Print
Category: Montana
Hits: 1916

November 15, 2017

 

Jungho Ahn
Environmental Review Inc.
P.O. Box 2756
Berkeley, CA 94702

 

Dear Mr.Ahn:

The Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has responded to comments received during the public comment period for Voluntary Cleanup Plan (VCP) for the Burlington Norther Derailment Site in Bridger, Montana. The responses to the comments are in the attached Responsiveness Summary.

 

DEQ appreciates your interest in this issue and your willingness to participate in the process by submitting comments during the public comment period.

Sincerely,

Heather Foslund
State Superfund Project Officer


 

RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY:

BURLINGTON NORTHERN DERAILMENT BRIDGER
VOLUNTARY CLEANUP PLAN
November 15, 2017

 

INTRODUCTION

It is the intent of the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) that the citizens of Montana, and especially residents living near Superfund sites, have the opportunity to be actively involved in the DEQ decision-making process with respect to state Superfund sites. Thus, DEQ solicited public comment on the Voluntary Cleanup Plan (VCP) Environmental Assessment (EA; dated May 2017 with replacement pages from August and September 2017) submitted by the BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) for the Burlington Northern Derailment Bridger facility in Bridger, Montana. The following are DEQ’s responses to the written comments submitted during the public comment period for the VCP. All comments are presented in the summary.

RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY

The following comments are submitted to DEQ via email from Environmental Review Inc.:

1) The Environmental Assessment report, Section 9.0 Facility Characterization describes that four soil borings S1, S2, S3 and S4 were advanced in the spill area.  Soil and groundwater samples were collected from depths of less than 10 feet below ground surface. The chemical test results for the nematode fumigant dichloropropane and dichloropropene were non-detected. However, the location selected for drilling was never confirmed to be in the correct location. Section 2.1 Facility and Spill Location of the report describes the lack of documentation which indicates that there is uncertainty as to the location of the spill. This section of the report also describes a review of aerial photography which could not confirm the location of the spill. The soil boring logs shown in Appendix F show a gravel soil type on the borings for S-1 to S-4 however the borings do not show other soil types which would indicate fill materials which might confirm the location of the spill. Therefore,it appears that the investigation was not conducted in the confirmed spill area location. Since 175 cubic yards of contaminated soil was excavated at the spill location, in order to confirm the correct location, the soil types of the fill materials should be located by comparison with surrounding soil types.  We recommend that a trenching approach with a backhoe should be conducted with soil logging to confirm the location of the former excavation. After the spill location is verified, then soil borings should be placed in that location. The sampling should not be terminated at first encountered groundwater as occurred in the previous investigation, but should continue to the originally planned depth of 30 feet.

Response: The historical reports from the 1974 spill lacked specificity to definitively identify the location of the spill area. However, the Voluntary Cleanup Plan (VCP) applicant appeared to have accurately located the area where the spill occurred, based on the information provided in the Individual Activity Report dated March 28, 1974 (found in Appendix A of the VCP-Environmental Assessment (VCP-EA)). The Individual Activity Report described specific locational information (culverts and well locations) and their approximate distance from the spill area. Additionally, aerial photos from 1972 (pre-spill) and 1977 (post-spill cleanup) were used to identify areas in the vicinity intervening timeframe of the two photos. The commenter suggested the need for further confirmation of the spill location by comparing soil types. DEQ does not believe that comparison of soil types from new test pits or soil borings with the soil of the surrounding area is guaranteed to confirm the location of the spill area, especially given the amount of time that has elapsed since removal. Additionally, the reports did not indicate whether backfilling occurred or the specifics of the backfilling efforts post excavation, so it is unknown where the fill material was sources and/or whether it would appear different from the surrounding material. Therefore, DEQ determined that the review of the aerial photographs for soil disturbance located within the proximity of the culvert/wells documented in the Individual Activity Report was an appropriate and adequate approach to identify the location of the spill area.

The commenter also stated that sampling should not have terminated at the depth groundwater was first encountered and should have continued to the planned depth of 30 feet below ground surface (bgs). The VCP-EA indicated that borings in the spill area were originally planned for a total depth of 20 feet bgs (not 30 feet bgs as noted) to accommodate collection of soil samples from the interval just above the water table and completion of some of the borings as temporary monitoring wells. The VCP-EA further throughout the spill area, so the borings were not extended passed 15 feet bgs. Soil samples were collected to characterize the contaminant concentrations (if any) in the soil column above groundwater. Groundwater samples were also collected from borings completed as temporary monitoring wells. The groundwater samples were collected to characterize whether contamination may have moved through the soil and into the groundwater as a result of the spill. As identified in pages 14 and 15 of the VCP-EA, the fumigant spilled is extremely volatile (e.g. a tarp is sometimes needed to cover an application area to prevent the fumigant from volatilizing before it can perform its intended function). The presence of contamination at a depth of 30 feet bgs when groundwater is present at nine feet bgs is particularly unlikely nearly 40 years after the spill occurred. Since the planned samples of the soil above the groundwater and the groundwater itself were able to be collected prior to the planned total depth of the boring, the boring was appropriately terminated.

 

2) The title of the document Remediation Proposal is a misnomer since no remediation is proposed in that document. Since the Environmental Assessment document described the collection of soil samples in a location which was not confirmed to be correct, the Remediation Proposal should not be approved.

 

Response: The VCP-Remediation Proposal (VCP-RP) is required to be submitted as titled by 75-10-733 and 734, Montana Code Annotated. The VCP-EA and VCP-RP are required documents and are submitted separately. Once DEQ determines that both components are complete, the combined VCP is submitted for public comment and DEQ approval. Each document serves a different purpose: the VCP-EA generally identifies the operational history and nature and extent of contamination and the VCP-RP identifies how the facility has been or will be remediated to be protective of public health, safety, and welfare and the environment. The “No Further Action” remedy is an option for VCRA applicants who have conducted cleanup outside of a legal order, consent decree, or without formal DEQ oversight. The “No Further Action” remedy is also an option for facilities that relied upon a facility-specific risk analysis (as opposed to comparison to generic screening levels) to determine that cleanup is not necessary. For this facility, the applicant demonstrated there was no unacceptable risk remaining at either the spill location or the placement location since the contaminants were not detected in any of the samples from either area (at detection limits that were below the generic screening levels). As a result, the VCP applicant proposed “No Further Action” for the remedy because there was no unacceptable risk and therefore no contamination to cleanup.

 

Please also see DEQ’s response to Comment 1 regarding spill location confirmation.

 

Heather Foslund

Waste Management and Remediation Division

Montana Department of Environmental Quality

PO Box 200901

Helena, Montana 59620-0901

Re: Public Comment for Proposal to Approve the Voluntary Cleanup Plan for the Burlington Northern Derailment Site, Bridger, Montana and delist the facility from the Comprehensive Environmental Cleanup and Responsibility Act (CECRA or State Superfund) Priority List, Comments Due 10-20-17

 Dear Ms. Foslund:

Environmental Review, Inc. has reviewed the Voluntary Cleanup and Redevelopment Act/Voluntary Cleanup Plan Environmental Assessment, Burlington Northern Derailment Site Bridger dated May 2017 and the Remediation Proposal dated July 2017 prepared by Olympus Technical Services Inc. The documents describe the investigation and cleanup plans for a chemical spill of 10,000 gallons of Shell D-D nematode fumigant dichloropropane-dichloropropene; we have the following comments:

1) The Environmental Assessment report, Section 9.0 Facility Characterization describes that four soil borings S1, S2, S3 and S4 were advanced in the spill area.  Soil and groundwater samples were collected from depths of less than 10 feet below ground surface. The chemical test results for the nematode fumigant dichloropropane and dichloropropene were non-detected. However, the location selected for drilling was never confirmed to be in the correct location. Section 2.1 Facility and Spill Location of the report describes the lack of documentation which indicates that there is uncertainty as to the location of the spill. This section of the report also describes a review of aerial photography which could not confirm the location of the spill. The soil boring logs shown in Appendix F show a gravel soil type on the borings for S-1 to S-4 however the borings do not show other soil types which would indicate fill materials which might confirm the location of the spill. Therefore it appears that the investigation was not conducted in the confirmed spill area location. Since 175 cubic yards of contaminated soil was excavated at the spill location, in order to confirm the correct location, the soil types of the fill materials should be located by comparison with surrounding soil types.  We recommend that a trenching approach with a backhoe should be conducted with soil logging to confirm the location of the former excavation. After the spill location is verified, then soil borings should be placed in that location. The sampling should not be terminated at first encountered groundwater as occurred in the previous investigation, but should continue to the originally planned depth of 30 feet.

2) The title of the document Remediation Proposal is a misnomer since no remediation is proposed in that document. Since the Environmental Assessment document described the collection of soil samples in a location which was not confirmed to be correct, the Remediation Proposal should not be approved.

 When responses to my comments are available, please send them to me via email at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .

 

 

Sincerely yours,
Jungho Ahn-Project Manager, 
Environmental Review, Inc., 
P.O. Box 2756, Berkeley, CA 94702
http://www.envreview.org/