43684 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 158 / Friday, August 15, 1997 / Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[TN–142–9727(b); FRL–5873–1]

Approval and Promulgation of

Revisions to Tennessee SIP Chapter

1200–3–5 Visible Emissions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: On October 4, 1994 Tennessee

submitted, through the Department of

Environment and Conservation, a new

chapter 1200–3–5 Visible Emissions to

replace the existing chapter 1200–3–5

Visible Emissions found in the

Tennessee State Implementation Plan

(SIP). These revisions include

amendments and repeals of existing

rules. In the final rules section of this

Federal Register, the EPA is approving

the revision as a direct final rule

without prior proposal because the EPA

views this as a noncontroversial

revision amendment and anticipates no

adverse comments. A detailed rationale

for the approval is set forth in the direct

final rule. If no adverse comments are

received in response to that direct final

rule no further activity is contemplated

in relation to this proposed rule. If EPA

receives adverse comments, the direct

final rule will be withdrawn and all

public comments will be addressed in a

subsequent final rule based on this

proposed rule. The EPA will not

institute a second comment period on

this document. Any parties interested in

commenting should do so at this time.

DATES: To be considered, comments

must be received by September 15,

1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this

action should be addressed to Randy

Terry at the Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 4 Air Planning Branch,

61 Forsyth Street, Atlanta, Georgia

30303.

Copies of documents relative to this

action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the following locations. The

interested persons wanting to examine

these documents should make an

appointment with the appropriate office

at least 24 hours before the visiting day

and reference file TN 142–01–9727. The

Region 4 office may have additional

background documents not available at

the other locations.

Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center (Air Docket 6102),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC

20460.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 4 Air Planning Branch, 61

Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia

30303.

Department of Environment and

Conservation, 9th Floor L & C Annex,

401 Church Street, Nashville, TN

37243–1531.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Randy Terry, Regulatory Planning

Section, Air Planning Branch, Air,

Pesticides & Toxics Management

Division, Region 4 Environmental

Protection Agency, 61 Forsyth Street,

SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303. The

telephone number is (404) 562–9032.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For

additional information see the direct

final rule which is published in the

rules section Federal Register.

Dated: July 9, 1997.

Michael V. Peyton,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–21698 Filed 8-14-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–5874–3]

National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency

Plan; National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of intent to delete

Northwest Transformer South Harkness

Street site from the National Priorities

List Update; request for comments.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA), Region 10, announces its

intent to delete the Northwest

Transformer South Harkness Street Site

in Everson, Washington, from the

National Priorities List (NPL) and

requests public comment on this

proposed action. The NPL constitutes

Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which

is the National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency Plan

(NCP), which EPA promulgated

pursuant to Section 105 of the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended.

EPA and the State of Washington

Department of Ecology (Ecology) have

determined that the Site poses no

significant threat to public health or the

environment and, therefore, further

remedial measures pursuant to CERCLA

are not appropriate.

DATES: Comments concerning this Site

may be submitted on or before

September 15, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed

to: Timothy H. Brincefield,

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200

Sixth Avenue, Mail Stop ECL–111,

Seattle, WA 98101.

Comprehensive information on this

Site is available through the Region 10

public docket which is available for

viewing at the NW Transformer South

Harkness Site information repositories

at the following locations:

Whatcom County Public Library, Kirsch

Drive, Everson, Washington 98247.

United States Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 10, Office of

Environmental Cleanup—Records

Center, Attn: Bob Phillips, 1200 Sixth

Avenue, Mail Stop ECL–110, Seattle,

Washington 98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Timothy H. Brincefield, U.S. EPA

Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Mail

Stop ECL–111, Seattle, Washington

98101, (206) 553–2100.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

III. Deletion Procedures

IV. Basis of Intended Site Deletion

I. Introduction

The Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA), Region 10 announces its intent to

delete a site from the National Priorities

List (NPL), Appendix B of the National

Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution

Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR part

300, and requests comments to this

deletion. EPA identifies sites on the

NPL that appear to present a significant

risk to human health or the

environment. As described in section

300.425(e)(3)of the NCP, sites deleted

from the NPL remain eligible for Fundfinanced remedial actions in the

unlikely event that conditions at the site

warrant such actions.

EPA plans to delete the Northwest

Transformer South Harkness Street Site

(‘‘Site’’) at 107 South Harkness Street,

Everson Washington, from the NPL.

EPA will accept comments on the

plan to delete this Site for thirty days

after publication of this document in the

Federal Register.

Section II of this document explains

the criteria for deleting sites from the

NPL. Section III discusses procedures

that EPA is using for this action. Section

IV discusses the South Harkness Street

Site and explains how the Site meets

deletion criteria.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 158 / Friday, August 15, 1997 / Proposed Rules 43685

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

Section 300.425 (e) of the NCP

provides that ‘‘releases’’ (sites) may be

deleted from, or recategorized on, 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 parties

have implemented all appropriate

response actions required;

(ii) All appropriate Fund-financed

responses under CERCLA have been

implemented, and no further action by

responsible parties is appropriate, or

(iii) The remedial investigation has

shown that the release poses no

significant threat to public health or the

environment and, therefore, taking of

remedial measures is not appropriate.

Even if a site is deleted from the NPL,

where hazardous substances, pollutants

or contaminants remain at the site above

levels that allow for unlimited use and

unrestricted exposure, EPA’s policy is

that a subsequent review of the site will

be conducted at least every five years

after the initiation of the remedial action

at the site to ensure that the site remains

protective of public health and the

environment. In the case of the South

Harkness Street Site, some hazardous

substances were left on-Site, therefore,

the five-year review requirement of

section 121(c) of SARA remains

applicable. If new information becomes

available that indicates a need for

further action, EPA may require

remedial actions. Whenever there is a

significant release from a site deleted

from the NPL, the site may be restored

to the NPL without the application of

the Hazard Ranking System.

III. Deletion Procedures

The following procedures were used

for the intended deletion of this Site: (1)

The September 29, 1994 ROD included

language that documented the

achievement of cleanup goals and the

fact that no separate close out report

was necessary; (2) The Washington

Department Of Ecology (Ecology) has

concurred with the proposed deletion

decision; (3) A notice has been

published in the local newspaper and

has been distributed to appropriate

Federal, State, and local officials and

other interested parties announcing the

commencement of a 30-day public

comment period on EPA’s Notice of

Intent to Delete; and, (4) All relevant

documents have been made available for

public review in the Site information

repositories.

Deletion of the Site from the NPL does

not itself, create, alter or revoke any

individual rights or obligations. The

NPL is designed primarily for

information purposes to assist EPA

management. As mentioned in Section

II of this Notice, 40 CFR 300.425(e)(3)

states that deletion of a site from the

NPL does not preclude eligibility for

future Fund-financed response actions.

EPA’s Regional Office will accept and

evaluate public comments on EPA’s

Notice of Intent to Delete before making

a final decision. The Agency will

prepare a Responsiveness Summary if

any significant public comments are

received.

A deletion occurs when the Regional

Administrator places a final notice in

the Federal Register. Generally, the NPL

will reflect deletions in the final update

following the Notice. Public notices and

copies of the Responsiveness Summary

will be made available to local residents

by EPA’s Regional Office in Seattle,

Washington.

IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion

The following Site summary provides

the Agency’s rationale for the intention

to delete this Site from the NPL.

A. Site Background

The South Harkness Superfund Site

was a former transformer

manufacturing, service and reclamation

facility located in a commercial/

residential area of downtown Everson,

Washington. The site is located in

downtown Everson and is bordered by

a City Park, Main Street businesses, and

South Harkness Street. An alley runs

through the site.

The 1-acre facility was operated by

the NW Transformer Service Company

from 1958 until 1987. The Company

used a building on-site to manufacture,

recycle and rebuild transformers and an

unpaved lot for storage of transformers,

drums, bulk materials and salvage. The

Company transferred its main storage

and salvage operations from its Mission

and Pole Roads salvage yard, which is

also on the NPL, to the South Harkness

Street site in 1985. An Ecology

inspection in 1985 detected high levels

of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in

on-site soils.

The facility was added to the NPL in

1990 due to PCB and metals

contamination in the building and soils.

No site-related groundwater

contamination has ever been detected

and there are no drinking water wells

down gradient from the site.

B. History

The following is a brief summary of

the site investigation, removal action,

recent sampling results, and current

conditions:

• Since the site is small and

contaminant levels relatively low, it was

addressed with a streamlined approach.

The Potentially Responsible Parties

(PRPs) agreed on 6/17/92 to perform the

necessary Remedial Investigation/

Feasibility Study and a removal action

if necessary.

• Field Investigations started in

January 1993. No contaminants of

concern were found in groundwater at

the site. The primary contaminants of

concern were PCBs (up to 89 ppm in

soils and structural materials) and Total

Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) up to

63,000 ppm in underlying soils.

• The possibility of significant

contamination of the Nooksack River

and sediments was determined to be

unlikely. The air pathway was also

ruled out as a pathway of significant

concern.

• After review of an Engineering

Evaluation and Cost Analysis of removal

alternatives, EPA issued a proposed

plan for a removal to eliminate the risk

of the building collapsing, to provide

additional data for the RI and risk

assessment, and to remediate the site in

accordance with remedial requirements

if possible.

• The removal was performed

between November 1993 and June 1994.

The site now consists of two modified

asphalt parking lots and an alley

covering about four feet of clean soil. In

most locations PCB concentrations are

less than 1 ppm. Two locations show

evidence of low-level PCB

contaminations at depth beneath the

clean soil and asphalt cap (7 ppm at 6

feet below the ground surface and 28

ppm at 12.5 feet).

• TPH is also present in soils beneath

the cap/parking lots, at levels up to

24,000 ppm. In accordance with

additional State requirements

documented in the CERCLA No Further

Action ROD, the owners of the affected

properties have recorded notices on

their deeds acknowledging the presence

of contamination and their duty, and

that of subsequent property owners, to

sample soils if the cap is disturbed and

if soils are found to be contaminated, to

dispose of them in accordance with

State and Federal Law.

• In four years of ground water

sampling no detectible quantities of

PCBs or TPH have been found. Data

from three rounds of groundwater

sampling prior to the Removal Action

show that no chemicals of concern were

detected in site groundwater samples

above maximum contaminant levels for

drinking. Post-RA groundwater

sampling for Site-related contaminants

(PCBs and TPH) was conducted in

November 1994, March 1995, July 1995,
43686 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 158 / Friday, August 15, 1997 / Proposed Rules

1 Implementation of the Pay Telephone

Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of

the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket

No. 96–128, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 20541

(1996) (‘‘Payphone Order’’); Order on

Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd 21233 (1996) (‘‘Order

on Reconsideration’’) (both orders together

‘‘Payphone Orders’’); 61 Fed. Reg. 65,341 (Dec. 12,

1996).

2 D.C. Circuit Nos. 96–1394 et al. (July 1, 1997).

October 1995, and October 1996. No

chemical compounds of concern related

to the site were detected in these

groundwater samples.

• EPA oversight sampling since the

Removal Action has identified the

presence of Pentachlorophenol in some

groundwater samples, however no

evidence of Pentachlorophenol was ever

identified at the site during site

inspections, field investigations, the

Removal Action, or post-removal

confirmation sampling. EPA has

provided Ecology with these results and

the Agencies have agreed that EPA will

continue efforts to identify the source

and potential impacts of the

Pentachlorophenol, but that since there

is no evidence to date that the

Pentachlorophenol is site-related, its

detection should not preclude deletion

of this site from the NPL. Note that

deleted sites remain eligible for future

Fund-financed response actions should

future conditions warrant such action,

and whenever there is a significant

release from a site or portion of a site

deleted from the NPL, the site or portion

may be restored to the NPL without

application of the Hazard Ranking

System.

• EPA sees no reason to require

continued annual ground water

monitoring for PCBs, although periodic

monitoring to support five-year reviews

may still be appropriate. TPH is being

addressed as an additional state

requirement, which the Washington

Department of Ecology will determine

whether or not to continue.

C. Characterization of Risk

• The risk assessment was done

subsequent to the Removal Action, and

documented that current and future

potential risks posed by the site are

within the acceptable risk range of 10-5

or less. There is no current pathway for

human exposure since all soil

contamination has been removed and/or

capped and no site-related contaminants

of concern have been detected in

groundwater. Because site risks were so

low, EPA determined that no feasibility

study was necessary and no other

alternatives were considered or

evaluated.

• The site remains a useful parking

lot, serving downtown Everson,

including the Senior Center and City

Hall.

D. Public Participation

Community input has been sought by

EPA Region 10 throughout the cleanup

process at the Site. An information

repository was established and has been

maintained at the Everson Public

Library. Fact sheets and public notices

were distributed when the site was

placed on the NPL in 1990, when Notice

Letters were sent to the PRPs in

December 1991, when the Removal

Action was proposed in August 1993,

and at several other times.

A public comment period was held

from August 16 to September 15, 1993

on the proposed removal action. At that

time the public was informed that if the

Removal Action was successful, no

further action would likely be

necessary. EPA issued a Proposed Plan

calling for No Further Action on August

24, 1994, and held a public comment

period from August 26 to September 26,

1994. A fact sheet and two public

notices of the Plan were issued by EPA,

but EPA received no public comments

on the Proposed Plan.

A copy of the Deletion Docket can be

reviewed by the public at the Everson

Public Library, or the EPA Region 10

Superfund Records Center. The Deletion

Docket includes this Notice, the ROD,

Amended ROD, Remedial Action

Construction Report, and Final Site

Close-Out Report. EPA Region 10 will

also announce the availability of the

Deletion Docket for public review in a

local newspaper and informational fact

sheet.

One of the three criteria for deletion

specifies that EPA may delete a site

from the NPL if ‘‘responsible parties or

other persons have implemented all

appropriate response actions required.’’

EPA, with the concurrence of Ecology,

believes that this criterion for deletion

has been met. Groundwater and soil

data from the Site confirm that the ROD

cleanup goals have been achieved.

There is no significant threat to human

health or the environment and,

therefore, no further remedial action is

necessary. Consequently, EPA is

proposing deletion of this Site from the

NPL. Documents supporting this action

are available in the docket at the

information repositories.

Dated: August 4, 1997.

Randall F. Smith,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–21380 Filed 8–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[CC Docket No. 96–128]

Pleading Cycle Established For

Comment On Remand Issues In The

Payphone Proceeding

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This document clarifies the

status of the requirements in the

Payphone Orders in light of the D.C.

Circuit’s decision in Illinois Public

Telecommun., and establishes a

pleading cycle for comment on issues

remanded by that Court.

DATES: Comments are due on or before

August 26, 1997 and reply comments

are due on or before September 9, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Office of the Secretary,

Federal Communications Commission,

Room 222, 1919 M St. N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg

Lipscomb, Formal Complaints and

Information Branch, Enforcement

Division, Common Carrier Bureau. (202)

418–0960.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DA 97–

1673, August 5, 1997.

Comments Due: August 26, 1997.

Reply Comments Due: September 9, 1997.

I. Introduction

1. This Public Notice clarifies the

status of the requirements of the

Payphone Orders 1 in light of the D.C.

Circuit’s decision in Illinois Public

Telecommunications Ass’n v. FCC,2 and

seeks further comment on certain issues

raised by that court decision. In Illinois

Public Telecomm., the court granted in

part and denied in part petitions for

judicial review of the Payphone Orders.

In doing so, however, the court actually

vacated only one narrow aspect of those

orders, i.e., the asset valuation standard

that the Commission adopted with

respect to transfers of telephone

company payphone assets to separate

affiliates. The remaining portions of the

orders were either upheld, or remanded

to the Commission for further

consideration and explanation. Thus,