National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites; Partial Withdrawal of Proposed Rules, 22922-22924 [2021-08988]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
22922
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 82 / Friday, April 30, 2021 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (h)(4)—Continued
No.
Enforcement period(s)
Location
Safety zone—regulated area
3 ................
July 1st Saturday, July 4th ...
4 ................
May—3rd or 4th Saturday:
July 4th.
July 4th or 5th .......................
Green Creek and Smith
Creek, Oriental, NC, Safety Zone.
Pasquotank River, Elizabeth
City, NC, Safety Zone.
Currituck Sound, Corolla,
NC, Safety Zone.
The waters of Green Creek and Smith Creek that fall within a 300-yard radius of the
fireworks launch site at approximate latitude 35°01′29.6″ N, longitude 076°42′10.4″
W, located near the entrance to the Neuse River in the vicinity of Oriental, NC.
The waters of the Pasquotank River within a 300-yard radius of the fireworks launch
barge in approximate position latitude 36°17′47″ N, longitude 076°12′17″ W.
The waters of the Currituck Sound within a 300-yard radius of the fireworks launch site
in approximate position latitude 36°22′23.8″ N, longitude 075°49′56.3″ W, located
near Whale Head Bay.
The waters of the Figure Eight Island Causeway Channel from latitude 34°16′32″ N,
longitude 077°45′32″ W, thence east along the marsh to latitude 34°16′19″ N, longitude 077°44′55″ W, thence south to the causeway at latitude 34°16′16″ N, longitude
077°44′58″ W, thence west along the shoreline to latitude 34°16′29″ N, longitude
077°45′34″ W, thence back to the point of origin.
The waters of Pamlico River and Tar River within a 300-yard radius of the fireworks
launch site at approximate position latitude 35°32′25″ N, longitude 077°03′42″ W, a
position located on the southwest shore of the Pamlico River, Washington, NC.
The waters of the Neuse River within a 360-yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position latitude 35°06′07.1″ N, longitude 077°01′35.8″ W.
The waters of Pamlico Sound with a 300-yard radius of the National Park Service boat
launch site at Ocracoke, NC at position latitude 35°07′07″ N, longitude 075°59′16″ W.
The waters of Motts Channel within a 500-yard radius of the fireworks launch site in approximate position latitude 34°12′29″ N, longitude 077°48′27″ W, approximately 560
yards south of Sea Path Marina, Wrightsville Beach, NC.
The waters of the Cape Fear River within a 600-yard radius of the fireworks barge in
approximate position latitude 33°54′40″ N, longitude 078°01′18″ W, approximately
700 yards south of the waterfront at Southport, NC.
The waters of Big Foot Slough within a 300-yard radius of the fireworks launch site in
approximate position latitude 35°06′54″ N, longitude 075°59′24″ W, approximately
100 yards west of the Silver Lake Entrance Channel at Ocracoke, NC.
The waters of the New River within a 300-yard radius of the fireworks launch site in approximate position latitude 34°44′45″ N, longitude 077°26′18″ W, approximately one
half mile south of the Hwy 17 Bridge, Jacksonville, NC.
The waters on Bath Creek within a 300-yard radius of approximate position 35°28′05″
N, 076°48′56″ W, Bath, NC.
The waters of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway within a 300-yard radius of the fireworks launch position at approximate position latitude 34°41′02″ N, longitude
077°07′04″ W, located near Swansboro, NC.
The waters of Shallowbag Bay within a 300-yard radius of a fireworks barge anchored
at latitude 35°54′31″ N, longitude 075°39′42″ W.
The waters of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway within a 300-yard radius of approximate position latitude 34°25′46″ N, longitude 077°33′01″ W, in Surf City, NC.
5 ................
6 ................
July 4th, November—3rd
Saturday.
Middle Sound, Figure Eight
Island, NC, Safety Zone.
7 ................
June—2nd Saturday, July
4th.
Pamlico River, Washington,
NC, Safety Zone.
8 ................
July 4th .................................
9 ................
11 ..............
July—1st Saturday or Sunday, July 4th.
July 4th, November—Saturday following Thanksgiving
Day.
July 4th .................................
Neuse River, New Bern, NC,
Safety Zone.
Pamlico Sound, Ocracoke,
NC, Safety Zone.
Motts Channel, Banks Channel, Wrightsville Beach,
NC, Safety Zone.
Cape Fear River, Southport,
NC, Safety Zone.
12 ..............
July 4th .................................
Big Foot Slough, Ocracoke,
NC, Safety Zone.
13 ..............
August—1st Tuesday ...........
New River, Jacksonville, NC,
Safety Zone.
14 ..............
May—3rd or 4th Saturday,
July 4th.
July 4th, October—2nd Saturday.
Bath Creek, Bath, NC, Safety
Zone.
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Swansboro, NC,
Safety Zone.
Shallowbag Bay, Manteo,
NC; Safety Zone.
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Surf City, NC, Safety
Zone.
Neuse River, New Bern, NC,
Safety Zone..
10 ..............
15 ..............
16 ..............
17 ..............
18 ..............
September—4th or last Saturday.
July—3rd or 4th ....................
September—3rd, 4th, or last
Friday or Saturday.
The waters within a 300-yard radius of the fireworks launch location at approximate position latitude 35°06′23″ N, longitude 077°01′48″ W, on the Neuse River, New Bern,
NC.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Dated: April 22, 2021.
Laura M. Dickey
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
Fifth Coast Guard District.
three previous proposed rules which
proposed to add five sites to the
Superfund National Priorities List
(NPL). The NPL is the list of sites of
national priority among the known
[FR Doc. 2021–08945 Filed 4–29–21; 8:45 am]
releases or threatened releases of
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants throughout the United
States and its territories. The NPL is
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
intended primarily to guide the EPA in
AGENCY
determining which sites warrant further
investigation.
40 CFR Part 300
DATES: The proposed rules to add these
[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1993–0003, EPA–HQ–
SFUND–2000–0004, EPA–HQ–SFUND–2000– five sites to the NPL previously
published at 58 FR 27507 (May 10,
0007; FRL–10022–95–OLEM]
1993), 65 FR 30489 (May 11, 2000) and
National Priorities List for Uncontrolled 65 FR 75215 (December 1, 2000) are
partially withdrawn effective April 30,
Hazardous Waste Sites; Partial
2021.
Withdrawal of Proposed Rules
FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Terry Jeng, phone: (703) 603–8852,
Agency.
email: jeng.terry@epa.gov, Site
ACTION: Proposed rules; partial
Assessment
and Remedy Decisions
withdrawal.
Branch, Assessment and Remediation
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Division, Office of Superfund
Remediation and Technology
Agency (EPA) is partially withdrawing
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:45 Apr 29, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Innovation (Mailcode 5204P), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20460.
EPA
proposes sites be placed on the NPL via
a proposed rulemaking published in the
Federal Register. Following a public
comment period, most sites are added to
the NPL. However, there exists a small
subset of sites that have been proposed
to the NPL but never added. These sites
remain proposed until a decision is
made to either withdraw the proposal or
add the site to the NPL.
By withdrawing proposals to list sites
where listing is no longer appropriate,
EPA can reduce the backlog of proposed
sites and focus essential resources
elsewhere. Once cleanup goals are
attained or the determination is made
that the site does not pose a significant
threat to human health or the
environment, it is not necessary to
continue the listing process; thus,
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\30APP1.SGM
30APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 82 / Friday, April 30, 2021 / Proposed Rules
preserving the NPL for the highest
priority sites.
To facilitate the proposed rule
withdrawal process, EPA issued its deproposal policy, Guidelines for
Withdrawing a Proposal to List a Site on
the NPL on November 12, 2002. The
policy states that in order to qualify for
de-proposal, EPA should provide
adequate rationale that the site generally
either meets deletion-equivalent criteria
and no further response under
Superfund is appropriate or EPA should
explain why such criteria are not
applicable to the decision to withdraw
the proposal. The Superfund Program
Implementation Manual (SPIM) clarifies
that de-proposal criteria includes
documented deferral or referral of a
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Site name and location
proposed site to another cleanup
authority.
The deletion provisions (40 CFR
300.425(e)) state that releases may be
deleted from the NPL where no further
response is appropriate. Further, in
determining whether a release should be
deleted, EPA considers whether any of
the following criteria has been met:
• Responsible or other parties have
implemented all appropriate response
actions required;
• All appropriate Fund-financed
response under CERCLA has been
implemented, and no further response
action by responsible parties is
appropriate; or,
• The remedial investigation has
shown that the release poses no
significant threat to public health or the
Date proposed for NPL
addition/FR citation
Broad Brook Mill, East Windsor, CT.
12/01/2000 (65 FR 75215)
Chanute Air Force Base,
Rantoul, IL.
12/01/2000 (65 FR 75215)
Diamond Shamrock Corp.
(Painesville Works),
Painesville, OH.
05/10/1993 (58 FR 27507)
Hudson Technologies, Inc.,
Hillburn, NY.
05/11/2000 (65 FR 30489)
Potter Co., Wesson, MS ......
05/10/1993 (58 FR 27507)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:45 Apr 29, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
22923
environment, and, therefore, taking of
remedial measures is not appropriate.
EPA is partially withdrawing three
previously proposed rules which
proposed adding the following five sites
to the NPL. All five of the sites meet
EPA’s de-proposal criteria.
Documentation to support EPA’s
decision to de-propose these sites can be
found in each of the site dockets at
https://www.regulations.gov.
Therefore, the proposal to add the five
sites listed in the list that follows to the
National Priorities List previously
proposed at 58 FR 27507 (May 10,
1993), 65 FR 30489, (May 11, 20000)
and 65 FR 75215, December 1, 2000) is
hereby withdrawn effective April 30,
2021.
Site-specific basis for de-proposal
Significant progress has been and continues to be made and there is no current
risk to human health at the site. The responsible party, Raytheon Technologies,
will continue to address the site under the ongoing oversight of the Connecticut
Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CTDEEP) in accordance
with state laws.
Further documentation may be found in https://www.regulations.gov using Docket
number EPA–HQ–SFUND–2000–0004.
The United States Air Force is performing, and will continue to perform, cleanup
activities at the site pursuant to their authority under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) with oversight being
conducted by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA). IEPA has
been, and will continue to be, the lead agency responsible for overseeing the
cleanup and will take or ensure appropriate action through a deferral, enforcement, or other agreement.
Further documentation may be found in https://www.regulations.gov using Docket
number EPA–HQ–SFUND–2000–0004.
Operable Unit (OU) #16, the only portion of this site proposed for addition to the
NPL, is only one of the 22 OUs that comprise the site. The remaining 21 OUs
are being successfully addressed by the responsible parties with oversight by the
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) as the lead for cleanup. The
State of Ohio through OEPA has agreed to incorporate OU #16 as additional site
work under their existing cleanup authority. Through a consent order, OEPA will
pursue the monitoring and remedy continuation with the responsible party for the
entirety of OU #16 to ensure a unified, site-wide remedy.
Further documentation may be found in https://www.regulations.gov using Docket
number EPA–HQ–SFUND–1993–0003.
The responsible party, Hudson Technologies, Inc. (HTI), signed an Order on Consent with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC) agreeing to operate the remediation system and perform monthly
testing at the facility until remaining groundwater contamination has been effectively abated. The treatment system is preventing any off-site migration from occurring. HTI has implemented appropriate response actions and no further
Superfund response is required other than continued operation and maintenance
(O&M) of the treatment system.
Further documentation may be found in https://www.regulations.gov using Docket
number EPA–HQ–SFUND–2000–0007.
The Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) has, and will continue to, ensure all appropriate investigations and cleanup actions are performed
pursuant to its state cleanup authority. Cleanup activities continue to be successfully implemented by the responsible party, pursuant to two agreed orders between the responsible party and the state. The main source of contamination
was remediated through source removal and no human or ecological exposure
pathways remain. The remedy at the site is protective of human health and the
environment.
Further documentation may be found in https://www.regulations.gov using Docket
number EPA–HQ–SFUND–1993–0003.
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\30APP1.SGM
30APP1
22924
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 82 / Friday, April 30, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; 42 U.S.C.
9601–9657; E.O. 13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR,
2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757,
3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52
FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.
Dated: April 22, 2021.
Barry Breen,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of
Land and Emergency Management.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
[FR Doc. 2021–08988 Filed 4–29–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 721
[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020–0581; FRL–10017–
51]
RIN 2070–AB27
Significant New Use Rules on Certain
Chemical Substances (21–2.B)
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
16:45 Apr 29, 2021
Jkt 253001
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Does this action apply to me?
EPA is proposing significant
new use rules (SNURs) under the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA) for
chemical substances which are the
subject of premanufacture notices
(PMNs). This action would require
persons to notify EPA at least 90 days
before commencing manufacture
(defined by statute to include import) or
processing of any of these chemical
substances for an activity that is
designated as a significant new use by
this proposed rule. This action would
further require that persons not
commence manufacture or processing
for the significant new use until they
have submitted a Significant New Use
Notice (SNUN), and EPA has conducted
a review of the notice, made an
appropriate determination on the notice,
and has taken any risk management
actions as are required as a result of that
determination.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before June 1, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by docket identification (ID)
number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020–0581,
using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments. Do not submit electronically
any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute.
Due to the public health emergency,
the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) and
Reading Room is closed to visitors with
limited exceptions. The staff continues
VerDate Sep<11>2014
For technical information contact:
William Wysong, New Chemicals
Division (7405M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460–0001;
telephone number: (202) 564–4163;
email address: wysong.william@epa.gov.
For general information contact: The
TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422
South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY
14620; telephone number: (202) 554–
1404; email address: TSCA-Hotline@
epa.gov.
I. General Information
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY:
to provide remote customer service via
email, phone, and webform. For the
latest status information on EPA/DC
services and docket access, visit https://
www.epa.gov/dockets.
You may be potentially affected by
this action if you manufacture, process,
or use the chemical substances
contained in this proposed rule. The
following list of North American
Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
to help readers determine whether this
document applies to them. Potentially
affected entities may include:
• Manufacturers or processors of one
or more subject chemical substances
(NAICS codes 325 and 324110), e.g.,
chemical manufacturing and petroleum
refineries.
This action may also affect certain
entities through pre-existing import
certification and export notification
rules under TSCA. Chemical importers
are subject to the TSCA section 13 (15
U.S.C. 2612) import provisions. This
action may also affect certain entities
through pre-existing import certification
and export notification rules under
TSCA, which would include the SNUR
requirements should these proposed
rules be finalized. The EPA policy in
support of import certification appears
at 40 CFR part 707, subpart B. In
addition, pursuant to 40 CFR 721.20,
any persons who export or intend to
export a chemical substance that is the
subject of this proposed rule on or after
June 1, 2021 are subject to the export
notification provisions of TSCA section
12(b) (15 U.S.C. 2611(b)) and must
comply with the export notification
requirements in 40 CFR part 707,
subpart D.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
B. What should I consider as I prepare
my comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI
to EPA through regulations.gov or email.
Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI.
For CBI information in a disk or CD–
ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the
outside of the disk or CD–ROM as CBI
and then identify electronically within
the disk or CD–ROM the specific
information that is claimed as CBI. In
addition to one complete version of the
comment that includes information
claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment
that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for
inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be
disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for preparing your comments.
When preparing and submitting your
comments, see the commenting tips at
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
II. Background
A. What action is the Agency taking?
EPA is proposing these SNURs under
TSCA section 5(a)(2) for chemical
substances which are the subjects of
PMNs P–19–82, P–20–76, and P–20–94.
These proposed SNURs would require
persons who intend to manufacture or
process any of these chemical
substances for an activity that is
designated as a significant new use to
notify EPA at least 90 days before
commencing that activity.
The record for these proposed SNURs,
identified as docket ID number EPA–
HQ–OPPT–2020–0581, includes
information considered by the Agency
in developing these proposed SNURs.
B. What is the Agency’s authority for
taking this action?
TSCA section 5(a)(2) (15 U.S.C.
2604(a)(2)) authorizes EPA to determine
that a use of a chemical substance is a
‘‘significant new use.’’ EPA must make
this determination by rule after
considering all relevant factors,
including the four TSCA section 5(a)(2)
factors listed in Unit III.
C. Do the SNUR general provisions
apply?
General provisions for SNURs appear
in 40 CFR part 721, subpart A. These
provisions describe persons subject to
the rule, recordkeeping requirements,
exemptions to reporting requirements,
and applicability of the rule to uses
occurring before the effective date of the
rule. Provisions relating to user fees
appear at 40 CFR part 700. Pursuant to
E:\FR\FM\30APP1.SGM
30APP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 82 (Friday, April 30, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22922-22924]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-08988]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1993-0003, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2000-0004, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2000-
0007; FRL-10022-95-OLEM]
National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites;
Partial Withdrawal of Proposed Rules
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rules; partial withdrawal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is partially
withdrawing three previous proposed rules which proposed to add five
sites to the Superfund National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL is the
list of sites of national priority among the known releases or
threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants throughout the United States and its territories. The NPL
is intended primarily to guide the EPA in determining which sites
warrant further investigation.
DATES: The proposed rules to add these five sites to the NPL previously
published at 58 FR 27507 (May 10, 1993), 65 FR 30489 (May 11, 2000) and
65 FR 75215 (December 1, 2000) are partially withdrawn effective April
30, 2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry Jeng, phone: (703) 603-8852,
email: [email protected], Site Assessment and Remedy Decisions Branch,
Assessment and Remediation Division, Office of Superfund Remediation
and Technology Innovation (Mailcode 5204P), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA proposes sites be placed on the NPL via
a proposed rulemaking published in the Federal Register. Following a
public comment period, most sites are added to the NPL. However, there
exists a small subset of sites that have been proposed to the NPL but
never added. These sites remain proposed until a decision is made to
either withdraw the proposal or add the site to the NPL.
By withdrawing proposals to list sites where listing is no longer
appropriate, EPA can reduce the backlog of proposed sites and focus
essential resources elsewhere. Once cleanup goals are attained or the
determination is made that the site does not pose a significant threat
to human health or the environment, it is not necessary to continue the
listing process; thus,
[[Page 22923]]
preserving the NPL for the highest priority sites.
To facilitate the proposed rule withdrawal process, EPA issued its
de-proposal policy, Guidelines for Withdrawing a Proposal to List a
Site on the NPL on November 12, 2002. The policy states that in order
to qualify for de-proposal, EPA should provide adequate rationale that
the site generally either meets deletion-equivalent criteria and no
further response under Superfund is appropriate or EPA should explain
why such criteria are not applicable to the decision to withdraw the
proposal. The Superfund Program Implementation Manual (SPIM) clarifies
that de-proposal criteria includes documented deferral or referral of a
proposed site to another cleanup authority.
The deletion provisions (40 CFR 300.425(e)) state that releases may
be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate.
Further, in determining whether a release should be deleted, EPA
considers whether any of the following criteria has been met:
Responsible or other parties have implemented all
appropriate response actions required;
All appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has
been implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties
is appropriate; or,
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.
EPA is partially withdrawing three previously proposed rules which
proposed adding the following five sites to the NPL. All five of the
sites meet EPA's de-proposal criteria. Documentation to support EPA's
decision to de-propose these sites can be found in each of the site
dockets at https://www.regulations.gov.
Therefore, the proposal to add the five sites listed in the list
that follows to the National Priorities List previously proposed at 58
FR 27507 (May 10, 1993), 65 FR 30489, (May 11, 20000) and 65 FR 75215,
December 1, 2000) is hereby withdrawn effective April 30, 2021.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date proposed for NPL
Site name and location addition/FR citation Site-specific basis for de-proposal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Broad Brook Mill, East Windsor, CT...... 12/01/2000 (65 FR 75215)... Significant progress has been and
continues to be made and there is no
current risk to human health at the
site. The responsible party, Raytheon
Technologies, will continue to address
the site under the ongoing oversight of
the Connecticut Department of Energy and
Environmental Protection (CTDEEP) in
accordance with state laws.
Further documentation may be found in
https://www.regulations.gov using Docket
number EPA-HQ-SFUND-2000-0004.
Chanute Air Force Base, Rantoul, IL..... 12/01/2000 (65 FR 75215)... The United States Air Force is
performing, and will continue to
perform, cleanup activities at the site
pursuant to their authority under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)
with oversight being conducted by the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(IEPA). IEPA has been, and will continue
to be, the lead agency responsible for
overseeing the cleanup and will take or
ensure appropriate action through a
deferral, enforcement, or other
agreement.
Further documentation may be found in
https://www.regulations.gov using Docket
number EPA-HQ-SFUND-2000-0004.
Diamond Shamrock Corp. (Painesville 05/10/1993 (58 FR 27507)... Operable Unit (OU) #16, the only portion
Works), Painesville, OH. of this site proposed for addition to
the NPL, is only one of the 22 OUs that
comprise the site. The remaining 21 OUs
are being successfully addressed by the
responsible parties with oversight by
the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
(OEPA) as the lead for cleanup. The
State of Ohio through OEPA has agreed to
incorporate OU #16 as additional site
work under their existing cleanup
authority. Through a consent order, OEPA
will pursue the monitoring and remedy
continuation with the responsible party
for the entirety of OU #16 to ensure a
unified, site-wide remedy.
Further documentation may be found in
https://www.regulations.gov using Docket
number EPA-HQ-SFUND-1993-0003.
Hudson Technologies, Inc., Hillburn, NY. 05/11/2000 (65 FR 30489)... The responsible party, Hudson
Technologies, Inc. (HTI), signed an
Order on Consent with the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC) agreeing to operate the
remediation system and perform monthly
testing at the facility until remaining
groundwater contamination has been
effectively abated. The treatment system
is preventing any off-site migration
from occurring. HTI has implemented
appropriate response actions and no
further Superfund response is required
other than continued operation and
maintenance (O&M) of the treatment
system.
Further documentation may be found in
https://www.regulations.gov using Docket
number EPA-HQ-SFUND-2000-0007.
Potter Co., Wesson, MS.................. 05/10/1993 (58 FR 27507)... The Mississippi Department of
Environmental Quality (MDEQ) has, and
will continue to, ensure all appropriate
investigations and cleanup actions are
performed pursuant to its state cleanup
authority. Cleanup activities continue
to be successfully implemented by the
responsible party, pursuant to two
agreed orders between the responsible
party and the state. The main source of
contamination was remediated through
source removal and no human or
ecological exposure pathways remain. The
remedy at the site is protective of
human health and the environment.
Further documentation may be found in
https://www.regulations.gov using Docket
number EPA-HQ-SFUND-1993-0003.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 22924]]
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.
13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR
54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR,
1987 Comp., p. 193.
Dated: April 22, 2021.
Barry Breen,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Land and Emergency
Management.
[FR Doc. 2021-08988 Filed 4-29-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
