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

• 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. 

• Email: greaves.david@epa.gov. 

• Mail: U.S. EPA Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. 

• 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: greaves.david@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. NPL Deletion Criteria 

III. Deletion Procedures 

IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion 

I. Introduction 

EPA Region 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 Fundfinanced remedial actions if future 

conditions warrant such actions. 

EPA will accept comments on the 

proposal to delete this Site for thirty 

(30) days after publication of this 

document in the Federal Register. 

Section II of this document explains 

the criteria for deleting sites from the 

NPL. Section III discusses procedures 

that EPA is using for this action. Section 

IV discusses the Dorney Road Landfill 

Superfund Site and demonstrates how it 

meets the deletion criteria. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
33178 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

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 


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

• Air sampling; 

• On-site surface water and seep 

sampling; 

• On-site sediment sampling; 

• On-site and off-site, surface and 

subsurface soil sampling; 

• Monitoring well installation; 

• Groundwater monitoring well and 

residential well sampling; 

• Hydraulic conductivity testing; 

• Fracture trace analysis; 

• Surface geophysical investigation. 

The major field activities performed 

during Phase II of the OU1 RI included: 

• Installed one deep well off-site 

(MW–6) to the southeast to obtain 

downgradient groundwater data. 

• Installed an off-site well nest (MW– 

7/7D) to the northwest of the landfill to 

provide additional groundwater quality 

data and flow information. 

• 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. 

• 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. 

• Obtained six additional 

groundwater samples (MW–6, 7, 7D, 

two rounds) and analyzed for unfiltered 

metals. 

• 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 onsite 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 largescale 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 offsite migration of contamination, and to 

provide data concerning the on-site 

vertical and horizontal extent of 

contamination. For comparison to onsite 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: 

• Elimination of on-site ponded waters 

• Regrading 

• Pennsylvania-Type Multi-layer Cap 

• Run-on/Run-off Controls 

• Run-off Monitoring 

• Groundwater Monitoring 

• Perimeter Fence 

• Deed Notice 

The Remedial Action objectives 

(RAOs) were not explicitly stated in the 

ROD for OU1. The following RAOs were 

inferred: 

• Control contaminant migration offsite by containment of contaminated 

landfill soil and waste material; 

• Prevent dermal contact and 

incidental ingestion; and 

• 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: 

• Wellhead treatment units to be 

provided to residences if levels of siterelated contaminants exceeded federal 

Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs); 

• 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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
33180 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

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: 

• 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; 

• Monitoring well abandonment; 

• 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; 

• Landfill regrading to achieve the 

grades and slopes for the acceptance of 

the cover system; 

• Subgrade preparation which 

involved grading and placement of 

compacted general fill; 

• 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. 

• 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; 

• A geotextile was placed over the gas 

venting layer prior to installation of the 

grading layer; 

• 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; 

• On the top of the landfill, a 

geotextile cushion layer was placed over 

the geomembrane to protect it from the 

overlying sand drainage layer; 

• A sand drainage layer was put in 

place and another separation geotextile 

was put on top of the drainage layer; 

• 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; 

• A vegetative layer was the final 

cover; 

• 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; 

• A replacement wetland was 

constructed, which also serves as a 

stormwater drainage area; and 

• 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 prefinal 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 Siterelated 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 


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

§§ 264.90–264.100, specifically 25 PA 

Code § 264.97(i) and (j) and 

§ 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 Siterelated 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 Siterelated 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 EPAapproved August 1995 OU1 O&M Plan 

and January 1996 OU2 O&M Plan. The 

primary activities associated with O&M 

include the following: 

• 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; 

• Inspection of the drainage swales 

for blockage, erosion and instability, 

and any need for corrective action; 

• Inspection of the condition of the 

groundwater monitoring wells; 

• Quarterly groundwater monitoring, 

which includes monitoring of the 

landfill wells and residential wells; and 

• 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: 

• Unilateral Administrative Order 

Docket No. III–98–011–DC, March 3, 

1998, for access to conduct RA 

• Unilateral Administrative Order for 

Access Docket No. III–96–79–DC, 

September 18, 1996, for access to 

conduct RA 

• Administrative Order by Consent, 

Docket No. III–97–84–DC, May 14, 

1997, for access and resolution of 

liability 

• Administrative Order by Consent 

Docket No. III–97–85–DC, May 14, 

1997, for access and resolution of 

liability 

• Administrative Order for Access 

Docket No. III–98–013–DC, for access 

to conduct RA 

• Docket No. III–98–012–DC, March 3, 

1998, for access to conduct RA, 

respondent In Rem 

• 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.’’ 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
33182 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

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: 

• Interviews of Township officials for 

Five-Year Reviews 

• 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 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–2000–0003; FRL–9980– 

72—Region 4] 

National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency 

Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion 

of the Davis Timber Company 

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 Davis 

Timber Company Superfund Site (Site) 

located in Hattiesburg, Lamar County, 

Mississippi, 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). The EPA and 

the State of Mississippi (State), through 

the Mississippi Department of 

Environmental Quality (MDEQ), have 

determined that all appropriate 

response actions under CERCLA, other 

than operations and maintenance 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–2000–0003, 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: Scott Martin, Remedial 

Project Manager, martin.scott@epa.gov. 

(3) Mail: Scott Martin, 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: Scott Martin, 

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– 

8951. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID no. EPA–HQ–SFUND–2000– 

0003. EPA 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 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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS