Federal Register /Val. 74, No. 157 I Monday, August 17, 2009/ Rules and Regulations 
41341 
sanctions pursuant to 40 CFR 51.31(d). 
If no comments are submitted that 
change our assessment, then all 
sanctions and sanction clocks will be 
permanently terminated on the effective 
date of a final rule approval. 
ll. EPA Action 
We are making an interim final 
determination to stay and defer CAA 
section 179 sanctions associated with 
our August 1, 2007 limited disapproval 
based on our concurrent proposal to 
approve the State's SIP revision as 
correcting deficiencies that initiated 
sanctions. 
Because EPA has preliminarily 
determined that the State has corrected 
the deficiencies identified in EPA's 
limited disapproval action, relief from 
sanctions should be provided as quickly 
as possible. Therefore, EPA is invoking 
the good cause exception under the 
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in 
not providing an opportunity for 
comment before this action takes effect 
(5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)). However, by this 
action EPA is providing the public with 
a chance to comment on EPA's 
determination after the effective date, 
and EPA will consider any comments 
received in determining whether to 
reverse such action. 
EPA believes that notice-and-
comment rulemaking before the 
effective date of this action is 
impracticable and contrary to the public 
interest. EPA has reviewed the State's 
submittal and, through its proposed 
action, is indicating that it is more likely 
than not that the State has corrected the 
deficiencies that started the sanctions 
clocks. Therefore, it is not in the public 
interest to initially impose sanctions or 
to keep applied sanctions in place when 
the State has most likely done all it can 
to correct the deficiencies that triggered 
the sanctions clocks. Moreover, it would 
be impracticable to go through notice-
and-comment rulemaking on a finding 
that the State has corrected the 
deficiencies prior to the rulemaking 
approving the State's submittal. 
Therefore, EPA believes that it is 
necessary to use the interim final 
rulemalcing process to stay and defer 
sanctions while EPA completes its 
rulemaking process on the approvability 
of the State's submittal. Moreover, with 
respect to the effective date of this 
action, EPA is invoking the good cause 
exception to the 30-day notice 
requirement of the AP A because the 
purpose of this notice is to relieve a 
restriction (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1)). 
ill. Statutory and Executive Order 
Reviews 
This action stays and defers federal 
sanctions and imposes no additional 
requirements. 
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 
51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 
not a "significant regulatory action" and 
therefore is not subject to review by the 
Office of Management and Budget. 
This action is not subject to Executive 
Order 13211, "Actions Concerning 
Regulations That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use" (66 
FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is 
not a significant regulatory action. 
The administrator certifies that this 
action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 
et seq.). 
This rule does not contain any 
unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as 
described in the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). 
This rule does not have tribal 
implications because it will not have a 
substantial direct effect on one or more 
Indian tribes, on the relationship 
between the Federal government and 
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 
power and responsibilities between the 
Federal government and Indian tribes, 
as specified by Executive Order 13175 
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 
This action does not have Federalism 
implications because it does not have 
substantial direct effects on the States, 
on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various 
levels of government, as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 
August 10, 1999). 
This rule is not subject to Executive 
Order 13045, "Protection of Children 
from Environmental Health Risks and 
Safety Risks" (62 FR 19885, April23, 
1997), because it is not economically 
significant. 
The requirements of section 12(d) of 
the National Technology Transfer and 
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 
272) do not apply to this rule because 
it imposes no standards. 
This rule does not impose an 
information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 
The Congressional Review Act, 5 
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 
that before a rule may take effect, the 
agency promulgating the rule must 
submit a rule report to Congress and the 
Comptroller General. However, section 
808 provides that any rule for which the 
issuing agency for good cause finds that 
notic~ and public procedure thereon are 
impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 
to the public interest, shall take effect at 
such time as the agency promulgating 
the rule determines. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). 
EPA has made such a good cause 
finding, including the reasons therefor, 
and established an effective date of 
August 17,2009. EPA will submit a 
report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, 
the U.S. House of Representatives, and 
the Comptroller General of the United 
Sta~es prior to publication of the rule in 
the Federal Register. A major rule 
cannot take effect until 60 days after it 
is published in the Federal Register. 
This rule is not a "major rule" as 
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 
petitions for judicial review of this 
action must be filed in the United States 
Court of Appeals for the appropriate 
circuit by October 16, 2009. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the 
Administrator of this final rule does not 
affect the finality of this rule for the 
purpose of judicial review nor does it 
extend the time within which petition 
for judicial review may be filed, and 
shall not postpone tb13 effectiveness of 
such rule or action. This action may not 
be challenged later in proceedings to 
enforce its requirements. (See section 
307(b)(2)). 
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 
Environmental protection, Air 
pollution control, Intergovernmental 
regulations, Particulate matter, 
Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements. 
Dated: August 4, 2009. 
Laura Yoshii, 
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 
[FR Doc. E9-19654 Filed 8-14--09; 8:45am] 
BILUNG CODE 6560-50-P 
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 
AGENCY 
40 CFR Part 300 
• 
[EPA-HQ-5FUND-2009-0227; FRL-8945-3] 
National Oil and Hazardous Substance 
Pollution Contingency Plan; National 
Priorities List 
AGENCY: Environmental Protection 
Agency. 
ACTION: Direct Final Notice of Deletion 
of the Island Chemical Corp/Virgin 
308579 
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll 
41342 
Federal Register/Val. 74, No. 157/Monday, August 17, 2009/Rules and Regulations 
Islands Chemical Corp. Superfund Site 
from the National Priorities List. 
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) Region 2 is publishing a 
direct final Notice of Deletion of the 
Island Chemical CorpNirgin Islands 
Chemical Corp. (Site), located in St. 
Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, from the 
National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, 
promulgated pursuant to section 105 of 
the Comprehensive Environmental 
Response, Compensation, and Liability 
Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is 
an appendix of the National Oil and 
Hazardous Substances Pollution 
Contingency Plan (NCP). This direct 
final deletion is being published by EPA 
with the concurrence of the territory of 
U.S. Virgin Islands, through the Virgin 
Islands Department of Planning and 
Natural Resources (VIDPNR), because 
EPA has determined that all appropriate 
response actions under CERCLA have 
been completed. However, this deletion 
does not preclude future actions under 
Superfund. 
DATES: This direct final deletion is 
effective October 16, 2009 unless EPA 
receives adverse comments by 
September 16, 2009. If adverse 
comments are received, EPA will 
publish a timely withdrawal of the 
direct fmal 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-2009-{)227, by one of the 
following methods: 
• http://wt.vw.regulations.gov. Follow 
on-line instructions for submitting 
comments. 
• E-mail: kwan.caroline@epa.gov 
• Fax: (212) 637-4284 
• Mail: U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 2, 290 
Broadway, 20th floor, New York, NY 
10007-1866 
• Hand delivery: U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 2, 290 
Broadway, 20th floor, New York, NY. 
Such deliveries are only accepted 
during the Docket's normal hour of 
operation, and special arrangements 
should be made for deliveries of boxed 
information. 
Instructions: Direct your comments to 
Docket ID no. EP A-HQ-SFUND-2009-
0227. 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 statue. 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, 290 Broadway, Superfund 
Record, Center, Room 1828, New 
York, NY 10007-1866, Hours: 
Monday to Friday from 9 a.m. to 5 
p.m., Telephone No. (212) 637-4308. 
Department of Planning and Natural 
Resources, 45 Mars Hill, Frederiksted, 
U.S. Virgin Islands, 00850, Hours: 
Monday to Friday from 9 a.m. to 5 
p.m., Telephone No. (340) 773-1082. 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Caribbean Environmental Protection 
Division, Tunick Building, Suite 102, 
1336 Beltjen Road, St. Thomas, VI 
00801, Hours: Monday to Friday from 
9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Telephone No. (340) 
714-2333. 
FOR RJRTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
Ms.Caroline Kwan, Remedial Project 
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region 2, 290 Broadway, 20th 
floor, New York, NY 10007-1866, (212) 
637-4275, e-mail: 
kwan.caroline@epa.gov 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
Table of Contents 
I. Introduction 
II. NPL Deletion Criteria 
III. Deletion Proced uxes 
TV. Basi for Site Deletion 
V. Deletion Action 
I. Introduction 
EPA Region 2 is publishing this direct 
final Notice of Deletion of the Island 
Chemical CorpNirgin Islands Chemical 
Corp. Superfund Site (Site), from the 
NPL. The NPL constitutes Appendix B 
of 40 CFR part 300, which is the 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 October 16, 2009 
unless EPA receives adverse comments 
by September 16, 2009. 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 VICHEM Superfund 
Site and demonstrates how it meets the 
deletion criteria. Section V discusses 
EPA's action to delete the Site from the 
NPL unless adverse comments are 
received during the public comment 
period. 
II. NPL Deletion Criteria 
The NCP establishes the criteria that 
EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. 
Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 157/Monday, August 17, 2009/Rules and Regulations 
41343 
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: 
f. 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 ~medial 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. 
m. Deletion Procedlires 
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 Site, EPAID No. VID980651095, 
is located on Plot 13Q of Estate 
Bethlehem Middle Works in the south-
central portion of St. Croix in the U.S. 
Virgin Islands. Plot 13Q is bordered to 
the north and east by an intermittent 
stream, the River Gut, which originates 
The following procedures apply to 
north ofthe Site and drains to the 
deletion of the Site: 
Caribbean Sea. The Site geology is 
(1) EPA consulted with the territory of characterized by approximately 85 feet 
U.S. Virgin Islands prior to developing 
of'fill and Alluvial materials (sandy-clay 
this direct final Notice of Deletion and 
to sandy-silt and clayey sand) overlying 
the Notice of Intent to Delete co-
the clayey marl of the IGngshill 
published today in the "Proposed 
Formation. Groundwater underlying the 
Rules" section of the Federal Register. 
Sjte flows predominantly to the south-
(2) EPA has provided the territory 30 
southeast. Land use surrounding the 
working days for re':iew of this notice 
Site includes a mix of commercial and 
and the p.arallel N?hce o~ Int~nt to 
industrial purposes and the Site is 
. Delete pnor. to theu pubhcation today. 
zoned as I-2 (Light Industry). 
and the temtory, through ~e VIDPNR. 
\ 
Charles H. Steffey, Inc. (CHS, inc.) 
has concurred on the deletion of the S1te purchased the VICHEM Site in 1968. At 
from the NPL. 
. 
. 
. 
some point prior to 1969, CHS, Inc. 
(3). Co?currently Wlt!t the pubh~ation 
changed its name to CHS Holding 
oft~us direct fin~ N?~ce of Deletion, a 
Corporation (CHS). From 1968 to 1982, 
noh.ce of the ava1lab1hty ~f the. parallel 
the site was used for the manufacture 
Noh~e of l1_1tent to ~e!ete 1s bemg . 
and blending of a variety of 
pubhshed m the VIrgm Isl.ands Da1ly 
pharmaceutical products. By the end of 
News~ The new~paper notice a~nounces 1982, the facility was permanently 
the 30-~y pubhc c?mment penod 
closed. CHS maintains ownership of the 
conc~rrung the Notice of Intent to Delete Site. Between 1954 and _1991, several 
the S1te from the NPL. 
. 
investigations were conducted t th 
(4) The EPA placed cop1es of 
. · 
a 
e 
do 
ts 
rt. 
th 
· 
d 
S1te by EPA and. a former tenant, Island 
cumen suppo mg 
e propose 
Ch . · 1 
· 
· 
deletion in the deletion docket and 
e~uca Company; which ~as later 
de th · · 
.1 bl £ 
. 
acquued by Berlex Laboratones, hie. 
ma 
ese Items ava1 a . e or pubhc 
("Be 1 ") This · 
ti ti 
k 
inspection and copying at the Site 
. 
r. ex · . 
mves ga v~ wor 
information repositories identified 
Ide~tified SIX areas of potential 
above. 
enVIronmentalconcern: 
(5) If adverse comments are received 
-Laboratory and Warehouse Building; 
within the 30-day public comment 
-:-Above ground storage tank (AST) 
period on this deletion action, EPA will 
area; 
publish a timely notice of withdrawal of -Former process pit (FPP) area; 
this direct final Notice of Deletion 
-Loading dock/former laboratory pit 
before its effective date and will prepare 
area; . 
·· 
a response to comments and continue 
-Soil beneath concrete pad near ASTs; 
with the deletion process on the basis of -Concrete storage pad. 
the Notice of Intent to Delete and the 
During initial stages of site 
comments already received. 
assessment, both EPA and Berlex 
Deletion of a site from the NPL does 
conducted response activities including 
not itself create, alter, or revoke any 
soil excavation with on-Site treatment 
individual's rights or obligations. 
or off-Site disposal, drum removals, and 
Deletion of a site from the NPL does not 
off-Site disposal of AST contents. 
in ariy way alter EPA's right to take 
Between September 1989 and October 
1991, EPA conducted a removal action 
· at the Site. At that time, the laboratory/ 
warehouse building was found to 
contain approximately 400 drums (some 
. extremely deteriorated), leaking 
cylinders of chlorine and hydrogen 
chloride, and over 800 containers of 
laboratory reagents that included 
sodium metal, potassium cyanide, and 
ethyl ether. EPA removed 354 drums 
containing 14,720 gallons ofvarious 
chemicals and 8,061 pounds of lab pack 
chemicals from the laboratory I 
warehouse ·building. 
The Site was proposed to the NPL on 
January 18, 1994 (59 FR 2568) and 
subsequently added on June 17, 1996 
(61 FR 30510). 
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study 
On September 29, 1994, EPA entered 
into an Administrative Order on 
' 
Consent (AOC), Index No. II CERCLA-
94-0401, with Berlex and Island 
Chemicli.l Company; Pierre! S.p.A, a · 
'subsidiary of Pharmacia & Upjohn, Inc. 
("P&U") and also a former tenant at the 
Site, was added as a respondent to the 
AOC in April1999. The AOC, pursuant 
to Section 106(a) of the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability. Act 
(CERCLA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. 
9606(a), required the performance of a 
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility 
Study (RIIFS) at the Site. 
The primary objectives of the RI were 
to: (1) Collect the data needed to 
characterize the nature and extent of 
contamination and adequately support 
human health and ecological baseline 
risk assessments and (~) provide a basis 
on which a subs~quent, cost-effective, 
remedial action plan would be 
recommended. All six areas of potential 
concern were investigated during the 
initial assessment and the subsequent 
Rl, along with the nature and extent of 
soil and groundwater contamination, 
and potential off-Site sediment 
contamination. Based on the data 
collected, only the AST and FPP areas 
were determined to require remediation. 
Contaminants of concern at the Site 
included ethylbenzene and xylene, in 
soils and groundwater at the AST area 
and chloroform in groundwater at the 
FPP area. The Site posed potential 
threats to human health and the 
environment through ingestion 
associated with contaminated soil and 
groundwater. 
As part of the RIIFS, the PRPs 
implemented a field Pilot Test of SoU 
Vapor Extraction/Air Sparging (SVE/AS) 
in February 2000. Following successful 
completion of the Pilot Test and with · 
the approval of EPA and the VIDPNR, 
an SVE/ AS system for the AST area was 
41344 
Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 157 /Monday, August 17, 2009/Rules and_ Regulations 
placed in continuous operation in June 
2001 by the PRPs. 
A chain link fence was installed in 
the spring of 2000 along the property 
line to secure the area from 
unauthorized access, and in the spring 
of 2002, the PRPs demolished the site 
buildings and removed and disposed/ 
recycled all of the tanks and related 
equipment. 
. Selected Remedy 
Based on the human health risk 
assessment, the remedial action 
objectives for the Site were: 
• Mitigate the toxicity, mobility, and/ 
or volume ofVOCs (ethylbenzene and 
xylene) in soils in the AST area to 
minimize continued leaching to 
groundwater; 
• Mitigate the toxicity, mobility, and/ 
or volume ofVOCs (ethylbenzene and 
xylene) in groundwater in the AST area 
and downgradient so as to achieve 
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) 
and protect potential future 
groundwater users; 
• Mitigate the toXicity, mobility, and/ 
or volume of chloroform in groundwater 
in the FPP area and downgradient so as 
to achieve MCLs and protect future 
potential groundwater users; and 
• Restrict on-site groundwater use to 
non-potable purposes until the water 
quality is restored to MCLs. 
On August 14,2002, the Regional 
Administrator signed a Record of 
. 
Decision (ROD) selecting the following 
remedy: 
• SVE/ AS to treat contaminated 
groundwater, saturated soil, and 
. unsaturated soil at the AST source area; 
• Monitored Natural Attenuation 
(MNA) to address low-level residual . 
contamination in groundwater at the 
FPP area and downgradient areas; and 
• Institutional controls (in the form of 
existing VIDPNR well permitting laws 
and regulations) to limit the pumping of 
groundwater at the Site to prevent 
interference with the selected remedy 
and to also prevent huiJlan exposure to 
contaminated groundwater until EPA's 
MCLs are achieved. 
The ROD also selected groundwater 
pump and treat as a contingency remedy 
in the event that groundwater cleanup 
goals wel;'e not achieved in a reasonable 
time period. 
Response Actions 
In a Consent Decree with EPA, 
entered on March 5, 2004, the PRPs 
(Island Chemical Company, Berlex and 
P&U and successors in interest) agreed 
to perform the remedial design/remedial 
actio;n (RDIRA) specified in the ROD. 
On a vol_untary basis, the PRPs had been 
operating the SVE/ AS system in the 
AST Area (which was consistent with 
the requirements of the ROD) since 
2001, and an extensive network of 
monitoring wells was already in place. 
A formal remedial design phase was, 
therefore, not required by the Consent 
Decree, except in the event EPA 
determined that supplemental activities 
were required to achieve performance 
standards. The PRPs submitted a 
Remedial Action Work Plan (RAWP) in 
September 2004 that detailed all 
elements of the required remedial 
action. 
SVE/System in AST Area 
The SVE/ AS system includes six SVE 
wells, one AS well, and eleven vapor 
monitoring probes, together with a 
surface vapor barrier that prevents 
short-circuiting of air flow and direct 
contact with surface soil. A groundwater 
monitoring network comprising a total 
of eight wells (shallow and deep) is also 
installed in the AST area. Continuous 
operation of the SVE/ AS system by the 
PRPs from June 2001 through November 
2003 removed approximately 2,030 
pounds of AST area contaminants and 
reached asymptotically low limits of 
mass removal. Rebound testing 
indicated that negligible residual mass 
was left in the unsaturated zone. The 
mass removed correlates well with 
source mass estimates presented in the 
Feasibility Study (FS) of 1,900 pounds. 
AST Area Groundwater Monitoring 
Results 
AST Area groundwater was 
monitored quarterly commencing in 
June 2001, when the SVE/AS system 
was placed in continuous operation, 
including three events subsequent to 
shut down of the AS/SVE system on 
November 3, 2003. Groundwater 
concentrations were reduced from a 
high of 176,000 tJ.g/L of total toluene, 
ethylbenzene and XY.lenes (TEX) in June 
2001 (baseline levels) in the most 
contaminated well (MW-6), to 13 tJ.g/L 
in September 2003, the last sampling 
event prior to the November 2003 
. 
shutdown of the SVE/ AS system. Four 
other AST area groundwater monitoring 
locations remained below the ROD 
cleanup goals for the entire period, and 
were generally at or near non-detect 
levels from November 2001 onward. 
Rebound and post-shut down 
evaluations performed in August 2002, 
December 2003, March 2004 and June 
2004 indicated modest increases in 
groundwater concentrations, to levels 
generally below cleanup goals. Post-
shutdown levels in MW-1 and MW-6 in 
June 2004 were reduced 88-99.99% 
from baseline concentrations in June 
2001, confirming the permanence of the 
remediation. Concentrations in MW-6 
decreased· from 6,900 tJ.g/L TEX in 
December 2003 to 14 tJ.g/L TEX in June 
2004. The concentrations in MW:._1, 
which increased from December 2003 to 
March 2004 to 21,400 tJ.g/L, decreased to 
· 1,270 tJ.g/L TEX in December 2004, as 
natural attenuation degraded the 
residual contaminant concentrations 
following source removal/treatment of. 
the vadose zone (2,030 pounds removed 
via SVE). Wells located to the north of 
the AST Area, MW-8 and MW-10, were 
installed during the Remedial 
Investigation (RI) to monitor the 
possible off-property migration of . 
contaminants although the predominant 
groundwater flow direction is to the 
south/southeast. These wells were 
sampled during the baseline event and 
in the three events since December 
2003. In each event, concentrations of 
TEX were below 0.6tJ.g/L in MW-8 and 
MW-10, indicating that there is no 
migration of Site contaminants of 
concern (COGs) to the north. 
Groundw~ter monitoring was 
performed semi-annually from 2004 to 
2006. Three wells, MW-1; MW-6, and 
AST-VMP-3D, were monitored in the 
AST area for TEX parameters and a list 
of key intrinsic biodegradation 
parameters. All TEX results were below 
cleanup goals except for one detection 
of ethylbenzene at 1700 tJ.g/in AST-
VMP-3D in December 2004. EPA 
approved annual post remediation 
monitoring in ·the AST Area in April 
2006. TEX concentrations re.mained 
below cleanup goals during three 
rounds of post remediation monitoring 
from 2006 to 2008. The highest TEX 
concentration in these wells decreased 
from 38 tJ.g/L in ~ay 2006 to non-detect 
in the last round, February .2008. Post-
Remediation Monitoring at the AST 
Area has been completed in full 
satiSfaction of the Consent Decree and 
associated Statement of Work. 
. AST Area Soil Confirmatory Sampling 
Results 
Soil samples were collected in the 
AST area on a 25 foot by 25 foot grid 
pattern with vertical samples collected 
every 2 feet to the water table, in 
February 2004 and analyzed for site 
contaminant VOCs. The results 
demonstrated that contaminant levels 
were below cleanup goals in all samples 
analyzed. The highest depth averaged 
concentration of soil samples in one 
location were 369tJ.g/kg ethylbenzene 
and 296 tJ.g/kg xylenes, compared with 
the ROD cleanup goals of 6,500 tJ.g/kg 
and 90,000 IJ.g/kg, respectively. 
Federal Register/Val. 74, No. 157/Monday, August 17, 2009/Rules and Regulations 
41345 
MNA in FPP Area 
EPA selected MNA as the remedy for 
FPP Area groundwater, and chloroform 
concentrations in groundwater, 
decreased sharply since 1998 such that 
the cleanup goal has been reached. . 
From 1998 to June 2004, chloroform in 
MW-2, the source area of historically 
highest concentrations, l,iecreased from 
2,400 J.lg/L to 13 J.lg/L. Chloroform 
concentrations in the FPP Area have 
been consistently below the cleanup 
goal since 2000. MW-11, a 
downgradient well which had an 
increase in chloroform from 3J Jlg/L in 
1998 to 40.4 J.lg/L in 2000, was below 
cleanup goals in 2004, indicating that 
chloroform has attenuated 
downgradient. Chloroform was not been 
detected in any of the AST Area wells, 
and methylene chloride (a potential 
degradation product of chloroform) was 
not detected above 1.0 Jl8!L in any FPP 
or AST wells up to June 2004. 
In the FPP Area, annual post-
remediation groundwater monitoring 
began in the 2nd quarter 2005. Three 
wells, MW-2, MW-7, and MW-11, were 
monitored for chloroform. Chloroform 
concentrations remained below cleanup 
goals during three rounds of post 
. 
remediation monitoring from 2005 to 
2007. Chloroform concentrations varied 
from non detect in May 2005 tQ 21 J.lg/ 
L in May 2007, below the cleanup goals 
of 100 J.lg/L. Post-Remediation 
Monitoring at the FPP Area has been 
completed in full satisfaction of the 
Consent Decree· and associated 
statement of work (SOW). 
Based upon the soil and groundwater 
data, which indicated compliance with 
all cleanup goals, EPA determined that 
supplemental remedial construction 
activities were not necessary, and use of 
the contingency remedy of groundwater 
pump and treat would not be required 
in either the AST Area or FPP Area. 
Construction was, therefore, considered 
to be complete. 
· 
The SVE system was permanently 
shut down in November 2003 and the · 
treatment system trailer removed in 
2005. The SVE wells and monitoring 
wells at the Site have not been 
decommissioned. The PRPs are 
developing a plan to decommission 
these wells in the summer of 2009. The 
Remedial Action Report was submitted 
in September 2004 and the Final Post-
Remediation Monitoring Report was 
submitted in April 2008. The final site 
inspection occurred on March 4, 2009. 
Institutional Controls 
The ROD indicated that VIDPNR, in 
consultation with EPA, would utilize 
institutional controls (in the form of 
existing well permitting laws and 
regulations) to limit the pumping of 
groundwater at the Site, to prevent 
interference with the selected remedy, 
and to also prevent human exposure to 
contaminated groundwater until ROD 
cleanup goals were achieved. Pursuant 
to the CD, on request from EPA, the 
PRPs were to seek an environmental 
eaSement/restrictive covenant to enforce 
land and groundwater use controls at 
the Site and other. areas where VOC 
contamination exceeds ROD cleanup 
goals or where groundwater extraction 
·could negatively impact the existing 
contaminant plume. The PRPs have 
maintained fencing around the site and 
maintained oversight of groundwate~ 
conditions during remediation. Based. 
on these actions and the existence of 
well permitting requirements EPA did 
not require the PRPs to obtain the 
environmental easement/restrictive 
covenant. The Site has no hazardous 
substances, associated with the NPL 
release, remaining above levels that 
would prevent unlimited use and 
unrestricted exposure. The remedy is 
completed and no other operation and . 
maintenance activities are required. The 
final Five-Year Review was signed on 
March 20, 2009. 
Cleanup Goals 
The cleanup goals for soils in the AST 
area are 6,500 J.lg/kg for ethylbenzene, 
and 90,000 J.lg/kg for xylene. For 
groundwater, the cleanup goals are 700 
J.lg/L for ethylbenzene, 10,000 J.lg/L for 
xylene, and 100 J.lg/L for chloroform, 
respectively. 
Community Involvement 
Public participation activities for this 
Site have been satisfied as required in 
CERCLA § 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. 
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)(1)). EPA, with the 
·concurrence of the U.S. Virgin islands 
through VIDPNR, has determined that 
all required and appropriate response 
actions have been implemented by the 
responsible parties. 
V. Deletion Action 
The EPA, with concurrence of the 
U.S. Virgin Islands through the VIDPNR 
has determined that all appropriate 
response actions under CERCLA, have 
been completed. Therefore, EPA is 
deleting the Site from the NPL. 
Because EPA considers this action to 
be noncontroversial and routine, EPA is 
taking it without prior publication. This 
action will be effective October 16, 2009 
unless EPA receives adverse comments 
by September 16, 2009. If adverse 
comments are received within the 30-
day public comment period, EPA will 
publish a timely withdrawal of this 
direct final notice of deletion before the 
effective date of the deletion, and it will 
not take effect. EPA will prepare a 
response to· comments and continue 
with the deletion process on the basis of 
the notice of intent to delete and the 
comments already received. There will 
be no additional opportunity to 
comment. 
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 
Environmental protection, Air 
pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous 
waste, Hazardous substances, 
Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, 
Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Superfund, Water 
pollution control, Water supply. 
Dated: August 3, 2009. 
George Pavlou, 
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 2. 
• For the reasons set out in this 
document, 40 CFR. part 300 is amended 
as follows: 
PART 30D-{AMENDED] 
• 1. The authority citation for part 300 
continues to read a~;~ follows: 
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 
9601,..9657; E.O. 12777,56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 
1991 Camp., p. 351; E.O. 12580,52 FR 2923; 
3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193. 
• 2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 
is amended by removing the entry 
"Island Chemical Corp/VI Chemical 
Corp", "Christiansted", "Virgin 
Islands". 
[FR Doc. E9-19679 Filed 8-14-Q9;. 8:45am] 
BIWNGCODE~