Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 60721 

on States, on the relationship between 

the national government and the States, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999). Executive Order 13132 requires 

EPA to develop an accountable process 

to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input 

by State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies 

that have federalism implications’’ is 

defined in the Executive order to 

include regulations that have 

‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’ This final rule 

directly regulates growers, food 

processors, food handlers, and food 

retailers, not States. This action does not 

alter the relationships or distribution of 

power and responsibilities established 

by Congress in the preemption 

provisions of section 408(n)(4) of the 

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 

(FFDCA). For these same reasons, the 

Agency has determined that this final 

rule does not have any ‘‘tribal 

implications’’ as described in Executive 

Order 13175, entitled ‘‘Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments’’ (65 FR 67249, November 

9, 2000). Executive Order 13175, 

requires EPA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and 

timely input by tribal officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have tribal implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that 

have tribal implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on one or more Indian tribes, on 

the relationship between the Federal 

Government and the Indian tribes, or on 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes.’’ This 

final rule will not have substantial 

direct effects on tribal governments, on 

the relationship between the Federal 

Government and Indian Tribes, or on 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian Tribes, as 

specified in Executive Order 13175. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this final rule. 

IV. Congressional Review Act 

Pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will 

submit a report containing this rule and 

other required information to the U.S. 

Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. This action is not a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides 

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: September 18, 2013. 

Steven Bradbury, 

Director, Office of Pesticide Programs. 

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is 

amended as follows: 

PART 180—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 180 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 

§ 180.121 [Amended] 

■ 2. In § 180.121, remove paragraph (e). 

[FR Doc. 2013–23801 Filed 10–1–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1983–0002; FRL–9901– 

60–Region 2] 

National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency 

Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion 

of the Ludlow Sand & Gravel 

Superfund Site 

AGENCY: United States Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) Region 2 is publishing a 

direct final Notice of Deletion of the 

Ludlow Sand & Gravel Superfund Site 

(Site), located in the Town of Paris, 

Oneida County, New York, 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 Notice of Deletion is being 

published by EPA with the concurrence 

of the State of New York (State), through 

the New York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 

EPA and NYSDEC have determined that 

all appropriate response actions under 

CERCLA, other than monitoring and 

maintenance (M&M) and five-year 

reviews, have been completed. 

However, this deletion does not 

preclude future actions under 

Superfund. 

DATES: This direct final deletion will be 

effective December 2, 2013 unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by 

November 1, 2013. If adverse comments 

are received, EPA will publish a timely 

withdrawal of this 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–1983–0002, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: rodrigues.isabel@epa.gov. 

• Fax: To the attention of Isabel 

Rodrigues at 212–637–4284. 

• Mail: To the attention of Isabel 

Rodrigues, Remedial Project Manager, 

Emergency and Remedial Response 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 2, 290 Broadway, 20th 

Floor, New York, NY 10007–1866. 

• Hand Delivery: Superfund Records 

Center, 290 Broadway, 18th Floor, New 

York, NY 10007–1866 (telephone: 212– 

637–4308). Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Record Center’s 

normal hours of operation (Monday to 

Friday from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.). Special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID no. EPA–HQ–SFUND–1983– 

0002: 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 http://

www.regulations.gov or via 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 

comments. If you send comments to 

EPA via email, your email address will 

be included as part of the comment that 

is placed in the Docket and made 

available on the Web site. If you submit 

electronic comments, EPA recommends 

that you include your name and other 

contact information in the body of your 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
60722 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

comments and with any disks or CD– 

ROMs that you submit. If EPA cannot 

read your comments due to technical 

difficulties and cannot contact you for 

clarification, EPA may not be able to 

consider your comments. Electronic 

files should avoid the use of special 

characters and any form of encryption 

and should 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 hard 

copy. Publicly available Docket 

materials can be viewed electronically 

at http://www.regulations.gov or 

obtained in hard copy at: 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 2, Superfund Records Center, 

290 Broadway, 18th Floor, New York, 

NY 10007–1866, Phone: 212–637– 

4308, Hours: Monday to Friday from 

9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and 

Town of Paris, Town Hall, 2580 Sulphur 

Springs Road, Sauquoit, NY 13456– 

0451, Phone: 315–839–5400, Hours: 

Monday–Thursday from 9:00 a.m. to 

4:00 p.m., Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 

12:00 p.m. and 

NYSDEC Central Office, 625 Broadway, 

Albany, NY 12233–7016, Phone: 518– 

402–9775, Hours: Monday–Friday 

from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Please 

call for an appointment. and 

NYSDEC Region 6 Sub-Office, State 

Office Building, 207 Genesee Street, 

Utica, NY 13501, Phone: 315–793– 

2555, Hours: Monday–Friday from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.,Please call for 

an appointment. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Isabel Rodrigues, Remedial Project 

Manager, by mail at Emergency and 

Remedial Response Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 2, 290 Broadway, 20th floor, 

New York, NY 10007–1866; telephone 

at 212–637–4248; fax at 212–637–4284; 

or email at rodrigues.isabel@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 2 is publishing this direct 

final deletion of the Ludlow Sand & 

Gravel Superfund Site from the National 

Priorities List (NPL). The NPL 

constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR Part 

300, which is the National Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA 

promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of 

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 Section 

300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, a site deleted 

from the NPL remains eligible for 

remedial actions if conditions at the site 

warrant such action. 

Because EPA considers this action to 

be noncontroversial and routine, this 

action will be effective December 2, 

2013 unless EPA receives significant 

adverse comments by November 1, 

2013. Along with this direct final Notice 

of Deletion, EPA is co-publishing a 

Notice of Intent to delete the Site in the 

‘‘Proposed Rules’’ section of today’s 

Federal Register. 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 the deletion 

will not take effect. EPA will, if 

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 received. In such a case, 

there will be no additional opportunity 

to comment. 

Section II below explains the criteria 

for deleting sites from the NPL. Section 

III discusses procedures that EPA is 

using for this action. Section IV 

discusses the Site and demonstrates 

how it meets the deletion criteria. 

Section V discusses EPA’s action to 

delete the Site from the NPL unless 

significant 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 there is no risk posed or 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 parties 

have implemented all appropriate 

response actions required; 

ii. All appropriate Fund-financed 

responses under CERCLA have been 

implemented, and no further action by 

responsible parties is appropriate; or 

iii. The remedial investigation has 

shown that the release of hazardous 

substances poses no significant threat to 

public health or the environment and, 

therefore, 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 York prior to developing this direct 

final Notice of Deletion and the Notice 

of Intent to Delete also published today 

in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ section of the 

Federal Register. 

(2) EPA has provided the State 30 

working days for review of this notice 

and the parallel Notice of Intent to 

Delete prior to their publication today, 

and the State, through the NYSDEC, 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, 

The Observer-Dispatch (Utica). The 

newspaper notice announces the 30-day 

public comment period concerning the 

Notice of Intent to Delete the Site from 

the NPL. 

(4) EPA placed copies of documents 

supporting the proposed deletion in the 

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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 60723 

this direct final Notice of Deletion 

before its effective date and will prepare 

a response to comments. If appropriate, 

EPA may then continue with the 

deletion process based on 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’s management of sites. 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 summary provides the 

Agency’s rationale for deleting the Site 

from the NPL. 

Site Background and History 

The Site is located in the Town of 

Paris, Oneida County, New York, 

approximately six miles south of Utica. 

The Ludlow Sand & Gravel property 

encompasses approximately 60 acres 

with landfill activities confined to 

approximately 18 acres. The fill area is 

fenced on the western boundary along 

Holman City Road. The south and east 

sides of the landfill are bounded by a 

designated wetland and an unnamed 

stream, while to the north, the landfill 

is bounded by a gravel pit which is also 

part of the Site. 

The landfill began receiving 

municipal refuse from surrounding 

communities in the 1960’s. The landfill 

also received bulk liquid, including 

septage, waste oils, coolants, and 

sludges containing metals. The bulk 

liquids were disposed of at the landfill 

by surface application. The on-site 

gravel pit, known as the North Gravel 

Pit (NGP), located to the north of the 

landfill, was also periodically used for 

the disposal of bulk waste oils. 

Drummed liquid wastes were reportedly 

not disposed of in the landfill. 

Drummed liquids were bulked using a 

vacuum truck and were applied to the 

landfill in a manner similar to the bulk 

liquids previously described. The 

landfill continued to accept waste until 

it was shut down by court order in 1988. 

As early as 1966, New York State 

cited the owner/operator, Mr. Ludlow, 

for improper or illegal waste disposal 

practices. A variety of legal actions were 

taken against Mr. Ludlow in response to 

legal complaints made by the New York 

State Department of Law. 

Preliminary site investigations 

conducted by NYSDEC in 1982 

identified the presence of 

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in 

leachate seeps emanating from the 

landfill. Reports from the community 

and site inspections conducted by the 

NYSDEC indicated that the Site 

warranted proposal for the NPL. In 

December 1982, the Site was proposed 

to the NPL (47 FR 58476). In September 

1983, the Site was placed on the NPL 

(48 FR 40658). EPA, in consultation 

with the State, divided the site into two 

operable units (OUs). OU1 addressed 

the landfill proper and OU2 was to 

address contamination in off-site 

groundwater, the on-site wetlands, and 

the NGP. 

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility 

Study 

Special Metals Corporation of Utica, 

New York, a potentially responsible 

party (PRP), agreed to perform a 

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility 

Study (RI/FS) for the site in an 

Administrative Consent Order with the 

State that was signed on September 10, 

1984. The completed RI/FS was 

submitted to the State in 1986 and 

included a recommendation for landfill 

closure as the remedy for the site. The 

FS recommended alternatives for 

remediating the landfill that were less 

stringent than the federal and state 

requirements. Subsequently, Mr. 

Ludlow, another PRP, engaged a 

contractor to perform additional 

investigations to supplement the initial 

investigation and prepare a closure 

plan. A second investigation report with 

a final closure plan was submitted to the 

State for review. In July 1987, a Federal 

District Court Judge in the District Court 

of Binghamton ordered the landfill to 

close by February 15, 1988 pursuant to 

federal and state regulation and ordered 

the partial payment of response costs to 

the State. Concurrent with the PRP’s 

additional investigations, the EPA 

tasked a contractor to perform a 

supplemental RI/FS in response to the 

State’s request for assistance in 

evaluating the cost of the alternatives. 

The supplemental RI/FS was released to 

the public for comments in August 

1988. 

A supplemental RI to investigate the 

drinking water supply was also 

conducted. The Village of Clayville’s 

water system is located approximately 

three quarters of a mile northwest of the 

landfill. This system consists of a 

supply well 81 feet deep that has a 

capacity of 70 gallons per minute. The 

only individual water supply wells 

within 1,000 feet of the landfill are three 

homeowner wells along Mohawk Street 

located upgradient to groundwater flow 

around the landfill and eight additional 

homeowner wells located between 1,000 

and 3,000 feet from the landfill. The 

three closest residential wells and the 

Clayville public water supply were 

sampled for organics and metals. The 

results indicated that all off-site 

residential and public water supplies 

met federal and state drinking water 

standards. 

In 1994, the PRPs proposed a work 

plan for a supplemental RI/FS to 

address OU2. As some removal of 

contaminated material had occurred as 

part of the implementation of the OU1 

remedy, the PRPs believed that 

sufficient work was done to address the 

contamination at the NGP and that any 

further remedial action was 

unnecessary. The EPA and NYSDEC 

disagreed and the dispute was taken to 

court. Subsequently, the work plan was 

approved for implementation under a 

Consent Judgment, by order of the court, 

dated August 3, 1996. The purpose of 

the supplemental RI was to characterize 

the extent of groundwater 

contamination further and to define the 

nature and extent of residual 

contamination at the NGP. The 

supplemental RI was conducted 

between November 1996 and January 

1998. 

Selected Remedy 

Based upon the results of the RI/FS, 

EPA signed a Record of Decision (ROD) 

on September 30, 1988. The remedial 

measures identified in the 1988 OU1 

ROD were as follows: 

• Consolidate approximately 10,000 

cubic yards of contaminated soil and 

sediment located adjacent to the landfill 

and dispose of it in the landfill and then 

place either a clay or synthetic cover 

over it to prevent rain water from 

coming into contact with the buried 

materials; 

• Collect leachate from seepage areas; 

• Dewater the landfill, if necessary, 

by using either a passive drain system 

or groundwater extraction wells; 

• Implement upgradient groundwater 

controls to lower the water table to 

prevent groundwater from coming into 

contact with the waste material; 

• Treat the contaminated leachate 

and groundwater at an on-site facility, 

or if the volume of water were small, 

transport the water and leachate to an 

approved disposal facility; 

• Install a perimeter fence around the 

site, including the wetlands; 

• Recommend that institutional 

controls be established in the form of 

deed restrictions on future uses of the 

site; and 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
60724 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

• Monitor the groundwater, private 

wells, and surface water to ensure that 

remediation of the landfill is effective. 

In addition, the ROD called for 

implementation of a soil/sediment 

sampling program to fully define the 

volume and extent of contaminated soils 

to be consolidated under the cap. New 

York State and the PRPs entered into a 

Consent Judgement in the Northern 

District of New York for the 

implementation of an Approved 

Remedial Plan (ARP). The ARP 

addressed the elements of the 1988 

ROD. The ARP also included elements 

that were to be addressed as part of 

OU2, including the excavation and 

consolidation of contaminated 

sediments from the wetlands and PCBcontaminated soil from the NGP into the 

landfill. It also included a supplemental 

groundwater study that was completed 

by the PRPs in January 1990. 

Many soil and groundwater samples 

were collected at the site to characterize 

the nature and extent of contamination 

as part of the supplemental RI. These 

and other data indicated that PCBs were 

the principal contaminants which 

exceeded soil cleanup values. These 

PCB concentrations remained at depth 

in the NGP because of the limitations of 

the excavation equipment which was 

used when the NGP was excavated as 

part of the OU1 remedial activities. In 

addition, low levels of volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs) and inorganic 

compounds (metals) were also detected 

in soil and groundwater samples on a 

sporadic and limited basis. During the 

supplemental RI quarterly groundwater 

sampling was performed at five wells 

around the perimeter of the NGP from 

September 1997 until March 1999 for a 

total of seven sampling events. 

Monitoring well MW11–R had 

detectable concentrations of PCBs (0.13 

parts per billion (ppb) and 0.24 ppb) in 

the unfiltered samples during two of the 

seven sampling events (September 1997 

and June 1998). All other wells sampled 

and all filtered samples did not 

demonstrate detectable concentrations. 

This indicated that PCB contamination 

is not migrating in groundwater and is 

confined to the pit area. Based upon 

these data, it was determined that no 

further remedial action was necessary 

for the groundwater, with the 

assumption that the residual PCB 

contamination remaining below the 

water table in the NGP would be 

addressed as part of the OU2 remedy. 

The remedy for OU2, specified in a 

ROD issued by NYSDEC on March 31, 

2003, primarily addressed residual PCB 

contamination at depth in the NGP and 

specifically called for: 

• Solidifying soil at depth with PCB 

concentrations above 10 parts per 

million (ppm); 

• Implementing a pre-design 

delineation sampling program to 

determine the area to be treated; 

• Implementing soil bench-scale 

testing to determine the grout 

characteristics; 

• Backfilling the NGP to its original 

elevation, covering the area with clean 

soil to raise the surface elevation to its 

original grade, and applying a vegetative 

cover; 

• Limiting site access and issuing a 

deed restriction to prohibit groundwater 

usage and limiting the land use to 

nonresidential purposes; 

• Installing at least two downgradient 

deep groundwater monitoring wells to 

ensure that PCB migration in the 

groundwater is not occurring; and 

• Implementing a groundwater 

monitoring program. 

Response Actions 

The remedial action (RA) for OU1 was 

conducted by the PRPs pursuant to the 

Consent Judgement with the State. 

During the remedial design, the soil 

contamination in the wetlands areas and 

NGP were delineated. The Remedial 

Design Report was approved by the 

NYSDEC in June 1990. 

RA activities for OU1 started in 1990 

and were performed under the oversight 

of the NYSDEC. Sediment from the 

wetlands was excavated to the NYSDEC 

Technical and Administrative Guidance 

Memorandum (TAGM) No. 94–HWR– 

4046 surface soil guidance value of 1 

ppm for PCBs and consolidated into the 

landfill prior to the cap completion. 

Approximately 40 cubic yards of 

sediment with PCB concentrations 

greater than 500 ppm were disposed of 

off-site at an approved disposal facility. 

Approximately 60,000 cubic yards of 

soil were excavated from the NGP, of 

which approximately 40,000 cubic 

yards were found to be contaminated 

with PCBs and were consolidated into 

the landfill prior to completion of the 

cap. The other 20,000 cubic yards of 

material had nondetectable levels of 

PCBs and were placed on the bank of 

the NGP. The total amount of soil that 

was excavated from the NGP was greater 

than anticipated and the excavation 

using conventional excavation 

equipment became difficult when 

groundwater was encountered. Topsoil 

and seeding were placed over the entire 

capped area which was enclosed within 

a chain link fence. A leachate collection 

system, a leachate treatment system, gas 

collection/lateral drainage layer and gas 

venting systems were also installed. 

Monitoring wells were installed 

downgradient from the landfill. 

Construction was completed in 1992. 

A report documenting the cleanup 

efforts, Construction Document Report, 

was submitted by the PRPs and 

approved by the NYSDEC in May 1995. 

The United States Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE) prepared the RD 

plans and specifications for OU2 

through an interagency agreement with 

the EPA. The 2003 ROD identified 

pressure grouting as the method to be 

used to solidify the PCB-impacted soils 

in the NGP. The EPA performed a Value 

Engineering Assessment between the 

proposed pressure grouting technology 

and soil mixing technology. In-situ soil 

mixing (ISSM), sometimes referred to as 

in-situ solidification/stabilization (ISS), 

was identified as having the potential to 

complete the project at a lower cost and 

in a shorter time frame. As a result the 

EPA decided to use this technology to 

address the PCB contamination above 

10 ppm in the NGP. The EPA Region 2 

removal program staff directed and 

oversaw construction activities. 

From May 21 to June 8, 2007, the 

contractor mobilized at the site to 

prepare the site for construction 

activities. Also during this period of 

time, ponded water within the proposed 

work area was pumped into four 22,000- 

gallon frac tanks where it was stored 

until laboratory results indicated that it 

was acceptable to discharge. 

Following on-site mobilization in 

June 2007, construction activities were 

conducted in two phases. Phase I of the 

RA included ISSM of PCB-contaminated 

soils and installation of groundwater 

monitoring wells. Phase II included 

backfilling the pit with clean fill to its 

original elevation, seeding the area to 

provide a vegetative cover, and 

installing culverts, swales, and a 

retention basin for storm water runoff. 

On July 17, 2007 the ISSM contractor 

mobilized equipment to begin the field 

demonstration activities. Three sets of 

two 8.5-foot diameter overlapping 

grouted columns were advanced in a 

noncontaminated area of the NGP. The 

center of the columns were placed 7.36 

feet apart to ensure column overlap. The 

columns were advanced to 15 feet below 

ground surface (bgs). Each set was made 

with a different mixture of Portland 

cement. A few days later these columns 

were exposed and samples were 

collected for physical testing to ensure 

the desired specs were met. Based on 

the results of the testing, a 7% Portland 

cement mixture was selected and full 

production was initiated. By August 22, 

2007, a total of 582 columns were 

completed resulting in approximately 

17,000 cubic yards of solidified soil. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 60725 

On September 25, 2007, a final 

inspection was conducted by EPA and 

NYSDEC for OU2. Subsequently, on 

April 30, 2009, a site-wide inspection 

was conducted by EPA and NYSDEC in 

conjunction with the most recent fiveyear review of the site. Based on the 

result of these inspections, it was 

determined that construction for the 

entire site had been completed, that the 

remedy had been implemented 

consistent with the RODs, and is 

functioning as intended by the decision 

documents. 

Cleanup Goals 

OU1 

Following the completion of the OU1 

RA a long-term monitoring program was 

implemented to monitor the 

effectiveness of the cap and leachate 

collection system. Results indicated that 

the system was effective. An evaluation 

and comparison of historical leachate 

and groundwater data were conducted 

in 2006 and concluded that there was 

minimal potential for impacts to 

downgradient water supply wells and 

groundwater. Based on this evaluation, 

a decision was made to discontinue the 

operation of the leachate collection and 

treatment system operation while 

continuing the monitoring program for 

groundwater, water supplies and 

leachate. The leachate treatment system 

was shutdown on June 10, 2008. 

During the most recent leachate 

monitoring event in December 2011, 

results were similar to pre-shutdown 

concentrations. Water level 

measurements were also consistent with 

the levels measured pre-shutdown. 

Water quality analytical data indicated 

that PCBs continued to be below 

method reporting limits, and data for 

other contaminants were similar to 

previous results with the exception of 

two contaminants, total phenols and 

antimony, which exceeded state 

ambient water quality criteria for the 

first time. Concentrations of total 

phenolics are, however, less than the 

required discharge limit of 0.008 ppm. 

Elevated antimony, along with 

continued elevated iron and manganese 

concentrations in leachate water, are 

attributed to the release of these metals 

from soils due to the reducing 

conditions within the leachate and 

groundwater beneath the landfill and 

are not landfill-related contaminants of 

concern. 

During the most recent site 

inspection, the landfill cover and other 

site features, including manholes, 

fencing, roads, site building and 

monitoring wells were generally noted 

to be in good condition and the 

presence of seeps was not observed. 

Therefore, the landfill cover system 

appears to be operating effectively to 

limit or prevent concentrations of site 

contaminants from exceeding 

groundwater criteria off-site. 

OU2 

CDM, under contract with EPA, 

conducted pre-design field investigation 

soil sampling in January 2006 to 

horizontally and vertically delineate the 

PCB contamination in the NGP area. 

Activities were completed in 

accordance with USACE-approved Final 

Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) 

which consists of the Field Sampling 

Plan (FSP) and Quality Assurance 

Project Plan (QAPP). 

During this investigation, CDM 

collected 305 soil samples from both 

surface and subsurface locations. 

Surface samples were collected less 

than 0.5 feet bgs, and deeper subsurface 

samples were collected 0.5 feet to 36 

feet bgs in the NGP area. Only PCB 

analyses were performed on these 

samples in accordance with the 

approved SAP. Only two Aroclors (1254 

and 1248) were detected in varying 

concentrations in the soil samples. The 

Data Quality Control Summary Report 

(DQCSR) discusses both the data quality 

and analytical results of the soil samples 

collected by CDM during the 

investigation. 

The ROD states that performing endpoint verification sampling outside the 

perimeter of the grouted area is required 

to ensure that all PCB-contaminated 

soils have been solidified in accordance 

with the Remedial Action Objectives. 

The EPA and NYSDEC agreed to 

completely delineate the contamination 

before the soil mixing took place in lieu 

of end-point verification sampling after 

the soils had been stabilized. Additional 

soil sampling was performed between 

January and August, 2007 to satisfy this 

requirement. Results from the 2006 and 

2007 delineation sampling events 

showed PCB concentrations ranging 

from below the detection limit, in 

numerous samples, to 500 ppm at soil 

boring SB–14, located in the northwest 

portion of the NGP, at a depth of 8–10 

feet. As noted above, all soils with PCB 

concentrations above the cleanup 

criterion were addressed during the RA. 

Monitoring and Maintenance 

The Long-Term Monitoring Program 

for the Ludlow site commenced in 2000. 

This program consists of the following 

activities: 

• Monthly inspections are performed 

to visually assess and document the 

condition of the landfill perimeter fence 

and access road, leachate management 

system building, gas collection system, 

monitoring wells and manholes, and 

overall integrity of the cover; 

• Water level measurements are 

obtained from designated monitoring 

wells at the landfill to assess seasonal 

water levels fluctuations and evaluate 

groundwater flow direction; 

• Groundwater samples are collected 

from 17 monitoring wells, three 

residential wells and one public supply 

well during the monitoring events in 

accordance with the Long-Term 

Monitoring Program and analyzed for 

PCBs and VOCs; 

• Surface water is sampled annually 

from the culvert where the ponded 

wetland discharges beneath Holman 

City Road to monitor PCBs; 

• Annual methane monitoring at the 

landfill gas vents, manholes, and 

monitoring wells is conducted; and 

• Leachate collected from the landfill 

is pumped through the on-site leachate 

treatment facility prior to discharge in 

accordance with the Operation, 

Maintenance and Monitoring Manual 

(O&M Manual). As noted above, 

operation of the leachate collection and 

treatment system was discontinued in 

2008 after it was determined that there 

was minimal potential for the capped 

landfill to impact to downgradient water 

supply wells and groundwater. 

No operation or maintenance for the 

stabilized soils is necessary for OU2. 

The area covering the solidified 

columns was backfilled to the former 

existing grade. This covered the 

columns with up to 30 feet of clean soil. 

In accordance with the OU2 ROD, a 

groundwater monitoring program was 

implemented. Five new wells installed 

during the OU2 remediation were 

sampled to establish a baseline. The 

monitoring of these wells is subject to 

the OU1 Long-Term Monitoring 

Program for the site. Monitoring and 

maintenance will continue to be 

performed by MACTEC Engineering and 

Consulting, P.C., under contract with 

NYSDEC. Institutional controls were 

established in the Declaration of 

Covenants, Restrictions and 

Environmental Easement which was 

executed on August 9, 2013. 

Five-Year Review 

Hazardous substances remain at this 

Site above levels that would allow for 

unlimited use and unrestricted 

exposure. Therefore, pursuant to 

CERCLA Section 121(c), EPA is required 

to conduct a review of the remedy at 

least once every five years. Three fiveyear reviews have been completed at the 

Site. The first five-year review was 

completed on July 1, 1999, the second 

was completed on July 1, 2004, and the 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
60726 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

third was completed on July 1, 2009. 

The 2009 five-year review included a 

recommendation to implement 

institutional controls. This was 

completed on August 9, 2013 with the 

execution of the Declaration of 

Covenants, Restrictions and 

Environmental Easement. The fourth 

five-year review is scheduled to be 

completed on or before July 1, 2014. 

Community Involvement 

Public participation activities for this 

Site have been satisfied as required in 

CERCLA Sections 113(k) and 117, 42 

U.S.C. 9613(k) and 9617. As part of the 

remedy selection process, the public 

was invited to comment on the 

proposed remedy. Prior to each five-year 

review, the public was notified through 

an ad in a local newspaper, The 

Observer-Dispatch (Utica), that a review 

of the remedy would be conducted and 

that the results would be available in 

the local site repository upon 

completion. Contact information for 

questions related to the five-year review 

was also provided. All other documents 

and information that EPA relied on or 

considered in recommending this 

deletion are available for the public to 

review at the information repositories 

identified above. 

Determination That the Site Meets the 

Criteria for Deletion From the NCP 

The implemented remedy achieves 

the degree of cleanup specified in the 

ROD for all pathways of exposure. All 

selected remedial action objectives and 

clean-up levels are consistent with 

agency policy and guidance. No further 

Superfund responses are needed to 

protect human health and the 

environment at the Site. 

The NCP 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.’’ 40 

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

concurrence of the State of New York, 

through NYSDEC, believes that this 

criterion for deletion has been met. 

Consequently, EPA is deleting this Site 

from the NPL. Documents supporting 

this action are available in the Site files. 

V. Deletion Action 

EPA, with the concurrence of the 

State of New York, has determined that 

all appropriate responses under 

CERCLA have been completed and that 

no further response actions under 

CERCLA, other than M&M and five-year 

reviews, are necessary. Therefore, EPA 

is deleting the Site from the NPL. 

Because EPA considers this action to be 

noncontroversial and routine, EPA is 

taking this action without prior 

publication. This action will be effective 

December 2, 2013 unless EPA receives 

adverse comments by November 1, 

2013. If adverse comments are received 

within the 30-day public comment 

period of this 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, if 

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 received. In such a case, 

there will be no additional opportunity 

to comment. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous 

waste, Hazardous substances, 

Intergovernmental relations, Natural 

resources, Oil pollution, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Superfund, Water 

pollution control, Water supply. 

Dated: September 20, 2013. 

Judith A. Enck, 

Regional Administrator, EPA, Region 2. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 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. 

Appendix B to Part 300 [Amended] 

■ 2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 

is amended by removing ‘‘NY,’’ 

‘‘Ludlow Sand & Gravel,’’ ‘‘Clayville’’. 

[FR Doc. 2013–24116 Filed 10–1–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration 

49 CFR Part 107 

[Docket No. PHMSA–2013–0045 (HM–258C)] 

RIN 2137–AF02 

Hazardous Materials Regulations: 

Penalty Guidelines 

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule; revised statement of 

policy. 

SUMMARY: The Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA) is publishing this revised 

statement of policy to update baseline 

assessments for frequently-cited 

violations of the Hazardous Materials 

Regulations (HMR) and to clarify 

additional factors that affect penalty 

amounts. This revised statement of 

policy is intended to provide the 

regulated community and the general 

public with information on the 

hazardous materials penalty assessment 

process. 

DATES: This rule is effective October 1, 

2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Meridith L. Kelsch or Shawn Wolsey, 

Office of the Chief Counsel, at (202) 

366–4400, or Deborah L. Boothe, 

Standards and Rulemaking Branch, at 

(202) 366–8553, Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC 20590–0001. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Contents 

I. Background 

II. Discussion of Revisions 

A. Revisions to Part II, List of Frequently 

Cited Violations 

B. Revisions to Parts III and IV 

III. Regulatory Analyses and Notices 

A. Statutory/Legal Authority for the 

Rulemaking 

B. Executive Order 13610, Executive Order 

13563, Executive Order 12866, and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

C. Executive Order 13132 

D. Executive Order 13175 

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive 

Order 13272, and DOT Procedures and 

Policies 

F. Paperwork Reduction Act 

G. Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN) 

H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

I. Environmental Assessment 

J. Privacy Act 

K. Executive Order 13609 and International 

Trade Analysis 

L. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

I. Background 

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration (PHMSA) 

publishes hazardous materials 

transportation enforcement civil penalty 

guidelines in Appendix A to 49 CFR 

part 107, subpart D. The Research and 

Special Programs Administration 

(RSPA; PHMSA’s predecessor agency) 

first published these guidelines in the 

Federal Register on March 6, 1995, in 

response to a request contained in 

Senate Report 103–150 that 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES