MEMORANDUM

TO:		PM NAAQS Docket (OAR-2001-0017)

From:		EPA, Clean Air Markets Division

Subject:	Cost Estimates for Modification Options to Improve Existing ESP
Performance

Date:		August 21, 2006

This memorandum contains (see next page) a write-up that describes the
assumptions, methodologies, and results of the estimates for developing
the performance improvements and costs associated with the selected
electrostatic precipitator (ESP) modification options.  The estimates
were developed as part of the EPA’s RIA analyses.

PERFORMANCE AND COST IMPACTS OF

SELECTED ESP MODIFICATION OPTIONS

This write-up covers the assumptions, methodologies, and results of the
estimates for developing the performance improvements and costs
associated with the selected electrostatic precipitator (ESP)
modification options.  The cost estimates developed were of the
order-of-magnitude type and were based on information available from
published sources.

Several modification options are available to enhance the particulate
removal performance of existing ESP installations.  These options
include upgrade of existing ESP auxiliaries, such as automatic voltage
controllers and rappers, and repair of damaged areas, such as bent
collecting plates and broken discharge electrodes.  However, only
relatively small performance gains are expected from application of such
options, as it is believed that many ESP installations are properly
designed and well maintained.  The modification options that can provide
significant performance improvements for the existing ESP include:

Increase in the existing collection plate area

Installation of a flue gas conditioning system

Installation of a downstream supplemental baghouse

Installation of bags in the last one or two ESP fields

Installation of an agglomerator

Of the above options, only the first and the fifth can be applied to
most ESPs, without any concerns with the operating parameters, such as
type of coal fired, flue gas temperature, etc.  Therefore, these are the
two options that were considered for the present estimates.  These apply
to both cold-side and hot-side ESPs.

An increase in the existing ESP collection plate area can be achieved by
several different methods, such as 1) addition of collecting area in
series with the existing ESP, 2) addition of collecting area in parallel
with the existing ESP, and 3) increase in the height of the existing
collection plates.  Any of these three methods can be used by an
existing installation, depending on the present design and space
availability.

The overall collection plate area of an ESP is divided in several fields
(perpendicular to the gas flow) that can be operated independent of each
other.  In general, an ESP has three or more fields.  For the present
estimates, the following two alternatives for increasing ESP collection
plate area were considered:

Addition of collection plate area equivalent to one field

Addition of collection plate area equivalent to two fields

An agglomerator is a charging/mixing device installed at the inlet to
the existing ESP.  In the bipolar charging section, the flue gas flow is
split into a number of streams, each of which is either positively or
negatively charged.  In the mixing section, the small positively charged
particles combine electrostatically with the large negatively charged
particles to form large particles which are easier to collect in an ESP.
 Detail information on this technology can be found at the website of
the technology supplier.

The performance and cost impacts of the above ESP modification options
are discussed in the following sections.

Performance Improvements

The performance benefit of additional collection plate area was
estimated for two different coal types: bituminous and sub-bituminous.
It should be noted that an ESP installed for a bituminous-coal
application has a lower specific collection area (SCA) than that
installed for sub-bituminous coal.  [Here SCA is defined as the ESP’s
collecting plate area in square feet (ft2) per 1,000 actual cubic feet
per minute (acfm) of flue gas.]  This is because the ash particles from
sub-bituminous coals have a significantly higher ash resistivity that
makes it harder for ESPs to collect this type of ash.  This difference
was considered when evaluating the ESPs for the two coal types.  The
case for bituminous coal conservatively assumed an ESP with three
fields, with each field consisting of 50 SCA.  With the increased SCA
equivalent to one and two fields, the estimated increase in performance
is shown below:,

ESP Modification Type	SCA,

Ft2/1,000 acfm	Particulate Collection Efficiency, %	Reduction in
Particulate Mass Loading, %

Original ESP	150	97.7	NA

One field addition	200	98.7	43.4

Two fields addition	250	99.25	67.4

In the second case for sub-bituminous coal, the original ESP was assumed
to contain 300 SCA, with each field consisting of 100 SCA.  The
estimated increases in the ESP performance with the two alternatives for
additional plate area are shown below:2

ESP Modification Type	SCA,

ft3/1,000 acfm	Particulate Collection Efficiency, %	Reduction in
Particulate Mass Loading, %

Original ESP	300	99.0	NA

One field addition	400	99.51	51.0

Two fields addition	500	99.82	82.0

The above estimates were repeated, using different original SCAs for the
ESPs.  The reduction in particulate mass loading was little changed with
these different original SCAs.  The above comparisons showed performance
improvement to be higher for the bituminous coal than for the
sub-bituminous coal.  Therefore, for conservatism, the lower levels of
improvement for the bituminous coal were selected as average values to
be used for use in further EPA’s analyses and evaluations.

The reported data with the addition of an agglomerator at existing ESP
installations show reduction in particulate mass loading of
approximately between 30 and 60 percent.  At one plant, the reported
test data show an average emission reduction of approximately 38
percent.  Since, this reduction is at the low end of the reported range
of performance improvement for the agglomerator, it was selected for
further EPA’s analyses and evaluations.

Cost Estimates

Cost estimates were developed to obtain capital costs, fixed O&M costs,
and variable O&M costs.  Algorithms were developed to allow
determination of these costs for varying plant sizes (in MW).  These
costs were developed for the following ESP modification options:

Addition of collection plate area equivalent to one ESP field

Addition of collection plate area equivalent to two ESP fields

Addition of an agglomerator

Addition of collection plate area equivalent to two ESP fields and an
agglomerator

The following sources and assumptions were used for developing these
cost estimates:

Capital costs were based on values and factors provided in published
literature for the same type of ESP modifications as used for these
estimates.,,,

Annual fixed O&M costs were assumed to be 1.5 percent of the capital
costs.

Variable O&M costs were assumed to consist of increased power
consumption due to larger ESP area, agglomerator, and increased pressure
drop for the induced draft (ID) fans.  Increase in solid waste (ash
collected in the ESP) due to improved ESP performance was assumed to be
negligible.  The increased ID fan pressure drop occurs in the additional
ducting, new ESP sections, and agglomerator.  The pressure drop
increases were estimated to be 0.4 in. wt. for the addition of one ESP
field, 0.7 in. wt. for the addition of two ESP fields, 1.0 in. wt. for
the addition of the agglomerator, and 2.0 in. wt. for the addition of
both two ESP fields and agglomerator (taking into account more
complicated ducting).  The cost of electricity is assumed to be 40
mills/kWh.

It was assumed that the existing ID fans would be able to handle the
relatively small increase in pressure drop due to the addition of one
ESP field, two ESP fields, or the agglomerator.  However, addition of
both the two field ESP and the agglomerator would require a replacement
of the existing ID fan(s).  The cost of new ID fans were developed using
an EPA cost model, CUECost.

All costs estimates developed were based on the year 2005 dollars.

The overall results of the cost estimates are provided below:

Agglomerator Costs

Capital Cost in $/kW = 8.0 x (250/MW)0.3			(MW is unit size in MW)

Variable O&M cost in mills/kWh  = 	0.021			(same for all unit sizes)

Fixed O&M Cost increase is negligible

Costs for Adding an Equivalent Surface Area of One Field

Capital Cost in $/kW = 13.75 x (250/MW)0.3		(MW is unit size in MW)

Variable O&M cost in mills/kWh  = 	0.009			(same for all unit sizes)

Fixed O&M Cost in $/kW-yr	=  0.24 x  (250/MW)0.3	(MW is unit size in MW)

Costs for Adding an Equivalent Surface Area of Two Fields

Capital Cost in $/kW = 17.5 x (250/MW)0.3			(MW is unit size in MW)

Variable O&M cost in mills/kWh  = 	0.013			(same for all unit sizes)

Fixed O&M Cost in $/kW-yr	=  0.31 x  (250/MW)0.3	(MW is unit size in MW)

Costs for Adding an Equivalent Surface Area of Two Fields, Agglomerator,
and ID Fans

Capital Cost in $/kW = 37.2 x (250/MW)0.3			(MW is unit size in MW)

Variable O&M cost in mills/kWh  = 	0.042			(same for all unit sizes)

Fixed O&M Cost in $/kW-yr	=  0.53 x  (250/MW)0.3	(MW is unit size in MW)

   HYPERLINK "http://www.indigotechnologies.com.au/agg_overview.php"
http://www.indigotechnologies.com.au/agg_overview.php , accessed on
August 17, 2006

 “A Manual on the Use of Flue Gas Conditioning for ESP Performance
Enhancement,” EPRI CS-4145, August 1985

   HYPERLINK
"http://hamon-researchcottrell.com/Center_Fundamentals_03.asp"
http://hamon-researchcottrell.com/Center_Fundamentals_03.asp , accessed
on August 17, 2006.

   HYPERLINK "http://www.indigotechnologies.com.au/"
http://www.indigotechnologies.com.au/ , accessed on August 17, 2006.

 R. Crynack, et al., “Reducing Fine Particulate Emissions from US
Coals Using the Indigo Bipolar Agglomerator,”   HYPERLINK
"http://www.indigotechnologies.com.au/"
http://www.indigotechnologies.com.au/ , accessed on August 17, 2006.

 M. Sankey, “  HYPERLINK
"http://hamon-researchcottrell.com/HRCTechnicalLibrary/Precipitator%20Re
placements%20and%20Rebuilds%20%20Where%20does%20the%20money.pdf"
Precipitator Replacements & Rebuilds - Where does the money go? ,”
HYPERLINK "http://hamon-researchcottrell.com/Prod_Electrostatic.asp"
http://hamon-researchcottrell.com/Prod_Electrostatic.asp , accessed on
August 17, 2006.

 R. Mastropietro, “  HYPERLINK
"http://hamon-researchcottrell.com/HRCTechnicalLibrary/Electrostatic%20P
recipitator%20Rebuild%20Strategies%20for%20Improved%20P.pdf"
Electrostatic Precipitator Rebuild Strategies for Improved Particulate
Emissions ,”   HYPERLINK
"http://hamon-researchcottrell.com/Prod_Electrostatic.asp"
http://hamon-researchcottrell.com/Prod_Electrostatic.asp , accessed on
August 17, 2006.

 M. Sankey, et al., “  HYPERLINK
"http://hamon-researchcottrell.com/HRCTechnicalLibrary/Electrostatic%20P
recipitator%20Upgrade%20Strategies%20-%20Get%20the%20Most.pdf"
Electrostatic Precipitator Upgrade Strategies - Get the Most From What
you Have ’”   HYPERLINK
"http://hamon-researchcottrell.com/Prod_Electrostatic.asp"
http://hamon-researchcottrell.com/Prod_Electrostatic.asp , accessed on
August 17, 2006.

 R. Truce, et al., "Indigo Bi-Polar Agglomerators Reduce PM2.5 Emissions
and Opacity on Three Coal Fired Boilers in the U.S.," 22nd International
Pittsburgh Coal Conference, Sept. 12-15, 2005.

 S. Khan, et al., “Updating Performance and Cost of NOx Control
Technologies in the Integrated Planning Model,” Mega Symposium, August
31 to September 3, 2004, Washington, DC.

 CUECost’s software and documentation,   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/ttn/catc/products.html#cccinfo"
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/catc/products.html#cccinfo , accessed on August
21, 2006.

 PAGE

 PAGE   5


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 30 (Monday, February 14, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8270-8272]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03117]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2022-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-2203]

Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice lists communities where the addition or
modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths,
Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or
the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard
determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and
where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS)
reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for
each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical
data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have
been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through
issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), in accordance with Federal
Regulations. The currently effective community number is shown in the
table below and must be used for all new policies and renewals.

DATES: These flood hazard determinations will be finalized on the dates
listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS report in
effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.
    From the date of the second publication of notification of these
changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has 90 days in
which to request through the community that the Deputy Associate
Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation reconsider the changes. The
flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day
period.

ADDRESSES: The affected communities are listed in the table below.
Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for
inspection at both the online location and the respective community map
repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current
effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online
through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for
comparison.
    Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of
the community as listed in the table below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
[email protected]; or visit the FEMA Mapping and Insurance
eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The specific flood hazard determinations are
not described for each community in this notice. However, the online
location and local community map repository address where the flood
hazard determination information is available for inspection is
provided.
    Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must
be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed
in the table below.
    The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance
with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.,
and with 44 CFR part 65.
    The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management
measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show
evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified
for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
    These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain
management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are
required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must
change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their
floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact
stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by
other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard
determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
    The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood
hazard determination information for each community is available for
inspection at both the online location and the respective community map
repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current
effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online
through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for
comparison.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

Michael M. Grimm,
Assistant Administrator for Risk Management, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Chief executive                         Online location of
        State and county           Location and case       officer of         Community map        letter of map       Date of modification   Community
                                          No.               community          repository             revision                                   No.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama: Lee....................  City of Opelika (21- The Honorable Gary  Department of       https://msc.fema.gov/  Mar. 29, 2022........       010145
                                   04-1701P).           Fuller, Mayor,      Public Works, 700   portal/advanceSearch.
                                                        City of Opelika,    Fox Trail,
                                                        P.O. Box 390,       Opelika, AL 36803.
                                                        Opelika, AL 36803.
Florida:
    Lake........................  Unincorporated       Ms. Jennifer        Lake County Public  https://msc.fema.gov/  Apr. 8, 2022.........       120421
                                   areas of Lake        Barker, Interim     Works Department,   portal/advanceSearch.
                                   County (20-04-       Manager, Lake       323 North
                                   5238P).              County, 315 West    Sinclair Avenue,
                                                        Main Street,        Tavares, FL 32778.
                                                        Tavares, FL 32778.

    Monroe......................  Village of           The Honorable       Building            https://msc.fema.gov/  Apr. 11, 2022........       120424
                                   Islamorada (21-04-   Buddy Pinder,       Department, 86800   portal/advanceSearch.
                                   5529P).              Mayor, Village of   Overseas Highway,
                                                        Islamorada, 86800   Islamorada, FL
                                                        Overseas Highway,   33036.
                                                        Islamorada, FL
                                                        33036.
    Orange......................  Unincorporated       The Honorable       Orange County       https://msc.fema.gov/  Apr. 8, 2022.........       120179
                                   areas of Orange      Jerry L. Demings,   Stormwater          portal/advanceSearch.
                                   County (20-04-       Mayor, Orange       Division, 4200
                                   5238P).              County, 201 South   South John Young
                                                        Rosalind Avenue,    Parkway, Orlando,
                                                        5th Floor,          FL 32839.
                                                        Orlando, FL 32801.
    Pasco.......................  Unincorporated       The Honorable       Pasco County        https://msc.fema.gov/  Apr. 11, 2022........       120230
                                   areas of Pasco       Kathryn Starkey,    Department of       portal/advanceSearch.
                                   County (20-04-       Chair, Pasco        Public Works,
                                   2814P).              County Board of     4454 Grand
                                                        Commissioners,      Boulevard, New
                                                        37918 Meridian      Port Richey, FL
                                                        Avenue, Dade        34652.
                                                        City, FL 33525.
Maryland:
    Cecil.......................  Town of Charlestown  The Honorable Karl  Town Hall, 241      https://msc.fema.gov/  Mar. 31, 2022........       240021
                                   (21-03-1510P).       Fockler,            Market Street,      portal/advanceSearch.
                                                        President, Town     Charlestown, MD
                                                        of Charlestown      21914.
                                                        Board of
                                                        Commissioners,
                                                        P.O. Box 154,
                                                        Charlestown, MD
                                                        21914.
    Cecil.......................  Unincorporated       The Honorable       Cecil County        https://msc.fema.gov/  Mar. 31, 2022........       240019
                                   areas of Cecil       Danielle            Department of       portal/advanceSearch.
                                   County (21-03-       Hornberger, Cecil   Land Use and
                                   1510P).              County Executive,   Development
                                                        200 Chesapeake      Services, 200
                                                        Boulevard, Suite    Chesapeake
                                                        2100, Elkton, MD    Boulevard, Suite
                                                        21921.              1200, Elkton, MD
                                                                            21921.
    Dorchester..................  Unincorporated       The Honorable Jay   Dorchester County   https://msc.fema.gov/  Apr. 11, 2022........       240026
                                   areas of             L. Newcomb,         Planning and        portal/advanceSearch.
                                   Dorchester County    President,          Zoning
                                   (21-03-1511P).       Dorchester County   Department, 501
                                                        Council, P.O. Box   Court Lane, Room
                                                        107, Cambridge,     111, Cambridge,
                                                        MD 21613.           MD 21613.
Massachusetts: Barnstable.......  Town of Chatham (21- Ms. Jill            Community           https://msc.fema.gov/  Mar. 11, 2022........       250004
                                   01-1300P).           Goldsmith,          Development         portal/advanceSearch.
                                                        Manager, Town of    Department, 261
                                                        Chatham, 549 Main   George Ryder
                                                        Street, Chatham,    Road, Chatham, MA
                                                        MA 02633.           02633.
Mississippi:
    DeSoto......................  Unincorporated       Ms. Vanessa         DeSoto County       https://msc.fema.gov/  Feb. 25, 2022........       280050
                                   areas of DeSoto      Lynchard, DeSoto    Planning            portal/advanceSearch.
                                   County (20-04-       County              Department, 365
                                   2263P).              Administrator,      Losher Street,
                                                        365 Losher          Suite 200,
                                                        Street, Suite       Hernando, MS
                                                        300, Hernando, MS   38632.
                                                        38632.
    Harrison....................  City of Pass         The Honorable       City Hall, 200      https://msc.fema.gov/  Apr. 4, 2022.........       285261
                                   Christian (21-04-    Jimmy Rafferty,     West Scenic         portal/advanceSearch.
                                   3028P).              Mayor, City of      Drive, Pass
                                                        Pass Christian,     Christian, MS
                                                        200 West Scenic     39571.
                                                        Drive, Pass
                                                        Christian, MS
                                                        39571.
North Carolina: Surry...........  Unincorporated       The Honorable Mark  Surry County        https://msc.fema.gov/  Mar. 14, 2022........       370364
                                   areas of Surry       Marion, Chairman,   Central             portal/advanceSearch.
                                   County (21-04-       Surry County        Permitting
                                   0390P).              Board of            Center, 122 Hamby
                                                        Commissioners,      Road, Dobson, NC
                                                        P.O. Box 1467,      27017.
                                                        Dobson, NC 27017.
South Carolina:
    Jasper......................  City of Hardeeville  Mr. Michael J.      Planning and        https://msc.fema.gov/  Mar. 10, 2022........       450113
                                   (21-04-2468P).       Czymbor, Manager,   Development         portal/advanceSearch.
                                                        City of             Department, 205
                                                        Hardeeville, 205    Main Street,
                                                        Main Street,        Hardeeville, SC
                                                        Hardeeville, SC     29927.
                                                        29927.
    Jasper......................  Unincorporated       The Honorable       Jasper County       https://msc.fema.gov/  Mar. 10, 2022........       450112
                                   areas of Jasper      Barbara Clark,      Planning and        portal/advanceSearch.
                                   County (21-04-       Chair, Jasper       Building
                                   2468P).              County Council,     Department, 358
                                                        358 3rd Avenue,     3rd Avenue,
                                                        Ridgeland, SC       Ridgeland, SC
                                                        29936.              29936.
South Dakota: Pennington........  City of Rapid City   The Honorable       Public Works        https://msc.fema.gov/  Apr. 4, 2022.........       465420
                                   (21-08-0301P).       Steve Allender,     Department-         portal/advanceSearch.
                                                        Mayor, City of      Engineering
                                                        Rapid City, 300     Services
                                                        6th Street, Rapid   Division, 300 6th
                                                        City, SD 57701.     Street, Rapid
                                                                            City, SD 57701.
Texas:
    Bexar.......................  City of San Antonio  The Honorable Ron   Stormwater          https://msc.fema.gov/  Feb. 14, 2022........       480045
                                   (21-06-1633P).       Nirenberg, Mayor,   Engineering         portal/advanceSearch.
                                                        City of San         Division, 114
                                                        Antonio, P.O. Box   West Commerce
                                                        839966, San         Street, 6th
                                                        Antonio, TX 78283.  Floor, San
                                                                            Antonio, TX 78205.

    Bexar.......................  Unincorporated       The Honorable       Bexar County        https://msc.fema.gov/  Feb. 14, 2022........       480035
                                   areas of Bexar       Nelson W. Wolff,    Public Works        portal/advanceSearch.
                                   County (21-06-       Bexar County        Department, 1948
                                   1633P).              Judge, 101 West     Probandt Street,
                                                        Nueva Street,       San Antonio, TX
                                                        10th Floor, San     78214.
                                                        Antonio, TX 78205.
    Dallas......................  City of Carrollton   Ms. Erin Rinehart,  Engineering         https://msc.fema.gov/  Mar. 28, 2022........       480167
                                   (21-06-1452P).       Manager, City of    Department, 1945    portal/advanceSearch.
                                                        Carrollton, 1945    East Jackson
                                                        East Jackson        Road, Carrollton,
                                                        Road, Carrollton,   TX 75006.
                                                        TX 75006.
    Dallas......................  City of Coppell (21- The Honorable Wes   Department of       https://msc.fema.gov/  Mar. 28, 2022........       480170
                                   06-1452P).           Mays, Mayor, City   Public Works, 265   portal/advanceSearch.
                                                        of Coppell, P.O.    East Parkway
                                                        Box 9478,           Boulevard,
                                                        Coppell, TX 75019.  Coppell, TX 75019.
    Harris......................  Unincorporated       The Honorable Lina  Harris County       https://msc.fema.gov/  Mar. 7, 2022.........       480287
                                   areas of Harris      Hidalgo, Harris     Permit Office,      portal/advanceSearch.
                                   County (21-06-       County Judge,       10555 Northwest
                                   0376P).              1001 Preston        Freeway, Suite
                                                        Street, Suite       120, Houston, TX
                                                        911, Houston, TX    77092.
                                                        77002.
    Lubbock.....................  City of Lubbock (21- The Honorable Dan   Engineering         https://msc.fema.gov/  Mar. 28, 2022........       480452
                                   06-0664P).           Pope, Mayor, City   Department, 1314    portal/advanceSearch.
                                                        of Lubbock, P.O.    Avenue K, 7th
                                                        Box 2000,           Floor, Lubbock,
                                                        Lubbock, TX 79457.  TX 79401.
    Tarrant.....................  City of Benbrook     The Honorable       City Hall, 911      https://msc.fema.gov/  Apr. 4, 2022.........       480586
                                   (21-06-0911P).       Jerry Dittrich,     Winscott Road,      portal/advanceSearch.
                                                        Mayor, City of      Benbrook, TX
                                                        Benbrook, 911       76126.
                                                        Winscott Road,
                                                        Benbrook, TX
                                                        76126.
    Tarrant.....................  City of Fort Worth   The Honorable       Transportation and  https://msc.fema.gov/  Apr. 4, 2022.........       480596
                                   (21-06-0911P).       Mattie Parker,      Public Works        portal/advanceSearch.
                                                        Mayor, City of      Department,
                                                        Fort Worth, 200     Engineering
                                                        Texas Street,       Vault, 200 Texas
                                                        Fort Worth, TX      Street, Fort
                                                        76102.              Worth, TX 76102.
Utah:
    Salt Lake...................  City of Riverton     The Honorable       Public Works        https://msc.fema.gov/  Mar. 28, 2022........       490104
                                   (21-08-0943P).       Trent Staggs,       Department, 12526   portal/advanceSearch.
                                                        Mayor, City of      South 4150 West,
                                                        Riverton, 12830     Riverton, UT
                                                        South Redwood       84096.
                                                        Road, Riverton,
                                                        UT 84065.
    Salt Lake...................  City of South        The Honorable Dawn  Development         https://msc.fema.gov/  Mar. 28, 2022........       490107
                                   Jordan (21-08-       R. Ramsey, Mayor,   Services            portal/advanceSearch.
                                   0943P).              City of South       Department, 1600
                                                        Jordan, 1600 West   West Towne Center
                                                        Towne Center        Drive, South
                                                        Drive, South        Jordan, UT 84095.
                                                        Jordan, UT 84095.
West Virginia:
    Grant.......................  City of Petersburg   The Honorable Gary  City Hall, 21       https://msc.fema.gov/  Mar. 23, 2022........       540039
                                   (21-03-0421P).       A. Michael,         Mount View          portal/advanceSearch.
                                                        Mayor, City of      Street,
                                                        Petersburg, 21      Petersburg, WV
                                                        Mount View          26847.
                                                        Street,
                                                        Petersburg, WV
                                                        26847.
    Grant.......................  Unincorporated       The Honorable       Grant County        https://msc.fema.gov/  Mar. 23, 2022........       540038
                                   areas of Grant       Scotty Miley,       Courthouse, 5       portal/advanceSearch.
                                   County (21-03-       President, Grant    Highland Avenue,
                                   0421P).              County              Petersburg, WV
                                                        Commission, 5       26847.
                                                        Highland Avenue,
                                                        Petersburg, WV
                                                        26847.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2022-03117 Filed 2-11-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


From: Ford, Luke<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Friday, December 16, 2022 2:17 PM
To: IDEM Test Protocol<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: Cokenergy 089-43724-00383 Test Notification

Please fine the test notification and test protocol for stack testing planned at Cokenergy starting the week of January 23, 2023.  Testing is currently planned to start on Tuesday January 24, 2023.

Let me know if there are any questions.

Regards,

Luke Ford
EH&S Manager
Primary Energy
3210 Watling St.
MC 2-991
East Chicago, IN 46312
Desk  -<PHONE_NUMBER>
Cell  -<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

<<CE_114 Request_Protocol_Notification_Cover_12162022.pdf>>
<<Cokenergy 114 Request Test Protocol_121622.pdf>>


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 249 (Wednesday, December 28, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 95480-95484]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31268]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 147

[EPA-HQ-OW-2015-0372; FRL 9957-48-OW]

State of Kentucky Underground Injection Control (UIC) Class II
Program; Primacy Approval

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking this
action to approve the Commonwealth of Kentucky's Underground Injection
Control (UIC) Class II Program for primacy. EPA determined that the
state's program represents an effective program to prevent underground
injection activities that endanger underground sources of drinking
water (USDWs), as required under section 1425 of the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA). EPA's approval allows the state to implement and
enforce state regulations for UIC Class II injection wells located
within the state. The Commonwealth's authority excludes the regulation
of injection well Classes I, III, IV, V and VI and all wells on Indian
lands, as required by rule under the SDWA.

DATES: This rule is effective on January 27, 2017. For judicial
purposes, this final rule is promulgated as of January 27, 2017. The
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule
is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of January 27,
2017.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2015-0372, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
http://www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed on
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. 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, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Holly S. Green, Drinking Water
Protection Division, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (4606M),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(202) 564-3754; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Nancy H. Marsh,
Safe Drinking Water Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303; telephone
number<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Why is EPA issuing this final rule?

    On October 28, 2016, EPA published Kentucky's Class II primacy
approval via a direct final rule with a parallel proposal. The EPA
stated in the direct final rule that if we received adverse comment,
the direct final rule would not take effect and we would publish a
timely withdrawal in the Federal Register. During the 30-day comment
period, which ended on November 28, 2016, the EPA received three
adverse comment letters questioning Kentucky's capacity to run the
Class II program, along with some technical concerns regarding the
state's program. As a result, EPA withdrew the direct final rule in the
Federal Register in a separate notice on December 28, 2016, Insert
Federal Register Citation. As stated in the direct final rule and the
parallel proposed rule, EPA indicated that it will address the public
comments in any subsequent final action, which will be based on the
parallel proposed rule, and will not institute a second comment period
on this action.
    EPA has responded in detail to the public comments received and has
placed the response to comment document in the docket for this action.
A summary of the comments received and EPA response can be found in
section V of this action.

II. Does this action apply to me?

                           Regulated Entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         North American
                                      Examples of           industry
           Category              potentially regulated   classification
                                       entities              system
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry......................  Private owners and      211111 & 213111.
                                 operators of Class II
                                 injection wells
                                 located within the
                                 state (Enhance
                                 Recovery, Produce
                                 Fluid Disposal and
                                 Hydrocarbon Storage).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is intended to be a guide for readers regarding entities
likely to be regulated by this action. This table lists the types of
entities that EPA is now aware could potentially be regulated by this
action. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the persons listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

III. Legal Authorities

    The state applied to EPA for primacy (primary implementation and
enforcement authority) under section 1425 of the SDWA, 42 U.S.C.
Sections

300h-4, for all Class II injection wells within the state except those
on Indian lands. EPA approves the Commonwealth of Kentucky's UIC
Program primacy application for these Class II injection wells by rule,
as required under the SDWA, finding that it represents an ``effective''
program to prevent underground injection activities that endanger
USDWs. Accordingly, EPA codifies the state's program in the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR part 147, under the authority of
the SDWA, sections 1425, 42 U.S.C. 300h-4.
    EPA's approval is based on a legal and technical review of the
state's primacy application as directed at 40 CFR part 145 and the
requirements for state permitting and compliance evaluation programs,
enforcement authority and information sharing to determine that the
state's program is effective. EPA oversees the state's administration
of the UIC program; part of the agency's oversight responsibility
requires quarterly reports of non-compliance and annual UIC performance
reports pursuant to 40 CFR 144.8. The Memorandum of Agreement between
EPA and the Commonwealth of Kentucky, signed by the Regional
Administrator on October 20, 2015, provides EPA with the opportunity to
review and comment on all permits. Under section 1422 of the SDWA, EPA
continues to administer the UIC program for Class I, III, IV, V and VI
injection wells in the state and all wells on Indian lands (if any such
lands exist in the state in the future).

IV. Kentucky's Application

A. Public Participation Activities Conducted by the Commonwealth of
Kentucky

    As part of the primacy application requirements, the state held a
public hearing on the state's intent to apply for primacy. The hearing
was held on September 23, 2014, in the city of Frankfort, Kentucky.
Both oral and written comments received for the hearing were generally
supportive of the state pursuing primacy for the UIC Class II injection
well program.

B. Public Participation Activities Conducted by EPA

    On November 10, 2015, EPA published a notice of the state's
application in the Federal Register (80 FR 69629). This notice provided
a comment period and that a public hearing would be held if requested.
EPA received one comment during the comment period, and no requests for
a public hearing. An anonymous commenter suggested the state agency
give permission to construct these Class II wells so that energy
dependency and job creation remain domestic and that extraction of oil
and gas resources be done in an environmentally sound manner. EPA
determined that the issue was outside the scope of the UIC program and
not relevant as to whether the state's regulations are effective to
manage the UIC Class II injection well program in accordance with
section 1425 of the Safe Drinking Water Act.

C. Incorporation by Reference

    This final rule amends 40 CFR part 147 and incorporates by
reference EPA-approved state statutes and regulations. The provisions
of the Commonwealth of Kentucky Code that contain standards,
requirements and procedures applicable to owners or operators of UIC
Class II wells are incorporated by reference into 40 CFR part 147. Any
provisions incorporated by reference, as well as all permit conditions
or permit denials issued pursuant to such provisions, will be
enforceable by EPA pursuant to the SDWA, section 1423 and 40 CFR
147.1(e).
    In order to better serve the public, the agency is reformatting the
codification of the EPA-approved state statutes and regulations.
Instead of codifying the Commonwealth of Kentucky's Statutes and
Regulations as separate paragraphs in the text of 40 CFR part 147, EPA
is now codifying a binder that contains the ``EPA-Approved Commonwealth
of Kentucky Safe Drinking Water Act Sec.  1425 Underground Injection
Control (UIC) Program Statutes and Regulations for Class II wells.''
This binder will be incorporated by reference into 40 CFR part 147 and
available at www.regulations.gov in the docket for this rule. The
agency is also codifying a table listing the ``EPA-Approved
Commonwealth of Kentucky Safe Drinking Water Act Sec.  1425 Underground
Injection Control (UIC) Program Statutes and Regulations for Class II
wells'' in 40 CFR part 147.

V. Summary of Response to Comments

A. Resources

    Commenters believe that Kentucky does not have adequate resources
to implement the Class II UIC Program. Kentucky is planning on filling
two new positions once primacy is granted. Kentucky has 16 inspectors
as compared to EPA's 2 full-time inspectors. EPA evaluated proposed
resources and determined that they are adequate for an effective
program to prevent endangerment to USDWs.

B. Administrative Procedures for Processing Permits

    One commenter does not believe that Kentucky has the same
regulatory requirements as the EPA for providing public participation
in the permitting process. The commenter has concerns that the public
was not provided access to the draft permit or statement of basis and
that Kentucky was not required to provide a written response to
comments received during the public comment period. For primacy
approval under Section 1425, the state's regulations do not have to be
as stringent as the federal regulations; therefore, Kentucky's public
notice process does not need to mirror EPA's public notice process.
Kentucky's public notice, which is included in the Program Description,
provides the opportunity to request a copy of the draft permit and
statement of basis. Commenters and those that attend a public hearing
are notified if their comments do not result in a change to the final
permit. An additional public notice is issued if comments do result in
a change to the final permit. The public notice also provides an
opportunity to petition the state for review of the permit and any
conditions therein. Accordingly, the EPA has determined that Kentucky's
administrative permitting procedures are effective for protecting
USDWs.

C. Area of Review

    One commenter is concerned that Kentucky does not have criteria for
the applicant to use in determining whether the minimum \1/4\ mile
fixed radius area of review around the project or an evaluation of a
zone of endangering influence (ZEI) is required to ensure that USDWs
are not endangered. The commenter is also concerned that it is the
applicant, not the agency, that is required to make the determination
on whether a ZEI is appropriate. With respect to the commenter's first
concern, the state's regulations are not inconsistent with the federal
regulations, which similarly lack criteria for determining whether to
use fixed radius or ZEI for the area of review, providing only that the
permit writer may solicit input from well owners/operators as to which
method is most appropriate. 40 CFR 146.6. With respect to the
commenter's concern about the applicant, not the agency, selecting the
method, this is not entirely consistent with EPA's Class II
regulations, which require this determination to be made by the agency.
However, a state applying for primacy under SDWA section 1425 is
required to demonstrate only that its regulations are ``effective,''

not that they are equivalent to the federal regulations. EPA guidance
on state submissions under SDWA section 1425 provides that an
``effective'' state program would be expected to incorporate an area of
review of not less than \1/4\ mile, or a ZEI in lieu of this fixed
radius. Kentucky has included both the fixed radius and ZEI methods as
options, which goes beyond the recommendations provided in the
guidance, and is consistent with the two options provided in EPA's
regulations. Moreover, under the state's proposed program, the
applicant has the burden of proof to provide information to the state
to ensure that the injection operation does not endanger a USDW.
Kentucky has stated in its response to comments that it has statutory
authority to require owners/operators of Class II wells to ensure that
their operations do not endanger any USDWs, which could include the
authority to require the applicant to calculate the area of review
based on the ZEI method, if necessary to prevent endangerment to USDWs.

D. Hydraulic Fracturing

    Commenters are concerned with how the state would regulate
hydraulic fracturing activities. Under the SDWA, only wells that use
diesel fuels for hydraulic fracturing are subject to regulation under
the federal underground injection control program. Therefore, this
Class II UIC primacy approval would give the state primacy only over
this small subset of hydraulic fracturing wells. To the extent that
there are any such wells, they would be subject to Kentucky's Class II
program regulations, which EPA has found to be effective to prevent
endangerment to USDWs. In addition, Kentucky has indicated in its
application that it will consider, as appropriate, EPA's permitting
guidance on diesel fuels hydraulic fracturing in regulating these
wells. The state has regulatory authority over all other types of
hydraulic fracturing.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is exempt from review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) because OMB has determined that the approval of state UIC
primacy for Class II rules are not significant regulatory actions.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden.
EPA determined that there is no need for an Information Collection
Request under the Paperwork Reduction Act because this final rule does
not impose any new federal reporting or recordkeeping requirements.
Reporting or recordkeeping requirements are based on the Commonwealth
of Kentucky's UIC Regulations, and the state is not subject to the
Paperwork Reduction Act. However, OMB has previously approved the
information collection requirements contained in the existing UIC
regulations at 40 CFR parts 144-148 for SDWA section 1422 states and
also for section 1425 states under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and assigned OMB control number
2040-0042. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are
listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In
making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant
adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no
net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small
entities subject to the rule. This action does not impose any new
requirements on any regulated entities. It simply codifies the
Commonwealth of Kentucky's UIC Program regulations, which meets the
effectiveness standard under SDWA section 1425 for regulating a Class
II well program. I have therefore concluded that this action will have
no net regulatory burden for any directly regulated small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1521-1538. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any
state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132--Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175--Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175 as explained in section V.C. Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health & Safety Risks

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children,
per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in section 2-202 of
the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order
13045 because it approves a state action as explained in section V.C.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 10(NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by
this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or
indigenous populations because the rule does not change the level of
protection provided to human health or the environment.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 147

    Environmental protection, Appeals, Incorporation by reference,
Penalties, Protection for USDWs, Requirements for plugging and
abandonment, Underground injection control.

    Dated: December 20, 2016.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 147--STATE, TRIBAL, AND EPA-ADMINISTERED UNDERGROUND INJECTION
CONTROL PROGRAMS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 147 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300h-4.

Subpart S--Kentucky

0
2. Section 147.900 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  147.900  State-administered program--Class II wells.

    The UIC program for Class II injection wells in the Commonwealth of
Kentucky, except for those on Indian lands, is the program administered
by the Kentucky Department of Natural Resources, Division of Oil and
Gas approved by the EPA pursuant to section 1425 of the SDWA.
Notification of this approval was published in the Federal Register on
December 28, 2016; the effective date of this program is January 27,
2017. Table 1 to paragraph (a) of this section is the table of contents
of the Kentucky state statutes and regulations incorporated as follows
by reference. This program consists of the following elements, as
submitted to the EPA in the state's program application.
    (a) Incorporation by reference. The requirements set forth in the
Kentucky State statutes and regulations cited in the binder entitled
``EPA-Approved Commonwealth of Kentucky Safe Drinking Water Act Sec.
1425 Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program Statutes and
Regulations for Class II wells,'' dated August 2016 is hereby
incorporated by reference and made a part of the applicable UIC program
under the SDWA for the Commonwealth of Kentucky. This incorporation by
reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of the
Kentucky regulations may be obtained or inspected at the Kentucky
Department of Natural Resources, Division of Oil and Gas, 3th Floor,
300 Sower Blvd., Frankfort, Kentucky 40601,<PHONE_NUMBER>; at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960,<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on
availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to:
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

 Table 1 to Paragraph (a)--EPA-Approved Kentucky SDWA Sec.   1425 Underground Injection Control Program Statutes
                                       and Regulations for Class II Wells
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           State citation                   Title/subject          State effective date    EPA approval date \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kentucky Revised Statutes Chapter    Kentucky Administrative      June 15, 1994.........  [Insert Federal
 13B.                                 Procedures Act KRS 13B.005                           Register citation].
                                      to 13B.170.
Kentucky Revised Statutes 353.180..  Requirements for plugging    June 24, 2015.........  [Insert Federal
                                      abandoned well--Bids--                               Register citation].
                                      Remedy for possessor of
                                      adjacent land or for
                                      department.
Kentucky Revised Statutes 353.510..  Definition of KRS 353.500    July 15, 2010.........  [Insert Federal
                                      to 353.720.                                          Register citation].
Kentucky Revised Statutes 353.520..  Territorial application of   June 24, 2003.........  [Insert Federal
                                      KRS 353.500 to 353.720--                             Register citation].
                                      Waste of oil and gas
                                      prohibited.
Kentucky Revised Statutes 353.550..  Specific authority over oil  July 15, 1996.........  [Insert Federal
                                      and gas operators.                                   Register citation].
Kentucky Revised Statutes 353.570..  Permit Required--May         July 15, 1998.........  [Insert Federal
                                      authorize operation prior                            Register citation].
                                      to issuance of permit.
Kentucky Revised Statutes 353.590..  Application for permit--     July 15, 2010.........  [Insert Federal
                                      Fees-Plat-Bond to insure                             Register citation].
                                      plugging--Schedule--Blanke
                                      t bonds-Corporate
                                      guarantee--Use of
                                      forfeited funds--Oil and
                                      gas well. plugging fund--
                                      Wells not included in
                                      ``water supply well.''.
Kentucky Revised Statutes 353.591..  Purpose and application of   July 15, 1986.........  [Insert FR citation].
                                      KRS 353.592 and 353.593.
Kentucky Revised Statutes 353.592..  Powers of the department...  June 24, 2015.........  [Insert FR citation].
Kentucky Revised Statutes 353.593..  Appeals....................  July 15, 1996.........  [Insert FR citation].
Kentucky Revised Statutes 353.992..  Penalties..................  July 15, 1986.........  [Insert FR citation].
805 Kentucky Administrative          Providing Protection for     August 9, 2007........  [Insert FR citation].
 Regulations 1:020.                   USDWs.
805 Kentucky Administrative          Well location and as-        October 23, 2009......  [Insert FR citation].
 Regulations 1:030.                   drilled location plat,
                                      preparation, form and
                                      contents.
805 Kentucky Administrative          Plugging wells; non-coal-    June 11, 1975.........  [Insert FR citation].
 Regulations 1:060.                   bearing strata.
805 Administrative Regulations       Plugging wells; coal         October 23, 1975......  [Insert FR citation].
 1:070.                               bearing strata.
805 Kentucky Administrative          Underground Injection        April 4, 2008.........  [Insert FR citation].
 Regulations 1:110.                   Control.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the
  Federal Register document cited in this column for the particular provision.

    (b) Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). The MOA between EPA Region 4 and
the Commonwealth of Kentucky Department of Natural Resources signed by
EPA Regional Administrator on October 20, 2015.

    (c) Statements of Legal Authority. ``Underground Injection Control
Program, Attorney General's Statement,'' signed by General Counsel of
Kentucky Energy and Environmental Cabinet on June 7, 2010.
    (d) Program Description. The Program Description submitted as part
of Kentucky's application, and any other materials submitted as part of
this application or as a supplement thereto.

0
3. Section 147.901 is amended by revising the section heading and the
first sentence of paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec.  147.901  EPA-administered program--Class I, III, IV, V, and VI
wells and Indian lands.

    (a) Contents. The UIC program for Class I, III, IV, V and VI wells
and all wells on Indian lands in the Commonwealth of Kentucky is
administered by the EPA. * * *
* * * * *

0
4. Section 147.902 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  147.902  Aquifer exemptions.

    (a) This section identifies any aquifers or their portions exempted
in accordance with Sec. Sec.  144.7(b) and 146.4 of this chapter. These
aquifers are not being proposed for exemption under the Commonwealth of
Kentucky's primacy approval. Rather, the exempted aquifers listed below
were previously approved while EPA had primary enforcement authority
for the Class II UIC program in the Commonwealth of Kentucky and are
included here for reference. Additional information pertinent to these
exempted aquifers or their portions resides in EPA Region 4.
    (1) The following eight aquifers (underground sources of drinking
water) in the Commonwealth of Kentucky have been exempted in accordance
with the provisions of Sec. Sec.  144.7(b) and 146.4 of this chapter
for Class II injection activities only: A portion of the Tar Springs
sandstone formation that has a quarter mile radius areal extent (125.6
acres) that is located at latitude 37.7261 and longitude -86.6914. The
formation has a true vertical depth from surface of 280 feet.
    (2) A portion of the Tar Springs sandstone formation that has a
quarter mile radius areal extent (125.6 acres) that is located at
latitude 37.7294 and longitude -867212. The formation has a true
vertical depth from surface of 249 feet.
    (3) A portion of the Tar Springs sandstone formation that has a
quarter mile radius areal extent (125.6 acres) that is located at
latitude 37.7055 and longitude -86.7177. The formation has a true
vertical depth from surface of 210 feet.
    (4) A portion of the Pennsylvanian Age sandstone formation that has
a quarter mile radius areal extent (125.6 acres) that is located at
latitude 37.5402 and longitude -87.2551. The formation has a true
vertical depth from surface of 1,050 feet.
    (5) A portion of the Tar Springs sandstone formation that has a
quarter mile radius areal extent (125.6 acres) that is located at
latitude 37.7301 and longitude -87.6922. The formation has a true
vertical depth from surface of 240 feet.
    (6) A portion of the Caseyville sandstone formation that has a
quarter mile radius areal extent (125.6 acres) that is located at
latitude 37.5776 and longitude -87.1321. The formation had a true
vertical depth from surface of 350 feet.
    (7) A portion of the Caseyville sandstone formation that has a
quarter mile radius areal extent (125.6 acres) that is located at
latitude 37.5778 and longitude -87.1379. The formation has a true
vertical depth from surface of 1,080 feet.
    (8) A portion of the Caseyville sandstone formation that has a
quarter mile radius areal extent (125.6 acres) that is located at
latitude 37.5652 and longitude -87.1222. The formation has a true
vertical depth from surface of 1,060 feet.
    (b) [Reserved]

0
5. Section 147.903 is amended by revising the section heading to read
as follows:.

Sec.  147.903  Existing Class I and III wells authorized by rule.

* * * * *

Sec.  147.904  [Removed and Reserved]

0
6. Section 147.904 is removed and reserved.
[FR Doc. 2016-31268 Filed 12-27-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: July 7, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 128)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 32084-32088]
[DOCID:fr07jy09-10]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0146; FRL-8926-1]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct Final Notice of Deletion of the Wilson Farm Superfund
Site (Site) from the National Priorities List.

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

SUMMARY: EPA, Region 2, is publishing a direct final notice of deletion
of the Site, located in Plumsted Township, Ocean County, New Jersey,
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 Deletion is being
published by EPA with the concurrence of the State of New Jersey,
through the Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). EPA and
NJDEP have determined that all appropriate remedial actions under
CERCLA, including operation and maintenance, have been implemented.

DATES: This direct final deletion will be effective September 8, 2009
unless EPA receives significant adverse comments by August 6, 2009. If
significant adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely
withdrawal of this direct final deletion in the Federal Register,
informing the public that the deletion will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-2009-0146, by one of the following methods:
    Web Site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
    E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Fax: To the attention of Michael Zeolla at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Mail: To the attention of Michael Zeolla, Remedial Project Manager,
Emergency and Remedial Response Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 2, 290 Broadway, 19th Floor, New York, New York 10007-
1866.
    Hand Delivery: Superfund Records Center, 290 Broadway, 18th Floor,
New York, NY 10007-1866 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>). Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (Monday to
Friday from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.). Special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
2009-0146; EPA' policy is that all comments received will be included
in the 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 CBI
or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or via e-
mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous
access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comments. If you
send comments to EPA via e-mail, your e-mail address will be included
as part of the comment that is placed in the Docket and made available
on the Web Site. If you submit electronic comments, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM that 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 comments.
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 can be available either
electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:

    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, Superfund Records
Center, 290 Broadway, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866, Phone: (212)
637-4308, Hours: Monday to Friday from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., and
    New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 401 East State
Street, Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0410, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Zeolla, Remedial Project
Manager, Emergency and Remedial Response Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 2, 290 Broadway, 19th Floor, New York, New
York 10007-1866, telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

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

I. Introduction

    EPA Region 2 is publishing this direct final notice of deletion of
the Wilson Farm Superfund Site (Site) from the National Priorities List
(NPL). The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300, which is the
Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which
EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of
1980, as amended. EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that
appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the
environment. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions
financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). As described in
300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, a site deleted from the NPL remains eligible
for remedial actions if conditions at the site warrant such action.
    Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and
routine, this action will be effective September 8, 2009 unless EPA
receives significant adverse comments by August 6, 2009. Along with
this direct final Notice of Deletion, EPA is co-publishing the Notice
of Intent to Delete in the ``Proposed Rule'' section of today's Federal
Register. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public
comment period on this deletion action, EPA will publish a timely
withdrawal of this direct final notice of deletion before the effective
date of the deletion and the deletion will not take effect. EPA will,
as appropriate, prepare a response to comments and continue with the
deletion process on the basis of the Notice of Intent to Delete and the
comments already received. There will be no additional opportunity to
comment.
    Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting
sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using
for this action. Section IV discusses the Site and demonstrates how it
meets the deletion criteria. Section V discusses EPA's action to delete
the Site from the NPL unless significant adverse comments are received
during the public comment period.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from
the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted
from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a
determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in
consultation with the state, whether any of the following criteria have
been met:
    i. Responsible parties or other parties have implemented all
appropriate response actions required;
    ii. All appropriate Fund-financed responses under CERCLA have been
implemented, and no further 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,
implementing remedial measures is not appropriate.

III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to deletion of this Site.
    (1) EPA consulted with the State of New Jersey prior to developing
this direct final Notice of Deletion and the Notice of Intent to Delete
co-published today in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of the Federal
Register.
    (2) EPA has provided the State of New Jersey thirty (30) working
days for review of this notice and the parallel Notice of Intent to
Delete prior to their publication today, and the State of New Jersey,
through the NJDEP, has concurred on the deletion of the Site from the
NPL.
    (3) Concurrently with the publication of this direct final Notice
of Deletion, a notice of the availability of the parallel Notice of
Intent to Delete is being published in a major local newspaper, the
Ocean County Observer. The newspaper notice announces the 30-day public
comment period concerning the Notice of Intent to Delete the Site from
the NPL.
    (4) EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed deletion
in the deletion docket and made these items available for public
inspection and copying at the Site information repositories identified
above.
    (5) If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public
comment period on this deletion action, EPA will publish a timely
notice of withdrawal of this direct final Notice of Deletion before its
effective date and will prepare a response to comments. If appropriate,
EPA may then continue with the deletion process based on the Notice of
Intent to Delete and the comments already received.
    Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or
revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from
the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement
actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for
informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section
300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the
NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should
future conditions warrant such actions.

IV. Basis for Site Deletion

    The following summary provides the Agency's rationale for the
proposal to delete this Site from the NPL.

Site Background and History

    The Site consists of 10 acres within a 218-acre property and is
located one-quarter mile southwest from the intersection of State
Highway Route 528 (New Egypt-Lakewood Road) and Hawkin Road (State
Highway Route 640) in Plumsted Township, Ocean County, New Jersey. The
Site is situated in a predominantly rural area with some residential
homes to the south. The 10-acre site, bordered on the north side by
cultivated land which is part of the Wilson Farm property, is wooded
and unoccupied. A dirt road runs through the center of the Site, which
allows access into the property from Hawkin Road. The Site has a number
of unimproved roadways in and around it and is used mainly for hunting.
Colliers Mills Wildlife Management Area is east of the Site and
consists of forested undeveloped property that runs north and south
along Hawkin Road. Borden Run Creek runs west and south of the site and
flows into Colliers Mills Lake. At the northern edge of the Site
towards New Egypt/Lakewood Road is an active farm field and beyond that
a small residential neighborhood. The Site is

located within the boundaries of a national reserve known as the
``Pinelands.'' The Pinelands reserve is separated into ``Management
Areas.''
    The Wilson Farm property was one of seven sites used to dispose of
liquid and drummed chemical waste from the Thiokol Corporation facility
during the 1960's and early 1970's. The property on which the Site is
located is privately owned and has been posted with ``No Trespassing
Signs.''
    The Site was inspected by the Ocean County Health Department and
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) in February
1980, which led to the implementation of an Immediate Removal Action in
September 1980. Approximately 620 cubic yards of mixed chemical waste
material and soils were removed from the Site. Prior to the Immediate
Removal Action, NJDEP had installed and sampled six groundwater
monitoring wells in July 1980. Groundwater from these monitoring wells
was found to contain chemical contamination.
    In December 1982, the NJDEP scored the Site utilizing the Hazard
Ranking System. Based on this ranking, the Site was added to the NPL on
September 21, 1984 (FRL-2646-2).
    In 1986, the NJDEP established a Well Restriction Area (WRA) on the
Site and surrounding properties in order to protect any new drinking
water wells which might be installed near the Site. The WRA required
that all new wells within approximately a 2,000-foot radius of the Site
be installed to a depth of at least 150 feet. The purpose of this
action was to ensure that new wells were not impacted by contamination
in the shallow aquifer.

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

    In July 1986, the NJDEP directed Morton Thiokol Inc. (Thiokol
merged with Morton Norwich Corporation) to make payments to the NJDEP
for the cost of conducting a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility
Study (RI/FS) at the Site. On December 3, 1987, the NJDEP and Morton
Thiokol Inc. (MTI) entered into an Administrative Consent Order (ACO)
in which MTI agreed to comply with this Directive (Directive No. 1).
    In January 1987, Acres International Corporation (Acres) was
contracted by the NJDEP to perform the RI/FS. After initial site
investigations were performed, NJDEP determined that further remedial
studies were necessary. In January 1990, the NJDEP directed Morton
International Incorporated (MII) and the Thiokol Corporation (after
Directive No. 1 was issued, MTI split into MII and Thiokol) to pay for
the additional studies. MII complied and the RI/FS was completed by
Acres in March 1992.
    The RI/FS identified that approximately six to twelve cubic yards
of industrial waste, including a black rubbery tar-like substance and
miscellaneous laboratory glassware, to a depth of six inches, still
remained at the Site. No buried waste was encountered. The RI/FS found
that this waste did not present a risk to human health or the
environment.
    On August 23, 1991, the NJDEP and MII entered into a second ACO for
the removal of the remaining contaminated surface waste materials at
the Site. MII prepared and submitted an Interim Removal Action Plan to
the NJDEP and EPA in October 1991. The final removal activities were
agreed to between NJDEP and MII in May 1992.
    The surficial waste removal activities were conducted at the Site
between June and July 1992. Approximately 645 cubic yards of waste/soil
material was removed and transported for treatment and disposal to a
federally permitted hazardous waste landfill. A comparison of the post-
excavation soil sample analytical results to the NJDEP proposed cleanup
goals for residential surface soils confirmed the effectiveness of the
removal work. In October 1993, MII restored all areas disturbed by the
removal activities through back-filling and grading soils and re-
vegetating. A final surficial waste removal report was submitted by MII
in February 1994.
    After completing the Interim Removal Action, EPA conducted a
baseline risk assessment to evaluate the potential risks to human
health and the environment for residual contaminants in the soil,
groundwater, surface water and sediments. EPA issued the final Risk
Assessment Report on May 3, 1993.

Selected Remedy

    Based on this Risk Assessment Report, EPA concurred on a ``No
Further Action'' Record of Decision (ROD) which was issued by NJDEP on
August 2, 1993. The selected remedy included implementing a
groundwater, surface water and sediment monitoring program for five
years to ensure that any residual contamination remained below levels
of concern and confirmed the no action determination. Visual inspection
of the Site during monitoring was also conducted to ensure that no
further waste materials were present. Lastly, the ROD called for
continuation of the WRA for a minimum of five years to ensure the
protection of area drinking water supplies.

Response Action

    Pursuant to the remedy selected in the ROD, MII and the NJDEP
entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) on August 25, 1994, to
perform post-remediation monitoring activities. A Post-Remediation
Monitoring Work Plan was submitted by MII in October 1994. A final
post-remediation monitoring work plan was approved in January 1995.
    The five years of monitoring, as outlined in the ROD, began in May
1995 with the first quarterly sampling event and continued until
September 1999. The monitoring consisted of collecting samples at ten
monitoring wells and three surface water and sediment locations on a
quarterly basis in the first year and on an annual basis in 1996, 1997,
1998 and 1999. During each sample event, the Site was inspected for any
evidence of remaining surface waste material that would then be
removed.
    After five years of monitoring, site contaminants remained below
Federal Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs). Since the Site is located in
New Jersey's Pinelands Protection Area, the aquifer is classified by
the NJDEP as Class I-PL under its Groundwater Quality Criteria
Standards (GWQS). Class I-PL standards are defined as the higher of the
Practical Quantitative Levels (PQLs) or background levels. NJDEP
requires groundwater sample results to indicate concentrations are
below the PQL. The GWQS establish anti-degradation policies that are
designed to protect the existing and designated uses of the State of
New Jersey ground waters and are not considered health-based Federal
MCLs.
    A review of the post-remediation monitoring results revealed that
lead in MW-5S, and chloroform in MW-8S were present above the PQLs for
all sampling events. Lead concentrations were detected above the PQL of
10 ppb (5 ppb is now the current standard) in MW-5S and ranged from
14.5 ppb (2nd sample event) to 94.9 ppb (6th sample event). Chloroform
concentrations were detected above the PQL of 1 ppb and ranged from 1.2
ppb (7th sample event) to 6.2 ppb (2nd sample event). Due to these
groundwater concentrations above the PQL, NJDEP recommended that Rohm
and Haas (which acquired MII) conduct additional investigative
activities including soil and groundwater sampling around MW-5S and MW-
8S for lead and chloroform, respectively.
    A Supplemental Groundwater Investigation (SGI) was conducted by
ENSR (on behalf of the Rohm and Hass Company which acquired MII) in
October 2004. The SGI consisted of

collecting sixteen subsurface soil samples around MW-5S and MW-8S, four
groundwater samples from temporary wells MW-5S-5, MW-5S-6, MW-8S-2 and
MW-8S-4, and four surface water and sediments samples in Borden Run
Creek. The results of sampling found non-detect levels of Site
contaminants in the surface water, sediments and soils. In a March 18,
2005 letter, NJDEP concluded that no further monitoring of the Site
surface water, sediments or soils was required but recommended that a
Classification Exemption Area (CEA) be proposed for the Site
groundwater. The SGI results are summarized as follows:
    (1) Subsurface soil samples collected from the area around MW-5S
(for lead) and MW-8S (for chloroform) did not have lead or chloroform
detected above the New Jersey Residential Direct Contact, Non-
Residential Direct Contact or the Impact to Groundwater Soil Cleanup
Criteria. The data also found field screening results showing no
detectable concentrations of lead and chloroform are present in soils.
NJDEP concluded that the subsurface soil data for the area around MW-5S
and MW-8S indicate that the soils are not impacted and a no further
action for the soils is appropriate;
    (2) Groundwater samples collected from MW-5S-5 and MW-5S-6 (for
total and dissolved lead analysis), and MW-8S-2 and MW-8S-4 (for
chloroform analysis) found no detectable levels of lead above the
method detection limit or chloroform above the GWQS of 6 ppb, and
neither above the Federal MCLs. Chloroform did, however, exceed the PQL
criteria of 1 ppb at three locations (MW-8S-2, MW-8S-4, and MW-8S-4D);
    (3) Surface water samples collected found that chloroform, toluene,
lead and zinc did not exceed the NJDEP Surface Water Quality Standards
(SWQS) or EPA National Ambient Water Quality Criteria (NAWQC). However,
zinc concentrations were found slightly above the background levels;
and
    (4) Sediment sample-analyses did not detect chloroform or toluene
above the analytical detection limits. However, the detection limits
were above the NJDEP Guidance for Sediment Quality Evaluations (SQE)
and EPA Region 5 Ecological Screening Levels (ESLs). NJDEP believes
that neither toluene nor chloroform is problematic in sediments. Lead
and zinc concentrations did not exceed the SQE and ESLs but were
detected above the background level at the two most down gradient
sediment locations.
    NJDEP's review of the current and historical surface water and
sediment data concluded that additional sampling is not necessary and
no further action for this area of concern is appropriate.
    In December 2005 and November 2006, ENSR re-sampled MW-5S and MW-
8S. The analytical results indicated that lead and chloroform
concentrations continued to be above the Class I-PL groundwater
standards (or PQL). Because of the historical concentrations of lead in
MW-5S and chloroform in MW-8S exceeding the PQL, NJDEP requested that
Rohm and Haas propose a CEA at the Site.

Institutional Controls

    At the time of the ROD, a WRA was in place and recognized by the
ROD as a temporary measure along with continued monitoring for five
years. NJDEP indicates that the WRA is still in place. Since the
groundwater currently meets federal and state standards for public
consumption, it does not appear that the WRA provides any specific
purpose at the Site.
    Although not required by the 1993 ROD remedy, the NJDEP required
the institution of a CEA at the Site due to limited groundwater
contaminant levels continuing to exceed PQLs. The CEA was submitted in
October 2006. As part of the CEA requirements, Rohm and Hass proposed
several actions to reduce the length of time the CEA would remain in
effect. Those actions included installing a replacement well that would
evaluate the possibility that the elevated lead concentrations were an
artifact of some unexpected problem at MW-5S and performing a one-day
high vacuum groundwater extraction in order to remove chloroform
impacted groundwater and soil vapors from MW-8S.
    ENSR replaced MW-5S with MW-5R and performed the high vacuum
groundwater extraction at MW-8S on May 7, 2007. MW-5S was
decommissioned. Following these field activities, ENSR collected
groundwater samples from MW-5R and MW-8S on June 6 and September 5,
2007. The results indicate that lead concentrations in MW-5R were no
longer detected but the chloroform concentrations in MW-8S continue to
exceed the PQL but not the MCL. Based on these results, the NJDEP
issued a no further action for lead at MW-5R on April 13, 2008, and
requested that the CEA be revised for chloroform at MW-8S. Rohm and
Haas will continue to monitor MW-8S until chloroform is not detected at
concentrations above the PQL for two consecutive quarterly sampling
events.
    NJDEP has accepted the Rohm and Hass proposal of no further action
with a CEA for chloroform at MW-8S, without the need of a WRA
designation. Rohm and Haas submitted the final revised CEA proposal in
January 2009. Once approved by the NJDEP, the CEA will continue until
chloroform is below the PQL for two consecutive quarterly sampling
events. The NJDEP will issue a no further action for chloroform at MW-
8S when two consecutive quarterly sampling events results in chloroform
detection below the PQL concentration.
    Since contaminant levels in all media are below risk based levels,
no institutional controls are required at this Site under CERCLA.

Cleanup Goals

    Post-excavation sampling conducted as part of the removal actions
verifies that the Site soils were below the NJDEP cleanup standards for
residential properties. Groundwater CERCLA cleanup standards were
Federal Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) and Maximum Contaminant Level
Goal (MCLG).

Operations and Maintenance

    No operation and maintenance was required for the Site property,
where mixed surface waste and contaminated soils were removed for off-
site disposal, and post-excavation sampling confirmed that remediation
goals were achieved. Post-remediation groundwater monitoring was
conducted for five years and all contaminants are below MCLs.

Five-Year Review

    There were two five-year reviews of the selected remedy for this
Site. The first review was issued on May 12, 2000. A second five-year
review was signed on June 3, 2005. The June 2005 Five-Year Review
Report found that the no further action remedy protects human health
and the environment at this Site. It indicates that no future five-year
reviews will be necessary if the Site is found to be suitable for
unlimited use without restriction and that finding is part of the
deletion process or is contained within an appropriate EPA decision
document. The deletion process has determined that the Site is suitable
for unlimited use without restriction. Therefore, no future five-year
reviews will be conducted at this Site.

Community Involvement

    Public participation activities for this Site have been satisfied
as required in CERCLA sections 113(k) and 117, 42 U.S.C. 9613(k) and
9617. Throughout the removal and remedial process, EPA and the NJDEP
have kept the public informed of the activities being conducted at the
Site by way of public

meetings, progress fact sheets, and the announcement through local
newspaper advertisement on the availability of documents such as the
RI/FS, Risk Assessment, ROD, Proposed Plan and Five-Year Reviews.
Notices associated with these community relations activities were also
mailed out to the area residents and other concerned parties on the
mailing list for the Site.

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

    The NCP specifies that EPA may delete a site from the NPL if ``all
appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been implemented,
and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate.''
40 CFR 300.425(e)(1)(ii). EPA, with the concurrence from the State of
New Jersey, through NJDEP, believes that this criterion for deletion
has been met and the Site is available for use without restriction.
Consequently, EPA is deleting this Site from the NPL. Documents
supporting this action are available in the Site files.

V. Deletion Action

    EPA, with the concurrence of the State of New Jersey, has
determined that all appropriate Fund-financed responses under CERCLA
have been implemented, and no further action by responsible parties is
appropriate. Therefore, EPA is deleting the Site from the NPL.
    Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and
routine, EPA is deleting the Site without prior publication. This
action will be effective September 8, 2009 unless EPA receives adverse
comments by August 6, 2009. If adverse comments are received within the
30-day public comment period of this action, EPA will publish a timely
withdrawal of this Direct Final Deletion before the effective date of
the deletion and the deletion will not take effect. EPA will, if
appropriate, prepare a response to comments and continue with the
deletion process on the basis of the Notice of Intent to Delete and the
comments received. In such a case, there will be no additional
opportunity to comment.

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.

    Dated: June 25, 2009.
George Pavlou,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 2.

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble Part 300 Title 40 of Chapter I
of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 300--[AMENDED]

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

     Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.
12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR
2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

Appendix B--[Amended]

0
2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 is amended by removing ``Wilson
Farm, Plumsted Township, NJ.''

[FR Doc. E9-15801 Filed 7-6-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P