17060 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

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

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

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 

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

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by May 27, 2014. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. Parties with 

objections to this direct final rule are 

encouraged to file a comment in 

response to the parallel notice of 

proposed rulemaking for this action 

published in the proposed rules section 

of today’s Federal Register, rather than 

file an immediate petition for judicial 

review of this direct final rule, so that 

EPA can withdraw this direct final rule 

and address the comment in the 

proposed rulemaking action. This 

action, approving the Pittsburgh Area’s 

CO second maintenance plan, may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: March 7, 2014. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart NN—Pennsylvania 

■ 2. In § 52.2020, the table in paragraph 

(e)(1) is amended by revising the entry 

for Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan 

for the City of Pittsburgh. The revised 

text reads as follows: 

§ 52.2020 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) * * * 

Name of non-regulatory 

SIP revision 

Applicable 

geographic area State submittal date EPA approval date Additional explanation 

*******

Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan.City of Pittsburgh—Central 

Business District & Oakland.

8/17/01 11/12/02 67 FR 68521 ...... 52.2063(c)(189). 

7/18/12; 11/26/13 3/27/14 [Insert page number where the document 

begins].

Limited maintenance plan covering the 10-year period 

through 2022. 

*******

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–06697 Filed 3–26–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1983–0002; FRL 9908– 

64–Region 4] 

National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency 

Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion 

of the Coleman-Evans Wood 

Preserving Superfund Site 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) Region 4 is publishing a 

direct final Notice of Deletion of the 

Coleman-Evans Wood Preserving 

Superfund Site (Site), located in 

Whitehouse, Florida, 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 

Florida, through the Florida Department 

of Environmental Protection (FDEP), 

because EPA has determined that all 

appropriate response actions under 

CERCLA, other than operation, 

maintenance, and five-year reviews, 

have been completed. However, this 

deletion does not preclude future 

actions under Superfund. 

DATES: This direct final deletion is 

effective May 27, 2014 unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by April 28, 

2014. If adverse comments are received, 

EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of 

the direct final deletion in the Federal 

Register informing the public that the 

deletion will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID no. EPA–HQ– 

SFUND–1983–0002, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: kestle.rusty@epa.gov. 

• Fax: 404–562–8896. 

• Mail: Rusty Kestle, 61 Forsyth 

Street SW., Atlanta, GA 30303–8909. 

• Hand Delivery: Rusty Kestle, 61 

Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta GA 30303– 

8909. 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–1983– 

0002. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 17061 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http://

www.regulations.gov or email. 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 email comment directly 

to EPA without going through http://

www.regulations.gov, your email 

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: 

61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta GA 

30303–8909, Monday through Friday, 9 

a.m. to 5 p.m., or 

West Regional Jacksonville Public 

Library, 1425 Chaffee Rd S., 

Jacksonville, FL 32221, Mon–Thu: 10 

a.m.–9 p.m., Fri & Sat: 10 a.m.–6 p.m. 

Sun: CLOSED. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rusty Kestle, Remedial Project Manager, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta GA 30303–8909, (404) 562– 

8819, email: kestle.rusty@epa.gov 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. NPL Deletion Criteria 

III. Deletion Procedures 

IV. Basis for Site Deletion 

V. Deletion Action 

I. Introduction 

EPA Region 4 is publishing this direct 

final Notice of Deletion of the ColemanEvans Wood Preserving Superfund Site 

(Site), from the National Priorities List 

(NPL). The NPL constitutes Appendix B 

of 40 CFR part 300, which is the Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA 

promulgated pursuant to section 105 of 

the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation and Liability 

Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. 

EPA maintains the NPL as the list of 

sites that appear to present a significant 

risk to public health, welfare, or the 

environment. Sites on the NPL may be 

the subject of remedial actions financed 

by the Hazardous Substance Superfund 

(Fund). As described in 300.425(e)(3) of 

the NCP, sites deleted from the NPL 

remain eligible for Fund-financed 

remedial actions if future conditions 

warrant such actions. 

Because EPA considers this action to 

be noncontroversial and routine, this 

action will be effective May 27, 2014 

unless EPA receives adverse comments 

by April 28, 2014. Along with this direct 

final Notice of Deletion, EPA is copublishing a Notice of Intent to Delete 

in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ section of the 

Federal Register. If adverse comments 

are received within the 30-day public 

comment period on this deletion action, 

EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of 

this direct final Notice of Deletion 

before the effective date of the deletion, 

and the deletion will not take effect. 

EPA will, as appropriate, prepare a 

response to comments and continue 

with the deletion process on the basis of 

the Notice of Intent to Delete and the 

comments already received. There will 

be no additional opportunity to 

comment. 

Section II of this document explains 

the criteria for deleting sites from the 

NPL. Section III discusses procedures 

that EPA is using for this action. Section 

IV discusses the Coleman-Evans Wood 

Preserving 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. 

Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) 

and the NCP, EPA conducts five-year 

reviews to ensure the continued 

protectiveness of remedial actions 

where hazardous substances, pollutants, 

or contaminants remain at a site above 

levels that allow for unlimited use and 

unrestricted exposure. EPA conducts 

such five-year reviews even if a site is 

deleted from the NPL. EPA may initiate 

further action to ensure continued 

protectiveness at a deleted site if new 

information becomes available that 

indicates it is appropriate. Whenever 

there is a significant release from a site 

deleted from the NPL, the deleted site 

may be restored to the NPL without 

application of the hazard ranking 

system. 

III. Deletion Procedures 

The following procedures apply to 

deletion of the Site: 

(1) EPA consulted with the state of 

Florida 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 FDEP, has 

concurred on the deletion of the Site 

from the NPL. 

(3) Concurrently with the publication 

of this direct final Notice of Deletion, a 

notice of the availability of the parallel 

Notice of Intent to Delete is being 

published in a major local newspaper, 

The Florida Times-Union. 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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
17062 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

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 Coleman-Evans Wood Preserving 

Site (CERCLIS ID FLD991279894) is an 

11-acre former wood preserving facility, 

located in the community of 

Whitehouse, Duval County, Florida, 

approximately eight miles west of 

downtown Jacksonville, Florida. Duval 

County lies within the drainage basin of 

the St. Johns River, in northeast Florida. 

The topography is coastal plain; 

however, rolling hills predominate 

throughout the county. The land use in 

the vicinity of the Site is mixed 

residential, light industrial and 

commercial. The Coleman-Evans Site is 

bordered on the north by the CSX 

Railroad, on the south by residential 

homes along General Avenue, on the 

east by heavy vegetation, and on the 

west by primarily commercial 

properties across Celery Avenue with 

residences to the southwest. 

The Site is a former wood preserving 

facility that produced treated lumber 

from 1954 to the mid-1980s. Effluent 

wastewater from the treatment process 

was discharged to a drainage ditch 

which channeled the water south, 

eventually into McGirt’s Creek. The Site 

utilized sludge pits and above ground 

storage tanks to store its wastes until 

site operations ceased in the late 1980’s. 

Although wood-treating operations 

ceased in the late 1980’s, sawing and 

kiln drying of untreated lumber 

continued at the Site until mid-1994. 

After that time, all commercial activities 

at the Site ceased. Due to poor waste 

management practices, soil and ground 

water in the vicinity of the Site became 

contaminated with pentachlorophenol 

(PCP) and dioxin. 

The soil, sediments, surface water and 

ground water at the Site were 

contaminated with PCP and dioxin. The 

nature and extent of the contamination, 

both on and off the former facility 

property was defined through a series of 

investigations and treatability studies 

conducted between 1986 and 2006. 

Contaminant release on the former 

facility property occurred through poor 

waste management practices, and 

adjacent properties were impacted by 

wastewater discharge to a drainage 

ditch, which channeled the water south 

to McGirts Creek. The drainage ditch 

often overflowed spreading 

pentachlorophenol and dioxin 

contamination through the downstream 

residential properties. The surficial 

aquifer beneath the former facility 

property also was impacted by 

contamination, but is separated from the 

deeper drinking water aquifer by an 

aquitard. 

Residential properties adjacent to and 

near the former facility property use 

private water supply wells completed in 

the upper portion of the deeper 

limestone aquifer for domestic supply. 

No site-related ground water 

contamination has been detected in this 

limestone aquifer or in these domestic 

supply wells. The human health risk 

assessment identified the site surface 

soil as a medium of concern for both 

current and future residents and 

commercial/industrial workers. Ground 

water also was a concern for future 

residents. The aggregate risks for the 

Site were an incremental lifetime cancer 

risk of greater than 1.0 × 10¥6 and a 

hazard index of greater than 1. 

In October, 1981, the Site was 

proposed for inclusion on the National 

Priorities List (NPL), based on a hazard 

ranking score of 59.14 and was 

proposed to the NPL in September of 

1982 and added to the NPL in March, 

1983 under 40CFR, Table 1 of Appendix 

B to part 300. 

Redevelopment and Future Land Use 

As part of the reuse planning for the 

former facility property, EPA provided a 

reuse planning grant to the City of 

Jacksonville which hired HDR/Landers 

Atkins Planners to research and develop 

alternatives for future use of the Site 

property. The Master Plan provides a 

guideline for the development of a park 

on the undeveloped 11 acre parcel. The 

scope of work for the Master Plan 

included three phases. These include: 

analysis and data gathering, plan 

alternatives and conceptual design, and 

the generation of the final Master Plan. 

The goal of the Master Plan was to 

provide a safe and functional place for 

the local residents to participate in 

recreational activities. Four concepts 

were considered in the development of 

the Master Plan. The final Master Plan 

includes the following features: auto 

circulation and parking, provision of 

domestic water and sewer utility, a 

community center and gymnasium, 

sports courts, passive recreation 

facilities, pedestrian circulation, and 

security. 

The planned future use of the former 

facility property is considered 

compatible with the expected future use 

of the surrounding properties. This 

reflects continued growth in residential 

land use in west Jacksonville along with 

the supporting commercial 

development. Since much of the area 

around the former facility is zoned 

commercial/residential and is in close 

proximity to Chaffee Road and 

Interstate-10, the area impacted by OU2 

may experience a changeover from 

predominantly residential to 

commercial land use in the future. 

Ground water use for domestic supply 

is being supplanted by municipal water 

and sewer systems in the community of 

Whitehouse. It is reasonable to expect 

that residential and commercial 

properties along General Avenue will be 

served by the municipal water system in 

the future. No significant changes in the 

patterns of surface water flow are 

anticipated in the foreseeable future. 

Response Actions, Remedial 

Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/ 

FS), Selected Remedy Cleanup Goals 

Removal Activities 

In June, 1985, EPA issued a Removal 

Order to the Coleman-Evans Wood 

Preserving Company pursuant to 

Section 106 of the Comprehensive 

Environmental Resource and 

Conservation Liability Act (CERCLA). 

Coleman-Evans did not comply with the 

CERCLA Section 106 Removal Order, 

and EPA then conducted Emergency 

Response Actions at the Site in 1985 

and 1993 to control the major sources of 

PCP contamination in the upper 

surficial aquifer and to protect nearby 

residents from exposure. 

In April, 1988, a CERCLA Section 106 

Order was issued to the Coleman-Evans 

Wood Preserving Company to 

implement the remedial design and 

remedial action (RD/RA). 

OU1 Remedy Selection 

EPA has chosen to use two Operable 

Units (OUs) for the Coleman-Evans 

Wood Preserving Company Superfund 

Site. OU1 addresses contaminated soil, 

sediments, surface water and ground 

water that was present on and adjacent 

to the former facility property and soil 

contamination present in areas within 

the surface water drainage pathway 

leading from the facility. OU2 addresses 

residual dioxin contamination in 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 17063 

surface soil outside the areas addressed 

by OU1. 

In April, 1986, the remedial 

investigation (RI), which characterized 

the extent of contamination at the Site 

and identified PCP as the primary 

chemical-of-concern (COC) at the Site, 

was completed. PCP was shown to be 

present in sediment, soil, surface water, 

and in the upper surficial aquifer. 

In September, 1986, the original 

Record of Decision (ROD) for OU1 was 

signed. The 1986 ROD required 

excavation and incineration of PCP 

contaminated soil at levels greater than 

10 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) and 

recovery of PCP contaminated ground 

water at levels greater than 1 microgram 

per liter (mg/L) with treatment via 

carbon adsorption. 

In September, 1990, an Amended 

ROD (AROD) was signed. The AROD 

changed the soil remedy to the 

treatment and on-site disposal of PCP 

contaminated soils, sediments, and 

sludges at levels greater than 25 mg/kg 

via soil washing, bio-treatment, 

solidification/stabilization (S/S), on-site 

treatment and disposal of contaminated 

ground water collected during 

excavation, disposal of on-site 

structures, closure of sand filter units, 

and institutional controls. 

In June, 1992, additional soil 

sampling determined that dioxin/furans 

are also chemicals of concern (COCs) at 

the Site. Additional investigation and 

treatability studies were conducted at 

the Coleman-Evans Site between 1992 

and 1997. 

In September, 1997, the EPA selected 

an Interim Remedial Action (IRA) for 

the Site in an AROD, which included 

the excavation of contaminated soil and 

sediment on and off the former facility 

property followed by on-site treatment 

using high-temperature thermal 

desorption, an innovative technology at 

the time. The IRA also provided for the 

collection, treatment, and discharge of 

contaminated ground water from the 

upper surficial aquifer at the site, 

collecting free-product for recycling 

and/or off-site disposal, and relocating 

residents, as necessary, to facilitate 

construction. The 1997 AROD for OU1 

set final cleanup goals noted in Table 1 

for contaminants in all media except the 

cleanup goal for dioxin in soil which 

was interim pending establishment of a 

federal and/or State standard. 

The cleanup action for OU1 included 

issuance of four Explanation of 

Significant Differences (ESD) in June, 

2001, August, 2003, February, 2004, and 

September, 2005 to address the addition 

of a pollution control device to the 

treatment system, two increases in the 

estimated volume of soil, sediment and 

debris requiring treatment, and a change 

in the technical approach to completion 

of the ground water remedy. 

Soil treatment was completed in May, 

2004 when cleanup goals for soils and 

sediment established for OU1 in the 

1997 Amended ROD and noted in Table 

1 were achieved for the Site. Ground 

water contamination was reduced to a 

small exceedance of ground water 

cleanup goals established in the 1997 

Amended ROD and noted in Table 2 in 

a single well that is being monitored for 

natural attenuation. During the course of 

this action, over 210,000 net wet tons of 

soil were treated and placed on the 

facility property, and approximately 

73,500,000 gallons of ground water and 

storm water were treated and 

discharged. 

OU2 Remedy Selection 

The ROD for OU2 was signed in 

September, 2006. The selected remedy 

in the 2006 ROD includes the following 

remedial components: excavation and 

on-site disposal of site-attributable 

dioxin contamination in exceedance of 

cleanup goals noted in Table 3 located 

in areas on and adjacent to the former 

facility property and adjacent to 

drainage pathways which may have 

been impacted by contaminated storm 

water runoff from the Site; restoration of 

excavation areas with clean topsoil and 

revegetation; placement of a nominal 2- 

foot cover over the excavated soils that 

were disposed on the former facility 

property during OU1 and OU2 remedial 

activities; and establishment of a 

restrictive covenant limiting on-site 

land use to commercial/industrial use 

(including use as a park). This action 

represents the final remedy selected for 

the Site, and, as such, is compatible 

with the intended future use of the Site. 

This action also is compatible with and 

complimentary to the action for OU1. 

OU1 and OU2 Cleanup Goals 

The soil cleanup levels are primarily 

risk-based and the ground water 

cleanup levels are based on applicable 

or relevant and appropriate 

requirements (ARARs) and/or are riskbased. The ground water cleanup level 

ARARs are health based and are the 

most stringent of federal or state 

primary drinking water standards. 

OU1 Remedial Action 

In 1997, EPA tasked the United States 

Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City 

District, (USACE–NWK) to prepare the 

RD and to contract for the Remedial 

Action (RA) phase. The RD was 

completed in 1998. The RA contract was 

awarded by USACE–NWK to Fluor 

Daniel-GTI (FD–GTI) in 1999. Shortly 

after, FD–GTI was purchased by IT 

Corporation, which went into 

bankruptcy in 2001. IT Corporation was 

acquired by Shaw Environment and 

Infrastructure, Inc. (Shaw E&I) in 2002. 

This contract included a requirement 

that the thermal treatment portion be 

subcontracted to a third party under a 

fixed price subcontract. Roy F. Weston 

(Weston) was awarded the subcontract 

for thermal treatment. 

FD–GTI mobilized to the site in May, 

1999. FD–GTI performed all the site 

preparation work, mobilization of 

temporary facilities, installation of 

utilities, site access grants, equipment 

removal and disposal, and site clearing 

and grubbing. Weston mobilized their 

Thermal Desorption Unit (TDU) to the 

site in April, 2000. A Proof of 

Performance (POP) test showed that the 

unit was not able to meet the soil 

treatment standards. Weston had to 

replace this unit and design a new TDU. 

The new TDU was put into service in 

October, 2001. The new TDU passed a 

second POP test in October, 2001. Full 

scale operations continued through 

March, 2004. 

Excavation grids were established 

across the site and in the drainage ditch 

to McGirt’s Creek. The excavations were 

subdivided into 2,500 square foot areas. 

The soil was removed in 2-foot 

intervals. Five-point composite samples 

were collected from each floor area and 

sidewall samples were collected every 

100-linear feet along the excavation 

perimeter to ensure that soil cleanup 

goals noted in Tables 1 and 3 were met. 

When the soils along the excavation 

perimeter did not meet the cleanup 

levels, the excavations were deepened 

by 2 feet and the side walls were 

extended by 2 feet. Oversized debris 

that was encountered during the 

excavation was sent for off-site disposal. 

Nearly all of the excavations zones grew 

beyond their original dimensions based 

on confirmatory soil sampling results. 

The original estimated volume of soil to 

be excavated in the 1997 AROD was 

52,265 cubic yards. The final quantity 

was 170,000 cubic yards, which is an 

estimated 320% increase in soil volume 

that required treatment. 

The ground water encountered during 

the excavation activities was managed 

through dewatering. All ground water 

encountered during excavation was 

collected and treated on-site, then 

discharged to the existing drainage 

ditch. All storm water collected during 

excavation activities, and 

decontamination water produced during 

the RA also was treated on-site and 

discharged as part of site operations. 

Two inspections were conducted, a 

pre-final and final inspection, and both 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
17064 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

were conducted with representatives of 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers— 

Jacksonville District (USACE–SAJ), 

FDEP, and the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) participating. 

These inspections fulfilled both the 

requirements for closeout of the 

construction contracts between USACE 

and the Remedial Action contractors, as 

well as the joint inspection requirement 

of the National Contingency Plan (40 

CFR Section 300.515(g)). 

The pre-final inspection was 

performed on March 2, 2004, prior to 

completion of thermal treatment of soil 

and during initial demobilization 

activities by the contractors at the Site. 

The completion requirements for the 

soil-phase of the Interim Remedial 

Action were modified from those in the 

Remedial Action contract by a February, 

2004 Explanation of Significant 

Differences (ESD). This ESD recognized 

that certain contract items associated 

with site restoration would be resequenced to the ground water-phase of 

the action to coincide with final 

decision-making for the Site soils and 

due to cost limitations. The items 

included in the ESD were final debris 

disposal (pending a delisting 

determination) and final grading and 

topsoil placement (pending a decision 

on the final thickness of topsoil 

required). 

During the pre-final inspection, a 

number of items were identified as 

necessary for the completion of soilphase activities. These items were 

documented in a punch list. 

The final inspection was performed 

on August 24, 2004, following 

substantial completion of the punch list 

items and Remedial Action contractor 

demobilization. The punch list items 

were reviewed and formed a basis for 

the final inspection. During the final 

inspection, some additional items were 

identified by FDEP and EPA. These 

items were substantially completed by 

USACE–SAJ by September 10, 2004. 

Ongoing activities included maintaining 

the vegetative cover and maintaining 

site security. The physical construction 

of the OU1—Phase 1 Remedial Action of 

the Coleman-Evans Wood Preserving 

Superfund Site was acceptably 

completed on September 24, 2004. 

Based on the data collected during the 

ground water supplemental RD phase in 

2004, an ESD was completed in 2005 

that replaced the ongoing ground water 

pump and treatment selected in the 

1997 AROD with a monitored natural 

attenuation (MNA) ground water 

remedy. Ground water monitored 

natural attenuation has been performed 

by EPA’s Science and Ecological 

Support Division (SESD), and the 

monitoring results indicate that PCP 

cleanup levels in ground water have 

been achieved. 

OU2 Remedial Action 

The EPA tasked Black & Veatch 

Special Projects Corporation (Black & 

Veatch) to prepare the RD for OU2 in 

October, 2006 in accordance with 2006 

ROD. The design was completed in 

May, 2007. Vertical delineation soil 

sampling performed as part of the RD 

identified that some of the proposed 

excavation areas would need to be 

excavated deeper. In early 2007, a 

meeting was held at the Site with EPA, 

FDEP and USACE–SAJ to field verify 

the limits of the excavation areas based 

on site features and to identify the four 

‘‘hot spots’’ that were included in the 

2006 ROD with locations to be 

determined in discussion with FDEP. 

All of the areas were identified and the 

RD was finalized. 

The EPA awarded the RA phase to 

Black & Veatch in May, 2007. Black & 

Veatch subcontracted the construction 

activities to WRS Environment & 

Infrastructure, Inc. (WRS) in June, 2007. 

Construction activities began on July 5, 

2007 with site surveying, installation of 

temporary facilities, a tree inventory, 

property access agreements, and 

installation of erosion and sediment 

controls. Upon receipt of the backfill 

sample analytical data, the excavation 

activities began. All of the excavation 

areas have been excavated and 

backfilled as specified in the RD. 

Area 9 is located contiguous to the 

former excavation along the western 

side of the drainage ditch south of 

General Avenue. Confirmatory soil 

sampling collected from this area in 

April, 2007 demonstrated that the area 

was contaminated with dioxin above the 

OU1 cleanup level of 1.0 ppb. As a 

result, this area was subdivided into 3 

sub-areas. All of the soils excavated 

from Area 9 were staged on-site in rolloff containers and sampled for waste 

characterization. Based on the waste 

characterization data, the roll-offs were 

transported off-site for incineration and 

disposal at Port Arthur, Texas. 

During the OU2 construction 

activities, selected monitoring wells 

agreed upon by EPA and FDEP were 

abandoned properly in accordance with 

State of Florida requirements on August 

13 and 14, 2007. The wells remaining 

on-site were required as part of the 

ground water MNA program or require 

more recent sample data in order to 

make final decision on the 

abandonment. 

Repair to the head wall on the 

northern end of the 36-inch elliptical 

pipe, repairs to a damaged section of the 

pipe, and installation of the storm water 

conveyance structures were completed 

in August, 2007. Construction of the 

nominal 2-foot cover and final site 

grading and surveying also were 

complete in August, 2007. Sod was laid 

on the residential properties as part of 

site restoration. Hydro-seeding of the 

facility property was performed in late 

August, 2007. 

EPA and Florida FDEP performed a 

joint pre-final inspection of the remedial 

action construction for the final remedy 

at the Coleman-Evans Wood Preserving 

Superfund Site on August 24, 2007. 

Participants in the inspection included: 

David Keefer (EPA), John Sykes (FDEP), 

Mike Schultz (USACE–SAJ), Clark 

Langston (USACE–SAJ), Daralene Pondo 

(BVSP), Kevin Brown (BVSP), David 

Behnke (BVSP), and Mark Talarico 

(WRS). The inspection was performed 

by reviewing the physical condition/

status of each remedy component and 

the corresponding records beginning 

with the components of the remedy 

located off the former facility property. 

Punch list items were completed for 

each remedy component. 

EPA and FDEP conducted a joint final 

inspection on September 14, 2007, and 

determined that the contractors have 

constructed the OU2 remedy in 

accordance with the RD plans and 

specifications which were developed in 

accordance with the final RODs for the 

Site. 

Operation and Maintenance 

All substantial elements of the 

physical construction of the remedy 

have been completed, and the remedy is 

currently protective of human health 

and the environment. Remaining 

activities include ensuring 

establishment of the vegetative cover on 

the facility property and issuance of the 

restrictive covenant/deed restriction. 

Institutional controls are a required 

component of this remedy since 

contaminated material will remain onsite. The restrictive covenant was 

established to limit the use of the former 

facility property to commercial/

industrial (including use as a park) as an 

institutional control. The restrictive 

covenant ensures that the land use 

remains non-residential and that 

appropriate precautions are taken for 

any potential future intrusive subsurface 

work activities (e.g., installation of 

utility lines) in order to prevent 

disturbance of subsurface waste soil and 

ensure the short- and long-term 

effectiveness of the remedy. The 

institutional control also ensures that 

appropriate site access and precautions 

are in place for the duration of the 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 17065 

ground water monitored natural 

attenuation. 

The Sitewide Interim Remedial 

Action Report was finalized in July 

2008. A Sitewide RA Report was signed 

in May 2013 since all ground water 

cleanup goals specified in the 1997 

AROD have been met, the remedy is 

operational and functional, and all 

inspections have been completed. 

The Operation and Maintenance 

(O&M) Plan for the Site was prepared by 

EPA in 2009 and O&M activities have 

been taking place for the past four years. 

The City of Jacksonville is the current 

property owner and is therefore 

responsible for conducting O&M at the 

Site. As part of the current O&M plan, 

the vegetation on the cap must be 

maintained and the institutional 

controls enforced as part of the selected 

remedy. 

Five-Year Reviews 

Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c), 

42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq., and EPA’s FiveYear Review Guidance (EPA, 2001), 

because this remedy will result in 

hazardous substances, pollutants, or 

contaminants remaining on-site above 

levels that allow for unlimited use and 

unrestricted exposure, a statutory 

review must be conducted every five 

years after initiation of remedial action 

at the Coleman-Evans Wood Preserving 

Company Superfund Site to ensure that 

the remedy is protective of human 

health and the environment. The 

remedies at the Site overall currently 

protect human health and the 

environment because all contaminated 

soil has been treated; contaminated 

ground water is limited to the surficial 

aquifer on the former facility property; 

samples from private wells demonstrate 

that ground water contamination has 

not impacted the intermediate aquifer; 

and the Site is located in a Florida 

Delineated Area which restricts the 

installation of ground water wells. The 

second Five-Year Review (E2, 2009) was 

signed on June 20, 2009, and 

determined that the OU1 selected 

remedy to be protective in the long-term 

on the former facility property 

contaminant concentrations if 

groundwater contamination continued 

to decrease to the cleanup standards, the 

restrictive covenant (which limits future 

land use on the former facility property 

to commercial and recreational use and 

limits disturbance of the soil cover) was 

finalized to prevent the potential 

creation of exposure pathways at the 

site, and an O&M plan was developed 

to ensure the vegetative cover over the 

treated soil on the former facility 

property is maintained. All of these 

actions have since been achieved (EPA, 

2013). The second Five-Year Review 

also determined that the OU2 selected 

remedy is protective in both the shortterm and long-term in the areas off of 

the former facility property since the 

residential areas were cleaned up to the 

7 ppt Florida residential soil dioxin 

standard and the other areas within 

OU2 were cleaned up to the 30 ppt 

Florida industrial/commercial soil 

dioxin standard. The third Five-Year 

Review will be completed prior to June 

20, 2014, which is five years since the 

last review was completed. 

Community Involvement 

Community involvement activities 

were undertaken throughout the thirty 

year history of the site in the form of 

public meetings, five-year review 

interviews and site update mail-outs. 

There are currently no major 

community concerns about the site. The 

five-year review community 

involvement process will continue to 

monitor any potential community 

concerns. 

Determination That the Site Meets the 

Criteria for Deletion in the NCP 

The implemented remedy achieves 

the degree of cleanup and protection 

specified in the RODs for the site for all 

pathways of exposure. The selected 

remedy at the Site is protective of 

human health and the environment in 

the short-term because all exposure 

pathways that could result in 

unacceptable risks are being controlled. 

Contamination remaining on-site is 

being contained to the capped portion. 

The remedy will be protective in the 

long-term because institutional controls 

are in place in the form of land and 

ground water use restrictions; the fence 

needs to be kept closed completely to 

prevent Site access by trespassers who 

could disturb the cap and vegetative 

cover. These institutional controls are in 

the form of a Declaration of Restrictive 

Covenant executed between FDEP and 

the current property owner of the former 

facility portion of the Site, the City of 

Jacksonville. This declaration was 

executed on the 29th of September, 

2009, and restricts activities on the 

property and the future use of the 

property. This declaration also increases 

the protectiveness of the completed 

remedial action in the future. All 

selected remedial and removal actions, 

remedial action objectives, and 

associated cleanup goals are consistent 

with EPA policy and guidance; EPA has 

followed the procedures required by 40 

CFR 300.425(e) and these actions, 

objectives and goals have all been 

achieved and, therefore, no further 

Superfund response is needed to protect 

human health and the environment. 

V. Deletion Action 

The EPA, with concurrence of the 

State of Florida through the FDEP, has 

determined that all appropriate 

response actions under CERCLA, other 

than operation, maintenance, 

monitoring and five-year reviews, have 

been completed. Therefore, EPA is 

deleting the Site from the NPL. 

Because EPA considers this action to 

be noncontroversial and routine, EPA is 

taking it without prior publication. This 

action will be effective May 27, 2014 

unless EPA receives adverse comments 

by April 28, 2014. 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: December 13, 2013. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

For the reasons set out in this 

document, 40 CFR part 300 is amended 

as follows: 

PART 300—[NATIONAL OIL AND 

HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES 

POLLUTION CONTINGENCY PLAN] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 300 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 

9601–9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 

1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923; 

3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193. 

■ 2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 

is amended by removing the entry for 

‘‘FL,’’ ‘‘Coleman-Evans Wood Preserving 

Co.’’, ‘‘Whitehouse’’. 

[FR Doc. 2014–06700 Filed 3–26–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES