National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List Update, 45381-45384 [E7-15891]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
provisions of § 52.21 except paragraph
(a)(1) are hereby incorporated and made
part of the applicable plan for Indian
reservations in the State of Alaska.
[FR Doc. E7–15669 Filed 8–13–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1986–0005; FRL–8454–1]
National Oil and Hazardous Substance
Pollution Contingency Plan; National
Priorities List Update
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Direct final notice of deletion of
the Bailey Waste Disposal Superfund
Site from the National Priorities List.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Region 6 is publishing a
direct final notice of deletion of the
Bailey Waste Disposal Superfund Site
(Site), located near Bridge City, Texas,
from the National Priorities List (NPL).
The NPL, promulgated pursuant to
Section 105 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is
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 Texas, through the Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality
(TCEQ), 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 notice of
deletion will be effective October 15,
2007 unless EPA receives adverse
comments by September 13, 2007. If
adverse comments are received, EPA
will publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final notice of deletion in the
Federal Register informing the public
that the deletion will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
SFUND–1986–0005, by one of the
following methods:
https://www.regulations.gov (Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments).
E-mail: walters.donn@epa.gov.
Fax: 214–665–6660.
Mail: Donn Walters, Community
Involvement, U.S. EPA Region 6 (6SF–
TS), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:59 Aug 13, 2007
Jkt 211001
75202–2733, (214) 665–6483 or 1–800–
533–3508.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–SFUND–1986–
0005. EPA policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information,
disclosure of which is restricted by
statute. Do not submit information that
you consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected. 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 https://
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail
address will automatically be captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption and be free of any defects or
viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information disclosure of which 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 at https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the information repositories.
Information Repositories:
Comprehensive information about the
Site is available for viewing and copying
during central standard time at the Site
information repositories located at: U.S.
EPA Online Library System at https://
www.epa.gov/natlibra/ols.htm; U.S.
EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite
700, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, (214)
665–6617, by appointment only Monday
through Friday 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. and 1
p.m. to 4 p.m.; Marion and Ed Hughes
Public Library, 2712 Nederland Avenue,
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
45381
Nederland, Texas 77627, (409) 722–
1255, Monday 1 p.m. to 9 p.m., Tuesday
through Friday 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. and
closed Saturday–Sunday; City of Orange
Public Library, 220 N. 5th Street,
Orange, Texas 77630, (409) 883–1086,
Saturday and Monday 10 am to 2 p.m.,
Tuesday 12 p.m. to 8 p.m., Wednesday
through Friday 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. and
closed Sunday; Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality (TCEQ), Central
File Room Customer Service Center,
Building E, 12100 Park 35 Circle,
Austin, Texas 78753, (512) 239–2900,
Monday through Friday 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Scott Harris, PhD, Remedial Project
Manager (RPM), U.S. EPA Region 6
(6SF–RA), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,
TX 75202–2733, (214) 665–7114 or 1–
800–533–3508 or harris.scott@epa.gov.
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 6 office is publishing
this direct final notice of deletion of the
Bailey Waste Disposal 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.
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 October 15, 2007 unless
EPA receives adverse comments by
September 13, 2007 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
notice of 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
E:\FR\FM\14AUR1.SGM
14AUR1
45382
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
IV discusses the Bailey Waste Disposal
Superfund Site, and demonstrates how
it meets the deletion criteria. Section V
discusses EPA actions to delete the Site
from the NPL unless adverse comments
are received during the public comment
period.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
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 Fund-financed
(Hazardous Substance Superfund
Response Trust Fund) response under
CERCLA has been implemented, and no
further response 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, 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 action
remains protective of public health and
the environment. If new information
becomes available that 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 deleted site may be
restored to the NPL without application
of the hazard ranking system.
III. Deletion Procedures
The following procedures apply to
deletion of the Site:
(1) The EPA consulted with TCEQ on
the deletion of the Site from the NPL
prior to developing this direct final
notice of deletion.
(2) TCEQ concurred with deletion of
the Site from the NPL.
(3) Concurrent with publication of
this direct final notice of deletion, a
notice of 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,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:59 Aug 13, 2007
Jkt 211001
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.
(4) The EPA placed copies of
documents supporting the deletion in
the Site information repositories
identified above.
(5) 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 a 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.
IV. Basis for Site Deletion
The following information provides
EPA’s rationale for deleting this Site
from the NPL.
Site Location
The Bailey Waste Disposal Site is
located approximately three (3) miles
southwest of Bridge City in Orange
County, Texas, and was originally part
of a tidal marsh near the confluence of
the Neches River and Sabine Lake. The
total site area includes two rectangular
ponds and occupies approximately 280
acres. However, numerous
investigations provided data to
minimize the areas of the site that
required remediation. These areas
include the North Marsh Area
(approximately four acres), the North
Dike Area (approximately 7.8 acres) and
the East Dike Area (approximately 7.6
acres).
Site History
The Site is situated in a sparsely
populated marsh area, surrounded by
primarily industrial land use. Two
ponds, A and B, were constructed on
the property by the landowner, Mr. Joe
Bailey, as part of the Bailey Fish Camp
in the early 1950s by dredging the
marsh and piling the sediments to form
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
levees, which surrounded the ponds.
The fish camp was active until
September 1961, when it was destroyed
by Hurricane Carla, which introduced
saline waters into the ponds, killing the
freshwater fish. Mr. Bailey operated the
site pursuant to his ownership and
leasehold interests from the early 1950s
through March or April 1971.
Following the hurricane, Mr. Bailey
allowed the disposal of industrial and
municipal waste within the levees along
the north and east margins of Pond A
(the North Dike Area and the East Dike
Area, respectively). In addition to the
waste located within the North Dike
Area, which includes waste contained
in Pits A–l, A–2, A–3, and B, and the
East Dike Area, waste was also present
in the North Marsh Area. Major
contaminants within the waste included
ethyl benzene, styrene, benzene,
chlorinated hydrocarbons and
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons.
Waste disposal operations at the Site
ceased in 1971, and it was purchased by
Gulf State Utilities.
The North Dike Area is currently
managed as a Texas Prairie Wetlands
Project in cooperation with the Texas
Parks & Wildlife, Ducks Unlimited, the
U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural
Resources Conservation Service and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. There is
little likelihood of additional
development.
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility
Study (RI/FS)
In December 1984 the state of Texas
entered into a cooperative agreement
with EPA to conduct an RI/FS. Based on
results from preliminary assessments,
the Site was placed on the NPL on May
20, 1986, with the Texas Water
Commission (TWC) as the lead agency.
The TWC completed Rl activities at the
Site in October 1987, concluding: The
Site has had no impact on drinking
water and it would take over 800 years
to reach potable groundwater, but that
existing site conditions could degrade
through a flood or other natural
occurrences, releasing the contaminants
contained in the dikes into the
surrounding marsh. At the time of the
RI, there had been no development in
the immediate vicinity of the Site, nor
was it likely to be suitable for future
development due to prohibitions against
development in wetland areas. Upon
completion of the RI, EPA assumed the
role of lead agency and, under the terms
of an administrative order on consent, a
group of potentially responsible parties
(PRPs), the Bailey Site Settlors
Committee (BSSC), completed a
feasibility study (FS) in April 1988.
E:\FR\FM\14AUR1.SGM
14AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
Characterization of Risk
Cleanup Standards
Data collected during the RI indicated
that should hazardous substances be
released from the Site that might
endanger public health, welfare, or the
environment, the most significant risks
to human health and the environment
included: Direct contact with organic
compounds and heavy metals
determined to be carcinogens via
absorption through the skin or other
routes of inadvertent intake; air
emissions of volatile organic
compounds; surface waters (marsh)
directly contacted by the waste,
including organic compounds and
heavy metals; and shallow groundwater
directly beneath the waste contaminated
with organic compounds and heavy
metals.
The remedial action objectives were
to minimize the potential for waste
migration, protect human health and the
environment, prevent future
contamination of surface water and
groundwater and minimize short-term
air emissions resulting from remedial
activities.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Record of Decision Findings
Based on the FS, EPA selected an insitu stabilization and capping remedy,
issuing the site ROD in June 1988. In
July 1988 EPA, pursuant to section 122
of CERCLA, issued special notice letters
to the PRPs providing them an
opportunity to enter into an agreement
to perform the remedial action. In
September 1988 the BSSC submitted to
EPA its ‘‘Good Faith Offer,’’ and an
agreement to conduct the remedial
action was reached. This agreement
provided that the Settlors, as defined in
the Consent Decree, would carry out the
remedy selected by EPA, and that EPA
would reimburse the Settlors for a
portion of the costs to implement the
remedy. However, because of
demonstrated difficulties in achieving
in-situ stabilization specifications and
the finding that successful
implementation of the original remedy
would, if possible at all, be significantly
more difficult, more time-consuming
and more costly to implement than was
contemplated at the time the original
Record of Decision (ROD) was issued,
EPA requested that the BSSC conduct a
Focused Feasibility Study (FFS). FFS
activities commenced in June 1995, and
were completed in October 1996. The
Revised Remedial Action was
developed as a result of the FFS, and the
ROD was amended in December 1996
consistent with the conclusions of the
FFS. The amended ROD replaced the insitu stabilization component of the
original remedy with lightweight
composite caps and the removal of
certain wastes. February 8, 1996 and
May 1, 1996 Explanations of Significant
Difference (ESDs) documented the
removal and offsite disposal of wastes,
which was not specified in the original
remedy.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:59 Aug 13, 2007
Jkt 211001
Response Actions
After numerous in-situ stabilization
attempts, subsequent investigations and
a stabilization field pilot study, it was
determined that the waste stabilization
performance standards established in
the ROD and the remedial design
would, if possible at all, be significantly
more difficult, more time-consuming,
and more costly to implement than was
contemplated at the time the original
ROD was issued. Due to these
difficulties, outlined in the Amended
ROD (1996), implementation of the
original remedy was not completed.
Before that determination was made, the
original action accomplished: Waste/
soil interface evaluation; consolidation
and relocation of shallow wastes;
construction of clay dikes; construction
of access roads; stabilization of
approximately one-third of the East Dike
Area; south drum disposal area
remediation; and construction of a
wastewater treatment plant. Between
February and May 1996, additional
actions taken included excavation of
approximately 20,000 cubic yards of
waste and affected sediments and
transportation of this material to an offsite industrial landfill for disposal,
excavation and onsite relocation of
waste and affected sediments and
placement of interim soil covers. Final
removal activities included: Relocation
and consolidation of wastes within the
limits of the area to be capped;
installation of a temporary water
collection system to intercept and
remove groundwater; construction of
lightweight composite caps; installation
of riprap along the cap perimeter for
erosion and scour protection;
installation of storm water management
controls; construction of maintenance
roads; and installation of a passive gas
venting system.
The EPA and the Texas Natural
Resource Conservation Commission
(TNRCC) conducted a pre-final site
inspection on July 31, 1997, and on
August 20, 1997 the EPA conducted a
final site inspection. All items noted in
the pre-final site inspection were found
to have been satisfactorily addressed
with the exception of the removal of the
silt fences, which were left in place
until the establishment of vegetative
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
45383
growth on the cap surface. During the
third quarterly site inspection
conducted on May 29, 1998, EPA noted
that the silt fences had been removed.
The Preliminary Close Out Report
signed on September 14, 1998 notes that
the remedy had been constructed in
accordance with the remedial design
plans and specifications and was
operational and functional.
On May 4, 1998, the EPA approved
the Final Remedial Action Report for
the Site. The final report documents that
the remedial action for the site was
completed in accordance with the ROD,
Explanations of Significant Differences
and the ROD Amendment for the site,
and that the final site inspection had
been conducted for construction
activities. This action initiated the
Operation and Maintenance phase
under EPA oversight, with site O&M
activities required of the BSSC.
Operation and Maintenance (O&M)
In September 1997 EPA approved the
Final Inspection, Maintenance and
Monitoring Plan (IMMP) for the Site.
The purpose of the IMMP is to
document procedures to be used to
assess and maintain the long-term
protectiveness of the remedy while
minimizing adverse natural or manmade impacts on the Site. The Plan
requires of the BSSC (1) regular
inspection of the Site, including
grounds, fencing, signs, access roads,
bridge, vegetative cover, erosion control
(riprap), evidence of erosion, gas vents,
free movement of water and soil
depression or settlement, (2) visits to the
Site as needed to check site security and
evaluate damage from severe weather
events such as hurricanes, (3)
maintenance, including regular mowing
and clearance of trees and weeds from
the capped and riprapped areas, repair
of animal burrow damage, clearance of
gas vent obstructions, silt removal if
impeding the free flow of water within
the diked area, repair or replacement of
fences and signs, road and bridge
repairs and periodic bridge
recertification and (4) regular reporting
of these activities to EPA through a
formal Site Inspection Report. These
reports are reviewed by the Remedial
Program manager (RPM) when received,
and are one component of the ongoing
five-year reviews.
Institutional controls (ICs) are a
necessary component of maintaining the
long-term protectiveness of the remedy.
ICs are legal and administrative
measures that prevent exposure to
contaminants that may remain at a site
at concentrations above health-based
risk levels. They are typically designed
to limit activities at or near the Site, and
E:\FR\FM\14AUR1.SGM
14AUR1
45384
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
include requirements for providing
notice (i.e., deed recordation) in the real
property records for properties where
residual contamination will remain. For
this Site, the ICs include a deed
recordation with a notice that buried
contaminants remain on the property,
and a prohibition against any reuse,
development or other activities that
might disturb or damage the affected
areas without the approval of EPA,
TCEQ and the property owner. The
requirement for institutional controls
was met through the August 2, 2006
deed recordation in the Official Public
Records of Real Property of Orange
County, Texas for each of the two
capped areas.
Five-Year Review
Hazardous substances remain at the
Site above levels that allow for
unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure. Therefore, the EPA must
conduct a statutory five-year review of
the remedy no less than every five years
after the initiation of the remedial action
pursuant to CERCLA Section 121(c), and
as provided in the current guidance on
Five Year Reviews (OSWER Directive
9355.7–03B–P, Comprehensive FiveYear Review Guidance, June 2001).
Based on the five-year reviews, EPA will
determine whether human health and
the environment continue to be
adequately protected by the
implemented remedy. Five-year reviews
for this Site were completed in
September 2000 and September 2005.
The reviews found that the remedy
remains protective of human health and
the environment, and that the Site
appears to have been properly
maintained during the period between
reports. The next five-year review will
occur no later than September 2010.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Community Involvement
Public participation activities
required in CERCLA Section 113(k), 42
U.S.C. 9613(k), and CERCLA Section
117, 42 U.S.C. 9617, have been satisfied,
and documents which EPA generated
and/or relied on are available to the
public in these information repositories.
V. Deletion Action
The EPA, with concurrence of the
State of Texas, has determined that all
appropriate responses under CERCLA
have been completed, and that no
further response actions under CERCLA,
other than O&M and five-year reviews,
are necessary. Therefore, EPA is
deleting the Site from the NPL.
Because EPA considers this action to
be noncontroversial and routine, EPA is
taking it without prior publication. This
action will be effective October 15, 2007
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:59 Aug 13, 2007
Jkt 211001
unless EPA receives adverse comments
by September 13, 2007. If adverse
comments are received within the 30day 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. The EPA will prepare a
response to comments and continue
with the deletion process on the basis of
the notice of intent to delete and the
comments already received. There will
be no additional opportunity to
comment.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous
waste, Hazardous substances,
Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.
Dated: July 19, 2007.
Richard E. Greene,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 6.
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
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 Texas (‘‘TX’’) by
removing the entry for ‘‘Bailey Waste
Disposal.’’
I
[FR Doc. E7–15891 Filed 8–13–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
49 CFR Part 1243
[STB Ex Parte No. 661 (Sub-No. 1)]
Rail Fuel Surcharge Reporting
Surface Transportation Board,
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Surface Transportation
Board is amending its regulations to
require Class I railroads to report certain
data concerning fuel costs and fuel
surcharges billed. The data reported
pursuant to this rule will provide an
overall picture of the use of fuel
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
surcharges and will permit the Board to
monitor the fuel surcharge practices of
Class I carriers. The new rule will be
codified as 49 CFR 1243.3. The
reporting form can be found in an
Appendix to this section.
DATES: This rule is effective November
12, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Comments and material
received from the public, as well as
documents referred to herein, are part of
the Board’s docket in STB Ex Parte No.
661 (Sub-No. 1) and are available for
inspection or copying at the Board’s
Public Docket Room, Room 131, 395 E
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423–
0001, are posted on the Board’s Web
site, at https://www.stb.dot.gov, and are
available from the Board’s contractor,
ASAP Document Solutions (mailing
address: Suite 103, 9332 Annapolis Rd.,
Lanham, MD 20706; e-mail address:
asapdc@verizon.net; telephone number:
202–306–4004).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Joseph H. Dettmar at 202–245–0395.
[Assistance for the hearing impaired is
available through the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
1–800–877–8339.]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Board
instituted this proceeding, in
conjunction with our decision in Rail
Fuel Surcharges, STB Ex Parte No. 661
(STB served Jan. 26, 2007), to solicit
comments, pursuant to the Paperwork
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
(PRA) and Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR
1320.8(d)(3), regarding the Board’s
proposal to require all Class I (large)
railroads to submit a monthly report
containing the following information:
(1) Total monthly fuel cost; (2) gallons
of fuel consumed during the month; (3)
increased or decreased cost of fuel over
the previous month; and (4) total
monthly revenue from fuel surcharges.
In Rail Fuel Surcharges, STB Ex Parte
No. 661 (Sub-No. 1) (STB served Jan. 26,
2007) (published at 72 FR 4676 on Feb.
1, 2007), the Board sought comments
regarding: (1) Whether the particular
collection of information described
above is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
Board, including whether the collection
has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of
the Board’s burden estimates; (3) ways
to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information collected; and
(4) ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on the
respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology,
when appropriate.
E:\FR\FM\14AUR1.SGM
14AUR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 14, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45381-45384]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-15891]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1986-0005; FRL-8454-1]
National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List Update
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Direct final notice of deletion of the Bailey Waste Disposal
Superfund Site from the National Priorities List.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 6 is
publishing a direct final notice of deletion of the Bailey Waste
Disposal Superfund Site (Site), located near Bridge City, Texas, from
the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, promulgated pursuant to
Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is 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 Texas, through the Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), 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 notice of deletion will be effective October
15, 2007 unless EPA receives adverse comments by September 13, 2007. If
adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of
the direct final notice of deletion in the Federal Register informing
the public that the deletion will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-1986-0005, by one of the following methods:
https://www.regulations.gov (Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments).
E-mail: walters.donn@epa.gov.
Fax: 214-665-6660.
Mail: Donn Walters, Community Involvement, U.S. EPA Region 6 (6SF-
TS), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202-2733, (214) 665-6483 or 1-800-
533-3508.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
1986-0005. EPA policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information,
disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. 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 https://www.regulations.gov, your
e-mail address will automatically be captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption and be free of any defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
disclosure of which 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 at https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the
information repositories.
Information Repositories: Comprehensive information about the Site
is available for viewing and copying during central standard time at
the Site information repositories located at: U.S. EPA Online Library
System at https://www.epa.gov/natlibra/ols.htm; U.S. EPA Region 6, 1445
Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, (214) 665-6617, by
appointment only Monday through Friday 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. and 1 p.m. to
4 p.m.; Marion and Ed Hughes Public Library, 2712 Nederland Avenue,
Nederland, Texas 77627, (409) 722-1255, Monday 1 p.m. to 9 p.m.,
Tuesday through Friday 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. and closed Saturday-Sunday;
City of Orange Public Library, 220 N. 5th Street, Orange, Texas 77630,
(409) 883-1086, Saturday and Monday 10 am to 2 p.m., Tuesday 12 p.m. to
8 p.m., Wednesday through Friday 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. and closed Sunday;
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), Central File Room
Customer Service Center, Building E, 12100 Park 35 Circle, Austin,
Texas 78753, (512) 239-2900, Monday through Friday 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Harris, PhD, Remedial Project
Manager (RPM), U.S. EPA Region 6 (6SF-RA), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX
75202-2733, (214) 665-7114 or 1-800-533-3508 or harris.scott@epa.gov.
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 6 office is publishing this direct final notice of
deletion of the Bailey Waste Disposal 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.
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 October 15, 2007 unless
EPA receives adverse comments by September 13, 2007 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 notice of 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
[[Page 45382]]
IV discusses the Bailey Waste Disposal Superfund Site, and demonstrates
how it meets the deletion criteria. Section V discusses EPA actions to
delete the Site from the NPL unless adverse comments are received
during the public 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 Fund-financed (Hazardous Substance Superfund
Response Trust Fund) response under CERCLA has been implemented, and no
further response 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,
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 action remains
protective of public health and the environment. If new information
becomes available that 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 deleted site may be restored to the
NPL without application of the hazard ranking system.
III. Deletion Procedures
The following procedures apply to deletion of the Site:
(1) The EPA consulted with TCEQ on the deletion of the Site from
the NPL prior to developing this direct final notice of deletion.
(2) TCEQ concurred with deletion of the Site from the NPL.
(3) Concurrent with publication of this direct final notice of
deletion, a notice of 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.
(4) The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the deletion in
the Site information repositories identified above.
(5) 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 a 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.
IV. Basis for Site Deletion
The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting
this Site from the NPL.
Site Location
The Bailey Waste Disposal Site is located approximately three (3)
miles southwest of Bridge City in Orange County, Texas, and was
originally part of a tidal marsh near the confluence of the Neches
River and Sabine Lake. The total site area includes two rectangular
ponds and occupies approximately 280 acres. However, numerous
investigations provided data to minimize the areas of the site that
required remediation. These areas include the North Marsh Area
(approximately four acres), the North Dike Area (approximately 7.8
acres) and the East Dike Area (approximately 7.6 acres).
Site History
The Site is situated in a sparsely populated marsh area, surrounded
by primarily industrial land use. Two ponds, A and B, were constructed
on the property by the landowner, Mr. Joe Bailey, as part of the Bailey
Fish Camp in the early 1950s by dredging the marsh and piling the
sediments to form levees, which surrounded the ponds. The fish camp was
active until September 1961, when it was destroyed by Hurricane Carla,
which introduced saline waters into the ponds, killing the freshwater
fish. Mr. Bailey operated the site pursuant to his ownership and
leasehold interests from the early 1950s through March or April 1971.
Following the hurricane, Mr. Bailey allowed the disposal of
industrial and municipal waste within the levees along the north and
east margins of Pond A (the North Dike Area and the East Dike Area,
respectively). In addition to the waste located within the North Dike
Area, which includes waste contained in Pits A-l, A-2, A-3, and B, and
the East Dike Area, waste was also present in the North Marsh Area.
Major contaminants within the waste included ethyl benzene, styrene,
benzene, chlorinated hydrocarbons and polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons. Waste disposal operations at the Site ceased in 1971, and
it was purchased by Gulf State Utilities.
The North Dike Area is currently managed as a Texas Prairie
Wetlands Project in cooperation with the Texas Parks & Wildlife, Ducks
Unlimited, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources
Conservation Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. There is
little likelihood of additional development.
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)
In December 1984 the state of Texas entered into a cooperative
agreement with EPA to conduct an RI/FS. Based on results from
preliminary assessments, the Site was placed on the NPL on May 20,
1986, with the Texas Water Commission (TWC) as the lead agency. The TWC
completed Rl activities at the Site in October 1987, concluding: The
Site has had no impact on drinking water and it would take over 800
years to reach potable groundwater, but that existing site conditions
could degrade through a flood or other natural occurrences, releasing
the contaminants contained in the dikes into the surrounding marsh. At
the time of the RI, there had been no development in the immediate
vicinity of the Site, nor was it likely to be suitable for future
development due to prohibitions against development in wetland areas.
Upon completion of the RI, EPA assumed the role of lead agency and,
under the terms of an administrative order on consent, a group of
potentially responsible parties (PRPs), the Bailey Site Settlors
Committee (BSSC), completed a feasibility study (FS) in April 1988.
[[Page 45383]]
Characterization of Risk
Data collected during the RI indicated that should hazardous
substances be released from the Site that might endanger public health,
welfare, or the environment, the most significant risks to human health
and the environment included: Direct contact with organic compounds and
heavy metals determined to be carcinogens via absorption through the
skin or other routes of inadvertent intake; air emissions of volatile
organic compounds; surface waters (marsh) directly contacted by the
waste, including organic compounds and heavy metals; and shallow
groundwater directly beneath the waste contaminated with organic
compounds and heavy metals.
Record of Decision Findings
Based on the FS, EPA selected an in-situ stabilization and capping
remedy, issuing the site ROD in June 1988. In July 1988 EPA, pursuant
to section 122 of CERCLA, issued special notice letters to the PRPs
providing them an opportunity to enter into an agreement to perform the
remedial action. In September 1988 the BSSC submitted to EPA its ``Good
Faith Offer,'' and an agreement to conduct the remedial action was
reached. This agreement provided that the Settlors, as defined in the
Consent Decree, would carry out the remedy selected by EPA, and that
EPA would reimburse the Settlors for a portion of the costs to
implement the remedy. However, because of demonstrated difficulties in
achieving in-situ stabilization specifications and the finding that
successful implementation of the original remedy would, if possible at
all, be significantly more difficult, more time-consuming and more
costly to implement than was contemplated at the time the original
Record of Decision (ROD) was issued, EPA requested that the BSSC
conduct a Focused Feasibility Study (FFS). FFS activities commenced in
June 1995, and were completed in October 1996. The Revised Remedial
Action was developed as a result of the FFS, and the ROD was amended in
December 1996 consistent with the conclusions of the FFS. The amended
ROD replaced the in-situ stabilization component of the original remedy
with lightweight composite caps and the removal of certain wastes.
February 8, 1996 and May 1, 1996 Explanations of Significant Difference
(ESDs) documented the removal and offsite disposal of wastes, which was
not specified in the original remedy.
Cleanup Standards
The remedial action objectives were to minimize the potential for
waste migration, protect human health and the environment, prevent
future contamination of surface water and groundwater and minimize
short-term air emissions resulting from remedial activities.
Response Actions
After numerous in-situ stabilization attempts, subsequent
investigations and a stabilization field pilot study, it was determined
that the waste stabilization performance standards established in the
ROD and the remedial design would, if possible at all, be significantly
more difficult, more time-consuming, and more costly to implement than
was contemplated at the time the original ROD was issued. Due to these
difficulties, outlined in the Amended ROD (1996), implementation of the
original remedy was not completed. Before that determination was made,
the original action accomplished: Waste/soil interface evaluation;
consolidation and relocation of shallow wastes; construction of clay
dikes; construction of access roads; stabilization of approximately
one-third of the East Dike Area; south drum disposal area remediation;
and construction of a wastewater treatment plant. Between February and
May 1996, additional actions taken included excavation of approximately
20,000 cubic yards of waste and affected sediments and transportation
of this material to an off-site industrial landfill for disposal,
excavation and onsite relocation of waste and affected sediments and
placement of interim soil covers. Final removal activities included:
Relocation and consolidation of wastes within the limits of the area to
be capped; installation of a temporary water collection system to
intercept and remove groundwater; construction of lightweight composite
caps; installation of riprap along the cap perimeter for erosion and
scour protection; installation of storm water management controls;
construction of maintenance roads; and installation of a passive gas
venting system.
The EPA and the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
(TNRCC) conducted a pre-final site inspection on July 31, 1997, and on
August 20, 1997 the EPA conducted a final site inspection. All items
noted in the pre-final site inspection were found to have been
satisfactorily addressed with the exception of the removal of the silt
fences, which were left in place until the establishment of vegetative
growth on the cap surface. During the third quarterly site inspection
conducted on May 29, 1998, EPA noted that the silt fences had been
removed. The Preliminary Close Out Report signed on September 14, 1998
notes that the remedy had been constructed in accordance with the
remedial design plans and specifications and was operational and
functional.
On May 4, 1998, the EPA approved the Final Remedial Action Report
for the Site. The final report documents that the remedial action for
the site was completed in accordance with the ROD, Explanations of
Significant Differences and the ROD Amendment for the site, and that
the final site inspection had been conducted for construction
activities. This action initiated the Operation and Maintenance phase
under EPA oversight, with site O&M activities required of the BSSC.
Operation and Maintenance (O&M)
In September 1997 EPA approved the Final Inspection, Maintenance
and Monitoring Plan (IMMP) for the Site. The purpose of the IMMP is to
document procedures to be used to assess and maintain the long-term
protectiveness of the remedy while minimizing adverse natural or man-
made impacts on the Site. The Plan requires of the BSSC (1) regular
inspection of the Site, including grounds, fencing, signs, access
roads, bridge, vegetative cover, erosion control (riprap), evidence of
erosion, gas vents, free movement of water and soil depression or
settlement, (2) visits to the Site as needed to check site security and
evaluate damage from severe weather events such as hurricanes, (3)
maintenance, including regular mowing and clearance of trees and weeds
from the capped and riprapped areas, repair of animal burrow damage,
clearance of gas vent obstructions, silt removal if impeding the free
flow of water within the diked area, repair or replacement of fences
and signs, road and bridge repairs and periodic bridge recertification
and (4) regular reporting of these activities to EPA through a formal
Site Inspection Report. These reports are reviewed by the Remedial
Program manager (RPM) when received, and are one component of the
ongoing five-year reviews.
Institutional controls (ICs) are a necessary component of
maintaining the long-term protectiveness of the remedy. ICs are legal
and administrative measures that prevent exposure to contaminants that
may remain at a site at concentrations above health-based risk levels.
They are typically designed to limit activities at or near the Site,
and
[[Page 45384]]
include requirements for providing notice (i.e., deed recordation) in
the real property records for properties where residual contamination
will remain. For this Site, the ICs include a deed recordation with a
notice that buried contaminants remain on the property, and a
prohibition against any reuse, development or other activities that
might disturb or damage the affected areas without the approval of EPA,
TCEQ and the property owner. The requirement for institutional controls
was met through the August 2, 2006 deed recordation in the Official
Public Records of Real Property of Orange County, Texas for each of the
two capped areas.
Five-Year Review
Hazardous substances remain at the Site above levels that allow for
unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. Therefore, the EPA must
conduct a statutory five-year review of the remedy no less than every
five years after the initiation of the remedial action pursuant to
CERCLA Section 121(c), and as provided in the current guidance on Five
Year Reviews (OSWER Directive 9355.7-03B-P, Comprehensive Five-Year
Review Guidance, June 2001). Based on the five-year reviews, EPA will
determine whether human health and the environment continue to be
adequately protected by the implemented remedy. Five-year reviews for
this Site were completed in September 2000 and September 2005. The
reviews found that the remedy remains protective of human health and
the environment, and that the Site appears to have been properly
maintained during the period between reports. The next five-year review
will occur no later than September 2010.
Community Involvement
Public participation activities required in CERCLA Section 113(k),
42 U.S.C. 9613(k), and CERCLA Section 117, 42 U.S.C. 9617, have been
satisfied, and documents which EPA generated and/or relied on are
available to the public in these information repositories.
V. Deletion Action
The EPA, with concurrence of the State of Texas, has determined
that all appropriate responses under CERCLA have been completed, and
that no further response actions under CERCLA, other than O&M and five-
year reviews, are necessary. Therefore, EPA is deleting the Site from
the NPL.
Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and
routine, EPA is taking it without prior publication. This action will
be effective October 15, 2007 unless EPA receives adverse comments by
September 13, 2007. 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. The EPA will prepare a response
to comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the
notice of intent to delete and the comments already received. There
will be no additional opportunity to comment.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.
Dated: July 19, 2007.
Richard E. Greene,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 6.
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 Texas (``TX'') by
removing the entry for ``Bailey Waste Disposal.''
[FR Doc. E7-15891 Filed 8-13-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P