National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the Coker's Sanitation Service Landfills Superfund Site, 32081-32085 [2011-13841]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
(CFDA) Numbers: 84.411A (Scale-up grants),
84.411B (Validation grants), and 84.411C
(Development grants).
Dated: May 26, 2011.
James H. Shelton, III,
Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and
Improvement.
[FR Doc. 2011–13589 Filed 6–2–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1987–0002; FRL–9315–8]
National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion
of the Coker’s Sanitation Service
Landfills Superfund Site
AGENCY:
Environmental Protection
Agency.
Direct final rule.
ACTION:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Region III is publishing a
direct final Deletion of the Coker’s
Sanitation Service Landfills Superfund
Site (Site) located in Cheswold, Kent
County, Delaware, 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
Delaware, through the Delaware
Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control (DNREC),
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 August 2, 2011 unless EPA
receives adverse comments by July 5,
2011. 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–1987–0002, by one of the
following methods:
• https://www.regulations.gov . Follow
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
11:27 Jun 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
• E-mail: Darius Ostrauskas,
Remedial Project Manager, U.S. EPA,
ostrauskas.darius@epa.gov
• Fax: (215) 814–3002, Attn: Darius
Ostrauskas
• Mail: Darius Ostrauskas, Remedial
Project Manager (3HS23), U.S. EPA
Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103–2029
• Hand delivery: Darius Ostrauskas,
Remedial Project Manager (3HS23), U.S.
EPA Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103–2029. Phone
215–814–3360, Business Hours: Monday
through Friday—9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Such
deliveries are accepted only 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–1987–
0002. 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 statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
will be publicly available only in the
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
32081
hard copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:
U.S. EPA Region III, Library, 2nd Floor,
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA
19103–2029, (215) 814–5254, Monday
through Friday 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The Dover Public Library, Reference
Department, 45 South State Street,
Dover, DE 19901, (302) 736–7030,
Monday through Thursday, 9 a.m. to
9 p.m., Friday and Saturday, 9 a.m. to
5 p.m., and Sunday, 1 p.m. to 5 p.m.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Darius Ostrauskas, Remedial Project
Manager (3HS23), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650
Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103–
2029, (215) 814–3360.
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 III is publishing this
direct final Notice of Deletion of the
Coker’s Sanitation Service Landfills
Superfund 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 40 CFR
300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted
from the NPL remain eligible for Fundfinanced remedial actions if future
conditions warrant such actions.
Because EPA considers this action to
be noncontroversial and routine, this
action will be effective August 2, 2011
unless EPA receives adverse comments
by July 5, 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.
E:\FR\FM\03JNR1.SGM
03JNR1
32082
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
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 Coker’s Sanitation
Service Landfills 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
Delaware prior to developing this direct
final Notice of Deletion and the Notice
VerDate Mar<15>2010
11:27 Jun 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
of Intent to Delete the Site co-published
today in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ section of
the Federal Register.
(2) EPA has provided the State 30
working days for review of this notice
and the parallel Notice of Intent to
Delete prior to their publication today,
and the State, through DNREC, 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 Delaware State 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 following information provides
EPA’s rationale for deleting the Site
from the NPL:
Site Background and History
The Site (EPA Identification Number
DED980704860) is located near
Cheswold in Kent County, Delaware,
approximately six miles northwest of
the City of Dover. The Site consists of
two landfills located approximately onehalf mile apart on opposite sides of
County Road 152. Landfill No. 1, which
is on the north side of County Road 152,
and Landfill No. 2, which is on the
south side of County Road 152, are both
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
part of larger, heavily wooded tracts of
land. Both landfills are fenced off and
covered with vegetation. There are no
known development plans for the
properties occupied by the landfills.
Properties adjacent to both landfills are
primarily used for agricultural or light
residential development. Landfill No. 1
is bordered on the north by a forested
wetland that includes a shallow
meandering stream, the Willis Branch of
the Leipsic River. Agricultural lands
border the tree lines east and west of
Landfill No. 2. Deer and other wildlife
populate this area of Kent County.
Groundwater near the Site is used for
domestic purposes, including drinking
water.
Landfill No. 1 is located on property
owned by Alberta F. Schmidt. Use of
Landfill No. 1 began in 1969 under a
permit issued by the Delaware Water
and Air Resources Commission. DNREC
issued subsequent permits (1973–1976).
The landfill was closed in 1977 in
accordance with the Delaware Solid
Waste Disposal Regulations of August
1974. During landfill operation, latex
waste sludge was discharged into
unlined trenches that were six to eight
feet deep and twelve feet wide. Liquids
were allowed to drain off as solids
settled. Trenches were then backfilled
with soil obtained locally.
Landfill No. 2, located on property
owned by Kowinsky Farms, Inc., was
operated from 1976 to 1980 under a
state permit. The permit required each
six-foot deep, twenty-eight foot wide,
one hundred twenty-five foot long
trench to have a synthetic liner. The
permit also required leachate collection,
installation of groundwater monitoring
wells, regularly scheduled site
inspections, and periodic groundwater
and leachate monitoring. When the Site
was closed in 1980, all trenches were
capped with two feet of native soil. As
waste settled and no longer generated
collectable quantities of leachate, the
leachate collection was phased out in
the early 1980’s.
EPA conducted an initial Site
Investigation in 1980, and a second one
in 1983. Elevated levels of acrolein were
found in one well and in one leachate
collection pipe on Landfill No. 2.
Ethylbenzene was detected in the same
well and leachate collection pipe. Bis(2chloroethyl) ether was detected in
Landfill No. 1 leachate seeps. The Site
was proposed for inclusion on the NPL
in the Federal Register on April 10,
1985 (50 FR 14115), and included on
the NPL in the Federal Register on July
22, 1987 (52 FR 27620).
E:\FR\FM\03JNR1.SGM
03JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility
Study (RI/FS)
In April 1986, EPA issued letters to
several Potentially Responsible Parties
(PRPs) notifying them of their potential
liability for Site response actions and
inviting them to conduct the RI/FS. On
December 30, 1987, three PRPs signed
an agreement with EPA in the form of
an Administrative Order on Consent to
conduct the RI/FS.
Media investigation during the RI/FS
included waste, leachate, groundwater,
surface water and sediment, soil, and
air. Among the different media types
investigated, waste contained the
highest number of contaminants at the
highest levels for styrene, ethylbenzene,
and phenolic compounds. Leachate
from Landfill No. 2 (taken from leachate
collection trenches within the lined
cells) contained the same contaminants,
but at lower levels. The waste and
leachate were determined to pose a
threat to human health and the
environment. Groundwater at both
landfills contained similar compounds
but at significantly lower levels, and it
was determined that they did not pose
a threat to human health or the
environment.
The FS provided an in-depth analysis
of the following potential remedial
alternatives: (1) No Action; (2)
Monitoring; (3) Limited Action; (4) Soil
Cap; (5) Multi-Layer Cap (both landfills)
and Sub-drain (Landfill No. 1 only); (6)
Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)
Stripping by Aeration ; and (7) On-site
Incineration (of Waste). The FS also
analyzed EPA and DNREC’s preferred
alternative, alternative 3. The parties
agreed, under a separate order, to
remove drums containing varying
quantities of latex waste found on-site
during the RI.
Selected Remedy
EPA issued a Record of Decision
(ROD) for the Site on September 28,
1990. Under the ROD, the remedial
action objective was to reduce the
potential for future contact with waste
at the Site and thereby reduce risk to
within EPA guidelines.
The waste materials found in the
landfills at the Site are neither liquid
nor highly mobile, and can be
controlled reliably in place. The Site
contains a large volume of material that
would be difficult to handle and treat
due to clay-like physical properties and
the potential risk posed by substantial
release of volatile organic compounds.
EPA and DNREC determined that onsite containment of the waste was an
appropriate remedial action.
The selected remedy addresses the
principal threats posed by the
conditions at the Site by reducing the
potential for human exposure to wastes
remaining at the Site. The major
components of the selected remedy are
as follows:
• Land use restrictions placed on
both landfill properties.
• The entire waste disposal areas of
both landfills are enclosed by a chainlink security fence with a locked gate to
restrict the access of unauthorized
persons and equipment onto the
landfills. Appropriate warning signs are
placed along the fence.
• Cover material was placed along the
northern slope of Landfill No. 1 to
eliminate exposure to leachate seeps.
• Areas of Landfill No. 2, which had
subsided due to uneven settling of
waste, were backfilled to grade and
seeded.
• Leachate collection wells at Landfill
No. 2 were sealed with grout to reduce
the potential for direct contact with
leachate.
• Groundwater was initially sampled
semi-annually at both landfills; now, it
is sampled at least once every five years.
• The landfills are inspected semiannually.
• Surface water monitoring was
conducted at the Willis Branch adjacent
to
Landfill No. 1 at the same time as
groundwater monitoring for a period of
no less than five years. In response to
monitoring requirements identified in
the ROD, a groundwater and surface
water monitoring program has been
implemented at the Site. This
monitoring program has included the
identification of trigger levels for
contaminants of concern for
groundwater and surface water for both
Landfill No.1 and Landfill No. 2. The
trigger levels for Landfill No. 1 were
developed primarily for the protection
of aquatic wildlife due to the proximity
of the Willis Branch and lack of
potential human receptors. For Landfill
No. 2, the trigger levels were developed
to protect human health due to the
proximity of nearby residential wells.
Those levels are:
Landfill No. 1
μg/L
Contaminant of concern
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
Groundwater:
Styrene .............................................................................................................................................................
Ethylbenzene ....................................................................................................................................................
1,2,3-trichloropropane .......................................................................................................................................
Phenolics ..........................................................................................................................................................
Antimony ...........................................................................................................................................................
Surface Water:
Styrene .............................................................................................................................................................
Ethylbenzene ....................................................................................................................................................
Xylenes .............................................................................................................................................................
Response Actions
The following is a summary of the
activities that were completed at the
Site.
• An Environmental Protection
Easement and Declaration of Restrictive
Covenants between Alberta Schmidt, as
Grantor, and DNREC, on behalf of the
State of Delaware, as Grantee, relating to
Landfill No. 1 was signed on February
24, 2005. The document was recorded
with the Office of the Recorder of Deeds
VerDate Mar<15>2010
11:27 Jun 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
for Kent County, Delaware on April 18,
2005, to implement the institutional
controls (land use restrictions) for
Landfill No. 1.
• An Environmental Protection
Easement and Declaration of Restrictive
Covenants between Kowinsky Farms,
Inc, as Grantor, and DNREC, on behalf
of the State of Delaware, as Grantee,
relating to Landfill No. 2 was signed on
September 24, 2008. The document was
recorded with the Office of the Recorder
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
32083
Landfill No. 2
μg/L
2900
3200
........................
........................
........................
100
5
5
22999
6
1400
1600
900
........................
........................
........................
of Deeds for Kent County, Delaware on
November 26, 2008, to implement the
institutional controls (land use
restrictions) for Landfill No. 2.
• On April 8, 1992, the PRPs entered
into a Consent Decree with EPA
pursuant to which the PRPs agreed to
implement the remedy selected in the
ROD. The PRPs started construction
activities in early July 1993.
• Remedial construction activities at
Landfill No.1 consisted of clearing the
E:\FR\FM\03JNR1.SGM
03JNR1
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
32084
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
perimeter of vegetation so that the
security fence could be installed.
Leachate seeps were covered with wood
chip mulch. Following installation of
the security fence, cleared areas were
seeded. Lastly, warning signs were
posted around the landfill perimeter.
• At Landfill No. 2, remedial
construction activities were more
extensive. First, the landfill was cleared
of all vegetation. Trees within the
landfill perimeter were cut and chipped
for mulch. Each waste cell’s leachate
collection system was grout sealed.
Settled waste cells were filled with
clean fill and the entire landfill surface
was re-graded. Top soil was added; the
landfill was then graded and seeded. A
security fence was installed around the
landfill. Finally, warning signs were
placed around the landfill perimeter.
• Three wells were sampled at
Landfill No. 1 and four at Landfill No.
2. The sampling parameters were
ethylbenzene, styrene, 1,2,3trichloropropane, antimony, and
phenolics, as well as field parameters.
Groundwater was sampled semiannually in 1993 and 1994, and then
annually through 1998. During this
period, all sampling results for
contaminants of concern were below
established trigger levels for both
Landfill No. 1 and Landfill No. 2, as
well as Maximum Contaminant Levels
(MCLs) established under the Safe
Drinking Water Act. In 1999, EPA
determined that the subject monitoring
could be discontinued. In 2009, the
monitoring resumed at a frequency of at
least once every five years. Sampling in
2009 found that all contaminants of
concern were below the established
trigger levels and MCLs.
• The Site has been inspected
regularly as required in the ROD and
routine maintenance activities have
been performed as needed. The routine
maintenance activities have generally
consisted of minor fence repair,
replacement of warning signs, and
mowing the surface of Landfill No. 2.
On September 9, 1993, EPA and
DNREC conducted the final
construction inspection. On September
29, 1993, EPA signed the Preliminary
Site Close Out Report (PCOR), which
documented that the PRPs had
completed construction activities at the
Site. EPA signed the Final Close Out
Report on February 19, 2009, which
documented completion of all response
action, other than operation,
maintenance, and five-year reviews.
Cleanup Goals
EPA approved the Sampling and
Analysis Plan (Part IV of the Remedial
Design Submittal) requiring periodic
VerDate Mar<15>2010
11:27 Jun 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
sampling of groundwater, surface water
and sediments. Sampling under the
subject Plan was initiated at the start of
remedial action (RA) activities and
continued for six years. During that
time, the monitored contaminants of
concern at Landfill No.1 and Landfill
No. 2 were well below identified trigger
levels. In response to the results of this
monitoring, the First Five-Year Review
for the Site issued by EPA in 1999 found
that monitoring of groundwater and
surface water at the Site could be
discontinued. However, during the
preparation and completion of the Final
Close Out Report for the Site in
February 2009, EPA determined that
monitoring should resume and be
conducted at a minimum of once every
five years because waste has been left in
place at the Site.
Operation and Maintenance (O&M)
The landfills are inspected semiannually to identify any maintenance
activities that need to be conducted to
ensure continued performance of the
RA. Inspection frequency was quarterly
for the first year to provide for seep
cover inspection and maintenance. The
EPA-approved O&M Plan presented the
requirements for the Site inspections,
and included a checklist that was used
to document inspection observations
and results. O&M began following EPA’s
certification that the RA activities were
completed. O&M activities that will
continue at the Site are mowing and
semi-annual inspections. Also, because
waste remains onsite, groundwater and
surface water monitoring will be
performed once every five years.
An Environmental Protection
Easement and Declaration of Restrictive
Covenants between Alberta Schmidt, as
Grantor, and DNREC, on behalf of the
State of Delaware, as Grantee, relating to
Landfill No.1 was signed on February
24, 2005. The document was recorded
with the Office of the Recorder of Deeds
for Kent County, Delaware on April 18,
2005, to implement the institutional
controls for Landfill No. 1.
An Environmental Protection
Easement and Declaration of Restrictive
Covenants between Kowinsky Farms,
Inc, as Grantor, and DNREC, on behalf
of the State of Delaware, as Grantee,
relating to Landfill No. 2 was signed on
September 24, 2008. The document was
recorded with the Office of the Recorder
of Deeds for Kent County, Delaware on
November 26, 2008, to implement
institutional controls for Landfill No. 2.
The implemented institutional
controls (land use restrictions) for both
Landfill No. 1 and Landfill No. 2
prohibit disturbance of the onsite
containment remedies.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Five-Year Review
EPA has conducted three (3) statutory
Five-Year Reviews for this Site. Since
the remedies selected for the Site allow
hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants to remain onsite above
levels that allow for unlimited use and
unrestricted exposure, statutory FiveYear Reviews are required. These
reviews are conducted pursuant to
CERCLA Section 121(c), 42 U.S.C.
9621(c), and as provided in the current
guidance on Five-Year Reviews.
The first Five-Year Review for the Site
was completed on January 6, 1999, and
the second Five-Year Review was
completed on May 25, 2004. Both of
these Five-Year Reviews found the
remedy to be not fully protective due to
the need for institutional controls in
both cases.
The most recent Five-Year Review
was completed on May 22, 2009. With
the implementation of institutional
controls, this Five-Year Review found
no issues that affected the current or
future protectiveness of the remedy for
the Site and concluded that the remedy
at the Site is protective over the short
term and the long term.
The next Five-Year Review will be
completed by May 25, 2014.
Community Involvement
Public participation activities have
been satisfied as required in CERCLA
section 113(k), 42 U.S.C. 9613(k), and
CERCLA section 117, 42 U.S.C. 9617.
Documents in the deletion docket which
EPA relied on for recommendation of
the deletion from the NPL are available
to the public in the information
repositories.
Before the start of construction
activities, representatives of the PRPs
visited residents whose homes were
adjacent to the landfills on both sides of
County Road 152. Residents who were
at home at the time of the visit were
informed of the start date and the nature
and duration of the construction
activities. The PRP representatives
answered questions that the residents
asked about the construction activities.
Fact sheets advising the residents of the
construction activities were given to
residents in person or were placed in
their mailboxes. EPA issued a fact sheet
in July 1993, at about midway through
the construction activities. The fact
sheet presented a description of the Site
remedial action and project status.
EPA notified local officials about
upcoming Five-Year Reviews. EPA
placed notices in the Delaware State
News to inform the public that the FiveYear Reviews were being conducted and
when the findings of each would be
available.
E:\FR\FM\03JNR1.SGM
03JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
32085
Determination That the Criteria for
Deletion Have Been Met
No further response action under
CERCLA is appropriate. EPA has
determined based on the investigations
conducted that all appropriate response
actions required have been
implemented at the Site. Through the
third Five-Year Review, EPA has also
determined that the remedy is
considered protective of human health
and the environment and, therefore,
additional remedial measures are not
necessary. Other procedures required by
40 CFR 300.425(e) are detailed in
Section III of this direct Final Notice of
Deletion.
1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923,
3 CFR 1987 Comp., p.193.
correct policies, which were
implemented on July 1, 2011.
2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300
is amended by removing ‘‘DE’’, ‘‘Coker’s
Sanitation Service Landfills’’, ‘‘Kent
County’’.
III. Correction of Errors
In FR Doc. 2011–10562 of May 6,
2011 (76 FR 26432), make the following
corrections:
• On page 26452, in Table 11—RY
2012 Diagnosis Codes and Adjustment
Factors for Comorbidity Categories, in
the second column, with the heading
‘‘Diagnoses codes,’’ for the renal failure,
chronic diagnoses codes, replace code
‘‘V451’’ with ‘‘V4512’’ and add code
‘‘V4511.’’
V. Deletion Action
The EPA, with concurrence dated
September 16, 2010, of the State of
Delaware, through DNREC, has
determined that all appropriate
response actions under CERCLA, other
than operation, maintenance, and fiveyear reviews, have been completed.
Therefore, EPA is deleting the Site from
the NPL.
Because EPA considers this action
noncontroversial and routine, EPA is
taking it without prior publication. This
action will be effective August 2, 2011
unless EPA receives adverse comments
by July 5, 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.
[CMS–1346–CN]
■
[FR Doc. 2011–13841 Filed 6–2–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services
42 CFR Part 412
RIN 0938–AQ23
Medicare Program; Inpatient
Psychiatric Facilities Prospective
Payment System—Update for Rate
Year Beginning July 1, 2011 (RY 2012);
Correction
Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
ACTION: Correction of final rule.
AGENCY:
This document corrects two
technical errors that appeared in the
final rule published in the Federal
Register on May 6, 2011 entitled,
‘‘Inpatient Psychiatric Facilities
Prospective Payment System—Update
for Rate Year Beginning July 1, 2011 (RY
2012).’’
DATES: Effective Date: July 1, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dorothy Myrick or Jana Lindquist, (410)
786–4533.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
I. Background
In FR Doc. 2011–10562 of May 6,
2011 (76 FR 26432) (hereinafter referred
to as the RY 2012 IPF PPS final rule),
there were two technical errors that we
describe in the ‘‘Summary of Errors’’
section and correct in the ‘‘Correction of
Errors’’ section below.
Dated: April 29, 2011.
James W. Newsom,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
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.
In the RY 2012 IPF PPS final rule, on
page 26452, in Table 11, we made a
typographical error when we listed the
diagnosis code ‘‘V451’’ rather than
‘‘V4512’’ for the description of
comorbidity for chronic renal failure. In
addition, we inadvertently omitted from
Table 11 the comorbidity code ‘‘V4511’’
for chronic renal failure. These changes
are not substantive changes to the
policies or payment methodologies in
the final rule. They are changes to
conform the final rule to reflect the
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,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
11:27 Jun 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
II. Summary of Errors
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
IV. Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking
and Delay in Effective Date
We ordinarily publish a notice of
proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register to provide a period for public
comment before the provisions of a rule
take effect in accordance with section
553(b) of the Administrative Procedure
Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). However,
we can waive this notice and comment
procedure if the Secretary finds, for
good cause, that the notice and
comment process is impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest, and incorporates a statement of
the finding and the reasons in the rule.
Section 553(d) of the APA ordinarily
requires a 30-day delay in the effective
date of rules after the date of their
publication in the Federal Register.
This 30-day delay in the effective date
can be waived, however, if an agency
finds for good cause that the delay is
impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary
to the public interest, and the agency
incorporates a statement of the findings
and its reasons in the rule issued. This
notice merely corrects an error and
omission in Table 11 of the RY 2012 IPF
PPS final rule and does not make any
substantive changes to the policies or
payment methodologies. The correct
policies were implemented on July 1,
2011. We are simply conforming the RY
2012 IPF PPS final rule to those policies
by making the corrections identified
herein. We believe that undertaking
further notice and comment procedures
to incorporate these corrections into the
FY 2012 IPF PPS final rule and delaying
the effective date of these changes is
unnecessary. In addition, we believe it
is important for the public to have the
correct information as soon as possible,
and believe it is contrary to the public
interest to delay the dissemination of it.
Therefore, we find there is good cause
to waive notice and comment
procedures and the 30-day delay in the
effective date for this correction notice.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
Program No. 93.773, Medicare—Hospital
Insurance; and Program No. 93.774,
E:\FR\FM\03JNR1.SGM
03JNR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 107 (Friday, June 3, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32081-32085]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-13841]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1987-0002; FRL-9315-8]
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Deletion of the Coker's Sanitation Service
Landfills Superfund Site
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region III is
publishing a direct final Deletion of the Coker's Sanitation Service
Landfills Superfund Site (Site) located in Cheswold, Kent County,
Delaware, 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 Delaware, through the
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
(DNREC), 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 August 2, 2011 unless
EPA receives adverse comments by July 5, 2011. 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-1987-0002, by one of the following methods:
https://www.regulations.gov . Follow on-line instructions
for submitting comments.
E-mail: Darius Ostrauskas, Remedial Project Manager, U.S.
EPA, ostrauskas.darius@epa.gov
Fax: (215) 814-3002, Attn: Darius Ostrauskas
Mail: Darius Ostrauskas, Remedial Project Manager (3HS23),
U.S. EPA Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
Hand delivery: Darius Ostrauskas, Remedial Project Manager
(3HS23), U.S. EPA Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-
2029. Phone 215-814-3360, Business Hours: Monday through Friday--9 a.m.
to 4 p.m. Such deliveries are accepted only 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-
1987-0002. 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 statute. 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. EPA Region III, Library, 2nd Floor, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029, (215) 814-5254, Monday through Friday 8
a.m. to 5 p.m.
The Dover Public Library, Reference Department, 45 South State Street,
Dover, DE 19901, (302) 736-7030, Monday through Thursday, 9 a.m. to 9
p.m., Friday and Saturday, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., and Sunday, 1 p.m. to 5
p.m.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Darius Ostrauskas, Remedial Project
Manager (3HS23), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650
Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029, (215) 814-3360.
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 III is publishing this direct final Notice of Deletion
of the Coker's Sanitation Service Landfills Superfund 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 40 CFR 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 August 2, 2011 unless EPA
receives adverse comments by July 5, 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.
[[Page 32082]]
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 Coker's Sanitation Service
Landfills 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 Delaware prior to developing
this direct final Notice of Deletion and the Notice of Intent to Delete
the Site co-published today in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of the
Federal Register.
(2) EPA has provided the State 30 working days for review of this
notice and the parallel Notice of Intent to Delete prior to their
publication today, and the State, through DNREC, 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
Delaware State 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 following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting the
Site from the NPL:
Site Background and History
The Site (EPA Identification Number DED980704860) is located near
Cheswold in Kent County, Delaware, approximately six miles northwest of
the City of Dover. The Site consists of two landfills located
approximately one-half mile apart on opposite sides of County Road 152.
Landfill No. 1, which is on the north side of County Road 152, and
Landfill No. 2, which is on the south side of County Road 152, are both
part of larger, heavily wooded tracts of land. Both landfills are
fenced off and covered with vegetation. There are no known development
plans for the properties occupied by the landfills. Properties adjacent
to both landfills are primarily used for agricultural or light
residential development. Landfill No. 1 is bordered on the north by a
forested wetland that includes a shallow meandering stream, the Willis
Branch of the Leipsic River. Agricultural lands border the tree lines
east and west of Landfill No. 2. Deer and other wildlife populate this
area of Kent County. Groundwater near the Site is used for domestic
purposes, including drinking water.
Landfill No. 1 is located on property owned by Alberta F. Schmidt.
Use of Landfill No. 1 began in 1969 under a permit issued by the
Delaware Water and Air Resources Commission. DNREC issued subsequent
permits (1973-1976). The landfill was closed in 1977 in accordance with
the Delaware Solid Waste Disposal Regulations of August 1974. During
landfill operation, latex waste sludge was discharged into unlined
trenches that were six to eight feet deep and twelve feet wide. Liquids
were allowed to drain off as solids settled. Trenches were then
backfilled with soil obtained locally.
Landfill No. 2, located on property owned by Kowinsky Farms, Inc.,
was operated from 1976 to 1980 under a state permit. The permit
required each six-foot deep, twenty-eight foot wide, one hundred
twenty-five foot long trench to have a synthetic liner. The permit also
required leachate collection, installation of groundwater monitoring
wells, regularly scheduled site inspections, and periodic groundwater
and leachate monitoring. When the Site was closed in 1980, all trenches
were capped with two feet of native soil. As waste settled and no
longer generated collectable quantities of leachate, the leachate
collection was phased out in the early 1980's.
EPA conducted an initial Site Investigation in 1980, and a second
one in 1983. Elevated levels of acrolein were found in one well and in
one leachate collection pipe on Landfill No. 2. Ethylbenzene was
detected in the same well and leachate collection pipe. Bis(2-
chloroethyl) ether was detected in Landfill No. 1 leachate seeps. The
Site was proposed for inclusion on the NPL in the Federal Register on
April 10, 1985 (50 FR 14115), and included on the NPL in the Federal
Register on July 22, 1987 (52 FR 27620).
[[Page 32083]]
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)
In April 1986, EPA issued letters to several Potentially
Responsible Parties (PRPs) notifying them of their potential liability
for Site response actions and inviting them to conduct the RI/FS. On
December 30, 1987, three PRPs signed an agreement with EPA in the form
of an Administrative Order on Consent to conduct the RI/FS.
Media investigation during the RI/FS included waste, leachate,
groundwater, surface water and sediment, soil, and air. Among the
different media types investigated, waste contained the highest number
of contaminants at the highest levels for styrene, ethylbenzene, and
phenolic compounds. Leachate from Landfill No. 2 (taken from leachate
collection trenches within the lined cells) contained the same
contaminants, but at lower levels. The waste and leachate were
determined to pose a threat to human health and the environment.
Groundwater at both landfills contained similar compounds but at
significantly lower levels, and it was determined that they did not
pose a threat to human health or the environment.
The FS provided an in-depth analysis of the following potential
remedial alternatives: (1) No Action; (2) Monitoring; (3) Limited
Action; (4) Soil Cap; (5) Multi-Layer Cap (both landfills) and Sub-
drain (Landfill No. 1 only); (6) Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)
Stripping by Aeration ; and (7) On-site Incineration (of Waste). The FS
also analyzed EPA and DNREC's preferred alternative, alternative 3. The
parties agreed, under a separate order, to remove drums containing
varying quantities of latex waste found on-site during the RI.
Selected Remedy
EPA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) for the Site on September 28,
1990. Under the ROD, the remedial action objective was to reduce the
potential for future contact with waste at the Site and thereby reduce
risk to within EPA guidelines.
The waste materials found in the landfills at the Site are neither
liquid nor highly mobile, and can be controlled reliably in place. The
Site contains a large volume of material that would be difficult to
handle and treat due to clay-like physical properties and the potential
risk posed by substantial release of volatile organic compounds. EPA
and DNREC determined that on-site containment of the waste was an
appropriate remedial action.
The selected remedy addresses the principal threats posed by the
conditions at the Site by reducing the potential for human exposure to
wastes remaining at the Site. The major components of the selected
remedy are as follows:
Land use restrictions placed on both landfill properties.
The entire waste disposal areas of both landfills are
enclosed by a chain-link security fence with a locked gate to restrict
the access of unauthorized persons and equipment onto the landfills.
Appropriate warning signs are placed along the fence.
Cover material was placed along the northern slope of
Landfill No. 1 to eliminate exposure to leachate seeps.
Areas of Landfill No. 2, which had subsided due to uneven
settling of waste, were backfilled to grade and seeded.
Leachate collection wells at Landfill No. 2 were sealed
with grout to reduce the potential for direct contact with leachate.
Groundwater was initially sampled semi-annually at both
landfills; now, it is sampled at least once every five years.
The landfills are inspected semi-annually.
Surface water monitoring was conducted at the Willis
Branch adjacent to
Landfill No. 1 at the same time as groundwater monitoring for a
period of no less than five years. In response to monitoring
requirements identified in the ROD, a groundwater and surface water
monitoring program has been implemented at the Site. This monitoring
program has included the identification of trigger levels for
contaminants of concern for groundwater and surface water for both
Landfill No.1 and Landfill No. 2. The trigger levels for Landfill No. 1
were developed primarily for the protection of aquatic wildlife due to
the proximity of the Willis Branch and lack of potential human
receptors. For Landfill No. 2, the trigger levels were developed to
protect human health due to the proximity of nearby residential wells.
Those levels are:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Landfill No. 1 Landfill No. 2
Contaminant of concern [mu]g/L [mu]g/L
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Groundwater:
Styrene............................. 2900 100
Ethylbenzene........................ 3200 5
1,2,3-trichloropropane.............. .............. 5
Phenolics........................... .............. 22999
Antimony............................ .............. 6
Surface Water:
Styrene............................. 1400 ..............
Ethylbenzene........................ 1600 ..............
Xylenes............................. 900 ..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response Actions
The following is a summary of the activities that were completed at
the Site.
An Environmental Protection Easement and Declaration of
Restrictive Covenants between Alberta Schmidt, as Grantor, and DNREC,
on behalf of the State of Delaware, as Grantee, relating to Landfill
No. 1 was signed on February 24, 2005. The document was recorded with
the Office of the Recorder of Deeds for Kent County, Delaware on April
18, 2005, to implement the institutional controls (land use
restrictions) for Landfill No. 1.
An Environmental Protection Easement and Declaration of
Restrictive Covenants between Kowinsky Farms, Inc, as Grantor, and
DNREC, on behalf of the State of Delaware, as Grantee, relating to
Landfill No. 2 was signed on September 24, 2008. The document was
recorded with the Office of the Recorder of Deeds for Kent County,
Delaware on November 26, 2008, to implement the institutional controls
(land use restrictions) for Landfill No. 2.
On April 8, 1992, the PRPs entered into a Consent Decree
with EPA pursuant to which the PRPs agreed to implement the remedy
selected in the ROD. The PRPs started construction activities in early
July 1993.
Remedial construction activities at Landfill No.1
consisted of clearing the
[[Page 32084]]
perimeter of vegetation so that the security fence could be installed.
Leachate seeps were covered with wood chip mulch. Following
installation of the security fence, cleared areas were seeded. Lastly,
warning signs were posted around the landfill perimeter.
At Landfill No. 2, remedial construction activities were
more extensive. First, the landfill was cleared of all vegetation.
Trees within the landfill perimeter were cut and chipped for mulch.
Each waste cell's leachate collection system was grout sealed. Settled
waste cells were filled with clean fill and the entire landfill surface
was re-graded. Top soil was added; the landfill was then graded and
seeded. A security fence was installed around the landfill. Finally,
warning signs were placed around the landfill perimeter.
Three wells were sampled at Landfill No. 1 and four at
Landfill No. 2. The sampling parameters were ethylbenzene, styrene,
1,2,3-trichloropropane, antimony, and phenolics, as well as field
parameters. Groundwater was sampled semi-annually in 1993 and 1994, and
then annually through 1998. During this period, all sampling results
for contaminants of concern were below established trigger levels for
both Landfill No. 1 and Landfill No. 2, as well as Maximum Contaminant
Levels (MCLs) established under the Safe Drinking Water Act. In 1999,
EPA determined that the subject monitoring could be discontinued. In
2009, the monitoring resumed at a frequency of at least once every five
years. Sampling in 2009 found that all contaminants of concern were
below the established trigger levels and MCLs.
The Site has been inspected regularly as required in the
ROD and routine maintenance activities have been performed as needed.
The routine maintenance activities have generally consisted of minor
fence repair, replacement of warning signs, and mowing the surface of
Landfill No. 2.
On September 9, 1993, EPA and DNREC conducted the final
construction inspection. On September 29, 1993, EPA signed the
Preliminary Site Close Out Report (PCOR), which documented that the
PRPs had completed construction activities at the Site. EPA signed the
Final Close Out Report on February 19, 2009, which documented
completion of all response action, other than operation, maintenance,
and five-year reviews.
Cleanup Goals
EPA approved the Sampling and Analysis Plan (Part IV of the
Remedial Design Submittal) requiring periodic sampling of groundwater,
surface water and sediments. Sampling under the subject Plan was
initiated at the start of remedial action (RA) activities and continued
for six years. During that time, the monitored contaminants of concern
at Landfill No.1 and Landfill No. 2 were well below identified trigger
levels. In response to the results of this monitoring, the First Five-
Year Review for the Site issued by EPA in 1999 found that monitoring of
groundwater and surface water at the Site could be discontinued.
However, during the preparation and completion of the Final Close Out
Report for the Site in February 2009, EPA determined that monitoring
should resume and be conducted at a minimum of once every five years
because waste has been left in place at the Site.
Operation and Maintenance (O&M)
The landfills are inspected semi-annually to identify any
maintenance activities that need to be conducted to ensure continued
performance of the RA. Inspection frequency was quarterly for the first
year to provide for seep cover inspection and maintenance. The EPA-
approved O&M Plan presented the requirements for the Site inspections,
and included a checklist that was used to document inspection
observations and results. O&M began following EPA's certification that
the RA activities were completed. O&M activities that will continue at
the Site are mowing and semi-annual inspections. Also, because waste
remains onsite, groundwater and surface water monitoring will be
performed once every five years.
An Environmental Protection Easement and Declaration of Restrictive
Covenants between Alberta Schmidt, as Grantor, and DNREC, on behalf of
the State of Delaware, as Grantee, relating to Landfill No.1 was signed
on February 24, 2005. The document was recorded with the Office of the
Recorder of Deeds for Kent County, Delaware on April 18, 2005, to
implement the institutional controls for Landfill No. 1.
An Environmental Protection Easement and Declaration of Restrictive
Covenants between Kowinsky Farms, Inc, as Grantor, and DNREC, on behalf
of the State of Delaware, as Grantee, relating to Landfill No. 2 was
signed on September 24, 2008. The document was recorded with the Office
of the Recorder of Deeds for Kent County, Delaware on November 26,
2008, to implement institutional controls for Landfill No. 2.
The implemented institutional controls (land use restrictions) for
both Landfill No. 1 and Landfill No. 2 prohibit disturbance of the
onsite containment remedies.
Five-Year Review
EPA has conducted three (3) statutory Five-Year Reviews for this
Site. Since the remedies selected for the Site allow hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants to remain onsite above levels
that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, statutory Five-
Year Reviews are required. These reviews are conducted pursuant to
CERCLA Section 121(c), 42 U.S.C. 9621(c), and as provided in the
current guidance on Five-Year Reviews.
The first Five-Year Review for the Site was completed on January 6,
1999, and the second Five-Year Review was completed on May 25, 2004.
Both of these Five-Year Reviews found the remedy to be not fully
protective due to the need for institutional controls in both cases.
The most recent Five-Year Review was completed on May 22, 2009.
With the implementation of institutional controls, this Five-Year
Review found no issues that affected the current or future
protectiveness of the remedy for the Site and concluded that the remedy
at the Site is protective over the short term and the long term.
The next Five-Year Review will be completed by May 25, 2014.
Community Involvement
Public participation activities have been satisfied as required in
CERCLA section 113(k), 42 U.S.C. 9613(k), and CERCLA section 117, 42
U.S.C. 9617. Documents in the deletion docket which EPA relied on for
recommendation of the deletion from the NPL are available to the public
in the information repositories.
Before the start of construction activities, representatives of the
PRPs visited residents whose homes were adjacent to the landfills on
both sides of County Road 152. Residents who were at home at the time
of the visit were informed of the start date and the nature and
duration of the construction activities. The PRP representatives
answered questions that the residents asked about the construction
activities. Fact sheets advising the residents of the construction
activities were given to residents in person or were placed in their
mailboxes. EPA issued a fact sheet in July 1993, at about midway
through the construction activities. The fact sheet presented a
description of the Site remedial action and project status.
EPA notified local officials about upcoming Five-Year Reviews. EPA
placed notices in the Delaware State News to inform the public that the
Five-Year Reviews were being conducted and when the findings of each
would be available.
[[Page 32085]]
Determination That the Criteria for Deletion Have Been Met
No further response action under CERCLA is appropriate. EPA has
determined based on the investigations conducted that all appropriate
response actions required have been implemented at the Site. Through
the third Five-Year Review, EPA has also determined that the remedy is
considered protective of human health and the environment and,
therefore, additional remedial measures are not necessary. Other
procedures required by 40 CFR 300.425(e) are detailed in Section III of
this direct Final Notice of Deletion.
V. Deletion Action
The EPA, with concurrence dated September 16, 2010, of the State of
Delaware, through DNREC, 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 noncontroversial and routine, EPA
is taking it without prior publication. This action will be effective
August 2, 2011 unless EPA receives adverse comments by July 5, 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: April 29, 2011.
James W. Newsom,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
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 ``DE'',
``Coker's Sanitation Service Landfills'', ``Kent County''.
[FR Doc. 2011-13841 Filed 6-2-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
