13882 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 48 / Wednesday, March 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

nor does this action alter the 

relationships or distribution of power 

and responsibilities established by 

Congress in the preemption provisions 

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

the Agency has determined that this 

action will not have a substantial direct 

effect on States or tribal governments, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States or tribal 

governments, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government or between 

the Federal Government and Indian 

Tribes. Thus, the Agency has 

determined that Executive Order 13132, 

entitled ‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 

13175, entitled ‘‘Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments’’ (65 FR 67249, November 

9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. 

In addition, this final rule does not 

impose any enforceable duty or contain 

any unfunded mandate as described 

under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 

1501 et seq.). 

This action does not involve any 

technical standards that would require 

Agency consideration of voluntary 

consensus standards pursuant to section 

12(d) of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). 

VII. Congressional Review Act 

Pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will 

submit a report containing this rule and 

other required information to the U.S. 

Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. This action is not a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides 

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: February 28, 2014. 

Lois Rossi, 

Director, Registration Division, Office of 

Pesticide Programs. 

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is 

amended as follows: 

PART 180—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 180 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. In § 180.579: 

■ a. Remove the commodities ‘‘Garlic’’; 

‘‘Garlic, great headed’’; ‘‘Leek’’; ‘‘Onion, 

bulb’’; ‘‘Onion, green’’; ‘‘Onion, welsh’’; 

‘‘Shallot, bulb’’; and ‘‘Shallot, fresh 

leaves’’ from the table in paragraph 

(a)(1). 

■ b. Add alphabetically the following 

commodities to the table in paragraph 

(a)(1). The amendments read as follows: 

§ 180.579 Fenamidone; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Bean, succulent, except 

cowpea ................................ 0 .80 

* * * * * 

Ginseng .................................. 0 .80 

* * * * * 

Onion, bulb, subgroup 3–07A 0 .20 

Onion, green, subgroup 3– 

07B ...................................... 1 .5 

* * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–05399 Filed 3–11–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1983–0002; FRL 9907– 

66-Region 1] 

National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency 

Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion 

of the O’Connor Superfund Site 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) Region 1 is publishing a 

direct final Notice of Deletion of the 

O’Connor Superfund Site (Site), located 

in Augusta, Maine, 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 

Maine, through the Maine Department 

of Environmental Protection, because 

EPA has determined that all appropriate 

response actions under CERCLA, other 

than operation, maintenance, and fiveyear reviews, have been completed. 

However, this deletion does not 

preclude future actions under 

Superfund. 

DATES: This direct final deletion is 

effective May 12, 2014 unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by April 11, 

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: connelly.terry@epa.gov. 

• Fax: 617 918–0373. 

• Mail: Terrence Connelly, US EPA 

Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 

100, Boston, MA 02109—3919. 

• Hand delivery: US EPA Region 1, 5 

Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, 

MA 02109–3912. 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 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 48 / Wednesday, March 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 13883 

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: 

EPA Records and Information Center, 5 

Post Office Square, First Floor, 

Boston, MA 02109·3912, Monday– 

Friday 8:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m. 

and 

Lithgow Public Library, 45 Winthrop 

St., Augusta, Maine 04330, Mon– 

Thurs 9:00 a.m.–8 p.m., Friday 9:00 

a.m.–5 p.m., Saturday 9:00 a.m.–12:00 

p.m. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Terrence Connelly, Remedial Project 

Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 1, Mailcode OSRR07–1, 

5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, 

MA 02109–3919, (617) 918–1373, email: 

connelly.terry@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 1 is publishing this direct 

final Notice of Deletion of the O’Connor, 

also known as the F. O’Connor 

Company, 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 May 12, 2014 

unless EPA receives adverse comments 

by April 11, 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 O’Connor 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 

Maine 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 Maine 

Department of Environmental 

Protection, 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 Kennebec Journal. 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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
13884 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 48 / Wednesday, March 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

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 CERCLIS ID is 

MED980731475. The Site consists of 

approximately 23 acres within a 28-acre 

property owned by Central Maine Power 

Company (CMP) and is located on 

Maine State Route 17 approximately 

three miles east of the Kennebec River 

in Augusta, in Kennebec County, Maine. 

The Maine Department of 

Environmental Protection (MEDEP) also 

designated the same 23-acre property as 

a Hazardous Substance Site. The 

surrounding area is generally rural. The 

property is bordered on the east and 

southeast by Riggs Brook, a small 

northerly flowing tributary of the 

Kennebec River, on the north and west 

by woodlands, and on the south by 

Route 17. The property south of Route 

17 is primarily wooded. A residence 

abuts the CMP property along its 

western boundary. Automotive entry to 

the Site is limited to Route 17; there are 

trails which enter the Site from the 

north and west. 

The land at the Site was used as 

farmland until the 1950s when the F. 

O’Connor Company established a 

salvage yard and transformer recycling 

operation on the property. The F. 

O’Connor Company operated until the 

late 1970s. This resulted in drippage 

and spillage of oil to the ground, 

principally in the three transformer 

work areas (TWAs). 

In February 1972, an oil spill was 

found to have migrated toward Riggs 

Brook. In 1976, MEDEP began 

investigations through sampling and 

analysis of the soils, sediments, and 

surface waters for polychlorinated 

biphenyls (PCBs). Soil and groundwater 

contamination primarily consisted of 

PCBs with some volatile and 

semivolatile organic compounds (VOCs 

and SVOCs), and inorganics. Potential 

sources of contamination that were 

identified included the TWAs, scrap 

piles, oil storage tanks, and two lagoons 

installed to help control oil migration 

from the property. Concern for the 

potential impact on soils, surface water, 

and groundwater were the primary 

reasons the Site was proposed for the 

National Priorities List on December 30, 

1982, (47 FR 58476). The Site was listed 

on September 8, 1983, (48 FR 40658). 

Three removal actions were 

performed at the Site by the F. O’Connor 

Company and CMP. In 1977, at the 

request of MEDEP the F. O’Connor 

Company discontinued use of the 

lagoons, pumped the lagoon water into 

storage tanks and excavated the lagoon 

sediments which were then placed in an 

upland area upgradient of the TWAs. In 

1984, EPA issued a Unilateral 

Administrative Order to the F. O’Connor 

Company to construct a fence 

encompassing approximately five acres 

of the Site. Under a 1986 Administrative 

Order by Consent between MEDEP and 

F. O’Connor Company and CMP, 20 

storage tanks and 21 55-gallon drums 

were removed off the Site. 

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility 

Study (RI/FS) 

On May 13, 1986, EPA issued an 

Administrative Order by Consent to the 

F. O’Connor Company and CMP. This 

Order was entered into voluntarily by 

these parties in order to conduct a 

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility 

Study (RI/FS) to determine the nature 

and extent of contamination, to evaluate 

alternatives, and to make 

recommendations for the appropriate 

remedial actions at the Site. The FS 

identified seven exposure scenarios 

posing potential risks to human health 

or the environment: Direct contact with 

soils by children; inhalation of vapors 

from surface soils; ingestion of fish 

caught in Riggs Brook; future direct 

contact with soils by on-site inhabitants; 

future direct contact with sediments in 

the lower lagoon by children; future 

inhalation of vapors by on-site 

inhabitants; and future ingestion of 

groundwater from within the bedrock. 

In 1992 CMP acquired ownership of 

the property from the F. O’Connor 

Company. 

Selected Remedy 

A remedy was selected to meet the 

following Remedial Action Objectives 

(RAOs) identified for the Site in the 

1989 Record of Decision (ROD): 

• Reduce potential present and future 

public health and environmental risks 

from direct contact, ingestion, and/or 

dermal absorption with the PCB-, 

cPAH-, and lead-contaminated soils and 

sediments located on- and off-site; 

• Reduce potential present and future 

public health risks from the inhalation 

of PCB vapors; 

• Reduce potential present and future 

public health risks from the ingestion of 

PCB-contaminated fish from Riggs 

Brook; 

• Reduce potential future public 

health risks from the ingestion of 

PCB-, benzene-, and 1,4 

dichlorobenzene-contaminated 

groundwater found on the Site; and 

• Reduce potential present and future 

environmental risks to aquatic and 

terrestrial wildlife from exposures to the 

PCB-, lead-, and aluminumcontaminated on-site surface water. 

The major components of the Source 

Control (OU–1) remedy were: 

• Excavation and on-site treatment by 

solvent extraction technology of all soil 

and sediment containing concentrations 

of PCBs and cPAHs greater than 1 ppm 

and lead greater than 248 ppm; 

• Draining and off-site treatment of 

surface waters from the Upland Marsh, 

Upper Lagoon, and Lower Lagoon; 

• Transportation and off-site disposal 

of soil and sediments should solvent 

extraction not achieve target cleanup 

levels; 

• Establishment of compensatory 

wetlands; and 

• Site restoration following 

excavation activities. 

The major components of the 

Management of Migration (OU–2) 

remedy were: 

• Establishment of temporary 

institutional controls until groundwater 

remediation goals were achieved; 

• Installation of groundwater 

extraction and monitoring wells; 

• Installation of an on-site 

groundwater treatment and recharge 

system; and 

• Treatment and recharge system 

monitoring, operation, and 

maintenance. 

The Management of Migration remedy 

also included response actions for Riggs 

Brook sediment. These included: 

• Establishment and implementation 

of an extensive sediment and biota 

sampling and analysis program within 

Riggs Brook; and 

• Implementation of public education 

programs. 

In 1996, EPA designated Riggs Brook 

as OU–3. The remedy also included 

five-year reviews of site-wide 

conditions. 

The 1989 ROD has been modified 

three times. On July 11, 1994, an 

Explanation of Significant Differences 

(ESD) was approved. This adjusted the 

soil target cleanup goals for all soils that 

would be located more than 12 inches 

below grade and within a three- to fouracre area (the Designated Area) to a 

maximum 10 ppm for PCBs and for 

cPAHs, and 248 ppm for lead. The target 

cleanup goals for soils outside the 

Designated Area remained at 1 ppm for 

PCBs and for cPAHs, and 248 ppm for 

lead. The ESD also included a 

contingency that allowed soils and 

sediments to be disposed offsite without 

solvent extraction treatment, upon 

approval by EPA. 

On October 23, 1995, EPA approved 

the contingency based upon the 

determination that the solvent 

extraction treatment was not feasible to 

meet the target cleanup goals. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 48 / Wednesday, March 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 13885 

On September 26, 2002, EPA issued a 

ROD Amendment. The ROD 

Amendment for OU–2 required 

permanent institutional controls, active 

oil recovery, long-term monitoring of 

groundwater, and five-year reviews. The 

ROD Amendment also recognized the 

technical impracticability of achieving 

the cleanup levels required by the 1989 

ROD in groundwater found on the Site 

(third RAO of 1989 ROD) within a 

reasonable timeframe. As a result, the 

ROD Amendment established a 

Technical Impracticability Zone (TI 

Zone) for a portion of the Site (including 

TWA II Area) where state and federal 

drinking water standards are waived. 

The ROD Amendment did not 

substantially alter the Source Control or 

Riggs Brook remedies. 

Response Actions 

The Source Control Remedial Action 

(SCRA) was conducted in two phases. 

Phase I was completed in 1996. A subset 

of the soils were remediated, the barn 

was decontaminated, demolished and 

disposed of offsite, non-native debris 

was collected and disposed offsite, and 

the Support Area for Phase II was 

constructed. Phase II activities were 

conducted in 1997. During Phase II, 

surface water from the Upper Lagoon, 

Lower Lagoon, and Upland Marsh was 

collected and disposed of offsite, the 

remaining soils and sediments were 

remediated, the lagoons and marsh were 

reconstructed, and the Site re-graded 

and vegetated. 

All soils and sediments within OU–1 

containing greater than 10 ppm PCBs, 

10 ppm cPAHs, and 248 ppm total lead 

were excavated and disposed of at 

approved disposal facilities offsite. A 

total of 19,357 tons of soil and sediment 

were excavated and disposed of: 8,010 

tons characterized as Special Waste (a 

State of Maine designation) were 

transported to two facilities in Maine; 

11,222 tons characterized as TSCA and/ 

or RCRA wastes to a facility in New 

York; and 125 tons characterized as 

RCRA waste to a facility in Quebec. 

Soils and sediments within the 

Designated Area containing less than or 

equal to 10 ppm PCBs or cPAHs and 

less than 248 ppm total lead were not 

excavated. Approximately 3,000 to 

4,000 tons of soil and sediments located 

outside the Designated Area and 

containing between 1 and 10 ppm PCBs 

or cPAHs and less than 248 ppm total 

lead were excavated and placed within 

the Designated Area. 

The Management of Migration 

Remedial Action, as amended in 2002, 

included active and passive oil recovery 

and monitoring of water quality at the 

TI boundary and downgradient of it. 

Investigations completed following the 

1989 ROD determined that the 

migration of contaminants in the 

shallow groundwater in the 

downgradient direction was limited; the 

bedrock aquifer had low groundwater 

storage and therefore a relatively small 

volume of water. It was also concluded 

that the 1992 pump test had mobilized 

the PCB transformer oil and other 

contaminants vertically downward into 

the bedrock flow regime. 

Seepage of the transformer oil with 

elevated PCB concentrations into the 

TWA II wells had been observed since 

it was first induced into the wells 

during the 1992 pump test. The total 

amount of transformer oil recovered 

from the five TWA II wells since their 

installation using a combination of 

vacuum enhanced recovery (VER) and 

passive oil recovery is about 125 

gallons. Approximately 79 gallons of oil 

(about 63%) were recovered prior to the 

completion of the source control work, 

and approximately 35 gallons (about 

28%) after the completion of source 

control through the summer of 2002. 

Approximately 7.4 gallons of oil were 

recovered by the VER system in 2002, 

2.5 gallons in 2003, and about 0.3 

gallons in both 2004 and 2006. The 

system was not operated in 2005 

because of equipment failure. 

Significantly there was not any increase 

in the amount recovered passively nor 

was any increase observed when the 

active recovery resumed in August 

2006. The amount of oil removed from 

the wells using the VER system 

decreased steadily over time to minimal 

amounts. In December 2006, the VER 

system was decommissioned because 

the rate of oil recovery using passive 

recovery was equal to or greater than 

with the VER system. Prior to 2005, the 

passive oil recovery program was 

conducted monthly. Since 2005, passive 

oil recovery has continued on a 

quarterly basis. 

Groundwater cleanup standards 

defined in the 2002 ROD Amendment 

for VOCs have been met at all wells at 

the TI boundary and beyond the TI Zone 

since Spring 2002, and the cleanup 

standard for PCBs has been met at all 

wells at the TI boundary and beyond the 

TI Zone since Spring 2006. 

The 1989 ROD selected yearly 

sediment sampling for ten years for 

Riggs Brook and its associated wetlands. 

In addition, biota sampling was to be 

performed at least once, after five years 

of sediment sampling. CMP conducted 

annual sediment monitoring of Riggs 

Brook for ten years (1996–2005) as 

required by the ROD. At EPA’s request, 

the 2000 annual sediment sampling 

program was supplemented with a 

sampling grid with 51 locations adjacent 

to Riggs Brook in adjacent source 

control areas. Biota sampling was first 

conducted in 1997 with the collection of 

twenty samples. Following a 

recalculation of the data from mg/kg dry 

weight to mg/kg wet weight, it was 

determined that all samples were below 

the target level of 2 mg/kg (or ppm) of 

PCBs. A second biota sampling occurred 

in September 2000, when a total of 

twenty biota samples were collected 

from Riggs Brook and analyzed for 

PCBs. As was the case in 1997, all 

samples were below the target level of 

2 mg/kg wet weight. A comparison to 

the 1997 data indicated that the biota 

PCB concentrations had decreased. 

Following review of the results from 

the 2000 sediment and biota sampling, 

EPA and MEDEP agreed that with the 

decrease of PCBs in the biota samples as 

well as the scattered locations of the 

sediment exceedances, remedial efforts 

to address the scattered sediment 

exceedances were not required at that 

time. Instead, the 2001 sampling (year 

six of the ROD-required ten) was to be 

expanded to monitor the locations 

identified in the supplemental sampling 

grid. The 2001 sediment sampling had 

one exceedance above the 5 ppm trigger 

level of the thirty-six samples. This one 

location (location 3018, at 6.1 ppm) is 

located near the wetland/upland 

boundary and within the area excavated 

during the SCRA. 

Cleanup Levels 

The 1994 ESD changed the cleanup 

levels from 1 ppm PCBS and 1 ppm 

PAHs to less than 10 ppm PCBs and 10 

ppm cPAHs within the Designated Area, 

while affirming the 1989 ROD cleanup 

levels of 1 ppm outside the Designated 

Area. The total lead cleanup level 

remained the same at 248 ppm total. All 

soils and sediment within OU–1 above 

10 ppm PCBs or 10 ppm cPAHs were 

disposed of at offsite facilities. The 

limits of excavation within and outside 

the Designated Area were based on 

analytical results, isopachs, and visual 

examination of the contamination. 

Following excavation, confirmation 

samples were collected at the base of the 

excavation to determine if the 

concentrations of PCBs, cPAHs, and 

total lead were below the respective 

cleanup goals. If a sample exceeded the 

target cleanup goal, excavation 

continued. If the target cleanup goals 

were met, the sample was used as a 

confirmation sample, and the area 

represented by the sample node was 

confirmed as closed. Pre-excavation and 

most confirmation samples were 

collected at specified locations on a 

sampling grid that was developed to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
13886 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 48 / Wednesday, March 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

provide a statistically valid approach for 

confirming that the soils and sediments 

had meet the target cleanup goals. 

Additional random samples were 

collected as determined necessary in the 

field to confirm attainment of target 

cleanup goals. 

The Site was divided into five sample 

areas in the 100% Remedial Design, 

based on contaminants, target cleanup 

goals, Site history, geology, and a review 

of the Remedial Investigation data. 

Based on all this information, a work 

plan was developed, approved, and 

implemented. Areas 1, 2, and 3 were 

sampled for PCBs, Area 4 for lead, and 

Area 5 for cPAHs. All five areas were 

further divided into subareas. Statistical 

analysis of the sampling concluded that 

the cleanup levels were met in all 

Sample Areas except Subarea 5B. 

Subarea 5B underwent two rounds of 

excavation and three rounds of 

sampling. Analyses of the third round of 

samples collected at 1.4 to 3.3 feet 

below ground surface found cPAHs 

concentrations ranging between 1.2 to 

6.6 ppm. In a letter dated October 27, 

1997, MEDEP approved no further 

excavation was warranted in subarea 5B 

after calculating toxicity equivalence 

factors for the individual cPAH 

concentrations remaining in subarea 5B. 

The total toxicological equivalency 

value was found to be 1 ppm, which 

was less than the applicable worker 

standard of 7 ppm and less than the 

residential scenario of 2 ppm. EPA 

provided approval for no further action 

at subarea 5B. 

Groundwater has been monitored at 

the Site since 1986. Beginning in Spring 

2008, the sampling frequency was 

changed from semi-annual to annual. 

The monitoring program currently 

consists of nine wells, four outside the 

TI Zone and five within the TI Zone and 

downgradient of the TWA II area. Based 

on steady improvements in 

groundwater, and that groundwater had 

met target cleanup goals for the Site in 

all wells outside the TI Zone since 2006, 

28 monitoring wells and piezometers at 

the Site were decommissioned in 

September 2008. Groundwater 

monitoring reports have been prepared 

by CMP’s consultant Woodard & Curran 

and the data demonstrate the attainment 

of the cleanup levels for the Site. 

The results of the ten-year sampling 

program showed the sediments in Riggs 

Brook to be stable, with no indication 

that PCBs were migrating or increasing 

in concentration. Over 95% of the 

samples were below the PCB action 

trigger level of 5 ppm with the annual 

mean varying between 0.38 to 1.93 ppm. 

With one location, sediment 3018, 

having the maximum PCB concentration 

from 2001 through 2005, CMP proposed 

to excavate a ten-foot square centered on 

that sediment location. EPA, after 

opportunity for review and comment by 

MEDEP, approved this approach. 

Approximately three tons of material 

were excavated and disposed offsite at 

a Special Waste landfill in Maine. 

Operation and Maintenance 

The O&M activities associated with 

the SCRA and long-term monitoring at 

the Site were initiated in 1998 upon 

completion of the SCRA. Inspections of 

the Site have been conducted semiannually. The O&M Plan for the Site 

was last updated in October 2009 and 

describes the long-term activities for 

OU–1 and OU–2 at the Site, including 

inspections, soil cover sampling, routine 

maintenance, and repairs as necessary. 

Sediment and biota sampling have been 

completed for OU–3, and therefore, 

there are no O&M activities associated 

with OU–3. Inspections have been 

conducted at the Site and have 

documented that the vegetation is well 

developed and minor ruts in the access 

road have been repaired. There has been 

no significant erosion of the soil cover 

over the Designated Area or on the slope 

leading down to the Riggs Brook since 

the completion of the SCRA. Because 

contamination remains that prevents 

unlimited exposure and unrestricted use 

of the Site, it is anticipated that 

maintenance and inspections will 

continue for an extended period of time. 

In 1994, CMP and MEDEP signed an 

agreement in the form of a Declaration 

of Restrictive Covenant. This covenant 

includes the following: Any use of the 

groundwater beneath the Site is 

prohibited without the written approval 

of MEDEP; any activity which might 

disrupt remedial or monitoring 

measures is prohibited without the 

written approval of MEDEP; and CMP or 

any subsequent owner shall maintain 

the Site in a condition adequate to 

ensure the continued compliance with 

all applicable standards and to ensure 

the ongoing adequacy of the 

remediation. On September 13, 2002, 

the Declaration of Restrictive Covenant 

was recorded in the Kennebec County 

Registry of Deeds. 

Additionally, the restrictive covenant 

provides that CMP and all subsequent 

owners shall maintain the Site property 

in a condition adequate to ensure the 

continued compliance with all 

applicable cleanup standards and to 

ensure the ongoing adequacy of the 

remedial action implemented under the 

Consent Decree. Specific examples of 

required ongoing activities include, but 

are not limited to maintenance of ‘‘all 

drainage ways, berms, monitoring wells, 

permeable or impervious caps or covers 

(including paved portions of the 

property and areas covered by topsoil or 

other clean fill), piping, pumps and 

electrical equipment constructed or 

installed under the Consent Decree.’’ By 

its terms, the restrictive covenant is 

enforceable only by MEDEP. 

Compliance with this covenant is 

confirmed at the same time as the spring 

Site inspection. 

Five-Year Review 

Statutory five-year reviews are 

required at the O’Connor Superfund Site 

since hazardous substances remain at 

the Site above levels that allow for 

unlimited use and unrestricted 

exposure. Five-year reviews were 

completed for the Site in 2002, 2007, 

and 2012. The 2012 Five-Year Review 

stated that remedial actions at all OUs 

are protective, and therefore the Site is 

protective of human health and the 

environment. The 2012 Five-Year 

Review made the following 

protectiveness statements for each 

operable unit and sitewide: 

OU–1: The remedial action for OU–1 

has been completed and is protective 

of human health and the 

environment. Exposure pathways that 

could result in unacceptable risk are 

being controlled through a clean soil 

cap that covers remaining 

contamination and institutional 

controls that have been placed on the 

Site. The O&M plan was updated and 

approved in 2009 and its 

implementation will ensure that the 

OU–1 remedy remains protective. 

OU–2: The remedy for OU–2 is 

protective of human health and the 

environment. Exposure pathways that 

could result in unacceptable risk are 

being controlled with institutional 

controls covering the entire Site. 

Outside the TI Zone, groundwater has 

met the performance standards for 

VOCs since Spring 2002 and for PCBs 

since Spring 2006. Long-term 

monitoring will continue to ensure 

that the performance standards 

continue to be met. 

OU–3: The remedy at OU–3 is 

protective of human health and the 

environment. Annual sampling of 

sediments for ten years resulted in 

over 95% of the samples being below 

the 5 ppm trigger level with the 

annual mean PCB concentration 

varying between 0.38 and 1.72 ppm. 

Results from the two biota sampling 

events were below the threshold level 

of 2 ppm for all samples, with the 

overall average being below 1 ppm. 

Site inspections have documented 

functioning habitat in both the 

uplands and wetlands. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 48 / Wednesday, March 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 13887 

Sitewide: Because the remedial 

actions at all OUs are protective, the 

Site is protective of human health and 

the environment. 

The 2012 Five-Year Review did not 

identify any issues in any of the 

operable units. The Final Remedial 

Action Report for OU–1 was signed in 

1998 and the Final Remedial Action 

Report for OU–3 was signed in 2007. 

EPA signed the Superfund Property 

Reuse Evaluation Checklist for 

Reporting the Sitewide Ready for 

Anticipated Use Government 

Performance and Results Act Measure in 

2009. 

The next Five-Year Review is 

scheduled to be completed in 

September 2017. 

Community Involvement 

Leading up to the 1989 ROD, EPA 

kept the community and other 

interested parties apprised of the Site 

activities through informational 

meetings, fact sheets, press releases and 

public meetings. On July 19, 1989, EPA 

held a public informational meeting to 

discuss the results of the Remedial 

Investigation and the cleanup 

alternatives presented in the Feasibility 

Study, and to present the Agency’s 

Proposed Plan. On August 10, 1989, the 

Agency held a public hearing to accept 

any oral comments about the Site. 

Since the 1989 ROD, community 

involvement has been low. In June 2002 

EPA published a Proposed Plan to 

amend the 1989 ROD. EPA held a public 

information meeting on June 24, 2002, 

and a formal public hearing on July 9, 

2002. Only a few community members 

attended the informational meeting and 

none attended the public hearing. No 

comments from the community were 

received on the June 2002 Proposed 

Plan. 

EPA issued a press release on May 8, 

2002, that was published in the 

Kennebec Journal announcing EPA’s 

first five-year review of the O’Connor 

Site cleanup. The press release 

encouraged public participation. 

Similarly, EPA issued public notices 

announcing EPA’s second and third 

five-year reviews that were published in 

the Kennebec Journal on May 24, 2007, 

and May 25, 2012, respectively. These 

notices encouraged public participation 

and provided EPA contact information. 

EPA will follow the procedures for 

community involvement activities 

associated with deletion described in 

the 2011 guidance document ‘‘Close Out 

Procedures for National Priorities List 

Sites.’’ These include preparing a public 

notice for publication in the local paper 

and notification to the Natural Resource 

Trustees of EPA’s plan to delete the Site 

from the NPL. 

Determination That the Site Meets the 

Criteria for Deletion in the NCP 

EPA Region 1 has followed the 

deletion procedures required by 40 CFR 

300.425(e). The implemented remedy 

has achieved the degree of cleanup or 

protection specified in the 1989 ROD, 

1994 ESD, and 2002 ROD Amendment 

for all pathways of exposure. The 

activities for OU–1 remedy were 

successfully completed in 1997 and the 

activities for OU–3 remedy were 

successfully completed in 2006. With 

the 2002 Technical Impracticability 

waiver, groundwater (OU–2) beyond the 

TI Zone has met all cleanup standards 

since 2006. Therefore, EPA has 

determined, in consultation with 

MEDEP, all appropriate response 

actions have been implemented, and 

thus a criterion for deletion has been 

met. 

V. Deletion Action 

The EPA, with concurrence of the 

State of Maine through the Maine 

Department of Environmental 

Protection, 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 12, 2014 

unless EPA receives adverse comments 

by April 11, 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: February 27, 2014. 

H. Curtis Spalding, 

Regional Administrator, Region 1. 

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. 

Appendix B to Part 300 [Amended] 

■ 2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 

is amended by removing the entry for 

‘‘ME,’’ ‘‘O’Connor Co’’, ‘‘Augusta’’. 

[FR Doc. 2014–05224 Filed 3–11–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services 

42 CFR Part 600 

[CMS–2380–FN] 

RIN 0938–ZB12 

Basic Health Program; Federal 

Funding Methodology for Program 

Year 2015 

AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. 

ACTION: Final methodology. 

SUMMARY: This document provides the 

methodology and data sources to 

determine the federal payment amounts 

made to states in program year 2015 that 

elect to establish a Basic Health Program 

certified by the Secretary under section 

1331 of the Patient Protection and 

Affordable Care Act to offer health 

benefits coverage to low-income 

individuals otherwise eligible to 

purchase coverage through Affordable 

Insurance Exchanges. 

DATES: Effective Date: January 1, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christopher Truffer, (410) 786–1264; or 

Jessica Schubel, (410) 786–3032. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Summary of Proposed Provisions and 

Analysis of and Responses to Public 

Comments on the Proposed Methodology 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES