National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List, 43052-43055 [05-14608]

Download as PDF 43052 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 142 / Tuesday, July 26, 2005 / Rules and Regulations aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial and direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Governments and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. Special local regulations issued in conjunction with a regatta or marine parade permit are specifically excluded from further analysis and documentation under those sections. Under figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction, an ‘‘Environmental Analysis Check List’’ and a ‘‘Categorical Exclusion Determination’’ are not required for this rule. Energy Effects List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100 We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ‘‘significant energy action’’ under that order because it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways. I For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows: Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and will not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS 1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows: I Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233, Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. I 2. Add a temporary § 100.35–T05–078 to read as follows: Technical Standards § 100.35–T05–078 Hampton, VA. The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their (a) Regulated area. The regulated area is established for the waters of Mill Creek, adjacent to Fort Monroe, Hampton, Virginia, enclosed by the VerDate jul<14>2003 23:50 Jul 25, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Mill Creek, Fort Monroe, Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 following boundaries: To the north, a line drawn along latitude 37°01′00″ N, to the east a line drawn along longitude 076°18′30″ W, to the south a line parallel with the shoreline adjacent to Fort Monroe, and the west boundary is parallel with the Route 258-Mercury Boulevard Bridge. All coordinates reference Datum NAD 1983. (b) Definitions. (1) Coast Guard Patrol Commander means a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the Coast Guard who has been designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Hampton Roads. (2) Official Patrol means any vessel assigned or approved by Commander, Coast Guard Sector Hampton Roads with a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer on board and displaying a Coast Guard ensign. (c) Special local regulations: (1) Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area. (2) The operator of any vessel in the regulated area shall: (i) Stop the vessel immediately when directed to do so by any Official Patrol. (ii) Proceed as directed by any Official Patrol. (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 7:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on August 12, August 13 and August 14, 2005. Dated: July 11, 2005. L.L. Hereth, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. 05–14632 Filed 7–25–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–15–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [FRL–7943–5] National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final notice of deletion of the Red Oak City Landfill Superfund site from the National Priorities List (NPL). AGENCY: SUMMARY: The EPA, Region VII, is publishing a direct final notice of deletion of the Red Oak City Landfill Superfund site (site), located near Red Oak, Iowa, from the NPL. The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive E:\FR\FM\26JYR1.SGM 26JYR1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 142 / Tuesday, July 26, 2005 / Rules and Regulations Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is appendix B of 40 CFR part 300, which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This direct final deletion is being published by EPA with the concurrence of the state of Iowa, through the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) because EPA has determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA have been completed and, therefore, further remedial action pursuant to CERCLA is not appropriate. DATES: This direct final deletion will be effective September 26, 2005, unless EPA receives adverse comments by August 25, 2005. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final deletion in the Federal Register informing the public that the deletion will not take effect. Comments may be mailed to Bob Stewart, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Superfund Division, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, KS 66101. Information Repositories: Comprehensive information on the site is available for viewing in the Deletion Docket at the information repositories located at: U.S. EPA, Region VII, Superfund Division Records Center, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, KS 66101; and the IDNR, Henry A. Wallace Building, 900 East Grand, Des Moines, IA 50319. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob Stewart, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Superfund Division, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, KS 66101, fax (913) 551–9654, or 1–800–223–0425. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ADDRESSES: Table of Contents I. Introduction II. NPL Deletion Criteria III. Deletion Procedures IV. Basis for Site Deletion V. Deletion Action I. Introduction The EPA, Region VII, is publishing this direct final notice of deletion of the Red Oak City Landfill Superfund site from the NPL. The EPA identifies sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health or the environment and maintains the NPL as the list of those sites. As described in § 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted from the NPL remain eligible for remedial actions if conditions at a deleted site warrant such action. VerDate jul<14>2003 23:50 Jul 25, 2005 Jkt 205001 Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and routine, EPA is taking it without prior publication of a notice of intent to delete. This action will be effective September 26, 2005 unless EPA receives adverse comments by August 25, 2005 on this document. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period on this document, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct final deletion before the effective date of the deletion and the deletion will not take effect. The 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 Red Oak City Landfill Superfund site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria. Section V states EPA’s action to delete the site from the NPL unless adverse comments are received during the comment period. II. NPL Deletion Criteria Section 300.425(e) of the NCP provides that releases may be deleted from 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. ii. All appropriate responses under CERCLA have been implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate. 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. Even if a site is deleted from the NPL, where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at the deleted site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, CERCLA section 121(c), 42 U.S.C. 9621(c) requires that a subsequent review of the site be conducted at least every five years after the initiation of the remedial action at the deleted site to ensure that the remedy remains protective of public health and the environment. If new information becomes available which indicates a need for further action, EPA may initiate remedial actions. Whenever PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 43053 there is a significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the site shall be restored to the NPL without the application of the Hazard Ranking System. III. Deletion Procedures The following procedures apply to deletion of the site. i. The EPA, Region VII, issued a Record of Decision which documented the required remedial action. ii. All appropriate responses under CERCLA have been implemented as documented in the Final Close-Out Report dated June 13, 2005. iii. The state of Iowa concurred with deletion of the site from the NPL. The EPA consulted with the state of Iowa on the deletion of the site from the NPL prior to developing this direct final notice of deletion. Concurrently with the publication of this direct final notice of deletion, a notice of the availability of the parallel notice of intent to delete published today in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ section of the Federal Register is being published in a major local newspaper of general circulation at or near the site and is being distributed to appropriate Federal, state, and local government officials and other interested parties; the newspaper notice announces the 30-day public comment period concerning the notice of intent to delete the site from the NPL. iv. The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the deletion in the Deletion Docket at the site information repositories identified above. v. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period on this document, EPA will publish a timely notice of withdrawal of this direct final notice of deletion before its effective date and will prepare a response to comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the notice of intent to delete and the comments already received. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or revoke any individual’s rights or obligations. Deletion of the site from the NPL does not in any way alter EPA’s right to take enforcement actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions should future conditions warrant such actions. E:\FR\FM\26JYR1.SGM 26JYR1 43054 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 142 / Tuesday, July 26, 2005 / Rules and Regulations IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion The following information provides EPA’s rationale for deleting the site from the NPL. Site Location The Red Oak City Landfill site is located in Montgomery County, Iowa, and is a 40-acre site which lies about 1.5 miles northwest of the city of Red Oak on the west bank of the East Nishnabotna River and on the east side of Parkwest Road, now known as G Avenue. Red Oak is a community of approximately 6,300 residents. Site History The site was originally a limestone quarry which operated from the late 1940s to the early 1960s. The city of Red Oak purchased the property in 1962 and operated it as a landfill until it closed in April 1974. Wastes disposed of at the site reportedly included construction and demolition debris, tree pruning waste, municipal refuse, and industrial waste from facilities in the Red Oak area. These industrial wastes included toluene, methyl isobutyl ketone, tetrachloroethylene, mineral spirits, diacetone alcohol, laminated paper containing approximately three percent mercurous chloride from battery production, and drummed filter cake containing lead. The site was proposed to the National Priorities List in June 1986 and became final in March 1989 (54 FR 13296). The site posed a threat to the public health through direct contact, slope erosion, and potential leaching and migration of contaminants into surface water and groundwater. Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) In June 1989, the EPA issued an administrative order to the responsible parties at the site to perform a remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/ FS) at the site to determine the nature and extent of the contamination problem. The responsible parties conducted the RI/FS under EPA oversight. Field activities were conducted in two phases; the first was conducted from December 1989 to April 1990, and the second was conducted from May 1991 to July 1992. These activities included sampling and analysis of surface and subsurface soils and wastes, surface water, groundwater, and leachate seeps. Five monitoring wells were installed for this effort. Data from these wells indicated groundwater flow was toward the East Nishnabotna River, to the east of the site. Hazardous substances that have been released at the site include aluminum, barium, VerDate jul<14>2003 23:50 Jul 25, 2005 Jkt 205001 cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, silver, zinc, acetone, 1,2-dichloroethene, tetrachloroethene, bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). These contaminants were of concern primarily in the surface soils and exposed wastes. Exposure to contaminated groundwater at the site was determined not to represent a significant exposure pathway. A final RI report was completed in 1992, and a final FS submitted to EPA in July 1992. Record of Decision Findings In March 1993, EPA decided on a cleanup plan which was explained in a Record of Decision (ROD). The cleanup plan included installation of an engineered low-permeability cap over the surface of the landfill, construction of diversion and drainage structures to manage surface drainage resulting from the reduced permeability of the landfill cover, stabilization of the river bank slope by contouring and revegetation, along with further study of the stability of the slope, access control provided by a perimeter fence around the landfill area, institutional controls, including deed and access restrictions, to control future land use at the site, and long-term groundwater monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of the remedy and ensure groundwater contaminant levels remain protective. Subsequently, EPA determined that river bank slope shaping could be limited, the landfill cap could be reduced in thickness, the slope study and further stabilization measures could be eliminated, and costs could be re-estimated. These changes were incorporated into an Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) memorandum issued by EPA in January 1996. Characterization of Risk A baseline risk assessment was prepared for the site and was described in the 1993 ROD. The exposure assumptions used to develop the Human Health Risk Assessment included both current exposures (adult hunter/trespasser scenario) and potential future exposures (future child resident, future adult resident, and future adult excavation worker). In the ROD, the ecological risks at the site were judged to be minimal. Hazardous substances that have been released at the site include aluminum, barium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, silver, zinc, acetone, 1,2-dichloroethene, tetrachloroethene, bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, and PAHs. These contaminants were of concern primarily PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 in the surface soils and exposed wastes. Exposures to soil and exposed wastes were associated with significant human health risks, due to exceedance of EPA’s risk management criteria for either the average or the reasonable maximum exposure scenarios. The carcinogenic risks were highest for exposure to soils and waste due to the concentrations of carcinogenic PAHs. Non-carcinogenic hazards were highest for exposure to soils and waste due to lead, manganese, and cadmium. Exposure to contaminated groundwater at the site was determined not to represent a significant exposure pathway. Response Actions In a Consent Decree (CD) signed with EPA on November 27, 1996, the responsible parties agreed to perform the remedial design/remedial action (RD/RA) and pay past costs for cleaning up the site. The RD was conducted in conformance with the ROD as modified by the ESD. The RD was approved by EPA on July 28, 1997. The RA was initiated on August 16, 1997, and the initial construction activities were completed on November 21, 1997. The potentially responsible parties (PRPs) were divided into three groups according to the obligations they took on: The construction parties, consisting of Eveready Battery and its parent; a group of operation and maintenance (O&M) parties consisting of Magna International and the city of Red Oak; and a group of cashout parties. Construction of the remedy was initially thought to be completed in November 1997. However, areas of failure of both landfill cap and riverbank slope were discovered in the spring of 1998. The cap was repaired in May 1998, and the slope was repaired in September 1998. A May 1999 site visit was set to inspect both slope and cap, but before this meeting occurred, a second failure of the slope was discovered in spring 1999. Additional lab analysis was conducted to find the cause, and repairs were made in July and September 1999. The EPA conducted a pre-final inspection on October 27, 1999, which resulted in a ‘‘punch list’’ of identified construction deficiencies, mostly minor in nature. Those punch list items pertaining to the cap were satisfactorily completed, and EPA notified the construction and O&M parties in October 2000 that the cap portion of the remedy was now operational and ready to be maintained by the O&M parties. The remaining items on the punch list of concern to EPA were slope revegetation and slope stability. Additional repairs and monitoring were conducted and on June 21, 2001, the E:\FR\FM\26JYR1.SGM 26JYR1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 142 / Tuesday, July 26, 2005 / Rules and Regulations EPA determined that construction of the remedy as embodied in the RD had been completed. On December 12, 2002, a RA Report was completed, demonstrating successful completion of construction activities. The site is listed on the state of Iowa’s Registry of Hazardous Waste or Hazardous Substance Disposal Sites, which prevent changes in land ownership or use without state approval. Institutional controls have also been applied to the site through language in the CD and on the deed requiring that the property only be used for purposes compatible with the RD and O&M specifications. The institutional controls cover all contaminated media that cannot support unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. Cleanup Standards Cleanup standards were developed in the ROD to prevent exposure to wastes and contaminated soils on the surface of the site. The chosen remedy was capping, to prevent this exposure. The cleanup goals were achieved in the site remediation work. All facets of the ROD and ESD have been met as well. Because wastes remain at the site in a capped landfill, some residual risks remain at the site that require continued O&M activities, institutional controls, and five-year reviews. There is no significant threat to public health or the environment from the site, however, and additional remedial measures are not appropriate. Operations and Maintenance The O&M parties are currently conducting O&M activities pursuant to the Monitoring, Operation, and Maintenance Plan that was approved by EPA on September 29, 1999. The O&M of the landfill cap, drainage structures, riverbank slope, and fences is required along with regular groundwater and surface water monitoring and will continue after site deletion, since waste was left in place as part of the final source control remedy. The final plan, dated February 2000, lists the activities to be performed, including annual inspections to ensure erosion control, drainage structure maintenance, mowing, monitoring, and fence maintenance. Institutional controls will also be maintained. No major problems have been encountered. Results from the groundwater and surface water monitoring have not indicated any concerns with contamination, and the continuing monitoring is not needed to determine any future response measures. VerDate jul<14>2003 23:50 Jul 25, 2005 Jkt 205001 Five-Year Review A statutory five-year review report was completed on September 10, 2002, pursuant to CERCLA 121(c) and to § 300.430(f)(4)(ii) of the NCP. The report concluded that the remedy is protective of human health and the environment, and that all threats at the site have been addressed. Another five-year review report is scheduled for 2007. Community Involvement V. Deletion Action The EPA, with concurrence of the state of Iowa, has determined that all appropriate responses under CERCLA have been completed, and that no further response actions, under CERCLA, are necessary. The state concurrence letter dated May 11, 2005, states that IDNR concurs with the proposed removal of the site from the NPL. Therefore, EPA is deleting the site from the NPL. Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and routine, EPA is taking it without prior publication. This action will be effective September 26, 2005 unless EPA receives adverse comments by August 25, 2005. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct final notice of deletion before the effective date of the deletion and it will not take effect and, EPA will prepare a response to comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the notice of intent to delete and the comments already received. There will be no additional opportunity to comment. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping Frm 00039 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply. Dated: July 5, 2005. James B. Gulliford, Regional Administrator, Region VII. For the reasons set out in this document, 40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows: I PART 300—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows: I 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. A mailing list was developed, fact sheets mailed out, and a public notice placed in a newspaper in August 1992 to support the Proposed Plan. A public meeting was held on August 20, 1992. In addition, a public notice for the fiveyear review was placed in May 2002. Documents in the Deletion Docket which EPA relied on for recommendation of the deletion from the NPL are available to the public in the information repositories. A public notice for this action will also be published in the Red Oak Express. PO 00000 43055 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. Appendix B—[Amended] 2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 is amended under Iowa by removing the site name ‘‘Red Oak City Landfill’’ and the city ‘‘Red Oak.’’ I [FR Doc. 05–14608 Filed 7–25–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 65 [Docket No. FEMA–D–7575] Changes in Flood Elevation Determinations Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security. ACTION: Interim rule. AGENCY: SUMMARY: This interim rule lists communities where modification of the Base (1% annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. New flood insurance premium rates will be calculated from the modified BFEs for new buildings and their contents. DATES: These modified BFEs are currently in effect on the dates listed in the table and revise the Flood Insurance Rate Map(s) (FIRMs) in effect prior to this determination for each listed community. From the date of the second publication of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has ninety (90) days in which to request through the community that the Director reconsider the changes. The modified elevations may be changed during the 90-day period. E:\FR\FM\26JYR1.SGM 26JYR1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 142 (Tuesday, July 26, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43052-43055]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-14608]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL-7943-5]


National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; 
National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final notice of deletion of the Red Oak City Landfill 
Superfund site from the National Priorities List (NPL).

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

SUMMARY: The EPA, Region VII, is publishing a direct final notice of 
deletion of the Red Oak City Landfill Superfund site (site), located 
near Red Oak, Iowa, from the NPL.
    The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive

[[Page 43053]]

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 
1980, as amended, is appendix B of 40 CFR part 300, which is the 
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). 
This direct final deletion is being published by EPA with the 
concurrence of the state of Iowa, through the Iowa Department of 
Natural Resources (IDNR) because EPA has determined that all 
appropriate response actions under CERCLA have been completed and, 
therefore, further remedial action pursuant to CERCLA is not 
appropriate.

DATES: This direct final deletion will be effective September 26, 2005, 
unless EPA receives adverse comments by August 25, 2005. If adverse 
comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the 
direct final deletion in the Federal Register informing the public that 
the deletion will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Bob Stewart, Remedial Project 
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Superfund Division, 901 
North 5th Street, Kansas City, KS 66101.
    Information Repositories: Comprehensive information on the site is 
available for viewing in the Deletion Docket at the information 
repositories located at: U.S. EPA, Region VII, Superfund Division 
Records Center, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, KS 66101; and the 
IDNR, Henry A. Wallace Building, 900 East Grand, Des Moines, IA 50319.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob Stewart, Remedial Project Manager, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Superfund Division, 901 North 5th 
Street, Kansas City, KS 66101, fax (913) 551-9654, or 1-800-223-0425.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

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

I. Introduction

    The EPA, Region VII, is publishing this direct final notice of 
deletion of the Red Oak City Landfill Superfund site from the NPL.
    The EPA identifies sites that appear to present a significant risk 
to public health or the environment and maintains the NPL as the list 
of those sites. As described in Sec.  300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites 
deleted from the NPL remain eligible for remedial actions if conditions 
at a deleted site warrant such action.
    Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and 
routine, EPA is taking it without prior publication of a notice of 
intent to delete. This action will be effective September 26, 2005 
unless EPA receives adverse comments by August 25, 2005 on this 
document. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public 
comment period on this document, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal 
of this direct final deletion before the effective date of the deletion 
and the deletion will not take effect. The 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 Red Oak City Landfill 
Superfund site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria. 
Section V states EPA's action to delete the site from the NPL unless 
adverse comments are received during the comment period.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    Section 300.425(e) of the NCP provides that releases may be deleted 
from 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.
    ii. All appropriate responses under CERCLA have been implemented, 
and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate.
    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.
    Even if a site is deleted from the NPL, where hazardous substances, 
pollutants, or contaminants remain at the deleted site above levels 
that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, CERCLA section 
121(c), 42 U.S.C. 9621(c) requires that a subsequent review of the site 
be conducted at least every five years after the initiation of the 
remedial action at the deleted site to ensure that the remedy remains 
protective of public health and the environment. If new information 
becomes available which indicates a need for further action, EPA may 
initiate remedial actions. Whenever there is a significant release from 
a site deleted from the NPL, the site shall be restored to the NPL 
without the application of the Hazard Ranking System.

III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to deletion of the site.
    i. The EPA, Region VII, issued a Record of Decision which 
documented the required remedial action.
    ii. All appropriate responses under CERCLA have been implemented as 
documented in the Final Close-Out Report dated June 13, 2005.
    iii. The state of Iowa concurred with deletion of the site from the 
NPL. The EPA consulted with the state of Iowa on the deletion of the 
site from the NPL prior to developing this direct final notice of 
deletion. Concurrently with the publication of this direct final notice 
of deletion, a notice of the availability of the parallel notice of 
intent to delete published today in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of 
the Federal Register is being published in a major local newspaper of 
general circulation at or near the site and is being distributed to 
appropriate Federal, state, and local government officials and other 
interested parties; the newspaper notice announces the 30-day public 
comment period concerning the notice of intent to delete the site from 
the NPL.
    iv. The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the deletion in 
the Deletion Docket at the site information repositories identified 
above.
    v. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public 
comment period on this document, EPA will publish a timely notice of 
withdrawal of this direct final notice of deletion before its effective 
date and will prepare a response to comments and continue with the 
deletion process on the basis of the notice of intent to delete and the 
comments already received.
    Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or 
revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of the site 
from the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement 
actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for 
informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section 
300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the 
NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions should 
future conditions warrant such actions.

[[Page 43054]]

IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion

    The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting the 
site from the NPL.

Site Location

    The Red Oak City Landfill site is located in Montgomery County, 
Iowa, and is a 40-acre site which lies about 1.5 miles northwest of the 
city of Red Oak on the west bank of the East Nishnabotna River and on 
the east side of Parkwest Road, now known as G Avenue. Red Oak is a 
community of approximately 6,300 residents.

Site History

    The site was originally a limestone quarry which operated from the 
late 1940s to the early 1960s. The city of Red Oak purchased the 
property in 1962 and operated it as a landfill until it closed in April 
1974. Wastes disposed of at the site reportedly included construction 
and demolition debris, tree pruning waste, municipal refuse, and 
industrial waste from facilities in the Red Oak area. These industrial 
wastes included toluene, methyl isobutyl ketone, tetrachloroethylene, 
mineral spirits, diacetone alcohol, laminated paper containing 
approximately three percent mercurous chloride from battery production, 
and drummed filter cake containing lead.
    The site was proposed to the National Priorities List in June 1986 
and became final in March 1989 (54 FR 13296). The site posed a threat 
to the public health through direct contact, slope erosion, and 
potential leaching and migration of contaminants into surface water and 
groundwater.

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

    In June 1989, the EPA issued an administrative order to the 
responsible parties at the site to perform a remedial investigation and 
feasibility study (RI/FS) at the site to determine the nature and 
extent of the contamination problem. The responsible parties conducted 
the RI/FS under EPA oversight. Field activities were conducted in two 
phases; the first was conducted from December 1989 to April 1990, and 
the second was conducted from May 1991 to July 1992. These activities 
included sampling and analysis of surface and subsurface soils and 
wastes, surface water, groundwater, and leachate seeps. Five monitoring 
wells were installed for this effort. Data from these wells indicated 
groundwater flow was toward the East Nishnabotna River, to the east of 
the site. Hazardous substances that have been released at the site 
include aluminum, barium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, manganese, 
mercury, nickel, silver, zinc, acetone, 1,2-dichloroethene, 
tetrachloroethene, bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, and polycyclic aromatic 
hydrocarbons (PAHs). These contaminants were of concern primarily in 
the surface soils and exposed wastes. Exposure to contaminated 
groundwater at the site was determined not to represent a significant 
exposure pathway. A final RI report was completed in 1992, and a final 
FS submitted to EPA in July 1992.

Record of Decision Findings

    In March 1993, EPA decided on a cleanup plan which was explained in 
a Record of Decision (ROD). The cleanup plan included installation of 
an engineered low-permeability cap over the surface of the landfill, 
construction of diversion and drainage structures to manage surface 
drainage resulting from the reduced permeability of the landfill cover, 
stabilization of the river bank slope by contouring and revegetation, 
along with further study of the stability of the slope, access control 
provided by a perimeter fence around the landfill area, institutional 
controls, including deed and access restrictions, to control future 
land use at the site, and long-term groundwater monitoring to evaluate 
the effectiveness of the remedy and ensure groundwater contaminant 
levels remain protective. Subsequently, EPA determined that river bank 
slope shaping could be limited, the landfill cap could be reduced in 
thickness, the slope study and further stabilization measures could be 
eliminated, and costs could be re-estimated. These changes were 
incorporated into an Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) 
memorandum issued by EPA in January 1996.

Characterization of Risk

    A baseline risk assessment was prepared for the site and was 
described in the 1993 ROD. The exposure assumptions used to develop the 
Human Health Risk Assessment included both current exposures (adult 
hunter/trespasser scenario) and potential future exposures (future 
child resident, future adult resident, and future adult excavation 
worker). In the ROD, the ecological risks at the site were judged to be 
minimal.
    Hazardous substances that have been released at the site include 
aluminum, barium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, manganese, mercury, 
nickel, silver, zinc, acetone, 1,2-dichloroethene, tetrachloroethene, 
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, and PAHs. These contaminants were of 
concern primarily in the surface soils and exposed wastes. Exposures to 
soil and exposed wastes were associated with significant human health 
risks, due to exceedance of EPA's risk management criteria for either 
the average or the reasonable maximum exposure scenarios. The 
carcinogenic risks were highest for exposure to soils and waste due to 
the concentrations of carcinogenic PAHs. Non-carcinogenic hazards were 
highest for exposure to soils and waste due to lead, manganese, and 
cadmium. Exposure to contaminated groundwater at the site was 
determined not to represent a significant exposure pathway.

Response Actions

    In a Consent Decree (CD) signed with EPA on November 27, 1996, the 
responsible parties agreed to perform the remedial design/remedial 
action (RD/RA) and pay past costs for cleaning up the site. The RD was 
conducted in conformance with the ROD as modified by the ESD. The RD 
was approved by EPA on July 28, 1997. The RA was initiated on August 
16, 1997, and the initial construction activities were completed on 
November 21, 1997.
    The potentially responsible parties (PRPs) were divided into three 
groups according to the obligations they took on: The construction 
parties, consisting of Eveready Battery and its parent; a group of 
operation and maintenance (O&M) parties consisting of Magna 
International and the city of Red Oak; and a group of cashout parties. 
Construction of the remedy was initially thought to be completed in 
November 1997. However, areas of failure of both landfill cap and 
riverbank slope were discovered in the spring of 1998. The cap was 
repaired in May 1998, and the slope was repaired in September 1998. A 
May 1999 site visit was set to inspect both slope and cap, but before 
this meeting occurred, a second failure of the slope was discovered in 
spring 1999. Additional lab analysis was conducted to find the cause, 
and repairs were made in July and September 1999.
    The EPA conducted a pre-final inspection on October 27, 1999, which 
resulted in a ``punch list'' of identified construction deficiencies, 
mostly minor in nature. Those punch list items pertaining to the cap 
were satisfactorily completed, and EPA notified the construction and 
O&M parties in October 2000 that the cap portion of the remedy was now 
operational and ready to be maintained by the O&M parties. The 
remaining items on the punch list of concern to EPA were slope 
revegetation and slope stability. Additional repairs and monitoring 
were conducted and on June 21, 2001, the

[[Page 43055]]

EPA determined that construction of the remedy as embodied in the RD 
had been completed.
    On December 12, 2002, a RA Report was completed, demonstrating 
successful completion of construction activities. The site is listed on 
the state of Iowa's Registry of Hazardous Waste or Hazardous Substance 
Disposal Sites, which prevent changes in land ownership or use without 
state approval. Institutional controls have also been applied to the 
site through language in the CD and on the deed requiring that the 
property only be used for purposes compatible with the RD and O&M 
specifications. The institutional controls cover all contaminated media 
that cannot support unlimited use and unrestricted exposure.

Cleanup Standards

    Cleanup standards were developed in the ROD to prevent exposure to 
wastes and contaminated soils on the surface of the site. The chosen 
remedy was capping, to prevent this exposure. The cleanup goals were 
achieved in the site remediation work. All facets of the ROD and ESD 
have been met as well. Because wastes remain at the site in a capped 
landfill, some residual risks remain at the site that require continued 
O&M activities, institutional controls, and five-year reviews. There is 
no significant threat to public health or the environment from the 
site, however, and additional remedial measures are not appropriate.

Operations and Maintenance

    The O&M parties are currently conducting O&M activities pursuant to 
the Monitoring, Operation, and Maintenance Plan that was approved by 
EPA on September 29, 1999. The O&M of the landfill cap, drainage 
structures, riverbank slope, and fences is required along with regular 
groundwater and surface water monitoring and will continue after site 
deletion, since waste was left in place as part of the final source 
control remedy. The final plan, dated February 2000, lists the 
activities to be performed, including annual inspections to ensure 
erosion control, drainage structure maintenance, mowing, monitoring, 
and fence maintenance. Institutional controls will also be maintained. 
No major problems have been encountered. Results from the groundwater 
and surface water monitoring have not indicated any concerns with 
contamination, and the continuing monitoring is not needed to determine 
any future response measures.

Five-Year Review

    A statutory five-year review report was completed on September 10, 
2002, pursuant to CERCLA 121(c) and to Sec.  300.430(f)(4)(ii) of the 
NCP. The report concluded that the remedy is protective of human health 
and the environment, and that all threats at the site have been 
addressed. Another five-year review report is scheduled for 2007.

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. A mailing list was developed, fact sheets mailed out, and 
a public notice placed in a newspaper in August 1992 to support the 
Proposed Plan. A public meeting was held on August 20, 1992. In 
addition, a public notice for the five-year review was placed in May 
2002. Documents in the Deletion Docket which EPA relied on for 
recommendation of the deletion from the NPL are available to the public 
in the information repositories. A public notice for this action will 
also be published in the Red Oak Express.

V. Deletion Action

    The EPA, with concurrence of the state of Iowa, has determined that 
all appropriate responses under CERCLA have been completed, and that no 
further response actions, under CERCLA, are necessary. The state 
concurrence letter dated May 11, 2005, states that IDNR concurs with 
the proposed removal of the site from the NPL. Therefore, EPA is 
deleting the site from the NPL.
    Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and 
routine, EPA is taking it without prior publication. This action will 
be effective September 26, 2005 unless EPA receives adverse comments by 
August 25, 2005. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day 
public comment period, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this 
direct final notice of deletion before the effective date of the 
deletion and it will not take effect and, EPA will prepare a response 
to comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the 
notice of intent to delete and the comments already received. There 
will be no additional opportunity to comment.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

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

    Dated: July 5, 2005.
James B. Gulliford,
Regional Administrator, Region VII.

0
For the reasons set out in this document, 40 CFR part 300 is amended as 
follows:

PART 300--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 
12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p.351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 
2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p.193.

Appendix B--[Amended]

0
2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 is amended under Iowa by removing 
the site name ``Red Oak City Landfill'' and the city ``Red Oak.''

[FR Doc. 05-14608 Filed 7-25-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P