[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 11 (Thursday, January 16, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2247-2252]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-733]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL-7438-8]


National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan; 
National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Direct final notice of deletion of the ATSF Clovis, Superfund 
Site from the National Priorities List.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 6 is 
publishing a direct final notice of deletion of the ATSF Clovis, 
Superfund Site (Site), located in Clovis, New Mexico, from the National 
Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of 
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 
Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is appendix B of 40 CFR part 300, 
which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution 
Contingency Plan (NCP). This direct final deletion is being published 
by EPA with the concurrence of the State of New Mexico, through the New 
Mexico Environment Department because EPA has determined that all 
appropriate response actions under CERCLA have been completed and, 
therefore, further remedial action pursuant to CERCLA is not 
appropriate.

DATES: This direct final notice of deletion will be effective March 17, 
2003 unless EPA receives significant adverse or critical comments by 
February 18, 2003. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish 
timely withdrawal of the direct final deletion in the Federal Register 
informing the pubic that the deletion will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to: Beverly Negri, Community 
Involvement Coordinator, U.S. EPA Region 6 (6SF-PO), 1445 Ross Avenue, 
Dallas, TX, 75202-2733, (214) 665-8157

[[Page 2248]]

or 1-800-533-3508 ([email protected]).
    Information Repositories: Comprehensive information about the Site 
is available for viewing and copying at the Site information 
repositories located at: U.S. EPA Region 6 Library, 12th Floor, 1445 
Ross Avenue, Suite 12D13, Dallas, Texas, 75202-2733, (214) 665-6427, 
Monday through Friday, 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m; New Mexico Environment 
Department, Harold Runnels Building, 1190 St. Francis Drive, Santa Fe, 
New Mexico, 87502, Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Oral comments will also be received 
through this date and should be directed to: Ms. Petra Sanchez, 
Remedial Project Manager, (6SF-LT), sanchez.petra @epa.gov, U.S. EPA 
Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, (214) 665-6686 or 
1-800-533-3508.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

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

I. Introduction

    EPA Region 6 is publishing this direct final notice of deletion of 
the ATSF Clovis, Superfund Site from the NPL.
    The EPA identifies sites that appear to present a significant risk 
to public health or the environment and maintains the NPL as the list 
of those sites. As described in the Sec.  300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, 
sites deleted from the NPL remain eligible for remedial actions if 
conditions at a deleted site warrant such action.
    Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and 
routine, EPA is taking it without prior publication of a notice of 
intent to delete. This action will be effective March 17, 2003 unless 
EPA receives adverse comments by February 18, 2003 on this document. If 
adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period 
on this document, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct 
final deletion before the effective date of the deletion and the 
deletion will not take effect. EPA will, as appropriate, prepare a 
response to comments and continue with the deletion process on the 
basis of the notice of intent to delete and the comments already 
received. There will be no additional opportunity to comment.
    Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting 
sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using 
for this action. Section IV discusses the ATSF Clovis, Superfund Site 
and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria. Section V 
discusses EPA's action to delete the Site from the NPL unless adverse 
comments are received during the public comment period.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    Section 300.425(e) of the NCP provides that releases may be deleted 
from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making a 
determination to delete a Site 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 persons have implemented all 
appropriate response actions required;
    ii. all appropriate Fund-financed (Hazardous Substance Superfund 
Response Trust Fund) response under CERCLA has been implemented, and no 
further response action by responsible parties is appropriate; or
    iii. the remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no 
significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, 
the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.
    Even if a site is deleted from the NPL, where hazardous substances, 
pollutants, or contaminants remain at the deleted site above levels 
that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, CERCLA section 
121(c), 42 U.S.C. 9621(c) requires that a subsequent review of the site 
be conducted at least every five years after the initiation of the 
remedial action at the deleted site to ensure that the action remains 
protective of public health and the environment. If new information 
becomes available which indicates a need for further action, EPA may 
initiate remedial actions. Whenever there is a significant release from 
a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the 
NPL without application of the hazard ranking system.

III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to deletion of the Site:
    (1) The EPA consulted with the State of New Mexico on the deletion 
of the Site from the NPL prior to developing this direct final notice 
of deletion.
    (2) The State of New Mexico concurred with deletion of the Site 
from the NPL.
    (3) Concurrently with the publication of this direct final notice 
of deletion, a notice of the availability of the parallel notice of 
intent to delete published today in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of 
the Federal Register is being published in a major local newspaper of 
general circulation at or near the Site and is being distributed to 
appropriate federal, state, and local government officials and other 
interested parties; the newspaper notice announces the 30-day public 
comment period concerning the notice of intent to delete the Site from 
the NPL.
    (4) The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the deletion in 
the Site information repositories identified above.
    (5) If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public 
comment period on this document, EPA will publish a timely notice of 
withdrawal of this direct final notice of deletion before its effective 
date and will prepare a response to comments and continue with the 
deletion process on the basis of the notice of intent to delete and the 
comments already received.
    Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or 
revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from 
the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement 
actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for 
informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section 
300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the 
NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should 
future conditions warrant such actions.

IV. Basis for Site Deletion

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

Site Location

    The ATSF Clovis Superfund Site is locally known as the Santa Fe 
Lake. The affected site is a natural playa lake originally owned by 
Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company (AT&SF). As a result of a 
merger, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF) now owns 
and operates the site and is the potentially responsible party (PRP). 
The ATSF Clovis site is approximately 140 acres in size and is located 
approximately one mile south of the BNSF railyard in Clovis, Curry 
County, New Mexico.

Site History

    The playa lake is approximately 40 acres in size and is located 
near the center of the site. Surrounding land use is primarily 
agricultural in nature, with a small residential area located to the 
east of the site. Over the years, storm water run-off and wastewater 
discharge from the railyard was directed to the

[[Page 2249]]

lake. Wastewater generating sources at the railyard have included 
hopper car washing operations, boiler blow downs, sanitary sewers, and 
the oil/water separators at the diesel fueling racks. Although the 
railyard was constructed in the early 1900's, the majority of the 
discharge to the lake occurred between 1962 and 1982. Investigations of 
the lake water and underlying sediments were performed from 1979 to 
1982 by EPA and AT&SF. In November 1981, the site was proposed for the 
National Priorities List (NPL). In September 1983, the site was listed 
on the NPL as ``ATSF (Clovis)'' with a Hazard Ranking System score of 
33.62.

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

    A Remedial Investigation (RI) of the site was conducted in 1987 and 
1988 and included analyses of soil, sediment, lake water and ground 
water samples. Four wells were installed surrounding the lake for 
monitoring the ground water in the immediate vicinity of the lake. 
Additional samples were collected from water supply wells in the area 
for statistical comparison to the sample collected from the on-site 
wells.
    Soil, sediment, lake water, and ground water samples were analyzed 
for the parameters listed in the Administrative Order on Consent 
(Consent Order) issued in 1983. The RI report was finalized in August 
1988. The RI listed the parameters of potential concern (those 
compounds present above background values), as follows:
    Soils: Barium; Boron; Chloride; Hydrocarbons; Phenolics; Sulfate;
    Sediments: Boron; Chromium; Hydrocarbons; Lead; Phenolics; Total 
Organic Carbon;
    Lake Water: Arsenic; Boron; Cadmium; Chromium; Fluoride; Lead; 
Phenolics; Total Dissolved Solids; Total Organic Carbon
    Ground Water: Calcium; Chloride; Fluoride; Magnesium; Sodium; 
Sulfate; Total Dissolved Solids; Total Organic Carbon; Total 
Alkalinity; Bicarbonate; Conductivity.
    Background values were determined through collection and analysis 
of ground water samples from area wells, lake water samples from area 
playa lakes and soil samples from unaffected areas at the site. A 
comparison of analytical results from the various samples collected at 
the site to the background analytical results was presented in the RI.
    The range of concentrations of chromium and hydrocarbons in samples 
collected for the RI were as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Media                      Total chromium          Leachable chromium          Hydrocarbons
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Soils, Sediments, Lake Water          5.1 to 15 mg/kg, 35 to    <0.009 to 0.042 mg/L,    <5 to 3,300 mg/kg,
                                       150 mg/kg, 0.012 to       0.028 to 0.043 mg/L,     4,700 to 35,000 mg/kg,
                                       0.059 mg/L.               not analyzed.            <0.2 mg/L.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsequent sampling of soils and sediments was performed to 
speciate the chromium and hydrocarbons. The analytical results of the 
subsequent sampling were used to refine the health risk assessment, 
which confirmed that the only potential health risk pathway was through 
inhalation of wind-blown dust. These results were presented in an 
addendum to the RI report dated September 1988.
    Additional ground water sampling occurred following submittal of 
the RI report, at the request of the New Mexico Environmental 
Improvement Division (NMEID). The results of the additional sampling 
indicated that several monitored parameters were statistically higher 
in the on-site wells when compared to the background wells. However, 
none of the parameters were found to present a health risk. Therefore, 
it was determined that ground water remediation was not required. These 
results were presented in a second addendum to the RI report dated 
November 1988.
    A Feasibility Study (FS) was conducted in conjunction with the RI 
in July 1988. The remedial alternatives focused on remediation of soils 
and sediments to remove the potential health risk through inhalation of 
wind-blown dust. Because any action involving the lake bottom sediments 
would require prior removal of water from the lake, management and 
remediation of the lake water was also a component of the remedial 
alternatives addressed in the FS. Since the addendums to the RI did not 
change any conclusions drawn in the RI and did not add any contaminants 
of concern to the remedial action required, no revision to the FS was 
required.

Characterization of Risk

    An analysis of health and environmental effects was performed as 
part of the RI. This analysis evaluated each potential parameter of 
concern for health and environmental effects. It was determined that 
the following parameters had the potential to pose a health risk:
    Soils: Barium; Hydrocarbons; Phenolics;
    Sediments: Chromium; Hydrocarbons; Lead; Phenolics
    Lake Water: Arsenic; Cadmium; Chromium; Lead; Phenolics;
    None of the parameters detected in ground water were determined to 
pose a risk to human health and thus ground water was eliminated as a 
possible human exposure pathway. An evaluation of the risk to human 
health through the remaining exposure pathways was conducted for those 
parameters that had a potential to pose a health risk. The evaluation 
indicated that the only constituents found in the lake water, lake 
bottom sediments, and surrounding soils that had a potential health 
risk were chromium and hydrocarbons through inhalation of wind-blown 
dust.

Record of Decision Findings

    On September 23, 1988, the Regional Administrator approved a Record 
of Decision (ROD), which summarized the findings of the RI and FS and 
stated what the selected remedial action included. The ROD identified 
the major concern for this site was the potential threat to the ground 
water. The ROD further stated that the results of the RI data were 
reviewed and EPA determined that the lake did not pose a current threat 
to the City water supply, but may pose a future threat if the source of 
contamination is not eliminated. An additional concern was stated about 
reduction in the water level in the lake, resulting in an increased 
risk from inhalation of dust produced from exposed sediments. 
Therefore, the following elements were selected for remedial action:
    [sbull] Lake Water--Pumping, Evaporation and Disposal of Residue;
    [sbull] Sediments--Dredge, On-site Biodegradation, Cap Land 
Treatment Area and Revegetation of Dredged Areas; and,
    [sbull] Soil--In-situ Biodegradation and Revegetation.
    The selected remedy resulted in the removal of the lake water 
(through evaporation), the removal or reduction of hydrocarbons 
(through biodegradation and landfarming), and isolation of metals 
(through placement in a capped treatment area). Thus, the selected 
remedy addressed both objectives (removal of future threat to

[[Page 2250]]

ground water and removal of exposure via inhalation of wind-blown 
dust). Criteria to evaluate the effectiveness of the selected remedy 
were developed subsequent to the ROD.

Response Actions

    The selected remedy was implemented through use of a phased 
approach. The remedy included biodegradation of hydrocarbons through 
landfarming to treat the soil and sediments. A pilot study was 
conducted during the summer of 1991 to determine the parameters 
required to produce maximum degradation of contaminants. Because the 
primary contaminant of concern was petroleum hydrocarbons, 
biodegradation through landfarming was known to be effective. The focus 
of the pilot study was to determine the optimum mixture of water, air, 
nutrients, and microorganisms. The results of the pilot study indicated 
that there was no significant increase in biodegradation through the 
addition of commercially developed microorganisms and that the 
microorganisms present at the site were sufficient to produce effective 
removal of contaminants.
    The biodegradation of soils and sediments began in June 1992 and 
continued until October 1999. The volume of lake bottom sediments 
treated was 57,245 cubic yards and the volume of soils treated was 
125,235 cubic yards. All of the sediments were treated and placed in 
the On-site Storage Facility (OSF). Of the soil treated, 86,515 cubic 
yards met the cleanup criteria and remained in place while 38,720 cubic 
yards met the stabilization criteria (which is above the cleanup 
criteria) and was placed in the OSF for final storage. The design 
included the use of a dike and moat system to prevent surface water 
run-on into the lake basin area to allow for evaporation of the lake 
water and prevent surface water run-on to the treatment areas. The 
remedy design also incorporated the use of a spray evaporation system. 
The purpose of the system was to collect lake water and run-off from 
the treatment irrigation system and to route that water through fine 
mist spray nozzles to enhance evaporation.
    The ROD stated that the lake water would be sprayed over the 26-
acre beach area for evaporation. During the final remedial design, it 
was determined that evaporation would be more effective through a 
evaporation system that allow for continued management of storm water 
and irrigation water run-off throughout the bioremediation phase. Three 
treatment areas, divided into eleven treatment sections, were 
designated in order to optimize and track treatment of contaminated 
materials. Each beach treatment area was approximately 2.25 acres in 
size. To provide adequate moisture for treatment within each of the 
treatment sections, three separate irrigation systems were designed and 
installed. In addition, the irrigation system for bioremediation, also 
provided adequate moisture for purposes of dust control.
    On-site Storage Facility--The OSF was designed to hold all treated 
sediments and any treated soils that stabilized prior to meeting the 
cleanup criteria. The Land Treatment Area described in the ROD was 
refined and referred to as the OSF. The primary differences between the 
OSF and the Land Treatment Area described in the ROD are:
    [sbull] The impermeable layer of the cap was changed to high-
density polyethylene (HDPE) rather than poly-vinyl chloride (PVC) due 
to its better durability and applicability to the site conditions.
    [sbull] The depth of the excavated floor of the OSF and the height 
of the containment dikes were expanded beyond those of the Land 
Treatment Area but did not significantly change the purpose or 
effectiveness of the OSF. The modification incorporated a refined 
estimate of the volume of sediments present in the lake bottom.
    Additionally, the development of a cleanup standard for the site 
allowed in-situ treatment of some soils. Treated soils that met the 
cleanup standard remained in place within the former lake basin and 
beach areas.
    The volume of the OSF was calculated to hold all of the treated 
sediments and any treated soils that did not meet the cleanup criteria. 
An area approximately 5 acres in size was excavated to 5 feet below 
grade at a slope of approximately 2 percent. Following treatment and 
placement of all materials to be held in the OSF, the design required 
the OSF to be capped. The cap was designed to consist of an HDPE liner 
to provide an impermeable layer, with an overlying geotextile to 
provide for drainage of infiltrated liquids away from the liner, 
followed by a 12-inch soil protective layer, covered by 6 inches of 
topsoil. The design required vegetation of the topsoil layer with 
native grasses. Construction of the OSF, with the exception of the cap, 
was completed in May 1993.
    Sediments were treated within the OSF beginning in September 1993, 
following placement of a layer of treated soils to provide a 
``bioseed'' of microbial organisms to enhance treatment. Treated 
sediments remained in place within the OSF, with subsequent layers of 
sediments applied for additional treatment. Throughout the treatment 
phase, treated soils that met the stabilization criteria were placed in 
the OSF. Treatment of all sediments and soils was completed in October 
1999. As stated previously, a total of 57,245 cubic yards of treated 
sediment and 38,720 cubic yards of treated soil that met the 
stabilization criteria is stored in the OSF.
    Closure of the OSF, as well as the rest of the site, began in June 
2000. Any soils that met the stabilization criteria that had not 
already been placed in the OSF were moved to the OSF at this time. As 
per the design for site restoration, construction debris removed from 
the treatment areas was buried within the OSF. A layer of clean soil 
was placed on top of the treated material and buried debris to provide 
a stable base for the cap. The OSF was capped as described above and 
construction of the cap was completed in October 2000.

Cleanup Standards

    [sbull] Definition of the cleanup level of 1,000 mg/kg total 
recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons (TRPH);
    [sbull] Definition of a stabilization criteria (less than 10 
percent degradation in any two of three consecutive confirmation 
sampling events);
    [sbull] Contaminated soils were defined as materials that are firm 
and coarse-grained, containing TRPH above 1,000 mg/kg;
    [sbull] Sediments were defined as materials that are soft and fine-
grained, located within the 4212 elevation contour present at the start 
of treatment;
    [sbull] Layout of treatment areas within the original beach area 
and, later, within the original lake basin;
    [sbull] Definition of the active biodegradation season as March 1 
through October 31 of each treatment year;
    [sbull] Method of biodegradation (aeration of soil through weekly 
use of disc or till-oll, maintaining moisture content between 15 and 25 
percent, maintaining pH near neutral, and maintaining proper nutrient 
levels);
    [sbull] Construction of the OSF to store all treated sediments and 
soils that were treated, but contained TRPH above 1,000 mg/kg (the OSF 
was a refinement of the Land Treatment Area discussed in the ROD);
    [sbull] Addition of the option to treat sediments on top of 
previously treated soils, or in the OSF, rather than only in the 
``treatment area'' referenced in the ROD, with a requirement that 
confirmation sampling of the underlying previously treated soils be 
conducted

[[Page 2251]]

following treatment of the sediments; and
    [sbull] Specific sampling procedures for tracking of 
biodegradation.
    [sbull] The remedial action to address chromium (trivalent 
chromium) was to isolate the sediments within the OSF.
    [sbull] Confirmatory sampling was performed throughout the 
remediation process.
    Restoration of the Site--The design included removal of the upper 
portion of the run-on control dike, removal of the spray evaporation 
system, removal of the irrigation systems, and grading of the former 
lake basin area to drain. The ROD stated that the moat would be filled 
with the material from the run-on control dike. However, the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) reviewed the design for restoration as the 
lead trustee for a Natural Resources Damages claim filed for this site. 
During the review process, the USFWS requested that the moat remain in 
place to intercept rainfall run-off from the surrounding watershed and 
minimize the volume of water ponding within the former lake basin. This 
request was incorporated into the final restoration design, along with 
covering the lowest portion of the basin with approximately 6 inches of 
clean soil. These alterations assured the USFWS that the potential for 
exposure of wildlife to low-level contaminants (below the cleanup 
standard) would be minimized.
    BNSF and the trustees reached oral agreement on the basic terms of 
the Natural Resource Damages Claim, including cash settlement. The 
parties have exchanged drafts of the settlement documents and expect to 
agree upon the settlement documents, including a Consent Decree, during 
2002. The Consent Decree must then be entered by the U.S. District 
Court for the District of New Mexico.
    The restoration design included vegetation of disturbed areas with 
native grasses. A center-point irrigation system was originally 
designed to provide maximum coverage of the former lake basin, dike and 
moat areas during bioremediation treatment, but is currently being used 
for site restoration. The restoration design included a planting 
schedule and provisions to re-seed if the vegetation was not 
sufficiently established following the initial planting.

Monitoring Effectiveness and Compliance

    The monitoring program for the bioremediation phase of the remedial 
action included treatment monitoring and compliance monitoring. The 
treatment monitoring portion of the program included:
    [sbull] Analyzing soil or sediment samples from each treatment area 
for hydrocarbons to determine the progress of bioremediation within 
that area;
    [sbull] Analyzing soil or sediment samples from each treatment area 
for nutrients to determine if nutrient amendments (addition of 
fertilizer) was required; and
    [sbull] Measurements of soil moisture in each treatment area to 
determine if irrigation was required.
    The compliance monitoring portion of the program included:
    [sbull] Analyzing soil core samples collected from 5 feet below the 
beach and lake treatment areas for all contaminants of concern to 
determine if migration of contaminants was occurring as a result of 
treatment processes; and
    [sbull] Analyzing ground water samples collected from on-site wells 
to determine if any impact on ground water occurred as a result of 
treatment processes.
    The analysis of health and environmental effects performed as part 
of the RI showed that the only contaminants of concern were 
hydrocarbons and chromium. However, the compliance monitoring program 
included additional contaminants that might potentially pose a health 
risk. The contaminants included in the compliance monitoring program 
were: Arsenic; Barium; Cadmium; Chromium; Lead; Hydrocarbons; and 
Phenolics.
    Chloride was included in the monitoring program at the request of 
the New Mexico Environment Department because it was present above the 
secondary drinking water standard. Other parameters listed in the 
Consent Order were boron, fluoride, sulfate, total dissolved solids, 
and total organic carbon. These parameters were demonstrated not to be 
of concern during the RI/FS phase and were not included in the 
monitoring program.
    The ROD required that ground water monitoring would continue after 
the completion of treatment.

Operation and Maintenance

    BNSF will perform O&M activities at the site, including routine 
inspections, maintenance of the site fence, maintenance of vegetation, 
maintenance of the OSF cap, and ground water monitoring with EPA 
oversight.
    To fully assess the impermeability of the OSF cap, two additional 
monitoring wells will be installed this fall: one immediately up-
gradient of the OSF and one immediately down-gradient of the OSF. These 
wells will be sampled on the same schedule as the other site wells for 
the same parameters.
    BNSF will limit access to the OSF at all times. BNSF will institute 
a covenant to prevent installation of water supply wells or any 
construction activities within the limits of the OSF. The covenant is 
not a requirement of the ROD and is a voluntary agreement between BNSF 
and EPA as part of the Operation and Maintenance Plan for the site.

Five-Year Review

    Consistent with section 121(c) of CERCLA and requirements of the 
OSWER Directive 9355.7-03B-P, (``Comprehensive Five-Year Review 
Guidance,'' June 2001), a five-year review will be conducted at this 
site. The directive requires EPA to conduct statutory five-year reviews 
at sites where, upon attainment of ROD cleanup levels, hazardous 
substances remaining within restricted areas onsite will not allow 
unlimited use of the entire site.
    Since hazardous substances remain onsite, this Site is subject to 
five-year reviews to ensure the continued protectiveness of the remedy. 
Based on the five-year results, EPA will determine whether human health 
and the environment continues to be adequately protected by the 
implemented remedy. The first five-year review was completed on 
September 30, 1998. The next Five-Year Review will be completed no 
later than September 30, 2003.

Community Involvement

    Public participation activities have been satisfied as required in 
CERCLA section 113(k), 42 U.S.C. 9613(k), and CERCLA section 117, 42 
U.S.C. 9617. Documents in the deletion docket which EPA relied on for 
recommendation of the deletion from the NPL are available to the public 
in the information repositories.

V. Deletion Action

    The EPA, with concurrence of the State of New Mexico, has 
determined that all appropriate responses under CERCLA have been 
completed, and that no further response actions, under CERCLA, other 
than O&M and five-year reviews, are necessary. Therefore, EPA is 
deleting the Site from the NPL.
    Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and 
routine, EPA is taking it without prior publication. This action will 
be effective March 17, 2003 unless EPA receives adverse comments by 
February 18, 2003. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day 
public comment period, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this

[[Page 2252]]

direct final notice of deletion before the effective date of the 
deletion and it will not take effect . The EPA will prepare a response 
to comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the 
notice of intent to delete and the comments already received. There 
will be no additional opportunity to comment.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, 
Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations, 
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water 
pollution control, Water supply.

    Dated: December 23, 2002.
Lawrence E. Starfield,
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 6.

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

PART 300--[AMENDED]

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

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

Appendix B--[Amended]

    2. Table 1 of Appendix B to Part 300 is amended under New Mexico by 
removing the site name ``AT&SF (Clovis)'' and the city ``Clovis.''

[FR Doc. 03-733 Filed 1-15-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P