National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Partial Deletion of the AT&SF Albuquerque Superfund Site, 510-515 [2010-33109]
Download as PDF
510
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
EPA proposes that this SIP approval not
extend to ‘‘Indian Country’’ in Idaho. See
CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) (SIP shall
include enforceable emission limits),
110(a)(2)(E)(i) (State must have adequate
authority under State law to carry out
SIP), and 172(c)(6) (nonattainment SIPs
shall include enforceable emission
limits). This is consistent with EPA’s
previous approval of Idaho’s SIP
revisions, in which EPA specifically
disapproved the program for sources
within Indian Reservations in Idaho
because the State had not shown it had
authority to regulate such sources. See
40 CFR 52.683(b). It is also consistent
with EPA’s approval of Idaho’s title V
air operating permits program. See 61
FR 64622, 64623 (December 6, 1996)
(interim approval does not extend to
Indian Country); 66 FR 50574, 50575
(October 4, 2001) (full approval does not
extend to Indian Country).
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
Act and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed
action merely approves state law as
meeting Federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been
extinguished, including rights-of-way running
through the same. Under this definition, EPA treats
as reservations trust lands validly set aside for the
use of a Tribe even if the trust lands have not been
formally designated as a reservation. In Idaho,
Indian country includes, but is not limited to, the
Coeur d’Alene Reservation, the Duck Valley
Reservation, the Reservation of the Kootenai Tribe,
the Fort Hall Indian Reservation, and the Nez Perce
Reservation as described in the 1863 Nez Perce
Treaty.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:45 Jan 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the state, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: December 22, 2010.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2010–33281 Filed 1–4–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1994–0001; FRL–9246–9]
National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan; National Priorities List: Partial
Deletion of the AT&SF Albuquerque
Superfund Site
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to
delete, from the National Priority List
(NPL), 40 CFR part 300, appendix B, 62
acres of the AT&SF Albuquerque
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Superfund Site (Site). The Site is
located in Albuquerque, Bernalillo
County, New Mexico. After this
deletion, this 62 acres will no longer be
part of the Site and only the 27 acres
making up the southern half of the Site
will remain a listed Superfund Site (see
the Environmental Protection Easement
and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants
in the docket). The only contaminated
medium that was identified on the
northern 62 acres of the Site was soil.
This soil was remediated so that the
concentration levels of hazardous
substances that remain are consistent
with future industrial or commercial
use. This notice of intent for partial
deletion is being published by EPA with
the concurrence of the State of New
Mexico, through the New Mexico
Environment Department (NMED),
because EPA has determined that all
appropriate response actions for this
parcel under CERCLA, other than
operation, maintenance, and five-year
reviews, have been completed.
However, this partial deletion does not
preclude future actions under
Superfund.
Comments must be received by
February 4, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID no. EPA–HQ–
SFUND–1994–0001, by one of the
following methods:
• https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• E-mail: coltrain.katrina@epa.gov.
• Fax: 214–665–6660, Attention:
Katrina Higgins-Coltrain.
• Mail: Katrina Higgins-Coltrain,
Remedial Project Manager, U.S. EPA
Region 6 (6SF–RL), 1445 Ross Avenue,
Dallas, TX 75202–2733.
• Hand delivery: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733.
Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Docket’s normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID no. EPA–HQ–SFUND–1994–
0001. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through https://
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\05JAP1.SGM
05JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://www.regulations.gov Web site is
an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA without going through https://
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
will be publicly available only in hard
copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically at https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:
• U.S. EPA Region 6 Library, 7th
Floor, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200,
Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, (214) 665–
6424;
• Albuquerque Public Library, Main
Downtown Branch, 501 Copper Avenue,
NW., Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102,
Contact: John Vittal; and,
• New Mexico Environment
Department, Harold Runnels Building,
1190 St. Francis Drive, Santa Fe, New
Mexico 87505.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Katrina Higgins-Coltrain, Remedial
Project Manager (RPM), U.S. EPA
Region 6 (6SF–RL), 1445 Ross Avenue,
Dallas, TX 75202–2733, (214) 665–8143
or 1–800–533–3508
(coltrain.katrina@epa.gov).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Partial Site Deletion
I. Introduction
EPA Region 6 is publishing this notice
of intent to delete the soil and ground
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:45 Jan 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
water associated with the northern 62acre parcel of the AT&SF Albuquerque
Superfund Site (Site) from the NPL and
requests public comment on this
proposed action. The NPL constitutes
Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300, which
is the NCP, which EPA promulgated
pursuant to section 105 of CERCLA of
1980, as amended. EPA maintains the
NPL as the list of sites that appear to
present a significant risk to public
health, welfare, or the environment.
Sites on the NPL may be the subject of
remedial actions financed by the
Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund).
This partial deletion of the 62-acre
parcel of the AT&SF Albuquerque
Superfund Site (EPA Site Identification
number NMD980622864) is proposed in
accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e) and
is consistent with the Notice of Policy
Change: Partial Deletion of Sites Listed
on the National Priorities List. 60 FR
55466 (Nov. 1, 1995). As described in
§ 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted
from the NPL remain eligible for Fundfinanced remedial actions if future
conditions warrant such actions.
EPA will accept comments
concerning its proposal for partial
deletion for thirty (30) days from the
date of publication in the Federal
Register.
Section II of this document explains
the criteria for deleting sites from the
NPL. Section III discusses procedures
that EPA is using for this action. Section
IV discusses the AT&SF Albuquerque
Superfund Site and demonstrates how
the northern 62-acre parcel meets the
partial deletion criteria.
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
The NCP establishes the criteria that
EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL.
In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e),
sites may be deleted from the NPL
where no further response is
appropriate. In making such a
determination pursuant to 40 CFR
300.425(e), EPA will consider, in
consultation with the state, whether any
of the following criteria have been met:
(i) Responsible parties or other
persons have implemented all
appropriate response actions required;
(ii) All appropriate Fund-financed
response under CERCLA has been
implemented, and no further response
action by responsible parties is
appropriate; or
(iii) The remedial investigation has
shown that the release poses no
significant threat to public health or the
environment and, therefore, the taking
of remedial measures is not appropriate.
Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c)
and the NCP, EPA conducts five-year
reviews to ensure the continued
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
511
protectiveness of remedial actions
where hazardous substances, pollutants,
or contaminants remain at a site above
levels that allow for unlimited use and
unrestricted exposure. EPA conducts
such five-year reviews even if a site is
deleted from the NPL. EPA may initiate
further action to ensure continued
protectiveness at a deleted site if new
information becomes available that
indicates it is appropriate. Whenever
there is a significant release from a site
deleted from the NPL, the deleted site
may be restored to the NPL without
application of the hazard ranking
system.
III. Deletion Procedures
The following procedures apply to
deletion of the northern 62-acre parcel
of the Site:
(1) EPA consulted with the State of
New Mexico, through the NMED, prior
to developing this notice of intent for
partial deletion.
(2) EPA has provided the state 30
working days for review of this notice
prior to today’s publication;
(3) In accordance with the criteria
discussed above, EPA has determined
that no further response is appropriate;
(4) The State of New Mexico, through
the NMED, concurred with the intent for
partial deletion of the northern 62-acre
parcel of the AT&SF Albuquerque
Superfund Site from the NPL by letter
dated November 4, 2010;
(5) Concurrently with the publication
of this Notice of Intent for Partial
Deletion in the Federal Register, a
notice is being published in the major
local newspaper, Albuquerque Journal.
The newspaper notice announces the
30-day public comment period
concerning the notice of intent for
partial deletion of the Site from the
NPL.
(6) The EPA placed copies of
documents supporting the proposed
deletion in the deletion docket and
made these items available for public
inspection and copying at the Site
information repositories identified
above.
If comments are received on this
document within the 30-day public
comment period, EPA will evaluate and
respond appropriately to the comments
before making a final decision to
partially delete the northern 62-acre
parcel. If necessary, EPA will prepare a
Responsiveness Summary to address
any significant public comments
received. After the public comment
period, if EPA determines it is still
appropriate to partially delete the
northern 62-acre parcel of the AT&SF
Albuquerque Superfund Site, the
Regional Administrator will publish a
E:\FR\FM\05JAP1.SGM
05JAP1
512
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
final Notice of Partial Deletion in the
Federal Register. Public notices, public
submissions and copies of the
Responsiveness Summary, if prepared,
will be made available to interested
parties and included in the Site
information repositories listed above.
Deletion of a portion of a site from the
NPL does not itself create, alter, or
revoke any individual’s rights or
obligations. Deletion of a portion of a
site from the NPL does not in any way
alter EPA’s right to take enforcement
actions, as appropriate. The NPL is
designed primarily for informational
purposes and to assist EPA
management. Section 300.425(e)(3) of
the NCP states that the deletion of a site
from the NPL does not preclude
eligibility for future response actions,
should future conditions warrant such
actions.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
IV. Basis for Site Deletion
The following information provides
EPA’s rationale for deleting the northern
62-acre parcel of the AT&SF
Albuquerque Superfund Site from the
NPL.
Site Background and History
The AT&SF Albuquerque Superfund
Site (Site) is located at 3300 Second
Street, SW., in the South Valley area of
the City of Albuquerque, Bernalillo
County, New Mexico. It is the location
of the former The Atchison, Topeka and
Santa Fe Railway Company Tie Treating
Plant (facility) where creosote and other
compounds were used in the wood
preservation process. The Burlington
Northern and Santa Fe Railway
Company (BNSF Railway), a successor
railroad corporation to the Atchison,
Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company
(AT&SF) and a wholly owned
subsidiary of the Burlington Northern
Santa Fe Corp., is the owner of the Site.
Although, the Site encompasses
approximately 89 acres, the former
treatment process area was primarily
located on the southern 27-acre parcel,
and the tie storage area was primarily
located on the northern 62-acre parcel.
A detailed map and coordinates of the
northern 62-acre parcel (actual size is
62.6121 acres) is located in the deletion
docket. The Site was proposed for
inclusion on the EPA NPL October 14,
1992 [57 FR 47204] and made final on
December 16, 1994 [59 FR 65212, 65221
(December 16, 1994)]. The EPA Site
Identification number is
NMD980622864.
The facility operated as a wood
pressure treatment plant from March
1908 to January 1972. The facility
primarily used creosote and creosote
petroleum mixtures for the manufacture
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:45 Jan 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
of pressure treated wood products,
including railroad cross ties, bridge ties,
switch ties, bridge timbers, road
crossing materials, bridge piling
materials, lumber, stock pen posts and
fence posts. From 1914 through 1926,
some materials were treated with zinc
chloride, followed by a creosotepetroleum mixture. Additionally,
documents from the 1950s and early
1960s refer to experiments and small
scale projects performed using solutions
containing 2% to 10%
pentachlorophenol. In 1972, the plant
was totally dismantled, and the only
physical feature remaining on-site was
the wastewater reservoir/wastewater
sump.
The Site can be divided into five
general areas of environmental impacts
from the plant’s former wood treating
operations. The plant treatment process
area covered approximately 27 acres of
the facility and included four areas of
environmental impact: The wood
treatment area, the drip tracks, the
wastewater reservoir, and the
wastewater discharge ditch. The
remaining area of environmental impact
was the tie storage area which was
located on the northern 62 acres. The
northern 62 acres is the area proposed
for partial deletion; therefore, the
following discussion pertains to actions
taken on the northern 62-acre parcel.
In 1996, three areas were excavated
from the northern 62-acre tie storage
area, and were backfilled with clean soil
after confirmation testing.
In 1987, approximately 25 acres of the
northern 62-acre tie storage area were
redeveloped for industrial purposes by
BNSF. This redevelopment occurred
when an auto unloading facility, with
an associated intermodal ramp for
unloading and loading containers and
trailers on railcars, was built. It is an
active facility currently in operation.
The northern 62-acre parcel also
includes an estimated 17- to 20-acre
parcel under consideration for purchase
by an industrial concrete distribution
company (company). BNSF and the
company retain an open dialogue
regarding the potential parcel sale and
redevelopment.
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility
Study (RI/FS)
The field investigation was
considered a comprehensive approach
that addressed the Site as one operable
unit. From 1987 to 1999, five distinct
phases of investigation were completed
to define the extent of impact on soil
and ground water. The field activities
included sampling and characterization
through geophysical surveys, hand
auger, direct push, cone penetrometer,
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
drill rig, ground water monitoring well
installation (permanent and temporary),
aquifer tests, and ground water
modeling.
Ground Water Contamination
The CERCLA RI/FS for the Site was
conducted under an Administrative
Order on Consent entered between the
EPA and AT&SF (now BNSF) in 1994.
The RI/FS was completed by TRC
Environmental Corporation in 2001 for
BNSF and was approved by the EPA.
Among the findings of the RI/FS was the
fact that most of the organic
contamination found at the Site occurs
as a dense non-aqueous phase liquid
(DNAPL) containing organic compounds
that slowly dissolve into the ground
water and preferentially adsorb to soil
particles in the aquifer matrix. The RI
report indicates that DNAPL is present
in the subsurface as either ‘‘free phase’’
or ‘‘residual phase’’. The free phase is
that portion of the DNAPL that can
continue to migrate and sink into the
aquifer, whereas the residual phase is
that portion of the DNAPL that is
trapped in pore spaces by capillary
forces and cannot generally migrate as a
separate liquid. Both occurrences of the
DNAPL act as continuing sources of
contamination to ground water. The RI
estimated that there are between 59,300
and 70,000 gallons of DNAPL associated
with the southern 27-acre plant
treatment process area and adjacent
southern property. No identified
DNAPL sources or related ground water
contamination were identified in the
three ground water zones underlying the
northern 62-acre parcel. Ground water
contamination associated with the
southern 27-acre parcel is not expected
to impact the ground water underlying
the northern 62-acre parcel due to
current ground water flow in the eastsoutheast direction and the placement
of institutional controls restricting
ground water extraction within the
northern 62-acre parcel.
Soil Contamination
As expected, the nature of
contamination across the Site is fairly
typical of a wood treating operation.
These contaminants consist of
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons. In
addition, zinc contamination of the soil
was identified in the process area. The
RI estimated that the volume of
contaminated soil was 5,600 cubic
yards. Although the plant used
pentachlorophenol in the 1960s, its use
is not believed to be as significant as the
use of other preservatives at the plant,
as there have not been significant levels
of associated 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-para-dioxin (TCDD or dioxin)
E:\FR\FM\05JAP1.SGM
05JAP1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
detected in wastes present at the Site.
As such, dioxin is not considered a
contaminant of concern (COC) at this
Site.
The northern 62-acre parcel was used
as the tie storage area. This area was
where the treated ties were stored and
allowed to dry. Releases to this area
would be restricted largely to drippings
from treated products. Creosote
drippings would accumulate at
locations where ties were repeatedly
stacked, but these accumulations may
tend to dry out between loads. With the
advent of vapor drying in 1953, the
amount of drippings was reduced to
some extent.
The tie storage area was investigated
in two stages. However, prior to these
stages, six shallow boreholes were hand
augered to a depth of 18 inches and a
composite sample was collected and
analyzed for semivolatile organics and
arsenic. This was followed by a grid
investigation of this area in October
1994, which included an additional 24
locations.
Using a grid layout, 24 shallow
hollow-stem auger boreholes were
logged continuously to a depth of 5 feet.
The first sample was collected from the
first natural soil encountered below any
fill material, usually at a depth of
approximately 3 inches to 2 feet. If a
clay or silt layer was encountered in the
upper 2 feet of soil, a sample was
collected from the top of this layer. Of
the 24 sample locations, one sample was
collected at each of 19 locations and two
samples were collected at each of five
locations. Results from the 24 sample
locations were compared to the Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (ATSDR) health-based
concentrations for creosote constituents
considered by ATSDR to be a potential
threat to public health if exceeded.
Three locations were identified with
concentrations of one or more creosote
constituents above the ATSDR healthbased concentration. These health-based
concentrations were being used as the
screening comparison criteria at the
time of the 62-acre tie storage area
investigation because the preliminary
remediation goal (PRG) of 8 mg/kg
benzo(a)pyrene (BAP) equivalent had
not yet been derived. However, when
the PRG was issued, the data from the
24 sample locations were reviewed and
compared with the 8 mg/kg BAP
equivalent PRG. This resulted in the
identification of the same three areas of
concern originally identified during the
investigation. No additional sample
locations exceeded the 8 mg/kg BAP
equivalent PRG.
Based upon the results of this first
stage, the three areas of concern
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:45 Jan 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
underwent a second investigation in
March 1995. Using the 8 mg/kg BAP
equivalent PRG, the soil from areas with
high concentrations of creosote
constituents was excavated and
stockpiled inside the southern 27-acre
fenced area to be managed as part of the
soil remediation in July 1996. Depths of
excavation ranged from 2 to 7 feet, and
confirmation samples did not identify
exceedances of the PRG of 8 mg/kg BAP
equivalent. The highest BAP equivalent
reported for soil was 0.572 mg/kg, while
the highest zinc concentration reported
for soil was 55.6 mg/kg.
The removal of soil from the northern
62-acre tie storage area in 1996 was
motivated by BNSF’s plans to expand its
auto unloading facility. The future land
use for this area was anticipated to be
industrial. BNSF expected that the
available land would be developed into
a railroad switching yard and an
expansion to the intermodal facility
used for unloading automobiles from
railcars. However, these plans for
construction are no longer considered
viable by BNSF.
Selected Remedy
The Record of Decision (ROD) was
signed on June 27, 2002. The principal
threat and low-level threat wastes at the
Site were to be addressed through insitu solidification/stabilization and runoff/run-on management for soil; an
aggressive performance-based approach
for remediation of contaminated ground
water consisting of ground water
restoration through pump and treat and
DNAPL source removal with hot spot
treatment; and institutional controls.
Based on RI data and subsequent ground
water sampling, ground water
contamination was not identified under
the northern 62-acre parcel. Therefore,
the only medium of concern for the
northern 62-acre parcel was soil. As
such, only the soil remedial action
objectives and associated cleanup levels
selected in the ROD are presented here.
[The ROD was later amended through
an Explanation of Significant
Differences; however, these changes did
not effect the northern 62-acre parcel
and were specific to the southern 27acre parcel.] The selected cleanup levels
for soil are 7.8 mg/kg BAP equivalent
based on an industrial/commercial use
scenario and 200 mg/kg zinc based on
an ecological scenario. The selected
Remedial Action Objectives for soil
included:
• Prevent the ground water from
being impacted above the maximum
contaminant levels through transport of
COCs from the unsaturated zone.
• Prevent storm water runoff from
areas that exceed any remediation goals.
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
513
• Prevent the inhalation, ingestion,
and dermal contact of contaminated
soils for future on-site commercial/
industrial/utility workers exposed to the
soil.
• Prevent contaminated soils from
becoming airborne and leaving the Site
as dust.
• Prevent ecological receptors from
being adversely impacted by on-site
contamination.
The selected remedial action (RA)
would not result in the Site being
available for unlimited use and
unrestricted exposure because Site
contaminants in the soil will only be
addressed to levels protective of future
industrial or commercial use. As
specified in the ROD, five-year reviews
as well as operation and maintenance
and institutional controls (ICs) will be
necessary for this RA, and will include
both the 62- and 27-acre parcels.
On February 27, 2008, an
Environmental Protection Easement and
Declaration of Restrictive Covenants
was filed by BNSF, after approval by
EPA and NMED, and recorded by the
County Clerk of Bernalillo County, New
Mexico. These ICs run with the land
and restrict the use or development of
the Site property and the use or
development of ground water on or
underlying the property. Specifically,
the ICs prevent any use or development
that would threaten or damage remedial
components on the Site, which would
include potential damage to the cap or
underlying in-situ solidified/stabilized
contaminated soil. Further, at least 30
days prior to any development or
property conveyance, the EPA and
NMED shall be notified in writing.
Further, any development within the
27-acre southern parcel of the Site
requires prior EPA review and written
approval of development, along with
certification that remediation goals have
been met. Regardless of any
development or property conveyance,
BNSF’s obligations under the Consent
Decree for Site cleanup remain in effect,
and the Site, including both the 27- and
62-acre parcels, remains subject to
inspections and five-year reviews.
In addition to the Environmental
Protection Easement and Declaration of
Restrictive Covenants, the New Mexico
Office of the State Engineer instituted a
temporary IC in the form of a
moratorium on new permits for ground
water wells within a 200-ft buffer zone
of the currently identified ground water
plume surface area while remedial
action is being performed. This
moratorium was filed on January 29,
2009, to protect human health and
minimize interference with the ground
water remediation activities taking place
E:\FR\FM\05JAP1.SGM
05JAP1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
514
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
on the adjacent 27-acre parcel until all
ground water remediation goals have
been met. This moratorium will remain
enforceable until ground water remedial
action goals associated with the
southern 27-acre parcel are met.
Data collected during the RI, in
conjunction with the excavation of soil
from the three areas of concern within
the northern 62-acre tie storage
treatment area, indicate that the soil and
ground water meet the cleanup levels
established in the ROD. Although a PRG
of 8 mg/kg BAP equivalent was used
during the RI soil excavation, the RI
data and subsequent confirmation
sample results were compared with the
ROD soil cleanup levels of 7.8 mg/kg
BAP equivalent and 200 mg/kg zinc to
ensure that the RI soil excavation met
the soil cleanup levels in the ROD. The
highest BAP equivalent reported for soil
was 0.572 mg/kg, while the highest zinc
concentration reported for soil was 55.6
mg/kg. These confirmation soil data
results meet the ROD cleanup levels. No
ground water contamination exceeding
the ROD ground water cleanup levels
for the northern 62-acre parcel was
identified.
Due to its proximity to the adjacent
rail line, an estimated 17- to 20-acre
parcel of the northern 62-acre parcel is
being considered for purchase from
BNSF by an industrial concrete
distribution company (company). In
support of the redevelopment potential
and ongoing sales negotiations, the
company completed a characterization
study of the parcel of interest in 2006
that included both ground water and
soil sampling. Ground water data
collected from four monitoring wells
did not identify ground water
contamination areas of concern;
however, soil data did identify areas of
concern.
In response to the study’s finding,
BNSF conducted additional soil
sampling and remediation activities in
2007. Soil data collected from the 17- to
20-acre parcel exceeded the soil cleanup
levels identified in the ROD, and
resulted in the excavation of soil and
asphalt waste from the northern 62-acre
parcel. The excavated material was
stockpiled on the southern 27-acre
fenced area for inclusion in the soil
remediation action. Subsequent
confirmation samples from excavated
areas indicated that ROD soil cleanup
levels were met. The highest BAP
equivalent reported for soil was 7.4 mg/
kg, and the highest zinc concentration
reported for soil was 179 mg/kg.
Cleanup Goals
The quality assurance/quality control
(QA/QC) program for the Site was
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:45 Jan 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
conducted in accordance with the work
plans prepared to implement the RI and
the RA construction activities. The EPA,
in conjunction with NMED, conducted
regular oversight throughout the
implementation of the RI and remedial
activities. Also, EPA and NMED
reviewed and commented on all project
plans and reports for the Site.
The quality assurance project plan
incorporated EPA and State comments
and requirements. The EPA and NMED
reviewed the RI excavation work,
confirmation sample collection, and
data analysis completed in 1996. The
EPA and NMED reviewed RA
construction work completed on the 62acre parcel in 2007 for compliance with
QA/QC protocols. The RI excavation
activities at the Site were determined to
be consistent with the RI work plans
and construction practices, while the
2007 RA construction activities were
determined to be consistent with the
ROD, and remedial design and RA work
plans and specifications. No deviations
or non-adherence to QA/QC protocols or
specifications were identified.
All sampling equipment was properly
maintained, inspected, and
decontaminated as necessary during
sampling events in accordance with
instructions and protocols established
in the field sampling plans and quality
assurance project plans. The EPA
analytical methods and contract
laboratory program-like procedures and
protocols were used for all confirmation
and monitoring samples for soil using a
private laboratory contracted by the
potentially responsible party (PRP).
Based on remedial, third party, and
supplemental Site investigation results,
soil excavation on the northern 62-acre
parcel addressed all identified soil areas
that exceeded the ROD soil cleanup
levels of 7.8 mg/kg BAP equivalent and
200 mg/kg zinc. All confirmation
sampling results are below the
established cleanup level of 7.8 mg/kg
BAP equivalent and 200 mg/kg zinc
indicating that all soil remedial action
objectives have been met. The excavated
areas were backfilled with suitable
materials meeting Site-specific cleanup
levels and graded for proper drainage. In
addition, ground water data have not
identified areas of ground water
contamination beneath the northern 62acre parcel. The required ICs for
protection of human health and the
environment were filed on the subject
property restricting land and ground
water use.
Operation and Maintenance and
Institutional Controls
Operation and maintenance actions
for the northern 62-acre parcel of the
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Site proposed for partial deletion are
limited. No treated soil repositories are
located on this portion of the property
and no ground water contamination
plumes have been identified there. This
portion of the property is currently
fenced and partially reused as an auto
unloading facility. The 62-acre parcel is
under restricted land use (industrial
only), and is under restricted ground
water use controls which support
ongoing remedial actions associated
with the southern 27-acre parcel. Site
inspections to determine whether land
and ground water use restrictions are
being met and to confirm that the ICs
remain in place will be conducted at a
minimum of once per year.
Five-Year Review
Since hazardous substances remain
on-site at levels which do not allow
unrestricted use and exposure, the Site’s
land and ground water use is restricted.
The Site is subject to five-year reviews
to ensure the continued protectiveness
of the remedy consistent with section
121(c) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9621(c), 40
CFR 300.430(f)(4)(ii), and the current
guidance on Five-Year Reviews (EPA
540–R–01–007, OSWER No. 9355.7–
03B–P, Comprehensive Five-Year
Review Guidance, June 2001). The NCP
requires EPA to conduct statutory fiveyear reviews at sites where, upon
attainment of ROD cleanup levels,
hazardous substances remain on-site at
concentrations which do not allow for
unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure. Based on the five-year review
results, EPA will determine whether
human health and the environment
continue to be adequately protected by
the implemented remedy. The first fiveyear review will be completed no later
than September 29, 2013.
Community Involvement
Public participation activities have
been satisfied as required in CERCLA
section 113(k), 42 U.S.C. 9613(k), and
CERCLA section 117, 42 U.S.C. 9617.
Throughout the Site’s history, the
community has been interested and
involved with Site activity. The EPA has
kept the community and other
interested parties updated on Site
activities through informational
meetings, fact sheets, and public
meetings. Documents in the deletion
docket which EPA relied on for
recommendation of the deletion from
the NPL are available to the public in
the information repositories.
In support of the partial deletion
proposal, the EPA and NMED held an
open house on October 14, 2010. The
purpose of the meeting was to present
and discuss the partial deletion
E:\FR\FM\05JAP1.SGM
05JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
proposal. A fact sheet on the proposal
was also mailed to the community.
Determination That the Site Meets the
Criteria for Deletion in the NCP
The NCP [40 CFR 300.425(e)] states
that a site may be deleted from the NPL
when no further response action is
appropriate. EPA, in consultation with
the State of New Mexico, has
determined that all appropriate
response actions under CERCLA for the
northern 62-acre parcel of the AT&SF
Albuquerque Superfund Site, other than
operation, maintenance, and five-year
reviews, have been implemented, and
no further response action by the PRP is
appropriate.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous
waste, Hazardous substances,
Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C.
9601–9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR,
1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923;
3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.
Dated: December 17, 2010.
Al Armendariz,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2010–33109 Filed 1–4–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 226
[Docket No. 101027536–0540–02]
RIN 0648–BA38
Endangered and Threatened Species,
Designation of Critical Habitat for
Southern Distinct Population Segment
of Eulachon
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
comment.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
We, the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), propose to
designate critical habitat for the
southern Distinct Population Segment
(DPS) of Pacific eulachon (Thaleichthys
pacificus), which was recently listed as
threatened under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA). We have proposed
12 specific areas for designation as
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:45 Jan 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
515
Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or
Adobe PDF file formats only. The
proposed rule, list of references and
supporting documents (including the
Draft Eulachon Biological Report (NMFS
2010b); the Draft Eulachon Economic
Analysis (NMFS 2010c); and, the Draft
Eulachon Section 4(b)(2) Report (NMFS,
2010d)) are also available electronically
at https://www.nwr.noaa.gov/.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Marc Romano, NMFS, Northwest
Region, Protected Resources Division, at
the address above or at 503–231–2200,
or Jim Simondet, NMFS, Southwest
Region, Protected Resources Division,
Arcata, CA 707–825–5171, or Dwayne
Meadows, NMFS, Office of Protected
Resources, Silver Spring, MD 301–713–
1401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
critical habitat within the states of
California, Oregon, and Washington.
The proposed areas are a combination of
freshwater creeks and rivers and their
associated estuaries which comprise
approximately 470 km (292 mi) of
habitat. Three particular areas are
proposed for exclusion after evaluating
the impacts and benefits associated with
tribal land ownership and management
by Indian tribes, but no areas are
proposed for exclusion based on
economic impacts.
We are soliciting comments from the
public on all aspects of the proposal,
including information on the economic,
national security, and other relevant
impacts of the proposed designation, as
well as the benefits to the southern DPS
of eulachon from designation. We will
consider additional information
received prior to making a final
designation.
Background
Comments on this proposed rule
must be received by close of business on
March 7, 2011. A public meeting has
been scheduled for January 26, 2011
from 3:30–5:30 p.m. and 6–8 p.m. at the
Doubletree Hotel, 1000 NE Multnomah
Street, Portland, OR 97232. Requests for
additional public hearings should be
made in writing by February 22, 2011.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
on the proposed rule, identified by RIN
0648–BA38, by any one of the following
methods:
• Electronic Submissions: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Fax: 503–230–5441, Attn: Marc
Romano.
• Mail: Chief, Protected Resources
Division, Northwest Region, National
Marine Fisheries Service, 1201 Lloyd
Blvd, Suite 1201, Portland, OR 97232.
Instructions: Comments will be
posted for public viewing after the
comment period has closed. All
comments received are a part of the
public record and will generally be
posted to https://www.regulations.gov
without change. NMFS may elect not to
post comments that contain obscene or
threatening content. All Personal
Identifying Information (for example,
name, address, etc.) voluntarily
submitted by the commenter may be
publicly accessible. Do not submit
Confidential Business Information or
otherwise sensitive or protected
information.
NMFS will accept anonymous
comments (enter N/A in the required
fields, if you wish to remain
anonymous). You may submit
attachments to electronic comments in
On March 18, 2010, we listed the
southern DPS of Pacific eulachon as
threatened under the ESA (75 FR
13012). During the public comment
period on the proposed rule to list the
southern DPS of eulachon, we requested
and received some information on the
quality and extent of eulachon
freshwater and estuarine habitat (73 FR
13185; March 12, 2008). However, at the
time of listing, we concluded that
critical habitat was not determinable
because sufficient information was not
available to: (1) Determine the
geographical area occupied by the
species; (2) identify the physical and
biological features essential to
conservation; and (3) assess the impacts
of a designation. During promulgation of
the final rule to list eulachon, we were
working to compile the best available
information necessary to consider a
critical habitat designation. We have
now researched, reviewed and
summarized this best available
information on eulachon, including
recent biological surveys and reports,
peer-reviewed literature, the NMFS
status report for eulachon (NMFS
2010a), the proposed rule to list
eulachon (74 FR 10857; March 13,
2009), and the final listing
determination for eulachon (75 FR
13012; March 18, 2010) and had
discussions with and considered
recommendations by State, Federal, and
tribal biologists familiar with eulachon.
We used this information to identify the
geographical area occupied, specific
areas that may qualify as critical habitat
for the southern DPS, as well as
potential impacts associated with the
designation and proposed exclusions.
We considered various alternatives to
the critical habitat designation for
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05JAP1.SGM
05JAP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 510-515]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-33109]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1994-0001; FRL-9246-9]
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Partial Deletion of the AT&SF Albuquerque
Superfund Site
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to
delete, from the National Priority List (NPL), 40 CFR part 300,
appendix B, 62 acres of the AT&SF Albuquerque Superfund Site (Site).
The Site is located in Albuquerque, Bernalillo County, New Mexico.
After this deletion, this 62 acres will no longer be part of the Site
and only the 27 acres making up the southern half of the Site will
remain a listed Superfund Site (see the Environmental Protection
Easement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants in the docket). The
only contaminated medium that was identified on the northern 62 acres
of the Site was soil. This soil was remediated so that the
concentration levels of hazardous substances that remain are consistent
with future industrial or commercial use. This notice of intent for
partial deletion is being published by EPA with the concurrence of the
State of New Mexico, through the New Mexico Environment Department
(NMED), because EPA has determined that all appropriate response
actions for this parcel under CERCLA, other than operation,
maintenance, and five-year reviews, have been completed. However, this
partial deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.
DATES: Comments must be received by February 4, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-1994-0001, by one of the following methods:
https://www.regulations.gov: Follow on-line instructions
for submitting comments.
E-mail: coltrain.katrina@epa.gov.
Fax: 214-665-6660, Attention: Katrina Higgins-Coltrain.
Mail: Katrina Higgins-Coltrain, Remedial Project Manager,
U.S. EPA Region 6 (6SF-RL), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202-2733.
Hand delivery: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Such deliveries
are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
1994-0001. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through https://
[[Page 511]]
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The https://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through https://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
at https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:
U.S. EPA Region 6 Library, 7th Floor, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, (214) 665-6424;
Albuquerque Public Library, Main Downtown Branch, 501
Copper Avenue, NW., Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102, Contact: John
Vittal; and,
New Mexico Environment Department, Harold Runnels
Building, 1190 St. Francis Drive, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katrina Higgins-Coltrain, Remedial
Project Manager (RPM), U.S. EPA Region 6 (6SF-RL), 1445 Ross Avenue,
Dallas, TX 75202-2733, (214) 665-8143 or 1-800-533-3508
(coltrain.katrina@epa.gov).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Partial Site Deletion
I. Introduction
EPA Region 6 is publishing this notice of intent to delete the soil
and ground water associated with the northern 62-acre parcel of the
AT&SF Albuquerque Superfund Site (Site) from the NPL and requests
public comment on this proposed action. The NPL constitutes Appendix B
of 40 CFR part 300, which is the NCP, which EPA promulgated pursuant to
section 105 of CERCLA of 1980, as amended. EPA maintains the NPL as the
list of sites that appear to present a significant risk to public
health, welfare, or the environment. Sites on the NPL may be the
subject of remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substance
Superfund (Fund). This partial deletion of the 62-acre parcel of the
AT&SF Albuquerque Superfund Site (EPA Site Identification number
NMD980622864) is proposed in accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e) and is
consistent with the Notice of Policy Change: Partial Deletion of Sites
Listed on the National Priorities List. 60 FR 55466 (Nov. 1, 1995). As
described in Sec. 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted from the NPL
remain eligible for Fund-financed remedial actions if future conditions
warrant such actions.
EPA will accept comments concerning its proposal for partial
deletion for thirty (30) days from the date of publication in the
Federal Register.
Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting
sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using
for this action. Section IV discusses the AT&SF Albuquerque Superfund
Site and demonstrates how the northern 62-acre parcel meets the partial
deletion criteria.
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from
the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted
from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a
determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in
consultation with the state, whether any of the following criteria have
been met:
(i) Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all
appropriate response actions required;
(ii) All appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been
implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is
appropriate; or
(iii) The remedial investigation has shown that the release poses
no significant threat to public health or the environment and,
therefore, the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.
Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and the NCP, EPA conducts five-
year reviews to ensure the continued protectiveness of remedial actions
where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at a
site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure. EPA conducts such five-year reviews even if a site is deleted
from the NPL. EPA may initiate further action to ensure continued
protectiveness at a deleted site if new information becomes available
that indicates it is appropriate. Whenever there is a significant
release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be
restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system.
III. Deletion Procedures
The following procedures apply to deletion of the northern 62-acre
parcel of the Site:
(1) EPA consulted with the State of New Mexico, through the NMED,
prior to developing this notice of intent for partial deletion.
(2) EPA has provided the state 30 working days for review of this
notice prior to today's publication;
(3) In accordance with the criteria discussed above, EPA has
determined that no further response is appropriate;
(4) The State of New Mexico, through the NMED, concurred with the
intent for partial deletion of the northern 62-acre parcel of the AT&SF
Albuquerque Superfund Site from the NPL by letter dated November 4,
2010;
(5) Concurrently with the publication of this Notice of Intent for
Partial Deletion in the Federal Register, a notice is being published
in the major local newspaper, Albuquerque Journal. The newspaper notice
announces the 30-day public comment period concerning the notice of
intent for partial deletion of the Site from the NPL.
(6) The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed
deletion in the deletion docket and made these items available for
public inspection and copying at the Site information repositories
identified above.
If comments are received on this document within the 30-day public
comment period, EPA will evaluate and respond appropriately to the
comments before making a final decision to partially delete the
northern 62-acre parcel. If necessary, EPA will prepare a
Responsiveness Summary to address any significant public comments
received. After the public comment period, if EPA determines it is
still appropriate to partially delete the northern 62-acre parcel of
the AT&SF Albuquerque Superfund Site, the Regional Administrator will
publish a
[[Page 512]]
final Notice of Partial Deletion in the Federal Register. Public
notices, public submissions and copies of the Responsiveness Summary,
if prepared, will be made available to interested parties and included
in the Site information repositories listed above.
Deletion of a portion of a site from the NPL does not itself
create, alter, or revoke any individual's rights or obligations.
Deletion of a portion of a site from the NPL does not in any way alter
EPA's right to take enforcement actions, as appropriate. The NPL is
designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist EPA
management. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion
of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for future
response actions, should future conditions warrant such actions.
IV. Basis for Site Deletion
The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting the
northern 62-acre parcel of the AT&SF Albuquerque Superfund Site from
the NPL.
Site Background and History
The AT&SF Albuquerque Superfund Site (Site) is located at 3300
Second Street, SW., in the South Valley area of the City of
Albuquerque, Bernalillo County, New Mexico. It is the location of the
former The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company Tie Treating
Plant (facility) where creosote and other compounds were used in the
wood preservation process. The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway
Company (BNSF Railway), a successor railroad corporation to the
Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company (AT&SF) and a wholly
owned subsidiary of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp., is the
owner of the Site. Although, the Site encompasses approximately 89
acres, the former treatment process area was primarily located on the
southern 27-acre parcel, and the tie storage area was primarily located
on the northern 62-acre parcel. A detailed map and coordinates of the
northern 62-acre parcel (actual size is 62.6121 acres) is located in
the deletion docket. The Site was proposed for inclusion on the EPA NPL
October 14, 1992 [57 FR 47204] and made final on December 16, 1994 [59
FR 65212, 65221 (December 16, 1994)]. The EPA Site Identification
number is NMD980622864.
The facility operated as a wood pressure treatment plant from March
1908 to January 1972. The facility primarily used creosote and creosote
petroleum mixtures for the manufacture of pressure treated wood
products, including railroad cross ties, bridge ties, switch ties,
bridge timbers, road crossing materials, bridge piling materials,
lumber, stock pen posts and fence posts. From 1914 through 1926, some
materials were treated with zinc chloride, followed by a creosote-
petroleum mixture. Additionally, documents from the 1950s and early
1960s refer to experiments and small scale projects performed using
solutions containing 2% to 10% pentachlorophenol. In 1972, the plant
was totally dismantled, and the only physical feature remaining on-site
was the wastewater reservoir/wastewater sump.
The Site can be divided into five general areas of environmental
impacts from the plant's former wood treating operations. The plant
treatment process area covered approximately 27 acres of the facility
and included four areas of environmental impact: The wood treatment
area, the drip tracks, the wastewater reservoir, and the wastewater
discharge ditch. The remaining area of environmental impact was the tie
storage area which was located on the northern 62 acres. The northern
62 acres is the area proposed for partial deletion; therefore, the
following discussion pertains to actions taken on the northern 62-acre
parcel.
In 1996, three areas were excavated from the northern 62-acre tie
storage area, and were backfilled with clean soil after confirmation
testing.
In 1987, approximately 25 acres of the northern 62-acre tie storage
area were redeveloped for industrial purposes by BNSF. This
redevelopment occurred when an auto unloading facility, with an
associated intermodal ramp for unloading and loading containers and
trailers on railcars, was built. It is an active facility currently in
operation. The northern 62-acre parcel also includes an estimated 17-
to 20-acre parcel under consideration for purchase by an industrial
concrete distribution company (company). BNSF and the company retain an
open dialogue regarding the potential parcel sale and redevelopment.
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)
The field investigation was considered a comprehensive approach
that addressed the Site as one operable unit. From 1987 to 1999, five
distinct phases of investigation were completed to define the extent of
impact on soil and ground water. The field activities included sampling
and characterization through geophysical surveys, hand auger, direct
push, cone penetrometer, drill rig, ground water monitoring well
installation (permanent and temporary), aquifer tests, and ground water
modeling.
Ground Water Contamination
The CERCLA RI/FS for the Site was conducted under an Administrative
Order on Consent entered between the EPA and AT&SF (now BNSF) in 1994.
The RI/FS was completed by TRC Environmental Corporation in 2001 for
BNSF and was approved by the EPA. Among the findings of the RI/FS was
the fact that most of the organic contamination found at the Site
occurs as a dense non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) containing organic
compounds that slowly dissolve into the ground water and preferentially
adsorb to soil particles in the aquifer matrix. The RI report indicates
that DNAPL is present in the subsurface as either ``free phase'' or
``residual phase''. The free phase is that portion of the DNAPL that
can continue to migrate and sink into the aquifer, whereas the residual
phase is that portion of the DNAPL that is trapped in pore spaces by
capillary forces and cannot generally migrate as a separate liquid.
Both occurrences of the DNAPL act as continuing sources of
contamination to ground water. The RI estimated that there are between
59,300 and 70,000 gallons of DNAPL associated with the southern 27-acre
plant treatment process area and adjacent southern property. No
identified DNAPL sources or related ground water contamination were
identified in the three ground water zones underlying the northern 62-
acre parcel. Ground water contamination associated with the southern
27-acre parcel is not expected to impact the ground water underlying
the northern 62-acre parcel due to current ground water flow in the
east-southeast direction and the placement of institutional controls
restricting ground water extraction within the northern 62-acre parcel.
Soil Contamination
As expected, the nature of contamination across the Site is fairly
typical of a wood treating operation. These contaminants consist of
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons. In addition, zinc contamination of
the soil was identified in the process area. The RI estimated that the
volume of contaminated soil was 5,600 cubic yards. Although the plant
used pentachlorophenol in the 1960s, its use is not believed to be as
significant as the use of other preservatives at the plant, as there
have not been significant levels of associated 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro-
dibenzo-para-dioxin (TCDD or dioxin)
[[Page 513]]
detected in wastes present at the Site. As such, dioxin is not
considered a contaminant of concern (COC) at this Site.
The northern 62-acre parcel was used as the tie storage area. This
area was where the treated ties were stored and allowed to dry.
Releases to this area would be restricted largely to drippings from
treated products. Creosote drippings would accumulate at locations
where ties were repeatedly stacked, but these accumulations may tend to
dry out between loads. With the advent of vapor drying in 1953, the
amount of drippings was reduced to some extent.
The tie storage area was investigated in two stages. However, prior
to these stages, six shallow boreholes were hand augered to a depth of
18 inches and a composite sample was collected and analyzed for
semivolatile organics and arsenic. This was followed by a grid
investigation of this area in October 1994, which included an
additional 24 locations.
Using a grid layout, 24 shallow hollow-stem auger boreholes were
logged continuously to a depth of 5 feet. The first sample was
collected from the first natural soil encountered below any fill
material, usually at a depth of approximately 3 inches to 2 feet. If a
clay or silt layer was encountered in the upper 2 feet of soil, a
sample was collected from the top of this layer. Of the 24 sample
locations, one sample was collected at each of 19 locations and two
samples were collected at each of five locations. Results from the 24
sample locations were compared to the Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry (ATSDR) health-based concentrations for creosote
constituents considered by ATSDR to be a potential threat to public
health if exceeded. Three locations were identified with concentrations
of one or more creosote constituents above the ATSDR health-based
concentration. These health-based concentrations were being used as the
screening comparison criteria at the time of the 62-acre tie storage
area investigation because the preliminary remediation goal (PRG) of 8
mg/kg benzo(a)pyrene (BAP) equivalent had not yet been derived.
However, when the PRG was issued, the data from the 24 sample locations
were reviewed and compared with the 8 mg/kg BAP equivalent PRG. This
resulted in the identification of the same three areas of concern
originally identified during the investigation. No additional sample
locations exceeded the 8 mg/kg BAP equivalent PRG.
Based upon the results of this first stage, the three areas of
concern underwent a second investigation in March 1995. Using the 8 mg/
kg BAP equivalent PRG, the soil from areas with high concentrations of
creosote constituents was excavated and stockpiled inside the southern
27-acre fenced area to be managed as part of the soil remediation in
July 1996. Depths of excavation ranged from 2 to 7 feet, and
confirmation samples did not identify exceedances of the PRG of 8 mg/kg
BAP equivalent. The highest BAP equivalent reported for soil was 0.572
mg/kg, while the highest zinc concentration reported for soil was 55.6
mg/kg.
The removal of soil from the northern 62-acre tie storage area in
1996 was motivated by BNSF's plans to expand its auto unloading
facility. The future land use for this area was anticipated to be
industrial. BNSF expected that the available land would be developed
into a railroad switching yard and an expansion to the intermodal
facility used for unloading automobiles from railcars. However, these
plans for construction are no longer considered viable by BNSF.
Selected Remedy
The Record of Decision (ROD) was signed on June 27, 2002. The
principal threat and low-level threat wastes at the Site were to be
addressed through in-situ solidification/stabilization and run-off/run-
on management for soil; an aggressive performance-based approach for
remediation of contaminated ground water consisting of ground water
restoration through pump and treat and DNAPL source removal with hot
spot treatment; and institutional controls. Based on RI data and
subsequent ground water sampling, ground water contamination was not
identified under the northern 62-acre parcel. Therefore, the only
medium of concern for the northern 62-acre parcel was soil. As such,
only the soil remedial action objectives and associated cleanup levels
selected in the ROD are presented here. [The ROD was later amended
through an Explanation of Significant Differences; however, these
changes did not effect the northern 62-acre parcel and were specific to
the southern 27-acre parcel.] The selected cleanup levels for soil are
7.8 mg/kg BAP equivalent based on an industrial/commercial use scenario
and 200 mg/kg zinc based on an ecological scenario. The selected
Remedial Action Objectives for soil included:
Prevent the ground water from being impacted above the
maximum contaminant levels through transport of COCs from the
unsaturated zone.
Prevent storm water runoff from areas that exceed any
remediation goals.
Prevent the inhalation, ingestion, and dermal contact of
contaminated soils for future on-site commercial/industrial/utility
workers exposed to the soil.
Prevent contaminated soils from becoming airborne and
leaving the Site as dust.
Prevent ecological receptors from being adversely impacted
by on-site contamination.
The selected remedial action (RA) would not result in the Site
being available for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure because
Site contaminants in the soil will only be addressed to levels
protective of future industrial or commercial use. As specified in the
ROD, five-year reviews as well as operation and maintenance and
institutional controls (ICs) will be necessary for this RA, and will
include both the 62- and 27-acre parcels.
On February 27, 2008, an Environmental Protection Easement and
Declaration of Restrictive Covenants was filed by BNSF, after approval
by EPA and NMED, and recorded by the County Clerk of Bernalillo County,
New Mexico. These ICs run with the land and restrict the use or
development of the Site property and the use or development of ground
water on or underlying the property. Specifically, the ICs prevent any
use or development that would threaten or damage remedial components on
the Site, which would include potential damage to the cap or underlying
in-situ solidified/stabilized contaminated soil. Further, at least 30
days prior to any development or property conveyance, the EPA and NMED
shall be notified in writing. Further, any development within the 27-
acre southern parcel of the Site requires prior EPA review and written
approval of development, along with certification that remediation
goals have been met. Regardless of any development or property
conveyance, BNSF's obligations under the Consent Decree for Site
cleanup remain in effect, and the Site, including both the 27- and 62-
acre parcels, remains subject to inspections and five-year reviews.
In addition to the Environmental Protection Easement and
Declaration of Restrictive Covenants, the New Mexico Office of the
State Engineer instituted a temporary IC in the form of a moratorium on
new permits for ground water wells within a 200-ft buffer zone of the
currently identified ground water plume surface area while remedial
action is being performed. This moratorium was filed on January 29,
2009, to protect human health and minimize interference with the ground
water remediation activities taking place
[[Page 514]]
on the adjacent 27-acre parcel until all ground water remediation goals
have been met. This moratorium will remain enforceable until ground
water remedial action goals associated with the southern 27-acre parcel
are met.
Data collected during the RI, in conjunction with the excavation of
soil from the three areas of concern within the northern 62-acre tie
storage treatment area, indicate that the soil and ground water meet
the cleanup levels established in the ROD. Although a PRG of 8 mg/kg
BAP equivalent was used during the RI soil excavation, the RI data and
subsequent confirmation sample results were compared with the ROD soil
cleanup levels of 7.8 mg/kg BAP equivalent and 200 mg/kg zinc to ensure
that the RI soil excavation met the soil cleanup levels in the ROD. The
highest BAP equivalent reported for soil was 0.572 mg/kg, while the
highest zinc concentration reported for soil was 55.6 mg/kg. These
confirmation soil data results meet the ROD cleanup levels. No ground
water contamination exceeding the ROD ground water cleanup levels for
the northern 62-acre parcel was identified.
Due to its proximity to the adjacent rail line, an estimated 17- to
20-acre parcel of the northern 62-acre parcel is being considered for
purchase from BNSF by an industrial concrete distribution company
(company). In support of the redevelopment potential and ongoing sales
negotiations, the company completed a characterization study of the
parcel of interest in 2006 that included both ground water and soil
sampling. Ground water data collected from four monitoring wells did
not identify ground water contamination areas of concern; however, soil
data did identify areas of concern.
In response to the study's finding, BNSF conducted additional soil
sampling and remediation activities in 2007. Soil data collected from
the 17- to 20-acre parcel exceeded the soil cleanup levels identified
in the ROD, and resulted in the excavation of soil and asphalt waste
from the northern 62-acre parcel. The excavated material was stockpiled
on the southern 27-acre fenced area for inclusion in the soil
remediation action. Subsequent confirmation samples from excavated
areas indicated that ROD soil cleanup levels were met. The highest BAP
equivalent reported for soil was 7.4 mg/kg, and the highest zinc
concentration reported for soil was 179 mg/kg.
Cleanup Goals
The quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) program for the Site
was conducted in accordance with the work plans prepared to implement
the RI and the RA construction activities. The EPA, in conjunction with
NMED, conducted regular oversight throughout the implementation of the
RI and remedial activities. Also, EPA and NMED reviewed and commented
on all project plans and reports for the Site.
The quality assurance project plan incorporated EPA and State
comments and requirements. The EPA and NMED reviewed the RI excavation
work, confirmation sample collection, and data analysis completed in
1996. The EPA and NMED reviewed RA construction work completed on the
62-acre parcel in 2007 for compliance with QA/QC protocols. The RI
excavation activities at the Site were determined to be consistent with
the RI work plans and construction practices, while the 2007 RA
construction activities were determined to be consistent with the ROD,
and remedial design and RA work plans and specifications. No deviations
or non-adherence to QA/QC protocols or specifications were identified.
All sampling equipment was properly maintained, inspected, and
decontaminated as necessary during sampling events in accordance with
instructions and protocols established in the field sampling plans and
quality assurance project plans. The EPA analytical methods and
contract laboratory program-like procedures and protocols were used for
all confirmation and monitoring samples for soil using a private
laboratory contracted by the potentially responsible party (PRP).
Based on remedial, third party, and supplemental Site investigation
results, soil excavation on the northern 62-acre parcel addressed all
identified soil areas that exceeded the ROD soil cleanup levels of 7.8
mg/kg BAP equivalent and 200 mg/kg zinc. All confirmation sampling
results are below the established cleanup level of 7.8 mg/kg BAP
equivalent and 200 mg/kg zinc indicating that all soil remedial action
objectives have been met. The excavated areas were backfilled with
suitable materials meeting Site-specific cleanup levels and graded for
proper drainage. In addition, ground water data have not identified
areas of ground water contamination beneath the northern 62-acre
parcel. The required ICs for protection of human health and the
environment were filed on the subject property restricting land and
ground water use.
Operation and Maintenance and Institutional Controls
Operation and maintenance actions for the northern 62-acre parcel
of the Site proposed for partial deletion are limited. No treated soil
repositories are located on this portion of the property and no ground
water contamination plumes have been identified there. This portion of
the property is currently fenced and partially reused as an auto
unloading facility. The 62-acre parcel is under restricted land use
(industrial only), and is under restricted ground water use controls
which support ongoing remedial actions associated with the southern 27-
acre parcel. Site inspections to determine whether land and ground
water use restrictions are being met and to confirm that the ICs remain
in place will be conducted at a minimum of once per year.
Five-Year Review
Since hazardous substances remain on-site at levels which do not
allow unrestricted use and exposure, the Site's land and ground water
use is restricted. The Site is subject to five-year reviews to ensure
the continued protectiveness of the remedy consistent with section
121(c) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9621(c), 40 CFR 300.430(f)(4)(ii), and the
current guidance on Five-Year Reviews (EPA 540-R-01-007, OSWER No.
9355.7-03B-P, Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance, June 2001). The
NCP requires EPA to conduct statutory five-year reviews at sites where,
upon attainment of ROD cleanup levels, hazardous substances remain on-
site at concentrations which do not allow for unlimited use and
unrestricted exposure. Based on the five-year review results, EPA will
determine whether human health and the environment continue to be
adequately protected by the implemented remedy. The first five-year
review will be completed no later than September 29, 2013.
Community Involvement
Public participation activities have been satisfied as required in
CERCLA section 113(k), 42 U.S.C. 9613(k), and CERCLA section 117, 42
U.S.C. 9617. Throughout the Site's history, the community has been
interested and involved with Site activity. The EPA has kept the
community and other interested parties updated on Site activities
through informational meetings, fact sheets, and public meetings.
Documents in the deletion docket which EPA relied on for recommendation
of the deletion from the NPL are available to the public in the
information repositories.
In support of the partial deletion proposal, the EPA and NMED held
an open house on October 14, 2010. The purpose of the meeting was to
present and discuss the partial deletion
[[Page 515]]
proposal. A fact sheet on the proposal was also mailed to the
community.
Determination That the Site Meets the Criteria for Deletion in the NCP
The NCP [40 CFR 300.425(e)] states that a site may be deleted from
the NPL when no further response action is appropriate. EPA, in
consultation with the State of New Mexico, has determined that all
appropriate response actions under CERCLA for the northern 62-acre
parcel of the AT&SF Albuquerque Superfund Site, other than operation,
maintenance, and five-year reviews, have been implemented, and no
further response action by the PRP is appropriate.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.
12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR
2923; 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.
Dated: December 17, 2010.
Al Armendariz,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2010-33109 Filed 1-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P