36838 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA). Page 

33 of the RIA discusses the availability 

of annual accident data for 2014–2016, 

and includes a footnote (footnote 32) 

indicating the source of the accident 

data. The footnote states: ‘‘EPA. April 

2018. Risk Management Plan (RMP) 

Facility Accident Data, 2014–2016. 

USEPA, Office of Emergency 

Management.’’ This footnote should 

read ‘‘EPA. March 2018. Risk 

Management Plan (RMP) Facility 

Accident Data, 2014–2016. USEPA, 

Office of Emergency Management.’’ 

The other location is on page 34968 

of ‘‘Accidental Release Prevention 

Requirements: Risk Management 

Programs Under the Clean Air Act; 

Notification of Data Availability and 

Extension of Comment Period,’’ 83 FR 

34967, 34968 (July 24, 2018), in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. 

Column two of this page also discusses 

the 2014–2016 accident data, but 

incorrectly indicates that EPA 

developed the docketed spreadsheet 

containing these data from the 

November 2017 version of the RMP 

database. The last sentence of the 

carryover paragraph at the top of 

column two should read: ‘‘EPA 

developed the latter spreadsheet from 

the March 2018 version of the 

database.’’ 

While the facility count information 

discussed in the Notification of Data 

Availability was based on the November 

2017 version of the RMP database, EPA 

extracted the 2014–2016 accident data 

from the March 2018 version of the RMP 

database, as indicated above. EPA notes 

that the previously docketed 2014–2016 

accident spreadsheet contains an 

additional 25 accident records for the 

2014–2016 period that were not 

available when the November 2017 

version of the database was created. By 

using a later version of the database to 

extract accident records, EPA provided 

more up-to-date accident information to 

support the regulatory record. However, 

users who attempt to replicate EPA’s 

2014–2016 accident spreadsheet by 

extracting accident data from the 

November 2017 version of the RMP 

database (which was recently added to 

the rulemaking docket as EPA–HQ– 

OEM–2015–0725–0989) would not see 

the additional 25 accident records. 

EPA has added a memo to the 

rulemaking docket dated July 25, 2018, 

with the subject line: Corrections to 

References to Risk Management Plan 

Accident Information for 2014–2016. 

This memo explains the corrections 

discussed above and includes a list of 

the 25 accidents that are included in the 

2014–2016 spreadsheet but not in the 

November 2017 version of the RMP 

database. 

Dated: July 25, 2018. 

Reggie Cheatham, 

Director, Office of Emergency Management. 

[FR Doc. 2018–16372 Filed 7–30–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1983–0002; FRL–9981– 

39—Region 6] 

National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency 

Plan; National Priorities List: Partial 

Deletion of the South Valley Superfund 

Site 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) Region 6 is issuing a 

Notice of Intent to Delete Operable 

Units 1, 2, and 5 of the South Valley 

Superfund Site (Site) located in 

Albuquerque, New Mexico, from the 

National Priorities List (NPL) and 

requests public comments on this 

proposed action. The NPL, promulgated 

pursuant to section 105 of the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is 

an appendix of the National Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and 

the State of New Mexico, through the 

New Mexico Environment Department, 

have determined that all appropriate 

response actions at these identified 

parcels under CERCLA have been 

completed, other than five-year reviews 

and operation and maintenance 

activities. However, this deletion does 

not preclude future actions under 

Superfund. This partial deletion 

pertains to Operable Units 1, 2, and 5. 

The remaining Operable Units 3, 4, and 

6 will remain on the NPL and are not 

being considered for deletion as part of 

this action. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

August 30, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID no. EPA–HQ– 

SFUND–1983–0002, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov . Follow 

the online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish 

any comment received to its public 

docket. Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

• Email: hebert.michael@epa.gov. 

• Mail: Michael A. Hebert, Remedial 

Project Manager, EPA Region 6, Mail 

Code—6SF–RL, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. 

• Hand delivery: 

Æ Michael A. Hebert, Remedial Project 

Manager, EPA Region 6, Mail Code— 

6SF–RL, 7th Floor Reception Area, 

1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 

75202–2733. 

Æ Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Docket’s normal hours of 

operation (Monday through Friday, 7 

a.m. to 4 p.m.) and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID no. EPA–HQ–SFUND–1983– 

0002. The http://www.regulations.gov 

website 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 

email comment directly to EPA without 

going through http://

www.regulations.gov, your email 

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. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2018 / Proposed Rules 36839 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http://

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 the 

hard copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at: 

Zimmerman Library, Government 

Information Department, University of 

New Mexico, Albuquerque NM 87131, 

505.277.9100, Monday–Thursday—7 

a.m.–2 a.m., Friday—7 a.m.–9 p.m., 

Saturday—10 a.m.–6 p.m., Sunday— 

12 p.m.–2 a.m. 

New Mexico Environment Department, 

Harold Runnels Building, 1190 St. 

Francis Drive, Santa Fe, NM 87505, 

505.827.2855, Monday–Friday—8 

a.m.–5 p.m. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael A. Hebert, Remedial Project 

Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 6, Mail Code—6SF–RL, 

1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas, 

75202–2733, (214) 665–8315, email: 

hebert.michael@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. NPL Deletion Criteria 

III. Deletion Procedures 

IV. Basis for Intended Partial Site Deletion 

I. Introduction 

EPA Region 6 announces its intent to 

delete Operable Units 1, 2, and 5 of the 

South Valley Superfund Site (Site), from 

the National Priorities List (NPL) and 

requests public comment on this 

proposed action. The NPL constitutes 

Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which 

is the National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency Plan 

(NCP), which EPA promulgated 

pursuant to Section 105 of the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation and Liability 

Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. 

EPA maintains the NPL as those 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 

South Valley Superfund Site 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, a portion of a site deleted from 

the NPL remains eligible for Fundfinanced remedial action if future 

conditions warrant such actions. 

EPA will accept comments on the 

proposal to partially delete this site for 

30 days after publication of this 

document 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 Operable Units 1, 2, and 5 

of the South Valley Superfund Site and 

demonstrates how the operable units 

meet the 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 Operable Units 1, 2, and 5 

of the Site: 

(1) EPA consulted with the State of 

New Mexico before developing this 

Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion. 

(2) EPA has provided the State of New 

Mexico 30 working days for review of 

this notice prior to publication of it 

today. 

(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 New Mexico Environment 

Department, has concurred with the 

deletion of Operable Units 1, 2, and 5 

of the South Valley Superfund Site, 

from the NPL. 

(5) Concurrently, with the publication 

of this Notice of Intent for Partial 

Deletion in the Federal Register, a 

notice is being published in a major 

local newspaper, the Albuquerque 

Journal, http://www.abqjournal.com. 

The newspaper 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 

partial deletion in the deletion docket, 

made these items available for public 

inspection, and copying at the Site 

information repositories identified 

above. 

If comments are received within the 

30-day comment period on this 

document, EPA will evaluate and 

respond accordingly to the comments 

before making a final decision to delete 

Operable Units 1, 2, and 5. 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 

delete Operable Units 1, 2, and 5 of the 

South Valley Superfund Site, the 

Regional Administrator will publish a 

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. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
36840 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

IV. Basis for Partial Site Deletion 

The following information provides 

EPA’s rationale for deleting Operable 

Units 1, 2, and 5 of the South Valley 

Superfund Site from the NPL: 

Site Background and History 

The EPA ID for the South Valley 

Superfund Site is NMD980745558. The 

South Valley Superfund Site is in the 

southern portion of Albuquerque, in 

Bernillo County, New Mexico, directly 

across Interstate 25 from the 

Albuquerque International Airport and 

the University of New Mexico Golf 

Course. The South Valley Superfund 

Site consists of an area of approximately 

one square mile proximate to the 

intersection of South Broadway 

Boulevard and Woodward Road and is 

divided into two properties: the former 

Air Force Plant 83 site and the Univar 

site. The Air Force Plant 83 site is 

further divided into two parcels located 

north and south of Woodward Road 

known as North Plant 83 and South 

Plant 83, respectively. Various 

manufacturing operations occurred at 

the Air Force Plant 83 site from the 

1940s until 1967, when the United 

States Air Force took ownership of the 

property and its contractor, General 

Electric Aircraft Engines (GEA), began 

manufacturing aircraft engine 

components at the property. GEA 

purchased the Air Force Plant 83 in 

1983 and continued operations until 

October 1997, when North Plant 83 was 

closed, and until October 2010, when 

South Plant 83 was closed. Groundwater 

beneath the Site is in the Santa Fe 

Group which is comprised of several 

layers within the formation. The 

shallow zone aquifer (approximately 

175–225 below ground surface [bgs]) 

beneath the North Plant 83 area has a 

continuous silty clay layer underneath it 

and is therefore primarily perched and 

does not have a uniform flow direction. 

The shallow groundwater in the South 

Plant 83 area flows east to west. Unlike 

North Plant 83, the silty clay layer 

beneath the South Plant 83 area is 

discontinuous and therefore is in 

hydraulic connection with the deeper 

aquifer zones. The deeper aquifer sand 

zones (approximately 225–355 bgs, 255– 

415 bgs, and 415–515 bgs) have 

discontinuous silts and clays 

interbedded within them which are not 

laterally extensive but may limit 

downward movement through the 

formation. Groundwater flows generally 

east to west in all the deeper aquifer 

zones. 

Groundwater contamination was first 

suspected in the late 1970s in two 

municipal wells—San Jose No. 6 and 

San Jose No. 3. The wells were taken out 

of service after subsequent sampling 

indicated contamination. Groundwater 

monitoring results in the vicinity of the 

wells indicated the potential for a 

number of sources, including several 

industrial operations located in close 

proximity to the contaminated wells. 

When the Site was proposed to the NPL 

on December 30, 1982, (47 FR 58476), 

it was the number one priority of the 

State of New Mexico. EPA finalized the 

NPL listing on September 8, 1983, (48 

FR 40658). 

The Operable Units at the South 

Valley Superfund Site are as follows: 

Operable Unit 1 (OU1) (included in 

partial deletion)—OU1 consists of the 

City of Albuquerque San Jose 6 (SJ–6) 

and San Jose 3 (SJ–3) wells, which were 

contaminated with volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs). EPA signed the 

Record of Decision (ROD) for OU1 on 

March 22, 1985 but did not identify a 

Potentially Responsible Party (PRP). The 

remedial goal was to eliminate the 

threat to human health posed by 

introducing water from the San Jose 6 

and San Jose 3 wells into the City of 

Albuquerque drinking water supply. 

The objective was achieved by EPA 

replacing wells SJ–6 and SJ–3 with the 

Burton No. 4 well, which was 

completed in April 1987. 

Operable Unit 2 (OU2) (included in 

partial deletion)—The remedial goals of 

OU2 were to eliminate the conduit(s) for 

contaminant migration from the shallow 

to the deeper aquifers and to restrict 

groundwater use under the Site. EPA 

signed the OU2 ROD on September 30, 

1988 and identified GEA as a PRP. GEA 

implemented the remedial action by 

plugging SJ–6 and SJ–3 and any shallow 

wells that could act as conduits for 

contaminant transport from the shallow 

to the deeper aquifers, restricting 

groundwater use, and implementing 

groundwater monitoring. GEA 

integrated the OU2 groundwater 

monitoring program into Operable Unit 

6 and continues the monitoring program 

today. 

Operable Unit 3 (OU3)—The remedial 

goal of OU3 included reducing the 

concentrations of site-related VOCs in 

groundwater to acceptable levels 

(aquifer restoration) via a pump-treatinjection system. EPA signed the ROD 

on June 28, 1988 and identified Univar 

as the Potentially Responsible Party. 

Univar initiated groundwater recovery 

system in April 1992 and a vapor 

recovery system in November 1999. 

Univar shut off both systems in 

November 2006. Subsequent monitoring 

has shown that the groundwater and 

vapor recovery systems reduced the 

dissolved chlorinated VOC 

concentrations to levels below and 

compliant with applicable or relevant 

and appropriate requirements as defined 

in the ROD. On June 10, 2014, the EPA 

acknowledged that Univar completed all 

requirements of the Consent Decree 

dated March 27, 1990, as they relate to 

the constituents of concern in 

groundwater identified in the ROD and 

the subsequent Explanation of 

Significant Differences dated September 

26, 2006, except for addressing 1,4- 

dioxane contamination. The EPA 

acknowledged that Univar is addressing 

1,4-dioxane in groundwater at OU3 

pursuant to Section XVI(D) of the above 

Consent Decree. 

Operable Unit 4 (OU4)—OU4 consists 

of the vadose zone at the Univar site. As 

the PRP, Univar was required to 

investigate the soil around a pit on its 

property to establish the source of the 

solvents under their plant. The 

investigation found no evidence in the 

vadose zone that a release occurred at 

this location. EPA signed the ROD on 

June 28, 1988 and specified No Further 

Action. 

Operable Unit 5 (OU5) (included in 

partial deletion)—OU5 consists of the 

unsaturated and saturated portion of the 

shallow zone aquifer at North Plant 83 

and South Plant 83. EPA signed the 

ROD on September 30, 1988, and 

identified GEA as the PRP. The remedial 

goals for this operable unit were 

remediating shallow zone groundwater 

and eliminating source materials via 

enhanced dewatering, soil flushing, and 

soil vapor extraction (SVE) to result in 

aquifer restoration. GEA conducted soil 

vapor surveys and collected soil borings 

in the South Plant 83 area and the North 

Plant 83 area to identify VOC 

contamination. The result of these 

investigations indicated that the 

concentrations of VOCs would best be 

remediated using SVE. GEA operated 

SVE systems at the North Plant 83 and 

South Plant 83 areas in 1992 and 1993. 

Prior to remediation, the groundwater 

contamination encompassed 

approximately twelve acres at North 

Plant 83 and approximately seven acres 

at South Plant 83. GEA initiated shallow 

groundwater recovery systems at the 

North Plant 83 and South Plant 83 areas 

in May 1994 and completely shut down 

the groundwater recovery systems in 

July 2010. GEA completed compliance 

groundwater monitoring and on 

September 22, 2014 requested closure of 

OU5 stating that GEA had satisfactorily 

completed all requirements of the 

Administrative Order dated July 3, 

1989. All wells and infrastructure 

associated with the OU5 groundwater 

treatment system have been plugged and 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2018 / Proposed Rules 36841 

abandoned or removed as approved by 

EPA. 

After the closure of South Plant 83 in 

October 2010, GEA performed 

additional remedial activities associated 

with OU5 soils. Specifically, GEA 

performed investigations within the 

North Plant 83 and South Plant 83 

building footprints and excavated and 

disposed of hexavalent chromium 

contaminated soil from the East and 

West Tank Line area in South Plant 83. 

In addition, GEA filed a deed restriction 

in the Bernalillo County records 

covering areas where semi-volatile 

organic compounds (i.e., polyaromatic 

hydrocarbons) or hexavalent chromium 

contamination remained above 

industrial soil screening levels. 

Operable Unit 6 (OU6)—OU6 consists 

of the deep aquifer at North Plant 83 

and South Plant 83. EPA signed the 

ROD on September 30, 1988 and 

identified GEA as the PRP. The remedial 

goals of OU6 are hydraulically 

containing the plume to protect the City 

of Albuquerque’s water supply wells 

and reducing the concentrations of siterelated VOC compounds in groundwater 

to acceptable levels (aquifer restoration). 

The original plume was approximately 

100 acres in size but as of 2018, only 

two wells have constituents above 

cleanup levels. The groundwater 

remediation system at OU6 began 

operation in March 1996. Remedial 

action activities have hydraulically 

contained the plume and shrunk it 

significantly from its former volume and 

mass. To date, over 7.5 billion gallons 

of contaminated water have been 

recovered, treated, and reinjected back 

into the deep aquifer. 

The South Valley area of Albuquerque 

has experienced ongoing development 

and redevelopment for decades. The 

proposed extension of Sunport 

Boulevard from east of Interstate 25 to 

west of Interstate 25, if constructed, is 

expected to spur local economic growth 

and redevelopment. 

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility 

Study 

Operable Unit 1 (OU1)—Other than 

the sampling that established that San 

Jose No. 6 and San Jose No. 3 municipal 

water supply wells had been impacted, 

there was no remedial investigation 

performed for OU1. Upon detection of 

contamination, the City of Albuquerque 

discontinued use of the water supply 

wells. Subsequently, the EPA, the City 

of Albuquerque, and other stakeholders 

conducted several meetings to discuss 

potential sites for a replacement 

municipal well, which culminated in 

the final design and ultimate 

installation of a replacement municipal 

water supply well, Burton Well No. 4. 

In addition, a remedial investigation 

was initiated which provided 

information utilized to develop 

remedial activities for the remaining 

operable units at the Site. 

Operable Unit 2 (OU2)—GEA 

conducted a remedial investigation for 

OU2 because of the contamination 

identified in OU1. As part of the 

remedial investigation, GEA compiled 

existing investigative information and 

collected additional soil, groundwater, 

surface water, and sediment information 

associated with the one-square-mile 

boundary area of the South Valley 

Superfund Site. In addition, GEA 

identified contamination associated 

with several different sources. Based 

upon the remedial investigation data, 

GEA determined in the feasibility study 

that contaminated groundwater in the 

shallow zone was potentially migrating 

into the intermediate zone throughout 

the Site through improperly constructed 

groundwater wells. The contaminants of 

concern identified in the remedial 

investigation were VOCs, with the main 

contaminant being trichloroethylene 

(TCE). 

Operable Unit 5 (OU5)—GEA 

conducted a remedial investigation for 

OU5 because of the contamination 

identified in OU1. As part of the 

remedial investigation GEA, compiled 

existing investigative information and 

collected additional soil, groundwater, 

surface water, and sediment information 

associated with the one-square-mile 

boundary area of the South Valley 

Superfund Site. Further, GEA identified 

contamination associated with several 

different sources. The contaminants of 

concern identified in the remedial 

investigation were VOCs, with the main 

contaminant being TCE. 

Based upon the remedial investigation 

data, GEA determined in the feasibility 

study that OU5 soil contamination 

occurs in areas associated with the two 

areas, North Plant 83 and South Plant 

83, and groundwater contamination 

occurs in the shallow aquifer below 

portions of both the North Plant 83 and 

South Plant 83 areas. GEA also 

identified groundwater contamination 

comprising of similar constituents of 

concerns as in OU5 in several other 

hydrogeological units beneath the Site, 

which are addressed in OU6. 

After the closure of South Plant 83 in 

October 2010, GEA performed 

additional remedial activities associated 

with OU5, including soil investigations 

within the North Plant 83 and South 

Plant 83 building footprints. GEA 

identified 68 separate areas as a 

potential concern with 41 of these 

locations being identified for 

investigation. In addition, GEA sampled 

soil borings for VOCs, semi-volatile 

organic compounds, polychlorinated 

biphenyls, and selected metals. GEA did 

not detect VOCs above industrial soil 

screening levels and did not detect any 

polychlorinated biphenyls. GEA 

detected semi-volatile organic 

compounds (i.e., polyaromatic 

hydrocarbons) and hexavalent 

chromium in a few of the 41 locations 

investigated. In addition, GEA 

inspected, investigated, and cleaned out 

sanitary sewer lines for both North Plant 

83 and South Plant 83. While GEA 

detected concentrations of metal 

contaminants in sediments within the 

sewer lines, it did not identify impacts 

in the soils adjacent and beneath the 

sewer lines. 

Selected Remedy 

Operable Unit 1 (OU1)—EPA signed 

the ROD for OU1 on March 22, 1985. 

The selected remedy was installation of 

a new water supply well to replace the 

capacity of the contaminated well San 

Jose No. 6. The remedial goal was to 

eliminate the threat to human health 

posed by introducing water from this 

well into the City of Albuquerque 

drinking water supply. 

Operable Unit 2 (OU2)—EPA signed 

the ROD for OU2 on September 30, 

1988. The selected remedy consisted of 

cleaning out and sealing abandoned 

wells that were acting as conduits for 

contaminant migration, groundwater 

quality monitoring during and after 

implementation of any remedial action, 

and the imposition of access restrictions 

regarding well construction 

specifications and depth of completions 

through the State Engineer’s office. The 

remedial goals were eliminating 

conduit(s) for contaminant migration 

from the shallow to intermediate 

aquifers and preventing the use of 

contaminated groundwater in the site 

area. 

Operable Unit 5 (OU5)—EPA signed 

the ROD for OU5 on September 30, 

1988. The selected remedy consisted of 

further investigation to define the extent 

of soil and groundwater contamination, 

soil remediation utilizing SVE on 

portions of North Plant 83 and South 

Plant 83, groundwater remediation 

through extraction, treatment with air 

stripping followed by carbon 

adsorption, and reinjection into the 

aquifer for shallow (OU5) groundwater 

contaminated zones located under 

portions of North Plant 83 and South 

Plant 83 along with intermediate/deep 

(OU6) groundwater contaminated zones 

on-site and off-site. The remedial goals 

for OU5 were remediating shallow zone 

groundwater and eliminating source 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
36842 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

materials via enhanced dewatering, soil 

flushing, and SVE. Further, as a result 

of the investigations performed by GEA 

after closure of South Plant 83 in 

October 2010, GEA conducted removal 

of soil proximate to the East and West 

Tank Line area in South Plant 83 in 

2011. 

Response Actions 

Operable Unit 1 (OU1)—The United 

State Corps of Engineers completed a 

final design for a new municipal water 

supply well in late 1986. The remedial 

action performed at OU1 was the 

replacement of wells SJ–6 and SJ–3 with 

the Burton No. 4 well, which was 

completed in April 1987. 

Operable Unit 2 (OU2)—GEA 

completed a final design dated July 20, 

1990, that contained plans to install 

monitoring wells, clean out and plug 

abandoned wells including the SJ–6 

well (OU1), and conduct a groundwater 

monitoring program. GEA completed 

the installation of new monitoring wells 

and the plugging and abandonment of 

wells that could act as conduits for 

contaminant transport to lower 

groundwater zones by the end of 1992. 

GEA initiated an OU2 groundwater 

monitoring program, which in 1996 was 

combined with the OU6 groundwater 

monitoring program to simplify 

groundwater monitoring and reporting 

at the Site. The New Mexico State 

Engineer’s office issued a restriction 

concerning groundwater well 

construction within the boundaries of 

the South Valley Superfund Site on 

December 19, 1988. 

Operable Unit 5 (OU5)—Because the 

remedial investigation identified both 

soil and groundwater contamination, 

the response actions for OU5 were 

separated by media into soil and 

groundwater actions. For soils, GEA 

finalized the remedial design for the 

SVE systems in late 1991, which EPA 

subsequently approved on January 24, 

1992. GEA installed and operated SVE 

systems on both the North Plant 83 and 

South Plant 83 areas. The North Plant 

83 SVE system operated for 

approximately four months from June 

1992 to June 1993. The South Plant 83 

SVE system operated for approximately 

five months from October 1992 to March 

1993. For groundwater, GEA’s 

contractor, Canonie Environmental, 

completed a final design dated July 21, 

1993, that contained construction 

details for the remedial systems for the 

shallow zone groundwater remediation 

on the North Plant 83 and South Plant 

83 areas. The North Plant 83 system 

initially was comprised of seven 

extraction wells, and the South Plant 83 

system was comprised of three wells. 

These systems were augmented through 

their operational lifetime to adapt to 

changes in groundwater concentrations 

and flow patterns. 

After the closure of South Plant 83 in 

October 2010, GEA performed 

additional remedial activities associated 

with OU5. GEA conducted removal of 

soil proximate to the East and West 

Tank Line area in South Plant 83 in 

2011. Approximately 3.5 tons of 

contaminated soil and concrete were 

removed and transported for final 

disposal at an off-site hazardous waste 

disposal facility. Following removal, 

GEA backfilled the area with clean fill 

and capped the area with a five-inchthick, 3,000 pounds/square inch layer of 

reinforced concrete. GEA filed a deed 

restriction in the Bernalillo County 

records covering areas where semivolatile organic compounds (i.e., 

polyaromatic hydrocarbons) or 

hexavalent chromium contamination 

remained present above industrial soil 

screening levels. GEA removed 

approximately 1,750 feet of primary 4- 

inch to 8-inch diameter cast iron 

process sewer lines, 435 feet of similar 

smaller branch lines, and seven 

manholes and disposed these materials 

at a Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act treatment, storage, and 

disposal facility. Finally, GEA cleaned 

and abandoned in place the South Plant 

83 sewer system piping and plugged the 

connection to the City of Albuquerque 

sewer system. 

Cleanup Levels 

Operable Unit 1 (OU1)—There were 

no cleanup levels established for OU1, 

as the remedy was simply replacement 

of a municipal water supply well to 

replace the capacity lost by the 

contaminated SJ–6 well. 

Operable Unit 2 (OU2)—There were 

no cleanup levels established for OU2, 

as the remedy was simply the 

installation of additional groundwater 

monitoring wells, the plugging and 

abandonment of wells that could act as 

conduits for contaminant transport to 

lower groundwater zones, the 

imposition of access restrictions 

regarding well construction 

specifications and depth of completions 

through the State Engineer’s office, and 

the establishment of a groundwater 

monitoring program to obtain data 

concerning groundwater contamination. 

Operable Unit 5 (OU5)—The 

investigations and remediation work for 

OU5 was separated by media into soil 

and groundwater work. For soil, the 

ROD required the utilization of SVE for 

soil remediation but did not specify 

cleanup levels. The ROD stated, ‘‘Soils 

treatment will continue until the vapor 

extraction system ceases to produce 

volatile contaminants and will be 

followed by sampling to confirm soil 

remediation.’’ GEA obtained post 

remediation soil samples after the SVE 

systems ceased operations and proposed 

cleanup levels for soils in April 1993. 

The proposed cleanup levels considered 

soil exposure pathways including 

dermal contact, inhalation, and 

ingestion (i.e., by children ages 2 to 6) 

as well as the potential for contaminants 

to leach from soil into groundwater that 

would exceed drinking water standards. 

GEA based the cleanup levels on the 

assumption of an operating 

manufacturing facility with restricted 

access but also on the worst-case 

exposure scenario that the site could be 

converted to residential use. During a 

meeting with GEA on November 2, 

1993, EPA verbally agreed to the 

proposed cleanup levels. In a letter 

dated June 21, 1994, EPA indicated that 

the levels of contaminants found in the 

soils were below limits that required 

removal. In addition, out of an 

abundance of caution, as part of the 

2017 Remedial Action Report for OU5, 

GEA performed a comparison of the 

post remediation soil concentrations to 

the EPA Industrial and Residential Soil 

Screening Levels (November 2015) 

which indicated all the post soil 

remediation soil concentrations were 

below the EPA Industrial and 

Residential Soil Screening Levels. For 

groundwater, the ROD specified that 

cleanup levels would be maximum 

contaminant limits from the Safe 

Drinking Water Act and levels in the 

New Mexico Water Quality Control 

Commission regulations, whichever was 

more stringent. These levels were 

updated in an Explanation of Significant 

Differences dated October 16, 2006, 

which added a level for 

tetrachloroethylene promulgated under 

the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1992. 

GEA implemented and conducted a 

groundwater monitoring program 

throughout the operation of the shallow 

zone groundwater remediation systems. 

After six years of monitoring indicating 

that none of the off-site wells of the 

North Plant 83 system well network 

exceeded cleanup levels, EPA approved 

closure of the off-site wells and 

conveyance system. GEA flushed, 

cleaned, and abandoned conveyance 

piping in place and plugged and 

abandoned wells in 2010. One on-site 

well associated with the North Plant 83 

system remained slightly above cleanup 

levels. In 2010, GEA performed in-situ 

chemical oxidation around this well 

which subsequent sampling confirmed 

that contaminant concentrations fell and 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2018 / Proposed Rules 36843 

remained below cleanup levels. The 

South Plant 83 system experienced a 

similar history to the North Plant 83 

system. By 1999, all wells associated 

with the South Plant 83 system except 

for two wells were below cleanup 

levels. By 2006, only one well had 

concentrations above cleanup levels. 

Like the North Plant 83 system, GEA 

performed in-situ chemical oxidation in 

2010 around this well, which 

subsequent sampling confirmed that 

contaminant concentrations fell below 

cleanup levels shortly after the in-situ 

treatment and remained below cleanup 

levels through 2012. 

After the closure of South Plant 83 in 

October 2010, GEA performed 

additional remedial activities associated 

with OU5. Utilizing investigations 

results, GEA completed an assessment 

of the risk for the contaminants 

identified in the investigation. This 

assessment indicated that hexavalent 

chromium contamination in deep soils 

would not pose a risk to human health 

and the environment assuming that an 

impermeable cover remained in place 

and institutional controls were 

implemented. The assessment also 

indicated that the semi-volatile organic 

compounds (i.e., polyaromatic 

hydrocarbons) identified in soils would 

not pose a risk to human health and the 

environment if the existing concrete cap 

was left in place. GEA removed soil 

with concentrations of hexavalent 

chromium above 50 milligrams per 

kilogram (mg/kg) but did not remove 

soil with hexavalent chromium 

contamination ranging from 5.6 to 50 

mg/kg at depths between 5 to 14 feet 

below the existing concrete slab. GEA 

filed a deed restriction in the Bernalillo 

County records covering areas where 

semi-volatile organic compounds or 

hexavalent chromium contamination 

remained above industrial soil screening 

levels. 

Operation and Maintenance 

Operable Unit 1 (OU1)—The 

operation and maintenance concerning 

the Burton No. 4 replacement well is 

performed by the City of Albuquerque. 

Operable Unit 2 (OU2)—There is no 

operation and maintenance associated 

with OU2. The restriction concerning 

groundwater well construction within 

the boundaries of the South Valley 

Superfund Site issued by the New 

Mexico State Engineer’s office on 

December 19, 1988, remains in effect 

but is now monitored under OU6. This 

restriction is not needed and does not 

affect the protectiveness of the actions 

performed at OU2. 

Operable Unit 5 (OU5)—Since the soil 

and groundwater remediation systems 

associated with OU5 have met their 

associated cleanup levels and have been 

dismantled, there are no operation and 

maintenance activities required or 

ongoing for the OU5 SVE and 

groundwater remediation systems. In 

addition, while still in effect, the New 

Mexico State Engineer’s restriction 

concerning groundwater well 

construction is no longer required for 

the protectiveness of the OU5 remedy 

because groundwater concentrations are 

below the maximum contaminant limits 

from the Safe Drinking Water Act and 

levels in the New Mexico Water Quality 

Control Commission regulations. After 

ceasing operations in September 2010 

and completing demolition of the South 

Plant 83 buildings in May 2011, GEA 

performed investigations of the South 

Plant 83 property which included 

evaluating soil impacts near any 

existing sub-grade foundation features 

as well as the North Plant 83 and South 

Plant 83 sewer systems. In addition, 

GEA cleaned out and abandoned in 

place the sewer systems. Because of the 

soil investigation, GEA removed 

hexavalent chromium contamination 

near the location of the East and West 

Tank Line on the South Plant 83 

property. Some contamination remained 

in place and, as a result, GEA filed a 

declaration of restrictive covenants on 

September 9, 2014 in the Bernalillo 

County property records. The 

declaration identified five areas where 

semi-volatile organic compounds or 

hexavalent chromium contamination 

exceed industrial soil screening levels. 

The declaration also contained the 

following: Identification of the 

abandoned sanitary sewer lines and 

existing sewer line locations; restriction 

that the property use is limited to 

commercial and industrial; restriction 

that groundwater beneath the site 

cannot be used; and engineered barriers 

must remain in place on portions of the 

property where semi-volatile organic 

compounds and hexavalent chromium 

remain above industrial soil screening 

levels. GEA performs normal property 

maintenance inspections of the North 

Plant 83 and South Plant 83 to identify 

fencing integrity issues and to maintain 

weed control. These inspections also 

observe the integrity of the concrete cap 

over the East and West Tank Line 

removal area to ensure it is competent. 

GEA also ensures that the deed 

restriction remains in the Bernalillo 

County records. 

Five Year Review 

Operable Unit 1 (OU1)—A five-year 

review is not necessary for OU1 because 

no hazardous substances, pollutants, or 

contaminants remain at the site above 

levels that allow for unlimited use and 

unrestricted exposure. 

Operable Unit 2 (OU2)—A five-year 

review is not necessary for OU2 because 

no hazardous substances, pollutants, or 

contaminants remain at the site above 

levels that allow for unlimited use and 

unrestricted exposure. While still in 

effect, the New Mexico State Engineer’s 

restriction concerning groundwater well 

construction is no longer required for 

the protectiveness of the OU5 remedy 

because groundwater concentrations are 

below the maximum contaminant limits 

from the Safe Drinking Water Act and 

levels in the New Mexico Water Quality 

Control Commission regulations. In 

1996, the OU2 groundwater monitoring 

program was combined with the OU6 

groundwater monitoring program, 

which is and has been the subject of 

ongoing five-year reviews associated 

with the Site. The next five-year review 

for the Site is due in July 2020. 

Operable Unit 5 (OU5)—A statutory 

five-year review is necessary for OU5 

because hazardous substances, 

pollutants, or contaminants remain at 

the site above levels that allow for 

unlimited use and unrestricted 

exposure. OU5 has been the subject of 

ongoing five-year reviews with the next 

review due in July 2020. No issues and/ 

or recommendations were identified in 

the 2015 five-year review for OU5. 

Community Involvement 

The major community involvement 

activities associated with the operable 

units proposed for deletion are as 

follows: 

• Open Houses and Workshops: 

September 1988; November 1993; July 

1995; October 1997; September 1998; 

November 1999, October 2000; 

November 2001; January 2013. 

• Original Proposed Plan Fact Sheet 

and Public Meetings: June 1988; July 

1988; August 1988; February 1989. 

• Public Meetings: October 2000; 

November 2001. 

• Original ROD Fact Sheets: July 

1988; November 1988; April 1989. 

• Milestone Fact Sheets: May 1989; 

March 1990; April 1990; June 1990; 

March 1991; November 1993; June 1995; 

April 1996; December 2011; January 

2013; June 2015; July 2015; June 2018. 

• Citizens on Site Mailing List: 590. 

Other notable community 

involvement activities are: 

• Pre Five-Year Review public notices 

published in local newspapers 

indicating Five-Year Reviews were 

being initiated. 

• Post Five-Year Review public 

notices published in local newspapers 

indicating Five-Year Reviews were 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
36844 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

completed and available in the local 

repository or from the State or EPA. 

• Monthly site status summaries that 

were made available to the public or 

more recently, updates to site activities 

made on the site web page available on 

the internet. 

• September 23, 2010, newspaper 

article in the Albuquerque Journal 

concerning the closure of the General 

Electric plant. 

• Discussion of the site at public 

meetings associated with the Sunport 

Boulevard Extension from 

approximately 2010 to the present. 

• Fact sheets and public notices have 

been provided in both English and 

Spanish. 

Determination That the Criteria for 

Deletion Have Been Met 

The implemented remedies have 

achieved the degree of cleanup or 

protection specified in the OU1, OU2, 

and OU5 RODs for the portions of the 

Site proposed for deletion. The selected 

remedial action goals and associated 

cleanup levels for the OU1, OU2, and 

OU5 portions of the Site proposed for 

deletion are consistent with EPA policy 

and guidance. No further Superfund 

response for the OU1, OU2, and OU5 

portions of the Site proposed for 

deletion are needed to protect human 

health and the environment. The State 

of New Mexico, in an August 11, 2017, 

letter from the New Mexico 

Environment Department, concurred 

with the proposed partial deletion of the 

OU1, OU2, and OU5 portions of the Site 

from the NPL. 

The NCP specifies that EPA may 

delete a site from the NPL if all 

appropriate response under CERCLA 

has been implemented and no further 

response action is appropriate. 40 CFR 

300.425(e)(1)(ii). EPA, with the 

concurrence of the State of New Mexico, 

through NMED, believes that this 

criterion for the deletion of the OU1, 

OU2, and OU5 portions of the Site has 

been met and the OU1, OU2, and OU5 

portions of the Site no longer pose a 

threat to public health or the 

environment. Consequently, EPA is 

proposing to delete the OU1, OU2, and 

OU5 portions of the Site from the NPL. 

Documents supporting this action are 

available in the Docket. 

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(d); 42 U.S.C. 

9601–9657; E.O. 13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 

2013 Comp., p. 306; 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: July 19, 2018. 

Arturo Blanco, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2018–16257 Filed 7–30–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–2002–0001; FRL–9981– 

51—Region 4] 

National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency 

Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion 

of the Reasor Chemical Company 

Superfund Site 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) Region 4 is issuing a 

Notice of Intent to Delete the Reasor 

Chemical Company Superfund Site 

(site) located in Castle Hayne, New 

Hanover County, North Carolina, from 

the National Priorities List (NPL) and 

requests public comments on this 

proposed action. The NPL, promulgated 

pursuant to section 105 of the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is 

an appendix of the National Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and 

the State of North Carolina, through the 

North Carolina Department of 

Environmental Quality (NCDEQ), have 

determined that all appropriate 

response actions under CERCLA have 

been completed. However, this deletion 

does not preclude future actions under 

Superfund. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

August 30, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID no. EPA–HQ– 

SFUND–2002–0001, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish 

any comment received to its public 

docket. Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

• Email: URQUHARTFOSTER.SAMANTHA@EPA.GOV. 

• Mail: Samantha Urquhart-Foster, 

Remedial Project Manager, Remediation 

and Site Evaluation Branch, Superfund 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

• Hand delivery: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth 

Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

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–2002– 

0001. The http://www.regulations.gov 

website 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 

email comment directly to EPA without 

going through http://

www.regulations.gov, your email 

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 http://

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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS