National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the Ordnance Works Disposal Areas Superfund Site, 28586-28591 [2018-12709]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
28586
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules
• Are not Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
actions because these actions are either
exempted or not significant under
Executive Order 12866;
• Do not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Are 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.);
• Do 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);
• Do not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Are not economically significant
regulatory actions based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Are not significant regulatory
actions subject to Executive Order
13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Are 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
• Do 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).
The SIP is not approved to apply on
any Indian reservation land or in any
other area where EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the proposed actions do not
have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), nor will they
impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jun 19, 2018
Jkt 244001
Dated: June 8, 2018.
Onis ‘‘Trey’’ Glenn, III,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2018–13146 Filed 6–19–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1986–0005; FRL–9979–
21—Region 3]
National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion
of the Ordnance Works Disposal Areas
Superfund Site
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Region 3, is issuing a
Notice of Intent to Delete the Ordnance
Works Disposal Areas Superfund Site
(Site) located in Morgantown, West
Virginia, from the National Priorities
List (NPL) and requests public
comments on this proposed action. For
purposes of this action, the Site consists
of Operable Unit 1 (OU1), an NPL-listed
area of approximately 6 acres. Also for
purposes of this action, and unless
otherwise noted, the Site does not
include Operable Unit 2 (OU2), a nonNPL listed area of approximately eight
hundred acres. 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). The EPA and
the State of West Virginia, through the
West Virginia Department of
Environmental Protection (WVDEP),
have determined that all appropriate
response actions under CERCLA, other
than operation and maintenance,
monitoring, and five-year reviews have
been completed. However, this deletion
does not preclude future actions under
Superfund.
DATES: Comments must be received by
July 20, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID no. EPA–HQ–
SFUND–1986–0005, by one of the
following methods:
• https://www.regulations.gov:
Follow on-line instructions for
submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed
from Regulations.gov. The EPA may
publish any comment received to its
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video,
etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is
considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points
you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or
comment contents located outside of the
primary submission (i.e. on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
• Email: Jeffrey Thomas at
thomas.jeffrey@epa.gov.
• Mail: Jeffrey Thomas (3HS23),
Remedial Project Manager, United
States Environmental Protection Agency
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA
19103.
• Hand delivery: United States
Environmental Protection Agency, 1650
Arch Street, 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–1986–
0005. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be 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 website 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
E:\FR\FM\20JNP1.SGM
20JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
will be publicly available only in the
hard copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:
U.S. EPA Region 3, Superfund Records
Center, 6th Floor, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103–2029; (215)
814–3157, Monday through Friday 8:00
a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Morgantown Public
Library, 373 Spruce Street, Morgantown,
WV 26505; (304) 291–7425, Monday
through Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jeffrey Thomas, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 3, 3HS23, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, (215)
814–3377, email thomas.jeffrey@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion
I. Introduction
EPA Region 3 announces its intent to
delete the Ordnance Works Disposal
Areas Superfund Site from the National
Priorities List (NPL) and requests public
comment on this proposed action. For
purposes of this action, the Site consists
of Operable Unit 1 (OU1), an NPL-listed
area of approximately 6 acres. This
action does not include Operable Unit 2
(OU2), a non-NPL listed area of
approximately eight hundred acres.
Both OU1 and OU2 are located in an
industrial/commercial complex formally
known as the Morgantown Ordnance
Works in Morgantown, West Virginia.
Unless otherwise stated, references to
the ‘‘Site’’ shall mean OU1 only. 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jun 19, 2018
Jkt 244001
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.
EPA will accept comments on the
proposal to delete this site for thirty (30)
days after publication of this document
in the Federal Register.
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 Ordnance Works
Disposal Areas Superfund Site and
demonstrates how it meets the deletion
criteria.
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
28587
III. Deletion Procedures
The following procedures apply to
deletion of the Site:
(1) EPA consulted with the State
before developing this Notice of Intent
to Delete;
(2) EPA has provided the State 30
working days for review of this action
prior to this publication;
(3) In accordance with the criteria
discussed above, EPA has determined
that no further response is appropriate;
(4) The State of West Virginia,
through the WVDEP, has concurred
with deletion of the Site from the NPL;
(5) Concurrently with the publication
of this Notice of Intent to Delete in the
Federal Register, a notice is being
published in a major local newspaper,
The Dominion Post. The newspaper
notice announces the 30-day public
comment period concerning the Notice
of Intent to Delete the Site from the
NPL;
(6) 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.
If comments are received within the
30-day public comment period on this
document, EPA will evaluate and
respond appropriately to the comments
before making a final decision to delete.
If necessary, EPA will prepare a
Responsiveness Summary to address
any significant public comments
received. After the public comment
period, if EPA determines it is still
appropriate to delete the Site, the
Regional Administrator will publish a
final Notice of Deletion in the Federal
Register. Public notices, public
submissions, and copies of the
Responsiveness Summary, if prepared,
will be made available to interested
parties and in the site information
repositories listed above.
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 Intended Site Deletion
The following information provides
EPA’s rationale for deleting the Site
from the NPL:
E:\FR\FM\20JNP1.SGM
20JNP1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
28588
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules
Site Location and Use History
The Ordnance Works Disposal Areas
Superfund Site (EPA Identification
Number WVD000850404) consists of a
disposal area designated by EPA as OU1
containing approximately 6 acres within
a commercial/industrial development
known as the Morgantown Ordnance
Works outside of Morgantown, West
Virginia. See Section I (Introduction) for
details regarding OU1 and OU2. Within
the geographical limits of OU2 is a third
area consisting of two separate parcels
currently being studied under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA). OU1 was a disposal
location used by entities that operated
in the remainder of the Morgantown
Ordnance Works complex.
A removal action was conducted at
OU2 on hotspots identified in a
Remedial Investigation completed in
1995. Cleanup of OU2 occurred
pursuant to a 1996 settlement with
potentially responsible parties (PRPs) to
perform a removal action and was based
on exposure scenarios for the current
and future anticipated land use. The
work was conducted between March
1997 and June 1997. After the removal
action was completed, EPA determined,
based on the residual risk assessment
analysis, that the potential for adverse
carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic
effects to industrial workers and youth
trespassers was negligible and within
the limits considered acceptable by
EPA. No further response actions at
OU2 are anticipated.
The Site is located approximately one
mile southwest of the city of
Morgantown, West Virginia, near the
west bank of the Monongahela River.
The population of Monongalia County is
approximately 75,509; the city of
Morgantown accounts for 25,879 of this
total. The majority of the population
lives to the northeast and northwest of
the Site and obtains drinking water from
a public supply. There are several
houses within a one-mile radius of the
Site that utilize wells in one capacity or
another, however they are not located
downgradient of the Site.
The Morgantown Ordnance Works,
which later became the Morgantown
Industrial Park, has been the location of
a variety of industrial and chemical
production facilities since the 1940’s.
These activities occurred primarily in
OU2 of the Site; OU1 was used as a
disposal area for various industrial
concerns operating in OU2. Beginning
in October 1940, the Morgantown
Ordnance Works property was
developed as a coke plant and chemical
production facility by E.I. DuPont de
Nemours and Company under contract
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jun 19, 2018
Jkt 244001
to the United States Government. From
1943–1962, the United States held title
to the property. Between 1941 and 1958,
various businesses were operated by
private parties, in some cases pursuant
to government contracts and operating
agreements, and in other cases pursuant
to commercial leases. During these
years, substances such as hexamine,
ammonia, methyl alcohol,
formaldehyde, ethylene diamine, and
coke were produced. The plant was idle
from 1958–1962.
In 1962, the property was sold to
Morgantown Ordnance Works, Inc.
which then leased and/or sold portions
of the property to various industrial and
chemical manufacturing operations. In
1964 Weston Chemical Company
purchased a portion of the property
totaling 62 acres that is split between
two facilities known as the North and
South plants. Weston Chemical
Company was purchased by the BorgWarner Corporation in 1969. General
Electric (GE) purchased Borg-Warner
Corporation in 1988 and in 2003 the GE
North and South plants were purchased
by Crompton Corporation. The
Crompton Corporation then sold the two
plants to Chemtura Corporation which
in turn sold the two facilities, in 2013,
to Addivant US, LLC, the current owner.
The North and South plants are active
facilities currently being addressed
through a June 1990 RCRA settlement
with EPA.
Except for parcels previously sold,
which were portions of OU2, the
Morgantown Ordnance Works property
was acquired by Princess Coals, Inc. in
1978. In 1982, the property was
purchased by private individuals who
later formed Morgantown Industrial
Park, Inc. In 1983, the property was
conveyed to Morgantown Industrial
Park Associates, which retained
ownership of OU1, but then sold all of
the other parcels comprising the
industrial park property.
Initial Response, NPL Listing, and Study
As a result of the industrial activities
that occurred at the Morgantown
Ordnance Works facility, hazardous
substances were disposed of within a
small area in the southern portion of the
facility that is OU1 of the Site. OU1
contained an inactive landfill, two
lagoons, a former drum staging area, and
an area used for the shallow disposal of
wastes called the scraped area.
Investigation of this disposal area by
EPA began in 1981. OU1 was proposed
to the NPL on October 15, 1984 (49 FR
40320). On June 10, 1986, OU1 was
added to the NPL (51 FR 21054).
Sampling at OU1 of the Site occurred
in various phases between 1988 and
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1998. Samples were collected, both by
EPA as well as by PRPs, from
groundwater, surface and subsurface
soils, surface water, and sediments.
Analyses revealed no connection
between disposal activities at OU1 and
the groundwater. The surface and
subsurface soils, surface water, and
sediment at OU1 were all impacted to
varying degrees by organic and
inorganic contaminants.
Test pits installed in the scraped area
during the 1988 Remedial Investigation
(RI) revealed cinder-like backfill
material, blue and black catalyst pellets,
and yellow solid material. Additional
Phase II soil borings taken in the
scraped area exposed visible tar at
depths of up to eight feet and revealed
total carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (cPAHs) ranging from 94
parts per million (ppm) to 36,000 ppm.
Some elevated levels of inorganic
contaminants were detected during the
RI but were not detected in the scraped
area during the 1996 Phase II Interim
Design Tasks.
A portion of the lagoon area was
excavated in 1981 to address metal
plating wastes disposed in two surface
impoundments between 1970 and 1976.
During this action, miscellaneous
wastes including coal tars were
observed in the lagoon. Further
investigation during the Phase II Interim
Design Tasks indicated cPAH
concentrations ranging from 3.2 ppm to
30,000 ppm; however, the inorganic
contaminants detected during the 1988
RI were not found.
The northern section of OU1 was the
location of the abandoned, inactive
landfill estimated to have a fill depth of
20 feet at its thickest location. No
records exist on quantities or types of
material disposed of in the landfill.
Eyewitness reports and direct
observation reveal that the landfill
contained construction debris, slag, ash,
and catalyst pellets. Leachate from the
landfill drained to the northeast into a
wetland. The wetland drained directly
to a feature known as ‘‘Swale 3,’’ which
eventually discharged to the
Monongahela River. During pre-design
sampling, the sediment layer of both the
wetland and upper portion of Swale 3
were determined to have been impacted
by heavy metals contamination.
As part of the 1988 Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS),
EPA prepared a Baseline Human Health
Risk Assessment (BHHRA) for the Site
in order to identify and define possible
existing and future human health risks
associated with exposure to the
contaminants present in the various
media at OU1 if no action were taken.
The BHHRA was revised in the 1989
E:\FR\FM\20JNP1.SGM
20JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) report.
In both the 1988 original and 1989
revised BHHRA documents, EPA
concluded that action was necessary to
prevent contact with contaminated soil
and sediments found at OU1 of the Site.
A comprehensive Ecological Risk
Assessment was not conducted during
either the 1988 RI/FS or the 1989 FFS.
While drafting the September 29, 1999
Record of Decision (ROD), EPA’s
Biological Technical Assistance Group
reviewed the 1988 RI data and
concluded that inorganic contaminants
were present in surface water and
sediments within OU1 at levels that
were acutely toxic to potentially
affected ecosystems.
Selected Remedy
In March 1988, EPA issued a Record
of Decision (ROD) for OU1 selecting
onsite incineration of soils and
sediments contaminated with cPAHs
and heavy metals. In November 1988,
EPA opened an additional 30-day
comment period for out-of-state PRPs
who had not received notice of the
original Proposed Plan. Based on
comments received during this period,
EPA conducted a focused feasibility
study (FFS) in 1989 to re-evaluate the
alternatives described in the March
1988 ROD and to conduct a risk-based
analysis of cleanup levels. This FFS was
completed in June 1989.
On September 29, 1989, EPA issued a
ROD that superseded the 1988 ROD.
The 1989 ROD selected a remedy and
contingency remedy for OU1. The
selected remedial action included,
among other things, excavation and
treatment of inorganic hot spots from
the lagoon and scraped areas; disposal
of treated inorganic contaminants at the
former landfill area; capping the former
landfill; and excavation and treatment
of organics-contaminated soils and
sediments using bioremediation. The
contingency remedial action called for
treatment of soils and sediments using
soil washing technology. In June 1990,
EPA issued an administrative order
directing several PRPs to implement the
September 1989 ROD.
The human health risk assessment
conducted in conjunction with the OU1
RI was completed in 1988. This
assessment was completed prior to the
issuance of a revised cancer potency
factor (CPF) established in the
Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS) for benzo(a)pyrene (BAP) and the
interim comparative potency estimates
provided by EPA’s Office of Research
and Development (ORD) in a guidance
document entitled ‘‘Provisional
Guidance for Quantitative Risk
Assessment of Polycyclic Aromatic
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jun 19, 2018
Jkt 244001
Hydrocarbons’’ (EPA/600/R–93/089
(July 1993)). In 1995, during
implementation of remedial design
conducted under EPA’s June 1990
administrative order, the PRPs
recalculated the cleanup standards for
cPAHs at OU1 using the new CPF
established in IRIS and the interim
comparative potency estimates
established by ORD. The resulting
cleanup standard was less stringent than
the cleanup standard identified in the
September 1989 ROD. The PRPs
submitted a proposal to EPA in July
1995 requesting that the Agency adopt
the newly calculated cleanup standard
of 78 ppm total cPAHs. EPA evaluated
this proposal using a Monte Carlo
simulation and determined that this
cleanup level would result in risk
within the 1x10¥4 to 1x10¥6 acceptable
risk range established by the NCP. The
Monte Carlo risk assessment verified
that 78 ppm total cPAHs was an
acceptable cleanup standard as long as
the associated BAP value did not exceed
18.2 ppm. Achieving a cleanup level of
78 ppm total cPAHs with no more than
18.2 ppm BAP became the cPAH
cleanup standard approved by EPA.
The PRPs completed treatability
studies for the bioremediation
component in March 1997 under EPA’s
June 1990 administrative order. The
PRPs concluded, and EPA agreed, that
bioremediation was not capable of
meeting the 78 ppm total cPAH cleanup
standard within a reasonable time-frame
and was not cost-effective. The PRPs
and EPA also concluded that the soil
washing contingency action described
in the September 1989 ROD was
similarly deficient. In the Spring of
1997, the PRPs submitted a proposal to
EPA to conduct a second FFS to identify
a replacement remedial action for OU1.
EPA agreed and negotiated a new
agreement with the PRPs for this study
work in October 1997. The second FFS
was completed in 1998.
On September 30, 1999, EPA issued a
ROD that superseded the 1989 ROD.
The 1999 ROD selected a replacement
remedial action for OU1. The selected
remedy consisted of off-site thermal
treatment of visibly stained stream,
lagoon, and scraped area soils/
sediments; consolidation of
contaminated media into the existing
landfill; restoration of streams and
wetland areas where sediment was
excavated; capping of the existing
landfill; long-term monitoring; and
institutional controls to protect the cap
and prohibit residential development,
recreational use, schools, and child care
facilities within OU1. Neither the March
1988 ROD nor the September 1989 ROD
required action to address groundwater.
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
28589
There was no evidence that the
groundwater had been significantly
impacted by disposal operations at OU1
and no unacceptable risks were posed to
receptors of the groundwater at OU1.
Therefore, the remedy selected in the
1999 ROD also did not include a
groundwater remediation component.
Response Actions
The PRPs implemented the remedy
selected for OU1 pursuant to an
administrative order originally issued in
1989 and modified in 1999 to direct the
PRPs to implement the 1999 ROD. The
Remedial Design (RD) was conducted in
conformance with the approved work
plan and 1999 ROD. The Remedial
Action (RA) was initiated in August
2000. The target areas were excavated as
part of the RA and soils and sediments
containing visible coal tar were
separated for treatment and utilization
as a fuel source for a local power plant.
Utilization of the treated coal tar as a
fuel source achieved destruction of the
contaminants of concern through
thermal treatment as well as beneficial
reuse of the coal tar to produce
electricity. The rest of the excavated
material found to be above the ROD
cleanup criteria was consolidated into
the former landfill which was covered
with a multi-layer RCRA Subtitle C cap.
EPA and WVDEP conducted a final
inspection of OU1 on September 11,
2003 and determined that the remedy
had been constructed in accordance
with the Remedial Design plans and
specifications and that no further
construction was anticipated. EPA and
WVDEP reviewed the remedial action
contract and construction for
compliance with quality assurance and
quality control (QA/QC) protocols.
Construction activities at the Site were
determined to be consistent with the
1999 ROD, Remedial Design plans and
specifications, and EPA’s June 1990
administrative order.
The PRP’s construction contractor
adhered to the approved Construction
Quality Assurance Plan (CQAP). The
CQAP incorporated all EPA and State
requirements. All confirmatory
inspections, independent testing, audits,
and evaluations of materials and
workmanship were performed in
accordance with the construction
drawings, technical specifications, and
the CQAP. Construction quality
assurance was performed by the United
States Army Corps of Engineers,
Huntington District, which maintained a
constant on-site presence. The EPA
Remedial Project Manager and State
regulators visited OU1 approximately
twice a month during construction
activities to review construction
E:\FR\FM\20JNP1.SGM
20JNP1
28590
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules
progress and evaluate and review the
results of QA/QC activities. Institutional
controls to protect the cap, limit land
use to industrial/commercial operations,
and prohibit use of groundwater were
implemented in 2006 with the recording
of an Environmental Covenant in the
office of the Clerk of the County
Commission of Monongalia County,
West Virginia, in Deed Book 1327, at
Page 557.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Cleanup Levels
The remedy addressed visible tar-like
material and contaminated soil and
sediment exceeding site-specific
cleanup standards. Cleanup standards
specified in the 1999 ROD for the
surface and subsurface soils in the
Lagoon Area and Scraped Area are as
follows: Total cPAH 78 ppm, with a
BAP value not to exceed 18.2 ppm;
arsenic 88.8 ppm; cadmium 642 ppm;
copper 41,100 ppm; and lead 500 ppm.
Cleanup standards specified in the 1999
ROD for stream and wetlands sediments
are as follows: Total cPAH 78 ppm, with
a BAP value not to exceed 18.2 ppm;
arsenic 9.62 ppm; cadmium 0.35 ppm;
chromium 30.2 ppm; copper 22.7 ppm;
lead 31.6 ppm; mercury non-detect; and
zinc 86.8 ppm. The project team
determined that total removal of the
existing sediments and replacement
with clean fill would be the most the
appropriate way to achieve cleanup of
the sediments. Removal of the
contaminated sediment and
replacement with clean fill was
completed as part of the Remedial
Action.
The Quality Assurance Project Plan
(QAPP) incorporated all EPA and State
QA/QC procedures and protocols. EPA
analytical methods were used for all
confirmation and monitoring samples
during RA activities. Sampling and
analysis during construction and during
Operation and Maintenance (O&M)
monitoring was performed in
accordance with approved Sampling
and Analysis Plans. Procedures and
protocols followed for soil sample
analysis during the RA were conducted
in accordance with the Contract
Laboratory Program. EPA and the State
determined that analytical results are
accurate to the degree needed to assure
satisfactory completion of the RA.
Operation and Maintenance
Site O&M requirements are contained
in the approved O&M Plan dated April
13, 2012. This plan includes inspection
of the landfill cover and wetlands and
associated drainage systems, and
sampling requirements for groundwater
and treatment wetland effluent. O&M
activities are performed by the PRPs
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jun 19, 2018
Jkt 244001
under the 1990 EPA administrative
order.
The treatment wetlands were initially
inspected every six months during the
first two years following the completion
of the RA and continue to be inspected
and maintained to ensure flow-through
of leachate in the pond system. The
integrity of the treatment ponds system
has been monitored and has not
required modification to date.
The replacement wetlands, located
adjacent to the Monongahela River, are
inspected annually as part of the landfill
cap inspection. Beginning in 2008, the
PRPs undertook efforts to eradicate
invasive plant species from the
replacement wetlands at the request of
EPA and WVDEP. Recent inspections of
the replacement wetlands have verified
that the wetlands have developed into a
high quality mosaic of forested, shrubscrub, and emergent wetlands habitats.
Invasive plants are present, but at low
density as a result of the control
measures implemented after
construction. The presence of numerous
wetland terrestrial, aquatic, and avian
species was noted through visual and
auditory observation.
Landfill cap inspections currently
occur on a semi-annual basis. The cap
has remained in good condition and has
required only minor revegetation in
small areas affected by erosion. No
cracking or movement of surficial soils
has occurred on the top of the cap slope.
Storm water conveyance channels
remain in good condition and no
obvious signs of ponding water have
been found. Overall the vegetative cover
remains robust and well established and
the drainage system operates as
designed.
Five-Year Reviews
Five-Year Reviews were conducted at
the Site in 2006, 2011, and 2016. In the
Five-Year Review report issued on
September 12, 2016, EPA concluded
that the remedial action objectives for
the remedy had been achieved. EPA
found that the remedy is protective of
human health and the environment, that
the remedy was implemented in
accordance with the remedial action
objectives of the 1999 ROD, and that the
remedy was functioning as intended.
The landfill has not been found to be a
significant source of contamination to
the groundwater in the area and the
contaminants of concern identified in
the 1999 ROD have not been detected in
groundwater samples during the review
period. The multi-layer RCRA landfill
cap was determined to be effective in
containing hazardous waste materials,
the treatment wetland ponds appeared
to be functioning as intended, and
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
access restrictions were found to be
functional. Institutional controls are in
place to prohibit disturbing the landfill
cap, use of groundwater, and noncommercial use of any kind within
OU1. O&M including annual
inspections, leachate monitoring, and
treatment wetland monitoring are
performed by the PRPs pursuant to the
2012 approved O&M Plan. There were
no issues or recommendations
identified in the 2016 report. The next
review for OU1 is required by
September 2021.
Community Involvement
Throughout the Site’s history, EPA
has kept the community and other
interested parties apprised of Site
activities through fact sheets, press
releases, and public meetings. Public
participation activities have been
performed in accordance with Sections
113(k) and 117 of CERCLA. Documents
in the deletion docket upon which EPA
relied for recommending deletion of
OU1 from the NPL are available to the
public in the information repositories.
EPA notified local officials in advance
about Five-Year Reviews and placed
notices in The Dominion Post to inform
the public that the Five-Year Reviews
were being conducted and when the
findings of each would be available.
Determination That the Criteria for
Deletion Have Been Met
The implemented remedy achieves
the degree of cleanup and protection
specified in the 1999 ROD and meets
EPA’s acceptable risk for all exposure
pathways. The remedial action at OU1
has been completed in accordance with
the 1999 ROD, institutional controls are
in place, and O&M is being conducted
in accordance with the approved O&M
Plan. All remedial action objectives,
performance standards, and cleanup
goals established in the 1999 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 O&M, monitoring,
and Five-Year Reviews, is necessary to
continue to protect human health and
the environment. All of the selected
remedial actions and the remedial
action objectives and associated cleanup
goals are consistent with CERCLA, the
NCP, and EPA policy and guidance.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous
waste, Hazardous substances,
Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping
E:\FR\FM\20JNP1.SGM
20JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules
requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C.
9601–9657; E.O. 13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR,
2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757,
3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52
FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.
Dated: May 30, 2018.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region 3.
[FR Doc. 2018–12709 Filed 6–19–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
40 CFR Parts 1500, 1501, 1502, 1503,
1504, 1505, 1506, 1507, and 1508
[Docket No. CEQ–2018–0001]
RIN: 0331–AA03
Update to the Regulations for
Implementing the Procedural
Provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act
Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ).
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed
rulemaking.
AGENCY:
The Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) is
considering updating its implementing
regulations for the procedural
provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Over
the past four decades, CEQ has issued
numerous guidance documents but has
amended its regulations substantively
only once. Given the length of time
since its NEPA implementing
regulations were issued, CEQ solicits
public comment on potential revisions
to update the regulations and ensure a
more efficient, timely, and effective
NEPA process consistent with the
national environmental policy stated in
NEPA.
DATES: Comments should be submitted
on or before July 20, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by docket identification (ID)
number CEQ–2018–0001 through the
Federal eRulemaking portal at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Edward A. Boling, Associate Director for
the National Environmental Policy Act,
Council on Environmental Quality, 730
Jackson Place NW, Washington, DC
20503. Telephone: (202) 395–5750.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jun 19, 2018
Jkt 244001
I. Background
The National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., was
enacted in 1970. NEPA states that ‘‘it is
the continuing policy of the Federal
Government, in cooperation with State
and local governments, and other
concerned public and private
organizations, to use all practicable
means and measures, including
financial and technical assistance, in a
manner calculated to foster and promote
the general welfare, to create and
maintain conditions under which man
and nature can exist in productive
harmony, and fulfill the social,
economic, and other requirements of
present and future generations of
Americans.’’ 42 U.S.C. 4331(a). NEPA
also established CEQ as an agency
within the Executive Office of the
President. 42 U.S.C. 4342.
By Executive Order (E.O.) 11514,
‘‘Protection and Enhancement of
Environmental Quality’’ (March 5,
1970), President Nixon directed CEQ in
Section 3(h) to issue ‘‘guidelines to
Federal agencies for the preparation of
detailed statements on proposals for
legislation and other Federal actions
affecting the environment, as required
by section 102(2)(C) of the Act.’’ CEQ
published these guidelines in April of
1970 and revised them in 1973.
President Carter issued E.O. 11991
(May 24, 1977), ‘‘Relating to Protection
and Enhancement of Environmental
Quality,’’ which amended Section 3(h)
of E.O. 11514 to direct CEQ to issue
regulations providing uniform standards
for the implementation of NEPA, and
amended Section 2 of E.O. 11514 to
require agency compliance with the
CEQ regulations. CEQ promulgated its
‘‘Regulations for Implementing the
Procedural Provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act’’ (CEQ’s
NEPA regulations) at 40 CFR parts
1500–1508. 43 FR 55978 (November 29,
1978). Since that time, CEQ has
amended its NEPA regulations
substantively only once, to eliminate the
‘‘worst case’’ analysis requirement of 40
CFR 1502.22. 51 FR 15618 (April 25,
1986).
On August 15, 2017, President Trump
issued E.O. 13807, ‘‘Establishing
Discipline and Accountability in the
Environmental Review and Permitting
Process for Infrastructure Projects.’’ 82
FR 40463 (August 24, 2017). Section
5(e) of E.O. 13807 directed CEQ to
develop an initial list of actions to
enhance and modernize the Federal
environmental review and authorization
process. In response, CEQ published its
initial list of actions pursuant to E.O.
13807 and stated that it intends to
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
28591
review its existing NEPA regulations in
order to identify changes needed to
update and clarify these regulations. 82
FR 43226 (September 14, 2017).
II. Request for Comment
CEQ requests comments on potential
revisions to update and clarify CEQ
NEPA regulations. In particular, CEQ
requests comments on the following
specific aspects of these regulations, and
requests that commenters include
question numbers when providing
responses. Where possible, please
provide specific recommendations on
additions, deletions, and modifications
to the text of CEQ’s NEPA regulations
and their justifications.
NEPA Process
1. Should CEQ’s NEPA regulations be
revised to ensure that environmental
reviews and authorization decisions
involving multiple agencies are
conducted in a manner that is
concurrent, synchronized, timely, and
efficient, and if so, how?
2. Should CEQ’s NEPA regulations be
revised to make the NEPA process more
efficient by better facilitating agency use
of environmental studies, analysis, and
decisions conducted in earlier Federal,
State, tribal or local environmental
reviews or authorization decisions, and
if so, how?
3. Should CEQ’s NEPA regulations be
revised to ensure optimal interagency
coordination of environmental reviews
and authorization decisions, and if so,
how?
Scope of NEPA Review
4. Should the provisions in CEQ’s
NEPA regulations that relate to the
format and page length of NEPA
documents and time limits for
completion be revised, and if so, how?
5. Should CEQ’s NEPA regulations be
revised to provide greater clarity to
ensure NEPA documents better focus on
significant issues that are relevant and
useful to decisionmakers and the public,
and if so, how?
6. Should the provisions in CEQ’s
NEPA regulations relating to public
involvement be revised to be more
inclusive and efficient, and if so, how?
7. Should definitions of any key
NEPA terms in CEQ’s NEPA regulations,
such as those listed below, be revised,
and if so, how?
a. Major Federal Action;
b. Effects;
c. Cumulative Impact;
d. Significantly;
e. Scope; and
f. Other NEPA terms.
8. Should any new definitions of key
NEPA terms, such as those noted below,
be added, and if so, which terms?
E:\FR\FM\20JNP1.SGM
20JNP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 20, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28586-28591]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12709]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1986-0005; FRL-9979-21--Region 3]
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Deletion of the Ordnance Works Disposal Areas
Superfund Site
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 3, is
issuing a Notice of Intent to Delete the Ordnance Works Disposal Areas
Superfund Site (Site) located in Morgantown, West Virginia, from the
National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on this
proposed action. For purposes of this action, the Site consists of
Operable Unit 1 (OU1), an NPL-listed area of approximately 6 acres.
Also for purposes of this action, and unless otherwise noted, the Site
does not include Operable Unit 2 (OU2), a non-NPL listed area of
approximately eight hundred acres. 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).
The EPA and the State of West Virginia, through the West Virginia
Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP), have determined that
all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other than operation and
maintenance, monitoring, and five-year reviews have been completed.
However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under
Superfund.
DATES: Comments must be received by July 20, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-1986-0005, by one of the following methods:
https://www.regulations.gov: Follow on-line instructions
for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received
to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
Email: Jeffrey Thomas at [email protected].
Mail: Jeffrey Thomas (3HS23), Remedial Project Manager,
United States Environmental Protection Agency 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103.
Hand delivery: United States Environmental Protection
Agency, 1650 Arch Street, 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-
1986-0005. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 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 website 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
[[Page 28587]]
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in the hard
copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at: U.S.
EPA Region 3, Superfund Records Center, 6th Floor, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029; (215) 814-3157, Monday through Friday 8:00
a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Morgantown Public Library, 373 Spruce Street,
Morgantown, WV 26505; (304) 291-7425, Monday through Saturday 9:00 a.m.
to 4:00 p.m.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Thomas, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3, 3HS23, 1650
Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, (215) 814-3377, email
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion
I. Introduction
EPA Region 3 announces its intent to delete the Ordnance Works
Disposal Areas Superfund Site from the National Priorities List (NPL)
and requests public comment on this proposed action. For purposes of
this action, the Site consists of Operable Unit 1 (OU1), an NPL-listed
area of approximately 6 acres. This action does not include Operable
Unit 2 (OU2), a non-NPL listed area of approximately eight hundred
acres. Both OU1 and OU2 are located in an industrial/commercial complex
formally known as the Morgantown Ordnance Works in Morgantown, West
Virginia. Unless otherwise stated, references to the ``Site'' shall
mean OU1 only. 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.
EPA will accept comments on the proposal to delete this site for
thirty (30) days after publication of this document in the Federal
Register.
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 Ordnance Works Disposal Areas
Superfund Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria.
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 before developing this Notice of
Intent to Delete;
(2) EPA has provided the State 30 working days for review of this
action prior to this publication;
(3) In accordance with the criteria discussed above, EPA has
determined that no further response is appropriate;
(4) The State of West Virginia, through the WVDEP, has concurred
with deletion of the Site from the NPL;
(5) Concurrently with the publication of this Notice of Intent to
Delete in the Federal Register, a notice is being published in a major
local newspaper, The Dominion Post. The newspaper notice announces the
30-day public comment period concerning the Notice of Intent to Delete
the Site from the NPL;
(6) 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.
If comments are received within the 30-day public comment period on
this document, EPA will evaluate and respond appropriately to the
comments before making a final decision to delete. If necessary, EPA
will prepare a Responsiveness Summary to address any significant public
comments received. After the public comment period, if EPA determines
it is still appropriate to delete the Site, the Regional Administrator
will publish a final Notice of Deletion in the Federal Register. Public
notices, public submissions, and copies of the Responsiveness Summary,
if prepared, will be made available to interested parties and in the
site information repositories listed above.
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 Intended Site Deletion
The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting the
Site from the NPL:
[[Page 28588]]
Site Location and Use History
The Ordnance Works Disposal Areas Superfund Site (EPA
Identification Number WVD000850404) consists of a disposal area
designated by EPA as OU1 containing approximately 6 acres within a
commercial/industrial development known as the Morgantown Ordnance
Works outside of Morgantown, West Virginia. See Section I
(Introduction) for details regarding OU1 and OU2. Within the
geographical limits of OU2 is a third area consisting of two separate
parcels currently being studied under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). OU1 was a disposal location used by entities that
operated in the remainder of the Morgantown Ordnance Works complex.
A removal action was conducted at OU2 on hotspots identified in a
Remedial Investigation completed in 1995. Cleanup of OU2 occurred
pursuant to a 1996 settlement with potentially responsible parties
(PRPs) to perform a removal action and was based on exposure scenarios
for the current and future anticipated land use. The work was conducted
between March 1997 and June 1997. After the removal action was
completed, EPA determined, based on the residual risk assessment
analysis, that the potential for adverse carcinogenic and non-
carcinogenic effects to industrial workers and youth trespassers was
negligible and within the limits considered acceptable by EPA. No
further response actions at OU2 are anticipated.
The Site is located approximately one mile southwest of the city of
Morgantown, West Virginia, near the west bank of the Monongahela River.
The population of Monongalia County is approximately 75,509; the city
of Morgantown accounts for 25,879 of this total. The majority of the
population lives to the northeast and northwest of the Site and obtains
drinking water from a public supply. There are several houses within a
one-mile radius of the Site that utilize wells in one capacity or
another, however they are not located downgradient of the Site.
The Morgantown Ordnance Works, which later became the Morgantown
Industrial Park, has been the location of a variety of industrial and
chemical production facilities since the 1940's. These activities
occurred primarily in OU2 of the Site; OU1 was used as a disposal area
for various industrial concerns operating in OU2. Beginning in October
1940, the Morgantown Ordnance Works property was developed as a coke
plant and chemical production facility by E.I. DuPont de Nemours and
Company under contract to the United States Government. From 1943-1962,
the United States held title to the property. Between 1941 and 1958,
various businesses were operated by private parties, in some cases
pursuant to government contracts and operating agreements, and in other
cases pursuant to commercial leases. During these years, substances
such as hexamine, ammonia, methyl alcohol, formaldehyde, ethylene
diamine, and coke were produced. The plant was idle from 1958-1962.
In 1962, the property was sold to Morgantown Ordnance Works, Inc.
which then leased and/or sold portions of the property to various
industrial and chemical manufacturing operations. In 1964 Weston
Chemical Company purchased a portion of the property totaling 62 acres
that is split between two facilities known as the North and South
plants. Weston Chemical Company was purchased by the Borg-Warner
Corporation in 1969. General Electric (GE) purchased Borg-Warner
Corporation in 1988 and in 2003 the GE North and South plants were
purchased by Crompton Corporation. The Crompton Corporation then sold
the two plants to Chemtura Corporation which in turn sold the two
facilities, in 2013, to Addivant US, LLC, the current owner. The North
and South plants are active facilities currently being addressed
through a June 1990 RCRA settlement with EPA.
Except for parcels previously sold, which were portions of OU2, the
Morgantown Ordnance Works property was acquired by Princess Coals, Inc.
in 1978. In 1982, the property was purchased by private individuals who
later formed Morgantown Industrial Park, Inc. In 1983, the property was
conveyed to Morgantown Industrial Park Associates, which retained
ownership of OU1, but then sold all of the other parcels comprising the
industrial park property.
Initial Response, NPL Listing, and Study
As a result of the industrial activities that occurred at the
Morgantown Ordnance Works facility, hazardous substances were disposed
of within a small area in the southern portion of the facility that is
OU1 of the Site. OU1 contained an inactive landfill, two lagoons, a
former drum staging area, and an area used for the shallow disposal of
wastes called the scraped area. Investigation of this disposal area by
EPA began in 1981. OU1 was proposed to the NPL on October 15, 1984 (49
FR 40320). On June 10, 1986, OU1 was added to the NPL (51 FR 21054).
Sampling at OU1 of the Site occurred in various phases between 1988
and 1998. Samples were collected, both by EPA as well as by PRPs, from
groundwater, surface and subsurface soils, surface water, and
sediments. Analyses revealed no connection between disposal activities
at OU1 and the groundwater. The surface and subsurface soils, surface
water, and sediment at OU1 were all impacted to varying degrees by
organic and inorganic contaminants.
Test pits installed in the scraped area during the 1988 Remedial
Investigation (RI) revealed cinder-like backfill material, blue and
black catalyst pellets, and yellow solid material. Additional Phase II
soil borings taken in the scraped area exposed visible tar at depths of
up to eight feet and revealed total carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (cPAHs) ranging from 94 parts per million (ppm) to 36,000
ppm. Some elevated levels of inorganic contaminants were detected
during the RI but were not detected in the scraped area during the 1996
Phase II Interim Design Tasks.
A portion of the lagoon area was excavated in 1981 to address metal
plating wastes disposed in two surface impoundments between 1970 and
1976. During this action, miscellaneous wastes including coal tars were
observed in the lagoon. Further investigation during the Phase II
Interim Design Tasks indicated cPAH concentrations ranging from 3.2 ppm
to 30,000 ppm; however, the inorganic contaminants detected during the
1988 RI were not found.
The northern section of OU1 was the location of the abandoned,
inactive landfill estimated to have a fill depth of 20 feet at its
thickest location. No records exist on quantities or types of material
disposed of in the landfill. Eyewitness reports and direct observation
reveal that the landfill contained construction debris, slag, ash, and
catalyst pellets. Leachate from the landfill drained to the northeast
into a wetland. The wetland drained directly to a feature known as
``Swale 3,'' which eventually discharged to the Monongahela River.
During pre-design sampling, the sediment layer of both the wetland and
upper portion of Swale 3 were determined to have been impacted by heavy
metals contamination.
As part of the 1988 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/
FS), EPA prepared a Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment (BHHRA) for
the Site in order to identify and define possible existing and future
human health risks associated with exposure to the contaminants present
in the various media at OU1 if no action were taken. The BHHRA was
revised in the 1989
[[Page 28589]]
Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) report. In both the 1988 original and
1989 revised BHHRA documents, EPA concluded that action was necessary
to prevent contact with contaminated soil and sediments found at OU1 of
the Site.
A comprehensive Ecological Risk Assessment was not conducted during
either the 1988 RI/FS or the 1989 FFS. While drafting the September 29,
1999 Record of Decision (ROD), EPA's Biological Technical Assistance
Group reviewed the 1988 RI data and concluded that inorganic
contaminants were present in surface water and sediments within OU1 at
levels that were acutely toxic to potentially affected ecosystems.
Selected Remedy
In March 1988, EPA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) for OU1
selecting onsite incineration of soils and sediments contaminated with
cPAHs and heavy metals. In November 1988, EPA opened an additional 30-
day comment period for out-of-state PRPs who had not received notice of
the original Proposed Plan. Based on comments received during this
period, EPA conducted a focused feasibility study (FFS) in 1989 to re-
evaluate the alternatives described in the March 1988 ROD and to
conduct a risk-based analysis of cleanup levels. This FFS was completed
in June 1989.
On September 29, 1989, EPA issued a ROD that superseded the 1988
ROD. The 1989 ROD selected a remedy and contingency remedy for OU1. The
selected remedial action included, among other things, excavation and
treatment of inorganic hot spots from the lagoon and scraped areas;
disposal of treated inorganic contaminants at the former landfill area;
capping the former landfill; and excavation and treatment of organics-
contaminated soils and sediments using bioremediation. The contingency
remedial action called for treatment of soils and sediments using soil
washing technology. In June 1990, EPA issued an administrative order
directing several PRPs to implement the September 1989 ROD.
The human health risk assessment conducted in conjunction with the
OU1 RI was completed in 1988. This assessment was completed prior to
the issuance of a revised cancer potency factor (CPF) established in
the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) for benzo(a)pyrene (BAP)
and the interim comparative potency estimates provided by EPA's Office
of Research and Development (ORD) in a guidance document entitled
``Provisional Guidance for Quantitative Risk Assessment of Polycyclic
Aromatic Hydrocarbons'' (EPA/600/R-93/089 (July 1993)). In 1995, during
implementation of remedial design conducted under EPA's June 1990
administrative order, the PRPs recalculated the cleanup standards for
cPAHs at OU1 using the new CPF established in IRIS and the interim
comparative potency estimates established by ORD. The resulting cleanup
standard was less stringent than the cleanup standard identified in the
September 1989 ROD. The PRPs submitted a proposal to EPA in July 1995
requesting that the Agency adopt the newly calculated cleanup standard
of 78 ppm total cPAHs. EPA evaluated this proposal using a Monte Carlo
simulation and determined that this cleanup level would result in risk
within the 1x10-4 to 1x10-6 acceptable risk range
established by the NCP. The Monte Carlo risk assessment verified that
78 ppm total cPAHs was an acceptable cleanup standard as long as the
associated BAP value did not exceed 18.2 ppm. Achieving a cleanup level
of 78 ppm total cPAHs with no more than 18.2 ppm BAP became the cPAH
cleanup standard approved by EPA.
The PRPs completed treatability studies for the bioremediation
component in March 1997 under EPA's June 1990 administrative order. The
PRPs concluded, and EPA agreed, that bioremediation was not capable of
meeting the 78 ppm total cPAH cleanup standard within a reasonable
time-frame and was not cost-effective. The PRPs and EPA also concluded
that the soil washing contingency action described in the September
1989 ROD was similarly deficient. In the Spring of 1997, the PRPs
submitted a proposal to EPA to conduct a second FFS to identify a
replacement remedial action for OU1. EPA agreed and negotiated a new
agreement with the PRPs for this study work in October 1997. The second
FFS was completed in 1998.
On September 30, 1999, EPA issued a ROD that superseded the 1989
ROD. The 1999 ROD selected a replacement remedial action for OU1. The
selected remedy consisted of off-site thermal treatment of visibly
stained stream, lagoon, and scraped area soils/sediments; consolidation
of contaminated media into the existing landfill; restoration of
streams and wetland areas where sediment was excavated; capping of the
existing landfill; long-term monitoring; and institutional controls to
protect the cap and prohibit residential development, recreational use,
schools, and child care facilities within OU1. Neither the March 1988
ROD nor the September 1989 ROD required action to address groundwater.
There was no evidence that the groundwater had been significantly
impacted by disposal operations at OU1 and no unacceptable risks were
posed to receptors of the groundwater at OU1. Therefore, the remedy
selected in the 1999 ROD also did not include a groundwater remediation
component.
Response Actions
The PRPs implemented the remedy selected for OU1 pursuant to an
administrative order originally issued in 1989 and modified in 1999 to
direct the PRPs to implement the 1999 ROD. The Remedial Design (RD) was
conducted in conformance with the approved work plan and 1999 ROD. The
Remedial Action (RA) was initiated in August 2000. The target areas
were excavated as part of the RA and soils and sediments containing
visible coal tar were separated for treatment and utilization as a fuel
source for a local power plant. Utilization of the treated coal tar as
a fuel source achieved destruction of the contaminants of concern
through thermal treatment as well as beneficial reuse of the coal tar
to produce electricity. The rest of the excavated material found to be
above the ROD cleanup criteria was consolidated into the former
landfill which was covered with a multi-layer RCRA Subtitle C cap.
EPA and WVDEP conducted a final inspection of OU1 on September 11,
2003 and determined that the remedy had been constructed in accordance
with the Remedial Design plans and specifications and that no further
construction was anticipated. EPA and WVDEP reviewed the remedial
action contract and construction for compliance with quality assurance
and quality control (QA/QC) protocols. Construction activities at the
Site were determined to be consistent with the 1999 ROD, Remedial
Design plans and specifications, and EPA's June 1990 administrative
order.
The PRP's construction contractor adhered to the approved
Construction Quality Assurance Plan (CQAP). The CQAP incorporated all
EPA and State requirements. All confirmatory inspections, independent
testing, audits, and evaluations of materials and workmanship were
performed in accordance with the construction drawings, technical
specifications, and the CQAP. Construction quality assurance was
performed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Huntington
District, which maintained a constant on-site presence. The EPA
Remedial Project Manager and State regulators visited OU1 approximately
twice a month during construction activities to review construction
[[Page 28590]]
progress and evaluate and review the results of QA/QC activities.
Institutional controls to protect the cap, limit land use to
industrial/commercial operations, and prohibit use of groundwater were
implemented in 2006 with the recording of an Environmental Covenant in
the office of the Clerk of the County Commission of Monongalia County,
West Virginia, in Deed Book 1327, at Page 557.
Cleanup Levels
The remedy addressed visible tar-like material and contaminated
soil and sediment exceeding site-specific cleanup standards. Cleanup
standards specified in the 1999 ROD for the surface and subsurface
soils in the Lagoon Area and Scraped Area are as follows: Total cPAH 78
ppm, with a BAP value not to exceed 18.2 ppm; arsenic 88.8 ppm; cadmium
642 ppm; copper 41,100 ppm; and lead 500 ppm. Cleanup standards
specified in the 1999 ROD for stream and wetlands sediments are as
follows: Total cPAH 78 ppm, with a BAP value not to exceed 18.2 ppm;
arsenic 9.62 ppm; cadmium 0.35 ppm; chromium 30.2 ppm; copper 22.7 ppm;
lead 31.6 ppm; mercury non-detect; and zinc 86.8 ppm. The project team
determined that total removal of the existing sediments and replacement
with clean fill would be the most the appropriate way to achieve
cleanup of the sediments. Removal of the contaminated sediment and
replacement with clean fill was completed as part of the Remedial
Action.
The Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) incorporated all EPA and
State QA/QC procedures and protocols. EPA analytical methods were used
for all confirmation and monitoring samples during RA activities.
Sampling and analysis during construction and during Operation and
Maintenance (O&M) monitoring was performed in accordance with approved
Sampling and Analysis Plans. Procedures and protocols followed for soil
sample analysis during the RA were conducted in accordance with the
Contract Laboratory Program. EPA and the State determined that
analytical results are accurate to the degree needed to assure
satisfactory completion of the RA.
Operation and Maintenance
Site O&M requirements are contained in the approved O&M Plan dated
April 13, 2012. This plan includes inspection of the landfill cover and
wetlands and associated drainage systems, and sampling requirements for
groundwater and treatment wetland effluent. O&M activities are
performed by the PRPs under the 1990 EPA administrative order.
The treatment wetlands were initially inspected every six months
during the first two years following the completion of the RA and
continue to be inspected and maintained to ensure flow-through of
leachate in the pond system. The integrity of the treatment ponds
system has been monitored and has not required modification to date.
The replacement wetlands, located adjacent to the Monongahela
River, are inspected annually as part of the landfill cap inspection.
Beginning in 2008, the PRPs undertook efforts to eradicate invasive
plant species from the replacement wetlands at the request of EPA and
WVDEP. Recent inspections of the replacement wetlands have verified
that the wetlands have developed into a high quality mosaic of
forested, shrub-scrub, and emergent wetlands habitats. Invasive plants
are present, but at low density as a result of the control measures
implemented after construction. The presence of numerous wetland
terrestrial, aquatic, and avian species was noted through visual and
auditory observation.
Landfill cap inspections currently occur on a semi-annual basis.
The cap has remained in good condition and has required only minor
revegetation in small areas affected by erosion. No cracking or
movement of surficial soils has occurred on the top of the cap slope.
Storm water conveyance channels remain in good condition and no obvious
signs of ponding water have been found. Overall the vegetative cover
remains robust and well established and the drainage system operates as
designed.
Five-Year Reviews
Five-Year Reviews were conducted at the Site in 2006, 2011, and
2016. In the Five-Year Review report issued on September 12, 2016, EPA
concluded that the remedial action objectives for the remedy had been
achieved. EPA found that the remedy is protective of human health and
the environment, that the remedy was implemented in accordance with the
remedial action objectives of the 1999 ROD, and that the remedy was
functioning as intended. The landfill has not been found to be a
significant source of contamination to the groundwater in the area and
the contaminants of concern identified in the 1999 ROD have not been
detected in groundwater samples during the review period. The multi-
layer RCRA landfill cap was determined to be effective in containing
hazardous waste materials, the treatment wetland ponds appeared to be
functioning as intended, and access restrictions were found to be
functional. Institutional controls are in place to prohibit disturbing
the landfill cap, use of groundwater, and non-commercial use of any
kind within OU1. O&M including annual inspections, leachate monitoring,
and treatment wetland monitoring are performed by the PRPs pursuant to
the 2012 approved O&M Plan. There were no issues or recommendations
identified in the 2016 report. The next review for OU1 is required by
September 2021.
Community Involvement
Throughout the Site's history, EPA has kept the community and other
interested parties apprised of Site activities through fact sheets,
press releases, and public meetings. Public participation activities
have been performed in accordance with Sections 113(k) and 117 of
CERCLA. Documents in the deletion docket upon which EPA relied for
recommending deletion of OU1 from the NPL are available to the public
in the information repositories. EPA notified local officials in
advance about Five-Year Reviews and placed notices in The Dominion Post
to inform the public that the Five-Year Reviews were being conducted
and when the findings of each would be available.
Determination That the Criteria for Deletion Have Been Met
The implemented remedy achieves the degree of cleanup and
protection specified in the 1999 ROD and meets EPA's acceptable risk
for all exposure pathways. The remedial action at OU1 has been
completed in accordance with the 1999 ROD, institutional controls are
in place, and O&M is being conducted in accordance with the approved
O&M Plan. All remedial action objectives, performance standards, and
cleanup goals established in the 1999 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 O&M,
monitoring, and Five-Year Reviews, is necessary to continue to protect
human health and the environment. All of the selected remedial actions
and the remedial action objectives and associated cleanup goals are
consistent with CERCLA, the NCP, and EPA policy and guidance.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping
[[Page 28591]]
requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply.
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626,
77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3
CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp.,
p. 193.
Dated: May 30, 2018.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 3.
[FR Doc. 2018-12709 Filed 6-19-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
