```

[Federal Register: August 6, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 151)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 47482-47487]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06au10-12]                         

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2000-0006; FRL-9185-4]

 
National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan; 
National Priorities List: Deletion of the Peter Cooper Corporation 
(Markhams) Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 2 is 
publishing a direct final notice of deletion of the Peter Cooper 
Corporation (Markhams) Superfund Site (Markhams Site) located in the 
Town of Dayton, Cattaraugus County, New York from the National 
Priorities List (NPL).
    The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response,

[[Page 47483]]

Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an 
appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution 
Contingency Plan (NCP). This direct final deletion is being published 
by EPA with the concurrence of the State of New York, through the 
Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), because EPA has 
determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other 
than operation, maintenance, and five-year reviews, have been 
completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions 
under Superfund.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective September 20, 2010 
unless EPA receives adverse comments by September 7, 2010. If adverse 
comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the 
direct final deletion in the Federal Register informing the public that 
the deletion will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-2000-0006, by one of the following methods:
    http://www.regulations.gov. Follow on-line instructions 
for submitting comments.
     E-mail: henry.sherrel@epa.gov.
     Fax: 212-637-3966.
     Mail: Sherrel Henry, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, 290 Broadway, 20th Floor, 
New York, New York 10007-1866
     Hand delivery: Superfund Records Center, 290 Broadway, 
18th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866 (telephone: 212-637-4308). Such 
deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of 
operation (Monday to Friday from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.) and special 
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
2000-0006. 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 e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site 
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without 
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name 
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of 
any defects or viruses.

Docket

    All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in the hard 
copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either 
electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, Superfund Records 
Center, 290 Broadway, Room 1828, New York, New York 10007-1866. (212) 
637-4308.
Hours: Monday through Friday: 9 a.m. through 5 p.m.
 or
Town of Dayton, Town Building, 9100 Route 62, South Dayton, New York 
14138. (716) 532-9449.
Hours: Monday through Friday: 9 a.m. through 5 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Sherrel D. Henry, Remedial Project 
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, 290 Broadway, 
20th Floor, NY, NY 10007-1866, (212) 637-4273, e-mail: 
henry.sherrel@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

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

I. Introduction

    EPA Region 2 is publishing this direct final Notice of Deletion of 
the Peter Cooper Corporation (Markhams) Superfund Site (Markhams Site) 
from the NPL. 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 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.
    Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and 
routine, this action will be effective September 20, 2010 unless EPA 
receives adverse comments by September 7, 2010. Along with this direct 
final Notice of Deletion, EPA is co-publishing a Notice of Intent to 
Delete in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of the Federal Register. If 
adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period 
on this deletion action, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this 
direct final Notice of Deletion before the effective date of the 
deletion, and the deletion will not take effect. EPA will, as 
appropriate, prepare a response to comments and continue with the 
deletion process on the basis of the Notice of Intent to Delete and the 
comments already received. There will be no additional opportunity to 
comment.
    Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting 
sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using 
for this action. Section IV discusses the Markhams Site and 
demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria. Section V discusses 
EPA's action to delete the Site from the NPL unless adverse comments 
are received during the public comment period.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from 
the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites 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

[[Page 47484]]

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 of New York prior to developing 
this direct final Notice of Deletion and the Notice of Intent to Delete 
co-published today in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of the Federal 
Register.
    (2) EPA has provided New York State 30 working days for review of 
this notice and the parallel Notice of Intent to Delete prior to their 
publication today, and the State, through the NYSDEC, has concurred on 
the deletion of the Site from the NPL.
    (3) Concurrently with the publication of this direct final Notice 
of Deletion, a notice of the availability of the parallel Notice of 
Intent to Delete is being published in a major local newspaper, Dunkirk 
Observer. The newspaper notice announces the 30-day public comment 
period concerning the Notice of Intent to Delete the Site from the NPL.
    (4) 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.
    (5) If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public 
comment period on this deletion action, EPA will publish a timely 
notice of withdrawal of this direct final Notice of Deletion before its 
effective date and will prepare a response to comments and continue 
with the deletion process on the basis of the Notice of Intent to 
Delete and the comments already received.
    Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or 
revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from 
the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement 
actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for 
informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section 
300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the 
NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should 
future conditions warrant such actions.

IV. Basis for Site Deletion

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

Site Background and History

    The Markhams Site, EPA ID No. NYD980592547, is located off Bentley 
Road, in the Town of Dayton, Cattaraugus County, New York. The Site is 
approximately 103 acres in size and is bordered to the northwest by 
Bentley Road; to the northeast by a wooded property and farm field; to 
the southeast by a railroad right-of-way; and to the southwest by 
hardwood forest. Site access is restricted by a locked cable gate at 
the Bentley Road entrance. Surrounding property is rural, consisting of 
small farm fields, open meadow and forests.
    The Site was used for the disposal of wastes remaining after the 
manufacturing process from the Peter Cooper Corporation (PCC), a former 
animal glue and adhesives plant located in Gowanda, New York. Materials 
disposed at the Site were reported to consist of ``cookhouse sludge,'' 
residue pile material and vacuum filter sludge. Cookhouse sludge was so 
named because of a cooking cycle that occurred just prior to extraction 
of the glue. It was derived primarily from chrome-tanned hides obtained 
from tanneries and leather finishers. Residue pile material is 
described as air-dried cookhouse sludge, which was stabilized to a dry, 
granular form. Vacuum filter sludge reportedly was produced during 
dewatering of cookhouse sludge. The waste material has been shown to 
contain elevated levels of chromium, arsenic, zinc, and several organic 
compounds.
    PCC purchased the Site in 1955 and sold the Site, among other 
assets including its corporate name, in 1976 to a foreign company, 
Rousselot Gelatin Corporation, and its parent, Rousselot, S.A. of 
Paris, France. Rousellot Gelatin subsequently changed its name to the 
Peter Cooper Corporation. From approximately 1955 until September 1971, 
it was reported that approximately 9,600 tons of waste material from 
the Gowanda plant were placed at the Site over an approximately 15-acre 
area.
    In addition, PCC transferred approximately 38,600 additional tons 
of waste materials from the Gowanda plant to the Site pursuant to a New 
York State Supreme Court Order (8th J.D. Cattaraugus County) dated June 
1971. PCC arranged the material into several waste piles approximately 
20 feet high and covering a total of approximately seven acres, mostly 
in the original disposal area.
    The NYSDEC completed preliminary site investigations in 1983 and 
1985 and identified the presence of arsenic, chromium and zinc in soil 
samples.
    At that time, the Site did not meet the New York State statutory 
definition for an inactive hazardous waste disposal site and NYSDEC 
could not use State funds to implement a remedial program. 
Consequently, the NYSDEC removed the Site from its Registry of Inactive 
Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites and transferred the Site to EPA for 
further evaluation.
    In 1993, EPA conducted a Site Sampling Inspection, which included 
the collection and analysis of soil and surface water samples from the 
Site. Chromium and arsenic were detected in soils above background 
concentrations within the waste piles. In 1999, EPA determined a Hazard 
Ranking System score for the Site so that it could be evaluated for 
potential listing on the National Priorities List (NPL). The Site was 
proposed to the NPL on April 23, 1999 (64 FR 19968) and subsequently 
added on February 4, 2000 (65 FR 5435).

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

    On September 29, 2000, EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order 
(UAO) to several potentially responsible parties (PRPs) to perform the 
RI/FS for the Site, subject to EPA oversight. The RI characterized the 
physical properties of the soil fill piles, soils around the perimeter 
of the fill piles (perimeter surface soils), native subsurface soils, 
wetland sediments, groundwater, and soil gas.
    The PRPs, through their consultants, Benchmark Environmental 
Engineering and Science PLLC (Benchmark) and Geomatrix Consultants, 
performed the Remedial Investigation (RI) from November 2000 to 
December 2003 and the final RI report was submitted to EPA in February 
2005. The chemicals of concern (COCs) in site media included: arsenic, 
total chromium and hexavalent

[[Page 47485]]

chromium (metal COCs). The results of the RI suggest that low 
concentrations of metal COCs can leach from the waste fill. However, 
the data from native soil samples (non-waste fill) collected below the 
waste fill indicate that metals have not migrated substantially in 
native soil. Arsenic and total chromium concentration detected in the 
surface soil samples from the cover of the fill piles were above soil 
criteria. Soil testing below the fill piles identified decreasing 
concentrations of metal COCs with depth. Metal COCs were reported to 
exceed the NYS Groundwater Quality Standards and Guidance Values (GWQS/
GVs) in one groundwater monitoring well MW-2S for arsenic, chromium, 
zinc and benzene (with benzene only slightly above the GWQS/GVs). In 
the RI report, difficulties in obtaining representative samples from 
monitoring well MW-2S were identified. Suggested possible explanations 
for these difficulties were the age of the well and construction 
materials. The report concluded that the groundwater analytical results 
collected from well MW-2S during the first and second sampling events 
might not be representative of Site groundwater. To address the 
limitations of the sampling from monitoring well MW-2S, the ROD 
required that any groundwater monitoring program at the Site include 
replacing well MW-2S and conducting analytical sampling for metals. 
Monitoring well MW-2S was decommissioned by the PRPs contractor in 
September 2008. MW-2S was found to be constructed of steel casing and 
screen, and was found to be visibly rusted/rotted on removal. MW-2S was 
replaced with a new PVC replacement well (MW-2SR). Site data indicate 
that transport of metal COCs and organic compounds is not considered 
significant at the Site.
    The RI concluded that all groundwater from the Site ultimately 
discharges to Wetland F before reaching the southwestern property 
boundary located more that 500 feet across the wetland. Site-related 
chemicals in the overburden groundwater are transported beneath the 
Site to the southwest in the direction of Wetland F. Water quality data 
indicate subsurface conditions are not conducive to transport of metal 
COCs. Although chromium was widely detected in soils across the Site, 
chromium concentrations were not elevated in groundwater (except in 
monitoring well MW-2S). Hexavalent chromium was detected at a low 
concentration in one of 18 samples analyzed: the detection was not 
confirmed in the second sampling event. The lack of hexavalent chromium 
in groundwater suggests conditions are not suitable for the oxidation 
of chromium (Cr+3) to hexavalent chromium (Cr+6). 
The slightly alkaline subsurface soil conditions and relatively low 
concentrations of manganese inhibit reactions that can produce 
hexavalent chromium. These results are indicative that the area of 
groundwater contamination is limited to a relatively small area, under 
the waste piles.
    Based on the results of the RI report a risk assessment was 
performed for the Site. The risk assessment determined that if 
infiltration of rainwater through the waste/fill material is not 
curtailed, then the quality of Site groundwater would continue to 
degrade, resulting in a potential future risk from groundwater 
ingestion.
    A Feasibility Study (FS) was then completed by the PRPs and 
submitted to EPA in August 2006. The FS Report identified and evaluated 
effective remedial alternatives for the Site, consistent with the 
guidelines presented in ``Guidance for Conducting Remedial 
Investigations and Feasibility Studies under CERCLA.'' The FS evaluated 
five alternatives, including no action, institutional controls, two 
containment alternatives and an excavation/off-site disposal remedies. 
The remedial alternatives were developed to satisfy the Remedial Action 
Objectives (RAO) for the Site:
     Minimize or eliminate contaminant migration from 
contaminated soils to the groundwater.
     Prevent direct contact with waste fill materials.
     Mitigate erosion and migration of waste material from the 
exposed surface.

Selected Remedy

    Based upon the results of the RI/FS, a Proposed Plan, and a Public 
Meeting, a Record of Decision (ROD) was signed in December 2006. The 
major components of the selected remedy included consolidation of 
various waste/fill piles into a single waste/fill area, followed by 
capping with a low-permeability soil cover. Specifically, the ROD 
called for:
     Consolidating the waste/fill piles into seven acres or 
less, followed by capping the consolidated wastes with a low 
permeability soil cover, consistent with the requirements of 6 NYCRR 
Part 360, including seeding with a seed mixture to foster natural 
habitat, and replacement of waste piles moved during consolidation with 
native soil.
     Imposing institutional controls in the form of an 
environmental easement/restrictive covenant filed in the property 
records of Cattaraugus County that will at a minimum require: (a) 
Restricting activities on the Site that could compromise the integrity 
of the cap; and (b) restricting the use of groundwater as a source of 
potable or process water unless groundwater quality standards are met.
     Developing a site management plan that provides for the 
proper management of all remedy components post-construction, such as 
institutional controls, and also includes: (a) Monitoring of 
groundwater to ensure that, following the soil consolidation and 
capping, the contamination is attenuating and groundwater quality 
continues to improve; (b) an inventory of any site use restrictions; 
(c) necessary provisions for ensuring the easement/covenant remains in 
place and is effective; (d) provision for any operation and maintenance 
required of the components of the remedy; and (e) the owner/operator or 
entity responsible for maintenance of the Site to complete and submit 
periodic certifications concerning the status of the institutional and 
engineering controls for the Site.
     Evaluating site conditions at least once every five years 
to ensure that the remedy continues to protect public health and the 
environment.

Response Actions

    In 2008, EPA concluded Consent Decree negotiations with the PRPs 
related to the performance of the design and implementation of the 
remedy called for in the ROD. On February 19, 2008, the Consent Decree 
was entered in United States District Court (approved by the Judge). On 
March 12, 2008 Benchmark Environmental Engineering and Science PLLC 
(Benchmark) was approved as the supervising contractor to conduct the 
remedial design and construction work at the Site.
    The PRPs prepared a Remedial Design (RD) Report which was approved 
by EPA on July 3, 2008. The RD report outlined the following remedial 
construction measures: mobilization, site preparation, waste/fill 
consolidation and grading, and cover system (barrier layer material 
placement and compaction, topsoil and seeding, and passive gas 
venting).
    Zoladz Construction Company, Inc. was approved as the subcontractor 
for the Remedial Action (RA) and mobilized to the site on July 30, 
2008. Site preparation work included clearing, grubbing and access 
improvements required for consolidation and covering work. Vegetation 
was stripped from the surface of the waste fill where cover soils were 
placed.

[[Page 47486]]

    Waste/fill consolidation involved relocation of the various waste/
fill piles located at various areas across the center of the site into 
a single area. Regraded and consolidated waste/fill were placed in 
maximum 12-inch lifts and compacted with rollers to 90% modified 
density.
    A total of approximately 40,000 cubic yards of waste/fill were 
consolidated and compacted. The waste fill consolidated area has a 
footprint of approximately four acres, with an average peak elevation 
(including cover soil) of 14 feet above surrounding grade.
Landfill Cap Construction
    The final landfill cap meets the grading requirements of 6 NYCCR 
Part 360-2.13(q)2(ii) which requires that the barrier component of the 
cap have a slope of no less than 4 percent to promote positive drainage 
and no more than 33 percent to minimize erosion.
Cover System
    The final cover system was constructed to function with minimum 
maintenance, promote drainage, and minimize erosion. The cover system 
was designed with an 18-inch thick recompacted low permeability (less 
than 1 x 10-6 cm/sec) soil barrier layer and 6 inches of 
topsoil.
Barrier Layer
    Barrier soil was placed and compacted to provide a thickness of 18 
inches across the final waste surface. Barrier layer soil was compacted 
with rollers. Smooth drum rollers were used for temporary sealing of 
the lifts and for the stockpiled soils.
Topsoil, Seeding and Tree Planting
    Following the final grading and compaction of the barrier layer, 
topsoil was placed to a depth of six inches (after placement and 
rolling). Topsoil was placed and graded to a smooth, even surface and 
was rolled and raked to remove ridges and fill in depressions, ruts and 
low spots. A conservation seed mixture was used to foster a natural 
habitat and minimize maintenance requirements. Fifty trees, including 
25 hardwood trees, 13 poplars and 12 birch trees were replanted at 
various locations across the Site to provide shelter for the wildlife 
and stimulate repopulation of the wooded areas outside of the 
consolidated area.

Cleanup Goals

    Results of subsurface soil data indicated that metal COCs have not 
migrated into native soils beneath the waste fill piles. The 
consolidated waste piles were removed and underlying native soils were 
scraped and consolidated into one central area. As a result, 
contaminated-specific soil cleanup values for the Site were not 
developed. Groundwater is being monitored through post-remedial 
groundwater and surface water sampling. The primary objectives of the 
remedy are to reduce or eliminate any direct contact threat associated 
with the contaminated soils/fill and minimize or eliminate contaminant 
migration from contaminated soils to the groundwater.

Operation and Maintenance

    The primary components at the Site to be monitored and maintained 
include groundwater and surface water quality, the waste/fill 
consolidation area cover system (the Cap), and gas vents. These goals 
are being met through the Operation, Maintenance and Monitoring (OM&M) 
Plan that describes personnel requirements, responsibilities, duties, 
and specifics post-construction sampling, analysis, and monitoring to 
be conducted to monitor the effectiveness of the remedy.
    The OM&M plan requires groundwater and surface water sampling to be 
conducted on a semiannual (spring and fall) basis for the first two 
years of monitoring; sampling may be reduced to annually if the data 
support the reduction. The semiannual samples were collected starting 
in June and December 2009. Results indicate that the cover system has 
minimized contaminant migration from contaminated soils to the 
groundwater. In addition, the total metals concentrations reported from 
both sampling events for the metal COCs arsenic, total chromium, and 
hexavalent chromium were nondetectable or below NYSDEC Groundwater 
Quality Standards and Guidance Values (GWQS/GVs).
    As per the OM&M plan, semiannual inspection of the landfill was 
conducted concurrently with the sampling described above. Inspection 
reports submitted on February 5, 2010, indicated that the final cover 
system appears to be in good condition, with the gas-venting system 
intact and operational. Semiannual inspections will continue as part of 
the OM&M plan.
    The ROD requires the implementation of institutional controls 
(ICs). The ICs involve filing of an Environmental Easement to restrict 
the use of on-site groundwater as a source of potable or process water 
(unless groundwater quality standards are met) and to restrict 
activities on the Site that could compromise the integrity of the cap.
    The owner of record of the Site, Peter Cooper Corporation (PCC) is 
an inactive Delaware Corporation. A search for potential corporate 
successors was conducted and none were found. The PRPs consistent with 
the obligation to use reasonable best efforts to implement the ICs: 
Commenced an action in Supreme Court, Cattaraugus County, against the 
Peter Cooper Corporation to secure an Order from the court to provide 
the PRPs with access to the Site and to give permission to implement 
the ICs by filing the Easement in the Office of the Clerk of 
Cattaraugus County. The Court granted legal access to the Site on July 
1, 2008. The ICs were filed with the Clerk's office on July 13, 2008 
and a stamped copy was sent to EPA.

Five-Year Review

    Hazardous substances remain at this Site above levels which would 
allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. Pursuant to the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 
Section 121(c), EPA must conduct five-year reviews. The first Five-Year 
Review Report will be completed prior to July 2013, which is five years 
from the initiation of construction for the remedy.

Community Involvement

    Public participation activities for this Site have been satisfied 
as required in CERCLA Sec.  113(k) and Section 117. As part of the 
remedy selection process, the public was invited to comment on EPA's 
proposed remedies. All other documents and information which EPA relied 
on or considered in recommending this deletion are available for the 
public to review at the information repositories identified above.
    Public participation activities for this Site have been satisfied 
as required in CERCLA Section 113(k), 42 U.S.C. 9613(k), and Section 
117, 42 U.S.C. 9617. The ROD was subject to a public review process. 
All other documents and information that EPA relied on or considered in 
recommending this deletion are available for the public to review at 
the information repositories.

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

    One of the three criteria for site deletion is when responsible 
parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response 
actions required (40 CFR 300.425(e)(1)(I)). EPA, with the concurrence 
of the State of New York through NYSDEC, has determined that all 
required and appropriate response actions have been implemented by the 
responsible parties.

[[Page 47487]]

V. Deletion Action

    The EPA, with concurrence of the State of New York, has determined 
that all appropriate responses under CERCLA have been completed, and 
that no further response actions, under CERCLA, other than O&M and 
five-year reviews, are necessary. Therefore, EPA is deleting the Site 
from the NPL.
    Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and 
routine, EPA is taking it without prior publication. This action will 
be effective September 20, 2010, unless EPA receives adverse comments 
by September 7, 2010. If adverse comments are received within the 30-
day public comment period, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this 
direct final notice of deletion before the effective date of the 
deletion and it will not take effect, and EPA will prepare a response 
to comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the 
notice of intent to delete and the comments already received. There 
will be no additional opportunity to comment.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

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

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

    Dated: July 25, 2010.
Judith A. Enck,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.

0
For the reasons set out in this document, 40 CFR part 300 is amended as 
follows:

PART 300--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 is amended by removing the entry 
for ``Peter Cooper Corporation (Markhams),'' ``Winslow Township,'' 
``NY.''

[FR Doc. 2010-19417 Filed 8-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```