83 FR 34513 - National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the Old Southington Landfill Superfund Site
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 140 (July 20, 2018)
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 140 (July 20, 2018)
| Page Range | 34513-34520 | |
| FR Document | 2018-15628 |
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 140 (Friday, July 20, 2018)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 34513-34520] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2018-15628] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [EPA-HQ-SFUND-2005-0011; FRL-9981-02--Region 1] National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the Old Southington Landfill Superfund Site AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 1 is issuing a Notice of Intent to Delete the Old Southington Landfill Superfund Site (Site) located at Old Turnpike Road, Southington, Connecticut (CT), from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on this proposed action. The NPL was 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 Connecticut, through the CT Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CT DEEP), 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 CERCLA. DATES: Comments must be received by August 20, 2018. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ- SFUND-2005-0011, by one of the following methods:Online: http://www.regulations.gov_Follow on-line instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. Email: [email protected] or [email protected]. Mail: Almerinda Silva, U.S. EPA, Region 1--New England, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Mail Code OSSR-07-4, Boston, MA 02109-3912 ZaNetta Purnell, U.S. EPA, Region 1--New England, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Mail Code OSSR-ORA01-1, Boston, MA 02109-3912 Hand delivery: U.S. EPA, Region 1--New England, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND- 2005-0011. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in the hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at: U.S. EPA Region 1--New England, Superfund Records Center, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109, Phone: 617-918-1440, Hours: Monday- Friday: 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., Saturday and Sunday--Closed. Southington Public Library, 255 Main Street, Southington, CT, Phone: 860-628-0947, Hours: Monday-Thursday 9:00 a.m.-9:00 p.m., Friday-Saturday 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., and Sunday Closed. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Almerinda Silva, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1--New England OSRR07-4, 5 Post Office Square, Boston, MA 02109-3912, Phone: (617) 918-1246, email [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Introduction II. NPL Deletion Criteria III. Deletion Procedures IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion [[Page 34514]] I. Introduction EPA Region 1 announces its intent to delete the Old Southington Landfill Superfund Site from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comment on this proposed action. The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), promulgated by EPA 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 should 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 Old Southington Landfill 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 have 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: (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 notice prior to publication of it today; (3) In accordance with the criteria discussed above, EPA has determined that no further response is appropriate; (4) The State 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 Southington Observer. The newspaper notice announces the 30-day public comment period concerning the Notice of Intent to Delete the Site from the NPL; and (6) The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed deletion in the deletion docket and made these items available for public inspection and copying at the Site information repositories identified above. If comments are received within the 30-day public comment period on this document, EPA will evaluate and respond appropriately to the comments before making a final decision to delete. If necessary, EPA will prepare a Responsiveness Summary to address any significant public comments received. After the public comment period, if EPA determines it is still appropriate to delete the Site, the Regional Administrator will publish a final Notice of Deletion in the Federal Register. Public notices, public submissions and copies of the Responsiveness Summary, if prepared, will be made available to interested parties and in the Site information repositories listed above. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should future conditions warrant such actions. IV. Basis for Site Deletion The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting the Site from the NPL: Site Background and History CERCLIS ID: CTD980670806 The Old Southington Landfill Superfund Site is in the Town of Southington, Hartford County, Connecticut, and is approximately 13 miles southwest of Hartford, Connecticut. From 1920 to 1967, residents and area businesses used portions of the landfill for disposal of waste materials. During this time frame, the landfill was known as the Old Turnpike Landfill. Based upon historical information, Remedial Investigation (RI) data, and differences in ownership between the northern and southern portion of the Site, it is clear that the northern and southern portions of the landfill were used for distinct and separate purposes. The northern portion of the landfill was a ``stump dump'' that was used for the disposal of wood and construction debris. The southern portion of the landfill was used throughout the period the landfill was in operation for the co-disposal of municipal and industrial waste. Historical information, interviews with current and past Town employees, and information contained in public documents on disposal practices indicate that for a short period of time (1964- 1967) two areas (SSDA 1 and SSDA 2) in the southern portion of the landfill were used for disposal of semi-solid industrial wastes. In 1967 (or shortly thereafter), the landfill was ``closed'' consisting of: Compacting disposed material, covering with 2 feet of clean fill, and seeding for erosion control. Between 1973 and 1980, the landfill property was subdivided and sold for residential and commercial development. Several residential and commercial buildings were built on the Site and on adjacent areas. The landfill is located approximately 700 feet southeast of the former Production Well No. 5, which was installed in 1965 by the Town of Southington Water Department and was used as a public water supply. The Connecticut Department of Public [[Page 34515]] Health and Addiction Services (then the Department of Health Services) sampled Well No. 5 on several occasions between December 1978 and March 1979. Analyses of the samples indicated the presence of chlorinated volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Because of the detection of 1,1,1- trichloroethane (TCA) at levels that exceeded State standards, Well No. 5 was closed in August 1979. The well has been permanently closed since that time. A more detailed description of the Site history can be found in Section 1 of the Supplemental Remedial Investigation (SRI) Report (Kleinfelder, May 2006). 1. History of CERCLA Enforcement Activities In February 1980, EPA authorized a hydrogeologic investigation aimed at defining the nature and extent of contamination in groundwater in the vicinity of Well No. 5. Analysis of groundwater samples collected from two monitoring wells installed between the landfill and Well No. 5 indicated the presence of VOCs (Warzyn Engineering, Inc., 1980). In November 1980, the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (now the CT DEEP) collected soil samples from a manhole excavation within the industrial park located on land that had previously been part of the landfill. Analysis of the soil samples indicated the presence of chlorinated and non-chlorinated VOCs. The Old Southington Landfill was formerly known as the Old Turnpike Landfill. Based on the above findings and a hazardous ranking evaluation performed in 1982, EPA subsequently proposed the Site be placed on the National Priorities List (NPL), pursuant to Section 105(8)(b) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9605(8)(b). On September 8, 1983, the Site was proposed to the NPL (48 FR 40674) and on September 21, 1984, the Old Turnpike Landfill was final listed on the NPL as the Old Southington Landfill Superfund Site (49 FR 37070). The Site includes two Operable Units (OUs); OU1 includes the landfill cap and permanent relocation of all on-site homes and businesses; and OU2 includes the groundwater. In 1987, EPA entered into an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) with three Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) to define the nature and extent of Site contamination. In 1993, the PRPs prepared a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study report (ES&E, 1993) that provided results of the RI, a Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA), an Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA), and a Feasibility Study (FS). EPA issued an Addendum to the RI/FS Report in 1994. In September 1994, EPA issued the Interim Remedial Action for Limited Source Control Record of Decision (ROD) that addressed the landfill and included the following major remedy components and remedy objectives: Relocation of existing residences and businesses located on top of the landfill; Construction of a synthetic cap over the landfill to prevent human contact with contaminated subsurface soils, stop rainwater infiltration through the soil to the groundwater, and allow for the containment and collection of landfill gas; Excavation and consolidation of a highly contaminated area ``hot spot'' in a lined cell underneath the landfill cap; Removal of all buildings from the landfill; Installation of a soil gas collection system; Performance of long-term operation and maintenance (O&M); Performance of long-term monitoring; Development and implementation of institutional controls to ensure the remedy integrity by controlling future Site use and access; and Five-Year Reviews. The remedy selected in the 1994 ROD also required additional groundwater studies be undertaken concurrent with the implementation of the cap on the landfill. In addition, because it was uncertain if the landfill gas collection system would be effective and protective of human health, the 1994 ROD required that an additional evaluation be conducted. In 1998, a Consent Decree (CD) was entered between EPA and approximately 320 PRPs; two PRPs became the Performing Settling Defendants (PSDs) while the remainder were Contributing Settling Defendants. Pursuant to the CD, the PSDs were required to implement the remedy selected in the 1994 ROD. Construction of the remedy selected in the 1994 ROD was completed in 2001. Operation and maintenance as well as long-term monitoring are currently being conducted by the Performing Settling Defendants (PSDs). Institutional controls, consisting of Environmental Land Use Restrictions (ELURs), were implemented in 2010 and 2018 for parcels occupied by the landfill cap. Five-Year Reviews are being conducted by EPA. In June 1999, EPA entered into two additional settlements: One with six parties and the other with 119 de minimis parties who all agreed to contribute to the cost of the remedial action in the 1994 ROD. Per the 1994 ROD, the PSDs performed the additional groundwater studies (i.e., a second RI/FS) to address the remaining issues at the Site under the 1998 CD. Accordingly, in 1999, the PSDs initiated the Supplemental Groundwater Investigations (SGI) which was completed in 2006. The 2006 SRI and the Amended Feasibility Study (AFS), (EPA, 2006) were completed in June 2006. In September 2006, a Final ROD was issued to address potential vapor intrusion risks from contaminants located in shallow groundwater (Operable Unit 2 [OU2]). The 2009 CD required the PSDs to develop the Remedial Design and construct the selected remedy for the 2006 ROD. As part of the Remedial Design, a vapor intrusion groundwater investigation was completed for two properties immediately downgradient of the landfill that determined only vinyl chloride slightly exceeded a proposed State groundwater quality commercial/industrial volatilization criterion. Institutional controls in the form of ELURs would be implemented to prevent construction of new buildings to prevent future vapor intrusion risks (LEA, 2014). The ELURs were completed during 2017. Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) 1. 1993 Remedial Investigation Results from the 1993 RI concluded that the primary sources of groundwater contamination at the Site are wastes, including liquid organic solvents and semi-solid organic sludges, deposited in the landfill during its operation. Deposition of limited amounts of metal- containing wastes has also contributed to localized areas of elevated levels of certain metals in groundwater beneath the landfill. Overall, the RI results indicated that industrial-related chemical waste was deposited primarily in the southern portion of the landfill. VOCs were detected in soils at sporadically high concentrations throughout this portion of the landfill. VOCs were detected in shallow, intermediate, and deep overburden groundwater exceeding the federal Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs). Low to moderate concentrations of several other contaminants, including semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) [primarily polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)], polychlorinated biphenyl compounds (PCBs) and some metals, were also detected. The 1993 RI [[Page 34516]] also identified two areas (SSDA 1 and SSDA 2), where semi-solid industrial waste materials contaminated with relatively high levels of VOCs and/or SVOCs were deposited. EPA determined that SSDA 1 was to be considered a ``hot spot'' due to contaminants levels being substantially higher than those found throughout the landfill, whereas levels of contamination in SSDA 2 were consistent with those found throughout the southern portion of the landfill. Past records and results also indicated that the northern portion of the landfill was primarily used as a dump for stumps and demolition debris with waste materials including wood, ash, cinders, and some brick and asphalt. Moderate concentrations of PAHs were detected in soils at certain locations in the northern portion of the landfill. Approximately one third of the waste in the southern portion of the landfill remains below the water table. 2. 2006 Supplemental Remedial Investigation (OU2) The results of the 2006 SRI confirmed that groundwater flow beneath the landfill is westerly; however, as groundwater flows away from the landfill towards the Quinnipiac River, the flow becomes northwesterly. Groundwater present near the Site includes an overburden aquifer and a bedrock aquifer. Overall, groundwater flow was postulated to generally follow the bedrock topography, flowing along a west-northwest trending bedrock trough, with the impact of the bedrock topography being potentially greater on the flow in the deeper portions of the aquifer. Hydrogeologic evaluations also indicated that the bedrock surface rises in the western part of the area studied, pinching out the overburden groundwater aquifer west of the Quinnipiac River. Groundwater migrating westward from the Site contains dissolved contaminants derived from the waste disposed in the southern portion of the Site, and flows relatively quickly downward into the deeper overburden aquifer. This phenomenon appears to be due to significant differences in the relatively low permeability of the waste versus the high permeability of the underlying sand and gravel layer. Contaminants are then transported at depth to the west by regional groundwater flow. Contaminants from the northern portions of the landfill move downward more slowly and migrate greater distances through the shallow aquifer immediately west and northwest of the landfill. 3. 1994 Feasibility Study (OU1) Using the information gathered from the 1993 RI, HHRA, and other technical documents, EPA identified several source control response objectives to use in developing alternatives to prevent or minimize the release of contaminants from the Site. A comprehensive evaluation of containment and management of contaminated groundwater migration from the landfill was addressed by the final response action. A presumptive remedy for CERCLA municipal landfills was selected, which consisted primarily of containment (capping) of the landfill waste and gas collection/treatment. Capping of the landfill waste along with collection of landfill gases, and if necessary, treatment, was the presumptive containment remedy selected in the FS for this Site. In this FS, the remedy was combined with other remedial actions that addressed source control of the landfill wastes. The presumptive remedy did not address exposure pathways outside the source area (landfill) such as groundwater. The following 2006 Amended Feasibility Study addressed groundwater. 4. 2006 Amended Feasibility Study (OU2) In 2006, an Amended Feasibility Study (AFS) developed remedial alternatives for the remediation of groundwater, provided a detailed evaluation on the remedial alternatives, and performed a comparative analysis of the two remedial alternatives identified as (1) Alternative GW-1: No Action, and (2) Alternative GW-2: Institutional Controls/ Groundwater Monitoring/Building Ventilation/Vapor Barriers. Alternative GW-2 was chosen as the selected groundwater remedy for the Site. Selected Remedies The September 1994, ROD for the Interim Remedial Action for Limited Source Control addressed the following Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs): Minimize the current and future effects of landfill contaminants on groundwater quality, specifically, reducing to a minimum the amount of precipitation allowed to infiltrate through the unsaturated waste column and contaminate the groundwater; eliminate potential future risks to human health through direct contact with landfill contaminants by maintaining a physical barrier; control surface water run-on, run-off, and erosion at the Site; prevent risks from uncontrolled landfill gas migration and emissions; comply with state and federal applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs); and minimize potential impacts of implementing the selected limited source control alternative on adjacent surface waters and wetlands. Additional groundwater studies followed and in September 2006, EPA issued a ROD for the final selected remedy that addresses potential risks from vapor intrusion into buildings above the shallow VOC plume in groundwater (2006 ROD). This remedy addressed the following remedial action objective (RAO): Prevent inhalation of VOCs by occupants of residential/commercial/industrial buildings resulting from volatilization of VOCs in groundwater, in excess of 10 -4 to 10 -6 cancer risk, a Hazard Index >1, and/or comply with applicable or relevant and appropriate volatilization criteria. Response Actions 1. 1994 ROD Findings & Remedial Activities The remedial action selected in the 1994 ROD (for OU1, the landfill) was based principally upon EPA's Presumptive Remedy for CERCLA Municipal Landfill Sites, EPA Document No. 540-F-93-035. (Presumptive Remedy Guidance) (EPA, 1993). The 1994 ROD addressed all affected media (i.e., soil, soil gas, surface water, and sediment) at the landfill, at the adjacent Black Pond, and at the Unnamed Stream across Old Turnpike Road west of the landfill. By July 2001 physical construction of the OU1 (landfill) remedy was substantially completed and the operation and maintenance (O & M) activities and long-term monitoring (LTM) had started. The northern 4-acre portion of the landfill Site was redeveloped for passive recreational use. This part of the landfill is landscaped with trees and shrubs along its perimeter and abuts Black Pond. It is regularly mowed by the Town of Southington (a PSD). There is a 3-foot high chain link fence that encircles this part of the landfill along Old Turnpike Road to the west and Rejean Road to the north. The fence has an opening, which allows for pedestrian access. People can walk their dogs, sit and watch the naturally existing wildlife, and/or take their kayak or canoe out onto Black Pond. The southern portion of the landfill is secured with a 6-foot high chain link fence and public access is not allowed. The reason for prohibiting public access to this part of the landfill is to prevent potential damage to the low- permeability cap, which could in turn [[Page 34517]] allow rainwater infiltration and direct contact with highly contaminated industrial waste. The 2006 SRI determined that there were no receptors downgradient of the Site that could be affected by the plume and that Site-related groundwater contaminants of concern (COCs) downgradient of the Site do not adversely impact environmental media other than groundwater. Groundwater COCs are transported as a narrow plume in the lower portion of the aquifer, remain in the lower portion of the aquifer, with ultimate discharge into the Quinnipiac River Basin west-northwest of the Site. The also determined that non-VOC COCs from the Site in groundwater do not exceed applicable regulatory criteria. Based on the SGI's hydraulic studies, it was determined that contaminated groundwater underlying the landfill does not discharge into Black Pond or the unnamed stream and wetlands. Confirmation of the passive landfill gas collection system's effectiveness was conducted through several means. After the gas collection system was installed and the landfill was capped, three rounds of seasonal vapor data were collected directly from the landfill gas vents and a risk assessment was conducted. The data results indicated that the gas vents were operating effectively and there was no risk found to human health or to the environment. As part of the 2010 Five-Year Review, a helium tracer study was conducted in the northern part of the landfill to simulate potential landfill gas migration, low levels of helium were detected outside the landfill. Therefore, as a precautionary measure, the PSDs installed an impermeable vertical gas barrier trench that extends into the water table just outside the landfill cap to prevent possible landfill gas from migrating off-Site to the northern neighborhood. The PSDs performed a similar evaluation of the gas vents data in the southern portion of the landfill and found no risk being posed to human health or the environment. All vents continue to be periodically checked through long-term monitoring (LTM) and O&M programs. 2. 2006 ROD Findings & Remedial Activities This ROD memorialized the remedy to reduce potential risks from the migration of volatile contaminants to indoor air within buildings located above groundwater contamination. The components of this remedy complement those in the1994 ROD. The major components of the 2006 ROD are as follows: i. Institutional controls, in the form of Environmental Land Use Restrictions (ELURs) as defined in Connecticut's Remediation Standard Regulations (CT RSRs) will be placed on properties or portions of properties where groundwater Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) concentrations exceed the CT RSR volatilization criteria for residential or commercial/industrial use, or criteria listed in Table L-1 of the 2006 ROD. Periodic inspections are required to ensure compliance with the institutional controls and to ensure proper notification to EPA and the State, as necessary. ii. Building ventilation (sub-slab depressurization systems or similar technology) will be used in existing buildings located over portions of properties where VOCs in groundwater exceed the CT RSR's volatilization criteria or criteria listed in Table L-1 of the 2006 ROD to prevent migration of VOC vapors into buildings. Similarly, vapor barriers (or similar technology) or sub-slab depressurization (or similar technology) will be used to control vapors in new buildings. iii. Groundwater monitoring will be conducted in areas where the potential for vapor intrusion is a concern. Such areas include, but are not limited to, the two parcels that are the initial focus of this remedial action Chuck & Eddy's (C&E) and the Radio Station. Compliance wells will be installed at appropriate locations, to collect groundwater to evaluate long-term fluctuations in accordance with the monitoring requirements of the CT RSRs and other federal requirements to ensure the protectiveness of the remedy in the future. iv. Conduct operation, maintenance, and monitoring of engineering and institutional controls to ensure remedial measures are performing as intended and continue to protect human health and the environment in the long-term. v. Five-year reviews. The 2006 ROD addresses the threat presented by vapor intrusion through engineering controls, institutional controls, long-term monitoring, and Five-Year Reviews to prevent potential exposure to contamination that presents an unacceptable risk to human health. Engineering controls (i.e., vapor mitigation systems) will only be installed in the future if criteria listed in Table L-1 of the 2006 ROD are exceeded and/or if new buildings are constructed on properties of concern. In August 2010 further testing was performed at the Highland Hills neighborhood and the results confirmed that there is no vapor intrusion risk to this neighborhood and thus no further action is necessary in this area. To confirm that any groundwater contamination that far from the landfill edge would be at depths greater than 15 feet and not pose a vapor intrusion risk, groundwater samples were collected sequentially in discrete vertical intervals and analyzed and compared to criteria presented in Table L-1 of the 2006 ROD. Groundwater samples from two consecutive 1 foot intervals and subsequently every 5 feet down to 60 feet were collected and analyzed. There were no exceedances of any of the volatilization criteria in the upper 30 feet of the aquifer. These results confirm the conceptual Site model that there is no vapor intrusion pathway in groundwater below the Highland Hills subdivision and therefore no vapor intrusion risk. An investigation was conducted by the PSDs with EPA oversight in 2011 to confirm that the Site's groundwater plume was not migrating towards the portion of the aquifer classified by the State as GA [potable], situated to the south and southwest of the landfill. The investigation results demonstrated that the groundwater that is moving through the Landfill moves in a west/northwest direction, which continues to support the conceptual Site model for groundwater flow and contaminant transport. Thus, the Site groundwater plume does not flow toward or impact the GA aquifer. A more detailed description of this investigation and findings can be found in the GA Boundary Investigation Report (LEA, September 2011). A Vapor Intrusion Groundwater Investigation was performed by the PSDs during 2011 to assess the potential for vapor intrusion at the C&E's Property, the Radio Station Property, and at two locations along Nunzio Drive and Barbara Lane (located southwest of the Site). Soil boreholes were advanced at select locations and monitoring wells were installed. Soil and groundwater samples were collected from these locations for analysis. Soil vapor probes were installed in occupied structures at the C&E's Property and the Radio Station Property. Four quarterly rounds of soil vapor and groundwater samples were collected from June 2010 through September 2011. Only vinyl chloride was identified as slightly exceeding the criteria presented in Table L-1 of the 2006 ROD. No VOCs were detected at concentrations exceeding the State RSRs for soil vapor (LEA, 2014). Therefore, construction of remedial vapor mitigation systems for existing structures at the C&E's Property and the Radio Station Property identified in the 2006 ROD was unnecessary. However, a [[Page 34518]] passive vapor barrier was installed under the concrete slab for a new structure built in 2010 at the C&E's Property. Residents and businesses have been permanently relocated from the landfill. The landfill has been properly capped and a soil gas collection system and impermeable gas barrier have been installed at the landfill. Therefore, there is no risk to human health or the environment from coming in contact with the landfill soil or landfill gas. In addition, everyone who lives or works in the area over the groundwater plume is connected to a municipal water supply, and so there is no ingestion or dermal contact with the contaminated groundwater. The route of potential exposure to human health is through vapor intrusion in the shallow groundwater that could potentially migrate into buildings. The 2006 remedy addresses this issue through long-term monitoring and implementation of vapor intrusion engineering controls and institutional controls. The components of 1994 and the 2006 remedies are functioning effectively as designed. Cleanup Levels Attainment of Groundwater Restoration Cleanup Levels is not a Remedial Action Objective at this Site. The final groundwater remedy is not designed to clean up or restore groundwater but to address potential risks from vapor intrusion into buildings located above shallow groundwater contaminated from the Site (EPA, 2006). Operation and Maintenance There is an ongoing O&M program instituted for the 1994 remedy that includes landfill cover maintenance, cap effectiveness monitoring (groundwater monitoring and gas vent monitoring), and landfill inspection. An Operation and Maintenance Plan was prepared in 2001 that details the inspections, maintenance, and monitoring activities (CRA, 2001). An inspection plan was developed to ensure integrity of the cover system. Routine inspections of the Site include observing and recording the height of grass cover and areas of settlement and/or ponding. A security inspection that includes a fence perimeter inspection and a visual inspection of trespasser or disturbance activity is also conducted periodically. The PSDs' contractor performs the cap effectiveness monitoring, inspections, non-routine maintenance. One PSD (Town of Southington) performs the soil cover maintenance on a routine basis (removal of debris and grass cutting). For the 2006 remedy, it was determined that no sub-slab vapor mitigation system was required for either the existing C&E property or the Radio Station buildings. However, as a preventative measure any new construction of new buildings or additions to existing buildings would require sub-slab and/or engineering vapor intrusion mitigation measures. In 2010, a pre-fabricated building was constructed at the C&E property with the placement of a passive vapor barrier. This barrier was installed under the direction of the C&E property owner without EPA or CT DEEP oversight. As a result, in 2011 a second geomembrane was proposed for installation under the concrete slab as a passive vapor intrusion barrier. EPA and CT DEEP reviewed and approved the design. The installation with oversight, was approved by EPA and CT DEEP. A Vapor Intrusion Inspection Plan (VIIP) was developed by LEA in March 2018 that specifies inspection frequency on a biennial basis with mitigation steps as necessary. The VIIP is included in Appendix N of the Remedial Action Completion Report (LEA, 2018). Institutional Controls Implemented Institutional controls have been implemented for properties that comprise the Site and two properties located downgradient of the capped landfill to prevent consumption of groundwater, prevent activities that would compromise the integrity of the landfill cap, and restrict construction of structures over contaminated groundwater that exceed state groundwater standards with regard to preventing vapor intrusion exposures. These institutional controls address the requirements of both the 1994 and 2006 RODs. The institutional controls are environmental restrictions in the forms of ``Declarations of Land Use Restrictive Covenants or ``Declarations of Environmental Land Use Restrictions (ELURs)''. The September 14, 2010 ELURs were executed by the Town of Southington for the three Town-owned parcels located in the northern area of the capped landfill. In the ELURs, the Town agreed to: (1) Place notice of the restrictions on the deed, title, or other instrument and have it continue into perpetuity; (2) prohibit any use of any portion of the property that will disturb any of the remedial measures (except for maintenance and repair upon prior approval by EPA); (3) prohibit any activities that could result in exposure to contaminants in the subsurface soils and groundwater; (4) prohibit any future residential and commercial development on the property; (5) prohibit use or consumption of contaminated groundwater underlying the property; and (6) grant access to EPA, including its contractors, and the State for the purpose of conducting any activity related to the CDs. Finally, EPA, the State, and/or the PSDs have the right to enforce the ELURs. The April 9, 2018 ELURs were implemented for one Town-owned parcel located in the southern area of the capped landfill, which has the same restrictions as the September 14, 2010 ELURs. In September 17, 2015 ELURs were implemented by the CT DEEP for the remaining 9 state-owned parcels of the landfill. These ELURs have the same six restrictions as those described in the September 14, 2010 ELURs, plus an additional restriction that requires any new structure to be constructed in accordance to a plan approved by EPA that minimizes the risk of inhalation of contaminants. In addition, this ELUR indicates EPA and/or the PSDs have the right to enforce the restriction. The April 19, 2017 ELUR was recorded by the owners of the Radio Station Property. In this ELUR, the owners agreed to: (1) Restrict the construction of a building over groundwater at the Subject Area where volatile organic compounds concentrations exceed the RCSA Section 22a- 133k-1(75) Volatilization Criteria (unless a release is obtained from the CT DEEP); (2) allow no action or inaction which would allow a risk of pollutant migration, or potential hazard to human health or the environment; or result in the disturbance of structural integrity of engineering controls used to contain pollutants or limit human exposure; (3) in the event of an emergency, notify the CT DEEP, implement measures to limit actual or potential risks to human health and the environment, implement a plan to ensure restoration of the property to conditions prior to the emergency; (4) not allow alterations to the property inconsistent with the ELUR until a release is approved by the CT DEEP; (5) allows access to the CT DEEP agents that perform pollution remediation activities; (6) allow access onto the property by the CT DEEP upon reasonable notice; and (7) require the property owner to notify any future interests of the ELUR requirements. This ELUR is enforceable by the CT DEEP. The June 22, 2017 Declaration of ELUR was recorded by the owner of the property where the C&E's Used Auto Parts business is located. This ELUR has the same seven restrictions as described in the April 2017 ELUR. [[Page 34519]] Five-Year Review Hazardous substances will remain at the Site above levels that allow unlimited use and unrestricted exposure after the completion of the action. Pursuant to CERCLA Sec. 121(c) and as provided in the current guidance on Five-Year Reviews (OSWER Directive 9355.7-03B-P, June 2001), EPA must conduct statutorily required Five-Year Reviews. The first Five-Year Review was conducted in September 2005. The second and third Five-Year Reviews were completed in September 2010 and in September, 2015, respectively. The September 2015 Five-Year Review found the Site remedy currently protective of human health and the environment. There was one issue and recommendation, to complete the Institutional Controls at the C&E property and the Radio Station Property. The PSDs continued to work collaboratively with CT DEEP and the property owners at these two properties and in June 2017 institutional controls, in the form of ELURs, were finalized. These actions completed the 2015 Five-Year Review recommendation. The remedy is protective of human health and the environment. The next Five-Year Review is scheduled for September 2020. Community Involvement From approximately 1988 through 2002, community concern and involvement was high at this Site. EPA kept the community and other interested parties apprised of the Site's activities through informational meetings, fact sheets, press releases and public meetings. In October 1988, EPA released a community relations plan that outlined a program to address community concerns to keep citizens informed and involved with remedial activities. On December 14, 1988, EPA held an informational meeting in the Southington Public Library to describe the plans for the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study. In January 1993, a $50,000 technical assistance grant was awarded by EPA to a local group of citizens who called themselves, Southington of Landfill Victims, (SOLV) to hire a technical consultant to help them better understand the Site's technical data and information. This consultant provided the group technical assistance in interpreting technical documents relating to the remedial investigation, human and ecological risk assessments, remedial design, and remedial action. On May 23, 1994, EPA completed the administrative record which included documents that were used by EPA to propose the remedy for the Site. These documents were available for public review at EPA's offices in Boston, Massachusetts and at the Site Repository at the Southington Public Library, Southington, CT. The Proposed Plan was made available to the public on May 23, 1994. On June 14, 1994, EPA held a public meeting to discuss the results of the Remedial Investigation, the cleanup activities presented in the FS and to present the Agency's Proposed Plan. This was followed by a 30- day comment period. On June 29, 1994 residents requested an additional 30-day comment period to August 13, 1994, which was granted by EPA. On July 12, 1994, the Agency held a public hearing to discuss the Proposed Plan and to accept oral comments. A transcript of this hearing and comments, along with the Agency's response to comments are included in the Responsiveness Summary found in Appendix A of the 1994 ROD. In June 2006 EPA issued a second Proposed Plan with a 60-day comment period from June 22, 2006 through August 24, 2006 for the final remedy to address vapor intrusion at properties downgradient of the landfill. On July 6, 2006 a public hearing was conducted to accept verbal comments. All comments were addressed in the responsiveness summary included in PART 3 of the 2006 ROD. After the 1994 ROD remedy was implemented, community involvement and interest decreased significantly. EPA continues to conduct community outreach through its Five-Year Reviews or any time there is new information to share with the public. EPA has worked closely with CT DEEP and the PSDs throughout the preparation of documentation for the deletion process. The community is being notified of EPA's intent to delete the Site from the NPL through the publication of this Notice of Intent to Delete and the public will be provided with a 30-day comment period. EPA will take all of received comments into consideration and in consultation with CT DEEP, and will respond, as appropriate, to the comments in a responsiveness summary. Determination That the Site Meets the Criteria for Deletion in the NCP All Remedial Design and Remedial Action (RD/RA) activities at the Site were consistent with the 1994 ROD, the 2006 ROD, as well as all respective EPA Statements of Work provided by the PSDs. All selected remedial and removal action objectives and associated cleanup levels are consistent with agency policy and guidance. RA plans for all phases of construction included Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs) which incorporated all EPA quality assurance and quality control procedures and protocols (where necessary). All procedures and protocols were followed for soil, groundwater, surface water, sediment, soil gas, and fish tissue sampling. EPA analytical methods were used for all validation and monitoring during all RA activities. EPA has determined that the analytical results were accurate to the degree needed to assure satisfactory execution of the RAs, and were consistent with the RODs and RD/RA plans and specifications. All Institutional Controls are in place and currently EPA expects that no further Superfund response is needed to protect human health and the environment, other than future Five-Year Reviews, ongoing long- term monitoring, O&M, and inspections. Confirmatory groundwater monitoring and institutional controls provide further assurance that the Site no longer poses any threats to human health or the environment. Operation and maintenance activities were agreed upon by EPA, in consultation with CT DEEP, and the PSDs in the 2001 O&M Plan and the 2018 Vapor Intrusion Monitoring Plan (VIIP). EPA has followed the procedures required by 40 CFR 300.425(e). The Site meets all Site completion requirements as specified in OSWER Directive 9320.2-09-A-P, Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites. All cleanup actions specified in the 1994 and 2006 RODs have been achieved for all pathways of exposure. Therefore, no further Superfund response is needed to protect human health and the environment. A bibliography of all reports relevant to the completion of this Site under the Superfund program are included in the administrative record for this deletion. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, and 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. [[Page 34520]] Dated: July 9, 2018. Alexandra Dunn, Regional Administrator Region 1. [FR Doc. 2018-15628 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 140 / Friday, July 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules 34513
environment. The only remaining does not preclude future actions under consider to be CBI or otherwise
activity to be performed are Five-Year CERCLA. protected through http://
Reviews, monitoring, and O&M DATES: Comments must be received by www.regulations.gov or email. The
activities described above. A August 20, 2018. http://www.regulations.gov website is
bibliography of all reports relevant to ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
the completion of this Site under the identified by Docket ID no. EPA–HQ– means EPA will not know your identity
Superfund program is in the SFUND–2005–0011, by one of the or contact information unless you
administrative record for this deletion. following methods: provide it in the body of your comment.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 • Online: http:// If you send an email comment directly
www.regulations.gov—Follow on-line to EPA without going through http://
Environmental protection, Chemicals, instructions for submitting comments. www.regulations.gov, your email
Hazardous waste, Hazardous Once submitted, comments cannot be address will be automatically captured
substances, Intergovernmental relations, edited or removed from Regulations.gov. and included as part of the comment
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping The EPA may publish any comment that is placed in the public docket and
requirements, Superfund, Water received to its public docket. Do not made available on the internet. If you
pollution control, Water supply. submit electronically any information submit an electronic comment, EPA
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. you consider to be Confidential recommends that you include your
9601–9657; E.O. 13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, Business Information (CBI) or other name and other contact information in
2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, information whose disclosure is the body of your comment and with any
3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be cannot read your comment due to
Dated: July 9, 2018. accompanied by a written comment. technical difficulties and cannot contact
Alexandra Dunn, The written comment is considered the you for clarification, EPA may not be
Regional Administrator, Region 1. official comment and should include able to consider your comment.
[FR Doc. 2018–15622 Filed 7–19–18; 8:45 am] discussion of all points you wish to Electronic files should avoid the use of
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P make. The EPA will generally not special characters, any form of
consider comments or comment encryption, and be free of any defects or
contents located outside of the primary viruses.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or Docket: All documents in the docket
AGENCY other file sharing system). For are listed in the http://
additional submission methods, the full www.regulations.gov index. Although
40 CFR Part 300 EPA public comment policy, listed in the index, some information is
[EPA–HQ–SFUND–2005–0011; FRL–9981– information about CBI or multimedia not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
02—Region 1] submissions, and general guidance on information whose disclosure is
making effective comments, please visit restricted by statute. Certain other
National Oil and Hazardous https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ material, such as copyrighted material,
Substances Pollution Contingency commenting-epa-dockets. will be publicly available only in the
Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion • Email: silva.almerinda@epa.gov or hard copy. Publicly available docket
of the Old Southington Landfill Purnell.ZaNetta@epa.gov. materials are available either
Superfund Site • Mail: electronically in http://
Almerinda Silva, U.S. EPA, Region 1— www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:
AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection
New England, 5 Post Office Square, U.S. EPA Region 1—New England,
Agency (EPA).
Suite 100, Mail Code OSSR–07–4, Superfund Records Center, 5 Post Office
ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent. Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109,
Boston, MA 02109–3912
SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental ZaNetta Purnell, U.S. EPA, Region 1— Phone: 617–918–1440, Hours: Monday–
Protection Agency (EPA) Region 1 is New England, 5 Post Office Square, Friday: 9:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m., Saturday
issuing a Notice of Intent to Delete the Suite 100, Mail Code OSSR–ORA01– and Sunday—Closed.
Old Southington Landfill Superfund 1, Boston, MA 02109–3912 Southington Public Library, 255 Main
Site (Site) located at Old Turnpike Road, • Hand delivery: U.S. EPA, Region Street, Southington, CT, Phone: 860–
Southington, Connecticut (CT), from the 1—New England, 5 Post Office Square, 628–0947, Hours: Monday–Thursday
National Priorities List (NPL) and Suite 100, Boston, MA. Such deliveries 9:00 a.m.–9:00 p.m., Friday–Saturday
requests public comments on this are only accepted during the Docket’s 9:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m., and Sunday
proposed action. The NPL was normal hours of operation, and special Closed.
promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of arrangements should be made for FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
the Comprehensive Environmental deliveries of boxed information. Almerinda Silva, Remedial Project
Response, Compensation, and Liability Instructions: Direct your comments to Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection
Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is Docket ID no. EPA–HQ–SFUND–2005– Agency, Region 1—New England
an appendix of the National Oil and 0011. EPA’s policy is that all comments OSRR07–4, 5 Post Office Square,
Hazardous Substances Pollution received will be included in the public Boston, MA 02109–3912, Phone: (617)
Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and docket without change and may be 918–1246, email silva.almerinda@
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
the State of Connecticut, through the CT made available online at http:// epa.gov.
Department of Energy and www.regulations.gov, including any SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Environmental Protection (CT DEEP), personal information provided, unless
have determined that all appropriate the comment includes information Table of Contents
response actions under CERCLA, other claimed to be Confidential Business I. Introduction
than operation and maintenance, Information (CBI) or other information II. NPL Deletion Criteria
monitoring, and five-year reviews, have whose disclosure is restricted by statute. III. Deletion Procedures
been completed. However, this deletion Do not submit information that you IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:08 Jul 19, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM 20JYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_34653/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 140 / Friday, July 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules 34515
Health and Addiction Services (then the (HHRA), an Ecological Risk Assessment minimis parties who all agreed to
Department of Health Services) sampled (ERA), and a Feasibility Study (FS). EPA contribute to the cost of the remedial
Well No. 5 on several occasions between issued an Addendum to the RI/FS action in the 1994 ROD. Per the 1994
December 1978 and March 1979. Report in 1994. ROD, the PSDs performed the additional
Analyses of the samples indicated the In September 1994, EPA issued the groundwater studies (i.e., a second RI/
presence of chlorinated volatile organic Interim Remedial Action for Limited FS) to address the remaining issues at
compounds (VOCs). Because of the Source Control Record of Decision the Site under the 1998 CD.
detection of 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA) (ROD) that addressed the landfill and Accordingly, in 1999, the PSDs initiated
at levels that exceeded State standards, included the following major remedy the Supplemental Groundwater
Well No. 5 was closed in August 1979. components and remedy objectives: Investigations (SGI) which was
The well has been permanently closed • Relocation of existing residences completed in 2006. The 2006 SRI and
since that time. A more detailed and businesses located on top of the the Amended Feasibility Study (AFS),
description of the Site history can be landfill; (EPA, 2006) were completed in June
found in Section 1 of the Supplemental • Construction of a synthetic cap over 2006. In September 2006, a Final ROD
Remedial Investigation (SRI) Report the landfill to prevent human contact was issued to address potential vapor
(Kleinfelder, May 2006). with contaminated subsurface soils, intrusion risks from contaminants
stop rainwater infiltration through the located in shallow groundwater
1. History of CERCLA Enforcement
soil to the groundwater, and allow for (Operable Unit 2 [OU2]).
Activities
the containment and collection of The 2009 CD required the PSDs to
In February 1980, EPA authorized a landfill gas; develop the Remedial Design and
hydrogeologic investigation aimed at • Excavation and consolidation of a construct the selected remedy for the
defining the nature and extent of highly contaminated area ‘‘hot spot’’ in 2006 ROD. As part of the Remedial
contamination in groundwater in the a lined cell underneath the landfill cap; Design, a vapor intrusion groundwater
vicinity of Well No. 5. Analysis of • Removal of all buildings from the investigation was completed for two
groundwater samples collected from landfill; properties immediately downgradient of
two monitoring wells installed between • Installation of a soil gas collection the landfill that determined only vinyl
the landfill and Well No. 5 indicated the system; chloride slightly exceeded a proposed
presence of VOCs (Warzyn Engineering, • Performance of long-term operation State groundwater quality commercial/
Inc., 1980). In November 1980, the and maintenance (O&M); industrial volatilization criterion.
Connecticut Department of • Performance of long-term
Institutional controls in the form of
Environmental Protection (now the CT monitoring;
• Development and implementation ELURs would be implemented to
DEEP) collected soil samples from a prevent construction of new buildings
manhole excavation within the of institutional controls to ensure the
remedy integrity by controlling future to prevent future vapor intrusion risks
industrial park located on land that had (LEA, 2014). The ELURs were
previously been part of the landfill. Site use and access; and
• Five-Year Reviews. completed during 2017.
Analysis of the soil samples indicated
the presence of chlorinated and non- The remedy selected in the 1994 ROD Remedial Investigation and Feasibility
chlorinated VOCs. also required additional groundwater Study (RI/FS)
The Old Southington Landfill was studies be undertaken concurrent with
formerly known as the Old Turnpike the implementation of the cap on the 1. 1993 Remedial Investigation
Landfill. Based on the above findings landfill. In addition, because it was Results from the 1993 RI concluded
and a hazardous ranking evaluation uncertain if the landfill gas collection that the primary sources of groundwater
performed in 1982, EPA subsequently system would be effective and contamination at the Site are wastes,
proposed the Site be placed on the protective of human health, the 1994 including liquid organic solvents and
National Priorities List (NPL), pursuant ROD required that an additional semi-solid organic sludges, deposited in
to Section 105(8)(b) of the evaluation be conducted. the landfill during its operation.
Comprehensive Environmental In 1998, a Consent Decree (CD) was Deposition of limited amounts of metal-
Response, Compensation and Liability entered between EPA and containing wastes has also contributed
Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9605(8)(b). On approximately 320 PRPs; two PRPs to localized areas of elevated levels of
September 8, 1983, the Site was became the Performing Settling certain metals in groundwater beneath
proposed to the NPL (48 FR 40674) and Defendants (PSDs) while the remainder the landfill.
on September 21, 1984, the Old were Contributing Settling Defendants. Overall, the RI results indicated that
Turnpike Landfill was final listed on the Pursuant to the CD, the PSDs were industrial-related chemical waste was
NPL as the Old Southington Landfill required to implement the remedy deposited primarily in the southern
Superfund Site (49 FR 37070). The Site selected in the 1994 ROD. Construction portion of the landfill. VOCs were
includes two Operable Units (OUs); of the remedy selected in the 1994 ROD detected in soils at sporadically high
OU1 includes the landfill cap and was completed in 2001. Operation and concentrations throughout this portion
permanent relocation of all on-site maintenance as well as long-term of the landfill. VOCs were detected in
homes and businesses; and OU2 monitoring are currently being shallow, intermediate, and deep
includes the groundwater. conducted by the Performing Settling overburden groundwater exceeding the
In 1987, EPA entered into an Defendants (PSDs). Institutional federal Maximum Contaminant Levels
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) controls, consisting of Environmental (MCLs).
with three Potentially Responsible Land Use Restrictions (ELURs), were Low to moderate concentrations of
Parties (PRPs) to define the nature and implemented in 2010 and 2018 for several other contaminants, including
extent of Site contamination. In 1993, parcels occupied by the landfill cap. semi-volatile organic compounds
the PRPs prepared a Remedial Five-Year Reviews are being conducted (SVOCs) [primarily polycyclic aromatic
Investigation/Feasibility Study report by EPA. In June 1999, EPA entered into hydrocarbons (PAHs)], polychlorinated
(ES&E, 1993) that provided results of the two additional settlements: One with six biphenyl compounds (PCBs) and some
RI, a Human Health Risk Assessment parties and the other with 119 de metals, were also detected. The 1993 RI
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:08 Jul 19, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM 20JYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_34653/page/3.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 140 / Friday, July 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules 34517
allow rainwater infiltration and direct i. Institutional controls, in the form of action is necessary in this area. To
contact with highly contaminated Environmental Land Use Restrictions confirm that any groundwater
industrial waste. (ELURs) as defined in Connecticut’s contamination that far from the landfill
The 2006 SRI determined that there Remediation Standard Regulations (CT edge would be at depths greater than 15
were no receptors downgradient of the RSRs) will be placed on properties or feet and not pose a vapor intrusion risk,
Site that could be affected by the plume portions of properties where groundwater samples were collected
and that Site-related groundwater groundwater Volatile Organic sequentially in discrete vertical
contaminants of concern (COCs) Compound (VOC) concentrations intervals and analyzed and compared to
downgradient of the Site do not exceed the CT RSR volatilization criteria criteria presented in Table L–1 of the
adversely impact environmental media for residential or commercial/industrial 2006 ROD. Groundwater samples from
other than groundwater. Groundwater use, or criteria listed in Table L–1 of the two consecutive 1 foot intervals and
COCs are transported as a narrow plume 2006 ROD. Periodic inspections are subsequently every 5 feet down to 60
in the lower portion of the aquifer, required to ensure compliance with the feet were collected and analyzed. There
remain in the lower portion of the institutional controls and to ensure were no exceedances of any of the
aquifer, with ultimate discharge into the proper notification to EPA and the State, volatilization criteria in the upper 30
Quinnipiac River Basin west-northwest as necessary. feet of the aquifer. These results confirm
of the Site. The also determined that ii. Building ventilation (sub-slab the conceptual Site model that there is
non-VOC COCs from the Site in depressurization systems or similar no vapor intrusion pathway in
groundwater do not exceed applicable technology) will be used in existing groundwater below the Highland Hills
regulatory criteria. Based on the SGI’s buildings located over portions of subdivision and therefore no vapor
hydraulic studies, it was determined properties where VOCs in groundwater intrusion risk.
that contaminated groundwater exceed the CT RSR’s volatilization An investigation was conducted by
underlying the landfill does not criteria or criteria listed in Table L–1 of the PSDs with EPA oversight in 2011 to
discharge into Black Pond or the the 2006 ROD to prevent migration of confirm that the Site’s groundwater
unnamed stream and wetlands. VOC vapors into buildings. Similarly, plume was not migrating towards the
Confirmation of the passive landfill vapor barriers (or similar technology) or portion of the aquifer classified by the
gas collection system’s effectiveness was sub-slab depressurization (or similar State as GA [potable], situated to the
conducted through several means. After technology) will be used to control south and southwest of the landfill. The
the gas collection system was installed vapors in new buildings. investigation results demonstrated that
and the landfill was capped, three iii. Groundwater monitoring will be the groundwater that is moving through
rounds of seasonal vapor data were conducted in areas where the potential the Landfill moves in a west/northwest
collected directly from the landfill gas for vapor intrusion is a concern. Such direction, which continues to support
vents and a risk assessment was areas include, but are not limited to, the the conceptual Site model for
conducted. The data results indicated two parcels that are the initial focus of groundwater flow and contaminant
that the gas vents were operating this remedial action Chuck & Eddy’s transport. Thus, the Site groundwater
effectively and there was no risk found (C&E) and the Radio Station. plume does not flow toward or impact
to human health or to the environment. Compliance wells will be installed at the GA aquifer. A more detailed
As part of the 2010 Five-Year Review, appropriate locations, to collect description of this investigation and
a helium tracer study was conducted in groundwater to evaluate long-term findings can be found in the GA
the northern part of the landfill to fluctuations in accordance with the Boundary Investigation Report (LEA,
simulate potential landfill gas monitoring requirements of the CT RSRs September 2011).
migration, low levels of helium were and other federal requirements to ensure A Vapor Intrusion Groundwater
detected outside the landfill. Therefore, the protectiveness of the remedy in the Investigation was performed by the
as a precautionary measure, the PSDs future. PSDs during 2011 to assess the potential
installed an impermeable vertical gas iv. Conduct operation, maintenance, for vapor intrusion at the C&E’s
barrier trench that extends into the and monitoring of engineering and Property, the Radio Station Property,
water table just outside the landfill cap institutional controls to ensure remedial and at two locations along Nunzio Drive
to prevent possible landfill gas from measures are performing as intended and Barbara Lane (located southwest of
migrating off-Site to the northern and continue to protect human health the Site). Soil boreholes were advanced
neighborhood. The PSDs performed a and the environment in the long-term. at select locations and monitoring wells
similar evaluation of the gas vents data v. Five-year reviews. were installed. Soil and groundwater
in the southern portion of the landfill The 2006 ROD addresses the threat samples were collected from these
and found no risk being posed to human presented by vapor intrusion through locations for analysis. Soil vapor probes
health or the environment. All vents engineering controls, institutional were installed in occupied structures at
continue to be periodically checked controls, long-term monitoring, and the C&E’s Property and the Radio
through long-term monitoring (LTM) Five-Year Reviews to prevent potential Station Property. Four quarterly rounds
and O&M programs. exposure to contamination that presents of soil vapor and groundwater samples
an unacceptable risk to human health. were collected from June 2010 through
2. 2006 ROD Findings & Remedial Engineering controls (i.e., vapor September 2011. Only vinyl chloride
Activities mitigation systems) will only be was identified as slightly exceeding the
This ROD memorialized the remedy installed in the future if criteria listed in criteria presented in Table L–1 of the
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
to reduce potential risks from the Table L–1 of the 2006 ROD are exceeded 2006 ROD. No VOCs were detected at
migration of volatile contaminants to and/or if new buildings are constructed concentrations exceeding the State RSRs
indoor air within buildings located on properties of concern. for soil vapor (LEA, 2014). Therefore,
above groundwater contamination. The In August 2010 further testing was construction of remedial vapor
components of this remedy complement performed at the Highland Hills mitigation systems for existing
those in the1994 ROD. neighborhood and the results confirmed structures at the C&E’s Property and the
The major components of the 2006 that there is no vapor intrusion risk to Radio Station Property identified in the
ROD are as follows: this neighborhood and thus no further 2006 ROD was unnecessary. However, a
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:08 Jul 19, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM 20JYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_34653/page/5.svg)
![34520 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 140 / Friday, July 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules
Dated: July 9, 2018. International Bureau, Satellite Division, Commission’s Secretary, Office of the
Alexandra Dunn, at 202–418–2288 or Jose.Albuquerque@ Secretary, Federal Communications
Regional Administrator Region 1. fcc.gov. For information regarding the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2018–15628 Filed 7–19–18; 8:45 am] PRA information collection • All hand-delivered or messenger-
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
requirements contained in this PRA, delivered paper filings for the
contact Cathy Williams, Office of Commission’s Secretary must be
Managing Director, at (202) 418–2918 or delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov. 12th St. SW, Room TW–A325,
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours
COMMISSION are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand
summary of the Commission’s Third
47 CFR Parts 2, 25 and 30 Report and Order (3rd FNPRM), GN deliveries must be held together with
Docket No. 14–177, FCC 18–73, adopted rubber bands or fasteners. Any
[GN Docket No. 14–177; WT Docket No. 10– on June 7, 2018 and released on June 8, envelopes and boxes must be disposed
112; FCC 18–73] of before entering the building.
2018. The complete text of this
document is available for public • Commercial overnight mail (other
Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail
for Mobile Radio Services inspection and copying from 8 a.m. to
4:30 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) Monday and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050
AGENCY: Federal Communications through Thursday or from 8 a.m. to Junction Dr., Annapolis Junction,
Commission. 11:30 a.m. ET on Fridays in the FCC Annapolis MD 20701.
Reference Information Center, 445 12th • U.S. Postal Service first-class,
ACTION: Proposed rule.
Street SW, Room CY–A257, Express, and Priority mail must be
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Washington, DC 20554. The complete addressed to 445 12th Street SW,
Communications Commission text is available on the Commission’s Washington DC 20554.
(Commission or FCC) seeks comment on website at http://wireless.fcc.gov, or by People With Disabilities: To request
proposed service rules to allow flexible using the search function on the ECFS materials in accessible formats for
fixed and mobile uses in additional web page at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ people with disabilities (Braille, large
bands and on refinements to the ecfs/. Alternative formats are available print, electronic files, audio format),
adopted rules in this document. A Final to persons with disabilities by sending send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call
rule document for the Third Report and an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or by calling the Consumer & Governmental Affairs
Order (3rd R&O) related to this the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 888–
document for the Third Further Notice Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice), (202) 835–5322 (tty).
of Proposed Rulemaking (3rd FNPRM) is 418–0432 (tty). Ex Parte Rules—Permit-But-Disclose
published in this issue of this Federal Pursuant to § 1.1200(a) of the
Comment Filing Procedures
Register. Commission’s rules, this 3rd FNPRM
DATES: Comments are due on or before Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the
Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415, shall be treated as a ‘‘permit-but-
September 10, 2018; reply comments are disclose’’ proceeding in accordance
due on or before September 28, 2018. 1.419, interested parties may file
comments and reply comments on or with the Commission’s ex parte rules.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, Persons making ex parte presentations
before the dates indicated on the first
identified by GN Docket No. 14–177, by must file a copy of any written
page of this document. Comments may
any of the following methods: presentation or a memorandum
be filed using the Commission’s
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// summarizing any oral presentation
Electronic Comment Filing System
www.regulations.gov. Follow the within two business days after the
(ECFS). See Electronic Filing of
instructions for submitting comments. presentation (unless a different deadline
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,
• Federal Communications applicable to the Sunshine period
63 FR 24121 (1998).
Commission’s Website: https:// • Electronic Filers: Comments may be applies). Persons making oral ex parte
www.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the filed electronically using the internet by presentations are reminded that
instructions for submitting comments. accessing the ECFS: https:// memoranda summarizing the
• People With Disabilities: Contact www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings. Filers should presentation must (1) list all persons
the FCC to request reasonable follow the instructions provided on the attending or otherwise participating in
accommodations (accessible format website for submitting comments. In the meeting at which the ex parte
documents, sign language interpreters, completing the transmittal screen, filers presentation was made, and (2)
CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov, should include their full name, U.S. summarize all data presented and
phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202–418– Postal Service mailing address, and the arguments made during the
0432. applicable docket number, GN Docket presentation. If the presentation
For detailed instructions for No. 14–177. consisted in whole or in part of the
submitting comments and additional • Paper Filers: Parties who choose to presentation of data or arguments
information on the rulemaking process, file by paper must file an original and already reflected in the presenter’s
see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION one copy of each filing. If more than one written comments, memoranda or other
section of this document. docket or rulemaking number appears in filings in the proceeding, the presenter
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John the caption of this proceeding, filers may provide citations to such data or
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Schauble of the Wireless must submit two additional copies for arguments in his or her prior comments,
Telecommunications Bureau, each additional docket or rulemaking memoranda, or other filings (specifying
Broadband Division, at (202) 418–0797 number. the relevant page and/or paragraph
or John.Schauble@fcc.gov, Michael Ha Filings can be sent by hand or numbers where such data or arguments
of the Office of Engineering and messenger delivery, by commercial can be found) in lieu of summarizing
Technology, Policy and Rules Division, overnight courier, or by first-class or them in the memorandum. Documents
at 202–418–2099 or Michael.Ha@ overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All shown or given to Commission staff
fcc.gov, or Jose Albuquerque of the filings must be addressed to the during ex parte meetings are deemed to
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:08 Jul 19, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM 20JYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_34653/page/8.svg)
Document Created: 2018-07-20 01:19:37
Document Modified: 2018-07-20 01:19:37
| 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 August 20, 2018. | |
| Contact | Almerinda Silva, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1--New England OSRR07-4, 5 Post Office Square, Boston, MA 02109-3912, Phone: (617) 918-1246, email [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 83 FR 34513 | |
| 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 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR