20546 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

nor does this action alter the 

relationships or distribution of power 

and responsibilities established by 

Congress in the preemption provisions 

of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, 

the Agency has determined that this 

action will not have a substantial direct 

effect on States or tribal governments, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States or tribal 

governments, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government or between 

the Federal Government and Indian 

tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined 

that Executive Order 13132, entitled 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) and Executive Order 13175, 

entitled Consultation and Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply 

to this final rule. In addition, this final 

rule does not impose any enforceable 

duty or contain any unfunded mandate 

as described under Title II of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(UMRA) (Pub. L. 104–4). 

This action does not involve any 

technical standards that would require 

Agency consideration of voluntary 

consensus standards pursuant to section 

12(d) of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(NTTAA), Public Law 104–113, section 

12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). 

X. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report to each House of 

the Congress and to the Comptroller 

General of the United States. EPA will 

submit a report containing this rule 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 this final rule in the 

Federal Register. This final rule is not 

a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides 

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: April 5, 2011. 

Steven Bradbury, 

Director, Office of Pesticide Programs. 

Therefore, 40 CFR part 180 is 

amended as follows: 

PART 180—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 180 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 

■ 2. Add § 180.1301 to subpart D to read 

as follows: 

§ 180.1301 Escherichia coli O157:H7 

specific bacteriophages; temporary 

exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance. 

A temporary exemption from the 

requirement of a tolerance is established 

for residues of lytic bacteriophages that 

are specific to Escherichia coli O157:H7, 

sequence negative for shiga toxins I and 

II, and grown on atoxigenic host bacteria 

when used/applied on food contact 

surfaces in food processing plants in 

accordance with the terms of 

Experimental Use Permit (EUP) No. 

74234–EUP–2. This temporary 

exemption expires on April 1, 2013. 

[FR Doc. 2011–8712 Filed 4–12–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1983–0002; FRL–9291–6] 

National Oil and Hazardous Substance 

Pollution Contingency Plan; National 

Priorities List: Deletion of the 

Spiegelberg Landfill Superfund Site 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) Region 5 is 

publishing a direct final Notice of 

Deletion of the Spiegelberg Landfill 

Superfund Site (Site), located in Green 

Oak Township, Michigan 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 to 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 

Michigan through the Michigan 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(MDEQ), because EPA has determined 

that all appropriate response actions 

under CERCLA have been completed. 

However, this deletion does not 

preclude future actions under 

Superfund. 

DATES: This direct final deletion is 

effective June 13, 2011 unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by May 13, 

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–1983–0002, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: Howard Caine, Remedial 

Project Manager, at 

caine.howard@epa.gov or Cheryl Allen, 

Community Involvement Coordinator, at 

allen.cheryl@epa.gov. 

• Fax: Gladys Beard, Deletion Process 

Manager, at (312) 697–2077. 

• Mail: Howard Caine, Remedial 

Project Manager, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (SR–6J), 77 W. 

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604, 

(312) 353–9685; or Cheryl Allen, 

Community Involvement Coordinator, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(SI–7J), 77 W. Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, IL 60604, (312) 353–6196 or 

(800) 621–8431. 

• Hand delivery: Cheryl Allen, 

Community Involvement Coordinator, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(SI–7J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, IL 60604. Such deliveries are 

only accepted during the docket’s 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. The 

normal business hours are Monday 

through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

excluding Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID no. EPA–HQ–SFUND–1983– 

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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 20547 

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 

may not be 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 at http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at: 

• U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency-Region 5, 77 W. Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604. Hours: 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 

• Hamburg Township Library, 10411 

Merrill Road, P.O. Box 247, Hamburg, 

MI 48139, Phone: (810) 231–1771. 

Hours: Monday through Thursday, 

9 a.m. to 8 p.m.; Friday 12 p.m. to 

6 p.m. and Saturday 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Howard Caine, Remedial Project 

Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (SR–6J), 77 W. Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604, (312) 

353–9685, caine.howard@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 5 is publishing this direct 

final Notice of Deletion of the 

Spiegelberg Landfill Superfund 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 June 13, 2011 

unless EPA receives adverse comments 

by May 13, 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 Spiegelberg Landfill 

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. 

III. Deletion Procedures 

The following procedures apply to 

deletion of the Site: 

(1) EPA consulted with the State of 

Michigan 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 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 MDEQ, 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 Livingston Daily News. The 

newspaper notice announces the 30-day 

public comment period concerning the 

Notice of Intent To Delete the Site from 

the NPL. 

(4) 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 

Site Background and History 

The privately owned Spiegelberg 

property consists of approximately 115 

acres and is located on Spicer Road 

about 40 miles west of Detroit and 5 

miles south of Brighton, in Green Oak 

Township, Livingston County, 

Michigan. A rental home and barn are 

located on the northwest corner of the 

property. Gravel mining at this property 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
20548 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

predated 1940, and continues through 

the present time. The property is 

surrounded by woods, open fields, and 

rural residences. 

A paint sludge disposal area covered 

a section of about one-half acre in the 

northern third of the property at the 

base of a sand and gravel quarry. 

Resulting soil and groundwater 

contamination became the Spiegelberg 

Landfill Superfund Site (EPA ID: 

MID980794481). While the entire 

Spiegelberg property is 115 acres, the 

Spiegelberg Landfill Superfund site is 

approximately 21⁄2 acres (including the 

extent of the groundwater 

contamination under the 1⁄2-acre paint 

sludge disposal area) and is a subset of 

the Spiegelberg property. A map of the 

Spiegelberg Landfill site is located in 

the deletion docket. 

The site was proposed to the NPL on 

December 30, 1982 (47 FR 58476) and 

was finalized on the NPL on September 

8, 1983 (48 FR 40658). There is potential 

for redevelopment at this site, but any 

redevelopment on the site would be 

subject to ensuring that there is no 

interfering with the current remedy at 

the adjacent Rasmussen’s Dump 

Superfund Site. 

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility 

Study (RI/FS) 

The Remedial Investigation (RI) was 

initiated in May 1984. Sampling and 

analysis of subsurface soils in the paint 

sludge area indicated the presence of 

high concentrations of organic and 

inorganic compounds from the 

Hazardous Substances List (HSL) also 

known as the contaminants of concern 

(COCs). The HSL chemicals included 

acetone, 2-butanone, benzene, toluene, 

xylenes, 1,1,1,-trichloroethane, 1,1- 

dichloroethane, 4-methyl-2-pentanone, 

ethybenzene, chlorobenzene, bis(2- 

ethylhexyl)phthalate, di-N-octyl 

phthalate, di-N-buty phthalate, 

chloroethane, 2-hexanone, cadmium, 

nickel, and lead. The detection of 

organic constituents in downgradient 

monitoring wells and the mobility 

characteristics of the compounds found 

in the paint sludge area indicated 

transport via groundwater was a major 

potential pathway at the site. The 

results indicated the need for a remedial 

action which addresses source control 

of the paint sludge and contaminated 

soils contained in the paint sludge 

disposal area on the site, in order to 

reduce or eliminate exposure of 

potential receptors to site contaminants. 

Additional field work was conducted to 

address the groundwater portion of this 

investigation. In September 1988, the 

Michigan Department of Natural 

Resources (MDNR) and EPA issued a 

Remedial Investigation Report and Risk 

Assessment for both the Spiegelberg and 

Rasmussen’s Dump Superfund sites due 

to their proximity to one another. 

During the investigation, the areas of 

concern identified for the Spiegelberg 

site were: (1) Operable Unit 1 (OU1)— 

The Paint Sludge Disposal Area and 

associated contaminated soils, and 

(2) Operable Unit 2 (OU2)—The 

Groundwater Contamination Plume 

resulting from the Paint Sludge Disposal 

Area. The groundwater contamination 

plume originated from the contaminated 

soils and waste materials in the paint 

sludge disposal area. 

The contaminated groundwater plume 

was defined as an area of contamination 

approximately 500 feet by 200 feet 

flowing in a north/northwesterly 

direction from the paint sludge area. It 

was estimated that 3.77 million cubic 

feet of contaminated groundwater 

existed beneath the site. Upper and 

lower aquifers are present and are 

separated by a discontinuous clay layer. 

Contaminants had migrated from the 

upper aquifer to the lower aquifer. 

Groundwater flow rate was calculated as 

266 feet per year in the upper aquifer 

and 131 feet per year in the lower 

aquifer. 

The Feasibility Study evaluated 

remedial alternatives for addressing site 

contamination. The primary threat from 

the paint sludge disposal area to public 

health was by ingestion of contaminated 

groundwater. There was a potential for 

continued migration of contamination 

downward into residential drinking 

water wells. 

Selected Remedy 

1986 Record of Decision (ROD) Findings 

The remedy chosen in the September 

30, 1986 ROD was to address the OU1— 

Paint Sludge Area source material. The 

recommended and selected remedial 

action for source materials was 

excavation, offsite incineration, and 

landfill disposal. The remedial action 

objective (RAO) of the action was to 

remove the source of continued 

contaminant migration from the site. 

This alternative included excavation of 

15,000 cubic yards of waste material 

and separating it into liquid sludges, 

paint residue with garbage intermixed, 

and solid paint sludges. At the time of 

the FS, it was estimated there were 

about 5,000 cubic yards of the combined 

material to be incinerated and 10,000 

cubic yards of solid paint sludge to be 

landfilled in a RCRA licensed landfill. 

The material was transported to the 

incineration site and the landfill site by 

truck. 

1990 ROD Findings 

The remedy chosen in the June 29, 

1990 ROD to address the OU2 

groundwater contamination included 

groundwater extraction followed by onsite treatment with re-injection of 

treated groundwater. The RAOs of the 

groundwater remedy were to eliminate 

the potential for human exposure to 

remaining hazardous substances, which 

may occur due to ingestion of 

contaminated site groundwater and to 

address all potential risks to human 

health and/or impacts to the 

environment. The area of attainment, as 

defined in the ROD, extends throughout 

the plume in the upper and lower 

aquifers in the area underlying and 

surrounding the Spiegelberg site. 

The major components of the 

treatment included the following: 

removal of inorganic contaminants by 

chemical precipitation followed by pH 

adjustment; removal of the bulk of the 

organic contaminants, including 

ketones, by a biological treatment 

system; and removal of residual organic 

contaminants via granular activated 

carbon. Treated groundwater was 

discharged via injection wells. Deed 

restrictions and/or other institutional 

controls to prevent unacceptable 

exposure and to ensure the integrity of 

the remedy were also required. 

1991 and 1998 ESD Findings 

An explanation significant differences 

(ESD) issued in 1991 changed the OU2 

ROD cleanup standards for toluene and 

xylene to 800 ppb and 300 ppb 

respectively. A subsequent ESD was 

signed on October 22, 1998 which 

changed the remedy to intermittent 

pumping and semi-annual sampling 

events based on monitoring results 

which showed only trace contamination 

was present in the groundwater plume. 

The second ESD changed the sampling 

schedule from quarterly to semi-annual 

sampling in the Operational and 

Monitoring Plan. 

Response Actions 

EPA issued a July 8, 1991 Unilateral 

Order (UAO) to the Potentially 

Responsible Parties (PRPs) to conduct 

the Remedial Design/Remedial Action. 

An amendment to the Unilateral Order 

was issued by EPA on August 28, 1991. 

The UAO Amendment modified the 

‘‘Parties Bound’’ which required that the 

UAO be recorded with each parcel of 

land, modified the definition of 

‘‘Facility’’ and modified the Quality 

Assurance requirements. 

The remedial activities designed and 

eventually implemented by the PRPs 

included: 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 20549 

• Procurement and implementation of 

the institutional controls in 1991 for the 

purpose of preventing interference with 

the performance of the remedial action. 

In general, this includes no use that 

could cause exposure of humans or 

animals to contaminated groundwater: 

no use of the real estate that will 

interfere with the remedial action; and, 

no residential or commercial use of that 

part of the real estate that would allow 

continued presence of humans; 

• Implementation of a Remedial 

Design (RD) Data Collection Program 

confirming the hydrogeologic site 

characterization and chemical 

characterization of groundwater, and 

conducting field tests and treatability 

studies. The results of the RD Data 

Collection Program supplemented the 

existing site data and were used to 

design the treatment system and 

extraction/injection well networks; 

• Construction of a groundwater 

extraction system to capture and extract 

groundwater for treatment from the 

affected groundwater zones; 

• Construction of a groundwater 

treatment plant to treat the extracted 

groundwater prior to reinjection; 

• Construction of a groundwater 

injection system to discharge the treated 

groundwater. The injection system 

provided for a ‘‘closed loop’’ system and 

enhanced movement of the affected 

groundwater towards the extraction 

wells; 

• Construction of fencing to secure 

the constructed treatment plant; 

• Implementation of all operation, 

maintenance, and monitoring activities 

for the constructed remedial action 

activities including, but not limited to, 

operation and maintenance of the 

groundwater treatment plant and 

monitoring the progress of groundwater 

remediation; and 

• Implementation of a residential 

well monitoring program. 

The PRPs were also required to 

prepare and submit: Design Plans and 

Specifications; Operation and 

Maintenance Plan; Project Schedule; 

Construction Quality Assurance Plan; 

Construction Health and Safety Plan, 

Design Phases; and a Community 

Relations Support Program. 

Paint Sludge Disposal Area (OU1) 

The remedy for source control 

commenced on August 10, 1989. The 

remedy was implemented by the Ford 

Motor Company pursuant to the 

December 1988 Consent Decree. The 

paint sludge was excavated to the 

surveyed groundwater level and to the 

visual lateral extent of the waste. Clean 

soil from the cutback around the 

periphery of the paint sludge pit was 

placed on the soil storage cell and used 

for backfill at the completion of the 

source control activities. From August 

14, 1989 to September 20, 1989 a total 

of 817 loads of paint sludge and debris 

totaling 19,300 tons were transported 

and disposed of at Wayne Disposal, an 

off-site RCRA Subtitle C landfill. From 

September 20, 1989 to October 23 1989 

a total of 1,217 loads of subsoil totaling 

29,600 tons were transported and 

disposed of at Wayne Disposal. From 

October 24, 1989 to November 15, 1989 

a total of 425 loads of subsoil totaling 

9,600 tons were transported and 

disposed of at CID Landfill located in 

Chicago, Illinois. Thirty-three drums of 

liquid wastes were disposed at 

Chemical Waste Management located in 

Chicago, Illinois, an off-site incinerator. 

Four gas cylinders were disposed at 

AQUA–TECH Laboratories in Texas. 

Project closeout activities included 

backfilling operations, final grading, 

disposal of decontamination wash 

waters, and the removal of all site 

facilities including all concrete pads, 

construction trailers, and fencing. 

According to CRA Progress Report No. 

11, excavation, transport, and disposal 

of soil underlying the paint sludge area 

was completed on November 15, 1989. 

Excavation of soil was completed to 

groundwater at the northern portion of 

the paint sludge disposal area on 

November 15, 1989. The area was 

surveyed prior to backfilling to 

document the limit of excavation. The 

limits of excavation were agreed to by 

the CRA Engineer and the MDNR 

Project Coordinator. No soil remediation 

confirmation samples were collected 

since the source was excavated to 

groundwater. It was determined that the 

monitoring of groundwater 

concentrations would provide data to 

ensure that all source materials had 

been addressed. Backfilling commenced 

on November 16, 1989. The final site 

inspection was completed by the MDNR 

Project Coordinator and EPA Remedial 

Project Manager on February 9, 1990 

following demobilization activities. 

Groundwater (OU2) 

Remedial actions began in November 

1994 after testing and operating an onsite pump and treat treatment pilot 

plant. Construction activities included: 

site clearing and degrading; installation 

of extraction and reinjection wells and 

associated piping systems; installation 

of process equipment for treating the 

contaminated groundwater; access road 

upgrade; and fencing around the 

treatment facility. A pre-final inspection 

of the construction activities was 

conducted by the MDNR and EPA 

remedial project managers and the EPA 

oversight contractor on June 9, 1995. 

During the pre-final inspection it was 

determined that the extraction, 

reinjection, and treatment systems were 

constructed as designed and were 

operational. With the completion of 

construction at OU2, the site was 

designated construction complete with 

the signing of the Preliminary Close-Out 

Report on June 29, 1995. Upon signature 

of the ESD in 1998, the pump and treat 

system operation was suspended 

because groundwater concentrations 

were below cleanup levels but would be 

reactivated if contaminant 

concentrations exceeded risk-based 

cleanup levels. 

Cleanup Goals 

All paint sludge and contaminated 

soils in the paint sludge pit were 

removed and the excavation extended 

down to groundwater in accordance 

with the 1986 ROD. The 1990 ROD for 

groundwater restoration has been 

completed. Groundwater treatment has 

restored the aquifer to cleanup 

standards. Those cleanup levels are 

listed in the following table: 

Chemical 

Cleanup 

level part 

per billion 

(ppb) 

Benzene ...................................... 1 .2 

Vinyl Chloride ............................. 0 .5 

2-Butanone ................................. 350 

2-Hexanone ................................ 50 

Toluene ....................................... 800 

Xylenes ....................................... 300 

Lead ............................................ 5 

The confirmation monitoring period 

consisted of twelve monitoring events 

from wells in the shallow and deep 

aquifer both within the former footprint 

of the source area and downgradient of 

the source area. The sampling was 

conducted from September 1998 to 

December 2004. The monitoring results 

have demonstrated continued 

compliance with the 1998 Cleanup 

Standards and have established that the 

Site has achieved groundwater cleanup 

goals established in the 1990 ROD and 

modified in the 1991 and 1998 ESDs. No 

COCs have been found above clean up 

levels since 1998. A Final Close Out was 

approved by EPA on July 19, 2010. 

Operation and Maintenance 

The pump and treat system operation 

took place from June 1995 through 

September 1998. Intermittent operation 

of the groundwater remediation system 

occurred from September 1998 through 

August 2004. EPA approved the PRPs’ 

Operating Plan on September 14, 1998. 

This plan called for confirmatory 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
20550 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

hydraulic monitoring, additional 

hydrogeologic investigations, 

installation of additional monitoring 

wells, and a contingency plan. The 

confirmatory sampling report was 

submitted in January 1999 and the 

hydraulic investigation results were 

submitted in April 1999. The results of 

volatile organic compounds (VOCs) 

analysis from all groundwater 

monitoring events post intermittent 

pumping mode have shown no 

exceedences of contaminant 

concentrations in either the upper or 

lower aquifers above the established 

cleanup levels. 

There are two deed restrictions 

associated with the entire Spiegelberg 

property and encompass the former 

footprint of the landfill. One deed 

restriction prohibits activities on the 

Spiegelberg Site that may interfere with 

the remedy. The Site is cleaned up; 

therefore, this deed restriction can be 

removed from the property. There is a 

second deed restriction on the 

Spiegelberg property for the adjoining 

Rasmussen’s Dump Superfund Site 

remedy. This deed restriction prohibits 

interfering with existing or future 

monitoring wells on the Spiegelberg 

property needed to implement and 

monitor the Rasmussen’s Dump Site 

groundwater remedy. These deed 

restrictions are not required for the 

Spiegelberg CERCLA remedy; however 

the second institutional control related 

to the Rasmussen’s Dump Site will 

remain in place until the contaminated 

groundwater from the Rasmussen’s 

Dump Site is remediated. 

No operation and maintenance is 

needed for the Spiegelberg Site since the 

remedial actions restored both siterelated contaminated soils and 

groundwater to levels that allow for 

unlimited use and unrestricted 

exposure. Any monitoring done at the 

Spiegelberg property is done in 

conjunction with the Rasmussen’s 

Dump Superfund Site remedy. 

Five-Year Review 

Five-Year Review (FYR) reports were 

written in 2000 and 2005. The 2000 FYR 

concluded that the implemented 

remedy is protective of human health 

and the environment. The on-site 

groundwater treatment system was 

operating as described in the 

Spiegelberg Landfill Site ROD. This FYR 

recommended continuing the 

monitoring requirements from the 

Statement of Work (SOW) which 

included four consecutive semi-annual 

sampling events. The confirmation 

monitoring period consisted of twelve 

monitoring events from September 1998 

to December 2004. 

The 2005 FYR also found the remedy 

to be protective of human health and the 

environment. It concluded that the 

confirmation monitoring period (post 

intermittent pumping monitoring) 

included twelve monitoring events 

since 1998, to demonstrate continued 

compliance with the 1998 groundwater 

Cleanup Standards. The 2005 FYR also 

concluded, ‘‘This is the final Five-Year 

Review for the Spiegelberg Site. 

Groundwater treatment has restored the 

aquifer to clean-up standards. Delisting, 

more formally known as Deletion from 

the NPL, should be evaluated and 

pursued as appropriate.’’ 

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 of this site from the NPL are 

available to the public in the 

information repositories and at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Determination That the Site Meets the 

Criteria for Deletion in the NCP 

The NCP (40 CFR 300.425(e)) states 

that a site may be deleted from the NPL 

when no further response action is 

appropriate. EPA, in consultation with 

the State of Michigan, has determined 

that the responsible parties have 

implemented all required response 

actions and that no further response 

action by responsible parties is 

appropriate. 

V. Deletion Action 

The EPA, with concurrence from State 

of Michigan through the MDEQ, has 

determined that all appropriate 

response actions under CERCLA have 

been completed. EPA received 

concurrence from the State of Michigan 

on December 17, 2010. 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 June 13, 2011 

unless EPA receives adverse comments 

by May 13, 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 5, 2011. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

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 ‘‘Spiegelberg 

Landfill, Green Oak Township, MI.’’ 

[FR Doc. 2011–8879 Filed 4–12–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 1042 

Control of Emissions From New and 

In-Use Marine Compression-Ignition 

Engines and Vessels 

CFR Correction 

In Title 40 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, Part 1000 to End, revised as 

of July 1, 2010, on page 240, in 

§ 1042.901, the definition of ‘‘New 

vessel’’ is reinstated to read as follows: 

§ 1042.901 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

New vessel means any of the 

following: 

(1) A vessel for which the ultimate 

purchaser has never received the 

equitable or legal title. The vessel is no 

longer new when the ultimate purchaser 

receives this title or it is placed into 

service, whichever comes first. 

(2) For vessels with no Category 3 

engines, a vessel that has been modified 

such that the value of the modifications 

exceeds 50 percent of the value of the 

modified vessel, excluding temporary 

modifications (as defined in this 

section). The value of the modification 

is the difference in the assessed value of 

the vessel before the modification and 

the assessed value of the vessel after the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES