[Federal Register: September 13, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 177)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 52320]
[DOCID:fr13se07-17]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2007-0293; FRL-8464-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Indiana; VOC Emissions From Fuel Grade Ethanol Production Operations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a March 30, 2007, request from the
Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) to revise the
Indiana State Implementation Plan (SIP) by adding a volatile organic
compound (VOC) rule for fuel grade ethanol production at dry mills.
This rule revision creates an industry-specific Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) standard for new fuel grade ethanol production dry
mills that replaces the otherwise required case-by-case BACT
determination for new facilities with the potential to emit 25 tons or
more of VOC per year. The benefit of this rule is that establishing
specific standards in place of a case-by-case analysis improves the
clarity, predictability, and timeliness of permit decisions.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 15, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2007-0293, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal
holidays.
    Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules
section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to
submit comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Rosenthal, Environmental
Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Final Rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final
rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no
further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the
direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received
will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed
rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties
interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.
Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For
additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in
the Rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: August 24, 2007.
Richard C. Karl,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. E7-17880 Filed 9-12-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


2002 0001 0071 HRS DOCUMENTATION RECORD REVIEW COVER SHEET Name of Site: United Metals, Inc. EPA ID No. FLD098924038 Contact Persons U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4: Joe Alfano, EPA Task Monitor (404) 562 8933 Cynthia Gurley, NPL Coordinator (706) 355 8556 Expanded Site Inspection: ABB Environmental Services, Inc. Florida Department of Environmental Protection Documentation Record:

David L. Brown, Project Manager (678) 775 3081 Tetra Tech EM Inc.

Pathways, Components, or Threats Not Evaluated The air migration, groundwater migration, and soil exposure pathways were not scored in this documentation record, because these pathways are not expected to contribute significantly to the overall site score for the United Metals, Inc. site. Groundwater samples were collected from on site monitoring wells, and an observed release to groundwater has been documented; however, because of low targets, the groundwater migration pathway was not scored. No air samples have been collected to document a release to ambient air. Extensive surficial contamination exists throughout the facility, but no resident targets have been identified for the soil exposure pathway. 1 HRS DOCUMENTATION RECORD Name of Site: United Metals, Inc. CERCLIS ID No.: FLD098924038 EPA Region: 4 Date Prepared: August 14, 2001 Street Address of Site: Marianna (State Road 71)

County and State: Jackson County, Florida General Location in the State: Northwestern Florida Topographic Maps of Florida: Oakdale, 1994; Altha West, 1994 Latitude: 30° 41'09" North Longitude: 85° 10'05" West Geographical coordinates were determined from a point in the center of the facility property (Refs. 3; 4).

Scores Air Pathway Not Scored Groundwater Pathway Not Scored Soil Exposure Pathway Not Scored Surface Water Pathway 67.47 HRS SITE SCORE 33.73 2 WORKSHEET FOR COMPUTING HRS SITE SCORE S S 2 1. Groundwater Migration Pathway Score (Sgw) NS NS (from Table 3 1, line 13)

2a. Surface Water Overland/ Flood Migration Component 67.47 (from Table 4 1, line 30)

2b. Groundwater to Surface Water Migration Component NS (from Table 4 25, line 28)

2c. Surface Water Migration Pathway Score (Ssw) 67.47 4,552.20 Enter the larger of lines 2a and 2b as the pathway score.

3. Soil Exposure Pathway Score (Ss) NS NS (from Table 5 1, line 22)

4. Air Migration Pathway Score (Sa) NS NS (from Table 6 1, line 12)

5. Total of Sgw 2 + Ssw 2 + Ss 2 + Sa 2 4,552.20 6. HRS Site Score Divide the value on line 5 by 4 and take the square root 33.73 NS = Not scored S = Site score S 2 = Site score squared Site Name: United Metals, Inc. Location: Marianna, Jackson County, Florida 3 SURFACE WATER OVERLAND/ FLOOD MIGRATION COMPONENT SCORESHEET Factor Categories and Factors Maximum Value Value Assigned DRINKING WATER THREAT Likelihood of Release 1. Observed Release 550 550 2. Potential to Release by Overland Flow 2a. Containment 10

2b. Runoff 25

2c. Distance to Surface Water 25

2d. Potential to Release by Overland Flow (lines 2a x [2b + 2c]) 500

3. Potential to Release by Flood 3a. Containment (Flood) 10

3b. Flood Frequency 50

3c. Potential to Release by Flood (lines 3a x 3b) 500  4. Potential to Release (lines 2d + 3c, subject to a maximum of 500) 500

5. Likelihood of Release (higher of lines 1 and 4) 550 550 Waste Characteristics 6. Toxicity/ Persistence a 10,000 7. Hazardous Waste Quantity a 100 8. Waste Characteristics 100 32 Targets 9. Nearest Intake 50 0 10. Population 10a. Level I Concentrations b 0 10b. Level II Concentrations b 0 10c. Potential Contamination b 0 10d. Population (lines 10a + 10b + 10c) b 0 11. Resources 5 0 12. Targets (lines 9 + 10d + 11) b 0 Drinking Water Threat Score 13. Drinking Water Threat Score ([ lines 5 x 8 x 12]/ 82,500, subject to a maximum of 100) 100 0 Site Name: United Metals, Inc. Location: Marianna, Jackson County, Florida 4 SURFACE WATER OVERLAND/ FLOOD MIGRATION COMPONENT SCORESHEET, Continued Factor Categories and Factors Maximum Value Value Assigned HUMAN FOOD CHAIN THREAT Likelihood of Release 14. Likelihood of Release (value from line 5) 550 550 Waste Characteristics 15. Toxicity/ Persistence/ Bioaccumulation a 5 x 10 5 16. Hazardous Waste Quantity a 100 17. Waste Characteristics 1,000 56 Targets 18. Food Chain Individual 50 20 19. Population 19a. Level I Concentrations b 0 19b. Level II Concentrations b 0 19c. Potential Human Food Chain Contamination b 0.000003 19d. Population (lines 19a + 19b + 19c) b 0 20. Targets (lines 18 + 19d) b 20.000003 Human Food Chain Threat Score 21. Human Food Chain Threat Score ([ lines 14 x 17 x 20]/ 82,500, subject to a maximum of 100) 100 7.47 ENVIRONMENTAL THREAT Likelihood of Release 22. Likelihood of Release (value from line 5) 550 550 Waste Characteristics 23. Ecosystem Toxicity/ Persistence/ Bioaccumulation a 5 x 10 6 24. Hazardous Waste Quantity a 100 25. Waste Characteristics 1,000 100 Site Name: United Metals, Inc. Location: Marianna, Jackson County, Florida a Maximum value applies to waste characteristics category. b Maximum value not applicable. c Do not round to nearest integer.  Not evaluated. 5 SURFACE WATER OVERLAND/ FLOOD MIGRATION COMPONENT SCORESHEET, Concluded Factor Categories and Factors Maximum Value Value Assigned ENVIRONMENTAL THREAT (Concluded)

Targets 26. Sensitive Environments 26a. Level I Concentrations b 0 26b. Level II Concentrations b 100 26c. Potential Contamination b 0.005 26d. Sensitive Environments (lines 26a + 26b + 26c) b 100.005 27. Targets (value from line 26d) b 100.005 Environmental Threat Score 28. Environmental Threat Score ([ lines 22 x 25 x 27]/ 82,500, subject to a maximum of 60) 60 60 SURFACE WATER OVERLAND/ FLOOD MIGRATION COMPONENT SCORE FOR A WATERSHED 29. Watershed Score c (lines 13 + 21 + 28, subject to a maximum of 100) 100 67.47 SURFACE WATER OVERLAND/ FLOOD MIGRATION COMPONENT SCORE 30. Component Score (Sof) c (highest score from line 29 for all watersheds evaluated, subject to a maximum of 100) 100 67.47 6 Figure 1  FACILITY LOCATION MAP A copy of this figure is available at the EPA Docket Center U. S. EPA Docket Center EPA West Room B102 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington DC, 20460 Telephone: 703 603 9232 Email: superfund. docket@ epa. gov 7 Figure 2  FACILITY LAYOUT MAP A copy of this figure is available at the EPA Docket Center U. S. EPA Docket Center EPA West Room B102 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington DC, 20460 Telephone: 703 603 9232 Email: superfund. docket@ epa. gov 8 Figure 3  SOURCE SAMPLE LOCATION MAP A copy of this figure is available at the EPA Docket Center U. S. EPA Docket Center EPA West Room B102 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington DC, 20460 Telephone: 703 603 9232 Email: superfund. docket@ epa. gov 9 Figure 4  OBSERVED RELEASE MAP A copy of this figure is available at the EPA Docket Center U. S. EPA Docket Center EPA West Room B102 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington DC, 20460 Telephone: 703 603 9232 Email: superfund. docket@ epa. gov 10 REFERENCES Reference Number Description of the Reference 1. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Hazard Ranking System, 40 CFR Part 300, Appendix A, 55 FR 51533. December 14, 1990. Excerpt, 2 pages.

2. EPA, Superfund Chemical Data Matrix, Appendix B 1. June 1996. Excerpt, 25 pages.

3. U. S. Geological Survey (USGS), 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Quadrangle Maps of Florida: Oakdale, 1994; Altha West, 1994; Scale 1: 24,000.

4. David L. Brown, Environmental Scientist, Tetra Tech EM Inc.( Tetra Tech) Project Note to the United Metals, Inc. (UMI) project file. January 17, 2001. Subject: Determining the latitude and longitude. 1 page.

5. E. C. Jordan Co., Potential Hazardous Waste Site Preliminary Assessment, EPA Form 2070 12, UMI, Marianna, Jackson County, Florida. April 16, 1985. 8 pages.

6. Ecology and Environment, Inc., Site Screening Investigation, Task II/ Phase I Report, UMI, Jackson County, Florida. January 1992. 15 pages.

7. ABB Environmental Services, Inc. (ABB), Phase II Site Inspection Report, UMI, Marianna, Jackson County, Florida. March 1994. 167 pages.

8. ABB, Final Expanded Site Inspection Report, UMI, Marianna, Jackson County, Florida. June 1995. 81 pages.

9. Thomas W. Moody, Special Programs Supervisor, Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER), Northwest District. Letter to Howard Odum, President, UMI, April 9, 1981. Subject: RCRA Interim Status Compliance Inspection Report. 15 pages.

10. Dan Farley & Associates, P. A.( DFA), Comprehensive Plan for UMI, October 1982. 54 pages.

11. J. A. Kintz, FDER, Interoffice Memorandum to Thomas W. Moody, FDER. March 25, 1983. Subject: UMI. 2 pages.

12. Dan Farley, DFA. Letter to Robert V. Kriegel, FDER, July 25, 1983. Subject: UMI. 8 pages.

13. G. P. Neubauer, FDER, Interoffice Memorandum to R. V. Kriegel, FDER. March 19, 1980. Subject: UMI. 4 pages.

14. Doug Jones, DFA. Letter to J. A. Kintz, FDER. June 19, 1980. Subject: UMI. 16 pages.

15. Geoffrey B. Watts, Environmental Specialist, FDER, Groundwater Section, Interoffice Memorandum to Phillip J. Doherty, Professional Engineer, FDER. March 27, 1981. Subject: UMI. 5 pages. 11 16. Thomas W. Moody, FDER. Letter to Patrick M. Tobin, Director, EPA Region IV, Waste Management Division. November 13, 1986. Subject: UMI. 2 pages.

17. Hazardous Waste Enforcement. June 15, 1983. 5 pages.

18. RCRA Waste Investigation, ESD Project #86 389, UMI, Marianna, Florida. 18 pages.

19. FDER, Application to Operate/ Construct Industrial Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems, submitted by Dan Farley, for UMI, Marianna, Florida. June 17, 1980. 24 pages.

20. Lee Norman, Industrial Consultant, Industrial Safety & Health Consultants, Inc., Hazardous Waste Facility Closure Plan, UMI, Marianna, Florida. 52 pages.

21. Howard Odum, President, UMI, Marianna, Florida, Notification of Hazardous Waste Activity, EPA Form 8700 12. August 11, 1980. 2 pages.

22. FDER, Consent Order, FDER Case No. IW 012 81 NW, UMI, June 14, 1988. 20 pages.

23. DFA, Comprehensive Plan for UMI. October 1982. 53 pages.

24. FDER, Operation Permit No. I032 68020 for UMI, Jackson County, Florida. March 2, 1984. 8 pages.

25. Patrick M. Tobin, Director, Waste Management Division, EPA Region 4. Letter to Howard Odom, President, UMI, October 24, 1986. Subject: Amended Complaint and Compliance Order. 15 pages.

26. Clerk Circuit Court, Jackson County, Florida, Case No. 92 11 CA. FDER VS. Anrich Industries, Inc.( Anrich), Huang Johnson, Herbert Eisenstadter, and Michael Chen. December 22, 1992. 8 pages.

27. Johnson Huang, President, Anrich, d/ b/ a UMI. Letter to William E. Kellenberger, P. E., Hazardous Waste Section, FDER, Northwest District. June 11, 1991. Subject: Meeting Minutes/ Warning Notice. 2 pages.

28. G. Walker, Contact Report to UMI File, FDER. March 24, 1992. Subject: Site Access to United Metals, Inc. 1 page.

29. Karen Brown, FDER Interoffice Memorandum to UMI Site File, FDER, May 30, 1991. Subject: Meeting Minutes for Anrich Industries d/ b/ a UMI. 3 pages.

30. Edward J. O'Connell, FDER, Interoffice Memorandum to UMI Site File, FDER, June 18, 1991. Subject: Meeting Minutes for Anrich d/ b/ a/ UMI. 2 pages.

31. William E. Kellenberger, P. E., Hazardous Waste Section Supervisor, FDER, Northwest District. Letter to Johnson Huang, UMI. June 3, 1991. Subject: Meeting Minutes for UMI. 10 pages.

32. Robert V. Kriegel, Deputy Assistant Secretary, FDER, Northwest District. Letter to Johnson Huang, President, UMI. June 5, 1991. Subject: Warning Notice NWHW 32  9119. 20 pages. 12 33. John A. Kintz, FDER, Interoffice Memorandum to Robert V. Kriegel, FDER. January 10, 1984. Subject: UMI Test Well #40. 5 pages.

34. Dora Ann Johnson, Federal On Scene Coordinator (OSC), EPA, Region 4. Letter to Joe McGarrity, FDEP. July 8, 1996. Subject: UMI Site. 23 pages.

35. Michael Taylor, Federal OSC. Memorandum to Removal Assessment Team, Emergency Response and Removal Branch. April 14, 1995. Subject: UMI. 1 page.

36. William E. Kellenberger, Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). Interoffice Memorandum to Dan Didomenico, January 18, 1995. Subject: Anrich (a. k. a. UMI), Jackson County. 1 page.

37. FDEP, Comprehensive Quality Assurance Plan, Central Chemistry Laboratory, CQAP # 870688G. April 1998. 163 pages.

38. U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service( USFWS), National Wetlands Inventory Map of Florida: Oakdale 1977, Scale 1: 24,000.

39. Field Logbook for UMI, Site Inspection Reconnaissance and Expanded Site Inspection, May 17, 1993, and December 7 and December 8, 1994, respectively. 24 pages.

40. USGS, Water Resources Data Florida Water Year 1996, Volume 4. Northwest Florida, USGS Water Data Report FL 96 4, Tallahassee, Florida: 1997. Excerpt, 5 pages.

41. David L. Brown, Scientist, Tetra Tech. Record of Telephone Conversation with Steve Crofton, Jackson County Water Authority, Marianna, Florida. April 12, 2001. Subject: UMI Site Municipal Drinking Water Supply. 1 page.

42. David L. Brown, Scientist, Tetra Tech. Project Note to the UMI Project File. August 11, 1999. Subject: Fishing and Recreational Activities on the Chipola River near Marianna, Florida. 1 page.

43. USFWS. Species Profile for the Flatwoods Salamander. Results Are Based on Data Extracted on April 11, 2001. On line Address: http:// ecos. fws. gov/ speciesprofile. 2 pages.

44. Florida Natural Areas Inventory, Tallahassee, Florida. September 29, 1995. List of Element Occurrence Records for a Tract of Land in Jackson County. 3 pages.

45. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, "Technical Report SERPD 97 6, Species Profile: Flatwoods Salamander (Ambystoma cingulatum) on Military Installations in the Southeastern United States" August 1997. 23 pages.

46. David L. Brown, Environmental Scientist, Tetra Tech EM Inc. Record of Telephone Conversation with Mike Reddick, FDEP, Tallahassee, Florida. June 28, 2001. Subject: CERCLA Eligibility for United Metals, Inc. 5 pages.

47. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, "Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination," Fact Sheet No. EPA 540 F 94 028, (November 1996). 18 pages. 13 48. David L. Brown, Environmental Scientist, Tetra Tech EM Inc. Record of Telephone Conversation with Tim Fitzpatrick, FDEP, Tallahassee, Florida. July 24, 2001. Subject: Data Qualifiers. 1 page.

49. David L. Brown, Environmental Scientist, Tetra Tech EM Inc. Project Note to the UMI File. July 27, 2001. Subject: Summary of "I  Qualified" Data. 2 pages.

50. U. S. Department of Commerce. 1983. "Climatic Atlas of the United States." National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Excerpt 4 pages.

51. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Publication 9345.1 07, Hazard Ranking System Guidance Manual, Interim Final, November 1992. Excerpt 1 page. SD General Site Description 14 General Site Description The United Metals, Inc. (UMI), facility, EPA ID No. FLD098924038, is located approximately 2.5 miles south of Interstate 10 and about 1,000 feet east of State Road 71 in Marianna, Jackson County, Florida. The geographical coordinates are latitude 30° 41'09" north and longitude 85° 10'05" west (Refs. 3; 4). The UMI facility is an abandoned used battery reclaiming facility. The facility is about 180 acres, of which about 24 acres are enclosed by a chain link fence; facility operations occurred in this portion of the site (Refs. 3; 5, pp. 1, 2; 6, p. 1; 7, p. 2; 8, p. 2; 9, p. 3; 10, p. 9). A gravel driveway from State Road 71, located at the western edge of the site, is the main entrance to the UMI property (Refs. 6, p. 1; 7, p. 6; 8, p. 2). Five free standing buildings are located within the fenced portion of the site. On the northern side of the entrance gate is a fabricated metal, concrete floored office and warehouse building that consists of separate office and storage areas. This building is vacant, except for several battery chargers mounted on the western wall. The concrete located under the battery chargers is etched and eroded. A truck weighing scale is located outside of the office at the entrance gate. On the southern side of the entrance gate is a concrete block building called the "health center" that previously contained the employee decontamination and dressing room. Located east of the office building is a vehicular maintenance building called the "truck shop" that consists of a metal siding covered storage room and an open air bay area that includes a concrete lined grease pit. The storage room and bay area are empty; the grease pit is filled partially with oily water. No evidence is present that a waste oil tank or other receptacle for containing wastes were used at the maintenance building (Refs. 6, p. 3; 7, p. 2; 8, p. 2; 9, p. 2).

Located east of the vehicular maintenance building, in the central portion of the fenced area, is the former battery recycling operations building. The recycling operations building is a 2 acre, open air metal building with a concrete floor, divided into two sections. The older, northern portion of the structure includes the main recycling facility, where batteries were received, components sorted, and all wastewater generated and treated. The southern portion of the structure was used for material storage; this section is empty except for a pile of potentially contaminated soil and sediment removed from on site drainage ditches and a holding pond. All of the usable equipment and material involved in the process have been salvaged from the building. Concrete bin blocks, a series of settling basins partially filled with water, several large tanks once used for neutralizing and storing wastewater, and a large concrete washdown area remain in the production area of the structure (Refs. 7, pp. 6, 8; 8, p. 2; 11, pp. 1, 2).

Located south of the recycling operations building is a plastics storage and processing building (plastic pellet plant) and attached silos that are constructed of metal siding and a raised concrete floor. The building was used as the final processing and storage site for plastic battery casing chips that were sent off site for recycling. A second pile of potentially contaminated soil and sediment and a pile of black plastic tubing scrap are present in the building. Two backfilled, unlined holding ponds are located east of the recycling building. The holding ponds formerly received wastewater from the recycling operations building. The primary holding pond is approximately 0.66 acre and is located between the recycling building and the second holding pond. The second holding pond is approximately 0.61 acre, reportedly was never used, and was originally constructed to provide backup capacity. The primary holding pond received treated and possibly untreated wastewater from the battery SD General Site Description 15 recycling facility through a ditch. Near the recycling building, the ditch is lined with concrete for a few feet. Dredged sediments from the holding ponds was stored in two concrete lined pits located south of the plastic pellet plant, but the sediment pile was moved to its current location at the southern portion of the recycling building and within the plastic pellet plant (Refs. 6, p. 3; 7, pp. 8, 9; 8, pp. 2, 5; 9, p. 3; 13, pp. 1, 2; 14, pp. 4, 11, 12).

The fenced area is unpaved, with areas partially covered with grass and weeds and areas that are bare and sandy with no vegetation. Areas near the production building are partially barren and are partially covered with plastic chips and other residue from the battery recycling building. A large, agricultural field is located north of the fenced area, and mixed woodlands are located on the east, south, and west of the fenced area. The nearest residence to the fenced area is a farmhouse, located about 1,600 feet to the northwest (Refs. 3; 7, pp. 8, 9; 8, p. 5).

Construction of the battery recycling facility began in September 1979, and plant operations began in November 1979. The president of the company when operations began was Howard Odom. In 1981, UMI processed 10,000 to 12,000 batteries per week, resulting in 2,500 gallons of acidic wastes per day. Primarily lead acid batteries and nickel cadmium batteries were recycled by UMI. Batteries were offloaded at a loading dock, located at the northwestern side of the recycling building and onto a conveyor belt. The conveyor belt delivered the batteries to a water cooled saw used to cut the tops off of the batteries. Removed battery tops were dismantled and the plastic battery cases were separated from the lead plates, then crushed and pelletized. Lead oxide, posts, and miscellaneous parts were separated from the crushed casings. Lead components and lead oxide were transported off site to a smelter, and the plastic pellets were transported to an extruding facility (Refs. 7, p. 9; 8, p. 5; 9, pp. 3, 4; 14, p. 11; 15, p. 1).

Liquid from the batteries was deposited into a settling basin and flowed through a channel in the floor to the concrete basins. In the concrete basins, the wastewater was neutralized with lime and lead oxide residues were precipitated for reclamation. The wastewater flowed from the basins through the ditch to the unlined primary holding pond; the wastewater system eventually was modified so that wastewater was stored in tanks, neutralized, and recycled in the plant process to eliminate discharge to the holding ponds. The wastewater system modification also included covering the entire battery recycling building floor with stainless steel sheeting. It is reported that the holding pond received processed wastewater for at least 4 months and possibly more than 16 months. The holding ponds eventually were abandoned; pond sediments were dredged, excavated, and stockpiled on site; and the ponds were backfilled (Refs. 7, p. 9; 8, pp. 5, 6; 10, pp. 9 through 12; 15, p. 1; 16; 17, p. 1; 18, p. 1).

UMI applied to the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER) for a permit to construct holding ponds on June 17, 1980. The permit application indicated that the holding ponds already had been constructed and were in use and stated that a permit application was filed in order to determine the necessity for a permit (Ref. 19, pp. 1, 11). On March 11, 1980, an inspection of the facility by FDER noted that the holding ponds were not in use and process water was being recycled; however, other file material indicates that the ponds received wastewater as late as March 1981 (Ref. 7, p. 9). The holding ponds were acceptable at the time of construction and applicable hazardous waste regulations SD General Site Description 16 were not in effect at that time (Refs. 7, pp. 6, 7; 20, p. 3). Mr. Odom filed a Notification of Hazardous Waste Activity with EPA in August 1980 (Ref. 21).

In August 1981, UMI and FDER entered into a Consent Order that required several actions by UMI, including a payment of a $500 fine; submittal of a detailed and comprehensive plan evaluating the wastewater system; identification of environmental problems, and proposal of corrective action; submittal of a construction application for the proposed modifications; completion of construction within specified time; and within 120 days of construction completion, submittal of an operating permit application to FDER (Ref. 22, pp. 1 through 6).

A Comprehensive Plan was developed by UMI and presented to FDER in October 1982. The plan contained the following measures that UMI would accomplish in order to comply with the Consent Order: removal of contaminated sediment from the holding ponds and ditches along the entrance driveway and State Route 71 right of way; completion of a limited groundwater assessment, including the installation of monitoring wells and implementation of a monitoring program; and development of a closed wastewater system, including a clarifier and pH control measures scheduled to begin in June 1983( Ref. 23, pp. 16, 27, 28, 29).

In March 1984, FDER issued UMI Permit No. I032 68020 to operate a closed loop wastewater treatment facility to process wastewater generated in the recycling of batteries, lead, and plastic by using lead removal and either acid neutralization and reuse of the wastewater in plant processes or recovery of acid for resale as a product. The permit was issued to UMI on March 2, 1984, with an expiration date of March 1, 1987 (Ref. 24).

The EPA conducted a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Program inspection of the UMI facility in July 1986. Numerous violations were noted, including improper closure of the holding ponds subsequent to sediment removal, improper storage of hazardous wastes, improper groundwater monitoring, and operation without appropriate permits for hazardous waste storage and treatment. As a result of the findings, EPA issued an Amended Complaint and Compliance Order (Refs. 18, pp. 1 through 34; 25, pp. 1 through 15).

The UMI facility was purchased by Herb Eisenstadter and Michael Chen of Taiwan, and a partnership was established to form Anrich Industries, Inc.( Anrich). Subsequent to the purchase of the facility property, Anrich renovated the site and began battery cracking operations in May 1991 (Ref. 7, p. 7; 26, p. 2; 27; 28). On May 22, 1991, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) conducted a Hazardous Waste Inspection of the facility. Several RCRA violations were noted, including the operation of a hazardous waste pile without a permit and the transport of hazardous wastes to Taiwan without complying with certain RCRA record keeping requirements (Refs. 7, p. 7; 29; 30; 31). Anrich was ordered by FDEP to cease operations at the facility in June 1991 (Refs. 7, p. 7; 32, p. 1). The facility is not currently regulated under RCRA (Ref. 46)

After several attempts to resolve violations at the facility with the present owners or corporate officers in 1992, FDEP filed a complaint for injunctive relief and civil penalties and costs in the Jackson County Circuit Court (Fourteenth District). Because Anrich was unable to comply with the corrective actions noted in the complaint, the facility's equipment was sold and profits SD General Site Description 17 were deposited in the Registry of the Jackson County Circuit Court, pursuant to a Court Order (Refs. 7, pp. 10, 11; 26).

In January 1981, UMI collected surface water and sediment samples from the primary holding pond. File material does not indicate who collected the surface water and sediment samples or the sample identifications. Surface water samples were found to contain copper at 2.3 milligrams per liter (mg/ L), zinc at 4.5 mg/ L, and lead at 4.5 mg/ L, at a pH of 1.1. Sediment samples collected from the east and west sides of the primary holding pond contained copper at 2.38 milligrams per kilogram (mg/ kg), zinc at 4.88 mg/ kg, lead at 4.55 mg/ kg, sulfate at 26,000 mg/ kg, and nitrate at 2.68 mg/ kg. Outfall water from the process area contained 5.65 mg/ L of lead, at a pH of 1.2 and specific conductance of 123,000 microhoms per centimeter (µmhos/ cm)( Refs. 6, p. 5; 7, p. 11; 8, p. 6; 9, p. 12).

In March 1981, two surface water samples were collected from the holding pond. File material does not indicate who collected the surface water samples or the sample identifications. The surface water samples collected from the primary holding pond contained concentrations of lead at 0.875 and 0.925 mg/ L (Refs. 6, p. 5; 7, p. 11; 8, p. 6).

A RCRA inspection was conducted at the UMI facility in July 1986. Samples were collected by EPA from stockpiled sediments excavated from the pond, ditches, and a hopper located in the recycling area. Lead was detected in sediment samples at concentrations ranging from 8,300 to 13,000 mg/ kg. The sample collected from the hopper (referred to as lead product) contained lead at a concentration of 160,000 mg/ kg; this sample also was analyzed for EP Toxicity and exceeded the allowable lead concentration of 5 mg/ L (Refs. 6, p. 8; 7, p. 12; 8, p. 6; 33, p. 3).

A Site Inspection (SI) was conducted by ABB Environmental Services, Inc.( ABB), on behalf of FDEP from May through July 1993 in order to sample targeted areas of potential waste discharge or disposal. An electromagnetic (EM) survey was performed during a site reconnaissance in May 1993. During the SI, 14 soil grab samples and one composite soil sample were collected at UMI. Soil samples collected from reported burial/ disposal sites identified during the EM survey, and from the roadside drainage ditch were found to be contaminated with lead. Seven of the nine surface soil samples collected contained elevated concentrations of lead and other heavy metals; most lead concentrations were greater than 1,000 mg/ kg. Sample UMSS06, collected from the roadside drainage ditch outside of the entrance gate, contained 10,600 mg/ kg of lead (Ref. 7, pp. 1, 14, 20, 27, 29, 31).

An Expanded Site Inspection (ESI) was conducted by ABB in December 1994. During the ESI, ABB collected seven surface soil and five sediment samples from areas suspected of waste disposal or wastewater discharge in dry ditches along suspected migration pathways (Ref. 8, pp. 1, 12). Maximum concentrations of antimony (31 mg/ kg); chromium (24 mg/ kg); copper (16 mg/ kg); iron (33,800 mg/ kg); lead (2,700 mg/ kg); magnesium (1,970 mg/ kg); manganese (289 mg/ kg); nickel (10 mg/ kg); vanadium (16 mg/ kg); and zinc (46 mg/ kg) were detected in surface soil samples and exceeded the background concentration by three times or greater (Ref. 8, pp. 18, 19, 20).

Sediment samples were collected during the ESI from the wetland area located west of the site, across State Route 71. The wetland area is located along an unnamed tributary of the Chipola River (Ref. 8, pp. 13, 14, 22). Maximum concentrations SD General Site Description 18 of aluminum (39,300 mg/ kg); barium (87.8 mg/ kg); copper (18 mg/ kg); iron (5,840 mg/ kg); lead (629 mg/ kg); magnesium (1,000 mg/ kg); manganese (100 mg/ kg); vanadium (37 mg/ kg); and zinc (41 mg/ kg) were detected in sediment samples and exceeded the background concentration by three times or greater (Ref. 8, pp. 20, 21).

According to a report prepared by PRC Environmental Management, Inc., in March 1996, the EPA Region 4 Technical Assistance Team (TAT) conducted a site investigation at the facility property in March 1994. Reportedly, TAT later returned to the property in June 1995, and developed a complete inventory of all hazardous materials contained on the property. TAT collected samples from two tanks, a sump, and six drums, and TAT's subcontracted laboratory analyzed them for the following compounds: Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) metals, TCLP volatile organic compounds, and TCLP extractable compounds (Refs. 34, p. 4; 35).

The EPA Region 4 Removal Assessment Team conducted a site visit at UMI from March 13 through March 15, 1995, to determine UMI's eligibility for a removal action. EPA collected six surface soil, four waste samples from 55 gallon drums and three storage tanks, and two water samples to identify the nature and extent of contamination, and to identify the immediate threat to the public and environment. Lead was detected in the soil samples collected, and the waste in the drums was determined to be a flammable liquid. In addition, a larger, onsite storage tank was determined to contain about 800 gallons of sulfuric acid. EPA recommended that a limited removal of the containers and their contents be conducted at UMI (Refs. 34, p. 4; 35).

On January 23, 1996, EPA returned to the facility to begin removal activities of the containers on site. OHM Remediation Services, Inc (OHM), was selected by EPA as the removal contractor under the Emergency Response Contractor Services Program (Ref. 34, p. 4). In March 1996, EPA returned to the facility to complete removal activities. Five drums of hazardous materials were recontainerized and disposed of according to all regulatory guidelines. A sulfuric acid tank was dismantled, and its contents were treated on the facility property by OHM prior to shipment to an appropriate landfill (Ref. 34, pp. 7 through 9). 19 SD Characterization and Containment Source No. 1 SOURCE DESCRIPTION 2.2 Source Characterization Number of the source: 1 Name and description of the source: Contaminated Soil HRS Source Type: Contaminated Soil Source No. 1 comprises two general areas of contaminated soil of unknown quantity. The first area of contaminated soil is documented by samples UMSS13, UMSS15, UMSS16, and UMSS16D. These samples were collected within the fenced portion of the UMI property (see Figure 3 in this documentation record). Facility operations occurred within this fenced area (Refs. 6, p. 1; 7, p. 6; 8, p. 2; 36). The second area of contaminated soil is documented by samples UMSS10, UMSS11, and UMSS12, which were collected from the drainage area downgradient of facility operations (see Figure 3 in this documentation record). Elevated levels of numerous inorganics have been detected within both areas comprising Source No. 1 (Ref. 8, Appendix A, pp. 23 through 30; see also Section 2.4.1 of this documentation record).

Location of the source, with reference to a map of the site:

Source No. 1, is contaminated soil. The facility property consists of a 180 acre tract of land; however, the area of concern is located within an approximate 24 acre, fenced facility operation area located on the north central portion of the facility property, as well as in the drainage area downgradient of the fenced operation area (Refs. 6, p. 1; 7, p. 6; 8, p. 2, also see Figures 1, 2, and 3 of this documentation record).

Containment Release by overland migration or flood: Source No. 1 has no apparent surface water runoff control or management systems. In addition, evidence exists that hazardous substances associated with this source are present in an adjacent wetland (Refs. 7, pp. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 29, 30, 31, 32; 8, pp. 9, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, Appendix A).

Containment value: 10 Reference: 1, Section <IP_ADDRESS>.2.1.1 SD Hazardous Substances Source No. 1 20 2.4.1 Hazardous Substances Hazardous Substance Evidence MDL Reference( s)

Antimony UMSS10 (10.10 mg/ kg *) UMSS16 (9.09 mg/ kg *) UMSS16D (31 mg/ kg) 4 mg/ kg 8, pp. 14, 19, 20, Appendix A, pp. 22, 28, 29, 30; 37, p. 14; 47, pp. 8, 18; 48; 49 Chromium UMSS11 (24 mg/ kg) UMSS16 (7.5 mg/ kg *) UMSS16D (9.3 mg/ kg *) 3 mg/ kg 8, pp. 14, 20, Appendix A, pp. 23, 28, 29, 31; 37, p. 15; 47, pp. 8, 18; 48; 49 Cobalt UMSS11 (1.6 mg/ kg *) 1 mg/ kg 8, pp. 14, 20, Appendix A, p. 23; 37, p. 15; 47, pp. 8, 18; 48; 49 Copper UMSS11 (8.7 mg/ kg) UMSS16 (16 mg/ kg) UMSS16D (17 mg/ kg) 1.6 mg/ kg 8, pp. 14, 20, Appendix A, pp. 23, 29,31; 37, p. 15.

Lead UMSS10 (763A mg/ kg) UMSS11 (810 mg/ kg) UMSS12 (119 mg/ kg) UMSS13 (573 mg/ kg) UMSS15 (1,130 mg/ kg) UMSS16 (1,870 mg/ kg) UMSS16D (2,770 mg/ kg) 5 mg/ kg 8, pp. 14, 19, 20, Appendix A, pp. 22, 26, 28, 29, 31; 37, p. 16.

Zinc UMSS11 (41 mg/ kg) UMSS16 (36 mg/ kg) UMSS16D (46 mg/ kg) 10 mg/ kg 8, pp. 14, 20, Appendix A, pp. 23, 24, 29, 31; 37, p. 18. Notes: MDL = Method Detection Limit (Ref. 37, Section 5.0, pp. 12 through 61). UM = United Metals, Inc. SS = Surface Soil mg/ kg = Milligrams per kilogram A = Value reported is mean of two or more determinations D = Duplicate sample * = Values were adjusted in accordance with Reference 47.

The hazardous substances listed in the preceding table were collected from Source No. 1 during the 1994 ESI. A quality control duplicate surface soil sample was collected from the UMSS16 sampling location. All samples listed were collected from surface soils at the 0 to 2 foot depth and compared to a designated 21 background sample, UMSS14 (Ref. 8, pp. 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, Appendix A, pp. 22 through 30).

 Background Concentrations A background surface soil sample was not collected during the 1994 ESI sampling activities (Ref. 8, pp. 19, 20). Lead was detected at elevated concentrations in all surface soil samples during the ESI, with the exception of Surface Soil Sample UMSS14 (Ref. 8, pp. 18 through 20, Appendix A). Surface Soil Sample UMSS14 was collected from the 0 to 2 foot depth from the eastern side of the fence line within the property boundary and exhibited relatively low concentrations of metals (Ref. 8, pp. 12, 13, 14). Therefore, for the purpose of HRS scoring, Surface Soil Sample UMSS14 is designated as a background sample collected from Source No. 1, during the 1994 ESI.

Sample ID Hazardous Substance Concentration MDL Reference( s)

UMSS14 Antimony 6U mg/ kg 4 mg/ kg 8, pp. 14, 20, Appendix A, p. 27; 37, p. 14 Chromium 5U mg/ kg 3 mg/ kg 8, pp. 14, 20, Appendix A, p. 27; 37, p. 15 Cobalt 1 U mg/ kg 1 mg/ kg 8, pp. 14, 20, Appendix A, p. 27; 37, p. 15 Copper 2.44 mg/ kg * 1.6 mg/ kg 8, pp. 14, 20, Appendix A, p. 27; 37, p. 15; 47, pp. 8, 18; 48; 49 Lead 15.84 mg/ kg * 5 mg/ kg 8, pp. 14, 20, Appendix A, p. 27; 37, p. 16; 47, pp. 8, 18; 48; 49 Zinc 7.9 mg/ kg 10 mg/ kg 8, pp. 14, 20, Appendix A, p. 27; 37, p. 18 Notes: MDL = Method Detection Limit UM = United Metals, Inc. mg/ kg = Milligrams per kilogram U = Material was analyzed for but not detected; the value reported is the minimum detection limit * = Values were adjusted in accordance with Reference 47. 22 SD Hazardous Constituent Quantity Source No. 1 2.4.2. Hazardous Waste Quantity <IP_ADDRESS>.1. Hazardous Constituent Quantity Insufficient information is available to evaluate hazardous constituent quantity.

Hazardous Constituent Quantity Value (S): Not scored <IP_ADDRESS>.2. Hazardous Wastestream Quantity Insufficient information is available to evaluate hazardous wastestream quantity.

Hazardous Wastestream Quantity Value (W): Not scored <IP_ADDRESS>.3. Volume Insufficient information is available to calculate volume.

<IP_ADDRESS>.4. Area A limited number of samples have been collected on and in the vicinity of the facility. Because of the presence of on site buildings and the proximity of sampling locations, the area of contaminated soil was not calculated. Contamination in soil samples collected include antimony, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, nickel, strontium, and zinc, and the area of contamination is unknown but greater than 0 (Refs. 7, p. 2, Table 7, pp. 31,32, Figure 4; 8, p. 2, Figure 3, p. 18, Table 6, Appendix A, pp. 22 through 31).

Dimension of source (ft 2 or acres): > 0 References( s): 1, Section <IP_ADDRESS>.4, Table 2 5 Area Assigned Value: > 0 <IP_ADDRESS>.5. Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value: > 0 23 SD Summary SITE SUMMARY OF SOURCE DESCRIPTIONS Source No. Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value Containment Ground Water Surface Water Gas Air Particulate 1 > 0 NS 10 NS NS Note: NS = Not scored Other Potential Areas of Concern Two unlined holding ponds previously were located east of the recycling building; both ponds have been dredged and backfilled. No soil samples were collected from the former pond locations during the 1994 ESI. The holding ponds received wastewater from the recycling operations building. The primary holding pond is approximately 0.66 acre and is located between the recycling building and the second holding pond. The second holding pond (0.61 acre), which reportedly was never used, was constructed originally to provide backup capacity (Refs. 6, p. 3; 7, pp. 5, 6; 8, pp. 5, 13, 14; 9, p. 2; 13, p. 2). 24 SWOF Surface Water Overland Flow/ Flood Migration Pathway 4.1 OVERLAND/ FLOOD MIGRATION COMPONENT <IP_ADDRESS> DEFINITION OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE MIGRATION PATH FOR OVERLAND/ FLOOD COMPONENT Runoff from UMI tends to flow radially from the battery recycling building, because it was constructed originally above grade. Surface water runoff is then directed toward the west or south (Refs. 3; 8, pp. 9, 22). The west and south surface water migration routes comprise two separate watersheds for HRS scoring purposes because there is no apparent perennial or other HRS qualifying water body connection between the two routes within the 15 mile target distance limit (Ref 51, p. 204).

Watershed 1 Surface water runoff directed towards the west flows into a ditch located near the entrance gate. The ditch parallels the entrance driveway and drains west toward State Route 71. A culvert is located beneath the road and drains the ditch into a wooded wetland. The confluence of the ditch and the wooded wetland is the probable point of entry (PPE) to the surface water pathway in water route for this watershed and is located about 500 feet south southwest of the entrance drive (Refs. 8, p. 22; 39, p. 15; 51, pp. 204 through 208). Contiguous wetlands connect the wooded wetland to a perennial stream (an unnamed tributary to Chipola River), which then flows into to the Chipola River, located about 8,800 stream feet (1.7 miles) west of the former facility. HRS eligible wetlands continuously line the in water route from the PPE to the Chipola River (Refs. 3; 38). The 15 mile target distance limit for the watershed is completed in the Chipola River (Refs. 3; 8, pp. 9, 22). The Chipola River has a net average annual flow rate of 1,502 cubic feet per second (cfs) (Ref. 40, p. 104).

Watershed 2 Surface water runoff, directed south southeast of the facility, flows into an intermittent stream that is located along the south southeastern boundary of the facility. This intermittent stream discharges to a series of interconnected, wooded wetlands. Because UMI is located in Marianna, Florida, which has an average annual precipitation of about 54 inches, the intermittent stream is not considered to be part of the in water surface water migration pathway (Refs. 50; 51, p. 208). Therefore, the confluence of the intermittent stream and the interconnected wooded wetlands comprises the PPE for this watershed. Surface water then flows through the wooded wetlands to an intermittent stream that discharges into a sinkhole pond about 1,600 feet (0.3 mile) west of State Route 71 (Ref. 3).

As the higher scoring watershed, Watershed 1 will be evaluated for this HRS documentation package. No samples have been collected from Watershed 2 to support an observed release and minimal targets exist for Watershed 2. SWOF Observed Release 25 <IP_ADDRESS> LIKELIHOOD OF RELEASE <IP_ADDRESS>.1 Observed Release Chemical Analysis  Background Sample Sample ID Sampling Location Depth Date Reference( s)

UMSD01 Approximately 1.5 miles north of the facility 0 to 2 feet 12/ 7/ 94 8, pp. 3, 12  14, Appendix A, pp. 31, 32 Notes: UM = United Metals, Inc. SD = Sediment sample The December 1994 ESI focused on the impact that the contaminated soil from the facility has on the Chipola River and associated wetlands. The table above presents the background sediment sample collected from a wetland area located approximately 1.5 miles north of the facility during the 1994 ESI. This location is just south of State Road (SR) 280 and about 0.2 mile east of SR 71. Background Sediment Sample UMSD01 was collected from the upper 2 feet of material at this sample location (Refs. 8, pp. 3, 12 through 14; 39, p. 21). SWOF Observed Release 26  Background Concentrations Sample ID Hazardous Substance Concentration MDL Reference( s)

UMSD01 Copper 3.66 mg/ kg * 1.6 mg/ kg 8, p. 20; Appendix A, pp. 31, 32; 37, p. 15; 47, pp. 8, 18; 48; 49 Lead 21.6 mg/ kg * 5 mg/ kg 8, p. 20; Appendix A, pp. 31, 32; 37, p. 16; 47, pp. 8, 18; 48; 49 Zinc 11 mg/ kg 10 mg/ kg 8, p. 20; Appendix A, pp. 31, 32; 37, p. l8 Notes: UM = United Metals, Inc. SD = Sediment sample MDL = Method Detection Limit mg/ kg = Milligrams per kilogram U = Material was analyzed but not detected; the value reported is the minimum detection limit * = Values were adjusted in accordance with Reference 47. SWOF Observed Release 27  Observed Release Concentrations Sample ID Sampling Location Depth Date Reference( s)

UMSD02 Collected from the wetland area located directly across State Route 71 from the facility's main entrance. 0 to 2 feet 12/ 07/ 94 8, pp. 12, 13, Figure 3; 39, p. 20 UMSD03 Collected from the wetland area located directly across State Route 71 from the facility's main entrance. 0 to 2 feet 12/ 07/ 94 8, pp. 12, 13, Figure 3; 39, p. 20 UMSD04 Collected from the wetland area located directly across State Route 71 from the facility's main entrance 0 to 2 feet 12/ 07/ 94 8, pp. 12, 13, Figure 3; 39, p. 20 UMSD05 Collected from the wetland area located directly across State Route 71 from the facility's main entrance 0 to 2 feet 12/ 07/ 94 8, pp. 12, 13, Figure 3; 39, p. 23 Notes: UM = United Metals, Inc. SD = Sediment sample Sediment samples presented in the preceding table were collected from the wetland area located downgradient of the probable point of entry (PPE) of drainage from the facility's main entrance during the 1994 ESI( Refs. 3; 8, pp. 12, 13, Figure 3; 39, p. 20). SWOF Observed Release 28  Observed Release Concentrations Sample ID Hazardous Substance Concentration MDL Reference( s)

UMSD02 Copper 18 mg/ kg 1.6 mg/ kg 8, p. 20, Appendix A, pp. 32, 33; 37, p. 15; 39, p. 20 Lead 191 mg/ kg 5.0 mg/ kg 8, p. 20, Appendix A, pp. 32, 33; 37, p. 16; 39, p. 20 UMSD03 Copper 17 mg/ kg 1.6 mg/ kg 8, p. 20, Appendix A, p. 34; 37, p. 15; 39, p. 20 Lead 629 mg/ kg 5.0 mg/ kg 8, p. 20, Appendix A, p. 34; 37, p. 16; 39, p. 20 Zinc 41 mg/ kg 10.0 mg/ kg 8, p. 20, Appendix A, pp. 34, 35; 37, p. 18; 39, p. 20 UMSD05 Lead 91.5 mg/ kg 5.0 mg/ kg 8, p. 20, Appendix A, pp. 36, 37; 37, p. 16; 39, p. 23 Notes: UM = United Metals, Inc. SD = Sediment sample mg/ kg = Milligrams per kilogram MDL = Method detection limit SWOF Observed Release 29 Attribution:

The former UMI facility was a used battery reclaiming facility, with plant operations beginning in November 1979. In 1981, the facility processed 10,000 to 12,000 batteries per week, resulting in 2,500 gallons of acidic wastes per day. Primarily lead acid batteries and nickel cadmium batteries were recycled by the facility. Batteries were offloaded at a loading dock located at the northwestern side of the recycling building onto a conveyor belt. The conveyor belt delivered the batteries to a water cooled saw used to cut the tops off of the batteries. Removed battery tops were dismantled, and the plastic battery cases were separated from the lead plates, then crushed and pelletized. Lead oxide, posts, and miscellaneous parts were separated from the crushed casings. Lead components and lead oxide were transported by truck to a smelter, and the plastic pellets were transported to an extruding facility (Refs. 7, pp. 6, 9; 8, p. 5; 9, pp. 3, 4; 10, pp. 9, 11 ; 14, p. 11).

Liquid from the batteries was deposited into a reservoir and flowed through a channel in the floor to the concrete basins. In the concrete basins, the wastewater was neutralized with lime and lead oxide residues were precipitated for reclamation. The wastewater flowed from the basins through the ditch to the unlined, primary holding pond; the wastewater system eventually was modified so that wastewater was stored in tanks, neutralized, and recycled in the plant process to eliminate discharge to the holding ponds. The holding ponds eventually were abandoned; pond sediments were dredged, excavated, and stockpiled onsite; and the ponds were backfilled (Refs. 7, p. 9; 8, pp. 5, 6; 10, pp. 9 through 13; 15, p. 1; 18, p. 1).

EPA conducted a RCRA Program inspection of the facility in 1986. Numerous violations were noted, including improper closure of the holding ponds subsequent to sediment removal, improper storage of hazardous wastes, improper groundwater monitoring, and operation without appropriate permits for hazardous waste storage and treatment. The facility was sold and purchased by Herb Eisenstader and Michael Chen, and a partnership was established to form Anrich. Subsequent to the purchase of the facility property, Anrich renovated the facility and began battery cracking operations in 1991. On May 22, 1991, FDEP conducted a Hazardous Waste Inspection of the facility. Several RCRA violations were noted, including the operation of a hazardous waste pile without a permit and the transport of hazardous wastes to Taiwan without complying with certain RCRA record keeping requirements. Anrich ceased operations at the facility in July 1991 (Refs. 7, p. 7; 18; 31, p. 4).

During the 1986 EPA RCRA inspection, samples were collected from stockpiled sediments excavated from the pond, ditches, and a hopper located in the recycling area. Lead was detected in sediment samples at concentrations ranging from 8,300 to 13,000 mg/ kg. The sample collected from the hopper (referred to as lead product) contained lead at a concentration of 160,000 mg/ kg; this sample also was analyzed for EP toxicity and exceeded the allowable lead concentration of 5 mg/ L (Refs. 6, p. 8; 7, p. 9; 8, p. 6; 18, p. 3). Soil samples collected from the reported burial or disposal sites and the roadside ditch were contaminated by lead. Most concentrations of lead detected in the soil were greater than 1,000 mg/ kg. During the 1993 SI, sample UMSS06 was collected from the roadside drainage ditch outside of the entrance gate, contained 10,900 mg/ kg of lead (Refs. 7, pp. 3, 18, 19, 29, 30, 31; 8, pp. 7, 19). SWOF Observed Release 30 Soil samples were collected in suspected areas of waste or wastewater discharge and dry ditches along suspected migration pathways during the 1994 ESI. Maximum concentrations of antimony (31 mg/ kg), chromium (24 mg/ kg), copper (16 mg/ kg), lead (2,770 mg/ kg), nickel (10 mg/ kg), and zinc (46 mg/ kg) were detected in surface soil samples and exceeded the background concentration by three times or greater. Lead was detected in all surface soil samples, except for one sample. Many of the same constituents were detected at observed release levels in sediment samples collected from nearby wetlands. Sediment samples were collected during the ESI from the wetland area, located west of the facility across State Route 71, about 500 feet south of the plant entrance road (Ref. 8, pp. 12, 18, 20, 22, Appendix A, pp. 22 through 31). Maximum concentrations of copper (18 mg/ kg), lead (629 mg/ kg), and zinc (41 mg/ kg) were detected in sediment samples and exceeded the background concentration by three times or greater (Ref. 8, pp. 21, 22, Appendix A, pp. 31 through 38).

Hazardous Substances Released:

Copper Lead Zinc ==========================================================================

Observed Release Factor Value: 550 31 SWOF Potential to Release <IP_ADDRESS>.2 POTENTIAL TO RELEASE <IP_ADDRESS>.2.1 Potential to Release by Overland Flow Potential to release was not scored, because an observed release was established by chemical analysis (see Section <IP_ADDRESS>.1 of this documentation record). 32 SWOF/ Drinking Toxicity/ Persistence <IP_ADDRESS> WASTE CHARACTERISTICS <IP_ADDRESS>.1 Toxicity/ Persistence Hazardous Substance Source Number Toxicity Factor Value Persistence* Toxicity/ Persistence Factor Value** Reference( s)

Antimony 1 10,000 1 10,000 1, Section <IP_ADDRESS>.1; 2, p. B 2 Chromium 1 10,000 1 10,000 1, Section <IP_ADDRESS>.1; 2, p. B 5 Cobalt 1 1 1 1 1, Section <IP_ADDRESS>.1; 2, p. B 6 Copper 1 *** 1 *** 1, Section <IP_ADDRESS>.1; 2, p. B 6 Lead 1 10,000 1 10,000 1, Section <IP_ADDRESS>.1; 2, p. B 13 Nickel 1 10,000 1 10,000 1, Section <IP_ADDRESS>.1; 2, p. B 14 Zinc 1 10 1 10 1, Section <IP_ADDRESS>.1; 2, p. B 20 Notes: * = Persistence value for rivers ** = Toxicity/ Persistence factor values can be found in Reference 1, Table 4 12 *** = Copper does not have a toxicity value ==========================================================================

Toxicity/ Persistence Factor Value: 10,000 33 SWOF/ Drinking Hazardous Waste Quantity <IP_ADDRESS>.2 Hazardous Waste Quantity Source Number Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value (Section <IP_ADDRESS>.5) Is source hazardous constituent quantity data complete? (Yes/ No)

1 > 0 No Sum of Values: > 0 <IP_ADDRESS>.3 Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value Toxicity/ persistence factor value (10,000) X hazardous waste quantity factor value (100): 1 x 10 6 A hazardous waste quantity factor value of 100 was assigned, because actual contamination has been documented in the wetlands area located down gradient of onsite drainage (Refs. 3; 8, pp. 13, 14, 16, 18, 21, 22, Appendix A, pp. 22 through 38; 38; 39, pp. 20, 21).

==========================================================================

Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 100 Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value: 32 34 SWOF/ Drinking Targets <IP_ADDRESS> DRINKING WATER TARGETS The Jackson County Water District does not maintain any surface water intakes within the 15 mile target distance limit on the Chipola River (Ref. 41).

==========================================================================

Nearest Intake Factor Value: 0 35 SWOF/ Drinking Resources <IP_ADDRESS>.3 Resources No known resources are known to exist along the 15 mile surface water pathway.

==========================================================================

Resources Factor Value: 0 36 SWOF/ Food Chain Toxicity/ Persistence/ Bioaccumulation <IP_ADDRESS> WASTE CHARACTERISTICS <IP_ADDRESS>.1 Toxicity/ Persistence/ Bioaccumulation Hazardous Substance Source Number Toxicity Factor Value Persistence* Bioaccumulation Toxicity/ Persistence/ Bioaccumulation Factor Value** Ref( s)

Antimony 1 10,000 1 0.5 5,000 1, Section <IP_ADDRESS>.1; 2, p. B 2 Chromium 1 10,000 1 5 5x10 4 1, Section <IP_ADDRESS>.1; 2, p. B 5 Cobalt 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 1, Section <IP_ADDRESS>.1; 2, p. B 6 Copper 1 *** 1 50,000 *** 1, Section <IP_ADDRESS>.1; 2, p. B 6 Lead 1 10,000 1 50 5x10 5 1, Section <IP_ADDRESS>.1; 2, p. B 13 Nickel 1 10,000 1 0.5 5,000 1, Section <IP_ADDRESS>.1; 2, p. B 14 Zinc 1 10 1 500 5,000 1, Section <IP_ADDRESS>.1; 2, p. B 20 Notes: * = Persistence value for rivers ** = Toxicity/ Persistence/ Bioaccumulation factor values can be found Reference 1, Table 4 16 *** = Copper does not have a toxicity value ==========================================================================

Toxicity/ Persistence/ Bioaccumulation Factor Value: 5x10 5 37 SWOF/ Food Chain Hazardous Waste Quantity <IP_ADDRESS>.2 Hazardous Waste Quantity Source Number Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value (Section <IP_ADDRESS>.5) Is source hazardous constituent quantity data complete? (Yes/ No)

1 > 0 No Sum of Values: > 0 <IP_ADDRESS>.3 Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value Toxicity/ persistence factor value (10,000) X hazardous waste quantity factor value (100): 1 x 10 6 (Toxicity/ persistence [10,000] x hazardous waste quantity [100] X Bioaccumulation potential factor value [50]): 5 x 10 7 A hazardous waste quantity factor value of 100 was assigned, because actual contamination has been documented in the wetlands area located down gradient of onsite drainage (Refs. 3; 8, pp. 13, 14, 16, 18, 21, 22, Appendix A, pp. 22 through 38; 38; 39, pp. 20, 21).

==========================================================================

Hazardous Waste Quantity Assigned Value: 100 Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value: 56 38 SWOF/ Food Chain Targets <IP_ADDRESS> HUMAN FOOD CHAIN THREAT TARGETS Actual Human Food Chain Contamination The entire river, from the confluence of the unnamed tributary with the Chipola River to the target distance limit, is fished (Ref. 42). However, samples have not been collected from the Chipola River; therefore, actual contamination of a fishery has not been documented. The Chipola River is evaluated based on potential contamination.

Closed Fisheries No known fisheries have been closed resulting from contamination within the 15 mile surface water migration pathway target distance limit.

Benthic Tissue No samples have been collected from sessile benthic organisms located within the 15 mile surface water migration pathway target distance limit.

Level I Concentrations There are no Level I concentrations.

Most Distant Level II Sample There are no Level II concentrations. 39 SWOF/ Food Chain Food Chain Individual <IP_ADDRESS>.1 Food Chain Individual Sample ID: UM02SD Hazardous Substance: Copper, Lead Bioaccumulation Potential: 50,000, 50 Sample ID: UM03SD Hazardous Substance: Copper, Lead, Zinc Bioaccumulation Potential: 50,000, 50, 500 Sample ID: UM05SD Hazardous Substance: Lead Bioaccumulation Potential: 50 Identity of Fishery Type of Surface Water Body Dilution Weight Reference Chipola River Large stream to River 0.001 1, Table 4 13; 40, p. 103 A food chain individual value of 20 was assigned based on an observed release to a perennial surface water with a fishery downstream. An observed release was documented in HRS eligible wetlands located immediately down gradient of on site drainage. The wetlands begin adjacent to the facility property and are drained by an unnamed, perennial tributary of the Chipola River (Refs. 3; 8, pp. 13, 14, 16, 18, 21, 22; 38; 39, pp. 20, 21; 41; 42). The HRS eligible wetlands are contiguous from the PPE to the Chipola River (Ref. 38) It is not known whether the unnamed tributary is fished. The average annual flow rate of the Chipola River is 1,502 cfs (Ref. 40, p. 104).

==========================================================================

Food Chain Individual Factor Value: 20 40 SWOF/ Food Chain Level I Concentrations <IP_ADDRESS>.2 Population <IP_ADDRESS>.2.1 Level I Concentrations No Level I concentrations have been documented within the 15 mile surface water migration pathway target distance limit.

==========================================================================

Level I Concentrations Factor Value: 0 41 SWOF/ Food Chain Level II Concentrations <IP_ADDRESS>.2.2 Level II Concentrations No Level II concentrations have been documented within the 15 mile surface water migration pathway target distance limit.

==========================================================================

Level II Concentrations Factor Value: 0 42 SWOF/ Food Chain Potential Human Food Chain Contamination <IP_ADDRESS>.2.3 Potential Human Food Chain Contamination Identity of Fishery Annual Production in Pounds Type of Surface Water Body Average Annual Flow Rate Population Value (Pi) Dilution Weight (Di) Population Value x Dilution Weight (Pi x Di) Reference Chipola River >0 Large stream to River 1,502 cfs 0.03 0.001 0.00003 1, Tables 4 13, 4 18; 3; 40, p. 104; 42 Sum of Human Food Chain Population Values x Dilution Weights (Pi x Di) =0.00003 Population Values x Dilution Weights (Pi x Di) ÷ 10 = 0.000003 Notes: cfs = Cubic feet per second The average annual flow rate for the Chipola River from 1913 to 1996 is 1,502 cfs (Ref. 40, p. 104.) The annual production for the Chipola River is not known. The Chipola River is a fishery, therefore, an annual production rate of greater than zero was assumed (Refs. 41; 42). It is not known whether the unnamed tributary is fished.

==========================================================================

Potential Human Food Chain Contamination Factor Value: 0.000003 SWOF/ Environment Ecosystem Toxicity/ Persistence/ Bioaccumulation 43 <IP_ADDRESS> WASTE CHARACTERISTICS <IP_ADDRESS>.1 Ecosystem Toxicity/ Persistence/ Bioaccumulation Hazardous Substance Source Number Ecosystem Toxicity* Persistence** Ecosystem Toxicity/ Persistence Factor Value (Table 4 20) Reference( s)

Antimony 1 100 1 100 1, Section <IP_ADDRESS>.1; 2, p. B 2 Chromium 1 100 1 100 1, Section <IP_ADDRESS>.1; 2, p. B 5 Cobalt 1 *** 1 *** 1, Section <IP_ADDRESS>.1; 2, p. B 6 Copper 1 100 1 100 1, Section <IP_ADDRESS>.1; 2, p. B 6 Lead 1 1,000 1 1,000 1, Section <IP_ADDRESS>.1; 2, p. B 13 Nickel 1 10 1 10 1, Section <IP_ADDRESS>.1; 2, p. B 13 Zinc 1 10 1 10 1, Section <IP_ADDRESS>.1; 2, p. B 20 Notes: * = Ecotoxicity value for fresh water ** = Persistence value for rivers *** = Copper does not have an ecosystem toxicity value SWOF/ Environment Ecosystem Toxicity/ Persistence/ Bioaccumulation 44 Hazardous Substance Ecosystem Toxicity/ Persistence Factor Value Bioaccumulation Factor Value (Section <IP_ADDRESS>.1.3) Ecosystem Toxicity/ Persistence/ Bioaccumulation Factor Value (Table 4 21) Reference( s)

Antimony 100 5 500 1, Section <IP_ADDRESS>.1; 2, p. B 2 Chromium 100 5 500 1, Section <IP_ADDRESS>.1; 2, p. B 5 Cobalt *** 5,000 *** 1, Section <IP_ADDRESS>.1; 2, p. B 6 Copper 100 50,000 5x10 6 1, Section <IP_ADDRESS>.1; 2, p. B 6 Lead 1,000 5,000 5x10 6 1, Section <IP_ADDRESS>.1; 2, p. B 13 Nickel 10 500 5,000 1, Section <IP_ADDRESS>.1; 2, p. B 14 Zinc 10 500 5,000 1, Section <IP_ADDRESS>.1; 2, p. B 20 Notes: *** = Copper does not have an ecosystem toxicity value ==========================================================================

Ecosystem Toxicity/ Persistence/ Bioaccumulation Factor Value: 5 x 10 6 45 SWOF/ Environment Hazardous Waste Quantity <IP_ADDRESS>.2. Hazardous Waste Quantity Source Number Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value (Section <IP_ADDRESS>.5) Is source hazardous constituent quantity data complete? (Yes/ No)

1 > 0 No Sum of Values: > 0 <IP_ADDRESS>.3. Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value Ecosystem toxicity/ persistence factor value (1,000) X hazardous waste quantity factor value (100): 1 x 10 5 (Ecosystem toxicity/ persistence [1,000] X hazardous waste quantity [100] x Bioaccumulation potential factor value [5,000]): 5 x 10 8 A hazardous waste quantity factor value of 100 was assigned, because actual contamination at Level II concentrations has been documented in the wetlands area located immediately down gradient of on site drainage (Refs. 3; 8, pp. 13, 14, 16, 18, 21, 22, Appendix A, pp. 22 through 38; 38; 39, pp. 20, 21).

==========================================================================

Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 100 Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value: 100 46 SWOF/ Environment Targets <IP_ADDRESS> ENVIRONMENTAL THREAT  TARGETS Level I Concentrations No Level I concentrations have been documented; therefore, Level I concentrations were not evaluated.

Most Distant Level II Sample Sample ID: UMSD02 Distance from Probable point of entry: about 1,100 feet, which occurs in a wetlands area classified as palustrine forested. References: 3; 8, pp. 13, 14; 38; 39, p. 20; also see Figure 4 of this documentation record 47 SWOF/ Environment Level I Concentrations <IP_ADDRESS>.1 Sensitive Environments <IP_ADDRESS>.1.1. Level I Concentrations No Level I concentrations have been documented; therefore, Level I concentrations were not evaluated.

==========================================================================

Level I Concentrations Factor Value: 0 48 SWOF/ Environment Level II Concentrations <IP_ADDRESS>.1.2. Level II Concentrations Sensitive Environments Actual contamination of a sensitive environment listed in Reference 1, Table 4 23 has been documented. The Flatwoods Salamander (ambystoma cingulatum), which is classified as a federally threatened species, has been documented to habitat the wetland area located about 1,000 feet west of the facility property. The specific coordinates for the location of the Flatwoods Salamander were reported to be latitude 30° 40'59" north, and longitude 85° 10'28 west (Refs. 3; 43; 44; 45, pp. 6 through 18).

Sensitive Environments Value: 75 Wetlands Actual contamination at Level II concentrations has been documented. The observed release to the wetland area consists of about 1,100 feet of wetland frontage, which occurred in palustrine forested wetlands, from the PPE to sediment sample UMSD02 which is the most distant sediment sample collected during the 1994 ESI (Refs. 3; 8, pp. 13, 14 ; 38; 39, p. 20; also see Figure 4 of this documentation record).

Wetland Value: 25 Sum of Sensitive Environments Value (75) + Wetland Value (25): 100 ==========================================================================

Level II Concentrations Factor Value: 100 49 SWOF/ Environment Potential Contamination <IP_ADDRESS>.1.3 Potential Contamination Sensitive Environments Type of Surface Water Body Sensitive Environment Sensitive Environment Value( s) Reference Chipola River None identified 0 1, Table 4 23 Sum of Environment Value: 0 Wetlands Type of Surface Water Body Wetlands Frontage Wetlands Value Reference Chipola River 2 miles 50 1, Table 4 24; 3; 38 Total Wetland Frontage: 2 miles About 2 miles of wetland frontage are located along the Chipola River. (Refs. 3; 38). Therefore:

50 x 0.001 (surface water dilution weight for the Chipola River) = 0.05 0.05 ÷ 10 = 0.005 The average annual flow rate for the Chipola River from 1913 to 1996 is 1,502 cfs (Ref. 40, p. 104.) Therefore, the dilution weight for the wetlands associated with the Chipola River is 0.001 (Ref. 1, Table 4 13).

In addition, there is an undetermined extent of wetland frontage present between the wetland subject to Level II concentrations and the confluence of the unnamed tributary and the Chipola River (Ref. 38; see also Figure 4 in this documentation record).

==========================================================================

Potential Contamination Factor Value: 0.005


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 226 (Friday, November 25, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72495-72496]
[FR Doc No: 2022-25742]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2022-0041 OMB No. 1660-0100]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; General Admissions Applications (Long and Short) and
Stipend Forms

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security.

ACTION: 60-Day notice of revision and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites
the general public to take this opportunity to comment on an extension,
with change, of a currently approved information collection. In
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks
comments concerning the admission applications and student stipend
agreements for FEMA courses and programs that are delivered on-campus
and throughout the Nation, in coordination with state and local
training officials and local colleges and universities.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before January 24, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Please submit comments at www.regulations.gov under Docket
ID FEMA-2022-0041. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket
ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material,
all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any
personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this
information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy Act
notice that is available via the link in the footer of
www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Smiley White, Supervisory Program
Specialist, United States Fire Administration, at
[email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You may contact the
Information Management Division for copies of the proposed collection
of information at email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA offers courses and programs that are
delivered at National Emergency Training Center (NETC) in Emmitsburg,
Maryland, the Center for Domestic Preparedness (CDP) in Anniston,
Alabama, and throughout the Nation in coordination with state and local
training officials and local colleges and universities to carry out the
authorities listed below. To facilitate meeting these requirements,
FEMA collects information necessary to be accepted for courses and for
the student stipend or travel reimbursement program for these courses.
There are several organizations within FEMA that deliver training and
education in support of the FEMA mission.
    1. Section 7 of Public Law 93-498, the Federal Fire Prevention and
Control Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 2206, established the National Fire
Academy (NFA) to advance the professional development of fire service
personnel and of other persons engaged in fire prevention and control
activities.
    2. Section 611(f) of Public Law 93-288, the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act), as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 5196(f), authorizes FEMA to conduct or arrange, by
contract or otherwise, training programs for the instruction of
emergency preparedness officials and other persons in the organization,
operation, and techniques of emergency preparedness; conduct or operate
schools or classes, including the payment of travel expenses and per
diem allowances for these purposes, in lieu of subsistence for trainees
in attendance or the furnishing of subsistence and quarters for
trainees and instructors on terms prescribed by the Director; and
provide instructors and training aids as deemed necessary. This
training is conducted through the Emergency Management Institute (EMI).
    3. Title XIV of the National Defense Authorization Act of 1997,
Public Law 104-201, 110 Stat. 2432; Title I of the Departments of
Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act of 1998, Public Law 105-119, 111 Stat. 2440;
Sections 403 and 430 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law
107-296, 116 Stat. 2135; and Section 611 of the Post-Katrina Emergency
Management Reform Act of 2006, Public Law 109-295, 120 Stat. 1355, all
authorize CDP to serve as a training facility for all relevant
Federally supported training efforts that target state and local law
enforcement, firefighters, emergency medical personnel, and other key
agencies such as public works and state and local emergency management.
The focus of the training is to prepare relevant state and local
officials to deal with chemical, biological, or nuclear terrorist acts
and handle incidents dealing with hazardous materials.
    4. Public Law 110-53, the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11
Commission Act of 2007, 6 U.S.C. 1102, established a National Domestic
Preparedness Consortium within the Department of Homeland Security. The
Consortium is mandated to identify, test, and deliver training to
state, local, and tribal emergency response providers, provide on-site
and mobile training at the performance, management, and planning
levels, and facilitate the delivery of training by the training
partners of the Department.
    5. US Code Title I, consistent with requirements under Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Appendix C Respirator Medical
Evaluation Questionnaire (29 CFR 1910.134, Respiratory Protection), in
any workplace where respirators are necessary to protect the health of
the employee or whenever respirators are required by the employer, the
employer shall establish and implement a written respiratory protection
program with worksite-specific procedures. The program shall be updated
as necessary to reflect those changes in workplace conditions that
affect respirator use. The employer shall include in the program the
following provisions of this section, as applicable: 1910.134(c)(1)(ii)
Medical evaluations of employees required to use respirators.
    FEMA is revising this collection to add a new instrument, FEMA Form
FF-008-FY-22-125, Respiratory Medical Evaluation Questionnaire For
Students, to comply with OSHA's requirements under 29 CFR 1910.134.

Collection of Information

    Title: General Admissions Applications (Long and Short) and Stipend
Forms.
    Type of Information Collection: Revision of a currently approved
information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0100.
    FEMA Forms: FEMA Form FF-USFA-FY-21-101 (formerly 119-25-0-1),
General Admissions Application; FEMA Form FF-USFA-FY-21-102 (formerly
119-25-0-6), Training Registration Form; FEMA Form FF-USFA-FY-21-103
(formerly 119-25-3), Student Stipend Agreement; FEMA Form FF-USFA-FY-
21-104 (formerly 119-25-4), Student Stipend Agreement (Amendment); FEMA
Form FF-USFA-FY-21-105 (formerly 119-25-5), National Fire Academy
Executive Fire Officer Program Application Admission; and FEMA Form FF-
008-FY-22-125, Respiratory Medical Evaluation Questionnaire For
Students.
    Abstract: FEMA provides training to advance the professional
development of personnel engaged in fire prevention and control and
emergency management activities through CDP, Emergency Management
Institute, NFA, National Training and Education Division, National
Domestic Preparedness Consortium, and Rural Domestic Preparedness
Consortium.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit, not-for-profit
institutions, Federal Government, and State, Local or Tribal
Government.
    Number of Respondents: 223,300.
    Number of Responses: 223,300.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 21,644.
    Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost: $1,204,641.
    Estimated Respondents' Operation and Maintenance Costs: $0.
    Estimated Respondents' Capital and Start-Up Costs: $0.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost to the Federal Government: $238,912.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Millicent Brown Wilson,
Records Management Branch Chief, Office of the Chief Administrative
Officer, Mission Support, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2022-25742 Filed 11-23-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-74-P