34508 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 140 / Friday, July 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen oxides, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: July 3, 2018. 

Peter D. Lopez, 

Regional Administrator, Region 2. 

[FR Doc. 2018–15623 Filed 7–20–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1989–0011; FRL–9981– 

00—Region 1] 

National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency 

Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion 

of the Union Chemical Co., Inc. 

Superfund Site 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) Region 1 is issuing a 

Notice of Intent to Delete the Union 

Chemical Co., Inc. Superfund Site (Site) 

located in South Hope, Maine, 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 State of Maine, through the 

Department of Environmental Protection 

(MEDEP), have determined that all 

appropriate response actions under 

CERCLA, other than operation and 

maintenance, monitoring and Five-Year 

Reviews, have been completed. 

However, this deletion does not 

preclude future actions under 

Superfund. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

August 20, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID no. EPA–HQ– 

SFUND–1989–0011, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the 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: connelly.terry@epa.gov or 

purnell.zanetta@epa.gov. 

• Mail: 

Terrence Connelly, U.S. EPA, 5 Post 

Office Square, Suite 100, Mail Code 

OSSR 07–1, Boston, MA 02109–3912 

ZaNetta Purnell, U.S. EPA, 5 Post Office 

Square, Suite 100, Mail Code OSSR 

01–1, Boston, MA 02109–3912 

Hand delivery: U.S. EPA, 5 Post Office 

Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA. 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–1989– 

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 1, Superfund 

Records Center, 5 Post Office Square, 

Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109, Phone: 

617–918–1440, Monday– Friday: 9:00 

a.m.–5:00 p.m., Saturday and Sunday— 

Closed. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Terrence Connelly, Remedial Project 

Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 1, Mail Code OSSR 07– 

1, 5 Post Office Square, Boston, MA 

02109–3912, (617) 918–1373, email 

connelly.terry@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. NPL Deletion Criteria 

III. Deletion Procedures 

IV. Basis for Site Deletion 

I. Introduction 

EPA Region 1 announces its intent to 

delete the Union Chemical Co., Inc 

Superfund Site (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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 140 / Friday, July 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules 34509 

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 Site and demonstrates 

how it meets the deletion criteria. 

II. NPL Deletion Criteria 

The NCP establishes the criteria that 

EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. 

In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), 

sites may be deleted from the NPL 

where no further response is 

appropriate. In making such a 

determination pursuant to 40 CFR 

300.425(e), EPA will consider, in 

consultation with the State, whether any 

of the following criteria have been met: 

i. Responsible parties or other persons 

have implemented all appropriate 

response actions required; 

ii. all appropriate Fund-financed 

response under CERCLA has been 

implemented, and no further response 

action by responsible parties is 

appropriate; or 

iii. the remedial investigation has 

shown that the release poses no 

significant threat to public health or the 

environment and, therefore, the taking 

of remedial measures is not appropriate. 

Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) 

and the NCP, EPA conducts Five-Year 

Reviews to ensure the continued 

protectiveness of remedial actions 

where hazardous substances, pollutants, 

or contaminants remain at a site above 

levels that allow for unlimited use and 

unrestricted exposure. EPA conducts 

such Five-Year Reviews even if a site is 

deleted from the NPL. EPA may initiate 

further action to ensure continued 

protectiveness at a deleted site if new 

information becomes available that 

indicates it is appropriate. Whenever 

there is a significant release from a site 

deleted from the NPL, the deleted site 

may be restored to the NPL without 

application of the hazard ranking 

system. 

III. Deletion Procedures 

The following procedures apply to 

deletion of the Site: 

(1) EPA consulted with the State 

before developing this Notice of Intent 

to Delete. 

(2) EPA has provided the State 30 

working days for review of this 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 State of Maine, through its 

Department of Environmental Protection 

(MEDEP), 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 Bangor Daily News. 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 repository 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 

repository 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 

The Union Chemical Co., Inc. 

Superfund Site, CERCLIS ID: 

MED042143883, is located in South 

Hope, Knox County, Maine, on the 

south side of Route 17 in a rural 

residential area. The Site is bounded by 

Quiggle Brook, a southerly flowing 

stream, on the east and southeast, by 

undeveloped forested land to the south 

and southwest and a vacant residential 

lot to the west. 

Union Chemical Company began 

operations in 1967, as a paint stripping 

and solvent manufacturing business. 

Initially, patented solvents were 

manufactured and utilized on the 

premises, and distributed nationally. 

The Company expanded operations to 

include the recycling of used stripping 

compounds and solvents from other 

businesses. Operations were further 

expanded in 1982 to include a fullscale, fluidized-bed incinerator to treat 

waste solvents and other compounds. 

Operations ceased in 1985. 

The risk assessment conducted during 

EPA’s Remedial Investigation indicated 

that there would be unacceptable 

carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks 

from future ingestion of the 

groundwater at the Site due to 

concentrations of contaminants. 

On June 24, 1988, EPA proposed the 

Site for listing on the NPL and on 

October 4, 1989, listing on the NPL was 

finalized. The Federal Register citations 

for these notices are FR Vol. 53, No. 122, 

23978–23986 and FR Vol. 54, No. 191, 

41015–41025, respectively. 

MEDEP closed the hazardous waste 

treatment operations at the Site in June 

1984. At that time approximately 2,000– 

2,500 55-gallon drums and 30 liquid 

storage tanks were present at the Site. 

These drums, their contents, and the 

contents of the storage tanks were 

removed by EPA and MEDEP by the end 

of November 1984. 

At present, contamination remains in 

the groundwater at the Site that EPA, 

with consent from MEDEP, determined 

in 2013 to be technically impracticable 

to restore. In 2017, a Declaration of 

Environmental Covenant, which among 

other things, prohibits the use of 

groundwater, was recorded in the chain 

of title for the properties comprising the 

Site. This deed restriction limits how 

the Site can be redeveloped. 

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility 

Study (RI/FS) 

The scope of the Remedial 

Investigation was comprehensive, 

evaluating the nature and extent of 

contamination in the facility’s buildings 

and underlying soils, unsaturated and 

saturated soils on the rest of the 

property, in groundwater in the 

overburden soils and in bedrock, and in 

surface water. Additionally, the 

Remedial Investigation collected soil 

samples from nearby properties to 

identify potential airborne 

contamination which may have 

occurred as a result of Union Chemical 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
34510 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 140 / Friday, July 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

Company’s past operation of the Site’s 

hazardous waste incinerator. 

The Feasibility Study screened seven 

on-site soil remedial alternatives, six 

alternatives for groundwater and surface 

water, five alternatives for the facilities, 

and two alternatives for off-site soils. 

All but one on-site soil alternative was 

retained for detailed analysis. The onsite soil alternatives analyzed in detail 

included No-Action; Limited Action; 

Site Capping; Soil Excavation and LowTemperature Thermal Aeration 

Treatment; In-Situ Soil Aeration; and 

Soil Excavation and High-Temperature 

Thermal Treatment. The groundwater 

and surface water alternatives analyzed 

in detail included No-Action; Limited 

Action; Groundwater Extraction with 

On-Site Treatment and Discharge to 

Quiggle Brook; Vacuum-Enhanced 

Groundwater Extraction with On-Site 

Treatment and Discharge to Quiggle 

Brook; Groundwater Extraction with 

On-Site Treatment and Reinjection; and 

Vacuum-Enhanced Groundwater 

Extraction with On-Site Treatment and 

Reinjection. The five alternatives for the 

facilities included No-Action; Limited 

Action; Facilities Decontamination only; 

Facilities Decontamination and 

Demolition; and Facilities Demolition 

and Disposal without Decontamination. 

The two off-site soil alternatives were 

No Action and Limited Action. 

Selected Remedy 

In the 1990 Record of Decision (ROD) 

EPA selected a remedy that specified 

decontamination and demolition of 

facilities with off-site disposal of debris; 

soil excavation with on-site lowtemperature thermal aeration; vacuumenhanced groundwater extraction, onsite treatment, and discharge of treated 

groundwater to Quiggle Brook with 

institutional controls; and limited action 

for off-site soils. 

The Remedial Investigation identified 

eight Remedial Action Objectives: 

1. Prevent further leaching and 

migration into the groundwater of 

contaminants in the soils on the Site, by 

removal and treatment of contaminants 

above specific concentrations 

throughout the Site. 

2. Provide rapid restoration of the 

contaminated groundwater throughout 

the Site, to concentrations that will 

protect current and future users, as well 

as natural resources (i.e., wildlife) that 

come into contact with the 

contaminants contained within the 

groundwater. 

3. Protect off-site groundwater and 

surface waters (particularly Quiggle 

Brook) by preventing further migration 

of the contaminated on-site 

groundwater. 

4. Prevent ingestion or absorption of 

contaminants (particularly dioxins) 

contained within the incinerator 

equipment remaining on the Site. 

5. Prevent inhalation of friable 

asbestos from the Still Building. 

6. Remove all existing structures 

located on the Site to allow for the 

cleanup of contaminated soils found 

throughout the Site. 

7. Remove all other contaminated 

materials from the facilities so that the 

Site will be suitable for all potential 

future uses. 

8. Further evaluate and, if necessary, 

minimize and/or mitigate any potential 

risks to public health and the 

environment from potential soil impacts 

due to contaminants which were 

previously emitted from the Union 

Chemical Company incinerator. 

In 1992, EPA entered into a Consent 

Decree with certain Settling Defendants 

to conduct Remedial Design and 

Remedial Action at the Site under EPA 

oversight. 

The remedy selected in the 1990 ROD 

was modified in 1994, 1997, and 2001 

by three Explanations of Significant 

Differences (ESD) and in 2013 by a ROD 

Amendment. In June 1994 EPA 

approved a request from the Settling 

Defendants to change the soil cleanup 

technology from low-temperature 

thermal aeration to soil vapor extraction 

(SVE) with hot air injection. In addition 

to the change in technology, EPA also 

set a deadline of five years for achieving 

the soil cleanup standards. 

EPA issued a second ESD for the Site 

in September 1997 that modified the 

remedy for off-site soils. The 1997 ESD 

changed the length of time specified in 

the ROD for meteorological data 

collection from five years to three years, 

thus moving forward the timeframe for 

collection of off-site soil samples to 

determine whether the operations of the 

Union Chemical Company incinerator 

resulted in deposition of contaminants 

off-site. 

A third ESD was issued in September 

2001 that documented a change in the 

technical approach for treatment of 

contaminated groundwater and changed 

the location for discharge of treated 

groundwater. Three innovative in situ 

addition treatment technologies, (i.e., 

potassium and sodium permanganate, 

concentrated hydrogen peroxide, and 

molasses and sodium lactate) were 

injected into groundwater in specific 

portions of the Site to treat 

contaminated groundwater. With fewer 

extraction wells needed to control 

contaminant migration, discharge of 

treated water changed from surface 

water discharge to reinjection into the 

ground upgradient of the extraction 

wells. 

In November 2013, EPA issued a ROD 

Amendment in which it waived 

groundwater cleanup levels due to 

technical impracticability. The ROD 

Amendment was necessary because (1) 

the original groundwater remedy had 

reached the limits of its effectiveness, 

(2) the three innovative in situ 

technologies had proven unsuccessful 

in attaining the groundwater cleanup 

standards, and (3) an evaluation of 

cleanup alternatives indicated that no 

technology was available for achieving 

groundwater cleanup standards in a 

reasonable timeframe due to Sitespecific hydrogeological and 

contaminant conditions. The ROD 

Amendment also adjusted institutional 

control requirements for the Site. 

Response Actions 

In October 1993 EPA approved the 

Facilities Remedial Design, and the 

decontamination and demolition of 

facilities and off-site disposal of debris 

was completed in the spring of 1994. 

Beginning in 1994 and continuing 

into 1996, on-site meteorological data 

was collected to support the off-site 

soils component of the ROD. In October 

1996 EPA and the Settling Defendants 

performed joint off-site soil 

investigation and in September 1997 

EPA issued an ESD documenting no 

further action was necessary for the offsite soils. 

In April 1995 EPA approved the SVE 

and groundwater Remedial Design. 

Construction included 28 SVE wells, 94 

hot air injection points, 33 groundwater 

extraction wells, and the integrated 

treatment system and was completed in 

December 1995. Both systems began 

operation in January 1996. In April 1997 

EPA and MEDEP performed a final 

inspection for both systems and 

declared that the remedy was 

operational and functional. 

The rate of mass removal of VOCs 

decreased dramatically between 1996 

and 1999 using the groundwater 

extraction system, indicating that the 

extraction system was becoming less 

efficient due to the Site-specific 

hydrogeologic and chemical limitations. 

EPA and MEDEP approved the Settling 

Defendants’ request to employ 

innovative in situ technologies to 

enhance the reduction of contaminant 

concentrations. The first technology 

involved the injection of permanganate. 

As a strong oxidizer, the permanganate 

was expected to accelerate the 

destruction of dissolved chlorinated 

VOCs. A potassium permanganate pilot 

study was completed in October 1997. 

Based on the results of that study, 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 140 / Friday, July 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules 34511 

potassium and sodium permanganate 

were used on an expanded basis in the 

summers of 1998, 1999, and 2000 in an 

attempt to achieve further reductions in 

VOC concentrations. 

The second in situ approach was 

carried out in June 2000 with the 

injection of 5% hydrogen peroxide 

solution into injection well P–17. This 

well was selected as it is in the central 

area of the source area where the highest 

VOC concentrations had been detected. 

Due to the low capacity of P–17 and 

concerns about the integrity of the 

mixing tank, EPA decided to discharge 

the remaining solution to several 

additional wells located immediately 

adjacent to well P–17. Comparison of 

baseline sampling results to four-week 

post addition results revealed VOC 

concentrations rebounded to their 

baseline levels, indicating that the VOC 

reductions initially achieved were shortterm and not sustained. 

Given the relative short half-lives of 

permanganate and hydrogen peroxide, 

carbon sources in the form of molasses 

and sodium lactate were added in 

August and November 2001 to create a 

reducing environment to enhance 

degradation of chlorinated ethane 

compounds by reductive 

dechlorination. Lactate addition was 

carried out again in August 2002. 

Cleanup Levels 

After EPA and MEDEP approval in 

March 1998, the Settling Defendants’ 

operation of the SVE system and hot air 

injection was discontinued to allow the 

soils to return to equilibrium prior to 

the closure-sampling program. Closure 

sampling was completed in the fall of 

1998. Statistical analysis of the data by 

three groups working independently 

indicated that the soils had been 

cleaned up to below the ROD-specified 

cleanup levels. 

Post-ROD groundwater and surface 

water monitoring began in the summer 

of 1992. The monitoring well network 

includes wells in the source area, in 

areas with the highest groundwater 

concentrations, and perimeter wells, 

near the downgradient boundaries of 

previously detectable concentrations. 

The monitoring leading up to the 2007 

Five-Year Review did not show any 

concentration increases in the perimeter 

wells, indicating that the plume had not 

expanded since the extraction system 

was deactivated in 2000. Subsequent 

monitoring has confirmed that the 

plume has stabilized, yet remains above 

the ROD-established performance 

standards. Consequently, EPA issued 

the ROD Amendment in 2013 that 

included a Technical Impracticability 

waiver recognizing groundwater 

performance standards would not be 

attained in a reasonable timeframe 

because of Site geology, hydrology, and 

characteristics of the contaminants. 

Long-term groundwater monitoring will 

continue to be performed to ensure that 

the plume is stable and not migrating 

out of a designated Technical 

Impracticability Zone, which reaches 

the Site property boundaries except for 

the upgradient northwest corner of the 

Site. 

Operation and Maintenance 

The Operation and Maintenance 

(O&M) activities associated with the Site 

have been periodically updated as the 

on-site soil component was completed 

and again when active groundwater 

restoration ceased. O&M activities now 

consist of annual inspections, long-term 

monitoring of groundwater and surface 

water every other year, and ongoing 

decommissioning of the treatment 

building and redundant monitoring 

wells. These activities are outlined in 

bi-annual work plans that are submitted 

and implemented after EPA and MEDEP 

review and approval. 

Following acceptance of the soil 

closure sampling results, unused wells 

and piping were decommissioned in 

accordance with the O&M Plan. 

The extraction system has been 

deactivated. The effluent discharge line 

from the treatment building was flushed 

out, then disconnected below the 

ground surface and grouted. The 

external piping from the groundwater 

extraction wells was removed, and 

groups of extraction wells were 

decommissioned in 2005, 2006, and 

2010. 

The 1990 ROD and 2013 ROD 

Amendment required the 

implementation of institutional controls 

for the Site Property and nearby 

properties to protect human health and 

the environment. On August 2, 2017, 

MEDEP recorded a Declaration of 

Environmental Covenant in the chain of 

title for the two lots comprising the Site 

(collectively, Site Property) at the Knox 

County Registry of Deeds (Volume 5192, 

Page 306). Pursuant to Maine’s Uniform 

Environmental Covenants Act, MEDEP, 

as the receiver of the Site Property 

pursuant to a 1986 court order, granted 

the property rights under the 

Declaration of Environmental Covenant 

to itself, and will also serve as the 

holder of these property interests. EPA 

has third party rights of enforcement 

under the instrument. Among other 

things, the Declaration of Environmental 

Covenant: (1) Prohibits the extraction of 

groundwater; (2) prohibits the 

destruction, obstruction, tampering, or 

disruption of wells; (3) prohibits the 

discharge or injection of liquids to the 

subsurface; (4) prohibits the 

accumulation, storage, or stockpiling of 

wastes, as defined in Maine Solid Waste 

Management Rules, Chapter 400, and 

operation of a junkyard or automotive 

scrapyard, as defined in 30 M.R.S. 

§ 3752; (5) requires a sub-slab vapor 

barrier and ventilation system or a subslab depressurization system for any 

constructed buildings, and (6) provides 

for EPA and MEDEP access to the Site 

Property. 

In addition to institutional controls 

for the Site Property, the 1990 ROD also 

identified a number of institutional 

controls that could be taken for 

properties beyond the Site Property. 

These controls included a restriction on 

the use of groundwater from existing 

bedrock wells that are hydraulically 

connected to the Site, specifically the 

well on Town of Hope’s Tax Map 8 Lot 

45, and advisory controls (e.g., well 

advisories) on surrounding properties. 

The Settling Defendants entered into 

a Lease and Indenture Agreement with 

the owners of Map 8 Lot 45 on May 18, 

1992 and the State of Maine, acting by 

and through MEDEP. This agreement 

prohibited the use of the bedrock well 

in perpetuity unless released by the 

Settling Defendants and MEDEP. 

The 2013 ROD Amendment also calls 

for environmental deed restrictions or 

other mechanisms to limit the use of 

properties adjacent to the Site, as 

deemed necessary by EPA based on new 

information including but not limited to 

the development (or installation of 

drinking water wells) on properties 

adjacent to the Site or movement of the 

leading edge of either plume. To date, 

EPA has not determined that it is 

necessary to implement other land use 

restrictions on the properties adjacent to 

the Site. 

With the recording of the Declaration 

of Environmental Covenant, the criteria 

for EPA’s Sitewide Ready for 

Anticipated Use Government 

Performance and Results Act Measure 

were complete, and EPA Region 1 

signed the Superfund Property Reuse 

Evaluation Checklist for Reporting on 

August 17, 2017. 

Five-Year Review 

EPA conducts Five-Year Reviews of 

the Site because hazardous substances, 

pollutants, or contaminants remain onsite above levels that allow for 

unlimited use and unrestricted 

exposure. These reviews are statutory 

and four have been completed with the 

most recent one completed in 

September 2017. 

The 2017 Five-Year Review 

concluded the remedy currently 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
34512 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 140 / Friday, July 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

protects human health and the 

environment because MEDEP is the 

court-appointed receiver of the Site 

Property and as such, use of the Site 

Property is controlled by MEDEP, there 

is no evidence of current exposure, 

institutional controls are in place, 

access to the Site is assured, and longterm monitoring continues. The 2017 

Five-Year Review identified one issue, 

the potential presence of the chemicals 

perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), 

perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), 

and 1,4-dioxane, and recommended 

they be included in an upcoming 

monitoring event to determine if these 

compounds are associated with the Site. 

Pursuant to that Five-Year Review 

recommendation, on October 23, 2017, 

the Settling Defendants collected 

groundwater and surface water samples 

for PFOA and PFOS from two 

overburden wells, two bedrock wells, 

and two surface water locations. The 

samples were analyzed via EPA Method 

537, Version 1.1. Modified, and QA/QC 

review determined that results were of 

acceptable quality. Three of the four 

wells had concentrations below EPA’s 

drinking water advisory level of 70 ng/ 

L (nanograms per liter or parts per 

trillion) for both PFOA and PFOS. 

The overburden well with the 

exceedance of both PFOA and PFOS is 

historically the most contaminated well 

in the ongoing long-term Site 

monitoring and is located immediately 

downgradient of the former facility’s 

discharge trench. The other overburden 

well and the two bedrock wells are 

located 150–450 feet farther 

downgradient from the well with the 

exceedance (and for the bedrock wells, 

the property boundary is another 200 

feet or more downgradient beyond 

them). All the wells are within the 

Technical Impracticability Zone created 

under the 2013 ROD Amendment. 

In the two surface water samples 

collected from Quiggle Brook, PFOS and 

PFOA were not individually detected at 

concentrations exceeding the method 

detection limit of 1.0 ng/L but had 

estimated PFOA concentrations at the 

instrument detection limit of 1.0 ng/L at 

the location upstream of the Site and 0.8 

ng/L at the long-term surface water 

monitoring location. There is no EPA 

advisory level for surface water. Maine 

Center for Disease Control has 

established a surface water advisory 

level of 170 ng/L based on recreational 

exposure (swimming and wading) and 

these sample results are below that 

surface water advisory level. 

In 2010, 1,4-dioxane was added to the 

monitoring program. Due to the elevated 

levels of other compounds in eight of 

the ten wells in the monitoring program, 

the samples were diluted for analysis 

and correspondingly, the Reported 

Detection Limits (RDL) were raised. 

Consequently, the 1,4-dioxane levels 

were reported as below the specific 

reporting limit, ranging from <20 ppb to 

<2,000 ppb. However, in the four 

monitoring events, 2010, 2012, 2014, 

and 2016, as the RDL has dropped in 

five of the eight wells, 1,4-dioxane 

remained below the reporting limit. Of 

the two wells where 1,4-dio+xane has 

been detected, the concentrations have 

decreased so that the latest results are 

now also below their respective 

reporting limits of <20 and <100 ppb. 

There is no Maximum Contaminant 

Level standard for 1,4-dioxane nor was 

1,4-dioxane included the 1992 Maine 

Maximum Exposure Guidelines (ME 

MEGs), which is the Applicable or 

Relevant and Appropriate Requirement. 

The current, but unpromulgated ME 

MEG for 1,4-dioxane is 4 ppb. 

With the recent PFAS sampling 

indicating one exceedance in four 

monitoring wells in the Technical 

Impracticability Zone, PFAS will be 

added to the long-term monitoring 

program coincident with every 

monitoring event that precedes a FiveYear Review. 

Community Involvement 

There was an established community 

group, Hope Committee for a Clean 

Environment (HCCE) that was active 

during the RI/FS and received support 

through an EPA technical assistance 

grant. From 1992 through the early 

2000s, while Remedial Design and then 

active remediation of the on-site soils 

and groundwater, and investigation of 

the off-site soils were underway, HCCE 

met regularly with EPA, MEDEP, and 

the Settling Defendants’ Project 

Coordinator. With the termination of the 

in situ technologies, these meetings 

ceased. Communication between HCCE, 

EPA, and MEDEP is now primarily 

through email. In 2005–2006, EPA 

convened meetings with community 

members to develop re-use options. 

EPA and MEDEP have met frequently 

with the Hope Town Administrator and 

have periodically updated the Board of 

Selectmen. In June 2015, EPA and 

MEDEP attended the Town of Hope’s 

Annual Meeting. At that meeting, the 

Town voted not to assume ownership of 

the Site Property should MEDEP’s 

receivership of the Site Property end. 

The Town reaffirmed this position in an 

October 10, 2017 letter to MEDEP. 

Beyond these meetings and periodic 

communication with HCCE and owners 

of a right-of-way easement across the 

Site Property, there has been little 

participation or involvement from other 

members of the local community. 

EPA discussed the deletion process 

with the Town Administrator and 

offered to meet with the Board of 

Selectmen if the Town desired a 

presentation. Additionally, EPA 

contacted the HCCE to inform the group 

of EPA’s plan to delete the Site. 

Determination That the Site Meets the 

Criteria for Deletion in the NCP 

Remedial Design and Remedial 

Action (RD/RA) activities at the Site 

were consistent with the ROD, as 

modified by the ESDs and the ROD 

Amendment, and consistent with EPA 

RD/RA Statements of Work provided to 

the Settling Defendants. RA plans for all 

phases of construction included a 

Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) 

dated February 17, 1995 and QAPP 

Revision 1, dated September 22, 2001. 

The QAPP incorporated all EPA and 

Maine quality assurance and quality 

control procedures and protocols (where 

necessary). All procedures and 

protocols were followed for soil, 

groundwater, and surface water 

sampling during the RA. EPA analytical 

methods were used for all validation 

and monitoring samples during all RA 

activities. EPA has determined that the 

analytical results are accurate to the 

degree needed to assure satisfactory 

execution of the RA, and are consistent 

with the ROD and the RD/RA plans and 

specifications. 

All institutional controls are in place 

and currently EPA expects that no 

further Superfund response is needed to 

protect human health and the 

environment, except future Five-Year 

Reviews and ongoing long-term 

monitoring. O&M activities were agreed 

upon by EPA and the Settling 

Defendants and are documented in the 

October 2006 O&M Manual. These 

activities include continuing 

decommissioning of redundant wells, 

securing the functioning wells, and 

maintenance of the soil cap. 

This Site meets all the site completion 

requirements as specified in OSWER 

Directive 9320.2–09–A–P, Close Out 

Procedures for National Priorities List 

Sites. All cleanup actions specified in 

the ROD, as modified by the ESDs and 

ROD Amendment have been 

implemented and the implemented 

remedy has achieved the degree of 

cleanup or protection specified in the 

ROD, as modified by the ESDs and ROD 

Amendment, for all pathways of 

exposure. 

Confirmatory groundwater monitoring 

and institutional controls provide 

further assurance that the Site no longer 

poses any threats to human health or the 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 140 / Friday, July 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules 34513 

environment. The only remaining 

activity to be performed are Five-Year 

Reviews, monitoring, and O&M 

activities described above. A 

bibliography of all reports relevant to 

the completion of this Site under the 

Superfund program is in the 

administrative record for this deletion. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 

Environmental protection, 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: July 9, 2018. 

Alexandra Dunn, 

Regional Administrator, Region 1. 

[FR Doc. 2018–15622 Filed 7–19–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–2005–0011; FRL–9981– 

02—Region 1] 

National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency 

Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion 

of the Old Southington Landfill 

Superfund Site 

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) Region 1 is 

issuing a Notice of Intent to Delete the 

Old Southington Landfill Superfund 

Site (Site) located at Old Turnpike Road, 

Southington, Connecticut (CT), from the 

National Priorities List (NPL) and 

requests public comments on this 

proposed action. The NPL was 

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 Connecticut, through the CT 

Department of Energy and 

Environmental Protection (CT DEEP), 

have determined that all appropriate 

response actions under CERCLA, other 

than operation and maintenance, 

monitoring, and five-year reviews, have 

been completed. However, this deletion 

does not preclude future actions under 

CERCLA. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

August 20, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID no. EPA–HQ– 

SFUND–2005–0011, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Online: 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 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

• Email: silva.almerinda@epa.gov or 

Purnell.ZaNetta@epa.gov. 

• Mail: 

Almerinda Silva, U.S. EPA, Region 1— 

New England, 5 Post Office Square, 

Suite 100, Mail Code OSSR–07–4, 

Boston, MA 02109–3912 

ZaNetta Purnell, U.S. EPA, Region 1— 

New England, 5 Post Office Square, 

Suite 100, Mail Code OSSR–ORA01– 

1, Boston, MA 02109–3912 

• Hand delivery: U.S. EPA, Region 

1—New England, 5 Post Office Square, 

Suite 100, Boston, MA. 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, i.e., 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 1—New England, 

Superfund Records Center, 5 Post Office 

Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109, 

Phone: 617–918–1440, Hours: Monday– 

Friday: 9:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m., Saturday 

and Sunday—Closed. 

Southington Public Library, 255 Main 

Street, Southington, CT, Phone: 860– 

628–0947, Hours: Monday–Thursday 

9:00 a.m.–9:00 p.m., Friday–Saturday 

9:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m., and Sunday 

Closed. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Almerinda Silva, Remedial Project 

Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 1—New England 

OSRR07–4, 5 Post Office Square, 

Boston, MA 02109–3912, Phone: (617) 

918–1246, email silva.almerinda@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. NPL Deletion Criteria 

III. Deletion Procedures 

IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS