## Final Close Out Report

Ruston Foundry Superfund Site

Alexandria, Rapides Parish Louisiana

United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 6 Superfund Division

January 2010Ruston Foundry Superfund Site January 2010 Final Close Out Report Page 2 of 27 I. INTRODUCTION Site Name: Ruston Foundry Superfund Site (LAD985185107) Site Location: Alexandria, Rapides Parish, Louisiana Lead Agency: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6 (EPA) Support Agency: Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) Potentially Responsible Party: Kansas City Southern Railway Company (KCS)

This Final Close Out Report (COR) documents that the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ), and Kansas City Southern Railway Company (KCS) have completed construction activities for the Ruston Foundry Superfund Site in accordance with Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites (OSWER Directive 9320.2-09A-P). The EPA, LDEQ, and KCS conducted a Pre-Final Construction Inspection on May 14, 2008; a Final Construction Inspection on June 17, 2008; a post construction inspection on August 22, 2008; and a post construction inspection on June 23, 2009. The LDEQ and KCS conducted post construction inspections on July 22, 2009, and August 25, 2009. The EPA and LDEQ have determined that the PRP has completed the

Remedial Action in accordance with the Record of Decision (ROD), subsequent Explanation of Significant Differences (ESDs), and the Remedial Design and Implementation Work Plan. All Site response actions, including remedial actions, were accomplished pursuant to, and in accordance with, the requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq., and consistent with the National Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR Part 300.

II. SUMMARY OF SITE CONDITIONS Site Background Ruston Foundry operated from 1908 until 1985. From the beginning of operation until October 1983, it was operated under the name Ruston Foundry and Machine Shops, Ltd. In 1983, the facility was reincorporated and began operating under the name Ruston Foundry and Machine Shops, Inc. In November 1990, the Ruston Foundry and Machine Shops, Inc. corporation charter was revoked by the Louisiana Secretary of State for failure to file its corporate annual

report.

The Ruston Foundry Superfund Site (Site) is located in an urban area with mixed development within the city limits of Alexandria. The Site encompasses approximately 6.6 acres that consisted primarily of dilapidated structures and building foundations overgrown with thick brush prior to remedial actions. The Site is bordered by a series of abandoned railroad tracks to the west, Chatlin Lake Canal to the northeast and east, and Mill Street Ditch to the south and southeast. Residential property is located to the north, south, and east of the Site. Historical and

active industrialized areas lie further west and north of the Site.

During the 1990s, LDEQ and EPA conducted a series of Site investigations. On January 19, 1999, the Site was proposed to the National Priorities List (NPL), and on May 10, 1999, EPA formally announced the addition of the Site to the NPL in the Federal Register.Ruston Foundry Superfund Site January 2010 Final Close Out Report Page 3 of 27 a. History of Federal and State Investigations and Removal Actions LDEQ - The LDEQ Inactive and Abandoned Site Division conducted a Site investigation in June 1990, which included drum and surface soil sampling. Based on these sample results, LDEQ referred the Site to EPA as a candidate for an emergency response action.

Site Assessments - 1990 Site Assessment (E &E, 1991) and 1994 Site Assessment (E&E, 1994)

- In 1990, a Site Assessment (SA) was completed to determine sampling strategies for the Site. Sampling activities included onsite surface soil, drum contents samples, and air samples. Analytical results for the surface soil samples indi cated the presence of elevated levels of six analyzed metals: arsenic, chromium, cobalt, lead, mercury, and zinc. Elevated concentrations of lead, and organic compounds benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, m-xylene, and oxylene were detected in samples collected from the sludge materials contained in the drums. No organic vapors above background were detected in ambient air sampled in the vicinity of the

drums.

In February 1994, a second SA was completed to determine the type and volume of materials to be addressed by a removal action and evaluate disposal options for the Site. The volume of waste estimated for the twenty-two 55-gallon drums identified onsite was 1,210 gallons of liquid and sludge. The estimated waste volume for two slag piles was approximately 350 cubic yards (cy). Potential disposal options for the Site were listed as soil washing, gravimetric separation, ionization process, onsite heat leaching of the lead contaminated soils, onsite consolidation with stabilization of waste, and offsite transportation/disposal.

Expanded Site Inspection - (E&E, 1998) - Based on the results of the SA activities, EPA initiated an evaluation of the Site for potential inclusion on the NPL. In March 1998, an Expanded Site Inspection was conducted to further characterize the Site and assess whether offsite target receptors had been impacted by Site contaminants (E&E, 1998). In both the onsite samples and offsite residential samples, metals were detected.

Removal Assessment - Offsite (E&E, 1999a) - In 1999, the EPA conducted a removal assessment of the residential neighborhood bordering the Site. This assessment also included removing drums, repairing the fence, air sampling, and placing signs along the fence (E&E, 1999a). Analytical results indicated the presence of lead and other metals at concentrations above background in several residential yards; however, no analytes except for lead were detected above risk-based screening levels.

Time-Critical Removal Action - A removal assessment was performed from June 28 to July 3, 1999, to prepare onsite drums for removal. Staged drums were transported and disposed offsite on August 11, 1999 (E&E, 1999b).

b. Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study Based on the investigation of Site historical info rmation, five potentially responsible parties were identified, and sent General Notice letters and 104(e) Information letters. Based on the responses to these letters, the EPA issued special notice waivers because the Agency determined that negotiations would not move the project forward in a timely manner. The Site RI/FS wasRuston Foundry Superfund Site January 2010 Final Close Out Report Page 4 of 27 completed as an EPA fund-lead project.

The EPA issued a work assignment to CH2M Hill in June 1999 to perform a RI/FS. Sampling for the remedial investigation (RI) was conducted December 1999 (CH2M Hill, 2000) and from September to November 2001 with the final report completed in February 2002 (CH2M Hill, 2002a). The field investigation included surface soil grid sampling, sampling of soil/sediment on transects across the canals, sampling of wast e piles, air monitoring, sampling of surface soil hot spots, sampling of surface water and sediment in the canals, stratigraphic profiling with cone penetrometer testing, subsurface soil grid sampling with direct-push and conventional drilling, monitor well installation, ground water sampling, and aquifer testing.

Foundry operations resulted in metals contaminated waste which was dispersed throughout the property as fill material. As a result of this disposal activity, foundry-derived process wastes (slag, foundry sand piles, metal scrap, and castings) covered most of the Site and had contaminated the soil. Also present at the Site was an underground storage tank with unknown contents, asbestos containing material, and slag waste identified as a characteristic hazardous waste because it exceeded toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) criteria for lead. Through the human health [March 2002; CH2M Hill, 2002c] and ecological risk assessments [October 2001; CH2M Hill, 2001], the identified c ontaminated media of most concern were surface soil and sediment that contain lead and antimony, and the exposure routes of most concern were direct contact and ingestion. Children were found to be the most sensitive and

vulnerable to the effects of lead.

The EPA determined that it was appropriate to apply the presumptive remedy for metals in soil based on the soil and contaminant characteristics found at the Site and guidance provided in the directive, Presumptive Remedies for Metals-in-Soil Sites (EPA 540-F-98-054, OSWER-9355.0- 72FS, September 1999). Following the guidance, the EPA has a goal of resource conservation, thereby making reclamation/recovery the preferred treatment technology for metals-in-soil sites. This approach was determined to be inappropriate for the Site. Slag waste is the primary contaminated media/matrix encountered throughout the Site, and reclamation/recovery is generally not effective for treatment of slag waste. The concentration of metals in the slag is too low to warrant reclamation and recovery, and the physical and chemical nature of the slag material that binds the metals would make reclamation or recovery of metal from the waste physically and economically impractical. Therefore, the second preferred treatment technology alternative of immobilization (solidification/stabilization) was used.

In addition to the no action alternative, required by the NCP for inclusion as a baseline of Site conditions for comparison, EPA evaluated presumptive remedies and an excavation and offsite disposal alternative. The Final Feasibility Study was completed in February 2002 (CH2M Hill, 2002b).

c. Record of Decision dated June 24, 2002 The ROD identified the selected remedy for the Ruston Foundry Site. The principal threat waste at the Site was to be addressed through the excavation and offsite disposal of contaminated soil and sediment, removal and offsite disposal of asbestos containing material and the undergroundRuston Foundry Superfund Site January 2010 Final Close Out Report Page 5 of 27 storage tank, and the excavation, treatment, and offsite disposal of hazardous wastes. The selected remedy was one of EPA’s presumptive remedies for the treatment of contamination at

sites with metals contamination.

The selected remedy was considered a comprehensive approach that addressed the Site as one operable unit. Due to the previous removal of drums, the remedy will address all current and potential future risks caused by soil, sediment, and hazardous waste contamination and, to the extent possible, leaching of Site contaminants into the ground water. The remedial measures will prevent exposure to hazardous waste and soil and sediment contaminated with hazardous substances such that the Site would no longer present an unacceptable risk to human health. The property would be suitable for recreational/residential land use, would allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, and would not require five-year reviews, operation and maintenance

or institutional controls.

Through the Reuse Grant awarded by the Government in September 2000, the city of Alexandria developed a future reuse plan. It was anticipated that the selected remedy would provide community revitalization impacts because it would be compatible with Alexandria’s Site reuse plan and allow for restoration of the Site to beneficial uses.

The major components of the original remedy were:

1. Stabilization - Approximately 1300 cubic yards (yd 3 ) of hazardous waste would be excavated and stabilized. The material would be stabilized until sampling verifies that it no longer exceeds the TCLP for lead. After verification, the waste would be disposed offsite at a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulated Subtitle D facility.

2. Asbestos Containing Material (ACM ) - Materials would be consolidated onsite, contained, and transported offsite to a disposal facility licensed to accept ACM. Methods to control airborne dispersion of asbestos would be implemented during remediation. The estimated total volume of material is 22 yd 3

. 3. Underground Storage Tank (UST) - The UST, its contents, and the surrounding petroleum wastes would be characterized during the remedial design to determine whether the contents would be cleaned up under CERCLA or Oil Pollution Act authority. The surrounding polychlorinated biphenyl contaminated soils would be removed and disposed offsite in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations. The total volume of tank contents was estimated at 5,000 gallons. The volume of associated contaminated soil was included in the soil/sediment estimated volume of 15,000 yd 3

. 4. Building debris and water supply well - The onsite well would be plugged and abandoned in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations. Portions of the Site would be cleared, where necessary, and the existing buildings and foundations would be demolished, removed and disposed offsite.

5. Soil/sediment - Approximately 15,000 yd 3 of lead and antimony contaminated soils and sediment would be excavated and disposed offsite in a RCRA Subtitle D facility.

6. Air Monitoring - During remedial action, efforts would be made to control dust and runoff to limit the amount of materials that may migrate to a potential receptor. Air monitoring would be conducted during times of remediation to ensure that control measures are working to regulate Site emissions.Ruston Foundry Superfund Site January 2010 Final Close Out Report Page 6 of 27 7. Short-term monitoring - Monitoring of the surface water and ground water during remedial action may be necessary to ensure that runoff control measures are working.

d. Explanations of Significant Differences

d.1 Explanation of Significant Differences dated September 28, 2004 The EPA issued the ESD on September 28, 2004, to document post-ROD changes. Post-ROD negotiations between EPA and KCS indicated that the use of stabilization may not be the most

efficient and cost effective method for addre ssing the slag waste. In addition, post-ROD discussions between the city and the community resulted in changing the proposed future Site reuse from recreational to industrial. Based on this information, EPA issued an ESD in September 2004 to document future Site use as industrial and to include a contingency remedy

for the hazardous waste.

This new information significantly changed a component of the selected remedy and added a contingency remedy; however, it did not fundamentally alter the overall cleanup approach, which was stabilization and offsite disposal. The change in land use required revisions to the risk assessment, which in turn revised the soil/sediment cleanup levels, the estimated waste volume to be addressed, and the estimated remedial costs. That change in September 2004, also required future operation and maintenance (O&M) activities, Five-year Reviews, and Institutional Controls (ICs). Those revisions decreased the volume of estimated soil/sediment waste from 15,000 yd 3 to 1,766 yd 3 and reduced the estimated cost of remedial action from $5,007,412 to $2,751,901. Because stabilization may not be the most efficient and cost effective method for addressing the slag waste, excavation and offsite disposal was added to the overall remedial approach as the contingency remedy. Excavation and Offsite Disposal was added as the contingency remedy because it was presented in the 2002 Proposed Plan as an alternative, was evaluated using the nine criteria, and was commented on during the public comment period.

The major components of the 2004 ESD were:

1. Stabilization - Approximately 1300 yd 3 of hazardous waste would be excavated and stabilized. The material would be stabilized until sampling verifies that it no longer exceeds the TCLP for lead. After verification, the waste would be disposed offsite at a RCRA regulated Subtitle D facility.

2. Asbestos Containing Material (ACM ) - Materials would be consolidated onsite, contained, and transported offsite to a disposal facility licensed to accept ACM. Methods to control airborne dispersion of asbestos would be implemented during remediation. The estimated total volume of material was 22 yd 3

. 3. Underground Storage Tank (UST) - The UST, its contents, and the surrounding petroleum wastes would be characterized during the remedial design to determine whether the contents will be cleaned up under CERCLA or Oil Pollution Act authority. The surrounding polychlorinated biphenyl contaminated soils would be removed and disposed offsite in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations. The total volume of tank contents was estimated at 5,000 gallons.

4. Building debris and water supply well - The onsite well would be plugged and abandoned in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations. Portions of the Site would be cleared, where necessary, and the existing buildings and foundations would beRuston Foundry Superfund Site January 2010 Final Close Out Report Page 7 of 27 demolished, removed and disposed offsite.

5. Soil/sediment - Approximately 1,766 yd 3 of lead and antimony contaminated soils and sediment would be excavated and disposed offsite in a RCRA Subtitle D facility.

6. Air Monitoring - During remedial action, efforts would be made to control dust and runoff to limit the amount of materials that may migrate to a potential receptor. Air monitoring would be conducted during times of remediation to ensure that control measures are working to regulate Site emissions.

7. O&M and ICs - The implementation of ICs and O&M would be necessary to restrict land use and ensure protectiveness.

8. Five-Year Reviews - Because hazardous substances would remain on the Site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, reviews of the remedy would be conducted no less than every five years to ensure that the remedy functions as designed, and remains protective of human health and the environment.

9. Contingency Remedy - Excavation and Offsite Disposal was added as a contingency for the hazardous waste. The implementation of this contingency was dependent on the completion of a treatability analysis of the stabilization process.

d.2 Explanation of Significant Differences Contingency Remedy dated January 2, 2008 As part of the Consent Decree negotiations and remedial design activities, the PRP, through a treatability evaluation, researched and reviewed options related to stabilization of the slag waste. Information gathered during the treatability evaluation was submitted by KCS in a letter dated September 13, 2007. The evaluation supported the use of the contingency remedy documented in the 2004 ESD as being a more efficient and cost effective approach for remediation of the hazardous slag waste. Therefore, the 2008 ESD was issued to document the information that significantly changes a component of the selected remedy and to invoke the Contingency Remedy as outlined in the 2004 ESD. The contingency remedy, Excavation and Offsite Disposal, included the removal of the 1,300 yd 3 of hazardous slag waste from the Site with subsequent offsite disposal in a hazardous waste landfill. All other components of the remedy remain unchanged.

The major components of the 2008 ESD were:

1. Hazardous Waste - Approximately 1300 yd 3 of hazardous waste would be excavated and disposed offsite at a RCRA regulated Subtitle C facility.

2. Asbestos Containing Material (ACM ) - Materials would be consolidated onsite, contained, and transported offsite to a disposal facility licensed to accept ACM. Methods to control airborne dispersion of asbestos would be implemented during remediation. The estimated total volume of material was 22 yd 3

. 3. Underground Storage Tank (UST) - The UST, its contents, and the surrounding petroleum wastes would be characterized during the remedial design to determine whether the contents would be cleaned up under CERCLA or Oil Pollution Act authority. The surrounding polychlorinated biphenyl contaminated soils would be removed and disposed offsite in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations. Total volume of tank contents was estimated at 5,000 gallons.

4. Building debris and water supply well - The onsite well would be plugged and abandoned in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations. Portions of the Site would be cleared, where necessary, and the existing buildings and foundations would beRuston Foundry Superfund Site January 2010 Final Close Out Report Page 8 of 27 demolished, removed and disposed offsite.

5. Soil/sediment - Approximately 1,766 yd 3 of lead and antimony contaminated soils and sediment would be excavated and disposed offsite in a RCRA Subtitle D facility.

6. Air Monitoring - During remedial action, efforts would be made to control dust and runoff to limit the amount of materials that may migrate to a potential receptor. Air monitoring would be conducted during times of remediation to ensure that control measures are working to regulate Site emissions.

7. O&M and ICs - The implementation of ICs and O&M would be necessary to restrict land use and ensure protectiveness.

8. Five-Year Reviews - Because hazardous substances would remain on the Site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, reviews of the remedy would be conducted no less than every five years to ensure that the remedy is functioning as designed, and remains protective of human health and the environment.

d.3 Explanation of Significant Differences dated November 9, 2009 This ESD documented the results from the remedial action activities for the Site that support the Site’s unlimited use and unrestricted exposure scenario. Overall Site excavation and offsite disposal activities resulted in the removal of contaminated media to levels below the established cleanup levels for the recreational/residential scenario. Because the Site meets unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, the ESD removed the institutional controls, operations and maintenance, and five-year reviews as components of the overall Site remedy documented in the 2004 ESD and the 2008 Contingency ESD. Details related to the remedial action are found in the final Ruston Foundry Superfund Site Remediation Report dated March 9, 2009, and the Ruston Foundry Superfund Site Remediation Report Addendum dated September 10, 2009. These activities are summarized in Section II.g.

e. Design Criteria Prior to beginning remedial design and remedial action (RD/RA) activities, the EPA sent the identified PRPs general notice letters regarding Site liability and the opportunity to conduct the remedial design and remedial action activities. KCS stepped forward at this time and began negotiations with EPA. After a lengthy negotiation process, the Consent Decree was signed and later entered by the court on January 14, 2008. The Site RD/RA was completed as an EPA enforcement-lead project with LDEQ acting as the supporting agency, and KCS performing the

work.

Concurrently during negotiations, EPA, LDEQ, and KCS worked closely to develop and finalize the Remedial Design and Implementation Work Plan. Drafts were submitted in March 2004, September 2004, December 2007 (two), and February 2008. The final document submitted February 21, 2008 was accepted by EPA and LDEQ as final on February 28, 2008.

The work plan included the following components:

• Onsite consolidation of building debris, trash, and metal scrap.

• Demolish standing structures, slabs and remnants, if necessary.

• Clearing and grubbing areas requiring construction activity.

• Distribution of wood chips on Superfund Site and/or adjacent KCS property.Ruston Foundry Superfund Site January 2010 Final Close Out Report Page 9 of 27 • Establishing Areas of Interest (AOIs) that exceed 1400 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) lead and 820 mg/kg antimony, independent areas with TCLP or applicable synthetic precipitation leachate procedure test failures.

• Identify, collect, and offsite disposal of regulated asbestos containing materials.

• Excavate residual debris/lead soil within AOIs as necessary based on X-ray fluorescence (XRF) screening.

• Load surface piles of slag into end dumps, tr ansfer to a rail staging area, and load rail cars for offsite disposal.

• Excavate up to 6 inches of surface soil from within each AOI as determined by XRF screening, collect verification samples and perform additional excavation from within the footprint if necessary.

• Load excavated soil into end dumps and transport for disposal at an approved nonhazardous waste landfill.

• Backfill excavated areas to pre-existing grade with clean soil.

• Remove any liquids found in UST.

• Excavate UST and dispose offsite at an appropriate licensed landfill.

• Grout closed onsite well in accordance with prevailing Louisiana compliant methods and procedures.

• Plug and abandon 5 onsite monitoring wells in accordance with prevailing Louisiana compliant methods and procedures.

• Re-vegetate disturbed areas if needed.

f. Community Involvement Activities 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. Below is a brief summary of public outreach efforts. The EPA worked closely with the local Lower Third Neighborhood Group.

$ NPL Listing: On January 19, 1999, EPA released a Site Update notifying the community that EPA and LDEQ were planning to propose the Site on the NPL in order to address Site contamination. This update also requested public comments on the NPL proposed package. The Site was placed on the NPL in May 1999, and a Site Update notifying the public was issued.

$ Community Relations Plan: The EPA released a community relations plan in November 1998 that outlined a program to address community concerns and keep citizens informed

about and involved in the remedial activities.

$ EPA Open Houses and Status Fact Sheets: The EPA and LDEQ held several open houses and mailed out fact sheets to discuss Site activities: 3/22/99, 3/28/00, 9/25/00, 10/24/00, 4/9/01, 10/09/01, 03/28/02, 6/24/02, 2/11/08.

$ Reuse Meetings: The EPA participated in two meetings with the City of Alexandria regarding Site reuse: 2/12-13/01, 02/26-27/01.Ruston Foundry Superfund Site January 2010 Final Close Out Report Page 10 of 27 $ Proposed Plan Fact Sheet and Public Meeting: The Proposed Plan was signed on March 18, 2002 and presented to the community on March 28, 2002. The formal proposed plan Public Meeting was held on April 18, 2002, and the comment period lasted from April 1, 2002 through April 30, 2002. A public notice was published on April 1,

2002.

$ Facilitated Meeting with community and PRP: On February 26, 2004, EPA met with the community, KCS, and the city to discuss the future remedial action at the Site. This meeting resulted in a change to future reuse plans which ultimately led to the 2004 ESD.

$ 2004 ESD and Public Meeting: A Notice of Availability and a brief description of the ESD was published in the local paper on July 27, 2004. A public meeting was held on August 10, 2004, and the comment period lasted from July 28 through August 31, 2004. The final ESD with responsiveness summary was signed on September 28, 2004, a fact sheet was mailed in September 2004, and a public notice published on October 7, 2004.

$ 2008 ESD: A Notice of Availability and a brief description of the ESD was published in the local paper on January 9, 2008.

$ Remedial Action: A fact sheet was sent out in July 2008 to update the community on the progress made during remedial action. This fact sheet also invited the community toattend a close out ceremony at the Site along with a Site tour on July 15, 2008. A followup fact sheet was sent to the community in October 2009, informing them that remedial action has been completed and that the Site is available for future reuse.

$ 2009 ESD: A Notice of Availability and a brief description of the ESD was published in the local paper on November 18 , 2009. A fact sheet summarizing the ESD was mailed to the community on November 18 , 2009.

g. Implemented Remedial Action Construction Activities The Consent Decree was entered by the court on January 14, 2008. A notice to proceed was issued to the PRP on January 22, 2008. The final Remedial Design and Implementation Work Plan was submitted by the PRPs on February 21, 2008, and was accepted by the Agencies as final on February 28, 2008.

Prior to implementing the response actions, a Louisiana-licensed asbestos abatement contractor completed a survey of and sampled potentially asbestos containing materials (ACM) on January 28, 2008. Following receipt of the results of the asbestos sampling program, a second more local licensed contractor filed the required notification form on February 19, 2008, completed the abatement work on March 5, 2008, and disposed of 30 yd 3 on March 7, 2008.

The KCS construction contractor, E Environmental Inc., mobilized personnel, equipment and operations trailers to the Site on February 25, 2008. Between March 5 and 14, 2008, the areas of interest (AOIs) and slag piles were identified and marked. From March 14 through May 20, 2008, clearing and grubbing, soil excavation, slag removal, confirmation sampling, backfilling, and seeding activities were completed.Ruston Foundry Superfund Site January 2010 Final Close Out Report Page 11 of 27 A preliminary project closeout meeting/Site walk was held on May 10, 2008, by EPA, LDEQ, and KCS. A punch list was created at that time. KCS completed hydroseeding, water system construction, and punch list items between May 11 and 20, 2008, along with a pre-final inspection with EPA and LDEQ on May 14, 2008. A formal Site closeout Site walk with the same parties was conducted on June 17, 2008. No additional punch list items were identified.

While performing Site remedial activities, KCS determined that minimal effort and cost would be required to address Site contamination to levels well below the cleanup levels established for lead and antimony under an industrial scenario as described in the 2004 ESD. KCS was back at the Site on July 9, 2008, collecting soil samples from locations identified in the Remedial Investigation with lead concentrations between 500 mg/kg and 1400 mg/kg. In addition, KCS collected confirmation soil samples within AOIs that were excavated to native clay visually, to establish that lead concentrations were below 500 mg/kg. A single sample location south of the drainage ditch was above the unrestricted use standard of 500 mg/kg. KCS remobilized to the Site on August 18, 2008, to complete excavation of this area. Using visual removal as the criteria, contamination was excavated from approximately 0.9 acres followed by the collection of confirmation samples. The excavation area was backfilled and seeded. EPA and KCS conducted a final Site walk of the south supplemental excavation on August 22, 2008. This supplemental work was completed on August 24, 2008. The Preliminary Close Out Report was signed on September 3, 2008, documenting the completion of onsite construction.

Review of the draft remedial action report noted that an area along the southern boundary, just north of the canal may not have been fully addressed. On May 15, 2009, EPA and KCS performed a Site inspection to verify whether field activities were completed in this area. Visual inspection of the area confirmed that additional excavation would be required.

KCS mobilized to the Site during the week of May 25, 2009, and began clearing the canal bank. Excavation of contaminated soil and slag began during the week of June 1, 2009, and was completed on June 23, 2009. EPA and LDEQ were onsite June 23, 2009, to conduct a Site inspection with KCS. Seeding of the canal bank was completed on July 2, 2009, and later inspected jointly by LDEQ and KCS on July 22, 2009. During the inspection, it was noted that significant erosion had taken place due to heavy rains. These areas were repaired with riprap and inspected by KCS and LDEQ on August 25, 2009.

The major components of the remedy implemented during 2008 and 2009 are:

1. Soil/sediment - Approximately 7,220 yd 3 [6,140 yd 3 from the northern portion, 1069.5 tons (713 yd 3 ) from the southern portion, and 550 tons (367 yd 3 ) from the canal bank] of lead and antimony contaminated soil and sediment were excavated and disposed offsite in a RCRA Subtitle D facility. Excavation progressed to the underlying native clay with depths ranging from 6 inches to 4 ft below original ground surface. Excavation areas were backfilled and graded to drain. All confirmation sample results were below the lead and antimony cleanup levels consistent with unlimited use and unrestricted exposure.Ruston Foundry Superfund Site January 2010 Final Close Out Report Page 12 of 27 2. Excavation of hazardous slag waste - Approximately 745.94 tons of hazardous waste from the northern portion and 45 yd 3 of hazardous waste from the canal bank were excavated and shipped to a permitted RCRA hazardous waste landfill.

3. Asbestos Containing Material (ACM) - A Louisiana-licensed asbestos abatement contractor visually identified building debris that potentially contained asbestos. The contractor collected 6 samples of building debris material and mapped the area around the former foundry building where the debris was located. Asbestos was positively identified in three samples, two of cement board building debris and one of black flashing building debris. The ACM was localized about the former foundry building with no evidence of burial. Prior to excavation activities, the ACM debris was consolidated onsite, contained, and transported offsite to a disposal facility licensed to accept ACM. Methods to control airborne dispersion of asbestos were implemented during remediation. The final total volume of material disposed offsite was 30 yd 3 . After removal of the ACM, the underlying soil within the ACM area was incorporated into the overall slag and soil excavation areas. At a minimum, 6 inches of soil were removed during remediation, and the area was backfilled with clean fill upon completion.

4. Underground Storage Tank (UST) - The UST was located and removed. Upon examination, the UST was determined to be steel with an estimated 500 gallon-capacity. The UST was found full of soil, and no staining was evident in the surrounding soil. The UST was decontaminated and disposed offsite. Surrounding soils were sampled and results met LDEQ UST cleanup levels.

5. Building debris and water supply well - All 5 onsite wells were plugged and abandoned in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations. The Site was cleared (as necessary), and the existing metal buildings and concrete foundations were demolished. All steel material was decontaminated and recycled. All concrete was decontaminated and donated to a concrete recycling center. All other domestic trash dumped on the property was removed and disposed offsite. An estimated 43 tons of building debris and scrap metal and 550 yd 3 of concrete were recycled.

6. Air Monitoring - During remedial action, efforts were made to control dust and run-off to limit the amount of materials that may migrate to a potential receptor. Air monitoring was conducted during times of remediation to ensure that control measures were working to regulate Site emissions. Monitors were placed upgradient, downgradient, and within the excavation areas as well as on personnel working within the exclusion zone. Air monitoring results did not exceed the Site-specific action levels for lead, antimony, or total suspended particulates.

7. Backfill - Approximately 9,185 yd 3 of backfill (7,800 yd 3 on the northern portion, 1,185 yd 3 on the southern portion, and 200 yd 3 on the canal bank) were used to fill excavation areas and grade the Site for proper drainage. Backfill material was identified as suitable for the Site as sample results met the Site cleanup levels.

h. Redevelopment Potential The expected outcome of the remedy selected in the 2002 ROD was that the Site would no longer present an unacceptable risk to human health and the environment because the hazardousRuston Foundry Superfund Site January 2010 Final Close Out Report Page 13 of 27 waste would be excavated, stabilized, and disposed offsite; contaminated soil and sediment would be excavated and disposed offsite; and the ACM and UST would be removed and disposed offsite. The property would be suitable for recreational/residential land use approximately one year after the start of the remedial action.

As documented in the Site’s remedial action documents, additional work was completed by KCS to meet the 2002 ROD cleanup levels for lead and antimony. Because the implemented remedy does not result in hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining onsite above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, a five-year review will not be required for this remedial action. In addition, no operation and maintenance or institutional controls restricting Site use or access will be necessary.

The implemented remedy allows for reuse of the Site to beneficial uses. Through the Reuse Grant awarded by the Government in September 2000, the city of Alexandria, in coordination with the community, developed a future reuse plan. The implemented remedy is compatible with Alexandria’s Site reuse plan and is expected to support community revitalization activities.

In support of the city’s redevelopment plan, KCS has provided access to the 30-acre property adjacent to the Ruston Foundry Site with the inte ntion of deeding the property to the city once the city has completed its investigation. On February 17, 2009, the city completed a Phase 1 investigation of this property. The city applied for and was granted a Brownfields Grant related to the 30-acre property on September 22, 2008. This grant will be used to assist with costs related to additional investigations of this property and support future redevelopment activities

for the area.

III. DEMONSTRATION OF CLEANUP ACTIVITY QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL The quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) program for the Ruston Foundry Site was conducted in accordance with the work plan prepared to implement the remedial action construction activities. The following project plans and procedures were prepared for the remedial action and included in the final Remedial Design and Implementation Work Plan dated February 21, 2008.

$ Site Management Practices

$ Health and Safety Plan

$ Field Sampling Methods and Procedures

$ Quality Assurance Project Plan

$ Data Management

$ Pollution Control and Mitigation Practices

$ Transportation, Disposal and Waste Management Practices

The Remedial Design and Implementation Work Plan guided the cleanup activities such that quality assurance and quality control requirements for the Site were met. The EPA, in conjunction with LDEQ, conducted regular oversight throughout the implementation of the remedial action. In addition to conducting oversight of the project activities, EPA was in regular contact by phone and e-mails with the PRP and State project managers during construction activities. The EPA and LDEQ reviewed and commented on all project plans for the Site andRuston Foundry Superfund Site January 2010 Final Close Out Report Page 14 of 27 participated in the Pre-final and Final Constr uction Inspections. In addition, LDEQ reviewed and commented on the Preliminary Close Out Report.

The quality assurance project plan incorporated EPA and State comments and requirements. The EPA and LDEQ reviewed the remedial action construction work for compliance with quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) protocols. Construction activities at the Site were determined to be consistent with the ROD, ESDs, and the Remedial Design and Implementation Work Plan and specifications. Confirmatory inspections, independent testing, and evaluations of materials and workmanship were performed to evaluate and review the results of QA/QC activities. Deviations or non-adherence to QA/QC protocols or specifications were properly

documented and resolved.

All monitoring equipment was calibrated and operated in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. During sampling, equipment was properly decontaminated prior to each use. The EPA analytical methods were used for all confirmation and monitoring samples during RA activities. Contract laboratory program-like procedures and protocol were followed for soil and air analyses during the RA using a private la boratory contracted by the PRP. Air sample analyses followed EPA protocols in the Compendium of Methods for the Determination of Toxic Compounds in Ambient Air . The EPA and the State determined that analytical results were accurate to the degree needed to assure satisfactory execution of the RA.

IV. MONITORING RESULTS While performing Site remedial activities, KCS determined that minimal effort and cost would be required to address Site contamination to levels well below the cleanup levels established for lead and antimony under an industrial scenario as described in the 2004 ESD. Areas of excavation included the removal of contaminated soil and slag (Figures 1 and 2), and confirmation sample results show levels of lead and antimony to be less than the cleanup levels required for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure as determined by the Site-specific risk assessment. Lead concentrations are less than 500 mg/kg, with the highest concentration left onsite at 342 mg/kg, and antimony concentrations are less than 150 mg/kg, with the highest concentration left onsite at 18.9 mg/kg. The concentrations are consistent with accepted unlimited use and unrestricted exposure scenarios. In addition, identified ACM, hazardous waste (slag), and the UST were removed and disposed offsite. Based on Site construction activity and subsequent confirmation sampling, all remedial action objectives have been met as well as the criteria for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. The excavation areas were backfilled with suitable materials meeting Site-specific cleanup levels, graded for proper drainage, and seeded.

Monitoring activities implemented during 2008 and 2009 remedial action are presented in the following paragraphs.

1. Asbestos Containing Material (ACM) - A Louisiana-licensed asbestos abatement contractor visually identified building debris that potentially contained asbestos. The contractor collected 6 samples of building debris material and mapped the area around the former foundry building where the debris was located. Asbestos was positively identified in three samples, two of cement board building debris and one of black flashingRuston Foundry Superfund Site January 2010 Final Close Out Report Page 15 of 27 building debris. The ACM was localized about the former foundry building with no evidence of burial. Prior to excavation activities, the ACM debris was consolidated onsite, contained, and transported offsite to a disposal facility licensed to accept ACM. Methods to control airborne dispersion of asbestos were implemented during remediation. The final total volume of material disposed offsite was 30 yd 3 . After removal of the ACM, the underlying soils with in the ACM area were incorporated into the overall slag and soil excavation areas. At a minimum, 6 inches of soil were removed during remediation, and the area was backfilled with clean fill upon completion.

2. Slag - Slag piles were visually identified, outlined and surveyed. Slag was found in two large piles, large pieces near and around the southern machine shop slab, and sporadically in smaller pieces throughout the former process area. Slag was either handpicked and moved with wheelbarrows or shoveled using heavy equipment. After removal of the slag, the underlying soils were incorporated into the overall soil excavation areas. At a minimum 6 inches of soil were removed during remediation, and the area was backfilled with clean fill upon completion. Approximately 745.94 tons of hazardous waste from the northern portion and 45 yd 3 of hazardous waste from the canal bank were excavated and shipped to a permitted RCRA hazardous waste landfill.

3. Slag Staging Area - The staging pad was built using clay formed with a dozer and compacted with a vibratory roller. Three foot high clay dikes were constructed around three sides and a hay-bale/drainage fabric filter dike was installed on the fourth (north) side to filter rainwater and preclude water ponding. Two layers of 10 millimeter (mil) polyethylene liner were then placed on the pad bed. A layer of native clay was added on top of the polyethylene to create a composite protective layer. Upon slag removal, the clay layer and underlying liner were removed and disposed removing all potentially contaminated materials. The staging pad area was backfilled with clean material and graded for drainage.

4. Underground Storage Tank (UST) - The UST was plumbed at two ends and found about 2 feet below ground level. It appeared to be an open top, at-grade vessel with an approximate 500-gallon capacity. The vessel most likely was buried during previous Site operations. The UST was filled with soil and a few gallons of rainwater. No staining was evident in the surrounding soil; however, the rainwater had a petroleum-like odor. Two soil samples were collected from the base of the excavation area and analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbons by EPA Method 8015 diesel range organics and kerosene. Results were below LDEQ UST standards. The UST was decontaminated and disposed offsite. The surrounding soil was incorporated into the overall soil excavation areas.

5. Silt Fencing/hay Bales - Erosion control measures were used to minimize silt loss and contaminant migration. Hay bales were staked periodically along the drainage cut on the haul road’s north side to minimize silt loss. Silt fencing was also placed along the entire northern perimeter of drainage canal to minimize silt loss to the drainage canal.Ruston Foundry Superfund Site January 2010 Final Close Out Report Page 16 of 27 6. Water Supply Well - All 5 onsite monitoring wells, designated MW-1 through MW-5, were closed by a licensed Louisiana contractor in accordance with LDEQ State requirements.

7. Building Debris - The concrete slabs were broken with jackhammers, stockpiled with the excavator, and pressure washed to remove loose soil. After decontamination, an estimated 550 yd 3 of concrete was transported offsite and donated to a local concrete recycler. All other domestic trash dumped on the property was removed and disposed offsite. Remnants of four remaining structures and a large amount of miscellaneous scrap metal were consolidated into piles, power washed, and loaded onto trailers. Approximately 43 tons of steel and other metal debris were transferred to Alexandria Scrap Iron for recycling.

8. Transport by Rail - Gondola cars were loaded to a depth of no more that 1.5 feet from the top of the cars. Tarps were used to prevent loss of material during transport. Prior to transport, cars were visually inspected and decontaminated as necessary.

9. Transport by Truck - Trucks were loaded to appropriate capacity. Tarps were used to prevent loss of material during transport. Prior to transport, trucks were visually inspected and decontaminated as necessary.

10. Tree Chipping - Approximately 5 acres of the Site and 4 Acres of the adjacent (offsite) KCS land was cleared, grubbed, and the wood chipped. Two composite wood chip samples (one from inside the restricted area and one immediately north of the restricted area) were submitted to Pace Analytical Services, Inc. (Pace) of St. Rose, Louisiana and analyzed for lead and antimony. The results of the two composite samples indicated both lead and antimony were below Site-specific cleanup levels. Lead was detected in both samples at a concentration of 0.629 mg/kg and 2.37 mg/kg. Antimony was reported as non-detected concentrations at reporting limits of 5.17 mg/kg and 4.23 mg/kg. The wood chips were later redistributed onsite.

11. Confirmation Samples

- Five-point composites were collected from 25ft by 25ft grids used across the northern portion of the property. These grid locations were supplemented with six additional confirmation sample locations in areas where soil and slag locations overlapped. The southern portion of the property was sampled based on sample locations from the RI and the estimated location of the historic foundry building footprint.

Soil was initially removed in approximately 3-inch lifts. Upon removal of the uppermost three-inch lift of soil, x-ray fluorescence (XRF) screening was conducted for lead using a Niton XLi Spectrometer. Based on the XRF screening results, additional soil was removed to the next lower three-inch lift wherever necessary. The EPA and KCS project managers recognized quickly that the variable distribution of lead encountered in foundry fill material made the sequence of excavating soil in 3-inch lifts with XRF sampling time consuming. Therefore, a joint decision by EPA and KCS was made to simply excavate the AOIs visually to native clay and discontinue XRF screening.Ruston Foundry Superfund Site January 2010 Final Close Out Report Page 17 of 27 After numerous analyses of the native clay, it was confirmed that lead and antimony were found at background concentrations within the native clay which underlies the foundry waste material. In addition, since antimony results were consistently below background, sampling for antimony was discontinued. The decision was made to visually excavate directly to clay in each AOI and adjoining areas where slag pile debris was removed or was co-mingled with AOIs. In some cases, rather than collect second or third rounds of confirmation samples, visual observation of the native clay was sufficient to demonstrate clean conditions. As such, some of the smaller AOIs and former slag pile areas did not initially have lab tests representing clay, as the lead and antimony content of the clay characteristics had been previously confirmed and the visual observation approach was determined to be acceptable to all parties.

At the completion of the excavation activities, data were reviewed and it was noted that the remedial actions had potentially addressed all locations that exceeded the cleanup levels for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure either through clear and grub actions or AOI excavations. KCS re-mobilized to the Site in July 2008 to collect additional confirmation samples at 17 locations throughout the Site which had exhibited lead concentrations between 500 mg/kg and 1400 mg/kg based upon RI data. Each of the former RI sampling points was located using the survey coordinates published in the RI Report. The locations sampled represent the lead exceedences between 500 and 1400 mg/kg in areas not expressly identified as AOIs/slag piles. In addition, the three AOIs that did not have a quantitative verification of clean soil after switching to visual clean protocols were sampled to confirm results were below the Site-specific cleanup levels.

Of the 17 samples collected in July 2008, one sample location, located south of the canal, had a concentration higher than 500 mg/kg lead. The area was excavated to native clay and 6 confirmation samples were collected. All sample results were below the lead cleanup level.

Review of the draft remedial action report noted an area along the southern border just north of the canal that may not have been fully addressed. A Site inspection confirmed further excavation was necessary. At the completion of this supplemental work, 10 confirmation samples were taken and analyzed for lead. All sample results were below the lead cleanup level.

Approximately 7,220 yd 3 [6,140 yd 3 from the northern portion, 1069.5 tons (713 yd 3 ) from the southern portion, and 550 tons (367 yd 3 ) from the canal bank] of lead and antimony contaminated soil were excavated and disposed offsite in a RCRA Subtitle D facility. Excavation progressed to the underlying native clay with depths ranging from 6 inches to 4 ft below original ground surface. Excavation areas were backfilled and graded to drain. All confirmation sample results were below the lead and antimony cleanup levels consistent with unlimited use and unrestricted exposure.

12. Backfill - Six (6) composite samples were taken of the stockpiled native clay placed on the adjacent KCS property by the city of Alex andria during drainage ditch construction. Two (2) composite samples were collected from an offsite borrow source used forRuston Foundry Superfund Site January 2010 Final Close Out Report Page 18 of 27 backfill during the 2008 and 2009 remedial activity. All samples were analyzed for RCRA metals. Results were consistent with background, and specifically met the cleanup levels for lead and antimony. Approximately 9,185 yd 3 of backfill (7,800 yd 3 on the northern portion, 1,185 yd 3 on the southern portion, and 200 yd 3 on the canal bank) were used to fill excavation areas and grade Site for proper drainage.

13. Air - During remedial action, efforts were made to control dust and run-off to limit the amount of materials that may migrate to a potential receptor. Work areas were continually wetted down to control potential dust emissions. Air monitoring was conducted during times of remediation using 1) Site meteorological monitoring for wind speed and direction; 2) perimeter air monitoring for antimony, lead and particulate; 3) real-time onsite particulate air monitoring; and 4) personal worker air sampling for antimony, lead, and particulates. Monitors were placed upgradient, downgradient, and within the excavation areas as well as on personnel working within the exclusion zone. Air monitoring results did not exceed the Site-specific action levels for lead, antimony, or total suspended particulates.

Air sampling at the perimeter monitoring stations was conducted 24 hours a day, except those days when remedial activities were halted, using high volume air samplers to collect total suspended air particulate for analysis of antimony and lead and to collect particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 micrometers in size (PM10). The highest detected concentration of lead (0.34 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3 ) was below the Site-specific action levels of 20.8 μg/m 3 over a 24-hour period, 7.3 μg/m 3 over a 72 hour period, and 1.5 μg/m 3 remedial action average. Antimony was not detected in any perimeter air sample, with the exception of two sample results, above the 0.2 μg/m 3 Site-specific action level. On March 20, 2008, detection limits for antimony for Station 2 (duplicate) and Station 4 were 0.81 and 0.91 μg/m 3

, respectively, due to the shortened day of monitoring and the lesser volume of air sampled. The highest PM10 concentration detected (62 μg/m 3 ) was below the 100 μg/m 3
Site-specific action level.

Real-time air monitoring for inhalable particulate matter was performed throughout theproject using the hand-held DustTrak aerosol monitor (model 8520). The highest realtime concentration of PM10 in air was 2.02 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m 3 ) which is well below the 5 mg/m 3 worker safety action level for onsite particulates.

Key individuals determined to inhale higher amounts of antimony, lead, and particulate were monitored during the work day. Worker safety action levels for antimony, lead, and total suspended particulates in personal worker samples were 500 μg/m 3 , 30 μg/m 3 , and 10 mg/m 3 , respectively. Antimony was not detected in any personal sampler, the highest detected result for lead was 4.9 μg/m 3 which is below the action level of 30 μg/m 3 , and the highest detected result for particulate matter was 2 mg/m 3 which is below the action level of 10 mg/m 3

.Ruston Foundry Superfund Site January 2010 Final Close Out Report Page 19 of 27 V. SUMMARY OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE The cleanup of the Site complies with and meets the requirements for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. Because of this, the Site does not require operation and maintenance, institutional controls, or five-year reviews.

VI. SUMMARY OF REMEDIATION COSTS The cost estimate to implement the remedial action at the Site has been modified from the original estimate provided in the ROD through each ESD (Table 1). The original estimate for Stabilization and Offsite Disposal as presented in the ROD was $5,007,412. This was later revised to an estimated $2,751,901 for Stabilization and Offsite Disposal or $3,035,002 for Excavation and Offsite Disposal due to a change in land use from recreational/residential to industrial and the addition of the contingency remedy. The estimated remedy cost was further revised in the 2008 ESD based on the treatability evaluation presented by KCS which noted rail would be used for transportation at no cost and that the disposal fee provided by the landfill would be closer to $75/ton rather than the estimated $214/ton. This reduced the estimated cost from $3,035,002 to $2,459,427. The final revision to the estimated remedy cost was documented in the 2009 ESD, which removed the requirements for O&M, ICs, and Five-year reviews. This reduced the cost from $2,459,427 to $2,018,631.

Table 1: Comparison of Remedy Cost Estimates

Document Component Cost

ROD Stabilization and Offsite Disposal $5,007,412

ESD 2004 Stabilization and Offsite Disposal

Contingency: Excavation and Offsite Disposal $2,751,901

$3,035,002

ESD 2008 Excavation and Offsite Disposal $2,459,427

ESD 2009 Excavation and Offsite Disposal $2,018,631Ruston Foundry Superfund Site January 2010 Final Close Out Report Page 20 of 27 All remedial action activities were completed by KCS. During the remedial action EPA provided oversight of all activities and subsequent review of final reports. Costs related to these actions are provided in Table 2.

Table 2: Actual Cost for the Remedial Action
Activity Cost Mobilization $60,165 Bridge Work $33,650 Analytical $20,137 Backfill $45,707 Disposal $247,339 Transportation $130,060 Demobilization $16,842 Equipment $413,316 Labor $1, 011,912

Subtotal $1,979,128 Oversight $58,800

Total $2,037,928

VII. PROTECTIVENESS This Site meets all the site completion requirements as specified in “Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites” (EPA OSWER Directive 9320.2-09A-P, January 2000). Specifically, confirmatory sampling results for lead and antimony are below the cleanup criteria of 500 mg/kg and 150 mg/kg respectively, and all cleanup actions specified in the ROD andsubsequent ESDs have been implemented. Therefore, contamination above Site-specific healthbased levels have been removed such that the Site no longer presents an unacceptable risk to human health and the environment and is available for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. A bibliography of all reports relevant to the completion of this Site under the Superfund program

is included in Section X.

VIII. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Based on confirmation sample results, hazardous substances above health based levels have been removed from the Ruston Foundry Superfund Site, which allows for unlimited re-use of the Site property. Therefore, neither a policy nor a statutory review will be necessary for the Site to ensure that the remedy is, or will be, protective of human health and the environment. Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c), 42 U.S.C. ' 9621(c), and as provided in 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, EPA will not need to conduct a statutory five-year review for the Ruston Foundry Superfund Site.IX. AUTHORIZING SIGNATURES

This COR documents Site completion and signifies the end of all response actions at the Ruston Foundry Site. This document was finalized with the concurrence of the Louisiana Department of

Environmental Quality (Appendix A).

Ruston Foundry Superfund Site

Final Close Out Report Date: 

# II Z1/l 0 1 I**~---**

January 2010 Page 21 of27Ruston Foundry Superfund Site January 2010 Final Close Out Report Page 22 of 27 X. BIBLIOGRAPHY

CH2M Hill, 2000. Pre-Remedial Investigation Sampling Event, Ruston Foundry Site. March, 2000.

CH2M Hill, 2001. Final Ecological Risk Assessment, Ruston Foundry Site, Alexandria, Rapides Parish, Louisiana. Remedial Action Contract Work Assignment 930-RICO-061F. October 2001.

CH2M Hill, 2002a. Final Remedial Investigation, Ruston Foundry Site, Alexandria, Rapides Parish, Louisiana. Remedial Action Contract Work Assignment 930-RICO-061F, 2 vols. February 2002.

CH2M Hill, 2002b. Final Feasibility Study, Ruston Foundry Site, Alexandria, Rapides Parish,

Louisiana. Remedial Action Contract Work A ssignment 930-RICO-061F. February 2002.

CH2M Hill, 2002c. Final Human Health Risk Assessment, Ruston Foundry Site, Alexandria, Rapides Parish, Louisiana . Remedial Action Contract Work Assignment 930-RICO-061F.

March 2002.

Ecology and Environment, Inc., 1991. Site Assessment Report, Ruston Foundry. February 28, 1991.

Ecology and Environment, Inc., 1994. Site Assessment Report, Ruston Foundry. May 18, 1994.

Ecology and Environment, Inc., 1998. Expanded Site Inspection Report for Ruston Foundry. September 1998.

Ecology and Environment, Inc., 1999a. Removal Assessment Report for Ruston Foundry - Offsite. September 20, 1999.

Ecology and Environment, Inc., 1999b. Time-Critical Removal Report for Ruston Foundry -

Onsite. June 28, 1999.

Kansas City Southern Railway, 2007. ESD Treatability Study, Ruston Superfund Site

. September 13, 2007.

Kansas City Southern Railway, 2008. Remedial Design and Implementation Work Plan

. February 21, 2008.

Kansas City Southern Railway, 2009. Ruston Foundry Superfund Site Remediation, Final Report . March 9, 2009.Ruston Foundry Superfund Site January 2010 Final Close Out Report Page 23 of 27 Kansas City Southern Railway, 2009. Ruston Foundry Superfund Site Remediation, Final Report-Addendum . September 10, 2009.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999. Metals-In-Soil, Presumptive Remedy. EPA/540/F-98/054. OSWER Directive 9355.0-72FS. September 1999.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2002. Record of Decision. June 24, 2002.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2004. Explanation of Significant Differences. September 28, 2004.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2008. Explanation of Significant Differences Contingency Remedy. January 2, 2008.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2009. Explanation of Significant Differences. November 9, 2009.Ruston Foundry Superfund Site January 2010 Final Close Out Report Page 24 of 27 Appendix A Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality Concurrence LetterA1 289859.260 3299290.860 75.23 F2 289844.190 3299417.150 73.25A2 289881.800 3299298.070 75.62 F3 289868.290 3299424.680 75.19A3 289908.570 3299307.060 75.42 F4 289891.960 3299432.210 73.79A4 289928.820 3299312.380 76.06 F5 289915.700 3299440.200 74.27A5 289953.480 3299320.730 75.69 F6 289939.640 3299447.560 74.04A6 289977.060 3299328.640 75.60 F7 289963.530 3299455.110 74.09A7 290001.360 3299336.170 76.13 F8 289987.310 3299462.580 74.09B1 289850.850 3299314.550 76.56 F9 290011.000 3299470.000 74.36B2 289874.560 3299322.020 76.01 F10 290035.080 3299477.760 74.77B3 289898.250 3299330.360 76.24 F11 290058.790 3299485.300 75.57B4 289921.260 3299336.950 76.68 F12 290082.650 3299492.630 76.56B5 289945.820 3299344.510 76.77 G1 289810.950 3299432.580 71.63B6 289969.870 3299352.100 76.70 G2 289834.470 3299440.200 73.19B7 289994.100 3299359.880 76.69 G3 289860.750 3299448.640 74.75B8 290017.620 3299367.600 75.89 G4 289884.250 3299456.100 73.33B11 290089.060 3299390.640 75.55 G5 289908.460 3299463.990 74.04C1 289842.790 3299338.230 76.45 G6 289932.200 3299471.380 74.10C2 289867.140 3299345.730 76.15 G7 289955.930 3299479.050 73.21C3 289890.850 3299353.290 76.62 G8 289979.860 3299486.620 74.01C4 289914.730 3299360.600 76.22 G9 290003.700 3299494.140 74.58C5 289938.640 3299368.510 76.63 G10 290027.500 3299501.690 75.68C6 289962.570 3299376.190 76.22 G11 290051.360 3299509.330 75.91C7 289986.750 3299383.680 75.31 G12 290074.920 3299516.920 76.84C8 290010.080 3299391.580 75.94 H1 289803.720 3299456.730 72.96C11 290081.600 3299414.030 75.62 H2 289829.110 3299464.670 73.80C12 290105.340 3299421.570 76.18 H3 289852.910 3299472.330 73.94D1 289835.190 3299361.370 75.84 H4 289876.790 3299480.060 74.05D2 289859.290 3299369.630 76.55 H5 289900.800 3299487.560 74.15D3 289883.340 3299377.040 76.78 H6 289924.590 3299495.050 73.93D4 289907.100 3299384.720 76.46 H7 289948.440 3299502.730 73.75D5 289931.060 3299392.340 76.17 H8 289972.270 3299510.290 74.74D6 289954.840 3299399.830 75.57 H9 289995.950 3299517.880 75.27D7 289978.420 3299407.310 75.59 H10 290019.860 3299525.340 75.28D8 290002.450 3299414.840 75.20 H11 290043.640 3299532.990 75.19D9 290026.510 3299422.420 75.10 H12 290067.530 3299540.380 75.62D10 290050.050 3299430.080 75.59 I1 289798.090 3299481.270 72.83D11 290073.930 3299437.650 75.38 I2 289821.770 3299488.760 73.90D12 290097.810 3299445.170 76.88 I3 289845.540 3299496.300 73.66E1 289826.130 3299384.770 75.40 I4 289869.140 3299503.790 73.55E2 289851.940 3299392.990 76.04 I5 289893.080 3299511.490 74.23E3 289875.800 3299401.000 76.79 I6 289916.770 3299519.060 74.30E4 289899.540 3299408.420 75.51 I7 289940.780 3299526.450 74.37E5 289923.530 3299416.210 74.95 I8 289964.540 3299533.930 74.54E6 289947.240 3299423.800 74.62 I9 289988.260 3299541.540 74.62E7 289971.290 3299431.270 74.99 I10 290012.240 3299549.120 74.69E8 289994.960 3299438.870 74.93 I11 290036.120 3299556.730 74.85E9 290018.740 3299446.380 74.75 I12 290059.720 3299564.340 74.68E10 290042.760 3299454.060 74.85 J1 289791.730 3299505.600 73.28E11 290066.520 3299461.600 75.19 J2 289814.050 3299512.540 73.45E12 290090.250 3299469.250 77.05 J3 289837.610 3299519.860 73.83F1 289817.330 3299407.210 70.96 J4 289861.70 3299527.73 74.00EPA#NORTHINGEASTING ELEVATIOND 2RA 290257.607 3299451.239 74.79D 3RA 290223.390 3299534.542 74.80DPG2 289898.000 3299529.000 74.54G2RA 290049.000 3299396.000 76.02H2RA 289977.000 3299373.000 76.95H3RA 289952.000 3299444.000 77.22HS11 289973.000 3299372.000 77.06HS12 289983.000 3299380.000 76.71I1RA 289921.092 3299291.231 74.7312RA 289910.000 3299356.000 76.4613RA 289885.000 3299428.000 76.70J2RA 289844.000 3299341.000 76.00J3RA 289828.000 3299417.000 69.62J4RA 289797.000 3299475.000 73.68K3RA 289733.642 3299373.483 75.04SGP101 289980.254 3299595.233 73.69SGP102 289968.555 3299600.801 73.44SGP201 289945.281 3299543.293 73.79SGP301 290115.754 3299462.664 76.96SGP302 290139.750 3299469.614 76.49SEͲ3 289913.684 3299551.213 73.58SEͲ2 289956.746 3299551.911 73.61SEͲ1 289960.470 3299582.329 73.34N WͲ1 290193.599 3299453.622 75.11N WͲ3 290225.076 3299466.990 74.96N WͲ2 290215.390 3299441.012 75.38SͲ1289719.7283299248.160SͲ2 289709.0973299281.481SͲ3289711.508 3299323.125SͲ4289661.391 3299352.697SͲ5289679.599 3299403.940SͲ6289628.763 3299397.979SͲ7289575.053 3299402.542SͲ8289530.878 3299369.933

### Concurrence Page for the Ruston Foundry

Final Close Out Report

# ~~ Bud y , Section Chief

LA/NM/OK Section

# ~~. Donald Williams, Deputy Associate Director

Remedfal }3ranch

/////;:;;t

c ;

# '~0J- 

# , -**,/.~);:!<//** / /// .,J;,... / #. ····y/·'T,**L-~/** 7 ,,'.

.**~/v** Charles Faultry, Ass ciate Director

Remedial Branch 

# coif {I ( 

### "-,oOl 0

Date

Date



## :L/d-' I Date

Date

Date Pam Phillips, Deputy Dftrector Superfund Division**Re~onal** Cou,nsel Superfund Branch 

### ! ) 

# i\" /1 1 

### .M

.. 

# J() Ill!

- I**U~,11\- U(~r**  Amy S inas, Assistant Regional Counsel

# c~~Ch 

# Mark:C

ef



# / /1 '. J 

# d 

# 0 ;' (\

I 

# I f 

### U 

### D**~l** / 

# )-6l,17L /0)**~aJ20f ,·b:C~**  /)1'--. 

### :A--+'//_i I_()_' _I ----,0--:,--1

## ~_' Samuel Coleman, 

### PjE.

. Date
Director, Superfund Division