52674 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 1997 / Proposed Rules

regulatory and nonregulatory measures

that may follow from this notice.

Pertinent Questions

In view of the discussion above,

please respond to the following

questions: (1) Should the Coast Guard require

third party certification, similar to that

required for commercial vessel

navigation lights, so that boat builders,

boat owners, marine surveyors and

officials conducting law enforcement

boarding would have a means for

determining whether navigation lights

sold for use or installed on recreational

boats complied with applicable

requirements in the Navigation Rules? (2) What are the expected costs and

benefits of regulations requiring

manufacturers and importers of

navigation lights used on recreational

boats to construct and label their lights

in accordance with a recognized

industry standard? (3) Is it appropriate for the Coast

Guard to impose a third party

certification requirement for navigation

lights sold for installation on

recreational boats?

Dated: October 1, 1997.

Ernest R. Riutta,

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant

Commandant for Operations.

[FR Doc. 97–26697 Filed 10–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–14–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

[CA–003–BU; FRL–5907–8]

Clean Air Act Reclassification;

California-Santa Barbara

Nonattainment Area; Ozone

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of the

public comment period.

SUMMARY: On September 2, 1997, EPA

published a proposed rule (62 FR

46234) proposing to determine that the

Santa Barbara moderate ozone

nonattainment area has not attained the

1-hour ozone national ambient air

quality standard (NAAQS) by the Clean

Air Act (CAA) mandated attainment

date for moderate nonattainment areas,

November 15, 1996. If EPA takes final

action on the determination as

proposed, the Santa Barbara ozone

nonattainment area will be reclassified

by operation of law as a serious

nonattainment area. On September 24,

1997, the Santa Barbara County Air

Pollution Control District requested a

30-day extension of the comment period

in order to allow a better opportunity for

local stakeholders to provide input to

EPA. In response to that request, EPA is

announcing a 30-day extension of the

public comment period on the

September 2, 1997, proposed rule.

DATES: Written comments on the

September 2, 1997, proposed rule must

be received in writing by November 3,

1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be

submitted to: U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 9, Office of

Air Planning, Air Division, 17th Floor,

75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco,

California 94105.

Copies of EPA’s draft technical

support document for this rulemaking

and EPA’s policies governing attainment

findings and extension requests are

contained in the docket for this

rulemaking. A copy of EPA’s proposal

(62 FR 46234) and the TSD are also

available in the air programs section of

EPA Region 9’s website, http://

www.epa.gov/region09. The docket is

available for inspection during normal

business hours at the following location:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 9, Office of Air Planning, Air

Division, 17th Floor, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, California 94105,

(415) 744–1248.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dave Jesson, Office of Air Planning

(AIR–2), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street,

San Francisco, California 94105, (415)

744–1288.

Dated: October 2, 1997.

John Wise,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–26865 Filed 10–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–5902–8]

National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency

Plan; National Priorities List Update

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of intent to delete the

Cleve Reber Superfund Site from the

National Priorities List and request for

comments.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) Region 6 announces its

intent to delete the Cleve Reber

Superfund Site (the ‘‘Site’’) from the

National Priorities List (NPL) and

requests public comment on this

proposed action. All public comments

regarding this proposed action which

are submitted within 30 days of the date

of this notice, to the address indicated

below, will be considered by EPA. The

NPL, promulgated pursuant to Section

105 of the Comprehensive

Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act

(CERCLA) of 1980, is codified at

appendix B to the National Oil and

Hazardous Substances Pollution

Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR part

300. EPA in consultation with the State

of Louisiana, through the Louisiana

Department of Environmental Quality

(LDEQ), has determined that no further

response is appropriate, and that,

consequently, the Site should be deleted

from the NPL.

DATES: EPA will consider comments

submitted by November 10, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed

to: Ms. Janetta Coats, Community

Relations Coordinator (6SF–PO), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,

Texas 75202–2733, (214) 665–6617.

INFORMATION REPOSITORIES:

Comprehensive information on the Site

has been compiled in a public deletion

docket which may be reviewed and

copied during normal business hours at

the following Cleve Reber Superfund

Site information repositories:

U.S. EPA Region 6 Library (12th Floor),

1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas

75202–2733, 1–800–533–3508.

Ascension Parish Public Library, 500

Mississippi Street, Donaldsonville,

Louisiana 70346, (504) 473–8052.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Caroline A. Ziegler, Remedial Project

Manager (6SF–LP), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross

Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733,

(214) 665–2178.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

III. Deletion Procedures

IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion

I. Introduction

This is the EPA Region 6 Notice of

Intent to Delete (NOID) the Site from the

NPL. The NPL is the list, compiled by

EPA pursuant to CERCLA Section 105,

of uncontrolled hazardous substance

releases in the United States that are

priorities for long-term remedial

evaluation and response. As described

in 40 CFR 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 1997 / Proposed Rules 52675

1The ‘‘Fund’’ referred to here is the Hazardous

Substance Superfund established by section 9507 of

the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

2Hazardous substances remain on the Site under

a multi-layer soil cap which covers approximately

seven acres of the Site. EPA considers the cap to

be protective; nonetheless, since hazardous

substances will remain on the Site, EPA must

conduct the CERCLA-required five-year reviews.

3The Hazardous Ranking System is the method

used by EPA to evaluate the relative potential of

hazardous substance releases to cause health or

safety problems, or ecological or environmental

damage.

deleted from the NPL remain eligible for

remedial actions in the unlikely event

that conditions at the site warrant such

action.

The EPA will consider comments

concerning this NOID which are

submitted within thirty days of the date

of this NOID. EPA has also published a

notice of the availability of this NOID in

a major local newspaper of general

circulation at or near the Site.

Section II of this NOID explains the

NCP criteria for deleting sites from the

NPL. Section III discusses procedures

that EPA is using for this action. Section

IV discusses the Cleve Reber Superfund

Site and explains that the Site meets the

NCP deletion criteria.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

The NCP, at 40 CFR 300.425(e),

provides that releases may be deleted

from the NPL if no further response is

appropriate. In making a determination

to delete a release from the NPL, EPA

shall consider, in consultation with the

State, whether any of the following

criteria has been met:

i. Responsible parties or other persons

have implemented all appropriate

response actions required;

ii. All appropriate Fund-financed 1

response under CERCLA has 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.

If, at the site of a release, EPA selects

a remedial action that results in any

hazardous substances, pollutants, or

contaminants remaining at the site,

CERCLA Subsection 121(c), 42 U.S.C.

121(c), requires that EPA review such

remedial action no less often than each

5 years to assure that human health and

the environment are being protected by

the remedial action. Since hazardous

substances will remain at the Site, 2 EPA

shall conduct such reviews. If new

information becomes available which

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 site may be

restored to the NPL without application

of the Hazard Ranking System. 3

III. Deletion Procedures

EPA followed these procedures

regarding the proposed deletion:

(1) EPA Region 6 made a

determination that no further response

action is appropriate and that the Site

may be deleted from the NPL;

(2) EPA has consulted with LDEQ,

and by letter dated September 12, 1997,

LDEQ concurred in EPA’s deletion

decision;

(3) EPA has published, in a major

local newspaper of general circulation at

or near the Site, a notice of availability

of the NOID, which includes an

announcement of a 30-day public

comment period regarding the NOID,

and EPA distributed the NOID to

appropriate State, local and Federal

officials, and to other interested parties;

and

(4) EPA placed copies of information

supporting the proposed deletion (i.e.,

the public deletion docket) in the Site

information repositories (the locations

of these repositories are identified

above).

Deletion of a site from the NPL does

not itself create, alter, or revoke any

individual’s rights or obligations. The

NPL is designed primarily for

informational purposes and to assist

EPA management. As mentioned in

Section II of this Notice, 40 CFR

300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the

deletion of a site from the NPL does not

preclude eligibility of the site for future

response actions.

EPA Region 6 will accept and

evaluate public comments on this NOID

before making a final decision to delete.

If necessary, EPA will prepare a

Responsiveness Summary to address

any significant public comments

received.

Deletion of the Site from the NPL will

occur when the EPA Regional

Administrator places a final notice in

the Federal Register. Generally, the NPL

will reflect deletions in the final update

following the NOID. Public notices and

copies of the Responsiveness Summary

will be made available to local residents

upon request to the EPA Remedial

Project Manager, Caroline Ziegler at the

address listed above. These will also be

placed in both repository locations

listed above, where they can be obtained

by request.

IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion

The following information provides

the EPA’s rationale for the proposal to

delete the Site from the NPL:

A. Site Location

The Site is located two miles

southwest of Sorrento in Ascension

Parish, Louisiana. The Site is an

abandoned 25-acre landfill. Prior to the

completion of the remedial action on

the Site, the Site contained one large

pond (about 10 acres) and three small

ponds (approximately one acre total).

The Site is bordered on the north by

residential properties, on the east and

south by swampland, and on the west

by Louisiana Highway 70.

The Site lies in the Mississippi

alluvial plain section of the East Coastal

Plain Physiographic Province. The Site

is on the Prairie Formation of

Pleistocene Age, which consists

generally of undifferentiated sediments.

The sediments are made up of tan and

gray clays and clayey and sandy silts.

The major fresh water aquifers beneath

the Site are composed of older deltaic

deposits. These aquifers used for water

supplies include the Gonzales aquifer

which is at a depth of about 500 feet and

an overlaying Norco aquifer which is at

a depth of about 260 feet below the

ground surface. The shallow

groundwater is generally within a few

feet of the surface and is not a

documented source of potable water in

the area.

B. Site History

Pits located on the site were originally

used as the source of borrow material

during the construction of embankments

for the Sunshine Bridge and portions of

Interstate Highway 10. In 1970 the land

was leased for use as a landfill by the

Environmental Controls Company

(ECCO) of Louisiana, with Mr. Cleve

Reber as the president. In August 1970,

Ascension Parish entered into a sanitary

landfill operation agreement with

ECCO. Between 1970 and 1974, both

municipal and industrial wastes were

disposed in the borrow pits. Trenches

were also dug on the Site, and were

filled with wastes. One large pit and

three smaller pits filled with rain water

and became ponds. In July 1974, the

landfill operators were found to be in

violation of the State sanitation code,

and they were ordered to stop receiving

waste. Thereafter, the Site was

abandoned by ECCO.

In 1981 the State of Louisiana, in

response to citizen complaints, funded

a study to collect data to develop a plan

to close the Site. Tests showed the

presence of significant levels of

hazardous substances including

hexachlorobenzene and

hexachlorobutadiene. The Site was

promulgated to the National Priorities
52676 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 1997 / Proposed Rules

4EPA’s Record of Decision documents the

selection of the remedial alternative which will be

used to cleanup the site in question.

5A lift is a layer of excavated material or fill

material.

List (NPL) in September 1983, (see 48

FR 40658, September 8, 1983).

The State fenced the Site in early

1983 due to citizen concerns. In July

1983, EPA conducted an emergency

removal. As part of the removal, over

1,100 drums were removed from the

Site. Piles of waste located on the

surface of the Site were also removed.

As a temporary protective measure, a

thin clay cap was placed over areas

thought to contain buried drums and

wastes. These areas of buried waste

were later permanently addressed as

part of a remedial action.

A Remedial Investigation (RI) and

Feasibility Study (FS) was completed by

EPA in May 1985. In order to include

an expanded analysis of innovative

remedial technologies, and to quantify

the groundwater contaminants at much

lower detection levels, a supplemental

RI/FS was initiated in August 1985 and

completed in April 1986.

The major volume of waste disposed

at the Site was municipal waste. The

analytical results of field samples

collected during the original and

supplemental RI indicated that all

significant contamination was restricted

to the Site. On-site media including the

surface water, sediments, surface soils,

waste pits, and shallow groundwater

were contaminated with organic

pollutants. The primary organic

pollutants of concern included

hexachlorobenzene,

hexachlorobutadiene, hexachloroethane

and tetrachloroethene. Inorganic

analyses indicated a wide range of

inorganic pollutant concentration levels

in the on-site media and in background

samples. No consistently high

concentrations were observed. This

made qualitative evaluations of any

inorganic concentrations found very

difficult and impractical.

The EPA issued a Record of Decision

(ROD) 4 on March 31, 1987. The selected

remedy called for excavation and on-site

incineration of buried drums and

sludges, draining and backfilling on-site

ponds, placing a clay cap over the

landfill areas, and groundwater

monitoring. The estimated cost of the

cleanup was $25 million.

On September 30, 1988, EPA issued a

Unilateral Administrative Order,

amended on February 5, 1991

(hereinafter the 1988 order and its 1991

amendment are referred to collectively

as the Order), addressed to a total of five

responsible parties. The Order required

the implementation of the remedial

design and the remedial action for the

Site and the performance of operation

and maintenance subsequent to

completion of implementation of the

remedy. Some of these responsible

parties completed the remedial design

and remedial action at a cost of over $53

million. The remedial action began in

August 1993, and ended in May 1996

with the completion of the cap.

Dewatering and backfilling of the

three Site ponds identified in the ROD

was completed in July 1995. Ponds were

dewatered to a level of approximately

one foot above the pond bottom. Ponds

were then backfilled with sand until a

firm working surface was achieved. The

sand was then covered with a geotextile

material. Approximately 5 feet of clay

was placed over the geotextile in order

to achieve grades that would be resistant

to erosion, and to complete the backfill

operation. The clay fill was installed

and compacted in 8-inch lifts,5 and

density tests were performed on every

lift. If any lift failed the testing it was

reworked and retested. A 6-inch layer of

topsoil was placed on top of the clay fill

prior to landscaping. These multi-layers

serve to form an impermeable cap.

Prior to excavating the waste and

under EPA oversight, the responsible

parties constructed buildings capable of

controlling air emissions over the areas

to be excavated. These ‘‘Excavation and

Feed Preparation’’ buildings were large

aircraft hanger-like structures designed

to prevent escape of volatile organic

compounds (VOCs). The responsible

parties kept a negative air pressure

vacuum in the buildings in order to

maintain VOC concentrations at less

than 50 parts per million (ppm), and to

prevent an explosive concentration of

gases from accumulating. The exhausted

air from the buildings was treated with

fume incineration and activated carbon

prior to atmospheric emission in order

to insure that VOC action levels were

not exceeded at the fence line, or at

residential ambient air monitoring

stations.

The horizontal limits of excavation at

the Site were based on RI findings.

Sheet pilings were installed around the

perimeter of the three excavation areas

to mark the horizontal limits, support

the sidewalls and to control the flow of

water into the excavations. Vertical

limits of excavation were based upon

visual determination of the limits of

industrial waste present at the areas in

question. The responsible parties,

subject to EPA review and approval,

visually inspected the material to be

excavated and separated it into

industrial waste, municipal waste, and

natural soils based on physical form,

color, and texture. Excavation continued

until visual observation confirmed that

all visible industrial waste had been

removed. Materials classified as

industrial waste were incinerated. The

resulting incinerator ash and the

materials classified as municipal wastes

and native soil were used as a backfill

material into the excavated areas.

Backfill material was compacted until it

was level with the base of the landfill

cap. The completion of the landfill cap

is described below.

Thermal treatment of industrial waste,

drums, wastewater treatment plant

sludges, oils and grease was conducted

on-site in a Shirco-infrared type

incinerator operated in compliance with

the approved operating conditions. A

trial burn had been conducted at the

Site between July 1 and July 3, 1994.

The trial burn results showed that the

concentrations of the constituents of

concern were all in compliance with the

regulatory limits. An average

destruction and removal efficiency

(DRE) of >99.99939% for

hexachlorobenzene and >99.9940% for

hexachlorobutadiene were achieved.

About 25,000 tons of waste material was

incinerated. Waste incineration was

completed in September 1995.

The incinerator ash/scrubber filter

cake that did not meet the backfill

material criteria due to its high metals

content was stabilized. Approximately

500 tons of incinerator ash/scrubber

filter cake was stabilized prior to

placement into the excavated areas as

backfill.

The sources of wastewater produced

on the Site included groundwater from

waste excavation areas, surface water

from the on-site ponds,

decontamination water, and wastewater

from the incineration operations. The

wastewater was treated on-site to meet

the National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES) discharge

criteria set by EPA and Louisiana

Department of Environmental Quality

(LDEQ), and, subsequently, the

wastewater was discharged to the

Mississippi River via a dedicated

pipeline. The wastewater treatment

plant included air stripping for VOCs

removal, pH adjustment for metals

precipitation, coagulation and

flocculation, filtration (filter presses),

and carbon adsorption units. The

wastewater treatment plant operated

from November 1993 to December 1995.

About 64 million gallons of wastewater

were treated and discharged.

A final multi-layer cap was placed

over all waste material (and backfill)

which remained in the excavation areas.

This cap covers approximately seven
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 1997 / Proposed Rules 52677

acres of the Site. The cap was installed

between November 1995 and May 1996.

In preparation for the final cap profile,

clean backfill material was applied on

top of the waste, and the backfill was

graded to the appropriate elevations per

the design specifications. A synthetic

drainage net, a half foot sand layer and

an eighty millimeter High Density

Polyethylene (HDPE) were placed on

top of the backfill. This allowed for

installation of gas vents into the

constructed sand layer. The vents

extend up through the cap and are used

to monitor for gas breakthrough using

carbon canister detection units. This

system was devised in order to

determine if any residual treated waste

beneath the cap is breaking down and

causing formation of gas. The purpose of

the system is to enable contingency

plans to be implemented if gas is

detected.

A two foot clay layer was installed

and compacted in 8-inch lifts on top of

the gas vent layer. On top of this clay

layer a geotextile and HDPE were

installed prior to covering the whole

area with one foot of topsoil. The

topsoil, which is the exposed portion of

the cap, was seeded with vegetation that

is intended to anchor the topsoil during

rainfall events. To complete the cap, the

carbon canisters were attached to the

gas vents.

As part of the landfill construction,

perforated stainless steel pipes wrapped

with a filter fabric were laid in along the

bottom, beneath the waste layers. There

are various PVC pipe stands which stick

up through the cap that are attached to

the piping beneath the landfill. These

pipe stands are checked on a regular

basis (once every three months) for their

integrity, as well as to see if any liquids

have collected into the pipe system.

This system is known as a leachate

collection system. The leachate

(leachate is any water that percolates

through the landfill) can be collected

and analyzed.

The responsible parties constructed

the remedy at the Site to meet

performance standards specified in the

ROD. The remedy implemented to

address the contamination at the Site

has achieved the remedial action

objectives and the remediation goals

described in the ROD. EPA and the

LDEQ have determined that the remedy

which includes long-term groundwater

monitoring as well as an inspection and

maintenance program for the Site is

performing as designed, and is

operational and functional. No

additional treatment or other measures

to restore ground-or surface-water

quality have been identified as being

required.

C. Characterization of Risk

Continued monitoring of groundwater

demonstrates that no significant risk to

public health or the environment is

posed by the hazardous materials

remaining at the Site. Based on the

successful remedial actions addressing

the hazardous materials on-site, the

monitoring results of operation and

maintenance (O & M) activities to date,

and the public health consultation by

the Agency for Toxic Substances and

Disease Registry (ATSDR), EPA verifies

the implemented Site remedy is

protective of human health and the

environment.

D. Community Involvement

Public participation activities have

been satisfied as required in CERCLA

Subsection 113(k), 42 U.S.C. 9613(k),

and in CERCLA Section 117, 42 U.S.C.

9617. Documents in the deletion docket

on which EPA relied for

recommendation of the Site deletion

from the NPL have been made available

to the public in the two information

repositories the location of which is

identified above.

E. Proposed Action

In consultation with the LDEQ, EPA

has concluded that responsible parties

have implemented all appropriate

response actions required at the Site

(neither the CERCLA-required five-year

reviews, nor operation and maintenance

of the constructed remedy is considered

further response action for these

purposes), that all appropriate Fundfinanced response actions under

CERCLA have been implemented, and

that no further response action by

responsible parties is appropriate.

Moreover, EPA, in consultation with

LDEQ, has determined that Site

investigations show that the Site now

poses no significant threat to public

health or the environment;

consequently, EPA proposes to delete

the Site from the NPL.

Dated: September 25, 1997.

Jerry Clifford,

Acting Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA

Region 6.

[FR Doc. 97–26528 Filed 10–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 15, 73, 74, and 76

[ET Docket No. 97–206; FCC 97–340]

Technical Requirements To Enable

Blocking of Video Programming Based

on Program Ratings

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: By this Notice of Proposed

Rule Making (‘‘NPRM’’), the

Commission proposes to amend its rules

to require that most television receivers

be equipped with features that enable

viewers to block the display of video

programming with a common rating.

Furthermore, the Commission proposes

to amend its rules to ensure the ratings

information that is associated with a

particular video program is not deleted

from transmission by broadcast

television stations, low power television

stations, television translator and

booster stations, and cable television

systems. The Commission also proposes

that similar requirements should be

placed on other services that can be

used to distribute video programming to

the home, such as Multipoint

Distribution Services (MDS) and Direct

Broadcast Satellite Service (DBS). This

action is taken in response to the

Parental Choice in Television

Programming requirements contained in

section 551 (c), (d), and (e) of the

Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Pub.

L. No. 104–104, 111 Stat. 56), which

amended sections 303 and 330 of the

Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.

303 and 330). The proposals contained

in this NPRM are intended to give

parents the ability to block video

programming that they do not want

their children to watch.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before November 24, 1997, and reply

comments must be filed on or before

December 8, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Neal McNeil, Office of Engineering and

Technology, (202) 418–2408.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking, ET Docket 97–

206, FCC 97–340, adopted September

25, 1997 and released September 26,

1997. The full text of this document is

available for inspection and copying

during regular business hours in the

FCC Reference Center, Room 239, 1919

M Street, NW, Washington, DC. The

complete text of this document also may

be purchased from the Commission’s