National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the Craig Farm Drum Superfund Site, 45871-45877 [2013-18189]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
that does not meet Federal
requirements; this action does not
impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the state, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:12 Jul 29, 2013
Jkt 229001
report containing this action and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by September 30,
2013. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of
this final rule does not affect the finality
of this action for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time
within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not
postpone the effectiveness of such rule
or action. This action may not be
challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: July 12, 2013.
Shaun L. McGrath,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as
follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for Part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart BB—Montana
2. Section 52.1393 is amended by
revising section heading, designating
existing paragraph as (a) and adding
paragraph (b) to read as follows:
■
§ 52.1393 Interstate transport
requirements.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) On February 10, 2010, Montana
Governor Brian Schweitzer submitted a
letter certifying, in part, that Montana’s
SIP is adequate to meet the interstate
transport requirements of CAA section
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
45871
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS.
[FR Doc. 2013–18156 Filed 7–29–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1983–0002; FRL–9840–3]
National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion
of the Craig Farm Drum Superfund Site
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct Final Rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Region III is publishing a
direct final Notice of Deletion for the
Craig Farm Drum Superfund Site (Site)
located in Perry Township, Armstrong
County, Pennsylvania, from the
National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL,
promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of
the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is
an appendix of the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP). This direct
final deletion is being published by EPA
with the concurrence of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
through the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (PADEP),
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 30, 2013 unless
EPA receives adverse comments by
August 29, 2013. 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.
SUMMARY:
Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID no. EPA–HQ–
SFUND–1983–0002, by one of the
following methods:
• https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• Email: Epps.John@epa.gov.
• Fax: (215) 814–3002.
• Mail: John Epps, 1650 Arch Street,
Mail Code 3HS22, Philadelphia, PA
19103.
ADDRESSES:
E:\FR\FM\30JYR1.SGM
30JYR1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
45872
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
• Hand Delivery: John Epps, 1650
Arch Street, Mail Code 3HS22,
Philadelphia, PA 19103; 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–1983–
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 the disclosure of which 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:
EPA Administrative Records Room,
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA
19103, (215) 814–3157; Hours: Monday
through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.;
by appointment only. Karns City Area
High School Office, 1446 Kittanning,
Karns City PA 16041, (726) 756–2030;
Please call to schedule an appointment.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:12 Jul 29, 2013
Jkt 229001
John
Epps, Remedial Project Manager, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Mail Code
3HS22, Philadelphia, PA 19103, (215)
814–3144, Email: Epps.John@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
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
Craig Farm Drum 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 September 30,
2013 unless EPA receives adverse
comments by August 29, 2013. 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 Craig Farm Drum
Superfund Site and demonstrates how it
meets the deletion criteria. Section V
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania prior to
developing this direct final Notice of
Deletion and the Notice of Intent to
Delete co-published today in the
‘‘Proposed Rules’’ section of the Federal
Register.
(2) EPA has provided the
Commonwealth 30 working days for
review of this notice and the parallel
Notice of Intent to Delete prior to their
publication today, and the
Commonwealth, through PADEP, has
concurred on the deletion of the Site
from the NPL in a letter dated May 1,
2013.
E:\FR\FM\30JYR1.SGM
30JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
(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 Butler Eagle. 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.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
IV. Basis for Site Deletion
The following information provides
EPA’s rationale for deleting the Site
from the NPL:
Site Background and History
The Craig Farm Drum Superfund Site
(the Site), CERCLIS ID PAD980508527,
consists of approximately 117 acres
located in Perry Township, in the
vicinity of the village of Fredericksburg,
near the western border of Armstrong
County, Pennsylvania. The Site is
located approximately two miles east of
the Borough of Petrolia and
approximately four miles south of the
town of Parker and the Allegheny River.
Land use surrounding the Site is
primarily agricultural and limited
residential.
The Site was historically operated as
a strip mine, resulting in two abandoned
mine pits following the cessation of
operations, prior to 1958. Typical of
strip mining operations in the vicinity
of the Site, the mining pits were cut into
a hillside where the coal seam
outcropped or subcropped. The pit
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:12 Jul 29, 2013
Jkt 229001
walls were formed by the working face
(highwall) of the mine and the spoil
piles were staged away from the
working face.
From 1958 through 1963, 55-gallon
drums containing still bottom residue
from the manufacturing of Resorcinol at
the nearby Koppers Chemical Company
(Koppers) plant were deposited in the
abandoned former strip mine pits,
hereinafter known as the north and
south disposal pits. Resorcinol, also
known as 1,3-benzenediol, mbenzenediol, 1,3-dihydroxybenzene, mdihydroxybenzene, 3-hydroxyphenol, or
m-hydroxyphenol, is an organic
compound used as an adhesive
enhancer in the production of
automobile tires and in
pharmaceuticals.
The residue, consisting of resorcinol
and other higher polymers, is
characterized as a CERCLA hazardous
substance but not as a Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
hazardous waste. Approximately 2,500
tons of material were placed in the
disposal pits by Mr. Herman Craig, Site
owner Paul Craig’s brother. During
deposition and during the time the
drums were stored on-site, many drums
were damaged, resulting in a release of
the residue to the environment.
The Site was proposed for placement
on the National Priorities List (NPL) on
December 30, 1982 (47 FR 58476 (1982–
12–30)), and listed on the NPL on
September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40658 (1983–
09–08)).
Currently, the Site is undeveloped,
with the exception of the components of
the remedy. No proposed
redevelopment plan currently exists for
the Site. At the time of the Record of
Decision (ROD) in 1989, it was
anticipated that the Site may be used in
the future for recreational purposes. Due
to the extremely rural location and
steeply sloping nature of the Site,
commercial or residential development
potential is limited.
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility
Study (RI/FS)
An Environmental Assessment (EA) of
the Site was conducted in 1983 prior to
the final listing of the Site on the NPL
and consisted of the following
components:
• Hydrogeologic study;
• Surface water sampling study;
• Stream biological study;
• Air quality survey.
Additionally, test pits were installed
in 1984 in the vicinity of the disposal
pits to determine the extent and
condition of the drums containing stillbottom residue. The investigation
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
45873
indicated that the majority of the drums
were crushed, broken, or without lids.
Following the listing of the Site on the
NPL in September 1983, the RI/FS was
conducted from February 1986 through
November 1987 and consisted of the
following components:
• Biological survey;
• Biota survey;
• Surface water and sediment
characterization;
• Groundwater characterization.
Additional groundwater monitoring
wells were installed in November 1988
to further delineate the extent of
groundwater contamination.
Test pits installed in the vicinity of
the disposal pits in 1984 prior to the RI/
FS indicated the still bottom residue
consisted of black to pink semisolid
material with some hardened masses.
The north disposal pit was observed to
be approximately 1.2 to 1.5 acres in
lateral extent and the south disposal pit
was observed to be approximately 0.8 to
1.0 acres in lateral extent. Analytical
data of samples collected during test pit
installation indicated that the source
material in the disposal pits was located
approximately 2.5 and 6.0 feet below
ground surface (bgs). Contaminated soil
was also observed in the vicinity of the
disposal pits during test pit installation,
particularly in down-slope areas.
Groundwater quality data collected
during the RI/FS indicated the presence
of impacted groundwater in three water
bearing zones at the Site; the
unconsolidated materials zone, the
upper bedrock (shale) aquifer, and the
lower sandstone aquifer.
The biological survey conducted
during the RI/FS indicated that
macroinvertebrate communities located
downstream from the Site in the
Unnamed Creek were stressed due to
site-related compounds. The stress was
characterized as a lack of
macroinvertebrate species that are
typically an indicator of good water
quality. However, analysis of tissue
samples from macroinvertebrates in the
Unnamed Creek did not detect any
bioaccumulation or biomagnification of
site-related compounds. No stress was
detected in fish species within Valley
Run and the macroinvertebrate
community recovered within one mile
of the confluence of Valley Run and the
Unnamed Creek.
The total non-carcinogenic hazard
indices (HIs) calculated for each of the
potential receptors were less than 1,
indicating that the there was no excess
risk of non-carcinogenic health impacts.
The excess individual cancer risk to
future miners, based on potential
exposure to benzene in groundwater,
was lower than EPA’s acceptable risk
E:\FR\FM\30JYR1.SGM
30JYR1
45874
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
range of 10¥4 to 10¥6. Excess individual
cancer risk was not calculated for future
off-site domestic well users because
potentially carcinogenic compounds are
not present in the lower sandstone
aquifer, which is the only aquifer that
could potentially be developed for
drinking water supply. This evaluation
indicated that there was no excess risk
of cancer based on the evaluated
exposure pathways.
In summary, the risk characterization
indicated that the overall threat to
human health posed by the Craig Farm
Drum Site was negligible, primarily due
to the limited exposure likelihood based
on the current and future Site uses. The
evaluation of potential environmental
exposure pathways indicated that
aquatic life within the Unnamed Creek
is being impacted by site-related COCs.
Therefore, the selection of the remedy
for the Site was based on the Site’s
impact to the environment only, and not
on the impact to human health. The Site
was determined to present an imminent
and substantial endangerment to the
environment as set forth in Section 106
of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. Section 9606.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Selected Remedy
The ROD for the Site was issued on
September 29, 1989. The following
Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs)
were identified:
• Minimize risk to human health and
the environment from direct contact
with contaminated material;
• Control the migration of
contaminants into nearby surface
waters;
• Control the migration of
contaminants into groundwater.
The ROD divided the Site into three
Operable Units (OUs). OU–1 consisted
of the resorcinol residue material in the
former disposal pits and an adjacent
contaminated soils containing
detectable concentrations (>50 mg/kg) of
resorcinol. OU–2 consisted of clean
soils that needed to be moved to access
OU–1 material. OU–3 consisted of two
contaminated seeps, identified as Seeps
A and B, located downgradient of the
former disposal pits.
In order to address these OUs and
meet the RAOs, the Selected Remedy in
the ROD consisted of the following
components:
• Excavation of 32,000 cubic yards of
material from the disposal pits and
surrounding areas;
• On-site solidification of excavated
material;
• Placement of the solidified material
in an newly constructed on-site RCRA
equivalent, double lined, fenced
landfill;
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:12 Jul 29, 2013
Jkt 229001
• Wetland delineation and
subsequent construction of a one-acre
on-site wetland to replace wetlands
destroyed in construction of the on-site
landfill;
• Implementation of institutional
controls alerting property owners of
contamination;
• Passive collection of groundwater
using a seep interceptor system with offsite treatment;
• Monitoring of both on-site and offsite groundwater and surface water.
The 1989 ROD indicated that the
completeness of the remedy would be
determined by using an EPA-approved
bioassay test procedure. The bioassay
testing has historically been performed
on both Seeps A and B as discussed in
the sections below.
The 1989 ROD also required that a
Groundwater Verification Study be
performed during Remedial Design (RD)
in to determine if groundwater at the
Site would require further remediation.
The Groundwater Verification Study
was conducted in 1991 and indicated
that contaminant levels in groundwater
did not differ significantly from those
detected during the RI and would
therefore not pose a significant risk to
human health. Based on the results of
the Groundwater Verification Study, no
additional groundwater remediation
was required.
Historically, groundwater collected by
the seep interceptor system was taken to
a Beazer-owned off-site facility for
treatment. However, that facility was
planned to be shut down in 2010.
Therefore, from March 2007 through
September 2008, Beazer conducted a
Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) to
evaluate additional remedial
alternatives for the wastewater collected
by the seep interceptor system (OU–3).
As a result of the FFS, the Selected
Remedy was modified by a September
18, 2009 Explanation of Significant
Differences (ESD), consisting of the
following components:
• Installation of an impermeable cap
on the 3-acre, former north pit area to
reduce infiltration of clean water
through north pit materials (referred to
as the Seep A Cap);
• Excavation/fill of existing ground
surface in vicinity of former north pit to
required grade;
• Installation of bioswales or other
infiltration features to direct clean
surface water flow from capped area;
• Installation of groundwater
infiltration system into deep bedrock
upgradient of the former north pit to
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
prevent upgradient groundwater from
flowing through north pit materials 1;
• Continued maintenance of the Seep
A collection trench, piping, and storage
tank to collect contaminated overburden
groundwater;
• Treatment of collected Seep A
water at an alternative off-site treatment
facility;
• The Seep B collection trench would
remain in place but valves would be
closed so that the system no longer
collected water;
• Clarification of the requirements for
the institutional controls selected in the
1989 ROD.
Response Actions
The Selected Remedy from the 1989
ROD was implemented from May 1994
through December 1995 in accordance
with the September 27, 1993 Remedial
Design and October 9, 1990 Consent
Decree (CD). The final inspection was
conducted on December 15, 1995 and
completion of the Remedial Action was
documented in the Remedial Action
Completion Report, accepted by EPA on
April 26, 1994.
EPA issued a Final Close Out Report
(FCOR) on December 27, 1995 to
document completion of the remedy
specified in the 1989 ROD. The FCOR
documented Construction Completion
rather than Site Completion because
institutional controls were not in place
at the time of the FCOR. Additional
response actions were also required by
the 2009 ESD following the issuance of
the 1995 FCOR, as described below. The
institutional controls were implemented
in 2004 in accordance with the
recommendations of the Second Five
Year Review and the requirements for
the institutional controls were clarified
in the 2009 ESD. Institutional controls
are discussed in additional detail in the
Operations and Maintenance section
below.
The remedy modification in the 2009
ESD was implemented from May
through August 2010 in accordance
with the June 4, 2010 Final Design
Report. The final inspection was
conducted on September 20, 2010 and
completion of the remedy modification
was documented in the November 30,
2010 Remedial Action Report, accepted
by EPA on December 22, 2010.
1 Although the groundwater infiltration system
was selected as a component of the remedy
modification, groundwater monitoring following
the installation of the Seep A Cap indicated that the
infiltration system would not be necessary and the
system was not installed. A Preliminary Design
Investigation was conducted to evaluate the
feasibility of installing the system, as documented
in the June 4, 2010 Final Design Report included
in the Deletion Docket.
E:\FR\FM\30JYR1.SGM
30JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
EPA issued a Revised FCOR on June
19, 2013 to summarize the findings of
the 1995 FCOR, describe the
implementation of institutional
controls, and document the additional
response actions performed in
accordance with the 2009 ESD.
Cleanup Goals
The RAOs established in the 1989
ROD have been achieved by the
Selected Remedy, as modified by the
2009 ESD.
The RAO of minimizing the risk to
human health and the environment
from direct contact with contaminated
material has been achieved via the
excavation and solidification of material
from the disposal pits, placement of the
solidified material in a newly
constructed on-site landfill, and
installation of the seep interceptor
system. Potential direct contact was
further minimized via installation of the
Seep A Cap over the north disposal pit
area.
Furthermore, although not a
component of the remedy, the Site is
located within the Bear Creek Area
Chemical Site (BCACS). The BCACS
consists of multiple Sites that are
impacted by contaminants primarily
related to resorcinol manufacturing and
are being addressed by either EPA or
PADEP. Between 2003 and 2007,
PADEP connected residents within the
BCACS to public water and required
communities therein to institute public
water connection ordinances. The
location of the Site within the BCACS
therefore further reduces the potential
for direct contact with Site-related
contaminants in groundwater.
The RAO of controlling the migration
of contaminants into nearby surface
water bodies, primarily the Unnamed
Creek, has been achieved via the
installation of the seep interceptor
system and enhanced by the installation
of the Seep A Cap. Demonstration of
achievement of this RAO with respect to
numerical performance standards is
discussed in additional detail below.
As discussed above in the summary of
the RI/FS, the contaminants of concern
(COCs) at the Site consist of the
following compounds:
• Benzene;
• Resorcinol;
• Benzene metadisulfonic acid (mBDSA);
• Benzene sulfonic acid (BSA);
45875
• p-Phenol sulfonic acid (p-PSA);
• Trihydroxydiphenyl (THD).
Phenol, m-phenol sulfonic acid (mPSA), and multiple metals were also
identified as Site COCs in the 1989
ROD, however, these compounds were
eliminated as Site COCs following the
Groundwater Verification Study in
1991. No PADEP Water Quality Criteria
for Toxic Substances (PADEP WQC)
existed at the time of the ROD for
resorcinol, m-BDSA, BSA, p-PSA, or
THD and no numerical performance
standards were established for these
compounds in the 1989 ROD in surface
water. Benzene has not been detected in
surface water since 1987 during the RI
for the Site and has therefore achieved
the PADEP WQC.
PADEP WQC were proposed for
resorcinol, m-BDSA, BSA, and p-PSA in
February 2012 as show in the table
below. No PADEP WQC was proposed
for THD due primarily to the difficulty
in analyzing for that compound. Instead,
the remaining resorcinol-related
compounds are considered indicator
parameters for THD.
Fish and aquatic life criteria
Chronic WQC
criterion
continuous
concentration
(μg/L)
Compound
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Resorcinol ....................................................................................................................................
m-BDSA .......................................................................................................................................
BSA ..............................................................................................................................................
p-PSA ...........................................................................................................................................
The Unnamed Creek was considered
the receptor for Site-related
contaminants in the 1989 ROD due to
the observed impact to
macroinvertebrates in the creek. As
discussed above, the ROD includes an
RAO to control migration of
contaminants into the creek. In order to
determine if this RAO has been
achieved, analytical data from the
Unnamed Creek was compared to the
PADEP WQC presented above.
Sampling of the Unnamed Creek was
historically conducted on a quarterly
basis for the first year following
construction of the remedy in 1995, on
a semi-annual basis for the second year
following construction, and annually
during the third year following
construction. Historic sampling did not
indicate the presence of Site-related
contaminants in the Unnamed Creek at
that time and sampling of the creek was
discontinued in 1998.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:12 Jul 29, 2013
Jkt 229001
In order to evaluate the effectiveness
of the remedy modification selected in
the 2009 ESD, two additional sampling
events were conducted in the Unnamed
Creek in March 2011 and January 2012.
During those sampling events, m-BDSA
was detected in the Unnamed Creek at
a concentration of 97 mg/L in March
2011 and 77 mg/L in January 2012,
below the criteria listed above by
multiple orders of magnitude. THD was
detected at a concentration of 70 mg/L
during the January 2012 sampling event
and was not detected in March 2011. No
other Site COCs were detected in the
Unnamed Creek during either of the
sampling events conducted since the
installation of the Seep A cap.
Additionally, the 1989 ROD indicated
that completeness of the remedy will be
determined by performing bioassay
testing. Bioassay testing has been
performed on water collected from Seep
A and Seep B, but not on water from the
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Acute WQC
criterion
maximum
concentration
(μg/L)
Human health
criteria
(μg/L)
7200
1600000
1200000
1400000
28000
2600000
2000000
3500000
2700
N/A
N/A
N/A
Unnamed Creek. In the 2009 ESD, EPA
determined that water collected by Seep
B no longer exhibited toxicity based on
the bioassay testing data. Current data
from the Unnamed Creek indicate that
Site COC concentrations are either nondetect or are below the concentrations
detected in Seep B. Therefore, the water
in the Unnamed Creek also does not
exhibit toxicity according to the
bioassay criteria. Because the Unnamed
Creek is considered the receptor for
Site-related contamination, the remedy
for OU–3 can be considered complete.
Water collected by Seep A continues to
exhibit toxicity based on recent bioassay
sampling and will continue to be
collected as an O&M task until the
bioassay criteria are reached in order to
prevent contaminated groundwater from
discharging to the Unnamed Creek.
Based on current contaminant trends in
Seep A water, the bioassay criteria are
E:\FR\FM\30JYR1.SGM
30JYR1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
45876
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
expected to be reached in approximately
two years.
Based on a comparison to currently
proposed PADEP WQC and Site-specific
bioassay criteria, the remedy has
achieved the RAO of controlling
contaminant migration into the
Unnamed Creek as specified in the 1989
ROD.
The RAO of controlling the migration
of contaminants into groundwater has
been achieved via the installation of the
seep interceptor system and enhanced
by the installation of the Seep A Cap. At
the time of the ROD, it was determined
that the concentrations of Site COCs in
groundwater did not present a current
or potential future risk to human health.
Additionally, no Maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for Site
COCs existed at the time of the 1989
ROD and no MCLs currently exist or are
proposed. Although not selected as an
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirement (ARAR) in the 1989 ROD,
since the ROD was issued, PADEP
promulgated a State-Wide Health
Standard (SHS) Medium Specific
Concentration (MSC) for resorcinol in
groundwater of 73,000 mg/L for
residential use and 200,000 mg/L for
non-residential use. Groundwater
monitoring was historically conducted
on a semi-annual basis from 1999
through 2010. The highest detection of
resorcinol during the monitoring period
was 50,600 mg/L in February of 2000,
below the PADEP SHS MSCs and
concentrations have continued to
decline. Groundwater monitoring has
been conducted three times since 2010.
In the three most recent sampling events
conducted in March 2011, January 2012,
and July 2012 the highest detection of
resorcinol was 27,100 mg/L, below the
PADEP SHS MSCs. The concentrations
of all Site COCs in groundwater have
significantly decreased, in most cases by
an order of magnitude, since the 1989
ROD was issued. Therefore, the current
concentrations of Site COCs in
groundwater do not present a current or
potential future risk to human health.
Based on this information, the remedy
has achieved the RAO of controlling
contaminant migration into
groundwater as specified in the 1989
ROD.
The remedy is currently protective of
human health and the environment and
all RAOs specified in the 1989 ROD
have been achieved. Operation and
maintenance of the remedy and
institutional controls, as described
below, will ensure the long-term
protection of human health and the
environment.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:12 Jul 29, 2013
Jkt 229001
Operation and Maintenance
Long-term monitoring and
maintenance at the Site is conducted in
accordance with the Operations and
Maintenance Plan (O&M Plan) initially
dated July 14, 1993 and revised on April
15, 2013 following the completion of the
remedy modification and subsequent
initial monitoring. The O&M Plan, as
revised, consists of the following
components:
• Annual site inspection of the
following: on-site landfill/cap, former
south disposal pit area, Seep A
collection piping, above ground storage
tank, Seep A cap/bioswale/stormwater
swale, and ancillary facilities.
• Groundwater sampling and
analysis;
Æ Landfill Wells—Hydraulic
monitoring and sampling every five
years to coincide with Five Year
Reviews;
Æ Groundwater Monitoring Wells—
Annual hydraulic monitoring, sampling
every five years to coincide with Five
Year Reviews.
• Surface water sampling and
analysis;
Æ Annual sampling through 2014,
after which samples will be collected
every five years to coincide with FiveYear Reviews.
• Seep water collection and disposal
(seep interceptor system Seep A);
Æ Off-site disposal as needed;
Æ Periodic sampling to determine if
collected water (Seep A) meets bioassay
criteria.
• Leachate collection and disposal
(on-site landfill);
Æ Pumping, collection, and off-site
disposal as needed.
• Progress reporting;
Æ Reporting every five years to
coincide with Five Year Reviews.
The 1989 ROD for the Site required
that institutional controls be placed on
the Site to ensure the protectiveness of
the remedy. The 2004 Second Five Year
Review indicated that the institutional
controls were not yet in place, and
subsequently the institutional controls
were implemented on September 23,
2004 in the form of a deed restriction
consisting of the following:
• No groundwater beneath the Site
may be used and no wells may be
installed on the Site for human
consumption, irrigation, or other
purpose that may bring it into contact
with humans, except for testing
purposes as required by law, remedial
action/design, or the terms of the
Consent Decree;
• No structure may be placed on the
Site that would disturb the cap or
stabilized contents of the landfill or
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
would otherwise disturb any component
of the remedial action/design without
prior written approval of the Site owner
and EPA;
• The Site may not be used for the
purposes of living, dwelling, or
overnight accommodations of any type;
• No action may be taken that will
interfere with, obstruct, or disturb the
performance of any remedial response,
including O&M;
• Any Site owner must provide any
purchaser with notice of the terms of the
Consent Decree prior to transferring any
interest in the Site.
The 2009 Third Five Year Review
indicated that the requirement for
institutional controls was in the
declaration portion of the 1989 ROD
only and not in the remedy selection
portion. Therefore, EPA included a
clarification of the requirement for
institutional controls in the 2009 ESD to
ensure that the controls remain in place
and effective.
Five-Year Reviews
Three Five Year Reviews have been
conducted at the Site in 1999, 2004, and
2009. The Protectiveness Statement in
the 2009 Third Five Year Review was as
follows:
‘‘The remedy at the Craig Farm Drum Site
is protective of human health and the
environment in the short and long term.
Physical construction is complete and
institutional controls have been
implemented.
Protection of human health and the
environment has been achieved by the
installation of a RCRA-equivalent landfill to
contain waste (OU–1) and a seep interceptor
system to collect contaminated groundwater
for off-site treatment (OU–3). Additionally,
protection of human health is enhanced due
to the location of the Site within the Bear
Creek Area Chemical Site (BCACS), in which
all residents are required to connect to public
water. Currently, design is underway for the
modification of the seep interceptor system
by the addition of an impermeable cap and
groundwater infiltration system to reduce
overburden groundwater flow through
contaminated material, further enhancing the
protectiveness of the remedy. Finally, the
remedy is protective of both human health
and the environment in the long-term due to
the implementation of institutional controls
alerting current and future Site owners of the
contaminants on-site and restricting landfill
and groundwater use. The requirements for
the institutional controls at the Site will be
clarified in an ESD to further ensure longterm protectiveness.’’
As previously indicated, the ESD
referenced above was issued to clarify
the institutional controls in September
2009. The next Five Year Review is
scheduled to be completed in June 2014.
E:\FR\FM\30JYR1.SGM
30JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
Community Involvement
The Site is located in an extremely
rural area and few residents live in close
proximity to the Site. Historically,
community involvement activities
consisted of a public meeting in 1989 to
present the Proposed Remedial Action
Plan (PRAP) for the 1989 ROD,
availability sessions during construction
of the remedy in 1993 and 1994, and
public notices prior to conducting Five
Year Reviews in 1999, 2004, and 2009.
In accordance with the requirements
of 40 CFR 300.425(e)(4), EPA’s
community involvement activities
associated with this deletion will
consist of placing the deletion docket in
the local site information repository and
placing a public notice (of EPA’s intent
to delete the site from the NPL) in a
local newspaper of general circulation.
Determination That the Site Meets the
Criteria for Deletion in the NCP
Construction of the remedy at the Site
has been completed in accordance with
the 1989 ROD and 2009 ESD,
institutional controls are in place, and
O&M is being conducted in accordance
with the O&M Plan. All RAOs,
performance standards, and cleanup
goals established in the 1989 ROD have
been achieved and the remedy is
protective of human health and the
environment in both the short and long
term. No further Superfund response,
other than operation, maintenance, and
Five Year Reviews, is necessary to
protect human health and the
environment.
The Site Deletion procedures
specified in 40 CFR 300.425(e) have
been followed for the deletion of the
Site.
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: July 10, 2013.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
For the reasons set out in this
document, 40 CFR part 300 is amended
as follows:
PART 300—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 300
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C.
9601–9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR,
1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923;
3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.
2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300
is amended by removing Craig Farm
Drum Superfund Site, Parker,
Pennsylvania.
■
[FR Doc. 2013–18189 Filed 7–29–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Federal Emergency Management
Agency
44 CFR Part 67
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
V. Deletion Action
[Docket ID FEMA–2013–0002]
The EPA, with concurrence of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
through PADEP, has determined that all
appropriate response actions under
CERCLA, other than operation,
maintenance, and Five Year reviews
have been completed. Therefore, EPA is
deleting the Site from the NPL.
Because EPA considers this action to
be noncontroversial and routine, EPA is
taking it without prior publication. This
action will be effective September 30,
2013 unless EPA receives adverse
comments byAugust 29, 2013. If adverse
comments are received within the 30day 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
Final Flood Elevation Determinations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:12 Jul 29, 2013
Jkt 229001
Federal Emergency
Management Agency, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
Base (1% annual-chance)
Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified
BFEs are made final for the
communities listed below. The BFEs
and modified BFEs are the basis for the
floodplain management measures that
each community is required either to
adopt or to show evidence of being
already in effect in order to qualify or
remain qualified for participation in the
National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP).
SUMMARY:
The date of issuance of the Flood
Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) showing
BFEs and modified BFEs for each
community. This date may be obtained
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
45877
by contacting the office where the maps
are available for inspection as indicated
in the table below.
ADDRESSES: The final BFEs for each
community are available for inspection
at the office of the Chief Executive
Officer of each community. The
respective addresses are listed in the
table below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis
Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, 500 C
Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202) 646–4064, or (email)
Luis.Rodriguez3@fema.dhs.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) makes the final determinations
listed below for the modified BFEs for
each community listed. These modified
elevations have been published in
newspapers of local circulation and
ninety (90) days have elapsed since that
publication. The Deputy Associate
Administrator for Mitigation has
resolved any appeals resulting from this
notification.
This final rule is issued in accordance
with section 110 of the Flood Disaster
Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104,
and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has
developed criteria for floodplain
management in floodprone areas in
accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real
property are encouraged to review the
proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM
available at the address cited below for
each community. The BFEs and
modified BFEs are made final in the
communities listed below. Elevations at
selected locations in each community
are shown.
National Environmental Policy Act.
This final rule is categorically excluded
from the requirements of 44 CFR part
10, Environmental Consideration. An
environmental impact assessment has
not been prepared.
Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood
elevation determinations are not within
the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, a regulatory
flexibility analysis is not required.
Regulatory Classification. This final
rule is not a significant regulatory action
under the criteria of section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866 of September 30,
1993, Regulatory Planning and Review,
58 FR 51735.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism.
This final rule involves no policies that
have federalism implications under
Executive Order 13132.
Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice
Reform. This final rule meets the
E:\FR\FM\30JYR1.SGM
30JYR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 146 (Tuesday, July 30, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45871-45877]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18189]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1983-0002; FRL-9840-3]
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Deletion of the Craig Farm Drum Superfund
Site
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct Final Rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region III is
publishing a direct final Notice of Deletion for the Craig Farm Drum
Superfund Site (Site) located in Perry Township, Armstrong County,
Pennsylvania, from the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL,
promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended,
is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP). This direct final deletion is being published
by EPA with the concurrence of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
through the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
(PADEP), 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 30, 2013
unless EPA receives adverse comments by August 29, 2013. 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-1983-0002, by one of the following methods:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow on-line instructions
for submitting comments.
Email: Epps.John@epa.gov.
Fax: (215) 814-3002.
Mail: John Epps, 1650 Arch Street, Mail Code 3HS22,
Philadelphia, PA 19103.
[[Page 45872]]
Hand Delivery: John Epps, 1650 Arch Street, Mail Code
3HS22, Philadelphia, PA 19103; 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-
1983-0002. 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
the disclosure of which 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:
EPA Administrative Records Room, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA
19103, (215) 814-3157; Hours: Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30
p.m.; by appointment only. Karns City Area High School Office, 1446
Kittanning, Karns City PA 16041, (726) 756-2030; Please call to
schedule an appointment.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Epps, Remedial Project Manager,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Mail Code 3HS22, Philadelphia, PA 19103, (215) 814-3144, Email:
Epps.John@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 III is publishing this direct final Notice of Deletion
of the Craig Farm Drum 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 September 30, 2013 unless EPA
receives adverse comments by August 29, 2013. 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 Craig Farm Drum 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 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania prior to
developing this direct final Notice of Deletion and the Notice of
Intent to Delete co-published today in the ``Proposed Rules'' section
of the Federal Register.
(2) EPA has provided the Commonwealth 30 working days for review of
this notice and the parallel Notice of Intent to Delete prior to their
publication today, and the Commonwealth, through PADEP, has concurred
on the deletion of the Site from the NPL in a letter dated May 1, 2013.
[[Page 45873]]
(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
Butler Eagle. 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 Craig Farm Drum Superfund Site (the Site), CERCLIS ID
PAD980508527, consists of approximately 117 acres located in Perry
Township, in the vicinity of the village of Fredericksburg, near the
western border of Armstrong County, Pennsylvania. The Site is located
approximately two miles east of the Borough of Petrolia and
approximately four miles south of the town of Parker and the Allegheny
River. Land use surrounding the Site is primarily agricultural and
limited residential.
The Site was historically operated as a strip mine, resulting in
two abandoned mine pits following the cessation of operations, prior to
1958. Typical of strip mining operations in the vicinity of the Site,
the mining pits were cut into a hillside where the coal seam outcropped
or subcropped. The pit walls were formed by the working face (highwall)
of the mine and the spoil piles were staged away from the working face.
From 1958 through 1963, 55-gallon drums containing still bottom
residue from the manufacturing of Resorcinol at the nearby Koppers
Chemical Company (Koppers) plant were deposited in the abandoned former
strip mine pits, hereinafter known as the north and south disposal
pits. Resorcinol, also known as 1,3-benzenediol, m-benzenediol, 1,3-
dihydroxybenzene, m-dihydroxybenzene, 3-hydroxyphenol, or m-
hydroxyphenol, is an organic compound used as an adhesive enhancer in
the production of automobile tires and in pharmaceuticals.
The residue, consisting of resorcinol and other higher polymers, is
characterized as a CERCLA hazardous substance but not as a Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste. Approximately
2,500 tons of material were placed in the disposal pits by Mr. Herman
Craig, Site owner Paul Craig's brother. During deposition and during
the time the drums were stored on-site, many drums were damaged,
resulting in a release of the residue to the environment.
The Site was proposed for placement on the National Priorities List
(NPL) on December 30, 1982 (47 FR 58476 (1982-12-30)), and listed on
the NPL on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40658 (1983-09-08)).
Currently, the Site is undeveloped, with the exception of the
components of the remedy. No proposed redevelopment plan currently
exists for the Site. At the time of the Record of Decision (ROD) in
1989, it was anticipated that the Site may be used in the future for
recreational purposes. Due to the extremely rural location and steeply
sloping nature of the Site, commercial or residential development
potential is limited.
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)
An Environmental Assessment (EA) of the Site was conducted in 1983
prior to the final listing of the Site on the NPL and consisted of the
following components:
Hydrogeologic study;
Surface water sampling study;
Stream biological study;
Air quality survey.
Additionally, test pits were installed in 1984 in the vicinity of
the disposal pits to determine the extent and condition of the drums
containing still-bottom residue. The investigation indicated that the
majority of the drums were crushed, broken, or without lids.
Following the listing of the Site on the NPL in September 1983, the
RI/FS was conducted from February 1986 through November 1987 and
consisted of the following components:
Biological survey;
Biota survey;
Surface water and sediment characterization;
Groundwater characterization.
Additional groundwater monitoring wells were installed in November
1988 to further delineate the extent of groundwater contamination.
Test pits installed in the vicinity of the disposal pits in 1984
prior to the RI/FS indicated the still bottom residue consisted of
black to pink semisolid material with some hardened masses. The north
disposal pit was observed to be approximately 1.2 to 1.5 acres in
lateral extent and the south disposal pit was observed to be
approximately 0.8 to 1.0 acres in lateral extent. Analytical data of
samples collected during test pit installation indicated that the
source material in the disposal pits was located approximately 2.5 and
6.0 feet below ground surface (bgs). Contaminated soil was also
observed in the vicinity of the disposal pits during test pit
installation, particularly in down-slope areas.
Groundwater quality data collected during the RI/FS indicated the
presence of impacted groundwater in three water bearing zones at the
Site; the unconsolidated materials zone, the upper bedrock (shale)
aquifer, and the lower sandstone aquifer.
The biological survey conducted during the RI/FS indicated that
macroinvertebrate communities located downstream from the Site in the
Unnamed Creek were stressed due to site-related compounds. The stress
was characterized as a lack of macroinvertebrate species that are
typically an indicator of good water quality. However, analysis of
tissue samples from macroinvertebrates in the Unnamed Creek did not
detect any bioaccumulation or biomagnification of site-related
compounds. No stress was detected in fish species within Valley Run and
the macroinvertebrate community recovered within one mile of the
confluence of Valley Run and the Unnamed Creek.
The total non-carcinogenic hazard indices (HIs) calculated for each
of the potential receptors were less than 1, indicating that the there
was no excess risk of non-carcinogenic health impacts.
The excess individual cancer risk to future miners, based on
potential exposure to benzene in groundwater, was lower than EPA's
acceptable risk
[[Page 45874]]
range of 10-4 to 10-6. Excess individual cancer
risk was not calculated for future off-site domestic well users because
potentially carcinogenic compounds are not present in the lower
sandstone aquifer, which is the only aquifer that could potentially be
developed for drinking water supply. This evaluation indicated that
there was no excess risk of cancer based on the evaluated exposure
pathways.
In summary, the risk characterization indicated that the overall
threat to human health posed by the Craig Farm Drum Site was
negligible, primarily due to the limited exposure likelihood based on
the current and future Site uses. The evaluation of potential
environmental exposure pathways indicated that aquatic life within the
Unnamed Creek is being impacted by site-related COCs. Therefore, the
selection of the remedy for the Site was based on the Site's impact to
the environment only, and not on the impact to human health. The Site
was determined to present an imminent and substantial endangerment to
the environment as set forth in Section 106 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C.
Section 9606.
Selected Remedy
The ROD for the Site was issued on September 29, 1989. The
following Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) were identified:
Minimize risk to human health and the environment from
direct contact with contaminated material;
Control the migration of contaminants into nearby surface
waters;
Control the migration of contaminants into groundwater.
The ROD divided the Site into three Operable Units (OUs). OU-1
consisted of the resorcinol residue material in the former disposal
pits and an adjacent contaminated soils containing detectable
concentrations (>50 mg/kg) of resorcinol. OU-2 consisted of clean soils
that needed to be moved to access OU-1 material. OU-3 consisted of two
contaminated seeps, identified as Seeps A and B, located downgradient
of the former disposal pits.
In order to address these OUs and meet the RAOs, the Selected
Remedy in the ROD consisted of the following components:
Excavation of 32,000 cubic yards of material from the
disposal pits and surrounding areas;
On-site solidification of excavated material;
Placement of the solidified material in an newly
constructed on-site RCRA equivalent, double lined, fenced landfill;
Wetland delineation and subsequent construction of a one-
acre on-site wetland to replace wetlands destroyed in construction of
the on-site landfill;
Implementation of institutional controls alerting property
owners of contamination;
Passive collection of groundwater using a seep interceptor
system with off-site treatment;
Monitoring of both on-site and off-site groundwater and
surface water.
The 1989 ROD indicated that the completeness of the remedy would be
determined by using an EPA-approved bioassay test procedure. The
bioassay testing has historically been performed on both Seeps A and B
as discussed in the sections below.
The 1989 ROD also required that a Groundwater Verification Study be
performed during Remedial Design (RD) in to determine if groundwater at
the Site would require further remediation. The Groundwater
Verification Study was conducted in 1991 and indicated that contaminant
levels in groundwater did not differ significantly from those detected
during the RI and would therefore not pose a significant risk to human
health. Based on the results of the Groundwater Verification Study, no
additional groundwater remediation was required.
Historically, groundwater collected by the seep interceptor system
was taken to a Beazer-owned off-site facility for treatment. However,
that facility was planned to be shut down in 2010. Therefore, from
March 2007 through September 2008, Beazer conducted a Focused
Feasibility Study (FFS) to evaluate additional remedial alternatives
for the wastewater collected by the seep interceptor system (OU-3). As
a result of the FFS, the Selected Remedy was modified by a September
18, 2009 Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD), consisting of
the following components:
Installation of an impermeable cap on the 3-acre, former
north pit area to reduce infiltration of clean water through north pit
materials (referred to as the Seep A Cap);
Excavation/fill of existing ground surface in vicinity of
former north pit to required grade;
Installation of bioswales or other infiltration features
to direct clean surface water flow from capped area;
Installation of groundwater infiltration system into deep
bedrock upgradient of the former north pit to prevent upgradient
groundwater from flowing through north pit materials \1\;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Although the groundwater infiltration system was selected as
a component of the remedy modification, groundwater monitoring
following the installation of the Seep A Cap indicated that the
infiltration system would not be necessary and the system was not
installed. A Preliminary Design Investigation was conducted to
evaluate the feasibility of installing the system, as documented in
the June 4, 2010 Final Design Report included in the Deletion
Docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Continued maintenance of the Seep A collection trench,
piping, and storage tank to collect contaminated overburden
groundwater;
Treatment of collected Seep A water at an alternative off-
site treatment facility;
The Seep B collection trench would remain in place but
valves would be closed so that the system no longer collected water;
Clarification of the requirements for the institutional
controls selected in the 1989 ROD.
Response Actions
The Selected Remedy from the 1989 ROD was implemented from May 1994
through December 1995 in accordance with the September 27, 1993
Remedial Design and October 9, 1990 Consent Decree (CD). The final
inspection was conducted on December 15, 1995 and completion of the
Remedial Action was documented in the Remedial Action Completion
Report, accepted by EPA on April 26, 1994.
EPA issued a Final Close Out Report (FCOR) on December 27, 1995 to
document completion of the remedy specified in the 1989 ROD. The FCOR
documented Construction Completion rather than Site Completion because
institutional controls were not in place at the time of the FCOR.
Additional response actions were also required by the 2009 ESD
following the issuance of the 1995 FCOR, as described below. The
institutional controls were implemented in 2004 in accordance with the
recommendations of the Second Five Year Review and the requirements for
the institutional controls were clarified in the 2009 ESD.
Institutional controls are discussed in additional detail in the
Operations and Maintenance section below.
The remedy modification in the 2009 ESD was implemented from May
through August 2010 in accordance with the June 4, 2010 Final Design
Report. The final inspection was conducted on September 20, 2010 and
completion of the remedy modification was documented in the November
30, 2010 Remedial Action Report, accepted by EPA on December 22, 2010.
[[Page 45875]]
EPA issued a Revised FCOR on June 19, 2013 to summarize the
findings of the 1995 FCOR, describe the implementation of institutional
controls, and document the additional response actions performed in
accordance with the 2009 ESD.
Cleanup Goals
The RAOs established in the 1989 ROD have been achieved by the
Selected Remedy, as modified by the 2009 ESD.
The RAO of minimizing the risk to human health and the environment
from direct contact with contaminated material has been achieved via
the excavation and solidification of material from the disposal pits,
placement of the solidified material in a newly constructed on-site
landfill, and installation of the seep interceptor system. Potential
direct contact was further minimized via installation of the Seep A Cap
over the north disposal pit area.
Furthermore, although not a component of the remedy, the Site is
located within the Bear Creek Area Chemical Site (BCACS). The BCACS
consists of multiple Sites that are impacted by contaminants primarily
related to resorcinol manufacturing and are being addressed by either
EPA or PADEP. Between 2003 and 2007, PADEP connected residents within
the BCACS to public water and required communities therein to institute
public water connection ordinances. The location of the Site within the
BCACS therefore further reduces the potential for direct contact with
Site-related contaminants in groundwater.
The RAO of controlling the migration of contaminants into nearby
surface water bodies, primarily the Unnamed Creek, has been achieved
via the installation of the seep interceptor system and enhanced by the
installation of the Seep A Cap. Demonstration of achievement of this
RAO with respect to numerical performance standards is discussed in
additional detail below.
As discussed above in the summary of the RI/FS, the contaminants of
concern (COCs) at the Site consist of the following compounds:
Benzene;
Resorcinol;
Benzene metadisulfonic acid (m-BDSA);
Benzene sulfonic acid (BSA);
p-Phenol sulfonic acid (p-PSA);
Trihydroxydiphenyl (THD).
Phenol, m-phenol sulfonic acid (m-PSA), and multiple metals were
also identified as Site COCs in the 1989 ROD, however, these compounds
were eliminated as Site COCs following the Groundwater Verification
Study in 1991. No PADEP Water Quality Criteria for Toxic Substances
(PADEP WQC) existed at the time of the ROD for resorcinol, m-BDSA, BSA,
p-PSA, or THD and no numerical performance standards were established
for these compounds in the 1989 ROD in surface water. Benzene has not
been detected in surface water since 1987 during the RI for the Site
and has therefore achieved the PADEP WQC.
PADEP WQC were proposed for resorcinol, m-BDSA, BSA, and p-PSA in
February 2012 as show in the table below. No PADEP WQC was proposed for
THD due primarily to the difficulty in analyzing for that compound.
Instead, the remaining resorcinol-related compounds are considered
indicator parameters for THD.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and aquatic life criteria
--------------------------------
Chronic WQC Acute WQC Human health
Compound criterion criterion criteria
continuous maximum ([mu]g/L)
concentration concentration
([mu]g/L) ([mu]g/L)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resorcinol...................................................... 7200 28000 2700
m-BDSA.......................................................... 1600000 2600000 N/A
BSA............................................................. 1200000 2000000 N/A
p-PSA........................................................... 1400000 3500000 N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Unnamed Creek was considered the receptor for Site-related
contaminants in the 1989 ROD due to the observed impact to
macroinvertebrates in the creek. As discussed above, the ROD includes
an RAO to control migration of contaminants into the creek. In order to
determine if this RAO has been achieved, analytical data from the
Unnamed Creek was compared to the PADEP WQC presented above.
Sampling of the Unnamed Creek was historically conducted on a
quarterly basis for the first year following construction of the remedy
in 1995, on a semi-annual basis for the second year following
construction, and annually during the third year following
construction. Historic sampling did not indicate the presence of Site-
related contaminants in the Unnamed Creek at that time and sampling of
the creek was discontinued in 1998.
In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the remedy modification
selected in the 2009 ESD, two additional sampling events were conducted
in the Unnamed Creek in March 2011 and January 2012. During those
sampling events, m-BDSA was detected in the Unnamed Creek at a
concentration of 97 [mu]g/L in March 2011 and 77 [mu]g/L in January
2012, below the criteria listed above by multiple orders of magnitude.
THD was detected at a concentration of 70 [mu]g/L during the January
2012 sampling event and was not detected in March 2011. No other Site
COCs were detected in the Unnamed Creek during either of the sampling
events conducted since the installation of the Seep A cap.
Additionally, the 1989 ROD indicated that completeness of the
remedy will be determined by performing bioassay testing. Bioassay
testing has been performed on water collected from Seep A and Seep B,
but not on water from the Unnamed Creek. In the 2009 ESD, EPA
determined that water collected by Seep B no longer exhibited toxicity
based on the bioassay testing data. Current data from the Unnamed Creek
indicate that Site COC concentrations are either non-detect or are
below the concentrations detected in Seep B. Therefore, the water in
the Unnamed Creek also does not exhibit toxicity according to the
bioassay criteria. Because the Unnamed Creek is considered the receptor
for Site-related contamination, the remedy for OU-3 can be considered
complete. Water collected by Seep A continues to exhibit toxicity based
on recent bioassay sampling and will continue to be collected as an O&M
task until the bioassay criteria are reached in order to prevent
contaminated groundwater from discharging to the Unnamed Creek. Based
on current contaminant trends in Seep A water, the bioassay criteria
are
[[Page 45876]]
expected to be reached in approximately two years.
Based on a comparison to currently proposed PADEP WQC and Site-
specific bioassay criteria, the remedy has achieved the RAO of
controlling contaminant migration into the Unnamed Creek as specified
in the 1989 ROD.
The RAO of controlling the migration of contaminants into
groundwater has been achieved via the installation of the seep
interceptor system and enhanced by the installation of the Seep A Cap.
At the time of the ROD, it was determined that the concentrations of
Site COCs in groundwater did not present a current or potential future
risk to human health. Additionally, no Maximum Contaminant Levels
(MCLs) for Site COCs existed at the time of the 1989 ROD and no MCLs
currently exist or are proposed. Although not selected as an Applicable
or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement (ARAR) in the 1989 ROD, since
the ROD was issued, PADEP promulgated a State-Wide Health Standard
(SHS) Medium Specific Concentration (MSC) for resorcinol in groundwater
of 73,000 [mu]g/L for residential use and 200,000 [mu]g/L for non-
residential use. Groundwater monitoring was historically conducted on a
semi-annual basis from 1999 through 2010. The highest detection of
resorcinol during the monitoring period was 50,600 [mu]g/L in February
of 2000, below the PADEP SHS MSCs and concentrations have continued to
decline. Groundwater monitoring has been conducted three times since
2010. In the three most recent sampling events conducted in March 2011,
January 2012, and July 2012 the highest detection of resorcinol was
27,100 [mu]g/L, below the PADEP SHS MSCs. The concentrations of all
Site COCs in groundwater have significantly decreased, in most cases by
an order of magnitude, since the 1989 ROD was issued. Therefore, the
current concentrations of Site COCs in groundwater do not present a
current or potential future risk to human health. Based on this
information, the remedy has achieved the RAO of controlling contaminant
migration into groundwater as specified in the 1989 ROD.
The remedy is currently protective of human health and the
environment and all RAOs specified in the 1989 ROD have been achieved.
Operation and maintenance of the remedy and institutional controls, as
described below, will ensure the long-term protection of human health
and the environment.
Operation and Maintenance
Long-term monitoring and maintenance at the Site is conducted in
accordance with the Operations and Maintenance Plan (O&M Plan)
initially dated July 14, 1993 and revised on April 15, 2013 following
the completion of the remedy modification and subsequent initial
monitoring. The O&M Plan, as revised, consists of the following
components:
Annual site inspection of the following: on-site landfill/
cap, former south disposal pit area, Seep A collection piping, above
ground storage tank, Seep A cap/bioswale/stormwater swale, and
ancillary facilities.
Groundwater sampling and analysis;
[cir] Landfill Wells--Hydraulic monitoring and sampling every five
years to coincide with Five Year Reviews;
[cir] Groundwater Monitoring Wells--Annual hydraulic monitoring,
sampling every five years to coincide with Five Year Reviews.
Surface water sampling and analysis;
[cir] Annual sampling through 2014, after which samples will be
collected every five years to coincide with Five-Year Reviews.
Seep water collection and disposal (seep interceptor
system Seep A);
[cir] Off-site disposal as needed;
[cir] Periodic sampling to determine if collected water (Seep A)
meets bioassay criteria.
Leachate collection and disposal (on-site landfill);
[cir] Pumping, collection, and off-site disposal as needed.
Progress reporting;
[cir] Reporting every five years to coincide with Five Year
Reviews.
The 1989 ROD for the Site required that institutional controls be
placed on the Site to ensure the protectiveness of the remedy. The 2004
Second Five Year Review indicated that the institutional controls were
not yet in place, and subsequently the institutional controls were
implemented on September 23, 2004 in the form of a deed restriction
consisting of the following:
No groundwater beneath the Site may be used and no wells
may be installed on the Site for human consumption, irrigation, or
other purpose that may bring it into contact with humans, except for
testing purposes as required by law, remedial action/design, or the
terms of the Consent Decree;
No structure may be placed on the Site that would disturb
the cap or stabilized contents of the landfill or would otherwise
disturb any component of the remedial action/design without prior
written approval of the Site owner and EPA;
The Site may not be used for the purposes of living,
dwelling, or overnight accommodations of any type;
No action may be taken that will interfere with, obstruct,
or disturb the performance of any remedial response, including O&M;
Any Site owner must provide any purchaser with notice of
the terms of the Consent Decree prior to transferring any interest in
the Site.
The 2009 Third Five Year Review indicated that the requirement for
institutional controls was in the declaration portion of the 1989 ROD
only and not in the remedy selection portion. Therefore, EPA included a
clarification of the requirement for institutional controls in the 2009
ESD to ensure that the controls remain in place and effective.
Five-Year Reviews
Three Five Year Reviews have been conducted at the Site in 1999,
2004, and 2009. The Protectiveness Statement in the 2009 Third Five
Year Review was as follows:
``The remedy at the Craig Farm Drum Site is protective of human
health and the environment in the short and long term. Physical
construction is complete and institutional controls have been
implemented.
Protection of human health and the environment has been achieved
by the installation of a RCRA-equivalent landfill to contain waste
(OU-1) and a seep interceptor system to collect contaminated
groundwater for off-site treatment (OU-3). Additionally, protection
of human health is enhanced due to the location of the Site within
the Bear Creek Area Chemical Site (BCACS), in which all residents
are required to connect to public water. Currently, design is
underway for the modification of the seep interceptor system by the
addition of an impermeable cap and groundwater infiltration system
to reduce overburden groundwater flow through contaminated material,
further enhancing the protectiveness of the remedy. Finally, the
remedy is protective of both human health and the environment in the
long-term due to the implementation of institutional controls
alerting current and future Site owners of the contaminants on-site
and restricting landfill and groundwater use. The requirements for
the institutional controls at the Site will be clarified in an ESD
to further ensure long-term protectiveness.''
As previously indicated, the ESD referenced above was issued to
clarify the institutional controls in September 2009. The next Five
Year Review is scheduled to be completed in June 2014.
[[Page 45877]]
Community Involvement
The Site is located in an extremely rural area and few residents
live in close proximity to the Site. Historically, community
involvement activities consisted of a public meeting in 1989 to present
the Proposed Remedial Action Plan (PRAP) for the 1989 ROD, availability
sessions during construction of the remedy in 1993 and 1994, and public
notices prior to conducting Five Year Reviews in 1999, 2004, and 2009.
In accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 300.425(e)(4), EPA's
community involvement activities associated with this deletion will
consist of placing the deletion docket in the local site information
repository and placing a public notice (of EPA's intent to delete the
site from the NPL) in a local newspaper of general circulation.
Determination That the Site Meets the Criteria for Deletion in the NCP
Construction of the remedy at the Site has been completed in
accordance with the 1989 ROD and 2009 ESD, institutional controls are
in place, and O&M is being conducted in accordance with the O&M Plan.
All RAOs, performance standards, and cleanup goals established in the
1989 ROD have been achieved and the remedy is protective of human
health and the environment in both the short and long term. No further
Superfund response, other than operation, maintenance, and Five Year
Reviews, is necessary to protect human health and the environment.
The Site Deletion procedures specified in 40 CFR 300.425(e) have
been followed for the deletion of the Site.
V. Deletion Action
The EPA, with concurrence of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
through PADEP, has determined that all appropriate response actions
under CERCLA, other than operation, maintenance, and Five Year reviews
have been completed. Therefore, EPA is deleting the Site from the NPL.
Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and
routine, EPA is taking it without prior publication. This action will
be effective September 30, 2013 unless EPA receives adverse comments
byAugust 29, 2013. 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: July 10, 2013.
W.C. Early,
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 Craig Farm
Drum Superfund Site, Parker, Pennsylvania.
[FR Doc. 2013-18189 Filed 7-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
