December 20, 2006

Mr. Mark P. Mauriello

Assistant Commissioner

Land Use Management

New Jersey Department of

  Environmental Protection

CN 402

Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0402

Dear Assistant Commissioner Mauriello:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has completed its review
of the revisions to the New Jersey Surface Water Quality Standards
(NJSWQS) dated October, 2006.  N.J.A.C. 7:9B.  These revisions were both
adopted by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP)
and became effective on October 16, 2006.   They were submitted to EPA
on November 8, 2006.  The submission was accompanied by a letter, dated
October 20, 2006 from New Jersey Deputy Attorney General Jane F. Engel,
which certified that the 2006 revisions had been adopted in accordance
with New Jersey law.  In taking this action, EPA considered the
following documents submitted in connection with the revised NJSWQS:

the letter from the New Jersey Deputy Attorney General Jane F. Engel,
certifying that the standards were duly adopted pursuant to New Jersey
law (dated October 20, 2006);

the applicable notices from the New Jersey Register (dated September 19,
2005,   November 21, 2005, and October 16, 2006).

Under Section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. ( 1313(c),
states are required to conduct a triennial review of their water quality
standards and submit any new or revised standards to EPA for review.
Federal regulations at 40 C.F.R. (( 131.20-131.22 implement these
requirements.  New Jersey(s previous review and revision of its water
quality standards were adopted and became effective on June 20, 2005.
As part of the review process on the 2006 revisions, NJDEP held a public
hearing November 9, 2005 to receive public input and

comment on the proposed revisions to the NJSWQS.  EPA considers the
adoption of the 2006 revisions to the NJSWQS, along with the public
review and comment process, to constitute the State(s triennial review
of water quality standards.  Based on our review, NJDEP(s procedures are
consistent with, and satisfy the procedural requirements of 40 C.F.R. (
131.20.

The following constitute the revisions which are being addressed under
this action.  These revisions enhance the NJSWQS, and represent
improvements in the NJSWQS.

the additions of definitions  for (Best Management Practices (BMPs),(
(Carcinogen,( (Non-carcinogen,( and (Water Effect Ratio (WER),(
(N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.4), which are approved as being consistent with the
requirements under 40 C.F.R. ( 131.3;

revisions to the statements of policy on carcinogens and non-carcinogens
to clarify the derivation of human health criteria for carcinogens and
non-carcinogens (7:9B-1.5(a)(5)), which are approved as being consistent
with the requirements under 40 C.F.R. ( 131.11(a);.

revision to the statements of policy on interstate waters to acknowledge
the change in name of the Interstate Environmental Commission from the
Interstate Sanitation Commission (7:9B-1.5(b)), which are approved as
being consistent with the requirements under 40 C.F.R. ( 131.3;.

revisions to the statements of policy on design flows by listing each
design flow individually instead of aggregating them into one paragraph
(7:9B-1.5(c)(2)), which are approved as being consistent with the
requirements under 40 C.F.R. ( 131.13;

the addition of a new statement of policy on assessing compliance with
bacterial criteria. providing that NJDEP will utilize the geometric mean
to assess compliance with its bacterial indicators to protect primary
contact recreation (enterococci for marine waters and e-coli for
freshwaters), and that the single sample maximum will be used for beach
notification purposes (7:9B-1.5(c)(7)),  which is approved as being
consistent with the requirements under 40 C.F.R. ( 131.13;

the relocation of the statements of policy on the implementation of
temperature criteria. from 7:9B-1.14(c)(11) to 7:9B-1.5(c)(8) without
substantive revisions (7:9B-1.5(c)(8)), which is approved as being
consistent with the requirements under 40 C.F.R. ( 131.13;

the addition of a new statement of policy which allows NJDEP to require
characterization monitoring in NJPDES permits for mercury and PCBs using
EPA Method 1631 for mercury and EPA proposed Method 1668A for PCBs
(7:9B-1.5(e)(7)), which is approved as being consistent with the
requirements under 40 C.F.R. ( 131.13;

the relocation of statements of policy on heat dissipation areas from
7:9B-1.14(c)(11ii) to 7:9B-1.5(h)(2i) without substantive revisions
(7:9B-1.5(h)(2i)), which is approved as being consistent with the
requirements under 40 C.F.R. ( 131.13;

revisions to the surface water quality criteria for Pineland (PL)
waters so that the bacterial criteria in 7:9B-1.14(d) apply to PL waters
(7:9B-1.14(b)(2ii)), which are approved as being consistent with the
requirements under 40 C.F.R. ( 131.11(a);

revisions to the surface water quality criteria for bacterial quality to
replace the previous fecal coliform criteria for waters classified as
SE-1 and SC with enterococci-based  criteria, and waters classified as
FW-2 with e-coli criteria (7:9B-1.14(d)(1ii)), which are approved as
being consistent with the requirements under 40 C.F.R. ( 131.11(a);

revision of the surface water quality criteria for temperature to
include a maximum temperature criterion of 20oC (68oF) for trout
production (TP) waters, to be applied as a summer seasonal average
(7:9B-1.14(d)(11i)), which is approved as being consistent with the
requirements under 40 C.F.R. ( 131.11(a);

revision of the surface water quality criteria for temperature to
include a statement that the applicable maximum temperature criteria are
to be applied as a summer seasonal average (7:9B-1.14(d)(11)), which is
approved as being consistent with the requirements under 40 C.F.R. (
131.13;

adoption of new or revised surface water quality criteria for aquatic
life protection for the following 14 substances: Arsenic, Lindane,
Cadmium; Chromium III, Chromium VI, Copper, Dieldrin, Endrin, Mercury,
Nickel, Pentachlorophenol, Selenium, Silver and  Zinc (7:9B-1.14(f)),
which are approved as being consistent with the requirements under 40
C.F.R. ( 131.11(a) and (b)(1);

the adoption of a 6 hour averaging period for cadmium, chromium, lead,
mercury, nickel, silver and zinc, and a 24 hour averaging period for
copper, (7:9B-1.14(f)), which are approved as being consistent with the
requirements under 40 C.F.R. ( 131.11(b)(1);

adoption of new or revised surface water quality criteria for the
protection of human health for over 100 substances based upon: EPA(s
2000 Human Health Methodology; EPA(s recommended fish consumption rate
of 17.5 g/day; updated toxicity information from either IRIS or the New
Jersey Drinking Water Quality Institute; and EPA(s 2005 Guidelines for
Carcinogenic Risk Assessment (7:9B-1.14(f)), which are approved as being
consistent with the requirements under 40 C.F.R. ( 131.11(a) and (b)(1);

the addition of a place holder for the inclusion of site-specific
surface water quality criteria which may be developed and adopted in the
future (7:9B-1.14(g)), which is approved as being consistent with the
requirements under 40 C.F.R. ( 131.11(b)(1)(ii);.  To date only the
previously adopted, and EPA-approved, site-specific copper criteria for
the New York/New Jersey Harbor are included in this section; and,

revisions to seven water body classifications based on trout status
(N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.15), which are approved as being consistent with the
requirements under 40 C.F.R. ( 131.10(a) - (e).

By this letter, I am pleased to approve the above revisions to the
NJSWQS pursuant to Section 303(c) of the CWA, subject to the results of
consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act.

EPA initiated consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
NOAA Fisheries (Services) on November 22, 2006, under Section 7(a)(2) of
the Endangered Species Act.  Section 7(a)(2) requires that federal
agencies, in consultation with the Services, insure that their actions
are not likely to jeopardize the existence of federally listed species
or result in the adverse modification of designated critical habitat of
such species.  Upon completion of consultation with the Services, EPA
will notify NJDEP of the results.

EPA Region II looks forward to continuing to work with NJDEP to further
improve the NJSWQS.  If you have any questions, please call me at (212)
637-3725 or have your staff contact Mr. Mario Del Vicario, Chief,
Community and Ecosystem Protection Branch at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Sincerely,

Walter Mugdan, Director

Division of Environmental Planning and Protection

cc:      	Leslie McGeorge, NJDEP

Debra Hammond, NJDEP

Lauren Wisniewski, OST-SHPD

bcc:   	Kevin Bricke, DEPP

        	Phyllis Feinmark, ORC-WGGL

        	Eduardo Gonzalez, ORC-WGGL

        	Mario Del Vicario, DEPP-CEPB

        	Felix Locicero, DEPP-CEPB

        	Wayne Jackson, DEPP-CEPB

G:\...\SWQB\TES\WQS\NJ\NJSWQS\Review.06\approv06.wpd

 PAGE  1

 PAGE  4


[Federal Register: December 30, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 249)]
[Notices]
[Page 69119-69122]
[DOCID:fr30de09-80]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0664]

Advisory Committees; Tentative Schedule of Meetings for 2010

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY:  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing a
tentative schedule of forthcoming meetings of its public advisory

committees for 2010. During 1991, at the request of the Commissioner of
Food and Drugs (the Commissioner), the Institute of Medicine (the IOM)
conducted a study of the use of FDA's advisory committees. In its final
report, one of the IOM's recommendations was for the agency to publish
an annual tentative schedule of its meetings in the Federal Register.
This publication implements the IOM's recommendation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Teresa L. Hays, Advisory Committee
Oversight and Management Staff (HF-4), Food and Drug Administration,
5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The IOM, at the request of the Commissioner,
undertook a study of the use of the FDA's advisory committees. In its
final report in 1992, one of the IOM's recommendations was for FDA to
adopt a policy of publishing an advance yearly schedule of its upcoming
public advisory committee meetings in the Federal Register; FDA has
implemented this recommendation. The annual publication of tentatively
scheduled advisory committee meetings will provide both advisory
committee members and the public with the opportunity, in advance, to
schedule attendance at FDA's upcoming advisory committee meetings.
Because the schedule is tentative amendments to this notice will not be
published in the Federal Register. However, changes to the schedule
will be posted on the FDA advisory committees' Internet site located at
http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm. FDA will continue to
publish a Federal Register notice 15 days in advance of each upcoming
advisory committee meeting, to announce the meeting (21 CFR 14.20).
    The following list announces FDA's tentatively scheduled advisory
committee meetings for 2010. You may also obtain up-to-date information
by calling the Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138
(301-443-0572 in the Washington, DC area) and use the appropriate
Information Line Code for the committee in which you are interested.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Advisory
                                Tentative Date of        Committee 10-
      Committee Name                Meeting(s)         Digit Information
                                                           Line Code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Pediatric Advisory        March 22, June 21-22,<PHONE_NUMBER>
   Committee                 September 20-21,
                             December 6-7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Risk Communication        February 25-26, May 6-7,<PHONE_NUMBER>
   Advisory Committee        August 19-20, November 8-
                             9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Science Board to the      February 22, May 17,<PHONE_NUMBER>
   Food and Drug             August 16, November 15
   Administration
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CENTER FOR BIOLOGICS EVALUATION AND RESEARCH
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Allergenic Products       April 30, October 26<PHONE_NUMBER>
   Advisory Committee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Blood Products Advisory   April 12-13, July 26-27,<PHONE_NUMBER>
   Committee                 November 18-19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Cellular, Tissue and      To be announced<PHONE_NUMBER>
   Gene Therapies Advisory
   Committee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Transmissible Spongiform  To be announced<PHONE_NUMBER>
   Encephalopathies
   Advisory Committee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Vaccines and Related      February 22, May 19-20,<PHONE_NUMBER>
   Biological Products       September 15-16,
   Advisory Committee        November 17-18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CENTER FOR DRUG EVALUATION AND RESEARCH
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Anesthetic and Life       January 28, April 22,<PHONE_NUMBER>
   Support Drugs Advisory    April 23
   Committee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Anti Infective Drugs      August and October dates<PHONE_NUMBER>
   Advisory Committee        To be announced
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Antiviral Drugs Advisory  To be announced<PHONE_NUMBER>
   Committee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Arthritis Advisory        May dates To be announced<PHONE_NUMBER>
   Committee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Cardiovascular and Renal  January 11, March 1,<PHONE_NUMBER>
   Drugs Advisory            April dates to be
   Committee                 announced, July 28, July
                             29, December 8, December
                             9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Dermatologic and          To be announced<PHONE_NUMBER>
   Ophthalmic Drugs
   Advisory Committee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Drug Safety and Risk      To be announced<PHONE_NUMBER>
   Management Advisory
   Committee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Endocrinologic and        January 12, January 13,<PHONE_NUMBER>
   Metabolic Drugs           February 24, May 26-27
   Advisory Committee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Gastrointestinal Drugs    February 23, November<PHONE_NUMBER>
   Advisory Committee        dates to be announced
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Nonprescription Drugs     To be announced<PHONE_NUMBER>
   Advisory Committee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Oncologic Drugs Advisory  February 10, May 4, May<PHONE_NUMBER>
   Committee                 5, July 20, July 21,
                             September 1, September
                             2, December 1, December
                             2
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Peripheral and Central    March 23, March 24, June<PHONE_NUMBER>
   Nervous System Drugs      dates to be announced
   Advisory Committee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Pharmaceutical Science    March 17<PHONE_NUMBER>
   and Clinical
   Pharmacology, Advisory
   Committee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Psychopharmacologic       To be announced<PHONE_NUMBER>
   Drugs Advisory
   Committee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Pulmonary Allergy Drugs   March 9, March 10, April<PHONE_NUMBER>
   Advisory Committee        dates to be announced
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Reproductive Health       May dates to be announced<PHONE_NUMBER>
   Drugs, Advisory
   Committee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CENTER FOR DEVICES AND RADIOLOGICAL HEALTH
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Device Good               July 22, September 16<PHONE_NUMBER>
   Manufacturing Practice
   Advisory Committee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Medical Devices Advisory Committee (Comprised of 18 Panels)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Anesthesiology and        April 30, June 23,<PHONE_NUMBER>
   Respiratory Therapy       September 15, November
   Devices Panel             10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Circulatory System        February 25, May 27,<PHONE_NUMBER>
   Devices Panel             September 23, December 8-
                             9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Clinical Chemistry and    March 17-18, June 16-17,<PHONE_NUMBER>
   Clinical Toxicology       October 20-21
   Devices Panel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Dental Products Panel     March 23, April 13, May<PHONE_NUMBER>
                             11, July 13, September
                             14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Ear, Nose, and Throat     February 24, May 19,<PHONE_NUMBER>
   Devices Panel             August 25, November 3-4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Gastroenterology-Urology  March 11-12, June 17-18,<PHONE_NUMBER>
   Devices Panel             September 9-10, December
                             2-3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  General and Plastic       February 4-5, May 20-21,<PHONE_NUMBER>
   Surgery Devices Panel     August 12-13, November 4-
                             5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  General Hospital and      March 5, July 28-29,<PHONE_NUMBER>
   Personal Use Devices      November 17-18
   Panel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Hematology and Pathology  January 21-22, April 22-<PHONE_NUMBER>
   Devices Panel             23, July 8-9, October 21-
                             22
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Immunology Devices Panel  April 26, September 15,<PHONE_NUMBER>
                             December 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Medical Devices Dispute   Meetings occur as needed<PHONE_NUMBER>
   Resolution Panel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Microbiology Devices      March 19, September 23<PHONE_NUMBER>
   Panel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Molecular and Clinical    April 15, October 5-6<PHONE_NUMBER>
   Genetics Panel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Neurological Devices      March 11-12, May 13-4,<PHONE_NUMBER>
   Panel                     July 8-9, October 7-8,
                             December 9-10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Obstetrics and            April 22-23, July 15-16,<PHONE_NUMBER>
   Gynecology Devices        October 21-22, December
   Panel                     16-17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Ophthalmic Devices Panel  February 25-26, April 22-<PHONE_NUMBER>
                             23, June 24-25, October
                             28-29, November 18-19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Orthopedic and            March 23, June 9-10,<PHONE_NUMBER>
   Rehabilitation Devices    October 13-14, December
   Panel                     1-2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Radiological Devices      April 28, July 21,<PHONE_NUMBER>
   Panel                     September 15, November
                             17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  National Mammography      January 25<PHONE_NUMBER>
   Quality Assurance
   Advisory Committee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Technical Electronic      No meeting tentatively<PHONE_NUMBER>
   Product Radiation         scheduled for 2010
   Safety Standards
   Committee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY AND APPLIED NUTRITION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Food Advisory Committee   May 20-21<PHONE_NUMBER>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CENTER FOR VETERINARY MEDICINE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Veterinary Medicine       March 18-19<PHONE_NUMBER>
   Advisory Committee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL CENTER FOR TOXILOGICAL RESEARCH (NCTR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Science Advisory Board    November 17-18<PHONE_NUMBER>
   to NCTR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Center for Tobacco
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Tobacco Products          March, May, July, and<PHONE_NUMBER>
   Scientific Advisory       November dates to be
   Committee                 announced
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: December 24, 2009.
David Horowitz,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-30973 Filed 12-29-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 145 (Friday, July 27, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35560-35566]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16123]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2003-0010; FRL-9981-26--Region 5]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Partial Deletion of the Peters Cartridge
Factory Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 5 is
publishing a direct final Notice of Partial Deletion of the Former
Process Area (FPA) portion of the Peters Cartridge Factory Superfund
Site in Kings Mills, Ohio from the National Priorities List (NPL). The
NPL, promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of
1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This direct final Notice
of Partial Deletion is being published by EPA with the concurrence of
the State of Ohio, through the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
(OEPA), because EPA has determined that all appropriate response
actions in the FPA under CERCLA, other than maintenance, monitoring and
five-year reviews, have been completed. However, this partial deletion
does not preclude future actions under Superfund.

DATES: This direct final partial deletion is effective September 25,
2018 unless EPA receives adverse comments by August 27, 2018. If
adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of
the direct final partial deletion in the Federal Register (FR)
informing the public that the partial deletion will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-2003-0010 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Comments may also be submitted by
email or mail to Randolph Cano, NPL Deletion Coordinator, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 (SR-6J), 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address:
[email protected] or hand deliver: Superfund Records Center, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
7th Floor South, Chicago, IL 60604, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information. The normal business hours are Monday through Friday,
8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
2003-0010. 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 statue. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
at http://www.regulations.gov or electronically or in hard copy at:
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Superfund Records
Center, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 7th Floor South, Chicago, IL 60604,
Phone:

(312) 886-0900, Hours: Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
excluding Federal holidays.
    Salem Township Library, 535 West Pike Street, Morrow, OH 45152,
Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Hours: Monday and Tuesday, 10:00 a.m. to 8:00
p.m. Wednesday and Thursday, 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Friday, 10:00 a.m.
to 5:00 p.m. Saturday, 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
    Warren County Administration Building, 406 Justice Drive, Lebanon,
OH 45036, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Hours: Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m.
to 5:00 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Randolph Cano, NPL Deletion
Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5 (SR-6J), 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
via email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

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

I. Introduction

    EPA Region 5 is publishing this direct final Notice of Partial
Deletion for the Peters Cartridge Factory Site (Peters Cartridge Site),
from the National Priorities List (NPL). This partial deletion pertains
to the Former Process Area (FPA) portion of the Site, property
identification numbers (PINs) 16-12-453-004, 16-12-453-005 and 16-12-
400-012. The NPL constitutes Appendix B of the NCP, which EPA
promulgated pursuant to CERCLA. 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 (RA) financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund
(Fund). This partial deletion of the Peters Cartridge 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 section
300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, a portion of a site deleted from the NPL
remains eligible for Fund-financed RAs if future conditions warrant
such actions.
    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 FPA of the Peters Cartridge
Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria. Section V
discusses EPA's action to partially delete the FPA from the NPL unless
adverse comments are received during the public comment period.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from
the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites, or portions
thereof, may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is
appropriate. In making such a determination pursuant to 40 CFR
300.425(e), EPA will consider, in consultation with the state, whether
any of the following criteria have been met:
    i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all
appropriate response actions required;
    ii. all appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been
implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is
appropriate; or
    iii. the remedial investigation (RI) 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 Section 121(c) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9621 and the NCP,
EPA conducts five-year reviews to ensure the continued protectiveness
of RAs 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 or a
portion of 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. Partial Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to the deletion of the FPA of the
Peters Cartridge Site:
    (1) EPA has consulted with the State of Ohio prior to developing
this direct final Notice of Partial Deletion and the Notice of Intent
for Partial Deletion co-published in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of
the FR.
    (2) EPA has provided the State 30 working days for review of this
notice and the parallel Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion prior to
their publication today, and the State, through the OEPA, has concurred
on the partial deletion of the Site from the NPL.
    (3) Concurrent with the publication of this direct final Notice of
Partial Deletion, an announcement of the availability of the parallel
Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion is being published in a major
local newspaper, The Cincinnati Enquirer. The newspaper notice
announces the 30-day public comment period concerning the Notice of
Intent for Partial Deletion of the Site from the NPL.
    (4) EPA placed copies of documents supporting the partial deletion
in the deletion docket and made these items available for public
inspection and copying at the Site information repositories identified
above.
    (5) If adverse comments are received within the 30-calendar day
public comment period on this partial deletion action, EPA will publish
a timely notice of withdrawal of this direct final Notice of Partial
Deletion before its effective date and will prepare a response to
comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the
Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion and the comments already
received.
    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 further
response actions, should future conditions warrant such actions.

IV. Basis for Site Partial Deletion

    The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting the
FPA of the Peters Cartridge Site from the NPL:

Site Background and History

    The Peters Cartridge Site (CERCLIS ID: OHD 987051083) is an
approximately 71-acre parcel of land located along the south bank of
the Little Miami River, in Warren County, Ohio. The Peters Cartridge
Site is located at 1415 Grandin Road, Kings Mills, 45034, Hamilton
Township, Ohio. Approximately one acre of the Site is located east of
Grandin Road.
    The Peters Cartridge Factory produced ordnance and shot shell
ammunition at the Site from 1887 to 1934. The Remington Arms Company,
Inc. (Remington) purchased the Peters Cartridge Factory in 1934 and
continued the production of shot shell and cartridge ammunition at the
facility. During the Second World War,

Remington produced .30 and .45-caliber carbine ammunition for the U.S.
Government, until 1944, after which Remington discontinued operations
at the facility.
    The Peters Cartridge Site was subsequently divided into multiple
land parcels that have been owned and occupied by various non-
ammunition making entities since 1944. None of these companies are
responsible for the contamination that is being addressed at the Site.
    OEPA noted the release of possible hazardous substances at the Site
in 1992. OEPA conducted a preliminary assessment in 1993 and brought
the Site to the attention of EPA. OEPA conducted several screening
investigations and evaluations at the Site between 1994 and 1999.
During these investigations, OEPA collected soil, sediment, and
groundwater samples. OEPA analyzed the samples for volatile organic
compounds, semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), pesticides, and
metals.
    OEPA's investigations concluded that the Site was impacted by
copper, lead, and mercury. These metals are associated with the former
munitions manufacturing operations. The impacts appeared to be
generally confined to surface soils in the former manufacturing and
storage areas in the FPA. OEPA detected some SVOCs and pesticides in
sediment samples from the Little Miami River, but these compounds were
not found in soil or sediment samples from the Site and are not Site-
related.
    EPA proposed the Peters Cartridge Site to the NPL on April 30, 2003
(68 FR 23094). EPA finalized the Peters Cartridge Site on the NPL on
September 18, 2012 after negotiations with potentially responsible
parties (PRPs) to implement the cleanup remedy in EPA's 2009 Record of
Decision (ROD) for the Site failed (77 FR 57495). The effective date of
the final rule was October 18, 2012.
    The Peters Cartridge Site is a single operable unit consisting of
three areas: The FPA, which is the portion of the Site EPA is deleting
from the NPL, and the Hamilton Township Property (HTP) and Lowland Area
(LA) which are not being deleted and will remain on the NPL.
    The FPA is the production portion of the Site where most of the
Peters Cartridge manufacturing processes took place. The FPA is
comprised of three parcels of developed land that total 14.29 acres and
contain six buildings.
    Most of the FPA is relatively flat and covered by buildings,
concrete or asphalt paving, and small landscaped areas. Discontinuous
areas of ash-like fill were present around the buildings. Portions of
the FPA are used by commercial or industrial businesses.
    The HTP is a 56-acre parcel of unimproved wooded land south and
southwest of the FPA. The HTP was primarily used to store the finished
munitions manufactured at the Site. The HTP consists of steeply-sloping
bedrock ridges and rolling topography with dense vegetation. The HTP
contains bunkers, concrete supports, foundations, conveyance
structures, and other facilities historically used by the Peters
Cartridge Company.
    The HTP contains a former salvage area in the northwestern portion
of the property that is unpaved and is surrounded by a steel fence and
mature woody and herbaceous vegetation. The former salvage area
features buildings original to the former salvage yard and also
contains discontinuous areas of ash-like fill. Hamilton Township plans
to retain the HTP as open space.
    The LA is located at the northern edge of the Site within the
Little Miami River floodplain. The LA is differentiated from the rest
of the Site by steel fencing, thick vegetation, and steep topography
along the southern border of the Little Miami River Scenic Trail. The
trail was a historical railroad right-of-way that was redeveloped as a
bike and walking path.
    North of the trail, the LA includes some historical manufacturing
areas characterized by the presence of ash-like fill, concrete
foundations, masonry structures, and concrete culverts/outfalls that
drain surface water from the upland portions of the Site. Future land
use in the LA is expected to remain recreational/open space.
    This partial deletion pertains to all media within the FPA portion
of the Peters Cartridge Site (see Current Site Layout in Docket
Document ID EPA-HQ-SFUND-2003-0010-1954 in the Docket). The remaining
areas of the Site, including the HTP and LA, will remain on the NPL and
are not being considered for deletion as part of this action.

Remedial Investigation (RI) and Feasibility Study (FS)

    The PRPs conducted a remedial investigation (RI) and feasibility
study (FS) at the Site under a 2004 Administrative Order on Consent
with EPA. The RI investigated the contamination at the Site and the FS
evaluated potential cleanup alternatives to address the unacceptable
Site risks identified in the human health and ecological risk
assessments.
    The PRPs conducted the RI in multiple phases from 2005 to 2009. The
PRPs collected surface (zero to two feet below ground surface) and
subsurface (greater than two feet below ground surface) soil samples
from 112 soil boring locations in the FPA, 199 soil borings in the HTP,
and 69 soil borings in the LA. The PRPs also collected samples of
surface swale-soil from 29 locations in the HTP area, sediment samples
from seven on-Site locations near the discharge points of the on-Site
drainage features near the Little Miami River, 22 surface water
sampling locations, and groundwater samples from eleven groundwater
monitoring wells. The PRPs did not collect swale-soil samples from the
FPA or LA because swale-soil was not present in these areas.
    The results of the PRPs' human health risk assessment indicate that
surface soil in the FPA posed an unacceptable risk to current
commercial/industrial workers, utility workers and trespassers, and to
future construction workers and residents. The risks were due to the
concentrations of arsenic, benzo(a)pyrene, naphthalene and lead
detected in the surface soil. The surface soil in the HTP posed an
unacceptable risk to current trespassers and utility workers, and to
future construction workers, residents and recreational users in the
HTP. These risks were due to arsenic, benz(a)pyrene, lead and antimony
detected in the HTP. The concentrations of lead in the LA surface soil
posed an unacceptable risk to current utility workers, and to
recreational users in off-trail areas.
    The risk assessment determined that shallow, on-Site groundwater
would pose an unacceptable cancer risk to potential future residents if
the groundwater was used as a residential water supply. This risk is
due to arsenic detected in the groundwater, but at concentrations below
the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for arsenic established under the
Safe Drinking Water Act.
    The current potential for human exposure to on-Site groundwater is
limited, since the Site is used for commercial and industrial purposes
and on-Site groundwater is not used for potable or any other uses,
including irrigation. Potable water at the Site is currently supplied
by the Warren County Water District. The groundwater is also at a depth
where direct contact during intrusive activities is unlikely to occur.
    The PRPs' ecological risk assessment indicated that surface soil in
the terrestrial habits at the Site posed an unacceptable risk to
ecological

receptors. The risks were due to the concentrations of antimony,
arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, thallium and
zinc detected at the Site. The ecological risk assessment also
identified potential ecological risks at the Site based on exposure to
erosional material and surface water in the concrete-lined culverts at
the Site, and to sediment and surface water in culvert outfalls along
the shoreline of the Little Miami River.
    OEPA conducted additional studies of the Little Miami River in 1999
and 2007. These studies indicated that Site-related contaminants were
not impacting ecological receptors in the River. On-Site drainage
features, however, had the potential to transport Site-related
contaminants to surface water and river sediment.
    The PRPs completed an FS in 2009. The FS developed and evaluated
four cleanup alternatives to address the unacceptable risks at the
Site. The FS evaluated soil remediation technologies to clean up the
surface soil/swale contaminants in the FPA, HTP and LA, and in the
upper six inches of shoreline sediment at culvert outfalls.
    The FS determined that focusing the cleanup on the lead-impacted
soil at the Site would result in the remediation of the other
contaminants detected at the Site since the primary Site risk was due
to exposure to lead-impacted soil. The FS also assumed that
institutional controls (ICs) would be used to prevent residential land
use and groundwater use at the Site.

Selected Remedy

    EPA developed remedial action objectives (RAOs) to address the
unacceptable risks to human health and the environment identified for
exposure to on-Site soil/swale contaminants, the shoreline sediments in
the Little Miami River, and groundwater.
    EPA's RAOs for on-Site soil are to: Prevent human exposure to
surface/swale soil having chemical concentrations resulting in a
cumulative excess lifetime cancer risk greater than 1 x 10-4
or a non-cancer hazard index greater than 1; prevent human exposure to
surface and subsurface soil with lead concentrations greater than EPA's
residential standard (i.e., 400 mg/kg) or, if an IC restricts
residential development, prevent human exposure to surface/swale soil
with lead concentrations greater than EPA's commercial standard (i.e.,
800 mg/kg); and prevent ecological receptor exposures to on-Site
surface soil/swale soil with copper, lead, and mercury concentrations
creating unacceptable levels of risk.
    EPA's RAO for shoreline sediments is to prevent the exposure of
aquatic receptors to contaminants of ecological concern in the Little
Miami River by limiting the migration of Site-related contaminants in
depositional material in the channelized outfalls and deltas bordering
the river. This will be done by removing on-Site sources that
contribute to elevated concentrations in the surface water discharged
from the site.
    EPA's RAO for groundwater is to prevent future residents from
ingesting groundwater having an arsenic concentration that exceeds its
MCL. This will be done as a limited RA using ICs to restrict
groundwater use at the Site.
    EPA selected a cleanup remedy for the Site in a Record of Decision
(ROD) on September 28, 2009. The major components of the selected
remedy detailed in the ROD are:
    (1) Excavate surface soil in the FPA to a depth of at least two
feet below ground surface (bgs) in areas that exceed the EPA commercial
standard for lead of 800 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg), and excavate
surface soil in the HTP and LA to a depth of at least two feet bgs in
areas that exceed the EPA residential standard for lead of 400 mg/kg.
The actual areas to be excavated and depths will be determined and
evaluated during the Remedial Design (RD). The excavated areas will be
backfilled with clean fill material to the existing grade.
    (2) Clean out and remove debris and erosional material at drainage
culvert and outfall areas. Excavate three identified shoreline sediment
areas to a depth of approximately six inches and backfill the shoreline
sediment areas with clean fill material.
    (3) Consolidate impacted soil, sediment, and erosional material in
an on-Site consolidation cell. The cell will be constructed with an
impermeable composite liner and cap system developed to be consistent
with State regulations. A flexible membrane liner with a geotextile
cushion will be installed as the main component of the cell liner
system.
    (4) Cap the consolidation cell with a composite cap system
consisting of a six-inch-thick vegetative support layer, a two-foot-
thick layer of compacted low-permeability clay, a geocomposite drainage
layer, a flexible geomembrane, and a low-permeability clay layer
beneath the geomembrane. The final cap design will be developed to be
compliant with State regulations during the RD phase of the project.
During the RD phase it will be determined whether an access restriction
will be required based on future use of the area.
    (5) Monitor groundwater to ensure that there is no migration of
contaminants from the consolidation cell.
    (6) ICs in the form of deed restrictions will be required to
accomplish the following: Restrict land use to nonresidential purposes;
limit future Site activities to prevent intrusive activities that could
compromise the consolidation cell; and restrict on-Site groundwater
from being used as a residential water supply.
    (7) A review will be conducted within five years after the
initiation of the RA and every five years thereafter to ensure that the
selected remedy is still protective of human health and the
environment, and will include a determination of whether land use
changes have occurred or are likely to occur.
    EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order to the lead PRP for
the Site, E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (DuPont), to conduct the
RD and RA work required by the ROD on March 30, 2012, after
negotiations with DuPont and the other PRPs failed. DuPont conducted a
Pre-Design Investigation (PDI) in 2012-2013. During the PDI, DuPont
further delineated the extent of soil with lead concentrations above
cleanup standards that would require excavation.
    DuPont's PDI found that approximately 10,300 cubic yards of soil
within the excavation areas outlined in the ROD was characteristically
hazardous for lead based on the results of toxicity characteristic
leaching procedure (TCLP) testing. The PDI also found that some of the
characteristically hazardous lead-contaminated soil was located in some
areas of the Site at depths greater than two feet bgs.
    EPA issued an Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD)
modifying the ROD based on the PDI in June 2015. The modified remedy
required the excavation of all characteristically hazardous soils at
the Site, regardless of depth. All soils with concentrations of lead
considered to be characteristic hazardous waste were required to be
stabilized to render them nonhazardous before being placed in the on-
Site consolidation cell. Based on the PDI, the deepest excavation was
estimated to be four feet bgs.
    The ESD also made it clear that an Institutional Control
Implementation and Assurance Plan (ICIAP) was required as part of the
selected remedy. The ESD also explained EPA and OEPA's determination
that a 2.0 percent final slope for the composite cap system over the
on-Site consolidation cell was acceptable and provided a waiver of the

5.0 percent final slope requirements in Ohio Administrative Code 3745-
29-08(C)(4)(c).

Response Actions

    DuPont's contractor, Parsons, began RA construction activities at
the Site in March 2015. Parsons excavated surface soil in the FPA with
lead concentrations above EPA's commercial cleanup level for lead of
800 mg/kg from a depth of zero to two feet bgs; and surface/swale soil
in the HTP and LA with concentrations above EPA's residential cleanup
level for lead of 400 mg/kg from a depth of zero to two feet bgs.
    Parsons additionally excavated all surface/swale and subsurface
soil in the FPA, HTP and LA that exceeded EPA's hazardous waste TCLP
concentration for lead of 5.0 milligrams/liter (mg/l), regardless of
depth (zero to four feet).
    Parsons consolidated the excavated soil in an on-Site consolidation
cell Parsons constructed in the HTP at the southern end of the Site.
Parsons treated the soil with TCLP concentrations above EPA's hazardous
waste criteria with a proprietary in-situ stabilizing mixture that
rendered the material nonhazardous prior to excavation and
consolidation in the on-Site cell.
    The excavated areas included: Most of the area sampled adjacent to
and between the buildings in the FPA, and isolated areas on hill slopes
behind the buildings; the HTP adjacent to the western portion of the
FPA and LA; three small, isolated areas in the HTP upland areas; most
of the portion of the LA between the Little Miami River Scenic Trail
and the FPA; and isolated areas in the LA in the floodplain terrace
along the Little Miami River and adjacent to Grandin Road. Four areas
within the FPA and LA required excavation to four feet bgs to remove
soil exceeding the regulatory level for TCLP lead.
    Parsons backfilled the excavated areas with clean soil covered by
six inches of clean topsoil to existing grade.
    Parsons excavated the sediments from the on-Site drainage channels,
concrete culverts and outfalls and consolidated these materials in the
consolidation cell with the excavated soil. Parsons excavated and
disposed of trash located in one area of the Site, including hazardous
and nonhazardous soil and a small amount of asbestos-containing
material, at appropriate off-Site disposal facilities.
    The consolidation cell has a vegetated surface with a stone access
road across the top of cap. The road provides access to the leachate
sump and monitoring wells located on the north side of the cell.
    Parsons submitted a Construction Completion Report documenting the
completion of the RA construction activities to EPA and OEPA on June 7,
2017. EPA issued a letter approving DuPont's Construction Completion
Report on June 26, 2017.

Cleanup Levels

    The cleanup levels for the Site are: EPA's commercial cleanup level
for lead of 800 mg/kg for surface soil in the FPA; EPA's residential
cleanup level for lead of 400 mg/kg for surface soil in the HTP and LA;
and EPA's TCLP hazardous waste leaching criteria of 5 mg/l for lead in
all soil, regardless of depth. The ROD also requires groundwater use
restrictions for on-Site groundwater with arsenic concentrations above
the MCL of 10 micrograms/liter, and the excavation of debris and
erosional material in on-Site culverts and outfalls, and of shoreline
sediment in the Little Miami River.
    Parsons determined the limits of the soil and sediment excavations,
and the limits of soil stabilization required to meet the cleanup
criteria in the ROD and ESD during the RD based on the results of the
PDI. Parsons verified that all impacted soil was excavated to required
limits by conducting surveys of the excavated areas before and after
excavation for a point-by-point comparison. Parsons confirmed that all
hazardous soil was properly treated prior to excavation by testing the
stabilized soil in each grid for TCLP lead, arsenic, and mercury to
confirm the soil was nonhazardous. All post-treatment samples passed
the TCLP values for these compounds prior to excavation and
consolidation in the on-Site cell except for one area which required a
second round of treatment.
    Parsons, EPA and OEPA verified that the sediment, debris and eroded
materials were removed from the on-Site culverts, outfalls and the
river shoreline through visual inspections conducted prior to and
during an August 16, 2016 pre-final Site inspection.

Operation and Maintenance

    DuPont is responsible for conducting operation and maintenance
(O&M) at the Peters Cartridge Site consistent with a January 2017 O&M
and ICIAP. The only O&M required for the FPA is to maintain, monitor
and enforce the ROD-required IC, which is in the form of an
Environmental Covenant (EC), and to conduct groundwater sampling, as
needed.
    The current owner of the FPA, Peters Cartridge Factory, LLC (PCF),
filed the EC required by the ROD pursuant to Ohio Revised Code
Sec. Sec.  5301.80 to 5301.92, on the FPA portion of the Peters
Cartridge Site. PCF filed the EC with the Warren County Recorder's
Office on January 30, 2018, Instrument 2018-003019. A copy of the
recorded EC is in Docket Document ID EPA-HQ-SFUND-2003-0010-1942 in the
Docket.
    PCF's EC: (1) Restricts land use in the FPA to commercial and/or
industrial use, and prohibits residential use of the property unless
and until additional cleanup activities are performed and the EC is
amended or terminated; (2) prohibits the extraction or use of
groundwater beneath the FPA for any purpose, potable or otherwise,
unless approved by EPA and for the purposes of investigation,
monitoring, groundwater remediation or for a response activity; and (3)
requires all excavation, digging, grading or disturbance of the ground
surface in the FPA to be conducted in accordance with the September
2017 Soil Management Plan developed for the Site.

Five-Year Reviews

    EPA is required to conduct statutory five-year reviews at the
Peters Cartridge Site because hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants remain at the Site above levels that allow for unlimited
use and unrestricted exposure. EPA must complete the first five-year
review of the Site by December 12, 2019.

Community Involvement

    EPA satisfied public participation activities for the Peters
Cartridge Site required in Sections 113(k) and 117 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C.
9613(k) and 9617. EPA developed a Community Involvement Plan for the
Site in 2009. EPA made the RI/FS Report and Proposed Plan for the Site
available to the public in June 2009. EPA placed copies of the RI/FS
Report and Proposed Plan in the administrative record file maintained
at the EPA Region 5 Records Center in Chicago, Illinois, and in the
local information repositories for the Site at the Salem Township
Library, 535 W Pike Street, Morrow, Ohio 45152 and the Warren County
Administration Building, 406 Justice Drive, Lebanon, Ohio 45036. EPA
also posted the RI/FS and Proposed Plan to the EPA Region 5 website at:
http://www.epa.gov/region5/sites/peterscartridge/index.htm.
    EPA published notices advertising the availability of the RI/FS
Report and EPA's Proposed Plan for the Site in the Pulse-Journal,
Little Miami/Kings Mills Edition and the Western Star, in Lebanon, Ohio
on July 2, 2009.
    EPA held a public comment period on its proposed cleanup plan for
the Site

from July 6, 2009 through August 6, 2009. EPA also held a public
meeting to present its Proposed Plan for the Site to a broader
community audience on July 15, 2009. At the meeting, representatives
from EPA and OEPA answered questions about the contamination at the
Site and the cleanup alternatives that were considered.
    EPA also used the meeting to solicit a wider cross-section of
community input on the reasonably anticipated future land uses of the
Site. Approximately 20 people attended the meeting, including
representatives from the Little Miami River Group and Hamilton
Township.
    EPA considered the public comments received during the public
meeting and public comment period prior to selecting a final remedy for
the Site in the ROD. EPA's responses to the comments received are
included in a Responsiveness Summary, which is part of the ROD.
    EPA provided additional opportunities for public participation when
issuing the ESD. Although there are no requirements to hold a public
meeting or formal public comment period when an ESD is issued, EPA and
OEPA voluntarily decided to conduct a public availability session to
inform the local community of the changes in the original remedy and
answer questions. EPA and OEPA chose to involve the local community
because of the community's interest in the Site, and held an
availability session on February 12, 2015. Approximately 40 people from
the surrounding area attended the meeting.
    EPA made the ESD available to the public by placing it in the
administrative record with other documents supporting the ESD, in the
information repositories. EPA also coordinated with OEPA to ensure that
a notice summarizing the ESD and explaining EPA's reasons for the
remedy changes was published in a local newspaper after the ESD was
approved.
    EPA published a notice announcing this direct final Notice of
Partial Deletion in the Cincinnati Enquirer prior to publishing this
deletion in the Federal Register. Documents in the deletion docket
which EPA relied on to support the deletion of the FPA from the NPL are
available to the public in the information repositories and at http://www.regulations.gov.

Determination That the Criteria for Partial Deletion Have Been Met

    The FPA portion of the Peters Cartridge Site meets all of the site
completion requirements specified in Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER) Directive 9320.22, Close-Out Procedures for
National Priorities List Sites. All cleanup actions and RAOs for the
FPA set forth in the 2009 ROD and 2015 ESD have been implemented for
all pathways of exposure in the FPA. The selected RAs, RAOs, and
associated cleanup levels for the FPA are consistent with EPA policy
and guidance. No further Superfund response is necessary to protect
human health or the environment in the FPA.
    Section 300.425(e) of the NCP states that a Superfund site or a
portion of a site may be deleted from the NPL when no further response
action is appropriate. EPA, in consultation with the State of Ohio, has
determined that all required response actions have been implemented at
the FPA portion of the Peters Cartridge Site and that no further
response action by the responsible parties is appropriate on this
property.

V. Partial Deletion Action

    EPA, with concurrence of the State of Ohio through the OEPA, has
determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other
than maintenance, monitoring and five-year reviews, have been completed
at the FPA. Therefore, EPA is deleting the FPA portion of the Peters
Cartridge Site, PINs 16-12-453-004, 16-12-453-005 and 16-12-400-012,
from the NPL.
    Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and
routine, EPA is taking it without prior publication. This action will
be effective September 25, 2018 unless EPA receives adverse comments by
August 27, 2018. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day
public comment period, EPA will publish a timely notice of withdrawal
of this direct final Notice of Partial Deletion before its effective
date and the partial deletion will not take effect. EPA will prepare a
response to comments and continue with the deletion process on the
basis of the notice of intent to partially delete and the comments
already received. There will be no additional opportunity to comment.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.

    Dated: July 17, 2018.
Cathy Stepp,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

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

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

0
1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(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.

Appendix B to Part 300--[Amended]

0
2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 is amended by revising the listing
under Ohio for ``Peters Cartridge Factory'' to read as follows:

Appendix B to Part 300--National Priorities List

                   Table 1--General Superfund Section
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       State             Site name        City/county       Notes (a)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
OH.................  Peters Cartridge  Kings Mills.....               P
                      Factory.

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) * * *
 * * * * * * *
P = Sites with partial deletion(s).

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2018-16123 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 211 (Monday, November 2, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 67393]
[FR Doc No: 2015-27804]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 184-244]

El Dorado Irrigation District; Notice of Availability of
Environmental Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,
as amended, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission)
regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office
of Energy Projects has reviewed an application to amend the El Dorado
Project license filed by El Dorado Irrigation District (licensee). The
licensee proposes constructing an earthen stability buttress, raising
the crest of the dam, and upgrading appurtenant facilities. No Federal
lands would be involved in the proposed action. The project is located
on the South Fork American River adjacent to the unincorporated
community of Pollock Pines in El Dorado, County, California.
    An environmental assessment (EA) has been prepared for Commission
staff's review of the proposed action, containing staff's analysis of
the proposed action and concluding that approval of the proposal, with
staff's recommended measures, would not constitute a major federal
action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
The EA is available for electronic review and reproduction at the
Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE.,
Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426. The EA may also be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number (P-184) in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER> or for TTY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Any comments on the EA should be filed by November 27, 2015, and
addressed to Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1-A, Washington, DC 20426.
Please reference the project name and project number (P-184-244) on all
comments filed. Comments may be filed electronically via the Internet
in lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic
filings. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the
Commission's Web site under the ``eFiling'' link. For further
information, please contact CarLisa Linton at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: October 26, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-27804 Filed 10-30-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US

06/19/2008 11:53 AM

To

<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> cc

Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, <EMAIL_ADDRESS>Neal Fann/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Charles Fulcher/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Darryl Weatherhead/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Tom Walton/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, <EMAIL_ADDRESS>Al McGartland, <EMAIL_ADDRESS>Brian Heninger

Subject

revised Pb chapter 5 for OMB

Heidi, here is the revised chapter 5.   Consistent with the discussion of Tuesday, the changes are minimal but it does include a specific cross reference to the memo containing the sensitivity analysis for the alternative C-R functions.

Ron Evans

Leader, Air Benefit & Cost Group

HEID/OAQPS/OAR/EPA

Mail Drop C-439-02

919-541-5488

919-541-0839 fax


Feasibility Considerations: AO Spark-Ignited Engines

Over the past decade, AOs have invested significant capital to retrofit and replace thousands of irrigation pump and other engines reducing emissions by over 80% in this category, and continue to do so as emission limitations and associated compliance deadlines materialize under Rule 4702.  In addition to the high cost-effectiveness and potential technical infeasibility associated with retrofitting or replacing existing AO spark-ignited engines, requiring additional costly controls on existing AO engines is economically challenging and potentially infeasible.

Retrofitting existing spark-ignited engines poses several challenges that are not present when installing new, replacement engines.  The District had to overcome many obstacles and challenges in retrofitting existing AO engines when the District adopted its current emission limit of 90 ppm and has worked closely with AO engine owners and operators and control system manufacturers to ensure compliance with this stringent emission limit.  Efforts to ensure compliance with the current rule limit are continuing today.  Lowering the emission limit from 90 ppmv to 25 ppm or even 11 ppm, results in even greater challenges for existing engines to consistently meet because of the much lower tolerance for being out of compliance. These challenges are outlined in the following list. Details are provided below.

Challenges with retrofitting existing engines:
             1.       Engine power losses from adding controls
             2.       Existing engines may require overhaul
             3.       Existing engines cannot meet lower emissions levels due to narrower margin of compliance
             4.       Control systems must be custom designed
             5.       Errors generated during control system installation
             6.       Retrofit controls can damage an engine
             7.       Engine can damage a control system
             8.       Compliance costs
             9.       Engines operated in remote locations

   1. Engine power losses from adding controls

   An engine is chosen based on its ability to provide the required power output at a reasonable engine speed (rpm) that will not over-stress the engine over its expected service life.  Add-on emission control systems result in additional loads that the engine may not have been originally designed to accommodate.

   In addition, due to the extreme drought conditions, engine owners and operators have needed to increase the power output for well pump engines as the water table has dropped.  As the engines work harder to pump water, there is less power output available to accommodate emission control systems.

   2. Existing engines may require overhaul

   The engines in use at AOs have been in service for many years, even decades, and are heavily worn.  A worn engine can burn oil, leak fluids, and run rough.

   For an uncontrolled engine, some of the effects of engine wear do not have a major effect on the engine's ability to do it's job (e.g. pumping water).  However, the operation of a catalytic emission control system requires that the engine be operated consistently smooth.  An expensive major engine overhaul or rebuild would be necessary to ensure smooth engine operation prior to installing a catalytic emission control system.  Many AOs do not have the resources (e.g., staff, experience, technical training, etc.) to complete an engine overhaul or rebuild without outside assistance.  Meeting more stringent/lower emission standards increases the need for the engine to operate properly.

   3. Existing engines cannot meet lower emissions levels due to narrower margin of compliance

   As emission limits are lowered, there is a narrower margin of compliance and proper engine operation becomes more critical.  AOs in the District have to constantly ensure that their engine is properly maintained and within all the appropriate specifications to ensure compliance with the current emission limit, more so than newer engines.  The lower emissions levels will result in additional stresses on the engine and increased maintenance and monitoring efforts that result from operating a retrofitted engine.  Even then, due to the age of the engine and based on engine not appropriately designed for additional add-on systems and the associated loads, engines will not be able to meet the lower limits.

   4. Control systems must be custom designed

   For proper control system design, the engine condition, make, model, power output, and exhaust gas flow rate and temperature must be considered. There are no universal, off-the-shelf, one size-fits-all systems available for purchase.

   Control system design also assumes that an engine is operating properly and smoothly per the engine manufacturer's specifications.  To ensure proper operation of the control system, an engine may need to be overhauled or rebuilt prior to installation of the control system.

   A common problem with many retrofit emission control systems is installation of a system on an engine that is not operating smoothly or to engine manufacturer specifications.  Installing a control system on a rough running engine will result in poor control system operation and eventually system and engine damage.  Proper system design and engine operation is more important as emission limits are lowered since the margin of compliance will be much less.

   5. Errors generated during control system installation

   Site conditions like gas supply pressure can cause an existing engine to operate rough.  If site issues are not addressed prior to installation of a control system, the control system will not operate correctly.

   An installer may attempt to correct rough engine operation by making the combustion more fuel rich; however, this technique will not provide lasting results and will cause accelerated engine and control system wear and eventually failure.  An emission control system that is designed to meet lower emission limits will require a larger catalyst element which will be more expensive to replace if permanently damaged.

   6. Retrofit controls can damage an engine

   For proper control of exhaust pollutants, a catalyst must be operated at a certain temperature range that is higher than normal exhaust temperatures.  Additional fuel is often injected into the engine with the intent that the additional fuel will pass through the combustion chamber and ignite in the exhaust system prior to the catalyst (the high catalyst temperature ignites the fuel).  This extra fuel results in higher engine operating temperatures since some of the extra fuel is combusted during normal engine combustion. The increased engine temperature leads to accelerated engine wear and reduced engine reliability.  Due to wear and older design, increased combustion temperatures lead to engine failure and permanent engine damage.

   7. Engine can damage a control system

   An existing, worn engine can burn oil and run rough.  Oil in the exhaust stream will foul/mask a catalyst which will result in reduced emission control efficiency and likely permanent damage to a catalyst element.  The air-fuel ratio controller will attempt to adjust engine operation (e.g., injecting more fuel) to keep the control system operating within the specified parameters; however, adjusting engine operation will not correct a fouled catalyst.  Continued operation with a damaged catalyst will lead to permanent catalyst damage.  An emission control system that is designed to meet lower emission limits will require a larger catalyst element which will be more expensive to replace if permanently damaged and this cycle will be repeated further adding to the cost.

   8. Compliance costs

   Unlike many industries, AOs compete on an international basis and cannot pass increased production costs on to consumers.  AOs must absorb the compliance costs associated with lower emission standards, for example: retrofit and replacement costs; additional maintenance costs; additional monitoring costs; and additional testing costs.

   These additional regulatory costs put them at an economic disadvantage to their competitors.

   9. Engines operated in remote locations

   AO spark-ignited engines are generally located in rural, hard to access areas with minimal oversight since AOs have limited resources and staffing. With seasonal labor and minimal year-round staffing, it is difficult for AOs to provide the frequent and complex maintenance required for retrofitted or new engines equipped with advanced emission controls.  Lower emission limits are achieved only through well maintained engines and control systems.  Lower emissions limits lead to increased maintenance and monitoring efforts.

   The oil production industry is the only other major industry in the Valley that has IC engines located in remote locations; however, with the highly technical nature of oil production and refining as compared to agricultural production and additional economic resources, it is feasible for the oil and gas production industry to hire qualified staff dedicated to maintaining and operating IC engines and other equipment on-site.

Retrofitting AO engines with emission control systems to meet increasingly stringent emission limits poses unique challenges that are not applicable when installing replacement engines. Based on the challenges outlined above, meeting 25 ppm or even 11 ppm with existing AO engines is not practicable. The additional maintenance, monitoring, and testing, along with the cost of rebuilding engines and the cost of the emission control system, may even be more costly than installing a replacement engine.