field Interview Form (site inspection report). Southern Shipbuilding Corporation Superfimd Site, Slidell, Louisiana. LDEQ. July 22, 2016.

Field Interview Form (site inspection report). Southern Shipbuilding Corporation Superfimd Site, Slidell, Louisiana. LDEQ. December 7, 2015.

Fourth Five Year Review Report for Southern Shipbuilding Superfimd Site, Slidell, Louisiana. EPA Region 6. August 13, 2015.

Record of Decision, GUI, Southern Shipbuilding Superfimd Site, Slidell, Louisiana. EPA Region 6. July 1995.

Record of Decision, OU2, Southern Shipbuilding Superfimd Site;, Slidell, Louisiana. EPA Region 6. September 1997.

A-1

APPENDIX B - SITE CHRONOLOGY

V .• ^ 'Event '■ DateShip and barge construction and repair facility began operations at the Site 1919LDEQ investiga;ted possible release of materials from the site sludge pit into Bayou Bonfouca . ; . '

August 1992

EPA and LDEQ investigated the stability of site sludge pits and threat of contaminant releases

December 1992

Southern Shipbuilding Corporation filed a petition for bankruptcy and ceased operations

1993

EPA, United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and LDEQ conducted site inspections ■ - 'USACE determined that the Site posed imminent threat and substantial endangerment.

July 1993

EPA conducted emergency removal.action to pump down liquid levels in the . sludge pits and provide additional freeboard

July 26, 1993 to September 3, 1993

EPA conducted time-critical removal action to again pump down liquid levels in the sludge pits and construct a fence around the Site

May 18, 1994 to September 27, 1994

EPA proposed listing the Site on the National Priorities List (NPL) February 13, 1995EPA issued Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) report March 1, 1995EPA conducted time-critical removal action to install sheet piling around the levees

November 28, 1994 to May 25, 1995

EPA finalized the Site on the NPL May 26, 1995EPA conducted OU1 EE/CA that met the requirements for a remedial investigation/feasibility study (Rl/FS)

June 24, 1994 to July 20, 1995

EPA conducted OU i remedial design June 24, 1994 to July 8, 1995

EPA issued OUl ROD July 20, 1995EPA issued ROD Amendment for the Bayou Bonfouca Superfund site to permit the incineration of waste from the Southern Shipbuilding Site at the nearby Bayou Bonfouca Site

July 20, 1995

EPA conducted OU2 RI/FS . January 1, 1996 to August 1, 1996

EPA conducted sitewide removal action to remove drums, tanks, containers, their contents and related contamiriaiion from the Site

March 27, 1995 to September 10, 1997

EPA finished incineration of site wastes at Bayou Bonfouca Superfund Site September 30, 1996EPA expanded and completed.clay cover in OUl area June 1997EPA excavated asbestos-containing materials from OU2 and sent them to an off-site landfill

June 1997 to August 1997

EPA issued Closeout Report for OU 1EPA issued OU2 ROD, stating that no further remedial action is plannedSite achieved “construction complete” milestone

September 15, 1997

EPA deleted the Site from the NPL June 16, 1998First annual inspection completed August 1998Second annual inspection completed June 1999Third annual inspection completed September 2000EPA signed first FYR report September 28, 2000Fourth annual inspection completed May 22, 2001Fifth annual inspection completed 2002Sixth annual inspection completed 2003Seventh annual inspection completed 2004Eighth annual inspection completed 2005Category IV Hurricane Katrina strikes Slidell, Louisiana, as well as the greater New Orleans area, and Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama Gulf Coast

August 28-29, 2005

EPA signed second FYR report September 28, 2005EPA conducted assessment activities and collected environmental samples September 28 and 30, 2005

B-1

Event Date

EPA reported that the Site sustained no appreciable damage from Hurricane Katrina

December 19, 2005

Ninth annual inspection completed 2006Tenth annual inspection completed 2007Eleventh annual inspection completed 2008EPA, LDEQ and USAGE conducted site inspections 2009EPA signed third FYR report September 30, 2010Hurricane Isaac strikes Slidell, Louisiana, and surrounding areas August 28-29, 2012EPA conducted Hurricane Isaac inspection; found that storm surge did not affect Site

September 6, 2012

LDEO inspected Site ‘ ' December 18, 2013LDEQ and EPA inspected Site March 5, 2014EPA signed fourth FYR report August 13,2015.USGS Inspection of Underwater Cap December 7, 2015LDEQ inspected Site July 22, 2016LDEQ inspected Site October 25, 2016LDEQ inspected Site February 21. 2017LDEQ inspected Site April 18,2017LDEQ inspected Site January 29, 2018LDEQ and EPA inspected Site June 13,2018LDEQ and EPA inspected Site November 13,2018LDEQ and EPA inspected Site for the Fifth FYR March 28, 2019Instructional Controls (No Dredging Signage) erected on Site August 7, 2019

B-2

APPENDIX C - PUBLIC NOTICE

mV PBOl'

Southern Shipbuilding Superfund Site Public Notice

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6 March 2019

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency' Region 6 (EPA) uill be conducting the fifth five-year review of file remedy implementation and performance at the Southern Sh4>building Superlund site (Site) in Slidell, St Tammany Parish, Louisiana. The five-year review will determine whether the remedy for the Site remains protective of human health and the environment. The five-year review is scheduled for completion in August 2019, and the report will be made available to the public at the local infiirmation repository' located at:

St. Tammany Parish Library Slidell Branch

555 Robert Boulevard SUdelLLonisiana 70458

(985) 646-6470

Site status updates are available on the Internet at http:/Awww.epa.gov/sapetfund/sonfliem-shi|A«Mld«ng

For more information about the Site, contact:

Amber Howard Remedial Project Manager

(214)665-3172 or 1-800-533-3508 (toll-free)

or by' email at [email protected]

Jason McKinneyCommunity Inv'olv'ement Coordinator

(214)665-8132 or 1-800-533-3508 (toU-free)

or by email at [email protected]

C-1

APPENDIX D - SITE INSPECTION REPORT

Agency Interest1260

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality FIELD INTERVIEW FORM

Inspectton Date: 03^2a'20i9 Departure Dale: 03;26;2019

Time of Arrival: 10:00 AM Time of Departure; 11:30 AM

FaalilyName;Locston;

.Southern ShlBbulldliwi Sunerfund Site999 Canulelte Rd., Slidell. LA 70458

Phono#:

Mailing Atfdress: 13d18erelonLn.Street/P.O. Box

Facility Represenlative: Mr, Steven N. Siealer

Inspection Type: RemeCiation

Parish Name: St. TammanyDelray Beach FL 33446City Slate Zip

, _________ Title: Property Owner Contact

Program Involved: □ Air 0 Waste □ Water Other Soilsrtirtiunawator^**-*^^* •• 9 “™* Ecuivnoiv Iraoeiiao. PKcumt Otttma. Rsmartii V«ieal ComnureiHia tom Paote, ResiC5»iii«v«iJp-iQlsite inspecton pcrltêd bv Keith Horn, Senior Environmental Seiientist LDFO-Ppmcrtigtinn Division fRDl ancl.M^ Amber Hpwarel. Remedial Proiect Manager (RPM), EPA Region 6. The ourê'oT this insn^Siii^r^r. ggiptete the EPA Five-Year Review. The inspectors arrived at the site and met^h Mr Stewn w giooior

9»ld^l. and Mr. -VaT Vanney. with the Slidell Cifa Council, It wa"s observed th^ a Mnioa of tpe site remain^ ip.use bv American Bndqa as an office anti tav-dnyun yard for a conslnjction nrrrierj MauvIiui

<yen angas of the site appears to be conducted on a regular basis now. The cao on the indnerator ash landfill on thg western iîon of the property was inspected and found tr> lamrriu he in npod eonditi^'~sIii^ asg§.«rfminorand^^vgfletationyrgf^gotedonthgnortt^stêr:southeaândweRtem fi.Hfle.of.the lagdfrll. if yyas fecormien^joj.Mr. Siegler that hvdro^seedino nr ntt^r tA ^ It

JgtfSaglgtetfieseafBasto control erosion. ° ^

JâaofCohocm___ Erplgnalion __ Rasolved?

MoiîigMowing of the open areas of Ihe site appears to be conducted on a regular basis now. it is very important thatwoody vegetation be kept from growing in former areas of 0yesconcern in order to protect Ihe integrity of capping placed in these areas.

□ NO

I SReceived by: Signature: __

LDEO Split □Samples Taken? yes

____________ TiUe:

(AiBth ai3iisjr.Cusio(i/i

Print Name: To be delivered to parties via US iMail(NOTE: Signaluro DOEfi NOT Inttote a^wnenl wllh Inspocior s twtes)

Inspectorfs):Keith Horn, LDEQ Team Leader (TL), & Amber Howard, RPM, EPA Region 6

Ajuchmonis Copies of Business Cards

Photos will be sent to EDMS separately

Tho InIgnnaDon conuinod on this lemi rcflocts only Ihe praOmlnwy c

valilyAcl..

Beviaed; 06r2003TEMPO Entry Completed: /fiL k( I of 1

D-1

pfc',I-fey

APPENDIX E - SITE INSPECTION PHOTOGRAPHS

SE S sw• 1*1

150• 1 • 1

180• I • I • 1

210.1.1. 1 • 1

240• .1 •

@ 159“S (T) m 30®16'21"N, 89®48‘0"W ±32.8ft

® 27rw (T) m 30®16'20"N, 89M7'59”W ±16.4ft

■4 • >-0T

• - ^ SW-^-T- •

■ \r^--

. V,■ •• ' I'f • ‘28'Mar2019, 12:01:^6

Graving DockE-1

180I • I • I • I

240 i 270I . I . I . I . I . I . I . I

NW330

I • I • I

@ 249®W (T) m 30®16'23"N, 89®48'1"W ±16.4ft

.-MX.:'^•^ .,' • -*.^ ■• A- >-' •,• V,J

'■*X;X■ -• . i-J. ••■<■•■

O o \/ lAI Ml

150• I • • I • • I •

240• I •

^1 *J. I . I . I .300

• I •

@ 226®SW (T) m 30®16'24"N, 89®48'4"W ±32.8ft

m«,■•:' .-*V' '-^ ' -V■

Minor erosion on containment cell

E-2

J

.' i:.’“ •

• I ■

NE f30 60 i

• 1 • 1 • 1 • 1 • 1 • 1 • 1

E90

• 1 • 1 • 1

SE120 150

• 1 • 1 • 1 • 1 •

@ 63«NE (T) m 30‘»16'22"N, 89‘’48‘2"W ±16.4ft

-'■ ■ - '■■«~'rr‘ " ’ ■ ‘ ■;..'•■■■ ■” ■ -.:v4 -:

vrx... •. .s.*ia»Cih.. — 'T^ m afilVfPW -jw-wk. . -

SE120 150

I • I • I • 1 • I

@ 209®SW (T) m 30‘‘16'18"N, 89‘*48'5"W ±16.4ft

,T^-> • . sww^ •• »-'^«>»«.A .

iS^feSIl^

ar2Dt9';.t2; 18:07

Minor erosion on containment cell

E-3

APPENDIX F - INTERVIEWS

LDEQ: Keith Horn

City of Slidell:Eric Lundin, Director of Planning (Acting) Blain Clancy, Director of Engineering Val Vanney, Councilman, District D

Resident: Eugene Hirstius

Property Owner: Steven Seigler

Property Tennant: American Bridge

F-1

FIVE-YEAR REVIEW lINTERVIEW FORM

Southern Shipbuilding Corporation Superfund SiteERA ID No. LAD008149015

Interviewer Name: Amber HowardAffiliation: US EPA Region 6 Remedial Project Manager

Subject Name: Keith Horn ; ;Affiliation: LDEQ - Team Leader for the; Southern Shipbuilding Superfund SiteContact Information: (225) 219-3717 (desk) [email protected]

Additional Interview Participants, if any: ..

Interview Date: 3/29/2019 Interview Time: 8:20am Interview Format: Forminterview Location: Baton Rouge

interview Category:

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

The cleanup was protective ofhurnan health and the environment, and was typical of its time. Maintenance has been an on-going issue. The private property owner has recently begun regular mowing of the site, which is important. Minor cap maintenance is currently needed. Recent rental to American Bridge shows that the site has re-use potential.

2. Is the remedy functioning as expected?

Yes, it appears to be doing so.

3. Are you aware of any complaints or inquiries regarding site-related environmental issues or remedial activities since 2015?

There has been a documented problem with vegetation control on the site, but the private property owner has recently begun regular mowing.

4. Has your office conducted any site-related activities or communications since 2015? If so, please describe the purpose and results of these activities.

The LDEQ has conducted regular monitoring inspections of the site, sometimes in conjunction with EPA officials. ' ' ■

5. Are you aware of any changes to state laws that might affect the protectiveness of the Site’s remedy?

None that would appear to affect the site.F-2

6. Are you comfortable with the status of the institutional controls at the. Site? If not, what are the associated outstanding issues?

Other than current industrial zoning, institutional controls have not been imposed on the site. Conveyance Notice filed by the private property owner is needed. Ordnances imposed by the City of Slidell or St. Tammany Parish might be needed if Conveyance Notice cannot be obtained. It shouldbe a top priority to complete the imposition of institutional controls.

)7. Are you aware of ^y changes in projected land use(s) at the Site?

The site has been long vacant, but recently American Bridge began renting the site for industrial/commercial use. The private property owner intends for other industrial/commercial use in the future.

8. Are you aware of any community concerns regarding the Site or the operation and management of its remedy? If so, please provide details.

Local residents are reportedly concerned about heavy industrial use of the site disturbing the peace and causing truck traffic on local roads that serve residential areas as well as the site.

9. Have the issues and recommendations identified in the 2015 Five-Year Review been sufficiently addressed? Please explain.

Maintenance has been an on-going issue. The private property owner has recently begun regular mowing of the site, which is important. Minor cap maintenance by the private property owner is currently needed. Maintenance of site fencing has been determined by the EPA to not be required.

10. Do you have any comments, suggestions or recommendations regarding the management or operation of the Site’s remedy?

The private property owner should maintain regular mowing, and conduct cap maintenance as needed to insure the integrity of the waste cell area. It should be a top priority to complete the imposition of institutional controls.

F-3



Interviewer Name: Amber HowardAffiliation: US EPA Region 6 Remedial Project Manager

Subject Name: Walter Eric LundinAffiliation: City of Slidell, LA -Acting Director, Planning Department ,Contact Information: : elundin®citvofslidell.orai 985^646-4320

Additional interview Participants, if any: Jason McKinney, US EPA Region 6 CIC

Interview Date: 3/27/19 interview Time: 3:00 pm Interview Format: In-personInterview Location: City of Slidell OfficesInterview Category: Local Government

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

Yes, the City is aware of the environmental issues, how it was cleaned up, and current issues with future development.

2. Do you feel well-informed regarding the Site’s activities and remedial progress? If not, how might EPA convey site-related information in the future?

Yes, I feel the City was engaged in the process and its opinion was solicited and listened to throughout.


/ have received no complaints about environmental issues in this area.

4. Have there been any problems with unusual or unexpected activities at the Site, such as emergency response, vandalism or trespassing since 2015?

There was some trespassing and trash about two years ago. Owner was contacted and took prompt action.


None have been brought to my attention.

F-4

-,v.v ';\-

/'•■. '• • A- ..6. Has your office conducted any site-related activities or communications since 2015? If so, please

describe the purpose and results of these activities.

Reviewed and approved permits for a construction company to temporarily Use site to work on Hwy 11 bridges.

7. Are you aware of any changes to state or local laws that might affect the protectiveness of the Site’s remedy?

Requirement by state that if development is within 300’ of centralized sewer and water. City has sewer and water lines running down Canulette Road. ' ^

8. Do you feel that the Site’s zoning is appropriate? Do you anticipate any changes to the Site’s zoning in the next five years?

City is planning on undergoing Master Plan development and land use in this area will be considered as part of this process.

9. What is the status of the implementation of institutional controls at this site?

No actions are currently underway, but they have discussed with them and could implement in 120 to 180 days.

10. Are you aware of ariy changes in projected land use(s) at the Site?

See answer 8.


Deed restrictions in conjunction with city ordinance would provide redundant and complimentary restrictions.

F-5



Interviewer Name: Amber HowardAffiliation: US EPA Region 6 Remediai Project Manager

Subject Name: BiaineCiancyAffiliation: City of Siideii, LA - Director of EngineeringContact information: bciancv(S)citvofsiideii.ora: 985-646-4270

Additionai interview Participants, if any: Jason McKinney, US EPA Region 6 CiC

interview Date: 3/27/19. interview Time: 3:00 pm Interview Format: in-personinterview Location: City of Siideii OfficesInterview Category: Local Government

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

Everything has been appropriate.



No


No


No


F-6

No

I. Are you aware of any changes to state or local laws that might affect the protectiveness of the Site’s remedy?

No


Yes, no changes unless otherwise determined by Administration/Council.


None at this time.

10. Are you aware of any changes in projected land use(s) at the Site?

No

II. Do you have any comments, suggestions or recommendations regarding the management or operation of the Site’s remedy?

EPA is doing a great job.

F-7



Interviewer Name: Amber HowardAffiliation: US EPA Region 6 Remediai Project Manager

Subject Name: Vai Vanney ;Affiliation: Councilman, District D; City of Slideil, LAContact information: vannev(S)citvofsiideii.ora: 985-640-6999

Additionai interview Participants, if any: Jason McKinney, US EPA Region 6 CiC

interview Date: 3/27/19 interview Time: 3:00 pm Interview Format: in-personinterview Location: City of Siideii Officesinterview Category: Locai Government

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

Good



No


No


No as long as city rules are followed


F-8

No

7. Are you aware of any changes to state or local laws that might affect the protectiveness of the Site’s remedy?

No



None

10. Are you aware of any changes in projected land use(s) at the Site?

No


No

F-9


Southern Shipbuilding Corporation Superfund SiteEPAID No. LAD008149015

Interviewer Name: Amber HowardAffiliation: Remedial Project Manager, U.S. EPA Region 6

Subject Name: Eugene.Hjmtius :AfTiliation: Resident (Property abuts Southern Shipbuildingj/Nearest NeighborContact Information: 122 Bywater, Slidell, LA 70458; 985-640-0445; [email protected]

Additional Interview Participants, if any: Jason McKinney, EPA CiC

Interview Date: 3/27/19 Interview Time: 1:45pm Interview Format: In-personInterview Location: 122 Bywater, Slidell, LA 70458

Interview Category: Resident/community member

1. Are you aware of the former environmental issues at the Southern Shipbuilding Site and the cleanupactivities that have taken place to date?Yes. 1 have lived here since 1982 and am well aware of the history of the site.


Nothing much has happened oyer there in a long time; the site has just sat there with a fence around it. Recently a company moved in. I keep hearing tractors and brush hogs.


Yes, Ifeel informed. I get the cards that are mailed, including one the other day [notice of Five Year Review].

4. What have been the effects of this Site on the surrounding community, if any?No effects, really. I’m glad to see a company moving in on the property. It makes the area feel like it used to be (when Southern Shipbuilding was active on the property).

5. Have there been any problems with unusual or unexpected activities at the Site, such as vandalism or trespassing since 2015?

No, not that I know of. It's pretty quiet around here.

6. Do you own a private well in addition to or instead of accessing city/municipal water supplies? If so, for what purpose(s) is your private well used?

lam connected to City water. I have an 800ft well that EPA tested many years ago. It was clean. I mainly use it for my yard.

1. Do you have any comments, suggestions or recommendations regarding any aspect of the Site?F-10

I would like the trees between my property and the site to stay. I hope the brush hog that I hear isn ’t taking them down because they serve as a sort of buffer. Also, it might be good to have a sign up so people new to the area know that there is history of contamination at the site.

8. Do we have your permission to use your name and contact information in the Five Year Review Report?

Sure!

F-11

FIVE-YEAR REVIEW lINTERVIEW FORMSouthern Shipbuilding Corporation Superfund Site

ERA ID No. LAD008149015


Subject Name: Steven N. SieglerAffiliation: .OwnerContact Information: Phone: 866.887.0852 ext. 709, Email: [email protected]

Additionaiiriterview Participants, if any:

Interview Date: 4/1/19 Interview Time: 11:04 am Interview Format: emailInterview Location: Via email

Interview Category: Property Owner

1. What efforts are you employing to maintain the site and remedy?Bush-hogging, begetate eroded reqs of the cap, and placing of “Private Property/ No Trespassing/ Do Not Enter: and/or other such signage on the graving dock and western area of the site.

2. Is the remedy funetioning as expected?Yes.

3. Are you aware of any complaints or inquiries regarding site-related environmental issues or remedial activities since 2015?No.

4. Is there a continuous on-site presence? If so, please describe the on-site activities.Yes.' Daily on-site presence by tenant(s) and/or owner site managers.

5. Are you comfortable with the status of the institutional controls at the Site? If not, what are the associated outstanding issues?lam comfortable with the proposed changes to the institutional controls as outlined to me by Amber Howard, RPM, at the site visit and interview March 28, 2019.

6. Are you aware of any changes in projected land use(s) at the Site? Please explain.No.

1. Are you aware of any community concerns regarding the Site or the operation and management of its remedy? If so, please provide details.No.

F-12

8. Dp you have any comments, suggestions or recommendations regarding the management or ' operation of the Site’s remedy?

No.

F-13




Subject Name: Tony RaphaelAffiliation: American Bridge Company Project Manager/Contact Information: 346-241-2756 [email protected]

Additional Interview Participants, if any:

Interview Date: 3/7/19 Interview Time: 12:56 pm Interview Format: emailInterview Location: Via Email

Interview Category: tennant


My understanding is that the site was capped and no excavation is allowed. I am not aware of any maintenance ore reuse activUies other than the areas ABC is currently using as a laydown/office and staging area. - .

2. Is the remedy functioning as expected to your knowledge?

Yes.

3. Are you aware of any cornplaints or inquiries regarding site-related environmental issues or remedial activities since 2015?

No

4. Is there a continuous on-site presence? If so, please describe the on-site activities. If there is not a continuous on-site presence, please describe how often you or your staff access the site and the type of maintenance activities you perform at the site.

AB uses the site 5-7 days per week depending on Project schedule. We cut the grass around our trailer and lay down areas. Occasionally we regrade the drive entrance with on site stone and sometime bring in clean aggregate fr om Pontchartrain Materials to supplement what is here.

5. Are you comfortable with the status Of the institutional controls at the Site? If not, what are the associated outstanding issues?

F-I4

Yes

6. Are you aware of any changes in projected land use(s) at the Site? Please explain.

No

7. Are you aware of any community concerns regarding the Site or the operation and management ofits remedy? If so, please provide details. >

No , .


No

F-15

FIFTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT FOR SOUTHERN ST. …

Documents

Transcript of FIFTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT FOR SOUTHERN ST. …