[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 146 (Tuesday, July 30, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45871-45877]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18189]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1983-0002; FRL-9840-3]


National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; 
National Priorities List: Deletion of the Craig Farm Drum Superfund 
Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct Final Rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region III is 
publishing a direct final Notice of Deletion for the Craig Farm Drum 
Superfund Site (Site) located in Perry Township, Armstrong County, 
Pennsylvania, 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 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 
through the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection 
(PADEP), 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 deletion is effective September 30, 2013 
unless EPA receives adverse comments by August 29, 2013. If adverse 
comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the 
direct final deletion in the Federal Register informing the public that 
the deletion will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-1983-0002, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow on-line instructions 
for submitting comments.
     Email: Epps.John@epa.gov.
     Fax: (215) 814-3002.
     Mail: John Epps, 1650 Arch Street, Mail Code 3HS22, 
Philadelphia, PA 19103.

[[Page 45872]]

     Hand Delivery: John Epps, 1650 Arch Street, Mail Code 
3HS22, 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-
1983-0002. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you 
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site 
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without 
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name 
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
disk or CD-ROM 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 
the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other 
material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only 
in the hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available 
either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at: 
EPA Administrative Records Room, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 
19103, (215) 814-3157; Hours: Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 
p.m.; by appointment only. Karns City Area High School Office, 1446 
Kittanning, Karns City PA 16041, (726) 756-2030; Please call to 
schedule an appointment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Epps, Remedial Project Manager, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 
Mail Code 3HS22, Philadelphia, PA 19103, (215) 814-3144, Email: 
Epps.John@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 III is publishing this direct final Notice of Deletion 
of the Craig Farm Drum Superfund Site from the National Priorities List 
(NPL). The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR Part 300 which is the 
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 
which EPA promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of 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.
    Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and 
routine, this action will be effective September 30, 2013 unless EPA 
receives adverse comments by August 29, 2013. 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. 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 Craig Farm Drum 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) EPA consulted with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 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 Commonwealth 30 working days for review of 
this notice and the parallel Notice of Intent to Delete prior to their 
publication today, and the Commonwealth, through PADEP, has concurred 
on the deletion of the Site from the NPL in a letter dated May 1, 2013.

[[Page 45873]]

    (3) Concurrently with the publication of this direct final Notice 
of Deletion, a notice of the availability of the parallel Notice of 
Intent to Delete is being published in a major local newspaper, the 
Butler Eagle. 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 the 
Site from the NPL:

Site Background and History

    The Craig Farm Drum Superfund Site (the Site), CERCLIS ID 
PAD980508527, consists of approximately 117 acres located in Perry 
Township, in the vicinity of the village of Fredericksburg, near the 
western border of Armstrong County, Pennsylvania. The Site is located 
approximately two miles east of the Borough of Petrolia and 
approximately four miles south of the town of Parker and the Allegheny 
River. Land use surrounding the Site is primarily agricultural and 
limited residential.
    The Site was historically operated as a strip mine, resulting in 
two abandoned mine pits following the cessation of operations, prior to 
1958. Typical of strip mining operations in the vicinity of the Site, 
the mining pits were cut into a hillside where the coal seam outcropped 
or subcropped. The pit walls were formed by the working face (highwall) 
of the mine and the spoil piles were staged away from the working face.
    From 1958 through 1963, 55-gallon drums containing still bottom 
residue from the manufacturing of Resorcinol at the nearby Koppers 
Chemical Company (Koppers) plant were deposited in the abandoned former 
strip mine pits, hereinafter known as the north and south disposal 
pits. Resorcinol, also known as 1,3-benzenediol, m-benzenediol, 1,3-
dihydroxybenzene, m-dihydroxybenzene, 3-hydroxyphenol, or m-
hydroxyphenol, is an organic compound used as an adhesive enhancer in 
the production of automobile tires and in pharmaceuticals.
    The residue, consisting of resorcinol and other higher polymers, is 
characterized as a CERCLA hazardous substance but not as a Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste. Approximately 
2,500 tons of material were placed in the disposal pits by Mr. Herman 
Craig, Site owner Paul Craig's brother. During deposition and during 
the time the drums were stored on-site, many drums were damaged, 
resulting in a release of the residue to the environment.
    The Site was proposed for placement on the National Priorities List 
(NPL) on December 30, 1982 (47 FR 58476 (1982-12-30)), and listed on 
the NPL on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40658 (1983-09-08)).
    Currently, the Site is undeveloped, with the exception of the 
components of the remedy. No proposed redevelopment plan currently 
exists for the Site. At the time of the Record of Decision (ROD) in 
1989, it was anticipated that the Site may be used in the future for 
recreational purposes. Due to the extremely rural location and steeply 
sloping nature of the Site, commercial or residential development 
potential is limited.

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

    An Environmental Assessment (EA) of the Site was conducted in 1983 
prior to the final listing of the Site on the NPL and consisted of the 
following components:
     Hydrogeologic study;
     Surface water sampling study;
     Stream biological study;
     Air quality survey.
    Additionally, test pits were installed in 1984 in the vicinity of 
the disposal pits to determine the extent and condition of the drums 
containing still-bottom residue. The investigation indicated that the 
majority of the drums were crushed, broken, or without lids.
    Following the listing of the Site on the NPL in September 1983, the 
RI/FS was conducted from February 1986 through November 1987 and 
consisted of the following components:
     Biological survey;
     Biota survey;
     Surface water and sediment characterization;
     Groundwater characterization.
    Additional groundwater monitoring wells were installed in November 
1988 to further delineate the extent of groundwater contamination.
    Test pits installed in the vicinity of the disposal pits in 1984 
prior to the RI/FS indicated the still bottom residue consisted of 
black to pink semisolid material with some hardened masses. The north 
disposal pit was observed to be approximately 1.2 to 1.5 acres in 
lateral extent and the south disposal pit was observed to be 
approximately 0.8 to 1.0 acres in lateral extent. Analytical data of 
samples collected during test pit installation indicated that the 
source material in the disposal pits was located approximately 2.5 and 
6.0 feet below ground surface (bgs). Contaminated soil was also 
observed in the vicinity of the disposal pits during test pit 
installation, particularly in down-slope areas.
    Groundwater quality data collected during the RI/FS indicated the 
presence of impacted groundwater in three water bearing zones at the 
Site; the unconsolidated materials zone, the upper bedrock (shale) 
aquifer, and the lower sandstone aquifer.
    The biological survey conducted during the RI/FS indicated that 
macroinvertebrate communities located downstream from the Site in the 
Unnamed Creek were stressed due to site-related compounds. The stress 
was characterized as a lack of macroinvertebrate species that are 
typically an indicator of good water quality. However, analysis of 
tissue samples from macroinvertebrates in the Unnamed Creek did not 
detect any bioaccumulation or biomagnification of site-related 
compounds. No stress was detected in fish species within Valley Run and 
the macroinvertebrate community recovered within one mile of the 
confluence of Valley Run and the Unnamed Creek.
    The total non-carcinogenic hazard indices (HIs) calculated for each 
of the potential receptors were less than 1, indicating that the there 
was no excess risk of non-carcinogenic health impacts.
    The excess individual cancer risk to future miners, based on 
potential exposure to benzene in groundwater, was lower than EPA's 
acceptable risk

[[Page 45874]]

range of 10-4 to 10-6. Excess individual cancer 
risk was not calculated for future off-site domestic well users because 
potentially carcinogenic compounds are not present in the lower 
sandstone aquifer, which is the only aquifer that could potentially be 
developed for drinking water supply. This evaluation indicated that 
there was no excess risk of cancer based on the evaluated exposure 
pathways.
    In summary, the risk characterization indicated that the overall 
threat to human health posed by the Craig Farm Drum Site was 
negligible, primarily due to the limited exposure likelihood based on 
the current and future Site uses. The evaluation of potential 
environmental exposure pathways indicated that aquatic life within the 
Unnamed Creek is being impacted by site-related COCs. Therefore, the 
selection of the remedy for the Site was based on the Site's impact to 
the environment only, and not on the impact to human health. The Site 
was determined to present an imminent and substantial endangerment to 
the environment as set forth in Section 106 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 
Section 9606.

Selected Remedy

    The ROD for the Site was issued on September 29, 1989. The 
following Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) were identified:
     Minimize risk to human health and the environment from 
direct contact with contaminated material;
     Control the migration of contaminants into nearby surface 
waters;
     Control the migration of contaminants into groundwater.
    The ROD divided the Site into three Operable Units (OUs). OU-1 
consisted of the resorcinol residue material in the former disposal 
pits and an adjacent contaminated soils containing detectable 
concentrations (>50 mg/kg) of resorcinol. OU-2 consisted of clean soils 
that needed to be moved to access OU-1 material. OU-3 consisted of two 
contaminated seeps, identified as Seeps A and B, located downgradient 
of the former disposal pits.
    In order to address these OUs and meet the RAOs, the Selected 
Remedy in the ROD consisted of the following components:
     Excavation of 32,000 cubic yards of material from the 
disposal pits and surrounding areas;
     On-site solidification of excavated material;
     Placement of the solidified material in an newly 
constructed on-site RCRA equivalent, double lined, fenced landfill;
     Wetland delineation and subsequent construction of a one-
acre on-site wetland to replace wetlands destroyed in construction of 
the on-site landfill;
     Implementation of institutional controls alerting property 
owners of contamination;
     Passive collection of groundwater using a seep interceptor 
system with off-site treatment;
     Monitoring of both on-site and off-site groundwater and 
surface water.
    The 1989 ROD indicated that the completeness of the remedy would be 
determined by using an EPA-approved bioassay test procedure. The 
bioassay testing has historically been performed on both Seeps A and B 
as discussed in the sections below.
    The 1989 ROD also required that a Groundwater Verification Study be 
performed during Remedial Design (RD) in to determine if groundwater at 
the Site would require further remediation. The Groundwater 
Verification Study was conducted in 1991 and indicated that contaminant 
levels in groundwater did not differ significantly from those detected 
during the RI and would therefore not pose a significant risk to human 
health. Based on the results of the Groundwater Verification Study, no 
additional groundwater remediation was required.
    Historically, groundwater collected by the seep interceptor system 
was taken to a Beazer-owned off-site facility for treatment. However, 
that facility was planned to be shut down in 2010. Therefore, from 
March 2007 through September 2008, Beazer conducted a Focused 
Feasibility Study (FFS) to evaluate additional remedial alternatives 
for the wastewater collected by the seep interceptor system (OU-3). As 
a result of the FFS, the Selected Remedy was modified by a September 
18, 2009 Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD), consisting of 
the following components:
     Installation of an impermeable cap on the 3-acre, former 
north pit area to reduce infiltration of clean water through north pit 
materials (referred to as the Seep A Cap);
     Excavation/fill of existing ground surface in vicinity of 
former north pit to required grade;
     Installation of bioswales or other infiltration features 
to direct clean surface water flow from capped area;
     Installation of groundwater infiltration system into deep 
bedrock upgradient of the former north pit to prevent upgradient 
groundwater from flowing through north pit materials \1\;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Although the groundwater infiltration system was selected as 
a component of the remedy modification, groundwater monitoring 
following the installation of the Seep A Cap indicated that the 
infiltration system would not be necessary and the system was not 
installed. A Preliminary Design Investigation was conducted to 
evaluate the feasibility of installing the system, as documented in 
the June 4, 2010 Final Design Report included in the Deletion 
Docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Continued maintenance of the Seep A collection trench, 
piping, and storage tank to collect contaminated overburden 
groundwater;
     Treatment of collected Seep A water at an alternative off-
site treatment facility;
     The Seep B collection trench would remain in place but 
valves would be closed so that the system no longer collected water;
     Clarification of the requirements for the institutional 
controls selected in the 1989 ROD.

Response Actions

    The Selected Remedy from the 1989 ROD was implemented from May 1994 
through December 1995 in accordance with the September 27, 1993 
Remedial Design and October 9, 1990 Consent Decree (CD). The final 
inspection was conducted on December 15, 1995 and completion of the 
Remedial Action was documented in the Remedial Action Completion 
Report, accepted by EPA on April 26, 1994.
    EPA issued a Final Close Out Report (FCOR) on December 27, 1995 to 
document completion of the remedy specified in the 1989 ROD. The FCOR 
documented Construction Completion rather than Site Completion because 
institutional controls were not in place at the time of the FCOR. 
Additional response actions were also required by the 2009 ESD 
following the issuance of the 1995 FCOR, as described below. The 
institutional controls were implemented in 2004 in accordance with the 
recommendations of the Second Five Year Review and the requirements for 
the institutional controls were clarified in the 2009 ESD. 
Institutional controls are discussed in additional detail in the 
Operations and Maintenance section below.
    The remedy modification in the 2009 ESD was implemented from May 
through August 2010 in accordance with the June 4, 2010 Final Design 
Report. The final inspection was conducted on September 20, 2010 and 
completion of the remedy modification was documented in the November 
30, 2010 Remedial Action Report, accepted by EPA on December 22, 2010.

[[Page 45875]]

    EPA issued a Revised FCOR on June 19, 2013 to summarize the 
findings of the 1995 FCOR, describe the implementation of institutional 
controls, and document the additional response actions performed in 
accordance with the 2009 ESD.

Cleanup Goals

    The RAOs established in the 1989 ROD have been achieved by the 
Selected Remedy, as modified by the 2009 ESD.
    The RAO of minimizing the risk to human health and the environment 
from direct contact with contaminated material has been achieved via 
the excavation and solidification of material from the disposal pits, 
placement of the solidified material in a newly constructed on-site 
landfill, and installation of the seep interceptor system. Potential 
direct contact was further minimized via installation of the Seep A Cap 
over the north disposal pit area.
    Furthermore, although not a component of the remedy, the Site is 
located within the Bear Creek Area Chemical Site (BCACS). The BCACS 
consists of multiple Sites that are impacted by contaminants primarily 
related to resorcinol manufacturing and are being addressed by either 
EPA or PADEP. Between 2003 and 2007, PADEP connected residents within 
the BCACS to public water and required communities therein to institute 
public water connection ordinances. The location of the Site within the 
BCACS therefore further reduces the potential for direct contact with 
Site-related contaminants in groundwater.
    The RAO of controlling the migration of contaminants into nearby 
surface water bodies, primarily the Unnamed Creek, has been achieved 
via the installation of the seep interceptor system and enhanced by the 
installation of the Seep A Cap. Demonstration of achievement of this 
RAO with respect to numerical performance standards is discussed in 
additional detail below.
    As discussed above in the summary of the RI/FS, the contaminants of 
concern (COCs) at the Site consist of the following compounds:
     Benzene;
     Resorcinol;
     Benzene metadisulfonic acid (m-BDSA);
     Benzene sulfonic acid (BSA);
     p-Phenol sulfonic acid (p-PSA);
     Trihydroxydiphenyl (THD).
    Phenol, m-phenol sulfonic acid (m-PSA), and multiple metals were 
also identified as Site COCs in the 1989 ROD, however, these compounds 
were eliminated as Site COCs following the Groundwater Verification 
Study in 1991. No PADEP Water Quality Criteria for Toxic Substances 
(PADEP WQC) existed at the time of the ROD for resorcinol, m-BDSA, BSA, 
p-PSA, or THD and no numerical performance standards were established 
for these compounds in the 1989 ROD in surface water. Benzene has not 
been detected in surface water since 1987 during the RI for the Site 
and has therefore achieved the PADEP WQC.
    PADEP WQC were proposed for resorcinol, m-BDSA, BSA, and p-PSA in 
February 2012 as show in the table below. No PADEP WQC was proposed for 
THD due primarily to the difficulty in analyzing for that compound. 
Instead, the remaining resorcinol-related compounds are considered 
indicator parameters for THD.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Fish and aquatic life criteria
                                                                 --------------------------------
                                                                    Chronic WQC      Acute WQC     Human health
                            Compound                                 criterion       criterion       criteria
                                                                    continuous        maximum        ([mu]g/L)
                                                                   concentration   concentration
                                                                     ([mu]g/L)       ([mu]g/L)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resorcinol......................................................            7200           28000            2700
m-BDSA..........................................................         1600000         2600000             N/A
BSA.............................................................         1200000         2000000             N/A
p-PSA...........................................................         1400000         3500000             N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Unnamed Creek was considered the receptor for Site-related 
contaminants in the 1989 ROD due to the observed impact to 
macroinvertebrates in the creek. As discussed above, the ROD includes 
an RAO to control migration of contaminants into the creek. In order to 
determine if this RAO has been achieved, analytical data from the 
Unnamed Creek was compared to the PADEP WQC presented above.
    Sampling of the Unnamed Creek was historically conducted on a 
quarterly basis for the first year following construction of the remedy 
in 1995, on a semi-annual basis for the second year following 
construction, and annually during the third year following 
construction. Historic sampling did not indicate the presence of Site-
related contaminants in the Unnamed Creek at that time and sampling of 
the creek was discontinued in 1998.
    In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the remedy modification 
selected in the 2009 ESD, two additional sampling events were conducted 
in the Unnamed Creek in March 2011 and January 2012. During those 
sampling events, m-BDSA was detected in the Unnamed Creek at a 
concentration of 97 [mu]g/L in March 2011 and 77 [mu]g/L in January 
2012, below the criteria listed above by multiple orders of magnitude. 
THD was detected at a concentration of 70 [mu]g/L during the January 
2012 sampling event and was not detected in March 2011. No other Site 
COCs were detected in the Unnamed Creek during either of the sampling 
events conducted since the installation of the Seep A cap.
    Additionally, the 1989 ROD indicated that completeness of the 
remedy will be determined by performing bioassay testing. Bioassay 
testing has been performed on water collected from Seep A and Seep B, 
but not on water from the Unnamed Creek. In the 2009 ESD, EPA 
determined that water collected by Seep B no longer exhibited toxicity 
based on the bioassay testing data. Current data from the Unnamed Creek 
indicate that Site COC concentrations are either non-detect or are 
below the concentrations detected in Seep B. Therefore, the water in 
the Unnamed Creek also does not exhibit toxicity according to the 
bioassay criteria. Because the Unnamed Creek is considered the receptor 
for Site-related contamination, the remedy for OU-3 can be considered 
complete. Water collected by Seep A continues to exhibit toxicity based 
on recent bioassay sampling and will continue to be collected as an O&M 
task until the bioassay criteria are reached in order to prevent 
contaminated groundwater from discharging to the Unnamed Creek. Based 
on current contaminant trends in Seep A water, the bioassay criteria 
are

[[Page 45876]]

expected to be reached in approximately two years.
    Based on a comparison to currently proposed PADEP WQC and Site-
specific bioassay criteria, the remedy has achieved the RAO of 
controlling contaminant migration into the Unnamed Creek as specified 
in the 1989 ROD.
    The RAO of controlling the migration of contaminants into 
groundwater has been achieved via the installation of the seep 
interceptor system and enhanced by the installation of the Seep A Cap. 
At the time of the ROD, it was determined that the concentrations of 
Site COCs in groundwater did not present a current or potential future 
risk to human health. Additionally, no Maximum Contaminant Levels 
(MCLs) for Site COCs existed at the time of the 1989 ROD and no MCLs 
currently exist or are proposed. Although not selected as an Applicable 
or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement (ARAR) in the 1989 ROD, since 
the ROD was issued, PADEP promulgated a State-Wide Health Standard 
(SHS) Medium Specific Concentration (MSC) for resorcinol in groundwater 
of 73,000 [mu]g/L for residential use and 200,000 [mu]g/L for non-
residential use. Groundwater monitoring was historically conducted on a 
semi-annual basis from 1999 through 2010. The highest detection of 
resorcinol during the monitoring period was 50,600 [mu]g/L in February 
of 2000, below the PADEP SHS MSCs and concentrations have continued to 
decline. Groundwater monitoring has been conducted three times since 
2010. In the three most recent sampling events conducted in March 2011, 
January 2012, and July 2012 the highest detection of resorcinol was 
27,100 [mu]g/L, below the PADEP SHS MSCs. The concentrations of all 
Site COCs in groundwater have significantly decreased, in most cases by 
an order of magnitude, since the 1989 ROD was issued. Therefore, the 
current concentrations of Site COCs in groundwater do not present a 
current or potential future risk to human health. Based on this 
information, the remedy has achieved the RAO of controlling contaminant 
migration into groundwater as specified in the 1989 ROD.
    The remedy is currently protective of human health and the 
environment and all RAOs specified in the 1989 ROD have been achieved. 
Operation and maintenance of the remedy and institutional controls, as 
described below, will ensure the long-term protection of human health 
and the environment.

Operation and Maintenance

    Long-term monitoring and maintenance at the Site is conducted in 
accordance with the Operations and Maintenance Plan (O&M Plan) 
initially dated July 14, 1993 and revised on April 15, 2013 following 
the completion of the remedy modification and subsequent initial 
monitoring. The O&M Plan, as revised, consists of the following 
components:
     Annual site inspection of the following: on-site landfill/
cap, former south disposal pit area, Seep A collection piping, above 
ground storage tank, Seep A cap/bioswale/stormwater swale, and 
ancillary facilities.
     Groundwater sampling and analysis;
    [cir] Landfill Wells--Hydraulic monitoring and sampling every five 
years to coincide with Five Year Reviews;
    [cir] Groundwater Monitoring Wells--Annual hydraulic monitoring, 
sampling every five years to coincide with Five Year Reviews.
     Surface water sampling and analysis;
    [cir] Annual sampling through 2014, after which samples will be 
collected every five years to coincide with Five-Year Reviews.
     Seep water collection and disposal (seep interceptor 
system Seep A);
    [cir] Off-site disposal as needed;
    [cir] Periodic sampling to determine if collected water (Seep A) 
meets bioassay criteria.
     Leachate collection and disposal (on-site landfill);
    [cir] Pumping, collection, and off-site disposal as needed.
     Progress reporting;
    [cir] Reporting every five years to coincide with Five Year 
Reviews.
    The 1989 ROD for the Site required that institutional controls be 
placed on the Site to ensure the protectiveness of the remedy. The 2004 
Second Five Year Review indicated that the institutional controls were 
not yet in place, and subsequently the institutional controls were 
implemented on September 23, 2004 in the form of a deed restriction 
consisting of the following:
     No groundwater beneath the Site may be used and no wells 
may be installed on the Site for human consumption, irrigation, or 
other purpose that may bring it into contact with humans, except for 
testing purposes as required by law, remedial action/design, or the 
terms of the Consent Decree;
     No structure may be placed on the Site that would disturb 
the cap or stabilized contents of the landfill or would otherwise 
disturb any component of the remedial action/design without prior 
written approval of the Site owner and EPA;
     The Site may not be used for the purposes of living, 
dwelling, or overnight accommodations of any type;
     No action may be taken that will interfere with, obstruct, 
or disturb the performance of any remedial response, including O&M;
     Any Site owner must provide any purchaser with notice of 
the terms of the Consent Decree prior to transferring any interest in 
the Site.
    The 2009 Third Five Year Review indicated that the requirement for 
institutional controls was in the declaration portion of the 1989 ROD 
only and not in the remedy selection portion. Therefore, EPA included a 
clarification of the requirement for institutional controls in the 2009 
ESD to ensure that the controls remain in place and effective.

Five-Year Reviews

    Three Five Year Reviews have been conducted at the Site in 1999, 
2004, and 2009. The Protectiveness Statement in the 2009 Third Five 
Year Review was as follows:

    ``The remedy at the Craig Farm Drum Site is protective of human 
health and the environment in the short and long term. Physical 
construction is complete and institutional controls have been 
implemented.
    Protection of human health and the environment has been achieved 
by the installation of a RCRA-equivalent landfill to contain waste 
(OU-1) and a seep interceptor system to collect contaminated 
groundwater for off-site treatment (OU-3). Additionally, protection 
of human health is enhanced due to the location of the Site within 
the Bear Creek Area Chemical Site (BCACS), in which all residents 
are required to connect to public water. Currently, design is 
underway for the modification of the seep interceptor system by the 
addition of an impermeable cap and groundwater infiltration system 
to reduce overburden groundwater flow through contaminated material, 
further enhancing the protectiveness of the remedy. Finally, the 
remedy is protective of both human health and the environment in the 
long-term due to the implementation of institutional controls 
alerting current and future Site owners of the contaminants on-site 
and restricting landfill and groundwater use. The requirements for 
the institutional controls at the Site will be clarified in an ESD 
to further ensure long-term protectiveness.''

    As previously indicated, the ESD referenced above was issued to 
clarify the institutional controls in September 2009. The next Five 
Year Review is scheduled to be completed in June 2014.

[[Page 45877]]

Community Involvement

    The Site is located in an extremely rural area and few residents 
live in close proximity to the Site. Historically, community 
involvement activities consisted of a public meeting in 1989 to present 
the Proposed Remedial Action Plan (PRAP) for the 1989 ROD, availability 
sessions during construction of the remedy in 1993 and 1994, and public 
notices prior to conducting Five Year Reviews in 1999, 2004, and 2009.
    In accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 300.425(e)(4), EPA's 
community involvement activities associated with this deletion will 
consist of placing the deletion docket in the local site information 
repository and placing a public notice (of EPA's intent to delete the 
site from the NPL) in a local newspaper of general circulation.

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

    Construction of the remedy at the Site has been completed in 
accordance with the 1989 ROD and 2009 ESD, institutional controls are 
in place, and O&M is being conducted in accordance with the O&M Plan. 
All RAOs, performance standards, and cleanup goals established in the 
1989 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 operation, maintenance, and Five Year 
Reviews, is necessary to protect human health and the environment.
    The Site Deletion procedures specified in 40 CFR 300.425(e) have 
been followed for the deletion of the Site.

V. Deletion Action

    The EPA, with concurrence of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 
through PADEP, has determined that all appropriate response actions 
under CERCLA, other than operation, maintenance, 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 September 30, 2013 unless EPA receives adverse comments 
byAugust 29, 2013. 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 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: July 10, 2013.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    For the reasons set out in this document, 40 CFR part 300 is 
amended as follows:

PART 300--[AMENDED]

0
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.

0
2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 is amended by removing Craig Farm 
Drum Superfund Site, Parker, Pennsylvania.

[FR Doc. 2013-18189 Filed 7-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P