[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 17, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33177-33182]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15245]



[[Page 33177]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2005-0011; FRL-9980-60--Region 3]


National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; 
National Priorities List: Deletion of the Dorney Road Landfill 
Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region III is 
issuing a Notice of Intent to Delete the Dorney Road Landfill Superfund 
Site (Site) located in Longswamp and Upper Macungie Townships, in Berks 
and Lehigh Counties, Pennsylvania from the National Priorities List 
(NPL) and requests public comments on this proposed action. 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 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 
(the Commonwealth), through the Pennsylvania Department of 
Environmental Protection (PADEP), have determined that all appropriate 
response actions under CERCLA, other than operation and maintenance 
(O&M), monitoring, and Five-Year Reviews, have been completed. However, 
this deletion would not preclude future actions under Superfund.

DATES: Comments must be received by August 16, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-2005-0011, by one of the following methods:
    <bullet> http://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 http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    <bullet> Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8aedf8efebfceff9a4eeebfce3eecaeffaeba4ede5fc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6a0d180f0b1c0f19440e0b1c030e2a0f1a0b440d051c">[email protected]</span></a>.
    <bullet> Mail: U.S. EPA Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, 
PA 19103.
    <bullet> Hand delivery: U.S. EPA Region III, 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-
2005-0011. 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 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 http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name 
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of 
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by 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:

U.S. EPA Region III Administrative Records Room, 1650 Arch Street--6th 
Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029, Business Hours: Monday through 
Friday, 8:00 a.m.-4:30 p.m.; by appointment only
Local Repository, Upper Macungie Township Building, 8330 Schantz Road, 
Breinigsville, PA 18031, Business Hours: Monday through Friday, 7:30 
a.m.-4:00 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Greaves, Remedial Project 
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3, 3HS211650 Arch 
Street Philadelphia, PA 19103, (215) 814-5729, email: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a1c6d3c4c0d7c4d28fc5c0d7c8c5e1c4d1c08fc6ced7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1d7a6f787c6b786e33797c6b74795d786d7c337a726b">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion

I. Introduction

    EPA Region III announces its intent to delete the Dorney Road 
Landfill Superfund Site from the National Priorities List (NPL) and 
requests public comment on this proposed action. 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 Fund-financed 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 Dorney Road Landfill 
Superfund Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria.

[[Page 33178]]

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 Commonwealth, 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 before developing this 
Notice of Intent to Delete.
    (2) EPA has provided the Commonwealth 30 working days for review of 
this notice prior to publication of it today.
    (3) In accordance with the criteria discussed above, EPA has 
determined that no further response is appropriate.
    (4) The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, through the Pennsylvania 
Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), 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 Reading Eagle. 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 Site Deletion

    The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting the 
Site from the NPL:

Site Background and History

    EPA proposed the Dorney Road Landfill Superfund Site (Site) 
(CERCLIS ID PAD980508832) to the NPL on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40674) 
and added the Site as final on the NPL on September 21, 1984 (49 FR 
37070). The Site is located along the southwest boundary of Upper 
Macungie Township in Lehigh County, PA, with a small portion of the 
Site extending into Longswamp Township in Berks County.
    The 27-acre Site consists of an abandoned iron mine pit that was 
used as a landfill, a surrounding soil berm, and adjacent land. 
Beginning in 1962, the Site was operated as an open dump, with the 
majority of waste disposed in an abandoned mine pit. The landfill was 
expanded to except a variety of household and industrial waste from 
regional municipalities and local businesses, until operations ceased 
in December 1978.
    In all areas of the Site, except for the northwestern portion, the 
water table occurs in the bedrock near or below the bedrock/overburden 
interface. The overburden is approximately 70 feet thick. The landfill 
waste is contained within the overburden. The water table exists within 
the overburden areas of relatively thick overburden and in the bedrock 
where the overburden is relatively thin. The water table is not in 
contact with the waste material. The direction of regional groundwater 
flow in the bedrock-overburden aquifer is generally from the northwest 
to the southeast.
    In January 1970, the Pennsylvania State Health Center notified the 
landfill owner that the landfill constituted a public health threat and 
required the owner to compact the fill and apply cover to the landfill. 
A follow-up letter stated that the owner did not comply with the 
directive. In June 1970, a representative from the Pennsylvania 
Department of the Environmental Resources (PADER, formerly, the 
Pennsylvania State Health Center) visited the landfill and noted the 
approximate location of an on-site area used for the disposal of 
sludge. Other visits identified the disposal of petroleum products, 
asbestos, and battery casings.
    Contaminants in the leachate and groundwater included ketones, 
vinyl chloride, trichloroethene (TCE), benzene, heavy metals, and 
arsenic. Soils contained the pesticide dieldrin, as well as lead and 
chromium. The apparent source of contamination was the waste buried and 
dumped on the soil at the landfill.
    In 1986, EPA performed an Emergency Removal Action at the Site to 
ensure that landfill-related materials were not transported off of the 
property by storm water. The removal action consisted of re-grading the 
Site to prevent surface water runoff. The construction of on-site ponds 
allowed for controlled discharge of surface water via two major 
spillways. Although a soil cover was applied to portions of the Site, 
the landfill had never been graded and capped, and waste continued to 
be exposed in some areas.

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

    The Site consists of two operable units (OUs). OU1 addresses the 
source of the contamination by capping the landfill. OU2 focuses on 
addressing

[[Page 33179]]

groundwater contamination which is the principal exposure pathway.
    A Cooperative Agreement was signed between EPA and PADER, and PADER 
became the lead agency for work in the RI/FS phase. The OU1 RI was 
performed from January to June 1988. Due to difficulties encountered 
during Phase I activities, additional data needs were identified and 
investigative activities were proposed as a Phase II RI effort. Results 
of the OU1 RI were presented in the Final Remedial Investigation Report 
for OU1 dated August 11, 1988. A Feasibility Study for OU1, focusing on 
the landfill waste, was also submitted in August 1988. The OU2 RI/FS 
was performed by PADER from March to July 1991. The study focused on 
the groundwater and primarily consisted of additional sampling of wells 
installed during the OU1 RI.
    Major field activities conducted during Phase I of the OU1 RI 
included:
    <bullet> Air sampling;
    <bullet> On-site surface water and seep sampling;
    <bullet> On-site sediment sampling;
    <bullet> On-site and off-site, surface and subsurface soil 
sampling;
    <bullet> Monitoring well installation;
    <bullet> Groundwater monitoring well and residential well sampling;
    <bullet> Hydraulic conductivity testing;
    <bullet> Fracture trace analysis;
    <bullet> Surface geophysical investigation.
    The major field activities performed during Phase II of the OU1 RI 
included:
    <bullet> Installed one deep well off-site (MW-6) to the southeast 
to obtain downgradient groundwater data.
    <bullet> Installed an off-site well nest (MW-7/7D) to the northwest 
of the landfill to provide additional groundwater quality data and flow 
information.
    <bullet> Installed on-site boring (TB-LMW-4) to determine the 
thickness of gravel between the base of the refuse and the top of the 
bedrock.
    <bullet> Installed four borings (TB-1,2,3,4) along the southeast 
corner of the site to identify the presence or absence of a shallow 
groundwater zone identified during the OU1 Phase I RI.
    <bullet> Obtained six additional groundwater samples (MW-6, 7, 7D, 
two rounds) and analyzed for unfiltered metals.
    <bullet> Performed borehole geophysics in off-site wells (MW-2D, 
3D, 4, 5D, 6, 7, 7D). Borehole geophysics were performed to supplement 
the minimal lithological data obtained during the OU1 Phase 1 and Phase 
II RI drilling and well installation activities due to difficulty in 
drilling and poor recoveries.
    Air sampling was performed to determine the quantity and quality of 
ambient airborne contaminants to evaluate the potential exposure to on-
site workers and neighboring populations. The data was used to 
determine the appropriate level of protection on-site, and to establish 
the exclusion, contamination reduction, and support zone delineations 
used during the field activities.
    A fracture trace analysis was performed to provide information on 
the number, size, frequency and orientation of bedrock joints, 
fractures, and large-scale lineaments. The data was used for 
determining monitoring well locations and for evaluation of the 
potential for contaminant migration through bedrock.
    A geophysical investigation (seismic refraction survey) was 
performed to obtain information on the thickness of overburden and the 
depth to bedrock, the thickness of the landfill waste, the condition of 
the bedrock at the iron mine pit, and to verify any lineaments 
previously identified.
    Sampling and analysis of the on-site ponds was performed to collect 
data on the contaminant concentrations in the standing liquid and 
bottom sediments. The data was used to estimate the extent and degree 
of contamination and estimate the volumes of liquid and soil to be 
treated and/or removed.
    Soil sampling was performed to provide data on the chemical 
characteristics of soils both on-site and off-site, to determine the 
degree of off-site migration of contamination, and to provide data 
concerning the on-site vertical and horizontal extent of contamination. 
For comparison to on-site data, a background sample was collected 
approximately 900 ft. west of the Site and was assumed to be isolated 
from any site-related conditions. On-site soils exceeded EPA's 
acceptable levels for both cancer risk and non-cancer hazard index 
primarily due to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), arsenic, lead 
and chromium. Contaminants in leachate and groundwater included 
ketones, 1,1-dichloroethene (1,1-DCE), 1,2-dichloroethane (1,2-DCA), 
TCE, tetrachloroethylene (PCE), vinyl chloride, benzene and arsenic. 
Both cancer and non-cancer groundwater risk substantially exceeded 
EPA's acceptable criteria. Risk at the Site was due to dermal contact 
and incidental ingestion of landfill soil, solid waste and on-site 
ponded waters (OU1) and residential exposure via ingestion of 
contaminated groundwater and inhalation of volatile contaminants while 
showering (OU2).

Selected Remedy

    On September 29, 1988, the Acting Regional Administrator signed a 
Record of Decision (ROD) for OU1. The Selected Remedy in the 1988 OU1 
ROD consists of the following components:

<bullet> Elimination of on-site ponded waters
<bullet> Regrading
<bullet> Pennsylvania-Type Multi-layer Cap
<bullet> Run-on/Run-off Controls
<bullet> Run-off Monitoring
<bullet> Groundwater Monitoring
<bullet> Perimeter Fence
<bullet> Deed Notice

    The Remedial Action objectives (RAOs) were not explicitly stated in 
the ROD for OU1. The following RAOs were inferred:
    <bullet> Control contaminant migration off-site by containment of 
contaminated landfill soil and waste material;
    <bullet> Prevent dermal contact and incidental ingestion; and
    <bullet> Prevent continued leaching of precipitation and ponded 
waters through the contaminated landfill material.
    On September 18, 1991, the Regional Administrator signed an 
Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) for OU1. The 1991 ESD was 
issued to address compliance with wetlands Applicable or Relevant and 
Appropriate Requirements (ARARs). The Selected Remedy in the 1988 OU1 
ROD required the destruction of approximately seven acres of wetlands 
during construction of the cap. The 1991 ESD allowed the sedimentation 
ponds required to control run-on/run-off from the cap to also mitigate 
the destroyed wetlands and become a quality habitat for the varied 
wildlife at the Site.
    On September 30, 1991, the Regional Administrator signed a ROD for 
OU2 (1991 OU2 ROD), selecting a remedy with the following major 
components:
    <bullet> Wellhead treatment units to be provided to residences if 
levels of site-related contaminants exceeded federal Maximum 
Contaminant Levels (MCLs);
    <bullet> Groundwater monitoring.
    The RAO for OU2 was not explicitly stated in the 1991 OU2 ROD; 
however, the RAO is inferred to be to eliminate exposure to 
contaminated groundwater.

Response Actions

    In September 1990, EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order 
(UAO), EPA Docket No. III-90-45-DC, to seven Potentially Responsible 
Parties (PRPs) after negotiations were unsuccessful. A second UAO, EPA 
Docket No. III-91-26-DC, was issued to an eighth PRP on January 25, 
1991, and a third UAO, EPA Docket No. III-92-33-DC, was issued to five 
additional PRPs on August 13, 1992. The UAOs required the PRPs to 
implement the Selected Remedy described in the 1988 OU1 ROD. The

[[Page 33180]]

modifications to the Selected Remedy specified in the September 18, 
1991 ESD were incorporated into the UAOs. The Remedial Design (RD) was 
approved in June 1995.
    The Remedial Action (RA) for OU1 began in April 1998. The major 
components of the RA included the following:
    <bullet> Site clearing which included removal of ponded water, 
clearing of vegetative cover, chipping woody vegetation, and relocation 
of fugitive surface debris under the cover system;
    <bullet> Monitoring well abandonment;
    <bullet> Gas trench construction, which was designed to minimize 
the lateral flow of landfill gas outside the landfill limits below the 
surface. The design included a peripheral gas collection trench just 
beyond the lateral extent of the landfill;
    <bullet> Landfill regrading to achieve the grades and slopes for 
the acceptance of the cover system;
    <bullet> Subgrade preparation which involved grading and placement 
of compacted general fill;
    <bullet> Construction of a gas vent layer on top of the landfill. A 
geocomposite was used as a gas vent layer on the side slopes of the 
landfill.
    <bullet> Gas vent collection piping system consisting of flexible 
4-inch perforated High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) pipe along the top 
of the gas trench connected to seventeen 4-inch HDPE conveyance pipes 
which were connected to seventeen peripheral passive vents along the 
crest of the cap. On the surface of the cap, an additional fourteen 
passive vents were installed with four horizontal perforated flexible 
HDPE feeder pipes to collect the gas and vent it passively through vent 
pipes;
    <bullet> A geotextile was placed over the gas venting layer prior 
to installation of the grading layer;
    <bullet> Two types of geomembrane were installed. A 40-millimeter 
smooth HDPE geomembrane was installed where the slopes were minimal and 
a 40-millimeter textured HDPE geomembrane was installed on the 
embankment slopes along the periphery of the landfill;
    <bullet> On the top of the landfill, a geotextile cushion layer was 
placed over the geomembrane to protect it from the overlying sand 
drainage layer;
    <bullet> A sand drainage layer was put in place and another 
separation geotextile was put on top of the drainage layer;
    <bullet> An 18-inch layer of compacted general fill on the cover 
system and 24-inches of general fill on the cover system slopes serve 
as protection layer over the underlying system;
    <bullet> A vegetative layer was the final cover;
    <bullet> Surface drainage was designed with five basic drainage 
patterns. These patterns were rough graded during initial landfill 
grading operations and incorporated as part of the temporary erosion 
sediment control plan. Permanent drainage incorporated the use of 
stormwater pipes, riprap channels and natural drainage systems;
    <bullet> A replacement wetland was constructed, which also serves 
as a stormwater drainage area; and
    <bullet> A chain link security fence was installed with proper 
signage.
    The contractor conducted the RA basically as designed, with only 
minor modifications. One modification had to be made for the 
construction of the wetlands. The west pond contained a large rock 
which had to be excavated with a rock hammer and processed using a rock 
crusher. This generated approximately 30,000 cubic yards of fill that 
was used on the general fill layer of the landfill cap. Another 
modification was with the placement of the fence on Dorney Road. A 
variance was needed from the Township to construct the fence closer to 
the street than 6 feet in order to avoid puncturing the cap with the 
fence posts. The variance was granted and the fence was installed 
according to the specifications.
    EPA, PADEP and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) conducted a 
pre-final inspection on September 20, 1999. The inspection resulted in 
a schedule for the contractor to correct some minor construction items.
    EPA issued a UAO for the OU2 RD/RA, EPA Docket No. III-92-27-DC, to 
twelve PRPs on August 18, 1992. The baseline residential well sampling 
for OU2 was conducted during the first two weeks of March 1999. The 
1991 OU2 ROD and RD required residential groundwater samples to be 
compared to federal MCLs. If the sampling results were above the MCLs, 
wellhead treatment units would be required. The baseline results were 
below the MCLs at all residential wells and no wellhead treatment units 
were installed. Residential monitoring is ongoing. The operation and 
maintenance plans (O&M Plans) for OU1 and OU2 were approved by EPA and 
PADEP in October 1997 and September 1996, respectively. The Preliminary 
Closeout Report (PCOR) was issued for the Site on September 28, 1999. 
The PCOR documents that construction activities were completed at the 
Site in accordance with Closeout Procedures For National Priorities 
Sites (OSWER Directive 9320.2-09A-P).

Cleanup Levels

    Groundwater monitoring is performed in accordance with the 1988 OU1 
ROD and 1995 OU1 O&M Plan at the landfill monitoring well network and 
in accordance with the 1991 OU2 ROD and 1996 O&M Plan at the 
residential well monitoring network.
    Landfill monitoring is conducted to detect any changes in 
groundwater quality due to leaching of landfill contaminants. The 
landfill monitoring network consists of the following wells: MW-2S, MW-
2DR, MW-3S, MW-7S, MW-11S and MW-11D. During each sampling event, 
groundwater samples are analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) 
and dissolved metals. Field activities, groundwater elevation data, 
groundwater quality data and the results of the data validation are 
presented in each summary report. A summary of all historical data is 
also presented in the summary reports.
    During the 2013-2017 period, several metals were detected in the 
landfill monitoring wells. The detected VOCs included PCE, TCE, and 
chloromethane. All detections during the 2013-2017 period were within 
the historical range of concentrations and remain very low. Most are 
well below MCLs except for manganese, mercury and thallium in MW-7S and 
thallium in MW-3S. MW-7S is up gradient of the landfill and these 
exceedances do not appear to be site related. Thallium was only 
detected in MW-3S during two sampling events in 2016, but had not been 
detected previously or in subsequent sampling events. Based on a review 
of historical monitoring from 2013 to 2017 from all other monitoring 
wells, there have been no exceedances of MCLs during this period.
    The 1988 OU1 ROD did not select chemical-specific ARARs for 
groundwater. Instead, the 1988 OU1 ROD required groundwater monitoring 
upgradient and downgradient of the Site to detect any changes in 
groundwater quality due to the potential leaching of landfill 
contaminants into groundwater. As indicated above, detections of Site-
related compounds in groundwater are generally below the respective 
MCLs and have remained consistent with historic groundwater sampling 
results. Therefore, no impacts to groundwater as a result of leaching 
of landfill contaminants have been observed and the groundwater cleanup 
goal established in the 1988 OU1 ROD has been achieved.
    Residential wells are sampled quarterly on a rotating basis so the 
same wells are not sampled every event. Groundwater samples are 
collected from an inside or outside spigot and analyzed for VOCs. 
Twenty-eight residential wells were sampled between the 2013 and 2017. 
Of those 28 wells, 14 wells

[[Page 33181]]

had one or more detections of VOCs. The most commonly detected VOC is 
PCE. The PCE concentrations are consistent with historical 
concentrations at these locations. Chloroform was detected at two 
locations in 2016 and TCE was detected once in 2013. All detections 
from 2013 to 2017 have been well below respective MCLs and have never 
exceeded MCLs during any monitoring event.
    The 1991 OU2 ROD waived the Pennsylvania Hazardous Waste Management 
Regulations [25 PA Code Sec. Sec.  264.90-264.100, specifically 25 PA 
Code Sec.  264.97(i) and (j) and Sec.  264.100(a)(9)], which require 
remediation of groundwater to background levels, as well as the 
requirement to remediate groundwater to federal Maximum Contaminant 
Levels (MCLs) under the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. 300g-l and 
set forth in 40 CFR 141.61. These ARARs were waived in accordance with 
CERCLA (42 U.S.C. 9621(d)(4)(C)) and the NCP (40 CFR 
300.430(f)(1)(ii)(C)(3)) due to technical impracticability of achieving 
background levels (from an engineering perspective) and MCLs throughout 
the groundwater contaminant plume. As indicated above, detections of 
Site-related compounds in groundwater are generally below the 
respective MCLs in Site monitoring wells.
    The 1991 OU2 ROD required that MCLs be met for Site related 
contaminants of concern (COCs) at the tap prior to use of the 
groundwater by nearby residents. Wellhead treatment systems would be 
provided if any Site related MCL exceedances were identified. As 
indicated above, no Site-related compounds exceeded MCLs in any 
residential samples during the most recent Five-Year Review period from 
2013 to 2017. Additionally, no Site related COCs have been identified 
in any residential samples above MCLs since sampling began in 1999. 
Therefore, the RAO of eliminating exposure to contaminated groundwater 
has been achieved. Residential monitoring will continue to ensure that 
groundwater cleanup goals continue to be met.

Operation and Maintenance

    The PRP group conducts long-term monitoring and maintenance 
activities at the Site in accordance with the EPA-approved August 1995 
OU1 O&M Plan and January 1996 OU2 O&M Plan. The primary activities 
associated with O&M include the following:
    <bullet> Visual inspection of the cap with regard to vegetative 
cover, settlement, stability, and any need for corrective action. In 
addition, the cap is scheduled for periodic mowing;
    <bullet> Inspection of the drainage swales for blockage, erosion 
and instability, and any need for corrective action;
    <bullet> Inspection of the condition of the groundwater monitoring 
wells;
    <bullet> Quarterly groundwater monitoring, which includes 
monitoring of the landfill wells and residential wells; and
    <bullet> Engineered wetlands inspection and assessment. Inspections 
are conducted primarily for the purposes of assessing both weed control 
needs and the survival of plantings. Assessments are performed to 
determine if engineered wetlands are meeting the performance standards 
regarding survival and density of the desired wetlands species.
    The City of Allentown conducts the quarterly inspections of the 
landfill, as well as the quarterly groundwater sampling of both the 
landfill wells and the residential wells. Over the last five years 
there have been few, if any, problems with the landfill.
    As established in the 1991 OU2 ROD, long-term monitoring is 
conducted on a quarterly basis at five residences selected based on the 
previous sampling results. The quarterly sampling is conducted by the 
City of Allentown. The quarterly sampling program may be modified by 
EPA, in such areas as the number of wells, location of wells, frequency 
of sampling, and analytical parameters. If quarterly sampling indicates 
that a residential well that exceeds MCLs, a wellhead treatment system 
would be provided and maintained. There have been no quarterly 
residential samples which have been above MCLs since sampling began in 
March 1999.
    In March of 2007 EPA issued a second ESD (2007 ESD) that required 
institutional controls (ICs) (e.g. easements, covenants, title notices 
or land use restrictions through orders or agreements with EPA), to be 
established to prevent any future use of the Site that could compromise 
the effectiveness of the Selected Remedy.
    The ICs were established to prevent the disturbance of the landfill 
cap and the installation of groundwater wells on the capped portion of 
the Dorney Road Landfill property and to prevent future use of the 
property that would compromise the effectiveness of the Selected 
Remedy.
    EPA surveyed the landfill property to determine the parcel 
boundaries and to confirm the current property owners in 2011. An 
assessment of the ICs already in place concluded that ICs to protect 
the integrity of the cap cover system and prevent the installation of 
drinking water wells on the landfill were implemented by the following 
instruments with the four Site owners:

<bullet> Unilateral Administrative Order Docket No. III-98-011-DC, 
March 3, 1998, for access to conduct RA
<bullet> Unilateral Administrative Order for Access Docket No. III-96-
79-DC, September 18, 1996, for access to conduct RA
<bullet> Administrative Order by Consent, Docket No. III-97-84-DC, May 
14, 1997, for access and resolution of liability
<bullet> Administrative Order by Consent Docket No. III-97-85-DC, May 
14, 1997, for access and resolution of liability
<bullet> Administrative Order for Access Docket No. III-98-013-DC, for 
access to conduct RA
<bullet> Docket No. III-98-012-DC, March 3, 1998, for access to conduct 
RA, respondent In Rem
<bullet> Deed Notice No. 8665-9544 May 10, 1991 states that property is 
part of Dorney Road Landfill CERCLA action in Docket No. III-90-45-DC

Five-Year Review

    Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and as provided in the current 
guidance on Five-Year Reviews, Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance, 
OSWER Directive 9355.7-03B-P, June 2001, EPA must conduct a statutory 
Five-Year Review if hazardous substances remain on-site above levels 
that would not allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. The 
Five-Year Reviews for the Site were signed on the following dates:

1. First Five-Year Review--July 11, 2003
2. Second Five-Year Review--July 28, 2008
3. Third Five-Year Review--May 29, 2013
4. Fourth Five-Year Review--May 18, 2018

    No issues or recommendations were identified in the 2018 Fourth 
Five-Year Review. The Protectiveness Statement in the 2018 Fourth Five-
Year Review was as follows:
    The remedies in place at the Site are protective of human health 
and the environment. The landfill cap prevents direct contact with site 
contamination and prevents migration of contaminants to groundwater. 
Groundwater contamination is stable in landfill wells with most 
contaminants below MCLs. Residential monitoring indicates site 
contaminants remain below MCLs. The institutional controls in place are 
adequate to protect the engineered remedy and prevent installation of 
drinking water wells on the landfill.''

[[Page 33182]]

Community Involvement

    EPA community relations staff conducted an active campaign to 
ensure that the residents were well informed about activities at the 
Site. Community relations activities included the following:

<bullet> Interviews of Township officials for Five-Year Reviews
<bullet> Fact Sheets

    In accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 300.425(e)(4), EPA's 
community involvement activities associated with this deletion will 
consist of information supporting 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 the Reading Eagle, a major, local 
newspaper of general circulation.

Determination That the Site Meets the Criteria for Deletion in the NCP

    Construction of the Selected Remedy at the Site has been completed 
and O&M has been untaken and is still ongoing in accordance with the 
EPA-approved O&M Plans. All RAOs, Performance Standards, and cleanup 
goals established in the 1988 OU1 ROD, 1991 OU2 ROD, 1991 ESD and 2007 
ESD have been achieved and the Selected Remedy is protective of human 
health and the environment. No further Superfund response actions, 
other than O&M, monitoring, and Five-Year Reviews, are necessary to 
protect human health and the environment.
    The procedures specified in 40 CFR 300.425(e) have been followed 
for the deletion of the Site. EPA, with concurrence of the Commonwealth 
through PADEP, has determined that all appropriate response actions 
under CERCLA, have been completed. Therefore, EPA is deleting the Site 
from the NPL.

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.

    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: June 19, 2018.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region III.
[FR Doc. 2018-15245 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>