Document ID: EPA-HQ-SFUND-2002-0001-0128
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the Reasor Chemical Company Superfund Site
Posted Date: 2018-07-31T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 147 (Tuesday, July 31, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36844-36848]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16244]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2002-0001; FRL-9981-51--Region 4]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; 
National Priorities List: Deletion of the Reasor Chemical Company 
Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 is issuing 
a Notice of Intent to Delete the Reasor Chemical Company Superfund Site 
(site) located in Castle Hayne, New Hanover County, 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). The EPA and 
the State of North Carolina, through the North Carolina Department of 
Environmental Quality (NCDEQ), have 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 August 30, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-2002-0001, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions 
for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or 
removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received 
to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you 
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia 
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written 
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and 
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will 
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of 
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment 
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general 
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
     Email: [email protected].
     Mail: Samantha Urquhart-Foster, Remedial Project Manager, 
Remediation and Site Evaluation Branch, Superfund Division, U.S. 
Environmental 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.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
2002-0001. The http://www.regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous 
access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact 
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you 
send an email comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured 
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket 
and made available on the internet. If you submit an electronic 
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact 
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you 
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties 
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to 
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special 
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or 
viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. 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

[[Page 36845]]

material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only 
in the hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available 
either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:
     U.S. EPA Record Center, attention: Ms. Tina Terrell, 
Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-
8960. Phone: 404-562-8835. Hours: 8 a.m.-4 p.m., Monday through Friday 
by appointment only; and
     New Hanover County Library, 201 Chestnut Street, 
Wilmington, North Carolina 28401. Phone: 910-798-6391. Hours: 9 a.m.-5 
p.m., Monday through Saturday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Samantha Urquhart-Foster, Remedial 
Project Manager, Remediation and Site Evaluation Branch, Superfund 
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth 
Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Phone: 404-562-8760, email: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Site Deletion

I. Introduction

    EPA Region 4 announces its intent to delete the Reasor Chemical 
Company 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 National 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 remain 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 Reasor Chemical Company 
Superfund Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from 
the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted 
from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a 
determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in 
consultation with the State, whether any of the following criteria have 
been met:
    i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all 
appropriate response actions required;
    ii. all appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been 
implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is 
appropriate; or
    iii. the remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no 
significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, 
the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.

III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to deletion of the Site:
    (1) EPA consulted with the State before developing this Notice of 
Intent to Delete;
    (2) EPA has provided the State 30 working days for review of this 
notice prior to publication of it today;
    (3) In accordance with the criteria discussed above, EPA has 
determined that no further response is appropriate;
    (4) The State of North Carolina, through the NCDEQ, has concurred 
with deletion of the Site from the NPL.
    (5) Concurrently with the publication of this Notice of Intent to 
Delete in the Federal Register, a notice is being published in a major 
local newspaper, the 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.
    (6) The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed 
deletion in the deletion docket and made these items available for 
public inspection and copying at the Site information repositories 
identified above.
    If comments are received within the 30-day public comment period on 
this document, EPA will evaluate and respond appropriately to the 
comments before making a final decision to delete. If necessary, EPA 
will prepare a Responsiveness Summary to address any significant public 
comments received. After the public comment period, if EPA determines 
it is still appropriate to delete the Site, the Regional Administrator 
will publish a final Notice of Deletion in the Federal Register. Public 
notices, public submissions and copies of the Responsiveness Summary, 
if prepared, will be made available to interested parties and in the 
site information repositories listed above.
    Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or 
revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from 
the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement 
actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for 
informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section 
300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the 
NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should 
future conditions warrant such actions.

IV. Basis for Site Deletion

    The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting the 
Site from the NPL:

Site Background and History

    The Reasor Chemical Company Site (EPA ID: NCD986187094) is located 
at 5100 North College Road (Hwy. 132), in Castle Hayne, New Hanover 
County, North Carolina. Castle Hayne is approximately 13 miles north of 
Wilmington, NC. The site is an abandoned stump rendering facility, 
which operated from 1959 to 1972 under the name of Reasor Chemical 
Company. The site property consists of one parcel of 25.59 acres. A 
fire and possible explosion occurred on the property on April 7, 1972, 
which damaged and destroyed the remaining buildings and material on the 
site property. The property currently is unused, unoccupied, and 
covered with native brush and secondary growth forest.
    The former Reasor Chemical Company reportedly produced turpentine, 
pine resin, pitch, tall oil, pine oil, camphor, pine tar, and charcoal 
from pine tree stumps. It is believed that the facility used various 
solvents to extract raw product from chipped stumps, distilling the 
extract into separate product fractions. The solvents used in the 
extraction process were likely stored on-site in 55-gallon drums, the 
remains of which were in a surface drum disposal area near the center 
of the property. It is thought that four of the five onsite ponds were 
used in the manufacturing process. Those four ponds contained sediments 
with elevated concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), 
semi-

[[Page 36846]]

volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) including polycyclic aromatic 
hydrocarbons (PAHs), and inorganic compounds. An area thought to have 
been used to store scrap copper metal was also present, which had 
elevated concentrations of copper and lead.
    EPA proposed listing the site on the NPL on September 13, 2001 (66 
FR 47612), and finalized the listing on September 5, 2002 (67 FR 
56757). The property is currently undeveloped. The Site is currently 
zoned industrial.

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

    During 1996 through 2002, Roy F. Weston, Inc. (WESTON) performed 
the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) for EPA. During 
2000 through 2002, EPA Region 4's Science and Ecosystem Support 
Division (SESD) completed the Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA). 
Investigations at the site revealed the presence of metals, VOCs, and 
SVOCs above risk-based screening values.
    The human health risk assessment identified risks for potential 
future on-site workers and residents. These risks were primarily 
associated with drinking shallow groundwater and ingestion of or dermal 
contact with soils. The ecological risk assessment indicated that risks 
were posed to ecological receptors from contact with or ingestion of 
surface water, soil, and sediment.

Selected Remedy

    EPA's Record of Decision (ROD) was signed on September 26, 2002, 
and the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 
(now known as the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality 
(NCDEQ)), concurred with the selected remedy. EPA revised the remedy in 
a ROD Amendment dated June 1, 2007. The amended selected remedy 
included the following:
     Soil and sediment: Excavation and off-site disposal, 
backfill the excavated soil areas and vegetate with native plant 
species, and return the former ponds to wetland habitats.
     Surface water: On-site treatment and disposal.
     Groundwater: Backfill the drum disposal area with an 
alkaline substance to raise the pH of shallow groundwater, perform 
annual monitoring of groundwater to determine if contaminants of 
concern (COCs) continue to be elevated, and attach a ``Declaration of 
Perpetual Land Use Restrictions'' to the property title that prohibits 
the use of shallow groundwater for any purpose.
    The Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) for the site were:
     Sediment: Prevent further migration of contaminants from 
sediment to groundwater and surface water above levels exceeding 
groundwater and surface water clean-up goals; eliminate exposure of 
ecological receptors to contaminated sediment; achieve ecological risk-
based sediment clean-up goals for: Methyl ethyl ketone, toluene, (3 
and/or 4)-methylphenol, total PAHs, and copper.
     Surface water: Prevent further migration of contaminants 
above clean-up goals from Ponds 1, 2, 3 and 4, to soil, groundwater and 
down-gradient surface water bodies; eliminate exposure to contaminated 
surface water above levels exceeding clean-up goals by aquatic 
receptors; achieve the North Carolina Surface Water Quality Standards 
(NCAC Title 15A, Chapter 2, Subchapter 2B.0100 and 2B.0200) in Ponds 1, 
2, 3 and 4 for: Copper, lead, iron and zinc.
     Soil: Prevent further migration of contaminants from soil 
to groundwater and surface water above levels exceeding groundwater and 
surface water clean-up goals; eliminate unacceptable risk to human 
health and the environment; achieve the human health and ecological 
risk based clean-up goals for: Benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b &/or 
k)fluoranthene, dibenzo(a,h) anthracene, antimony, copper and lead.
     Groundwater: Prevent human consumption of contaminated 
groundwater until risk-based standards for aluminum, and Safe Drinking 
Water Act's Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for beryllium, chromium 
and nickel, are attained.

Response Actions

    The Remedial Design (RD) was completed by EPA between September 
2002 and January 2004. EPA and the Potentially Responsible Parties 
(PRPs) entered a Consent Decree in which the PRPs agreed to conduct the 
Remedial Action (RA). The PRPs began the RA on June 4, 2007 utilizing 
the remedial actions outlined in the 2007 ROD Amendment. Apex 
Companies, LLC (Apex) was retained by the PRPs and performed all the of 
the RA work described below. The RA for soil, sediment and surface 
water was completed in July 2007 and the Preliminary Close-Out Report 
was issued in September 2007. The Interim Remedial Action and Final 
Remediation Report, Revision 3, was issued in August 2008.
    Approximately 140,000 gallons of contaminated water was treated and 
discharged on site. Approximately 2,000 tons of contaminated soils and 
sediments were excavated and disposed of in off-site landfills. After 
excavation and confirmation sampling, the ponds were allowed to 
naturally refill with water and vegetate. The soil excavation areas 
were backfilled and allowed to naturally vegetate. Lime was applied in 
the area of monitoring wells MW-7S and MW-7D in order to increase the 
groundwater pH. Increasing the pH of groundwater is intended to lower 
concentrations of metals in the groundwater in this area. Institutional 
controls in the form of a Declaration of Perpetual Land Use Restriction 
were filed with the property deed in 2008.
    Annual sampling of groundwater monitoring wells MW-7S and MW-7D was 
performed when appropriate pH and turbidity levels permitted. 
Collection of samples for laboratory analysis was only required if the 
pH was between 7.2 and 8.5 using best efforts to reduce turbidity. 
Annual sampling events were attempted on February 11, 2008, January 28, 
2009, December 7, 2009, and November 2, 2010. However, samples were not 
collected during any of the annual sampling events due to pH conditions 
recorded below 7.2 units.
    Apex returned to the site on May 18, 2011, to complete a 
groundwater sampling event in accordance with the Amended ROD, which 
stated that regardless of the pH levels, samples were to be collected 
within five years after initiation of remedial action. The sampling 
event was conducted with the intent that EPA could determine if the 
clean-up goals had been achieved.
    Based on the groundwater quality results from the May 18, 2011, 
sampling event, remedial actions had been successful in achieving the 
cleanup goals for beryllium and nickel in groundwater. However, 
elevated concentrations of aluminum and chromium were still present 
above the cleanup goals. Based on past groundwater sampling results at 
the site, there is a direct correlation between low sample pH, high 
sample turbidity, and elevated metal concentrations. Apex returned to 
the site on November 12, 2012, to sample for metals in MW-7D and MW-7S, 
collecting both an unfiltered and filtered sample to address turbidity. 
Due to a malfunctioning pump at MW-7S, only MW-7D could be sampled on 
November 12, 2012. Elevated concentrations of aluminum and chromium 
were still present above the Amended ROD RAOs established for the site 
in the unfiltered sample; however, metal concentrations were below 
Amended ROD RAOs established for the site in the filtered sample.

[[Page 36847]]

    Apex conducted groundwater assessment activities at the site in 
December 2015 and January 2016 to fulfill the requirements of the 
Amended ROD. The activities included the advancement of two groundwater 
monitoring wells installed immediately adjacent to MW-7D and MW-7S, in 
addition to the collection and analysis of groundwater samples, both 
filtered and unfiltered.
    Replacement wells MW-7SR and MW-7DR were installed to address 
elevated turbidity levels. It was suspected that there could have been 
some damage to the existing well screens which resulted in the influx 
of sediment. Quarterly sampling was conducted at MW-7SR and MW-7DR. 
Results indicated that the COCs are not present at concentration at or 
above applicable Amended ROD clean up goals. Based on the cancer slope 
factor and oral reference dose for hexavalent chromium being more 
stringent, chromium was speciated during the January 2016 sampling 
event and was not detected above laboratory detection limits in either 
MW-7SR or MW-7DR.
    It was determined that hexavalent chromium is not a COC and 
concentrations of total chromium are also below the Amended ROD clean 
up goals. Apex completed the Final Remedial Action Report Addendum in 
November 2017.
    As prescribed in the 2007 Amended ROD, institutional controls (ICs) 
were implemented in September 2008 with the placement of a Declaration 
of Perpetual Land Use Restrictions (DPLUR) on the property deed. The 
DPLUR requires annual notification to NCDEQ and EPA confirming that the 
DPLUR is still recorded in the Office of the New Hanover County 
Register of Deeds and that activities and conditions at the site remain 
in compliance with the land use restrictions. The land use restrictions 
in the DPLUR state that groundwater from the surficial aquifer 
underlying the site may not be used for any purpose. Groundwater 
located beneath the confining layer shall not be used as a source of 
potable water. Any groundwater well or other device for access to 
groundwater for any purpose other than monitoring groundwater quality 
must include an isolation seal between the surficial aquifer and the 
Peedee Formation aquifer located below. The installation of groundwater 
wells or other devices for access to groundwater for any purpose other 
than monitoring groundwater quality requires prior approval by NCDEQ, 
or its successor in function. The owner(s) of the property must provide 
written notification to EPA prior to seeking approval from NCDEQ for 
the installation of groundwater wells.

Cleanup Levels

    Cleanup goals were established to achieve a 10 -5 (one 
in 100,000) excess carcinogenic risk level for potential future 
resident children (most conservative risk category evaluated) and/or a 
hazard quotient (HQ) of 1 for potential resident children or ecological 
receptors.
    Surface Water: Although the treatment system did not reduce 
contaminant concentrations in surface water to below cleanup goals 
during its operation in 2007, the RAOs were achieved for the following 
reasons:
     Migration of and aquatic receptor exposure to contaminated 
surface water was halted by
    [cir] treating all surface water in ponds and land applying treated 
water;
    [cir] excavating contaminated soils to residential cleanup 
standards;
    [cir] excavating contaminated sediments to ecological cleanup goals 
and placing 18 to 60 inches of non-contaminated soil over the base of 
the excavated ponds; and
    [cir] allowing the ponds to refill naturally.
    Soil: Cleanup goals specified in the 2007 ROD Amendment for soil 
were attained.
    All confirmation sample results from the soil excavation areas were 
below the ROD-specified cleanup goals.
    Sediment: Ten samples were collected and analyzed to determine if 
cleanup goals were met in the four sediment excavation areas. Six 
confirmation samples were collected from the four excavated ponds in 
June 2007. One sample was a duplicate of another sample in Pond 3. The 
duplicate sample result was within the same order of magnitude as the 
sample from which it was split. Because the laboratory detection limits 
for (3 and/or 4)-methylphenol and methyl ethyl ketone (also known as 
butanone) were higher than the cleanup goals, the four ponds were 
resampled in August 2007 and analyzed for these two COCs.
    Cleanup goals for toluene and copper were attained in all four 
ponds. The cleanup goal for methyl ethyl ketone (also known as 2-
butanone) was attained in ponds 1-3, and possibly pond 4. The original 
confirmation sample collected in June 2007 from pond 4 had a 
concentration less than the laboratory reporting limit of 100 
micrograms per kilogram ([micro]g/kg), which is less than the cleanup 
goal established in the 2007 ROD Amendment. However, the sample 
collected in pond 4 in August 2007 did not have a detectable 
concentration of methyl ethyl ketone but the laboratory detection limit 
(268 [micro]g/kg) was greater than the cleanup goal of 137 [micro]g/kg. 
Methyl ethyl ketone was not detected in any of the ponds. All ponds had 
at least one sample which had a laboratory detection limit that was 
lower than the cleanup goal.
    All samples collected from the excavated ponds had concentrations 
of (3 and/or 4)-methylphenol above cleanup goals or the laboratory 
detection limit was greater than the cleanup goal. The low-level 
presence of (3 and/or 4)-methylphenol in the soil does not present a 
significant risk to human health or the environment, and further 
sampling and assessment is not needed for the following reasons:
     Methylphenol is a naturally occurring substance. Cresols 
(methylphenols) are found in many foods and in wood in this region of 
North Carolina. The contaminant presence at low-levels may be naturally 
occurring and not site-related.
     The impacted soil was removed from the lagoons and capped 
with 18 to 60 inches of clean fill. Therefore, the surface water within 
the lagoons is not in direct contact with impacted soil.
     The ROD clean-up goal of 50 [micro]g/kg for (3 and/or 4)-
methlyphenol was established based on ecological risk, not human health 
risk. Any residual contamination is at depths greater than 18 inches, 
and therefore there is no exposure route for ecological receptors. 
There is no obvious or adverse impact to the ecology within the lagoons 
as observed through the thriving aquatic flora and fauna present within 
lagoons over the last 11 years, since the time the lagoons were 
remediated in 2007.
     The concentrations present in the soil are below the EPA 
Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) for residential soils for methylphenol 
of 3,200 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg), which is protective of human 
health.
    The RAOs were achieved for the following reasons:
     All confirmatory samples obtained from ponds 1-4 were 
collected from each basin's clay liner.
     Each basin was subsequently capped with 18 inches to 60 
inches of clean soil backfill.
     The RAs performed removed the contaminated ecological 
exposure medium, sediment, and subsequently capped the underlying clay 
liner with clean soil, thereby eliminating the ecological exposure 
pathway for sediments in the ponds and exposure to remaining residual 
levels in the clay layer, and thus any associated risk.
    Soil or sediment samples have not been collected since the RA. For 
the soil

[[Page 36848]]

excavation areas, restoration included backfilling with soil, grading 
the areas to provide drainage away from the areas, revegetation with 
native rye grass and spreading of wood chips over the area for erosion 
control. Pond restoration consisted of backfilling a portion of the 
ponds, covering the banks of the excavation and surrounding disturbed 
areas with straw matting for erosion control, and seeding with native 
rye grass. During the final site inspection conducted in April 2017, it 
was observed that the excavation areas are now restored with native 
brush and secondary growth forest.
    Groundwater: No COCs were detected at concentrations above the 
Amended ROD clean up goals in either sample MW-7DR or MW-7SR during 
2016 quarterly groundwater sampling. The detected concentrations of 
these compounds are generally significantly less than the 
concentrations previously identified in groundwater samples collected 
at the Site in May 2011 and November 2012. Aluminum, beryllium, 
chromium, and nickel were either detected at estimated concentrations 
that are below the applicable criteria, or were not detected above 
laboratory detections limits in both the filtered and unfiltered 
samples.
    Due to the low turbidity of the samples, the concentrations 
reported for both filtered and unfiltered samples were very similar. In 
addition to the reductions in the observed concentrations of the COCs, 
the pH values were also higher than historic values. The pH was 
measured at 3.81 in MW-7SR versus historic values ranging from 2.31 to 
3.55 in MW-7S. The pH of the sample collected at MW-7DR was 6.47 versus 
historic values measured as low as 3.21.
    In addition, pH values measured in the newly installed wells are 
similar to other sites in the Castle Hayne area. Based on the findings 
of the January 2016 sampling event, Apex conducted three additional 
quarterly sampling events in April, July, and October 2016 to obtain 
sufficient data for site closure. During these quarterly sampling 
events, since the January 2016 sampling results demonstrated that 
hexavalent chromium was not a COC, the samples were only analyzed for 
total chromium.
    The monitoring data demonstrates that remedial action objectives 
and cleanup levels specified in the 2007 ROD Amendment are achieved. 
There are no additional monitoring or Operations and Maintenance of the 
remedy required.

Five-Year Reviews

    The purpose of a five-year review (FYR) is to evaluate the 
implementation and performance of a remedy to determine if the remedy 
is and will continue to be protective of human health and the 
environment. In addition, FYR reports identify issues found during the 
review, if any, and document recommendations to address them. EPA 
completed two policy FYRs for the site in September 2012 and September 
2017. The 2017 FYR determined that the remedy was protective of human 
health and the environment, and there were no issues or 
recommendations. The 2017 FYR concluded that no further FYRs are 
planned for the site because all impacted media have reached Unlimited 
Use/Unrestricted Exposure (UU/UE) categorization.

Community Involvement

    EPA has communicated with the public through Fact Sheets, meetings, 
internet postings, newspaper ads, and answering email and phone 
inquiries. Current Site information can be found at https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0405590.
    Public participation activities have been satisfied as required in 
CERCLA Section 113(k), 42 U.S.C. 9613(k) and CERCLA Section 117, 42 
U.S.C. 9617. Documents in the deletion docket, which the EPA relied on 
for recommendation of the deletion from the NPL, are available to the 
public in the information repositories identified above.

Determination That the Site Meets the Criteria for Deletion in the NCP

    Region 4 has followed the procedures required by 40 CFR 300.425(e) 
as mentioned above and the implemented remedy achieves the degree of 
cleanup specified in the ROD for all pathways of exposure. The 
information presented in the Final Close-Out Report verifies that the 
site has achieved the ROD Amendment's RAOs, and that all cleanup 
actions specified in the ROD Amendment were implemented. All selected 
remedial action objectives and associated cleanup levels are consistent 
with agency policy and guidance. This site meets all the site 
completion requirements as specified in Office of Solid Waste and 
Emergency Response (OSWER) Directive 9320.22, Close-Out Procedures for 
National Priorities List Sites. No further Superfund response is needed 
to protect human health and the environment.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, 
Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, 
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water 
pollution control, Water supply.

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626, 
77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 
CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., 
p. 193.

    Dated: July 17, 2018.
Onis ``Trey'' Glenn, III,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2018-16244 Filed 7-30-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P