Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 11, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 26131 

will be conducted, the contract with the 

independent surveyor shall be in effect, 

and an amount of money necessary to 

carry out the entire survey plan shall be 

paid to the independent surveyor or 

placed into an escrow account with 

instructions to the escrow agent to pay 

the money to the independent surveyor 

during the course of the conduct of the 

survey plan. 

(ii) No later than December 15 of the 

year preceding the year in which the 

surveys will be conducted, EPA must 

receive a copy of the contract with the 

independent surveyor, proof that the 

money necessary to carry out the survey 

plan has either been paid to the 

independent surveyor or placed into an 

escrow account, and, if placed into an 

escrow account, a copy of the escrow 

agreement, to be sent to the official 

designated in paragraph (e)(10)(vi) of 

this section. 

(12) Failure to fulfill requirements. A 

failure to fulfill or cause to be fulfilled 

any of the requirements of this 

paragraph (e) will cause the option to 

use the alternative quality assurance 

requirement under this paragraph (e) to 

be void ab initio. 

■ 3. Section 80.1339 is amended by 

revising paragraph (e)(4) to read as 

follows: 

§ 80.1339 Who is not eligible for the 

provisions for small refiners? 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(4) During the period provided under 

paragraph (e)(2) of this section, and any 

extension provided under paragraph 

(e)(3) of this section, the refiner may not 

generate gasoline benzene credits under 

§ 80.1275(b)(3) for any of its refineries 

where under § 80.1342 the refiner was 

previously allowed to defer compliance 

with the standards in §§ 80.1230(a) and 

80.1230(b). 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2010–10915 Filed 5–10–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–2009–0654; FRL–9146–8] 

National Oil and Hazardous Substance 

Pollution Contingency Plan; National 

Priorities List 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) Region II is publishing a 

direct final Notice of Deletion of the 

Asbestos Dump Superfund Site (Site), 

located in Long Hill Township and 

Harding Township, New Jersey, 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). This direct 

final deletion is being published by EPA 

with the concurrence of the State of 

New Jersey, through the New Jersey 

Department of Environmental Protection 

(NJDEP), because EPA has determined 

that all appropriate response actions 

under CERCLA, other than operation, 

maintenance, and five-year reviews, 

have been completed. However, this 

deletion does not preclude future 

actions under Superfund. 

DATES: This direct final deletion is 

effective July 12, 2010 unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by June 10, 

2010. If adverse comments are received, 

EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of 

the direct final deletion in the Federal 

Register informing the public that the 

deletion will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

SFUND–2009–0654, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: hwilka.theresa@epa.gov: 

Theresa Hwilka, Remedial Project 

Manager; seppi.pat@epa.gov: Pat Seppi, 

Community Involvement Coordinator. 

• Fax: 212–637–4429. 

• Mail: Theresa Hwilka, Remedial 

Project Manager, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region II, 

Emergency & Remedial Response 

Division, 290 Broadway, 19th Floor, 

New York, NY 10007; or Pat Seppi, 

Community Involvement Coordinator, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region II, Public Affairs Division, 290 

Broadway, 26th Floor, New York, NY 

10007. 

• Hand delivery: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region II, 

Emergency & Remedial Response 

Division, 290 Broadway, 19th Floor, 

New York, NY 10007. 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–2009– 

0654. 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 e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site 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 e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

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 statue. 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. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region II, Superfund Records Center, 

290 Broadway, Room 1828. (212) 637– 

4308. 

Hours: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday; and at Long Hill 

Township Public Library, 917 Valley 

Road, Gillette, New Jersey 07933. (908) 

647–2088. 

Hours: 10 a.m. to 9 p.m., Monday 

through Thursday. 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., 

Friday and Saturday. 1 p.m. to 5 p.m., 

Sunday (Closed on Sundays in July and 

August). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Theresa Hwilka, Remedial Project 

Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region II, 290 Broadway, New 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
26132 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 11, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

York, NY 10007, (212) 637–4409, e-mail: 

hwilka.theresa@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. NPL Deletion Criteria 

III. Deletion Procedures 

IV. Basis for Site Deletion 

V. Deletion Action 

I. Introduction 

EPA Region II is publishing this direct 

final Notice of Deletion of the Asbestos 

Dump Superfund site (Site), from the 

National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL 

constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 

300, which is the 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 300.425(e)(3) of 

the NCP, sites deleted from the NPL 

remain eligible for Fund-financed 

remedial actions if future conditions 

warrant such actions. 

Because EPA considers this action to 

be noncontroversial and routine, this 

action will be effective July 12, 2010 

unless EPA receives adverse comments 

by June 10, 2010. Along with this direct 

final Notice of Deletion, EPA is copublishing a Notice of Intent to Delete 

in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ section of the 

Federal Register. If adverse comments 

are received within the 30-day public 

comment period on this deletion action, 

EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of 

this direct final Notice of Deletion 

before the effective date of the deletion, 

and the deletion will not take effect. 

EPA will, as appropriate, prepare a 

response to comments and continue 

with the deletion process on the basis of 

the Notice of Intent to Delete and the 

comments already received. There will 

be no additional opportunity to 

comment. 

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 Asbestos Dump 

Superfund Site and demonstrates how it 

meets the deletion criteria. Section V 

discusses EPA’s action to delete the Site 

from the NPL unless adverse comments 

are received during the public comment 

period. 

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 of 

New Jersey prior to developing this 

direct final Notice of Deletion and the 

Notice of Intent to Delete co-published 

today in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ section of 

the Federal Register. 

2. The New Jersey Department of 

Environmental Protection has concurred 

on the deletion of the Site from the NPL. 

3. Concurrently with the publication 

of this direct final Notice of Deletion, a 

notice of the availability of the parallel 

Notice of Intent to Delete is being 

published in a major local newspaper, 

Courier News. The newspaper notice 

announces the 30-day public comment 

period concerning the Notice of Intent 

to Delete the Site from the NPL. 

4. 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. 

5. If adverse comments are received 

within the 30-day public comment 

period on this deletion action, EPA will 

publish a timely notice of withdrawal of 

this direct final Notice of Deletion 

before its effective date and will prepare 

a response to comments and continue 

with the deletion process on the basis of 

the Notice of Intent to Delete and the 

comments already received. 

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 information below provides 

EPA’s rationale for deleting the Site 

from the NPL. For each Operable Unit 

there is a discussion section containing 

information on the following: (1) Site 

background and history; (2) remedial 

investigation and feasibility study 

(RI/FS); (3) selected remedy; (4) 

response actions; (5) cleanup goals; (6) 

operation and maintenance; (7) five year 

reviews; and (8) community 

involvement. 

The Asbestos Dump Superfund Site 

(the Site), CERCLIS ID NJD980654149, 

consists of four separate properties 

which were addressed in three discrete 

operable units (OUs). OU1 consists of 

the Millington site, located in 

Millington, New Jersey. OU2 consists of 

the New Vernon Road and White Bridge 

Road ‘‘satellite’’ sites, both of which are 

located in Meyersville, New Jersey. OU3 

consists of the third satellite site, known 

as the Dietzman Tract, which is located 

in Harding Township, New Jersey. The 

Site was placed on the National 

Priorities List (NPL) in September 1983 

(48 FR 40658). 

Given the nature of this Site, this 

Direct Final Notice of Deletion will 

summarize the history, remedies and 

remedial actions taken for each 

individual OU. 

OU–1 

Site Background and History 

OU1 consists of the Millington site 

which is an 11 acre commercial 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 11, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 26133 

property located at 50 Division Avenue 

in Millington, New Jersey. The site is 

bounded on the west by the Passaic 

River, on the north by the Millington 

Train Station, and on the east and south 

by commercial and private residences, 

respectively. Currently owned by Tifa 

Ltd., this parcel was formerly utilized as 

an asbestos processing plant that had 

several previous owners. Manufacturing 

of asbestos products at the Millington 

site began in 1927 by Asbestos Ltd., 

which engaged in the fiberization and 

sale of asbestos until 1946. From 1946 

until 1953, the plant was owned and 

operated by Smith Asbestos, Inc., a 

manufacturer of asbestos roofing and 

siding. During this later period, asbestos 

sediment from water settling ponds was 

disposed of on-site. 

In May 1953, the property was 

acquired by the National Gypsum 

Company (NGC), which manufactured 

cement asbestos siding and roofing 

sheets at the plant until 1975. During 

this period, waste products, consisting 

of broken siding and asbestos fibers 

were dumped on a five acre area of the 

property. This included a 330 by 75 foot 

area (later referred to as the asbestos 

mound) where predominantly asbestos 

fibers were disposed. It is estimated that 

90,000 cubic yards of asbestos waste 

was disposed of on-site. 

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility 

Study (RI/FS) 

RI/FS activities were initiated by NGC 

in 1986 and completed in 1987. The 

primary contaminant of concern was 

asbestos. Soil borings and historical 

information revealed that the upland 

portion of site contained broken 

asbestos tiles and siding, while the 

asbestos mound was found to contain 

predominantly asbestos fibers. The 

upland and asbestos mound portions of 

the site were covered with varying 

thicknesses of topsoil; however, 

exposed areas of asbestos fibers were 

observed on the slope of the asbestos 

mound adjacent to the Passaic River. 

Extensive slope stability analyses 

indicated that the asbestos mound was 

relatively stable; however, the slope was 

unprotected from surface erosion and 

the potential destabilizing effects of 

flooding along the Passaic River. 

Analysis of groundwater samples 

revealed low concentrations of mercury 

and asbestos related to disposal 

activities at the site. Mercury was 

detected in groundwater in 

concentrations exceeding drinking 

water standards in a limited number of 

samples; however, the limited mercury 

contamination remained within the 

footprint of the landfill and did not pose 

an unacceptable human health risk. As 

a result, groundwater alternatives were 

not evaluated. Asbestos was detected at 

concentrations substantially below the 

proposed EPA drinking water standard. 

The RI and FS reports were completed 

in September 1988. 

Selected Remedy 

On September 30, 1988, EPA issued a 

ROD for OU1. The major components of 

the selected remedy include the 

following: (1) Installation of a two-foot 

soil cover on areas of exposed or 

minimally covered asbestos; (2) 

installation of a chain-link security 

fence to restrict access to the asbestos 

mound; (3) construction of slope 

protection/stabilization measures along 

the asbestos mound embankment; 

(4) construction of surface run-off 

diversion channels on top of the 

asbestos mound; (5) operation and 

maintenance of the remedy; (6) longterm monitoring; (7) institutional 

controls to restrict on-site groundwater 

usage and limit development on the 

asbestos fill areas; and (8) treatability 

studies of technologies for permanent 

destruction or immobilization of 

asbestos. 

Response Actions 

OU1 remedial action activities were 

conducted pursuant to the 1988 ROD. 

EPA entered into an Interagency 

Agreement (IAG) with the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers (USACE) who in 

turn provided oversight during all 

remedial activities. USACE contracted 

IT Corporation (IT) to complete the 

remedial actions in accordance with the 

contract documents and all applicable 

State and Federal regulations. 

Mobilization activities began on June 

17, 1999 and included the delivery of 

general materials, initiation of soil 

erosion and sediment control measures, 

and clearing and grubbing activities. 

The primary remedial construction 

activities included, but were not limited 

to, the following: (1) Access road 

construction—completed in November 

1999; (2) retaining wall construction for 

slope stabilization—completed in May 

2000; and (3) cap construction 

operations and site restoration— 

completed in May 2000. Capping 

activities consisted of relocating 

excavated material, closing the asbestos 

mound, grading the asbestos-containing 

material (ACM) to the required 

elevations, installation of a layer of 

geotextile and geogrid material, and the 

placement and grading of a two-foot soil 

cover. A retaining wall was installed at 

the toe of the asbestos mound for 

stabilization purposes. The wall is an 

average of 10 feet in height and 516 feet 

long. The Final RA Report for OU1 was 

approved by EPA in September 2001. 

EPA also conducted treatability 

studies to fulfill the OU1 ROD 

requirement for evaluating innovative 

treatment technologies that may be 

effective in permanently remediating 

asbestos. Since the issuance of the OU1 

ROD, EPA has performed treatability 

studies on solidification/stabilization 

and vitrification (thermal treatment 

resulting in an asbestos-free glass) and 

has evaluated potential applicability of 

thermochemical asbestos conversion 

(destruction) technologies. EPA believes 

that the OU1 remedy, including the cap 

constructed over the ACM waste and 

institutional controls, is protective and 

will remain protective of human health 

and the environment. Solidification and 

stabilization of the ACM was 

incorporated into the OU2 remedy. 

Cleanup Goals 

The cleanup goal for the Site was to 

contain the migration of asbestos. The 

objective was achieved through 

response actions conducted between 

June 1999 and June 2000 which 

included the consolidation of ACM into 

the landfill area and the construction of 

the landfill cap. 

Operations and Maintenance 

In September 2001, EPA approved the 

Final RA Report as well as the 30–Year 

Operations and Maintenance (O&M) 

Plan. NJDEP is currently responsible for 

operation and maintenance activities. 

The O&M Plan documents the 

installation of a six-foot high chain link 

security fence which surrounds the site 

on its north, east and south limits. 

Furthermore, the O&M Plan specifies 

that periodic inspections are conducted 

of all OU1 design components including 

the retaining wall, perimeter access 

fence, capped area, and mowing/ 

pruning of the ACM cover and 

surrounding areas. Monitoring of 

surface water and sediment sampling of 

the Passaic River along with 

groundwater monitoring in accordance 

with the New Jersey landfill closure 

requirements is also included in the 

O&M Plan. Monitoring and sampling is 

conducted once every 5 years. 

In addition to O&M activities, the 

OU1 site is protected by institutional 

controls. A Deed Notice was filed by 

Tifa Realty, Inc., in the Morris County, 

New Jersey, Office of the County Clerk, 

on September 8, 2008 for the OU1 

Millington property designated as Block 

12301, Lot 1 on the Long Hill Township 

tax map. The Deed Notice has been filed 

in Deed Book 21152, Page 508. The type 

of restrictions placed on the OU1 

Millington property significantly limit 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
26134 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 11, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

any type of intrusion onto the landfill 

cap thereby restricting on-site 

groundwater usage and limiting 

development on the asbestos fill areas. 

Any future use of the landfill area must 

be designed to protect the integrity of 

the components of the landfill. 

OU–2 

Site Background and History 

OU2 consists of the New Vernon Road 

and White Bridge Road sites. The OU2 

New Vernon Road site is located at 237 

New Vernon Road in Meyersville, Long 

Hill Township, Morris County, New 

Jersey. The New Vernon Road site 

consists of approximately 30 acres of 

land and is currently bounded by the 

Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge 

(GSNWR) to the north, tracts of wooded 

and wetland areas to the east and south, 

and New Vernon Road to the west. The 

property previously included two 

residences and a large garage structure. 

From 1945 through 1980 the privately 

owned New Vernon Road site was used 

for farming. From 1968 to 1971, ACM 

generated by NGC, including asbestos 

fibers, broken asbestos tiles, and siding, 

was deposited throughout the site. Large 

amounts of ACM were deposited in the 

central portion of the property in a large 

depression. Asbestos was also detected 

in other areas of the property. 

The White Bridge Road site is located 

at 651 White Bridge Road in Long Hill 

Township, NJ. The White Bridge Road 

site is approximately two miles away 

from the New Vernon Road site and 

consists of approximately 12 acres of 

privately owned land, as well as 

adjoining property, which is part of the 

GSNWR, in Meyersville, New Jersey. 

From 1945 through 1969, the White 

Bridge Road site had been used for 

farming. In 1970, the property was 

purchased by the current residents. 

From 1970 to 1975, ACM, consisting of 

asbestos tiles and siding from the NGC, 

was disposed of on the property. 

Subsequent to these disposal activities, 

the current owner converted the 

property into a horse farm with stables, 

a horse riding track, and grazing fields. 

The horse riding track was comprised of 

large amounts of ACM mixed with soils. 

ACM had also been detected in other 

areas of the site. 

The remedy for the White Bridge 

Road portion of OU2 was completed 

and this portion of the site was deleted 

from the NPL in February 2002 (67 FR 

5955). Therefore, the White Bridge Road 

portion of the Asbestos Dump Site is not 

included in this Notice of Deletion. 

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility 

Study (RI/FS) 

EPA initiated a RI/FS in the fall of 

1990 to supplement the NGC RI and 

fully characterize the extent of asbestos 

contamination at the OU2 portion of the 

Site. The RI included a hydrogeological 

investigation, extensive sampling and 

subsequent laboratory analysis of 

subsurface soils, sediments, surface 

water, groundwater, potable water and 

air. The data indicated the presence of 

elevated levels of asbestos in the soil at 

both the New Vernon Road and White 

Bridge Road residential properties. With 

respect to groundwater, sampling results 

indicated that asbestos was not detected 

in levels above the analytical detection 

limit for all groundwater samples 

analyzed. Asbestos was determined to 

be present in air sample at both OU2 

sites as a result of soil contamination. 

EPA determined that an immediate 

removal action was necessary to address 

the imminent threat posed by the 

contamination. Removal activities were 

conducted in the fall of 1990 to 

temporarily reduce the potential for 

airborne asbestos fibers and to restrict 

access. Removal activities included 

installation of fences, air and soil 

sample collection, decontamination of 

the residences, and visual inspection of 

ACM. RI field work was completed in 

1990 and the RI and FS reports were 

completed in June 1991. 

Selected Remedy 

On September 27, 1991, EPA issued a 

ROD documenting the remedy for OU2. 

The ROD documented the remedial 

actions for both the New Vernon Road 

property and the White Bridge Road 

property. The major components of the 

selected remedy include the following: 

(1) In-situ solidification/stabilization of 

asbestos contaminated soils; (2) 

appropriate environmental monitoring 

to confirm the effectiveness of the 

remedy; and (3) implementation of 

institutional controls to restrict future 

subsurface activities and assure the 

integrity of the treated waste. 

TRC and TAMS Consultants, Inc. 

initiated the Remedial Design (RD) in 

1991 under contract with EPA. A 

solidification/stabilization treatability 

study was performed by TRC as part of 

the RD. Based upon the results of the 

treatability study, the solidification/ 

stabilization depth was changed prior to 

the issuance of the Final Design Report 

in January 1993 to require that the 

solidified/stabilized mass be 

constructed only above the groundwater 

table. EPA issued an Explanation of 

Significant Differences (ESD) on October 

20, 1993 to modify the remedy specified 

in the OU2 ROD. 

Response Actions 

Remedial activities were conducted in 

two phases. Phase I activities at the New 

Vernon Road site were initiated in 

August 1994 and were completed in 

December 1994. Phase I activities 

included the following: (1) Excavation 

and consolidation of ACM; (2) in-situ 

solidification/stabilization of ACM; (3) 

impermeable cover and perimeter 

infiltration trench construction; (4) 

placement of rip rap along the sides of 

the cap for slope stability protection; 

and (5) backfill of excavation areas 

excluding topsoil and seeding. The 

solidification process was considered 

complete when the cement mixture had 

set and quality control sample results 

indicated that the solidified mass 

conformed to the specified design 

criteria. Upon completion of the 

solidification/stabilization process, the 

site was graded and a minimum of six 

inches of soil was placed over the 

solidified material. The protective cap 

placed on the solidified soil consisted of 

several components including six 

inches of stone screenings, a 

geomembrane liner, a drainage layer 

consisting of a geocomposite, a 24 inch 

layer of common fill and a vegetative 

layer consisting of six inches of topsoil 

and grass. After the implementation, air 

monitoring was performed to 

demonstrate the effectiveness of this 

remedy. 

The second phase of the remedial 

action activities was initiated in March 

1995 and was intended to include site 

restoration work such as final grading 

with topsoil, grass establishment, 

planting, wetlands restoration, asphalt 

paving, and demobilization. The second 

phase was halted when EPA issued a 

Stop Work Order on March 30, 1995. 

EPA subsequently issued a Cure Notice, 

in April 1995, to CDM Federal Programs 

Corporation (CDM), an EPA contractor, 

for failure to meet the contract 

specification for the use of fill at both 

the New Vernon Road and White Bridge 

Road properties. The Cure Response 

cleanup activities at New Vernon Road 

were initiated in July 1998 and 

completed by March 1999. The USACE 

provided oversight of the Cure Response 

cleanup activities. In September 2000, 

EPA approved the Remedial Action 

Report for the New Vernon Road portion 

of OU2. 

Cleanup Goals 

The cleanup goal for the Site was to 

contain the migration of asbestos. 

Asbestos containing materials on the 

OU2 properties that were either 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 11, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 26135 

detected by visual inspection or 

analytically (having greater than 0.5% 

asbestos, which is the detection limit of 

the TEM analytical method) were 

addressed in the remedy. The objective 

was achieved through consolidation of 

ACM, in-situ solidification/stabilization 

of asbestos contaminated soils, 

environmental monitoring to confirm 

the effectiveness of the remedy, and 

implementation of institutional controls 

to restrict future subsurface activities 

and assure the integrity of the treated 

waste. Response actions for OU2 were 

conducted between August 1994 and 

March 1999. 

Operations and Maintenance 

In June 2001, an O&M plan for the 

New Vernon Road site was finalized. 

The overall objective of the O&M Plan 

is to provide for periodic inspection, 

maintenance, and monitoring to 

evaluate and maintain the effectiveness 

of the remedy implemented at the site. 

The landfill cap, perimeter infiltration 

trench and environmental monitoring, 

are the key components of the O&M 

Plan. Environmental monitoring 

includes the collection and analysis of 

groundwater and monitoring of wildlife 

species from the area around the New 

Vernon Road site. 

In January 2002, EPA, NJDEP and the 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) 

reached an agreement on the terms of 

the transfer of a portion of the New 

Vernon Road property to FWS to 

expand the GSNWR. In September 2002, 

an approximately 25 acre portion of the 

New Vernon Road property (Block 225, 

Lot 30) was formally transferred to FWS 

and is now in use as part of the Refuge. 

This Lot also includes the residential 

structures along New Vernon Road. The 

remaining five acre portion of the 

property (Block 225, Lot 30.03), which 

contains the solidified ACM, was 

transferred to the State of New Jersey. 

NJDEP is conducting the O&M activities 

on the five acre parcel of the property. 

Subsequent to the division of the New 

Vernon Road property between NJDEP 

and FWS, separate Deed Notices were 

filed for Block 225, Lots 30 and 30.03. 

The Deed Notice for Block 225, Lot 30 

was filed in the Morris County, New 

Jersey, Office of the County Clerk on 

August 20, 2002. The Deed Notice 

includes a ‘‘Limited Subsurface Use 

Area’’ which exists within 10 feet of the 

foundation of the residences. This area 

is restricted because it could not be fully 

investigated for the presence of asbestos 

because such and investigation would 

have compromised the integrity of the 

substructure. Digging and excavating 

more than 12 inches below the surface 

of the Limited Subsurface Area is 

prohibited unless approved by EPA or 

NJDEP. The Deed Notice for Block 225– 

Lot 30.03, which pertains to the five 

acre capped OU2 parcel, was filed in the 

Morris County, New Jersey, Office of the 

County Clerk on October 22, 2002. The 

Deed Notice specifies the restrictions 

placed on the capped area of OU2. The 

Deed Notice does not permit any 

disturbance of the surface or subsurface 

of the capped area including, but not 

limited to filling, drilling, excavation, or 

the removal of topsoil, sediments, rock 

or minerals, or by construction, planting 

anything other than grass or 

wildflowers, or changing the topography 

in any manner; however, topsoil may be 

added to make repairs in accordance 

with the Deed Notice. Changing, 

damaging or removing the perimeter 

trench around the solidified mass, the 

manholes or the monitoring wells is also 

prohibited. 

OU–3 

Site Background and History 

OU3 consists of the former Dietzman 

Tract which is a seven acre parcel of 

land located in the GSNWR, about two 

miles southeast of the New Vernon Road 

portion of the site. The GSNWR, 

currently owned by the FWS, covers 

approximately 7,400 acres of swamp, 

wooded, and wetland areas. The refuge 

is managed by FWS as a wildlife habitat 

and for recreational purposes. The 

Dietzman Tract included the following 

four discrete areas: (1) Site A—a five 

acre asbestos contaminated dump; (2) 

Site B—a half acre dump consisting of 

refuse and covered with ACM; (3) 

Unimproved Access Road (UAR)—a 

road surfaced with ACM which leads to 

Site A and Site B; and (4) three small 

refuse areas adjoining Site B (Refuse 

Areas #1, 3 and 6). 

The above mentioned areas of OU3 

were used for the disposal of refuse 

collected from neighboring 

communities. Along with refuse, ACM 

and other industrial wastes from the 

NGC plant in Millington were trucked to 

the OU3 site for disposal. The disposal 

of ACM began in 1959 and ended in 

1968 when the FWS acquired the 

property. Approximately 40,000 cubic 

yards of ACM and refuse were 

delineated at OU3. 

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility 

Study (RI/FS) 

The supplemental RI, known as the 

Phase II RI, for OU3 was needed to fill 

data gaps remaining from prior 

investigations to characterize the nature 

and extent of contamination at OU3. 

Another goal of the Phase II RI was to 

collect geotechnical data for evaluation 

of remedial alternatives in the FS. RI 

activities included, but were not limited 

to, the following: (1) Characterization of 

the organic and inorganic contaminants 

and asbestos in the site media; (2) 

sampling of groundwater from 15 

monitoring wells; (3) sampling of 

surface water; and (4) excavation of 

drums from Site A. 

Early Phase II RI field activities 

commenced in January 1996. Removal 

actions were conducted in the Fall of 

1996 to address buried drums, and air 

quality monitoring was completed in 

December 1996. The Phase II RI report 

was completed and submitted to EPA in 

1997. The report indicated that OU3 

was found to contain approximately 

36,800 cubic yards of ACM, 3,800 cubic 

yards of refuse debris, an estimated 207 

buried drums at Site A, and areas of 

metal-impacted soil and ACM. Buried 

drums located at Site A were removed 

in September 1997. FWS completed 

their FS Report in 1997 which outlined 

general response actions to satisfy the 

remedial action objectives for OU3 and 

recommend a remedy. 

Selected Remedy 

On September 8, 1998, EPA issued a 

ROD for OU3. The major components of 

the selected remedy include the 

following: (1) Access improvements; (2) 

long-term drainage improvements, and 

short-term erosion control measures; (3) 

drum removal activities (which were 

completed in September 1997 as a timecritical, non-emergency removal prior to 

implementation of the preferred 

alternative), including post-excavation 

and waste classification sampling; (4) 

removal and off-site disposal of soils 

having lead concentrations greater than 

218 mg/kg (completed, Spring 1998); (5) 

consolidation of Site B ACM into Site A 

(completed, Spring 1998); (6) placement 

of a biotic cover over Site A; (7) 

implementation of institutional controls 

to ensure the continued integrity of the 

drainage and cover activities; and (8) 

assessment of wetland impacts and 

wetlands restoration. 

Response Actions 

The FWS contracted the USACE to 

perform remedial design and 

construction activities. The USACE 

subcontracted the design and 

construction activities to IT Corp. A 

three-phase approach was developed for 

the remediation of the OU3 areas 

described in the previous OU3 

background section. 

Phase 1, addressed the activities 

including site access improvement, 

drainage improvement and drum 

removal from Site A. Access to Site A 

was improved by upgrading the surface 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
26136 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 11, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

of the UAR and clearing dense 

vegetation covering Site A. The site 

drainage was enhanced by clearing the 

channel constriction and blockage 

where the UAR crosses the Old Great 

Brook Channel northwest of Site A and 

a culvert system was placed in the 

channel to maintain vehicle access to 

Site B and improve site drainage. After 

drainage improvements were 

completed, drum excavation and 

removal, and off-site disposal of the 

drums and miscellaneous debris was 

initiated and completed in October 

1997. Post excavation sampling 

confirmed that contaminants in the 

drums had not been released to the soil 

and therefore were not released to 

groundwater above the regulatory 

standards before or during removal. 

Phase 1 work was completed in 1997. 

The Phase 2 removal action consisted 

of excavation, removal, and off-site 

disposal of lead-contaminated soils 

located at Site B, Refuse Area #1, and 

Refuse Area #6 (as defined in the OU3 

background section). The action was 

initiated in February 1998 and was 

completed in May 1998. Removal 

activities also included the 

consolidation of ACM from Site B onto 

Site A. 

Phase 3, the final remedial action 

phase, consisted of the excavation and 

removal of ACM from the UAR, 

consolidation of the excavated UAR 

material to Site A, backfilling the 

excavated portions of the UAR, and 

construction of the biotic cap on Site A. 

Cap construction activities included the 

installation of an anchor trench on the 

west side of the landfill, compaction of 

landfill material, placement of geotextile 

fabric (woven and non-woven) and 

placement of geonet for the biotic 

barrier. Construction of the biotic cap on 

the Site A landfill was considered to be 

complete after a final inspection was 

conducted in September 1999. 

The disturbed and created wetlands 

areas were restored by placing a final 

soil cover, consisting of six inches of 

organic sediment, over the areas. The 

sediment contained a natural seed bank 

with species indigenous to adjacent 

wetlands. The progress of wetlands 

restoration efforts continues to be 

monitored by FWS. 

On September 29, 1999, EPA 

approved the Final Remedial Action 

Report for OU3, which signified the 

completion of OU3 remedial activities. 

Cleanup Goals 

The cleanup goal for the Site was to 

contain the migration of asbestos. OU3 

ROD cleanup activities consisted of 

drum removal, removal of lead 

contaminated soils and consolidation 

and capping of ACM. The cleanup 

objective was achieved through the 

response actions conducted between 

September 1997 and September 1999. 

Operations and Maintenance 

The O&M Plan for OU3 includes 

maintenance of the permanent features 

such as the surface water drainage 

improvements and the Site A biotic cap. 

The O&M plan also requires the 

implementation of a groundwater 

monitoring program that meets the 

requirements of the New Jersey 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

regulations. FWS is responsible for 

implementing the OU3 O&M plan. 

In addition to O&M activities, FWS 

has implemented institutional controls 

at OU3 to ensure the continued integrity 

of the capped areas. OU3 institutional 

controls include the following: (1) 

Restricted access via a gated road; (2) 

posted signs indicating closed areas; (3) 

law enforcement presence; (4) altered 

trail system to divert people from the 

landfill area; and (5) periodic 

inspections. The OU3 property is 

located entirely within the GSNWR. As 

part of the National Wilderness Area, 

the remediated OU3 area is protected 

from development or future land uses 

that might potentially conflict with the 

remedial design. Any changes to this 

designation would be subject to 

Congressional approval. As such, the 

land will be managed in perpetuity as 

wildlife habitat with very limited public 

use and access insofar as these activities 

are consistent and compatible with the 

O&M actions that have been prescribed 

for the Site. 

Five Year Review for All Operable Units 

The first Five-Year Review was 

completed for the Site in September 

2000. The results of the second FiveYear Review, which was completed in 

September 2005, indicated that there is 

no significant off-site migration of 

contaminants and that the remedies for 

OU1, OU2 and OU3 are functioning as 

intended by the respective RODs. Since 

contaminants remain contained on-site, 

EPA will continue to conduct statutory 

five-year reviews of the implemented 

remedies. The next review is scheduled 

to be completed by September 2010. 

Community Involvement for All 

Operable Units 

Community involvement activities for 

the Asbestos Dump Superfund Site have 

been conducted in accordance with 

CERCLA requirements. Public meetings 

have been held for remedial milestones 

such as the presentation of the Proposed 

Plan, RI and FS reports and for the 

public comment period. Additional 

meetings were held with the public and/ 

or stakeholders on an as needed basis 

throughout the remedial process. 

Documents comprising the 

administrative record were made 

available to the public at the Passaic 

Township Free Public Library in 

Sterling, New Jersey. Community 

notifications were also issued for the 

site Five-Year Reviews. A more detailed 

account of community involvement 

activities may be found in the Asbestos 

Dump Superfund Site Close Out Report. 

Determination That the Site Meets the 

Criteria for Deletion in the NCP 

The NCP specifies that EPA may 

delete a site from the NPL if ‘‘all 

appropriate responsible parties or other 

persons have implemented all 

appropriate response actions required’’ 

or ‘‘all appropriate Fund-financed 

response under CERCLA has been 

implemented, and no further response 

action by responsible parties is 

appropriate’’. 40 CFR 300.425(e)(1). 

EPA, with concurrence of the State of 

New Jersey through the New Jersey 

Department of Environmental Protection 

by a letter dated February 19, 2009, 

believes these criteria for deletion have 

been satisfied. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing the deletion of the site from 

the NPL. All of the completion 

requirements from the site have been 

met as described in the Superfund Final 

Close-Out Report, dated November 10, 

2009. Documents supporting this action 

are available in the site file and deletion 

dockets. 

V. Deletion Action 

The EPA, with concurrence of the 

State of New Jersey through the New 

Jersey Department of Environmental 

Protection, has determined that all 

appropriate response actions under 

CERCLA, other than operation, 

maintenance, and five-year reviews, 

have been completed. Therefore, EPA is 

deleting the site from the NPL. 

Because EPA considers this action to 

be noncontroversial and routine, EPA is 

taking it without prior publication. This 

action will be effective July 12, 2010 

unless EPA receives adverse comments 

by June 10, 2010. If adverse comments 

are received within the 30-day public 

comment period, EPA will publish a 

timely withdrawal of this direct final 

notice of deletion before the effective 

date of the deletion, and it will not take 

effect. EPA will prepare a response to 

comments and continue with the 

deletion process on the basis of the 

notice of intent to delete and the 

comments already received. There will 

be no additional opportunity to 

comment. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 11, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 26137 

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. 

Dated: April 1, 2010. 

Judith A. Enck, 

Regional Administrator, Region 2. 

■ For the reasons set out in this 

document, 40 CFR part 300 is amended 

as follows: 

PART 300—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 300 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 

9601–9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 

1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923; 

3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193. 

■ 2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 

is amended by removing ‘‘Asbestos 

Dump, Millington, NJ’’ from the table. 

[FR Doc. 2010–10849 Filed 5–10–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 54 

[WC Docket No. 05–337, CC Docket No. 96– 

45; FCC 10–56] 

High-Cost Universal Service Support, 

Federal-State Joint Board on Universal 

Service 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) defines ‘‘sufficient’’ under 

section 254(e) of the Communications 

Act as an affordable and sustainable 

amount of support that is adequate, but 

no greater than necessary, to achieve the 

goals of the universal service program. 

The Commission finds that rural rates 

are ‘‘reasonably comparable’’ to urban 

rates if they fall within a reasonable 

range of the national average urban rate. 

The Commission concludes, on the 

basis of undisputed empirical evidence 

in the record, that the current non-rural 

high-cost support mechanism comports 

with the requirements of section 254. 

The Commission also grants, with 

modifications, the joint petition filed by 

the Wyoming Public Service 

Commission and the Wyoming Office of 

Consumer Advocate for supplemental 

high-cost universal service support for 

rural residential customers of Qwest, 

Wyoming’s non-rural incumbent local 

exchange carrier. 

DATES: Effective June 10, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Katie King, Wireline Competition 

Bureau, Telecommunications Access 

Policy Division, (202) 418–7491 or TTY: 

(202) 418–0484. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Order on 

Remand and Memorandum Opinion and 

Order (Order) in WC Docket No. 05–337, 

CC Docket No. 96–45, FCC 10–56, 

adopted April 16, 2010, and released 

April 16, 2010. The complete text of this 

document is available for inspection 

and copying during normal business 

hours in the FCC Reference Information 

Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. 

The document may also be purchased 

from the Commission’s duplicating 

contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 

445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, telephone (800) 

378–3160 or (202) 863–2893, facsimile 

(202) 863–2898, or via the Internet at 

http://www.bcpiweb.com. It is also 

available on the Commission’s Web site 

at http://www.fcc.gov. 

People with Disabilities: To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202– 

418–0432 (tty). 

I. Order on Remand 

A. The Current Non-Rural Mechanism 

Comports With Section 254 

1. On remand, the Tenth Circuit 

directed the Commission to address 

three issues. First, the court held that 

the Commission ‘‘must articulate a 

definition of ‘sufficient’ that 

appropriately considers the range of 

principles in the text of the statute.’’ 

Second, the Commission ‘‘must define 

the term ‘reasonably comparable’ in a 

manner that comports with its 

concurrent duties to preserve and 

advance universal service.’’ And finally, 

the court directed the Commission ‘‘to 

utilize its unique expertise to craft a 

support mechanism taking into account 

all of the factors that Congress identified 

in drafting the Act and its statutory 

obligation to preserve and advance 

universal service.’’ With respect to this 

last mandate, the court stated that ‘‘the 

FCC must fully support its final 

decision on the basis of the record 

before it.’’ We address each of these 

issues in turn. After careful analysis and 

review of the record, we conclude that 

the non-rural support mechanism, as 

currently structured, comports with the 

requirements of section 254 of the Act. 

1. ‘‘Sufficient’’ 

a. An Assessment of Whether Support Is 

‘‘Sufficient’’ Must Take Into Account the 

Entire Universal Service Fund 

2. Section 254(e) of the Act provides 

that Federal universal service support 

‘‘should be explicit and sufficient to 

achieve the purposes of [section 254].’’ 

In the context of determining high-cost 

support for non-rural carriers, the 

Commission previously defined 

‘‘sufficient’’ as ‘‘enough Federal support 

to enable States to achieve reasonable 

comparability of rural and urban rates in 

high-cost areas served by non-rural 

carriers.’’ In Qwest II, the Tenth Circuit 

held that the Commission did not 

adequately demonstrate how its nonrural universal service support 

mechanism was ‘‘sufficient’’ within the 

meaning of section 254(e). The court 

noted that ‘‘reasonable comparability’’ 

was just one of several principles that 

Congress directed the Commission to 

consider when crafting policies to 

preserve and advance universal service. 

The court was ‘‘troubled by the 

Commission’s seeming suggestion that 

other principles, including affordability, 

do not underlie Federal non-rural 

support mechanisms.’’ ‘‘On remand,’’ the 

court concluded, ‘‘the FCC must 

articulate a definition of ‘sufficient’ that 

appropriately considers the range of 

principles identified in the text of the 

statute.’’ 

3. Congress, in section 254(b) of the 

Act, set forth a number of principles for 

the Commission to consider when 

implementing the universal service 

policy. These principles include: (1) 

‘‘[q]uality service should be available at 

just, reasonable, and affordable rates’’; 

(2) ‘‘access to advanced 

telecommunications and information 

services should be provided in all 

regions of the Nation’’; (3) ‘‘low-income 

consumers and those in rural, insular, 

and high cost areas, should have access 

to telecommunications services and 

information services * * * that are 

reasonably comparable to those services 

provided in urban areas and that are 

available at rates that are reasonably 

comparable to rates charged * * * in 

urban areas’’; (4) ‘‘[a]ll providers of 

telecommunications services should 

make an equitable and 

nondiscriminatory contribution to the 

preservation and advancement of 

universal service’’; (5) ‘‘[t]here should be 

specific, predictable and sufficient 

Federal and State mechanisms to 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES