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