18066 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

environmental justice in this 

rulemaking. 

In addition, this rule does not have 

Tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the 

submitted rule is not approved to apply 

in Indian country located in the State, 

and EPA notes that it will not impose 

substantial direct costs on Tribal 

governments or preempt Tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by May 31, 2011. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements (see section 

307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Authority: This action is issued under the 

authority of Title III of the Clean Air Act as 

amended, 42 U.S.C. 7412. 

Dated: March 3, 2011. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

Part 63, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 63—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 63 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart A—General Provisions 

■ 2. Section 63.14 is amended by 

revising paragraph (d)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.14 Incorporations by reference. 

(d) * * * 

(1) California Regulatory 

Requirements Applicable to the Air 

Toxics Program, November 16, 2010, 

IBR approved for § 63.99(a)(5)(ii) of 

Subpart E of this part. 

* * * * * 

Subpart E—Approval of State 

Programs and Delegation of Federal 

Authorities 

■ 3. Section 63.99 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. By revising paragraph (a)(5)(ii) 

introductory text; 

■ b. By revising paragraph (a)(5)(ii)(A) 

introductory text; 

■ c. By revising paragraph 

(a)(5)(ii)(A)(1)(ii); 

■ d. By adding paragraph 

(a)(5)(ii)(A)(1)(iii); and 

■ e. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (a)(5)(ii)(B) and (D). 

§ 63.99 Delegated Federal authorities. 

(a) * * * 

(5) * * * 

(ii) California approvals other than 

straight delegation. Affected sources 

must comply with the California 

Regulatory Requirements Applicable to 

the Air Toxics Program, November 16, 

2010, (incorporated by reference as 

specified in § 63.14) as described as 

follows: 

(A) The material incorporated in 

Chapter 1 of the California Regulatory 

Requirements Applicable to the Air 

Toxics Program (California Code of 

Regulations Title 17, sections 93109, 

93109.1, and 93109.2) pertains to the 

perchloroethylene dry cleaning source 

category in the State of California, and 

has been approved under the 

procedures in § 63.93 to be 

implemented and enforced in place of 

subpart M—National Perchloroethylene 

Air Emission Standards for Dry 

Cleaning Facilities, as it applies to area 

sources only, as defined in § 63.320(h). 

(1) * * * 

(ii) California is not delegated the 

Administrator’s authority of § 63.325 to 

determine equivalency of emissions 

control technologies. Any source 

seeking permission to use an alternative 

means of emission limitation, under 

sections 93109(d)(27) or (38), or 

(i)(3)(A)(2), Title 17 of the California 

Code of Regulations, must also receive 

approval from the Administrator before 

using such alternative means of 

emission limitation for the purpose of 

complying with section 112 of the Clean 

Air Act. 

(iii) This delegation does not extend 

to the provisions regarding California’s 

enforcement authorities or its collection 

of fees as described in Sections 

93109.1(c) or 93109.2(c) and (d), Title 

17 of the California Code of Regulations. 

Approval of the California Code of 

Regulations, Title 17, sections 93109, 

93109.1, and 93109.2 does not in any 

way limit the enforcement authorities, 

including the penalty authorities, of the 

Clean Air Act. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–7603 Filed 3–31–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 80 

Regulation of Fuels and Fuel 

Additives: Changes to Renewable Fuel 

Standard Program 

CFR Correction 

In Title 40 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, Parts 72 to 80, revised as of 

July 1, 2010, on page 1160, in § 80.1466, 

in paragraph (h)(1), the equation is 

corrected to read as follows: 

§ 80.1466 What are the additional 

requirements under this subpart for RINgenerating foreign producers and importers 

of renewable fuels for which RINs have 

been generated by the foreign producer? 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(1) * * * 

Bond = G * $0.01 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–7822 Filed 3–31–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1986–0005; FRL–9288–9] 

National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency 

Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion 

of the Norwood PCBs Superfund Site 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 18067 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) Region 1 is publishing a 

direct final Notice of Deletion of the 

Norwood PCBs Superfund Site (Site), 

located in Norwood Massachusetts 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 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 

through the Massachusetts Department 

of Environmental Protection (MassDEP), 

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 CERCLA. 

DATES: This direct final deletion is 

effective May 31, 2011 unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by May 2, 

2011. If adverse comment(s) 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–1986–0005, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: keefe.daniel@epa.gov. 

• Fax: 1–617–918–0327. 

• Mail: Daniel Keefe, U.S. EPA 

Remedial Project Manager, 5 Post Office 

Square (OSRR07–1), Boston, MA 02109– 

3912. 

• Hand delivery to the following 

address: Daniel Keefe, 5 Post Office 

Square (OSRR07–1), Boston, MA 02109. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the EPA’s normal hours of 

operation (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–1986– 

0005. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 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 statue. 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 

either: 

EPA Region 1 Record Center, 5 Post 

Office Square, Boston, MA 02109, 

Phone: 1–617–918–1440, Hours: 

Mon–Fri 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. 

Norwood Morrill Memorial Library, 33 

Walpole Street, Norwood, MA, Phone: 

781–769–0200, Hours: Mon–Thurs 

9 a.m. to 9 p.m.; Friday 10 a.m. to 

5 p.m.; Saturday 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.; 

Sunday 2 a.m. to 5 p.m. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Daniel Keefe, Remedial Project Manager, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 1; 5 Post Office Square, Boston, 

MA 02109; Mailcode: OSRR07–01, or by 

phone at (617) 918–1327, or by e-mail 

at keefe.daniel@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 1 is publishing this direct 

final Notice of Deletion for the Norwood 

PCBs Superfund site (Site) thus 

removing the 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 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 May 31, 2011 

unless EPA receives adverse comments 

by May 2, 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. 

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 Norwood PCBs 

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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
18068 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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 CERLA 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 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts prior 

to developing this direct final Notice of 

Deletion and the Notice of Intent to 

Delete co-published today in the 

‘‘Proposed Rules’’ section of the Federal 

Register. 

(2) EPA has provided the 

Commonwealth thirty (30) working days 

for review of this Notice and the parallel 

Notice of Intent to Delete prior to their 

publication today, and the 

Commonwealth, through the MassDEP, 

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 Norwood Record. 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 Norwood PCBs Superfund Site 

(CERCLIS No. MAD980670566) is 

located in Norwood, Massachusetts, 

approximately 14 miles southwest of the 

City of Boston. Land use consists 

predominately of industrial/commercial 

properties and associated parking areas 

in an industrial/commercial area. To the 

north, the Site is bordered by residential 

properties, to the east by Route 1 and 

the Dean Street access road, to the south 

by Dean Street, and to the west by 

residential properties. The northern 

portion of the Site consists of a portion 

of Meadow Brook. 

Contamination originated from 

disposal practices of the parties who 

owned the property or operated 

businesses on the Site (the Facility). The 

former on-site building was constructed 

in 1942 by Bendix Aviation 

Corporation, which produced 

navigational control systems for the U.S. 

Navy. In October 1947, the land was 

purchased by Tobe Deutschman 

Corporation, which manufactured 

electrical equipment. The property was 

purchased in 1956 by Cornell-Dubilier 

Electronics, Inc., which also 

manufactured electrical equipment at 

the facility. In January 1960, the 

property was owned by Maryvale 

Corporation, and was then purchased by 

the Friedland brothers. The Friedland 

brothers leased the property to Federal 

Pacific Electric Company, which held 

the lease on the property until October 

1979. During the period from 1960 to 

1979, Federal Pacific Electric Company 

operated a business at the Site, and 

sublet portions of the facility to CornellDubilier Electronics, Inc. and to Arrow 

Hart Corporation, which also 

manufactured electrical equipment. In 

1979, the Site was subdivided. The 

northeastern portion of the Site, 

approximately 9 acres, was purchased 

by Grant Gear Realty Trust, which 

leased the facility to Grant Gear Works, 

Inc., to produce gears for various 

industries. The southern and western 

portions of the Site, approximately 16 

acres, were purchased by Paul 

Birmingham, Paul Reardon, and Jack 

Reardon who further subdivided the 

property into seven lots and added a 

new private way (Kerry Place). On the 

east site of the Site runs Meadow Brook 

through a property owned by the Town 

of Norwood which contains a town 

sewer easement. 

In 1983, MassDEP received a call from 

an abutting resident reporting past 

industrial waste dumping and 

contamination in the then vacant field 

of Kerry Place. As a result, an initial 

investigation was conducted which 

confirmed the presence of PCBs. EPA 

contractors assisted MassDEP with the 

collection of samples and based on 

these findings, it was determined that 

an emergency removal was warranted. 

EPA removed and disposed (off-site) 

518 tons of contaminated soil. During 

the removal, water samples taken from 

the storm drain system behind the Grant 

Gear Building indicated low levels of 

PCBs. In October 1984, the Site was 

proposed for inclusion on the NPL (49 

FR 40320) and was formally added on 

June 10, 1986 (51 FR 21054). 

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility 

Study (RI/FS) 

The Remedial Investigations/ 

Feasibility Study (RI/FS) was completed 

in 1989. During the investigation the 

following media were evaluated: air, 

surface soil, subsurface soil, dredge 

piles, Meadow Brook sediments, surface 

water, groundwater, and the Grant Gear 

Building. The highest concentration of 

PCBs in soil was in a former disposal 

area in the western and northern 

portions of the Grant Gear property 

where up to 26,000 parts per million 

(ppm) were identified. The estimated 

total volume of contaminated soil in 

both saturated and unsaturated soil with 

PCB concentrations greater than 10 ppm 

was 31,550 cubic yards (yd3). Soils were 

also found to be contaminated, although 

to a lesser extent, with VOCs, SVOCs 

and metals. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 18069 

Contaminants released to Meadow 

Brook included PCBs, VOCs, and 

metals. Within sediments, the primary 

transport mechanism for PCBs was the 

movement of sediment to which the 

PCBs are attached. PCBs detected in 

sediment ranged up to 1,100 ppm in 

Meadow Brook and up to 3,850 ppm in 

former sediment dredge piles. 

With regard to groundwater, 

contaminants include PCBs, VOCs and 

SVOCs with the highest concentrations 

generally being detected west of the 

former Grant Gear building. 

Groundwater contamination was 

detected in both overburden and 

bedrock aquifers with trichloroethylene 

having the highest concentration (1,800 

parts per billion (ppb)) in overburden 

and vinyl chloride in bedrock (110 ppb). 

Selected Remedy 

In September 1989, EPA issued a ROD 

for the Norwood PCBs site. The 

Remedial Action Objectives outlined in 

the 1989 ROD to address contaminated 

buildings, soils, sediments, and 

groundwater at the Site are as follows: 

• To minimize the continued release 

of hazardous substances to Meadow 

Brook. 

• To reduce risks to workers 

associated with direct contact with PCBcontaminated surfaces. 

• To reduce risks to workers 

associated with inhalation of airborne 

PCBs within the Grant Gear Building. 

• Reduce risks posed by direct 

contact with soil contaminated with 

PCBs and P AHs. 

• Reduce risks posed by incidental 

ingestion of soils contaminated with 

PCBs and PAHs. 

• Mitigate any future impacts of such 

remedial activities to Meadow Brook 

and the surrounding wetland areas. 

• Minimize migration of VOCs to 

groundwater. 

• Reduce, within a reasonable time 

frame, risks to workers posed by 

inhalation of airborne contaminants 

volatilized from groundwater. 

• Reduce risks to human health and 

the environment from current and 

future migration of contaminants in 

groundwater. 

Major components of the 1989 remedy 

include: 

• Decontamination of surfaces of 

machinery, equipment, and floors 

within the plant areas of the Grant Gear 

Building; 

• Excavation of approximately 34,000 

cubic yards of PCB-contaminated soils 

and sediments and treatment by solvent 

extraction; 

• Backfilling of soils and sediments to 

be covered with asphalt or clean fill; 

• Construction and operation of a 

Groundwater Treatment Plant (GWTP) 

to remediate groundwater; 

• Restoration of impacted wetlands; 

• Long-term monitoring; and 

• Institutional controls (ICs) 

As a result of higher than anticipated 

solvent extraction costs and logistical 

problems with its implementation, and 

in consideration of the likely 

commercial/industrial reuse of the 

property, EPA issued a ROD 

Amendment in May 1996. The ROD 

Amendment included the demolition of 

the Grant Gear building, the excavation 

and consolidation of contaminated soils 

and sediments on site, and the 

construction of a permanent cap. Soil 

and sediment clean-up goals were 

further modified as discussed in the 

Cleanup Goals section. 

In accordance with EPA’s 1996 Final 

Ground Water Use and Value 

Determination Guidance, in May 2001, 

MassDEP submitted a ‘‘low’’ use and 

value determination for the groundwater 

at and in the vicinity of the Site. This 

determination was made based on the 

aquifer’s classification as a nonpotential drinking water source area, as 

well as the fact that nearby residential 

and commercial properties are supplied 

by public, municipal drinking water 

sources. 

As a result of MassDEP’s ‘‘low’’ use 

and value determination, the 

contaminant exposure pathways and 

exposure assumptions used for the ROD 

were re-evaluated. Accordingly, 

supplemental risk assessment activities 

were initiated in 2001 and were 

completed in 2004. As the result of 

these assessments, revised groundwater 

clean-up levels, or risk-based action 

levels (RBALs), were calculated. These 

were subsequently adopted as 

groundwater Cleanup goals in a 2005 

Explanation of Significant Differences 

(ESD). Current groundwater clean-up 

goals are listed in the Clean-up Goal 

section. 

Response Actions 

Remedial activities were completed in 

a single Operable Unit (OU); however, 

the activities consisted of the following 

phases: Phase 1 was completed by the 

EPA and consisted of groundwater 

treatment plant construction and 

operation; Phase 2 was conducted by 

the Settling Parties and consisted of 

building demolition; Phase 3 was 

conducted jointly by the Settling Parties 

and EPA and consisted of the 

construction of a cap and cover over 

consolidated contaminated soil and 

sediments (Phase 3A—Settling Partylead) and Meadow Brook Restoration 

(Phase 3B—EPA lead). 

For EPA-lead activities, such as the 

GWTP, the design criteria were set forth 

in the final ‘‘Plans and Specifications for 

the Groundwater Remediation at the 

Norwood PCB Superfund Site’’ prepared 

by Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. on behalf of 

EPA in 1994. Meadow Brook 

Restoration Phase (Phase 3b) was 

completed in accordance with a UASCE 

Statement of Work (SOW), which 

included design details provided by the 

Town of Norwood as part of its flood 

control/flood mitigation project. Design 

criteria for the Settling Party-lead 

cleanup work (to address risks 

associated with the former Grant Gear 

facility and its operations) were set forth 

in the Statement of Work (SOW) which 

was part of a 1996 Consent Decree with 

former owners and operators of the 

Facility (hereafter referred to as the 

‘‘Facility CD’’) as well as the Remedial 

Action Work Plans submitted by the 

Settling Parties and approved by EPA 

consistent with the SOW. 

Sediment 

The Settling Parties performed 

excavation of sediments in Meadow 

Brook from April 1997 through July 

1998. The Meadow Brook remediation 

was divided into three sections referred 

to as Reach 1, 2, and 3. The excavation 

of Reach 1 was completed with 

excavation limits determined by the 

Town of Norwood as this section of the 

Brook was also targeted for sediment 

removal as part of the Town’s flood 

control/flood mitigation project. 

Following the excavation of Reach 1 to 

grades provided by the Town, an area of 

stained soils was evident at/below a 

former drainage outfall pipe. Based on 

the analytical results showing PCBs 

greater than 1 ppm, a limited removal of 

the stained sediment was performed. In 

total, approximately 2,500 yd3 of 

material was excavated from Reach 

1including 85 yd3 of stained soil. 

The excavation of Reaches 2 and 3 

was performed in two phases—the first 

consisted of sediment removal from the 

arched culvert section at Dean Street, 

and the second consisted of sediment 

removal from the box culvert section. 

Once clean-up levels (1 ppm in 

sediment) were achieved, sediment 

removal activities were terminated. 

Approximately 2,300 yd3 of material 

was excavated from these reaches. 

Soil 

Soils with PCB concentrations 

exceeding the appropriate clean-up 

levels were excavated from several onproperty areas. In addition, a 

trichlorobenzene (TCB)-contaminated 

soil area was identified west of the 

former Grant Gear building; this was 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
18070 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

also excavated. Approximately 5,900 

yd3 of PCB-contaminated soil was 

excavated from the North Cover Area 

and stockpiled for placement under the 

cap/cover. Approximately 2,600 yd3 of 

PCB-contaminated soil was excavated 

from the South Cover Area and 

stockpiled for placement under the cap/ 

cover. 

With regard to off-property soils, 

several areas were identified with PCB 

concentrations exceeding the 

appropriate clean-up levels. During the 

remediation of Reach 1 of Meadow 

Brook, PCB-contaminated soils were 

identified along the North Bank Wooded 

Area. Approximately 100 yd3 of soil was 

excavated and stockpiled for placement 

under the cap/cover. In addition, PCBcontaminated soils were discovered 

along the South Bank Wooded Area 

resulting in the excavation of 

approximately 780 yd3 of soil. 

Beginning in 1997, the stockpiled 

soils were further consolidated on-site. 

Materials with PCB concentrations 

exceeding the risk-based, site-specific 

industrial/commercial clean-up levels 

(of 70 ppm) were placed within the 

limits of the asphalt cap. Materials with 

PCB concentrations below clean-up 

level of 70 ppm, but above 40 ppm, 

were placed within the limits of the 

cover areas. During soil excavation and 

consolidation, on-site underground 

storage tanks (USTs) were also removed 

before the cap and cover were installed. 

After the PCB-contaminated materials 

had been placed, the areas were 

prepared for the installation of the cap 

and covers. Once the fill was placed to 

the appropriate grade 12 inches below 

the final grade in capped and covered 

areas, a non-woven geotextile filter 

fabric was laid across the areas. 

Subsequently, an asphalt Cap or gravel 

cover was installed in the appropriate 

areas. 

Groundwater 

The selected remedy for the 

management of groundwater migration 

included the collection of groundwater 

using an extraction system consisting 

shallow extraction wells and the 

construction of a GWTP consisting of 

carbon adsorption, air stripping, 

precipitation, and filtration. The GWTP 

was constructed in 1995 and deemed 

operational and functional in February 

1997. 

The groundwater treatment system 

was operational until it was shut down 

(at that time temporarily) in June of 

2000. As a result of the revised 

groundwater classification and ‘‘low’’ 

use and value ascribed by MassDEP in 

2001, groundwater cleanup goals were 

further modified in an 2005 ESD. 

Subsequently, EPA determined that no 

further groundwater clean-up was 

warranted as revised clean-up goals 

were being met. The GWTP was 

dismantled in March 2008 just prior to 

property redevelopment. 

Institutional Controls 

As required by a Prospective 

Purchaser Agreement (PPA) entered in 

1997 between the owner and the EPA, 

the Owner updated and recorded (with 

the Norfolk County Registry of Deeds) 

updated ICs in the form of a Grant of 

Environmental Restrictions and 

Easement (GERE). The GERE was 

recorded in March 2008 and entered 

into Book No. 25628, Page No. 534. The 

GERE restricts certain activities such as 

day care, residential use, and 

groundwater withdrawal (among others) 

and permits other activities, such as 

excavation, provided certain safety 

procedures are followed and approvals 

obtained. Under the terms of a 1997 

Consent Decree (hereafter referred to as 

the ‘‘Meadow Brook CD’’) the Town of 

Norwood also established ICs on the 

Meadow Brook parcel (recorded at Book 

No. 26407, Page No. 129). 

Cleanup Goals 

The cleanup goals for PBCs in soil 

and sediment were modified as a result 

the 1996 ROD Amendment (see table 

below): 

Property 1989 ROD 1996 ROD–A 

Grant Gear Property ........................................................................................................................ 10 ppm ...................... 40 ppm surface. 

70 ppm subsurface. 

Adjacent Commercial Property ........................................................................................................ 25 ppm ...................... 40 ppm surface. 

70 ppm subsurface. 

Soil between Grant Gear and Meadow Brook ................................................................................ 1 ppm ........................ 10 ppm surface. 

50 ppm subsurface. 

Sediment .......................................................................................................................................... 1 ppm ........................ 1 ppm. 

Residential Properties ...................................................................................................................... 1 ppm ........................ No action required. 

Contaminated soil and sediment were 

excavated and consolidated on property 

for placement within the cap or cover 

depending on the level of 

contamination. Post-excavation 

sampling was conducted and described 

in the remedial action Remediation 

Completion Report prepared by 

consultants on behalf of the Settling 

Parties. 

With regard to Groundwater, as 

described previously, the 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts 

classified groundwater beneath and 

adjacent to the site as ‘‘Low’’ use and 

value. A ‘‘Low’’ designation indicates 

that it is not a future drinking water 

source. Accordingly, change to the 

original GW cleanup goals (which were 

based on MCLs) were documented in 

the 2005 ESD and are summarized 

below: 

Contaminant 1989 ROD 2005 ESD 

Trichloroethene ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 ppb .............. 108 ppb. 

Tetrachloroethene ................................................................................................................................................. 5 ppb ............... 37 ppb. 

Vinyl Chloride ........................................................................................................................................................ 2 ppb .............. 310 ppb. 

Total 1,2-dichloroethenes ...................................................................................................................................... 175 ppb ........... 3660 ppb. 

1,2,4-trichlorobenzene ........................................................................................................................................... 350 ppb .......... 34 ppb. 

1,4-dichlorobenzene .............................................................................................................................................. 5 ppb ............... 4.6 ppb. 

EPA conducted quarterly groundwater 

monitoring from April 1996 until 

October 2002 which coincided with the 

period of GWTP operation and shortly 

thereafter. Surface water samples were 

also periodically collected from 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 18071 

Meadow Brook. Several years after plant 

shutdown (i.e. in 2005), EPA completed 

a final comprehensive groundwater 

evaluation and the resulting report 

documented no ROD-specified 

contaminants in groundwater above 

their respective groundwater clean-up 

goals established in the ESD. Having 

confirmed that all groundwater clean-up 

goals were being met (approximately 5 

years after GWTP shut down), it was 

determined by USEPA and MassDEP 

that the GWTP was no longer necessary. 

Operation and Maintenance 

As described previously, remedial 

activities were completed in 3 phases 

(the third phase consisting of both a 

Phase 3A and Phase 3B). 

Phase 1—Groundwater Treatment Plant 

Based on achieving revised 

groundwater clean-up goals modified in 

the 2005 ESD, in 2006, EPA determined 

that the GWTP had reached the end of 

its ‘‘useful life’’ for all uses relative to 

site response activities. Accordingly, 

EPA proceeded to remove chemical 

processing equipment from the GWTP 

and decommission extraction and 

monitoring wells that were not part of 

the long-term monitoring. In a letter 

dated April 5, 2007, EPA provided 

notice to the owner that, as per the PPA, 

EPA had completed its 

decommissioning activities. 

Subsequently, on May 16, 2007, EPA 

received notice from the owner of his 

intention not to reuse the GWTP 

building. A work plan for its 

dismantling was submitted and 

approved in September 2007. The 

building was removed in the Spring of 

2008. No long-term O&M of the 

treatment plant is required. On-going 

evaluation of groundwater is provided 

by groundwater samples collected by 

the Settling Parties to the Facility CD as 

part of their on-going O&M of the Cap 

and Covers (see Phase 3A below). 

Phase 2—Building Demolition 

The building demolition phase took 

place immediately prior to and in 

connection with the relocation of soil 

and sediment, and the construction of 

the cap and covers. Accordingly there is 

no O&M associated with this RA. 

Phase 3A—Cap and Covers 

The O&M and Environmental 

Monitoring Plans (EMP) were approved 

in November 2004. Consistent with 

these plans, the Settling Parties to the 

Facility CD annually inspect the cap 

and covers. As a result of 

redevelopment, certain cover areas have 

been replaced with a new type of cover 

(referred to as ‘‘foundation cover’’). In 

addition, certain monitoring wells 

selected for long-term monitoring have 

been re-located. Accordingly, revised 

O&M and EMP plans were submitted in 

April 2010 and subsequently approved 

in January 2011. 

Phase 3B—Meadow Brook Restoration 

At the completion of this restoration, 

and in light of design details provided 

by the Town of Norwood to insure 

consistency with other flood mitigation 

projects, an Operation Manual was 

provided to the Town of Norwood in 

2000. The Operation Manual described 

recommended procedures and 

inspections to ensure that the completed 

project continues to function as 

designed and that the flood control 

infrastructure remains in place to 

prevent the release of any subsurface 

contamination. 

Institutional Controls 

EPA and the State will periodically 

(not less than annually) inspect the 

property to insure that usage has not 

deviated from those allowed by the ICs. 

Under the GERE recorded on the 

Facility property, the landowner is 

obligated to follow procedures to ensure 

that Site redevelopment does not 

damage components of the remedy. On 

the Meadow Brook property, the Town 

is obligated under the terms of the 

Meadow Brook CD to ensure that no 

release of subsurface contamination 

occurs either in its maintenance of flood 

control structures or its sewer easement 

through the area. The status and 

protectiveness of these IC will be 

summarized in successive five year 

reviews. 

Redevelopment 

In 1997, the 9-acre Grant Gear 

property was sold and the new owner 

obtained a PPA from EPA which 

required the owner to guarantee 

continued site access, dismantle the 

Groundwater Treatment Plant (GWTP) 

building (when it had reached the end 

of its ‘‘useful life’’), as well as record 

updated Institutional Controls. 

Subsequently (early 2000s), the owner 

entered a 99-year ground lease with a 

commercial/retail developer. In 2003, 

the developer proposed a large 

(> 150,000 square feet) redevelopment; 

however, this would have been situated 

predominantly over the remedial cap 

and would have required excavation 

into contaminated soil. Based on local 

concerns associated with disturbing the 

capped area, traffic, and other local land 

use issues, this redevelopment was not 

approved by the Town. 

Thus, in 2007, a different commercial/ 

retail developer proposed modifications 

to the original redevelopment plan 

including the construction of buildings 

around the footprint of the capped 

portion of the site. This reuse would 

ensure that none of the highestcontaminated material would be 

exposed. The revised work plan for 

redevelopment (WPR) was approved by 

EPA and MassDEP in March 2008, after 

which the developer received the 

necessary Town approvals. Construction 

ensued in May 2008 and was 

substantially complete in October 2008. 

As a precaution and to ensure against 

the accumulation of vapors from 

groundwater to indoor air, a passive 

vapor mitigation system was required 

and installed in each of the commercial 

building. As required in the WPR, post 

construction and prior to occupancy, 

sub-slab air samples were collected and 

analyzed and a risk assessment 

completed. Based on this analysis, the 

risks were found to be acceptable (i.e., 

less than 1 × 10¥6) for a future 

commercial worker. Moreover, based on 

local zoning as well as restriction 

recorded against the property (described 

further below), residential use is 

prohibited. In the future, as necessary 

and pending future monitoring results, 

the sub-slab ventilation systems can be 

made to be actively vented with the 

addition of blowers or vacuum pumps. 

Presently, two buildings totaling 

56,000 square feet of commercial/retail 

space are situated on the Norwood PCBs 

site. The cap, under which is located the 

highest concentrations of PCBs, serves 

as a central parking lot for the 

development. To date, the development 

is not occupied. 

Five-Year Review 

Since hazardous substances will 

remain on the site above levels allowing 

for unlimited use and unrestricted 

exposure, statutory five year reviews 

have been conducted by EPA pursuant 

to CERCLA Section 121 C as provided 

in OSWER Directive 9355.7–03B–P, 

Comprehensive Five-Year Review 

Guidance. 

The First Five-Year Review, dated 30 

December 1999, concluded that the 

remedy was protective and 

recommended that, in light of the State’s 

reclassification of groundwater, a risk 

assessment be competed. Upon attaining 

revised risk-based clean-up levels, 

groundwater treatment was no longer 

required, but monitoring was continued 

to verify that revised groundwater 

standards would continue to be met. 

The Second Five-Year Review, dated 

29 December 2004, concluded that the 

remedy was short-term protective of 

human health and the environment 

based on continued compliance with 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
18072 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

new clean-up goals. In addition, O&M 

plans were submitted for both the 

Facility and Meadow Brook properties. 

The 2004 review also concluded that in 

order for the remedy to remain 

protective in the long-term, the 

following actions needed to be taken: 1. 

updated institutional controls needed to 

be recorded, and 2. Operation and 

Maintenance (including monitoring) 

needed to be conducted regularly [both 

of which have since occurred]. 

The Third Five-Year Review, 

completed in December 2009, 

concluded that the remedy at the 

Norwood PCBs Site continues to protect 

human health and the environment 

through meeting groundwater clean-up 

goals, the establishment of institutional 

controls, and the maintenance of 

remedy infrastructure concurrently 

during redevelopment of the Site. The 

2009 Five Year Review also concluded 

that in order for the remedy to remain 

protective, the Operation & Maintenance 

(O&M) Plan and Environmental 

Monitoring Plan (EMP) must be updated 

to reflect changes in site conditions as 

a result of the redevelopment. These 

have been updated and approved 

(January 2011). 

The Fourth Five-Year Review is due 

in December 2014. 

Community Involvement 

EPA community participation at the 

site has taken many forms. In addition 

to statutorily-required meetings and 

public hearings associated with the 

1989 ROD and 1996 ROD Amendment, 

EPA has participated in numerous other 

outreach activities. EPA conducted 

public outreach during each of the three 

five-year reviews. EPA prepared 

updated Fact Sheets in 2003, 2005, and 

2007. The Fact Sheets were distributed 

to mailing list recipients as well as 

hand-distributed to all abutting 

residences and business owners. Extra 

copies of the fact sheets have been made 

available to the public at the following 

locations: the Norwood Public library 

and Norwood Town Hall. 

In addition, EPA has attended 

numerous Public Meetings during the 

site redevelopment approval process. 

All Community Involvement activities 

required and in association with this 

proposed deletion have been completed, 

including the publication of a notice in 

a local newspaper of general circulation 

regarding this proposed deletion and the 

availability of documents located in the 

Deletion Docket. 

Determination That the Site Meets the 

Criteria for Deletion in the NCP 

The NCP specifies that EPA may 

delete a site from the NPL if ‘‘all 

appropriate responsible parties or other 

persons have implemented all 

appropriate response actions required’’ 

or ‘‘all appropriate fund-financed 

response under CERCLA has been 

implemented, and no further response 

action by responsible parties is 

appropriate’’. EPA, with the concurrence 

of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 

through the MassDEP by a letter dated 

[Date], believes these criteria for 

deletion have been satisfied. Therefore, 

EPA is proposing the deletion of the site 

from the NPL. All of the completion 

requirements for the site have been met 

as described in the Norwood PCBs Final 

Close Out Report (FCOR) dated 

September 2009. 

V. Deletion Action 

The EPA, with concurrence of the 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts 

through the MassDEP has determined 

that all appropriate response actions 

under CERCLA, other than operation 

and maintenance, routine monitoring, 

and five year reviews, have been 

completed. 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 May 31, 2011 

unless EPA receives adverse comments 

by May 2, 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: March 17, 2011. 

Ira W. Leighton, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 

1. 

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. 

Appendix B to Part 300 [Amended] 

■ 2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 

is amended by removing ’’Norwood 

PCBs’’, ‘‘Norwood, MA’’. 

[FR Doc. 2011–7775 Filed 3–31–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

48 CFR Part 53 

Federal Acquisition Regulation; 

Government Property Disposal; Forms 

CFR Correction 

In Title 48 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, Chapter 1 (Parts 52 to 99), 

revised as of October 1, 2010, on page 

527, in § 53.301–1423, the second 

Inventory Verification Survey form and 

the source note following it are 

removed. 

[FR Doc. 2011–7810 Filed 3–31–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of the Secretary 

49 CFR Part 40 

Procedures for Transportation 

Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing 

Programs 

CFR Correction 

In Title 49 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, Parts 1 to 99, revised as of 

October 1, 2010, on page 571, in § 40.97, 

add paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (ii) to read 

as follows; and on page 572, in the same 

section, redesignate paragraphs (d)(1), 

(2) and (3) as (e)(1), (2) and (3). 

§ 40.97 What do laboratories report and 

how do they report it? 

(a) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) Positive, with drug(s)/metabolite(s) 

noted, with numerical values for the 

drug(s) or drug metabolite(s). 

(ii) Positive-dilute, with drug(s)/ 

metabolite(s) noted, with numerical 

values for the drug(s) or drug 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES