National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the Fort Dix Landfill Superfund Site, 43529-43535 [2012-18136]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
43529
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
V. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established
for residues of acetamiprid, N 1-[(6chloro-3-pyridyl)methyl]- N 2-cyano- N
1-methylacetamidine, in or on asparagus
at 0.80 ppm; Brassica, leafy greens,
subgroup 5B at 15 ppm; turnip greens at
15 ppm; vegetable, fruiting, group 8–10
at 0.20 ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10–10
at 0.50 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11–10
at 1.0 ppm; and Brassica, head and
stem, subgroup 5A at 1.20 ppm.
Also, due to the tolerances established
in this unit by this document, the
following existing tolerances are
removed as unnecessary: Fruit, citrus,
group 10; fruit, pome, group 11;
vegetable, fruiting, group 8; and
vegetable, Brassica, leafy, group 5.
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
This final rule establishes tolerances
under FFDCA section 408(d) in
response to a petition submitted to the
Agency. The Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) has exempted these types
of actions from review under Executive
Order 12866, entitled ‘‘Regulatory
Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993). Because this final rule
has been exempted from review under
Executive Order 12866, this final rule is
not subject to Executive Order 13211,
entitled ‘‘Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66
FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive
Order 13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997). This final rule does not
contain any information collections
subject to OMB approval under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require
any special considerations under
Executive Order 12898, entitled
‘‘Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income
Populations’’ (59 FR 7629, February 16,
1994).
Since tolerances and exemptions that
are established on the basis of a petition
under FFDCA section 408(d), such as
the tolerance in this final rule, do not
require the issuance of a proposed rule,
the requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
This final rule directly regulates
growers, food processors, food handlers,
and food retailers, not States or tribes,
nor does this action alter the
relationships or distribution of power
and responsibilities established by
Congress in the preemption provisions
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jul 24, 2012
Jkt 226001
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such,
the Agency has determined that this
action will not have a substantial direct
effect on States or tribal governments,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States or tribal
governments, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian
tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined
that Executive Order 13132, entitled
‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999) and Executive Order 13175,
entitled ‘‘Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply
to this final rule. In addition, this final
rule does not impose any enforceable
duty or contain any unfunded mandate
as described under Title II of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA) (Pub. L. 104–4).
This action does not involve any
technical standards that would require
Agency consideration of voluntary
consensus standards pursuant to section
12(d) of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA), Public Law 104–113, section
12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
VII. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report to each House of
the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. EPA will
submit a report containing this rule 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 this final rule in the
Federal Register. This final rule is not
a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides
and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: July 17, 2012.
Daniel J. Rosenblatt,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office
of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is
amended as follows:
PART 180—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 180
continues to read as follows:
■
PO 00000
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
Frm 00043
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2. Section 180.578 is amended by
removing the entries for ‘‘fruit, citrus,
group 10’’; ‘‘fruit, pome, group 11’’;
‘‘vegetable, fruiting, group 8’’; and
‘‘vegetable, Brassica, leafy, group 5’’ and
by alphabetically adding the following
entries to the table in paragraph (a)(1) to
read as follows:
■
§ 180.578 Acetamiprid; tolerances for
residues.
(a) General. (1) * * *
Parts per
million
Commodity
*
*
*
*
Asparagus .....................................
*
0.80
*
*
*
*
Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A ...................................
Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup
5B ..............................................
*
1.20
*
*
*
*
Fruit, citrus, group 10–10 .............
Fruit, pome, group 11–10 .............
*
0.50
1.0
*
*
*
*
Turnip greens ...............................
*
*
*
*
*
Vegetable, fruiting, group 8–10 ....
*
0.20
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
15
15
*
*
[FR Doc. 2012–18059 Filed 7–24–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1987–0002; FRL–9703–4]
National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion
of the Fort Dix Landfill Superfund Site
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Region 2 is publishing a
direct final Notice of Deletion of the
Fort Dix Landfill Superfund Site (Site),
located in Pemberton Township, New
Jersey, from the National Priorities List
(NPL). The NPL, promulgated pursuant
to section 105 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an
appendix of the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP). This direct
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\25JYR1.SGM
25JYR1
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
43530
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
final deletion is being published by EPA
with the concurrence of the State of
New Jersey, through the NJ Department
of Environmental Protection, because
EPA has determined that all appropriate
response actions under CERCLA, other
than operation, maintenance, and fiveyear reviews, have been completed.
However, this deletion does not
preclude future actions under
Superfund.
DATES: This direct final deletion is
effective September 24, 2012 unless
EPA receives adverse comments by
August 24, 2012. 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.
• Email: karas.alida@epa.gov.
• Fax: (212) 637–3256.
• Mail: Alida M. Karas, Remedial
Project Manager, Federal Facilities
Section, Emergency & Remedial
Response Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region 2, 18th floor,
290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007.
• Hand delivery: U.S. EPA Records
Center, 290 Broadway, 18th floor, New
York, NY 10007.
Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Docket’s normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID no. EPA–HQ–SFUND–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 email. 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 email comment directly
to EPA without going through https://
www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jul 24, 2012
Jkt 226001
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statue. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
will be publicly available only in the
hard copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:
U.S. EPA Region 2 Records Center,
290 Broadway, 18th floor, New York,
NY 10007 Hours: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday. Phone: 212–
637–4308; and Burlington County
Library, 5 Pioneer Boulevard,
Westampton, New Jersey 08060.
Hours: Monday 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.,
Tuesday–Friday 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.,
Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Sunday
1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.; July and August:
close at 5:00 p.m. on Fridays, closed on
Sundays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Alida M. Karas, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 2, 18th floor, 290
Broadway, New York, NY 10007; email:
karas.alida@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 2 is publishing this direct
final Notice of Deletion of the Fort Dix
Landfill (Site), from the National
Priorities List (NPL). The NPL
constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part
300, which is the Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
(NCP), which EPA promulgated
pursuant to section 105 of the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 September 24,
2012 unless EPA receives adverse
comments by August 24, 2012. 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 Fort Dix Landfill
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
E:\FR\FM\25JYR1.SGM
25JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
environment and, therefore, the taking
of remedial measures is not appropriate.
Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and
the NCP, EPA conducts five-year
reviews to ensure the continued
protectiveness of remedial actions
where hazardous substances, pollutants,
or contaminants remain at a site above
levels that allow for unlimited use and
unrestricted exposure. EPA conducts
such five-year reviews even if a site is
deleted from the NPL. EPA may initiate
further action to ensure continued
protectiveness at a deleted site if new
information becomes available that
indicates it is appropriate. Whenever
there is a significant release from a site
deleted from the NPL, the deleted site
may be restored to the NPL without
application of the hazard ranking
system.
III. Deletion Procedures
The following procedures apply to
deletion of the Site:
(1) EPA consulted with the state of
New Jersey prior to developing this
direct final Notice of Deletion and the
Notice of Intent to Delete co-published
today in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ section
of the Federal Register.
(2) 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 the New Jersey
Department of Environmental
Protection, has concurred on the
deletion of the site from the NPL.
(3) Concurrently with the publication
of this direct final Notice of Deletion, a
notice of the availability of the parallel
Notice of Intent to Delete is being
published in the major local newspaper,
the Burlington County Times. 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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jul 24, 2012
Jkt 226001
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 Fort Dix Landfill is now named
the ‘‘Dix Area Sanitary Landfill’’ due to
the formation of the Joint Base McGuire
Dix Lakehurst (JBMDL). The Dix Area
Sanitary Landfill is located in the
southwest section of the JBMDL in
Pemberton Township, Burlington
County, New Jersey. The landfill covers
approximately 126 acres and is located
about 2,200 feet from the post boundary.
Two streams flow near the landfill:
Cannon Run is located on the east side
of the landfill, and flows south into the
North Branch of Rancocas Creek; and an
unnamed stream is located northwest of
the landfill, and flows to the west into
the North Branch of Rancocas Creek. A
swamp that drains into Budd’s Run is
located to the west of Pipeline Road.
The area immediately surrounding the
Dix Area Sanitary Landfill consists of a
hardwood swamp and densely vegetated
hardwood forest. The town of Browns
Mills is immediately to the east of the
Military Reservation. To the south of the
Dix Area Sanitary Landfill are two
abandoned farms, approximately 12
homes, several county buildings, the
County Hospital, and the Burlington
County Juvenile Detention Center and
shelter. Pemberton Township municipal
buildings, sewage disposal plant, public
water supply wells, and several homes
are located to the southwest of the
landfill. The surficial aquifer consists of
a fine to silty sand unit (Cohansey and
Kirkwood Formations) that overlies the
fine grained silts and clays of the
Manasquan, Hornerstown, and Navesink
Formations. The Cohansey and
Kirkwood Formations form a single
unconfined aquifer at the site.
Groundwater flow in this aquifer is to
the south and southwest. The
underlying Manasquan, Hornerstown,
and Navesink Formations form a
confining layer that limits downward
vertical groundwater flow from the
landfill site.
The Dix Area Sanitary Landfill began
operation in 1950; it was officially
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
43531
closed on July 6, 1984. Prior to landfill
development, the area was used for
Army training. Between 1950 and 1984,
the landfill was used and operated by
the Fort Dix Military Reservation.
McGuire Air Force Base also used the
landfill from 1968 until it was closed.
Access to the landfill was not controlled
until 1980; therefore, records of disposal
practices, waste types, and quantities
are incomplete. Wastes that have been
reportedly disposed of at the landfill
include domestic waste, paints and
thinners, demolition debris, ash, and
solvents.
An interim New Jersey Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES)
permit was issued for the Dix Area
Sanitary Landfill on May 29, 1984. On
July 6, 1984, the Army ceased the
disposal of waste at the landfill in
compliance with the landfill closure
date. The landfill was proposed for
inclusion on the NPL on October 15,
1984 (49 FR 40320). On September 16,
1985, the Army entered into an
Administrative Consent Order (ACO)
with the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection (NJDEP). The
ACO required the Army to conduct a
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study (RI/FS) and to implement the
selected remedial alternative approved
by NJDEP and United States
Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA). The Dix Area Sanitary
Landfill Site was placed on the NPL on
July 22, 1987 (52 FR 27620).
On July 19, 1991, the Army entered
into an interagency agreement, under
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) Section 120, known as
the Federal Facility Agreement (FFA)
with USEPA. The FFA superseded the
ACO and provided the formal basis for
selection of the remedy and the
implementation of the Record of
Decision (ROD) at the Dix Area Sanitary
Landfill Site at JBMDL.
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
The Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study (RI/FS) was completed
in 1987. The RI/FS included a risk
assessment to determine the potential
for impact to public health and the
environment, which may result if the
contamination associated with the Dix
Area Sanitary Landfill, was not
controlled. In conducting this
assessment, the focus was on the human
health and environmental effects that
could result from exposure to
contaminants associated with the
landfill in various media (air, surface
water, sediment, soil, and groundwater).
During the evaluation of site risks,
chemicals detected at the site were
E:\FR\FM\25JYR1.SGM
25JYR1
43532
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
screened to select indicator chemicals
for the Dix Area Sanitary Landfill site.
These chemicals were selected as most
representative of site conditions and
expected to contribute the greatest risks
to human health and the environment.
The indicator chemicals for the site
include: 1,2-dichloroethane, benzene,
vinyl chloride, trichloroethylene,
tetrachloroethylene, chlorobenzene, 2butanone, toluene, trans-1,2dichloroethylene, bis(2ethylhexyl)phthalate, 1,4dichloroethylene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane,
ethylbenzene, nickel, mercury,
cadmium, zinc, chromium, and
manganese. Based on an evaluation of
the data obtained during the RI, the
ROD summarizes the following remedial
objectives:
• To prevent contaminants migrating
from the landfill from affecting drinking
water supplies of the local population;
• To prevent landfill contaminant
migration/exposure via Cannon Run and
Budd’s Run (swamp) from restricting
State-designated downstream surface
water uses on the North Branch of
Rancocas Creek (i.e., fishing, swimming,
and future water supply);
• To protect people who perform
military-related or unauthorized
recreational activities on the JBMDL
property from potentially harmful
effects due to landfill contaminants;
• To satisfy all appropriate local,
State, and Federal requirements for
landfill closure;
• To prevent significant adverse
environmental impacts on the
surrounding flora and fauna caused by
contaminant release from the Dix Area
Sanitary Landfill; and
• To satisfy all site-specific
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements (ARARs) as practicable.
Selected Remedy
The Record of Decision (ROD), signed
on September 24, 1991, consists of the
following requirements:
• Installation of a cap on the southern
53 acres of the landfill consisting of
vegetative, drainage, and lowpermeability layers. Maintenance of 2 ft
of existing final cover on the remaining
portion of the landfill.
• Installation of a landfill gas venting
and air monitoring system to determine
if methane gas and VOC emissions
require treatment.
• Installation of a chain link fence
around the perimeter of the landfill to
restrict access.
• Implementation of landfill closure
requirements in accordance with New
Jersey Closure Requirements, New
Jersey Administration Code (NJAC)
7:26–2A et seq., and Resource
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jul 24, 2012
Jkt 226001
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
guidance.
• Perform long-term groundwater,
surface water, sediment and air
monitoring (30 years) pursuant to the
New Jersey State closure requirements.
Perform a yearly statistical analysis on
the chemical analysis results to
determine the trend of the overall
contamination levels.
• Long-term O&M to provide
inspection of and repairs to the landfill
cap.
• Implementation of ICs in the form
of deed and water restrictions on future
uses of the landfill and groundwater in
the immediate vicinity of the landfill.
• Development and implementation
of a Soil Erosion and Sediment Control
Plan in accordance with the Soil
Erosion and Sediment Control Act
Regulations of 1975—New Jersey
Statutes Annotated (NJSA) 4:24–40 et
seq., and NJAC 2:90–1.1 et seq.
• Using the data obtained in the
monitoring program, review the risk
assessment and subsequently revise the
risk assessment if the trend shows
significant changes in water quality.
These reviews and revisions will be
performed within three years of
commencement of a remedial action and
at least every five years thereafter. Any
changes in actual exposure scenarios
will be addressed in the revised risk
assessments. Risk assessments will use
USEPA guidance and policy effective at
the time of the review.
• Except for monitoring, no
groundwater remedy was specified
because the contaminant plume could
not be defined beyond isolated ‘‘hot
spots’’.
Response Actions
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) acted on behalf of the Army at
Fort Dix for both phases of the project
and supervised all engineering and
construction contracts required for
completion of the work. Professional
engineering services’ for both phases
were provided by Law Engineering and
Environmental Services, Inc. (Law
Environmental).
Phase I encompassed the
approximately 126 acre Landfill with a
six-foot perimeter chain link fence and
provided two feet of soil cover to the
northernmost 73 acres, This was
completed early in fiscal year (FY) 1992.
The contractor for Phases I and II was
the George Hanus Co.
Phase II included covering of the
southernmost 50 acres with a multilayer
impermeable cap. The contract for the
construction requirements of Phase II
Remedial Action was awarded on June
30, 1994. Construction was completed
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
in FY 97. In September, 1997 Law
Environmental provided a Construction
Completion Report to USACE. It was
prepared and certified by C. Keith
Brasher, a Professional Engineer
licensed in the State of New Jersey.
The remedial design, work plans,
performance standards, construction
quality control measures, O&M, and
long-term monitoring plans (LTMPs)
were submitted to and approved by
USEPA and NJDEP. The Army, its
design contractor, the USACE, NJDEP,
and USEPA reviewed, monitored, and
inspected all design and construction
activities, and have determined all
activities were completed in accordance
with the approved documents. USEPA
made a final inspection of the
completed work on March 28, 1998.
Institutional Controls in the form of
Master Plan Amendments that are
equivalent to deed restrictions on future
uses of the Dix Area Sanitary Landfill
have been implemented since the
property is under the control and
ownership of the Federal government.
The Dix Area Master Plan restricts Army
use of the Dix Area Sanitary Landfill
site including the surrounding impacted
areas. In the event the landfill property
were no longer under the control and
ownership of the Federal Government,
implementation of appropriate deed
notices or additional remediation to
meet non-restricted use standards
would be required to ensure the remedy
remains protective of human health and
the environment. In addition to the Dix
Area Master Plan, the site will be
enrolled in the NJDEP Classification
Exception Area (CEA) program upon
deletion from the NPL. The CEA
program is established as a groundwater
land use control (LUC) that serves to
restrict the use of groundwater until
regulatory standards have been
achieved.
Cleanup Goals
The 1991 ROD including long term
monitoring for contaminated
groundwater outside the landfill unit
boundary. The indicator chemicals for
the site include: 1,2-dichloroethane,
benzene, vinyl chloride,
trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene,
chlorobenzene, 2-butanone, toluene,
trans-1,2-dichloroethylene, bis(2ethylhexyl)phthalate, 1,4dichloroethylene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane,
ethylbenzene, nickel, mercury,
cadmium, zinc, chromium, and
manganese. These contaminants were
evaluated in groundwater samples and
compared to EPA MCLs and state
standards, as appropriate. The method
used to determine the appropriate
groundwater screening criteria is a
E:\FR\FM\25JYR1.SGM
25JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
comparison of the NJDEP groundwater
quality standards (NJGWQS) and the
USEPA maximum contaminant level
(MCL) values. The more stringent of the
values is used.
Inorganic Groundwater Monitoring
Results
Based on groundwater monitoring
conducted to date, nutrient metals are
the only analytes exceeding screening
criteria and exhibiting increasing
concentration trends according to the
Mann-Kendall Analysis. These
exceedances and increasing trends
occur both upgradient and
downgradient of the landfill. In
reviewing historical analytical data for
this site, it has been noted that nutrient
metals have been consistently present at
concentrations above screening criteria.
In an effort to understand the
geochemical make-up of the local
hydrogeology, several studies were
reviewed. Following this review, it was
evident that several naturally-occurring
characteristics of the local hydrogeology
are contributing to the elevated
concentrations of nutrient metals in
groundwater.
Fresh, uncontaminated groundwater
in the Kirkwood-Cohansey aquifer
system has naturally-occurring low pH.
During the groundwater sampling
program, pH levels were measured
between 3 and 6 at both upgradient and
downgradient locations. In the
Kirkwood-Cohansey aquifer, calcium
and bicarbonate are usually dominant
ions in solution, with smaller amounts
of sodium, potassium, magnesium
sulfate, manganese and chloride. The
surficial aquifer underlying and
adjacent to the Dix Area Sanitary
Landfill exhibits persistent exceedances
of calcium, magnesium, manganese,
sodium, and potassium that are
attributed to this naturally-occurring
condition. In 1988, the USEPA
determined that concentrations of iron
and manganese present a problem near
the water table because the groundwater
tends to have a low pH. Elevated
concentrations of manganese and iron
are also attributed to reductive
dissolution by metal reducing bacteria
feeding on petroleum contaminants. The
reduced form of both iron and
manganese are more water soluble than
their oxidized counterparts. During the
Spring 2010 and Fall 2010 sampling
events, water quality data collected
indicated a sporadic distribution of
anaerobic and aerobic groundwater
conditions. The data show both acid
leaching and anaerobic degradation of
gasoline contamination that is a waste of
concern at the landfill, leading to
elevated concentrations of manganese
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jul 24, 2012
Jkt 226001
and iron. As a result of these
evaluations, the Addendum to the 2005
CERCLA Five-Year Review concluded
that manganese is naturally occurring
and was removed as a COC from the
site.
Organics
In 1979 and 1982, a series of
groundwater monitoring wells were
installed around the perimeter of the
landfill. Reports indicated volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) were
detected in many of the groundwater
samples taken in 1982. The two major
VOCs exceeding the NJDEP groundwater
limits were methylene chloride and
trichloroethylene. In December 1983,
eight additional groundwater
monitoring wells were installed to
further define groundwater
contamination. Eleven additional wells
were installed in May 1984 as part of a
groundwater investigation performed by
the U.S. Army Engineers Waterways
Experiment Station. VOCs and heavy
metals were detected in the
groundwater samples collected from
wells located immediately to the south,
southeast, and southwest of the landfill.
These compounds included methylene
chloride, dichloroethane,
trichloroethane, trichloroethylene,
tetrachloroethylene, methyl ethyl
ketone, methyl isobutyl ketone,
mercury, cadmium, and other heavy
metals. Based on the 2010 five year
review recommendations, eight sentinel
wells were evaluated and established
downgradient of the landfill cap. These
groundwater monitoring locations were
sampled for eight continuous quarters
(September 2009 to July 2011) and
groundwater was analyzed for all
contaminants of concern (COCs). With
the exception of manganese (which was
removed as a site COC), the results show
no screening criteria exceedances were
observed downgradient of the landfill
and that COCs are below screening
criteria at the landfill unit boundary.
After the evaluation of the proposed
sentinel wells, JBMDL proposed nine
alternative wells, closer to the landfill,
that are currently in the LTMP, to make
up the sentinel well network. Wells
LTM–9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 34 & 36
are now designated as sentinel wells
and shall be used for compliance
determination.
Operation and Maintenance
In general, O&M of the Dix Area
Sanitary Landfill consists of the
collection and analysis of groundwater,
sediment, and surface water samples;
routine mowing; limiting erosion; and
maintaining site security.
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
43533
Air Monitoring
With concurrence from USEPA and
NJDEP, the Dix Area Sanitary Landfill
gas venting and air monitoring system is
no longer sampled and analyzed after it
was determined there was no longer a
need to monitor for methane gas or VOC
emissions. Approval to terminate the air
monitoring was received by NJDEP and
USEPA in 2000.
Surface Water Monitoring
The majority of the surface water
location samples that exceed analyte
concentrations contain nutrient metals
that are not COCs for surface water at
the Dix Area Sanitary Landfill.
As part of the five-year review process
an Ecological Risk Assessment was
completed evaluating surface water
analytical data up to and including
September 2009. With the exception of
manganese and mercury, there have
been no COC screening criteria
exceedances at the landfill in the last
three years. The Addendum to the 2005
CERCLA Five-Year Review (Plexus,
2009) concluded that manganese is
naturally occurring and was removed as
a COC from the program. During the
Spring 2010 and Fall 2010 sampling
events, mercury exceeded screening
criteria at three surface water locations
(SW–1, SW–2, and SW–9). All three of
these locations are situated northwest of
the Dix Area Sanitary Landfill, along
Budd’s Run and immediately
downgradient of the PDO Landfill,
where mercury is the main COC. The
issue of mercury exceedances along
Budd’s Run (the body of water that
contains these surface water locations)
has been addressed in the 2005 CERCLA
Five-year Review Addendum. The five
year review addendum concluded that
the mercury exceedances are attributed
to a separate site upgradient of the Dix
Area Sanitary Landfill. The results of
the ERA illustrate that in September
2009 only one COC (zinc) at SW–2
exceeded ecological screening criteria
(ESC). Since this ESC exceedance, the
concentration of zinc at SW–2 has
reduced in concentration below the
ESC.
Sediment Monitoring
The majority of the sediment location
samples that exceed analyte
concentrations contain nutrient metals
that are not COCs for sediment at the
Dix Area Sanitary Landfill. As part of
the five-year review process an
Ecological Risk Assessment was
completed evaluating sediment
analytical data up to and including
September 2009. With the exception of
chlorobenzene, manganese and
E:\FR\FM\25JYR1.SGM
25JYR1
43534
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
mercury, there have been no COC
screening criteria exceedances at the
landfill in the last three years. Although
chlorobenzene exceeds the screening
criteria, it does not exceed its respective
ecological benchmark. The Addendum
to the 2005 CERCLA Five-Year Review
(Plexus, 2009) concluded that
manganese is naturally occurring and
was removed as a COC from the
program. Since April 2010 the only
sample location that exceeds screening
criteria is SD–9. SD–9 is situated
northwest of the Dix Area Sanitary
Landfill, along Budd’s Run and
immediately downgradient of the PDO
Landfill, where mercury is the main
COC. The issue of mercury exceedances
along Budd’s Run (the body of water
associated with this sediment location)
has been addressed in the 2005 CERCLA
Five-year Review Addendum. The five
year review addendum concluded that
the mercury exceedance is attributed to
a separate site upgradient of the Dix
Area Sanitary Landfill.
Low-level pesticide exceedances of
dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene
(DDE) and
dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT)
occur at locations SD–5 and SD–6, but
do not occur at the landfill boundary.
DDE and DDT are ubiquitous to Fort Dix
and are not considered COCs for the Dix
Area Sanitary Landfill. The results of
the ERA illustrate that in September
2009 only one COC (mercury) at SD–9
exceeded ESC. Since this ESC
exceedance, the concentration of zinc at
SW–2 has reduced in concentration
below the ESC. The 2005 CERCLA Fiveyear Review Addendum concluded that
the mercury exceedances at this location
are attributed to a separate site
upgradient of the Dix Area Sanitary
Landfill.
Site Inspections
Site inspections are performed by a JB
MDL representative every 30 days and
after large rain events or episodes of
severe weather. The O&M contractor
also performs a separate inspection on
a quarterly basis. A compilation of these
quarterly inspection reports is
submitted to the regulatory agencies for
review on annual basis. For areas that
do not have a landfill cap installed,
visual observations are made to ensure
run-on and runoff controls are
performing as intended. Any exposed
waste in these areas is covered with
compacted soil.
Cap Maintenance
On the landfill cap, tree and brush
growth is not allowed for protection of
the cap’s liner system. Areas of
settlement and damage by burrowing
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jul 24, 2012
Jkt 226001
animals are repaired as needed. The
sediment and erosion control features
are maintained by cleaning debris and
accumulated sediment to maintain
proper infiltration and prevent clogging
of the outlet control structure and
emergency spillway. Since the last Fiveyear Review, there has been evidence of
minor burrowing activity; however, the
effects of the burrowing activity have
not impacted the landfill cap or the
protectiveness of the remedy. When
located, burrows are routinely destroyed
during the inspection process.
NJDEP will assume lead regulatory
responsibility for all future O&M,
implementation of ICs, and ensuring
that the remedy remains protective into
the future. Site LUCs will continue
under the current NJDEP CEA program
for the site. Long Term Monitoring of
groundwater, surface water and
sediment will continue in accordance
with Long-Term Monitoring Plan.
Five-Year Review
The third five year review was
completed September 15, 2100. The
technical assessment summary
concluded that the remedy is
functioning as intended and remains
protective of human health and the
environment. There were three issues
highlighted in the review. Evidence of
erosion along the western slope of the
landfill was identified. This erosion was
stabilized and vegetation cover was
restored. A fallen tree along the
northern boundary perimeter fence was
removed, and the fence was restored.
There was a lack of sentinel wells to
delineate groundwater COCs. Sentinel
wells have been selected or installed.
The next Five-year Review for the Dix
Area Sanitary Landfill is required by
September 2015.
Community Involvement
Public participation activities for this
Site have been satisfied as required in
CERCLA sections 113(k) and 117, 42
U.S.C. 9613 (k) and 9617. Throughout
the removal and remedial process, EPA
and the NJDEP have kept the public
informed of the activities being
conducted at the Site by way of public
meetings, progress fact sheets, and the
announcement through local newspaper
advertisement on the availability of
documents such as the RI/FS, Risk
Assessment, ROD, Proposed Plan and
Five-Year Reviews. Notices associated
with these community relations
activities were also mailed out to the
area residents and other concerned
parties on the mailing list for the Site.
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Determination That the Site Meets the
Criteria for Deletion From the NCP
The NCP specifies that EPA may
delete a site from the NPL if
‘‘responsible parties or other persons
have implemented all appropriate
response actions required ’’ as stated in
40 CFR 300.425(e)(1)(ii). EPA, with the
concurrence from the State of New
Jersey, through NJDEP, dated May 3,
2012, believes that this criterion for
deletion has been met. Consequently,
EPA is deleting this Site from the NPL.
Documents supporting this action are
available in the Site files.
The Site meets all the site completion
requirements as specified in the ROD,
and all of the remedial actions at the site
have been implemented. The
implemented remedy achieves the
degree of clean-up and protection
specified in the ROD for all pathways of
exposure. Continued implementation of
the ICs and LTMP will ensure the longterm protectiveness of the remedy.
Currently, none of the COCs outlined in
the ROD have migrated past the landfill
unit boundary as evidenced by
groundwater, surface water and
sediment data collected.
No further Superfund response is
needed to protect human health and the
environment.
V. Deletion Action
The EPA, with concurrence of the
State of New Jersey through the NJ
Department of Environmental
Protection, has determined that all
appropriate response actions under
CERCLA, other than operation,
maintenance, 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 September 24,
2012 unless EPA receives adverse
comments by August 24, 2012. 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,
E:\FR\FM\25JYR1.SGM
25JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.
Dated: July 9, 2012.
Judith Enck,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
For the reasons set out in this
document, 40 CFR part 300 is amended
as follows:
PART 300—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 300
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C.
9601–9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR,
1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923;
3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.
Appendix B to Part 300 [Amended]
2. Table 2 of Appendix B to part 300
is amended by removing ‘‘Fort Dix
(Landfill Site)’’, ‘‘Pemberton Township’’
under NJ.
■
[FR Doc. 2012–18136 Filed 7–24–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 2
[FCC 12–60]
Grantee Codes for Certified
Radiofrequency Equipment
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This document modifies the
rules to remove the restriction that
grantee codes must consist of only three
characters. This action will permit the
Commission to issue longer grantee
codes, thus greatly increasing the
supply of available codes and ensuring
that it will continue to have new ones
to assign to parties that wish to certify
new equipment.
DATES: Effective August 24, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Hugh Van Tuyl, Office of Engineering
and Technology, (202) 418–7506, email:
hugh.vantuyl@fcc.gov, TTY (202) 418–
2989.
SUMMARY:
This is a
summary of the Commission’s Order,
FCC 12–60, adopted June 13, 2012 and
released June 13, 2012. The full text of
this document is available for
inspection and copying during normal
business hours in the FCC Reference
Center (Room CY–A257), 445 12th
Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jul 24, 2012
Jkt 226001
complete text of this document also may
be purchased from the Commission’s
copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing,
Inc., 445 12th Street SW., Room CY–
B402, Washington, DC 20554. The full
text may also be downloaded at:
www.fcc.gov.
Summary of the Order
1. The Commission operates an
equipment authorization program for
radiofrequency (RF) devices under part
2 of its rules. This program is one of the
primary means that the Commission
uses to ensure that the multitude of RF
devices used in the United States
operates effectively without causing
harmful interference and otherwise
complies with the rules. RF devices that
are subject to the ‘‘certification’’
procedure of the equipment
authorization program must be labeled
with an FCC identifier (‘‘FCC ID’’) that
is unique to the device. This FCC ID
includes a Commission-issued code
identifying the grantee of the
certification (‘‘grantee code’’). By this
action, the Commission modifies
§§ 2.925 and 2.926 of the rules to
remove the restriction that grantee codes
must consist of only three characters.
This action will permit the Commission
to issue longer grantee codes, thus
greatly increasing the supply of
available codes and ensuring that it will
continue to have new ones to assign to
parties that wish to certify new
equipment.
2. Authorized equipment must be
labeled to show that it complies with
the rules prior to being imported into or
marketed within the United States. The
label for a device subject to certification
must include an FCC ID that conforms
to a format defined in the rules. The
FCC ID consists of two parts: a threecharacter alphanumeric grantee code
assigned by the Commission to the party
that applies for equipment
authorization, and a one- to 14character product code selected by the
applicant. Once a party obtains a
grantee code from the Commission, the
party may use the same grantee code,
but must use a different product code,
each time it applies for a new
equipment certification from the
Commission or a TCB. The Commission
adopted a three-character format for
grantee codes in 1979 and codified that
format in the rules.
3. Due to the large number of grantee
codes that have already been assigned to
manufacturers and other parties
responsible for equipment compliance,
the Office of Engineering and
Technology anticipates that the
Commission may run out of unassigned
grantee codes in the near future. If that
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
43535
were to occur, parties that did not
already have a grantee code would not
be able to apply for certification of RF
equipment. The Commission therefore
finds it necessary to modify the rules to
increase the supply of grantee codes to
accommodate all parties that wish to
obtain a grantee code and apply for
equipment certification in the future.
4. Specifically, the Commission is
eliminating the requirement in
§ 2.926(c) that grantee codes must
consist of three alphanumeric
characters, and it is replacing it with a
requirement that grantee codes will
consist of alphanumeric or other
characters in a format specified by the
Commission’s Office of Engineering and
Technology. The Commission is not
codifying a particular grantee code
format in the rules in order to allow the
Office of Engineering and Technology
the flexibility to modify the format in
the future if necessitated by changing
technology or other factors. The
Commission also eliminated the text in
§ 2.925(a)(1) that shows an example of a
three character grantee code.
5. While three characters was an
adequate code length for grantee codes
when the rules were originally adopted
and for many years thereafter, the
Commission finds that it is now
necessary to permit longer codes to
allow for a significantly greater number
of possible combinations. In particular,
the Commission notes that the Office of
Engineering and Technology is planning
to issue new five-character grantee
codes in the format described in
Appendix B of the Order. Using this
code length and format, the Commission
calculates that there will be
approximately 8 million additional
grantee codes. The Commission
currently assigns approximately 1000
grantee codes per year, so even if the
rate of assignment increases
substantially in the future, the supply of
five-character codes will last for many
years. Parties that have been assigned
three-character grantee codes may
continue to use those codes indefinitely
for future applications and for
equipment that is already approved. The
five-character codes will be assigned
only to future applicants for grantee
codes once the new rules are effective.
The Commission is not changing the
requirements for the product code
format.
6. The changes adopted in the Order
do not require prior notice and an
opportunity for comment under the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
Section 553(b) of the APA establishes
exceptions to the notice-and-comment
requirement, and one of those
exceptions is for cases in which the
E:\FR\FM\25JYR1.SGM
25JYR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 143 (Wednesday, July 25, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43529-43535]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18136]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1987-0002; FRL-9703-4]
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Deletion of the Fort Dix Landfill Superfund
Site
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 2 is
publishing a direct final Notice of Deletion of the Fort Dix Landfill
Superfund Site (Site), located in Pemberton Township, New Jersey, from
the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, promulgated pursuant to
section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP).
This direct
[[Page 43530]]
final deletion is being published by EPA with the concurrence of the
State of New Jersey, through the NJ Department of Environmental
Protection, 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 September 24, 2012
unless EPA receives adverse comments by August 24, 2012. 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.
Email: karas.alida@epa.gov.
Fax: (212) 637-3256.
Mail: Alida M. Karas, Remedial Project Manager, Federal
Facilities Section, Emergency & Remedial Response Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Region 2, 18th floor, 290 Broadway, New
York, NY 10007.
Hand delivery: U.S. EPA Records Center, 290 Broadway, 18th
floor, New York, NY 10007.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours
of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
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 email. 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 email comment directly to EPA without
going through https://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statue. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in the hard
copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:
U.S. EPA Region 2 Records Center, 290 Broadway, 18th floor, New
York, NY 10007 Hours: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday.
Phone: 212-637-4308; and Burlington County Library, 5 Pioneer
Boulevard, Westampton, New Jersey 08060.
Hours: Monday 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Tuesday-Friday 10:00 a.m. to
9:00 p.m., Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Sunday 1:00 p.m. to 5:00
p.m.; July and August: close at 5:00 p.m. on Fridays, closed on
Sundays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alida M. Karas, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, 18th floor,
290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007; email: karas.alida@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 2 is publishing this direct final Notice of Deletion of
the Fort Dix Landfill (Site), from the National Priorities List (NPL).
The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300, which is the Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA
promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended.
EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a
significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Sites
on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions financed by the
Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). As described in 300.425(e)(3) of
the NCP, sites deleted from the NPL remain eligible for Fund-financed
remedial actions if future conditions warrant such actions.
Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and
routine, this action will be effective September 24, 2012 unless EPA
receives adverse comments by August 24, 2012. 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 Fort Dix Landfill 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
[[Page 43531]]
environment and, therefore, the taking of remedial measures is not
appropriate.
Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and the NCP, EPA conducts five-year
reviews to ensure the continued protectiveness of remedial actions
where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at a
site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure. EPA conducts such five-year reviews even if a site is deleted
from the NPL. EPA may initiate further action to ensure continued
protectiveness at a deleted site if new information becomes available
that indicates it is appropriate. Whenever there is a significant
release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be
restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system.
III. Deletion Procedures
The following procedures apply to deletion of the Site:
(1) EPA consulted with the state of New Jersey prior to developing
this direct final Notice of Deletion and the Notice of Intent to Delete
co-published today in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of the Federal
Register.
(2) 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 the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection, has concurred on the deletion of the site
from the NPL.
(3) Concurrently with the publication of this direct final Notice
of Deletion, a notice of the availability of the parallel Notice of
Intent to Delete is being published in the major local newspaper, the
Burlington County Times. 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 Fort Dix Landfill is now named the ``Dix Area Sanitary
Landfill'' due to the formation of the Joint Base McGuire Dix Lakehurst
(JBMDL). The Dix Area Sanitary Landfill is located in the southwest
section of the JBMDL in Pemberton Township, Burlington County, New
Jersey. The landfill covers approximately 126 acres and is located
about 2,200 feet from the post boundary. Two streams flow near the
landfill: Cannon Run is located on the east side of the landfill, and
flows south into the North Branch of Rancocas Creek; and an unnamed
stream is located northwest of the landfill, and flows to the west into
the North Branch of Rancocas Creek. A swamp that drains into Budd's Run
is located to the west of Pipeline Road. The area immediately
surrounding the Dix Area Sanitary Landfill consists of a hardwood swamp
and densely vegetated hardwood forest. The town of Browns Mills is
immediately to the east of the Military Reservation. To the south of
the Dix Area Sanitary Landfill are two abandoned farms, approximately
12 homes, several county buildings, the County Hospital, and the
Burlington County Juvenile Detention Center and shelter. Pemberton
Township municipal buildings, sewage disposal plant, public water
supply wells, and several homes are located to the southwest of the
landfill. The surficial aquifer consists of a fine to silty sand unit
(Cohansey and Kirkwood Formations) that overlies the fine grained silts
and clays of the Manasquan, Hornerstown, and Navesink Formations. The
Cohansey and Kirkwood Formations form a single unconfined aquifer at
the site. Groundwater flow in this aquifer is to the south and
southwest. The underlying Manasquan, Hornerstown, and Navesink
Formations form a confining layer that limits downward vertical
groundwater flow from the landfill site.
The Dix Area Sanitary Landfill began operation in 1950; it was
officially closed on July 6, 1984. Prior to landfill development, the
area was used for Army training. Between 1950 and 1984, the landfill
was used and operated by the Fort Dix Military Reservation. McGuire Air
Force Base also used the landfill from 1968 until it was closed. Access
to the landfill was not controlled until 1980; therefore, records of
disposal practices, waste types, and quantities are incomplete. Wastes
that have been reportedly disposed of at the landfill include domestic
waste, paints and thinners, demolition debris, ash, and solvents.
An interim New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NJPDES) permit was issued for the Dix Area Sanitary Landfill on May
29, 1984. On July 6, 1984, the Army ceased the disposal of waste at the
landfill in compliance with the landfill closure date. The landfill was
proposed for inclusion on the NPL on October 15, 1984 (49 FR 40320). On
September 16, 1985, the Army entered into an Administrative Consent
Order (ACO) with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
(NJDEP). The ACO required the Army to conduct a Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study (RI/FS) and to implement the selected remedial
alternative approved by NJDEP and United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA). The Dix Area Sanitary Landfill Site was
placed on the NPL on July 22, 1987 (52 FR 27620).
On July 19, 1991, the Army entered into an interagency agreement,
under Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) Section 120, known as the Federal Facility Agreement (FFA)
with USEPA. The FFA superseded the ACO and provided the formal basis
for selection of the remedy and the implementation of the Record of
Decision (ROD) at the Dix Area Sanitary Landfill Site at JBMDL.
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
The Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) was completed
in 1987. The RI/FS included a risk assessment to determine the
potential for impact to public health and the environment, which may
result if the contamination associated with the Dix Area Sanitary
Landfill, was not controlled. In conducting this assessment, the focus
was on the human health and environmental effects that could result
from exposure to contaminants associated with the landfill in various
media (air, surface water, sediment, soil, and groundwater). During the
evaluation of site risks, chemicals detected at the site were
[[Page 43532]]
screened to select indicator chemicals for the Dix Area Sanitary
Landfill site. These chemicals were selected as most representative of
site conditions and expected to contribute the greatest risks to human
health and the environment. The indicator chemicals for the site
include: 1,2-dichloroethane, benzene, vinyl chloride,
trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene, chlorobenzene, 2-butanone,
toluene, trans-1,2-dichloroethylene, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, 1,4-
dichloroethylene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, ethylbenzene, nickel, mercury,
cadmium, zinc, chromium, and manganese. Based on an evaluation of the
data obtained during the RI, the ROD summarizes the following remedial
objectives:
To prevent contaminants migrating from the landfill from
affecting drinking water supplies of the local population;
To prevent landfill contaminant migration/exposure via
Cannon Run and Budd's Run (swamp) from restricting State-designated
downstream surface water uses on the North Branch of Rancocas Creek
(i.e., fishing, swimming, and future water supply);
To protect people who perform military-related or
unauthorized recreational activities on the JBMDL property from
potentially harmful effects due to landfill contaminants;
To satisfy all appropriate local, State, and Federal
requirements for landfill closure;
To prevent significant adverse environmental impacts on
the surrounding flora and fauna caused by contaminant release from the
Dix Area Sanitary Landfill; and
To satisfy all site-specific Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) as practicable.
Selected Remedy
The Record of Decision (ROD), signed on September 24, 1991,
consists of the following requirements:
Installation of a cap on the southern 53 acres of the
landfill consisting of vegetative, drainage, and low-permeability
layers. Maintenance of 2 ft of existing final cover on the remaining
portion of the landfill.
Installation of a landfill gas venting and air monitoring
system to determine if methane gas and VOC emissions require treatment.
Installation of a chain link fence around the perimeter of
the landfill to restrict access.
Implementation of landfill closure requirements in
accordance with New Jersey Closure Requirements, New Jersey
Administration Code (NJAC) 7:26-2A et seq., and Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) guidance.
Perform long-term groundwater, surface water, sediment and
air monitoring (30 years) pursuant to the New Jersey State closure
requirements. Perform a yearly statistical analysis on the chemical
analysis results to determine the trend of the overall contamination
levels.
Long-term O&M to provide inspection of and repairs to the
landfill cap.
Implementation of ICs in the form of deed and water
restrictions on future uses of the landfill and groundwater in the
immediate vicinity of the landfill.
Development and implementation of a Soil Erosion and
Sediment Control Plan in accordance with the Soil Erosion and Sediment
Control Act Regulations of 1975--New Jersey Statutes Annotated (NJSA)
4:24-40 et seq., and NJAC 2:90-1.1 et seq.
Using the data obtained in the monitoring program, review
the risk assessment and subsequently revise the risk assessment if the
trend shows significant changes in water quality. These reviews and
revisions will be performed within three years of commencement of a
remedial action and at least every five years thereafter. Any changes
in actual exposure scenarios will be addressed in the revised risk
assessments. Risk assessments will use USEPA guidance and policy
effective at the time of the review.
Except for monitoring, no groundwater remedy was specified
because the contaminant plume could not be defined beyond isolated
``hot spots''.
Response Actions
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) acted on behalf of the
Army at Fort Dix for both phases of the project and supervised all
engineering and construction contracts required for completion of the
work. Professional engineering services' for both phases were provided
by Law Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. (Law
Environmental).
Phase I encompassed the approximately 126 acre Landfill with a six-
foot perimeter chain link fence and provided two feet of soil cover to
the northernmost 73 acres, This was completed early in fiscal year (FY)
1992. The contractor for Phases I and II was the George Hanus Co.
Phase II included covering of the southernmost 50 acres with a
multilayer impermeable cap. The contract for the construction
requirements of Phase II Remedial Action was awarded on June 30, 1994.
Construction was completed in FY 97. In September, 1997 Law
Environmental provided a Construction Completion Report to USACE. It
was prepared and certified by C. Keith Brasher, a Professional Engineer
licensed in the State of New Jersey.
The remedial design, work plans, performance standards,
construction quality control measures, O&M, and long-term monitoring
plans (LTMPs) were submitted to and approved by USEPA and NJDEP. The
Army, its design contractor, the USACE, NJDEP, and USEPA reviewed,
monitored, and inspected all design and construction activities, and
have determined all activities were completed in accordance with the
approved documents. USEPA made a final inspection of the completed work
on March 28, 1998.
Institutional Controls in the form of Master Plan Amendments that
are equivalent to deed restrictions on future uses of the Dix Area
Sanitary Landfill have been implemented since the property is under the
control and ownership of the Federal government. The Dix Area Master
Plan restricts Army use of the Dix Area Sanitary Landfill site
including the surrounding impacted areas. In the event the landfill
property were no longer under the control and ownership of the Federal
Government, implementation of appropriate deed notices or additional
remediation to meet non-restricted use standards would be required to
ensure the remedy remains protective of human health and the
environment. In addition to the Dix Area Master Plan, the site will be
enrolled in the NJDEP Classification Exception Area (CEA) program upon
deletion from the NPL. The CEA program is established as a groundwater
land use control (LUC) that serves to restrict the use of groundwater
until regulatory standards have been achieved.
Cleanup Goals
The 1991 ROD including long term monitoring for contaminated
groundwater outside the landfill unit boundary. The indicator chemicals
for the site include: 1,2-dichloroethane, benzene, vinyl chloride,
trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene, chlorobenzene, 2-butanone,
toluene, trans-1,2-dichloroethylene, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, 1,4-
dichloroethylene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, ethylbenzene, nickel, mercury,
cadmium, zinc, chromium, and manganese. These contaminants were
evaluated in groundwater samples and compared to EPA MCLs and state
standards, as appropriate. The method used to determine the appropriate
groundwater screening criteria is a
[[Page 43533]]
comparison of the NJDEP groundwater quality standards (NJGWQS) and the
USEPA maximum contaminant level (MCL) values. The more stringent of the
values is used.
Inorganic Groundwater Monitoring Results
Based on groundwater monitoring conducted to date, nutrient metals
are the only analytes exceeding screening criteria and exhibiting
increasing concentration trends according to the Mann-Kendall Analysis.
These exceedances and increasing trends occur both upgradient and
downgradient of the landfill. In reviewing historical analytical data
for this site, it has been noted that nutrient metals have been
consistently present at concentrations above screening criteria. In an
effort to understand the geochemical make-up of the local hydrogeology,
several studies were reviewed. Following this review, it was evident
that several naturally-occurring characteristics of the local
hydrogeology are contributing to the elevated concentrations of
nutrient metals in groundwater.
Fresh, uncontaminated groundwater in the Kirkwood-Cohansey aquifer
system has naturally-occurring low pH. During the groundwater sampling
program, pH levels were measured between 3 and 6 at both upgradient and
downgradient locations. In the Kirkwood-Cohansey aquifer, calcium and
bicarbonate are usually dominant ions in solution, with smaller amounts
of sodium, potassium, magnesium sulfate, manganese and chloride. The
surficial aquifer underlying and adjacent to the Dix Area Sanitary
Landfill exhibits persistent exceedances of calcium, magnesium,
manganese, sodium, and potassium that are attributed to this naturally-
occurring condition. In 1988, the USEPA determined that concentrations
of iron and manganese present a problem near the water table because
the groundwater tends to have a low pH. Elevated concentrations of
manganese and iron are also attributed to reductive dissolution by
metal reducing bacteria feeding on petroleum contaminants. The reduced
form of both iron and manganese are more water soluble than their
oxidized counterparts. During the Spring 2010 and Fall 2010 sampling
events, water quality data collected indicated a sporadic distribution
of anaerobic and aerobic groundwater conditions. The data show both
acid leaching and anaerobic degradation of gasoline contamination that
is a waste of concern at the landfill, leading to elevated
concentrations of manganese and iron. As a result of these evaluations,
the Addendum to the 2005 CERCLA Five-Year Review concluded that
manganese is naturally occurring and was removed as a COC from the
site.
Organics
In 1979 and 1982, a series of groundwater monitoring wells were
installed around the perimeter of the landfill. Reports indicated
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were detected in many of the
groundwater samples taken in 1982. The two major VOCs exceeding the
NJDEP groundwater limits were methylene chloride and trichloroethylene.
In December 1983, eight additional groundwater monitoring wells were
installed to further define groundwater contamination. Eleven
additional wells were installed in May 1984 as part of a groundwater
investigation performed by the U.S. Army Engineers Waterways Experiment
Station. VOCs and heavy metals were detected in the groundwater samples
collected from wells located immediately to the south, southeast, and
southwest of the landfill. These compounds included methylene chloride,
dichloroethane, trichloroethane, trichloroethylene,
tetrachloroethylene, methyl ethyl ketone, methyl isobutyl ketone,
mercury, cadmium, and other heavy metals. Based on the 2010 five year
review recommendations, eight sentinel wells were evaluated and
established downgradient of the landfill cap. These groundwater
monitoring locations were sampled for eight continuous quarters
(September 2009 to July 2011) and groundwater was analyzed for all
contaminants of concern (COCs). With the exception of manganese (which
was removed as a site COC), the results show no screening criteria
exceedances were observed downgradient of the landfill and that COCs
are below screening criteria at the landfill unit boundary. After the
evaluation of the proposed sentinel wells, JBMDL proposed nine
alternative wells, closer to the landfill, that are currently in the
LTMP, to make up the sentinel well network. Wells LTM-9, 10, 12, 13,
14, 17, 18, 34 & 36 are now designated as sentinel wells and shall be
used for compliance determination.
Operation and Maintenance
In general, O&M of the Dix Area Sanitary Landfill consists of the
collection and analysis of groundwater, sediment, and surface water
samples; routine mowing; limiting erosion; and maintaining site
security.
Air Monitoring
With concurrence from USEPA and NJDEP, the Dix Area Sanitary
Landfill gas venting and air monitoring system is no longer sampled and
analyzed after it was determined there was no longer a need to monitor
for methane gas or VOC emissions. Approval to terminate the air
monitoring was received by NJDEP and USEPA in 2000.
Surface Water Monitoring
The majority of the surface water location samples that exceed
analyte concentrations contain nutrient metals that are not COCs for
surface water at the Dix Area Sanitary Landfill.
As part of the five-year review process an Ecological Risk
Assessment was completed evaluating surface water analytical data up to
and including September 2009. With the exception of manganese and
mercury, there have been no COC screening criteria exceedances at the
landfill in the last three years. The Addendum to the 2005 CERCLA Five-
Year Review (Plexus, 2009) concluded that manganese is naturally
occurring and was removed as a COC from the program. During the Spring
2010 and Fall 2010 sampling events, mercury exceeded screening criteria
at three surface water locations (SW-1, SW-2, and SW-9). All three of
these locations are situated northwest of the Dix Area Sanitary
Landfill, along Budd's Run and immediately downgradient of the PDO
Landfill, where mercury is the main COC. The issue of mercury
exceedances along Budd's Run (the body of water that contains these
surface water locations) has been addressed in the 2005 CERCLA Five-
year Review Addendum. The five year review addendum concluded that the
mercury exceedances are attributed to a separate site upgradient of the
Dix Area Sanitary Landfill. The results of the ERA illustrate that in
September 2009 only one COC (zinc) at SW-2 exceeded ecological
screening criteria (ESC). Since this ESC exceedance, the concentration
of zinc at SW-2 has reduced in concentration below the ESC.
Sediment Monitoring
The majority of the sediment location samples that exceed analyte
concentrations contain nutrient metals that are not COCs for sediment
at the Dix Area Sanitary Landfill. As part of the five-year review
process an Ecological Risk Assessment was completed evaluating sediment
analytical data up to and including September 2009. With the exception
of chlorobenzene, manganese and
[[Page 43534]]
mercury, there have been no COC screening criteria exceedances at the
landfill in the last three years. Although chlorobenzene exceeds the
screening criteria, it does not exceed its respective ecological
benchmark. The Addendum to the 2005 CERCLA Five-Year Review (Plexus,
2009) concluded that manganese is naturally occurring and was removed
as a COC from the program. Since April 2010 the only sample location
that exceeds screening criteria is SD-9. SD-9 is situated northwest of
the Dix Area Sanitary Landfill, along Budd's Run and immediately
downgradient of the PDO Landfill, where mercury is the main COC. The
issue of mercury exceedances along Budd's Run (the body of water
associated with this sediment location) has been addressed in the 2005
CERCLA Five-year Review Addendum. The five year review addendum
concluded that the mercury exceedance is attributed to a separate site
upgradient of the Dix Area Sanitary Landfill.
Low-level pesticide exceedances of dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene
(DDE) and dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) occur at locations SD-5
and SD-6, but do not occur at the landfill boundary. DDE and DDT are
ubiquitous to Fort Dix and are not considered COCs for the Dix Area
Sanitary Landfill. The results of the ERA illustrate that in September
2009 only one COC (mercury) at SD-9 exceeded ESC. Since this ESC
exceedance, the concentration of zinc at SW-2 has reduced in
concentration below the ESC. The 2005 CERCLA Five-year Review Addendum
concluded that the mercury exceedances at this location are attributed
to a separate site upgradient of the Dix Area Sanitary Landfill.
Site Inspections
Site inspections are performed by a JB MDL representative every 30
days and after large rain events or episodes of severe weather. The O&M
contractor also performs a separate inspection on a quarterly basis. A
compilation of these quarterly inspection reports is submitted to the
regulatory agencies for review on annual basis. For areas that do not
have a landfill cap installed, visual observations are made to ensure
run-on and runoff controls are performing as intended. Any exposed
waste in these areas is covered with compacted soil.
Cap Maintenance
On the landfill cap, tree and brush growth is not allowed for
protection of the cap's liner system. Areas of settlement and damage by
burrowing animals are repaired as needed. The sediment and erosion
control features are maintained by cleaning debris and accumulated
sediment to maintain proper infiltration and prevent clogging of the
outlet control structure and emergency spillway. Since the last Five-
year Review, there has been evidence of minor burrowing activity;
however, the effects of the burrowing activity have not impacted the
landfill cap or the protectiveness of the remedy. When located, burrows
are routinely destroyed during the inspection process.
NJDEP will assume lead regulatory responsibility for all future
O&M, implementation of ICs, and ensuring that the remedy remains
protective into the future. Site LUCs will continue under the current
NJDEP CEA program for the site. Long Term Monitoring of groundwater,
surface water and sediment will continue in accordance with Long-Term
Monitoring Plan.
Five-Year Review
The third five year review was completed September 15, 2100. The
technical assessment summary concluded that the remedy is functioning
as intended and remains protective of human health and the environment.
There were three issues highlighted in the review. Evidence of erosion
along the western slope of the landfill was identified. This erosion
was stabilized and vegetation cover was restored. A fallen tree along
the northern boundary perimeter fence was removed, and the fence was
restored. There was a lack of sentinel wells to delineate groundwater
COCs. Sentinel wells have been selected or installed.
The next Five-year Review for the Dix Area Sanitary Landfill is
required by September 2015.
Community Involvement
Public participation activities for this Site have been satisfied
as required in CERCLA sections 113(k) and 117, 42 U.S.C. 9613 (k) and
9617. Throughout the removal and remedial process, EPA and the NJDEP
have kept the public informed of the activities being conducted at the
Site by way of public meetings, progress fact sheets, and the
announcement through local newspaper advertisement on the availability
of documents such as the RI/FS, Risk Assessment, ROD, Proposed Plan and
Five-Year Reviews. Notices associated with these community relations
activities were also mailed out to the area residents and other
concerned parties on the mailing list for the Site.
Determination That the Site Meets the Criteria for Deletion From the
NCP
The NCP specifies that EPA may delete a site from the NPL if
``responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate
response actions required '' as stated in 40 CFR 300.425(e)(1)(ii).
EPA, with the concurrence from the State of New Jersey, through NJDEP,
dated May 3, 2012, believes that this criterion for deletion has been
met. Consequently, EPA is deleting this Site from the NPL. Documents
supporting this action are available in the Site files.
The Site meets all the site completion requirements as specified in
the ROD, and all of the remedial actions at the site have been
implemented. The implemented remedy achieves the degree of clean-up and
protection specified in the ROD for all pathways of exposure. Continued
implementation of the ICs and LTMP will ensure the long-term
protectiveness of the remedy. Currently, none of the COCs outlined in
the ROD have migrated past the landfill unit boundary as evidenced by
groundwater, surface water and sediment data collected.
No further Superfund response is needed to protect human health and
the environment.
V. Deletion Action
The EPA, with concurrence of the State of New Jersey through the NJ
Department of Environmental Protection, has determined that all
appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other than operation,
maintenance, 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 September 24, 2012 unless EPA receives adverse comments by
August 24, 2012. 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,
[[Page 43535]]
Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply.
Dated: July 9, 2012.
Judith Enck,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
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 2 of Appendix B to part 300 is amended by removing ``Fort Dix
(Landfill Site)'', ``Pemberton Township'' under NJ.
[FR Doc. 2012-18136 Filed 7-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
