[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 18, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-1146]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 18, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[FRL-4827-5]
National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites,
Proposed Rule No. 16
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (``CERCLA'' or ``the Act''), as amended, requires
that the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan (``NCP'') include a list of national priorities among the known
releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants throughout the United States. The National Priorities List
(``NPL'') constitutes this list.
The Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'') proposes to add new
sites to the NPL. This 16th proposed revision to the NPL includes 16
sites in the General Superfund Section and 10 in the Federal Facilities
Section. The identification of a site for the NPL is intended primarily
to guide EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation
to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental
risks associated with the site and to determine what CERCLA-financed
remedial action(s), if any, may be appropriate. This action does not
affect the 1,192 sites currently listed on the NPL (1,069 in the
General Superfund Section and 123 in the Federal Facilities Section).
However, it does increase the number of proposed sites to 97 (67 in the
General Superfund Section and 30 in the Federal Facilities Section).
Final and proposed sites now total 1,289.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before February 17, 1994, for
Raymark Industries, Inc. (Stratford, Connecticut), Lower Ecorse Creek
Dump (Wyandotte, Michigan) and Tennessee Products (Chattanooga,
Tennessee) since these are sites being proposed based on ATSDR health
advisory criteria and present immediate concerns. For the remaining
sites in this proposal, comments must be submitted on or before March
21, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Mail original and three copies of comments (no facsimiles or
tapes) to Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S. EPA CERCLA Docket
Office; 5201; Waterside Mall; 401 M Street, SW.; Washington, DC 20460;
202/260-3046. For additional Docket addresses and further details on
their contents, see Section I of the Supplementary Information portion
of this preamble.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry Keidan, Hazardous Site
Evaluation Division, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (5204G),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW Washington, DC
20460, or the Superfund Hotline, Phone (800) 424-9346 or (703) 412-9810
in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
II. Purpose and Implementation of the NPL
III. Contents of This Proposed Rule
IV. Regulatory Impact Analysis
V. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
I. Introduction
Background
In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675 (``CERCLA'' or
``the Act'') in response to the dangers of uncontrolled hazardous waste
sites. CERCLA was amended on October 17, 1986, by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (``SARA''), Public Law No. 99-499,
100 stat. 1613 et seq. To implement CERCLA, the Environmental
Protection Agency (``EPA'' or ``the Agency'') promulgated the revised
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
(``NCP''), 40 CFR part 300, on July 16, 1982 (47 FR 31180), pursuant to
CERCLA section 105 and Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 42237, August 20,
1981). The NCP sets forth the guidelines and procedures needed to
respond under CERCLA to releases and threatened releases of hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants. EPA has revised the NCP on
several occasions, most recently on March 8, 1990 (55 FR 8666).
Section 105(a)(8)(A) of CERCLA requires that the NCP include
``criteria for determining priorities among releases or threatened
releases throughout the United States for the purpose of taking
remedial action.'' As defined in CERCLA section 101(24), remedial
action tends to be long-term in nature and involves response actions
that are consistent with a permanent remedy for a release.
Mechanisms for determining priorities for possible remedial actions
financed by the Trust Fund established under CERCLA (commonly referred
to as the ``Superfund'') and financed by other persons are included in
the NCP in 40 CFR 300.425(c) (55 FR 8845, March 8, 1990). Under 40 CFR
300.425(c)(1), a site may be included on the NPL if it scores
sufficiently high on the Hazard Ranking System (``HRS''), which is
appendix A of 40 CFR part 300. On December 14, 1990 (55 FR 51532), EPA
promulgated revisions to the HRS partly in response to CERCLA section
105(c), added by SARA. The revised HRS evaluates four pathways: ground
water, surface water, soil exposure, and air. The HRS serves as a
screening device to evaluate the relative potential of uncontrolled
hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants to pose a threat to
human health or the environment. Those sites that score 28.50 or
greater on the HRS are eligible for the NPL.
Under a second mechanism for adding sites to the NPL, each State
may designate a single site as its top priority, regardless of the HRS
score. This mechanism, provided by the NCP in 40 CFR 300.425(c)(2),
requires that, to the extent practicable, the NPL include within the
100 highest priorities, one facility designated by each State
representing the greatest danger to public health, welfare, or the
environment among known facilities in the State.
The third mechanism for listing, included in the NCP in 40 CFR
300.425(c)(3), allows certain sites to be listed whether or not they
score above 28.50, if all of the following conditions are met:
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) of the U.S. Public Health Service has issued a health advisory
that recommends dissociation of individuals from the release.
EPA determines that the release poses a significant threat
to public health.
EPA anticipates that it will be more cost-effective to
use its remedial authority than to use its removal authority to respond
to the release.
Based on these criteria, and pursuant to section 105(a)(8)(B) of
CERCLA, as amended by SARA, EPA promulgates a list of national
priorities among the known or threatened releases of hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United States.
That list, which is appendix B of 40 CFR part 300, is the National
Priorities List (``NPL''). CERCLA section 105(a)(8)(B) defines the NPL
as a list of ``releases'' and as a list of the highest priority
``facilities.'' The discussion below may refer to the ``releases or
threatened releases'' that are included on the NPL interchangeably as
``releases,'' ``facilities,'' or ``sites.'' CERCLA section 105(a)(8)(B)
also requires that the NPL be revised at least annually. A site may
undergo CERCLA-financed remedial action only after it is placed on the
NPL, as provided in the NCP in 40 CFR 300.425(b)(1).
EPA promulgated an original NPL of 406 sites on September 8, 1983
(48 FR 40658). The NPL has been expanded since then, most recently on
October 14, 1992 (57 FR 47180).
The NPL includes two sections, one of sites being evaluated and
cleaned up by EPA (the ``General Superfund Section''), and one of sites
being addressed by other Federal agencies (the ``Federal Facilities
Section''). Under Executive Order 12580 and CERCLA section 120, each
Federal agency is responsible for carrying out most response actions at
facilities under its own jurisdiction, custody, or control, although
EPA is responsible for preparing an HRS score and determining if the
facility is placed on the NPL. EPA is not the lead agency at these
sites, and its role at such sites is accordingly less extensive than at
other sites. The Federal Facilities Section includes those facilities
at which EPA is not the lead agency.
Deletions/Cleanups
EPA may delete sites from the NPL where no further response is
appropriate under Superfund, as explained in the NCP in 40 CFR
300.425(e) (55 FR 8845, March 8, 1990). To date, the Agency has deleted
56 sites from the General Superfund Section of the NPL, most recently
the Suffern Village Well Field, Village of Suffern, New York (58 FR
30989, May 28, 1993), Pesticide Lab, Yakima, Washington (58 FR 46087,
September 1, 1993), LaBounty Site, Charles City, Iowa (58 FR 50218,
October 6, 1993), Aidex Corporation, Council Bluffs, Iowa (58 FR 54297,
October 21, 1993), Hydro-Flex Inc., Topeka, KS (58 FR 59369, November
9, 1993) and Plymouth Harbor/Cannon Engineering Corp., Plymouth,
Massachusetts (58 FR 61029, November 19, 1993).
EPA also has developed an NPL construction completion list
(``CCL'') to simplify its system of categorizing sites and to better
communicate the successful completion of cleanup activities (58 FR
12142, March 2, 1993). Sites qualify for the CCL when:
(1) Any necessary physical construction is complete, whether or not
final cleanup levels or other requirements have been achieved;
(2) EPA has determined that the response action should be limited
to measures that do not involve construction (e.g., institutional
controls); or
(3) The site qualifies for deletion from the NPL. Inclusion of a
site on the CCL has no legal significance.
In addition to the 55 sites that have been deleted from the NPL
because they have been cleaned up (the Waste Research and Reclamation
site was deleted based on deferral to another program and is not
considered cleaned up), an additional 162 sites are also in the NPL
CCL, all but one from the General Superfund Section. Thus, as of
October 1993, the CCL consists of 217 sites.
Cleanups at sites on the NPL do not reflect the total picture of
Superfund accomplishments. As of September 30, 1993, EPA had conducted
591 removal actions at NPL sites, and 1,734 removal actions at non-NPL
sites. Information on removals is available from the Superfund hotline.
Pursuant to the NCP in 40 CFR 300.425(c), this document proposes to
add 26 sites to the NPL. The General Superfund Section includes 1,069
sites, and the Federal Facilities Section includes 123 sites, for a
total of 1,192 sites on the NPL. Final and proposed sites now total
1,289. These numbers reflect EPA's decision to voluntarily remove the
Hexcel Corporation site, in Livermore, CA, from the NPL.
Public Comment Period
The documents that form the basis for EPA's evaluation and scoring
of sites in this rule, as well as the health advisories issued by ATSDR
and documentation supporting the designation as a State top priority,
where applicable, are contained in dockets located both at EPA
Headquarters and in the appropriate Regional offices. The dockets are
available for viewing, by appointment only, after the appearance of
this rule. The hours of operation for the Headquarters docket are from
9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday excluding Federal holidays.
Please contact individual Regional dockets for hours.
Docket Coordinator, Headquarters, USEPA CERCLA Docket Office, 5201
Waterside Mall, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460, 202/260-
3046
Ellen Culhane, Region 1, USEPA, Waste Management Records Center,
HES-CAN 6, J.F. Kennedy Federal Building, Boston, MA 02203-2211,
617/573-5729.
Ben Conetta, Region 2, USEPA, 26 Federal Plaza, 7th Floor, Room 740,
New York, NY 10278, 212/264-6696
Diane McCreary, Region 3, USEPA Library, 3rd Floor, 841 Chestnut
Building, 9th & Chestnut Streets, Philadelphia, PA 19107, 215/597-
7904
Kathy Piselli, Region 4, USEPA, 345 Courtland Street, NE., Atlanta,
GA 30365, 404/347-4216
Cathy Freeman, Region 5, USEPA, Records Center, Waste Management
Division 7-J, Metcalfe Federal Building, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, IL 60604, 312/886-6214
Bart Canellas, Region 6, USEPA, 1445 Ross Avenue, Mail Code 6H-MA,
Dallas, TX 75202-2733, 214/655-6740
Steven Wyman, Region 7, USEPA Library, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas
City, KS 66101, 913/551-7241
Greg Oberley, Region 8, USEPA, 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver,
CO 80202-2466, 303/294-7598
Lisa Nelson, Region 9, USEPA, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105, 415/744-2347
David Bennett, Region 10, USEPA, 11th Floor, 1200 6th Avenue, Mail
Stop HW-114, Seattle, WA 98101, 206/553-2103.
With the exception of Raymark Industries, Inc. (Stratford,
Connecticut), Lower Ecorse Creek Dump (Wyandotte, Michigan), and
Tennessee Products (Chanttanooga, Tennessee) which are sites being
proposed based on the ATSDR health advisory criteria, and Boomsnub/
Airco (Vancouver, Washington) which has been designated as a State top
priority, the Headquarters docket for this rule contains HRS score
sheets for each proposed site; a Documentation Record for each site
describing the information used to compute the score; pertinent
information for any site affected by particular statutory requirements
or EPA listing policies; and a list of documents referenced in the
Documentation Record. Each Regional docket for this rule, except for
the three ATSDR health advisory sites and the State top priority
mentioned above, contains all of the information in the Headquarters
docket for sites in that Region, plus the actual reference documents
containing the data principally relied upon and cited by EPA in
calculating or evaluating the HRS scores for sites in that Region.
These reference documents are available only in the Regional dockets.
For the three sites proposed on the basis of health advisory criteria,
both the Headquarters and Regional dockets contain the public health
advisories issued by ATSDR, and EPA memoranda supporting the findings
that in each case the release poses a significant threat to public
health and that it would be more cost-effective to use remedial rather
than removal authorities at the site. For the site that has been
designated a top priority by the State, both the Headquarters and
Regional dockets contain supporting documentation. Interested parties
may view documents, by appointment only, in the Headquarters or the
appropriate Regional docket or copies may be requested from the
Headquarters or appropriate Regional docket. An informal written
request, rather than a formal request under the Freedom of Information
Act, should be the ordinary procedure for obtaining copies of any of
these documents.
EPA considers all comments received during the comment period.
During the comment period, comments are placed in the Headquarters
docket and are available to the public on an ``as received'' basis. A
complete set of comments will be available for viewing in the Regional
docket approximately one week after the formal comment period closes.
Comments received after the comment period closes will be available in
the Headquarters docket and in the Regional docket on an ``as
received'' basis.
Comments that include complex or voluminous reports, or materials
prepared for purposes other than HRS scoring, should point out the
specific information that EPA should consider and how it affects
individual HRS factor values. See Northside Sanitary Landfill v.
Thomas, 849 F.2d 1516 (D.C. Cir. 1988). EPA will make final listing
decision after considering the relevant comments received during the
comment period.
In past rules, EPA has attempted to respond to late comments, or
when that was not practicable, to read all late comments and address
those that brought to the Agency's attention a fundamental error in the
scoring of a site. (See, most recently, 57 FR 4824 (February 7, 1992)).
Although EPA intends to pursue the same policy with sites in this rule,
EPA can guarantee that it will consider only those comments postmarked
by the close of the formal comment period. EPA cannot delay a final
listing decision solely to accommodate consideration of late comments.
In certain instances, interested parties have written to EPA
concerning sites which were not at that time proposed to the NPL. If
those sites are later proposed to the NPL, parties should review their
earlier concerns and, if still appropriate, resubmit those concerns for
consideration during the formal comment period. Site-specific
correspondence received prior to the period of formal proposal and
comment will not generally be included in the docket.
II. Purpose and Implementation of the NPL
Purpose
The legislative history of CERCLA (Report of the Committee on
Environment and Public Works, Senate Report No. 96-848, 96th Cong., 2d
Sess. 60 (1980)) states the primary purpose of the NPL:
The priority lists serve primarily informational purposes,
identifying for the States and the public those facilities and sites
or other releases which appear to warrant remedial actions.
Inclusion of a facility or site on the list does not in itself
reflect a judgment of the activities of its owner or operator, it
does not require those persons to undertake any action, nor does it
assign liability to any person. Subsequent government action in the
form of remedial actions or enforcement actions will be necessary in
order to do so, and these actions will be attended by all
appropriate procedural safeguards.
The purpose of the NPL, therefore, is primarily to serve as an
informational and management tool. The identification of a site for the
NPL is intended primarily to guide EPA in determining which sites
warrant further investigation to assess the nature and extent of the
public health and environmental risks associated with the site and to
determine what CERCLA remedial action(s), if any, may be appropriate.
The NPL also serves to notify the public of sites that EPA believes
warrant further investigation. Finally, listing a site may, to the
extent potentially responsible parties are identifiable at the time of
listing, serve as notice to such parties that the Agency may initiate
CERCLA-financed remedial action.
Implementation
After initial discovery of a site at which a release or threatened
release may exist, EPA begins a series of increasingly complex
evaluations. The first step, the Preliminary Assessment (``PA''), is a
low-cost review of existing information to determine if the site poses
a threat to public health or the environment. If the site presents a
serious imminent threat, EPA may take immediate removal action. If the
PA shows that the site presents a threat but not an imminent threat,
EPA will generally perform a more extensive study called the Site
Inspection (``SI''). The SI involves collecting additional information
to better understand the extent of the problem at the site, screen out
sites that will not qualify for the NPL, and obtain data necessary to
calculate an HRS score for sites which warrant placement on the NPL and
further study. EPA may perform removal actions at any time during the
process. To date EPA has completed approximately 35,000 PAs and
approximately 17,000 SIs.
The NCP in 40 CFR 300.425(b)(1) (55 FR 8845, March 8, 1990) limits
expenditure of the Trust Fund for remedial actions to sites on the NPL.
However, EPA may take enforcement actions under CERCLA or other
applicable statutes against responsible parties regardless of whether
the site is on the NPL, although, as a practical matter, the focus of
EPA's CERCLA enforcement actions has been and will continue to be on
NPL sites. Similarly, in the case of CERCLA removal actions, EPA has
the authority to act at any site, whether listed or not, that meets the
criteria of the NCP in 40 CFR 300.415(b)(2) (55 FR 8842, March 8,
1990). EPA's policy is to pursue cleanup of NPL sites using all the
appropriate response and/or enforcement actions available to the
Agency, including authorities other than CERCLA. The Agency will decide
on a site-by-site basis whether to take enforcement or other action
under CERCLA or other authorities prior to undertaking response action,
proceed directly with Trust Fund-financed response actions and seek to
recover response costs after cleanup, or do both. To the extent
feasible, once sites are on the NPL, EPA will determine high-priority
candidates for CERCLA-financed response action and/or enforcement
action through both State and Federal initiatives. EPA will take into
account which approach is more likely to accomplish cleanup of the site
most expeditiously while using CERCLA's limited resources as
efficiently as possible.
Although the ranking of sites by HRS scores is considered, it does
not, by itself, determine the sequence in which EPA funds remedial
response actions, since the information collected to develop HRS scores
is not sufficient to determine either the extent of contamination or
the appropriate response for a particular site (40 CFR 300.425(b)(2),
55 FR 8845, March 8, 1990). Additionally, resource constraints may
preclude EPA from evaluating all HRS pathways; only those presenting
significant risk or sufficient to make a site eligible for the NPL may
be evaluated. Moreover, the sites with the highest scores do not
necessarily come to the Agency's attention first, so that addressing
sites strictly on the basis of ranking would in some cases require
stopping work at sites where it was already underway.
More detailed studies of a site are undertaken in the Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (``RI/FS'') that typically follows
listing. The purpose of the RI/FS is to assess site conditions and
evaluate alternatives to the extent necessary to select a remedy (40
CFR 300.430(a)(2) (55 FR 8846, March 8, 1990)). It takes into account
the amount of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants released
into the environment, the risk to affected populations and environment,
the cost to remediate contamination at the site, and the response
actions that have been taken by potentially responsible parties or
others. Decisions on the type and extent of response action to be taken
at these sites are made in accordance with 40 CFR 300.415 (55 FR 8842,
March 8, 1990) and 40 CFR 300.430 (55 FR 8846, March 8, 1990). After
conducting these additional studies, EPA may conclude that initiating a
CERCLA remedial action using the Trust Fund at some sites on the NPL is
not appropriate because of more pressing needs at other sites, or
because a private party cleanup is already underway pursuant to an
enforcement action. Given the limited resources available in the Trust
Fund, the Agency must carefully balance the relative needs for response
at the numerous sites it has studied. It is also possible that EPA will
conclude after further analysis that the site does not warrant remedial
action.
RI/FS at Proposed Sites
An RI/FS may be performed at sites proposed in the Federal Register
for placement on the NPL (or even sites that have not been proposed for
placement on the NPL) pursuant to the Agency's removal authority under
CERCLA, as outlined in the NCP in 40 CFR 300.415. Although an RI/FS
generally is conducted at a site after it has been placed on the NPL,
in a number of circumstances the Agency elects to conduct an RI/FS at a
site proposed for placement on the NPL in preparation for a possible
Trust Fund-financed remedial action, such as when the Agency believes
that a delay may create unnecessary risks to public health or the
environment. In addition, the Agency may conduct an RI/FS to assist in
determining whether to conduct a removal or enforcement action at a
site.
Facility (Site) Boundaries
The purpose of the NPL is merely to identify releases or threatened
releases of hazardous substances that are priorities for further
evaluation. The Agency believes that it would be neither feasible nor
consistent with this limited purpose for the NPL to attempt to describe
releases in precise geographical terms. The term ``facility'' is
broadly defined in CERCLA to include any area where a hazardous
substance has ``come to be located'' (CERCLA section 101(9)), and the
listing process is not intended to define or reflect boundaries of such
facilities or releases. Site names are provided for general
identification purposes only. Knowledge of the geographic extent of
sites will be refined as more information is developed during the RI/FS
and even during implementation of the remedy.
Because the NPL does not assign liability or define the geographic
extent of a release, a listing need not be amended if further research
into the contamination at a site reveals new information as to its
extent. This is further explained in preambles to past NPL rules, most
recently February 11, 1991 (56 FR 5598).
Limitations on Payment of Claims for Response Actions
Sections 111(a)(2) and 122(b)(1) of CERCLA authorize the Fund to
reimburse certain parties for necessary costs of performing a response
action. As is described in more detail at 58 FR 5460 (January 21,
1993), 40 CFR part 307, there are two major limitations placed on the
payment of claims for response actions. First, only private parties,
certain potentially responsible parties (including States and political
subdivisions), and certain foreign entities are eligible to file such
claims. Second, all response actions under sections 111(a)(2) and
122(b)(1) must receive prior approval, or ``preauthorization,'' from
EPA.
III. Contents of This Proposed Rule
Table 1 identifies the 16 NPL sites in the General Superfund
Section and Table 2 identifies the 10 NPL sites in the Federal
Facilities Section being proposed in this rule. Both tables follow this
preamble. With the exception of Raymark Industries, Inc. (Stratford,
Connecticut), Lower Ecorse Creek Dump (Wyandotte, Michigan), and
Tennessee Products (Chattanooga, Tennessee) which are sites being
proposed based on ATSDR health advisory criteria, and Boomsnub/Airco
(Vancouver, Washington) which has been designated as a State top
priority, all sites are proposed based on HRS scores of 28.50 or above.
The sites in Table 1 are listed alphabetically by State, for ease of
identification, with group number identified to provide an indication
of relative ranking. To determine group number, sites on the NPL are
placed in groups of 50; for example, a site in Group 4 of this proposal
has a score that falls within the range of scores covered by the fourth
group of 50 sites on the General Superfund Section of the NPL. Sites in
the Federal Facilities Section are also presented by group number based
on groups of 50 sites in the General Superfund Section.
Statutory Requirements
CERCLA section 105(a)(8)(B) directs EPA to list priority sites
``among'' the known releases or threatened releases of hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants, and section 105(a)(8)(A)
directs EPA to consider certain enumerated and ``other appropriate''
factors in doing so. Thus, as a matter of policy, EPA has the
discretion not to use CERCLA to respond to certain types of releases.
Where other authorities exist, placing sites on the NPL for possible
remedial action under CERCLA may not be appropriate. Therefore, EPA has
chosen not to place certain types of sites on the NPL even though
CERCLA does not exclude such action. If, however, the Agency later
determines that sites not listed as a matter of policy are not being
properly responded to, the Agency may place them on the NPL.
The listing policies and statutory requirements of relevance to
this proposed rule cover sites subject to the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (``RCRA'') (42 U.S.C. 6901-6991i) and Federal facility
sites. These policies and requirements are explained below and have
been explained in greater detail in previous rulemakings (56 FR 5598,
February 11, 1991).
Releases From Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Sites
EPA's policy is that non-Federal sites subject to RCRA Subtitle C
corrective action authorities will not, in general, be placed on the
NPL. However, EPA will list certain categories of RCRA sites subject to
Subtitle C corrective action authorities, as well as other sites
subject to those authorities, if the Agency concludes that doing so
best furthers the aims of the NPL/RCRA policy and the CERCLA program.
EPA has explained these policies in detail in the past (51 FR 21054,
June 10, 1986; 53 FR 23978, June 24, 1988; 54 FR 41000, October 4,
1989; 56 FR 5602, February 11, 1991).
Consistent with EPA's NPL/RCRA policy, EPA is proposing to add one
site to the General Superfund Section of the NPL that may be subject to
RCRA Subtitle C corrective action authorities, the Raymark Industries,
Inc. site in Stratford, Connecticut, which is being proposed based on
ATSDR health advisory criteria. Material has been placed in the public
docket establishing that the facility operated as a hazardous waste
generator and land disposal facility. Raymark Industries, Inc. is a
RCRA Subtitle C regulated facility which has initiated bankruptcy
proceedings. Listing of the Raymark Industries, Inc. site on the NPL
under these circumstances is consistent with EPA's NPL/RCRA deferral
policy.
Releases From Federal Facility Sites
On March 13, 1989 (54 FR 10520), the Agency announced a policy for
placing Federal facility sites on the NPL if they meet the eligibility
criteria (e.g., an HRS score of 28.50 or greater), even if the Federal
facility also is subject to the corrective action authorities of RCRA
Subtitle C. In that way, those sites could be cleaned up under CERCLA,
if appropriate.
This rule proposes to add ten sites to the Federal Facilities
Section of the NPL.
ATSDR Health Advisory Based Proposed Sites
Raymark Industries, Inc. in Stratford, Connecticut, Lower Ecorse
Creek Dump in Wyandotte, Michigan, and Tennessee Products in
Chattanooga, Tennessee, are being proposed for the NPL on the basis of
section 425(c)(3) of the NCP, 40 CFR 300.425(c)(3) (55 FR 8845, March
8, 1990).
Raymark Industries, Inc.
The Raymark Industries, Inc. site includes the Raymark Industries,
Inc. facility and other locations where Raymark Industries, Inc.
facility waste has come to be located and that EPA determines pose a
significant threat to public health. The Raymark Industries, Inc.
facility comprises about 500,000 square feet of office, storage and
production space on 33.4 acres next to Interstate Route 95. A public
recreation park containing a baseball diamond and recreation field is
located immediately northwest of the site. The facility began
operations at this location in 1919 and primarily manufactured asbestos
brake linings and other automotive asbestos products until operations
ceased in 1989. The facility operated as a hazardous waste generator
and land disposal facility. The hazardous waste produced on-site
consisted primarily of lead-asbestos dust, metals and solvents. From
1919 to July 1984, Raymark Industries, Inc. used a system of lagoons to
attempt to capture the waste lead and asbestos dust produced by its
manufacturing process. Over this 65 year period, these lagoon systems
were located throughout the western and central areas of the facility.
As the lagoons filled with sludge they were covered with asphalt and
often built upon. Dredged materials were also landfilled at other
locations, including the adjacent ballfield. Interim actions intended
to stabilize waste have been conducted at the Raymark Industries, Inc.
facility and the ballfield.
An intensive surficial sampling program of the other locations
where waste from Raymark Industries, Inc. is known or suspected to have
been received and used as fill was instituted by the Connecticut
Department of Environmental Protection and EPA in April 1993. Based
upon the analytical results of this activity, which indicated
concentrations of lead, asbestos, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
ATSDR issued a public health advisory on May 26, 1993 for ``Raymark
Industries/Stratford Asbestos Sites''. The advisory recommended
dissociation of the public from areas where exposure to Raymark
Industries, Inc. waste at levels of health concern can occur. The
presence of dioxin in Raymark Industries, Inc. waste has subsequently
been confirmed. The advisory was based on the concern that people could
be exposed to site-related contaminants through inhalation, direct
dermal contact, ingestion of waste present in the soil, and consumption
of potentially contaminated area seafood.
The results from samples collected to determine the lateral extent
of contamination at known disposal locations has served as the basis
for supplemental ATSDR site-specific Health Consultations. ATSDR
recommended immediate response actions based upon the finding of
imminent health threats. Sampling to determine the vertical extent of
contamination at these disposal areas is presently being conducted to
expedite complete site characterization. Site characterization and
initiation of mitigation actions at known locations and at newly
discovered sites are being prioritized for early action.
EPA's assessment is that the site poses a significant threat to
human health and anticipates that it will be more cost-effective to use
remedial authority than to use removal authority to respond to the
site. This finding is set out in a memorandum dated November 3, 1993,
from Merrill S. Hohman, Region 1 Waste Management Division Director, to
Larry Reed, Hazardous Site Evaluation Division Director. This
memorandum and the ATSDR advisory are available in the Superfund docket
for this proposed rule. Based on this information, and the references
in support of proposal, EPA believes that the Raymark Industries, Inc.
site is appropriate for the NPL pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(c)(3).
Lower Ecorse Creek Dump
The Lower Ecorse Creek Dump site is located in Wyandotte, Wayne
County, Michigan. The site consists of the residence at 470 North Drive
and three neighboring parcels of land. The site occupies a level area
with the back of the lots abutting the Ecorse River. During the period
between 1945 and 1955, and prior to the house at 470 North Drive being
built, the low lying swampy area of the creek was filled with material
from local industries. Some of the fill material contained what has
been confirmed as ferric ferrocyanide, commonly referred to as
``Prussian Blue''. The blue soil was also found across the street at
471 North Drive, approximately two feet below the surface and the owner
of the residence at 469 North Drive also reported that he found the
blue soil in his yard. In addition, there are two vacant lots east of
470 North Drive where Prussian Blue is exposed. Neighborhood children
have used portions of these lots as a go-cart track and wearing of the
topsoil by the go-carts has exposed the Prussian Blue.
The EPA was contacted by the Wayne County Health Department on
October 25, 1989. EPA tasked its Technical Assistance Team (TAT) on
October 27, 1989, to conduct a site investigation and sampling.
Sampling results were provided to ATSDR for review and assessment.
ATSDR's review on November 22, 1989, concluded that ``The levels of
cyanide found in the soil do present an urgent public health threat.
Steps to eliminate any direct contact with the contaminated soil need
to be taken immediately.''
Following ATSDR's determination that the presence of cyanide-
contaminated wastes in an unrestricted residential area presented an
immediate and significant public health threat, EPA's Emergency
Response Branch initiated removal activities. On December 4, 1989, work
commenced to cover the contaminated areas with six inches of clean
topsoil and fill in areas of the driveway and sidewalk which had been
previously excavated by the property owner. This action eliminated
physical contact with Prussian Blue and related cyanide compounds which
had spread throughout the area. The initial action was completed in the
summer of 1990 with the establishment of a vegetative cover.
The Final ATSDR Health Advisory which was released on August 13,
1993, recommended the following actions:
(1) Immediately dissociate the affected residents from cyanide
contamination, which is at levels of health concern in residential
subsurface soils;
(2) Implement permanent measures to remediate the contamination as
appropriate; and
(3) Consider including the Lower Ecorse Creek Dump site on the EPA
National Priorities List or, using other statutory or regulatory
authorities as appropriate, take other steps to characterize the site
and take necessary action.
Additional recommendations by ATSDR include conducting a door-to-
door well survey and well sampling to determine the extent and level of
any groundwater contamination. ATSDR also suggests restricting digging
into contaminated subsurface soil to prevent human contact with
contaminated soils and released cyanide gas.
EPA's assessment is that the site poses a significant threat to
human health and anticipates that it will be more cost-effective to use
remedial authority than to use removal authority to respond to the site
considering the costs and time involved in an extensive groundwater
study and potential groundwater remediation. This finding is set out in
a memorandum dated August 30, 1993, from William E. Muno, Region 5
Waste Management Division Director, to Larry Reed, Hazardous Site
Evaluation Division Director. This memorandum and the ATSDR advisory
are available in the Superfund docket for this proposed rule. Based on
this information, and the references in support of proposal, EPA
believes that the Lower Ecorse Creek Dump site is appropriate for the
NPL pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(c)(3).
Tennessee Products
The Tennessee Products site, is an aggregation of Southern Coke
Corporation (Southern Coke), Chattanooga Creek Tar Deposit Site and
Hamill Road Dump No. 2. The site is located in a heavily populated,
low-income, urban and industrial area in the Chattanooga Creek (the
creek) basin in Chattanooga, Hamilton County, Tennessee. The site
consists of the former Tennessee Products coke plant and its associated
uncontrolled coal-tar dumping grounds in Chattanooga Creek and its
floodplain. Uncontrolled dumping of coal-tar wastes has contaminated
the facility, groundwater resources underlying the facility, and
surface water resources downstream of the facility including wetlands
and fisheries.
The former Tennessee Products coke plant (a.k.a. Southern Coke) is
located at 4800 Central Avenue, south of Hamill/Hooker Road and
approximately one mile west of the creek. The coal-tar wastes are
located along an approximate 2.5 mile section of the creek extending
from just upstream of Hamill Road bridge to the creek's confluence with
Dobbs Branch. The coal-tar deposits are the result of dumping coal-tar
wastes directly into the creek and onto the floodplain within the
immediate vicinity of the creek channel. The largest coal-tar deposits
have been found in the creek bed and along its banks within a 1 mile
segment of the creek between Hamill Road and 38th Street. Analyses for
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) as well as visual inspection
of sediment cores confirm that coal-tar has heavily contaminated this
segment of the creek plus an additional 1.5 miles of the creek
downstream from this segment.
ATSDR issued a Public Health Advisory for the Tennessee Products
Site on August 20, 1993, based on the chemical and physical hazard
presented by the coal-tar deposits at the site. The Advisory recommends
the following actions:
(1) Dissociate residents from the coal-tar deposits;
(2) Continue site characterization to address the potential for
migration of contaminants;
(3) Consider the Tennessee Products Site for inclusion on the NPL;
(4) As appropriate, consider other coal-tar contaminated sites
along the creek for inclusion on the NPL.
Studies have been conducted on Chattanooga Creek on several
occasions by EPA and other agencies since 1973. Several of these
studies indicate that coal-tar constituents have contaminated the creek
and its sediments. The latest of these studies, conducted in 1992 by
EPA, has revealed the extent of the coal-tar dumping along the creek.
This new information, in combination with historical file information,
supports the aggregation of the above mentioned sites. The aggregation
criteria is discussed in a memo to the file, from Loften Carr, Site
Assessment Manager, EPA Region 4, dated June 8, 1993, which is included
in the nomination package.
Historical sampling and aerial photographic evidence indicate that
the tar was dumped into the creek, on the banks and in areas near the
creek over several years during the 1940s and 1950s. During World War
II, the U.S. Government purchased the Tennessee Products facility and
operated it for the war effort. The facility was sold back to the
company after the end of the war. Due to increased coke production
during the war, a substantial increase in waste generated by Tennessee
Products may have strained waste handling procedures practiced by
Tennessee Products before 1941. Documentation of the disposal practices
of Tennessee Products during this time period is not available;
however, Tennessee Products maintained a private sewer line which
discharged directly into the creek.
EPA's assessment is that the site poses a significant threat to
human health and anticipates that it will be more cost-effective to use
remedial authority than to use removal authority to respond to the
site. This finding is set out in a memorandum dated August 17, 1993,
from Joseph R. Franzmathes, Region 4 Waste Management Division
Director, to Larry Reed, Hazardous Site Evaluation Division Director.
This memorandum and the ATSDR advisory are available in the Superfund
docket for this proposed rule. Based on this information, and the
references in support of proposal, EPA believes that the Tennessee
Products site is appropriate for the NPL pursuant to 40 CFR
300.425(c)(3).
Name Change
EPA is proposing to change the name of the Schofield Barracks site
in Oahu, Hawaii, to Schofield Barracks/Wheeler Army Airfield. EPA
believes the name change more accurately reflects the site.
IV. Regulatory Impact Analysis
Executive Order 12866
This action was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4,
1993) and Executive Order 12580 (52 FR 2923, January 29, 1987). No
changes were made in response to OMB.
V. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires EPA to review the
impacts of this action on small entities, or certify that the action
will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities. By small entities, the Act refers to small businesses, small
government jurisdictions, and nonprofit organizations.
While this rule proposes to revise the NCP, it is not a typical
regulatory change since it does not automatically impose costs. As
stated above, proposing sites to the NPL does not in itself require any
action by any party, nor does it determine the liability of any party
for the cost of cleanup at the site. Further, no identifiable groups
are affected as a whole. As a consequence, impacts on any group are
hard to predict. A site's proposed inclusion on the NPL could increase
the likelihood of adverse impacts on responsible parties (in the form
of cleanup costs), but at this time EPA cannot identify the potentially
affected businesses or estimate the number of small businesses that
might also be affected.
The Agency does expect that placing the sites in this proposed rule
on the NPL could significantly affect certain industries, or firms
within industries, that have caused a proportionately high percentage
of waste site problems. However, EPA does not expect the listing of
these sites to have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small businesses.
In any case, economic impacts would occur only through enforcement
and cost-recovery actions, which EPA takes at its discretion on a site-
by-site basis. EPA considers many factors when determining enforcement
actions, including not only the firm's contribution to the problem, but
also its ability to pay.
The impacts (from cost recovery) on small governments and nonprofit
organizations would be determined on a similar case-by-case basis.
For the foregoing reasons, I hereby certify that this proposed rule
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. Therefore, this proposed regulation does not require a
regulatory flexibility analysis.
National Priorities List--Proposed Rule No. 16--General Superfund
Section
[Number of Sites Proposed to General Superfund Section: 16]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPL
State Site name City/county Gr\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA Frontier Fertilizer........... Davis................. 14
CT Raymark Industries, Inc....... Stratford............. NA
FL Chevron Chemical Co. (Ortho Orlando............... 4/5
Division).
IA Mason City Coal Gasification Mason City............ 1
Plant.
KS Chemical Commodities Inc...... Olathe................ 4/5
LA Lincoln Creosote.............. Bossier City.......... 17
MI Lower Ecorse Creek Dump....... Wyandotte............. NA
NY GCL Tie and Treating Inc...... Village of Sidney..... 5
PA East Tenth Street............. Marcus Hook........... 4
TN Chemet Co..................... Moscow................ 4/5
TN Tennessee Products............ Chattanooga........... NA
UT Kennecott (North Zone)........ Magna................. 2
UT Kennecott (South Zone)........ Copperton............. 2
UT Murray Smelter................ Murray City........... 1
VI Island Chemical Corp./Virgin St. Croix............. 4/5
Islands Chemical Corp.
WA Boomsnub/Airco................ Vancouver............. NA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Sites are placed in groups (Gr) corresponding to groups of 50 on the
final NPL.
National Priorities List--Proposed Rule No. 16--Federal Facilities
Section
[Number of Sites Proposed to Federal Facilities Section: 10]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPL
State Site name City/county Gr\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA Laboratory for Energy-Related Davis................. 4/5
Health Research/Old Campus
Landfill (USDOE).
FL Whiting Field Naval Air Milton................ 4/5
Station.
HI Naval Computer and Oahu.................. 4/5
Telecommunications Area
Master Station Eastern
Pacific.
MD Patuxent Naval Air Station.... St. Mary's Co......... 4/5
MI Wurtsmith Air Force Base...... Iosco County.......... 4/5
OH Air Force Plant 85............ Columbus.............. 4/5
OH Rickenbacker Air National Lockbourne............ 4/5
Guard Base.
PA Navy Ships Parts Control Mechanicsburg......... 4/5
Center.
VA Fort Eustis (US Army)......... Newport News.......... 4/5
WA Old Navy Dump/Manchester Kitsap County......... 4/5
Laboratory (USEPA/NOAA).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Sites are placed in groups (Gr) corresponding to groups of 50 on the
final NPL.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300
Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous materials,
Intergovernmental relations, Natural resources, Oil pollution,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Waste treatment
and disposal, Water pollution control, Water supply.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9605; 42 U.S.C. 9620; 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2);
E.O. 11735, 3 CFR, 1971-1975 Comp., p. 793; E.O. 12580, 3 CFR, 1987
Comp., p. 193.
Dated: January 11, 1994.
Elliott P. Laws,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
[FR Doc. 94-1146 Filed 1-14-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P