National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List, 26131-26137 [2010-10849]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 11, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
will be conducted, the contract with the
independent surveyor shall be in effect,
and an amount of money necessary to
carry out the entire survey plan shall be
paid to the independent surveyor or
placed into an escrow account with
instructions to the escrow agent to pay
the money to the independent surveyor
during the course of the conduct of the
survey plan.
(ii) No later than December 15 of the
year preceding the year in which the
surveys will be conducted, EPA must
receive a copy of the contract with the
independent surveyor, proof that the
money necessary to carry out the survey
plan has either been paid to the
independent surveyor or placed into an
escrow account, and, if placed into an
escrow account, a copy of the escrow
agreement, to be sent to the official
designated in paragraph (e)(10)(vi) of
this section.
(12) Failure to fulfill requirements. A
failure to fulfill or cause to be fulfilled
any of the requirements of this
paragraph (e) will cause the option to
use the alternative quality assurance
requirement under this paragraph (e) to
be void ab initio.
■ 3. Section 80.1339 is amended by
revising paragraph (e)(4) to read as
follows:
§ 80.1339 Who is not eligible for the
provisions for small refiners?
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(4) During the period provided under
paragraph (e)(2) of this section, and any
extension provided under paragraph
(e)(3) of this section, the refiner may not
generate gasoline benzene credits under
§ 80.1275(b)(3) for any of its refineries
where under § 80.1342 the refiner was
previously allowed to defer compliance
with the standards in §§ 80.1230(a) and
80.1230(b).
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2010–10915 Filed 5–10–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
[EPA–HQ–SFUND–2009–0654; FRL–9146–8]
National Oil and Hazardous Substance
Pollution Contingency Plan; National
Priorities List
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Direct final rule.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Region II is publishing a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:21 May 10, 2010
Jkt 220001
direct final Notice of Deletion of the
Asbestos Dump Superfund Site (Site),
located in Long Hill Township and
Harding Township, New Jersey, 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 an
appendix of 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 Jersey, through the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection
(NJDEP), because EPA has determined
that all appropriate response actions
under CERCLA, other than operation,
maintenance, and five-year reviews,
have been completed. However, this
deletion does not preclude future
actions under Superfund.
DATES: This direct final deletion is
effective July 12, 2010 unless EPA
receives adverse comments by June 10,
2010. If adverse comments are received,
EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of
the direct final deletion in the Federal
Register informing the public that the
deletion will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
SFUND–2009–0654, by one of the
following methods:
• https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• E-mail: hwilka.theresa@epa.gov:
Theresa Hwilka, Remedial Project
Manager; seppi.pat@epa.gov: Pat Seppi,
Community Involvement Coordinator.
• Fax: 212–637–4429.
• Mail: Theresa Hwilka, Remedial
Project Manager, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region II,
Emergency & Remedial Response
Division, 290 Broadway, 19th Floor,
New York, NY 10007; or Pat Seppi,
Community Involvement Coordinator,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region II, Public Affairs Division, 290
Broadway, 26th Floor, New York, NY
10007.
• Hand delivery: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region II,
Emergency & Remedial Response
Division, 290 Broadway, 19th Floor,
New York, NY 10007. Such deliveries
are only accepted during the Docket’s
normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–SFUND–2009–
0654. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
26131
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://www.regulations.gov Web site is
an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA without going through https://
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
Docket
All documents in the docket are listed
in the https://www.regulations.gov index.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statue. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted
material, will be publicly available only
in the hard copy. Publicly available
docket materials are available either
electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region II, Superfund Records Center,
290 Broadway, Room 1828. (212) 637–
4308.
Hours: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday; and at Long Hill
Township Public Library, 917 Valley
Road, Gillette, New Jersey 07933. (908)
647–2088.
Hours: 10 a.m. to 9 p.m., Monday
through Thursday. 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
Friday and Saturday. 1 p.m. to 5 p.m.,
Sunday (Closed on Sundays in July and
August).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Theresa Hwilka, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region II, 290 Broadway, New
E:\FR\FM\11MYR1.SGM
11MYR1
26132
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 11, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
York, NY 10007, (212) 637–4409, e-mail:
hwilka.theresa@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Site Deletion
V. Deletion Action
I. Introduction
EPA Region II is publishing this direct
final Notice of Deletion of the Asbestos
Dump Superfund site (Site), from the
National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL
constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part
300, which is the 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 maintains the NPL as the list of
sites that appear to present a significant
risk to public health, welfare, or the
environment. Sites on the NPL may be
the subject of remedial actions financed
by the Hazardous Substance Superfund
(Fund). As described in 300.425(e)(3) of
the NCP, sites deleted from the NPL
remain eligible for Fund-financed
remedial actions if future conditions
warrant such actions.
Because EPA considers this action to
be noncontroversial and routine, this
action will be effective July 12, 2010
unless EPA receives adverse comments
by June 10, 2010. Along with this direct
final Notice of Deletion, EPA is copublishing a Notice of Intent to Delete
in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ section of the
Federal Register. If adverse comments
are received within the 30-day public
comment period on this deletion action,
EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of
this direct final Notice of 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 Asbestos Dump
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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:21 May 10, 2010
Jkt 220001
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
The NCP establishes the criteria that
EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL.
In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e),
sites may be deleted from the NPL
where no further response is
appropriate. In making such a
determination pursuant to 40 CFR
300.425(e), EPA will 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
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.
Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c)
and the NCP, EPA conducts five-year
reviews to ensure the continued
protectiveness of remedial actions
where hazardous substances, pollutants,
or contaminants remain at a site above
levels that allow for unlimited use and
unrestricted exposure. EPA conducts
such five-year reviews even if a site is
deleted from the NPL. EPA may initiate
further action to ensure continued
protectiveness at a deleted site if new
information becomes available that
indicates it is appropriate. 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. EPA consulted with the State of
New Jersey prior to developing this
direct final Notice of Deletion and the
Notice of Intent to Delete co-published
today in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ section of
the Federal Register.
2. The New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection has concurred
on the 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 is being
published in a major local newspaper,
Courier News. 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 proposed
deletion in the deletion docket and
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
made these items available for public
inspection and copying at the Site
information repositories identified
above.
5. If adverse comments are received
within the 30-day public comment
period on this deletion action, 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 information below provides
EPA’s rationale for deleting the Site
from the NPL. For each Operable Unit
there is a discussion section containing
information on the following: (1) Site
background and history; (2) remedial
investigation and feasibility study
(RI/FS); (3) selected remedy; (4)
response actions; (5) cleanup goals; (6)
operation and maintenance; (7) five year
reviews; and (8) community
involvement.
The Asbestos Dump Superfund Site
(the Site), CERCLIS ID NJD980654149,
consists of four separate properties
which were addressed in three discrete
operable units (OUs). OU1 consists of
the Millington site, located in
Millington, New Jersey. OU2 consists of
the New Vernon Road and White Bridge
Road ‘‘satellite’’ sites, both of which are
located in Meyersville, New Jersey. OU3
consists of the third satellite site, known
as the Dietzman Tract, which is located
in Harding Township, New Jersey. The
Site was placed on the National
Priorities List (NPL) in September 1983
(48 FR 40658).
Given the nature of this Site, this
Direct Final Notice of Deletion will
summarize the history, remedies and
remedial actions taken for each
individual OU.
OU–1
Site Background and History
OU1 consists of the Millington site
which is an 11 acre commercial
E:\FR\FM\11MYR1.SGM
11MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 11, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
property located at 50 Division Avenue
in Millington, New Jersey. The site is
bounded on the west by the Passaic
River, on the north by the Millington
Train Station, and on the east and south
by commercial and private residences,
respectively. Currently owned by Tifa
Ltd., this parcel was formerly utilized as
an asbestos processing plant that had
several previous owners. Manufacturing
of asbestos products at the Millington
site began in 1927 by Asbestos Ltd.,
which engaged in the fiberization and
sale of asbestos until 1946. From 1946
until 1953, the plant was owned and
operated by Smith Asbestos, Inc., a
manufacturer of asbestos roofing and
siding. During this later period, asbestos
sediment from water settling ponds was
disposed of on-site.
In May 1953, the property was
acquired by the National Gypsum
Company (NGC), which manufactured
cement asbestos siding and roofing
sheets at the plant until 1975. During
this period, waste products, consisting
of broken siding and asbestos fibers
were dumped on a five acre area of the
property. This included a 330 by 75 foot
area (later referred to as the asbestos
mound) where predominantly asbestos
fibers were disposed. It is estimated that
90,000 cubic yards of asbestos waste
was disposed of on-site.
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility
Study (RI/FS)
RI/FS activities were initiated by NGC
in 1986 and completed in 1987. The
primary contaminant of concern was
asbestos. Soil borings and historical
information revealed that the upland
portion of site contained broken
asbestos tiles and siding, while the
asbestos mound was found to contain
predominantly asbestos fibers. The
upland and asbestos mound portions of
the site were covered with varying
thicknesses of topsoil; however,
exposed areas of asbestos fibers were
observed on the slope of the asbestos
mound adjacent to the Passaic River.
Extensive slope stability analyses
indicated that the asbestos mound was
relatively stable; however, the slope was
unprotected from surface erosion and
the potential destabilizing effects of
flooding along the Passaic River.
Analysis of groundwater samples
revealed low concentrations of mercury
and asbestos related to disposal
activities at the site. Mercury was
detected in groundwater in
concentrations exceeding drinking
water standards in a limited number of
samples; however, the limited mercury
contamination remained within the
footprint of the landfill and did not pose
an unacceptable human health risk. As
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:21 May 10, 2010
Jkt 220001
a result, groundwater alternatives were
not evaluated. Asbestos was detected at
concentrations substantially below the
proposed EPA drinking water standard.
The RI and FS reports were completed
in September 1988.
Selected Remedy
On September 30, 1988, EPA issued a
ROD for OU1. The major components of
the selected remedy include the
following: (1) Installation of a two-foot
soil cover on areas of exposed or
minimally covered asbestos; (2)
installation of a chain-link security
fence to restrict access to the asbestos
mound; (3) construction of slope
protection/stabilization measures along
the asbestos mound embankment;
(4) construction of surface run-off
diversion channels on top of the
asbestos mound; (5) operation and
maintenance of the remedy; (6) longterm monitoring; (7) institutional
controls to restrict on-site groundwater
usage and limit development on the
asbestos fill areas; and (8) treatability
studies of technologies for permanent
destruction or immobilization of
asbestos.
26133
long. The Final RA Report for OU1 was
approved by EPA in September 2001.
EPA also conducted treatability
studies to fulfill the OU1 ROD
requirement for evaluating innovative
treatment technologies that may be
effective in permanently remediating
asbestos. Since the issuance of the OU1
ROD, EPA has performed treatability
studies on solidification/stabilization
and vitrification (thermal treatment
resulting in an asbestos-free glass) and
has evaluated potential applicability of
thermochemical asbestos conversion
(destruction) technologies. EPA believes
that the OU1 remedy, including the cap
constructed over the ACM waste and
institutional controls, is protective and
will remain protective of human health
and the environment. Solidification and
stabilization of the ACM was
incorporated into the OU2 remedy.
Response Actions
Cleanup Goals
The cleanup goal for the Site was to
contain the migration of asbestos. The
objective was achieved through
response actions conducted between
June 1999 and June 2000 which
included the consolidation of ACM into
the landfill area and the construction of
the landfill cap.
OU1 remedial action activities were
conducted pursuant to the 1988 ROD.
EPA entered into an Interagency
Agreement (IAG) with the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) who in
turn provided oversight during all
remedial activities. USACE contracted
IT Corporation (IT) to complete the
remedial actions in accordance with the
contract documents and all applicable
State and Federal regulations.
Mobilization activities began on June
17, 1999 and included the delivery of
general materials, initiation of soil
erosion and sediment control measures,
and clearing and grubbing activities.
The primary remedial construction
activities included, but were not limited
to, the following: (1) Access road
construction—completed in November
1999; (2) retaining wall construction for
slope stabilization—completed in May
2000; and (3) cap construction
operations and site restoration—
completed in May 2000. Capping
activities consisted of relocating
excavated material, closing the asbestos
mound, grading the asbestos-containing
material (ACM) to the required
elevations, installation of a layer of
geotextile and geogrid material, and the
placement and grading of a two-foot soil
cover. A retaining wall was installed at
the toe of the asbestos mound for
stabilization purposes. The wall is an
average of 10 feet in height and 516 feet
Operations and Maintenance
In September 2001, EPA approved the
Final RA Report as well as the 30–Year
Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
Plan. NJDEP is currently responsible for
operation and maintenance activities.
The O&M Plan documents the
installation of a six-foot high chain link
security fence which surrounds the site
on its north, east and south limits.
Furthermore, the O&M Plan specifies
that periodic inspections are conducted
of all OU1 design components including
the retaining wall, perimeter access
fence, capped area, and mowing/
pruning of the ACM cover and
surrounding areas. Monitoring of
surface water and sediment sampling of
the Passaic River along with
groundwater monitoring in accordance
with the New Jersey landfill closure
requirements is also included in the
O&M Plan. Monitoring and sampling is
conducted once every 5 years.
In addition to O&M activities, the
OU1 site is protected by institutional
controls. A Deed Notice was filed by
Tifa Realty, Inc., in the Morris County,
New Jersey, Office of the County Clerk,
on September 8, 2008 for the OU1
Millington property designated as Block
12301, Lot 1 on the Long Hill Township
tax map. The Deed Notice has been filed
in Deed Book 21152, Page 508. The type
of restrictions placed on the OU1
Millington property significantly limit
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\11MYR1.SGM
11MYR1
26134
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 11, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
any type of intrusion onto the landfill
cap thereby restricting on-site
groundwater usage and limiting
development on the asbestos fill areas.
Any future use of the landfill area must
be designed to protect the integrity of
the components of the landfill.
OU–2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Site Background and History
OU2 consists of the New Vernon Road
and White Bridge Road sites. The OU2
New Vernon Road site is located at 237
New Vernon Road in Meyersville, Long
Hill Township, Morris County, New
Jersey. The New Vernon Road site
consists of approximately 30 acres of
land and is currently bounded by the
Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
(GSNWR) to the north, tracts of wooded
and wetland areas to the east and south,
and New Vernon Road to the west. The
property previously included two
residences and a large garage structure.
From 1945 through 1980 the privately
owned New Vernon Road site was used
for farming. From 1968 to 1971, ACM
generated by NGC, including asbestos
fibers, broken asbestos tiles, and siding,
was deposited throughout the site. Large
amounts of ACM were deposited in the
central portion of the property in a large
depression. Asbestos was also detected
in other areas of the property.
The White Bridge Road site is located
at 651 White Bridge Road in Long Hill
Township, NJ. The White Bridge Road
site is approximately two miles away
from the New Vernon Road site and
consists of approximately 12 acres of
privately owned land, as well as
adjoining property, which is part of the
GSNWR, in Meyersville, New Jersey.
From 1945 through 1969, the White
Bridge Road site had been used for
farming. In 1970, the property was
purchased by the current residents.
From 1970 to 1975, ACM, consisting of
asbestos tiles and siding from the NGC,
was disposed of on the property.
Subsequent to these disposal activities,
the current owner converted the
property into a horse farm with stables,
a horse riding track, and grazing fields.
The horse riding track was comprised of
large amounts of ACM mixed with soils.
ACM had also been detected in other
areas of the site.
The remedy for the White Bridge
Road portion of OU2 was completed
and this portion of the site was deleted
from the NPL in February 2002 (67 FR
5955). Therefore, the White Bridge Road
portion of the Asbestos Dump Site is not
included in this Notice of Deletion.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:21 May 10, 2010
Jkt 220001
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility
Study (RI/FS)
20, 1993 to modify the remedy specified
in the OU2 ROD.
EPA initiated a RI/FS in the fall of
1990 to supplement the NGC RI and
fully characterize the extent of asbestos
contamination at the OU2 portion of the
Site. The RI included a hydrogeological
investigation, extensive sampling and
subsequent laboratory analysis of
subsurface soils, sediments, surface
water, groundwater, potable water and
air. The data indicated the presence of
elevated levels of asbestos in the soil at
both the New Vernon Road and White
Bridge Road residential properties. With
respect to groundwater, sampling results
indicated that asbestos was not detected
in levels above the analytical detection
limit for all groundwater samples
analyzed. Asbestos was determined to
be present in air sample at both OU2
sites as a result of soil contamination.
EPA determined that an immediate
removal action was necessary to address
the imminent threat posed by the
contamination. Removal activities were
conducted in the fall of 1990 to
temporarily reduce the potential for
airborne asbestos fibers and to restrict
access. Removal activities included
installation of fences, air and soil
sample collection, decontamination of
the residences, and visual inspection of
ACM. RI field work was completed in
1990 and the RI and FS reports were
completed in June 1991.
Response Actions
Remedial activities were conducted in
two phases. Phase I activities at the New
Vernon Road site were initiated in
August 1994 and were completed in
December 1994. Phase I activities
included the following: (1) Excavation
and consolidation of ACM; (2) in-situ
solidification/stabilization of ACM; (3)
impermeable cover and perimeter
infiltration trench construction; (4)
placement of rip rap along the sides of
the cap for slope stability protection;
and (5) backfill of excavation areas
excluding topsoil and seeding. The
solidification process was considered
complete when the cement mixture had
set and quality control sample results
indicated that the solidified mass
conformed to the specified design
criteria. Upon completion of the
solidification/stabilization process, the
site was graded and a minimum of six
inches of soil was placed over the
solidified material. The protective cap
placed on the solidified soil consisted of
several components including six
inches of stone screenings, a
geomembrane liner, a drainage layer
consisting of a geocomposite, a 24 inch
layer of common fill and a vegetative
layer consisting of six inches of topsoil
and grass. After the implementation, air
monitoring was performed to
demonstrate the effectiveness of this
remedy.
The second phase of the remedial
action activities was initiated in March
1995 and was intended to include site
restoration work such as final grading
with topsoil, grass establishment,
planting, wetlands restoration, asphalt
paving, and demobilization. The second
phase was halted when EPA issued a
Stop Work Order on March 30, 1995.
EPA subsequently issued a Cure Notice,
in April 1995, to CDM Federal Programs
Corporation (CDM), an EPA contractor,
for failure to meet the contract
specification for the use of fill at both
the New Vernon Road and White Bridge
Road properties. The Cure Response
cleanup activities at New Vernon Road
were initiated in July 1998 and
completed by March 1999. The USACE
provided oversight of the Cure Response
cleanup activities. In September 2000,
EPA approved the Remedial Action
Report for the New Vernon Road portion
of OU2.
Selected Remedy
On September 27, 1991, EPA issued a
ROD documenting the remedy for OU2.
The ROD documented the remedial
actions for both the New Vernon Road
property and the White Bridge Road
property. The major components of the
selected remedy include the following:
(1) In-situ solidification/stabilization of
asbestos contaminated soils; (2)
appropriate environmental monitoring
to confirm the effectiveness of the
remedy; and (3) implementation of
institutional controls to restrict future
subsurface activities and assure the
integrity of the treated waste.
TRC and TAMS Consultants, Inc.
initiated the Remedial Design (RD) in
1991 under contract with EPA. A
solidification/stabilization treatability
study was performed by TRC as part of
the RD. Based upon the results of the
treatability study, the solidification/
stabilization depth was changed prior to
the issuance of the Final Design Report
in January 1993 to require that the
solidified/stabilized mass be
constructed only above the groundwater
table. EPA issued an Explanation of
Significant Differences (ESD) on October
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Cleanup Goals
The cleanup goal for the Site was to
contain the migration of asbestos.
Asbestos containing materials on the
OU2 properties that were either
E:\FR\FM\11MYR1.SGM
11MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 11, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
detected by visual inspection or
analytically (having greater than 0.5%
asbestos, which is the detection limit of
the TEM analytical method) were
addressed in the remedy. The objective
was achieved through consolidation of
ACM, in-situ solidification/stabilization
of asbestos contaminated soils,
environmental monitoring to confirm
the effectiveness of the remedy, and
implementation of institutional controls
to restrict future subsurface activities
and assure the integrity of the treated
waste. Response actions for OU2 were
conducted between August 1994 and
March 1999.
Operations and Maintenance
In June 2001, an O&M plan for the
New Vernon Road site was finalized.
The overall objective of the O&M Plan
is to provide for periodic inspection,
maintenance, and monitoring to
evaluate and maintain the effectiveness
of the remedy implemented at the site.
The landfill cap, perimeter infiltration
trench and environmental monitoring,
are the key components of the O&M
Plan. Environmental monitoring
includes the collection and analysis of
groundwater and monitoring of wildlife
species from the area around the New
Vernon Road site.
In January 2002, EPA, NJDEP and the
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS)
reached an agreement on the terms of
the transfer of a portion of the New
Vernon Road property to FWS to
expand the GSNWR. In September 2002,
an approximately 25 acre portion of the
New Vernon Road property (Block 225,
Lot 30) was formally transferred to FWS
and is now in use as part of the Refuge.
This Lot also includes the residential
structures along New Vernon Road. The
remaining five acre portion of the
property (Block 225, Lot 30.03), which
contains the solidified ACM, was
transferred to the State of New Jersey.
NJDEP is conducting the O&M activities
on the five acre parcel of the property.
Subsequent to the division of the New
Vernon Road property between NJDEP
and FWS, separate Deed Notices were
filed for Block 225, Lots 30 and 30.03.
The Deed Notice for Block 225, Lot 30
was filed in the Morris County, New
Jersey, Office of the County Clerk on
August 20, 2002. The Deed Notice
includes a ‘‘Limited Subsurface Use
Area’’ which exists within 10 feet of the
foundation of the residences. This area
is restricted because it could not be fully
investigated for the presence of asbestos
because such and investigation would
have compromised the integrity of the
substructure. Digging and excavating
more than 12 inches below the surface
of the Limited Subsurface Area is
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:21 May 10, 2010
Jkt 220001
prohibited unless approved by EPA or
NJDEP. The Deed Notice for Block 225–
Lot 30.03, which pertains to the five
acre capped OU2 parcel, was filed in the
Morris County, New Jersey, Office of the
County Clerk on October 22, 2002. The
Deed Notice specifies the restrictions
placed on the capped area of OU2. The
Deed Notice does not permit any
disturbance of the surface or subsurface
of the capped area including, but not
limited to filling, drilling, excavation, or
the removal of topsoil, sediments, rock
or minerals, or by construction, planting
anything other than grass or
wildflowers, or changing the topography
in any manner; however, topsoil may be
added to make repairs in accordance
with the Deed Notice. Changing,
damaging or removing the perimeter
trench around the solidified mass, the
manholes or the monitoring wells is also
prohibited.
OU–3
Site Background and History
OU3 consists of the former Dietzman
Tract which is a seven acre parcel of
land located in the GSNWR, about two
miles southeast of the New Vernon Road
portion of the site. The GSNWR,
currently owned by the FWS, covers
approximately 7,400 acres of swamp,
wooded, and wetland areas. The refuge
is managed by FWS as a wildlife habitat
and for recreational purposes. The
Dietzman Tract included the following
four discrete areas: (1) Site A—a five
acre asbestos contaminated dump; (2)
Site B—a half acre dump consisting of
refuse and covered with ACM; (3)
Unimproved Access Road (UAR)—a
road surfaced with ACM which leads to
Site A and Site B; and (4) three small
refuse areas adjoining Site B (Refuse
Areas #1, 3 and 6).
The above mentioned areas of OU3
were used for the disposal of refuse
collected from neighboring
communities. Along with refuse, ACM
and other industrial wastes from the
NGC plant in Millington were trucked to
the OU3 site for disposal. The disposal
of ACM began in 1959 and ended in
1968 when the FWS acquired the
property. Approximately 40,000 cubic
yards of ACM and refuse were
delineated at OU3.
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility
Study (RI/FS)
The supplemental RI, known as the
Phase II RI, for OU3 was needed to fill
data gaps remaining from prior
investigations to characterize the nature
and extent of contamination at OU3.
Another goal of the Phase II RI was to
collect geotechnical data for evaluation
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
26135
of remedial alternatives in the FS. RI
activities included, but were not limited
to, the following: (1) Characterization of
the organic and inorganic contaminants
and asbestos in the site media; (2)
sampling of groundwater from 15
monitoring wells; (3) sampling of
surface water; and (4) excavation of
drums from Site A.
Early Phase II RI field activities
commenced in January 1996. Removal
actions were conducted in the Fall of
1996 to address buried drums, and air
quality monitoring was completed in
December 1996. The Phase II RI report
was completed and submitted to EPA in
1997. The report indicated that OU3
was found to contain approximately
36,800 cubic yards of ACM, 3,800 cubic
yards of refuse debris, an estimated 207
buried drums at Site A, and areas of
metal-impacted soil and ACM. Buried
drums located at Site A were removed
in September 1997. FWS completed
their FS Report in 1997 which outlined
general response actions to satisfy the
remedial action objectives for OU3 and
recommend a remedy.
Selected Remedy
On September 8, 1998, EPA issued a
ROD for OU3. The major components of
the selected remedy include the
following: (1) Access improvements; (2)
long-term drainage improvements, and
short-term erosion control measures; (3)
drum removal activities (which were
completed in September 1997 as a timecritical, non-emergency removal prior to
implementation of the preferred
alternative), including post-excavation
and waste classification sampling; (4)
removal and off-site disposal of soils
having lead concentrations greater than
218 mg/kg (completed, Spring 1998); (5)
consolidation of Site B ACM into Site A
(completed, Spring 1998); (6) placement
of a biotic cover over Site A; (7)
implementation of institutional controls
to ensure the continued integrity of the
drainage and cover activities; and (8)
assessment of wetland impacts and
wetlands restoration.
Response Actions
The FWS contracted the USACE to
perform remedial design and
construction activities. The USACE
subcontracted the design and
construction activities to IT Corp. A
three-phase approach was developed for
the remediation of the OU3 areas
described in the previous OU3
background section.
Phase 1, addressed the activities
including site access improvement,
drainage improvement and drum
removal from Site A. Access to Site A
was improved by upgrading the surface
E:\FR\FM\11MYR1.SGM
11MYR1
26136
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 11, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
of the UAR and clearing dense
vegetation covering Site A. The site
drainage was enhanced by clearing the
channel constriction and blockage
where the UAR crosses the Old Great
Brook Channel northwest of Site A and
a culvert system was placed in the
channel to maintain vehicle access to
Site B and improve site drainage. After
drainage improvements were
completed, drum excavation and
removal, and off-site disposal of the
drums and miscellaneous debris was
initiated and completed in October
1997. Post excavation sampling
confirmed that contaminants in the
drums had not been released to the soil
and therefore were not released to
groundwater above the regulatory
standards before or during removal.
Phase 1 work was completed in 1997.
The Phase 2 removal action consisted
of excavation, removal, and off-site
disposal of lead-contaminated soils
located at Site B, Refuse Area #1, and
Refuse Area #6 (as defined in the OU3
background section). The action was
initiated in February 1998 and was
completed in May 1998. Removal
activities also included the
consolidation of ACM from Site B onto
Site A.
Phase 3, the final remedial action
phase, consisted of the excavation and
removal of ACM from the UAR,
consolidation of the excavated UAR
material to Site A, backfilling the
excavated portions of the UAR, and
construction of the biotic cap on Site A.
Cap construction activities included the
installation of an anchor trench on the
west side of the landfill, compaction of
landfill material, placement of geotextile
fabric (woven and non-woven) and
placement of geonet for the biotic
barrier. Construction of the biotic cap on
the Site A landfill was considered to be
complete after a final inspection was
conducted in September 1999.
The disturbed and created wetlands
areas were restored by placing a final
soil cover, consisting of six inches of
organic sediment, over the areas. The
sediment contained a natural seed bank
with species indigenous to adjacent
wetlands. The progress of wetlands
restoration efforts continues to be
monitored by FWS.
On September 29, 1999, EPA
approved the Final Remedial Action
Report for OU3, which signified the
completion of OU3 remedial activities.
Cleanup Goals
The cleanup goal for the Site was to
contain the migration of asbestos. OU3
ROD cleanup activities consisted of
drum removal, removal of lead
contaminated soils and consolidation
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:21 May 10, 2010
Jkt 220001
and capping of ACM. The cleanup
objective was achieved through the
response actions conducted between
September 1997 and September 1999.
Operations and Maintenance
The O&M Plan for OU3 includes
maintenance of the permanent features
such as the surface water drainage
improvements and the Site A biotic cap.
The O&M plan also requires the
implementation of a groundwater
monitoring program that meets the
requirements of the New Jersey
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
regulations. FWS is responsible for
implementing the OU3 O&M plan.
In addition to O&M activities, FWS
has implemented institutional controls
at OU3 to ensure the continued integrity
of the capped areas. OU3 institutional
controls include the following: (1)
Restricted access via a gated road; (2)
posted signs indicating closed areas; (3)
law enforcement presence; (4) altered
trail system to divert people from the
landfill area; and (5) periodic
inspections. The OU3 property is
located entirely within the GSNWR. As
part of the National Wilderness Area,
the remediated OU3 area is protected
from development or future land uses
that might potentially conflict with the
remedial design. Any changes to this
designation would be subject to
Congressional approval. As such, the
land will be managed in perpetuity as
wildlife habitat with very limited public
use and access insofar as these activities
are consistent and compatible with the
O&M actions that have been prescribed
for the Site.
Five Year Review for All Operable Units
The first Five-Year Review was
completed for the Site in September
2000. The results of the second FiveYear Review, which was completed in
September 2005, indicated that there is
no significant off-site migration of
contaminants and that the remedies for
OU1, OU2 and OU3 are functioning as
intended by the respective RODs. Since
contaminants remain contained on-site,
EPA will continue to conduct statutory
five-year reviews of the implemented
remedies. The next review is scheduled
to be completed by September 2010.
Community Involvement for All
Operable Units
Community involvement activities for
the Asbestos Dump Superfund Site have
been conducted in accordance with
CERCLA requirements. Public meetings
have been held for remedial milestones
such as the presentation of the Proposed
Plan, RI and FS reports and for the
public comment period. Additional
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
meetings were held with the public and/
or stakeholders on an as needed basis
throughout the remedial process.
Documents comprising the
administrative record were made
available to the public at the Passaic
Township Free Public Library in
Sterling, New Jersey. Community
notifications were also issued for the
site Five-Year Reviews. A more detailed
account of community involvement
activities may be found in the Asbestos
Dump Superfund Site Close Out Report.
Determination That the Site Meets the
Criteria for Deletion in the NCP
The NCP specifies that EPA may
delete a site from the NPL if ‘‘all
appropriate responsible parties or other
persons have implemented all
appropriate response actions required’’
or ‘‘all appropriate Fund-financed
response under CERCLA has been
implemented, and no further response
action by responsible parties is
appropriate’’. 40 CFR 300.425(e)(1).
EPA, with concurrence of the State of
New Jersey through the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection
by a letter dated February 19, 2009,
believes these criteria for deletion have
been satisfied. Therefore, EPA is
proposing the deletion of the site from
the NPL. All of the completion
requirements from the site have been
met as described in the Superfund Final
Close-Out Report, dated November 10,
2009. Documents supporting this action
are available in the site file and deletion
dockets.
V. Deletion Action
The EPA, with concurrence of the
State of New Jersey through the New
Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection, has determined that all
appropriate response actions under
CERCLA, other than operation,
maintenance, and five-year reviews,
have been completed. 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 July 12, 2010
unless EPA receives adverse comments
by June 10, 2010. If adverse comments
are received within the 30-day public
comment period, EPA will publish a
timely withdrawal of this direct final
notice of deletion before the effective
date of the deletion, and it will not take
effect. 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.
E:\FR\FM\11MYR1.SGM
11MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 11, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous
waste, Hazardous substances,
Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.
Dated: April 1, 2010.
Judith A. Enck,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
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.
2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300
is amended by removing ‘‘Asbestos
Dump, Millington, NJ’’ from the table.
■
[FR Doc. 2010–10849 Filed 5–10–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 54
[WC Docket No. 05–337, CC Docket No. 96–
45; FCC 10–56]
High-Cost Universal Service Support,
Federal-State Joint Board on Universal
Service
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
AGENCY: Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal
Communications Commission
(Commission) defines ‘‘sufficient’’ under
section 254(e) of the Communications
Act as an affordable and sustainable
amount of support that is adequate, but
no greater than necessary, to achieve the
goals of the universal service program.
The Commission finds that rural rates
are ‘‘reasonably comparable’’ to urban
rates if they fall within a reasonable
range of the national average urban rate.
The Commission concludes, on the
basis of undisputed empirical evidence
in the record, that the current non-rural
high-cost support mechanism comports
with the requirements of section 254.
The Commission also grants, with
modifications, the joint petition filed by
the Wyoming Public Service
Commission and the Wyoming Office of
Consumer Advocate for supplemental
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:21 May 10, 2010
Jkt 220001
high-cost universal service support for
rural residential customers of Qwest,
Wyoming’s non-rural incumbent local
exchange carrier.
DATES: Effective June 10, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Katie King, Wireline Competition
Bureau, Telecommunications Access
Policy Division, (202) 418–7491 or TTY:
(202) 418–0484.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
synopsis of the Commission’s Order on
Remand and Memorandum Opinion and
Order (Order) in WC Docket No. 05–337,
CC Docket No. 96–45, FCC 10–56,
adopted April 16, 2010, and released
April 16, 2010. The complete text of this
document is available for inspection
and copying during normal business
hours in the FCC Reference Information
Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW.,
Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554.
The document may also be purchased
from the Commission’s duplicating
contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc.,
445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402,
Washington, DC 20554, telephone (800)
378–3160 or (202) 863–2893, facsimile
(202) 863–2898, or via the Internet at
https://www.bcpiweb.com. It is also
available on the Commission’s Web site
at https://www.fcc.gov.
People with Disabilities: To request
materials in accessible formats for
people with disabilities (braille, large
print, electronic files, audio format),
send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call
the Consumer & Governmental Affairs
Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202–
418–0432 (tty).
I. Order on Remand
A. The Current Non-Rural Mechanism
Comports With Section 254
1. On remand, the Tenth Circuit
directed the Commission to address
three issues. First, the court held that
the Commission ‘‘must articulate a
definition of ‘sufficient’ that
appropriately considers the range of
principles in the text of the statute.’’
Second, the Commission ‘‘must define
the term ‘reasonably comparable’ in a
manner that comports with its
concurrent duties to preserve and
advance universal service.’’ And finally,
the court directed the Commission ‘‘to
utilize its unique expertise to craft a
support mechanism taking into account
all of the factors that Congress identified
in drafting the Act and its statutory
obligation to preserve and advance
universal service.’’ With respect to this
last mandate, the court stated that ‘‘the
FCC must fully support its final
decision on the basis of the record
before it.’’ We address each of these
issues in turn. After careful analysis and
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
26137
review of the record, we conclude that
the non-rural support mechanism, as
currently structured, comports with the
requirements of section 254 of the Act.
1. ‘‘Sufficient’’
a. An Assessment of Whether Support Is
‘‘Sufficient’’ Must Take Into Account the
Entire Universal Service Fund
2. Section 254(e) of the Act provides
that Federal universal service support
‘‘should be explicit and sufficient to
achieve the purposes of [section 254].’’
In the context of determining high-cost
support for non-rural carriers, the
Commission previously defined
‘‘sufficient’’ as ‘‘enough Federal support
to enable States to achieve reasonable
comparability of rural and urban rates in
high-cost areas served by non-rural
carriers.’’ In Qwest II, the Tenth Circuit
held that the Commission did not
adequately demonstrate how its nonrural universal service support
mechanism was ‘‘sufficient’’ within the
meaning of section 254(e). The court
noted that ‘‘reasonable comparability’’
was just one of several principles that
Congress directed the Commission to
consider when crafting policies to
preserve and advance universal service.
The court was ‘‘troubled by the
Commission’s seeming suggestion that
other principles, including affordability,
do not underlie Federal non-rural
support mechanisms.’’ ‘‘On remand,’’ the
court concluded, ‘‘the FCC must
articulate a definition of ‘sufficient’ that
appropriately considers the range of
principles identified in the text of the
statute.’’
3. Congress, in section 254(b) of the
Act, set forth a number of principles for
the Commission to consider when
implementing the universal service
policy. These principles include: (1)
‘‘[q]uality service should be available at
just, reasonable, and affordable rates’’;
(2) ‘‘access to advanced
telecommunications and information
services should be provided in all
regions of the Nation’’; (3) ‘‘low-income
consumers and those in rural, insular,
and high cost areas, should have access
to telecommunications services and
information services * * * that are
reasonably comparable to those services
provided in urban areas and that are
available at rates that are reasonably
comparable to rates charged * * * in
urban areas’’; (4) ‘‘[a]ll providers of
telecommunications services should
make an equitable and
nondiscriminatory contribution to the
preservation and advancement of
universal service’’; (5) ‘‘[t]here should be
specific, predictable and sufficient
Federal and State mechanisms to
E:\FR\FM\11MYR1.SGM
11MYR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 90 (Tuesday, May 11, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26131-26137]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-10849]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0654; FRL-9146-8]
National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region II is
publishing a direct final Notice of Deletion of the Asbestos Dump
Superfund Site (Site), located in Long Hill Township and Harding
Township, New Jersey, 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 an appendix of 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 Jersey, through the New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), because EPA has
determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other
than operation, maintenance, and five-year reviews, have been
completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions
under Superfund.
DATES: This direct final deletion is effective July 12, 2010 unless EPA
receives adverse comments by June 10, 2010. If adverse comments are
received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final
deletion in the Federal Register informing the public that the deletion
will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-2009-0654, by one of the following methods:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow on-line instructions
for submitting comments.
E-mail: hwilka.theresa@epa.gov: Theresa Hwilka, Remedial
Project Manager; seppi.pat@epa.gov: Pat Seppi, Community Involvement
Coordinator.
Fax: 212-637-4429.
Mail: Theresa Hwilka, Remedial Project Manager, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region II, Emergency & Remedial
Response Division, 290 Broadway, 19th Floor, New York, NY 10007; or Pat
Seppi, Community Involvement Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region II, Public Affairs Division, 290 Broadway, 26th Floor,
New York, NY 10007.
Hand delivery: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region II, Emergency & Remedial Response Division, 290 Broadway, 19th
Floor, New York, NY 10007. Such deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
2009-0654. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The https://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through https://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
Docket
All documents in the docket are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statue. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in the hard
copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region II, Superfund Records Center,
290 Broadway, Room 1828. (212) 637-4308.
Hours: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday; and at Long Hill
Township Public Library, 917 Valley Road, Gillette, New Jersey 07933.
(908) 647-2088.
Hours: 10 a.m. to 9 p.m., Monday through Thursday. 10 a.m. to 5
p.m., Friday and Saturday. 1 p.m. to 5 p.m., Sunday (Closed on Sundays
in July and August).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Theresa Hwilka, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II, 290 Broadway,
New
[[Page 26132]]
York, NY 10007, (212) 637-4409, e-mail: hwilka.theresa@epa.gov.
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 II is publishing this direct final Notice of Deletion of
the Asbestos Dump Superfund site (Site), from the National Priorities
List (NPL). The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300, which is
the 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 maintains the NPL as the list of sites that
appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the
environment. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions
financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). As described in
300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted from the NPL remain eligible
for Fund-financed remedial actions if future conditions warrant such
actions.
Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and
routine, this action will be effective July 12, 2010 unless EPA
receives adverse comments by June 10, 2010. Along with this direct
final Notice of Deletion, EPA is co-publishing a Notice of Intent to
Delete in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of the Federal Register. If
adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period
on this deletion action, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this
direct final Notice of 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 Asbestos Dump 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
The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from
the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted
from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a
determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will 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 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.
Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and the NCP, EPA conducts five-
year reviews to ensure the continued protectiveness of remedial actions
where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at a
site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure. EPA conducts such five-year reviews even if a site is deleted
from the NPL. EPA may initiate further action to ensure continued
protectiveness at a deleted site if new information becomes available
that indicates it is appropriate. 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. EPA consulted with the State of New Jersey prior to developing
this direct final Notice of Deletion and the Notice of Intent to Delete
co-published today in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of the Federal
Register.
2. The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection has
concurred on the 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 is being published in a major local newspaper, Courier News.
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 proposed
deletion in the deletion docket and made these items available for
public inspection and copying at the Site information repositories
identified above.
5. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public
comment period on this deletion action, 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 information below provides EPA's rationale for deleting the
Site from the NPL. For each Operable Unit there is a discussion section
containing information on the following: (1) Site background and
history; (2) remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS); (3)
selected remedy; (4) response actions; (5) cleanup goals; (6) operation
and maintenance; (7) five year reviews; and (8) community involvement.
The Asbestos Dump Superfund Site (the Site), CERCLIS ID
NJD980654149, consists of four separate properties which were addressed
in three discrete operable units (OUs). OU1 consists of the Millington
site, located in Millington, New Jersey. OU2 consists of the New Vernon
Road and White Bridge Road ``satellite'' sites, both of which are
located in Meyersville, New Jersey. OU3 consists of the third satellite
site, known as the Dietzman Tract, which is located in Harding
Township, New Jersey. The Site was placed on the National Priorities
List (NPL) in September 1983 (48 FR 40658).
Given the nature of this Site, this Direct Final Notice of Deletion
will summarize the history, remedies and remedial actions taken for
each individual OU.
OU-1
Site Background and History
OU1 consists of the Millington site which is an 11 acre commercial
[[Page 26133]]
property located at 50 Division Avenue in Millington, New Jersey. The
site is bounded on the west by the Passaic River, on the north by the
Millington Train Station, and on the east and south by commercial and
private residences, respectively. Currently owned by Tifa Ltd., this
parcel was formerly utilized as an asbestos processing plant that had
several previous owners. Manufacturing of asbestos products at the
Millington site began in 1927 by Asbestos Ltd., which engaged in the
fiberization and sale of asbestos until 1946. From 1946 until 1953, the
plant was owned and operated by Smith Asbestos, Inc., a manufacturer of
asbestos roofing and siding. During this later period, asbestos
sediment from water settling ponds was disposed of on-site.
In May 1953, the property was acquired by the National Gypsum
Company (NGC), which manufactured cement asbestos siding and roofing
sheets at the plant until 1975. During this period, waste products,
consisting of broken siding and asbestos fibers were dumped on a five
acre area of the property. This included a 330 by 75 foot area (later
referred to as the asbestos mound) where predominantly asbestos fibers
were disposed. It is estimated that 90,000 cubic yards of asbestos
waste was disposed of on-site.
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)
RI/FS activities were initiated by NGC in 1986 and completed in
1987. The primary contaminant of concern was asbestos. Soil borings and
historical information revealed that the upland portion of site
contained broken asbestos tiles and siding, while the asbestos mound
was found to contain predominantly asbestos fibers. The upland and
asbestos mound portions of the site were covered with varying
thicknesses of topsoil; however, exposed areas of asbestos fibers were
observed on the slope of the asbestos mound adjacent to the Passaic
River. Extensive slope stability analyses indicated that the asbestos
mound was relatively stable; however, the slope was unprotected from
surface erosion and the potential destabilizing effects of flooding
along the Passaic River. Analysis of groundwater samples revealed low
concentrations of mercury and asbestos related to disposal activities
at the site. Mercury was detected in groundwater in concentrations
exceeding drinking water standards in a limited number of samples;
however, the limited mercury contamination remained within the
footprint of the landfill and did not pose an unacceptable human health
risk. As a result, groundwater alternatives were not evaluated.
Asbestos was detected at concentrations substantially below the
proposed EPA drinking water standard. The RI and FS reports were
completed in September 1988.
Selected Remedy
On September 30, 1988, EPA issued a ROD for OU1. The major
components of the selected remedy include the following: (1)
Installation of a two-foot soil cover on areas of exposed or minimally
covered asbestos; (2) installation of a chain-link security fence to
restrict access to the asbestos mound; (3) construction of slope
protection/stabilization measures along the asbestos mound embankment;
(4) construction of surface run-off diversion channels on top of the
asbestos mound; (5) operation and maintenance of the remedy; (6) long-
term monitoring; (7) institutional controls to restrict on-site
groundwater usage and limit development on the asbestos fill areas; and
(8) treatability studies of technologies for permanent destruction or
immobilization of asbestos.
Response Actions
OU1 remedial action activities were conducted pursuant to the 1988
ROD. EPA entered into an Interagency Agreement (IAG) with the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) who in turn provided oversight during all
remedial activities. USACE contracted IT Corporation (IT) to complete
the remedial actions in accordance with the contract documents and all
applicable State and Federal regulations.
Mobilization activities began on June 17, 1999 and included the
delivery of general materials, initiation of soil erosion and sediment
control measures, and clearing and grubbing activities. The primary
remedial construction activities included, but were not limited to, the
following: (1) Access road construction--completed in November 1999;
(2) retaining wall construction for slope stabilization--completed in
May 2000; and (3) cap construction operations and site restoration--
completed in May 2000. Capping activities consisted of relocating
excavated material, closing the asbestos mound, grading the asbestos-
containing material (ACM) to the required elevations, installation of a
layer of geotextile and geogrid material, and the placement and grading
of a two-foot soil cover. A retaining wall was installed at the toe of
the asbestos mound for stabilization purposes. The wall is an average
of 10 feet in height and 516 feet long. The Final RA Report for OU1 was
approved by EPA in September 2001.
EPA also conducted treatability studies to fulfill the OU1 ROD
requirement for evaluating innovative treatment technologies that may
be effective in permanently remediating asbestos. Since the issuance of
the OU1 ROD, EPA has performed treatability studies on solidification/
stabilization and vitrification (thermal treatment resulting in an
asbestos-free glass) and has evaluated potential applicability of
thermochemical asbestos conversion (destruction) technologies. EPA
believes that the OU1 remedy, including the cap constructed over the
ACM waste and institutional controls, is protective and will remain
protective of human health and the environment. Solidification and
stabilization of the ACM was incorporated into the OU2 remedy.
Cleanup Goals
The cleanup goal for the Site was to contain the migration of
asbestos. The objective was achieved through response actions conducted
between June 1999 and June 2000 which included the consolidation of ACM
into the landfill area and the construction of the landfill cap.
Operations and Maintenance
In September 2001, EPA approved the Final RA Report as well as the
30-Year Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan. NJDEP is currently
responsible for operation and maintenance activities. The O&M Plan
documents the installation of a six-foot high chain link security fence
which surrounds the site on its north, east and south limits.
Furthermore, the O&M Plan specifies that periodic inspections are
conducted of all OU1 design components including the retaining wall,
perimeter access fence, capped area, and mowing/pruning of the ACM
cover and surrounding areas. Monitoring of surface water and sediment
sampling of the Passaic River along with groundwater monitoring in
accordance with the New Jersey landfill closure requirements is also
included in the O&M Plan. Monitoring and sampling is conducted once
every 5 years.
In addition to O&M activities, the OU1 site is protected by
institutional controls. A Deed Notice was filed by Tifa Realty, Inc.,
in the Morris County, New Jersey, Office of the County Clerk, on
September 8, 2008 for the OU1 Millington property designated as Block
12301, Lot 1 on the Long Hill Township tax map. The Deed Notice has
been filed in Deed Book 21152, Page 508. The type of restrictions
placed on the OU1 Millington property significantly limit
[[Page 26134]]
any type of intrusion onto the landfill cap thereby restricting on-site
groundwater usage and limiting development on the asbestos fill areas.
Any future use of the landfill area must be designed to protect the
integrity of the components of the landfill.
OU-2
Site Background and History
OU2 consists of the New Vernon Road and White Bridge Road sites.
The OU2 New Vernon Road site is located at 237 New Vernon Road in
Meyersville, Long Hill Township, Morris County, New Jersey. The New
Vernon Road site consists of approximately 30 acres of land and is
currently bounded by the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge (GSNWR)
to the north, tracts of wooded and wetland areas to the east and south,
and New Vernon Road to the west. The property previously included two
residences and a large garage structure.
From 1945 through 1980 the privately owned New Vernon Road site was
used for farming. From 1968 to 1971, ACM generated by NGC, including
asbestos fibers, broken asbestos tiles, and siding, was deposited
throughout the site. Large amounts of ACM were deposited in the central
portion of the property in a large depression. Asbestos was also
detected in other areas of the property.
The White Bridge Road site is located at 651 White Bridge Road in
Long Hill Township, NJ. The White Bridge Road site is approximately two
miles away from the New Vernon Road site and consists of approximately
12 acres of privately owned land, as well as adjoining property, which
is part of the GSNWR, in Meyersville, New Jersey. From 1945 through
1969, the White Bridge Road site had been used for farming. In 1970,
the property was purchased by the current residents. From 1970 to 1975,
ACM, consisting of asbestos tiles and siding from the NGC, was disposed
of on the property. Subsequent to these disposal activities, the
current owner converted the property into a horse farm with stables, a
horse riding track, and grazing fields. The horse riding track was
comprised of large amounts of ACM mixed with soils. ACM had also been
detected in other areas of the site.
The remedy for the White Bridge Road portion of OU2 was completed
and this portion of the site was deleted from the NPL in February 2002
(67 FR 5955). Therefore, the White Bridge Road portion of the Asbestos
Dump Site is not included in this Notice of Deletion.
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)
EPA initiated a RI/FS in the fall of 1990 to supplement the NGC RI
and fully characterize the extent of asbestos contamination at the OU2
portion of the Site. The RI included a hydrogeological investigation,
extensive sampling and subsequent laboratory analysis of subsurface
soils, sediments, surface water, groundwater, potable water and air.
The data indicated the presence of elevated levels of asbestos in the
soil at both the New Vernon Road and White Bridge Road residential
properties. With respect to groundwater, sampling results indicated
that asbestos was not detected in levels above the analytical detection
limit for all groundwater samples analyzed. Asbestos was determined to
be present in air sample at both OU2 sites as a result of soil
contamination. EPA determined that an immediate removal action was
necessary to address the imminent threat posed by the contamination.
Removal activities were conducted in the fall of 1990 to temporarily
reduce the potential for airborne asbestos fibers and to restrict
access. Removal activities included installation of fences, air and
soil sample collection, decontamination of the residences, and visual
inspection of ACM. RI field work was completed in 1990 and the RI and
FS reports were completed in June 1991.
Selected Remedy
On September 27, 1991, EPA issued a ROD documenting the remedy for
OU2. The ROD documented the remedial actions for both the New Vernon
Road property and the White Bridge Road property. The major components
of the selected remedy include the following: (1) In-situ
solidification/stabilization of asbestos contaminated soils; (2)
appropriate environmental monitoring to confirm the effectiveness of
the remedy; and (3) implementation of institutional controls to
restrict future subsurface activities and assure the integrity of the
treated waste.
TRC and TAMS Consultants, Inc. initiated the Remedial Design (RD)
in 1991 under contract with EPA. A solidification/stabilization
treatability study was performed by TRC as part of the RD. Based upon
the results of the treatability study, the solidification/stabilization
depth was changed prior to the issuance of the Final Design Report in
January 1993 to require that the solidified/stabilized mass be
constructed only above the groundwater table. EPA issued an Explanation
of Significant Differences (ESD) on October 20, 1993 to modify the
remedy specified in the OU2 ROD.
Response Actions
Remedial activities were conducted in two phases. Phase I
activities at the New Vernon Road site were initiated in August 1994
and were completed in December 1994. Phase I activities included the
following: (1) Excavation and consolidation of ACM; (2) in-situ
solidification/stabilization of ACM; (3) impermeable cover and
perimeter infiltration trench construction; (4) placement of rip rap
along the sides of the cap for slope stability protection; and (5)
backfill of excavation areas excluding topsoil and seeding. The
solidification process was considered complete when the cement mixture
had set and quality control sample results indicated that the
solidified mass conformed to the specified design criteria. Upon
completion of the solidification/stabilization process, the site was
graded and a minimum of six inches of soil was placed over the
solidified material. The protective cap placed on the solidified soil
consisted of several components including six inches of stone
screenings, a geomembrane liner, a drainage layer consisting of a
geocomposite, a 24 inch layer of common fill and a vegetative layer
consisting of six inches of topsoil and grass. After the
implementation, air monitoring was performed to demonstrate the
effectiveness of this remedy.
The second phase of the remedial action activities was initiated in
March 1995 and was intended to include site restoration work such as
final grading with topsoil, grass establishment, planting, wetlands
restoration, asphalt paving, and demobilization. The second phase was
halted when EPA issued a Stop Work Order on March 30, 1995. EPA
subsequently issued a Cure Notice, in April 1995, to CDM Federal
Programs Corporation (CDM), an EPA contractor, for failure to meet the
contract specification for the use of fill at both the New Vernon Road
and White Bridge Road properties. The Cure Response cleanup activities
at New Vernon Road were initiated in July 1998 and completed by March
1999. The USACE provided oversight of the Cure Response cleanup
activities. In September 2000, EPA approved the Remedial Action Report
for the New Vernon Road portion of OU2.
Cleanup Goals
The cleanup goal for the Site was to contain the migration of
asbestos. Asbestos containing materials on the OU2 properties that were
either
[[Page 26135]]
detected by visual inspection or analytically (having greater than 0.5%
asbestos, which is the detection limit of the TEM analytical method)
were addressed in the remedy. The objective was achieved through
consolidation of ACM, in-situ solidification/stabilization of asbestos
contaminated soils, environmental monitoring to confirm the
effectiveness of the remedy, and implementation of institutional
controls to restrict future subsurface activities and assure the
integrity of the treated waste. Response actions for OU2 were conducted
between August 1994 and March 1999.
Operations and Maintenance
In June 2001, an O&M plan for the New Vernon Road site was
finalized. The overall objective of the O&M Plan is to provide for
periodic inspection, maintenance, and monitoring to evaluate and
maintain the effectiveness of the remedy implemented at the site. The
landfill cap, perimeter infiltration trench and environmental
monitoring, are the key components of the O&M Plan. Environmental
monitoring includes the collection and analysis of groundwater and
monitoring of wildlife species from the area around the New Vernon Road
site.
In January 2002, EPA, NJDEP and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
(FWS) reached an agreement on the terms of the transfer of a portion of
the New Vernon Road property to FWS to expand the GSNWR. In September
2002, an approximately 25 acre portion of the New Vernon Road property
(Block 225, Lot 30) was formally transferred to FWS and is now in use
as part of the Refuge. This Lot also includes the residential
structures along New Vernon Road. The remaining five acre portion of
the property (Block 225, Lot 30.03), which contains the solidified ACM,
was transferred to the State of New Jersey. NJDEP is conducting the O&M
activities on the five acre parcel of the property.
Subsequent to the division of the New Vernon Road property between
NJDEP and FWS, separate Deed Notices were filed for Block 225, Lots 30
and 30.03. The Deed Notice for Block 225, Lot 30 was filed in the
Morris County, New Jersey, Office of the County Clerk on August 20,
2002. The Deed Notice includes a ``Limited Subsurface Use Area'' which
exists within 10 feet of the foundation of the residences. This area is
restricted because it could not be fully investigated for the presence
of asbestos because such and investigation would have compromised the
integrity of the substructure. Digging and excavating more than 12
inches below the surface of the Limited Subsurface Area is prohibited
unless approved by EPA or NJDEP. The Deed Notice for Block 225-Lot
30.03, which pertains to the five acre capped OU2 parcel, was filed in
the Morris County, New Jersey, Office of the County Clerk on October
22, 2002. The Deed Notice specifies the restrictions placed on the
capped area of OU2. The Deed Notice does not permit any disturbance of
the surface or subsurface of the capped area including, but not limited
to filling, drilling, excavation, or the removal of topsoil, sediments,
rock or minerals, or by construction, planting anything other than
grass or wildflowers, or changing the topography in any manner;
however, topsoil may be added to make repairs in accordance with the
Deed Notice. Changing, damaging or removing the perimeter trench around
the solidified mass, the manholes or the monitoring wells is also
prohibited.
OU-3
Site Background and History
OU3 consists of the former Dietzman Tract which is a seven acre
parcel of land located in the GSNWR, about two miles southeast of the
New Vernon Road portion of the site. The GSNWR, currently owned by the
FWS, covers approximately 7,400 acres of swamp, wooded, and wetland
areas. The refuge is managed by FWS as a wildlife habitat and for
recreational purposes. The Dietzman Tract included the following four
discrete areas: (1) Site A--a five acre asbestos contaminated dump; (2)
Site B--a half acre dump consisting of refuse and covered with ACM; (3)
Unimproved Access Road (UAR)--a road surfaced with ACM which leads to
Site A and Site B; and (4) three small refuse areas adjoining Site B
(Refuse Areas 1, 3 and 6).
The above mentioned areas of OU3 were used for the disposal of
refuse collected from neighboring communities. Along with refuse, ACM
and other industrial wastes from the NGC plant in Millington were
trucked to the OU3 site for disposal. The disposal of ACM began in 1959
and ended in 1968 when the FWS acquired the property. Approximately
40,000 cubic yards of ACM and refuse were delineated at OU3.
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)
The supplemental RI, known as the Phase II RI, for OU3 was needed
to fill data gaps remaining from prior investigations to characterize
the nature and extent of contamination at OU3. Another goal of the
Phase II RI was to collect geotechnical data for evaluation of remedial
alternatives in the FS. RI activities included, but were not limited
to, the following: (1) Characterization of the organic and inorganic
contaminants and asbestos in the site media; (2) sampling of
groundwater from 15 monitoring wells; (3) sampling of surface water;
and (4) excavation of drums from Site A.
Early Phase II RI field activities commenced in January 1996.
Removal actions were conducted in the Fall of 1996 to address buried
drums, and air quality monitoring was completed in December 1996. The
Phase II RI report was completed and submitted to EPA in 1997. The
report indicated that OU3 was found to contain approximately 36,800
cubic yards of ACM, 3,800 cubic yards of refuse debris, an estimated
207 buried drums at Site A, and areas of metal-impacted soil and ACM.
Buried drums located at Site A were removed in September 1997. FWS
completed their FS Report in 1997 which outlined general response
actions to satisfy the remedial action objectives for OU3 and recommend
a remedy.
Selected Remedy
On September 8, 1998, EPA issued a ROD for OU3. The major
components of the selected remedy include the following: (1) Access
improvements; (2) long-term drainage improvements, and short-term
erosion control measures; (3) drum removal activities (which were
completed in September 1997 as a time-critical, non-emergency removal
prior to implementation of the preferred alternative), including post-
excavation and waste classification sampling; (4) removal and off-site
disposal of soils having lead concentrations greater than 218 mg/kg
(completed, Spring 1998); (5) consolidation of Site B ACM into Site A
(completed, Spring 1998); (6) placement of a biotic cover over Site A;
(7) implementation of institutional controls to ensure the continued
integrity of the drainage and cover activities; and (8) assessment of
wetland impacts and wetlands restoration.
Response Actions
The FWS contracted the USACE to perform remedial design and
construction activities. The USACE subcontracted the design and
construction activities to IT Corp. A three-phase approach was
developed for the remediation of the OU3 areas described in the
previous OU3 background section.
Phase 1, addressed the activities including site access
improvement, drainage improvement and drum removal from Site A. Access
to Site A was improved by upgrading the surface
[[Page 26136]]
of the UAR and clearing dense vegetation covering Site A. The site
drainage was enhanced by clearing the channel constriction and blockage
where the UAR crosses the Old Great Brook Channel northwest of Site A
and a culvert system was placed in the channel to maintain vehicle
access to Site B and improve site drainage. After drainage improvements
were completed, drum excavation and removal, and off-site disposal of
the drums and miscellaneous debris was initiated and completed in
October 1997. Post excavation sampling confirmed that contaminants in
the drums had not been released to the soil and therefore were not
released to groundwater above the regulatory standards before or during
removal. Phase 1 work was completed in 1997.
The Phase 2 removal action consisted of excavation, removal, and
off-site disposal of lead-contaminated soils located at Site B, Refuse
Area 1, and Refuse Area 6 (as defined in the OU3
background section). The action was initiated in February 1998 and was
completed in May 1998. Removal activities also included the
consolidation of ACM from Site B onto Site A.
Phase 3, the final remedial action phase, consisted of the
excavation and removal of ACM from the UAR, consolidation of the
excavated UAR material to Site A, backfilling the excavated portions of
the UAR, and construction of the biotic cap on Site A. Cap construction
activities included the installation of an anchor trench on the west
side of the landfill, compaction of landfill material, placement of
geotextile fabric (woven and non-woven) and placement of geonet for the
biotic barrier. Construction of the biotic cap on the Site A landfill
was considered to be complete after a final inspection was conducted in
September 1999.
The disturbed and created wetlands areas were restored by placing a
final soil cover, consisting of six inches of organic sediment, over
the areas. The sediment contained a natural seed bank with species
indigenous to adjacent wetlands. The progress of wetlands restoration
efforts continues to be monitored by FWS.
On September 29, 1999, EPA approved the Final Remedial Action
Report for OU3, which signified the completion of OU3 remedial
activities.
Cleanup Goals
The cleanup goal for the Site was to contain the migration of
asbestos. OU3 ROD cleanup activities consisted of drum removal, removal
of lead contaminated soils and consolidation and capping of ACM. The
cleanup objective was achieved through the response actions conducted
between September 1997 and September 1999.
Operations and Maintenance
The O&M Plan for OU3 includes maintenance of the permanent features
such as the surface water drainage improvements and the Site A biotic
cap. The O&M plan also requires the implementation of a groundwater
monitoring program that meets the requirements of the New Jersey
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System regulations. FWS is responsible
for implementing the OU3 O&M plan.
In addition to O&M activities, FWS has implemented institutional
controls at OU3 to ensure the continued integrity of the capped areas.
OU3 institutional controls include the following: (1) Restricted access
via a gated road; (2) posted signs indicating closed areas; (3) law
enforcement presence; (4) altered trail system to divert people from
the landfill area; and (5) periodic inspections. The OU3 property is
located entirely within the GSNWR. As part of the National Wilderness
Area, the remediated OU3 area is protected from development or future
land uses that might potentially conflict with the remedial design. Any
changes to this designation would be subject to Congressional approval.
As such, the land will be managed in perpetuity as wildlife habitat
with very limited public use and access insofar as these activities are
consistent and compatible with the O&M actions that have been
prescribed for the Site.
Five Year Review for All Operable Units
The first Five-Year Review was completed for the Site in September
2000. The results of the second Five-Year Review, which was completed
in September 2005, indicated that there is no significant off-site
migration of contaminants and that the remedies for OU1, OU2 and OU3
are functioning as intended by the respective RODs. Since contaminants
remain contained on-site, EPA will continue to conduct statutory five-
year reviews of the implemented remedies. The next review is scheduled
to be completed by September 2010.
Community Involvement for All Operable Units
Community involvement activities for the Asbestos Dump Superfund
Site have been conducted in accordance with CERCLA requirements. Public
meetings have been held for remedial milestones such as the
presentation of the Proposed Plan, RI and FS reports and for the public
comment period. Additional meetings were held with the public and/or
stakeholders on an as needed basis throughout the remedial process.
Documents comprising the administrative record were made available to
the public at the Passaic Township Free Public Library in Sterling, New
Jersey. Community notifications were also issued for the site Five-Year
Reviews. A more detailed account of community involvement activities
may be found in the Asbestos Dump Superfund Site Close Out Report.
Determination That the Site Meets the Criteria for Deletion in the NCP
The NCP specifies that EPA may delete a site from the NPL if ``all
appropriate responsible parties or other persons have implemented all
appropriate response actions required'' or ``all appropriate Fund-
financed response under CERCLA has been implemented, and no further
response action by responsible parties is appropriate''. 40 CFR
300.425(e)(1). EPA, with concurrence of the State of New Jersey through
the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection by a letter dated
February 19, 2009, believes these criteria for deletion have been
satisfied. Therefore, EPA is proposing the deletion of the site from
the NPL. All of the completion requirements from the site have been met
as described in the Superfund Final Close-Out Report, dated November
10, 2009. Documents supporting this action are available in the site
file and deletion dockets.
V. Deletion Action
The EPA, with concurrence of the State of New Jersey through the
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, has determined that
all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other than operation,
maintenance, and five-year reviews, have been completed. 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 July 12, 2010 unless EPA receives adverse comments by June
10, 2010. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public
comment period, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct
final notice of deletion before the effective date of the deletion, and
it will not take effect. 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.
[[Page 26137]]
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.
Dated: April 1, 2010.
Judith A. Enck,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
0
For the reasons set out in this document, 40 CFR part 300 is amended as
follows:
PART 300--[AMENDED]
0
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.
0
2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 is amended by removing ``Asbestos
Dump, Millington, NJ'' from the table.
[FR Doc. 2010-10849 Filed 5-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P