[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 162 (Tuesday, August 23, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-20549]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: August 23, 1994]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL-5055-2; Proposed Rule No. 17]

 

National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites

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 17th proposed revision to the NPL includes 6 
sites in the General Superfund Section and 4 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 1,232 sites currently listed on the NPL (1,082 in the 
General Superfund Section and 150 in the Federal Facilities Section). 
However, it does increase the number of proposed sites to 64 (54 in the 
General Superfund Section and 10 in the Federal Facilities Section). 
Final and proposed sites now total 1,296.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before October 24, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Mail original and three copies of comments (no facsimiles or 
tapes) to Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S. EPA CERCLA Docket 
Office; (Mail Code 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 (Mail 
Code 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. Executive Order 12866.
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 July 14, 1994 (59 FR 35852).
    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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 
May 31, 1994 (59 FR 27989).
    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 at 40 CFR 
300.425(e) (55 FR 8845, March 8, 1990). To date, the Agency has deleted 
59 sites from the General Superfund Section of the NPL.
    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 58 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 180 sites are also in the NPL 
CCL, all but one from the General Superfund Section. Thus, as of August 
12, 1994, the CCL consists of 244 sites.
    Cleanups at sites on the NPL do not reflect the total picture of 
Superfund accomplishments. As of May 30, 1994, EPA had conducted 627 
removal actions at NPL sites, and 2,139 removal actions at non-NPL 
sites. Information on removals is available from the Superfund hotline.
    Pursuant to the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c), this document proposes to 
add 10 sites to the NPL. The General Superfund Section includes 1,082 
sites, and the Federal Facilities Section includes 150 sites, for a 
total of 1,232 sites on the NPL. Final and proposed sites now total 
1,296.

Public Comment Period

    The documents that form the basis for EPA's evaluation and scoring 
of sites in this rule 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 
9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday excluding Federal 
holidays. Please contact individual Regional dockets for hours.

Docket Coordinator, Headquarters, U.S. EPA CERCLA Docket Office, (Mail 
Code 5201), Waterside Mall, 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460, 202/
260-3046
Ellen Culhane, Region 1, U.S. EPA Waste Management Records Center, HES-
CAN 6, J.F. Kennedy Federal Building, Boston, MA 02203-2211, 617/573-
5729
Walter Schoepf, Region 2, U.S. EPA, 26 Federal Plaza, New York, NY 
10278, 212/264-0221
Diane McCreary, Region 3, U.S. EPA Library, 3rd Floor, 841 Chestnut 
Building, 9th & Chestnut Streets, Philadelphia, PA 19107, 215/597-7904
Kathy Piselli, Region 4, U.S. EPA, 345 Courtland Street, NE, Atlanta, 
GA 30365, 404/347-4216
Cathy Freeman, Region 5, U.S. EPA, Records Center, Waste Management 
Division 7-J, Metcalfe Federal Building, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, IL 60604, 312/886-6214
Bart Canellas, Region 6, U.S. EPA, 1445 Ross Avenue, Mail Code 6H-MA, 
Dallas, TX 75202-2733, 214/655-6740
Steven Wyman, Region 7, U.S. EPA Library, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas 
City, KS 66101, 913/551-7241
Greg Oberley, Region 8, U.S. EPA, 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, 
CO 80202-2466, 303/294-7598
Rachel Loftin, Region 9, U.S. EPA, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 
CA 94105, 415/744-2347
David Bennett, Region 10, U.S. EPA, 11th Floor, 1200 6th Avenue, Mail 
Stop HW-114, Seattle, WA 98101, 206/553-2103

    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 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. 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 
decisions 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 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 36,497 PAs and 17,469 SIs.
    The NCP at 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 at 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 at 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 NPL does not describe releases in precise geographical terms; 
it would be neither feasible nor consistent with the limited purpose of 
the NPL (as the mere identification of releases), for it to do so.
    CERCLA section 105(a)(8)(B) directs EPA to list national priorities 
among the known ``releases or threatened releases'' of hazardous 
substances. Thus, the purpose of the NPL is merely to identify releases 
of hazardous substances that are priorities for further evaluation. 
Although a CERCLA ``facility'' is broadly defined to include any area 
where a hazardous substance release has ``come to be located'' (CERCLA 
section 101(9)), the listing process itself is not intended to define 
or reflect the boundaries of such facilities or releases. Of course, 
HRS data upon which the NPL placement was based will, to some extent, 
describe which release is at issue. That is, the NPL site would include 
all releases evaluated as part of that HRS analysis (including 
noncontiguous releases evaluated under the NPL aggregation policy, 
described at 48 FR 40663 (September 8, 1983)).
    EPA regulations provide that the ``nature and extent of the threat 
presented by a release'' will be determined by an RI/FS as more 
information is developed on site contamination (40 CFR 300.68(d)). 
During the RI/FS process, the release may be found to be larger or 
smaller than was originally known, as more is learned about the source 
and the migration of the contamination. However, this inquiry focuses 
on an evaluation of the threat posed; the boundaries of the release 
need not be defined, and in any event are independent of the NPL 
listing. Moreover, it generally is impossible to discover the full 
extent of where the contamination ``has come to be located'' before all 
necessary studies and remedial work are completed at a site. Indeed, 
the boundaries of the contamination can be expected to change over 
time. Thus, in most cases, it will be impossible to describe the 
boundaries of a release with certainty.
    For these reasons, the NPL need not be amended if further research 
into the extent of the contamination expands the apparent boundaries of 
the release. Further, the NPL is only of limited significance, as it 
does not assign liability to any party or to the owner of any specific 
property. See Report of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public 
Works, Senate Rep. No. 96-848, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 60 (1980), quoted 
at 48 FR 40659 (September 8, 1983). If a party contests liability for 
releases on discrete parcels of property, it may do so if and when the 
Agency brings an action against that party to recover costs or to 
compel a response action at that property.
    At the same time, however, the RI/FS or the Record of Decision 
(which defines the remedy selected, 40 CFR 300.430(f)) may offer a 
useful indication to the public of the areas of contamination at which 
the Agency is considering taking a response action, based on 
information known at that time. For example, EPA may evaluate (and 
list) a release over a 400-acre area, but the Record of Decision may 
select a remedy over 100 acres only. This information may be useful to 
a landowner seeking to sell the other 300 acres, but it would result in 
no formal change in the fact that a release is included on the NPL. The 
landowner (and the public) also should note in such a case that if 
further study (or the remedial construction itself) reveals that the 
contamination is located on or has spread to other areas, the Agency 
may address those areas as well.
    This view of the NPL as an initial identification of a release that 
is not subject to constant re-evaluation is consistent with the 
Agency's policy of not rescoring NPL sites:

    EPA recognizes that the NPL process cannot be perfect, and it is 
possible that errors exist or that new data will alter previous 
assumptions. Once the initial scoring effort is complete, however, 
the focus of EPA activity must be on investigating sites in detail 
and determining the appropriate response. New data or errors can be 
considered in that process . . . [T]he NPL serves as a guide to EPA 
and does not determine liability or the need for response. (49 FR 
37081 (September 21, 1984)).

    See also City of Stoughton, Wisc. v. U.S. EPA, 858 F. 2d 747, 751 
(D.C. Cir. 1988):

    Certainly EPA could have permitted further comment or conducted 
further testing [on proposed NPL sites]. Either course would have 
consumed further assets of the Agency and would have delayed a 
determination of the risk priority associated with the site. Yet * * 
* ``the NPL is simply a rough list of priorities, assembled quickly 
and inexpensively to comply with Congress' mandate for the Agency to 
take action straightaway.'' Eagle-Picher [Industries v. EPA] II, 759 
F. 2d [921,] at 932 [(D.C. Cir. 1985)].

III. Contents of This Proposed Rule

    Table 1 identifies the 6 NPL sites in the General Superfund Section 
and Table 2 identifies the 4 NPL sites in the Federal Facilities 
Section being proposed in this rule. Both tables follow this preamble. 
All sites are proposed based on HRS scores of 28.50 or above. The sites 
in Table 1 and Table 2 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 NPL.

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. This policy and requirements are explained below and have been 
explained in greater detail previously through rulemaking (56 FR 5598, 
February 11, 1991).

Releases From Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Sites

    EPA's policy is that facilities are eligible for NPL listing if 
they have lost authorization to operate and for which there are 
additional indications that the owner or operator will be unwilling to 
undertake corrective action. Authorization to operate may be lost when 
the interim status of the facility is terminated as a result of a 
permit denial under RCRA section 3005(c) (54 FR 41004).
    Consistent with EPA's NPL/RCRA policy, EPA is proposing to add one 
site to the General Superfund Section of the NPL, the Aqua-Tech 
Environmental Inc. (Groce Laboratories) site in Spartanburg County, 
South Carolina, that operated a RCRA Treatment, Storage and Disposal 
Facility (TSDF) under interim status. This facility lost its 
authorization to operate when its RCRA TSDF Part B application was 
denied. Material has been placed in the public docket documenting this.

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 four sites to the Federal Facilities 
Section of the NPL.

Economic Impacts

    The costs of cleanup actions that may be taken at any site are not 
directly attributable to placement on the NPL. EPA has conducted a 
preliminary analysis of economic implications of today's proposal to 
the NPL. EPA believes that the kinds of economic effects associated 
with this proposal generally are similar to those effects identified in 
the regulatory impact analysis (RIA) prepared in 1982 for the revisions 
to the NCP pursuant to section 105 of CERCLA and the economic analysis 
prepared when amendments to the NCP were proposed (50 FR 5882, February 
12, 1985). The Agency believes the anticipated economic effects related 
to proposing and adding sites to the NPL can be characterized in terms 
of the conclusions of the earlier RIA and the most recent economic 
analysis.
    Inclusion of a site on the NPL does not itself impose any costs. It 
does not establish that EPA necessarily will undertake remedial action, 
nor does it require any action by a private party or determine its 
liability for site response costs. Costs that arise out of site 
responses result from site-by-site decisions about what actions to 
take, not directly from the act of listing itself. Nonetheless, it is 
useful to consider the costs associated with responding to the sites 
included in this rulemaking.
    The major events that typically follow the proposed listing of a 
site on the NPL are a search for potentially responsible parties and a 
remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) to determine if 
remedial actions will be undertaken at a site.
    Design and construction of the selected remedial alternative follow 
completion of the RI/FS, and operation and maintenance (O&M) activities 
may continue after construction has been completed.
    EPA initially bears costs associated with responsible party 
searches. Responsible parties may bear some or all the costs of the RI/
FS, remedial design and construction, and O&M, or EPA and the States 
may share costs.
    The State cost share for site cleanup activities has been amended 
by SARA. For privately-owned sites, as well as at publicly-owned but 
not publicly-operated sites, EPA will pay for 100% of the costs of the 
RI/FS and remedial planning, and 90% of the costs associated with 
remedial action. The State will be responsible for 10% of the remedial 
action. For publicly-operated sites, the State cost share is at least 
50% of all response costs at the site, including the RI/FS and remedial 
design and construction of the remedial action selected. After the 
remedy is built, costs fall into two categories:

--For restoration of ground water and surface water, EPA will share in 
startup costs according to the criteria in the previous paragraph for 
10 years or until a sufficient level of protectiveness is achieved 
before the end of 10 years.
--For other cleanups, EPA will share for up to 1 year the cost of that 
portion of response needed to assure that a remedy is operational and 
functional. After that, the State assumes full responsibilities for 
O&M.

    In previous NPL rulemakings, the Agency estimated the costs 
associated with these activities (RI/FS, remedial design, remedial 
action, and O&M) on an average per site and total cost basis. EPA will 
continue with this approach, using the most recent cost estimates 
available; the estimates are presented below. However, there is wide 
variation in costs for individual sites, depending on the amount, type, 
and extent of contamination. Additionally, EPA is unable to predict 
what portions of the total costs responsible parties will bear, since 
the distribution of costs depends on the extent of voluntary and 
negotiated response and the success of any cost-recovery actions. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Average  
                       Cost category                         total cost 
                                                              per site1 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RI/FS.....................................................     1,350,000
Remedial Design...........................................     1,260,000
Remedial Action...........................................  \3\21,960,00
                                                                       0
New present value of O&M\2\...............................     3,770,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASource: Office of Program Management, Office of Emergency and Remedial 
  Response, U.S. EPA, Washington, DC.                                   
                                                                        
\1\1993 U.S. Dollars                                                    
\2\Assumes cost of O&M over 30 years, $400,000 for the first year and   
  10% discount rate.                                                    
\3\Includes State cost-share.                                           

    Costs to the States associated with today's proposed rule are 
incurred when the sites are finalized and arise from the required State 
cost-share of: (1) 10% of remedial actions and 10% of first-year O&M 
costs at privately-owned sites and sites that are publicly-owned but 
not publicly-operated; (2) at least 50% of the remedial planning (RI/FS 
and remedial design), remedial action, and first-year O&M costs at 
publicly-operated sites; and (3) States will assume the cost for O&M 
after EPA's period of participation. Using the budget projections 
presented above, the cost to the States of undertaking Federal remedial 
planning and actions, but excluding O&M costs, would be approximately 
$21 million. State O&M costs cannot be accurately determined because 
EPA, as noted above, will pay O&M costs for up to 10 years for 
restoration of ground water and surface water, and it is not known if 
the site will require this treatment and for how long. Assuming EPA 
involvement for 10 years is needed, State O&M costs would be 
approximately $16 million.
    Placing a site on the proposed or final NPL does not itself cause 
firms responsible for the site to bear costs. Nonetheless, a listing 
may induce firms to clean up the sites voluntarily, or it may act as a 
potential trigger for subsequent enforcement or cost-recovery actions. 
Such actions may impose costs on firms, but the decisions to take such 
actions are discretionary and made on a case-by-case basis. 
Consequently, precise estimates of these effects cannot be made. EPA 
does not believe that every site will be cleaned up by a responsible 
party. EPA cannot project at this time which firms or industry sectors 
will bear specific portions of the response costs, but the Agency 
considers: the volume and nature of the waste at the sites; the 
strength of the evidence linking the wastes at the site to the parties; 
the parties' ability to pay; and other factors when deciding whether 
and how to proceed against the parties.
    Economy-wide effects of an amendment to the NPL are aggregations of 
efforts on firms and State and local governments. Although effects 
could be felt by some individual firms and States, the total impact of 
this amendment on output, prices, and employment is expected to be 
negligible at the national level, as was the case in the 1982 RIA.

Benefits

    The real benefits associated with today's amendment are increased 
health and environmental protection as a result of increased public 
awareness of potential hazards. In addition to the potential for more 
Federally-financed remedial actions, expansion of the NPL could 
accelerate privately-financed, voluntary cleanup efforts. Listing sites 
as national priority targets also may give States increased support for 
funding responses at particular sites.
    As a result of the additional CERCLA remedies, there will be lower 
human exposure to high-risk chemicals, and higher-quality surface 
water, ground water, soil, and air. These benefits are expected to be 
significant, although difficult to estimate in advance of completing 
the RI/FS at these sites.

IV. Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.

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 NPL, an NPL revision is not 
a typical regulatory change since it does not automatically impose 
costs. As stated above, adding 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 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 a 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 #17, General Superfund Section 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    NPL 
 State               Site name                  City/county        Gr\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL       Escambia Wood--Pensacola.........  Escambia Co.........       5
LA       Agriculture Street Landfill......  New Orleans.........       5
MS       Texas Eastern Kosciusko            Attala Co...........       5
          Compressor Station.                                           
MT       Burlington Northern Livingston     Livingston..........       5
          Shop Complex.                                                 
OR       Reynolds Metals..................  Troutdale...........       1
SC       Aqua-Tech Environmental Inc.       Spartanburg Co......      5 
          (Groce Laboratories).                                         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Sites Proposed to General Superfund Section: 6.               
                                                                        
\1\Sites are placed in groups (Gr) corresponding to groups of 50 on the 
  final NPL.                                                            


National Priorities List, Proposed Rule #17, Federal Facilities Section 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    NPL 
 State               Site name                   City/county       Gr\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC       Cherry Point Marine Corps Air      Havelock............       1
          Station.                                                      
PA       Willow Grove Naval Air & Air       Willow Grove........       5
          Reserve Station.                                              
SC       Parris Island Marine Corps         Beaufort............       5
          Recruit Depot.                                                
TN       Arnold Engineering Development     Coffee Co. &              5 
          Center (USAF).                     Franklin Co..              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Sites Proposed to Federal Facilities Section: 4.              
                                                                        
\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: August 16, 1994.
Elliott P. Laws,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
[FR Doc. 94-20549 Filed 8-22-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P