[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 190 (Monday, October 2, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 51390-51395]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-24414]



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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300

[FRL-5308-3]


National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites, 
Proposed Rule No. 19

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'') which is Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300, constitutes this 
list.
    This rule proposes 12 new sites to the General Superfund Section of 
the NPL. 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.
    This document also proposes to withdraw an earlier proposal to list 
the Broward County, 21st Manor Dump Site, on the NPL. This proposed 
withdrawal is based on the results of a baseline risk assessment 
prepared for the site.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before December 1, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Mail original and three copies of comments (no facsimiles or 
tapes) to Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S. EPA; CERCLA Docket 
Office; (Mail Code 5201G); 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, and 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. Contents of This Proposed 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 

[[Page 51391]]
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. 
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).
    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 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 

[[Page 51392]]
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.
    Further, as noted above, NPL listing does not assign liability to 
any party or to the owner of any specific property. Thus, 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.
    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.

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). This section also provides that EPA shall consult with 
states on proposed deletions and shall consider whether the following 
criteria have been met:
    (i) Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all 
appropriate response actions required;
    (ii) All appropriate Superfund-financed response has been 
implemented and no further response action is required;
    (iii) The remedial investigation has shown the release poses no 
significant threat to public health or the environment, and taking of 
remedial measures is not appropriate.

To date, the Agency has deleted 84 sites from the final 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 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 31, 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.

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 5201G), Crystal Gateway #1, 12th Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis 
Highway, Arlington, VA 22202, 703/603-8917 (Please note this is 
visiting address only. Mail comments to address listed in Addresses 
section above.)
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

    With the exception of LCP Chemicals (Brunswick, Georgia), which is 
being proposed based on its designation as the State's top priority, 
and Aircraft Components (D & L Sales, Benton Harbor, Michigan), H & K 
Sales (Belding, Michigan), and Little Valley (Little Valley, New York) 
which are being proposed based on ATSDR health advisory criteria, 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; information for any site 
affected by particular statutory requirements or EPA listing policies; 
and a list of documents referenced in the Documentation Record. The 
docket also contains the documentation supporting the State's 
designation of LCP Chemicals as a top priority and the ATSDR Health 
Advisories and nomination packages for the Aircraft Components, H & K 
Sales and Little Valley sites.
    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.
    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 

[[Page 51393]]
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 has a policy of not 
delaying 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. Contents of This Proposed Rule

    Table 1 identifies the 12 sites in the General Superfund Section 
being proposed to the NPL in this rule. This table follows this 
preamble. All sites are proposed based on HRS scores of 28.50 or above 
with the exception of LCP Chemicals (Brunswick, Georgia), which is 
being proposed based on its designation as the State's top priority, 
and Aircraft Components (D & L Sales, Benton Harbor, Michigan), H & K 
Sales (Belding, Michigan), and Little Valley (Little Valley, New York) 
which are being proposed based on ATSDR health advisory criteria. 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.
    This action along with a final rule published in the Federal 
Register issued of September 29, 1995, results in an NPL of 1,238 
sites, 1,083 in the General Superfund Section and 155 in the Federal 
Facilities Section. An additional 52 sites are now 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.

Proposal, Based on Risk Assessment, To Withdraw an Earlier Proposal To 
List the Broward County, 21st Manor Dump Site on the NPL

    Also in this rule, EPA is proposing to withdraw its earlier 
proposal to list the Broward County--21st Manor Dump site on the NPL. 
The site was proposed for listing on July 29, 1991 (56 F.R. 35840). The 
reason for the withdrawal of the Broward County site is the 
determination that the site as currently defined does not pose a 
significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, 
taking of remedial measures under CERCLA is not appropriate.
    This decision is supported by the baseline risk assessment 
conducted in conjunction with the RI/FS for the site and represents the 
beginnings of an effort to develop a new policy for sites which have 
been proposed for NPL listing. Under this policy, EPA would use for 
sites proposed for NPL listing one of the criteria similar to those for 
deleting sites from the NPL. These criteria, described above, are found 
at 40 CFR 300.425(e). One criterion is found at 40 CFR 
300.425(e)(1)(iii), which states that a site may be deleted from the 
NPL if ``the remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no 
significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, 
taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.'' The proposed action 
to withdraw the Broward site uses this approach for the proposed site.
    The proposed withdrawal is site-specific, and represents the 
beginning of an evolving effort to apply criteria similar to the 
deletion criteria to sites not yet finalized to the NPL where 
appropriate. With the advent of the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model 
(SACM) more sites have been undergoing earlier response actions. Early 
action means that while in proposed status, a site might be 
characterized to the extent that EPA has sufficient data to issue a No 
Action Record of Decision. A risk assessment would generally be valid 
for this purpose if it is performed by the Agency, or by a contractor 
under the oversight and approval of EPA.
    In December 1993, EPA issued the ``Baseline Risk Assessment for the 
21st Manor Dump Site Broward County, Florida.'' The risk assessment was 
conducted in accordance with Subpart E, Section 300.430(d) of the 
National Contingency Plan (NCP) and characterized the current and 
potential threat to public health and the environment posed by 
chemicals at, or migrating from, the 21st Manor Dump Site in the 
absence of remedial (corrective) action. The risk assessment is 
available for viewing through the Superfund Docket, (703) 603-8917. For 
more detailed information on EPA's evaluation of the risk assessment, 
please refer to the Superfund NPL Withdrawal Notification Report for 
the Broward County site contained in the Superfund Docket.
    The risk assessment considered toxicity and exposure information 
for each chemical of concern and potential exposure pathway. The 
assessment identified three areas of potential concern: soils (surface 
and subsurface), groundwater in the vicinity of the Broward site 
analyzed in temporary wells sunk by the investigator and used for 
sampling, and drinking water in the nearby Peele-Dixie Wellfield. This 
drinking water area of concern was analyzed by examining permanent 
(long-term monitoring, residential or municipal) wells and surface 
water/sediment from aeration ponds near a municipal well.
    The risk assessment dismissed concerns for groundwater in the 
vicinity of the site based on the fact that this shallow groundwater is 
not likely to be tapped for potable use and any excavation at the site 
would use pumps to prevent exposure to workers at the site. Moreover, 
organic chemicals of concern were only found in one or two of nine 
samples analyzed. Also, it was not clear that any of the inorganic 
chemicals were detected above naturally occurring background levels. 

[[Page 51394]]

    While not dismissing concerns for chemicals in the drinking water 
caused by sources not listed as part of the site, EPA has determined 
that any risks from the drinking water would not be associated with the 
releases from the site. This is because none of the volatile inorganic 
compounds found in the drinking water wellfield, with the exception of 
carbon disulfide, were detected at the 21st Manor site, either in the 
temporary wells or in subsurface soils (which could affect 
groundwater). Carbon disulfide was detected at low levels or levels 
below background. Also, no inorganic chemicals detected in dump site 
subsurface soils were detected above naturally occurring levels.
    Consequently, only soil exposure at the 21st Manor dump site was 
quantitatively evaluated in the risk assessment. This risk assessment 
considered the maximally exposed individual for each exposure pathway 
addressed, by using the maximum concentrations measured in 
environmental media at the site as the exposure point concentrations, 
along with reasonable maximum exposure (RME) case exposure assumptions. 
Thus, the greatest single chemical risk in the cancer risk assessment--
that for benzo(a)pyrene--was based on a single surface soil measurement 
of 130 parts per billion (ppb) out of sixteen samples and a single 
subsurface soil measurement of 720 ppb out of 31 samples. (All other 
samples found no detectable levels of the chemical.) Each of these 
levels are within, or lower than, natural background measurements of 
the chemical reported in various literature sources. Contributions of 
all other chemicals to the cancer risk assessment were considerably 
lower, even for the most exposed individual, and risk calculations are 
in most cases based on one or two samples that detected any levels when 
all others resulted in no detectable levels.
    Even with these extremely conservative assumptions as to the levels 
of toxic chemicals at the site, the risk assessment concluded that 
there were no significant current risks from site releases. Only 
potential exposure pathways assuming future residential land use had 
excess lifetime cancer risks greater than 10-6, that is 1 in 
1,000,000. The cumulative upper bound excess lifetime cancer risk to a 
young child resident was estimated to be 2 x 10-6. The risk was 
based on incidental ingestion and dermal contact with soil contaminated 
with benzo(a)pyrene, the main chemical of concern at the level measured 
in one sample, when all others were not even detected. The site posed a 
similar risk to adults exposed via the same pathways.
    The total hazard index values for both a young child resident and 
an adult resident were less than one, indicating that adverse 
noncarcinogenic effects are unlikely to occur. EPA also performed an 
ecological risk assessment. The Agency concluded that the urban setting 
of the site, combined with the distribution and concentration of the 
chemicals of concern were not likely to result in adverse environmental 
impacts.
    The cancer risk numbers are at the lower end of the range of 
generally acceptable exposure levels for carcinogens in the NCP. The 
Agency's decision is further supported by the fact that the data 
supporting these cancer risk levels are obtained from the maximum 
exposure levels in circumstances where almost all other analyzed 
samples found no detectable levels of the carcinogenic chemicals. 
Indeed, the cancer risk for this site from exposure to soil could just 
as likely be zero.
    The Agency intentionally performed the risk assessment for the 21st 
Manor Dump Site employing unusually conservative values (e.g., EPA used 
maximum measured soil concentrations). Moreover, the only exposure 
pathway that presented a risk greater than 10-6 assumed that a 
residence would be built directly on the dump area, which is 
unrealistic.

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), P.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 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 from 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 propose for listing on the NPL all the facilities in this 
final rule. These letters are available in the docket 

[[Page 51395]]
for this rulemaking. The letter from the Governor of Michigan states 
that he ``does not object'' to the listing of the sites located in 
Michigan. EPA believes this constitutes agreement with the Agency's 
decision to propose the listing and, thus, is a sufficient indication 
of the governor's concurrence in accordance with the provisions of P.L. 
104-19.

                      National Priorities List Proposed Rule #19 General Superfund Section                      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        State                   Site name                              City/county                    NPL Gr\1\ 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GA..................  LCP Chemicals Georgia........  Brunswick.....................................          N/A
IL..................  Jennison-Wright Corporation..  Granite City..................................           13
KS..................  Wright Ground Water            Wright........................................          5/6
                       Contamination.                                                                           
ME..................  Eastern Surplus..............  Meddybemps....................................          5/6
MI..................  Aircraft Components (D & L     Benton Harbor.................................          N/A
                       Sales).                                                                                  
MI..................  H & K Sales..................  Belding.......................................          N/A
NJ..................  Franklin Burn................  Franklin Township.............................           13
NJ..................  Welsback & General Gas Mantle  Camden and Gloucester City....................           12
                       (Camden Radiation).                                                                      
NY..................  Little Valley................  Little Valley.................................          N/A
PA..................  Breslube-Penn, Inc...........  Coraopolis....................................          5/6
WV..................  Hanlin-Allied-Olin...........  Moundsville...................................          5/6
WI..................  Penta Wood Products..........  Daniels.......................................         5/6 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Sites Proposed to General Superfund: 12                                                               
\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, Environmental Protection, 
Hazardous materials, Intergovernmental relations, Natural resources, 
Oil pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, 
Waste treatment and disposal, Water pollution control, Water supply.

    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.

    Dated: September 25, 1995.
Elliott P. Laws,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
[FR Doc. 95-24414 Filed 9-29-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P