32090 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 99 / Monday, May 22, 2000 / Notices

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington,

DC 20460; telephone (202) 564–4562;

FAX (202) 501–0582; or via e-mail at

nugent.angela@epa.gov. Requests for

oral comments must be in writing (email, fax or mail) and received by Dr.

Nugent no later than noon Eastern Time

on May 28, 2000.

Providing Oral or Written Comments at

SAB Meetings

It is the policy of the Science

Advisory Board to accept written public

comments of any length, and to

accommodate oral public comments

whenever possible. The Science

Advisory Board expects that public

statements presented at its meetings will

not be repetitive of previously

submitted oral or written statements.

Oral Comments: In general, each

individual or group requesting an oral

presentation at a face-to-face meeting

will be limited to a total time of ten

minutes. For teleconference meetings,

opportunities for oral comment will

usually be limited to no more than three

minutes per speaker and no more than

fifteen minutes total. Deadlines for

getting on the public speaker list for a

meeting are given above. Speakers

should bring at least 35 copies of their

comments and presentation slides for

distribution to the reviewers and public

at the meeting. Written Comments:

Although the SAB accepts written

comments until the date of the meeting

(unless otherwise stated), written

comments should be received in the

SAB Staff Office at least one week prior

to the meeting date so that the

comments may be made available to the

committee for their consideration.

Comments should be supplied to the

appropriate DFO at the address/contact

information noted above in the

following formats: one hard copy with

original signature, and one electronic

copy via e-mail (acceptable file format:

WordPerfect, Word, or Rich Text files

(in IBM–PC/Windows 95/98 format).

Those providing written comments and

who attend the meeting are also asked

to bring 35 copies of their comments for

public distribution.

General Information—Additional

information concerning the Science

Advisory Board, its structure, function,

and composition, may be found on the

SAB Website (http://www.epa.gov/sab)

and in The FY1999 Annual Report of

the Staff Director which is available

from the SAB Publications Staff at (202)

564–4533 or via fax at (202) 501–0256.

Committee rosters, draft Agendas and

meeting calendars are also located on

our website.

Meeting Access—Individuals

requiring special accommodation at this

meeting, including wheelchair access to

the conference room, should contact the

DFO at least five business days prior to

the meeting so that appropriate

arrangements can be made.

Dated: May 17, 2000.

Donald G. Barnes,

Staff Director, Science Advisory Board.

[FR Doc. 00–12914 Filed 5–19–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6600–3]

Notice of Proposed Agreement and

Covenant Not To Sue Pursuant to the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act of 1980 (CERCLA), As Amended,

42 U.S.C. 101, Nahant Marsh Site,

Davenport, IA

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Agreement

and Covenant Not to Sue, Nahant Marsh

Site, Davenport, Iowa.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a

proposed agreement and covenant not to

sue regarding property which the City of

Davenport, Iowa intends to purchase at

the Nahant Marsh Superfund Site, was

signed by the United States

Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA) on December 30, 1999, and by

the United States Department of Justice

on April 13, 2000. The property that is

the subject of this agreement is owned

by the Scott County Sportsmen’s

Association and is located at 4740

Wapello Avenue, Davenport, Iowa.

DATES: EPA will receive, on or before

June 21, 2000, written comments

relating to the proposed agreement and

covenant not to sue.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

addressed to E. Jane Kloeckner, Senior

Assistant Regional Counsel, United

States Environmental Protection

Agency, Region VII, 901 N. Fifth Street,

Kansas City, Kansas 66101 and should

refer to the Nahant Marsh Superfund

Site.

The proposed agreement and

covenant not to sue (Agreement) may be

examined or obtained in person or by

mail at the office of the United States

Environmental Protection Agency, 901

No. Fifth Street, Kansas City, Kansas

66101, (913) 551–7010. In requesting a

copy, please refer to the reference case

and enclose a check in the amount of

$14.25 (25 cents per page reproduction

costs), payable to the United States

Environmental Protection Agency.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Nahant Marsh Site is part of a unique

wetland located along the Upper

Mississippi River. Soil and sediments at

the Nahant Marsh site were

contaminated with hazardous

substances attributable to historic

shooting range operations at the Scott

County Sportsmen’s Association Trap

and Skeet Shooting Club facility. EPA

investigations at the Site indicated a

severe, acute ecological threat due to the

lead shot contamination in the

sediments. A threat to recreational users

at the Site was also present due to the

lead shot in the soil. EPA conducted a

removal action at the Site in 1999 to

mitigate these threats. The proposed

agreement concerns the sale of the

Association’s facility and land.

EPA entered into a Consent Decree

with the Scott County Sportsmen’s

Association to resolve the Association’s

liability under CERCLA for their

operations which caused the release of

hazardous substances at the facility. The

Consent Decree settles claims by the

United States, against Scott County

Sportsmen’s Association (SCSA) under

Section 107 of the Comprehensive

Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act

(CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9607. The

Complaint of the United States seeks

past and future CERCLA response costs

incurred by EPA connection with the

Nahant Marsh Superfund Site (the Site)

and for damages for injuries to natural

resources at the Site as determined by

the Department of the Interior (Interior)

and the United States Fish and Wildlife

Service, the Natural Resource Trustee.

The Consent Decree requires SCSA to

record a conservation easement for its

property at the Site in favor of the Iowa

Natural Heritage Foundation (INHF) for

preservation of the land as a reserve for

wildlife and to prevent residential,

commercial and industrial development

of the land. The SCSA is required to

transfer ownership of its property at the

Site to the City of Davenport, Iowa (the

City), and notify EPA of the transfer.

The SCSA has no assets other than the

property it owns within the Site. All

proceeds from the sale will be paid to

the United States. The Consent Decree

with SCSA is also subject to public

comment pursuant to a separate Federal

Register notice.

Pursuant to the Agreement with the

City of Davenport that is the subject of

this Federal Register notice, the City

has agreed to purchase the property at

its appraised value, to take the property

subject to the conservation easement, to

restrict residential or commercial

development, and to use the property

for environmental education purposes.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 99 / Monday, May 22, 2000 / Notices 32091

In exchange, the United States grants a

covenant not to sue, intended to release

the City from liability which otherwise

would stem from ownership of the

Property. The City agrees to pay the

purchase price to EPA ($81,000) and to

DOI ($5,000). The purchase price is in

accordance with fair market value of the

property as determined by an appraiser

and appraisal approved by the

Department of Justice. Under the terms

of the Agreement and Covenant Not to

Sue, the City will also place a restrictive

covenant on the land that restricts

residential development. In exchange,

the City will receive a covenant not to

sue for response actions and costs

relating to the Site pursuant to Section

107(a) of CERCLA. The City will also

receive a covenant not to sue for natural

resource damages under CERCLA.

Dated: April 24, 2000.

Nathaniel Scurry,

Acting Regional Administrator, United States

Environmental Protection Agency, Region VII.

[FR Doc. 00–11564 Filed 5–19–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6704–3]

New Jersey State Prohibition on

Marine Discharges of Vessel Sewage;

Notice of Final Affirmative

Determination

Notice is hereby given that a final

determination has been made by the

Regional Administrator, Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA), pursuant to

section 312(f) of Public Law 92–500, as

amended by Public Law 95–217 and

Public Law 100–4 (the Clean Water Act),

that adequate facilities for the safe and

sanitary removal and treatment of

sewage from all vessels are reasonably

available for the waters of the

Shrewsbury River, County of

Monmouth, State of New Jersey. A

Notice of Receipt of Petition and

Tentative Determination was published

in the Federal Register on April 3, 2000

and public comments regarding the

tentative determination were accepted

through May 3, 2000.

Comments were received from four

individuals, one supporting and three

objecting to the establishment of the

Shrewsbury River No Discharge Area.

These individuals are as follows:

Philip G. Conner, Crockett Brothers

Boatyard, P.O. Box 369, Oxford,

Maryland 21654

Shoreway Marine, Inc. Highway 73,

West Berlin, New Jersey 08091

Kim Shinn, Raritan Engineering, P.O.

Box 1157, Millville, New Jersey 08332

Monmouth County Board of Health,

P.O. Box 1255, Freehold, New Jersey

07728–1255

One individual stated that his boating

experience on the Manasquan River and

the Shark River has been that the

pumpouts located in the No Discharge

Area are accessible but are not readily

available. This individual attempted on

five different occasions to have his

holding tank pumped out and was not

successful. He wonders how EPA and

the New Jersey Department of

Environmental Protection (NJDEP)

intend to enforce an additional No

Discharge Area if the agencies have not

addressed the current problems on the

Manasquan River and the Shark River.

In response to these comments, EPA

acknowledges that pumpout facilities

will occasionally be out of service, but

this fact does not require a fundamental

change to the No Discharge Area

program. The commenter did not

provide the specifics regarding these

attempted pumpouts, such as whether

all five attempts were at the same

pumpout, the dates that these attempts

occurred or the circumstances which

prevented him from using the

pumpouts. Another commenter stated

that the Shark River pumpouts were not

available beginning late August 1999.

The commenter stated that this forced

boaters to discharge their holding tanks

into the Shark River. In response, EPA

and NJDEP have attempted to get

problems corrected when they are

brought to our attention. Also, for the

Shrewsbury River, the application

documents that all of the existing

pumpouts are expected to be available

for the entire boating season.

Several commenters objected to the

vessel population numbers and the

calculations used to estimate the

number of pumpouts needed based on

the vessel population. They feel that the

vessel population at private docks is too

low and that peak occupancy rates are

too low. The commenters also stated

that the equations are old, outdated and

need to be reevaluated. In response, the

vessel population numbers are based on

survey done by the local environmental

commissions. These surveys were

conducted on the water using visual

observations to count the boats at

private docks. The methods used to

estimate the vessel populations are

standard procedures established in the

1994 Clean Vessel Act Grant Program

and the 1994 EPA guidance document

entitled ‘‘Protecting Coastal Waters from

Vessel and Marina Discharges’’ and

have been accepted by EPA as valid

numbers. Regarding the equations used

to estimate the numbers of pumpouts to

service the vessel population in the

Shrewsbury, two different methods

were used to calculate the number of

pumpouts needed, which is between

two and four pumpouts. There are five

pumpouts currently available and

another three facilities have been

proposed. Based on the information

provided by the commenters, no

revision was made to the calculations.

Another comment concerned the lack

of dump stations for disposal of waste

from portable toilets. In response, EPA

notes that the pumpouts which received

Clean Vessel Act grant monies came

equipped with wand systems. The

wands permit the portable toilets to be

pumped out in a safe and sanitary

manner.

Another commenter asked what a

boater returning after 6 p.m., when all

the facilities have closed, should do to

pump out a holding tank. In response,

the boater has three options: they can

pump the holding tank prior to the next

trip out during business hours; they can

pump out at a facility on the Navesink

River such as Marine Park which is

open 24 hours a day; or they can

discharge the holding tank if they are

beyond the three mile limit. The same

commenter stated that there are many

commercial fishing vessels ‘‘in the area’’

that operate year round and questioned

how such an operator would pump out

in the off season. In response, EPA

acknowledges that there are some

vessels which operate off season ‘‘in the

area’’, but we note that the commenter

has not documented that such vessels

are active on the Shrewsbury River. The

application provided did not identify

any off season commercial vessels

which are based in or active on the

Shrewsbury River.

Another comment recommended that

current laws should be enforced by the

State of New Jersey and the New Jersey

Marine Police instead of proceeding

with this No Discharge Area proposal.

In response, EPA is obligated to act on

the application submitted, and we are

without authority to require the state

and local applicants to implement

alternate approaches.

Another comment relates to the

scheduling of a press event for May 11,

2000 while the comment period was

still open. In response, the tentative

scheduling of the event in advance of a

final determination is required due to

the busy schedules of EPA and NJDEP

senior managers. In the event that a final

determination had not been made or

that the final determination was to deny

the request, the press event would be