[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 153 (Thursday, August 8, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38905-38911]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17017]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1989-0011; FRL-9997-99-Region 3]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Partial Deletion of the Novak Sanitary
Landfill Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 3 is issuing
a Notice of Intent to Delete the groundwater portion of the Novak
Sanitary Landfill Superfund Site (Site) located in South Whitehall
Township, 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,
through the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
(PADEP), have determined that all appropriate response actions to
address the groundwater portion of the Site, other than monitoring,
operations and maintenance and Five-Year Reviews (FYRs), have been
completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions
under Superfund.
    This partial deletion pertains only to the groundwater portion of
the Site. The landfill and landfill gas components of the Site will
remain on the NPL and are not being considered for deletion as part of
this action.

DATES: Comments must be received by September 9, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-1989-0011, by one of the following methods:
     http://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 http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
     Email: Remedial Project Manager<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Community Involvement Coordinator:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Rombel Arquines (3SD21), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
3, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029.

Alexander Mandell (3RA22), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
3, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029.

     Hand delivery: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 3, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029. 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-
1989-0011. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov 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 http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by 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 http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3 Records Center, 1650
Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029. Business Hours: 8
a.m.-5 p.m. (by appointment only), Monday-Friday excluding federal
holidays<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Parkland Community Library, 4422 Walbert Ave., Allentown, PA 18104,
Business Hours: Monday-Thursday 9 a.m.-9 p.m.; Friday 9 a.m.-6 p.m.;
Saturday 9 a.m.-1 p.m.; closed Sunday.<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rombel Arquines, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3, (3SD21), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Intended Partial Site Deletion

I. Introduction

    EPA announces its intent to delete the groundwater portion of the
Novak Sanitary Landfill Superfund Site (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
NCP, which EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the CERCLA of
1980, as amended. EPA maintains the NPL as those 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). This deletion of
the groundwater portion of the Site is proposed in accordance with 40
CFR 300.425(e) and is consistent with the Notice of Policy Change:
Partial Deletion of Sites Listed on the National Priorities List. 60 FR
55466 (Nov. 1, 1995). As described in 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, a
portion of a site deleted from the NPL remains eligible for Fund-
financed remedial action if future conditions warrant such actions.
    EPA will accept comments on the proposal to partially 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 groundwater portion of the
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 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 FYRs 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 FYRs 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 groundwater
portion of the Site:
    (1) EPA consulted with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania before
developing this Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion.
    (2) EPA provided the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania thirty (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 the
deletion of the groundwater portion of the Site, from the NPL.
    (5) Concurrently, with the publication of this Notice of Intent for
Partial Deletion in the Federal Register, a

notice is being published in a major local newspaper, the Parkland
Press. The newspaper announces the 30-day public comment period
concerning the Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion of the Site from
the NPL.
    (6) EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed partial
deletion in the deletion docket, made these items available for public
inspection, and copying at the Site information repositories identified
above.
    If comments are received within the 30-day comment period on this
document, EPA will evaluate and respond accordingly to the comments
before making a final decision to delete the groundwater portion of the
Site. 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
groundwater portion of the Site, the Regional Administrator will
publish a final Notice of Partial 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
included in the site information repositories listed above.
    Deletion of a portion of a site from the NPL does not itself
create, alter, or revoke any individual's rights or obligations.
Deletion of a portion 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 Partial Site Deletion

    The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting the
groundwater portion of the Site from the NPL:

Site Background and History

    The Site (EPA ID: PAD079160842) is located in the northern portion
of South Whitehall Township in Lehigh County, Pennsylvania. The
approximately 65-acre parcel is situated on a hillside north of Jordan
Creek and south of Orefield Road. The Site is separated from
neighboring properties by a steep drop in elevation to the south and
southwest due to natural topography and to the buildup of the landfill
disposal areas and storm-water management berms. The Beekmantown Group
and Allentown Formation comprise the aquifer that underlies the Site.
Groundwater mounds in the bedrock beneath the landfill waste, and water
within the landfill flows radially.
    From the mid-1950's until May 1990, Novak Sanitary Landfill, Inc.
operated the Site as a landfill for municipal, commercial, and
industrial solid waste. Alleged permit violations discovered by the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) in 1984,
then known as the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources
(PADER), led to a Site Investigation (SI) by EPA in 1985. The SI
identified Site-related hazardous substances in the groundwater in
proximity to private residential wells and a public supply well. Based
on the information gathered in the SI, the Site was proposed to the
National Priorities List (NPL) on January 22, 1987 (52 FR 2492) and
added as final on October 4, 1989 (54 FR 41000).
    The historical waste disposal areas of the landfill include:
     An old surface iron mine excavation (Old Mine Area) in the
north-central area (approximately 9 acres) containing municipal,
commercial and industrial waste;
     A demolition debris fill area (Demolition Fill Area) in
the northeast area (approximately 2 acres) containing municipal and
commercial solid waste;
     A Surface Fill Area (including the East, West and
Southwest Trenches) containing municipal and commercial solid waste
which extends across the northwestern and central part of the Site
property (approximately 14 acres); and,
     A Trench Fill Area occupying the southern portion of the
Site property (approximately 9 acres) also containing municipal and
commercial solid waste.

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

    On January 11, 1989, sixteen Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs)
entered into an Administrative Order on Consent with EPA to perform the
Remedial Investigation (RI) and to prepare the Feasibility Study (FS)
for the Site. The RI/FS report was approved by EPA on September 30,
1993.

Selected Remedy

    The Selected Remedy for the Site was documented in a September 30,
1993 Record of Decision (1993 ROD) and modified in a March 13, 2015
Explanation of Significant Differences (2015 ESD). The Selected Remedy
identified in the 1993 ROD was comprised of the following components:
     Installation of a perimeter fence around the Site
boundaries;
     Implementation of deed restrictions within the Site
boundaries;
     Removal of contaminated landfill surface water and
sediments based on the results of additional sampling and environmental
risk assessments to be conducted;
     Installation of landfill surface water control systems to
provide drainage and to minimize soil erosion throughout the Site;
     Containment of the landfill contents by construction of a
cap over the entire waste area, including the Surface Fill, Trench
Fill, Old Surface Iron Mine Excavation and Demolition Debris Fill
Areas; the constructed cap is a multilayer, impermeable soil cap with a
geo-synthetic layer.
     Site restoration to promote wildlife habitat diversity
without jeopardizing the integrity of the cap;
     Installation and monitoring of a gas collection system
that is compatible with an active gas collection and treatment system;
     Ongoing leachate collection and monitoring throughout the
Site and transport of leachate to an approved wastewater treatment
facility by tanker for disposal;
     Preparation of a contingency method for on-site leachate
treatment and disposal to surface water if approval for disposal at an
approved wastewater treatment facility was not obtained;
     Long-term groundwater monitoring in the vicinity of the
Site. Achievement of background levels or maximum contaminant levels
(MCLs), whichever is lower, in groundwater. Create a contingency plan
for provision of drinking water (via residential treatment units or
waterline hookups) to affected residences. Delineation of the source of
groundwater contamination in the vicinity of RW-13;
     Operation and Maintenance (O&M) of the vegetative soil
cover, the cap and the treatment systems (gas venting system and
leachate collection system) on-site.
    The 2015 ESD modified the Selected Remedy as follows:
     It eliminated the requirement to continuously remove
leachate from the landfill. Monitoring of the leachate system will
continue and provisions for removing and treating additional leachate,
if determined to be necessary by EPA, will remain.
     It eliminated the performance standard that required
continuous removal of leachate to ensure that leachate depth in the
waste disposal areas does not exceed one (1) foot.
     It changed the groundwater performance standard to the
lower of either the MCL codified at 40 CFR part

141 and promulgated pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C.
300f, et seq. or the non-zero maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) for
that contaminant. The ESD also modified the groundwater performance
standard by including the requirement that, in addition to MCLs and
non-zero MCLGs being achieved, the cumulative risk presented by all
remaining Site-related compounds in the groundwater at the conclusion
of the Selected Remedy must be at or below the 1 x 10-4
cancer risk level, and the non-cancer Hazard Index (HI) must be less
than or equal to 1 for four consecutive quarters.
    The Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) for the Site as established
in the 1993 ROD were as follows:
 Landfill Contents
--Prevent direct contact to exposed landfill contents;
 Leachate
--Prevent direct contact to the leachate seeps on the landfill surface;
--Reduce the leaching of constituents from the landfill contents to the
groundwater;
 Landfill Gas
--Control subsurface off-site migration of landfill gas;
--Control combustible gas concentrations;
 Groundwater
--Prevent human ingestion and inhalation of groundwater containing
Site-related constituents in excess of federal MCLs or Pennsylvania
Water Quality Criteria;
--Prevent human ingestion and inhalation of groundwater which would
present excess lifetime cancer risks greater than 1 x 10-4
or hazard indices greater than one (1);
--Remediate groundwater to background levels;
 On-Site Surface Water
--Remediate altered surface water quality exhibiting excess lifetime
cancer risks greater than 1 x 10-4 or hazard indices greater
than one (1);
--Prevent contact of surface water with landfill contents;
--Control surface water runoff and erosion;
 Ecological Receptors
--Conduct chronic toxicity studies (through environmental risk
assessments) to determine if low levels of contamination may cause
ecological impairment; and,
 Jordan Creek
--Based upon the analytical results of sediment samples taken from
Jordan Creek, and an evaluation of groundwater and surface flow
characteristics, it was determined that the conditions of Jordan Creek
downstream of the landfill are consistent with conditions upstream of
the landfill, or background conditions. Since inorganic sediment
samples did not indicate that the creek was altered by surface water
run-off from the Site, a determination was made that no further
investigation of the creek was necessary.

Response Actions

    Pursuant to a June 30, 1995 Unilateral Administrative Order for
Remedial Design/Remedial Action (Docket No. III-95-52-DC), the PRP
group developed a Remedial Design Report that was approved by EPA on
July 16, 1999. The PRPs initiated construction of the Selected Remedy
on June 5, 2000. The final inspection was completed on August 29, 2002
and construction completion for the Site was documented in the
Preliminary Close-Out Report (PCOR), dated September 17, 2002. EPA
approved the PRP Remedial Action Completion Report on July 13, 2004.
The following Remedial Action (RA) activities were implemented by the
PRP group according to the EPA-approved RD specifications:
     Installation of a perimeter fence around the Site
boundaries;
     Installation of a multi-layered impermeable cap over the
entire waste area;
     Removal of contaminated on-site surface water and
sediments based on results of additional sampling and environmental
risk assessments;
     Installation of surface water control systems to provide
drainage and to minimize soil erosion throughout the Site which
includes four sediment ponds, spillways, drainage swales, diversion
berms, and a discharge line for surface waters to Jordan Creek;
     Site restoration to promote wildlife habitat diversity
including planting wetland plant species within and around the sediment
ponds;
     Installation and monitoring of a passive gas collection
system that is compatible with an active gas collection and treatment
system (if future data indicates it is needed); and
     Ongoing leachate collection and monitoring throughout the
Site and transport of leachate through a series of sixteen extraction
wells and three main leachate collection lines to a 100,000-gallon
collection tank, and a pump house and tanker truck pad for
transportation of the collected leachate to the Allentown wastewater
treatment facility for disposal.
    As required by the 1993 ROD, an investigation of the former well
RW-13 was performed by the PRP group in March 1999 as part of a pre-
design investigation to determine the source of contamination in
groundwater. A soil vapor contamination assessment was conducted to
assess the potential source of constituents detected in the former well
RW-13, as well as to aid in locating additional monitoring wells. Two
new monitoring wells, MW-24 and MW-25, were installed and analyzed
after the soil vapor contamination assessment. These wells were placed
to hydro-geologically isolate the maintenance area, a potential source
area of contamination. It was concluded that the type and
concentrations of constituents found in the bedrock wells MW-24 and MW-
25 are consistent with the nature of impacted groundwater historically
found in well RW-13, as well as other monitoring wells. No additional
source area was identified. Long-term monitoring of Site monitoring
wells and nearby residential wells has been performed since 2000.

Cleanup Levels

    The 1993 ROD performance standard requiring continuous removal of
leachate from the landfill to a depth of one foot was eliminated by the
2015 ESD. The groundwater cleanup levels for the COCs identified in the
1993 ROD, as modified in the 2015 ESD, are identified below in Table 1.

                      Table 1--Groundwater Cleanup Levels for Site Contaminants of Concern
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Non-zero MCLG (ug/
                            Contaminant of concern                              MCL  (ug/L) *         L) *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organics:
    benzene..................................................................               5  .................
    bromodichloromethane.....................................................              80  .................
    chlorobenzene............................................................             100                100

    chloroform...............................................................              80                 70
    dibromochloromethane.....................................................              80                 60
    1,4-dichlorobenzene......................................................              75                 75
    1,1-dichloroethane.......................................................            (**)               (**)
    1,2-dichloroethane.......................................................               5  .................
    1,1-dichloroethene.......................................................               7                  7
    1,2-dichloroethene (cis).................................................              70                 70
    1,2-dichloroethene (trans)...............................................             100                100
    1,2-dichloropropane......................................................               5  .................
    1,3-dichloropropene (trans)..............................................            (**)               (**)
    ethyl benzene............................................................             700                700
    toluene..................................................................           1,000              1,000
    tetrachloroethene........................................................               5  .................
    1,1,1-trichloroethane....................................................             200                200
    trichloroethylene........................................................               5  .................
    vinyl chloride...........................................................               2  .................
    xylene (total)...........................................................          10,000             10,000
Inorganics:
    Cadmium..................................................................               5                  5
    Beryllium................................................................               4                  4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
``.....'' Non-zero MCLGs are not available for these site-related compounds.
* Values in bold are the selected performance standard.
** These site-related compounds do not have MCLs or non-zero MCLGs but were included in the cumulative risk
  assessment.

    The PRP group samples 13 monitoring wells on an annual basis for
the compounds listed in Table 1, above. Groundwater COC concentrations
at all sampling locations have been below the cleanup levels for all
COCs since 2004. Additionally, in accordance with the 2015 ESD, EPA
performed a cumulative risk assessment using the four most recent
annual groundwater sampling results from 2015 through 2018. The 2015
ESD specifies that the cumulative risk assessment be performed using
data from four consecutive quarters. Since groundwater at the Site is
monitored annually, rather than quarterly, EPA conservatively performed
the risk assessment based upon four years, rather than four quarters,
of monitoring data. Groundwater COC concentrations were compared to EPA
Tap Water Risk Screening Level (RSLs) and if the RSL was exceeded, a
risk assessment was performed. Chlorobenzene, 1,2-dichloroethane, TCE,
and vinyl chloride exceeded their respective RSLs in the 2015-2018
dataset at a limited number of wells. However, when risks were
calculated for these chemicals assuming a conservative default future
residential exposure (ingestion, dermal exposure, and inhalation from
showering exposure routes), the cumulative non-cancer HIs were below 1
and the cumulative cancer risks were below 1 x 10-4 at each
monitoring well.
    Based on the results of the annual groundwater monitoring and the
cumulative risk assessment, the groundwater cleanup levels and
performance standards have been achieved and the groundwater portion of
the Site is eligible for deletion from the NPL.

Operation and Maintenance

    O&M activities of the remediation system are being performed by the
PRP group in accordance with the requirements of the 1995 UAO. Ongoing
O&M activities include operation, maintenance, and monitoring of the
Landfill cap and passive gas vent system, groundwater and residential
well monitoring, and stormwater management. The PRP group also
historically performed O&M of the leachate extraction system before it
was decommissioned in 2011.
Landfill Cap
    Vegetative cover at the Landfill is maintained by a cutting
program. The entire Site is mowed three times per year. Wetland areas,
vegetated with the specified wetland seed, are not mowed. Other cover
vegetation maintenance measures include removal of trees, saplings,
shrubs, weeds, and other plants that may cause damage to the cap
system. The cap is also re-seeded where bare spots occur. Soil ruts,
channels, washouts, animal burrows or other erosion greater than six
inches deep are repaired. Repairs to the cap geo-synthetics and the on-
site gravel road are completed, as necessary. Landfill cap maintenance
is documented in monthly progress reports to EPA.
Landfill Gas Monitoring System
    Quarterly gas monitoring is performed at 14 gas monitoring points
located outside the perimeter of the Landfill cap, and 12 residences to
ensure that measured concentrations of combustible gases remain below
the lower explosive limit (LEL). The collected information includes
flow, percent LEL, percent oxygen, and concentrations of VOCs, methane,
carbon monoxide, and hydrogen sulfide in parts per million. Since the
leachate extraction system was decommissioned, including the pump house
electrical systems, the pump house is primarily used as storage and gas
monitoring in the pump house is unnecessary.
    The basements of 12 residences adjacent to the Site are monitored
on a quarterly basis for the percent LEL and percent oxygen as well as
total VOCs (TVOCs). Because the sampling method cannot distinguish
specific VOCs, it cannot be the sole line of evidence used to determine
if the measured TVOCs are from the Landfill or from household
chemicals/solvents being used in the residences. In 2007-2008, a three-
phase investigation addressed the concern that TVOCs detections in the
monitoring results could be caused by gas migration from the Site. EPA
concluded that the occasional TVOC results in the residential sampling
were not Site-related and that further vapor intrusion mitigation
action was not warranted at the Site. In the past five years, there
have been no detections above the LEL and no detections of TVOC COCs
above

screening levels in any of the quarterly residential air monitoring
samples.
    A passive gas collection system was installed within the Landfill
limits to collect and vent accumulated gases in the Surface Fill,
Trench Fill, Demolition Fill, and Old Mine areas and to control gas
migration. Additionally, 14 gas monitoring points (GMPs) were installed
along the perimeter of the Landfill boundary. These passive gas points
were installed to serve two purposes: (1) To intercept the potential
migration of subsurface Landfill gas off-site, and (2) to monitor the
effectiveness of the Landfill gas venting system. In addition,
residential indoor air monitoring occurs quarterly. Since the
installation of two pairs of passive gas vents in 2007, only three
GMPs, GMP-3, GMP-7, and GMP-8, have had detections above the LEL of
methane.
    Quarterly monitoring of the on-site GMPs and residential properties
will continue to be performed by the PRP group.
Leachate Extraction Wells
    As indicated above, the leachate collection system was
decommissioned in 2011. The leachate collection system was intended to
remove accumulated leachate present beneath the Landfill as a singular
event, prior to the construction of the cap. It accommodated leachate
extraction from 21 pumping leachate extraction/gas venting wells
(eventually optimized down to eight producing wells) at a combined
maximum design flow rate of 63 gallons per minute. Extracted leachate
was temporarily stored in an aboveground 100,000-gallon tank within a
lined containment berm prior to transfer to the local Publicly Owned
Treatment Works for disposal via tanker trucks. No leachate was pumped
during the second leachate pilot (2009-2011), which tested the effects
of shutting down the entire leachate system, or after EPA determined
that the pilot provided sufficient evidence to discontinue pumping. The
total cumulative volume of leachate that was removed from the Landfill
since the leachate collection system's construction in 2002 was 304,481
gallons, including the final shipment in December 2011 of 72,000
gallons remaining in the tank before it was decommissioned.
Groundwater and Residential Well Monitoring
    Designated Landfill monitoring wells are monitored annually to
evaluate concentrations of the Landfill-related contaminants of concern
relative to the performance standards specified in the 1993 ROD.
Various residential wells in close proximity to the Site are sampled
quarterly and one community supply well is sampled annually to confirm
that the drinking water quality at the point of use remains below MCLs
for drinking water. No groundwater COCs have been detected in site
monitoring wells or residential wells since 2004. The monitoring wells
and residential wells will continue to be monitored on an annual basis
by the PRP group.
Storm-Water Management
    The Site is graded to provide drainage off the cap, and to minimize
soil erosion in accordance with the 1993 ROD requirements. The final
design for the Site included a conversion of three existing
sedimentation ponds into storm-water management basins. In addition to
their dewatering devices, the basins have an overflow outlet structure
or spillway, which helps dissipate any flow that leaves the basin
through these structures. Additional storm-water management components
include diversion berms and rip-rap lined drainage swales. Quarterly
inspections are performed to evaluate the performance and maintenance
needs of the storm-water management system.
Institutional Controls
    Institutional Controls (ICs) were required by the 1993 ROD to
prohibit: (1) The use of the land for residential or agricultural
purposes; and (2) the use of on-site ground water for domestic
purposes, including drinking water. The purpose of these restrictions
is to prevent excavation or construction on the capped and closed
Landfill, and to prevent the risks associated with human exposure to
landfill contents, leachate and groundwater.
    To fulfill the IC requirements in the 1993 ROD, a Uniform
Environmental Covenant Act (UECA) covenant was recorded with the Lehigh
County Recorder of Deeds on July 28, 2011. The Site property is
currently owned by Novak Sanitary Landfill, Inc. Pursuant to the 2011
UECA Covenant, the PRP group has the authority to enforce the ICs at
the Site property. The PRP group is responsible for monitoring
compliance with the ICs, in accordance with the requirements of the
1995 UAO.

Five-Year Review

    Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and as provided in the current
guidance on FYRs Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance, OSWER
Directive 9355.7-03B-P, June 2001, EPA must conduct a statutory FYR if
hazardous substances remain on-site above levels that would not allow
for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. EPA has performed three
FYRs at the Site in 2006, 2011, and 2016 and statutory FYRs will
continue to be performed because waste is left in place at the Site.
The next FYR will be completed by May 16, 2021.
    The Third FYR (signed May 16, 2016) concluded that the Site is
protective of human health and the environment but identified one issue
and recommendation that does not impact current or future
protectiveness. The FYR recommended that an ecological investigation of
the Site be performed to modify the O&M plan to meet the 1993 ROD's
goal of promoting wildlife diversity.
    The recommended ecological inspection was conducted on June 12,
2017 and potential solutions to promote wildlife habitat diversity were
explored. Minor revisions to the O&M plan were completed in September
2018.

Community Involvement

    In accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 300.425(e)(4), EPA's
community involvement activities associated with this partial 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 groundwater portion of the Site from the NPL in the
Parkland Press, a major, local newspaper of general circulation.

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

    Construction of the Selected Remedy for groundwater at the Site has
been completed and O&M has been performed and is still ongoing in
accordance with the EPA-approved O&M Plans. All RAOs, performance
standards, and cleanup levels established for groundwater at the Site
in the 1993 ROD, as amended by the 2015 ESD, have been achieved and the
Selected Remedy for groundwater is protective of human health and the
environment. No further Superfund response actions for the groundwater
portion of the Site, other than O&M, monitoring, and FYRs, are
necessary to protect human health and the environment. The Landfill and
Landfill gas components of the Site will be considered for deletion
from the NPL when all RAOs, performance standards, and cleanup levels
have been achieved for those components.
    The procedures specified in 40 CFR 300.425(e) have been followed
for the deletion of the groundwater portion of the Site. EPA, with
concurrence of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania through PADEP, has
determined that all appropriate response actions under

CERCLA have been completed for the groundwater portion of the Site.
Therefore, EPA proposes to delete the groundwater portion of the Site
from the NPL.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, 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: July 31, 2019.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 3.
[FR Doc. 2019-17017 Filed 8-7-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: November 10, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 216)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 57888-57890]
[DOCID:fr10no09-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0319]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Sea World December Fireworks, Mission Bay, San
Diego, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone upon the
navigable waters of Mission Bay near San Diego, California in support
of the Sea World December Fireworks. This safety zone is necessary to
provide for the safety of the participants, crew, spectators,
participating vessels, and other users of the waterway. Persons and
vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or
anchoring within this safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of
the Port or his designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 8 p.m. until 10 p.m. on December 12,
2009.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket USCG-2009-0319 and are available online by going to
http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2009-0319 in the ``Keyword''
box, and then clicking ``Search.'' This material is also available for
inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or e-mail Petty Officer Shane Jackson, Waterways
Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego at telephone 619-278-
7262, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing
or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    On August 6, 2009, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled Safety Zone; Sea World December Fireworks, Mission Bay,
San Diego, CA in the Federal Register (74 FR 39247). We received no
comments on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and
none was held.

Background and Purpose

    Sea World is sponsoring the Sea World December Fireworks, which
will include a fireworks presentation from a barge in Mission Bay. The
safety zone will extend in a 600 foot radius around the barge in
approximate position 32[deg]46[min]03[sec] N, 117[deg]13[min]11[sec] W.
This temporary safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of
the crew, spectators, participants, and other vessels and users of the
waterway.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    The Coast Guard received no comments and made no changes to the
proposed regulation.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a
full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This determination is based
on the size and location of the safety zone. Commercial vessels will
not be hindered by the safety zone. Recreational vessels will not be
allowed to transit through the designated safety zone during the
specified times unless authorized to do so by the Captain of the Port
or his designated representative.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.

    This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: Vessel
traffic can pass safely around the safety zone. Before the effective
period, the Coast Guard will publish a local notice to mariners (LNM)
and will issue broadcast notice to mariners (BNM) alerts via marine
channel 16 VHF before the safety zone is enforced.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), in the NPRM we offered to
assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could
better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking
process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we
do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually
or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph
(34)(g), of the Instruction because the rule involves the establishment
of a safety zone.
    An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306,
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5;
Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add temporary Sec.  165.T11-227 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T11-227  Safety Zone; Sea World December Fireworks, Mission
Bay, San Diego, CA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters of
Mission Bay, from surface to bottom, within a 600 foot radius around
the fireworks launch

barge in approximate position 32[deg]46[min]03[sec] N,
117[deg]13[min]11[sec] W.
    (b) Enforcement Period. This section will be enforced from 8 p.m.
to 10 p.m. on December 12, 2009. If the event concludes prior to the
scheduled termination time, the Captain of the Port will cease
enforcement of this safety zone and will announce that fact via
Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
    (c) Definitions. The following definition applies to this section:
Designated representative means any commissioned, warrant, or petty
officers of the Coast Guard on board Coast Guard, Coast Guard
Auxiliary, or local, state, or federal law enforcement vessels who have
been authorized to act on the behalf of the Captain of the Port.
    (d) Regulations. (1) Entry into, transit through or anchoring
within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain
of the Port of San Diego or his designated on-scene representative.
    (2) Mariners requesting permission to transit through the safety
zone may request authorization to do so from the Sector San Diego
Command Center. The Command Center may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel
16.
    (3) All persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of
the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the designated representative.
    (4) Upon being hailed by U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel by
siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of a vessel
must proceed as directed.
    (5) The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or
local agencies.

    Dated: October 20, 2009.
T.H. Farris,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Diego.
[FR Doc. E9-26992 Filed 11-9-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P