National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the Norwood PCBs Superfund Site, 18066-18072 [2011-7775]
Download as PDF
18066
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
environmental justice in this
rulemaking.
In addition, this rule does not have
Tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the
submitted rule is not approved to apply
in Indian country located in the State,
and EPA notes that it will not impose
substantial direct costs on Tribal
governments or preempt Tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this action and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by May 31, 2011. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the
Administrator of this final rule does not
affect the finality of this action for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it
extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed, and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action. This action may not
be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements (see section
307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Authority: This action is issued under the
authority of Title III of the Clean Air Act as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 7412.
Dated: March 3, 2011.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Part 63, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:52 Mar 31, 2011
Jkt 223001
PART 63—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 63
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart A—General Provisions
2. Section 63.14 is amended by
revising paragraph (d)(1) to read as
follows:
■
§ 63.14
Incorporations by reference.
(d) * * *
(1) California Regulatory
Requirements Applicable to the Air
Toxics Program, November 16, 2010,
IBR approved for § 63.99(a)(5)(ii) of
Subpart E of this part.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart E—Approval of State
Programs and Delegation of Federal
Authorities
3. Section 63.99 is amended as
follows:
■ a. By revising paragraph (a)(5)(ii)
introductory text;
■ b. By revising paragraph (a)(5)(ii)(A)
introductory text;
■ c. By revising paragraph
(a)(5)(ii)(A)(1)(ii);
■ d. By adding paragraph
(a)(5)(ii)(A)(1)(iii); and
■ e. By removing and reserving
paragraphs (a)(5)(ii)(B) and (D).
■
§ 63.99
Delegated Federal authorities.
(a) * * *
(5) * * *
(ii) California approvals other than
straight delegation. Affected sources
must comply with the California
Regulatory Requirements Applicable to
the Air Toxics Program, November 16,
2010, (incorporated by reference as
specified in § 63.14) as described as
follows:
(A) The material incorporated in
Chapter 1 of the California Regulatory
Requirements Applicable to the Air
Toxics Program (California Code of
Regulations Title 17, sections 93109,
93109.1, and 93109.2) pertains to the
perchloroethylene dry cleaning source
category in the State of California, and
has been approved under the
procedures in § 63.93 to be
implemented and enforced in place of
subpart M—National Perchloroethylene
Air Emission Standards for Dry
Cleaning Facilities, as it applies to area
sources only, as defined in § 63.320(h).
(1) * * *
(ii) California is not delegated the
Administrator’s authority of § 63.325 to
determine equivalency of emissions
control technologies. Any source
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
seeking permission to use an alternative
means of emission limitation, under
sections 93109(d)(27) or (38), or
(i)(3)(A)(2), Title 17 of the California
Code of Regulations, must also receive
approval from the Administrator before
using such alternative means of
emission limitation for the purpose of
complying with section 112 of the Clean
Air Act.
(iii) This delegation does not extend
to the provisions regarding California’s
enforcement authorities or its collection
of fees as described in Sections
93109.1(c) or 93109.2(c) and (d), Title
17 of the California Code of Regulations.
Approval of the California Code of
Regulations, Title 17, sections 93109,
93109.1, and 93109.2 does not in any
way limit the enforcement authorities,
including the penalty authorities, of the
Clean Air Act.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2011–7603 Filed 3–31–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 80
Regulation of Fuels and Fuel
Additives: Changes to Renewable Fuel
Standard Program
CFR Correction
In Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, Parts 72 to 80, revised as of
July 1, 2010, on page 1160, in § 80.1466,
in paragraph (h)(1), the equation is
corrected to read as follows:
§ 80.1466 What are the additional
requirements under this subpart for RINgenerating foreign producers and importers
of renewable fuels for which RINs have
been generated by the foreign producer?
*
*
*
*
(h) * * *
(1) * * *
Bond = G * $0.01
*
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2011–7822 Filed 3–31–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505–01–D
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1986–0005; FRL–9288–9]
National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion
of the Norwood PCBs Superfund Site
AGENCY:
Environmental Protection
Agency.
E:\FR\FM\01APR1.SGM
01APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
ACTION:
Direct final rule.
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Region 1 is publishing a
direct final Notice of Deletion of the
Norwood PCBs Superfund Site (Site),
located in Norwood Massachusetts 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
Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
through the Massachusetts Department
of Environmental Protection (MassDEP),
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 CERCLA.
DATES: This direct final deletion is
effective May 31, 2011 unless EPA
receives adverse comments by May 2,
2011. If adverse comment(s) 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.
SUMMARY:
Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
SFUND–1986–0005, by one of the
following methods:
• https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• E-mail: keefe.daniel@epa.gov.
• Fax: 1–617–918–0327.
• Mail: Daniel Keefe, U.S. EPA
Remedial Project Manager, 5 Post Office
Square (OSRR07–1), Boston, MA 02109–
3912.
• Hand delivery to the following
address: Daniel Keefe, 5 Post Office
Square (OSRR07–1), Boston, MA 02109.
Such deliveries are only accepted
during the EPA’s normal hours of
operation (9 a.m. to 5 p.m.), and special
arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–SFUND–1986–
0005. 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
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
ADDRESSES:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:52 Mar 31, 2011
Jkt 223001
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
either:
EPA Region 1 Record Center, 5 Post
Office Square, Boston, MA 02109,
Phone: 1–617–918–1440, Hours:
Mon–Fri 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Norwood Morrill Memorial Library, 33
Walpole Street, Norwood, MA, Phone:
781–769–0200, Hours: Mon–Thurs
9 a.m. to 9 p.m.; Friday 10 a.m. to
5 p.m.; Saturday 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.;
Sunday 2 a.m. to 5 p.m.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Daniel Keefe, Remedial Project Manager,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 1; 5 Post Office Square, Boston,
MA 02109; Mailcode: OSRR07–01, or by
phone at (617) 918–1327, or by e-mail
at keefe.daniel@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
18067
IV. Basis for Site Deletion
V. Deletion Action
I. Introduction
EPA Region 1 is publishing this direct
final Notice of Deletion for the Norwood
PCBs Superfund site (Site) thus
removing the Site from the National
Priorities List (NPL). The NPL
constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part
300, which is the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA
promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of
the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability
Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended.
EPA 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 May 31, 2011
unless EPA receives adverse comments
by May 2, 2011. 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 Norwood PCBs
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
E:\FR\FM\01APR1.SGM
01APR1
18068
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
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 CERLA 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
Commonwealth of Massachusetts 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) EPA has provided the
Commonwealth thirty (30) working days
for review of this Notice and the parallel
Notice of Intent to Delete prior to their
publication today, and the
Commonwealth, through the MassDEP,
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,
the Norwood Record. 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:52 Mar 31, 2011
Jkt 223001
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 following information provides
EPA’s rationale for deleting the Site
from the NPL:
Site Background and History
The Norwood PCBs Superfund Site
(CERCLIS No. MAD980670566) is
located in Norwood, Massachusetts,
approximately 14 miles southwest of the
City of Boston. Land use consists
predominately of industrial/commercial
properties and associated parking areas
in an industrial/commercial area. To the
north, the Site is bordered by residential
properties, to the east by Route 1 and
the Dean Street access road, to the south
by Dean Street, and to the west by
residential properties. The northern
portion of the Site consists of a portion
of Meadow Brook.
Contamination originated from
disposal practices of the parties who
owned the property or operated
businesses on the Site (the Facility). The
former on-site building was constructed
in 1942 by Bendix Aviation
Corporation, which produced
navigational control systems for the U.S.
Navy. In October 1947, the land was
purchased by Tobe Deutschman
Corporation, which manufactured
electrical equipment. The property was
purchased in 1956 by Cornell-Dubilier
Electronics, Inc., which also
manufactured electrical equipment at
the facility. In January 1960, the
property was owned by Maryvale
Corporation, and was then purchased by
the Friedland brothers. The Friedland
brothers leased the property to Federal
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Pacific Electric Company, which held
the lease on the property until October
1979. During the period from 1960 to
1979, Federal Pacific Electric Company
operated a business at the Site, and
sublet portions of the facility to CornellDubilier Electronics, Inc. and to Arrow
Hart Corporation, which also
manufactured electrical equipment. In
1979, the Site was subdivided. The
northeastern portion of the Site,
approximately 9 acres, was purchased
by Grant Gear Realty Trust, which
leased the facility to Grant Gear Works,
Inc., to produce gears for various
industries. The southern and western
portions of the Site, approximately 16
acres, were purchased by Paul
Birmingham, Paul Reardon, and Jack
Reardon who further subdivided the
property into seven lots and added a
new private way (Kerry Place). On the
east site of the Site runs Meadow Brook
through a property owned by the Town
of Norwood which contains a town
sewer easement.
In 1983, MassDEP received a call from
an abutting resident reporting past
industrial waste dumping and
contamination in the then vacant field
of Kerry Place. As a result, an initial
investigation was conducted which
confirmed the presence of PCBs. EPA
contractors assisted MassDEP with the
collection of samples and based on
these findings, it was determined that
an emergency removal was warranted.
EPA removed and disposed (off-site)
518 tons of contaminated soil. During
the removal, water samples taken from
the storm drain system behind the Grant
Gear Building indicated low levels of
PCBs. In October 1984, the Site was
proposed for inclusion on the NPL (49
FR 40320) and was formally added on
June 10, 1986 (51 FR 21054).
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility
Study (RI/FS)
The Remedial Investigations/
Feasibility Study (RI/FS) was completed
in 1989. During the investigation the
following media were evaluated: air,
surface soil, subsurface soil, dredge
piles, Meadow Brook sediments, surface
water, groundwater, and the Grant Gear
Building. The highest concentration of
PCBs in soil was in a former disposal
area in the western and northern
portions of the Grant Gear property
where up to 26,000 parts per million
(ppm) were identified. The estimated
total volume of contaminated soil in
both saturated and unsaturated soil with
PCB concentrations greater than 10 ppm
was 31,550 cubic yards (yd3). Soils were
also found to be contaminated, although
to a lesser extent, with VOCs, SVOCs
and metals.
E:\FR\FM\01APR1.SGM
01APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Contaminants released to Meadow
Brook included PCBs, VOCs, and
metals. Within sediments, the primary
transport mechanism for PCBs was the
movement of sediment to which the
PCBs are attached. PCBs detected in
sediment ranged up to 1,100 ppm in
Meadow Brook and up to 3,850 ppm in
former sediment dredge piles.
With regard to groundwater,
contaminants include PCBs, VOCs and
SVOCs with the highest concentrations
generally being detected west of the
former Grant Gear building.
Groundwater contamination was
detected in both overburden and
bedrock aquifers with trichloroethylene
having the highest concentration (1,800
parts per billion (ppb)) in overburden
and vinyl chloride in bedrock (110 ppb).
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Selected Remedy
In September 1989, EPA issued a ROD
for the Norwood PCBs site. The
Remedial Action Objectives outlined in
the 1989 ROD to address contaminated
buildings, soils, sediments, and
groundwater at the Site are as follows:
• To minimize the continued release
of hazardous substances to Meadow
Brook.
• To reduce risks to workers
associated with direct contact with PCBcontaminated surfaces.
• To reduce risks to workers
associated with inhalation of airborne
PCBs within the Grant Gear Building.
• Reduce risks posed by direct
contact with soil contaminated with
PCBs and P AHs.
• Reduce risks posed by incidental
ingestion of soils contaminated with
PCBs and PAHs.
• Mitigate any future impacts of such
remedial activities to Meadow Brook
and the surrounding wetland areas.
• Minimize migration of VOCs to
groundwater.
• Reduce, within a reasonable time
frame, risks to workers posed by
inhalation of airborne contaminants
volatilized from groundwater.
• Reduce risks to human health and
the environment from current and
future migration of contaminants in
groundwater.
Major components of the 1989 remedy
include:
• Decontamination of surfaces of
machinery, equipment, and floors
within the plant areas of the Grant Gear
Building;
• Excavation of approximately 34,000
cubic yards of PCB-contaminated soils
and sediments and treatment by solvent
extraction;
• Backfilling of soils and sediments to
be covered with asphalt or clean fill;
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:52 Mar 31, 2011
Jkt 223001
• Construction and operation of a
Groundwater Treatment Plant (GWTP)
to remediate groundwater;
• Restoration of impacted wetlands;
• Long-term monitoring; and
• Institutional controls (ICs)
As a result of higher than anticipated
solvent extraction costs and logistical
problems with its implementation, and
in consideration of the likely
commercial/industrial reuse of the
property, EPA issued a ROD
Amendment in May 1996. The ROD
Amendment included the demolition of
the Grant Gear building, the excavation
and consolidation of contaminated soils
and sediments on site, and the
construction of a permanent cap. Soil
and sediment clean-up goals were
further modified as discussed in the
Cleanup Goals section.
In accordance with EPA’s 1996 Final
Ground Water Use and Value
Determination Guidance, in May 2001,
MassDEP submitted a ‘‘low’’ use and
value determination for the groundwater
at and in the vicinity of the Site. This
determination was made based on the
aquifer’s classification as a nonpotential drinking water source area, as
well as the fact that nearby residential
and commercial properties are supplied
by public, municipal drinking water
sources.
As a result of MassDEP’s ‘‘low’’ use
and value determination, the
contaminant exposure pathways and
exposure assumptions used for the ROD
were re-evaluated. Accordingly,
supplemental risk assessment activities
were initiated in 2001 and were
completed in 2004. As the result of
these assessments, revised groundwater
clean-up levels, or risk-based action
levels (RBALs), were calculated. These
were subsequently adopted as
groundwater Cleanup goals in a 2005
Explanation of Significant Differences
(ESD). Current groundwater clean-up
goals are listed in the Clean-up Goal
section.
Response Actions
Remedial activities were completed in
a single Operable Unit (OU); however,
the activities consisted of the following
phases: Phase 1 was completed by the
EPA and consisted of groundwater
treatment plant construction and
operation; Phase 2 was conducted by
the Settling Parties and consisted of
building demolition; Phase 3 was
conducted jointly by the Settling Parties
and EPA and consisted of the
construction of a cap and cover over
consolidated contaminated soil and
sediments (Phase 3A—Settling Partylead) and Meadow Brook Restoration
(Phase 3B—EPA lead).
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
18069
For EPA-lead activities, such as the
GWTP, the design criteria were set forth
in the final ‘‘Plans and Specifications for
the Groundwater Remediation at the
Norwood PCB Superfund Site’’ prepared
by Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. on behalf of
EPA in 1994. Meadow Brook
Restoration Phase (Phase 3b) was
completed in accordance with a UASCE
Statement of Work (SOW), which
included design details provided by the
Town of Norwood as part of its flood
control/flood mitigation project. Design
criteria for the Settling Party-lead
cleanup work (to address risks
associated with the former Grant Gear
facility and its operations) were set forth
in the Statement of Work (SOW) which
was part of a 1996 Consent Decree with
former owners and operators of the
Facility (hereafter referred to as the
‘‘Facility CD’’) as well as the Remedial
Action Work Plans submitted by the
Settling Parties and approved by EPA
consistent with the SOW.
Sediment
The Settling Parties performed
excavation of sediments in Meadow
Brook from April 1997 through July
1998. The Meadow Brook remediation
was divided into three sections referred
to as Reach 1, 2, and 3. The excavation
of Reach 1 was completed with
excavation limits determined by the
Town of Norwood as this section of the
Brook was also targeted for sediment
removal as part of the Town’s flood
control/flood mitigation project.
Following the excavation of Reach 1 to
grades provided by the Town, an area of
stained soils was evident at/below a
former drainage outfall pipe. Based on
the analytical results showing PCBs
greater than 1 ppm, a limited removal of
the stained sediment was performed. In
total, approximately 2,500 yd3 of
material was excavated from Reach
1including 85 yd3 of stained soil.
The excavation of Reaches 2 and 3
was performed in two phases—the first
consisted of sediment removal from the
arched culvert section at Dean Street,
and the second consisted of sediment
removal from the box culvert section.
Once clean-up levels (1 ppm in
sediment) were achieved, sediment
removal activities were terminated.
Approximately 2,300 yd3 of material
was excavated from these reaches.
Soil
Soils with PCB concentrations
exceeding the appropriate clean-up
levels were excavated from several onproperty areas. In addition, a
trichlorobenzene (TCB)-contaminated
soil area was identified west of the
former Grant Gear building; this was
E:\FR\FM\01APR1.SGM
01APR1
18070
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
also excavated. Approximately 5,900
yd3 of PCB-contaminated soil was
excavated from the North Cover Area
and stockpiled for placement under the
cap/cover. Approximately 2,600 yd3 of
PCB-contaminated soil was excavated
from the South Cover Area and
stockpiled for placement under the cap/
cover.
With regard to off-property soils,
several areas were identified with PCB
concentrations exceeding the
appropriate clean-up levels. During the
remediation of Reach 1 of Meadow
Brook, PCB-contaminated soils were
identified along the North Bank Wooded
Area. Approximately 100 yd3 of soil was
excavated and stockpiled for placement
under the cap/cover. In addition, PCBcontaminated soils were discovered
along the South Bank Wooded Area
resulting in the excavation of
approximately 780 yd3 of soil.
Beginning in 1997, the stockpiled
soils were further consolidated on-site.
Materials with PCB concentrations
exceeding the risk-based, site-specific
industrial/commercial clean-up levels
(of 70 ppm) were placed within the
limits of the asphalt cap. Materials with
PCB concentrations below clean-up
level of 70 ppm, but above 40 ppm,
were placed within the limits of the
cover areas. During soil excavation and
consolidation, on-site underground
storage tanks (USTs) were also removed
before the cap and cover were installed.
After the PCB-contaminated materials
had been placed, the areas were
prepared for the installation of the cap
and covers. Once the fill was placed to
the appropriate grade 12 inches below
the final grade in capped and covered
areas, a non-woven geotextile filter
fabric was laid across the areas.
Subsequently, an asphalt Cap or gravel
cover was installed in the appropriate
areas.
Groundwater
The selected remedy for the
management of groundwater migration
included the collection of groundwater
using an extraction system consisting
shallow extraction wells and the
construction of a GWTP consisting of
carbon adsorption, air stripping,
precipitation, and filtration. The GWTP
was constructed in 1995 and deemed
operational and functional in February
1997.
The groundwater treatment system
was operational until it was shut down
(at that time temporarily) in June of
2000. As a result of the revised
groundwater classification and ‘‘low’’
use and value ascribed by MassDEP in
2001, groundwater cleanup goals were
further modified in an 2005 ESD.
Subsequently, EPA determined that no
further groundwater clean-up was
warranted as revised clean-up goals
were being met. The GWTP was
dismantled in March 2008 just prior to
property redevelopment.
Institutional Controls
As required by a Prospective
Purchaser Agreement (PPA) entered in
1997 between the owner and the EPA,
the Owner updated and recorded (with
the Norfolk County Registry of Deeds)
updated ICs in the form of a Grant of
Environmental Restrictions and
Easement (GERE). The GERE was
recorded in March 2008 and entered
into Book No. 25628, Page No. 534. The
GERE restricts certain activities such as
day care, residential use, and
groundwater withdrawal (among others)
and permits other activities, such as
excavation, provided certain safety
procedures are followed and approvals
obtained. Under the terms of a 1997
Consent Decree (hereafter referred to as
the ‘‘Meadow Brook CD’’) the Town of
Norwood also established ICs on the
Meadow Brook parcel (recorded at Book
No. 26407, Page No. 129).
Cleanup Goals
The cleanup goals for PBCs in soil
and sediment were modified as a result
the 1996 ROD Amendment (see table
below):
Property
1989 ROD
Grant Gear Property ........................................................................................................................
10 ppm ......................
Adjacent Commercial Property ........................................................................................................
25 ppm ......................
Soil between Grant Gear and Meadow Brook ................................................................................
1 ppm ........................
Sediment ..........................................................................................................................................
Residential Properties ......................................................................................................................
1 ppm ........................
1 ppm ........................
Contaminated soil and sediment were
excavated and consolidated on property
for placement within the cap or cover
depending on the level of
contamination. Post-excavation
sampling was conducted and described
in the remedial action Remediation
value. A ‘‘Low’’ designation indicates
that it is not a future drinking water
source. Accordingly, change to the
original GW cleanup goals (which were
based on MCLs) were documented in
the 2005 ESD and are summarized
below:
Completion Report prepared by
consultants on behalf of the Settling
Parties.
With regard to Groundwater, as
described previously, the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
classified groundwater beneath and
adjacent to the site as ‘‘Low’’ use and
1996 ROD–A
40 ppm surface.
70 ppm subsurface.
40 ppm surface.
70 ppm subsurface.
10 ppm surface.
50 ppm subsurface.
1 ppm.
No action required.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Contaminant
1989 ROD
Trichloroethene ......................................................................................................................................................
Tetrachloroethene .................................................................................................................................................
Vinyl Chloride ........................................................................................................................................................
Total 1,2-dichloroethenes ......................................................................................................................................
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene ...........................................................................................................................................
1,4-dichlorobenzene ..............................................................................................................................................
5 ppb ..............
5 ppb ...............
2 ppb ..............
175 ppb ...........
350 ppb ..........
5 ppb ...............
EPA conducted quarterly groundwater
monitoring from April 1996 until
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:52 Mar 31, 2011
Jkt 223001
October 2002 which coincided with the
period of GWTP operation and shortly
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2005 ESD
108 ppb.
37 ppb.
310 ppb.
3660 ppb.
34 ppb.
4.6 ppb.
thereafter. Surface water samples were
also periodically collected from
E:\FR\FM\01APR1.SGM
01APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Meadow Brook. Several years after plant
shutdown (i.e. in 2005), EPA completed
a final comprehensive groundwater
evaluation and the resulting report
documented no ROD-specified
contaminants in groundwater above
their respective groundwater clean-up
goals established in the ESD. Having
confirmed that all groundwater clean-up
goals were being met (approximately 5
years after GWTP shut down), it was
determined by USEPA and MassDEP
that the GWTP was no longer necessary.
Operation and Maintenance
As described previously, remedial
activities were completed in 3 phases
(the third phase consisting of both a
Phase 3A and Phase 3B).
Phase 1—Groundwater Treatment Plant
Based on achieving revised
groundwater clean-up goals modified in
the 2005 ESD, in 2006, EPA determined
that the GWTP had reached the end of
its ‘‘useful life’’ for all uses relative to
site response activities. Accordingly,
EPA proceeded to remove chemical
processing equipment from the GWTP
and decommission extraction and
monitoring wells that were not part of
the long-term monitoring. In a letter
dated April 5, 2007, EPA provided
notice to the owner that, as per the PPA,
EPA had completed its
decommissioning activities.
Subsequently, on May 16, 2007, EPA
received notice from the owner of his
intention not to reuse the GWTP
building. A work plan for its
dismantling was submitted and
approved in September 2007. The
building was removed in the Spring of
2008. No long-term O&M of the
treatment plant is required. On-going
evaluation of groundwater is provided
by groundwater samples collected by
the Settling Parties to the Facility CD as
part of their on-going O&M of the Cap
and Covers (see Phase 3A below).
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Phase 2—Building Demolition
The building demolition phase took
place immediately prior to and in
connection with the relocation of soil
and sediment, and the construction of
the cap and covers. Accordingly there is
no O&M associated with this RA.
Phase 3A—Cap and Covers
The O&M and Environmental
Monitoring Plans (EMP) were approved
in November 2004. Consistent with
these plans, the Settling Parties to the
Facility CD annually inspect the cap
and covers. As a result of
redevelopment, certain cover areas have
been replaced with a new type of cover
(referred to as ‘‘foundation cover’’). In
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:52 Mar 31, 2011
Jkt 223001
addition, certain monitoring wells
selected for long-term monitoring have
been re-located. Accordingly, revised
O&M and EMP plans were submitted in
April 2010 and subsequently approved
in January 2011.
Phase 3B—Meadow Brook Restoration
At the completion of this restoration,
and in light of design details provided
by the Town of Norwood to insure
consistency with other flood mitigation
projects, an Operation Manual was
provided to the Town of Norwood in
2000. The Operation Manual described
recommended procedures and
inspections to ensure that the completed
project continues to function as
designed and that the flood control
infrastructure remains in place to
prevent the release of any subsurface
contamination.
Institutional Controls
EPA and the State will periodically
(not less than annually) inspect the
property to insure that usage has not
deviated from those allowed by the ICs.
Under the GERE recorded on the
Facility property, the landowner is
obligated to follow procedures to ensure
that Site redevelopment does not
damage components of the remedy. On
the Meadow Brook property, the Town
is obligated under the terms of the
Meadow Brook CD to ensure that no
release of subsurface contamination
occurs either in its maintenance of flood
control structures or its sewer easement
through the area. The status and
protectiveness of these IC will be
summarized in successive five year
reviews.
Redevelopment
In 1997, the 9-acre Grant Gear
property was sold and the new owner
obtained a PPA from EPA which
required the owner to guarantee
continued site access, dismantle the
Groundwater Treatment Plant (GWTP)
building (when it had reached the end
of its ‘‘useful life’’), as well as record
updated Institutional Controls.
Subsequently (early 2000s), the owner
entered a 99-year ground lease with a
commercial/retail developer. In 2003,
the developer proposed a large
(> 150,000 square feet) redevelopment;
however, this would have been situated
predominantly over the remedial cap
and would have required excavation
into contaminated soil. Based on local
concerns associated with disturbing the
capped area, traffic, and other local land
use issues, this redevelopment was not
approved by the Town.
Thus, in 2007, a different commercial/
retail developer proposed modifications
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
18071
to the original redevelopment plan
including the construction of buildings
around the footprint of the capped
portion of the site. This reuse would
ensure that none of the highestcontaminated material would be
exposed. The revised work plan for
redevelopment (WPR) was approved by
EPA and MassDEP in March 2008, after
which the developer received the
necessary Town approvals. Construction
ensued in May 2008 and was
substantially complete in October 2008.
As a precaution and to ensure against
the accumulation of vapors from
groundwater to indoor air, a passive
vapor mitigation system was required
and installed in each of the commercial
building. As required in the WPR, post
construction and prior to occupancy,
sub-slab air samples were collected and
analyzed and a risk assessment
completed. Based on this analysis, the
risks were found to be acceptable (i.e.,
less than 1 × 10¥6) for a future
commercial worker. Moreover, based on
local zoning as well as restriction
recorded against the property (described
further below), residential use is
prohibited. In the future, as necessary
and pending future monitoring results,
the sub-slab ventilation systems can be
made to be actively vented with the
addition of blowers or vacuum pumps.
Presently, two buildings totaling
56,000 square feet of commercial/retail
space are situated on the Norwood PCBs
site. The cap, under which is located the
highest concentrations of PCBs, serves
as a central parking lot for the
development. To date, the development
is not occupied.
Five-Year Review
Since hazardous substances will
remain on the site above levels allowing
for unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure, statutory five year reviews
have been conducted by EPA pursuant
to CERCLA Section 121 C as provided
in OSWER Directive 9355.7–03B–P,
Comprehensive Five-Year Review
Guidance.
The First Five-Year Review, dated 30
December 1999, concluded that the
remedy was protective and
recommended that, in light of the State’s
reclassification of groundwater, a risk
assessment be competed. Upon attaining
revised risk-based clean-up levels,
groundwater treatment was no longer
required, but monitoring was continued
to verify that revised groundwater
standards would continue to be met.
The Second Five-Year Review, dated
29 December 2004, concluded that the
remedy was short-term protective of
human health and the environment
based on continued compliance with
E:\FR\FM\01APR1.SGM
01APR1
18072
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
new clean-up goals. In addition, O&M
plans were submitted for both the
Facility and Meadow Brook properties.
The 2004 review also concluded that in
order for the remedy to remain
protective in the long-term, the
following actions needed to be taken: 1.
updated institutional controls needed to
be recorded, and 2. Operation and
Maintenance (including monitoring)
needed to be conducted regularly [both
of which have since occurred].
The Third Five-Year Review,
completed in December 2009,
concluded that the remedy at the
Norwood PCBs Site continues to protect
human health and the environment
through meeting groundwater clean-up
goals, the establishment of institutional
controls, and the maintenance of
remedy infrastructure concurrently
during redevelopment of the Site. The
2009 Five Year Review also concluded
that in order for the remedy to remain
protective, the Operation & Maintenance
(O&M) Plan and Environmental
Monitoring Plan (EMP) must be updated
to reflect changes in site conditions as
a result of the redevelopment. These
have been updated and approved
(January 2011).
The Fourth Five-Year Review is due
in December 2014.
Community Involvement
EPA community participation at the
site has taken many forms. In addition
to statutorily-required meetings and
public hearings associated with the
1989 ROD and 1996 ROD Amendment,
EPA has participated in numerous other
outreach activities. EPA conducted
public outreach during each of the three
five-year reviews. EPA prepared
updated Fact Sheets in 2003, 2005, and
2007. The Fact Sheets were distributed
to mailing list recipients as well as
hand-distributed to all abutting
residences and business owners. Extra
copies of the fact sheets have been made
available to the public at the following
locations: the Norwood Public library
and Norwood Town Hall.
In addition, EPA has attended
numerous Public Meetings during the
site redevelopment approval process.
All Community Involvement activities
required and in association with this
proposed deletion have been completed,
including the publication of a notice in
a local newspaper of general circulation
regarding this proposed deletion and the
availability of documents located in the
Deletion Docket.
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:52 Mar 31, 2011
Jkt 223001
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’’. EPA, with the concurrence
of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
through the MassDEP by a letter dated
[Date], 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 for the site have been met
as described in the Norwood PCBs Final
Close Out Report (FCOR) dated
September 2009.
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.
V. Deletion Action
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION
The EPA, with concurrence of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
through the MassDEP has determined
that all appropriate response actions
under CERCLA, other than operation
and maintenance, routine monitoring,
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 May 31, 2011
unless EPA receives adverse comments
by May 2, 2011. 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.
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: March 17, 2011.
Ira W. Leighton,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region
1.
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:
■
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Appendix B to Part 300 [Amended]
2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300
is amended by removing ’’Norwood
PCBs’’, ‘‘Norwood, MA’’.
■
[FR Doc. 2011–7775 Filed 3–31–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
GENERAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
48 CFR Part 53
Federal Acquisition Regulation;
Government Property Disposal; Forms
CFR Correction
In Title 48 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, Chapter 1 (Parts 52 to 99),
revised as of October 1, 2010, on page
527, in § 53.301–1423, the second
Inventory Verification Survey form and
the source note following it are
removed.
[FR Doc. 2011–7810 Filed 3–31–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505–01–D
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
49 CFR Part 40
Procedures for Transportation
Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing
Programs
CFR Correction
In Title 49 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, Parts 1 to 99, revised as of
October 1, 2010, on page 571, in § 40.97,
add paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (ii) to read
as follows; and on page 572, in the same
section, redesignate paragraphs (d)(1),
(2) and (3) as (e)(1), (2) and (3).
§ 40.97 What do laboratories report and
how do they report it?
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Positive, with drug(s)/metabolite(s)
noted, with numerical values for the
drug(s) or drug metabolite(s).
(ii) Positive-dilute, with drug(s)/
metabolite(s) noted, with numerical
values for the drug(s) or drug
E:\FR\FM\01APR1.SGM
01APR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 63 (Friday, April 1, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18066-18072]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7775]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1986-0005; FRL-9288-9]
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Deletion of the Norwood PCBs Superfund Site
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
[[Page 18067]]
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 1 is
publishing a direct final Notice of Deletion of the Norwood PCBs
Superfund Site (Site), located in Norwood Massachusetts 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 Commonwealth of Massachusetts, through the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP), 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 CERCLA.
DATES: This direct final deletion is effective May 31, 2011 unless EPA
receives adverse comments by May 2, 2011. If adverse comment(s) 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-1986-0005, by one of the following methods:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow on-line instructions
for submitting comments.
E-mail: keefe.daniel@epa.gov.
Fax: 1-617-918-0327.
Mail: Daniel Keefe, U.S. EPA Remedial Project Manager, 5
Post Office Square (OSRR07-1), Boston, MA 02109-3912.
Hand delivery to the following address: Daniel Keefe, 5
Post Office Square (OSRR07-1), Boston, MA 02109. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the EPA's normal hours of operation (9 a.m. to 5
p.m.), and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
1986-0005. 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 either:
EPA Region 1 Record Center, 5 Post Office Square, Boston, MA 02109,
Phone: 1-617-918-1440, Hours: Mon-Fri 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Norwood Morrill Memorial Library, 33 Walpole Street, Norwood, MA,
Phone: 781-769-0200, Hours: Mon-Thurs 9 a.m. to 9 p.m.; Friday 10 a.m.
to 5 p.m.; Saturday 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.; Sunday 2 a.m. to 5 p.m.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Keefe, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 1; 5 Post Office
Square, Boston, MA 02109; Mailcode: OSRR07-01, or by phone at (617)
918-1327, or by e-mail at keefe.daniel@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 1 is publishing this direct final Notice of Deletion for
the Norwood PCBs Superfund site (Site) thus removing the Site from the
National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40
CFR part 300, which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to
Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. EPA 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 May 31, 2011 unless EPA receives
adverse comments by May 2, 2011. 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 Norwood PCBs 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
[[Page 18068]]
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 CERLA 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 Commonwealth of Massachusetts 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) EPA has provided the Commonwealth thirty (30) working days for
review of this Notice and the parallel Notice of Intent to Delete prior
to their publication today, and the Commonwealth, through the MassDEP,
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, the
Norwood Record. 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 following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting the
Site from the NPL:
Site Background and History
The Norwood PCBs Superfund Site (CERCLIS No. MAD980670566) is
located in Norwood, Massachusetts, approximately 14 miles southwest of
the City of Boston. Land use consists predominately of industrial/
commercial properties and associated parking areas in an industrial/
commercial area. To the north, the Site is bordered by residential
properties, to the east by Route 1 and the Dean Street access road, to
the south by Dean Street, and to the west by residential properties.
The northern portion of the Site consists of a portion of Meadow Brook.
Contamination originated from disposal practices of the parties who
owned the property or operated businesses on the Site (the Facility).
The former on-site building was constructed in 1942 by Bendix Aviation
Corporation, which produced navigational control systems for the U.S.
Navy. In October 1947, the land was purchased by Tobe Deutschman
Corporation, which manufactured electrical equipment. The property was
purchased in 1956 by Cornell-Dubilier Electronics, Inc., which also
manufactured electrical equipment at the facility. In January 1960, the
property was owned by Maryvale Corporation, and was then purchased by
the Friedland brothers. The Friedland brothers leased the property to
Federal Pacific Electric Company, which held the lease on the property
until October 1979. During the period from 1960 to 1979, Federal
Pacific Electric Company operated a business at the Site, and sublet
portions of the facility to Cornell-Dubilier Electronics, Inc. and to
Arrow Hart Corporation, which also manufactured electrical equipment.
In 1979, the Site was subdivided. The northeastern portion of the Site,
approximately 9 acres, was purchased by Grant Gear Realty Trust, which
leased the facility to Grant Gear Works, Inc., to produce gears for
various industries. The southern and western portions of the Site,
approximately 16 acres, were purchased by Paul Birmingham, Paul
Reardon, and Jack Reardon who further subdivided the property into
seven lots and added a new private way (Kerry Place). On the east site
of the Site runs Meadow Brook through a property owned by the Town of
Norwood which contains a town sewer easement.
In 1983, MassDEP received a call from an abutting resident
reporting past industrial waste dumping and contamination in the then
vacant field of Kerry Place. As a result, an initial investigation was
conducted which confirmed the presence of PCBs. EPA contractors
assisted MassDEP with the collection of samples and based on these
findings, it was determined that an emergency removal was warranted.
EPA removed and disposed (off-site) 518 tons of contaminated soil.
During the removal, water samples taken from the storm drain system
behind the Grant Gear Building indicated low levels of PCBs. In October
1984, the Site was proposed for inclusion on the NPL (49 FR 40320) and
was formally added on June 10, 1986 (51 FR 21054).
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)
The Remedial Investigations/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) was completed
in 1989. During the investigation the following media were evaluated:
air, surface soil, subsurface soil, dredge piles, Meadow Brook
sediments, surface water, groundwater, and the Grant Gear Building. The
highest concentration of PCBs in soil was in a former disposal area in
the western and northern portions of the Grant Gear property where up
to 26,000 parts per million (ppm) were identified. The estimated total
volume of contaminated soil in both saturated and unsaturated soil with
PCB concentrations greater than 10 ppm was 31,550 cubic yards (yd\3\).
Soils were also found to be contaminated, although to a lesser extent,
with VOCs, SVOCs and metals.
[[Page 18069]]
Contaminants released to Meadow Brook included PCBs, VOCs, and
metals. Within sediments, the primary transport mechanism for PCBs was
the movement of sediment to which the PCBs are attached. PCBs detected
in sediment ranged up to 1,100 ppm in Meadow Brook and up to 3,850 ppm
in former sediment dredge piles.
With regard to groundwater, contaminants include PCBs, VOCs and
SVOCs with the highest concentrations generally being detected west of
the former Grant Gear building. Groundwater contamination was detected
in both overburden and bedrock aquifers with trichloroethylene having
the highest concentration (1,800 parts per billion (ppb)) in overburden
and vinyl chloride in bedrock (110 ppb).
Selected Remedy
In September 1989, EPA issued a ROD for the Norwood PCBs site. The
Remedial Action Objectives outlined in the 1989 ROD to address
contaminated buildings, soils, sediments, and groundwater at the Site
are as follows:
To minimize the continued release of hazardous substances
to Meadow Brook.
To reduce risks to workers associated with direct contact
with PCB-contaminated surfaces.
To reduce risks to workers associated with inhalation of
airborne PCBs within the Grant Gear Building.
Reduce risks posed by direct contact with soil
contaminated with PCBs and P AHs.
Reduce risks posed by incidental ingestion of soils
contaminated with PCBs and PAHs.
Mitigate any future impacts of such remedial activities to
Meadow Brook and the surrounding wetland areas.
Minimize migration of VOCs to groundwater.
Reduce, within a reasonable time frame, risks to workers
posed by inhalation of airborne contaminants volatilized from
groundwater.
Reduce risks to human health and the environment from
current and future migration of contaminants in groundwater.
Major components of the 1989 remedy include:
Decontamination of surfaces of machinery, equipment, and
floors within the plant areas of the Grant Gear Building;
Excavation of approximately 34,000 cubic yards of PCB-
contaminated soils and sediments and treatment by solvent extraction;
Backfilling of soils and sediments to be covered with
asphalt or clean fill;
Construction and operation of a Groundwater Treatment
Plant (GWTP) to remediate groundwater;
Restoration of impacted wetlands;
Long-term monitoring; and
Institutional controls (ICs)
As a result of higher than anticipated solvent extraction costs and
logistical problems with its implementation, and in consideration of
the likely commercial/industrial reuse of the property, EPA issued a
ROD Amendment in May 1996. The ROD Amendment included the demolition of
the Grant Gear building, the excavation and consolidation of
contaminated soils and sediments on site, and the construction of a
permanent cap. Soil and sediment clean-up goals were further modified
as discussed in the Cleanup Goals section.
In accordance with EPA's 1996 Final Ground Water Use and Value
Determination Guidance, in May 2001, MassDEP submitted a ``low'' use
and value determination for the groundwater at and in the vicinity of
the Site. This determination was made based on the aquifer's
classification as a non-potential drinking water source area, as well
as the fact that nearby residential and commercial properties are
supplied by public, municipal drinking water sources.
As a result of MassDEP's ``low'' use and value determination, the
contaminant exposure pathways and exposure assumptions used for the ROD
were re-evaluated. Accordingly, supplemental risk assessment activities
were initiated in 2001 and were completed in 2004. As the result of
these assessments, revised groundwater clean-up levels, or risk-based
action levels (RBALs), were calculated. These were subsequently adopted
as groundwater Cleanup goals in a 2005 Explanation of Significant
Differences (ESD). Current groundwater clean-up goals are listed in the
Clean-up Goal section.
Response Actions
Remedial activities were completed in a single Operable Unit (OU);
however, the activities consisted of the following phases: Phase 1 was
completed by the EPA and consisted of groundwater treatment plant
construction and operation; Phase 2 was conducted by the Settling
Parties and consisted of building demolition; Phase 3 was conducted
jointly by the Settling Parties and EPA and consisted of the
construction of a cap and cover over consolidated contaminated soil and
sediments (Phase 3A--Settling Party-lead) and Meadow Brook Restoration
(Phase 3B--EPA lead).
For EPA-lead activities, such as the GWTP, the design criteria were
set forth in the final ``Plans and Specifications for the Groundwater
Remediation at the Norwood PCB Superfund Site'' prepared by Metcalf &
Eddy, Inc. on behalf of EPA in 1994. Meadow Brook Restoration Phase
(Phase 3b) was completed in accordance with a UASCE Statement of Work
(SOW), which included design details provided by the Town of Norwood as
part of its flood control/flood mitigation project. Design criteria for
the Settling Party-lead cleanup work (to address risks associated with
the former Grant Gear facility and its operations) were set forth in
the Statement of Work (SOW) which was part of a 1996 Consent Decree
with former owners and operators of the Facility (hereafter referred to
as the ``Facility CD'') as well as the Remedial Action Work Plans
submitted by the Settling Parties and approved by EPA consistent with
the SOW.
Sediment
The Settling Parties performed excavation of sediments in Meadow
Brook from April 1997 through July 1998. The Meadow Brook remediation
was divided into three sections referred to as Reach 1, 2, and 3. The
excavation of Reach 1 was completed with excavation limits determined
by the Town of Norwood as this section of the Brook was also targeted
for sediment removal as part of the Town's flood control/flood
mitigation project. Following the excavation of Reach 1 to grades
provided by the Town, an area of stained soils was evident at/below a
former drainage outfall pipe. Based on the analytical results showing
PCBs greater than 1 ppm, a limited removal of the stained sediment was
performed. In total, approximately 2,500 yd\3\ of material was
excavated from Reach 1including 85 yd\3\ of stained soil.
The excavation of Reaches 2 and 3 was performed in two phases--the
first consisted of sediment removal from the arched culvert section at
Dean Street, and the second consisted of sediment removal from the box
culvert section. Once clean-up levels (1 ppm in sediment) were
achieved, sediment removal activities were terminated. Approximately
2,300 yd\3\ of material was excavated from these reaches.
Soil
Soils with PCB concentrations exceeding the appropriate clean-up
levels were excavated from several on-property areas. In addition, a
trichlorobenzene (TCB)-contaminated soil area was identified west of
the former Grant Gear building; this was
[[Page 18070]]
also excavated. Approximately 5,900 yd\3\ of PCB-contaminated soil was
excavated from the North Cover Area and stockpiled for placement under
the cap/cover. Approximately 2,600 yd\3\ of PCB-contaminated soil was
excavated from the South Cover Area and stockpiled for placement under
the cap/cover.
With regard to off-property soils, several areas were identified
with PCB concentrations exceeding the appropriate clean-up levels.
During the remediation of Reach 1 of Meadow Brook, PCB-contaminated
soils were identified along the North Bank Wooded Area. Approximately
100 yd\3\ of soil was excavated and stockpiled for placement under the
cap/cover. In addition, PCB-contaminated soils were discovered along
the South Bank Wooded Area resulting in the excavation of approximately
780 yd\3\ of soil.
Beginning in 1997, the stockpiled soils were further consolidated
on-site. Materials with PCB concentrations exceeding the risk-based,
site-specific industrial/commercial clean-up levels (of 70 ppm) were
placed within the limits of the asphalt cap. Materials with PCB
concentrations below clean-up level of 70 ppm, but above 40 ppm, were
placed within the limits of the cover areas. During soil excavation and
consolidation, on-site underground storage tanks (USTs) were also
removed before the cap and cover were installed. After the PCB-
contaminated materials had been placed, the areas were prepared for the
installation of the cap and covers. Once the fill was placed to the
appropriate grade 12 inches below the final grade in capped and covered
areas, a non-woven geotextile filter fabric was laid across the areas.
Subsequently, an asphalt Cap or gravel cover was installed in the
appropriate areas.
Groundwater
The selected remedy for the management of groundwater migration
included the collection of groundwater using an extraction system
consisting shallow extraction wells and the construction of a GWTP
consisting of carbon adsorption, air stripping, precipitation, and
filtration. The GWTP was constructed in 1995 and deemed operational and
functional in February 1997.
The groundwater treatment system was operational until it was shut
down (at that time temporarily) in June of 2000. As a result of the
revised groundwater classification and ``low'' use and value ascribed
by MassDEP in 2001, groundwater cleanup goals were further modified in
an 2005 ESD. Subsequently, EPA determined that no further groundwater
clean-up was warranted as revised clean-up goals were being met. The
GWTP was dismantled in March 2008 just prior to property redevelopment.
Institutional Controls
As required by a Prospective Purchaser Agreement (PPA) entered in
1997 between the owner and the EPA, the Owner updated and recorded
(with the Norfolk County Registry of Deeds) updated ICs in the form of
a Grant of Environmental Restrictions and Easement (GERE). The GERE was
recorded in March 2008 and entered into Book No. 25628, Page No. 534.
The GERE restricts certain activities such as day care, residential
use, and groundwater withdrawal (among others) and permits other
activities, such as excavation, provided certain safety procedures are
followed and approvals obtained. Under the terms of a 1997 Consent
Decree (hereafter referred to as the ``Meadow Brook CD'') the Town of
Norwood also established ICs on the Meadow Brook parcel (recorded at
Book No. 26407, Page No. 129).
Cleanup Goals
The cleanup goals for PBCs in soil and sediment were modified as a
result the 1996 ROD Amendment (see table below):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Property 1989 ROD 1996 ROD-A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grant Gear Property.................... 10 ppm............................. 40 ppm surface.
70 ppm subsurface.
Adjacent Commercial Property........... 25 ppm............................. 40 ppm surface.
70 ppm subsurface.
Soil between Grant Gear and Meadow 1 ppm.............................. 10 ppm surface.
Brook. 50 ppm subsurface.
Sediment............................... 1 ppm.............................. 1 ppm.
Residential Properties................. 1 ppm.............................. No action required.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contaminated soil and sediment were excavated and consolidated on
property for placement within the cap or cover depending on the level
of contamination. Post-excavation sampling was conducted and described
in the remedial action Remediation Completion Report prepared by
consultants on behalf of the Settling Parties.
With regard to Groundwater, as described previously, the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts classified groundwater beneath and
adjacent to the site as ``Low'' use and value. A ``Low'' designation
indicates that it is not a future drinking water source. Accordingly,
change to the original GW cleanup goals (which were based on MCLs) were
documented in the 2005 ESD and are summarized below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contaminant 1989 ROD 2005 ESD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trichloroethene............... 5 ppb.............. 108 ppb.
Tetrachloroethene............. 5 ppb.............. 37 ppb.
Vinyl Chloride................ 2 ppb.............. 310 ppb.
Total 1,2-dichloroethenes..... 175 ppb............ 3660 ppb.
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene........ 350 ppb............ 34 ppb.
1,4-dichlorobenzene........... 5 ppb.............. 4.6 ppb.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA conducted quarterly groundwater monitoring from April 1996
until October 2002 which coincided with the period of GWTP operation
and shortly thereafter. Surface water samples were also periodically
collected from
[[Page 18071]]
Meadow Brook. Several years after plant shutdown (i.e. in 2005), EPA
completed a final comprehensive groundwater evaluation and the
resulting report documented no ROD-specified contaminants in
groundwater above their respective groundwater clean-up goals
established in the ESD. Having confirmed that all groundwater clean-up
goals were being met (approximately 5 years after GWTP shut down), it
was determined by USEPA and MassDEP that the GWTP was no longer
necessary.
Operation and Maintenance
As described previously, remedial activities were completed in 3
phases (the third phase consisting of both a Phase 3A and Phase 3B).
Phase 1--Groundwater Treatment Plant
Based on achieving revised groundwater clean-up goals modified in
the 2005 ESD, in 2006, EPA determined that the GWTP had reached the end
of its ``useful life'' for all uses relative to site response
activities. Accordingly, EPA proceeded to remove chemical processing
equipment from the GWTP and decommission extraction and monitoring
wells that were not part of the long-term monitoring. In a letter dated
April 5, 2007, EPA provided notice to the owner that, as per the PPA,
EPA had completed its decommissioning activities. Subsequently, on May
16, 2007, EPA received notice from the owner of his intention not to
reuse the GWTP building. A work plan for its dismantling was submitted
and approved in September 2007. The building was removed in the Spring
of 2008. No long-term O&M of the treatment plant is required. On-going
evaluation of groundwater is provided by groundwater samples collected
by the Settling Parties to the Facility CD as part of their on-going
O&M of the Cap and Covers (see Phase 3A below).
Phase 2--Building Demolition
The building demolition phase took place immediately prior to and
in connection with the relocation of soil and sediment, and the
construction of the cap and covers. Accordingly there is no O&M
associated with this RA.
Phase 3A--Cap and Covers
The O&M and Environmental Monitoring Plans (EMP) were approved in
November 2004. Consistent with these plans, the Settling Parties to the
Facility CD annually inspect the cap and covers. As a result of
redevelopment, certain cover areas have been replaced with a new type
of cover (referred to as ``foundation cover''). In addition, certain
monitoring wells selected for long-term monitoring have been re-
located. Accordingly, revised O&M and EMP plans were submitted in April
2010 and subsequently approved in January 2011.
Phase 3B--Meadow Brook Restoration
At the completion of this restoration, and in light of design
details provided by the Town of Norwood to insure consistency with
other flood mitigation projects, an Operation Manual was provided to
the Town of Norwood in 2000. The Operation Manual described recommended
procedures and inspections to ensure that the completed project
continues to function as designed and that the flood control
infrastructure remains in place to prevent the release of any
subsurface contamination.
Institutional Controls
EPA and the State will periodically (not less than annually)
inspect the property to insure that usage has not deviated from those
allowed by the ICs. Under the GERE recorded on the Facility property,
the landowner is obligated to follow procedures to ensure that Site
redevelopment does not damage components of the remedy. On the Meadow
Brook property, the Town is obligated under the terms of the Meadow
Brook CD to ensure that no release of subsurface contamination occurs
either in its maintenance of flood control structures or its sewer
easement through the area. The status and protectiveness of these IC
will be summarized in successive five year reviews.
Redevelopment
In 1997, the 9-acre Grant Gear property was sold and the new owner
obtained a PPA from EPA which required the owner to guarantee continued
site access, dismantle the Groundwater Treatment Plant (GWTP) building
(when it had reached the end of its ``useful life''), as well as record
updated Institutional Controls. Subsequently (early 2000s), the owner
entered a 99-year ground lease with a commercial/retail developer. In
2003, the developer proposed a large (> 150,000 square feet)
redevelopment; however, this would have been situated predominantly
over the remedial cap and would have required excavation into
contaminated soil. Based on local concerns associated with disturbing
the capped area, traffic, and other local land use issues, this
redevelopment was not approved by the Town.
Thus, in 2007, a different commercial/retail developer proposed
modifications to the original redevelopment plan including the
construction of buildings around the footprint of the capped portion of
the site. This reuse would ensure that none of the highest-contaminated
material would be exposed. The revised work plan for redevelopment
(WPR) was approved by EPA and MassDEP in March 2008, after which the
developer received the necessary Town approvals. Construction ensued in
May 2008 and was substantially complete in October 2008.
As a precaution and to ensure against the accumulation of vapors
from groundwater to indoor air, a passive vapor mitigation system was
required and installed in each of the commercial building. As required
in the WPR, post construction and prior to occupancy, sub-slab air
samples were collected and analyzed and a risk assessment completed.
Based on this analysis, the risks were found to be acceptable (i.e.,
less than 1 x 10-\6\) for a future commercial worker.
Moreover, based on local zoning as well as restriction recorded against
the property (described further below), residential use is prohibited.
In the future, as necessary and pending future monitoring results, the
sub-slab ventilation systems can be made to be actively vented with the
addition of blowers or vacuum pumps.
Presently, two buildings totaling 56,000 square feet of commercial/
retail space are situated on the Norwood PCBs site. The cap, under
which is located the highest concentrations of PCBs, serves as a
central parking lot for the development. To date, the development is
not occupied.
Five-Year Review
Since hazardous substances will remain on the site above levels
allowing for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, statutory five
year reviews have been conducted by EPA pursuant to CERCLA Section 121
C as provided in OSWER Directive 9355.7-03B-P, Comprehensive Five-Year
Review Guidance.
The First Five-Year Review, dated 30 December 1999, concluded that
the remedy was protective and recommended that, in light of the State's
reclassification of groundwater, a risk assessment be competed. Upon
attaining revised risk-based clean-up levels, groundwater treatment was
no longer required, but monitoring was continued to verify that revised
groundwater standards would continue to be met.
The Second Five-Year Review, dated 29 December 2004, concluded that
the remedy was short-term protective of human health and the
environment based on continued compliance with
[[Page 18072]]
new clean-up goals. In addition, O&M plans were submitted for both the
Facility and Meadow Brook properties. The 2004 review also concluded
that in order for the remedy to remain protective in the long-term, the
following actions needed to be taken: 1. updated institutional controls
needed to be recorded, and 2. Operation and Maintenance (including
monitoring) needed to be conducted regularly [both of which have since
occurred].
The Third Five-Year Review, completed in December 2009, concluded
that the remedy at the Norwood PCBs Site continues to protect human
health and the environment through meeting groundwater clean-up goals,
the establishment of institutional controls, and the maintenance of
remedy infrastructure concurrently during redevelopment of the Site.
The 2009 Five Year Review also concluded that in order for the remedy
to remain protective, the Operation & Maintenance (O&M) Plan and
Environmental Monitoring Plan (EMP) must be updated to reflect changes
in site conditions as a result of the redevelopment. These have been
updated and approved (January 2011).
The Fourth Five-Year Review is due in December 2014.
Community Involvement
EPA community participation at the site has taken many forms. In
addition to statutorily-required meetings and public hearings
associated with the 1989 ROD and 1996 ROD Amendment, EPA has
participated in numerous other outreach activities. EPA conducted
public outreach during each of the three five-year reviews. EPA
prepared updated Fact Sheets in 2003, 2005, and 2007. The Fact Sheets
were distributed to mailing list recipients as well as hand-distributed
to all abutting residences and business owners. Extra copies of the
fact sheets have been made available to the public at the following
locations: the Norwood Public library and Norwood Town Hall.
In addition, EPA has attended numerous Public Meetings during the
site redevelopment approval process. All Community Involvement
activities required and in association with this proposed deletion have
been completed, including the publication of a notice in a local
newspaper of general circulation regarding this proposed deletion and
the availability of documents located in the Deletion Docket.
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''. EPA, with the
concurrence of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts through the MassDEP by
a letter dated [Date], 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 for the site have been met
as described in the Norwood PCBs Final Close Out Report (FCOR) dated
September 2009.
V. Deletion Action
The EPA, with concurrence of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
through the MassDEP has determined that all appropriate response
actions under CERCLA, other than operation and maintenance, routine
monitoring, 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 May 31, 2011 unless EPA receives adverse comments by May
2, 2011. 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.
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: March 17, 2011.
Ira W. Leighton,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
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.
Appendix B to Part 300 [Amended]
0
2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 is amended by removing ''Norwood
PCBs'', ``Norwood, MA''.
[FR Doc. 2011-7775 Filed 3-31-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P