36844 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

completed and available in the local 

repository or from the State or EPA. 

• Monthly site status summaries that 

were made available to the public or 

more recently, updates to site activities 

made on the site web page available on 

the internet. 

• September 23, 2010, newspaper 

article in the Albuquerque Journal 

concerning the closure of the General 

Electric plant. 

• Discussion of the site at public 

meetings associated with the Sunport 

Boulevard Extension from 

approximately 2010 to the present. 

• Fact sheets and public notices have 

been provided in both English and 

Spanish. 

Determination That the Criteria for 

Deletion Have Been Met 

The implemented remedies have 

achieved the degree of cleanup or 

protection specified in the OU1, OU2, 

and OU5 RODs for the portions of the 

Site proposed for deletion. The selected 

remedial action goals and associated 

cleanup levels for the OU1, OU2, and 

OU5 portions of the Site proposed for 

deletion are consistent with EPA policy 

and guidance. No further Superfund 

response for the OU1, OU2, and OU5 

portions of the Site proposed for 

deletion are needed to protect human 

health and the environment. The State 

of New Mexico, in an August 11, 2017, 

letter from the New Mexico 

Environment Department, concurred 

with the proposed partial deletion of the 

OU1, OU2, and OU5 portions of the Site 

from the NPL. 

The NCP specifies that EPA may 

delete a site from the NPL if all 

appropriate response under CERCLA 

has been implemented and no further 

response action is appropriate. 40 CFR 

300.425(e)(1)(ii). EPA, with the 

concurrence of the State of New Mexico, 

through NMED, believes that this 

criterion for the deletion of the OU1, 

OU2, and OU5 portions of the Site has 

been met and the OU1, OU2, and OU5 

portions of the Site no longer pose a 

threat to public health or the 

environment. Consequently, EPA is 

proposing to delete the OU1, OU2, and 

OU5 portions of the Site from the NPL. 

Documents supporting this action are 

available in the Docket. 

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: July 19, 2018. 

Arturo Blanco, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2018–16257 Filed 7–30–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–2002–0001; FRL–9981– 

51—Region 4] 

National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency 

Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion 

of the Reasor Chemical Company 

Superfund Site 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) Region 4 is issuing a 

Notice of Intent to Delete the Reasor 

Chemical Company Superfund Site 

(site) located in Castle Hayne, New 

Hanover County, North Carolina, 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 North Carolina, through the 

North Carolina Department of 

Environmental Quality (NCDEQ), have 

determined that all appropriate 

response actions under CERCLA have 

been completed. However, this deletion 

does not preclude future actions under 

Superfund. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

August 30, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID no. EPA–HQ– 

SFUND–2002–0001, by one of the 

following methods: 

• 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. 

• Email: URQUHARTFOSTER.SAMANTHA@EPA.GOV. 

• Mail: Samantha Urquhart-Foster, 

Remedial Project Manager, Remediation 

and Site Evaluation Branch, Superfund 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

• Hand delivery: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth 

Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

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–2002– 

0001. 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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2018 / Proposed Rules 36845 

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 Record Center, attention: 

Ms. Tina Terrell, Atlanta Federal Center, 

61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 

30303–8960. Phone: 404–562–8835. 

Hours: 8 a.m.–4 p.m., Monday through 

Friday by appointment only; and 

• New Hanover County Library, 201 

Chestnut Street, Wilmington, North 

Carolina 28401. Phone: 910–798–6391. 

Hours: 9 a.m.–5 p.m., Monday through 

Saturday. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Samantha Urquhart-Foster, Remedial 

Project Manager, Remediation and Site 

Evaluation Branch, Superfund Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, 

Georgia 30303–8960. Phone: 404–562– 

8760, email: URQUHARTFOSTER.SAMANTHA@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 4 announces its intent to 

delete the Reasor Chemical Company 

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 Reasor Chemical 

Company Superfund 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. 

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 North Carolina, 

through the NCDEQ, 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 Wilmington Star-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 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 

The Reasor Chemical Company Site 

(EPA ID: NCD986187094) is located at 

5100 North College Road (Hwy. 132), in 

Castle Hayne, New Hanover County, 

North Carolina. Castle Hayne is 

approximately 13 miles north of 

Wilmington, NC. The site is an 

abandoned stump rendering facility, 

which operated from 1959 to 1972 

under the name of Reasor Chemical 

Company. The site property consists of 

one parcel of 25.59 acres. A fire and 

possible explosion occurred on the 

property on April 7, 1972, which 

damaged and destroyed the remaining 

buildings and material on the site 

property. The property currently is 

unused, unoccupied, and covered with 

native brush and secondary growth 

forest. 

The former Reasor Chemical 

Company reportedly produced 

turpentine, pine resin, pitch, tall oil, 

pine oil, camphor, pine tar, and 

charcoal from pine tree stumps. It is 

believed that the facility used various 

solvents to extract raw product from 

chipped stumps, distilling the extract 

into separate product fractions. The 

solvents used in the extraction process 

were likely stored on-site in 55-gallon 

drums, the remains of which were in a 

surface drum disposal area near the 

center of the property. It is thought that 

four of the five onsite ponds were used 

in the manufacturing process. Those 

four ponds contained sediments with 

elevated concentrations of volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs), semiVerDate Sep<11>2014 16:40 Jul 30, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\31JYP1.SGM 31JYP1

daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
36846 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) 

including polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbons (PAHs), and inorganic 

compounds. An area thought to have 

been used to store scrap copper metal 

was also present, which had elevated 

concentrations of copper and lead. 

EPA proposed listing the site on the 

NPL on September 13, 2001 (66 FR 

47612), and finalized the listing on 

September 5, 2002 (67 FR 56757). The 

property is currently undeveloped. The 

Site is currently zoned industrial. 

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility 

Study (RI/FS) 

During 1996 through 2002, Roy F. 

Weston, Inc. (WESTON) performed the 

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility 

Study (RI/FS) for EPA. During 2000 

through 2002, EPA Region 4’s Science 

and Ecosystem Support Division (SESD) 

completed the Ecological Risk 

Assessment (ERA). Investigations at the 

site revealed the presence of metals, 

VOCs, and SVOCs above risk-based 

screening values. 

The human health risk assessment 

identified risks for potential future onsite workers and residents. These risks 

were primarily associated with drinking 

shallow groundwater and ingestion of or 

dermal contact with soils. The 

ecological risk assessment indicated that 

risks were posed to ecological receptors 

from contact with or ingestion of surface 

water, soil, and sediment. 

Selected Remedy 

EPA’s Record of Decision (ROD) was 

signed on September 26, 2002, and the 

North Carolina Department of 

Environment and Natural Resources, 

(now known as the North Carolina 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(NCDEQ)), concurred with the selected 

remedy. EPA revised the remedy in a 

ROD Amendment dated June 1, 2007. 

The amended selected remedy included 

the following: 

• Soil and sediment: Excavation and 

off-site disposal, backfill the excavated 

soil areas and vegetate with native plant 

species, and return the former ponds to 

wetland habitats. 

• Surface water: On-site treatment 

and disposal. 

• Groundwater: Backfill the drum 

disposal area with an alkaline substance 

to raise the pH of shallow groundwater, 

perform annual monitoring of 

groundwater to determine if 

contaminants of concern (COCs) 

continue to be elevated, and attach a 

‘‘Declaration of Perpetual Land Use 

Restrictions’’ to the property title that 

prohibits the use of shallow 

groundwater for any purpose. 

The Remedial Action Objectives 

(RAOs) for the site were: 

• Sediment: Prevent further migration 

of contaminants from sediment to 

groundwater and surface water above 

levels exceeding groundwater and 

surface water clean-up goals; eliminate 

exposure of ecological receptors to 

contaminated sediment; achieve 

ecological risk-based sediment clean-up 

goals for: Methyl ethyl ketone, toluene, 

(3 and/or 4)-methylphenol, total PAHs, 

and copper. 

• Surface water: Prevent further 

migration of contaminants above cleanup goals from Ponds 1, 2, 3 and 4, to 

soil, groundwater and down-gradient 

surface water bodies; eliminate 

exposure to contaminated surface water 

above levels exceeding clean-up goals 

by aquatic receptors; achieve the North 

Carolina Surface Water Quality 

Standards (NCAC Title 15A, Chapter 2, 

Subchapter 2B.0100 and 2B.0200) in 

Ponds 1, 2, 3 and 4 for: Copper, lead, 

iron and zinc. 

• Soil: Prevent further migration of 

contaminants from soil to groundwater 

and surface water above levels 

exceeding groundwater and surface 

water clean-up goals; eliminate 

unacceptable risk to human health and 

the environment; achieve the human 

health and ecological risk based cleanup goals for: Benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b &/ 

or k)fluoranthene, dibenzo(a,h) 

anthracene, antimony, copper and lead. 

• Groundwater: Prevent human 

consumption of contaminated 

groundwater until risk-based standards 

for aluminum, and Safe Drinking Water 

Act’s Maximum Contaminant Levels 

(MCLs) for beryllium, chromium and 

nickel, are attained. 

Response Actions 

The Remedial Design (RD) was 

completed by EPA between September 

2002 and January 2004. EPA and the 

Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) 

entered a Consent Decree in which the 

PRPs agreed to conduct the Remedial 

Action (RA). The PRPs began the RA on 

June 4, 2007 utilizing the remedial 

actions outlined in the 2007 ROD 

Amendment. Apex Companies, LLC 

(Apex) was retained by the PRPs and 

performed all the of the RA work 

described below. The RA for soil, 

sediment and surface water was 

completed in July 2007 and the 

Preliminary Close-Out Report was 

issued in September 2007. The Interim 

Remedial Action and Final Remediation 

Report, Revision 3, was issued in 

August 2008. 

Approximately 140,000 gallons of 

contaminated water was treated and 

discharged on site. Approximately 2,000 

tons of contaminated soils and 

sediments were excavated and disposed 

of in off-site landfills. After excavation 

and confirmation sampling, the ponds 

were allowed to naturally refill with 

water and vegetate. The soil excavation 

areas were backfilled and allowed to 

naturally vegetate. Lime was applied in 

the area of monitoring wells MW–7S 

and MW–7D in order to increase the 

groundwater pH. Increasing the pH of 

groundwater is intended to lower 

concentrations of metals in the 

groundwater in this area. Institutional 

controls in the form of a Declaration of 

Perpetual Land Use Restriction were 

filed with the property deed in 2008. 

Annual sampling of groundwater 

monitoring wells MW–7S and MW–7D 

was performed when appropriate pH 

and turbidity levels permitted. 

Collection of samples for laboratory 

analysis was only required if the pH was 

between 7.2 and 8.5 using best efforts to 

reduce turbidity. Annual sampling 

events were attempted on February 11, 

2008, January 28, 2009, December 7, 

2009, and November 2, 2010. However, 

samples were not collected during any 

of the annual sampling events due to pH 

conditions recorded below 7.2 units. 

Apex returned to the site on May 18, 

2011, to complete a groundwater 

sampling event in accordance with the 

Amended ROD, which stated that 

regardless of the pH levels, samples 

were to be collected within five years 

after initiation of remedial action. The 

sampling event was conducted with the 

intent that EPA could determine if the 

clean-up goals had been achieved. 

Based on the groundwater quality 

results from the May 18, 2011, sampling 

event, remedial actions had been 

successful in achieving the cleanup 

goals for beryllium and nickel in 

groundwater. However, elevated 

concentrations of aluminum and 

chromium were still present above the 

cleanup goals. Based on past 

groundwater sampling results at the site, 

there is a direct correlation between low 

sample pH, high sample turbidity, and 

elevated metal concentrations. Apex 

returned to the site on November 12, 

2012, to sample for metals in MW–7D 

and MW–7S, collecting both an 

unfiltered and filtered sample to address 

turbidity. Due to a malfunctioning 

pump at MW–7S, only MW–7D could be 

sampled on November 12, 2012. 

Elevated concentrations of aluminum 

and chromium were still present above 

the Amended ROD RAOs established for 

the site in the unfiltered sample; 

however, metal concentrations were 

below Amended ROD RAOs established 

for the site in the filtered sample. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2018 / Proposed Rules 36847 

Apex conducted groundwater 

assessment activities at the site in 

December 2015 and January 2016 to 

fulfill the requirements of the Amended 

ROD. The activities included the 

advancement of two groundwater 

monitoring wells installed immediately 

adjacent to MW–7D and MW–7S, in 

addition to the collection and analysis 

of groundwater samples, both filtered 

and unfiltered. 

Replacement wells MW–7SR and 

MW–7DR were installed to address 

elevated turbidity levels. It was 

suspected that there could have been 

some damage to the existing well 

screens which resulted in the influx of 

sediment. Quarterly sampling was 

conducted at MW–7SR and MW–7DR. 

Results indicated that the COCs are not 

present at concentration at or above 

applicable Amended ROD clean up 

goals. Based on the cancer slope factor 

and oral reference dose for hexavalent 

chromium being more stringent, 

chromium was speciated during the 

January 2016 sampling event and was 

not detected above laboratory detection 

limits in either MW–7SR or MW–7DR. 

It was determined that hexavalent 

chromium is not a COC and 

concentrations of total chromium are 

also below the Amended ROD clean up 

goals. Apex completed the Final 

Remedial Action Report Addendum in 

November 2017. 

As prescribed in the 2007 Amended 

ROD, institutional controls (ICs) were 

implemented in September 2008 with 

the placement of a Declaration of 

Perpetual Land Use Restrictions 

(DPLUR) on the property deed. The 

DPLUR requires annual notification to 

NCDEQ and EPA confirming that the 

DPLUR is still recorded in the Office of 

the New Hanover County Register of 

Deeds and that activities and conditions 

at the site remain in compliance with 

the land use restrictions. The land use 

restrictions in the DPLUR state that 

groundwater from the surficial aquifer 

underlying the site may not be used for 

any purpose. Groundwater located 

beneath the confining layer shall not be 

used as a source of potable water. Any 

groundwater well or other device for 

access to groundwater for any purpose 

other than monitoring groundwater 

quality must include an isolation seal 

between the surficial aquifer and the 

Peedee Formation aquifer located 

below. The installation of groundwater 

wells or other devices for access to 

groundwater for any purpose other than 

monitoring groundwater quality 

requires prior approval by NCDEQ, or 

its successor in function. The owner(s) 

of the property must provide written 

notification to EPA prior to seeking 

approval from NCDEQ for the 

installation of groundwater wells. 

Cleanup Levels 

Cleanup goals were established to 

achieve a 10 ¥5 (one in 100,000) excess 

carcinogenic risk level for potential 

future resident children (most 

conservative risk category evaluated) 

and/or a hazard quotient (HQ) of 1 for 

potential resident children or ecological 

receptors. 

Surface Water: Although the 

treatment system did not reduce 

contaminant concentrations in surface 

water to below cleanup goals during its 

operation in 2007, the RAOs were 

achieved for the following reasons: 

• Migration of and aquatic receptor 

exposure to contaminated surface water 

was halted by 

Æ treating all surface water in ponds 

and land applying treated water; 

Æ excavating contaminated soils to 

residential cleanup standards; 

Æ excavating contaminated sediments 

to ecological cleanup goals and placing 

18 to 60 inches of non-contaminated 

soil over the base of the excavated 

ponds; and 

Æ allowing the ponds to refill 

naturally. 

Soil: Cleanup goals specified in the 

2007 ROD Amendment for soil were 

attained. 

All confirmation sample results from 

the soil excavation areas were below the 

ROD-specified cleanup goals. 

Sediment: Ten samples were collected 

and analyzed to determine if cleanup 

goals were met in the four sediment 

excavation areas. Six confirmation 

samples were collected from the four 

excavated ponds in June 2007. One 

sample was a duplicate of another 

sample in Pond 3. The duplicate sample 

result was within the same order of 

magnitude as the sample from which it 

was split. Because the laboratory 

detection limits for (3 and/or 4)- 

methylphenol and methyl ethyl ketone 

(also known as butanone) were higher 

than the cleanup goals, the four ponds 

were resampled in August 2007 and 

analyzed for these two COCs. 

Cleanup goals for toluene and copper 

were attained in all four ponds. The 

cleanup goal for methyl ethyl ketone 

(also known as 2-butanone) was attained 

in ponds 1–3, and possibly pond 4. The 

original confirmation sample collected 

in June 2007 from pond 4 had a 

concentration less than the laboratory 

reporting limit of 100 micrograms per 

kilogram (mg/kg), which is less than the 

cleanup goal established in the 2007 

ROD Amendment. However, the sample 

collected in pond 4 in August 2007 did 

not have a detectable concentration of 

methyl ethyl ketone but the laboratory 

detection limit (268 mg/kg) was greater 

than the cleanup goal of 137 mg/kg. 

Methyl ethyl ketone was not detected in 

any of the ponds. All ponds had at least 

one sample which had a laboratory 

detection limit that was lower than the 

cleanup goal. 

All samples collected from the 

excavated ponds had concentrations of 

(3 and/or 4)-methylphenol above 

cleanup goals or the laboratory 

detection limit was greater than the 

cleanup goal. The low-level presence of 

(3 and/or 4)-methylphenol in the soil 

does not present a significant risk to 

human health or the environment, and 

further sampling and assessment is not 

needed for the following reasons: 

• Methylphenol is a naturally 

occurring substance. Cresols 

(methylphenols) are found in many 

foods and in wood in this region of 

North Carolina. The contaminant 

presence at low-levels may be naturally 

occurring and not site-related. 

• The impacted soil was removed 

from the lagoons and capped with 18 to 

60 inches of clean fill. Therefore, the 

surface water within the lagoons is not 

in direct contact with impacted soil. 

• The ROD clean-up goal of 50 mg/kg 

for (3 and/or 4)-methlyphenol was 

established based on ecological risk, not 

human health risk. Any residual 

contamination is at depths greater than 

18 inches, and therefore there is no 

exposure route for ecological receptors. 

There is no obvious or adverse impact 

to the ecology within the lagoons as 

observed through the thriving aquatic 

flora and fauna present within lagoons 

over the last 11 years, since the time the 

lagoons were remediated in 2007. 

• The concentrations present in the 

soil are below the EPA Regional 

Screening Levels (RSLs) for residential 

soils for methylphenol of 3,200 

milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg), which 

is protective of human health. 

The RAOs were achieved for the 

following reasons: 

• All confirmatory samples obtained 

from ponds 1–4 were collected from 

each basin’s clay liner. 

• Each basin was subsequently 

capped with 18 inches to 60 inches of 

clean soil backfill. 

• The RAs performed removed the 

contaminated ecological exposure 

medium, sediment, and subsequently 

capped the underlying clay liner with 

clean soil, thereby eliminating the 

ecological exposure pathway for 

sediments in the ponds and exposure to 

remaining residual levels in the clay 

layer, and thus any associated risk. 

Soil or sediment samples have not 

been collected since the RA. For the soil 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
36848 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

excavation areas, restoration included 

backfilling with soil, grading the areas 

to provide drainage away from the areas, 

revegetation with native rye grass and 

spreading of wood chips over the area 

for erosion control. Pond restoration 

consisted of backfilling a portion of the 

ponds, covering the banks of the 

excavation and surrounding disturbed 

areas with straw matting for erosion 

control, and seeding with native rye 

grass. During the final site inspection 

conducted in April 2017, it was 

observed that the excavation areas are 

now restored with native brush and 

secondary growth forest. 

Groundwater: No COCs were detected 

at concentrations above the Amended 

ROD clean up goals in either sample 

MW–7DR or MW–7SR during 2016 

quarterly groundwater sampling. The 

detected concentrations of these 

compounds are generally significantly 

less than the concentrations previously 

identified in groundwater samples 

collected at the Site in May 2011 and 

November 2012. Aluminum, beryllium, 

chromium, and nickel were either 

detected at estimated concentrations 

that are below the applicable criteria, or 

were not detected above laboratory 

detections limits in both the filtered and 

unfiltered samples. 

Due to the low turbidity of the 

samples, the concentrations reported for 

both filtered and unfiltered samples 

were very similar. In addition to the 

reductions in the observed 

concentrations of the COCs, the pH 

values were also higher than historic 

values. The pH was measured at 3.81 in 

MW–7SR versus historic values ranging 

from 2.31 to 3.55 in MW–7S. The pH of 

the sample collected at MW–7DR was 

6.47 versus historic values measured as 

low as 3.21. 

In addition, pH values measured in 

the newly installed wells are similar to 

other sites in the Castle Hayne area. 

Based on the findings of the January 

2016 sampling event, Apex conducted 

three additional quarterly sampling 

events in April, July, and October 2016 

to obtain sufficient data for site closure. 

During these quarterly sampling events, 

since the January 2016 sampling results 

demonstrated that hexavalent chromium 

was not a COC, the samples were only 

analyzed for total chromium. 

The monitoring data demonstrates 

that remedial action objectives and 

cleanup levels specified in the 2007 

ROD Amendment are achieved. There 

are no additional monitoring or 

Operations and Maintenance of the 

remedy required. 

Five-Year Reviews 

The purpose of a five-year review 

(FYR) is to evaluate the implementation 

and performance of a remedy to 

determine if the remedy is and will 

continue to be protective of human 

health and the environment. In 

addition, FYR reports identify issues 

found during the review, if any, and 

document recommendations to address 

them. EPA completed two policy FYRs 

for the site in September 2012 and 

September 2017. The 2017 FYR 

determined that the remedy was 

protective of human health and the 

environment, and there were no issues 

or recommendations. The 2017 FYR 

concluded that no further FYRs are 

planned for the site because all 

impacted media have reached 

Unlimited Use/Unrestricted Exposure 

(UU/UE) categorization. 

Community Involvement 

EPA has communicated with the 

public through Fact Sheets, meetings, 

internet postings, newspaper ads, and 

answering email and phone inquiries. 

Current Site information can be found at 

https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/ 

cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0405590. 

Public participation activities have 

been satisfied as required in CERCLA 

Section 113(k), 42 U.S.C. 9613(k) and 

CERCLA Section 117, 42 U.S.C. 9617. 

Documents in the deletion docket, 

which the EPA relied on for 

recommendation of the deletion from 

the NPL, are available to the public in 

the information repositories identified 

above. 

Determination That the Site Meets the 

Criteria for Deletion in the NCP 

Region 4 has followed the procedures 

required by 40 CFR 300.425(e) as 

mentioned above and the implemented 

remedy achieves the degree of cleanup 

specified in the ROD for all pathways of 

exposure. The information presented in 

the Final Close-Out Report verifies that 

the site has achieved the ROD 

Amendment’s RAOs, and that all 

cleanup actions specified in the ROD 

Amendment were implemented. All 

selected remedial action objectives and 

associated cleanup levels are consistent 

with agency policy and guidance. This 

site meets all the site completion 

requirements as specified in Office of 

Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

(OSWER) Directive 9320.22, Close-Out 

Procedures for National Priorities List 

Sites. 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 

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 17, 2018. 

Onis ‘‘Trey’’ Glenn, III, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2018–16244 Filed 7–30–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Chapter I 

[CB Docket No. 18–31; DA 18–115] 

Possible Revision or Elimination of 

Rules 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Review of regulations; 

comments requested. 

SUMMARY: This document invites 

members of the public to comment on 

the Commission’s rules to be reviewed 

pursuant to section 610 of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 

amended (RFA). The purpose of the 

review is to determine whether 

Commission rules whose ten-year 

anniversary dates are in the years 2015– 

2016, as contained in the Appendix, 

should be continued without change, 

amended, or rescinded in order to 

minimize any significant impact the 

rules may have on a substantial number 

of small entities. Upon receipt of 

comments from the public, the 

Commission will evaluate those 

comments and consider whether action 

should be taken to rescind or amend the 

relevant rule(s). 

DATES: Comments may be filed on or 

before October 29, 2018. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sharon K. Stewart, Women’s Outreach 

Specialist, Office of Communications 

Business Opportunities (OCBO), Federal 

Communications Commission, (202) 

418–0990. People with disabilities may 

contact the FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by email: fcc504@fcc.gov or 

phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202–418– 

0432. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS