[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 93 (Friday, May 14, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27192-27199]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-11306]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1999-0006; FRL-9150-3]


National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; 
National Priorities List: Deletion of the Ruston Foundry Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 6 is 
publishing a direct final Notice of Deletion of the Ruston Foundry 
Superfund Site (Site), located in Alexandria, Rapides Parish, 
Louisiana, from the National Priorities List (NPL). 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). This direct final deletion is being published 
by EPA with the concurrence of the State of Louisiana, through the 
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ), because EPA has 
determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA have been 
completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions 
under Superfund.

DATES: This direct final deletion is effective July 13, 2010 unless EPA 
receives adverse comments by June 14, 2010. If adverse comments are 
received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final 
deletion in the Federal Register informing the public that the deletion 
will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-1999-0006, by one of the following methods:
    <bullet> http://www.regulations.gov. Follow on-line instructions 
for submitting comments.
    <bullet> E-mail: Katrina Higgins-Coltrain, Remedial Project 
Manager, U.S. EPA Region 6 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b8dbd7d4cccad9d1d696d3d9cccad1d6d9f8ddc8d996dfd7ce"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a2c1cdced6d0c3cbcc8cc9c3d6d0cbccc3e2c7d2c38cc5cdd4">[email protected]</span></a>.
    <bullet> Fax: Katrina Higgins-Coltrain, Remedial Project Manager, 
U.S. EPA Region 6 (6SF-RL) 214-665-6660.
    <bullet> Mail: Katrina Higgins-Coltrain, Remedial Project Manager, 
U.S. EPA Region 6 (6SF-RL), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202-2733.
    <bullet> Hand delivery: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Such deliveries 
are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and 
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed 
information. Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-
HQ-SFUND-1999-0006. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be 
included in the public docket without change and may be made available 
online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal 
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed 
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information 
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site 
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without 
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name 
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of 
any defects or viruses.

Docket

    All documents in the docket are listed in the 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 statue. 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: U.S. 
EPA Region 6 Library, 7th Floor, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, 
Texas 75202-2733, (214) 665-6424; Rapides Parish Public Library, 411 
Washington Street, Alexandria, Louisiana 71301, (318) 442-1840; 
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality Public Records Center, 
Galvez Building Room 127, 602 N. Fifth Street, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 
70802, (225) 219-3168, E-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5f2f2a3d33363c2d3a3c302d3b2c1f333e71383029"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="adddd8cfc1c4cedfc8cec2dfc9deedc1cc83cac2db">[email protected]</span></a>,

[[Page 27193]]

Web page: http://www.deq.louisiana.gov/pubrecords.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katrina Higgins-Coltrain, Remedial 
Project Manager (RPM), U.S. EPA Region 6 (6SF-RL), 1445 Ross Avenue, 
Dallas, TX 75202-2733, (214) 665-8143 or 1-800-533-3508 
(<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1675797a6264777f78387d7762647f78775673667738717960"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="beddd1d2caccdfd7d090d5dfcaccd7d0dffedbcedf90d9d1c8">[email protected]</span></a>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Site Deletion
V. Deletion Action

I. Introduction

    EPA Region 6 is publishing this direct final Notice of Deletion of 
the Ruston Foundry Superfund Site (Site), from the NPL. The NPL 
constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300, which is the NCP, which EPA 
promulgated pursuant to section 105 of CERCLA of 1980, as amended. EPA 
maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a 
significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Sites 
on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions financed by the 
Hazardous Substance Superfund. As described in 300.425(e)(3) of the 
NCP, sites deleted from the NPL remain eligible for Fund-financed 
remedial actions if future conditions warrant such actions.
    Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and 
routine, this action will be effective July 13, 2010, unless EPA 
receives adverse comments by June 14, 2010. Along with this direct 
final Notice of Deletion, EPA is co-publishing a Notice of Intent to 
Delete in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of the Federal Register. If 
adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period 
on this deletion action, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this 
direct final Notice of Deletion before the effective date of the 
deletion, and the deletion will not take effect. EPA will, as 
appropriate, prepare a response to comments and continue with the 
deletion process on the basis of the Notice of Intent to Delete and the 
comments already received. There will be no additional opportunity to 
comment.
    Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting 
sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using 
for this action. Section IV discusses the Ruston Foundry Superfund Site 
and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria. Section V 
discusses EPA's action to delete the Site from the NPL unless adverse 
comments are received during the public comment period.

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. 
Based on confirmation sample results, hazardous substances above health 
based levels have been removed from the Ruston Foundry Superfund Site, 
which allows for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure 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 Site.

III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to deletion of the Site:
    (1) EPA consulted with the state of Louisiana, through the LDEQ, 
prior to developing this direct final Notice of Deletion and the Notice 
of Intent to Delete co-published today in the ``Proposed Rules'' 
section of the Federal Register.
    (2) EPA has provided the state 30 working days for review of this 
notice and the parallel Notice of Intent to Delete prior to their 
publication today, and the state, through the LDEQ, has concurred on 
the deletion of the Site from the NPL.
    (3) Concurrently with the publication of this direct final Notice 
of Deletion, a notice of the availability of the parallel Notice of 
Intent to Delete is being published in the major local newspaper, 
Alexandria Town Talk. The newspaper notice announces the 30-day public 
comment period concerning the Notice of Intent to Delete the Site from 
the NPL.
    (4) The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed 
deletion in the deletion docket and made these items available for 
public inspection and copying at the Site information repositories 
identified above.
    (5) If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public 
comment period on this deletion action, EPA will publish a timely 
notice of withdrawal of this direct final Notice of Deletion before its 
effective date and will prepare a response to comments and continue 
with the deletion process on the basis of the Notice of Intent to 
Delete and the comments already received.
    Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or 
revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from 
the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement 
actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for 
informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section 
300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the 
NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should 
future conditions warrant such actions.

IV. Basis for Site Deletion

    The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting the 
Site from the NPL:

Site Background and History

    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 and manufactured, bought, and sold 
hardware, articles of tin, copper, and

[[Page 27194]]

sheet iron, agricultural implements, castings of all kinds, furniture 
and other articles of wood; manufactured, repaired, bought, and sold 
locomotives, engines, machinery, and all kinds of railroad and mill 
supplies; and conducted general foundry and machinery operations. By 
the mid-1950s, Ruston Foundry and Machine Shops, Ltd., had added 
boiler, dragline, sugar mill, paper mill, saw mill, and oil refinery 
repairs; casting services for ``grey iron and brass,'' including 
manhole covers and drainage grates; welding and ``metalizing''; steel 
fabrication.; and the distribution of ``Trussless Steel Wonder 
Buildings'' to their business operations. 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 is located in an urban area with 
mixed development within the city limits of Alexandria, Louisiana. The 
Site encompasses approximately 6.6 acres, and prior to remedial action 
consisted primarily of dilapidated structures and building foundations 
overgrown with thick brush. 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 (64 FR 2950), the Site was proposed 
to the NPL, and on May 10, 1999 (64 FR 24949), EPA formally announced 
the addition of the Site to the NPL in the Federal Register. The EPA 
Site identification number is LAD985185107.
    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 (UST) with unknown contents, asbestos containing material 
(ACM), and slag waste identified as a characteristic hazardous waste 
because it exceeded toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) 
criteria for lead. 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 
drums. A Time-Critical Removal Action was performed on August 11, 1999, 
to transport and dispose of the drums offsite.
    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 the implemented remedy would not result 
in hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining onsite 
above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. 
Therefore, five-year reviews, operation and maintenance, and 
institutional controls restricting Site use or access would not be 
required for this remedial action. This remedy would be compatible with 
Alexandria's Site reuse plan and allow for restoration of the Site to 
beneficial uses.
    In support of the city's redevelopment plan, Kansas City Southern 
Railway (KCS), the potentially responsible party (PRP), has provided 
access to the 30-acre property adjacent to the Site with the intention 
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 the 30-acre property and support future 
redevelopment activities for the area.

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study

    The field investigation was considered a comprehensive approach 
that addressed the Site as one operable unit. The field activities 
included surface soil grid sampling, sampling of soil/sediment on 
transects across the canals, sampling of waste 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. When present, the material ranged in thickness 
from about 1 inch to about 5 ft in the southwest corner of the main 
Site area. Concentrations present in samples taken from the permanent 
ground water monitoring wells exceeded the screening criteria for one 
constituent [bis(2-ethyhexyl)phthalate], which is a common plasticiser 
used in well construction material and a common laboratory contaminant. 
Concentrations are most likely associated with Site monitoring well 
installation since the facility operated as a metals foundry. 
Currently, public water supply is provided to the Site vicinity and is 
expected to be provided onsite in the future. Ground water was not 
identified as a media of concern. The majority of surface soil samples 
contained visible foundry waste materials and, as a result, surface 
soil samples tended to demonstrate the highest concentrations of Site-
related contaminants of concern. Also present at the Site was a UST 
with unknown contents, ACM, and slag waste identified as a 
characteristic hazardous waste because it exceeded lead TCLP criteria. 
Through the human health and ecological risk assessments, the 
identified contaminated 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

[[Page 27195]]

(solidification/stabilization) was used. In addition to the presumptive 
remedies, the Feasibility study evaluated a no action alternative, as 
required by the NCP for inclusion as a baseline of Site conditions for 
comparison, and an excavation and offsite disposal alternative.

Selected Remedy

Record of Decision Dated June 24, 2002

    The ROD was signed on June 24, 2002. 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 ACM and the UST, and the excavation, treatment, and offsite 
disposal of hazardous wastes.
    The remedial action objectives (RAOs) for the Site included the 
following:
    <bullet> RAO No. 1--Prevent direct human contact (trespassers, 
adult recreators, and child recreators) with surface soils and waste 
piles containing lead at concentrations that would result in a greater 
than 5 percent chance that a child's blood lead value would exceed 10 
micrograms per deciliter ([micro]g/dL).
    <bullet> RAO No. 2--Prevent direct human contact (trespassers, 
adult recreators, and child recreators) with surface soils and waste 
piles containing antimony at concentrations which have a hazard index 
greater than 1.
    <bullet> RAO No. 3--Prevent leaching and migration of lead from 
surface soils and waste piles into the ground water at concentrations 
exceeding 0.015 milligrams per liter.
    <bullet> RAO No. 4--Prevent leaching and migration of antimony from 
surface soils and waste piles into the ground water at concentrations 
exceeding 0.006 milligrams per liter.
    <bullet> RAO No. 5--Prevent direct human contact with asbestos 
containing material at concentrations greater than 1 percent by weight.
    <bullet> RAO No. 6--Prevent direct contact with the underground 
storage tank, its contents, and surrounding contaminated soils.
    <bullet> RAO No. 7--Prevent direct human contact (trespassers, 
adult recreators, and child recreators) with slag pile material with 
toxicity characteristic leaching procedure lead concentrations greater 
than 5 milligrams per liter and handle as hazardous waste in accordance 
with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations.
    <bullet> RAO No. 8--Prevent migration of contaminants to deeper 
soils and ground water through the former onsite water supply well and 
from the existing buildings, slabs, sump, and trash.
    Because there are no Federal or State cleanup standards for soil 
contamination, the EPA established the RAO cleanup levels (CLs) based 
on the baseline risk assessment to reduce the excess noncancer risk 
associated with exposure to contaminated wastes, the excess risk of 
exceeding 10 [micro]g/dL blood lead level, and the potential for 
migration of contaminants into the ground water. The CL for antimony 
was established as 150 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg), and the CL for 
lead was established as 500 mg/kg.
    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 verified that it no longer exceeded TCLP 
for lead. After verification, the waste would be disposed offsite at a 
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulated Subtitle D 
facility.
    2. 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. 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 soil 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 run-off 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. Short-term monitoring--Monitoring of the surface water and 
ground water during remedial action may be necessary to ensure that 
run-off control measures are working.

Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) 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 addressing 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 CLs, the estimated waste volume to be addressed, and the 
estimated remedial costs. This change also required future operation 
and maintenance (O&M) activities, Five-year Reviews, and Institutional 
Controls (ICs).
    The Revised RAOs for the Site included:
    <bullet> RAO No. 1--Prevent direct human contact (pregnant adult 
woman worker) with surface soils and waste piles containing lead at 
concentrations that would result in a greater than 5 percent chance 
that a fetus's blood lead value would exceed 10 [micro]g/dL.
    <bullet> RAO No. 2--Prevent direct human contact (adult workers) 
with surface soils containing antimony at concentrations which have a 
hazard index greater than 1.
    <bullet> RAO No. 3--Prevent direct human contact with asbestos 
containing material at concentrations greater than 1 percent by weight.
    <bullet> RAO No. 4--Prevent direct contact with the underground 
storage tank, its contents, and surrounding contaminated soils.
    <bullet> RAO No. 5--Prevent direct human contact (pregnant adult 
woman worker and adult workers) with slag pile material with toxicity 
characteristic leaching procedure lead concentrations

[[Page 27196]]

greater than 5 milligrams per liter and handle as hazardous waste in 
accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations.
    <bullet> RAO No. 6--Prevent migration of contaminants to deeper 
soils and ground water through the former onsite water supply well and 
from the existing buildings, slabs, sump, and trash.
    The EPA established the RAO CLs based on the revised baseline human 
health risk assessment for an industrial reuse scenario to reduce the 
excess noncancer risk associated with exposure to contaminated wastes 
and the excess risk of exceeding 10 [micro]g/dL blood lead level. The 
CL for antimony was established as 820 mg/kg, and the CL for lead was 
established as 1400 mg/kg. During this time, the LDEQ conducted a Site-
specific evaluation of the leaching data and determined that soil data 
did not exceed the calculated Site-specific CL for protection of ground 
water. As a result, it was removed as a cleanup criteria for the Site.
    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 verified that it no longer exceeded TCLP for lead. After 
verification, the waste would be disposed offsite at a RCRA regulated 
Subtitle D facility.
    2. 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. 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.
    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 1,766 yd\3\ of lead and antimony 
contaminated soil 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 run-off 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.

Explanation of Significant Differences 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 changed 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. 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. 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 be demolished, removed 
and disposed offsite.
    5. Soil/sediment--Approximately 1,766 yd\3\ of lead and antimony 
contaminated soil 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 run-off 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.

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 CLs for the recreational/residential scenario. 
Because the Site meets unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, the ESD 
removed the ICs, O&M, and five-year reviews as components of the 
overall

[[Page 27197]]

Site remedy documented in the 2004 ESD and the 2008 Contingency ESD.

Response Actions

    The Consent Decree between EPA and KCS was entered by the court on 
January 14, 2008. A notice to proceed was issued to the KCS on January 
22, 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. The final Remedial Design and Implementation Work Plan was 
submitted by KCS 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 
potential 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 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.
    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 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 CLs 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.
    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.
    After completion and acceptance of the final remedial action 
documents, the final Close Out Report for the was finalized on January 
29, 2010, documenting completion of remedial action activities.

Cleanup Goals

    The quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) program for the Site 
was conducted in accordance with the work plan prepared to implement 
the remedial action construction activities. The EPA, in conjunction 
with LDEQ, conducted regular oversight throughout the implementation of 
the remedial action, reviewed and commented on all project plans for 
the Site, and participated in the Pre-final and Final Construction 
Inspections.
    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 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. 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 and protocols established in the 
quality assurance project plan. During sampling, equipment was properly 
decontaminated prior to each use. The EPA analytical methods and 
contract laboratory program-like procedures and protocols were used for 
all confirmation and monitoring samples for soil and air analyses 
during the RA using a private laboratory 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.
    Monitoring activities implemented during 2008 and 2009 remedial 
action are presented in the following paragraphs.
    1. 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

[[Page 27198]]

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 either handpicked and moved with wheelbarrows or 
shoveled using heavy equipment. After removal of the slag, the 
underlying soil was 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. UST--The UST was found about 2 feet below ground level with an 
approximate 500-gallon capacity. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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 recycled.
    6. Confirmation Samples--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.
    Five-point composites were collected from 25 by 25-foot 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. All 
confirmation sample results show levels of lead and antimony to be less 
than the CLs 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.
    7. Backfill--Six (6) composite samples were taken of the stockpiled 
native clay placed on the adjacent KCS property by the city of 
Alexandria during drainage ditch construction. Two (2) composite 
samples were collected from an offsite borrow source used for backfill 
during the 2008 and 2009 remedial activity. All samples were analyzed 
for RCRA metals. Results were consistent with background, and 
specifically met the CLs 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 the Site for proper drainage.
    8. 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 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.
    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 
CLs, graded for proper drainage, and seeded.

Community Involvement

    Public participation activities have been satisfied as required in 
CERCLA section 113(k), 42 U.S.C. 9613(k), and CERCLA section 117, 42 
U.S.C. 9617. Throughout the Site's history, the community has been 
interested and involved with Site activity. The EPA has kept the 
community and other interested parties updated on Site activities 
through informational meetings, fact sheets, and public meetings. The 
EPA worked closely with the local Lower Third Neighborhood Group. 
Documents in the deletion docket which EPA relied on for recommendation 
of the deletion from the NPL are available to the public in the 
information repositories.

Determination That the Site Meets the Criteria for Deletion in the NCP

    The NCP [40 CFR 300.425(e)] states that a site may be deleted from 
the NPL when no further response action is appropriate. EPA, in 
consultation with the State of Louisiana, has determined that all 
appropriate response action under CERCLA has been implemented, and no 
further response action by the PRP is appropriate.

V. Deletion Action

    The EPA, with concurrence of the State of Louisiana, through the 
LDEQ, has determined that all appropriate response actions under 
CERCLA, have been completed. Therefore, EPA is deleting the Site from 
the NPL.
    Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and 
routine, EPA is taking it without prior publication. This action will 
be effective July 13, 2010 unless EPA receives adverse comments by June 
14, 2010. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public 
comment period, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct 
final notice of deletion before the effective date of the deletion, and 
it will not take effect. EPA will prepare a response to comments and 
continue with the deletion process on the basis of the notice of intent 
to delete and the comments already received. There will be no 
additional opportunity to comment.

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.


[[Page 27199]]


    Dated: April 29, 2010.
Lawrence E. Starfield,
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 6.

0
For the reasons set out in this document, 40 CFR part 300 is amended as 
follows:

PART 300--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 
12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 
2923; 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

APPENDIX B--[AMENDED]

0
2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 is amended by removing the entry 
``Ruston Foundry, Alexandria, LA.''
[FR Doc. 2010-11306 Filed 5-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>