Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 9 / Friday, January 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules 3189

necessitate preparation of a Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis.

Under Executive Order 12866, EPA

must judge whether a regulation is

‘‘major’’ and therefore subject to the

requirement of a Regulatory Impact

Analysis. This action will not result in

an annual effect on the economy of $100

million or more or cause any of the

other effects which would result in its

being classified by the Executive Order

as a ‘‘major’’ rule. Consequently, this

rule does not necessitate preparation of

a Regulatory Impact Analysis. This

proposed rule does not contain any

information collection requirements

subject to Office of Management and

Budget review under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501

et seq.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 228

Environmental protection, Water

pollution control.

Approved by:

Patrick M. Tobin,

Acting Regional Administrator.

In consideration of the foregoing,

subchapter H of chapter I of title 40 is

proposed to be amended as set forth

below.

PART 228—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 228

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1412 and 1418.

2. Section 228.15 is proposed to be

amended by adding paragrpah (h)(18) to

read as follows:

§ 228.15 Dumping sites designated on a

final basis.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

(18) Tampa, Florida; Ocean Dredged

Material Disposal Site lll Region IV.

(i) Location:.27°32′27′′

N

83°06′02′′

W.;

27°32′27′′

N

83°03′46′′

W.;

27°30′27′′

N

83°06′02′′

W.;

27°30′27′′

N

83°03′46′′

W.

Size: Approximately 4 square nautical

miles.

Depth: Approximately 22 meters.

Primary use: Dredged material.

Period of use: Continuing use.

Restriction: Disposal shall be limited

to suitable dredged material from the

greater Tampa, Florida vicinity.

Disposal shall comply with conditions

set forth in the most recent approved

Site Management and Monitoring Plan.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 95–930 Filed 1–12–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–5130–4]

Independent Nail Superfund Site

Notice of Intent to Delete; National Oil

and Hazardous Substances Pollution

Contingency Plan; National Priorities

List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of Intent to Delete the

Independent Nail Company Site from

the National Priorities List; Request for

Comments.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) Region IV announces its

intent to delete the Independent Nail

(Site), located in Beaufort County, S.C.,

from the National Priorities List (NPL)

and requests public comments on this

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), as amended. It has been

determined that all Fund-financed

response actions taken at the Site under

CERCLA have been implemented. EPA,

in consultation with the State of South

Carolina, has determined that remedial

activities conducted at the Site to date

remain protective of public health,

welfare, and the environment.

DATES: Comments concerning the

deletion of this Site from the NPL

should be submitted on or before

February 13, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed

to: Terry Tanner, RPM, EPA–Region IV,

Waste Management Division, 345

Courtland Street, N.E., Atlanta, GA

30365.

The deletion docket, which contains

supporting information on EPA’s

decision to delete this Site from the

NPL, is available for inspection Monday

through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30

p.m. at the following location: U.S. EPA

Record’s Center, 345 Courtland Street,

N.E., Atlanta, GA 30365, (404) 347–

0506.

An additional copy of the deletion

docket is also available for viewing

between 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. at the

following location: Beaufort County

Library, 710 Craven Street, Beaufort, SC

29902, (803) 525–7279.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Terry Tanner at 404–347–7791, X4117.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

The Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA), Region IV, announces its intent

to delete the Independent Nail Site,

located in Beaufort, South Carolina,

from the National Priorities List (NPL)

and requests comments on this deletion.

The NPL constitutes Appendix B of the

National Oil and Hazardous Substances

Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The

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 those

sites. Sites on the NPL may be the

subject of remedial actions financed by

the Hazardous Substance Superfund

Response Trust Fund (Fund). Pursuant

to § 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, any site

deleted from the NPL remains eligible

for Fund-financed remedial actions if

conditions at the site warrant such

action.

The EPA will accept comments

concerning this Site for thirty days after

publication of this notice in the Federal

Register. Section II of this notice

explains the criteria for deleting sites

from the NPL. Section III discusses

procedures that EPA is using for this

action. Section IV discusses the

Independent Nail Site and explains how

the Site meets the deletion criteria.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

Amendments to the NCP published in

the Federal Register on March 8, 1990,

establish the criteria the Agency uses to

delete sites from the NPL. Section

300.425(e) of the NCP states that

‘‘Releases may be deleted or

recategorized on the NPL where no

further response is appropriate. EPA

shall consult with the state on proposed

deletion from the NPL prior to

developing the notice of intent to delete.

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

have been met’’:

i. Responsible parties or other persons

have implemented all appropriate

response actions required; or

ii. All appropriate Fund-financed

response under CERCLA has been

implemented, and no further response

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
3190 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 9 / Friday, January 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules

environment and, therefore, taking of

remedial measures is not appropriate.

Prior to deciding to delete a site, EPA

must first determine that the remedy, or

existing site conditions at the sites

where no action is required, is

protective of public health, welfare, and

the environment. In addition,

§ 300.425(e)(2) of the NCP states that

‘‘No site shall be deleted from the NPL

until the state in which the site is

located has concurred on the proposed

deletion’’.

Deletion of a site from the NPL does

not preclude eligibility for subsequent

Fund-financed actions if future

conditions warrant such actions.

Section 300.425(e)(3) states that ‘‘* * *

Whenever there is a significant release

from a site deleted from the NPL, the

site shall be restored to the NPL without

application of the hazard ranking

system (HRS)’’.

III. Deletion Procedures

Deletion of sites from the NPL does

not in itself create, alter, or revoke any

individuals rights or obligations.

Furthermore, deletion from the NPL

does not in any way alter EPA’s right to

take enforcement actions, as

appropriate. The NPL is designed

primarily for informational purposes

and to assist in the management of these

sites.

Upon determination that at least one

of the criteria described in

§ 300.425(e)(1) of the NCP has been met,

EPA may formally begin deletion

procedures. The following procedures

have been implemented towards the

deletion of this Site:

1. EPA Region IV has entered into a

Superfund State Contract with the State

of South Carolina to conduct operations

and maintenance activities at this Site

for a period of five years. The first of

these activities began in November

1989. Both EPA and the State of South

Carolina find that the remedy continues

to provide adequate protection of

human health and the environment.

2. All Operations & Maintenance

activities have been completed to date.

EPA will proceed toward amending the

State Superfund Contract to cover any

activities that become necessary if the

Site deteriorates in the future.

3. EPA Region IV has recommended

deletion for this Site and has prepared

the relevant documents.

4. The State of South Carolina has

concurred with the decision to delete

this Site.

5. Concurrent with this National

Notice of Intent to Delete, a notice has

been published in the local newspaper

in the vicinity of the Site announcing

the initiation of a 30 day public

comment period. The public will be

asked to comment on EPA’s intention to

delete the Site from the NPL during this

30 day period following a review of the

information included in the deletion

docket.

6. EPA Region IV has prepared a

Superfund Site Closeout Report and

established a Regional Deletion Docket,

with its placement in the local

information repository.

Upon completion of the public

comment period, the EPA Regional

Office will prepare a Responsiveness

Summary to evaluate and address

concerns which were raised. The public

is welcome to contact the EPA Regional

Office to obtain a copy of this

Responsiveness Summary, when

available. A final notice of deletion will

then be published in the Federal

Register.

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.

The Site was initially owned by the

Blake and Johnson Company which

manufactured screws and fasteners. An

on-site lagoon was used from

approximately 1969 to 1980 to dispose

of wastewater containing cyanide,

chromium and other waste generated

during the manufacturing process. The

company discharged approximately

33,000 gallons of plating wastewater per

day into this lagoon.

A study performed in 1975 by the

South Carolina Department of Health

and Environmental Control (SCDHEC)

revealed that a break in the side of the

lagoon allowed wastewater to enter a

drainage ditch north of the lagoon area.

Analysis of a sample collected from this

ditch in August 1975 showed cadmium

and chromium contamination. The

break and resulting discharge appear to

have been a single, short term incident.

Beginning in August 1975, SCDHEC

and a local engineering firm (Davis and

Floyd) conducted several ground water

investigations. Monitor wells were

placed into the water table aquifer at

various locations near the lagoon. The

results of these sampling efforts

indicated that the quality of the ground

water was being affected by the wastes

discharged to the lagoon. Chromium,

lead, iron, and mercury were present in

some of these water samples at

concentrations in excess of drinking

water standards.

In April 1980, the Blake and Johnson

Company ceased operations at the Site.

Two months later, Independent Nail

purchased the plant. The Independent

Nail Company currently operates a

paneling nail coating process at the Site.

Sampling performed by SCDHEC on

April 21, 1980 indicated that

concentrations of chromium and lead in

the ground water continued to exceed

drinking water standards. The

chromium level in one well was 0.210

mg/l and the lead concentration in

another was 0.150 mg/l. A second

sampling of the same wells by SCDHEC

in May 1980 revealed that chromium

levels continued to exceed drinking

water standards. Lead concentrations

detected during this second sampling

event were below the drinking water

standard. The drinking water standard

(Maximum Contaminant Level) during

1980 for chromium and lead was 0.05

mg/l. Later in May 1980, SCDHEC

requested that three intermediate depth

(40 to 50 feet) wells be installed for

monitoring. Chromium levels in all

three of these wells exceeded drinking

water standards when sampled in June

of 1980.

A Potential Hazardous Waste Site

Investigation Report and a Preliminary

Assessment Report were prepared by

EPA on February 26, 1981 for this Site.

The Site was added to the National

Priorities List in 1984.

EPA performed a Remedial

Investigation/Feasibility Study on the

Site During 1985. The RI was divided

into two operable units with the first

operable unit addressing contamination

in the soil, surface water, and

sediments. The second operable unit

investigated groundwater contamination

at the Site.

Soil contamination was found in the

lagoon and areas within the fence and

at two areas outside of the fence.

Cadmium, chromium, cyanide, nickel,

and zinc were identified as the

contaminants of concern. The Risk

Assessment concluded that a source

control measure was necessary to

reduce the threat of direct contact with

contaminated soil and the inhalation of

airborne contaminated dust associated

with this Site.

On September 28, 1987, EPA selected

a remedy to address soil contamination

at this Site. The Record of Decision

(ROD) for the first operable unit

established soil cleanup goals for these

contaminants of concern: Cadmium (2.6

mg/kg), chromium (5.3 mg/kg), cyanide

(0.02 mg/kg), nickel (18 mg/kg), and

zinc (1,785 mg/kg). The solidification/

stabilization of 5,500 cubic yards of

contaminated soil was conducted in

April and May of 1988. This soil was

excavated, solidified, and returned to

the lagoon area. A final cover consisting

of approximately 8 inches of soil was

placed over the solidified material and

seeded.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 9 / Friday, January 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules 3191

Operable unit two revealed that the

highest concentration of chromium was

present in a shallow well MW1S at a

concentration of 0.058 mg/l. This value

slightly exceeded the Maximum

Contaminant Levels (MCL) for

chromium set at 0.050 mg/l. Chromium

contamination in this well was

suspected to be the result of waste water

discharged into the lagoon. All other

contaminant concentrations were below

the existing MCL, Secondary Maximum

Contaminant Level (SMCL), and/or

Health Advisory drinking water

standards.

The ROD for Operable Unit Two,

signed on August 30, 1988, outlined a

No Action alternative for the

groundwater at the Site. The .008 mg/l

by which chromium exceeded the

standard in a single well (MW–lS) was

within the 20% analytical variance for

Contract Laboratory Program labs. The

wells were resampled on July 28–29,

1988. The highest concentration of

chromium detected was .041 mg/l in

MW–IS. The contaminant levels in the

groundwater presented no imminent or

substantial threat to human health or

the environment, therefore, no

groundwater treatment was necessary.

The solidification/stabilization

treatment of the contaminated soil is

considered a permanent remedy. No

additional treatment of the solidified

material is necessary, however, periodic

groundwater monitoring will be

conducted. EPA Region IV has entered

into a Superfund State Contract with the

State of South Carolina to conduct

operations and maintenance activities at

this Site for a period of five years. The

State of South Carolina has

subsequently agreed to continue with

these activities beyond the five year

period. EPA conducted the first of these

activities on November of 1989. Both

EPA and the State of South Carolina

find that the remedy continues to

provide adequate protection of human

health and the environment.

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

9621 and 40 CFR 300.430(f)(4)(ii)

requires that five year reviews be

performed at sites where contaminants

remain above levels that allow for

unlimited use and unrestricted

exposure. The first Five Year Review

was completed on September 13, 1993.

The results of this review indicate that

the remedial activities were effective in

stabilizing the contaminant source onsite. Additional five year reviews will

allow EPA and the State of South

Carolina to determine if the

protectiveness of the remedy will be

maintained over time.

EPA, in concurrence with the State of

South Carolina has determined that all

appropriate fund-financed responses

under CERCLA at the Independent Nail

Site have been completed, and no

further clean-up by the responsible

parties is appropriate.

Dated: November 16, 1994.

Patrick M. Tobin,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IV,

Environmental Protection Agency.

[FR Doc. 95–826 Filed 1–12–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 94–143]

Television Table of Allotments: Albion,

NE

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction.

SUMMARY: This document contains

corrections to the Notice of Proposed

Rule Making in MM Docket No. 94–143,

a summary of which was published on

January 3, 1995 (60 FR 91). The Notice

is corrected to specify reference

coordinates for the proposed Channel 24

allotment at Albion, Nebraska, as 41–

55–58 and 98–17–23, and a plus offset

for the Channel 24 allotment.

DATES: Comments must be field by Feb.

13, 1995, and reply comments by Feb.

28, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the

Federal Communications Commission,

Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Hayne, Mass Media Bureau (202)

634–6530.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Need for Correction

As published, the Notice of Proposed

Rule Making contained an error with

respect to the reference coordinates and

channel offset for the proposed

allotment of Channel 24 to Albion,

Nebraska.

Correction of Publication

Accordingly, the publication on

January 3, 1995, of the Summary of the

Notice of Proposed Rule Making in MM

Docket 94–143, which was the subject of

FR Doc. 94–32275, is corrected as

follows:

On page 91, in the first and second

columns, all references to ‘‘Channel 24’’

are corrected to read ‘‘Channel 24+.’’

On page 91, in the second column, the

references coordinates for Channel 24+

at Albion, Nebraska, are corrected to

read ‘‘41–55–58 and 98–17–23.’’

Federal Communications Commission.

Douglas W. Webbink,

Chief, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media

Bureau.

[FR Doc. 95–1033 Filed 1–12–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–M