Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 146 /Thursday, July 30, 1998 / Proposed Rules 40687

Creek downstream of Route 925, the

Frontera Lagoons, Madri Canal south of

Route 3, the Ciudad Cristiana housing

development (Cristiana), the 13

industries adjacent or in close proximity

to the creek, and the suspected dredge

spoil piles allegedly located on the bank

of Frontera Creek adjacent to Ciudad

Cristiana.

Industrial wastewaters from

industries within the Site were

discharged into the creek from 1971 to

1981. Public concern about the site

arose in 1977 following the death of

thirty cows that grazed in the area.

Since that time, the area has been

investigated by the EPA, PREQB and

several industries located in the

vicinity. This investigation confirmed

the presence of contaminants including

mercury in sediments and surface water

samples. As a result of the potential

threat to public health, in August 1983,

the Frontera Creek Site was included on

the EPA’s National Priorities List.

In February 1985, the Puerto Rico

Department of Health (PRDOH) found

elevated levels of mercury in blood and

urine samples from a number of

residents in the Ciudad Cristiana

development. In addition, the PREQB

found mercury in soil samples. As a

result, the Governor of Puerto Rico

ordered the evacuation of the residents

of the development. In March 1985, the

PRDOH requested that the EPA evaluate

the Ciudad Cristiana development for

mercury contamination. The residents

had alleged that during the construction

of their homes, the area was

contaminated. In response to this

request, and in coordination with the

Agency for Toxic Substances and

Disease Registry (ATSDR), the EPA

conducted a Focused Remedial

Investigation to assess mercury

contamination in the Ciudad Cristiana

development. Soil samples from the

Ciudad Cristiana development were

analyzed for mercury contamination.

ATSDR concluded that the mercury

levels found did not present an

immediate health threat to the residents

of Ciudad Cristiana.

On October 3, 1986, an

Administrative Order on Consent

(Consent Order) was issued by the EPA

pursuant to Section 106(a) of CERCLA.

The Consent Order required Miles

Diagnostics Corporation; Miles, Inc.;

Cooper Development Company; and

Revlon, Inc. (‘‘Settling Defendants’’) to

undertake a Remedial Investigation/

Feasibility Study (RI/FS) covering the

entire Frontera Creek Superfund Site.

A Remedial Investigation (RI) was

performed from January 1988 through

August 1989. The RI data indicated that

elevated concentrations of mercury

occurred primarily in surface soils at the

Technicon property and in sediments in

the Technicon ditch. The sampling done

at the Ciudad Cristiana development

and in the Frontera Creek itself did not

find mercury levels of concern.

A Record of Decision (ROD), which

selected the remedy for the Site, was

signed in September 1991. The selected

remedy called for the excavation and

proper disposal of all Site soils and

sediments with mercury concentration

in excess of 35 parts per million (ppm).

On July 8, 1992, Miles Diagnostics

Corporation; Miles Inc.; Cooper

Development Company; and Revlon,

Inc. (‘‘Settling Defendants’’) signed a

Consent Decree with the EPA for

implementation of the selected remedy.

Remedial Action was implemented

according to the approved Final

Remedial Design Report document,

dated December 27, 1994. Excavation

activities, initiated on March 7, 1995

were substantially completed as of

March 30, 1995. Off-site transportation

for disposal of rolloffs containing

excavated waste, was initiated on April

18, 1995 and completed on April 22,

1995.

The remediated Site areas, as required

by the ROD, were two areas within the

Technicon ditch (known as Areas 1 and

2) and one area near the former raw

materials storage area at the Technicon

facility (known as Area 3). The volumes

and media removed in each were Area

1—83 cubic yards of Technicon Ditch

sediments, Area 2—49 cubic yards of

Technicon Ditch sediments and Area

3—159 cubic yards of soils and 32 yards

of concrete. The Area 2 excavation was

expanded to remove an additional 33.5

cubic yards of sediments based on the

results of the post-excavation sampling

and analysis.

All the completion requirements for

this Site have been met as described in

the ‘‘Superfund Site Close Out Report’’

dated September 1997. Activities at the

Site have resulted in the removal of

mercury contaminated soils and

sediments from the Site and have

provided for the off-site disposal of

contaminated soils and sediments. EPA

has determined that responsible parties

have completed all appropriate response

action necessary under CERCLA at this

site and that no further construction

activities by responsible parties are

necessary. In addition, for the activities

undertaken at this Site under CERCLA,

EPA identified an air release of

methylene chloride. EPA determined

the source of the air release to be the

Squibb facility located within the Site.

Squibb voluntarily reduced emissions of

methylene chloride to acceptable levels.

Consequently, EPA is proposing

deletion of this Site from the NPL.

Documents supporting this action are

available in the docket.

The EPA and PREQB have determined

that the remedy implemented at the Site

is protective of human health and the

environment and that no further

cleanup by responsible parties is

appropriate. Hazardous substances were

cleaned up to levels that would allow

for unlimited use and unrestricted

access, therefore the five-year review

requirement of Section 121(c) of

CERCLA, as amended, is not applicable.

On September 30, 1997, the EPA signed

the Superfund Site Close Out Report for

the Site, prepared in accordance with

OSWER Directive 9320.2–09, ‘‘Close

Out Procedures for National Priorities

List Sites’’.

Dated: June 18, 1998.

William J. Muszynski,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region II.

[FR Doc. 98–20153 Filed 7–29–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–6131–2]

National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency

Plan; National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of Intent to Delete the

U.S. Navy, Naval Security Group

Activity Superfund Site from the

National Priorities List. Request for

comments.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) Region II Office

announces its intent to delete the

United States Navy, Naval Security

Group Activity Superfund Site (Site)

from the National Priorities List (NPL)

and requests public comment on this

action. The NPL, 40 CFR Part 300,

Appendix B was promulgated pursuant

to Section 105 of the Comprehensive

Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980

(CERCLA) and the National Oil and

Hazardous Substances Pollution

Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR Part

300. EPA and the Puerto Rico

Environmental Quality Board (PREQB)

have determined that all appropriate

actions have been completed and no

further response action is appropriate

under CERCLA. In addition, EPA and

PREQB have determined that response

actions conducted to date at the Site
40688 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 146 /Thursday, July 30, 1998 / Proposed Rules

have been protective of public health,

welfare, and the environment.

DATES: Comments concerning the

deletion of this Site from the NPL may

be submitted on or before August 31,

1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed

to: Paul G. Ingrisano, Remedial Project

Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region II, 290 Broadway—18th

Floor, New York, NY 10007–1866.

The deletion docket and other

comprehensive information on this Site

is available through the EPA Region II

public docket, which is located at EPA’s

Region II Office in New York City, and

is available for viewing, by appointment

only, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, excluding

holidays. Requests for appointments

should be directed to: Paul G. Ingrisano,

Remedial Project Manager, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region II, 290 Broadway, 18th Floor,

New York, NY 10007–1866, (212) 637–

4337.

Information on this Site is also

available for viewing at the Site

Administrative Record Information

Repositories at the following locations:

Jaime Fonadella Garriga Public Library,

Toa Baja, PR 00951, (787) 794–2145,

Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to

8:00 p.m.; and, Saturday, 8:00 a.m. to

3 p.m.; excluding holidays.

Naval Security Group Activity Base

Library, Building 193, Sabana Seca,

PR FP0 AA 34053–1000, (787) 261–

8312, Monday and Tuesday, 10:30

a.m. to 7:00 p.m.; Thursday and

Friday, 10:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.; and,

Saturday, 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.;

excluding holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul

G. Ingrisano, Remedial Project Manager,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region II, 290 Broadway, 18th Floor,

New York, NY 10007–1866, (212) 637–

4337.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria.

III. Deletion Procedures.

IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion.

I. Introduction

EPA Region II announces its intent to

delete the United States Navy, Naval

Security Group Activity Superfund Site,

which is located in Sabana Seca, in the

Municipality of Toa Baja, Puerto Rico

from the NPL, which is found in

Appendix B to the NCP, 40 CFR Part

300, and requests comments on this

deletion. EPA identifies sites that

appear to present a significant risk to

public health, welfare, or the

environment and maintains the NPL as

the list of these sites. As described in

§ 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, any site

deleted from the NPL remains eligible

for remedial actions in the unlikely

event that conditions at the site warrant

such action.

EPA will accept comments on the

proposal to delete this Site from the

NPL until August 31, 1998.

Section II of this document explains

the criteria for deleting sites from the

NPL. Section III discusses the

procedures that EPA is using for this

action. Section IV discusses the Site and

explains how the Site meets the deletion

criteria.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

Section 300.425(e)(1)(i)–(iii) of the

NCP provides that sites may be deleted

from the NPL where no further response

is appropriate. In making a

determination to delete a site from the

NPL, EPA in consultation with PREQB,

shall consider whether any of the

following criteria have been met:

(i) Responsible parties or other parties

have implemented all appropriate

response actions required; or

(ii) All appropriate responses under

CERCLA have been implemented, and

no further response action by

responsible parties is appropriate; or

(iii) The remedial investigation has

shown that the release of hazardous

substances poses no significant threat to

public health or the environment and,

therefore, remedial measures are not

appropriate.

III. Deletion Procedures

The following procedures were used

for the intended deletion of this Site: (1)

EPA Region II, PREQB and the United

States Navy issued Records of Decision

(RODs), which documented the

remedial action activities; (2) all

appropriate responses under CERCLA

have been implemented as documented

in the Final Remedial Action Report for

Site 6, dated August 4, 1997, together

with the Final No Action RODs for Sites

1&3 and Sites 2&4, dated September 30,

1997, in lieu of a Final Close Out

Report; (3) PREQB has concurred with

the proposed deletion decision by a

letter dated March 27, 1998; (4) a notice

has been published in the local

newspapers and has been distributed to

appropriate federal, commonwealth,

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, (5)

all relevant documents have been made

available for public review in the local

Site information repositories.

Deletion of sites 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

Agency management of Superfund sites.

For deletion of this Site, EPA’s

Regional Office will accept and evaluate

public comments on EPA’s Notice of

Intent to Delete before making a final

decision to delete. If necessary, the

Agency will prepare a Responsiveness

Summary to address any significant

public comments 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 the Regional Office.

IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion

The following site summary provides

the Agency’s rationale for the proposal

to delete this Site from the NPL.

A. Site Background

NSGA Sabana Seca was originally a

pineapple and grapefruit plantation

known as the Stephenson Place. The

plantation was procured by the U.S.

Navy during World War II. After the

war, the property was turned over to the

U.S. Army. In 1951, the Navy again

assumed control and in 1952,

established the U.S. Naval Radio

Station, Sabana Seca. In 1971, NSGA

Sabana Seca was established as an

independent shore activity of the Navy

and has been operated as a

communications center continuously

since that time. NSGA Sabana Seca is

located approximately 14 miles west of

the city of San Juan on the island of

Puerto Rico, and consists of a North and

South Tract together covering over 2,200

acres of land. The South Tract is

bounded to the north by Sabana Seca

and the North Tract, to the east by Route

866, to the south by Route 22, and to the

west by the Bayamo ́n and Toa Baja

Municipal Landfills and the U.S.

Department of Health and Human

Services Research Facility.

B. History

At the NSGA Sabana Seca Site,

following placement of the facility on

the NPL, seven sites were identified and

assessed as posing a potential threat to

human health or the environment, due

to contamination from past hazardous

material operations. All sites are located

in the South Tract.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 146 /Thursday, July 30, 1998 / Proposed Rules 40689

1. Site 6

The Former Pest Control Shop was

operational from the mid-1950s through

1979. Pesticides were accidently spilled

in and around the building during this

time. Pesticides were mixed and

application equipment cleaned in a sink

outside the building which discharged

directly to the ground. In 1987, the

materials stored in the pesticide shop

were removed and taken to the Base’s

hazardous storage facility. The building

was demolished and the demolition

debris was taken to the nearby

Bayamo ́n/Toa Baja Municipal Landfill.

As a result of pesticide contamination

found in the soil, in the vicinity of the

Former Pest Control Shop, NSGA

Sabana Seca was added to the NPL on

October 4, 1989. In 1991, the Navy, with

oversight provided by EPA and PREQB,

began a Remedial Investigation (RI) to

characterize the nature and extent of

contamination and to assess potential

risks to human health and the

environment.

Based on the results of the RI and risk

assessment, a Record of Decision (ROD)

for Site 6 was signed on September 20,

1996. The ROD documented the

decision that no further remedial action

was necessary at the Former Pest

Control Shop because the conditions at

the site pose no unacceptable risks to

human health or the environment.

However, since the site is adjacent to a

playground/picnic area and the enlisted

housing area, as an added measure of

precaution, the Navy elected to place an

asphalt cap over the areas where

pesticides were previously detected in

the surface soils. The construction of the

asphalt cap was completed in April

1997, and the cap is being maintained

by the Navy. The life expectancy of an

asphalt cap is approximately 20 to 25

years with routine maintenance. A top

sealant will be applied periodically to

the asphalt surface to prevent

deterioration.

2. Sites 1&3 and Sites 2&4

Site 1, the South Stone Road Disposal

Area; Site 3, the North Stone Road

Disposal Area; and, Site 4, the Pistol

Range Disposal Area were used as the

Base’s landfills in operation from 1951

to 1960, 1960 to 1965, and 1965 through

possibly 1970, respectively. Solid waste

was disposed in these landfills. Site 2,

the Bunker 607 Disposal Area, was

intermittently used for materials storage

from the 1960s to 1979. In 1979, the

bunker was cleaned -out and old paint

intended to be used for the on-Base

housing was reportedly disposed in the

vicinity of Bunker 607.

In 1991, the Navy, with oversight

provided by EPA and PREQB, began

Site Investigations (SI) to assess the

presence or absence of contamination

associated with past Navy activities at

these sites and determine if an RI was

necessary.

Based on the results of the SIs and

risk assessments, RIs were determined

to be unnecessary and No Action RODs

for the sites were signed on September

30, 1997. The RODs documented the

decision that no further remedial action

was necessary at Sites 1&3 and Sites

2&4 because the conditions at the sites

pose no unacceptable risks to human

health or the environment.

3. Site 5

The Wenger Road Disposal Area, was

reportedly used as a disposal site for

mainly inert materials from 1980

through 1983. In 1982, the Navy

recommended that these materials be

removed from this site. These materials

were removed and placed in a nearby

municipal landfill. Because Site 5 has

been cleaned up, it does not pose a

threat to human health or the

environment. Therefore, since this site

had been previously remediated prior to

the listing of NSGA Sabana Seca on the

NPL, EPA’s July 19, 1994 letter to the

Navy stated that no further investigation

of Site 5 was required.

4. Site 7

Leachate from the nearby Bayamo ́n/

Toa Baja municipal landfill has been

observed entering this wet marshy area,

which has been designated as the

Leachate Ponding Area. The municipal

landfill, which is located directly

adjacent to the Base property, has been

in operation since the early 1970s.

Though the waste stream did not

originate from Navy property, the Navy

conducted a Leachate Diversion/

Feasibility Study (FS) to try to address

the problem. The FS provided

alternatives for interim treatment of the

leachate entering Navy property. A

Treatability Study of the engineered

wetland technology was conducted as a

result of the FS. Due to unforeseen

changes in landfill operations and the

hydrology upgradient of the Base, and

susceptibility of the engineered wetland

technology to drought conditions, the

study was canceled.

In 1996, the Navy released the final

FS report, which provided an in-depth

summary and discussion of the

alternatives, all of which were

determined to be impracticable as the

report also determined that the leachate

flowing onto Navy property at Site 7, a

collection area for leachate from an offBase source, is from the Bayamo ́n

Municipal Landfill, the operation of

which could not be controlled by the

Navy. Therefore, on February 27, 1997,

the EPA notified the Navy that No

Further Action was necessary and that

a ROD would also not be required for

the Leachate Ponding Area. Site 7 will

be addressed by the Municipality of Toa

Baja, the party responsible for Site 7

contamination. Site 7, the Leachate

Ponding Area, is not part of the NPL

Site.

C. Characterization of Human Health

Risk

The RI and SIs included

investigations of the surface water,

sediment, soil, and groundwater in the

vicinity of the sites. The investigations

included a wide range of analyses to

detect volatile and semi-volatile organic

compounds, pesticides, herbicides,

polychlorinated biphenyls, inorganics

(metals) and cyanide. Concentrations

found in the soil, surface water,

sediment and groundwater were below

commonwealth and federal regulatory

levels and risks for both current and

future use were within acceptable levels

as defined by the NCP. EPA and PREQB

believe that conditions at the Site pose

no unacceptable risks to human health

or the environment.

D. Ecological Risk

The results of the ecological risk

assessment indicate that the Former Pest

Control Shop does not pose a threat to

ecological receptors or habitats.

E. Site Meets Deletion Criteria

All the construction completion

requirements for this Site have been met

as described in the No Action RODs, (in

lieu of a Final Close Out Report), signed

on September 30, 1997, which were

prepared in accordance with OSWER

Directive 9320.2–09, Close Out

Procedures for National Priorities List

Sites. EPA and PREQB have determined

that the Navy has implemented all

appropriate actions necessary under

CERCLA, at this Site. The remedial and

site investigations and remedial action

for this Site have been successfully

implemented, are protective of human

health, welfare and the environment

and no further response actions are

necessary. Consequently, EPA is

proposing deletion of this Site from the

NPL. Documents supporting this action

are available from the docket. Because

no hazardous substances remain at the

Site above health-based levels, the fiveyear review requirement of Section 121

(c) of CERCLA as amended, does not

apply at this Site.
40690 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 146 /Thursday, July 30, 1998 / Proposed Rules

Dated: June 18, 1998.

William J. Muszynski,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region II.

[FR Doc. 98–20152 Filed 7–29–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Maritime Administration

RIN 2133–AB32

[Docket No. MARAD–98–3468]

46 CFR Part 298

Proposed Amendments to the Title XI;

Closing Documentation and

Application

AGENCY: Maritime Administration,

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: The Maritime Administration

(MARAD) is considering changes to the

existing application form used by the

agency in evaluating whether to issue,

under Title XI of the Merchant Marine

Act, 1936, as amended, a commitment

to guarantee obligations for the

construction of vessels in shipyards

located in the United States or for the

modernization of such yards, and the

documentation forms used by the

agency in closing such commitments.

The purpose of this proposed rule is to

solicit public review and comment of

the proposed changes to the application

form and the closing documentation.

DATES: Comments should be submitted

on or before August 31, 1998, to the

address listed below.

ADDRESSES: Signed, written comments

should refer to the docket number that

appears at the top of this document and

must be submitted to the Docket Clerk,

U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL–401, 400

Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC

20590–001. All comments received will

be available for examination at the

above address between 10 a.m. and 5

p.m., Monday through Friday except

Federal Holidays. An electronic version

of the new application forms and the

closing documents is available from the

persons listed below on computer disk

or on the World Wide Web at http://

marad.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Richard Lorr, Office of Chief Counsel,

Maritime Administration, MAR–223,

Room 7228, 400 Seventh Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20590, telephone 202–

366–5168 or fax 202–366–7485 with

respect to the closing documentation,

and Jean E. McKeever, Office of Ship

Financing, Maritime Administration,

MAR–530, Room 8122, 400 Seventh

Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590,

telephone 202–366–5744 or fax 202–

366–7901 with respect to the

application forms.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

February 17, 1998, MARAD issued an

Advance Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (ANPRM) and request for

comments on whether MARAD should

amend its existing regulations or alter

its existing administrative practices

governing the Title XI application

process, standards for evaluation and

approval of applications, and the

process of documentation for closing of

commitments to guarantee obligations.

The ANPRM was issued in response to

Executive Order 12862 issued by

President Clinton which called for

agencies to strive for a ‘‘customer-driven

government’’ that matches or exceeds

the best service available in the private

sector.

MARAD requested that its customers,

shipyard and shipowner executives,

their lawyers, accountants, investment

bankers and other professionals, who

have used or are familiar with the Title

XI program, provide MARAD with their

views about how the Title XI program

could be improved. MARAD requested

specific comments on several topics

including the following:

1. Whether changes to the current

application form (Form MA–163) are

needed and, if so, what specific changes

would make the application process

more efficient without eliminating

critical information needed by MARAD;

2. Whether there should be separate

application forms for export vessels,

U.S.-flag vessels, and shipyard

modernizations, and what specific

information should be requested by

each;

3. Whether MARAD should waive the

requirement in the application form for

the submission of plans and

specifications if a vessel design has

previously been approved by MARAD;

4. Whether MARAD should permit

electronic filing of all or a part of a Title

XI application;

5. Whether MARAD should create

special closing documentation to govern

shipyard modernization guarantees; and

6. Whether the current closing

documentation on a commitment to

guarantee imposes requirements that are

unnecessary and redundant, and what

changes should be made to the standard

documentation.

The response of commenters to these

questions and the actions that MARAD

is proposing are described below. Upon

receipt of further public comment to the

proposed application forms and closing

documentation, MARAD will make final

changes to the application forms and the

documentation. MARAD is preparing a

separate Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

covering any conforming changes with

respect to the content of the application

forms and the documentation and the

other regulatory issues that were raised

in the ANPRM, but are not addressed

herein.

The Application Form

Four commenters addressed the

application form and requested that the

agency simplify and streamline the

existing form. Five commenters

recommended that there be a separate

application form for shipyard

modernizations and four commenters

recommended an additional, separate

application form for export vessel

projects.

MARAD has responded favorably to

most of these recommendations.

MARAD has simplified and reorganized

the application, and deleted questions

that were unnecessary or redundant,

and clarified questions that were

ambiguous. MARAD is also placing the

new application forms on our home

page and is printing the forms on lettersize paper instead of legal-size paper.

MARAD created a separate

application form for shipyard

modernizations, but did not draft a

separate application form for export

vessels because the differences between

the domestic and the export

applications were not substantial

enough to justify the extra form.

However, the proposed vessel

application form has a separate section

dealing with export transactions.

MARAD believes that the net result is

clearer application forms which are

easier to follow and complete and

which will impose a reduced

preparation time on applicants and

should allow for a more expedited

processing of applications. MARAD

welcomes any further suggestions

commenters have to the two proposed

forms.

Plans and Specifications

The four commenters on the issue of

approved vessel designs believe that

MARAD should not require the

submission of plans and specifications

for vessel designs previously approved

by MARAD. MARAD agrees and the

application form has been amended

accordingly.

Electronic Filing

Seven commenters responded to this

issue. A number of them thought that

electronic filing would raise