Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules 33171 

• 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 CAA; 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). 

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 rule does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), nor will it impose substantial 

direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: July 2, 2018. 

Onis ‘‘Trey’’ Glenn, III, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2018–15147 Filed 7–16–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1983–0002; FRL–9980– 

73—Region 4] 

National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency 

Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion 

of the Whitehouse Oil Pits Superfund 

Site 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) Region 4 is issuing a 

Notice of Intent to Delete the 

Whitehouse Oil Pits Superfund Site 

(Site) located in Whitehouse, Florida, 

from the National Priorities List (NPL) 

and requests public comments on this 

proposed action. This site is also known 

as the Whitehouse Waste Oil Pits Site. 

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 Florida (State), through the 

Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection (FDEP), have determined that 

all appropriate response actions under 

CERCLA, other than operations 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 

August 16, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID no. EPA–HQ– 

SFUND–1983–0002 by one of the 

following methods: 

(1) http://www.regulations.gov. 

Follow the online 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. 

(2) Email: Rusty Kestle, Remedial 

Project Manager, kestle.rusty@epa.gov. 

(3) Mail: Rusty Kestle, Remedial 

Project Manager, Superfund Restoration 

and Sustainability Branch, Superfund 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

(4) Hand delivery: USEPA Region 4, 

61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 

30303–8960. Attention: Rusty Kestle, 

Remedial Project Manager, Superfund 

Restoration and Sustainability Branch. 

Hours of Operation: Monday to Friday 

7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Phone: 404–562– 

8819. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID no. EPA–HQ–SFUND–1983– 

0002. The 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 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 the 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 the 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, the 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 the EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, the 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: 

(1) USEPA Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street 

SW, Atlanta, GA 30303–8909, Monday 

through Friday, 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Contact Tina Terrell 404–562–8835; and 

(2) West Regional Jacksonville Public 

Library, 1425 Chaffee Rd. S, 

Jacksonville, FL 32221, Monday– 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
33172 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

Thursday 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Friday 

and Saturday 10:00 a.m.–6:00 p.m., 

Sunday CLOSED. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rusty Kestle, Remedial Project Manager, 

Superfund Restoration and 

Sustainability Branch, Superfund 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, 

Atlanta, GA 30303–8960, phone 404– 

562–8819, email: kestle.rusty@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. NPL Deletion Criteria 

III. Deletion Procedures 

IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion 

I. Introduction 

The EPA announces its intent to 

delete the Whitehouse Oil Pits 

Superfund Site from the NPL and 

requests public comment on this 

proposed action. The NPL constitutes 

Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which 

is the NCP, which the EPA promulgated 

pursuant to section 105 of the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation and Liability 

Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. The 

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. 

The 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 the EPA is using for this action. 

Section IV discusses the Whitehouse Oil 

Pits Superfund Site and demonstrates 

how it meets the deletion criteria. 

II. NPL Deletion Criteria 

The NCP establishes the criteria that 

the 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), the 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, the EPA conducts fiveyear reviews (FYRs) 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. The EPA conducts such FYRs 

even if a site is deleted from the NPL. 

The 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) The EPA consulted with the State 

before developing this Notice of Intent 

to Delete. 

(2) The EPA has provided the State 30 

working days for review of this notice 

prior to publication of it today. 

(3) In accordance with the criteria 

discussed above, the EPA has 

determined that no further response is 

appropriate. 

(4) The State, through the FDEP, 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 Florida Times-Union. The 

newspaper notice announces the 30-day 

public comment period concerning the 

Notice of Intent to Delete the site from 

the NPL. 

(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, the EPA will evaluate and 

respond appropriately to the comments 

before making a final decision to delete. 

If necessary, the EPA will prepare a 

responsiveness summary to address any 

significant public comments received. 

After the public comment period, if the 

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’s 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 the EPA’s right to take 

enforcement actions, as appropriate. 

The NPL is designed primarily for 

informational purposes and to assist the 

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 

the EPA’s rationale for deleting the Site 

from the NPL: 

Site Background and History 

The Whitehouse Oil Pits Superfund 

Site is an abandoned waste oil sludge 

disposal facility located in Whitehouse, 

about 10 miles west of downtown 

Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida. The 

Site occupies seven acres west of 

Chaffee Road, about four tenths of a 

mile north of U.S. Highway 90. Between 

1958 and 1968, Allied Petro Product, 

Inc. (Allied), disposed of contaminated 

acidic waste oil sludge from their oil 

reclaiming operations in seven unlined 

pits on the Site. Allied operated the Site 

as a repository for waste oil sludge and 

acidic oil re-refinery byproducts from 

1958 until 1968. The waste oil recovery 

process used an acid-clay process to 

form corrosive by-products including 

waste-acid tar and spent acidic clays. 

Allied constructed the first pits in 1958 

to dispose of waste oil sludge and acid 

from its oil reclaiming process, and by 

1968 the company had constructed and 

filled seven pits. The EPA later found 

that the waste contained Polycyclic 

Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), 

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) and 

heavy metals, which impacted soil, 

groundwater, surface water and 

sediment. Allied went bankrupt in 1968 

and the pits containing wastes were 

abandoned; the City of Jacksonville 

assumed ownership of the Site by tax 

default. 

In 1968, the diking around pit number 

7 ruptured and spilled waste into the 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules 33173 

McGirts Creek tributary and neighboring 

private properties. The pit was 

backfilled following this incident. The 

City of Jacksonville recognized the need 

to take action to prevent further spread 

of contamination. The Jacksonville 

Mosquito Control Branch began 

building water-oil separators with 

limestone filters at the Site, but was not 

able to finish construction due to budget 

issues. Wastewater from the pits 

continued to be released into the 

adjacent wetland area and the McGirts 

Creek tributary. These releases resulted 

in contamination of surface water and 

sediment. In 1976, the Jacksonville 

Mosquito Control Branch implemented 

a dike wall reconstruction project at the 

Site when an estimated 200,000 gallons 

of waste oil spilled on the adjacent land 

and creek. On June 29, 1976, the EPA 

Region 4’s Environmental Emergency 

Branch was contacted by the City of 

Jacksonville following the 200,000- 

gallon oil spill. The EPA began the spill 

assessment and cleanup of McGirts 

Creek under section 311 of the Clean 

Water Act, spending about $200,000 in 

the process. The EPA, in conjunction 

with the City of Jacksonville, 

constructed a treatment system to drain 

the pits. 

After draining water from the pits, the 

Jacksonville Mosquito Control Branch 

took measures to stabilize the ponds. 

Since the remaining viscous waste oil 

sludge would not support heavy 

construction equipment, the ponds were 

backfilled with selected construction 

debris, scrap lumber, trees, wood chips 

and non-degradable wastes. A threeinch layer of automobile shredder waste 

was placed on top of these materials. 

The liquid portion of the waste oil 

sludge was pumped off, mixed with a 

stabilizing agent, and then used as a 

backfill/sealer over the automobile 

shredder waste. The relatively 

impervious layer of stabilizing agent 

and oil was intended to prevent vertical 

percolation of rainwater. The stabilizing 

agent and oil mixture was covered with 

eight to twelve inches of clean earth 

(mostly sand). After the project ran out 

of stabilizing agent, local clay was 

substituted as a landfill capping 

material. The Site was then planted 

with local grasses and ditches were 

constructed to control drainage. 

In 1979, monitoring by the City of 

Jacksonville showed the continuing 

release of contaminants to surface water 

and groundwater which the City of 

Jacksonville attempted to address by 

covering the surface and sides of the 

pits and dike with six inches of lowpermeability local clay, followed by 

twelve inches of topsoil. This cover was 

revegetated using local grasses. The 

drainage was modified to control 

leachate seepage into the ditches. The 

dikes around the pits were strengthened 

and drop structures were constructed to 

control flow velocity and erosion in the 

ditches. The modified drainage 

configuration diverted surface water 

away from the landfill, thus reducing 

the mechanism for contaminant 

transport. This second stabilization 

project was completed during the 

summer of 1980. 

On December 30,1982 (47 FR 58476), 

the Site was proposed for listing on the 

EPA’s NPL. The Site’s listing on the 

NPL was finalized on September 8, 1983 

(48 FR 40865). The Site ID is 

FLD980602767. 

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility 

Study (RI/FS) 

In 1983, the Florida Department of 

Environmental Regulation (FDER), 

which is now referred to as the FDEP, 

completed a remedial investigation (RI) 

under a cooperative agreement with the 

EPA. The RI characterized Site wastes 

and the extent of contamination. The 

Site’s RI showed contamination of soil, 

groundwater, surface water, and 

sediment with numerous organic 

compounds, including PAHs and PCBs, 

and heavy metals. In 1985, the EPA 

completed a feasibility study (FS), 

which evaluated risk and remedial 

alternatives for the Site. The risk 

assessment indicated that the greater 

risk was posed by migration of 

contaminants into drinking water 

supplies. Several alternative remedies 

were considered: No action; no action 

with groundwater monitoring; 

excavation with variations that included 

a treatment or offsite disposal of soil, 

sludges, and sediment and treatment of 

groundwater; and excavation, 

extraction, and treatment supplemented 

by construction of a barrier wall to 

contain the remaining contaminated 

media and prevent its leaching into the 

groundwater and surface water. 

Ultimately, several remedies were 

required over time to address the 

contamination or prior remedy failures. 

The remedies were selected in a 1985 

Record of Decision (ROD), revised in an 

amended ROD (AROD) in 1992, and 

then further revised in the 1998 AROD 

based on additional investigations and a 

treatability study. An Explanation of 

Significant Differences (ESD) was issued 

in 2001. 

Selected Remedies 

1985 ROD 

Based on the findings of the 1985 RI/ 

FS, the EPA issued a ROD on May 30, 

1985. Remedial action objectives (RAOs) 

defined in the 1985 ROD included: 

1. Prevent further migration of 

contaminated groundwater into the 

underlying aquitard. 

2. Prevent contamination of the local 

drinking water supply. 

3. Reduce or eliminate migration of 

contamination to surface water. 

4. Eliminate the source sludge, treat 

the source sludge to a less hazardous or 

non-hazardous state, or contain the 

release of the hazardous pollutants 

offsite. 

5. Reduce or eliminate the migration 

of contaminated soils and sediments. 

The remedy components included in 

the 1985 ROD were: 

1. Installation of a slurry wall around 

the Site, isolating the waste. 

2. Recovery and treatment of 

contaminated groundwater within the 

walled area, thus contributing to waste 

isolation. 

3. Removal of contaminated sediment 

from the northeast tributary of McGirts 

Creek and placement within the 

isolation area. 

4. Construction of a surface cap over 

the Site to reduce the flow of water into 

the walled area. 

The 1985 ROD did not provide a 

tabulation of specific remediation goals. 

However, the goals were generally 

defined to meet the FDER’s drinking 

water standards and surface water 

quality criteria. Where no cleanup 

criteria had been established, the 

cleanup goals were set at background or 

minimal risk levels. 

1992 AROD 

The EPA began but suspended 

implementation of the 1985 remedy for 

several reasons, including failure of the 

cap, a determination that the 

groundwater treatment methodology 

was inappropriate for the Site, discovery 

that the analysis of the shallow aquifer 

was unreliable, and realization that the 

operations and maintenance costs were 

grossly underestimated. Moreover, in 

1986, Congress amended CERCLA by 

passing the Superfund Amendments 

and Reauthorization Act (SARA) which 

stressed the importance of permanent 

remedies. As a result, the EPA 

reevaluated the 1985 remedy and began 

to search for alternatives that would 

permanently and significantly reduce 

the mobility, toxicity, and volume of 

hazardous substances at the Site. The 

EPA conducted additional studies 

between 1989 and 1992. These studies 

included a baseline risk assessment, a 

supplemental feasibility study, and a 

treatability study in 1991 to examine a 

treatment train of soils washing, 

biological treatment and stabilization. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
33174 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

The studies led to the EPA’s issuance of 

an AROD on June 16, 1992 (the 1992 

AROD). Under the 1992 AROD, the 

cleanup objectives were to prevent 

current and future exposure to 

contaminated groundwater. 

The remedy components included in 

the 1992 AROD were: 

1. Excavation of contaminated waste 

pits. 

2. Separation of construction debris, 

stumps, etc., from contaminated soils 

and steam cleaning prior to offsite 

disposal. 

3. Volume reduction by soils washing. 

4. Biotreatment to biologically 

degrade wash water contaminants. 

5. Stabilization/solidification of 

biotreated material exceeding cleanup 

criteria. 

6. On-site disposal of washed soils 

and stabilization/solidification of 

contaminant fines and sludge. 

7. Extraction and treatment of 

contaminated groundwater using 

activated carbon and chemical 

precipitation, with discharge to the 

northeast tributary of McGirts Creek. 

8. Installation and maintenance of a 

six-inch vegetative cover over the 

excavated area. 

9. Installation and maintenance of a 

fence around the Site during remedial 

activities. 

10. Implementation of institutional 

controls (ICs), including deed 

restrictions. 

The 1992 AROD included 

contingencies if groundwater recovery 

and treatment were determined to be 

ineffective. Contingencies included: 

1. Containment measures involving 

engineering controls or long-term 

gradient controls. 

2. Waiver of chemical-specific ARARs 

for the aquifer based on the technical 

impracticability of achieving further 

contaminant reduction. 

3. Institutional controls for 

groundwater. 

4. Continued monitoring of on-site 

and off-site wells. 

Cleanup goals were developed for 

soils and groundwater in the 1992 

AROD. Following the signing of the 

1992 AROD, the EPA issued special 

notice letters to initiate negotiations 

with the potentially responsible parties 

(PRPs). Because a settlement could not 

be reached, the EPA proceeded with a 

fund-lead remedial design. During the 

design phase for the 1992 AROD 

remedy, the EPA discovered most of the 

components of the treatment train 

identified for source materials would 

not work. For example, lead 

concentrations and pH levels 

encountered in the waste sludge would 

be toxic to bacteria, rendering biological 

treatment ineffective. In April 1994, the 

EPA and the PRPs, the Whitehouse 

Remedial Action Group (WRAG), signed 

an Administrative Order on Consent 

(AOC) under which the PRPs conducted 

the additional studies. The results of 

those studies indicated that additional 

treatability and feasibility studies were 

required. In January1995, the WRAG 

agreed to modify the AOC with the EPA 

to perform the additional work. After 

completing these additional studies, the 

WRAG prepared and finalized the 

supplemental treatability and feasibility 

study (FS) in July 1997. 

1998 AROD 

Based on the treatability and 

feasibility study findings in July 1997, 

the EPA issued an AROD in September 

1998 to incorporate elements of the 

contingency remedy in the 1992 AROD, 

as well as elements of the original 1985 

ROD. The 1998 AROD addressed all 

contaminated media at the Site by 

containing the onsite waste sludge, 

contaminated soils, wetlands, sediment 

and groundwater. The remedy’s 

function was to isolate the Site as a 

source of groundwater and surface water 

contamination and reduce the risks 

associated with exposure to the 

contaminated materials. 

The major components of the selected 

remedy included: 

1. In-situ stabilization/solidification 

treatment of lifts 1 (topsoil and clay) 

and 2 (thin layer of shredded foam 

rubber and plastic overlying a layer of 

sawdust, wood chips, dimensional 

lumber, debris and silty sand) with a 

geogrid to enhance structural stability. 

2. Installation of a slurry wall (slurry 

wall or geosynthetic sheet pile wall) to 

isolate and contain contaminated soils, 

sludge, wetlands, sediments and 

groundwater. 

3. Installation of a lime curtain inside 

the containment system to adjust 

groundwater pH. 

4. Construction of a low permeability 

cap over the contained area that meets 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA) closure requirements under 

40 CFR 264.228(a)(2). 

5. Realignment of the McGirts Creek 

tributary to optimize the area of 

groundwater containment. 

6. Extension of the municipal water 

supply to residents along Machelle 

Drive and Chaffee Road and plugging of 

private supply wells. 

7. Installation of a permanent security 

fence around the containment area and 

installation and maintenance of 

appropriate storm water management 

controls. 

8. Monitored natural attenuation of 

contaminated groundwater outside the 

containment system. 

9. Sampling of offsite surface soils 

and downstream surface water and 

sediment during design to determine if 

additional measures are necessary. 

10. Imposition of deed restrictions to 

control future land and groundwater 

use. 

The AROD established cleanup goals 

for groundwater and soils based on 

federal or state primary maximum 

contaminant levels (MCLs) or risk based 

numbers. These cleanup goals and the 

source of the cleanup level can be found 

Tables 8–1 and 8–2 of the Final Risk 

Assessment, dated September 1, 1991, 

and Table 2–1 of the Final Remedial 

Action Report. Soils contaminants of 

concern addressed by the remedy 

include organic compounds (Benzene, 

Benzo(a)pyrene, Bis (2-Ethyl Hexyl) 

Phthalate, Chlorobenzene, 1,4- 

Dichlorochlorobenzene, Di-N-Butyl 

Phthalate, Methylene Chloride, 

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB) 1260, 

2-Methylnaphthalene, Naphthalene, 

Phenol, Tetrachloroethene, Toluene and 

Trichloroethene) and inorganic 

compounds (Antimony, Arsenic, 

Barium, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, 

Lead and Nickel). Groundwater 

contaminants of concern include 

organic compounds (Acetone, Benzene, 

Benzo(a)pyrene, Bis (2-Ehtyl Hexyl) 

Phthalate, Carbon Disulfide, Di-N-Butyl 

Phthalate, Ethylbenzene, Methyl Ethyl 

Ketone, 3/4 Methylphenol, 

Naphthalene, 2-Methylnaphthalene, 

Phenol, Toluene, Trichloroethene and 

Xylene) and inorganic compounds 

(Antimony, Arsenic, Barium, Cadmium, 

Chromium, Copper, Lead, Manganese, 

Nickel, Selenium, Vanadium and Zinc). 

2001 ESD 

An ESD was issued in 2001 to remove 

the lime curtain from the selected 

remedy due to concerns that it might 

adversely affect the sodium based slurry 

wall. The ESD also increased the size of 

the slurry wall, size of the cap, and area 

of the tributary to be realigned based on 

the discovery of additional 

contamination. 

Remedial action objectives (RAOs) 

established in the 1985 ROD and 

adopted in the 1998 AROD address 

groundwater, surface water, sludge, 

sediment and soils. The 2001 ESD did 

not alter the original RAOs. The RAOs 

include: 

1. Prevent further migration of 

contaminated groundwater into the 

underlying aquitard. 

2. Prevent contamination of the local 

drinking water supply. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules 33175 

3. Reduce or eliminate migration of 

contamination to surface water. 

4. Eliminate the source sludge, treat 

the source sludge to a less hazardous or 

non-hazardous state, or contain the 

release of the hazardous pollutants off 

site. 

5. Reduce or eliminate the migration 

of contaminated soils and sediments. 

Response Actions 

Response actions are discussed above. 

Construction of the remedy began in 

2003 and was completed in May 2007 

with the finalization of the Remedial 

Action Report. The City of Jacksonville, 

now the owner of the property 

comprising the Site, entered into a 

restrictive covenant with FDEP on 

January 27, 2011. This institutional 

control restricts activities on the 

property and the future use of the 

property. 

Cleanup Levels 

Groundwater sampling events have 

occurred at the Site since August 2006 

when the first year of operations 

maintenance and monitoring (OM&M) 

began and have continued over the last 

ten years under the thirty-year OM&M 

Plan. The groundwater levels are 

determined inside the barrier wall and 

groundwater levels and monitoring data 

are collected at monitoring wells 

outside of the barrier wall. 

Contaminants 1,4-dichlorobenzene, 

chlorobenzene, methylene chloride, 

tetrachloroethene, di-n-butyl phthalate, 

and PCB–1260 were sampled for during 

the first quarter of groundwater 

sampling. The sampling verified that 

these contaminants were not found at 

detectable levels outside of the barrier 

wall and would not require monitoring 

during future sampling. Manganese has 

been detected at levels slightly above 

the State of Florida secondary MCL of 

50 ppb upgradient and downgradient of 

the contaminant source. Therefore, the 

elevated manganese levels are not 

thought to be Site related. Monitoring 

for manganese will continue and action 

will be taken if levels continue to be 

elevated and are determined to be Site 

related. All other groundwater COCs 

were monitored regularly over the last 

ten years and their detected levels were 

below cleanup levels; this includes 

groundwater arsenic concentrations 

which have largely been below 1 mg/L. 

The highest reading was less than 

2 mg/L which is well below the current 

MCL of 10 mg/L. Groundwater is the 

only media that is monitored at the Site 

because the remaining contamination in 

soils and sediment is contained within 

a barrier wall and cap that prevents 

lateral contaminant migration. 

Operations, Monitoring and 

Maintenance (OM&M) 

The OM&M Plan for the Site was 

approved by the EPA and OM&M 

activities began in July 2006, and 

continue to this day. The scope of the 

OM&M Plan included monthly Site 

inspections to monitor the following 

components, except for passive gas 

management (quarterly) and wetland 

planting monitoring (semi-annual): 

1. Closure cap. 

2. Passive gas management system. 

3. Storm water management system. 

4. Created wetland planting areas. 

5. Site security system. 

6. Groundwater monitoring system. 

In addition to inspecting the remedial 

components above, the cap is mowed on 

a quarterly basis. Originally, water 

levels of wells inside and outside of the 

barrier wall were monitored on a 

monthly basis to evaluate the 

performance of the barrier wall. 

Groundwater wells were sampled semiannually for Volatile Organic 

Compounds (VOCs), Semi-Volatile 

Compounds (SVOCs) and metals. In 

April 2013, the EPA and FDEP agreed 

that sampling could be limited to 

metals. Now, the monitoring program 

consists of semi-annual monitoring of 

23 wells for metals only and semiannual water level monitoring of 23 

wells and 6 piezometers. At this time, 

all sampling data are below cleanup 

criteria. The Site is owned by the City 

of Jacksonville, which is part of the 

WRAG PRP group. ICs are maintained 

by the PRP group through OM&M 

inspections. City/county zoning and 

permitting requirements for land and 

groundwater use in the area add another 

layer of protection. 

Five-Year Reviews (FYR) 

Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c), 

42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq., and the EPA’s 

FYR Guidance, statutory FYRs are 

required for the Whitehouse Oil Pits 

Superfund Site because the completed 

remedy does not allow for unlimited use 

and unrestricted exposure. The first 

FYR was completed on November 13, 

2008, which was five years after onsite 

construction activities began. The 

second FYR was signed on May 7, 2014 

and indicated that the remedy was still 

protective of human health and the 

environment. A multilayered cap covers 

all impacted soils; a barrier wall 

contains the contaminated groundwater; 

and the municipal water supply was 

extended to residents who live near the 

Site. The cap, together with the 

containment provided by the slurry 

wall, prevents contamination from 

entering the groundwater and migrating 

offsite into the soil, groundwater, 

surface water, and sediment. 

The 2014 FYR stated the remedy was 

protective only in the short term and 

included two issues and 

recommendations. The Operations, 

Maintenance and Monitoring (OM&M) 

Plan did not include contingency 

activities to address groundwater 

overtopping the containment area and 

internal flow gradients had not been 

adequately monitored to assess the 

structural integrity of the containment 

system. Recommendations were made to 

continue to monitor metals 

concentrations in the groundwater and 

to modify the OM&M Plan. The OM&M 

Plan was modified in June 2015 to 

include more specific contingency 

actions to address groundwater 

overtopping the containment area and 

include monitoring of groundwater flow 

gradients inside and outside the barrier 

wall to assess the effectiveness of the 

containment remedy. Monitoring of 

groundwater for metals continues. 

Required actions were completed to 

make the Site protective of human 

health and the environment. However, 

the EPA does not consider groundwater 

overtopping the containment area to be 

a justifiable concern for several reasons: 

(1) The average depth of the barrier wall 

was designed to extend through the full 

depth of the surficial unconfined aquifer 

and key into the underlying semiconfining strata (estimated to be 40 ft.), 

thus, there can be no lateral or vertical 

movement of groundwater into the 

containment area; (2) the entire Site is 

covered with a multi-layered cap system 

with a permeability of at least 1E–07 

intended to shed any rainwater falling 

on the cap; (3) the cap system has a 

network of internal drains which carry 

any flows penetrating the cap to the 

ditch system surrounding the cap; and 

(4) there is no evidence that 

groundwater levels within the barrier 

wall are trending up. The Site will 

continue to be monitored as part of the 

OM&M Plan and the next FYR is due 

May 2019. 

Community Involvement 

Community involvement activities 

were undertaken throughout the thirtyyear history of the Site in the form of 

public meetings, FYR interviews and 

Site update mail-outs. There are 

currently no major community concerns 

about the Site. The FYR community 

involvement process will continue to 

monitor any potential community 

concerns. 

The residents of the surrounding 

neighborhood stated in the 2013 Site 

interviews that they are concerned 

about periodic flooding that occurs in 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
33176 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

their yards after heavy rains. However, 

the main factor that is contributing to 

flooding in the McGirts Creek floodplain 

is not Site related; the construction of 

dams by beavers in McGirts Creek is 

responsible for flooding problems in the 

area. In the past, the beaver dams were 

removed by the Site contractors as a 

courtesy, but has never been part of the 

actual OM&M Plan requirements. The 

beaver dam issue has been 

communicated to the residences of the 

surrounding neighborhood and the 

residents are responsible for taking any 

action to remove beaver dams in the 

future. 

Determination That the Site Meets the 

Criteria for Deletion in the NCP 

The implemented remedy achieves 

the degree of cleanup and protection 

specified in the RODs for the Site for all 

pathways of exposure. The selected 

remedy at the Site is protective of 

human health and the environment 

because all exposure pathways that 

could result in unacceptable risks are 

being controlled. Contamination 

remaining onsite is being contained to 

the capped portion. The barrier walls 

were designed and constructed to 

contain the contamination and prevent 

any lateral or vertical movement of 

groundwater in or out of the 

containment area; ICs are in place in the 

form of land and groundwater use 

restrictions. These ICs are in the form of 

a Declaration of Restrictive Covenant 

executed between FDEP and the City of 

Jacksonville. This IC was executed on 

the 2nd of February 2011, and restricts 

activities on the property and the future 

use of the property. All selected 

remedial and removal actions, remedial 

action objectives, and associated 

cleanup goals are consistent with the 

EPA policy and guidance; the EPA has 

followed the procedures required by 40 

CFR 300.425(e) and these actions, 

objectives and goals have all been 

achieved and, therefore, no further 

Superfund response is needed to protect 

human health and the environment. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous 

substances, Hazardous waste, 

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: July 3, 2018. 

Onis ‘‘Trey’’ Glenn, III, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2018–15242 Filed 7–16–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1989–0007; FRL–9980– 

69—Region 5] 

National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency 

Plan; National Priorities List: Partial 

Deletion of the Naval Industrial 

Reserve Ordnance Plant Superfund 

Site 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; notification of 

intent. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) Region 5 is issuing a 

Notice of Intent to Delete Operable Unit 

3 (OU3) of the Naval Industrial Reserve 

Ordnance Plant (NIROP) Superfund Site 

(Site), located in Fridley, Minnesota, 

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). EPA and the 

State of Minnesota, through the 

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 

(MPCA), have determined that all 

appropriate response actions at the OU, 

identified under CERCLA, other than 

operation, maintenance, and five-year 

reviews, have been completed. 

However, this partial deletion does not 

preclude future actions under 

Superfund. This partial deletion 

pertains to the OU3 portion of the 

NIROP Site, which includes all the 

unsaturated soils underlying the former 

Plating Shop Area of the NIROP 

Superfund Site. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

August 16, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID no. EPA–HQ– 

SFUND–1989–0007, by mail to 

Randolph Cano, NPL Deletion 

Coordinator, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency Region 5 (SR–6J), 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 

60604. Comments may also be 

submitted electronically or through 

hand delivery/courier by following the 

detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES

section of the direct final rule located in 

the Rules section of this issue of the 

Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Randolph Cano, NPL Deletion 

Coordinator, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency Region 5 (SR–6J), 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 

60604, (312) 886–6036, email: 

cano.randolph@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of this 

issue of the Federal Register, we are 

publishing a direct final Notice of 

Partial Deletion for OU3 of the NIROP 

Superfund Site without prior Notice of 

Intent for Partial Deletion because EPA 

views this as a noncontroversial 

revision and anticipates no adverse 

comment. We have explained our 

reasons for this partial deletion in the 

preamble to the direct final Notice of 

Partial Deletion, and those reasons are 

incorporated herein. If we receive no 

adverse comment(s) on this partial 

deletion action, we will not take further 

action on this Notification of Intent for 

Partial Deletion. If we receive adverse 

comment(s), we will withdraw the 

direct final Notice of Partial Deletion, 

and it will not take effect. We will then, 

as appropriate, address all public 

comments in a subsequent final Notice 

of Partial Deletion based on this 

Notification of Intent for Partial 

Deletion. We will not institute a second 

comment period on this Notification of 

Intent for Partial Deletion. Any parties 

interested in commenting must do so at 

this time. 

For additional information, see the 

direct final Notice of Partial Deletion 

which is located in the ‘‘Rules and 

Regulations’’ section of this issue of the 

Federal Register. 

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 25, 2018. 

Cathy Stepp, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2018–15241 Filed 7–16–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS