Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 50133 

assured data recorded on the high 

measurement scale of the monitor that 

measures the pollutant being removed 

by the add-on emission controls (i.e., 

SO2 or NOX, as applicable), if, pursuant 

to section 2 of appendix A to this part, 

two spans and ranges are required for 

that monitor and if the high 

measurement scale of the monitor has 

been certified according to § 75.20(c), 

section 6 of appendix A to this part, 

and, if applicable, paragraph (e)(4)(i) of 

this section. Data recorded on the 

certified high scale that ordinarily 

would be required to be recorded on the 

low scale, pursuant to section 2.1.1.4(g) 

or 2.1.2.4(f) of appendix A to this part, 

may be reported as quality-assured for a 

period not to exceed 60 unit or stack 

operating days after the date and hour 

that reagent is first injected into the 

control device, after which one or more 

of the options provided in paragraphs 

(e)(2)(ii), (e)(2)(iii), (e)(2)(iv) and 

(e)(2)(vi) of this section must be used to 

report SO2 or NOX concentration data 

(as applicable) for each operating hour 

in which these low emissions occur, 

until certification testing of the low 

scale of the monitor is successfully 

completed; or 

(vi) Another procedure approved by 

the Administrator pursuant to a petition 

under § 75.66. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Appendix D to part 75 is amended 

by revising the heading to read as 

follows: 

Appendix D to Part 75—Optional SO2

Emissions Data Protocol for Gas-Fired 

and Oil-Fired Units 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–20451 Filed 8–11–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

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: henry.sherrel@epa.gov. 

• 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 

henry.sherrel@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. NPL Deletion Criteria 

III. Deletion Procedures 

IV. Basis for Site Deletion 

V. Deletion Action 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
50134 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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 onsite, 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). 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 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 aboveground 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; 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
50136 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

• 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 

Contaminant 

Groundwater 

cleanup goal 

(μg/L) 1

Recommended 

soil cleanup 

goals 

(ppm) 2

Chloroform ............................................................................................................................................................. 7 0 .3 

1,1-Dichloroethene ................................................................................................................................................. 5 0 .4 

1,1-Dichloroethane ................................................................................................................................................. 5 0 .2 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 50137 

TABLE 1—Continued 

Contaminant 

Groundwater 

cleanup goal 

(μg/L) 1

Recommended 

soil cleanup 

goals 

(ppm) 2

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. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
50138 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 2—COMPARISON OF WELL MW–9724 AND MW–9725 DATA TO DEMONSTRATE CONSISTENCY IN CONCENTRATIONS

BETWEEN SICS AND TVOIC 

Time line MW–9724 SIC 

concentrations 

MW–9724 TVOIC 

concentrations 

MW–9725 SIC 

concentrations 

MW–9725 TVOIC 

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 siterelated 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 siterelated 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 

Time Line 

On-site wells Upgradient wells 

MW–2S SIC 

concentrations 

(ppb) 

Total MW–2S 

TVOIC 

concentrations 

(ppb) 

MW–1I SIC 

concentrations 

(ppb) 

MW–1I TVOIC 

concentrations 

(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. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 50139 

4Toluene 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 offproperty 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 offsite 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 VOCcontaminated 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 offproperty 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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
50140 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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] 

■ 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] 

■ 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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES