28586 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

• Are not Executive Order 13771 (82 

FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory 

actions because these actions are either 

exempted or not significant under 

Executive Order 12866; 

• Do not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Are certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Do not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Do not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Are not economically significant 

regulatory actions based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Are not significant regulatory 

actions subject to Executive Order 

13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Are not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Do not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the proposed actions do not 

have tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), nor will they 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides. 

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

Dated: June 8, 2018. 

Onis ‘‘Trey’’ Glenn, III, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2018–13146 Filed 6–19–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1986–0005; FRL–9979– 

21—Region 3] 

National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency 

Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion 

of the Ordnance Works Disposal Areas 

Superfund Site 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 3, is issuing a 

Notice of Intent to Delete the Ordnance 

Works Disposal Areas Superfund Site 

(Site) located in Morgantown, West 

Virginia, from the National Priorities 

List (NPL) and requests public 

comments on this proposed action. For 

purposes of this action, the Site consists 

of Operable Unit 1 (OU1), an NPL-listed 

area of approximately 6 acres. Also for 

purposes of this action, and unless 

otherwise noted, the Site does not 

include Operable Unit 2 (OU2), a nonNPL listed area of approximately eight 

hundred acres. 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). The EPA and 

the State of West Virginia, through the 

West Virginia Department of 

Environmental Protection (WVDEP), 

have determined that all appropriate 

response actions under CERCLA, other 

than operation and maintenance, 

monitoring, and five-year reviews have 

been completed. However, this deletion 

does not preclude future actions under 

Superfund. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

July 20, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID no. EPA–HQ– 

SFUND–1986–0005, by one of the 

following methods: 

• https://www.regulations.gov: 

Follow on-line instructions for 

submitting comments. Once submitted, 

comments cannot be edited or removed 

from Regulations.gov. The EPA may 

publish any comment received to its 

public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. The EPA will 

generally not consider comments or 

comment contents located outside of the 

primary submission (i.e. on the web, 

cloud, or other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

• Email: Jeffrey Thomas at 

thomas.jeffrey@epa.gov. 

• Mail: Jeffrey Thomas (3HS23), 

Remedial Project Manager, United 

States Environmental Protection Agency 

1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 

19103. 

• Hand delivery: United States 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. 

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 https://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through https://

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

https://www.regulations.gov website 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 https://

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 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules 28587 

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 https://

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 statute. 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 https://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at: 

U.S. EPA Region 3, Superfund Records 

Center, 6th Floor, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, PA 19103–2029; (215) 

814–3157, Monday through Friday 8:00 

a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Morgantown Public 

Library, 373 Spruce Street, Morgantown, 

WV 26505; (304) 291–7425, Monday 

through Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeffrey Thomas, Remedial Project 

Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 3, 3HS23, 1650 Arch 

Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, (215) 

814–3377, email thomas.jeffrey@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. NPL Deletion Criteria 

III. Deletion Procedures 

IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion 

I. Introduction 

EPA Region 3 announces its intent to 

delete the Ordnance Works Disposal 

Areas Superfund Site from the National 

Priorities List (NPL) and requests public 

comment on this proposed action. For 

purposes of this action, the Site consists 

of Operable Unit 1 (OU1), an NPL-listed 

area of approximately 6 acres. This 

action does not include Operable Unit 2 

(OU2), a non-NPL listed area of 

approximately eight hundred acres. 

Both OU1 and OU2 are located in an 

industrial/commercial complex formally 

known as the Morgantown Ordnance 

Works in Morgantown, West Virginia. 

Unless otherwise stated, references to 

the ‘‘Site’’ shall mean OU1 only. 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 40 CFR 

300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted 

from the NPL remain eligible for Fundfinanced remedial actions if future 

conditions warrant such actions. 

EPA will accept comments on the 

proposal to delete this site for thirty (30) 

days after publication of this document 

in the Federal Register. 

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 Ordnance Works 

Disposal Areas Superfund Site and 

demonstrates how it meets the deletion 

criteria. 

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 

before developing this Notice of Intent 

to Delete; 

(2) EPA has provided the State 30 

working days for review of this action 

prior to this publication; 

(3) In accordance with the criteria 

discussed above, EPA has determined 

that no further response is appropriate; 

(4) The State of West Virginia, 

through the WVDEP, has concurred 

with deletion of the Site from the NPL; 

(5) Concurrently with the publication 

of this Notice of Intent to Delete in the 

Federal Register, a notice is being 

published in a major local newspaper, 

The Dominion Post. The newspaper 

notice announces the 30-day public 

comment period concerning the Notice 

of Intent to Delete the Site from the 

NPL; 

(6) 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. 

If comments are received within the 

30-day public comment period on this 

document, EPA will evaluate and 

respond appropriately to the comments 

before making a final decision to delete. 

If necessary, EPA will prepare a 

Responsiveness Summary to address 

any significant public comments 

received. After the public comment 

period, if EPA determines it is still 

appropriate to delete the Site, the 

Regional Administrator will publish a 

final Notice of Deletion in the Federal 

Register. Public notices, public 

submissions, and copies of the 

Responsiveness Summary, if prepared, 

will be made available to interested 

parties and in the site information 

repositories listed above. 

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 Intended Site Deletion 

The following information provides 

EPA’s rationale for deleting the Site 

from the NPL: 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
28588 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

Site Location and Use History 

The Ordnance Works Disposal Areas 

Superfund Site (EPA Identification 

Number WVD000850404) consists of a 

disposal area designated by EPA as OU1 

containing approximately 6 acres within 

a commercial/industrial development 

known as the Morgantown Ordnance 

Works outside of Morgantown, West 

Virginia. See Section I (Introduction) for 

details regarding OU1 and OU2. Within 

the geographical limits of OU2 is a third 

area consisting of two separate parcels 

currently being studied under the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA). OU1 was a disposal 

location used by entities that operated 

in the remainder of the Morgantown 

Ordnance Works complex. 

A removal action was conducted at 

OU2 on hotspots identified in a 

Remedial Investigation completed in 

1995. Cleanup of OU2 occurred 

pursuant to a 1996 settlement with 

potentially responsible parties (PRPs) to 

perform a removal action and was based 

on exposure scenarios for the current 

and future anticipated land use. The 

work was conducted between March 

1997 and June 1997. After the removal 

action was completed, EPA determined, 

based on the residual risk assessment 

analysis, that the potential for adverse 

carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic 

effects to industrial workers and youth 

trespassers was negligible and within 

the limits considered acceptable by 

EPA. No further response actions at 

OU2 are anticipated. 

The Site is located approximately one 

mile southwest of the city of 

Morgantown, West Virginia, near the 

west bank of the Monongahela River. 

The population of Monongalia County is 

approximately 75,509; the city of 

Morgantown accounts for 25,879 of this 

total. The majority of the population 

lives to the northeast and northwest of 

the Site and obtains drinking water from 

a public supply. There are several 

houses within a one-mile radius of the 

Site that utilize wells in one capacity or 

another, however they are not located 

downgradient of the Site. 

The Morgantown Ordnance Works, 

which later became the Morgantown 

Industrial Park, has been the location of 

a variety of industrial and chemical 

production facilities since the 1940’s. 

These activities occurred primarily in 

OU2 of the Site; OU1 was used as a 

disposal area for various industrial 

concerns operating in OU2. Beginning 

in October 1940, the Morgantown 

Ordnance Works property was 

developed as a coke plant and chemical 

production facility by E.I. DuPont de 

Nemours and Company under contract 

to the United States Government. From 

1943–1962, the United States held title 

to the property. Between 1941 and 1958, 

various businesses were operated by 

private parties, in some cases pursuant 

to government contracts and operating 

agreements, and in other cases pursuant 

to commercial leases. During these 

years, substances such as hexamine, 

ammonia, methyl alcohol, 

formaldehyde, ethylene diamine, and 

coke were produced. The plant was idle 

from 1958–1962. 

In 1962, the property was sold to 

Morgantown Ordnance Works, Inc. 

which then leased and/or sold portions 

of the property to various industrial and 

chemical manufacturing operations. In 

1964 Weston Chemical Company 

purchased a portion of the property 

totaling 62 acres that is split between 

two facilities known as the North and 

South plants. Weston Chemical 

Company was purchased by the BorgWarner Corporation in 1969. General 

Electric (GE) purchased Borg-Warner 

Corporation in 1988 and in 2003 the GE 

North and South plants were purchased 

by Crompton Corporation. The 

Crompton Corporation then sold the two 

plants to Chemtura Corporation which 

in turn sold the two facilities, in 2013, 

to Addivant US, LLC, the current owner. 

The North and South plants are active 

facilities currently being addressed 

through a June 1990 RCRA settlement 

with EPA. 

Except for parcels previously sold, 

which were portions of OU2, the 

Morgantown Ordnance Works property 

was acquired by Princess Coals, Inc. in 

1978. In 1982, the property was 

purchased by private individuals who 

later formed Morgantown Industrial 

Park, Inc. In 1983, the property was 

conveyed to Morgantown Industrial 

Park Associates, which retained 

ownership of OU1, but then sold all of 

the other parcels comprising the 

industrial park property. 

Initial Response, NPL Listing, and Study 

As a result of the industrial activities 

that occurred at the Morgantown 

Ordnance Works facility, hazardous 

substances were disposed of within a 

small area in the southern portion of the 

facility that is OU1 of the Site. OU1 

contained an inactive landfill, two 

lagoons, a former drum staging area, and 

an area used for the shallow disposal of 

wastes called the scraped area. 

Investigation of this disposal area by 

EPA began in 1981. OU1 was proposed 

to the NPL on October 15, 1984 (49 FR 

40320). On June 10, 1986, OU1 was 

added to the NPL (51 FR 21054). 

Sampling at OU1 of the Site occurred 

in various phases between 1988 and 

1998. Samples were collected, both by 

EPA as well as by PRPs, from 

groundwater, surface and subsurface 

soils, surface water, and sediments. 

Analyses revealed no connection 

between disposal activities at OU1 and 

the groundwater. The surface and 

subsurface soils, surface water, and 

sediment at OU1 were all impacted to 

varying degrees by organic and 

inorganic contaminants. 

Test pits installed in the scraped area 

during the 1988 Remedial Investigation 

(RI) revealed cinder-like backfill 

material, blue and black catalyst pellets, 

and yellow solid material. Additional 

Phase II soil borings taken in the 

scraped area exposed visible tar at 

depths of up to eight feet and revealed 

total carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbons (cPAHs) ranging from 94 

parts per million (ppm) to 36,000 ppm. 

Some elevated levels of inorganic 

contaminants were detected during the 

RI but were not detected in the scraped 

area during the 1996 Phase II Interim 

Design Tasks. 

A portion of the lagoon area was 

excavated in 1981 to address metal 

plating wastes disposed in two surface 

impoundments between 1970 and 1976. 

During this action, miscellaneous 

wastes including coal tars were 

observed in the lagoon. Further 

investigation during the Phase II Interim 

Design Tasks indicated cPAH 

concentrations ranging from 3.2 ppm to 

30,000 ppm; however, the inorganic 

contaminants detected during the 1988 

RI were not found. 

The northern section of OU1 was the 

location of the abandoned, inactive 

landfill estimated to have a fill depth of 

20 feet at its thickest location. No 

records exist on quantities or types of 

material disposed of in the landfill. 

Eyewitness reports and direct 

observation reveal that the landfill 

contained construction debris, slag, ash, 

and catalyst pellets. Leachate from the 

landfill drained to the northeast into a 

wetland. The wetland drained directly 

to a feature known as ‘‘Swale 3,’’ which 

eventually discharged to the 

Monongahela River. During pre-design 

sampling, the sediment layer of both the 

wetland and upper portion of Swale 3 

were determined to have been impacted 

by heavy metals contamination. 

As part of the 1988 Remedial 

Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS), 

EPA prepared a Baseline Human Health 

Risk Assessment (BHHRA) for the Site 

in order to identify and define possible 

existing and future human health risks 

associated with exposure to the 

contaminants present in the various 

media at OU1 if no action were taken. 

The BHHRA was revised in the 1989 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules 28589 

Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) report. 

In both the 1988 original and 1989 

revised BHHRA documents, EPA 

concluded that action was necessary to 

prevent contact with contaminated soil 

and sediments found at OU1 of the Site. 

A comprehensive Ecological Risk 

Assessment was not conducted during 

either the 1988 RI/FS or the 1989 FFS. 

While drafting the September 29, 1999 

Record of Decision (ROD), EPA’s 

Biological Technical Assistance Group 

reviewed the 1988 RI data and 

concluded that inorganic contaminants 

were present in surface water and 

sediments within OU1 at levels that 

were acutely toxic to potentially 

affected ecosystems. 

Selected Remedy 

In March 1988, EPA issued a Record 

of Decision (ROD) for OU1 selecting 

onsite incineration of soils and 

sediments contaminated with cPAHs 

and heavy metals. In November 1988, 

EPA opened an additional 30-day 

comment period for out-of-state PRPs 

who had not received notice of the 

original Proposed Plan. Based on 

comments received during this period, 

EPA conducted a focused feasibility 

study (FFS) in 1989 to re-evaluate the 

alternatives described in the March 

1988 ROD and to conduct a risk-based 

analysis of cleanup levels. This FFS was 

completed in June 1989. 

On September 29, 1989, EPA issued a 

ROD that superseded the 1988 ROD. 

The 1989 ROD selected a remedy and 

contingency remedy for OU1. The 

selected remedial action included, 

among other things, excavation and 

treatment of inorganic hot spots from 

the lagoon and scraped areas; disposal 

of treated inorganic contaminants at the 

former landfill area; capping the former 

landfill; and excavation and treatment 

of organics-contaminated soils and 

sediments using bioremediation. The 

contingency remedial action called for 

treatment of soils and sediments using 

soil washing technology. In June 1990, 

EPA issued an administrative order 

directing several PRPs to implement the 

September 1989 ROD. 

The human health risk assessment 

conducted in conjunction with the OU1 

RI was completed in 1988. This 

assessment was completed prior to the 

issuance of a revised cancer potency 

factor (CPF) established in the 

Integrated Risk Information System 

(IRIS) for benzo(a)pyrene (BAP) and the 

interim comparative potency estimates 

provided by EPA’s Office of Research 

and Development (ORD) in a guidance 

document entitled ‘‘Provisional 

Guidance for Quantitative Risk 

Assessment of Polycyclic Aromatic 

Hydrocarbons’’ (EPA/600/R–93/089 

(July 1993)). In 1995, during 

implementation of remedial design 

conducted under EPA’s June 1990 

administrative order, the PRPs 

recalculated the cleanup standards for 

cPAHs at OU1 using the new CPF 

established in IRIS and the interim 

comparative potency estimates 

established by ORD. The resulting 

cleanup standard was less stringent than 

the cleanup standard identified in the 

September 1989 ROD. The PRPs 

submitted a proposal to EPA in July 

1995 requesting that the Agency adopt 

the newly calculated cleanup standard 

of 78 ppm total cPAHs. EPA evaluated 

this proposal using a Monte Carlo 

simulation and determined that this 

cleanup level would result in risk 

within the 1x10¥4 to 1x10¥6 acceptable 

risk range established by the NCP. The 

Monte Carlo risk assessment verified 

that 78 ppm total cPAHs was an 

acceptable cleanup standard as long as 

the associated BAP value did not exceed 

18.2 ppm. Achieving a cleanup level of 

78 ppm total cPAHs with no more than 

18.2 ppm BAP became the cPAH 

cleanup standard approved by EPA. 

The PRPs completed treatability 

studies for the bioremediation 

component in March 1997 under EPA’s 

June 1990 administrative order. The 

PRPs concluded, and EPA agreed, that 

bioremediation was not capable of 

meeting the 78 ppm total cPAH cleanup 

standard within a reasonable time-frame 

and was not cost-effective. The PRPs 

and EPA also concluded that the soil 

washing contingency action described 

in the September 1989 ROD was 

similarly deficient. In the Spring of 

1997, the PRPs submitted a proposal to 

EPA to conduct a second FFS to identify 

a replacement remedial action for OU1. 

EPA agreed and negotiated a new 

agreement with the PRPs for this study 

work in October 1997. The second FFS 

was completed in 1998. 

On September 30, 1999, EPA issued a 

ROD that superseded the 1989 ROD. 

The 1999 ROD selected a replacement 

remedial action for OU1. The selected 

remedy consisted of off-site thermal 

treatment of visibly stained stream, 

lagoon, and scraped area soils/ 

sediments; consolidation of 

contaminated media into the existing 

landfill; restoration of streams and 

wetland areas where sediment was 

excavated; capping of the existing 

landfill; long-term monitoring; and 

institutional controls to protect the cap 

and prohibit residential development, 

recreational use, schools, and child care 

facilities within OU1. Neither the March 

1988 ROD nor the September 1989 ROD 

required action to address groundwater. 

There was no evidence that the 

groundwater had been significantly 

impacted by disposal operations at OU1 

and no unacceptable risks were posed to 

receptors of the groundwater at OU1. 

Therefore, the remedy selected in the 

1999 ROD also did not include a 

groundwater remediation component. 

Response Actions 

The PRPs implemented the remedy 

selected for OU1 pursuant to an 

administrative order originally issued in 

1989 and modified in 1999 to direct the 

PRPs to implement the 1999 ROD. The 

Remedial Design (RD) was conducted in 

conformance with the approved work 

plan and 1999 ROD. The Remedial 

Action (RA) was initiated in August 

2000. The target areas were excavated as 

part of the RA and soils and sediments 

containing visible coal tar were 

separated for treatment and utilization 

as a fuel source for a local power plant. 

Utilization of the treated coal tar as a 

fuel source achieved destruction of the 

contaminants of concern through 

thermal treatment as well as beneficial 

reuse of the coal tar to produce 

electricity. The rest of the excavated 

material found to be above the ROD 

cleanup criteria was consolidated into 

the former landfill which was covered 

with a multi-layer RCRA Subtitle C cap. 

EPA and WVDEP conducted a final 

inspection of OU1 on September 11, 

2003 and determined that the remedy 

had been constructed in accordance 

with the Remedial Design plans and 

specifications and that no further 

construction was anticipated. EPA and 

WVDEP reviewed the remedial action 

contract and construction for 

compliance with quality assurance and 

quality control (QA/QC) protocols. 

Construction activities at the Site were 

determined to be consistent with the 

1999 ROD, Remedial Design plans and 

specifications, and EPA’s June 1990 

administrative order. 

The PRP’s construction contractor 

adhered to the approved Construction 

Quality Assurance Plan (CQAP). The 

CQAP incorporated all EPA and State 

requirements. All confirmatory 

inspections, independent testing, audits, 

and evaluations of materials and 

workmanship were performed in 

accordance with the construction 

drawings, technical specifications, and 

the CQAP. Construction quality 

assurance was performed by the United 

States Army Corps of Engineers, 

Huntington District, which maintained a 

constant on-site presence. The EPA 

Remedial Project Manager and State 

regulators visited OU1 approximately 

twice a month during construction 

activities to review construction 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
28590 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

progress and evaluate and review the 

results of QA/QC activities. Institutional 

controls to protect the cap, limit land 

use to industrial/commercial operations, 

and prohibit use of groundwater were 

implemented in 2006 with the recording 

of an Environmental Covenant in the 

office of the Clerk of the County 

Commission of Monongalia County, 

West Virginia, in Deed Book 1327, at 

Page 557. 

Cleanup Levels 

The remedy addressed visible tar-like 

material and contaminated soil and 

sediment exceeding site-specific 

cleanup standards. Cleanup standards 

specified in the 1999 ROD for the 

surface and subsurface soils in the 

Lagoon Area and Scraped Area are as 

follows: Total cPAH 78 ppm, with a 

BAP value not to exceed 18.2 ppm; 

arsenic 88.8 ppm; cadmium 642 ppm; 

copper 41,100 ppm; and lead 500 ppm. 

Cleanup standards specified in the 1999 

ROD for stream and wetlands sediments 

are as follows: Total cPAH 78 ppm, with 

a BAP value not to exceed 18.2 ppm; 

arsenic 9.62 ppm; cadmium 0.35 ppm; 

chromium 30.2 ppm; copper 22.7 ppm; 

lead 31.6 ppm; mercury non-detect; and 

zinc 86.8 ppm. The project team 

determined that total removal of the 

existing sediments and replacement 

with clean fill would be the most the 

appropriate way to achieve cleanup of 

the sediments. Removal of the 

contaminated sediment and 

replacement with clean fill was 

completed as part of the Remedial 

Action. 

The Quality Assurance Project Plan 

(QAPP) incorporated all EPA and State 

QA/QC procedures and protocols. EPA 

analytical methods were used for all 

confirmation and monitoring samples 

during RA activities. Sampling and 

analysis during construction and during 

Operation and Maintenance (O&M) 

monitoring was performed in 

accordance with approved Sampling 

and Analysis Plans. Procedures and 

protocols followed for soil sample 

analysis during the RA were conducted 

in accordance with the Contract 

Laboratory Program. EPA and the State 

determined that analytical results are 

accurate to the degree needed to assure 

satisfactory completion of the RA. 

Operation and Maintenance 

Site O&M requirements are contained 

in the approved O&M Plan dated April 

13, 2012. This plan includes inspection 

of the landfill cover and wetlands and 

associated drainage systems, and 

sampling requirements for groundwater 

and treatment wetland effluent. O&M 

activities are performed by the PRPs 

under the 1990 EPA administrative 

order. 

The treatment wetlands were initially 

inspected every six months during the 

first two years following the completion 

of the RA and continue to be inspected 

and maintained to ensure flow-through 

of leachate in the pond system. The 

integrity of the treatment ponds system 

has been monitored and has not 

required modification to date. 

The replacement wetlands, located 

adjacent to the Monongahela River, are 

inspected annually as part of the landfill 

cap inspection. Beginning in 2008, the 

PRPs undertook efforts to eradicate 

invasive plant species from the 

replacement wetlands at the request of 

EPA and WVDEP. Recent inspections of 

the replacement wetlands have verified 

that the wetlands have developed into a 

high quality mosaic of forested, shrubscrub, and emergent wetlands habitats. 

Invasive plants are present, but at low 

density as a result of the control 

measures implemented after 

construction. The presence of numerous 

wetland terrestrial, aquatic, and avian 

species was noted through visual and 

auditory observation. 

Landfill cap inspections currently 

occur on a semi-annual basis. The cap 

has remained in good condition and has 

required only minor revegetation in 

small areas affected by erosion. No 

cracking or movement of surficial soils 

has occurred on the top of the cap slope. 

Storm water conveyance channels 

remain in good condition and no 

obvious signs of ponding water have 

been found. Overall the vegetative cover 

remains robust and well established and 

the drainage system operates as 

designed. 

Five-Year Reviews 

Five-Year Reviews were conducted at 

the Site in 2006, 2011, and 2016. In the 

Five-Year Review report issued on 

September 12, 2016, EPA concluded 

that the remedial action objectives for 

the remedy had been achieved. EPA 

found that the remedy is protective of 

human health and the environment, that 

the remedy was implemented in 

accordance with the remedial action 

objectives of the 1999 ROD, and that the 

remedy was functioning as intended. 

The landfill has not been found to be a 

significant source of contamination to 

the groundwater in the area and the 

contaminants of concern identified in 

the 1999 ROD have not been detected in 

groundwater samples during the review 

period. The multi-layer RCRA landfill 

cap was determined to be effective in 

containing hazardous waste materials, 

the treatment wetland ponds appeared 

to be functioning as intended, and 

access restrictions were found to be 

functional. Institutional controls are in 

place to prohibit disturbing the landfill 

cap, use of groundwater, and noncommercial use of any kind within 

OU1. O&M including annual 

inspections, leachate monitoring, and 

treatment wetland monitoring are 

performed by the PRPs pursuant to the 

2012 approved O&M Plan. There were 

no issues or recommendations 

identified in the 2016 report. The next 

review for OU1 is required by 

September 2021. 

Community Involvement 

Throughout the Site’s history, EPA 

has kept the community and other 

interested parties apprised of Site 

activities through fact sheets, press 

releases, and public meetings. Public 

participation activities have been 

performed in accordance with Sections 

113(k) and 117 of CERCLA. Documents 

in the deletion docket upon which EPA 

relied for recommending deletion of 

OU1 from the NPL are available to the 

public in the information repositories. 

EPA notified local officials in advance 

about Five-Year Reviews and placed 

notices in The Dominion Post to inform 

the public that the Five-Year Reviews 

were being conducted and when the 

findings of each would be available. 

Determination That the Criteria for 

Deletion Have Been Met 

The implemented remedy achieves 

the degree of cleanup and protection 

specified in the 1999 ROD and meets 

EPA’s acceptable risk for all exposure 

pathways. The remedial action at OU1 

has been completed in accordance with 

the 1999 ROD, institutional controls are 

in place, and O&M is being conducted 

in accordance with the approved O&M 

Plan. All remedial action objectives, 

performance standards, and cleanup 

goals established in the 1999 ROD have 

been achieved and the remedy is 

protective of human health and the 

environment in both the short- and 

long-term. No further Superfund 

response, other than O&M, monitoring, 

and Five-Year Reviews, is necessary to 

continue to protect human health and 

the environment. All of the selected 

remedial actions and the remedial 

action objectives and associated cleanup 

goals are consistent with CERCLA, the 

NCP, and EPA policy and guidance. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous 

waste, Hazardous substances, 

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules 28591 

requirements, Superfund, Water 

pollution control, Water supply. 

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

9601–9657; E.O. 13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 

2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 

3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 

FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193. 

Dated: May 30, 2018. 

Cosmo Servidio, 

Regional Administrator, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency Region 3. 

[FR Doc. 2018–12709 Filed 6–19–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL 

QUALITY 

40 CFR Parts 1500, 1501, 1502, 1503, 

1504, 1505, 1506, 1507, and 1508 

[Docket No. CEQ–2018–0001] 

RIN: 0331–AA03 

Update to the Regulations for 

Implementing the Procedural 

Provisions of the National 

Environmental Policy Act 

AGENCY: Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ). 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) is 

considering updating its implementing 

regulations for the procedural 

provisions of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Over 

the past four decades, CEQ has issued 

numerous guidance documents but has 

amended its regulations substantively 

only once. Given the length of time 

since its NEPA implementing 

regulations were issued, CEQ solicits 

public comment on potential revisions 

to update the regulations and ensure a 

more efficient, timely, and effective 

NEPA process consistent with the 

national environmental policy stated in 

NEPA. 

DATES: Comments should be submitted 

on or before July 20, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number CEQ–2018–0001 through the 

Federal eRulemaking portal at https://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Edward A. Boling, Associate Director for 

the National Environmental Policy Act, 

Council on Environmental Quality, 730 

Jackson Place NW, Washington, DC 

20503. Telephone: (202) 395–5750. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., was 

enacted in 1970. NEPA states that ‘‘it is 

the continuing policy of the Federal 

Government, in cooperation with State 

and local governments, and other 

concerned public and private 

organizations, to use all practicable 

means and measures, including 

financial and technical assistance, in a 

manner calculated to foster and promote 

the general welfare, to create and 

maintain conditions under which man 

and nature can exist in productive 

harmony, and fulfill the social, 

economic, and other requirements of 

present and future generations of 

Americans.’’ 42 U.S.C. 4331(a). NEPA 

also established CEQ as an agency 

within the Executive Office of the 

President. 42 U.S.C. 4342. 

By Executive Order (E.O.) 11514, 

‘‘Protection and Enhancement of 

Environmental Quality’’ (March 5, 

1970), President Nixon directed CEQ in 

Section 3(h) to issue ‘‘guidelines to 

Federal agencies for the preparation of 

detailed statements on proposals for 

legislation and other Federal actions 

affecting the environment, as required 

by section 102(2)(C) of the Act.’’ CEQ 

published these guidelines in April of 

1970 and revised them in 1973. 

President Carter issued E.O. 11991 

(May 24, 1977), ‘‘Relating to Protection 

and Enhancement of Environmental 

Quality,’’ which amended Section 3(h) 

of E.O. 11514 to direct CEQ to issue 

regulations providing uniform standards 

for the implementation of NEPA, and 

amended Section 2 of E.O. 11514 to 

require agency compliance with the 

CEQ regulations. CEQ promulgated its 

‘‘Regulations for Implementing the 

Procedural Provisions of the National 

Environmental Policy Act’’ (CEQ’s 

NEPA regulations) at 40 CFR parts 

1500–1508. 43 FR 55978 (November 29, 

1978). Since that time, CEQ has 

amended its NEPA regulations 

substantively only once, to eliminate the 

‘‘worst case’’ analysis requirement of 40 

CFR 1502.22. 51 FR 15618 (April 25, 

1986). 

On August 15, 2017, President Trump 

issued E.O. 13807, ‘‘Establishing 

Discipline and Accountability in the 

Environmental Review and Permitting 

Process for Infrastructure Projects.’’ 82 

FR 40463 (August 24, 2017). Section 

5(e) of E.O. 13807 directed CEQ to 

develop an initial list of actions to 

enhance and modernize the Federal 

environmental review and authorization 

process. In response, CEQ published its 

initial list of actions pursuant to E.O. 

13807 and stated that it intends to 

review its existing NEPA regulations in 

order to identify changes needed to 

update and clarify these regulations. 82 

FR 43226 (September 14, 2017). 

II. Request for Comment 

CEQ requests comments on potential 

revisions to update and clarify CEQ 

NEPA regulations. In particular, CEQ 

requests comments on the following 

specific aspects of these regulations, and 

requests that commenters include 

question numbers when providing 

responses. Where possible, please 

provide specific recommendations on 

additions, deletions, and modifications 

to the text of CEQ’s NEPA regulations 

and their justifications. 

NEPA Process 

1. Should CEQ’s NEPA regulations be 

revised to ensure that environmental 

reviews and authorization decisions 

involving multiple agencies are 

conducted in a manner that is 

concurrent, synchronized, timely, and 

efficient, and if so, how? 

2. Should CEQ’s NEPA regulations be 

revised to make the NEPA process more 

efficient by better facilitating agency use 

of environmental studies, analysis, and 

decisions conducted in earlier Federal, 

State, tribal or local environmental 

reviews or authorization decisions, and 

if so, how? 

3. Should CEQ’s NEPA regulations be 

revised to ensure optimal interagency 

coordination of environmental reviews 

and authorization decisions, and if so, 

how? 

Scope of NEPA Review 

4. Should the provisions in CEQ’s 

NEPA regulations that relate to the 

format and page length of NEPA 

documents and time limits for 

completion be revised, and if so, how? 

5. Should CEQ’s NEPA regulations be 

revised to provide greater clarity to 

ensure NEPA documents better focus on 

significant issues that are relevant and 

useful to decisionmakers and the public, 

and if so, how? 

6. Should the provisions in CEQ’s 

NEPA regulations relating to public 

involvement be revised to be more 

inclusive and efficient, and if so, how? 

7. Should definitions of any key 

NEPA terms in CEQ’s NEPA regulations, 

such as those listed below, be revised, 

and if so, how? 

a. Major Federal Action; 

b. Effects; 

c. Cumulative Impact; 

d. Significantly; 

e. Scope; and 

f. Other NEPA terms. 

8. Should any new definitions of key 

NEPA terms, such as those noted below, 

be added, and if so, which terms? 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS