United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R06-88/037
June 1988
$EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
PROTECTION
AGENCY
DALLAS, TEXAS
UN
South Valley/Edmunds Street, NM
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
1. REPORT NO.
EPA/ROD/R06-88/037
3. Recipient^ Acwaaion No.
4. Title end Subtitle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
South Valley/Edmunds Street, NM
Second Remedial Action
5. Report Date
6/28/88
7. Author(a)
8. Performing Organization RepL No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
10. Project/Taak/Work Unit No.
11. Contract^) or Grant(G) No.
(C)
(G)
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Addrea*
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. Type of Report 4 Penod Covered
800/000
14.
15. Supplementary Notea
16. Abstract (Limit: 200 words)
The South Valley/Edmunds Street site is a large area in the southern part
of the City of Albuquerque, New Mexico, surrounding the municipal water wel
known as San Jose 6. Within this large area are a number of industrial
properties owned and operated by different groups and individuals. This
remedial action addresses the Edmunds Street Ground Water operable unit of
the South Valley site; the Edmunds Street property is located in the
southeastern corner of the site. The focus of this operable unit is the
area around the monitoring well SV-10, referred to as the drainage pit area
on the Edmunds Street property. This area -_s the low spot of the property
and receives much of the property drainage. Analyses of this area have
shown significant levels of industrial solvents in the soil, and a plume of
contaminated ground water starting at the drainage pit area and extending t
the east. The ground water source will be treated as a sole-source aquifer
because there are no alternate sources available to the City of Albuquerque
The contaminated ground water currently poses a direct threat to
Albuquerque's water supply by moving toward the city's well fields. The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the ground water include VOCs sue
as PCE and TCE.
(See Attached Sheet)
17. Document Analyeia a. Descriptor*
Record of Decision
South Valley/Edmunds Street, NM
Second Remedial Action
Contaminated Media: gw
Key Contaminants: VOCs (PCE, TCE)
b. kJenliftera/Opao-Ended Terrne
c. COSAT1 FMd/Group
1«. AvailabiWy SUMmerM
19. Security Claaa (Thl» Report)
None
20. Security Q*M (TW« Pig*)
None
21. No. of Pagm
43
22. Price
(See ANS»-Z3».18)
SM Instruction* on Rtvtm
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS-3S)
Department of Commerce
-------
DO NOT PRINT THESE INSTRUCTIONS AS A PAGE IN A REPORT
INSTRUCTIONS
Optional Form 272, Report Documentation Page Is based on Guidelines for Format and Production of Scientific and Technical Reports,
ANSI Z39.18-1974 available from American National Standards Institute, 1430 Broadway, New York, New York 10018. Each separately
bound reportfor example, each volume In a multlvolume setshall have its unique Report Documentation Page.
1. Report Number. Each individually bound report shall carry a unique alphanumeric designation assigned by the performing orga-
nization or provided by the sponsoring organization in accordance with American National Standard ANSI Z39.23-1974, Technical
Report Number (STRN). For registration cf report code, contact NTIS Report Number Clearinghouse, Springfield, VA 22161. Use
uppercase letters, Arabic numerals, slashes, and hyphens only, as in the following examples: FASEB/NS-75/87 and FAA/
RD-75/09.
2. Leave blank.
3. Recipient's Accession Number. Reserved for use by each report recipient.
4. Title and Subtitle. Title should indicate clearly and briefly the subject coverage of the report, subordinate subtitle to the main
title. When a report is prepared in more than one volume, repeat the primary title, add volume number and include subtitle for
the specific volume.
5. Report Date. Each report shall carry a date indicating at least month and year. Indicate the basis on which it was selected (e.g.,
date of issue, date of approval, date of preparation, date published).
6. Sponsoring Agency Code. Leave blank.
7. Authors). Give name<8) In conventional order (e.g., John R. Doe, or J. Robert Doe). List author's affiliation If it differs from
the performing organization.
8. Performing organization Report Number. Insert if performing organlzaton wishes to assign this number.
**
9. Performing Organization Nam* and Mailing Address. Give name, street, city, state, and ZIP cod*. List no more than two levels of
an organizational hlerechy. Display the name of the organization exactly as It should appear in Government Indexes such as
Government Reports Announcements & Index (GRA & I).
10. Project/Task/Work Unit Number. Use the project, task and work unit numbers under which the report was prepared.
11. Contract/Grant Number. Insert contract or grant number under which report was prepared.
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Mailing Address. Include ZIP code. Cite main sponsors.
13. Type of Report and Period Covered. State Interim, final, etc., and, If aocHcable, inclusive dates.
14. Performing Organization Code. Leave blank.
15. Supplementary Notes. Enter Information not Included elsewhere but useful, such as: Prepared In cooperation with... Translation
of... Presented at conference of... To be published in ... When a report Is revised, include a statement whether the new
report supersedes or supplements the older report.
16. Abstract. Include a brief (200 words or less) factual nummary of the most significant Information contained In the report. If the
report contains a significant bibliography or llteratu ~ irvey, mention It here.
17. Document Analysis, (a). Descriptors. Select from the Thesaurus of Engineering and Scientific Terms the proper authorized terms
that identify the major concept of the research and are sufficiently specific and precise to be used as index entries for cataloging.
(b). Identifiers and Open-Ended Terms. Use identifiers for project names, code names, equipment designators, etc. Use open-
ended terms written In descriptor form for those subjects tor which no descriptor exists.
(c). COSATI Field/Group. Field and Group assignments are to be taken form the 1964 COSATI Subject Category Ust. Since the
majority of documents are multidlsciplinary in nature, the primary Field/Group assignments) will be the specific discipline,
area of human endeavor, or type of physical object. The applications) will be cross-referenced with secondary Field/Group
assignments that will follow the primary posting(s).
18. Distribution Statement. Denote public reusability, for example "Release unlimited", or limitation for reasons other than
security. Cite any availability to the public, with address, order number and price, if known.
19. & 20. Security Classification. Enter U.S. Security Classification In accordance with U. S. Security Regulations (I.e., UNCLASSIFIED).
21. Number of pages. Insert the total number of pages, Including Introductory pages, but excluding distribution list, if any.
22. Pries. Enter price In paper copy (PC) and/or microfiche (MF) If known.
* GPO. ,9830- 381-526(3393) OPTIONAL FORM 272 BACK (4-77)
-------
EPA/ROD/R06-88/037
South Valley/Edmunds Street, NM
Second Remedial Action
16. ABSTRACT (continued)
The selected remedial action for this site includes: ground water pump
and treatment using air stripping (packed tower aeration) with reinjecticn
of the treated water into the aquifer through infiltration galleries; and
ground water and air monitoring. The present worth cost for this remedial
action is $874,000, with present worth O&M costs estimated at $280,200.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: The contaminated ground water will be
treated to a PCE level of 20 ug/1 as required by the New Mexico Water
Quality Control Commission regulations, and to the MCL for TCE of 5 ug/1
as required by the Safe Drinking Water Act.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS: Not applicable.
KEYWORDS: Aeration; Air Stripping; Containment; Extraction; Ground Water;
Ground Water Monitoring; Ground Water Treatment; MCLs; Onsite Discharge;
Onsite Treatment; PCE; Plume Management; Safe Drinking Water Act;
Sole-Source Aquifer; State Criteria; TCE; Treatment Technology; VOCs.
-------
1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
/
\
V ^.-' REGION VI
1445 ROSS AVENUE. SUITE 1200
DALLAS. TEXAS 7S202
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
South Valley site, Edmunds Street Groundwater Operable Unit
Albuquerque, New Mexico
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
This decision document outlines the selected remedial action for the
Ednunds Street Groundwater Operable Unit in accordance with the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of
1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act of 1986 (SARA), and to the extent practicable, the National Oil and
Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan, 40 CFR Part 300, November
20, 1985.
The State of New Mexico (through the New Mexico Environmental Improvement
Division) has been provided an opportunity to comment on the technology and
degree of treatment proposed by the Record of Decision.
STATEMENT OF BASIS
This decision is based on the administrative record for the South Valley
site, Edmunds Street Groundwater Operable Unit (see Attachment 7). The
attached index identifies the items which comprise the administrative
record.
DESCRIPTION OF THE REMEDY
Upon review of the information contained in the administrative record, it
is EPA's judgement that recovery of the plume of contaminated groundwater
moving east from the Edmunds Street property with a well system and the
treatment of the recovered water with a packed aeration column appears to
best serve both statutory and selection criteria in relation to the other
solutions evaluated. The selected remedy would also include monitoring of
both groundwater, treated water and ambient air to ensure the effectiveness
of the remedy. A detailed description of the remedy and an explanation of
how it meets statutory requirements is contained in the attached "Summary
of Remedial Alternative Selection." This is only the first operable unit
for the Edmunds Street portion of the South Valley site. The selected
remedy is not intended to be the final remedy for this property.
Additional remedial measures will be specified in subsequent Records of
Decision which may affect the remedy selected in this Record of Decision.
-------
DECLARATION
The remedy described above is protective of human health and the environment,
attains applicable or relevant and appropriate Federal and State requirements
and is cost-effective compared to equally protective alternatives. This
remedy satisfies the preference for treatment that reduces toxicity, mobility
or volume as a principle element. Finally, it is determined that this
solution utilizes permanent solutions and alternative technologies to the
maximum extent practicable.
The State of New Mexico has been consulted on the selection of remedy for
the South Valley Edmunds Street Groundwater Operable Unit and the concurrence
of the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Division has been requested.
.
DateRobert E. Layton Jr.,'P.E.,
Regional Administrator
-------
Edmunds Street Groundwater Operable Unit
South Valley Site
Record of Decision Concurrences
The Edmunds Street Groundwater Operable Unit Record of Decision has been
reviewed and I concur:
Allyn M. Dav^s, Director
Hazardous Waste Management Division (6H)
/ l
Robert E. HannesschTarfer, P.E., Chief
Superfund Enfor^emenlTBranch (6H-E)
Larry D. Wright1, Chief ^
Superfund Enforcement Section (6H-EE)
Bennett Stokes
Office of Regional Counsel (6C-H)
Timothy K. UKderwoo
RPM, Superfund Enforcement Section (6H-EE)
-------
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
South Valley, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Edmunds Street Groundwater Operable Unit
Site Location and Description
The Edmunds Street property is a portion of the South Valley Superfund
site in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The South Valley Superfund site 1s an
area surrounding the City of Albuquerque Municipal Water Well known as
San Jose 6, near the intersection of Broadway and Woodward Road in
southern Albuquerque. The Edmunds Street property is located at 3301
Edmunds Street. Figure 1 below shows the larger South Valley site with
the Edmunds Street property 1n the southeastern corner of the site.
Figure 2 on the next page shows the Edmunds Street property 1n more
detail.
STUDY
(AREA .!r.nn-
NEW MEXICO' :'
APPROXIMATE fpUNOANT SUPEMFUNO STUOT AftSA
FIOUKI 1
SUPEMFUNO STUOT ANEA
Vl»SU»fl»UHOS«i
-------
FIGURE
2. LOCATIONS OF MONITORING WELLS AND SUPPLY WELLS '
3301 EDMUNDS STREET PROPERTY LiatttB
9U - OCSWNATCS
AMD UILLE*. INC. MOMITOWMa
WELL
V - OOMNATU NMOO
WELL
I - OCSIONATCS CPA
VOMTOMNQ WELL
ML - OeStONATES XLA
MOMTONNQ WELL
* - OCSMNATU SU'IT WELL
1-1
OM-110
OM-lt
100
too
Figure 2 above shows the various potential sources of contamination
within the Edmunds Street property. This document concerns only one of
them, the area surrounding the monitoring well labeled SV-10. The area
around SV-10 1s called the drainage pit area. This area 1s a low spot on
the property and much of the drainage for the property flows to this
spot. Significant levels of Industrial solvents have been found when
soil samples from this drainage pit have been analysed In laboratories.
An Investigation Into the contamination problems at the Edmunds Street
property resulted in the Installation of the groundwater monitoring wells
shown in Figure 2. One of the results of the Investigation was the
discovery of a plume of contaminated groundwater starting at the drainage
pit area and extending to the east.
-------
The drainage pit itself, other potential sources of contamination within
the Edmunds Street property, and groundwater contamination in other areas
will be handled through later decision documents. This is only the first
phase of remediation for the Edmunds Street property. The selected
remedy may be incorporated into or superceeded by the remedy for source
control and groundwater remediation made in the subsequent Record of
Decision for this property.
Current Site Status
After the existence of the plume of contaminated groundwater was
discovered, a separate investigation was launched to discover the nature
and extent of the groundwater plume. As the more detailed map in Figure
3 shows, additional groundwater monitoring wells were drilled along the
Figure 3
£5S«srM.«*.:
»*lf». ».<» .4 «.
GH-3
GM-4
W.5
U1-7V- GM-9D ^
-
v-io
HL-1
T-l
,«-US
CN-liD
GM-12
, W-14S
'GH-14D
GM-15S
GH-15D
MONFTORING WELL LOCATIONS
-------
eastward path of the groundwatar plume to define its boundaries. Water
samples were taken from the wells and analyzed to determine what
chemicals were present and at what levels.
Table 1 shows the contaminants that were found in the groundwater
monitoring well samples and the levels at which they were detected. As
can be seen from the Table, most of the contaminants found were
industrial solvents. As this data shows, the concentration of the
contaminants falls as the plume moves to the east. The major concern at
the moment is the threat to the water supply for the City of Albuquerque.
Major wells fields that produce water for the City are in the migration
pathway of the contaminant plume. The nearest well in the migration
pathway is Miles Well II, less than one mile to the northeast.
Site Risks
This Record of Decision is concerned with a single contaminated media,
groundwater. It Is, therefore, the groundwater route of exposure which
is of greatest concern. Table 1 presents those contaminants found in the
groundwater. There are no current groundwater users for the contaminated
water in the contaminant plume of concern, hut there is a City of
Albuquerque water supply well in the path of the plume migration. The
level of contaminants appears to be to low for toxic effects, but there
is risk associated with chronic carcinogenic effects of 2 x 10-2 .
Attachment 1 shows the calculations involved in reaching this number.
Enforcement Analysis
There is a list of several potentially responsible parties (PRPs) for the
property on which this groundwater contamination originates. These
include past and present owners and operators of the or^erty. The
primary PRPs for the purposes of this document are Van .^cers and
Rodgers, the current operator, and AmeriGas, the property owner. These
two PRPs have expressed willingness to implement the selected remedy.
Negotiations will be conducted in an attempt to memorialize agreement for
PRP conduct of the Remedial Action under terms of a Consent Order.
Community Relations
There has been some media interest in the overall South Valley Superfund
site, hut the interest fron individual citizens has been low. Notice to
potentially affected persons and the public was provided through a press
release on May 10, 1988 accompanied by a direct mailing to individuals
and groups on the site mailing list. The mailing included a fact sheet
describing the site problem, alternatives for cleanup and the oroposed
plan for remediation. The public comment period on the rernecr.il
alternatives ran from May 16 to June 17, 1988. A public meerng on
remedy selection was held in Albuquerque on May 26, 1988. The response
-------
1/1
^B
2j
<
2
^
i
Z
o
(_>
o
UJ
Z Z
< o
0
or u
0 -1
CO
UJ <
_J »
^1*
>
^ J
o
*-
i
^K
CT
c
^
L.
O
4->
^
C
o
X
a
,4
-C 1 1 CM 1 1
1 CM
0
in «
-* . . o
,-« 1 CO 1 PO -N
1 «-*
C3
O
^^ ^t ^D
I I «-* ro I I
Z. ^
O)
a
i i i i i i
JL
Cft ^D
i i I 1 I **
X. ^^
C3
CO
1 00
£ ' ' ' ' *
p«»
i
Z. 1 1 1 I t
C3
CM CM IO
1 . 1 O
2. *^ CM v^ ^f
(3 CM '
~+ ** P* CO
Z. ^ r»! vo i 00
13 CM
01
c
u
01
^
c
t_
t. Ol
01 a
|l
L. on
fO O
a. t-
u
'i
Ol
01 *>
O Ol
^B V O Q)
t- c t. c
O <0 O 01
JC JC
JC 4J JC 4J
U Ol U Ol
O
J3 O C
t_ . CSJ IT> -"
O JC * t»
(_> O *- 1 «
1
1
1
1
o
^f
1
1
1
1
Ol
^3
*
L.
O
JC
u
01
Ol
*>,
4J
Ol
z:
i
o
vo
PO
00
ro
i
|
^-
O
1
0
CM
^^
in
Ol
c
Ol
^^
^
o
^;
u
u
4J
Ol
K-
1
CO
PO
1
1
o
o
o
t 1
o
g
1
po
r*.
i
Ol
c
£
o
JC
0
L.
H-
1
CM
CO
1
fm».
fN^
0
O
0
m
f i
o
in
CM
i
i
,
01
c
0
4J>
Ol
u
<
c
c
ro
£
^_
^
J3
It!
1^
QJ
^~
a.
L.
O
14-
>,
o
3
^
fl^
^
J3
^
en
ID
01
U.
-
4^
i.
O
a.
01
Ol
^
E
O
VI-
4->
a
o
0
a.
LU
Ol
c
.^
f^
a.
E
to
*
i*^
00
r
1.
a*
E
Ol
4->
a.
QJ
to
r
.
C
U
f
X
SJ
3C
Z
a>
cr
t.
0*
3
tr
3
J2
**
-i %
Oi
Oi
i.
4-J
l/l
10
C
E
o
Lu
O
01
£
w
5
3
T3
C
3
O
i.
O
a
^ »
u
i.
4-1
X
Ul
TJ
C
T3
-------
vo
z
z
X »
<: 4J
i
z c
O 0
u u
<_} '
LU
< O
19
gi . t
_l
CQ
.J t
V
<
&
*
3
cn
c
O
4->
C
o
X
-*
*»
i-H Q
i i f^ o co \o i m f>» i*» i
co ^ ^M co
CO
r-i O in O O
i i i i -> oo i m i tvj i
t\J OO
i i i i i i in i i i i
C9
at
c
u
at
^
C i
f
«. at
(U &
+J
ii
(0 <-
fc. CD
jc jc u at o at
£ 4J JC 4J O JC V. C
u a> o at 4-> o at
jc
c. c o i- o o j= 4J
4-> E o o c u at
at t. . CM r- at o -r- o
h-OJC JC C i t. t.
<*- o oatjct-oai
C O «- 1 -^ O 1 C
O t. Q i/tO >> 10 i * JC O
J3O C JC t. O 4J
c. . CM 19 <-> t-> 4-> <-> -^- at
19 jc A^ ^atat *t»u
<_JO»^> «-^XH-«-^^<
-------
to significant comments or cn'ticisns submitted during the public meeting
and during the comment period are presented in the Responsiveness Summary
at the end of this document.
Operable Units
The South Valley site has been divided into four operable units. These
are Ednunds Street Groundwater, Edmunds Street Source Control, Air
Force/GE Source Control, and the overall Offsite portion. The division
of the site into these parts follows from the nature of the site. The
South Valley site is a large area surrounding the City well San Jose *6.
Within this larger area are a number of industrial properties owned and
operated by different groups and individuals. Each of the two source
control operable units will deal with a single industrial property that
through the investigation process has been shown to have contamination
that needs to be corrected. The overall Offsite operable unit is
intended to deal with the site as a whole, leading to a decision about
the larger groundwater problem that caused this area to become a
Superfund site, while the source control operable units eliminate the
sources of groundwater contamination.
The fourth operable unit, the Edmunds Groundwater operable unit which is
the subject of this document, deals with a specific problem which does
not appear to directly affect the larger South Valley problem. The Edmunds
groundwater problem does start within the Edmunds Street property, however,
and needs to be dealt with during resolution of the greater South Valley
Superfund site problems. The overall Offsite operable unit and the two
source control operable units should be resolved within three months,
following completion of reports detailing additional investigations in
the individual industrial properties and the overall site.
Alternatives Evaluation
The alternatives seek to eliminate the single route of contamination of
issue for this Record of Decision, groundwater. The source of the
contamination will be handled through a separate decision document. As
stated in the Declaration, this is only a first action concerning this
property and is not the final groundwater related remedial action.
This decision will be limited to the specific groundwater plume moving to
the east as previously described. Any other groundwater contamination
originating from the same source will be considered in a separate document.
The groundwater source in question, the Santa Fe formation will be treated
as a sole source aquifer. It is the source for drinking water for the City
of Albuquerque and no alternate source is available. The Santa Fe Formation
consists of unconsolidated sands, gravels, silts and clays to an approximate
2000 foot depth. The contaminant plume appears to be currently contained
above a lower permeability layer found at approximately 180 feet in depth.
However, in borings farther in the direction of migration, the lower permea-
bility layer cannot be found. One purpose of this effort will be to halt
migration of the plume before it moves beyond the lower permeability layer
and deeper into the aquifer. The contaminant plume poses a direct threat
to the water supply for the City of Albuquerque. The contaminant plume
is moving toward the City well fields, with well Miles #1 the nearest well
-------
threatened. Time for implementation is short, "'heoretical calculations
show that the contaninants could have already reached Miles #1, though
sampling of the well shows that it has not yet been contaminated.
Of the decision elements listed above, time poses the greatest
constraints on the selection of remedy. Any remedy selected will have to
halt migration of the contaminant plume within a very short period of
time. Given the constraints just discussed, the screening process
rapidly eliminated in-situ treatment as an option as it would involve too
long a period of implementation. Extraction and treatment remained as
the only viable alternative.
Alternatives
Each alternative was evaluated on the following criteria:
1. Short-term effectiveness: Protection of human health and the
environment during construction and implementation.
2. Long-term effectiveness and permanence: Effectiveness after
construction and implementation is complete.
3. Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume: Anticipated performance
of the specified treatment technologies,
4. Implementability: Technical and administrative feasibility of
alternatives and the availability of required resources.
5. Cost: Cost of construction and operation and maintenance.
6. Compliance with ARARs: Compliance with ap-.^cable or r^evant and
appropriate standards (abbreviated as ARARs) f- ?. existing ;ws and
regulations. These are standards or regulations that either do apply
or at least should be considered when looking at an alternative.
7. Overall protection of human health and environment: How the
alternative as a whole protects and maintains protection of human health
and the environment.
8. State acceptance: The State's preferences or concerns about the
alternatives.
9. Community acceptance: The community's preferences or concerns about
the alternatives.
All of the alternatives with the exception of no action require the
extraction and treatment of the contaminated groundwater to existing
standards. This automatically meets the requirements for both short
-------
and long-term effectiveness and permanence. The water will he treated to
ARAR standards meeting the criteria for reduction of toxicity, mobility,
and volume and compliance with ARARs through the removal of the contaminants
from the groundwater. This reduces the comparison of the alternatives to
implementability, cost, overall protection and State and Community
acceptance criteria.
The basic alternatives and their components are:
1. No Action: No action would he taken. The site would remain in its
current condition. The plume of contaminated groundwater would continue
to migrate toward the City of Albuquerque wells.
2. Recovery: All of these alternatives involve the extraction of ground-
water through pumping wells screened in the portion of the aquifer contaminated.
The extraction wells are planned to be 8-inch diameter wells with steel
casing having stainless steel screens. The screens will be positioned in
the upper portion of the aquifer to recover the contaminated groundwater.
Preliminary design calls for wells capable of yielding 50 to 100 gallons
per minute (gpm). The pumping system will be designed with sufficient
wells and pumping capacity to recover the contaminated groundwater coming
from the Edmunds Street property above the limits deemed necessary to
protect human health and the environment. These limits are discussed
more fully in the Statuatory Determinations Section of this summary.
Preliminary des }ns indicate that two wells located north and south of
the monitoring well cluster GM11 should be sufficient when pumping at a
combined rate of 75 gpm. Actual rates of pumping and the adequacy of two
wells will be determined during remedial design and once the system is in
place and its performance can be monitored.
2-A. Groundwater Extraction Wei i System: This option would use pumping
wells alone to contain and recover the contaminated groundwater.
2-B. Well System and Partial Slurry Wall: This option would combine a
pumping well system with a slurry wall in front of the migrating plume
slowing further migration.
2-C. Well System and Complete Slurry Wall: This option would combine a
pumping well system and a slurry wall that completely surrounded the area
of contaminated groundwater.
3. Treatment of Contaminated Grpundwater: Once the contaminated
groundwater was recovered it would be treated by one of the following methods.
3-A. Treatment with Packed Column Aeration.
3-8. Treatment with Carbon Adsorption.
3-C. Treatment at a Publically Owned Treatment Works (POTW).
-------
10
4. Discharge: Once the water has heen treated, the treated water must
he handled. Two options were examined.
4-A. Surface discharge.
4-B. Restoration of water to the aquifer through infiltration galleries.
Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
The following is a description of the analysis of the various alternatives
using the remaining criteria for comparison.
Implement- Cost Overall State Community
ability Protection Acceptance Acceptance
1 + +
2-A ++»+ +
2-B - - + + +
2-C - - + + +
3-A + + + + +
3-B + - + + +
3-C - + +
4-A + + +
4-B + - + + +
+ being a favorable evaluation
- being a negative evaluation
Implementability - All of the options use proven readily available
techniques. The slurry wall options (2-B and C) face difficulties due to
the presence of an interstate highway and a petroleum pipeline in the
area of construction as well as doubts about construction at 180 foot
plus depths. The City POTW desires to reserve its available treatment
capacity, therefore the use of its plants for the POTW treatment option
(3-C) was eliminated.
Cost - Using a 10 year project life, a cost comparison was developed for
each of the three parts of the alternatives: extraction, treatment, and
discharge. More extensive cost information is presented in Attachment 2.
All the extraction options involve pumping wells and a collection system
estimated at $615,000. A partial slurry wall would cost $1,923,336.
Costs for a full slurry wall could not be developed as engineering costs
for design and construction could not be estimated. Packed tower aeration
-------
11
was estimated to cost $20b,200. Carbon Adsorption was estimated at
$708,500 mainly due to higher operation and maintenance costs. Discharge
of the treated water to the surface was estimated at $27,000.
Using infiltration galleries was estimated at $54,000.
Overall Protection - No action offers no protection. Packed tower
aeration and carbon adsorption both would treat to the same groundwater
standards. The air release associated with packed tower aeration poses
no estimated health threats. The threat of the contaminated carbon from
carbon adsorption varies depending on the method of disposing of the
spent carbon. Discharged water would be of similar quality in either
discharge method.
State and Community Acceptance - Preservation of useable water is
preferred giving infiltration a higher level of acceptance than discharge
to the surface. Infiltration would also eliminate concerns of downstream
users of surface waters.
Selected Remedy
The selected remedy consists of the following parts: containment and
collection of the contaminated groundwater through the use of an
extraction well system, treatment of the recovered groundwater through
packed tower aeration, and return of the treated water to the aquifer
through infiltration galleries.
The risk level attained at completion of the response action is discussed
in the following Statutory Determinations section.
No action was rejected as it did nothing to mitigate the potential
impacts of the contaminated groundwater. Of the collection options,
pumping alone was selected since a system of pumping wells alone is
capable of containing and recovering the contaminated groundwater. This
eliminates the need for construction of slurry walls with the associated
risks of exposure during construction and implementation difficulties.
Packed tower aeration was selected for the treatment method due to
greater ease of operation and lower operation and maintenance costs over
carbon adsorption. Reinfiltration of the treated water was chosen over
surface discharge due to a desire to preserve the water that could be
lost through evaporation during surface discharge and the beneficial
effects of recycling the treated water through the contaminated area of
the aquifer. The additional benefits include the flushing action of the
recycled water and the containment and retreatment of any water exiting
the treatment system above standards for cleanup.
Statutory Determinations
Under Section 121 of CERCLA, the selected remedy must satisfy certain
statutory requirements specified within that section. This section will
discuss each of these requirements one at a time. The selected remedy must:
-------
12
1. Be protective of hunan health and the environnent.
2. Attain ARARs
3. Be cost-effective
4. Utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies or
resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable.
5. Address whether the preference for treatment that reduces toxicity,
mobility, or volume as a principle element is satisfied.
The first statutory requirement, that the selected remedy be protective
of human health and the environment can be examined through examination
of the two pathways for exposure, ingestion of contaminated groundwater
and inhalation of volatilized contaminants. The first of these will be
addressed through the goals for treatment of the contaminated
groundwater. The treatment goals will be based primarily on two
criteria, maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) developed under the Safe
Drinking Act and the State of New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission
(NMWQCC) Regulations for discharges onto or below the surface of the
ground whichever of the two is more stringent. These goals are given in
Table 2.
TABLE 2
Contaminant Cleanup Goal *Regulation
in part-per-billion
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
1,2 Dichloroethane
Trans-1,2 Oichloroethene
1,1 Dichloroethene
Methylene Chloride
Tetrachloroethene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Acetone
5
100
5
70**
5
100
-20
60
-5
-
MCI
NMWQCC
MCL
MCLG
NMWQCC
NMWQCC
-NMWQCC
NMWQCC
-MCL
-
* MCL - for the maximum contaminant under the Safe Drinking Water Act
NMUQCC - for the New Mexico discharge regulations
** This standard is a maximum contaminant limit goal (MCLG)
-------
13
This leads directly to the discussion of applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements (ARARs), the second statutory determination. The
two regulations mentioned above are the primary standards involved for
groundwater. There is a third NMWQCC standard that may apply. It is
General Provision 1-101.UU which calls for control of "toxic
pollutant"(s) which would create a lifetime cancer risk of more than one
cancer per 100,000 exposed persons. Attachment 1 shows the lifetime
cancer risk posed by contaminants detected in the contaminated
groundwater. Attachment 1 also indicates those contaminants which are
included in the NMWQCC list of toxic pollutants. Water being
reinfiltrated will need to meet this standard. In addition to these
groundwater regulations, the use of packed tower aeration also involved
compliance with air regulations. Air dispersion modeling using two EPA
certified models, ISC and Valley, was done to determine air impacts.
There appears to be no significant health impacts associated with use of
packed tower aeration. Calculations of these impacts are shown in
Attachment 3. The two air ARARs most applicable are the Clean Air Act
and the Ambient Air Quality Standards and Air Quality Control Regulations
for Albuquerque/Sernalillo County. The emission rate from the packed
tower aeration system is well below the regulated rates from both of
these sets of air regulations. The calculations are shown in Attachment 4.
A full list of all ARARs considered can be found in Attachment 5.
The third criteria, cost effectiveness, is met by the selected remedy.
Packed tower aeration is the most cost effective of the treatment methods
which are protective of human health. The fourth criteria, permanence,
fan be related to the recovery and treatment of the contaminated
groundwater. The selected remedy will restore the contaminated water to
a fully useable condition and the will restore the treated water to the
aquifer.
The final criteria is the preference for treatment that reduces toxicity,
mobility, or volume as a principle element. The selected remedy stops
migration of the contaminated groundwater plume and treats the
contaminated groundwater to reduce its toxicity. This eliminates the
primary route of exposure to the public. The air exposure associated
with the selected remedy has been examined and appears to pose no
significant threat to human health.
Significant Changes in the Selected Alternative
There was no change in the recommended alternative presented to the public
during the public comment period and at the public meeting and that
recommended alternative is the selected remedy.
-------
3301 EDMUNDS STREET
SOUTH VALLEY SUPERFUND SITE
COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
This Community Relations Responsiveness S unnary has been prepared to
provide written responses to comments submitted regarding the proposed plan
of action at 3301 Edmunds Street, South Valley hazardous waste site. The
summary is divided into two sections:
Section I: Background of Comnunity Involvement and Concerns. This section
provides a brief history of community interest and concerns raised during
the renedial planning activities at South Valley.
Section II: Summary of Major Comments Received. The -^rrv^ts (both oral
and written) are summarized and EPA's responses are provide-,:.
I. Background of Community involvement
Due to the possibility of contamination of the entire San Jose
Wellfield, the South Valley site has received extensive media attention.
However, because of the heavily industrialized nature of the site area
and the lack of exposure, citizen concern has been very limited.
Although no citizen groups have been formed to deal specifically with
the problems posed by the South Valley site, several groups have
expressed a general interest regarding overall environmental concerns in
the Albuquerque area. NO specific interest has been not°d involving the
Edmunds Street property.
II. Summary of Major Comments Received
The press release and Proposed Plan fact sheet announcing the public
comment period and public meeting were distributed on May 13, 1988.
The comment period began on May 16, 1938 and was extended until June
17, 1988. A public meeting was held for the area residents and local
officials on May 26, 1988 at the Radisson Hotel. The purpose of this
meeting was to explain the results of the remedial investigation and
to outline the various alternatives presented in the feasibility
study. Approximately 43 people from the area attended the meeting, and
5 residents made oral statements or asked questions. No written comments
or questions were received.
Overall, the residents and local officials do not oppose the proposed
remedy. During the public comment period, there were comments/questions
regarding the following:
-------
Question 1: What about contanination outside the area described in this
operable unit?
Response: This is only the first of several operable units. There will be
future meetings and comment periods on other portions of the larger
South Valley site. Results of other remedial investigations and cleanup
plans will he available to the public in the next few months. Those who
attended the public meeting and registered or made comments daring the
public comment period were added to the mailing list and will receive indi-
vidual notices concerning these additional operable units.
Question 2: Do you [EPA] have a list of the compounds that you have
identified as contaminants in the area?
Response: Yes, the list is included in the reports at the public
repositories, specifically in Table 1 of "Feasibility Study for Plume
Stabilization and Extracted Ground-Water At 3301 Edmunds Street, Albuquerque,
New Mexico."
Question 3: Do you have any preliminary technical data involving the
efficiency of the two proposed methods, the air stripping process or carbon
adsorption?
Response: Yes, there is information available through the USEPA Office of
Drinking Water on the efficiency of air stripping for the majority of
compounds that we found at the site. No individual studies were done using
waste from this site. Once the cleanup decision is made, such a study will
be performed as a part of the design process.
Question 4: Are copies of the remedial investigation and feasibility study
available?
Response: Yes, they are available at the four repositories in New Mexico
which are listed in the fact sheet and at the EPA offices in Dallas.
Question 5: The estimate for cleanup time in the proposed plan was five
years. Is this a realistic estimate?
Response: The five year time is a minimum. Groundwater contamination
generally takes a long time to clean up. EPA does not wish to understate
the cleanup time.
Question 6: Availability of the documents seems to be a problem,
particularly at the Albuquerque Public Library. Is this the only
repository?
Response: No, there are two others in Albuquerque, the University of New
Mexico Library, and the City County Building. A check will be made at the
Albuquerque Public Library to see if there was a problem in availability of
the documents.
-------
Question 7: Are there any contaninants that would not he removed that are
found on the Edmunds Street properties?
Response: No. It is a requirement that all of the contaminants that are
found in the groundwater be removed to levels that are below those set by
the Safe Drinking Water Act or the New Mexico Water Control Commission
Regulations.
Question 8: This method [the air stripping method] would release
contaminants into the air. Is there any data available to tne public on
the estimated amount of contamination to be released?
Response: Yes. One of the documents in the public repositories titled,
"Air Dispersion Modeling Analysis For A Packed Aeration Column, Van
Waters & Rogers, Inc., Edmunds Street Site, Albuquerque, New Mexico"
involves an air model that was used to predict the levels of contamination
that could be expected if the air stripping method is used^
Question 9: Will you also be monitoring air quality i'f that method [air
stripping] is used?
Response: Yes, we would not use the air stripping method unless we could
monitor for air quality. Regular air monitoring will be required to ensure
that the air stripping method is operating properly.
Question 10: Given the fact that the City of Albuquerque is under sanction
for violations of the Clean Air Act, has the proposal for air stripping been
cleared through the City?
Response: The City is under sanction for violations of the carbon monoxide
standards. The contaninants associated with this cleanup would have no
effect on this situation. Use of the air stripper falls within the standards
set by the Albuquerque/Sernalillo County air regulations and the Clean Air
Act.
Question 11: Did you consider the cumulative effects of operating the air
stripper?
Response: Yes, we examined both the short-term effects and long-term effects
of air releases during use of the stripper and found that they would not
pose a health threat either to workers onsite or nearby residents.
-------
ATTACHMENT ONE
CARINOGENIC RISK FROH
CHRONIC EXPOSURE TO CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER
-------
A-l
Carcinogenic Risk From Chronic Exposure to Contaminated Groundwater
The following calculations involve the use of certain standard assumptions,
These assumptions include the following: Consumption of 2 liters of
water a day for 70 years at a body weight of 70 kilograms. The values
used for the concentrations of contaminants are a combination of values
for two wells. Most of the concentrations come from a samp! from
monitoring well GM-9, the monitoring well within the plume having the
highest level of contamination. However, this well does not contain all
of the contaminants of concern. For those that did not appear in the
sample from GM-9, values were taken from a sample for well GM-1.
The calculations were done as follows:
concentration 2 liters cancer potency
of contaminant x 3ayx factor increased
(part per million) » lifetime cancer risk
70 kilograms body weight
It should be noted that there are no cancer potency factors for
trans 1,2 dichloroethene, 1,1,1 trlchloroethane, or acetone.
Contaminant Concentration Cancer Potency Risk
(part per billion) Factor
Chloroform
1,2 Oichloroethane
1,1 Dichloroethene
Methylene Chloride
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
7.7
26
910
440
4400-
1400-
8.1 x 10-2
9.1 x 10-2
0.6
7.5 x 10-3
5.1 x 10-2
1.1 x 10-2
1.8 x 10-5
6.8 x 10-5
1.6 x 10-2
9.4 x 10-5
6.4 x 10-3
4.4 x 10-4
total 2.3 x 10-2
-------
ATTACHMENT 2
COST ESTIMATES
-------
Cost Estimates
A-2
The cost estimates below were calculated assuming that installation costs
would he 1.5 tines the capital costs, that engineering costs would he
twenty percent of the capital costs, that the project would have a ten
year life and the calculations used a 7% discounted rate.
Extraction wells and pumps
capital costs 50,000
pipelines 100,000
installation & engineering 255,000
operation & maintenance
materials & power at 15,000/year
labor at 15,000/year 210,000
Partial Slurry Wall
capital costs 1,680,000
engineering 336,000
savings from reduced pumping -92,664
Complete Slurry Wall
total 615,600
total 1,923,000
No calculation was done for this option. The figure for the
partial slurry wall can be used as a minimum. In addition to
those costs would be an unknown additional cost for further
investigation of the confining layer into which the wall would
he based and subsequent greater extent of the slurry wall.
Paoced Aeration Column
capital costs 50,000
peration and maintenance 70,200*
retaliation and engineering 85,000
Carbon Adsorption Unit
capital costs 150,000
sand filters 50,000
installaiton and engineering 340,000
operation and maintenance at 24,000/year 240,000
Surface Discharge
pipe 10,000
installation and engineering 17,000
Infiltration Galleries
capital costs 20,000
installation and engineering 34,000
total 205,200
total 780,000
total 27,000
total 54,000
-------
ATTACHMENT 3
-------
Health Impacts From Packed Tower Aeration
The calculations that follow on the health impacts of packed tower aeration
are based on the air dispersion nodeling detailed in the report entitled,
"Air Dispersion Modeling Analysis for a Packed Aeration Column, Van Water and
Rogers, Inc., Edmunds Street Site, Albuquerque, New Mexico." Three models were
used in this report. The calculations below are based on the one known as
Valley, the more conservative of the models for complex terrain. In addition,
two conservative assumptions were made. The first involved the quality of
the water entering the column. The level of contaminants in the incoming water
is expected to rise for approximately two years and to then begin to decline.
The peak predicted contaminant values were used for the calculation even though
this condition will be short-lived. The second conservative assumption involved
the use of summer inversion meterological conditions. This is the worse case
for valley conditions and was used even though this condition will not occur
for most of the year. Finally, the values used to calculate exposures for the
two nearest residential areas came from points between the proposed tower
location and the residential area. This gives higher levels than would occur
at the actual locations. The Kirtland Addition is 1500 meters north/northeast
of the column location so the 1373 meter value was used. The houses along
Wesmeco are 850 meters northwest of the site, so the 686 meter value was used.
The Table that follows shows that even with these combined conservative
conditions, the risk posed by the aeration column is very small.
-------
r+ at
O O
rr ,»
a> rr
O
3
a.
re
§
Q.
n
y
o
1
o
rr o 3-
o
n ro
3"
a
3
O 3 T
-> 3 O N rr
QI a. «* n ro
r> o 3 a>
_ n N- -ti » 3
3-» o o.
o ' r\> T
TO 3
O -> Q.
ro o
rr ro n
3- rr 3-
fO 3-
3 ro o
ro 3 -j
ro o
ro
rr
ro
r>
o
CU
^«
3
Ol
3
c
o
o
3
a*
o
ro
3
O
oo ^ cn
O
Oi
11 -»
o
ro
in
C 3 X
& rr
rr -J 3
ro a* g
1 rr a
O
3
rff
GO ->
< ft
0.00
o o
o
> ?« ro
0. 3
O. T rr
fti rr
03
3 O. O
3
33
M^
OO
o
t/1
Al
I/)
o
o
a>
3
r>
n
*<
O
(V
a>
xxx
o
I
oo
I I
xxxxx
»«* ^^ »>^ H^ H*
ooooo
I I I I I
r> o
o e
xxx
o
I
oo
I I
xxxxx
l»l "I «(!
ooooo
I I I I I
A
OB
X
ro
WW CL-
o« ro
X X
XXX
H- I I I-- I-* I !-*>-
o oo o o o
I III II
so vO v-'
oo
ai cj i-« f\j
X X X X
H- I I »* H*
o o o o
I III
00 0009 O»
en ro
X X
» > H*
o o
O O
3 O
n 3
ro rr
3 a>
rr 3^
0) 3*
rr a>
3
O rr
3
r»
re
a*
33 ro
- a.
o
o
(O
ro
-------
ATTACHMENT 4
-------
ATTACHMENT 4
The Clean Air Act limits air emission from hydrocarbon sources to 100 tons
per year. Using the estimated worst quality of water expected to enter the
aeration column (1628 total micrograms per liter contaminants) and a 100
gallon per minute flow rate of water, the following calculation was
performed for annual emissions:
8400 hours 4500 gallons 1628 ug 1 g. 1 Ib. 3.785 liter
x x x x x
year hour liter 10 454 g gallon
»513 pounds per year or 0.25 tons per year.
The Ambient Air Quality Standards and Air Quality Control Regulations for
Albuquerque/Bernalillo County have a maximum concentration of 100 ug/nr
in ambient air for non-methane hydrocarbons. The air modeling using the
VALLEY model showed the maximum Impact would occur north/northeast of the
column at a distance of 229 meters.
Chemical Concentration in micrograms per cubic meter
10.7 meter stack 13.7 meter stack
benzene 0.00076 0.00075
chloroform 0.00092 0.00091
trans-1,2 dichloroethene 0.00089 0.00088
1,1-dichloroethene 0.02886 0.02859
tetrachloroethene 0.09446 0.09355
1.1,1 trlchloroethene 0.00997 0.00988
1.2 dichloroethane 0.00997 0.00988
acetone 0.00249 0.00247
totals 0.14832 0.14691
The total concentrations are well below the 100 ug/m3 required under the
Albuquerque/ BernaHllo County air regulations.
-------
ATTACHMENT 5
-------
cj
M
|
U
i.
i
r
If
»!
If
c.
p^
i;
!J !
H
0 *
!JI =
1
r ,
Jf:
nil $i\ i Hi
to I
1
il
i!
;< i1
i*
f! ih
MJ
W
- *J id --*
l?u !lr a«*
l » u i -
-s. ».* .S*
in mi*!
!-ji -.i\ -M
U &« U V k »
*
.3
Hi
Ji!
if"1
-if
;*!
K»H<~tlv
he cHe»l
ntegrity
tl*
S i I !
ii iJi1
S»! P.II
i =
s
r
j
i!
U
V
1
1
$
o
^
I*
5Is
g
s
I
t
u
I
1-
**
ii!
li!= 5 S
«
i !
f !
i ^
£ :
3
1.
i!
»
i
0 *
I |
! ^
c
I
5
«
u
B-
t:s
0 *f>
r
L
i!
to
l
if*
111
f ;
rf I
ill |
li^ f
i!
E
i!
1
i
*
|
-------
y
i
o
I
V)
is
s
M
fi
|
s
n
I
(j
IF
U
4 *
L
1"
Descrlpl Ion
s
£
«
]
«*
i
8
j
*)
-
c
V
r
ti
«
i
*
Nev treat oent, storaoe, or
disposal of harardous vaste
prohibited vllhin al aelers of a
fault displaced In Holorene
t la*.
|
i
u
o
*»
1
i!
>.
IS
H
i!
[s
J S
k> K
ii
8
!
e
£
S
1
e
ft *B
* =
|
I
Treatment, storage, or disposal
facilities vlthln the IDO-year
flood plain oust be desloned,
constructed, operated, and
maintained to prevent washout .
2
*
S
s
i
ii
11
i
'a
I
,
e
1
V)
I
fl
1
1
i
Nusi take action to a.olrt or
Inlnlse potential harm tn flood
plains, and restore and preserve
natural and beneflr-lal values.
!?
||
as
occur In a
, lovlends and
reas adjolnln *
* *
« t"
~tU8 .
r 3
*c«
11:
s-S
Activities tkat
affect anr ol tk*
specified In Sect
o
u
I
J
[
I
1
j
k
i
i
!
.
i
b
§ «
1
1 »»
1 >
i i
-------
1
1
U
VI
1
C
£
ft
If
|l
r
r
£
i
z
1
c
c
n
i
i
i
*
ii
u
n
Si
The sluOf
no dlrK-t
i
at
.1
c &
'i
:r?
;|1
Iff
»
See
ii:
V
gill
si*
,!t
rls
Activities affect!
coastal ion* Incli
thereuMdrr and ad;
shorelanas
1!
1
«
i
'e
J~
i.
*
"i
Is
i
i
1*1
t\*
ill
e~|
|||
c
1
E
i
i
i
s
!
i
li
I
\l
1!
cl
]
5
«
e
J"
8 j
S£
2s
1
1
1-i
5 s"
lii
«:?
Action
nateria
prohlbl<
3
<»
1 ft
is
-t
So
1
I
1
s
a
\
\\
is
n
net vary
Marine Protectlo
Mrsourcas and Sa
At-l. Section 101
1-
«l
m * *
4*1
£
i?!
There are
National »
LaiNBurk*
i
*
-
tt
i
f i
ii
9
i
*1
«
.,
a>
^
I
S
li
Historic Site*.
ulldlnqs. and
Antiquities Act
i
g
w
>
!
1
i
£
1
I
0 "j
I
l!
4 e
is
li
S
«
m
*i
Sb!
-S
g
w
i
I
Is
n
s
1
£
a
at M
if.
1s!
r- 6>velo
ruclures
Iqable
r"i
alterna
Involve
affect
c x
f 1
||
«v £ PI
o
» u
1
i
ilMs
o « 2 e "
ifln
a *| jlo
iilili
~si
^'?
= Ss
-I
.!=
H
111
!«
fc t
I!
Sb e*
u -
National Nistorl
reservation Act
Sectinn 106
!l.
Pi
e 1 £
E -
«H
ill
1
J
£j
t I
H
:»
H
s*
3?
3H
If.
»
^-'-:6E
an» qft VfO C)
- i
1
Critical habitat i
endanqered spaclei
threatened specie
r
2 *
o e
ii
If
»-
jj
1!
|
*
M
a
«
e]
]{!
i
ill
a! ;
i"sf
i«5l
I
M
i:
il
,i
ii
\\
l
a
I
.
E
i
8
i
a>
1
1
1
ota: ~ If a
smi»vi-i
-------
-*
ff
is
i
if
:*
i!
I*
Mlldernes* Art federal IT omed area described SO CTO 1S.I Area Bust be aitalnlstered Ii
as a lldenie»» area at. «ej. surh Banner thai "III lea'
unlapalred as lldrmest an
preserve Its wilderness
character.
National Mlldllfe Araa deslonated a* part of (lie SO cm Part 77, (hilr actions that are allow
efuoe S»lten Hallonal Hlldllfe Hafuoe Srstea IU USC «« d.d. under the provisions of l« 1
«v J et. seq.l Section ddlcl nar be underti
In areas tnat are part of tl
National Hlldllle Mefuoe Sf!
«
%
1
t
1
S
7
!
<>
*
|
1
j
i
ii
T
1
(A
-------
fl
3
9
JULIUS
s!
Si
sf
fcl
«
bi
^
«
H
^
i
1
1
t;
58
|S
1
a
S
&
1
i
u
a
M
a
1
E
£
i
i
ii
U
t «.
rs
.
ts
c *
- i
- ° "
n:
&
1
i
!i -:.
;: i=|
s-.l*!*
btabllshrs criteria Ii
aeteralnla* t*lrh solli
dlspnsal facilities am
practices paat a reasoi
probability af eaverse
on bealld or tnc envlri
and. Ikerebf. const Itvl
prohlblled open dyam.
f
-9
i .
* a
g e
~ u
« e
»
S"
V
I
i
Eo &
ill
\ \l\ll
-- UU«fck
II
JI
si
il
8 « «
r 4 r
ill
met
i
*
ill
Cat abilities procedures
criteria lar odlflrall
revocation of an* pro*l
40 CHI J*0-l».
1
u
9
i
j
i
i
IS
jjj
a
a
at 1 '
i
ksW*
II!
II!
. «
S"
t J
III
».
5
5
£.CS
llil
i-l?
2H~.
»:*=
Kh
= is .
n{?
W ^ M "*
«s;s
*
e
s
M
*
«
J
ll
|1
]h
-j«
4
* »i i
fs!
i^l
* r
-Sg
sir
t ..
Kl
5*!
J
i
«
J
*A
11
s.
i:
« e
11
3
s
|
g
1
i|!
jjj
*~*
i
J r s
I'-
ll-.
ni
* M i
2 J J
lit!
!
»
r::i
IHls
establishes standards 1
apply to persons transi
twiardovs nasla llnla,
II the transportation i
aallest tmoVr «O en i
m
8
>!
is
* v
3.
£
J5
!«
» *
H1
III
*2*
- s . sli i
5 ~ ?I 1 8aZ 1
r * . ?I * £ I
j |i «-| * 1:1 (
t ,1 sls a =1! =
: ;i iii !: fa i
ti S " "" - S I £ U «9 ~ *
2 t i i( » *, » fi -"^.5^
1 ii If! ii iil 1
i i i : i 3
.' J 3 j 1 i
iJ1;
'». !
|i|iK«
» « i » » .^
U'hjl
Hl!:i
31s:ji: « < « « «
<3%.lh2 22222
2 U a M k.
r inn
}-i\
9 « > >
' **** I
*> fi^ Ii i! i
1 !i i! ill 111 ii
.1 1 2
i! i! si s! ji ii
iii'i- I4 if r *ff *j
Ml ill] il illii
52*»5S e o
*
«I « t»
: 1 =
T t*
i ||
i ^T.
ifi
!
£
2 i
1
1
i j
i
s
!« |
Up :
i s:; i
i ! *i =
j :H S
llii ^
j
I asl
** 9
I t
t
\, ; ,
I 33 » S
si
I - M
-------
i
i
t»
ii
I
N
« *
t
i:i
f
ii
I
r .
if
I^r
r *
\\
~ t
!i
I
t
7
r
t
\
I
i
i
a
J
"e
f
!_.
i!
i
i 2
ir
II
c:
111!
liiil
! i I
1. .!
i su
illl
IIHH ««5 H
b B b F
i1 Mii^ llslill J«' s!
is §ii_2 *ji! *t s S-
'|I«!l| ijilM il]L |«.
i Hi!,' IHilU liili !!i
i i i mm
iU l.||l!jl!l
H! M t! r et j (j
;;«n M li M h M H *.!
liJ [« 1« 1«. !« H =i n it
!- I* I* I*" *» s* «:
!li i! i! Ill i! II li 1! &
a ji ! i! i i i ill,
I- ll > * f I * 1 s":$*=
hi-..<- s i i 5 I i fin
« * A B ^ C B ^ < fci
H
ii
K
S
s
Jj
i!
!iii
i.
iijiji B.il}!
tppl 'i^!
Ilili] U-.l*
2
c
s
i.
M
i
S
f
I:
11
it
{1
if
ji
f
I
2
s
«
-------
*
i
1
w
K
t.
Ii
IBllroM*
nd Iff,
I
I
*
I1
I
1
\
m*
C
:
o
!
»,
i
i
ii
r t
I?
! ! *
sr
i*
» t<
»s .
si!
Ill
i
i
. .
I!
ii
D
!i
i!
2;
8
u
5
1
i
*
n
1
*.
1
ii
r.
ii
]
t»
r
|_
ft
1
~
i m
m I
o
<-»
tt
t
»*>
*
M
4*:t
Pis
IIS-
rss
1{1
f » r 5
£* to U
r «
»»
e
n
*t
o
|
1~
8
2
S
S
Pfopovrd P*B»l«llon
lot (xnlrol ol *!-
lorn ol volotll*
oroonlr*
h=%
5;»i
e - ! J §
k 0
by W w Q
W ^ «r V
C C I"
* « *» fl
"e $ I a
S2o~*
pi!
llHl
f
2
r
Vro*l«>s for prol*ctlon of
vn6>r«.roun4 sowrr** ol drink In
In .
*
*» *^
II i
^ g i
M
t
f
1
|j
Sol* Drink In* MOT Act
I9MAI
MvrrorovH* Injocllon
rnnlrol P>«wl«lloM
IIIKI
Clow MOT Act ICHAI
"Mr(5i
«-lk5'
|«f-5-
i » i . s
t «-
I » 4 «
e * £
v 9 to d
T n ; f
]»!**.
i!*li
hltief
1:1:15=
milt
^.
*
%>
>
...
*,?!
» O «
««£1
-:»]=
sls.»
§ Mb
!B*
u:i!
1101
n
f*
«
e
u
8
'a
!:
:i
^
!P
w |u>
lh
H<
sll
otloMl PollvloM
Olsrkoi** tllolnollo*
S|r*lva
*
I
I
I
f
1C
11
I'
7
;?
i
1
i
S*ll «*rnnolo«t-lM»*« *lllnrnt
ll*llollon> lor polnl ooMrc*
ol«ck*i*rs In Ik* Or* Nlnlno;
Uiri^lm) Point Smrr* col*ooi|
!
g
s
i
H
il
i
i!
iu
i
5
|
5
I
^
5
1
J!$
c « s *
ft> > L «y
5.^*
ii!{
IIC*
.liiw
5jgllh trratamt
pror*s**> In fTTMt or IkM oo|
conloalniit* ** *|MOBP.
m
S
s
nil
:s..
L-H
I:!
ii!
IMS
^:t?
I
!i
£
t
ii
il
Ii
N.
i
btokllokn *tfl«mt otojxioroi
r prnklklll«n lor nrlola
loilc pollvlmt*.
>
M
5
8
|2
U
* *
to It
*.!
ii
H
si
ii
li
*
e
ta r
ii
|)r»j*)|
)OM BUI
!!
i
^
r
t
o
*
\
}
*
1
i
m
r
i
!
il
jh
f
*.
c
e
i
I
&
«
I
ii
i
i
i
!!
i
i 2
ȣ5
= *8
2
1
!l
Is
I
«
*
j
c
I
«
i
o
fr
ii
s;
j
If
J..I
il!2i
ilir?
|!«iil
H*«|
iml
il;l»
S^I.I
i
IS
S-
J
s
f
s
!i
H
m
»\t
«
«:
*5-
P r .
C ?!
il-
* t,
I!
* I PI
8.i
= st.
Hit
iii-
£
Sfc
.1
Col* oBlHlon l«noor«« for
oVilOMtrd lH>ior«aM« pollMtont
In liHtlx wrrMf. b*rylllu>.
lnoi«|jlt|r arsonlr.
;
Jc
i ,
«E
r 8
#
»
I
hi
0
j
«
ClMn Air Act ICAAI
lion*! tolulo*
StMdMo: lor Horor«*»
Air PnllMtonl*
-------
]
1
M
1
5
V *
n
* te
C
e
|
S
1!
|
u
K
1
g
*
£
1
I
e T.
ill
J*5
iii
i 9
% e
T- T
JL
I*-
MI
0 0
^
n
*
Hi
4s*
!i=
hl
Its
t "£t
.
1
i
1
k»
i
i
N*llnnal Ajrtilenl Air
guallly Criteria.
!!
z
-si
.' *,
^ *
*
e
L, C
$1 .
:!!
t
V
u
58
ill
lit
5!;
:s-
(» M
"t
-- S
8
I
1
i
Mr* Source Performance
Slandarila
1
I
I
S
3f
II
^
*
S0
s
3
R
t
i
6
i
I
Orcupat tonal Safety «nJ
Health Act IO6HAI
J
7
f
e
I
VI
S
f=
(A n
|
e
III
82?
!i!
Sr;
Hi
*
i
jg
s
|
i
I
i
i
M
*
at
!*
«
H
ii
!_
fi
> 2
- 1-
l j;
7-1
-="
c I
i
i
*"
;
* M
S *
W
i
H 2 i
'<
I \
1 [
- s\ '
S *i 1
5 °E 1
V _ .
h
J
j
9 ^
1 I
s :
!. i
[I
ii
Haiardoua Materials
Transportation Act
Naiardou* Material!
Transportation
fteoulatlons
5
Ul
-------
U)
«
i
<-
h.
!i
ie
it
«c
'a
i&
E *
si
fc*
81
Q
I
.J
X
!
X
VI
i
*
> V
1 *
II
ll
ir
e
I'!
Ur script Ion
S
?
u
I
1
4
i
:
i. .
"-iS
=*!
Si
!fi
r *
!sr
:*2
sr .
1H
;^«
£!!4
s.
K
s:*
iS-
*.-£
lit
at S *
t
Jg
|i
Jl
t*
f!
Surface and
or boriWrlnt
Si.
M!
* =
a
\
9
b
e
«
j
M
?
1
I
^i
s
£
M »
Ic pollutant a "which arc
nanta ... vhlrh upon Inor
illation vlll unreasonably
n|urc huatMi health, or th
Mia or plants ...."
-in*
J ^ I
» * c Z C
ll!*J ]
I
!
S '
' t
o
1
S
£ «
1 1
» .
1| '
5*
*?
;
!!!
- *
i: i S
1! Ic
ft
t
«
ft
(A
-------
in
Is
5?
w «
ii
B
-i
I
«
«
£
i
]
II
j» b
r
B
2
n
1
«
c
*
£
I
i
,!iS
HJ!
h 8 " * J
i ^ i *
1 1 11 I
I 2 il I
1 I ?!. I
i : II! i
5 5*5 £
£ & "*5 S
J J 2 * e
3 i! ;-:; I
c
*:!
Ill
Is
5i
ii
1~
il
I.
i
£i
ii
*ȣ* e *
»is:| i [f f!!
^h;! if I! i*s
J||: -5 -5 i=|s ,
|§;l= r. r. jj|| i
f~ * c fc «2 B2 ~
::if 51 51 53^
u
»
a
a' « « «
S S S 8
T « i i
1 1 ' Ihi a
is : j 5^=1 h
IB S 1 12. ' *»
in i Jijij'j
h!l I* Is |sl*s |5
ii ii ii hill il
ill. ! i II
|JiS If !H j!}:lj!
*= ££ II m£S Sal* .
li oa a
5 i
1
|
S
e
i
i
i
*
*>
1
i
j
. i
p S
ill : t
>ft
i i
-------
w
^
u
«' »
*» «*<
i -
b to
4!
i!
i,
r
S
s
I
|
c
fl
£
9
!
*>
!
i
e
tt f >
* i - -
».
S2^*
Deslonates uses (or which the si
uaters of Heu Hrilco shall he pi
and prescribes the ualer quallll
rtarit* necessary lo sustain the <
nated uses.
5
%
«
z
|
o
M
to
ii
SI
ii
k *B
* c
if
tz
? ah
i!
i
e
1
V
^
I
e
\\
3-j
i
«
»»
Los
to
lit?
-Si^
* B-
- ts?
«ll
i1;*
P!S.-
to to
!!h»
HiM
?^l*
= !!ll
I'siii
s
s
i
u
1
+t
?
1
i
ai
tl
1
e
I
**
O
fc
V
1
g
^
I
i
0
:i
a :
So
1
^
V)
i
i,
* ti
is
Sets standards for dissolved o«
lenperature, fecal conform bac
tt>S, sulfate. and chloride.
tfi
0
i
f«
!i
!l .
."is!
IK»
.1 «
-.il-
a* > s
-IsoS
K»i!
«=th
Imi
i
» 3
i!
tj
in «
e
X
3
1*
£
i
*
fc
Hiih
-
'
\i
-------
ATTACHMENT 6
STATE OF NEW MEXICO CONCURRENCE
-------
Post Office Box 968
Santa fe. New Mexico 87504-0968
I I
NC» MO.C:
HEALTH wo ENVIRONMENT
Michael JrBur*hBrs . _
Director - ' '- -' : I
^eo-;> Sec-e;a->
'> 7
June 27, 1988
Allyn Davis, Director (6H)
Hazardous Waste Management Division
U.S. EPA, Region VI
1445 Ross Ave.
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Dear Mr. Davis:
EID concurs with the remedy proposed by EPA for the Edmunds Street
Groundwater Operable Unit of the South Valley Superfund site, with
the understanding that this decision relates only to the plume of
contaminated ground water that extends eastward from the 3301 Edmunds
Street property in Albuquerque. Your staff has done excellent work
on this project.
We stress that this operable unit concerns only a small part of the
site and only a part of the Edmunds Street property. As we discussed
with your staff on June 15, selection implementation of a comprehensive
remedy for the South Valley site demands multi-agency coordination. _
EID trusts EPA, the lead agency for this site, to provide the necessary
coordination and to work with the rest of us toward a viable remedy.
EID also expects EPA to follow through with past commitments to define
the extent of contamination by CERCLA wastes to the north and east,
during remedial design if necessary.
Kirkland'L. Jones
/ Deputy Director
«,x
KLJ:lr
PRCT5.CTJON
AObNCY
DALLAS, TEXAS
EQUAL
-------
f
ATTACHMENT 7
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
------- |