Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 155 / Thursday, August 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 48867 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action 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. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by October 12, 2010. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this action for 

the purposes of judicial review nor does 

it extend the time within which a 

petition for judicial review may be filed, 

and shall not postpone the effectiveness 

of such rule or action. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur dioxide. 

Dated: August 2, 2010. 

Bharat Mathur, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

■ 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart Y—Minnesota 

■ 2. In § 52.1220 the table in paragraph 

(d) is amended by revising the entry for 

‘‘Saint Mary’s Hospital’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.1220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED MINNESOTA SOURCE-SPECIFIC PERMITS

Name of source Permit No. 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date Comments 

*******

St. Mary’s Hospital ....................... 10900008–003 03/01/10 08/12/10, [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

Only conditions cited as ‘‘Title I 

condition: SIP for SO2

NAAQS.’’ 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2010–19822 Filed 8–11–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1987–0002; FRL–9188–8] 

National Oil and Hazardous Substance 

Pollution Contingency Plan; National 

Priorities List: Deletion of the Rogers 

Road Municipal Landfill Superfund Site 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) Region 6 is publishing a 

direct final notice of deletion of the 

Rogers Road Municipal Landfill 

Superfund Site (Site), located near 

Jacksonville, Pulaski County, Arkansas 

from the National Priorities List (NPL). 

The NPL, promulgated pursuant to 

Section 105 of the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an 

appendix of the National Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan (NCP). This direct 

final deletion is being published by EPA 

with the concurrence of the State of 

Arkansas, through the Arkansas 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(ADEQ), because EPA has determined 

that all appropriate response actions 

under CERCLA, other than operation, 

maintenance, and five-year reviews, 

have been completed. However, this 

deletion does not preclude future 

actions under Superfund. 

DATES: This direct final rule will be 

effective October 12, 2010 unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by 

September 13, 2010. If adverse 

comments are received, EPA will 

publish a timely withdrawal of the 

direct final notice of 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–1987–0002 by one of the 

following methods: 

http://www.regulations.gov (Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments) 

E-mail: walters.donn@epa.gov. 

Fax: 214–665–6660 

Mail: Donn Walters, Community 

Involvement, U.S. EPA Region 6 (6SF– 

TS), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 

75202–2733, (214) 665–6483 or 1–800– 

533–3508. 

Hand Delivery: Donn Walters, 

Community Involvement, U.S. EPA 

Region 6 (6SF–TS), 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Dallas, TX 75202–2733. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during the Docket’s 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

48868 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 155 / Thursday, August 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–SFUND–1987– 

0002 EPA policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

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

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at: 

U.S. EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, 

(214) 665–7362 by appointment only 

Monday through Friday 9 a.m. to 12 

p.m. and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.; Jacksonville 

City Hall, 1 Municipal Drive, 

Jacksonville, AR 72076, (501) 982– 

3181, Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. 

to 5 p.m.; 

Arkansas Department of Environmental 

Quality (ADEQ), 5301 Northshore 

Drive, North Little Rock, Arkansas 

72118, (501) 682–0744, Monday 

through Friday 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shawn Ghose M.S., P.E., Remedial 

Project Manager (RPM), U.S. EPA 

Region 6 (6SF–RA), 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Dallas, TX 75202–2733, (214) 665–6782 

or 1–800–533–3508 or 

ghose.shawn@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 6 office is publishing this 

direct final notice of deletion of the 

Rogers Road Municipal Landfill 

Superfund Site (Site) from the National 

Priorities List (NPL). The NPL 

constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 

300, which is the Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency Plan 

(NCP), which EPA promulgated 

pursuant to section 105 of the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation and Liability 

Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. 

EPA maintains the NPL as the list of 

sites that appear to present a significant 

risk to public health, welfare, or the 

environment. Sites on the NPL may be 

the subject of remedial actions financed 

by the Hazardous Substance Superfund 

(Fund). As described in Section 

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

from the NPL remain eligible for Fundfinanced remedial actions if conditions 

warrant such action. 

Because EPA considers this action to 

be noncontroversial and routine, this 

action will be effective October 12, 2010 

unless EPA receives adverse comments 

by September 13, 2010. Along with this 

direct final Notice of Deletion, EPA is 

co-publishing a Notice of Intent to 

Delete in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ section 

of the Federal Register. If adverse 

comments are received within the 

30-day public comment period on this 

deletion action, EPA will publish a 

timely withdrawal of this direct final 

Notice of Deletion before the effective 

date of the deletion, and the deletion 

will not take effect. The EPA will, as 

appropriate, prepare a response to 

comments and continue with the 

deletion process on the basis of the 

Notice of Intent to Delete and the 

comments already received. There will 

be no additional opportunity to 

comment. 

Section II of this document explains 

the criteria for deleting sites from the 

NPL. Section III discusses procedures 

that EPA is using for this action. Section 

IV discusses the Rogers Road Landfill 

Superfund Site and demonstrates how it 

meets the deletion criteria. Section V 

discusses EPA’s action to delete the Site 

from the NPL unless adverse comments 

are received during the public comment 

period. 

II. NPL Deletion Criteria 

The NCP establishes the criteria that 

EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. 

In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), 

sites may be deleted from the NPL 

where no further response is 

appropriate. In making such a 

determination pursuant to 40 CFR 

300.425(e), EPA will consider, in 

consultation with the State, whether any 

of the following criteria have been met: 

i. Responsible parties or other persons 

have implemented all appropriate 

response actions required; 

ii. All appropriate Fund-financed 

response under CERCLA has been 

implemented, and no further response 

action by responsible parties is 

appropriate; or 

iii. The remedial investigation has 

shown that the release poses no 

significant threat to public health or the 

environment and, therefore, the taking 

of remedial measures is not appropriate. 

Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and 

the NCP, EPA conducts five-year 

reviews to ensure the continued 

protectiveness of remedial actions 

where hazardous substances, pollutants, 

or contaminants remain at a site above 

levels that allow for unlimited use and 

unrestricted exposure. EPA conducts 

such five-year reviews even if a site is 

deleted from the NPL. EPA may initiate 

further action to ensure continued 

protectiveness at a deleted site if new 

information becomes available that 

indicates it is appropriate. Whenever 

there is a significant release from a site 

deleted from the NPL, the deleted site 

may be restored to the NPL without 

application of the hazard ranking 

system. 

III. Deletion Procedures 

The following procedures apply to 

deletion of the Site: 

(1) The EPA consulted with the State 

of Arkansas prior to developing this 

direct final Notice of Deletion and the 

Notice of Intent to Delete co-published 

today in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ section of 

the Federal Register. 

(2) 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 ADEQ, has 

concurred on the deletion of the Site 

from the NPL. 

(3) Concurrently with the publication 

of this direct final Notice of Deletion, a 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 155 / Thursday, August 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 48869 

notice of the availability of the parallel 

Notice of Intent to Delete is being 

published in a major local newspaper, 

Jacksonville Times. The newspaper 

notice announces the 30-day public 

comment period concerning the notice 

of intent to delete the Site from the NPL. 

(4) The EPA placed copies of 

documents supporting the proposed 

deletion in the deletion docket and 

made these items available for public 

inspection and copying at the Site 

information repositories identified 

above. 

(5) If adverse comments are received 

within the 30-day public comment 

period on this deletion action, EPA will 

publish a timely notice of withdrawal of 

this direct final Notice of Deletion 

before its effective date and will prepare 

a response to comments and continue 

with the deletion process on the basis of 

the Notice of Intent to Delete and the 

comments already received. 

Deletion of a site from the NPL does 

not itself create, alter or revoke any 

individual’s rights or obligations. 

Deletion of a site from the NPL does not 

in any way alter EPA’s right to take 

enforcement actions, as appropriate. 

The NPL is designed primarily for 

informational purposes and to assist 

EPA management. Section 300.425(e)(3) 

of the NCP states that the deletion of a 

site from the NPL does not preclude 

eligibility for future response actions, 

should future conditions warrant such 

actions. 

IV. Basis for Site Deletion 

The following information provides 

EPA’s rationale for deleting this Site 

from the NPL: 

A. Site Background and History 

The Rogers Road Municipal Landfill 

Superfund Site (Site; EPA ID 

ARD981055809) encompasses about 10 

acres in Pulaski County, outside the city 

limits of Jacksonville, Arkansas, 

approximately 12 miles northeast of 

Little Rock, Arkansas. An estimated 

10,000 people live within three miles of 

the Site and are supplied by municipal 

drinking water. Less than one-half mile 

west of the Rogers Road Municipal 

Landfill Superfund Site is the 

Jacksonville Municipal Landfill 

Superfund Site. Because of the 

proximity of the two sites and the 

similarities in their features and 

characteristics, the Superfund siterelated activities were carried out 

concurrently. Within a one-half mile 

radius of the Site, the population was 

estimated between 153 and 204. 

Sometime prior to 1974, the residents of 

Rogers Road were supplied with 

municipal water by the City of 

Jacksonville. 

The City of Jacksonville purchased 

the land comprising the Rogers Road 

Landfill in September 1953 and 

operated a municipal landfill on the 

property. Open burning and trenching 

were the primary methods of waste 

disposal used at the Site. The dates of 

operation of the Rogers Road Landfill 

remain a matter of dispute and varying 

testimony and representations in a 

number of judicial and administrative 

venues. However, it is undisputed that 

after October 1974, operation of the 

Rogers Road facility had ceased. The 

landfill was formally closed in July 

1973, when the predecessor agency to 

the ADEQ, the Arkansas Department of 

Pollution Control and Ecology, refused 

to grant a landfill permit, because of the 

high water table and poor drainage in 

the area. 

Specific waste types and quantities 

were not recorded by the Site owner/ 

operators; however, in addition to 

municipal waste, several drums of 

industrial waste from a local herbicide 

manufacturer, Vertac Chemical 

Corporation (Vertac), were believed to 

have been disposed of in the landfill. 

On-site soil and about 30 decaying 

drums were found to be contaminated 

with dioxin (2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo 

(P) dioxin expressed as 2,3,7,8-TCDD 

equivalents), the herbicides 2,4-D and 

2,4,5-T, and the pesticide dieldrin. 

In early 1986, the City of Jacksonville 

fenced the Site to prevent public access. 

The Rogers Road Municipal Landfill 

was identified to EPA on May 10, 1983, 

through a citizen’s complaint. At that 

time, EPA was conducting a site 

inspection of the Jacksonville Landfill. 

After a field investigation, the Rogers 

Road Municipal Landfill was proposed 

for inclusion on the National Priorities 

List (NPL) of uncontrolled hazardous 

waste sites on January 22, 1987 (52 FR 

2492). The site was added to the NPL on 

July 22, 1987 (52 FR 27620). 

B. Remedial Investigation and 

Feasibility Studies 

A Remedial Investigation (RI) was 

conducted between November 1988 and 

March 1990, and a risk assessment was 

performed based on the analytical 

findings of the RI. The results of the RI 

and risk assessment and prior 

investigations are summarized in the RI 

Report (Peer and Resource Applications, 

Inc., 1990a). The Feasibility Study (FS) 

was also released at this time (Peer and 

Resource Applications, 1990b). Onsite 

soil and decaying drums were found to 

be contaminated with dioxin (2,3,7,8- 

tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin [TCDD] 

equivalents), the herbicides 2,4-D and 

2,4,5-T, and the pesticide dieldrin (EPA, 

1996). 

The investigations undertaken at the 

Rogers Road landfill revealed that 

contaminants in the soil comprised the 

principal threat posed by the site. The 

contamination in the soil was limited to 

the drum disposal area. A remedy was 

chosen based on the following criteria: 

• Remedy the contaminated soil 

using thermal treatment and soil cover 

to ensure it no longer presents a threat 

to human health or the environment. 

• Eliminate the health risks due to 

ponded water onsite by filling in the 

existing site trenches with clean fill. 

• Establish a method of long term 

monitoring to ensure that the soil cover 

is properly maintained and the 

groundwater quality is adequately 

monitored. 

The remedial actions undertaken to 

meet these criteria are described in the 

Section on Remedial Action. 

C. Selected Remedy 

The Remedial Investigation (RI) for 

the Site, which described the nature and 

extent of contamination, was released to 

the public in July 1990. The Feasibility 

Study (FS) was also released at this 

time. A 60-day public comment period 

began on July 9, 1990, and ended on 

September 7, 1990. In addition, a public 

meeting was held on July 18, 1990, to 

present the results of the RI/FS and to 

accept public comment. 

EPA reviewed the results of the July 

1990 RI/FS conducted by the EPA 

contractor, Peer Consultants, and all 

public comments received. On 

September 27, 1990, a Record of 

Decision (ROD) for the Site was issued. 

The selected remedy included: 

• Excavation of contaminated soil 

and debris containing greater than 10 

parts per billion (ppb) equivalent 

2,3,7,8-TCDD and backfilling the 

excavated area; 

• Transportation of the excavated 

material to the Vertac Chemical 

Corporation Superfund Site in 

Jacksonville, Arkansas; 

• Incineration of the excavated 

contaminated material and disposal of 

residuals at Vertac; 

• Steam-cleaning and disposal of 

large items of refuse removed from 

contaminated areas at the Rogers Road 

Site; 

• Covering soil, debris and water 

meeting the criteria stated below with 

twelve inches of soil: 

(1) 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations > 1.0 

and ≤ 10 ppb, 

(2) Cumulative Hazard Index > .7 for 

2,4,5-T; 2,4,5 TP; and dieldrin; or 

(3) Dieldrin > 37 ppb; 

• Backfilling the site trench; 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

48870 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 155 / Thursday, August 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

• Institutional controls such as fence 

maintenance and land-use restrictions 

limiting ground water use on and 

immediately downgradient of the site; 

and 

• Ground water monitoring for at 

least 5 years. 

On June 20, 1994, a Consent Decree 

(CD) between EPA and the City of 

Jacksonville regarding the Site was 

entered in Federal District Court. This 

CD and the CD for the nearby 

Jacksonville Landfill Site were the first 

in the country between a municipality 

and EPA that utilized this type of mixed 

work settlement. Under the agreement, 

EPA performed the work that involved 

handling the hazardous substances, 

including picking-up the hot spots of 

contamination, transporting the material 

to Vertac, incineration, and 

decontamination. 

The city performed the non-hazardous 

work, including fencing, backfilling, 

grading, re-vegetating, inspection and 

maintenance, installation of additional 

ground water wells, ground water 

sampling and analysis and land-use 

controls. 

D. Response Actions 

On August 22, 1995, Ecology and 

Environment (E&E), the EPA Technical 

Assistance Team (TAT) and the 

Emergency Response Cleanup Service 

(ERCS) contractor, Riedel-Peterson, 

mobilized to begin remedial operations 

at the Site. After preliminary road work 

was completed, excavation of 

contaminated soil was initiated. 

During the action, Riedel-Peterson 

recontainerized contaminated material 

that was in decaying drums and 

excavated soil. This material, along with 

investigation-derived waste such as 

contaminated personal protective 

equipment, was transported to the 

Vertac Site for treatment at the 

incinerator. Confirmation soil samples 

were collected after this initial 

excavation to verify the degree of 

contaminant removal and to determine 

the areas of moderate contamination 

(2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations > 1.0 and 

≤ 10 ppb and dieldrin > 37 ppb) which 

would later be covered with clean soil. 

A total of 200 cubic yards of 

contaminated soil and 76 drums of 

hazardous materials (including 19 

drums of investigation-derived wastes) 

were transported to Vertac and 

incinerated. This is a higher volume 

than the 130 cubic yards estimated in 

the ROD. Despite this increase in 

volume, remedial activities went 

smoothly. Incineration at Vertac began 

on October 20, 1994, and ended on 

December 4, 1994. The January 20, 

1995, Technical Assistance Report for 

the Rogers Road Municipal Landfill 

written by E&E, details the Remedial 

Action (RA) activities performed by EPA 

and its contractors. 

The total cost for the RA was 

$129,070.00 for the excavation, 

preliminary sampling, and 

transportation of the waste and $1.07 

million for the confirmatory sampling 

and incineration at Vertac. 

During the fall of 1994, the City of 

Jacksonville continued regrading 

activities and installed the three 

additional ground water monitoring 

wells between the Jacksonville Landfill 

and the Rogers Road Landfill as 

required by the ROD and CD. The city 

demobilized in late October when heavy 

rains in the area made passage through 

the Site difficult. City activities 

recommenced in July 1995 when the 

Site was sufficiently dry for vehicles to 

pass. The city regrading activities were 

completed in September 1995. A list of 

all Site activities undertaken by the city 

is included in the weekly activity 

reports in the Site file. 

Demonstration of Quality Assurance/ 

Quality Control (QA/QC) for Cleanup 

Activities 

Because of the simplicity of this 

action, one work plan was submitted 

which encompassed the Remedial 

Design (RD) and RA activities at the 

Site, consistent with the ROD and the 

CD. The Quality Assurance Project Plan 

for the RA detailed the strict sampling 

and analytical program. All procedures 

and protocol for confirmatory sample 

analysis included in this document 

were in accordance with EPA 

procedures. The selection of the 

locations for confirmatory sampling and 

a graphical presentation of the 

concentrations of contaminants at these 

locations are documented in the January 

20, 1995, Technical Assistance Report 

(the Remedial Action Completion 

Report) for the Rogers Road Municipal 

Landfill. 

A total of 93 soil samples were taken 

during the RA to confirm attainment of 

clean-up standards. Samples were 

collected from points on a 14 x 14 foot 

grid pattern extending outside of the 

boundary of contamination as 

established during the Remedial 

Investigation. Eighty-six of these 

samples were analyzed for dioxin and 

related compounds and 13 were 

analyzed for dieldrin, in accordance 

with the Quality Assurance Sampling 

Plan (QASP) prepared for the Remedial 

Action by the TAT. 

EPA provided direct oversight of the 

excavation and confirmatory soil 

sampling activities. The Jacksonville 

Community Relations Office maintained 

administrative support for the project 

five days a week. 

The QA/QC program utilized 

throughout the remedial action was 

sufficiently rigorous and was adequately 

complied with to enable EPA to 

determine that all analytical results are 

accurate to the degree needed to assure 

satisfactory execution of the remedial 

action consistent with the ROD and the 

RD/RA work plan. 

Construction was completed in early 

1995. A site inspection occurred on 

September 20, 1995, which showed that 

the remedial objectives had been 

achieved. The EPA also checked the Site 

on September 1, 1998. At that time, the 

constructed remedy was still performing 

as designed and was controlling the 

risks to human health and the 

environment as specified in the ROD. 

The soil cover was in excellent shape 

with no evidence of subsidence, 

erosion, animal burrows, or standing 

water. The grass cover was wellestablished and provided thorough 

coverage of the soil cover. The site 

fences had been maintained and there 

was no evidence of trespassers. 

E. Clean-Up Standards 

The remedial action (RA) cleanup 

activities at the Site are consistent with 

the objectives of the NCP and will 

provide protection to human health and 

the environment. Specifically, 

confirmatory sampling conducted at the 

conclusion of the cleanup verified that 

the site achieved the ROD cleanup 

standards: All contaminated soil and 

debris containing greater than 10 part 

per billion (ppb) equivalent 2,3,7,8- 

TCDD were excavated and all soil and 

debris with 2,3,7,8-TCDD 

concentrations > 1.0 and ≤ 10 ppb, or 

with a Cumulative Hazard Index > .7 for 

2,4,5-T; 2,4,5 TP and dieldrin were 

either excavated or covered with one 

foot of clean soil. In addition, no soil 

was left on-site with a dieldrin 

concentration above 37 ppb. Ground 

water samples taken in November 1994, 

June 1995, December 1995, October 

1996, and November 1997, did not show 

dioxin contamination, nor did they 

show any site-related, statistically 

significant concentrations of organic 

contaminants or inorganic (metals) 

contaminants above acceptable healthbased levels. The sampling results 

documented in the Technical Assistance 

Report showed that the drum disposal 

area excavation exceeded the 1 ppb 

dioxin cleanup level and was 

remediated to 0.01 ppb or 10 ppt level 

of dioxin. 

The confirmatory sampling at the Site 

and backfilling of the Site with clean 

soil provide assurances that the Site will 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 155 / Thursday, August 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 48871 

no longer pose a threat to human health 

or the environment as long as the 

institutional controls are enforced and 

the soil cover is maintained. The source 

of contaminants identified in the ROD, 

the disintegrating drums and adjacent 

contaminated soil, has been addressed 

through excavation and covering with a 

clean soil cover. The cleanup also 

eliminated the impacts to the ground 

water from the chemicals of concern at 

the Site (i.e., the possible source of 

contamination had been removed). 

At this time, the Site has been cleaned 

up to eliminate the exposure pathway 

by the remedy required by the ROD. 

Health concerns are adequately 

addressed by institutional controls. 

Institutional controls were required by 

the Site remedy and were imposed in 

2008 in the form of an Environmental 

Protection Easement and Declaration of 

Restrictive Covenants recorded in 

Pulaski County, Arkansas. The property 

interest was conveyed by the Site owner 

to the City of Jacksonville with a third 

party beneficiary enforcement interest 

granted to the EPA. This instrument 

prevents disturbance of remedial 

components in the fenced, capped area 

of the Site, and it prohibits all 

residential, agricultural, food service, 

and ground water uses of that area as 

well. In addition, development of that 

area in any form not expressly 

prohibited, can only be undertaken with 

the prior notice to, and review and 

approval of, the EPA. Any ground water 

use within the 20.2 acre tract that 

includes the fenced area (1.38 acres) and 

adjoining areas is prohibited without 

prior notice and approval of the EPA, 

and no development of any kind can 

take place in that tract without 90 days 

prior notice to the EPA. These 

restrictions provide a significant margin 

of protection and a buffer for any 

potential exposure pathways. In 

addition, the institutional controls 

provide broad access rights to the Site 

for EPA for carrying out remedial 

maintenance, surveillance, inspection, 

investigation, and response, among 

other things. 

The discontinuance of the ground 

water monitoring past 1997 have been 

justified in an Explanation of Significant 

Differences (ESD) signed in August 

2009. Public notice of the ESD was 

published in Jacksonville Times in 

September 2009. 

F. Operations and Maintenance 

The Site is designed to require very 

little maintenance. Site operations and 

maintenance (O&M) activities that have 

been performed by the city of 

Jacksonville since the 1995 site 

completion include routine site 

inspections to ensure that positive 

drainage (as defined in the CD 

Statement of Work) is occurring and that 

the perimeter fence is intact. These 

activities have maintained the 

protectiveness of the remedy 

The city of Jacksonville, as agreed 

upon in the CD and accompanying 

Statement of Work and as detailed in 

the Remedial Action (RA) Work Plan, 

has assumed all responsibility for O&M 

at the Site. Plans for O&M are in place 

and are sufficient to maintain the 

protectiveness of the remedy. The city is 

fulfilling its obligation to perform the 

O&M and it is expected that the city of 

Jacksonville will be able to provide 

future maintenance with a minimal 

amount of work. 

In June 1999 Arkansas Department of 

Environmental Quality (ADEQ) 

provided a State concurrence for 

Deletion. However, Deletion was put on 

hold pending resolution of land use 

restrictions on the property. The 

implementation of Institutional Control 

(IC) was delayed by significant legal 

questions surrounding title to the 

property of the Site. Eventually, legal 

agreement was reached after extended 

negotiations between EPA, the city of 

Jacksonville, and the Site owners as to 

the form of restrictive covenants to be 

recorded in the deed records for Pulaski 

County, Arkansas. Restrictive covenants 

were then executed by the heir to the 

property and recorded in the deed 

records for the site on February 29, 

2008. 

G. Five-Year Review 

The EPA must conduct a statutory 

five-year review of the remedy no less 

than every five years after the initiation 

of the remedial action pursuant to 

CERCLA Section 121(c). Based on the 

five-year reviews, EPA will determine 

whether human health and the 

environment continue to be adequately 

protected by the implemented remedy. 

Five-year reviews for this Site were 

completed in September 2000 and 

September 2005. The 2005 FYR 

identified a gap of 20 feet in the fence 

surround the capped area. The fence 

was repaired in May 2010. In each of 

these reviews EPA determined that the 

remedy is protective of human health 

and the environment and is functioning 

as intended. 

The next five-year review will occur 

no later than September 2010. 

H. Community Involvement 

Because of the high community 

interest in the nearby Vertac 

Corporation Superfund Site, a 

Community Relations Office, staffed by 

an EPA contractor, was established in 

1990. The purpose of this office is to 

disseminate information to citizens and 

the press and to give citizens a focal 

point for their questions. 

An active campaign to notify local 

residents and receive input prior to the 

Site excavation and transportation was 

conducted. Landowners adjacent to the 

Site were visited and transportation was 

coordinated with local authorities and 

representatives of the Little Rock Air 

Force Base which is located near the 

transportation route. 

A community open house meeting 

was held on August 22, 1994, to discuss 

the remedial action and receive citizen 

input. 

A Site close-out open house and 

ribbon-cutting ceremony were held on 

September 25, 1995. 

Public participation activities 

required in CERCLA Section 113(k), 42 

U.S.C. 9613(k), and CERCLA Section 

117, 42 U.S.C. 9617, have been satisfied, 

and documents which EPA generated 

and/or relied on are available to the 

public in these information repositories. 

I. Determination That the Site Meets the 

Criteria for Deletion in the NCP 

The NCP specifies that EPA may 

delete a site from the NPL if ‘‘all 

appropriate responsible parties or other 

persons have implemented all 

appropriate response actions required’’ 

or ‘‘all appropriate Fund-financed 

response under CERCLA has been 

implemented, and no further response 

action by responsible parties is 

appropriate’’. 40 CFR 300.425(e)(1). 

EPA, with concurrence of the State of 

Arkansas, through the Department of 

Environmental Quality by a letter dated 

July 3, 2008, believes these criteria for 

deletion have been satisfied. Therefore, 

EPA is proposing the deletion of the site 

from the NPL. 

V. Deletion Action 

The EPA, with concurrence of the 

State of Arkansas through the Arkansas 

Department of Environmental Quality, 

has determined that all appropriate 

responses under CERCLA, other than 

operation, maintenance, monitoring and 

five-year reviews, have been completed. 

Therefore, EPA is deleting the Site from 

the NPL. 

Because EPA considers this action to 

be noncontroversial and routine, EPA is 

taking it without prior publication. This 

action will be effective October 12, 2010 

unless EPA receives adverse comments 

by September 13, 2010. If adverse 

comments are received within the 30- 

day public comment period, EPA will 

publish a timely withdrawal of this 

direct final notice of deletion before the 

effective date of the deletion and it will 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

48872 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 155 / Thursday, August 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

not take effect. EPA will prepare a 

response to comments and continue 

with the deletion process on the basis of 

the notice of intent to delete and the 

comments already received. There will 

be no additional opportunity to 

comment. 

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: August 4, 2010. 

Lawrence E. Starfield, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 

6. 

■ For the reasons set out in this 

document, 40 CFR part 300 is amended 

as follows: 

PART 300—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 300 

continues to read as follows: 

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

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

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

3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p.193. 

Appendix B to Part 300—[Amended] 

■ 2. Table 1 of Appendix B to Part 300 

is amended by removing ‘‘Rogers Road 

Municipal Landfill’’, ‘‘Jacksonville, 

Arkansas’’. 

[FR Doc. 2010–19924 Filed 8–11–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

48 CFR Parts 541 and 552 

[GSAR Amendment 2010–04; GSAR Case 

2008–G511 (Change 47) Docket 2009–0008; 

Sequence 1] 

RIN 3090–AI85 

General Services Administration 

Acquisition Regulation; Rewrite of 

GSAR Part 541, Acquisition of Utility 

Services 

AGENCIES: Office of Acquisition Policy, 

General Services Administration (GSA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The General Services 

Administration (GSA) is amending the 

General Services Administration 

Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) to 

improve the acquisition of utility 

services. Two clauses specific to utility 

services are being added to this part, 

they are the availability of funds clause 

which replaces the FAR clause and the 

disputes clause which supplements the 

FAR clause. 

DATES: Effective Date: September 13, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

clarification of content, contact Ms. Lori 

Sakalos, Procurement Analyst, at (202) 

208–0498. For information pertaining to 

status or publication schedules, contact 

the Regulatory Secretariat (MVCB), 

Room 4041, 1800 F Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20405, (202) 501–4755. 

Please cite Amendment 2010–04, GSAR 

case 2008–G511 (Change 47). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

This rule is part of the GSAM Rewrite 

Project to revise the regulation in order 

to maintain consistency with the 

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), 

update regulations, and implement 

streamlined and innovative acquisition 

procedures. The GSA Acquisition 

Manual (GSAM) incorporates the GSAR 

as well as internal agency acquisition 

policy. 

On February 15, 2006, GSA published 

in the Federal Register at 71 FR 7910, 

an Advanced Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (ANPR) with a request for 

comments on the entire GSAM. As a 

result, no public comments were 

received on GSAR part 541. In addition, 

applicable statutes, GSA Acquisition 

Letters, Public Buildings Service (PBS) 

Procurement Instructional Bulletins, 

and GSA delegations of authority were 

considered in developing the initial 

draft. Prior to publication of a proposed 

rule, there was internal review and 

comment. 

The proposed rule aligned GSAR part 

541 to the structure of FAR part 41. This 

rule added GSA-unique clauses in 

GSAR Subpart 541.5—Solicitation 

Provisions and Contract Clauses. 

Two GSA–unique clauses are 

prescribed under GSAR subpart 541.5. 

These clauses are outlined in GSAR 

section 541.501, Solicitation provisions 

and contract clauses, and shall be 

inserted by contracting officers in all 

utility contracts and solicitations. The 

first clause, GSAR 552.241–70, 

Availability of Funds for the Next Fiscal 

Year or Quarter is added as regulatory 

text for inclusion in all GSA utility 

solicitations and contracts instead of 

FAR 52.239–19. The second clause, 

GSAR 552.241.71/552.233–71, Disputes 

(Utility Contracts), was relocated from 

GSAM part 533 and added to this 

subpart to specifically align with utility 

acquisitions. 

Discussion of Comments 

A proposed rule for GSAR part 541 

was published in the Federal Register 

on May 19, 2009, at 74 FR 23374. The 

public comment period for GSAR part 

541 closed on July 20, 2009. A total of 

2 comments were received by the close 

of the comment period. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the proposed rule adds a new clause 

GSAR ‘‘552.241–xx, Availability of 

Funds for the Next Fiscal Year or 

Quarter’’ and FAR 52.232–19 is not 

currently used in Utility contracts 

(which generally last for many years) 

since the clause is to be used in oneyear IDIQ or requirements contracts 

which cross fiscal years. The respondent 

would like to use GSAR 552.232–73, 

which doesn’t require fill-ins instead of 

the new clause added to GSAR part 541. 

Response: GSA does not concur with 

the commenter. The new clause is 

specific to utility acquisitions and is not 

intended to be limited to a one-year 

acquisition. Furthermore, the clause at 

GSAR 552.232–73 that the commenter 

would prefer to use was deleted from 

the GSAR on recommendation of GSA’s 

Office of General Counsel. The new 

clause has fill-ins for the contracting 

officer which can coincide with the 

acquisitions period of performance. 

Since this is a utilities contract, the 

explicit language in 31 U.S.C. 1308 

allows GSA to obligate and record 

amounts quarterly (in accordance with 

our apportionment). This satisfies the 

recordation statute. 

Additionally, in order to limit GSA’s 

legal liability to the contractor and 

satisfy the Anti-Deficiency Act (ADA), 

GSA has to have an ADA clause that 

sets limits on the amount of our liability 

(either by amount of money or by set 

period of time) and the clause must 

provide that the limit can only be 

increased by affirmative action of the 

Government. 

Comment: The second commenter 

stated that the proposed rule moves the 

existing GSAR clause 552.233–71 

(Disputes-Utilities Contracts) from 

GSAR part 533 to GSAR part 541. 

However, preceding GSAR change 

#24, which is the rewrite of GSAR part 

533, deleted the clause in entirety since 

the use of FAR clauses is preferred. The 

subject clause was deleted from the 

Public Building Service (PBS) contract 

writing system clause module. In the 

meantime, there is no authority to use 

the clause in the GSAR and no 

prescription to use it. 

Response: GSA does not concur with 

the commenter. There are no FAR 

clauses which adequately address 

disputes for utility contracts. However, 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES