[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 189 (Friday, September 29, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50435-50439]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-24415]



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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300

[FRL-5308-2]


National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final 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'') which is appendix B of 40 CFR part 300, constitutes this 
list.
    This rule adds 8 new sites to the NPL, 6 to the General Superfund 
Section and 2 to the Federal Facilities Section. The NPL is intended 
primarily to guide the Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'' or 
``the Agency'') 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.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date for this amendment to the NCP shall 
be October 30, 1995.

ADDRESSES: For addresses for the Headquarters and Regional dockets, as 
well as further details on what these dockets contain, see 
``Information Available to the Public'' in 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. Contents of This Final Rule
III. Executive Order 12866
IV. Unfunded Mandates
V. Governors' Concurrence

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, 
stat. 1613 et seq. To implement CERCLA, EPA 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. The most recent comprehensive revision was 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 * * * and, to the extent practicable taking into 
account the potential urgency of such action, for the purpose of taking 
removal action.'' ``Removal'' actions are defined broadly and include a 
wide range of actions taken to study, clean up, prevent or otherwise 
address releases and threatened releases. 42 USC 9601(23). ``Remedial'' 
actions are those ``consistent with permanent remedy, taken instead of 
or in addition to removal actions * * *.'' 42 USC 9601(24).
    Pursuant to section 105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA, as amended by SARA, EPA 
has promulgated 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.'' 
CERCLA section 105(a)(8)(B) also requires that the NPL be revised at 
least annually. A site may undergo remedial action financed by the 
Trust Fund established under CERCLA (commonly referred to as the 
``Superfund'') only after it is placed on the NPL, as provided in the 
NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(b)(1). However, under 40 CFR 300.425(b)(2) 
placing a site on the NPL ``does not imply that monies will be 
expended.'' EPA may pursue other appropriate authorities to remedy the 
releases, including enforcement action under CERCLA and other laws.
    The purpose of the NPL is merely to identify releases 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.
    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 above 
and at 48 FR 40659 (September 8, 1983). If a party does not believe it 
is liable for releases on discrete parcels of property, supporting 
information can be submitted to the Agency at any time after a party 
receives notice it is a potentially responsible party.
    Three mechanisms for placing sites on the NPL for possible remedial 
action are included in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c). 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 EPA 
promulgated as 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 

[[Page 50436]]
exposure, and air. The HRS serves as a screening device to evaluate the 
relative potential of uncontrolled hazardous substances to pose a 
threat to human health or the environment. As a matter of Agency 
policy, 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 regardless of their 
HRS score, 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 (available only at NPL sites) than to use its 
removal authority to respond to the release.
    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 26, 1995 (60 FR 27896).
    The NPL includes two sections, one of sites that are evaluated and 
cleaned up by EPA (the ``General Superfund Section''), and one of sites 
being addressed generally by other Federal agencies (the ``Federal 
Facilities Section''). Under Executive Order 12580 (52 FR 2923, January 
29, 1987) 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 whether 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 facilities at which EPA is not the 
lead agency.

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.'' Thus, the purpose 
of the NPL is merely to identify releases 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)).
    When a site is listed, it is necessary to define the release (or 
releases) encompassed within the listing. The approach generally used 
is to delineate a geographical area (usually the area within the 
installation or plant boundaries) and define the site by reference to 
that area. As a legal matter, the site is not coextensive with that 
area, and the boundaries of the installation or plant are not the 
``boundaries'' of the site. Rather, the site consists of all 
contaminated areas within the area used to define the site, and any 
other location to which contamination from that area has come to be 
located.
    While geographic terms are often used to designate the site (e.g., 
the ``Jones Co. plant site'') in terms of the property owned by the 
particular party, the site properly understood is not limited to that 
property (e.g., it may extend beyond the property due to contaminant 
migration), and conversely may not occupy the full extent of the 
property (e.g., where there are uncontaminated parts of the identified 
property, they may not be, strictly speaking, part of the ``site''). 
The ``site'' is thus neither equal to nor confined by the boundaries of 
any specific property that may give the site its name, and the name 
itself should not be read to imply that this site is coextensive with 
the entire area within the property boundary of the facility or plant. 
The precise nature and extent of the site are typically not known at 
the time of listing. Also, the site name is merely used to help 
identify the geographic location of the contamination. For example, the 
``Jones Co. plant site,'' does not imply that the Jones company is 
responsible for the contamination located on the plant site.
    EPA regulations provide that the ``nature and extent of the threat 
presented by a release'' will be determined by a Remedial 
Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) as more information is 
developed on site contamination (40 CFR 300.430(d)). During the RI/FS 
process, the release may be found to be larger or smaller than was 
originally thought, 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 exactly defined. 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 may be impossible to describe the 
boundaries of a release with absolute 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 
above and at 48 FR 40659 (September 8, 1983). If a party does not 
believe it is liable for releases on discrete parcels of property, 
supporting information can be submitted to the Agency at any time after 
a party receives notice it is a potentially responsible party.

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). To date, the Agency has deleted 84 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;

[[Page 50437]]

    (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 83 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 221 sites are also in the NPL 
CCL. Thus, as of September 1995, the CCL consists of 304 sites.
    Cleanups at sites on the NPL do not reflect the total picture of 
Superfund accomplishments. As of August, 1995, EPA had commenced 679 
removal actions at NPL sites, and 2,108 removal actions at non-NPL 
sites. Information on removals is available from the Superfund hotline.

Action In This Notice

    This final rule adds 8 sites to the NPL, 6 to the General Superfund 
Section and 2 to the Federal Facilities Section. Seven of these sites 
are added to the NPL based on an HRS score of 28.5 or greater and one 
is added based on the ATSDR Health Advisory Criteria. This notice also 
drops one site from proposal to the NPL. This action results in an NPL 
of 1,238 sites, 1,083 in the General Superfund Section and 155 in the 
Federal Facilities Section. With the action of a proposed rule 
published in the Federal Register issue of October 2, 1995, an 
additional 52 sites are proposed and are awaiting final agency action, 
47 in the General Superfund Section and 5 in the Federal Facilities 
Section. Final and proposed sites now total 1,290.
    Based on comments received on the Plymouth Avenue Landfill site in 
Deland, Florida, EPA recalculated the HRS score and found that it had 
dropped below 28.5. Consequently, EPA is not taking final action and is 
withdrawing the Plymouth Avenue Landfill site from proposal to the NPL 
at this time.

Information Available to the Public

    401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460, 703/603-8917 (Please note 
this is the mailing address only. If you wish to visit the HQ Docket to 
view documents, see viewing address above.)

II. Contents of This Notice

    This notice promulgates final rules to add 8 sites to the NPL, 6 to 
the General Superfund Section (Table 1) and 2 to the Federal Facilities 
Section (Table 2). The following tables present the sites in this rule 
arranged alphabetically by State and identifies their rank by group 
number. Group numbers are determined by arranging the NPL by rank and 
dividing it into groups of 50 sites. For example, a site in Group 4 has 
a score that falls within the range of scores covered by the fourth 
group of 50 sites on the NPL.

                                             National Priorities List Final Rule--General Superfund Section                                             
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               State                                                   Site name                                          City/County           Group   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KS................................  Ace Services..................................................................  Colby..................  5/6        
ME................................  West Site/Hows Corner.........................................................  Plymouth...............  5/6        
NJ................................  Horseshoe Road................................................................  Sayreville.............  4          
TN................................  Tennessee Products............................................................  Chattanooga............  NA         
TX................................  RSR Corporation...............................................................  Dallas.................  5/6        
VI................................  Tutu Wellfield................................................................  Tutu...................  5/6        
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Sites Listed: 6.                                                                                                                              


                                             National Priorities List Final Rule--Federal Facilities Section                                            
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               State                                                   Site name                                          City/County           Group   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MD................................  Indian Head Naval Surface Warfare Center......................................  Indian Head............  5/6        
PA................................  Willow Grove Naval Air and Air Reserve Station................................  Willow Grove...........  5/6        
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Sites Listed: 2.                                                                                                                              

Public Comments

    EPA reviewed all comments received on sites included in this 
notice. Based on comments received on the proposed sites, as well as 
investigation by EPA and the States (generally in response to comment), 
EPA recalculated the HRS scores for individual sites where appropriate. 
EPA's response to site-specific public comments and explanations of any 
score changes made as a result of such comments are addressed in the 
``Support Document for the Revised National Priorities List Final 
Rule--September 1995.''

III. Executive Order 12866

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

IV. Unfunded Mandates

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. 
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
one year. When a written statement is needed for an EPA rule, section 
205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a 
reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least 
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that 
achieves.
    The Headquarters and Regional public dockets for the NPL contain 
documents relating to the evaluation and scoring of the site in this 
final rule. The dockets are available for viewing, by appointment only, 
after the appearance of this notice. 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 the Regional Docket 
for hours.

[[Page 50438]]

    Addresses and phone numbers for the Headquarters and Regional 
dockets follow.

Docket Coordinator, Headquarters, U.S. EPA CERCLA Docket Office, 
Crystal Gateway #1, 12th Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, 
Arlington, VA, 703/603-8917, (Please note this is viewing address only. 
Do not mail documents to this address.)
Jim Kyed, Region 1, U.S. EPA Waste Management Records Center, HRC-CAN-
7, J.F. Kennedy Federal Building, Boston, MA 02203-2211, 617/573-9656
Ben Conetta, Region 2, U.S. EPA, 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866, 
212/637-4435
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
Carole Long, Region 7, U.S. EPA, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, KS 
66101, 913/551-7224
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

    For the sites added to the NPL based on an HRS score of 28.5 or 
greater, the Headquarters docket for this rule contains HRS score 
sheets for the final sites; Documentation Records for the sites 
describing the information used to compute the scores; pertinent 
information regarding statutory requirements or EPA listing policies 
that affect the sites; and a list of documents referenced in each of 
the Documentation Records. For the site being listed based on ATSDR 
Health Advisory criteria, the Headquarters docket contains the health 
advisory issued by ATSDR and other supporting documentation. For all of 
the final sites, the Headquarters docket contains comments received; 
and the Agency's responses to those comments. The Agency's responses 
are contained in the ``Support Document for the Revised National 
Priorities List Final Rule--September 1995.''
    A general discussion of the statutory requirements affecting NPL 
listing, the purpose and implementation of the NPL, the economic 
impacts of NPL listing, and the analysis required under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act is included as part of the Headquarters rulemaking 
docket in the ``Additional Information'' document.
    The Regional docket contains all the information in the 
Headquarters docket, plus the actual reference documents containing the 
data principally relied upon by EPA in calculating or evaluating the 
HRS score, when the HRS is used, for the sites. These reference 
documents are available only in the Regional dockets.
    Interested parties may view documents, by appointment only, in the 
Headquarters of Regional Dockets, or copies may be requested from the 
Headquarters or Regional Dockets. 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. 
If you wish to obtain documents by mail from EPA Headquarters Docket, 
the mailing address is as follows: Docket Coordinator, Headquarters 
U.S. EPA CERCLA Docket Office (Mail Code 5201G) the objectives of the 
rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are 
inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to 
adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective 
or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the 
final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before 
EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it 
must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government 
agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected 
small governments, giving them meaningful and timely input in the 
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal 
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising them 
on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    Today's rule contains no Federal mandates (within the meaning of 
Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal governments or the 
private sector. Nor does it contain any regulatory requirements that 
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This is 
because today's listing decision does not impose any enforceable duties 
upon any of these governmental entities or the private sector. 
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 form site-by-site decisions about what actions to 
take, not directly from the act of listing itself. Therefore, today's 
rulemaking is not subject to the requirements of sections 202, 203 or 
205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act.

V. Governor's Concurrence

    On July 27, 1995, Congress enacted Public Law (P.L.) 104-19, which 
made emergency supplemental appropriations and rescissions for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 1995. Section 1006 of P.L. 104-19 
provides that EPA may not use funds made available for fiscal year 1995 
for listing or to list any additional facilities on the National 
Priorities List * * * unless the Administrator receives a written 
request to propose for listing or to list a facility from the Governor 
of the State in which the facility is located * * *.

EPA has received letters from the appropriate governors requesting that 
the Agency list on the NPL all the facilities in this final rule. These 
letters are available in the docket for this rulemaking.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Air pollution control, Chemicals, Environmental Protection, 
Hazardous materials, Intergovernmental relations, Natural resources, 
Oil pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, 
Waste treatment and disposal, Water pollution control, Water supply.

    Dated: September 25, 1995.
Elliott P. Laws,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
    40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:

PART 300--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 
12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 
2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

Appendix B [Amended]

    2. Table 1 to appendix B to part 300 is amended by revising the 
table heading and by adding the following sites by State and in 
alphabetical order:

                                                                                                                                                        

[[Page 50439]]
                               Table 1.--General Superfund Section, September 1995                              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          State site name                                   City/County             Notes(a)    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                
                                                        *                                                       
KS Ace Services...................................................  Colby.....................  ................
                                                                                                                
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                
                                                        *                                                       
ME West Site/Hows Corners.........................................  Plymouth..................  ................
                                                                                                                
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                
                                                        *                                                       
NJ Horseshoe Road.................................................  Sayreville................  ................
                                                                                                                
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                
                                                        *                                                       
TN Tennessee Products.............................................  Chattanooga...............         A.       
                                                                                                                
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                
                                                        *                                                       
TX RSR Corp.......................................................  Dallas....................  ................
                                                                                                                
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                
                                                        *                                                       
VI Tutu Wellfield.................................................  Tutu......................  ................
                                                                                                                
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                
                                                        *                                                       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    3. Table 2 to appendix B to part 300 is amended by revising the 
table heading by adding the following sites by State and in 
alphabetical order:

                              Table 2.--Federal Facilities Section, September 1995                              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          State site name                                   City/County             Notes(a)    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                
                                                        *                                                       
MD Indian Head Naval Surface Warfare Center.......................  Indian Head...............  ................
                                                                                                                
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                
                                                        *                                                       
PA Willow Grove Naval Air & Air Res. Stn..........................  Willow Grove..............  ................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) A=Based on issuance of health advisory by Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (if scored, HRS  
  score need not be > 28.50).                                                                                   

BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
[FR Doc. 95-24415 Filed 9-28-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-10-P