12436 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 43 / Wednesday, March 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

This proposed rule would not result 

in the expenditure by State, local, and 

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 

by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or 

more in any one year, and it will not 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. The PSOB program is a 

federal benefits program that provides 

benefits directly to qualifying 

individuals. Therefore, no actions were 

deemed necessary under the provisions 

of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995. 

List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 32 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Claims, Disability benefits, 

Education, Emergency medical services, 

Firefighters, Law enforcement officers, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Rescue squad. 

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth 

in the preamble, part 32 of chapter I of 

Title 28 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations is proposed to be amended 

as follows: 

PART 32—PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS’ 

DEATH, DISABILITY, AND 

EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE 

BENEFITS CLAIMS 

■ 1. The authority citation for 28 CFR 

Part 32 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. ch. 46, subch. XII; 42 

U.S.C. 3782(a), 3787, 3788, 3791(a), 

3793(a)(4) & (b), 3795a, 3796c–1, 3796c–2; 

sec. 1601, title XI, Public Law 90–351, 82 

Stat. 239; secs. 4 through 6, Public Law 94– 

430, 90 Stat. 1348; secs. 1 and 2, Public Law 

107–37, 115 Stat. 219. 

■ 2. Section 32.3 is amended by revising 

the definition of ‘‘Spouse’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 32.3 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Spouse means someone with whom 

an individual entered into marriage 

lawfully under the law of the 

jurisdiction in which it was entered into 

and from whom the individual is not 

divorced, and includes a spouse living 

apart from the individual, other than 

pursuant to divorce, except that, 

notwithstanding any other provision of 

law, to determine whether an individual 

is a spouse of a public safety officer 

within the meaning of this definition 

when more than one individual is 

purported to be such a spouse, the 

PSOB Program will apply the law of the 

jurisdiction that it determines has the 

most significant interest in the marital 

status of the public safety officer: 

(1) On the date of the officer’s death, 

with respect to a claim under subpart B 

of this part or by virtue of such death; 

or 

(2) As of the injury date, with respect 

to a claim not under subpart B of this 

part or by virtue of the officer’s death. 

* * * * * 

Dated: February 21, 2014. 

Karol V. Mason, 

Assistant Attorney General. 

[FR Doc. 2014–04647 Filed 3–4–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–18–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1999–0013; FRL–9907– 

49–Region 2] 

National Oil and Hazardous Substance 

Pollution Contingency Plan National 

Priorities List: Deletion of the Federal 

Creosote Superfund Site 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) Region II is issuing a 

Notice of Intent to Delete the Federal 

Creosote Superfund Site located in 

Manville, New Jersey, from the National 

Priorities List (NPL) and requests public 

comments on this proposed action. The 

NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 

105 of the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an 

appendix of the National Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan (NCP). EPA and the 

State of New Jersey, through the New 

Jersey Department of Environmental 

Protection, have determined that all 

appropriate response actions under 

CERCLA, other than long-term 

groundwater monitoring and five-year 

reviews, have been completed. 

However, this deletion does not 

preclude future actions under 

Superfund. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

April 4, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID no. EPA–HQ– 

SFUND–1999–0013, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: puvogel.rich@epa.gov: Rich 

Puvogel, Remedial Project Manager, 

seppi.pat@epa.gov: Pat Seppi, 

Community Involvement Coordinator 

• Fax: (212) 637–4429. 

• Mail: Rich Puvogel, Remedial 

Project Manager, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Emergency & 

Remedial Response Division, 290 

Broadway, 19th Floor, New York, NY 

10007–1866. 

or 

Pat Seppi, Community Involvement 

Coordinator, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Public Affairs 

Division, 290 Broadway, 26th Floor, 

New York, NY 10007–1866. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Emergency & 

Remedial Response Division, 290 

Broadway, 19th Floor, New York, NY 

10007–1866. 

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–1999– 

0013. 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 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 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. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 43 / Wednesday, March 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules 12437 

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. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region II, Superfund Records Center, 

290 Broadway, Room 1828, New 

York, New York 10007–1866, (212) 

637–4308, Hours: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 

p.m., Monday Through Friday; 

and at 

Manville Public Library, 100 South 10th 

Avenue, Manville, New Jersey 08835, 

(908) 722–9722. 

Hours: 

Mon. through Fri.: 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 

p.m. 

Fri.: 10:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. 

Sat.: 10:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rich Puvogel, Remedial Project 

Manager, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region II, 290 

Broadway, 19th Floor, New York, 

New York 10007–1866, (212) 637– 

4410 

or 

email puvogel.rich@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. NPL Deletion Criteria 

III. Deletion Procedures 

IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion 

I. Introduction 

EPA Region II announces its intent to 

delete the Federal Creosote Superfund 

Site (Site) from the NPL and requests 

public comment on this proposed 

action. The NPL constitutes Appendix B 

of 40 CFR part 300 which is the Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA 

promulgated pursuant to section 105 of 

the 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 Federal Creosote 

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. 

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 New Jersey, through 

the New Jersey Department of 

Environmental Protection (NJDEP), 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 New Jersey Courier 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 Federal Creosote Superfund Site, 

CERCLIS ID NJ0001900281, is located in 

the Borough of Manville, Somerset 

County, New Jersey. The 50-acre Site is 

bordered to the west by commercial 

properties that line the east side of Main 

Street. To the north, on the opposite 

side of the Norfolk Southern railroad 

tracks, are a variety of commercial and 

retail establishments, including 

automobile storage, warehousing, and 

large retail stores. To the south, on the 

opposite side of the CSX Transportation 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
12438 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 43 / Wednesday, March 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

tracks, is a primarily residential area 

known as Lost Valley. Approximately 

5,000 people live within a one-mile 

radius of the Site. Currently, drinking 

water for the surrounding area is 

provided by a public water supply and 

no private drinking water wells are 

used. 

The Site is divided into two land 

uses: Residential (35 acres) and 

commercial (15 acres). The land use in 

the Claremont Development is strictly 

residential, consisting of 129 singlefamily residential houses which are 

home to approximately 350 residents. 

The current land use of the Rustic Mall 

portion of the Site is zoned commercial. 

The Borough of Manville and the 

property owner are planning 

revitalization of the commercial 

property, which includes a combination 

of commercial and residential use. 

The 50-acre Site was used to treat 

railroad ties with coal tar creosote prior 

to development into the land uses 

described above. Beginning in 

approximately 1910, the Site was 

operated by a company known as the 

Federal Creosoting Company. During 

the operations, untreated railroad ties 

were delivered to the Site by rail and 

were processed in a treatment plant 

located on the southwest western 

portion of the Site. Coal-tar creosote was 

applied to the railroad ties in this area. 

Treatment residuals from the plant were 

discharged into two unlined canals. 

Subsurface piping and a surface canal 

conveyed the flow of the treatment 

residuals to the northern portion of the 

property for a combined distance of 

approximately 1,200 feet, where the 

waste spilled into an unlined lagoon. 

The other canal directed the flow of 

treatment residuals toward the southern 

portion of the property, where the 

contents of this canal flowed into 

another unlined lagoon located 

approximately 1,500 feet from the 

treatment plant. After treatment, 

railroad ties were moved from the plant 

to the central portion of the property, 

referred to as the drip area, where the 

excess creosote dripped from the treated 

wood onto the ground. Creosoting 

material and contaminated soil 

associated with the wood treating 

facility were not removed prior to 

construction of the Claremont 

Development and Rustic Mall. 

Land use patterns on the Federal 

Creosoting Company property remained 

the same until the mid-1950s, when the 

wood treatment plant ceased operations 

and was dismantled. During the early 

through mid 1960s the property was redeveloped. The area that formerly 

housed the treatment plant was 

developed into the 15-acre Rustic Mall 

containing a mixture of commercial and 

retail establishments. The remaining 35 

acres of the former Federal Creosoting 

Company property, including the drip 

area, canals and lagoons, were 

developed into the Claremont 

Development. 

In April 1996, NJDEP responded to an 

incident involving the discharge of an 

unknown liquid from a sump located at 

one of the Claremont Development 

residences on Valerie Drive. A thick, 

tarry substance was observed flowing 

from the sump to the street. In January 

1997, the Borough of Manville 

responded to a complaint that a 

sinkhole had developed around a sewer 

pipe in the Claremont Development 

along East Camplain Road. Excavation 

of the soil around the pipe identified a 

black tar-like material in the soil. 

Subsequent investigations of these areas 

revealed elevated levels of contaminants 

consistent with creosote. 

Following the discovery of this 

material, NJDEP, with technical 

assistance from EPA, began an 

investigation of the Site. In April and 

May 1997, air samples were collected 

inside the majority of homes in the 

Claremont Development. With the 

exception of one house, the analysis of 

these samples indicated that the Siterelated contaminants were not present 

in indoor air at elevated levels. 

In October 1997, EPA’s 

Environmental Response Team initiated 

a Site investigation on properties 

believed to contain creosote 

contamination based on analysis of 

historical aerial photographs, as well as 

input from residents. Over 100 surface 

and subsurface soil samples were 

collected. These sampling results 

indicated that the canals and lagoons 

still existed beneath the Claremont 

Development, and that the 

contamination was extensive. 

In July 1998, EPA initiated a removal 

action at 11 residential properties to 

temporarily cover areas that contained 

higher surface soil levels of carcinogenic 

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 

(PAHs) in exposed surface soils. As an 

interim action, sod was placed over bare 

areas in lawns and mulch was placed 

over exposed soils in garden beds. 

The Site was proposed for the NPL on 

July 28, 1998 (63 FR 40247), and was 

formally placed on the NPL on January 

19, 1999 (64 FR 2942). 

Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis 

and Remedial Investigation/Feasibility 

Studies 

EPA conducted an engineering 

evaluation/cost analysis (EE/CA) 

utilizing the results of sampling 

initiated in October 1997. The EE/CA 

was conducted for the first operable unit 

(OU1) of the Site, which consisted of the 

creosote source areas (subsurface canals 

and lagoons) located in the residential 

development, and evaluated options for 

the removal of these source areas. The 

EE/CA was completed in April 1999, 

and a Record of Decision (ROD) for OU1 

was signed on September 28, 1999. 

Under the remedial investigation/

feasibility study (RI/FS) process, EPA 

conducted a focused feasibility study 

(FFS) for operable unit two (OU2), 

which consisted of residual levels of 

creosote contamination in surface and 

subsurface soil within the residential 

development. The FFS determined the 

nature and extent of residual soil 

contamination within the development 

and identified remedial alternatives to 

address contaminated soil. The FFS 

found that soils contained residual 

levels of creosote components, PAHs, in 

the majority of the residential property 

soils. The RI/FS was completed in April 

2000 and a ROD for OU2 was signed on 

September 29, 2000. 

EPA conducted an FFS for operable 

unit 3 (OU3) to determine the extent of 

subsurface soil contamination on the 

commercial portion of the Site, the 

nature and extent of site-wide 

groundwater contamination, and to 

provide remedial alternatives to address 

these media. The FFS for groundwater 

was completed in June 2001, and the 

FFS for the commercial property soils 

was completed in August 2001. A ROD 

for OU3 was signed on September 30, 

2002. 

Selected Remedy 

The OU1 ROD, signed in 1999, 

established the following remedial 

action objectives (RAOs) for OU1: 

• Clean up the canal and lagoon 

source areas to levels that will allow for 

unrestricted land use; and 

• Remove as much source material as 

possible in order to minimize a 

potential source of groundwater 

contamination. 

The OU1 remedy included: 

• Permanent relocation of residents 

from certain properties within the canal 

and lagoon source areas, and temporary 

relocation, where necessary, to 

implement the remedy; 

• Excavation of source material from 

the canal and lagoon source areas, 

backfilling with clean fill, and property 

restoration as necessary; and 

• Transportation of the source 

material for off-site thermal treatment 

and disposal. 

The OU2 ROD, signed in September 

2000, established the following RAOs: 

• Prevent human exposure, via direct 

contact, with contaminated soils, 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 43 / Wednesday, March 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules 12439 

considering the current and future 

residential site use; 

• Prevent future impacts to 

underlying groundwater quality by 

contaminated soils; 

• Prevent exposure and minimize 

disturbance to the Claremont 

Development residents, and the 

surrounding community of Manville, 

during implementation of the remedial 

action. 

The OU2 remedy included: 

• Excavation of soils containing PAHs 

in excess of site-specific remediation 

goals from an estimated approximately 

82 properties, backfilling with clean fill, 

and property restoration as necessary, 

and 

• Transportation of the contaminated 

soil off site for disposal, with treatment 

as necessary. 

The OU3 ROD, signed in September 

2002, established the following RAOs 

for soils and groundwater: 

• Prevent human exposure via direct 

contact, inhalation, and ingestion of 

contaminated soils, considering the 

future potential residential site use; 

• Prevent future impacts to 

underlying groundwater quality by 

contaminated soils that can act as a 

continuing source of groundwater 

contamination; and 

• Prevent exposure and minimize 

disturbance to the Rustic Mall 

occupants and consumers, and the 

surrounding community of Manville, 

during implementation of the remedial 

action. 

• Prevent ingestion and direct contact 

with groundwater that has contaminant 

concentrations greater than the 

applicable or relevant and appropriate 

requirements (ARARs); 

• Minimize the potential for 

additional off-site migration of 

groundwater with contaminant 

concentrations that exceed the ARARs; 

• Minimize the potential for transfer 

of groundwater contamination to the 

other media (e.g., surface water) at 

concentrations in excess of ARARs. 

The OU3 soil remedy included: 

• Excavation of soils containing 

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 

(PAHs) in excess of site-specific 

remediation goals on the Rustic Mall, 

backfilling with clean fill, and property 

restoration as necessary; and, 

• Transportation of the contaminated 

soil off site for disposal, with treatment 

as necessary. 

As described in more detail in the 

decision summaries of the OU2 and 

OU3 RODs, the selected remedy would 

leave residual levels of PAHs (but not 

source material as defined by the 

September 1999 Record of Decision) at 

depths greater than approximately 14 

feet below the ground surface in the 

Rustic Mall. The backfilled clean fill 

would act as a barrier or ‘‘engineering 

control’’ to prevent contact with any 

residual contamination. In addition, a 

deed notice would be required to 

prevent direct contact with any 

remaining residual soil contamination. 

The OU3 groundwater remedy 

included: 

• Implementation of a long-term 

groundwater sampling and analysis 

program to monitor the concentrations 

of creosote components in the 

groundwater at the site, to assess the 

migration and attenuation of the 

creosote in groundwater over time; and, 

• Institutional controls to restrict the 

installation of wells and the use of 

groundwater in the vicinity of the 

contaminated groundwater. 

The evaluation of remedial 

alternatives for remediation of the dense 

nonaqueous phase liquid creosote 

contamination, including contamination 

found in the fractured bedrock aquifer, 

concluded that no practicable 

alternatives could be implemented. As a 

result, EPA invoked an ARAR waiver for 

the groundwater at this site due to 

technical impracticability (TI). The area 

for the TI waiver covers approximately 

119 acres. The area includes three 

distinct subareas: The north off-site 

subarea, the on-site subarea, and the 

south off-site subarea. The TI waiver 

includes both the overburden aquifer 

and the bedrock aquifer within the area. 

The contaminants for which the ARAR 

waiver apply include: Acenaphthene, 

benzene, naphthalene, 2,4-dimethyl 

phenol, benzo(a) anthracene, 

benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(k) fluoranthene, 

fluorine, chrysene, 

benzo(b)fluoranthene, and indeno(l,2,3- 

cd)pyrene. 

Two Explanations of Significant 

Differences (ESDs) were prepared to 

document significant changes to 

components of the selected remedies. 

The first ESD provided an explanation 

of the increase in the estimated costs for 

the OU1, OU2 and OU3 remedies. A 

second ESD provided an explanation of 

the application of institutional controls, 

in some circumstances, at depths 

shallower than anticipated in the OU2 

ROD. 

Response Actions 

The design criteria consisted of the 

removal of creosote waste and soils 

saturated with creosote waste. In 

addition, design criteria also specified 

that contaminated soils exceeding the 

analytical cleanup goals (CGs) would be 

removed to a depth of approximately 14 

feet and transported offsite for treatment 

and/or disposal according to the RCRA 

Land Disposal Requirements. These sitespecific CGs consisted of seven PAHs, 

which are the primary contaminants of 

concern. 

As noted above, the Site was broken 

into three OUs. The OU1 remedial 

action included removal of source 

material from 29 residential properties, 

required the permanent relocation of 21 

OU1 property owners, and the 

demolition of 18 homes. 

OU1 remedial action activities were 

conducted pursuant to the 1999 ROD. 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(USACE) provided oversight during all 

remedial activities. USACE contracted 

Cape Environmental, Inc., and Sevenson 

Environmental Services (SES), Inc., to 

complete the remedial actions in 

accordance with the contract documents 

and all applicable state and federal 

regulations. 

In October 2000, USACE’s demolition 

contractor, Cape Environmental, Inc., 

mobilized equipment at the Federal 

Creosote Site to begin demolition of 

residential houses located above or 

adjoining creosote waste lagoons and 

canals. In December 2000, USACE’s 

remediation contractor, SES mobilized 

on Site. 

The cleanup of OU1 was divided into 

three phases. Phase 1 focused on the 

cleanup of the southern lagoon; Phase 2 

focused on the cleanup of the northern 

lagoon and canal; and Phase 3 cleanup 

efforts were focused on the southern 

canal. 

The OU1 Phase 1 remedial action 

involved temporary relocation of one 

family, the purchase of eight residential 

properties and permanent relocation of 

the residents, demolition of eight singlefamily homes, and excavation and 

removal of 64,500 tons of soil from the 

southern lagoon area to off-site 

treatment and disposal facilities. Soil 

requiring treatment was sent to an offsite hazardous waste incinerator in 

Canada; soils requiring subtitle C 

disposal were sent to a hazardous waste 

landfill in New York State. Remediation 

of Phase 1 was completed in June 2002. 

Ownership of these eight properties was 

transferred from EPA to NJDEP in July 

2003. NJDEP sold these properties 

through public auction in the summer of 

2009. 

The OU1 Phase 2 remedial action 

included the acquisition of eight 

residential properties and the 

permanent relocation of residents from 

the eight properties located over the 

northern lagoon and canal. The houses 

on the eight lots were demolished and 

excavation of creosote-contaminated 

soil from this northern lagoon and canal 

started in April 2002. Excavation on this 

phase reached a depth of 35 feet below 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
12440 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 43 / Wednesday, March 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

the ground surface. Approximately 

115,600 tons of soil were excavated and 

shipped off site to treatment and 

disposal facilities. These properties 

have been backfilled with clean soil and 

have been restored. EPA currently owns 

the eight lots and has placed the 

properties up for sale. 

OU1 Phase 3 remedial action 

included the excavation and off-site 

disposal of 30,600 tons of contaminated 

soil from 13 residential properties and 

roadways located on the buried 

southern creosote canal. OU1 Phase 3 

included the temporary relocation of 

three families, the purchase of five 

residential properties built over a 

portion of the buried southern creosote 

waste canal, permanent relocation of 

residents from the five properties and 

the demolition of two properties. After 

remediation and restoration, all of the 

OU1 Phase 3 properties purchased by 

EPA were sold and returned to 

residential use. 

The remedial action objectives for the 

OU2 remedy were: To prevent human 

exposure via direct contact with 

contaminated soils, considering current 

and future residential use; prevent 

future impacts to underlying 

groundwater quality by contaminated 

soil; and prevent exposure and 

minimize disturbance to the Claremont 

Development residents, and the 

surrounding community during the 

implementation of the remedial action. 

The remediation of OU2 was divided 

into two phases. The OU2 Phase 1 

remedial action consisted of soil 

removal at 14 residential properties that 

surrounded the southern lagoon area. 

The OU2 Phase 1 remedial action 

involved no permanent relocations and 

no demolitions. The remedial action of 

this phase started in February 2002. By 

June 2002, 9,000 tons of soil had been 

excavated, treated and/or disposed off 

site; the 14 properties were completely 

restored, and temporarily relocated 

residents returned to their homes. 

The OU2 Phase 2 remediation began 

in June 2003. Cleanup activities 

occurred on 50 residential properties 

and portions of residential roadways. 

The OU2 Phase 2 remedial action 

involved two permanent relocations and 

no building demolitions. The 

remediation of a day care center was 

included in this phase. In August 2001, 

the day care center playground was 

remediated and in 2006, the day care 

center parking lot was remediated. The 

remedial action of OU2 Phase 2 resulted 

in the excavation and off-site disposal 

(with treatment as necessary) of 59,000 

tons of soil. 

Remediation of OU3 soils began in 

August 2005. After excavation was 

started by EPA, the Rustic Mall owners 

demolished all buildings on their 

property except for a bowling alley. EPA 

excavated creosote waste found below 

the footprints of the former Rustic Mall 

buildings. Source material and residual 

levels of creosote were excavated from 

the Mall property. Approximately 

178,000 tons of soil were excavated and 

shipped off site for treatment and/or 

disposal. The excavation of the Mall 

was completed in November 2007. 

The first round of annual long-term 

monitoring of Site groundwater started 

in November 2005, as required by the 

OU3 ROD. Levels of PAHs in 

groundwater have, in general, declined 

when compared to the initial 

groundwater sampling performed prior 

to the remediation of the source areas. 

Cleanup Goals 

The Remedial Action Reports for OU1 

Phase 1 dated July 2005, OU1 Phase 2 

dated August 2008, OU1 Phase 3 dated 

August 2006, OU2 Phase 1 dated July 

2005, OU2 Phase 2 dated August 2008 

and OU3 dated August 2008 found that 

the construction activities at the Site 

were consistent with the approved 

construction plans (Design Reports, Site 

Management Plan, Sampling Analysis 

and Monitoring Plan, Perimeter Air 

Monitoring Plan, De-watering Plan, 

Waste Management Plan, Excavation 

and Handling Plan, Health and Safety 

Plan, and Quality Assurance Project 

Plan). 

The remedial action provided for a 

rigorous sampling and analysis program. 

Specifically, sampling was required and 

implemented to protect on-site residents 

and on-site workers, and to confirm 

compliance with RAOs. Daily real-time 

air monitoring was conducted within 

the perimeter of the remediation area to 

detect and quantify total volatile organic 

compounds and respirable particulates. 

In addition, confirmatory soil samples 

were taken for Site contaminants 

wherever additional contamination was 

suspected or known to occur. Soil 

samples were also obtained for backfill 

before placement into excavated areas. 

In addition to air and soil sampling 

conducted during all phases of the 

remediation, the OU3 ROD called for 

long-term groundwater monitoring. The 

objective of the long-term groundwater 

monitoring is to assess the migration 

and attenuation of creosote in 

groundwater over time. 

Operation and Maintenance 

Operation, maintenance and 

monitoring activities at the site include: 

Maintenance of eight EPA-acquired 

residential properties; sale of the eight 

remaining EPA-acquired residential 

properties; maintenance of the 

institutional controls; long-term, on-site 

and off-site groundwater monitoring; 

and adjustments and/or modifications to 

the groundwater monitoring systems. 

As part of the monitoring program, 

groundwater will continue to be 

sampled to monitor plume properties, 

including its extent over time to verify 

that the plume will not increase or pose 

an unacceptable risk to human health 

and the environment. 

Institutional controls have been 

applied to the groundwater and, where 

appropriate, soils at the Site. 

The OU3 ROD required the 

establishment of a Classification 

Exception Area (CEA) for the area of 

groundwater contamination. The CEA 

was established to provide notice that 

the constituent standards for a class IIA 

aquifer classification are not or will not 

be met in the area of the Federal 

Creosote Site and that designated 

aquifer uses are suspended in the 

affected area for the term of the CEA. 

Additional monitoring wells were 

installed to delineate the CEA, and the 

CEA was established in January 2010. 

Deed notices were applied at the Site 

to prevent exposure to residual 

contaminants in soils that were not 

excavated as part of the remediation. 

The OU2 ROD anticipated the use of 

deed notices on 23 properties where 

residual contamination (not source 

material) was left at depths greater than 

approximately 14 feet. As documented 

in the 2008 ESD, the implemented 

remedy differed from the ROD by use of 

deed notices at a number of properties 

where residual contamination remained 

between two feet and 14 feet in depth. 

Residual contamination was not 

removed between these depths in order 

to preserve the structural integrity of 

houses. 

During the implementation of the 

remedy, all source material encountered 

in the residential development was 

removed and residual contamination 

above cleanup goals was left beneath 21 

properties. All 21 residential property 

owners applied deed notices to their 

properties where residual 

contamination remained at levels 

exceeding the remedial goals 

established for the Site. Consistent with 

the expectations of the ROD, deed 

notices were applied to six properties 

where residual contamination remains 

below approximately 14 feet. The 

remaining 15 properties requiring deed 

notices have residual contamination 

shallower than 14 feet. The residual 

contamination remains at depths that 

are inaccessible through normal 

residential activities. Property owners 

are required to maintain the property in 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 43 / Wednesday, March 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules 12441 

a manner that ensures the deed notice 

continues to be protective. NJDEP is to 

conduct biennial inspections and certify 

the continued protectiveness of all 

residential properties containing deed 

notices. 

A deed notice was required on 

Borough of Manville roads and right-ofways that contained residual 

contamination at levels exceeding the 

remedial goals established for the Site. 

The Borough has applied deed notices 

to all areas that were required. 

A deed notice was also required on 

the Rustic Mall commercial property. 

The owners have applied a deed notice 

to this property in accordance with the 

remedy selected in the OU3 ROD. The 

commercial property owner is 

responsible to conduct biennial 

inspections and provide certification to 

NJDEP that specifications of the deed 

notice continue to be protective. 

Five-Year Review 

Hazardous substances, pollutants, or 

contaminants will remain at the Site 

above levels that allow for unlimited 

use and unrestricted exposure. In 

accordance with CERCLA Section 121 

(c), the remedies at the Site will be 

reviewed no less than every five years. 

The first five-year review was 

completed in June 2007. A second fiveyear review was completed on May 3, 

2012. This second five-year review 

determined that the implemented 

actions at the Site currently protect 

human health and the environment 

because soil excavation activities and 

institutional controls prevent direct 

exposure to contaminated soils. EPA 

will complete the next five-year-review 

prior to May 3, 2017. 

Community Involvement 

A very high level of community 

concern was demonstrated by residents, 

commercial property owners, business 

owners, and borough officials at the 

time the Site was discovered in 1997. 

This level of community concern 

persisted to the completion of cleanup 

activities in 2008. 

Initially, public meetings were used to 

convey information to the community. 

At these meetings, residents were 

informed of plans for indoor air 

sampling and soil sampling on their 

properties. As results of the sampling 

events were produced, EPA held public 

availability sessions in which EPA 

representatives met with residents oneon-one to discuss the sampling results. 

As with the public meetings, these 

public availability sessions were well 

attended and preferred by many 

members of the community. A 

Community Advisory Group (CAG) was 

formed early on in the project. The CAG 

obtained information from EPA and 

provided community input on the 

implementation of field activities 

associated with investigations, design 

and remedial construction. As the 

project moved through the remedial 

investigation to the remedial design and 

remedial action, the on-site presence of 

equipment and contractor personnel 

associated with these activities gained 

higher visibility and became more 

intrusive to the community. EPA 

distributed informational fact sheets to 

property owners immediately before 

field activities were to take place in any 

area of the community. The fact sheets 

informed the community of Site 

activities such as utility mark-offs, road 

closures, equipment to be used for 

upcoming work, number of personnel 

involved in the work and the duration 

of the work as well as upcoming 

meetings. In addition, EPA distributed 

periodic newsletters informing the 

community of cleanup progress and 

plans for future cleanup activities. EPA 

held multiple interviews with different 

media (newspaper, television and radio 

news) to report on progress of the Site 

investigation and cleanup activities. 

Press events were also held to announce 

major milestones of the project. Meeting 

one-on-one with residents at their 

homes was a critical component of 

community relations activities at this 

Site. A wide range of issues were 

addressed at these meetings such as 

access agreements, property specific 

plans for upcoming environmental 

testing and remediation, interpretation 

of sampling results, permanent and 

temporary relocation assistance, and 

resident’s concerns regarding intrusive 

remediation of their properties. 

A notice will be published in the local 

newspaper informing the public of 

EPA’s intent to delete the Site. This 

public notice will request public 

comment on the proposed deletion and 

provide EPA’s point of contact to accept 

comments. 

Determination That the Site Meets the 

Criteria for Deletion in the NCP 

All response actions required in each 

of the RODs have been completed and 

all remedial action objectives have been 

met. One of the three criteria for Site 

deletion specifies that EPA may delete 

a site from the NPL if all appropriate 

Fund-financed response under CERCLA 

has been implemented, and no further 

response action by responsible parties is 

appropriate. EPA, with the concurrence 

of the State of New Jersey Department 

of Environmental Protection, believes 

that this criterion for deletion has been 

met. Subsequently, EPA is proposing 

deletion of this Site from the NPL. 

Documents supporting this action are 

available from 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(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. 

Dated: January 31, 2014. 

Judith Enck 

Regional Administrator, Region 2. 

[FR Doc. 2014–04885 Filed 3–4–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Office of the Secretary 

45 CFR Parts 160 and 162 

[CMS–0037–N] 

Administrative Simplification: 

Certification of Compliance for Health 

Plans; Extension of Comment Period 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, HHS. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of the 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: This document extends the 

comment period for the Administrative 

Simplification: Certification of 

Compliance for Health Plans proposed 

rule, which was published in the 

January 2, 2014 Federal Register. The 

comment period for the proposed rule, 

which would have ended on March 3, 

2014, is extended to April 3, 2014. 

DATES: The comment period for the 

proposed rule published in the January 

2, 2014 Federal Register (79 FR 298) is 

extended to April 3, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: In commenting, please refer 

to file code CMS–0037–P. Because of 

staff and resource limitations, we cannot 

accept comments by facsimile (FAX) 

transmission. 

You may submit comments in one of 

four ways (please choose only one of the 

ways listed): 

1. You may submit electronic 

comments on this regulation to http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

‘‘Submit a comment’’ instructions. 

2. By regular mail. You may mail 

written comments to the following 

address ONLY: 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS