[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