National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the Dorney Road Landfill Superfund Site, 33177-33182 [2018-15245]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA–HQ–SFUND–2005–0011; FRL–9980–
60—Region 3]
National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion
of the Dorney Road Landfill Superfund
Site
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Region III is issuing a
Notice of Intent to Delete the Dorney
Road Landfill Superfund Site (Site)
located in Longswamp and Upper
Macungie Townships, in Berks and
Lehigh Counties, Pennsylvania from the
National Priorities List (NPL) and
requests public comments on this
proposed action. 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 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (the
Commonwealth), through the
Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (PADEP),
have determined that all appropriate
response actions under CERCLA, other
than operation and maintenance (O&M),
monitoring, and Five-Year Reviews,
have been completed. However, this
deletion would not preclude future
actions under Superfund.
DATES: Comments must be received by
August 16, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
SFUND–2005–0011, 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
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:23 Jul 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
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: greaves.david@epa.gov.
• Mail: U.S. EPA Region III, 1650
Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
• Hand delivery: U.S. EPA Region III,
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–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 https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through https://
www.regulations.gov or email. The
https://www.regulations.gov 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
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,
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
33177
will be publicly available only in the
hard copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:
U.S. EPA Region III Administrative
Records Room, 1650 Arch Street—6th
Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19103–2029,
Business Hours: Monday through
Friday, 8:00 a.m.–4:30 p.m.; by
appointment only
Local Repository, Upper Macungie
Township Building, 8330 Schantz
Road, Breinigsville, PA 18031,
Business Hours: Monday through
Friday, 7:30 a.m.–4:00 p.m.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David Greaves, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 3, 3HS211650 Arch
Street Philadelphia, PA 19103, (215)
814–5729, email: greaves.david@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion
I. Introduction
EPA Region III announces its intent to
delete the Dorney Road Landfill
Superfund Site from the National
Priorities List (NPL) and requests public
comment on this proposed action. The
NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR
part 300 which is the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA
promulgated pursuant to section 105 of
the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended.
EPA maintains the NPL as the list of
sites that appear to present a significant
risk to public health, welfare, or the
environment. Sites on the NPL may be
the subject of remedial actions financed
by the Hazardous Substance Superfund
(Fund). As described in 40 CFR
300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted
from the NPL remain eligible for Fundfinanced remedial actions if future
conditions warrant such actions.
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 Dorney Road Landfill
Superfund Site and demonstrates how it
meets the deletion criteria.
E:\FR\FM\17JYP1.SGM
17JYP1
33178
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules
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 Commonwealth,
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.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
III. Deletion Procedures
The following procedures apply to
deletion of the Site:
(1) EPA consulted with the
Commonwealth before developing this
Notice of Intent to Delete.
(2) EPA has provided the
Commonwealth 30 working days for
review of this notice prior to publication
of it today.
(3) In accordance with the criteria
discussed above, EPA has determined
that no further response is appropriate.
(4) The Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, through the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection
(PADEP), 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 Reading Eagle. The newspaper
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:23 Jul 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
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 Site Deletion
The following information provides
EPA’s rationale for deleting the Site
from the NPL:
Site Background and History
EPA proposed the Dorney Road
Landfill Superfund Site (Site) (CERCLIS
ID PAD980508832) to the NPL on
September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40674) and
added the Site as final on the NPL on
September 21, 1984 (49 FR 37070). The
Site is located along the southwest
boundary of Upper Macungie Township
in Lehigh County, PA, with a small
portion of the Site extending into
Longswamp Township in Berks County.
The 27-acre Site consists of an
abandoned iron mine pit that was used
as a landfill, a surrounding soil berm,
and adjacent land. Beginning in 1962,
the Site was operated as an open dump,
with the majority of waste disposed in
an abandoned mine pit. The landfill was
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
expanded to except a variety of
household and industrial waste from
regional municipalities and local
businesses, until operations ceased in
December 1978.
In all areas of the Site, except for the
northwestern portion, the water table
occurs in the bedrock near or below the
bedrock/overburden interface. The
overburden is approximately 70 feet
thick. The landfill waste is contained
within the overburden. The water table
exists within the overburden areas of
relatively thick overburden and in the
bedrock where the overburden is
relatively thin. The water table is not in
contact with the waste material. The
direction of regional groundwater flow
in the bedrock-overburden aquifer is
generally from the northwest to the
southeast.
In January 1970, the Pennsylvania
State Health Center notified the landfill
owner that the landfill constituted a
public health threat and required the
owner to compact the fill and apply
cover to the landfill. A follow-up letter
stated that the owner did not comply
with the directive. In June 1970, a
representative from the Pennsylvania
Department of the Environmental
Resources (PADER, formerly, the
Pennsylvania State Health Center)
visited the landfill and noted the
approximate location of an on-site area
used for the disposal of sludge. Other
visits identified the disposal of
petroleum products, asbestos, and
battery casings.
Contaminants in the leachate and
groundwater included ketones, vinyl
chloride, trichloroethene (TCE),
benzene, heavy metals, and arsenic.
Soils contained the pesticide dieldrin,
as well as lead and chromium. The
apparent source of contamination was
the waste buried and dumped on the
soil at the landfill.
In 1986, EPA performed an
Emergency Removal Action at the Site
to ensure that landfill-related materials
were not transported off of the property
by storm water. The removal action
consisted of re-grading the Site to
prevent surface water runoff. The
construction of on-site ponds allowed
for controlled discharge of surface water
via two major spillways. Although a soil
cover was applied to portions of the
Site, the landfill had never been graded
and capped, and waste continued to be
exposed in some areas.
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility
Study (RI/FS)
The Site consists of two operable
units (OUs). OU1 addresses the source
of the contamination by capping the
landfill. OU2 focuses on addressing
E:\FR\FM\17JYP1.SGM
17JYP1
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules
groundwater contamination which is
the principal exposure pathway.
A Cooperative Agreement was signed
between EPA and PADER, and PADER
became the lead agency for work in the
RI/FS phase. The OU1 RI was performed
from January to June 1988. Due to
difficulties encountered during Phase I
activities, additional data needs were
identified and investigative activities
were proposed as a Phase II RI effort.
Results of the OU1 RI were presented in
the Final Remedial Investigation Report
for OU1 dated August 11, 1988. A
Feasibility Study for OU1, focusing on
the landfill waste, was also submitted in
August 1988. The OU2 RI/FS was
performed by PADER from March to
July 1991. The study focused on the
groundwater and primarily consisted of
additional sampling of wells installed
during the OU1 RI.
Major field activities conducted
during Phase I of the OU1 RI included:
• Air sampling;
• On-site surface water and seep
sampling;
• On-site sediment sampling;
• On-site and off-site, surface and
subsurface soil sampling;
• Monitoring well installation;
• Groundwater monitoring well and
residential well sampling;
• Hydraulic conductivity testing;
• Fracture trace analysis;
• Surface geophysical investigation.
The major field activities performed
during Phase II of the OU1 RI included:
• Installed one deep well off-site
(MW–6) to the southeast to obtain
downgradient groundwater data.
• Installed an off-site well nest (MW–
7/7D) to the northwest of the landfill to
provide additional groundwater quality
data and flow information.
• Installed on-site boring (TB–LMW–
4) to determine the thickness of gravel
between the base of the refuse and the
top of the bedrock.
• Installed four borings (TB–1,2,3,4)
along the southeast corner of the site to
identify the presence or absence of a
shallow groundwater zone identified
during the OU1 Phase I RI.
• Obtained six additional
groundwater samples (MW–6, 7, 7D,
two rounds) and analyzed for unfiltered
metals.
• Performed borehole geophysics in
off-site wells (MW–2D, 3D, 4, 5D, 6, 7,
7D). Borehole geophysics were
performed to supplement the minimal
lithological data obtained during the
OU1 Phase 1 and Phase II RI drilling
and well installation activities due to
difficulty in drilling and poor
recoveries.
Air sampling was performed to
determine the quantity and quality of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:23 Jul 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
ambient airborne contaminants to
evaluate the potential exposure to onsite workers and neighboring
populations. The data was used to
determine the appropriate level of
protection on-site, and to establish the
exclusion, contamination reduction, and
support zone delineations used during
the field activities.
A fracture trace analysis was
performed to provide information on the
number, size, frequency and orientation
of bedrock joints, fractures, and largescale lineaments. The data was used for
determining monitoring well locations
and for evaluation of the potential for
contaminant migration through bedrock.
A geophysical investigation (seismic
refraction survey) was performed to
obtain information on the thickness of
overburden and the depth to bedrock,
the thickness of the landfill waste, the
condition of the bedrock at the iron
mine pit, and to verify any lineaments
previously identified.
Sampling and analysis of the on-site
ponds was performed to collect data on
the contaminant concentrations in the
standing liquid and bottom sediments.
The data was used to estimate the extent
and degree of contamination and
estimate the volumes of liquid and soil
to be treated and/or removed.
Soil sampling was performed to
provide data on the chemical
characteristics of soils both on-site and
off-site, to determine the degree of offsite migration of contamination, and to
provide data concerning the on-site
vertical and horizontal extent of
contamination. For comparison to onsite data, a background sample was
collected approximately 900 ft. west of
the Site and was assumed to be isolated
from any site-related conditions. On-site
soils exceeded EPA’s acceptable levels
for both cancer risk and non-cancer
hazard index primarily due to
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs), arsenic, lead and chromium.
Contaminants in leachate and
groundwater included ketones, 1,1dichloroethene (1,1-DCE), 1,2dichloroethane (1,2-DCA), TCE,
tetrachloroethylene (PCE), vinyl
chloride, benzene and arsenic. Both
cancer and non-cancer groundwater risk
substantially exceeded EPA’s acceptable
criteria. Risk at the Site was due to
dermal contact and incidental ingestion
of landfill soil, solid waste and on-site
ponded waters (OU1) and residential
exposure via ingestion of contaminated
groundwater and inhalation of volatile
contaminants while showering (OU2).
Selected Remedy
On September 29, 1988, the Acting
Regional Administrator signed a Record
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
33179
of Decision (ROD) for OU1. The
Selected Remedy in the 1988 OU1 ROD
consists of the following components:
• Elimination of on-site ponded waters
• Regrading
• Pennsylvania-Type Multi-layer Cap
• Run-on/Run-off Controls
• Run-off Monitoring
• Groundwater Monitoring
• Perimeter Fence
• Deed Notice
The Remedial Action objectives
(RAOs) were not explicitly stated in the
ROD for OU1. The following RAOs were
inferred:
• Control contaminant migration offsite by containment of contaminated
landfill soil and waste material;
• Prevent dermal contact and
incidental ingestion; and
• Prevent continued leaching of
precipitation and ponded waters
through the contaminated landfill
material.
On September 18, 1991, the Regional
Administrator signed an Explanation of
Significant Differences (ESD) for OU1.
The 1991 ESD was issued to address
compliance with wetlands Applicable
or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements (ARARs). The Selected
Remedy in the 1988 OU1 ROD required
the destruction of approximately seven
acres of wetlands during construction of
the cap. The 1991 ESD allowed the
sedimentation ponds required to control
run-on/run-off from the cap to also
mitigate the destroyed wetlands and
become a quality habitat for the varied
wildlife at the Site.
On September 30, 1991, the Regional
Administrator signed a ROD for OU2
(1991 OU2 ROD), selecting a remedy
with the following major components:
• Wellhead treatment units to be
provided to residences if levels of siterelated contaminants exceeded federal
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs);
• Groundwater monitoring.
The RAO for OU2 was not explicitly
stated in the 1991 OU2 ROD; however,
the RAO is inferred to be to eliminate
exposure to contaminated groundwater.
Response Actions
In September 1990, EPA issued a
Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO),
EPA Docket No. III–90–45–DC, to seven
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs)
after negotiations were unsuccessful. A
second UAO, EPA Docket No. III–91–
26–DC, was issued to an eighth PRP on
January 25, 1991, and a third UAO, EPA
Docket No. III–92–33–DC, was issued to
five additional PRPs on August 13,
1992. The UAOs required the PRPs to
implement the Selected Remedy
described in the 1988 OU1 ROD. The
E:\FR\FM\17JYP1.SGM
17JYP1
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
33180
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules
modifications to the Selected Remedy
specified in the September 18, 1991 ESD
were incorporated into the UAOs. The
Remedial Design (RD) was approved in
June 1995.
The Remedial Action (RA) for OU1
began in April 1998. The major
components of the RA included the
following:
• Site clearing which included
removal of ponded water, clearing of
vegetative cover, chipping woody
vegetation, and relocation of fugitive
surface debris under the cover system;
• Monitoring well abandonment;
• Gas trench construction, which was
designed to minimize the lateral flow of
landfill gas outside the landfill limits
below the surface. The design included
a peripheral gas collection trench just
beyond the lateral extent of the landfill;
• Landfill regrading to achieve the
grades and slopes for the acceptance of
the cover system;
• Subgrade preparation which
involved grading and placement of
compacted general fill;
• Construction of a gas vent layer on
top of the landfill. A geocomposite was
used as a gas vent layer on the side
slopes of the landfill.
• Gas vent collection piping system
consisting of flexible 4-inch perforated
High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) pipe
along the top of the gas trench
connected to seventeen 4-inch HDPE
conveyance pipes which were
connected to seventeen peripheral
passive vents along the crest of the cap.
On the surface of the cap, an additional
fourteen passive vents were installed
with four horizontal perforated flexible
HDPE feeder pipes to collect the gas and
vent it passively through vent pipes;
• A geotextile was placed over the gas
venting layer prior to installation of the
grading layer;
• Two types of geomembrane were
installed. A 40-millimeter smooth HDPE
geomembrane was installed where the
slopes were minimal and a 40millimeter textured HDPE geomembrane
was installed on the embankment slopes
along the periphery of the landfill;
• On the top of the landfill, a
geotextile cushion layer was placed over
the geomembrane to protect it from the
overlying sand drainage layer;
• A sand drainage layer was put in
place and another separation geotextile
was put on top of the drainage layer;
• An 18-inch layer of compacted
general fill on the cover system and 24inches of general fill on the cover
system slopes serve as protection layer
over the underlying system;
• A vegetative layer was the final
cover;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:23 Jul 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
• Surface drainage was designed with
five basic drainage patterns. These
patterns were rough graded during
initial landfill grading operations and
incorporated as part of the temporary
erosion sediment control plan.
Permanent drainage incorporated the
use of stormwater pipes, riprap
channels and natural drainage systems;
• A replacement wetland was
constructed, which also serves as a
stormwater drainage area; and
• A chain link security fence was
installed with proper signage.
The contractor conducted the RA
basically as designed, with only minor
modifications. One modification had to
be made for the construction of the
wetlands. The west pond contained a
large rock which had to be excavated
with a rock hammer and processed
using a rock crusher. This generated
approximately 30,000 cubic yards of fill
that was used on the general fill layer
of the landfill cap. Another modification
was with the placement of the fence on
Dorney Road. A variance was needed
from the Township to construct the
fence closer to the street than 6 feet in
order to avoid puncturing the cap with
the fence posts. The variance was
granted and the fence was installed
according to the specifications.
EPA, PADEP and the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (COE) conducted a prefinal inspection on September 20, 1999.
The inspection resulted in a schedule
for the contractor to correct some minor
construction items.
EPA issued a UAO for the OU2 RD/
RA, EPA Docket No. III–92–27–DC, to
twelve PRPs on August 18, 1992. The
baseline residential well sampling for
OU2 was conducted during the first two
weeks of March 1999. The 1991 OU2
ROD and RD required residential
groundwater samples to be compared to
federal MCLs. If the sampling results
were above the MCLs, wellhead
treatment units would be required. The
baseline results were below the MCLs at
all residential wells and no wellhead
treatment units were installed.
Residential monitoring is ongoing. The
operation and maintenance plans (O&M
Plans) for OU1 and OU2 were approved
by EPA and PADEP in October 1997 and
September 1996, respectively. The
Preliminary Closeout Report (PCOR)
was issued for the Site on September 28,
1999. The PCOR documents that
construction activities were completed
at the Site in accordance with Closeout
Procedures For National Priorities Sites
(OSWER Directive 9320.2–09A–P).
Cleanup Levels
Groundwater monitoring is performed
in accordance with the 1988 OU1 ROD
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
and 1995 OU1 O&M Plan at the landfill
monitoring well network and in
accordance with the 1991 OU2 ROD and
1996 O&M Plan at the residential well
monitoring network.
Landfill monitoring is conducted to
detect any changes in groundwater
quality due to leaching of landfill
contaminants. The landfill monitoring
network consists of the following wells:
MW–2S, MW–2DR, MW–3S, MW–7S,
MW–11S and MW–11D. During each
sampling event, groundwater samples
are analyzed for volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and dissolved
metals. Field activities, groundwater
elevation data, groundwater quality data
and the results of the data validation are
presented in each summary report. A
summary of all historical data is also
presented in the summary reports.
During the 2013–2017 period, several
metals were detected in the landfill
monitoring wells. The detected VOCs
included PCE, TCE, and chloromethane.
All detections during the 2013–2017
period were within the historical range
of concentrations and remain very low.
Most are well below MCLs except for
manganese, mercury and thallium in
MW–7S and thallium in MW–3S. MW–
7S is up gradient of the landfill and
these exceedances do not appear to be
site related. Thallium was only detected
in MW–3S during two sampling events
in 2016, but had not been detected
previously or in subsequent sampling
events. Based on a review of historical
monitoring from 2013 to 2017 from all
other monitoring wells, there have been
no exceedances of MCLs during this
period.
The 1988 OU1 ROD did not select
chemical-specific ARARs for
groundwater. Instead, the 1988 OU1
ROD required groundwater monitoring
upgradient and downgradient of the Site
to detect any changes in groundwater
quality due to the potential leaching of
landfill contaminants into groundwater.
As indicated above, detections of Siterelated compounds in groundwater are
generally below the respective MCLs
and have remained consistent with
historic groundwater sampling results.
Therefore, no impacts to groundwater as
a result of leaching of landfill
contaminants have been observed and
the groundwater cleanup goal
established in the 1988 OU1 ROD has
been achieved.
Residential wells are sampled
quarterly on a rotating basis so the same
wells are not sampled every event.
Groundwater samples are collected from
an inside or outside spigot and analyzed
for VOCs. Twenty-eight residential
wells were sampled between the 2013
and 2017. Of those 28 wells, 14 wells
E:\FR\FM\17JYP1.SGM
17JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules
had one or more detections of VOCs.
The most commonly detected VOC is
PCE. The PCE concentrations are
consistent with historical
concentrations at these locations.
Chloroform was detected at two
locations in 2016 and TCE was detected
once in 2013. All detections from 2013
to 2017 have been well below respective
MCLs and have never exceeded MCLs
during any monitoring event.
The 1991 OU2 ROD waived the
Pennsylvania Hazardous Waste
Management Regulations [25 PA Code
§§ 264.90–264.100, specifically 25 PA
Code § 264.97(i) and (j) and
§ 264.100(a)(9)], which require
remediation of groundwater to
background levels, as well as the
requirement to remediate groundwater
to federal Maximum Contaminant
Levels (MCLs) under the Safe Drinking
Water Act, 42 U.S.C. 300g-l and set forth
in 40 CFR 141.61. These ARARs were
waived in accordance with CERCLA (42
U.S.C. 9621(d)(4)(C)) and the NCP (40
CFR 300.430(f)(1)(ii)(C)(3)) due to
technical impracticability of achieving
background levels (from an engineering
perspective) and MCLs throughout the
groundwater contaminant plume. As
indicated above, detections of Siterelated compounds in groundwater are
generally below the respective MCLs in
Site monitoring wells.
The 1991 OU2 ROD required that
MCLs be met for Site related
contaminants of concern (COCs) at the
tap prior to use of the groundwater by
nearby residents. Wellhead treatment
systems would be provided if any Site
related MCL exceedances were
identified. As indicated above, no Siterelated compounds exceeded MCLs in
any residential samples during the most
recent Five-Year Review period from
2013 to 2017. Additionally, no Site
related COCs have been identified in
any residential samples above MCLs
since sampling began in 1999.
Therefore, the RAO of eliminating
exposure to contaminated groundwater
has been achieved. Residential
monitoring will continue to ensure that
groundwater cleanup goals continue to
be met.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Operation and Maintenance
The PRP group conducts long-term
monitoring and maintenance activities
at the Site in accordance with the EPAapproved August 1995 OU1 O&M Plan
and January 1996 OU2 O&M Plan. The
primary activities associated with O&M
include the following:
• Visual inspection of the cap with
regard to vegetative cover, settlement,
stability, and any need for corrective
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:23 Jul 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
action. In addition, the cap is scheduled
for periodic mowing;
• Inspection of the drainage swales
for blockage, erosion and instability,
and any need for corrective action;
• Inspection of the condition of the
groundwater monitoring wells;
• Quarterly groundwater monitoring,
which includes monitoring of the
landfill wells and residential wells; and
• Engineered wetlands inspection
and assessment. Inspections are
conducted primarily for the purposes of
assessing both weed control needs and
the survival of plantings. Assessments
are performed to determine if
engineered wetlands are meeting the
performance standards regarding
survival and density of the desired
wetlands species.
The City of Allentown conducts the
quarterly inspections of the landfill, as
well as the quarterly groundwater
sampling of both the landfill wells and
the residential wells. Over the last five
years there have been few, if any,
problems with the landfill.
As established in the 1991 OU2 ROD,
long-term monitoring is conducted on a
quarterly basis at five residences
selected based on the previous sampling
results. The quarterly sampling is
conducted by the City of Allentown.
The quarterly sampling program may be
modified by EPA, in such areas as the
number of wells, location of wells,
frequency of sampling, and analytical
parameters. If quarterly sampling
indicates that a residential well that
exceeds MCLs, a wellhead treatment
system would be provided and
maintained. There have been no
quarterly residential samples which
have been above MCLs since sampling
began in March 1999.
In March of 2007 EPA issued a second
ESD (2007 ESD) that required
institutional controls (ICs) (e.g.
easements, covenants, title notices or
land use restrictions through orders or
agreements with EPA), to be established
to prevent any future use of the Site that
could compromise the effectiveness of
the Selected Remedy.
The ICs were established to prevent
the disturbance of the landfill cap and
the installation of groundwater wells on
the capped portion of the Dorney Road
Landfill property and to prevent future
use of the property that would
compromise the effectiveness of the
Selected Remedy.
EPA surveyed the landfill property to
determine the parcel boundaries and to
confirm the current property owners in
2011. An assessment of the ICs already
in place concluded that ICs to protect
the integrity of the cap cover system and
prevent the installation of drinking
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
33181
water wells on the landfill were
implemented by the following
instruments with the four Site owners:
• Unilateral Administrative Order
Docket No. III–98–011–DC, March 3,
1998, for access to conduct RA
• Unilateral Administrative Order for
Access Docket No. III–96–79–DC,
September 18, 1996, for access to
conduct RA
• Administrative Order by Consent,
Docket No. III–97–84–DC, May 14,
1997, for access and resolution of
liability
• Administrative Order by Consent
Docket No. III–97–85–DC, May 14,
1997, for access and resolution of
liability
• Administrative Order for Access
Docket No. III–98–013–DC, for access
to conduct RA
• Docket No. III–98–012–DC, March 3,
1998, for access to conduct RA,
respondent In Rem
• Deed Notice No. 8665–9544 May 10,
1991 states that property is part of
Dorney Road Landfill CERCLA action
in Docket No. III–90–45–DC
Five-Year Review
Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c)
and as provided in the current guidance
on Five-Year Reviews, Comprehensive
Five-Year Review Guidance, OSWER
Directive 9355.7–03B–P, June 2001, EPA
must conduct a statutory Five-Year
Review if hazardous substances remain
on-site above levels that would not
allow for unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure. The Five-Year Reviews for the
Site were signed on the following dates:
1. First Five-Year Review—July 11, 2003
2. Second Five-Year Review—July 28,
2008
3. Third Five-Year Review—May 29,
2013
4. Fourth Five-Year Review—May 18,
2018
No issues or recommendations were
identified in the 2018 Fourth Five-Year
Review. The Protectiveness Statement
in the 2018 Fourth Five-Year Review
was as follows:
The remedies in place at the Site are
protective of human health and the
environment. The landfill cap prevents
direct contact with site contamination
and prevents migration of contaminants
to groundwater. Groundwater
contamination is stable in landfill wells
with most contaminants below MCLs.
Residential monitoring indicates site
contaminants remain below MCLs. The
institutional controls in place are
adequate to protect the engineered
remedy and prevent installation of
drinking water wells on the landfill.’’
E:\FR\FM\17JYP1.SGM
17JYP1
33182
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules
Community Involvement
EPA community relations staff
conducted an active campaign to ensure
that the residents were well informed
about activities at the Site. Community
relations activities included the
following:
• Interviews of Township officials for
Five-Year Reviews
• Fact Sheets
In accordance with the requirements
of 40 CFR 300.425(e)(4), EPA’s
community involvement activities
associated with this deletion will
consist of information supporting the
deletion docket in the local Site
information repository and placing a
public notice of EPA’s intent to delete
the Site from the NPL in the Reading
Eagle, a major, local newspaper of
general circulation.
Determination That the Site Meets the
Criteria for Deletion in the NCP
Construction of the Selected Remedy
at the Site has been completed and O&M
has been untaken and is still ongoing in
accordance with the EPA-approved
O&M Plans. All RAOs, Performance
Standards, and cleanup goals
established in the 1988 OU1 ROD, 1991
OU2 ROD, 1991 ESD and 2007 ESD
have been achieved and the Selected
Remedy is protective of human health
and the environment. No further
Superfund response actions, other than
O&M, monitoring, and Five-Year
Reviews, are necessary to protect human
health and the environment.
The procedures specified in 40 CFR
300.425(e) have been followed for the
deletion of the Site. EPA, with
concurrence of the Commonwealth
through PADEP, has determined that all
appropriate response actions under
CERCLA, have been completed.
Therefore, EPA is deleting the Site from
the NPL.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous
waste, Hazardous substances,
Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping
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: June 19, 2018.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region III.
[FR Doc. 2018–15245 Filed 7–16–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:23 Jul 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA–HQ–SFUND–2000–0003; FRL–9980–
72—Region 4]
National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion
of the Davis Timber Company
Superfund Site
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Region 4 is issuing a
Notice of Intent to Delete the Davis
Timber Company Superfund Site (Site)
located in Hattiesburg, Lamar County,
Mississippi, 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). The EPA and
the State of Mississippi (State), through
the Mississippi Department of
Environmental Quality (MDEQ), have
determined that all appropriate
response actions under CERCLA, other
than operations and maintenance and
five-year reviews, have been completed.
However, this deletion does not
preclude future actions under
Superfund.
SUMMARY:
Comments must be received by
August 16, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID no. EPA–HQ–
SFUND–2000–0003, by one of the
following methods:
(1) https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online 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
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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.
(2) Email: Scott Martin, Remedial
Project Manager, martin.scott@epa.gov.
(3) Mail: Scott Martin, Remedial
Project Manager, Superfund Restoration
and Sustainability Branch, Superfund
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street,
SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960.
(4) Hand delivery: USEPA Region 4,
61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia
30303–8960. Attention: Scott Martin,
Remedial Project Manager, Superfund
Restoration and Sustainability Branch.
Hours of Operation: Monday to Friday
7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Phone: 404–562–
8951.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID no. EPA–HQ–SFUND–2000–
0003. EPA 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
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
E:\FR\FM\17JYP1.SGM
17JYP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 17, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33177-33182]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15245]
[[Page 33177]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2005-0011; FRL-9980-60--Region 3]
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Deletion of the Dorney Road Landfill
Superfund Site
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region III is
issuing a Notice of Intent to Delete the Dorney Road Landfill Superfund
Site (Site) located in Longswamp and Upper Macungie Townships, in Berks
and Lehigh Counties, Pennsylvania from the National Priorities List
(NPL) and requests public comments on this proposed action. 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 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
(the Commonwealth), through the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (PADEP), have determined that all appropriate
response actions under CERCLA, other than operation and maintenance
(O&M), monitoring, and Five-Year Reviews, have been completed. However,
this deletion would not preclude future actions under Superfund.
DATES: Comments must be received by August 16, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-2005-0011, 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: [email protected].
Mail: U.S. EPA Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia,
PA 19103.
Hand delivery: U.S. EPA Region III, 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-
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
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov or email. The https://www.regulations.gov 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 cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in the hard
copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:
U.S. EPA Region III Administrative Records Room, 1650 Arch Street--6th
Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029, Business Hours: Monday through
Friday, 8:00 a.m.-4:30 p.m.; by appointment only
Local Repository, Upper Macungie Township Building, 8330 Schantz Road,
Breinigsville, PA 18031, Business Hours: Monday through Friday, 7:30
a.m.-4:00 p.m.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Greaves, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3, 3HS211650 Arch
Street Philadelphia, PA 19103, (215) 814-5729, 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 III announces its intent to delete the Dorney Road
Landfill Superfund Site from the National Priorities List (NPL) and
requests public comment on this proposed action. 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 Dorney Road Landfill
Superfund Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria.
[[Page 33178]]
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 Commonwealth, whether any of the following
criteria have been met:
i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all
appropriate response actions required;
ii. all appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been
implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is
appropriate; or
iii. the remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no
significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore,
the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.
Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and the NCP, EPA conducts five-
year reviews to ensure the continued protectiveness of remedial actions
where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at a
site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure. EPA conducts such five-year reviews even if a site is deleted
from the NPL. EPA may initiate further action to ensure continued
protectiveness at a deleted site if new information becomes available
that indicates it is appropriate. Whenever there is a significant
release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be
restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system.
III. Deletion Procedures
The following procedures apply to deletion of the Site:
(1) EPA consulted with the Commonwealth before developing this
Notice of Intent to Delete.
(2) EPA has provided the Commonwealth 30 working days for review of
this notice prior to publication of it today.
(3) In accordance with the criteria discussed above, EPA has
determined that no further response is appropriate.
(4) The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, through the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), 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 Reading Eagle. 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 Site Deletion
The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting the
Site from the NPL:
Site Background and History
EPA proposed the Dorney Road Landfill Superfund Site (Site)
(CERCLIS ID PAD980508832) to the NPL on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40674)
and added the Site as final on the NPL on September 21, 1984 (49 FR
37070). The Site is located along the southwest boundary of Upper
Macungie Township in Lehigh County, PA, with a small portion of the
Site extending into Longswamp Township in Berks County.
The 27-acre Site consists of an abandoned iron mine pit that was
used as a landfill, a surrounding soil berm, and adjacent land.
Beginning in 1962, the Site was operated as an open dump, with the
majority of waste disposed in an abandoned mine pit. The landfill was
expanded to except a variety of household and industrial waste from
regional municipalities and local businesses, until operations ceased
in December 1978.
In all areas of the Site, except for the northwestern portion, the
water table occurs in the bedrock near or below the bedrock/overburden
interface. The overburden is approximately 70 feet thick. The landfill
waste is contained within the overburden. The water table exists within
the overburden areas of relatively thick overburden and in the bedrock
where the overburden is relatively thin. The water table is not in
contact with the waste material. The direction of regional groundwater
flow in the bedrock-overburden aquifer is generally from the northwest
to the southeast.
In January 1970, the Pennsylvania State Health Center notified the
landfill owner that the landfill constituted a public health threat and
required the owner to compact the fill and apply cover to the landfill.
A follow-up letter stated that the owner did not comply with the
directive. In June 1970, a representative from the Pennsylvania
Department of the Environmental Resources (PADER, formerly, the
Pennsylvania State Health Center) visited the landfill and noted the
approximate location of an on-site area used for the disposal of
sludge. Other visits identified the disposal of petroleum products,
asbestos, and battery casings.
Contaminants in the leachate and groundwater included ketones,
vinyl chloride, trichloroethene (TCE), benzene, heavy metals, and
arsenic. Soils contained the pesticide dieldrin, as well as lead and
chromium. The apparent source of contamination was the waste buried and
dumped on the soil at the landfill.
In 1986, EPA performed an Emergency Removal Action at the Site to
ensure that landfill-related materials were not transported off of the
property by storm water. The removal action consisted of re-grading the
Site to prevent surface water runoff. The construction of on-site ponds
allowed for controlled discharge of surface water via two major
spillways. Although a soil cover was applied to portions of the Site,
the landfill had never been graded and capped, and waste continued to
be exposed in some areas.
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)
The Site consists of two operable units (OUs). OU1 addresses the
source of the contamination by capping the landfill. OU2 focuses on
addressing
[[Page 33179]]
groundwater contamination which is the principal exposure pathway.
A Cooperative Agreement was signed between EPA and PADER, and PADER
became the lead agency for work in the RI/FS phase. The OU1 RI was
performed from January to June 1988. Due to difficulties encountered
during Phase I activities, additional data needs were identified and
investigative activities were proposed as a Phase II RI effort. Results
of the OU1 RI were presented in the Final Remedial Investigation Report
for OU1 dated August 11, 1988. A Feasibility Study for OU1, focusing on
the landfill waste, was also submitted in August 1988. The OU2 RI/FS
was performed by PADER from March to July 1991. The study focused on
the groundwater and primarily consisted of additional sampling of wells
installed during the OU1 RI.
Major field activities conducted during Phase I of the OU1 RI
included:
Air sampling;
On-site surface water and seep sampling;
On-site sediment sampling;
On-site and off-site, surface and subsurface soil
sampling;
Monitoring well installation;
Groundwater monitoring well and residential well sampling;
Hydraulic conductivity testing;
Fracture trace analysis;
Surface geophysical investigation.
The major field activities performed during Phase II of the OU1 RI
included:
Installed one deep well off-site (MW-6) to the southeast
to obtain downgradient groundwater data.
Installed an off-site well nest (MW-7/7D) to the northwest
of the landfill to provide additional groundwater quality data and flow
information.
Installed on-site boring (TB-LMW-4) to determine the
thickness of gravel between the base of the refuse and the top of the
bedrock.
Installed four borings (TB-1,2,3,4) along the southeast
corner of the site to identify the presence or absence of a shallow
groundwater zone identified during the OU1 Phase I RI.
Obtained six additional groundwater samples (MW-6, 7, 7D,
two rounds) and analyzed for unfiltered metals.
Performed borehole geophysics in off-site wells (MW-2D,
3D, 4, 5D, 6, 7, 7D). Borehole geophysics were performed to supplement
the minimal lithological data obtained during the OU1 Phase 1 and Phase
II RI drilling and well installation activities due to difficulty in
drilling and poor recoveries.
Air sampling was performed to determine the quantity and quality of
ambient airborne contaminants to evaluate the potential exposure to on-
site workers and neighboring populations. The data was used to
determine the appropriate level of protection on-site, and to establish
the exclusion, contamination reduction, and support zone delineations
used during the field activities.
A fracture trace analysis was performed to provide information on
the number, size, frequency and orientation of bedrock joints,
fractures, and large-scale lineaments. The data was used for
determining monitoring well locations and for evaluation of the
potential for contaminant migration through bedrock.
A geophysical investigation (seismic refraction survey) was
performed to obtain information on the thickness of overburden and the
depth to bedrock, the thickness of the landfill waste, the condition of
the bedrock at the iron mine pit, and to verify any lineaments
previously identified.
Sampling and analysis of the on-site ponds was performed to collect
data on the contaminant concentrations in the standing liquid and
bottom sediments. The data was used to estimate the extent and degree
of contamination and estimate the volumes of liquid and soil to be
treated and/or removed.
Soil sampling was performed to provide data on the chemical
characteristics of soils both on-site and off-site, to determine the
degree of off-site migration of contamination, and to provide data
concerning the on-site vertical and horizontal extent of contamination.
For comparison to on-site data, a background sample was collected
approximately 900 ft. west of the Site and was assumed to be isolated
from any site-related conditions. On-site soils exceeded EPA's
acceptable levels for both cancer risk and non-cancer hazard index
primarily due to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), arsenic, lead
and chromium. Contaminants in leachate and groundwater included
ketones, 1,1-dichloroethene (1,1-DCE), 1,2-dichloroethane (1,2-DCA),
TCE, tetrachloroethylene (PCE), vinyl chloride, benzene and arsenic.
Both cancer and non-cancer groundwater risk substantially exceeded
EPA's acceptable criteria. Risk at the Site was due to dermal contact
and incidental ingestion of landfill soil, solid waste and on-site
ponded waters (OU1) and residential exposure via ingestion of
contaminated groundwater and inhalation of volatile contaminants while
showering (OU2).
Selected Remedy
On September 29, 1988, the Acting Regional Administrator signed a
Record of Decision (ROD) for OU1. The Selected Remedy in the 1988 OU1
ROD consists of the following components:
Elimination of on-site ponded waters
Regrading
Pennsylvania-Type Multi-layer Cap
Run-on/Run-off Controls
Run-off Monitoring
Groundwater Monitoring
Perimeter Fence
Deed Notice
The Remedial Action objectives (RAOs) were not explicitly stated in
the ROD for OU1. The following RAOs were inferred:
Control contaminant migration off-site by containment of
contaminated landfill soil and waste material;
Prevent dermal contact and incidental ingestion; and
Prevent continued leaching of precipitation and ponded
waters through the contaminated landfill material.
On September 18, 1991, the Regional Administrator signed an
Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) for OU1. The 1991 ESD was
issued to address compliance with wetlands Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements (ARARs). The Selected Remedy in the 1988 OU1
ROD required the destruction of approximately seven acres of wetlands
during construction of the cap. The 1991 ESD allowed the sedimentation
ponds required to control run-on/run-off from the cap to also mitigate
the destroyed wetlands and become a quality habitat for the varied
wildlife at the Site.
On September 30, 1991, the Regional Administrator signed a ROD for
OU2 (1991 OU2 ROD), selecting a remedy with the following major
components:
Wellhead treatment units to be provided to residences if
levels of site-related contaminants exceeded federal Maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCLs);
Groundwater monitoring.
The RAO for OU2 was not explicitly stated in the 1991 OU2 ROD;
however, the RAO is inferred to be to eliminate exposure to
contaminated groundwater.
Response Actions
In September 1990, EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order
(UAO), EPA Docket No. III-90-45-DC, to seven Potentially Responsible
Parties (PRPs) after negotiations were unsuccessful. A second UAO, EPA
Docket No. III-91-26-DC, was issued to an eighth PRP on January 25,
1991, and a third UAO, EPA Docket No. III-92-33-DC, was issued to five
additional PRPs on August 13, 1992. The UAOs required the PRPs to
implement the Selected Remedy described in the 1988 OU1 ROD. The
[[Page 33180]]
modifications to the Selected Remedy specified in the September 18,
1991 ESD were incorporated into the UAOs. The Remedial Design (RD) was
approved in June 1995.
The Remedial Action (RA) for OU1 began in April 1998. The major
components of the RA included the following:
Site clearing which included removal of ponded water,
clearing of vegetative cover, chipping woody vegetation, and relocation
of fugitive surface debris under the cover system;
Monitoring well abandonment;
Gas trench construction, which was designed to minimize
the lateral flow of landfill gas outside the landfill limits below the
surface. The design included a peripheral gas collection trench just
beyond the lateral extent of the landfill;
Landfill regrading to achieve the grades and slopes for
the acceptance of the cover system;
Subgrade preparation which involved grading and placement
of compacted general fill;
Construction of a gas vent layer on top of the landfill. A
geocomposite was used as a gas vent layer on the side slopes of the
landfill.
Gas vent collection piping system consisting of flexible
4-inch perforated High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) pipe along the top
of the gas trench connected to seventeen 4-inch HDPE conveyance pipes
which were connected to seventeen peripheral passive vents along the
crest of the cap. On the surface of the cap, an additional fourteen
passive vents were installed with four horizontal perforated flexible
HDPE feeder pipes to collect the gas and vent it passively through vent
pipes;
A geotextile was placed over the gas venting layer prior
to installation of the grading layer;
Two types of geomembrane were installed. A 40-millimeter
smooth HDPE geomembrane was installed where the slopes were minimal and
a 40-millimeter textured HDPE geomembrane was installed on the
embankment slopes along the periphery of the landfill;
On the top of the landfill, a geotextile cushion layer was
placed over the geomembrane to protect it from the overlying sand
drainage layer;
A sand drainage layer was put in place and another
separation geotextile was put on top of the drainage layer;
An 18-inch layer of compacted general fill on the cover
system and 24-inches of general fill on the cover system slopes serve
as protection layer over the underlying system;
A vegetative layer was the final cover;
Surface drainage was designed with five basic drainage
patterns. These patterns were rough graded during initial landfill
grading operations and incorporated as part of the temporary erosion
sediment control plan. Permanent drainage incorporated the use of
stormwater pipes, riprap channels and natural drainage systems;
A replacement wetland was constructed, which also serves
as a stormwater drainage area; and
A chain link security fence was installed with proper
signage.
The contractor conducted the RA basically as designed, with only
minor modifications. One modification had to be made for the
construction of the wetlands. The west pond contained a large rock
which had to be excavated with a rock hammer and processed using a rock
crusher. This generated approximately 30,000 cubic yards of fill that
was used on the general fill layer of the landfill cap. Another
modification was with the placement of the fence on Dorney Road. A
variance was needed from the Township to construct the fence closer to
the street than 6 feet in order to avoid puncturing the cap with the
fence posts. The variance was granted and the fence was installed
according to the specifications.
EPA, PADEP and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) conducted a
pre-final inspection on September 20, 1999. The inspection resulted in
a schedule for the contractor to correct some minor construction items.
EPA issued a UAO for the OU2 RD/RA, EPA Docket No. III-92-27-DC, to
twelve PRPs on August 18, 1992. The baseline residential well sampling
for OU2 was conducted during the first two weeks of March 1999. The
1991 OU2 ROD and RD required residential groundwater samples to be
compared to federal MCLs. If the sampling results were above the MCLs,
wellhead treatment units would be required. The baseline results were
below the MCLs at all residential wells and no wellhead treatment units
were installed. Residential monitoring is ongoing. The operation and
maintenance plans (O&M Plans) for OU1 and OU2 were approved by EPA and
PADEP in October 1997 and September 1996, respectively. The Preliminary
Closeout Report (PCOR) was issued for the Site on September 28, 1999.
The PCOR documents that construction activities were completed at the
Site in accordance with Closeout Procedures For National Priorities
Sites (OSWER Directive 9320.2-09A-P).
Cleanup Levels
Groundwater monitoring is performed in accordance with the 1988 OU1
ROD and 1995 OU1 O&M Plan at the landfill monitoring well network and
in accordance with the 1991 OU2 ROD and 1996 O&M Plan at the
residential well monitoring network.
Landfill monitoring is conducted to detect any changes in
groundwater quality due to leaching of landfill contaminants. The
landfill monitoring network consists of the following wells: MW-2S, MW-
2DR, MW-3S, MW-7S, MW-11S and MW-11D. During each sampling event,
groundwater samples are analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
and dissolved metals. Field activities, groundwater elevation data,
groundwater quality data and the results of the data validation are
presented in each summary report. A summary of all historical data is
also presented in the summary reports.
During the 2013-2017 period, several metals were detected in the
landfill monitoring wells. The detected VOCs included PCE, TCE, and
chloromethane. All detections during the 2013-2017 period were within
the historical range of concentrations and remain very low. Most are
well below MCLs except for manganese, mercury and thallium in MW-7S and
thallium in MW-3S. MW-7S is up gradient of the landfill and these
exceedances do not appear to be site related. Thallium was only
detected in MW-3S during two sampling events in 2016, but had not been
detected previously or in subsequent sampling events. Based on a review
of historical monitoring from 2013 to 2017 from all other monitoring
wells, there have been no exceedances of MCLs during this period.
The 1988 OU1 ROD did not select chemical-specific ARARs for
groundwater. Instead, the 1988 OU1 ROD required groundwater monitoring
upgradient and downgradient of the Site to detect any changes in
groundwater quality due to the potential leaching of landfill
contaminants into groundwater. As indicated above, detections of Site-
related compounds in groundwater are generally below the respective
MCLs and have remained consistent with historic groundwater sampling
results. Therefore, no impacts to groundwater as a result of leaching
of landfill contaminants have been observed and the groundwater cleanup
goal established in the 1988 OU1 ROD has been achieved.
Residential wells are sampled quarterly on a rotating basis so the
same wells are not sampled every event. Groundwater samples are
collected from an inside or outside spigot and analyzed for VOCs.
Twenty-eight residential wells were sampled between the 2013 and 2017.
Of those 28 wells, 14 wells
[[Page 33181]]
had one or more detections of VOCs. The most commonly detected VOC is
PCE. The PCE concentrations are consistent with historical
concentrations at these locations. Chloroform was detected at two
locations in 2016 and TCE was detected once in 2013. All detections
from 2013 to 2017 have been well below respective MCLs and have never
exceeded MCLs during any monitoring event.
The 1991 OU2 ROD waived the Pennsylvania Hazardous Waste Management
Regulations [25 PA Code Sec. Sec. 264.90-264.100, specifically 25 PA
Code Sec. 264.97(i) and (j) and Sec. 264.100(a)(9)], which require
remediation of groundwater to background levels, as well as the
requirement to remediate groundwater to federal Maximum Contaminant
Levels (MCLs) under the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. 300g-l and
set forth in 40 CFR 141.61. These ARARs were waived in accordance with
CERCLA (42 U.S.C. 9621(d)(4)(C)) and the NCP (40 CFR
300.430(f)(1)(ii)(C)(3)) due to technical impracticability of achieving
background levels (from an engineering perspective) and MCLs throughout
the groundwater contaminant plume. As indicated above, detections of
Site-related compounds in groundwater are generally below the
respective MCLs in Site monitoring wells.
The 1991 OU2 ROD required that MCLs be met for Site related
contaminants of concern (COCs) at the tap prior to use of the
groundwater by nearby residents. Wellhead treatment systems would be
provided if any Site related MCL exceedances were identified. As
indicated above, no Site-related compounds exceeded MCLs in any
residential samples during the most recent Five-Year Review period from
2013 to 2017. Additionally, no Site related COCs have been identified
in any residential samples above MCLs since sampling began in 1999.
Therefore, the RAO of eliminating exposure to contaminated groundwater
has been achieved. Residential monitoring will continue to ensure that
groundwater cleanup goals continue to be met.
Operation and Maintenance
The PRP group conducts long-term monitoring and maintenance
activities at the Site in accordance with the EPA-approved August 1995
OU1 O&M Plan and January 1996 OU2 O&M Plan. The primary activities
associated with O&M include the following:
Visual inspection of the cap with regard to vegetative
cover, settlement, stability, and any need for corrective action. In
addition, the cap is scheduled for periodic mowing;
Inspection of the drainage swales for blockage, erosion
and instability, and any need for corrective action;
Inspection of the condition of the groundwater monitoring
wells;
Quarterly groundwater monitoring, which includes
monitoring of the landfill wells and residential wells; and
Engineered wetlands inspection and assessment. Inspections
are conducted primarily for the purposes of assessing both weed control
needs and the survival of plantings. Assessments are performed to
determine if engineered wetlands are meeting the performance standards
regarding survival and density of the desired wetlands species.
The City of Allentown conducts the quarterly inspections of the
landfill, as well as the quarterly groundwater sampling of both the
landfill wells and the residential wells. Over the last five years
there have been few, if any, problems with the landfill.
As established in the 1991 OU2 ROD, long-term monitoring is
conducted on a quarterly basis at five residences selected based on the
previous sampling results. The quarterly sampling is conducted by the
City of Allentown. The quarterly sampling program may be modified by
EPA, in such areas as the number of wells, location of wells, frequency
of sampling, and analytical parameters. If quarterly sampling indicates
that a residential well that exceeds MCLs, a wellhead treatment system
would be provided and maintained. There have been no quarterly
residential samples which have been above MCLs since sampling began in
March 1999.
In March of 2007 EPA issued a second ESD (2007 ESD) that required
institutional controls (ICs) (e.g. easements, covenants, title notices
or land use restrictions through orders or agreements with EPA), to be
established to prevent any future use of the Site that could compromise
the effectiveness of the Selected Remedy.
The ICs were established to prevent the disturbance of the landfill
cap and the installation of groundwater wells on the capped portion of
the Dorney Road Landfill property and to prevent future use of the
property that would compromise the effectiveness of the Selected
Remedy.
EPA surveyed the landfill property to determine the parcel
boundaries and to confirm the current property owners in 2011. An
assessment of the ICs already in place concluded that ICs to protect
the integrity of the cap cover system and prevent the installation of
drinking water wells on the landfill were implemented by the following
instruments with the four Site owners:
Unilateral Administrative Order Docket No. III-98-011-DC,
March 3, 1998, for access to conduct RA
Unilateral Administrative Order for Access Docket No. III-96-
79-DC, September 18, 1996, for access to conduct RA
Administrative Order by Consent, Docket No. III-97-84-DC, May
14, 1997, for access and resolution of liability
Administrative Order by Consent Docket No. III-97-85-DC, May
14, 1997, for access and resolution of liability
Administrative Order for Access Docket No. III-98-013-DC, for
access to conduct RA
Docket No. III-98-012-DC, March 3, 1998, for access to conduct
RA, respondent In Rem
Deed Notice No. 8665-9544 May 10, 1991 states that property is
part of Dorney Road Landfill CERCLA action in Docket No. III-90-45-DC
Five-Year Review
Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and as provided in the current
guidance on Five-Year Reviews, Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance,
OSWER Directive 9355.7-03B-P, June 2001, EPA must conduct a statutory
Five-Year Review if hazardous substances remain on-site above levels
that would not allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. The
Five-Year Reviews for the Site were signed on the following dates:
1. First Five-Year Review--July 11, 2003
2. Second Five-Year Review--July 28, 2008
3. Third Five-Year Review--May 29, 2013
4. Fourth Five-Year Review--May 18, 2018
No issues or recommendations were identified in the 2018 Fourth
Five-Year Review. The Protectiveness Statement in the 2018 Fourth Five-
Year Review was as follows:
The remedies in place at the Site are protective of human health
and the environment. The landfill cap prevents direct contact with site
contamination and prevents migration of contaminants to groundwater.
Groundwater contamination is stable in landfill wells with most
contaminants below MCLs. Residential monitoring indicates site
contaminants remain below MCLs. The institutional controls in place are
adequate to protect the engineered remedy and prevent installation of
drinking water wells on the landfill.''
[[Page 33182]]
Community Involvement
EPA community relations staff conducted an active campaign to
ensure that the residents were well informed about activities at the
Site. Community relations activities included the following:
Interviews of Township officials for Five-Year Reviews
Fact Sheets
In accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 300.425(e)(4), EPA's
community involvement activities associated with this deletion will
consist of information supporting the deletion docket in the local Site
information repository and placing a public notice of EPA's intent to
delete the Site from the NPL in the Reading Eagle, a major, local
newspaper of general circulation.
Determination That the Site Meets the Criteria for Deletion in the NCP
Construction of the Selected Remedy at the Site has been completed
and O&M has been untaken and is still ongoing in accordance with the
EPA-approved O&M Plans. All RAOs, Performance Standards, and cleanup
goals established in the 1988 OU1 ROD, 1991 OU2 ROD, 1991 ESD and 2007
ESD have been achieved and the Selected Remedy is protective of human
health and the environment. No further Superfund response actions,
other than O&M, monitoring, and Five-Year Reviews, are necessary to
protect human health and the environment.
The procedures specified in 40 CFR 300.425(e) have been followed
for the deletion of the Site. EPA, with concurrence of the Commonwealth
through PADEP, has determined that all appropriate response actions
under CERCLA, have been completed. Therefore, EPA is deleting the Site
from the NPL.
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.
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: June 19, 2018.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region III.
[FR Doc. 2018-15245 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P