National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List, 7455-7458 [05-2179]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 29 / Monday, February 14, 2005 / Proposed Rules
when all of the following conditions are
met:
(1) The lease was issued with a
primary lease term of:
(i) 5 years; or
(ii) 8 years with a requirement to drill
within 5 years.
(2) Before the end of the fifth year of
the primary term, you or your
predecessor in interest must have
acquired and interpreted geophysical
information that:
(i) Indicates that all or a portion of a
potential hydrocarbon-bearing
formation lies below 25,000 feet TVD
SS; and
(ii) Includes full 3-D depth migration
over the entire lease area.
(3) Before requesting the suspension,
you have conducted or are conducting
additional data processing or
interpretation of the geophysical
information with the objective of
identifying a potential hydrocarbonbearing formation below 25,000 feet
TVD SS.
(4) You demonstrate that additional
time is necessary to:
(i) Complete current processing or
interpretation of existing geophysical
data or information;
(ii) Acquire, process, or interpret new
geophysical and/or geological data or
information that would impact the
decision to drill the same geologic
structure or stratigraphic trap, as
determined by the Regional Supervisor,
identified in paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3)
of this section; or
(iii) Drill into the potential
hydrocarbon-bearing formation
identified as a result of the activities
conducted in paragraphs (c)(2), (c)(3),
and (c)(4) of this section.
[FR Doc. 05–2747 Filed 2–11–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[R06–OAR–2005–TX–0004; FRL–7872–6]
Approval and Promulgation of State
Implementation Plans; Texas; Revision
to the Rate of Progress Plan for the
Houston/Galveston (HGA) Ozone
Nonattainment Area
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to
approve revisions to the Texas State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Post–1999
Rate of Progress (ROP) Plan, the 1990
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:08 Feb 11, 2005
Jkt 205001
Base Year Inventory, and the Motor
Vehicle Emissions Budgets (MVEB)
established by the ROP Plan, for the
Houston Galveston (HGA) ozone
nonattainment Area submitted
November 16, 2004. The intended effect
of this action is to approve revisions
submitted by the State of Texas to
satisfy the reasonable further progress
requirements for 1-hour ozone
nonattainment areas classified as severe
and demonstrate further progress in
reducing ozone precursors. We are
proposing to approve these revisions in
accordance with the requirements of the
Federal Clean Air Act (the Act).
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before March 16, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to
Mr. Thomas Diggs, Chief, Air Planning
Section (6PD–L), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733.
Comments may also be submitted
electronically or through hand delivery/
courier by following the detailed
instructions in the ADDRESSES section of
the direct final rule located in the rules
section of this Federal Register.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Guy
Donaldson, Air Planning Section (6PDL), Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700,
Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, telephone
(214) 665–7242; fax number (214) 665–
7263; e-mail address
donaldson.guy@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the
final rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the State’s
SIP submittal as a direct final rule
without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial
submittal and anticipates no adverse
comments. A detailed rationale for the
approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no adverse comments are
received in response to this action rule,
no further activity is contemplated. If
EPA receives adverse comments, the
direct final rule will be withdrawn and
all public comments received will be
addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on this proposed rule. EPA will
not institute a second comment period.
Any parties interested in commenting
on this action should do so at this time.
Please note that if EPA receives adverse
comment on an amendment, paragraph,
or section of this rule and if that
provision may be severed from the
remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt
as final those provisions of the rule that
are not the subject of an adverse
comment.
For additional information, see the
direct final rule which is located in the
rules section of this Federal Register.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
7455
Dated: February 2, 2005.
Richard E. Greene,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 05–2792 Filed 2–11–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[FRL–7869–3]
National Oil and Hazardous Substance
Pollution Contingency Plan; National
Priorities List
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Notice of intent to delete the
Firestone Tire and Rubber Company
Superfund site from the National
Priorities List.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Region IX announces the
intent to delete the Firestone Tire and
Rubber Company Superfund Site (Site)
from the National Priorities List (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 EPA promulgated
pursuant to section 105 of the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability
Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended.
EPA and the State of California, through
the California Department of Toxic
Substances Control (DTSC), have
determined that the remedial action for
the Site has been successfully executed.
DATES: Comments concerning the
proposed deletion of this Site from the
NPL may be submitted on or before
March 16, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed
to: Vicki Rosen, Community
Involvement Coordinator, U.S. EPA
Region IX (SFD–3), 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901,
(415) 972–3244 or 1–800–231–3075.
Information Repositories: Repositories
have been established to provide
detailed information concerning this
decision at the following address: U.S.
EPA Region IX Superfund Records
Center, 95 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105–3901, (415) 536–
2000, Monday through Friday 8 a.m. to
5 p.m.; John Steinbeck Library, 350
Lincoln Avenue, Salinas, CA 93901,
(831) 758–7311.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Patricia Bowlin, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. EPA Region IX (SFD–7–
E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM
14FEP1
7456
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 29 / Monday, February 14, 2005 / Proposed Rules
3), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco,
CA 94105–3901, (415) 972–3177 or 1–
800–231–3075.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis of Intended Site Deletion
I. Introduction
The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Region IX announces its
intent to delete the Firestone Tire and
Rubber Company Superfund Site (Site)
in Salinas, Monterey County, California
from the National Priorities List (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 EPA promulgated
pursuant to section 105 of the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability
Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended.
EPA identifies sites which present a
significant risk to public health, welfare,
or the environment and maintains the
NPL as the list of these sites. EPA and
the State of California, through the
California Department of Toxic
Substances Control (DTSC), have
determined that the remedial action for
the Site has been successfully executed.
EPA will accept comments on the
proposal to delete this Site for thirty
(30) days after publication of this notice
in Federal Register.
Section II of this notice explains the
criteria for deleting sites from the NPL.
Section III discusses the procedures
EPA is using for this action. Section IV
discusses the Firestone Tire and Rubber
Company Superfund site and explains
how the Site meets the deletion criteria.
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
Section 300.425(e)(1) of the NCP
provides that sites may be deleted from,
or recategorized on, the NPL where no
further response is appropriate. In
making a determination to delete a site
from the NPL, EPA shall 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;
or
(ii) All appropriate Fund-financed
responses under CERCLA have been
implemented, and no further response
action by responsible parties is
appropriate; or
(iii) The Remedial Investigation has
shown that the site poses no significant
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:08 Feb 11, 2005
Jkt 205001
threat to public health or the
environment and, therefore, remedial
measures are not appropriate.
Even if a site is deleted from the NPL,
where hazardous substances, pollutants,
or contaminants remain at the site above
levels that allow for unlimited use and
restricted exposure, EPA’s policy is that
a subsequent review of the site will be
conducted at least every five years after
the initiation of the remedial action at
the site to ensure that the site remains
protective of public health and the
environment. If new information
becomes available which indicates a
need for further action, EPA may initiate
additional remedial actions. Whenever
there is a significant release from a
deleted site from the NPL, the site may
be restored to the NPL without
application of the Hazard Ranking
System.
III. Deletion Procedures
The following procedures were used
for the intended deletion of this Site: (1)
All appropriate responses under
CERCLA have been implemented and
no further actions by EPA or the
responsible party are appropriate; (2)
the State of California has concurred
with the proposed deletion decision; (3)
a notice has been published in the local
newspapers and has been distributed to
appropriate Federal, State, and local
officials and other interested parties
announcing the commencement of a 30day public comment period on EPA’s
Notice of Intent to Delete; and (4) all
relevant documents have been made
available in the local site information
repositories.
Deletion of the Site from the NPL does
not itself create, alter, or revoke any
individual’s rights or obligations. The
NPL is designed primarily for
informational purposes and to assist
Agency 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.
For deletion of this Site, EPA’s
Regional Office will accept and evaluate
public comments on EPA’s Notice of
Intent to Delete before making a final
decision to delete. If necessary, the
Agency will prepare a Responsiveness
Summary to address any significant
public comments received.
A deletion occurs when the Regional
Administrator places a final notice in
the Federal Register. Generally, the NPL
will reflect deletions in the final update
following the Notice. Public notices and
copies of the Responsiveness Summary
will be made available to local residents
by the Regional Office.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
IV. Basis of Intended Site Deletion
The following site summary provides
the Agency’s rationale for the proposal
to delete this Site from the NPL.
Site Background and History
The Firestone Tire and Rubber
Company, now Bridgestone/Firestone,
Inc., owned and operated a tire
manufacturing facility at 340 El Camino
Real South between 1963 and 1980. The
Site is surrounded by agricultural lands
and is approximately six miles
southeast of downtown Salinas,
California. During the facility’s
operation, Firestone released
chlorinated solvents and other
chemicals, particularly volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), to the soil and
groundwater at the Site.
In March 1983, Firestone began
investigations at the facility to comply
with Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) closure
requirements. Based on these
investigations, the California
Department of Health Services (DHS)
required Firestone to conduct extensive
soil and groundwater characterizations
and subsequent interim remedial
measures to address soil and
groundwater contamination. Firestone
removed approximately 65,000 cubic
yards of contaminated soil and 9,000
gallons of hazardous liquids for off-site
disposal in a Class I landfill. In October
1985, DHS issued a Remedial Action
Order (RAO) to Firestone to address the
groundwater contamination.
The groundwater aquifer system in
the area is comprised of three
interconnected aquifers that are
designated shallow, intermediate, and
deep aquifers. Directly downgradient of
the Site, groundwater in the
intermediate and deep aquifers is used
primarily for agricultural supply along
with potential private domestic supply.
Further downgradient, the City of
Salinas relies on groundwater in the
deep aquifer for municipal water
supply.
Pursuant to the RAO, Firestone
constructed a groundwater extraction
and treatment system to control
migration of the groundwater
contamination from the Site. The system
included 15 onsite shallow aquifer
extraction wells and an air stripper/
carbon adsorption treatment plant. The
system was expanded in 1987 by
installing five offsite shallow aquifer
extraction wells and modifying the
treatment plant to accommodate the
additional flow.
Response Actions
EPA listed the Site on the NPL on July
22, 1987. DHS (now DTSC) served as
E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM
14FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 29 / Monday, February 14, 2005 / Proposed Rules
lead agency and provided oversight of
Superfund activities at the Site. The
final Remedial Investigation (RI),
completed in December 1988, consisted
of a comprehensive study of residual
groundwater contamination in aquifers
beneath and adjacent to the Site and a
groundwater risk assessment. The RI
found that the shallow aquifer
groundwater extraction and treatment
system was successfully removing the
contamination in the shallow aquifer;
however, the RI also found that some
contamination, exceeding health-based
levels, had migrated to the intermediate
aquifer and to a small area of the deeper
aquifer.
Firestone completed the final
Feasibility Study/Remedial Action Plan
(FS/RAP) in August 1989. On
September 6, 1989, DHS approved the
RAP selecting the final Site remedy. On
September 13, 1989, EPA issued a
Record of Decision (ROD) Declaration
that formally concurred with the
remedy selected by DHS. The final
remedy provided for remediation of
groundwater onsite and offsite
extending to a distance of over two
miles from the Site and included the
following major components:
• Continued pumping of groundwater
from the shallow aquifer;
• Installing five new wells and
pumping groundwater from the
intermediate aquifer;
• Treatment of extracted groundwater
by air stripping and carbon adsorption;
• Discharge of treated water to the
Salinas River;
• Regular groundwater monitoring to
ensure that the size of the contaminant
plume is declining and to allow for
adjustments to the extraction and
treatment system;
• Crop testing to ensure no uptake of
contaminants by plants; and
• A monitoring and contingency plan
for currently uncontaminated water in
the deep aquifer which could become
contaminated.
In October 1989, Firestone installed
the five intermediate aquifer extraction
wells and connected the new wells to
the existing groundwater treatment
plant. After DHS provided EPA with
final certification of the implementation
of the remedy, EPA issued the Interim
Closeout Report in December 1991.
After achieving cleanup levels in all
extraction wells, Firestone stopped
pumping and conducted an aquifer
stability test in November 1992. Based
on the results of the aquifer stability
test, DTSC allowed the groundwater
extraction and treatment system to
remain shut down with continued
groundwater monitoring until July 1995.
Post-remediation monitoring of deep
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:08 Feb 11, 2005
Jkt 205001
and intermediate aquifer wells showed
no exceedances of the groundwater
cleanup levels; however, monitoring of
the shallow aquifer wells showed
increases in contaminant concentrations
to above cleanup levels in two wells
located near the former Firestone
facility. The two shallow aquifer wells
were screened in the upper zone of the
shallow aquifer. The upper zone of the
shallow aquifer is unsaturated for
extended periods of time because it is
above the normal groundwater table.
Since the residual contamination
above the normal groundwater table was
mainly a water quality issue, DTSC
deferred the decision of case closure to
the California Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB). In 1998,
Firestone conducted confirmation
sampling that indicated that the residual
contamination in the upper zone of the
shallow aquifer had not impacted the
intermediate and deep aquifers and that
the contaminant concentrations in the
two monitoring wells were decreasing.
Based on these sampling results,
RWQCB concluded that the residual
contamination in the upper zone of the
shallow aquifer would attenuate to
below cleanup levels and would not
impact the downgradient groundwater
and deeper aquifers. With RWQCB’s
approval, Firestone dismantled the
groundwater extraction and treatment
system and properly abandoned all
monitoring and extraction wells. On
July 26, 2000, RWQCB closed the case
and recommended that DTSC
implement final case closure.
The groundwater cleanup levels in
the RAP/ROD were set at Maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCLs) based on
the designated beneficial use of the
aquifers in the area for drinking water.
In June 2002, Firestone submitted a
hydrogeologic evaluation of the upper
zone of the shallow aquifer where the
two monitoring wells were screened.
The evaluation concluded that the
upper zone of the shallow aquifer is not
suitable as a potential drinking water
source because the zone is suspended
over a silty clay aquitard and is often
unsaturated for extended periods. In a
March 5, 2003, letter, RWQCB
concurred with Firestone’s evaluation
and concluded that the upper zone of
the shallow aquifer appears to have no
beneficial use based on the lack of
groundwater. Therefore, MCLs do not
apply to the upper zone of the shallow
aquifer since this zone is not suitable as
a drinking water source. Based on
RWQCB’s determination and the
achievement of the cleanup levels in all
other areas and zones, EPA concluded
and DTSC concurred that the Site can be
deleted from the NPL list.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
7457
Cleanup Standards
The cleanup of the Site complies with
the ‘‘clean closure’’ requirements,
consistent with the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976,
as amended, 40 CFR section 264.111.
All contaminated soils were removed to
unrestricted land use standards in 1983.
The groundwater extraction and
treatment system was operated from
1986 until 1992 when monitoring
results indicated that the cleanup levels
were achieved. Post-remediation
monitoring confirms that there are no
hazardous substances remaining at the
Site above health-based levels.
Five-Year Review
EPA has conducted two five-year
reviews for the Site as a matter of
policy. EPA completed the first five-year
review for the Site on November 16,
1994. EPA completed the second fiveyear review for the Site on September
28, 2001. In the second five-year review,
EPA concluded that the residual
contamination in the upper zone of the
shallow aquifer did not constitute a
significant risk to human health or the
environment but that the Site had not
met the cleanup standards of the RAP/
ROD because the RWQCB considered
the shallow groundwater as an unlikely
but potential drinking water source.
Later the RWQCB determined that the
upper zone of the shallow aquifer was
not a potential drinking water source.
Based on the RWQCB’s determination
that the affected shallow zone has no
beneficial use and the achievement of
the cleanup levels in all other areas and
zones, further five-year reviews are no
longer required for the Site.
Community Involvement
Public participation activities have
been satisfied as required in CERCLA
section 113(k), 42 U.S.C. 9613(k), and
CERCLA section 117, 42 U.S.C. 9617.
The deletion docket contains the
documents on which EPA relied for the
NPL deletion recommendation and is
available to the public in the
information repositories.
Applicable Deletion Criteria/State
Concurrence
EPA has determined that all
appropriate responses under CERCLA
have been completed and that no further
response actions under CERCLA are
necessary. In a letter dated July 3, 2003,
the State of California through DTSC
concurred with EPA that all appropriate
responses under CERCLA have been
completed. Therefore, EPA is proposing
deletion of this Site from the NPL.
E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM
14FEP1
7458
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 29 / Monday, February 14, 2005 / Proposed Rules
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous
waste, Hazardous substances,
Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C.
9601–9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR,
1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923;
3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.
Dated: January 26, 2005.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 05–2179 Filed 2–11–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Maritime Administration
46 CFR Part 381
[Docket No. MARAD–99–5038]
RIN 2133–AB37
Regulations To Be Followed by All
Departments and Agencies Having
Responsibility To Provide a Preference
for U.S.-Flag Vessels in the Shipment
of Cargoes on Ocean Vessels
Maritime Administration,
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Withdrawal of advance notice of
proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
The Maritime Administration
(MARAD, we, our) is withdrawing an
advance notice of proposed rulemaking
(ANPRM) published in the Federal
Register on January 28, 1999, which
requested comments on proposed
amendments to MARAD’s cargo
preference regulations. Based on
comments received and on continuing
discussions with other Federal agencies,
there are several issues on which
MARAD and other Federal agencies
have yet to reach agreement. MARAD is
involved in a negotiation process with
other agencies in order to resolve these
issues. Once discussions and
negotiations with other agencies are
complete, MARAD will initiate a new
rulemaking action.
DATES: The ANPRM is withdrawn
February 14, 2005.
ADDRESSES: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to https://
dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL–
401 on the plaza level of the Nassif
Building, 400 Seventh St., SW.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5
SUMMARY:
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:08 Feb 11, 2005
Jkt 205001
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
non-legal issues you may call Thomas
W. Harrelson, Director, Office of Cargo
Preference at (202) 366–5515. For legal
issues you may call Murray Bloom,
Chief, Division of Maritime Programs of
the Office of the Chief Counsel at (202)
366–5320. You may send mail to both
of these officials at Maritime
Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The Cargo Preference Act of 1954,
Pub. L. 83–664, 68 Stat. 832 (1954),
amended the Merchant Marine Act,
1936, by adding Section 901(b), codified
at 46 App. U.S.C. 1241(b) (‘54 Act). The
‘54 Act applies: ‘‘[w]henever the United
States shall procure, contract for, or
otherwise obtain for its own account, or
shall furnish to or for the account of any
foreign nation without provision for
reimbursement, any equipment,
materials, or commodities, within or
without the United States, or shall
advance funds or credits or guarantee
the convertibility of foreign currencies
in connection with the furnishing of
such equipment, materials, or
commodities. * * *’’
Government agencies are required to
take such steps as may be necessary and
practicable to assure that at least 50
percent of the gross tonnage of certain
government-sponsored cargoes—
‘‘* * * (computed separately for dry
bulk carriers, dry cargo liners, and
tankers), which may be transported on
ocean vessels shall be transported on
privately-owned United States-flag
commercial vessels, to the extent such
vessels are available at fair and
reasonable rates for United States-flag
commercial vessels, in such manner as
will insure a fair and reasonable
participation of United States-flag
commercial vessels in such cargoes by
geographic areas.* * *’’
The Food Security Act of 1985, Pub.
L. 99–198, exempted certain agricultural
export enhancement programs from
cargo preference, but increased the U.S.flag share of humanitarian food aid
programs from 50 to 75 percent.
MARAD’s oversight role in
administration of cargo preference is
founded on section 27 of the Merchant
Marine Act of 1970, Pub. L. 91–469,
which added the following subsection
to section 901(b) of the Merchant
Marine Act, 1936:
‘‘Every department or agency having
responsibility under this subsection
shall administer its programs with
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
respect to this subsection under
regulations issued by the Secretary of
Transportation. The Secretary of
Transportation shall review such
administration and shall annually report
to the Congress with respect thereto.’’ 46
App. U.S.C. 1241(b).
The Secretary of Transportation has
delegated the authority under this
provision to the Maritime
Administrator. (49 CFR 1.66(e)).
MARAD’s regulations governing
administration of cargo preference are
located at 46 CFR part 381. Parts 381.4,
381.5 and 381.7 of 46 CFR implement
the substantive requirements of U.S.-flag
carriage authorized by the ‘54 Act. The
Secretary of Transportation does not
intend to allow any diminution of
adherence to these regulatory
requirements. Guidance as to the
priority of a completely U.S.-flag service
over a mixed U.S./foreign-flag service is
contained in a policy letter issued on
June 16, 1986.
II. Summary of the ANPRM
On January 28, 1999, MARAD
published an ANPRM (64 FR 4382)
requesting comments on several
proposed changes to the regulations
governing the ‘54 Act. MARAD received
15 comments on the ANPRM.
Respondents included U.S. shipper
agencies, vessel operators, unions,
industry associations, a freight
forwarder, and a non-vessel operating
common carrier. A discussion of the
comments follows.
III. Discussion of Comments
The ANPRM requested comments on
six specific questions and on one
general question inviting suggestions for
other potential amendments to the cargo
preference regulations. The questions
included: (1) Whether MARAD should
clarify 46 CFR sections 381.4 and 381.5
to best insure that the legislatively
required percentage of cargo is actually
shipped on U.S.-flag vessels; (2)
whether the Vessel Priority Rule should
be changed; (3) whether MARAD should
change the basis for compliance
measurement; (4) whether MARAD
should formally define ‘‘liner vessel,’’
‘‘transshipment,’’ or ‘‘relay’’; (5)
whether MARAD should require the use
of commercial terms for cargo
preference transactions; (6) whether
MARAD should require the use of
commercial practices in the
transportation of preference cargos; and
(7) whether MARAD should implement
other amendments to its regulations.
In response to question one, all
commenters agreed that clarifications
and revisions to sections 381.4 and
381.5 would be beneficial. Thus,
E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM
14FEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 29 (Monday, February 14, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7455-7458]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-2179]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[FRL-7869-3]
National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Notice of intent to delete the Firestone Tire and Rubber
Company Superfund site from the National Priorities List.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region IX announces
the intent to delete the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company Superfund
Site (Site) from the National Priorities List (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 EPA promulgated pursuant to
section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. EPA and the State of
California, through the California Department of Toxic Substances
Control (DTSC), have determined that the remedial action for the Site
has been successfully executed.
DATES: Comments concerning the proposed deletion of this Site from the
NPL may be submitted on or before March 16, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to: Vicki Rosen, Community
Involvement Coordinator, U.S. EPA Region IX (SFD-3), 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901, (415) 972-3244 or 1-800-231-3075.
Information Repositories: Repositories have been established to
provide detailed information concerning this decision at the following
address: U.S. EPA Region IX Superfund Records Center, 95 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901, (415) 536-2000, Monday through
Friday 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.; John Steinbeck Library, 350 Lincoln Avenue,
Salinas, CA 93901, (831) 758-7311.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia Bowlin, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. EPA Region IX (SFD-7-
[[Page 7456]]
3), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901, (415) 972-3177
or 1-800-231-3075.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis of Intended Site Deletion
I. Introduction
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region IX announces
its intent to delete the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company Superfund
Site (Site) in Salinas, Monterey County, California from the National
Priorities List (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 EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of
1980, as amended. EPA identifies sites which present a significant risk
to public health, welfare, or the environment and maintains the NPL as
the list of these sites. EPA and the State of California, through the
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), have
determined that the remedial action for the Site has been successfully
executed.
EPA will accept comments on the proposal to delete this Site for
thirty (30) days after publication of this notice in Federal Register.
Section II of this notice explains the criteria for deleting sites
from the NPL. Section III discusses the procedures EPA is using for
this action. Section IV discusses the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company
Superfund site and explains how the Site meets the deletion criteria.
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
Section 300.425(e)(1) of the NCP provides that sites may be deleted
from, or recategorized on, the NPL where no further response is
appropriate. In making a determination to delete a site from the NPL,
EPA shall 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; or
(ii) All appropriate Fund-financed responses under CERCLA have been
implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is
appropriate; or
(iii) The Remedial Investigation has shown that the site poses no
significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore,
remedial measures are not appropriate.
Even if a site is deleted from the NPL, where hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants remain at the site above levels that allow
for unlimited use and restricted exposure, EPA's policy is that a
subsequent review of the site will be conducted at least every five
years after the initiation of the remedial action at the site to ensure
that the site remains protective of public health and the environment.
If new information becomes available which indicates a need for further
action, EPA may initiate additional remedial actions. Whenever there is
a significant release from a deleted site from the NPL, the site may be
restored to the NPL without application of the Hazard Ranking System.
III. Deletion Procedures
The following procedures were used for the intended deletion of
this Site: (1) All appropriate responses under CERCLA have been
implemented and no further actions by EPA or the responsible party are
appropriate; (2) the State of California has concurred with the
proposed deletion decision; (3) a notice has been published in the
local newspapers and has been distributed to appropriate Federal,
State, and local officials and other interested parties announcing the
commencement of a 30-day public comment period on EPA's Notice of
Intent to Delete; and (4) all relevant documents have been made
available in the local site information repositories.
Deletion of the Site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or
revoke any individual's rights or obligations. The NPL is designed
primarily for informational purposes and to assist Agency 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.
For deletion of this Site, EPA's Regional Office will accept and
evaluate public comments on EPA's Notice of Intent to Delete before
making a final decision to delete. If necessary, the Agency will
prepare a Responsiveness Summary to address any significant public
comments received.
A deletion occurs when the Regional Administrator places a final
notice in the Federal Register. Generally, the NPL will reflect
deletions in the final update following the Notice. Public notices and
copies of the Responsiveness Summary will be made available to local
residents by the Regional Office.
IV. Basis of Intended Site Deletion
The following site summary provides the Agency's rationale for the
proposal to delete this Site from the NPL.
Site Background and History
The Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, now Bridgestone/Firestone,
Inc., owned and operated a tire manufacturing facility at 340 El Camino
Real South between 1963 and 1980. The Site is surrounded by
agricultural lands and is approximately six miles southeast of downtown
Salinas, California. During the facility's operation, Firestone
released chlorinated solvents and other chemicals, particularly
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), to the soil and groundwater at the
Site.
In March 1983, Firestone began investigations at the facility to
comply with Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) closure
requirements. Based on these investigations, the California Department
of Health Services (DHS) required Firestone to conduct extensive soil
and groundwater characterizations and subsequent interim remedial
measures to address soil and groundwater contamination. Firestone
removed approximately 65,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil and 9,000
gallons of hazardous liquids for off-site disposal in a Class I
landfill. In October 1985, DHS issued a Remedial Action Order (RAO) to
Firestone to address the groundwater contamination.
The groundwater aquifer system in the area is comprised of three
interconnected aquifers that are designated shallow, intermediate, and
deep aquifers. Directly downgradient of the Site, groundwater in the
intermediate and deep aquifers is used primarily for agricultural
supply along with potential private domestic supply. Further
downgradient, the City of Salinas relies on groundwater in the deep
aquifer for municipal water supply.
Pursuant to the RAO, Firestone constructed a groundwater extraction
and treatment system to control migration of the groundwater
contamination from the Site. The system included 15 onsite shallow
aquifer extraction wells and an air stripper/carbon adsorption
treatment plant. The system was expanded in 1987 by installing five
offsite shallow aquifer extraction wells and modifying the treatment
plant to accommodate the additional flow.
Response Actions
EPA listed the Site on the NPL on July 22, 1987. DHS (now DTSC)
served as
[[Page 7457]]
lead agency and provided oversight of Superfund activities at the Site.
The final Remedial Investigation (RI), completed in December 1988,
consisted of a comprehensive study of residual groundwater
contamination in aquifers beneath and adjacent to the Site and a
groundwater risk assessment. The RI found that the shallow aquifer
groundwater extraction and treatment system was successfully removing
the contamination in the shallow aquifer; however, the RI also found
that some contamination, exceeding health-based levels, had migrated to
the intermediate aquifer and to a small area of the deeper aquifer.
Firestone completed the final Feasibility Study/Remedial Action
Plan (FS/RAP) in August 1989. On September 6, 1989, DHS approved the
RAP selecting the final Site remedy. On September 13, 1989, EPA issued
a Record of Decision (ROD) Declaration that formally concurred with the
remedy selected by DHS. The final remedy provided for remediation of
groundwater onsite and offsite extending to a distance of over two
miles from the Site and included the following major components:
Continued pumping of groundwater from the shallow aquifer;
Installing five new wells and pumping groundwater from the
intermediate aquifer;
Treatment of extracted groundwater by air stripping and
carbon adsorption;
Discharge of treated water to the Salinas River;
Regular groundwater monitoring to ensure that the size of
the contaminant plume is declining and to allow for adjustments to the
extraction and treatment system;
Crop testing to ensure no uptake of contaminants by
plants; and
A monitoring and contingency plan for currently
uncontaminated water in the deep aquifer which could become
contaminated.
In October 1989, Firestone installed the five intermediate aquifer
extraction wells and connected the new wells to the existing
groundwater treatment plant. After DHS provided EPA with final
certification of the implementation of the remedy, EPA issued the
Interim Closeout Report in December 1991.
After achieving cleanup levels in all extraction wells, Firestone
stopped pumping and conducted an aquifer stability test in November
1992. Based on the results of the aquifer stability test, DTSC allowed
the groundwater extraction and treatment system to remain shut down
with continued groundwater monitoring until July 1995. Post-remediation
monitoring of deep and intermediate aquifer wells showed no exceedances
of the groundwater cleanup levels; however, monitoring of the shallow
aquifer wells showed increases in contaminant concentrations to above
cleanup levels in two wells located near the former Firestone facility.
The two shallow aquifer wells were screened in the upper zone of the
shallow aquifer. The upper zone of the shallow aquifer is unsaturated
for extended periods of time because it is above the normal groundwater
table.
Since the residual contamination above the normal groundwater table
was mainly a water quality issue, DTSC deferred the decision of case
closure to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
In 1998, Firestone conducted confirmation sampling that indicated that
the residual contamination in the upper zone of the shallow aquifer had
not impacted the intermediate and deep aquifers and that the
contaminant concentrations in the two monitoring wells were decreasing.
Based on these sampling results, RWQCB concluded that the residual
contamination in the upper zone of the shallow aquifer would attenuate
to below cleanup levels and would not impact the downgradient
groundwater and deeper aquifers. With RWQCB's approval, Firestone
dismantled the groundwater extraction and treatment system and properly
abandoned all monitoring and extraction wells. On July 26, 2000, RWQCB
closed the case and recommended that DTSC implement final case closure.
The groundwater cleanup levels in the RAP/ROD were set at Maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCLs) based on the designated beneficial use of the
aquifers in the area for drinking water. In June 2002, Firestone
submitted a hydrogeologic evaluation of the upper zone of the shallow
aquifer where the two monitoring wells were screened. The evaluation
concluded that the upper zone of the shallow aquifer is not suitable as
a potential drinking water source because the zone is suspended over a
silty clay aquitard and is often unsaturated for extended periods. In a
March 5, 2003, letter, RWQCB concurred with Firestone's evaluation and
concluded that the upper zone of the shallow aquifer appears to have no
beneficial use based on the lack of groundwater. Therefore, MCLs do not
apply to the upper zone of the shallow aquifer since this zone is not
suitable as a drinking water source. Based on RWQCB's determination and
the achievement of the cleanup levels in all other areas and zones, EPA
concluded and DTSC concurred that the Site can be deleted from the NPL
list.
Cleanup Standards
The cleanup of the Site complies with the ``clean closure''
requirements, consistent with the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act of 1976, as amended, 40 CFR section 264.111. All contaminated soils
were removed to unrestricted land use standards in 1983. The
groundwater extraction and treatment system was operated from 1986
until 1992 when monitoring results indicated that the cleanup levels
were achieved. Post-remediation monitoring confirms that there are no
hazardous substances remaining at the Site above health-based levels.
Five-Year Review
EPA has conducted two five-year reviews for the Site as a matter of
policy. EPA completed the first five-year review for the Site on
November 16, 1994. EPA completed the second five-year review for the
Site on September 28, 2001. In the second five-year review, EPA
concluded that the residual contamination in the upper zone of the
shallow aquifer did not constitute a significant risk to human health
or the environment but that the Site had not met the cleanup standards
of the RAP/ROD because the RWQCB considered the shallow groundwater as
an unlikely but potential drinking water source. Later the RWQCB
determined that the upper zone of the shallow aquifer was not a
potential drinking water source. Based on the RWQCB's determination
that the affected shallow zone has no beneficial use and the
achievement of the cleanup levels in all other areas and zones, further
five-year reviews are no longer required for the Site.
Community Involvement
Public participation activities have been satisfied as required in
CERCLA section 113(k), 42 U.S.C. 9613(k), and CERCLA section 117, 42
U.S.C. 9617. The deletion docket contains the documents on which EPA
relied for the NPL deletion recommendation and is available to the
public in the information repositories.
Applicable Deletion Criteria/State Concurrence
EPA has determined that all appropriate responses under CERCLA have
been completed and that no further response actions under CERCLA are
necessary. In a letter dated July 3, 2003, the State of California
through DTSC concurred with EPA that all appropriate responses under
CERCLA have been completed. Therefore, EPA is proposing deletion of
this Site from the NPL.
[[Page 7458]]
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.
12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR
2923; 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.
Dated: January 26, 2005.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 05-2179 Filed 2-11-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P