National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the Geiger (C&M Oil) Superfund Site, 66283-66287 [2013-26512]

Download as PDF wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations • 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 CAA; 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 report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 6, 2014. 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. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today’s Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:54 Nov 04, 2013 Jkt 232001 proposed rulemaking. 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, Lead, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: October 21, 2013. Susan Hedman, Regional Administrator, Region 5. 40 CFR part 52 is amended 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. 2. Section 52.1892 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as follows: ■ § 52.1892 Determination of attainment. * * * * * (e) Based upon EPA’s review of the air quality data for the 3-year period 2010 to 2012, EPA determined that the Bellefontaine, OH lead nonattainment areas attained the 2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). This clean data determination suspends the requirements for this area to submit an attainment demonstration, associated reasonably available control measures, a reasonable further progress plan, contingency measures, and other planning SIPs related to attainment of the standard for as long as this area continues to meet the 2008 lead NAAQS. [FR Doc. 2013–26358 Filed 11–4–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [EPA–HQ–SFUND–2005–0011; FRL–9902– 29–Region 4] National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the Geiger (C&M Oil) Superfund Site Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 is publishing a direct final Notice of Deletion of the SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 66283 Geiger (C&M Oil), Superfund Site (Site), located in Hollywood, Charleston County, South Carolina, from the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This direct final deletion is being published by EPA with the concurrence of the State of South Carolina, through the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC), 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 January 6, 2014 unless EPA receives adverse comments by December 5, 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. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA–HQ– SFUND–2005–0011; by one of the following methods: • http://www.regulations.gov. Follow on-line instructions for submitting comments. • Email: Joyner.William@EPA.gov and/or Miller.Angela@EPA.gov. • Fax: (404) 562–8788 Attention: William Joyner. • Mail: William Joyner, Remedial Project Manager, Superfund Remedial Section A, Superfund Remedial and Site Evaluation Branch, Superfund Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, GA 30303–8960. • Hand delivery: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303– 8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket’s normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Regional EPA Office is open for business Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding Federal Holidays. Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA–HQ–SFUND–2005– 0011. EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http:// www.regulations.gov, including any ADDRESSES: E:\FR\FM\05NOR1.SGM 05NOR1 wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES 66284 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 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 http:// www.regulations.gov or email. The http://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 http:// 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 http:// 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 at http:// www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy at: Regional Site Information Repository, U.S. EPA Record Center, Attn: Ms. Anita Davis, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Hours of Operation (by appointment only): 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Local Document Repository, St. Paul’s Parish Library, 5151 Town Council Drive, Hollywood, SC 29449. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Joyner, Remedial Project Manager, Superfund Remedial, Section A; Superfund Remedial and Site Evaluation Branch, Superfund Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4; 61 Forsyth Street SW.; Atlanta, GA 30303–8960, Telephone, or VM (404) 562–8795, Electronic mail: Joyner.William@epa.gov. VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:54 Nov 04, 2013 Jkt 232001 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: II. NPL Deletion Criteria Table of Contents 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. I. Introduction II. NPL Deletion Criteria III. Deletion Procedures IV. Basis for Site Deletion V. Deletion Action I. Introduction EPA Region 4 is publishing this direct final Notice of Deletion of the Geiger (C&M Oil) Superfund Site (Site), from the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300, which is the Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). As described in 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted from the NPL remain eligible for Fund-financed remedial actions if future conditions warrant such actions. Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and routine, this action will be effective January 6, 2014 unless EPA receives adverse comments by December 5, 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 30day 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 Geiger (C&M Oil) 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. PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 III. Deletion Procedures The following procedures apply to deletion of the Site: (1) EPA consulted with the state of South Carolina 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 South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, has concurred on the deletion of the Site from the NPL. (3) Concurrently with the publication of this direct final Notice of Deletion, a notice of the availability of the parallel Notice of Intent to Delete is being published in a major local newspaper, Post and Courier. The newspaper notice announces the 30-day public comment E:\FR\FM\05NOR1.SGM 05NOR1 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations period concerning the Notice of Intent to Delete the Site from the NPL. (4) 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. wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES IV. Basis for Site Deletion The following information provides EPA’s rationale for deleting the Site from the NPL: Site Background The Geiger (C&M Oil) Site (EPA CERCLIS Identification Number SCD980711279) is located approximately 10 miles west of the city of Charleston, South Carolina, along Highway 162. The town of Hollywood is located approximately 4 miles west of the site. The Site consist of an affected area that is approximately 1.5 acres in size, triangular in shape and is bound on two sides by ponds, and on the third side by a small rise. The area around the Site is sparsely populated with approximately ten residences located west and southwest of the site. Another 10 residences are located to the east and north east with several small businesses within (0.5) miles of the site along Highway 162. Between 1969 and 1971, eight unlined lagoons, each approximately 1 foot deep for a combined area of 1.5 acres were constructed for the purpose of holding waste oil in connection with an incineration process. In late 1971, in response to complaints from area residents, South Carolina Pollution Control Agency (SCPCA) ordered the stoppage of all incineration and waste deposition VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:54 Nov 04, 2013 Jkt 232001 activities at the Site and the owner was directed to take action to prevent the spillage, leakage, or seepage of oil from the Site. In April 1974, a complaint was filed by a nearby property owner with the Charleston County Health Department (CCHD) about oil overflowing from the lagoons on the Site. CCHD investigated the Site and ordered the Site closed because of evidence of oil dumping and overflowing oil. C&M Oil Distributors, Inc. then purchased all reclaimable oil on the Site and submitted recovery plans to SCDHEC, formerly SCPCA, but reportedly received no response to their plans. In December 1979, SCDHEC requested that the company provide information on their intentions to clean up the Site. C&M Oil Distributors, Inc. stated in January 1980 that they were unable to recover the waste oil and were not obligated to clean up the Site. Investigations of Site activities revealed evidence of oil dumping and oil overflowing from lagoons on site. The facility was ordered to stop all incineration and waste disposition activities at the site and action be taken to prevent spillage, leakage, and seepage of oil from the Site. Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) Samples collected during the remedial investigation provide sufficient data to characterize the Site. Results of laboratory analysis revealed the presence of inorganic contaminants (chromium, mercury and lead) in the soil in concentrations exceeding the common ranges for these metals in soils. The highest concentrations were found in the oil stained area confirming that this area is the contaminant source. The laboratory found no organic contaminants in the soil samples taken from the oil stained area. The laboratory found several organics in the shallow and medium on site monitor well samples. Elevated levels of metals and organics were found in samples taken from the oil stained area and analyzed by the Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) . Some of these same organics were found in the shallow on-site monitor well. The laboratory samples of the surface waters were free of any organic contamination. Evidence of polychlorinated biphenyl-1242 (PCB– 1242) and petroleum products was found in several surface water samples by the CLP laboratory. Private wells to the north, east and southwest of the site were found to be free of contamination. Ground water contamination appears to be limited to the oil stained area. Based on the local laboratory results, ground water contamination has not moved PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 66285 from the Site. The results from the CLP sample analysis support these conclusions. Based on air monitoring during the RI, organic air contamination was not found to be a problem. The final feasibility study dated July 1987 provided an in-depth summary and discussion of site sampling activities, and an analysis of remedial alternatives. The feasibility study provided an analysis of extraction (soil) flushing, solidification/stabilization, attenuation, immobilization, incineration, capping, vegetative cover, excavation and offsite disposal, partial excavation with onsite disposal, onsite containment/ encapsulation and no action remedial alternatives. Selected Remedy A Record of Decision (ROD) was signed in June 1987, and two ROD amendments (AROD) were signed; one in July 1993 and the second in September 1998. The purpose of the remedial action at the Site was to mitigate and minimize contamination in the soils and ground water and to reduce potential risks to human health and the environment. The following cleanup objectives were determined based on regulatory requirements and levels of contamination found at the Site: • Recovering contaminated ground water with on-site treatment and discharge to an off-site stream; • protecting public health and the environment from exposure to contaminated on-site soils through inhalation, direct contact, and erosion of soils into surface waters and wetlands; • preventing off-site movement of contaminated ground water; and • restoring contaminated ground water to levels protective of human health and the environment. The 1987 ROD selected a remedial alternative to prevent direct contact exposure and inhalation of contaminants in the soil, potential ingestion of contaminated ground water by on-site workers and potential future residents; further leaching of contaminants to ground water above drinking water standards; and potential direct contact exposure to environmental receptors. The selected remedy included: • Recovery of contaminated ground water with on-site treatment and discharge to an off-site stream; • on-site thermal treatment of excavated soils to remove organic contaminants; • solidification/stabilization (S/S) of thermally-treated soil to reduce mobility of metals; E:\FR\FM\05NOR1.SGM 05NOR1 66286 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations • review of S/S, during the remedial design, to determine if S/S alone would achieve remedial action goals; and • development of soil cleanup goals during the remedial design. The selected remedy established cleanup goals for contaminants in the ground water based on drinking water standards. The selected remedy eliminated the principal threat posed to human health and the environment by preventing further migration of contaminants to the ground water and by remediating ground water to drinking water standards. The 1987 ROD indicated that no elevated levels of contaminants were found in the pond on-site. Soil and ground water were found to be contaminated with the contaminants of concern (COCs) listed in Table 1. TABLE 1—GROUND WATER AND SOIL CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN Ground water and soil contaminants of concern Benzo (a) pyrene. Benzo (a) anthracene. Benzo (b and/or k) fluoranthene. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (Aroclor 1254). Benzene. Trans-1,2-dichloroethylene. Chromium. Lead. Toluene. 1,2-Dichlorobenzene. 1,1-Dichloroethane. wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES Treatability studies conducted during the remedial design determined that S/ S alone would remediate contaminated soils. Based on these studies, the ROD was amended on July 13, 1993 to state that only S/S would be conducted, thermal treatment would not be needed. EPA issued another ROD amendment on September 9, 1998, changing the ground water remedy from pump and treat to monitored natural attenuation (MNA) and revising the ground water COCs to only include cadmium and lead, with respective cleanup goals of 5mg/L and 15mg/L. Soil leachate criteria were established in the 1993 AROD to protect the ground water. Response Actions In February 1992, EPA entered into a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to perform the remedial design/remedial action (RD/RA). After the final design was completed, USACE awarded the RA contract to McLaren/Hart Environmental Engineering Corporation (McLaren/Hart) for solidification/ stabilization of Site soils. McLaren/Hart VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:54 Nov 04, 2013 Jkt 232001 mobilized to the field for full-scale soil treatment on January 16, 1994. Soil treatment was completed on April 23, 1994 followed by placement of a gravel cap over the treated soil, which was completed on August 5, 1994. The prefinal inspection, conducted on August 9, 1994, did not discover any significant outstanding items and therefore served as the final inspection. Both the site’s Final Construction Report and the Interim Remedial Action Report were approved by EPA and SCDHEC on September 29, 1997. Quality control analytical sampling of the treated soil was conducted throughout the solidification activities. The quality assurance/quality control program was in conformance with EPA and State standards; therefore, EPA and the State determined that all analytical results were accurate to the degree needed to assure satisfactory execution of the RA and are consistent with the ROD and the RD plans and specifications. Cleanup Goals Site soils have been treated to prevent further leaching of contamination into the ground water. Additional sampling conducted by EPA showed only one remaining ground water COC that was consistently detected above drinking water standards in two small, localized areas, one of which was near drinking water standards. As a result of these soil and ground water findings, EPA issued an additional AROD on September 9, 1998, changing the ground water remedy from pump and treat, which was never implemented, to MNA. The Preliminary Close-out Report (September 14, 1998), and the Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Plan (September 1998) were approved by EPA and SCDHEC. The Preliminary Close-out Report found that there was no definable contaminant plume on site. In January of 2013, the EPA conducted a scientific evaluation of the durability and leachability of the monolith at the Site. The objective of the report was to determine the durability of the S/S wastes (the monolith) based on physical measurements (moisture content, bulk and dry density, permeability, wet/dry durability). The evaluation indicates that the monolith has remained stable in the environment during the 20 year period since completion of the remedial action. No evidence indicating any adverse change in physical condition was observed. Some evidence of the capacity for leaching of cement binder and COCs from the monolith was indicated; however, the leaching would be expected to be very minor and not likely indicative of a possibly adverse condition, either presently or long-term, PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 or with regard to groundwater contamination. Testing and analyses supports the conclusion that COCs remain highly bound within the monolith and that leaching of these COCs is unlikely to adversely impact the surrounding soil and/or groundwater environment under current site conditions. Operation and Maintenance The 1998 AROD reported that longterm O&M of the remedy was not required. There were no O&M costs associated with the Site since the 2004 FYR. The declaration of covenants and restrictions on the property was made and entered into on October 11, 2001, by Pile Drivers, Inc, a South Carolina Corporation. Pile Drivers is the owner of the property in Charleston County, South Carolina, more specifically described in the Title of Real Estate record in the book W127 at page 390 in the Charleston County RMC Office. The declaration of covenants and restrictions to restrict use of the site soils and ground water states the following: ‘‘Pile Drivers hereby covenants for itself, its successors and assigns, that the Soil Treatment Area shall not be used for residential or agricultural purposes; prohibit activities, include but are not limited to: Filling; drilling; excavation; anchoring; removal of top soil, rock, or minerals; plowing; planting; cultivation (other than maintenance of the ground cover); and change of the topography in any manner.’’ Five-Year Review The remedy at the Geiger (C & M Oil) Site currently protects human health and the environment because exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks are being controlled. Soils have been cleaned up to industrial standards using S/S, the property is currently being used for industrial purposes, and ground water sampling results over multiple years led to decommissioning 27 monitoring wells. Five-year reviews (FYR) are statutorily required as long as waste is left on site that does not allow for unrestricted use and unlimited exposure. Three FYRs have already been completed and the next FYR is planned for FY 2014. Community Involvement On August 15, 2008, a public notice was published in the Post and Courier Announcing the commencement of the third FYR process for the Geiger site, providing contact information for EPA site staff, and inviting community participation. Copies of this document are available in the Site’s public repository: St. Paul’s Parish Library, E:\FR\FM\05NOR1.SGM 05NOR1 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 5151 Town Council Drive, Hollywood, SC 29449, where additional information about the Site can be found in CD format. Community involvement activities associated with the deletion will consist of issuing a deletion fact sheet, publishing a public notice in the local newspaper, updating the information repository, and providing the public an opportunity to comment. Determination That the Site Meets the Criteria for Deletion in the NCP Dated: September 23, 2013. A. Stanley Meiburg, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. For the reasons set out in this document, 40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows: PART 300—NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES POLLUTION CONTINGENCY PLAN 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. V. Deletion Action 47 CFR Part 1 The EPA, with concurrence of the State of South Carolina through the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control 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 January 6, 2014 unless EPA receives adverse comments by December 5, 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 the notice of intent to delete and the comments already received. There will be no additional opportunity to comment. wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES The NCP (40 CFR 300.425(e)) states that a site may be deleted from the NPL when no further response action is appropriate. The implemented remedy achieves the degree of cleanup specified in the ROD and ROD Amendments for all pathways of exposure. All selected remedial action objectives and clean-up goals are consistent with agency policy and guidance. EPA, in consultation with the State of South Carolina, has determined that all required response actions have been implemented and no further response action by the responsible parties is appropriate. [WT Docket No. 12–357; FCC 13–88] 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. VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:54 Nov 04, 2013 Jkt 232001 Appendix B [Amended] 2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 is amended by removing ‘‘Geiger (C&M Oil)’’, ‘‘Rantoules, South Carolina’’. ■ [FR Doc. 2013–26512 Filed 11–4–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION H Block Report and Order Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Final rule; announcement of effective date. AGENCY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved, in response to an emergency request, for a period of six months, the information collection on FCC Form 175 implementing new rule section 1.2105(a)(2)(xii) adopted by the Commission in the Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services H Block— Implementing Section 6401 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 Related to the 1915–1920 MHz and 1995–2000 MHz Bands Report and Order (Report and Order), FCC 13–88. This notice is consistent with the Report and Order, which stated that the rule would become effective upon Commission publication of a document in the Federal Register announcing its approval by OMB. DATES: The rule amending 47 CFR 1.2105(a)(2)(xii), published at 78 FR 50214, August 16, 2013, is effective November 5, 2013. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cathy Williams, Federal SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 66287 Communications Commission, at (202) 418–2918, or email: Cathy.Williams@ fcc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document announces that, on September 17, 2013, OMB approved, in response to an emergency request, for a period of six months, a revision to the previously-approved information collection on FCC Form 175 to implement new section 1.2105(a)(2)(xii) of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.2105(a)(2)(xii), adopted in the Report and Order, FCC 13–88, 78 FR 50214, August 16, 2013. The OMB Control Number is 3060–0600. The Commission publishes this notice as an announcement of the effective date of § 1.2105(a)(2)(xii). Synopsis As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the Commission is notifying the public that it received OMB approval on September 17, 2013, for the revised information collection required by a modification to 47 CFR 1.2105 (a)(2). Under 5 CFR 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060–0600. The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507. The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows: OMB Control Number: 3060–0600. OMB Approval Date: September 17, 2013. OMB Expiration Date: March 14, 2014. Title: Application to Participate in an FCC Auction, FCC Form 175. Form Number: FCC Form 175. Respondents: Business or other forprofit entities; not-for-profit institutions; State, Local or Tribal Governments. Number of Respondents and Responses: 500 per year (estimated average for 3 years for all respondents under the previously-approved collection on FCC Form 175), with an estimated 350 of such respondents required to respond to the revised collection. Estimated Time per Response: 1.5 hours. Frequency of Response: On occasion. Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. E:\FR\FM\05NOR1.SGM 05NOR1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 214 (Tuesday, November 5, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66283-66287]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-26512]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2005-0011; FRL-9902-29-Region 4]


National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; 
National Priorities List: Deletion of the Geiger (C&M Oil) Superfund 
Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 is 
publishing a direct final Notice of Deletion of the Geiger (C&M Oil), 
Superfund Site (Site), located in Hollywood, Charleston County, South 
Carolina, from the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, promulgated 
pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an 
appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution 
Contingency Plan (NCP). This direct final deletion is being published 
by EPA with the concurrence of the State of South Carolina, through the 
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC), 
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 January 6, 2014 unless 
EPA receives adverse comments by December 5, 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-2005-0011; by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow on-line instructions 
for submitting comments.
     Email: Joyner.William@EPA.gov and/or 
Miller.Angela@EPA.gov.
     Fax: (404) 562-8788 Attention: William Joyner.
     Mail: William Joyner, Remedial Project Manager, Superfund 
Remedial Section A, Superfund Remedial and Site Evaluation Branch, 
Superfund Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, GA 30303-8960.
     Hand delivery: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such 
deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of 
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of 
boxed information. The Regional EPA Office is open for business Monday 
through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding Federal Holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
2005-0011. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
http://www.regulations.gov, including any

[[Page 66284]]

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 
http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://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 http://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 http://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 at http://www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy at: 
Regional Site Information Repository, U.S. EPA Record Center, Attn: Ms. 
Anita Davis, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, 
Georgia 30303-8960.
    Hours of Operation (by appointment only): 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., 
Monday through Friday. Local Document Repository, St. Paul's Parish 
Library, 5151 Town Council Drive, Hollywood, SC 29449.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Joyner, Remedial Project 
Manager, Superfund Remedial, Section A; Superfund Remedial and Site 
Evaluation Branch, Superfund Division; U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region 4; 61 Forsyth Street SW.; Atlanta, GA 30303-8960, 
Telephone, or VM (404) 562-8795, Electronic mail: 
Joyner.William@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 4 is publishing this direct final Notice of Deletion of 
the Geiger (C&M Oil) Superfund Site (Site), from the National 
Priorities List (NPL). The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 
300, which is the Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency 
Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act 
(CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. EPA maintains the NPL as the list of 
sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, 
welfare, or the environment. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of 
remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). 
As described in 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted from the NPL 
remain eligible for Fund-financed remedial actions if future conditions 
warrant such actions.
    Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and 
routine, this action will be effective January 6, 2014 unless EPA 
receives adverse comments by December 5, 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 Geiger (C&M Oil) Superfund 
Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria. Section V 
discusses EPA's action to delete the Site from the NPL unless adverse 
comments are received during the public comment period.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from 
the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted 
from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a 
determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in 
consultation with the state, whether any of the following criteria have 
been met:
    i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all 
appropriate response actions required;
    ii. all appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been 
implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is 
appropriate; or
    iii. the remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no 
significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, 
the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.
    Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and the NCP, EPA conducts five-
year reviews to ensure the continued protectiveness of remedial actions 
where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at a 
site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted 
exposure. EPA conducts such five-year reviews even if a site is deleted 
from the NPL. EPA may initiate further action to ensure continued 
protectiveness at a deleted site if new information becomes available 
that indicates it is appropriate. Whenever there is a significant 
release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be 
restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system.

III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to deletion of the Site:
    (1) EPA consulted with the state of South Carolina 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 South Carolina Department 
of Health and Environmental Control, has concurred on the deletion of 
the Site from the NPL.
    (3) Concurrently with the publication of this direct final Notice 
of Deletion, a notice of the availability of the parallel Notice of 
Intent to Delete is being published in a major local newspaper, Post 
and Courier. The newspaper notice announces the 30-day public comment

[[Page 66285]]

period concerning the Notice of Intent to Delete the Site from the NPL.
    (4) 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

    The Geiger (C&M Oil) Site (EPA CERCLIS Identification Number 
SCD980711279) is located approximately 10 miles west of the city of 
Charleston, South Carolina, along Highway 162. The town of Hollywood is 
located approximately 4 miles west of the site. The Site consist of an 
affected area that is approximately 1.5 acres in size, triangular in 
shape and is bound on two sides by ponds, and on the third side by a 
small rise. The area around the Site is sparsely populated with 
approximately ten residences located west and southwest of the site. 
Another 10 residences are located to the east and north east with 
several small businesses within (0.5) miles of the site along Highway 
162. Between 1969 and 1971, eight unlined lagoons, each approximately 1 
foot deep for a combined area of 1.5 acres were constructed for the 
purpose of holding waste oil in connection with an incineration 
process.
    In late 1971, in response to complaints from area residents, South 
Carolina Pollution Control Agency (SCPCA) ordered the stoppage of all 
incineration and waste deposition activities at the Site and the owner 
was directed to take action to prevent the spillage, leakage, or 
seepage of oil from the Site. In April 1974, a complaint was filed by a 
nearby property owner with the Charleston County Health Department 
(CCHD) about oil overflowing from the lagoons on the Site. CCHD 
investigated the Site and ordered the Site closed because of evidence 
of oil dumping and overflowing oil. C&M Oil Distributors, Inc. then 
purchased all reclaimable oil on the Site and submitted recovery plans 
to SCDHEC, formerly SCPCA, but reportedly received no response to their 
plans. In December 1979, SCDHEC requested that the company provide 
information on their intentions to clean up the Site. C&M Oil 
Distributors, Inc. stated in January 1980 that they were unable to 
recover the waste oil and were not obligated to clean up the Site. 
Investigations of Site activities revealed evidence of oil dumping and 
oil overflowing from lagoons on site. The facility was ordered to stop 
all incineration and waste disposition activities at the site and 
action be taken to prevent spillage, leakage, and seepage of oil from 
the Site.

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

    Samples collected during the remedial investigation provide 
sufficient data to characterize the Site. Results of laboratory 
analysis revealed the presence of inorganic contaminants (chromium, 
mercury and lead) in the soil in concentrations exceeding the common 
ranges for these metals in soils. The highest concentrations were found 
in the oil stained area confirming that this area is the contaminant 
source. The laboratory found no organic contaminants in the soil 
samples taken from the oil stained area. The laboratory found several 
organics in the shallow and medium on site monitor well samples. 
Elevated levels of metals and organics were found in samples taken from 
the oil stained area and analyzed by the Contract Laboratory Program 
(CLP) . Some of these same organics were found in the shallow on-site 
monitor well. The laboratory samples of the surface waters were free of 
any organic contamination. Evidence of polychlorinated biphenyl-1242 
(PCB-1242) and petroleum products was found in several surface water 
samples by the CLP laboratory. Private wells to the north, east and 
southwest of the site were found to be free of contamination. Ground 
water contamination appears to be limited to the oil stained area. 
Based on the local laboratory results, ground water contamination has 
not moved from the Site. The results from the CLP sample analysis 
support these conclusions. Based on air monitoring during the RI, 
organic air contamination was not found to be a problem. The final 
feasibility study dated July 1987 provided an in-depth summary and 
discussion of site sampling activities, and an analysis of remedial 
alternatives. The feasibility study provided an analysis of extraction 
(soil) flushing, solidification/stabilization, attenuation, 
immobilization, incineration, capping, vegetative cover, excavation and 
offsite disposal, partial excavation with onsite disposal, onsite 
containment/encapsulation and no action remedial alternatives.

Selected Remedy

    A Record of Decision (ROD) was signed in June 1987, and two ROD 
amendments (AROD) were signed; one in July 1993 and the second in 
September 1998. The purpose of the remedial action at the Site was to 
mitigate and minimize contamination in the soils and ground water and 
to reduce potential risks to human health and the environment. The 
following cleanup objectives were determined based on regulatory 
requirements and levels of contamination found at the Site:
     Recovering contaminated ground water with on-site 
treatment and discharge to an off-site stream;
     protecting public health and the environment from exposure 
to contaminated on-site soils through inhalation, direct contact, and 
erosion of soils into surface waters and wetlands;
     preventing off-site movement of contaminated ground water; 
and
     restoring contaminated ground water to levels protective 
of human health and the environment.
    The 1987 ROD selected a remedial alternative to prevent direct 
contact exposure and inhalation of contaminants in the soil, potential 
ingestion of contaminated ground water by on-site workers and potential 
future residents; further leaching of contaminants to ground water 
above drinking water standards; and potential direct contact exposure 
to environmental receptors. The selected remedy included:
     Recovery of contaminated ground water with on-site 
treatment and discharge to an off-site stream;
     on-site thermal treatment of excavated soils to remove 
organic contaminants;
     solidification/stabilization (S/S) of thermally-treated 
soil to reduce mobility of metals;

[[Page 66286]]

     review of S/S, during the remedial design, to determine if 
S/S alone would achieve remedial action goals; and
     development of soil cleanup goals during the remedial 
design.

The selected remedy established cleanup goals for contaminants in the 
ground water based on drinking water standards. The selected remedy 
eliminated the principal threat posed to human health and the 
environment by preventing further migration of contaminants to the 
ground water and by remediating ground water to drinking water 
standards. The 1987 ROD indicated that no elevated levels of 
contaminants were found in the pond on-site. Soil and ground water were 
found to be contaminated with the contaminants of concern (COCs) listed 
in Table 1.

         Table 1--Ground Water and Soil Contaminants of Concern
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Ground water and soil contaminants of concern
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benzo (a) pyrene.
Benzo (a) anthracene.
Benzo (b and/or k) fluoranthene.
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (Aroclor 1254).
Benzene.
Trans-1,2-dichloroethylene.
Chromium.
Lead.
Toluene.
1,2-Dichlorobenzene.
1,1-Dichloroethane.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Treatability studies conducted during the remedial design 
determined that S/S alone would remediate contaminated soils. Based on 
these studies, the ROD was amended on July 13, 1993 to state that only 
S/S would be conducted, thermal treatment would not be needed. EPA 
issued another ROD amendment on September 9, 1998, changing the ground 
water remedy from pump and treat to monitored natural attenuation (MNA) 
and revising the ground water COCs to only include cadmium and lead, 
with respective cleanup goals of 5[micro]g/L and 15[micro]g/L. Soil 
leachate criteria were established in the 1993 AROD to protect the 
ground water.

Response Actions

    In February 1992, EPA entered into a cooperative agreement with the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to perform the remedial design/
remedial action (RD/RA). After the final design was completed, USACE 
awarded the RA contract to McLaren/Hart Environmental Engineering 
Corporation (McLaren/Hart) for solidification/stabilization of Site 
soils. McLaren/Hart mobilized to the field for full-scale soil 
treatment on January 16, 1994. Soil treatment was completed on April 
23, 1994 followed by placement of a gravel cap over the treated soil, 
which was completed on August 5, 1994. The pre-final inspection, 
conducted on August 9, 1994, did not discover any significant 
outstanding items and therefore served as the final inspection. Both 
the site's Final Construction Report and the Interim Remedial Action 
Report were approved by EPA and SCDHEC on September 29, 1997. Quality 
control analytical sampling of the treated soil was conducted 
throughout the solidification activities. The quality assurance/quality 
control program was in conformance with EPA and State standards; 
therefore, EPA and the State determined that all analytical results 
were accurate to the degree needed to assure satisfactory execution of 
the RA and are consistent with the ROD and the RD plans and 
specifications.

Cleanup Goals

    Site soils have been treated to prevent further leaching of 
contamination into the ground water. Additional sampling conducted by 
EPA showed only one remaining ground water COC that was consistently 
detected above drinking water standards in two small, localized areas, 
one of which was near drinking water standards. As a result of these 
soil and ground water findings, EPA issued an additional AROD on 
September 9, 1998, changing the ground water remedy from pump and 
treat, which was never implemented, to MNA. The Preliminary Close-out 
Report (September 14, 1998), and the Operation and Maintenance (O&M) 
Plan (September 1998) were approved by EPA and SCDHEC. The Preliminary 
Close-out Report found that there was no definable contaminant plume on 
site. In January of 2013, the EPA conducted a scientific evaluation of 
the durability and leachability of the monolith at the Site. The 
objective of the report was to determine the durability of the S/S 
wastes (the monolith) based on physical measurements (moisture content, 
bulk and dry density, permeability, wet/dry durability). The evaluation 
indicates that the monolith has remained stable in the environment 
during the 20 year period since completion of the remedial action. No 
evidence indicating any adverse change in physical condition was 
observed. Some evidence of the capacity for leaching of cement binder 
and COCs from the monolith was indicated; however, the leaching would 
be expected to be very minor and not likely indicative of a possibly 
adverse condition, either presently or long-term, or with regard to 
groundwater contamination. Testing and analyses supports the conclusion 
that COCs remain highly bound within the monolith and that leaching of 
these COCs is unlikely to adversely impact the surrounding soil and/or 
groundwater environment under current site conditions.

Operation and Maintenance

    The 1998 AROD reported that long-term O&M of the remedy was not 
required. There were no O&M costs associated with the Site since the 
2004 FYR. The declaration of covenants and restrictions on the property 
was made and entered into on October 11, 2001, by Pile Drivers, Inc, a 
South Carolina Corporation. Pile Drivers is the owner of the property 
in Charleston County, South Carolina, more specifically described in 
the Title of Real Estate record in the book W127 at page 390 in the 
Charleston County RMC Office. The declaration of covenants and 
restrictions to restrict use of the site soils and ground water states 
the following: ``Pile Drivers hereby covenants for itself, its 
successors and assigns, that the Soil Treatment Area shall not be used 
for residential or agricultural purposes; prohibit activities, include 
but are not limited to: Filling; drilling; excavation; anchoring; 
removal of top soil, rock, or minerals; plowing; planting; cultivation 
(other than maintenance of the ground cover); and change of the 
topography in any manner.''

Five-Year Review

    The remedy at the Geiger (C & M Oil) Site currently protects human 
health and the environment because exposure pathways that could result 
in unacceptable risks are being controlled. Soils have been cleaned up 
to industrial standards using S/S, the property is currently being used 
for industrial purposes, and ground water sampling results over 
multiple years led to decommissioning 27 monitoring wells. Five-year 
reviews (FYR) are statutorily required as long as waste is left on site 
that does not allow for unrestricted use and unlimited exposure. Three 
FYRs have already been completed and the next FYR is planned for FY 
2014.

Community Involvement

    On August 15, 2008, a public notice was published in the Post and 
Courier Announcing the commencement of the third FYR process for the 
Geiger site, providing contact information for EPA site staff, and 
inviting community participation. Copies of this document are available 
in the Site's public repository: St. Paul's Parish Library,

[[Page 66287]]

5151 Town Council Drive, Hollywood, SC 29449, where additional 
information about the Site can be found in CD format. Community 
involvement activities associated with the deletion will consist of 
issuing a deletion fact sheet, publishing a public notice in the local 
newspaper, updating the information repository, and providing the 
public an opportunity to comment.

Determination That the Site Meets the Criteria for Deletion in the NCP

    The NCP (40 CFR 300.425(e)) states that a site may be deleted from 
the NPL when no further response action is appropriate. The implemented 
remedy achieves the degree of cleanup specified in the ROD and ROD 
Amendments for all pathways of exposure. All selected remedial action 
objectives and clean-up goals are consistent with agency policy and 
guidance. EPA, in consultation with the State of South Carolina, has 
determined that all required response actions have been implemented and 
no further response action by the responsible parties is appropriate.

V. Deletion Action

    The EPA, with concurrence of the State of South Carolina through 
the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control 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 January 6, 2014 unless EPA receives adverse comments by 
December 5, 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: September 23, 2013.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    For the reasons set out in this document, 40 CFR part 300 is 
amended as follows:

PART 300--NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES POLLUTION 
CONTINGENCY PLAN

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 [Amended]

0
2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 is amended by removing ``Geiger 
(C&M Oil)'', ``Rantoules, South Carolina''.

[FR Doc. 2013-26512 Filed 11-4-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P