83 FR 28586 - National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the Ordnance Works Disposal Areas Superfund Site

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 119 (June 20, 2018)

Page Range		28586-28591
FR Document		2018-12709
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 3, is issuing a Notice of Intent to Delete the Ordnance Works Disposal Areas Superfund Site (Site) located in Morgantown, West Virginia, from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on this proposed action. For purposes of this action, the Site consists of Operable Unit 1 (OU1), an NPL-listed area of approximately 6 acres. Also for purposes of this action, and unless otherwise noted, the Site does not include Operable Unit 2 (OU2), a non-NPL listed area of approximately eight hundred acres. The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the State of West Virginia, through the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP), have determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other than operation and maintenance, monitoring, and five-year reviews have been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.
Federal Register, Volume 83 Issue 119 (Wednesday, June 20, 2018)
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 20, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28586-28591]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12709]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1986-0005; FRL-9979-21--Region 3]


National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; 
National Priorities List: Deletion of the Ordnance Works Disposal Areas 
Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 3, is 
issuing a Notice of Intent to Delete the Ordnance Works Disposal Areas 
Superfund Site (Site) located in Morgantown, West Virginia, from the 
National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on this 
proposed action. For purposes of this action, the Site consists of 
Operable Unit 1 (OU1), an NPL-listed area of approximately 6 acres. 
Also for purposes of this action, and unless otherwise noted, the Site 
does not include Operable Unit 2 (OU2), a non-NPL listed area of 
approximately eight hundred acres. The NPL, promulgated pursuant to 
section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 
and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the 
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). 
The EPA and the State of West Virginia, through the West Virginia 
Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP), have determined that 
all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other than operation and 
maintenance, monitoring, and five-year reviews have been completed. 
However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under 
Superfund.

DATES: Comments must be received by July 20, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-1986-0005, by one of the following methods:
     https://www.regulations.gov: Follow on-line instructions 
for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or 
removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received 
to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you 
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia 
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written 
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and 
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will 
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of 
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment 
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general 
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
     Email: Jeffrey Thomas at [email protected].
     Mail: Jeffrey Thomas (3HS23), Remedial Project Manager, 
United States Environmental Protection Agency 1650 Arch Street, 
Philadelphia, PA 19103.
     Hand delivery: United States Environmental Protection 
Agency, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. Such deliveries are 
only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and 
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed 
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
1986-0005. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be CBI or 
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not 
submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected 
through https://www.regulations.gov or email. The https://www.regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' system, which 
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you 
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment 
directly to EPA without going through https://www.regulations.gov, your 
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of 
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on 
the internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that 
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your 
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA

[[Page 28587]]

cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot 
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your 
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, 
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in the hard 
copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either 
electronically in https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at: U.S. 
EPA Region 3, Superfund Records Center, 6th Floor, 1650 Arch Street, 
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029; (215) 814-3157, Monday through Friday 8:00 
a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Morgantown Public Library, 373 Spruce Street, 
Morgantown, WV 26505; (304) 291-7425, Monday through Saturday 9:00 a.m. 
to 4:00 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Thomas, Remedial Project 
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3, 3HS23, 1650 
Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, (215) 814-3377, email 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

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

I. Introduction

    EPA Region 3 announces its intent to delete the Ordnance Works 
Disposal Areas Superfund Site from the National Priorities List (NPL) 
and requests public comment on this proposed action. For purposes of 
this action, the Site consists of Operable Unit 1 (OU1), an NPL-listed 
area of approximately 6 acres. This action does not include Operable 
Unit 2 (OU2), a non-NPL listed area of approximately eight hundred 
acres. Both OU1 and OU2 are located in an industrial/commercial complex 
formally known as the Morgantown Ordnance Works in Morgantown, West 
Virginia. Unless otherwise stated, references to the ``Site'' shall 
mean OU1 only. The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which 
is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan 
(NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act 
(CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. EPA maintains the NPL as the list of 
sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, 
welfare, or the environment. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of 
remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). 
As described in 40 CFR 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted from the 
NPL remain eligible for Fund-financed remedial actions if future 
conditions warrant such actions.
    EPA will accept comments on the proposal to delete this site for 
thirty (30) days after publication of this document in the Federal 
Register.
    Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting 
sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using 
for this action. Section IV discusses the Ordnance Works Disposal Areas 
Superfund Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from 
the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted 
from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a 
determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in 
consultation with the State, whether any of the following criteria have 
been met:
    i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all 
appropriate response actions required;
    ii. all appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been 
implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is 
appropriate; or
    iii. the remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no 
significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, 
the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.
    Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and the NCP, EPA conducts five-
year reviews to ensure the continued protectiveness of remedial actions 
where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at a 
site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted 
exposure. EPA conducts such five-year reviews even if a site is deleted 
from the NPL. EPA may initiate further action to ensure continued 
protectiveness at a deleted site if new information becomes available 
that indicates it is appropriate. Whenever there is a significant 
release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be 
restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system.

III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to deletion of the Site:
    (1) EPA consulted with the State before developing this Notice of 
Intent to Delete;
    (2) EPA has provided the State 30 working days for review of this 
action prior to this publication;
    (3) In accordance with the criteria discussed above, EPA has 
determined that no further response is appropriate;
    (4) The State of West Virginia, through the WVDEP, has concurred 
with deletion of the Site from the NPL;
    (5) Concurrently with the publication of this Notice of Intent to 
Delete in the Federal Register, a notice is being published in a major 
local newspaper, The Dominion Post. The newspaper notice announces the 
30-day public comment period concerning the Notice of Intent to Delete 
the Site from the NPL;
    (6) The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed 
deletion in the deletion docket and made these items available for 
public inspection and copying at the Site information repositories 
identified above.
    If comments are received within the 30-day public comment period on 
this document, EPA will evaluate and respond appropriately to the 
comments before making a final decision to delete. If necessary, EPA 
will prepare a Responsiveness Summary to address any significant public 
comments received. After the public comment period, if EPA determines 
it is still appropriate to delete the Site, the Regional Administrator 
will publish a final Notice of Deletion in the Federal Register. Public 
notices, public submissions, and copies of the Responsiveness Summary, 
if prepared, will be made available to interested parties and in the 
site information repositories listed above.
    Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or 
revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from 
the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement 
actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for 
informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section 
300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the 
NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should 
future conditions warrant such actions.

IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion

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

[[Page 28588]]

Site Location and Use History

    The Ordnance Works Disposal Areas Superfund Site (EPA 
Identification Number WVD000850404) consists of a disposal area 
designated by EPA as OU1 containing approximately 6 acres within a 
commercial/industrial development known as the Morgantown Ordnance 
Works outside of Morgantown, West Virginia. See Section I 
(Introduction) for details regarding OU1 and OU2. Within the 
geographical limits of OU2 is a third area consisting of two separate 
parcels currently being studied under the Resource Conservation and 
Recovery Act (RCRA). OU1 was a disposal location used by entities that 
operated in the remainder of the Morgantown Ordnance Works complex.
    A removal action was conducted at OU2 on hotspots identified in a 
Remedial Investigation completed in 1995. Cleanup of OU2 occurred 
pursuant to a 1996 settlement with potentially responsible parties 
(PRPs) to perform a removal action and was based on exposure scenarios 
for the current and future anticipated land use. The work was conducted 
between March 1997 and June 1997. After the removal action was 
completed, EPA determined, based on the residual risk assessment 
analysis, that the potential for adverse carcinogenic and non-
carcinogenic effects to industrial workers and youth trespassers was 
negligible and within the limits considered acceptable by EPA. No 
further response actions at OU2 are anticipated.
    The Site is located approximately one mile southwest of the city of 
Morgantown, West Virginia, near the west bank of the Monongahela River. 
The population of Monongalia County is approximately 75,509; the city 
of Morgantown accounts for 25,879 of this total. The majority of the 
population lives to the northeast and northwest of the Site and obtains 
drinking water from a public supply. There are several houses within a 
one-mile radius of the Site that utilize wells in one capacity or 
another, however they are not located downgradient of the Site.
    The Morgantown Ordnance Works, which later became the Morgantown 
Industrial Park, has been the location of a variety of industrial and 
chemical production facilities since the 1940's. These activities 
occurred primarily in OU2 of the Site; OU1 was used as a disposal area 
for various industrial concerns operating in OU2. Beginning in October 
1940, the Morgantown Ordnance Works property was developed as a coke 
plant and chemical production facility by E.I. DuPont de Nemours and 
Company under contract to the United States Government. From 1943-1962, 
the United States held title to the property. Between 1941 and 1958, 
various businesses were operated by private parties, in some cases 
pursuant to government contracts and operating agreements, and in other 
cases pursuant to commercial leases. During these years, substances 
such as hexamine, ammonia, methyl alcohol, formaldehyde, ethylene 
diamine, and coke were produced. The plant was idle from 1958-1962.
    In 1962, the property was sold to Morgantown Ordnance Works, Inc. 
which then leased and/or sold portions of the property to various 
industrial and chemical manufacturing operations. In 1964 Weston 
Chemical Company purchased a portion of the property totaling 62 acres 
that is split between two facilities known as the North and South 
plants. Weston Chemical Company was purchased by the Borg-Warner 
Corporation in 1969. General Electric (GE) purchased Borg-Warner 
Corporation in 1988 and in 2003 the GE North and South plants were 
purchased by Crompton Corporation. The Crompton Corporation then sold 
the two plants to Chemtura Corporation which in turn sold the two 
facilities, in 2013, to Addivant US, LLC, the current owner. The North 
and South plants are active facilities currently being addressed 
through a June 1990 RCRA settlement with EPA.
    Except for parcels previously sold, which were portions of OU2, the 
Morgantown Ordnance Works property was acquired by Princess Coals, Inc. 
in 1978. In 1982, the property was purchased by private individuals who 
later formed Morgantown Industrial Park, Inc. In 1983, the property was 
conveyed to Morgantown Industrial Park Associates, which retained 
ownership of OU1, but then sold all of the other parcels comprising the 
industrial park property.

Initial Response, NPL Listing, and Study

    As a result of the industrial activities that occurred at the 
Morgantown Ordnance Works facility, hazardous substances were disposed 
of within a small area in the southern portion of the facility that is 
OU1 of the Site. OU1 contained an inactive landfill, two lagoons, a 
former drum staging area, and an area used for the shallow disposal of 
wastes called the scraped area. Investigation of this disposal area by 
EPA began in 1981. OU1 was proposed to the NPL on October 15, 1984 (49 
FR 40320). On June 10, 1986, OU1 was added to the NPL (51 FR 21054).
    Sampling at OU1 of the Site occurred in various phases between 1988 
and 1998. Samples were collected, both by EPA as well as by PRPs, from 
groundwater, surface and subsurface soils, surface water, and 
sediments. Analyses revealed no connection between disposal activities 
at OU1 and the groundwater. The surface and subsurface soils, surface 
water, and sediment at OU1 were all impacted to varying degrees by 
organic and inorganic contaminants.
    Test pits installed in the scraped area during the 1988 Remedial 
Investigation (RI) revealed cinder-like backfill material, blue and 
black catalyst pellets, and yellow solid material. Additional Phase II 
soil borings taken in the scraped area exposed visible tar at depths of 
up to eight feet and revealed total carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic 
hydrocarbons (cPAHs) ranging from 94 parts per million (ppm) to 36,000 
ppm. Some elevated levels of inorganic contaminants were detected 
during the RI but were not detected in the scraped area during the 1996 
Phase II Interim Design Tasks.
    A portion of the lagoon area was excavated in 1981 to address metal 
plating wastes disposed in two surface impoundments between 1970 and 
1976. During this action, miscellaneous wastes including coal tars were 
observed in the lagoon. Further investigation during the Phase II 
Interim Design Tasks indicated cPAH concentrations ranging from 3.2 ppm 
to 30,000 ppm; however, the inorganic contaminants detected during the 
1988 RI were not found.
    The northern section of OU1 was the location of the abandoned, 
inactive landfill estimated to have a fill depth of 20 feet at its 
thickest location. No records exist on quantities or types of material 
disposed of in the landfill. Eyewitness reports and direct observation 
reveal that the landfill contained construction debris, slag, ash, and 
catalyst pellets. Leachate from the landfill drained to the northeast 
into a wetland. The wetland drained directly to a feature known as 
``Swale 3,'' which eventually discharged to the Monongahela River. 
During pre-design sampling, the sediment layer of both the wetland and 
upper portion of Swale 3 were determined to have been impacted by heavy 
metals contamination.
    As part of the 1988 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/
FS), EPA prepared a Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment (BHHRA) for 
the Site in order to identify and define possible existing and future 
human health risks associated with exposure to the contaminants present 
in the various media at OU1 if no action were taken. The BHHRA was 
revised in the 1989

[[Page 28589]]

Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) report. In both the 1988 original and 
1989 revised BHHRA documents, EPA concluded that action was necessary 
to prevent contact with contaminated soil and sediments found at OU1 of 
the Site.
    A comprehensive Ecological Risk Assessment was not conducted during 
either the 1988 RI/FS or the 1989 FFS. While drafting the September 29, 
1999 Record of Decision (ROD), EPA's Biological Technical Assistance 
Group reviewed the 1988 RI data and concluded that inorganic 
contaminants were present in surface water and sediments within OU1 at 
levels that were acutely toxic to potentially affected ecosystems.

Selected Remedy

    In March 1988, EPA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) for OU1 
selecting onsite incineration of soils and sediments contaminated with 
cPAHs and heavy metals. In November 1988, EPA opened an additional 30-
day comment period for out-of-state PRPs who had not received notice of 
the original Proposed Plan. Based on comments received during this 
period, EPA conducted a focused feasibility study (FFS) in 1989 to re-
evaluate the alternatives described in the March 1988 ROD and to 
conduct a risk-based analysis of cleanup levels. This FFS was completed 
in June 1989.
    On September 29, 1989, EPA issued a ROD that superseded the 1988 
ROD. The 1989 ROD selected a remedy and contingency remedy for OU1. The 
selected remedial action included, among other things, excavation and 
treatment of inorganic hot spots from the lagoon and scraped areas; 
disposal of treated inorganic contaminants at the former landfill area; 
capping the former landfill; and excavation and treatment of organics-
contaminated soils and sediments using bioremediation. The contingency 
remedial action called for treatment of soils and sediments using soil 
washing technology. In June 1990, EPA issued an administrative order 
directing several PRPs to implement the September 1989 ROD.
    The human health risk assessment conducted in conjunction with the 
OU1 RI was completed in 1988. This assessment was completed prior to 
the issuance of a revised cancer potency factor (CPF) established in 
the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) for benzo(a)pyrene (BAP) 
and the interim comparative potency estimates provided by EPA's Office 
of Research and Development (ORD) in a guidance document entitled 
``Provisional Guidance for Quantitative Risk Assessment of Polycyclic 
Aromatic Hydrocarbons'' (EPA/600/R-93/089 (July 1993)). In 1995, during 
implementation of remedial design conducted under EPA's June 1990 
administrative order, the PRPs recalculated the cleanup standards for 
cPAHs at OU1 using the new CPF established in IRIS and the interim 
comparative potency estimates established by ORD. The resulting cleanup 
standard was less stringent than the cleanup standard identified in the 
September 1989 ROD. The PRPs submitted a proposal to EPA in July 1995 
requesting that the Agency adopt the newly calculated cleanup standard 
of 78 ppm total cPAHs. EPA evaluated this proposal using a Monte Carlo 
simulation and determined that this cleanup level would result in risk 
within the 1x10^-4 to 1x10^-6 acceptable risk range 
established by the NCP. The Monte Carlo risk assessment verified that 
78 ppm total cPAHs was an acceptable cleanup standard as long as the 
associated BAP value did not exceed 18.2 ppm. Achieving a cleanup level 
of 78 ppm total cPAHs with no more than 18.2 ppm BAP became the cPAH 
cleanup standard approved by EPA.
    The PRPs completed treatability studies for the bioremediation 
component in March 1997 under EPA's June 1990 administrative order. The 
PRPs concluded, and EPA agreed, that bioremediation was not capable of 
meeting the 78 ppm total cPAH cleanup standard within a reasonable 
time-frame and was not cost-effective. The PRPs and EPA also concluded 
that the soil washing contingency action described in the September 
1989 ROD was similarly deficient. In the Spring of 1997, the PRPs 
submitted a proposal to EPA to conduct a second FFS to identify a 
replacement remedial action for OU1. EPA agreed and negotiated a new 
agreement with the PRPs for this study work in October 1997. The second 
FFS was completed in 1998.
    On September 30, 1999, EPA issued a ROD that superseded the 1989 
ROD. The 1999 ROD selected a replacement remedial action for OU1. The 
selected remedy consisted of off-site thermal treatment of visibly 
stained stream, lagoon, and scraped area soils/sediments; consolidation 
of contaminated media into the existing landfill; restoration of 
streams and wetland areas where sediment was excavated; capping of the 
existing landfill; long-term monitoring; and institutional controls to 
protect the cap and prohibit residential development, recreational use, 
schools, and child care facilities within OU1. Neither the March 1988 
ROD nor the September 1989 ROD required action to address groundwater. 
There was no evidence that the groundwater had been significantly 
impacted by disposal operations at OU1 and no unacceptable risks were 
posed to receptors of the groundwater at OU1. Therefore, the remedy 
selected in the 1999 ROD also did not include a groundwater remediation 
component.

Response Actions

    The PRPs implemented the remedy selected for OU1 pursuant to an 
administrative order originally issued in 1989 and modified in 1999 to 
direct the PRPs to implement the 1999 ROD. The Remedial Design (RD) was 
conducted in conformance with the approved work plan and 1999 ROD. The 
Remedial Action (RA) was initiated in August 2000. The target areas 
were excavated as part of the RA and soils and sediments containing 
visible coal tar were separated for treatment and utilization as a fuel 
source for a local power plant. Utilization of the treated coal tar as 
a fuel source achieved destruction of the contaminants of concern 
through thermal treatment as well as beneficial reuse of the coal tar 
to produce electricity. The rest of the excavated material found to be 
above the ROD cleanup criteria was consolidated into the former 
landfill which was covered with a multi-layer RCRA Subtitle C cap.
    EPA and WVDEP conducted a final inspection of OU1 on September 11, 
2003 and determined that the remedy had been constructed in accordance 
with the Remedial Design plans and specifications and that no further 
construction was anticipated. EPA and WVDEP reviewed the remedial 
action contract and construction for compliance with quality assurance 
and quality control (QA/QC) protocols. Construction activities at the 
Site were determined to be consistent with the 1999 ROD, Remedial 
Design plans and specifications, and EPA's June 1990 administrative 
order.
    The PRP's construction contractor adhered to the approved 
Construction Quality Assurance Plan (CQAP). The CQAP incorporated all 
EPA and State requirements. All confirmatory inspections, independent 
testing, audits, and evaluations of materials and workmanship were 
performed in accordance with the construction drawings, technical 
specifications, and the CQAP. Construction quality assurance was 
performed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Huntington 
District, which maintained a constant on-site presence. The EPA 
Remedial Project Manager and State regulators visited OU1 approximately 
twice a month during construction activities to review construction

[[Page 28590]]

progress and evaluate and review the results of QA/QC activities. 
Institutional controls to protect the cap, limit land use to 
industrial/commercial operations, and prohibit use of groundwater were 
implemented in 2006 with the recording of an Environmental Covenant in 
the office of the Clerk of the County Commission of Monongalia County, 
West Virginia, in Deed Book 1327, at Page 557.

Cleanup Levels

    The remedy addressed visible tar-like material and contaminated 
soil and sediment exceeding site-specific cleanup standards. Cleanup 
standards specified in the 1999 ROD for the surface and subsurface 
soils in the Lagoon Area and Scraped Area are as follows: Total cPAH 78 
ppm, with a BAP value not to exceed 18.2 ppm; arsenic 88.8 ppm; cadmium 
642 ppm; copper 41,100 ppm; and lead 500 ppm. Cleanup standards 
specified in the 1999 ROD for stream and wetlands sediments are as 
follows: Total cPAH 78 ppm, with a BAP value not to exceed 18.2 ppm; 
arsenic 9.62 ppm; cadmium 0.35 ppm; chromium 30.2 ppm; copper 22.7 ppm; 
lead 31.6 ppm; mercury non-detect; and zinc 86.8 ppm. The project team 
determined that total removal of the existing sediments and replacement 
with clean fill would be the most the appropriate way to achieve 
cleanup of the sediments. Removal of the contaminated sediment and 
replacement with clean fill was completed as part of the Remedial 
Action.
    The Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) incorporated all EPA and 
State QA/QC procedures and protocols. EPA analytical methods were used 
for all confirmation and monitoring samples during RA activities. 
Sampling and analysis during construction and during Operation and 
Maintenance (O&M) monitoring was performed in accordance with approved 
Sampling and Analysis Plans. Procedures and protocols followed for soil 
sample analysis during the RA were conducted in accordance with the 
Contract Laboratory Program. EPA and the State determined that 
analytical results are accurate to the degree needed to assure 
satisfactory completion of the RA.

Operation and Maintenance

    Site O&M requirements are contained in the approved O&M Plan dated 
April 13, 2012. This plan includes inspection of the landfill cover and 
wetlands and associated drainage systems, and sampling requirements for 
groundwater and treatment wetland effluent. O&M activities are 
performed by the PRPs under the 1990 EPA administrative order.
    The treatment wetlands were initially inspected every six months 
during the first two years following the completion of the RA and 
continue to be inspected and maintained to ensure flow-through of 
leachate in the pond system. The integrity of the treatment ponds 
system has been monitored and has not required modification to date.
    The replacement wetlands, located adjacent to the Monongahela 
River, are inspected annually as part of the landfill cap inspection. 
Beginning in 2008, the PRPs undertook efforts to eradicate invasive 
plant species from the replacement wetlands at the request of EPA and 
WVDEP. Recent inspections of the replacement wetlands have verified 
that the wetlands have developed into a high quality mosaic of 
forested, shrub-scrub, and emergent wetlands habitats. Invasive plants 
are present, but at low density as a result of the control measures 
implemented after construction. The presence of numerous wetland 
terrestrial, aquatic, and avian species was noted through visual and 
auditory observation.
    Landfill cap inspections currently occur on a semi-annual basis. 
The cap has remained in good condition and has required only minor 
revegetation in small areas affected by erosion. No cracking or 
movement of surficial soils has occurred on the top of the cap slope. 
Storm water conveyance channels remain in good condition and no obvious 
signs of ponding water have been found. Overall the vegetative cover 
remains robust and well established and the drainage system operates as 
designed.

Five-Year Reviews

    Five-Year Reviews were conducted at the Site in 2006, 2011, and 
2016. In the Five-Year Review report issued on September 12, 2016, EPA 
concluded that the remedial action objectives for the remedy had been 
achieved. EPA found that the remedy is protective of human health and 
the environment, that the remedy was implemented in accordance with the 
remedial action objectives of the 1999 ROD, and that the remedy was 
functioning as intended. The landfill has not been found to be a 
significant source of contamination to the groundwater in the area and 
the contaminants of concern identified in the 1999 ROD have not been 
detected in groundwater samples during the review period. The multi-
layer RCRA landfill cap was determined to be effective in containing 
hazardous waste materials, the treatment wetland ponds appeared to be 
functioning as intended, and access restrictions were found to be 
functional. Institutional controls are in place to prohibit disturbing 
the landfill cap, use of groundwater, and non-commercial use of any 
kind within OU1. O&M including annual inspections, leachate monitoring, 
and treatment wetland monitoring are performed by the PRPs pursuant to 
the 2012 approved O&M Plan. There were no issues or recommendations 
identified in the 2016 report. The next review for OU1 is required by 
September 2021.

Community Involvement

    Throughout the Site's history, EPA has kept the community and other 
interested parties apprised of Site activities through fact sheets, 
press releases, and public meetings. Public participation activities 
have been performed in accordance with Sections 113(k) and 117 of 
CERCLA. Documents in the deletion docket upon which EPA relied for 
recommending deletion of OU1 from the NPL are available to the public 
in the information repositories. EPA notified local officials in 
advance about Five-Year Reviews and placed notices in The Dominion Post 
to inform the public that the Five-Year Reviews were being conducted 
and when the findings of each would be available.

Determination That the Criteria for Deletion Have Been Met

    The implemented remedy achieves the degree of cleanup and 
protection specified in the 1999 ROD and meets EPA's acceptable risk 
for all exposure pathways. The remedial action at OU1 has been 
completed in accordance with the 1999 ROD, institutional controls are 
in place, and O&M is being conducted in accordance with the approved 
O&M Plan. All remedial action objectives, performance standards, and 
cleanup goals established in the 1999 ROD have been achieved and the 
remedy is protective of human health and the environment in both the 
short- and long-term. No further Superfund response, other than O&M, 
monitoring, and Five-Year Reviews, is necessary to continue to protect 
human health and the environment. All of the selected remedial actions 
and the remedial action objectives and associated cleanup goals are 
consistent with CERCLA, the NCP, and EPA policy and guidance.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, 
Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, 
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping

[[Page 28591]]

requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply.

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626, 
77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 
CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., 
p. 193.

    Dated: May 30, 2018.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 3.
[FR Doc. 2018-12709 Filed 6-19-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
28586 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules

• Are not Executive Order 13771 (82 Dated: June 8, 2018. public docket. Do not submit
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory Onis ‘‘Trey’’ Glenn, III, electronically any information you
actions because these actions are either Regional Administrator, Region 4. consider to be Confidential Business
exempted or not significant under [FR Doc. 2018–13146 Filed 6–19–18; 8:45 am] Information (CBI) or other information
Executive Order 12866; BILLING CODE 6560–50–P whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video,
• Do not impose an information
etc.) must be accompanied by a written
collection burden under the provisions
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION comment. The written comment is
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
AGENCY considered the official comment and
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
should include discussion of all points
• Are certified as not having a 40 CFR Part 300 you wish to make. The EPA will
significant economic impact on a generally not consider comments or
[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1986–0005; FRL–9979–
substantial number of small entities 21—Region 3] comment contents located outside of the
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 primary submission (i.e. on the web,
U.S.C. 601 et seq.); National Oil and Hazardous cloud, or other file sharing system). For
• Do not contain any unfunded Substances Pollution Contingency additional submission methods, the full
mandate or significantly or uniquely Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion EPA public comment policy,
affect small governments, as described of the Ordnance Works Disposal Areas information about CBI or multimedia
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Superfund Site submissions, and general guidance on
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); making effective comments, please visit
AGENCY: Environmental Protection https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
• Do not have Federalism Agency (EPA). commenting-epa-dockets.
implications as specified in Executive ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent. • Email: Jeffrey Thomas at
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, thomas.jeffrey@epa.gov.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
1999); • Mail: Jeffrey Thomas (3HS23),
Agency (EPA), Region 3, is issuing a
• Are not economically significant Remedial Project Manager, United
Notice of Intent to Delete the Ordnance
regulatory actions based on health or States Environmental Protection Agency
Works Disposal Areas Superfund Site
safety risks subject to Executive Order 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA
(Site) located in Morgantown, West
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 19103.
Virginia, from the National Priorities • Hand delivery: United States
• Are not significant regulatory List (NPL) and requests public Environmental Protection Agency, 1650
actions subject to Executive Order comments on this proposed action. For Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); purposes of this action, the Site consists Such deliveries are only accepted
of Operable Unit 1 (OU1), an NPL-listed
• Are not subject to requirements of area of approximately 6 acres. Also for
during the Docket’s normal hours of
Section 12(d) of the National operation, and special arrangements
purposes of this action, and unless should be made for deliveries of boxed
Technology Transfer and Advancement otherwise noted, the Site does not
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because information.
include Operable Unit 2 (OU2), a non- Instructions: Direct your comments to
application of those requirements would NPL listed area of approximately eight
be inconsistent with the CAA; and Docket ID no. EPA–HQ–SFUND–1986–
hundred acres. The NPL, promulgated 0005. EPA’s policy is that all comments
• Do not provide EPA with the pursuant to section 105 of the received will be included in the public
discretionary authority to address, as Comprehensive Environmental docket without change and may be
appropriate, disproportionate human Response, Compensation, and Liability made available online at https://
health or environmental effects, using Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is www.regulations.gov, including any
practicable and legally permissible an appendix of the National Oil and personal information provided, unless
methods, under Executive Order 12898 Hazardous Substances Pollution the comment includes information
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and claimed to be CBI or other information
The SIP is not approved to apply on the State of West Virginia, through the whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
any Indian reservation land or in any West Virginia Department of Do not submit information that you
other area where EPA or an Indian tribe Environmental Protection (WVDEP), consider to be CBI or otherwise
has demonstrated that a tribe has have determined that all appropriate protected through https://
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian response actions under CERCLA, other www.regulations.gov or email. The
country, the proposed actions do not than operation and maintenance, https://www.regulations.gov website is
have tribal implications as specified by monitoring, and five-year reviews have an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, been completed. However, this deletion means EPA will not know your identity
November 9, 2000), nor will they does not preclude future actions under or contact information unless you
impose substantial direct costs on tribal Superfund. provide it in the body of your comment.
governments or preempt tribal law. DATES: Comments must be received by If you send an email comment directly
July 20, 2018. to EPA without going through https://
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, www.regulations.gov, your email
identified by Docket ID no. EPA–HQ– address will be automatically captured
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS

Environmental protection, and included as part of the comment
SFUND–1986–0005, by one of the
Administrative practice and procedure, that is placed in the public docket and
following methods:
Air pollution control, Incorporation by • https://www.regulations.gov: made available on the internet. If you
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Follow on-line instructions for submit an electronic comment, EPA
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate submitting comments. Once submitted, recommends that you include your
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping comments cannot be edited or removed name and other contact information in
requirements, Sulfur oxides. from Regulations.gov. The EPA may the body of your comment and with any
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. publish any comment received to its disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Jun 19, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20JNP1.SGM 20JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules 28587

cannot read your comment due to Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. III. Deletion Procedures
technical difficulties and cannot contact EPA maintains the NPL as the list of The following procedures apply to
you for clarification, EPA may not be sites that appear to present a significant deletion of the Site:
able to consider your comment. risk to public health, welfare, or the (1) EPA consulted with the State
Electronic files should avoid the use of environment. Sites on the NPL may be before developing this Notice of Intent
special characters, any form of the subject of remedial actions financed to Delete;
encryption, and be free of any defects or by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (2) EPA has provided the State 30
viruses. (Fund). As described in 40 CFR working days for review of this action
Docket: All documents in the docket 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted prior to this publication;
are listed in the https:// from the NPL remain eligible for Fund- (3) In accordance with the criteria
www.regulations.gov index. Although financed remedial actions if future discussed above, EPA has determined
listed in the index, some information is conditions warrant such actions. that no further response is appropriate;
not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other EPA will accept comments on the (4) The State of West Virginia,
information whose disclosure is proposal to delete this site for thirty (30) through the WVDEP, has concurred
restricted by statute. Certain other days after publication of this document with deletion of the Site from the NPL;
material, such as copyrighted material, in the Federal Register. (5) Concurrently with the publication
will be publicly available only in the Section II of this document explains of this Notice of Intent to Delete in the
hard copy. Publicly available docket the criteria for deleting sites from the Federal Register, a notice is being
materials are available either NPL. Section III discusses procedures published in a major local newspaper,
electronically in https:// that EPA is using for this action. Section The Dominion Post. The newspaper
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at: IV discusses the Ordnance Works notice announces the 30-day public
U.S. EPA Region 3, Superfund Records Disposal Areas Superfund Site and comment period concerning the Notice
Center, 6th Floor, 1650 Arch Street, demonstrates how it meets the deletion of Intent to Delete the Site from the
Philadelphia, PA 19103–2029; (215) criteria. NPL;
814–3157, Monday through Friday 8:00 (6) The EPA placed copies of
a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Morgantown Public II. NPL Deletion Criteria documents supporting the proposed
Library, 373 Spruce Street, Morgantown, The NCP establishes the criteria that deletion in the deletion docket and
WV 26505; (304) 291–7425, Monday EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. made these items available for public
through Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), inspection and copying at the Site
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: sites may be deleted from the NPL information repositories identified
Jeffrey Thomas, Remedial Project where no further response is above.
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection If comments are received within the
appropriate. In making such a
Agency, Region 3, 3HS23, 1650 Arch 30-day public comment period on this
determination pursuant to 40 CFR
Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, (215) document, EPA will evaluate and
300.425(e), EPA will consider, in
814–3377, email thomas.jeffrey@ respond appropriately to the comments
consultation with the State, whether any before making a final decision to delete.
epa.gov. of the following criteria have been met: If necessary, EPA will prepare a
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: i. Responsible parties or other persons Responsiveness Summary to address
Table of Contents have implemented all appropriate any significant public comments
response actions required; received. After the public comment
I. Introduction ii. all appropriate Fund-financed
II. NPL Deletion Criteria period, if EPA determines it is still
response under CERCLA has been appropriate to delete the Site, the
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion
implemented, and no further response Regional Administrator will publish a
action by responsible parties is final Notice of Deletion in the Federal
I. Introduction appropriate; or Register. Public notices, public
EPA Region 3 announces its intent to iii. the remedial investigation has submissions, and copies of the
delete the Ordnance Works Disposal shown that the release poses no Responsiveness Summary, if prepared,
Areas Superfund Site from the National significant threat to public health or the will be made available to interested
Priorities List (NPL) and requests public environment and, therefore, the taking parties and in the site information
comment on this proposed action. For of remedial measures is not appropriate. repositories listed above.
purposes of this action, the Site consists Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) Deletion of a site from the NPL does
of Operable Unit 1 (OU1), an NPL-listed and the NCP, EPA conducts five-year not itself create, alter, or revoke any
area of approximately 6 acres. This reviews to ensure the continued individual’s rights or obligations.
action does not include Operable Unit 2 protectiveness of remedial actions Deletion of a site from the NPL does not
(OU2), a non-NPL listed area of where hazardous substances, pollutants, in any way alter EPA’s right to take
approximately eight hundred acres. or contaminants remain at a site above enforcement actions, as appropriate.
Both OU1 and OU2 are located in an levels that allow for unlimited use and The NPL is designed primarily for
industrial/commercial complex formally unrestricted exposure. EPA conducts informational purposes and to assist
known as the Morgantown Ordnance such five-year reviews even if a site is EPA management. Section 300.425(e)(3)
Works in Morgantown, West Virginia. deleted from the NPL. EPA may initiate of the NCP states that the deletion of a
Unless otherwise stated, references to further action to ensure continued
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS

site from the NPL does not preclude
the ‘‘Site’’ shall mean OU1 only. The protectiveness at a deleted site if new eligibility for future response actions,
NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR information becomes available that should future conditions warrant such
part 300 which is the National Oil and indicates it is appropriate. Whenever actions.
Hazardous Substances Pollution there is a significant release from a site
Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA deleted from the NPL, the deleted site IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion
promulgated pursuant to section 105 of may be restored to the NPL without The following information provides
the Comprehensive Environmental application of the hazard ranking EPA’s rationale for deleting the Site
Response, Compensation and Liability system. from the NPL:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Jun 19, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20JNP1.SGM 20JNP1
28588 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules

Site Location and Use History to the United States Government. From 1998. Samples were collected, both by
The Ordnance Works Disposal Areas 1943–1962, the United States held title EPA as well as by PRPs, from
Superfund Site (EPA Identification to the property. Between 1941 and 1958, groundwater, surface and subsurface
Number WVD000850404) consists of a various businesses were operated by soils, surface water, and sediments.
disposal area designated by EPA as OU1 private parties, in some cases pursuant Analyses revealed no connection
containing approximately 6 acres within to government contracts and operating between disposal activities at OU1 and
a commercial/industrial development agreements, and in other cases pursuant the groundwater. The surface and
known as the Morgantown Ordnance to commercial leases. During these subsurface soils, surface water, and
Works outside of Morgantown, West years, substances such as hexamine, sediment at OU1 were all impacted to
Virginia. See Section I (Introduction) for ammonia, methyl alcohol, varying degrees by organic and
formaldehyde, ethylene diamine, and inorganic contaminants.
details regarding OU1 and OU2. Within
coke were produced. The plant was idle Test pits installed in the scraped area
the geographical limits of OU2 is a third
from 1958–1962. during the 1988 Remedial Investigation
area consisting of two separate parcels In 1962, the property was sold to (RI) revealed cinder-like backfill
currently being studied under the Morgantown Ordnance Works, Inc. material, blue and black catalyst pellets,
Resource Conservation and Recovery which then leased and/or sold portions and yellow solid material. Additional
Act (RCRA). OU1 was a disposal of the property to various industrial and Phase II soil borings taken in the
location used by entities that operated chemical manufacturing operations. In scraped area exposed visible tar at
in the remainder of the Morgantown 1964 Weston Chemical Company depths of up to eight feet and revealed
Ordnance Works complex. purchased a portion of the property total carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic
A removal action was conducted at totaling 62 acres that is split between hydrocarbons (cPAHs) ranging from 94
OU2 on hotspots identified in a two facilities known as the North and parts per million (ppm) to 36,000 ppm.
Remedial Investigation completed in South plants. Weston Chemical Some elevated levels of inorganic
1995. Cleanup of OU2 occurred Company was purchased by the Borg- contaminants were detected during the
pursuant to a 1996 settlement with Warner Corporation in 1969. General RI but were not detected in the scraped
potentially responsible parties (PRPs) to Electric (GE) purchased Borg-Warner area during the 1996 Phase II Interim
perform a removal action and was based Corporation in 1988 and in 2003 the GE Design Tasks.
on exposure scenarios for the current North and South plants were purchased A portion of the lagoon area was
and future anticipated land use. The by Crompton Corporation. The excavated in 1981 to address metal
work was conducted between March Crompton Corporation then sold the two plating wastes disposed in two surface
1997 and June 1997. After the removal plants to Chemtura Corporation which impoundments between 1970 and 1976.
action was completed, EPA determined, in turn sold the two facilities, in 2013, During this action, miscellaneous
based on the residual risk assessment to Addivant US, LLC, the current owner. wastes including coal tars were
analysis, that the potential for adverse The North and South plants are active observed in the lagoon. Further
carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic facilities currently being addressed investigation during the Phase II Interim
effects to industrial workers and youth through a June 1990 RCRA settlement Design Tasks indicated cPAH
trespassers was negligible and within with EPA. concentrations ranging from 3.2 ppm to
the limits considered acceptable by Except for parcels previously sold, 30,000 ppm; however, the inorganic
EPA. No further response actions at which were portions of OU2, the contaminants detected during the 1988
OU2 are anticipated. Morgantown Ordnance Works property RI were not found.
The Site is located approximately one was acquired by Princess Coals, Inc. in The northern section of OU1 was the
mile southwest of the city of 1978. In 1982, the property was location of the abandoned, inactive
Morgantown, West Virginia, near the purchased by private individuals who landfill estimated to have a fill depth of
west bank of the Monongahela River. later formed Morgantown Industrial 20 feet at its thickest location. No
The population of Monongalia County is Park, Inc. In 1983, the property was records exist on quantities or types of
approximately 75,509; the city of conveyed to Morgantown Industrial material disposed of in the landfill.
Morgantown accounts for 25,879 of this Park Associates, which retained Eyewitness reports and direct
total. The majority of the population ownership of OU1, but then sold all of observation reveal that the landfill
lives to the northeast and northwest of the other parcels comprising the contained construction debris, slag, ash,
the Site and obtains drinking water from industrial park property. and catalyst pellets. Leachate from the
a public supply. There are several landfill drained to the northeast into a
houses within a one-mile radius of the Initial Response, NPL Listing, and Study wetland. The wetland drained directly
Site that utilize wells in one capacity or As a result of the industrial activities to a feature known as ‘‘Swale 3,’’ which
another, however they are not located that occurred at the Morgantown eventually discharged to the
downgradient of the Site. Ordnance Works facility, hazardous Monongahela River. During pre-design
The Morgantown Ordnance Works, substances were disposed of within a sampling, the sediment layer of both the
which later became the Morgantown small area in the southern portion of the wetland and upper portion of Swale 3
Industrial Park, has been the location of facility that is OU1 of the Site. OU1 were determined to have been impacted
a variety of industrial and chemical contained an inactive landfill, two by heavy metals contamination.
production facilities since the 1940’s. lagoons, a former drum staging area, and As part of the 1988 Remedial
These activities occurred primarily in an area used for the shallow disposal of Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS),
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS

OU2 of the Site; OU1 was used as a wastes called the scraped area. EPA prepared a Baseline Human Health
disposal area for various industrial Investigation of this disposal area by Risk Assessment (BHHRA) for the Site
concerns operating in OU2. Beginning EPA began in 1981. OU1 was proposed in order to identify and define possible
in October 1940, the Morgantown to the NPL on October 15, 1984 (49 FR existing and future human health risks
Ordnance Works property was 40320). On June 10, 1986, OU1 was associated with exposure to the
developed as a coke plant and chemical added to the NPL (51 FR 21054). contaminants present in the various
production facility by E.I. DuPont de Sampling at OU1 of the Site occurred media at OU1 if no action were taken.
Nemours and Company under contract in various phases between 1988 and The BHHRA was revised in the 1989

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Jun 19, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20JNP1.SGM 20JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules 28589

Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) report. Hydrocarbons’’ (EPA/600/R–93/089 There was no evidence that the
In both the 1988 original and 1989 (July 1993)). In 1995, during groundwater had been significantly
revised BHHRA documents, EPA implementation of remedial design impacted by disposal operations at OU1
concluded that action was necessary to conducted under EPA’s June 1990 and no unacceptable risks were posed to
prevent contact with contaminated soil administrative order, the PRPs receptors of the groundwater at OU1.
and sediments found at OU1 of the Site. recalculated the cleanup standards for Therefore, the remedy selected in the
A comprehensive Ecological Risk cPAHs at OU1 using the new CPF 1999 ROD also did not include a
Assessment was not conducted during established in IRIS and the interim groundwater remediation component.
either the 1988 RI/FS or the 1989 FFS. comparative potency estimates
While drafting the September 29, 1999 Response Actions
established by ORD. The resulting
Record of Decision (ROD), EPA’s cleanup standard was less stringent than The PRPs implemented the remedy
Biological Technical Assistance Group the cleanup standard identified in the selected for OU1 pursuant to an
reviewed the 1988 RI data and September 1989 ROD. The PRPs administrative order originally issued in
concluded that inorganic contaminants submitted a proposal to EPA in July 1989 and modified in 1999 to direct the
were present in surface water and 1995 requesting that the Agency adopt PRPs to implement the 1999 ROD. The
sediments within OU1 at levels that the newly calculated cleanup standard Remedial Design (RD) was conducted in
were acutely toxic to potentially of 78 ppm total cPAHs. EPA evaluated conformance with the approved work
affected ecosystems. this proposal using a Monte Carlo plan and 1999 ROD. The Remedial
simulation and determined that this Action (RA) was initiated in August
Selected Remedy 2000. The target areas were excavated as
cleanup level would result in risk
In March 1988, EPA issued a Record within the 1x10¥4 to 1x10¥6 acceptable part of the RA and soils and sediments
of Decision (ROD) for OU1 selecting risk range established by the NCP. The containing visible coal tar were
onsite incineration of soils and Monte Carlo risk assessment verified separated for treatment and utilization
sediments contaminated with cPAHs that 78 ppm total cPAHs was an as a fuel source for a local power plant.
and heavy metals. In November 1988, acceptable cleanup standard as long as Utilization of the treated coal tar as a
EPA opened an additional 30-day the associated BAP value did not exceed fuel source achieved destruction of the
comment period for out-of-state PRPs 18.2 ppm. Achieving a cleanup level of contaminants of concern through
who had not received notice of the 78 ppm total cPAHs with no more than thermal treatment as well as beneficial
original Proposed Plan. Based on 18.2 ppm BAP became the cPAH reuse of the coal tar to produce
comments received during this period, cleanup standard approved by EPA. electricity. The rest of the excavated
EPA conducted a focused feasibility The PRPs completed treatability material found to be above the ROD
study (FFS) in 1989 to re-evaluate the studies for the bioremediation cleanup criteria was consolidated into
alternatives described in the March component in March 1997 under EPA’s the former landfill which was covered
1988 ROD and to conduct a risk-based June 1990 administrative order. The with a multi-layer RCRA Subtitle C cap.
analysis of cleanup levels. This FFS was PRPs concluded, and EPA agreed, that EPA and WVDEP conducted a final
completed in June 1989. bioremediation was not capable of inspection of OU1 on September 11,
On September 29, 1989, EPA issued a meeting the 78 ppm total cPAH cleanup 2003 and determined that the remedy
ROD that superseded the 1988 ROD. standard within a reasonable time-frame had been constructed in accordance
The 1989 ROD selected a remedy and and was not cost-effective. The PRPs with the Remedial Design plans and
contingency remedy for OU1. The and EPA also concluded that the soil specifications and that no further
selected remedial action included, washing contingency action described construction was anticipated. EPA and
among other things, excavation and in the September 1989 ROD was WVDEP reviewed the remedial action
treatment of inorganic hot spots from similarly deficient. In the Spring of contract and construction for
the lagoon and scraped areas; disposal 1997, the PRPs submitted a proposal to compliance with quality assurance and
of treated inorganic contaminants at the EPA to conduct a second FFS to identify quality control (QA/QC) protocols.
former landfill area; capping the former a replacement remedial action for OU1. Construction activities at the Site were
landfill; and excavation and treatment EPA agreed and negotiated a new determined to be consistent with the
of organics-contaminated soils and agreement with the PRPs for this study 1999 ROD, Remedial Design plans and
sediments using bioremediation. The work in October 1997. The second FFS specifications, and EPA’s June 1990
contingency remedial action called for was completed in 1998. administrative order.
treatment of soils and sediments using On September 30, 1999, EPA issued a The PRP’s construction contractor
soil washing technology. In June 1990, ROD that superseded the 1989 ROD. adhered to the approved Construction
EPA issued an administrative order The 1999 ROD selected a replacement Quality Assurance Plan (CQAP). The
directing several PRPs to implement the remedial action for OU1. The selected CQAP incorporated all EPA and State
September 1989 ROD. remedy consisted of off-site thermal requirements. All confirmatory
The human health risk assessment treatment of visibly stained stream, inspections, independent testing, audits,
conducted in conjunction with the OU1 lagoon, and scraped area soils/ and evaluations of materials and
RI was completed in 1988. This sediments; consolidation of workmanship were performed in
assessment was completed prior to the contaminated media into the existing accordance with the construction
issuance of a revised cancer potency landfill; restoration of streams and drawings, technical specifications, and
factor (CPF) established in the wetland areas where sediment was the CQAP. Construction quality
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS

Integrated Risk Information System excavated; capping of the existing assurance was performed by the United
(IRIS) for benzo(a)pyrene (BAP) and the landfill; long-term monitoring; and States Army Corps of Engineers,
interim comparative potency estimates institutional controls to protect the cap Huntington District, which maintained a
provided by EPA’s Office of Research and prohibit residential development, constant on-site presence. The EPA
and Development (ORD) in a guidance recreational use, schools, and child care Remedial Project Manager and State
document entitled ‘‘Provisional facilities within OU1. Neither the March regulators visited OU1 approximately
Guidance for Quantitative Risk 1988 ROD nor the September 1989 ROD twice a month during construction
Assessment of Polycyclic Aromatic required action to address groundwater. activities to review construction

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Jun 19, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20JNP1.SGM 20JNP1
28590 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules

progress and evaluate and review the under the 1990 EPA administrative access restrictions were found to be
results of QA/QC activities. Institutional order. functional. Institutional controls are in
controls to protect the cap, limit land The treatment wetlands were initially place to prohibit disturbing the landfill
use to industrial/commercial operations, inspected every six months during the cap, use of groundwater, and non-
and prohibit use of groundwater were first two years following the completion commercial use of any kind within
implemented in 2006 with the recording of the RA and continue to be inspected OU1. O&M including annual
of an Environmental Covenant in the and maintained to ensure flow-through inspections, leachate monitoring, and
office of the Clerk of the County of leachate in the pond system. The treatment wetland monitoring are
Commission of Monongalia County, integrity of the treatment ponds system performed by the PRPs pursuant to the
West Virginia, in Deed Book 1327, at has been monitored and has not 2012 approved O&M Plan. There were
Page 557. required modification to date. no issues or recommendations
The replacement wetlands, located identified in the 2016 report. The next
Cleanup Levels adjacent to the Monongahela River, are review for OU1 is required by
The remedy addressed visible tar-like inspected annually as part of the landfill September 2021.
material and contaminated soil and cap inspection. Beginning in 2008, the
sediment exceeding site-specific PRPs undertook efforts to eradicate Community Involvement
cleanup standards. Cleanup standards invasive plant species from the Throughout the Site’s history, EPA
specified in the 1999 ROD for the replacement wetlands at the request of has kept the community and other
surface and subsurface soils in the EPA and WVDEP. Recent inspections of interested parties apprised of Site
Lagoon Area and Scraped Area are as the replacement wetlands have verified activities through fact sheets, press
follows: Total cPAH 78 ppm, with a that the wetlands have developed into a releases, and public meetings. Public
BAP value not to exceed 18.2 ppm; high quality mosaic of forested, shrub- participation activities have been
arsenic 88.8 ppm; cadmium 642 ppm; scrub, and emergent wetlands habitats. performed in accordance with Sections
copper 41,100 ppm; and lead 500 ppm. Invasive plants are present, but at low 113(k) and 117 of CERCLA. Documents
Cleanup standards specified in the 1999 density as a result of the control in the deletion docket upon which EPA
ROD for stream and wetlands sediments measures implemented after
relied for recommending deletion of
are as follows: Total cPAH 78 ppm, with construction. The presence of numerous
OU1 from the NPL are available to the
a BAP value not to exceed 18.2 ppm; wetland terrestrial, aquatic, and avian
public in the information repositories.
arsenic 9.62 ppm; cadmium 0.35 ppm; species was noted through visual and
EPA notified local officials in advance
chromium 30.2 ppm; copper 22.7 ppm; auditory observation.
Landfill cap inspections currently about Five-Year Reviews and placed
lead 31.6 ppm; mercury non-detect; and
occur on a semi-annual basis. The cap notices in The Dominion Post to inform
zinc 86.8 ppm. The project team
has remained in good condition and has the public that the Five-Year Reviews
determined that total removal of the
existing sediments and replacement required only minor revegetation in were being conducted and when the
with clean fill would be the most the small areas affected by erosion. No findings of each would be available.
appropriate way to achieve cleanup of cracking or movement of surficial soils Determination That the Criteria for
the sediments. Removal of the has occurred on the top of the cap slope. Deletion Have Been Met
contaminated sediment and Storm water conveyance channels
replacement with clean fill was remain in good condition and no The implemented remedy achieves
completed as part of the Remedial obvious signs of ponding water have the degree of cleanup and protection
Action. been found. Overall the vegetative cover specified in the 1999 ROD and meets
The Quality Assurance Project Plan remains robust and well established and EPA’s acceptable risk for all exposure
(QAPP) incorporated all EPA and State the drainage system operates as pathways. The remedial action at OU1
QA/QC procedures and protocols. EPA designed. has been completed in accordance with
analytical methods were used for all the 1999 ROD, institutional controls are
Five-Year Reviews in place, and O&M is being conducted
confirmation and monitoring samples
during RA activities. Sampling and Five-Year Reviews were conducted at in accordance with the approved O&M
analysis during construction and during the Site in 2006, 2011, and 2016. In the Plan. All remedial action objectives,
Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Five-Year Review report issued on performance standards, and cleanup
monitoring was performed in September 12, 2016, EPA concluded goals established in the 1999 ROD have
accordance with approved Sampling that the remedial action objectives for been achieved and the remedy is
and Analysis Plans. Procedures and the remedy had been achieved. EPA protective of human health and the
protocols followed for soil sample found that the remedy is protective of environment in both the short- and
analysis during the RA were conducted human health and the environment, that long-term. No further Superfund
in accordance with the Contract the remedy was implemented in response, other than O&M, monitoring,
Laboratory Program. EPA and the State accordance with the remedial action and Five-Year Reviews, is necessary to
determined that analytical results are objectives of the 1999 ROD, and that the continue to protect human health and
accurate to the degree needed to assure remedy was functioning as intended. the environment. All of the selected
satisfactory completion of the RA. The landfill has not been found to be a remedial actions and the remedial
significant source of contamination to action objectives and associated cleanup
Operation and Maintenance the groundwater in the area and the goals are consistent with CERCLA, the
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS

Site O&M requirements are contained contaminants of concern identified in NCP, and EPA policy and guidance.
in the approved O&M Plan dated April the 1999 ROD have not been detected in List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300
13, 2012. This plan includes inspection groundwater samples during the review
of the landfill cover and wetlands and period. The multi-layer RCRA landfill Environmental protection, Air
associated drainage systems, and cap was determined to be effective in pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous
sampling requirements for groundwater containing hazardous waste materials, waste, Hazardous substances,
and treatment wetland effluent. O&M the treatment wetland ponds appeared Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,
activities are performed by the PRPs to be functioning as intended, and Reporting and recordkeeping

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Jun 19, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20JNP1.SGM 20JNP1
Document Created: 2018-06-20 00:20:05
Document Modified: 2018-06-20 00:20:05
Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Proposed Rules
Action		Proposed rule; notice of intent.
Dates		Comments must be received by July 20, 2018.
Contact		Jeffrey Thomas, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3, 3HS23, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, (215) 814-3377, email [email protected]
FR Citation		83 FR 28586
CFR Associated		Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Chemicals; Hazardous Waste; Hazardous Substances; Intergovernmental Relations; Penalties; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements; Superfund; Water Pollution Control and Water Supply