SIXTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT FOR AT&SF (CLOVIS) SUPERFUND SITE CURRY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO £ < V 4? pR0^tO z LU CD w o* June 2023 Prepared by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6 Dallas, Texas ------- SIXTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT ATSF (Clovis) SUPERFUND SITE CURRY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO EPA ID#: NMD043158591 This memorandum documents the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's performance, determinations, and approval of the AT&SF Superfund Site (Site) sixth five-year review under Section 121(c) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S. Code Section 9621(c), as provided in the attached Sixth Five-Year Review Report. Summary of the Sixth Five-Year Review Report The Sixth Five-Year Review of the AT&SF (Clovis) Superfund site located in Clovis. New Mexico was completed from July 2022 through March 2023. Documentation from this Five-Year Review confirms the remedy at the Site as set forth in the 1988 Record of Decision (ROD) has been implemented and is protective of human health and the environment. No applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements ( ARARs) for groundwater were established for this Site. Groundwater monitoring is conducted every five years and Onsite Storage Facility (OSF) inspections are conducted annually. There is no new evidence that calls into question the protectiveness of the remedy. One groundwater monitoring event occurred during this Five-Year Review period on October 27. 2022. TPH-DRO (Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons - Diesel Range Organics) was detected in monitor wells ranging in concentrations from 0.0240 (J) mg/L to 0.0495 (J) mg/L in three site monitor wells. There is no Federal or State standard for TPH and the October 2022 concentrations are significantly lower than those detected during the previous Five-Year Review period (0.9944 mg/L to 1.16 mg/L). Environmental Indicators Human Exposure Status: Current human exposure is controlled, and a protective remedy is in place. Contaminated Groundwater Status: The contaminant groundw ater migration is under control. Site-Wide Ready for Reuse: A Site-wide Ready for Anticipated Use (SWRAU) determination was made on September 11. 2007. All remediation goals set forth in the ROD have been achieved for all media that may affect current and reasonably anticipated future uses of the Site so that there are no unacceptable risks. All necessary institutional controls specified in the ROD are in place and effective at protecting the remedy. The protectiveness of the remedy is anticipated to not be affected by climate change. See Section V, Question C for additional information. Potential for environmental justice concern per national and/or state averages based on EPA's Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool (EJScreen) does exist. The EJScreen Site report indicates that the population within one mile of the Site meets or exceeds the 80th percentile when compared to state. EPA region, or national averages for the follow ing environmental indicators: particulate matter 2.5, ozone, traffic proximity, lead paint, risk management plan (RMP) facility proximity, underground storage tanks, demographic index, people of color, low income, unemployment rate, linguistically isolated, and less than high school education. The EJScreen reports are included in Appendix B. ------- Actions Needed There are no actions needed for the remedy to be protective. Determination I have determined that the remedy for the AT&FS (Clovis) Superfund Site is protective of human health and the environment. All remedial action objectives have been met for the Site. The former lake area is isolated from surface water run-on. lake water has evaporated, lake-bottom sediments and soils from beneath the lake-bottom sediments and beach area have been treated, all treated sediments are contained in the OSF. the OSF has been capped, and the Site has been restored. , ¦ * n r> ¦ *— Digitally signed by LISA PRICE LISA PRICE Date: 2023.06.15 15:12:44 -05'00' Lisa Price Acting Director. Superfund and Emergency Management Division U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6 ------- ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS SIXTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT AT&SF (CLOVIS) SUPERFUND SITE CURRY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO EPA ID#: NMD043158591 Issucs/Rccommcnd ill ions OU(s) with Issues/Recommendations Identified in the Five-Year Review: No Issues/Recommendations ------- Table of Contents LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS 2 I. INTRODUCTION 3 FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SUMMARY FORM 4 II. RESPONSE ACTION SUMMARY 4 Basis for Taking Action 4 Response Actions 5 Status of Implementation 6 Systems Operations/Operation & Maintenance 6 III. PROGRESS SINCE THE 2018 REVIEW 7 IV. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS 7 Community Notification, Involvement & Site Interviews 7 Data Review 8 Site Inspection 8 V. TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 9 QUESTION A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents9 9 QUESTION B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives (RAOs) used at the time of the remedy selection still valid9 10 QUESTION C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy9 10 VI. ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS 1 1 OTHER FINDINGS 1 1 VII. PROTECTIVNESS STATEMENT 1 1 VIII. NEXT REVIEW 1 1 APPENDIX A - REFERENCE LIST APPENDIX B - EJSCREEN REPORT APPENDIX C - DATA TABLES APPENDIX D - FIGURES APPENDIX E - SITE CHRONOLOGY APPENDIX F - INTERVIEW FORMS APPENDIX G - SITE INSPECTION CHECKLIST AND PHOTOS ------- LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS AOC Administrative Order on Consent ARAR Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement AT&SF Atchison. Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad (became BNSF in 1996) BNSF Burlington, Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation, and Liability Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency FS Feasibility Study FYR Five-Year Review ICs Institutional Controls LNAPL Light Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid MCL Maximum Contaminant Level mg/L milligrams per Liter NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan NMED New Mexico Environment Department NMWQCC New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission NPL National Priorities List O&M Operation and Maintenance OSF On-Site Storage Facility PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons PRP Potentially Responsible Party RAO Remedial Action Objectives ROD Record of Decision RPM Remedial Project Manager TBC To be considered TPH-DRO Total Petroleum Hydrocabons-Diesel Range Organics ------- I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of a Five-Year Review (FYR) is to evaluate the implementation and performance of a remedy to determine if the remedy is and will continue to be protective of human health and the environment. The methods, findings, and conclusions of reviews are documented in five-year review reports such as this one. In addition. FY R reports identify issues found during the review, if any. and document recommendations to address them. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is preparing this five-year review pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Section 121, consistent with the National Contingency Plan (NCP) (40 CFR Section 300.430(f)(4)(ii)) and considering EPA policy. This is the Sixth FYR for the AT&SF (Clovis) Superfund Site. The triggering action for this statutory review is the completion date of the Fifth FYR. The FYR has been prepared since hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at the site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure (UU/UE). The response action at the Site included the placement of treated sediments and soils in an onsite storage facility (OSF). The AT&SF (Clovis) Superfund Site Five-Year Review was led by Mr. Brian Mueller, U.S. EPA Region 6 Remedial Project Manager (RPM) and Mr. Anthony McGlow n. New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) Superfund Oversight Section (SOS) Project Manager. Participants included a representative from Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway Company, a representative from BNSF's environmental contractor, and NMED SOS Project Managers Ms. Martyne kieling and Ms. Gail Cooke. The review began on 7/1/2022. Site Background The Atchison. Topeka. and Santa Fe (AT&SF) Clovis Superfund Site (Site) is a natural playa lake located in eastern New Mexico and is know n locally as Santa Fe Lake (the lake). The Site is located within a semi-rural setting on the outskirts of the town of Clovis. in Curry County. See Appendix D. Figure 1 for Site location. The lake received hopper car washing rinsate and other discharges from the AT&SF rail yard from the early 1900s until 1990. The contaminants of concern (COCs) were primarily hydrocarbons, chromium, lead, and other heavy metals. Contamination at the Site is considered to be from contaminants discharged from the AT&SF (Clovis) Rail Yard. Since the early 1900s, the AT&SF (Clovis) Site received storm water run-off and wastewater discharged from the rail yard. The specific sources of wastewater have changed over time as the needs of the railway company changed. Activities at the rail yard contributing to the discharge have included hopper car washing operations, boiler blow dow ns, sanitary sewers, and the oil/water separators at the diesel fueling racks. The amount of wastewater discharged is unknow n and has fluctuated over time. The playa lake itself occupies approximately 45 acres in the west central portion of the property. The perimeter of the playa lake is bordered by a berm that was constructed during remedial action in 1990 and prevents additional surface water run-on to the playa basin. The capped OSF. containing treated soils and sediments from the remedial action, occupies nearly six acres at the northeast corner of the Site property. ------- FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SUMMARY FORM Site Name: AT&SF (Clovis) EPA ID: NMD043158591 Region: 6 State: NM City/County: Clo\ is/Curry County NPL Status: Deleted Multiple OUs? No Has the site achieved construction completion? Yes Lead agency: EPA [If "Other Federal Agency", enter Agency name]: Author name (Federal or State Project Manager): Brian Mueller, RPM Author affiliation: U.S. EPA Region 6 Review period: 7/1/2022 - 3/28/2023 Date of site inspection: 11/3/2022 Type of rev iew: Statutory Review number: 6 Triggering action date: 7/24/2018 Due date (five years after triggering action date): 7/24/2023 II. RESPONSE ACTION SUMMARY Basis for Taking Action According to the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Site, although no groundwater contamination was identified, the potential threat to groundwater was the primary concern. Contaminated lake water, soils, and sediments represented sources of contamination that required remediation to preclude contamination from potentially migrating to groundwater. In addition, the Feasibility Study risk assessment assumed that the lakebed would eventually dry completely due to natural evaporation since discharges to the playa were discontinued in 1990. Therefore, exposures to dust in ambient air from sediments and soils from the dry playa bed were determined to pose significant human health risk due to exceedance of EPA's risk management criteria for either the average or the reasonable maximum exposure scenarios. The carcinogenic risks were highest for exposures to airborne dust from chromium contaminated sediments. Non-carcinogenic risks were highest for exposure to dust from sediment and soil contaminated with hydrocarbons. Exposure pathways were incomplete for groundwater and lake water. Table 1 identifies the parameters of concern. Although no AR ARs were established for the groundw ater at the Site, the ROD states that the selected remedy will meet all primary State and Federal standards for drinking water. Table 2 lists the Federal and State standards for drinking water. ------- Table 1 - Parameters of Concern Groundwater Lake Water Sediment Soil Chloride Arsenic Boron Barium Fluoride Boron Chromium Boron Magnesium Cadmium Hydrocarbons Chloride Sodium Chloride Lead Hydrocarbons Sulfate Chromium Phenolics Phenolics Total Dissolved Solids Fluoride Total Organic Carbon Sulfate Lead Phenolics Sulfate Total Dissolved Solids Total Organic Carbon Table 2 - State and Federal Standard for Drinking Water Analyte Standard (mg/L) MCL NMWQCC* Arsenic 0.010 0.010 Barium 2 2 Cadmium 0.005 0.005 Chromium 0.1 0.05 Lead 0.015 0.015 Chloride 25 0A 250AA Total Phenolics 0.005AA ANationaI Secondary Drinking Water Regulations AANM Water Quality Control Commission (WQCC) Other Standards for Domestic Water Supply * Amended NMWQCC groundwater standards took effect on December 21, 2018, and generally match EPA MCLs. Response Actions The September 23, 1988, ROD did not specifically state Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs); however, the Feasibility Study describes primary and secondary objectives. The primary objective in the Feasibility Study was to eliminate the human exposure pathway from inhalation of wind-blown sediments from the playa bed assuming future evaporation of lake water. The secondary objectives for the selected remedies for the lake water, sediment, and soil were intended to mitigate the potential future migration of contamination to groundwater. The remedy for the AT&SF (Clovis) Superfund Site included remediation of three environmental media: lake water, lake sediments, and soil. The remedy included the following actions: • Evaporation of lake water and construction of a dike around the lake to prevent run-on; • Treatment of contaminated soils and sediments to reduce total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) concentrations to below 1,000 parts per million (ppm) or achieve soil stabilization; and • All treated sediments and soils with a TPH concentration greater than 1,000 ppm were excavated and placed in the OSF. The ROD specified that groundwater monitoring will continue semi-annually during remediation and annually after remediation for the contaminants of concern for groundw ater. ------- On March 17. 2003, a Restrictive Covenant was placed on the property to restrict access and prevent disturbance to the OSF. Access to the property is restricted by a chain link fence and locked gate. The ROD did not specifically require Institutional Controls (IC) but required a fenced area for the on-site storage facility. Fencing is in place and BNSF has been maintaining the fence. Status of Implementation In the Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) signed with EPA on September 1, 1983, AT&SF agreed to investigate the Site and pay costs for cleaning up the Site. The Remedial Design was conducted in conformance with the ROD. The Remedial Action took place in three phases. The first phase entailed the construction of a rainfall run- on/runoff control system and a lake water evaporation system. The activities associated with this phase began in November 1989 with the construction of the run-on/runoff control dike and were finished in March 1992 with the completion of the irrigation system and spray evaporation system. The second phase entailed the bioremediation of soil and sediments for organic contamination and included: 1) the evaporation of lake water; 2) dewatering and excavation and ex-situ treatment of contaminated lake bottom sediments; 3) in-situ and ex-situ treatment of contaminated soils from beneath the lake bottom sediments and from the beach area; 4) containment of all treated sediments in the OSF; and 5) containment in the OSF of any treated soils not meeting the clean-up criteria. A total of 57,245 cubic yards of treated sediment and 38,720 cubic yards of treated soil are stored in the OSF which covers approximately six acres in the northeast part of the Site. The activities associated with this phase began in June 1992 and were completed in October 1999. The third phase entailed restoration of the Site and included capping of the OSF and establishment of native vegetation. The activities associated with this phase began in June 2000 and were completed in September 2000. The Site achieved construction completion status when the Preliminary Close-Out Report was signed on September 20, 2000. The Final Close-Out Report was signed on November 8, 2002, by the EPA Region 6 Superfund Division Director. The Site was deleted from the Nation Priorities List (NPL) on March 17. 2003. Systems Operations/Operation & Maintenance BNSF is conducting long-term monitoring and maintenance activities according to the post-closure operations and maintenance (O&M) plan that was revised in May 2019 and again in March 2023. The 2019 revision to the O&M plan documents the modification of the groundwater monitoring schedule from annual to every five years. The 2023 revision to the O&M plan slightly modifies the sampling and reporting schedule and changes the sampling method to low -flow sampling. The primary O&M activities have been groundwater monitoring, inspections, and maintenance of the OSF and lake basin. The primary activities associated with O&M include the following: • Visual inspection of the OSF cap with regard to vegetative cover, settlement, stability, and any need for corrective action; • Inspection of the condition of groundwater monitoring wells; and • Groundwater monitoring of six monitoring wells every five years. In May 2014, BNSF requested a groundwater sampling modification to the groundwater monitoring program to update analytical methods. In January 2015, the EPA approved the modification to the annual groundwater monitoring program. The modifications included approved test methods for the analysis of arsenic, chloride, total phenols, individual phenols, and diesel range organics (DRO). Barium, cadmium, chromium, and lead were eliminated from the groundwater monitoring program. Analytical methods performed in 2022 are shown in Table 3. Results from samples collected during the five-year review period are discussed in the Data Review section of this document. No issues related to the condition of the OSF cap. Site fencing, signage, or other surface infrastructure were identified during this FYR period. ------- Table 3 - Analytical Methods Analyte Method Arsenic SW846-6020 Chloride EPA 300.0 TPH-DRO EPA 8015 Total Phenolics SW846-9066 Phenol ics EPA 8270 III. PROGRESS SINCE THE 2018 REVIEW This section includes the protectiveness determinations and statements from the 2018 five-year review, as well as the recommendations from the 2018 five-year review and the status of those recommendations. Table 4: Protectiveness Determinations/Statements from the 2018 FYR OU# Protectiveness Determination Protectiveness Statement NA Protective The remedy at the AT&SF (Clovis) site is protective of human health and the environment. All remedial action objectives have been met for the Site. The former lake area is isolated from surface water run-on. lake water has evaporated, lake-bottom sediments and soils from beneath the lake-bottom sediments and beach area have been treated, all treated sediments are contained in the OSF. the OSF has been capped, and the site has been restored. There were no issues or recommendations noted during the 2018 FYR. IV. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS Community Notification. Involvement & Site Interviews A public notice was posted on August 21. 2022, in the Eastern New Mexico News stating that EPA was conducting the Sixth FYR of the remedy, with the results of the review to be presented in a FYR report. The public notice also invited the public to submit any comments to the EPA and stated the report would be made available at the following Site information repository: Go vis-Carver Public Library 701 North Main Street Gov is. New Mexico 88101 librarvfg),cityofclovis.org During the FYR process, interviews were conducted to document any perceived problems or successes to date with the remedy that has been implemented. Interview records are included in Appendix F. The results of these interviews are summarized below. Curry County Manager Lance Pyle was emailed an interview questionnaire. Mr. Pyle recalled receiving complaints about the fence at the site being dow n or people accessing the site. Those complaints were referred to the Curry County Fire and Safety Director. Mr. Pyle recommended that routine annual reports be provided to the Curry County Commission and the Clovis City Commission to keep the public informed about site activities. ------- A Curry County District Commissioner was emailed an interview questionnaire. The Commissioner mentioned complaints about the security of the site related to the fencing and gates. The Commissioner recommended more frequent reporting on site activities and would like to see a greater maintenance presence at the site. Mr. Kyle Desantis, Environmental Scientist for A read is U.S.. Inc. (contractor for BNSF). was emailed an interview questionnaire. Mr. DeSantis stated that site is inspected monthly by BNSF contractor Hulcher Services for fence damage and tumbleweed buildup and that BNSF police patrol around the site. Arcadis personnel also conduct semi-annual inspections, during which the condition of the fence. OSF cap and general observations are noted to identify any issues. Mr. DeSantis stated that the OSF cap vegetation is well established and no significant issues have been observed during site walks. Mr. DeSantis discussed the change from three well volume sampling to low flow sampling, due to declining water levels in monitoring wells. Mr. DeSantis also noted specific O&M activities conducted during the FYR period, including minor slope maintenance, west side fence repairs due to damage from vehicles from the nearby public road, and periodic mowing to control tumbleweed building and fire hazard. Mr. Thomas Jones. Environmental Remediation Manager for BNSF. was emailed an interview questionnaire. Mr. Jones's responses were generally consistent with those provided by Mr. DeSantis. Data Review The current groundwater monitoring program involves sampling all six (6) on-site monitor wells. All six on-site monitoring wells were sampled on October 27. 2022. Analytical methods and analytes conducted for the 2022 groundwater sampling are listed in Table 3. Arsenic was detected in all wells, with concentrations ranging from 0.0011 (J) mg/L to 0.0252 mg/L. The detected concentration of 0.0252 mg/L in monitoring well MW-D exceeded the Federal and State standard for arsenic of 0.01 mg/L; however, this concentration appears to be anomalous as it is inconsistent with previous arsenic concentrations detected in MW-D and the other monitoring wells at the site. Chloride concentrations ranged from 52.8 mg/L to 476 mg/L. The detected concentration of 476 mg/L in MW-C exceeded the secondary Federal standard and the NMWQCC "other standard for domestic water supply", which are both 250 mg/L. Chloride concentrations have sporadically exhibited levels above Federal and State standards at the Site. As noted in previous five-year reviews at this Site, pi ay a lakes are known to have elevated chloride concentrations. A total phenolics concentration of 0.0180 (J) mg/L was detected in MW-F, with no other detections above the reported detection limit (0.00830 mg/L). The detection limit and the single detection in MW-F exceed the NMWQCC "other standard for domestic water supply" of 0.005 mg/L. There is no Federal standard for total phenolics. Individual phenol compounds were only detected in one well, MW-B, at concentrations that are multiple orders of magnitude below screening levels. TPH-DRO concentrations ranged from non-detect (with a reported detection limit of 0.0222 mg/L) to 0.0495 (J) mg/L. The highest concentrations were detected in downgradient monitoring well MW-C at 0.0495 (J) mg/L and in upgradient monitoring well MW-G at a similar concentration of 0.0481 (J) mg/L. There is no Federal or State standard for TPH. The October 2022 concentrations are significantly lower than those detected during the previous Five-Year Review period (0.9944 mg/L to 1.16 mg/L). Site Inspection The inspection of the Site was conducted on 11/3/2022. In attendance were Mr. Brian Mueller. EPA Region 6 RPM, Ms. Martyne kieling of the New Mexico Environment Department. Mr. Thomas Jones with BNSF and Mr. Kyle DeSantis with ARCADIS. The purpose of the inspection was to assess the protectiveness of the remedy. ------- Fencing and signage were observed to be in good repair at the time of the inspection. The site is routinely checked by remediation contractor Hulcher Services. Vegetative cover was observed to be well developed over the entire surface and slopes of the OSF. The OSF was observed to be in good condition with no issues identified during this inspection. The Site was observed to be clear of excess tumbleweeds or other vegetation identified as a potential fire hazard in the previous FYR. The Site monitoring wells were observed to be in good condition and were properly locked/secured at the time of the inspection. Water levels have continued to drop each year, leaving minimal well volume for sample recovery using the previous three well volume purge method. Low -flow methods were used to collect groundwater samples beginning in 2022, following EPA approval. V. TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT QUESTION A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents'.' Question A Summary: Review of sampling reports and results of the Site inspection indicate that the remedy is functioning as set forth in the 1988 ROD. The remedy at the Site included the remediation of three environmental media: lake water, lake sediments, and soil. Remediation at the Site included the follow ing: • Evaporation of lake water and construction of a dike around it to prevent run-on; • Treatment of contaminated soils and sediments to reduce TPH concentrations to below 1,000 ppm or achieve soil stabilization; and • All treated sediments and soil with TPH concentrations greater than 1000 ppm were excavated and placed in the OSF. Remedial Action Performance The remedial actions prepared at the Site are functioning as designed. The Site was deleted from the NPL on March 17. 2003. The lake is dew ate red. and the ring dike prevents run-on to the lake. The contaminated material is deposited in an on-site containment cell and the cap is intact and preventing exposure. Vegetation on the OSF is established and prevents erosion from occurring. Groundwater monitoring data from this FYR period continue to indicate that the groundwater exposure pathway is incomplete. System Operations/O&M The Site is inspected monthly by BNSF contractor Hulcher Services for fence damage and tumbleweed buildup. ARCADIS also conducts semi-annual inspections, during which the condition of the fence. OSF cap and general observations are noted to identify any issues. Native vegetation is well established on the OSF and throughout the Site. The fire hazard from the excess growth of natural grasses and tumbleweed accumulation identified during the previous FYR has been addressed. Due to declining water levels in Site monitoring wells, EPA approved a change to low -flow groundw ater sampling methods in 2022. Implementation of Institutional Controls and Other Measures A locked gate and chain link fence surrounds the entire Site and restricts unauthorized access. There is a restrictive covenant filed at the Curry County Clerk office, preventing disturbances to the OSF. The ROD did not include institutional controls but did require a fenced area for the on-site storage facility. Fencing is in place, and BNSF has been maintaining the fence. ------- QUESTION B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives (RAOs) used at the time of the remedy selection still valid'.' Question 6 Summary: There were no changes to the exposure assumptions, toxicity data or clean up levels. The remedial action at the Site is complete and the RAOs used at the time of the remedy are still valid. The September 23, 1988, ROD did not specifically state RAOs; however, the Feasibility Study describes primary and secondary objectives. The primary objective in the Feasibility Study was to eliminate the human exposure pathway from inhalation of wind- blown sediments from the playa bed. assuming future evaporation of lake water. The secondary objectives for the selected remedies for the lake water, sediment, and soil were intended to mitigate the potential future migration of contamination to groundwater. Land use remains the same, and the Site is fenced to restrict unauthorized access. Changes in Standards and TBCs Amended NMWQCC groundwater standards took effect on December 21. 2018, and generally match federal MCLs. Although no ARARs were established for the groundwater at the Site, the ROD states that the selected remedy will meet all primary State and Federal standards for drinking water. Table 2 lists the Federal and State standards for drinking water. Changes in Toxicity and Other Contaminant Characteristics There have been no changes in the toxicity factors for the contaminants of concern. Changes in Risk Assessment Methods There have been no changes to risk assessment methods. Changes in Exposure Pathways The exposure assumptions used to develop the Human Health Risk Assessment at this Site remain the same. Land use at the Site has not changed. Access to the Site is restricted by a chain link fence and a restrictive covenant is in place. Expected Progress Towards Meeting RAOs The remedy at the Site is complete. The RAOs have been met and will continue to be met if O&M continues. As stated above, the ROD did not specifically state RAOs; however, the Feasibility Study describes primary and secondary objectives. QUESTION C : Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy'.' CERCLA and the NCP require consideration of potential extreme weather/climate change impacts at the site. As part of this FYR. EPA conducted a forward-looking climate change analysis to estimate whether extreme weather could affect the protectiveness of the remedy, and what actions would be needed to ensure its resilience under future climate conditions that could affect short term and long-term protectiveness. The breakdown of potential conditions at the site indicates very low vulnerability to extreme temperature; annual, seasonal, and heavy precipitation; dry days; inland flooding, sea level rise, and hurricane surge; wildfire, and landslides. The change over current conditions assessment indicates potentially dangerous weather would not affect site operations or the remedy. Climate change/extreme weather will continue to be evaluated at subsequent five-year review s to ensure remedy resilience at the site. ------- During this FYR no new information was discovered that calls into question the protectiveness of the remedy. VI. ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS Issues/Rccommcndations OU(s) without Issues/Recommendations Identified in the Five-Year Review: No Issues/Recommendations OTHER FINDINGS In addition, the follow ing are recommendations that were identified during the FYR and may improve performance of the remedy, reduce costs, improve management of O&M, conserve energy, promote sustainability. etc.. but do not affect current and/or future protectiveness: • None. VII. PROTECTIVNESS STATEMENT Silowidc I'rolecliMMiess Stalemonl Protectiveness Determination: Protective Protectiveness Statement: The remedy at the AT&SF (Clovis) Site is protective of human health and the environment. All remedial action objectives have been met for the Site. The former lake area is isolated from surface water run-on. lake water has evaporated, lake-bottom sediments and soils from beneath the lake- bottom sediments and beach area have been treated, all treated sediments are contained in the OSF. the OSF has been capped, and the site has been restored. VIII. NEXT REVIEW The next five-year review report for the AT&SF (Clovis) Superfund Site is required five years from the completion date of this review. ------- APPENDIX A - REFERENCE LIST U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. September 1988. Supcrfund Record of Decision: Atchison/Santa Fe/Clovis. NM. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2018. Ffifth Five Year Review Report for AT&SF (Clovis) Superfund Site Curry County. New Mexico. CERCLIS ID # NMD043158591 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). November 2022. Regional Screening Levels (RSLs). Available online at https://www.epa.gov/risk/regional-screening-levels-rsls-generic-tables Arcadis U.S.. Inc for BNSF Railway. Post Closure Operations and Maintenance Plan (Revised). Santa Fe Lake Site. Clovis. New Mexico. May 2019. Arcadis U.S.. Inc for BNSF Railway. Post Closure Operations and Maintenance Plan (Revised). Santa Fe Lake Site. Clovis. New Mexico. March 2023. Arcadis U.S.. Inc for BNSF Railway. Post Closure Operations and Maintenance End of Year Report - 2022, Santa Fe Lake Site. Clovis. New Mexico. March 2023. ------- APPENDIX B - EJSCREEN REPORT ------- Save as PDF | EffH EJScreen Report (Version 2.0) 1 mile Ring Centered at 34.397753,-103.207973 NEW MEXICO, EPA Region 6 Approximate Population: 6,576 Input Area (sq. miles): 3.14 Selected Variables Percentile in State Percentile in EPA Region Percentile in USA Environmental Justice Indexes EJ Index for Particulate Matter 2.5 72 64 77 EJ Index for Ozone 62 77 85 EJ Index for 2017 Diesel Particulate Matter* 73 72 77 EJ Index for 2017 Air Toxics Cancer Risk* 69 63 76 EJ Index for 2017 Air Toxics Respiratory HI* 65 61 73 EJ Index for Traffic Proximity 80 81 84 EJ Index for Lead Paint 93 92 90 EJ Index for Superfund Proximity 37 53 65 EJ Index for RMP Facility Proximity 89 72 82 EJ Index for Hazardous Waste Proximity 55 57 65 EJ Index for Underground Storage Tanks 79 75 80 E J Index for Wastewater Discharge N/A N/A N/A ~ Index for the Selected Area Compared to All People's Blockgroups in the State/Region/US 100 EJ Indexes State Percentile Regional Percentile National Percentile This report shows the values for environmental and demographic indicators and EJScreen indexes. It shows environmental and demographic raw data (e.g., the estimated concentration of ozone in the air), and also shows what percentile each raw data value represents. These percentiles provide perspective on how the selected block group or buffer area compares to the entire state, EPA region, or nation. For example, if a given location is at the 95th percentile nationwide, this means that only 5 percent of the US population has a higher block group value than the average person in the location being analyzed. The years for which the data are available, and the methods used, vary across these indicators. Important caveats and uncertainties apply to this screening-level information, so it is essential to understand the limitations on appropriate interpretations and applications of these indicators. Please see EJScreen documentation for discussion of these issues before using reports. A A unttdSutA La/#\ fnvinymtnttlPictoettcn VLrnim ------- August 17, 2022 * Project 1 Search Result (point) 1:36.112 075 Mew Mex-co Slate University, City cf Clovts Texas ParKs & Wildlife, Es'i, HERE. Garirin. SafeGraph. GeoTechnologies. Inc. METI/NASA, USGS EPA, MPS. US Census Bureau, USDA Sites reporting to EPA Superfund NPL 0 Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDF) 0 Selected Variables Value State EPA Region USA Avg. %tile Avg. %tile Avg. %tile Pollution and Sources Particulate Matter 2.5 (lig'm3) 6.33 5.58 86 9.32 4 8.74 6 Ozone (ppb) 51 56.2 1 41.1 91 42.6 88 2017 Diesel Particulate Matter* (|jg/m3) 0.209 0.208 61 0.219 50-60th 0.295 <50th 2017 Air Toxics Cancer Risk* (lifetime risk per million) 20 20 78 32 <50th 29 <50th 2017 Air Toxics Respiratory HI* 0.2 0.24 60 0.37 <50th 0.36 <50th Traffic Proximity (daily traffic count/distance to road) 530 480 73 470 77 710 70 Lead Paint (% Pre-1960 Housing) 0.51 0.18 90 0.16 90 0.28 78 Superfund Proximity (site count/km distance) 0.0086 0.13 4 0.08 3 0.13 2 RMP Facility Proximity (facility count/km distance) 0.66 0.25 89 0.83 62 0.75 66 Hazardous Waste Proximity (facility counBkm distance) 0.1 0.82 35 0.8 22 2.2 16 Underground Storage Tanks (count/km2) 2.2 2.5 70 2 67 3.9 81 Wastewater Discharge (toxicity-weighted concentration/m distance) N/A 4.6 N/A 0.5 N/A 12 N/A Socioeconomic Indicators Demographic Index 72% 52% 81 44% 85 36% 90 People of Color 76% 63% 69 52% 72 40% 81 Low Income 67% 41% 87 36% 90 31% 93 Unemployment Rate 11% 7% 78 5% 87 5% 86 Linguistically Isolated 15% 5% 89 6% 86 5% 89 Less Than High School Education 40% 14% 95 15% 91 12% 95 UnderAge 5 8% 6% 70 7% 63 6% 71 Over Age 64 9% 17% 17 13% 31 16% 22 *Diesel particulate matter, air toxics cancer risk, and air toxics respiratory hazard index are from the EPA's 2017 Air Toxics Data Update, which is the Agency's ongoing, comprehensive evaluation of air toxics in the United States. This effort aims to prioritize air toxics, emission sources, and locations of interest for further study It is important to remember that the air toxics data presented here provide broad estimates of health risks over geographic areas of the country, not definitive risks to specific individuals or locations. Cancer risks and hazard indices from the Air Toxics Data Update are reported to one significant figure and any additional significant figures here are due to rounding. More information on the Air Toxics Data Update can be found at: https://www.epa.gov/haps/air-toxics-data-update. (https://www.epa.gov/haps/air-toxics-data-update) ------- For additional information, see: www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice(https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice) EJScreen is a screening tool for pre-decisional use only, it can help identify areas that may warrant additional consideration, analysis, or outreach. It does not provide a basis for decision-making, but it may help identify potential areas of EJ concern. Users should keep in mind that screening tools are subject to substantial uncertainty in their demographic and environmental data, particularly when looking at small geographic areas. Important caveats and uncertainties apply to this screening-level information, so it is essential to understand the limitations on appropriate interpretations and applications of these indicators. Please see EJScreen documentation for discussion of these issues before using reports. This screening tool does not provide data on every environmental impact and demographic factor that may be relevant to a particular location. EJScreen outputs should be supplemented with additional information and local knowledge before taking any action to address potential EJ concerns. ------- APPENDIX C - DATA TABLES ------- ^AR Analytical Results of the 2022 Groundwater Monitoring Program BNSF Railway Company Santa Fe Lake Clovis, New Mexico Well ID MW -B MW-C MW-D MW-E MW-F MW-G Field Blank Sample Event G2022-4 G2022-4 G2022-4 G2022-4 G2022-4 G2022-4 G2022-4 Sample ID G-618 G-619 G-620 G-621 G-624 G-622 G-623 G-625 Duplicate of: NMED G-621 (Duplicate) Analyte Criteria3 Result SDL Result SDL Result SDL Result SDL Result SDL Result SDL Result SDL Result SDL Arsenic 0.01 ob 0.00260 0.000180 0.00468 0.000180 0.0252 0.000180 0.00656 0.000180 0.00728 0.000180 0.00110J 0.000180 0.00232 0.000180 <0.000250 0.000180 Chloride 250 52.8 0.3790 476V 0.0495J 1.9 98.0 0.379 86.4 0.379 86.2 0.379 107 0.3790 177 0.3790 <0.379 0.379 TRPH-DRO 0.0167* <0.0222 0.0222 0.0222 <0.0222 0.0222 <0.0222 0.0222 0.0240J 0.0222 <0.0222 0.0222 0.0481J 0.0222 <0.0222 0.0222 Total Phenolics 0.005 <0.00830 0.00830 <0.00830 0.00830 <0.00830 0.00830 <0.00830 0.00830 <0.00830 0.00830 0.0180J 0.00830 <0.00830 0.00830 <0.00830 0.00830 4-Ch I oro-3-m eth yl ph en ol 0.005d <0.000263 0.000131 <0.000263 0.000131 <0.000263 0.000131 <0.000263 0.000131 <0.000263 0.000131 <0.000263 0.000131 <0.000263 0.000131 <0.000263 0.000131 2-Chlorophenol 0.091e 0.000771J 0.000133 <0.000283 0.000133 <0.000283 0.000133 <0.000283 0.000133 <0.000283 0.000133 <0.000283 0.000133 <0.000283 0.000133 <0.000283 0.000133 2,4-Dichlorophenol 0.0453s 0.000470J 0.000102 <0.000284 0.000102 <0.000284 0.000102 <0.000284 0.000102 <0.000284 0.000102 <0.000284 0.000102 <0.000284 0.000102 <0.000284 0.000102 2,4-Dimethylphenol 0.354s <0.000624 0.000064 <0.000624 0.000064 <0.000624 0.000064 <0.000624 0.000064 <0.000624 0.000064 <0.000624 0.000064 <0.000624 0.000064 <0.000624 0.0000636 4,6- Din itro-2-m ethyl phenol 0.00152e <0.00262 0.11200 <0.00262 0.11200 <0.00262 0.11200 <0.00262 0.11200 <0.00262 0.11200 <0.00262 0.11200 <0.00262 0.11200 <0.131 0.112 2,4-Dinitrophenol 0.0387s <0.00325 0.00593 <0.00325 0.00593 <0.00325 0.00593 <0.00325 0.00593 <0.00325 0.00593 <0.00325 0.00593 <0.00325 0.00593 <0.00325 0.00593 2-Nitrophenol 0.005d <0.00032 0.000117 <0.00032 0.000117 <0.00032 0.000117 <0.00032 0.000117 <0.00032 0.000117 <0.00032 0.000117 <0.00032 0.000117 <0.00032 0.000117 4-Nitrophenol 0.005d <0.00201 <0.000313 0.00014 <0.00201 0.00014 <0.00201 0.00014 <0.00201 0.00014 <0.00201 0.00014 <0.00201 0.00014 <0.00201 0.00014 <0.00201 0.000143 Pentachlorophenol 0.001b 0.000313 <0.000313 0.000313 <0.000313 0.000313 <0.000313 0.000313 <0.000313 0.000313 <0.000313 0.000313 <0.000313 0.000313 <0.0156 0.0003 Phenol 5.76e 0.00916J 0.004330 <0.000433 0.004330 <0.00433 0.004330 0.00540J 0.004330 <0.00433 0.004330 <0.00433 0.004330 <0.00433 0.004330 <0.000334 0.004330 2,4,6-T richlorophenol 0.0119s <0.000297 0.000100 <0.000297 0.000100 <0.000297 0.000100 <0.000297 0.000100 <0.000297 0.000100 <0.000297 0.000100 <0.000297 0.000100 <0.000297 0.000100 Footnotes: All units reported as mg/L. SDL - Sample detection limit. TRPH DRO- Total Petroleum Recoverable Hydrocarbons, Diesel Range Organics Detections are indicated in bold font. Exceedances are shaded. a. The criteria listed for the constituents are New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission (NMWCC) standards for domestic water supply unless otherwise indicated. b. United States Environmental Protections Agency (USEPA) maximum contaminant level (MCL). c. The NMED removed the screening criterion for TRPH-DRO in its June 2022 Risk Assessment Guidance. This value was retained in this table for comparative purposes. d. The NMWCC standard for phenols was used, because there is no MCL, NMWCC standard for this individual constituent, or screening level in the June 2022 Risk Assessment Guidance. e. Tap water screening levels in the June 2022 Risk Assessment Guidance. J - Result is less than the Reporting Limit but greater than or equal to the Method Detection Limit and the concentration is an approximate value. V- The sample concentration is too high to evaluate accurate spike recoveries. J6 - The sample matrix interfered with the ability to make any accurate determination; spike value is low. P1 -RPD value not applicable for sample concentrations less than 5 times the Reporting Limit. Tables (EOY 2022)_Draft_02.10.23 ------- »ARCADIS Summary of Post-Remediation Analytical Results of the Groundwater Monitoring Program (last 13 sampling events) BNSF Railway Company Santa Fe Lake Clovis, New Mexico Sample Duplicate Arsenic Chloride TRPHa TRPH-DRO3 Total Phenolics Well ID Sample ID (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) Value RL Value RL Value RL Value RL Value RL MW-B G2007-3 G-485 0.010 454 0.50 5.000 0.130 G2008-3 G-504 0.010 545 3.0 5.000 0.130 G2009-3 G-517 0.010 580 40.0 3.4 0.005 G2010-3 G-529 0.010 400 40.0 0.71J 3.0 0.005 G2011-3 G-541 0.010 510 40.0 3.1 0.005 G2012-2 G-553 0.020 450 5.0 5.300 0.040 G2013-4 G-564 0.0031 UB 0.001 600 10.0 5.494 0.022UB 0.040 G2014-3 G-575 0.0015 0.001 600 20.0 2.5J 5.154 0.012J 0.040 G2015-4 G-586 0.00228 0.002 451 10.0 0.277 0.100 0.040 G2016-4 G-594 0.00171 J 0.003 167 10.0 0.0379J 0.100 0.0474 0.040 G2017-4 G-602 0.00183J 0.003 44.5 1.0 0.0379J 0.100 0.0474 0.040 G2018-4 G-610 0.00182J 0.003 15.5 1.0 0.100 0.040 G2022-4 G-618 0.00260 0.002 52.80 1.0 0.100 0.040 MW-C G2007-3 G-486 0.010 391 0.5 9.53 UB 5 0.13 G2008-3 G-505 0.010 534 3.0 5.000 0.130 G2008-3 G-510 G-505 0.010 530 3.0 23.1 J 5.00 0.130 G2009-3 G-518 0.010 460 40.0 3.40 0.005 G2010-3 G-530 0.010 590 40.0 0.41J 3.100 0.005 G2011-3 G-542 0.010 410 40.0 3.100 0.005 G2012-2 G-554 0.020 410 5.0 5.000 0.040 G2013-4 G-565 0.0031 UB 0.0010 470 10.0 5.555 0.013UB 0.040 G2014-3 G-576 0.0016 0.0010 300 10.0 0.740 5.263 0.010J 0.040 G2015-4 G-587 0.00251 0.0020 325 20.0 0.100 0.040 G2016-4 G-595 0.00198J 0.0025 204 20.0 0.100 0.0277J 0.040 G2017-4 G-603 0.00165J 0.0025 439 10.0 0.100 0.040 G2018-4 G-611 0.00184J 0.0025 501 10.0 0.100 0.0166J 0.040 G2022-4 G-619 0.00468 0.0020 476V 5.0 0.0495J 0.100 0.040 MW-D G2007-3 G-487 0.010 73.4 0.5 5 0.13 G2007-3 G-488 G-487 0.010 72.9 0.5 5.000 0.130 G2008-3 G-506 0.071 0.010 72.7 3.0 5.000 0.247 0.130 G2009-3 G-519 0.010 73 4.0 1.2J 3.30 0.005 G2009-3 G-523 G-519 0.0034J 0.010 73 4.0 3.40 0.005 G2010-3 G-523 0.010 79 4.0 0.51 J 3.0 0.005 G2011-3 G-543 0.0035J 0.010 71 4.0 3.2 0.0026 UB 0.005 G2011-3 G-547 G-543 0.010 71 4.0 3.1 0.005 G2012-2 G-555 0.020 80 2.0 5.000 0.013J 0.040 G2013-4 G-566 0.0032UB 0.001 83 1.0 5.515 0.014UB 0.040 G2013-4 G-570 G-566 0.0035UB 0.001 83 1.0 5.376 0.0090UB 0.040 G2014-3 G-577 0.0022 0.001 84 1.0 1.6J 5.263 0.016J 0.040 G2014-3 G-582 G-577 0.0022 0.001 84 1.0 0.890J 5.555 0.011J 0.040 G2015-4 G-588 0.00306 0.002 88.2 10.0 0.00944J 0.100 0.040 G2016-4 G-596 0.00243 0.0025 89.3 10.0 0.100 0.040 G2017-4 G-604 0.00274 0.0025 83.4 2.0 0.100 0.040 G2018-4 G-612 0.00218 0.0025 79.4 2.0 0.100 0.0186J 0.040 G2022-4 G-620 0.0252 0.0020 98 1.0 0.100 0.040 MW-E G2007-3 G-489 0.010 96 0.5 8.46 UB 5 0.13 G2008-3 G-507 0.010 95.6 3.0 5.000 0.157 0.130 G2009-3 G-520 0.010 93 4.0 3.30 0.005 G2010-3 G-532 0.010 95 4.0 0.51 J 3.0 0.005 G2011-3 G-544 0.010 80 4.0 3.1 0.005 G2012-2 G-556 0.020 84 1.0 5.0 0.040 G2013-4 G-567 0.0031 UB 0.001 97 2.0 5.6 0.015UB 0.040 G2014-3 G-578 0.0015 0.001 87 1.0 0.840J 5.3 0.018J 0.040 G2015-4 G-589 0.00273 0.002 115 1.0 0.0252J 0.100 0.040 G2015-4 G-592 G-589 0.00251 0.002 116 1.0 0.0448J 0.100 0.00930J 0.040 G2016-4 G-597 0.00201 0.002 124 1.0 0.100 0.040 G2016-4 G-600 G-597 0.00178J 0.002 122 1.0 0.100 0.040 G2017-4 G-605 0.00192J 0.002 133 2.0 0.100 0.040 G2017-4 G-608 G-605 0.00187J 0.002 133J 2.0 0.100 0.040 G2018-4 G-613 0.00178J 0.002 118 5.0 0.100 0.0161 J 0.040 G2018-4 G-616 G-613 0.00194J 0.002 120 5.0 0.100 0.040 G2022-4 G-621 0.00656 0.002 86.4 1.0 0.100 0.040 G2022-4 G-624 G-621 0.00728 0.002 86.2 1.0 0.0240J 0.100 0.040 Tables (EOY 2022)_Draft_0 2.10.23 1/2 ------- »ARCADIS Summary of Post-Remediation Analytical Results of the Groundwater Monitoring Program (last 13 sampling events) BNSF Railway Company Santa Fe Lake Clovis, New Mexico Sample Duplicate Arsenic Chloride TRPHa TRPH-DRO3 Total Phenolics Well ID Sample ID (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) Value RL Value RL Value RL Value RL Value RL MW-F G2007-3 G-490 0.010 143 0.5 0.5 1.02 0.13 G2008-3 G-508 0.010 205 3.0 8.46 UB 5.000 0.130 G2009-3 G-521 0.0042J 0.010 120 4.0 3.3 0.005 G2010-3 G-534 0.010 140 4.0 3.3 0.005 G2011-3 G-546 0.010 120 4.0 0.71J 3.000 0.0025 UB 0.005 G2012-2 G-557 0.020 120 2.0 3.100 0.040 G2012-2 G-560 G-557 0.020 130 2.0 5.000 0.027J 0.040 G2013-4 G-568 0.0021 0.001 120 2.0 5.000 0.023J 0.040 G2014-3 G-579 0.0015 0.001 110 2.0 5.263 0.012J 0.040 G2015-4 G-590 0.00236 0.002 113 10.0 0.009J 0.040 G2016-4 G-598 0.00466 0.002 87.9 10.0 0.040 G2017-4 G-606 0.00153J 0.002 110 2.0 0.040 G2018-4 G-614 0.00183J 0.002 120 1.0 0.0198J 0.040 G2022-4 G-622 0.00110J 0.002 107 1.0 0.100 0.0180J 0.040 MW-G G2007-3 G-491 0.010 297 0.5 0.500 0.130 G2008-3 G-509 0.010 333 3.0 16.0 UB 5.00 0.181 0.130 G2009-3 G-522 0.010 280 40.0 3.5 0.005 G2010-3 G-533 0.013 0.010 310 4.0 3.0 0.005 G2010-3 G-535 G-533 0.0034J 0.010 310 4.0 0.71J 3.0 0.005 G2011-3 G-545 0.010 210 40.0 0.61J 3.100 0.005 G2012-2 G-558 0.020 420 5.0 3.100 0.035J 0.040 G2013-4 G-569 0.0025UB 0.001 280 5.0 0.8J 5.000 0.016UB 0.040 G2014-3 G-580 0.0012 0.001 410 5.0 5.434 0.013J 0.040 G2015-4 G-591 0.00205 0.002 523 20.0 1.16 0.100 0.0259J 0.040 G2016-4 G-599 0.00161 J 0.002 313 20.0 0.615 0.100 0.0549 0.040 G2017-4 G-607 0.00142J 0.002 451 20.0 0.332 0.100 G2018-4 G-615 0.00150J 0.002 483 10.0 0.100 G2022-4 G-623 0.00232 0.002 177 1.0 0.0481J 0.100 0.040 Footnotes: Value - Result value reported by laboratory. If no value shown, result was not detected. mg/L - milligrams per liter. RL - Reporting limit. F - Analyte detected in the field blank. B - Analyte detected in the associated Method Blank J - Result is less than the RL but greater than or equal to the MDL and the concentration is an approximate value. NA - Not analyzed. Sample broken prior to receipt by laboratory. NS - Not sampled. Amount of water contained within well MW-A casing insufficient to provide sample. Sample G-442 not obtained due to pump failure. UB - Analyte detected in associated blank sample. a. USEPA Method 8015 was adopted for use at this site for total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbon (TRPH)-Diesel range organics (DRO) analysis beginning in 2015. Historic data for this analyte prior to 2015 using Method 1664A are also recorded on this table, but are not be used in statistical analyses. Tables (EOY 2022)_Draft_0 2.10.23 2/2 ------- APPENDIX D - FIGURES ------- SOURCE: U.S.G.S. 7.5 MINUTE QUADRANGLE MAR CLOVIS, NEW MEXICO; PROVISIONAL EDITION 1985 MIDWAY, NEW MEXICO; PROVISIONAL EDITION 1985 2000 0 2000 BNSF CLOVIS, NEW MEXICO SANTA FE LAKE SITE SITE LOCATION «ARCADIS Design & Consultancy lor natural and built assets ------- aS 3 * LEGEND MW-G ^ - MONITOR WELL LOCATION 200 400 SCALE IN FEET 1" = 400-0" 800 li BNSF CLOVIS, NEW MEXICO SANTA FE LAKE SITE MONITOR WELL LOCATIONS ^ARCADIS ------- ------- APPENDIX E - SITE CHRONOLOGY ------- Site Chronology of Events Date Event 1979 Initial discovery of problem or contamination February 1, 1980 Official EPA Site Discovery Date April 1, 1980 Preliminary Assessment and Site Investigation complete September 1, 1983 Administrative Order on Consent Signature September 8, 1983 NPL listing August 1988 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study complete September 23, 1988 ROD signature December 16, 1988 Remedial design start November 1992 Remedial design complete November 1992 Phase I - Construction Began March 1993 Phase I - Construction Completed June 1993 Phase II - Bioremediation Began October 1999 Phase II - Bioremediation Completed June 2000 Phase III - Site Restoration Began September 2000 Phase III - Site Restoration Completed November 8, 2002 Final Close-out Report March 17, 2003 Deletion from NPL September 2, 1998 First Five-Year Review September 2, 2003 Second Five-Year Review September 2, 2008 Third Five-Year Review September 9, 2013 Fourth Five-Year Review July 24, 2018 Fifth Five-Year Review ------- APPENDIX F - INTERVIEW FORMS ------- INTERVIEW RECORD Site Details Name: AT&SF Clovis Superfund Site EPA ID: NMD043158591 Subject: Sixth Five-Year Review Interviewer Name: Martyne Kieling Brian Mueller Title: Project Manager Remedial Project Manager Affiliation: New Mexico Environment Dept. EPA R6 Individual Contacted Name: Kyle DeSantis Title: Environmental Scientist Affiliation: ARCADIS Phone Number: 713-598-5801 Email Address: Kyle.desantis@arcadis.com Interview Details Interview Format: Email Interview Location: N/A Interview Category: Consultant Interview Date: November 23, 2022 Interview Time: N/A Questionnaire: 1. What is your overall impression of the project'.' Very little activity at site, monitoring for Post-Closure 2. Is the remedy functioning as expected'.' How well is the remedy performing'.' Yes. OSF cap vegetation is well established, have not observed any significant issues during site walks. Some minor maintenance on slopes has been conducted. 3. What does the monitoring data show? Are there any trends that show contaminant levels are decreasing'.' Monitoring data was collected on 11/27/22. Data is currently being validated. Data results did not show any significate changes from past sampling events. 4. Is there a continuous on-site O&M presence'.' If so. please describe staff and activities. If there is not a continuous on-site presence, describe staff and frequency of site inspections and activities. ------- There is no continuous on-site presence. The site is checked monthly by Hulcher personnel primarily checking fence for damage and tumbleweed buildup. A read is personnel conducts a semi-annual inspections of site each year. BNSF police patrol around site. 5. Have there been unexpected O&M difficulties or costs at the site since start-up or in the last five years? If so. please give details. West side fence repairs due to damage by vehicles from nearby public road. Periodic mow ing to control tumblew eed buildup and fire hazard. Continue to monitor for animal burrow s on North side of cap. 6. Have there been any significant changes in the O&M requirements, maintenance schedules, or sampling routines since start-up or in the last five years? If so. do they affect the protectiveness or effectiveness of the remedy'.' Please describe changes and impacts. Due to water decline in wells sampling procedures have been changed from 3-well volume sampling to low-flow sampling. This change should increase the ability to collect water samples for future sampling events. 7. Have there been opportunities to optimize O&M. or sampling efforts'.' Please describe changes and resultant or desired cost savings or improved efficiency. Yes. As stated above, sw itching sampling method to Low-flow sampling. 8. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the project'.' 9. Do you consent to have your name included along with your responses to this questionnaire in the five- year review report'.' Yes. ------- INTERVIEW RECORD Site Details Name: AT&SF Clovis Superfund Site EPA ID: NMD043158591 Subject: Sixth Five-Year Review Interviewer Name: Martyne kieling Brian Mueller Title: Project Manager Remedial Project Manager Affiliation: New Mexico Environment Dept. EPA R6 Individual Contacted Name: Thomas Jones Title: Manager Environmental Remediation Affiliation: BNSF Railway Phone Number: 816-605-3495 Email Address: thomas .j ones3 @bnsf.com Interview Details Interview Format: Choose an item. Interview Location: N/A Interview Category: Consultant Interview Date: Click or tap to enter a date. Interview Time: N/A Questionnaire: 1. What is your overall impression of the project'.' This is a post-closure maintenance and monitoring project with very little activity. 2. Is the remedy functioning as expected'.' How well is the remedy performing'.' Yes. The remedy appears to be performing very well as there have been no significant changes to conditions at the site during the previous five-year reviews. The cap is stable and there are no impacts to groundwater from the capped materials. 3. What does the monitoring data show'.' Are there any trends that show contaminant levels are decreasing'.' Monitoring data was collected the week prior to the site inspection and is currently undergoing validation. Groundwater data will be included with the forthcoming monitoring/inspection report. The current, unvalidated data is consistent with historical results and the overall trends appear to be stable or decreasing. ------- 4. Is there a continuous on-site O&M presence'.' If so. please describe staff and activities. If there is not a continuous on-site presence, describe staff and frequency of site inspections and activities. There is no continuous on-site presence. Staff from the nearby BNSF Clovis Yard (remediation contractor. Hulcher Services) check the site on a monthly basis for signs of trespass and buildup of tumbleweeds along the security fence. BNSF Resource Protection officers also drive by the site during routine patrols (frequency unknown) to check for signs of trespass. 5. Have there been unexpected O&M difficulties or costs at the site since start-up or in the last five years? If so. please give details. A section of the fence was damaged and repaired in 2022. Portions of the site have been mow ed to reduce fire hazard potential during the past five years. Brush and tumbleweed debris has been removed from the fence line several times during the past five years. 6. Have there been any significant changes in the O&M requirements, maintenance schedules, or sampling routines since start-up or in the last five years? If so. do they affect the protectiveness or effectiveness of the remedy'.' Please describe changes and impacts. Continued decline of the water table has reduced the volume of water in the on-site monitoring wells to the point where groundwater samples can no longer be collected via the dedicated pumps. EPA and NMED agreed to change the groundwater sampling method from purging three well volumes to low-flow . A new SOP for low- flow sampling will be included with the monitoring report for review and approval by EPA and NMED. 7. Have there been opportunities to optimize O&M, or sampling efforts'.' Please describe changes and resultant or desired cost savings or improved efficiency. Yes. see question 6. Changing to low-flow sampling will improve sampling efforts due to the declining water table and limited quantity of groundwater in the monitoring wells. 8. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the project'.' No. 9. Do you consent to have your name included along with your responses to this questionnaire in the five- year review report'.' Yes. ------- INTERVIEW RECORD Site Details Name: AT&SF Clovis Superfund Site EPA ID: NMD043158591 Subject: Sixth Five-Year Review Interviewer Name: Martyne kieling Brian Mueller Title: Project Manager Remedial Project Manager Affiliation: New Mexico Environment Dept. EPA R6 Individual Contacted Name: Lance A. Pyle Title: County Manager Affiliation: Curry County. NM Phone Number: 575-763-6016 Email Address: lpyle @curry county .org Interview Details Interview Format: Email Interview Location: N/A Interview Category: Local Agency Interview Date: December 5, 2022 Interview Time: N/A Questionnaire: 1. What is your overall impression of the project'.' This is the first time that I have been contacted to provide any input on this project. I am not familiar enough to comment. 2. Have there been routine communications or activities (site visits, inspections, reporting activities, etc.) conducted by your office regarding the site? If so. please give purpose and results. There has been no routine communication or activities by my office. 3. Have there been any complaints, violations, or other incidents related to the site requiring a response by your office'.' If so. please give details of the events and results of the responses. If I recall correctly, we have received some complaints about the fence being down or people accessing the site. Those complaints were referred to the Fire and Safety Director, Michael Booth, and he can be reached at mhooth a curr\countv.or«. ------- 4. Do you feel well informed about the site's activities and progress'.' I do not feel well informed about the site's activities and progress. I would recommend that routine annual reports be provided to the Board of Curry County Commission and the Clovis City Coin mission, which would keep the public informed as well. 5. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site's management or operation'.' As mentioned above, I would recommend annual reports to the governing bodies in the community; City of Clov is and Curry County. 6. Do you consent to have your name included along with your responses to this questionnaire in the five- year review report'.' I have no issue with having my name referenced in the report. ------- APPENDIX F - SITE INSPECTION CHECKLIST AND PHOTOS ------- I. SITE INFORMATION Site name: ATSF (Clovis) Superfund Site Date of inspection: November 3,2022 09:00-11:00 Location and Region: Curry County, Clovis, NM (Region 6) EPA ID: NMD043158591 Agency, office, or company leading the five-year review: EPA and NMED Weather/Temperature: sunny with clear skys, wind 0 mph, 50 F. Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply) X Landfill cover/containment X Access controls ~ Institutional controls ~ Ground Water pump and treatment ~ Surface water collection and treatment ~ Monitored natural attenuation ~ Ground Water containment ~ Vertical barrier walls X Other Continued groundwater monitoring. Attachments: X Inspection team roster attached below ~ Site map attached Attendance at Site Inspection: Name Title Phone Brian Mueller EPA RPM 214 665-7167 Email miieller.brian@epa. gov Martvne Kieling NMED Project Manager 505-670-0691 martvne .kieling@env.nm. gov Thomas F. Jones ESNSF Environmental Remediation Manager 816-605-3495 thomas.iones3@bnsf.com Kvle DeSantis Arcadis Environmental Scientist 713-598-5801 II. INTERVIEWS (Check all that apply) 1. O&M site manager: Thomas F. Jones Name BNSF Railway. Manager Environmental Remediation 11/3/2022 Title Date Interviewed X at site ~ at office ~ by phone Phone no. 816-605-3495 thomas.iones3@bnsf.com Problems, suggestions; ~ Report attached X Interview response is attached in Appendix D 2. O&M staff: Kvle DeSantis Environmental Scientist. Arcadis Title November 3, 2022_ Date Name Interviewed X at site ~ at office ~ by phone Phone no. 713-598-5801 Kvle.desantis@arcadis.com Problems, suggestions; ~ Report attached X Interview response is attached in Appendix D ------- 3. Local regulatory authorities and response agencies (i.e., State and Tribal offices, emergency response office, police department, office of public health or environmental health, zoning office, recorder of deeds, or other city and county offices, etc.) Fill in all that apply. Agencv Curr\ Countv Commissioner Contact Scth Martin Curry Countv Commissioner District 4 11/3/2022 575-763-0151 Name Title Date Phone no. Problems; suggestions; ~ Report attached ~ Interview attached X Interview reauested but documentation not provided bv countv commissioner. Agencv Currv Countv Manager Contact Lance Pvle Currv Countv Manager 575-763-6016 Name Title Date Phone no. Problems; suggestions; ~ Report attached ~ Interview not received X Interview reauested but documentation not provided bv countv manager. 4. Other interviews (optional) ~ Report attached. ~ additional interviews attached III. ON-SITE DOCUMENTS & RECORDS VERIFIED (Check all that apply) 1. O&M Documents ~ O&M manual ~ Readily available ~ Up to date ~As-built drawings ~ Readily available ~ Up to date ~ Maintenance logs ~ Readily available ~ Up to date Remarks: Documents arc not kept on site. XN/A XN/A XN/A 2. Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan ~ Readily available ~ Up to date ~ N/A ~ Contingency plan/emergency response plan ~ Readily available ~ Up to date ~ N/A Remarks: A health and safctv meeting was held bv Arcadis. The H&S Plan was on site and the acknowledgement form was signed bv all in attendance. 3. O&M and OSHA Training Records l_ Readily available ~ Up to date Remarks: Training records were not reviewed. XN/A 4. Permits and Service Agreements ~ Air discharge permit ~ Readily available ~ Up to date ~ Effluent discharge ~ Readily available ~ Up to date ~ Waste disposal, POTW ~ Readily available ~ Up to date ~ Other permits ~ Readilv available ~ Up to date Remarks: XN/A XN/A XN/A XN/A 5. Gas Generation Records ~ Readily available ~ Up to date X N/A Remarks ------- 6. Settlement Monument Records ~ Readily available Remarks ~ Up to date X N/A 7. Ground Water Monitoring Records X Readily available Remarks ~ Up to date ~ N/A 8. Leach ate Extraction Records ~ Readily available Remarks ~ Up to date X N/A 9. Discharge Compliance Records ~ Air ~ Readily available ~ Water (effluent) ~ Readily available Remarks: ~ Up to date X N/A ~ Up to date X N/A 10 Daily Access/Security Logs ~ Readily available Remarks: ~ Up to date X N/A IV. O&M COSTS 1. O&M Organization ~ State in-housc ~ Contractor for State ~ PRP in-housc X Contractor for PRP ~ Federal Facility in-housc ~ Contractor for Federal Facility ~ Other: 2. O&M Cost Records ~ Readily available ~ Up to date ~ Funding mechanism/agreement in place ~ Original O&M cost estimate NA ~ Breakdown attached X Costs covered by RP 3. Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs During Review Period Describe costs and reasons: Not Applicable V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS X Applicable UN/A A. Fencing 1. Fencing damaged ~ Location shown on site map X Gates secured ~ N/A Remarks: Fencing was in good repair at time of inspection. It is checked bv BNSF Clovis Yard securitv (remediation contractor. Hulcher Services) routinely. B. Other Access Restrictions 1. Signs and other security measures ~ Location shown on site map ~ N/A Remarks: Santa Fe Lake Site with Repository location is fenced bv six foot chain-link and topped with three strand barbed wire. Placards arc located on Navaio Road and South Main Street gate. Signage includes BNSF name and BNSF Police contact number and three additional contact phone numbers for access. ------- c. Institutional Controls (ICs) 1. Implementation and enforcement Site conditions imply ICs not properly implemented ~ Yes ~ No ~ N/A Site conditions imply ICs not being fully enforced ~ Yes ~ No ~ N/A Type of monitoring (e.g., self-reporting, drive by) Drive by, property is owned by BNSF Railway. Frequency Responsible party/agency - Checked routinely by BNSF Clovis Yard security (remediation contractor. Hulcher Services). Posted contacts. Contact: Kvle DeSanis Arcadis Environmental Scientist 713-598-5801 BNSF securitv Hulcher Services 1-800-832-5452 Name Title Phone no. Reporting is up-to-date X Yes UNo UN/A Reports arc verified by the lead agency X Yes UNo UN/A Specific requirements in deed or decision documents have been met X Yes ~ No ~ N/A Violations have been reported ~ Yes ~ No ~ N/A Other problems or suggestions: ~ Report attached 2. Adequacy X ICs arc adequate ~ ICs arc inadequate ~ N/A Remarks D. General 1. Vandalism/trespassing ~ Location shown on site map X No vandalism evident Remarks: Fence in good repair no vandalism evident or reported. 2. Land use changes on site X N/A Remarks: No land use changes. 3. Land use changes off site X N/A Remarks: ------- VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS A. Roads x Applicable UN/A 1. Roads damaged ~ Location shown on site map X Roads adequate ~ N/A Remarks: Entrance drive and road is in good shape. B. Other Site Conditions Remarks: VII. LANDFILL COVERS x Applicable ~ N/A A. Landfill Surface 1. Settlement (Low spots) ~ Location shown on site map A real extent Depth Remarks X Settlement not evident 2. Cracks ~ Location shown on site map Lengths Widths Depths X Cracking not evident Remarks 3. Erosion ~ Location shown on site map A real extent Depth Remarks X Erosion not evident 4. Holes ~ Location shown on site map A real extent Depth Remarks X Holes not evident 5. Vegetative Cover X Grass X Cover properly established X No signs of stress ~ Trees/Shrubs (indicate si/c and locations on a diagram) Remarks: Some cacti arc established along the slopes. Grass, w ildflowcrs and vegetative cover is well devcloDcd over the entire surface and sloocs of reoositorv cover. 6. Alternative Cover (armored rock, concrete, etc.) ~ N/A Remarks: Armored rock sloocs and drainages are in place. 7. Bulges ~ Location shown on site map A real extent Height Remarks X Bulges not evident ------- 8. Wet Areas/Water Damage X Wet areas/water damage not evident ~ Wet areas ~ Location shown on site map A real extent ~ Ponding ~ Location shown on site map A real extent ~ Seeps ~ Location shown on site map A real extent ~ Soft subgrade ~ Location shown on site map A real extent Remarks 9. Slope Instability ~ Slides ~ Location shown on site map X No evidence of slope instability A real extent Remarks B. Benches ~ Applicable ~ N/A (Horizontally constructed mounds of earth placed across a steep landfill side slope to interrupt the slope in order to slow down the velocity of surface runoff and intercept and convey the runoff to a lined channel.) 1. Flows Bypass Bench ~ Location shown on site map ~ N/A or okay Remarks: !nternal berm/moat around the lake perimeter designed to carry away excess overland flow and to prevent run-in is in place. 2. Bench Breached Remarks ~ Location shown on site map X N/A or okay 3. Bench Overtopped Remarks ~ Location shown on site map X N/A or okay C. Letdown Channels ~ Applicable X N/A (Channel lined with erosion control mats, riprap, grout bags, or gabions that descend down the steep side slope of the cover and will allow the runoff water collected by the benches to move off of the landfill cover without creating erosion gullies.) 1. Settlement A real extent ~ Location shown on site map ~ No evidence of settlement Depth Remarks 2. Material Degradation Material type ~ Location shown on site map ~ No evidence of degradation A real extent Remarks 3. Erosion A real extent ~ Location shown on site map ~ No evidence of erosion Depth Remarks 4. Undercutting A real extent ~ Location shown on site map ~ No evidence of undercutting Depth Remarks ------- 5. Obstructions Type ~ No obstructions ~ Location shown on site map A real extent Size Remarks 6. Excessive Vegetative Growth Type ~ No evidence of excessive growth ~ Vegetation in channels docs not obstruct flow ~ Location shown on site map A real extent Remarks D. Cover Penetrations ~ Applicable X N/A 1. Gas Vents ~ ActiveU Passive ~ Properly secured/locked ~ Functioning ~ Routinely sampled ~ Good condition ~ Evidence of leakage at penetration ~ Needs Maintenance ~ N/A Remarks 2. Gas Monitoring Probes ~ Properly secured/locked ~ Functioning ~ Routinely sampled ~ Good condition ~ Evidence of leakage at penetration ~ Needs Maintenance ~ N/A Remarks 3. Monitoring Wells (within surface area of landfill) ~ Properly secured/locked ~ Functioning ~ Routinely sampled ~ Good condition ~ Evidence of leakage at penetration ~ Needs Maintenance X N/A Rcmarks:_ All monitor wells at the Site arc ground water monitor wells and arc discussed in Section IX Groundwater Section of this inspection report. 4. Leachate Extraction Wells ~ Properly secured/locked ~ Functioning ~ Routinely sampled ~ Good condition ~ Evidence of leakage at penetration ~ Needs Maintenance X N/A Remarks 5. Settlement Monuments ~ Located ~ Routinely surveyed X N/A Remarks E. Gas Collection and Treatment ~ Applicable X N/A 1. Gas Treatment Facilities ~ Flaring ~ Thermal destruction ~ Collection for reuse ~ Good conditionU Needs Maintenance Remarks 2. Gas Collection Wells, Manifolds and Piping ~ Good conditionU Needs Maintenance Remarks ------- 3. Gas Monitoring Facilities (e.g., gas monitoring of adjacent homes or buildings) ~ Good conditionU Needs Maintenance ~ N/A Remarks F. Cover Drainage Layer ~ Applicable X N/A 1. Outlet Pipes Inspected ~ Functioning ~ N/A Remarks 2. Outlet Rock Inspected ~ Functioning ~ N/A Remarks G. Detention/Sedimentation Ponds ~ Applicable X N/A 1. Siltation Areal extent Depth UN/A ~ Siltation not evident Remarks 2. Erosion Areal extent Depth ~ Erosion not evident Remarks 3. Outlet Works ~ Functioning ~ N/A Remarks 4. Dam ~ Functioning ~ N/A Remarks EL Retaining Walls ~ Applicable XN/A 1. Deformations ~ Location shown on site map ~ Deformation not evident Horizontal displacement Vertical displacement Rotational displacement Remarks 2. Degradation ~ Location shown on site map ~ Degradation not evident Remarks I. Perimeter Ditches/Off-Site Discharge X Applicable ~ N/A 1. Siltation ~ Location shown on site map X Siltation not evident Areal extent Depth Remarks 2. Vegetative Growth ~ Location shown on site map ~ N/A ~ Vegetation docs not impede flow Areal extent Type RcinarksVegitative growth is excellent within the swale and on the Hanks. ------- 3. Erosion ~ Location shown on site map X Erosion not evident A real extent Depth Remarks 4. Discharge Structure ~ Functioning X N/A Remarks VIII. VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS U Applicable XN/A 1. Settlement ~ Location shown on site map ~ Settlement not evident A real extent Depth Remarks 2. Performance Monitoring Type of monitoring ~ Performance not monitored Frequency U Evidence of breaching Head differential Remarks IX. GROUND WATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES X Applicable UN/A A. Ground Water Extraction Wells, Pumps, and Pipelines ~ Applicable XN/A 1. Pumps, Wellhead Plumbing, and Electrical ~ Good conditionU All required wells properly operating ~ Needs Maintenance ~ N/A Remarks 2. Extraction System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances ~ Good conditionU Needs Maintenance Remarks 3. Spare Parts and Equipment ~ Readily available ~ Good conditionU Requires upgrade U Needs to be provided Remarks B. Surface Water Collection Structures, Pumps, and Pipelines ~ Applicable X N/A 1. Collection Structures, Pumps, and Electrical U Good conditionU Needs Maintenance Remarks 2. Surface Water Collection System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances U Good conditionU Needs Maintenance Remarks 3. Spare Parts and Equipment U Readily available U Good conditionU Requires upgrade U Needs to be provided Remarks ------- c. Treatment System ~ Applicable X N/A 1. Treatment Train (Check components that apply) ~ Metals removal ~ Oil/water separation ~ Biorcmediation ~ Air stripping ~ Carbon adsorbers ~ Filters ~ Additive (e.g., chelation agent, flocculent) ~ Others ~ Good condition ~ Needs Maintenance ~ Sampling ports properly marked and functional ~ Sampling/maintenance log displayed and up to date ~ Equipment properly identified ~ Quantity of ground water treated annually ~ Quantity of surface water treated annuallv Remarks: 2. Electrical Enclosures and Panels (properly rated and functional) ~ N/A ~ Good condition ~ Needs Maintenance Remarks: 3. Tanks, Vaults, Storage Vessels ~ N/A ~ Good condition ~ Proper secondary containment ~ Needs Maintenance Remarks: . 4. Discharge Structure and Appurtenances ~ N/A ~ Good condition ~ Needs Maintenance Remarks: Containment tank and secondary containment for produced soil vapor water and transfer hoses and pump arc in good working condition. 5. Treatment Building(s) ~ N/A ~ Good condition (esp. roof and doorways) ~ Needs repair ~ Chemicals and equipment properly stored Remarks: Haz/ard placards and emergency contact numbers require updates or replacement. 6. Monitoring Wells (pump and treatment remedy) ~ Properly secured/locked ~ Functioning ~ Routinely Sampled ~ Good condition ~ All required wells located ~ Needs Maintenance ~ N/A Remarks: ------- D. Monitoring Data X Applicable ~ N/A 1. Monitoring Data X Is routinely submitted on time ~ Is of acceptable quality 2. Monitoring data suggests: X Ground Water plume is effectively contained X Contaminant concentrations arc declining E. Monitored Natural Attenuation: X Applicable 1. Monitoring Wells (natural attenuation remedy) X Properly secured/locked ~ Functioning X Routinely sampled X Good condition X All required wells located ~ Needs Maintenance ~ N/A Remarks: Sampling schedule is switching to a fivc-vcar collection cvclc. Water levels in site monitor wells continues to drop, leaving minimal well volume for water level recovery after the three volume purge and difficulty obtaining the rcciuircd sample collection volume. The sample method is switching from 3 purge volumes to low flow in order to compensate for the regional drooping water table. X. OTHER REMEDIES If there arc remedies applied at the site which arc not covered above, attach an inspection sheet describing the physical nature and condition of any facility associated with the remedy. An example would be soil vapor extraction. XI. OVERALL OBSERVATIONS A. Implementation of the Remedy Describe issues and observations relating to whether the remedy is effective and functioning as designed. Begin with a brief statement of what the remedy is to accomplish (i.e., to contain contaminant plume, minimize infiltration and gas emission, etc.). The rcmcdv as designed is to prevent migration of contaminated soil encased in the repository from migrating off site or into the former Santa Fe lake bottom area. The bcrms surrounding the former Santa Fe lake edge arc placed to prevent sheet wash run in of rainfall into the former lakebed. The rcmcdv is effective and functioning as designed. Groundwater monitoring on site confirms that there is no longer a contributing contaminant source. B. Adequaey of O&M Describe issues and observations related to the implementation and scope of O&M procedures. In particular, discuss their relationship to the current and long-term protcctivcncss of the remedy. During the site inspection the site was clear of excess of tumbleweeds and repository surface was free of burrows. Fences and gates were in good shape, and all rock armor the repository slopes was in good shape. ------- c. Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Problems Describe issues and observations such as unexpected changes in the cost or scope of O&M or a high frequency of unscheduled repairs, that suggest that the protcctivcncss of the remedy may be compromised in the future. There arc no problems with the remedy that is in place. The fencing, signage, armor slopes, bernis. repository cover and vegetative cover arc in verv good shape. D. Opportunities for Optimization Describe possible opportunities for optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation of the remedy. The onlv optimization currently undcruav is the sample method is switching from three purge volumes to low flow in order to compensate for the regional dropping water table. Samples will be collected carlv in the fourth vcar of the five vcar review cvcle in order to have results available for the next five vcar review. ------- Surface vegetation with repository slope and old irrigation line. View to the north. ATSF (Clovis) Superfund Site Inspection, November 3, 3022 Photographed by Martyne Kieling, NMED-SOS Site entrance along S. Main St. at Navajo Road. Placards on gate. Site entrance aiong S. Main St. at Navajo Road. Placards on gate. View to the west. Site entrance along S. Main St. at Navajo Road. Placard on gate Road, vegetation, and lake bottom in mid photo. View to the west Road, storage shed, brush pile and lake bottom mid right half of photo. View to the south southwest. trespassing on RAILWAY PROPERTY IS ILLEGAL NOTICE ^ THIS IS PRIVATE PROPERTY TRESPASSERS WILL BE PROSECUTED 1-800-832-5452 BNSF POUCE ------- ATSF (Clovis) Superfund Site Inspection, November 3, 3022 Photographed by Martyne Kieling, NMED-SOS Perimeter mowed with thick vegetation on the repository slope. North fence line right side of photo. View to the west. Perimeter mowed with thick vegetation on the repository slope. North fence line left side of photo. MW-E along repository north side. View to the east. Monitor well MW-D is located on the west side of the repository. Thick vegetation and stable slope. View to the east. Monitor well MW-E is on the northeast side of repository. ------- ATSF (Clovis) Superfund Site Inspection, November 3, 3022 Monitor well MW-D is located on the west side of the repository. Monitor well MW-F in mid-photo is on the south side of the repository. The repository slope is along the left side of the photo. View to the east. ci Mowed road along west side of repository. Berm surrounding lake bottom is topped with light yellow vegetation. Swale is in center of photo. Well established thick vegetation apparent. View to the south. ------- 6/15/23, 12:20 PM Manage your flows | Power Automate R6RB: Approval Requested f... x Overview Requester w* Wiley, Adina Received Jun 13, 04:06 PM (1 d ago) Completed Jun 15,12:18 PM (1 min ago) Outcome Approved Link Review the Document(s) Details Request: Five Year Review Report for ATSF Clovis Site Routing History: - Sent to Mueller, Brian on 6/13/2023 4:06 PM for Step 6 Review. • Approved by Malone, George on 6/13/2023 4:04 PM. Comments: • Sent to Malone, George on 6/13/2023 8:51 AM for Step 5 Review. • Approved by Salinas, Amy on 6/13/2023 8:50 AM. Comments: • Sent to Salinas, Amy on 6/7/2023 1:15 PM for Step 4 Review. • Approved by Luschek, Robert on 6/7/2023 1:14 PM. Comments: minor edits using track changes • Sent to Luschek, Robert on 6/5/2023 3:07 PM for Step 3 Review. • Approved by Atkins, Blake on 6/5/2023 3:06 PM. Comments: A few grammatical edits provided in Word document, using track changes. • Sent to Atkins, Blake on 6/5/2023 1:04 PM for Step 2 Review. • Approved by Mueller, Brian on 6/5/2023 1:03 PM. Comments: • Sent to Mueller, Brian on 6/5/2023 1:01 PM for Step 1 Review, • Routing for ATSF Clovis FYR started on 6/5/2023 1:01 PM. • Request: Five Year Review Report for ATSF Clovis Site Activity Created Wiley, Adina Jun 13, 04:06 PM (1 dago) Responded: Approve Mueller, Brian Jun 13, 04:06 PM (1 d ago) https://make.gov.powerautomate.us/environments/Default-88b378b3-6748-4867-acf9-76aacbeca6a7/approvals/history 1/1 ------- |