National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List, 30356-30358 [E6-7928]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
30356
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 102 / Friday, May 26, 2006 / Proposed Rules
use HCFC–142b, if necessary, and easily
switch to alternatives by the deadline.
The Agency is seeking comments on
the accuracy and thoroughness of the
information in the two reports
summarized above.
2. Extruded Polystyrene Foam
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
alternatives. This timeline would give
companies that converted from HCFC–
141b to HCFC–22 several more years of
operations and cost savings to offset
their initial costs of converting from
HCFC–141b to HCFC–22.
IV. Where can I get the data being made
available for comment?
All of the data in which we are
seeking comment can be obtained
through the Air Docket (see General
Information section above for docket
contact information). Reference
numbers are as follows:
—Memo on Review of SNAP Approved
Non-Ozone Depleting Blowing Agents
Available to the Extruded Polystyrene
Foam Industry—Air Docket, OAR–
2004–0507 reference number XX
—Memo on Technical Viability of SNAP
Approved Non-Ozone Depleting
Blowing Agents Available for Pour
Foam Applications—Air Docket,
OAR–2004–0507 reference number
XX
c. Conclusions
i. XPS boardstock made from nonODS blowing agent technology has been
produced in Europe since 2001. These
products have been commercially
accepted by the existing customer base,
and the industry did not experience a
loss of competitive position with respect
to non-XPS foam insulation products
(BASF, 2004; Dow Chemical Company,
2005).
ii. The characterization of R-value
specifications differs between Europe
and the United States. This is a major
driving force for U.S. manufacturers
optimizing blowing agents because
specific R-values have a more direct
effect on the competitiveness of the
product in this country.
iii. European and United States
markets demand different physical
dimensions. As described above,
narrower, thicker, and higher density
products are easier to produce with
alternative formulations such as those
commercialized in Europe.
iv. The chemical and physical
property comparisons between non-ODS
alternatives and HCFC–142b and HCFC–
22 indicate that commercially viable
alternatives will be adopted shortly by
U.S. manufacturers. In fact, companies
considering additional capacity are
likely to have developed a viable
solution before committing funds for
capital expansion.
v. U.S. manufacturers are probably
considering the following options, based
on the physical properties of these
blowing agents both individually and
when incorporated into blends (UNEP,
2005):
1. HFC–134a
2. Hydrocarbons
3. Ethanol
4. HFC–152a
5. CO2
6. Other alternatives currently under
development.
vi. It takes approximately 30–36
months to order and install new
equipment, and manufacture products
that meet specifications. Formulations
need to be identified by 2007 to meet
the January 1, 2010, deadline; thus these
lines will be ready for manufacturing
integration in late 2008 or early 2009. It
would benefit companies developing
new capacity before January 1, 2010, to
install flexible technologies that could
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:00 May 25, 2006
Jkt 208001
V. Why is EPA making this data
available?
We are soliciting comment on this
new information to ensure that we use
the best information available when we
determine how to proceed on the
grandfathering period proposed in our
November 4, 2005 proposal to list
HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b as
unacceptable. Because the information
on which we are seeking comment will
be considered by EPA in determining
how to proceed on our proposal
regarding the use of HCFC–22 and
HCFC–142b in foam blowing
applications, the Agency is providing
the public with an opportunity to
comment on the quality of the available
information. This information will be
used to ensure that issues relating to the
technical viability of alternatives and
industry impacts are fully considered by
EPA prior to moving forward with a
rulemaking in the foams sector.
VI. What is EPA not taking comment
on?
EPA is only accepting comments on
accuracy and completeness of the
information outlined in today’s Federal
Register Notice.
VII. What supporting documentation do
I need to include in my comments?
Please provide any published studies
or raw data supporting your position.
Dated: May 12, 2006.
Brian McLean,
Director, Office of Atmospheric Programs,
Office of Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. E6–8177 Filed 5–25–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA–R04–SFUND–2006–0385; FRL–8173–
8]
National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan; National Priorities List
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Notice of intent to delete the
Cedartown Industries, Inc. site from the
National Priorities List: request for
comments.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4
announces its intent to delete the
Cedartown Industries, Inc. site (the Site)
from the National Priorities List (NPL)
and requests public comment on this
proposed action. The NPL constitutes
Appendix B of the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR part
300, which EPA promulgated pursuant
to section 105 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. EPA
and the State of Georgia Environmental
Protection Division (GEPD) have
determined that the Site poses no
significant threat to public health or the
environment and therefore, further
response measures pursuant to CERCLA
are not appropriate.
DATES: Comments concerning this
proposed action may be submitted on or
before: June 26, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
SFUND–2006–0385, by one of the
following methods:
• https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• E-mail: farrier.brian@epa.gov
• Fax: 404–562–8896/Attn Brian
Farrier
• Mail: Brian Farrier, U.S. EPA
Region 4, WMD–SRTSB, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303. In
addition, please mail a copy of your
comments on the information collection
provisions to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), Attn
Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20503.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R04–SFUND–2006–
0385. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
E:\FR\FM\26MYP1.SGM
26MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 102 / Friday, May 26, 2006 / Proposed Rules
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://www.regulations.gov Web site is
an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov your e-mail
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information
about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA
Docket Center homepage at https://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
will be publicly available only in hard
copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the U.S. EPA Region 4 office located at
61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303. Regional office is open from 7
a.m. until 6:30 p.m. Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays.
Written comments may be submitted
to Brian Farrier within 30 days of the
date of this publication.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Brian Farrier, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, Atlanta
Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303, or e-mail at
farrier.brian@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:00 May 25, 2006
Jkt 208001
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion
I. Introduction
The EPA Region 4 announces its
intent to delete the Cedartown
Industries, Inc. site, located in
Cedartown, Polk County, Georgia, from
the NPL, which constitutes Appendix B
of the NCP, 40 CFR Part 300, and
requests comments on this proposed
action. EPA identifies sites on the NPL
that appear to present a significant risk
to public health, welfare, or the
environment. Sites on the NPL may be
the subject of remedial actions financed
by the Hazardous Substance Superfund
Trust Fund (Fund). Pursuant to
§ 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, any site
deleted from the NPL remains eligible
for Fund-financed remedial actions if
conditions at the site warrant such
action.
EPA will accept comments
concerning this proposed action for
thirty days after publication of this
notice in the Federal Register.
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
The NCP establishes the criteria that
the EPA uses to delete sites from the
NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR
300.425(e), sites may be deleted from, or
re-categorized on, the NPL where no
further response is appropriate. In
making this determination, EPA shall
consider, in consultation with the State,
whether any of the following criteria
have been met:
(i) Responsible or other parties have
implemented all appropriate response
actions required;
(ii) All appropriate Fund-financed
responses under CERCLA have been
implemented and no further action by
responsible parties is appropriate; or
(iii) The remedial investigation has
shown that the release poses no
significant threat to public health or the
environment and, therefore, taking of
remedial measures is not appropriate.
CERCLA Section 121(c), 42 U.S.C.
9621(c), provides in pertinent part that:
‘‘If the President selects a remedial action
that results in any hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the
Site, the President shall review such
remedial action no less often than each five
years after the initiation of such remedial
action to assure that human health and the
environment are being protected by the
remedial action being implemented. * * *’’
EPA policy interprets this provision
of CERCLA to apply to those sites where
treated, in this case solidified, waste
remains on-site. On that basis, for
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
30357
reasons set forth below, the statutory
requirement has been satisfied at this
Site, and five year reviews and
operation and maintenance activities
will be required. In the event new
information is discovered which
indicates a need for further action, EPA
may initiate appropriate remedial
actions. In addition, whenever there is
a significant release from a site
previously deleted from the NPL, that
site may be restored to the NPL without
application of the Hazardous Ranking
System. Accordingly, the Site is
qualified for deletion from the NPL.
III. Deletion Procedures
EPA will accept and evaluate public
comments before making a final
decision on deletion. The following
procedures were used for the intended
deletion of the site:
1. EPA has consulted with the GEPD
on this proposed action, and GEPD has
concurred with the deletion decision;
2. Concurrently with this Notice of
Intent, a notice has been published in
local newspapers and has been
distributed to appropriate federal, state
and local officials and other interested
parties announcing a 30-day public
comment period on the proposed
deletion from the NPL; and
3. The Region has made all relevant
documents available at the information
repositories.
The Region will respond to significant
comments, if any, submitted during the
comment period.
Deletion of the Site from the NPL does
not itself create, alter, or revoke any
individual rights or obligations. The
NPL is designed primarily for
informational purposes to assist Agency
management.
A deletion occurs when EPA’s
Regional Administrator places a final
notice in the Federal Register.
Generally, the NPL will reflect any
deletions in the final update following
the Notice. Public notices and copies of
the Responsiveness Summary, if any,
will be made available to local residents
by the Regional office.
IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion
The following site summary provides
the EPA’s rationale for the intention to
delete this Site from the NPL.
The Cedartown Industries, Inc. site is
located in Cedartown, Polk County,
Georgia. The Site is 6.8 acres in size and
it was used as an iron foundry
beginning in 1874, smelting iron ore
from regional iron mines northwest of
Cedartown. In addition to iron smelting,
pumps and plow blades were
manufactured, and a machine shop was
operated, beginning in the 1930s. Then,
E:\FR\FM\26MYP1.SGM
26MYP1
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
30358
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 102 / Friday, May 26, 2006 / Proposed Rules
from February 1978 to May 1980, the
site operated a secondary lead smelting
business. It is the lead smelting
operations that resulted in the majority
of the environmental impact at the Site.
In 1986, GEPD conducted a site
inspection and found approximately
5,000 cubic yards of slag material and
32,000 gallons of wastewater in an
inactive impoundment, in addition to
elevated concentrations of lead and
cadmium in site waste piles and in the
soil.
EPA proposed the site for inclusion
on the NPL in June 1988, finalizing the
site’s listing in February 1990.
In March 1990, under the direction of
the EPA, an Interim Waste Removal was
implemented to remove the slag pile,
contaminated soil and debris,
wastewater, and impoundment
sediment from the site; in all, a total of
8,380 tons of solid material was
disposed of off-site, in addition to 485,
360 pounds of liquid waste and a small
amount of reclaimed coke.
Based on Cedartown Industries, Inc.
records and other information, GEPD
and EPA identified a number of
potentially responsible parties (PRPs).
In 1990, the Cedartown Industries, Inc.
PRP Group entered into an
Administrative Order of Consent with
EPA. This Order required the
Cedartown Industries, Inc. PRP Group to
conduct a Remedial Investigation and
Feasibility Study (RI/FS) at the site. The
RI/FS was conducted from 1990 to 1993.
The purpose of the RI is to identify the
nature and extent of contamination,
whereas the purpose of the FS is to
identify the options available to
remediate this contamination.
The RI documented inorganic
contamination in soil and groundwater.
After reviewing the results of the RI/FS,
EPA issued a Record of Decision (ROD)
on May 7, 1993. The selected remedy
called for the excavation and onsite
treatment of impacted soils by
stabilization/solidification, with onsite
disposal. Soils with lead levels above
500 milligrams per kilogram were
excavated; these soils were then treated
until four treatment standards were met,
as detailed in the ROD. In addition, the
ROD also called for monitoring of the
groundwater beneath the site, with a
contingency remedy to be invoked at
EPA’s discretion, as necessary.
On May 24, 1994, a Consent Decree
was negotiated between EPA and the
Cedartown Industries, Inc. PRP Group,
for the performance of the Remedial
Design and the Remedial Action.
The Remedial Action was
implemented in 1996, with a total of
11,555 cubic yards of soils excavated
and treated. The final inspection was
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:00 May 25, 2006
Jkt 208001
conducted at the site on August 8, 1996,
with representatives present from EPA,
EPA’s oversight contractor, GEPD, the
supervising contractor, and the
remediation contractor, and the
property owner. This inspection
indicated that components of the
remedy had been constructed in
accordance with the ROD and the
remedial design, with two outstanding
items identified: Proper establishment
of the vegetative ground cover (i.e.,
grass) and stormwater accumulation.
Plans were made to address these two
items and a certificate of construction
completion was submitted to EPA in
September 1996, with EPA approval in
March 1997. Long term groundwater
monitoring was implemented in
September 1996 with quarterly
monitoring through 1998, followed by
semi-annual monitoring beginning in
1999. The contingent groundwater
remedy was not invoked at this site; the
latest sampling performed in 2005
showed no results above groundwater
standards.
In September 2001, EPA finalized a
Five Year Review for this site, which
included a site walk-through inspection.
The only deficiency noted during the
Five Year Review was the lack of a
comprehensive deed restriction, which
has since been addressed. The Five Year
Review concluded that the remedy is
functioning as intended and is
protective of human health and the
environment.
EPA, with the concurrence of the
GEPD, has determined that all
appropriate actions at the Cedartown
Industries, Inc. site have been
completed, and no further remedial
action is necessary. Therefore, EPA is
proposing deletion of the Site from the
NPL.
Editorial Note: This document was
received in the Office of the Federal Register
May 19, 2006.
Dated: February 22, 2006.
J.I. Palmer, Jr.,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. E6–7928 Filed 5–25–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services
42 CFR Part 414
[CMS–1317–P]
RIN 0938–AO11
Medicare Program; Revisions to the
Payment Policies of Ambulance
Services Under the Fee Schedule for
Ambulance Services
Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: We are proposing to set forth
changes to the fee schedule for payment
of ambulance services by adopting
revised geographic designations for
urban and rural areas as set forth in
Office of Management and Budget’s
(OMB) Core-Based Statistical Areas
(CBSAs) standard. We propose to
remove the definition of Goldsmith
modification and reference the most
recent version of Goldsmith
modification in the definition of rural
area. In addition, we propose to add the
definition of urban area as defined by
OMB and revise our definitions of
emergency response, rural area, and
specialty care transport (SCT).
We also propose to discontinue the
annual review of the conversion factor
(CF) and of air ambulance rates. We
would continue to monitor payment and
billing data on an ongoing basis and
make adjustments to the CF and to air
ambulance rates as appropriate to reflect
any significant changes in these data.
DATES: To be assured consideration,
comments must be received at one of
the addresses provided below, no later
than 5 p.m. on July 25, 2006.
ADDRESSES: In commenting, please refer
to file code CMS–1317–P. Because of
staff and resource limitations, we cannot
accept comments by facsimile (FAX)
transmission.
You may submit comments in one of
four ways (no duplicates, please):
1. Electronically. You may submit
electronic comments on specific issues
in this proposed regulation to https://
www.cms.hhs.gov/eRulemaking. Click
on the link ‘‘Submit electronic
comments on CMS regulations with an
open comment period.’’ (Attachments
should be in Microsoft Word,
WordPerfect, or Excel; however, we
prefer Microsoft Word.)
2. By regular mail. You may mail
written comments (one original and two
copies) to the following address ONLY:
E:\FR\FM\26MYP1.SGM
26MYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 102 (Friday, May 26, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30356-30358]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-7928]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA-R04-SFUND-2006-0385; FRL-8173-8]
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Notice of intent to delete the Cedartown Industries, Inc. site
from the National Priorities List: request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4
announces its intent to delete the Cedartown Industries, Inc. site (the
Site) from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public
comment on this proposed action. The NPL constitutes Appendix B of the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP),
40 CFR part 300, which EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. EPA and the State of Georgia
Environmental Protection Division (GEPD) have determined that the Site
poses no significant threat to public health or the environment and
therefore, further response measures pursuant to CERCLA are not
appropriate.
DATES: Comments concerning this proposed action may be submitted on or
before: June 26, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
SFUND-2006-0385, by one of the following methods:
https://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: farrier.brian@epa.gov
Fax: 404-562-8896/Attn Brian Farrier
Mail: Brian Farrier, U.S. EPA Region 4, WMD-SRTSB, 61
Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303. In addition, please mail a
copy of your comments on the information collection provisions to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), Attn Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-SFUND-
2006-0385. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
https://
[[Page 30357]]
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov or e-
mail. The https://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous
access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the
EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the U.S. EPA Region 4
office located at 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303.
Regional office is open from 7 a.m. until 6:30 p.m. Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays.
Written comments may be submitted to Brian Farrier within 30 days
of the date of this publication.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Farrier, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street,
SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303, or e-mail at farrier.brian@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion
I. Introduction
The EPA Region 4 announces its intent to delete the Cedartown
Industries, Inc. site, located in Cedartown, Polk County, Georgia, from
the NPL, which constitutes Appendix B of the NCP, 40 CFR Part 300, and
requests comments on this proposed action. EPA identifies sites on the
NPL that appear to present a significant risk to public health,
welfare, or the environment. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of
remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund Trust
Fund (Fund). Pursuant to Sec. 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, any site
deleted from the NPL remains eligible for Fund-financed remedial
actions if conditions at the site warrant such action.
EPA will accept comments concerning this proposed action for thirty
days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register.
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
The NCP establishes the criteria that the EPA uses to delete sites
from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be
deleted from, or re-categorized on, the NPL where no further response
is appropriate. In making this determination, EPA shall consider, in
consultation with the State, whether any of the following criteria have
been met:
(i) Responsible or other parties have implemented all appropriate
response actions required;
(ii) All appropriate Fund-financed responses under CERCLA have been
implemented and no further action by responsible parties is
appropriate; or
(iii) The remedial investigation has shown that the release poses
no significant threat to public health or the environment and,
therefore, taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.
CERCLA Section 121(c), 42 U.S.C. 9621(c), provides in pertinent
part that:
``If the President selects a remedial action that results in any
hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the
Site, the President shall review such remedial action no less often
than each five years after the initiation of such remedial action to
assure that human health and the environment are being protected by
the remedial action being implemented. * * *''
EPA policy interprets this provision of CERCLA to apply to those
sites where treated, in this case solidified, waste remains on-site. On
that basis, for reasons set forth below, the statutory requirement has
been satisfied at this Site, and five year reviews and operation and
maintenance activities will be required. In the event new information
is discovered which indicates a need for further action, EPA may
initiate appropriate remedial actions. In addition, whenever there is a
significant release from a site previously deleted from the NPL, that
site may be restored to the NPL without application of the Hazardous
Ranking System. Accordingly, the Site is qualified for deletion from
the NPL.
III. Deletion Procedures
EPA will accept and evaluate public comments before making a final
decision on deletion. The following procedures were used for the
intended deletion of the site:
1. EPA has consulted with the GEPD on this proposed action, and
GEPD has concurred with the deletion decision;
2. Concurrently with this Notice of Intent, a notice has been
published in local newspapers and has been distributed to appropriate
federal, state and local officials and other interested parties
announcing a 30-day public comment period on the proposed deletion from
the NPL; and
3. The Region has made all relevant documents available at the
information repositories.
The Region will respond to significant comments, if any, submitted
during the comment period.
Deletion of the Site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or
revoke any individual rights or obligations. The NPL is designed
primarily for informational purposes to assist Agency management.
A deletion occurs when EPA's Regional Administrator places a final
notice in the Federal Register. Generally, the NPL will reflect any
deletions in the final update following the Notice. Public notices and
copies of the Responsiveness Summary, if any, will be made available to
local residents by the Regional office.
IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion
The following site summary provides the EPA's rationale for the
intention to delete this Site from the NPL.
The Cedartown Industries, Inc. site is located in Cedartown, Polk
County, Georgia. The Site is 6.8 acres in size and it was used as an
iron foundry beginning in 1874, smelting iron ore from regional iron
mines northwest of Cedartown. In addition to iron smelting, pumps and
plow blades were manufactured, and a machine shop was operated,
beginning in the 1930s. Then,
[[Page 30358]]
from February 1978 to May 1980, the site operated a secondary lead
smelting business. It is the lead smelting operations that resulted in
the majority of the environmental impact at the Site.
In 1986, GEPD conducted a site inspection and found approximately
5,000 cubic yards of slag material and 32,000 gallons of wastewater in
an inactive impoundment, in addition to elevated concentrations of lead
and cadmium in site waste piles and in the soil.
EPA proposed the site for inclusion on the NPL in June 1988,
finalizing the site's listing in February 1990.
In March 1990, under the direction of the EPA, an Interim Waste
Removal was implemented to remove the slag pile, contaminated soil and
debris, wastewater, and impoundment sediment from the site; in all, a
total of 8,380 tons of solid material was disposed of off-site, in
addition to 485, 360 pounds of liquid waste and a small amount of
reclaimed coke.
Based on Cedartown Industries, Inc. records and other information,
GEPD and EPA identified a number of potentially responsible parties
(PRPs). In 1990, the Cedartown Industries, Inc. PRP Group entered into
an Administrative Order of Consent with EPA. This Order required the
Cedartown Industries, Inc. PRP Group to conduct a Remedial
Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) at the site. The RI/FS was
conducted from 1990 to 1993. The purpose of the RI is to identify the
nature and extent of contamination, whereas the purpose of the FS is to
identify the options available to remediate this contamination.
The RI documented inorganic contamination in soil and groundwater.
After reviewing the results of the RI/FS, EPA issued a Record of
Decision (ROD) on May 7, 1993. The selected remedy called for the
excavation and onsite treatment of impacted soils by stabilization/
solidification, with onsite disposal. Soils with lead levels above 500
milligrams per kilogram were excavated; these soils were then treated
until four treatment standards were met, as detailed in the ROD. In
addition, the ROD also called for monitoring of the groundwater beneath
the site, with a contingency remedy to be invoked at EPA's discretion,
as necessary.
On May 24, 1994, a Consent Decree was negotiated between EPA and
the Cedartown Industries, Inc. PRP Group, for the performance of the
Remedial Design and the Remedial Action.
The Remedial Action was implemented in 1996, with a total of 11,555
cubic yards of soils excavated and treated. The final inspection was
conducted at the site on August 8, 1996, with representatives present
from EPA, EPA's oversight contractor, GEPD, the supervising contractor,
and the remediation contractor, and the property owner. This inspection
indicated that components of the remedy had been constructed in
accordance with the ROD and the remedial design, with two outstanding
items identified: Proper establishment of the vegetative ground cover
(i.e., grass) and stormwater accumulation. Plans were made to address
these two items and a certificate of construction completion was
submitted to EPA in September 1996, with EPA approval in March 1997.
Long term groundwater monitoring was implemented in September 1996 with
quarterly monitoring through 1998, followed by semi-annual monitoring
beginning in 1999. The contingent groundwater remedy was not invoked at
this site; the latest sampling performed in 2005 showed no results
above groundwater standards.
In September 2001, EPA finalized a Five Year Review for this site,
which included a site walk-through inspection. The only deficiency
noted during the Five Year Review was the lack of a comprehensive deed
restriction, which has since been addressed. The Five Year Review
concluded that the remedy is functioning as intended and is protective
of human health and the environment.
EPA, with the concurrence of the GEPD, has determined that all
appropriate actions at the Cedartown Industries, Inc. site have been
completed, and no further remedial action is necessary. Therefore, EPA
is proposing deletion of the Site from the NPL.
Editorial Note: This document was received in the Office of the
Federal Register May 19, 2006.
Dated: February 22, 2006.
J.I. Palmer, Jr.,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. E6-7928 Filed 5-25-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
