[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 72 (Friday, April 12, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16234-16236]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9165]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[FRL-5453-9]
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan,
National Priorities List
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Notice of intent to delete Liquid Gold Oil Corporation Site
(EPA ID# CAT000646208) from the National Priorities List, request for
comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 9 announces
its intent to delete the Liquid Gold Oil Corporation Site (the Site) in
Richmond, California, from the National Priorities List (NPL) and
requests public comment on this proposed action. The NPL constitutes
Appendix B of 400 CFR Part 300 which is the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated
pursuant to Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. EPA and
the State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control have
determined that the Site poses no significant threat to human health or
the environment and, therefore, further remedial measures pursuant to
CERCLA are not appropriate.
DATES: Comments concerning the proposed deletion of this Site from the
NPL may be submitted by May 13, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to: Keith Takata, Director, Superfund
Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, CA 94105.
Comprehensive information on this Site is available through the EPA
Region 9 public docket which is located at EPA Region 9's Superfund
Records Center, at the address above, and is available for viewing
between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding holidays.
Additional information on the Liquid Gold Superfund Site, including
that contained in the public docket, is also available for viewing at
the Site repository located at: State of California, Department of
Toxic Substances Control, 700 Heinz Avenue, 2nd floor, Berkeley, CA
94710-2737.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Andrew Lincoff, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 744-2245
or
Ben Hargrove, Department of Toxic Substances Control, 700 Heinz Avenue,
2nd floor, Berkeley, CA 94710-2737, (510) 540-3845.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents:
I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion
I. Introduction
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 9, announces its
intent to delete the Liquid Gold Oil Corporation Site, located in
Richmond, California, from the National Priorities List (NPL) and
requests comments on this deletion. The NPL constitutes Appendix B to
the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
(NCP), 40 CFR Part 300. EPA identifies sites that present a significant
risk to public health, welfare, or the environment and maintains the
NPL as a list of those sites. As described in Sec. 300.425(e)(3) of the
NCP, sites deleted from the NPL remain eligible for remedial actions in
the unlikely event that conditions at the site warrant such action.
EPA will accept comments on the proposal to delete this Site for
thirty days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register.
Section II of this notice explains the criteria for deleting sites
from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using for
this action. Section IV discusses the Liquid Gold Oil Corporation Site
and explains how the Site meets the deletion criteria.
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
Section 300.425(e) of the NCP provides that releases may be deleted
from, or recategorized on the NPL when no further response is
appropriate. In making a determination to delete a release from the
NPL, EPA shall consider, in consultation with the State, whether any of
the following criteria have been met:
(i) Responsible parties or other parties have implemented all
appropriate response actions required; or
(ii) All appropriate response under CERCLA has been implemented and
no further action by responsible parties is appropriate; or
(iii) The remedial investigation has shown that the release poses
no significant threat to public health or the environment, and
therefore, taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.
Even if a site is deleted from the NPL, where hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants remain at the site above levels that allow
for unlimited use and
[[Page 16235]]
unrestricted exposure, EPA's policy is that a subsequent review of the
site will be conducted at least every five years after the initiation
of the remedial action at the site to ensure that the site remains
protective of public health and the environment. Consistent with the
Operations and Maintenance Plan for the site, the State of California
Department of Toxic Substances Control will oversee the five-year
review of this final remedy in January, 1999. If new information
becomes available which indicates a need for further action, EPA may
initiate remedial actions. Wherever there is a significant release from
a site deleted from the NPL, the site may be restored to the NPL
without the application of the Hazard Ranking System.
III. Deletion Procedures
The following procedures were used for the intended deletion of
this Site: (1) EPA Region 9 has recommended deletion and has prepared
the relevant documents; (2) The State of California has concurred with
the proposed deletion decision; (3) A notice has been published in the
local newspaper and has been distributed to appropriate federal, state,
and local officials and other interested parties announcing the
commencement of a 30-day public comment period on EPA's Notice of
Intent to Delete; and (4) All relevant documents have been made
available for public review in the local Site information repository.
Deletion of the Site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or
revoke any individual's rights or obligations. The NPL is designed
primarily for informational purposes and to assist Agency management.
As mentioned in Section II of this Notice, Sec. 300.425(e)(3) of the
NCP states that the deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude
eligibility for future response actions.
For deletion of this Site, EPA's Regional Office will accept and
evaluate public comments on EPA's Notice of Intent to Delete before
making a final decision to delete. If necessary, the Agency will
prepare a Responsiveness Summary to address any significant public
comments received.
A deletion occurs when the Regional Administrator places a final
notice in the Federal Register. Generally, the NPL will reflect
deletions in the final update following the Notice. Public notices and
copies of the Responsiveness Summary will be made available to
interested parties by the Regional Office.
IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion
A. Site Background
The Liquid Gold Oil Corporation Superfund Site is located in the
City of Richmond, Contra Costa County, California, west of Interstate
580 and southwest of the Bayview West interchange. The Site is bounded
by Hoffman Marsh on the east and southeast, and by drainage channels
connecting to San Francisco Bay on the west and southwest. The area of
the Site is approximately 18 acres.
The Site is currently fenced and unoccupied. Current and expected
future zoning of the Site permits only commercial and industrial uses.
Land use restrictions selected as part of the Site remedy will also
permit only non-residential uses in the future.
B. History
The Site is owned by Southern Pacific Transportation Company
(``SPTCo'') and was leased to several tenants from the 1940s to the
early 1980s. An asphalt manufacturing plant was operated on the Site in
the 1940s and '50s. Later the Site was leased to the Liquid Gold Oil
Corporation (``Liquid Gold''), which operated an oil and solvent
collection, storage and transfer facility. In the 1970s and early '80s,
investigations by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control
Board and the U.S. Coast Guard documented spills of oil and chemicals
at the Site. Liquid Gold cleaned up some surface spills after ceasing
operations in 1980, and then abandoned the facility. The Site was
placed on the California State Superfund List in January 1983, and on
the NPL in September, 1983.
The property owner, SPTCo, performed a number of interim response
actions prior to and after California and NPL listing. These actions
included the removal and off-site disposal of 25 bulk storage tanks in
1982 and '83; the removal and off-site disposal of 73 drums of
hazardous waste in 1984; the excavation and off-site disposal of 760
cubic yards of contaminated soil; and the demolition of remaining site
buildings and off-site disposal of the demolished buildings along with
some asbestos contaminated debris, in 1989. On January 13, 1988, DTSC
issued a Consent Order to SPTCo requiring completion of an RI/FS for
the Site.
C. Characterization of Risk
Site investigations included sampling and analysis of surface and
subsurface soils, groundwater, surface water, and marsh sediments. The
soils at the Site consist of 5-10 feet of fill material over the
original bay mud. The contaminants of potential concern which remained
in soils were lead and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (``PAHs'').
Average lead levels across the Site were low (42 ppm) and were well
below the most stringent health-based levels for residential use by
children (370 ppb). One subsurface area of approximately 5 acres in the
center of the Site contains elevated lead levels. The average lead
concentration in this area was 400 ppm. The average lead concentration
in the most contaminated layer (5-6.5 feet below ground surface) was
1,000 ppm. This area also has the highest PAH levels onsite with an
average of approximately 5 ppm. This area was identified as the area of
concern for the analysis of risks and remedial alternatives. PAH levels
for the rest of the Site were generally not detectable.
Due to the Site's proximity to San Francisco Bay, the groundwater
at the Site is naturally saline and is not a source of drinking water
under state or federal law. Average concentrations of copper, lead, and
nickel exceeded the State basin plan marine chronic water quality
objectives by roughly a factor of two.
The ecological assessment found evidence of biological stress in at
least one drainage channel leading away from the Site. The resource
agencies believed that there was also sufficient evidence to
demonstrate biological stress in another drainage channel. Although
chemical analyses did not clearly establish a link with Site
contaminants, the resource agencies believed that the makeup of the
biological communities in these areas was indicative of petroleum
contamination.
The human health risk assessment demonstrated that the interim
remedial measures performed at the Site had reduced the level of
contamination to acceptable levels for all uses permitted under current
zoning. Contaminant levels are also acceptable for trespassing
children. The risk assessment also considered the safety of a
hypothetical residential development even though residential
development would not be permitted under current zoning and is not
expected to occur. The results indicate that lead concentrations,
particularly in subsurface soils in the area of concern, could cause
unacceptable non-carcinogenic risks if childhood residential exposure
were to occur (using an uptake-biokinetic model derived criteria of 370
ppm). However, the maximum lifetime cancer risk levels are within EPA's
range of acceptable risk under both residential and commercial
scenarios.
[[Page 16236]]
D. Remedial Actions
In February, 1993 DTSC released a proposed plan and final RI/FS for
the Site.
The major components of the proposed remedy included:
--A deed restriction prohibiting residential development;
--Grading, addition of soil, and seeding to control runoff patterns;
--Groundwater monitoring for a minimum of five years; and
--Removal of sediments and debris from two drainage channels leading to
the adjacent marsh to mitigate possible past adverse impacts from
Liquid Gold.
A public meeting was held on March 30, 1993 to describe the
proposed remedy and receive comments. The Record of Decision for the
Site was issued by EPA on June 21, 1993 and selected the proposed
remedy without change. It was determined that the selected remedy would
provide overall protection of human health and the environment, comply
with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements of federal and
state environmental laws, and provide the best overall balance of
alternatives under the nine selection criteria of Section 300.430(f) of
the NCP.
A preliminary design meeting and Site inspection by regulatory
agencies occurred on August 13, 1993. The Draft Design Report was
submitted on October 12, 1993. Design approval was given by DTSC on
January 11, 1994. Construction began on July 5, 1994. Grading,
placement of clean fill, and excavation of marsh sediments were
completed, followed by the planting of native grasses and shrubs on the
new cap. An initial inspection was performed by regulatory agencies on
February 2, 1995 and additional sampling and minor cap repair were
required. The final Site inspection occurred on July 28, 1995. The
State certified completion of the remedy by letter dated August 14,
1995.
E. Community Relations Activities
Four fact sheets have been released describing activities at the
Site. In February, 1993, DTSC released a proposed plan and RI/FS for
the Site. Site documents were made available at the lead agency offices
and a local repository, and a public notice was published allowing 30
days for public comment on the RI/FS and Proposed Plan. A public
meeting was held on March 30, 1993 to describe the proposed remedy and
receive comments. Four members of the public asked questions at the
public meeting, and two written comments were received from the
community. The comments were favorable. DTSC responded to all comments
received during this period, which were primarily from other State
agencies. A fact sheet describing the remediation was released
approximately 30 days prior to the initiation of construction. Finally,
a public notice of this proposed deletion is being published
concurrently in a local newspaper.
F. Summary of Operation and Maintenance
The Operations and Maintenance Plan was finalized on July 24, 1995.
The plan provides for routine monitoring, inspection and maintenance of
the vegetated cap, fencing and groundwater wells, and submission of
reports. The plan also provides for inspection of the marsh channels
and biological testing.
The deed restriction for the Site, which prohibits residential use,
was signed on July 25, 1995 and recorded on September 13, 1995.
Southern Pacific provided financial assurance of its ability to perform
long-term O&M at the Site to the State on September 19, 1995.
SPTCo. has been required to monitor and report the quality of
groundwater in sixteen wells quarterly. Results to date consistently
indicate that contaminants, including metals, are not moving offsite
through groundwater.
G. Protectiveness
All the completion requirements for this Site have been met as
specified in OSWER Directive 9320.2-09, ``Close Out Procedures for
National Priorities List Sites.'' Specifically, all cleanup actions
specified in the ROD have been implemented. The human health risk
assessment performed during the remedial investigation demonstrated
that prior response measures performed at the Site had reduced the
level of contamination to acceptable levels for all uses permitted
under current zoning. A deed restriction prohibiting residential use is
in place. Ongoing confirmatory groundwater and marsh biological
sampling and capping with clean soil provide further assurance that the
Site no longer poses a threat to human health or the environment. The
only remaining activities to be performed are Operations and
Maintenance which will be performed by the property owner under a
written agreement with the State, pursuant to a State Order.
One of the three criteria for deletion specifies that EPA may
delete a site from the NPL if ``responsible parties or other parties
have implemented all appropriate response actions required.'' EPA, with
the concurrence of the California Department of Toxic Substances
Control, believes that this criterion for deletion has been met.
Consequently, EPA is proposing deletion of this Site from the NPL.
Documents supporting this action are available in the Regional NPL
Docket.
Dated: March 12, 1996.
Felicia Marcus,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-9165 Filed 4-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P