[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 151 (Friday, August 6, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47482-47487]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-19417]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2000-0006; FRL-9185-4]
National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Deletion of the Peter Cooper Corporation
(Markhams) Superfund Site
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 2 is
publishing a direct final notice of deletion of the Peter Cooper
Corporation (Markhams) Superfund Site (Markhams Site) located in the
Town of Dayton, Cattaraugus County, New York from the National
Priorities List (NPL).
The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
[[Page 47483]]
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an
appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP). This direct final deletion is being published
by EPA with the concurrence of the State of New York, through the
Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), because EPA has
determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other
than operation, maintenance, and five-year reviews, have been
completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions
under Superfund.
DATES: This direct final rule will be effective September 20, 2010
unless EPA receives adverse comments by September 7, 2010. 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-2000-0006, by one of the following methods:
http://www.regulations.gov. Follow on-line instructions
for submitting comments.
E-mail: [email protected].
Fax: 212-637-3966.
Mail: Sherrel Henry, Remedial Project Manager, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, 290 Broadway, 20th Floor,
New York, New York 10007-1866
Hand delivery: Superfund Records Center, 290 Broadway,
18th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866 (telephone: 212-637-4308). Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation (Monday to Friday from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.) and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
2000-0006. 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 e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
Docket
All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in the hard
copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, Superfund Records
Center, 290 Broadway, Room 1828, New York, New York 10007-1866. (212)
637-4308.
Hours: Monday through Friday: 9 a.m. through 5 p.m.
or
Town of Dayton, Town Building, 9100 Route 62, South Dayton, New York
14138. (716) 532-9449.
Hours: Monday through Friday: 9 a.m. through 5 p.m.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Sherrel D. Henry, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, 290 Broadway,
20th Floor, NY, NY 10007-1866, (212) 637-4273, e-mail:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Site Deletion
V. Deletion Action
I. Introduction
EPA Region 2 is publishing this direct final Notice of Deletion of
the Peter Cooper Corporation (Markhams) Superfund Site (Markhams Site)
from the 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 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 20, 2010 unless EPA
receives adverse comments by September 7, 2010. Along with this direct
final Notice of Deletion, EPA is co-publishing a Notice of Intent to
Delete in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of the Federal Register. If
adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period
on this deletion action, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this
direct final Notice of Deletion before the effective date of the
deletion, and the deletion will not take effect. 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 Markhams 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
[[Page 47484]]
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 of New York 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 New York State 30 working days for review of
this notice and the parallel Notice of Intent to Delete prior to their
publication today, and the State, through the NYSDEC, has concurred on
the deletion of the Site from the NPL.
(3) Concurrently with the publication of this direct final Notice
of Deletion, a notice of the availability of the parallel Notice of
Intent to Delete is being published in a major local newspaper, Dunkirk
Observer. 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 Markhams Site, EPA ID No. NYD980592547, is located off Bentley
Road, in the Town of Dayton, Cattaraugus County, New York. The Site is
approximately 103 acres in size and is bordered to the northwest by
Bentley Road; to the northeast by a wooded property and farm field; to
the southeast by a railroad right-of-way; and to the southwest by
hardwood forest. Site access is restricted by a locked cable gate at
the Bentley Road entrance. Surrounding property is rural, consisting of
small farm fields, open meadow and forests.
The Site was used for the disposal of wastes remaining after the
manufacturing process from the Peter Cooper Corporation (PCC), a former
animal glue and adhesives plant located in Gowanda, New York. Materials
disposed at the Site were reported to consist of ``cookhouse sludge,''
residue pile material and vacuum filter sludge. Cookhouse sludge was so
named because of a cooking cycle that occurred just prior to extraction
of the glue. It was derived primarily from chrome-tanned hides obtained
from tanneries and leather finishers. Residue pile material is
described as air-dried cookhouse sludge, which was stabilized to a dry,
granular form. Vacuum filter sludge reportedly was produced during
dewatering of cookhouse sludge. The waste material has been shown to
contain elevated levels of chromium, arsenic, zinc, and several organic
compounds.
PCC purchased the Site in 1955 and sold the Site, among other
assets including its corporate name, in 1976 to a foreign company,
Rousselot Gelatin Corporation, and its parent, Rousselot, S.A. of
Paris, France. Rousellot Gelatin subsequently changed its name to the
Peter Cooper Corporation. From approximately 1955 until September 1971,
it was reported that approximately 9,600 tons of waste material from
the Gowanda plant were placed at the Site over an approximately 15-acre
area.
In addition, PCC transferred approximately 38,600 additional tons
of waste materials from the Gowanda plant to the Site pursuant to a New
York State Supreme Court Order (8th J.D. Cattaraugus County) dated June
1971. PCC arranged the material into several waste piles approximately
20 feet high and covering a total of approximately seven acres, mostly
in the original disposal area.
The NYSDEC completed preliminary site investigations in 1983 and
1985 and identified the presence of arsenic, chromium and zinc in soil
samples.
At that time, the Site did not meet the New York State statutory
definition for an inactive hazardous waste disposal site and NYSDEC
could not use State funds to implement a remedial program.
Consequently, the NYSDEC removed the Site from its Registry of Inactive
Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites and transferred the Site to EPA for
further evaluation.
In 1993, EPA conducted a Site Sampling Inspection, which included
the collection and analysis of soil and surface water samples from the
Site. Chromium and arsenic were detected in soils above background
concentrations within the waste piles. In 1999, EPA determined a Hazard
Ranking System score for the Site so that it could be evaluated for
potential listing on the National Priorities List (NPL). The Site was
proposed to the NPL on April 23, 1999 (64 FR 19968) and subsequently
added on February 4, 2000 (65 FR 5435).
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)
On September 29, 2000, EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order
(UAO) to several potentially responsible parties (PRPs) to perform the
RI/FS for the Site, subject to EPA oversight. The RI characterized the
physical properties of the soil fill piles, soils around the perimeter
of the fill piles (perimeter surface soils), native subsurface soils,
wetland sediments, groundwater, and soil gas.
The PRPs, through their consultants, Benchmark Environmental
Engineering and Science PLLC (Benchmark) and Geomatrix Consultants,
performed the Remedial Investigation (RI) from November 2000 to
December 2003 and the final RI report was submitted to EPA in February
2005. The chemicals of concern (COCs) in site media included: arsenic,
total chromium and hexavalent
[[Page 47485]]
chromium (metal COCs). The results of the RI suggest that low
concentrations of metal COCs can leach from the waste fill. However,
the data from native soil samples (non-waste fill) collected below the
waste fill indicate that metals have not migrated substantially in
native soil. Arsenic and total chromium concentration detected in the
surface soil samples from the cover of the fill piles were above soil
criteria. Soil testing below the fill piles identified decreasing
concentrations of metal COCs with depth. Metal COCs were reported to
exceed the NYS Groundwater Quality Standards and Guidance Values (GWQS/
GVs) in one groundwater monitoring well MW-2S for arsenic, chromium,
zinc and benzene (with benzene only slightly above the GWQS/GVs). In
the RI report, difficulties in obtaining representative samples from
monitoring well MW-2S were identified. Suggested possible explanations
for these difficulties were the age of the well and construction
materials. The report concluded that the groundwater analytical results
collected from well MW-2S during the first and second sampling events
might not be representative of Site groundwater. To address the
limitations of the sampling from monitoring well MW-2S, the ROD
required that any groundwater monitoring program at the Site include
replacing well MW-2S and conducting analytical sampling for metals.
Monitoring well MW-2S was decommissioned by the PRPs contractor in
September 2008. MW-2S was found to be constructed of steel casing and
screen, and was found to be visibly rusted/rotted on removal. MW-2S was
replaced with a new PVC replacement well (MW-2SR). Site data indicate
that transport of metal COCs and organic compounds is not considered
significant at the Site.
The RI concluded that all groundwater from the Site ultimately
discharges to Wetland F before reaching the southwestern property
boundary located more that 500 feet across the wetland. Site-related
chemicals in the overburden groundwater are transported beneath the
Site to the southwest in the direction of Wetland F. Water quality data
indicate subsurface conditions are not conducive to transport of metal
COCs. Although chromium was widely detected in soils across the Site,
chromium concentrations were not elevated in groundwater (except in
monitoring well MW-2S). Hexavalent chromium was detected at a low
concentration in one of 18 samples analyzed: the detection was not
confirmed in the second sampling event. The lack of hexavalent chromium
in groundwater suggests conditions are not suitable for the oxidation
of chromium (Cr+3) to hexavalent chromium (Cr+6).
The slightly alkaline subsurface soil conditions and relatively low
concentrations of manganese inhibit reactions that can produce
hexavalent chromium. These results are indicative that the area of
groundwater contamination is limited to a relatively small area, under
the waste piles.
Based on the results of the RI report a risk assessment was
performed for the Site. The risk assessment determined that if
infiltration of rainwater through the waste/fill material is not
curtailed, then the quality of Site groundwater would continue to
degrade, resulting in a potential future risk from groundwater
ingestion.
A Feasibility Study (FS) was then completed by the PRPs and
submitted to EPA in August 2006. The FS Report identified and evaluated
effective remedial alternatives for the Site, consistent with the
guidelines presented in ``Guidance for Conducting Remedial
Investigations and Feasibility Studies under CERCLA.'' The FS evaluated
five alternatives, including no action, institutional controls, two
containment alternatives and an excavation/off-site disposal remedies.
The remedial alternatives were developed to satisfy the Remedial Action
Objectives (RAO) for the Site:
Minimize or eliminate contaminant migration from
contaminated soils to the groundwater.
Prevent direct contact with waste fill materials.
Mitigate erosion and migration of waste material from the
exposed surface.
Selected Remedy
Based upon the results of the RI/FS, a Proposed Plan, and a Public
Meeting, a Record of Decision (ROD) was signed in December 2006. The
major components of the selected remedy included consolidation of
various waste/fill piles into a single waste/fill area, followed by
capping with a low-permeability soil cover. Specifically, the ROD
called for:
Consolidating the waste/fill piles into seven acres or
less, followed by capping the consolidated wastes with a low
permeability soil cover, consistent with the requirements of 6 NYCRR
Part 360, including seeding with a seed mixture to foster natural
habitat, and replacement of waste piles moved during consolidation with
native soil.
Imposing institutional controls in the form of an
environmental easement/restrictive covenant filed in the property
records of Cattaraugus County that will at a minimum require: (a)
Restricting activities on the Site that could compromise the integrity
of the cap; and (b) restricting the use of groundwater as a source of
potable or process water unless groundwater quality standards are met.
Developing a site management plan that provides for the
proper management of all remedy components post-construction, such as
institutional controls, and also includes: (a) Monitoring of
groundwater to ensure that, following the soil consolidation and
capping, the contamination is attenuating and groundwater quality
continues to improve; (b) an inventory of any site use restrictions;
(c) necessary provisions for ensuring the easement/covenant remains in
place and is effective; (d) provision for any operation and maintenance
required of the components of the remedy; and (e) the owner/operator or
entity responsible for maintenance of the Site to complete and submit
periodic certifications concerning the status of the institutional and
engineering controls for the Site.
Evaluating site conditions at least once every five years
to ensure that the remedy continues to protect public health and the
environment.
Response Actions
In 2008, EPA concluded Consent Decree negotiations with the PRPs
related to the performance of the design and implementation of the
remedy called for in the ROD. On February 19, 2008, the Consent Decree
was entered in United States District Court (approved by the Judge). On
March 12, 2008 Benchmark Environmental Engineering and Science PLLC
(Benchmark) was approved as the supervising contractor to conduct the
remedial design and construction work at the Site.
The PRPs prepared a Remedial Design (RD) Report which was approved
by EPA on July 3, 2008. The RD report outlined the following remedial
construction measures: mobilization, site preparation, waste/fill
consolidation and grading, and cover system (barrier layer material
placement and compaction, topsoil and seeding, and passive gas
venting).
Zoladz Construction Company, Inc. was approved as the subcontractor
for the Remedial Action (RA) and mobilized to the site on July 30,
2008. Site preparation work included clearing, grubbing and access
improvements required for consolidation and covering work. Vegetation
was stripped from the surface of the waste fill where cover soils were
placed.
[[Page 47486]]
Waste/fill consolidation involved relocation of the various waste/
fill piles located at various areas across the center of the site into
a single area. Regraded and consolidated waste/fill were placed in
maximum 12-inch lifts and compacted with rollers to 90% modified
density.
A total of approximately 40,000 cubic yards of waste/fill were
consolidated and compacted. The waste fill consolidated area has a
footprint of approximately four acres, with an average peak elevation
(including cover soil) of 14 feet above surrounding grade.
Landfill Cap Construction
The final landfill cap meets the grading requirements of 6 NYCCR
Part 360-2.13(q)2(ii) which requires that the barrier component of the
cap have a slope of no less than 4 percent to promote positive drainage
and no more than 33 percent to minimize erosion.
Cover System
The final cover system was constructed to function with minimum
maintenance, promote drainage, and minimize erosion. The cover system
was designed with an 18-inch thick recompacted low permeability (less
than 1 x 10-6 cm/sec) soil barrier layer and 6 inches of
topsoil.
Barrier Layer
Barrier soil was placed and compacted to provide a thickness of 18
inches across the final waste surface. Barrier layer soil was compacted
with rollers. Smooth drum rollers were used for temporary sealing of
the lifts and for the stockpiled soils.
Topsoil, Seeding and Tree Planting
Following the final grading and compaction of the barrier layer,
topsoil was placed to a depth of six inches (after placement and
rolling). Topsoil was placed and graded to a smooth, even surface and
was rolled and raked to remove ridges and fill in depressions, ruts and
low spots. A conservation seed mixture was used to foster a natural
habitat and minimize maintenance requirements. Fifty trees, including
25 hardwood trees, 13 poplars and 12 birch trees were replanted at
various locations across the Site to provide shelter for the wildlife
and stimulate repopulation of the wooded areas outside of the
consolidated area.
Cleanup Goals
Results of subsurface soil data indicated that metal COCs have not
migrated into native soils beneath the waste fill piles. The
consolidated waste piles were removed and underlying native soils were
scraped and consolidated into one central area. As a result,
contaminated-specific soil cleanup values for the Site were not
developed. Groundwater is being monitored through post-remedial
groundwater and surface water sampling. The primary objectives of the
remedy are to reduce or eliminate any direct contact threat associated
with the contaminated soils/fill and minimize or eliminate contaminant
migration from contaminated soils to the groundwater.
Operation and Maintenance
The primary components at the Site to be monitored and maintained
include groundwater and surface water quality, the waste/fill
consolidation area cover system (the Cap), and gas vents. These goals
are being met through the Operation, Maintenance and Monitoring (OM&M)
Plan that describes personnel requirements, responsibilities, duties,
and specifics post-construction sampling, analysis, and monitoring to
be conducted to monitor the effectiveness of the remedy.
The OM&M plan requires groundwater and surface water sampling to be
conducted on a semiannual (spring and fall) basis for the first two
years of monitoring; sampling may be reduced to annually if the data
support the reduction. The semiannual samples were collected starting
in June and December 2009. Results indicate that the cover system has
minimized contaminant migration from contaminated soils to the
groundwater. In addition, the total metals concentrations reported from
both sampling events for the metal COCs arsenic, total chromium, and
hexavalent chromium were nondetectable or below NYSDEC Groundwater
Quality Standards and Guidance Values (GWQS/GVs).
As per the OM&M plan, semiannual inspection of the landfill was
conducted concurrently with the sampling described above. Inspection
reports submitted on February 5, 2010, indicated that the final cover
system appears to be in good condition, with the gas-venting system
intact and operational. Semiannual inspections will continue as part of
the OM&M plan.
The ROD requires the implementation of institutional controls
(ICs). The ICs involve filing of an Environmental Easement to restrict
the use of on-site groundwater as a source of potable or process water
(unless groundwater quality standards are met) and to restrict
activities on the Site that could compromise the integrity of the cap.
The owner of record of the Site, Peter Cooper Corporation (PCC) is
an inactive Delaware Corporation. A search for potential corporate
successors was conducted and none were found. The PRPs consistent with
the obligation to use reasonable best efforts to implement the ICs:
Commenced an action in Supreme Court, Cattaraugus County, against the
Peter Cooper Corporation to secure an Order from the court to provide
the PRPs with access to the Site and to give permission to implement
the ICs by filing the Easement in the Office of the Clerk of
Cattaraugus County. The Court granted legal access to the Site on July
1, 2008. The ICs were filed with the Clerk's office on July 13, 2008
and a stamped copy was sent to EPA.
Five-Year Review
Hazardous substances remain at this Site above levels which would
allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. Pursuant to the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act,
Section 121(c), EPA must conduct five-year reviews. The first Five-Year
Review Report will be completed prior to July 2013, which is five years
from the initiation of construction for the remedy.
Community Involvement
Public participation activities for this Site have been satisfied
as required in CERCLA Sec. 113(k) and Section 117. As part of the
remedy selection process, the public was invited to comment on EPA's
proposed remedies. All other documents and information which EPA relied
on or considered in recommending this deletion are available for the
public to review at the information repositories identified above.
Public participation activities for this Site have been satisfied
as required in CERCLA Section 113(k), 42 U.S.C. 9613(k), and Section
117, 42 U.S.C. 9617. The ROD was subject to a public review process.
All other documents and information that EPA relied on or considered in
recommending this deletion are available for the public to review at
the information repositories.
Determination That the Site Meets the Criteria for Deletion in the NCP
One of the three criteria for site deletion is when responsible
parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response
actions required (40 CFR 300.425(e)(1)(I)). EPA, with the concurrence
of the State of New York through NYSDEC, has determined that all
required and appropriate response actions have been implemented by the
responsible parties.
[[Page 47487]]
V. Deletion Action
The EPA, with concurrence of the State of New York, has determined
that all appropriate responses under CERCLA have been completed, and
that no further response actions, under CERCLA, other than O&M and
five-year reviews, are necessary. Therefore, EPA is deleting the Site
from the NPL.
Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and
routine, EPA is taking it without prior publication. This action will
be effective September 20, 2010, unless EPA receives adverse comments
by September 7, 2010. If adverse comments are received within the 30-
day public comment period, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this
direct final notice of deletion before the effective date of the
deletion and it will not take effect, and 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.
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.
Dated: July 25, 2010.
Judith A. Enck,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
0
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 the entry
for ``Peter Cooper Corporation (Markhams),'' ``Winslow Township,''
``NY.''
[FR Doc. 2010-19417 Filed 8-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P