Document ID: EPA-HQ-SFUND-1986-0005-0218
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Ordnance Works Disposal Areas Superfund Site; Deletion
Posted Date: 2018-06-20T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 20, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28586-28591]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12709]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1986-0005; FRL-9979-21--Region 3]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; 
National Priorities List: Deletion of the Ordnance Works Disposal Areas 
Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 3, is 
issuing a Notice of Intent to Delete the Ordnance Works Disposal Areas 
Superfund Site (Site) located in Morgantown, West Virginia, from the 
National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on this 
proposed action. For purposes of this action, the Site consists of 
Operable Unit 1 (OU1), an NPL-listed area of approximately 6 acres. 
Also for purposes of this action, and unless otherwise noted, the Site 
does not include Operable Unit 2 (OU2), a non-NPL listed area of 
approximately eight hundred acres. 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 West Virginia, through the West Virginia 
Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP), have determined that 
all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other than operation and 
maintenance, monitoring, and five-year reviews have been completed. 
However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under 
Superfund.

DATES: Comments must be received by July 20, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-1986-0005, by one of the following methods:
     https://www.regulations.gov: Follow on-line 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 https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
     Email: Jeffrey Thomas at [email protected].
     Mail: Jeffrey Thomas (3HS23), Remedial Project Manager, 
United States Environmental Protection Agency 1650 Arch Street, 
Philadelphia, PA 19103.
     Hand delivery: United States Environmental Protection 
Agency, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. 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-
1986-0005. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be CBI or 
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not 
submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected 
through https://www.regulations.gov or email. The https://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 https://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

[[Page 28587]]

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 https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in the hard 
copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either 
electronically in https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at: U.S. 
EPA Region 3, Superfund Records Center, 6th Floor, 1650 Arch Street, 
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029; (215) 814-3157, Monday through Friday 8:00 
a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Morgantown Public Library, 373 Spruce Street, 
Morgantown, WV 26505; (304) 291-7425, Monday through Saturday 9:00 a.m. 
to 4:00 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Thomas, Remedial Project 
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3, 3HS23, 1650 
Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, (215) 814-3377, email 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

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

I. Introduction

    EPA Region 3 announces its intent to delete the Ordnance Works 
Disposal Areas Superfund Site from the National Priorities List (NPL) 
and requests public comment on this proposed action. For purposes of 
this action, the Site consists of Operable Unit 1 (OU1), an NPL-listed 
area of approximately 6 acres. This action does not include Operable 
Unit 2 (OU2), a non-NPL listed area of approximately eight hundred 
acres. Both OU1 and OU2 are located in an industrial/commercial complex 
formally known as the Morgantown Ordnance Works in Morgantown, West 
Virginia. Unless otherwise stated, references to the ``Site'' shall 
mean OU1 only. 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 Ordnance Works Disposal Areas 
Superfund Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from 
the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted 
from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a 
determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in 
consultation with the State, whether any of the following criteria have 
been met:
    i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all 
appropriate response actions required;
    ii. all appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been 
implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is 
appropriate; or
    iii. the remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no 
significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, 
the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.
    Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and the NCP, EPA conducts five-
year reviews to ensure the continued protectiveness of remedial actions 
where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at a 
site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted 
exposure. EPA conducts such five-year reviews even if a site is deleted 
from the NPL. EPA may initiate further action to ensure continued 
protectiveness at a deleted site if new information becomes available 
that indicates it is appropriate. Whenever there is a significant 
release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be 
restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system.

III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to deletion of the Site:
    (1) EPA consulted with the State before developing this Notice of 
Intent to Delete;
    (2) EPA has provided the State 30 working days for review of this 
action prior to this publication;
    (3) In accordance with the criteria discussed above, EPA has 
determined that no further response is appropriate;
    (4) The State of West Virginia, through the WVDEP, 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 Dominion Post. 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 Intended Site Deletion

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

[[Page 28588]]

Site Location and Use History

    The Ordnance Works Disposal Areas Superfund Site (EPA 
Identification Number WVD000850404) consists of a disposal area 
designated by EPA as OU1 containing approximately 6 acres within a 
commercial/industrial development known as the Morgantown Ordnance 
Works outside of Morgantown, West Virginia. See Section I 
(Introduction) for details regarding OU1 and OU2. Within the 
geographical limits of OU2 is a third area consisting of two separate 
parcels currently being studied under the Resource Conservation and 
Recovery Act (RCRA). OU1 was a disposal location used by entities that 
operated in the remainder of the Morgantown Ordnance Works complex.
    A removal action was conducted at OU2 on hotspots identified in a 
Remedial Investigation completed in 1995. Cleanup of OU2 occurred 
pursuant to a 1996 settlement with potentially responsible parties 
(PRPs) to perform a removal action and was based on exposure scenarios 
for the current and future anticipated land use. The work was conducted 
between March 1997 and June 1997. After the removal action was 
completed, EPA determined, based on the residual risk assessment 
analysis, that the potential for adverse carcinogenic and non-
carcinogenic effects to industrial workers and youth trespassers was 
negligible and within the limits considered acceptable by EPA. No 
further response actions at OU2 are anticipated.
    The Site is located approximately one mile southwest of the city of 
Morgantown, West Virginia, near the west bank of the Monongahela River. 
The population of Monongalia County is approximately 75,509; the city 
of Morgantown accounts for 25,879 of this total. The majority of the 
population lives to the northeast and northwest of the Site and obtains 
drinking water from a public supply. There are several houses within a 
one-mile radius of the Site that utilize wells in one capacity or 
another, however they are not located downgradient of the Site.
    The Morgantown Ordnance Works, which later became the Morgantown 
Industrial Park, has been the location of a variety of industrial and 
chemical production facilities since the 1940's. These activities 
occurred primarily in OU2 of the Site; OU1 was used as a disposal area 
for various industrial concerns operating in OU2. Beginning in October 
1940, the Morgantown Ordnance Works property was developed as a coke 
plant and chemical production facility by E.I. DuPont de Nemours and 
Company under contract to the United States Government. From 1943-1962, 
the United States held title to the property. Between 1941 and 1958, 
various businesses were operated by private parties, in some cases 
pursuant to government contracts and operating agreements, and in other 
cases pursuant to commercial leases. During these years, substances 
such as hexamine, ammonia, methyl alcohol, formaldehyde, ethylene 
diamine, and coke were produced. The plant was idle from 1958-1962.
    In 1962, the property was sold to Morgantown Ordnance Works, Inc. 
which then leased and/or sold portions of the property to various 
industrial and chemical manufacturing operations. In 1964 Weston 
Chemical Company purchased a portion of the property totaling 62 acres 
that is split between two facilities known as the North and South 
plants. Weston Chemical Company was purchased by the Borg-Warner 
Corporation in 1969. General Electric (GE) purchased Borg-Warner 
Corporation in 1988 and in 2003 the GE North and South plants were 
purchased by Crompton Corporation. The Crompton Corporation then sold 
the two plants to Chemtura Corporation which in turn sold the two 
facilities, in 2013, to Addivant US, LLC, the current owner. The North 
and South plants are active facilities currently being addressed 
through a June 1990 RCRA settlement with EPA.
    Except for parcels previously sold, which were portions of OU2, the 
Morgantown Ordnance Works property was acquired by Princess Coals, Inc. 
in 1978. In 1982, the property was purchased by private individuals who 
later formed Morgantown Industrial Park, Inc. In 1983, the property was 
conveyed to Morgantown Industrial Park Associates, which retained 
ownership of OU1, but then sold all of the other parcels comprising the 
industrial park property.

Initial Response, NPL Listing, and Study

    As a result of the industrial activities that occurred at the 
Morgantown Ordnance Works facility, hazardous substances were disposed 
of within a small area in the southern portion of the facility that is 
OU1 of the Site. OU1 contained an inactive landfill, two lagoons, a 
former drum staging area, and an area used for the shallow disposal of 
wastes called the scraped area. Investigation of this disposal area by 
EPA began in 1981. OU1 was proposed to the NPL on October 15, 1984 (49 
FR 40320). On June 10, 1986, OU1 was added to the NPL (51 FR 21054).
    Sampling at OU1 of the Site occurred in various phases between 1988 
and 1998. Samples were collected, both by EPA as well as by PRPs, from 
groundwater, surface and subsurface soils, surface water, and 
sediments. Analyses revealed no connection between disposal activities 
at OU1 and the groundwater. The surface and subsurface soils, surface 
water, and sediment at OU1 were all impacted to varying degrees by 
organic and inorganic contaminants.
    Test pits installed in the scraped area during the 1988 Remedial 
Investigation (RI) revealed cinder-like backfill material, blue and 
black catalyst pellets, and yellow solid material. Additional Phase II 
soil borings taken in the scraped area exposed visible tar at depths of 
up to eight feet and revealed total carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic 
hydrocarbons (cPAHs) ranging from 94 parts per million (ppm) to 36,000 
ppm. Some elevated levels of inorganic contaminants were detected 
during the RI but were not detected in the scraped area during the 1996 
Phase II Interim Design Tasks.
    A portion of the lagoon area was excavated in 1981 to address metal 
plating wastes disposed in two surface impoundments between 1970 and 
1976. During this action, miscellaneous wastes including coal tars were 
observed in the lagoon. Further investigation during the Phase II 
Interim Design Tasks indicated cPAH concentrations ranging from 3.2 ppm 
to 30,000 ppm; however, the inorganic contaminants detected during the 
1988 RI were not found.
    The northern section of OU1 was the location of the abandoned, 
inactive landfill estimated to have a fill depth of 20 feet at its 
thickest location. No records exist on quantities or types of material 
disposed of in the landfill. Eyewitness reports and direct observation 
reveal that the landfill contained construction debris, slag, ash, and 
catalyst pellets. Leachate from the landfill drained to the northeast 
into a wetland. The wetland drained directly to a feature known as 
``Swale 3,'' which eventually discharged to the Monongahela River. 
During pre-design sampling, the sediment layer of both the wetland and 
upper portion of Swale 3 were determined to have been impacted by heavy 
metals contamination.
    As part of the 1988 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/
FS), EPA prepared a Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment (BHHRA) for 
the Site in order to identify and define possible existing and future 
human health risks associated with exposure to the contaminants present 
in the various media at OU1 if no action were taken. The BHHRA was 
revised in the 1989

[[Page 28589]]

Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) report. In both the 1988 original and 
1989 revised BHHRA documents, EPA concluded that action was necessary 
to prevent contact with contaminated soil and sediments found at OU1 of 
the Site.
    A comprehensive Ecological Risk Assessment was not conducted during 
either the 1988 RI/FS or the 1989 FFS. While drafting the September 29, 
1999 Record of Decision (ROD), EPA's Biological Technical Assistance 
Group reviewed the 1988 RI data and concluded that inorganic 
contaminants were present in surface water and sediments within OU1 at 
levels that were acutely toxic to potentially affected ecosystems.

Selected Remedy

    In March 1988, EPA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) for OU1 
selecting onsite incineration of soils and sediments contaminated with 
cPAHs and heavy metals. In November 1988, EPA opened an additional 30-
day comment period for out-of-state PRPs who had not received notice of 
the original Proposed Plan. Based on comments received during this 
period, EPA conducted a focused feasibility study (FFS) in 1989 to re-
evaluate the alternatives described in the March 1988 ROD and to 
conduct a risk-based analysis of cleanup levels. This FFS was completed 
in June 1989.
    On September 29, 1989, EPA issued a ROD that superseded the 1988 
ROD. The 1989 ROD selected a remedy and contingency remedy for OU1. The 
selected remedial action included, among other things, excavation and 
treatment of inorganic hot spots from the lagoon and scraped areas; 
disposal of treated inorganic contaminants at the former landfill area; 
capping the former landfill; and excavation and treatment of organics-
contaminated soils and sediments using bioremediation. The contingency 
remedial action called for treatment of soils and sediments using soil 
washing technology. In June 1990, EPA issued an administrative order 
directing several PRPs to implement the September 1989 ROD.
    The human health risk assessment conducted in conjunction with the 
OU1 RI was completed in 1988. This assessment was completed prior to 
the issuance of a revised cancer potency factor (CPF) established in 
the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) for benzo(a)pyrene (BAP) 
and the interim comparative potency estimates provided by EPA's Office 
of Research and Development (ORD) in a guidance document entitled 
``Provisional Guidance for Quantitative Risk Assessment of Polycyclic 
Aromatic Hydrocarbons'' (EPA/600/R-93/089 (July 1993)). In 1995, during 
implementation of remedial design conducted under EPA's June 1990 
administrative order, the PRPs recalculated the cleanup standards for 
cPAHs at OU1 using the new CPF established in IRIS and the interim 
comparative potency estimates established by ORD. The resulting cleanup 
standard was less stringent than the cleanup standard identified in the 
September 1989 ROD. The PRPs submitted a proposal to EPA in July 1995 
requesting that the Agency adopt the newly calculated cleanup standard 
of 78 ppm total cPAHs. EPA evaluated this proposal using a Monte Carlo 
simulation and determined that this cleanup level would result in risk 
within the 1x10-4 to 1x10-6 acceptable risk range 
established by the NCP. The Monte Carlo risk assessment verified that 
78 ppm total cPAHs was an acceptable cleanup standard as long as the 
associated BAP value did not exceed 18.2 ppm. Achieving a cleanup level 
of 78 ppm total cPAHs with no more than 18.2 ppm BAP became the cPAH 
cleanup standard approved by EPA.
    The PRPs completed treatability studies for the bioremediation 
component in March 1997 under EPA's June 1990 administrative order. The 
PRPs concluded, and EPA agreed, that bioremediation was not capable of 
meeting the 78 ppm total cPAH cleanup standard within a reasonable 
time-frame and was not cost-effective. The PRPs and EPA also concluded 
that the soil washing contingency action described in the September 
1989 ROD was similarly deficient. In the Spring of 1997, the PRPs 
submitted a proposal to EPA to conduct a second FFS to identify a 
replacement remedial action for OU1. EPA agreed and negotiated a new 
agreement with the PRPs for this study work in October 1997. The second 
FFS was completed in 1998.
    On September 30, 1999, EPA issued a ROD that superseded the 1989 
ROD. The 1999 ROD selected a replacement remedial action for OU1. The 
selected remedy consisted of off-site thermal treatment of visibly 
stained stream, lagoon, and scraped area soils/sediments; consolidation 
of contaminated media into the existing landfill; restoration of 
streams and wetland areas where sediment was excavated; capping of the 
existing landfill; long-term monitoring; and institutional controls to 
protect the cap and prohibit residential development, recreational use, 
schools, and child care facilities within OU1. Neither the March 1988 
ROD nor the September 1989 ROD required action to address groundwater. 
There was no evidence that the groundwater had been significantly 
impacted by disposal operations at OU1 and no unacceptable risks were 
posed to receptors of the groundwater at OU1. Therefore, the remedy 
selected in the 1999 ROD also did not include a groundwater remediation 
component.

Response Actions

    The PRPs implemented the remedy selected for OU1 pursuant to an 
administrative order originally issued in 1989 and modified in 1999 to 
direct the PRPs to implement the 1999 ROD. The Remedial Design (RD) was 
conducted in conformance with the approved work plan and 1999 ROD. The 
Remedial Action (RA) was initiated in August 2000. The target areas 
were excavated as part of the RA and soils and sediments containing 
visible coal tar were separated for treatment and utilization as a fuel 
source for a local power plant. Utilization of the treated coal tar as 
a fuel source achieved destruction of the contaminants of concern 
through thermal treatment as well as beneficial reuse of the coal tar 
to produce electricity. The rest of the excavated material found to be 
above the ROD cleanup criteria was consolidated into the former 
landfill which was covered with a multi-layer RCRA Subtitle C cap.
    EPA and WVDEP conducted a final inspection of OU1 on September 11, 
2003 and determined that the remedy had been constructed in accordance 
with the Remedial Design plans and specifications and that no further 
construction was anticipated. EPA and WVDEP reviewed the remedial 
action contract and construction for compliance with quality assurance 
and quality control (QA/QC) protocols. Construction activities at the 
Site were determined to be consistent with the 1999 ROD, Remedial 
Design plans and specifications, and EPA's June 1990 administrative 
order.
    The PRP's construction contractor adhered to the approved 
Construction Quality Assurance Plan (CQAP). The CQAP incorporated all 
EPA and State requirements. All confirmatory inspections, independent 
testing, audits, and evaluations of materials and workmanship were 
performed in accordance with the construction drawings, technical 
specifications, and the CQAP. Construction quality assurance was 
performed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Huntington 
District, which maintained a constant on-site presence. The EPA 
Remedial Project Manager and State regulators visited OU1 approximately 
twice a month during construction activities to review construction

[[Page 28590]]

progress and evaluate and review the results of QA/QC activities. 
Institutional controls to protect the cap, limit land use to 
industrial/commercial operations, and prohibit use of groundwater were 
implemented in 2006 with the recording of an Environmental Covenant in 
the office of the Clerk of the County Commission of Monongalia County, 
West Virginia, in Deed Book 1327, at Page 557.

Cleanup Levels

    The remedy addressed visible tar-like material and contaminated 
soil and sediment exceeding site-specific cleanup standards. Cleanup 
standards specified in the 1999 ROD for the surface and subsurface 
soils in the Lagoon Area and Scraped Area are as follows: Total cPAH 78 
ppm, with a BAP value not to exceed 18.2 ppm; arsenic 88.8 ppm; cadmium 
642 ppm; copper 41,100 ppm; and lead 500 ppm. Cleanup standards 
specified in the 1999 ROD for stream and wetlands sediments are as 
follows: Total cPAH 78 ppm, with a BAP value not to exceed 18.2 ppm; 
arsenic 9.62 ppm; cadmium 0.35 ppm; chromium 30.2 ppm; copper 22.7 ppm; 
lead 31.6 ppm; mercury non-detect; and zinc 86.8 ppm. The project team 
determined that total removal of the existing sediments and replacement 
with clean fill would be the most the appropriate way to achieve 
cleanup of the sediments. Removal of the contaminated sediment and 
replacement with clean fill was completed as part of the Remedial 
Action.
    The Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) incorporated all EPA and 
State QA/QC procedures and protocols. EPA analytical methods were used 
for all confirmation and monitoring samples during RA activities. 
Sampling and analysis during construction and during Operation and 
Maintenance (O&M) monitoring was performed in accordance with approved 
Sampling and Analysis Plans. Procedures and protocols followed for soil 
sample analysis during the RA were conducted in accordance with the 
Contract Laboratory Program. EPA and the State determined that 
analytical results are accurate to the degree needed to assure 
satisfactory completion of the RA.

Operation and Maintenance

    Site O&M requirements are contained in the approved O&M Plan dated 
April 13, 2012. This plan includes inspection of the landfill cover and 
wetlands and associated drainage systems, and sampling requirements for 
groundwater and treatment wetland effluent. O&M activities are 
performed by the PRPs under the 1990 EPA administrative order.
    The treatment wetlands were initially inspected every six months 
during the first two years following the completion of the RA and 
continue to be inspected and maintained to ensure flow-through of 
leachate in the pond system. The integrity of the treatment ponds 
system has been monitored and has not required modification to date.
    The replacement wetlands, located adjacent to the Monongahela 
River, are inspected annually as part of the landfill cap inspection. 
Beginning in 2008, the PRPs undertook efforts to eradicate invasive 
plant species from the replacement wetlands at the request of EPA and 
WVDEP. Recent inspections of the replacement wetlands have verified 
that the wetlands have developed into a high quality mosaic of 
forested, shrub-scrub, and emergent wetlands habitats. Invasive plants 
are present, but at low density as a result of the control measures 
implemented after construction. The presence of numerous wetland 
terrestrial, aquatic, and avian species was noted through visual and 
auditory observation.
    Landfill cap inspections currently occur on a semi-annual basis. 
The cap has remained in good condition and has required only minor 
revegetation in small areas affected by erosion. No cracking or 
movement of surficial soils has occurred on the top of the cap slope. 
Storm water conveyance channels remain in good condition and no obvious 
signs of ponding water have been found. Overall the vegetative cover 
remains robust and well established and the drainage system operates as 
designed.

Five-Year Reviews

    Five-Year Reviews were conducted at the Site in 2006, 2011, and 
2016. In the Five-Year Review report issued on September 12, 2016, EPA 
concluded that the remedial action objectives for the remedy had been 
achieved. EPA found that the remedy is protective of human health and 
the environment, that the remedy was implemented in accordance with the 
remedial action objectives of the 1999 ROD, and that the remedy was 
functioning as intended. The landfill has not been found to be a 
significant source of contamination to the groundwater in the area and 
the contaminants of concern identified in the 1999 ROD have not been 
detected in groundwater samples during the review period. The multi-
layer RCRA landfill cap was determined to be effective in containing 
hazardous waste materials, the treatment wetland ponds appeared to be 
functioning as intended, and access restrictions were found to be 
functional. Institutional controls are in place to prohibit disturbing 
the landfill cap, use of groundwater, and non-commercial use of any 
kind within OU1. O&M including annual inspections, leachate monitoring, 
and treatment wetland monitoring are performed by the PRPs pursuant to 
the 2012 approved O&M Plan. There were no issues or recommendations 
identified in the 2016 report. The next review for OU1 is required by 
September 2021.

Community Involvement

    Throughout the Site's history, EPA has kept the community and other 
interested parties apprised of Site activities through fact sheets, 
press releases, and public meetings. Public participation activities 
have been performed in accordance with Sections 113(k) and 117 of 
CERCLA. Documents in the deletion docket upon which EPA relied for 
recommending deletion of OU1 from the NPL are available to the public 
in the information repositories. EPA notified local officials in 
advance about Five-Year Reviews and placed notices in The Dominion Post 
to inform the public that the Five-Year Reviews were being conducted 
and when the findings of each would be available.

Determination That the Criteria for Deletion Have Been Met

    The implemented remedy achieves the degree of cleanup and 
protection specified in the 1999 ROD and meets EPA's acceptable risk 
for all exposure pathways. The remedial action at OU1 has been 
completed in accordance with the 1999 ROD, institutional controls are 
in place, and O&M is being conducted in accordance with the approved 
O&M Plan. All remedial action objectives, performance standards, and 
cleanup goals established in the 1999 ROD have been achieved and the 
remedy is protective of human health and the environment in both the 
short- and long-term. No further Superfund response, other than O&M, 
monitoring, and Five-Year Reviews, is necessary to continue to protect 
human health and the environment. All of the selected remedial actions 
and the remedial action objectives and associated cleanup goals are 
consistent with CERCLA, the NCP, and EPA policy and guidance.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, 
Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, 
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping

[[Page 28591]]

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: May 30, 2018.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 3.
[FR Doc. 2018-12709 Filed 6-19-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P