Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 45871 

that does not meet Federal 

requirements; this action does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is 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.); 

• Does 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); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is 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 Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does 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). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

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). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by September 30, 

2013. 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. This action 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, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: July 12, 2013. 

Shaun L. McGrath, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended to read 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 BB—Montana 

■ 2. Section 52.1393 is amended by 

revising section heading, designating 

existing paragraph as (a) and adding 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 52.1393 Interstate transport 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(b) On February 10, 2010, Montana 

Governor Brian Schweitzer submitted a 

letter certifying, in part, that Montana’s 

SIP is adequate to meet the interstate 

transport requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

[FR Doc. 2013–18156 Filed 7–29–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1983–0002; FRL–9840–3] 

National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency 

Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion 

of the Craig Farm Drum Superfund Site 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct Final Rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) Region III is publishing a 

direct final Notice of Deletion for the 

Craig Farm Drum Superfund Site (Site) 

located in Perry Township, Armstrong 

County, Pennsylvania, 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 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 

through the Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection (PADEP), 

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 September 30, 2013 unless 

EPA receives adverse comments by 

August 29, 2013. 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: Epps.John@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (215) 814–3002. 

• Mail: John Epps, 1650 Arch Street, 

Mail Code 3HS22, Philadelphia, PA 

19103. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
45872 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

• Hand Delivery: John Epps, 1650 

Arch Street, Mail Code 3HS22, 

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–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 

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 the disclosure of which 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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at: 

EPA Administrative Records Room, 

1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 

19103, (215) 814–3157; Hours: Monday 

through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; 

by appointment only. Karns City Area 

High School Office, 1446 Kittanning, 

Karns City PA 16041, (726) 756–2030; 

Please call to schedule an appointment. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Epps, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Mail Code 

3HS22, Philadelphia, PA 19103, (215) 

814–3144, Email: Epps.John@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 III is publishing this 

direct final Notice of Deletion of the 

Craig Farm Drum Superfund 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 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. 

Because EPA considers this action to 

be noncontroversial and routine, this 

action will be effective September 30, 

2013 unless EPA receives adverse 

comments by August 29, 2013. Along 

with this direct final Notice of Deletion, 

EPA is co-publishing a Notice of Intent 

to Delete in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ 

section of the Federal Register. If 

adverse comments are received within 

the 30-day public comment period on 

this deletion action, EPA will publish a 

timely withdrawal of this direct final 

Notice of Deletion before the effective 

date of the deletion, and the deletion 

will not take effect. EPA will, as 

appropriate, prepare a response to 

comments and continue with the 

deletion process on the basis of the 

Notice of Intent to Delete and the 

comments already received. There will 

be no additional opportunity to 

comment. 

Section II of this document explains 

the criteria for deleting sites from the 

NPL. Section III discusses procedures 

that EPA is using for this action. Section 

IV discusses the Craig Farm Drum 

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 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 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 

Commonwealth 30 working days for 

review of this notice and the parallel 

Notice of Intent to Delete prior to their 

publication today, and the 

Commonwealth, through PADEP, has 

concurred on the deletion of the Site 

from the NPL in a letter dated May 1, 

2013. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 45873 

(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 Butler Eagle. The newspaper notice 

announces the 30-day public comment 

period concerning the Notice of Intent 

to Delete the Site from the NPL. 

(4) The EPA placed copies of 

documents supporting the proposed 

deletion in the deletion docket and 

made these items available for public 

inspection and copying at the Site 

information repositories identified 

above. 

(5) If adverse comments are received 

within the 30-day public comment 

period on this deletion action, EPA will 

publish a timely notice of withdrawal of 

this direct final Notice of Deletion 

before its effective date and will prepare 

a response to comments and continue 

with the deletion process on the basis of 

the Notice of Intent to Delete and the 

comments already received. 

Deletion of a site from the NPL does 

not itself create, alter, or revoke any 

individual’s rights or obligations. 

Deletion of a site from the NPL does not 

in any way alter EPA’s right to take 

enforcement actions, as appropriate. 

The NPL is designed primarily for 

informational purposes and to assist 

EPA management. Section 300.425(e)(3) 

of the NCP states that the deletion of a 

site from the NPL does not preclude 

eligibility for future response actions, 

should future conditions warrant such 

actions. 

IV. Basis for Site Deletion 

The following information provides 

EPA’s rationale for deleting the Site 

from the NPL: 

Site Background and History 

The Craig Farm Drum Superfund Site 

(the Site), CERCLIS ID PAD980508527, 

consists of approximately 117 acres 

located in Perry Township, in the 

vicinity of the village of Fredericksburg, 

near the western border of Armstrong 

County, Pennsylvania. The Site is 

located approximately two miles east of 

the Borough of Petrolia and 

approximately four miles south of the 

town of Parker and the Allegheny River. 

Land use surrounding the Site is 

primarily agricultural and limited 

residential. 

The Site was historically operated as 

a strip mine, resulting in two abandoned 

mine pits following the cessation of 

operations, prior to 1958. Typical of 

strip mining operations in the vicinity 

of the Site, the mining pits were cut into 

a hillside where the coal seam 

outcropped or subcropped. The pit 

walls were formed by the working face 

(highwall) of the mine and the spoil 

piles were staged away from the 

working face. 

From 1958 through 1963, 55-gallon 

drums containing still bottom residue 

from the manufacturing of Resorcinol at 

the nearby Koppers Chemical Company 

(Koppers) plant were deposited in the 

abandoned former strip mine pits, 

hereinafter known as the north and 

south disposal pits. Resorcinol, also 

known as 1,3-benzenediol, mbenzenediol, 1,3-dihydroxybenzene, mdihydroxybenzene, 3-hydroxyphenol, or 

m-hydroxyphenol, is an organic 

compound used as an adhesive 

enhancer in the production of 

automobile tires and in 

pharmaceuticals. 

The residue, consisting of resorcinol 

and other higher polymers, is 

characterized as a CERCLA hazardous 

substance but not as a Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 

hazardous waste. Approximately 2,500 

tons of material were placed in the 

disposal pits by Mr. Herman Craig, Site 

owner Paul Craig’s brother. During 

deposition and during the time the 

drums were stored on-site, many drums 

were damaged, resulting in a release of 

the residue to the environment. 

The Site was proposed for placement 

on the National Priorities List (NPL) on 

December 30, 1982 (47 FR 58476 (1982– 

12–30)), and listed on the NPL on 

September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40658 (1983– 

09–08)). 

Currently, the Site is undeveloped, 

with the exception of the components of 

the remedy. No proposed 

redevelopment plan currently exists for 

the Site. At the time of the Record of 

Decision (ROD) in 1989, it was 

anticipated that the Site may be used in 

the future for recreational purposes. Due 

to the extremely rural location and 

steeply sloping nature of the Site, 

commercial or residential development 

potential is limited. 

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility 

Study (RI/FS) 

An Environmental Assessment (EA) of 

the Site was conducted in 1983 prior to 

the final listing of the Site on the NPL 

and consisted of the following 

components: 

• Hydrogeologic study; 

• Surface water sampling study; 

• Stream biological study; 

• Air quality survey. 

Additionally, test pits were installed 

in 1984 in the vicinity of the disposal 

pits to determine the extent and 

condition of the drums containing stillbottom residue. The investigation 

indicated that the majority of the drums 

were crushed, broken, or without lids. 

Following the listing of the Site on the 

NPL in September 1983, the RI/FS was 

conducted from February 1986 through 

November 1987 and consisted of the 

following components: 

• Biological survey; 

• Biota survey; 

• Surface water and sediment 

characterization; 

• Groundwater characterization. 

Additional groundwater monitoring 

wells were installed in November 1988 

to further delineate the extent of 

groundwater contamination. 

Test pits installed in the vicinity of 

the disposal pits in 1984 prior to the RI/ 

FS indicated the still bottom residue 

consisted of black to pink semisolid 

material with some hardened masses. 

The north disposal pit was observed to 

be approximately 1.2 to 1.5 acres in 

lateral extent and the south disposal pit 

was observed to be approximately 0.8 to 

1.0 acres in lateral extent. Analytical 

data of samples collected during test pit 

installation indicated that the source 

material in the disposal pits was located 

approximately 2.5 and 6.0 feet below 

ground surface (bgs). Contaminated soil 

was also observed in the vicinity of the 

disposal pits during test pit installation, 

particularly in down-slope areas. 

Groundwater quality data collected 

during the RI/FS indicated the presence 

of impacted groundwater in three water 

bearing zones at the Site; the 

unconsolidated materials zone, the 

upper bedrock (shale) aquifer, and the 

lower sandstone aquifer. 

The biological survey conducted 

during the RI/FS indicated that 

macroinvertebrate communities located 

downstream from the Site in the 

Unnamed Creek were stressed due to 

site-related compounds. The stress was 

characterized as a lack of 

macroinvertebrate species that are 

typically an indicator of good water 

quality. However, analysis of tissue 

samples from macroinvertebrates in the 

Unnamed Creek did not detect any 

bioaccumulation or biomagnification of 

site-related compounds. No stress was 

detected in fish species within Valley 

Run and the macroinvertebrate 

community recovered within one mile 

of the confluence of Valley Run and the 

Unnamed Creek. 

The total non-carcinogenic hazard 

indices (HIs) calculated for each of the 

potential receptors were less than 1, 

indicating that the there was no excess 

risk of non-carcinogenic health impacts. 

The excess individual cancer risk to 

future miners, based on potential 

exposure to benzene in groundwater, 

was lower than EPA’s acceptable risk 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
45874 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

1Although the groundwater infiltration system 

was selected as a component of the remedy 

modification, groundwater monitoring following 

the installation of the Seep A Cap indicated that the 

infiltration system would not be necessary and the 

system was not installed. A Preliminary Design 

Investigation was conducted to evaluate the 

feasibility of installing the system, as documented 

in the June 4, 2010 Final Design Report included 

in the Deletion Docket. 

range of 10¥4 to 10¥6. Excess individual 

cancer risk was not calculated for future 

off-site domestic well users because 

potentially carcinogenic compounds are 

not present in the lower sandstone 

aquifer, which is the only aquifer that 

could potentially be developed for 

drinking water supply. This evaluation 

indicated that there was no excess risk 

of cancer based on the evaluated 

exposure pathways. 

In summary, the risk characterization 

indicated that the overall threat to 

human health posed by the Craig Farm 

Drum Site was negligible, primarily due 

to the limited exposure likelihood based 

on the current and future Site uses. The 

evaluation of potential environmental 

exposure pathways indicated that 

aquatic life within the Unnamed Creek 

is being impacted by site-related COCs. 

Therefore, the selection of the remedy 

for the Site was based on the Site’s 

impact to the environment only, and not 

on the impact to human health. The Site 

was determined to present an imminent 

and substantial endangerment to the 

environment as set forth in Section 106 

of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. Section 9606. 

Selected Remedy 

The ROD for the Site was issued on 

September 29, 1989. The following 

Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) 

were identified: 

• Minimize risk to human health and 

the environment from direct contact 

with contaminated material; 

• Control the migration of 

contaminants into nearby surface 

waters; 

• Control the migration of 

contaminants into groundwater. 

The ROD divided the Site into three 

Operable Units (OUs). OU–1 consisted 

of the resorcinol residue material in the 

former disposal pits and an adjacent 

contaminated soils containing 

detectable concentrations (>50 mg/kg) of 

resorcinol. OU–2 consisted of clean 

soils that needed to be moved to access 

OU–1 material. OU–3 consisted of two 

contaminated seeps, identified as Seeps 

A and B, located downgradient of the 

former disposal pits. 

In order to address these OUs and 

meet the RAOs, the Selected Remedy in 

the ROD consisted of the following 

components: 

• Excavation of 32,000 cubic yards of 

material from the disposal pits and 

surrounding areas; 

• On-site solidification of excavated 

material; 

• Placement of the solidified material 

in an newly constructed on-site RCRA 

equivalent, double lined, fenced 

landfill; 

• Wetland delineation and 

subsequent construction of a one-acre 

on-site wetland to replace wetlands 

destroyed in construction of the on-site 

landfill; 

• Implementation of institutional 

controls alerting property owners of 

contamination; 

• Passive collection of groundwater 

using a seep interceptor system with offsite treatment; 

• Monitoring of both on-site and offsite groundwater and surface water. 

The 1989 ROD indicated that the 

completeness of the remedy would be 

determined by using an EPA-approved 

bioassay test procedure. The bioassay 

testing has historically been performed 

on both Seeps A and B as discussed in 

the sections below. 

The 1989 ROD also required that a 

Groundwater Verification Study be 

performed during Remedial Design (RD) 

in to determine if groundwater at the 

Site would require further remediation. 

The Groundwater Verification Study 

was conducted in 1991 and indicated 

that contaminant levels in groundwater 

did not differ significantly from those 

detected during the RI and would 

therefore not pose a significant risk to 

human health. Based on the results of 

the Groundwater Verification Study, no 

additional groundwater remediation 

was required. 

Historically, groundwater collected by 

the seep interceptor system was taken to 

a Beazer-owned off-site facility for 

treatment. However, that facility was 

planned to be shut down in 2010. 

Therefore, from March 2007 through 

September 2008, Beazer conducted a 

Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) to 

evaluate additional remedial 

alternatives for the wastewater collected 

by the seep interceptor system (OU–3). 

As a result of the FFS, the Selected 

Remedy was modified by a September 

18, 2009 Explanation of Significant 

Differences (ESD), consisting of the 

following components: 

• Installation of an impermeable cap 

on the 3-acre, former north pit area to 

reduce infiltration of clean water 

through north pit materials (referred to 

as the Seep A Cap); 

• Excavation/fill of existing ground 

surface in vicinity of former north pit to 

required grade; 

• Installation of bioswales or other 

infiltration features to direct clean 

surface water flow from capped area; 

• Installation of groundwater 

infiltration system into deep bedrock 

upgradient of the former north pit to 

prevent upgradient groundwater from 

flowing through north pit materials 1; 

• Continued maintenance of the Seep 

A collection trench, piping, and storage 

tank to collect contaminated overburden 

groundwater; 

• Treatment of collected Seep A 

water at an alternative off-site treatment 

facility; 

• The Seep B collection trench would 

remain in place but valves would be 

closed so that the system no longer 

collected water; 

• Clarification of the requirements for 

the institutional controls selected in the 

1989 ROD. 

Response Actions 

The Selected Remedy from the 1989 

ROD was implemented from May 1994 

through December 1995 in accordance 

with the September 27, 1993 Remedial 

Design and October 9, 1990 Consent 

Decree (CD). The final inspection was 

conducted on December 15, 1995 and 

completion of the Remedial Action was 

documented in the Remedial Action 

Completion Report, accepted by EPA on 

April 26, 1994. 

EPA issued a Final Close Out Report 

(FCOR) on December 27, 1995 to 

document completion of the remedy 

specified in the 1989 ROD. The FCOR 

documented Construction Completion 

rather than Site Completion because 

institutional controls were not in place 

at the time of the FCOR. Additional 

response actions were also required by 

the 2009 ESD following the issuance of 

the 1995 FCOR, as described below. The 

institutional controls were implemented 

in 2004 in accordance with the 

recommendations of the Second Five 

Year Review and the requirements for 

the institutional controls were clarified 

in the 2009 ESD. Institutional controls 

are discussed in additional detail in the 

Operations and Maintenance section 

below. 

The remedy modification in the 2009 

ESD was implemented from May 

through August 2010 in accordance 

with the June 4, 2010 Final Design 

Report. The final inspection was 

conducted on September 20, 2010 and 

completion of the remedy modification 

was documented in the November 30, 

2010 Remedial Action Report, accepted 

by EPA on December 22, 2010. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 45875 

EPA issued a Revised FCOR on June 

19, 2013 to summarize the findings of 

the 1995 FCOR, describe the 

implementation of institutional 

controls, and document the additional 

response actions performed in 

accordance with the 2009 ESD. 

Cleanup Goals 

The RAOs established in the 1989 

ROD have been achieved by the 

Selected Remedy, as modified by the 

2009 ESD. 

The RAO of minimizing the risk to 

human health and the environment 

from direct contact with contaminated 

material has been achieved via the 

excavation and solidification of material 

from the disposal pits, placement of the 

solidified material in a newly 

constructed on-site landfill, and 

installation of the seep interceptor 

system. Potential direct contact was 

further minimized via installation of the 

Seep A Cap over the north disposal pit 

area. 

Furthermore, although not a 

component of the remedy, the Site is 

located within the Bear Creek Area 

Chemical Site (BCACS). The BCACS 

consists of multiple Sites that are 

impacted by contaminants primarily 

related to resorcinol manufacturing and 

are being addressed by either EPA or 

PADEP. Between 2003 and 2007, 

PADEP connected residents within the 

BCACS to public water and required 

communities therein to institute public 

water connection ordinances. The 

location of the Site within the BCACS 

therefore further reduces the potential 

for direct contact with Site-related 

contaminants in groundwater. 

The RAO of controlling the migration 

of contaminants into nearby surface 

water bodies, primarily the Unnamed 

Creek, has been achieved via the 

installation of the seep interceptor 

system and enhanced by the installation 

of the Seep A Cap. Demonstration of 

achievement of this RAO with respect to 

numerical performance standards is 

discussed in additional detail below. 

As discussed above in the summary of 

the RI/FS, the contaminants of concern 

(COCs) at the Site consist of the 

following compounds: 

• Benzene; 

• Resorcinol; 

• Benzene metadisulfonic acid (mBDSA); 

• Benzene sulfonic acid (BSA); 

• p-Phenol sulfonic acid (p-PSA); 

• Trihydroxydiphenyl (THD). 

Phenol, m-phenol sulfonic acid (mPSA), and multiple metals were also 

identified as Site COCs in the 1989 

ROD, however, these compounds were 

eliminated as Site COCs following the 

Groundwater Verification Study in 

1991. No PADEP Water Quality Criteria 

for Toxic Substances (PADEP WQC) 

existed at the time of the ROD for 

resorcinol, m-BDSA, BSA, p-PSA, or 

THD and no numerical performance 

standards were established for these 

compounds in the 1989 ROD in surface 

water. Benzene has not been detected in 

surface water since 1987 during the RI 

for the Site and has therefore achieved 

the PADEP WQC. 

PADEP WQC were proposed for 

resorcinol, m-BDSA, BSA, and p-PSA in 

February 2012 as show in the table 

below. No PADEP WQC was proposed 

for THD due primarily to the difficulty 

in analyzing for that compound. Instead, 

the remaining resorcinol-related 

compounds are considered indicator 

parameters for THD. 

Compound 

Fish and aquatic life criteria 

Human health 

criteria 

(μg/L) 

Chronic WQC 

criterion 

continuous 

concentration 

(μg/L) 

Acute WQC 

criterion 

maximum 

concentration 

(μg/L) 

Resorcinol .................................................................................................................................... 7200 28000 2700 

m-BDSA ....................................................................................................................................... 1600000 2600000 N/A 

BSA .............................................................................................................................................. 1200000 2000000 N/A 

p-PSA ........................................................................................................................................... 1400000 3500000 N/A 

The Unnamed Creek was considered 

the receptor for Site-related 

contaminants in the 1989 ROD due to 

the observed impact to 

macroinvertebrates in the creek. As 

discussed above, the ROD includes an 

RAO to control migration of 

contaminants into the creek. In order to 

determine if this RAO has been 

achieved, analytical data from the 

Unnamed Creek was compared to the 

PADEP WQC presented above. 

Sampling of the Unnamed Creek was 

historically conducted on a quarterly 

basis for the first year following 

construction of the remedy in 1995, on 

a semi-annual basis for the second year 

following construction, and annually 

during the third year following 

construction. Historic sampling did not 

indicate the presence of Site-related 

contaminants in the Unnamed Creek at 

that time and sampling of the creek was 

discontinued in 1998. 

In order to evaluate the effectiveness 

of the remedy modification selected in 

the 2009 ESD, two additional sampling 

events were conducted in the Unnamed 

Creek in March 2011 and January 2012. 

During those sampling events, m-BDSA 

was detected in the Unnamed Creek at 

a concentration of 97 mg/L in March 

2011 and 77 mg/L in January 2012, 

below the criteria listed above by 

multiple orders of magnitude. THD was 

detected at a concentration of 70 mg/L 

during the January 2012 sampling event 

and was not detected in March 2011. No 

other Site COCs were detected in the 

Unnamed Creek during either of the 

sampling events conducted since the 

installation of the Seep A cap. 

Additionally, the 1989 ROD indicated 

that completeness of the remedy will be 

determined by performing bioassay 

testing. Bioassay testing has been 

performed on water collected from Seep 

A and Seep B, but not on water from the 

Unnamed Creek. In the 2009 ESD, EPA 

determined that water collected by Seep 

B no longer exhibited toxicity based on 

the bioassay testing data. Current data 

from the Unnamed Creek indicate that 

Site COC concentrations are either nondetect or are below the concentrations 

detected in Seep B. Therefore, the water 

in the Unnamed Creek also does not 

exhibit toxicity according to the 

bioassay criteria. Because the Unnamed 

Creek is considered the receptor for 

Site-related contamination, the remedy 

for OU–3 can be considered complete. 

Water collected by Seep A continues to 

exhibit toxicity based on recent bioassay 

sampling and will continue to be 

collected as an O&M task until the 

bioassay criteria are reached in order to 

prevent contaminated groundwater from 

discharging to the Unnamed Creek. 

Based on current contaminant trends in 

Seep A water, the bioassay criteria are 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
45876 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

expected to be reached in approximately 

two years. 

Based on a comparison to currently 

proposed PADEP WQC and Site-specific 

bioassay criteria, the remedy has 

achieved the RAO of controlling 

contaminant migration into the 

Unnamed Creek as specified in the 1989 

ROD. 

The RAO of controlling the migration 

of contaminants into groundwater has 

been achieved via the installation of the 

seep interceptor system and enhanced 

by the installation of the Seep A Cap. At 

the time of the ROD, it was determined 

that the concentrations of Site COCs in 

groundwater did not present a current 

or potential future risk to human health. 

Additionally, no Maximum 

Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for Site 

COCs existed at the time of the 1989 

ROD and no MCLs currently exist or are 

proposed. Although not selected as an 

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate 

Requirement (ARAR) in the 1989 ROD, 

since the ROD was issued, PADEP 

promulgated a State-Wide Health 

Standard (SHS) Medium Specific 

Concentration (MSC) for resorcinol in 

groundwater of 73,000 mg/L for 

residential use and 200,000 mg/L for 

non-residential use. Groundwater 

monitoring was historically conducted 

on a semi-annual basis from 1999 

through 2010. The highest detection of 

resorcinol during the monitoring period 

was 50,600 mg/L in February of 2000, 

below the PADEP SHS MSCs and 

concentrations have continued to 

decline. Groundwater monitoring has 

been conducted three times since 2010. 

In the three most recent sampling events 

conducted in March 2011, January 2012, 

and July 2012 the highest detection of 

resorcinol was 27,100 mg/L, below the 

PADEP SHS MSCs. The concentrations 

of all Site COCs in groundwater have 

significantly decreased, in most cases by 

an order of magnitude, since the 1989 

ROD was issued. Therefore, the current 

concentrations of Site COCs in 

groundwater do not present a current or 

potential future risk to human health. 

Based on this information, the remedy 

has achieved the RAO of controlling 

contaminant migration into 

groundwater as specified in the 1989 

ROD. 

The remedy is currently protective of 

human health and the environment and 

all RAOs specified in the 1989 ROD 

have been achieved. Operation and 

maintenance of the remedy and 

institutional controls, as described 

below, will ensure the long-term 

protection of human health and the 

environment. 

Operation and Maintenance 

Long-term monitoring and 

maintenance at the Site is conducted in 

accordance with the Operations and 

Maintenance Plan (O&M Plan) initially 

dated July 14, 1993 and revised on April 

15, 2013 following the completion of the 

remedy modification and subsequent 

initial monitoring. The O&M Plan, as 

revised, consists of the following 

components: 

• Annual site inspection of the 

following: on-site landfill/cap, former 

south disposal pit area, Seep A 

collection piping, above ground storage 

tank, Seep A cap/bioswale/stormwater 

swale, and ancillary facilities. 

• Groundwater sampling and 

analysis; 

Æ Landfill Wells—Hydraulic 

monitoring and sampling every five 

years to coincide with Five Year 

Reviews; 

Æ Groundwater Monitoring Wells— 

Annual hydraulic monitoring, sampling 

every five years to coincide with Five 

Year Reviews. 

• Surface water sampling and 

analysis; 

Æ Annual sampling through 2014, 

after which samples will be collected 

every five years to coincide with FiveYear Reviews. 

• Seep water collection and disposal 

(seep interceptor system Seep A); 

Æ Off-site disposal as needed; 

Æ Periodic sampling to determine if 

collected water (Seep A) meets bioassay 

criteria. 

• Leachate collection and disposal 

(on-site landfill); 

Æ Pumping, collection, and off-site 

disposal as needed. 

• Progress reporting; 

Æ Reporting every five years to 

coincide with Five Year Reviews. 

The 1989 ROD for the Site required 

that institutional controls be placed on 

the Site to ensure the protectiveness of 

the remedy. The 2004 Second Five Year 

Review indicated that the institutional 

controls were not yet in place, and 

subsequently the institutional controls 

were implemented on September 23, 

2004 in the form of a deed restriction 

consisting of the following: 

• No groundwater beneath the Site 

may be used and no wells may be 

installed on the Site for human 

consumption, irrigation, or other 

purpose that may bring it into contact 

with humans, except for testing 

purposes as required by law, remedial 

action/design, or the terms of the 

Consent Decree; 

• No structure may be placed on the 

Site that would disturb the cap or 

stabilized contents of the landfill or 

would otherwise disturb any component 

of the remedial action/design without 

prior written approval of the Site owner 

and EPA; 

• The Site may not be used for the 

purposes of living, dwelling, or 

overnight accommodations of any type; 

• No action may be taken that will 

interfere with, obstruct, or disturb the 

performance of any remedial response, 

including O&M; 

• Any Site owner must provide any 

purchaser with notice of the terms of the 

Consent Decree prior to transferring any 

interest in the Site. 

The 2009 Third Five Year Review 

indicated that the requirement for 

institutional controls was in the 

declaration portion of the 1989 ROD 

only and not in the remedy selection 

portion. Therefore, EPA included a 

clarification of the requirement for 

institutional controls in the 2009 ESD to 

ensure that the controls remain in place 

and effective. 

Five-Year Reviews 

Three Five Year Reviews have been 

conducted at the Site in 1999, 2004, and 

2009. The Protectiveness Statement in 

the 2009 Third Five Year Review was as 

follows: 

‘‘The remedy at the Craig Farm Drum Site 

is protective of human health and the 

environment in the short and long term. 

Physical construction is complete and 

institutional controls have been 

implemented. 

Protection of human health and the 

environment has been achieved by the 

installation of a RCRA-equivalent landfill to 

contain waste (OU–1) and a seep interceptor 

system to collect contaminated groundwater 

for off-site treatment (OU–3). Additionally, 

protection of human health is enhanced due 

to the location of the Site within the Bear 

Creek Area Chemical Site (BCACS), in which 

all residents are required to connect to public 

water. Currently, design is underway for the 

modification of the seep interceptor system 

by the addition of an impermeable cap and 

groundwater infiltration system to reduce 

overburden groundwater flow through 

contaminated material, further enhancing the 

protectiveness of the remedy. Finally, the 

remedy is protective of both human health 

and the environment in the long-term due to 

the implementation of institutional controls 

alerting current and future Site owners of the 

contaminants on-site and restricting landfill 

and groundwater use. The requirements for 

the institutional controls at the Site will be 

clarified in an ESD to further ensure longterm protectiveness.’’ 

As previously indicated, the ESD 

referenced above was issued to clarify 

the institutional controls in September 

2009. The next Five Year Review is 

scheduled to be completed in June 2014. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 45877 

Community Involvement 

The Site is located in an extremely 

rural area and few residents live in close 

proximity to the Site. Historically, 

community involvement activities 

consisted of a public meeting in 1989 to 

present the Proposed Remedial Action 

Plan (PRAP) for the 1989 ROD, 

availability sessions during construction 

of the remedy in 1993 and 1994, and 

public notices prior to conducting Five 

Year Reviews in 1999, 2004, and 2009. 

In accordance with the requirements 

of 40 CFR 300.425(e)(4), EPA’s 

community involvement activities 

associated with this deletion will 

consist of placing the deletion docket in 

the local site information repository and 

placing a public notice (of EPA’s intent 

to delete the site from the NPL) in a 

local newspaper of general circulation. 

Determination That the Site Meets the 

Criteria for Deletion in the NCP 

Construction of the remedy at the Site 

has been completed in accordance with 

the 1989 ROD and 2009 ESD, 

institutional controls are in place, and 

O&M is being conducted in accordance 

with the O&M Plan. All RAOs, 

performance standards, and cleanup 

goals established in the 1989 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 operation, maintenance, and 

Five Year Reviews, is necessary to 

protect human health and the 

environment. 

The Site Deletion procedures 

specified in 40 CFR 300.425(e) have 

been followed for the deletion of the 

Site. 

V. Deletion Action 

The EPA, with concurrence of the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 

through PADEP, has determined that all 

appropriate response actions under 

CERCLA, other than operation, 

maintenance, 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 September 30, 

2013 unless EPA receives adverse 

comments byAugust 29, 2013. 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: July 10, 2013. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

For the reasons set out in this 

document, 40 CFR part 300 is amended 

as follows: 

PART 300—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 300 

continues to read as follows: 

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

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

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

3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193. 

■ 2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 

is amended by removing Craig Farm 

Drum Superfund Site, Parker, 

Pennsylvania. 

[FR Doc. 2013–18189 Filed 7–29–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Part 67 

[Docket ID FEMA–2013–0002] 

Final Flood Elevation Determinations 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Base (1% annual-chance) 

Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified 

BFEs are made final for the 

communities listed below. The BFEs 

and modified BFEs are the basis for the 

floodplain management measures that 

each community is required either to 

adopt or to show evidence of being 

already in effect in order to qualify or 

remain qualified for participation in the 

National Flood Insurance Program 

(NFIP). 

DATES: The date of issuance of the Flood 

Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) showing 

BFEs and modified BFEs for each 

community. This date may be obtained 

by contacting the office where the maps 

are available for inspection as indicated 

in the table below. 

ADDRESSES: The final BFEs for each 

community are available for inspection 

at the office of the Chief Executive 

Officer of each community. The 

respective addresses are listed in the 

table below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis 

Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering 

Management Branch, Federal Insurance 

and Mitigation Administration, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, 500 C 

Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, 

(202) 646–4064, or (email) 

Luis.Rodriguez3@fema.dhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) makes the final determinations 

listed below for the modified BFEs for 

each community listed. These modified 

elevations have been published in 

newspapers of local circulation and 

ninety (90) days have elapsed since that 

publication. The Deputy Associate 

Administrator for Mitigation has 

resolved any appeals resulting from this 

notification. 

This final rule is issued in accordance 

with section 110 of the Flood Disaster 

Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, 

and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has 

developed criteria for floodplain 

management in floodprone areas in 

accordance with 44 CFR part 60. 

Interested lessees and owners of real 

property are encouraged to review the 

proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM 

available at the address cited below for 

each community. The BFEs and 

modified BFEs are made final in the 

communities listed below. Elevations at 

selected locations in each community 

are shown. 

National Environmental Policy Act. 

This final rule is categorically excluded 

from the requirements of 44 CFR part 

10, Environmental Consideration. An 

environmental impact assessment has 

not been prepared. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood 

elevation determinations are not within 

the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, a regulatory 

flexibility analysis is not required. 

Regulatory Classification. This final 

rule is not a significant regulatory action 

under the criteria of section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 

1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 

58 FR 51735. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. 

This final rule involves no policies that 

have federalism implications under 

Executive Order 13132. 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform. This final rule meets the 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES