Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 157 / Monday, August 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 41341 

sanctions pursuant to 40 CFR 51.31(d). 

If no comments are submitted that 

change our assessment, then all 

sanctions and sanction clocks will be 

permanently terminated on the effective 

date of a final rule approval. 

II. EPA Action 

We are making an interim final 

determination to stay and defer CAA 

section 179 sanctions associated with 

our August 1, 2007 limited disapproval 

based on our concurrent proposal to 

approve the State’s SIP revision as 

correcting deficiencies that initiated 

sanctions. 

Because EPA has preliminarily 

determined that the State has corrected 

the deficiencies identified in EPA’s 

limited disapproval action, relief from 

sanctions should be provided as quickly 

as possible. Therefore, EPA is invoking 

the good cause exception under the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in 

not providing an opportunity for 

comment before this action takes effect 

(5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)). However, by this 

action EPA is providing the public with 

a chance to comment on EPA’s 

determination after the effective date, 

and EPA will consider any comments 

received in determining whether to 

reverse such action. 

EPA believes that notice-andcomment rulemaking before the 

effective date of this action is 

impracticable and contrary to the public 

interest. EPA has reviewed the State’s 

submittal and, through its proposed 

action, is indicating that it is more likely 

than not that the State has corrected the 

deficiencies that started the sanctions 

clocks. Therefore, it is not in the public 

interest to initially impose sanctions or 

to keep applied sanctions in place when 

the State has most likely done all it can 

to correct the deficiencies that triggered 

the sanctions clocks. Moreover, it would 

be impracticable to go through noticeand-comment rulemaking on a finding 

that the State has corrected the 

deficiencies prior to the rulemaking 

approving the State’s submittal. 

Therefore, EPA believes that it is 

necessary to use the interim final 

rulemaking process to stay and defer 

sanctions while EPA completes its 

rulemaking process on the approvability 

of the State’s submittal. Moreover, with 

respect to the effective date of this 

action, EPA is invoking the good cause 

exception to the 30-day notice 

requirement of the APA because the 

purpose of this notice is to relieve a 

restriction (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1)). 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This action stays and defers federal 

sanctions and imposes no additional 

requirements. 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and 

therefore is not subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget. 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is 

not a significant regulatory action. 

The administrator certifies that this 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.). 

This rule does not contain any 

unfunded mandate or significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments, as 

described in the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4). 

This rule does not have tribal 

implications because it will not have a 

substantial direct effect on one or more 

Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

This action does not have Federalism 

implications because it does not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of Children 

from Environmental Health Risks and 

Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 

1997), because it is not economically 

significant. 

The requirements of section 12(d) of 

the National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272) do not apply to this rule because 

it imposes no standards. 

This rule does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

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 to Congress and the 

Comptroller General. However, section 

808 provides that any rule for which the 

issuing agency for good cause finds that 

notice and public procedure thereon are 

impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 

to the public interest, shall take effect at 

such time as the agency promulgating 

the rule determines. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). 

EPA has made such a good cause 

finding, including the reasons therefor, 

and established an effective date of 

August 17, 2009. 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 the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This rule 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 October 16, 2009. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this rule for the 

purpose of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which 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 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

regulations, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: August 4, 2009. 

Laura Yoshii, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. E9–19654 Filed 8–14–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–2009–0227; FRL–8945–3] 

National Oil and Hazardous Substance 

Pollution Contingency Plan; National 

Priorities List 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Direct Final Notice of Deletion 

of the Island Chemical Corp/Virgin 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
41342 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 157 / Monday, August 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

Islands Chemical Corp. Superfund Site 

from the National Priorities List. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) Region 2 is publishing a 

direct final Notice of Deletion of the 

Island Chemical Corp/Virgin Islands 

Chemical Corp. (Site), located in St. 

Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, 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 territory of 

U.S. Virgin Islands, through the Virgin 

Islands Department of Planning and 

Natural Resources (VIDPNR), 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 October 16, 2009 unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by 

September 16, 2009. 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–2009–0227, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: kwan.caroline@epa.gov 

• Fax: (212) 637–4284 

• Mail: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 2, 290 

Broadway, 20th floor, New York, NY 

10007–1866 

• Hand delivery: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 2, 290 

Broadway, 20th floor, New York, NY. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Docket’s normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID no. EPA–HQ–SFUND–2009– 

0227. 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: 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 2, 290 Broadway, Superfund 

Record, Center, Room 1828, New 

York, NY 10007–1866, Hours: 

Monday to Friday from 9 a.m. to 5 

p.m., Telephone No. (212) 637–4308. 

Department of Planning and Natural 

Resources, 45 Mars Hill, Frederiksted, 

U.S. Virgin Islands, 00850, Hours: 

Monday to Friday from 9 a.m. to 5 

p.m., Telephone No. (340) 773–1082. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Caribbean Environmental Protection 

Division, Tunick Building, Suite 102, 

1336 Beltjen Road, St. Thomas, VI 

00801, Hours: Monday to Friday from 

9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Telephone No. (340) 

714–2333. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ms.Caroline Kwan, Remedial Project 

Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 2, 290 Broadway, 20th 

floor, New York, NY 10007–1866, (212) 

637–4275, e-mail: 

kwan.caroline@epa.gov 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. NPL Deletion Criteria 

III. Deletion Procedures 

IV. Basis for Site Deletion 

V. Deletion Action 

I. Introduction 

EPA Region 2 is publishing this direct 

final Notice of Deletion of the Island 

Chemical Corp/Virgin Islands Chemical 

Corp. Superfund Site (Site), from the 

NPL. The NPL constitutes Appendix B 

of 40 CFR part 300, which is the 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 October 16, 2009 

unless EPA receives adverse comments 

by September 16, 2009. Along with this 

direct final Notice of Deletion, EPA is 

co-publishing a Notice of Intent to 

Delete in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ section 

of the Federal Register. If adverse 

comments are received within the 30- 

day public comment period on this 

deletion action, EPA will publish a 

timely withdrawal of this direct final 

Notice of Deletion before the effective 

date of the deletion, and the deletion 

will not take effect. EPA will, as 

appropriate, prepare a response to 

comments and continue with the 

deletion process on the basis of the 

Notice of Intent to Delete and the 

comments already received. There will 

be no additional opportunity to 

comment. 

Section II of this document explains 

the criteria for deleting sites from the 

NPL. Section III discusses procedures 

that EPA is using for this action. Section 

IV discusses the VICHEM 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. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 157 / Monday, August 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 41343 

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 territory of 

U.S. Virgin Islands prior to developing 

this direct final Notice of Deletion and 

the Notice of Intent to Delete copublished today in the ‘‘Proposed 

Rules’’ section of the Federal Register. 

(2) EPA has provided the territory 30 

working days for review of this notice 

and the parallel Notice of Intent to 

Delete prior to their publication today, 

and the territory, through the VIDPNR 

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 the Virgin Islands 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) 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 ID No. VID980651095, 

is located on Plot 13Q of Estate 

Bethlehem Middle Works in the southcentral portion of St. Croix in the U.S. 

Virgin Islands. Plot 13Q is bordered to 

the north and east by an intermittent 

stream, the River Gut, which originates 

north of the Site and drains to the 

Caribbean Sea. The Site geology is 

characterized by approximately 85 feet 

of fill and Alluvial materials (sandy-clay 

to sandy-silt and clayey sand) overlying 

the clayey marl of the Kingshill 

Formation. Groundwater underlying the 

Site flows predominantly to the southsoutheast. Land use surrounding the 

Site includes a mix of commercial and 

industrial purposes and the Site is 

zoned as I–2 (Light Industry). 

Charles H. Steffey, Inc. (CHS, Inc.) 

purchased the VICHEM Site in 1968. At 

some point prior to 1969, CHS, Inc. 

changed its name to CHS Holding 

Corporation (CHS). From 1968 to 1982, 

the Site was used for the manufacture 

and blending of a variety of 

pharmaceutical products. By the end of 

1982, the facility was permanently 

closed. CHS maintains ownership of the 

Site. Between 1984 and 1991, several 

investigations were conducted at the 

Site by EPA and a former tenant, Island 

Chemical Company, which was later 

acquired by Berlex Laboratories, Inc. 

(‘‘Berlex’’). This investigative work 

identified six areas of potential 

environmental concern: 

—Laboratory and Warehouse Building; 

—Above ground storage tank (AST) 

area; 

—Former process pit (FPP) area; 

—Loading dock/former laboratory pit 

area; 

—Soil beneath concrete pad near ASTs; 

—Concrete storage pad. 

During initial stages of site 

assessment, both EPA and Berlex 

conducted response activities including 

soil excavation with on-Site treatment 

or off-Site disposal, drum removals, and 

off-Site disposal of AST contents. 

Between September 1989 and October 

1991, EPA conducted a removal action 

at the Site. At that time, the laboratory/ 

warehouse building was found to 

contain approximately 400 drums (some 

extremely deteriorated), leaking 

cylinders of chlorine and hydrogen 

chloride, and over 800 containers of 

laboratory reagents that included 

sodium metal, potassium cyanide, and 

ethyl ether. EPA removed 354 drums 

containing 14,720 gallons of various 

chemicals and 8,061 pounds of lab pack 

chemicals from the laboratory/ 

warehouse building. 

The Site was proposed to the NPL on 

January 18, 1994 (59 FR 2568) and 

subsequently added on June 17, 1996 

(61 FR 30510). 

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study 

On September 29, 1994, EPA entered 

into an Administrative Order on 

Consent (AOC), Index No. II CERCLA– 

94–0401, with Berlex and Island 

Chemical Company; Pierrel S.p.A, a 

subsidiary of Pharmacia & Upjohn, Inc. 

(‘‘P&U’’) and also a former tenant at the 

Site, was added as a respondent to the 

AOC in April 1999. The AOC, pursuant 

to Section 106(a) of the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. 

9606(a), required the performance of a 

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility 

Study (RI/FS) at the Site. 

The primary objectives of the RI were 

to: (1) Collect the data needed to 

characterize the nature and extent of 

contamination and adequately support 

human health and ecological baseline 

risk assessments and (2) provide a basis 

on which a subsequent, cost-effective, 

remedial action plan would be 

recommended. All six areas of potential 

concern were investigated during the 

initial assessment and the subsequent 

RI, along with the nature and extent of 

soil and groundwater contamination, 

and potential off-Site sediment 

contamination. Based on the data 

collected, only the AST and FPP areas 

were determined to require remediation. 

Contaminants of concern at the Site 

included ethylbenzene and xylene, in 

soils and groundwater at the AST area 

and chloroform in groundwater at the 

FPP area. The Site posed potential 

threats to human health and the 

environment through ingestion 

associated with contaminated soil and 

groundwater. 

As part of the RI/FS, the PRPs 

implemented a field Pilot Test of Soil 

Vapor Extraction/Air Sparging (SVE/AS) 

in February 2000. Following successful 

completion of the Pilot Test and with 

the approval of EPA and the VIDPNR, 

an SVE/AS system for the AST area was 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
41344 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 157 / Monday, August 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

placed in continuous operation in June 

2001 by the PRPs. 

A chain link fence was installed in 

the spring of 2000 along the property 

line to secure the area from 

unauthorized access, and in the spring 

of 2002, the PRPs demolished the site 

buildings and removed and disposed/ 

recycled all of the tanks and related 

equipment. 

Selected Remedy 

Based on the human health risk 

assessment, the remedial action 

objectives for the Site were: 

• Mitigate the toxicity, mobility, and/ 

or volume of VOCs (ethylbenzene and 

xylene) in soils in the AST area to 

minimize continued leaching to 

groundwater; 

• Mitigate the toxicity, mobility, and/ 

or volume of VOCs (ethylbenzene and 

xylene) in groundwater in the AST area 

and downgradient so as to achieve 

Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) 

and protect potential future 

groundwater users; 

• Mitigate the toxicity, mobility, and/ 

or volume of chloroform in groundwater 

in the FPP area and downgradient so as 

to achieve MCLs and protect future 

potential groundwater users; and 

• Restrict on-site groundwater use to 

non-potable purposes until the water 

quality is restored to MCLs. 

On August 14, 2002, the Regional 

Administrator signed a Record of 

Decision (ROD) selecting the following 

remedy: 

• SVE/AS to treat contaminated 

groundwater, saturated soil, and 

unsaturated soil at the AST source area; 

• Monitored Natural Attenuation 

(MNA) to address low-level residual 

contamination in groundwater at the 

FPP area and downgradient areas; and 

• Institutional controls (in the form of 

existing VIDPNR well permitting laws 

and regulations) to limit the pumping of 

groundwater at the Site to prevent 

interference with the selected remedy 

and to also prevent human exposure to 

contaminated groundwater until EPA’s 

MCLs are achieved. 

The ROD also selected groundwater 

pump and treat as a contingency remedy 

in the event that groundwater cleanup 

goals were not achieved in a reasonable 

time period. 

Response Actions 

In a Consent Decree with EPA, 

entered on March 5, 2004, the PRPs 

(Island Chemical Company, Berlex and 

P&U and successors in interest) agreed 

to perform the remedial design/remedial 

action (RD/RA) specified in the ROD. 

On a voluntary basis, the PRPs had been 

operating the SVE/AS system in the 

AST Area (which was consistent with 

the requirements of the ROD) since 

2001, and an extensive network of 

monitoring wells was already in place. 

A formal remedial design phase was, 

therefore, not required by the Consent 

Decree, except in the event EPA 

determined that supplemental activities 

were required to achieve performance 

standards. The PRPs submitted a 

Remedial Action Work Plan (RAWP) in 

September 2004 that detailed all 

elements of the required remedial 

action. 

SVE/System in AST Area 

The SVE/AS system includes six SVE 

wells, one AS well, and eleven vapor 

monitoring probes, together with a 

surface vapor barrier that prevents 

short-circuiting of air flow and direct 

contact with surface soil. A groundwater 

monitoring network comprising a total 

of eight wells (shallow and deep) is also 

installed in the AST area. Continuous 

operation of the SVE/AS system by the 

PRPs from June 2001 through November 

2003 removed approximately 2,030 

pounds of AST area contaminants and 

reached asymptotically low limits of 

mass removal. Rebound testing 

indicated that negligible residual mass 

was left in the unsaturated zone. The 

mass removed correlates well with 

source mass estimates presented in the 

Feasibility Study (FS) of 1,900 pounds. 

AST Area Groundwater Monitoring 

Results 

AST Area groundwater was 

monitored quarterly commencing in 

June 2001, when the SVE/AS system 

was placed in continuous operation, 

including three events subsequent to 

shut down of the AS/SVE system on 

November 3, 2003. Groundwater 

concentrations were reduced from a 

high of 176,000 μg/L of total toluene, 

ethylbenzene and xylenes (TEX) in June 

2001 (baseline levels) in the most 

contaminated well (MW–6), to 13 μg/L 

in September 2003, the last sampling 

event prior to the November 2003 

shutdown of the SVE/AS system. Four 

other AST area groundwater monitoring 

locations remained below the ROD 

cleanup goals for the entire period, and 

were generally at or near non-detect 

levels from November 2001 onward. 

Rebound and post-shut down 

evaluations performed in August 2002, 

December 2003, March 2004 and June 

2004 indicated modest increases in 

groundwater concentrations, to levels 

generally below cleanup goals. Postshutdown levels in MW–1 and MW–6 in 

June 2004 were reduced 88–99.99% 

from baseline concentrations in June 

2001, confirming the permanence of the 

remediation. Concentrations in MW–6 

decreased from 6,900 μg/L TEX in 

December 2003 to 14 μg/L TEX in June 

2004. The concentrations in MW–1, 

which increased from December 2003 to 

March 2004 to 21,400 μg/L, decreased to 

1,270 μg/L TEX in December 2004, as 

natural attenuation degraded the 

residual contaminant concentrations 

following source removal/treatment of 

the vadose zone (2,030 pounds removed 

via SVE). Wells located to the north of 

the AST Area, MW–8 and MW–10, were 

installed during the Remedial 

Investigation (RI) to monitor the 

possible off-property migration of 

contaminants although the predominant 

groundwater flow direction is to the 

south/southeast. These wells were 

sampled during the baseline event and 

in the three events since December 

2003. In each event, concentrations of 

TEX were below 0.6 μg/L in MW–8 and 

MW–10, indicating that there is no 

migration of Site contaminants of 

concern (COCs) to the north. 

Groundwater monitoring was 

performed semi-annually from 2004 to 

2006. Three wells, MW–1, MW–6, and 

AST–VMP–3D, were monitored in the 

AST area for TEX parameters and a list 

of key intrinsic biodegradation 

parameters. All TEX results were below 

cleanup goals except for one detection 

of ethylbenzene at 1700 μg/in AST– 

VMP–3D in December 2004. EPA 

approved annual post remediation 

monitoring in the AST Area in April 

2006. TEX concentrations remained 

below cleanup goals during three 

rounds of post remediation monitoring 

from 2006 to 2008. The highest TEX 

concentration in these wells decreased 

from 38 μg/L in May 2006 to non-detect 

in the last round, February 2008. PostRemediation Monitoring at the AST 

Area has been completed in full 

satisfaction of the Consent Decree and 

associated Statement of Work. 

AST Area Soil Confirmatory Sampling 

Results 

Soil samples were collected in the 

AST area on a 25 foot by 25 foot grid 

pattern with vertical samples collected 

every 2 feet to the water table, in 

February 2004 and analyzed for site 

contaminant VOCs. The results 

demonstrated that contaminant levels 

were below cleanup goals in all samples 

analyzed. The highest depth averaged 

concentration of soil samples in one 

location were 369 μg/kg ethylbenzene 

and 296 μg/kg xylenes, compared with 

the ROD cleanup goals of 6,500 μg/kg 

and 90,000 μg/kg, respectively. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 157 / Monday, August 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 41345 

MNA in FPP Area 

EPA selected MNA as the remedy for 

FPP Area groundwater, and chloroform 

concentrations in groundwater 

decreased sharply since 1998 such that 

the cleanup goal has been reached. 

From 1998 to June 2004, chloroform in 

MW–2, the source area of historically 

highest concentrations, decreased from 

2,400 μg/L to 13 μg/L. Chloroform 

concentrations in the FPP Area have 

been consistently below the cleanup 

goal since 2000. MW–11, a 

downgradient well which had an 

increase in chloroform from 3J μg/L in 

1998 to 40.4 μg/L in 2000, was below 

cleanup goals in 2004, indicating that 

chloroform has attenuated 

downgradient. Chloroform was not been 

detected in any of the AST Area wells, 

and methylene chloride (a potential 

degradation product of chloroform) was 

not detected above 1.0 μg/L in any FPP 

or AST wells up to June 2004. 

In the FPP Area, annual postremediation groundwater monitoring 

began in the 2nd quarter 2005. Three 

wells, MW–2, MW–7, and MW–11, were 

monitored for chloroform. Chloroform 

concentrations remained below cleanup 

goals during three rounds of post 

remediation monitoring from 2005 to 

2007. Chloroform concentrations varied 

from non detect in May 2005 to 21 μg/ 

L in May 2007, below the cleanup goals 

of 100 μg/L. Post-Remediation 

Monitoring at the FPP Area has been 

completed in full satisfaction of the 

Consent Decree and associated 

statement of work (SOW). 

Based upon the soil and groundwater 

data, which indicated compliance with 

all cleanup goals, EPA determined that 

supplemental remedial construction 

activities were not necessary, and use of 

the contingency remedy of groundwater 

pump and treat would not be required 

in either the AST Area or FPP Area. 

Construction was, therefore, considered 

to be complete. 

The SVE system was permanently 

shut down in November 2003 and the 

treatment system trailer removed in 

2005. The SVE wells and monitoring 

wells at the Site have not been 

decommissioned. The PRPs are 

developing a plan to decommission 

these wells in the summer of 2009. The 

Remedial Action Report was submitted 

in September 2004 and the Final PostRemediation Monitoring Report was 

submitted in April 2008. The final site 

inspection occurred on March 4, 2009. 

Institutional Controls 

The ROD indicated that VIDPNR, in 

consultation with EPA, would utilize 

institutional controls (in the form of 

existing well permitting laws and 

regulations) to limit the pumping of 

groundwater at the Site, to prevent 

interference with the selected remedy, 

and to also prevent human exposure to 

contaminated groundwater until ROD 

cleanup goals were achieved. Pursuant 

to the CD, on request from EPA, the 

PRPs were to seek an environmental 

easement/restrictive covenant to enforce 

land and groundwater use controls at 

the Site and other areas where VOC 

contamination exceeds ROD cleanup 

goals or where groundwater extraction 

could negatively impact the existing 

contaminant plume. The PRPs have 

maintained fencing around the site and 

maintained oversight of groundwater 

conditions during remediation. Based 

on these actions and the existence of 

well permitting requirements EPA did 

not require the PRPs to obtain the 

environmental easement/restrictive 

covenant. The Site has no hazardous 

substances, associated with the NPL 

release, remaining above levels that 

would prevent unlimited use and 

unrestricted exposure. The remedy is 

completed and no other operation and 

maintenance activities are required. The 

final Five-Year Review was signed on 

March 20, 2009. 

Cleanup Goals 

The cleanup goals for soils in the AST 

area are 6,500 μg/kg for ethylbenzene, 

and 90,000 μg/kg for xylene. For 

groundwater, the cleanup goals are 700 

μg/L for ethylbenzene, 10,000 μg/L for 

xylene, and 100 μg/L for chloroform, 

respectively. 

Community Involvement 

Public participation activities for this 

Site have been satisfied as required in 

CERCLA § 113(k) and Section 117. As 

part of the remedy selection process, the 

public was invited to comment on 

EPA’s proposed remedies. All other 

documents and information which EPA 

relied on or considered in 

recommending this deletion are 

available for the public to review at the 

information repositories identified 

above. 

Determination That the Site Meets the 

Criteria for Deletion in the NCP 

One of the three criteria for site 

deletion is when responsible parties or 

other persons have implemented all 

appropriate response actions required 

(40 CFR 300.425(e)(1)(I)). EPA, with the 

concurrence of the U.S. Virgin islands 

through VIDPNR, has determined that 

all required and appropriate response 

actions have been implemented by the 

responsible parties. 

V. Deletion Action 

The EPA, with concurrence of the 

U.S. Virgin Islands through the VIDPNR 

has determined that all appropriate 

response actions under CERCLA, 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 October 16, 2009 

unless EPA receives adverse comments 

by September 16, 2009. 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: August 3, 2009. 

George Pavlou, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 2. 

■ 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 the entry 

‘‘Island Chemical Corp/VI Chemical 

Corp’’, ‘‘Christiansted’’, ‘‘Virgin 

Islands’’. 

[FR Doc. E9–19679 Filed 8–14–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES