```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 156 (Friday, August 12, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50133-50140]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20587]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1986-0005; FRL-9451-3]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; 
National Priorities List: Deletion of the Pasley Solvents & Chemicals, 
Inc. Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 2 is 
publishing a direct final Notice of Deletion of the Pasley Solvents & 
Chemicals, Inc Superfund Site (Site), located in the Town of Hempstead, 
Nassau County, New York, from the National Priorities List (NPL). The 
NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 
1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous 
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This direct final deletion 
is being published by EPA with the concurrence of the State of New 
York, through the New York State Department of Environmental 
Conservation (NYSDEC), 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 September 26, 2011 
unless EPA receives adverse comments by September 12, 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-1986-0005, by one of the following methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow on-line 
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail: [email protected].
     Fax: To the attention of Sherrel Henry at 212-637-3966.
     Mail: Sherrel Henry, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, 290 Broadway, 20th Floor, 
New York, New York 10007-1866.
     Hand delivery: Superfund Records Center, 290 Broadway, 
18th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866 (telephone: 212-637-4308). Such 
deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of 
operation, 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: U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, Superfund Records Center, 
290 Broadway, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866.
    Phone: 212-637-4308.
    Hours: Monday to Friday from 9 a.m. to 5 a.m.
    Information for the Site is also available for viewing at the Site 
Administrative Record Repositories located at: Levittown Library, 1 
Bluegrass Lane, Levittown, New York 11756. Tel. (516)731-5728.
    Hours: Monday through Friday: 9 a.m. through 9 p.m., Saturday: 9 
a.m. through 5 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sherrel D. Henry, Remedial Project 
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, 290 Broadway, 
20th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866, (212) 637-4273, by e-mail at 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

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

[[Page 50134]]

I. Introduction

    EPA Region 2 is publishing this direct final Notice of Deletion of 
the Pasley Solvents & Chemicals, Inc Superfund Site (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 September 26, 2011 unless EPA 
receives adverse comments by September 12, 2011. 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 Pasley Solvents & Chemicals, 
Inc Superfund Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria. 
Section V discusses EPA's action to delete the Site from the NPL unless 
adverse comments are received during the public comment period.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from 
the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted 
from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a 
determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in 
consultation with the state, whether any of the following criteria have 
been met:
    i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all 
appropriate response actions required;
    ii. All appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been 
implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is 
appropriate; or
    iii. The remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no 
significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, 
the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.

III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to deletion of the Site:
    (1) EPA consulted with the State of New York prior to developing 
this direct final Notice of Deletion and the Notice of Intent to Delete 
co-published today in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of the Federal 
Register.
    (2) EPA has provided 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 NYSDEC, has concurred on 
the deletion of the Site from the NPL.
    (3) Concurrently with the publication of this direct final Notice 
of Deletion, a notice of the availability of the parallel Notice of 
Intent to Delete is being published in a major local newspaper, Anton 
News (Three Village Times and the Floral Park Dispatch). 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. NYD991292004, is located in the Town of 
Hempstead in Nassau County, New York. The Site property measures 75 
feet by 275 feet with a fenced boundary on the north, east and south 
sides and is located at 565 Commercial Avenue, Town of Hempstead, 
Nassau County, New York. The Site lies between the borders of the 
political subdivisions of the Village of Garden City and Uniondale, in 
the Town of Hempstead. A building and loading platform form the western 
boundary of the Site at the adjacent property.
    From 1969 until 1982, the Site was occupied by the Pasley Solvents 
and Chemicals Company (Pasley) and was used as a chemical distribution 
facility. Activities at the Site included delivery and storage of 
chemicals in tanks on-site, and transfer of the chemicals to 55-gallon 
drums for delivery to customers. Some customers reportedly returned 
used chemicals and empty drums to the Site. These chemicals included a 
wide range of aromatics and halogenated aliphatic hydrocarbons, 
solvents, ketones and alcohols. Commander Oil Corporation (Commander) 
owned the Site prior to 1969 when the Site was used by Commander for 
distribution of fuel oils.
    In 1980, Pasley applied for a New York State Department of 
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) permit to store and remove 
chemicals. The Nassau County Department of Health (NCDOH) collected 
soil samples from the Site. Analyses of the samples indicated that the 
soils were contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs). In 
1980, NCDOH referred the Site to NYSDEC and both agencies recommended 
that Pasley submit a plan for a remedial investigation and cleanup. In 
1981, Lakeland Engineering performed a limited well drilling and ground 
water sampling program. Five on-property and one off-property 
monitoring ground water wells were installed and ground water samples 
were collected by Lakeland and the New York State Department of Health 
(NYSDOH).

[[Page 50135]]

Contaminants were detected above State drinking water standards.
    The Site was proposed to the NPL in October 1984 (49 FR 40320) and 
was listed on the NPL in June 1986 (51 FR 21054).
    After all remedial action at the site was completed; Plato Holding 
LLC bought the property from Commander in August 2003 and concluded 
negotiations with the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) to utilize 
the Site as a police station. In 2004, the Site was paved and an office 
trailer was placed on concrete blocks. Plato Holding sold the property 
to Yonah Reality in March 2007. It is Yonah Reality's intent to 
continue to use the property as a police station.

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

    On August 19, 1988, EPA and Commander entered into an 
Administrative Order on Consent, Index NO. II-CERCLA-80212 (the Order). 
The Order required Commander to perform a Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study (RI/FS) to determine the nature and extent of 
contamination at the Site, to develop and analyze cleanup alternatives 
and to remove the 12 above-ground storage tanks located on the Site. In 
November of 1988, Commander completed the tank removal. The RI was 
performed by Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. for Commander in 1990. During the 
RI subsurface soil samples, ground water samples and surface soil 
samples were collected and analyzed. As part of the ground water 
investigation eighteen ground water monitoring wells were installed. 
The monitoring wells were clustered in six locations (three wells each, 
screened at depths of 30, 60, and 90 feet). The ground water quality of 
the aquifer underlying the Site, downgradient and upgradient of the 
Site was assessed by two rounds of water quality sampling in 1990 and a 
third round of partial sampling in 1991. The most prevalent VOC 
detected in ground water during the RI was trans--1,2-dichloroethene at 
a maximum concentration of 37,000 parts per billion (ppb). Samples 
collected from upgradient off-site monitoring wells showed a maximum 
level of 27 ppb of tetrachloroethene (PCE) (monitoring well location 
MW-1S) and 15 ppb for trichloroethene (TCE) (monitoring well location 
MW-1D). Benzene was also detected at a maximum level of 38 ppb 
(monitoring well location MW-1l). Since a contaminant plume could not 
be defined by plotting the Total Volatile Organic Compounds (TVOCs) 
associated with the Site study area, a group of VOCs which were found 
at the Site but which were not detected in upgradient well cluster well 
MW-1 were chosen to define the plume associated with the Site 
(identified as Site Index Compounds (SICs)). Through the use of the 
index compounds, a well defined contaminant plume could be identified 
for the Site.
    The SICs chosen to define the plume for the Site are the following: 
chloroform, 1,1dichloroethene, 1,1-dichloroethane, trans-1,2-
dichloroethene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, ethylbenzene, toluene, 
chlorobenzene, and xylene. The SICs were found to contribute a major 
part (99%) of the contamination found in the monitoring well cluster 
located on-site (MW-2). Non-site index compounds acetone, benzene, TCE 
and PCE, which were found in on-property wells and upgradient were also 
monitored. However, the use of SICs does not imply that non-index 
compounds are absent from the Site.
    The SIC plume for the 20 to 30-foot depth Upper Glacial aquifer 
extended approximately 400 feet to the southwest, parallel to the 
ground water flow direction and the contaminant plume was approximately 
390 feet wide. The maximum level of SIC contamination detected was 
37,000 parts per billion (ppb) for trans-1,2-dichloroethene, 7400 times 
the Federal Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 5 ppb. TCE, although not 
part of the SIC plume, was also detected at a maximum concentration of 
320 ppb, 64 times its MCL of 5 ppb. The SIC plume for the 50 to 60 foot 
depth in the Lower Glacial aquifer was found to be much smaller, and 
centered on MW-4I, directly downgradient of the Site. The maximum level 
of SIC contamination in this portion of the plume was 15 ppb for trans-
1,2-dichloroethene. TCE was also detected at 15 ppb. No SIC 
contamination was found directly downgradient or on-site in the 80 to 
90 foot depth in the Upper Magothy aquifer.
    Fifty (50) surface soil grab samples were collected and analyzed 
for VOCs. These samples were collected from an approximate 30-foot grid 
pattern at a depth of 6 to 12 inches below grade. Samples were then 
collected and composited for metals and semi-volatile organic analyses. 
Each composite sample consisted of soil from five adjacent discrete 
sample locations.
    Data from the surface soil samples revealed elevated levels of VOCs 
originating from three primary locations. The concentrations of TVOCs, 
primarily PCE and trans-1,2-dichloroethene, were detected in 
concentrations of 1,000 ppb up to concentrations of 603,000 ppb. 
Additionally, total semi-volatile organic compounds were detected in 
composite samples collected from ten locations. The highest 
concentrations of total semi-volatiles were detected in composite 
samples 8 and 9 (204,000 ppb and 126,500 ppb, respectively) collected 
on the eastern edge of the Site.
    Subsurface samples were also collected from eight locations on-site 
and five locations off-site. On-site, two samples were collected from 
each of eight borings at depths of 12 to 14 feet and 23 to 25 feet (or 
the first two feet below the water table). A total of sixteen samples 
were collected. Elevated levels of total VOCs (greater than 1,000 ppb) 
were detected in six of the sixteen samples.
    Based on the results of the RI report, a risk assessment was 
performed for the Site. The risk assessment determined that although 
the risk posed by the soils are within EPA's acceptable risk criteria, 
contaminants in the soils, if not addressed, would continue to 
contribute to further contamination of the ground water, resulting in a 
potential future risk from ground water ingestion.
    A FS was then completed to identify and evaluate remedial 
alternatives that would be effective and implementable in addressing 
the contamination, based on site-specific conditions. The FS Report was 
developed based on the ``Guidance for conducting Remedial Investigation 
and Feasibility Studies under CERCLA.'' Remedial alternatives were 
developed to satisfy the following Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) 
for the Site:
     The soils will be treated until the soil cleanup 
objectives are met or until no more VOCs can be effectively removed 
from the unsaturated zone.
     Contaminated groundwater will be treated to meet either 
Federal or state groundwater standards except in those cases where 
upgradient concentrations are above such standards.

Selected Remedy

    Based upon the results of the RI/FS, on April 24, 1992, a Record of 
Decision (ROD) was signed, selecting a remedy for the Site. The major 
components of the 1992 ROD included the following:
     Treatment of approximately thirteen thousand (13,000) 
cubic yards of contaminated soil by soil vacuuming (also referred to as 
soil vapor extraction), and/or by soil flushing;
     Disposal of treatment residuals at a RCRA Subtitle C 
facility;
     Remediation of the ground water by extraction/metals 
precipitation/air stripping with vapor phase granular activated carbon 
(GAC) polishing;

[[Page 50136]]

     Pumping of contaminated ground water from three extraction 
wells at a combined flow rate of approximately 450 gallons per minute;
     Implementation of a long-term monitoring program to track 
the migration and concentrations of the contaminants of concern; and
     Implementation of a monitoring program that would include 
the collection and analysis of the influent and effluent from the 
treatment systems.
    After the ROD was issued, EPA sent notice letters and a draft 
Consent Decree (CD) to Commander and to the operators of the Site 
(Robert Pasley and Pasley Solvents and Chemicals Company) for 
implementation of the remedy selected in the ROD. These parties 
declined to perform the selected remedial action. Counsel for Commander 
contended that Commander was not financially able to implement the 
remedy which was estimated to cost 14 million dollars. As a result, in 
1993 EPA obligated Superfund monies for performance of the remedial 
design (RD) by Ebasco Services, Inc., an EPA contractor.
    Subsequently, Commander notified EPA that it believed that an 
innovative technology, air sparging modification to the ground water 
remedy would be an effective means to remediate the ground water, at 
approximately half the cost of the selected remedy. EPA evaluated all 
available information on the air sparging technology and gave approval 
for Commander to submit a work plan to conduct a pilot study to 
evaluate the effectiveness of air sparging at the Site. The results of 
the pilot study, which were documented in the Air Sparging (AS)/Soil 
Vapor Extraction (SVE) Pilot Test Study Report, demonstrated that air 
sparging would be an effective means of remediating the ground water at 
the Site.
    As a result, EPA determined that AS was a viable technology in 
combination with SVE to clean up the ground water and soils at the Site 
and subsequently on May 22, 1995, EPA issued a ROD Amendment selecting 
the following remedy:
     Remediation of the ground water by AS in the contaminated 
saturated zone underlying the property;
     Remediation of the on-property unsaturated zone soils and 
collection of AS vapors by SVE;
     Interception and remediation of the off-property ground-
water plume by AS accompanied by SVE in the area of Cluster Park, a 
local park located near the facility;
     Implementation of a long-term ground-water monitoring 
program to track the migration and concentrations of the contaminants 
of concern; and
     Implementation of a remediation system monitoring program 
that would include vapor monitoring, ground-water monitoring and soil 
sampling.
    The ROD and ROD Amendment were intended to remediate the soil so 
that the Site property, which does not currently have permanent 
structures present, could be used without restriction. Therefore, no 
Institutional Controls (ICs) were required for the selected remedy at 
the Site.

Response Actions

    In 1995, EPA concluded CD negotiations with the PRPs related to the 
performance of the remedial design, remedial construction, operation, 
maintenance, and monitoring of the remedy selected in the ROD 
Amendment. On January 26, 1996, the CD was entered in United States 
District Court (approved by the Judge) for the Eastern District of New 
York.
    CRA Services was selected by Commander to design, construct, and 
operate the remedial system. EPA approved the RD in April 1997. 
Construction of the remedy started on June 26, 1997 and was completed 
on October 21, 1997. Construction activities are summarized in the 
Remedial Action Report, dated July 14, 1998. The Remedial Action Report 
documented that the work was performed in accordance with the approved 
design, consistent with the decision documents and that appropriate 
construction standards and QA/QC procedures were used.
    The remediation system consisted of two SVE/AS systems: One on the 
Pasley property; and one off the Pasley property in Cluster Park. The 
system worked by introducing air into the aquifer to volatilize organic 
compounds and capture the organic vapors. The vapors from the on-
property system were treated with GAC, prior to discharge. Rotary-vane 
AS compressors and rotary-lobe SVE blowers, housed in the on-property 
treatment building, were used to ``push'' and ''pull'' the air and soil 
vapor from both systems.
    Major components of the constructed remedy include:

On-Property

     19 AS wells, 2-inch polyvinyl chloride (PVC), screened 50-
52-feet below ground surface (bgs)
     Eight shallow SVE wells, 2-inch PVC, screened 5-10 feet 
bgs
     Eight deep SVE wells, 4-inch PVC, screened 15-20 feet bgs
     Five monitoring well clusters
     Buried piping to each AS/SVE well
     24 x 24-ft treatment building
     AS and SVE blowers, piping and controls
     GAC vapor treatment system
     Condensate collection and GAC treatment system
     Re-infiltration gallery
     Off-property AS and SVE blowers, piping, controls

Off-Property

     Fifteen AS wells, 2-inch PVC, screened 50-52 feet bgs
     Five SVE wells, 2-inch PVC, screened 15-20 feet bgs
     Six monitoring well clusters
     Buried piping to each AS/SVE well
     Buried distribution vault and controls
    The AS/SVE system operated from October 1997 to October 2002. The 
system was shut down when monitoring data indicated that groundwater 
and soil cleanup levels specified in the 1995 ROD had been met. The 
Notice of Completion and Final Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Report 
were submitted by Commander in 2003. In January 2004, post remediation 
monitoring began to ensure site related contamination had been 
effectively remediated.

Cleanup Goals

    Consistent with the ROD and ROD Amendment, the site-specific ground 
water and soil cleanup goals are summarized in Table 1 below.

                                 Table 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Recommended
                                            Groundwater    soil cleanup
               Contaminant                  cleanup goal    goals (ppm)
                                           ([mu]g/L) \1\        \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chloroform...............................            7              0.3
1,1-Dichloroethene.......................            5              0.4
1,1-Dichloroethane.......................            5              0.2

[[Page 50137]]

 
Trans-1,2-Dichloroethene.................            5              0.3
1,1,1-Trichloroethane....................            5              0.8
Ethylbenzene.............................            5              5.5
Toluene..................................            5              1.5
Chlorobenzene............................            5              1.7
Xylene...................................            5              1.2
Acetone..................................           50              0.2
Benzene..................................            0.7            0.06
Tetrachloroethene........................            5              1.4
Trichloroethene..........................            5              0.7
VOCs (total).............................          N/A             10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Maximum Contaminants Levels (MCLs).
\2\ NYSDEC Technical and Administrative Guidance Memorandum (TAGM) 446:
  Determination of Soil Cleanup Objective and Cleanup Levels, Rev Jan
  1994.

    As stated in the RAO described above, contaminated groundwater was 
treated to meet either Federal or state groundwater standards (MCLs) 
except in those cases where upgradient concentrations are above such 
standards. The upgradient groundwater contaminants are acetone, TCE, 
benzene and PCE.
Soils
    When the concentrations of vapors appeared to be stabilizing, soil 
sampling was conducted to assess remedial progress. The soil sampling 
was completed in July 2000. A total of 12 soil borings were taken at 
the Site. It should be noted that sampling took into account the three 
primary locations of elevated concentration identified in the RI. The 
samples submitted for analysis were taken from the interval with the 
highest detected concentration of VOCs (measured by a photo ionization 
detector (PID)) in each boring. The results indicated that an area near 
MW-2S (BH-12 area) required additional treatment. Contingency measures 
were implemented in order to decrease the concentrations of SICs 
(specifically xylene) below cleanup levels. Contingency measures 
included shutting off the east side air sparging wells and diverting 
air to the area around MW-2S. In addition, inorganic nutrients in the 
form of a commercial garden fertilizer (Miracid 30:10:10) were added to 
the west side well in an attempt to accelerate biological activity for 
further chemical reduction, and two more AS wells were installed in the 
area.
    In April 2003, when system monitoring no longer detected VOCs in 
the west side wells, soil sampling was again conducted. This effort was 
focused in the area near MW-2S. The results showed concentrations below 
the cleanup objectives.
Groundwater
    Four on-site ground water monitoring wells and seven down gradient 
monitoring wells were monitored over the 5-year SVE/AS operation period 
(from 1997 to 2002). A total of 19 rounds of ground water samples were 
taken during that period. Samples were analyzed for SICs as described 
above. In addition to the SICs, acetone, TCE, benzene and PCE were 
included in each analysis because they were also detected on-site. 
Collectively the SICs and these four other compounds were described as 
the total volatile organic index compounds (TVOICs). The use of SICs 
and TVOICs provided a means of ensuring that site related contamination 
was monitored and provided the ability to differentiate site related 
contamination from those up gradient contaminants believed to be moving 
through the site. Ground water monitoring was performed prior to the 
start of operation of the treatment system, during operation of the 
system and again during the Post Remediation Monitoring (PRM) phase. 
During each phase, the number of wells monitored and frequency of 
monitoring varied per the monitoring plans.
    The soils at the Site were identified as a source of contamination 
to the ground water. Specific cleanup levels in soils were specified in 
the ROD Amendment. The remedial action objectives specified in the ROD 
were met as demonstrated in soil sample results taken in July 2000 and 
April 2003.
    In order to demonstrate restoration of groundwater and soil 
contamination in the source area for site-related contamination, it was 
assumed that if SVE/AS effectively removed all source material, then 
concentrations down gradient of the first line of sparge wells would 
have similar concentrations of SICs and TVOICs during remediation and 
during PRM because all VOC contamination (both SIC and TVOICs) in the 
saturated zone would be addressed by the system. To evaluate this 
assumption, results from ground water monitoring wells in this area 
(MW-9724 and MW-9725), were compared based on concentrations of SICs 
and TVOICs over time.
    As shown in Table 2 below, monitoring wells, MW-9724 and MW-9725 
had comparable concentrations of SICs and TVOICs from February 2000 
through May 2002 during active SVE/AS operation. Over this time, well 
MW-9724 had concentration of SICs in 2/2000 of 197 ppb and 
concentrations of TVOICs of 205 ppb. Samples taken in 5/2002 showed 
declines from the concentrations in 2/2000 to 0 ppb SICs and 1 ppb 
TVOIC. Further support is provided from evaluation of the data from 
well MW-9725 where the concentrations in 2/2000 of SIC were 356 ppb and 
the concentrations of TVOIC were 360 ppb. Declines were found in 5/2002 
where the concentration of SIC was 9 ppb and for TVOIC was 10 ppb.

[[Page 50138]]

 Table 2--Comparison of Well MW-9724 and MW-9725 Data to Demonstrate Consistency in Concentrations Between SICs
                                                    and TVOIC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      MW-9724 SIC        MW-9724 TVOIC        MW-9725 SIC        MW-9725 TVOIC
            Time line               concentrations      concentrations      concentrations      concentrations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
02/2000.........................  197 ppb...........  205 ppb...........  356 ppb...........  360 ppb.
06/2001.........................  7 ppb.............  12 ppb............  107 ppb...........  109 ppb.
05/2002.........................  0 ppb.............  1 ppb.............  9 ppb.............  10 ppb.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These results demonstrate that any source material in the saturated 
zone was addressed for both SICs and any site related TVOICs during 
system operation. This is further supported by the fact that 
confirmatory sampling of on-site soils showed that all contaminants had 
achieves the cleanup objectives specified in the ROD and ROD amendment.
    Next, in order to verify the ROD Assumptions that upgradient 
contamination (particularly TCE and PCE) were present at the Site, pre-
ROD, during the Remedial Action (RA), and Post RA, groundwater 
monitoring results during these three phases were reviewed and 
evaluated.
    Pre-ROD Determination. The RI/FS documented TCE and PCE at 
concentrations of 15 ppb and 27 ppb, respectively in an upgradient well 
(MW-1). The levels of TCE and PCE fluctuated during the RI/FS. Sample 
results from other on-site wells indicated concentrations lower than 
those found in the upgradient well. Based on this finding, further 
investigations were conducted at other locations within this area 
(outside of the site boundaries, as defined) as described below.
    The Roosevelt Field, a former airfield that is now a large shopping 
mall located approximately 2000 feet north of the Pasley site, was 
identified as a potential source of PCE and TCE at the Pasley site 
during the RI/FS. Investigations performed at the Roosevelt field site 
identified three volatile organic ground water contamination plumes of 
TCE and PCE. Two of the contamination plumes exist in the Upper Glacial 
aquifer, and the third is present in both the Upper Glacial aquifer and 
the Magothy Formation. The Upper Glacial aquifer plumes are at depths 
similar to the Pasley SIC plume. These plumes were reported in 1986 to 
extend at least 1,000 feet to the south southwest of Roosevelt Field, 
and within 400 feet of the Pasley Site. Specifically, the 1992 ROD 
Declaration of Statutory Determinations section stated that ``Due to 
the existence of an upgradient source of contamination, the selected 
ground water remedy, by itself, will not meet chemical-specific ARARs 
nor be capable of restoring the area ground water to applicable ground 
water quality standards until these upgradient source areas are 
removed''.
    During RA. Groundwater monitoring was conducted over the five year 
SVE/AS operation period at the Pasley site. The results of ground water 
monitoring during this period demonstrate the ROD assumption that up 
gradient contamination (particularly TCE and PCE) were present during 
RA. During the RA, MW-1I upgradient of the Site showed consistent 
elevated TVOIC concentrations. Between 1998 and 2001, TVOIC 
concentrations ranged from 9 to 204 ppb. SIC concentrations ranged from 
2 to 32 ppb. Therefore, throughout the period of operation, TVOIC 
concentrations accounted for a majority of the contamination found 
during monitoring events. The consistently low presence of SICs 
indicate that site-related contamination did not impact this well. 
These results conclude that directly upgradient of the remediation 
system, VOC contamination was consistently flowing underneath the 
source area being remediated.
    Prior to remediation the SICs represented 99% of the TVOICs present 
in MW-2S located on the western edge of the source area. Results for 13 
of the next 15 sampling events (up until the 2002 sampling event) 
similarly showed the percentage of SICs as greater than 90% of the 
TVOICs present. These results contrasted significantly from those for 
the upgradient well MW-1I where the SICs represented less than 10% of 
the TVOICs in 6 of 8 sampling events clearly indicating that there was 
an upgradient source of non-site index compounds. However, by the time 
the remediation was complete, the percentage of SICs present in MW-2S 
was similar to that typically present in MW-1I (i.e., less than 10%) as 
the SICs concentration was reduced to 2 ppb and the TVOICs were present 
at 22 ppb. This data also indicates, at the end of remediation, even 
though SIC had been addressed, levels of other VOCs continued to be 
present. This data concludes that VOCs that were not site-related 
continued to impact the groundwater being remediated. See Table 3, 
below.

  Table 3--Comparison of SIC and TVOIC Concentration Between On-Site Groundwater Monitoring Well MW-2S \3\ and
                                              Upgradient Well MW-1I
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     On-site wells                     Upgradient wells
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Total MW-2S
                Time Line                     MW-2S SIC           TVOIC           MW-1I SIC        MW-1I TVOIC
                                           concentrations    concentrations    concentrations    concentrations
                                                (ppb)             (ppb)             (ppb)             (ppb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997--Prior to Start of RA..............              6914              7013                NA                NA
8/1998..................................              1013              1046                 2               101
8/2000..................................               890               937                 9               178
6/2001..................................               328               335                 8               183
5/2002..................................                88               288                NA                NA
1/2004..................................                 2                22  ................  ................
8/2005 \4\..............................                 7                32                NA                NA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ MW-2S--most contaminated on site ground water monitoring well.

[[Page 50139]]

 
\4\ Toluene was detected at elevated concentrations in all samples collected but was found to be a laboratory
  contaminant; therefore the values were not included.

    The monitoring data for off-property monitoring wells also 
demonstrate the success of the remedy. Seven off-property wells, 
located approximately 400 feet down gradient of the Site, were 
monitored over the five-year O&M period. As described in the Remedial 
System Overview (above), four off-site monitoring wells (MW-9721, MW-
9724, MW-9725, and MW-4S) were located upgradient of the SVE/AS off-
site system. The three remaining wells (MW-9720, MW-9722, and MW-9723) 
were located downgradient of the SVE/AS off-site system.
    Upgradient wells MW-9724, MW-9725, and MW-4S had levels of SICs and 
TVOICs that were elevated during the first three years of O&M. These 
elevated levels for both SICs and TVOICs were reduced once contaminant 
levels on-property were reduced by the on-site treatment efforts 
indicating that the system effectively addressed all VOC contamination 
within the treatment zone. In addition, the declining SIC 
concentrations indicate that no additional on-site source material in 
the saturated zone is contributing to the groundwater contamination 
downgradient of the source area SVE/AS system. Once remediation 
started, no SICs or TVOIC contamination was detected in monitoring 
wells down gradient of the off-site SVE/AS system (MW-9722 or MW-9723).
    Two monitoring wells (MW-9720 and MW-9721) were located 
downgradient of the treatment systems but were located hydraulically 
sidegradient of the treatment area. It was assumed, if groundwater 
flowing on site was affected by upgradient sources, these wells would 
show fluctuating levels of TVOIC concentration but would not have SIC 
concentrations above cleanup levels. MW-9720 showed a fluctuation in 
TVOIC and no SICs readings throughout the entire 5 year operations 
monitoring period. In addition, monitoring well MW-9721 also showed 
consistent fluctuation in the TVOIC numbers and limited SICs numbers. 
The fluctuation in the TVOIC and the lack of SICs in monitoring wells 
(MW-9720 and MW-9721) indicate that the contamination detected was not 
originating from the Site.
    These results indicate that the treatment system was effectively 
treating the contamination originating from the Site by the reduction 
of SIC concentration in the onsite monitoring well MW-2S and the 
downgradient monitoring wells (MW-9724, MW-9725, MW-4S, MW-9722 and MW-
9723) to the cleanup levels indicated in the ROD. Finally, data from 
MW-2S in the source area, upgradient well MW-1I, and downgradient/
sidegradient wells MW-9720 and MW-9721, show persistent TVOIC 
concentrations in both on-site, upgradient, and sidegradient wells 
during the operation period supporting the ROD assumption that PCE and 
TCE contamination were coming on site from upgradient sources.
    During PRM. Prior to the start of the post remediation monitoring, 
the upgradient monitoring well (MW-1) located on private property was 
destroyed and could not be sampled. During PRM only one on-site 
monitoring well (MW-2S) and three downgradient monitoring wells (MW-
9720, MW-9722, and MW-9723) were monitored. When evaluating the PRM 
data, it is important to note that the 2/9/2005 sampling event is an 
anomaly of high concentrations due to laboratory contamination. These 
results were not evaluated in this analysis.
    During the first two PRM sampling rounds (January and July 2004), 
the analytical results for samples collected from MW-2S indicated that 
TCE and PCE and all SICs were at or below MCLs. However, in the next 
three sampling events in 2005, the concentrations of PCE increased 
above MCLs going to 22 ppb to 170 ppb and then dropping down to an 
average concentration of 35 ppb in the last round of sampling in the 
summer of 2005. During those same sampling events, TCE concentrations 
were 4 ppb, 58 ppb and then an average of 9 ppb in the last round of 
sampling. It is believed that this spike and then steady decline in 
concentrations is attributable to an up gradient source. Similar slugs 
of contamination have been seen moving through other locations used for 
monitoring the Upper Glacial aquifer on Long Island; these observations 
are not surprising given the fact that the groundwater generally moves 
greater than 1 foot a day in this aquifer.
    During the PRM sampling rounds, downgradient wells showed limited 
TVOIC contamination. All three wells showed no rebound in SIC. TVOIC 
contamination in MW-9722 fluctuated during this two year sampling 
period. The PRM phase monitoring confirmed that all site-related 
contamination in soils and groundwater had been remediated to cleanup 
levels specified in the ROD expect for those VOCs which were coming on 
site from off-site sources.
    Conclusion. EPA believes that Site related contamination was 
remediated to ground water restoration standards. The objectives of the 
1992 ROD, as modified by the 1995 ROD Amendment, were to address the 
source of contamination at the Site, the contamination in the surface 
soils, and ground water contamination attributable to the Pasley Site. 
By treating the VOC-contaminated soils and ground water by means of 
SVE/AS, the Pasley Site contaminants were adequately addressed by the 
remedial actions to cleanup levels specified in the ROD. Although 
ground water sampling data indicate regional contamination as evidenced 
by persistent PCE and TCE contamination in wells upgradient and 
sidegradient of the SVE/AS system before, during and after operation, 
the objectives of the ROD and the ROD Amendment were met.

Operation and Maintenance

    The O&M Manual was approved by EPA in November 1997. The O&M manual 
documented the information and procedures necessary to allow for 
effective and efficient operation of the remedial system constructed at 
the Site. In accordance with the CD and the O&M Manual, the O&M period 
was to be performed for a minimum of five years to be followed by a PRM 
period. O&M activities were initiated in November 1997. During the 
operation of the AS/SVE system, the vapor from each of sixteen on-
property and five off-property extraction wells were monitored on a 
monthly basis. Air discharge, prior to carbon treatment, from the SVE 
system was monitored on a monthly basis in order to demonstrate the 
effectiveness of the SVE system to remove VOCs from soil. Ground water 
monitoring wells were sampled quarterly from November 1997 through 
October 2000 and semi-annually from November 2000 through March 2003.
    The Notice of Completion and Final O&M Report were submitted by 
Commander in 2003. The report indicated that SICs have met the cleanup 
standards in ground water and all COCs have met the cleanup standards 
in soil as specified in the ROD and ROD Amendment. Accordingly, EPA 
determined that the operation and maintenance was complete, and the 
Site could progress to the PRM phase. The PRM phase monitoring 
confirmed that all site-related contamination in soils

[[Page 50140]]

and ground water had been remediated to cleanup levels specified in the 
ROD expect for those VOCs which were coming on site from off-site 
sources. Confirmatory sampling has indicated that all site related 
contaminants have been remediated to cleanup levels that allow for 
unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, therefore, no CERCLA O&M 
activities are necessary.

Five-Year Review

    The first five-year review for the Site was completed on August 5, 
2004, pursuant to OSWER Directive 9355.7-03B-P. That review, conducted 
after the RA had been completed and O&M, and monitoring activities had 
commenced, determined that the RA as designed and constructed pursuant 
to the ROD Amendment, was performing satisfactorily and that the remedy 
implemented was protective of human health and the environment. A 
second five-year review for the Site was completed on July 23, 2009. 
That review, conducted after the RA and all O&M and Post Remediation 
Monitoring period activities were completed, determined that the remedy 
implemented for the Site is protective of human health and the 
environment in the short-term.
    The second five year review made a determination that the remedy 
for the Site was protective in the short-term because questions arose 
during the performance of the five year review concerning the adequacy 
of the data set that was being used in the evaluation of the soil vapor 
intrusion pathway. Since there was no building on the Site during the 
implementation of remedial activities, the vapor intrusion pathway had 
not been evaluated. In response to this concern, EPA's contractor 
collected 10 soil gas samples from beneath the asphalt parking lot on 
January 9 and 12, 2006. EPA Region 2 soil vapor intrusion pathway 
typically recommends collecting sub-slab or indoor air samples. 
However, that was not possible since the only structure at the Site, an 
office trailer, does not have a basement or slab. Therefore, sub-slab 
sampling could not be performed and only soil gas sampling was 
conducted. A preliminary evaluation of the soil gas data collected at 
the Site in 2006 identified three of the ten samples at concentrations 
of potential concern.
    To address this potential vapor intrusion pathway, the second five-
year review suggested that the Agency issue an explanation of 
significant differences (ESD) to document a final decision to include 
institutional controls in the form of a ``red-flag'' in the computer 
system of the Town of Hempstead Building Department as part of the 
overall remedy for the Site. The ``red flag'' is intended to provide 
notice of a potential vapor intrusion problem to anyone seeking a 
construction permit and provide notice to EPA that a permit is being 
sought to erect a building on the Site. Implementation of this action 
by the Town of Hempstead Building Department would ensure that before a 
building permit is granted, the owner would either have to agree to 
install a soil vapor mitigation system or demonstrate through sampling 
that a soil vapor mitigation system is not needed. Since the issuance 
of the second five-year review, EPA has determined that the vapors 
detected at the Site are from an off-site source and, therefore, an ESD 
was deemed not to be necessary and CERCLA action is not appropriate. 
However, the five-year review concluded the institutional control is 
necessary for the property and currently remains in place. EPA is 
satisfied that the town notification procedure will adequately address 
any future vapor intrusion issues at the former site under state 
authority. Therefore, the Site is protective of human health and the 
environment.
    Since it has been determined that the source of vapors is not 
related to the CERCLA release, it has been determined that five-year 
reviews are no longer necessary. The 2009 five-year review was the 
final review for the Site.

Community Involvement

    Public participation activities for this Site have been satisfied 
as required in CERCLA Section 113(k), 42 U.S.C. 9613(k), and Section 
117, 42 U.S.C. 9617. The RODs were subject to a public review process. 
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.

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

    All of the completion requirements for this Site have been met, as 
described in the August 4, 2011 Final Close-Out Report. The State of 
New York, in an August 4, 2011 letter concurred with the proposed 
deletion of this Site from the NPL.
    The NCP specifies that EPA may delete a site from the NPL if ``all 
appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been implemented, 
and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate.'' 
40 CFR 300.425(e)(1)(ii). EPA, with the concurrence of the State of New 
York, through NYSDEC, believes that this criterion for deletion has 
been met. Consequently, EPA is deleting this Site from the NPL. 
Documents supporting this action are available in the Site files.

V. Deletion Action

    The EPA, with concurrence of the State of New York through the 
Department of Environmental Conservation, 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 September 26, 2011 unless EPA receives adverse comments by 
September 12, 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: August 5, 2011.
Judith A. Enck,
Regional Administrator, EPA, Region 2.

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

PART 300--[AMENDED]

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

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

APPENDIX B--[AMENDED]

0
2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 is amended by removing the entry 
for ``Pasley Solvents & Chemicals, Inc.'' ``Hempstead, New York''.

[FR Doc. 2011-20587 Filed 8-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```