Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 32081 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

(CFDA) Numbers: 84.411A (Scale-up grants), 

84.411B (Validation grants), and 84.411C 

(Development grants). 

Dated: May 26, 2011. 

James H. Shelton, III, 

Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and 

Improvement. 

[FR Doc. 2011–13589 Filed 6–2–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1987–0002; FRL–9315–8] 

National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency 

Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion 

of the Coker’s Sanitation Service 

Landfills Superfund Site 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) Region III is publishing a 

direct final Deletion of the Coker’s 

Sanitation Service Landfills Superfund 

Site (Site) located in Cheswold, Kent 

County, Delaware, from the National 

Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, 

promulgated pursuant to section 105 of 

the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is 

an appendix of the National Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan (NCP). This direct 

final deletion is being published by EPA 

with the concurrence of the State of 

Delaware, through the Delaware 

Department of Natural Resources and 

Environmental Control (DNREC), 

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 deletion is 

effective August 2, 2011 unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by July 5, 

2011. 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–1987–0002, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov . Follow 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: Darius Ostrauskas, 

Remedial Project Manager, U.S. EPA, 

ostrauskas.darius@epa.gov 

• Fax: (215) 814–3002, Attn: Darius 

Ostrauskas 

• Mail: Darius Ostrauskas, Remedial 

Project Manager (3HS23), U.S. EPA 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, PA 19103–2029 

• Hand delivery: Darius Ostrauskas, 

Remedial Project Manager (3HS23), U.S. 

EPA Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, PA 19103–2029. Phone 

215–814–3360, Business Hours: Monday 

through Friday—9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Such 

deliveries are accepted only 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–1987– 

0002. 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. EPA Region III, Library, 2nd Floor, 

1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 

19103–2029, (215) 814–5254, Monday 

through Friday 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. 

The Dover Public Library, Reference 

Department, 45 South State Street, 

Dover, DE 19901, (302) 736–7030, 

Monday through Thursday, 9 a.m. to 

9 p.m., Friday and Saturday, 9 a.m. to 

5 p.m., and Sunday, 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Darius Ostrauskas, Remedial Project 

Manager (3HS23), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103– 

2029, (215) 814–3360. 

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 III is publishing this 

direct final Notice of Deletion of the 

Coker’s Sanitation Service Landfills 

Superfund Site from the National 

Priorities List (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 40 CFR 

300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted 

from the NPL remain eligible for Fundfinanced remedial actions if future 

conditions warrant such actions. 

Because EPA considers this action to 

be noncontroversial and routine, this 

action will be effective August 2, 2011 

unless EPA receives adverse comments 

by July 5, 2011. Along with this direct 

final Notice of Deletion, EPA is copublishing 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. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
32082 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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 Coker’s Sanitation 

Service Landfills Superfund 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 

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 

Delaware prior to developing this direct 

final Notice of Deletion and the Notice 

of Intent to Delete the Site co-published 

today in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ section of 

the Federal Register. 

(2) EPA has provided the 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 DNREC, has 

concurred on the deletion of the Site 

from the NPL. 

(3) Concurrently with the publication 

of this direct final Notice of Deletion, a 

notice of the availability of the parallel 

Notice of Intent to Delete is being 

published in a major local newspaper, 

the Delaware State News. 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 Site (EPA Identification Number 

DED980704860) is located near 

Cheswold in Kent County, Delaware, 

approximately six miles northwest of 

the City of Dover. The Site consists of 

two landfills located approximately onehalf mile apart on opposite sides of 

County Road 152. Landfill No. 1, which 

is on the north side of County Road 152, 

and Landfill No. 2, which is on the 

south side of County Road 152, are both 

part of larger, heavily wooded tracts of 

land. Both landfills are fenced off and 

covered with vegetation. There are no 

known development plans for the 

properties occupied by the landfills. 

Properties adjacent to both landfills are 

primarily used for agricultural or light 

residential development. Landfill No. 1 

is bordered on the north by a forested 

wetland that includes a shallow 

meandering stream, the Willis Branch of 

the Leipsic River. Agricultural lands 

border the tree lines east and west of 

Landfill No. 2. Deer and other wildlife 

populate this area of Kent County. 

Groundwater near the Site is used for 

domestic purposes, including drinking 

water. 

Landfill No. 1 is located on property 

owned by Alberta F. Schmidt. Use of 

Landfill No. 1 began in 1969 under a 

permit issued by the Delaware Water 

and Air Resources Commission. DNREC 

issued subsequent permits (1973–1976). 

The landfill was closed in 1977 in 

accordance with the Delaware Solid 

Waste Disposal Regulations of August 

1974. During landfill operation, latex 

waste sludge was discharged into 

unlined trenches that were six to eight 

feet deep and twelve feet wide. Liquids 

were allowed to drain off as solids 

settled. Trenches were then backfilled 

with soil obtained locally. 

Landfill No. 2, located on property 

owned by Kowinsky Farms, Inc., was 

operated from 1976 to 1980 under a 

state permit. The permit required each 

six-foot deep, twenty-eight foot wide, 

one hundred twenty-five foot long 

trench to have a synthetic liner. The 

permit also required leachate collection, 

installation of groundwater monitoring 

wells, regularly scheduled site 

inspections, and periodic groundwater 

and leachate monitoring. When the Site 

was closed in 1980, all trenches were 

capped with two feet of native soil. As 

waste settled and no longer generated 

collectable quantities of leachate, the 

leachate collection was phased out in 

the early 1980’s. 

EPA conducted an initial Site 

Investigation in 1980, and a second one 

in 1983. Elevated levels of acrolein were 

found in one well and in one leachate 

collection pipe on Landfill No. 2. 

Ethylbenzene was detected in the same 

well and leachate collection pipe. Bis(2- 

chloroethyl) ether was detected in 

Landfill No. 1 leachate seeps. The Site 

was proposed for inclusion on the NPL 

in the Federal Register on April 10, 

1985 (50 FR 14115), and included on 

the NPL in the Federal Register on July 

22, 1987 (52 FR 27620). 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 32083 

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility 

Study (RI/FS) 

In April 1986, EPA issued letters to 

several Potentially Responsible Parties 

(PRPs) notifying them of their potential 

liability for Site response actions and 

inviting them to conduct the RI/FS. On 

December 30, 1987, three PRPs signed 

an agreement with EPA in the form of 

an Administrative Order on Consent to 

conduct the RI/FS. 

Media investigation during the RI/FS 

included waste, leachate, groundwater, 

surface water and sediment, soil, and 

air. Among the different media types 

investigated, waste contained the 

highest number of contaminants at the 

highest levels for styrene, ethylbenzene, 

and phenolic compounds. Leachate 

from Landfill No. 2 (taken from leachate 

collection trenches within the lined 

cells) contained the same contaminants, 

but at lower levels. The waste and 

leachate were determined to pose a 

threat to human health and the 

environment. Groundwater at both 

landfills contained similar compounds 

but at significantly lower levels, and it 

was determined that they did not pose 

a threat to human health or the 

environment. 

The FS provided an in-depth analysis 

of the following potential remedial 

alternatives: (1) No Action; (2) 

Monitoring; (3) Limited Action; (4) Soil 

Cap; (5) Multi-Layer Cap (both landfills) 

and Sub-drain (Landfill No. 1 only); (6) 

Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) 

Stripping by Aeration ; and (7) On-site 

Incineration (of Waste). The FS also 

analyzed EPA and DNREC’s preferred 

alternative, alternative 3. The parties 

agreed, under a separate order, to 

remove drums containing varying 

quantities of latex waste found on-site 

during the RI. 

Selected Remedy 

EPA issued a Record of Decision 

(ROD) for the Site on September 28, 

1990. Under the ROD, the remedial 

action objective was to reduce the 

potential for future contact with waste 

at the Site and thereby reduce risk to 

within EPA guidelines. 

The waste materials found in the 

landfills at the Site are neither liquid 

nor highly mobile, and can be 

controlled reliably in place. The Site 

contains a large volume of material that 

would be difficult to handle and treat 

due to clay-like physical properties and 

the potential risk posed by substantial 

release of volatile organic compounds. 

EPA and DNREC determined that onsite containment of the waste was an 

appropriate remedial action. 

The selected remedy addresses the 

principal threats posed by the 

conditions at the Site by reducing the 

potential for human exposure to wastes 

remaining at the Site. The major 

components of the selected remedy are 

as follows: 

• Land use restrictions placed on 

both landfill properties. 

• The entire waste disposal areas of 

both landfills are enclosed by a chainlink security fence with a locked gate to 

restrict the access of unauthorized 

persons and equipment onto the 

landfills. Appropriate warning signs are 

placed along the fence. 

• Cover material was placed along the 

northern slope of Landfill No. 1 to 

eliminate exposure to leachate seeps. 

• Areas of Landfill No. 2, which had 

subsided due to uneven settling of 

waste, were backfilled to grade and 

seeded. 

• Leachate collection wells at Landfill 

No. 2 were sealed with grout to reduce 

the potential for direct contact with 

leachate. 

• Groundwater was initially sampled 

semi-annually at both landfills; now, it 

is sampled at least once every five years. 

• The landfills are inspected semiannually. 

• Surface water monitoring was 

conducted at the Willis Branch adjacent 

to 

Landfill No. 1 at the same time as 

groundwater monitoring for a period of 

no less than five years. In response to 

monitoring requirements identified in 

the ROD, a groundwater and surface 

water monitoring program has been 

implemented at the Site. This 

monitoring program has included the 

identification of trigger levels for 

contaminants of concern for 

groundwater and surface water for both 

Landfill No.1 and Landfill No. 2. The 

trigger levels for Landfill No. 1 were 

developed primarily for the protection 

of aquatic wildlife due to the proximity 

of the Willis Branch and lack of 

potential human receptors. For Landfill 

No. 2, the trigger levels were developed 

to protect human health due to the 

proximity of nearby residential wells. 

Those levels are: 

Contaminant of concern Landfill No. 1 

μg/L 

Landfill No. 2 

μg/L 

Groundwater: 

Styrene ............................................................................................................................................................. 2900 100 

Ethylbenzene .................................................................................................................................................... 3200 5 

1,2,3-trichloropropane ....................................................................................................................................... ........................ 5 

Phenolics .......................................................................................................................................................... ........................ 22999 

Antimony ........................................................................................................................................................... ........................ 6 

Surface Water: 

Styrene ............................................................................................................................................................. 1400 ........................

Ethylbenzene .................................................................................................................................................... 1600 ........................

Xylenes ............................................................................................................................................................. 900 ........................

Response Actions 

The following is a summary of the 

activities that were completed at the 

Site. 

• An Environmental Protection 

Easement and Declaration of Restrictive 

Covenants between Alberta Schmidt, as 

Grantor, and DNREC, on behalf of the 

State of Delaware, as Grantee, relating to 

Landfill No. 1 was signed on February 

24, 2005. The document was recorded 

with the Office of the Recorder of Deeds 

for Kent County, Delaware on April 18, 

2005, to implement the institutional 

controls (land use restrictions) for 

Landfill No. 1. 

• An Environmental Protection 

Easement and Declaration of Restrictive 

Covenants between Kowinsky Farms, 

Inc, as Grantor, and DNREC, on behalf 

of the State of Delaware, as Grantee, 

relating to Landfill No. 2 was signed on 

September 24, 2008. The document was 

recorded with the Office of the Recorder 

of Deeds for Kent County, Delaware on 

November 26, 2008, to implement the 

institutional controls (land use 

restrictions) for Landfill No. 2. 

• On April 8, 1992, the PRPs entered 

into a Consent Decree with EPA 

pursuant to which the PRPs agreed to 

implement the remedy selected in the 

ROD. The PRPs started construction 

activities in early July 1993. 

• Remedial construction activities at 

Landfill No.1 consisted of clearing the 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
32084 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

perimeter of vegetation so that the 

security fence could be installed. 

Leachate seeps were covered with wood 

chip mulch. Following installation of 

the security fence, cleared areas were 

seeded. Lastly, warning signs were 

posted around the landfill perimeter. 

• At Landfill No. 2, remedial 

construction activities were more 

extensive. First, the landfill was cleared 

of all vegetation. Trees within the 

landfill perimeter were cut and chipped 

for mulch. Each waste cell’s leachate 

collection system was grout sealed. 

Settled waste cells were filled with 

clean fill and the entire landfill surface 

was re-graded. Top soil was added; the 

landfill was then graded and seeded. A 

security fence was installed around the 

landfill. Finally, warning signs were 

placed around the landfill perimeter. 

• Three wells were sampled at 

Landfill No. 1 and four at Landfill No. 

2. The sampling parameters were 

ethylbenzene, styrene, 1,2,3- 

trichloropropane, antimony, and 

phenolics, as well as field parameters. 

Groundwater was sampled semiannually in 1993 and 1994, and then 

annually through 1998. During this 

period, all sampling results for 

contaminants of concern were below 

established trigger levels for both 

Landfill No. 1 and Landfill No. 2, as 

well as Maximum Contaminant Levels 

(MCLs) established under the Safe 

Drinking Water Act. In 1999, EPA 

determined that the subject monitoring 

could be discontinued. In 2009, the 

monitoring resumed at a frequency of at 

least once every five years. Sampling in 

2009 found that all contaminants of 

concern were below the established 

trigger levels and MCLs. 

• The Site has been inspected 

regularly as required in the ROD and 

routine maintenance activities have 

been performed as needed. The routine 

maintenance activities have generally 

consisted of minor fence repair, 

replacement of warning signs, and 

mowing the surface of Landfill No. 2. 

On September 9, 1993, EPA and 

DNREC conducted the final 

construction inspection. On September 

29, 1993, EPA signed the Preliminary 

Site Close Out Report (PCOR), which 

documented that the PRPs had 

completed construction activities at the 

Site. EPA signed the Final Close Out 

Report on February 19, 2009, which 

documented completion of all response 

action, other than operation, 

maintenance, and five-year reviews. 

Cleanup Goals 

EPA approved the Sampling and 

Analysis Plan (Part IV of the Remedial 

Design Submittal) requiring periodic 

sampling of groundwater, surface water 

and sediments. Sampling under the 

subject Plan was initiated at the start of 

remedial action (RA) activities and 

continued for six years. During that 

time, the monitored contaminants of 

concern at Landfill No.1 and Landfill 

No. 2 were well below identified trigger 

levels. In response to the results of this 

monitoring, the First Five-Year Review 

for the Site issued by EPA in 1999 found 

that monitoring of groundwater and 

surface water at the Site could be 

discontinued. However, during the 

preparation and completion of the Final 

Close Out Report for the Site in 

February 2009, EPA determined that 

monitoring should resume and be 

conducted at a minimum of once every 

five years because waste has been left in 

place at the Site. 

Operation and Maintenance (O&M) 

The landfills are inspected semiannually to identify any maintenance 

activities that need to be conducted to 

ensure continued performance of the 

RA. Inspection frequency was quarterly 

for the first year to provide for seep 

cover inspection and maintenance. The 

EPA-approved O&M Plan presented the 

requirements for the Site inspections, 

and included a checklist that was used 

to document inspection observations 

and results. O&M began following EPA’s 

certification that the RA activities were 

completed. O&M activities that will 

continue at the Site are mowing and 

semi-annual inspections. Also, because 

waste remains onsite, groundwater and 

surface water monitoring will be 

performed once every five years. 

An Environmental Protection 

Easement and Declaration of Restrictive 

Covenants between Alberta Schmidt, as 

Grantor, and DNREC, on behalf of the 

State of Delaware, as Grantee, relating to 

Landfill No.1 was signed on February 

24, 2005. The document was recorded 

with the Office of the Recorder of Deeds 

for Kent County, Delaware on April 18, 

2005, to implement the institutional 

controls for Landfill No. 1. 

An Environmental Protection 

Easement and Declaration of Restrictive 

Covenants between Kowinsky Farms, 

Inc, as Grantor, and DNREC, on behalf 

of the State of Delaware, as Grantee, 

relating to Landfill No. 2 was signed on 

September 24, 2008. The document was 

recorded with the Office of the Recorder 

of Deeds for Kent County, Delaware on 

November 26, 2008, to implement 

institutional controls for Landfill No. 2. 

The implemented institutional 

controls (land use restrictions) for both 

Landfill No. 1 and Landfill No. 2 

prohibit disturbance of the onsite 

containment remedies. 

Five-Year Review 

EPA has conducted three (3) statutory 

Five-Year Reviews for this Site. Since 

the remedies selected for the Site allow 

hazardous substances, pollutants, or 

contaminants to remain onsite above 

levels that allow for unlimited use and 

unrestricted exposure, statutory FiveYear Reviews are required. These 

reviews are conducted pursuant to 

CERCLA Section 121(c), 42 U.S.C. 

9621(c), and as provided in the current 

guidance on Five-Year Reviews. 

The first Five-Year Review for the Site 

was completed on January 6, 1999, and 

the second Five-Year Review was 

completed on May 25, 2004. Both of 

these Five-Year Reviews found the 

remedy to be not fully protective due to 

the need for institutional controls in 

both cases. 

The most recent Five-Year Review 

was completed on May 22, 2009. With 

the implementation of institutional 

controls, this Five-Year Review found 

no issues that affected the current or 

future protectiveness of the remedy for 

the Site and concluded that the remedy 

at the Site is protective over the short 

term and the long term. 

The next Five-Year Review will be 

completed by May 25, 2014. 

Community Involvement 

Public participation activities have 

been satisfied as required in CERCLA 

section 113(k), 42 U.S.C. 9613(k), and 

CERCLA section 117, 42 U.S.C. 9617. 

Documents in the deletion docket which 

EPA relied on for recommendation of 

the deletion from the NPL are available 

to the public in the information 

repositories. 

Before the start of construction 

activities, representatives of the PRPs 

visited residents whose homes were 

adjacent to the landfills on both sides of 

County Road 152. Residents who were 

at home at the time of the visit were 

informed of the start date and the nature 

and duration of the construction 

activities. The PRP representatives 

answered questions that the residents 

asked about the construction activities. 

Fact sheets advising the residents of the 

construction activities were given to 

residents in person or were placed in 

their mailboxes. EPA issued a fact sheet 

in July 1993, at about midway through 

the construction activities. The fact 

sheet presented a description of the Site 

remedial action and project status. 

EPA notified local officials about 

upcoming Five-Year Reviews. EPA 

placed notices in the Delaware State 

News to inform the public that the FiveYear Reviews were being conducted and 

when the findings of each would be 

available. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 32085 

Determination That the Criteria for 

Deletion Have Been Met 

No further response action under 

CERCLA is appropriate. EPA has 

determined based on the investigations 

conducted that all appropriate response 

actions required have been 

implemented at the Site. Through the 

third Five-Year Review, EPA has also 

determined that the remedy is 

considered protective of human health 

and the environment and, therefore, 

additional remedial measures are not 

necessary. Other procedures required by 

40 CFR 300.425(e) are detailed in 

Section III of this direct Final Notice of 

Deletion. 

V. Deletion Action 

The EPA, with concurrence dated 

September 16, 2010, of the State of 

Delaware, through DNREC, has 

determined that all appropriate 

response actions under CERCLA, other 

than operation, maintenance, and fiveyear reviews, have been completed. 

Therefore, EPA is deleting the Site from 

the NPL. 

Because EPA considers this action 

noncontroversial and routine, EPA is 

taking it without prior publication. This 

action will be effective August 2, 2011 

unless EPA receives adverse comments 

by July 5, 2011. 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. 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. 

Dated: April 29, 2011. 

James W. Newsom, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

For the reasons set out in this 

document, 40 CFR part 300 is amended 

as follows: 

PART 300—[AMENDED] 

■ 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. 

■ 2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 

is amended by removing ‘‘DE’’, ‘‘Coker’s 

Sanitation Service Landfills’’, ‘‘Kent 

County’’. 

[FR Doc. 2011–13841 Filed 6–2–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services 

42 CFR Part 412 

[CMS–1346–CN] 

RIN 0938–AQ23 

Medicare Program; Inpatient 

Psychiatric Facilities Prospective 

Payment System—Update for Rate 

Year Beginning July 1, 2011 (RY 2012); 

Correction 

AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. 

ACTION: Correction of final rule. 

SUMMARY: This document corrects two 

technical errors that appeared in the 

final rule published in the Federal 

Register on May 6, 2011 entitled, 

‘‘Inpatient Psychiatric Facilities 

Prospective Payment System—Update 

for Rate Year Beginning July 1, 2011 (RY 

2012).’’ 

DATES: Effective Date: July 1, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dorothy Myrick or Jana Lindquist, (410) 

786–4533. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

In FR Doc. 2011–10562 of May 6, 

2011 (76 FR 26432) (hereinafter referred 

to as the RY 2012 IPF PPS final rule), 

there were two technical errors that we 

describe in the ‘‘Summary of Errors’’ 

section and correct in the ‘‘Correction of 

Errors’’ section below. 

II. Summary of Errors 

In the RY 2012 IPF PPS final rule, on 

page 26452, in Table 11, we made a 

typographical error when we listed the 

diagnosis code ‘‘V451’’ rather than 

‘‘V4512’’ for the description of 

comorbidity for chronic renal failure. In 

addition, we inadvertently omitted from 

Table 11 the comorbidity code ‘‘V4511’’ 

for chronic renal failure. These changes 

are not substantive changes to the 

policies or payment methodologies in 

the final rule. They are changes to 

conform the final rule to reflect the 

correct policies, which were 

implemented on July 1, 2011. 

III. Correction of Errors 

In FR Doc. 2011–10562 of May 6, 

2011 (76 FR 26432), make the following 

corrections: 

• On page 26452, in Table 11—RY 

2012 Diagnosis Codes and Adjustment 

Factors for Comorbidity Categories, in 

the second column, with the heading 

‘‘Diagnoses codes,’’ for the renal failure, 

chronic diagnoses codes, replace code 

‘‘V451’’ with ‘‘V4512’’ and add code 

‘‘V4511.’’ 

IV. Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking 

and Delay in Effective Date 

We ordinarily publish a notice of 

proposed rulemaking in the Federal 

Register to provide a period for public 

comment before the provisions of a rule 

take effect in accordance with section 

553(b) of the Administrative Procedure 

Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). However, 

we can waive this notice and comment 

procedure if the Secretary finds, for 

good cause, that the notice and 

comment process is impracticable, 

unnecessary, or contrary to the public 

interest, and incorporates a statement of 

the finding and the reasons in the rule. 

Section 553(d) of the APA ordinarily 

requires a 30-day delay in the effective 

date of rules after the date of their 

publication in the Federal Register. 

This 30-day delay in the effective date 

can be waived, however, if an agency 

finds for good cause that the delay is 

impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 

to the public interest, and the agency 

incorporates a statement of the findings 

and its reasons in the rule issued. This 

notice merely corrects an error and 

omission in Table 11 of the RY 2012 IPF 

PPS final rule and does not make any 

substantive changes to the policies or 

payment methodologies. The correct 

policies were implemented on July 1, 

2011. We are simply conforming the RY 

2012 IPF PPS final rule to those policies 

by making the corrections identified 

herein. We believe that undertaking 

further notice and comment procedures 

to incorporate these corrections into the 

FY 2012 IPF PPS final rule and delaying 

the effective date of these changes is 

unnecessary. In addition, we believe it 

is important for the public to have the 

correct information as soon as possible, 

and believe it is contrary to the public 

interest to delay the dissemination of it. 

Therefore, we find there is good cause 

to waive notice and comment 

procedures and the 30-day delay in the 

effective date for this correction notice. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program No. 93.773, Medicare—Hospital 

Insurance; and Program No. 93.774, 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1