[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 91 (Thursday, May 9, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21178-21179]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11479]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-5502-3]


Responsiveness Summary to Comments on Proposed De Minimis 
Settlements, Peerless Industrial Paint Coatings Site, St. Louis, MO

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Publication of the summary of comments on proposed de minimis 
settlements, Peerless Industrial Paint Coatings Site, St. Louis, 
Missouri.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has 
proposed de minimis settlements with four potentially responsible 
parties (PRPs) at the Peerless Industrial Paint Coatings Site in St. 
Louis, Missouri. These settlements have been proposed pursuant to 
Section 122(g)(1)(B) of the Comprehensive Environmental, Response, 
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 as amended by the Superfund 
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. 9622(g)(1)(B) 
(CERCLA). The comment period for the proposed de minimis settlements 
was open from December 13, 1995 to January 12, 1996. EPA received one 
comment during the comment period from Boise Cascade Corporation. In 
addition, EPA received a telephone call and a letter from Boise Cascade 
Corporation on or about November 16 and November 20, 1995. In its 
comment letter of January 8, 1996, Boise Cascade Corporation first 
questions EPA's decision not to inform it and other potentially 
responsible parties (PRPs) of the negotiation of the de minimis 
settlements until after the settlements were reached. Secondly, it 
questions the identity of other parties EPA considered to be eligible 
for a de minimis settlements and why any other settlements with de 
minimis parties were not negotiated. Thirdly, it objects to the de 
minimis settlements because it does not know the basis that EPA used 
for determining which PRPs were eligible for the de minimis 
settlements, the method for accounting for the orphan share, nor the 
premiums paid by the de minimis parties.

EPA's Response to Boise Cascade Corporation's Comments: No New 
information Was Provided

    To address Boise Cascade Corporation's first comment, Section 
122(i)(1) of CERCLA provides that a public comment period shall be 
provided in the Federal Register for any settlements reached pursuant 
to Section 122(g) of CERCLA. There is no statutory requirement that 
PRPs be notified in advance of the published notice in the Federal 
Register nor be a participant in EPA's negotiations of de minimis 
settlements, to which they are not a party. After negotiations with the 
de minimis parties are concluded, the public comment period provided by 
Section 122(i)(1) of CERCLA is the process for EPA to receive comments.
    To address the second and third comments, Section 122(g)(1)(A) of 
CERCLA allows de minimis settlements to be offered if the settlements 
involve a minor portion of the response costs at the Site and the 
amount and toxicity of the hazardous substances contributed to the Site 
by the party are minimal. EPA made a settlement offer to those de 
minimis parties that generated 1.665% or less of the hazardous 
substances that were removed from the Site. The calculation was based 
upon documentation developed during the removal action which attributed 
waste by each contributor. The toxicity of all the hazardous substances 
found at the Site was relatively the same; the hazardous substances at 
the Site demonstrated the characteristic of ignitability. The 
information described herein that Boise Cascade Corporation seeks 
regarding the identity of de minimis parties, information determining 
the eligibility of de minimis parties, and premiums paid is public 
information; Boise Cascade Corporation could have requested such 
information prior to making its comment.
    To address the remaining issues raised in the third comment, EPA 
has not determined that an orphan share exists. EPA would account for 
the orphan share during the allocation pilot process that this Site is 
scheduled to undergo as part of EPA's administrative reforms. The de 
minimis settlements agreements reveal the premiums paid; a premium was 
calculated on the basis of anticipated future costs and the de

[[Page 21179]]

minimis parties' contribution of hazardous substances that were removed 
from the Site. Due to exceptional circumstances, liability of parties 
and future costs were readily and fairly identifiable.
    Boise Cascade Corporation has offered no new information in its 
comments to cause EPA to alter its decision to enter into the proposed 
de minimis settlements.

    Dated: April 29, 1996.
William Rice,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-11479 Filed 5-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M