[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
