37630 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 121 / Friday, June 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Subpart J—[Amended] 

12. Amend § 1918.103 by revising 

paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows: 

§ 1918.103 Head protection. 

* * * * * 

(b)(1) The employer must ensure that 

head protection complies with any of 

the following consensus standards: 

(i) American National Standards 

Institute (ANSI) Z89.1–2009, ‘‘American 

National Standard for Industrial Head 

Protection,’’ incorporated by reference 

in § 1918.3; 

(ii) American National Standards 

Institute (ANSI) Z89.1–2003, ‘‘American 

National Standard for Industrial Head 

Protection,’’ incorporated by reference 

in § 1918.3; or 

(iii) American National Standards 

Institute (ANSI) Z89.1–1997, ‘‘American 

National Standard for Personnel 

Protection—Protective Headwear for 

Industrial Workers—Requirements,’’ 

incorporated by reference in § 1918.3. 

* * * * * 

PART 1926—[AMENDED] 

A—General [Amended] 

13. Revise the authority citation for 

subpart A of part 1926 to read as 

follows: 

Authority: 40 U.S.C. 333; 29 U.S.C. 653, 

655, 657; Secretary of Labor’s Order No. 12– 

71 (36 FR 8754), 8–76 (41 FR 25059), 9–83 

(48 FR 35736), 6–96 (62 FR 111), 5–2007 (72 

FR 31160), 4–2010 (75 FR 55355), or 1–2012 

(77 FR 3912), as applicable; and 29 CFR part 

1911. 

14. Amend § 1926.6 as follows: 

a. Revise paragraphs (h)(28) and 

(h)(29). 

b. Add new paragraph (h)(30). 

§ 1926.6 Incorporation by reference. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(28) American National Standards 

Institute (ANSI) Z89.1–2009, American 

National Standard for Industrial Head 

Protection, approved January 26, 2009; 

IBR approved for § 1926.100(b)(1)(i). 

Copies of ANSI Z89.1–2009 are 

available for purchase only from the 

International Safety Equipment 

Association, 1901 North Moore Street, 

Arlington, VA 22209–1762; telephone: 

703–525–1695; fax: 703–528–2148; Web 

site: www.safetyequipment.org. 

(29) American National Standards 

Institute (ANSI) Z89.1–2003, American 

National Standard for Industrial Head 

Protection; IBR approved for 

§ 1926.100(b)(1)(ii). Copies of ANSI 

Z89.1–2003 are available for purchase 

only from the International Safety 

Equipment Association, 1901 North 

Moore Street, Arlington, VA 22209– 

1762; telephone: 703–525–1695; fax: 

703–528–2148; Web site: 

www.safetyequipment.org. 

(30) American National Standards 

Institute (ANSI) Z89.1–1997, American 

National Standard for Personnel 

Protection—Protective Headwear for 

Industrial Workers—Requirements; IBR 

approved for § 1926.100(b)(1)(iii). 

Copies of ANSI Z89.1–1997 are 

available for purchase only from the 

International Safety Equipment 

Association, 1901 North Moore Street, 

Arlington, VA 22209–1762; telephone: 

703–525–1695; fax: 703–528–2148; Web 

site: www.safetyequipment.org. 

* * * * * 

Subpart E—[Amended] 

15. Revise the authority citation for 

subpart E of part 1926 to read as 

follows: 

Authority: 40 U.S.C. 333; 29 U.S.C. 653, 

655, 657; Secretary of Labor’s Order No. 12– 

71 (36 FR 8754), 8–76 (41 FR 25059), 9–83 

(48 FR 35736), 1–90 (55 FR 9033), 6–96 (62 

FR 111), 5–2007 (72 FR 31160), 4–2010 (75 

FR 55355), or 1–2012 (77 FR 3912), as 

applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911. 

16. Amend § 1926.100 as follows: 

a. Add paragraphs (b)(1) through 

(b)(3). 

b. Remove paragraph (c). 

§ 1926.100 Head protection. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) The employer must provide each 

employee with head protection that 

meets the specifications contained in 

any of the following consensus 

standards: 

(i) American National Standards 

Institute (ANSI) Z89.1–2009, ‘‘American 

National Standard for Industrial Head 

Protection,’’ incorporated by reference 

in § 1926.6; 

(ii) American National Standards 

Institute (ANSI) Z89.1–2003, ‘‘American 

National Standard for Industrial Head 

Protection,’’ incorporated by reference 

in § 1926.6; or 

(iii) American National Standards 

Institute (ANSI) Z89.1–1997, ‘‘American 

National Standard for Personnel 

Protection—Protective Headwear for 

Industrial Workers—Requirements,’’ 

incorporated by reference in § 1926.6. 

(2) The employer must ensure that the 

head protection provided for each 

employee exposed to high-voltage 

electric shock and burns also meets the 

specifications contained in Section 9.7 

(‘‘Electrical Insulation’’) of any of the 

consensus standards identified in 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section. 

(3) OSHA will deem any head 

protection device that the employer 

demonstrates is at least as effective as a 

head protection device constructed in 

accordance with one of the consensus 

standards identified in paragraph (b)(1) 

of this section to be in compliance with 

the requirements of this section. 

[FR Doc. 2012–15031 Filed 6–21–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1989–0008; FRL–9691–6] 

National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency 

Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion 

of the New Hanover County Airport 

Burn Pit Superfund Site 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) Region 4 is issuing a 

Notice of Intent to Delete the New 

Hanover County Airport Burn Pit 

Superfund Site (Site) located in 

Wilmington, North Carolina, from the 

National Priorities List (NPL) and 

requests public comments on this 

proposed action. The NPL, promulgated 

pursuant to section 105 of the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is 

an appendix of the National Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan (NCP). EPA, with the 

concurrence of the State of North 

Carolina, through the North Carolina 

Department of Environment and Natural 

Resources (DENR), has determined that 

all appropriate response actions under 

CERCLA have been completed. 

However, this deletion does not 

preclude future actions under 

Superfund. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

July 23, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID no. EPA–HQ– 

SFUND–1989–0008, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Online: http://www.regulations.gov. 

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: stepter.beverly@epa.gov 

• Fax: (404) 562–8788, Attention: 

Beverly Hudson-Stepter 

• Mail: Beverly Hudson-Stepter, 

Remedial Project Manager, Superfund 

Remedial Section B, Superfund 

Remedial and Site Evaluation Branch, 

Superfund Division, U.S. Environmental 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 121 / Friday, June 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 37631 

Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth 

Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303– 

8960. 

• Hand delivery: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth 

Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303– 

8960. Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Docket’s normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. The Regional EPA Office is 

open for business Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID no. EPA–HQ–SFUND–1989– 

0008. 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 submitted. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in the 

hard copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at: 

Regional Site Information Repository: 

U.S EPA Record Center, Attn: Ms. 

Debbie Jourdan, Atlanta Federal Center, 

61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 

30303–8960, Phone: (404) 562–8862, 

Hours 8 a.m.–4 p.m., Monday through 

Friday by appointment only or 

Local Site Information Repository: 

New Hanover County Public Library, 

210 Chestnut Street, Wilmington, North 

Carolina, Phone: (910) 798–7309 Hours 

9 a.m.–8 p.m., Monday and Tuesday, 

9 a.m.–6 p.m., Wednesday and 

Thursday, 9 a.m.– 5 p.m., Friday and 

Saturday, closed on Sunday. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Beverly Hudson-Stepter, Remedial 

Project Manager, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 4, Superfund 

Remedial Section B, Superfund 

Remedial and Site Evaluation Branch, 

Superfund Division, U. S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 61 

Forsyth Street, Atlanta, Georgia 30311, 

(404) 562–8816, Electronic mail at: 

Stepter.Beverly@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 4 announces its intent to 

delete the New Hanover County Airport 

Burn Pit Superfund Site from the 

National Priorities List (NPL) and 

requests public comment on this 

proposed action. The NPL constitutes 

Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300, which 

is the Oil and Hazardous Substances 

Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 

which EPA promulgated pursuant to 

section 105 of the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation 

and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as 

amended. EPA maintains the NPL as the 

list of sites that appear to present a 

significant risk to public health, welfare, 

or the environment. Sites on the NPL 

may be the subject of remedial actions 

financed by the Hazardous Substance 

Superfund (Fund). As described in 40 

CFR 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites 

deleted from the NPL remains eligible 

for Fund-financed 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 New Hanover County 

Airport Burn Pit 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: 

1. responsible parties or other persons 

have implemented all appropriate 

response actions required; 

2. all appropriate Fund-financed 

response under CERCLA has been 

implemented, and no further response 

action by responsible parties is 

appropriate; or 

3. 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 

North Carolina prior to developing this 

Notice of Intent to Delete. 

2. The State of North Carolina, 

through DNER, has concurred on the 

deletion of the Site from the NPL. 

3. 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, 

Wilmington Star News. The newspaper 

notice announces the 30-day public 

comment period concerning the Notice 

of Intent to Delete the site from the NPL. 

4. The EPA placed copies of 

documents supporting the proposed 

deletion in the deletion docket and 

made these items available for public 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
37632 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 121 / Friday, June 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

inspection and copying at the Site 

information repositories identified 

above. 

If adverse comments on this deletion 

notice are received within the thirty (30) 

day public comment period, 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. In addition, 40 CFR 

Section 300.425(e)(3) 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 

New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit 

Site Superfund Site, (EPA ID: 

NCD981021157) is located in 

Wilmington, Brunswick County, North 

Carolina. The Site consists of a four-acre 

plot and is located on Gardner Road 

approximately 500 feet west of the 

Wilmington International Airport in 

New Hanover County. The airport is 

approximately one mile north of 

Wilmington, North Carolina, at latitude 

34°16′29′′ north and longitude 77°54′55′′ 

west. The New Hanover County Airport 

Burn Pit was constructed in 1968. From 

1968 to 1979, the Cape Fear Technical 

Institute (now known as the Cape Fear 

Community College), used the burn pit 

for fire-training purposes, burning jet 

fuel and gasoline in the burn pit, and 

extinguishing the fires with water. The 

Wilmington Fire Department used the 

burn pit for fire-training purposes from 

1968 to 1976 and the United States Air 

Force used the burn pit for fire-training 

purposes during the Vietnam War. 

Jet fuel and drainage from petroleum 

fuel storage tanks in the area were 

burned, and the fires were extinguished 

with water, carbon dioxide, and dry 

chemicals. Some time prior to 1982, 

materials used in river spill cleanups 

were dumped into the burn pit. 

In 1986, the North Carolina Division 

of Health Services discovered heavy 

metals and numerous organics in the 

soil around the burn pit and in other 

nearby soil samples. Surface water 

within three (3) miles downstream of 

the Site is used for recreational 

activities, and an estuary wetland is 

located approximately one (1) mile from 

the Site. Approximately 6,300 people 

obtain drinking water from public and 

private wells within three (3) miles of 

the Site. A private well is located 

approximately 1,500 feet to the 

northwest of the Site. 

To date, the USEPA has identified six 

(6) potentially responsible parties 

(PRPs) at the Site: the County of New 

Hanover, North Carolina; the City of 

Wilmington, North Carolina; the Cape 

Fear Community College; the United 

States Air Force; Axel Johnson Inc. and 

Sprague Energy Corporation. 

The Site was proposed for the NPL on 

June 24, 1988 (53 FR 23978), and 

finalized on the NPL March 31, 1989 (54 

FR 13296). 

Removal Action 

EPA negotiated with the City of 

Wilmington, New Hanover County and 

Cape Fear Community College in March 

1989, for performance of the remedial 

investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS), 

but the parties were unable to reach an 

agreement. In May 1990, however, the 

parties signed an Administrative Order 

on Consent (AOC) for a removal action 

to address all of the source material 

present on site. The removal began in 

November 1990 and was completed in 

December 1990. The removal involved 

removing waste materials, contaminated 

water, and contaminated surface and 

subsurface soils. A total of 12,500 

gallons of water were removed from the 

pit and 6,000 gallons of water were 

removed from on-site tanks. 

Contaminated surface and subsurface 

soils were removed from the firefighter 

training areas. In addition, structures 

associated with firefighter training 

activities were dismantled and removed, 

including the fuel supply tank and its 

associated underground piping system, 

the railroad tank car, the automobile 

bodies, and the aircraft mock-up. A total 

of 3,220 tons of contaminated soil and 

debris were removed. Excavated areas 

were backfilled to grade with 2,680 

cubic yards of clean soil. 

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study 

(RI/FS) 

EPA conducted a fund-lead RI/FS in 

1991 and 1992. Sampling performed 

indicated that no surface or subsurface 

soil contamination remained above 

concentrations that would indicate 

unacceptable risks to humans or the 

environment. This was a strong 

indication that the soil removal action 

in 1990 was successful in removing 

contaminated soils. Contaminants 

detected in the groundwater also 

included VOCs, SVOCs, and metals. 

Contaminants were found in both the 

shallow and deep zones of the upper 

water bearing formation. No monitoring 

wells (MWs) were completed in the 

underlying aquifer. The health risk 

posed by this NPL site is primarily from 

the future use of the groundwater as a 

potable source. This is due to the 

presence of contaminants at 

concentrations above EPA’s MCLs for 

drinking water and the State of North 

Carolina groundwater quality standards. 

The Feasibility Study (FS) conducted 

by CDM and finalized on May 18, 1992 

addressed alternatives for groundwater 

remediation. 

Selected Remedy 

A ROD was signed on 9/29/1992 to 

address contaminated groundwater at 

the site. The remedial action objectives 

of the ROD were to restore groundwater 

to beneficial use. The remedy 

components include: 

• No further action for Site soils; 

• A one-year period for the collection 

of additional data on the quality of the 

groundwater; 

• Design and implementation of the 

groundwater remediation to be initiated 

after the year of groundwater 

monitoring. The selected groundwater 

remediation alternative consists of a 

groundwater extraction system, an air 

stripping process to remove volatile 

organics, and a pipeline discharging the 

treated groundwater to the Northside 

POTW system; and 

• A review of the existing 

groundwater monitoring system to 

insure proper monitoring of 

groundwater quality and the 

effectiveness of the groundwater 

extraction system. Additional 

monitoring wells will be added to 

mitigate any deficiencies. The 

contaminants of concern (COCs) 

included benzene, chloroform, 1,2- 

dichloroethane, and the metals 

chromium and lead. 

The USEPA signed an UAO for 

Remedial Design/Remedial Action (RD/ 

RA) for the Site on February 28, 1994. 

A Preliminary Remedial Design report 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 121 / Friday, June 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 37633 

representing 30% design was submitted 

to the USEPA on December 15, 1994. 

The USEPA approved the 30% 

submittal on February 1995. In 

accordance with the UAO, the PRPs 

submitted the Intermediate Design 

Report to the USEPA on June 1, 1995. 

The Intermediate Design Report did not 

provide a design for the preferred 

remedy. Instead, the PRPs submitted the 

intermediate design which proposed 

changing the remedy to an air sparging 

based system. This type of system was 

not an alternative previously 

considered; however, its cost could be 

significantly less than the pump and 

treat cost while effectively achieving the 

remediation goals. 

The 1992 ROD included metals 

contamination such as chromium and 

lead, as COCs. Afterwards, low flow 

(low turbidity) sampling of select 

monitoring wells was conducted 

resulting in no detection of metals. 

Previously identified metals were 

associated with preservative leaching of 

trace metals from high concentrations of 

solids from previous sampling. Since 

metals were determined to no longer be 

COCs, the PRPs requested permission to 

conduct a study to evaluate current 

groundwater remediation technologies 

and their potential applicability to the 

Burn Pit Site. 

The remedial technology considered 

best for treating the Site related VOCs 

was Air Sparging. In order to verify its 

effectiveness at the Burn Pit Site, an Air 

Sparging Treatability Study was 

conducted in 1998 and the results were 

documented in the Air Sparging Pilot 

Test Treatability Study Report dated 

December 16, 1998. The Air Sparging 

Treatability Study results showed air 

sparging to be very effective at treating 

the VOCs present in the groundwater at 

the Site. In June 1998, a Feasibility 

Study Amendment (FSA) was then 

conducted to document the comparison 

of alternatives in the original ROD with 

the proposed air sparging remedy. The 

results were documented in the ‘‘Air 

Sparging Pilot Test Treatability Study 

Report’’ dated December 16, 1998. The 

study revealed that air sparging was 

very effective in treating the VOCs 

present in ground water at the Site. A 

feasibility study amendment was 

conducted to document the comparison 

of the pump-and-treat remedy selected 

in the ROD with the proposed air 

sparging remedy. 

Amended Remedy 

On April 14, 2000, EPA issued an 

Amended Record of Decision, in which 

the Agency selected pulsed air sparging 

as the new remedy for groundwater. 

Pulsed air sparging consists of air being 

injected (as a pulse) into the aquifer 

through a strategically located network 

of vertical wells. The injected air travels 

through the groundwater thereby 

volatilizing and enhancing biological 

degradation of the contaminants 

dissolved in the groundwater. 

Response Action 

The treatment system consisted of 16 

pulse zones; each consisted of five wells 

for a total of 80 sparge wells. 

Performance verification and 

compliance monitoring wells were 

installed in accordance with the Final 

Remedial Design Report dated April 

2002. Various air sparge wells were 

installed to test installation methods by 

verifying the integrity of the constructed 

seal (bentonite), under normal operating 

pressures. Upon installation, all air 

sparge wells were developed prior to 

testing. Initial testing of sparge well seal 

integrity was performed on seven sparge 

wells using a trailer-mounted 

compressor. Two Sullair compressors 

alternately produced the air pulse in 

succession throughout the 80 well 

systems. The rate of air injected 

continuously increased and was 

eventually terminated when a steady 

state condition was reached. Vapors 

naturally vented into the atmosphere. 

Each pulse of air was injected at a 

pressure of 15 psig and continued for 90 

minutes. The recharge time between 

each pulse of forced air was 23.5 hours. 

A comprehensive monitoring program 

was implemented to verify that the 

treatment system reduced the 

contaminants. 

The system was started in June 2003 

and was turned off on January 22, 2010. 

Cleanup Goals 

The groundwater clean-up levels for 

the remedy are listed below and based 

on North Carolina 2L Groundwater 

Quality Standards (GWQS): 

GROUNDWATER CLEAN-UP STANDARDS

Chemicals of concern Performance goals 

GROUNDWATER 

Benzene ...................................... 1 μg/L. 

Chloroform .................................. 0.19 μg/L. 

1.2 Dichloroethane ..................... 0.38 μg/L. 

Ethylbenzene .............................. 29 μg/L. 

Laboratory analyses of the 

groundwater samples collected from site 

groundwater monitoring and 

performance verification wells in 

January 2010 revealed no EPA Method 

602 parameter concentrations in excess 

of applicable 2L GWQS except 1.24 mg/ 

L Benzene in the MWD–002 

groundwater sample. The subsequent 

resampling of monitoring well MWD– 

002 over four (4) consecutive quarterly 

sampling events from January 2010 to 

January 2011 did not reveal any 

compound concentrations in excess of 

applicable 2L GWQS. 

Operation and Maintenance 

No operation and maintenance 

activities are required for this site. 

Five-Year Reviews 

The 2008 Five-Year Review found 

that the selected remedy at the site was 

protective of human health and the 

environment in the short-term, because 

all exposure pathways that could result 

in unacceptable risks were being 

controlled. The contaminated soils and 

waste materials have been removed 

from the site leaving no remaining 

source material and the contaminated 

groundwater is currently being treated 

and is not being used as a source for 

potable water. However, if the 

additional air sparging wells are not 

effective at treating the remaining 

contamination, then in order for the 

remedy to be protective in the longterm, ICs may need to be put in place 

on the property where contamination is 

above federal and state MCLs. The ICs 

were not implemented because 

groundwater monitoring showed that 

groundwater contamination met the 

restoration cleanup levels in 2011. Since 

no hazardous substances are present onsite above levels allowing for unlimited 

use and unrestricted exposure, five-year 

reviews at the site were discontinued. 

Community Involvement 

EPA has conducted a range of 

community involvement activities at the 

Site to solicit community input and to 

ensure that the public remains informed 

about site-related activities throughout 

the cleanup process. Outreach activities 

have included public notices, 

interviews and public meetings on 

cleanup activities. In addition to 

publishing notices about its intent to 

delete the Site and amend the ROD in 

the Federal Register and in a local 

newspaper, EPA conducted a public 

meeting on November 30, 1999, to 

provide the public with the opportunity 

to comment on the proposed ROD 

Amendment. The ROD Amendment and 

Responsiveness Summary, addressing 

comments received during the comment 

period, have been included in the 

Administrative Record. 

EPA has also prepared the deletion 

docket, which includes the documents, 

which EPA relied on for its decision to 

propose deleting the Site from the NPL. 

Therefore, the public participation 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
37634 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 121 / Friday, June 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

requirements, required in CERCLA 

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

9613(k), and CERCLA Section 117, 42 

U.S.C. Section 9617, have been satisfied. 

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.’’ 

EPA, with concurrence of the State of 

North Carolina, through the Department 

of the Environment and Natural 

Resources, by a letter dated February 16, 

2012, believes this criteria for deletion 

have been satisfied. The contaminated 

soils have been removed and the Site 

meets all the Site completion 

requirements as specified in Office of 

Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

(OSWER) Directive 9320.2–09–A–P, 

Closeout Procedures for National 

Priorities List Sites. Specifically, 

confirmatory sampling verifies that the 

Site has achieved the ROD cleanup 

standards, and that all cleanup actions 

specified in the ROD have been 

implemented. Therefore, EPA is 

deleting the Site from the NPL. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous 

waste, Hazardous substances, 

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements; Superfund; Water 

pollution control; Water supply. 

Dated: May 11, 2012. 

Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2012–15340 Filed 6–21–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 721 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2012–0182; FRL–9353–3] 

RIN 2070–AB27 

Proposed Significant New Use Rule on 

Certain Chemical Substances 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a significant 

new use rule (SNUR) under the Toxic 

Substances Control Act (TSCA) for 

chemical substances identified 

generically as complex strontium 

aluminum, rare earth doped, which 

were the subject of premanufacture 

notices (PMNs) P–12–22, P–12–23, P– 

12–24, P–12–25, and P–12–26. This 

action would require persons who 

intend to manufacture, import, or 

process any of the chemical substances 

for an activity that is designated as a 

significant new use by this proposed 

rule to notify EPA at least 90 days before 

commencing that activity. The required 

notification would provide EPA with 

the opportunity to evaluate the intended 

use and, if necessary, to prohibit or limit 

the activity before it occurs. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 23, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2012–0182, by 

one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Document Control Office 

(7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention 

and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: OPPT Document 

Control Office (DCO), EPA East Bldg., 

Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC. Attention: Docket ID 

Number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2012–0182. 

The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

DCO is (202) 564–8930. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during the DCO’s 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPPT– 

2012–0182. EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the 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 regulations.gov or 

email. The 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 

regulations.gov, your email address will 

be automatically captured and included 

as part of the comment that is placed in 

the 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 docket index available 

at http://www.regulations.gov. 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 hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available electronically at 

http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only 

available in hard copy, at the OPPT 

Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in 

the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 

3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room 

hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number of 

the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 

566–0280. Docket visitors are required 

to show photographic identification, 

pass through a metal detector, and sign 

the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are 

processed through an X-ray machine 

and subject to search. Visitors will be 

provided an EPA/DC badge that must be 

visible at all times in the building and 

returned upon departure. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical information contact: Kenneth 

Moss, Chemical Control Division 

(7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention 

and Toxics, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone 

number: (202) 564–9232; email address: 

moss.kenneth@epa.gov. 

For general information contact: The 

TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 

South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 

14620; telephone number: (202) 554– 

1404; email address: TSCAHotline@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you manufacture, import, 

process, or use the chemical substances 

contained in this proposed rule. 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS