[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 150 (Monday, August 5, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37962-37969]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-16703]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2002-0001; FRL-9997-65-Region 2]


National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan 
National Priorities List: Deletion of the Ellenville Scrap Iron and 
Metal Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 2 is 
publishing a direct final notice of deletion of the Ellenville Scrap 
Iron and Metal Superfund Site, located in the Village of Ellenville, 
Town of Wawarsing, Ulster County, New York, from the National 
Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of 
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 
Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA), 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 New York State Department of 
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), because EPA has determined that 
all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other operation and 
maintenance, monitoring, and five-year reviews, have been completed. 
However, this deletion does not preclude future response actions under 
Superfund.

DATES: This direct final deletion is effective on September 24, 2019 
unless EPA receives adverse comments by September 4, 2019. If adverse 
comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the 
direct final deletion the Federal Register (FR) informing the public 
that deletion will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-2002-0001, by one of the following methods:
     https://www.regulations.gov. Follow online instructions 
for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or 
removed from the web page. 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 for which 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. 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: duda.damian@epa.gov.
     Mail: Damian J. Duda, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, 290 Broadway, New York, New 
York 10007-1866.
     Hand Delivery: EPA, Region 2, Superfund Records Center, 
290 Broadway, 18th Floor, New Yok New York 10007-1866 (telephone: 212-
637-4308). Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal 
hours of operation (Monday through 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-
2002-0001. 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

[[Page 37963]]

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 cannot read your comment because of 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 
for which 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: 
USEPA--Region II, Superfund Records Center, 290 Broadway, 18th Floor, 
New York, New York 10007-1866, (212) 637-4308, Hours: Monday-Friday: 9 
a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Information on the Site is also available for viewing at the Site 
Administrative Record repository located at: Ellenville Public Library, 
40 Center Street, Village of Ellenville, New York 12428, Telephone: 
(845) 647-5530, Hours: Monday-Thursday: 9:30 a.m. to 8 p.m., Friday: 
9:30 a.m. to 3 p.m., Saturday: 9:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Damian J. Duda, Remedial Project 
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, 290 Broadway, 
New York, New York 10007-1866, email: duda.damian@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 2 is publishing this direct final Notice of Deletion of 
the Ellenville Scrap Iron and Metal Site (Site) from the NPL. The NPL 
constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300, which is the NCP, which EPA 
promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of CERCLA, as amended. EPA 
maintains the NPL as the list of releases that appear to present a 
significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. The 
releases on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions financed by 
the Hazardous Substance Superfund. As described in Section 
300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted from the NPL remains eligible 
for Fund-financed response action if future conditions at the sites 
warrant such actions.
    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 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 parties have implemented all 
appropriate response actions required;
    ii. All appropriate Fund-financed responses under CERCLA have been 
implemented, and no further action by responsible parties is 
appropriate; or
    iii. The remedial investigation (RI) has shown that the release of 
hazardous substances 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 (FYRs) to ensure the continued protectiveness of remedial 
actions where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain 
at a site above levels that would otherwise allow for unlimited use and 
unrestricted exposure. EPA conducts such FYR 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 the deletion of the Site:
    (1) EPA consulted with the State of New York (NYS) prior to 
developing this direct final Notice of Deletion and the Notice of 
Intent to Delete also published today in the ``Proposed Rules'' section 
of the Federal Register.
    (2) EPA has provided the State with 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 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, the 
Shawangunk Journal, and on the Midhudsonnews.com website. The newspaper 
notice announces the 30-day public comment period concerning the Notice 
of Intent to Delete the Site from the NPL.
    (4) 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 will 
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's management of sites. Section 
300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the 
NPL does not preclude eligibility for further response

[[Page 37964]]

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 Ellenville Site (CERCLIS ID NYSFN0204190) is a 24-acre parcel 
where a former scrap iron and metal reclamation facility operated, and 
the former facility is configured with an upper and lower plateau. The 
Site is bound to the north by Cape Avenue, to the south and west by the 
Beer Kill, and, to the east by residential properties. The Site also 
includes select residential properties in the vicinity, located on Cape 
Avenue and River Street in the Village of Ellenville, Town of 
Wawarsing, Ulster County, New York. Approximately 10 acres of the Site 
were used for a variety of scrap metal operations and battery 
reclamation. Approximately 4000 people, relying on both public and 
private drinking water supplies, live in the Village of Ellenville.
    At the time of its operations, the Site included an office 
building, a truck scale, a hydraulic baling machine used for metal cans 
and other small parts, abandoned automobiles and trucks, scrap metal 
piles, railroad ties, storage of automobile batteries, emptied battery 
casings, abandoned tires, and assorted brush piles. Deteriorated drums 
were also found scattered throughout the Site property. An existing 
landfill embankment, approximately 40 feet in height, runs in a 
crescent along a northwesterly to southeasterly axis bisecting and 
dividing the Site into two plateaus, the upper and the lower. The 
landfill is composed of construction and demolition debris, including a 
variety of finely shredded wastes, scrap brick, concrete, wood, and 
other metal-type debris. A Cape Avenue residential property, directly 
east of the entrance to the Site, was formerly part of the facility and 
was used for the storage and disposal of heavy equipment, as well as 
for the disposal of automobile battery casings.
    Lead, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), antimony, cadmium, and 
hydrogen sulfide are the contaminants of potential health concern 
associated with this Site. On-site soils and groundwater were 
contaminated with lead. Soils at nearby residential properties were 
contaminated with lead at levels that exceed EPA's threshold of a lead 
hazard in soils. These soil samples revealed detections above both 
background and noncancer health comparison values for antimony and 
cadmium and above background but below noncancer health comparison 
values for arsenic, barium, chromium, cobalt, copper, manganese, 
mercury, nickel, selenium, silver and zinc. Soils at the former 
facility and nearby residential areas were contaminated with PCB 
mixtures (Aroclors) above cancer and noncancer health comparison 
values.
    The Site was proposed to the NPL on September 13, 2001, Federal 
Register (66 FR 47612). The Site was included on the NPL on Thursday, 
September 5, 2002, Federal Register (67 FR 56757). The effective date 
was October 7, 2002.
    Area residents had complained about odors from the Site, stemming 
from hydrogen sulfide and other compounds released from the 
decomposition of the construction and demolition debris at the Site. 
Four sediment samples from the nearby Beer Kill did not contain Site-
related contaminants at a level of concern. Groundwater from the seven 
monitoring wells at the Site was contaminated with lead, cadmium, 
manganese, nickel, iron and tetrachloroethene at or above drinking 
water standards. However, adjacent residences are connected to the 
public water supply, and any private wells down-gradient and across the 
Beer Kill do not show any Site-related contaminants at concentrations 
of concern. An up-gradient monitoring well did not contain any site-
related contamination.
    Completed off-site exposure pathways include contact with 
contaminated soils and breathing contaminated ambient air. The 
completed soil pathway is dermal contact and incidental ingestion of 
metals (i.e., lead, antimony and cadmium) or PCB-contaminated soil from 
five nearby residential yards. The completed air pathway is the 
inhalation of odor-producing gases from the site in the past (e.g., 
hydrogen sulfide). Nearby residents were exposed in the past to Site-
related contaminants, especially lead and PCBs, in their yards. The 
soil in the yards of three nearby properties showed levels of lead that 
exceeded the US EPA's definition of a lead hazard in soils. 
Additionally, the adjacent residence on Cape Avenue showed levels of 
lead up to 230,000 mg/kg in the surface soil prior to EPA's removal 
action. Based on these data and the Agency for Toxic Substances and 
Disease Registry's public health hazard consultation, the Site 
represented a public health hazard.
    In June 2000, at the request of NYSDEC, EPA Region 2 and its 
Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team contractors conducted 
a sampling event at the facility property and adjacent residential 
properties as part of the EPA Superfund Preliminary Assessment/Site 
Inspection process. Surface soil samples were collected throughout the 
facility property and at several adjacent residential properties. 
Sediments and surface water samples were also collected along the Beer 
Kill, the adjacent stream to the Site. Samples were also collected from 
a minor amount of ponded leachate emanating from a small area of the 
landfill embankment at the Site. Analytical results from the June 2000 
samples indicated contamination in surface soils, as well as in the 
Beer Kill. Because the Beer Kill is used by recreational fishermen and 
also discharges into two fisheries, a Hazard Ranking System evaluation 
for the Site's inclusion on the NPL resulted in the Site being proposed 
for and included on the NPL.
    As discussed above, battery reclamation and disposal activities 
conducted at the Site on the adjacent Cape Avenue residential property 
also resulted in lead contamination of its residential soils. Further 
EPA sampling indicated that the lead contamination extended across the 
entire adjacent property, as well as into the face of an embankment 
that extended out from the rear of that property.
    In June 2004, EPA conducted a removal assessment at the adjacent 
residential property. In November and December 2004, EPA implemented a 
removal action and excavated 8200 square feet of contaminated soils 
from the residential yard and from a portion of the surface of the 
embankment. EPA disposed of all hazardous materials at off-site 
permitted facilities. The excavated area of the residential yard was 
covered and secured with geotextile fabric, backfilled, and replanted 
with sod. EPA also installed silt fencing at the base of the embankment 
to curtail any further erosion into the adjacent area.
    The June 2004 removal assessment also included sampling 20 
deteriorating and leaking drums, as well as an aboveground tank. The 
analytical results indicated that the drums contained various hazardous 
substances, including volatile organic compounds (VOCs) (benzene and 
ethylbenzene), semi-volatile compounds (SVOCs) (anthracene and pyrene) 
and pesticides (lindane and DDT). These materials were contained and 
disposed of at off-site permitted facilities.
    During the Summer and Fall of 2005, EPA performed further cleanup 
actions at the Site in preparation for the continued RI field 
activities, including the following: (1) Clearing, grading and

[[Page 37965]]

stabilizing the Site support area; (2) characterization and off-site 
disposal of the various debris piles located throughout the Site 
property, including tires, battery casings, wood pallets, and concrete 
and construction debris; (3) characterization of the various remaining 
scrap iron and steel found on the Site, as well as the abandoned 
dumpsters, cars, trucks, baling, metal shearing and compactor units 
located on the Site; (4) dismantling and preparing these materials and 
equipment for recycling and/or for sale as scrap; (5) testing and 
disposal of any localized contaminated soils associated with the 
cleanup of the various debris piles and the metal-processing equipment 
at approved, regulated facilities; (6) demolishing all extant Site 
structures; and (7) the use of some of the crushed concrete materials 
and shredded wooden pallets as grading materials for areas of the Site.

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

    During 2007-2008, the RI was performed to define the nature and 
extent of contamination at the Site. During the RI, the affected media 
that were investigated included surface and subsurface soils, 
groundwater, surface water, sediments, landfill leachate, and soil gas. 
EPA also conducted additional groundwater sampling in 2009 and 2010.
    In summary, a human health risk assessment was conducted, and, as a 
result, EPA concluded that metals, polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), 
pesticides and PCBs in soils and leachate found at the Site contributed 
to unacceptable risks and hazards to on-site trespassers, construction/
utility workers, on-site recreational users, and on-site future 
residents. There were also unacceptable hazards for off-property 
residents from metals, especially lead. In addition, exposure to 
groundwater for future on-site residents exceeded the acceptable risk 
range for two metals, arsenic and chromium.
    A screening-level ecological risk assessment was conducted to 
evaluate the potential for ecological effects from exposure to surface 
soils, leachate, groundwater discharging to sediment and surface water, 
and surface water and sediment from the Beer Kill. In this assessment, 
EPA concluded that there was a potential for adverse effects to 
terrestrial plants and soil invertebrates from direct exposure to 
chemicals in soils and sediments at the Site.
    Off-site soils were sampled to determine background concentrations 
in native soils not impacted by Site operations. In general, the Site 
soils have been impacted by historic operations as evidenced by the 
type and distribution of contaminants in the area of the landfill, in 
the area of the former large debris piles at the base of the landfill 
and along a drainage channel to the southeast of the landfill.
    Both surface and subsurface test pits (10 performed) and direct-
push borings (30 performed) soil samples show concentrations of SVOCs, 
pesticides, PCBs and various metal concentrations above cleanup 
objectives. In addition, VOC concentrations were detected in some fill 
materials, as well as in subsurface soils of the landfill. The highest 
results for PCBs, several PAHs and SVOCS that were detected during the 
RI were on the lower plateau of the Site. Metals in surface and 
subsurface soils, including zinc, lead, copper, chromium, cadmium, 
mercury and nickel, exceeded soil cleanup objectives.
    Previous EPA residential investigations documented the presence of 
high lead concentrations in deeper surface soils (> 12 inches) at the 
Cape Avenue residential property portion of the Site where the 
batteries had been stored and reclaimed. As part of EPA's June 2004 
Removal Assessment, additional sampling was performed at this location 
to delineate further the extent of lead contamination. During the RI, 
surface and subsurface soil samples at depths of 0 to 6 inches and 6 to 
24 inches were collected from locations on several residential 
properties to the south and southeast of the former facility property. 
PAHs, pesticides and lead, among other metals, were detected.
    Groundwater samples were collected during the RI. No general plume 
of any group of constituents has been observed, but only localized low-
level impacts and somewhat random exceedances have been shown.
    During the FS, the Site was divided into six areas of concern 
(AOCs) that facilitated the development and evaluation of remedial 
alternatives, based on the nature and extent of contamination. The 
contaminants identified in the six AOCs are described below:
     AOC 1--Landfill Area--VOCs, SVOCs, metals, PCBs and 
pesticides were detected in the soils within this area at 
concentrations greater than the NYS Restricted Use Soil Cleanup 
Objectives for residential properties (RSCOs--Residential).
     AOC 2--Debris Pile Area--SVOCs, metals, PCBs and 
pesticides were detected in the soils within the area at concentrations 
greater than the RSCOs--Residential.
     AOC 3--Dumpster Staging Area--VOCs, metals and PCBs were 
detected in the soils within this area at concentrations greater than 
the RSCOs--Residential.
     AOC 4--Scattered Debris Area--Metals were detected in the 
soils at one location within this area at concentrations greater than 
the RSCOs--Residential.
     AOC 5--Battery Disposal Area--Metals and PCBs were 
detected in the soils within this area at concentrations greater than 
the RSCOs--Residential.
     AOC 6--Residential Properties Area--SVOCs and metals were 
detected in the soils within the area at concentrations greater than 
the RSCOs--Residential.

Selected Remedy

    The following Remedial Action Objectives were established for the 
Site:
Groundwater
    [ballot] Prevent ingestion of groundwater with contaminant 
concentrations greater than state water quality standards.
    [ballot] Restore groundwater contaminant concentrations to less 
than state water quality standards.
    [ballot] Prevent discharge of groundwater with contaminant 
concentrations greater than state water quality standards to adjacent 
surface water, i.e., Beer Kill.
Soils
    [ballot] Prevent ingestion/direct contact to soils with contaminant 
concentrations greater than state residential soil cleanup objectives.
    [ballot] Prevent inhalation of soil dust with contaminant 
concentrations greater than state residential soil cleanup objectives.
    [ballot] Prevent migration of soils with contaminant concentrations 
greater than state residential soil cleanup objectives.
    [ballot] Prevent or minimize impacts to groundwater and/or surface 
water resulting from soil contamination with concentrations greater 
than state residential soil cleanup objectives.
Solid Wastes
    [ballot] Prevent ingestion/direct contact with solid wastes with 
contaminant concentrations greater than state residential soil cleanup 
objectives.
    [ballot] Prevent migration of solid wastes with contaminant 
concentrations greater than state residential soil cleanup objectives.
    [ballot] Prevent or minimize impacts to groundwater and/or surface 
water resulting from solid wastes with concentrations greater than 
state residential soil cleanup objectives.

[[Page 37966]]

Leachate
    [ballot] Prevent ingestion of leachate with contaminant 
concentrations greater than state water quality standards.
    [ballot] Prevent migration of leachate with contaminant 
concentrations greater than state water quality standards.
Air
    [ballot] Prevent exposure to or inhalation of volatilized 
contaminants from the solid wastes.
    [ballot] Prevent migration of landfill gas generated by the 
decomposition of solid waste.
    The major components of the selected remedy of the September 2010 
Record of Decision are as follows:
    [ballot] Excavation of selected contaminated soils in six AOCs 
(AOCs 1-6), which include residential properties adjacent to the former 
facility property where contaminants in the surface soils exceed the 
cleanup criteria;
    [ballot] Backfilling of the excavated areas with clean fill;
    [ballot] Consolidation of the excavated soils from AOCs 1-6 on the 
upper and central portion of the Site;
    [ballot] Installation of a landfill cap system which meets the 
substantive requirements of NYS Part 360 regulations over the existing 
landfill and the consolidated soils, including long-term groundwater 
monitoring; and,
    [ballot] Development of a Site Management Plan (SMP), in accordance 
with NYS landfill closure requirements, that would include (1) long-
term groundwater monitoring, (2) engineering controls (ECs) with an 
operation and maintenance (O&M) plan, which may include periodic 
reviews and/or certifications and (3) a plan for implementing 
institutional controls (ICs).
    EPA determined that an active groundwater remedy for the Site was 
not required because of the following: (1) Limited groundwater 
contamination (both inorganic and organic) underlies the Site, (2) the 
isolated, low levels of contamination in the groundwater do not appear 
to be mobile and show no threat of migration nor significant, area-wide 
impact on Site groundwater, (3) there is no clearly defined inorganic 
plume in the Site groundwater; (4) comprehensive groundwater monitoring 
program would be implemented as part of the selected remedy; and (5) 
the soil and groundwater data and the current hydrogeologic information 
at the Site indicate that the fill material in the landfill proper is 
located above the water table.

Response Actions

    Upon the selection of the remedy on September 30, 2010, EPA began 
the preliminary design investigation (PDI) to fill any data gaps in the 
soil data that were necessary to complete an effective remedial design 
(RD) for the Site. The collection of soils data served both to 
delineate further the nature and extent of contamination at the Site 
and to provide sample results and post-excavation limits for 
construction purposes. This eliminated the need for confirmatory 
sampling post-excavation. The final PDI Report was issued in March 
2011.
    The Remedial Action (RA) Work Plan was completed in May 2011. As 
identified in the September 2010 ROD, RA activities included the 
excavation of contaminated soils in the six AOCs, consolidation of non-
hazardous excavated soils within the final landfill footprint, 
transport and off-site disposal of hazardous materials, installation of 
a landfill cap system and restoration of all disturbed areas. The Site 
also includes adjacent residential properties where contaminants in the 
surface soils exceeded the NYS soil cleanup criteria.
    Based on the RI and previous investigation findings, the PDI was 
conducted in October-November 2010 to fill gaps in soil data necessary 
to complete an effective RD, as well as to provide confirmatory post-
excavation sample results required to complete the remedial 
construction. A second phase of the PDI was conducted in February 2011 
to collect samples from the residential areas after securing necessary 
access. To minimize the total number of samples to be collected during 
the PDI, pre-defined excavation areas of various depths were identified 
to develop the conceptual sampling plan. The areas were developed based 
on existing investigation results, Site history, aerial photographs, 
and observations made during Site visits.
    During April and May 2011, pre-construction activities were 
performed. The Site was cleared and grubbed with erosion and sediment 
control measures implemented. All spoils from grubbing operations were 
consolidated within the landfill cap area. The major construction 
activities for this part of the overall project were excavation, 
backfilling and materials handling, primarily of soils. Excavations 
used conventional earthmoving equipment, including a hydraulic 
excavator. The overall depths of excavation varied from a minimum of 
about one foot up to a maximum depth of 11 feet.
    On May 6, 2011, formal construction activities began with the major 
excavation work. Work progressed from the entrance to the southeast and 
along the south and the western part of the lower plateau. 
Concurrently, a separate field crew and equipment were mobilized and 
were dedicated to the remediation of the residential properties. During 
the remediation of the Site, several different waste streams were 
generated and were either consolidated within the landfill cap area or 
disposed of off-site.
    Backfill and compaction of excavation areas were performed. 
Uncontaminated excavated soils were used for backfilling in excavated 
areas to the fullest extent possible. Imported clean fill was also 
necessary to complete the backfill of all excavated areas. This action 
consisted of ``rolling-out'' the excavated materials and ``rolling-in'' 
the clean backfill materials.
    Concurrent with the consolidation of excavated soils (from both the 
former facility property and the residential properties), the landfill 
area was prepared for capping. Construction proceeded from the 
northwest (near the staging area) to the southeast.
    Construction of the landfill subgrade consisted of the rough 
grading of the consolidated materials excavated from the AOCs, 
including tree stumps and acceptable demolition debris. To further 
protect the subsequent geocomposite and geomembrane installations, a 6-
inch layer of select fill (free of any large, angular stones and finely 
graded) was imported to the Site and placed over the rough graded 
landfill subgrade. The landfill subgrade has a 3-to-1 maximum slope on 
the side slopes and a five percent minimum slope on the top.
    An anchor trench around the perimeter of the landfill footprint was 
excavated upon completion of the landfill subgrade that extends two 
feet beyond the limits of the landfill waste and anchors the 
geocomposite and geomembrane layers of the landfill cap. The excavated 
trench soils were also incorporated under the landfill cap, and clean, 
imported fill was utilized to backfill the anchor trench. Each area of 
the subgrade layer was approved prior to further installation of each 
subsequent layer in order to expedite the installation of the double-
sided gas vent geocomposite. Installation of this geocomposite layer 
proceeded as more areas of the subgrade were fine-graded, approved and 
released. The geocomposite drainage layer was accomplished in similar 
fashion with approval of the high-density polyethylene (HDPE) 
geomembrane in advance. The subsequent geocomposite layers were 
installed in similar fashion, with each roll being unrolled down

[[Page 37967]]

slope, keeping the geocomposite in slight tension to minimize wrinkles 
and folds.
    The HDPE geomembrane liner was placed over the top of the gas vent 
geocomposite layer and has a nominal thickness of 60-mil (0.06 inches) 
and the physical properties indicated in the project specifications. 
The geomembrane extends down the front wall and across the bottom of 
the anchor trench and is secured in place from uplift by wind by using 
adequate ballast (i.e., sandbags). Geomembrane seams were installed 
parallel to the line of the maximum slope. The ``as-built'' 
documentation indicates the repair/patch locations and the field seam 
destruct sample testing locations. Prior to covering the geomembrane 
with the geocomposite drainage layer, the geomembrane seams and non-
seam areas were visually inspected for defects, holes or damage as a 
result of weather conditions or construction activities. The deployed 
and seamed geomembrane was covered with the required geocomposite 
drainage layer material.
    The barrier protection layer material is comprised of select fill, 
in accordance with the design specifications, and consists of a 
completed 24-inch compacted depth. This compacted depth was 
accomplished by placing an initial 12-inch loose fill lift. This 
initial lift served as protection for the geocomposite and geomembrane 
layers from equipment utilized to place and compact the barrier 
protection layer. Grading conformed to the Final Grading Plan minus six 
inches for the subsequent topsoil layer installation.
    The final layer of the landfill cap consists of a six-inch 
compacted lift of topsoil which was stabilized with erosion control 
blankets and reinforced matting. Upon completion of the installation of 
soil stabilizing measures, the entire landfill cap area was hydroseeded 
with a seed mix to promote good vegetative growth.
    In summary, Site restoration activities included the installation 
of topsoil, slope stabilization materials, hydroseeding and landfill 
infrastructure items, including installation of the riprap channels and 
the storm water basin, chain-link fencing, and the stabilization of the 
east access road. Riprap channels were lined with a 12-ounce 
geotextile. The construction of the riprap channels proceeded from the 
high point of the channels, at the north end of the landfill, to the 
low point of the channels at south end of the landfill, where they 
discharged to the storm water basin. Gabion baskets were also installed 
at certain locations in the drainage swales to prevent washouts. The 
storm water basin was excavated and graded, as necessary, and did not 
receive any topsoil cover or seed.
    Close attention was given to the remedial activities conducted on 
the three residential properties, ensuring that these activities, 
especially those adjacent to building structures, driveways, walkways 
and residential utilities, were performed in a manner that closely 
monitored the excavation, backfilling and compaction activities in 
these areas. Additional excavation work was performed on the adjacent 
Cape Avenue property in the area identified as the battery casing wall, 
because the majority of the battery casings were found here. After 
excavation and backfilling of the affected residential areas, including 
the battery slope behind the adjacent Cape Avenue property, affected 
areas topsoil was placed on the clean, backfill soils and then 
hydroseeded with straw matting in place to ensure good grass growth.
    Restoration and expansion of an on-site wetland were also performed 
with the installation of clay matting and a number of wetlands 
plantings to replace wetlands affected by the installation of the 
landfill cap. Seven additional monitoring wells were also installed in 
both the bedrock and the overburden in order to conform to the NYS 
requirements regarding the landfill cap installation.
    The final restoration of the permanent north and east access roads 
ensured compliance with the grades and contours as shown on the as-
built drawings. Similar to the riprap swales, these 12-inch thick 
gravel access roads were constructed atop a layer of 12-ounce 
geotextile fabric. A six-foot high permanent chain link fence, with 
posts and gates, was installed around the entire perimeter of the newly 
constructed landfill cap area, including the north access road, the 
staging area and the storm water basin.
    New tree seedlings and assorted bushes were also installed at 
various locations on the adjacent Cape Avenue property as a replacement 
for the trees removed during the clearing phase of the project.
    On August 28, 2011, Hurricane Irene affected the Site. Actions 
associated with restoring areas affected by the hurricane included 
restoration and stabilization of the hill (the battery-excavation area) 
located at the aforesaid Cape Avenue residential property.
    On September 28, 2011, a final inspection of the Site was 
conducted. The Site was deemed construction complete on September 30, 
2011.

Verification of Cleanup Levels

    The remedy discussed herein has been implemented and constructed in 
accordance with all EPA and NYS-approved RD documents, which include 
the Design Analysis Report, construction drawings and technical 
specifications. These documents also substantially comply with the 
Parts 360 and 375 NYS regulations and NYSDEC Guidance Document 10.
    The RA activities at the Site were undertaken in a manner 
consistent with the remedy and with the RD plans and specifications, as 
modified by the as-built documentation. All applicable quality 
assurance and quality control procedures and protocols were 
incorporated into the RD. EPA analytical methods were used for all 
monitoring samples during all remedial activities. All procedures and 
protocols followed for groundwater, soil and air sample collection and 
analysis are documented in the RD and RA reports, and the sample 
analyses were performed at state-certified laboratories. EPA has 
determined that all analytical results are accurate to the degree 
needed to assure satisfactory execution of the RA and that the data are 
consistent with both the ROD and the RD plans and specifications, as 
modified by the as-built documentation.
    Prior to the completion of the RA, groundwater monitoring data 
revealed limited exceedances of NYS standards for antimony, arsenic, 
chromium and lead in the overburden groundwater. High iron and 
manganese concentrations were attributed to the naturally occurring 
background conditions. Sodium levels were high in the upgradient wells, 
indicating that it is also naturally occurring. VOCs that were sampled 
were primarily at levels below detection limits.
    In general, data from groundwater sampling events conducted in 2012 
and 2016 revealed that iron, manganese and sodium levels were detected 
above the standards were consistent with naturally occurring 
conditions. Levels of other metals (arsenic, chromium, lead and nickel) 
were detected both above and below standards in one well. No SVOCs were 
detected. Some VOCs were detected but shown to be below standards. 
Overall, because of the low baseline contaminant concentrations in the 
groundwater and the installation of the landfill cap, which prevents 
infiltration to the groundwater, groundwater contaminant concentrations 
at the Site are being monitored and are expected to continue to 
decrease.

[[Page 37968]]

    Contaminated soils were excavated and removed from 1) an adjacent 
residential property (Cape Avenue) to the former Site facility and 2) 
two additional residential properties to the southeast along River 
Street. Metals (arsenic, barium, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury and 
zinc) were detected at these properties at concentrations in the soils 
greater than the RSCOs--Residential. The cleanup goals were met.
    EPA's Preliminary Close-Out Report was signed on September 30, 
2011, representing a successful construction completion at the Site.

Operation and Maintenance

    As of March 2015, NYSDEC assumed the O&M responsibilities at the 
Site, in accordance with the Sire Management Plan (SMP) which specifies 
the methods necessary to ensure compliance with all ICs and ECs for the 
Site.
    NYSDEC currently performs semi-annual Site inspections to ensure 
the remedial measures have not been compromised. These include 
inspection of the landfill cap, the storm water basin, the perimeter 
drainage swales, the monitoring wells, the gas vents, the constructed 
wetland area, the access roads, the guard rails, and the fence lines.
    During the most recent assessment of current conditions, all 
entrances to the Site were noted as secure, and the inner fence that 
surrounds the main landfill area was intact but for a small, repairable 
break in the northeast corner. The landfill cap was dry and the soil 
stable. No animal presence was observed while on-site. The vegetation 
on the landfill is green and has grown to an average height of less 
than six inches. The landfill cap has been mowed. During the 
inspections, NYSDEC confirmed that the vegetation is at an acceptable 
height and roots not penetrating the landfill cap. The landfill gas 
vents are in good condition. The drainage swales, located on the 
perimeter of the Site, did not contain any water, and there are no 
areas of active erosion or excessive vegetation growth. The storm water 
outfall structure leading to the wetland was inspected and was 
determined to be functioning as designed. The created wetland was also 
inspected and found to have no issues. Inspection of the formerly-
forested wetland area on the lower plateau of the Cape Avenue 
residential property showed that a few of the trees planted during the 
RA may need replacement.
    All monitoring wells were secure, and concrete well pads were free 
of large cracks and signs of deterioration. Outside the fenced area, 
each monitoring well's condition was inspected; the wellhead was 
screened with a photoionization detector (PID); and the total well 
depth, depth to product (if any) and depth to water measurements were 
recorded. No product or elevated PID readings were observed at any of 
the monitoring wells inspected.
    Site access roads around the perimeter of the Site are in good 
condition. The interior fence line is in good condition and the gates 
are secure.
    A Declaration of Covenants, Restrictions and Environmental 
Easements Survey Map was developed for the Site. This Declaration 
includes the metes and bounds descriptions of the various property 
parcels associated with the Site. The Map also identifies the fenced, 
capped landfill area that is to be maintained under strict and specific 
ECs.
    EPA issued two notices to successors-in-title to the two properties 
impacted by the ECs implemented at the Site. Other than the existing 
groundwater extraction restrictions though local ordinance, these 
notices are the primary ICs at the Site. ICs are necessary to ensure 
the protectiveness of the remedy.

Five-Year Review

    The purpose of a FYR is to evaluate the implementation and 
performance of a remedy in order to determine if the remedy is and will 
continue to be protective of human health and the environment. The 
methods, findings and conclusions of FYRs are documented in FYR 
reports. In addition, FYR reports identify any issues that may have 
been found during the review period and document recommendations of how 
to address those issues.
    EPA prepared the first FYR for the Site, pursuant to CERCLA Section 
121, consistent with the NCP (40 CFR Section 300.430(f)(4)(ii)), and 
considering EPA policy. The FYR was a statutory review because 
hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants remain at the Site 
above levels that would allow for unlimited use and unrestricted 
exposure. The first FYR for the Site was signed in August 2017. In the 
FYR report, EPA concluded that the remedy is functioning, as intended, 
and is protective of human health and the environment. The FYR had no 
issues or recommendations. FYRs will continue to be conducted at the 
Site. The next five-year review will be conducted by August 2022.

Community Involvement

    Public participation activities for the Site have been satisfied as 
required pursuant to CERCLA Sections 113(k) and 117, 42 U.S.C. 9613(k) 
and 9617. As part of the remedy selection process, the public was 
invited to comment on the proposed remedy. 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 identified above and at EPA's website for the Site: 
www.epa.gov/superfund/ellenville-scrap. The public is provided the 
opportunity to comment on this proposed action.

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

    EPA, with the concurrence of the State of New York through NYSDEC, 
has determined that all required and appropriate response actions have 
been implemented. The criteria for deletion from the NPL, as set forth 
at 40 CFR 300.425(e)(1)(I)), are met. The implemented remedy achieves 
the protection specified in the ROD for all pathways of exposure. All 
selected remedial and removal action objectives, and associated cleanup 
levels are consistent with agency policy and guidance. No further 
Superfund response is needed to protect human health and the 
environment.
    All of the cleanup requirements for the Site have been met, as 
described in the 2011 Preliminary Close-Out Report and 2017 FYR report. 
The State of New York, in a July 11, 2019 letter, concurred with the 
proposed deletion of the Site from the NPL.
    The NCP (40 CFR 300.425(e)(1)(ii)) specifies that EPA may delete a 
site from the NPL if ``all appropriate Fund-financed response under 
CERCLA has been implemented, and no further response action by 
responsible parties is appropriate.''

V. Deletion Action

    EPA, with the concurrence of the State of New York through NYSDEC, 
has determined that all appropriate responses under CERCLA have been 
completed and that no further response actions, under CERCLA, other 
O&M, monitoring, and FYRs, have been completed. Therefore, EPA is 
deleting the Site from the NPL. Documents supporting this action are 
available in the deletion docket at https://www.regulations.gov and at 
the Site information repositories.
    Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and 
routine, EPA is taking this action without prior publication. This 
action will be effective on September 24, 2019 unless EPA receives 
adverse comments by September 4, 2019. If adverse comments

[[Page 37969]]

are received within the 30-day public comment period of this 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 prepare a response to comments and 
continue with the deletion process, as appropriate, on the basis of the 
notice of intent to delete and the comments received. If there is no 
withdrawal of this direct final notice of deletion, there will be no 
additional opportunity to comment.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

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

    Dated: July 24, 2019.
Peter D. Lopez,
Regional Administrator, EPA, Region 2.

    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(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.

Appendix B to Part 300 [Amended]

0
2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 is amended by removing the entry 
for ``NY,'' ``Ellenville Scrap Iron and Metal'', ``Ellenville''.

[FR Doc. 2019-16703 Filed 8-2-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


