[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 133 (Thursday, July 11, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33046-33050]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-14759]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1989-0011; FRL-9996-25-Region 7]


National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; 
National Priorities List: Deletion of the Electro-Coatings, Inc. 
Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 7 is issuing 
a Notice of Intent to Delete the Electro-Coatings, Inc. Superfund Site 
(Site) located at 911 Shaver, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, from the National 
Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on this proposed 
action. The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 
(CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and 
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the 
State of Iowa, through the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR), 
have determined that all required and appropriate response actions at 
the Electro-Coatings under CERCLA have been completed. However, this 
deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.

DATES: Comments must be received by August 12, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-1989-0011, by one of the following methods:
     https://www.regulations.gov. Follow on-line instructions 
for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or 
removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received 
to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you 
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia 
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written 
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and 
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will 
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of 
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment 
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general 
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
     Email: [email protected].
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 7, 11201 
Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, KS 66219. Attention: Amer Safadi, SEMD 
Divison.
     Hand delivery: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region 7, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, KS 66219. Such deliveries are 
only accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, 
except federal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for 
deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
1989-0011. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
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 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 the 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 the 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 https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in the hard 
copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either 
electronically in https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:
    The EPA Region 7 Records Center, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, KS 
66219 between 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding Federal 
holidays; and the Cedar Rapids Downtown Public Library, 450 Fifth 
Avenue SE, Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52401. Telephone number (319) 261-7323. 
Open Monday through Thursday 9 a.m. to 8 p.m.; Friday through Saturday 
9 a.m. to 5 p.m.; and Sunday 1 p.m. to 5 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amer Safadi, Remedial Project Manager, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, 11201 Renner Boulevard,

[[Page 33047]]

Lenexa, Kansas 66219, email: [email protected] and phone number: 
(913) 551-7825.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

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

I. Introduction

    The EPA Region 7 announces its intent to delete the Electro-
Coatings, Inc. Superfund Site from the NPL and requests public comment 
on this proposed action. The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 
300 which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution 
Contingency Plan (NCP), which the EPA promulgated pursuant to section 
105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and 
Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. The EPA maintains the NPL 
as those 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.
    The EPA will accept comments on the proposal to delete this site 
for thirty (30) days after publication of this document in the Federal 
Register.
    Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting 
sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using 
for this action. Section IV discusses the Electro-Coatings, Inc. 
Superfund Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from 
the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted 
from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a 
determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), the 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, the 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. The EPA conducts such five-year reviews even if a site is 
deleted from the NPL. The 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) The EPA consulted with the State before developing this Notice 
of Intent for Deletion.
    (2) The EPA has provided the state thirty working days for review 
of this notice prior to publication of it today.
    (3) In accordance with the criteria discussed above, the EPA in 
consultation with the state, has determined that no further response is 
appropriate.
    (4) The State of Iowa, through the Iowa Department of Natural 
Resources, has concurred with the deletion of the Electro-Coatings, 
Inc. Superfund Site from the NPL.
    (5) Concurrently, with the publication of this Notice of Intent for 
Deletion in the Federal Register, a notice is being published in The 
Gazette, a major local newspaper in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. The newspaper 
announces the thirty-day public comment period concerning the Notice of 
Intent to Delete the Site from the NPL.
    (6) The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed 
deletion in the deletion docket and made these items available for 
public inspection and copying at the Site information repositories 
identified above.
    If comments are received within the thirty-day comment period on 
this document, the EPA will evaluate and respond accordingly to the 
comments before making a final decision to delete the Electro-Coatings 
Site. If necessary, the EPA will prepare a Responsiveness Summary to 
address any significant public comments received. After the public 
comment period, if the EPA determines, in consultation with the State, 
it is still appropriate to delete the Electro-Coatings Site, the 
Regional Administrator will publish a final Notice of Deletion in the 
Federal Register. Public notices, public submissions and copies of the 
Responsiveness Summary, if prepared, will be made available to 
interested parties and included in the site information listed above.
    Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or 
revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from 
the NPL does not in any way alter the EPA's right to take enforcement 
actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for 
informational purposes and to assist the EPA management. Section 
300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the 
NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should 
future conditions warrant such actions.

IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion

    The following information provides the EPA's rationale for deleting 
the Electro-Coatings, Inc. Superfund Site from the NPL:

Site Background and History

Site Location
    The Electro-Coatings, Inc. Site is located at 911 Shaver Road, 
along the north shoreline of Cedar Lake in the City of Cedar Rapids in 
Linn County, Iowa. The Site occupies approximately 1.5 acres. Cedar 
Lake is 150 acres in size and is privately owned by a utility company. 
A recreational trail is located along Cedar Lake and adjacent to the 
Site. The Cedar River is located about 0.5 miles to the west of the 
Site. The immediate area surrounding the Electro-Coatings Site is zoned 
as industrial. Industrial uses in the vicinity have included rubber 
manufacturing, scrap metal operations, paper manufacturing, cereal 
processing, grain alcohol production, and operation of an electric 
utility. The nearest residential area is approximately 0.25 miles to 
the east of the Site. Interstate Highway 380 separates the residential 
area from the Site. The Cedar Rapids Water Department has wells located 
to the west and north of the Site. The closest city wells are about 
2,000 feet to the west of the Site.
Historic Activities
    Electro-Coatings, Inc. (Electro-Coatings) has operated a facility 
that performs chromium, cadmium, nickel and zinc plating since 1947.
    Groundwater flow at the Site is generally to the west-southwest 
towards

[[Page 33048]]

the Cedar River. Groundwater flow in the alluvial deposits is towards 
the west-southwest, while groundwater flow in the bedrock is towards 
the southwest. The water level in Cedar Lake is higher than the water 
levels in all of the alluvial wells except monitoring well (MW) -8, 
which is located approximately 450 feet to the north of the lake 
(Remedial Investigation Report, Shive-Hattery 1992). These water levels 
suggest that the sandy to silty aquifer is not discharging into the 
lake. A small dam located on the northwest corner of Cedar Lake 
partially controls the lake level.
    In March of 1976, a yellow tinge was noted in the cooling water 
being discharged to Cedar Lake from the Hawkeye Rubber Manufacturing 
Company (Hawkeye Rubber), which was located immediately to the west of 
the Site. This water was found to contain a high concentration of 
chromium coming from the Hawkeye Rubber production well (PW) -1. The 
source of chromium was tracked to a leaking concrete tank containing 
chromic acid at the Electro-Coatings facility. The chromium 
contamination of groundwater from Electro-Coatings was predominantly in 
the hexavalent form.
    Shortly after the discovery of the chromium release, Electro-
Coatings took actions to prevent further releases in response to 
requirements by the State of Iowa. Electro-Coatings replaced the leaky 
tank and injected ferrous sulfate and sulfuric acid into the 
groundwater in an attempt to reduce hexavalent chromium to the less 
soluble trivalent chromium. Electro-Coatings also implemented a program 
to upgrade leak prevention facilities throughout their plant and, under 
order from the State, installed monitoring wells and conducted 
groundwater monitoring. In addition, Hawkeye Rubber moved its cooling-
water discharge from Cedar Lake to the Cedar Rapids sanitary sewer.
National Priorities List (NPL) Designation
    On June 24, 1988, the Site was proposed to the NPL (53 FR 23978) 
and on October 4,1989, the Site was placed on the NPL (54 FR 41015) due 
to concerns that chromium contamination had the potential to affect the 
municipal water-supply wells of the City of Cedar Rapids, the closest 
of which is about 2,000 feet to the west of the Site. No impacts to the 
city wells from the Site, however, have ever been found. The CERCLIS ID 
is IAD005279039. The Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) has 
served as the lead oversight agency for the CERCLA remedial actions.
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)
    In 1991, remedial investigations by Electro-Coatings revealed 
volatile organic compound (VOC) contamination in groundwater that 
appeared to be from an off-site source. In October of 1992, the IDNR 
completed a supplemental investigation of the VOC contamination and 
concluded that Hawkeye Rubber was the primary source of VOCs. The VOC 
contamination was attributed to Hawkeye Rubber's vapor degreasing 
operation which utilized tetrachloroethylene, also known as 
perchloroethylene (PCE). During the 1991 remedial investigation (RI), 
and the subsequent 1992 supplemental investigation, it was concluded 
that the primary source of VOC contamination was attributed to the 
adjacent Hawkeye Rubber, which used PCE for vapor degreasing (TCE and 
cis-1,2-DCE are known breakdown products of PCE under certain 
geochemical and microbiological conditions). Hawkeye Rubber 
discontinued use of PCE for degreasing upon its discovery as a 
groundwater contaminant in 1992. Also, soil sampling during the RI 
revealed significant VOC contamination in the vicinity of Hawkeye 
Rubber. Only very low concentrations of VOCs were identified in soils 
adjacent to the Electro-Coatings facility. Electro-Coatings was 
determined to be a much smaller source of VOC contamination from 
previous use of trichloroethylene (TCE) and 1,1,1-trichloroethane 
(1,1,1-TCA).
    In the spring of 1992, Electro-Coatings discovered soil 
contamination as a chromium dipping tank was being taken out of 
service. Approximately seventy cubic yards of soil and two-and one-half 
cubic yards of concrete were removed and disposed of at an off-site 
hazardous waste facility.
    A Baseline Risk Assessment (BLRA) conducted by the IDNR in 1993 
identified potentially unacceptable short- and long-term risks to site 
workers from the use of water from PW-1 for drinking and showering due 
to hexavalent chromium. Very low levels of chromium (less than 10 
percent of the Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum Contaminant Levels(MCLs) 
were detected in some municipal water-supply wells. It is not known 
whether these low-level detections were attributed to the Electro-
Coatings Site. Although the IDNR initially expressed concern that 
chromium contamination had the potential to affect municipal water-
supply wells, the closest being approximately 2,000 feet west of the 
Site, the BLRA found no unacceptable risks based on the scenario used. 
The BLRA scenario found that if all groundwater contamination from the 
Site was drawn into one city well, the resulting contaminant levels in 
that well--representing only about 4 percent of the total water 
supply--would not exceed the Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs).
Record of Decision/Selected Remedy
    The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Electro-Coatings Superfund 
Site was signed on September 29, 1994. The ROD addressed potential 
threats from use of water from the Hawkeye Rubber production well and 
potential off-site migration of contaminants. The ROD included only one 
operable unit which addressed groundwater contamination. The remedy 
selected in the ROD was monitoring with a contingency for groundwater 
pump and discharge to the publicly-owned treatment works (POTW). Major 
Components of the selected remedy included:
    1. A contingency action if PW-1 ceases pumping or is found to not 
prevent off-site migration of contaminants. (Note: The remedy contains 
no requirements for continued operation of PW-1.)
    2. If water quality monitoring reveals off-site migration of 
contaminants above drinking water standards, contingency actions will 
be required, which would involve installation of a new recovery well or 
wells to provide adequate containment of groundwater contamination. 
Treatment of the contaminated groundwater to reduce hexavalent chromium 
to trivalent chromium by chemical addition would be provided, if 
necessary, prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer under a 
pretreatment agreement with the POTW.
    3. Testing to determine the effectiveness of PW-1 for containment 
of groundwater contamination from Electro-Coatings.
    4. An evaluation of the adequacy of the existing monitoring well 
network to identify potential offsite migration of contaminants, other 
than to PW-1. Additional monitoring wells will be installed if the 
monitoring well network is found to be inadequate.
    5. Develop and implement a monitoring plan to include monitoring 
procedures, locations of monitoring wells, frequency of sampling, 
sampling parameters, criteria for termination, and provisions for 
modification of the plan.
    The response action selected in the ROD addressed all principal 
threats posed by the Site and the potential for direct ingestion of 
water containing contaminants above health-based levels. The objectives 
of the response action

[[Page 33049]]

were to contain the contaminated groundwater and to ensure that 
groundwater not meeting health-based criteria was not ingested. The 
remedy prescribed in the ROD addressed this through groundwater 
monitoring, with a contingency for groundwater pump and discharge to 
the POTW. The remedy also acknowledged the contribution of PW-1 in 
providing hydraulic containment and preventing further migration of 
contaminated groundwater.
    In October of 1999, Electro-Coatings and Shaver Road Investments, 
owner of the property, entered into a consent order with the State for 
implementation of the ROD. In February 2000, Hawkeye Rubber entered 
into a similar agreement with the State, and in 2001, Alliant Energy 
Company assumed Hawkeye Rubber's responsibilities after purchasing the 
property from Hawkeye Rubber. A joint effort by Electro-Coatings and 
Hawkeye Rubber, involving continued pumping from PW-1 and groundwater 
monitoring, was initiated in the spring of 2000.
    Operation of the Hawkeye Rubber production well PW-1 continued 
until August 2006, except for a few months in 2003 due to a fire. 
Pumping to address the Hawkeye Rubber contamination was reinstated in 
July of 2008 and terminated again in September of 2009. There have been 
no detections in water from PW-1 of contaminants associated with the 
Site since September 2003. The last contaminant detected above an MCL 
in a Site monitoring well was in October 2005, and that contaminant was 
associated with Hawkeye Rubber, not Electro-Coatings. As a result of 
these findings, all active remedial measures ceased with the 
discontinuation of pumping from PW-1 in August 2006.
    Starting in 2007, operation and maintenance activities were limited 
to semi-annual sampling of on-site monitoring wells MW-7 and MW-9 and 
this monitoring continued until November 2009 when both wells achieved 
the State consent order requirements of three consecutive semi-annual 
sampling events with no exceedance of MCLs.

Cleanup Levels

PCE, TCE, 1,1-DCE, cis-1,2-DCE, Cadmium, and Nickel
    For the contaminantes listed above, the consent order implementing 
the remedial measures prescribed in the ROD stated that its 
requirements would be satisfied when there were no exceedances of the 
MCLs in at least three consecutive semi-annual sampling events and, if 
necessary, an appropriate institutional control is in place. All 
monitoring and production wells had achieved this goal by 2008 except 
MW-5 and MW-9, which both showed exceedances of TCE and cis-1,2-DCE 
within the last three sampling events. IDNR determined, however, that 
this contamination was from the neighboring Hawkeye Rubber site, as 
indicated below, which is being addressed under a separate action and 
not the Electro-Coatings, Inc. Site CERCLA response. Therefore, IDNR 
determined that all monitoring and production wells at the Site had 
satisfied the MCL requirements in November 2009 (IDNR, 2012). All 
active remedial measures ceased with the discontinuation of pumping 
from PW-1 in August 2006.

Chromium Contamination in Groundwater Analysis

    The RI noted that hexavalent chromium was used at the Electro-
Coatings plant, which had a leaking concrete tank determined to be the 
source of groundwater contamination. However, groundwater monitoring 
data conducted at the Site from 2000 through 2009 demonstrates that all 
wells have reached the ROD cleanup level of 100 ug/L, which was 
selected for total chromium, based on the Federal MCL. As a current 
drinking water aquifer and in light of new hexavalent chromium 
toxicity, the EPA evaluated site specific information to determine that 
groundwater is protective for current and future drinking water 
purposes. Below is a summary of this analysis.
    Most wells were sampled until the pumping well operation ceased in 
2006, with the exception of one downgradient well (MW-1) and two wells 
immediately downgradient of the source area (MW-7 and MW-9), which were 
sampled beyond 2006. PW-1 as well as MW-2, MW-3, MW-4, MW-5, MW-5D, and 
MW-10D, had multiple samples collected in FY 2006, with all wells 
showing total chromium being below the MCL. To provide additional data 
and a more conservative analysis, a duplicate sample was collected from 
these wells and results showed that total chromium is at or below 20 
ug/L for these locations. For the remaining wells, downgradient well 
MW-1 was sampled once more in 2007 showing a concentration of total 
chromium less than 30 ug/L. This data, when compared to previous 
sampling results, showed that the groundwater continued to attenuate 
and meet the MCLs after the active treatment was terminated. The two 
remaining source wells, MW-7 and MW-9, upgradient of the pumping well, 
required sampling until 2009 to demonstrate compliance with MCLs. For 
MW-7, quarterly samples collected between 2008 and 2009 showed 
concentrations ranging from less than 20 ug/L to 100 ug/L, with the 
last two sampling events being below 20 ug/L, thus demonstrating that 
the cleanup level had been met. For MW-9, the last two years of 
sampling showed a decreasing trend, with the last sample collected 
being less than 20 ug/L.
    In summary, the groundwater sample results for all wells sampled 
showed final total chromium concentrations less than 100 ug/L, and in 
most cases concentrations less than 20 ug/L or 10 ug/L. The residual 
levels of total chromium concentrations, specifically the data results 
from the duplicate samples and the recent source area well analysis 
conducted at Hawkeye Rubber in 2018 provide the EPA assurance that the 
impacted groundwater is suitable for drinking water and is protective 
of human health and the environment for total chromium and hexavalent 
chromium.

Five Year Reviews

    Per EPA policy, if a remedial action is selected that does not 
result in hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining 
at the site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted 
exposure, but will take more than five years to complete, the lead 
agency shall review such action no less often than every five years 
after the completion of construction. The EPA Region 7 has conducted 
the third and most recent FYR of the remedial actions implemented at 
the Electro-Coatings Site from June 2015 through September 2016. The 
triggering action for this review was the signature date of the 
previous FYR Report.
    The third FYR was completed on September 22, 2016 and found the 
remedy to be protective of human health and the environment in the 
short-term. There was one issue and recommendation, to collect and 
evaluate additional surface water samples from Cedar Lake to determine 
if potential ecological threats exist. The EPA Region 7 subsequently 
collected and analyzed surface water sample for hexavalent chromium. 
All sample results were below ambient water quality criteria. The EPA 
subsequently performed a screening level environmental risk assessment 
and determined that there was no risk to ecological receptors. The one 
issue and recommendation from the 2016 FYR was resolved. The EPA is 
completing a memorandum to the file documenting these results and other 
data associated with the Site to justify discontinuing five-year 
reviews, as the site has reached UU/UE.

[[Page 33050]]

Community Involvement

    Throughout the CERCLA process from development of the Consent Order 
to completion of remedial activities, all phases of the remediation 
have had input from Federal and State regulators and members of the 
public. Over the life of the project, there have been numerous 
opportunities for public input to express their opinions.
    Public involvement has been sought by IDNR, and EPA on many 
remediation and operation documents, including Proposed Plans, Decision 
Documents, and EPA Five-Year Reviews. The last public notice was placed 
in the Cedar Rapids' newspaper, The Gazette, on July 19, 2015, 
notifying the public of the start of the third Five-Year Review (FYR) 
process. The completed FYR report was made available during the public 
comment period at the EPA Region 7 Records Center, located at 11201 
Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219, and the Cedar Rapids Downtown 
Public Library, located at 450 Fifth Avenue SE, Cedar Rapids, Iowa 
52401.

Determination That the Criteria for Deletion Have Been Met

    In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), the EPA Region 7 determined 
that the response at the Site (the subject of this deletion) meets the 
substantive criteria for deletion from the NPL. All responsible parties 
or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions 
required, and no further response action by responsible parties is 
appropriate. The implemented remedies have achieved the degree of 
cleanup specified in the remedy decisions for all pathways of exposure. 
All selected remedial 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

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

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

    Dated: July 3, 2019
James Gulliford,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2019-14759 Filed 7-10-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P